O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-62-9 (2019)

Purposes of chapter; issuance of bonds or bond anticipation notes; exceptions

✓ 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 purposes of this chapter are to develop and promote trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities for the public good and the general welfare and to promote the general welfare of the state. No bonds or bond anticipation notes, except refunding bonds, shall be issued by an authority under this chapter unless its board of directors adopts a resolution finding that the project for which such bonds or notes are to be issued will promote the foregoing objectives and will

increase or maintain employment in the territorial area of such authority. Notwithstanding the foregoing requirement: (1) Bonds or bond anticipation notes may be issued to finance projects for air and water pollution control facilities and for sewage and solid waste disposal facilities, as provided in this chapter, without a finding that the project will increase or maintain employment, so long as the appropriate certification described in this chapter has been secured from the federal, state, or local agency having jurisdiction in the premises; and (2) Bonds or bond anticipation notes may also be issued by an authority to finance the acquisition or development of land as the site for an industrial park as provided in this chapter without a finding that the project will increase or maintain employment if its board of directors shall adopt a resolution finding that the tract of land to be included in the project is not intended for use by a single enterprise; will be suitable primarily for use as building sites for a group of enterprises engaged in industrial, distribution, or wholesale businesses; and that either: (A) The control and administration of the tract is to be vested in the authority or in another county or joint county and municipal development authority (or in a corporation organized under Chapter 3 of Title 14, the ‘‘Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code’’) having as one of its purposes the development of trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities; or (B) The uses of such tract of land are to be regulated by protective restrictions to be approved by the authority and determined by the authority to be appropriate to encourage and facilitate use thereof by business enterprises engaged in industrial, distribution, or wholesale businesses.

History

Ga. L. 1963, p. 531, § 9; Ga. L. 1969, p. 137, § 7; Ga. L. 1971, p. 177, § 2; Ga. L. 1976, p. 708, § 5; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1706, §§ 5, 10; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 27;

Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 36; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36.

Annotations

Cross references. - Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code, T. 14, C. 3.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS General Assembly has not defined ‘‘projects’’ to include all trade and commerce in this state. Day v. Development Auth., 248 Ga. 488, 284 S.E.2d 275 (1981). Fact that all final blueprints and specifications were not incorporated into resolution does not require invalidation of the bonds. Alexander v. Macon-Bibb County Urban Dev. Auth. &

Urban Properties #47, 257 Ga. 181, 357 S.E.2d 62 (1987). Development authority not required to own or operate project to issue bonds. - Proposed bond transaction did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. VI, Para. I and O.C.G.A. § 36-82-66 of the Revenue Bond Law merely because the development author-

ity would not own or operate the proposed stadium; the development authority could use bond proceeds for paying all or part of the cost of any project (O.C.G.A. § 36-62-6(a)(13)), not only those projects

the authority developed, and the authority could pay the costs of another government entity’s project pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-62-9. Cottrell v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 297 Ga. 1, 770 S.E.2d 616 (2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions, § 280 et seq. 64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Securities and Obligations, § 113 et seq.

C.J.S. - 64A C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 2122, 2123, 2125, 2134 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Haney v. Dev. Auth. of Bremen, 519 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 1999).
Haney v. Dev. Auth. of Bremen, 519 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 4× “[13] See OCGA § 36-62-9. [14] See OCGA § 36-62-6. [15] Cf.”
Alexander v. MacOn-bibb Cnty. Urban Dev. Auth. & Urban Props. 47, 357 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-62-9 provides, in part, "The purposes of [the Development *183 Authorities Law] are to develop and promote trade, commerce and industry, and employment opportunities, for the public good and the general welfare, and to promote the general welfare of the state.”
Cottrell Et Al. v. Atlanta Dev. Auth. Et Al., 770 S.E.2d 616 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “Nor is there any language in the Developmental Authorities Law that would otherwise prohibit Invest Atlanta from using bond proceeds to pay the costs of another government entity’s project that “promote[s] trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities for the public…”
Dev. Auth. of Columbus v. Four Js Fam., Lllp, 798 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 36-62-9. The term “project,” which may include real property, is used throughout the Act and is defined at great length in OCGA § 36-62-2 (6).”
State of Georgia v. Edward Clay (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 50-15-4 provides, in full, as follows: 14 See OCGA § 36-62-9 (defining the purposes of the Development Authorities Law, under which the JDA was formed).”
State of Georgia v. Jeffrey v. Mckenzie (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-62-9. After the JDA made such a finding, the State filed its petition to validate the bonds and the Project in which the State specifically requested a finding that the Project will “develop and promote trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities for the…”
Cottrell v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., D/B/A Invest Atlanta (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “Nor is there any language in the Developmental Authorities Law that would otherwise prohibit Invest Atlanta from using bond proceeds to pay the costs of another government entity’s project that “promote[s] trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities for the public…”
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.