Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, rejected an annexation compromise amended into his bill in committee on March 25, 2025. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
An attempt to bridge the differences between House and Senate lawmakers in an annexation compromise is likely dead after the author criticized the process and rebuked committee members on Tuesday.
Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, has repeatedly authored legislation to rein in what he describes as an “abusive” form of annexation that’s “tilted in favor of the municipalities.”
“As time goes on, this hunger on the part of the municipality has not lessened for annexation. In fact, it’s growing to the point that we’re finding ourselves in areas where there’s non-contiguous annexation,” said Buck.
But Buck criticized an attempt to meld two bills into an annexation compromise, saying he had only been alerted of the effort the previous night. The introduced amendment, which the committee adopted by consent, was a “strip and insert,” a process that replaces all of the bill’s language with a new proposal.
“… is it the ruling of the House that you can strip a Senate bill without the author’s consent? Somebody needs to make that ruling, because you just did that in committee,” said Buck, who served in the House prior to his tenure in the Senate. “… I dare say, if I did that to one of your bills, you’d be hot. I think it’s a very, very poor precedent.”
Rep. Dave Hall, R-Norman, called it a mistake not to involve Buck earlier, saying “I didn’t know that it was going to be a strip-and-insert amendment until (the Legislative Services Agency) told me.”
“I would imagine it’s probably dead at this point,” Hall said about Senate Bill 126. “I really want to work with Sen. Buck and the other stakeholders, because I think we made some compromise. I think there’s a middle ground. Hopefully, we can still find it.”
Down in Monroe County
The heart of the issue hits close to home for Hall, whose district encompasses much of Monroe County. A recent effort to incorporate county landowners into the City of Bloomington has erupted into a contentious legal fight potentially headed for the Indiana Supreme Court.
Under the current process, 65% of the proposed annexed area’s landowners must sign off on a remonstrance to oppose it. Buck’s version would flip the burden by requiring cities to have the support of 51% of the area’s property owners before initiating, elminating so-called “involuntary annexation.”
Alternatively, a municipality getting approval from property owners controlling 75% of the assessed value of the area would also meet the threshold under Buck’s proposal.
Monroe County residents appeared to support Buck’s underlying bill but took issue with the annexation compromise authored by Hall.
Margaret Clements, the founder and president of County Resident Against Annexation, said the city pressured county residents to accept annexation in return for providing sewage services. Homes have been built by developers outside of Bloomington limits with sewage hookups, leaving buyers with no other choice than to join the municipality.
“The property owner doesn’t really want to be annexed. They’re being forced to sign a voluntary annexation agreement so they can flush their toilets,” said Clements.
Monroe County Commissioner Julie Thomas said the amendment “muddies the waters,” saying that “Monroe County residents have suffered under the proposed Bloomington annexation” because the 65% bar meant residents had to shoulder legal costs.
“The other thing to keep in mind is any changes to property tax revenues,” said Thomas. “One of my concerns is that (current property tax proposals are) going to make cities even more eager to annex because they’ll get that income tax.”
Others shared concerns that a municipality could “leapfrog” its borders by using one non-contiguous area to incorporate another non-contiguous area.
Both versions would end involuntary annexation and eliminate remonstrance waivers, but Hall introduced the ability for cities to add non-contiguous land to their rolls so long as they had the full support of various parties and the property was less than two miles from city boundaries.
“I was trying to find a compromise to where, when you take something away from a city like involuntary annexation — which I wholeheartedly disagree with — you want to offer something in return,” said Hall.
A dozen different municipalities have approached the General Assembly seeking exceptions to annexation laws so far, with a 13th — Alexandria — asking for its own exception later that same committee.
“Personally, I don’t think we need to really be involved in every single one of those if we have commissioner agreement, landowner agreement and municipality agreement,” Hall said.
Accelerating Indiana Muncipalities
But Buck panned the annexation compromise, saying “it’s going to be worse than what we currently have when you talk about non-contiguous annexation.”
“Non-continguous annexation is a dream of (Accelerating Indiana Municipalities) because it allows them to go out with new construction and new development without having to pay attention to their inner city,” said Buck. “You’re going to end up with a little daisy chain form of annexation.”
AIM, acknowledged their work on the amendment in committee but said “we don’t get everything we want” while testifying as “neutral” on the annexation compromise.
“It’s a workable compromise, in our opinion, with respect to the language on the non-contiguous annexations. It’s for both commercial and residential so this can be a great economic development tool,” said Campbell Ricci, the policy and financial resources director for the organization.
“Obviously, we’ve been coming up here and testifying against the end of municipal annexation for many, many years and want to come to the table and try to find some sort of solution to make this workable.”
The 2024 municipal officials handbook from AIM describes annexation as a way to extend city boundaries — and, by extension, public services like sewage and law enforcement — in response to population changes, suburban sprawl or the location of new developments.
Annexation can be “involuntary,” meaning it is initiated by the city, or through a voluntary petition filed by resident property owners. Exceptions to contiguity requirements can include municipally owned or operated property like an airport, a wastewater treatment facility, landfill, golf course, hospital, police station or solar electric generating facility.
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.
