O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 (2019)
Legislative intent
The intent of this article is to provide a flexible framework within which local governments in each county can develop a service delivery system that is both efficient and responsive to citizens in their county. The General Assembly recognizes that the unique characteristics of each county throughout the state preclude a mandated legislative outcome for the delivery of services in every county. The process provided by this article is intended to minimize inefficiencies resulting from duplication of services and competition between local governments and to provide a mechanism to resolve disputes over local government service delivery, funding equity, and land use. The local government service delivery process should result in the minimization of noncompatible municipal and county land use plans and in a simple, concise agreement describing which local governments will provide which service in specified areas within a county and how provision of such services will be funded.
History
Code 1981, § 36-70-20, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1567, § 1.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of
local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jurisdiction. - When consent decrees were issued in an environmental suit against a city, and a municipality’s incorporation led to service delivery proceedings in state court ten years later, the federal court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the parties from pursuing the service delivery proceedings in state court under Georgia’s Service Delivery Strategy Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 et seq., because the ‘‘in aid of its jurisdiction’’ exception in the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply, and the federal court lacked supplemental jurisdiction over the state service delivery proceeding issues under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012). Scope of trial court’s authority. - Trial court’s ruling that sovereign immunity did not bar claims under the Service Delivery Strategy Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 et seq., specifically O.C.G.A.
§ 36-70-25.1(d)(2), was affirmed because sovereign immunity was waived only to the extent of the statute, which extends no further than the remedies specifically authorized by the Act and the trial court could not exceed the scope of § 36-70-25.1(d)(2) by granting relief not provided therein for claims brought under the Act. City of Union Point v. Greene County, 303 Ga. 449, 812 S.E.2d 278 (2018). Declaratory and injunctive relief effectively denied. - Because the strategies by a county and the municipalities within the county under the Service Delivery Strategic Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 et seq., had nothing to do with a developer’s actions, given that it was not the decision of the developer, or any individual property owner, to control the property owner’s supplier of water, the developer was properly granted summary judgment in a city’s action for declaratory
and injunctive relief. Also, the city’s quest to overturn the May 2005 service delivery strategy was rendered moot by the enactment of later strategy. City of Demorest v. Town of Mt. Airy, 282 Ga. 653, 653 S.E.2d 43 (2007). Effect on existing utility authorities. - Water authority’s claims for declaratory relief and to enjoin a county and a city from encroaching on its territory were rejected as a service agreement be-
tween the parties under the Service Delivery Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20 et seq., lawfully limited the authority’s territory, which had been granted in the authority’s creating legislation. Alcovy Shores Water & Sewerage Auth. v. Jasper County, 277 Ga. App. 341, 626 S.E.2d 560 (2006). Cited in Higdon v. City of Senoia, 273 Ga. 83, 538 S.E.2d 39 (2000); Cobb County v. City of Smyrna, 270 Ga. App. 471, 606 S.E.2d 667 (2004).