A request for annexation of property that includes a number of parcels owned by those opposed to the annexation resulted in no action by Columbus City Council members on Tuesday night after an unprecedented tie vote.
A second reading on the matter tied 4-4 with council members Grace Kestler, D-At-large, Chris Bartels, R-District 1, Elaine Hilber, D-District 2 and Jerone Wood, D-District 3 voting no.
Some members were uncomfortable with how the annexation came together and felt as though it was an encroachment on the non-petitioner’s property rights, while others identified the proposed annexation as one of the few that would allow for continued city growth and felt as though exemptions the council passed last year would mean the annexation would have a negligible effect on the non-petitioners.
The applicants, JOLI Development LLC (Joe Conner), Josh Aciukewicz and Lentell Properties LLC (John Whittington), asked the city to annex about 261 acres located along State Road 46 and State Street, southeast of the city limits. They’ve indicated that the proposed annexation “is for the purpose of long-term future residential development of their properties,” according to a report by planning department staff, although Conner had said he was planning a development more in the shorter-term.
The request includes not only three parcels owned by the petitioners, but also four additional parcels owned by two non-petitioners — Mark Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm, LLC.
Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm’s Judy Pitman have voiced impassioned opposition to the annexation of properties that had been in each family for more then a combined 200 years.
If it was approved, new housing would’ve been built on approximately 64 acres already owned by the applicants — the additional nearly 200 acres of property owned by Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm were included to satisfy Indiana law requirements for the contiguity of the annexation area with the existing city limits.
Ordinances typically must be passed on two readings to be fully approved, but because property owners who don’t want to be annexed are involved, state law requires that the annexation be passed on what essentially amounts to three readings.
The council on July 16 moved the matter forward by a 4-3 vote during an introduction of the ordinance. The agendas for July 16 and Oct. 1 referred to the item as first readings for both, although Tuesday night also included a public hearing. State law required that 60 days pass before a public hearing on the annexation, which is why it had not been considered by the council since July.
There are three types of annexation — super-voluntary, voluntary and involuntary, city/county planning director Jeff Bergman said previously. Super-voluntary annexations require a petition to have signatures of 100% of the property owners in an area to be annexed. Voluntary annexations are when 51% of the property owners in an area agree to be annexed and involuntary annexation is done by the city and not the property owners.
In this case, it would be considered a voluntary annexation because the area includes five property owners: Conner, Aciukewicz, Lentell, Clifty Creek Farm, LLC and Rediker, with the first three owners agreeing to be annexed, giving them the necessary 51%.
The Columbus Plan Commission on Feb. 14 voted to forward no recommendation to the city council by an 8-2 vote, which came after motions of favorable and unfavorable recommendations were deadlocked at 5-5.
The no recommendation was a result of the inclusion of the Rediker and Clifty Creek Farm parcels in the request, Bergman wrote in a memo to council members before the July 16 meeting.
Hilber, who has served on the council for nearly nine years, noted that she had never seen the plan commission send forth no recommendation. Bergman said he couldn’t recall another example either.
The tie came down to council member Jay Foyst, R-District 6, who attended a second consecutive city council meeting after being absent since an Indiana appeals court in July ruled that he was not a valid candidate in the 2023 election because the Bartholomew County Republican Party failed to “meet a statutory deadline for filling a vacancy on a general election ballot” last year.
Foyst won his race against Muñoz with 59.5% of the vote while the lawsuit against his candidacy was still pending.
The appellate judges sent the case back to a lower court with instructions to declare his opponent Bryan Muñoz the winner. However, on Aug. 30, Foyst filed an appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court, asking the justices to vacate the July appellate decision and affirm a previous trial court’s decision that upheld his candidacy.
The Indiana Supreme Court has no obligation to take up the case and if the justices decide not to hear it, the appellate court decision will be final.
“Well, it comes down to me,” Foyst said. “I cannot do the tie-breaking vote as of right now because of the lawsuit hanging over my head. Because if I am the tie-breaking vote, and I do end up losing my seat, this would have to be brought back. So just full disclosure here, it’s four-four, so I have to abstain.”
Foyst told The Republic he intends to represent the consituents of District 6 until he either does or does not hear back from the Indiana Supreme Court. One of his attorney’s, David Stone, advised him to not be the deciding vote on any particular matter and to abstain instead. During the past two meetings in which Foyst has attended, City Clerk Luann Welmer has called on him last during roll call votes for this reason.
“We are in (an) uncharted territory with a four-four tie. I can’t remember in my 13 years of sitting here that there’s ever been a tied vote,” Council President Frank Miller, R-District 4, said. “… This ordinance does not move forward at this time, and I will leave it to the legals to research whether it can be brought back and how long that will take.”
When Columbus was a third-class city the mayor would be able to break the tie, but now that they city has transitioned to second class, that is no longer allowed, Miller observed.
City of Columbus Corporate Counsel Alex Whited said during the meeting that because the vote wasn’t an outright denial, the petitioners would be able refile with the plan commission and it could be heard by city council members again.
