Bill Undercuts Municipal Annexation Authority
Currently, individuals that want to annex
property into a community must file an application that is signed by the
property owner and a majority of the voters residing on the property. If passed, HB 2157 would alter longstanding and settled annexation procedures by introducing
additional mandates, including requiring annexation applicants to attest that:
- The annexation would solely benefit the property owner and any voters living on the property; and
- The annexation application was not filed to help a municipality involuntarily annex property in the future.
The bill also creates additional
criteria that a municipality must satisfy before involuntarily annexing
property, significantly upending municipal authority to annex property, control municipal boundaries, and promote economic development.
As drafted, the bill creates a
host of problems. First, annexation commonly benefits more than just a
property’s owners and residents. Annexation also benefits the annexing
municipality, which receives increased regulatory control and tax revenue;
parties that wish to develop the property, but may not yet own it; prospective
residents that do not have an ownership interest in the property; and
neighboring property owners that, as a result of the annexation, may be able to
receive city services by annexing their properties. The bill would
apparently invalidate annexations that benefit any of these parties.
Second, its unclear how an
annexation applicant could confirm that its application would not help a
municipality involuntarily annex property in the future. Annexation
applicants generally aren’t aware of a community’s annexation plans (if any
such plans exist). A law requiring an annexation applicant to attest to a
municipality’s unknown future plans seems designed only to chill otherwise
valid efforts to annex and develop property.
This bill comes on the heels of
an annexation lawsuit we previously reported on involving Bolingbrook, a
village located in Will County. The Bolingbrook case featured unusual facts that prompted the
court to invalidate a voluntary annexation that facilitated a subsequent
involuntary annexation. At first blush, this bill appears to respond to
the Bolingbrook case, albeit in a way that may create serious unintended
consequences.
We’ll update our readers as the
bill progresses.
Post Authored by Greg Jones, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment