(Code 1981, §12-8-26, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3276, § 7.)
Cross references.- Permission by counties to persons contracting to transport and dump trash, garbage, or other refuse at publicly or privately owned dumps, § 36-1-16.
Law reviews.- For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 199 (1992).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Applies to private developer.
- Requirement for a public meeting applies when the applicant to the Environmental Protection Division is a private developer applying for a privately owned and operated facility to be located in the municipality, and would apply when the municipality acted for or in collaboration with the developer in "beginning a process to select a site." City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
"Siting decision."
- Resolution approving a restated lease and operating agreement between a city and the city's solid waste treatment provider constituted a siting decision since the decision pertained to the location and expansion of the city's landfill facilities. Grove v. Sugar Hill Inv. Assocs., 219 Ga. App. 781, 466 S.E.2d 901 (1995).
When a private developer acted independently in selecting a site for the developer's proposed landfill, a city's subsequent entry into a contract with the developer governing operation of the landfill and requiring the city's cooperation with the developer in the city's application to the Environmental Protection Division was not governed by the requirements of subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, but was a "siting decision" governed by subsection (b) of that section. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
For purposes of determining whether O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 applied to the city's actions in annexing a proposed landfill site, it was not necessary for the city to have been acting in concert with a private developer, but only to determine if the city was beginning the process to select a site for a solid waste disposal facility. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Trial court's finding that the city's decision to annex the site of a proposed landfill was an action that began the process of selecting a landfill site for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 was supported by sufficient evidence since the court found that the annexation was done to receive funds associated with the development and operation of a solid waste landfill. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Whether the city's annexation of the proposed site of a solid waste landfill was the "siting decision" under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26 or whether this decision was made at a later city council meeting during which a private developer's proposal was accepted, the decision was not properly noticed and was properly declared void by the superior court. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Contract invalid for violating subsection (b).
- Because the city failed to give notice, as required by subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, of a meeting at which a siting decision was made, the contract between the city and a private developer governing the operation of a proposed landfill was invalid. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Superior court had jurisdiction to enter an injunction against the city to prevent the city from taking action on a siting decision for a landfill when the city failed to follow the notice and meeting requirements of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-26, and aggrieved citizens had no adequate remedy at law under the existing landfill permit process and its appeal provisions, which did not provide an administrative remedy to prevent the city's ultra vires actions. Emmons v. City of Arcade, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Permanent injunction prohibited.
- Even though a city's failure to hold a properly noticed meeting at which a siting decision was made rendered invalid a contract between the city and a private developer regarding a proposed landfill, the city could not be prevented from holding a properly noticed meeting and it was error to grant a permanent injunction against the city's taking action in furtherance of the landfill. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 228 Ga. App. 879, 494 S.E.2d 186 (1997), modified in part, 270 Ga. 196, 507 S.E.2d 464 (1998).
Failure of the city to provide notice of a meeting at which a restated lease and operating agreement between the city and the city's solid waste treatment provider was approved invalidated that portion of the agreement relating to the siting decision - that portion of the agreement pertaining to the expansion of the acreage of the landfill facility. Grove v. Sugar Hill Inv. Assocs., 219 Ga. App. 781, 466 S.E.2d 901 (1995).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
- Liability of private persons or corporations draining into sewer maintained by municipality or other public body for damages to riparian owners or others, 170 A.L.R. 1192.
Sewage disposal plant as nuisance, 40 A.L.R.2d 1177.