Ga Supreme Court decides DeKalb County V. Perdue in favor of Dunwoody, GA

Link to Decision

DEKALB COUNTY V. PERDUE ET AL. (S09A2016) 
This appeal stems from a lawsuit by DeKalb County against Gov. Sonny Perdue and the state Revenue Commissioner, challenging as unconstitutional the 2007 amendment to the Homestead Option and Sales Use Tax Act (HOST). The suit was sparked by the incorporation of the City of Dunwoody.

FACTS: Under Official Code of Georgia § 48-8-10, the state legislature established the 1 percent HOST and created 159 special tax districts whose boundaries are the same as Georgia’s 159 counties. Under the law, the tax could not be levied without a local referendum. DeKalb voters approved the 1 percent tax in 1997, with the revenues to go toward “funding capital outlay projects and…replac[ing] revenue lost to an additional homestead exemption of up to 100 percent.” Voters also approved legislation providing for the additional HOST-funded homestead exemption. In response to opposition by DeKalb’s cities, the County entered into a 49-year agreement to make annual disbursements to the cities from the HOST revenues, although a dispute later arose over how those payments were calculated, resulting in ongoing litigation. In 2007, the legislature amended the HOST Act, providing that the state Revenue Commissioner would distribute HOST proceeds both to the county and to any “qualified municipality,” which the statute defines as “a municipality created on or after January 1, 2007...” At the time, only DeKalb and Rockdale counties levied a HOST, and neither contained a “qualified municipality.” The two are still the only counties with a HOST. In 2008, the legislature approved the incorporation of the City of Dunwoody which fit the definition of a “qualified municipality” and is due shortly to begin receiving HOST money that would otherwise go to the County. In 2008, the County sued the State, Gov. Sonny Perdue and the Revenue Commissioner in Fulton County, claiming the amended Act was unconstitutional and could not take effect in DeKalb without a voter referendum. The trial court ruled against the County and it now appeals.

ARGUMENTS: The County’s attorneys argue the trial court made at least six errors, including findings it based on testimony by DeKalb’s Director of Finance. The court determined the amended law would not result in any revenue loss to the County, other than what it would have to pay Dunwoody and the other cities. The court also found there would be no increase in the ad valorem tax millage rate the County levies in unincorporated DeKalb. But those findings are wrong, the attorneys contend. Under the amended statute, the County would have to pay Dunwoody $2.9 million in 2009, and if the agreements with the other cities are invalidated as they are requesting, the County could pay as much as $5.3 million. Taxes in unincorporated DeKalb would be raised by $500,000, violating the state constitution’s requirement that “all taxation shall be uniform.” The trial court also erred by ruling that a change to the HOST distributions could be done without a voters’ referendum. Voters must approve any changes to the HOST statute, just as they had to approve the statute itself. Lawyers for the governor and revenue commissioner argue that the trial court’s findings were not erroneous and besides, the County has abandoned these arguments on appeal. There is nothing in state law or the constitution that requires a referendum before the legislature can make changes to the HOST Act. The HOST is a special district tax, not a county tax. Like the County, the City of Dunwoody will act as an agent for the special tax district in expending a portion of the revenues for capital outlay projects that benefit the special tax district. The amended Act does not create non-uniform tax classifications, the attorneys contend.

Attorney for the Appellant (County): Roy Barnes
Attorneys for the Appellees (Perdue): Thurbert Baker, Attorney General, R.O. Lerer, Dep. A.G., Warren Calvert, Sr. Asst. A.G.

http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s09a2016.pdf

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.