|
by a municipal corporatioh, landowners, or a group of residents.
<br /> The classic scenario invol~es a core municipality trying to annex
<br /> peripheral land that may ~may not already be developed to some
<br /> level of intensity. In this s&nario, the municipality is likely to be
<br /> motivated either by its desire to gain control over the pattern of
<br /> development surrounding[its boundary, by its desire to broaden its
<br /> tax revenue base, or, most ~ikely, by both. In an effort to thwart
<br /> land grabs, states are now ~noving to adopt criteria concerning the
<br /> level of development requ~ed to justify annexation. The goal of
<br /> this trend is to set objectiv~ statutory criteria that define when
<br /> unincorporated land has r~,ached a threshold of urbanization that
<br /> warrants its incorporation !nto the city, so that it may be properly
<br /> zoned and serviced.
<br /> But annexatmn also m~ans an xncrease in the serv,ce boundary
<br /> for the annexing municip~ity, which translates to greater costs.
<br /> In most states, the municipality must promise some combination
<br /> of basic services such as w~}ter, sewer, fire, police, and garbage
<br /> collection in exchange for[the annexation. Breach of this promise
<br /> has left annexed territorie4 high and dry in the past, but an
<br /> increasing number ofstatSs, are now requiring mandatory
<br /> municipal assurances. Sonde states require a municipality to
<br /> submit a plan of services b~fore the annexation is granted.
<br /> Oklahoma, Wyoming,iNorth, n Carolina, Indiana, and Texas
<br />all require some type ofpgn. North Carolina and Indiana also
<br />requir-e a cost esti}n-ate a~la financing plfin for service
<br />provision. Regardless of tl~e statutory requirements, a territory
<br />should reserve its consent Ifor a full guarantee of services that
<br />also ensures that the scop{ and quality of services will be
<br />equivalent to those in a ci ~'s current jurisdiction. Most
<br />important, property owne ~s and residents should exact a time
<br />frame for service provision (see box). The growing use of
<br />concurrency laws is also h ping to guarantee the provision of
<br />services. Regardless of the[itate's provisions, a property owner
<br />should ensure her interest i with an annexation agreement that
<br />obligates all parties involv, id to comply.
<br />The second annexation scenario involves two municipalities
<br />competing for the same uflincorporated land. The motives here
<br />are similar to those menti4ned above but are complicated by the
<br />fact that both municipalities claim the land is in their natural
<br />path of development. Furt/her, proper study and planning for
<br />the area are often compromised by haste because, ~n many
<br />states, the courts determin~e the winner of the duel by
<br />determining who initiatedlthe annexation proceedings first.
<br />However, the courts have [ejected this method when
<br />landowners in the territoO being annexed express a preference
<br />toward the other municipility.
<br />The third scenario inv6,1ves a petition by the owners or
<br />inhabitants of the urbani~d, contiguous territory. In this
<br />situation, the stakeholders/, or at least the majority of them, wish
<br />to avail themselves of the S~rvices the core municipality can
<br />provide. They may also w4nt to be able to vote within the city.
<br />jurisdiction that they perceive as already having an impact on
<br />them, or they may want tI~e~r property values enhanced.
<br />Whatever their motivation} to them it is worth the
<br />corresponding property t~ increase.
<br />
<br />Selective Annexation
<br />Contrary to popular belief, imunicipalities are not always
<br />receptive to annexation. In[fact, in states where the annexor is
<br />not required to incorporat~contiguous land, despite strong
<br />petition, cities have success~rully avoided the addition of areas
<br />they deemed unfavorable. ~'his may be due to the area's poor
<br />economic health, env,ronrffental health, racial composition, or
<br />
<br />crime level. (For further reading on the history of selective
<br />annexation, see Donald Hagman et al., "The White Curtain:
<br />Racially Disadvantaging Local Government Boundary Practices,"
<br />University of Detroit Journal of Urban Law, Vol. 54 [1977].)
<br /> Though cities have traditionally had the right to refuse
<br />petitioned annexations, there has been progress in preventing a
<br />municipality's selective, inequitable application of its
<br />annexation powers. Indiana has a provision authorizing the
<br />court to force annexation if the territory seeking annexation
<br />meets these specific urbanization standards:
<br />· Essential municipal services and facilities are not available to
<br /> residents.
<br />· The municipality is physically and financially able to provide
<br /> municipal services to the territory.
<br />· The territory's population density is at'least three persons
<br /> per acre.
<br />· The territory is contiguous to the municipality.
<br />
<br /> Similarly, California law allows an independent boundary
<br />commission appointed by the state to overrule a municipality's
<br />refusal to approve an annexation.
<br />
<br />The Annexation Study
<br />The goal of an annexation study is to determine the costs and
<br />benefits associated with the proposed annexation. Typically
<br />conducted by the municipality, the study seeks generally to define
<br />the area proposed for annexation in terms of current land area,
<br />land uses, population, buildings, and the level of services already
<br />being provided. This information is used to project the costs of
<br />assuming the responsibility for current services, as well as adding
<br />those needed, against the property tax revenues to be gained.
<br />
<br />i,_ P01ice:Protec~'~'oi~- ,'.:':-:..:!.'i:,,: .:~'~,:/Scho~ls~.'.' -- -- "L - 7-,-~. ,"
<br />!.. s~agl ~Jisp0Sal ':~.'::,~'5 ~5~i?ii!;,.: ,- Streei.Lights i." ""::. i."-"i ~'
<br />} 3Xraier sUpPly':":~'~'. '-': :'~. Librai=-'-' '~ ..: ', ' "..'. ~
<br />
<br />?' Retie andG=bage 5~,._, 75· ~:Tr~c Lighu.,. Signs, :/'.,, _ ..
<br />e. :i',: Coneafian ~d D!sP0sfl'? ~-,.: '~nd M=~ngs ;":-.,, ,..
<br />~ PublieTrmspo~afi0n :,5.:7. :- , .Planning/Zoning, ~nd ' , ..,
<br />
<br /> It is practi~ to break out costs ofse~ic= according to land-
<br />use Wp= b~cause that is the cl~sifi~tion used to ~lculate
<br />projected properW t~es. For undeveloped land, the possibiliw
<br />of offsetting costs with development exactions must also be
<br />. factored in. ~y municip~ annexation stuO should include a
<br />detailed schedule for the extension ofse~ices, broken down by
<br />se~ice. For more details about conducting an annexation study,
<br />see the old ~ut ve~ practi~ Planning Adviso~ Se~ice Report
<br />114, Anngation Studies (~eri~n Planning ~sociation, 1958)
<br />or The FiscallmpactHandbook by Robe~ W. Burchell and
<br />David Listo~n (The Center for Urban Poli~ Research, 1978)·
<br />
<br />· onin~ ~or Propose8 ~nnex~fion
<br />Once a properw is targeted for annexation, it may be
<br />temporarik zoned through the ci~'s extraterritorial sphere of
<br />influence. Policies on extraterritori~ zoning vaw by state and
<br />the level of urbaninfion. These zones are commonly called
<br />
<br />
<br />
|