|
NCLM Watch Page |
|||||||||||||||
|
< Back to SNCA Homepage
NCLM Email Legislative Update Bulletin #21 June 15, 2007 Annexation hearing draws a crowd More than 200 people attended the June 13 public hearing on annexation held by a subcommittee of the House Rules Committee. The hearing, which was held to receive comments on a bill to authorize another study of annexation authority, was a forum for supporters and opponents of city-initiated annexations. Supporters pointed out that annexation is a tool to manage growth, provide urban services in an efficient manner, and ensure that municipalities remain economically strong. Many pointed to the role of cities as economic engines for their regions and said annexation aided in the effort to keep taxes low, services strong and the environment safe. Annexation opponents claimed that some cities and towns do not provide municipal services as required by law after an annexation and that annexation is not an effort to manage growth but merely a revenue grab. Other speakers asked that property owners be allowed to vote on whether to be annexed into a municipality. Other comments alleged that some cities and towns deliberately refused to annex minority communities. The committee substitute for HB 86 – Study Municipal Annexation remains in the House Rules Committee. NCLM Executive Director Ellis Hankins said at the public hearing that the League does not believe that the issue needs to be studied again, but if a study is authorized, the League will cooperate fully and completely. We thank the following individuals who spoke in favor of municipal annexation authority at the hearing, as well as those who provided written comments or attended the hearing: Mayor Steven Smith, Pinehurst; Mayor Richard Thomas, Lexington; Mayor Robert Partin, Scotland Neck, NCLM President; Mayor Charles Meeker, Raleigh; Ms. Gayle Anderson, Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce; Stan Norwalk, private citizen, Cary; Mayor Calvin Gaddy, New London; John Cox, Concord/Cabarrus Chamber of Commerce; Mayor Darryl Moss, Creedmoor; Terry Derner, Concord Planning Commission; Council Member Laura Padgett, Wilmington; Jonathan Howes, Chapel Hill (former mayor, past NCLM president, former DENR secretary); David Godschalk, UNC-Chapel Hill (former Chapel Hill town council member); Stewart Rumley, Washington (former mayor, past NCLM president); Mayor Keith Holliday, Greensboro; Ms. Murphy Sullivan, Charlotte Chamber of Commerce; Council Member Nancy Carter, Charlotte; Bill Coleman, manager, Cary; Drew Moretz, Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce. Bulletin #20 June 8, 2007 Annexation hearing this Wednesday The House Rules Committee will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 13 (5:00 – 7:00 p.m.) on the committee substitute for HB 86 – Study Municipal Annexation. This bill would authorize another study of municipal annexation authority. We anticipate that annexation opponents will use this hearing to make their arguments that your ability to annex should be limited or eliminated. This will likely be a forum on the pros and cons of annexation. We encourage you to attend the hearing. If you are interested in speaking at the hearing, specifically talking about how annexation has benefited your community and its residents, please contact us. Speakers will be limited to two minutes and must submit requests to speak by June 12. We encourage everyone to submit brief, written statements about annexation in their communities. Comments can be submitted by June 12 to Rep. Paul Luebke, 529 Legislative Office Building, Raleigh, NC 27603. Please send a copy of your comments to the League. The public hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the Legislative Building on Jones Street in downtown Raleigh. If you are planning to attend the hearing, the League will hold a briefing on the issue at the Albert Coates Local Government Center at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 13, just prior to the public hearing. Bulletin No. 16 May 11, 2007 More than 500 municipal officials attend Town Hall Day More than 500 municipal officials attended Town Hall Day activities to advocate for the needs of their municipal residents. Priorities for the day included talking with legislators about critical local infrastructure needs and protecting municipal authority. The N.C. Association of Realtors®, which has launched a major campaign against using a land transfer tax to fund infrastructure needs, placed a full-page ad in the News & Observer (probably costing more than $10,000), aimed at the municipal officials attending Town Hall Day. They are also running radio and television ads. Officials walking from legislative briefings at the Quorum Center to the Legislative Building were greeted by “yard” signs along the sidewalk denouncing the land transfer tax. On another issue, annexation opponents timed an anti-annexation rally to coincide with Town Hall Day and drew about 200 protesters, according to news reports. The opponents marched in front of the League’s offices while municipal officials were onsite for lunch. We want to thank those municipal officials who took time to come to Raleigh and talk with their representatives and senators. We always hear how effective this event is, and we very much appreciate your efforts. Annexation services proposal introduced Reps. Nelson Dollar, Louis Pate and Larry Brown introduced HB 1958 – No Taxes Until Annexation Services Provided this week. The bill would prohibit an annexing municipality from collecting ad valorem taxes until it begins to provide water, sewer, police, fire, and solid waste services. It would further require that any water or sewer assessment be held in abeyance until the water or sewer system is available for connection to the assessed property. Crossover extended The House and Senate agreed to extend the crossover deadline by one week to May 24. That is the date by which bills (other than those that impact the state budget or involve a tax or fee) must pass one chamber in order to remain eligible for further consideration. Bulletin No. 15 May 4, 2007 Additional annexation bill introduced A bill to require demographic proportionality in city-initiated annexations has been introduced by Reps. William Wainwright, Marvin Lucas, Joe Boylan and Ty Harrell. HB 1893 – Annexation Diversity Act provides that if an area to be annexed is wholly or partly within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city, it may not have a racial composition that is lower than the composition of the entire ETJ. Rally in Raleigh on May 9 – Town Hall Day This year’s Town Hall Day, on Wednesday, May 9, comes just a little more than a week before the General Assembly’s crossover deadline, so the legislative pace is likely to be hectic. Municipal legislative priorities for Town Hall Day include seeking a permanent, dedicated revenue source for infrastructure funding; preserving municipal annexation authority; and preserving municipal authority to make personnel decisions. Those opposed to municipal annexation authority have planned a rally against annexation for the same day as our Town Hall Day. Municipal officials also may encounter representatives of groups opposed to a land transfer tax (see below).
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin #13 April 20, 2007 Annexation HB 1495 – County Approval of Involuntary Annexation, introduced by Rep. Joe Boylan, would require county boards of commissioners to approve city-initiated annexations. The League opposes this bill. Reps. Rick Glazier, Nelson Dollar, and Larry Brown introduced HB 1608 – Annexation Laws and Practice Study, which would create a commission to study, among other things, “the balance of the rights of those proposed for annexation with the responsibility to provide urban services” and “the lessened need for annexation in light of county provision of services.”
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
HOUSE COMMITTEES Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House
Rep.
Bill Owens, Chair
|
NCLM Email Legislative Update Bulletin #11 April 5, 2007 Annexation Issue: Nearly 20 bills, some local and some statewide, have been introduced that would either limit or eliminate municipal authority for city-initiated annexations. Those opposed to annexation are saying that the League is keeping this issue bottled up and that the annexation issue (proposed restrictions on annexations, that is) should be heard and debated in the General Assembly. What you can do: Contact your legislator and ask him or her to support your municipal residents by protecting municipal annexation authority. Annexation authority allows the cost of providing services to be shared more equitably by all those who benefit from those services. Ask your legislators to support North Carolina’s annexation statutes, which have allowed municipalities to grow and remain strong. Bulletin #7 March 9, 2007 More anti-annexation bills HB 549 – Polk Annexation Referendum, introduced by Rep. Trudi Walend, would require a referendum on a city-initiated annexation if 20 percent of the voters in the annexation area petition for a vote. A similar Senate bill, SB 650 - Polk Annexation Referendum (Sen. Tom Apodaca), includes the same referendum provision but also requires that when a city initiates annexation of a portion of a subdivision, the entire subdivision must be included in the annexation, except for parts of the subdivision within the boundaries of another municipality or another county. SB 647 - Buncombe Annexation Referendum, also sponsored by Sen. Apodaca, applies the same requirements regarding a referendum and the inclusion of entire subdivisions for city-initiated annexations in Buncombe County. This bill is companion to HB 86, previously reported. SB 571 – Annexation Moratorium/Hampstead, introduced by Sen. R. C. Soles, would place a two-year moratorium on incorporation or city-initiated annexation of any portion of the Hampstead area in Pender County. SB 572 – Hoke County Moratorium, introduced by Sen. David Weinstein, would prohibit annexation into Hoke County by a municipality located outside the county. It also prohibits the extension of extraterritorial planning jurisdiction into Hoke County by any municipality located outside that county. The League opposes these bills.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin No. 6 March 2, 2007 More anti-annexation bills Reps. Bill Faison, Larry Brown and Joe Boylan have introduced HB 378 – Annexation ETJ Residents Vote to provide that a city-initiated annexation ordinance does not become effective unless the city’s governing board has provided an opportunity for the residents of the annexation area to vote for each officer of the governing board. It further prohibits cities from exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction unless the ETJ residents have been given the opportunity to vote for municipal officers. Reps. Faison, Brown and Boylan also sponsored HB 379 – Involuntary Annexation Changes, which requires that in a city-initiated annexation, the annexation area must be contiguous to an area within the municipality's boundaries that is of equal size or greater and that has been developed for urban purposes. Rep. Brown also introduced HB 457 – No Annexations Outside ETJ, amending the statutes on voluntary satellite annexations to require that all of a proposed satellite annexation area must be located within the municipality’s ETJ. SB 479 - Mandatory Water/Sewer Connection, introduced by Sen. Andrew Brock, would allow property owners in city-initiated annexations to pay mandatory water and sewer connection charges over a 25-year period. The League stands opposed to all of these bills.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin No. 5 Feb. 23, 2007 Bills related to core principles
ETJ
voting
ETJ voting HB 261—ETJ Voting, introduced by Reps. Larry Brown and Joe Boylan, would allow residents of a municipality’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction to vote in municipal elections. The League opposes this bill. More anti-annexation bills
Sen. Andrew Brock has introduced
SB 214 – Annexation
Referendum
to restore the pre-1959 requirements that
city-initiated annexations be approved by a referendum, when 15 percent of
residents in the area proposed for annexation submit a petition requesting
a vote. Open meetings notice Rep. George Cleveland introduced HB 311 – Notice of Special/Emergency Meetings. The bill would amend the Open Meetings Law in several ways. It would require notice of a special meeting to be posted on the public body’s website (if any) in addition to the principal bulletin board and door of the meeting room, and would allow special meeting notices to be e-mailed rather than mailed or delivered to news outlets and others that have filed a written request for notice. It requires eight days (instead of 48 hours) notice of the meeting if the only newspaper that has requested notices publishes weekly. Unless disaster makes it impossible to do so, the bill requires notices of emergency meetings to state the purpose of the meeting and be posted before the meeting on the bulletin board or meeting room door, on the public body’s website (if any), and sent by e-mail to persons requesting notice. The League will seek amendments to the proposal.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin No. 4 Feb. 16, 2007 More anti-annexation bills Annexation notice and standards
Reps.
Larry
Brown and Nelson Dollar have introduced
HB 243 – Annexation
Notice, which would require that all property owners be
notified of a potential city-initiated annexation by certified, rather
than first-class, mail. In addition, if the municipality operated a cable
public access channel, that channel would be required to air a daily
notice of the proposed annexation for 30 days prior to the public
informational meeting. HB 243 would also require that annexations
initiated by municipalities of 5,000 or more meet all of the urban
development tests specified in the statutes. Currently the city may
demonstrate that the area is developed for urban purposes by meeting any
one of the three tests.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin No. 3 Feb. 9, 2007 More anti-annexation bills In addition to those we reported last week, three new anti-annexation bills have been introduced. Reps. Charles Thomas and Bruce Goforth have introduced HB 87 – Annexation Referendum to make city-initiated annexations subject to a referendum upon petition of 20 percent of the voters in the proposed annexation area. It would also require that if any part of the area proposed for annexation is a subdivision, that all of the subdivision be included. They are also sponsors of HB 86 – Buncombe Annexation Referendum applying the same requirements to annexations in Buncombe County . HB 104 – Annexation Referendum (Reps. Nelson Dollar, Joe Boylan and Larry Brown) provides for a referendum on city-initiated annexations upon a 10 percent petition. The League opposes all of these bills, although we do not oppose additional study of the issue.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
Bulletin No. 2 Feb. 2, 2007
Anti-annexation bills
introduced Anti-annexation bills introduced Rep. Larry Brown of Forsyth County has introduced HB 32 – Suspend Involuntary Annexations to prohibit cities and towns from beginning or continuing any city-initiated annexations until a legislative study commission submits a report to the 2009 General Assembly. The commission would study whether current statutes provide adequate protection to property owners. HB 56 – Annexation Service (Reps. Larry Brown, Joe Boylan and Bill Faison) would prohibit city-initiated annexation of any area that already receives substantial urban services, defined as water and sewer provided by a municipality, county, sanitary district, water and sewer authority or other unit of government; and fire and police protection and road maintenance provided by an association with a governing board elected by its membership (services can be provided directly by the association or by contract). HB 60 – Moore Annexation Referendum (Rep. Joe Boylan) making annexations in Moore County subject to a referendum upon petition of 10 percent of the voters in the proposed annexation area. The League opposes all of these bills, although we do not oppose additional study of the issue. Constitutional amendment proposed on eminent domain Sen. Fred Smith has introduced SB 38 – Eminent Domain, which would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2008 to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development. The League believes that state law (as amended and clarified last session) adequately addresses the issue by expressly prohibiting the use of eminent domain for general economic development purposes. The legislature has the ability to further tighten or clarify these statutes if need be. Our concern with a constitutional amendment that does not clearly define economic development purposes is that it could easily result in unintended consequences (such as preventing local governments from building roads and water and sewer infrastructure). Once in place, a constitutional amendment would be very difficult to change.
Ellis Hankins
Executive
Director
|
||||||||||||||