HomeMy WebLinkAbout62 PropertiesSTATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF CLARK )
1N THE
CAUSE
CLARK SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1
NO. 10D01-0302-PL- '3('
62 PROPERTIES, an Indiana general
partnership; TRUST UNDER THE WiLL
OF ROBERT H. KEMPF, JR., Anne Marie
Sedwick Galligan, Trustee;
ROBERT LYNN COMPANY, INC.,
WALLACE B. HITT, SONJA E. H1TT,
and ARRETTA F. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiffs,
V.
CITY OF CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA,
and CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, iNDIANA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SUMMONS
The State of Indiana to Defendant: CITY OF JEFFERSONVlLLE, INDIANA
Address: c/o PeggY Wilder, Jeffersonville Clerk-Treasurer, 501 E. Court Avenue,
City-County Building, 4th Floor, Jeffersonville, IN 47130
You have been sued by the person named "Plaintiff" in the Court stated above.
The nature of the proceedings against you is stated in the Complaint attached to this
Summons. It also states the demand Which the Plaintiff has made against you.
You must answer the Complaint in writing to be filed with the Court, by you or your
attorney, within twenty (20) days, commencing the day after you received this Summons, (you
have twenty-three (23) days to answer if this Summons was received by certified mail), or
judgment will be entered against you for what the Plaintiff has demanded. If you deny the
demand and/or have any claim for relief against the Plaintiff arising from the same transaction or
occurrence, you must assert it in your written answer. It is suggested that you consult with an
attorney of your choice regarding this matter.
The following mariner of service of Summons is hereby designated: CERTIFIED
MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.
DATED: February 13, 2003
C. Gregory Fifer #8121-98
YOUNG, LIND, ENDRES & KRAFT
126 west Spring Street
New Albany, Indiana 47150
(812) 945-2555/948-6956 fax
CLERK, Clark Superior Court No. t
RETURN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
I hereby certify that I have served the within summons:
(1) By delivering a copy of the Summons and a copy of the Complaint to the
defendant, on the __ day of
,200
(2) By leaving a copy of the summons and a copy of the Complaint at
, the dwelling place or usual place of
abode of the said Defendant, with a person of suitable age, and discretion residing
therein, namely:
(3)
Sheriff's Fees:
Additional:
Sheriff of
By:.
County, Indiana
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on the 14th day of February, 2002, I mailed a copy of this
Summons and a copy of the Complaint to the Defendant, City of Charlestown, by
certified mail, requesting a return receipt, at the address furnished by the Plaintiff.
Clerk of the Superior I Court of
Clark County, Indiana
Dated: February 14, 2003
RETURN ON SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY MAIL
I hereby certify that the attached return receipt was received by me showing that
the Summons and a copy of the Complaint mailed to Defendant,
was accepted
by. (Age)
__ day of ,200
on behalf of said Defendant on the
Clerk of the Court of
County, Indiana
SERVICE BY PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A copy of the withi~ Summons and
received by m'~'.~'t_-
day of ,200__
a copy of the Complaint attached hereto were
, this
Signature of Defendant
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF CLARK )
IN THE CLARK SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1
CAUSENO. 10D01-0302-PL- 3 I
62 PROPERTIES, an Indiana general
partnership; TRUST UNDER THE WILL
OF ROBERT H. KEMPF, JR., Anne Marie
Sedwick Galligan, Trustee;
ROBERT LYNN COMPANY, iNC.,
WALLACE B. HITT, SONJA E. HITT,
and ARRETTA F. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiffs,
CITY OF CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA,
and CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cterk;guperror Court
1. Names of Initiating Parties:
2. Attorney Information:
3. Case Type Requested:
4. Related cases:
5. Accept fax service:
6. Accept Courthouse mailbox:
APPEARANCE
(INITIATING PARTY)
62 PROPERTIES; TRUST UNDER THE WILL
OF ROBERT H. KEMPF, JR., Anne Marie
Sedwick Galligan, Trustee; ROBERT LYNN
COMPANY, INC.; WALLACE B. HITT,
SONJA E. HITT, and ARRETTA F. GRIFFIN
C. Gregory Filer, #8121-98
YOUNG, LIND, ENDRES & KRAFT
126 W. Spring Street
New Albany, Indiana 47150
(812) 945-2555
(812) 948-6956 fax
Civil Plenary
None
No
YOUNGS~KRAFT
C. Grey,fy Fifer f
Indiana Supreme [ourt #8121-98
126 W. Spring.Street
New Albany, IN 47150
(812) 945-2555
Counsel for Plaintiffs
STATE OF INDIANA )
) SS:
COUNTY OF CLARK )
iN THE CLARK SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1
CAUSENO. 10D01-0302-PL- ~
62 PROPERTIES, an Indiana general
partnership; TRUST UNDER THE WILL
OF ROBERT H. KEMPF, JR., Anne Marie
Sedwick Galligan, Trustee;
ROBERT LYNN COMPANY, INC.;
WALLACE B. HITT and SONJA E. HITT;
and, ARRETTA F. GRIFFiN,
Plaintiffs,
CITY OF CHARLESTOWN, INDIANA,
and CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA,
Defendant.
FEB 13 2003
Clerk-guporlor Court No,
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, for their complaint herein, state as follows:
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1. Plaintiff, 62 Properties ("62 Properties"), is a general partnership
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana.
2. Plaintiff, Trust under the Will of Robert H. Kempf, Jr., Anne Marie
Sedwick Galligan, Trustee (the "Trust"), is a trust organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Indiana.
3. Plaintiff, Robert Lynn Company, Inc. ("Lynn"), is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana.
4. Defendant, City of Charlestown, Indiana ("Charlestown"), is a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Indiana.
5. By deed dated October 15, 2002, from the Trust, Lynn acquired title to an
approximately 30.241-acre tract of real property located in the unincorporated territory of
Clark County, Indiana (the "Lynn Property"), a copy of which deed describing the Lynn
Property therein is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
6. .62 Properties acquired title to several parcels of property within the
annexed area, which properties total approximately 110 acres, more or less (the "62
Properties' Property"), a copy of the deeds for the majority of the parcels comprising the
62 Properties' Property are attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
7. Lynn has a contractual right to purchase the 62 Properties Property.
8. On or about November 16, 2002, the legal advertisement attached hereto
as Exhibit "D" appeared in The Evening News, a newspapbr of general circulation in
Clark County, Indiana, which notice describes legislative action taken by Charlestown on
or about November 11, 2002 (the "Annexation Ordinance"), a copy of which ordinance is
attached hereto as Exhibit "E", whereby Charlestown purports to have validly annexed
certain real property located in the unincorporated territory of Clark County, Indiana
upon voluntary petition by the owners of land within such area pursuant to the provisions
of IC 36-4-3-5, and which real property, as described in such notice, includes the Lynn
Property and the Highway 62 Properties. (Note: Exhibit "C" intentionally omitted).
COUNT I
FAILURE TO PROPERLY GIVE STATUTORILY REQUIRED
NOTICES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION
9. IC 36-4-3-2. I (b) reads as follows:
"(b) A municipality may adopt an ordinance under this
chapter only after the legislative body has held a public
2
hearing concerning the proposed annexation. The municipality
shall hold the public hearing not earlier than sixty (60) days after
the date the ordinance is introduced. Ali interested parties must
have the opportunity to testify as to the proposed annexation.
Except as provided in subsection (d), notice of the hearing shall
be:
(1) published in accordance with IC 5-3-I except that
the notice shall be published at least sixty (60) days before the
heating; and
(2) mailed as set forth in section 2.2 of this chapter,
if section 2.2 of this chapter applies to the annexation."
(Emphasis supplied).
10. lC 36-4-3-2-2.2 reads in pertinent part as follows:
"(b) Before a municipality may annex territory, the
municipality shall provi~le written notice of the hearing
required under section 2.1 of this chapter. Except as provided in
subsection (e), the notice must be sent by cei'tified mail at least
sixty (60) days before the date of the hearing to each owner of
real property, as shown on the county auditor's current tax list,
whose real property is located within the territory proposed to
be annexed.
(c) The notice required by this section must include the
following:
(1) A legal description of the real property proposed to
be annexed.
(2) The date, time, location, and subject of the hearing.
(3) A map showing the current municipal boundaries
and the proposed municipal boundaries.
(4) Current zoning classifications for the area proposed
to be annexed and any proposed zoning changes for the area
proposed to be annexed.
(5) A detailed summary of the fiscal plan described in
section 13 of this chapter.
(6) The location where the public may inspect and copy
the fiscal plan.
(7) · A statement that the municipality will provide a
copy (~f the fiscal plan after the fiscal plan is adopted immediately
to any landowner in the annexed territory who requests a copy.
(8) The name and telephone number of a representative
of the municipality who may be contacted for further information."
(Emt~hasis SUl~I~lied~.
11. On January 13, 2003, 62 Properties, the Trust, and Lynn, by counsel,
provided a written request to Charlestown for production of public records that (i)
demonstrated compliance with the notice requirements of the heating on the Annexation
Ordinance under the statutes set forth above with respect to 62 Properties and the Trust,
(ii) demonstrated that Charlestown had adopted a written fiscal plan as a condition
precedent to the adoption of the Annexation Ordinance, and ~iii) demonstrated that other
procedural prerequisites to annexation under Indiana law had been properly effectuated.
A copy of this records request is attached hereto as Exhibit "F'.
12. On January 27, 2003, Charlestown provided counsel for plaintiffs with
copies of Charlestown records apparently intended to be responsive to the prior records
request.
13. The records produced by Charlestown include the proof of publication of
notice of public hearing to be held on October 10, 2002, on the Annexation Ordinance
firom The Evening News, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "G'.
14. The records produced by Charlestown further clearly show that all notices
of the required public hearing on the annexation were sent to 62 Properties by certified
mail on or about August 9, 2002, to the address of "5820 State Road 403, Charlestown,
1N 4711 I". Copies of the six (6) envelopes that Charlestown apparently attempted to
mail to 62 Properties at this address are attached hereto as Exhibit "H".
4
15. The envelopes attached as Exhibit "H" were apparently returned to
Charlestown as "not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward" by the United States
Postal Service.
16. Based further upon records produced by the City, Charlestown apparently
erroneously utilized cards maintained by the Clark County Assessor (instead of the Clark
County Auditor as required by statute), to obtain this address for 62 Properties. Attached
l~ereto as Exhibit 'T' are two of such cards produced by ~harlestown with respect to 62
Properties.
17. At all material times the address o£record for 62 Properties on the Clark
County Auditor's tax list has been "1525 Nole Drive, Jeffersonville, 1N 47130-6123". A
copy of the change of address form filed with the Clark county Auditor changing the tax
mailing address for 62 Properties to such address effective May 2, 2001, is attached
hereto as Exhibit "J". The records of the Clark County Auditor show such change to
have been entered of record on May 5, 2001.
18. The records produced by Charlestown clearly show that notice of the
required public heating on the annexation was sent to the Trust by certified mail on or
about August 9, 2002, to the address of "Anne Marie Sedwick, Trustee, Estate of Robert
H. Kempf, Jr., 5820 State Road 403, Charlestown, IN 47111". A copy of the envelope
that Charlestown apparently attempted to mail to the Trust at this address are attached
hereto as Exhibit "K".
19. The envelope' attached hereto as Exhibit "K" was apparently returned to
Charlestown as "not deliverable as addressed - unable to forward" by the United States
Postal Service.
5
20. Based further upon records produced by the City, Charlestown apparently
en'oneously utilized cards maintained by the Clark County Assessor (instead of the Clark
County Auditor as required by statute), to obtain this address for the Trust. Attached
hereto as Exhibit "L" is a copy of one such cards produced by Charlestown with respect
to the Trust.
21. At all material times the address of record for the Trust on the Clark
County Auditor's tax list has been "1613 Tall Oaks Drive, Jeffersonville, IN 47130".
22. No notice of public hearing on the Annexation Ordinance was ever
received by 62 Properties, the Trust, or Lynn, and confirming the Annexation Ordinance
would operate to deprive 62 Properties, the Trust, and Lyrm of their due process rights to
notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the proposed ordinance as required by
statute.
23. Plaintiffs request that this court grant declaratory relief pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, IC 34-14-1-1, et seq., to the effect
that (i) the notice of public hearing requirements under IC 36-4-3-2.1 and IC 36-4-3-2.2
are mandatory, (ii) Charlestown wholly failed to satisfy such requirements as a condition
precedent to the adoption of the Annexation Ordinance, and (iii) the Annexation
Ordinance accordingly be declared as void ab initio, and to be of no legal force or effect.
24.
COUNT II
DEFICIENCIES IN FISCAL PLAN
IC 36-4-3-3.1 provides in pertinent part as follows:
(b) A municipality shall develop and adopt a written fiscal plan
and establish a definite policy by resolution of the legislative body
that meets the requirements set forth in section 13 of this chapter.
(d) In an annexation under section 5 or 5.1 of this chapter, the
municipality shall establish and adopt the written fiscal plan before
adopting the annexation ordinance.
25. According to the minutes to Charlestown City Council (the "City
Council") meetings produced by the Charlestown, Charlestown adopted Ordinance 2002-
OR-06 (a copy of which was not provided by the City) on August 5, 2002, adopting the
fiscal plan attached hereto as Exhibit "M" (the "Fiscal Plan") regarding the proposed
annexation.
26. The Fiscal Plan states on its face that it is a "draft", and the Fiscal Plan, as
adopted contains the following deficiencies under Indiana la'~:
a. The Fiscal Plan sets forth no cost estimates ofplarmed services to
be furnished to the territory to be annexed, specifically including an itemized estimated
costs for each municipal department or agency [IC 36-4-3-13(d)(1)].
b. The Fiscal Plan does not set forth any method or methods of
financing the planned services, specifically including an explanation regarding how
specific and detailed expenses will be funded, nor does it indicate the taxes, grants, and
other funding to be used. [IC 36-4-3-13)(d)(2)].
c. The Fiscal Plan does not set forth a plan for the organization and
extension of services, specifically including any detail about the specific services that
will be provided and the dates the services ~viI1 begin [IC 36-4-3-13(d)(3)].
d. The Fiscal Plan states that non-capital services, specifically
including road maintenm~ce and police protection, will be provided to the annexed
territory within one (1) year after the effective date of annexation, but it does not state
7
that such services will be provided in a manner equivalent in standard and scope to those
non-capital services provided to areas within the corporate boundaries regardless of
similar topography, patterns of land use, and population density. [IC 36-4-3-13(d)(4)].
e. The Fiscal Plan states in pertinent part that:
"The annexation area will be provided access to the City's water
and wastewater services. Any extension of service to the
armexation area will be at the expense of the developer."
"Capital services will be provided within three (3) years of the
effective date of the annexation action. At this time, capital
services are already provided to the annexation area and no
additional capital services are projected to be required by the
annexation area."
The above provisions of the Fiscal Plan do not state 'that services of a capital
improvement nature, including street construction, street lighting, sewer facilities, water
facilities, and stormwater drainage facilities, will be provided to the annexed territory
within three (3) years after the effective date of the annexation in the same manner as
those services are provided to areas within the corporate boundaries, regardless of similar
topography, patterns of land use, and population density, and in a manner consistent with
federal, state, and local laws, procedures, and planning criteria, as required by IC 36-4-3-
13(d)(5).
27. Plaintiffs, Wallace B. Hitt and Sonja E. Hitt (the "Hitts"), own and reside
on property located at the commonly known address of 7719 Highway 62, Charlestown,
Indiana, which property is within the proposed annexation area. A copy of the Hitts'
deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "N".
8
28. The Hitts' residence on the above-referenced property consists ora single-
family home served by a septic system.
29. The Fiscal Plan maizes no commitment by Charlestown to extend sanitary
sewer service to the Hitts' home within three (3) years as required by statute.
30. Plaintiffs request that this court grant declaratory relief pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, IC 34-14-1-1, et seq., to the effect
that (i) the Fiscal Plan adopted by the Charlestown doe~' not conform to the minimal
mandatory requirements established by Indiana law, (ii) Charlestown wholly failed to
satisfy the requirement that it adopt a fiscal plan that complies with Indiana law as a
condition precedent to the adoption of the Annexation Ordinance, and (iii) the
Annexation Ordinance accordingly be declared as void ab initio, and to be of no legal
force or effect.
COUNT III
SUBSTANTIVE DEFICIENCIES IN THE PETITIONS; LACK OF CONTIGUITY
31. IC 36-4-3-5(a) reads as follows:
"If the owners of land located outside of but contiguous to a
municipality want to have territory containing that land annexed to
the municipality, they may file with the legislative body of the
municipality a petition:
(1) signed by at least:
(A) fifty-one percent (51%) of the owners of land in
the territory sought to be annexed; or
(B) the owners of seventy-five percent (75%) of the
total assessed value of the land for property tax purposes; and
(2) requesting an ordinance annexing the area described in
the petition."
32. The documents provided by Charlestown clearly establish that the
"petition" for annexation under IC 36-4-3-5 that ultimately resulted in the adoption of the
Annexation Ordinance, is in reality a series of 330 petitions that are identical in form and
labeled as "joint petitions". Such petitions merely request the annexation of the
individual petitioner's property to the City, but do not in any manner describe the totality
of the area for which annexation is sought. Attached hereto as Exhibit "O" is one of the
petitions provided by the City.
33. Upon belief, few to none of the properties that are the subject of the
individual joint petitions meet the contiguity requirements of IC 36-4-3-13.
34. Charlestown instead apparently utilized such joint petitions to craft an area
of its choosing in a manner to be as large as possible while still maintaining signatures of
at least 51% of the total number of land owners in the annexation area adopted by the
Annexation Ordinance.
35. Plaintiffs request that this court grant declaratory relief pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, IC 34-14-1-1, et seq., to the effect
that (i) the petitions are deficient as a matter of law in describing the boundaries of
contiguous territory for which annexation to Chartestown is sought, (ii) Charlestown
improperly substituted its judgment in defining such area to be annexed for that of the
"voluntary" petitioners as required by law, and (iii) the Annexation Ordinance
accordingly be declared as void ab initio, and to be of no legal force or effect.
10
COUNT IV
SUBSTANTIVE DEFICIENCY
IN THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
36. IC 36-4-3-7(a) provides that an annexation ordinance can take effect not
sooner than 90 days after its publication.
37. The Annexation Ordinance provides, contrary to such statute, that "It]his
ordinance shall be in full force and effect takes effect (sic) at least thirty (30) days after
its publication and upon the filing required by I.C. 34-4-3-22(a)".
38. Plaintiffs request that this court grant declaratory relief pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgrnents Act, IC 34-14-1-1, et seq., to the effect
that (i) the stated effective date of the annexation is earlier than that permitted by Indiana
la;v, (ii) the Annexation Ordinance contains no savings clause by which such illegal
provision can be stricken with the remaining provisions remaining in effect, and (iii) the
Annexation Ordinance accordingly be declared as void ab initio, and to be of no legal
force or effect.
COUNT V
PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES IN
THE ADOPTION OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE
39. IC 36-1-3-6(a), a provision within the Indiana Home Rule Act, provides
that "[i]f there is a constitutional or statutory provision requiring a specific manner for
exercising a power, a unit wanting to exercise the power must do so in that manner."
40. IC 36-4-6-12 and 13 are statutes that provide for the specific maturer for
murdcipalities, such as the City, to exercise the po*ver of adopting ordinances. IC 36-4-3-
12 provides that "[al majority vote of the legislative body is required to pass an
11
ordinance, unless a greater vote is required by statute".' IC 36-4-6-13(a) provides that
"Iai two-thirds ( 2/3 ) vote of ail the elected members, after unanimous consent of the
members present to consider the ordinance, is required to pass an ordinance of the
legislative body on the same day or at the same meeting at which it is introduced."
41. Upon belief Charlestown is a third class city organized under Indiana law
with the City Council consisting of five (5) members.
42. The records produced by Charlestoxvn slxow that at the City Council
meeting on November 1 I, 2002, the Annexation Ordinance was passed by a vote of four
(4) members in favor and one (1) member against at a single meeting without a
unanimous consent authorization first being made by vote. A copy of the minutes of
such meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit "P".
43. Exhibit "O" further shows that at the City Council meeting on November
11, 2002, a motion to adopt the A~mexation Ordinance was initially defeated by a
majority vote of the City Council. After additional discussion, but without authorization
to reconsider or substantive amendment, the motion to adopt the Annexation Ordinance
was again offered, and this time passed by the 4-1 margin described above.
44. IC 36-4-3-2.1, as set forth in rhetorical paragaph 8 above, requires a
municipality to hold a public hearing not earlier than sixty (60) days after the date an
annexation ordinance is first introduced to the legislative body.
45. The records provided by Charlestown establish that the Annexation
Ordinance was not introduced to the City Council until the November 11, 2002, meeting
at which it was adopted.
12
46. Plaintiffs request that this court grant declaratory relief pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, IC 34-14-1 - 1, et seq., to the effect
that (i) the Annexation Ordinance was not properly promulgated, adopted, or enacted,
and (ii) the Annexation Ordinance accordingly be declared as void ab initio, and to be of
no legal force or effect.
COUNT VI
TAXPAYER APPEAL
47. Plaintiff, Arretta F. Griffin ("Griffin"), is the owner of certain real
property in Charlestown located at the commonly known address of 112 Halcyon Road,
Charlestown, Clark County, Indiana, by virtue of the deed attached hereto as Exhibit "P".
48. Lyrm is also holds legal title to the following described properties in
Charlestown, and is legally obligated for the payment of real estate taxes assessed by
Charlestown thereon:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
405 Green Valley Drive, Key No. 18-53-51.
323 Lynn Drive, Key No. 18-53-25.
317 Lynn Drive, Key No. 18-53-28.
331 Locust Drive, Key No. 18-53-10.
315 Lynn Drive, Key No. 18-53-29.
49. Griffin, Lynn and other similarly situated Charlestown property owners
are provided police protection, road and street maintenance, street lighting, sanitary sewer
facilities and service, and water facilities and service, among other services, by
Charlestown.
13
50. Griffin and Lynn assert that, at a minimum, the Fiscal Plan is deficient in
that it does not set forth a credible plan for the extension or financing of public water
service or sanitary sewer service to the annexation area, both of which capital services are
presently provided by Charlestown within its corporate limits.
51. Griffin and Lynn object to, and seek to set aside, the Annexation
Ordinance on grounds that it will likely jeopardize the fiscal condition and security of
Charlestown in that: '
a. The Fiscal Plan fails to meet the requirements of Indiana law in
that it does not commit to, or include a detailed financial plan for, the extension of
services of both a capital and non-capital nature to the annexed area within the statutory
timeframe to the same extent that such services are presently provided within
Charlestown.
b. In the event that CharIestown is mandated to provide such services
to areas within the annexed area to the same extent that such services are provided within
Charlestown, Charlestown would be adversely impacted in a severe financial manner.
c. In the event that Charlestown fa/Is to provide such services to the
annexed area in a timely maimer, the provisions of IC 36-4-3-16 leave Charlestown at
risk of adverse financial impact from claims of residents in the annexed area either
requiring the extension of such services or for the award of enhanced damages resulting
from Charlestown's failure.
14
COUNT VII
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
52. Defendant, City of Je£fersonville, Indiana ("Jeffersonville"), is named as a
party herein in order that it may assert any claims or interest it has regarding this Count
VI.
53. Lynn has obtained a commitment from Jeffersonville whereby Lynn is to
construct a sanitary sewer connector from the Lynn Property and the 62 Properties
Property to an existing sanitary sewer interceptor owned and operated by Jeffersonville
that is located some 1.5 miles to the northwest of such properties. Jeffersonville's
commitment to provide sanitary sewer service to such properties is evidenced by the
written agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "R".
54. On February 3, 2003, the Jeffersonville Board o£ Works adopted a
confirming resolutions taking certain easements required for the provision of such service
to such properties in accordance with the provisions of IC 32-24-2-1, et seq., a copy o£
which resolutions are attached hereto as Exhibit "S".
55. Charlesto~vn's city attorney, on behalf of the affected landoWners, has
objected to such takings by Jeffersonville by, in part, asserting that the annexation area is
already a part of Charlestown (contrary to the provisions of lC 36-4-3-7(a)), and that
Charlestown has no interlocal agreement with Jeffersonville permitting Jeffersonville to
provide sanitary sewer service in such area. A copy of the written objection (without
attachments) containing such assertions is attached hereto as Extfibit "T".
56. In light of the failure of Charlestown to provide in the Fiscal' Plan that it
will provide sanitary sewer service to existing homes and developments in the vicinity of
15
the Lynn Property and the 62 Properties Property in the manner required by IC 36-4-3-
7(d)(5), from which Lynn could further extend service to the Lynn Property and the 62
Properties Property, Lynn will suffer immediate and irreparable injury if the Annexation
Ordinance is allowed to take effect during the period in which the merits of the claims
asserted herein are fully resolved.
57. Plaintiffs therefore ask for the granting of temporary injunctive relief
prohibiting either:
a. The Annexation Ordinance becoming of effect during the
pendency of this action; and/or,
b. The Lynn Property, the 62 Properties Property, or the Hitts'
property from being considered a part of Cbarlestown during'the pendency of this action,
and further prohibiting Charlestown from taking any action intended to delay, hinder or
prevent the extension of sanitary sewer service by Jeffersonville to the Lynn Property and
the 62 Properties Property.
58. Charlestown will suffer no harm from such delay in the effectiveness of
the Annexation Ordinance as Indiana real property taxes are paid one year in arrears, and
Chartestown stands to collect no revenues for such annexation during 2003.
59. As security for the granting of such temporary injunctive relief, Lynn
agrees to post bond in the amount of up to two (2) times the amount of tax revenues
previously assessed on the Lynn Property and the 62 Properties Property during the most
recent tax year for which such records are available in Clark County.
60. Plaintiffs further ask that Charlestown be enjoined from attempting further
annexation either (i) within the area described in the Annexation Ordinance, or (ii) of the
16
Lynn Property, the 62 Properties Property, and~or the Hitts' property for a period of four
(4) years in a manner similar to the relief provided by IC 36-4-3-15(b).
WHERFORE, plaintiffs pray for the granting of the relief requested hereinabove,
and for all other relief to which it is deemed entitled.
C.
YOUNG, LiND, ENDRES & KRAFT
126 West Spring Street
New Albany, 1N 47150
(812) 945-2555
Attorney for Plaintiffs
17
NOV-01-2002 FRI 12:22 PM
F~× NO.
?, U2
Shtrley Noto[
CLRRK COUNTY RECORDER
C[~rk County Recorder
[ 20022594g Pa~e
C2 Dale 10/16/20e2 ~tme 13:23~5B
'l'J ] I S 1 bJ [)I,'~N'[' [] RI ~ \X/'['J"NI~SSIJ£T! I that ANNIE MARIi'; SIZDWI (;K
"~ ' r under dtc l.ast Will and Tcsl'amcnt of P, obert I I. Kcmpf, Jr.
(,,., ,,l',l ,I(,,-A xI ::t~ 'l'r~srce, '
('~(;I~AN'.I.'OI{"), (o,' it'll 13o la :s ($10.0() and olhcr go?d and vMrmblc consideration,
(?ONVtZYS A'ND WARRANTS
1..% N t~ eOM PA'NY', l NC., mi Indi:ma coq~oradon ("GRANTEI'V'),
xx, lx~.'.~: mailit~V, :tddrt:ss: for receipt o£ property lax stalcments is 713 Mount 'Cabot
1,'.o:,d, 5'nirt 4, N'cw .Albmw, fndim~a 4'!150, all o£hcv rightl title and interest in tim
· r',l~k ('.'(>ii ~i , '[adi~ma:
{i)lic~vin['[ clc..~c' ~t / rc:.ll cs[:4lc In y
:,{'c t ::<l;tJ~l: A, art:robed hcrclo atad j~ncot-p¢~rat'cxt herein 1.~y rcf(,r0nce.
ass mqcs and agrees 1'o pay all real property taxes assessed on thc reM.
· ¢
11'~ WI'.I?{t';SS WI-IIZFII~OF, the (,rani)r has executed tl~is Warranty l')ced
Ild;; ../;!i.~.~d~y ~)(' ()c~ol~cr, 2002.
C~,RANTOR:
.......... Z' ............ "?-~'~ ~' r'
Anne M'arie Scdwick (~allJgan, 'l rustc,.: uFdie, r
the Imst Will and lcstamcnt
NOV-01-2002 FRI 12:23 ?~ FAX NO,
P, 03
5'I'ATI~ OF tN'I")iANA )
il)tiN '~ ()I'"(,I,AR[', )
lk;G~c mc, a Notary Publk: il~ and £or sa~d (2mn~ ~nd State, tl~isff~~ day
2002 personally ~pp<:arcd Aura' Marie Scdwick ('.;dlip~an, in her c~pacixy
' ' ' I'L Kemp[Jr., Grantor hcrdn,
del [l~c I,:~stWill nt~d [csta m: ~t ofl, cbcrt
this '~ day oF October, 2002.
Wl't Nh,x,":=c . ~y' h:m}[ nnd N marial Seal .... /.
l~csidcm of (][ark County, indiam~
'["his I'nstrurnc:ut prepared
Anne Marie
1613 Tall Oaks Drive
.JeFfersrmville, Indiana 47130
(81U 21g.8330
NOV-O1-2002 FRI 12:23 ?H FAX NO, ?, 04
f/ , t,
/
}30'{~.~. part of £k~rvey 1~o. 71 of the Illinois Grant in
Cla~:k County, I~'~diana, bounded as follows: B~ginning
at ~. stcno ~t the North co,nar of said Survey 53;
:u%mni~g thence wi~:h the li~e dividing Surveys 71 and ~3
South 53 degrees 39' West 1320.5 feet to its inter~ec-
t:[c~n ~ih%% the Westerly right-of-way line of State
dogI'aas 5~' We~$t 3B4.6 feet to an iron pipe; thence.
%~o~:th 67 degrees 09' West 308.15 feet to an iron pipe
in t.l%e ].i~e coat,Non to Surveys 71 and 53; thence North
6~ de,mcca 06.6' Wast 819.30 feet to a point in the
Westerly ~ight..of-way line of the B & O Railroad (80-
foot ~::i. ght-of-.way), t}~e true p!~ce of beginning of land
to ]~a hcrcJ.n dc~cribed.
~l~hence ~i.tl~ sa.~lc~ Sol%thward].y to a point ~n the llne ef
Jsa:I.d Survey 71 and 53; thence South 49-1/2 de~rees West
~:[tl'~ said line to a uorner of the 38 acre traot which
%.~as for$lerly J.P. K~.gor's corner; thence with lines of
~aid 38 a(~]re tract North 40 da[lrees 20' West 87 1/4
pole~ .~o ~. stake and }~orth 49-1/2 de~rees E~sk 70 i)oles
and 2 links Zo u stake; thence Nortt~ 40-1/2 degrees
N;oz:t 74 poles 5..~2 l~nks to a stone corner to what was
fo~n%er].y ~Tikes ],a~(].; ti~enee with another llne of
].qo~'tl~ 49-1./4; de~rees East ];47 poles 17-!/6 links
:.~Lone in the oris~nal dividing line of Surveys 71 and
j.]'~g li~%e to the Westerly ~-ight-of-way line of the D a 0
Rail:road.; thence witt~ same Southwardly to the place of
E~c~?pt~n~ t]~.erafrom, the following described real
estate: Cor~'monaln~ at t~a ~aoat Northerly corner of
Survey Ne. 7~ of the Illinois Grant and runnin~ thence
alon[~ the ~o~theasterlY line of said Survey No. 71,
;~outh 36 degreeg ~6'20" ~ast 2435.$6' to a railrosd
~pike in the ~entarline of ~eth~ny Road, the truo point
of b~,~i~'~n~g'. 'L'hanee continu~n~ alon~ said eentarline
and ~;~:[d Survey llne, South 36 da~rees 16' 20" East,
,190.~35 ~eet to a railroad spike ~n the Westerly
of-way l~.~%e of ~:]',e B & O ~atlroad, said right-of-way
being 8g feet i~. ~.~fdth: thence S. 22 de~rees 01' 30"
~.;~nt along said Westerly right-of-way llna, 2619.30
feet t:o ~%n iro~ pipe; t~enae North 54 degrees 13' 44"
~qest, 319.04 feot to an ].ron pipe; thence on a curve to
%%ho ~tight., said curve having a central angle of 7
da~3~.eas 15' 14", a radius of 345.70' to a chord which
bents Sc>%%th 39 degrces 23' 53" West, 43.74 feet to
izton pipe; thence North 46 degrees 58' 30" West, 345.70
~e~[t. to an i~ton pipe; thence Nortll 36 degrees 20' 2'2'~
Wask~ 445.14 feet to a 1/2 inch iron pipe; thenc~
NOV-O1-2002 FRI 12:23 ?~ FAX NO, ?, 05
36 do~Ca,'~ 37' 4~}" West, 786,93 feet to an iron pipe;
th~rLca l~ort, h 53 de~jree~; 39' 33" East, 2438.82 feet to
A],.~3o r,x(~epti~l~ therefrom the following described re~.l
e~t~%t¢~: ~as{innincj ~t a stone on the eo~on corner o~
S%~veys 70 ~nd 71 i~ the northern line of Survey $~53 of
~i~l ~ll~no~s G~a.n%; TkanCe N. 40 degrees W. alon~ thu
',Li~'~o d{vidi~g ~aid Surveys 70 and ';1, 1458.50 feet to a
BEGI~4~'[ING,
'l%cnce cont~nui%%g N. 49 degrees 32' E., alon~ the
~lo~:tl~a~:t line o.~ said tra~t, 293.~4 feet to an iron
}~.'~ on the east corner o~ a trac~ of land described in
D~ed I)~:'a%~er 3,0 Inst~:u.~ont 3.9.171 of said county records;
q.~he~lc~ S. 40 deurees 34' 24" E., t48.55 feat to an iron
~J't~e~c~(:~ ~. 49 ctag~ees 32' W., ~93.24 fee~ to an iron pin
~ tl~e %~:%stern~osh 3.1~t(~ of said tract tn Deed Drawam' 8
I~'~:t)cu.~nt 11187;
'l'kCnc~ ~, ,~O dc~g;cees 3~' 2~" W., along sald westez'~mo~t
Co~%tat~i'nF3 1.00 acre, ~aore o~ less.
of. %~hich i~3 subjn¢:t to 10 foo~ wide water line
en.~;~7.ment along and adjoin~.n.~ the northern line of tke
de~:c~.'t}~el tra~t, %~hich easement is more fully described
D(~cd Drawer 20, ~nstrx~tant 39Z5 of the arecords of
Clark County, ~ndiana, ~%eeorder, and all other
~%~%l~moz~ z. estrtetions, ~I'~d encu~bran~e~ of record.
FOR
TAX NO. 11-31~25
?PHIS ~ Wi~BHH~ thug Blak~ A. F~ld~ ~n4 K~z~l ~.
Fields, husband 4nd wif~ ("Uran~ors-) uf th~ C~u~ty of Cl~k,
CONVEy
=o 62 PROPERTIES, a general partnership. ("Grantee") County of
Clark, State of Indiana, the fei/owing described real estate
situated in Clark County,'stata of Indiana, to-w~t:
Beginning at the North corner of Survey No. ~3 at
s=one, thence South 53 deg. 39 min. West 175S.9 fa~t to
an iron pipe in the line dividing SUrve~ Nos. ~3 and
thence North 67 deg. 09 mi~. We-s= 7¢2.~ feet to an iron
~ipe on the Souther~ Right-of-Way line' of the B&O
So~th 36 deg. 02 min. East elo~ald grentline, 1103.65
feet to an iron pime in th~ ~n~erlina of Stacy Road,=
same being the Northern Right-of-Way i/ne of State Road
Thence north 49 deg. 16 min. He~t 19~.23 feet tO an iron
pipe.thence North 35 deg. 14 ~n. East 97'.8 feet to an
iron pice, thence South 51 deg. 12 min. ~ast 203.67 feet
to an ~ron pipe on the Northex~ Right-ofvway. line ~f
94.32 fee% along said Northern ~/ght-of-Way.'line, to an.
acre and* situated in Survey No. 53 of the {llino{~ Grmnt
TO HA%q~ AND TO HOLD all cf the a~ova-de~cri~ rea~ pro~erty
together with all of the ~ghts, ~ri~ileges,
improvem~ts thereunto b~ngin~ ~nto the Grantee, mod
of ti~le~
Grantors further covenant that they are lawf~lly seized
5820 State-Road 403' '
Charleston, ~ndian~ 47111" .,. . , ;,
IN NI~ ~OF, Gr~rs have her~ each 'set
hisser hand and seal ~ls- day Of Na~ch, ~994. '
.~J
A. FINDS ISTI ~. FIELDS
· f0~ ?~,,~,~$.. ~,'! EXHIBIT
I~ARRANTY DEED
THIS INDENTURE ~ITNESSETH, c~at ~ ~ PROPERTIES, a general
par~.nership, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar
($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration. ~he receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged,
CONVEYS-AND WARRANTS
to 62 PROPERTIES, a general partnership, the ~o!lowing described
real estate situate ~in .the County of Clark, State of Indiana, To-wit;
~ Deed Drawer 6, Instrument No. 5~25 of the CZark County, Indiana
· t,f gOO feet, mor~ o~'[ess, c9 a Railro~4 Spike'o~ the.easterly-
~ii'.: '.': .'" '." '. right o£ way l[n&.'of th~.B. & 0'. Rallrgad ( 80 foot R/~ ) and.
: .':. '...' bulng tfe true plhce of b~ginn~n~ o~ land to Be herein de~cribe8g
...:.":.':.. . .
:" '.'. : · ~ay line of Sta~e Road No. 62. South 6~'.02' riO" West 54.38 fezt ..-.
rL~ 5'! ", : "' '~a~d curve having'e'cenzral angl~.O'~ 14~' 29' &~"~. a radius of
:ti3{::.,::! .:'~,~.. ' .~ 45&D..46 fget and q.'ctlord.~hlch ~ars South 13*'17,' 42" West, llbO~7O
{:~' ),.:"...~..'.. ~',~ feet to a State ~tighway right ot ~ay monument; thence S~uth
· l~..: : :~ .: ~. ~ 34~' ~e~e.along said. wastcrly.k{ght o£ way l~n¢ ~f
'' ~-~"'~'~ '~.. ' . . ' "' ",' a'distan&o off .92g"oo"feet't~ a Szate' High~ay ~lgha of way
-?,/-,',: ..-.- .' thence conrinuifi~ along said ~.sr~rly right of ~ay lin~
~ .1: : , ~ad No. 62 and along a cube.to the ~lghc', aa~d cu~e t~avlng a
~ Yight of way {las of said Sta~e ~ad No. 621 thence South
· 45" West nlong said'westerl~ r.%ght, of ~ay iane of State Road No. 62,.
53.63 fee~ to a ~atl:road spike i~ the center'of Stacy
( 30 foe< R/W ); <hence Nqrt~ 36'" ~' W~sr along ~he cenrerllne
."':':.' i Cpdtainlng 88.9296'adr. a of land.
[i~[' -' : ~nd. Being the southwesterly 15 gee~ to the a~ve described 88.9296
z;:...:' .' .. ' acre parce~ of land. · -'
,:.;. r~ceip= o~ ~eh ts hereby acknowledged,
~- "~' CONEYS ~D wA~TS
=o 62 pROPERTIES, a general par=nershfp,
real e~ca=e siruate In ~he. Co~CY of Clark, s=ate of lndf~a, to-wit:
Deed Dra~ 8~ I~at~nt No. 11233 of c~ Clark Co~CY, Indl~a
K~rd of ~eds an~ b~lng a. Far=. ~f Su~eys No. ~ ~d ~1 ~ the
Illinois GranT, situated' in Ugiaa To~S~, Clark
and being ~a fully descxibed am follow, co.it:
a~ ~b~ ~t.wea~erly co.er
of 880 ~eeC, ~re or le~ ..... f~C R/W );' ~heuce
~ ~ righ~ of way l~e d~ the
North 22* ~* 10" ~mt sion8 said easterly right of way line"o~f
~hc i. & O. Railroad, 2905,85 feet ~o au iron pipe. a~ b~ili ~he:
' ' co the 1978 gee1 ~state taxes
due and' payable tn 1~79 and all subsequ~t taxeS.
? ~. ~e Grantee ass~s '~d agrees to pay the balance of"a cercafn.
adjace~lt to the third (3rd)
Coot9 (oral) (Grant 116)
Couch (Grant 116) and
(etal) (Gtan~ 116) and
I.. Coots (ertl) (Grant 116)
right-of-way line of High
Jackson Road, 8 pub¢io
highway, ¢nd continufng
way llne of properly
(Grant 52) and Helman &
Creater Clark E[ementaq¢
Corp.; along the western
boundary of tile Sunset
Acres Subdivision; and
along fines of property
generally nortbwes[wardly
and co~ltahgrlg 2,749 112
2) The boundaries of the
City of Chadestowr~ shall
3) This ordinance sha~l be
Nov16
D 2 , THF, EVENING ?,JEWS
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-OR-_
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TERRITORY IN THE BETHANY ROAD AREA
CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF CHARLESTOWN
WHEREAS, the municipal boundary of the City of Chartestown, Indiana, is north and east
and adjacent and contiguous to, certain te,,Titory in the Bethany Road area, described below; and
WHEREAS, a majod[y of the owners of the rotatory described betow have petitioned the
Common Council for the annexation of the territory into the City of Chadestown; and
WHEREAS, the territory described is contiguous and adjacent to the third (3rd) councilmanic
disthct:
THEREFORE, Be it ordained by the Common Counci! of the city of Chaflestown, Indiana, as
follows!
1) The following described territory is hereby annexed and deClared a part of the City of
Chadestown, Indiana, and is assigned to t~e third (3~) councilmanic district, to wit:
Proper~ in Clark County, Indiana arid more pamculariy described as follo~vs.
Commencing at the western most comer of the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision in the City o£
Chartestown, Indiana, thence southeastwardly along the western boundary of said subdivision
930 feet, more or less, to the Point of Beginning of this description. Said point being au the
common line of properties currently or previously owned by Harold O. & Betty l,. Sexton
(Grant 116) and Charles M. Couch (Grant 116).
'Thence along the common tine of properties currently or previously owned by Harold G. &
Betty L. Sexton (Grant tl. 6) and Charles M. Couch (Grant I16) and continuing along the
common line of properties currently or previously owned by Charles M. Couch (Grant lid) and
Dana& Sharon L. Coots (etal) (Grant 116) southwestwardly 1,940 feet more or less.
Thence along the common line of property currently or previously owned by Charles M. Couch
(Grant 116) and Dana & Sharon L. Coots (eta.I) (Grant t I6) and continum~ along the common
line of properties currently or previously owned by Dana & Sharon L. Coots (eta,l) (Grant 1 t6)
and Kynard & Louise Taft (Grant I16) southeastwardly 2,940 feet mere or less to the
northwestern right~of-way line of High Jackson Road, a public highway.
Thence along the northwestern tight-of-way line of High Jackson Road, a public highway, and
continuing along the division line between Grant Numbers 115 and 94, and continuing along the
division line between Grant Numbers 1 t4 and 93, and continuing along the northwestern right-
of-way line of ,renks Road, a public highway, crossing Stacy Road, a public highway,
southwes~vardly 12,200 f~t more or less to the southwestern dght-of-wa,v ~ine of Stacy Road, a
public highway.
Thence along the southwestern right-of-way line of Stacy Road, a public highway,, 7,600 feet
more or less to the eormnon line of properties currently or previously owned by Mark, Lynn
Ann & Diane Hortander (Grant 70) and Mark W. & Pamela M. Ward (Grant 70).
Thence along the common line of properties currentty or previously owned by Mark, Lynn Ann
& Diane Hot-lander (Grant 70) and Mark W. & Pamela M. Ward (Grant 70) southwest-,vardly
1,330 ±'eot more or less.
Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Mark W. &
Pamela M. Ward (Grant 70) and Richard Lanman (Grant 70) and continuing along the common
line of prope?cy currently or previously owned by Richard Leman (Grant 70) and the
following: fames A. Ward trod Carolyn Ward (Grant 70); John & Elaine Cleveland (Grant 70);
Robert L. Hoilis (Grant 70); G. William & Ruth ~ IGng (Grant 70); George Clark & Mary
Schlosser (Grant 70) southeastwardly 2,860 feet more of less to the northwestern line of
prope?zy currently or previously owned by Cynthia A. Stucky & Veda E. Stucky (Grant 52).
Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Cynthia A.
Stucky & Veda E. Stucky (Grant 52) and Richard Lehman (Grant 70) southwestwardly 860~ee~ = ~
more or less.
Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Cynthia A.
Stueky & Veda E. Stucky (Grant 52) and Charles & fuanita R. Schlossar (C~rant 52) and
continuing to property, currently or previously owned by Derrick L. &Patricia Vogt (Grant 52)
southeastwardly t ,¢00 feet more or lees.
Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Charles & fuanita
R. Schlosser (Grant 52) and Derrick L. &Patricia Vog (Grant 52) northeastwardly 840 feet
more or less to the western right~of-w~y line of property currently or previously owned by the B
& O Raikoad.
Thence along the common line of property currently or previously owned by Derrick L. &
Patricia Vogt (Grant 52) and the western fight-of-way line of r~roperty currently or previously
owned by the B & O Railroad southwastwardly 950 feet more or less.
Thence crossing property currently or previously owned by the B & O Railroad southe~twardly
200 feet more or less to the eastern right-or~way line of property currently or previously owned
by B & O Railroad, said eastern r/ght-of-way line also being common to property currently or
previously owned by The Church, The Body of Christ (Grant 52).
Thence along the common line of the eastern r/ght-or-way line of property currently or
previousty owned by B & O P, ailroad and property currently or previously owned by The
Church, The Body of C~hrist (Grant 52) northeastwardly 2,080 feet more or tess.
Thence along the common line of prope.~es currently or previously owned by The Church, The
Body of Clmst (Grant 52) and Herman & Patty Sharp and crossing Highway 62, a public
highway, southeastwardly 1130 feet more or less to the common line of the southeasterly right-
of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway, and the westerly line of the Indlan~ Army
Ammunition Plant.
Thence along the common line of the southeasterly fight-of-way tine of Highway 62, a public
highway, and the westerly line of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant. northerly 61.300 feet
more or less.
Thence Ieav/ng said common line of the southeasterly right-of-way lime of Highway 62, a pub ic
highway, and the westerly line of the Lndiaun Army Ammunition Plant. northwesterly I00 feet
more or Iess to the centertine of the fight-of-way of Highway 62, a public highway.
Thence along said centerline of the fight-of-way of Highway 62, a publi9 highway,
northeastwardly 14,700 more or tess.
Thence leaving said cantertine of the right-of-way line of Highway 62, a public hig_hway
norrhwestwardly 100 feet more or less to th? westerly right-of-way I ine of Highway 62, a public
highway.
2
Thence along the westerly r~ght-of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway, southwesrwardly
3,750 feet more or less.
Thence leaving the westerly right-of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway, along the
meanders of the corporaZe line of Chartesmwn, Indiana and along lines of properties currently or
previously owned by the following: NIBCO; and Greater Clark Elementary Corp.; along the
western boundary of the Sunset Acres Subdivision; and along lines of property currently or
pre~ously o~med by the following: Chartestown blousing Aathor/ry; Betty 3'. & Claudine
Buckner; Claudine Buckne.,; Charles M. Couch; and along the western bounda.w~ of the Pleasant
Ridge Subdivision generally nerthwest~vardly [2,000 feet more or less to the Point of
Be~nning.
And containing 2,749 % Acres, more or less.
2) The boundaries of the City of Chadestown shall be, and hereby are declared to be
extended so as to include all of said real estate as a part of the City' of Chadestown.
3) This ordinance shall be in full force and effect takes effect at least thirty (30) days after
its publication and upon the filing required ky I.C, 34.-4-3-22(a).
ALL OF WHICH IS ORDAINED by the common council of the City of Chadestown on the
day of October 2002.
AYES
Mktia~l Anthbr!i~"Jael~o~/
Ward Tackett
NAYS
Michael Anthony 3,ackson
Ward Tackett
Terry. Pierce
Bruce Bottorff
Terry PieCe ~'
Ed Belly
Brace Bot~orff
PRESENTED TO ME AND APPROVED THIS/f4DAY OF {3G-T-OB-E-R 2002, BY:
· Robert Hall, Mayor
3
Ai iEST:
Dare
City. Clerk/Treasurer
4
January 13, 2003
PERSONAL DELIVER Y
OFFICE OF THE CLERK-TREASURER
City of Charlestown, Indiana
304 Main Cross
Charlestown, IN 47111
Re:
Ordinance for ~mnexation of Unincorporated Territory adopted ~y the
City of Charlestown on or about November 2002
Dear Clerk-Treasurer:
I represent 62 Properties, an Indiana general partnership, the Trust under the Wilt
of Robert H. Kempf, Jr., and Robert Lynn Company, Inc., each of which is, or at material
times has been, an owner of real property in the territory purported to have been annexed
by the City 'of Charlestown under ~he annexation ordinance referenced above (the
"Ordinance").
This letter is provided pursuant to the provisions of the Indiana Access to Public
Records Act, IC 5-14~3-I, et seq. (the "Act"). Pursuant to the Act request is hereby
made for copies for any records made and maintained by the City of Charlestown,
Indiana, or any of its officials, commissions, boards, councils, departments or subsidiaries
(the "City"), that are responsive to the folIowing requests:
1. A copy of any petition purportedly signed by property owners within the
area purportedly annexed under the Ordinance and filed with the City.
2. A copy of any other written correspondence or other document filed with
or submitted to the City by any person signing any petition produced in response to
Request No. 1 above since September 1, 2002.
3. A fully executed copy of the Ordinance referenced above, and the minutes
of any City Council meeting at which such Ordinance was discussed or acted upon.
(With respeci to such minutes and as an alternative to this request and Request Nos. 4,
18, 20, 21, and 22 below, you may provide copies of all regular and special Chartestown
City Council meetings since July 1, 2002. Utilization of this alternative does not relieve
you of the duty to provide other responsive documents besides minutes to these
additional requests).
Office of the Chariestown Clerk-Treaszirer
January 13, 2002
Page 2 of 4
4. A cop), of any document showing or tending to show the date on which
such Ordinance was first introduced to the Charlestown City Council, which request
includes without limitation, minutes of the Charlestown City Council.
5. ' A copy of the notice of any public heating held or proposed to be held on
the Ordinance and which was intended for publication in any newspaper.
6. A copy of the proof of publication regarding an5' notice of public hearing
produced in response to Request No. 5 above.
7. A copy of any list of property owners and ad'tresses within the area
proposed to be annexed under the Ordinance that was utilized or was intended to be
utilized for purposes of giving any written notice of public hearing on the Ordinance.
8. A copy of any notice of any public hearing held or proposed to be held on
the Ordinance and which was mailed or was intended to be mailed to 62 Properties as an
owner of land within the area proposed to be annexed.
9. A copy of the U.S. Postal Service certified mail receipt and the front and
back of the ~een domestic return receipt card for any notice described in your response
to Request No. 8 above that was delivered to 62 Properties.
10. ' A copy of the mailed envelope, together with the front and back of the
green domestic return receipt card for any notice described in your response to Request
No. 8 above that was attempted to be delivered to 62 Properties, but which attempt was
unsuccessful.
I 1. A copy of any notice of any public hearing held or proposed to be held on
the Ordinance and which was mailed or was intended to be mailed to the Trust under the
Will of Robert H. Kempf, Jr., as an owner of land within the area proposed to be
annexed.
12. A copy of the U.S. Postal Service certified mail receipt and the front and
back of the green domestic return receipt card for any notice described in your response
to Request No. 11 above that was delivered to the Trust under the Will of Robert H.
Kempf; Jr.
13. A copy of the mailed envelope, together with the front and back of the
green domestic return receipt card for any notice described in your response to Request
No. 11 above that was attempted to be delivered to the Trust under the Will of Robert H.
Kempf, Jr., but which attempt was unsuccessful.
Office of the Charleswwn Clevk-Treasz~rer
January ]3, 2002
Page 3 of 4
14. A copy of any ordinance or resolution adopting a fiscal plan pertaining to
the real property described in the Ordinance,
15. A copy of any adopted fiscal plan regarding the real property described in
the Ordinance.
16. The minutes o(any Charlestown City'Council meeting at which any fiscal
plan or draft liscal plan regarding the real property described in the Ordinance was
introduced, discussed, or acted upon.
17. A copy of any document submitted to the City by any owner o£ land in the
area described in the Ordinance requesting disannexation from the City or exemption
from the Ordinance.
18. A copy of any ordinances, resolutions, or minutes of the Chartestown City
Council or the Char!estown Board of Public Works at which any request for
disannexation or exemption from the Ordinance was discussed or acted upon. (As an
alternative to. this request you may provide copies of ail regular and special Chartestown
Board of Public Works meetings since November. 1, 2002).
19. A copy of the fully executed ordinance adopted by the City in 2002 and
entitled "An Ordinance Providing for a Plarming Period ~'or Adopting New Zoning
Classifications and Standards within the City of Chartestown Zoning Jurisdiction", or
similar words to that effect.
20. A copy of the minutes of any meetings of the Charlestown Plan
Commission or the Chartestown City Council at which any ordinance (or the substantive
provisions thereof) produced in response to Request No. 20 above was introduced,
discussed, or acted upon. (With respect to Plan Commission minutes and as an
alternative to this request you may provide copies of all regular and special Charlestown
Plm~ Commission meetings since November 1, 2002).
21. A copy of any document submitted to the City by any property owner
within the area described in the Ordinance, or such owner's attorney or representative,
requesting a special exception from the Charlestown City Council to proceed with any
application for official zoning action or determination (including without limitation,
preliminary subdivision plat approval or land rezoning).
22. A copy of the minutes of any Charlestown City Council meeting at which
any request for a special exception as described in Request No. 21 above was introduced,
discussed, or acted upon.
Office of the Charlesto~vn Clerk-Treasurer
,fanuwy 13, 2002
Page 4 of 4
I have personally delivered this request to your office at Chtu'Iestown City Hall on
the date and time shown below. I do not believe any of the records that might be
responsive to these requests can be construed as confidential under the Act. Furthermore,
I do not request that you seat'ch any City records made or maintained prior to July 1,
2002, in order to comply with these requests.
It is my intent to appear at yoar office on Thursday, January 16, 2003, at
approximately 1:30 p.m., to pick up the copies of any documen?s that are responsive to
the above requests. Pursuant to the provisions of IC 5-I4-3-3(b)(2)(A), I agree to make
copies of the responsive records on your equipment at that time if you prefer. Please
contact me if the above-specified date and/or time are not convenient for you or your
staff and I will attempt to schedule a more convenient date or time with you. I agree to
pay any reasonable fees established pursuant to the provisions of lC 5-14-3-8(d) and
associated with th~ provision of the requested copies, and I will tender a check from our
firm to you in the appropriate amount upon the provision of the requested information.
This request delivered to the Office of the Charlestown Clerk-Treasurer,
Charlestown City Hall, Charlestown, Indiana, by the undersigned at
[ t ;~ ~.m., on Monday, January 13, 2003.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance in providing the information
requested hereinabove. Again, please contact me ii* you have any questions Or concerns
regarding the above.
Sincerely,
CGF/me
cc: Michael A. Gillenwater
Anne Marie Galligan
Bob Lynn
YOL~IG, LIND. ENDRES & KRAFT
Clark (~'oullt~.,, hldialla
PUBLISHER'S CLAIM
LINE CO[
IPNplay N,IaHcr (Mtlst not exceed two actual lines, aeidmr nL which shall
Body -- Number of lines ....................................
gcncmt] Form N~. 99p (Revised i999)
221 Splilla St. PO.~x 867
Jei[er~oaGile. tN 4;
COMPUTATION OF CttARGES
~5[ lines, _!__ cnlumns wide equals.~5 (_ equivalent lines
at :_~j~O cents per line .............................................
Additimml charge for nt)tices coinaining rule or tabular woik
(5{) pel'cClll of above alnouat) ....................................
Charge Rn exlm prool~ of publication (SiLo0 for each ptouf
ill excc, ss of lwo) ..........................................
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM*'. ...................................
DATA FOR COMPUTING COST
Width of single colunln 9.0 ems
Number of insertkms
Size of Iyp¢ (5.5 point
FEDERAL ID#
63-1283140
1950,
Pursuant ~o the pr,avisions and penahies of Chapter 155. acts r '
I hereby cerlify that the foregoing account is just and correct, that the am(rant claimed is legally due, after
allnwing all just creditk, and that no prat of the same [las been paid.
[)ate: ...... _.~'~_~XZe~__,Dc~. 4/~ _~ ...... 20 ~2.''~ Title: l.egal Boukkeeper
t
PUBLISHER'S AFFIf)AVIT
Slate iff' Indiana )
) ss:
Clalk County )
alld state. 0lc undersigned__ '~(5~q_ ]""JO ~( %~who, leing duly
sworn, says that she is legal bookkeeper ~fThe Evening News
language in the (city) of Jeffersouville in stale and county afinesaid.
duly published in said paper for ~ rime ~2 ..... ll~e
dates of publication being as follows:
Subscribed ami sworn 1o before me this ~ ~ day of ,20~,
,z rj
r ~--/// Notary Public
My ctmmfission :xl>il'es:~~ ~
Z
PREVIOUS ADDRESS
NEW ADDRESS
BARBAI1A HAAS AUDITOR OF CLARK COUNTY
501 E COURT AVE ROOM 118
JEFFERSONVILLE IN 47130
- Ltx3
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
KEY#
PREVIOUS ADDRESS
NEW ADDRESS
BARBAI~ HAAS AUDITOR Ot~ CLARK CO.UNTY
501 E COURT AVE ROOM 118
JEFF ERSONVILLE IN 47130
PREVIOUS ADDRESS ._q-oR ch ~'t,5.~-l~,kq'
SIGNATURE & DA
BARBARA HAAS AUDITOR Ot7 CLARK COUNTY
501 E COURT AVE ROOM 118
SEFFERSONVILLE ]kN 4'7130
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
PREVIOUS ADDRESS ,~'oS.. gL ['q, ,~ ¢-(c~"f: ~ f'
SIGNATURE & DAT~-' ' 'a"--c- ~.~'~
501 E COURT AVE ROOM 118
JEFFERS ONVILLE ]LN 47130
EXHIBIT
City of Charlestown
Clark County, Indiana
Draft
Annexation
Fiscal Plan
Bethany Annexation Area
This Fiscal Plan may be inspected at the City Engineer's Office, located
in City Hall, Charlestown, IN. Copies of the Fiscal Plan are available to
the public for a nominal charge in accordance with the City's
ordinances. Questions related to this annexation can be directed to Tony
Jackson or the Mayor's Office, City of Charlestown (812-256-3422).
August 2, 2002
Detailed Summary of Annexation Impact
introduction
The Ci~ of Charlestown is undertaking this annexation at the request of property ow'ners in the annexation area.
The annexation is being pursued under lC 36-4-3-5, w[tich states,
'?f the owner~ of/and located...cenfiguous to a municipality want to have terdtno' containing that
/and annexed to the municipality, they may file...a petition: signed by at/east: 5~ % of the of the
owners of/and in the terfitoO/ to be annexed,,.requesting an ordinance annexing the area..,."
'1'he City of Charlastovm has been approached by property, owners in the proposed annexation area and the City is
pursuing this annexation under these anspice~.
Respect for the Public Process
The fundamental premise of Ame,,/cun govemmetu is that private citizens are provided the oppommity to participate
in the decisiuns of their government. Wbzle no decision receives umazfimous public support, the annexation ~atutes
make it clear that public education and participa~on is a critical part of the annexation process.
The statutory process of armexation effectively begins ~vith the approval of the Fiscal Plan by resolution of the
municipal government. As such, the Fiscal Plan must be prepared in a manner that centams sufficient substance to
enable the publin to reasonably determine ~vhether the proposed armexal/on is in their best interests, as well as
enabling the elected officials to determine whether the annexation is in the best interests of the municipality.
However, this requirement also means that the Fiscal Plan is completed prior to receiving any public input.
[£the Fiscal Plan is m serve the intended public interest, the Fiscal Plan must be a document which can be adjusted
to accommodate the Ieg/fimate interests and needs of ralevant constituencies as it proceeds through the public
process. If citizeus bring good points to bear on the annexation process, the Fiscal Plan should honestly' respond to
those'points. If the Fiscal Plan cmn be adjusted to enable the mumcipality to better protect the interests of the public,
then such adjustments should be made. As a result of these considerations, Wabash Scientific, inc., will fairly
consider the testimony received through the public process and to make those adjustments to the Fiscal Plan which
are necessary, to honestly and fairly respond to the public concerns in a rammer that is also fmr and equitable to the
ex/sting citizens of Chariestown, ~vhile at the same time balancing the best interests of the Ci.ty of Charlestowa.
Readers will note that tkis Fiscal Plan is inarked "draft." As the statutory process unfolds, Wabash Scientific. inc.,
will make every, reasonable effort to respond honestly, fairly and realistically to the information presented, including
the possibility, of adjusting the Fiscal Plan. An?ting !ess would be an insult to the public process. It is fully
understood that every, request cannot realistically be fulfilled, but in the end, the public will be ~ven the opportuni .ty
to speak, and the public will be fairly heard, and the Fiscal Plan will be adjusted to accommodate the best
suggestions of the public process.
Needed & Can Be Used
The armexafion area is a combination of un4eveloped agricultural land and rural/suburban residential development.
The annexation area is needed by the muulcipality for [ts future devalopment at the present time and in the
reasonably near future.
Annexed Population
The population of the annexation area is preliminarily estimated to be 906. This estimate is based on the estimated
number of households ha the arrnexatiun area multiplied time~ the average rmmber of persons per householdi in the
CharlestowoJClark CounV arem This estimate may be refined during the annexation process, especially if the issue
of annexed population becomes an important factor in the cousidaradon of the public interest. Due to the
undeveloped land in the proposed armexadon asea. however, it is considered unlikely that the population densi .fy will
reach 3.0 persons per acre.
The statcwide re-assessment process is ongoing and w~ll affect the taxable value of most r~[ property, in Indian~, as
will the recent state tegqaladon, which alters the property, tax system of Indiana .-he impaat of the statawide
~ssessmem is expected to be different fi.om one parcel to another, for a number of reasons. Therefore, it is
impossible to make any generalized statement about rile impact of re-assessment on the preper*y within the
annexation area. It is, however, appropnate to say that the proposed annexation ~viil have no impact on the assessed
vame of any property with regard to re-assessment. The propes~d unnexanon, will chmage the taxable status oft_he
property within the annexation area by bringing that property, into the municipal corpara~en mad appiymg the city's
property tax rate to the property. Therefore, the property t~.x burden on the property, in the proposed annexation area
~x4ll increase as a result of annexation, but tiaa annexation will have no impact on re-assessment, per se.
With regard to recent state legislation altering the property tax system of*he State, the major change is that a portion
cf the ~chool budget, which was formerly pal~i througAa property, taxes, will now be paid by the State. Theoretically,
LMs would result in a reduction in the properW mx rate of Indiana real estate; however, the impact remains to be
accurately measured/
In both cases, the proposed annexation will have'ho impact on the operative parameters of thc property, tax system.
With all other property tax parameters held constant, the annexation would result in an increase in property taxes on
the annexed parcels. However, all other paxameters are not being held constant, and therefore, it is difficult to
predict the actual final impact of this combination of state and Iocal actions will have on the individual property, ta.x
burdens of individual parcels wittma the annexation area.
1MPACT ON MUNICIPAL/iDMINISTRATION
The projected impact of the proposed annexation on the departments involved in municipal administration is
considered in the fiscal analysis as "overhead" for ':he continuing operations of municipal government. In
Charlestuwn, these mamcipai departments include the Mayer, City Council, Clerk Treasurer, City Attorney, City
Engineer, and other, similar departments.
The proposed annexation is expected to have a minor impact on the operation of the c/ty administration. It is
expected that the annexation will have a greater impact on those aspects of city administration that supervise direct
delivery of municipal services, such as the braiding inspectors, city, planners, ard City Engtheer. The annexation
will likely have a lesser impact on offices like the Mayor, Clerk-Treasurer, City Council, etc., since the residents of
the annexation area already have access to these elected officials, as well as their affiliated boards and all public
meetings. Most of the increase in servic$ demands from these latter entities will actually be acesumg during the
annexation process, long before any services are del/vered, costs are incurred or revenues are received.
IMP, aCT ON POLICE DEPARTMENT
The projected fiscal impact of the annexation onthe police department is ;)ro~ected to be moderate (approximately
proportionate to the increase in population). The City normally considers tho needs for new police resources on an
annual basis as part of the budget negotiations, and any increase th the need for police resources (such as officers,
equipment or office space) resulting from the impact of annexations such as this is accommodated through the
annual budget process.
The City will face an interesting choice witKregasd to the additional police deparanent services resulting from
annexation. It is overly simplistic to state that additional population automatically requires additional police
officers. However, zt is accurate to state that additional territory, people mad property, to protect will require
additional police work.
Therefore, the interesting choice facing the City of Chartestown will be whether to cover the cost of the additional
police protection through the addition of new police personnel (full-rime or part-time, ~,5.vilima or ol2qcess) or through
increases in police departmental efficiencies and salary increases. This decision can only be reached after discussion
between local elected officials mad their const/tuencias.
Annexation Fiscal Plan: Charlestown, IN - Draft Au~tust 2, 2002
The proportionate increase in population resultin8 from the proposed annexation ,,rill generate a projected impact on
some municipal services which are offered primarily to the general public, as opposed to comlnercial business and
industry,, in the case of Charlestown, the cost of some municipal servic~ is expected to increase in approximate
proportion to the estimaled increase in population resulting 5om the proposed annexation.
Annexed Streets& Roads
The annexation asea is estimated to contain approximately I5.75 miles of streets and roads to the mu~cipal
thorougb~'aro ~sterm with most of the newly incorporated roads curr~ndy being county high~vays. This inaludas
appro,'dmately 4 miles of state highw~'v, as well as appro,'dmatel¥ 3,3 miles of new roadways in new subdivisions.
In addition, the annexation area contains a number of private roads, which are not under public judsdictinn, and
which will not be included in the responsibility of the City after the annexation. Tlie City of Charlestown has
approximately 27 miles of local streets and roads in inventory,; therefore, the projected fiscal impact of the proposed
amm,'mtion on the street department is estimated to be in approximate matt:tematical proportion to the proportion of
older sa'cots added to the municipal thoroughfare system. This proportionate increase is computed in the surmnary
table, below.
Zoning in the Proposed Annexation Area
The proposed annexation area earrenfly resides within the two~mile fringe-zomng jurisdiction of the City of
Charlestown. It is the intent of the City. of Chariestown to control future ~owtli of the undeveloped portions of the
annexation area.
Contiguity
The proposed annexation area is greater than 12.5% contiguous with the corporate boundaries of the City of
Charlestow~a.
Proportion of Subdivision
Less than 60% of the area proposed for annexation has been subdivided from larger parcels for the purpose of
development, in accordance with local zoning and development standards applicable at the 'dine of initial
devalopmant~
Method of Financing
The extension of muincipal services will be fmunced through the annual operating budget of the City. of
Chaslestown, through the standard stamtou process for set~ng the budget, including review by the Department of
Local Government Finance (formerly lmown as the Stale Board of Ta.x Commissioners). The budgets for the years
2003 and thereafter will mclude financing for extending municipal services to the proposed annexation area.
Contact Person for Further Information
If anyone has additional questions regarding the proposed annexation, all available information is on file w/th the
Mayor's office, located in City Hall. ,MI property, owners within the pmpnsed annexation area will be provided a
copy of a detailed sma'y, of the Fiscal Plan at no cost to them via direct mail (certified). Any additional copies of
the Fiscal Plan ~vill be provided at a cost of $5 per copy (cash, please) of the report, tn addition, any properly owner
in the annexation area liaving questio~ directly related to the amexation may pose those questions in writing to the
Mayor's office for formal response.
Plan for Extension of Services
The Fiscal Plan, below, will detail the municipal services projected to be extended to the annexation area and the
method that these services wilt be woven into the msponsibilkies of the incorporated city. It is expected that the vast
majority of the expanded service responsibilities of the Ci~ wilt be funded through the property tax revenues
generated by the annexation.
Annexation Fiscal Plan: Charlestown, IN - Draft August 2, 2002
f.~fP ~¢T ON TItE FIRE PROTECTION SERVICEov
F~re protection so.ices ~e not provided by ~e C[~ of Ch~hastom. Fire sem, icas to ~e ~exafion ~ea ~e
provided by one of nye (2) fire dis~cts whc~ ~e sep~ateiy established po~fic~ sub~visie~ M~ ~eir ox~
jumc~ction~ bemdmes ~at ~e ~ded ~rou~ ruder sep~ate trax Ievies.
[MPA~ ON ~T~E~ DE~ENT
~e proje~ed impact c2~e proposed ~nexation on ~e m~cin~ operation of~e S~eet Dep~ent is esfimat~ to
be ~ ~ect proportion to ~e nmbar of oldes miles of ad~hon~ s=eem ~ch w~l be added to ~e mmcip~
fimmu~f~e ~ste~ ~ sho~ on ~e table below. ~e mmcip~ s=eet dep~ment will mde~e mspomibiliw
for ~I pubhc re.ways N ~e ~exa~on ~ ~d ~II provide both capi~ ~d non-capi~ so.ices m ~e
~exation ~em ~e propoffion of eider s=eets added to ~e CiW is es~ated to be 30%.
~e so.ices of~e mmicip~ ~eet depmem gener~ly ~cinde ~or s~eet rep.s (such ~ ~l~g po~olas, crack
se~g, etc.), snow remov~ (dmng ~teO, ~d major (c~k~ s~eet repmrs/ranons~cfion). A review of~e public
s=e~ ~ ~e ~exafion =ca by ~e Ci~ En~eer indicates ~at the older ~eem in ~e ~exafion ~ea ~e in
g~er~y ~e sine con~fiun ~ e~s~g ciW s~ee~, M~ some nee~g no mp~ g ~is time ~d o~e~ nee~g
offiy minor repmrs. ~e roads ~so gene~ly comply wi~ ~e mn~m roadway req~remenB of~e CiW, however,
when ~e fedways become sched~ed for major recom~om ~e Ci~ w~ improve ~e re.way to ~odem
st~dm~, jmt ~ ~ey wo~d do for mcons~cfion of e~s~g CIW s=eets.
~T~ET ~GH~
~e ~a~te reco~izes s~e~ li~ts ~ a capk~ se~ice of~e mmcip~i~ md requires ~at s~ect ligh~ be provided
~ the sine m~ar ~ such so.ices ~e provided to ~e~ M~n ~e co.orate libra. ~e Ci~ of Chgl~to~
comide~ ~e need for s~eet limb on a c~e-by-c~e, nei~borhood-by-nei~bariood b~is to demr~e ~e need
md j~fifica~an for s~ect Ii~m in a p~ic~ ~e~ h ~I c~, however, s~eet li~ ~e oily co~idered on
pubic s~eeB - not on private roadways M~ developed ~e~.
~e capk~ service of s~ect li~g ~tI be ~orded to ~e ~exafion ~ea ~ precisely ~e sine m~er ~ it is
provided ~ the rest of~e Ci~.
IMPACT ON SANITATION SERVICES
The residential parcels/owners in the annexalion area will begin receiving municipal trash removal services within
one year of the effective date of the annexation. Commercial and industrial parcels in the annexation area (if any)
will not receive such services, because municipal service policies exclude these .types of developments from this
municipal service. Since the area is largely residential, the annexation will result in a substantial increase ha the cost
of providing sanitation services to the annexation areas.
IMPACT ON ~[UNICIE4L PARKS
The proposed annexation does not include new park land. Since the annexation is voluntary, it is clear that the
annexation area is not demanding new or improved parks as a condition of the annexation. For these reasons, it is
preliminmsly concluded that the proposed annexation will have no direct impact on the services of the Charlestown
municipal parks ~stem.
Indirectly, however, it is likely that the addition of new assessed value to the municipal t~x base will result in an
increase in parks funding of undetermined size, depending upon the results of the budget process and the expressed
needs of the Parks Department.
IMPACT ON DI~tlNAGE SERVICES
The Ci.ty does not provide drainage services. The construction of combined sewers has long been outlawed by
federal environmental statutes; therefore, no comb/ned sewer services will be extended into the annexation aria_ In
newer developments, drainage parameters are made a part of the subdivision design, with stormwatar retention
provided onsite, therefore, as new developments are proposed for the undeveloped areas, these new developments
Annexation Fiscal Plan: Charfestown, IN - Draft August 2, 2002
will be required to provide drainage soD'ices for themselves.
L~tP/iCT ON ~.4TER & ~A~TEF, rATER ~qERVIC,F~
The annexation area will be provided access to the Ci .ty's water and wastewater services. A,ay extension of service
to the annexation area will be at the expeme of the developer.
The City of Chadestown will not require forced hook-ups to the waste~vater system within the annexation area to
those exisdng parcels that have working septic systems.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The following table summarizes the City's 200~t- budget Md projec~ the cost of providing municipal services to the
armexadon area. The revenues associated with the mmexadon are projected to s}ightty exce~ cos~.
Projected impact of Annexation.(Based on 2002 city budget)
Department (numbers are approximate) % 2002 ' Tax Rate
$0.7671
ADMINISTRATION 23.53% $378,328 $0.1805
PLANNING & BUILDING 1.37% $22.019 $0.0108
POLICE 53.64% $860,711 $0,4107
STREET DEPARTMENT 17.45% $280,536 $0,1339
PARKS 4,10% sas,86T I $0.0315
Totals (approx. $0.7671) 100.0% $1,6071461 $0.7671
Annexed Population 906
Existing Population (2000 Census) L 5,993
Annexed NAV (approximate) $36,211,220
Existing City NAV (approximate) $105,975,840
impact on NAV 34.17% Projected Revenue tncrease
Administration Budget (overhead) 15.12% $378,328 $57,203
Impact on Planni0g & Building 15.12% $22,019 $3,329
Impact on Police Department 15.12% $860,711 $130,140
impact on Street Department I 30% $280,535 $84,161
I
Annexation Fiscal Plan: Charlestown, IN - Draft August 2, 2002
~ed Revenues (approximate)
$274,833 ~
$277,775
$2,943
Indiana statute requires that the Fiscal Plan make reasonable estimates of the cost impact of the proposed mmexadon
for purposes of detarminmg irc liscal parameters of ine decision. The above table is imended to provide a simple
method of objactively estimating ine fiscal impact of the proposed anne.ration on municipal services.
Estimafed Assessed Value cf Annexation Area
T'ne City has performed substantial resenr~ mgarmng the assessed value of the annexaUon area at the offices of the
County .~sessor and. Auditor The annexation area was preliminarily estimated to contain roughly 51) I parcels,
contalthng approximataly 2..t')5 8 acreS- The total assesse~ v aJue of the anne×atio~ area ~s preliminahly estimated t~
· tmns. zailabte.
be $36,211,220, based on ine rdorm:~'-
Focus on Property Tax F~evenues
.... . Of course,
Thas Fiscal Plan wilt focus attentmn on the ~mpact of the ennexanon on mumc~pal property, tax revenues .
annexalinn ha~ a~ impact on arany muaicipal.r~enue s~eams, including state re~canue, distributions, however, the
property tax revenue stream ~s boin the largest revenue stream available to the City and the only revenue stream
which is controlled locally...\s such, the ability of the City to provide necessary municipal services - both inside the
existing city and in the annexation area - will largely be detarnm~ed by the ability oftheCity to draw upon property.
tax revenues to mee~ such nends.
as gasoline taxes (LRS), cigarette taxes, and alcohol taxes fluctuate based primarilv
State revenue distributions such
on th~ fiscal parameters o17 Irc State budget. History has repentedlv shown that when the State is short of money,
is.not .uncommon.to withhold thnds from municipalities. The, torero, the.only legil/mate method.of providing
assurances that municipal services will be delivered to an mmexadon area is to base those assurances on revenue
sl~'asms which are controller hy the same people who are required to deliver the services.
Provision of Municipal Services
Non-Capital services x~ll b~ provided xvithin one year of the effective date of the annexation action. Within the
context of the City of Chad esmwn the non*capital services would include road maintenance by the Street
Department ancLpolien_promCtton-by the..Charlastown I~ohc~t. Departnsent- Non capital sarmce costs vail he. pm&
through the annual revenue o1' the City., including properts' mx revenues and other municipal revenues, as
appropriate.
. . ' ' At this time, capital services
Capital services will be provaled wtthin 3 years of the effecUve date of the annexanon.
are alrendv provided to the ,ameXafion area and no additional capital services are projected to be required by the
annexation area, If- capital servmes.are later identified, as.necess~ and appropriate under the mun/cipat service
policies of the municipality such capital services will be covered through the issuance of some form of municipal
debt.
/ct bethany fispln draf~
Annexation Fiscal Plan: Charlestown, IN - Draft August 2, 2002
52
Dashed Lines = Current City Limits
Solid Line = Proposed Annexation Limits
Drawn By'. J$S/JDH
ChecP. ed By: WAS
Drawing
Scale: 1 ":4000'
File
Name: ANNEX. dwg
%.h~t:
o8/o7/o~
CITY 'OF CHARLESTOWN
MAP
SAEGESSER ENGINEERING, INC.
88 West McClain Ave. Scotlsburg, Indiana 47170
Phone: (812)752-8123 Fax: (812)752.-7271
z
NO ~'~C% ~F t'I~ARENG AND L~GAL DESCRIPTION
A public headng will be held at 7:00 p.m. on October 10, 2002 at the city council chambers at 304 Main Cross in
Chadestown, indiana 4711 t to accept comment on the prcoosed adopticn of ordinance # 2002-OR-08, annexing 2,749
acres of terdtcry into the city of Chadestown, Indiana. which territory in C',ark Count3, Indiana is particularly described as
follows.
Commencing at the western most ccmer of the Pleasant Ridge Subdivision in the City of Chadestown, Indiana, thence
southeastwardly along the western bcundar,/of said subdivision 930 feet. more or less, to the Point of Beginning of this
descfiptior~. Said point being on the common line of oreperties currently or previously owned by Harold G. & Betty L
Sexton (Grant 116) and Chades M. Couch (Grant 118); Thence along the common line of properties currently or
previously owned by Harold G. & Betty L. Sexton (Grant 116) and Chades M. Codch (Grant 116) and continuing along the
common tine of properties currently or previously owned by Chades M. Couch (Grant 116) and Dana & Sharon L. Coots
(etal) (Grant 116) southwestwardly 1,940 feet more or less; Thence along the common line of property currently or
previously owned by Chades M. Couch (Grant 116) and Dana & Sharon L. Coots (oral) (Grant 116) and continuing along
the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Dana & Sharon L. Coots (etal) (Grant 116) and Kynard &
Louise Taft (Grant 116) southeastwardly 2,940 feet more or tess to the northweatem right-of-way line of High Jackson
Road, a pubtic highway; Thence along the northwestern fight-of-way line of High Jackson Road, a public highway, and
continuing along the division tine between Grant Numbers 115 and 94, and continuing along the division line between
Grant Numbers 114 and 93, and continuing along the northwestern right-of-way line of Jenks Road, a ~ublic highWay,
crossing Stacy Road, a public highway, southwestwardly 12,200 feet more or less to the southwestern right-of-way line of
Stacy Road, a public highway; Thence along the southwestern right-of-way line of Stacy Road, a public highway, 7,600
feet more or iess to the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Mark, Lynn Ann & Diane Hoflander
(Grant 70) and Mark W. & Pamela M. Ward (Grant 70); Thence along the common line ef properties cumentiy or
previously owned by Mark, Lynn Ann & Diane Hodander (Grant 70) and Mark W. & Pamela M. Ward (Grant 70)
southwestwardly 1,330 feet more or less; Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by
Mark W. & Pamela M, Ward (Grant 70) and Richard Lehman (Grant 70) and continuing along the common line of property.
currently or previously owned by Richard Lehman (Grant 70) and the following: James A. Ward and Carolyn Ward (Grant
70); John & Elaine Cleveland (Grant 70); Robert L Hoilis (Grant 70); G. William & Ruth H. King (Grant 70); George Clark
& Mary Schlosser (Grant 70) southeastwardly 2,860 feet more cf less to the northwestern line of property currently or
previously owned by Cynthia A. Stucky &Vada E. Stucky (Grant 52); Thence along the common line of properties
currently or previously owned by Cynthia A. Stucky & Veda E. Stucky (Grant 52) and Richard Lehman (Grant 70)
southwestwardly 860 feet more or less; Thence along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by
Cynthia A. Stucky & Veda E. Stucky (Grant 52) and Chades & Juanita R. Schlosser (Grant 52) and continuing to property
currently or previously owned by Derrick L & Patdcia Vogt (Grant 52) southeastwardly 1,400 feet more or less; Thence
along the common line of properties currently or previously owned by Chades & Juanita R, Schlosser (Grant 52) and
Derrick L. & Patdcia Vogt (Grant 52) northeastwardly 840 feet more or less to the western right-of-way line of property
currently or previously owned by the B & O Railroad; Thence along the common tine of property currently or previously
owned by Derrick L & Patdcia Vogt (Grant 52) and the western right-of-way line of property currently or previously owned
by the B & O Railroad southwestwardly 950 feet more or less; Thence crossing property currently or previously owned by
the B & O Railroad southeastwardly 200 feet more or less to the eastern fight-or-way line of property currently or
previously owned by B & O Railroad, said eastern right-of-way line also being common to property currently or previously
owned by The Church, The Body of Chdst (Grant 52); Thence along the COmmon line of the eastern right-or-way line of
propert~ currently or previously owned by B & O Raitread and property currently or previously owned by The Church, The
Body of Chdst (Grant 52) northeastwardiy 2,080 feet more or less; Thence a~ng the common line of properties currently
or previously owned by The Church, The Body of Chdst (Grant 52) and Herman & Patty Sharp and crossing Highway 62,
a public highway, southeastwardly 1130 feet more 0r less to the common line of the southeasterly right-of-way line of
Highway 62, a public highway, and the weetedy !ine of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant; Thence along the common
line of the southeasterly right-of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway, and the westedy line of the indiana Army~
Ammunition Plant, northerly 6,300 feet more or less; Thence leaving said common line of the southeasterly right-of-way
line of Higt~way 82, a public highway, and the westedy line of the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant, northwesterly 100 feet
more oi' less to the centefline of the right-of-way of Highway 62, a public highway; Thence along said centedine of the
right-of-way of Highway 62, a public highway, northeastwardly 14,700 more or less; Thence leaving said centedine of the
right-of-way Iine of Highway 62, a public highway northwestwardly 100 feet more er tess to the westedy right-of-way fine of
Highway 62, a public highway; Thence along the westedy fight-of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway,
southwestwardly 3,750 feet more or less; Thence leaving the westedy right-of-way line of Highway 62, a public highway,
along the meanders of the corporate line of Chadestown, indiana and along lines of properties currently or previously
owned by the following: NIBCO; and Greater Clark Elementary Corp.; along the western boundary of the Sunset Acres
Subdivision; and along lines of property currently or previously owned by the following: Chadestown Housing Authority;
Betty J. & Claudine Buckner', Claudine BuckneF, Chafes M. Couch; and along the western boundary of the Pleasant
Ridge Subdivision generally northwestwardly 12,000 feet more or less to the Point of Beginning.
INDIANA
SPECIAl, WARIIANTY DEED
JtIIS INDEN I UP, E WITNESSETII, TIU(F lOGO D. WEST, JR., SECRE FARY of Veterans
Affairs. an Officer of the Ua}ted States of Amerka, whose address is Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington, D.C. 29420, CONVEYS AND WARRAN I'S 'FO WALLACE B. ttlTT and SONJA E.
}lIFT, tlusband and Wife, 77I 9 HE'~Y 62, Charlestown, IN 47111 of CLARK Count>,, Indiana, for khe
sum of ten dallals ($ Ill) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
tile/bllowing-described plopeily in CLARK County, Indiana. to wit:
Subject to tile November installment of the 1997 laxes due and payatge on or before the l0~a day of
Subject also to all limitations, conditions, covenants, and restrictiot~s, if my in the chain of title to
property hereby conveyed and also subject to all highwa)'s, easements, rights-of-way, use, building,
building line, plat and zoning restrictions, if any.
Grm~tor certifies that no Indiana Globs lacom¢ Tax is due or payable with respect to tbe t~ansfer made
by this deed.
Grantor wammts the title to said property agaimt the lawfal claims of any and all persons claiming
m claim the stone or any part thereof by, through or under Grantor.
IN WITNESS WltEREOF, Grantor, on this the 30 day of March 1999, has mused this inmument to
be slgned a~d sealed in his/her nmne arid on his/her behalf by the underslg~ed Oltlcer, helng thereunto
duly appointed, qualified, and acting pursuant lo sections 512 and 3720 of tltie 38 U.S.Code, and
sections 36:4342 m~d 36:4520 of title 38, Code of Federal Regt,latlons, and who is authorized 1o execute
s'rA'FEOF INDIANA )
County of MARION )
SECRETARY OF VETE NS A
Director of the
VA Begional Office
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone Number: O17) 226-7880
Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said CounD and State, Ibis date pemonally
appeared DENNIS R. WYANq[, Ed.,D, C.R.C., Directt~r of the Department of Veterans Affairs, an
agency of the United States Government, and acknowledgad the execution of lbo foregoing deed.
A resident of Marion Cou~U/ : ..
'Fills DEED WAS PREPARED BY l~A-,-~t~ ff. ~.c~
~,~(,~L~J [p~r~I~EPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
REGEIVED
-"OR qr ~,ORD
Beginning at the North corner of Survey No. ~3 at
a stone, thence South ~3 de~rees 39' West i758.~
feet to an iron pipe in the line dividlng Surveys
~os. 53 and 71, thence North 67 degrees 09' West
747~{ feet ~,~ ~!~ ~on pipe on the ~,,uthe~n Right
of Way line of B. & O, R.R., thence South 22 de-
grees 00' West 2906.0 feet to an iron pin in
centerline of Stacy Road, same being line dividing
Surveys Nos. 53 and 52, thence South 36 degrees 02'
East'along said Grant line 1103.65 feet ~o an iron
pipe in the center line of Stacy Road, same ~e~ng
the Northern right of way line of State Road No.
62, thence North 44 degrees 17' East along said
Right of Way line 417.0 feet to an iron p~pe, the
true place of beginning. Thence North 45 degrees
56' West, 176.2 feet to an iron plpe, Thence North
35 degrees 14' East, 100.0 feet to an iron pipe,
thence South 49 degrees 16" East, 192.33 feet to
aa iron pipe on the Northern Right of Way tine.of
said State Road ~62; thence along said S. R. ~62
Northern Right of Way line, South 44 degrees 10'
West, 33.20 feet to an iron pln, thence Sodth 44
degrees 17' West, 76.8 feet to an :ton pipe, the
true place of beginning. Containing 0.442 acre
and situated in Survey No. 53 of the Illinois
Grant to Clark County, Indiana.
PETITION FOR VOLUNTARY A, NNEX-A. TION OF L.&ND
IY,TTO THE CFFY OF Ct:L~D1.LESTOV~ .~. INI)I_A_NA
ANB WAIVER OF RIGHT TO REMONASTI~&TE
The undersigned, landowners, pursuant to indiana Code 36-4->-5, respectmlly reques~ that the Common
Council of th: City oF Charlesrown. I.ndi~a pass ~ ordinance annexing tegitoo' into the C'~y oF Charlesto~xm,
and in S~DDO~ ~' '
. . O[ tB1S Oe~do~. state as follows:
. Charlestown, Indiana 47111; Tax Key Number:
C~ 8 --0
2) Thal the land described above is cun-ently outside the m6nicioal limits of the CiB~' of
Charleston, Indiana.
?~ ) That the Petitioners wish to have tt~m~ land annexed into the City of Charlesto~m:
4') That by executing this Petition, we are waiving our fight to remonstrate against annexation, if the
Common Council passes ~ ordinance annexing o~ proper~ before this Petition is withdra~m
per paragraph 5 below;
~) ' Tidal this Petition shall be valid for a period of I y~ar from the date this Petition is executed by
us. If ~e Common Council does not pass an ~nexation ordinance wl~in thai time, this Petition.
will be automatically withdrawn.
BI' SIGNING BELO~r, I AM REQUESTING 'I'll. AT THE REAL PROPERTY IDENTIFIED Bt' hie ABOVE BE
ANNEXE/d INTf) THE' CITY OF CHARLESTOWN, IN'DIANA, ANB ~,'MVE MY RIGHT TO REIVIONSTRATE
Pnnted Name
NOVEMBER 11~ 2002
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL FOR
TIlE CITY OF CHARLESTOWN WAS HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER
i 1, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. 1N TIlE CITY BUILDING WITH MAYOR BOB
ttALL PRESIDING,
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: TONY JACKSON, ED BOLLY,
TERRY PIERCE, BRUCE BOTTORFF AND WARD TACKETT, ALSO
PRESEN'r WAS CLERK TREASURER, DONNA COOMER AND CITY
ATTORNEY MIKE GILLENWATER.
ORDINANCE 2002-OR-15:
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TIIE TERRITORY IN THE BETHANY
ROAD AREA CONTIGUOUS TO THE cTrY OF CHARLESTOWN. THE
FISCAL PLAN WAS ADOPTED.
BRUCE BOTTORFF SAID HE HAD A QUESTION ON ASSIGND,!G
THE AREA TO THE 3v° DISTRICT. HE BELIEVES THE AREA SHOULD
HAVE ITS OWN REPRESENTATION. HE FEELS TI'IH WILL BE MADE
INVALID DUE TO THE POPULATION CHANGES. THERE ARE ABOUT
I200 REGISTERED VOTERS IN WARD TACKETTS AND ED BOLLYS
DISTRICTS AND ABOUT 600 IN THE OTHER DISTRICTS SO THERE tS
AN EXISTING IN-BALANCE. BRUCE SAID THAT lie BELIEVED THERE
WAS A STATE MANDATE THE COUNCIL WAS SUPPOSE TO TAKE BY
NOVEMBER 08, 2002 AND NONE OF THOSE FIGURES WERE EVER
GIVEN TO THE COUNCIl.. ED BOLLY ASKED HOW MANY REGISTERED
VOTERS ARE IN THE ANNEXATION AREA PO,rD MAYOR HALL SAID
THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME. MIKE
GILLENWATER SAID ANNEXATION LINES DO NOT FOLLOW THE
EXISTING PRECINCT LINES. ED BOLLY SAID THAT SINCE WE WERE
ANNEXING LAKEVIEW AND HIGHV1EW THAT THESE AREAS BE
GIVEN THERE OWN PRECINCT..
MIKE GILLENWATER EXPLAINED THAT THE ORDINANCE
REQUIRES THAT YOU NAME A DISTRICT IN THE ORDINANCE. WARD
ASICED IF THE COUNCIL WOULD SET THE D1STKICT AND MIKE SAID
YES. MIKE ALSO SAID TILE. REASON HE PUT THE 3~a~ DISTRICT IN
THERE WAS BECAUSE THE ANNEXATION AREA BACKED UP TO THE
3xu~ DISTRICT.
MAYOR HALL ASKED MP, VISSING HIS INTEt{PRETATION OF
TIlE ORDINANCE AIND THE ANNEXATION. MR VISSING EXPLAINED
TflAT THE AREA HAS TO BE IN A DISTRICT TO BE ANNEXED AND
AFTER TllE ORDINANCE IS PASSEl3 THE AREA CAN BE
REDISTRICTED INTO THEIR OWN DISTRICTS. BRUCE BOTTORFF SAID
WITH WHAT MR VISSING SAID HE HAD NO PROBLEM VOTING ON
THE ANNEXATION. ED BOLLY SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT VOTE FOR
THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE HE WANTS THE AREAS IN THERE OWN
PRECINCTS.
BRUCE ALSO SAID THAT IF THE CITIZENS WANTED TO OPT
OUT OF 'File ANNEXATION THEN TItEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. MIKE
GILLENWNI'ER SAID THAT 1F YOU ARE GOING TO ANNEX. ONE OF
THE CONSIDEPoi, TIONS IS TIlE CONTINUITY OF WHICH MEANS I-tOW
MI. JCIt OF THE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY IS COivLMON WITH THE
EX1STING MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
WE NEED 1/8 CONTIGUITY AND WHEN YOU START
ZIGZAGGING AND CUTTING OUT iNDIVIDUALS PIECES IT CREATES A
LOT MORE THAN EXTERNAL BOUNDARIES AND WE MAY NOT BE
ABLE TO ANNEX AS MUCH. MAYOR HALL ALSO SAID THERE WOULD
BE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SERVICES SUCH AS POLICE AND ROAD
SERVICES.
MIKE SAID THAT IF THE CITIZENS WERE GOING TO HAVE
CttANCE TO VOTE THE THEY NEED TO BE ANNEXED. BRUCE ASKED
MIKE IF HE THOUGHT THIS WAS THEIR OBJECTIVE AND MIKE
REPLIED HE WAS ONLY POINTING OUT THE CONSEQUENCE'S OF
DELAY. ANOTHER BEING THAT JEFFERSONVILLE COULD START
ANNEX PROCEDURES.
MIKE SAID WE CAN PROTECT OUR AGRICULTURE INTEREST tN
THE ZONING ORDiNANCE WHEN WE REDO IT. THE OTHER THING
THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO DE-ANNEX THEM. MR VISSING SAID THE
COUNCIL SHOULD DO THE ANNEXATION WITH A UNDERS'I ANDING
THAT WITH A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TttEY CAN APPLY TO BE OPT
OUT OF THE ANNEXATION.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY TONY JACKSON TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 2002-OR-15, WITH A SECOND BY WARD 'rACKETT. THE
ORDINANCE WAS DENIED, TIlE MOTION WAS DENIED WITH A NAY
VOTE BY ED BOLLY, BRUCE BOTTORFF AND TERRY PIERCE. MOTION
DENIED 3-2. TONY JACKSON AND WARD TACKETT VOTING.
ED BOLLY SAID THAT'REDISTRICTiNG SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DONE BY NOVEMBER 08, 2002 AND THAT IT WASN'T DONE. l[iE SAID
TtlAT IF HE VOTES FOR THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE
REDISTRICTED. HE SAID HE WANTS TWO OF THE COUNCILMEN'S
REASSURANCES THAT ~2qESE PEOPLE WELL HAVE THERE OWN
DISTRICF, HE ALSO WANTS IT FOR LAKEVIEW AND HIGHV1EW. MIKE
SA~[D THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE FIVE DISTRICTS.
AFTER RECONSIDERATION, ANOTI-IER MOTION WAS MADE BY
WARD TACKETT TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2002-OR-15, WITH A SECOND
BY BRUCE BOTTORFF. APPROVED 4-I, YVlTH A NAY VOTE BY TERRY
PIERCE.
ORDINANCE 2002-OR-14:
A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AFl'ER PUBLISHED NOTICE FOR
T}IE CITY COUNCIl., 'FO CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE
DESIGNING A PLANNING PERIOD FOR ADOPTING NEW ZONING
CLASSIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS.
MIKE G|LLENWATER SAID THIS ORDINANCE WILL SUSPEND
THE APPROVALS ON ZONING CH~MNGES AND SUBDIVISIONS FOR A
PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS UNTIL OUR ZONING ORDINANCE CAN BE
UPDATED AND UPGRADED. THIS IN EFFECT WILL KEEP EVERYTHING
AS IS IN THE TWO-MILE FRINGE AS WELL AS THE ANNEXED AREA..
'65'7
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ED BOLLY TO ADOPT ORDINANCE
2002-OR-14, ~rlTH A SECOND BY TONY JACKSON. APPROVED 5-0.
AD JO URNMENT:
A MOTION WAS MADE BY WARD TACKETT TO ADJOURN THE
MEETING Wll'H A SECOND BY TERRY PIERCE. APPROVED 5-0.
G. ROBERT HALL, MAYOR
, /? ?//
DONI~A S. COOM, ER, CLERK TREASURER
II
WA RRA N T~ D E'E D
TttlS iNDEN~JRE WITNESSETH, that
and VEL~A L. ~ESSINGER, husband azld wife of the ~ou~ty of
Clark and State of Indiam. for ~ne sum of'One Dotiar ~$1.00)
and other valuable consideration, th~ receipt of
hereby acknowledged,
CONVE[ AND WA~NT
mlto S~UNCE~ V, GRI~ and AF~TA F. GRIFFIN, ~luSbaud and
w~'e, of the County of Cl~rk and S~ate of Indians the follow-
~r~F l:~sc~qbed real estate 81tu~sd in ~as COUMty of Clark and
State of [ndiam. to-wit:
Lot No. 12 In Block No. 11 in Pleasant Ridge, a subdivision of
a part of Grant No. ll7 of t~e Illinois Grant, Clark County,
Indiam, the plat o~ said subdivision ~avl~ beeE recorded on
the rgth day of September, 19~ in Bo~$ 6 of plat~ on pa~es
l~, 155, 156, 157 a~d 158 In the office of the Recorder of
Clark County, Indiana.
This bei~ the same real estate as that conveyed by quitcL
deed dated September 28, 1970, from Eto~ Services, Inc., t~
Don~le R. Kesslnger, et al, and as the same appears in Dcm
Drawer No. 2, Instrument No. 5866 in the office of the Rec~
of Clark County, Indiana.
The grant~o~ ~
due and ~
taereon. (i''I)
hands and s
t' C,.~,~ ~TAXATIoN
ume and agree to pay the lgv1
I subsequent taxes becoming d~
rantors have hereunto ~st their
.__,.~y of April, 1971.
w~ r~~~
EXHIBIT I
I
~.]c! courlty at~i si;a~, this _?~.Z~day of' April, 1971, per-
WF['NF, Sr~ ~r(~ ha.~d a~ netarlat seal.
f
,)
I. ~] tl'tll~e ~it pre p~,l'ed
EDWARD iN. BOLLY
Attorney at Law
518 E. Ik~m't,
Je f feFso~ivi ].le, Indla~
FAX NO,
TO ~ ~4~4~
P, O~
(If ya~, ~nitial ha~a)
WHEP,-EAS, on the 23rd day of December, 2002, t~e Board of Public
Works and Safety of the City of Jeffers°nc21e (&e "Board") adopted
Resolution 02-R-36, A Resolution CondemoJ-ng Certain Red Property pursuant
to IncSana Code 32-24-2-6 etJeq, which rea[ estate is more p~rficularly described
in Exhibit A, attached he'et0 and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEBdE~s, notice of he resolution was pubSshed in the Evemng
on Januaty 4, 20(~$ andJanuaty 11, 2003 as required by Indiana Code 32-24-2-
6(b); aaa . .
WHEREAS, s~d notice stated that at its regular meeting on January
2003 ~Sxe Board woulc~ hear remonstrance~ from persons interested in or
affected by ~e condemnation; a~d ·
WHEREAS, no cmn interested in; or affected by, the condem-qafion
upper,red and questioned Ce procedure xvi~ regard to Cae condemnation ar the
Board's regCa~ meeting on J~uary 21, 2003;
NOW THEI:L'EFOP~E, BE IT HEP,_EBY I~,$OLVED that
Board hereby confirms its' original ResolulSon condemning and appropriating
located as a
for the use o~ the City of Jeffersomdlle (the "CAty") the property County,
part of Sur~ey No. 53 of the Illinois Grant, Utica Township, Clark
I,Aixna, as described in Exhibit "A"; and;
NOW THEREFOBdE, BE IT HEREBY FURTFIER lt_ESOLVED
that the real estate as a part of the property located as a part of Surgey No. 53
'of the I~nois Grant, Utica Townslx[p, Clark County, Indiarxa, as described in
Exhibit "A"; and;
NOW THE]ELEFOB-E~ BE IT HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVE. D
., ' 'n Resolution m
that the Cie[k-Treasurer slaal.1 record a copy o£ t_hi~ Confirrm g City's
the o£fice of the Reco=der o£ C-lark County, Indiana to memoriali2e the
co~demnafior~ of the red estate 19c~ted as a part of the property located as a
part of SurTey No. 53 of He I!l~aois Grant, Utica ToWns~£~P, Clark County,
Indiaaa, as described i~ Ex.bit "A"; and;
NOW TIrlEREFOILE, 'BE IT HEI~EBY FURTHER
re ~re a list of affected property owners, award
that the Board shall pr?raptly p p __~ ~.~,, damages on He affected property,
damages sustained to me property, aau p~j o
all as reqaired by Indi~.na Code 32-24-2-7 ~tseg.; and
Adopted tB/s 21st of January 2003.
CiTY OFJEFFERSONWILLE
BOAl~33OF PUBLICWORKS &
SAFETY
Robert
ATTEST:
Peg~ x,x/~Lc~er .
Clerk - Treasurer
PAUL pR1MAVEIRA 84 A.~sOCIATES, ti'4C.
S AiqlTAi%Y SE%YEp.. BASEIV[BNT
OENEB-AL DE$CttlPTIOYI OF C~ ~CT
%~OUOH T~
o~re~ prope~Y
. · ownshio, Clark County, Ind~n~, more
The following is a lega~ de~criptlon prepared ~Ms 20~ day oF~ovembe~, 2002,
..... ~ of the Iltlnms Grant, Utm~T .~ ~_., ~rmanent S~Jt~ S~wer
belng a part oz b~ =~ , -_ ~ ~round 20 00 foot m wmm ~w ~ ~-
pz~icularly described as ~ sw~p ~ *
E~sement passing t~ough that prope~y recorded in Deed D~wer ~3, Instmmen~ ~10245,
mu~mg through s~d tract i~ed~ately adjacent to and ~o~h o~ an e~sting creek ~n~ t~ough
said propc~Y for an appro~m~te lcn~h of 100.00 feet, gnd MaG a 20.00 foot tempozz~
construction easement i~dmtely~onh o~ smd pe~an~nt
aox 1~.3, Co:ydon, IN 47112
A RESOLUTION coNFIRMING CONDEMNATION
OF CERTAIN REAL pROPERTY PURSUANT TO
INDIANA CODE 32-24-2-6 et. Seq.
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of December, 2003, the Board of Public
Works and Safety of the City of Jeffersonville (the "Board") adopted
Resolution 02-R-57, A Resolution Coi~demning Certain Real Property Pursnant
to Indiana Code 32-24-2-6 ~t seq. which real estate is more particularly described
in Exhibit A, attached hereto arid incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, nodce of the resolution was published in the Ev~nineg
on January 4, 2003 and January 11, 2003 as required by Indiana Code 32-24-2-
6(b); and ,
WHEREAS, said notice stated that at irs regular meeting oa January 21.,
2003, the Board would hear remonstrances from pezson~ interested in or
affected by the Condemnation; and
WHEREAS, nO orxe interested in, or affected'by, the condemnation
appeared, and questioned the procedure with r&gard to the condemnafiori at the
,Board's ~.egxJar meeting on January 21, 2003; :. ' ' .'
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that
Board hereby confirms its original Resolution condemning and
for the ~se of the Cky of jeffersonville (the "City") the property being a part of
Survey #71 of the I~nois Grant, Utica Township, Clark County, Indiana, more
particularly described xsa strip o£ ground 20.00 foot in width for a permanent.
Saaitary Sewer Easement passing through that property recorded in Deed
Drawer 2, Instrument # 5272 running through said tract immectiately adiacerxt
to and North o£an existing creek running through sa/d property for an
approximate length of 1200 feet, and also ~ 20.00 foot temporary c0/~strucdon
easement immediately North o£ said permanent easement as described in
Exhibit A; and;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT. HEREBY 1=URTIzlER RESOLVED
that the property beiag a part of Survey #71 o~ the Illinois Grant, Utica
To-&hship, Clark County, Indiana, more particularly described as a strip of.
ground 20.00 foot in width for a permanent Sar~taty Sewer Easement pass .rog
recorded in Deed Drawer 2, Instrument #3272 running
through th.at prope, rty .. ' -d:acent to and North of an existing creek
through smd .tract mumeoxate~y a I
running through s~fid property for an approximate length of 1200 feet, and also
~ 20,00 foot temporary corzst~ucdon easement knmedia~ely Nortl~ of said
perroanent e~sement as described ia Exhibit "A"; and;
NOW THEREFOR-E, BE IT HEREBY FURTHEI~ RESOLVED
that the ClErk-Treasurer shall record a copy of this Con£ma~Jng Resolution ~n
the office oft_he Recorder of Clark County, Indiana to memorialize the City's
condemmtion of the real estate located as being a part 0f Survey #71 of the
Illinois (}rant, Utica Township, ~tark County, Indian~, more particularly
described ~s ~ strip of ground 20.00 foot in width for a permanent Sanitary
Sewer Easement passing through that property recorded in Deed Drawer 2,
I~strumcnt #3272 running through said tract knmecliately adiacent to
North o f an existing creek running through said property for ~.n approximate
length of 1200 feet, and also a 20.00 foot temporary constmcnon easement
immediately N6rth of s~fid permanent easement as described in mxmmt ;
and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED
th~/t the Board shall promptly prepare a list of affected property owners, award
damages sustained to the property, and pay dam~geJ'on the affected property,
· all as req.uirecl by Indiana Code 32-24-2-7
Adopted ~his~4~t of Ja~ua~ ·
CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS &
Clerk - Treasurer
PAUL PR[MAVERA & ASSoCiATES, INC.
~i~T~:O EN61NEI~I~ ANO L&NO ~LJR¥~YORS
GENERAL DES CRIPTION OI~ S AI'~T~Y SEWEP- BASEIvfBiNT
THROUGH THE WABD TRACT
The follov,iog is ~ legal desodptlon prepmred ~his 20m day oF November, 2002, of re&l
p~icularly descnoea as a s~np u~ ,. -
E&sement p~ssing t~ou¢ that propcgy recorded in Deed Drawer 2, Ins{mment ¢3272, ~ng.
t~ough s~id tract i~edlately ~djacent to and ~omh of an e~s6ng creek ~nJng through said
prope~y for an ~ppro~m~te len~h of 1200 feet, and ~lso a ~0.00 foot tempora~ construction
e~sement m~medmtely ~ofl o[s~id pe~an~nt easement.
RESOLUTION lXIO. 03-R-.
! 200~430~ Paffe 1 of 3
C2 Da~e 02/11/2003 Tl~e 12:46;13
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING CONDEMNATION
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO
INDIANA. CODE 32-24~2-6 et. seq.
WHEREAS, on the 23rd day of December, 2002, the Board of Public
Work~ and Safety of the City of Jeffersonvflle (the "Board") adopted
Resolution 02-R-38, A Resolution Condemning Certa~ Real Property Pursuant
to Indiana Code 32-24-2-6 eta~g, which ~eal estate is more particularly described
in Exhibk A, attached l~ereto and incorporated hereL~ by reference; and
WHEREAS, notice of ~e resolution was pubI/shed ~n the Evenin(g
on January 4, 2003 ~,nd January ll, 2003 ~s required by Indiana Code 32-24-2-
6(b); and
WHEREAS, sa~d notice stated that at its reg~Iar meeting on January ~1,
2003 the Bc~ard xvould' bear remofistrances from pe.rsons interested ia or
ffecte~l by the condernnatio~; ' '
'WHEREAS, no ~)n& inrer~sted in, or affected by,' the c6ndemn~uo~
appeared and questioned the procedure with regard to the condemnation at
Board's regx~lar meeting on Januar7 21, 2003;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOL'V-ED that the
Board hereby confm~ns its original Resolution condemning and appropriating
for the use of the City of J~ffersonxflle (the "City") the property located as a
part of Sumey No, 70 of the I~no[s Grant, Utica.Toxmship, Clark County,
Indiana, as described in Exbnb~t "A"; and;
NOW THEREF.ORE~ BE IT HEREBY FURTHER 1LESOLVED
that the real estate xsa pa~ of the property located as a part of S~rvey No. 70
of the Illinois Gran~, Ut/ca Township, Clark County, Indiana, as described in
Exbnb!t "A"; and;
· ' NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEtLEBY FURTHER RESOLx~rED ·
that t~e Clerk-T~easuzez shall record a copy o~ tl~s Conffm'rfing Reso.Iution
the office of the Recorder of Clark County, Indi&na'to memorialize the City's
condemnation of the real estate located as a parc of the property located as a
part of Survey No. 70 of the I1Hnoi$ Grant, Udc~ Township, Cl~k County, .
I~i~n~, ~s desc~bed m Ex~b~t A ,
NO%Y THE~O~' BE IT HE--BY FURTHER ~SOL~D
d~m~g6s sustained ~o the p~ope~j ~nd p~y d~m~ges on the ~ffec~ad
~ ~s re~Mred by Indiana Code 32-24-2-7.~ ~.;
Xdopted ~s~ of~2003'
CITY OF jEFFERSOMVILLE
BOAILO OF PUBLIC
.ATTEST:
pAUL ppjMAVF--.RA a ASSOCIATES' 1NC,
@~bI~B,A-L DBSCBIPIIOtq 01~ SA._NITA.~,¥
~ouG'C-T[4~ HOLLIS TRACT' . ,
- ~O02, o~¢alPr°PmY
.... re6 t~s 20 6 y -,' ~-rk County,inu"
6csc6bed as
BEFORE THE CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE, INDIANA
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY
IN RE: The proposed condemnation of the
Chapman, Ward, and Hollis Tracts
OBJECTION AND REMONSTRANCE TO PROPOSED CONDEMNATION
Come now Juanita Peyton, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Chapman, and Robert Holtis (hereinafter the
"Remot~strators"), by legal counsel,Michael A. Gillenwater, and objeqt to any action by the city of
Jeffersonville Board of Public Works and Safety (hereinafter the "Jefferso~zvillE BPW') in
furtherance of the published intent of the Jeffersonville BPW to condemn all or part of the real
estate described below, and remonstrate in response to a resolution adopted by the Jeffersonville
BPW on December 23, 2002 condemning certain real properties pursuant to Indiana Code 32-1 I-
1.5 et. seq. In snpport to this objection and remonstrance, the Rem'onstrators state the following:
1. ,That the Jeffersonville BPW has published its intent (see "Exhibit A") to condenm
the following described properties (hereinafter the "Affected Properties") in order to obtain
permanent and temporary sewer line easements:
CHAPMAN TRACT: Real property being a part of Survey #53 of the Illinois Grant, Utica
Township, Clark County, Indiana, more particularly described as a strip of ground 20.00 feet in
width for a permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement passing through that property recorded in Deed
Drawer 23, instrument #10245, running through said tract immediately adjacent to and North of an
existing creek running through said property for an approximate length of 100.00 feet, and also a
20.00 foot temporary construction easement immediately North of said permanent easement.
WARD TRACT: Real property being a part of Survey #71 of the illinois Grant, Utica Township,
Clark County, indiana, more particularly described as a strip of ground 20.00 foot in width for a
permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement passing through that property recorded in Deed Drawer 2
instrument #3272 running through said tract immediately adjacent to and North of an existing
creek running through said property for an approximate length of 1200 feet, and also a 20.00 foot
temporary construction easement immediately North of said permanent easement.
HOLDS TRACT: Real property being a part of Survey #70 of the illinois Grant, Utica
Township, Clark County, Indiana, more particularly described as a strip of g~ound 20.00 foot in
width for a permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement passing through that property recorded in Deed
Drawer 31, instrument #14814, running through said tract immediately adjacent to and North of an
existing creek running through said property for an approximate length of 200.00 f~ .
1
20.00 foot temporary construction easement, immediately North of said permanent easement,
2. 'That the Jeffersonville BPW has p ublished notice that it intends to condemn the
properties described above pursum~t to the provisions of IC 32-1 I-1.5, which Chapter has been
repealed by the Indiana Legislature by PL 2-2002 Sec. 128 (see "Exblblt B"). The publication of
notice and pretense of proceeding after the repeal of that Chapter by the Indiana state legislature is
patently illegal.
3. That furthermore, the Jeffersonville Board of Public Works m~d Safety has no
authority to exercise eminent domain for purpose of constructing sewer works any~vhere xvithin the
corporate boundaries of another municipal entity, in this case the city of Charlestown, as each
municipality has exclusive jurisdiction over sewers and drains inside corporate boundariesl (see IC
36-1-3-9(a))("Exhibit C").
4. Pursuant to IC 36-1-3-9(c) ("Exhibit C"), when a statute authorizes a municipality
to exercise power outside its corporate boundaries, that power may be exercised inside the
corporate boundaries of another municipality only if both municipalities enter into an agreement
allowing such exemise of power (Towlt ofPlab~field v. To,vt! of ZlvOlt, 757 N.E.2d 705, (ind. Ct.
App. 200l)("Exhibit D).
5. That on November I1, 2002, the Affected Properties were annexed, pursuant to a
Vohmta~y Petition For Am~exatio~, into the corporate boundaries of the City of Chartestown,
Indiana, a third class city, by Charlestown ordinance # 2002-OR-i5 ("Exhibit E"). Therefore the
Jeffersonville BPW has no authority to condemn the Affected Properties, as they lie completely
within the boundaries of that other city, and there is no Interlocal Agreement granting that attthority
to the Jeffersonville BPW. "). The City of Charlestown has not authorized the condemnation of the
· Affected Properties.
6. That it is well known that the Jeff~rsonville BPW is condemning the Affected
Properties for the sole purpose of gaining providing sanitary sexvers easements to real property
(hereinafter the "Galligan Property") recently sold by the trust under the will of Robert H. Kempf,
Jr., wlxerein Anne Marie Galligan has a pecuniary interest as a. beneficiary and is Trustee in trust
unde~ the will of Robert Kempf. The extension of sanitary sewe~ lines is sought to the Galligan
Prnpe~ty to significantly enhance the value of the Galliglm Property.
7. Furthermore, the trust under the will of Robert H. Kempf, Jr., under which
Jeffersonville City Attorney Ann Marie Galligan is believed to be a direct beneficiary, retains an
equitable interest in the Galligan Property pursuant to a mortgage recorded in the office of the
recorder of Clm'k County, Indiana ("Exhibit F"). Thomas Galligan; (hereinafter the "Mayor")the
president of the Jeffersonville BPW, is the spouse of Anne Marie Galligan, and therefore has an
equitable and pectmiary marital interest in the value the Galligan Property.
8. That pursuant to IC 35-44-1-3(a) ("Exhibit G"), the Mayor, as public servant, may
not Imowingly or intentionally have a pecuniary interest in or derive a profit from a contract or purchase
initiated by the JEFFERSONVILLE BPW, which he presides over, without commiting the criminal
offense of Conflict Of Interest, a Class D felony.
9. That the procedure nnder which the Jeffersonville BPW is attempting to condemn
the AffeCted Properties denies the Remonstrators of the due process rights guaranteed to them
under the U S Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Remonstrators respectfully request that the Jeffersonville Board of
Public Works and Sa.~'ety resgind its resolution to condemn the Affected Properties, and request ali
other relief that is appropriate under the circumstances.
Michael A. Gillemvater, 8459-10
Attorney for the Remonstrators
411 Watt St.
Jeffersonville, IN 47130
(812) 288-4442