Gadsden City Council adopts resolution opposing state House Bill 349 over Hortons Bend concerns

The Gadsden City Council on Feb. 3 adopted a resolution formally opposing House Bill 349, described by sponsors as the "Hortons Bend Agricultural Protection Act," after an extended council debate over potential impacts on property rights and shared services.

Councilman Wilson, who introduced the resolution, said the bill would define protected boundaries and "essentially prevent any portion of Hortons Bend to be annexed or included into another municipality," and argued it would curtail landowners' options to develop or sell their property. "For several reasons, legally, personally, functionally, the city of Gadsden opposes this," Wilson said.

Several council members raised practical concerns about how the proposed law could affect delivery of public services. Councilman Robinson warned that, if enacted as written, the measure could interrupt emergency and utility services to residents who remain outside municipal boundaries. "I would hate to know that their house was on fire that we'd have to stop at city limits and not go and provide them fire protection," Robinson said, urging caution about unintended consequences for emergency response.

Councilman Avery, who told colleagues he had spoken with a small number of Hortons Bend residents, abstained from the vote and said he was still reviewing the bill's language — in particular Section 3(a), which he said addressed residential-density definitions that some residents had flagged as a concern. "I'm gonna abstain," Avery said during the meeting, explaining his position as one of incomplete understanding rather than opposition to the residents themselves.

The council moved and passed the opposition resolution by voice vote; the clerk recorded the motion as adopted with one abstention. The measure directs the mayor and city staff to communicate the council's concerns to the city's legislative representatives and to coordinate with neighboring municipalities considering similar opposition.

Why this matters: Council members framed the resolution not only as a local policy stance but as a warning about practical, legal and constitutional effects the bill could have on municipal cooperation (fire, police and water) and private property rights. The adoption means the city will press the legislature to reconsider or amend provisions that council members say could sever service arrangements or inhibit local decision-making.

What’s next: The resolution will be transmitted to the city’s legislative delegation in Montgomery and copied to nearby municipalities and the county commission; the council did not vote to pursue litigation or a formal legal opinion at this meeting.