Savage v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | S15A0278,Nos. S15A0277,S15A0279.,s. S15A0277 |
| Parties | SAVAGE v. STATE of Georgia et al. Pellegrino v. State of Georgia et al. Hobgood v. State of Georgia et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
297 Ga. 627
774 S.E.2d 624
SAVAGE
v.
STATE of Georgia et al.
Pellegrino
v.
State of Georgia et al.
Hobgood
v.
State of Georgia et al.
Nos. S15A0277
S15A0278
S15A0279.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 29, 2015.
Reconsideration Denied July 27, 2015.
Larry Savage, pro se.
Pelphrey & Pelphrey, Gary R. Pelphrey, for Pellegrino.
Hobgood & Rutherford, T. Tucker Hobgood, David A. Rutherford, for T. Tucker Hobgood.
D. Victor Reynolds, Dist. Atty., for State of Georgia.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Thomas W. Curvin, Matthew W. Nichols, Deborah L. Dance, Linda W. Brunt, Moore, Ingram, Johnson & Steele, J. Kevin Moore, John H. Moore, Butler Snow, Lesly G. Murray, Blake C. Sharpton, for Cobb-Marietta Coliseum and Exhibit Hall Authority et al.
Schiff Hardin, Ronald B. Gaither, Leah Ward Sears, Nicholas F. McDaniel ; Loren C. Collins, amici curiae.
Opinion
NAHMIAS, Justice.
Appellants Larry Savage, Richard Pellegrino, and Tucker Hobgood challenge the trial court's validation of revenue bonds that will be used to help finance a new stadium in Cobb County for the Atlanta Braves major league baseball team. The bonds for the stadium project are to be issued pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement between Cobb County and the Cobb–Marietta Coliseum and Exhibit Hall Authority, under which the Authority agrees to issue bonds to cover much of the cost of constructing the stadium and the County agrees to pay the Authority amounts sufficient to cover the bond payments not covered by the licensing fees paid by the Braves. In these consolidated appeals, we conclude that the intergovernmental contract is valid; that the issuance of the bonds will not violate the Georgia Constitution's debt limitation clause, gratuities clause, or lending clause or Georgia's revenue bond laws; and that the process used to validate the bonds was not deficient. We therefore affirm the trial court's judgment validating Johnson & Steele, J. Kevin Moore, John H. Moore, Butler Snow, Lesly G. Murray, Blake C. Sharpton, for Cobb-Marietta the stadium project bonds.Coliseum and Exhibit Hall Authority et al. Schiff Hardin, Ronald B. Gaither, Leah Ward Sears, Nicholas F. McDaniel; Loren
1. The Cobb–Marietta Coliseum and ExC. Collins, amici curiae.hibit Hall Authority was created in 1980 as “an instrumentality and a subordinate public corporation of the State of Georgia” for the purpose of “development and promotion in this state of the cultural growth, public welfare, education, and recreation of the people of this state.”
Ga. L. 1980, p. 4093, § 2. Since its creation, the Authority has overseen the construction of the Cobb Galleria Centre, Galleria Specialty Mall, and Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre, and it continues to oversee the management of those complexes. In 2013, representatives from the Authority, Cobb County, and the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. (the Club) began to discuss building a new 41,500–seat
stadium for the Braves in Cobb County.1 Those discussions resulted in a Memorandum of Understanding, which was presented to and approved by the Authority on November 25, 2013. Based on that memorandum, the County, the Authority, and the Braves parties executed a number of documents on May 27, 2014, which form the basis of the stadium project.2 The five main agreements are as follows:
(a) The Development Agreement : The Development Agreement provides that the Braves parties will oversee the construction of the stadium project with approval and oversight by the County. The Braves parties, who own the land on which the stadium will be built, will convey to the Authority the “stadium site,” which will consist of the footprint of the stadium and any Authority parking areas. The Authority will retain title to the stadium site, and the Authority will also own “all real property constructed, installed and placed on the site,” including the stadium, the public infrastructure, and “all items permanently affixed thereto and therein.” The Braves parties will retain ownership of “certain specific Improvements, fixtures, furnishings, equipment, other ... personal property to be placed in or upon the stadium and related property, and other tangible property,” including items such as seating, scoreboards, lockers, and carpet. The Braves parties will also own and manage a “private stadium parking area of not less than 6,000 spaces.” In addition, the Braves parties will own the land surrounding the stadium, where they intend to develop a mixed-use retail, entertainment, residential, hospitality, and office district.
The total cost of the stadium project is anticipated to be $622 million, with a maximum cost of $672 million. Revenue bonds issued by the Authority will pay for $368 million (about 55 to 60%) of the project. The Cumberland Community Improvement District will contribute $10 million to the project, and the County will contribute $14 million for transportation improvements.3 The remaining cost will be paid by the Braves parties, with a contribution of at least $230 million and the option to increase that amount by $50 million as necessary. The Development Agreement specifies that none of the money coming from the government entities will be used for the
“improvement or alteration of any privately-owned property.” The project is scheduled to be completed by February 1, 2017.
(b) The Operating Agreement : The Operating Agreement grants the Braves parties a license for exclusive use of the stadium site, the stadium, and the Authority's parking areas from May 27, 2014 until December 31, 2046, with an option to extend the license through December 31, 2051.4 During this period, the Braves parties may lease or license use of these areas to third parties, and the County may hold three events per year at the stadium, totaling up to ten days per year. At the end of their license, the Braves parties must surrender the stadium site to the Authority or County but have the right to remove property owned by them unless such removal would result in the stadium “not being susceptible to use in its normal
and customary manner as a multi-use sports facility.”
During the period of the license, the Braves parties have a right to all revenues from the stadium, including from the Authority's parking areas and from advertising in the stadium and on any marquees built on the stadium site or on County land. The Braves parties also may sell the naming rights to the stadium and keep the resulting revenues. Beginning in 2017 and continuing as long as they retain the license, the Braves parties will pay the Authority a yearly license fee of $3 million, and during the 30–year term from the expected completion date in 2017 to the end of 2046, the Braves parties will pay an additional annual license fee of $3.1 million. When the Operating Agreement terminates, the Braves parties have the exclusive option to buy the stadium, stadium site, and/or Authority's parking areas for 50% of fair market value. The Operating Agreement states that the County and the Authority “believe that the development and construction of the Stadium will provide a significant and much needed catalyst for revitalization and continuing redevelopment of the property in the vicinity of the Stadium.”
(c) The Bond Resolution : The Bond Resolution, which was approved in nearly identical versions by the Authority and the County Commission, authorizes the Authority to issue revenue bonds for up to $397 million to finance the stadium project and cover the cost of issuing the bonds. The maximum principal and interest payment on the bonds shall not exceed $25 million per year, and the final maturity date of the bonds will be no later than 30 years after issuance, which coincides with the end of the Braves's initial license term.
The bonds are limited obligations of the Authority and “shall not constitute ... an obligation, debt or a pledge of the faith and credit of the County or the State of Georgia, nor shall the County or the State be subject to any pecuniary liability thereon.” The Bond Resolution further explains that the bonds are payable only from the pledged security, which includes the stadium site assets owned by the Authority and the payments made under the Intergovernmental Agreement. The Bond Resolution recites that “ [a]fter careful study and investigation, the Authority hereby determines that the Project is permitted by the [Authority's enabling act] and that financing, acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project will be in furtherance of the Authority's public purpose.” In the County's approval of the Bond Resolution, the County Commission recites its findings that the County's citizens will get “continuing recreational and other benefits from the Project” and that “the Project will promote tourism, promote the economy, and bring other benefits to the County and the State.”
(d) The Intergovernmental Agreement : To provide security for the bonds,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schumacher v. City of Roswell
...of stare decisis strongly counsels adherence to our longstanding, consistent, and workable precedents." Savage v. State of Ga. , 297 Ga. 627, 641 (5) (b), 774 S.E.2d 624 (2015) (Emphasis supplied). See also Nahmias, J., concurring in PNC Bank, Nat. Ass'n v. Smith , 298 Ga. 818, 824, 785 S.E......
-
City of Cumming v. Flowers
...which anyone has a significant reliance interest.’ " Southall , 2017 WL 279518, at *4 (citation omitted). Compare Savage v. State , 297 Ga. 627, 642, 774 S.E.2d 624 (2015) (explaining that overruling the line of precedent at issue would undermine numerous intergovernmental contracts). We re......
-
Cook v. State
...a substantive right; reliance interests are at their apex when they involve these types of interests. See, e.g., Savage v. State , 297 Ga. 627, 641-642, 774 S.E.2d 624 (2015) ("[S]tare decisis is especially important where judicial decisions create substantial reliance interests, as is more......
-
Olevik v. State
...Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310, 365, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; see also Savage v. State, 297 Ga. 627, 641 (5) (b), 774 S.E.2d 624 (2015) (substantial reliance interests are most common in contract and property cases). To be sure, the State has some sort ......
-
When Wrong Is Right: Stare Decisis in the Supreme Court of Georgia
...some issue as to whether legislative inaction truly indicates acceptance of a court's interpretation of a statute. See Savage v. State, 297 Ga. 627, 774 S.E.2d 624, 636 (2015). [23] Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459, 490 (1852). [24] Id. [25] At the time, the Supreme Court of Georgia had only th......
-
Local Government Law
...S.E.2d 476 (1994); Layer v. Barrow Cty., 297 Ga. 871, 778 S.E.2d 156 (2015).170. Lawson, 335 Ga. App. at 804-05, 783 S.E.2d at 163-64.171. 297 Ga. 627, 774 S.E.2d 624 (2015). 172. Id. at 627-29, 630, 774 S.E.2d at 627-29.173. Georgia law requires revenue bonds to be formally validated in a ......
-
If You (pay To) Build It, They Will Come: Rethinking Publicly-financed Professional Sports Stadiums After the Atlanta Braves Deal With Cobb County
...the federal tax exemption generally); infra Section IV.a (analyzing Cobb's decision to issue taxable bonds).7. See Savage v. State, 774 S.E.2d 624, 1627 (Ga. 2015) (discussed infra Section IV.c).8. See Dan Klepal, Cobb Approves Major Braves Stadium Agreements, Atlanta J. Const. (May 27, 201......