Months after introducing ordinances to annex portions of Perry and Eagle townships, Whitestown is moving forward with its plans.
In April, the Whitestown Town Council introduced four ordinances to annex areas in the two townships as a response to Zionsville making plans to reorganize with Perry Township. The council never took any action on those ordinances, but they unanimously approved Wednesday night the fiscal plan for each of the areas. The council must conduct a public hearing and two public readings before being able to approve the annexations.
Since the areas are not contiguous, four different ordinances and fiscal plans needed to be approved. The Whitestown Parkway annexation area is roughly the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Interstate 65 and Whitestown Parkway; the northwest annexation area is roughly the area one mile west of I-65 exit 133, west of Indianapolis Road and south of CR 400 S; the south annexation area is located along CR 600 E in Boone County, immediately north of the Boone/Hendricks county line; and the west annexation area is located along Ind. 267 and the Ronald Reagan Parkway Corridors, north of the Boone/ Hendricks county line.
Each of the fiscal plans varies slightly in wording, but the overall reason for the annexations, according to the plan, is that Whitestown is already investing in utility services in the area and it makes the most sense to serve the area in the future.
“Whitestown is arguably the only single-source provider of the services necessary to fulfill the stated intent for economic development in this area, aswell as the only viable provider of the utility services critical to economic development and enhanced land values,” the Whitestown Parkway annexation plan states.
“It is asserted, therefore, that it is in the best interests of landowners in the Whitestown Parkway Annexation Area to be annexed by Whitestown in order to be able to connect to Whitestown Utilities, which have already been constructed and are available for immediate connection. Inasmuch as many of these landowners represent business interests, the savings in economic cost as well as time are both considerations that represent the best interests of landowners.”
According to the Whitestown Parkway annexation plan, which includes portions of Eagle Township in Zionsville, Whitestown has already extended infrastructure around the area.
“Conversely, Zionsville would arguably have difficulty in providing utility services to the (area) at a cost which is competitive with Whitestown’s rates,” the plan states. “The cost of Zionsville’s duplication of already- existing utility infrastructure would have an unnecessary negative impact on economic development in the (area).”
The northwest annexation does include area that is within one mile of the Lebanon border, which requires consent from Lebanon to annex.
“For this reason, the (annexation) is being undertaken with a preference that the proposed annexation receive the consent of landowners in the annexation area,” the plan states. “Whitestown has successfully engaged such endeavors previously through direct talks with individual landowners.”
According to the northwest annexation fiscal plan, despite Lebanon “aggressively” annexing territory “south of the core city,” they have not extended utilities to the area.
Because of the lack of utilities, the plan states that it “would appear to be in the best interest of the landowners in the (area) to embrace circumstances which enhance the value of their property.”
“The Town believes that (Whitestown Utilities) can provide utility services to the (area) more cost effectively than the City of Lebanon,” the plan states. “In fact, there is evidence that Lebanon cannot provide water service to the area.”
All the plans state that it would be in the best interest of the landowners because Whitestown would be able to provide services in the area rather than Zionsville, which is not contiguous to Perry Township.
The south annexation fiscal plan mentions future projects such as the Ronald Reagan Parkway and development along I-65, as reasons for annexation being positive for landowners.
“These increased pressures will have an impact on the quality of life in the annexation area, and this proposed annexation is intended to afford the residents of the annexation area a voice in that process,” the plan states. “(The area) is projected to develop in the future, and Whitestown is prepared to structure this annexation in a manner that assures the extension of municipal services as development occurs in a planned and organized fashion.”
The west annexation fiscal plan urges landowners to carefully consider its alternatives, such as reorganizing with Zionsville, from different perspectives.
“Despite the alleged shortcomings of annexation, municipalities and landowners often find that political subjectivity often results in deficits of service, as well as fiscal problems,” the plan states. “In this case, the ‘merger’ concept should be honestly investigated to determine whether a ‘merger’ has any realistic means of providing municipal utilities and other expensive services to newly- merged areas without significant costs that make the extension of those services by Zionsville economically infeasible.”
In the west and northwest plans, Whitestown is considering an exemption from municipal property taxes.
“On first impression, it appears that some parcels are zoned agricultural (and thereby might be eligible for the tax exemption), while other, virtually identical properties are zoned residential (and would arguably be ineligible for the tax exemption),” the west plan states. “The Town is attempting to determine whether such apparent conflicts can be resolved under the statutory provisions.”
All the plans except for the Whitestown Parkway annexation mention giving a tax abatement to the areas. Landowners would receive a 75-percent abatement of the municipal share of property taxes during the first year after the effective date of annexation; 50-percent the second year; 25-percent the third year; and would pay the full amount in the fourth year and every year after.
The plans state the projected effective date to be between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 1, 2015.
If the annexation is approved, Whitestown would provide the following services to the areas: administration/town council; clerk-treasurer; police department; fire department; street department; Whitestown Utilities; redevelopment commission; parks department; and town court.
The parks department, Whitestown Utilities and street department would be the only departments that would provide capital services, such as road construction. The town would offer those services within three years of the effective date of annexation.
Perry residents would be able to vote for municipal officers and would be eligible to be candidates.
Despite the matter not being a public hearing, a Perry Township resident got up during the request to speak portion of the meeting opposing the annexation.
Robert Miller said he and his wife moved to Perry Township 10 years ago from Fishers.
“We wanted to get a way from the hustle and bustle of Fishers; we had found a little slice of heaven,” he said. “That seems like it’s about to change.”
Miller said the first time he got involved in politics was when he and his neighbors had to spend their own money to oppose the previous annexation, which they won and Whitestown has appealed.
“I’m surprised that you spent more than $200,000 on lawsuits, and now you are deciding to spend even more taxpayer money to appeal,” he said. “I’m glad we’re not paying taxes for Whitestown, but that may change again too.”
He said after they introduced the four annexations, the landowners in the area presented the town with signed signatures of 231 out of the 233 property owners in opposition to the annexation.
“Last week, more than 90-percent of the voters said yes to reorganize with Zionsville,” he said. “Why don’t you save some time and money and start to earn your reputation back in Boone County by just annexing the only two property owners that want this. Last time we won our remonstrance with just 26 property owners; now we have 231.”