IBJNews

Bargersville wins annexation dispute with Greenwood

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Town of Bargersville won a legal dispute Monday validating its annexation of 739 parcels within three miles of Greenwood's city limits and making it the exclusive sewer-service provider in the area.

Montgomery County Court Judge Thomas K. Milligan ruled in favor of Bargersville, ending a battle between the local governments. For years, Bargersville and Greenwood competed to provide sewer service to new suburban developments along State Road 135, south of Greenwood and north of Bargersville. Then, in November 2007, Bargersville began trying to annex more than 3,000 acres in the area.

Greenwood opposed the small town's annexation of property so close to its city limits and filed suit after the annexationwhich was eventually whittled down to 1,847 acres, or 739 parcelswas completed in October 2008.

Until a change in state law in 2005, Greenwood's objection would have been enough to halt Bargersville's expansion, but the law now allows a town to proceed with annexation within three miles of a city, as long as it has consent from 51 percent of landowners.

Bargersville's method of obtaining consent became the basis of Greenwood's lawsuit. The town did not go out and ask homeowners to sign agreements drawn up solely for the annexation. Instead, it included a waiver for future annexation in its sewer-service agreements, many of which were signed by a developer. In many cases, the documented consent would be found in a homeowner's chain of title.

Milligan ruled that Bargersville's method was valid. In addition, the judge said the town was clearly first to try to annex the territory, invalidating Greenwood's own annexation attempt, started in November 2008. Finally, Milligan ruled that Bargersville has the exclusive right to provide sewer service in the disputed territory.

Bargersville's Town Council issued a statement saying, "This ruling means that it is time for our community to begin the healing process. There is no question the lawsuit has been divisive. It is time for the healing to begin."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT