Annexation reform is a hot-button issue in North Carolina, especially in the North Carolina General Assembly.

Legislators are looking at several options when it comes to reforming the state’s laws governing involuntary annexation. Just last week, the state House voted on three bills that would stop the cities of Rocky Mount, Asheville and Wilmington from annexing areas without the permission of residents and landowners. The bills are among several measures in the House putting pressure on legislators to implement sweeping changes in the existing involuntary annexation laws, approved in 1959.

Do those laws need reform? Probably. Do those laws need reforming to the extent being considered by many legislators? The answer one gets depends on who is giving the answer.

Supporters of involuntary annexation reform believe residents and property owners in areas targeted for annexation should have a say in whether they are annexed. Many supporters of annexation reform believe those residents and property owners should be able to block annexation by way of a referendum. The existing involuntary laws don’t allow that.

There’s nothing new about annexation reform.

About 12 years ago, Good Neighbors, a North Carolina-based grassroots group that works for annexation reform, filed a lawsuit that challenged North Carolina’s annexation system. The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the group.

“The ruling means that cities in North Carolina have carte blanche to annex anytime, anywhere they want,” said Julian Bradberry, a Good Neighbors member, in an interview the day after the court issued its ruling.

Annexation-reform supporters want to place limits on that “carte blanche” point of view.

Cities, towns and villages contend they need to be able to annex adjacent urban areas so they ą and their tax bases ą can grow, even through annexation will cost them money as they provide mandated services ą water, sewer, sanitation, police, fire, rescue and emergency medical services ą to the areas they annex.

It’s growing the tax base that worries many residents and property owners in areas targeted for annexation. They don’t want to pay municipal taxes in addition to their county taxes.

Municipal officials argue that annexation provides advantages.

Annexation, especially certain services the city would provide, can result in some savings, those officials contend. For example, a person’s homeowners insurance likely would be less because of fire protection provided by a city or town. Sometimes, a city or town’s water rates are about half those of a county’s water rates. People who live in an annexed area could pay less for participating in many of the city or town’s recreation programs. Those who live outside the city or town often pay higher fees to participate in a municipality’s recreation programs.

People who live near a municipality č and what it offers č and don’t want to be part of it financially are being unrealistic, municipal officials said.

If it becomes difficult for a city to annex as a way to grow its tax base, it may look at imposing new fees or increase existing fees on people who aren’t city residents but use city services, programs and facilities paid for by city taxpayers.

If annexation reform is coming, which appears more likely each day, we urge legislators to make sure those reforms strike a balance that allows municipalities to grow and give those in the areas targeted for annexation a stronger voice in that process.