By PAULENE POPARAD

At 8:39 p.m. Dec. 9 it was finally over.

The hotly contested Porter East Project annexation of 1,267 acres, begun by adoption of a surprise ordinance Aug. 12, ended quietly Tuesday as the same Town Council majority that had advanced it voted to do nothing, in effect letting the deadline to act within 60 days of the Oct. 14 public hearing expire and the annexation attempt with it.

Annexation supporters have maintained they needed to add land to Porter for future development to assure its continued economic vitality despite widespread opposition to the annexation.

Town Attorney Edward Hearn said he will now drop all pending litigation before the Indiana Court of Appeals against Chesterton related to defending Porter’s right to annex all 1,267 acres north and east of town including 20 acres held by landowners who asked to be annexed by Chesterton instead, which they were.

Porter Town Council members President Kathryn Kozuszek, Guy Grasher and James Menn voted to let the East Project annexation expire unfinalized; members Jennifer Granat and Michael Liebert, who had opposed annexation, voted Present. Said Granat, “You don’t need a motion to do nothing. You do nothing,” prompting laughter from the audience.

A previous Liebert motion six minutes earlier to defeat the annexation and drop all litigation failed with he and Granat voting yes and the other three voting no.

Hearn said doing nothing was one of the three options the council had; they also could reject the annexation or approve it, knowing full well that Granat, the only council holdover, and the four incoming new council members have said they would repeal any forced annexation. Hearn said that repeal could trigger up to a four-year ban on a town-initiated annexation of any of the same territory, depending upon the timing of the repeal and the anticipated remonstrance the Country Squires Revisited was sure to mount.

“The bottom line is, if this council is concerned about leaving the door open for people who want to be (voluntarily) annexed, you reject the annexation or do nothing,” said Hearn.

Grasher asked if the effect of doing nothing and rejecting the annexation is the same. Said Liebert, “The difference is, you have to vote.”

Prior to the vote Kozuszek read from a lengthy prepared statement. “There are people, whether they come forward and tell us or say it to their neighbor or privately to us, there are people in that area wishing to be annexed,” she said.

However, because of the potential four-year ban, “I would not want to prevent people that want to come into the town of Porter from being annexed,” Kozuszek added. “If we lose this opportunity now, we will lose it forever.” She asked the incoming Town Council, “Please, do not blindly reject it.”

Those who say annexation should only take place when the residents in a proposed area request it are naive, said Kozuszek. “Property owners will only request annexation when there exists a perceived benefit to them directly. They will never request annexation for the good of the town or its current residents.”

That’s why Indiana law allows annexation without consent of property owners, noted Kozuszek. “I believe many who have been vocal in opposition to (the East Project) annexation have done so without regard to the issues they say are important to them.” The town created a committee to assure annexees could use their property as they had in the past, she added, but no remonstrators would sit on the committee.

“Annexation is an important part of municipal growth, even more so for Porter due to its landlocked situation. I sincerely hope that Porter’s newly elected officials will not bow away from this issue just because some individuals are dead set to defeat it.” The possibilities for future development in the annexation area are endless, said Kozuszek.

As it has since Aug. 12, the council audience, last night numbering more than 45, was filled with anti-annexation property owners living in the East Project area.

During public comment, George Hadenfelt said the council majority has cost him money and aggravation to fight the annexation and now they’re backpedaling. Kozuszek said she is not. Hadenfelt said Porter is a fine town and doesn’t need to make enemies trying to expand against people’s will.

Said Johnna Dolph, “I don’t know where you got the idea you even had the possibility to win (the annexation).” Of 131 properties listed in the territory, she said, only eight refused to sign a remonstrance petition that was presented to the council Oct. 14.

Changes in state law make mounting a successful remonstrance easier if most property owners are opposed.

Kozuszek initially said she recalled no such petitions, then said she gave them to Hearn. Asked Dolph, “You didn’t let (the other council members) know they had been defeated before they even got here?” Kozuszek said they should have asked for the petition if they wanted to see it.

Robbin Carter, who has attended nearly every council meeting since Aug. 12, said by the majority doing nothing regarding annexation, “(You) took the coward’s way out.”

Incoming council member Paul Childress disputed Kozuszek’s prepared statement that it’s impossible to increase a town’s tax base without annexation. “You have the ability to do that through economic development; you can expand current businesses and bring in clean, light industry --- we already have an industrial park and we did nothing there.” Kozuszek said the town previously expanded its tax base by annexing Childress’ business, Splash Down Dunes water park.

Country Squires President Tremayne Hadenfelt questioned why Kozuszek has discounted their remonstrance as a vocal minority when 89.8 percent of the owners of net assessed valuation in the East Project signed the remonstrance and 80.9 percent of the total landowners. Only eight people refused to sign and about 20 could not be contacted, he added.

The largest owner of property, the National Park Service which holds about 60 percent of the annexation territory, did not oppose Porter’s move but the federal land had no assessed value.

Kozuszek asked Tremayne Hadenfelt if every property owner in the annexation territory should be allowed to use their property without interference from other people? “Absolutely,” he replied. Responding to Kozuszek questions, the Hadenfelts said their family owns about 120 acres and farms about 100 acres including 43 rented acres owned by a specific property owner.

Kozuszek said the Hadenfelts’ annexation opposition interferes with that property owner’s wish to have some of his land now in Chesterton have the ability to disannex from that town and be annexed by Porter. “What is your point?” asked a puzzled Tremayne Hadenfelt. “We’re not interfering with his rights; we’re protecting our rights.”

Kozuszek said she would take no more comments regarding annexation. After the meeting, Hadenfelt said the Country Squires, which had retained an attorney to prepare and present their Oct. 14 remonstrance, may seek to recoup their costs from the town. “That’s something we’ll have to look at.”

The town reportedly paid more than $10,000 on the annexation with additional bills likely to be received.

Posted 12/10/2003