Bill Jeffers Speaks Out on Consolidation Shortcomings

There are Plenty of Issues that have not been addressed

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 5:30 p.m., local time, in Room 301, Civic Center Complex, 1 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Evansville, Indiana, the Vanderburgh County Commissioners and the Evansville City Council will open their hearing of the city-county plan of reorganized government to the people for our comments. And that is a good thing, because the plan has many details that the people may find a bit disconcerting.

First of all, government always should be accountable to the people, and no plan of government reorganization should place the people it governs into a defensive position. But this plan of local government does in several ways place the burden of proof upon the people it proposes to govern, and that is just plain wrong.

For example, the reorganization plan proposes an urban services district comprising the geographic area currently lying within the boundaries of the City of Evansville. The urban services district will receive the regular municipal services now enjoyed by city residents such as street lighting, trash collection, recycling (although not mentioned in the plan), public transportation, city fire department protection, street cleaning, and the other public services not regularly enjoyed by residents of the unincorporated county. The remaining territory in the county outside the current city limits will comprise a general services district whose property owners will continue to receive and pay for the lower level of services now enjoyed by residents of the unincorporated municipality.

While all this at first may sound fine and simple, since the most residents of the unincorporated county willingly and knowingly bought into their suburban residency and lifestyle, the hard truth of the plan hides behind this simplicity. And that is because the plan devises a simplistic method for expanding the urban services district in the future. The plan simply says that when an annual review of provided services determines that a geographic area in the general services district has requested or received taxed based services normally provided in the urban services district, that area will be converted into the urban services district the following year. Mind the words now. The plan does not specify which or how many “tax based services” must be requested or received. So, does that mean the municipality can extend bus service up U.S. 41 to Ameriqual, then incorporate all land between Dress Regional Airport and Cambridge Golf Community into the urban services district?

In other words and furthermore, it appears from reading the plan that after only one public hearing, the common council might annex any area of the general services district into the urban services district and begin collecting the higher tax rate on all property within the area annexed by this far too simple method.

Why should the people oppose such a simplified method of annexation? Simply because it removes the burden of proof from the government and places it squarely and wholly upon the backs of the people it governs. For proof of my premise, let us compare the reorganization plan’s proposed method of land grabbing with the current requirements for municipal annexation of territory under state statute.

First of all, when expanding its jurisdiction under state law, a city may annex territory only if at least one-eighth (1/8) of the aggregate external boundaries of the territory coincide with the boundaries of the annexing municipality. Under the proposed plan, there is not even a mention of contiguous territory, much less to the extent of one-eighth boundary length.

Secondly, under current state law, a municipality may not annex territory that is inside the corporate boundaries of another municipality. But the reorganization plan does not explicitly exclude the possibility of future incorporation of the Town of Darmstadt into the urban services district.

Next issue: before a municipality may annex territory under current law, the municipality must provide written notice of a public hearing via certified mail 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. The notice must include specific content, including but not limited to a detailed summary of the fiscal plan, the location where the public may inspect a copy of the fiscal plan, and the name and telephone number of a representative of the municipality who may be contacted for further information regarding the fiscal plan. The reorganization plan does not recognize these standard conventions.

There are certain time constraints under state law as to how far in advance of the hearing the municipality must notify property owners, and how soon after the hearing the common council may proceed with annexation. The reorganization plan completely ignores these courtesies as well.

Also, when annexing territory, the municipality’s fiscal plan must include specific provisions, including but not limited to the following:
· Proof that the resident population density of the territory sought to be annexed is at least three (3) persons per acre, that sixty percent (60%) of the territory is subdivided, or that the territory is zoned for commercial, business, or industrial uses. Under the plan of reorganization, no population density is considered with regard to expanding the urban services district, nor are there any other parameters set out regarding acreage under residential subdivision or commercial development.
· Cost estimates of planned services to be furnished to the annexed territory including itemized estimated costs for each municipal department or agency. The reorganization plan does not even specify the exact services or how many of the normal services must be extended prior to expanding the urban services district.

The methods of financing the planned services with an explanation specifying details of funding with specific taxes, grants, or other funding to be used. The reorganization plan does not identify anything other than the higher tax rate that will be imposed on the territory taken into the urban services district.
· The plan for the organization and extension of specific services that will be provided and the dates the services will begin. Again, the plan does not specify which or how many of the services must be extended before imposing annexation into the urban services district.

· That planned services of a noncapital nature, including police protection, fire protection, street and road maintenance, and other noncapital services normally provided within the corporate boundaries will be provided to the annexed territory within one (1) year after the effective date of annexation and that they will be provided in a manner equivalent in standard and scope to those noncapital services provided to areas within the corporate boundaries regardless of similar topography, patterns of land use, and population density. The reorganization plan not only does not specify exactly which services must be provided, but gives no time limit for their provision.

· That services of a capital improvement nature, including street construction, street lighting, sewer facilities, water facilities, and storm water drainage facilities, specific 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. The plan does not specify that city street and sidewalk standards will become effective in the newly incorporated urban services district, does not provide for street lighting except on a “fee for services basis” only, and does not address the storm water drainage facility services that city residents enjoy compared to those in the unincorporated county.

No, all the reorganization plan says about expanding the urban services is that “when a geographic area in the General Services District requests and/or receives tax-based services provided in the Urban Services District, that geographic area will be converted to the Urban Services District or a Special Services District, with the accompanying change to that taxing district’s rate.”

Lastly, under current state law, a remonstrance against annexation may be initiated by 65% of the owners of land in the annexation area, or by owners of more than 75% of the assessed valuation of the land in the territory proposed to be annexed who allege that adequate fire and police protection already is provided by someone other than the municipality seeking to annex the territory. And state law provides for “disannexation” in certain situations where the municipality fails to follow the rules. The reorganization plan fails to provide the people with these same rights.

So, my complaint and my comment remains, “the reorganization plan places the burden of proof upon the people it will govern,” and does will not require the government practice due diligence when expanding its jurisdiction and taxing authority. And that is just plain wrong.