Georgia Senate Bill SB252

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Report Pass: 2/27/25
• Engrossed: 3/6/25
• Report Pass: 3/18/25
• Enrolled: 4/7/25
• Chaptered: 5/14/25
• Passed: 5/14/25

Caption

Real and Personal Property; conveyance of municipal property interests to independent school systems; provide

Summary

SB 252 amends Georgia law governing the sale, lease, exchange, easement, and other disposition of municipal property used for recreational purposes in cities with populations over 300,000. The bill keeps the existing authority for such municipalities to dispose of parks, playgrounds, golf courses, swimming pools, and similar property, while adding a specific new authority to lease, grant easements over, or convey that property to an independent school system operating within the municipality if both local governing bodies determine the transaction is in their best interests and the property will be used for educational purposes. If a municipality conveys recreational property to an independent school system, the municipality must replace that property with one or more properties that, in the aggregate, provide equal or greater acreage and substantially equivalent or greater benefit to city residents. The bill also states that repeated conveyances can be credited against the replacement obligation, but the overall result cannot be a net loss of municipal park acreage. The measure also preserves existing limits that prevent alienation of property subject to prior deed restrictions or property dedicated to public use and not abandoned.

Impact

The bill narrows and clarifies the rules in Code Section 36-37-6.1 for large municipalities by expressly allowing transfers of recreational property to independent school systems for educational use, subject to local approval and a replacement-property requirement. It affects municipal land-use authority, park and recreation assets, and independent school systems operating in those cities, while preserving protections for dedicated public land and prior legal restrictions. The practical legal effect is to create a statutory pathway for city-to-school property transfers without permanently reducing municipal park acreage.

Sentiment

The voting record shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the bill passed the Senate 56-0, the House 169-0, and the Senate later agreed to a House substitute 52-0. That pattern suggests the measure was viewed favorably as a local-government and education-related property management bill. No committee transcript is available, so the public record here reflects consensus rather than documented debate.

Contention

The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the tradeoff between preserving municipal recreational land and allowing its use for school facilities. Potential concerns include whether a city can adequately replace parkland with equivalent acreage and value, how “best interest” determinations are made by the municipality and school board, and whether the cumulative conveyances could affect neighborhood access to parks. The bill addresses these concerns by requiring replacement land and prohibiting a net loss of park acreage, but those safeguards are also the likely focus of any future implementation disputes.