Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Annexation Dispute Resolution topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Subcommittee approves cleanup bill to speed annexation dispute arbitration panels, widen pool of panelists

2235133 · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Chairman Anderson presented a committee substitute for House Bill 155 to expand and speed the annexation dispute arbitration process by enlarging the pool of potential panelists, extending timeframes to 20 business days and allowing DCA to appoint panels if no strikes are used.

Chairman Anderson presented a committee substitute for House Bill 155 to address operational obstacles in Georgia’s annexation dispute resolution process that have delayed arbitration panels and, in some cases, pushed disputes into court.

Anderson said the earlier legislative fixes did not fully resolve a ‘‘logjam’’ in empaneling arbitration panels. The substitute expands the pool of eligible panelists to include county managers, county administrators, city managers and city administrators (subject to conflict‑of‑interest restrictions). It also changes calendar timeframes to business days and extends the window for DCA to empanel to 20 business days, Anderson said.

Under the substitute, if the pool of candidates is presented to the parties and no strikes are exercised, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) may randomly appoint a panel with the required makeup from that pool. The bill also authorizes DCA to replace a panelist who is unable or unwilling to serve and includes a modest increase in compensation for panelists to encourage participation.

Todd Edwards of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and Jim Thornton of the Georgia Municipal Association told the committee they had worked with DCA and the sponsor on the language and supported the changes as pragmatic improvements that should reduce litigation and allow the dispute resolution process to function as intended.

The committee voted in favor of the substitute by voice vote.

Ending: Subcommittee members characterized the proposal as a targeted, practical set of fixes developed with county, municipal and DCA input; the substitute passed and will proceed to full committee consideration.