House Bill 63 removes four specifically described parcels of land from the corporate limits of the Town of Andrews in Cherokee County. The bill identifies each tract by parcel number, acreage, and deed reference, and it sets a future effective date of June 30, 2025. Beginning with taxes imposed for taxable years starting on or after July 1, 2025, the affected property will no longer be subject to municipal taxation by the Town of Andrews.
The bill also preserves the town’s existing rights to collect or foreclose on any outstanding ad valorem tax liens or special assessments that arose before the effective date. In other words, the deannexation changes the municipal boundary and future tax status of the parcels, but it does not erase preexisting municipal claims against the property.
Impact
This act amends the municipal boundaries of the Town of Andrews by deannexing approximately 61 acres across four parcels. It affects the town’s taxing authority over the listed properties, removing them from municipal ad valorem taxation prospectively while leaving prior tax liens and special assessment liens intact for collection or foreclosure. The principal parties affected are the Town of Andrews, Cherokee County property owners, and the owners or entities associated with the listed parcels, including Steelhouse Mountain, LLC and the Douglas Cole Family Trust.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with strong bipartisan approval in the House: 109-5 on second reading and 108-4 on third reading. No committee transcript is available, but the lopsided vote margins indicate the measure was generally noncontroversial and viewed favorably by most members. The bill appears to be a local boundary adjustment rather than a broader policy dispute.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the removal of property from the Town of Andrews’ corporate limits, which can affect municipal tax revenue, service obligations, and local governance for the affected parcels. Any opposition would likely come from those concerned about the precedent or fiscal impact of deannexation, or from parties with interests in the specific tracts. However, the very small number of negative votes suggests limited organized opposition and no major controversy in the recorded legislative action.