2009 Bills

Bill	What it is suppose to do	Analysis	Where it goes next (updated 19 April)	Sponsors
HB 255: Zoning/Agriculture Annexation Exemption.	(a) Basically “grandfathers” farms from zoning requirements of annexing municipality.	Limited applicability, but real relief for those “working farms.” (Begs the question on why municipalities are annexing farms anyway?)	Sent to Finance.	Primary Sponsors: Cleveland, Hill, Langdon, McGee. Co-Sponsors: Allred, Blackwood, Brown, Brubaker, Burris-Floyd, Coates, Current, Dockham, Dollar, Faison, McElraft, Moore, Neumann, Rhyne, Sager, Setzer, Tucker, West.
HB 314: Annexing Across County Lines.	(a) Bill would not allow municipalities to annex into another county without the approval of the Board of Commissioners of that County.	Includes at least one County Board, and that is better than no County involvement.	Sent to Judiciary I.	Primary Sponsors: Brown, Tillis. Co-Sponsors: Allred, Cleveland, Folwell, Howard, Hurley, Justus, Langdon, Reandlman, Starnes.
HB 497: Annexation Moratorium.		Disregard this bill. It has the wrong “narrative” with it. Please see HB 571 instead.	Sent to Judiciary 2	Primary Sponsors: Goforth, Brown, Dollar, Steen. Co-Sponsors: Allred, Avila, Blackwood, Blust, Brubaker, Cleveland, Coates, Current, England, Faison, Folwell, Guice, Hilton, Hurley, Jones, Justice, Justus, Langdon, Lewis, McComas, McCormick, Moore, Randleman, Rhyne, Sager, Starnes, Tillis.
HB 498: Vote of the People.	(a) No annexation may take effect until there is a vote of the people affected, and more than 50% approve.	This is more like it.	Sent to Judiciary 2	Primary Sponsors: Goforth, Brown, Dollar, Steen. Co-Sponsors: Allred, Avila, Blackwood, Blust, Brubaker, Burr, Cleveland, Coates, Current, England, Faison, Folwell, Gillespie, Guice, Hilton, Hurley, Johnson, Justice, Justus, Langdon, Lewis, McComas, McCormick, Moore, Randleman, Rhyne, Sager, Starnes, Tillis.
HB 524: Annexation-Omnibus Changes.	See row below:	This bill incorporates the various recommendations that came out of the Joint Legislative Commission. As we know, there was no input from the Commission membership on what was voted upon that day. In addition, there was little if any change allowed. Accordingly, this bill has some good features, but it is not the total package by any means.	Filed 03/10/2009.	Primary Sponsors: Goforth, Leubke, Jones, and Starnes. Co-Sponsors: Allred, Blust, Coates, Dollar, McComas.
a. Voluntary Annexations: Uses a modified procedure passed by the Commission to include low income (defined in the bill) areas. Stipulates the municipality SHALL annex such qualified low income neighborhood contiguous to its borders if 75% or more of the property owners sign a petition requesting annexation. (Still later in this section, they once again, using the law’s old language, saying, “The governing board shall have the authority to pass an ordinance annexing the territory described in the petition.” This is different than the SHALL annex noted above. b. Involuntary Annexation Statute (small cities): (1). Adds “A connecting corridor consisting solely of a public street or street right-of-way may not be used to establish contiguity to an outlying, noncontiguous area.” (2). Adds. “At least fifty percent (50%) of the property owners must consent to the annexation if the area is served by a central water and sewer system operated by an entity other than the annexing municipality. The annexing municipality must obtain written documentation of the agreement of the property owners, dated within 12 months prior to the annexation ordinance effective date.” (3). Slightly increases the percentages for definition of “Urban” reference the total number of lots and tracks, and for the remaining non-urban lots, 60% (no change) must now be 2 acres or less, vice 3. (4). Prohibits splitting of neighborhoods and subdivisions by an annexation. (5). Public hearing notice would include a summary of the annexation process, timelines, a summary of available statutory remedies for contesting the annexation and provision of services. This notice would be sent by certified mail. c. Involuntary Annexation Statute (large cities): (1) All the changes for small cities listed above, plus, (2) Additional small changes to definitions of “developed for urban purposes” d. Voluntary Satellite Annexations: (1) Changes from 100% to 75% the percentage of property owners’ signatures needed in the now defined lower income neighborhood. Again the languages specifies the municipality “SHALL annex.” (d) Finally, for water and sewer assessments levied by an involuntary annexation, owners may pay in 20 annual installments or pay in cash within 30 days.

Bill	What it is suppose to do	Analysis	Where it goes next	Sponsors
HB 525: Annexation - LGC and Already Served Areas.	(a) Brings the Local Government Commission (LGC) into the oversight process by having them “assess” the fiscal feasibility of proposed involuntary annexations. It also would allow the LGC to prohibit further annexations by any municipality that has not provided services, and abate all ad valorum taxes after five years of no services. (b) This bill would also prohibit involuntary annexation into an area currently served by a central water and sewer system not of the annexing municipality unless at least one half of the property owners consent.	Good in that it provides oversight and makes involuntary annexations more difficult in some instances, but there needs to by a local oversight at the County level, which recommends approval or disapproval to the LGC. Also, five years is too long to wait for services with no abatement of taxes.	Sent to Judiciary II and if favorable to Finance.	Primary Sponsors: Leubke and Goforth. Co Sponsors: Blackwood, Brown, Coates, Dollar, Justice, Starnes.
HB 552: Goldsboro Deannexation.	(a) Deannexes the Good Neighbors United neighborhoods which were annexed last year	(Deserved, after the damn good fight they put up.)	Filed March 11, 2009 Sent to Rules	Primary Sponsor: Sager (Companion Senate bill: 536.)
HB 571: Annexation Moratorium.	(a) A moratorium until May 31, 2010. No annexation ordinance adopted by the time this bill becomes law, then no action until after May 31, 2010. (b) Rest of the bill is identical to last year’s HB 2367 -- most importantly, any annexation that is the subject of litigation is also “tolled” -- i.e. on hold until after May 31, 2010.	Holds annexations while legislators mull over reform	To be filed March 12, 2009. (replaces HB 497) Sent to Judiciary 2	Primary Sponsors: Leubke, Goforth. Co Sponsors: Blackwood, Brown, Coates, Dollar.
SB 148: Annexation Referendum.	(a) Senator Brocks annual “return to the pre-1959 annexation law." If 15% of the qualified voters in the area to be annexed sign a petition requesting a referendum on the annexation, there shall be one. The municipality may also hold a referendum for the current municipal residents, but they have no option on this if 15% of the qualified voters in the city sign a petition requesting a referendum. In this case, they must hold a referendum.	Both of the separate elections must have a majority affirming the annexation or it does not go forward.	Held as filed on 2/12/2009 It will be allowed to die...does every year it has been filed	Primary Sponsor: Brock.
SB 472/H 727: Annexation Changes	(a) Items which are “ok” tweaks: more information to the citizens of the annexed area; more detailed financial impact study which requires assuming the entire annexed area will request water and sewer (will give better financial data, but begs the question on why anyone should have to make such a request.); give up to 20 years to pay for assessments, not allowing a street or right of way to establish contiguity; no shoestrings for voluntary annexations. (b) Items we cannot support: Increasing the small city number from 5,000 to 10,000. (c) The remaining items in this bill do not address the basic reform issues needed to fix this law.	This bill contains the “tweaking” recommendations made by the NC League of Municipalities to the Joint Commission. The negatives in this bill far outweigh any positives.	S472: Referred to Committee on State and Local Government on 3/10/2009. H727: Judiciary 2	Primary Sponsor: Rand. Co-Sponsor: Malone.
SB 494: Annexation/Meaningful Services and Oversight.	see row below	This bill encompasses real reform.	Sent to Senate Finance	Primary Sponsor: Shaw.
(a) Eliminates differences between small and large cities. (b) Requires County approval. (1) Specific listing of things the County must consider. (2) County conducts the Public Hearing. (c) Referendum if objections presented at County’s Public Hearing or a separate referendum if 15% of qualified voters of the municipality sign petition. Both referendums must pass by a majority for the annexation to proceed. (d) Establishes the need for “meaningful municipal services” as reason for annexation. (e) Must have successfully completed prior annexations. (f) No contract with Sheriff for annexed area coverage. (g) Rural fire department contracts only ok until water lines completed. (h) Private firm contracting for solid waste collection ok only if that is what is used in the municipality. (i) Installation of all water and sewer lines required, not just mains. Deletes the requirement to have to request water and sewer. (j) Because of increased scope of water and sewer line development in (h) above, now allows three years for completion. (k) Drastically changes the standards of area to be eligible for annexation: for example, (1) Requires one-third contiguity vs one-eighth. (2) Area must be in need of “meaningful urban services” and then defines what that is: “Meaningful Services means central water and sewer service, police protection, and fire protection.” (3) “Area in need of municipal services shall mean an area in which a majority of property owners have water service, sewer or septic service, police protection, or fire protection that is inadequate and clearly poses a threat to the health and safety of the area, and the property owners could not reasonably address the threat themselves through private or public means.” (4) Changes the definition of “developed for urban purposes.” (l) Keeps, but changes, the Local Government Commission and Superior Court options for redress for non-delivery of services after the annexation. (1) Allows for deannexation. “If a city fails to provide water and sewer, police protection, fire protection, solid waste or street maintenance services in the same manner and on the same basis as such services are provided to the municipality within three years, and at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the property owners in the newly annexed area petition the county governing body for deannexation, the county governing board shall submit the question of removal from the corporate limits to a vote of the qualified voters of the newly annexed area, and the governing body may or may not cause the question to be submitted to the remaining residents of the municipality.” (our emphasis) (2) Both the newly annexed area vote and the city vote (if held) must pass a majority vote for deannexation to occur. (m) Changes the time frame for appeal to Superior Court from 60 to 90 days. (n) Involves County in any remand from Court as part of the appeal.
Bill	What it is suppose to do	Analysis	Where it goes next	Sponsors
SB 536: Goldsboro Deannexation	(a) Companion bill to HB 552. Deannexes the Good Neighbors United neighborhoods which were annexed last year	(Deserved, after the damn good fight they put up.)	Senate Finance	Primary Sponsor: Rouzer