District Court on February 23, 1960 for severance of the utility's power plant from Pleasant Hill. Thompson, Ipalco's president, said the action was not going to be easy since Pleasant Hill decided to fight the potential loss of its largest tax payer. He asked the City of Des Moines to help in the court battle.

The main issues for severance were straightforward. There was the philosophy of where tax monies should go. Another argument dealt with Pleasant Hill's ability to provide the power plant with essential services. Ipalco argued that since the town did not provide services, the only purpose the town had for the power plant was to collect taxes. The power plant had its own security force, fire protection, sewer system, water system, and, of course, gas and electricity. There was nothing that Pleasant Hill could give that the plant did not already have. Another complaint by Iowa Power was the spending programs the town had undertaken. The town was using general revenue funds for making improvements such as the street lights and water system and was then beginning to put in a $300,000 to $600,000 sewer system. (The sewer project was blocked by a court injunction on Sept. 10, 1960.)

Even after Pleasant Hill and Ipalco lost in district court in the school consolidation case, Ipalco continued with the severance action. Thompson said the power company would continue to seek severance from Pleasant Hill "no matter which school district eventually gets the plant.” "Ipalco still wants the City of Des Moines to annex the property," he said.

James Hall, Pleasant Hill's attorney, handled the court case. However, the effort proved to be quite a task. Ipalco had hired the law firm of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor and Fairgrave. The Pleasant Hill council, upon Hall's recommendation, hired Don C. Swanson to assist. The case was heard by District Court Judge Wade Clark.

Finally, on October 7, 1960, Judge Clark ruled that the Ipalco plant could leave Pleasant Hill. The town “cannot provide any services to Ipalco,” Wade said, “that the power company does not already supply to itself... Pleasant Hill also does not need the Ipalco land for future expansion or any other use except tax revenue.” He found found that the power company paid 83.7 percent of all taxes in the town. In 1959, the assessed valuation of Pleasant Hill was $51,123 per person with Ipalco taxes counted in. Without the Ipalco taxes the value would be $8,950 per person. Wade called this "ample revenue for Pleasant Hill to continue its operations as a municipality.'

Pleasant Hill to Des Moines-- "Leave Us Out"

The reaction of the people of Pleasant Hill was predictable. Mayor Voshell said that “the feeling among almost 100 percent of the Pleasant Hill residents is against annexation with Des Moines, even if (we) lose the power plant." He said that the power plant's loss would hurt the town's future development, and that the sewer system might not get going again, but the loss would not affect already existing services. The town was not through yet with the case, though. On October 10, 1960, the council directed the town's lawyers to make “timely appeal to the Supreme Court on Ipaco severance. “