O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-71-7 (2019)

Credit for present value of construction accepted by municipality or county from developer

✓ 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) In the calculation of development impact fees for a particular project, credit shall be given for the present value of any construction of improvements or contribution or dedication of land or money required

or accepted by a municipality or county from a developer or his predecessor in title or interest for system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected. Credits shall not be given for project improvements. (b) In the event that a developer enters into an agreement with a county or municipality to construct, fund, or contribute system improvements such that the amount of the credit created by such construction, funding, or contribution is in excess of the development impact fees which would otherwise have been paid for the development project, the developer shall be reimbursed for such excess construction, funding, or contribution from development impact fees paid by other development located in the service area which is benefited by such improvements.

History

Code 1981, § 36-71-7, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 692, § 1.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey of

local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Impact fee credits. - 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 cred-

its 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).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2005–2016 · leading case: Fulton Greens, Ltd. P'ship v. City of Alpharetta, 612 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fulton Greens, Ltd. P'ship v. City of Alpharetta, 612 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “” 8 And OCGA § 36-71-7 (b) specifies that if a developer enters into an agreement with a.”

Effingham Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Park West Effingham, L.P., 708 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “It then sought cash reimbursement from the city in lieu of impact fees pursuant to OCGA § 36-71-7 (b). But we noted that OCGA § 36-71-13 (b) explicitly permits developers and municipalities to provide by contract for the method of reimbursement, and that the developer and the…”

Fairgreen Capital, LLC v. City of Canton, 782 S.E.2d 46 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “municipality to construct, fund, or contribute system improvements such that the amount of the credit created by such construction, funding, or contribution is in excess of the development impact fees which would otherwise have been paid for the development project, the…”

Fairgreen Capital, LLC v. City of Canton (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “municipality to construct, fund, or contribute system improvements such that the amount of the credit created by such construction, funding, or contribution is in excess of the development impact fees which would otherwise have been paid for the development project, the…”

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.