city of college park v. fulton county et al

7/26/2019 City of College Park v. Fulton County Et Al.

1/27

Fulton

County Superior

Cou

***EFILED***RM

Date: 611412016

4:46:35 PM

Cathelene

Robinson, Cler

IN

TI-IE SUPERIOII COUR

OF

ITT]I,TON COUNTY

STATE O}'GEORGIA

CITY

OF

COLLBGE

PARK, GEORGIA,

Plaintil'f,

v.

Civil

Action Filc No.:

FULTON COUNTY,

GEOII^GIA,

and

all

membcrs of the Fulton County Board

of

Cornnrissioners as

fbllou,s:

JOI-IN H.

EAVES,

LTZ

HT\USJ\,IANN,I]OB

ELLIS, LEE

N,TOITRIS, JOAN

P.

GARNER,

N,IARVIN

S. ARRINGTON

and

EivlN{A

I. DARNELL;

F'ULTON

COUNTY

BOARD

OF

ELECTIONS

z\ND

REGISTII{TION,

and

nll

mcnrbers

of

the Fulton County Board

of

Elections

and

Itegistration

as follorvs:

IVIARY

COONIiY,

STAN

I\,IATARAZZO,

DAVID I}URGB,

IIUKIYA

THOMAS ancl

LU

II:IER

BECK,

I)el'enclants.

2016CV276450

VERTIiIED

PETII.ION

I{OR

DECLARAI]ORY

JUDGIVIENT

ANp

IMi\,IEDrATIL

EOtiITAts.LE AI\D

TNJUNCT'M

RELIETI

CON{ES

NOW

the Plaintiff City ol College

Park

(refbrred

to herein

as

"College

Park")

ancl

files

this

Verified

Petition

.for

Declarotory

Jvalgrnent

ancl lrnmecliute

Ecluiluble atd

Injunctive

Relief against the above named Del'endants, showing the

Court

as follorvs:

PARTIES

1.

College

Park

is

a n:unicipal corporation,

duly

incorporate.d

undel

thc

lar.vs

of

the

State

of

Georgia, rvith its

principle

headqnarlers

situated

within

Fr"rlton

County, Georgia.

2. Defendant Fulton County, Georgia

(referred

to

herein as

"Fulton

County") is

a

political

subdivision

of

the State of Georgia.


2/27

3.

Fuiton Counly

may

be

served with

process

thror:gh

ti,e

Chainrran of its

Boarcl

o1'

Con:missioners, Defenclant.Iohn I"I.

Eaves

(ret-elled

to herein AS "Eaves"),

at

i41 Pr1,or

Street

SW,

lOth

Floor, Atlanta,

Gz\

30303.

4.

The

Fulton

County Board

of

Cor"rnty Cornmissioners

is the duly elected

governing

authority

for Fulton County.

5. Defendant Liz IJausrnann

(relerled

to herein as

"Ilausmarnn")

is

the

Vice

Chairman

of

the

Fulton

County Board of

Commissioners,

6, Det'endants: tsob

Ellis

(referred

to herein as

"Ellis"),

Lee N,lorris

(refen'ed

to herein

as

"Morris"),

Joarr

P. Garner

(reI'erred

to herein as

"Garner"),

Marvin

S.

Arrington.

Jr.

(referred

to

herein

as "Arrington"),

tlnd Emma

I. Darneil

(referred

to irerein

as

"Darne[l"),

are

rnembers

of

the

Fulton County Board

of Comnrissionet's.

7.

The

individual

metnbers

of

the Fuiton County Boarcl

of

Cornmissioners are

sued in t]reir

official capacities and may

each

be served

r,r,ith

process

at l4l

Pryor Street

SW,

1Oth Floor,

Atlanta, GA

30303.

8.

The Fulton

County Board

of

Elections

and

Registration

(referred

to

helein as

the

"Electior-r

Board")

serves as the election superintendent

of

Fulton

Count-v.

9.

The Election Board may be

served

with

process through

its

Chairpersou, Delenclant lv{ary

Cooney

(reI'errecl

to

herein as

"Cooney"),

art

130 Peachtree Street, SW, Atlanta,

Georgia.

10.

Defendants: Stan Matarazzo

(refer:red

to

herein

as

"lt4atarazzo"), David Burge

(refcrred

to

herein as

"Burge"),

Rul


3/27

I2. Fulton

County is subject

to the

jurisdiction

of tiris Court.

i3.

l'he Fulton County Board

of

CommissioneLs'

rnentbers are subject

to

the

jurisdiction

of

this

Conrt.

14.

The

Election

Board

is

subject

to

the

jurisdiction

of

this Court.

15.

The

Election

Board members

zue

subject

to

the

jurisdiction

o1'this Court.

i6. The Georgia

Attorney General

has

been

notified

of this action

pursuaut

to O.C.G.A.

$

9-4-7

and

other applicable

laws,

as

this

case

dralvs

into

qurestion

the

validity of

state

legislation.

17.

Venue

in Fulton County,

Georgia, is

proper.

BELBVANT

FACI]S

18.

On ApLil 26. 2016,

Georgia

I-louse

Bill 514

(ret'erred

to

herein

as

"Flcruse

l3ill

514")

r,vas

signed

into

law,

causing for a referendum

and

vote

on

the creation

of

"the

City

of

South

Fulton," whose

municipal

boundaries "shall

include

all

unincorporated

areas

of Fulton

County,

including

the

Fulton

County Industriai

District,

as such

exist

on Juh,

1.

2016."

House

Bill 514, Section

1 .I 1.

19.

Days

after

Ifouse

Bill

514's

passage,

College

Park

leceived

two

separate

landowner

airnexation

petitions

Ii'om

Coca-Cola

Refreshments

IJSA, Inc.

and

Manheim

Remarketing,

Inc.

on April

29, 20I 6 arid May 3, 2016,

respectively

(petitions

coiiectively

refered

to herein

as

the

"Annexation

Petitions"),

seeking

to annex,

pursuant

to

the

State

Anlexation of

Territory

Act

(O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-1

et

ai.)

(relbrred

to

i-rerein as

"Annexation

Act"),

trventlz-

six

parcels

of

propelty located along Buffington Road ald

Roosevelt

Highrvay

in

unincorporated

Fulton

County

(property ret'erred

to

irerein

as

the

"Subiect

Property")

(Annexation

Petitions are attached hereto

as Exhibits

A

and

B, respectiveiy).


4/27

20. The aforementioned

landornrlers accompanied

the

Annexation Petitions

with requests for

rezoning o1'the Strbject Property

fio:n

M-1

(Light

Industrial) in Fulton County to

]t4-1

(Light

Industrial) in

College Park

(requests

are

attached

hereto

as

Exhibits

C

ancl

I),

respectively).

21.

Coliege

Park

prornptly provided

notice

of

the Annexation

Petitions to

Fulton Courty,

via

certitied

mail,

in

a

letter

dated Nfay

4,2016

(notices

and deiivery

confirrnations attached

hereto

as

Exhibit E),

22. College Park's

Planning

Commission

reviewed,

assessed

and recommended

apploviii of

the

Annexation Petitions on N{ay

23,2016

(See

Ivlay

23,2016

rnemo

attacl.red hereto

as

Exhibit

F).

23.

Fulton County's Department o1'Planning

and

Community Services assessed

the Annexation

Petitions.

24.

Fulton

County's

Department

ofl

Planning

and

Commr"rnity

Services

is charged with

overseeing Fnlton

County's

land use

map,

the

cornprehensive

plan,

zoning applications

and

plocedtrres,

policy

regulation and community outreacir

ancl Iiaison

scn ices.

25.

FLrlton Counly's

Department

of

Planning

and

Comnrunity

Services advisecl

Fulton

County's

Board of Commissioners

that they should

not

object

to

the Anriexation Petitions.

26.

An

or about

June

1,2016,

Fulton

County's

Department

of

Planning and Commrmity

Services

notifiecl Fulton Couulv's

Boald

of

Conimissioners

that

it

foturd

"no

basis

upon r.vhich

to file a

valid

objection"

to the

Annexation

Petitions

(Exliibit

G).

27.

On or

about

Jrrne i

,2016,

Fulton

County's

Department

of Planning and Community Services

lhrther

notified

Fulton County's

Board

of

Commissioners

that

the Annexation

Petition's

"proposed

zoning

and iand use designations"

were

"consisterit witir

current Fu]ton

Count.v


5/27

Zoning

and

the

leurd

use designations"

(See

Agenda

Item Summary attached hereto

as

Exhibit

G).

28.

On or

about .Iune

1,

201

6,

Fulton

Couuty's Departrnent

of

Planning

and

Community

Services

sought

to obtain

the

Fulton

County's

Board

of

Commissioners

"approval

to

notif,v

the

City o1'

College

Park" that Fulton County

had

no objection

to the

Annexation

petitions

(Exhibit

G).

29.The Fulton County's Board

of Cornmissioners reiected

the recommendation of

their

Department of

Planning anci

Community

Ser.'r'ices,

instead

passing

a tnotion, tuade

by

Defbnclant Arrington

and seconded by

Defendant Eaves,

ob.iecting

to

the

Annexatiort

Petitions.

(See

Fulton

County.Tune

1,2016

Post

Agenda Ivlinutes

attached

hereto

as

Exhibit

H).

30.

On

or

about Jr:ne

8.

2016,

College Park's Vlayor's

office

receivecl

a

letter

fi'om

Fulton

County's

Deparlment

of Planning

and Community

Services

(letter

referred

to

herein

as

"Objection

Letter"

and attached

hereto

as

Exhibit I)

asserting

that:

"F-ulton County objects

to

the

proposed

annexation based on

a

nraterial

increase

in

burden

upon

the

County

directly

related

to

the

proposed

density

and

the

infiastructure demands related to the

ploposed change

in

zoning and land use."

31. Fulton

County

did

not

inclucie

ancllor

relbrence

within

the

Objection

Letter

any

documentation or eviclence

to

support

its asserted objection

(Exhibit

I).

32. Fulton County's Ob.iection Letter does not comport

i,vith

the requirements of tire

Annexation

Act

to constitute a

valid

objection

(Exhibit

I).

O.C.G,A.

S

36-36-113.

33.

Fulton County's Objection Letter

is inconsistent rvith

the

recommendation

plovided

to

it

by

its own

Department

of

Planning and Commnnity Services

(Exhibits

G

&

I).

34,

Fulton County has

no valid basis

tbr

objecting

to the

Annexation

Petitions

nnder

the

Annexatiou Act.


6/27

35. I"'ulton

County's

Objection

Letter is

subrnitted

to College

Park

in

bad

faitli,

in

an attempt to

uniar.vfully cieiay and interl'ere

with Clollege Part's

entitlerlent to annex the

subject

properties

under the

Annexation Act.

36.

As

Fulton County's Objection

l,etter

does

not

comport

rvith

the

requirements

of

the

Annexation Act

(O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-l

et

al.), it cioes not confer

juriscliction

to

the

state

Department

of

Community

r\ffairs

to compel

College Park

to

participate

in

the

proscribed

statrrtory arbitration

process.

37.

The

Department of

Commr"urity

Affairs is

charged

under the Annexation Act rvith facilitating

arbitration

paneis

for

resolution of

annexation

dispr.rtes.

O.C.G.A.

Ss

36-36-1

14.

38. The

Department

of

Community

Affairs

has advised

College

Park that

if Fulton

Clount,v

secks

to

proceed

on

its

Objection Letter,

"there

is

no

reality

in r.rftich

\\/e

ciur

envision

the

arbitration

process

corrcluding by.Tuly 1,"

the

date l',y u,hich House

Biil

514

declares

all

of

unincorporated

Fulton

County

to be the City

of

Soutir Fulton

(see

correspondence

fror-n

the

Department

of

Community

Affairs

attached hereto as

Exhibit

.T).

39.

l'he

Departn:ent

of

Community

Affairs

has further

advised Coliege

Park that

"[i]f

DCr\

receives

the

necessary

paperwork

[frorn

Fulton

County] to initiate

t]e

annexation

arbitration

process,

ive will

be

compelled by

statute

to undertake it."

40. To College Park's detriment,

Fulton

CountS,

has

since

reqr:estecl

that the Georgia Department

of

Community Affairs

faciiitatc

the

lengthv

arbitration

process

on

the

ba.sis of its unltrrvfirl

Objection

Letter

(see

correspondence from the Deptrrtment

of

Community

Affairs atttrchecl

hereto

as

Exhibit

K).

41 . Section

7 .74

of House Bill

514

provides

that:

The election

superintendent

of

Fulton Cormty shall call

a

special

election

lbr

the

purpose

ol

submitting this Aot

to the

qualified

voters o[ the

proposed

City

ol'Sor.rth


7/27

Fulton,

as

provided

in

Secticrn 7.13 of

this

cliarter, tbr

approval or rejection.

The

superintendent

shall set the

date

of

such

election

fbr the

'fuesday

next follor,ving

the

first

lvlonday

in

November,2016.

The superintendent shaLl

issue the

call

fcrl sttch

election at leasl 30 days

prior

to the date thereof.

42. House

Bill

514

thereby

pr.uporls

to

nLrllify and

invalidate rnultiple

1;rovisions

nnder

the

Annexation

Act

as

of

July

I

,2016,

43. Fulton

County's

Oitjection Letter

is

submitted

to

Collegc

Park irr bad taith,

in

an attempt to

delay

College

Part's

vote on

the Annexation Petitions beyond the

July

1,2016

deaclline in

House Bill 514,

44. F'ulton

County's Objection Letter is

submitted

to

College Parh

maliciously,

to

interfere

rvitl"i

College

Park's entitlement to iurnex the Sub.iect

Properlies under tlte Annexation Ac1.

45.

If Irulton Courrty

and the

Electiol

Board

are not

enjoined from

proceeding

r,vith lhe creatiorr

of

the

City of South Fulton

under

House

Bill 514, College Park and

its

citizens rvill

be

irreparably harmed,

including the loss

of

College Park's

rightful claim to territory, as

rvell

as

the

loss

by

Coilege Park and its citizens of rnillions of

clollars

in

tax revenue.

COUNT

1

f)cclaratorv Judgment

(Fulton

County's

Objection Letter

Violates the

Anncxation Act)

46.

The

aliegations

containecl

in

all

priol

paragraphs

of this Petition

are

incorporated

by

reference

as il

tllly

set

forth

herein.

47. Fulton

County's Objection Letter

violates

the

Annexation

Act on rrult\rle

grouncls.

o.c.G.A.

$

36-36-113.

48,

Particularly,

Fnlton County's

Objection Letter

fails to

"document

tire

naturur

of [it's

elected

O.C.G,A.

$

36-36-113(a)l

objection." O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-113(c).

49.

Additionally, Fulton

County's Objection

Letter fails

to

"specifically provid[e]

evidence of

any

financial

impact

fbnling

the basis of

the

objection."

O.C,G.A,

$

36-36-1 13(c).


8/27

50.

Fulton

County's Objection

Letter is unlawf-ul

in that the

proposed

annexations do

not result

in

"[a]

substantial

change

in

the intensit_v

of

the ailowable use

olthe

property

or a

change to a

significantly different

allowable

use."

O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-1 13(d).

51.

Fulton

County's Objection Letter

is urlawf'ul in that the

proposed

annexation

aird

rezoning

does not

result in

"[a.j

nse r,vhich

significantly increases

the net

cost

of

infrastructure

or

significantly diminishes

the

value

or

usetul Iife of a capital outlay

project."

O.C,G,A.

$

36-

36-1 13(d).

52. Fulton Connty's Objection Letter is uniarvful

in

that

the

proposed

annexation

and

rezoning

does

not

"[d]iff-er

substantially

ti'om the

existing

uses

slrggestecl

for

the

propert),

by

the

county's

comprehensive

land

use

plan

or

permitted

lbr

the

property pursuant

to the county's

zoning ordinance or its

land use

ordinances." O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-1i3(d).

53.As set forth in the Annexation Petitions, no

change

in zoning

wili

occur

pursuant

to tire

proposed

amexations.

5r1, By Fulton

County's zoning clepartment's

ow1 admission, Fulton

County

has

"no

basis

tpon

which to

t'ile

a

valicl

objection"

to

the

Annexation Petitions.

55. College Park seeks

judicial

declarations

that

F'ulton

County's

Objection

ietter is non-

compliant

with

the Annexation

Act

and that

Fulton County has

"no

basis

qron

r.vhich

to file a

valid objection" to the Annexation

Petitions.

COUNT

2

Declar:ttorv

Judgment

(House

Bill5I4 is Invalid Duc

to

Conflict

with the

Annexation Act)

56.

The

allegations contained in

all

prior

paragraphs

of

this

Petition are

incorporated

by

rel''erence

as if tully

set forth herein.


9/27

57.I-Iouse

Bill 514

is

invalid

in

that

it conflicts

with the

Annexation Act and

pluports

to

invalidate

rnultiple

provisions

therein.

58,

Where

there

is

a

"conflict

fin

legislation], the

local

act must

yield

to

the

general

statute."

Inagawa v. Fa),ette

Corlnty,29l Ga. 715,

719

(2012);

S,ee

also

City o1' Atlaqta.v. Hudgins,

193

Ga.618

(1)

(19

SE2d

508)

(1942) (hoiding

that

general

laws

prevail

over

conflicting

Iocal

laws);

Savage

v.

Cit], o1'Ajlanta,242 Ga. at 679-680

(3)

& n, 10

(invalidating

locai la,uv

that was contrary to

general

larv).

59.

House

Bill

514's

provision

that "the City of

Sor-rth Fulton...shall

include

all unincorporated

areas

of

Fulton

Cormty.

.

.

a.s

such

exist

on

July

1,

2016," is

in conflict

r,vith

general

law

which

authorizes municipalities to

annex territory

"in

accorclance

rvith

the

procedures provided

in

[the

Annexation

Act]."

O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-21.

60. T'herefore, r.vhile the Annexation

Act

mandates

tirat

upon cornpliance vi,ith

its

procedures,

"such

lands

shall

constitute a

part

of

the

lands

within

the corporate

limits

of the

[annexing]

rruricipal

corporation,"

Flolrse

Bill

514

provides

that such

annexed

property

shall iristead

consist

of

"the City of South

Fulton" should the

parlies

lbllow

the

procedures

of Annexation

Act

beyond

July

1

,2016.

Compare

O,C.G.A.

$

36-36-21,

rvith

House

Bill

514,

Section

1.11.

61.

House

Bill

514 thus imperr:rissibly

places

a

timefran:e

and expiration on the

period

of

applicably of fl:e

Amexation Act.

62. For example,

the Annexation

Act

plovides

that

"ff.]olior,ving

the conclusion

of

the dispute

resoiutiott process

outlined

in this

article,

the municipal

corporation...

may

.,. proceed

r,r,ith

the remaining annexation

process,

O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-

1 17.

63.

T'his

is

in

conflict

i,r,ith

l-IB 514

which

purports

to

place

an expiration

on

College

Park's

authority to

proceed

as

set

folth

under O.C.G.A.

$

36-36-117.


10/27

64.

As

House

Bill

514 is in

conf'lict

rvithrlultiple

provisions

of

the Annexation,A.ct,

it

shor"rld

L.,c

declared invalicl.

COUNT

3

Declaratory

Judgment

(llouse

I]ill514 Violates Ga. Const.

Art.

III,

$

Vl, Para.

IV)

65. The

allegations contained

in

all

prior patagrapirs

of

this

Petition are incorporated

by

reference as if fr-rlly set

tbrtl-r

herein.

66.

House

Bili

514's

conflict with

the

Annexation

Act renders

it

unconstitutional. Ga.

Const.

Art.

III,

$

VI,

Para.

IV.

67.

Particularly,

the

Georgia constitution

provides

that:

"La\,vs

of'a

general

nature

shall

have

uniform

operation

throughout this

state

arrcl

no local

or

special

law

shall

be

enacted

in

any

case

{br

u,hich provision has

l-reen

made

by

an existing

general

law,

excepl that

the

Generai

Assernbiy may

by

general

law

authorize local

governments

by

local ordinance

or

resolution to exercise

police

powers

which

do not conflict

with

genelal

laws."

Ga.

Const.

Aft. IiI,

$

VI, Pala.

IV(a).

68. z\s

such,

House

Bill

5

i4

shouicl

be

declared

unconstittrtional.

COUI{T

4

I_nterlocutorv

In

iunction

(Enjoining

the

Election

Board

from Representing

the

Subject Property

as

Being

within

the

Territorial

Bounds

of

the

Cify

of South Fulton

in

the Special Election under House Bill

s14)

69.

The

allegations

contained

in

all

prior paragraphs

of

tiiis

Petition

are

incorporated b1,

reference

as

iffully

set

fortir

herein.

70.

Immediate interlocutory

relief is necessary

in this matter to

protect

College

Parl


11/27

Tl.

"Equitable

relief

is

generally

a

matter witirin the

sound

discretion

of

the

trial

court."

State

Farm

Mr-rt.

Auto.

Ins.

Co.

v,-Mabry,274 Ga.49B,

510

(2001).

72.

Injunction

is

an

"appropriate

remedy" where

a

legislative

act

complained

appears

"uncoustitutional

and void."

Sqr.rthwestern

R.

Co.

v.

Southern

&

Atlantic

Tel. Co.,46 Ga. 43,

s1

(1872).

73.

It

is Iong

standing

tradition

in

Georgia

that

"fe]quity

will

enjoin municipal

authorities Ii'om

holding

an election

to

determine whether

a

given

territory

shall be annexed to

the

city,

rvhen

the

[legislation]

calling fbr the election" appears faulty.

Mayor

&c.

of

N4acon

v.

Hr.rghes. 110

Ga, 795

(i900).

74.

Consequently,

equity rnay enjoin

an

election

in

situations

iike

the

present

"where

the

constitutional riglrts

of

citizens

and taxpayers are sought

to

be invaded by an

attempt to make

an

unconstitutional

or inapplicable

iaw operative thlough the means

o1'an

election." Iown

ol-

Maysvil-lgv.

Smith,

132

Ga.316

(1909);

County of

DeKalb v. Atlanta,

132

Ga.

i27

(1909);

Marbut

v.

Flollingshead,

772

Ga.531,

538-539

(1931).

75.

This

is

consistent

r,vith

the

pupose

of

a

preliminary

injunction:

"to

presewe

the

status

quo

and

prevent

allegedly

irreparable

injury until the court

[has]

the

opportunity

to

decide

whether

to issue

a

permanent

injunction."

Schiavo

ex

rel.

Schindler

v. Schiavo,

403

F.3d

126r,1262

(1lth

Cir. 2005).

76. House

Bill

514

cails

for

"ftlhe

election

superintendent

of

Fulton County"

to advertise

ancl

prepare

for "a

special

election"

to

occur during

the

fir'st week

in

Novenrber on 2016

ibr

public

vote

on

the

proposed

City of

South

Fulton.

I-Iouse

Bill

514, Section

7.14.

77. Similar

to

the cases cited above,

the

adveltisement of

the

Subject Properties

in

such special

election

as

being

parl

oi'the

City of South

Fulton

rvill

bring

about uncertainty with respect to

1i


12/27

the iegality

of

the

referenduin, causing confusion

and

the increased

likelihood

of

a

inultiplicity of suits.

78. College

Park

thelelbre

l'espectflrlly

requests that the

Courl temporarily enjoiu

and r:estrain the

Election

Board

liom

representing the Srib.ject

Property

as

being

part of

the

territorial

bounds

of the City of South

Fulton

in

the special election under

House

Ilill 514.

79. The harm

should

such election

proceed

wouid

also

include College Park's

loss

of

its

tiglrtful

claim

to territory

and

hr"rncirecls of

thousands of clollars annually

in

tax levcnue.

80.

A

preliuiinzuy

injunction

r,vill

irnpose

minimal,

if

any, harm in

this

matter

and

is

necessary to

preserve

the

status

quo

with

re.spect

to

the

Subject

Property

r,vhile serious questions

about

House

Bill

514's

constitutionaiity are

assessed.

81. College

Park

additionally

requests

tirat

the Court

enter adclitional

interlocutory,

enlergency

and injunctive

relief

against

Defendant.s,

as

necessary, to

protect

College

Palk's

interests

prior

to July

1,

2016 and

throughout

the

litigation.

82.

Counsel

fbr

College Park, by signing

this Petition, hereby certify that

the

Georgia

Attorney

General

(Attorney

General

Sam Olens

(Email:

[email protected]) and

Kathleen

N'I.

Pacious

(Email:

[email protected]),

Office

of

the

Attomey

Gencral,

40

Capitol

Square,

SW,

Atlanta,

Ga

30334) and

counsel

fol

Det-endants

(Fulton

County

Attorney

Patrise M. Perkins-I-Ioolier

(Email:

patrise.perl


13/27

83. As

a

result,

the

interests

of

the

parties

are

representecl

and

available

for

cletense, ancl

a

hearing

on the

issuance

of

an

inlerlocutory

order

on

June

20, 2016

and/or

a1 the Court's

earliest

opportunity

is warranted

and proper.

COUNT

5

Interlocutorv

In

i

unction

(Enjoining

the

Subject Property from Becorning ancllor

Being

Representcd

as thc

Citv of

South li'ulton Efl'ective

July

1,2016

under

House

Bill514)

84. Tire allegations

coutained

in

all

prior

paragraphs

of

this Petition are

incorporated by

reference

as

ii'fully

set folth

herein,

85. I"{ouse

Bill

514 unlaw1'uily

provides that the

territorial

bouncls

of

the

City

of

South Fulton

"slrall

inchrde

all

uniricorpomted

areas of Fulton County, incitrcling

the Fulton

County

Industrial District, as

such

exist on July 1,

2016."

House

Bill

514,

Section 1

.1

1

,

86.

'Ihe

occlrnence of such

will

cause

College

Parli's

loss

o1

its

rightful

claim to

territory

ancl

hundreds

of

thousands of dollars

annrially in

tax

revenue.

87.

An

interlocutory

injunction

enjoining

the

Subject

Ploperty

from

becoming

and/or

being

represented

as

the

City

of

South

Fulton effective

July

i,2016,

as set

lorth

urder

Llouse

Bill

514

is

proper

and necessaq,

to

prevent

such irreparable

harm

and

pleserve

the

status

qr.ro

lvhile

serious

questions

about

l-louse Bill 514's constitutionality

are revier,ved.

88. As

such,

a

hearing on the issuance

of

an immediate

interlocutory order on

June

20,

20i6

and/or at the

Court's eariiest opportunity is

warranted

and

proper.

COUNT 6

Bconomic

Dirmages

89. The

allegations contained

in all

prior paragraplis

of

this

Petition are incorporated by

rel'erence

as

if

fully set ibrth herein.

13


14/27

90.

Fulton

Corinty and

its

commissioners are

knowingly violating

the

Aunexation

Act

rvith

respect

to

the

Annexation

Petitions.

91.Fulton

County

and

its

commissi


15/27

101.

Fulton

County

and

its

commissioners

ale

operating

in

bacl

faith through their

continuecl

invalid

and iilegal objection to the Amrexation

Petitions.

102,

Fuiton

County

and

its

commissioners are

being stubbornly

litigious

in

forcing

Co)iege

Park to incur

effort

and expense,

including

attorneys' fees,

fol

initiating

anci

maintaining

this

action,

103,

Pursuant

to

O,C.G.A.

$

13-6-11, College Park

is entitled to

recover its expenses forthis

litigation

flom

Fulton

County and its

commissioner's, including attorneys'

fees.

WHEREFORE,

Plair-rtifl'Collcge

Park

respectfully

prays

that

this

llonorable

Court:

a.

I)eclare that

Fulton County's

Objection Letter is

non-compliant

with

the

Annexation

Act

and

that Fulton

County has

"no

basis

upon

which

to file

a

valid

objection"

to

the

Annexation

Pelitions,

and

enter interlocutory,

emergency

and

injunctive relief,

as

necessary,

to

protect

College

Park's

intelests

prior

to

July

1,20i6

and throughout

1he

litigation;

b.

Declale that

I-{ouse

Bill

514

is in conflict with rnultiple

provisions

of

the

Annexation

Act

and

is

thus unenforceable

and

invalid, partialll,

andior

in its

entirety;

c. Declare

that

House

Bill

514 is unconstitutional

and

in

violation

of

Ga. Const.

Art.

III,

$

VI, Para.

IV(a),

and is thus

unenforceable ancl

invalid,

partially

and/or

in its entirety;

d.

Set this

matter

for a hearing

on

June 20,2416 and./or

at

the Court's

earliest opportunity

and thereafter

issue

an interlocutory injunction

restraining the

Election Board

from

representiug the Subiect Ptoperty

as being

part

of

the territorial bounds

of the

City of

South

Fulton

in the

speciai election

undel House

Bill

514;

e. Setthis

matter

for

a hearing

on.Iune

20,2016 or at the Court's earliest oppol'tunity

and

thereal'ter issue an interlocutory injunction

enjoining the

Subject

Property

fiom

becoming

i5


16/27

h.

and/or

being

represenled

as

the

City

of

Sor"rth

Fulton efl'ective

juiy

1,2016,

as set forth

turder I-louse ISill 514;

Au,ard

College

Park

economic

damages

against

Fulton County

and

its

Board of

Commissioners

in

an amolrnt

up to and above

$15,000,000.00,

with

the

precise

amount

to

be

determined

by the

fact finder;

Awald

Plaintiff

College Park

attorneys'

fees

and costs

in corurection

with

Fulton County

and

its

Board

of

Commissioners'misconduct,

pursuantto

O.C.G.A.

$

13-6-11

aucl

other

applicable laws; and

Grant

Plaintiff

College

ParL

city of college park v. fulton county et al

Documents