Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and elected officials urge council to halt annexation of 17 county parcels in Cochran
Summary
At an Aug. 12 public hearing, residents, a state representative and the county commissioner strongly opposed a proposed annexation of 17 unincorporated parcels into Cochran, citing tax increases, legal questions about "island" status and requests for more outreach. The council closed the hearing and will take up the matter at a future meeting.
A public hearing at the Cochran City Council regular meeting on Aug. 12 drew multiple affected property owners and elected officials who urged the council not to annex 17 unincorporated county parcels into the city.
Mayor Billy Yeomans opened the hearing and City Attorney Jim Elliott told the council the 17 parcels meet the annexation qualifications and explained the timetable: letters must be mailed to affected property owners within 30 days of council action, and annexations become effective on the first of the month after ordinance adoption. Elliott also noted that if an ordinance is adopted before Sept. 30, newly annexed residents could be eligible to vote in the upcoming election.
Several affected residents described personal and financial hardships they say annexation would cause. Christy Barton said her family purposely bought property in the county decades ago and is satisfied with county services; she opposed annexation because of higher property taxes without additional benefits. Dana Selph questioned the legal basis for the annexation, citing Title 36, Article VI, and said many residents would face doubled property taxes. Scott Selph contrasted voluntary annexation with forced annexation, saying, “Because something’s not illegal does not make it right.” Metro Narcisi described severe household hardship and said the timing would be “horrific” and could force families from their homes.
State Representative Danny Mathis told the council he had consulted legislative counsel in Atlanta and said the General Assembly can reverse an annexation enacted over property owners’ objections. He offered to introduce local legislation to undo an annexation if affected residents request it, and said he would drop that effort if circumstances changed when the legislature convenes.
Bleckley County Commissioner Mike Davis, who represents both city and county residents, said he has fielded calls from affected property owners and disputed claims that county services are inferior. He urged voluntary annexation when residents request it and warned against forced action that could erode community harmony.
Council Member Carla Coley said she had sent two different letters — one apologizing for variance-process transparency and another explaining the city’s view on annexation benefits — and clarified that the revenue impact from the 17 parcels is roughly $33,000, not the much larger amounts some speakers feared.
Mayor Yeomans closed the public hearing at 7:00 PM and told the audience the council would consider the annexations at a future meeting; he directed staff to send additional notices and to stream the next meeting on Facebook. No ordinance vote occurred at the hearing.
The council’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Sept. 9; the public may attend or view the stream when the annexation item returns to the agenda.
