|
NCLM Watch Page 2005 |
||||||||||||||||
|
NCLM Email Legislative Update September 16, 2005 Bulletin
#31 Annexation Once again, a number of statewide and local anti-annexation bills were introduced this session. All House anti-annexation bills introduced in 2005 were retained in the House Rules Committee and were not considered by the House. These included: HB 302 - Annexation Referendum HB 460 - Annexation/ETJ Residents Vote HB 545 - Fayetteville Annex. Referendum HB 964 - Suspend Involuntary Annexations HB 1397 - Involuntary Annexation Changes HB 1704 - NC Annex. Laws & Practice Study Under General Assembly rules, these bills are not eligible for further consideration in the 2006 short session. Most Senate anti-annexation bills met the same fate. SB 19 - Annexation Referendum and SB 307 - Fayetteville Annexation Referendum were stranded in Senate Judiciary I, while SB 649 - Annexations/Mandatory Water/Sewer Hookup failed to move from Senate Finance. One Senate bill, with an extension of a local moratorium on cross-county annexation, was enacted: SB 407 – Cabarrus Local Acts (SL 2005-116). Also SB 512 – Electric Services Conflicts (SL 2005-150), resulting from a compromise worked out between Electricities and the electric membership corporations, contains a provision that prohibits “bundling” of electric service with other municipal services for the purposes of agreeing to a voluntary annexation or otherwise. Annexation remains a very volatile and divisive issue. We do not expect this issue to go away. We urge you to continue discussions with your legislators and others regarding the importance of annexation to your city or town. ******************** Bulletin #17
May 20, 2005 Another anti-annexation bill introduced Rep. Nelson Dollar last week introduced HB 1704 – NC Annexation Laws and Practice Study, which would establish a study commission on annexation to include city and county officials and annexation opponents appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem and the House Speaker. It would also include three senators and three representatives. Since, as the text of HB 1704 points out, the state’s annexation laws were studied and changed in 1982/83 and again in 1997/98, the League does not believe another study commission is needed and therefore opposes this bill. Crossover deadline extended The General Assembly has moved its crossover deadline to June 2, 2005. This is the date by which bills must pass one chamber in order to remain eligible this session. Bills with finance or appropriations provisions are not subject to the crossover deadline. Following are some of the bills that were introduced or acted upon this week. If you need a copy of these or any other bills, please contact the Legislative Printed Bills Office at 919-733-5648 or the League office. Remember that bills and legislative calendars are now available on the Internet at http://www.ncleg.net. Please contact the League staff if you have any particular interest or concern regarding any piece of legislation. *********************** No. 11 April 8, 2005Annexation/ETJ bills reassignedTwo of the proposals opposed by the League were re-referred to the House Rules Committee this week. They are HB 302 – Annexation Referendum, to require a referendum on annexation upon the petition of ten percent of the residents in the area to be annexed, and HB 363 – ETJ Residents Vote For Council, allowing non-municipal residents living in an extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction to vote in municipal elections. Remember that bills and legislative calendars are now available on the Internet at http://www.ncleg.net. SB 1031 Additional Condemnation Authority Amends G.S. 40A-3(b) [authority of local public condemnors (cities and counties)] to allow condemnation for the purpose of facilitating the adaptive redevelopment or reuse of abandoned, closed, unused or indefinitely idle textile or furniture manufacturing facilities and directly related abandoned, closed, unused or indefinitely idle properties. Adds new G.S. 40A-10.1 to provide that, at the sole discretion of the condemnor, when a property as described above has been acquired, it may be redeveloped under the ownership of that condemnor or it may be conveyed at private sale to one or more third parties. Sen Hartsell S ref to Judic. II HB 1054 Swift Creek Mgt. Plan/Standing to Enforce Provides that any local
government that is a party to the Swift Creek Management Plan has standing
to contest an action of another party to the plan that is inconsistent
with its standards and provisions. Specifies that any person who resides
in the jurisdiction of a local government that is a party to the plan and
also resides in the Swift Creek watershed has standing to contest an
action of any party to the plan that is inconsistent with the standards
and provisions of the plan, provided that the person has a specific
personal or legal interest in the action and is adversely affected
thereby. Rep Ross H ref to Judic. I Bulletin #10 April 1, 2005 Bill would suspend annexations for two years Yet another anti-annexation bill, HB 964 – Suspend Involuntary Annexations, would halt all city-initiated annexations until a study commission reports to the 2007 General Assembly session. The bill, sponsored by Representatives Larry Brown, Bill Faison and Nelson Dollar, would require appointment of a 10-member commission to study city-initiated annexations, including the “adequacy of those procedures to protect the rights of property owners and the opportunity for property owners to object to involuntary annexation and the adequacy of remedies available to them.” The House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem each would appoint five members of the commission. The League opposes this bill. The existing statutes, which have served North Carolina citizens well for more than 46 years, have numerous safeguards to protect the rights of individuals. The annexation statutes underwent a thorough review and study in the late 1990s, and the laws were revised then.North Carolina’s annexation laws have helped keep tax rates low for city residents and businesses, helped attract new jobs and protect property values, the environment and bond ratings. Suspending or restricting annexation puts all those benefits for the majority of North Carolinians at risk.
Please
let your legislators know of your opposition to this bill and the other
anti-annexation bills that have been introduced.
|
NCLM Email Legislative Update No. 9 March 24, 2005 Bill would allow up to 25 years to pay for annexation water and sewer connection charges Sen. Andrew Brock has introduced SB 649 - Annexations/Mandatory Water/Sewer Hookup, which provides that if a city requires property owners in a city-initiated annexation to connect to water or sewer lines, the city must allow the property owners to pay the connection charges over a period of 25 years. The League opposes this bill. Existing state statutes allow property owners assessed for municipal water and water and sewer connections to take up to 10 years to pay the assessment. [Individual cities and towns may have local acts allowing different lengths of time.] It appears to us that 10 years is a sufficient time to pay this type of assessment. ******************* No. 7 March 11, 2005 Another Fayetteville anti-annexation bill introduced Representative Marvin Lucas introduced HB 545 – Fayetteville Annexation Referendum this week. This bill, similar to SB 307 sponsored by Sen. Larry Shaw, would amend the charter of the City of Fayetteville to require voter approval for any city-initiated annexation ordinance. Although it affects only one municipality, these bills set a bad precedent. The League opposes local and statewide bills that undermine municipal annexation authority. Talk with legislators about annexation and ETJ The bills mentioned above bring the total number of bills seeking to hinder annexation or extraterritorial jurisdiction authority to seven introduced so far. Here’s a recap of what we have seen to date. SB 19 - Annexation Referendum (introduced by Sen. Andrew Brock) and HB 302 – Annexation Referendum (introduced by Rep. Nelson Dollar) would essentially allow residents to veto annexation of their property. The bills would require a referendum on annexation upon petition of 10 percent of the residents in an area proposed for annexation. This would put the state back to the pre-1959 law, and the League opposes both bills because the existing statutes have served North Carolina citizens well. Rep. Cary Allred’s bill, HB 362 – Vote on ETJ Extensions, would require that residents of a proposed ETJ area approve the municipality’s exercise of zoning jurisdiction. He also is the sponsor of HB 363, ETJ Residents Vote for Council, which would allow non-municipal residents living in an extraterritorial jurisdiction to vote in municipal elections. Rep. Allred and Rep. Bill Faison are co-sponsoring HB 460 – Annexation/ETJ Residents Vote, a bill that would prevent a city-initiated annexation or an extension of the ETJ to become final unless residents in those areas have had the opportunity to vote for “each officer of the governing board” of the municipality. The League opposes these bills as well. We encourage municipal
officials to discuss with their legislators how annexation has benefited
their communities. Also, it would be appropriate to point out that a
municipality cannot extend its ETJ if the county is exercising zoning
authority, subdivision controls and enforcing the state building code.
Larger cities must get permission from the county to extend ETJ more than
one mile, and many municipalities are precluded from doing so because of
their proximity to other towns. Residents of an ETJ are represented on
the municipality’s planning board and board of adjustment, and the county
board of commissioners makes those appointments. *****************
No. 6 March 4, 2005 More anti-annexation bills introduced
epresentatives Bill Faison and Cary Allred have introduced a bill to require that residents be allowed to vote in municipal elections before their property could be annexed or the municipality could extend extraterritorial planning jurisdiction (ETJ) over the area. Under HB 460 – Annexation/Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Residents Vote, neither a city-initiated annexation nor an extension of ETJ could become effective until the voters residing in the area to be added have been provided the opportunity to vote for “each officer of the governing board.” The bill as written gives non-municipal residents more rights than municipal residents. In many North Carolina cities and towns, a district election system is used, and any individual municipal voter may not vote for all seats on the governing board. Since the bill requires the opportunity to vote for each officer, there must be a sufficient number of elections for all the governing board seats to come up for election. If the municipal governing board has staggered terms, as many do, at least two elections might have to be held before an annexation or ETJ extension could be final. “When residents are annexed, they become eligible to vote in municipal elections, and it is not appropriate for nonresidents to vote in those elections,” said Executive Director S. Ellis Hankins. “Residents in the ETJ are represented on municipal planning boards and boards of adjustment, bodies that make recommendations and decisions on planning. We oppose this bill.”
A local bill targeting annexation was also
introduced this week. SB 307 - Fayetteville Annexation
Referendum, sponsored by Sen. Larry Shaw, would amend
the charter of the City of Fayetteville to require voter approval for any
city-initiated annexation ordinance. Although it affects only one
municipality, this local bill would set a bad precedent and encourage more
attacks on annexation. The League will
continue to oppose attempts to undermine the annexation authority in both
local and statewide legislation. *********************** No. 4 February 18, 2005
Another annexation veto bill filed ********************* No. 2 February 4, 2005 Annexation veto bill introduced Senator Andrew Brock has introduced the first bill calling for neighborhood residents to have the power essentially to veto city-initiated annexations of their property. His bill, SB 19, would allow 15 percent of the residents in an area proposed for annexation to submit a petition that would require a referendum, giving them the ability to block the annexation. The League opposes this bill, which would make the law as it was before 1959. The existing annexation statutes have served the citizens of North Carolina well. Annexation has helped keep property tax rates low for city residents and businesses, attract new jobs, and protect property values, the environment and bond ratings. Senator Brock’s bill would effectively prohibit annexation, thereby putting the benefits of annexation at risk for the majority of North Carolinians. We oppose SB 19.
|
|||||||||||||||