Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448As hereinafter provided in this Paragraph, special districts may be created for the provision of local government services within such districts; and fees, assessments, and taxes may be levied and collected within such districts to pay, wholly or partially, the cost of providing such services therein and to construct and maintain facilities therefor. Such special districts may be created and fees, assessments, or taxes may be levied and collected therein by any one or more of the following methods:
(a) By general law which directly creates the districts.
(b) By general law which requires the creation of districts under conditions specified by such general law.
(c) By municipal or county ordinance or resolution, except that no such ordinance or resolution may supersede a law enacted by the General Assembly pursuant to subparagraphs (a) or (b) of this Paragraph.
- Art. IX, Sec. IV, Para. II; Art. IX, Sec. V, Para. III.
- Creating special districts, § 48-8-81.
Authorization of this paragraph contemplated creation of special districts for providing services, not special districts for taxing same services at different rates. Martin v. Ellis, 242 Ga. 340, 249 S.E.2d 23 (1978) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI).
Special districts may be created for the provision of local government services within special districts; and fees, assessments, and taxes may be levied and collected within such district to pay, wholly or partially, the cost of providing such services therein and to construct and maintain facilities therefor. The special district clause of the constitution limits the expenditure of revenue derived from the special district tax to the provision of local governmental services within the special district. Wells v. City of Baldwin, 275 Ga. 228, 565 S.E.2d 439 (2002).
This paragraph contemplates a link between service provided and method of financing service; therefore, charges and fees are to be made for such services in the abstract. Similarly, the exercise of the power to tax and assess is specifically tied to the purpose of providing such services. Accordingly, it is proper to levy a tax within a part of a city or county to pay for special service provided to that part and not to the remainder of the city or county. However, it is not proper simply to decide that property owners in one part of a city or county will pay more than their fair share for services provided equally throughout the taxing jurisdiction. Martin v. Ellis, 242 Ga. 340, 249 S.E.2d 23 (1978) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI).
Statute creating special districts for the purpose of implementing a hotel/motel tax did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI. Youngblood v. State, 259 Ga. 864, 388 S.E.2d 671 (1990).
- City ordinance violated the Joint County and Municipal Sales and Use Tax Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-66 et seq., by authorizing the city to use its pro rata share of revenue generated by another county's local option sales tax (LOST) to roll back the millage rate for county residents. Wells v. City of Baldwin, 275 Ga. 228, 565 S.E.2d 439 (2002).
- The Homestead Option Sales Tax (HOST), O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., implements a district tax under the "special district" provision of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI; intergovernmental contracts which are authorized under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I cannot be limited by HOST. City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 277 Ga. 292, 589 S.E.2d 561 (2003).
Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Homestead Option Sales Tax Act (HOST), O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., did not allow a county to disburse funds to various cities in order to facilitate the capital outlay requirement under O.C.G.A. § 48-8-104(c)(2)(A), as HOST was implemented under the "special district" provision of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI, and as it was not a "county tax," it was subject to such an arrangement; however, the intergovernmental agreement between the county and cities had to be authorized under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. III, Para. I in order to be valid. City of Decatur v. DeKalb County, 277 Ga. 292, 589 S.E.2d 561 (2003).
Ga. L. 2007, p. 598, § 1 et seq., which amended the Homestead Option Sales and Use Tax (HOST) Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., did not change the purpose of the HOST approved by county voters when it provided for the distribution of HOST proceeds to the governing authority of each qualified municipality located in the special district; the tax for which it sought voter approval was within the special district within the county, and that was because the HOST was not a "county tax" but a district tax levied to provide for services within that special district pursuant to the authority granted by Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI. DeKalb County v. Perdue, 286 Ga. 793, 692 S.E.2d 331 (2010).
Trial court did not err by holding that Ga. L. 2007, p. 598, § 1 et seq., which amended the Homestead Option Sales and Use Tax (HOST) Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-100 et seq., did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI, because although a tax levied and collected within a special district pursuant to Para. VI could only be used for the cost of providing services within that district, Para. VI did not require that the entity levying the special district tax be the same one providing the services within the district, such that funds emanating from the HOST could be used for services in that part of the county that was within the corporate borders of the qualified municipality only when the county and the city jointly so agreed; the Paragraph contains no language identifying any particular entity as the exclusive provider of local government services. DeKalb County v. Perdue, 286 Ga. 793, 692 S.E.2d 331 (2010).
§ 48-8-89(d)(4), violates separation of powers doctrine. - To the extent the 2010 amendment to the Local Option Sales Tax Act (LOST), O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4), permits judicial resolution of the issue of whether LOST should be renewed and the governing bodies of the special district should be required to levy and collect the tax, the amendment violates the separation of powers doctrine of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Para. III. Turner County v. City of Ashburn, 293 Ga. 739, 749 S.E.2d 685 (2013).
- County Board of Commissioners was authorized to create the special taxation district for the purpose of providing health services, as Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI allowed the special districts, and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. III allowed the county to provide public health services. Greene County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Higdon, 277 Ga. App. 350, 626 S.E.2d 541 (2006).
- O.C.G.A. § 36-31-12(b) did not violate the Georgia Constitution by encroaching on a county's exclusive authority, derived from a local constitutional amendment (Ga.1972, p. 1482, § 1), over the collection and expenditure of revenues collected within its special taxing and spending district; the amendment granted concurrent authority to the county and the general assembly over these matters. Fulton County v. Perdue, 280 Ga. 807, 631 S.E.2d 362 (2006).
Cited in Inman Park Restoration, Inc. v. Urban Mass Transp. Admin., 414 F. Supp. 99 (N.D. Ga. 1975); Jones v. Douglas County, 262 Ga. 317, 418 S.E.2d 19 (1992).
This paragraph creates an independent districting mechanism and does not limit the constitutional authority of cities and counties. 1980 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U80-45.(see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Para. VI).
County may establish a special tax district for fire protection without assent of a majority of qualified voters of such district. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-55.
County tax district cannot be established for making improvements in the district. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-5.
Special taxation district for paving streets may be created. 1978 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U78-9.
Principal on revenue anticipation bonds may not be paid out of a county's general revenues or with revenue sharing funds. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-98.
County water system can, if proper ordinances are in effect, be operated using general revenues of the county and, at least in part, the operating expenses may be paid with federal revenue sharing funds. 1975 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U75-98.
- County fire districts can be created only by action of the General Assembly or by action of the county governing authority and may not be established by petition and referendum pursuant to the home rule provisions of the Constitution. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-54.