SB 182 — Relating to annexation by minor boundary adjustment
Last action — Communicated to Senate
-
1Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House of Delegates
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2026 Session. It reached “Introduced” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Summary
Relating to annexation by minor boundary adjustment
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
3 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The amendment to SB 182 changes the rules for municipalities seeking to annex territory through minor boundary adjustments. Previously, municipalities could make such adjustments only once every two years; this has now been modified to allow for an adjustment once per year. This change is significant because it could give municipalities more flexibility to grow and adapt to changing needs, potentially enhancing local governance and services.
SB182 SFATSFA Martin #1 3-14Curia 7824Senator 7824Senator Martin moved to amend the billamendment by striking outeverything after the titlearticle heading and substitutinginserting thereforin alieu newthereof title,the tofollowing: read as follows:Eng.
Senate§8-6-5. Bill 182—A BILL to amend and reenact §8-6-5 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to annexation by minor boundary adjustment;
andAnnexation changing limit on municipal annexation by minor boundary adjustmentadjustment. from once every two years to once per year. AdoptedRejected
(a) If a municipality desires to increase its corporate limits by making a minor boundary adjustment, the governing body of the municipality may apply to the county commission of the county wherein the municipality or the major portion of the territory thereof, including the territory to be annexed, is located for permission to effect annexation by minor boundary adjustment.
The municipality shall pay the costs of all proceedings before the commission:
Provided, That:
(1) A minor boundary adjustment may not exceed 105 percent of the existing total municipal boundary;
(2) A minor boundary adjustment may not exceed 120 percent of the current area of the municipality;
and(3) A minor boundary adjustment made in this manner is limited to one boundary annexation within a two-year one-year period, regardless of subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection.(b) In addition to any other annexation configuration, a municipality may incorporate by minor boundary adjustment:
(i) Territory that consists of a street or highway as defined in §17C-1-35 of this code and one or more freeholders;
or (ii) territory that consists of a street or highway as defined in §17C-1-35 of this code which does not include a freeholder, but which is necessary for the provision of emergency services in the territory being annexed.
(c) A county commission may develop a form application for annexation for minor boundary adjustment.
An application for annexation by minor boundary adjustment shall include, but not be limited to:(1) The number of businesses located in and persons residing in the additional territory;(2) An affidavit of each business located in, each person residing in, and each freeholder of the additional territory stating that he, she, or it has consented to be included in the annexation, in such form as the county commission deems sufficient.
If the municipality cannot obtain an affidavit from a business, resident, or freeholder within 90 days after sending the affidavit form and a letter explaining the purpose of the affidavit via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the best available address for the business, resident, or freeholder, such business, resident, or freeholder shall be considered to have consented to the annexation;(3) An accurate map showing the metes and bounds of the additional territory;(4) A statement setting forth the municipality’s plan for providing the additional territory with all applicable public services such as police and fire protection, solid waste collection, public water and sewer services, and street maintenance services, including to what extent the public services are or will be provided by a private solid waste collection service or a public service district;(5) A statement of the impact of the annexation on any private solid waste collection service or public service district currently doing business in the territory proposed for annexation in the event the municipality should choose not to utilize the current service providers;(6) A statement of the impact of the annexation on fire protection and fire insurance rates in the territory proposed for annexation;(7) A statement of how the proposed annexation will affect the municipality’s finances and services;
and(8) A statement that the proposed annexation meets the requirements of this section.(d) Upon receipt of a complete application for annexation by minor boundary adjustment, the county commission shall determine whether the application meets the threshold requirements for consideration as a minor boundary adjustment including whether the annexation could be efficiently and cost effectively accomplished under §8-6-2 or §8-6-4 of this code.
If the county commission determines that the annexation could be cost effectively and efficiently accomplished under §8-6-2 or §8-6-4 of this code, that the application lacks sufficient evidence that all affected parties of the additional territory consent to the annexation, or that the application otherwise fails to meet the threshold requirements for consideration as a minor boundary adjustment, it shall enter an order denying the application, which order shall include the reasons upon which it is based.(e) If the application meets the threshold requirements, the county commission shall order publication of a notice of the proposed annexation to the corporate limits and of the date and time set by the commission for a hearing on the proposal.
Publication shall be as in the case of an order calling for an election, as set forth in §8-6-2 of this code.
A like notice shall be prominently posted at not less than five public places within the area proposed to be annexed.(f) In making its final decision on an application for annexation by minor boundary adjustment, the county commission shall, at a minimum, consider the following factors:(1) Whether the territory proposed for annexation is contiguous to the corporate limits of the municipality.
For purposes of this section, "contiguous" means that at the time the application for annexation is submitted, the territory proposed for annexation either abuts directly on the municipal boundary or is separated from the municipal boundary by an unincorporated street or highway, or street or highway right-of-way, a creek or river, or the right-of-way of a railroad or other public service corporation, or lands owned by the state or the federal government;(2) Whether the proposed annexation is limited solely to a Division of Highways right-of-way or whether the Division of Highways holds title to the property in fee;(3) Whether affected parties of the territory to be annexed oppose or support the proposed annexation.
For purposes of this section, "affected parties" means freeholders, firms, corporations, and qualified voters in the territory proposed for annexation and in the municipality, and a freeholder whose property abuts a street or highway, as defined in §17C-1-35 of this code, when:
(i) The street or highway is being annexed to provide emergency services;
or (ii) the annexation includes one or more freeholders at the end of the street or highway proposed for annexation;(4) Whether the proposed annexation consists of a street or highway as defined in §17C-1-35 of this code and one or more freeholders;(5) Whether the proposed annexation consists of a street or highway as defined in §17C-1-35 of this code which does not include a freeholder, but which is necessary for the provision of emergency services in the territory being annexed;(6) Whether another municipality has made application to annex the same or substantially the same territory;
and(7) Whether the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the county as a whole.(g) If the county commission denies the application for annexation by minor boundary adjustment, the commission may allow the municipality to modify the proposed annexation to meet the commission's objections.
The commission must order another public hearing if significant modifications are proposed.(h) The final order of the commission shall include the reasons for the grant or denial of the application.(i) The municipality applying for annexation or any affected party may appeal the commission’s final order to the circuit court of the county in which the municipality or the major portion thereof, including the area proposed to be annexed, is located.
The county commission may participate in any appeal taken from its order in the same manner and to the same extent as a party to the appeal.
The order may be reviewed by the circuit court as an order of a county commission ordering an election may be reviewed under §8-5-16 of this code.(j) If the final order of the county commission is a denial of the application for annexation, the municipality may appeal as set forth in this section, but the municipality may not present the commission with another application for annexation relating to the same proposed change or any part thereof for a period of two years after issuance of the final order of the commission, unless such application is directed by the circuit court as the result of an appeal. AdoptedRejected
View plain text versions (6)
- sb182 sfa martin _1 3-14 adopted.htm View text html
- sb182 sfat martin _1 3-14 adopted.htm View text html
- sb182 hfat akers 3-13 adopted.htm View text html
- sb182 hfa funkhouser 3-11 _1_revised adopted.htm View text html
- sb182 h jud am _1 adopted.htm View text Current html
- Introduced Introduced Version pdf
Action History
-
Filed for introduction
-
To Judiciary
-
Introduced in Senate
-
To Judiciary
-
Reported do pass
-
Immediate consideration
-
Read 1st time
-
On 2nd reading
-
Read 2nd time
-
On 3rd reading
-
Read 3rd time
-
Passed Senate (Roll No. 322)
-
Ordered to House
-
House received Senate message
-
Introduced in House
-
To Judiciary
-
To House Judiciary
-
Markup Discussion
-
With amendment, do pass
-
Immediate consideration
-
Read 1st time
-
On 2nd reading, Special Calendar
-
Postponed on 2nd reading, Special Calendar, until 3/12/2026
-
Read 2nd time
-
Amendment reported by the Clerk
-
Amendment adopted (Voice vote)
-
Amendment reported by the Clerk
-
Amendment ruled not germane
-
Committee amendment adopted (Voice vote)
-
On 3rd reading, Special Calendar
-
Read 3rd time
-
Passed House (Roll No. 516)
-
Title amendment adopted (Voice vote)
-
Communicated to Senate
-
House Message received
-
Senate amended House amendment and passed bill (Roll No. 682)
-
Senate reconsidered action and passed bill (Roll No. 690)
-
Senate requests House to concur
-
House received Senate message
-
Motion for previous question rejected (Roll No. 692)
-
House refused to concur; requested Senate to recede (Voice)
-
Communicated to Senate
Sponsors
- Brian Helton · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 151 not signed on · 4 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Brian Helton Republican
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (151)
151 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 151 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 18 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 29 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 85% | 15% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (34)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| ROSE | — | Nay |
| BARNHART | — | Yea |
| RUCKER | — | Yea |
| JEFFRIES | — | Yea |
| TAKUBO | — | Yea |
| MARTIN | — | Nay |
| TARR | — | Yea |
| MAYNARD, M | — | Nay |
| TAYLOR | — | Yea |
| MORRIS | — | Yea |
| WELD | — | Yea |
| OLIVERIO | — | Yea |
| WILLIS | — | Yea |
| PHILLIPS | — | Yea |
| WOELFEL | — | Yea |
| GARCIA | — | Yea |
| QUEEN | — | Yea |
| WOODRUM | — | Yea |
| ROBERTS | — | Yea |
| MR PRESIDENT | — | Yea |
| HAMILTON | — | Yea |
| Amy Grady | Republican | Yea |
| Anne B. Charnock | Republican | Yea |
| Brian Helton | Republican | Yea |
| Charles H. Clements | Republican | Yea |
| Craig A. Hart | Republican | Nay |
| Darren Thorne | Republican | Yea |
| Jason Barrett | Republican | Yea |
| Laura Wakim Chapman | Republican | Yea |
| Mike Azinger | Republican | Nay |
| Scott Fuller | Republican | Yea |
| T. Kevan Bartlett | Republican | Yea |
| Vince Deeds | Republican | Yea |
| Zack Maynard | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 26 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Democrat | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 31 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 91% | 6% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (34)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| MR PRESIDENT | — | Yea |
| Anitra Hamilton | Democrat | Yea |
| Mike Woelfel | Democrat | Yea |
| Mike Woelfel | Democrat | Yea |
| Rick Garcia | Democrat | Yea |
| Ben Queen | Republican | Yea |
| Carl Martin | Republican | Nay |
| Chris Phillips | Republican | Yea |
| Chris Rose | Republican | Nay |
| Chris Rose | Republican | Yea |
| Dean Jeffries | Republican | Yea |
| Eric Tarr | Republican | Yea |
| Eric Tarr | Republican | Yea |
| Glenn Jeffries | Republican | Yea |
| Jack Woodrum | Republican | Yea |
| Jack Woodrum | Republican | Yea |
| Jay Taylor | Republican | Yea |
| Jimmy Willis | Republican | Yea |
| Mark R. Maynard | Republican | Not Voting |
| Mike Oliverio | Republican | Yea |
| Patricia Rucker | Republican | Yea |
| Patricia Rucker | Republican | Yea |
| Robbie Morris | Republican | Yea |
| Rollan A. Roberts | Republican | Yea |
| Rollan A. Roberts | Republican | Yea |
| Rupie Phillips | Republican | Yea |
| Rupie Phillips | Republican | Yea |
| Ryan Weld | Republican | Yea |
| Ryan Weld | Republican | Yea |
| Tom Takubo | Republican | Yea |
| Tom Takubo | Republican | Yea |
| Tom Willis | Republican | Yea |
| Trenton Barnhart | Republican | Yea |
| Trenton Barnhart | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 182 do?
- Relating to annexation by minor boundary adjustment
- Who sponsors SB 182?
- SB 182 is sponsored by Brian Helton (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 182?
- This bill died with 2026 Session. It reached “Introduced” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track SB 182?
- Track SB 182 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 182
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 182
Last checked for changes about 1 month ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →