O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.1 (2019)

Dispute resolution procedures

✓ 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

(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘affected municipality’’ means each municipality required to adopt a resolution approving the local government service delivery strategy pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 36-70-25.

(b) If a county and the affected municipalities in the county do not reach an agreement on a service delivery strategy, the provisions of this Code section shall be followed as the process to resolve the dispute.

(c) If a county and the affected municipalities in the county are unable to reach an agreement on the strategy prior to the imposition of the sanctions provided in Code Section 36-70-27, a means for facilitating an agreement through some form of alternative dispute resolution shall be employed. Where the alternative dispute resolution action is unsuccessful, the neutral party or parties shall prepare a report which shall be provided to each governing authority and made a public record. The cost of alternative dispute resolution authorized by this subsection shall be shared by the parties to the dispute pro rata based on each party’s population according to the most recent United States decennial census. The county’s share shall be based upon the unincorporated population of the county.

(d) In the event that the county and the affected municipalities in the county fail to reach an agreement after the imposition of sanctions provided in Code Section 36-70-27, then the following process is available to the parties:

(1)(A) The county or any affected municipality located within the county may file a petition in superior court of the county seeking mandatory mediation. Such petition shall be assigned to a judge, pursuant to Code Section 15-1-9.1 or 15-6-13, who is not a judge in the circuit in which the county is located. The judge selected may also be a senior judge pursuant to Code Section 15-1-9.2 who resides in another circuit.

(B) The visiting or senior judge shall appoint a mediator within 30 days of receipt of the petition. Mediation shall commence within 30 days of the appointment of a mediator. The mandatory mediation process shall be completed within 60 days following the appointment of the mediator. A majority of the members of the governing body of the county and each affected municipality shall attend the initial mediation. Following the initial meeting, the mediation shall proceed in the manner established at the initial meeting. If there is no agreement on how the mediation should proceed, a majority of the members of the governing body of the county and each affected municipality shall be required to attend each mediation session unless another process is agreed upon. Unless otherwise provided in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection, the cost of alternative dispute resolution authorized by this subsection shall be shared by the parties to the dispute pro rata based on each party’s population according to the most recent United States decennial census.

(C) During the mediation process described in this subsection, the sanctions imposed pursuant to Code Section 36-70-27 may, by order of the court, be held in abeyance by the judge against any or all of the parties participating in such mediation process.

(D) The judge may, by order of the court, substitute any mediation entered into pursuant to subsection (c) of this Code section for the mediation required pursuant to this subsection; and

(2) If no service delivery strategy has been submitted for verification to the Department of Community Affairs at the conclusion of the mediation, any aggrieved party may petition the superior court and seek resolution of the items remaining in dispute. The visiting or senior judge shall conduct an evidentiary hearing or hearings as such judge deems necessary and render a decision with regard to the disputed items. In rendering the decision, the judge shall consider the required elements of a service delivery strategy with a goal of achieving the intent of this article as specified in Code Section

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty., 812 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty., 812 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 62× “, and calls into question the constitutionality of the evidentiary hearing process provided by OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (2). In its order entered at the end of the hearing process, the trial court found that portion of the statute unconstitutional, and further found that sovereign…”
City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty. (& Vice Versa), 303 Ga. 449 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 56× “, and calls into question the constitutionality of the evidentiary hearing process provided by OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (2). In its order entered at the end of the hearing process, the trial court found that portion of the statute unconstitutional, and further found that sovereign…”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty., 318 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 26× “See OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (c).4 The parties were able to settle all but two of forty-one service issues in dispute through mediation.”
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “The court order required that: The City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and the Third-Party Defendants [shall] conduct any and all negotiations, mediation and other dispute resolution efforts, including those dispute resolution procedures referenced under O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.1, and…”
Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of the City of Valdosta, 309 Ga. 899 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-70-25.1 provides a statutory process for mediation and dispute resolution if affected local governments cannot reach an agreement after the imposition of sanctions provided in OCGA § 36- 70-27.”
One Sixty Over Ninety, LLC v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 830 S.E.2d 503 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “2d 278 (2018) (where " only potential parties to an action under OCGA § 36-70-25.1 are counties and affected municipalities [, the statute] can only be interpreted as creating a waiver of sovereign immunity") (emphasis supplied); 7 Colon , supra, 294 Ga.”
Cobb Cnty. v. City of Smyrna, 606 S.E.2d 667 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Consonant with this purpose, OCGA§ 36-70-25.1 mandates a dispute resolution procedure for the affected county and municipality to follow if they cannot agree on a service delivery strategy.”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. 2024). · cites it 26× “See OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (c).4 The parties were able to settle all but two of forty-one service issues in dispute through mediation.”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 23× “When Barrow County (“the County”) and several municipalities within its jurisdiction reached an impasse regarding the approval of an update to their public service delivery strategy agreement, including the manner in which funds were collected for road maintenance and water…”
City of Sandy Springs, Georgia v. City of Atlanta, Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 20× “Count 3 of the Complaint alleged that Atlanta’s refusal to review and revise the water fees assessed to Sandy Springs customers violated the SDS Act, and that Sandy Springs was entitled to alternative dispute resolution under OCGA § 36-70-28 (c), and specifically that a judge…”
Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of the City of Valdosta (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “” OCGA § 36-70-25.1 then provides a statutory process for mediation and dispute resolution if affected municipalities cannot reach an agreement after the imposition of sanctions provided in OCGA § 36- 70-27.”
City of Atlanta v. City of Sandy Springs (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “The court order required that: The City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and the Third-Party Defendants [shall] conduct any and all negotiations, mediation and other dispute resolution efforts, including those dispute resolution procedures referenced under O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.1, and…”
— 36-70-25.1(d)(l)(A) — 1 case
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012). “The court order required that: The City of Atlanta, Fulton County, and the Third-Party Defendants [shall] conduct any and all negotiations, mediation and other dispute resolution efforts, including those dispute resolution procedures referenced under O.C.G.A. § 36-70-25.1, and…”
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.