Skip to content

Will Mobile become Alabama’s second largest city? Key decisions loom ahead on annexation

Mobile city officials are vowing to fast-track an annexation process that could lead to a public vote by March that would determine if the Port City’s overall population will rise by 26,000 new residents.

The vote, which would occur during a special election sometime after the city’s Mardi Gras celebration, will determine whether Mobile’s population will be around 213,000 residents. At that number, Mobile would become Alabama’s second-largest city trailing only slightly behind Huntsville that has a population of over 216,000 residents.

At 26,000, the city would be absorbing a population that is the equivalent of Homewood, the state’s 23rd largest city. Annexation would push Mobile ahead of Birmingham (200,133) and Montgomery (200,006) in population.

Related content:

“We want to avoid making this so cumbersome that we push this out into the spring of next year,” said James Barber, chief of staff to Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson. “We want to complete this process and come to the public with legal descriptions of the proposals to be annexed in.”

He added, “I think the council is in agreement not to create a process that drags this all out.”

The council, Barber said, could vote on whether to allow for a special election on annexation sometime in February. Although no annexation plan has been released publicly, he said a map and details about a plan could be released after New Year’s Day.

But officials admit a decision on how to pursue a third-party cost-benefit analysis for annexation looms large over the entire process. And on Tuesday, early indications suggest there are disputes brewing over how to proceed with a study.

On one side are the council’s three Black members who prefer the council to adopt an ordinance requiring annexations to undergo a feasibility and cost-benefit study. On the other side is Stimpson’s administration and the council’s four white members who hinted they support a resolution that would not require future councils to be legally obliged to undergo multiple studies before annexation proceeds.

A vote on how to pursue is expected to occur next Tuesday. It takes a supermajority of five of seven council members to vote in support of either a resolution or an ordinance for either one to pass.

Ordinance or resolution

Councilman William Carroll said that an ordinance “puts teeth” into the issue and gives future councils and city leaders guidance on how to proceed with annexations.

“The resolution is focused only for one kind of case,” Carroll said. “I’m not looking for a one-time case, but something to stand on forever. My goal is to have the best city in Alabama. That doesn’t always mean you are the biggest city in Alabama. Unity and cohesiveness between the council and the community is the best approach towards annexation.”

Council President CJ Small said he supports an ordinance to authorize a third-party review of the issue to remove distrust from the process.

Levon Manzie

Mobile City Council President Levon Manzie holds up a flyer that was mailed out throughout his council district that he says contained misleading information about a plan to annex 13,000 residents into the city of Mobile. Three years later, Council President CJ Small is citing the misleading campaign information as a reason why he wants a third-party study completed on annexation’s feasibility before the city pursues it. (John Sharp/[email protected]).

Small cited an incident in 2019, when a campaign mailer flooded mailboxes within his district and in Carroll’s district – at the time, it was represented by Councilman Levon Manzie – that contained misleading information about a plan to annex 13,000 residents into the City of Mobile. The council ultimately voted against that plan.

“In this day and time, there is a lot of mistrust out there with the government,” Small said. “I think we really should look at getting a non-biased company (to assess the annexation plan). Someone who has no dog in this fight to say these are the pros and cons of annexation.”

Councilman Cory Penn said the ordinance puts “something in place” that provides guidance on how city officials should pursue annexation.

“We need to start this discussion,” he said.

Council members who support a resolution over ordinance say there could be instances in which a deep dive analysis is not warranted.

“What happens if at some point in the future someone has a small piece of property and wants to annex it?” said Councilman Joel Daves. “I don’t think we want to go through all of these steps again. By the resolution before us, this is a one-time deal for this particular upcoming annexation request.”

Councilwoman Gina Gregory agreed. “There are a lot of ways to do an annexation proposal. There are small neighborhoods and pieces of land that are sometimes involved. The resolution gives us an opportunity per annexation discussion to put a guideline, if you will, in place.”

Barber also argued that council members who back the ordinance over the resolution are asking for information that is unavailable, such as a listing of zoning outside the city limits that he said does not exist. He also said that information about septic tanks and sewer line connections is also outside the city’s purview.

Revenues, demographics

A third-party study is also expected to produce some revenue details that were missing during the 2019 annexation talks.

Those plans, backed by Stimpson, were defeated by a 4-3 vote that fell along racial lines. It takes five council votes to place an annexation plan before the voters.

Small, Manzie and then-Councilman Fred Richardson voted against the 2019 plan largely out of concerns over how much additional public costs would be associated with bringing in new residential and commercial areas. No studies were conducted ahead of the vote, but they would be required under either the resolution or ordinance that is under consideration.

Also of concern is whether an annexation plan will be allowable under federal law. The 2019 plan crumbled amid concerns from the city’s Black community that it would change the city’s demographics. At the time, the city’s demographics were 50.4% Black-45.4% white, but the proposal would have changed the city to 48.8% Black-46.7% white.

William Carroll

Mobile City Councilman William Carroll meets with constituents after the council meeting on Tuesday, April 19, 2022, at Government Plaza in downtown Mobile, Ala. (John Sharp/[email protected]).

Carroll said the key concern for him will be how an annexation will alter the demographics of the city’s voting-age population.

“I think a lot of the concern is with the voting age population dilution that might happen with annexation and that’s a big elephant for a lot of people,” said Carroll. “That’s why we need to see the things we are asking for so we can see where we are going.”

The racial makeup of the city remains a sensitive issue in Mobile four months after a contentious redistricting of the council’s district seats concluded with a historic 6-0 vote that created, for the first time ever, a city with a majority of Black districts.

Carroll said that even with annexation, Council District 7 – which encompasses the far northwestern section of the city – will have to maintain a voting age population that is 53.2% Black, 41.2% white. That is a considerable shift from the previous voting age demographics for District 7, which were 48% white-45% Black.

Carroll said he believes the council and administration are “80% of the way” towards finding a resolution on how to proceed with the third-party analysis.

“We need to come to some kind of consensus between now and Tuesday on how to (move this) forward,” he said.