Judge grants summary judgment on interlocal notice; county braces for next phase of annexation suit

The county attorney told the Board of County Commissioners at a special meeting that a judge granted partial summary judgment finding the city breached a 2013 interlocal agreement by failing to notify the county about an annexation move. The ruling resolves the county's claim that the city did not follow a 2013 interlocal agreement provision requiring notification before annexation and sends the case to a damages phase; the court will separately consider whether the city's action created unlawful enclaves. Why it matters: The ruling affirms the county's procedural claim and could lead to damages or to the city being required to re-do its annexation process with required public notice; the county has scheduled a conflict-assessment public meeting so commissioners and residents can present concerns and documentation. County Attorney (Hammond) told commissioners: "The judge disagreed and he agreed with the county that, in fact, they did break it." Hammond said the county will return to the court next week to argue the legality of the city's creation of three enclaves and asked commissioners to attend a scheduled conflict-assessment meeting that will be open to the public. If the court finds the city's actions unlawful, future hearings could be unnecessary; if the court instead finds the process defective but lawful, the city might repeat the annexation with notice. Commissioners and staff raised location and land-use concerns near the contested property. Hammond noted the tract in dispute has been treated as industrial for decades and that the parcels around it include a proposed $70 million floating dry dock, an industrial park, a wastewater plant, and other active industrial uses. Hammond said the parcel the city moved to annex is roughly "2 and a half acres," while Eastern Shipbuilding owns roughly 68 acres nearby and other industrial holdings across the road total "40-something acres" and "about 380 acres" respectively (values as stated at the meeting). Hammond also said the county received a letter from Eastern Shipbuilding objecting to the annexation; he said the city claimed it had not received the letter. Joey DeSernia of Eastern (referenced during the meeting) reportedly expressed opposition in prior city hearings, Hammond said. Hammond told the board the county had repeatedly requested city compliance since January and that the judge's ruling on the breach was the first step. He said the court will set a date on damages for the breach and next week will hear argument about whether creation of the enclaves was lawful. The board scheduled a conflict-assessment public meeting to allow commissioners and members of the public to present information in the same room used for prior hearings; the county attorney said the city must advertise that meeting as well. Ending: The county attorney said he would return with further updates after the next court appearance and the conflict-assessment meeting. Commissioners were urged to encourage public participation and to present any documentary evidence before the county's next report to the board.