House · Engrossed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 521: Local government; deannexation of certain properties; revise procedures
Last action March 31, 2026 · Senate Tabled
This Georgia House bill would require cities to report property deannexations the same way they report annexations, and would make certain annexations and deannexations contingent on county approval.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Under current Georgia law (O.C.G.A. Chapter 36 of Title 36), cities that annex new territory must file detailed reports with the Department of Community Affairs, the General Assembly's reapportionment office, and the county where the property sits. This bill extends that same reporting duty to deannexations, when a city removes property from its corporate limits, covering the legal authority used, acreage, effective dates, road mileage, and digital maps. The bill also adds new limits. In certain counties, such as those with a large airport next to formerly city-owned land, or counties containing municipalities with mixed at-large and district council seats, or counties that provide broadband to key infrastructure and sit near a large military base, a proposed annexation cannot proceed unless the county government first passes a resolution consenting to it. Separately, the bill revises deannexation procedure: no more than ten parcels can be deannexed in one action, county consent is still required, and if a county owns all the affected parcels and consents, the city must act on the deannexation application within 90 days unless it would harm residents' health, safety, or welfare. The law would take effect as soon as the Governor signs it.
What the bill does
- Requires cities to file the same detailed reports for deannexations (removing property from city limits) that they already file for annexations, covering acreage, dates, roads, and maps.
- Makes certain annexations contingent on county government approval in counties with specific circumstances, such as a large airport adjacent to formerly city-owned land or a military garrison paired with county-run broadband infrastructure.
- Caps deannexation actions at no more than ten parcels at a time and continues to require county consent before a deannexation can proceed.
- Sets a 90-day deadline for a city to act on a deannexation request when the county owns all the parcels involved and has consented, unless the deannexation would harm residents' health, safety, or welfare.
- Directs the Department of Community Affairs to keep deannexation reports for two years, matching how it already handles annexation reports, before transferring them to the Division of Archives and History.
Who it affects
Georgia municipal governments that annex or deannex property, county governments that must now consent to certain annexations and deannexations, property owners seeking deannexation, the Department of Community Affairs, and the General Assembly's Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office.
Why it matters
Cities gain new reporting duties whenever they shrink their boundaries, giving counties and state offices better records of where city limits actually sit. In specific counties, cities would lose some unilateral power to annex land without county buy-in, and property owners seeking deannexation face a firmer process with a parcel cap and a defined timeline.
Key provisions
- Section 1 rewrites O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3 so every reporting requirement that applies to annexations (legal authority, acreage, dates, road mileage, shapefiles, two-year record retention) also applies to deannexations.
- Section 2 amends O.C.G.A. § 36-36-21 to add three new conditions where a proposed annexation is contingent on a county resolution of consent: airport-adjacent former municipal land, counties with mixed at-large/district council municipalities, and counties with broadband-serving utilities near a large military garrison.
- Section 3 revises O.C.G.A. § 36-36-131 to cap deannexation actions at ten parcels per action and require a county consent resolution before deannexation can proceed.
- Section 3 also adds a 90-day deadline for a municipality to approve a deannexation application when the county owns all the parcels and has consented, absent a finding of harm to health, safety, or welfare.
- Section 4 sets the effective date as the date the Governor signs the bill, or its becoming law without signature.
From the bill
“provided, however, that no more than ten parcels of property may be deannexed in one action and only upon the adoption of a resolution by the governing authority of the county in which such property is located consenting to such deannexation.”
“the governing authority of the municipal corporation shall approve such deannexation within 90 days of the date of the filing of a deannexation application unless it finds that the deannexation would be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and property owners”
Discussed in meetings (14)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
Senate State and Local Governmental Operations Committee, January 29, 2026
From 0:57:07 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the substitute would require cities to report deannexations to the state legislative reapportionment office, matching existing annexation reporting. The sponsor also described a 90-day deadline for cities to answer county requests to remove county-owned property from city boundaries, while retaining grounds for denial involving residents' health, safety and welfare. Asked why the deadline was needed, the sponsor cited unanswered requests, including a Henry County situation. A second presenter said another section would require county approval by resolution for city annexations in Paulding County. The presenter attributed school crowding, infrastructure strain and lost commercial development opportunities to rapid residential growth through city annexations. Members questioned the effect on property owners, when infrastructure would catch up, why the provision was not local legislation and whether local officials had requested it. The presenter gave no firm timetable, cited last session's filing deadline and said legislators developed the proposal in response to community concerns rather than a specific local-government proposal. A member requested supporting communications, and the presenter offered to seek them. Another member discussed a possible future change for annexations involving cities spanning multiple counties, but offered no amendment. The committee approved the substitute with one opposing vote.
Senate Rules Committee, February 17, 2026
From 0:05:32 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: A committee member moved to refer HB 521 from the general calendar to the standing Rules Committee. The member described a proposed amendment allowing one city to expand its council from four members to six, matching surrounding cities. When another member asked whether this would normally be a local bill, the member making the motion said the language had been drafted to affect only one city. The referral passed unanimously.
Senate Rules Committee, February 18, 2026
From 0:08:40 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The presenter said the substitute leaves the original bill intact, describing its purpose as clarifying and making reporting requirements consistent for annexation and deannexation. The presenter said an added provision would expand one Cherokee County city's council from four members to six, providing more representation in response to growth and making the council consistent with those in surrounding cities. Committee members asked no questions, and no public testimony was offered. The committee approved the bill by substitute unanimously, with no opposition.
Senate Rules Committee, March 9, 2026
From 0:18:11 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the original bill would require maps of property removed from city limits to be sent to the legislature's reapportionment office. The sponsor said additional provisions addressed annexation and deannexation issues in particular communities, but did not explain those provisions. There were no questions or recorded vote.
Senate Rules Committee, March 10, 2026
From 0:11:27 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 521 would require notification to the reapportionment office when property is removed from a municipality, complementing an earlier requirement to provide annexation maps. The sponsor said the bill would establish a 90-day deadline for requests to remove wholly county-owned property from a municipality because current requests can remain unresolved indefinitely. The sponsor also described location-specific annexation and deannexation options, including additions made in the Senate, without detailing them. No questions were asked, and no calendar placement was shown.
Senate Rules Committee, March 12, 2026
From 0:28:12 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair said the committee had previously heard from the presenter of HB 521. No provisions were explained at this meeting. A committee member later requested its placement on the floor calendar, and the committee unanimously approved the calendar containing it.
Senate floor session, March 16, 2026 (legislative day 32)
From 2:10:17 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)
Summary by Georgia Commons: The clerk read HB 521 and a Rules Committee substitute addressing procedures for removing property from city boundaries. The clerk described the substitute as providing equal reporting requirements for annexations and removals, requiring county approval for certain annexations and revising removal procedures. A senator moved to send the bill to the State and Local Governmental Operations Committee. The Senate agreed without objection, with no vote on passage.
Senate State and Local Governmental Operations Committee, March 24, 2026
From 0:07:10 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 521 would require reporting maps of property removed from cities and give cities 90 days to approve or deny requests involving wholly county-owned property. Presenters said another section would require county approval of certain annexations affecting Paulding County, Holly Springs and Columbia County. Members questioned late substitute language and whether the Columbia County provision could eventually affect other counties. Legislative counsel said counties meeting all its conditions could qualify, and explained that a fixed eligibility date would be unconstitutional. The committee unanimously adopted an amendment adding an unincorporated county seat requirement. A witness for Holly Springs requested removal of its restriction, saying the city had temporarily given up disputed annexation rights to encourage negotiations. A Dallas representative said the city had no annexation disputes with Paulding County and already sought development-impact reviews. A Georgia Municipal Association witness urged removing the county-approval section, arguing that it bypassed existing arbitration procedures. Some members favored letting local processes work; another argued that unresolved local conflicts sometimes required state action. An amendment to delete the entire section failed, with three votes in favor. The committee then approved the substitute as amended, without a final vote count.
Senate Rules Committee, March 30, 2026
From 0:42:36 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 521 addressed annexation and removal of property from city boundaries, describing it as cleanup of changes made over the previous three or four years. No substantive questions followed. A member selected it, and the committee unanimously approved the calendar containing it.
Senate floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 2)
From 2:20:43 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Third Read)
Summary by Georgia Commons: A senator requested that the bill be tabled, correcting an initial reference to a Senate bill. The clerk read its title as revising procedures for removing certain properties from municipal boundaries. The Senate tabled it without objection or substantive discussion.
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 2, 2026 (legislative day 10), 0:26:07
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 18, 2026 (legislative day 20), 0:31:12
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 19, 2026 (legislative day 21), 0:35:23
- Read aloud: Senate floor session, March 25, 2026 (legislative day 37), 0:37:14
Status timeline
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Recommitted (Senate)
- Senate Third Read (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (Senate)
- Senate Recommitted (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
Show full history (20 actions)
- Senate Recommitted (Senate)
- Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- House Passed/Adopted By Substitute (House)
- House Third Readers (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Victor Anderson (R, HD-10)
- John LaHood (R, HD-175)
- Rob Leverett (R, HD-123)
- Chas Cannon (R, HD-172)
- Trey Kelley (R, HD-16)
- Clint Crowe (R, HD-118)
- Clint Dixon (R, SD-45)
Votes
- House voteMarch 6, 2025
165 yea, 10 nay (4 not voting, 1 excused)
Topics
- annexation and deannexation
- local government
- county consent
- municipal boundaries
- property reporting