This past week’s big annexation news was the cancellation of Thursday’s hearing on a cross motion for summary judgment in a constitutional challenge that was filed by Bloomington two years ago.
But that hearing will be rescheduled. The hearing was canceled, only because the special judge in the case, Kelsey Hanlon out of Owen County, recused herself, due to a potential conflict involving her husband’s recent transfer of employment to Monroe County’s legal department.
At the start of the year, the nonprofit organization County Residents Against Annexation (CRAA) had expressed some hope that Bloomington would withdraw its lawsuit.
The constitutional question concerns a 2019 law, enacted by the state legislature, which voided many of the annexation waivers that Bloomington was relying on for a successful annexation effort. The waivers were supposed to ensure that landowners with such waivers attached to their property would not have their signatures counted for any remonstration against annexation.
CRAA president Margaret Clements is quoted in a Jan. 2 news release saying, “Just as the City of Bloomington unilaterally and involuntarily attempted to annex property in the county, only the City of Bloomington can unilaterally end the dispute.”
But it is now clear that new Bloomington mayor Kerry Thomson’s administration will be looking to proceed with the litigation of all of the pending annexation cases.
Responding to an emailed question from The B Square, Bloomington’s new corporation counsel Margie Rice wrote about the subject of Thursday’s hearing: “I can confirm that the City is not planning on withdrawing this particular lawsuit and intends to allow the annexation litigation to proceed as planned.”
Rice continued, “From my legal perspective, this litigation has been pending for quite some time and we are close enough to getting a judicial resolution that we should allow the process to play out.”
Responding to a B Square question, Rice indicated that her formal appearance as an attorney representing the city in the case will be filed in the coming days.
In her statement that referred to “this particular lawsuit,” Rice was distinguishing Thursday’s hearing on the constitutional question from a different lawsuit that was successfully initiated by remonstrators by collecting enough signatures from landowners in two of the annexation areas.
Bloomington initially filed one lawsuit for each of the seven annexation areas, but they were consolidated into a single case. Bloomington eventually waived the constitutional claim for two of the areas, in order to get the judicial review of just those two areas moving forward. The trial for those two areas is set to start on April 29, 2024.
In those two areas, remonstrators had collected enough signatures to force judicial review, but not to stop the annexation outright. The remonstrators in the other five areas managed to collect enough signatures to stop Bloomington’s effort without any kind of further judicial review.
About the case that the remonstrators initiated, Rice noted the approaching date for the trial, writing: “It makes the most sense to continue forward, with the hope that the City is able to annex and begin serving new City residents.”
Rice also provided the Thomson administration’s position on pending annexation:
A great deal of time and resources have been expended preparing for the upcoming trial, and the City is prepared to allow the Judge to determine if the City may lawfully expand its boundaries. We are eager to serve the residents of the expanded territory if the City is successful in its efforts.
If those opposing annexation are willing to negotiate regarding the timeframe and terms of the expansion, the City would, of course, be willing to negotiate a settlement resulting in the expansion of the city and the provision of services desired by property owners.
The timeline for annexation was already a part of the debate about Bloomington’s annexation effort. In the annexation ordinances approved by the city council, the effective date for the adding of territory is set as Jan. 1, 2024. That date was the basis of one argument against enactment of the ordinances as written: The new residents in annexed territory would have missed out on city council and mayoral elections that were held in 2023.
Negotiation of any kind of settlement agreement on the timeline would likely include 2027, the year of the next municipal elections. It’s unlikely that opponents of annexation would agree to 2028 as a year to make annexation effective, because it would mean a full four years of living in a place where they had no vote in the elections that determined city leadership for those four years.
But Clements, as president of CRAA, is not sure what it would mean to negotiate a “settlement.”
For the litigation over Area 1A and 1B, for which the April 29 judicial review is scheduled to start, there are 25 named plaintiffs, including CRAA, which is acting as a plaintiff on behalf of remonstrators generally.
Reached by phone, Clements asked, “What would it take for negotiations involving the agreement of thousands of people?” She continued, “Would I have to go out there and secure the signature of thousands of people saying they agree to that settlement?”
Clements followed up with a written statement to The B Square that focused on healing the rift in the community that has stemmed from the years-long annexation fight.
“The sooner this ends, whether it is now or whether it’s in the future, the sooner the community will begin to heal,” Clements wrote.
She continued, “After healing takes place, we can begin to grow together as a community again, and we can begin to build a shared vision of a place where we can live and thrive.”
Selected filings
- 2022-03-29 Complaint filed by city of Bloomington.pdf
- 2022-05-18 Answer filed by intervener to Bloomington lawsuit.pdf
- 2023-10-10 Bloomingtons Response to motion for summary judgement.pdf
- 2023-10-30 Intervenor’s reply on cross motion for summary judgement.pdf
- 2024-01-03 Motion by Bloomington for Leave to File Sur Rep.pdf