Dear Legislator,
Please support Rep. Wooten’s bill H3165. This is a great opportunity to reach a compromise on annexation reform. As you know, SC is one of the top states to move to. And while this is a desirable thing, there are some real consequences to residents in terms of infrastructure and quality of life. Proponents of annexation reform are looking for more, but we understand change takes time.
Below is some further reform we are looking for – with reasons why.
Grant legal standing to county governments to more efficiently manage municipal annexations within their jurisdiction. Currently, municipalities do not have to notify the county of annexations- H3165 seeks to change this. However, counties still need standing, which we would need to add on. Annexation puts burdens on the community/county creating developments that stress county and state roads, overpopulate schools, and ultimately require county help with sewer/wastewater and require costly upgrades for the county residents. This is inefficient government. Counties need standing to create more efficient government and stewardship of local resources. They need more recourse to require joint planning and coordination.
Provide a Procedure for Municipal De-annexation – Right now there is no statutory guideline to change the county boundary, unless it’s by municipal ordinance-which is unlikely. Currently, city council would have to change city boundaries by ordinance to remove the de-annexed portion. There is no way for a neighborhood (or farmer caught in a donut hole) to de-annex. If it’s easier to de-annex, cities might do more strategic planning – especially if they are forced to. With the current 100% annexation method, none is necessary. Additionally, we are aware of a neighborhood in the Town of Aynor, where there are residents that receive no services and have no way to de-annex.
Further define contiguity Right now, the concept of contiguity is being abused by municipalities and developers. To increase efficiencies, we need to delete shoestring annexations. They create donut holes. We need to further define contiguity across bodies of water as well. Recently, I heard a mayor brag that he identified land and “made it contiguous” – the land should be strategically identified as part of a comprehensive plan, it should not be a land grab.
Prohibit the creation of enclaves/donut holes. If a potential annexation creates a donut hole, prohibit the annexation. Municipalities have created donut holes through no fault of county residents. There are two ways to change donut holes.
1. Force anyone in the donut hole to be annexed when an annexation takes place or
2. If a donut hole is going to be created by a potential annexation, prohibit that annexation if it creates a donut hole. We would like to prohibit annexations that create donut holes. (In opposition to the bill that’s on the floor now HR 3236.)
Require municipalities to use the 75% annexation method for all types of annexation. Currently, the 100% annexation method is the simplest form to fill out with no requirements needed from municipalities or landowners. With large tracts of land being developed and forever changing the texture of a community from traffic, density, etc. it is necessary to conduct studies to analyze and mitigate the potential impact of proposed annexations. The 75% method requires feasibility studies which the 100% method lacks. The required analysis for the 75% method includes identification of the provider of each service and its contractual obligations (i.e. water, sewer, trash pickup, etc.), including availability; which services will be assumed by the annexing municipality; an identification of efficient service areas; a projected timetable for provision of services; the revenues needed to support services; the estimated revenues from current taxes, fees, and service charges; the projected level of taxes and fees required to support services; a comparison of costs to property owners before and after the annexation; traffic studies should be included, and an identification of the burdens and benefits of annexation. After this analysis, cities may not want to move forward, or if they do, will have some real planning to rely on. Currently, there is zero analysis done on hundreds to thousands of acres of land. 75% method requires a hearing, and ideally in the new legislation, should require a ballot and/or a hearing with county and city legislators with a required vote.
Shared impact fees. For more efficient government, the municipalities and county should not be fighting over developer impact fees. There is a situation in City of Clemson area, where a development was not allowed for various reasons in Pickens County and City of Clemson, and then this same land was annexed into the Town of Central. These thousands of people will drive on the same roads, and need schools etc. This is not efficient or effective government. Developers are using current annexation laws to ordinance shop and further burden already stressed infrastructure. H3165 addresses this. Please support this bill.
Make Adhesion Contracts Null and Void – An adhesion contract is a general contract that is done on a take it or leave it basis. In the usual contract negotiation, you can negotiate price, have arbitration, etc. but an adhesion contract is one where you must agree to it “as is” and you are forced to adhere to it. If a neighborhood wants sewer or water, they must take it or leave it. Utilities can charge higher rates to non-residents, so it is unnecessary to annex this land into the municipality. Currently, it’s a condition of service to those outside city boundaries. To receive service, one must be contiguous or agree to be annexed if you become contiguous. These annexation agreements are enforceable down the line of purchase. If the house is sold, the new owner is subject to the laws. In the present scenario, this is how municipalities are forcing people into annexation. A copy of the clause is at www.annexationeducation.com.
Thank you for reading and for your support. There is more information available at www.annexationeducation.com. I am hopeful we can pass this bill with your help and start much needed change beginning with compromise.
Sincerely,
Crystal Bulman
PO Box 745
Travelers Rest, SC 29690
(864)270-9468
