Residents get involved in suit

Staff Writer

A new party is attempting to join with the city of Pikeville in a lawsuit opposing annexations by the city of Coal Run Village.

Late last month, several residents of the Broad Bottom area, one of the areas targeted by Coal Run for annexation, filed an intervening complaint in the case adding its contentions to those of Pikeville that annexation ordinance 2007-13 be declared, invalid, void and of no legal effect.

According to the complaint, the residents claim that some of the actions taken by Coal Run in the course of the annexation were improper and void under the Kentucky Constitution and state laws.

"(Coal Run) failed to give proper notices, publications, readings, certifications of records and to preserve certain signatures delivered to (Coal Run Mayor LaVerne Dye), which memorialized 51 percent or greater of the property owners or residents who formally protested Annexation Ordinance Number 2007-13," attorney Jonah Stevens wrote in the complaint.

The lawsuit also contends that the area contained in ordinance 2007-13 is not contiguous with the existing limits of Coal Run, making the ordinance invalid.

The lawsuit also questions the motives of Coal Run on the annexation.

"(Coal Run) is not seeking to enhance municipal value or to provide substantial benefits to the residents or property owners of Broad Bottom with the proposed annexation because (Coal Run) through its Mayor has admitted to one of the Plaintiffs, Rodney Campbell, that the sole purpose of annexing Broad Bottom is to preempt or curtail the services of and to limit the physical boundaries of the City of Pikeville," Stevens wrote.

Annexation ordinance 2007-13 also included property in the Wells Addition, Mossy Bottom, Mullins addition and North Mayo Trail.

Coal Run has announced that the ordinance will be on the ballot in the November, along with others, but officials there maintain that not enough signatures were obtained to allow it to be voted on.

The complaint filed by the residents of Broad Bottom claims that, because their formal protest was considered alongside that of Cowpen, Mullins Addition, Wells Addition, Mossy Bottom and others, the protest of the 51 percent of residents at Broad Bottom was diminished.

Dye could not be reached for comment immediately, but attorney Larry Webster, who is representing Coal Run in the lawsuit, said Thursday that the residents of Broad Bottom have no legal standing to enter the lawsuit.

"Those are people who are subject to annexation depending on an election," Webster said. "They have no standing to challenge an annexation before an election. They're seeking to get in this case without claiming anything that would allow them to do so."

Webster also said there was no problem with the way the protest signatures were calculated.

"That annexation was scheduled for an election despite the fact that the required number of signature were not obtained," Webster said. "The city decided to do it to be safe and give the people a say even though they didn't have to do it."

The case is scheduled for a hearing Friday, at which time a trial date is expected to be set.