An annexation reform bill under consideration by the North Carolina Senate may not be going anywhere this legislative session.

The House passed the bill last summer, despite complaints from those on both sides of the issue. Involuntary annexation opponents and the North Carolina League of Municipalities — which supports the use of involuntary annexation — criticized the bill. It now sits in front of the Senate, where it doesn’t seem to have much support, either.

Sen. Harris Blake, a Pinehurst Republican who represents Moore and Harnett counties, said he wasn’t sure if the issue would get much attention during the legislature’s short session, considering the great pressure to deal with the state’s massive revenue shortfalls. He said all of the work he’s done since returning to Raleigh has been related to the budget. On Wednesday, the Senate gave preliminary approval to a $19 billion budget.

“I am for involuntary annexation in some cases,” Blake said, “ but I’m not for just wholesale, because I think we allow a little too much freedom of the town to do that. But certainly there are times when a town should do it.”

Doug Aitken, a Pinehurst resident and president of the Fair Annexation Coalition, said Monday his organization’s opinion of the legislation hasn’t changed. He said the bill addresses none of the reforms that he and his colleagues have fought for.

“Without a major overhaul, we do not support the bill,” he said.

In fact, though he considers the current law to be “absolutely terrible,” Aitken argues the bill actually makes things worse. He said it defines specifically what a “meaningful benefit” to the community being annexed is. With the current law, it is more open to interpretation. He said the statutory law and case law can be combined, and an attorney can argue what a “meaningful benefit” is.

Aitken said there remains a disconnect at the local level between the people making the decisions to annex and those being annexed. Aitken and other reformers have been fighting for a public referendum for those subjected to involuntary annexation.

Though the bill under consideration provides for a referendum, it requires 15 percent of the residents living in both the corporate limits of the municipality and the community to be annexed to sign a petition. Aitken and others maintain that percentage would be too difficult to attain.

One possible compromise could be giving county commissioners approval authority over every annexation.

“That’s not as good as a direct vote, but it at least provides direct representation to the person being annexed,” Aitkin said, adding that 15 counties have passed resolutions urging annexation reform.

Aitken and his colleagues are resolute in pressing on in their effort. Volunteers are sending out some 15,000 postcards to state senators calling for “comprehensive” annexation reform.

“We need to keep this issue in front of [the General Assembly],” he said. “Thing about this that gets me is that this issue affects everybody.”

Contact John Krahnert III by e-mail at jkrahnert@thepilot.com.