Senate Hearing on Annexation Could Change Course Statewide

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.