Sec. 13. (a) Except as provided in subsection (e), at
the hearing under section 12 of this chapter, the court shall order a
proposed annexation to take place if the following requirements are
met:
(1) The requirements of either subsection (b) or (c).
(2) The requirements of subsection (d).
(3) The requirements of subsection (i).
(b) The requirements of this subsection are met if the evidence
establishes the following:
(1) That the territory sought to be annexed is contiguous to the
municipality.
(2) One (1) of the following:
(A) The resident population density of the territory sought to be
annexed is at least three (3) persons per acre.
(B) Sixty percent (60%) of the territory is subdivided.
(C) The territory is zoned for commercial, business, or
industrial uses.
(c) The requirements of this subsection are met if the evidence
establishes one (1) of the following:
(1) That the territory sought to be annexed is:
(A) contiguous to the municipality as required by section 1.5 of
this chapter, except that at least one-fourth (1/4), instead of
one-eighth (1/8), of the aggregate external boundaries of the
territory sought to be annexed must coincide with the
boundaries of the municipality; and
(B) needed and can be used by the municipality for its
development in the reasonably near future.
(2) This subdivision applies only to an annexation for which an
annexation ordinance is adopted after December 31, 2016. That
the territory sought to be annexed involves an economic
development project and the requirements of section 11.4 of this
chapter are met.
(3) The territory is described in section 5.2 of this chapter.
(d) The requirements of this subsection are met if the evidence
establishes that the municipality has developed and adopted a written
fiscal plan and has established a definite policy, by resolution of the
legislative body as set forth in section 3.1 of this chapter. The fiscal
plan must show the following:
(1) The cost estimates of planned services to be furnished to the
territory to be annexed. The plan must present itemized estimated
costs for each municipal department or agency.
(2) The method or methods of financing the planned services. The
plan must explain how specific and detailed expenses will be
funded and must indicate the taxes, grants, and other funding to
be used.
(3) The plan for the organization and extension of services. The
plan must detail the specific services that will be provided and the
dates the services will begin.
(4) 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.
(5) That services of a capital improvement nature, including street
construction, street lighting, sewer facilities, water facilities, and
storm water drainage facilities, 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.
(6) This subdivision applies to a fiscal plan prepared after June
30, 2015. The estimated effect of the proposed annexation on
taxpayers in each of the political subdivisions to which the
proposed annexation applies, including the expected tax rates, tax
levies, expenditure levels, service levels, and annual debt service
payments in those political subdivisions for four (4) years after
the effective date of the annexation.
(7) This subdivision applies to a fiscal plan prepared after June
30, 2015. The estimated effect the proposed annexation will have
on municipal finances, specifically how municipal tax revenues
will be affected by the annexation for four (4) years after the
effective date of the annexation.
(8) This subdivision applies to a fiscal plan prepared after June
30, 2015. Any estimated effects on political subdivisions in the
county that are not part of the annexation and on taxpayers
located in those political subdivisions for four (4) years after the
effective date of the annexation.
(9) This subdivision applies to a fiscal plan prepared after June
30, 2015. A list of all parcels of property in the annexation
territory and the following information regarding each parcel:
(A) The name of the owner of the parcel.
(B) The parcel identification number.
(C) The most recent assessed value of the parcel.
(D) The existence of a known waiver of the right to remonstrate
on the parcel. This clause applies only to a fiscal plan prepared
after June 30, 2016.
(e) At the hearing under section 12 of this chapter, the court shall do
the following:
(1) Consider evidence on the conditions listed in subdivision (2).
(2) Order a proposed annexation not to take place if the court
finds that all of the following conditions that are applicable to the
annexation exist in the territory proposed to be annexed:
(A) This clause applies only to an annexation for which an
annexation ordinance was adopted before July 1, 2015. The
following services are adequately furnished by a provider other
than the municipality seeking the annexation:
(i) Police and fire protection.
(ii) Street and road maintenance.
(B) The annexation will have a significant financial impact on
the residents or owners of land. The court may not consider:
(i) the personal finances; or
(ii) the business finances;
of a resident or owner of land. The personal and business
financial records of the residents or owners of land, including
state, federal, and local income tax returns, may not be subject
to a subpoena or discovery proceedings.
(C) The annexation is not in the best interests of the owners of
land in the territory proposed to be annexed as set forth in
subsection (f).
(D) This clause applies only to an annexation for which an
annexation ordinance is adopted before July 1, 2015. One (1) of
the following opposes the annexation:
(i) At least sixty-five percent (65%) of the owners of land in
the territory proposed to be annexed.
(ii) The owners of more than seventy-five percent (75%) in
assessed valuation of the land in the territory proposed to be
annexed.
Evidence of opposition may be expressed by any owner of land
in the territory proposed to be annexed.
(E) This clause applies only to an annexation for which an
annexation ordinance is adopted after June 30, 2015. One (1) of
the following opposes the annexation:
(i) At least fifty-one percent (51%) of the owners of land in
the territory proposed to be annexed.
(ii) The owners of more than sixty percent (60%) in assessed
valuation of the land in the territory proposed to be annexed.
The remonstrance petitions filed with the court under section 11
of this chapter are evidence of the number of owners of land
that oppose the annexation, minus any written revocations of
remonstrances that are filed with the court under section 11 of
this chapter.
(F) This clause applies only to an annexation for which an
annexation ordinance is adopted before July 1, 2015. This
clause applies only to an annexation in which eighty percent
(80%) of the boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed
is contiguous to the municipality and the territory consists of
not more than one hundred (100) parcels. At least seventy-five
percent (75%) of the owners of land in the territory proposed to
be annexed oppose the annexation as determined under section
11(b) of this chapter.
(f) The municipality under subsection (e)(2)(C) bears the burden of
proving that the annexation is in the best interests of the owners of land
in the territory proposed to be annexed. In determining this issue, the
court may consider whether the municipality has extended sewer or
water services to the entire territory to be annexed:
(1) within the three (3) years preceding the date of the
introduction of the annexation ordinance; or
(2) under a contract in lieu of annexation entered into under IC 36-4-3-21.
The court may not consider the provision of water services as a result
of an order by the Indiana utility regulatory commission to constitute
the provision of water services to the territory to be annexed.
(g) The most recent:
(1) federal decennial census;
(2) federal special census;
(3) special tabulation; or
(4) corrected population count;
shall be used as evidence of resident population density for purposes
of subsection (b)(2)(A), but this evidence may be rebutted by other
evidence of population density.
(h) A municipality that prepares a fiscal plan after June 30, 2015,
must comply with this subsection. A municipality may not amend the
fiscal plan after the date that a remonstrance is filed with the court
under section 11 of this chapter, unless amendment of the fiscal plan
is consented to by at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the persons who
signed the remonstrance petition.
(i) The municipality must submit proof that the municipality has
complied with:
(1) the outreach program requirements and notice requirements
of section 1.7 of this chapter; and
(2) the requirements of section 11.1 of this chapter.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations:
18-5-10-25 part; 18-5-10-32 part.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3. Amended by Acts
1981, P.L.11, SEC.161; Acts 1981, P.L.308, SEC.5; Acts 1982, P.L.33,
SEC.22; P.L.56-1988, SEC.13; P.L.257-1993, SEC.3; P.L.4-1997,
SEC.13; P.L.255-1997(ss), SEC.13; P.L.248-1999, SEC.7;
P.L.217-1999, SEC.7; P.L.76-2001, SEC.2; P.L.170-2002, SEC.144;
P.L.173-2003, SEC.24; P.L.97-2004, SEC.126; P.L.111-2005, SEC.7;
P.L.119-2012, SEC.188; P.L.228-2015, SEC.19; P.L.206-2016, SEC.6;
P.L.70-2022, SEC.8.
Notes of Decisions
Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 25× “Factual and Procedural Background Until 1993, if a municipality sought to annex adjacent territory, it needed to satisfy only the requirements of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13. That section, which remains the law today, set forth a list of conditions ranging from the population…”
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
· cites it 14× “Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “The court found that Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13(g) was special legislation because "Section 36-4-3-13 now requires the opposition of sixty-five percent of landowners to defeat annexation in every other county in the State, but retains the majority requirement for St.”
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 16× “Case History The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance to annex 439 acres of Cleveland Township, Elkhart County, under the authority granted by Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13. Several residents of the annexed territory remonstrated, and the Elkhart Superior Court heard evidence on the…”
Jackson v. City of Jeffersonville, 771 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 14× “5" when in fact " Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 enumerates additional factors for a determination of contiguity.”
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 37× “2892 includes property that is already within the corporate boundaries of the City of New Castle in its definition of the areas to be annexed and that Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 8 requires a finding that *778 the areas to be annexed are contiguous to the municipality and that proof…”
City of Hobart v. Chidester, 596 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. 1992).
· cites it 12× “Code § 36-4-3-13 (d) which states: The requirements of this subsection are met if the evidence establishes that the municipality has developed a written fiscal plan and has established a definite policy, by resolution of the legislative body, as of the date of passage of the…”
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “" § 36-4-3-13(d). According to CWMI, because Seiler Road is paved, New Haven is obliged to upgrade Paulding Road from a gravel to a paved surface in order to comply with the "like services" requirement of § 36-4-3-18(d)(5).”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(a) — 4 cases
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(a)(1) — 1 case
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(b) — 12 cases
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).
“Case History The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance to annex 439 acres of Cleveland Township, Elkhart County, under the authority granted by Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13. Several residents of the annexed territory remonstrated, and the Elkhart Superior Court heard evidence on the…”
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(1) — 1 case
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(2) — 3 cases
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(2)(B) — 3 cases
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(2)(C) — 2 cases
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).
“Case History The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance to annex 439 acres of Cleveland Township, Elkhart County, under the authority granted by Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13. Several residents of the annexed territory remonstrated, and the Elkhart Superior Court heard evidence on the…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(c) — 12 cases
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).
“Case History The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance to annex 439 acres of Cleveland Township, Elkhart County, under the authority granted by Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13. Several residents of the annexed territory remonstrated, and the Elkhart Superior Court heard evidence on the…”
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“2892 includes property that is already within the corporate boundaries of the City of New Castle in its definition of the areas to be annexed and that Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 8 requires a finding that *778 the areas to be annexed are contiguous to the municipality and that proof…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(c)(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(c)(2) — 10 cases
Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation, 124 N.E.3d 597 (Ind. 2019).
“Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 (a) (2013 Repl.). Among them are, first, that the municipality has adopted a written fiscal plan to ensure the municipality can afford to provide services to those living in the proposed annexation territory, id.”
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997).
“Case History The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance to annex 439 acres of Cleveland Township, Elkhart County, under the authority granted by Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13. Several residents of the annexed territory remonstrated, and the Elkhart Superior Court heard evidence on the…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(c)(l) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d) — 15 cases
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“2892 includes property that is already within the corporate boundaries of the City of New Castle in its definition of the areas to be annexed and that Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 8 requires a finding that *778 the areas to be annexed are contiguous to the municipality and that proof…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d)(1) — 2 cases
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“" § 36-4-3-13(d). According to CWMI, because Seiler Road is paved, New Haven is obliged to upgrade Paulding Road from a gravel to a paved surface in order to comply with the "like services" requirement of § 36-4-3-18(d)(5).”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d)(2) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d)(4) — 6 cases
City of Hobart v. Chidester, 596 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. 1992).
“Code § 36-4-3-13 (d) which states: The requirements of this subsection are met if the evidence establishes that the municipality has developed a written fiscal plan and has established a definite policy, by resolution of the legislative body, as of the date of passage of the…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d)(5) — 3 cases
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“" § 36-4-3-13(d). According to CWMI, because Seiler Road is paved, New Haven is obliged to upgrade Paulding Road from a gravel to a paved surface in order to comply with the "like services" requirement of § 36-4-3-18(d)(5).”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d)(l) — 1 case
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“2892 includes property that is already within the corporate boundaries of the City of New Castle in its definition of the areas to be annexed and that Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13 8 requires a finding that *778 the areas to be annexed are contiguous to the municipality and that proof…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e) — 12 cases
Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003).
“Factual and Procedural Background Until 1993, if a municipality sought to annex adjacent territory, it needed to satisfy only the requirements of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13. That section, which remains the law today, set forth a list of conditions ranging from the population…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2) — 4 cases
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(A)(i) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(C) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(D) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(D)(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(D)(l) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(f) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(g) — 3 cases
Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003).
“Factual and Procedural Background Until 1993, if a municipality sought to annex adjacent territory, it needed to satisfy only the requirements of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13. That section, which remains the law today, set forth a list of conditions ranging from the population…”
City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“The court found that Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13(g) was special legislation because "Section 36-4-3-13 now requires the opposition of sixty-five percent of landowners to defeat annexation in every other county in the State, but retains the majority requirement for St.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.