City officials say annexation act has small impact

Arkansas Act 845, which sets a five-year time frame for cities to annex territory once they state their intent through resolution or ordinance, will have little or no effect on Hot Springs, city officials said Thursday.

City Manager David Watkins said that he was chairman of the Cities of the First Class, Large Cities, Advisory Council to the Arkansas Municipal League when the bill, sponsored by state Rep. Mickey Gates, R-District 22, was being discussed and "we were in support of that bill."

"We looked at bills and either recommended them, didn't recommend them or took a neutral position, and we were OK with this bill. To say you're going to do something and then not do it puts property owners in a state of limbo. They don't know if they should develop their property or wait, so I think having a time clock is a good thing," Watkins said.

The bill, which has just gone into effect, says that if a municipality states its intent by resolution or ordinance to annex a specifically defined territory, or portion of the territory, over which it is exercising territorial jurisdiction under state law 14-56-413, the municipality "shall initiate annexation proceedings within five years of the stated intent."

"Just providing planning review in the 1-mile (extraterritorial jurisdiction) area, which cities of our size are allowed to do, is not an intent (to annex). If a city actually makes a move, whatever that may be -- holding an election, enclave annexation -- then that does set the clock in motion and have five years to do it or not," Watkins said.

Watkins said he thinks it is good public policy to have the city enforce planning regulations in the 1-mile ETJ because developers will be required to meet certain minimal standards.

"The county judge has complained about having to take in roads beyond the planning area that weren't built to any type standards, and maybe never dedicated to the public, and now property owners expect the county to take care of them, and they (the county) don't have any legal obligation to do so. We have concerns because we have to run water and sewer vehicles out there, we want to make sure the roads are built to standards the county can maintain. To me, the 1-mile planning area is good for both parties," he said.

City Attorney Brian Albright said the city has not made any involuntary annexations in several years, with the exception of island, or enclave, annexations, where a piece of property is entirely surrounded by the city limits.

Act 845 also says that if a city states it is going to annex a property and doesn't within the five-year period, it is prohibited from exercising territorial jurisdiction over the territory specified within its intent to annex for the next five years.

"I would say that would be a very remote, isolated situation for cities. I think that would be a strange scenario that would come about," Albright said.

In an action Monday night related to Act 845, members of the Garland County Quorum Court's Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee approved a motion by District 9 Justice of the Peace Matt McKee to require cities exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction in Garland County to file their planning map with the county clerk's office.

Hot Springs Planning and Development Director Kathy Sellman said Thursday that the city's planning map is already on file in the circuit clerk's office on the second floor of the Garland County Court House as required by state law.

McKee told the Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee that having the map in the county clerk's office, on the first floor of the courthouse, would allow an easy access point for the public, and "allow them to see where (a city) is planning to annex."

Albright said the county can't adopt an ordinance placing requirements on the city, and the planning map shows the boundary around the city in which it exercises ETJ planning and is not an indication of any plans to annex.

Local on 08/03/2015

Upcoming Events