Thoughts on annexation?

[the north omaha star]

What are you guys' thoughts on annexation. The City of Omaha just voted unamiously to annex Elkhorn, a small town to the west. Current Nebraska law allows municipalities to annex land and people as long as it's not across county lines and the population is less than 10,000. Elkhorn has about 7500 residents in the town proper. Omaha beat Elkhorn to the punch acquiring unincorporated land between the city and town. Below are a couple of links of the ongoing saga that I've been following for a couple of years now. Who knows, Omaha may become as big as Kansas City, MO proper one day. It surpassed the City of Minneapolis and St. Louis City long ago.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=1354894

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=...&u_sid=1342716

[boiker]

wow.. forceable annexation.

Illinois state law allows annexation of only contiguous property. It can be through county lines and unincorporated land can only be annexed through owner approval. In 1986, communities that surrounded unincorporated parcles were given a one time right to froceably annex those "donut-hole" parcels.

Our community is actively establishing annexation agreements with parcels that are and are not contiguous with the city to capture that growth when it is developed.

[Kovanovich]

I'm a big advocate of annexation, especially by central cities. The bigger the jurisdictions, and the less fragmentation in metropolitan areas, the greater the stability of the metro area and its neigbhorhoods. It allows for more resource sharing, less duplication of services, and tends to prevent the development of a metro area of haves and have nots, where it is usually only a matter of time before any given jurisdiction joins the ranks of the have nots. Compare the relatively strength of central cities in North Carolina, where annexation laws are very liberal and county government is strong, with central cities in Pennsylvania or Ohio, where the proliferation of governmental units has hurt not only the central cities but also the at-risk suburbs. I know, a lot of factors are at work, but annexation laws and strong county government are very important factors.

[Jaxspra]

We are in the process of about 7 non-voluntary annexations...going ok so far, just have to make sure there are no registered voters that reside onthe property

[Kovanovich]

Originally posted by Jaxspra

We are in the process of about 7 non-voluntary annexations...going ok so far, just have to make sure there are no registered voters that reside onthe property

Yes, that can be a problem...if those who are being annexed feel that it's not in their best interest, as is often the case (that's why moved there in the first place)...This Nebraska case is striking in that the central city is trying to annex a place that is already incorporated. I think that in North Carolina, for instance, the concept of annexation may not necessarily be associated with "big city" problems, or less so than in some other states.

[mgk920]

Originally posted by the north omaha star

What are you guys' thoughts on annexation. The City of Omaha just voted unamiously to annex Elkhorn, a small town to the west. Current Nebraska law allows municipalities to annex land and people as long as it's not across county lines and the population is less than 10,000. Elkhorn has about 7500 residents in the town proper. Omaha beat Elkhorn to the punch acquiring unincorporated land between the city and town. Below are a couple of links of the ongoing saga that I've been following for a couple of years now. Who knows, Omaha may become as big as Kansas City, MO proper one day. It surpassed the City of Minneapolis and St. Louis City long ago.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1636&u_sid=1354894

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=...&u_sid=1342716

If someone's land is across the county line and the owner wants 'in' to the city, are they SOL in Nebraska?

Mike

[the north omaha star]

Originally posted by Kovanovich

Yes, that can be a problem...if those who are being annexed feel that it's not in their best interest, as is often the case (that's why moved there in the first place)...This Nebraska case is striking in that the central city is trying to annex a place that is already incorporated. I think that in North Carolina, for instance, the concept of annexation may not necessarily be associated with "big city" problems, or less so than in some other states.

Actually, Omaha is comprised several former smaller towns that were annexed in the early 20th century. The towns of Florence, Benson, South Omaha and Dundee were annexed around 1917. The town of Millard was annexed in 1966, I think. Each of these towns (now neighborhoods) are very distinct. My Mom's neighborhood was an old orchard that was located on land between the northern edge of Omaha and the southern edge of Florence.

[Wisconsinplanner]

Wow, that is a pretty strong annexation law. Here in Wisconsin, it is much tougher to annex properties. Generally, most annexations are unanimous consent, or a property or group of properties that all agree to be annexed and make the request. Adjacent properties can also be included within an annexation area when the properties requesting the annexation have a majority of electors and either at least 1/2 of the assessed value of the properties included within the annexation area or 1/2 the land area. Generally, it is pretty tough to include multiple properties in an annexation unless they make a request, let alone a whole township. Properties can also be annexed through a referendum in Wisconsin, but this is pretty rare.

[CoastalGL]

Originally posted by Kovanovich

I'm a big advocate of annexation, especially by central cities. The bigger the jurisdictions, and the less fragmentation in metropolitan areas, the greater the stability of the metro area and its neigbhorhoods. It allows for more resource sharing, less duplication of services, and tends to prevent the development of a metro area of haves and have nots, where it is usually only a matter of time before any given jurisdiction joins the ranks of the have nots. Compare the relatively strength of central cities in North Carolina, where annexation laws are very liberal and county government is strong, with central cities in Pennsylvania or Ohio, where the proliferation of governmental units has hurt not only the central cities but also the at-risk suburbs. I know, a lot of factors are at work, but annexation laws and strong county government are very important factors.

I agree that annexation is generally a good tool for cities to use - remember Rusk's "Cities without Suburbs"? I would be interested to know if strong central city regions have fewer cases of developers/corporations getting excessive government incentives due to fewer localities having to "compete" for their business.

[Greenescapist]

I believe the City of Madison just agreed to annex the entire township of Blooming Grove, which it already surronds. I get the impression that annexation laws are generally liberal here and favor the city. All over the Madison area I heard stories of parcels that the city is planning on annexing or even zoning because they might annex it in the future.

I grew up in New England where there is no such animal. Most land is an incorporated town or city, so this annexation stuff is a little strange, but it makes sense for a city to control growth on its boundaries and to more efficiently provide services to periurban residents.

[CoastalGL]

Originally posted by Greenescapist

I believe the City of Madison just agreed to annex the entire township of Blooming Grove, which it already surronds. I get the impression that annexation laws are generally liberal here and favor the city. All over the Madison area I heard stories of parcels that the city is planning on annexing or even zoning because they might annex it in the future.

I grew up in New England where there is no such animal. Most land is an incorporated town or city, so this annexation stuff is a little strange, but it makes sense for a city to control growth on its boundaries and to more efficiently provide services to periurban residents.

I happen to live in a part of Madison that formerly was the Town of Blooming Grove. The annexation is to take place over the next twenty-odd years as part of an intergovernmental agreement (posted on the city website under "What's New" http://www.cityofmadison.com). The city has already annexed over half the township and much of what remains are islands surrounded by the city. Madison also has an agreement with the Town of Madison (confused yet?) to do the same over the next twenty years. The Town of Madison even has its own police department, but the squad cars have to pass through parts of the city to get to different town islands.

[Wisconsinplanner]

Originally posted by CoastalGL

I happen to live in a part of Madison that formerly was the Town of Blooming Grove. The annexation is to take place over the next twenty-odd years as part of an intergovernmental agreement (posted on the city website under "What's New" http://www.cityofmadison.com). The city has already annexed over half the township and much of what remains are islands surrounded by the city. Madison also has an agreement with the Town of Madison (confused yet?) to do the same over the next twenty years. The Town of Madison even has its own police department, but the squad cars have to pass through parts of the city to get to different town islands.

Intergovernmental agreements (IGA's) are becoming more and more commonplace in Wisconsin. The City of Kenosha has one with the Town of Bristol which allows the City to grow to the west. We are also amending another agreement that we have with the Town of Somers, which is generally north of the City, but does include town corridors that impact part of the west and northwest parts of the City.

The new Somers agreement will allow us to attach property to the City vs. annexation (a much simpler process) over the next 30 years. It requires properties to attach to the City when somone wants to do a subdivision of their property, when the do a larger addition to a current home or build on vacant property. Any property that is not within the City upon the expiration of the 30 year limit will be attached to the City as a final attachment.

The IGA's establish a mutual agreement between Towns and Cities or Villages on permanent boundaries and establishments of utilities. Generally, the Town agrees not to fight attachment of certain properties and the City provides some services to the Town, e.g. utilities, and the City agrees to the permanent boundary, unless both parties agree to amendments.

[GISgal]

I am all for annexation and consolidation. In the Fox Valley you see a lot of parochial attitudes and 8 communities 5,000-70,000 vying for the same resources and funds. Each community has its own fire department, police department, school district, etc. It makes it tough to market because it is hard to frame a cohesive image. Don't get me wrong the Fox Cities are great and have a wonderful quality of life and a very low cost of living, but bringing together these communities or services seems to be the next logical step.

[Cardinal]

Originally posted by Greenescapist

I believe the City of Madison just agreed to annex the entire township of Blooming Grove, which it already surronds. I get the impression that annexation laws are generally liberal here and favor the city. All over the Madison area I heard stories of parcels that the city is planning on annexing or even zoning because they might annex it in the future.

I grew up in New England where there is no such animal. Most land is an incorporated town or city, so this annexation stuff is a little strange, but it makes sense for a city to control growth on its boundaries and to more efficiently provide services to periurban residents.

Wisconsin's annexation laws are among the more restrictive ones. The city cannot initiate an annexation unless it owns the property to be annexed. Voluntary annexation of uninhabited property must be initiated by the owner. If the property is occupied, and election is required. There can be no preconditions to annexation - i.e., approval of development plans, agreement to zone it a particular way, financial arrangements, etc. If the property annexed is placed into a TIF, the city or village annexing the property must continue to make property tax payments to the town it was annexed from for a number of years. There's more, but in general, it is not a process that puts the city in a strong position.

[Bear Up North]

For those that might be interested, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has been doing a continuing in-depth set of articles on "regionalism". Many of the individual articles address some of the "offering of services" issues that are involved with different communities next to each other.

Bear

[mgk920]

Originally posted by GISgal

I am all for annexation and consolidation. In the Fox Valley you see a lot of parochial attitudes and 8 communities 5,000-70,000 vying for the same resources and funds. Each community has its own fire department, police department, school district, etc. It makes it tough to market because it is hard to frame a cohesive image. Don't get me wrong the Fox Cities are great and have a wonderful quality of life and a very low cost of living, but bringing together these communities or services seems to be the next logical step.

It's more than just 8 entities here. You have the four main cities (Appleton, Kaukauna, Menasha and Neenah), three main villages, essentially smaller classes of cities (Combined Locks, Kimberly, Little Chute, plus the outlying Village of Sherwood) and at least ten unincorporated townships that are urbanized to varing extents (Buchanon, Center, Clayton, Freedom, Grand Chute, Greenville, Harrison, Menasha, Neenah, Vandenbroek), all together covering parts of three counties and several school districts - ALL to municipally govern about 210,000 residents. That is fewer people than live in the present day City of Madison.

As a Fox Cities resident, those Madison/Madison Twp, Madison/Blooming Grove and Kenosha/Somers agreements make me very envious to say the least. I can't even begin to think of how much of an economic development powerhouse a (for lack of a better name) 'City of Fox Valley' would be, if all of those disparate entities would get over their parochialisms and get together to create a single municipal-level government.

Is there any near-future possibility of doing a similar merger agreement between Kenosha and the Village of Pleasant Prairie, so that all of the land in Kensoha County east of I-94 is in one municipality? Ditto in Racine County with the City of Racine?

Mike

[Kovanovich]

Originally posted by CoastalGL

I agree that annexation is generally a good tool for cities to use - remember Rusk's "Cities without Suburbs"? I would be interested to know if strong central city regions have fewer cases of developers/corporations getting excessive government incentives due to fewer localities having to "compete" for their business.

Advocates of "big box" regionalism claim not only that there are fewer such cases, but also that businesses often prefer to negotiate with one large government entitity. Rusk, I believe, makes this argument, based in part on his experience when he was mayor of Albuquerque in the 1980s. I too would be interested in a study that demonstrates whether small box or large box metro areas were better at attracting new businesses. A good study would be difficult to do...However, I think that it is beyond question that large box metro areas are more effective at maintaining neighborhood stability and preventing decline, and Rusk is more convincing when he makes this claim. Stressed, inner suburban Silver Spring, Md. has been able to retain much of its middle class and now is revitalizing its city center -- and it has been able to do so largely because Silver Spring is unincorporated and administratively part of prosperous Montgomery County. Had it been a small box, incorporated city, with its own municipal departments, school system, and tax base, I think that there is little question that it would now more closely resemble, say, Suitland, Md. (a heavily stressed suburb in an adjacent county which has experienced massive middle class flight). Again, I realize that there are other factors at work.

[Wisconsinplanner]

Originally posted by mgk920

As a Fox Cities resident, those Madison/Madison Twp, Madison/Blooming Grove and Kenosha/Somers agreements make me very envious to say the least. I can't even begin to think of how much of an economic development powerhouse a (for lack of a better name) 'City of Fox Valley' would be, if all of those disparate entities would get over their parochialisms and get together to create a single municipal-level government.

Is there any near-future possibility of doing a similar merger agreement between Kenosha and the Village of Pleasant Prairie, so that all of the land in Kensoha County east of I-94 is in one municipality? Ditto in Racine County with the City of Racine?

Mike

Mike
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the IGA between Kenosha and Somers. The IGA is not merging the town and the City. Somers will stay a township for the time being...only parts off the town would be attached to the City over a 30 year time period in order to square of boundaries and to prevent inefficient services. Kenosha has a utility district and will agree to supply a larger area of the town (that will stay Somers) with sewer and water. Regarding a merger between Kenosha and Pleasant Prairie...I don't ever see this happening.

What Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, Somers and most of the rest of Kenosha County are looking at doing is a County-wide Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the 2010 State Comprehensive Plan requirement. The Comp plan will certainly look at economic development, housing, jobs at a county-wide level, but a merger of any muncipalities is a long way off, if ever in my opinion.

[the north omaha star]

In contrast, Maryland is so much different. Generally speaking, there are very few municipalities. There are populated areas such as Towson, Gle Bethesda, Randallstown, Owings Mills, Silver Spring but they are not incorporated. Maryland has strong county governments, the bigger counties in the Baltimore and DC suburbs have county executives, while the less populated counties have a board of county commissioners. I've been here 7 1/2 years and have not heard of one annexation case in the state. However, I heard of municipalities that have or want to switch into a differnent county. The City of Takoma Park used to be in Prince George's County now it's in Montgomery County. There's talk that the City of Bowie wants to leave Prince George's County and be a part of Anne Arundel County.

[mgk920]

Originally posted by Wisconsinplanner

Mike
I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the IGA between Kenosha and Somers. The IGA is not merging the town and the City. Somers will stay a township for the time being...only parts off the town would be attached to the City over a 30 year time period in order to square of boundaries and to prevent inefficient services. Kenosha has a utility district and will agree to supply a larger area of the town (that will stay Somers) with sewer and water. Regarding a merger between Kenosha and Pleasant Prairie...I don't ever see this happening.

What Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha, Somers and most of the rest of Kenosha County are looking at doing is a County-wide Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with the 2010 State Comprehensive Plan requirement. The Comp plan will certainly look at economic development, housing, jobs at a county-wide level, but a merger of any muncipalities is a long way off, if ever in my opinion.

Since I don't have a copy of the Kenosha/Somers agreement in front of me, what will happen with the town at the end of the agreement's 30 year term in 2035? My read of your earlier post made it look like the entire remainder of the town will then become part of Kenosha.

Mike

[Wisconsinplanner]

Originally posted by mgk920

Since I don't have a copy of the Kenosha/Somers agreement in front of me, what will happen with the town at the end of the agreement's 30 year term in 2035? My read of your earlier post made it look like the entire remainder of the town will then become part of Kenosha.

Mike

Mike,

Sorry I didn't post an earlier response...I was on vacation. I apologize for the confusion of my previous post. I'll try to explain this a bit better.

The City of Kenosha is composed of land that was either formerly the township of Somers or Pleasant Prairie. Kenosha straddles the boundaries of both, right in the middle. There is a corridor of Somers extending through part of the middle of the western portion of the City, splitting the City into a U-shape around this corridor. This corridor will come into the City within the next 30 years. There are also portions of the town adjacent to the north and northwest boundaries of the City that will come into the City.

After the 30 years, the remaining L-shaped township of Somers not attached to the City will still exist, and will consist of land between Lake Michigan on the east, I-94 on the west, Racine County on the north and the City of Kenosha on the south (with squared off boundaries). The boundaries are froze at that point. Again, the IGA helps square off boundaries, but is not an agreement to combine the entire town with the City, just fragments.

[mgk920]

Originally posted by Wisconsinplanner

Mike,

Sorry I didn't post an earlier response...I was on vacation. I apologize for the confusion of my previous post. I'll try to explain this a bit better.

The City of Kenosha is composed of land that was either formerly the township of Somers or Pleasant Prairie. Kenosha straddles the boundaries of both, right in the middle. There is a corridor of Somers extending through part of the middle of the western portion of the City, splitting the City into a U-shape around this corridor. This corridor will come into the City within the next 30 years. There are also portions of the town adjacent to the north and northwest boundaries of the City that will come into the City.

After the 30 years, the remaining L-shaped township of Somers not attached to the City will still exist, and will consist of land between Lake Michigan on the east, I-94 on the west, Racine County on the north and the City of Kenosha on the south (with squared off boundaries). The boundaries are froze at that point. Again, the IGA helps square off boundaries, but is not an agreement to combine the entire town with the City, just fragments.

Thanx for the clarification. I was previously aware of the layout of the Kenosha area, including what to me are the city's as well as Pleasant Prairie's remarkable extensions across I-94 into Bristol Twp. A lot can happen over 30 years and it would not surprize me at all to see agreements like this one be further amended as those sorts of time periods pass and local situations change.

Mike

[BKM]

Originally posted by the north omaha star

The City of Takoma Park used to be in Prince George's County now it's in Montgomery County.

Boy. I wonder what arguments those wealthy "hippies" floated to justify that?

[B'lieve]

Probably one of the big reasons Takoma Park switched counties was the public schools in PG County, which by all accounts are as bad as anything in Baltimore City, expect the City is scrambling to improve its schools and beginning (HUGE emphasis on "beginning") to get some modest results, while I have yet to hear anything about PG doing much to improve its schools.

Having heard a couple of times that it was somehow "illegal" for Baltimore City to annex any land after the last big annexation in 1918, I once looked up Maryland's annexation law. There's actually no law that I found forbidding Baltimore from annexing, but the process is a bit convoluted. As far as I remember, the municipality doing the annexing can unilaterally annex unnoccupied land, as Port Deposit in my home county (Cecil) did with the abandoned Bainbridge Navy training base a few years ago.
If there are people or businesses on the property, it gets complicated. If those people are the ones asking to be annexed, they have to get a petition signed by something like 20% of residents or 25% of property owners on that land. If the town or city is initiating the annexation, I don't think a petition has to signed, but it still has to publicized. If within a certain number of days 20% of residents or 25% of property owners on the land up for annxtn sign a petition opposing it, there have to hearings to get permission from the county. If fewer than that sign an opposing petition, or there is no anti-petition, annexation goes through. If it goes to county hearings, the county decides whether or not to allow annexation. Even if the county says yes, there is still something like a 30 or 90 day window for opponents to send around a petition (with the same percentage cutoffs) to force a referendum. Combine the current (and recent past) condition of Baltimore with all those oppurtunities for opponents to kill an annexation proposal, and it's clear why Baltimore has been unable to annex since 1918 and probably won't for at least a few decades more.
Meanwhile, most municipalities in Maryland are small towns, and many have annexed a little here and there for years. Havre de Grace, Elkton, Aberdeen, and Frederick are the ones I can think of off the top of my head that have done quite a lot of annexing in the last several years.

[PapioCitizenPlanner]

Originally posted by mgk920

If someone's land is across the county line and the owner wants 'in' to the city, are they SOL in Nebraska?

Mike

You are correct, In Nebraska annexation CANNOT occur across county lines... So in the above article Omaha is already bound by both the county and Iowa state line on the East, its pretty much has grown to the South to Sarpy County.. its only growth left is a little to the North to Washington County and the real opportunity is the bit of non-city land in the Western portion of the county (where Elkhorn is).

I believe the state legislators from the two urban counties that represent Omaha and Lincoln would like to change that law, but almost every other state representative would fight it. I cannot believe that limitation will change in Nebraska anytime in the foreseeable future.