By STAN MADDUX

Indiana Correspondent

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — Legislation to slam the door on forced annexation and restrict the regulatory authority of municipalities outside their boundaries is making its way through the Indiana Senate.

Senate Bills 94 and 535, both submitted by Sen. Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville), have advanced to the House. Both measures have the support of the Indiana Farm Bureau (INFB).

Boots said his motivation is not so much about slowing or stopping urban sprawl – it’s about giving landowners where municipalities want to extend their boundaries the ability to resist decisions from officials they have no choice in electing. His motivation to further restrict annexation stems from a small community several years ago losing a court battle to stop the annexation of 2,500 acres of farmland.

“I think the people should have a voice,” he explained.

S.B. 94 requires cities and towns to obtain the signatures of 51 percent of landowners not exempt from property taxes, or property owners with more than 75 percent of the assessed value of land, in areas targeted for annexation. The legislation also voids all waivers from people who agreed not to contest annexation when they purchased their properties.

The ability to annex has been tightened by state lawmakers in recent years, but it can still be done. Boots said objectors have to go to court, but that involves legal fees without a guarantee of a favorable outcome. He said his measure eliminates any chance of annexation where a majority of residents are opposed, and would force communities to explain why being in the city limits is to their advantage.

Opponents such as the Indiana Assoc. of Cities and Towns are against ending involuntary annexation, feeling it’s a tool for growth by municipalities that plays a key role in growth statewide. Boots said he’s not opposed to such growth – but not if it goes against the wishes residents preferring to remain in unincorporated areas.

“That’s fine, if they can convince the people the actual services they’re going to provide are worthwhile to the people for the taxes they’re going to pay,” he explained.

S.B. 535 repeals the authority of a municipality from regulating what it considers to be health and safety issues up to four miles outside its boundaries. The measure also eliminates the ability of cities and towns to regulate watercourses like ditches and streams within 10 miles of their corporate limits.

Boots said people should not be told what to do on their land by officials they can’t choose to elect at the polls. “This is just what I call representative democracy.”

The bill also prohibits municipalities from engaging in other activities like operating recreational parks in unincorporated areas and acquiring property through eminent domain for development of parks outside their boundaries.

Under the legislation, a municipality would also be required to gain permission from a county executive before engaging in advisory planning and zoning jurisdiction within a two-mile area outside its corporate boundaries.

Katrina Hall, director of public policy for INFB, said the regulations of a city are not necessarily a good fit for farming and shouldn’t be handed down by elected officials from another jurisdiction.

She said the regulatory authority of cities outside their boundaries was created about a century ago, probably to make sure an emergency could be addressed properly. She questions the need for such a law now, especially with the amount of cooperation among various branches of local government.

Despite a law prohibiting municipal taxes on annexed land that continues to operate as a farm, Hall said there’s always a risk for rules to change at some point. “We think it’s a farmland preservation move, as well as just allowing people to actually do with their properties what they originally intended,” she added.

She also feels municipalities operating parks outside their corporate boundaries is a step toward future annexation.

Previous attempts by Boots to stop involuntary annexation also passed the Senate but failed in the House. He is not sure how his measure will fare in the House this year, but thinks the bill restricting what he sees as regulatory overreach by local municipalities could garner more support.