Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Deannexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee rejects narrow bill to allow deannexation of conserved farms
Summary
A bill that would let farms in permanent conservation easements petition for deannexation from nearby cities failed in the Cities & Counties Subcommittee after testimony from a Carroll County farmer and a 5-2 committee vote against the measure.
A bill that would have allowed certain farms in permanent conservation easements to petition for deannexation from nearby municipal boundaries failed in the Cities & Counties Subcommittee on March 12, 2025.
House Bill 180, sponsored by Chairlady Moody, would have created a narrow path for property owners whose land is subject to an irrevocable conservation easement and is within 2,000 feet of a municipal boundary to file a petition for deannexation within 90 days. The committee voted 5-2 against the measure, and the bill did not move to the next calendar.
The bill’s sponsor described the measure as narrowly targeted and intended to correct what she called “an injustice” for farms involuntarily annexed years earlier. Moody said the amendment before the committee increased the qualifying distance from the municipal boundary from 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet and limited eligibility to land in a permanent conservation easement.
Jill Holland, who testified in support of the bill, said her family farm in Carroll County was involuntarily annexed in 2002 and has since paid more than $60,000 in city taxes without receiving city services. Holland said the bill would apply only to a small number of properties statewide, saying “Across the state, there are fewer than 2 or 3 that would qualify.” She described the proposal as a way to “restore fairness” for family farms placed in conservation status.
During questioning, a committee member confirmed that under the bill a property owner would petition the city for deannexation and that the city council would make the final decision. Moody affirmed that sequence during discussion.
Committee debate included concern about the narrowness of the bill and the process for handling petitions, and at least one member noted the city decision-making role. After discussion and the public testimony, the roll call produced two ayes and five no votes; the chair announced that the “no’s prevail.”
The committee returned to other calendar business immediately after the vote.
