Georgia CommonsSenate · Introduced · 2025-2026 Regular Session
SB 496: Annexation of Territory; certain annexations are contingent upon approval of the county in which the subject property is located; provide
Last action February 12, 2026 · Senate Read and Referred
A Georgia Senate bill would require a city seeking to annex land into its limits to first get the county government's approval, adding a new step to the state's annexation process.
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 Introduced version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Under current Georgia law, cities can annex property into their boundaries through several methods laid out in Chapter 36 of Title 36 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, without needing sign-off from the county where the land sits. This bill would add a new requirement: any annexation done under Article 2, 3, or 4 of that chapter could only move forward if the county's governing authority (typically the county commission) passes a resolution agreeing to it. The bill adds this rule as a new Code section, 36-36-12, and states it applies notwithstanding any other provision of the annexation chapter. It does not change the existing annexation methods themselves, only adds county consent as a precondition. The bill repeals any conflicting laws but does not list a specific effective date beyond standard enactment.
What the bill does
- Adds a new requirement that annexations under Article 2, 3, or 4 of Georgia's annexation chapter (O.C.G.A. Title 36, Chapter 36) need county approval first.
- Requires the county's governing authority to pass a formal resolution consenting to the annexation before it can proceed.
- Overrides any conflicting language elsewhere in the annexation chapter by stating the new rule applies notwithstanding other provisions.
- Repeals any other state laws that conflict with this new county-approval requirement.
Who it affects
Cities and towns across Georgia that annex land using the methods in Article 2, 3, or 4 of the state's annexation law, and county governments, which would gain a formal veto-like role over annexations of property within their borders.
Why it matters
If enacted, cities would no longer be able to annex property on their own under these methods; they would need the county commission's formal approval first. This could slow annexations or give counties leverage to block city growth into unincorporated areas.
Key provisions
- Section 1 adds new Code section 36-36-12, making annexations under Article 2, 3, or 4 of the annexation chapter contingent on county approval.
- The new section requires the county governing authority to adopt a resolution consenting to the annexation before it can take effect.
- The requirement overrides any conflicting provision elsewhere in the annexation chapter ('notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter').
- Section 2 repeals all state laws and parts of laws that conflict with the new requirement.
From the bill
“any proposed annexation pursuant to Article 2, 3, or 4 of this chapter is contingent upon the adoption of a resolution by the governing authority of the county in which such property is located consenting to such annexation”
Discussed in meetings (2)
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, March 2, 2026
From 2:28:58 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 496 would require county consent, through a resolution, before a city could annex property. The sponsor argued that county residents lack a voice in city annexation decisions, particularly when developments such as data centers or housing conflict with county land-use plans. One committee member supported requiring cities to take responsibility for roads along with annexed property. The sponsor agreed that infrastructure and service responsibilities should be part of future discussions. A second member supported the proposal, arguing that neighboring owners buy property with expectations about surrounding land uses but cannot vote for the city officials making annexation decisions. Another member cautioned against preventing owners from selling or developing family farmland and asked that a workable annexation option remain available. The sponsor agreed that the rights of owners seeking development and neighboring owners needed balancing. This was a hearing only. No amendment or vote occurred, and the chair indicated the issue would be revisited next year.
Status timeline
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
- Senate Hopper (Senate)
Sponsors
- Matt Brass (R, SD-6)
- Bo Hatchett (R, SD-50)
- Timothy Bearden (R, SD-30)
- Jason Anavitarte (R, SD-31)
- Lee Anderson (R, SD-24)
Topics
- annexation
- local government
- city and county relations
- land use