O.C.G.A. § 36-71-13 (2019)
Construction of reasonable project improvements; private agreements between property owners or developers and municipalities and counties; hook-up or connection fees for water or sewer service; applicability of chapter to water authorities
Statute text
(a) Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a municipality or county from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a development project.
(b) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent or prohibit private agreements between property owners or developers and municipalities, counties, or other governmental entities in regard to the construction or installation of system improvements and providing for credits or reimbursements for system improvement costs incurred by a developer including interproject transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for project improvement costs which are used or shared by more than one development project.
(c) Nothing in this chapter shall limit a municipality, county, or other governmental entity which provides water or sewer service from collecting a proportionate share of the capital cost of water or sewer facilities by way of hook-up or connection fees as a condition of water or sewer service to new or existing users, provided that the development impact fee ordinance of a municipality or county or other governmental entity that collects development impact fees pursuant to this chapter shall include a provision for credit for such hook-up or connection fees collected by the municipality or county to the extent that such hook-up or connection fee is collected to pay for system improvements. Imposition of such hook-up or connection fees by any governmental entity to pay for system improvements either existing or new shall be consistent with the capital improvement element of the comprehensive plan and shall be subject to the approval of each county, municipality, or combination thereof which appoints the governing body of such entity. The adoption, imposition, collection, and expenditure of such fees for system improvements by any governmental entity shall be subject to the same procedures applicable to the adoption, imposition, collection, and expenditure of development impact fees by a county.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall apply to a water authority created by Act of the General Assembly, as long as such authority is not established as a political subdivision of the State of Georgia but instead acts subject to the approval of a county governing authority.
History
(Code 1981, § 36-71-13, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 692, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 36; Ga. L. 1992, p. 905, § 3.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey of local government law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 289 (2005) and 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Applicability. - Georgia Department of Community Affairs has properly interpreted the second and third sentences of O.C.G.A. § 36-71-13(c) to apply only to "governmental entities," as that term is defined by the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-71-1 et seq. City of Griffin v. McDaniel, 270 Ga. App. 349, 606 S.E.2d 607 (2004).
Private development agreements. - Because O.C.G.A. § 36-71-13(b) permitted an owner and a city to enter into a private development agreement and the agreement unambiguously provided for reimbursement in the form of impact fee credits under O.C.G.A. § 36-71-7(b) and not cash, the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment to the city. Fulton Greens, L.P. v. City of Alpharetta, 272 Ga. App. 459, 612 S.E.2d 491 (2005).
Recoupment of costs. - O.C.G.A. § 36-71-13(c) was clearly designed to allow local governments providing water or sewer service to recoup part of the capital costs of their facilities from new or existing users as a condition of providing service to those users. City of Griffin v. McDaniel, 270 Ga. App. 349, 606 S.E.2d 607 (2004).
As a municipality providing sewer service, a city was entitled, under O.C.G.A. § 36-71-13(c), to collect a proportionate share of the capital cost of its sewer facilities as a condition of sewer service to new or existing users, without adopting an impact fee ordinance. City of Griffin v. McDaniel, 270 Ga. App. 349, 606 S.E.2d 607 (2004).
——————————
CHAPTER 72
ABANDONED CEMETERIES AND BURIAL GROUNDS
Sec.
36-72-1. Legislative findings and intent.
36-72-2. Definitions.
36-72-3. Authority of counties and municipalities to preserve abandoned cemeteries.
36-72-4. Permit required for developing land on which cemetery located.
36-72-5. Application for permit.
36-72-6. Identification and notification of descendants of person in cemetery sought to be developed.
36-72-7. Public hearing on development of abandoned cemetery; time for decision on application for permit.
36-72-8. Issues considered in decision on application for permit.
36-72-9. Establishment of board or commission to review applications in counties exceeding certain population size.
36-72-10. Application fee.
36-72-11. Appeal of decision on application for permit.
36-72-12. Development activities pending appeal.
36-72-13. Inspection to ensure applicant's compliance.
36-72-14. Jurisdiction of superior court; expending private or public funds to mitigate harm to cemetery.
36-72-15. Disinterment and disposition of human remains or burial objects.
36-72-16. Penalties.
Annotations