Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-70-27 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-70-27 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-70-27

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 70 information not found

ARTICLE 2 SERVICE DELIVERY

36-70-27. Limitation of funding for projects inconsistent with strategy.

    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.
    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:
      1. The county within which any such municipality or portion of any such municipality is located; or
      2. 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.
  3. 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.

(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.)

The 2010 amendment, effective June 4, 2010, in subsection (a), designated the existing provisions as paragraph (a)(1), deleted "On and after July 1, 1999," at the beginning of paragraph (a)(1), and added paragraph (a)(2).

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2010, "Georgia Environmental Finance Authority" was substituted for "Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority" in 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).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-70-27

Total Results: 5  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty., 812 S.E.2d 278 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 16 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2018

...r subsection (c), "the imposition of sanctions" by the limitation of funding for "any local government or authority which is not included in a department verified strategy or for any project which is inconsistent with such strategy" pursuant to OCGA § 36-70-27, and mandatory mediation under subsection (d) (1)....
...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 36-70-20. It shall be in the discretion of the judge to hold the sanctions specified in Code Section 36-70-27 against one or more of the parties in abeyance pending the disposition of the action....
...ere made or are subject to revision under the terms of the Act. It provides no remedy to a county or city aggrieved by the breach of an IGA; the only provision of the Act that affects the enforcement of an existing agreement is the provision of OCGA § 36-70-27 (a) (1) that state funds cannot be used for a project inconsistent with a "department verified strategy" made under the Act....
Copy

City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty. (& Vice Versa), 303 Ga. 449 (Ga. 2018).

Cited 15 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2018

...under subsection (c), “the imposition of sanctions” by the limitation of funding for “any local government or authority which is not included in a department verified strategy or for any project which is inconsistent with such strategy” pursuant to OCGA § 36-70-27, and mandatory mediation under subsection (d) (1)....
...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 36-70-20. It shall be in the discretion of the judge to hold the sanctions specified in Code Section 36-70-27 against one or more of the parties in abeyance pending the disposition of the action....
...terms of the Act. It provides no remedy to a county or city aggrieved by the breach of an IGA; the only 9 provision of the Act that affects the enforcement of an existing agreement is the provision of OCGA § 36-70-27 (a) (1) that state funds cannot be used for a project inconsistent with a “department verified strategy” made under the Act. There is no reason to conclude, therefore, that the SDS Act supersedes other remedies available to a count...
Copy

City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty., 318 Ga. 550 (Ga. 2024).

Cited 8 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 5, 2024

...To resolve the remaining conflicts, the County filed a three- count petition pursuant to OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (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....
...However, after the County filed a petition seeking resolution of these issues, the superior court ordered that the sanctions be held in abeyance during the pendency of the litigation. See OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (2) (“It shall be in the discretion of the judge to hold the sanctions specified in Code Section 36-70-27 against one or more of the parties in abeyance pending the disposition of the action.”). 4 OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (c) provides for the use of alternative dispute resolution, as follows: 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. 5 OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (1) (A) allows the parties to seek resolution of their disputes in superior cou...
...other municipality (the “Outside Customers”) amounted to an illegal tax on such residents based on the differential in the rates the City 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: ....
Copy

Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of the City of Valdosta, 309 Ga. 899 (Ga. 2020).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 28, 2020

...distribution arrangements; (3) Whenever necessary due to changes in revenue distribution arrangements; loan, or permit shall be issued to any local government or authority that is not included in a service delivery strategy “verified” by DCA. See OCGA § 36-70-27 (a) (1); see also OCGA §§ 36-70-27 (c), 36-70-2 (4)....
...its website notice that the County and the Cities are ineligible for state administered financial assistance, grants, loans, and permits, contrary to OCGA § 36-70- 25.1 (f), the terms and provisions of the existing strategy agreement, and OCGA § 36-70-27.” And nothing in the complaint claims that the alleged illegal actions are not subject to the direction and control of the DCA commissioner or that the commissioner’s direction and control over this conduct is somehow exempt from the DCA board’s general authority to hire and fire the commissioner....

City of Winder v. Barrow Cnty. (Ga. 2024).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 5, 2024

...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. 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....
...However, after the County filed a petition seeking resolution of these issues, the superior court ordered that the sanctions be held in abeyance during the pendency of the litigation. See OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (2) (“It shall be in the discretion of the judge to hold the sanctions specified in Code Section 36-70-27 against one or more of the parties in abeyance pending the disposition of the action.”). 4 OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (c) provides for the use of alternative dispute resolution, as follows: 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. 3 To resolve the remaining conflicts, the County filed a three-...
...5 OCGA § 36-70-25.1 (d) (1) (A) allows the parties to seek resolution of their disputes in superior court: 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: ....