Bloomington Annexation

From The Bloomington Chronicle

Latest

  • 2025-03-19 Trial on the Merits. Initial briefs have now been filed by both sides in Bloomington's appeal of the lower court's ruling on the question of the merit of Bloomington's annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B. [copy of Bloomington's Jan. 17, 2025 brief] [copy of remonstrators' March 19, 2025 brief]
  • 2025-03-13 Constitutional question. The city of Bloomington issues a news release announcing its intent to petition the Indiana Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals ruling that was issued on Feb. 18, 2025. [copy of news release]

Background

This is a map of the city of Bloomington and seven surrounding areas that were considered for annexation, starting in 2017.
Map of proposed annexation areas included in a meeting information packet for a Bloomington city council work session scheduled for Feb. 3, 2017.

Annexation is the process by which a city expands its boundaries by incorporating adjacent areas. In Bloomington, Indiana, annexation has been a recurring issue, marked by legal challenges, remonstrance activity, and political debate. Bloomington's efforts to annex new territories have faced significant opposition from residents, and legal hurdles set up by the state legislature.

Through 2004, annexations for the city of Bloomington were relatively routine. The city council regularly approved annexation ordinances for various areas, including farms, commercial zones, and residential developments.

The next attempted annexation, which was an ambitious plan to add over 9,000 acres and about 14,000 people to the city, came in 2017, led by then-mayor John Hamilton. This initiative originally involved nine annexation areas: South-West A, South-West B, South-West C, South-East, North Island, Central Island, South Island, Northeast Area, and North Area.

But in April 2017, the Indiana governor signed a budget bill that included a provision halting Bloomington's annexation process, causing Bloomington to file a lawsuit challenging the law.

The legal battles surrounding Bloomington's annexation efforts have centered on the constitutionality of state laws affecting the process.

The 2017 law was successfully challenged by the city of Bloomington, when the state's Supreme Court ruled in December 2020 that it was impermissible special legislation, applying uniquely to Bloomington, when general legislation could have been enacted.  

A more recent key point of contention has been a 2019 law that voided certain waivers of a property owner's right to remonstrate against annexation. Remonstrance, the act of property owners formally opposing annexation, played a crucial role in Bloomington’s annexation attempts.

The remonstration waivers were signed by many property owners in exchange for a city sewer connection. The bargain struck by property owners, inherited by subsequent owners of the land, was this: They got the ability to purchase sewer service from city of Bloomington utilities, in exchange for not remonstrating against a future annexation of their property into the city.

Based on its constitutional claim, Bloomington argued that the waivers were still valid despite the 2019 law. And if the waivers were still valid,  then many remonstrance signatures were not valid due to the waivers.

In February 2022, certified results from the Monroe County auditor indicated enough signatures to stop the annexation of five of seven territories and force a court review for two others—Area 1A and Area 1B.

Bloomington responded to the auditor's certified results by challenging the 2019 law, arguing that it impaired existing contracts by retroactively invalidating annexation remonstrance waiver agreements—in violation of the contacts clause of the state and federal constitutions. The state of Indiana defended the 2019 law, asserting that it reasonably protected landowners and that Bloomington, as a political subdivision, could not assert contract clause claims against the state.

In February 2025, the Court of Appeals ruled against Bloomington on the constitutional question, affirming the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment. The court held that Bloomington could not enforce rights under the contract clauses of the federal or state constitutions and that the 2019 Act did not substantially impair Bloomington's contracts.

On the question of the merits of Bloomington's annexation, in August 2024, a special judge ruled against Bloomington, preventing the annexation of Areas 1A and 1B, because the city did not meet the statutory requirements for annexation. Bloomington's mayor then announced the city's decision to appeal this ruling.

There are several key issues related to Bloomington's 2017 annexation attempt.

A central legal issue has been the validity of waivers signed by property owners. That's related to a second key issue: Whether Bloomington, as a city, has standing to raise constitutional challenges against state laws affecting annexation.

A significant factor in the litigation on the merits of annexation are concerns about the best interests of landowners in the proposed annexation areas.  The financial impact of annexation on both the city and the county governments has been a key consideration.

Appeals Court Cause Numbers

On the merits

On the constitutional question

Trial Court Cause Numbers

On the merits: Action filed by remonstrators

On the constitutional question: Action filed by city of Bloomington

Timeline: Bloomington Annexation

  • 2025-03-13 Constitutional question. The city of Bloomington issues a news release announcing its intent to petition the Indiana Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals ruling that was issued on Feb. 18, 2025. [copy of news release]
  • 2025-02-18 Constitutional question. The Court of Appeals rules against Bloomington on the constitutional question, affirming the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment. That means unless Bloomington makes a request to the Indiana Supreme Court to review the case, the court accepts the case, and then issues a ruling in Bloomington's favor, Bloomington's attempted annexation of Area 1C, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5 will not take place. In the opinion, the court holds that Bloomington, as a municipality, lacks enforceable rights under the contract clauses of the federal or state constitutions, to challenge the 2019 Act as an impairment of its contracts with landowners. The court also finds that even if Bloomington could challenge the 2019 Act, the 2019 Act does not substantially impair Bloomington's contracts under contract clauses of the federal or state constitutions—because it doesn't disturb the principal elements of the contracts and municipal annexation is traditionally regulated by the state. [copy of ruling]
  • 2024-12-17 Constitutional question. 3-judge panel of the Court of Appeals hears arguments in Bloomington annexation appeal, ruling expected in a few months [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-11-13 Constitutional question. Oral arguments in front of the Court of Appeals for the constitutional case are scheduled for Dec. 17, 2024. [copy of scheduling order]
  • 2024-10-28 Constitutional question. Bloomington files a reply brief as the appellant in the Indiana Court of Appeals to argue that the 2019 Law unconstitutionally impaired existing contracts by retroactively invalidating annexation remonstrance waiver agreements. The City contends that the 2019 Law substantially and retroactively impaired its contracts with landowners, hindering its annexation efforts, and that it has standing to raise this constitutional challenge. [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2024-10-13 Trial on the merits. Bloomington releases annexation trial exhibits, in response to a records request. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-10-04 Constitutional question. The state of Indiana files a brief in the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing that Bloomington's contract clause challenges to the 2019 Act should be rejected because Bloomington, as a political subdivision, cannot assert such claims against the state and the 2019 Act reasonably protects landowners. The state contends that Bloomington lacks vested rights under the constitution's contract clause and that the 2019 Act is a valid exercise of police power, setting time limits on annexation waivers to prevent them from clouding titles and protect landowners' expectations. [copy of state's brief]
  • 2024-09-18 Trial on the merits. County Residents Against Annexation, Inc., files a petition for award of attorney fees Bloomington, requesting $274,911.83 to cover legal costs. [copy of petition for fee award]
  • 2024-09-04 Constitutional question. Bloomington files brief in the Indiana Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's decision that upheld the constitutionality of the 2019 Law, which retroactively invalidated annexation remonstrance waiver agreements. Bloomington argues that the law impairs existing contracts and that the City has the standing to raise this constitutional challenge. [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2024-08-15 Trial on the merits: Bloomington to appeal. Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson issues a statement announcing Bloomington's decision to appeal judge Nathan Nikirk's annexation ruling because city officials believe strongly in the merits of their case and the importance of annexation for the city's long-term health and success. Thomson sends email to Monroe County officials on the same topic, saying, "While I know that there was insufficient outreach before the annexation process was announced, I hope to lead the way in accepting feedback, creating an open line of communication, and creating a welcoming atmosphere in our city no matter the outcome of this appeal process." [copy of Thomson's statement] [copy of Thomson's email] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-08-09 Bloomington mayor and city council set executive session as allowed under Indiana's Open Door Law, to discuss annexation litigation. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-08-07 Trial on the merits: Court rules against Bloomington. Special judge Nathan Nikirk issues a judgment in favor of the remonstrators (County Residents Against Annexation, Inc., et al.) and against Bloomington, ruling that the proposed annexation of Areas 1A and 1B may not proceed because Bloomington did not meet the statutory requirements for annexation. The court found that Bloomington failed to demonstrate that Areas 1A and 1B satisfied the conditions for annexation under Indiana law and that the annexation was not in the best interest of the landowners. CRAA issues a news release. [copy of judge's order] [copy of CRAA news release] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-07-29 Bloomington's utilities service board (USB) upholds the denial of a requested sewer connection for a piece of property west of town, at the intersection of Airport Road and SR 45. The denial is based on the city's policy in connection with annexation. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-07-08 Constitutional question. Bloomington asks judge to clarify ruling to include 'magic language' so that the city can proceed with its appeal. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-06-18 Constitutional question. Court rules against Bloomington. Special judge Nathan Nikirk denies Bloomington's motion for partial summary judgment and grants the State of Indiana's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The court determines that Bloomington's challenges to the 2019 Act, which concerned the federal and state constitutional contract clauses and principles of fundamental fairness, failed. [copy of judge's order] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-05-04 Trial on the merits. The weeklong Bloomington annexation trial on Area 1A and Area 1B concludes. Each side gets 45 days to submit final brief [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-05-02 Trial on the merits. The trial on the merits of Bloomington's annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B goes most of the day Wednesday and Thursday. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-04-30 Trial on the merits. The trial on the merits of Bloomington's annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B goes slow for Monday and Tuesday, and the judge warns he could require a Saturday session. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-04-09 Trial on the merits. Special judge Nathan Nikirk denies Bloomington's motion to remove County Residents Against Annexation, Inc. (CRAA) as a party, without providing specific reasons in the order. [copy of judge's order] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-03-28 Trial on the merits. County Residents Against Annexation, Inc. (CRAA) files a supplement to their objection to Bloomington's motion to remove them as a party, asserting that CRAA's purpose is to represent county needs and desires throughout involuntary annexation attempts and that there would be no prejudice to the respondents if the motion to remove CRAA is denied. [copy of CRAA's brief]
  • 2024-03-16 Constitutional question. Oral arguments are heard on the constitutional question in Bloomington's annexation lawsuit. This is the litigation that now affects only Area 1C, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5. [BSB coverage] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-02-29 Trial on the merits. Bloomington files a brief in support of their motion to remove County Residents Against Annexation, Inc. (CRAA) as a party, arguing that CRAA lacks standing because it does not own land in the annexation area and is attempting to represent landowners who did not properly file remonstrance petitions. The City contends that CRAA's participation would undermine the statutory requirements for remonstrance and that CRAA's claims of associational standing are unsupported by evidence or relevant legal precedent [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2024-02-26 Trial on the merits. County Residents Against Annexation, Inc. (CRAA) files an objection to the Bloomington's motion to remove CRAA as a party, arguing that the motion was untimely and that CRAA has a direct interest in the outcome of the suit as a representative of residents who oppose involuntary annexation. [copy of CRAA's brief]
  • 2024-02-13 Trial on the merits. Bloomington files a motion to remove County Residents Against Annexation, Inc. (CRAA) as a party in the annexation case, arguing that CRAA is not a landowner in the annexation areas and therefore is not a proper party. The City contends that CRAA has no members and cannot represent landowners who did not file remonstrance petitions, asserting that allowing CRAA to represent these landowners would undermine the statutory requirements for filing a remonstrance. [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2024-02-11 New Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson announces the city is pursuing the litigation on annexation but might negotiate timeline for adding territory. Remonstrators had hoped the mayor would abandon the annexation effort which her predecessor, John Hamilton, had started in 2017. [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-02-08 Constitutional question. Hearing cancelled. Special judge Kelsey Hanlon of Owen Circuit Court sends email message to the parties, resetting the scheduled hearing on her own motion due to a recent change in her husband’s employment that may have created an unwaivable conflict of interest. Hanlon issues order cancelling hearing, and recusing herself. Hanlon’s husband is an attorney, Justin Roddye, who recently moved from Monroe County’s public defender’s office to Monroe County’s legal department. [copy of judge's email] [copy of judge's order] [BSB coverage]
  • 2024-01-03 Constitutional question. Bloomington files a motion, seeking permission to respond to new arguments raised by the state of Indiana in its previous brief. The new arguments claim preclusion (res judicata) and collateral estoppel. [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2024-01-02 County Residents Against Annexation (CRAA) issue a press release to remind the public about upcoming court proceedings related to Bloomington's attempted involuntary annexations and encourage attendance. CRAA emphasizes that the Bloomington has the power to unilaterally end the annexation dispute and highlights the upcoming hearings and trial dates in early 2024. [copy of CRAA's news release]

2023

  • 2023-10-30 Constitutional question. The state of Indiana files a brief in support of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Bloomington's claims should be dismissed based on claim preclusion (res judicata), the idea that the state constitution's contract clause does not confer rights to political subdivisions against the state, and the idea that the 2019 Act is a reasonable protection for landowners against delay in annexation action by a city. The state contends that the Bloomington's dismissal of two identical actions, for other annexation areas, with prejudice, bars relitigation. [copy of state's brief]
  • 2023-10-19 Trial on the merits. Judge Nathan Nikirk decides that Bloomington annexation trial on the merits of the annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B can proceed, lifting a stay he had imposed so that the constitutional question could be resolved. The ruling to greenlight the trial on the merits in Area 1A and Area 1B was based on the city's decision to waive any future defense based on the constitutional question. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-10-18 Trial on the merits. Judge Nathan Nikirk hears oral arguments on moving ahead with the trial on the merits of Area 1A and Area 1B. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-10-10 Constitutional question. Bloomington files a brief in support of its partial motion for summary judgment and in opposition to the intervenor's (State of Indiana) cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the 2019 Act impairs the obligation of contracts and thus violates the state constitution's contracts clause. Bloomington says that because the 2019 Act retroactively voided remonstrance waivers, it rewarded certain private actors at the expense of others, and does not constitute a necessary exercise of police power. [copy of Bloomington's brief]
  • 2023-09-21 Trial on the merits. Bloomington files brief asking that the court end the stay on the annexation trial for Area 1A and Area 1B, given that Bloomington has waived any defense for annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B that was based on the constitutional question. That is, Bloomington waived the possibility that it lost on the merits, that the city could fall back on the constitutional claim, under which remonstrators would have failed to reach the required number of petition signatures. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-09-15 Constitutional question. Trial on the merits. Bloomington moves to dismiss the lawsuits in Area 1A and Area 1B over the constitutional question. It is a legal tactic to resolve the constitutional question for Area 1A and Area 1B, which would allow judge Nathan Nikirk to lift the stay on the trial on the merits, which he had imposed until the constitutional question is resolved. The court accepts the dismissal of the lawsuits over the constitutional question for Area 1A and Area 1B. That means the constitutional question remains open only for Area 1C, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, and Area 5. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-09-05 Trial on the merits. Judge Nathan Nikirk issues ruling saying that the trial on the merits for Bloomington's annexation of Area 1A and Area 1B will be put off until the lawsuit on the constitutional question is resolved. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-09-01 Trial on the merits. Oral arguments are heard on the question of allowing remonstrators more time to collect signatures based on the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Nathan Nikirk does not rule from the bench, but says says his decision will come on Sept. 5, 2023. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-04-04 Annexation is an issue in the Democratic Party's mayoral primary race. [BSB coverage]
  • 2023-02-25 Trial on the merits. Judge Nathan Nikirk rules that remonstrators will get no additional time to collect signatures against Bloomington annexation. Remonstrators had wanted more time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. [BSB coverage]

2022

  • 2022-06-09 Trial on the merits. Remonstrators in two annexation territories (Area 1A and Area 1B), which gathered enough signatures to force a court review of Bloomington's annexation of those territories, ask for more time to collect signatures so that they might collect enough signatures to stop annexation outright. The resmontrators cite the COVID-19 pandemic as the basis of their request for more time. [BSB coverage] Key to the legal analysis is the definition of "proceeding." [BSB coverage]
  • 2022-05-18 Constitutional question. As an intervener (because a constitutional question is raised), the state of Indiana, represented by Attorney General Todd Rokita, files an answer to Bloomington's complaint, generally denying the city's allegations and arguing that the challenged laws are constitutional. The state's response denies Bloomington's claim about the unconstitutionality of the 2019 law and its application. [copy of state's brief]
  • 2022-03-29 Constitutional question. The city of Bloomington files a complaint against Monroe County auditor Catherine Smith, one complaint for each of seven annexation territories, due to a dispute over the constitutionality and application of the 2019 law regarding annexation, as well as errors in the auditor's final determination of remonstrance numbers. The city is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the 2019 law unconstitutionally impairs contracts and that Smith incorrectly included defective remonstrance petitions in her counts. [copy of Bloomington's complaint]
  • 2022-03-16 Trial on the merits. Remonstrators in two annexation territories (Area 1A and Area 1B) file papers in Monroe County circuit court to force review of Bloomington's annexation. [BSB coverage] [copy of complaint]
  • 2022-02-23 Remonstrance activity. The certified results from Monroe County auditor indicate that there are enough signatures of property owners to stop Bloomington's annexation of five of seven territories (Area 1-C, Area, 2, Area 3, Area, 4, Area 5). The auditor's certified results indicate that there are enough signatures of property owners to force a court review for two of the territories (Area 1A and Area 1B) [BSB coverage]
  • 2022-02-09 Remonstrance activity. The city of Bloomington's count of signatures puts the percentage of property owners signing remonstrance petitions at enough to stop the annexation outright for three of the territories (Area 3, Area 4, Area 5) and enough to force review by a court for others, depending on which waivers of the right to remonstrate are considered valid. [BSB coverage]
  • 2022-01-15 Remonstrance activity. The raw tally of remonstrance signatures by the county auditor looks like it's enough to stop annexation outright in six of seven areas. For Area 1B, the percentage of property owners signing a remonstrance petition is enough to force a review by the court. Bloomington annexation remonstrance final raw tally: Automatic stop in play for six of seven areas, court review now possible for one [BSB coverage]
  • 2022-01-06 Remonstrance activity. Annexation fight: Strong signature counts in all areas as deadline passes, wait starts for final tally [BSB coverage]

2021

  • 2021-12-05 Remonstrance activity. With a Jan. 6 deadline looming, early indications are that the remonstrators have a solid chance of collecting enough signatures to stop annexation or force a trial. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-11-28 Analysis of impact. Analysis shows that Bloomington will become less diverse if all additions of territory go through [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-10-08 Remonstrance activity. Remonstrators kick off signature collection effort with a Jan. 6, 2022 deadline to submit signatures. Remonstrantors say: “We are to be reckoned with.” [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-09-23 Bloomington city council OKs annexation on 6-3 votes for all remaining territories, except the north area. The seven territories approved by the city council for annexation are: (Area 1A) South-West A; (Area 1B) South-West B; (Area 1C) South-West C; (Area 2) South-East; (Area 3) North Island; (Area 4) Central Island; (Area 5) South Island. [BSB coverage]
Legislative item                  Territory                            Outcome                                                                                                                         
Ordinance 17-09 (Area 1A) South-West A Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-09 as amended]
Ordinance 17-10   (Area 1B) South-West B Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-10 as amended]
Ordinance 17-11 (Area 1C) South-West C Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-11 as amended]
Ordinance 17-12 (Area 2) South-East Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-12 as amended]
Ordinance 17-13 (Area 3) North Island Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-13 as amended]
Ordinance 17-14 (Area 4) Central Island Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan. No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith a [copy of ordinance 17-14 as amended]
Ordinance 17-15   (Area 5) South Island Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rosenbarger, Sgambelluri, Sims, Volan No: Rollo, Sandberg, Smith [copy of Ordinance 17-15 as amended]
Ordinance 17-17 North Area No: Yes: Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Rosenbarger, Sandberg, Sgambelluri, Sims, Smith, Volan [copy of Ordinance 17-17??]
  • 2021-09-16 Area 1A gets approval from annexation by Bloomington city council, puts off remaining votes until Sept. 22, 2021. The tally is 6–3, with dissent from Rollo, Sandberg, and Smith. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-09-01 Area 2 gets minor reduction in area in action taken by Bloomington's city council. [BSB coverage] [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-19 A dot plot of 2020 Census data with overlay of annexation map. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-11 Opposition to Bloomington's annexation announced by Monroe County commissioners. Commissioners reimburse county for cost of anti-annexation flyer. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-10 Continuation of public hearing on annexation announced for Aug. 11, 2021. The announcement says there will be electronic access provided at city hall. Bloomington releases its data for counts of properties with attached waivers for remonstrance against annexation. Based on Bloomington’s dataset of properties for annexation, in four out of the eight areas, more than 35 percent of properties have waivers attached. If all those waivers were valid, assuming one owner per property, that would make it impossible to achieve the 65-percent threshold. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-08 Concern about Bloomington’s police staffing levels factors into community debate on annexation. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-04 Bloomington's city council announces in a news bulletin released a few minutes after 2 p.m. a possible change to its scheduled 3 p.m. in-person public hearing on annexation at city hall. The council winds up taking the action indicated in the news bulletin, which is to delay the start until 4 p.m. with online access only, that is no in-person access [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-08-03 A crowdsourced-aided analysis shows that most Bloomington annexation remonstrance waivers are not valid under 2019 law. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-07-29 Monroe County government's financial consultant says that the negative impact of annexation on Monroe County local income tax revenue (LIT) will $866,000 more than what Bloomington's financial consultant says. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-07-10 Van Buren Township trustee Rita Barrow weighs in against Bloomington's annexation plan, in part based on the fact that residents of annexed areas would not be able to participate in the 2023 city elections, and would have to wait at least until the 2027 election cycle. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-07-07 Ahead of city council votes on annexation, the crucial issue of remonstrance waivers comes into sharper focus. The key question is: Which waivers are valid? Indiana’s state legislature enacted a law in 2019 that voids any remonstration waiver signed before July 1, 2003.  The city of Bloomington says it is proceeding as if the older waivers are valid. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-06-30 A video, featuring a blind chicken, is produced opposing Bloomington’s planned 'island' annexation. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-06-02 Monroe County hires its own financial consultant to analyze the financial impact of Bloomington annexation on county government. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-05-19 Annexation ordinances and resolutions adopting a financial plan, one for each annexation area, are adopted by Bloomington’s city council, with a public hearing set for Aug. 4, 2021 and votes by the city council in September 2021. [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-05-07 Bloomington is briefed by Bloomington mayor John Hamilton's administration on proposed restart of annexation, which will assume that remonstrance waivers voided by state legislature in a 2019 law are in fact valid [BSB coverage]
  • 2021-04-28 Bloomington mayor John Hamilton announces that Bloomington will restart the 2017 annexation process. [BSB coverage]

2020

  • 2020-12-15 The Indiana Supreme Court rules 3-2 in favor of Bloomington, determining that the 2017 law was unconstitutional because it was special legislation applying uniquely to Bloomington when general legislation could have been enacted. Mayor John Hamilton expressed frustration at the three-and-a-half-year wait for this conclusion. Hamilton stated that nothing is imminent as far as restarting the annexation process. [BSB coverage]
  • 2020-01-09 Oral arguments heard by Indiana's Supreme Court in annexation case. [BSB coverage] [BSB coverage]

2019

  • 2019-11-15 Oral Arguments in front of Supreme Court scheduled for Jan. 9, 2020. The legal question is whether a 2017 law was "special legislation" applying uniquely to Bloomington when general legislation could have been enacted. [BSB coverage]
  • 2019-09-30 Briefing phase in Supreme Court case is now fully briefed [BSB coverage] [BSB coverage]
  • 2019-07-27 The state's first brief now filed with Indiana Supreme Court in appeal of lower court decision on special Bloomington annexation law. [BSB coverage] [BSB coverage]
  • 2019-05-05 Indiana governor Eric Holcomb signs into law HB 1427, which voids certain waivers of a property owner's right to remonstrate against annexation. Generally, the new law makes waivers void if they are older than 15 years. This is the law that will later become the focus of constitutional litigation by Bloomington. Bloomington will eventually argue that many of the remonstrance signatures were not valid, because of remonstrance waivers that were signed by property owners, even though they were older than 15 years. [copy of law]
  • 2019-04-18 Lower court judge rules that legislation that halted Bloomington's annexations in 2017 is unconstitutional. [BSB coverage]
  • 2019-03-27 Oral arguments are given in Bloomington's annexation case, concerning the constitutionality of a 2017 law enacted by the state legislature. [BSB coverage]

2017

  • 2017-10-18 Bloomington city council enacts and ordinance that approves an agreement in lieu of annexation between Bloomington and Cook Medical. Under agreement, Cook is to make payments to the city in exchange for the city not annexing Cook's real property. These payments, set at a minimum of $100,000 per year, starting in 2018 and ending in 2032 (that is,15 years), are to be deposited in Bloomington's general fund. [copy of Ordinance 17-39]
  • 2017-05-24 Bloomington files suit over the 2017 law that ended Bloomington's annexation effort [cause number: 53C06-1705-PL-001138] [BSB coverage]
  • 2017-04-27 Indiana governor Eric Holcomb signs the biennial budget bill for 2018–2019 into, which the state legislature amended to include a provision that stopped the annexation process that Bloomington was pursuing at the time. [copy of biennial budget bill]
  • 2017-03-29 Bloomington's city council considers nine resolutions and nine ordinances, one for each annexation area. [copy of meeting minutes]
  • 2017-03-29 Bloomington's city council considers nine resolutions and nine ordinances, one for each annexation area. [copy of meeting minutes]
Legislative item                  Territory                        Outcome                                                                                                                            
Resolution 17-16 South-West A Area Adopted with 6 Yes (Chopra, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Sandberg, Volan), 2 No (Sturbaum, Ruff), 1 Abstain (Granger).
Ordinance 17-09 South-West A Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-17 South-West B Area Adopted with 6 Yes (Chopra, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Sandberg, Volan), 2 No (Sturbaum, Ruff), 1 Abstain (Granger).
Ordinance 17-10   South-West B Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-18 South-West C Area Adopted with 6 Yes (Chopra, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Sandberg, Volan), 2 No (Sturbaum, Ruff), 1 Abstain (Granger).
Ordinance 17-11 South-West C Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-19 South-East Area Adopted with 5 Yes (Chopra, Mayer, Rollo, Sandberg, Volan), 2 No (Piedmont-Smith, Ruff), 2 Abstain (Granger, Sturbaum). Initial vote failed with 4 Yes. On reconsideration, Rollo changed his vote from Abstain to Yes.
Ordinance 17-12 South-East Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-20 North Island Area Adopted unanimously with 9 Yes (Chopra, Granger, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Ruff, Sandberg, Sturbaum, Volan).
Ordinance 17-13 North Island Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-21 Central Island Area Adopted unanimously with 9 Yes (Chopra, Granger, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Ruff, Sandberg, Sturbaum, Volan).
Ordinance 17-14 Central Island Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-22 South Island Area Adopted unanimously with 9 Yes (Chopra, Granger, Mayer, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Ruff, Sandberg, Sturbaum, Volan).
Ordinance 17-15   South Island Area Introduced and read.
Resolution 17-23 Northeast Area Failed with 2 Yes (Sandberg, Mayer), 7 No (Chopra, Granger, Piedmont-Smith, Rollo, Ruff, Sturbaum, Volan).
Ordinance 17-16 Northeast Area Vote to introduce: Failed with 0 Yes, 9 No.
Resolution 17-24 North Area Adopted with 6 Yes, 2 No (Granger, Piedmont-Smith), 1 Abstain (Sturbaum).
Ordinance 17-17 North Area Vote to introduce: Approved with 7 Yes (Chopra, Mayer, Rollo, Ruff, Sandberg, Volan), 2 No (Piedmont-Smith, Granger)
  • 2017-02-03 Bloomington's city council holds work session on the topic of the annexation of seven territories into the city of Bloomington. [copy of work session information packet] The planned annexation would add more than 9,000 acres to Bloomington’s land area and about 14,000 new residents to its population.

2015

  • 2015-05-07 SB 330 is signed into law, which affects how contiguity is defined for purposes of future annexations. The amendment stipulates that territory annexed after June 30, 2015, cannot be used to establish contiguity for future involuntary annexations. This could create "walls" that prevent a city from expanding into certain areas unless annexation is voluntary. [BSB coverage]

2004

2002

2001

2000

1998

1997

Retrieved from "https://thebloomingtonchronicle.org/index.php?title=Bloomington_Annexation&oldid=384"