Sunday, May 18, 2008 — As the North Carolina General Assembly reconvened this past week for the 2007 short session, an important piece of legislation was scheduled to be placed on the table for consideration.

The legislation, which is currently only a proposed bill, calls for a moratorium on city-initiated annexations and satellite annexations.

Satellite annexations are pieces of property that are annexed into a city but are not concurrent with the city limits.

The bill was proposed by the N.C. House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation on April 23 in order for the committee to have time to further study §G.S. 160A-37(a) and §G.S. 160-49(a), which are 49-year-old statutes on annexation procedures.

The concern with the current statutes is that those who are affected by city-initiated, or forced, annexations do not have a voice in the process.

There is also the concern about the timespan in which areas that are annexed into a city and when they receive city services. Often that span could take a long time.

Those that are for the current statutes believe city-initiated annexations are fair because it requires all those who use city services to pay for the costs, even if they do not live directly within the city.

The bill was scheduled to be discussed in the short session on May 14, but the meeting was subsequently cancelled. It is undetermined as of yet if the bill will be presented to the N.C. General Assembly in the near future.

The committee members were not available for comment at this time as they were involved with the short session meetings.

If the bill were to pass through the House and Senate, it would be effective through June 30, 2009, and would also put a halt to any current annexations that are in process.

The bill has been discussed without oppositions, though.

The North Carolina League of Municipalities (NCLM) issued a special bulletin to local cities requesting the municipalities take positions against the moratorium because they are concerned that a temporary moratorium could become permanent.

The Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG), though, has not taken a position on the matter until further research can be completed.

The Stanly County Council of Governments voted unanimously to oppose the bill, and Rep. Ken Furr, R-Albemarle, was on hand to witness the vote.

Locally, various municipalities within the county have taken various stances on the situation:

• The town of Oakboro council voted to send a letter to Furr and Sen. Bill Purcell, D-Laurinburg, requesting they vote against the bill.

“The town of Oakboro is definitely against any kind of a moratorium on annexation, and we wanted to go on file with that stance,” Joyce Little, mayor of Oakboro, said.

• The town of Red Cross council went on record to state that they were against the moratorium.

“I could see this hurting Red Cross in the future because it would place restrictions on growth,” said Heath Hahn, a Red Cross council member.

n Both the towns of Locust and Stanfield have not an official stance on the proposed bill at this time.

“The board has not taken a stand but they have not really had the chance to discuss it. I believe, though, that as long as I’ve worked for the town that we have not done any forced annexations,” said James Inman, Locust city administrator.

• The city of Albemarle council also sent a letter to Furr and Purcell requesting they oppose the bill.

Councilwoman Martha Sue Hall said she personally is against forced annexations if they are done solely for the purpose of increasing numbers.

But she is also against moratoriums.

“I personally believe towns should have the authority to make their own decisions as long as those decisions are thoroughly researched,” Hall said.

• The town of Badin is still researching the situation.

“Badin has taken no formal action in regards to the moratorium at this time but the mayor and council are discussing the issue and will continue to investigate how it could affect the town,” said Todd Herms, Badin town manager.

n Norwood has sent letters to Furr and Purcell and other members of the House Select committee.

“We believe what is urban should be annexed. A city cannot expand otherwise. It’s like a person. A person who cannot grow cannot remain strong,” said Dwight Smith, Norwood town administrator.

Norwood also sent a letter to the Stanly County Board of Commissioners to request they also write letters to Furr and Purcell in opposition to the bill.

• The county commissioners have not met to discuss the situation at this time, and thus do not have an official stance as of yet.

• The town of New London is also opposed to the moratorium.

“I’ve written e-mails to our representative Ken Furr and sent e-mails to other legislatures urging them to not put a moratorium,” said New London Mayor Calvin Gaddy.

• The town of Richfield and village of Misenheimer were not immediately available for comment.



Contact Tiffany Thompson at (704) 982-2121 ext. 24 or snaponline24@carolina.rr.com.