Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 2 - Remonstrance of Wastewater One LLCBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA ROOM 404, Clark County Government Building 501 E. Court Avenue Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 (812) 285-6275 FAX (812) 285-6366 www.co.clark.in.us M. Edward Meyer, President Greg Fifer, County Attorney Mike Moore Hyun Lee, County Engineer Les Young Apri122, 2009 City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety 500 Quartermaster Court Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130 Re: Obj ection to, and remonstrance against, proposed taking of real estate on which wastewater collection and treatment facilities are located at the River Ridge Commerce Center (the "RRCC", formerly the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant). Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board: I write as counsel for the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District (the "District"), and the Board of Commissioners of Clark County, Indiana (the "Commissioners"). The District and the Commissioners are in receipt of the published notice of your intent to take certain real estate within the Utica Township portion of the RRCC on which the LAP wastewater treatment plant and at least a portion of the collection system appurtenant thereto are located pursuant to your Resolution No. 2-2009 and the provisions of IC 32-24-2, et seq. The District and the Commissioners hereby object to, and remonstrate against, such proposed taking on the following grounds: 1. The Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management entered an order establishing the District on December 8, 1999 (the "IDEM Order"), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A". 2. The District was formed for sanitary sewer purposes in recognition of the Army's determination to transfer a substantial portion of the RRCC property to the Clark County Reuse Authority (the "Reuse Authority"). Until such transfer the provision of sewer service to the general public on federally owned property was clearly not subj ect to State or local regulation. However, the Commissioners recognized that upon transfer ofproperty to anon-federal entity either (i) a regional sewer district, or (ii) the grant of a certificate of territorial authority to a private sewer utility that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, would need to be created or granted in order to validly continue providing sanitary sewer service to the general public. a ~ City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety April 22, 2009 Page 2 3. The City of Jeffersonville, Indiana (the "City"), purported to annex the Utica Township portion of the RRCC by Ordinance No. 2000-OR-46 (the "Annexation Ordinance"), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B". This Annexation Ordinance was recorded following the conclusion of legal challenges as Instrument 200300256 in the office of the Recorder of Clark County, Indiana. The Annexation Ordinance clearly became effective after the District had been established. 4. Upon belief, the City recognized the validity of the District and its exclusive jurisdiction to provide sanitary sewer service within RRCC within its fiscal plan adopted as a preliminary step to the Annexation Ordinance, particularly as evidenced by the failure of the City to take any action to provide sanitary sewer service within the RRCC within three (3) years after the effective date of the Annexation Ordinance pursuant to the requirements of Ind. Code 36-4-3-13(d)(5). 5. The District accordingly maintains exclusive jurisdiction for providing sanitary sewer service within the RRCC pursuant to the enclosed IDEM Order. See also, City ofNorth Vernon, Indiana v. Jennings Northwest Regional Utilities, 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". 6. Based on the foregoing, the City wholly lacks jurisdiction to provide sanitary sewer service within the District, and the proposed taking of real estate within the District for sanitary sewer service purposes is therefore not a valid public purpose. 7. The District does not presently in any manner consent to the provision of sanitary sewer service within the District by the City, and furthermore demands that all City efforts to acquire property for sanitary sewer purposes within the District cease at once. The above having been said, the Commissioners and the District are mindful that the City has current legitimate needs to expand its wastewater treatment and collection system in order to meet the demands of its more recent municipal annexations and applicable regulatory requirements. The Commissioners and the District would be glad to meet jointly with representatives of the City and the Reuse Authority in effort to determine a manner in which all public needs for sanitary sewer service might reasonably be satisfied in the most efficient and cost-effective manner practicable. However, to date the City has not even favored the District with any detailed plan demonstrating that sanitary sewer service to all existing RRCC tenants would be continuously maintained were the City to commence providing service in the manner contemplated by its condemnation resolution. Of particular concern is the effect that the City's proposed taking will have on the provision of service to existing customers in not only the Utica Township portion of RRCC, but the Charlestown Township portion as well. The continued assurance of the adequate provision of sanitary sewer service enabling the Reuse Authority to fulfill its mission to City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety April 22, 2009 Page 3 redevelop the entirety of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property remains of utmost importance to the District and the Commissioners. To date the District and the Reuse Authority have acquiesced in the provision of service within RRCC by the private contractor initially selected by the Army's agent. The City's actions in seeking to condemn property within the District have prompted recognition by the undersigned that a more detailed and formalized working arrangement between this private contractor and the District needs to be made and memorialized. Accordingly, in the event that the City has not initiated joint discussions with the Reuse Authority and the District within ten (10) days following the date of this objection and remonstrance, and/or the City in any manner persists with its efforts to appropriate property within the District notwithstanding this objection and remonstrance, the undersigned will initiate discussions among the District, the Reuse Authority, and the private contractor with the intent of executing a more definitive agreement for the provision of wastewater treatment service by the private contractor within RRCC. Again, the Commissioners and the District we will be glad to defer any such discussions in the event the City suspends its current efforts to take property within the District pending such joint settlement discussions with the District and the Reuse Authority. Your consideration of the above is greatly appreciated. For the CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT and the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA: sy: kls/C. Gregory Fifer Attachments/ cc: Clark County Commissioners Mr. James N. Williams for RRCC City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Board of Public Works and Safety April 22, 2009 Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that prior to 9:30 a.m., on April 22, 2009, the foregoing Objection to, and Remonstrance Against Proposed Taking of Real Estate within the District was delivered personally to the recording secretary at the public hearing conducted on such date by City of Jeffersonville Board of Public Works and Safety in the Mayor's Conference Room in Jeffersonville City Hall, 500 Quartermaster Court, Jeffersonville, Indiana. STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT SS: OF ENVIROTtMEN'I'AL MANAGEMENT COUNTY OF MARION 1 IN THE MATTER OF: ) THE FORMATION OF THE ) CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL ) WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOA~IIVIENDED ORDER OF THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT Notice is hereby given that the Hearing Officer has filed with the Commissioner of the Indiana bepartment of Environmental Management (Commissioner) the "FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER" relative to the petition requesting organization of the Clark County`Regional Water and Sewer District. Said Findings and Recommended Order are attached to this ORDER, and consist eleven (11) pages. And the Commissioner, having reviewed the attached "FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER" of the Hearing Officer, now determines that the organization of the proposed District complies with the conditions of IC 13-26, and that.the proposed District appears capable of accomplishing its purpose in an economically feasible manner. IT IS NOW ORDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER that the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District be organized as an independent municipal corporation pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached "FIlVDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER" which are adopted and approved, and deemed incorporated in this ORDER, as though set out in full. This is a Final Order subject to. Judicial Review consistent with applicable provisions of Indiana Code 4-21.5. Pursuant to Indiana Code 4-21.5-5-5, a Petition for Judicial Review of this Final Order is timely only if it is filed with a civil court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (30) days after the date this notice is served. All of which is ORDERED at Indianapolis, Indiana this ~ .day of December 1999. L~Z~ Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management ~ ~ ~XHI~IT' STATE OF INDIANA ) BEFORE THE IlVDIANA DEPARTMENT SS: OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNTY OF MARION ) 1N THE MATTER OF: ) THE FORMATION OF THE ) CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL ) WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND RE OI\~IlVlENDED ORDER OF THE HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On or about April 12, 1998, the Clark County Commissioners and the Clark County Council petitioned the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) for an Order establishing a Regional Water and Sewer District to be known as the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District in Clark County. 2. On or about October 20, 1998, IDEM received a petition to amend the original petition to revise the boundaries of the proposed District for water purposes only. Pursuant to the October 20 amendment, the territory for water will consist exclusively of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant propet'ty (INAAP). 3. On or about April 22, 1999, IDEM received another amended petition. The second amendment to the petition for the establishmerrt of the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District is to revise the proposed boundaries of the District for. sanitary sewer purposes. 4. The petition and amended petitions comply with the provisions of IC 13-26-2-3. 5. The first public hearing was held on January 26, 1999, at the Charlestown High School, in Charlestown, Indiana. 6. Notice of hearing was given during the weeks of January 10-16, 1999, and of January 17-23, 1999, by publication in the following newspapers of general circulation in Clark County for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to hearing: 1) Evening News and 2) Clark County Journal. Notice was also given by mail to each eligible entity involved. 7. The second public hearing was held on June 29, 1999, at the Charlestown High School, in Charlestown, Indiana. 8. Notice of hearing was given during the weeks of June 14-I 8, 1999, and June 2l -25, 1999, by publication in the following newspapers of general circulation in Clark County for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to hearing: l) Evening News and 2) Clark County Journal. Notice was also given by mail to each eligible entity involved. 9. The proposed name of the District is the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District. 10. The principal offices of the proposed District would be located in Room 306 of the City- County Building, 501 East Court Avenue, Jeffersonville, Indiana 47130. The trustees of the District may relocate the principal office upon written notice to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 11. The purpose of the District includes both of the following: 1. To provide a water supply for industrial and public use inside the proposed Water District and further provide wholesale water to existing water retailers. The boundaries for the Water District are solely within the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property ("INAAp"). 2. To provide for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage inside the proposed District. 12. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal are currently provided at the IlVAAP property by two (2) existing wastewater treatment plants. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal in the remainder of the area of the proposed District (outside of the )NAAP property) are currently being provided exclusively by on-site septic systems. 13. Upon formation, the District will collect, treat, and dispose of the sanitary sewage of the residents of the District. 14.. The District is needed to facilitate the system~to collect and dispose of the sanitary sewage of the residents. 1 S. The current method of collection and disposal of the sanitary sewage of some of the residents of the proposed District is affecting and can affect detrimentally the water quality and public health within the proposed District. 16. The Legal boundaries of the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District for water service shall be the boundaries of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property as 2 r described in Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. . . 17. The City of Jeffersonville has demonstrated its intention to serve the sewage needs in an area that is included within the boundaries of the proposed District. This area of concern is identified as Phase 3. See Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. This area is currently in the design stage with construction anticipated to begin within the next eighteen months. 18. There is no immediate need for a regional sewer District to serve that part of Phase 3 south of Bethany Road and west of the INAAP property. It is anticipated that the District, after formation, will, as provided in IC 13-26, expand its boundaries, to serve other areas of the county in need of services. 19. The boundaries of the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District for sewer service shall be; Thence, all of Exhibit 1 (legal description of INAAP property), and at the point where the INAAP property intercepts with Bethany Road (crossing Highway 62); .Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located from the southern right-of--way line of Bethany Road to 1,500 feet beyond its intersection of Highway 403, and northeasterly to 1,500 feet beyond the right-of-way of Bethany Road, Thence, southeasterly along ~. parallel line to the boundary line of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property (INAAP) adjacent to State Road 62. 20. However, notwithstanding Paragraph 19 above, in the event that the City of 7effersonville does not have a Notice To Proceed regarding the.construction of Phase 3 on or before May 1, 2001, the boundaries of the District for sewer service shall be the following; ALTERNATE BOUNDARIES FOR SEWERS: The area to serve sewers in the proposed Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District begins at a point along the western right-of-way line that is 1,500 feet south of the southern right-of-way line of Salem-Noble Road at its intersection with State Road 62 (the "Point of Beginning"}; Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located 1,500 feet from the southern right-of- way line of Salem Noble Road to the dividing line between Grant 51 and Grant 69; Thence, northeasterly along the dividing line between Grants 51/52 and Grants 69/70 to a 3 Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located 1,500 feet from the southern right-of- way line of Stacy Road to a point located 2,500 feet beyond its intersection with Highway 403; Thence, northeasterly along a parallel line located 2,500 feet from the northern right-of- way line of Highway 403 to a point located 1,500 feet beyond its intersection with Bethany Road; Thence, southeasterly along a parallel line located 1,500 feet from the eastern right-of--way line of Bethany Road, across Highway 62, to the boundary of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (now Facility One); Thence, all of Exhibit 1 (legal Description of the 1NAAP property). WATER DISTRICT: Thence, the water District shall be the boundaries of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property as described in Exhibit 1. 21. There currently is no outstanding indebtedness in the proposed District far the purpose of collection and treatment of wastewater, or to provide drinking water. 22. The proposed District shall be governed by a Board of Trustees of five (5) members to be appointed by majority vote of the Clark County Commissioners. The Board shall be made up as follows: A. One (1) of the trustees shall be appointed for an initial term of one (1) year, which team shall be calculated commencing on January 1, of the year following their appointment. B. One (1) of the trustees shall be appointed for an initial term of two (2) years, which term shall be calculated commencing on January 1, of the year followin ~' their appointment. g C. One (1) ofthe trustees shalt be appointed for an initial term ofthree (3) years, which term shall be calculated commencing on January 1, of the year following their appointment. D. Two (2) of the trustees -shall be appointed for an initial term of four (4) years, which term shalt be calculated commencing on January 1, of the year following their appointment. E. All terms of appointment subsequent to the expiration of the initial terms described 4 above shall be for a period of four (4) years. F. Trustees shall be residents and registered voters of Clark County. No Clark County Commissioner or person employed by Aqua Source or any of its corporate affiliates shall be eligible to serve as a trustee. G. The trustees shall serve at the pleasure of the Clark County Commissioners, and such may be removed with or without cause at any time upon a majority vote of the Clark County Commissioners. H_ Vacant positions shall be appointed by the Clark County Commissioners and shall serve until the end of the term of the person who held such position. I. Notwithstanding Paragraphs A through H above, if at any time the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) owns, leases, or controls property within the District, the governor may appoint any number of trustees, but less than one-half (%z) of the total. 23. The initial project being planned for the District includes the implementation of a sewer project. The estimated cost of implementing this initial sewer project is $150,000.00. For the sewage system, the connection fee for an existing dwelling is projected to be between $1,500.00 and $2,500.00. 24. The users of the proposed water District currently obtain their water for drinking and other purposes from wells located on the INAAP property. 25. The District, upon formation, will furnish drinking water within the 1NAAP property. 26. The average monthly costs per user fee for sewers are projected to be between $35.00 and $40.00. 27. The average monthly user fee for water services is projected to be as follows; 5 AVERAGE MONTHLY b~ FOR WATER ServiceJDrinking Water Connections Size $/Month 5/8# 3/4# 1# 1 %i 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" $10.77 $10.77 $22.05 $35.82 $44.73 $58.50 $98.40 $139.20 $280.80 $354.55 Fire Water Connections (Sprinkler System) Size $/Month 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" ]0" $7.50 $8.81 $11.17 $25.36 $44.60 $70.13 28. The costs of operating and maintaining the facilities to be constructed by the District in this initial water project is approximately $15,000.00 annually. The District shall also carry on equitable allocation of the costs of operating and maintaining the existing 1NAAP water supply and distribution system, including any expansions thereto. 29. Private funding for the project is being planned, until the proposed District is in receipt of revenues from the operations of the proposed District or the proceeds from the sale of bonds. 30. The anticipated sources of funds to provide for the operating and maintenance costs of the District will be from private sources and/or proceeds from the sale of bonds. 31. The costs of implementing this initial water project are approximately $250,000.00. 32. ~ The District will establish a sewer connection policy that will provide generally as follows: A. All new commercial and industrial structures in the District shall be required to connect to the system. B. All existing commercial and industrial structures in the District shall be required to connect. to the system when an available District connection line is located within 300 feet of the subject property. 6 C. All new residential developments shall be required to connect to the system. D. Existing residential units with properly functioning septic systems shall not be required to connect to the system (regardless of whether an available District collection line is located within 300 feet of the subject property), except in the event that they are Located in a concentrated area of residential units with septic system failures, and have the recommendation from the Clark County Health Department. E. The District shall have the authority to grant waivers from the above described connection requirements upon showing of hardship or good cause, provided that such waiver is agreed to by the Clark County Health Department. RECOMMENDED ORDER The Hearing Officer recommends the following: 1. That a Regional Water and Sewer District, to be known as the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District, be organized as an independent political entity of the State of Indiana as a body corporate and politic. 2. That the purpose to be accomplished by said District is to provide for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage inside the entire District, and to provide water within that part of the District referred to as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP) property. See Exhibit 1. 3• BOUNDARIES FOR WATER; That, pursuant to the October 20, amendment, the boundaries of the Water District shall be. the boundaries of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant•property as described; The legal boundaries of the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District for water service shall be the boundaries of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property as described in Exhibit 1. 7 4: BOUNDARIES FOR SEWER; The boundaries of the Clark County Regional Water and Sewer District for sewer service shall be; Thence, all of Exhibit 1(legal description of INAPP property), and at the point where the INAAP property intercepts with Bethany Road (crossing Highway 62); Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located from the southern right-of--way line of Bethany Road to 1,500 feet beyond its intersection of Highway 403, and northeasterly to 1,500 feet beyond theright-of-way of Bethany Road, Thence, southeasterly along a pazallel line to the boundary line of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property(IlVAAP) adjacent to State Road 62. That the City of Jeffersonville has demonstrated its intention to serve in an azea that was included in thg proposed District. This area of concern is identified as Phase 3, See Exhibit 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. This area is currently in the design stage. Construction is anticipated to commence in that area in the year 2000. However, notwithstanding paragraph four above, in the event that the City of Jeffersonville does not. have a Notice To Proceed regarding the construction of Phase 3 on or before May 1, 2001 the boundaries of the Sewer District shall be the following; ALTERNATE BOUNDARIES FOR SEWERS; The area to serve sewers in the proposed Clark County Regional Water and' Sewer District begins at a point along the western right-of-way line that is 1,500 feet south of the southern right-of- way line of Salem-Noble Road at its intersection with State Road 62 (the "Point of Beginning"); Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located 1,500 feet from the southern right-of- way line of Salem: Noble~Road to the dividing line between Grant 51 and Grant 69; Thence, northeasterly along the dividing line between Grants S 1f52 and Grants 69/70 to a point located 1,500 feet from its intersection with Stacy Road; Thence, northwesterly along a parallel line located 1,300 feet from the southern right-of- way line of Stacy Road to a point located 2,500 feet beyond its intersection with Highway 403; Thence, northeasterly along a parallel line located 2,500 feet from the northern right-of- way line of Highway 403 to a point located 1,500 feet beyond its intersection with Bethany Road; 8 Thence, southeasterly along a parallel line located 1,500 feet from the eastern right-of--way line of Bethany Road, across Highway 62, to the boundary of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (now Facility One); Thence, all of Exhibit 1 (legal description of the INAAP property). WATER DISTRICT; Thence, the Water District shall be the boundaries of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant property as described in Exhibit 1. 6. That the proposed District shall be governed by a Board of Trustees of five (5) members to be appointed by majority vote of the Clark County Commissioners. The Board shall be made up as follows: A. One (1) of the trustees shall be appointed for an initial term of one {1) year, which term shall be calculated commencing on January, 1 of the year following their appointment. B. One (1) of the trustees shall be' appointed for an initial term of two (2) years, which term shall be calculated commencing on January, 1 of the year following their appointment. C. One {1) of the trustees shall be appointed for an initial term of three (3) years, which term shall be calculated commencing on January, 1 of the year following their appointment. D. Two (2) of the trustees shall be appointed for an initial term of four (4) years, which term shall be calculated commencing on January 1, of the year following their appointment. E. All terms of appointment subsequent to the expiration of the initial terms described above shall be for a period of four (4) years. F. Trustees shall be residents and registered voters of Clark County. No Clark County Commissioner or person employed by Aqua Source or any of its corporate affiliates shall be eligible to serve as a trustee. G. Trustees shall serve at the pleasure of the Clark County Commissioners, and such maybe removed with or without cause at any time upon a majority vote of the Clark County Commissioners. H. ~ Vacant positions shall be appointed by the Clark County Commissioners 9 and shall serve until the end of the term ofthe person who held such position. I. Notwithstanding Paragraphs A through H above, if at any time the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (1DNR) owns, leases, or controls property within the District, the governor may appoint any number of trustees, but less than one-half ('h) of the total. 7. That the Board of Trustees provide sufficient bonds for all officers, trustees or employees who have any power to disburse funds of the District. 8. That the District will establish a sewer connection policy that will provide generally as follows: A. All new commercial and industrial structures in the District shall be required to connect to the system. B. All existing commercial and industrial structures in the District shall be required to connect to the system when an available District connection line is located within 300 feet of the subject property. C. All new residential developments shall be required to connect to the system. D. Existing residential units with properly functioning septic systems shall not be required to connect to the system (regardless of whether an available District collection line is located within 300 feet of the subject property), except in the event that they are located in a concentrated area of residential units with septic system failures. E. The District shall have the authority to grant waivers from the above described connection requirements upon showing of hardship or good cause, provided that such waiver is agreed to by the Clark County Health Department. .. 9. That within nine (9) months from the date of this order, the District shall file with the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a detailed plan complies with IC 13-26-6 for the construction and operation of the District's facilities. Dated: ~~~ ~ ~, ~~`~~ Hearing Officer: ~iLt;f, p~ . / !-~~'w~'l_. 1U c ,' AREA OF JURISDICTION INDIANA AR~Y AMMTINITION PLANT MILITARY RESERVATION • ti Q.,ARK COUNTY, INDIANA ' .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION situate in the state of Indiana,~County of Clark, Townships of Charlestown and IItica; being parts of Illinois Land Grants • Nos. 1?, 25, 27, 37, 38, 51, 52, 53, 71, 72, 73, 77, 95, 96, 97, and 98; being all of Illinois Land Grants Nos. 26, 39, 40, 41, S4, 55, 56, 74, 75, and 7.6; and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of Ineliana State Route No. 62, said point being the most northern corner of~the former Indiana Ordnance work.,s- Plant No. 1, and. being in the west boundary of a 4775.42 acre tract now or formerly accountable by WAA' (war Assets Adami.riistration; asstuaad on 21 November 1946) , said beginning po3,nt being about N 77-11-44 E 2,221.99 feet from a corner common to Grants Nos. 97, 98, 118, and 119, said point being located at coordinate values N 350,184.39, E 1,603,920.20 .(Kentucky Plane Coordinate System; North Zone); thence with the east boundary of said Plant No. 1 and said west boundary of the WAA tract S 0.8-44-0o w 80.00 feet, more or less, to a point ].n the center 'of the old Charlestown-Bethlehem Road; thence leaving said east boundary of Plant No. 1, and with the center of said Old Charlestown-Bethlehem Road, and said west boundary of wAA tract {sevexing forager Ind~:ana Arsenal-Plant No. 2), as follows: S 75-47-00 E 13.5.00 feet to ~ point; thence S 86-22-00 E 557.97 feet to a point; thence r N 49--04-00 E 32,8.60 feet to a point in thg center of Fourteen Miie Creek;~thence continuing with sau.d Roams and said west boundary of the•WAA tract N 48-29-OQ E.437.30 feet to a point; thence N 61--18-00 E 528•.00 feet to a point; thence N 59-39--00 E 85.99. feet to a point, being the northwest corner of a 1546.62 acre tract, now or foraneTly~owned by Shuler P. Baird, Sr., George E. Hughes, James A. Munich, Lonnie W. Howerton and Carl L. Howerton (By a Quitclaim Deed from the United States of America, dated 10 March 1964, recorded 12 March 1964, in Deed Book 260, Page 75, in the Clark County, Indiana, Recorders office); thence leaving the center of the Old Charlestown-Bethlehem Road and the west boundary of said 2546.62 acre tract • ~" wi '` AREA OF JURISDICTION INDIANA A12MY AMMiJNITION PLANT MILITARY RESERVATION CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA LEGAL DESCRSPTSON tCONT'D S 40--05-00 $ 8860.17 feet, more or less, to a point on the low water line of the Ohio River, (passing the dividing line • between Grants Nos. 77 and 98 at 3982.65 feet, mare or less); thence leaving the"t~te~t boundary of said 1546.62 acre tract, and downstream with said 7~ow water line Southwesterly 23,760 feet, more or less, to a point being the northeast corner of Lot No. 1 of former Longview Beach Subdivision; thence leaving the low water line of the Ohio River and with the north line of said subdivision N 87-O1-30 W 165.33 feet, mare or less, tv a~po3.nt being the northwest corner of Lot No. 1 of former Longview Beach- Subdivision; thence S 00-26-DO W 650.00 feet, more or 3ess, to a•point being .the northwest corner of Lot No. 14 of former Longview $each Subdivision; thence with the west line of said subdivision S 00-35-00 W 3100 feet, more or less, to a point; thence leaving the west line of the former Longview Beach Subdivision N 89-30-00 W 117 feet, more or less, to a point; thence running with the boundary fence of the Hoosier ordnance Plant the following courses: S ,21-45-00 E 333 feet, more or less S 08-00-00 W 133 feet, more or less S 33-30--00 W 1000 feet, more or less S 6700-00 W i33 feet, more or less S 04-00-00 W 117 feet, moxe or less N 88-00-Ob W 200 feet, more or less S 55-00-00 W 167 feet, more or less S 28-00-00 W 333 feet, mere or less S 47-30-00 W 500 feet, more or less S 23-30-00 W 583 feet, more or less S 05-00-00 E 134 feet, 74ore or less S 38-30-00 E 500 feet, more or less S 14-00-00 E 1083 feet, more or less S 18-00-00 W 2833 feet, more•or less S 66-30-00 W~ 533 feet, more or less S 85-QO-00 W 1583 feet, more or less N 75-3 0-00 W 2167 feet, more or less Due West 1133 feet, more or less 2 .=`c A A~ AREA OF JURISDICTION INDIANA ARMY'AMMiJNITION PLANT MILITARY RESERVATION . CLARK COIINTY, INDIANA _ ____ LEGAL DESCRIPTION (CONT~D) ~~ • N 68-30-OQ W 2700 feet, more or less S 4Q-~Oa-OO W 1177 feet, more or• less S 30-00-00 W 2000 feet, more or less S 86-30-00 W 800 feet, more or less N 80-30-00 W 833 feet, more or less S 70-30-00 W 1280 feet, more or less N 63-30-00 W 1080 feet, more oz less N 20-00-00 W 660 feet., more or less N 04-3A-00 E 250 feet, more or less, to a point; thence l~~ving saki boundary fence N 35~-20-0'0 W 110 feet, more or less, to a point; thence with the centerline of Indiana State Highway No: 62 ~N 04-30-00 E 375 feet, more or l~:ss, to a point; thence 3~1 58-00-00 W 205 feet, more oar less, to the east right-of- way line of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; thence with said • east right-of--way line N 22-51-00 E 8,550 feet, more or less, to a point in the north line of U.S. Tract No. 108; thence S 35-45-00 E to a point in the oeNter o.f Indiana State Highway No:~ 62.; thence with the centerline of said State Highway Northeasterly 1150 feet, more or less, to a point in the northeast line of U.S. Tract No. 106; thence with said northeast line . S 39-00-00 E to the west corner, of II.S. ~T~c~ rfo: 105; thence with the northwesterly line of U. S.. Tract No, i05 N 45-00-00 E 990.00 feet, more or less, to a corner , colmmton to U:S..Tracts 205 and 209; thence with the northwesterly line of U.S. Tract No. 104 N 50-00-00 E 759.00 feet, more or less, to the most northerly corner of U.S. Tract 104; thence N 39-00-0o w to the western corner of U.S. Tract No. 103, said corner being located i.n the centerline of Indiana State Highway No. 62; thence continuing with the centerline of said State Highway 3 t AKEA OF JURISDICTION INDIANA°ARMY ~TION PLANT ~LYTARY RESERVATION . CORK COUNTY, INDIANA LE AL BCRI ION NT~D . Northeasterly to the most northwest corner of U.S. Tract No. 100; thence continuing with the centerline of State Highway No.~ 62 .• N 06-52-25 E 661.40 feet; theme N 11-05-15 E 1268.40 feet; thence.' _ N 15-19-54 E 693.40 feet to a point in the.c~iyiding line between Grants 71 and 72, thence continuing With the centerline of State Highway No. 62~ Northeasterly to a point in the south dine of a 67.26 acre tract of land disposed of by Quitclaim Deed from the pnited States of America to County. og clarle, State of 'Indiana, dated 16 April 1962, recorded in Deed Record 244, Page 289; in the records of Clark County, Indiana.; thence S 67-15-00 E 390.00 feet, more or less, to a point; thence N 54-33-00 E 1&3i.0a feet, more or less, to a point; thence N 05--42-00 W 1276.85 feet to a point; thence of Indiana3state Highway Nvet62~ a~eoint in-the east right-vf-way nce N 67-15-00 W 60.00 feet to a point in the centerline of Indiana State Highway No. 62; thence with said centerline N 21-36-OO E 2290.00 feet ~ " . snore or less, to a Qoint.; thence N 19-23-45 E 2759.00 feet to a point; thence • N 17-11-00•E 852.00 feet to a point; thence . • N 20-01-00 E 1135.00 feet to a point; thence • N 22-52-3o E 1741.00 feet to a point; thence ` N 25-38-15 E 999.00 feet to a point;~thence N 28-23-15 E 477.00 feet to a point in Grant No. 96 where the centerlines of IndS,ana state Highway No. 62 and Charlestown Landing Road intersect; thence with the centerline of Charlestown Landing Road 4 ( y AREA OF JiJ~2ISDICTION INDIANA ARMY TION PLANT MILITARY RESERVATION CLARK COUNTY, INDIANA EGAL DESCRIPTION CONT~D S 39-31-15 E 844.00 feet to a point; thence S 40-22-15 E 489.00 feet to a point; thence S 46-59-15 E 162.45 feet to a point; thence N 49-17-45 E 2143.82 feet to a point on the dividing line between Grants 96 and 9'~; thence N.49-18-00 E 200,00 Feet~to a p©int; thence N i1-09-00 E 1798.70 feet to a point; thence N 32-39-00 E 1272.30 feet to a point; thence N 41-37-00 E 912.00 feet tp a point in the centerline•of Indiana State Highway No. 62; thence with said centerline Northeasterly 1922.98 feet, more or less, to a point being a corner of U.S. Tract No. 1; thence continuing with the centerline a~ State Highway No. 62 and the northernmost line of said II.S. Tract No. 1 be ~,nna.~east+~'iy 28~OO.OA feet, m~i;.e or le~:s, Ji g, containing 10,647.44 acres t° the Point of more or less. 22 May 92 D.I.S. _..'i 5 ORDINANCE N0.2000-OR-46 AN ORDINANCE FOR ANNEXATION OF AREA ?'T'ERRITORY (Annexation oI`Area 7) WHEREAS, the boundary of the City'of Jeffersonville, Indiana is contiguous to the real estate described in exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as "Annexation Area 7" or "Area 7'~; and WHEREAS, Annexation-Area 7 contains approximately 5,077.13 acres; and - WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana {the "Council' has adopted a written fiscal plan and established a definite policy as to Area 7 by Resolution No. 2000-R-30, all as required under Indiana law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Common Council o:E the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana; Section 1. The real estate described in "Exhibit A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, is hereby annexed to and declared a part of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana, and assigned to the 5th City Council District ection 2. _ .The boundaries of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana, are hereby extended so as to include all of Annexation Area 7 as a part of the City of Jeffersonville. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and .publication according to law. ~:' Passed and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville, Indiana, on the ~ dap of p ml~r :2000. ~XHIBlT' .~ , . '.',r i ATTEST: Thomas R C allig Presiding Officer Peggy r Glerk-Treasurer Presented by me as Clerk-Treasurer to the Mayor of the Ciry of Jeffersonville this `~ day of n~~ <t~h4 ~ _, 2000. s- Peggy ` ~ er Clerk-Treasurer ' This Ordinance approved and signed by m~e this ~ day of ~~~ ~. r , 2000. ~. ~ 'r~ •- ~.. ~" Aug-02-00 03:58P Jacobi. Tobmis Laid ~ . 812 288 6656 p-p~ 1 • ~.:Juty 27, 2000 •. . . DESCRIPTION OF ANNEXATION AREA 7 Being a part of Surveys No. I7, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 71 of the Illinois Grant in Jeffersonville and Utica Townships, in Clark County, Indiana; and described as follows: ~; . Commencing at a point in the City of Jeffersonville's existing Corporate Boundary line, said point being the intersection of the westerly right-of--way line of State Road 62 and the northeasterly right-of-way line of Utica-Sellersburg Road, thence the following courses: ..Northwesterly 1,180 feet; more or. less,: with said existing Corporate Boundary line, leaving said State Road 62,~ along said city boundary.and.the northeasterly right-of-way.line of Utica-. Sellersburg Road.; . Southwesterly 50 feet, more or'less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line, leaving said northeasterly right-of--way running to the southwesterly right-of--way line of Utica- Sellersburg ~.Zoad; . ~ Southeasterly 400 feet, more or less, with said existing ..Corporate Boundary line, along said • southwesterly right-of--way; South 41 deg. 15 mina 18 sec. West; 391.96 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate .Boundary line; . South 48. deg. 44 min. 42 sec. East, 150.00 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line; South 41 deg. IS min. 18 sec, West, 863.03 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line, to the Line of the CSX Railroad; Northwesterly 487.60 feet, more or Less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line, with said _ CSX .line on a curve to the left, having a radius of 598.30 whose chord bears North 89 deg. 35 min. 56 sec. West 474.22,feet more or less; South. 41 deg. 14 min. 11 sec. West, 1,278.77 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate . Boundary line, leaving said CSX Line, to the line dividing Surveys No. 35 and 36 of the IiIinois Grant; South 38 deg. 30 min. 00 sec. East, 1,535.40 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line, along said dividing line; South 19 deg. S8 min. S4 sec. West, 208.46 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line; Southwesterly 150 feet, more or less, with said.existing Corporate Boundary line; . Southeasterly 1,370 feet, more or less, with said .existing Corporate Boundary line, to the northwesterly right-of--way line or State Road 62; ~~~~~ - F ... ... .. - .. , ._ .. _ . . ..... . .. ... - ~ r.-, ... ........ .... .. , .. it . . ... ... .. r. P_03 -- r 2 . Southwesterly 680 feet, more or less, with said existing Corporate Boundary line; Southwesterly 2,410 feet, more or less, along said northwesterly right-o#~way line and existing .. ::;,..Corporate Boundary line~passrngSellers-Court:and;Candy:Lane.to a point.in~the Corporate Boundary line of Jeffersonville; Indiana. " -::~- North 40 deg. West, 1;512.26~feet,more or less,-with: said:.existing Corporate Boundary ~1ine; North 40 deg. East, 25 feet, more or less;:withsaid existing Corporate Boundary line; North 21.deg: 20 min: East, .820.05 feet; .more or less, :with said existing Corporate Boundary line, to the line dividing Surveys No. 22 and No. 23; North 40 deg., West 517.43 feet; more or less, :along said dividing .line being also said City .boundary to the southeasterly line of Survey No. 35; . - South 50 deg., West 192.89 feet; more or.less, .with said existing Corporate Boundary line, ' leaving the -line dividing Surveys No. 22 :and 23, along the southeasterly tine of said Survey No. 35 to the southeasterly right-of--way line of CSX Railroad; South 21~deg. 20 min., Wesi 1,560 feet; more or Iess> with said existing Corporate Boundary line, : leaving said southeasterly tine of Survey No. 35 .along said railroad right-of-way to the intersection of said railroad right-of--way and the southwesterly line of Landsberg Cove. Subdivision Section.Four; recorded at P1at:Book II, Page 54, if extended across railroad right-of-way; North 33 deg. 02 min. 34 sec., West 72.07 feet, mare or less, leaving said railroad southeasterly right-of--way and said City boundary, running to the southern most corner of Landsberg Cove Section Four; . North 33 deg. 02 min. 34 sec., West 754.23 feet, more or less, along said Landsberg Cove : . • southwesterly lire, to the southeasterly Line of Iandsberg Cove Section Two, recorded at 'Plat Book 10, Page $3; South 55 deg. 4I mina 52 sec., West 380.00 feet, more ar less, leaving said ,Section Four, along said line of Section Two, to the southeast comer of .Landsberg Cove Section One, Recorded at Plat Book 10, Page 82; ~ ' South 55 deg. 41 min. 52 sec., West 586.23 fees, more or less, leaving said Section 2, along said • Section One to the southern most corner of said Section One; South 34 deg. 49 min. 27 sec., East 11.03 feet,. more or less, leaving said Section One, along the northerly Iines.of the remaining land conveyed to Schmitt Development, Inc., recorded at Deed Drawer 25, Instrument 15400; South 56 deg. 25 min. 23 sec., West 581.45 feet, more or less, along said Scturritt line; North 70 deg. S8 min. 40 sec., West 256.99 feet, more or less, along said Schmitt line to the southeasterly right-of--way line of Jeffersonville-Charlestown Pike; . Nartheastwardly 6,600 feet, more or less, teav'ing said Schmitt line along said right-of-way line, ,:'~ to the southwesterly right-of way line of the Southern Indiana Railway; Southeasterly and northeasterly 2,050 feet, more or less, leaving said Pike's right-of--way line along said railway right-of-way line to the centerline of Utica-Sellersburg Road; x P.O4 ,Aug-02-00 O3:59P Jacobi Toombs Lafi'iz 812_Z88 6656 .. ,.- 3 ' ~. Northeastwardly 672 feet, more or less, along said railway right-of-way to the northeasterly corner of a tract conveyed to Holloway and Sons Construction Co., Inc. at Deed Drawer 16, Instrument 12536; Southwardly 512 feet, more or less, eaving said: railway right-of-way, along said Hollowayaracts . - ::easterly line to the southeasterly: right-of-way line of Shungate Road.; _. Northeastwardly 2,400 feet, more or less, leaving said. Holloway.lin~e along said.Shungate Road right-of--way; Southeastwardly 400 feet, more or less; leaving said Shungate Road right-of-way crossing State Road 62 to the southeasterly right-of-way.line~ of said State Road 62, which is also the northwesterly line of the U. S. Military Reservation; Indiana Army Ammunition Plant; Northeastwardly, 16,300 feet, more or. less, with said southeasterly right-of way line of State Road 62 and said northwesterly line of said Army Ammunition Plant to a point in the line dividing Surveys No. 71 and 72 of the Illinois Grant, said point being also on the line dividing..Utica and Charlestown Townships; Southeasterly, 1,250 feet, more or less, with said .line dividing Surveys No. 71 and 72 and said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships to .the east corner of Survey No. 71, which . is also the south corner of Survey No. 72; all of the Illinois .Grant; Southwesterly, 250 feet,Amore or,less, with the line dividing Surveys No. 71 `and 54 and said Line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships to the west corner of Survey No. 54, which is - also. the north corner of_ Survey No. 53; Southeasterly, 2,100.feet, more or less, with the line dividing Surveys No. 53 and 54 and said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships o a township corner; :. Northeastwardly, 1,500 feet, .more. or less, :with said. line .dividing= Utica and Charlestown Townships, in Survey No. 54 of the Illinois Grant.to a Township corner; Southeasterly, 3.,250 feet, more or less, with said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships in.Survey No. 54 to the line dividing said Survey No. 54-and Survey No. 40 of the Illinois Grant to a Township corner; Northeastwardly, 1,500 feet, more or less, with said line dividing Surveys No. 54 and No. 40 of the Illinois Grant and said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships to a Township corner; Northwestwardly, 1,200.00 feet, mare or less, with said line dividing Utica and Charlestown . Townships in said Survey No. 54 of the Illinois Grant to a township corner; . Northwardly, 200 feet, more or less, with said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships . in Survey No. 54; Northeastwardly, 1,400 feet, more or less, with said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships in Survey No. 54 to a township corner; Southeasterly, 1,500 feet, more or less, with said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships . in Survey No. 54, to a Township corner; - Northeastwardly, 2,730 feet, more or less, with the line dividing Surveys No. 55 and No. 41 of the Illinois Grant and said line dividing Utica and Charlestown Townships to a township ' comer in the center of Jenny Lind Run.Creek; .. _ . . .. ' . ~, - - e Aug-02-00 04:OOP Jacobi Toombs LariZ 812 288 6656 .. P . 05 ` ~ ~ ~ ~4 Southeasterly, 4,200 feet, more or Less, with said center of Jenny. Lind Run Creek, which is also said line dividing Utica and Charlestown. Townships.. to the northeast corner of Utica Township, which is also the southeast corner of_Charlestowri Township, said .corner being on the line dividing the States of Indiana and Kentucky at the Ohio River, and also the Military Reservation boundary; Southwardly, 2,700 feet, more or less, with said line dividing the States of Indiana aizd Kentucky, the easterly lines of Survey No. 41 and the Military Reservation boundary to the centerline.. of Little Battle Creek: Thence leaving said line: Northeastwardly 2,000 feet, more or less, along said Little Battle .Creek to a drain on the southerly side of said Little Battle Creek; ~ Northwestwardly 3,800 feet, more or less, leaving said Little Battle Creek along said drain to the ' top of River Ridge; Southwesterly 1,000 feet, more or less, along said Ridge to a roadway; • Northwestwardly 150 feet, more or less, along said road to the intersection of a dead end road running southwestwardly along said River Ridge; Southwesterly 5,700 feet, more or less, along said dead end road to `the end; Southwesterly 750.00 fect, more or less; leaving said Ridge roadway, to the intersection of Collector Wells Road and Waterline Road; .Westwardly 2, 000 feet, more or less, along said Utica Pike right-of--way to the Indiana Gas Co • high pressure gas main coming out of Kentucky and crossing the Ohio River; Northwestwardly Y;200 feet, more or less, Ieaving said Utica Pike right-of--.way along said gas line, to the perimeter fence of said Army Ammunition Plant; NortheastwardIy 20,300 feet, more or less, leaving said gas line, along said perimeter to the southeasterly right-of--way line of State Road 62; Northeastwardly 150 feet, more or less, leaving said perimeter fence and crossing said State Road 62, to the northwesterly right-of--way line of State Road 62; Northwestwardly 2,740 feet, more or less, along said State Road 62 right-of--way to the True Place of Beginning. f ~+ ~. f - ,~ ` C ~ .t ~~ - ti NOV - 200i IN THE CIRCUTF COURT FOR CLARK COUNT~r••~•••...••. STATE OF INDIANA RONALD JACKSON, Plaintiff vs. CITY OF JEFFERSONVII.,LE, et al., Defendants CAUSE NO. 10001-0101-CP-011 ORDER ON ANNEXATION { With Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law) This case came before the Court an October 4, 2001 for a hearing on the Plaintiff's Remonstrance Against the City of Jeffersonville On Ordinance To Annex Area Seven (7} which was filed on January 8, 2001 and for a hearing on the Plaintiff s Motion For Default 3udgment which was filed on March 28, 2001. The Plaintiff appeared in person and by counsel, Gordon D. Ingle, and the Defendants appeared by counsel, Anne Marie Galligan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took its findings under advisement pending submission of parties' proposed findings of fact.and conclusions of law. ` And the Court, having considered the evidence presented and the parties' submissions, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, now enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. , 1 r ~ 4 .~ .~1 Findings of F$ct 1. The City of Jeffersonville is a third class city duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana. 2. At all times relevant, the Defendant, Thomas Galligan, was the duly elected Mayor of the City of Jeffersonville. . 3. At all times relevant, the Defendants Ronald Ellis, Leslie Merkley, Ronald Grooms, Vicki Conlin, Rob Wait, Barbara Wilson, and Dennis Frantz were duly elected members of the Common Council of the City of Jeffersonville. 4. On August 7, 2000, the Mayor of Jeffersonville proposed and the Common Council for the City of Jeffersonville adopted Resolution No. 2000-R-30 which was entitled A Resolution Adopting a Written Fiscad Plan Establishing Policy for Service to Annexation Area 7 and Ordinance No. 2000-0R-46 which was entitled An Ordinance Annexing of Territory (Annexation of Area 7). 5. All hearings and publications of the Resolution and Ordinance took place as required by law and the City of Jeffersonville and the Common Council adopted Ordinance No. 2000-OR-46 on November 9, 2000. 6. The Plaintiff; Ronald Jackson contends that the annexation should not take place because the territory sought to be annexed is not contiguous to the annexing municipality as required by Indiana Code 36-4-3-1.5 and Indiana Code 36-4-3-13. 7. The Plaintiff'does not own land within the annexed territory but does live within one-half mile of the annexed territory and, therefore, brings this action under the provisions of Indiana Code 36-4-3-15.5. 2 ,~ ./ ;._ ~ .. 8. On March 26, 2001,. the Court determined that the Plaintiffs Complaint was sufficient based upon the Defendants' stipulation and set the matter for hearing on May 2I, 200I. 9. There is no proof of service of notice of the proceedings on the Defendants after the sufficiency determination by the Court. 10. On April 23, 2001, the Defendarns filed their Answer to the remonstrance action. 11. The length of the total boundary of Annexation Area 7 is 110,888.85 feet. 12. The length of the total,boundary of Aru-ex~tion Area 7 that zs. contiguous to the existing boundary of the City of Jeffersonville is 15,782.85 feet. 13. 14.23 % of the total boundary of Annexation Area 7 is contiguous to the City of Jeffersonville. 14. The fraction one-eighth (1/8) equals 12:5 %. I5. Annexation Area 7 consists of 5,007.13 acres and contains approximately 610 residents resulting in a population density of one (I) person for every 8.2 acres. I6. Annexation Area fi is zoned primarily residential and is not sixty percem {60%) subdivided. Conclusions of Law 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and. the subject matter of this action. Motion For Default Judgment 2. Indiana Code 36-4-3-15.5(b) provides, in part, as follows: "Upon a determination of the court that the complaint is su, fftcient, the judge shall frx a time for a hearing to be held not later than sixty (60) days after the determination. Notice of the proceedings shall be served by summons upon the proper officers of the annexing municipality. The municipality shall become a defendant in the cause and be required to appear and~answer.... " 3 ~ ~ k s ~ ~ r r ~~' 3. Notice of the proceedings was not served upon the proper officers of the. City of Jeffersomrille after the sufficiency determination when the City of Jeffersonville became a defendant and was required to appear and answer the complaint. 4. Plaintiff s Motion For Default Judgment for a failure of the City of Jeffersonville to timely answer the complaint should be denied. Annexation Appeal 5. A municipal annexation under Indiana Code 36-4-3 may be appealed by owners of land who fall under two categories. Indiana Code 36-4-3-11 provides for those persons who own land within the annexed azea. And Indiana Code 36-4-3-15.5 provides for those who own land within one-half (1/2) mile of the annexed area. 6. In order for a municipality to prevail in an annexation challenged by the owners of land in the annexed area, the specific requirements set forth under Indiana Code .36-4-3-13 must be satisfied. 7. The legislature did not impose. such specific requirements upon a municipality in order to prevail in a challenge by an owner of land within one-half {1/2) mile of the annexed area. The only requirement is one of contiguity as set forth under Indiana Code 36-4-3-15.5(b): ".. If the evidence establishes that the territory sought to be annexed is contiguous to the annexing. municipality, the court shall deny the appeal and dismiss the proceedings ..." (emphasis added} 8. Indiana Code 36-4-3-I.5 sets forth the requirement for a determination of whether a territory is "contiguous" to a municipality and therefore proper for consideration of annexation: "For purposes of this chapter, territory sought to be annexed may be considered "contiguous" only if at least one-eighth (1/8J of the aggregate external boundaries of the territory coincides with the boundaries of the.annexing municipality. " 9. 14.23 % of the aggregate external boundaries of Annexation Area 7 coincide with the 4 ~ R j . ~ ". • boundaries of the City of Jeffersonville and, therefore, the requirement of contiguity is satisfied. I0. The Plaintiffs appeal should be denied and these proceedings should be dismissed. TT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COIIRT that the Plaintiffs Motion For Default Judgment and Plaintiff's appeal of the annexation of Annexation Area 7 should be and the same are hereby deny and this action is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED THLS 5'm DAY OF I~TOYEMB 2001. Daniel F. Donahue, Judge Clark Circui# Court Copies To: Gordon D. Ingle ' Attorney for Plaintiff Anne Marie Galligan Attorney for Defendants rate u~ ~. _Q~ ~. 5 ~.~ ~ . , .:~ ~ A i ~~e srnrE of N'r ,:Y ;~ ~:rM '.~.~' :: ~i.MW,,,,,u,~ . Tg18 Brian Bishop Clerk CLERK SUPRE~ZE COURTS COURT OF APPEALS AND TAX COURT STATE OF INDIANA 217 STATE HOUSE, INDIA1vAPOI.IS, IN 46204 317-232-1930 'FAX 317-232-$365 ANNE MARIE GALLIGAN CITY-COUNTY BLDG., 4TH FL 501 EAST COURT AVE. JEFFERSONVILLE, IN 47130 Fax Number: 812-285-6468 ~tC€IVE© ~~e- ees • •ee Cause Number 10A01-01.12-CV-00456 Lower Court Number: 1000lOlO1CP11 JACKSON, RONALD -V- CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, ET AL. You ace hereby notified that the SUPREME COURT hos on This doy 11/21/02 " THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE THE INDIANA SUPREME~COURT'ON A PETITION TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECISION .BY THE COURT OF APPEALS: THE PETITION WAS FILED PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 57. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE DECISION. OF THE COURT OF. APPEALS. ANY.:RECORD ON APPEAL~THAT''.~ WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COURT FOR REVIEW, ALONG WITH ANY .AND ALL BRIEFS THAT~MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALL THE MATERIALS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER OF THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THE PETITION. EACH PARTICIPATING MEMBER HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THAT JUSTICE'S VIEWS ON THE CASE IN CONFERENCE WITH THE OTHER JUSTICES. BEING DULY ADVISED, THE COURT NOW DENIES THE APPELLANT'S PETITION TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE .ALL JUSTICES CONCUR. KM r= W1TNE55 my name and the seal of said Court, this 21STdOy °f NOVEMBER, 2002 Clerk Supreme Covrt, Covr1 of A ols and iax Covrl Casemaker - IN -Case Law -Search -Result 829 N.E.2d 1 .North Vernon v. Jennings Northwest Reg. Utilities Page 1 of 5 CITY OF NORTH VERNON, INDIANA, Appellant (Defendant below), v. JENNINGS NORTHWEST REGIONAL UTILITIES; VANCE D. FUNKHOUSER, MAX A. WILEY, NORMA TEEPEE, DONALD MCCAULEY, LYNN H. CLARK, JOLENE MCQUEEN AND PAUL MICHAEL IRWIN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES OF THE JENNINGS NORTHWEST REGIONAL UTILITIES, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). In the Indiana Supreme Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Corinne R. Finnerty McConnell & Finnerty North Vernon, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES Mary Ann Gay, Versailles, Adam Arceneaux, Brian Bailey, Ice Miller, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE Bette J. Dodd, Lewis & Kappes, P.C., Jo Angela Woods, Indiana Association of Cities & Towns, Indianapolis, Indiana In the Indiana Supreme Court Appeal from the Jennings Superior Court, No. 40D01-9910-CP-296 The Honorable Carl H. Taul, Special Judge On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 40A01-0304-CV-145 No.40S01-0404-CV-184 June 14, 2005 Rucker, Justice. This case requires us to determine what happens when there is an overlap between the sewage service area of a regional sewer district and the sewage service area of a municipality. Under the facts presented we conclude the municipality prevails. Facts and Procedural History Located in Jennings County, the City of North Vernon ("the City") operates a wastewater treatment and collection facility. The City has the statutory authority to provide wastewater services inside its corporate boundaries as well as within aten-mile radius outside its corporate boundaries. In 1996, the Jennings County Commissioners filed a petition with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") requesting IDEM to form a regional water and sewer district for the northwest portion of Jennings County. IDEM granted the petition and entered an order establishing Jennings Northwest Regional Utilities ("JNRU"). Among other things the order authorized JNRU to provide sewer services to Geneva Township, Center Township, Spencer Township, and portions of Sand Creek Township. ~XHIBI~' https://demo.lawriter.net/states/IN/books/Case Law/result?number=4 ~ , , - ----~ 4/20/2009 ~Casemaker - IN -Case Law -Search -Result Page 2 of 5 The order excluded the City's corporate boundaries from JNRU's service area. But at the time the order was entered, the City was already providing sewer services to areas of the county that IDEM identified as JNRU's service district. Those areas are within ten miles outside of the City's corporate boundaries. Sand Creek Elementary School ("the School"), which was then in the planning stages for construction, is located within that ten-mile radius. Both JNRU and the City approached the School about connecting to their respective sewer lines and providing sewer services. Over JNRU's objection, School officials entered into athirty-year service agreement with the City. The City is currently servicing the School and has done so since the School opened in the year 2000. Although JNRU eventually plans to do so, it had not constructed sewer facilities for the School as late as May 2004. JNRU filed a complaint against the City seeking a declaratory judgment that JNRU had the exclusive right to serve the School and that the City did not. The City moved to dismiss JNRU's complaint and attached various exhibits in support. As a result, the trial court treated the City's motion as a motion for summary judgment. See Ind. Trial Rule 12 (B)(8). JNRU responded with its own motion for summary judgment. After conducting a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in JNRU's favor. Among other things the trial court concluded: (i) the City's right to provide sewer services to Sand Creek Elementary School is contingent upon JNRU's consent and agreement, (ii) JNRU has never agreed or consented to the City's exercise of power to provide sewer services to the School, and (iii) without JNRU's consent or agreement, the City has no right to provide sewer services to the School. On review the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See North Vernon v. Jennings Northwest Regional Utilities, 799 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Having previously granted transfer, we now reverse the trial court's judgment. When reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment our well-settled standard of review is the same as it is for the trial court: we examine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Indiana Univ. Med. Ctr., Riley Hosp. for Children v. Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855, 858 (Ind. 2000). Summary judgment should be granted only if the evidence sanctioned by Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party deserves judgment as a matter of law. Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150, 152 (Ind. 2005). All evidence must be construed in favor of the opposing party, and all doubts as to the existence of a material issue must be resolved against the moving parry. Tibbs v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., 668 N.E.2d 248, 249 (Ind. 1996). Discussion JNRU was created under the auspices of Indiana Code section 13-26-1-1 et seq., which governs the establishment of regional water and sewer districts. The statute provides in relevant part, "Any area may be established as a regional water, sewage, or solid waste district under this article for one (1) or more of the following purposes:... (2) To provide for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage inside and outside the district." Ind. Code § 13-26-1-1. Once established, a regional district is an "independent municipal corporation" that has only such power and authority as expressly conferred by statute. Ind. Code §§ 13-26-2-10; 13-26-5-1 to -2. The City is a municipality as defined by Indiana Code section 36-1-2-11. A municipality has the authority to "acquire, construct, improve, operate, and maintain sewage works under this chapter." Ind. Code § 36-9-23-2(1). With exceptions not applicable here, this authority includes providing sewer services "in areas within ten (10) miles outside its corporate boundaries." Ind. Code § 36-9-23-36. Also applicable in this case is Indiana's Home Rule Act-Indiana Code sections 36-1- 3-1 to -9. The Act abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute. Instead the Act expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted to it by statute, but also "all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute." Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(b)(2). See also City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 149, 153 (Ind. 2000); City of Crown Point v. Lake County, 510 N.E.2d 684, 685-86 (Ind. 1987). Relying on the express statutory authority to provide sewer services within ten miles outside of its corporate boundaries, as well as on the broad provisions of the Home Rule Act, the City contends that it has the exclusive authority to provide sewer services to the School. JNRU acknowledges that the School is located within ten miles outside of the City's corporate borders. However, JNRU counters that the Home Rule Act itself limits the City's authority. In relevant part the Act provides, "a unit(fn1) may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power: (1) is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute; and (2) is not expressly granted to another entity." Ind. Code § 36-1-3- 5(1)-(2) (emphasis added). JNRU argues that because IDEM has expressly granted it the authority to provide sewer services to an area within ten miles outside of the City's corporate boundaries, the City must first obtain JNRU's permission before the City can exercise its authority to provide such services within the area. Thus, according to JNRU https://demo.lawriter.net/states/IN/books/Case Law/result?number=4 4/20/2009 ~Casemaker - IN -Case Law -Search -Result Page 3 of 5 the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in its favor on this point. The first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the Legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941, 947 (Ind. 2001). When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we need not apply any rules of construction other than to require that words and phrases be taken in their plain, ordinary, and usual sense. Poehlman v. Feferman, 717 N.E.2d 578, 581 (Ind. 1999). Clear and unambiguous statutes leave no room for judicial construction. Id. However when a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation it is deemed ambiguous and thus open to judicial construction. Amoco Production Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind. 1993). And when faced with an ambiguous statute, other well-established rules of statutory construction are applicable. One such rule is that our primary goal of statutory construction is to determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the Legislature. Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. Alder, 714 N.E.2d 632, 637 (Ind. 1999). To effectuate legislative intent, we read the sections of an act together in order that no part is rendered meaningless if it can be harmonized with the remainder of the statute. AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068, 1078 (Ind. 2003). We also examine the statute as a whole. Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 38 (Ind. 1991). And we do not presume that the Legislature intended language used in a statute to be applied illogically or to bring about an unjust or absurd result. State ex rel. Hatcher v. Lake Super. Ct., Rm. Three, 500 N.E.2d 737, 739 (Ind. 1986). At first blush the Home Rule Act appears to be clear and unambiguous. A municipality "may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power ... is not expressly granted to another entity." Ind. Code § 36-1-3-5(a). But a strict interpretation of this provision, in the context of the facts before us, would produce an absurd result. More specifically, such an interpretation is at odds with the express grant of statutory authority given municipalities to operate sewer facilities within and without its corporate boundaries, and at odds with other provisions of the Act as well. For example the Act also provides, "[T]he policy of the state is to grant units all the powers that they need for the effective operation of government as to local affairs." Ind. Code. § 36-1-3-2. By unequivocal language the Legislature specifically abrogated the rule of law declaring that a unit has only the "(1) powers expressly granted by statute; (2) powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and (3) powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit." Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(1)-(3). The Legislature also specifically abrogated the rule of law that declared, "any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved against its existence ...." Ind. Code § 36-1-3-3. Rather, the Legislature has said, "Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence," and this is so "even though a statute granting the power has been repealed." Ind. Code § 36-1-3-3(a), (b). We believe this statutory scheme demonstrates a legislative intent to provide counties, municipalities, and townships with expansive and broad-ranging authority to conduct their affairs. Of course this authority is not without limitations. However we do not think the Act anticipated the rather unique facts of this case, namely, an express grant of authority allowing a regional sewer district to provide sewer services to an area where a municipality is already providing those services to the area. Indeed, most such territorial disputes are resolved during the IDEM permitting process.(fn2) Here, apparently there was a breakdown in communications. And by the time the City discovered this overlapping boundary problem, it was too late for the City to take curative action.(fn3) JNRU suggests that the facts of this case are not at all unique, but rather are strikingly similar to those in Town of Merrillville v. Merrillville Conservancy Dist., 649 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied. In that case, prior to 1992 the town of Merrillville did not have its own sanitation system. Instead the Merrillville Conservancy District and certain other public and semi-private utilities provided the sewer needs of the town. On December 29, 1992, the town adopted an ordinance creating its own sanitary district and sanitation department. The sanitary district included all territory within the corporate boundaries of Merrillville in addition to certain territory outside the town. The Conservancy District filed a complaint for declaratory judgment requesting that the town ordinance be found void. According to the District, the ordinance violated the Home Rule Act because the power to provide sewer services had already been granted to it under a statute providing for the creation of a conservancy district.(fn4) Therefore, the District argued, the town of Merrillville was precluded from exercising those same powers. The court agreed and held that because the District had been granted specific powers under the statute to provide for sewage disposal, the town was precluded from exercising conflicting powers under the Home Rule Act. Id. at 652. Specifically the court held, "We conclude that Merrillville is precluded from exercising any powers which have been granted to [the District] under I.C. § 13-3-3, as such would be a violation of I.C. § 36-1-3-5 [providing that a unit "may exercise any power it has to the extent that the power:... (2) is not expressly granted to another entity"]." Id. Acknowledging that Town of Merrillville involved a sewer conservancy district rather than a regional sewer district, JNRU argues the same rationale still applies. And according to that rationale, just as with the District, here JNRU also has been granted specific statutory authority to provide sewer services and thus the City is precluded from exercising https://demo.lawriter.net/states/IN/books/Case Law/result?number=4 4/20/2009 ~ ~Casemaker - IN -Case Law -Search -Result conflicting powers under the Act. Page 4 of 5 We agree that for the purpose of our analysis the distinction between a conservancy district and sewer district is of no moment. Still, the facts here are distinguishable. The conservancy district in Town of Merrillville was already exercising its statutory powers to provide sewer services when the town attempted to provide those identical services under the authority of the Home Rule Act. JNRU is not similarly situated. If anything, JNRU is in a position similar to that of the town by attempting to provide sewer services to an area that was already being provided with such services. In fact the City was providing sewer services under an express grant of statutory authority before IDEM ever created JNRU and established its service district. To interpret the Act as JNRU suggests would in effect allow a regional district to trump a municipality's decision to provide extraterritorial sewer services. We do not believe the Legislature could have intended this result. Indeed we doubt the Legislature even contemplated the facts presented here. Our determination in this regard finds support in Indiana Code sections 36-1-7-i et seq. (providing for interlocal cooperation agreements) and Indiana Code section 36-1-3-9(d) (detailing the use of such agreements). With these statutes, the Legislature set forth a procedure for the resolution of territorial disputes between two municipalities. There is no such statutory dispute resolution mechanism for territorial boundary disputes between municipalities and regional districts. And because regional districts are not subject to the same statutes applicable to municipalities, the statutes governing interlocal cooperation agreements are not applicable here.(fn5) Again, disputes of this kind ordinarily are resolved during administrative proceedings. Our Legislature has encouraged municipalities to plan for the future development of their communities and to protect the health, safety, convenience and welfare of their citizens. See Ind. Code. § 36-7-4-201. In meeting these goals, municipalities prepare and adopt comprehensive plans to serve as a guide for long-term growth and development. See Ind. Code. § 36-7-4-502. Comprehensive plans include the provision of utility services in the municipalities' growth areas. Municipalities rely on their ability to extend their utility services to these anticipated areas.(fn6) We must therefore reconcile the broad-ranging authority granted municipalities under the Home Rule Act and Indiana Code section 36-9-23-36 (granting municipalities the authority to provide sewer services "in areas within ten (10) miles outside its corporate boundaries") with the powers granted regional districts under Indiana Code sections 13-26-1 to -14. In doing so we conclude that where there is an overlap between the service area of a regional district and the service area of a municipality, and absent a resolution during the IDEM permitting process, under the "expressly granted" provision of the Home Rule Act, the district prevails unless the municipality was already providing services to the area at the time the district's service area was created. Because the reverse of the latter is true in this case, the City prevails. Consequently the City has the exclusive right to provide sewer services to the School. Conclusion We reverse the judgment of the trial court. This cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan and Boehm, JJ., concur. Footnotes: 1 "'Unit' means county, municipality, or township." Ind. Code § 36-i-2-23. 2 See, e.g., Indiana Code section 13-26-2-10(b)(3), which provides in relevant part, "[iJf an eligible entity" has territory within the proposed district, the order establishing a regional district must "contain provisions protecting the investments of the entities and protecting the rights of the holders of bonds or other obligations issued to provide money for the system." The City is an "eligible entity" within the meaning of the statute. Ind. Code § 13-i1-2-62. Nothing in the order establishing JNRU contained any such provision. See Appellant's App. at 44-51. See also Cumberland v. Dept of Environmental Mgmt., 691 N.E.2d 206, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (Petition to establish a regional water and sewer district requested that "'those areas served as [of] the date of formation of the proposed district by existing private, semi-public or public sanitary sewer utilities' ... be excluded from the District."). No such request appears in the petition to establish JNRU. See Appellant's App. at 26-29. 3 The City filed a declaratory judgment action in this case challenging the order issued by IDEM. The trial court https://demo.lawriter.net/states/IN/books/Case Law/result?number=4 4/20/2009 .. ~ r ~ Casemaker - IN -Case Law -Search -Result 76. Page 5 of 5 dismissed the City's claim. On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that the City's failure to first seek judicial review of the validity of IDEM's order pursuant to AOPA deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. City of North Vernon v. Funkhouser, 725 N.E.2d 898 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). 4 Indiana Code section 13-3-3-2(a)(5) (repealed by P.L.1-1995, Sec. 91, and recodified as I.C. § 14-33-1-1 (a)(5)) granted conservancy districts the specific power to provide for the "collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and other liquid wastes." 5 We thus agree with the Court of Appeals' reasoning and analysis on this point. See Jennings, 799 N.E.2d at 1075- 6 As Amici for Indiana Association of Cities and Towns and the Indiana Municipal Lawyer's Association point out, "Allowing Districts to have veto power over the expansion of a municipality's sewer and water services to areas outside the municipality's corporate boundaries interferes with these plans and the legislature's intent that municipalities have control over their growth and development." Br. of Amici at 10. Their point is well taken. IN N.E.2d https://demo.lawriter.net/states/IN/books/Case Law/result?number--4 4/20/2009 Proof of STATE OF INDIANA Publication COUNTY OF CLARK - SS Melissa Tolnay On oath says that she is the bookkeeper of The Evening News and in the employ of the publisher of m ..NOTICE QF strance antl shall CONDEMNATION or at a future mew THE EVENING NEW S Public Notice is hereby giv- .final action o en .that on'the 25th.day of modifying, or resci March, 2009, the :City of Resolution. Jeffersonville Board of Pub- 'ewer UNliri Pro lic Works adopted Resolu- ing Acptrlred: tion No. 2-2009, titled "A A. 0.5 Rou h- a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and g RESOLUTION OF THE .BOARD OF PU6LIC b9AncklmgFilte WORKS OF THE CITY 0~ Y ctivated Sludl water Tr t published in the city of Jeffersonville, Clark County ea mea JEFFERSONVtLLE, tNpl- ANA, APPROPRIATING (knowmasthet.A AND CONDEMNING REAL on approximately , , State of Indiana and further says that the ann d AND PERSONAL PROP- land, and perpetr exe ERTY fOR-USE BY THE to Patrol Road.. CITY OF .JEFFERSON- B. Appro 6 500 f t f a vertisement was published in said paper for #( , ee o 8 VILLE, INDIANA FOR THE ? ACQUISITION OF THE iron (CI) papa efN RIVER RIDGE REDEVEL- maxrona20-foot • time(s) to-wit: • n issue of said The Evening News OPMENT AUTHORITY." A easement (Total ~ complete copy of the said ac. t), .and per? case to this facilit R l ti i i dated' 2009 ' ~^ ~ y eso u on s on f le for pub- lic review in the. Clerk- C: A sn , Treasurer's Office at the station on apF Jeffersonville City Hall. 0.06 acres of lam The Work: Boats hereby area), and perpet t y~ / o.this facilit sets the 22nd. day aN oess April. X009 at 9:3llam, at D• The ~~ / 1r the. Mayors Conference sanitary sewers Rooms in Clyrllslf, ss UfO aOr°~ daade, tMw and place at 1 • . wh~h ~ ~~ BOe~ utary directly to shawl recehre ~ hear re- water Treatment momtrenoee Aram per- ar~ kfrirastsd In or af- Approx. 3,150' r fatted by this proceeding. on a 20-foot eas Prox 1 5 ac ) Th t t h STATE O F INDIAN A . . . a a t e hearing set herein for remonstrance, the YVorke Baard shall con- Approx 31,400' wider any such remon- on a 20-foot ea; COUNTY O F C L A R K prox 14.4 ac.) subscribed and sworn to afore me this day of , 2009. (X) _ JOANN GALLIGAN Notary Public, Clark County, Indiana Publication (My Commission Expires August 27, 2014.) Fee $ /3 ~, ~7 ~ UCo~~Q,3.95