This Court granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals in City of Decatur v. DeKalb Cnty. , 255 Ga. App. 868 567 SE2d 332 2002, to determine whether the Court of Appeals properly interpreted the Homestead Option Sales Tax Act “HOST”, OCGA § 48-8-100 et seq., to prohibit a certain intergovernmental agreement. Finding that it did not, we reverse. HOST allows for a special sales tax to be levied in a special tax district if the voters of that district so approve. OCGA § 48-8-102. A portion of the tax, not to exceed 20 percent, is to be used to fund “capital outlay” projects. OCGA § 48-8-104 c 2 A. The voters of DeKalb County approved such a tax for a special district to be coterminous with the boundaries of the County, and, to facilitate the capital outlay requirement, the County entered into an intergovernmental agreement with several cities inside the County. A dispute arose over the amount of money the County proposed to disburse to the cities under the agreement, and some of the cities the “Cities” sued the County for breach of contract and attorney fees. The County moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that the agreement was void. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that HOST requires that the County alone administer the tax funds, and that it could not, by contract, shift that responsibility to the Cities. City of Decatur , supra at 870 1. In doing so, the Court of Appeals relied upon City Council of Augusta v. Mangelly , 243 Ga. 358, 362 1 254 SE2d 315 1979. But that reliance is misplaced.
Mangelly involved an analysis that is not applicable here. It dealt with a precursor to this State’s current Local Option Sales Tax “LOST” statute, now found at OCGA § 48-8-80 et seq. The statute at issue in Mangelly was not enacted pursuant to the special district provision of the Constitution, which is currently found at Article IX, Section II, Paragraph VI. The statute in Mangelly provided for a county tax with proceeds to be distributed between the county and municipalities therein, see Ga. L. 1975, p. 984, and this Court found the statute to be an unconstitutional attempt to establish a purpose for a county tax that was not authorized in the Constitution; i.e., to generate county funds to be provided to a municipality. Mangelly , supra at 362 1.
