Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-80-16.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-80-16.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-80-16.1

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 80 information not found

ARTICLE 3 ENFORCEMENT BOARDS CREATED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2003

36-80-16.1. PILOT restriction; payments in lieu of taxes defined; financing capital projects.

  1. This Code section shall be known and may be cited as the "PILOT Restriction Act."
  2. As used in this Code section, the term "payments in lieu of taxes" means payments made directly or indirectly:
    1. Primarily in consideration of the issuance of revenue bonds or other revenue obligations and the application by the issuer of such bonds or other obligations of the proceeds of such bonds or other obligations to finance all or a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing, equipping, or installing a capital project; and
    2. In further consideration of the laws of the State of Georgia granting an exemption from ad valorem taxation for such capital project,

      to or for the account of the issuer of revenue bonds or other revenue obligations or the public bodies whose consent would otherwise be required, in the case of the separate payments provided for under subsection (d) of this Code section. Payments in lieu of taxes shall be deemed to be payments in lieu of taxes for educational purposes in the same proportion that property taxes for educational purposes would bear to total property taxes on such capital project if the project were subject to ad valorem property taxation. The term "payments in lieu of taxes" shall not include payments made primarily in consideration for the use or occupancy of property, including but not limited to lease payments or rent paid under a lease, regardless of whether or not the lessee or tenant holds an interest that is taxable for property tax purposes.

    1. No local government authority, as defined in Code Section 36-80-16, shall be authorized to issue revenue bonds or other revenue obligations to finance, in whole or in part, any capital project if the terms governing such revenue bonds or other revenue obligations provide for such capital project to be used primarily by a nongovernmental user or users that have no taxable property interest in any portion of such capital project and provide for such revenue bonds or other revenue obligations to be repaid, in whole or in part, through payments in lieu of taxes made by a nongovernmental user or users, unless:
      1. Each of the local governments that have property tax levying authority in the area in which such capital project is located consents by ordinance or resolution to the use of payments in lieu of taxes for such purposes; and
      2. In the case of payments in lieu of taxes for educational purposes, a consent is obtained that covers the use for such purposes of such payments in accordance with subsection (d) of this Code section, except that the terms governing such revenue bonds or other revenue obligations may provide for one or more of the public bodies, whose consent would otherwise be required, instead to receive, in such capacity, separate payments in lieu of taxes at least equal to the property taxes that such public body or bodies would have received if the capital project were subject to ad valorem taxation or in such other amount or amounts as may be agreed to by such public body or bodies.
    2. No such revenue bonds or other revenue obligations may be so issued without compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    1. When a capital project is located within the boundaries of a municipality with an independent school system, a consent by the municipality under subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of this Code section shall cover the use of payments in lieu of taxes for educational purposes, provided that, if the board of education of the independent school system is empowered to set the ad valorem tax millage rate for educational purposes and the legislative body of the municipality does not have the authority to modify such rate set by the board of education, the requisite consent shall be that of the board of education of the independent school system rather than that of the legislative body of the municipality.
    2. For those municipalities which do not have an independent school system, a consent by the municipality under subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of this Code section shall cover the use of payments in lieu of taxes for educational purposes if the county board of education or the local legislative body of the county, whichever is authorized to establish the ad valorem tax millage rate for educational purposes, consents to such coverage by resolution duly adopted by said board of education or local legislative body, as appropriate.
    3. The use of payments in lieu of taxes levied for county school district purposes shall be covered by a consent under subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of this Code section if the board of education of the county school district or the local legislative body of the county, whichever is authorized to establish the ad valorem tax millage rate for educational purposes, consents to such coverage by resolution duly adopted by said board of education or local legislative body, as appropriate.
    4. The use of payments in lieu of taxes levied for school district purposes within the boundaries of a consolidated government shall be covered by a consent under subparagraph (c)(1)(B) of this Code section if the board of education of such school district or the local legislative body of the consolidated government, whichever is authorized to establish the ad valorem tax millage rate for educational purposes within the school district, consents to such coverage by resolution duly adopted by said board of education or local legislative body, as appropriate.
  5. This Code section shall not affect revenue bonds or other revenue obligations which any local government authority has issued or which have been judicially validated on or before April 22, 2009. Each county board of tax assessors shall continue, notwithstanding this Code section, to exercise its powers and discharge its duties and is specifically authorized, without limitation, to use a method or methods of valuation for leases related to revenue bonds or other revenue obligations issued by a local government authority for a capital project or projects to be leased primarily to a nongovernmental user or users, based on assessments of the increasing interest of the nongovernmental user or users in the real or personal property, or both, over the term of the lease, or to use a simplified method or methods employing a specified percentage or specified percentages of such leasehold interests. Each local government authority that is authorized to issue revenue bonds or other revenue obligations secured by a taxable property interest, such as a taxable lease of a capital project, shall continue, notwithstanding this Code section, to exercise its powers and discharge its duties, including, in the case of development authorities, the development of trade, commerce, industry, and employment opportunities. Any local government or local government authority which directly or indirectly receives payments in lieu of taxes shall be authorized to use the same for any governmental or public purpose of such local government or local government authority.

(Code 1981, §36-80-16.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2009, p. 158, § 3/HB 63.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2009, "the term" was inserted in the introductory language of subsection (b) and "April 22, 2009" was substituted for "the effective date of this Code section" in the first sentence of subsection (e).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Valuation of leasehold estates.

- Trial court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted a taxpayer's petition seeking a declaration that the valuation method a county board of assessors and the development authority of the county used for leasehold estates arising from a local development authority sale-leaseback bond transaction was illegal and in granting the authority's motion for judgment on the pleadings because the taxpayer made material allegations that could be supported by admissible evidence on the issue of whether the valuation method fairly and justly approximated the fair market value of a bond transaction leasehold estate, and the board and authority failed to show that they were clearly entitled to judgment; although O.C.G.A. § 36-80-16.1(e) gave county boards of tax assessors authority to use simplified methods for determining the value of a bond transaction leasehold estate, the statute did not relieve the board and authority from their duty to value the leasehold estate at the estate's fair market value, and any contention that the statute did allow the board and authority to value a bond transaction leasehold estate at less than the estate's fair market value would make the statute illegal and unconstitutional. Sherman v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 288 Ga. 88, 701 S.E.2d 472 (2010).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-80-16.1

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Sherman v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors, 701 S.E.2d 472 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 38 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 1, 2010 | 288 Ga. 88, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3479

...ar. By the eleventh year, the leasehold estate is valued at 100 percent of the fair market value of the fee simple estate. Sherman seeks the following relief: a declaration that this valuation method, used by Appellees and allegedly codified in OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e), violates the Georgia and United States Constitutions; an injunction prohibiting Appellees from using this valuation method for purposes of determining the fair market value of leasehold estates created by a revenue bond transaction;...
...A challenge to the leasehold valuation method applied to the real property was not before the court and thus was not ruled upon by the court. The footnote's purpose was informational only and therefore is not authority for the valuation method at issue in this case. Appellees also contend that OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e) provides statutory authorization for the use of their valuation method....
...y using a valuation method "based on assessments of the increasing interest of the [lessee] in the real or personal property, or both, over the term of the lease, or to use a simplified method or methods employing a specified percentage. . . ." OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e). Although OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e) gives county boards of tax assessors authority to use certain simplified methods for determining the value of a bond transaction leasehold estate, the statute does not purport to relieve Appellees from their duty to value the leasehold estate at its fair market value....
...257, 267(4), 197 S.E.2d 116 (1973) ("`[T]he requirement in the Constitution that the rule of taxation shall be uniform, means that all kinds of property of the same class . . . must be taxed alike, by the same standard of valuation. . . .' [Cits.]"). Thus, OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e) does not bear upon the overriding issue in this case of whether the valuation method used by Appellees fairly and justly approximates the fair market value of a bond transaction leasehold estate....
...rest has the potential to increase annually as the developer buys back the leased property from the local development authority. See DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. W.C. Harris & Co., 248 Ga. 277, 282 S.E.2d 880 (1981). Acknowledging that OCGA § 36-80-16.1(e) authorizes the use of the valuation method employed by the Board, Mr....