O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-70-28 (2019)

‘‘Affected municipality’’ defined; review and revision of 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

(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) Each county and affected municipality shall review, and revise if necessary, the approved strategy: (1) In conjunction with updates of the comprehensive plan as required by Article 1 of this chapter; (2) Whenever necessary to change service delivery or revenue distribution arrangements; (3) Whenever necessary due to changes in revenue distribution arrangements; (4) In the event of the creation, abolition, or consolidation of local governments;

(5) When the existing service delivery strategy agreement expires; or (6) Whenever the county and affected municipalities agree to revise the strategy. (c) In the event that a county or an affected municipality located within the county refuses to review and revise, if necessary, a strategy in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (b) of this Code section, then any of the parties may use the alternative dispute resolution and appeal procedures set forth in subsection (d) of Code Section 36-70-25.1.

History

Code 1981, § 36-70-28, enacted by Ga. L. 1997, p. 1567, § 1; Ga. L.

2000, p. 1439, § 3; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 36/SB 465.

Annotations

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).

CHAPTER 71 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Short title; legislative findings and intent. Definitions. Imposition of development impact fees. Calculation of fees. Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Hearings on proposed fee ordinance. Credit for present value of construction accepted by municipality or county from developer. Deposit and expenditure of fees; annual report.

Sec.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2018–2021 · 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 2× “A month later, in response to a motion to dismiss, the City amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment and mediation under OCGA §§ 36-70-28 (c) 4 and 36-70-25.1 (d).”

City of Union Point v. Greene Cnty. (& Vice Versa), 303 Ga. 449 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “A month later, in response to a motion to dismiss, the City amended its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment and mediation under OCGA §§ 36-70-28 (c)4 and 36-70-25.1 (d).”

Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of the City of Valdosta, 309 Ga. 899 (Ga. 2020). · cites it 3× “1 No state-administered financial assistance or grant, 1 In particular, OCGA § 36-70-28 (b) provides as follows: Each county and affected municipality shall review, and revise if necessary, the approved strategy: (1) In conjunction with updates of the comprehensive plan as…”

City of Sandy Springs, Georgia v. City of Atlanta, Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 14× “Sandy Springs appeals, arguing that the superior court erred in finding that Sandy Springs had to be a party to the current service delivery strategy in order to use OCGA § 36-70-28 (c), that the court erred in finding that Sandy Springs was required to engage in alternative…”

Bd. of Commissioners of Lowndes Cnty. v. Mayor & Council of the City of Valdosta (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “]” OCGA § 36-70-28 (b) (1)-(3). On April 12, 2016, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Lowndes County sent a letter to the Mayors of the Cities of Dasher, Hahira, Lake Park, Remerton and Valdosta giving notice of a joint meeting scheduled for the “purpose of commencing…”

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.