The list of legislative interim study items I posted yesterday was disappointing to me in one big way – there was only a passing mention of annexation.  As I’ve noted in previous blog posts (see December 31 and March 10 posts), the annexation provisions are a mess in our state code.  It has been the subject of intense discussion by the land use task force in the past, and was even seriously being looked at for major changes, if not outright recodification, at one point before being shelved because it was complicated and fraught with political landmines.  But it still needs to be done!

Two recent news stories highlight the ongoing need for this issue to be resolved – residents of a subdivision petitioning to disconnect from a city, and a local boundary commission action that would allow for property from one community to be moved into another, though it is questionable that state code allows for such an action.

My good friend and colleague, the former property rights ombudsman Brent Bateman, and I have been brainstorming things that seriously need to be reworked in our state annexation code section.  It really needs a complete rewrite, because we both agree that so much of the code is just hard to understand and make sense of, because of the way it was originally written, and because of the numerous amendments made to it over the years.  Recodifying is what really needs to be done.  But that’s a big political lift, given all the various players involved in this process.  Though I will say, it is likely less than what it was a number of years ago when the annexation code was last substantially rewritten because the big disputes between unincorporated communities and cities in Salt Lake County is pretty much settled now since the establishment of the metro townships (we could write a book on the whole townships saga over the years, how that came about, the back-and-forth, and the mess it left in the annexation code).

Here are some of the things that need to be addressed in the state annexation code:

• “rural real property” owners have the ability to completely stymie proposed annexation if they (even one owner!) does not agree to be annexed. We have it on credible information that the definition of rural real property was an oversight when amended into the code a few years ago.  This needs to be changed.  The whole concept of rural/agriculture in the annexation process needs to be rethought, because annexation is as much a tool to manage growth as zoning, general plans, and other techniques are.  It should be treated as such.
• The way islands/peninsulas are treated in the code should be reconsidered. While generally not a good idea, there are times when they may be necessary or may even make some sense.
• Rewrite the code to uniformly apply to all counties statewide. The current condition in which “first class” counties have a separate set of (confusing!) rules from “specified” counties is a holdover from the townships wars in Salt Lake County that then spread to other counties.  Get rid of this (at the very least, rethink it!)
• Reconsider the requirement for feasibility studies. Instead, couch any requirements for studies in the concept of growth management – what makes the most sense to deal with future development and how to provide the necessary urban services. For discussions about annexation as growth management tools, see Rethinking Municipal Annexation Powers by Laurie Reynolds in The Urban Lawyer journal,  and Annexation: Briefing Paper by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
• Take a look at the ability of property owners to opt out of proposed annexations – this can sometimes stymie good growth management and service provision for the future.
• Consider whether there should be limitations or rules put in place for exactions or other requirements for proposed annexations. As a legislative decision, the cards are all in the hands of the municipal officials as to what conditions they may put in place in order to consider approving annexation of property.  This may result in unfair or overly burdensome requirements for some properties which then transfer to future community residents.
• Clarify the role of the Local Boundary Commission and what its authority is. It is rather unclear in the present code.

These are just some of the annexation issues that need addressing.

Looking for some thoughtful (and brave!) legislators, local officials, and property owners to step up and help make this necessary change happen.  It is an important and overlooked tool for the management of growth in our pretty, great state!