Indiana Annex Reform

Please email Vernon Smith and Patrick Bauer and ask them to give SB 114 a hearing in the House of Representatives. Congressman Smith is the chairman of the Local Government Committee where this bill was assigned.  

Vernon G. Smith (Gary) h14@in.gov
Patrick Bauer h6@in.gov

Here is a sample of what you could ask both Smith and Bauer:

Please give SB 114 a hearing in the Local Government Committee. This bill greatly affects Indiana citizens in unincorporated areas. These residents deserve to be heard by the Indiana House of Representatives.

A few weeks ago GUO sent you an e-mail requesting that you send a message to the State Senators asking them to support annexation reform.  Your e-mails were successful, and they definitely helped lead to the passage of SB 114 in the State Senate.  Senate Bill 114 has now moved over to the House for consideration.

We are now asking you to send a similar message to the House Representatives.  Below are the e-mail addresses of the State Representatives.  Time is of the essence, and we ask you to send your message within the next day or two.  Please consider sending the following message, or one of your own to the e-mail addresses listed below.

Indiana is one of only six states that allow forced annexations.  I am asking for your support of Senate Bill 114.  Forced annexation is bad public policy and puts undue burden on Indiana property owners.  The last thing any resident needs is another unexpected property tax increase in this state.

Please leave SB 114 intact with the January effective date.

Indiana Democratic State Representatives…

h36@in.gov; h27@in.gov; h75@in.gov; h1@in.gov; h25@in.gov; h94@in.gov; h95@in.gov; h26@in.gov; h64@in.gov; h81@in.gov; h6@in.gov; h7@in.gov; h68@in.gov; h86@in.gov; h62@in.gov; h73@in.gov; h3@in.gov; h9@in.gov; h12@in.gov; h56@in.gov; h69@in.gov; h61@in.gov; h72@in.gov; h96@in.gov; h98@in.gov; h37@in.gov; h63@in.gov; h70@in.gov; h100@in.gov; h10@in.gov; h17@in.gov; h14@in.gov; h13@in.gov; h71@in.gov; h8@in.gov; h11@in.gov; h5@in.gov; h74@in.gov; h80@in.gov; h99@in.gov; h66@in.gov; h46@in.gov; h42@in.gov; h34@in.gov; h2@in.gov; h76@in.gov; h30@in.gov; h19@in.gov; h77@in.gov; h60@in.gov; h43@in.gov

Indiana Republican State Representatives…

h91@in.gov; h83@in.gov; h45@in.gov; h84@in.gov; h88@in.gov; h41@in.gov; h38@in.gov; h89@in.gov; h58@in.gov; h53@in.gov; h78@in.gov; h33@in.gov; h20@in.gov; h51@in.gov; h67@in.gov; h57@in.gov; h97@in.gov; h82@in.gov; h47@in.gov; h23@in.gov; h93@in.gov; h16@in.gov; h31@in.gov; h92@in.gov; h55@in.gov; h65@in.gov; h15@in.gov; h50@in.gov; h35@in.gov; h24@in.gov; h90@in.gov; h48@in.gov; h87@in.gov; h85@in.gov; h29@in.gov; h79@in.gov; h22@in.gov; h54@in.gov; h59@in.gov; h4@in.gov; h40@in.gov; h52@in.gov; h28@in.gov; h44@in.gov; h39@in.gov; h32@in.gov; h49@in.gov; h21@in.gov; h18@in.gov

Jay Hacker and Anne Vaughn delivered the boxes of petitions to the Castleton Post Office on Monday morning. You should receive in the mail today your annexation petition. If you do not want to be annexed by Fishers, please sign the petition and send it back right away. A stamped return envelope has been included for your convenience. Here are some general instructions that need to be followed:

1. only ONE signature per property
2. sign your name exactly as it appears on the petition form that was mailed to you (First name, middle initial, last name)
3. return your signed petition as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact your neighborhood block captains and coordinators, listed here.

Senate Bill 114, which eliminates forced annexation in Indiana for good with an effective date of January 1st, passed the Senate today 26-22. Yesterday, the bill was defeated narrowly, but after some arm twisting and lobbying by the GUO and others, the Senate passed it today. Now its on to the House of Representatives!

Email all the Indiana Senators by copy/pasting the email addresses below into your own email program (i.e. Outlook, Google Mail, Yahoo Mail). Do not send to more than 7 senators at a time, most of them will block your email if they see more than 7 addresses in the “to” or “cc” fields.
S22@in.gov, S50@in.gov, S23@in.gov, S37@in.gov, S5@in.gov, S29@in.gov,  S17@in.gov, S21@in.gov, S19@in.gov, S28@in.gov, S7@in.gov, S42@in.gov, 20@in.gov, S14@in.gov, S6@in.gov, S24@in.gov, S16@in.gov, S30@in.gov, S13@in.gov, S31@in.gov, S32@in.gov, S9@in.gov, S43@in.gov, S27@in.gov,S12@in.gov, S44@in.gov, S41@in.gov, S36@in.gov, S39@in.gov,S18@in.gov, S15@in.gov, S35@in.gov, S11@in.gov, S1@in.gov, S2@in.gov, S3@in.gov, S4@in.gov, S8@in.gov, S10@in.gov, S25@in.gov, S26@in.gov, S33@in.gov, S34@in.gov, S38@in.gov, S40@in.gov, S45@in.gov,S46@in.gov, S47@in.gov, S48@in.gov, S49@in.gov

The “silver bullet” in this annexation case passed its second reading today in the Indiana Senate with no amendments. Senator Broden tried to add two amendments concerning waivers and contiguity, but neither were passed. The third and final reading is next Monday. Keep contacting the senators to make sure the January 1st date is kept in this bill!

Residents of Home Place decided to file an appeal Friday night, taking their case against the City of Carmel to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Appeals Court overruled Judge Hughe’s ruling in October, giving Carmel reason to celebrate after a three-year battle. However, residents of Home Place led by their legal counsel Steve Buschmann, feel they have a very winnable case.

Carmel met requirements for Southwest Clay annexation
Rebecca Berfanger–IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court today found for the City of Carmel in a case regarding landowners who opposed annexation of their property in Southwest Clay Township following a settlement between the city and an organization who called themselves No Ordinance for Annexation (NOAX), who filed a remonstrance and agreed to the settlement in 2005.

The opinion, City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners , 29S00-0608-CV-300, addresses two issues, according to Bryan Babb, an attorney who represents the City of Carmel: that municipalities who want to annex property can settle with landowners, and that there is a difference between initiating a remonstrance and opposing an annexation.

On June 21, 2004, Carmel introduced ordinance C263 and a fiscal plan to annex territory in Southwest Clay Township between 96th and 116th streets, and roughly west of U.S. 31 to the Boone County line. The annexation represented approximately 3,400 parcels. Landowners were notified on July 2, 2004, and a notice was published in the Noblesville Ledger two weeks later. The Carmel city council passed the ordinance on Nov. 24, 2004, and notice was published two days later.

On Feb. 24, 2005, an organization which called themselves No Ordinance for Annexation (NOAX) filed a remonstrance after obtaining signatures from 65 percent of affected landowners, the required amount for a remonstrance. This led to settlement discussions with the city, and ultimately a settlement agreement on Sept. 6, 2005. Carmel incorporated the terms of the settlement into ordinance C263A. The council adopted the settlement agreements on Oct. 7, 2005. NOAX
conducted a referendum from Sept. 12 to Dec. 1, 2005, and landowners voted in favor of the settlement 708 to 515.

The remonstrance was certified in December 2005. A hearing was held a few months later to determine whether the annexation could go forward. NOAX sided with Carmel during the hearing, but a few property owners as individuals contested the annexation. The trial court found the original fiscal plan too vague and did not allow the annexation to go
forward.

However, the Indiana Supreme Court opinion considers the conditions that must be met and what remonstrators must prove to determine whether an annexation can go forward. The court found that Carmel met these conditions but the remonstrators who did not agree with the settlement did not meet their requirements. Among the remonstrator’s
requirements was the percentage of landowners who continued to oppose the annexation.

“The decision confirms that the Supreme Court is committed to the idea of reinforcing a legislative system that empowers municipalities to annex land if the conditions of the statute are met,” Babb said. “Hiring an expert to poke holes in a city’s fiscal plan isn’t enough to stop an annexation that is done properly.”

The opinion will also help parties in annexation cases around the state, including those who face similar issues and filed amici briefs on this case, Babb said, because “this opinion – for the first time ever – interprets the difference between signing a remonstrance and opposing an annexation. In this case, the trial court equated the two.”

Babb added, “This opinion reinforces what the court has been saying for years now, that judges shouldn’t micromanage annexations. There are important public policy benefits from allowing annexations to go forward when they are done under proper conditions. In almost every annexation, there will be a vocal minority which will not want to be annexed, but that shouldn’t be enough to stop the annexation when done properly.”

On Thursday, March 8th, the Indiana State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case concerning Carmel’s involuntary annexation of Southwest Clay. In May 2006, Judge Hughes, from the Hamilton County Court system, found in favor of the citizens of Southwest Clay Township. As expected, Carmel appealed the decison.

After learning of Carmel’s court defeat last May, Scott Faultless, Fishers Town Council President, made the decision to put the involuntary annexation of Geist on hold until he learns what the Indiana State Supreme Court will decide. Fishers has stated that they are waiting for the Court’s decision to offer them a “road map” on how to forcibly annex Geist.

Residents around the state are expected to show up to listen to this case. When the exact time and room number of the hearing is known, it will be posted on this site. The Court is aware that there will be residents and media there. Please plan on attending this hearing on Thursday, March 8th.

The Senate Government and Elections Committee hearing on proposed senate bills 161 and 112 have fueled the annexation fires in Indiana, again. Senator Beverly Gard, a republican from Greenfield that represents both unincorporated areas and Fishers residents, authored the two bills in hopes of helping Indiana residents in their fight against forced annexations statewide.

Senate Bill 161 would lower the percentage of residents needed to petition a forced annexation in Indiana from 65% of the property owners or 75% of the assessed value to 51% across the board. This bill also removes a provision that requires 75% of the owners of land in annexed territory to sign a remonstrance if the territory consists of not more than 100 parcels and 80% of the boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the municipality.

Senate Bill 112 would require the annexing municipality to repay legal fees to the remonstrators if they successfully fight off the forced annexation.

While the hearing was a forum to hear from those in favor or opposed to these two bills, it turned out to be a referendum on statewide forced annexation. It was clear after Senator Gard’s opening statement that the committee, chaired by Senator Connie Lawson (R-Danville), sees forced annexation as something that has caused more problems for cities and towns than what they had anticipated back in 1999 when they passed I.C. 36-4-3-13.

Fifteen different residents from Geist, Pendleton, Jeffersonville, Home Place, Southwest Clay, Whitestown and Muncie testified in favor of these two bills, using the hearing as a platform to talk about the bigger issues created by forced annexation. Six mayors and one town manager, Gary Huff from the Town of Fishers, spoke in opposition to the two bills. Only two of them have actually attempted a forced annexation (South Bend and Fishers).

Listen to the testimony of each proponent of these bills >>

David Bottorff with the Indiana Association of Counties led off the supporters explaining the impact of forced annexations on the county-level government support. “Counties are losing County Option Income Tax (COIT) money across the state when cities and towns annex unincorporated areas,” he said. “We still have to provide county services like jails, prosecutors, sheriffs, and roads while receiving less and less money.”

“What if Michigan mailed Indiana residents a notice of annexation resulting in Hoosiers being forced to pay higher property taxes for services that they already receive?” said Rachel Quade from Geist in her closing comments. “And yes while there are residents in Indiana who do use Michigan roads and possibly their parks at times, the idea that Michigan could annex this state seems preposterous. I believe the elected leaders of our state would have something to say on this practice.”

One senator from the committee spoke up and said, “there are some of us that wouldn’t mind if they took Lake County!”

The theme of all the supporters was basically the same. Highlights include:

• Remonstration is expensive and time consuming on everyday citizens statewide;
• Indiana is out of step with the rest of the country by being one of only 6 states that allows forced annexation;
• Cities and towns across Indiana are not following the statute correctly and there is no oversight of their actions; and
• Forced annexation is a land and money grab for local cities and towns.

After 2 hours and 45 minutes of testimony on both sides, the committee discussed openly what they had heard. The consensus was clear and summarized by Senator Gary Dillon (R-Columbia City): “These two bills don’t go far enough to fix the problems.”

Supporters of these two bills, including Senator Gard, felt the hearing went very well. The bill(s) that will be introduced in the coming weeks will probably go farther on changing forced annexation laws in Indiana. So far, there have been four forced annexations in Indiana that have gotten to court and all four have been declined by the courts. Procedural and financial errors have cost cities and towns millions of dollars in legal fees, not to mention the money that residents have had to pay out of their own pockets. It was clear that an oversight entity needs to be put into place to review and approve annexations prior to them even being initiated. There is even a probability that the committee will recommend a hold on future forced annexations until legislation can be passed.

In today’s Indy Star 11/03/06 on pahe B2 is an article about a small community of Fayette in Boone County filing to becme a Town to avoid being annexed by Whitestown. This is the first new town in the state since 1995. Maybe is the start of a rush to form new towns and cities to aviod being gobbled up by large towns and cities just looking for tax dollars. Maybe we who live in Geist should become a town and stop Fishers just like the people of Fayette.

Comments from old saynotofishers.com web site

Steve S. at 11/03/2006 10:13 AM
Please do, then you can build your own schools, get your own police force, fire department, etc. and go about your business. Then you’ll have to raise your taxes to pay for everything.

Rachel at 11/03/2006 10:15 AM
I’ve spoken with the man who is undertaking the task of getting Fayette incorporated. I’ve also spoken to one of the main people who got McCordsville incorporated. Becoming incorporated is not as daunting as it may sound. Getting the financial plan put together is the toughest part according to both men. One thing is that our property taxes would go up if we incorporated. Some people I’ve talked to say that they would rather pay higher property taxes and be the town of Geist than pay higher property taxes and become Fishers. I’d love to hear how other residents feel about this…..

Tom Britt at 11/03/2006 10:41 AM
Steve, we’re talking about a new “town”, not a new “county”. Schools are paid by county taxes. We already have a contract for fire protection (read about the fire station sale in another post). I’m sure the Fishers police would gladly sign a contract to protect some of the unannexed areas. McCordsville and Fortville have police forces, too. Read up on the issues here, Steve. Geist residents aren’t freeloaders as Fishers Town Council members would like to have you think.

Joe at 11/04/2006 08:09 PM
Steve – you know you should know a few facts before acting like the Fishers Town Council. You have stated before about us having to run our own schools. We have told you before the schools are not run by Fishers but by the county, that we already pay for the schools via our taxes the same as everyone who lives in Fishers. So you won’t have to tax your brain, the only thing that changes is that we would have to have, or contract out a road department. The way road funds are provided by the state is to a town or city, if no town or city is present it goes to the county. So we could contract the county and not much would change. In fact nothing would change, unless we wanted to build a 50,000 sg ft city hall, hire lots of people, build our own roads without federal funds. And last but not least move land boundries and annex more land so Fisher’s elected city fathers can keep their jobs. Instead of writing flase statements, spend some time looking up what goes on in Fishers. Something is very fishy in Fishers.

This annexation issue is a statewide issue, not limited to Hamilton County. Look at the residents up in Muncie. Their town is using the same law that was written in 1999 to save Ft. Wayne from bankruptcy and using it to annex 1,628 residents. Interesting to read their website, similar issues and similar reasons for fighting it. Annexation isn’t about “rich people not wanting to pay their fair share”, it is much deeper and reaches much farther than that.

SayNOtoMuncie.com

Comments from old saynotofishers.com web site

Rachel at 10/26/2006 06:59 PM
After some digging around, I found several other groups around the state who are fighting the same fight that we are. A couple other websites are www.pnluther.com and www.stopannexationnow.com . The southwest Clay group in Carmel has also established a website. I have gotten in touch with many of these groups recently. More to come…

Steve S. at 10/31/2006 04:01 PM
It is actually about rich people not wanting to pay taxes, especially when they use the services of the area they are surrounded by.

Tom Britt at 10/31/2006 05:02 PM
Right Steve, all the people in Muncie are millionaires, too. So are the folks in Jeffersonville, Pendleton, and Anderson. It’s more about towns misusing a 1999 statute that was put on the books to save Ft. Wayne to grow their own tax base and COIT income.

DLMiller at 11/01/2006 08:14 AM
Steve, My neighborhood is in the Geist forced annexation area. Most of the homeowners are retired or close to retirement from blue collar type jobs. They are hard working people on a fixed income of mostly social security and small pensions. They could be your mother and father, or your grandparents. They know how to make ends meet. They don’t go on extravagant vacations or drive big cars. They live in their small, but adequate, 3 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath, house built in the 1960′s. PLEASE, know what you are talking about before you speak. You seem to be focusing on the notion that every person within the Geist area is rich. I guess that these people that I have mentioned would consider themselves rich, but not by your standards $$$$$$$’s. The real issue is as Tom stated above.

Joe at 11/04/2006 08:18 PM
Steve – once again false statements, the people who use the Muncie sewer and don’t live in Muncie, pay for the use of the sewer via a sewer tax. Anytime you use a city service even if you don’t live in that city you pay for the use of that service. Just like us Geist people who pay for the use of the Fishers Fire Department. The only time you don’t pay for a service is driving on their roads and maybe going to a park, but then the people who live in that town drive on other town and county roads so it evens out in the long run. Our entire nation is based on the idea of sharing, otherwise you would have to stop at I-70 as you enter Ohio and buy an Ohio License Plate and pay an Ohio road tax. Now when I drive into Fishers in many cases its to spend money at a Fishers business. Since you don’t want me to use any Fishers services, maybe I should stop going to Fishers stores. One last question Steve is your real name Scott?

Stephen at 11/09/2006 10:44 AM
Joe – Your comments about “…maybe I should stop going to Fishers stores,” saddens me deeply. I own a retail establishment in Fishers. I am a resident of Fishers. I understand why the people of Geist don’t want to be annexed, Hell I wouldn’t want to either… but to throw out statements like, “maybe we should shop elsewhere” is like my 7 year old son saying he won’t play with Tommy because he hangs around Jimmy whom he doesn’t like. The Fishers’ businesses have nothing to do with the annexation by our town. I have given a lot of money to support your anti-annexation cause. I will continue to support the cause even though you are throwing statements on this site which hurt me personally. Just remember, Fishers businesses are run by families and people like you. Please don’t humiliate them by saying you won’t shop them. I do which you the best of luck in your endeavor. God Bless!

We just received verification that the Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the Southwest Clay appeal as a direct appeal on an emergency basis. The Court noted that because of the emergency nature of the appeal, continuances would likely be denied and the issue of an oral argument would be resolved at a later date.

This should shorten the timeline of this case being upheld or overruled by the State Supreme Court. It is unlikely that Fishers Town Council will pass the current resolution until after this decision is made.