Town of Whitestown, Indiana v. Rural Perry Township Landowners
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 539
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2013 Whitestown adopted an ordinance annexing 28 parcels (≈622 acres) in unincorporated Perry Township, including a site purchased for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
- The Annexation Ordinance delayed effective annexation three years and provided a ten-year abatement of municipal property taxes (13-year delay before municipal tax layer fully applies).
- Remonstrators (landowners) challenged the ordinance; trial court adopted their proposed findings and blocked the annexation, finding Whitestown failed statutory tests in I.C. § 36-4-3-13(b)/(c) and that remonstrators proved elements of § 36-4-3-13(e).
- Whitestown appealed, arguing the trial court misapplied the statute (requiring both (b) and (c) rather than either) and erred in concluding Whitestown did not need/could not use the territory in the reasonably near future and that annexation would have a significant financial impact.
- Trial evidence showed Whitestown’s rapid growth, plans to extend water lines to the area, the WWTP construction independent of annexation, existing county police/fire/road services in the area, and historical differences between Whitestown and township property tax layers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Remonstrators) | Defendant's Argument (Whitestown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipality must satisfy §36-4-3-13(b) OR (c) (choice-of-test) | Trial court treated (b) and (c) as conjunctive; annexation invalid | Whitestown: statute requires satisfying either (b) or (c) (not both) | Court: Trial court erred; municipality need prove either (b) or (c) |
| Whether Whitestown satisfied §36-4-3-13(c)(2) (territory is "needed and can be used" in the reasonably near future) | Remonstrators: only the WWTP existed as a concrete project; county roads provide access; no near-term development shown | Whitestown: growth projections, plans to run water main, adjacent housing developments, and utility/road operational needs make area needed for reasonably near future development | Court: Trial court applied (c) too narrowly and failed to credit substantial evidence; reversed trial court on (c) |
| Whether annexation "will have a significant financial impact" under §36-4-3-13(e)(2)(B) | Remonstrators: municipal tax layer increases (52%–74% at trial) show significant adverse impact despite ordinance’s tax abatement timing | Whitestown: ordinance delays/abatement postpone municipal tax layer for 13 years; no guaranteed adverse impact after abatement; property-value gains and expert projections offset impact | Held: Trial court erred — remonstrators failed to prove a certain/significant adverse financial impact given the tax-delay/abatement and lack of proof municipal taxes would necessarily be adverse after that period |
| Allocation of burden on §36-4-3-13(e)(2)(C) (best interests) | Remonstrators: annexation not in owners’ best interests | Whitestown: if remonstrators prove other (e) elements, municipality must show annexation is in owners’ best interests; town presented evidence supporting benefits (services, growth) | Court: Because remonstrators failed on (B), town need not rebut (C) here; trial court erred in concluding remonstrators satisfied (e) elements |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Carmel v. Certain Sw. Clay Twp. Annexation Territory Landowners, 868 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2007) (annexation statutes favor validity of ordinances and limit judicial review)
- In re Annexation of Certain Territory to the City of Muncie, 914 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (remonstrators must present specific evidence of tax increases/financial effect to satisfy §36-4-3-13(e))
- Chidester v. City of Hobart, 631 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. 1994) (test is whether city "needs and can use" territory for non-tax purposes)
- Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. 2002) (courts should defer to legislative judgment and avoid auditing municipal fiscal plans)
- Blackhawk Annexation (In re Annexation Ordinance No. X-07-91), 645 N.E.2d 650 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (annexation validity turns on municipal need/use beyond tax revenue)