Articles

Counties Cry Foul Over Annexations

Christopher Quinn, AJC Staff
April 25, 2004

Cities eat steak.

Counties get thrown the bone to gnaw on.

That's Cherokee County Attorney Mark Mahler's assessment of Georgia's annexation laws, and many county government officials agree.

Despite a new state law allowing counties to call for arbitration when there is a dispute, metro Atlanta's fast-growing suburban counties still are powerless to slow snowballing annexations. Cities and landowners Ñ typically developers wanting a city to annex acreage for a new subdivision or strip center Ñ still have the final say on annexations.

Rapid growth in metro Atlanta has pushed cities and counties into constant conflict in the past decade.

Burgeoning suburban counties still generally cling to their low-density land-use plans, and that's why developers pressure cities to expand their boundaries to take in their new projects. Cities tend to appreciate denser housing and often don't place impact fees on the developers who want to build it.

But once the growth begins inside newly expanded city limits, counties must scramble to build infrastructure, such as schools and sewers and roads, to serve the growing crowds. Meanwhile, the cities pick up added revenue in property taxes, business licenses, alcohol sales taxes and any financial concessions given by developers.

It drives county commissioners to distraction.

"Why should I have to pay tax dollars if Woodstock or Canton want to expand?" Cherokee Commissioner J.J. Biello says. "We are taken hostage by overaggressive mayors, especially [Canton Mayor] Cecil Pruett."

The disagreements often boil over into court. From Coweta to Gwinnett and back to Cherokee County, judges have become arbiters of annexations.

"We had 35, 36 annexations last year," said Wayne Hill, chairman of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners. "And I would just as soon that they stop."

The counties were hoping for a legislative cure this year to give them power to control annexations. Instead, they got some legislative Band-Aids. The law will allow them to slow annexations by a few months while negotiating with cities over ways to mitigate any impact of growth. But cities still make the final decision.

"It's a typical annexation bill. It throws the county a bone but really doesn't do anything to stop annexation," Mahler said.

Nowhere has the public tug of war over turf been scrappier than in Cherokee County, where Canton, Woodstock, Holly Springs and even little Ball Ground together have gobbled up more than 5,000 acres of county land since 1999, when the county began imposing impact fees on new development. The county has gone to court against the cities to rein in the annexations, to no avail.

Deals in Cherokee

County leaders tried a different tack in the last year, asking the cities to give them a heads-up on annexation proposals so the county could better plan for more roads, schools and fire stations.

Finally, the county struck a deal on annexation limits until 2007 with every city but Canton, which refused to deal. The county sued Canton last month over the city's latest attempt to take another 53-acre bite of county land, a relatively small annexation.

"I think part of the motivation for it is because the city has not entered into an annexation agreement with the county," said Patricia Ball, Canton's assistant city attorney.

After the suit was filed, Canton sent a boundary proposal to the county, and Pruett said he would meet with county officials for discussions this week.

He has led Canton in an unprecedented era of growth and been blamed by some county residents for the annexations of about 2,000 acres in the last five years. About 5,000 new homes are built or under construction in many of the newly annexed areas. He predicts his city of 12,000 could grow to 40,000 in a decade.

Pruett doesn't take credit for the area's explosive growth, but points with pride to Canton's attempts to plan for it and grow with the county.

"If a person truly believes he can be better served and his property better utilized by becoming part of the city, I think he should have that right," Pruett says.

Pruett speaks for many mayors, who ask why a county should be able to impede their cities' right to grow.

"City growth is a natural thing," said Susan Pruett, general counsel for the Georgia Municipal Association and no relation to Cecil Pruett.

Rising property values

"It does cause some discomfort at times, but it is good for the health of the county because typically, if a city is growing, you are having property developed or redeveloped, and that is typically going to increase property values and economic activity in the area ... and the county still continues to collect property taxes."

The tension between cities and counties across metro Atlanta caused municipal and county advocates to suggest legislation.

Under the new legislation, enacted by the General Assembly this session, counties give cities a seat at the table to discuss where to spend special purpose local-option sales taxes, which county commissioners control. If a city needs a new park, library or road, their concerns will be heard.

The cities, in return, agreed to a nonbinding arbitration procedure for annexations.

The first step is a mandatory meeting between the city and county.

If the disputes are not resolved, a county can ask for a mediator to step in to try to bring the two sides together.

If that does not work, the city and county each can appoint two citizens to an arbitration panel, which can hear the issues and try to work out a compromise.

The procedures could stretch over five months. If after that time no compromise has been reached, the city can annex regardless of county wishes.

It may discourage requests for annexations or make developers deal directly with counties or face a costly delay.

"From a developer's perspective, time is money," said Sam Olens, the chairman of the Cobb County Commission. Olens worked on the committee of city and county officials last summer that came up with recommendations for the law.

He and others admit it's not a final solution to a contentious issue, but they say it's a step in the right direction.

The delay and arbitration will hopefully keep developers from playing city against county to get more of what they want to the detriment of either government, he said.

It will also get cities and counties together more to discuss disagreements about land use, which is where the problem lies, Olens said.

Reprinted with permission from The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution. Further reproduction, retransmission or distribution of these materials without the prior written consent of The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, and any copyright holder identified in the material's copyright notice, is prohibited.