By Robin Postell
VALDOSTA, Ga. – After the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled against Lowndes County on Monday, October 21, 2019, the City of Valdosta has stepped forward to weigh in on the Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) lawsuit.
City Manager Mark Barber and outgoing Valdosta Mayor John Gayle sat down with Valdosta Today to help the community understand what is going on.
With such a complex, and a comprehensive, device such as the SDS, citizens need clarification on what it means in layman’s terms, Barber said.
“The Cities are not a part of this current lawsuit. That’s what we want people to understand. This is not about the Cities, it’s about the County suing the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and continuing to file appeals even after the courts have ruled against them,” Barber stated. “We aren’t part of the lawsuit and we don’t want to become a part of it unless we have to defend ourselves…County officials made a remark that ‘the courts just aren’t getting it right.’ Perhaps the County’s attorneys aren’t getting it right?”
The last SDS negotiation took two years beginning in 2006 and ending in 2008, with the requirement of a new agreement being made every 10 years. In 2016, negotiations began again between Lowndes County and the Cities regarding duplication of services and tax inequities.
In November of 2016, the Department of Community imposed sanctions on the Cities, which kept them from receiving funding, grants and certain permits. That funding included programs such as CDBG, LMIG, GEFA loans, EPD permits, and contracts with GDOT. These sanctions were very serious. They impacted Lake Park, Hahira and Valdosta. Specifically, Hahira’s attempt to secure an environment grant was blocked. A Valdosta downtown property owner was working with a state agency to obtain a loan for a building restoration. The transaction could not take place under while the Cities and County were in non-compliance. The Cities requested the Court to do so. According to city officials, The County opposed lifting the sanctions and the Court agreed with the Cities.
The Cities asked the Supreme Court to lift the imposed sanctions on the Cities to some extent, “holding under abeyance” any grants or funds they can receive until a judge has reviewed them. The court ruled against what the County was trying to do with what Gayle and Barber referred to as a “sidebar lawsuit.”
“There are several areas where tax inequities are an issue and need negotiation, which the SDS requires being addressed and resolved,” Barber underscored. “Examples being road maintenance, funding to the Rainwater Conference Center and the Turner Center for the Arts, and water and sewer service.”
“A negotiation is a discussion that resolves an issue in a way that both parties find acceptable,” Mayor Gayle said. “They (the County) don’t even give us an opportunity to negotiate and never have. The Cities have negotiated on every issue but the County has not. ”
Both Gayle and Barber were emphatic that most important was that of economic prospects potentially coming into the Lowndes County area being able to choose whether they preferred using City or County utility services.
“Why take a chance on an economic prospect walking away from a deal when we can find a permanent solution?” Mayor Gayle said, leaning back in his chair and sighing. “We need economic prospects coming into our community to be able to get what they ask for.”
“If they want city or county utilities, they should have that choice,” Barber added. “There are certain reasons an industry would want city services such as the quality of the water. We have an industrial pretreatment process. Which is something the county does not have. Time is money for these prospects, and a delay in meeting their needs may prevent them from locating to our community.”
When the issue arises about the nearly $900,000 spent on attorneys by the taxpayers in Lowndes County and the respective Cities, Mayor Gayle and Barber agreed it was unnecessary and unfair for the County to keep the expensive three-year litigation going.
Gayle believes that the SDS attorney’s fees highlight one of the tax inequities faced by the municipal residents of Hahira, Lake Park, Dasher, Remerton and Valdosta.
“The residents of those Cities pay approximately 52% of the Lowndes County Tax Digest. The County paid its SDS attorney’s fees from that revenue source. Consequently, municipal residents not only paid 100% of their own legal fees, they also paid 52% of the County’s,” said Gayle. “The Cities did not initiate the SDS lawsuit and were certainly not involved in the County’s decision to sue, and then appeal the decision to dismiss the state entities. However, they still had to the majority the County’s attorney’s fees to do so.”
Now the County has appealed the latest SDS rulings to the Supreme Court. City officials believe it will cause additional expense and delay which will only lead to more tax payer dollars being spent.
“This has been referred to as a procedural event, it is not,” Gayle said. “This is a lawsuit costing Lowndes County citizens real money. The County has never won a single motion. We just want to be considered pro-business and a proactive community. If an individual prospective job-providing industry asks for something, then they should get it.”
“It’s been stated that we want to ‘annex everything,’” City Manager Barber emphasized. “No, that’s simply not true. The SDS and annexation are two different things”
“What we do want is the economic prospects who come here to have autonomy,” Gayle said. “We’re not out there marketing our Cities’ utilities.”
Below is, in full, the release the City of Valdosta made available to the public:
City of Valdosta Addresses Lowndes County SDS Lawsuit
The Cities of Dasher, Hahira, Lake Park, Remerton and Valdosta (“Cities”) hope with the recent decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals, the Lowndes County Board of Commissioners will agree to negotiate service delivery strategy as it is required to do and cease further appeals and collateral attacks on the service delivery process itself. There are six governmental entities in Lowndes County. Five of the six have requested renegotiation. However, Lowndes County has refused. To prevent the Cities from utilizing the SDS dispute resolution process which is provided by O.C.G.A. 36-70-25.1(d) (2), Lowndes County filed a lawsuit against the Cities. As part of the lawsuit, Lowndes County requested the Court restrain the Cities from invoking the renegotiation process mentioned above. Lowndes County requested the following:
57. The Court should by injunction restrain any proceeding by one of more of the Cities against the County seeking judicial resolution of issues or disputes pursuant to OCGA 36-70-25.1(d)((2).
Lowndes County Complaint, Para. 57.
In its lawsuit, Lowndes County first argued the SDS dispute resolution process was unconstitutional and that a Court could not decide disputed issues between it and the Cities. The Georgia Supreme Court disagreed in a companion case arising from Greene County. See City of Union Point vs. Green County, 303 Ga. 449 (2018). Consequently, the Trial Court on July 18, 2018 ruled in favor of the Cities on this issue.
Lowndes County’s second attack against the negotiation process is that the SDS Agreement from 2008 remains in effect. In its lawsuit against the Cities, Lowndes County argued the following:
18. As required by OCGA 36-70-25.1(f), and as provided by the terms and provisions of the existing agreement itself, the existing strategy agreement remains and is in effect.
Lowndes County Complaint, Para. 18.
In a recent VDT article, Lowndes County stated that the Court of Appeals Opinion “says what is says.” The Cities agree. On page 15 of the Court of Appeals opinion, it says:
Despite the [Board of Commissioners’] argument, OCGA 36-70-25.1(f)’s mandate that ‘Any service delivery agreement implemented as a result of the process set forth in this Code section shall remain in effect until revised pursuant to OCGA 36-70-28’ does not apply in this case. OCGA 36-70-25.1(f) applies only to service delivery agree,emts emtered into as a result of the mediation and appeal process described in OCGA 36-70-25.1(a)-(c).
(Opinion, p. 15) (emphasis added).
Consequently, Lowndes County’s second argument, that the 2008 SDS Agreement lives forever, fails as well. The Cities hope there will be no more appeals filed by Lowndes County. Since its legal attempts to avoid SDS negotiation have failed, the Cities hope that Lowndes County will now engage in the process required by the SDS Act as the Cities have requested from the beginning.
Why is this important for the Cities?
The Service Delivery Act is largely meant to eliminate or greatly reduce tax inequities. The recent article on SDS attorney fees highlights the tax inequity faced by the municipal residents of Dasher, Hahira, Lake Park, Remerton, and Valdosta. For example, the residents of those Cities pay 52% of Lowndes County’s tax digest. Lowndes County paid its SDS attorney’s fees from that revenue source. Consequently, municipal residents not only paid 100% of their own legal fees, they also paid 52% of Lowndes County’s.
That example is the equivalent to the tax inequity faced by the municipal residents when road funding is discussed. Lowndes County and the Cities have their own respective road systems. The Cities pay for their own road systems despite use by both incorporated and unincorporated residents. Lowndes County, whose road system is 97% in the unincorporated area, argues the entire county should pay for its system. Again, like the attorney fees, the municipal residents pay for 100% of their road systems but also pay for 52% of the budget for Lowndes County’s road system. In an effort to resolve SDS, will Lowndes County pay for 50% of the cost of their road systems without taxing the municipal residents?
With respect to water and sewer, the issue is what governmental entity can provide services more effectively and whether the Cities can deliver water and sewer service outside of their respective boundaries. Lowndes County has repeatedly raised concerns about annexation. However, as the Cities have maintained all along, SDS is not about annexation. Additionally, annexation is not something a City can do without a request from the individual or entity to do so. However, to the extent anyone is concerned about the prospects of residential annexation, and in an effort to resolve SDS dispute, the Cities re-extend the following offer: for any existing residence, proposed or existing residential project, the City will agree to follow the same process utilized in the 2008 SDS Agreement. This will provide Lowndes County veto power over any request. However, for commercial and industrial projects, the Cities again propose customer choice. If the commercial or industrial prospect desires City water and sewer service, then the Cities will be allowed to provide it without having to seek permission.
Lowndes County has spent $482,641.42 trying to legally avoid the SDS renegotiation process mandated by state law. It has not only sued all the Cities in Lowndes County, but also State agencies. The Cities have spent $377,506.48 defending Lowndes County’s lawsuit. The Cities’ position is simple: Stay your lawsuit, consider the offers above and move on for the betterment of all the citizens of Lowndes County, incorporated and unincorporated alike
City of Valdosta Addresses SDS Lawsuit
For more information about the Cities counterclaim against the County, click here.
