Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
142 <br />27 <br />the installation, whichever is sooner. If the LGC finds that the city has failed to deliver <br />the water and sewer services within 3.5 years, the municipality must halt any other <br />annexation in progress and must restart a stopped annexation from the beginning once <br />water and sewer services are provided. <br />Appeals. The filing period for lawsuits challenging an annexation is moved to 60 days <br />after the close of the veto petition signature period. The court must set the effective <br />date for an annexation as the first June 30 at least six months after the final judgment or <br />following the date upon which a municipality takes any required action to conform to <br />the court's remand instructions. <br />Attorneys' Fees. The court now may award attorney's fees to a property owner if a <br />final court order is issued against the municipality. <br />VI. Effective Date and Applicability <br />The changes in HB 845 are effective July 1, 2011 and apply to city - initiated annexations <br />for which no ordinance has been adopted as of that date. For city - initiated annexations <br />begun prior to July 1, 2011, but which had not reached the point of adopting the <br />ordinance by that date, the city can reinitiate the annexation, but it must comply with <br />the new provisions. The act does not apply to any city with a charter provision <br />requiring a owner consent or a referendum in city - initiated annexations. <br />VII. Voting Rights Counti es <br />Cities located within one of the forty Voting Rights counties need to include within <br />their plans and timelines the additional step of obtaining preclearance from the U.S. <br />Department of Justice. If using the new city - initiated method, we believe preclearance <br />will be needed for both the veto petition process and for the annexation itself. The <br />petition process is so closely analogous to a referendum that municipalities should <br />submit it for preclearance before the veto petition process begins. A letter from the <br />Attorney General's office to one of our member cities supports that stance. Existing <br />statutes place the responsibility for preclearance submissions on the municipal attorney. <br />CERTAIN COMPLETED ANNEXATIONS SUBJECT TO VETO PETITION <br />Although the annexation reform provisions in HB 845 do not apply to annexations for <br />which an ordinance was adopted before July 1, 2011, two additional acts apply the veto <br />petition process retroactively to specified annexations in nine municipalities. Under HB <br />56 - Local Annexations Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -177) and SB 27 - Local Annexations <br />Subject to 60% Petition (SL 2011 -173), the affected cities and towns are Asheville, <br />Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Kinston, Lexington, Marvin, Rocky Mount, Southport, and <br />Wilmington. All of the annexations in question had ordinances in place, many had <br />