HB 387: Local government; require service delivery agreement to include a growth boundary agreement component

Georgia law already requires counties and the cities inside them to work out a service delivery strategy covering which government provides which services and how those services are funded. This bill amends that law (O.C.G.A. § 36-70-23) to add a new required piece: a growth boundary agreement. A growth boundary agreement is defined as an agreement between a county and all the municipalities located wholly or partly within it that lays out and defines future potential growth through annexation for those municipalities. Under the bill, this component must be included in the service delivery strategy unless the county and every affected municipality agree to leave it out. The bill also adds definitions, including pointing to the existing definition of 'affected municipality' used elsewhere in the service delivery law. The changes would take effect January 1, 2026, the same date the underlying Code section itself becomes effective.

• Adds a new required component to local government service delivery strategies: a growth boundary agreement between a county and its municipalities.
• Defines a growth boundary agreement as one that outlines and defines future potential growth through annexation for municipalities within the county.
• Allows the growth boundary agreement to be left out only if the county and every affected municipality agree to exclude it.
• Ties the new definition of 'affected municipality' to the meaning already used in a separate section of the service delivery law (O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.2).
• Sets the effective date as January 1, 2026, matching when the underlying Code section it amends takes effect.

County governments and every municipality located wholly or partly within a county are affected, since they must negotiate and include a growth boundary agreement in their joint service delivery strategy unless all of them agree to skip it.

Annexation disputes between cities and counties are common in Georgia, and this bill would push local governments to negotiate and formally agree on future annexation boundaries as part of their required service delivery planning, rather than leaving growth boundaries unaddressed or contested later.

• Section 1 amends O.C.G.A. § 36-70-23 to add a fifth required component to local service delivery strategies: a growth boundary agreement.
• The new paragraph (5)(A) defines 'affected municipality' by reference to Code Section 36-70-25.2 and defines 'growth boundary agreement' as one outlining future annexation-based growth for municipalities in the county.
• The new paragraph (5)(B) makes the growth boundary agreement mandatory unless the county and every affected municipality agree to exclude it from the strategy.
• Section 2 sets the effective date as January 1, 2026.
• Section 3 repeals any conflicting laws.

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

• Brad Thomas (R, HD-021)Patrocinador principal
• 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
• annexation
• county and city relations
• service delivery strategy
• growth boundaries