INDIANAPOLIS — As annexation issues continue to sweep Madison County, Indiana lawmakers, including Rep. Bob Cherry (R-Greenfield), who represents the southern part of the county, met Wednesday to discuss possible changes to state law regarding annexation.
Chief among the issues residents from all over the state brought before the Interim Study Committee on Government, was involuntary annexations. People from Fortville, Whitestown and other places came to the Statehouse to tell lawmakers how involuntary annexation victimized them.
Involuntary annexation is an issue that could come up in Ingalls as the town looks to annex the Summerlake community. Cherry represents Ingalls as well as Pendleton, another Madison County town that has gone through a recent annexation, although Pendleton's was voluntary.
It takes signatures from 51 percent of the affected homeowners to make an annexation voluntary; however, if a municipality pushes through an involuntary annexation, it takes signatures from 75 percent of affected homeowners to complete a remonstrance, the only remedy for combating an annexation.
Bev Ramsey, a resident of Boone County, has been attempting to fight an annexation into the town of Whitestown, which is northwest of Indianapolis. She said she and other residents received no warning they were being annexed into the town and were forced to remonstrate, which is costly for individuals. Ramsey also thought it was unfair a town council she couldn't vote for, because she wasn't a citizen of the town, could decide whether to bring her into Whitestown.
Cherry and others agreed that the remonstrance process seems to be more favorable for municipalities in terms of cost and burden of proof.
Steve Buschmann, an attorney who specializes in annexations, said a lot of case law hampers residents' ability to successfully overturn annexations.
"Lots of the law seems to be stacked against the citizens," Buschmann said.
It still isn't clear whether the annexation in Ingalls will be an involuntary one or whether the Summerlake residents will sign a petition to join the town. Currently, the Town Council has set a target date of March 1, 2015, for completing the annexation. If that date is reached, any new laws may not apply, but a legal battle could extend the official completion date of the annexation.
Cherry wondered if perhaps the General Assembly could look at clarifying the legislative intent of some recently passed laws that may have gone too far toward helping municipalities through case law.
Buschmann provided the council with several ideas for how to make the remonstrance issue more fair for all parties involved. Among his suggestions were having the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance look at every annexation fiscal plan, shortening the time frame municipalities have for amending the fiscal plan and making it easier for other entities to protest annexations if it severely affects their tax base.
"The right of self-determination should be protected," Buschmann said. "People should have a say in where they live."
The committee is tasked with coming up with a recommendation for the 2015 General Assembly on how to create legislation to deal with the annexation issue. Cherry said all the committee members should come up with their own recommendations prior to their last meeting at the end of October and vote for which ideas they like the best.
"Obviously we're going to disagree on some things and agree on others," Cherry told the committee. "But I think this is the best option for finding the best solution."