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
You are currently browsing the archive for the Law Change category.
We fully expect the Fishers Town Council to pass the Geist annexation ordinances at their next meeting on Tuesday, January 22nd, at 7:00 pm at the Fishers Town Hall.
Nonetheless, plan to attend to voice your displeasure to the public and the media. We need to make a significant noise to let the Council know that this action is wrong and we are ready for the battle.
The GUO will also be prepared with remonstration (anti-annexation) petitions for homeowners to sign immediately after the Council passes the ordinances.
This is also an excellent time to make a contribution to the legal defense fund. We need money to win this in court.
Senate Bill 114 Passes Committee-Step One Win for Our Side
On Wednesday, January 16 the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee voted 6 – 4 to pass SB114 onto the full senate for review and vote. The Committee vote was along party lines with the Republicans voting for and the Democrats voting against.
This bill, authored by Senators Drozda and Gard, significantly changes Indiana’s annexation law for the better. In particular, the bill eliminates forced annexation in Indiana; the only way a municipality could annex a territory under this law is if the landowners agree. If the municipality initiates the annexation, all of the property owners would have to consent to the annexation.
Now it is up to the Senate to pass the bill. If the Senate passes the bill, then it’s on to the House for a vote.
A key provision of the bill, as currently written, is that it is retroactive to January 1, 2008. It says that any involuntary annexation ordinance adopted between January 1st and July 1st, 2008 is void. If passed into law with this provision in tact, it would stop the Fishers forced annexation of Geist.
As you can imagine, Stu Easley, Fishers Town Councilor-who testified against the bill at the Committee hearing; imagine that-complained long and loud to the press that this provision was targeted to Fishers.
But, the issue of forced annexation is a state-wide issue and there are many other communities in the state, such as Jeffersonville, who are fighting forced annexations.
The basis of the bill is to make the annexation process fair and equitable. If that is the objective of the general assembly, then stopping all pending forced annexations now is the fair and equitable thing to do; it would not be fair to allow municipalities to proceed with forced annexations between now and the time the law would otherwise become effective(July 1, 2008). That would also be an attempt to circumvent the intention of the general assembly.
That’s akin to telling your child they are misbehaving, but allowing them to continue to misbehave until some point in the future. Common sense says that you stop the misbehavior now, even if the child got away with it in the past.
This bill continues to need your support. Please call and/or e-mail the state senators. To e-mail, go to www.in.gov, click on the General Assembly link, click on the Legislators link, click on the How to Contact link, and click on each senator to e-mail. Also, encourage your family and friends throughout the state to send their respective legislators a letter or e-mail. This is not just an Indianapolis-area problem, it affects residents in Pendleton, Anderson, Jeffersonville, Whitestown, Muncie and Morristown (near Shelbyville) who are all involved in hostile annexation.
Senator Beverly Gard represents most of the Geist area and is solidly behind this bill. But, the rest of the senate needs to hear from the populace.
When you voice your support to the senators, please tell them that the retroactive provision of the bill is the fair and right thing to do. The other guys (the municipalities) have not been playing fair for a long time, so making this bill retroactive only helps to somewhat even things out.
Don’t forget too that Fishers, Carmel, and some other cities and towns will no doubt be spending a lot of money on lawyers and lobbyists to try to stop this bill; we can only succeed if we continuously tell the legislators what we, the people, want.
As many of you have heard the State Supreme Court issued its ruling on Wednesday, June 27th regarding the SW Clay vs. City of Carmel appeal.
What is very important here is that this ruling in no way harms our case against the Town of Fishers! Nor does it help the Town in its pursuit of usurping our property.
The Fishers Town Council held off on its pursuit of forcibly annexing the Geist Area pending this ruling because no one really knew what the court might do. For example, the court might have addressed points in annexation law that would make it much more difficult for a city or town to annex territory. If the court had done so—which it did not—then Fishers and other municipalities might have had to change their tactics.
In fact the good news is that since the Town had to wait, we’ve enjoyed another year (plus) of not paying higher taxes to Fishers and are even more prepared to fight this forced annexation attempt than ever before.
Despite all of the hoopla bandied about in the press, the ruling really came down to two elements: (1) a municipality has the right to modify the fiscal plan after the annexation ordinance is adopted; (2) SW Clay did not meet the test of having 65% of the property owners of record remonstrate against the annexation.
Because of this second point, the court ruled in favor of Carmel.
The court did not rule on other points of annexation law nor did a “roadmap” of how to proceed really come out of the ruling.
As you may recall, when Carmel first attempted to annex SW Clay a remonstrance group called No Ordinance for Annexation (or NOAX) was formed. After NOAX secured the needed number of remonstrators (65% of the property owners) to fight the annexation, it then negotiated a settlement deal with Carmel and, for certain concessions like tax abatements, it agreed not to pursue the fight against forced annexation. Part of the result of these negotiations was that Carmel revised its fiscal plan to provide services to the area to be annexed and adopted an amended annexation ordinance.
However, others in SW Clay said that NOAX did not represent their interests and continued on with the fight. One of their arguments was that the law did not allow a municipality to change its fiscal plan and, as such, the NOAX deal essentially didn’t count. The court ruled otherwise saying that both the property owners and municipality have the right to negotiate a settlement, if they want to, and amend the fiscal plan accordingly after the annexation ordinance had already been adopted.
Based on the evidence presented, the court ruled that the NOAX deal was valid, and because of that, those property owners who had initially remonstrated against the annexation but then subsequently agreed with the NOAX settlement could no longer be counted as valid remonstrators; thus, SW Clay no longer had the required 65%. Without the required 65% there is no valid remonstrance under the law and Carmel wins.
If there is a roadmap in that for municipalities to follow for annexations, good luck in finding it. That said, now that the wait is over, no doubt Fishers will re-start its efforts and political spin game to annex the Geist Area. We’re ready!
We will easily get more than 65% of Geist Area property owners to sign a remonstrance petition and we are already organized to get those signatures; we have a solid legal fund in place and will collect even more to fight the good fight; and, there is no one empowered or willing to negotiate a settlement—Fishers will have to try to settle with each and every homeowner individually if they want to try to cut a deal.
More importantly, we have a strong basis in law to fight the forced annexation—a basis that was not touched by this ruling. WE ARE GOOD TO GO!
How much did your property taxes go up?
Due to the recent reassessment, the average property tax increase across the state is around 24%. Some in the Geist Area have experienced a 28% increase, while others have been a bit more fortunate.
Keep in mind that if the Town of Fishers prevails, our taxes will go up another 22% on top of what we just got smacked with!
The Power of Pooh!
The Town of Fishers is using its monopoly power over waste water treatment in southeastern Hamilton County to persuade certain neighborhoods in the Geist Area to agree to be annexed. The neighborhoods of Country Lane Estates, Forest Knoll, and Carefree Estates are at various stages of negotiation to be converted from well and septic service to sewer and city water service.
The Town has offered interest-free financing of the construction in exchange for the neighborhoods agreement to be annexed. These agreements were on the agenda of the Fishers Town Council this past Monday, June 18. The agreements for Country Lane and Forest Knoll were approved; the agreement for Carefree Estates was removed from the agenda. It’s not clear what the Council approval signifies. There was no discussion by the Council and no one in the audience asked to speak.
In the case of all three neighborhoods, the residents are waiting to see detailed cost estimates from the Town before they make a commitment.
Pricy Fire Protection
As you know, Fall Creek Township contracts with the Fishers Fire Department to provide fire and EMS services to the unincorporated areas of the Township (mostly the Geist Area), with the exception of a small section that is supported by Fortville.
And, as you may recall, last November the Township sold the Brooks School Road fire station to the Town of Fishers because the Township didn’t have the money to pay for the entire 2006 fire contract. Fishers paid $916,000 for the building of which $213,000 was applied against the then $1.8 million contract and the remainder was retained by the Township.
Part of the story according to the Township board was that they were trying to hold down taxes and basically ran out of money. Although the $703,000 gain was helpful, there is still some risk that Township taxes may go up. They also said that part of the problem was that new homes were going up faster than property-tax revenues to pay for the fire protection contract.
Here’s the rub, though: The Township has never entertained a competitive bid for fire and EMS services for the unincorporated areas of Fall Creek Township; they simply assume Fishers is giving them a good deal. But, Lawrence Township Fire Department is very interested in bidding to provide these services.
How do we know they are interested? Because, unlike our Township Trustee, we asked. And, from our initial discussions, Lawrence likely can provide the services for less money than Fishers.
Here’s another rub: Lawrence did say they would need a fire station located in the North/East section of the area (think around Olio and 104th) to ensure proper protection to that area. Of course, the Brooks School Road fire station would have worked, but the Township gave that away. But, the Township could float a bond and build a building with little to no impact on our taxes, especially if Lawrence’s services are less costly.
If you think that the Township should undertake a competitive bidding process, instead of simply giving the deal to Fishers—the current contract expires 12/31/07 and also can be terminated upon 60 days notice—contact your Township officials:
Terry Michael, Trustee
Jason Meyer, Board
Mike Reuter, Board
Dan Rieke, Board
317-841-3180
Remember, all of these folks are elected to office.
By the way: (1) The Township should allow Fishers Fire Department take care of the unincorporated areas (Swiss Cheese “holes”) that are well within the Town boundaries, of which there are many—why should we pay for fire protection for areas that Fishers doesn’t want to annex because there is no economic gain in doing so?; (2) Lawrence FD also has boats on Geist, so the lake would continue to be covered.
Incorporating Our Own Town—Update
The subgroup of GUO is continuing to investigate the feasibility of forming our own town. We have secured an agreement in principle with a nearby fire department to provide fire and EMS protection, and are working through the cost and tax implications of setting up and running a town.
By forming our own town we can permanently thwart future annexation attempts—even if Fishers loses this round, they are free to try again in four years.
We will provide a more complete update in the near future as we work through the numbers. Meanwhile, please share your thoughts below by posting a comment.
The Indiana Supreme Court today passed down their ruling on the Southwest Clay vs. Carmel appeal heard earlier this year. The verdict, simply put, went against the Southwest Clay residents. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the ruling by judge Hughes, ruling in favor of the City of Carmel to annex Southwest Clay.
Here is a link to the ruling online
First of all, the original settlement that the NOAX group negotiated with the City of Carmel was originally thrown out by Judge Hughes in the Hamilton County Courts. The court went on to hear arguments from the landowners that remonstrated against Carmel and Judge Hughes ruled in their favor.
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the original referendum that NOAX negotiated was valid and overruled Judge Hughes’ decision to throw it out.
Carmel announced their intent to annex Southwest Clay on June 21, 2004 and notified landowners on July 2nd which started the 90-day remonstrance clock. During this time, a group called NOAX entered into a settlement agreement with Carmel on behalf of the residents and the City of Carmel revised their fiscal plan and adopted the ordinance on October 7th. This deal with Carmel was voted on by the landowners and approved by a count of 708 in favor and 515 opposed.
After this agreement had been struck, three homeowners led efforts to get the remonstrance signatures they needed to in essence block the deal struck by NOAX and Carmel. They garnished just under 70% of the homeowners’ signatures (almost 5% more than the 65% requirement to remonstrate).
So, there were two deals that went to court on March 20, 2006:
1. The original deal that NOAX had struck with Carmel
2. The remonstrance against the annexation led by the 3 homeowners
Judge Hughes threw out the first deal with NOAX and Carmel and ruled on the annexation in favor of Southwest Clay. The Supreme Court essentially overruled Judge Hughes on the NOAX deal saying that they in fact had a majority of votes by the homeowners and said that the remonstrators didn’t have enough votes to satisfy the 65% they needed to remonstrate.
Wait, didn’t they get just under 70% signatures?
According to the Supreme Court, those people that voted for the original NOAX deal couldn’t also vote for the remonstrance, throwing out 546 petitions from the 2,210 needed to remonstrate.
How does all this affect the Geist annexation by Fishers?
It doesn’t really affect the Geist annexation. The ruling, whether in favor or against Carmel, merely gives the Town of Fishers the green light to move forward with their annexation plans.
The Geist United Opposition is not secretly or publicly negotiating any special terms with the Town of Fishers. Chief Justice Shepard’s ruling today did not address the key problems that Fishers will have to deal with should the Geist residents successfully remonstrate: fire protection, water, and sewers not currently being provided by the Town of Fishers.
Fishers is providing fire protection through a contract similar to the Southwest Clay / Carmel arrangement. However, Geist residents have a competitive bid from the Lawrence Fire Department for $200,000 less per year (more on this later).
It’s been just over 30 days (March 8th) since the State Supreme Court heard the oral arguments in the Southwest Clay vs. City of Carmel annexation case. Our legal counsel had advised us that it may take between 30 and 90 days before a ruling was issued by the court, so we’re still within the expected waiting period-no news yet.
As soon as a ruling is issued-and our attorneys will get immediate notification-we’ll publish the results to you right away.
It is important to keep in mind that regardless of the outcome of the case, we fully expect-and are prepared for-the Town of Fishers to continue to try to annex the Geist Area.
If the ruling is in favor of SW Clay, then likely Fishers will need to substantively change their approach and rationale for annexation. While pursuing annexation under this situation may be viewed as a fool’s errand-that is, their statutory basis for annexation would not be sound-that hasn’t stopped them before. After all, ego and arrogance often drive people to do silly things.
If the ruling is in favor of Carmel, then likely Fishers will simply re-initiate their annexation plan, and we’re ready for that!
One thing we do know for sure, regardless of the court ruling and Fisher’s next steps, Carmel will have a bigger water park than Fishers.
The Geist United Opposition has been investigating two additional strategies to thwart the pending forced annexation by the Town of Fishers:
1. Legislative Change: A group of residents from around the state of Indiana, including Geist residents, worked together with state legislators to craft amendments to existing annexation laws. Spearheaded by Geist resident Rachel Quade, this group was able to get bills introduced to the Senate Committee on Local Government & Elections. Unfortunately, these bills never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. While we were optimistic that we could see statewide change in the current laws, we were also realistic knowing that this was a long shot and would never completely protect us from forced annexation.
2. Incorporating Our Own Town: A subgroup of the GUO Board has been investigating the possibility of incorporating the unincorporated areas around Geist into our own town. Like any option we have researched, we are keeping an open mind and trying to assess the pros and cons before we present this option to our residents. Preliminary data is promising, but there are hurdles to overcome.
First and foremost, we are working with several expert resources to determine the tax impact of forming our own town. Early discussions and research have shown that we would see a slight tax increase, but nowhere near the 20%+ we would see if the Town of Fishers annexed us. Controlling our own destiny, being able to vote for our own representation, and keeping our tax dollars right here in Geist is appealing to most residents to whom we have spoken.
Other key factors in the process include the provision of services such as roads and police (likely a continuation of the excellent county-provided services we currently enjoy), and assuring fire protection and EMS services. In recent weeks, the working group has made excellent progress defining how those services would be provided at a reasonable cost.
Based on phone polls we have done with some of our residents, this is definitely an avenue we want to continue to pursue. There are a lot of details that we have to address, and with the State Supreme Court ruling on the Southwest Clay vs. Carmel case imminent in the coming weeks, time is of the essence.
Please do not hesitate to offer your thoughts on the idea by posting comments below or directly e-mailing or calling any of the GUO board members. We will be sending you more information as we get it in the coming days.
Today is the day that many cities, towns, and forced annexation property owners have been waiting for. The Indiana Supreme Court justices heard the appeal arguments in the City of Carmel vs. the Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners at the Indiana Statehouse. Bryan Babb, an attorney with Bose McKinney & Evans hired by the City of Carmel, led off the 20-minute per side hearing presenting the basis for the appeal. At the conclusion of his often interrupted statement, attorney Rob Schein with Kreig DeVault spoke on behalf of the Southwest Clay residents. At the root of the argument was whether or not the fiscal plan adopted by the City of Carmel was frozen in time when they passed the ordinance to forcibly annex Southwest Clay or not. Carmel negotiated an agreement with the original group representing the remonstrators (NOAXE) after the adoption of the fiscal plan but failed to get 75% of them to sign the settlement agreement. The new group of remonstrators led by Bob Thomas, Chuck Cavalier, and Charles Anderson got the required signatures to get the case to the Hamilton County Courthouse last spring. Judge Hughes threw out the NOAXE agreement and ruled in favor of the remonstrators of Southwest Clay.
If you ask either side who won today, both will say they did well. Several local TV and newspaper journalists were on-hand to get interviews of both sides afterwards. At the end of the day, whatever ruling the Indiana Supreme Court hands down will turn the yellow annexation light to green with cities and towns all around the state of Indiana. While the City of Carmel was appealing one of six rulings by Judge Hughes, this one ruling can have a big impact on how future forced annexations are dealt with by both sides.
The Supreme Court’s website has the entire video and audio of today’s hearing online. I also captured a little video outside the courtroom as Pete Peterson was interviewed by local the local FOX News affiliate.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/sWOep4sRsdM" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
The proposed bills introduced by Senator Gard (reported on last week) were not passed by the Senate Committee on Local Government & Elections; and, the proposed bill from Representative Orentlicher was not assigned to a committee-evidently, Speaker Bauer thinks this is a Republican issue and is not cognizant that this is a property rights issue.
Now what? We understand that Senator David Long (President Pro Tempore) will consider establishing a study committee to review current state annexation law to identify needed changes and introduce legislation to place a moratorium on all forced annexations pending the outcome of the study committee’s work. However, he is awaiting a “grass roots” movement from across the state to encourage him to do so-likely, he wants to be sure there is sufficient voter support for the idea.
If you believe that these actions-moratorium, study committee-are needed and appropriate, please e-mail, call, and/or write Senator Long with your thoughts:
Direct e-mail: s16@ai.org
E-mail via the Senator’s state webpageSenator David C. Long
President Pro Tempore
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-9400
(800) 382-9467
Following is an example of one of the e-mails sent to him, which may help stimulate your thoughts on the subject:
Dear Senator Long:
As you are aware, there are a significant number of forced annexations going on across the state in which property owners are being forced into municipalities against their wishes. As you are also aware, several bills were introduced this legislative session to help reform state annexation law to at least give property owners a fair chance to fight forced annexations have either not been assigned to Committee (House) or were not passed by the assigned Committee (Senate Local Government and Elections; passage was lost by one vote, yet not all Committee members were in attendance for the vote).
I am writing as an Indiana citizen and property owner to ask you to take two actions: (1) Establish a study committee to review current state annexation law and identify changes necessary to make the law fair and equitable; (2) Introduce legislation to place an immediate moratorium on all forced annexations until after the study committee has completed its analysis and corrective legislation can be introduced and voted on next session.
The latter is extremely important. If a study committee is formed, municipalities will recognize that the annexation law may be changed and will rush through as many forced annexations as possible to get ahead of any statutory changes that may not be in their favor, which would defeat the purpose of the study committee and the value of any changes to the law.
Changes to the law are desperately needed. Although state annexation law was amended several years ago with the intention of giving property owners additional rights to challenge forced annexation of their property, there is clear evidence that municipalities are abusing the law because the cost to homeowners to remonstrate is exceedingly expensive (often in the $100,000 to $400,000 range) and, as such, the municipalities expect no legal resistance; the only check-and-balance over forced annexations is the property owner’s right to remonstrate. No governmental agency is charged with verifying the veracity and validity of a forced annexation; thus, many occur that, in fact, violate the current statutes.
Please press forward with the moratorium and the study committee so that the citizens and homeowners of Indiana have equal and fair protections under the law.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
The more people who express their concerns about current annexation law to Senator Long the greater the chance that he will take action.
Supreme Court Hearing Next Week
Next Thursday, March 8th, at 9:45am the Indiana State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the City of Carmel vs. Southwest Clay appeal. The public may attend. The hearing will be in the Supreme Court courtroom, Room 317 of the Statehouse at 200 West Washington Street, downtown Indianapolis.
The arguments are supposed to be limited to a total of 40 minutes (20 minutes per side).
No doubt, the press will be in attendance.
This would be an excellent opportunity to demonstrate support for Southwest Clay by attending the hearing-out of respect for the court, business-type dress is appropriate.
Keep in mind that Southwest Clay prevailed over Carmel in Hamilton County Superior Court; this is Carmel’s appeal of that ruling and other municipalities, including the Town of Fishers, have filed “friend of the court” briefs in support of Carmel. After all, the very points Carmel lost on in Superior Court are the same, exact points that Fishers has included in their annexation ordinances (and, as such, likely would lose on the same grounds). The Supreme Court’s ruling on the appeal may happen 30 – 60 days after the hearing.
The testifying, lobbying, and e-mail/letter campaigns were all shot down last week at the Senate Committee hearing for the two proposed bills drafted by Senator Beverly Gard. On a party line vote, the two proposed bills did not get the votes they needed to get to the Senate floor.
There is still hope to get annexation reform amended to another bill. Senator Pro Tem David Long told Senator Gard that if he sees a grassroots groundswell of support for annexation reform, he would try to get an amendment added to another bill so that we can get some changes made in this session.
He has to hear from all of us!
Send Senator Long an e-mail stating in essence that the state of Indiana needs annexation reform. That’s it.
You can also send him letters or call his office:
Senator David C. Long
President Pro Tempore
200 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 232-9400
Several of you have asked me “what did you say to the Senators and Representatives?” Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent to each of them:
Dear Indiana Senators and House Representatives:
There are two proposed bills being introduced next week by Senator Gard that many residents of Indiana are supporting: SB 161 & SB 112. These were discussed last week in the Senate Government and Elections Committee hearing and the overall feeling of many on that committee was one of “these don’t go far enough”.
Several statewide forced annexations are going on with no oversight, many procedural violations, and at a high cost to both the municipalities and citizen caught in the forced annexation crosshairs.
Residents statewide have bonded together and started a web site at http://annexreform.com. My neighbors at Geist have already raised $90,000 to fight the Town of Fishers in their proposed annexation and have a web site at http://saynotofishers.com. The Town of Fishers has violated several procedural statutes to annex around these residents, violations which the residents will have to fight in court to get overruled.
To date, only four forced annexations have been brought to court in Indiana…all four were overruled by a judge.
We suggest that a moratorium be put into affect until an oversight committee can be put into place to prevent other procedurally flawed forced annexations from taking place. The residents of Muncie, Geist Reservoir, Southwest Clay, Home Place, Jeffersonville, Whitestown (now Fayette), Anderson, and Pendleton all appreciate your support of these legislative amendments.
Best regards,
Tom Britt, Publisher
Lawrence Township resident
(home address)
317-823-5060
317-536-3030 fax
Last week, we highlighted the testimony given by homeowners from around the state before the Indiana State Senate Local Government and Elections Committee on February 7th regarding the bills introduced by Senator Beverly Gard to improve state annexation law to at least give homeowners a fighting chance in remonstrating against forced annexations.
At the conclusion of the testimony, some of the senators stated their concerns that perhaps additional legislation is needed to stop the abuse of annexation law by cities and towns. Many of the senators were not aware of how onerous and expensive it is to fight a forced annexation and many were concerned about the abuses reported during the testimony.
After talking with almost all of the senators on the Committee, Senator Gard believes, given the amount of work that needs to be done on annexation law and to prevent state municipalities from undertaking a rash of annexations pending any changes to the law, the state legislature should pass a moratorium on all involuntary annexations until the legislature has had the opportunity to more carefully review the law and determine specific changes to curb abuse, including (hopefully) some level of governmental oversight on all annexations.
Senator Gard will be introducing the moratorium bill next Wednesday. If you agree that a moratorium is appropriate, please e-mail our state representatives and express you views:
Senator Beverly Gard at S28@ai.org or 232-9400
Senator Luke Kenley at S20@ai.org or 232-9400
Senator Teresa Lubbers at S30@ai.org or 232-9400
Representative Kathy Richardson at H29@ai.org or 773-6123
Representative Gerald Torr at H39@ai.org or 232-9742
Representative Brian Bosma at H88@ai.org or 232-9604
Senator Connie Lawson at S24@ai.org or 232-9400
Senator David Long at S16@ai.org or 232-9400
We would like to extend our heart-felt thanks to our very own Senator, Beverly Gard, for all of the hard work she has put in to fairly and justly represent the issues of her constituency, and for taking up the cause of introducing fairness into the state annexation process.
Meanwhile, the Town of Fishers has not been silent on the issue. The Town’s website includes a reprint of Town Manager Gary Huff’s testimony before the Committee and encourages Town residents to call or write their representatives and express their views on the bills.
The statements made my Mr. Huff borders between hilarious and outrageous. Some quotes from his testimony:
“Annexations by the Town of Fishers are intended to provide a unification of the Fishers community. This unification consolidates the unincorporated areas within the town’s corporate boundaries. We refer to the unincorporated holes within the town’s corporate limits as the “Swiss Cheese Effect”.
Annexations currently being considered by the Town of Fishers are not because of poor financial or development mismanagement. As a matter of fact, all one has to do is look at the town’s latest bond ratings by the National Bond Rating companies to see that we are one of the best fiscally managed municipalities in the nation.
Fishers’ citizens now subsidize those unincorporated areas within the corporate boundaries including infrastructure such as roads, parks, recreation facilities, fire stations and major equipment. And, town services such as police, snow plowing, and recreation programs.”
Anyone who is mildly familiar with the situation knows that the Geist Area (and the two new areas Fishers wants to annex) is not within the corporate boundaries, but outside of the Town. Not to mention the fact that the Geist area was here and well established long before Fishers became something more than a bar and a McDonalds.
It’s true, however, that there are numerous “holes” within the Town’s boundaries—those holes represent territory that the Town Council chose not to annex because the territory didn’t represent a high enough tax base (i.e., more money to the Town) and/or would require significant infrastructure improvements (e.g., roads, sewers) that the Town didn’t want to pay for. And, can you believe that the Town continues to use and promote the term “Swiss Cheese?” It would be difficult to use that term with a straight face when testifying before a Senate Committee, don’t you think?
It’s also true, most likely, that the Town does provide services to those areas within the Town boundaries that the Town Council chose not to annex. If one’s house is completely surrounded by the Town, what could one do? However, the Geist Area (and the two new areas Fisher’s is trying to annex), because we are not within the Town boundaries, does not receive services from the Town.
This is a point we made with the Senate Committee. The law says that the court must rule that an annexation not take place if the annexing municipality does not and has not provided certain services to the area to be annexed: police and fire (we get these services from the Hamilton County Sheriff and Fall Creek Township); roads and streets (we get these from Hamilton County); and, water and sewer (we get these from the Indianapolis Water Company and Hamilton Southeastern Utilities).
One might argue, though, that the property owners of Fall Creek Township and Hamilton County are subsidizing the president of the Fishers Town Council. After all, his lot is the only lot in his subdivision that has been annexed by the Town (how else could he remain on the Council?); no doubt, he receives the benefits of fire and police protection and roads and street maintenance from the County and Township. His lot is the Swiss Cheese hole of the Geist Area—maybe we should annex that lot back into the Township.
Obviously, according to Mr. Huff’s testimony, the Town doesn’t really need our money, so why do they want to abuse the law and take it?
Clearly, what raised the concerns of the Senators on the Committee were how extremely difficult and expensive it is to remonstrate against a forced annexation, that there are no other checks-and-balances over a municipality’s annexations other than the property owners’ right to remonstrate, and the reported abuses of the annexation law by cities and towns.
Again, please share your concerns with our elected state representatives. We have learned that they do listen, especially when the collective voice is loud.
Nice article in the Courier-Journal out of Louisville Kentucky about Jeffersonville’s Vanessa Smith. It seems that she was fighting for a smoking ban not too long ago, now she’s pushing for statewide annexation reform.
We have been talking with the folks from Jeffersonville for months and finally got to meet Vanessa, Paul, and others from down south at the Senate Committee hearing on Wednesday. The audio of her testimony was posted a few days ago.
Nice article in the Courier-Journal out of Louisville today regarding the senate committee hearing yesterday. Here is a link to it, Courier-Journal
There will be a story to follow this, but I wanted to go ahead and post Fishers Town Manager Gary Huff’s testimony yesterday at the Indiana Statehouse. He and about five other town mayors from across Indiana were testifying against proposed senate bills 112 and 161 introduced by Senator Beverly Gard. Her comments are also captured below. Testimony from Geist residents, other affected annexation areas, and other mayors will be summarized in an article to be posted later today.
Fishers Town Manager Gary Huff’s Testimony
Senator Gard’s closing comments
On Wednesday, February 7th, at 1:00 pm the Indiana State Senate Local Government and Elections Committee is holding a public hearing on the bills proposed by Senator Beverly Gard regarding changes to the current state annexation law: reducing the remonstrance percentage from 65% to 51% of property owners and requiring municipalities to reimburse property owners for court and legal fees incurred to successfully remonstrate against a forced annexation.
We need everyone who can to attend this hearing to show support for Senator Gard’s proposed bills. If passed, these bills would at least help level the playing field in our fight against forced annexation. As a first step, the proposed bills must be passed by this Committee in order to go to the full senate for vote.
Please meet at the South side of the State Office Building (rotunda) on the second floor at 12:30 pm. From there we will go to the committee hearing room.
We need everyone’s support to help move these bills forward.
Thanks to some very pro-active legislators, there are currently 3 bill proposals in the Indiana Senate and 1 bill proposal in the Indiana House asking for change regarding annexation. The 3 bill proposals in the Senate have already been assigned to committees, and the one in the House still needs to be assigned.
Senator Beverly Gard has authored the three proposals in the Senate. SB 0112 requires a municipality that initiates an annexation to pay all court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees if the annexation is remonstrated against and the court enters judgment against annexation. SB 0161 reduces the number of landowner signatures required for a remonstrance against an annexation: (1) from at least 66% to at least 51% of the owners of land in the annexed territory; or (2) from the owners of more than 75% to the owners of at least 51% of assessed valuation of the land in the annexed territory. 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. SB 0112 and SB 0161 have both been assigned to the Local Government and Elections Committee chaired by Senator Connie Lawson. If you are interested in seeing these bills move forward, please contact Senator Lawson at 1-800-382-9467 or by e-mail at this site.
The third bill is SB 0430. This bill adjusts the formulas for distribution of revenue from the county adjusted gross income tax, the county option income tax, and the county economic development income tax to reduce the share of a municipality that annexes territory. This bill proposal has been assigned to Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee chaired by Senator Luke Kenley. Please consider contacting Senator Kenley at 1-800-382-9467 or by e-mail.
Representative David Orentlicher has authored a bill in the House. HB 1292 provides that when a municipality initiates an annexation, the municipality must file a petition with the court containing the signatures of at least 51% of the landowners in the territory proposed to be annexed. This bill has not been assigned to a committee yet. The Speaker of the House, Patrick Bauer, is the person who has the authority to assign the bill. If you are interested in seeing this legislation move forward, please share your views with the Speaker at 1-800-382-9842 or by e-mail at this site.
We’re very grateful that our elected representatives have chosen to get the ball rolling by putting forth these proposals, but as they say, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil.” Please consider sharing your views with the legislators!!
Comments from old saynotofishers.com web site
Joe at 02/01/2007 09:49 PM
I addition I have also written Rep. B. Patrick Bauer, House Democratic Leader. He put the David Oretlicher bill in a dead end committee and asked him to move this bill up the ladder. Please everyone flood all of these representatives with tons of mail. Its the way government works, you have to push. A few minuts of your time and a 39cent stamp or e-mail can be worth thousands if we stop Fishers.
Geist residents, you are used to “Say No to Fishers” but did you know “Say No to …” is springing up all over the state. More and more cities that are miss-managed are looking to annexation to cure their funding problems and are jumping on this bandwagon. From Carmel trying to gobble up SW Clay and Home Place or Jefferson trying to eat up its surrounding communities. What about Westfield going after SW Washington Township and Carey Commons. Or Valparaiso where they were going to annex an area of 1,122 acres but skipped one property because it was not on a sewer system and it would cost to much to include it. Muncie, Frankfort, Pendleton, Whitestown, South Bend, … This becomes very clear if you read the history behind the Fort Wayne annexations, they were broke and tried to annex land to make money. In a way we could call annexation a hostile takeover. Fishers and Carmel are overspending and will need money in the future, so why not annex and get more citizens with property and then we can use their money. It’s great to annex new neighborhoods they don’t need any maintenance and we can use all that money for our current problems. The Mayor of Carmel needs money to build an arts center for $120 million, Fishers needs money to expand its government and city hall. Maybe Fishers shouldn’t grant tax abetments to business and just collect tax dollars. Maybe Fishers should look inward and say where can we save instead of how do we grow and get more tax money, to hell with the taxpayer, we can con them we need more money. In some states to raise the property tax you have to get voters to agree. If that happened in Indiana, every Town and City would have to start to operate like a business. To sell what it does to get citizens to approved an increase. Do you realize what you pay in taxes is only part of your taxes. Add additional services that are paid for in some counties, trash collection, snow removal and the list goes on. Add all of these to your tax base and see how much you are really paying. Of course the Fishers will counter that everyone has to pay for trash collection and yes but in areas where a contract is made citywide the fees are much lower. Not in Fishers. Geist residents, you are used to “Say No to Fishers” but did you know “Say No to …” is springing up all over the state. More and more cities that are miss-managed are looking to annexation to cure their funding problems and are jumping on this bandwagon. From Carmel trying to gobble up SW Clay and Home Place or Jefferson trying to eat up its surrounding communities. What about Westfield going after SW Washington Township and Carey Commons. Or Valparaiso where they were going to annex an area of 1,122 acres but skipped one property because it was not on a sewer system and it would cost to must to include it. Muncie, Frankfort, Pendleton, Whitestown, South Bend, … This becomes very clear if you read the history behind the Fort Wayne annexations, they were broke and tried to annex land to make money. In a way we could call annexation a hostile takeover. Fishers and Carmel are overspending and will need money in the future, so why not annex and get more citizens with property and then we can use their money. It’s great to annex new neighborhoods they don’t need any maintenance and we can use all that money for our current problems. The Mayor of Carmel needs money to build an arts center for $120 million, Fishers needs money to expand its government and city hall. Maybe Fishers shouldn’t grant tax abetments to business and just collect tax dollars. Maybe Fishers should look inward and say where can we save instead of how do we grow and get more tax money, to hell with the taxpayer, we can con them we need more money. In some states to raise the property tax you have to get voters to agree. If that happened in Indiana, every Town and City would have to start to operate like a business. To sell what it does to get citizens to approved an increase. Do you realize what you pay in taxes is only part of your taxes. Add additional services that are paid for in some counties, trash collection, snow removal and the list goes on. Add all of these to your tax base and see how much you are really paying. Of course the Fishers will counter that everyone has to pay for trash collection and yes but in areas where a contract is made citywide the fees are much lower. Not in Fishers.
What has become very interesting is that Towns and Cities don’t want to change the annexation laws; it’s their way to save their rear ends when they overspend and get into trouble. But other government agencies don’t always look at it that way. The county government has a lot to lose when a city annex’s unincorporated land. The county provides government services for the entire county so when an area is annexed the county loses those tax dollars and then it has to raise taxes to make up for the loss to the remaining citizens of the unincorporated area. So when Scott Faultless says, the Geist people don’t pay for services, we in Geist should respond, Scott you don’t pay for service we in county provide. Scott you don’t pay for the Courts, the jail, and etc. county roads and bridges you drive on, etc. Scott while you at it tell your people to stop telling everyone we don’t pay for the schools, in fact you don’t pay for the schools either with Fishers Taxes. But we all do with HSE Taxes. Everyone in the school district pays those taxes no matter if you live in Fishers or Geist. By the way Scott can we help it if the County government is run better than the Town and our taxes are lower. Maybe the Town should go out of business and become the county again. Then all the people in Fishers could get a reduction on their taxes. I think this is a great idea.
OK what can you do, write, visit, call you state representatives. I don’t care where in the state you live. If you are in an unincorporated area write your state senator and house representative. Need to know who they are go to: http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/ and just type in your zip code and indicate you want the Indiana House and Indiana Senate and their names will pop up.
If you live in City that is trying to annex land, start asking why, ask your elected officials why can’t they live within their budget, why have they overspent, and what’s wrong with the city that they are willing to take over land and homes without the consent of the people.
Somehow I remember from High School government class that we are a nation where voters determine what they want from their government. I remember from history that we became a nation in 1776 to stop a government to determine what is right for us without our representation. What is different here why should a government not elected by the residents of an area determine who should govern them. Its not right and its time we the citizens of Indiana take back our government. Its time the people living in Towns and Cities make their leaders accountable for their actions. Would that be a novel approach. What has become very interesting is that Towns and Cities don’t want to change the annexation laws; it’s their way to save their rear ends when they overspend and get into trouble. But other government agencies don’t always look at it that way. The county government has a lot to lose when a city annex’s unincorporated land. The county provides government services for the entire county so when an area is annexed the county loses those tax dollars and then it has to raise taxes to make up for the loss to the remaining citizens of the unincorporated area. So when Scott Faultless says, the Geist people don’t pay for services, we in Geist should respond, Scott you don’t pay for service we in county provide. Scott you don’t pay for the Courts, the jail, and etc. county roads and bridges you drive on, etc. Scott while you at it tell your people to stop telling everyone we don’t pay for the schools, in fact you don’t pay for the schools either with Fishers Taxes. But we all do with HSE Taxes. Everyone in the school district pays those taxes no matter if you live in Fishers or Geist. By the way Scott can we help it if the County government is run better than the Town and our taxes are lower. Maybe the Town should go out of business and become the county again. Then all the people in Fishers could get a reduction on their taxes. I think this is a great idea. OK what can you do, write, visit, call you state representatives. I don’t care where in the state you live. If you are in an unincorporated area write your state senator and house representative. Need to know who they are go to: http://www.in.gov/apps/sos/legislator/search/ and just type in your zip code and indicate you want the Indiana House and Indiana Senate and their names will pop up. If you live in City that is trying to annex land, start asking why, ask your elected officials why can’t they live within their budget, why have they overspent, and what’s wrong with the city that they are willing to take over land and homes without the consent of the people. Somehow I remember from High School government class that we are a nation where voters determine what they want from their government. I remember from history that we became a nation in 1776 to stop a government to determine what is right for us without our representation. What is different here why should a government not elected by the residents of an area determine who should govern them. Its not right and its time we the citizens of Indiana take back our government. Its time the people living in Towns and Cities make their leaders accountable for their actions. Would that be a novel approach.
As we reported previously, the city of Carmel has appealed the two annexation cases they lost in Hamilton County Superior Court: Southwest Clay and Home Place. The Southwest Clay case was appealed directly to the State Supreme Court; the Home Place case was appealed to the State Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Southwest Clay case. Best guess from our attorneys is that the case will not be heard until sometime early 2007. Meanwhile, the Town of Fishers has said that it is not going to take further action regarding the forced annexation of the Geist area until the Supreme Court rules on the case. Obviously, the longer this takes the better for us—no annexation, no 22% tax increase.
The Court of Appeals was to hear oral arguments on the Home Place case last September 27th; but, that session was cancelled pending the Supreme Court ruling on Southwest Clay.
The Town of Fishers, along with several other towns and cities that have annexations underway—most of which have now been put on hold pending the State Supreme Court ruling—have filed friend-of-the-court briefs essentially supporting Carmel’s position. The outcome of the case may change the way annexations are approached and may (or may not) derail many of these annexation attempts.
Of course, the ruling will also give us and others a roadmap to follow in challenging these forced annexations. Stay tuned for more on this once the ruling occurs.
GUO Met with Brian Bosma
Brian Bosma, who is the state representative for this area and the Speaker of the House, requested a meeting with representatives from GUO to discuss annexation.
Four members of GUO—Pete Peterson, Rachel Quade, Patty Batesole, and Mike Fisher—met with Mr. Bosma on October 27th for a little over an hour. The group gave Mr. Bosma an update on our annexation status (Geist vs. TOF) and then discussed with him the larger issue of forced annexation in the state of Indiana.
Current state law provides for Municipal Determination; that is, any city or town can proceed with the annexation of a contiguous, unincorporated area pretty much because they want to. It is then up to the property owners of the targeted area to remonstrate against the annexation attempt, which costs them large amounts of time and money (as we all well know). If the remonstrators win, the city or town is not liable for any of the costs incurred by the remonstrators and can simply try again in four years. Indiana is only one of 5 states in the country that allows this type of forced annexation.
This is why it takes only four people on the Fishers town council to affect the lives and livelihood of over 20,000 people in the Geist area; keeping in mind that those so affected did not vote for nor have any representation on the town council Years ago this was often called “imperialism” or “taxation-without-representation.”
Neighborhood Coordinators and Block Captains are key players in helping distribute information regarding the attempted forced annexation of the Geist area, and will be vital when the time comes to gather signatures on the petition for remonstrance. For those of you who have volunteered for this important job, thank you!
GUO has been in contact with a number of other areas in the state that are currently in the process of being forcibly annexed by a city or town (e.g., Jeffersonville, Muncie, Pendleton, Georgetown, Carmel, Fort Wayne, South Bend, and others). Clearly, this is not just a local (Fishers or Carmel) issue, but a state-wide issue, which is why the request for a meeting from Mr. Bosma was fortuitous.
The current annexation law is archaic at best and does not take into account services provided by townships and county governments (paid for by the supported property owners). It also has a negative impact on farmers who happen to be in a territory desired by a city or town and are suddenly faced with significantly higher taxes; forcing many to sell (doesn’t bode well for feeding the people of Indiana or making bio fuels)—of course, if they do sell, the buyers typically develop the land (housing developments, strip malls) which, in turn, increases the value and, therefore, increases the tax income to the city or town.
Moreover, even if the remonstrators win, under current law the city or town can simply try again in four years—forcing the affected property owners to again raise money and collect petitions and spend significant amounts of time fending off the annexation. This is why it is in our collective best interest to get the law changed.
GUO and many others that we have spoken with agree that the law needs to be changed to one of Popular Determination in which annexations can only occur if agreed to by a majority of the affected property owners.
Mr. Bosma concurred that the current law is not fair to the affected property owners and would support a change in the law to at least make it a fair fight. However, it could take several years for that to occur and he offered some valuable advice on how to move forward with this issue.
This was a very worthwhile meeting and we appreciate Mr. Bosma’s time, interest, and help. GUO will continue to focus our efforts on fighting the good fight against forced annexation by Fishers. Meanwhile, several property owners in the Geist area are in the process of forming a Political Action Committee (PAC) and will take up the cause of changing the annexation laws. The PAC will begin by building synergy with the other anti-annexation groups in the state, as well as other interested organizations like the Farm Bureau and the Indiana Association of Counties. Please feel free to contact any GUO board member to be directed to those involved with the PAC if you would like to participate.
Neighborhood Meetings
Over the last couple of months GUO board members have met with several neighborhoods at their HOA meetings or neighborhood events to answer questions and provide status updates.
If your neighborhood has an upcoming event at which you would like a GUO representative to attend (holiday parties are particularly good events as we very much like the holiday goodies), just let us know: go to www.SayNoToFishers.com and click on the Contact GUO link.
Sewer Deals Aplenty
The pending State Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, the Town of Fishers has not been totally idle. Three affected neighborhoods—Carefree Estates, Country Lane Estates, and Forrest Knoll—are currently on septic systems. The TOF has offered to hook them up to city sewers. The majority of the cost will still be paid by the homeowners, but TOF will spread the payments out over a number of years to lessen the out-of-pocket impact.
But, part of the agreement to be signed by each homeowner includes a clause in which the homeowner agrees not to remonstrate against annexation by the Town.
While everyone certainly understands why a homeowner might prefer a city sewer connection vs. staying on a septic system, it is unfortunate that they have to sign away their legal right to remonstrate against being forced to pay higher property taxes (in addition to the sewer connection fees and monthly sewer charges).
The Fishers Town Council has approved the Pre-Annexation (sewer connection) Agreements for Country Lane Estates and Forest Knoll. The homeowners of those neighborhoods are now considering the proposals for approval. Even if all of the homeowners sign the Fishers’ agreement, we can still easily mount a successful remonstrance as the number of homeowners (signing the agreement) is not large and will not materially affect the number of petitions needed.
GUO will continue to track and report on the situation. Regardless of the outcome however, we wish only the best to our friends and neighbors in Carefree, Country Lane Estates, and Forrest Knoll, and understand that their situation may be a bit different.
Thanks Mike Fisher!
A big thanks to Mike Fisher for putting this Friday report together!
“Petitions on bond issues shouldn’t be limited to property owners, judge finds” Maybe based on this ruling the issue of annexation will also be open to all that live in an area and not just home owners. For details on this article follow this link