The sponsor of the latest version of annexation reform, Republican Representative Steve LaRoque, says his bill, HB845, will be discussed in the House Finance Committee Thursday. He also expects it to be on the House floor the same day.
LaRoque said there would also be another committee substitute ready for Finance but he didn’t say want the changes would be.
The version passed by the House Rules Committee Monday would require cities to pay all of the cost of providing services in annexed area. But if at least 60 percent of the property owners in the area to be annexed sign petitions against the move then the annexation would be halted for at least 36 months.
H845 Annexation Reform,
do you see this bill as solving our problem?
Or just as a first step?
If it passes and does not achieve what is expected,
are you committed to continuing the fight?
And do you think passing this bill is as far as the legislature is willing to go?
I think this is a well-intended bill, however, unless it is just the first step toward outright outlawing involuntary annexation, constitutionally limiting legislative annexation, and reforming voluntary annexation this bill will not have a significant impact toward limiting forced annexation. The entire spectrum of annexation laws has been focused and crafted to allow for eventual overtaking and consolidation of targeted areas.
The origin of involuntary annexation is the urban planner and the resulting land use plan, most often devised by a planner in conjunction with a planning department, sold to a municipal and or county governing board, and then implemented post haste. The public may be allowed to have input, but almost exclusively, the input does not alter the plan or the outcome. The exception is when the public outcry is so angry and overwhelming that the elected officials are actually afraid of loosing their seat. If the outcry comes from county residents and the plan is a municipal plan in which the city board knows that the county residents cannot vote or significantly influence the election outcome, the plan proceeds. In this case, the municipal governing board can actually use the plan to de facto punish the objecting county residents. DEPENDING ON HOW THIS WATER / SEWER THING IS SET UP, IT WILL HAVE THE SAME RESULT. WHY SHOULD PEOPLE ASK FOR WATER AND SEWER BEFORE ANNEXATION APPROVAL? In the nightmare scenario, the county board members work openly or behind the curtain to help the municipal board implement their growth plan.
However, I do think the County Commissioners should also have a voice, as their budgets are affected as well.
Some other concerns I have with this bill: The citizens in doughnut holes are not being allowed a voice, even though in most cases the cities are the reason for their being in such.
Creative cities will find creative ways to put desirable areas into donut holes!
The city near which I live has already annexed trailer parks on two sides of us.
It is not perfectly clear that property owners are restricted to one vote.
Developers make deals with cities, buy up properties, sometimes having
various individuals do the buying for them, as well as using companies and other entities. They then divide the land up into lots, thereby owning
a number of properties. The way the bill is written appears to leave room for manipulation of the so-called voting privilege.
The super majority required still sticks in my craw,
as does it being a petition rather than a vote, especially since the Gov. says she favors a vote.
The privacy of the petition is doubtful, as law requires such be recorded.
I’ve been informed that no amendments to improve the bill may be offered unless they’re first run by the bill sponsors.
We should not have government by the few and parliamentary procedures that block amendments, etc. For someone to try to rule out amendments pretty well indicates that someone suspects his opinion is not in the majority.
Will any real amendments be allowed? I think we can do better than this.
If I understand this thing correctly, unless a majority of property owners request water utilities, a city annexing them does not ever have to run the lines. In other words, it seems that residents would not even get water lines for fire protection with city taxes now—ever.