O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 32-6-174 (2019)

As a condition precedent to the granting of such permits, the municipality may require application in writing specifically describing the nature, extent, and location of the portion of the utility affected. The municipality may also require the applicant to furnish an indemnity bond or other acceptable security conditioned to pay for any damage to any part of a public road or to any member of the public caused by the work of the utility performed under authority of such permit. However, it shall be the duty of the municipality to ensure that the normal operation of the utility does not interfere with

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

the use of any portion of the municipal street system or of a municipal extension of a county public road. The municipality may also order the removal and relocation of the utility, equipment, facilities, or appliances where such removal and relocation is made necessary by the construction and maintenance of any part of the municipal street system or municipal extension of a county public road. In so ordering the removal and relocation of a utility or in performing such work itself, the municipality shall conform to the procedure set forth for the department in Code Sections 32-6-171 and 32-6-173, except that when the removal and relocation have been performed by the municipality, it shall certify the expenses thereof for collection to its city attorney; and

(11) A municipality may provide for surveys, maps, specifications, and other things necessary in supervising, locating, abandoning, relocating, improving, constructing, or maintaining the municipal street system, or any part thereof, or any activities incident thereto or necessary in doing such other work on public roads as the municipality may be given responsibility for or control of by law.

(b) In addition to the powers specifically delegated to it in this title, a municipality shall have the authority to perform all acts which are necessary, proper, or incidental to the efficient operation and development of the municipal street system; and this title shall be liberally construed to that end. Any such power vested by law in a municipality, but not implemented by specific provisions for the exercise thereof, may be executed and carried out by a municipality in a reasonable manner pursuant to such rules, regulations, and procedures as a municipality may adopt and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

History

Code 1933, §§ 95A-503, 95A-504, enacted by Ga. L. 1973, p. 947, § 1; Ga. L. 1980, p. 775, § 6; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1737, § 2; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1126, § 3.

Annotations

Cross references. - Assessments by municipalities for street improvements, T. 36, C. 39. Use of parking meter receipts to pay principal, interest, and other expenses of revenue bonds issued to finance public parking areas or public parking buildings, § 36-82-62.

U.S. Code. - The Uniform Relocation System and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, referred to in this Code section, is codified as 42 U.S.C. Ch. 61.

Law reviews. - For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004). For annual survey of local government law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (2005).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Police power of municipalities. - State law has not preempted police power authority of municipalities to regulate location and maintenance of outdoor advertising signs within their territorial jurisdictions. City of Doraville v. Turner Communications Corp., 236 Ga. 385, 223 S.E.2d 798 (1976). City’s ordinances prohibiting the use of amphibious vehicles as tour vehicles in parts of the city were not preempted by the state law giving the Public Service Commission the authority to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity; the ordinances fall within the constitutional exception to the doctrine of preemption since the General Assembly enacted general laws authorizing the local government to exercise its police powers and enact the local laws at issue. Old South Duck Tours, Inc. v. Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah, 272 Ga. 869, 535 S.E.2d 751 (2000). No municipal liability for lighting. - City’s failure to add supplemental lighting to crossing was not actionable for negligence as O.C.G.A. § 32-4-92 provides that a municipality ‘‘may’’ provide lighting on any public road located within the municipality’s limits, but is under no duty

to provide lighting if the municipality does not choose to do so. Biggers ex rel. Key v. Southern Ry., 820 F. Supp. 1409 (N.D. Ga. 1993). but see CSX Transp., Inc. v. Trism Specialized Carriers, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (N.D. Ga. 1998), aff ’d, 182 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1999). Court’s authority to review. - Federal appellate court determined that whether an amendment to Macon, Ga., Code of Ordinances art. VII, § 18-153 that increased the annual permit fee that the City of Macon charged a telecommunications company for placement of the company’s fiber optic cable on utility poles from $2.00 to $4.50 per linear foot was preempted by O.C.G.A. § 32-4-92(a)(10), or otherwise invalid because it exceeded the fees charged by the Georgia Department of Transportation for its rights of way, was an issue appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Georgia through a certified question. Alltel Communs., Inc. v. City of Macon, 345 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2003). Cited in Department of Transp. v. Doss, 238 Ga. 480, 233 S.E.2d 144 (1977); Georgia Power Co. v. Collum, 176 Ga. App. 61, 334 S.E.2d 922 (1985); Murray v. Ga. DOT, 284 Ga. App. 263, 644 S.E.2d 290 (2007).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Scope of municipal regulation of state highway system. - Municipality may not, by ordinance, seek to regulate streets which are a part of the state highway system, except when the municipality is placing parking meters on or adjacent to a road which is a part of the system, and has been first authorized by the de-

partment to place such parking meters; or the municipality may also erect or maintain a traffic-control device on a road which is a part of the system, if written approval has first been obtained from the department. 1974 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U74-94. Contract for improvement of

county road located in municipality. - County may, by contract, obtain the cooperation of a municipality in the right-of-way acquisition for, and construction and maintenance of, a county road located within the municipality, but the county cannot require this of a municipality absent an appropriate contract. 1986 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U86-27. Truck routes. - By establishing truck routes, a city may effectively regulate the amount of weight which may be carried on designated streets on the municipal street system. 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-20.

Any city or county ordinances purporting to regulate vehicular weights must not exceed maximum weights permitted by O.C.G.A. § 32-6-26. 1982 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 82-20. Use of cameras to enforce traffic laws. - Municipalities are not prohibited by Georgia’s Constitution or laws from enacting ordinances regarding enforcement of traffic control devices by the use of cameras. 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U2000-7.

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 40 C.J.S., Highways, § 263 et seq. ALR. - Validity of restrictions as to points at which jitney bus passengers may be taken on and discharged, 6 A.L.R. 110. Validity of statute or ordinance giving right of way in streets or highways to certain classes of vehicles, 38 A.L.R. 24. Constitutionality of statute or ordinance denying right of property owners to defeat a proposed street improvement by protest, 52 A.L.R. 883. Liability of municipal corporations and their licensees for the torts of independent contractors, 52 A.L.R. 1012. Duty as regards barriers for protection of automobile travel, 86 A.L.R. 1389; 173 A.L.R. 626.

Personal liability of highway officers for damage to or trespass upon land in connection with construction or maintenance of highway, 90 A.L.R. 1481. Validity, construction, and application of municipal ordinances relating to loading or unloading passengers by interurban busses on streets, 144 A.L.R. 1119. Municipal power as to billboards and outdoor advertising, 58 A.L.R.2d 1314. Municipality’s power to permit private owner to construct building or structure overhanging or crossing the air space above public street or sidewalk, 76 A.L.R.2d 896. Liability of private landowner for vegetation obscuring view at highway or street intersection, 69 A.L.R.4th 1092.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2007 · leading case: City of MacOn v. Alltel Commc'ns, Inc., 596 S.E.2d 589 (Ga. 2004).
City of MacOn v. Alltel Commc'ns, Inc., 596 S.E.2d 589 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to OCGA § 32-6-174, 3 the DOT has promulgated Rule 672-11-.”
Georgia Power Co. v. Collum, 334 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 32-6-174 authorizes DOT to promulgate those regula *63 tions pursuant to which appellant’s evidence shows that it located its pole and wires.”
Watkins v. First South Util. Constr., Inc., 644 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 32-6-174. The *550 DOT has exercised this authority by enacting its Utility Accommodation Policy and Standards (1988) (“UAPS”).”
Twiggs Cnty. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 417 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 2× “than are equivalent regulations promulgated by the [Department of Transportation] with respect to utilities on the state highway system under authority of Code Section 32-6-174. As a condition precedent to the granting of such permits, the county may require application in…”
Bellsouth Telecomm., Inc. v. Cobb Cnty., 588 S.E.2d 704 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 2× “This provides a rational basis for Cobb County’s classification. Judgment affirmed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.