HOPE – After a nearly two-and-a-half hour hearing, the Hope Town Council postponed a vote Tuesday on two petitions for disannexation until a second public hearing is conducted at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 6.
The council agreed that no additional evidence will be submitted at next month’s hearing. In addition, they have scheduled a closed door meeting for next week to discuss potential litigation. All other topics related to the petitions cannot be discussed in closed session, attorney Alex Whitted told the council.
Indiana’s Open Door Law permits an executive session for “initiation of litigation or litigation that is either pending or has been threatened specifically in writing. As used in this clause, ‘litigation’ includes any judicial action or administrative law proceeding under federal or state law.”
Dr. John and Barbara Harker, as well as David and Kelly Ellis, filed petitions to place their respective properties outside of the Hope City limits.
The Harkers, who own a significant amount of land in the area, are asking to deannex 33.78 acres of undeveloped pasture land located south, east and northeast of where Jackson Street becomes East Jackson Road. The 1.18 acre Ellis property, located at 15241 E. Jackson Road, is nearly surrounded by Harker’s property.
Both petitioners claim they are forced to pay higher taxes and stormwater assessment fees, but receive little to no benefits like improved streets, sidewalks, municipal water, municipal sewer or other infrastructure.
The hearing resembled a civil trial with the town council serving as jury. While not sworn in, witnesses were brought up to testify and evidence were marked with exhibit numbers. Whitted represented the town while Indianapolis attorney Andrew Sumerford spoke on behalf of the petitioners. Town attorney Scott Andrews could not represent the town because of a potential conflict of interest. Andrews is also the attorney for the Flat Rock-Hawcreek School Corp., where Harker serves as school board president.
Ellis said that when his well water went bad, his request to be linked with the town’s water was denied. Ellis said he was told it was not cost-effective to extend a dead end water line to a single house.
But there was more to it, Hope Utilities Superintendent David Clouse said. For example, the Indiana Departnebt of Environmental Management won’t approve a water main smaller than 6 inches, which he says would be overkill if linked only to the Ellis property. IDEM also doesn’t allow dead end lines because they result in stagnant water, Clouse said.
A suggestion that Ellis link up with a neighbor’s water line to the south was not taken seriously because that would have forced Ellis to dig up a neighbor’s private property. Ellis maintains it’s the town’s responsibility to bring utilities to their residents.
While Ellis said he would only save about $36 in stormwater assessment, he believes disannexation would significantly lower the assessment of his property, which will result in substantial county tax savings.
In addressing the council, farmer and retired dentist John Harker said his land was annexed into the town in 1987 and was originally supposed to be part of an industrial park. However, the commercial development eventually failed. Since purchasing the land in two parcels in 2011, Harker says he has paid $20,737 in stormwater assessment fees.
But instead of getting a benefit, Harker insists he has only received water erosion that stems from neighboring properties.
When asked by council member John Walstad why he had not approached the council earlier, Harker said he did just that in both 2013 and 2016 in an effort to pursuade the council to rectify the situation. He cited minutes that quoted former council member Tim Shoaf as saying he believed the Harkers were being extensively overcharged.
The retired dentist produced minutes from a 2005 Hope Stormwater Board meeting that stated several farmers had the same complaint he and Ellis are now expressing. A decision was made that year that owners of agricultural property would only pay an annual stormwater assessment fee of $36 per parcel. The minutes also showed the stormwater board voted that other agricultural properties be treated the same way, Harker said.
Other archived evidence cited by Harker indicates the town council was willing to disannex properties during the last decade whenever land wasn’t developed as the owners had planned.
Former town consultant Trena Carter was quoted in the minutes as saying refunds for overcharges in stormwater assessment fees had been provided to a number of agricultural property owners, Harker said.
“We are not setting a precedent here at all,” Harker said.
Minutes from a 2013 town board meeting quote former town attorney Cynthia Boll as telling the council the Stormwater Board had recommended that Harker’s fees be refunded with the exception of $36 a parcel annually, the retired dentist said.
Although the zoning of Harker’s land was in question, the council had agreed his property was agricultural and should only be assessed $36 annual per parcel, according to minutes from a 2013 council meeting.
A letter requesting that Harker have the property formally rezoned to agricultural was supposed to be hand-delivered by a council member to the retired dentist.
“But I never received any communication from anyone in regard to this stormwater drainage situation,” Harker said.
With assistance from Whitted, Hope Town Manager Jason Eckart handled most of the presentation for the city. He cited Ordinance 2004-06 that states stormwater assessment fees are based on square footage of the property.
After Harker said that claim is not true, Eckart quoted Ordinance 2001-06 that shows a proposed stormwater rate schedule based on lot and family size. However, no evidence was produced that proves the proposal was adopted.
One of the main points of contention concerned a drainage ditch and related work on the south side of East Jackson Road that goes by Ellis’ home. Eckart said town crews did stormwater repairs in front of Ellis’ property in both 2017 and 2020 that included extending the drainage ditch to Little Haw Creek.
But both petitioners responded by saying the work was done on public land to drain water from the town.
“It was to ease the strain on (Ellis’ property) to get water flow,” Eckart said.
“It was to ease the strain on the rest of the town to get water to flow,” Harker responded.
There was disagreement between Eckart and Sumerford as to what Harker was requesting from the town council in 2013.
“He asked for his money back or to deannex,” Eckart said. “He didn’t ask for relief from those stormwater fees.”
“Is that not a form of relief from the fees,” Sumerford asked Eckart. “You have to admit at the time the discussion of the council was that (Harker) could seek disannexation or he could seek rezoning to have his parcels re-rated to $36 per year per parcel.”
In trying to explain to Dr. Harker why his requests haven’t been addressed for several years, council member Herby Asher spoke with candor.
“As a council, our job is to try to grow the town (in terms of) population, economically and size-wise. It is extremely hard to get land annexed into town. The reason there has been so much opposition from previous councils comes from not wanting to let land go outside the town. Everybody wants to keep the town growing. We don’t want to reduce it in size.”
The executive session has been scheduled for 4 p.m. on Feb. 20.
