O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-70-24 (2019)

Criteria for service delivery strategy

✓ 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

In the development of a service delivery strategy, the following criteria shall be met: (1) The strategy shall promote the delivery of local government services in the most efficient, effective, and responsive manner. The strategy shall identify steps which will be taken to remediate or avoid overlapping and unnecessary competition and duplication of service delivery and shall identify the time frame in which such steps shall be taken. When a municipality provides a service at a higher level than the base level of service provided throughout the geographic area of the county by the county, such service shall not be considered a duplication of the county service;

(2)(A) The strategy shall provide that water or sewer fees charged to customers located outside the geographic boundaries of a service provider shall not be arbitrarily higher than the fees charged to customers receiving such service which are located within the geographic boundaries of the service provider. (B) If a governing authority disputes the reasonableness of water and sewer rate differentials imposed within its jurisdiction by another governing authority, that disputing governing authority may hold a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the rate differential. Following the preparation of a rate study by a qualified engineer, the governing authority may challenge the arbitrary rate differentials on behalf of its residents in a court of competent jurisdiction. Prior to such challenge, the dispute shall be submitted to some form of alternative dispute resolution; (3)(A) The strategy shall ensure that the cost of any service which a county provides primarily for the benefit of the unincorporated area of the county shall be borne by the unincorporated area residents, individuals, and property owners who receive the service. Further, when the county and one or more municipalities jointly fund a county-wide service, the county share of such funding shall be borne by the unincorporated residents, individuals, and property owners that receive the service. (B) Such funding shall be derived from special service districts created by the county in which property taxes, insurance premium taxes, assessments, or user fees are levied or imposed or through such other mechanism agreed upon by the affected parties which complies with the intent of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; and (4)(A) Local governments within the same county shall, if necessary, amend their land use plans so that such plans are compatible and nonconflicting, or, as an alternative, they shall adopt a single land use plan for the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the county. (B) The provision of extraterritorial water and sewer services by any jurisdiction shall be consistent with all applicable land use plans and ordinances.

History

Code 1981, § 36-70-24, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1567, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 789, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 20.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘State and Local

Taxation, Financing, and Service Delivery Revision Act of 2004.’ ’’ Law reviews. - For annual survey of zoning and land use law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 447 (2005). For annual survey of local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - Provisions of former O.C.G.A. §§ 36-70-24(4)(c) and 36-36-11, pertaining to the establishment of a dispute resolution process when a bona fide land use dispute arises between a city and county over the use of land which is the subject of annexation, do not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. IV. Higdon v. City of Senoia, 273 Ga. 83, 538 S.E.2d 39 (2000) (decided prior to 2004 amendment of O.C.G.A. §§ 36-70-24 and 36-36-11). Trial court erred by finding that the

Service Delivery Strategy Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-70-20, specifically O.C.G.A. § 36-7025.1(d)(2), was unconstitutional because it did not permit the trial court to direct that the parties enter into a particular agreement and, therefore, did not invade the province of the legislative branch by imposing a tax or allocating the proceeds of that tax. City of Union Point v. Greene County, 303 Ga. 449, 812 S.E.2d 278 (2018). Cited in Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 518 S.E.2d 879 (1999).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty., 318 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty., 318 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 68× “Prior to the completion of that process, the County and the City filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the legal issue of what standard should be used under OCGA § 36-70-24 (3) (A)6 to determine whether residents, individuals, and property owners of the…”

Higdon v. City of Senoia, 538 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 28× “In these companion cases we are called upon to resolve whether OCGA §§ 36-70-24 (4) (C) and 36-36-11 violate the delegation of zoning power under Art.”

City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty., 812 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 6× “The SDS Act prescribes a process for developing a local government service agreement, OCGA § 36-70-21, its required components, OCGA § 36-70-23, and criteria for its development, OCGA § 36-70-24. The SDS Act was amended in 2000 to add OCGA § 36-70-25.”

Baker v. City of Marietta, 518 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 6× “The county also asked the trial court to “enjoin and require” the city “to adopt an agreed dispute resolution process as required by OCGA § 36-70-24.” In its answer to the county’s petition, the city set forth defenses which asserted that the county’s claims were void because…”

City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty. (& Vice Versa), 303 Ga. 449 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 4× “The SDS Act prescribes a process for developing a local government service agreement, OCGA § 36-70-21, its required components, OCGA § 36-70-23, and criteria for its development, OCGA § 36-70-24. The SDS Act was amended in 2000 to add OCGA § 36-70-25.”

Cobb Cnty. v. City of Smyrna, 606 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Finally, the trial court concluded that permitting the city to tie on to the county’s water lines, rather than building parallel lines, is consistent with the purpose of OCGA § 36-70-24, which encourages local governments to develop service delivery strategies and avoid *473…”

City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 94× “Winder then moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of road funding, essentially contending that, under its reading of OCGA § 36-70-24 (3) (A), the geographic location of the roads determined which county residents could be charged for their maintenance.”

Copeland v. State, 490 S.E.2d 68 (Ga. 1997). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-70-24 (2) includes criteria for the funding of water and sewer services.”

Coweta Cnty. v. City of Senoia, 573 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 2× “Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ruled against the County, holding that there was an agreement, that the County did not follow the non-agreement procedures in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted by the County and the City in 1998 pursuant to OCGA § 36-70-24 (4)…”

City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. 2024). · cites it 68× “Prior to the completion of that process, the County and the City filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the legal issue of what standard should be used under OCGA § 36-70-24 (3) (A) 6 to determine whether residents, individuals, and property owners of the…”

Fayette Cnty. v. Steele, 601 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “…Nor does it appear that the County attempted to resolve the matter pursuant to the dispute resolution process. See OCGA § 36-70-24 (4) (C).”

Lancaster v. Effingham Cnty., 615 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” OCGA§ 36-70-24 (3) (A). This argument is without merit.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— 36-70-24(4)(C) — 1 case

Higdon v. City of Senoia, 538 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. 2000). “In these companion cases we are called upon to resolve whether OCGA §§ 36-70-24 (4) (C) and 36-36-11 violate the delegation of zoning power under Art.”

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.