Baldwin tables Cook annexation as arbitration process begins

BALDWIN, Ga. — The Baldwin City Council again postponed a final decision Tuesday on Cook Construction’s proposed annexation and rezoning, this time after the city attorney warned that voting while an annexation dispute with Habersham County is moving through arbitration could put the city’s Qualified Local Government status at risk.

The council had been expected to finally vote on the proposal after months of public hearings and debate. Instead, City Attorney Sammy Tomasello explained that although state law does not prohibit the council from taking final action, Georgia Department of Community Affairs rules call for parties involved in annexation arbitration to act in good faith. He told the council that taking final action before the arbitration is resolved could be viewed by DCA as a failure to do so.

“The annexation statute doesn’t bar that, nor do the arbitration regulations,” Tomasello said. “However, part of the arbitration regulations includes a request that all the parties act in what’s called good faith.”

Council postpones vote again

The Cook proposal involves approximately 45 acres that would be annexed from unincorporated Habersham County and rezoned to Highway Business. The property is part of a larger proposed commercial development along Ga. 365 and Duncan Bridge Road.

Habersham County formally objected to the annexation Aug. 17, moving the dispute into the state’s annexation arbitration process. County officials have cited concerns involving traffic, emergency response and the proposed change in land-use intensity.

DCA administers Georgia’s annexation arbitration process. Under the process, a county objection can lead to the creation of an arbitration panel to consider the dispute between the county and municipality.

Tomasello said Baldwin is still allowed to take a final vote under state law, but doing so before the arbitration process is resolved could create a separate administrative risk.

DCA risk weighs on council

Tomasello said DCA has the authority to determine whether participants have acted in good faith and that potential consequences could range from a warning to the loss of Baldwin’s Qualified Local Government status. He said that status is important because it can affect the city’s access to certain DCA grants and financing programs.

“There is no specific bar on moving forward tonight, and the regulations contemplate that,” Tomasello said. “However, they could decertify your qualified local government status.”

Councilman Joe Elam said Baldwin’s relationship with DCA was important because the city receives grants and funding through the agency and also relies on DCA for assistance and advice.

“I think our relationship with DCA is critical,” Elam said. “We do get grants and funding through them. They’re also an advisory group to help us in other ways.”

Elam also questioned whether Habersham County could argue to DCA that Baldwin had failed to act in good faith if the city proceeded with the vote. His comments about the county’s political relationships with DCA were presented as his concern rather than an established fact.

Tomasello said the city, county and Cook Construction can continue negotiating while the arbitration process moves forward. He said there is also a possibility the county could withdraw its objection before the matter reaches a final arbitration decision.

Arbitration timeline takes shape

The arbitration process is still in its early stages. Tomasello told the council that Baldwin is submitting its selections, or “strikes,” for potential arbitrators Wednesday, Sept. 16. Once the city and county complete that portion of the process, DCA will assemble the arbitration panel.

Tomasello told Now Georgia after Tuesday’s meeting that the 20-business-day panel-selection phase ends Sept. 16. He said DCA is expected to assemble the panel shortly afterward, at which point the panel generally has 60 calendar days to render its decision.

The timing could change if the parties agree to additional time for negotiations. Tomasello told Now Georgia that disputes sometimes are resolved before an arbitration panel completes the process.

“Many times the process is initiated, but before it ever gets to that point of them rendering a decision, some agreement has been made, or people have had their questions answered to a point where they’re resolving it before the arbitration happens,” Tomasello told Now Georgia.

Tomasello said the timing of a resolution is difficult to predict because negotiations involve the city, county and applicant. He said he knows negotiations remain ongoing and that Cook Construction has been in contact with both Baldwin and Habersham County.

Mayor Doug Faust told the council that 60 to 90 days would likely be the best-case estimate for the broader process, noting that the various stages allow the parties time to exchange information, respond to one another and schedule meetings.

“There’s so much time periods in the various stages of arbitration where each side gets to say things back and forth and do things and set meetings,” Faust said. “So I would say 60 to 90 days is probably best case scenario.”

Tomasello told Now Georgia that the 60-day period following formation of the panel is the key benchmark for a decision. He said the process could potentially extend beyond that timeframe under certain circumstances, while an agreement between the parties could resolve the dispute sooner.

Public hearings remain intact

Councilman Mike Tope asked whether a delay of 60 to 90 days would force Baldwin to repeat the public-hearing process because of requirements governing when those hearings must occur.

Tomasello said the city would not have to start over. He said Baldwin has already completed the required public hearings and notices for the annexation and rezoning.

“We’ve complied with the annexation from the state statutes as well as the city’s own requirements,” Tomasello said. “We’ve had our public hearings. We’ve sent our appropriate notices.”

The city’s decision to table the matter therefore does not restart the public process. Instead, the annexation request remains pending while the arbitration and negotiations proceed.

Tomasello also told the council that the matter could be brought back before the arbitration process is completed if Habersham County withdraws its objection or the dispute otherwise resolves. He said the council could also specifically condition the tabling on a final resolution of the arbitration, depending on how it chose to structure its motion.

“There’s a chance that we get informed before we even get to arbitration that this goes away, and at that point we could get it back on the agenda at the very next meeting,” Tomasello said.

Faust recommended that the council table the matter without setting a specific date or requiring that the arbitration process be completely finished before reconsideration.

“If there’s any situation under which they would act, think that we were not acting in good faith, I would not want them to feel that way,” Faust said. “Let’s just table it for now. We call it back at a future date.”

The council then tabled the Cook Construction annexation and rezoning request again. No new date for final action was established.

The decision came on a night when the Baldwin Municipal Courtroom was largely empty, despite the months of public debate and multiple hearings surrounding the proposal.