Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 12-8-26 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 12-8-26 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 12-8-26

TITLE 12 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 8. Waste Management, 12-8-1 through 12-8-210.

ARTICLE 2 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

12-8-26. Public meetings on site selection; notice; decision.

  1. Any county, municipality, group of counties, or authority beginning a process to select a site for a municipal solid waste disposal facility must first call at least one public meeting to discuss waste management needs of the local government or region and to describe the process of siting facilities to the public.Notice of this meeting shall be published within a newspaper of general circulation serving such county or municipality at least once a week for two weeks immediately preceding the date of such meeting.A regional solid waste management authority created under Part 2 of this article must hold at least one meeting within each jurisdiction participating in such authority, and notice for these meetings must be published within a newspaper of general circulation serving each such jurisdiction at least once a week for two weeks immediately preceding the date of such meeting.
  2. The governing authority of any county or municipality taking action resulting in a publicly or privately owned municipal solid waste disposal facility siting decision shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation serving such county or municipality a notice of the meeting at which such siting decision is to be made at least once a week for two weeks immediately preceding the date of such meeting. Such notice shall state the time, place, and purpose of the meeting and the meeting shall be conducted by the governing authority taking the action.A siting decision shall include, but is not limited to, such activities as the final selection of property for landfilling and the execution of contracts or agreements pertaining to the location of municipal solid waste disposal facilities within the jurisdiction, but shall not include zoning decisions.

(Code 1981, §12-8-26, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3276, § 7.)

Cross references.

- Permission by counties to persons contracting to transport and dump trash, garbage, or other refuse at publicly or privately owned dumps, § 36-1-16.

Law reviews.

- For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 199 (1992).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Applies to private developer.

- Requirement for a public meeting applies when the applicant to the Environmental Protection Division is a private developer applying for a privately owned and operated facility to be located in the municipality, and would apply when the municipality acted for or in collaboration with the developer in "beginning a process to select a site." City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

"Siting decision."

- Resolution approving a restated lease and operating agreement between a city and the city's solid waste treatment provider constituted a siting decision since the decision pertained to the location and expansion of the city's landfill facilities. Grove v. Sugar Hill Inv. Assocs., 219 Ga. App. 781, 466 S.E.2d 901 (1995).

When a private developer acted independently in selecting a site for the developer's proposed landfill, a city's subsequent entry into a contract with the developer governing operation of the landfill and requiring the city's cooperation with the developer in the city's application to the Environmental Protection Division was not governed by the requirements of subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, but was a "siting decision" governed by subsection (b) of that section. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

For purposes of determining whether O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 applied to the city's actions in annexing a proposed landfill site, it was not necessary for the city to have been acting in concert with a private developer, but only to determine if the city was beginning the process to select a site for a solid waste disposal facility. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Trial court's finding that the city's decision to annex the site of a proposed landfill was an action that began the process of selecting a landfill site for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 was supported by sufficient evidence since the court found that the annexation was done to receive funds associated with the development and operation of a solid waste landfill. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Whether the city's annexation of the proposed site of a solid waste landfill was the "siting decision" under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 or whether this decision was made at a later city council meeting during which a private developer's proposal was accepted, the decision was not properly noticed and was properly declared void by the superior court. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Contract invalid for violating subsection (b).

- Because the city failed to give notice, as required by subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, of a meeting at which a siting decision was made, the contract between the city and a private developer governing the operation of a proposed landfill was invalid. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Superior court had jurisdiction to enter an injunction against the city to prevent the city from taking action on a siting decision for a landfill when the city failed to follow the notice and meeting requirements of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, and aggrieved citizens had no adequate remedy at law under the existing landfill permit process and its appeal provisions, which did not provide an administrative remedy to prevent the city's ultra vires actions. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Permanent injunction prohibited.

- Even though a city's failure to hold a properly noticed meeting at which a siting decision was made rendered invalid a contract between the city and a private developer regarding a proposed landfill, the city could not be prevented from holding a properly noticed meeting and it was error to grant a permanent injunction against the city's taking action in furtherance of the landfill. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).

Failure of the city to provide notice of a meeting at which a restated lease and operating agreement between the city and the city's solid waste treatment provider was approved invalidated that portion of the agreement relating to the siting decision - that portion of the agreement pertaining to the expansion of the acreage of the landfill facility. Grove v. Sugar Hill Inv. Assocs., 219 Ga. App. 781, 466 S.E.2d 901 (1995).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Liability of private persons or corporations draining into sewer maintained by municipality or other public body for damages to riparian owners or others, 170 A.L.R. 1192.

Sewage disposal plant as nuisance, 40 A.L.R.2d 1177.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Elbert Cnty. v. Sweet City Landfill, Llc., 297 Ga. 429 (Ga. 2015).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 774 S.E.2d 658

Copy

Emmons v. City of Arcade, 507 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 1998 | 270 Ga. 196, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3943

...*466 HINES, Justice. We granted certiorari in City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga.App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), to address whether a city's annexation of land can begin a process to select a site for a municipal solid waste disposal facility under OCGA § 12-8-26(a), and whether the superior court has jurisdiction to enjoin the city for a violation of OCGA § 12-8-26....
...The city later entered into a contract with Bartram Environmental, Inc., to develop a solid waste landfill on the property. Emmons and other citizens brought suit against the city for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the city's failure to comply with the public notice provisions of OCGA § 12-8-26, which govern the conduct of local government meetings concerning solid waste disposal facility site decisions. The superior court found that the city had violated OCGA § 12-8-26, declared the contract between the city and Bartram void, and granted injunctive relief against the city taking action in furtherance of the decisions violative of OCGA § 12-8-26. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the finding of OCGA § 12-8-26 violations, affirmed the voiding of the contract, and reversed the grant of the injunction. [1] 1. Under OCGA § 12-8-26(a), any municipality that is "beginning a process to select a site for a municipal waste disposal facility must first call at least one public meeting to discuss waste management needs of the local government or region and to describe the process of siting facilities to the public," and the meeting must be properly noticed. The Court of Appeals determined that OCGA § 12-8-26(a) applies when a municipality engages in a process to select a site for a publicly-owned facility, and that beginning a process to select a site on which a private facility would be located could also trigger OCGA § 12-8-26(a)....
...ent and operation of a solid waste landfill, there was evidence to support that finding, and it must be upheld. Dudley v. Snead, 250 Ga. 804, 805(1), 301 S.E.2d 480 (1983). Although an annexation decision may only rarely begin the process under OCGA § 12-8-26(a), whether it did so in this case is a fact question for the superior court, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the superior court on this determination. The superior court declared that the May 27, 1993 annexation was also a "siting decision" as that term is used in OCGA § 12-8-26(b), and, because the action was done in violation of that subsection, declared the city's contract with Bartram void....
...ater city council meeting at which a proposal by Bartram was accepted to be the point at which a "siting decision" was made. Because that meeting was also not properly noticed, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's ruling that OCGA *467 § 12-8-26(b) was violated and the contract void. In either event, OCGA § 12-8-26(b) was violated and it was proper to declare the contract void based on such violation....
...However, OCGA § 12-2-2(c) affords no relief to Emmons and his fellow petitioners from the actions of the city. The administrative jurisdiction of the EPD does not include determination of whether the city has comported with meeting and notice requirements, and does not provide for remedies for the city's violations of OCGA § 12-8-26; it provides redress only to those "aggrieved or adversely affected by any order or action of the director." It is the city's flawed decision-making process that has aggrieved the petitioners....
...Under the facts of this case, the city has failed to make a lawful siting decision, and has not lawfully begun a process to select a site. However, the city could, in the future, begin a process to select a site and make a siting decision in compliance with OCGA § 12-8-26(a) and (b)....

Elbert Cnty. v. Sweet City Landfill, Llc. (Ga. 2015).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 29, 2015 | 270 Ga. 196, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3943

...the trial court did not err in ruling that the Board took no action on Sweet City’s application for a SUP. See Mortgage Alliance, supra at 219. Nonetheless, the trial court erred in addressing the County’s motion to dismiss, finding that, under OCGA § 12-8-26 (b), the July 9, 2012 Board action was a “siting decision,” was done without the public notice required by OCGA § 12-8-26 (b) and Section 62-52 of the Elbert County Code of Ordinances, was “void ab initio and thus unappealable,” and Sweet City thus had no obligation to appeal....