Annexation Legislation Passed by the Legislature!

To All,

A Very Good Year For Annexation Reform!

The 2011 Legislative Session has been a very good year for the effort to obtain real change to the Annexation Laws of NC that helps to protect property rights for all North Carolina citizens. 

It took many years as well as a historic change in the Leadership of the General Assembly, and the journey had its ups and downs, but real change has finally been ratified by the Legislature and is before the Governor. The change will be positive for those living near municipalities and those living inside of municipalities, because the much of the incentive to misuse the law has been removed. 

To achieve this historic change to the law required the efforts of every single person who has spoken up in opposition to the practice and who then took the needed action to be heard loud and clear in the General Assembly, whether through emails, phone calls, visits to legislators, attending events and hearings, or taking the annexation issue to the voting booth. 

Last week at the General Assembly was intense, with the annexation legislation being brought to a final vote and ratified amidst long hours, late nights, and competition with many other Bills. The priority that the new Legislative Leadership gave to the issue of restoring some rights to property owners being targeted by city initiated annexation is much appreciated by StopNCAnnexation and the thousands of people and local Community Groups who have supported this effort to change the law over the last decade. 

What Happened in the Legislature Last Week?

During the week of June 12th, the Annexation Reform Act of 2011 (H845) was taken up by the Senate Finance Committee, voted through on the floor of the Senate, passed to the House for concurrence and ratified on the Floor of the House on June 17th. H845 was sent to the Governor for signature and was received by the Governor on June 20th. 

Our sincere thanks goes out to the House and Senate Leadership, the staff members of the Legislative Leaders, whose hard work on this legislation was critical, to the Sponsors of H845, who worked hard to defend and the legislation and gain support for it, and to ALL the Legislators who voted FOR the Annexation Reform Act and the Local Omnibus Bills H56 & S27. (voting record posted on the SNCA website)

The next step in the progress for this legislation is in the Governor's hands.  


If the Governor takes no action on H845 between now and June 30th, on July 1st the legislation becomes law.  

What Has Been Changed in the Annexation Laws?

H845 changes:

• No more "small city/large city" special rules
• One year advance notice from the city considering an area
• An added provision to allow property owners to obtain water and sewer infrastructure from the annexing municipality to their property at zero to reduced cost
• Added a provision that allows area property owners to REJECT the annexation proposal
• Areas that reject an annexation proposed by the city cannot be considered again for three years

For more detailed information about how the Annexation Reform Act changes the law, visit the SNCA website:

http://www.stopncannexation.com

What About the Areas Currently Being Forcibly Annexed?

Additional legislation was also passed last week that allows nearly every area currently being forcibly annexed the right to use the Petition to Reject.

Nine Municipalities will have the current attempt to forcibly annex areas made subject to the results of the Petition to Reject. The legislation allows the property owners being annexed by these cities the right to use the Petition to Reject as enacted by H845. Many will be watching this new process in action as these local communities will be the first to use it.

Those cities are: Kinston, Lexington, Rocky Mount, Wilmington, Asheville (Biltmore Lakes), Marvin, Southport, Fayetteville (Gates Four), and Goldsboro.

Three cities in the process of forcibly annexing communities that opposed being annexed that were not included in this special legislation are Burlington, Elizabethtown, and a small area annexed by Asheville. "Why?" is a question that still needs an answer.

All of this legislation is dependent now on what the Governor chooses to do with H845. 

Governor Purdue can choose one of three options;

• She can VETO H845
• She can SIGN H845
• She can allow the bill to remain unsigned without veto for ten days which would allow H845 to become law without her signature.

You can contact the Governor to communicate your support for the passage of H845:

Office of the Governor
Constituent Services Office116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Phone: (800) 662-7952 or (919) 733-2391
Fax: (919) 733-2120governor.office@nc.gov

Contact information for Legislators who can be thanked for making this legislation a priority can also be found on the StopNCAnnexation website. 

Thanks to everyone for your sacrifices made for this cause.

Catherine Heath

StopNCAnnexation

http://www.stopncannexation.com 

Annexation Moratorium Being Discussed This Week

SENATE

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING

AND

BILL SPONSOR NOTICE

The Senate Committee on Finance will meet at the following time:

                                                                                                                 

DAY	DATE	TIME	ROOM
Tuesday	March 1, 2011	1:00 PM	544 LOB

The following will be considered:

	BILL NO.	SHORT TITLE	SPONSOR
	SB 27	Involuntary Annexation Moratorium.	Senator Brock Senator Newton Senator Goolsby

Presentations by the Office of the State Treasurer

Senator Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Co-Chair Senator Bob Rucho, Co-Chair

Committee Meetings This Week & a bit of News

Senate Bill 27 to be heard in Senate Finance Committee very likely on Wednesday but it has not been scheduled. 
Please check the Senate Calendar daily @
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/homePage.pl

Senate Finance Committee meets Tuesdays, Wednesdays at 1:00 PM in 544 LOB LB

IF S27 is heard in the Finance Committee on Wednesday, it is very likely to be voted on by the Senate on Thursday.

Also on Thursday, The Kinston and Lexington Annexation Ordinance Repeal Bills will be on the agenda for the House Finance Committee.

February 24 - House Finance Committee - 8:30 am - Rm 544 - Legislative Office Building
300 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh NC


I will be heading to the Outer Banks early Monday morning to be with my daughter as she welcomes her first child into the world. I will be staying with her for most of the week so I will not be attending these Committee meetings. 


Please try to attend the meetings and send me an email about how the meetings went.
I'd appreciate it. 


Thanks for fighting this fight with me!


Catherine Heath
Director
StopNCAnnexation

Debating Annexation Law

No matter what your political pursuasion happens to be, if you are one of the thousands of people in North Carolina who now knows about the Annexation Laws of NC and are opposed to the concept, I hope that you will take the time to read some of the excellent work that the policy analysts at the John Locke Foundation are publishing about the annexation laws.

This State has been saturated for decades with rhetoric without substance from the NC Municipal League Lobbyists and helped along by the School of Government. (More about that in another post) Now, at last, there is somewhere else to turn to for some well researched analysis of the NC annexation laws.

First, I would recommend the "A Blueprint for Annexation Reform", written last month by Daren Bakst. Mr. Bakst is the legal analyst at JLF. You can read his 'Spotlight' about the paper and download the paper itself for reading later by using the link above.

This paper supports the growing consensus among more legislators about three key problems regarding forced annexation as it is being done by the cities, now 50 years from the time the law was enacted;

• To provide a meaningful voice for the affected property owners
  
• To define and require truly meaningful services in city initiated annexations
  
• To create meaningful third party oversight of city initiated annexations.
  

The paper makes very good recommendations for reforming the laws. Every legislator who will be called upon to weigh in on passing good legislation to reform the law (and that would be all of them) should obtain and read "The Blueprint".

There is also an interesting post by Daren on the Locker Room Blog exposing some truths about the oft heard claim that NC Annexation Law is "a model for the nation".
Daren looked into this claim by researching the documents that were cited to back this claim and found some serious misleading going on with the claim.
"The Big Lie of NC Annexation: Exposed"

I'm pretty confident that there is a lot of fertile ground in the rest of those 'talking points' for uncovering more like this.

I'm counting on seeing more good stuff coming from the John Locke analysts like Daren about the annexation laws as well as more truth exposed about the "talking points" from the city lobbyists.

Thanks guys!

Joint Annexation Study Commission 12/17 meeting

The next meeting of the Joint Commission to Study Municipal Annexation is scheduled:

NOTE: TIME CHANGE

MEMORANDUM

TO:
Members of the Joint Legislative Study Commission on Municipal Annexation

FROM:
Senator Vernon Malone, Co-Chair
Senator R. C. Soles, Co-Chair
Representative D. Bruce Goforth, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Luebke, Co-Chair

SUBJECT:
Meeting Notice:
Due to the short time frame before session, any member that has recommendations they would like to present to the committee must do so on the 17th.

The Joint Legislative Study Commission on
Municipal Annexation will meet on the following date:

DATES:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008

TIME:
9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.
1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.

LOCATION:
Room 643 Legislative Office Building

Posted:
December 5, 2008

I hope that all of you who want to see NC Annexation Law changed have been writing, calling, and emailing the Joint Commission Members, letting them know what you want them to change about the annexation laws. http://www.stopncannexation.com/Joint_Committee.htm
Taking the time to do this is very important.

There are too many Legislators on the Joint Commission who think forced annexation is a good thing for North Carolina and the cities. The cities told them it was true, so they believe it.
These Legislators clearly haven't heard enough yet from the citizens who disagree. They need to hear a lot more from the citizens to balance out the years of repetition that they've heard from the cities.

If you can make it to Raleigh to attend the meeting on the 17th, that would be a real good way to emphasize the points you made in your previous communication with the Legislators. Think of your presence at the meeting as a visual underline and bold to what you wrote or said to them before the meeting. I wouldn't count on being able to say much more to them at this meeting. It doesn't look like the citizens are going to be given any other chances to weigh in about what needs to change. The meeting is only two hours long.

At the December 4th meeting, Chairman Malone became anxious to quickly adjourn the meeting soon after Professor Lawrence finished his presentation. He seemed more worried about getting to lunch on time than continuing any real discussion of the annexation issue. He also made it very clear that the December 17th meeting was going to be the "last call" for the members to weigh in with proposed changes. As you can see, this warning was repeated in the Official Notice of the meeting. There won't be much time to listen to all the members on this Commission.

A good number of the Senate Legislators on the Commission seem to be a bit bored with the excercise of holding these meetings and didn't have too much to say on the 4th.
It's almost like they don't think they really have any work to do.

Could it be that all the work has been done, or will be done, outside of these meetings?
I'd say yes.
And the rumors are going around from people closer to what's really going on that the Chairs are planning to meet with League Officials on the 16th.
I'd say the League has already had their private session with some of these Legislators and have given them the "approved" changes for the Commission to recommend.

Here is my “crystal ball” prediction on the final recommendations.

The final recommendations (as the Senate side will propose) are going to:

1. Require all cities to adopt long range “Annexation Plans” like Charlotte and Raleigh currently use.


2. Require all cities to offer amortized financing terms for water and sewer development charges.


3. Tighten the statutory language that the cities ‘get around’ in order to annex narrow strips of land.


4. Set up a State fund to help all cities pay for the water and sewer infrastructure when they annex low income/minority areas.

Recommendation 4 works nicely with the mission of the 'Institute for Emerging Issues' that the NC League of Municipalities helped establish at NCSU and now promotes.

The NCLM is really expanding their reach and influence into more and more aspects of government and policy all the time.

I'll report more on that another time.

Annexation Study Commission Meeting

The first meeting of the Joint Commission to Study Municipal Annexation held this morning was quite interesting.

I arrived just before the start of the meeting. When I stepped out of the elevator and turned toward the meeting room, I saw people overflowing out of the double doors. When I walked into the meeting room it was standing room only and most of the people attending were citizens dressed in the signature red attire.

There were plenty of city officials and bureaucrats, but they were far outnumbered by the people who would like to see the municipalities reined in and stopped from abusing taxpaying property owners across North Carolina. These citizens included familiar faces of some who have been in this battle against forced annexation for many years, like Walter Murphy from Fayetteville. Today they were joined by some of the new faces of the latest victims of the horrible law, including the homeowners from Oak Level being annexed against their will into Rocky Mount.

The meeting itself turned out just as I thought it would in many respects. The Chair, Senator Malone, started the meeting by stating that there would be no time given to the public for comments. The meeting was going to be devoted to David Lawrence's presentation explaining the Annexation Statutes. It was an "informational meeting only" for the Senate members who had firmly declined at the end of the session in 2007 to be a part of the study that many House members wanted.

I talked to David Owens on that day in 2007 to try to find out why the Senate was refusing to endorse the study. His explanation was that the Senate remembers the last time annexation was studied and they didn't want to go through that again. All the time it took up! All the people beseiging the legislature about the issue! Not again!!

Funny how they remembered that much about the last study, but they now need a refresher course on the General Statutes that they are responsible for. It was apparently real important for them to hear David Lawrence from the School of Government explain annexation law to them again for the umpteenth time.

Kind of looks like an excuse to blow some of the extremely limited time this Commission has to examine what is actually going on in the real world of forced annexation. Hey! I have an idea! Just give our side a decent chance to tell them what's wrong with it and how to fix it.

But on the subject of someone speaking up about what's wrong with the law today, there were quite a number of the Commission members who weren't shy at all about laying the problems out on the table.

Larry Brown, Nelson Dollar, and Trudy Walend fired the opening salvos with questions for Professor Lawrence. They had questions about how other States deal with annexation; how NC cities are using annexation like a weapon against neighboring cities with the property owners being used like pawns. Questions about how the cities are providing (or not) water and sewer and other services. Rep. Walend tried to get Lawrence to explain the "five day window" that citizens have to submit applications for hook up in order to make the city bring the lines all the way to their property.
Lawrence was clearly trying to answer the questions "diplomatically" and Larry Brown 'called him out' on that. It looked to me like Lawrence was being very careful not to answer in a way that might upset the city lobbyists. He dodged any mention of the five day window until Larry Brown pinned him down on it. Go Trudy! Go Larry!

Nelson Dollar brought up the Nolan vs. Marvin case where the NC Supreme Court decided that annexing cities should actually have services to offer. Larry Brown brought up the problem with cities that really don't have significant "urban" services to offer being able to forcibly annex. He mentioned the other case that the Nolans took to court when Weddington also tried to annex their land.

Doug Aitken brought up the issue of what the members of the 1959 Study [that recommended giving cities the power to forcibly annex] were saying about the reasons to do it that would justify overruling the property rights of the citizens. This led to more interesting talk about provision of services and how much things have changed since 1959. Back then, only the cities were providing water, sewer, and zoning. Now we have Counties and special authorities providing these things and more. Dependence on cities for modern services is obsolete and it's time the cities face up to it and the legislature adapt State law to that fact of life.

Professor Lawrence ended up saying "I don't know" quite a few times during that meeting.

Lawrence was asked to explain the role of the Local Goverment Commission. That ended up being quite interesting and worthwhile.
Lawrence explained how NC is unique in having the 'LGC' as guardians of the fiscal health of the cities. He explained how the LGC was created during the 1930's depression when NC cities were going bankrupt. He gave the LGC the high credit for keeping the cities bond ratings high.

Yes, that's right, it is the fact that NC has the LGC providing fiscal oversight that keeps those city Bond Ratings high, _NOT forced annexation, (which represents a fraction of the growth of the cities). Having a few 'city initiated' annexations blocked by the property owners would not likely have a impact on the bond rating.

McCarley, Wegner, and Soles made feeble attempts to spin the discussion more in favor of the cities, but it wasn't working. Foriest tried to explore the possibly unconstitutional idea of establishing a pro-rated tax structure to make up for any delays in service provision.

The two County officials on the Commission, Grainger Barrett and Tina Hall, stepped up to the plate and threw some pitches toward the negative affect of city annexations on County revenue. This is where Wegner tried to shoot down the idea that it affected County balance sheets at all, but Ms. Hall came back and quickly put that attempt in it's place. Go Tina!

After all of this, I can tell you that the really good stuff was saved for last. In the end, Earl Jones spoke up and said that he'd like to see some statistics about the fiscal health of cities in other States where forced annexation is not an option. He wanted this data so the Commission could move past that and get down to doing the work of addressing the House Committee's concerns about protecting and restoring the property rights of citizens. YEAH Rep Jones!

Rep. Goforth seconded Rep. Jones comments and pointed out that the Commission needs to "get on target" because their time to do anything is short. YEAH Rep Goforth!
(Message to Goforth and Jones: We, the affected citizens, feel so marginalized in this debate that we strongly suspect that the final recommendations of the Commission have already been written. We'd like to help you change that.)

Chairman Malone was ready to wrap up the meeting and get out of there after that. He told all the members that they had better attend the next meeting because if the didn't their input would not be included in the final recommendations. Sounds pretty final to me. Dec 17th and "that's all folks!" was the message sent.

Larry Brown had the final suggestion of the day. He recommended that the Commission move the Dec 17th meeting to the auditorium or somewhere larger that would accomodate more of the public who want to attend. YEAH!
Stay tuned and you might want to plan to add yourself to the fun at that meeting.
Although I don't think that more three minute comments are going to add much to the debate, a large crowd hanging over the Commission's shoulders would definitely be _as Ms. Stewart says_ a "good thing".

Annexation Study Committees_ the end game

So here "we"* are....
(*those in the effort to put an end to forced annexation)
And where is that?

"We" have, collectively, over the last ten years or so, been working toward putting an end to forced annexation. Yes, at least ten years. That is how long it's been since the New Hanover Good Neighbors group started the effort to go beyond battling their offending local City Council and took the battle through the courts to the Federal Fourth Circuit.

During the time frame when this GNU group poured their hearts and souls and resources into this judicial odyssey, the General Assembly had a Committee working on a study of municipal annexation. This study was authorized in 1996, and it took two years before the resulting Bill and legislation came forward in 1998.

Some type of outcry for reform has actually been ongoing for over thirty years. There were studies done in the 1980's also. You can find the records of the 1980 study and more at the School of Government website, where new pages of information have been added, dedicated to the history and current events in the annexation legislation battle:
http://www.sog.unc.edu/programs/annexation/history.php

The New Hanover Good Neighbors found the time and the commitment to attend all of those Study Commission meetings, in addition to pursuing their case through the courts. They presented recommendations to the committee that reflected the wishes of affected landowners. So what did the 1998 Commission do with those recommendations?
To read the record of these meetings should be quite enlightening to anyone today who feels equally committed to getting the law changed.

For starters in the lesson on how "annexation studies" have gone and what they have produced in changes to the law, take a look at the report from the 1980 study: LINK HERE

If nothing else, just look at the table of contents.
What do you see? Does it look familiar??
As Solomon lamented in Ecclesiastes, "There is nothing new under the sun."

As you read through this document, notice that this Committee, authorized by the Legislature, was comprised entirely of members from the League of Municipalities and the County Commissioners Association. You might also note that the tone and conclusions are dominated by the Municipal League's point of view. The County Commissioners Association folded in 1980 and failed to really stand up for what is right. We now have signs that some of our County officials are pushing back.

In this early study, you can also read ALL of the very same arguments for forced annexation that we continue to hear today over and over. When you read the city boosters claim that the NC annexation law was judged the best in the nation, know that the "authority" that they fall back on is an opinion from the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on the merits of consolidation.
The ACIR opinion that they hold onto is an OLD opinion; based on an early view that urban areas should be consolidated. The cities were well represented on the ACIR Commission in the 50's and 60's. The ACIR has since revised their opinion on the benefit of consolidation, as evidence to the contrary has become apparent.
But the NCLM lobbyists know that they can conveniently skip over inconvenient facts, and continue to spew propaganda, because it has worked for them every time so far.

Well__Don't you feel like the time has come to say "ENOUGH"!! ?

ENOUGH with the studies!
ENOUGH with the NCLM approved tweaks to the law!
ENOUGH with throwing aside the input and recommendations from the landowners who have been run roughshod over with laws that enable predatory annexation by municipalities!

Enough with trotting out the same pro-city presentations by David Lawrence from the School of Government and half hour presentations by the Director of the League of Municipalities and City Attorneys, while shutting out presentations from policy experts who think the annexation law has serious flaws.

ENOUGH with "Annexation Studies" PACKED with known city apologists for keeping the law intact. Names and faces that show up on the roster of the Committees over and over again. Names like Clodfelter and Wegner to name a couple.

"WE" should be students of history in the annexation debate and savvy enough to learn from it. "We" should be able to recognize when the "dog & pony show" is being trotted out for the benefit of the record and the cities while the people are once again being run off into the weeds with a sham.

It should be abundantly clear that this 'Joint Legislative Committee on Municipal Annexation' is, and was always meant to be, a SHAM.
I, for one, will take no comfort out of being able to say "that's what I thought would happen" _after it is all over with.

The House Select Committee, the one that the Joint Committee swallowed up and disarmed, was born out of some sincerity towards reforming the law, and to moving the conversation in the right direction, but that Committee has been cut off at the knees. The members are still at the table, but they have been outnumbered. The defenders of city power are swaggeringly confident that they have everything, including the outcome, well within their control. The evidence of this is screaming at anyone paying attention:

1) The Senate had been refusing for over a year to participate in another study. When they felt the overwhelming outcry from all of us, they jumped in at the last minute with this Joint Commission as 'damage control'.

2) The timing gives them no time to legitimately study what should be done. Lots of available excuses for why they won't meet more than once or twice; _the elections, _the holidays, _the legislative deadline on the lifespan of the committee.

This commission is legislatively required to end the moment that the 2009 Session begins. Extension of its existence is not up for negotiation. Another Commission would have to be formed. Consider that State Law does not allow study commissions to meet while the General Assembly is in session. Even Standing Committees must meet between sessions and during recesses.

The writing is on the wall that the Joint Commission's "recommendations" are already written, hatched behind the scenes, and ready to launch.

The first meeting on December 4th is already scheduled to be taken up by another rerun of having David Lawrence explain NC Annexation Law. Every legislator on the Commission has heard this presentation before, but it's a handy time filler.

The Senate leadership clearly intended to stifle the conversation, not help it along. They clearly wanted to control what came out of any Annexation Study Committee and not to honestly listen to any arguments against forced annexation. Remember the arrogance with which they blocked the Moratorium Bill!

The friendly Legislators on the Commission need to hear from you encouraging them to stand up for what is right and for what the people want.

The unfriendly Legislators need to hear what the "line in the sand" is for the people and that anything less will be vocally opposed by the people! Tell them you know they are 'cooking the books' as to what comes out of this Commission!

Let them all know that no matter what they do, WE ARE ALL WATCHING!

REMEMBER that it was the increasing outcry from growing numbers of people across the State that made the House take action and the Senate scramble to regain control of where the annexation issue was going!!
THAT IS OUR STRENGTH!!
THAT IS OUR AVENUE TO SUCCESS in achieving the end of forced annexation!

We should learn from history and not let ourselves be led down a path to repeat it. The people need to take control of this issue in the General Assembly. This strategy requires more than just a couple of citizens on the Study Commission. It is going to take all the same efforts and response that hundreds (thousands?) of people took that pushed the Moratorium Bill through the House successfully and restored it from a gutting. That kind of grassroots outcry multiplied several times over is our strength and what is needed.

WE all need to enlist our friendly legislators to submit and sponsor one Bill that spells out what we, the affected people, really want. Then WE need to focus ALL of a unified grassroots outcry, like the outcry evident last session, toward the General Assembly, behind that one Bill.

Joint Annexation Study Committee

Well... Hackney and Basnight finally got around to appointing the members of the Joint House & Senate Study Committee. The Senate decided at the last minute they wanted to be involved in the discussion of annexation reform.
So here it is.

The last minute move by the Senate to jump into this "Study", (after they refused to have anything to do with it in 2007), looked real suspicious when the plan was announced at the end of the '08 Short Session. I suspect they aren't jumping in to be helpful to the people.

Daren Bakst has some interesting comments about the Committee makeup on the JLF Locker Room Blog.

It has taken the Leadership so long to appoint the members that it was starting to look like they were delaying on purpose.
AND SENATOR TONY RAND WAS APPOINTED!!

There is very little time left for the Committee to meet before the end of the year. The Long Session of 2009 begins in January.

Between now and then, we have the Holidays and a major election season to deal with. Many of these Committee members are up for re-election. It doesn't bode well for having any serious debate or analysis of the problems with the current annexation laws_ or any recommendations that resemble anything close to what the hundreds of people who spoke up for while the House Study Committee was looking at the laws and problems.

After playing this game with "Study Committees" for nearly a year, it might be time to change focus. Like I said, there are a good number of Legislators on this Committee who we already know are against the people ever being heard over the city advocates.

Some of them have good people running against them who could use more support from the people.
Check the "Candidates Page"

This election needs to send a message to the General Assembly. A message that rings louder than the outcry they heard at the Public Hearings and Rallies.A message that entrenched incumbents understand!
"YER OUTTA HERE!"

In the meantime, the contact information for all committee members is provided for the annexation reform warriors to use. These people should hear from us right away and regularly.
Get ready to push hard on the Legislators in 2009.
We know what we want and so do they.
The Legislators have studied this before many times.
It's time to act.

Fate of HB2367

Today the General Assembly worked on wrapping up leftover business between the House and the Senate with an eye on adjourning the Short Session for the year.

One somewhat surprise for the annexation reform citizens was thrown into HB2431 at the last minute. I have no details yet on who was behind the scenes negotiating, but a Joint Study of Municipal Annexation was authorized in this Bill today.

You can look at the language authorizing the study in Section 46 of HB2431

I don't know if it matters who were the original sponsors and co-sponsors of the Study Bill that was used as a vehicle for additional studies, but it might be worth noting. The most important thing to note is who will be on the Committee and who will appoint them.

You will see a number of things that do not bode well for our side of this issue.

• First, there is the fact that the members of this Committee will be chosen by Speaker Hackney and President Pro Tem Basnight. They have shown us that they are more interested in what the NCLM has to say and wants than what we are interested in seeing done with the annexation laws.
  
  
• This Committee is HUGE. And the NCLM has TWO SEATS at the table directly! Never before in any study has the NCLM been given direct members ON the Committee. They have always been given priority time to present and clearly have open back room access to Legislators on Committees that are discussing issues important to them.
  
  
• There is NO direct input or membership on this Committee from any other non-governmental unit. No Citizens! No Annexation Policy Experts critical of the current law!
  
  
• The time that the Committee has from now until December 31st is short and filled with distractions like the Elections and the Holidays.
  
  
• This Committee will replace the House Select committee that was much more favorably seated with reform minded legislators. The Select Committee members will be moved to the Joint Committee.
  

But here is a point to consider; IF the Senate had cooperated last year at the end of the Long Session of 2007, the Study committee that would have resulted would not have looked much different. It would have been stacked with pro-city legislators, and it would not likely have had any citizen members. It might have been smaller in numbers, and it might not have had NCLM members appointed to it.

Some in the annexation reform effort had set their goal toward working for another study of annexation rather than rally the effort behind some or one of the many Bills to enact actual change that have been introduced in the last several years. Some believed that to ask for more than a study was a losing game. Perhaps it would have been. Perhaps not.

So here we are.

It's time to decide if we have enough committed people to step up and put heads together to come up with a strategy to defeat this obvious attempt to high-jack and railroad the people's demand for real reform instead of into a repeat of the past where not much changed in favor of the affected citizens.

Share your thoughts on this with me.

Cathy Heath
StopNCAnnexation

A REAL Moratorium Passes the House!

GOOD NEWS TODAY!

This skirmish in the battle for reform was a BIG winning step forward!

When HB2367 was heard on the House floor for the Third Reading, it was another wrestling match between the People and the City Lobbyists, and this time the People prevailed.

The NCLM was there in full force and they were doing all they could with their insider tricks to defeat any attempt to restore the Bill to the status of a REAL moratorium. It was quite a show that they put on, passing notes to their friendly Legislators on the floor and watching over them.
Ellis Hankins was texting away on his PDA nearly the whole time. At some point, he did not look happy. Maybe that was when Speaker Hackney left the session early, so did not Chair when H2367 was open for debate.

I watched out in the lobby as Hankins and Romanet dictated some notes that were written on what looked like a copy of HB2367. This was promptly delivered by a House Page to Rep. Carney. She was soon consulting with Rep Ross, Rep Lucy Allen and some others.

Carney made excuses for voting FOR the intact Moratorium Bill when it was heard in Finance! Allen made a last ditch effort to block the amendment by telling the House members that they could vote against the amendment and then would still be able to vote for a moratorium. Your letters to the Legislators informing them that the Committee subsitute was NOT a moratorium made sure that statement didn't fly. I'm wondering if Lucy Allen could speak if the NCLM didn't tell her what to say. And she represents a largely unincorporated District. ??

Carney and Allen were the most vocal opposition to amending the Bill back to a real moratorium, right behind Rep Dan Blue's impassion plea for the Cities. Whoops...he forgot the people!

But Earl Jones gave an excellent rebuttal to Blue's defense of the cities. He pointed out that they were elected to represent the people, not the cities. He also pointed out that Blue's argument for exempting the larger cities "that do it right" would be unequal treatment and unfair to all the other cities in NC.

Please check the Roll Call Vote on the NCGA website:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=H2367

Rep GoForth, Leubke and all the Study Committee members should be thanked for all that they went through to get this moratorium through. With your help, they pulled it through.

Representative Bruce Goforth, Co-Chair Bruceg@ncleg.net
Representative Paul Luebke, Co-Chair Paull@ncleg.net
Representative Larry R. Brown Larrybr@ncleg.net
Representative Nelson Dollar Nelsond@ncleg.net
Representative Earl Jones Earlj@ncleg.net
Representative Louis M. Pate, Jr. Louisp@ncleg.net
Representative Edgar V. Starnes Edgars@ncleg.net
Representative Fred F. Steen, II Fredst@ncleg.net

HB2367 - "NOT A Moratorium" Bill

HB2367, the Moratorium Bill, now The "NOT A Moratorium" Bill, is on the House schedule for Monday. The Monday session starts at 7:00 pm. The word going around is that the session is expected to be kept short so the 'Not a Moratorium' Bill might be pushed over to Tuesday.

What will be the fate of HB2367? Why is it's fate critical to the annexation reform effort as a whole?
We have all known that this battle for meaningful reform was going to be a David vs Goliath struggle between the people and the City Lobbyists. We also quickly realized that the Leadership of the House AND Senate are resisting the citizens calls for real reform. Whether the Leadership has decided to align itself with the City Lobbyists over the people or not, this is how it appears.

Speaker Hackney told The Asheville Citizen-Times that "the current annexation law that we have in North Carolina has been good for North Carolina."
It sounds to me like he was quoting the Director of the NCLM. When some citizens at the 2007 Rally spoke to him about annexation reform he suggested that they take their grievances to the NC League of Municipalities. Was he telling us who is in charge of The Peoples House by suggesting this course of action?

These facts have made the fate of HB2367 a critcal skirmish in this battle for reform. WE must push back hard on the House and Senate Leadership as to what is happening to the very first Bill to come out of the House Annexation Study Committee.
WE CAN NOT LET WHAT HAS BEEN DONE TO THIS BILL STAND!

When this Moratorium Bill went into the Judiciary II Committee is was intact. When it came out it was a toothless sham. It doesn't merit the Title of a Moratorium Bill because it is NOT a moratorium as it is. WE have to get that changed before it is voted out of the House.

Watch this short video of the Judicairy II meeting where the teeth were pulled: Judiciary II Meeting Video

There was no discussion of the true impact of the amendment. It was not explained clearly. The Committee was told that the proposed amendment would "just allow the cities to plan" during the moratorium. The Committee members did not question the details of what they were being asked to vote for. The amendment was rushed through to a voice vote. Did any of them know that this was going to be the fate of the Bill ahead of time? Can we blame them all for what happened? We will never know for sure.

On the later second amendment that changed the moratorium dates, Rep. Folwell was the lone no vote.

But this we do know; the damage to the Bill must be reversed before the Bill is passed out of the House. If not, the Bill will be a victory for the City Lobbyists. If they win this skirmish, how much harder will it be to stop their efforts later when meaningful reform is on the table?

Here is what I suggest that we, the people, do:

Every member of the House must hear from all of us immediately. Every email should copy Speaker Joe Hackney. What we say should be concise and firm.
House Contact information

*********************************************************************

Dear Representative,

The Judiciary II Committee Subsitiute for HB2367 is a gutted Bill. It has been amended to where it is no longer a moratorium at all.

We are asking you to restore HB2367 to 'Version I'. This version was overwhelmingly voted out of the Finance Committee in a bi-partisan show of support for the recommendations of the House Select Committee to Study Municipal Annexation.

The Judiciary II Committee substitute for HB2367 is NOT a moratorium.

The House Study Committee recommended a MORATORIUM. We the people want a moratorium. Stand up and make this right when it comes before you on the floor of the House next week.

Thank you,

*******************************************************************
House Leadership, Joe Hackney 919-733-3451 Email: Joeh@ncleg.net
********************

Together, we ARE being heard in the General Assembly, and together we CAN push back against the undue influence of the City Lobbyists and sold out Legislators.

This recent blog post to the JLF Locker Room Blog illustrates what the City advocates want to do to this Moratorium Bill and to us:
"Moratorium Sham"

Cathy Heath
http://www.stopncannexation.com/

"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that
can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government" -- Thomas Jefferson


Full list of House Member Email:
Almaa@ncleg.net; Kellya@ncleg.net; Marthaa@ncleg.net; Lucya@ncleg.net; Carya@ncleg.net; Marilyna@ncleg.net; Jeffba@ncleg.net; larryb@ncleg.net; Curtisb@ncleg.net; Danb@ncleg.net; Johnbl@ncleg.net; Aliceb@ncleg.net; Joeb@ncleg.net; Vanb@ncleg.net; Williambr@ncleg.net; Larrybr@ncleg.net; Brub@ncleg.net; Angelab@ncleg.net; Beckyc@ncleg.net; Waltc@ncleg.net; Debbiec@ncleg.net; Georgec@ncleg.net; Lorenec@ncleg.net; Nelsonc@ncleg.net; Lindac@ncleg.net; Triciac@ncleg.net; Jimcr@ncleg.net; Billcu@ncleg.net; Billd@ncleg.net; Leod@ncleg.net; Margaretd@ncleg.net; Jerryd@ncleg.net; Nelsond@ncleg.net; Beverlye@ncleg.net; Bobe@ncleg.net; Billf@ncleg.net; Jeanf@ncleg.net; Susanf@ncleg.net; Dalef@ncleg.net; Phillipf@ncleg.net; Kennethf@ncleg.net; Pryorg@ncleg.net; Mitchg@ncleg.net; Rickg@ncleg.net; Bruceg@ncleg.net; Melanieg@ncleg.net; Robertg@ncleg.net; Jimg@ncleg.net; Joeh@ncleg.net; Philliph@ncleg.net; Larryh@ncleg.net; Tyh@ncleg.net; Jimha@ncleg.net; Priceyh@ncleg.net; Deweyh@ncleg.net; Markh@ncleg.net; Hughh@ncleg.net; bryanh@ncleg.net; Georgeho@ncleg.net; Juliah@ncleg.net; Sandrah@ncleg.net; Path@ncleg.net; Verlai@ncleg.net; Maggiej@ncleg.net; Lindajo@ncleg.net; Earlj@ncleg.net; Carolynju@ncleg.net; Carolynj@ncleg.net; Rick@ncleg.net; Joek@ncleg.net; Jhl@ncleg.net; Davidl@ncleg.net; Jimmyl@ncleg.net; Marvinl@ncleg.net; Paull@ncleg.net; Grierm@ncleg.net; Marymc@ncleg.net; Dannym@ncleg.net; Patm@ncleg.net; Williamm@ncleg.net; Marianm@ncleg.net; Mickeym@ncleg.net; Anniem@ncleg.net; Timm@ncleg.net; Wiln@ncleg.net; Billo@ncleg.net; Earlinep@ncleg.net; Louisp@ncleg.net; Garlandp@ncleg.net; Raymondr@ncleg.net; Karenr@ncleg.net; Deborahr@ncleg.net; Ruths@ncleg.net; Drews@ncleg.net; Mitchells@ncleg.net; Tims@ncleg.net; Pauls@ncleg.net; Edgars@ncleg.net; Fredst@ncleg.net; Bonners@ncleg.net; Rons@ncleg.net; Culliet@ncleg.net; Charlest@ncleg.net; Thomt@ncleg.net; Joet@ncleg.net; Russellt@ncleg.net; Aliceu@ncleg.net; Williamw@ncleg.net; Trudiw@ncleg.net; Tracyw@ncleg.net; Edithw@ncleg.net; Rayw@ncleg.net; Jenniferw@ncleg.net; Rogerw@ncleg.net; Winkiew@ncleg.net; Larryw@ncleg.net; Michaelw@ncleg.net; Douglasy@ncleg.net;

"What Happened"..why it matters

---

First, UNC-TV is airing a show on the annexation reform debate tonight at 7:30 pm.
Advocates for both sides have been interviewed, so it should be interesting to watch.
The show is called 'North Carolina Now'; Legislative Review.
http://flash.unctv.org/legweek/lw1501_051608.html

---

The post about the Annexation Moratorium Bill has people responding by saying that the exclusion of Satellite Annexations is not important since we are working for reform of Forced Annexation. This is true in a narrow way but there is more to consider here.

We can concede that satellite annexations can't be forced annexations as governed by the Statutes in 160A, and therefore shouldn't be relevant to our concerns.
Okay... except for the relevant fact that cities have been enacting ordinances making annexation of satellite areas MANDATORY _ and that the use of satellite annexation has contributed to the creation of those "dough nut holes" in the cities that the forced annexation apologists frequently bring to the table to defend the need for forced annexation.

These are the least of the points that have relevance, but these particular problems are getting bigger because the city lobbyists have expanded and overridden the original limits put on the use of satellite annexation. They have gained exemptions every year since the cities were granted the power to satellite annex. The cities originally could not have satellite areas that collectively exceeded 10% of the total central city or were located more than 3 miles from the actual city limits.

Since the original law was passed in the '90's, nearly every NC city has been granted exemption from the 10% limit. Now they are lobbying for extensions of the 3 mile limit and some cities have been granted this extended reach. More will quickly follow.
This policy flies in the face of two other excuses for forced annexation: "the efficient extension of urban infrastructure" and "orderly urban growth".
The city lobbyists have succeeding in having it both ways in the General Assembly.

Above and beyond all of this, the most egregious problem that the release of the Moratorium Bill language highlights to the citizens of NC is a lack of legislative process transparency and possibly a capricious disregard for legal procedure and the rule of law.

The last time the Municipal Annexation Study Committee met publicly, they voted to recommend a moratorium on involuntary AND satellite annexation. Period.
It was immediately obvious that the City Lobbyists didn't like the inclusion of satellite annexation in a moratorium. We all expected them to weigh in and oppose the inclusion of satellite annexation with claims that they are all voluntary in nature. But when they would be given this public opportunity to make their case, the proponents could also make the case to keep satellite annexation in the moratorium.

But when did that debate occur??? IT DIDN'T!! At least, not for our side it didn't.

How and when was the decision made to ignore the public vote of the Committee and erase part of what they voted for? Who was involved in this decision? Shouldn't this have been done during a publicly held meeting of the Committee?
This makes the proposed Bill's omission of part of what was voted on outrageous!
Most citizens suspect or know that the General Assembly is run by a few power brokers, but c'mon.... Why don't we just send most of the Legislators home for good and admit that the State is governed by a handful of people and be done with the pretense.

The debate over reform of forced annexation has been lopsided from the beginning.
During the few times that the Committee has met, outside of the Public Hearings, the advocates for keeping forced annexation have been given ample time in front of the Committee to give lengthy presentations. Professor Lawrence from the UNC School of Government was given an entire meeting to give a presentation that the legislators have heard numerous times before.
Granted, a refresher course is not a bad idea, but the S.O.G. is not reform friendly.
The School of Government is practically a creature of the NCLM and a entity that gives undue authority to the argument for Involuntary Annexation. The S.O.G. is not a fan of reform no matter how neutral and 'above it all' they try to appear.

Another meeting gave the Director of the NCLM over 30 minutes to repeat his well worn and shallow defense of Involuntary Annexation. The City Lobbyists can confidently stand in front of our legislators and declare what the will and will not tolerate.
The voice of the citizens are squeezed to snippets and dismissed as less important.

Hankins was preceded by an equally generous slot of time taken by the Charlotte City Attorney waxing poetic about how wonderful forced annexation has been for Charlotte. Having the Charlotte City Attn. speak was a blatant power play by the City Lobbyists. Having Law Professor, Judith Wegner on the Committee is another.
She is actively helping the cities and their lobbyists behind the scenes.

The pro-reform side has been left with Public Hearings that gave us 3 minute blocks to try and make a case against forced annexation. People have clearly done an outstanding job of highlighting the abuses in spite of the limits, and the letters to legislators are having an impact, but we also need time to make logical reasoned presentations.
When we finally were given 20-30 minutes at the last meeting where Tony Tetterton presented his excellent Power Point showing clear abuses, that was met with an arrogant protest with threats from the City Lobbyist/Attorney, Andrew Romanet. Romanet was not even corrected to state his name for the record when everyone else who failed to do that was.

Doug Aitken, the other non-legislator Committee member that the House Leadership has allowed our side to have actively included in the debate, has made a valiant and valuable contribution to the argument against forced annexation, but I suspect that he feels some marginalization regarding all of the discussions on the issue between the Legislators and others.

I'll wager that he was not even made aware of the discussions that led to the Bill language that we have going forward and only became aware of the change when he was sent a copy of the proposed Bill.

The fact that the citizens are being kept at an arms length at best, and totally in the dark at the worst, in regard to the discussion on reforming forced annexation, is what we should be standing up against as strongly or even more so than we are standing up and speaking up for real, meaningful change to the Involuntary Annexation Laws.

Enough of having the legislative process stacked against the citizens and in favor of special interests.

What Happened Behind Closed Doors?

The Draft language of the Annexation Moratorium Bill went out publicly today to a select audience. Here it is:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT to adopt a moratorium on involuntary
annexations, as RECOMMENDED by the House Select Committee on MUNICIPAL
Annexation.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. No resolution of consideration, resolution of intent, or annexation ordinance may be adopted under Parts 2 or 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes from the date this act becomes law until June 30, 2009. If any annexation proceeding has been initiated under those Parts prior to the date this act becomes effective but the annexation ordinance has not yet been adopted, any provision of law requiring any action or notice by the municipality or any person within a certain period of time is tolled during the suspension of authority provided by this section.

SECTION 2. An annexation ordinance adopted under Parts 2 or 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes that has an effective date on or after the day this act becomes law shall not become effective until after June 30, 2009, unless the municipality by ordinance adopts a new effective date later than June 30, 2009 for the annexation ordinance. An annexation ordinance that was adopted under Parts 2 or 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes prior to the effective date of this act and is the subject of litigation in any court on theeffective date of this act shall not become effective until after June 30, 2009, unless the municipality by ordinance adopts a new effective date later than June 30, 2009 for the annexation ordinance.

SECTION 3. This act shall not apply to any annexation ordinance adopted under Parts 2 or 3 of Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes that has an effective date on or before the day this act becomes law, if the ordinance is not yet effective solely due to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

SECTION 4. If any municipality has adopted its budget ordinance for the 2008-2009 fiscal year prior to the date this act becomes effective and the total amount of assessed valuation estimated in that budget ordinance has been reduced because of this act, the municipality may amend the budget ordinance to account for this act including establishment of a different tax rate.

SECTION 5. This act is effective when it becomes law.

So what happened to the Satellite Annexation Moratorium??
When did the Committee meet to decide to exclude this from the language?
Did their vote on April 23 mean anything at all?
Is this the way that things are done?
Now you see it now you don't?
I guess so.....

What else is scheduled to disappear behind the closed doors??

At least one Committee member is quite proud of the "NO" vote they cast regarding the idea of a moratorium and is actively working on behalf of the cities.
Hey Doug! We need you to lobby as hard for us!

The NCLM is busy collecting information from the cities showing how a moratorium would impact them. They will bring all this to the General Assembly as ammunition against our pleas to the GA to put a stop to the abuses of the current annexation laws.

Have you called or written to the House and Senate Leadership and your local Representative and Senator?
House Leadership, Joe Hackney 919-733-3451 Email: Joeh@ncleg.net
Senate Leadership, Marc Basnight (919) 733-6854 Email: Marcb@ncleg.net

List of Senators: here
Representatives: here

The House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation will meet Monday, May 19, 2008, at 4:00 pm in Room 643 of the Legislative Office Building.

Have you marked your calendar for June 4th?
See the information about the Rally @ http://stopncannexation.com/rally_2007.htm

Please come to Raleigh on that day for a Citizens Rally in Raleigh to counter the NCLM's Legislative Lobbying Day "Town Hall Day". We need to be there by the hundreds to make our voice even louder against the City Lobbyists.

Please consider donating to StopNCAnnexation to keep the website online and to help provide materials at the Rally and to continue providing help to groups fighting annexations.

Thank YOU!

Cathy Heath
StopNCAnnexation

Going to Incredible Lengths

Update on Annexation Study, H86

The proponents of annexation reform have been assured repeatedly that "There WILL be study of annexation in this year's legislation".

So where are we with this now that the 2007 Legislative Session is over?

In spite of the assurances, I ended up spending the evening of August 2 observing the final hours of House business on the floor, so I could see and hear for myself whether the "omnibus study bill"- SB1256, was going to include a study of annexation.

What I witnessed was a bit of last minute drama regarding the inclusion of an annexation study.

The Omnibus Study Bill had been hashed out in a joint conference that afternoon. The result of that House/Senate conference was the removal of the annexation study by the Senate. The Senate stood strongly opposed to any study of annexation. Rules Committee Chair Rep. Owens gave me an explanation of why the Senate opposed an annexation study, which I will share later.

But back to the final hours of the House debate.

Sometime shortly after the joint conference, some of the House members who have been working to reform the annexation statutes found out that the annexation study had been removed by the Senate. An objection was raised regarding the removal. There must have been some significant objection, although how many or which Representatives raised the objection, is unknown to me. The objection was sent to the Senate to try and reconcile the differences by amendment before the Bill would be voted on.

When the Omnibus Study Bill was introduced to the floor of the House, Rep. Owens gave a somewhat lengthy explanation about what had happened and stated that the House was awaiting an amendment from the Senate that would add the annexation study back to the Bill.

From what I heard, the amendment was received and the House voted on the Study Bill with the amendments.
Afterward, I spoke to several Representatives about the annexation study and was told that the Senate agreed to an annexation study that did not include participation by Senate members. The Study Bill would be a "House only" study of annexation reform.

In my conversation with Rep. Owens, he explained that the Senate was opposed because they remembered how the study of annexation done in 2001 or 2002 brought SO MANY people to the General Assembly, taking up SO MUCH of their time, that it was nearly impossible for them to "get anything done". Hmmm......

Since, from all appearances, the fact that the amendment adding the annexation study was received and included in the House vote to approve the Omnibus Study Bill, I asked a couple of Legislators where I could get a copy of the amendment. I was directed to the office on the first floor where the Bills and drafts are printed. When I went to the office, I was told that a copy of the amendment would not be available for a couple of days. I'm still waiting for it, and I doubt that the amendment itself will ever be available to the public.

I am greeted this morning by an article from the Associated Press stating that the Omnibus Study Bill as amended and approved by the House, which included the annexation study, didn't get a confirming vote from the Senate before the 2007 legislative session ended.
Here is a link to the story posted on the Eyewitness News 9 WNCT.COM website:

NC Legislature goes home without "studies" bill

I've been trying to reach key legislators to ask them what is going on with the annexation study and Rep.Goforth is the only one who called back. I also spoke to his Assistant, Ann Jordan. She was very helpful to my understanding the status of the annexation study.

Regardless of whether the Senate "finalized" the Study Bill topics that the House version included, IF the annexation study was going to be done, the final version of the Study Bill would reflect that. IT DOESN'T.

WHY NOT?
I've looked for the study in SB1256, someone at JLF has looked for it, Rep. Goforth's LA has looked for it and a reporter from the Asheville Citizen-Times has looked for it.
Take a look and see if you can find any reference to annexation in it at all.

Looks like more undercover legislative 'slight-of-hand' to me, which has been the way the efforts to reform annexation have handled ever since last fall.

There are two possibilities left for an annexation reform study to become a reality this year; the ratified bill has some blank sections that could possibly be used to add another study after the fact, OR Speaker Hackney could authorize a study using General Statute 120-19.6. But that would depend on Speaker Hackney being convinced that the annexation study should be undertaken.

More phone calls and letters anyone?
Even though the 2007 Session is officially over, the doors and offices of the legislators remain staffed and open. You can send them your thoughts about the annexation issue and how the citizens call for reform is being shuffled around the dance floor.

It seems that our current crop of legislators still contain far too many who would go to incredible lengths to bow to the wishes of the tax funded lobbyists of the Municipal League.

It will be far more important to get seriously involved in the November elections on behalf of the annexation reform effort than anything else we can do. We need to get more people elected and unelected on whether they think the the current NC annexation laws "are good for NC"!

More Legislation Introduced

There have been three more Bills introduced to the House since my last update.

• *HB 104 Dollar, Boylan and Brown (Primary Sponsors) - ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.


• *HB 87 Thomas and Goforth (Primary Sponsors) Blackwood, Blust, Boylan, Faison, Pate, Starnes, and Walend- ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.


• HB 86 Thomas and Goforth (Primary Sponsors) Walend - BUNCOMBE ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.

Newly elected Representatives Charles Thomas and Joe Boylan have hit the ground running on introducing Bills to reform the forced annexation laws of NC and Rep. Larry Brown has been a real champion of this issue this year.

On behalf of all of the citizens of NC who are strongly opposed to this undemocratic and highly abused practice, _THANK YOU!

On the Senate side, there have been no Bills introduced yet, but they are coming, I've been assured. And there will be more Bills from our Representatives in the House.

In this last year, there have been a growing number of County Commissioners who are making their voice and opinion heard regarding the involuntary annexation laws. Resolutions have been passed calling for moratoriums and studies of involuntary annexation.
These County Commissioners are acting independently of the NCACC and taking a stand against the practice on behalf of their REAL consituents, the County residents.

Encourage your County Commissioners to adopt Resolutions like this and ask them to speak to the State Legislators about reforming the law.

There is a deadline for filing Bills sometime in the beginning of March.

Now is the time for YOU, as a citizen, to call, write and phone your legislators (and County Commissioners) and ask for reform of forced annexation.
Your help and encouragement is needed to get these Bills out of Committee and considered on the floor of the Assembly.
Contact information can be easily found on the homepage of the StopNCAnnexation website.

I will be watching the House and Senate calendar and posting updates on any new Bills that are introduced.
Keep checking back here because there are more Bills to come.

Cathy Heath

Annexation Legislation Update

IT'S TIME to ACT - Writing, Calling, and Visiting Our Legislators!!!

'Storm the Gates' with calls, personal visits, and letters calling for Annexation Reform!

The 2007 session of the General Assembly opened on January 24th and this past week some Bills have been introduced that attempt to reform the laws on forced annexation.

Three Bills have been introduced and I will give a brief explanation about what the Bill's are asking for and what they would accomplish.



HB32-Suspend Involuntary Annexation

This Bill would freeze any Forced Annexations that are still in process by a Municipality.
It also sets up a Blue Ribbon Committee to once again, study the Involuntary Annexation Laws. This Committee is appointed by the leaders of the House and the Senate and the Committee members are all legislators.

Last year's Study Bill introduced by Nelson Dollar put non-legislative people who oppose forced annexation at the table as participants in the discussion. With this Bill, there is no guarantee that ANYONE on the Committee is opposed to forced annexation or could knowledgably argue against it.

HB56-Annexation Service

This Bill would protect any property owners who have Water & Sewer services that are supplied by a City, County, or Sanitary District Authority, and Fire & Safety services contracted under a HOA, from being forcibly annexed.
It does not protect property owners who are currently using their own private water and waste treatment, or community service, and that is a lot of people.
Planned Communities and Homeowner Association neighborhoods that are currently served by government supplied Water & Sewer become exempt from ever being annexed, but this Bill leaves many individual property owners who have private systems still at risk!
While the passage of the Bill would be helpful to many people, it falls far short of equal protection for all property owners and does not restore to all NC property owners the right to decide whether to become part of a city or not.

HB60-Moore Annexation Referendum

This Bill is a Local Bill that restores the right to decide and gives voting rights on annexation to the property owners in Moore Co.
There are other areas around NC that, in the past, have successfully gotten local legislation passed to provide the right to vote on annexation. We sincerely hope for better success for them than the property owners living around Kernersville had in 2004 in getting this legislation passed.

Needless to say, SNCA and it's supporters are still asking (should I say DEMANDING!) and waiting for legislation that would provide this same right to decide to EVERYONE equally across the State of North Carolina.

With every hurdle, and every special interest, that tries to stand in the way of getting good reform legislation passed, it is CRITICAL that the General Assembly hear from the thousands of citizens that want (or DEMAND) that their unalienable right to have a vote on annexation be restored _ to EVERY CITIZEN OF NC.

We've been updating the website with tools and information to help you to reach the legislators with an effective argument against forced annexation.
Please check it out: www.stopncannexation.com

You might also want to read what the League is saying about the Bills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what the NCLM is saying about the 2007 Bills:

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.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another item on the League of Municipalities Legislative Agenda is their goal to remove the County Commissioners, once and for all, from having any say over whether cities can expand their enforcement of ordinances beyond their city limits by extending Extra Territorial Jurisdiction over unincorporated property owners up to three miles outside of the city boundaries.

The County Commissioners are the last representative voice for the people living outside of, but near, a city. The Cities, through the League, want to take your voice and vote away from you, yet again. Write, call, and visit YOUR County Commissioners and let them know that the Cities and the NCLM are trying to do this. Some of them don't even know about this. They need to hear from you about it.

It is highly doubtful that the NC Association of County Commissioners will take a stand against the League of Municipalities on the ETJ issue. They are probably bartering with the League for support on the Medicaid issue.

Encourage your County Commissioners to oppose any legislation that would give the cities this expansion of unchecked power by speaking to them directly.
Encourage them to also pass Resolutions against Forced Annexation similar to those passed by Buncombe Co, Forsyth Co, Wayne Co, Hoke Co, and Moore Co.

Ask the County Commissioners that pass resolutions to take those resolutions to their local State Legislators, asking the Legislators to support reform of annexation and get Bills that are introduced PASSED INTO LAW.

We will be watching the General Assembly all Session and reporting to you on Bills introduced and any action taken on Annexation Bills. We will continue to encourage you to be the best lobbyists that any issue can have, the voting citizens speaking out.

Remember also that the League of Municipalities is holding their annual Town Hall Day on May 9th this year.
SNCA will be coordinating another Citizen Rally in Raleigh to counter this lobbying effort by the League of Municipalities. Please add this to your calendar and make plans to attend. Spread the word and encourage others to attend.

In 2005, the League had 400 attend the Town Hall Day.
STOPNCANNEXATION had 100 people come to the Rally in Raleigh and successfully got the attention of the Legislators and the media.

In 2006, the League pushed hard to increase their attendance and had 600 attend.
The STOPNCANNEXATION Rally brought around 100 people to Raleigh and once again had a successful presence and impact on the legislators.

This year is a critical year to get the message to the Legislators that we are seriously demanding reform of annexation and want our right to a vote on annexation restored.
The Legislators need to see a huge crowd of people at their doorstep in Raleigh this year.
Let's all commit to MAKING SOME NOISE in Raleigh this year!!

Thank you,

C Heath _ www.StopNCAnnexation.com