HB387: HB387 Local government; require service delivery agreement to include a growth boundary agreement component

Georgia counties and the cities inside them already have to write joint service delivery strategies covering who provides services and how they're funded (O.C.G.A. § 36-70-23). This bill adds a new required piece to that agreement starting January 1, 2026: a 'growth boundary agreement.' A growth boundary agreement is defined as an agreement between a county and all municipalities within it that lays out and defines future potential growth through annexation for those cities. The bill makes this a mandatory part of the service delivery strategy unless the county and every affected municipality specifically agree to leave it out. The bill also adds a definition of 'affected municipality' by cross-referencing an existing Code section. The change takes effect January 1, 2026, the same day the broader service delivery statute it amends is set to take effect.

• Adds a fifth required component to local government service delivery strategies: a growth boundary agreement addressing future annexation.
• Defines 'growth boundary agreement' as a county-wide agreement with all municipalities in the county outlining future potential growth through annexation.
• Allows the growth boundary agreement to be skipped only if the county and every affected municipality agree to exclude it in the service delivery strategy.
• Defines 'affected municipality' by pointing to the meaning already used in O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.2.
• Sets the effective date as January 1, 2026, matching the date the underlying service delivery statute takes effect.

Georgia's counties and the cities within them, since both must negotiate the new growth boundary component together as part of their existing service delivery agreements. City and county planning staff, local elected officials, and residents of areas near municipal boundaries who could be affected by future annexation plans are also touched.

Counties and cities would need to negotiate and formally agree on where future annexation may occur, adding a new layer to a process that already requires cooperation on service delivery. This could make disputes over annexation more visible and structured, or could stall service delivery agreements if a county and its cities cannot agree on growth boundaries.

• Section 1 revises O.C.G.A. § 36-70-23 to add paragraph (5), requiring a growth boundary agreement as part of each service delivery strategy.
• Paragraph (5)(A) defines 'affected municipality' by reference to O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.2 and defines 'growth boundary agreement' as an agreement on future annexation growth among a county and all its municipalities.
• Paragraph (5)(B) makes the growth boundary agreement mandatory unless the county and every affected municipality agree in the strategy to exclude it.
• Section 2 sets the effective date as January 1, 2026.
• Section 3 repeals conflicting laws.

1. 2025-02-13House Second Readers (House)
2. 2025-02-12House First Readers (House)
3. 2025-02-11House Hopper (House)

• Brad Thomas (R, HD-021)Primary sponsor
• John LaHood (R, HD-175)
• Joseph Gullett (R, HD-019)
• Mandi Ballinger (R, HD-023)
• Jordan Ridley (R, HD-022)
• Mitchell Scoggins (R, HD-014)

• local government agreements
• annexation
• county and city relations
• land use planning