The State Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday in a years-long case to determine if the City of Bloomington can annex western parts of Monroe County into the city.
The appeal comes after a five-day bench trial in May of 2024 found the city didn’t meet the statutory requirements for annexation of the two areas, called Areas 1A and 1B.
Read more on the trial: Bloomington annexation trial over areas 1A and 1B
Monroe Circuit Court Special Judge Nathan Nikirk ruled the city didn’t introduce evidence of future development while considering the “best interest” testimony from residents and understaffing of city departments.
Appeals court judges L. Mark Bailey, Elaine B. Brown, and Leanna K. Weissmann heard arguments Tuesday morning from representatives of County Residents Against Annexation (CRAA) and the city for about 45 minutes.
City Attorney Stephen Unger cited state statute to explain the city’s annexation strategy.
“Once a municipality annexes territory, it cannot annex further territory off of that unless it's a voluntary annexation. So Bloomington would not be able to annex all of these areas if they don't do it in a single ordinance,” Unger said.
Judge Bailey asked why the city doesn’t stop providing water and sewer service if the residents don’t want to be part of the city.
Unger said the city has stopped providing utility service outside city boundaries without being annexed.
“If you're going to live in an urbanized area or bring your business to an urbanized area that's right next to a municipality's boundaries based off the provision of municipal service, you need to expect that this municipality is going to be able to annex you,” Unger said.
CRAA Attorney William Beggs referred to evidence in the bench trial that county residents would not be getting more or better services.
“It's a rate-payer funded sewer service for which these folks pay an additional 12 percent. The court heard that evidence, knew that evidence, and still concluded that is in their best interest not to be annexed,” Beggs said.
Read more: Bloomington's annexation quest: what's at stake
The trial court did not agree with the city that the $20 million in annexation tax revenue would not have a significant financial impact on landowners.
Unger said that is a large sum, but the city is annexing large areas it will have to provide services to and might lose money.
Beggs said it’s up to the trial judge to decide if the amount is considered significant.
Also at contention is statute interpretation of a qualifying territory. Beggs said cities can’t pick and choose portions of a territory to make it eligible for annexation.
Unger pointed to previous rulings that courts can’t micromanage legislative decisions of how a city develops, or what should be annexed.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments Oct. 30 in the other case over the constitutionality of remonstrance waivers.
