Preview:

PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: GEORGE M. MOFFETT Lakeville, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA JOHN D. SNETHEN JESSICA E. REAGAN NANCY M. HAUPTMAN DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

_____________________________________________________________________

CLERK _____________________________________________________________________
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

FILED

Dec 16 2009, 11:25 am

GEORGE M. MOFFETT,

) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0810-TA-58 ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE _____________________________________________________________________ NOT FOR PUBLICATION December 16, 2009 FISHER, J. On September 11, 2009, the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) issued a final determination granting modified approval of the proposed lease rental agreement between the Union-North United School Corporation (the School Corporation) and the Union-North United School Building Corporation (the Building Corporation) which provided for the construction of a new intermediate school and

renovations to the existing elementary school and high school. (Moffett) challenges that final determination. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George M. Moffett

The School Corporation is located in north central Indiana; it serves taxpayers residing in Union Township, St. Joseph County and North Township, Marshall County. The School Corporation operates one elementary school (kindergarten through grade 5) and one junior/senior high school (grades 7 through 12). The entire 6th grade has been taught in several modular (portable) classrooms located adjacent to the elementary school since 1999.1 In 2007, the School Corporation formed a committee, comprised of both members of its staff and the community at large, to assist it in developing a construction plan that would best accommodate its current student body as well as anticipated enrollment growth. After reviewing numerous options, the School Corporation decided to pursue a plan whereby it would make certain renovations to the elementary school in order to house kindergarten through 4th grade, construct a new intermediate school to house grades 5 through 8, and make renovations to the existing high school which would then be used solely for grades 9 through 12 (the proposed project). The total cost for the proposed project was estimated at approximately $20,000,000. On November 19, 2007, the School Corporation conducted a public hearing on the proposed project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the School Corporation voted

The junior/senior high school also employs two modular units for additional classroom space. 2

1

unanimously to proceed with the proposal. In December of 2007, opponents of the proposed project initiated a remonstrance process as provided by statute. The remonstrance process ultimately failed, however, as only 1,313 signatures against the project were filed, opposed to the 1,781 signatures favoring the project.2 The School Corporation subsequently moved forward with its plans and approved a proposed lease rental agreement. In July of 2008, the School Corporation petitioned the DLGF to approve the execution of the lease, which provided that the School Corporation would make annual rental payments of $1,478,000 to the Building Corporation over 26 years for the proposed project. The DLGF referred the petition to the School Property Tax Control Board (Control Board) for its recommendation. On July 17, 2008, the Control Board conducted a public hearing on the matter. After a vote, the Control Board recommended unanimously that the DLGF approve the lease rental agreement.3 On September 10, 2008, the DLGF issued a final determination

On July 2, 2008, Moffett and several other taxpayers filed a Verified Complaint with the Marshall Circuit Court alleging that the remonstrance process had been flawed and the School Corporation should therefore be enjoined from proceeding with the proposed project. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 596-97.) The Marshall Circuit Court dismissed the action on August 14, 2008, when, after declaring it a public lawsuit pursuant to Indiana Code

Download George M. Moffett v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance.pdf

Indiana Law