O.C.G.A.
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.
(a)(1) No state administered financial assistance or grant, loan, or permit shall be issued to any local government or authority which is not included in a department verified strategy or for any project which is inconsistent with such strategy; provided, however, that a municipality or authority located or operating in more than one county shall be included in a department verified strategy for each county wherein the municipality or authority is located or operating. (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply to any drinking water project of the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority or of any local government or authority if such project is a proposed drinking water supply reservoir or any water withdrawal, treatment, distribution, or other potable water facility associated with such reservoir and the project shall furnish potable water to wholesale users in incorporated areas in one or more counties. Within one year after such proposed drinking water supply reservoir becomes operational, the local governments and authorities in the affected county or counties shall update their service delivery strategy or strategies to be consistent with water supply arrangements resulting from the operation of such reservoir. (b)(1) If a municipality containing fewer than 500 persons within the county fails to establish a process to resolve disputes as required by subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of Code Section 36-70-24, the sanctions specified in subsection (a) of this Code section shall not be imposed upon: (A) The county within which any such municipality or portion of any such municipality is located; or (B) Any other municipality located in such county. (2) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only if a process to resolve disputes required by subparagraph (C) of paragraph (4) of
Code Section 36-70-24 has been established between the county and each municipality containing 500 or more persons within the county. (c) Any local government or authority which is subject to the sanctions specified in subsection (a) of this Code section shall become eligible for state administered financial assistance or grants, loans, or permits on the first day of the month following verification by the department that the requirements of Code Section 36-70-26 have been met.
History
Code 1981, § 36-70-27, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1567, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 789, § 2; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1439, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 1088, § 1/HB 406.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant
to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2010, ‘‘Georgia Environmental Finance Authority’’ was substituted for ‘‘Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority’’ in the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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). Cited in Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012).
Notes of Decisions
City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty., 812 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 6× “chanism to resolve disputes" between a county and its municipalities, beginning with "some form of alternative dispute resolution" under subsection (c), "the imposition of sanctions" by the limitation of funding for "any local government or authority which is not included in a…”
City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty. (& Vice Versa), 303 Ga. 449 (Ga. 2018).
· cites it 6× “chanism to resolve disputes” between a county and its municipalities, beginning with “some form of alternative dispute resolution” under subsection (c), “the imposition of sanctions” by the limitation of funding for “any local government or authority which is not included in a…”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty., 318 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 8× “1 (d)5 seeking court- 3 Because the parties failed to agree to an updated SDS Agreement by the February 28, 2019 deadline, sanctions under OCGA § 36-70-27 (a) were imposed on the County and each municipality.”
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012).
“The court’s order also “held in abeyance” the sanctions that Georgia law automatically imposes on local governments that do not execute a service delivery agreement, see Ga.Code Ann. § 36-70-27(a)(l). Doc. 242 at 4.”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 8× “3 Because the parties failed to agree to an updated SDS Agreement by the February 28, 2019 deadline, sanctions under OCGA § 36-70-27 (a) were imposed on the County and each municipality.”
Alcovy Shores Water & Sewerage Auth. v. Jasper Cnty., 626 S.E.2d 560 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “OCGA§ 36-70-27 (a). Thus ASWSA, to the extent it relies on any state-administered financial assistance or grant, loan, or permit, may not be able to complete a project outside the service area designated by the Service Agreement.”
City of Sandy Springs, Georgia v. City of Atlanta, Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “1 (d) provides in relevant part: “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…”
City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” That section further provides that the court, in its discretion, may impose or hold in abeyance the statutory sanctions under OCGA § 36-70-27 (a); use its contempt powers to ensure compliance with its decision; and impose costs if it determines a party has acted in bad faith.”
City of Atlanta v. City of Sandy Springs (11th Cir. 2012).
“The court’s order also “held in abeyance” the sanctions that Georgia law automatically imposes on local governments that do not execute a service delivery agreement, see Ga. Code Ann. § 36-70-27 (a)(1). Doc. 242 at 4.”
— 36-70-27(a)(l) — 1 case
Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 701 F.3d 669 (11th Cir. 2012).
“The court’s order also “held in abeyance” the sanctions that Georgia law automatically imposes on local governments that do not execute a service delivery agreement, see Ga.Code Ann. § 36-70-27(a)(l). Doc. 242 at 4.”
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.