Staff present annexation practices, 23,000‑acre eligibility and option to pause new eligibility while cost‑of‑growth study proceeds

Matthew Klim, Planning and Development, briefed the City Council at a work session on the city’s annexation practices, saying about 23,000 acres in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) are currently eligible for voluntary annexation and that staff will seek consultant proposals for a cost‑of‑growth analysis as part of the Reflecting Raleigh comprehensive plan.

Klim described why annexation choices matter: since 2011 North Carolina law removed the city’s authority to perform involuntary annexation, and Raleigh must now provide full services up front to newly annexed properties that may not immediately generate significant tax revenue. "The city is now responsible for providing infrastructure and services upfront," Klim said, adding that checkerboarded service areas and low initial assessments can increase per‑acre service costs.

Staff presented historical context, showing that Raleigh’s growth previously followed an orderly outward pattern from the William Christmas plan and that annexation acreage declined after the 2011 legal change. The presentation highlighted that higher tax productivity is concentrated in downtown and activity centers such as North Hills, Crabtree Mall and the Village District, while undeveloped fringe areas—Klim used Rivertown as an example—produce little revenue until developed.

Klim said staff estimate that the 23,000 acres currently eligible under existing council resolutions represents about 20 years of voluntary annexation at recent rates. He recommended the council consider a temporary, fixed eligibility area—staff suggested a 12‑month period—while the city completes a cost‑of‑growth study that will quantify the differing cost to serve across the city, include a capital needs assessment, and review city fees.

Council members asked for more detail and clarifications. Councilor Branch asked that the analysis include the fiscal impact of services Raleigh provides to neighboring jurisdictions; Klim agreed the cost‑of‑growth work will include Raleigh Water and other departments. Councilor Patton asked staff to be realistic about operational responses in fringe or checkerboard areas; Patton said public safety will respond to calls even in areas that are not yet fully developed. Bynum Walter, Planning and Development, emphasized the staff point that the "23,000 acres" figure reflects current ETJ eligibility and the pace of voluntary annexation (roughly 1,000 acres per year at recent rates) and said that acreage should not be assumed to equal total population capacity without further analysis.

Staff identified practical policy options for council consideration, including drawing a fixed boundary for eligible annexation for a limited period while the cost of growth analysis is completed, or applying thresholds that would trigger council review for larger projects at the fringe. Councilors asked staff to return background materials (annexation agreements, partnership materials, watershed policies) and to provide a debrief on specific historic annexation agreements such as the Raleigh–Durham annexation agreement and the Rivertown example.

Next steps: staff will solicit consultant bids for a cost‑of‑growth study to be integrated into Reflecting Raleigh. That analysis will report on revenues and the relative cost of providing the city’s full suite of services across different geographies to inform annexation and growth policy decisions.

Ending: No annexation votes were taken at the work session; staff will return with the cost‑of‑growth analysis and supporting annexation background materials for council consideration.