Douglas County's attempt to add 610 acres into its redevelopment zone were put on hold earlier this week when Judge Michael Gibbons signed a temporary restraining order prohibiting the move.
Indian Hills filed its request for a temporary restraining order, along with a complaint to stop the annexation of redevelopment, in Douglas County District Court on Monday, stating redevelopment could harm Indian Hills cityhood efforts. Gibbons' ruling came Wednesday.
"By placing these properties within the redevelopment agency area, any increased property tax received will be diverted to repay redevelopment debt, and be unavailable for other public uses," Gibbons said. "For the past year, (Indian Hills) has undertaken a well-publicized study of the feasibility of incorporation of a new city within its boundaries."
County commissioners approved the redevelopment expansion at their Feb. 3 meeting and the area would have officially become part of redevelopment Thursday.
If these properties become part of the redevelopment area, Indian Hills would have to conduct an entirely new feasibility study because any future operating budget for a city would be significantly decreased, Gibbons said.
"Putting these properties into redevelopment will impede the bill draft request and likely prevent the residents of the area from being able to have a popular vote on the issue," he said.
The restraining order will be in effect until 9:30 a.m. March 30 when a hearing on the order will take place, said Scott Brooke, attorney for the district.
"Douglas County has approved redevelopment, but it won't be effective until the court reviews the issues," Brooke said. "At that point, they could issue a permanent injunction or dissolve the complaint."
County Manager Dan Holler said Indian Hills officials were straightforward about their intentions and neither the lawsuit nor the restraining order was a surprise.
"This is a normal process," Holler said. "There's a lot of information for the judge to digest. It's not unusual for a judge to do something like this and March 30 isn't far off."
Indian Hills General Manager Jim Bentley said the redevelopment amendment would affect Indian Hills incorporation efforts by making cityhood that much more expensive.
"We'd have to deal with getting rid of the redevelopment agency," he said. "We'll see what happens after March 30. I don't think anything will be decided that day. It will be the starting date for this debate."
The lawsuit also questions the county's definition of "blight" and "improved land," with respect to the proposed redevelopment area. To meet the state-mandated criteria for redevelopment, 75 percent of the total acreage must be developed and the criteria for blight must be met.
n Contact reporter Susie Vasquez at svasquez@recordcourier.com or 782-5121, ext. 211.
