GWINNETT COUNTY v. CITY OF NORCROSS

Gwinnett County had required a landowner to build storm water management infrastructure before the property was later annexed into the City of Norcross. Once inside Norcross, the property became subject to the city's storm water fee instead of the county's, and Norcross argued that Gwinnett County still owed the duty to maintain and repair the infrastructure because no legal transfer of that responsibility had ever occurred. The Court of Appeals of Georgia had sided with Norcross, relying on an earlier Supreme Court of Georgia case involving Fulton County and the City of Sandy Springs. Gwinnett County asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review that decision. The full court denied the petition for certiorari, meaning it chose not to take up the case, and the Court of Appeals' ruling stands. One Justice dissented, arguing the case raised important unresolved questions.

The court did not decide the underlying maintenance question; it simply denied the petition for certiorari, leaving the Court of Appeals of Georgia's decision favoring the City of Norcross's position undisturbed, without resolving whether Gwinnett County remains responsible for the annexed infrastructure.

Because the court declined review, counties and cities across Georgia remain uncertain who must maintain storm water infrastructure on annexed land, especially where a service delivery agreement exists. The dissent urges the General Assembly to clarify this responsibility so local governments can plan for maintenance costs and legal exposure.

Petition for certiorari denied

1. The dissent noted that an earlier case, Fulton County v. City of Sandy Springs, held that a county retains an obligation to maintain storm water infrastructure it built even after a city annexes the property, and the Court of Appeals relied heavily on that precedent to rule against Gwinnett County.
2. The dissent pointed out that in the earlier Fulton County case, the county itself had physically constructed the infrastructure and held property interests in it through easements and condemnation, facts that made that county's ongoing duty to maintain what it 'previously decided to build' more clear-cut.
3. The dissent observed that the earlier case never addressed a situation where the county and city had signed a Service Delivery Strategy Agreement, a formal pact allocating which government provides which services, which could change or clarify who is responsible for storm water maintenance after annexation.
4. Because these factual and legal differences left the maintenance question unresolved, and because similar annexation disputes are likely to recur across Georgia's growing urban areas, the dissent concluded the case raised issues significant enough to warrant the Supreme Court of Georgia's review, even though the majority disagreed.

• storm water infrastructure
• municipal annexation
• Gwinnett County
• City of Norcross
• certiorari denial