Q: Does the proposed “annexation ordinance” force anyone currently living outside of the city with water service to annex into the city?

 

City of Walhalla: No. It only requires future new water customers to sign an agreement granting approval to annex into the city if their property ever borders the city in the future.  No current Walhalla water customer will be asked to retroactively sign an agreement or be forced to annex into the city.

 

Reality Check: This protection is not written into the ordinance. Legal protections should be codified, not based on political promises.

 

Q: Would this ordinance mean that any new water customers who sign the annexation agreement have to immediately annex into Walhalla no matter where they live?

 

City of Walhalla: No. State law requires that properties border a city before they can be considered for annexation.  So, a new water customer living miles from the city limits would not be a candidate to be annexed into Walhalla.

 

Reality Check: Once you sign the covenant, your property is permanently bound. It becomes a ticking clock toward annexation. It might not happen now, but it will happen when growth continues. The city locks in future expansion-at their discretion.  They don’t talk about how county residents once annexed lose their unrestricted rights to fire guns, own chickens and farm animals, possession & use of fireworks, among others.  See for yourself: https://ecode360.com/WA4233

 

Q: Will water service be withheld until after the property is annexed?

 

City of Walhalla: No. If the water contract and covenant are signed, water service will be provided regardless of whether the property is inside or outside City limits.

 

Reality Check: There is a monopoly on water districts in designated service areas, and the city is taking advantage of its leverage.  There’s no equal bargaining power. Requiring a legal contract tied to annexation just to access water is coercion and known as an adhesion contract. If you need water, you sign. There’s no negotiation — that’s an ultimatum in the form of take it or leave it.  You get water on their terms only if you agree to annex.

 

Q: Do other cities have similar ordinances?

 

City of Walhalla: The majority of cities with water systems in South Carolina have similar ordinances, and it is common practice. (For example, in our area, Seneca, Westminster, Clemson, and Pendleton all have annexation covenants as a condition of water service.)

 

Reality Check: Just because other cities do it doesn’t make it right. Normalizing a flawed policy only spreads the problem. Annexation isn’t free — it expands government, which brings more spending, more regulation, and ultimately more taxes. Look at Easley: its millage rate has gone up every single year as annexation has grown. That’s not a coincidence — it’s a warning that must be heeded. Annexation driven by utility coercion isn’t sustainable growth. It’s a financial pyramid scheme: bring in new land and new taxpayers to cover yesterday’s obligations. Eventually, the base crumbles — and the people who never had a choice are stuck paying the price while the problem spreads across the county and state. Where does it end? Everything becomes contiguous eventually. Just look at Clemson — they’ve run out of room because Central annexed strategically to block their growth. If this ordinance passes and spreads, there will be no unincorporated land left.  Vote NO. Stop the cycle.

 

Q:  I am being told that this is a “land grab” and a “cash grab.” Is this true?

 

City of Walhalla: This is not true.  Not one existing Walhalla water customer will be required to sign an annexation covenant agreement to maintain their water or sewer service, be forced to annex into Walhalla, or have to pay Walhalla city taxes as a result of this ordinance.  This is a growth management strategy.

 

Reality Check: The city says existing water customers won’t have to sign annexation covenants — but the ordinance doesn’t say that.  In fact, it requires a signed covenant before service is “provided, connected, transferred, permitted, or allowed.” That could include changes like changing ownership (to a trust or non-exempt heir), upgrading or expanding a home, reconnecting after lapsed service, or adding a meter or modifying accounts.  There’s no clear protection for current customers in the actual law — just a promise in the FAQ. If the city truly wants to exempt existing users and prove it’s not a land/cash grab, it needs to be written into the ordinance, not left to interpretation.

 

Q: How long will it take a new water customer to be subject to annexation into Walhalla?

 

City of Walhalla: Depending on the property’s distance from Walhalla, it could take years, if ever, for new water customers on these properties to be subject to annexation.  Many people live in their homes for years before selling them.  For example, in 2024 only one residential property that applied for NEW water service would have been eligible to be annexed into the city.

 

Reality Check: Once the covenant is filed, the property can be annexed as soon as it touches city limits. And remember covenants run with the land forever.  In Westminster, the annexation covenant ordinance passed in May of 2021.  Annexations started exactly 6 months later as a result of the forty (40) annexation covenants that had been signed and recorded as of that date.  The second reading for the annexation of 9300 Long Creek Highway, tax map #234-01-01-016 as recorded in the City of Westminster minutes was December 9, 2021. See for yourself: https://westminstersc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/12092021-Regular-Meeting-Minutes.pdf

 

Q: What if I inherit my property from my spouse or parents, would I have to sign the annexation agreement?

 

City of Walhalla: No. Walhalla’s proposed ordinance amendment exempts properties inherited from spouses and parents.   Council is actively considering expanding this exemption to include all inherited property. These inheritance clauses are unique to Walhalla’ and not common in similar ones across the state.

 

Reality Check: It’s true — the current ordinance does include a written exemption for property transferred between spouses or children. That’s an important protection, and we’re glad it’s there.  But that’s not what the FAQ says.  The city says they’re “considering” expanding it to cover all inherited property, but that language isn’t in the ordinance yet. If preserving family land is really a priority, the full exemption should be locked into law now — not left to future discussion.  So the question remains: Why rush this ordinance forward when key protections are still missing? If this policy is about thoughtful growth, let’s take the time to get it right.

 

Q:  I have rental property outside of the city.  Will my tenants be forced to sign this agreement to receive water service?

 

City of Walhalla: No.  The ordinance will not require tenants to sign an agreement.

 

Reality Check: That’s true, but only because water service contracts are in the owner's name. Landlords requesting new service will be bound. And their properties will ultimately be subject to city zoning, taxes, and regulations.

 

Q: I have a farm.  If, one day, someone buys it and requests new water service and it gets annexed into the city, could it still be a farm?

 

City of Walhalla: Yes. Existing city code (330-1.39) allows for the continuation of non-conforming land uses of the property – more commonly known as grandfathering.

 

Reality Check: Grandfathering sounds reassuring, but this ordinance comes with strict conditions. Per existing city code 330-1.39, if a nonconforming farm use stops for just one year, that protection expires — permanently. Repairs and maintenance are allowed, but expansions or improvements must follow full city zoning rules. Over time, these rules make it harder to preserve the original use. And the city explicitly calls nonconforming uses “incompatible” with its vision. So yes, you might be “grandfathered” — until you’re not.  See for yourself:  https://ecode360.com/37536187#37536188

 

Q: So, under this ordinance, if a property with new water service eventually borders the city, will it be automatically annexed in?

 

City of Walhalla: No.  It is a long process.  City staff will review annexation covenants at least once a year and make a recommendation on eligible properties to the city’s Planning Commission. The city’s Planning Commission must determine if annexing a property is in the city’s best interest and fits with the city’s long-term growth plan. Then, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. Annexation can only occur after the Planning Commission provides a recommendation and after two readings by the City Council. This process also requires notifying the current property owner in advance, of the public meetings and public hearings. There are examples where nearby cities declined to annex properties because doing so would have cost taxpayers too much money to provide services to those properties or they do not fit into the city’s long term growth strategy.

 

Reality Check: The annexation timeline isn’t guaranteed — but make no mistake, the outcome is. The process could take three months, like the minimum outlined above, or six months like Westminster — or longer, as the city seems to suggest. But none of that is written into law. There’s no codified timeline, no opt-out clause, and no future consent required. Once the covenant is signed and your land becomes eligible, annexation is the default — and it’s irreversible. The city alone controls the timeline and terms. Property owners are sidelined, their voice replaced by a contract they had no power to negotiate.

 

Q: You said that this type of ordinance is common throughout the state.  Have the courts reviewed these types or ordinances?

 

City of Walhalla: Yes. The South Carolina Supreme Court has reviewed similar ordinances and found them to be legal. The provision of City services to outside users is a contractual matter and the city may impose conditions on the use of its services.

 

Reality Check: Yes, courts have upheld a city’s right to impose conditions on utility service — but legal doesn’t mean just. Coercing landowners through essential services is a loophole, not a virtue. Voters deserve growth policies that are transparent, voluntary, and rooted in consent — not pressure. What we need is annexation reform in Columbia, starting with a ban on these one-sided “adhesion contracts.” Even more urgently, counties must be granted legal standing to defend their residents from involuntary land grabs disguised as infrastructure policy. Without that check, cities can continue expanding by force — not fairness.  THE TIME IS NOW FOR ANNEXATION REFORM!

 

Q: Did council try to sneak this ordinance by with no one noticing?

 

City of Walhalla: Not at all. These meetings have been conducted in public. In a January public meeting, Walhalla’s General Government Committee recommended sending this ordinance to council for first reading.  All committee and council meetings were announced in advance and the agendas available in advance also.  In another public meeting, City Council approved the ordinance on first reading on February 18.  Media has covered the meetings and reported on the annexation proposal previously.

 

Reality Check: The city followed the legal notice process, but few citizens knew what was coming until after first reading. No mailers, no direct outreach. A major change like this deserved more than an agenda item in a council packet. True transparency is more than doing the minimum that is legally required.

 

Q: I’ve heard that the city is bankrupt and that this is why the city is trying to pass this ordinance.  Is this true?

 

City of Walhalla: This is far from the truth.  In the current fiscal year, the city expects to collect over $10.5 million in revenue, has around $2.2 million in reserves for emergencies, and just received a clean audit from our auditing/CPA firm (Bailey Love firm) for its Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget.  So no, the city is not bankrupt.

 

Reality Check: The city may have received a clean audit for fiscal year 2023 — but that was two years ago, and the picture today is more strained. City officials openly acknowledge rising costs, inflation, and the loss of a $550,000 fire contract. That’s why expanding the tax base through annexation is appealing — even if they “claim” financial return is slow. And the audit itself raises red flags: According to The Journal, auditor Gary Bailey of Love Bailey & Associates warned that Walhalla’s water and sewer funds, while stable, are under pressure. “You only have $150,000 in unrestricted cash in the water and sewer fund,” Bailey said. “That’s about half a month of cash on hand.” That’s not exactly a vote of confidence — it’s a financial red light.  See for yourself: https://upstatetoday.com/news/walhalla-hears-clean-audit-report-for-last-fiscal-year/article_5f937fe7-c5ea-4f40-bdcb-9b738d89b2c7.html

 

Q:  Is the city trying to annex in property so that it can “grab cash” from those living outside of the city and receive an immediate influx of cash?

 

City of Walhalla: As noted above, annexation is a very slow process.  In 2024 only one residential property with new water service would have been subject to be annexed into the city with a tax bill of approximately $118.

 

Reality Check: We’ve gone over timing and what happened in Westminster.  This also isn’t just about a $118 tax bill today — it’s about locking in permanent, escalating financial obligations. The city itself cites inflation; who knows what the tax bill will be in five or ten years? Once annexed, property owners won’t just face higher taxes — they’ll be subject to city fees, restrictive zoning, and limitations on things like nonconforming uses, firearms, livestock, fireworks, and more. City officials may downplay $118, but for seniors on fixed incomes, every dollar matters. The real issue isn’t a quick cash grab — it’s a long-term power play: control the land, control the rules, control the revenue. That’s not growth — that’s endless reach into our pockets.

 

Q: Is the city spending money on “wants” instead of “needs”?

 

City of Walhalla:  The current council committed to a “back to basics” approach to funding city operations.  As a result, all expenditures have prioritized basic city needs such as water and sewer, police and fire services, sanitation and streets/facilities services and recreation for our children. The CPA audit mentioned above found that Walhalla’s expenditures on personnel and services are in line with those of cities of similar size in the upstate.  (Monies for events and beautification efforts are now funded by HTAX proceeds and donations/sponsorships.)

 

Reality Check: We’re not here to point fingers — but let’s be honest: budgets are about choices, and every dollar spent signals a priority. When funds are tight, core services like water, sewer, and fire protection must come first. Transparency isn’t just about which account the money comes from — it’s about why those dollars were allocated in the first place. Choosing to prioritize Greenway matching funds over critical infrastructure was a gamble that hasn’t paid off yet. Maybe one day Walhalla will thrive as a trail town and realize that vision. But until then, the focus should be on fixing the basics, balancing the budget, and protecting residents — not expanding government and restricting property rights for current county residents. 

 

Q: What about the money for the new community center and police station?  How can Walhalla afford to build them?

 

City of Walhalla:  These projects are 100% funded by state grants with no match required.  State money for the new police station replaces a badly deteriorated building with high maintenance needs and it gives our city its first emergency operations center.  State money for the new community center allows us to get out of a building the school district will demolish and out of an almost 100-year old gym.  Our children will be able to have events in one place instead of two. These are all pluses for our community.

 

Reality Check: We’re genuinely grateful to our state delegation — especially Senate President Thomas Alexander and Representative Bill Whitmire — for securing $4.25 million in state funding for Walhalla’s new police station (source: WSNW).  Their leadership shows what’s possible when we build strong partnerships and advocate effectively at the state level. With smart planning, responsible budgeting, and strategic use of grants, Walhalla doesn’t have to rely on forced annexation to survive. Growth can be sustainable — not extractive. Annexation may promise more taxpayers, but it also guarantees more infrastructure, more demand, and more expense. That’s not a growth strategy — that’s a slow-moving Ponzi scheme. As the city footprint expands, so do the costs to maintain it. We should be building a future rooted in fiscal discipline, not dependency.

 

Q: If Walhalla is in such good financial shape, then why are city officials saying that the budget is so tight?

 

City of Walhalla: Cancellation of the $550,000 fire contract, increasing electric and internet costs and an increase in the cost of supplies (i.e. pipes, asphalt, roll carts, etc) have been big factors that contributed to the tight city budget. The same inflation that has impacted our citizens also impacts their city government. We are working to cut expenses while maintaining the same level of service and making sure that any budget we produce does not negatively impact the city’s financial status.

 

Reality Check: A tight budget and a clean audit can coexist — but as the Journal article made clear, financial pressure still looms. The city admits annexation helps grow revenue without raising taxes on current residents. But that trade-off comes with a catch: growth costs money. More roads to maintain, more grass to cut, more fuel, equipment, and staffing. Just look at Easley — they’ve raised their millage rate year after year as their city footprint expanded. Has Walhalla run the numbers to show this will actually pay for itself? Or is this just another dog-chasing-its-tail strategy?

 

Q: If Walhalla stopped transferring funds from its utilities fund, would the city then need to have a water annexation ordinance?

 

City of Walhalla: The city’s transfer from the utilities fund to help with general operations is not related in any way to the water annexation ordinance.  Like most cities with utilities operations, Walhalla transfers these revenues to support shared services.  Removing this transfer would negatively impact critical city services.

 

Reality Check: Utility fund transfers do help subsidize general operations — and that’s exactly the issue. The city is counting on expanding its utility customer base to keep those dollars flowing. It’s a gamble: grow the footprint, grow the revenue — but at what cost? There’s no public financial analysis proving this annexation strategy will pay for itself. Instead, it grows government first and asks questions later. And while City Hall chases short-term fixes, county residents are the ones losing their autonomy, their land use rights, and their way of life. Oconee delegation, we need you!  Help us get true annexation reform!

 

From City of Walhalla:  Walhalla’s elected officials are responsible for taking action that is in the best interests of our citizens.  As explained above, this ordinance will not provide the city with a quick increase in funds or territory.  

 

Reality Check: Good intentions don’t guarantee good outcomes. Just because this ordinance won’t produce a quick windfall doesn’t mean it’s harmless. It quietly sets the stage for long-term expansion — of both territory and tax burden — without clear consent from future landowners. Elected officials may believe they’re acting in the city’s best interest, but county residents deserve a voice too. Senate President Thomas Alexander, please help us! 

 

City of Walhalla statement:  If Walhalla does not have the chance to grow in a strategic manner, however slowly, then the laws of supply and demand will continue to apply, driving up the costs of homes in the city and also taxes to a point where the people who currently live here cannot afford to do so (gentrification). This has happened in other cities and has priced out the middle and working-class residents.  In Walhalla, house and land prices have already begun to increase.   

 

Reality Check: Rising home prices aren’t caused by a lack of annexation — they’re driven by market forces, demand, and inflation. Additionally, South Carolina is one of the top states to move to, and the Upstate is a top destination in our state.  Annexation doesn’t solve affordability; in fact, it can make it worse. More government means more zoning, more fees, and more regulation — all of which can raise the cost of development and homeownership. If Walhalla is serious about affordability, it should focus on smart budgeting, flexible housing policy, and creative partnerships geared towards affordable and workforce housing — not land grabs dressed up as solutions. Annexation is not an anti-gentrification tool — it’s a growth strategy with long-term costs that often push working families further out.

 

City of Walhalla statement:  As our county continues to grow, new developments are springing up outside of Walhalla, putting strains on our existing services that Walhalla’s taxpayers will have to cover. This will increase the burden on our current citizens unless we are able to begin spreading the cost. 

 

Reality Check: New development outside city limits is a county responsibility — and county taxpayers fund those services, not Walhalla residents. The city doesn’t provide police, fire, or road maintenance to those areas unless under contract. And that fire protection contract? It just vanished. Oconee County terminated its $550,000 annual fire services agreement with Walhalla to pursue a more cost-effective model. That’s a massive loss in city revenue, leading to a hiring freeze, potential firefighter cuts, and questions about future response times and insurance rates. 

 

So when city officials claim these annexation covenants are about “spreading the cost,” ask what’s really going on. They’re chasing new land, new taps, and future tax revenue to patch a budget hole — without any guarantee it will pay off. Meanwhile, existing city services are under pressure.

 

If the city can't sustainably serve new developments, it shouldn't extend utilities there in the first place. Other municipal utilities apply this logic, only approving service when resources allow. Walhalla must do the same. Growth isn’t the problem — irresponsible, coercive, and unplanned growth is. You don’t fix a financial shortfall by locking county residents into permanent obligations and calling it “strategic.” That’s not planning — that’s panic.

 

City of Walhalla statement:  Westminster and Seneca are already growing towards Walhalla, helped by their water service annexation covenant requirements. This brings a future threat of boxing us in and making the threats to Walhalla noted above happen more quickly.   

 

Reality Check: Strategic long-range planning and using the comprehensive plan as a guide, can help manage growth for Walhalla so it’s not boxed in.  This is leadership by fear.  True leadership would mean working with neighboring municipalities and the county on shared infrastructure planning.  This is fear mongering.

​

If there are landowners that want to annex and help in this effort, they should be tactically uncovered.  Willy nilly annexation that follows the water/sewer lines is not strategic, nor helpful in curtailing sprawl and costs to the City of Walhalla.  Ironically, the more cities rush to grab land through utility leverage, the more fractured and dysfunctional regional growth becomes.

​

Finally, if someone claims that MISINFORMATION is being spread, they should be able to clearly identify the exact statement they believe is false and provide verifiable facts to support their correction. If they cannot do that, it is not a genuine attempt to clarify — it’s GASLIGHTING, meant to sow doubt and shut down valid concerns without addressing them.

​

PLEASE HELP US ADVOCATE FOR ANNEXATION REFORM AT THE STATEHOUSE! 

EMAIL OR CALL YOUR OCONEE DELEGATION -

​

SENATOR THOMAS ALEXANDER - THOMASALEXANDER@SCSENATE.GOV

REP. ADAM DUNCAN - ADAMDUNCAN@SCHOUSE.GOV

REP. BILL WHITMIRE - BILLWHITMIRE@SCHOUSE.GOV

​

​