Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-30-3 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 30 information not found

ARTICLE 2 GRANTS TO COUNTIES FOR COUNTY ROADS AND MAINTENANCE

36-30-3. Ordinances of a council not to bind succeeding councils; exceptions.

  1. One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government.
  2. The governing authorities of municipal corporations having a population of not less than 100,000 and not more than 135,000 according to the United States decennial census of 1970 or any future such census may on behalf of such municipal corporations enter into contracts with respect to the ownership, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of street overpasses and underpasses of railroad properties which shall be binding upon such authorities and successors. Contracts executed by the governing authorities of such municipal corporations prior to December 31, 1977, with respect to the ownership, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of street overpasses and underpasses of railroad properties are ratified and confirmed.
    1. The governing authorities of municipal corporations having a population of not less than 350,000 according to the United States decennial census of 1980 or any future such census may, on behalf of such municipal corporations, authorize the mayor to enter into contracts with private or public entities not involving the incurring of indebtedness by such municipal corporations or security for indebtedness of such private and public entities for periods not exceeding 50 years and for a valuable consideration, which contracts shall be binding on such municipal corporations and on such authorities and successors, with respect to the leasing, subleasing, maintenance, or management of property for retail facilities, restaurants, or office or other commercial use, or for residential use, or with respect to property or facilities used for nonprofit museum purposes, which property or facilities are located in its downtown development area, as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 36-42-3; and to authorize the mayor to include in any such contracts for use of property which is located in a downtown development area and is in or contiguous to an urban redevelopment area established pursuant to Chapter 61 of this title or to enter into amendments to any such existing or future contracts for use of property which is located in such areas in order to include terms and conditions which provide for renewals or extensions of the term of such contracts for a period of time not to exceed an additional 50 years.The limitation involving the incurring of indebtedness by such municipal corporations or security for indebtedness of such private and public entities shall not apply to contracts for the use of property for nonprofit museum purposes, nor shall such limitation apply to contracts for the leasing, subleasing, maintenance, or management of property or facilities which, in addition to being located in a downtown development area, are also located in or contiguous to an urban redevelopment area established pursuant to Chapter 61 of this title, the "Urban Redevelopment Law."
    2. The governing authorities of any municipal corporation in this state having a population of 350,000 or more according to the United States decennial census of 1980 or any future such census may authorize the mayor to execute contracts on behalf of such municipal corporation for periods not exceeding 50 years and for valuable consideration with public or private entities to support certificates of participation in a principal amount of not more than $100 million, which contracts shall be for the development, construction, leasing, subleasing, maintenance, or management of property or facilities used for criminal justice purposes and located within the downtown development area of such municipal corporation as defined in paragraph (3) of Code Section 36-42-3 and shall be binding on such municipal corporation and such authorities and their successors.
  3. The governing authority of any municipal corporation in this state may authorize the execution of one or more contracts which specify the rates, fees, or other charges which will be charged and collected by the municipal corporation for electric, natural gas, or water utility services to be provided by the municipal corporation to one or more of its utility customers. Nothing in this subsection, however, shall be construed to grant to any municipal governing authority the right or power to specify the rates, fees, or charges to be collected for electric, natural gas, or water utility services provided by a local authority, as defined in subsection (a) of Code Section 36-80-17, where the right or power to specify such rates, fees, or charges is otherwise vested by local constitutional amendment, general statute, or local law in the governing body of such local authority. Any such contract shall be subject to the following conditions and limitations:
    1. No such contract shall be for a term in excess of ten years;
    2. Any such contract which is for a term in excess of two years shall include commercially reasonable provisions under which the rates, fees, or other charges shall be adjusted with respect to inflationary or deflationary factors affecting the provision of the utility service in question; and
    3. Any such contract shall include commercially reasonable provisions relieving the municipal corporation from its obligations under the contract in the event that the municipal corporation's ability to comply with the contract is impaired by war, natural disaster, catastrophe, or any other emergency creating conditions under which the municipal corporation's compliance with the contract would become impossible or create a substantial financial burden upon the municipal corporation or its taxpayers.

(Civil Code 1895, § 743; Civil Code 1910, § 892; Code 1933, § 69-202; Ga. L. 1979, p. 521, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 2107, § 36; Ga. L. 1986, p. 841, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36; Ga. L. 1987, p. 175, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 275, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1287, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 286, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 989, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1113, § 2.)

History of section.

- This Code section is derived from the decision in Williams v. City Council, 68 Ga. 816 (1882).

Cross references.

- Constitutional provisions placing limitations on debt which may be incurred by a county, municipality, or political subdivision, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. V, Para. I.

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1986, "United States" was substituted for "United State" in subsection (c).

Law reviews.

- For article, "Local Government and Contracts that Bind," see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 546 (1969). For article, "Binding Contracts in Georgia Local Government Law: Recent Perspectives," see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 148 (1975). For article discussing the origin and construction of Georgia statute concerning the authority of a council to bind its successors, see 14 Ga. L. Rev. 239 (1980). For annual survey of local government law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (1986). For article, "Binding Contracts in Georgia Local Government Law: Configurations of Codification," see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 95 (1989). For article, "The Georgia Supreme Court and Local Government Law: Two Sheets to the Wind," see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 361 (1999). For article, "Local Government Litigation: Some Pivotal Principles," see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2003). For annual survey of local government law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 351 (2004). For annual survey of local government law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (2005). For survey article on local government law, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2008). For annual survey on local government law, see 64 Mercer L. Rev. 213 (2012). For survey article on local government law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (2015). For note on 1990 amendment of this Code section, see 7 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 324 (1990).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

General Consideration

Origin of section.

- This statute is not of statutory origin, and is not peculiar to Georgia. The statute is a codification of a principle which is applicable generally to legislative or governmental bodies. Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 5 S.E.2d 356 (1939) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Legislative intent.

- Framers of this section intended to preserve for municipal governments freedom from ordinances which bind and prevent free legislation in matters such as operating budgets. Brown v. City of E. Point, 152 Ga. App. 801, 264 S.E.2d 267 (1979), aff'd, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Standing of citizen-taxpayer.

- Absent expenditures of public revenue or performance of a duty owed to the public, a citizen-taxpayer has no standing in equity to challenge a council's action which allegedly binds future councils unless the citizen has special damages not shared by the general public. Juhan v. City of Lawrenceville, 251 Ga. 369, 306 S.E.2d 251 (1983).

Power to contract for future.

- All legislative bodies are limited in their legal capacity in such a manner as not to deprive succeeding bodies of the right to deal with matters involving the same questions as may arise from time to time in the future, and as the then present exigencies may require. But a municipal corporation may make a valid contract to continue for a reasonable time beyond the official term of the officers entering into the contract for the municipality. Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561, 71 S.E. 785 (1911).

No power to cede away governmental powers.

- Powers are conferred upon municipal corporations for public purposes, and as their legislative powers cannot be delegated, so they cannot be bargained or bartered away. Such corporations may make authorized contracts, but they have no power, as a party, to make contracts or pass bylaws which shall cede away, control, or embarrass their legislative or governmental powers, or which shall disable them from performing their public duties. Horkan v. City of Moultrie, 136 Ga. 561, 71 S.E. 785 (1911).

Effect of section.

- This section prohibits, as ultra vires, the enactment of ordinances or the execution of contracts which are effective beyond the term of the commissioners then in office. Ledbetter Bros. v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Contract which restricts governmental or legislative functions of a city council has been traditionally held to be a nullity, ultra vires, and void even though it may present a trap for the unwary in dealing with municipal corporations; the municipality would not be estopped from asserting the invalidity of such a contract at any time. Brown v. City of East Point, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980).

Action void as ultra vires.

- Settlement agreement entered into by a county and the county's board of commissioners was void as an ultra vires act because it purported to forever bind the hands of future boards of commissioners regarding land use and zoning decisions for certain property. Buckhorn Ventures, LLC v. Forsyth County, 262 Ga. App. 299, 585 S.E.2d 229 (2003).

Applicability to counties.

- Principle stated in O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3 applies to counties as well as to municipalities. Madden v. Bellew, 260 Ga. 530, 397 S.E.2d 687 (1990).

When power to grant franchises stems from Ga. L. 1976, p. 188, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-34-2(7)), there was no violation of former Code 1933, § 69-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3). City of Lithonia v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 238 Ga. 339, 232 S.E.2d 832 (1977).

Section applicable to governmental, not proprietary functions.

- This section does not apply to a situation where a political subdivision is operating in a proprietary rather than a governmental capacity. Southern Airways Co. v. DeKalb County, 102 Ga. App. 850, 118 S.E.2d 234 (1960) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

While long-term commitments which could be characterized as proprietary have been permitted, attempts at binding arrangements with respect to governmental functions have been prohibited. Brown v. City of E. Point, 152 Ga. App. 801, 264 S.E.2d 267 (1979), aff'd, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980).

Rules of procedure passed by one legislative body are not binding upon subsequent legislative bodies operating within same jurisdiction; no legislative body can divest that body's successor of its legislative powers by passing ordinances or resolutions which deprive their successor of the power to exercise fully their legislative discretion, and each legislative body, when it meets, and unless restrained by the authority which created it, is without rules of procedure, and has inherent power to make its own rules without reference to the action of preceding bodies. South Ga. Power Co. v. Baumann, 169 Ga. 649, 151 S.E. 513 (1929).

Applicability to authorities.

- This section does not prohibit authorities, as distinguished from municipalities, from entering long-term contracts: there is no basis for the assertion that it applies to authorities. City of Jonesboro v. Clayton County Water Auth., 136 Ga. App. 768, 222 S.E.2d 76 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Dismissal of a probationer's claims, seeking to invalidate the service contract between the state court and the private company that contracted to supervise the court's probationers and for money had and received, was proper due to failure to state a claim because there was no challenge to the alternative ground that the district court had relied on. Keen v. Judicial Alternatives of Ga., Inc., F.3d (11th Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 55, 196 L. Ed. 2d 30 (U.S. 2016)(Unpublished).

If this section is too rigidly applied, there would be few contracts which municipalities could legally enter into, since contracts, by definition, must be binding, and many of the contracts, to be practical and effective, must extend beyond the existing councils' terms because of the nature of their subject matter. Jonesboro Area Athletic Ass'n v. Dickson, 227 Ga. 513, 181 S.E.2d 852 (1971).

One municipal council may not by ordinance bind itself or the council's successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government. Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 5 S.E.2d 356 (1939); Lawson v. City of Moultrie, 194 Ga. 699, 22 S.E.2d 592 (1942).

What cannot be done by an ordinance cannot be done by a contract. Screws v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. 839, 8 S.E.2d 16 (1940).

Ratification of contracts by subsequent council.

- Future council may be bound by the terms of a contract if that council either approves the terms of the contract or ratifies the contract. Brown v. City of E. Point, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980).

Duration of contracts.

- Municipal corporation may make a valid contract to continue for a reasonable time beyond the official term of the officers entering into the contract for the municipality. Jonesboro Area Athletic Ass'n v. Dickson, 227 Ga. 513, 181 S.E.2d 852 (1971).

O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a) does not prevent a contract from extending beyond the term of the commission in office at the time of the contract's execution. Unified Gov't v. North, 250 Ga. App. 432, 551 S.E.2d 798 (2001).

While a municipality is not estopped to deny the validity of a contract wholly beyond the municipality's powers, the municipality may be estopped by the exercise of contractual powers legally vested in the municipality, and even by the exercise of governmental powers, to prevent manifest injustice and wrongs to private persons, where the restraint placed upon a municipality to accomplish that purpose does not interfere with the exercise of governmental powers of the municipality. Brown v. City of E. Point, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980).

Post-retirement benefits of Community Service Board's Executive Director not gratuities.

- After the community service board filed a declaratory judgment action against the board's former executive director, contending that the director's contract violated public policy and that the director was not entitled to payment and benefits for various reasons, and the director counterclaimed against the board, the trial court did not err in ruling in favor of the director because the board's broad powers encompassed all of the benefits paid to the director, and it did not show that any of the director's benefits fell outside of the provisions of the enabling legislation; the director was entitled to payment for any compensation related to performance already rendered; and the director's post-retirement benefits were not gratuities. Gateway Cmty. Serv. Bd. v. Bonati, Ga. App. , 816 S.E.2d 743 (2018).

Cited in DeJarnette v. Hospital Auth., 195 Ga. 189, 23 S.E.2d 716 (1942); Mayor of Waynesboro v. McDowell, 213 Ga. 407, 99 S.E.2d 92 (1957); Smith v. Hayes, 217 Ga. 94, 121 S.E.2d 113 (1961); Glendale Estates, Inc. v. Mayor of Americus, 222 Ga. 610, 151 S.E.2d 142 (1966); McElmurray v. Richmond County, 223 Ga. 47, 153 S.E.2d 427 (1967); Housing Auth. v. Mercer, 123 Ga. App. 38, 179 S.E.2d 275 (1970); Pittman v. City of Jesup, 232 Ga. 635, 208 S.E.2d 456 (1974); Frazer v. City of Albany, 245 Ga. 399, 265 S.E.2d 581 (1980); Wilson v. Southerland, 258 Ga. 479, 371 S.E.2d 382 (1988); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 196 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Ga. 2002); Marlowe v. Colquitt County, 278 Ga. App. 184, 628 S.E.2d 622 (2006); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (S.D. Ga. 2006); Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 320 Ga. App. 689, 740 S.E.2d 663 (2013).

Street Overpasses and Railroad Underpasses

Subsection (b) inapplicable to easement involving grade crossing.

- Subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3, which speaks specifically of "the ownership, maintenance, construction, or reconstruction of street overpasses and underpasses of railroad properties," is inapplicable to an easement involving grade crossings. Chatham County Comm'rs v. Seaboard C.L.R.R., 169 Ga. App. 607, 314 S.E.2d 449 (1984).

Specific Contracts

Contracts made by virtue of express authority granted in the city charter are outside this prohibition. Brown v. City of E. Point, 246 Ga. 144, 268 S.E.2d 912 (1980).

Employment contracts.

- Provisions of county's personnel handbook regarding merit salary increases for employees could not bind the board of commissioners to approve the funding of future increases. International Bhd. of Police Officers Local 471 v. Chatham County, 232 Ga. App. 507, 502 S.E.2d 341 (1998).

Judgment in favor of former employee was reversed because the contract was renewed automatically and the severance package required the city to pay the employee the employee's salary and benefits for an entire year after the year in which the contract was terminated; as such, the contract was ultra vires and void under O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a). City of McDonough v. Campbell, 289 Ga. 216, 710 S.E.2d 537 (2011).

Ordinance providing severance pay for retiring city employees fell into express authority exception to O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3 in view of charter provisions conferring broad authority upon the city to establish a pension system upon such terms and conditions as the mayor and council deemed proper. City of Athens v. McGahee, 178 Ga. App. 76, 341 S.E.2d 855 (1986).

O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3 does not apply to construction contracts, which typically extend beyond the term of the officer entering into the contract for the municipality. City of Atlanta v. Brinderson Corp., 799 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986).

Construction of county buildings.

- Agreements authorized by the County Building Authority Act, in regard to the acquisition and construction of certain county buildings, were not in violation of O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3, for the necessary authority of the county and the building authority to enter into contracts for up to 50 years was contained in the intergovernmental contracts provision (Ga. Const., 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I). Building Auth. v. State, 253 Ga. 242, 321 S.E.2d 97 (1984).

Construction of roads.

- O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a) did not prevent a unified government's liability on a contract with a developer to build a road diverting traffic from a water treatment plant away from the developer's subdivision after the road was not completed on time. Unified Gov't v. North, 250 Ga. App. 432, 551 S.E.2d 798 (2001).

Agreement to construct and maintain parking area and sidewalk.

- Agreement entered in 1954 between a city and an apartment owner for the construction of a parking lot and sidewalk to relieve traffic congestion was not subject to O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a)'s prohibition against binding successor councils because the construction and maintenance of the sidewalk and parking area were in the nature of a government's proprietary functions. Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke Co. v. Stiles Apts., 295 Ga. 829, 764 S.E.2d 403 (2014).

Contracts limiting governmental powers.

- Restriction in this section against one council binding itself or a successor also applies to contracts which limit a municipality's legislative or governmental powers. City of Jonesboro v. Clayton County Water Auth., 136 Ga. App. 768, 222 S.E.2d 76 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Provisions of Ga. L. 1937, p. 761, § 1 et seq. (see O.C.G.A. § 36-82-60 et seq.), do not render meaningless the mandate of former Code 1933, § 69-202 (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3). The express statutory authority for a municipality to contract with the bond holders as to specified future utility rates does not extend to contracts with the wholesaler of electrical power. Johnson v. State, 107 Ga. App. 16, 128 S.E.2d 651 (1962).

Each case must stand on the case's own peculiar factual situation. Jonesboro Area Athletic Ass'n v. Dickson, 227 Ga. 513, 181 S.E.2d 852 (1971).

This section does not prohibit a contract that will be completed within the term of the commissioners, even though the depreciable life of the property contracted for extends beyond the term of the commissioners. Ledbetter Bros. v. Floyd County, 237 Ga. 22, 226 S.E.2d 730 (1976) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Option to purchase land.

- Lease by city of parcel of land accompanied by ten-year option to purchase land at a fixed price did not bind council or the council's successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government. Silver v. City of Rossville, 253 Ga. 13, 315 S.E.2d 898 (1984).

Lease of land for hospital.

- Lease of land owned by the city for a rental or consideration to the city in the form of medical and surgical treatment to be furnished to the poor by the lessee corporation would have the effect of preventing free legislation in a matter of municipal government and for this reason would be illegal and void. Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 5 S.E.2d 356 (1939).

Lease of property to airport.

- When a county through the county's proper authority leases property which the county owns for use as an airport, the county is engaging in a proprietary and not a governmental function. Southern Airways Co. v. DeKalb County, 102 Ga. App. 850, 118 S.E.2d 234 (1960).

Furnishing water to lessee.

- When a municipality leases certain property for a term of 25 years, a provision of such contract obligating the city to supply the leased premises with water free of charge during the term of the lease is ultra vires and void. Screws v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. 839, 8 S.E.2d 16 (1940).

Furnishing water and sewage facilities to airport.

- Provision in a contract requiring a county to furnish water and sewage facilities to airport leased to private party without charge during 15 years, to begin at an undetermined future date, is invalid. Southern Airways Co. v. DeKalb County, 102 Ga. App. 850, 118 S.E.2d 234 (1960).

Municipality's agreement to provide access to sewer system does not impair governmental function and therefore is not subject to subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3, which prohibits a council from binding itself or others so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government. City of Powder Springs v. WMM Properties, Inc., 253 Ga. 753, 325 S.E.2d 155 (1985).

Franchise granted by a city council to a public service corporation, under the charter powers of the city, constitutes a binding contract, and as such is not violative of this section. City of Summerville v. Georgia Power Co., 205 Ga. 843, 55 S.E.2d 540 (1949) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Rezoning is legislative in nature and one county commission cannot deprive or restrict a succeeding commission in the exercise of the commission's legislative power by the device of entering into a contract or agreement purporting to limit the authority of the county commission to legislate in this regard. Barton v. Atkinson, 228 Ga. 733, 187 S.E.2d 835 (1972).

Use of bond funds.

- County commission cannot limit the commission's successors in the exercise of legislative power by ordinance or by contract; however, this principle has no application to the legitimate use of bond funds for an authorized public purpose. Lindsey v. Guhl, 237 Ga. 567, 229 S.E.2d 354 (1976).

Holding title on easement to land.

- There is no inhibition against the acquisition by a municipality of title to or of an easement in land to be held in perpetuity for the public use such as streets, alleys, sidewalks, parks, water and sewerage systems, cemeteries, and the like. The power was recognized as inherent at common law and is generally provided specifically or in the general welfare provisions of the municipality's charter, for without it a municipality could not effectively function. City of Douglas v. Cartrett, 109 Ga. App. 683, 137 S.E.2d 358 (1964).

Municipal corporation acts in proprietary rather than governmental capacity in operating an electric distribution system.

- Restriction placed upon municipal corporations by this section relates only to its governmental functions. Therefore, there is generally no objection to a contract by a municipal corporation for a supply of electrical power which extends beyond the term of office of the officers making the contract. The only restriction is that it must be reasonable in length of time for which it is to extend. Johnson v. State, 107 Ga. App. 16, 128 S.E.2d 651 (1962) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Agreement to accept payment in lieu of ad valorem taxes void.

- Any agreement reached by plaintiff city that it would accept a reasonable annual amount from defendant in lieu of ad valorem taxes was void as an ultra vires act because the effect of the agreement would be to bind successive city commissions indefinitely. Georgia Presbyterian Homes, Inc. v. City of Decatur, 165 Ga. App. 395, 299 S.E.2d 900, aff'd, 251 Ga. 290, 304 S.E.2d 908 (1983).

No agreement as to schedule of payments to city.

- When a contract is fully executed by a city and the only remaining obligations are payments owed to the city by the other party to the contract, but there is no agreement as to the annual sum to be paid beyond a certain year, no contract exists; the fact that the other party expects to pay some amount to be agreed upon, and does pay a certain amount annually for several years, does not show an agreement by it to pay, or by the city to accept, that amount. City of Decatur v. Georgia Presbyterian Homes, Inc., 251 Ga. 290, 304 S.E.2d 908 (1983).

Power of a municipality to fix and regulate water rates is a legislative or governmental power and falls within the limitation placed upon councils of municipalities by this section. Screws v. City of Atlanta, 189 Ga. 839, 8 S.E.2d 16 (1940); City of Warm Springs v. Bulloch, 212 Ga. 149, 91 S.E.2d 13 (1956); Johnson v. State, 107 Ga. App. 16, 128 S.E.2d 651 (1962) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

Contract for exemption from sewer assessments.

- Under the provisions of this section, a contract made by a municipality with property owners, to exempt the owners from future sewer assessments, is ultra vires, even though upon faith of the agreement the property owners conveyed rights of way to the city and the city accepted and entered upon the contract. Accordingly, a subsequent council of the municipality is not prevented from levying and enforcing proper sewer assessments against such property owners. J.S.H. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 193 Ga. 1, 17 S.E.2d 55 (1941) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3).

An agreement whereby the city would aid plaintiff in collecting a "tap-on" fee to sewer and water mains constructed by plaintiff and hooked to the city lines would attempt to bind governing authorities and would therefore be illegal. Simmons v. City of Clarkesville, 234 Ga. 530, 216 S.E.2d 826 (1975).

Easement for effluent line.

- Collateral agreements in the grant of an easement to a municipality for the purpose of constructing and maintaining an effluent line which relate to the manner of the line's maintenance cannot be effective beyond the term of the mayor and council accepting the easement and making the agreements, and beyond that time are void. City of Douglas v. Cartrett, 109 Ga. App. 683, 137 S.E.2d 358 (1964).

Contract for placement of bus stop benches.

- Pretermitting the applicability of O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a) to counties, the subsection would not invalidate a county's contract with a company for the placement of bus benches at transit system stops. Board of Comm'rs v. Chatham Advertisers, 258 Ga. 498, 371 S.E.2d 850 (1988).

Employee pay raises.

- County employees could not establish a promissory estoppel claim that the county could not promise mandatory annual four percent pay raises. Johnson v. Fulton County, 235 Ga. App. 277, 509 S.E.2d 355 (1998).

City not bound by county's issuance of fifteen year alcohol license.

- Although a nude dancing business had entered into a 15-year contract with the newly-incorporated city's predecessor (the county) for an alcohol license, the city was not bound by the county's agreement pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a). Trop, Inc. v. City of Brookhaven, 296 Ga. 85, 764 S.E.2d 398 (2014).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Acts which a city cannot do by an ordinance cannot be done by a contract. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-42.

Contract restricting governmental powers.

- While a contract can be entered into which extends beyond the terms of office of a mayor and council members, the fact must be noted that a municipal corporation has no power to make contracts restricting or limiting the municipality's legislative or governmental powers, and a contract which restricts the legislative and governmental powers of future councils is ultra vires and void. 1965-66 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 65-42.

Water supply contract.

- Municipalities may enter into a valid and binding contract to provide a system of water supply mutual to all for a period not to exceed 50 years; further, municipalities may not bind themselves by any agreement respecting the sewage system or regulation of the rates of water or sewage, for a period longer than the life of the present council. 1952-53 Op. Att'y Gen. p. 126.

Fixing of water rates is a legislative and governmental power, and one council may not, by contract or ordinance, deprive succeeding councils of this legislative or governmental power; the prohibition extends to counties as well as municipalities. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-336.

Waste water treatment services contracts.

- O.C.G.A. § 36-60-2, permitting municipalities to enter into multi-year contracts to provide industrial waste water treatment services, provides an explicit statutory exception to O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3 and allows contracts between municipalities and certain private entities for periods up to 50 years. The contract must enable the municipality to comply with the state and federal pollution standards and to receive public allotments. In addition, the contract must comply with the statutory requirement that the private corporation be charged a rate never less than the actual cost to the municipality. A contract meeting the above requirements would not violate the statutory prohibition against binding successors in office. 1992 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 92-4.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, § 137.

C.J.S.

- 64 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 1183.

ALR.

- Power of board to appoint officer or make contract extending beyond its own term, 70 A.L.R. 794; 149 A.L.R. 336.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3

Total Results: 19  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Precise v. City of Rossville, 403 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. 1991).

Cited 89 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 15, 1991 | 261 Ga. 210, 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 754

...Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. II, and OCGA § 36-34-1 et seq. We have long acknowledged that municipal corporations have only limited power to enter into contracts. See, e.g. Williams v. City Council of West Point, 68 Ga. 816 (1882); and OCGA § 36-30-3....
Copy

Trop, Inc. Et Al. v. City of Brookhaven Et Al., 296 Ga. 85 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 46 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 6, 2014 | 764 S.E.2d 398

... Pink Pony’s contention that Brookhaven should be bound by the prior agreement between Pink Pony and DeKalb County does not change this result. As found by the trial court, this prior agreement cannot be used to bind the successively incorporated City of Brookhaven. Cf. OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) (“One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government.”) This, of course, undermines Pink Pony’s erroneous arguments that it had some vested...
Copy

CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 588 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. 2003).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 20, 2003 | 277 Ga. 248, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 3112

...s available, and then only to the extent of the limits of such insurance policy." OCGA § 36-33-1(a). [6] 3. Because we hold that the indemnification agreements are void as ultra vires, we need not address whether such agreements are void under OCGA § 36-30-3(a) as agreements preventing free legislation or whether they created an unlawful public debt in violation *691 of Article IX, Section V, Paragraph I, Ga....
Copy

Unified Gov't of Athens-Clarke Co. v. Stiles Apts., Inc., 295 Ga. 829 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 6, 2014 | 764 S.E.2d 403

...expiration of the statute of limitations. Finally, the trial court determined that appellant’s predecessor had not dedicated or abandoned the original right-of- way to appellee and that the agreement did not violate the prohibition on future councils per OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)....
...blic right-of-way for a purely private use. Compare Dunlap v. Tift, 209 Ga. 201, 209 (1) (71 SE2d 237) (1952). 3. Appellant alleges the 1954 agreement is unlawful because it violates the prohibition against binding successor councils. OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) provides: “One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government.” In addition to ordinances, the prohibition applies to contracts entered into by municipalities....
Copy

H. G. Brown Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. City of Villa Rica, 607 S.E.2d 883 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 10, 2005 | 278 Ga. 819, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 131

...ature. They possess no inherent powers."). [2] Kemp v. City of Claxton, 269 Ga. 173, 176, 496 S.E.2d 712 (1998). [3] Precise v. Rossville, 261 Ga. 210, 210-11, 403 S.E.2d 47 (1991); Williams v. City Council of West Point, 68 Ga. 816 (1882). See OCGA § 36-30-3....
Copy

Bldg. Auth. of Fulton Cnty. v. State, 321 S.E.2d 97 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 20 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 1984 | 253 Ga. 242

...overnmental contracts provision of the Constitution. This argument was rejected in Frazer v. City of Albany, 245 Ga. 399 (2) (265 SE2d 581) (1980). 10. Intervenor's tenth contention, that the agreements authorized by the act are in violation of OCGA § 36-30-3, is likewise without merit....
Copy

City of Centerville v. City of Warner Robins, 508 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 26, 1998 | 270 Ga. 183, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3558

...Village of Kildeer, 146 Ill.App.3d 979, 100 Ill.Dec. 341, 497 N.E.2d 319, 320 (Ill.App. 2 Dist.1986). Furthermore, a city "council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government." OCGA § 36-30-3(a)....
Copy

City of Powder Springs v. WMM Props., Inc., 325 S.E.2d 159 (Ga. 1985).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 30, 1985 | 253 Ga. 753

...Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Mark A. Johnson, Irma B. Glover, for appellee. HILL, Chief Justice. This case raises interesting issues as to the law governing municipal contracts, particularly the power of one city council to bind subsequent *754 councils. OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)....
...The court ordered the city to permit plaintiff to have access to the sewers and the city appeals. The city enumerates the following errors: (1) The trial court erred in failing to find that the sewer access provisions of the easements were ultra vires and void because they violate OCGA § 36-30-3 (a), and because the easements do not appear on the minutes of the meetings of the mayor and city council; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the city manager had authority, actual or apparent, to authorize sewer access; and (3) the...
...However, having found that the city manager had authority to negotiate the sewer access clauses of the easements and that they are not invalid for failure to be entered on the minutes, we must nevertheless determine whether the access clauses are binding on subsequent city councils. 2. OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) (formerly Ga....
...513 (181 SE2d 852) (1971); Sentell, Studies in Georgia Local Government Law, 3rd (1977), pp. 583, 587; see also McQuillin, 10 Municipal Corporations, § 29.101 (1981). Consideration of whether municipal contracts are subject to the prohibition of OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) involves at least 4 questions: (1) Is the contract governmental in nature and hence subject to the prohibition, or proprietary and hence not subject to the prohibition? (2) If *757 governmental in nature, is the contract subject to an...
...arily contracted to provide access to the sewer. It has not contracted away its power to make sewer assessments or impose tap-on or usage charges. It has not bound itself so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government, see OCGA § 36-30-3 (a), supra, particularly in view of the fact that it has no authority to legislate as to the use of land outside its corporate limits. We hold that a municipality's agreement to provide access to its sewer system does not impair a governmental function and therefore is not subject to the prohibition of OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)....
Copy

City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty., 713 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 5, 2011 | 289 Ga. 612, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 2057

...V, Par. I(a). [3] Furthermore, the general rule is that a local government "may not enter into a contract that lasts longer than that government's term of office." Greene County School Dist. v. Greene County, 278 Ga. 849, 850, 607 S.E.2d 881 (2005); OCGA § 36-30-3(a)....
...or the provision of services, or for the joint or separate use of facilities or equipment; but such contracts must deal with activities, services, or facilities which the contracting parties are authorized by law to undertake or provide.... [4] OCGA § 36-30-3(a) provides: One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government....
Copy

Madden v. Bellew, 397 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. 1990).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 15, 1990 | 260 Ga. 530

...who appointed him. The Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, holding that the appointment of the county attorney would otherwise bind successive county commissioners to the choice of their predecessors. We granted certiorari to decide whether OCGA § 36-30-3, cited in Wilson v. Southerland, 258 Ga. 479 (1) (371 SE2d 382) (1988), on which the Court of Appeals relied, is applicable to counties. [1] 1. The question of whether OCGA § 36-30-3 applies to counties *531 has not been directly decided in a case involving a county, but the section and its predecessor have been applied to counties by both appellate courts of this state subsequent to the enactment of the 1982 Code....
...It is a codification of a principle stated in Williams v. West Point, 68 Ga. 816 [1882], which is applicable generally to legislative or governmental bodies." Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hosp., 189 Ga. 126, 140 (5 SE2d 356) (1939). We hold, therefore, that the principle stated in OCGA § 36-30-3 applies to counties as fully as it applies to municipalities....
...We hold that his employment ended, instead, when a majority of the county commission withdrew approval of his employment. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] For a scholarly examination of this issue in light of the placement of OCGA § 36-30-3 in a portion of the Code reserved for "Provisions Applicable to Municipal Corporations Only," see Sentell, Binding Contracts in Georgia Local Government Law: Configurations of Codification, 24 Ga....
Copy

Sadler v. Nijem, 306 S.E.2d 257 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 7, 1983 | 251 Ga. 375

...by Amendment 19. Thus we affirm the trial court's ruling that the proposed amendment does not violate this provision of the constitution. 2. We likewise find no merit in the City's contention that the proposed charter amendment would contravene OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann....
Copy

Bd. of Commissioners of Chatham Cnty. v. Chatham Advertisers, 371 S.E.2d 850 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 13, 1988 | 258 Ga. 498

...The contract provided that the company is to install the benches at no expense to the county, and that the benches *499 will have advertising signs on them. The present board of commissioners brought an action to have the contract declared void on the grounds that it violated (1) the county's zoning ordinance and (2) OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)....
...369 (306 SE2d 251) (1983). [1] The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for the appellee company, thereby declaring the contract valid and requiring specific performance by the appellant county. 2. Pretermitting the applicability of OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) to counties, the Code section would not invalidate the present contract....
Copy

Wilson v. Southerland, 371 S.E.2d 382 (Ga. 1988).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 7, 1988 | 258 Ga. 479

...e obligation to compensate the *480 assistant continues. We disagree. The appropriating process is a legislative function and the law prohibits a local governing authority from binding itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation. OCGA § 36-30-3 (a)....
Copy

Greene Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Greene Cnty., 607 S.E.2d 881 (Ga. 2005).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 10, 2005 | 278 Ga. 849, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 133

...[11] The Board of Education's attempt to transform this real estate deal into an intergovernmental service contract is unavailing. Accordingly, the contract is not a valid intergovernmental contract, and the School Board's attempt to assign a fifty year term of duration to the contract must fail. Under OCGA § 36-30-3(a), therefore, the current County Commissioners are not bound by the contract. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] Ga. Const. Art. IX, Sec. III, Par. I(a). [2] O.C.G.A. § 36-30-3(a); Ledbetter Bros....
Copy

City of McDonough v. Campbell, 710 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. 2011).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 31, 2011 | 289 Ga. 216, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 586, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1593

...We granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in City of McDonough v. Campbell, 304 Ga.App. 428, 696 S.E.2d 150 (2010), to determine whether an employment agreement between the City of McDonough and James Campbell binds a successor municipal council in violation of OCGA § 36-30-3(a)....
...Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Campbell. The city moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied the city's motion, and the city appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the contract did not violate OCGA § 36-30-3(a)'s prohibition against binding successor councils. 1. OCGA § 36-30-3(a) provides: "One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government." This prohibition applies equally to both the enactment of ordinances and the execution of governmental contracts....
...184, 186, 628 S.E.2d 622 (2006) (substantial cost of "buy out" clause in county administrator's contract restricted ability of county commissioners to sever administrator's contract). It follows that Campbell's employment contract with the city violates OCGA § 36-30-3(a). 2. The Court of Appeals held that Campbell's employment agreement fell within an exception to OCGA § 36-30-3(a), to wit: that it was expressly authorized by the charter enacted by the General Assembly, Ga....
...sly authorizing automatically renewable contracts containing substantial severance packages which have the effect of binding the hands of successor councils. 3. The Court of Appeals also ruled that Campbell's employment contract did not violate OCGA § 36-30-3(a) because it was for a reasonable length of time....
Copy

Chambers v. Fulford, 268 Ga. 892 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 26, 1998 | 495 S.E.2d 6, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 316

...s, which previously approved the contract. Decided January 26, 1998. Preston N. Rawlins, Jr., for appellants. Groover & Childs, Denmark Groover, Jr., for appellees. 3. We do not agree with appellants that the length of the contract contravenes OCGA § 36-30-33 as an impermissible attempt by a former board of commissioners to bind its successors....
...board of commissioners but an act of the Georgia Legislature expressly requiring the county, through the board of tax assessors, to provide for an appraiser under its comprehensive uniform codification of real property taxation. We cannot read OCGA § 36-30-3 as creating a rule that a county board of tax assessors may not enter into a contract of reasonable duration which extends beyond the term of that board of commissioners which had the initial approval power over the contract. Powell enter...
...Wheeler County is a Class II county because it has “at least 3,000 but less than 8,000 parcels of real property.” OCGA § 48-5-261 (2). Each county other than a Class I county is required to employ a minimum staff of appraisers. The staffing requirements are set forth in OCGA § 48-5-262 (c). OCGA § 36-30-3 (a) provides: “One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government.” In construing this statute’s predecessor, Code § 69-202, we determined that the statute applies equally to county government....
Copy

Juhan v. City of Lawrenceville, 306 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 7, 1983 | 251 Ga. 369

...o obstruction of vision for drivers of vehicles. Ms. Juhan contends the contract is void on the grounds that the city has no authority to appropriate public property to a private purpose or for private gain and that the contract length violates OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann....
...The advertising is simply the consideration for furnishing public improvements and violates no law. We hold that the subject matter and execution of this contract was within the authority of the city. 2. The appellant contends that the time limit of the contract renders it invalid as a violation of OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann....
Copy

Silver v. City of Rossville, 253 Ga. 13 (Ga. 1984).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 22, 1984 | 315 S.E.2d 898

...At the time Silver was granted the lease/ option, the property was essentiálly swamp land. Silver attempted to exercise the option in January of 1982 by tendering a cashier’s check to the city, but the tender was refused. Institution of this suit followed after the giving of ante litem notice. Citing OCGA § 36-30-3 and Aven v. Steiner Cancer Hospital, 189 Ga. 126 (5 SE2d 356) (1939), the superior court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment. Section 36-30-3 provides that, “One council may not, by an ordinance, bind itself or its successors so as to prevent free legislation in matters of municipal government.” Aven held that a lease of land owned by a city, for a term of 35 years, for...
...abandoned as to such use, the municipality may sell it without express legislative approval. In response, the city makes various arguments. First, it argues that, as held by the trial court, the lease/option granted to Silver is null and void under § 36-30-3 in that it prevents free legislation in matters of municipal government....
Copy

City of Decatur v. Georgia Presbyterian Homes, Inc., 251 Ga. 290 (Ga. 1983).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 7, 1983 | 304 S.E.2d 908

Per curiam. The Court of Appeals found that an implied contract between the City of Decatur and Georgia Presbyterian Homes, Inc., was ultra vires and void under OCGA § 36-30-3 (formerly Code § 69-202).1 Georgia Presbyterian Homes, Inc. v. City of Decatur, 165 Ga. App. 395 (299 SE2d 900) (1983). We granted certiorari to determine the applicability of OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann....
...o agreement as to the annual sum to be paid beyond the year 1972, no contract existed here,2 OCGA § 13-3-2 (Code Ann. § 20-108), and hence the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed notwithstanding the possible inapplicability of OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann. § 69-202). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., who concurs in the judgment only. Thomas 0. Davis, A. Joseph Nardone, Jr., for appellant. Edward S. White, for appellee. OCGA § 36-30-3 (Code Ann....