SB 751 — Removing certain requirements of municipality annexing property within urban growth boundary
Last action — On 2nd reading, House Calendar
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed House of Delegates
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
30 added · 30 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent changes to Bill SB 751 clarify that a municipality can annex property without needing approval from the county commission, streamlining the process for urban growth. Additionally, the language regarding how to determine if properties are contiguous has been simplified, emphasizing that the width of nearby streets or natural features can still be included in that assessment. These adjustments are significant because they give municipalities more authority and flexibility to manage urban development, potentially leading to quicker expansions and improvements in local services.
NEWS RELEASES HELPFUL LINKS IntroducedSB751 VersionSUB1 « Senate Bill 751 History OTHER VERSIONS — CommitteeIntroduced SubstituteVersion (1) | | Email Key:
Red = new code to be enacted WEST virginia legislature regular session IntroducedCommittee Substitute for Senate Bill 751 By Senator RuckerRucker, [Introducedoriginal Februarysponsor 11,[Originating 2020;in the Committee on Government Organization;
referredreported toon theFebruary Committee19, on2020] Government Organization] A BILL to amend and reenact §8-6-4a of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, relating to removing certain requirements when a municipality seeks to annex property within an urban growth boundary.
(1) “Contiguous” means property that is next to, abuttingabutting, and having a boundary that is coterminous with the municipality's designated urban growth boundary.
The length of a street, highway, roadroad, or other traffic or utility easement, streams, riversrivers, or other natural topography are not to be used to determine if a property is contiguous:
Provided, That the width of a street, highway, roadroad, or other traffic or utility easement, streams, riversrivers, or other natural topography may be used to determine contiguous boundaries.
--— (1) If the proposed property to be annexed by a municipality is entirely within the municipality's designated urban growth boundary, then the municipality may annex without an election the proposed property.property pursuant to §8-6-4 of this code.
pursuant to the provisions of section four of this article Agreement with the county commission is not required.
--— If the proposed property to be annexed by a municipality is partially or wholly within another municipality's urban growth boundary, then the municipality may annex without an election the proposed property pursuant to the provisions of §8-6-4 of this code if the two municipalities have executed an intergovernmental agreement regarding the annexation of the subject property.
--— (1) If the proposed property to be annexed by a municipality is outside the municipality's designated urban growth boundary, then the municipality may annex without an election the proposed property pursuant to the provisions of §8-6-4 of this code, if:
and (C) At least 15 days prior to the public hearing, publish a notice of the date, timetime, and place of the public hearing as a Class I legal advertisement in compliance with the provisions of §59-3-1 et seq.
--— (1) If the proposed property to be annexed by a municipality is entirely outside the municipality's designated urban growth boundary and is not contiguous to the municipality, as defined in this section, then the municipality may annex without an election the proposed property pursuant to the provisions of §8-6-4 of this code if the municipality has the county commission'scommission’s agreement and, prior to the agreement of the county commission to the annexation of the proposed property, the county commission shall:
and (C) At least 15 days prior to the public hearing, publish a notice of the date, timetime, and place of the public hearing as a Class I legal advertisement in compliance with the provisions of §59-3-1 et seq.
(g) Prior to the county commission entering an order for any annexation pursuant to this section, the annexed property shall be surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor and a metes and bounds description of the annexed property must be provided to the county commission of the county in which the property is located.
Bill Status | Bill Tracking | Legacy WV Code | Bulletin Board | District Maps | Senate Roster | House Roster | Live | Blog | Jobs | Links | Home This Web site is maintained by the West Virginia Legislature's Office of Reference & Information.
View plain text versions (2)
- Committee Substitute View text Current html
- Introduced Introduced Version html
Action History
-
On 2nd reading, House Calendar
-
From Special Calendar, 2nd reading, placed on House Calendar
-
On 2nd reading, Special Calendar
-
Read 1st time
-
On 1st reading, Special Calendar
-
Do pass
-
To House Government Organization
-
To Government Organization
-
Introduced in House
-
Ordered to House
-
Passed Senate (Roll No. 238)
-
Read 3rd time
-
On 3rd reading
-
Read 2nd time
-
On 2nd reading
-
Read 1st time
-
On 1st reading
-
Committee substitute reported
-
To Government Organization
-
Introduced in Senate
-
To Government Organization
-
Filed for introduction
Sponsors
- Patricia Rucker · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 151 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Patricia Rucker 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
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 31 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 33 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 97% | 0% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (34)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| LINDSAY | — | Yea |
| SMITH | — | Yea |
| BALDWIN | — | Yea |
| MANN | — | Not Voting |
| STOLLINGS | — | Yea |
| BEACH | — | Yea |
| MARONEY | — | Yea |
| SWOPE | — | Yea |
| BLAIR | — | Yea |
| MAYNARD | — | Yea |
| SYPOLT | — | Yea |
| BOLEY | — | Yea |
| PALUMBO | — | Yea |
| TAKUBO | — | Yea |
| PITSENBARGER | — | Yea |
| TARR | — | Yea |
| CLINE | — | Yea |
| PLYMALE | — | Yea |
| TRUMP | — | Yea |
| FACEMIRE | — | Yea |
| PREZIOSO | — | Yea |
| UNGER | — | Yea |
| HAMILTON | — | Yea |
| ROBERTS | — | Yea |
| WELD | — | Yea |
| HARDESTY | — | Yea |
| ROMANO | — | Yea |
| WOELFEL | — | Yea |
| IHLENFELD | — | Yea |
| RUCKER | — | Yea |
| MR PRESIDENT | — | Yea |
| JEFFRIES | — | Yea |
| Charles H. Clements | Republican | Yea |
| Mike Azinger | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors SB 751?
- SB 751 is sponsored by Patricia Rucker (Republican).
- What is the current status of SB 751?
- This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 751?
- Track SB 751 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 751
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 751
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →