Most residents say ‘no’ to proposed annexation by Sellersburg council

Clark County

Discussion

November 26, 2009

By BRADEN LAMMERS The News and Tribune Thu Nov 26, 2009, 08:03 PM EST

Thanks weren’t being passed around at Sellersburg Town Hall on Wednesday evening, as more than 100 people crammed into the town council’s meeting room — spilling down the hallway for a public hearing involving the proposed annexation of Covered Bridge subdivision and surrounding areas.

Residents were given the chance to voice their opinions and concerns over the proposed annexation, but it was abundantly clear how they felt, as nearly everyone in the room was holding a bright yellow sign with “annexation” printed on the front, but crossed out in bold black print.

“You are annexing people to be your constituents; you are going to represent them and all of them. It’s virtually unanimous ... opposed to it,” said Larry Gupton, who has been leading the effort to thwart annexation.

The purpose of the public meeting was only for the council to hear what the residents had to say.

“This public hearing is not for a debate. We are here strictly here to listen to your concerns and comments about the annexation, but we will not be answering questions tonight,” said Council President Brian Meyer.

MONEY GRAB?

The residents of the proposed annexation area still had plenty to talk about, and the reason for Sellersburg’s move to grow was very apparent to some.

“I’ve been on both sides of this table, when annexation has occurred, and I know what this is,” said Mike Gillenwater, a local attorney who attended as a resident opposing annexation. “You guys need more money, so you are annexing.”

The main concern is the increase in the tax rate Covered Bridge residents would feel if they were annexed. Estimates show the fiscal impact would increase Sellersburg’s assessed value from

$234 million to nearly $327 million when including the proposed annexation area.

The town’s levy would then increase an estimated $219,000.

“If you add in all of this assessed valuation with the levy you’re going to be allowed, [Sellersburg’s present] tax rate would drop to 51.63 cents [per $100 assessed value], but their [annexed residents] tax rate would increase by 51.63 cents [per $100 assessed value] based on those numbers,” said Andrew Wright, attorney representing the Covered Bridge homeowners association.

An uncertainty with the property tax increase is the possible implementation of a 1 percent tax cap on assessed property values from the state.

“It is true with the circuit-breaker legislation there are going to be property tax caps, but only a professor at Purdue has got a particular program that can come down here and tell you what that effect that is going to be,” Wright said. “My client doesn’t believe for an extra 50 cents on their tax rate they are going to get any services that they don’t already have.”

SERVICE QUESTIONS

Those services were on residents’ minds.

“I would remind you, though, that you have a duty, a legal duty, if you [annex], to provide similar services to us that you do in town,” Gillenwater said. “For the privilege of paying more taxes, you are going to give me worse service.”

According to some, the quality of services also may be a detriment to the residents already living inside the town limits of Sellersburg.

“You’re trying to do what you think is best for town government,” Gupton said. “I don’t think it’s the best thing for the citizens of Sellersburg.

“I think it’s going to drive up your costs and it’s going to end up degrading services for all them.”

Support for the current council also is something that is not likely to continue if the desired property pulls in new residents, some attendees said.

“I can promise you, if you guys annex us, who’s going to vote for you?” asked Kathy Ellenbrand, a resident of the proposed annexed area.

“Because it won’t be us.”

TIMING ISSUES

Another facet that caught the ire of those attending the meeting was simply its date and time — the evening before Thanksgiving.

“I’ve been in a lot of public meetings in my lifetime. You chose to have this meeting tonight,” Gillenwater said. “I am embarrassed for you that you would schedule this meeting on a Wednesday night before Thanksgiving.

“You don’t care about my family, you obviously don’t care about your family, you did this so it would be more comfortable for you.”

Perry McCall, the council’s attorney, discounted the idea that the timing was planned as a strategy to limit the people that would show up.

“Obviously it didn’t have much of an effect,” he said. “[The meeting time] wasn’t strategically planned for anyone.”

The meeting was held on the 60th day from posting the public notice and was unable to be held on Monday — when the council held its regular meeting — because it was the 58th day and did not meet legal requirements.

NO SURPRISES

However, all of the opinions voiced to the council were not surprising.

“It was expected,” Meyer said.

Council members added that the annexation, and its provisions, should not have been a shock to residents.

“We sent a mailer to all these people and answered every question they had tonight with that mailer,” said Councilman Terry Langford.

Even if the annexation effort continues, residents will have a chance to maintain their independence.

“The way they can voice their opinion is through a remonstrance,” McCall said. “If they believe the annexation is improper, they have the right to remonstrate under [state] statute.”

McCall added that the council has been in constant dialogue over the last year, asking residents of Covered Bridge what services it can provide to make the annexation better for them.

And after everything, the effort should have, if nothing else, been expected.

“The agreements have been in place for almost 20 years where these people agreed not to remonstrate against annexation, because they did get services from the town of Sellersburg at a time when they couldn’t have gotten services 20 years ago [elsewhere],” McCall said. “Now, it’s sour grapes.”

The next meeting involving annexation, where the council likely will vote on the resolution will be at 7 p.m. Dec. 28.