News - View Story
Deannex bill may bypass roadblock Barron could call for public hearing despite opposition
03-31-2007 - from Huntsville Times, BOB LOWRY Times Staff Writer
MONTGOMERY - The stopgap that opponents of a proposed deannexation of a commercial site in Madison thought they had in the Alabama Senate may not be fail-safe after all, two key senators said Friday.
The squabbling between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate could influence the fate of a proposed deannexation bill.
Sen. Lowell Barron, D-Fyffe, drafted a local bill to deannex the property. It could be filed as early as Tuesday.
Sen. Zeb Little, D-Cullman, chairman of the local legislation committee that would consider the bill, said local bills normally aren't reported out of the committee if two or more senators object. Sens. Tom Butler, D-Madison, and Arthur Orr, RDecatur, have said they oppose Barron's bill.
But Little said the sponsor of a local bill has a right to call for a public hearing. In that case, the measure would be treated like any other bill in any other committee.
Members of the committee would vote it out or kill it. In addition to Little, other members of the panel include Sens. Roger Bedford, D-Russellville; Pat Lindsey, D-Butler; Hank Sanders, D-Selma; Harri Anne Smith, R-Slocomb; Barron and Orr.
Although informal local courtesy rules are normally followed, Little said they are not part of the Senate rules. "Ultimately, it's up to the committee," he said. "We could have a public hearing and take a vote of the committee."
Little said, however, that any action taken by the committee would have nothing to do with the continuing fight in the full Senate.
But Bedford warned that Republicans who have voted against local legislation in the Senate in the early days of the session may begin to pay the price in local committees.
"The minority is going to have to decide if they are going to honor historically how we've treated local legislation," Bedford said. "They're just killing local bills because they're mad."
At issue is whether Madison can keep its commitments for public improvements to the 263-acre site made to a local developer and a prominent development company. A $200 million retail development has been proposed for the site, near Interstate 565 and Zierdt Road, but the landowner questions the city's ability to fulfill its promises.
'House solidly against it'
Rep. Mike Ball, R-Madison, said Friday that he still believes that the bill, even if it passed the Senate, would be killed in the House.
"Obviously, they (the Senate) are changing the way they do business," he said. "There's been payback all along. That being said, the House is solidly against it."
If the bill is introduced in the Senate, it would be sponsored by Sen. Parker Griffith, D-Huntsville. But he said Friday that he's still hopeful that Madison can reach an agreement with the developer and that legislation won't be necessary.
"I don't believe the property owner or the city of Madison should let it come that far," he said. "They should get in a room and get this thing done."
But Griffith said he continues to hear reports that Madison does not have the financial capability to handle the project and still have money left for other needs.
"If it comes to the Legislature, it will mean their negotiations have failed and the property owner will want to have the property deannexed," he said. "It would be a remedy of last resort, but I believe it would be good public policy to save that expansion."
Griffith said the bill would have "a good chance" of being reported out of the committee.
Mitchem fears precedent
Meanwhile, Senate President Pro Tem Hinton Mitchem, D-Union Grove, said Friday that he has not taken a stance on the bill but is concerned about it.
"What worries me is setting a precedent that would allow a large city going into a small city and annexing," he said. "I'm against the philosophy of it."
Perry Roquemore, executive director of the Alabama League of Municipalities, said his association has a policy that says before an annexation can occur, there should be consent from the city losing property.
"This obviously doesn't have that," he said. "I hate to get involved in a local bill, but I do think it's bad policy."
Alabama News