GWINNETT COUNTY v. CITY OF NORCROSS ORDER

Gwinnett County built storm water drainage infrastructure on a piece of property before the City of Norcross annexed that property into its city limits. After annexation, the land became subject to Norcross's storm water fee instead of the county's, and the two governments had a separate agreement under which Norcross would provide storm water services within its own boundaries. Even so, Norcross argued that Gwinnett County remained legally responsible for maintaining and repairing the storm water infrastructure because there had been no formal transfer of that responsibility. The Court of Appeals ruled on the dispute, and Gwinnett County asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to review that decision. The Supreme Court denied the county's request for review, meaning the Court of Appeals' decision stands. One Justice dissented, arguing the case raised important unresolved questions about who is responsible for storm water infrastructure after annexation and urging the General Assembly to clarify the law.

The Supreme Court of Georgia denied the petition for certiorari, meaning it declined to take up the case and left the Court of Appeals' decision undisturbed; the order does not itself resolve who is responsible for maintaining storm water infrastructure on annexed property.

Counties and cities across Georgia are increasingly annexing developed land with existing storm water systems, and this unresolved question leaves local governments uncertain about who must pay for maintenance, repairs, and liability when flooding problems arise on that infrastructure.

Certiorari denied

1. The majority's decision is reflected only in the order denying certiorari, meaning the court chose not to review the Court of Appeals' ruling and gave no separate reasoning of its own.
2. The dissenting Justice noted that the court's prior decision in Fulton County v. City of Sandy Springs, which held a county must keep maintaining storm water infrastructure it built even after the city annexed the land, seemed to favor Norcross's position but was not directly on point.
3. The dissent explained that Fulton County involved infrastructure the county itself built and land partly owned by the county through condemnation, while this case involved a formal Service Delivery Strategy Agreement between Norcross and Gwinnett County that Fulton County never addressed.
4. Because the case raised an unresolved question about how such intergovernmental service agreements affect responsibility for annexed storm water infrastructure, the dissent concluded the issue was significant enough that the court should have granted certiorari to decide it.

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