State News
Email
Print
Revised annexation bill OK'd by panel
Changes criticized by opponents, advocates
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: July 3, 2009
RALEIGH - For years, North Carolinians who live in unincorporated areas have argued that they should get to vote before being annexed into a city or town.
Yesterday, in an unexpected move, state legislators took a small step toward allowing a vote on annexation by affected residents. But the legislative proposal is watered down from what residents want, and still a long way from passage. It left both annexation opponents and advocates for cities dissatisfied.
The proposal was offered in the form of an amendment to a major bill aimed at reforming North Carolina's 50-year-old annexation law. The amendment came as a surprise because it was offered by state Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson and the N.C. House majority leader.
Until yesterday, Democrats had consistently blocked attempts by Republicans to require referendums before cities could engage in forced annexation.
Holliman, however, said he has long favored giving residents a vote. He represents the Lexington area, where many people are angry over that city's recent annexation efforts, which were approved last year and will take in nearly 2,000 people.
Republicans, especially Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, accused Holliman yesterday of offering the amendment as a political maneuver to try to shield himself from the anger in his district. Holliman strongly denied that.
"I am convinced that that is the best answer I can come up with to give people a fair access to a vote," Holliman said.
North Carolina is one of the few states in the nation that allows cities to annex new residents -- and force them to pay property taxes and other fees -- without first getting their consent. Republicans and residents' groups have argued that the law should be changed to require referendums. Cities argue that such a requirement would cripple their ability to grow in an orderly way and remain financially healthy.
The Holliman amendment, which was approved by the House finance committee by a vote of 16-12, would allow residents of an area proposed for annexation to petition for a referendum before the city could go through with the annexation. The petitioning residents would have to get signatures from 15 percent of the registered voters in the city and the area scheduled for annexation.
If residents collected the necessary number of signatures, the city would be required to have a referendum that would be open to all voters in the city and all voters in the annexation area. A majority would have to vote in favor of the annexation before the city could proceed.
"When you include the city and the people being annexed, it's the fairest way I can think of to have a vote," Holliman said.
Opponents said that the requirement to get a petition with 15 percent of registered voters would make it practically impossible to stop annexations in large cities. For instance, in a city the size of Winston-Salem, which has 142,634 registered voters, opponents would need more than 21,000 signatures just to get an annexation referendum on the ballot.
Residents who have mounted a grass-roots effort against forced annexations would prefer to do without the requirement for petitions, and they want referendums to be conducted only in the area proposed for annexation. They do not believe that the referendums should be open to the city at large.
Tony Tetterton, the vice president of the Fair Annexation Coalition, told legislators yesterday that the bill's protections for residents, including the Holliman amendment, are not nearly strong enough.
"It's poorly designed, poorly written, rushed through, and you should not be proud of it," Tetterton told the finance committee.
On the opposite side of the issue, the N.C. League of Municipalities also criticized the amendment.
"The referendum amendment does significant harm to our cities' and towns' ability to manage and grow our communities," said Kelli Kukura, a lobbyist for the league.
Holliman described the amendment as a middle-ground approach that could give some voice to residents who now have no say in forced annexations.
Folwell accused Holliman of using the amendment as "a political charade."
I don't know how that amendment -- even though I'm for it -- makes it more likely that the bill gets to the governor's desk or makes it more likely that anyone who ever gets annexed by a large city could ever call for a referendum," Folwell said.
During a testy part of yesterday's meeting, Holliman responded sharply, saying that Folwell "has no idea what a political charade is."
Afterward, Folwell questioned why Holliman should get credit for the referendum proposal when Republicans have mainly been the ones been pushing for annexation referendums. Last week, Democrats in a different committee voted down a Republican amendment that would have created referendums. Folwell said that Holliman's amendment would be ineffective because of the high number of signatures it would require for a referendum to take place.
Still, despite those criticisms, Folwell and other Republicans ultimately voted in favor of the amended bill. Most of the votes against the bill came from Democrats who agreed with the League of Municipalities' objection to any chance for a referendum prior to annexation.
The bill now gets sent to the floor of the N.C. House. If it passes there, it will face a tough road in the N.C. Senate, where Democratic leaders have shown little willingness to make major changes to the state's current annexation methods.
In addition to the controversial amendment on referendums, the bill contains many other smaller changes that legislators say would make annexations more fair and provide more protections to residents. For instance, the bill would require more oversight of cities' annexation efforts, and it would increase the density standards for areas that can be subject to forced annexation.
■ James Romoser can be reached at 919-833-9056 or at jromoser@wsjournal.com.
Revised proposed annexation bill
A major bill working its way through the General Assembly seeks to revise the state's annexation law to provide more protections for residents. Here are some of the provisions of the bill in its current form:
• Require a referendum before a forced annexation can occur, if residents can gather enough signatures in support of a referendum.
• Raise the minimum density standards for areas that can be subject to forced annexation.
• Outlaw "shoestring" annexations.
• Require that a municipality provide at least two meaningful services within its corporate limits before it can conduct a forced annexation.
• Require a municipality to extend water and sewer lines to all properties in an annexed area within three years.
• Define a firm two-year process by which a municipality must notify the public and get public input before conducting a forced annexation.
• Increase oversight of forced annexations by a state panel known as the Local Government Commission.
• Encourage cities to annex more low-income areas if the residents want to be annexed.
Email
Print
