Bloomington Annexation

From The Bloomington Chronicle
Revision as of 19:41, 15 February 2025 by Chronically Dave (talk | contribs)
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.
  • 2024-11-13 Constitutional case. 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 case. 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]
  • 2024-10-04 Constitutional case. 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 case. 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 Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson issue 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]
  • 2024-08-07 Trial on the merits. 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]
  • 2024-06-18 Constitutional case. 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 2024-02-29 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]
  • 2024-02-08 Constitutional case. Copy of Hanlon's order [copy of judge's order]
  • 2024-02-08 Constitutional case. 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. Her husband's employment is ?? [copy of judge's email]
  • 2024-01-03 Constitutional case. 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]
  • 2023-10-30 Constitutional case. 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]
  • 2023-10-10 Constitutional case. 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]
  • 2022-05-18 Constitutional case. 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 case. The city of Bloomington files a complaint against Monroe County auditor Catherine Smith 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]
  • 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)
  • Introduction of thing
  • another thing
  • yet another thing
Retrieved from "https://thebloomingtonchronicle.org/index.php?title=Bloomington_Annexation&oldid=233"