SayNotoFishers.com » Indiana Annex Reform

Email Legislators, SB 114 Needs a Hearing in the House

Tom Britt — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:56:39 +0000

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.

Contact Our State Representatives

Tom Britt — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:04:13 +0000

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

Petitions Mailed Monday, Some Instructions

Tom Britt — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:37:17 +0000

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 Passes Senate, No Amendments!

Tom Britt — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:19:52 +0000

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 the Sentators Here

Tom Britt — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:28:35 +0000

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

Senate Bill 114 Passes Second Reading, No Amendments

Tom Britt — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:10:31 +0000

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!

Home Place Going to Supreme Court

Tom Britt — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:41:34 +0000

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.

From the Indiana Lawyer Today on the SW Clay Ruling

Tom Britt — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:08:00 +0000

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.”

Carmel Appeal Date Set

Tom Britt — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:32:00 +0000

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.

Senate Hearing on Annexation Could Change Course Statewide

Tom Britt — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:00:00 +0000

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.

Listen to Audio of Testimony
	David Bottorff Indiana Association of Counties
	Rachel Quade Geist United Opposition
	Mike Fisher Geist United Opposition
	Tom Britt Spoke on behalf of Mark Workman in Muncie
	Vanessa Smith Citizens Against Jeffersonville
	Matt Milam Concerned Citizens Against Carmel
	Pete Peterson Geist United Opposition
	Fred Yde NOAX Group vs. Carmel
	Edward L. Pipken Concerned Citizens Against Carmel
	Bob Thomas Southwest Clay vs. Carmel
	Dawn Semmler Whitestown (now Fayette)
	Joe Weingarten Geist United Opposition
	Steve Buschmann Thrasher, Buschmann, Voelkel
	Paul Russell Citizens Against Jefferson
	Closing Remarks Henk van Lunenberg and Farm Bureau Insurance

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.