N.C. House considers changing annexation law

RALEIGH - A House committee on Wednesday began studying the issue of whether the General Assembly should change the nearly half-century-old law that allows most cities and towns to involuntarily annex property.

"There's no balance in the law," said Doug Aitken of Moore County, president of Fair Annexation Coalition, an organization opposed to involuntary annexation.

Aitken is a public member of the House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation.

"The law is heavily weighted in favor of the municipality," Aitken said.

The committee heard from David M. Lawrence, a professor at the UNC Chapel Hill School of Government, who talked about how today's law came about and some of the requirements that cities and towns must meet in order to annex an area.

In 1959, the General Assembly approved the framework of what is the current law, although lawmakers have made some modifications to the law since.

"The basic policy of the statute is that as areas that are around cities become urbanized … the city has the right to annex those areas," Lawrence said.

Cities are required to provide many of the basic services in the newly annexed areas that other city residents received, he said. One exception is water and sewer services.

"The law doesn't require that water and sewer lines be constructed and extended to all properties within any kind of deadline, period," Lawrence said.

People being annexed have some recourse if services aren't provided, Lawrence said. They include going to superior court to try to prove that the annexation occurred improperly or to go to the Local Government Commission to keep the city or town from assessing taxes until the required municipal services have been provided, he said.

Rep. Earl Jones, D-Guilford, said areas that are urban in nature are ripe for involuntary annexation. In such areas, people living outside a municipality might use the city's services or facilities, such as a park or recreation center, yet not have to pay taxes to the city, Jones said.

Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, and one of the committee chairmen, said that cities might feel they have a right to annex if people on the outskirts of the city are benefiting from city services without paying city taxes.

"Why would anyone want to be annexed involuntarily if you can already benefit from the advantages of the city without paying city taxes?" Luebke asked.

Committee members talked about various changes to the municipal annexation laws. They include finding a way to give property owners a bigger voice in annexation decisions, more oversight at the state level in annexations and ways to require prompt delivery of city services in newly annexed areas.

Barry Smith writes for Freedom Communications Inc.'s Raleigh bureau. He can be reached at bsmith@link.freedom.com