For more than 50 years, rural and suburban residents of North Carolina have been pushed into cities against their will as a result of the state’s involuntary annexation law. The law — which allows cities to annex property and tax residents living outside their borders without the consent of those being annexed — may soon be history, if the Republican majority in the North Carolina General Assembly has its way.

House Bill 845, sponsored by freshman Rep. Stephen LaRoque, R-Lenoir, seven other Republicans and one Democrat, is expected to go to the House Rules Committee today or tomorrow, then immediately to the Finance Committee and then immediately to the House floor where LaRoque believes it has enough votes to pass.

Over the past 60 years, unincorporated suburban communities often have enjoyed robust growth compared to neighboring cities and towns. Taking note of the prosperity on their outskirts, municipal officials often want to extend their boundaries — or toss a lasso — around the communities, in an effort to secure more tax dollars and to ensure “orderly growth.”

Municipal officials say the state’s far-reaching law, enacted in 1959, has allowed North Carolina to avoid the fate of cities in the Northeast and Midwest that have declined — and seen their tax bases shrink — as urban dwellers migrated to suburbs. But as the state’s population has grown, often bringing new residents from states that allow citizen input into annexation, people seeking to escape urban life have gotten better organized, and started fighting back.

While North Carolina’s involuntary annexation law states that annexations are intended to benefit those being annexed, the clear beneficiaries are the annexing municipalities. Critics of the law say the amount of tax revenues the cities collect often exceed the value provided in services.

New majority

For decades, those facing hostile annexation have fought the law, calling it “Draconian,” “undemocratic” and “un-American.” Before now, they’ve had few allies in the General Assembly. But in 2010, dozens of freshman state legislators were elected who vowed to end the practice. The new blood, along with seasoned Republican lawmakers who’ve promised reform for years, appear to be following through on their word with the introduction of H.B. 845.

Daren Bakst, director of legal and regulatory studies at the John Locke Foundation, says the bill is a historic breakthrough. It does two important things: It gives the people being annexed a voice, and it forces cities to pay the cost of municipal water and sewer services, a tab the citizens being annexed previously had to pick up.

A voice

Until now, residents targeted for annexation had little opportunity to resist. If H.B. 845 becomes law, citizens can protest a proposed annexation by petition. Cities would be required to mail a protest petition to every property owner within the annexed area. If 60 percent of the property owners returned it within 120 days, the annexation would be stopped, and the city would not be allowed to attempt the annexation again for three years.

Cathy Heath, co-director of the Stop NC Annexation Coalition, said getting petitions signed and mailed by 60 percent of annexed property owners should be no problem based on her experience with anti-annexation communities.

“They kick into gear, they get organized, and they’re highly motivated,” Heath said. “They’ve gathered petition signatures from way more than 60 percent time and time again, and that’s when the petition was nothing more than a statement that didn’t have any weight of law.”

Heath said it’s important that it is a petition of property owners rather than an election open to the general public.

“A vote is up for grabs to whoever can get the most people to the voting booth,” Heath said. “You can’t limit a vote to property owners. It’s open to everybody [including renters]. And the city can manipulate that — when it’s scheduled, who can get there. They can spend money campaigning.”

Meaningful services

Doug Aitken, president of the Fair Annexation Coalition, said he is pleased with the water and sewer provision.

Current law states that cities are required to provide water and sewer services to annexed residents within two years of the annexation. Many fail to meet the deadline, and when service is provided, the ones being annexed must pay the hefty bill. Residents not only have to pay the cost of bringing the sewer line from the curb to their residence — the “hook up” fee — they also must pay for the construction of the trunk line, which could be miles long, extending from the city to the annexed neighborhood. Residents who wish to continue using their wells and septic systems are forced to pay for the “availability” of the trunk line.

H.B. 845 would change all that. Cities would have to construct the water and sewer lines at no cost to the annexed residents within three and a half years if a majority of residents in an area asked for it. Residents would be responsible only for their monthly water and sewer bills, and that’s only if they decided to use the service. No longer would they be charged an “availability fee.”

“The water and sewer is a biggie,” Aitken said. “The people over in Davidson County are facing bills for water and sewer in the tens of thousands of dollars.”

The hope is that the cost of constructing water and sewer lines alone would deter most annexations. It should at least reduce the size, scope and frequency of annexations, Aitken said, because cities simply wouldn’t be able to afford them.

Kathy Hartkopf, legislative liaison for North Carolina Freedom Works, is rallying grass-roots support for the bill. Hartkopf said she’s pleased that H.B. 845 provides increased penalties to municipalities that don’t provide the required services, a feature she said gives the bill teeth.

Opposition

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Rep. Larry Brown, R-Davidson, has made annexation reform one of his top issues during his eight-year tenure in the legislature. He introduced his own annexation reform bill this session, which he says is “much better and does not compromise the citizens’ rights to protection from the cities.”

In an email sent to grass-roots annexation reform advocates, Brown warns H.B. 845 was written “for the North Carolina League of Municipalities.”

In the email he lists several reasons he thinks his bill is better: a provision requiring more of a community’s boundary to be contiguous with the city’s boundary for it to be eligible for annexation; a proposal for a public hearing and county commission approval if an annexation crosses county lines; a population density requirement of at least three people per acre, rather than 2.3 people per acre; and a requirement that water and sewer be provided within three years instead of three and a half.

Brown also rejects the notion of using a petition of property owners to overturn an annexation. Instead, his bill would have all residents living in the proposed annexation area vote.

Bakst said it was silly to call the bill “the League’s bill” or “the mayors’ bill” or anyone else’s bill.

“Just look at what the bill says and what it does,” Bakst said. Don’t worry about who does or doesn’t support it.

The League of Municipalities does not support H.B. 845, says Kelli Kukura, director of government for the group.

Kukura called the requirement to install free water and sewer lines for annexed residents “a huge cost that would have to be passed along to the other ratepayers.” The requirement “would severely restrict the number and size of annexations in North Carolina,” she said.

The league also opposes the “veto power” given to annexed property owners.

“We believe the cities and towns need the authority to annex urban areas, based on the formula in state law,” Kukura said. “What is urban should be municipal, in order to balance growth and allow for thriving communities.”

Moving forward

Heath said when Rep. Thom Tillis, R-Mecklenburg, was selected as speaker of the House, she had “less than 100 percent confidence” that he would do “the right thing” with annexation reform. But when she saw H.B. 845 and heard it had Tillis’ blessing, she thought, “we might have a chance here.” And after she and other grass-roots groups were invited to participate in the bill-drafting process, she became convinced that the Republican leadership meant business.

“We finally have a legislature that is willing and able and committed to changing the law once and for all for everybody,” Heath said. “They are actually giving people what they’ve been asking for year after year after year after year. And they’re committed to getting it passed. People should be making plans to have a party in the street.”

Bakst said it is the first bill in 50 years with a chance of passing that would give people being annexed a voice. “That’s something to be excited about,” he said. “It’s a huge step forward.”

The bill needs to move quickly, which is why LaRoque seeks to expedite passage. All bills must pass at least one chamber of the General Assembly before the May “crossover” deadline, or they die for the remainder of the two-year session.

Sara Burrows is an associate editor of Carolina Journal.