A Guide to Local Option Sales Tax
Negotiations
August 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 3
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 3
THE RENEGOTIATION PROCESS......................................................................................... 4
DEADLINES FOR RENEGOTIATING LOST DISTRIBUTIONS............................... 6
THE PURPOSES OF THE LOST............................................................................................... 6
THE NEED FOR CITY-COUNTY COOPERATION........................................................ 7
COVERAGE AND EXEMPTION................................................................................................ 7
A COMMITMENT TO RENEGOTIATION............................................................................ 7
PRELIMINARY RENEGOTIATION ISSUES......................................................................... 8
Who is Eligible to Receive LOST Funds................................................................. 8
Who is Eligible to Participate in the Negotiations............................................... 8
The Scope of the Negotiations................................................................................ 9
Putting Together a Negotiation Team...................................................................... 9
The Value of Consultants and Facilitators.............................................................. 9
Resolving Disputes...................................................................................................... 9
DETERMINING LOST DISTRIBUTIONS........................................................................... 10
Population and the Eight Criteria............................................................................................. 10
TECHNICAL RENEGOTIATION ISSUES.......................................................................... 15
Maintaining a Record................................................................................................ 15
Use of Distribution Formulas................................................................................. 15
Negotiating Adjustments and Side Agreements.................................................. 15
Service Agreements........................................................................................ 15
Phase-In Agreements...................................................................................... 16
Hold Harmless Agreements.......................................................................... 16
OPEN MEETINGS LAW............................................................................................................. 16
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................ 16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT LAW........................................................................................... 17
1
APPENDIX B: BLANK DISTRIBUTION CERTIFICATE................................................. 35
APPENDIX C: MODEL LETTER COMMENCING RENEGOTIATION...................... 37
APPENDIX D: DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS.................................................................... 39
APPENDIX E: STATISTICAL DATA..................................................................................... 41
2
INTRODUCTION
The Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) law requires counties and “qualified cities” receiving general purpose LOST
revenue to renegotiate distribution agreements within two years of each decennial census. As such, “qualified
cities” and counties must begin renegotiation of their distribution agreements on or before July 1, 2012.
The Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) has worked with a task force of county managers
and finance officers to prepare this guidebook to assist county officials with the process for renegotiating the
LOST distribution certificates. One objective of this guide is to outline a framework or process by which county
officials can approach the renegotiation with a realistic aspiration to find common ground with its cities without
needing to resort to “baseball arbitration” in the court system.
The eight criteria required to be considered under O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89 are outlined starting on page 10. Each
criterion is discussed and methods for quantifying the criteria are suggested. A copy of the law governing
the implementation and distribution of the LOST is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B is a copy of a blank
distribution certificate, Appendix C is a sample letter for commencing renegotiations, Appendix D contains a list
of formulas that can be used to create a new distribution, and Appendix E contains statistical data that can be
used in the LOST renegotiations.
The negotiations will be complicated by the fact that no one distribution formula will result in a sales tax
distribution that achieves maximum equity for all county residents paying the sales tax. The debate will focus
on the fairness of the LOST revenue distribution, but no objective standard exists to determine that one
distribution formula is inherently superior. This guide is intended to assist in framing the issues to be confronted
in the negotiations and reducing the tension that the negotiations may evoke. Local government officials should
work diligently and with a spirit of cooperation to reach a compromise on a new distribution agreement that is
equitable for all taxpaying citizens of the community.
BACKGROUND
The original LOST law, passed in 1975 and amended in 1976, established the LOST as a one-percent county sales
tax shared with cities based upon population.1 The county portion of the revenue was dedicated to rolling back
property taxes only in the unincorporated area of the county. City residents received a rollback from the city.
In 1979, the entire LOST law was ruled unconstitutional.2 The Supreme Court held that nothing in the Georgia
Constitution authorized counties to provide revenue to municipalities. Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s
decision, the General Assembly immediately passed new legislation in 1979 that set up 159 special tax districts
that corresponded with county boundaries.3 The law established LOST as a joint city-county tax and provided
that revenues would be divided among the qualified local governments. To meet the constitutional issues raised
in the earlier litigation, the new act required counties to use their share of the proceeds to roll back property
taxes countywide and not just in the unincorporated areas. Many counties, as a result of the legal history of the
tax and ensuing negotiations, wound up with the same percentage of proceeds to be applied on a countywide
basis that they would have originally gotten when the proceeds were only to be applied against unincorporated
property taxes.The result was an initial distribution for many counties that created an inequity that is still in place
in most of those counties.
Under the 1979 law, a city was “qualified” if it imposed a tax other than the local option sales tax and offered
at least three of the following local government services: (1) water; (2) sewage; (3) garbage collection; (4)
1975 Ga. Laws 984, § 2 (as amended by 1976 Ga. Laws 1019).
Augusta v. Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358 (1979).
3
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-81; Taylor County v. Cooper, 245 Ga. 251 (1980).
1
2
3
police protection; (5) fire protection; or (6) library.4 The 1979 LOST legislation did not require that counties
and qualified cities periodically renegotiate the distribution of LOST revenues.5 Once the initial distribution
certificate was filed, it remained in effect until the participating governments signed a new agreement. Thus, local
governments that feared they would lose revenues under a new LOST distribution agreement could block efforts
to renegotiate the distribution.
In 1994, the General Assembly passed legislation which amended the 1979 law to require cities and counties
to periodically renegotiate their revenue distribution arrangements.6 This bill also established guidelines for the
renegotiation process and eight criteria to be considered by the parties involved in the renegotiation process.
In 1997, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring each county and its cities to adopt a service delivery
strategy.7 The intent of the legislation was to require local governments to take a careful look at the services
they provide in order to identify overlaps or gaps in service provisions and develop a more rational approach
to allocating delivery and funding of these services among the various local governments and authorities in each
county. Several of the eight criteria to be considered in LOST renegotiations have already been considered and
incorporated into the new service delivery strategy agreements.
In 2009, the General Assembly further modified the renegotiation process by implementing a “baseball arbitration”type contingency in the event a county and its municipalities cannot agree upon a distribution agreement.8
The “baseball arbitration” process essentially puts the renegotiation process before the superior court of the
county as a third-party arbiter whose decision is binding. This marks a significant change in the mechanics of
the renegotiation process. During the renegotiations required by the 2000 census, the parties approached the
negotiations with the knowledge that the failure to reach a new agreement by the end of 2002 would mean
the LOST would expire. Because of the time limit, a party could stall or oppose compromise until the deadline
loomed in order to pressure the other side to reach an agreement. Under the new law, no one party can cause
the lapse of the LOST. Now, if negotiations fail, any party to the distribution agreement (other than “absent
municipalities”) can petition the court for “baseball arbitration.” Not only does this initiate proceedings whereby
the court will decide the distribution agreement, it also preserves the existing agreement until a new one is
created by the court.9
THE RENEGOTIATION PROCESS
It is the responsibility of the county governing authority to initiate the renegotiation process on behalf of
all eligible parties.10 Note that “commencing” formal renegotiations need not be much more than notifying
the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue in writing that the renegotiation process has begun and
perhaps scheduling a date for discussions by staff or by the elected officials. If the county does not call for the
renegotiations by July 1, 2012, any “qualified city” within the county may initiate the renegotiation process.11 The
local governments have 60 days to renegotiate the distribution certificate once negotiations commence. If they
fail to do so within that time period, the law requires them to submit immediately to nonbinding mediation,
arbitration, or another alternative dispute resolution process.12 The initial dispute resolution process is meant to
facilitate a resolution; however, it is nonbinding and must conclude within 60 days.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-80.
1979 Ga. Laws 446, §§ 1–2.
6
1994 Ga. Laws 1816, §§ 1–2.
7
1997 Ga. Laws 1567, § 1 (as codified in O.C.G.A. §§ 36-70-20 to -28).
8
2010 Ga. Laws 958, § 1.
9
O.C.G.A. 48-8-89(d)(4)(F).
10
O.C.G.A. 48-8-89(d)(2).
11
Id.
12
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(3).
4
5
4
The final stage of renegotiation is reached only if a county and its municipalities fail to come to terms on a
distribution agreement during the initial 60 day direct renegotiation period and the subsequent 60 day alternative
dispute resolution period.The final stage is referred to as “baseball arbitration.” This new stage is binding and puts
the superior court of the county in a position to craft the terms of the LOST distribution agreement. If, upon
reaching this point in the renegotiations, the county and participating municipalities agree that they would rather
not have the court create the distribution agreement, the local governments may decline to petition the superior
court and the LOST will expire December 31, 2012.13
It is unlikely that all the local governments within a county will permit the LOST to expire. Therefore, after
failing to reach an agreement during the earlier renegotiation stages, one or more parties will petition the
superior court of the county to initiate “baseball arbitration.” The petition must be made within 30 days after the
expiration of the alternative dispute resolution period.14 There are several steps in this process:
• To initiate “baseball arbitration” and ensure the existing distribution agreement does not lapse, any party
that participated in the negotiations may file a petition in the superior court of the county seeking
resolution of the matters in dispute.
• The dispute will not be assigned to a judge in the circuit in which the county is located.15
• The county and the group of participating qualified municipalities must submit to the court and to
each other “a written best and final offer specifying the distribution of the tax proceeds.” Note that
the county’s offer may represent the county and any qualified “absent municipalities.”16 Also, a coalition
of “absent municipalities” constituting at least one-half of the unrepresented municipal population may
submit an offer as well. However, any “absent municipality” represented in the county’s offer may not
be included in any coalition of “absent municipalities.”17 Each offer must take into account the allocation
required for any absent municipalities.18
• The judge conducts hearings at his or her discretion.
• The judge will then choose the best and final offer submitted to the court without modification and will
make a finding of facts.19
• After choosing the best and final offer, the judge will enter a final order containing a new distribution
certificate and transmit a copy of it to the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue.20
The judge’s final order is subject to appeal only on the grounds that the judge disregarded the law, impartiality, or
corruption, fraud, or misconduct by the judge or a party.21 As discussed above, while the matter is pending before
the court, the existing distribution agreement may not expire.22
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(1).
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(A).
15
Id.
16
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(B).
17
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(C).
18
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(D).
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(E).
22
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(4)(F).
13
14
5
DEADLINES FOR RENEGOTIATING LOST DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENTS
July 1, 2012
The Commissioner of the Department of Revenue must be notified in writing by the
county governing authority that renegotiation is underway. If the county governing
authority does not issue the call by that date, any eligible city may issue the call and notify
the Commissioner.
60 Days After
Negotiations
Start If agreement on a renegotiated distribution certificate is not reached, the parties must
submit the dispute to nonbinding arbitration or mediation.
Within 30 Days
After Arbitration
Fails
If the parties fail to come to an agreement during the 60 day nonbinding dispute resolution
period, one of the parties may file a petition with the superior court of the county within
30 days. If the parties fail to petition the court for “baseball arbitration,” the LOST will
expire December 31, 2012.
THE PURPOSES OF THE LOST
Debate continues on what LOST revenues are intended to finance. Some officials argue that the law specifies
that LOST revenues should be used only to provide property tax relief. If so, the sum of LOST and property tax
revenues should not exceed the property tax revenue that would have been collected if the sales tax did not
exist. Other officials maintain that LOST revenues should be and are being used by local governments to finance
or improve existing services that would not be possible without the tax.
These two purposes are inextricably tied together. To the extent that a local government uses LOST proceeds
to roll back property taxes, it must utilize other tax mechanisms to finance existing services and improvements;
to the extent that LOST revenues pay for existing, mandated or expanded local government services, property
taxes are not increased to pay for these services.
The debate on the purpose of the LOST revenues centers on Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A) § 48-8-91 and
§ 48-8-89. (See Appendix A for the text of the law). O.C.G.A. § 48-8-91 requires that, in the second year after the
imposition of the local option sales tax, property taxpayers must have illustrated on their tax bill the amount of
property taxes they would have been paying without the local option sales tax, reduced by the amount of receipts
of the preceding year, with the resulting net millage levy for the calendar year. By contrast, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89
(a) states that the LOST is to be used “for the purpose of assisting such political subdivisions in funding all or any
portion of those services which are to be provided by such governing authorities pursuant to and in accordance
with Article IX, Section II, Paragraph III of the Constitution of this state.” The referenced provision of the Georgia
Constitution lists a number of services which may be provided by local governments including police and fire
protection, solid waste disposal, garbage collection, public health facilities and services, streets and roads, parks
and recreational programs, libraries, water and sewage treatment and collection. Furthermore, O.C.G.A. § 48-889 (d) requires consideration of service delivery responsibilities and other factors in renegotiating distribution of
the LOST proceeds. This lends weight to the argument that LOST may be used for providing services.Yet at the
same time, the LOST enactments make it clear that the LOST should not be used to unnecessarily enrich some
local governments at the expense of others. O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89 (b) specifies that the General Assembly intended
that no distribution agreement could allocate LOST revenues in such a way that it provided any local government
with revenue beyond a sum that would be raised from revenue resources other than LOST.
Almost all observers agree that the LOST legislation does not require local governments to use sales tax
revenues to achieve only one purpose or the other. They can choose to use the LOST revenues for both
purposes, selecting the mix they think is best. Whatever the legislative intentions were, LOST revenues are being
6
used to finance services rather than simply to roll back property taxes in almost all counties. In any event, it is
clear that all LOST revenues are to be used to pay for local services that would otherwise be paid for out of
property taxes. Thus, all distribution formulas should recognize that LOST revenues expand the total revenues
available to local governments to pay for services.
THE NEED FOR CITY-COUNTY COOPERATION
In Georgia, the local option sales tax has become an increasingly important source of general fund revenue for
counties and municipalities. Loss of the sales tax as a revenue source will require local governments to raise
property taxes or cut the current level of services provided. It is essential that all parties to the renegotiation
keep the importance of the sales tax as a revenue source in mind, especially if negotiating sessions get contentious. Counties and cities must be prepared to cooperate and compromise if they are to retain this valuable
revenue source.
Throughout the renegotiations it is important for all parties to consider each proposal from the taxpayers’
point of view. All citizens in the county should receive an equitable return on their sales tax dollar regardless of
whether they live in an incorporated or unincorporated area of the county.
How local option sales taxes are distributed is ultimately a political decision that will be made by elected local
government leaders. The challenge for local leaders is to exercise their home rule powers by negotiating in a
responsible and responsive manner. It is the hope of ACCG that elected officials will use this manual to help guide
them through the renegotiating process in as efficient, effective and harmonious a manner as possible.
COVERAGE AND EXEMPTION
Only those local governments that impose and collect LOST and that have not renegotiated their distribution
certificate using the 2010 decennial census must renegotiate and file a new certificate with the Georgia
Department of Revenue. Counties that levy local sales and use tax for educational purposes pursuant to a local
constitutional amendment are exempt from the renegotiation process.23 The eight counties currently having such
taxes are: Towns, Rabun, Mitchell, Colquitt, Houston, Habersham, Chattooga and Bulloch.
A COMMITMENT TO RENEGOTIATION
As an initial matter, all of the parties necessary to renegotiate the LOST distribution should agree that they want
to continue the LOST and make a commitment to negotiating in good faith and completing negotiations in a
timely fashion. A useful first exercise for negotiating local governments would be to examine the role of LOST in
their finances and estimate the impact that losing LOST revenues would have on local property taxes.
Additionally, the negotiating parties may want to set some ground rules for the negotiations, such as agreeing
what should be done in the event that an agreement is not reached within a certain time period or identifying
mediators that might be tapped to assist in the negotiations. The participating governments may also want to
consider adopting a joint resolution expressing the intent to come to agreement and to keep the best interests
of the citizens foremost in seeking a resolution to the negotiations.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(9). Regulations for local sales and use taxes for educational purposes can be found in O.C.G.A. §§ 48-8-140
to -144.
23
7
PRELIMINARY RENEGOTIATION ISSUES
Before beginning formal negotiation, the elected officials of the participating local governments in each county
should agree on a structure for the negotiation process. In determining a structure, the local governments should
consider these issues:Are any cities no longer qualified to receive LOST?
•
Are there any newly qualified cities?
•
Do any cities qualify for “absent” municipality status?
•
What will be the scope of negotiations?
•
Who will participate in the negotiations?
•
What will be the timing of the negotiations?
•
What will be the process or mechanism for resolving disputes that are not solved by a
specified time limit?
The following sections highlight some of the questions that local governments should address as they consider
how to structure the renegotiation of the LOST revenue distributions.Additionally, the negotiating parties should
keep some record of their negotiations to demonstrate that they have acted in good faith and considered the
criteria specified by law.
Who is Eligible to Receive LOST Funds
To receive a portion of the LOST revenue, a municipality must meet the definition of a “qualified municipality.”
The law defines “qualified municipalities” as those incorporated municipalities that impose a tax other than the
tax authorized by this article and which provide at least three of the following services:24
1.
Water;
2.
Sewage;
3.
Garbage collection;
4.
Police protection;
5.
Fire protection; or
6.
Library.
Counties should check all municipalities within their boundaries to ensure they meet the minimum requirements
to participate in the LOST negotiations. Some municipalities that were qualified during the last renegotiation may
no longer be eligible to receive revenue under the new distribution certificate and some municipalities that have
not received LOST revenue in the past may now be eligible to receive a portion of the funds.
Who is Eligible to Participate in the Negotiations
Each county must, at a minimum, renegotiate and execute the LOST distribution agreement with qualified municipalities whose combined populations represent at least one-half of the total qualified municipal population in
the county.25 The “absent municipalities” section of the law provides that a county’s distribution certificate does
not have to be signed by all qualified municipalities as long as the combined population of the “absent” municipali24
25
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-80.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b).
8
ties is less than one-half of the aggregate population of all qualified municipalities in the county.26 However, the
individual absent municipalities must each receive a per capita share of all of the proceeds that are designated for
distribution to all of the qualified municipalities in the county.27 This prevents small municipalities from coercing
the county by refusing to sign a distribution certificate in order to get more than their fair share. It also protects
the smaller cities from the larger governments by guaranteeing a minimum share for the smaller cities.
The Scope of Negotiations
After committing to negotiating a new distribution certificate, the next logical step in the negotiation process
is for the participants to determine what is on the table for discussion and agreement. Counties and cities
have, as required by state law, all addressed service delivery issues in their service delivery strategy agreements.
These agreements should be referenced to provide framework for the LOST negotiations. In particular, service
delivery changes that have been made since the renegotiations following the 2000 Census should be reflected
in the new LOST distribution agreement. Once the new distribution certificates are filed, counties and cities
receiving a new distribution percentage will have the opportunity to renegotiate their service delivery strategy
agreements.
Putting Together a Negotiation Team
Because state law is silent on this issue, local governments must decide who will be involved in the renegotiation of the LOST distribution certificate and what role each participant will play. Local governments should
look at how elected officials and government employees will be involved in the renegotiation.
The elected executives of each negotiating government may conduct the negotiations or each governing body
could appoint a member or members to represent them in the negotiations. It is important to select a diverse
and knowledgeable group to ensure the issues are reviewed from several perspectives. An example of a diverse
group may include an elected official, manager, and a finance officer.
Other key county staff should be tapped to develop supporting information whether or not they are on the
negotiating team. For example, the public works director could develop data useful to demonstrate commuting
patterns. The negotiating team should remain relatively small (three to six people). Too many people actively
involved in the negotiations could hamper the process.
Value of Consultants and Facilitators
While relying on county staff is critical, it may be extremely beneficial to engage private consultants to assist
the county in developing its proposal for distribution of LOST proceeds and, just as importantly, to review and
assess any counterproposals from the cities. An objective outside view can be well worth the cost and can be
very helpful in putting together a reasonable and justifiable proposal.
The negotiating governments may agree that the negotiations would benefit from the services of a facilitator. A
facilitator is a person trained to help groups achieve their purposes. It may be productive to use a facilitator from
the outset of negotiations in order to set a positive tone and encourage good faith deliberations. The facilitator
might be a local resident with experience and training in the field or a person from outside the county. No
matter who is involved in the negotiations, the final approval of the redistribution agreement must be made by
the elected officials of each participating local government in an open meeting.
Resolving Disputes
If no agreement is reached within 60 days after the start of the renegotiations, the dispute must be submitted to
non-binding arbitration, mediation or such other means of resolving conflicts in a manner, which, in the judgment
26
27
O.C.G.A. §§ 48-8-89(b), -89.1(c).
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b).
9
of the Commissioner of Revenue reflects a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.28
Early in the negotiation process, local governments may want to agree on how disputes will be resolved if
the negotiating parties reach an impasse. Techniques to resolve such disputes are well-established and trained
mediators and facilitators are widely available in Georgia. Thus, if local governments negotiating an agreement
anticipate an impasse, it might be useful to invite experts on dispute settlement to present alternative methods
and explain their advantages and disadvantages. Elected officials from both sides could agree upfront to abide by
these recommendations if negotiations come to an impasse. Alternatively, a panel made up of members of the
community could review the proposals from both sides and make a recommendation to the negotiating parties.
For assistance in locating a facilitator, local governments may contact their regional commissions or the
Department of Community Affairs, Information and Management Division at (404) 679-0602 or staff at ACCG
(404) 522-5022.
The payment of the third party facilitator, mediator or arbitrator depends upon the agreement of the county
and participating cities. It could be determined by the same percentage as the existing LOST distribution or
population. An important consideration to remember in picking a mediator is that the person should not have
any previous ties with the county or participating municipalities. If an impasse results, the recommendations of
the mediator are not likely to be accepted if one side believes the mediator had a vested interest in the outcome
of the negotiations.
County commissioners should keep the public informed throughout the negotiations and work with the local
media to showcase inequities that exist under the current LOST distribution arrangements. Local citizens can
also be invited to sit in the negotiations and observe the deliberations to ensure transparency.
DETERMINING LOST DISTRIBUTIONS
Population and the Eight Criteria
While population tends to be the simplest and perhaps most common basis for determining distributions, the
LOST statute recognizes that the provision of governmental services does not always correlate to population.
As noted earlier, the law requires consideration of the following eight criteria in determining LOST distributions.
These criteria express the General Assembly’s intent that LOST distributions consider service delivery as well
as population.
Questions or issues are presented after each criterion to assist in identifying fairness concerns and methods of
measuring the items to be considered with respect to each local government. To gain a more complete understanding of the issues to be considered, it is recommended that you read through all of the criteria and questions before getting into detailed consideration of each criterion as many of the questions and issues presented
overlap.
1. The service delivery responsibilities of each political subdivision to the population served by
the political jurisdiction and served during normal business hours, conventions, trade shows,
athletic events and the inherent value to the community of a central business district and the
unincorporated areas of the county and the obligation of all residents of the county for the
maintenance and prosperity of the central business district and the unincorporated areas of
the county.29
28
29
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(3).
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(1).
10
In most counties outside of metro Atlanta central business districts lie in the larger cities within the county. If
service delivery is tied to population, some cities will maintain that residential population is not appropriate because it does not take into account increases in population during business hours and special events. However,
increased service demands resulting from daytime or special event populations in the city also causes an increase
in the demand for county services provided within the city. County social services and criminal justice services
are two examples of services that are disproportionately burdened by increases in a city’s daytime or special
events population.
Subjective estimates for daytime and special events populations are likely to create dissention in the negotiations.
It is impossible to accurately measure periodic shifts in population. Studies done by either side in the negotiations will surely be disputed and the negotiations could break down. The parties to the negotiation should look
for measurable criteria that have been quantified by a neutral third party. Examples may include census data, data
collected by the Department of Revenue or data derived from county and city financial audits.
A more appropriate way to measure service delivery demand regardless of when those demands occur is by
looking at general fund expenditures. Expenditure data should be limited to expenditures within the general fund
because most of the services accounted for in this fund are supported through property and sales taxes. Cities
should be reminded throughout the negotiations that LOST was created to give local governments an alternative
revenue source to the property tax because most people felt like the local tax burden was unevenly distributed.
The General Assembly made it clear that the LOST revenue should be used to offset property taxes.30
Services found in enterprise funds and special revenue funds are not a burden on the property tax system and
therefore are not appropriate to include, because the LOST law specifies that the LOST revenue will be used to
provide a credit against property taxes. The formulas used in the renegotiations should apply criteria only to the
general fund of each government because the services in these funds are primarily supported through property
taxes.
When population increases in a city’s central business district, the city is likely to have a corresponding increase
in revenues to offset additional service demands. However, the county will incur additional service demands
without a corresponding increase in revenue. For example, when a city hosts a convention or trade show the
city collects an increased level of hotel/motel excise tax. Businesses also use more utilities, which generates more
revenue for the city if they provide utility services. Even if the city does not own any utilities, they will still receive
a franchise fee from private utility providers.Without the increase in daytime and special event populations, many
businesses could not thrive and the city would not enjoy the revenue they receive from occupation and business
license taxes. Meanwhile, unlike cities, there is a commensurate increase in county service demand to those same
people. However, there are no county revenues that increase to accommodate the increase in demand.
2. The service delivery responsibilities of each political subdivision to the resident population of
the subdivision.31
Don’t get caught in the “unincorporated trap.” If the cities propose that you consider residential population in
the distribution formula, they may want to count only the unincorporated resident population when determining
the county’s population. Remember that “resident” population for the county is the entire county—not the unincorporated county. Consequently, county services are essentially all the services provided throughout the county.
Resident population can be an important statistic in the 2010–2012 renegotiations if counties apply it properly.
Basing the county’s share of LOST revenue exclusively on the unincorporated population would be logical only if
the county provided a property tax rollback exclusively to the unincorporated residents of the county. However,
since the county is required by law to provide a countywide rollback, the county’s share of the LOST proceeds
necessarily benefit all residents of the county regardless of whether they live in the unincorporated or the incorporated areas of the county. It is critical to remember that if, as a result of renegotiations, the county’s LOST
30
31
See O.C.G.A. §§ 48-8-89(b), -91(a).
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-49(b)(2).
11
revenues are not based on total county population then the unincorporated residents will be giving away part of
their rightful benefit to city residents.
Residential population can also be very effective in measuring service delivery and property tax burdens. On
average, according to a report on the fiscal impacts of land use on local government by Jeffrey H. Dorfman at the
University of Georgia, for every dollar in property taxes collected from a residential property, it takes $1.35 to
service that property. Conversely, for every dollar in property taxes collected from commercial property, it takes
less than $0.40 to provide services to that property. This means the residential population reflects the greater
percentage of service delivery burden than point of sale, which only measures the service delivery burden resulting from commercial properties. The scattered residential populations of unincorporated areas are, therefore,
more expensive to serve than the dense commercial properties found most often in cities, a fact which the distribution agreement should recognize.
It is vital that counties identify trends in population growth within unincorporated areas and cities. If the county
anticipates the residential population to grow at a greater percentage in the unincorporated area of the county,
the new distribution certificates should not only reflect the population shift that has occurred over the past ten
years, but also the projected population shift for the upcoming decade.The new distribution certificates are likely
to remain in effect for the next ten years, and counties experiencing faster growth in the unincorporated area
will lose more equity each year if the new distribution certificate does not account for anticipated population
growth.
3. The existing service delivery responsibility of each political subdivision.32
Counties and cities renegotiating LOST should refer back to their agreed upon service delivery strategies to
determine the responsibilities of each political subdivision. If services become an issue, it is important to look
at services that are supported through property taxes. Counties should emphasize the number of services they
provide that are mandated by the state and the limited control they have to cut costs for providing these services. Cities were created to serve a population within the county that has requested a higher level of service.
To truly achieve tax equity with LOST funds, the base services that the county provides to everyone should be
funded first then any remaining revenue could be split between the county and cities for the higher level services.
Residents of municipalities may disproportionately use some county services. For example, if a greater concentration of social problems (e.g. homeless, mentally ill, substance abusers and indigents) manifest inside the city,
then the county’s criminal justice system, public health services and public welfare services may be disproportionately used by city residents.
If a county or city has picked up additional service delivery responsibilities since the 2000–2002 negotiations,
including any services transferred during the service delivery strategy negotiations, the shift in service demand
should be reflected in the new LOST distribution. For example, some cities during service delivery negotiations
shifted all responsibility for recreation to the county. The additional service demands on the county justify a
larger share of LOST, since the county service delivery responsibilities were expanded and the city’s diminished.
However, if a county or city adds or expands a proprietary fee-based service, a LOST increase would not be justified. For example, if a city goes into the cable TV service financed by user fees that generate a profit, a greater
LOST share would not be appropriate. In other words, adjustments to LOST based on changes in service delivery should be limited to services financed out of the local governments’ general funds.
4. The effect of a change in sales tax distribution on the ability of each political subdivision to
meet its short-term and long-term debt.33
32
33
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(3).
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(4).
12
Short-term and long-term debt cannot be secured through the dedication of LOST proceeds. General Obligation
(GO) debt is backed by dedicated property taxes. Collateral or the general taxing authority of the government
would back any other long-term or short-term debt. LOST revenues are dedicated to rolling back property taxes
that fund operating expenditures. Debt associated with sales tax proceeds is usually found in conjunction with a
SPLOST because SPLOST funds are used to finance long-term capital projects.34 Generally, this criterion would
only become an issue if a proposed shift in distribution in LOST proceeds to a particular county or city would
be so significant as to affect the local government’s bond rating.
5. The point of sale and use which generates the tax to be apportioned.35
Your cities may urge use of this criterion for splitting LOST revenue with counties. Cities are likely to argue that
most of the businesses reside within their city boundaries and that they are the primary engines that produce
sales tax.
Once again, do not get caught in the “unincorporated trap.” All sales take place in the county, whether located in
the incorporated or unincorporated area of the county. In other words, any sale that might be credited to a city
must also be credited to the county. Maintenance of public infrastructure such as roads and provision of public
services such as patrol, EMS, courts, jail, and 9-1-1, are needed both inside and outside municipal boundaries to
permit commercial activities within a central business district. For these reasons, point of sale lacks credibility
when considering distribution of LOST funds between a county government and its municipalities. Moreover,
point of sale is another one of those criteria that must be subjectively measured, making it difficult for all parties
in the negotiations to agree on the data.The Department of Revenue has repeatedly stated that they cannot distinguish between unincorporated and incorporated sales. Because point of sale is difficult to measure accurately
and, more importantly, does not reflect service delivery burden, it should not be used in any formula for LOST
renegotiations.
Keep in mind that sales tax is not a tax on business but a tax on consumers. The real producers of sales tax are
the consumers. In most cases unincorporated county residents and residents from outside the county make up
a large share of consumer spending.
Point of sale as it relates to service delivery only acknowledges the service burden from commercial properties.
Remember, as noted previously, that for every dollar in property taxes collected from a residential property, it
takes $1.35 to service that property. Conversely, for every dollar in property taxes collected from commercial
property, it takes less than $0.40 to provide services to that property. If LOST is to provide property tax relief
or fund services, the residential component of the digest is more valuable than the commercial component.
Finally, cities have other sources of revenue to fund services provided to commercial properties. Many cities collect hotel/motel taxes, occupation or business license taxes, parking fees and utility fees that provide an alternative revenue source for funding the service demands of the commercial properties.
6. The existence of intergovernmental agreements among and between the political subdivisions.36
All existing intergovernmental agreements should be reflected in the county service delivery strategy. Note that
many counties made side agreements with their cities as part of previous LOST negotiations. In such agreements,
a county or city may have shifted shares of LOST proceeds to one or the other government in order to compensate for shifts in service responsibilities. For example, a city may have agreed to accept a lesser percentage of
LOST proceeds because the city and the county agreed that the county would take over full responsibility for
recreation in the county and use the additional LOST proceeds to help pay for that service. Likewise, a county
may have given up some share of its LOST proceeds under service delivery negotiations to a city where the city
agrees to expand its service responsibilities in the unincorporated area of the county.
See generally O.C.G.A. § 48-8-121.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(5).
36
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(6).
34
35
13
Given that there may have been such agreements between the county and one or more of its cities either as
part of the previous LOST renegotiations or separately decided under service delivery strategy negotiations, it is
important that county staff review minutes, contracts, and service delivery agreements at least as far back as the
most recent negotiations to be sure they are properly taken into account in the upcoming negotiations.
7. The use by any political subdivision of property taxes and other revenues from some taxpayers
to subsidize the cost of services provided to other taxpayers of the levying subdivision.37
Some county services are provided only to unincorporated residents or residents within a special district in the
county. If these services are funded through a countywide property tax levy, and the city is also providing the service to the same city residents, then the city may have a legitimate complaint that their citizens are being double
taxed for the service. At this point in time, however, there should be no double taxation by counties regarding
a countywide funded service that only benefits the unincorporated areas of the county. Double taxation has, by
law38, been addressed and resolved during the required service delivery strategy negotiations. If, for some reason,
double taxation of city residents still needs to be addressed, it can be handled once the service delivery strategy
agreements are opened for review.
On the other hand, while double taxation of city residents by the county should have been resolved through
county service delivery strategy agreements, several inequitable situations continue to exist where cities indirectly tax or impose fees on unincorporated residents to subsidize city services.
For example, most unincorporated residents are not aware that they are paying franchise fees in their utility
bills. Except for cable, utility franchises provide revenue only to cities. The power company, for example, determines the amount of fee due to the city based upon the franchise agreement between the power company and
the city. However, when the fee is collected from the power customers, 50% of the amount due to the city are
incorporated into the power company’s base rate and charged to all power customers--incorporated and unincorporated--at the same rate. The effect of the scheme is that unincorporated residents are paying substantial
franchise fee revenues through their power bills to cities levying franchise fees to support general city services
like police, fire, and garbage.
In addition, some cities that provide water and sewer services to unincorporated areas of the county are effectively requiring unincorporated residents to subsidize general city services through city charges for water and
sewer. This is because in many instances, utility rates charged to the unincorporated customer by the city are
higher than the rates charged to the city customers.The higher rate is not necessarily justified by any higher cost
to run lines into the unincorporated areas. Instead, these cities generate a “profit” (water and sewer revenues
collected beyond the sum needed for maintenance and operation of the services) which they transfer to their
general fund to be used for general city services.
LOST renegotiations are an appropriate opportunity for resolving these inequities.
8. Any coordinated plan of county and municipal service delivery and financing.39
Again, refer back to the county service delivery strategy agreement.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(7).
O.C.G.A. § 37-70-24 (3)(A).
39
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(8).
37
38
14
TECHNICAL RENEGOTIATION ISSUES
Maintain a Record
Local governments are encouraged to keep some form of minutes of their renegotiation meetings. This will ensure that there is a record demonstrating each of the eight criteria set forth in O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b) and other
critical matters were properly considered as well as what decisions were made.
Use of Distribution Formulas
Local governments may find it helpful to use a formula that attempts to quantify some elements of the eight
criteria. Some formulas and sample calculations showing how to use these formulas are set forth in Appendix D.
Negotiators are advised not to simply pick the formula which appears to result in the largest possible distribution
for their local government but to carefully read and understand the formulas and the assumptions underlying
the formulas and use them to develop a method for splitting the revenue to achieve tax equity for all county
residents. Negotiators may decide to use any combination of the formulas in Appendix D or they may decide to
devise their own formula to best reflect their unique situation.
Caveat: Insist on Using Unincorporated Data.
When using population, tax digest, budget expenditure, point of sale or any other criteria to formulate
LOST distributions, counties should insist that countywide – not unincorporated – data, be used in any
formula allocating LOST revenues. In other words, when LOST shares are to be calculated, residents of
municipalities should also be counted as county residents and property within cities should also be counted
as being on the county’s tax digest. As previously noted, this is because counties are required by law to
rollback property taxes based on LOST collections on a countywide – not unincorporated – basis.
Negotiators may choose a combination of methods or formulas to allocate LOST revenues. For example, a county could distribute seventy-five percent of revenues according to population and twenty-five percent based upon
percentage shares of total property taxes levied by the county and eligible city governments. In other words, if
negotiators elect to use a combination of methods, distributions may be calculated by weighing each factor according to its relative importance.
Additionally, counties and cities should take into consideration the availability of alternate funding sources cities
may use to fund general operations without increasing property taxes. For example, there are currently 114 cities
that do not levy any property taxes.These cities are able to support their general government operations entirely
with LOST revenue and other revenue sources. Some cities that provide public utilities are able to subsidize
general city operations with some of the revenues derived from utility customers.
Negotiating Adjustments and Side Agreements
In trying to arrive at a fair LOST agreement, local governments may want or need to consider the use of intergovernmental contracts or “hold harmless” agreements to address or implement side agreements.
Service Agreements. For example, a county might propose that in return for a larger share of the LOST revenues, it would take over the maintenance of all parks or the operation of all recreation programs in the county.
Similarly, for a larger share of LOST revenues, a city might agree to provide solid waste collection services in
heavily populated unincorporated areas. Any such service agreements should subsequently be incorporated into
the county service delivery plan.
15
Phase-In Agreements. There are several alternatives that can be used to help “ease the pain” for cities or
counties that may receive less revenue under a renegotiated certificate. The parties could agree to phase-in the
new revenue allocations.These agreements can provide stability in local government finances and make the transition to the new distribution easier. The most straightforward approach is a multi-year phase-in. If this route is
chosen, the affected governments execute and file a series of distribution certificates simultaneously with each
certificate applicable to a specific year.
Hold Harmless Agreements. A “hold harmless” provision could be structured in a variety of ways. For example, to help a local government that would like to use LOST revenues to pay off the debt on a capital facility
in the next couple of years, the other negotiating local governments could agree to allow that government to
receive a larger share of the LOST revenues for a specified period of time until the debt is retired in exchange
for a smaller share in subsequent years after the debt is retired. This could be accomplished by simultaneously
executing and filing a series of distribution certificates reflecting the agreement. While it may be complex to
implement given the Department of Revenue will only accept distribution agreements using percentages to allocate revenues,40 another approach, using intergovernmental agreements, would be to set a floor for the dollar
amounts to be received by a jurisdiction or agree to maintain the current dollar distribution up to a certain
absolute amount of LOST revenues after which any increase in sales tax revenues beyond that point would go
to the other local governments.
OPEN MEETINGS LAW
The distribution arrangement and any other agreements must be approved by each participating local government in an open meeting.41 If a quorum of the governing body of any of the participating local governments
attends a meeting where the negotiation occurs, that meeting and its body are subject to the requirements of
the open meeting law.42 Likewise, if the governing body of any of the participating local governments appoints
a committee to negotiate the distribution arrangement that includes members of the governing body, then that
committee is subject to all of the requirements of the open meeting law.43
CONCLUSION
As is evident from this guide, there is no one “correct” way to reach a final agreement. It is clear, however, that a
great deal is at stake: revenues, service delivery, intergovernmental relations and the public perception of many
local elected officials in the state.
In sum, counties should remind their cities during renegotiations that the fundamental purpose of the LOST is
for property tax relief and not to provide additional revenues beyond a sum that would be raised from revenue
sources other than LOST. Furthermore, counties should insist that any formula or date used in determining
LOST allocations must reflect the county’s incorporated and unincorporated areas.
If you have any questions regarding the LOST or concerning the upcoming LOST renegotiations, please feel free
to contact ACCG staff at (404) 522-5022.
O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b).
The Georgia Open Meetings laws are located at O.C.G.A. §§ 50-14-1 to -6.
42
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1.
43
Id.
40
41
16
Appendix A
The Law
17
JOINT COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY SALES AND USE TAX
(LOST)
The following is the text of the statutes governing the joint county and municipal sales and use tax amended as
of 2010:
48-8-80. “Qualified municipality” defined.
As used in this article, the term “qualified municipality” means only those incorporated municipalities which impose a tax other than the tax authorized by this article and which provide at least three of the following services:
(1.) Water;
(2.) Sewage;
(3.) Garbage collection;
(4.) Police protection;
(5.) Fire protection; or
(6.) Library.
48-8-81. Creation of special districts.
Pursuant to the authority granted by Article IX, Section II, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of this state, there are
created within this state 159 special districts. The geographical boundary of each county shall correspond with
and shall be conterminous with the geographical boundary of one of the 159 special districts.
48-8-82. Authorization of counties and municipalities to impose joint sales and use tax; rate; applicability of tax to sales of motor fuels.
When the imposition of a joint county and municipal sales and use tax is authorized according to the procedures provided in this article within a special district, the county whose geographical boundary is conterminous
with that of the special district and each qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special district shall levy a joint sales and use tax at the rate of 1 percent. Except as to rate, the joint tax shall correspond
to the tax imposed and administered by Article 1 of this chapter. No item or transaction which is not subject to
taxation by Article 1 of this chapter shall be subject to the tax levied pursuant to this article, except that the joint
tax provided in this article shall be applicable to sales of motor fuels as prepaid local tax as that term is defined
by Code Section 48-8-2 and shall be applicable to the sale of food and beverages only to the extent provided for
in paragraph (57) of Code Section 48-8-3.
48-8-83. Special districts where joint tax to be levied.
Effective January 1, 1980, the joint tax provided in Code Section 48-8-82 shall be levied in each special district
in which prior to January 1, 1980, a joint county and municipal sales and use tax was levied pursuant to Ga. L.
1975, p. 984, Section 2 (as amended by Ga. L. 1975, Ex. Sess., p. 1729, Section 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 1019, Sections 1-13;
Ga. L. 1977, p. 1008, Section 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1429, Sections 1-3; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1460, Sections 1-3; Ga. L. 1978, p.
1678, Section 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1695, Section 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 446, Section 1) or in which a referendum election
had authorized the levying of such a tax within the special district.
18
48-8-84. Resolution by governing authorities of counties and municipalities in special districts imposing tax; time.
If the imposition of the tax provided for in Code Section 48-8-82 is to be levied pursuant to Code Section 48-883, the governing authority of the county whose geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special
district and the governing authority of each qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the district
shall each adopt a resolution on or prior to January 1, 1980, imposing the tax authorized by Code Section 48-882 on behalf of the county and each qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special district.
48-8-85. Referendum election to decide imposition of tax; procedure; resolution; call for election;
publication; ballot; result; subsequent elections; declaration and certification of result; expense.
(a) Whenever the governing authority of any county or qualified municipality located wholly
or partially within a special district in which a joint county and municipal sales and use
tax was not imposed on January 1, 1980, wishes to submit to the electors of the special
district the question of whether the tax authorized by Code Section 48-8-82 shall be
imposed, any such governing authority shall notify the election superintendent of the
county whose geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special district
by forwarding to the superintendent a copy of a resolution of the governing authority
calling for a referendum election. Upon receipt of the resolution, it shall be the duty of
the election superintendent to issue the call for an election for the purpose of submitting
the question of the imposition of the tax to the voters of the special district for approval
or rejection. The election superintendent shall set the date of the election for a day not
less than 30 nor more than 45 days after the date of the issuance of the call. The election
superintendent shall cause the date and purpose of the election to be published once a
week for two weeks immediately preceding the date of the election in the official organ of
the county. The ballot shall have written or printed thereon the following:
“ [ ] YES Shall a retail sales and use tax of 1 percent be levied
[ ] NO within the special district within ____________ County?”
(b) All persons desiring to vote in favor of levying the tax shall vote “Yes,” and those persons
opposed to levying the tax shall vote “No.” If more than one-half of the votes cast are
in favor of levying the tax, then the tax shall be levied in accordance with this article;
otherwise, the tax may not be levied, and the question of the imposition of the tax
may not again be submitted to the voters of the special district until after 24 months
immediately following the month in which the election was held. It shall be the duty of
the election superintendent to hold and conduct such elections under the same rules and
regulations as govern special elections. It shall be his further duty to canvass the returns,
declare the result of the election, and certify the result to the Secretary of State and
to the commissioner. The expense of the election shall be borne by the county whose
geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special district holding the
election.
48-8-86. Adoption of resolution imposing tax by governing authorities of county and municipality;
time; effective date in general and with respect to services billed monthly; certified copy of resolution to commissioner.
If the imposition of the tax provided in Code Section 48-8-82 is approved in a referendum election as provided
by Code Section 48-8-85, the governing authority of the county whose geographical boundary is conterminous
with that of the special district and the governing authority of each qualified municipality located wholly or par19
tially within the district shall each adopt a resolution during the first 30 days following the certification of the
result of the election imposing the tax authorized by Code Section 48-8-82 on behalf of the county and each
qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special district. The resolution shall be effective on
the first day of the next succeeding calendar quarter which begins more than 80 days after the adoption of the
resolution. With respect to services which are regularly billed on a monthly basis, however, the resolution shall
become effective with the first regular billing period coinciding with or following the otherwise effective date
of the resolution. A certified copy of the resolution shall be forwarded to the commissioner so that it will be
received within five days after its adoption.
48-8-87. Administration and collection of tax by commissioner; applicability of Article 1 of this
chapter; first application of moneys to taxpayers’ state tax liabilities; compensation of dealers if
payments not delinquent; rate.
The tax levied pursuant to this article shall be exclusively administered and collected by the commissioner for
the use and benefit of each county whose geographical boundary is conterminous with that of a special district
and of each qualified municipality located wholly or partially therein. Such administration and collection shall be
accomplished in the same manner and subject to the same applicable provisions, procedures, and penalties provided in Article 1 of this chapter, except that the joint tax provided in this article shall be applicable to sales of
motor fuels as prepaid local tax as that term is defined in Code Section 48-8-2; provided, however, that all moneys collected from each taxpayer by the commissioner shall be applied first to such taxpayer’s liability for taxes
owed the state. Dealers shall be allowed a percentage of the amount of the tax due and accounted for and shall
be reimbursed in the form of a deduction in submitting, reporting, and paying the amount due if such amount is
not delinquent at the time of payment. The deduction shall be at the rate and subject to the requirements specified under subsections (b) through (f) of Code Section 48-8-50.
48-8-88. Required information on sales tax returns; purpose.
Each sales tax return remitting taxes collected under this article shall separately identify the location of each
retail establishment at which any of the taxes remitted were collected and shall specify the amount of sales and
the amount of taxes collected at each establishment for the period covered by the return in order to facilitate
the determination by the commissioner that all taxes imposed by this article are collected and distributed according to situs of sale.
48-8-89. Distribution of proceeds; certificate specifying percentage of proceeds for each political
subdivision; determination of proceeds for absent municipalities; procedure for filing certificates;
effect of failure to file renegotiation of certificate.
(a) The proceeds of the tax collected by the commissioner in each special district under this
article shall be disbursed as soon as practicable after collection as follows:
(1) One percent of the amount collected shall be paid into the general fund of the state
treasury in order to defray the costs of administration;
(2) Except for the percentage provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the remaining
proceeds of the tax shall be distributed to the governing authority of each qualified
municipality within the special district and to the governing authority of the county
whose geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special district for the
purpose of assisting such political subdivisions in funding all or any portion of those
services which are to be provided by such governing authorities pursuant to and in
accordance with Article IX, Section II, Paragraph III of the Constitution of this state.
(b) It is the intent of the General Assembly that no agreement as to the distribution of
the proceeds of the tax shall enrich any political subdivision beyond a sum which in
20
the absence of the distribution would be raised through other sources of revenue. The
distribution shall be in accordance with a certificate which shall be executed in behalf
of each respective governing authority, except as otherwise provided in this subsection,
and which shall encompass all respective political subdivisions, shall be filed with the
commissioner, and shall specify by percentage that portion of the remaining proceeds of
the tax available for distribution which each such political subdivision shall receive. On or
after July 1, 1995, the distribution of proceeds of the tax as specified in the certificate shall
be based upon, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
(1) The service delivery responsibilities of each political subdivision to the population
served by the political jurisdiction and served during normal business hours,
conventions, trade shows, athletic events and the inherent value to a community
of a central business district and the unincorporated areas of the county and the
obligation of all residents of the county for the maintenance and prosperity of the
central business district and the unincorporated areas of the county;
(2) The service delivery responsibilities of each political subdivision to the resident
population of the subdivision;
(3) The existing service delivery responsibility of each political subdivision;
(4) The effect of a change in sales tax distribution on the ability of each political
subdivision to meet its short-term and long-term debt;
(5) The point of sale and use which generates the tax to be apportioned;
(6) The existence of intergovernmental agreements among and between the political
subdivisions;
(7) The use by any political subdivision of property taxes and other revenues from some
taxpayers to subsidize the cost of services provided to other taxpayers of the levying
subdivision; and
(8) Any coordinated plan of county and municipal service delivery and financing.
Notwithstanding the fact that a certificate shall not contain an execution in behalf of one or more qualified municipalities within the special district, if the combined total of the populations of all such absent municipalities is
less than one-half of the aggregate population of all qualified municipalities located within the special district, the
submitting political subdivisions shall, in behalf of the absent municipalities, specify a percentage of that portion
of the remaining proceeds which each such municipality shall receive, which percentage shall not be less than
that proportion which each absent municipality’s population bears to the total population of all qualified municipalities within the special district multiplied by that portion of the remaining proceeds which are received by all
qualified municipalities within the special district. For the purpose of determining the population of the absent
municipalities, only that portion of the population of each such municipality which is located within the special
district shall be computed. No certificate may contain a total of specified percentages in excess of 100 percent.
The certificate shall be filed with the commissioner by March 1, 1980, for those special districts in which the tax
authorized by this article is being levied on January 1, 1980. For all other special districts in which the tax shall
be imposed subsequent to January 1, 1980, the certificate shall be filed with the commissioner within 60 days
after the tax is imposed within the district. The commissioner shall continue to distribute the proceeds of the
tax as otherwise provided in this Code section until the first day of the next calendar year following the month
in which the commissioner receives a certificate as provided in this Code section, which certificate shall provide
other percentages upon which the commissioner shall make the distribution to the political subdivisions entitled
21
to the proceeds of the tax. At such time, the commissioner shall thereafter distribute the proceeds of the tax in
accordance with the directions of the certificate.
(c) If the certificate provided for in subsection (b) of this Code section is not received by the
commissioner by the required date, the authority to impose the tax authorized by Code
Section 48-8-82 shall cease on the first day of the second calendar month following the
month in which the tax was initially imposed and the tax shall not be levied in the special
district after such date unless the reimposition of the tax is subsequently authorized
pursuant to Code Section 48-8-85. When the imposition of the tax is so terminated, the
commissioner shall retain the proceeds of the tax which were to be distributed to the
governing authorities of the county and qualified municipalities within the special district
until he receives a certificate in behalf of each such governing authority specifying the
percentage of the proceeds which each such governing authority shall receive. If no such
certificate is received by the commissioner within 120 days of the date on which the
authority to levy the tax was terminated, the proceeds shall escheat to the state and the
commissioner shall transfer the proceeds to the state’s general fund.
(d) (1) A certificate providing for the distribution of the proceeds of the tax authorized
by this article shall expire on December 31 of the second year following the year in
which the decennial census is conducted. No later than December 30 of the second year
following the year in which the census is conducted, a renegotiated certificate meeting
the requirements for certificates specified by subsection (b) of this Code section shall be
filed with and received by the commissioner. The General Assembly recognizes that the
requirement for government services is not always in direct correlation with population.
Although a renegotiated certificate is required within a time certain of the decennial
census, this requirement is not meant to convey an intent by the General Assembly
that population as a criterion should be more heavily weighted than other criteria. It is
the express intent of the General Assembly in requiring such renegotiation that eligible
political subdivisions shall analyze local service delivery responsibilities and the existing
allocation of proceeds made available to such governments under the provisions of this
article and make rational the allocation of such resources to meet such service delivery
responsibilities. Political subdivisions in their renegotiation of such distributions shall at a
minimum consider the criteria specified in subsection (b) of this Code section.
(2) The commissioner shall be notified in writing of the commencement of renegotiation
proceedings by the county governing authority in behalf of all eligible political subdivisions
within the special district. The eligible political subdivisions shall commence renegotiations
at the call of the county governing authority before July 1 of the second year following the
year in which the census is conducted. If the county governing authority does not issue the
call by that date, any eligible municipality may issue the call and so notify the commissioner
and all eligible political subdivisions within the special district
(3) Following the commencement of such renegotiation, if the parties necessary to an
agreement fail to reach an agreement within 60 days, such parties shall submit the dispute
to nonbinding arbitration, mediation, or such other means of resolving conflicts in a manner
which attempts to reach a resolution of the dispute. Any renegotiation agreement reached
pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with the requirements specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4)(A) If the parties necessary to an agreement fail to reach an agreement within 60 days
of submitting the dispute to nonbinding arbitration, mediation, or such other means
22
of resolving conflicts, as required by paragraph (3) of this subsection, any of such parties may file a petition in superior court of the county seeking resolution of the items
remaining in dispute. Such petition shall be filed no later than 30 days after the last day
of the 60 day alternative dispute resolution period required by paragraph (4) of this
subsection. Such petition shall be assigned to a judge pursuant to Code Section 151-9.1 or 15-6-13 who is not a judge in the circuit in which the county is located. The
judge selected may also be a senior judge pursuant to Code Section 15-1-9.2.
(B) Following the filing of the petition as specified under subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph, the county and qualified municipalities representing at least one-half of the
aggregate municipal population of all qualified municipalities located wholly or partially
within the special district shall separately submit to the judge and the other parties a
written best and final offer specifying the distribution of the tax proceeds. There shall
be one such offer from the county and one such offer from qualified municipalities representing at least one-half of the aggregate municipal population of all qualified municipalities located wholly or partially within the special district.The offer from the county
may be an offer representing the county and any qualified municipalities representing
at least one-half of the aggregate municipal population of all qualified municipalities
located wholly or partially within the special district.
(C) Any qualified municipality or municipalities located wholly or partially within the
special district who are not a party to an offer under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, and who represent at least one-half of the aggregate municipal population of all
qualified municipalities who are not a party to an offer under subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, shall be authorized to separately submit to the judge and the other parties
a written best and final offer specifying the distribution of the tax proceeds.There shall
be one such offer from such qualified municipality or municipalities.
(D) Each offer under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph shall take into account the allocation required fro any absent municipalities in accordance with subsection (b) of this Code section. The judge shall conduct such hearings as the judge
deems necessary and shall render a decision based on the requirements and intent of
paragraph (1) of this subsection and the criteria in subsection (b) of this Code section.
The judge’s decision shall adopt the best and final offer of one of the parties submitted under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of this paragraph specifying the allocation of the
tax proceeds and shall also include findings of fact. The judge shall enter a final order
containing a new distribution certificate and transmit a copy of it to the commissioner.
(E) A final order entered under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph shall be subject to
appeal by application upon one or more of the following grounds:
(i.) The judge’s disregard of the law;
(ii.) Partiality of the judge; or
(iii.) Corruption, fraud, or misconduct by the judge or a party.
(F) During the process set forth in this paragraph, the commissioner shall continue to
distribute the sales tax proceeds according to the percentages specified in the most
recently filed distribution certificate of in accordance with subsection (f) of Code Section 48-8-89.1, as applicable, until a new distribution certificate is properly filed.
(5) If a new distribution certificate as provided for in this Code section is not received by
the commissioner, the authority to impose the tax authorized by Code Section 48-8-82
23
shall cease, and the tax shall not be levied in the special district after such date unless the
reimposition of the tax is subsequently authorized pursuant to Code Section 48-8-85.When
the imposition of the tax is so terminated, the commissioner shall retain the proceeds of
the tax which were to be distributed to the governing authorities of the county and qualified municipalities within the special district until the commissioner receives a certificate
on behalf of each such governing authority specifying the percentage of the proceeds which
each such governing authority shall receive. If no such certificate is received by the commissioner within 120 days of the date on which the authority to levy the tax was terminated,
the proceeds shall escheat to the state, and the commissioner shall transfer the proceeds
to the state’s general funds.
(6) If the commissioner receives a new distribution certificate by the required date, the
commissioner shall distribute the proceeds of the tax in accordance with the directions of
the new distribution certificate commencing on January 1 of the year immediately following
the year in which such certificate was executed by the parties or the judge or the first day
of the second calendar month following the month such certificate was executed by the
parties or the judge, whichever is sooner.
(7) Costs of any conflict resolution under paragraph (3) or (4) of this subsection shall
be borne proportionately by the affected political subdivision in accordance with the final
percentage distributions of the proceeds of the tax as reflected by the new distribution
certificate.
(8) Political subdivision shall be authorized, at their option, to renegotiate distribution certificates on a more frequent basis than is otherwise required under this subsection.
(9) No provision of this subsection shall apply to any county which is authorized to levy or
which levies a local sales tax, local use tax, or local sales and use tax for educational purposes pursuant to a local constitutional amendment or to any county which is authorized to
expend all or any portion of the proceeds of any sales tax, use tax, or sales and use tax for
educational purposes pursuant to a local constitutional amendment.
48-8-89.1. Procedure for certifying additional qualified municipalities; issuance of new distribution
certificate; cessation of authority to collect tax ceases upon failure to file new certificate.
(a) If there exists within any special district in which the tax authorized by this article is
imposed a qualified municipality which was not a qualified municipality on the date
of filing with the commissioner of the most recently filed certificate under Code
Section 48-8-89, such qualified municipality may request the commissioner to give
notice of the qualified municipality’s existence as provided in this subsection. Upon
receipt of such a request, the commissioner shall, unless he determines that the
requesting entity is not a qualified municipality, within 30 days give written notice
of the qualified municipality’s existence to the county which is conterminous with
the special district in which the qualified municipality is located and to each other
qualified municipality within the special district. Such written notice shall include
the name of the new qualified municipality, the effective date of the notice, and a
statement of the provisions of this Code section.
(b) Within 60 days after the effective date of the notice referred to in subsection
(a) of this Code section, a new distribution certificate shall be filed with the
commissioner for the special district or, within 30 days, after the last day of the 60
day alternative dispute resolution period required by paragraph (3) of subsection
(d) of Code Section 48-8-89, the county, any qualified municipality located wholly
24
or partially within the special district, or any new qualified municipality as specified
under subsection (a) of this Code section located wholly or partially within the
special district may file a petition in superior court seeking resolution of the
items remaining in dispute pursuant to the procedure set forth in paragraph (4)
of subsection (d) of Code section 48-8-89. In the event such a petition is filed, a
new qualified municipality as specified under subsection (a) of this Code section
located wholly or partially within the special district shall be subject to the same
requirements applicable to qualified municipalities located wholly or partially within
the special district under paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of Code Section 48-8-89.
This distribution certificate shall specify by percentage what portion of the proceeds
of the tax available for distribution within the special district shall be received by
the county in which the special district is located and by each qualified municipality
located wholly or partially within the special district, including the new qualified
municipality. No distribution certificate may contain a total of specified percentages
in excess of 100 percent.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a distribution certificate required
by this Code section must be executed by the governing authorities of the county
within which the special district is located and each qualified municipality located
wholly or partially within the special district, including the new qualified municipality.
Notwithstanding the fact that a certificate shall not contain an execution in behalf
of one or more qualified municipalities within the special district, if the combined
total of the populations of all such absent municipalities is less than one-half of the
aggregate population of all qualified municipalities located within the special district,
the submitting political subdivisions shall, in behalf of the absent municipalities, specify
a percentage of that portion of the remaining proceeds which each such municipality
shall receive, which percentage shall not be less than that proportion which each
absent municipality’s population bears to the total population of all qualified
municipalities within the special district multiplied by that portion of the remaining
proceeds which are received by all qualified municipalities within the special district.
For the purpose of determining the population of the absent municipalities, only
that portion of the population of each such municipality which is located within the
special district shall be computed.
(d) If a new certificate is not filed for any special district as required by this Code
section, the authority to impose the tax authorized by Code Section 48-8-82 within
that special district shall cease on the first day of January of the year following the
year in which the required distribution certificate could last have been timely filed. In
any special district in which the authority to impose the tax is terminated pursuant
to this subsection, the tax may thereafter be reimposed only pursuant to the
procedures specified in Code Sections 48-8-84 through 48-8-86.
(e) If a new certificate is filed as required by this Code section, the commissioner shall
begin to distribute the proceeds as specified in the new certificate on the first
day of January of the first calendar year which begins more than 60 days after the
effective date of the notice referred to in subsection (b) of this Code section. The
commissioner shall continue to distribute the proceeds of the tax according to
the new certificate until a subsequent certificate is filed and becomes effective as
provided in Code Section 48-8-89.
(f) (1) As used in this subsection, the term:
(A) “New qualified municipality” means a municipal corporation which has been
chartered by local Act since the date of filing with the commissioner of the most
25
recently filed certificate under Code Section 48-8-89 within a county which has
a special district for the provision of local government services consisting of the
unincorporated area of the county where the population of the unincorporated
area of the county, after removal of the population of the new municipality from
the unincorporated area, constitutes less than 20 percent of the population of
the county according to the most recent decennial census.
(B) “Newly expanded qualified municipality” means a municipal corporation
which since the date of filing with the commissioner of the most recently filed
certificate under Code Section 48-8-89 has increased its population by more
than 15 percent through one or more annexations and is located in the same
county as a new qualified municipality.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code section, if there exists within
any special district in which the tax authorized by this article is imposed a new
qualified municipality or a newly expanded qualified municipality or both, such qualified
municipality or municipalities may request the commissioner to give notice of the
qualified municipality’s or municipalities’ existence and status as a �����������������
new qualified municipality or newly expanded qualified municipality as provided in this subsection. Upon
receipt of such a request, the commissioner shall, unless he or she determines that
the requesting entity is not a new qualified municipality or newly expanded qualified
municipality, within 30 days give written notice of the qualified municipality›s existence
and status to the county which is conterminous with the special district in which the
qualified municipality is located and to each other qualified municipality within the
special district. Such written notice shall include the name of the new qualified municipality or newly expanded qualified municipality, the effective date of the notice, and a
statement of the provisions of this subsection.
(3) Within 60 days after the effective date of the notice referred to in paragraph (2) of
this subsection, a new distribution certificate shall be filed with the commissioner for
the special district or, within 30 days after the last day of the 60 day alternative dispute
resolution period required by paragraph (3) of subsection (d) of Code Section 48-889, the county, any qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special
district, or any new qualified municipality or newly expanded qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special district may file a petition in superior court
seeking resolution of the items remaining in dispute pursuant to the procedure set
forth in paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of Code Section 48-8-89.The new distribution
certificate shall address only the proceeds of the tax available for distribution from
the percentage allocated to the county in the current distribution certificate and shall
specify as a percentage of the total proceeds of the tax what portion of the proceeds
shall be received by the county in which the special district is located and by the new
qualified municipality and newly expanded qualified municipality located wholly or partially within the special district, if any.
(4) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, a distribution certificate required
by this subsection must be executed by the governing authorities of the county within
which the special district is located each new qualified municipality located wholly or
partially within the special district, and each newly expanded qualified municipality, if
any. If a new certificate is not filed within 60 days as required by paragraph (3) of this
subsection, the commissioner shall distribute the proceeds of the tax available for
distribution from the percentage allocated to the county in the current distribution
26
certificate such that:
(A) The new qualified municipality receives an allocation equal on a per capita
basis to the average per capita allocation to the other qualified municipalities in
the county (according to population), to be expended as provided in paragraph
(2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 48-8-89; and
(B) Any newly expanded qualified municipality receives a total allocation of tax
proceeds (including any amount previously allocated) equal on a per capita basis
to the average per capita allocation to the other qualified municipalities in the
county (according to population), to be expended as provided in paragraph (2)
of subsection (a) of Code Section 48-8-89.
Every other qualified municipality shall continue to receive the share provided
by the existing distribution certificate or otherwise provided by law. The county
shall receive the remaining proceeds of the tax, to be expended as provided in
paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 48-8-89. For the purpose of
determining the population of qualified municipalities, only that portion of the
population of each such municipality which is located within the special district
shall be computed. For the purpose of determining population under this Code
section, all calculations of population shall be according to the most recent decennial census, including the census data from such census applicable to any annexed territory.
(5) The commissioner shall begin to distribute the proceeds as specified in the newly
filed certificate or, if such a certificate is not filed, as specified in paragraph (4) of this
subsection on the first day of the first month which begins more than 60 days after
the effective date of the notice referred to in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The
commissioner shall continue to distribute the proceeds of the tax according to the
existing certificate and the certificate applicable to the county and the new qualified
municipality or, if such a certificate is not filed, as specified in paragraph (4) of this
subsection until a subsequent certificate is filed and becomes effective as provided in
Code Section 48-8-89.
48-8-89.2. Distribution of tax proceeds upon qualified municipality ceasing to be qualified.
If the commissioner determines that a qualified municipality entitled to receive tax proceeds under this article
has ceased to be a qualified municipality, he shall thereafter distribute the percentage of the proceeds of the tax
to which that qualified municipality was entitled to the county which is conterminous with the special district and
to each other qualified municipality within the special district pro rata according to the percentages of the tax
to which each other such political subdivision is otherwise entitled; and such distribution formula shall remain in
effect until a new certificate is filed and becomes effective as provided in Code Section 48-8-89.
48-8-89.3. Levy of tax in certain special districts; distribution of proceeds to qualified municipality.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, the tax provided for in
Code Section 48-8-82 shall be levied in any special district in which:
(1) Prior to January 1, 1980, a joint county and municipal sales and use tax was levied
pursuant to Ga. L. 1975, p. 984, Section 2 (as amended by Ga. L. 1975, Ex. Sess., p.
1729, Section 1; Ga. L. 1976, p. 1019, Sections 1-13; Ga. L. 1977, p. 1008, Section 1; Ga.
L. 1978, p. 1429, Sections 1-3; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1460, Sections 1-3; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1678,
Section 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1695, Section 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 446, Section 1) or in which
27
a referendum election had authorized the levying of such a tax within the special
district;
(2) The tax provided for in Code Section 48-8-82 was actually collected during the
period of January 1, 1980, to January 1, 1989; and
(3) There exists a qualified municipality which lies wholly or partially within the special
district and which:
(A) Was a qualified municipality at the time of filing of the distribution certificate most
recently filed with the commissioner under Code Section 48-8-89; and
(B) Was not assigned any percentage of the net proceeds of the tax under such distribution certificate.
In any special district which meets the criteria specified in this subsection, the tax provided for in Code Section 48-8-82 shall be levied without regard to any past defects in
compliance with the procedures specified by this article for the imposition of the tax.
(b) A qualified municipality described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of this Code section,
for which receipt of a portion of the net tax proceeds was not specified in the certificate
most recently filed with the commissioner under Code Section 48-8-89, may request
the commissioner to thereafter distribute a portion of the net tax proceeds to the
qualified municipality as provided in this Code section. Upon receipt of such a request,
the commissioner shall thereafter, unless he determines that the requesting municipality
does not meet the criteria specified in this Code section, give written notice of a new
distribution formula to the county which is conterminous with the special district, to the
requesting qualified municipality, and to each other qualified municipality within the special
district. Such new distribution formula shall be determined as follows:
(1) Begin with the percentages specified in the distribution certificate most recently filed
with the commissioner;
(2) Assign to the requesting municipality a percentage of the net proceeds which is
equal to the total percentage of the net proceeds previously distributed to all other
qualified municipalities in the special district multiplied by a fraction, the numerator
of which is the population of the requesting municipality and the denominator of
which is the population of all qualified municipalities within the special district;
(3) Deduct the percentage of the net proceeds so assigned to the requesting
municipality from the percentages previously assigned to all other qualified
municipalities within the special district, such deductions to be pro rata on the basis
of population; and
(4) Make no change in the percentage of the net proceeds previously distributed to the
county which is conterminous with the special district.
(c) This new distribution formula shall be implemented at the earliest date deemed
administratively practicable by the commissioner, and the notice specified in subsection (b)
of this Code section shall include such date. This new distribution formula shall remain in
effect until a subsequent distribution certificate is filed and becomes effective as provided
in Code Section 48-8-89.
28
(d) For the purpose of all population based calculations under this Code section, only that
portion of the population of a qualified municipality which is located within the special
district shall be computed.
48-8-90. Crediting of tax paid by purchaser in another tax jurisdiction; payment of difference between lesser similar tax payment and tax imposed by article; proof of payment; limitation on
credit.
Where a local sales or use tax has been paid with respect to tangible personal property by the purchaser either
in another local tax jurisdiction within the state or in a tax jurisdiction outside the state, the tax may be credited
against the tax authorized to be imposed by this article upon the same property. If the amount of sales or use
tax so paid is less than the amount of the use tax due under this article, the purchaser shall pay an amount equal
to the difference between the amount paid in the other tax jurisdiction and the amount due under this article.
The commissioner may require such proof of payment in another local tax jurisdiction as he deems necessary
and proper. No credit shall be granted, however, against the tax imposed under this article for tax paid in another
jurisdiction if the tax paid in such other jurisdiction is used to obtain a credit against any other local sales and
use tax levied in the special district or in the county which is coterminous with the special district; and taxes so
paid in another jurisdiction shall be credited first against the tax levied under this article and then against the tax
levied under Article 3 of this chapter, if applicable.
48-8-91. Condition precedent to authority to impose tax following first year of imposition; annual
adjustment of millage rate for ad valorem taxation of tangible personal property; formula; information required on tax bills; effect on tax bills when millage rate is zero.
(a) As a condition precedent for authority to levy the tax or to collect any proceeds from the
tax authorized by this article for the year following the initial year in which it is levied and
for all subsequent years, the county whose geographical boundary is conterminous with
that of the special district and each qualified municipality therein receiving any proceeds of
the tax shall adjust annually the millage rate for ad valorem taxation of tangible property
within such political subdivisions as provided in this subsection. The governing authority
of each such political subdivision shall compute the millage rate necessary to produce
revenue from taxation of tangible property in its respective political subdivision which,
when combined with other revenues reasonably expected to be received by the political
subdivision during the year other than revenues derived from the tax imposed pursuant
to this article, would provide revenues sufficient to defray the expenses of the political
subdivision for the year. The millage rate so ascertained shall then be reduced by a millage
rate which, if levied against the tangible property within the political subdivision, would
produce an amount equal to the distribution of the proceeds of the tax imposed by this
article which were received by the political subdivision during the preceding year. The
tax bill of each ad valorem taxpayer in the political subdivision shall show in a prominent
manner the millage rate first ascertained as provided in this subsection and shall show
such millage rate reduced by the millage rate required to raise an amount of revenue equal
to the distribution of the proceeds of the tax imposed by this article during the previous
year. The remainder shall be the millage rate upon which each taxpayer’s bill shall be based.
The tax authority of each such political subdivision shall cause to be shown in a prominent
manner on the tax bill of each ad valorem taxpayer the dollar amount of reduction of
ad valorem property taxes which the taxpayer has received as a result of the political
subdivision’s sharing in the proceeds of the tax authorized to be imposed by this article;
provided, however, that the dollar amount of reduction of ad valorem property taxes
shall not be calculated or shown on those forms used for the registration and taxation of
motor vehicles or trailers.
29
(b) This Code section shall not be construed to require a county or municipality to prepare
and mail ad valorem property tax bills when the ad valorem property tax millage rate in
the county or municipality has been reduced to zero as a result of the receipt of proceeds
from the tax levied pursuant to this article.
48-8-92.Referendum election to decide discontinuing imposition of tax;procedure;resolution;call for
election;publication;ballot;result;subsequent elections;declaration and certification of result;expense.
(a) Whenever the governing authority of any county and the governing authorities of at least
one-half of qualified municipalities located wholly or partially within a special district in
which the tax authorized by this article is being levied wish to submit to the electors of
the special district the question of whether the tax authorized by Code Section 48-8-82
shall be discontinued, such governing authorities shall notify the election superintendent
of the county whose geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special
district by forwarding to the superintendent a copy of a joint resolution of the governing
authorities calling for the referendum election. Upon receipt of the resolution, it shall be
the duty of the election superintendent to issue the call for an election for the purpose
of submitting the question of discontinuing the levy of the tax to the voters of the special
district for approval or rejection. The election superintendent shall issue the call and shall
conduct the election on a date and in the manner authorized under Code Section 212-540. The election superintendent shall cause the date and purpose of the election to
be published once a week for two weeks immediately preceding the date of the election
in the official organ of the county. The ballot shall have written or printed thereon the
following:
“ [ ] YES Shall the 1percent retail sales and use tax being
levied within the special district within ______________
[ ] NO County be terminated?”
(b) All persons desiring to vote in favor of discontinuing the tax shall vote “Yes,” and all
persons opposed to discontinuing the tax shall vote “No.” If more than one-half of the
votes cast are in favor of discontinuing the tax, then the tax shall cease to be levied on the
first day of the second calendar quarter following the month in which the commissioner
receives the certification of the result of the election; otherwise, the tax shall continue to
be levied, and the question of the discontinuing of the tax shall not again be submitted to
the voters of the special district until after 24 months immediately following the month
in which the election was held. It shall be the duty of the election superintendent to
hold and conduct such elections under the same rules and regulations as govern special
elections. It shall be such superintendent’s further duty to canvass the returns, declare
and certify the result of the election, and certify the result to the Secretary of State and
to the commissioner. The expense of the election shall be borne by the county whose
geographical boundary is conterminous with that of the special district holding the
election.
48-8-93. Nonimposition of tax on property ordered by and delivered to purchaser outside special
district; conditions of delivery.
30
No tax provided for in Code Section 48-8-82 shall be imposed upon the sale of tangible personal property which
is ordered by and delivered to the purchaser at a point outside the geographical area of the special district in
which the joint tax is imposed regardless of the point at which title passes, if the delivery is made by the seller’s
vehicle, United States mail, or common carrier or by private or contract carrier licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Georgia Public Service Commission.
48-8-94.Taxability of building and construction materials sold or used under contract entered into
prior to approval of tax levy.
(a) As used in this Code section, the term “building and construction materials” means all
building and construction materials, supplies, fixtures, or equipment, any combination
of such items, and any other leased or purchased articles when the materials, supplies,
fixtures, equipment, or articles are to be utilized or consumed during construction or are
to be incorporated into construction work pursuant to a bona fide written construction
contract.
(b) No tax provided for in Code Section 48-8-82 shall be imposed by a county or municipality
upon the sale or use of building and construction materials when the contract pursuant to
which the materials are purchased or used was advertised for bid prior to approval of the
levy of the tax by the county or municipality and the contract was entered into as a result
of a bid actually submitted in response to the advertisement prior to approval of the levy
of the tax.
48-8-95. Authorization of commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations.
The commissioner shall have the power and authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as shall be necessary for the effective and efficient administration and enforcement of the collection of the tax authorized to be
imposed by this article.
§ 48-8-96. Taxation of property in consolidated governments; change in tax rates.
(a) With respect to any consolidated government created by the consolidation of a county
and one or more municipalities in which consolidated government homestead property
(exclusive of improvements) is valued for purposes of local ad valorem taxation according
to a base year assessed value which does not change so long as the property is actually
occupied by the same owner as a homestead, the provisions of this Code section shall
control over any conflicting provisions of Article 1 of this chapter or this article.
(b) If the tax authorized by this article is in effect in the special district containing a
consolidated government referred to in subsection (a) of this Code section, then the rate
of tax imposed under this article in such special district may be increased from 1 percent
to 2 percent if such increase is approved by:
(1) A resolution of the governing authority of the consolidated government in the same
manner as otherwise required for the initial 1 percent sales tax pursuant to Code
Section 48-8-84; and
(2) A referendum conducted in the same manner as otherwise required for the initial 1
percent sales tax pursuant to Code Section 48-8-85, except that the ballot shall have
written or printed thereon the following:
“ [ ] YES Shall the retail sales and use tax tax levied within the special
district within ______________ County be increased
[ ] NO from 1 percent to 2 percent?” 31
(c)Such increased tax rate shall become effective on the first day of the next succeeding
calendar quarter which begins more than 80 days after the date of the election at which
such increase was approved by the voters. The proceeds of the increased tax shall be
divided in the same proportions as the original tax.
(d)Such increased tax rate may be decreased from 2 percent to 1 percent if such decrease is
approved by:
(1) A resolution of the governing authority of the consolidated government in the same
manner as otherwise required under Code Section 48-8-92; and
(2) A referendum conducted in the same manner as otherwise required for
discontinuation of the tax under Code Section 48-8-92, except that the ballot shall
have printed or written thereon the following:
“ [ ] YES Shall the retail sales and use tax levied within the special
district within ______________ County be decreased
[ ] NO from 1 percent to 2 percent?”
(e) Such decreased tax rate shall become effective on the first day of the second calendar
quarter following the month in which the commissioner receives certification of the result
of the election.
(f) If the tax authorized by this article is to be newly imposed in the special district containing
a consolidated government referred to in subsection (a) of this Code section, then such
tax may be imposed in such special district at the rate of 2 percent if such rate is approved
by:
(1) A resolution of the governing authority of the consolidated government in the same
manner as otherwise required pursuant to Code Section 48-8-84; and
(2) A referendum conducted in the same manner as otherwise required pursuant to
Code Section 48-8-85, except that the ballot shall have written or printed thereon
the following:
“ [ ] YES Shall the retail sales and use tax of 2 percent be levied within
[ ] NO the special district within ______________ County?”
(g) Such 2 percent tax may be discontinued if such discontinuation is approved by:
(1) A resolution of the governing authority of the consolidated government in the same
manner as otherwise required under Code Section 48-8-92; and
(2) A referendum conducted in the same manner as otherwise required for
discontinuation of the tax under Code Section 48-8-92, except that the ballot shall
have printed or written thereon the following:
(h) (For effective date, see note.)
(1) In the case of increase from 1 percent to 2 percent, the amount in excess of the
initial 1 percent sales and use tax shall not apply to the sale of motor vehicles.
32
(2) In the case of a newly imposed 2 percent sales and use tax under this Code section,
only the amount in excess of a 1 percent sales and use tax shall not apply to the sale
of motor vehicles.
(i) In all respects not otherwise provided for in this Code section, the levy of a tax under this
article by a consolidated government referred to in subsection (a) of this Code section
shall be in the same manner as the levy of the tax by any other county.
33
34
Appendix B
Blank Distribution Certificate
35
36
Appendix C
Model Letter Commencing
Renegotiations
37
MODEL LETTER COMMENCING RENEGOTIATION
This model letter is for your information only.The county governing authority is
responsible for issuing the call for the LOST renegotiations on behalf of all parties
eligible to participate in the LOST distribution within the county.
, 20 Honorable , Mayor
City of Re: Renegotiation of Local Option Sales Tax Distribution
Dear Mayor :
As you know, O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89 requires counties and cities to periodically renegotiate the distribution
or revenues received from the local option sales tax. Renegotiation must take place during the 2011-2012 calendar year. Failure to file a new distribution certificate with the Commissioner of Georgia Department of Revenue
by December 31, 2012 will result in the repeal of the LOST levy for County and each
participating city.
In particular, the law states that renegotiations “…shall be commenced…on or before July 1, 2012.” It is
the responsibility of the county governing authority to issue the call for LOST renegotiations and to notify the
Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Revenue that the renegotiation has been initiated. Pursuant to this
call, the renegotiation process required by O.C.G.A. §48-8-89(d) shall commence on .
An initial meeting is scheduled for , to be held in the room of the at which time preliminary information and the structure of the negotiations will be discussed. A letter similar to
this one has been sent to the mayors of the cities of , , and issuing this call for renegotiation. In addition, by copy of each letter, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of
Revenue shall be notified that the LOST renegotiation process for County will commence
on .
If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.
Yours truly,
Chairman
Cc: Doug MacGinnitie, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Revenue
38
Appendix D
Distribution Formulations
39
Exhibit 1: Some Methods of Determining LOST Revenue Shares
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Government population shares
City government share
=
City 1 resident population
total county population + total municipal population within the county
County government share
=
total county population
total county population + total municipal population within the county
Percentage of service provided by each government
City government share
=
City 1 population x % of services provided by City 1
total county population
County government share
=
(City 1 pop. x % of services provided by county to City 1 residents) + (City 2 pop. x % of
service provided by county to City 2 residents) + unincorporated area population
total county population
City government share
=
property taxes paid by owners of property in City 1 to City 1 government
total property taxes paid to county and to all qualified cities in county
County government share
=
property taxes paid to county on all property in county
total property taxes paid to county and all qualified cities in county
City government share
=
city property tax digest
(total county property tax digest + property tax digest of all qualified cities)
County government share
=
total county property tax digest ...................................................................................
(total county property tax digest + property tax digest of all qualified cities
City government share
=
expenditures by city government
total expenditures by all local governments in county
County government share
=
expenditures by county government
total expenditures by all local governments in county
Shares of property taxes
Shares of property tax digest
Shares of total expenditures
40
Appendix E
Statistical Data
41
County / City
APPLING
Baxley
Graham
Surrency
Unincorporated Appling
Fire District
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
12.950
12.950
12.950
12.950
0.470
6.890
0.000
0.000
$988,743.73
$65,913.23
$65,913.23
2,175,239.14
$2,320,497.45
$3,295,809.33
30.00%
2.00%
2.00%
66.00%
16.877
16.877
15.165
17.361
17.361
17.361
13.000
13.000
12.000
13.000
$139,667.46
$116,389.55
$209,501.19
$465,558.20
$
$
$
$
202,351.91
168,632.79
303,509.59
674,494.29
30.00%
25.00%
45.00%
BACON
Alma
Unincorporated Bacon
13
13
13.988
13.988
10.280
12.060
BAKER
Newton
Unincorporated Baker
$381,317.63 $
$571,976.43 $
$953,294.06 $
471,699.55
707,547.86
1,179,247.41
11.26
10.11
8.790
7.620
7.000
5.054
BALDWIN
Milledgeville
Unincorporated Baldwin
$43,474.65 $
$185,339.26 $
$228,813.91 $
12.52
12.52
8.640
8.640
9.750
9.120
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
0.000
4.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.500
7.57
7.57
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.120
0.000
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
30.00%
2.00%
2.00%
66.00%
2000
Population
2010
Population
4150
312
237
12,720
4,400
291
201
13,344
17,419
18,236
30.00%
25.00%
45.00%
1,805
1,434
4,370
7,609
40.00%
60.00%
40.00%
60.00%
25,528.79
229,921.72
255,450.51
19.00%
81.00%
$1,976,742.72 $
$2,997,446.30 $
$4,974,189.02 $
2,492,211.57
3,779,067.53
6,271,279.10
0.000
3.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.979
$49,755.83
$95,483.79
$7,581.83
$200,681.81
$20,376.20
$106,856.55
$1,888,588.86
$2,369,324.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.796
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.619
0.000
$595,781.42
$66,050.30
$0.00
$49,917.32
$258,127.65
$1,399,393.59
$3,271,768.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
ATHENS-CLARK (unified government)
$696,149.23
$46,409.95
$46,409.95
$1,531,528.31 $
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
9.75
9.75
9.75
9.75
0.4
ATKINSON
Pearson
Willacoochee
Unincorporated Atkinson
5.940
5.940
0.000
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
23.82%
1.79%
1.36%
73.02%
24.13%
1.60%
1.10%
73.17%
$7,930,395
$11,681,184
2,117
1,391
4,867
8,375
23.72%
18.85%
57.43%
25.28%
16.61%
58.11%
$2,660,506
$3,618,246
3,236
6,867
10,103
3,466
7,630
11,096
32.03%
67.97%
31.24%
68.76%
$4,203,163
$6,457,650
9.99%
90.01%
851
3,223
4,074
654
2,797
3,451
20.89%
79.11%
18.95%
81.05%
$1,643,295
$2,256,586
39.74%
60.26%
39.74%
60.26%
18,757
25,943
44,700
17,715
28,005
45,720
41.96%
58.04%
38.75%
61.25%
$12,830,016
$23,024,122
72,308.63
87,479.49
5,648.09
192,183.38
16,903.78
135,900.96
2,405,786.81
2,916,211.14
2.10%
4.03%
0.32%
8.47%
0.86%
4.51%
79.71%
2.48%
3.00%
0.19%
6.59%
0.58%
4.66%
82.50%
438
485
195
950
144
748
11,462
14,422
516
741
28
1,141
158
926
14,885
18,395
3.04%
3.36%
1.35%
6.59%
1.00%
5.19%
79.48%
2.81%
4.03%
0.15%
6.20%
0.86%
5.03%
80.92%
969,707.96
105,072.96
35,523.64
30,112.15
299,025.24
1,496,649.43
4,790,579.13
10.56%
1.17%
0.00%
0.88%
4.58%
24.81%
58.00%
12.55%
1.36%
0.46%
0.39%
3.87%
19.37%
62.00%
5,178
716
1,206
205
2,040
10,201
26,598
6,678
601
1,085
255
2,408
14,099
44,241
11.22%
1.55%
2.62%
0.44%
4.42%
22.11%
57.64%
9.63%
0.87%
1.56%
0.37%
3.47%
20.33%
63.78%
46,144
69,367
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$2,905,800
$99,484
$108,022
$3,305,596
$574,639
$309,772
$1,107,081
$2,191,169
$2,702,693
$462,295
$271,615
$7,995,189
$10,564,645
$115,374
$1,043,595
$35,200
$228,016
$227,051
$154,353
$44,654
$321,409
$111,480
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND (unified government)
BANKS
Alto
Baldwin
Gillsville
Homer
Lula
Maysville
Unincorporated Banks
BARROW
Auburn
Bethlehem
BRASELTON
Carl
Statham
Winder
Unincorporated Barrow
Fire District
Winder Fire District
7.57
7.57
7.57
6.22
1.75
1.000
$5,641,038.32 $
BARTOW
Adairsville
Cartersville
Emerson
Euharlee
Kingston
White
Unincorporated Bartow
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
6.82
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
7.730
0.000
16.520
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.640
1.380
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BEN HILL
Fitzgerald
Unincorporated Ben Hill
13.94
13.94
13.660
13.660
6.400
BERRIEN
Alahapa
Enigma
Nashville
Ray City
Unincorporated Berrien
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
18.000
18.000
18.000
18.000
18.000
13.168
13.168
10.003
10.003
BIBB
Macon
Unincorporated Bibb
$611,643.62
$3,456,348.28
$343,547.85
$244,015.30
$176,590.02
$157,325.65
$11,064,167.35
$16,053,638.07
7,726,670.51
$4,896,085
$12,975,028
$33,701,696
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
766,088.69
4,754,854.71
451,849.41
917,473.84
219,040.45
219,040.45
15,608,736.62
22,937,084.17
3.81%
21.53%
2.14%
1.52%
1.10%
0.98%
68.92%
3.34%
20.73%
1.97%
4.00%
0.95%
0.95%
68.05%
2,542
15,925
1,092
3,208
659
693
51,900
76,019
4,648
19,731
1,470
4,136
637
670
68,865
100,157
3.34%
20.95%
1.44%
4.22%
0.87%
0.91%
68.27%
4.64%
19.70%
1.47%
4.13%
0.64%
0.67%
68.76%
$34,362,626
$60,993,817
10.000
$1,291,186.08 $
$1,291,186.08 $
$2,582,372.16 $
1,157,507.68
1,157,507.68
2,315,015.36
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
8,758
8,726
17,484
9,053
8,581
17,634
50.09%
49.91%
51.34%
48.66%
$6,792,588
$9,973,794
9.500
2.000
7.000
8.000
9.500
0.000
8.000
10.000
$92,698.65
$69,930.56
$549,686.71
$69,930.56
$844,045.57
$1,626,292.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
70,578.81
82,359.62
455,886.19
70,578.81
791,207.65
1,470,611.08
5.70%
4.30%
33.80%
4.30%
51.90%
4.80%
5.60%
31.00%
4.80%
53.80%
682
869
4,697
746
9,241
16,235
668
1,278
4,939
1,090
11,311
19,286
4.20%
5.35%
28.93%
4.60%
56.92%
3.46%
6.63%
25.61%
5.65%
58.65%
$4,566,572
$9,546,283
9.100
9.800
$25,595,032.39 $
$6,239,585.02 $
18,211,185.19
12,140,807.11
80.40%
19.60%
60.00%
40.00%
97,255
56,632
90,885
64,662
63.20%
36.80%
58.43%
41.57%
$66,589,560
$94,292,316
41
$1,872,116
$58,731
$428,939
$44,135
$595,046
$5,513,421
$596,047
$3,320,790
$166,078
$2,808,230
$1,081,062
$11,764,328
$1,774,626
$23,706,483
$422,921
$451,556
$402,728
$231,548
$2,331,527
$36,849,717
$1,226,549
$1,300,085
$5,182,938
$7,530,056
$199,291
$2,172,721
$418,224
$2,836,153
$665,140
$59,589,140
$68,746,368
$365,520
County / City
APPLING
Baxley
Graham
Surrency
Unincorporated Appling
Fire District
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
12.950
12.950
12.950
12.950
0.470
6.890
0.000
0.000
$988,743.73
$65,913.23
$65,913.23
2,175,239.14
$2,320,497.45
$3,295,809.33
30.00%
2.00%
2.00%
66.00%
16.877
16.877
15.165
17.361
17.361
17.361
13.000
13.000
12.000
13.000
$139,667.46
$116,389.55
$209,501.19
$465,558.20
$
$
$
$
202,351.91
168,632.79
303,509.59
674,494.29
30.00%
25.00%
45.00%
BACON
Alma
Unincorporated Bacon
13
13
13.988
13.988
10.280
12.060
BAKER
Newton
Unincorporated Baker
$381,317.63 $
$571,976.43 $
$953,294.06 $
471,699.55
707,547.86
1,179,247.41
11.26
10.11
8.790
7.620
7.000
5.054
BALDWIN
Milledgeville
Unincorporated Baldwin
$43,474.65 $
$185,339.26 $
$228,813.91 $
12.52
12.52
8.640
8.640
9.750
9.120
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
6.24
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
8.979
0.000
4.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.500
7.57
7.57
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
10.338
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.120
0.000
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
30.00%
2.00%
2.00%
66.00%
2000
Population
2010
Population
4150
312
237
12,720
4,400
291
201
13,344
17,419
18,236
30.00%
25.00%
45.00%
1,805
1,434
4,370
7,609
40.00%
60.00%
40.00%
60.00%
25,528.79
229,921.72
255,450.51
19.00%
81.00%
$1,976,742.72 $
$2,997,446.30 $
$4,974,189.02 $
2,492,211.57
3,779,067.53
6,271,279.10
0.000
3.800
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.979
$49,755.83
$95,483.79
$7,581.83
$200,681.81
$20,376.20
$106,856.55
$1,888,588.86
$2,369,324.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4.796
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.619
0.000
$595,781.42
$66,050.30
$0.00
$49,917.32
$258,127.65
$1,399,393.59
$3,271,768.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
ATHENS-CLARK (unified government)
$696,149.23
$46,409.95
$46,409.95
$1,531,528.31 $
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
9.75
9.75
9.75
9.75
0.4
ATKINSON
Pearson
Willacoochee
Unincorporated Atkinson
5.940
5.940
0.000
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
23.82%
1.79%
1.36%
73.02%
24.13%
1.60%
1.10%
73.17%
$7,930,395
$11,681,184
2,117
1,391
4,867
8,375
23.72%
18.85%
57.43%
25.28%
16.61%
58.11%
$2,660,506
$3,618,246
3,236
6,867
10,103
3,466
7,630
11,096
32.03%
67.97%
31.24%
68.76%
$4,203,163
$6,457,650
9.99%
90.01%
851
3,223
4,074
654
2,797
3,451
20.89%
79.11%
18.95%
81.05%
$1,643,295
$2,256,586
39.74%
60.26%
39.74%
60.26%
18,757
25,943
44,700
17,715
28,005
45,720
41.96%
58.04%
38.75%
61.25%
$12,830,016
$23,024,122
72,308.63
87,479.49
5,648.09
192,183.38
16,903.78
135,900.96
2,405,786.81
2,916,211.14
2.10%
4.03%
0.32%
8.47%
0.86%
4.51%
79.71%
2.48%
3.00%
0.19%
6.59%
0.58%
4.66%
82.50%
438
485
195
950
144
748
11,462
14,422
516
741
28
1,141
158
926
14,885
18,395
3.04%
3.36%
1.35%
6.59%
1.00%
5.19%
79.48%
2.81%
4.03%
0.15%
6.20%
0.86%
5.03%
80.92%
969,707.96
105,072.96
35,523.64
30,112.15
299,025.24
1,496,649.43
4,790,579.13
10.56%
1.17%
0.00%
0.88%
4.58%
24.81%
58.00%
12.55%
1.36%
0.46%
0.39%
3.87%
19.37%
62.00%
5,178
716
1,206
205
2,040
10,201
26,598
6,678
601
1,085
255
2,408
14,099
44,241
11.22%
1.55%
2.62%
0.44%
4.42%
22.11%
57.64%
9.63%
0.87%
1.56%
0.37%
3.47%
20.33%
63.78%
46,144
69,367
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$2,905,800
$99,484
$108,022
$3,305,596
$574,639
$309,772
$1,107,081
$2,191,169
$2,702,693
$462,295
$271,615
$7,995,189
$10,564,645
$115,374
$1,043,595
$35,200
$228,016
$227,051
$154,353
$44,654
$321,409
$111,480
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND (unified government)
BANKS
Alto
Baldwin
Gillsville
Homer
Lula
Maysville
Unincorporated Banks
BARROW
Auburn
Bethlehem
BRASELTON
Carl
Statham
Winder
Unincorporated Barrow
Fire District
Winder Fire District
7.57
7.57
7.57
6.22
1.75
1.000
$5,641,038.32 $
BARTOW
Adairsville
Cartersville
Emerson
Euharlee
Kingston
White
Unincorporated Bartow
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
8.08
6.82
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
9.070
7.730
0.000
16.520
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.640
1.380
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BEN HILL
Fitzgerald
Unincorporated Ben Hill
13.94
13.94
13.660
13.660
6.400
BERRIEN
Alahapa
Enigma
Nashville
Ray City
Unincorporated Berrien
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
18.000
18.000
18.000
18.000
18.000
13.168
13.168
10.003
10.003
BIBB
Macon
Unincorporated Bibb
$611,643.62
$3,456,348.28
$343,547.85
$244,015.30
$176,590.02
$157,325.65
$11,064,167.35
$16,053,638.07
7,726,670.51
$4,896,085
$12,975,028
$33,701,696
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
766,088.69
4,754,854.71
451,849.41
917,473.84
219,040.45
219,040.45
15,608,736.62
22,937,084.17
3.81%
21.53%
2.14%
1.52%
1.10%
0.98%
68.92%
3.34%
20.73%
1.97%
4.00%
0.95%
0.95%
68.05%
2,542
15,925
1,092
3,208
659
693
51,900
76,019
4,648
19,731
1,470
4,136
637
670
68,865
100,157
3.34%
20.95%
1.44%
4.22%
0.87%
0.91%
68.27%
4.64%
19.70%
1.47%
4.13%
0.64%
0.67%
68.76%
$34,362,626
$60,993,817
10.000
$1,291,186.08 $
$1,291,186.08 $
$2,582,372.16 $
1,157,507.68
1,157,507.68
2,315,015.36
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
8,758
8,726
17,484
9,053
8,581
17,634
50.09%
49.91%
51.34%
48.66%
$6,792,588
$9,973,794
9.500
2.000
7.000
8.000
9.500
0.000
8.000
10.000
$92,698.65
$69,930.56
$549,686.71
$69,930.56
$844,045.57
$1,626,292.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
70,578.81
82,359.62
455,886.19
70,578.81
791,207.65
1,470,611.08
5.70%
4.30%
33.80%
4.30%
51.90%
4.80%
5.60%
31.00%
4.80%
53.80%
682
869
4,697
746
9,241
16,235
668
1,278
4,939
1,090
11,311
19,286
4.20%
5.35%
28.93%
4.60%
56.92%
3.46%
6.63%
25.61%
5.65%
58.65%
$4,566,572
$9,546,283
9.100
9.800
$25,595,032.39 $
$6,239,585.02 $
18,211,185.19
12,140,807.11
80.40%
19.60%
60.00%
40.00%
97,255
56,632
90,885
64,662
63.20%
36.80%
58.43%
41.57%
$66,589,560
$94,292,316
42
$1,872,116
$58,731
$428,939
$44,135
$595,046
$5,513,421
$596,047
$3,320,790
$166,078
$2,808,230
$1,081,062
$11,764,328
$1,774,626
$23,706,483
$422,921
$451,556
$402,728
$231,548
$2,331,527
$36,849,717
$1,226,549
$1,300,085
$5,182,938
$7,530,056
$199,291
$2,172,721
$418,224
$2,836,153
$665,140
$59,589,140
$68,746,368
$365,520
County / City
Fire District
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
3.000
BLECKLEY
Cochran
Unincorporated Bleckley
BRANTLEY
Hoboken
Nahunta
Unincorporated Brantley
unincorporated Fire Districts
County Special Fire District
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
2.149
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
2000
Population
2010
Population
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
$31,834,617.41 $
30,351,992.30
153,887
155,547
14.052
14.052
6.000
9.183
$566,882.21 $
$566,882.21 $
$1,133,764.42 $
551,238.61
551,238.61
1,102,477.22
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
4,455
7,211
11,666
5,150
7,913
13,063
38.19%
61.81%
39.42%
60.58%
18.06
18.06
15.89
22.730
22.730
20.450
3.000
6.330
3.400
11.200
$69,385.02 $
$133,813.97 $
$788,015.61 $
80,661.28
155,604.80
916,380.56
7.00%
13.50%
79.50%
7.00%
13.50%
79.50%
463
930
13,236
14,629
528
1,053
16,830
18,411
3.16%
6.36%
90.48%
2.87%
5.72%
91.41%
$991,214.60 $
1,152,646.64
0.59%
1.16%
0.70%
19.48%
78.07%
0.65%
1.65%
0.73%
19.48%
77.49%
222
634
711
4,638
10,245
146
565
248
3,850
11,434
1.35%
3.85%
4.32%
28.19%
62.28%
0.90%
3.48%
1.53%
23.70%
70.39%
16,450
16,243
2.430
10.92
10.92
10.92
10.92
9.33
0.98
11.185
11.185
11.185
11.185
9.849
1.000
10.970
12.560
12.940
4.750
BRYAN
Pembroke
Richmond Hill
Unincorporated Bryan
7.16
7.16
7.16
7.900
6.900
7.900
7.000
5.912
BURKE
Girard
Keysville
Midville
Sardis
Waynesboro
Unincorporated Burke
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5.18
5
6.723
6.723
6.723
6.723
6.723
6.264
BUTTS
Flovilla
Jackson
Jenkinsburg
Unincorporated Butts
14.15
14.15
14.15
14.15
CALHOUN
Arlington
Edison
Leary
Morgan
Unincorporated Calhoun
10.750
10.187
0.000
5.480
$
$
$
$
$
7,057.39
17,799.01
7,947.93
210,718.19
838,221.33
$1,136,059.51 $
1,081,743.85
8.359
4.209
$232,440.36
$544,250.60
$1,491,019.87
$2,267,710.83
$
$
$
$
504,408.00
1,664,548.92
2,875,131.36
5,044,088.28
10.25%
24.00%
65.75%
10.00%
33.00%
57.00%
2,379
6,959
14,079
23,417
2,196
9,281
18,756
30,233
10.16%
29.72%
60.12%
7.26%
30.70%
62.04%
2.000
10.000
12.000
10.000
12.000
2.000
12.025
16.000
12.000
11.000
$21,299.10
$31,085.18
$67,639.07
$121,750.32
$621,703.77
$2,014,780.76
$2,878,258.20
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
40,291.81
58,834.77
127,993.17
230,376.53
1,176,402.73
3,812,421.67
5,446,320.68
0.74%
1.08%
2.35%
4.23%
21.60%
70.00%
0.74%
1.08%
2.35%
4.23%
21.60%
70.00%
227
180
457
1,171
5,813
14,395
22,243
156
332
269
999
5,766
15,794
23,316
1.02%
0.81%
2.05%
5.26%
26.13%
64.72%
0.67%
1.42%
1.15%
4.28%
24.73%
67.74%
17.413
17.413
17.413
17.413
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
$93,525.11
$633,019.85
$33,078.86
$1,620,150.06
$2,379,773.88
$
$
$
$
$
213,256.44
1,050,542.01
118,460.75
2,567,120.96
3,949,380.16
3.93%
26.60%
1.39%
68.08%
5.40%
26.60%
3.00%
65.00%
652
3,934
203
14,733
19,522
653
5,045
370
17,587
23,655
3.34%
20.15%
1.04%
75.47%
2.76%
21.33%
1.56%
74.35%
11.46
11.46
11.46
11.46
10.66
13.057
13.057
13.057
13.057
12.210
4.17
9.932
10.000
4.960
8.030
13.536
13.000
3.840
$85,124.62
$84,693.61
$50,212.75
$18,066.53
$121,078.10
$359,175.62
$
$
$
$
$
$
97,480.73
110,410.15
54,450.15
29,281.42
124,981.59
416,604.04
23.70%
23.58%
13.98%
5.03%
33.71%
23.40%
26.50%
13.07%
7.03%
30.00%
1,602
1,340
666
1,464
1,248
6,320
1,075
1,531
618
240
3,230
6,694
25.35%
21.20%
10.54%
23.16%
19.75%
16.06%
22.87%
9.23%
3.59%
48.25%
13.82
13.82
13.82
13.82
0.85
11.700
11.700
11.700
11.700
6.970
6.500
9.970
8.000
5.351
10.000
$1,119,375.20
$1,598,483.09
$367,115.73
$2,378,057.72
$5,463,031.74
$
$
$
$
$
1,431,835.53
1,875,750.96
166,028.45
3,473,638.37
6,947,253.31
20.49%
29.26%
6.72%
43.53%
20.61%
27.00%
2.39%
50.00%
10,506
13,761
1,218
18,179
43,664
15,946
17,121
1,412
16,034
50,513
24.06%
31.52%
2.79%
41.63%
31.57%
33.89%
2.80%
31.74%
12.37
10.87
9.227
9.227
10.078
7.96
0.000
7.430
0.000
$575,000.00
$0.00
$575,000.00
$1,150,000.00
$
$
$
$
623,604.25
25,443.87
623,604.25
1,272,652.37
50.00%
0.00%
50.00%
49.00%
2.00%
49.00%
3,879
261
5,431
9,577
4,130
266
6,602
10,998
40.50%
2.79%
56.71%
37.55%
2.42%
60.03%
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
8.500
8.500
7.230
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.500
8.79
7.22/2.888
5.24
1.000
0.000
7.49
7.7
7.75
8.660
7.047
4.690
7.290
0.000
7.050
6.775
8.250
$384,190.20
$38,419.02
$3,042,306.12
$86,442.79
$48,023.77
$314,555.72
$780,386.34
$129,664.19
$7,181,955.48
$12,005,943.63
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
221,874.00
48,616.02
3,851,017.98
109,407.27
18,209.91
398,165.67
987,830.36
75,967.75
9,486,211.27
15,197,300.23
3.20%
0.32%
25.34%
0.72%
0.40%
2.62%
6.50%
1.08%
59.82%
1.46%
0.32%
25.34%
0.72%
0.12%
2.62%
6.50%
0.50%
62.42%
1,959
92
19,843
1,276
177
2,383
3,886
596
57,056
87,268
2,040
45
24,388
1,696
218
4,228
8,367
588
68,957
110,527
2.24%
0.11%
22.74%
1.46%
0.20%
2.73%
4.45%
0.68%
65.38%
1.85%
0.04%
22.07%
1.53%
0.20%
3.83%
7.57%
0.53%
62.39%
BULLOCH (gives LOST to schools)
CARROLL
Bowdon
Bremen
Carrollton
Mount Zion
Roopville
Temple
Villa Rica
Whitesburg
Unincorporated Carroll
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
10.900
9.000
BROOKS
Barwick
Morven
Pavo
Quitman
Unincorporated Brooks
Fire District
CAMDEN
Kingsland
St. Marys
Woodbine
Unincorporated Camden
Fire District
CANDLER
Metter
Pulaski
Unincorporated Candler
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$6,748.48
$13,142.84
$7,918.71
$221,303.65
$886,945.83
43
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$3,770,506
$4,950,661
$3,576,942
$8,334,695
$16,875,027
$10,183,549
$2,460,550
$16,879,483
$4,084,162
$21,010,026
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,029,932
$9,368,123
$8,196,239
$16,907,996
$21,053,223
$18,193,118
$3,134,078
$29,920,226
$5,967,199
$48,178,472
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$2,138,480
$3,236,589
$124,780
$355,553
$194,945
$671,020
$107,261
$206,401
$317,410
$2,312,592
$130,950
$358,075
$309,381
$2,954,663
$801,474
$2,847,308
$1,516,633
$6,701,078
$17,830
$9,700
$262,055
$387,422
$2,490,586
$30,938
$141,086
$218,236
$595,940
$3,735,206
$170,858
$1,909,353
$40,785
$430,181
$3,341,370
$183,497
$574,221
$563,984
$307,628
$116,558
$913,522
$681,045
$285,927
$234,382
$3,996,478
$5,238,302
$672,097
$9,761,851
$9,288,511
$742,646
$2,195,885
$19,106
$2,437,479
$37,649
$1,341,207
$3,411,046
$12,298,486
$280,507
$22,974
$955,160
$3,081,829
$281,185
$1,884,110
$4,040,782
$20,193,322
$649,323
$49,917
$1,793,353
$8,467,827
$490,119
County / City
CATOOSA
Fort Oglethorpe
Ringgold
Unincorporated Catoosa
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
3.266
3.266
3.266
5.386
5.386
5.386
8.35
3.07
6.495
2.707
CHARLTON
Folkston
Homeland
Unincorporated Charlton
Hospital
12.43
12.43
12.43
4.14
17.030
17.030
17.030
4.080
7.93
2.000
7.290
2.250
CHATHAM
Bloomingdale
Garden City
Pooler
Port Wentworth
Savannah
Thunderbolt
Tybee Island
Vernonburg
Unincorporated Chatham
Special Service Districts
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
10.439
3.48
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
10.537
3.475
0.000
0.000
4.22
3.7
13.7
6.84
4.76
0.000
15.32
15.32
15.32
15.152
15.152
15.152
0.000
14.5
0.000
14.950
$12,515.42
$150,185.08
$150,185.08
$312,885.59
$
$
$
$
10,246.24
102,458.41
143,441.41
256,146.06
4.00%
48.00%
48.00%
3.913
3.913
3.913
3.913
11.327
11.327
11.327
11.327
11.327
11.327
11.327
11.327
3.900
6.93
3.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
11.560
13.343
0.000
5.737
0.000
6.000
7.500
$794,718.44
$4,619,300.95
$1,092,737.86
$844,388.35
$0.00
$2,533,165.04
$2,533,165.04
$37,252,427.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
453,126.52
4,440,523.01
951,529.35
951,529.35
521,071.29
1,540,588.25
2,537,438.06
33,915,714.42
$49,669,902.68 $
45,311,520.25
11.17
10.959
10.959
10.959
7.75
0.000
10.750
0.000
$285,885.67
$0.00
$319,435.89
$605,321.56
$
$
$
$
6.318
6.318
6.318
6.318
6.318
7.847
7.847
7.847
7.847
7.847
0.000
8.000
5.4
7.000
8.347
7.446
7.510
6.873
$40,503.10
$170,306.32
$1,654,230.76
$141,052.40
$3,054,264.59
$5,060,357.16
COLUMBIA
Grovetown
Harlem
Unincorporated Columbia
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.402
6.402
6.402
4.7
5.5
7.000
5.350
COOK
Adel
Cecil
Lenox
$1,013,900.44
$568,542.30
$7,893,262.31
$9,475,705.05
7.75
7.75
7.75
9.565
9.565
9.565
5.96
3
10
6.450
10.912
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.397
13.000
6.377
4.000
0.000
COLUMBUS-MUSCOGEE (unified government)
$1,156,913.46
$408,322.40
$5,240,137.42
$6,805,373.27
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
2000
Population
2010
Population
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$
$
$
$
1,745,507.80
807,528.29
5,974,152.56
8,527,188.65
17.00%
6.00%
77.00%
20.47%
9.47%
70.06%
6,940
2,422
43,920
53,282
9,013
3,580
51,349
63,942
13.03%
4.55%
82.43%
14.10%
5.60%
80.31%
$14,732,442
$23,600,140
$226,823.16 $
$97,380.05 $
$519,162.33 $
331,249.43
109,427.43
705,694.49
26.90%
11.55%
61.56%
28.90%
9.55%
61.56%
2,178
765
7,339
2,502
910
8,759
21.18%
7.44%
71.38%
20.56%
7.48%
71.97%
$4,732,518
$15,120,296
$843,365.54 $
1,146,371.35
10,282
12,171
2,665
11,289
6,239
3,276
131,510
2,340
3,392
138
71,199
2,713
8,778
19,140
5,359
136,286
2,668
2,990
122
87,072
1.15%
4.86%
2.69%
1.41%
56.67%
1.01%
1.46%
0.06%
30.68%
1.02%
3.31%
7.22%
2.02%
51.40%
1.01%
1.13%
0.05%
32.84%
232,048
265,128
4.00%
40.00%
56.00%
118
1,110
2,129
3,357
103
1,107
1,973
3,183
3.52%
33.07%
63.42%
3.24%
34.78%
61.99%
1.60%
9.30%
2.20%
1.70%
0.00%
5.10%
5.10%
75.00%
1.00%
9.80%
2.10%
2.10%
1.15%
3.40%
5.60%
74.85%
20,382
21,447
3,829
2,886
2,495
4,882
12,478
168,118
1,272
18,468
4,724
2,612
6,422
6,445
15,134
204,347
8.62%
9.07%
1.62%
1.22%
1.05%
2.06%
5.28%
71.08%
0.49%
7.12%
1.82%
1.01%
2.48%
2.48%
5.83%
78.77%
236,517
259,424
326,684.34
44,338.56
368,079.96
739,102.86
47.23%
0.00%
52.77%
44.20%
6.00%
49.80%
2,803
380
3,695
6,878
2,456
321
4,021
6,798
40.75%
5.53%
53.72%
36.13%
4.72%
59.15%
$
$
$
$
$
$
47,174.91
209,571.18
1,700,951.09
246,885.20
3,282,318.15
5,486,900.53
0.80%
3.37%
32.69%
2.79%
60.36%
0.86%
3.82%
31.00%
4.50%
59.82%
320
1,428
10,639
1,008
24,018
37,413
380
1,189
11,589
2,798
26,400
42,356
0.86%
3.82%
28.44%
2.69%
64.20%
0.90%
2.81%
27.36%
6.61%
62.33%
$9,387,444
$15,575,121
$
$
$
$
1,521,105.47
737,516.33
16,179,174.41
18,437,796.21
10.70%
6.00%
83.30%
8.25%
4.00%
87.75%
6,089
1,814
81,385
89,288
11,216
2,666
110,171
124,053
6.82%
2.03%
91.15%
9.04%
2.15%
88.81%
$28,581,126
$65,256,855
$443,797.87 $
$27,242.77 $
$88,410.83 $
213,481.87
16,526.91
57,363.75
25.92%
1.38%
4.48%
11.68%
0.90%
3.14%
5,307
265
889
5,334
286
873
33.65%
1.68%
5.64%
30.99%
1.66%
5.07%
$495,274.32
$1,611,813.80
$977,515.11
$877,591.34
$29,859,828.14
$612,576.13
$629,954.18
$30,411.58
$8,350,151.27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
780,722.53
3,312,306.21
1,831,247.47
958,671.06
38,582,379.75
688,847.41
993,104.59
40,144.71
10,218,224.73
$43,445,115.87 $
57,405,648.46
1.14%
3.71%
2.25%
2.02%
68.73%
1.41%
1.45%
0.07%
19.22%
1.36%
5.77%
3.19%
1.67%
67.21%
1.20%
1.73%
0.07%
17.80%
$98,877,433
$177,975,391
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$4,765,521
$1,121,161
$5,232,226
$2,207,936
$1,159,760
$227,111
$1,468,915
$245,581
$1,054,138
$3,459,639
$4,121,628
$2,434,911
$114,650,290
$1,489,496
$4,105,537
$28,055
$2,410,771
$8,576,688
$9,625,121
$5,052,839
$178,422,247
$2,452,433
$9,785,415
$103,598
$29,273
$455,377
$25,811
$734,360
$15,480,528
$13,390,964
$2,209,969
$2,041,745
$6,303,593
$7,208,586
$27,633,291
$18,578,178
$2,909,611
$2,956,938
$1,470,847
$9,431,077
$11,189,813
$831,217
$15,383
$1,836,584
$125,033
$52,303
$405,427
$9,204,513
$425,549
$91,473
$786,357
$13,645,587
$742,229
$1,952,293
$945,735
$4,385,087
$1,885,109
$3,501,751
$64,047
$623,571
$5,269,134
$150,561
$539,083
CUSSETA-CHATTAHOOCHEE (unified government)
CHEROKEE (no LOST)
CLAY
Bluffton
Fort Gaines
Unincorporated Clay
CLAYTON
College Park
Forest Park
Jonesboro
Lake City
Lovejoy
Morrow
Riverdale
Unincorporated Clayton
Fire District
CLINCH
Homerville
Fargo
Unincorporated Clinch
3.913
3.913
3.913
4.625
11.17
COBB (no LOST)
COFFEE
Ambrose
Broxton
Douglas
Nicholls
Unincorporated Coffee
COLQUITT (gives LOST to schools)
44
$1,704,318
$114,993,979
$3,445,572
$3,710,455
$214,204,755
$4,657,300
County / City
Sparks
Unincorporated Cook
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
7.75
7.75
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
9.565
9.565
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
10
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
8.000
COWETA
Grantville
Haralson
Newnan
Palmetto
Sharpsburg
Turin
Senoia
Unincorporated Coweta
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
0
0
6.2
5.21
7.790
7.790
7.790
7.790
7.790
7.790
7.790
6.860
5
3.400
4.7
4.5
0.000
0.000
9.53
4.490
2.710
4.390
8.450
2.800
0.000
6.110
6.860
13.66
12.06
14.270
12.530
4.92
4.300
CRISP
Arabi
Cordele
Unincorporated Crisp
12.945
12.945
12.945
10.749
10.749
10.749
0.000
11.31
0.000
13.500
DADE
Trenton
Unincorporated Dade
7.85
5.65
8.198
6.478
3.5
DAWSON
Dawsonville
Unincorporated Dawson
6.212
6.212
8.138
8.138
DECATUR
Attapulgus
Bainbridge
Brinson
Climax
Unincorporated Decatur
9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99
9.99
CRAWFORD
Roberta
Unincorporated Crawford
DOOLY
Byromville
Dooling
Lilly
Pinehurst
Unadilla
Vienna
Unincorporated Dooly
DOUGHERTY
Albany
Unincorporated Dougherty
Special Service Districts
DOUGLAS
Austell
Douglasville
Villa Rica
Unincorporated Douglas
EARLY
Arlington
Blakely
Damascus
$337,629.88
$0.00
$3,568,133.99
$92,080.88
$0.00
$0.00
$272,405.93
$8,518,760.03
$12,789,010.70
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
103,242.41
$
1,436,476.76
$
1,827,091.70
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
6.97%
61.25%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
5.65%
1,755
78.62%
7,555
15,771
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
2,052
11.13%
11.92%
8,667
47.90%
50.35%
17,212
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$4,306,050
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$7,598,263
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
332,729.95
35,896.52
4,138,471.73
83,169.98
79,371.68
41,805.66
442,402.01
13,751,861.59
18,905,709.12
2.64%
0.00%
27.90%
0.72%
0.00%
0.00%
2.13%
66.61%
1.76%
0.19%
21.89%
0.44%
0.42%
0.22%
2.34%
72.74%
1,309
144
16,242
340
316
165
1,738
68,961
89,215
3,041
160
33,039
300
341
274
3,307
86,855
127,317
1.47%
0.16%
18.21%
0.38%
0.35%
0.18%
1.95%
77.30%
2.39%
0.13%
25.95%
0.24%
0.27%
0.22%
2.60%
68.22%
$31,033,635
$71,920,323
$115,614.97 $
$346,844.92 $
$462,459.89 $
149,077.55
447,211.17
596,288.72
25.00%
75.00%
25.00%
75.00%
808
11,687
12,495
1,007
11,623
12,630
6.47%
93.53%
7.97%
92.03%
$3,837,825
$2,668,385
$
$
$
$
77,773.40
1,983,319.42
1,827,760.73
3,888,853.55
1.50%
49.00%
49.50%
2.00%
51.00%
47.00%
456
11,608
9,932
21,996
586
11,147
11,706
23,439
2.07%
52.77%
45.15%
2.50%
47.56%
49.94%
$9,951,070
$14,914,768
3.500
$390,514.47 $
$1,562,057.90 $
$1,952,572.37 $
450,504.50
1,802,076.59
2,252,581.09
20.00%
80.00%
20.00%
80.00%
1,942
13,212
15,154
2,301
14,332
16,633
12.82%
87.18%
13.83%
86.17%
$4,926,912
$7,819,146
0.000
0.000
$339,124.78 $
$3,052,123.02 $
$3,391,247.80 $
794,971.08
4,883,378.60
5,678,349.68
10.00%
90.00%
14.00%
86.00%
619
15,380
15,999
2,536
19,794
22,330
3.87%
96.13%
11.36%
88.64%
$11,547,355
$22,966,377
8.560
8.560
8.560
8.560
8.560
0.000
3.5
0.000
5.000
21.570
3.570
0.000
6.500
$98,248.48
$1,652,651.24
$43,133.48
$65,099.60
$2,134,707.80
$3,993,840.59
$
$
$
$
$
$
115,131.17
1,937,032.33
50,540.48
76,281.37
2,502,061.92
4,681,047.27
2.46%
41.38%
1.08%
1.63%
53.45%
2.46%
41.38%
1.08%
1.63%
53.45%
492
11,722
225
297
15,504
28,240
449
12,697
215
280
14,201
27,842
1.74%
41.51%
0.80%
1.05%
54.90%
1.61%
45.60%
0.77%
1.01%
51.01%
10
10
10
10
10
10
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
4.000
1.000
6.000
6.000
10.000
3.000
1.000
6.000
6.000
0.000
$31,394.99
$108,212.51
$520,021.21
$56,444.18
$47,092.48
$906,780.72
$1,669,946.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
39,584.59
136,480.52
655,824.40
71,183.38
59,378.79
1,143,607.29
2,106,058.97
1.88%
6.48%
31.14%
3.38%
2.82%
54.30%
1.88%
6.48%
31.14%
3.38%
2.82%
54.30%
295
305
5,440
506
422
12,203
19,171
342
1,596
4,962
364
394
14,138
21,796
1.54%
1.59%
28.38%
2.64%
2.20%
63.65%
1.57%
7.32%
22.77%
1.67%
1.81%
64.87%
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
17.890
17.890
17.890
17.890
17.890
17.890
17.890
4.000
0.000
0.000
4.5
8.75
7.5
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.500
7.500
11.000
$39,381.63
$12,027.36
$17,029.89
$33,740.48
$141,028.81
$235,757.59
$585,402.60
$1,064,368.36
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
57,305.94
17,495.14
24,774.44
49,093.48
250,948.28
297,447.85
852,048.14
1,549,113.27
3.70%
1.13%
1.60%
3.17%
13.25%
22.15%
55.00%
3.70%
1.13%
1.60%
3.17%
16.20%
19.20%
55.00%
415
163
221
307
2,772
2,973
4,674
11,525
546
154
213
455
3,796
4,011
5,743
14,918
3.60%
1.41%
1.92%
2.66%
24.05%
25.80%
40.56%
3.66%
1.03%
1.43%
3.05%
25.45%
26.89%
38.50%
$7,923,333
$10,098,948
11.1
11.1
609
11.894
11.894
7.272
9.8
8.660
$10,315,377.13 $
$6,876,918.08 $
9,983,311.29
6,655,539.37
60.00%
40.00%
60.00%
40.00%
76,939
19,126
77,434
17,131
80.09%
19.91%
81.88%
18.12%
$39,441,281
$54,414,432
$17,192,295.21 $
16,638,850.66
96,065
94,565
9.464
9.464
9.464
9.464
9.900
9.900
9.900
9.900
3.5
4.591
7.7
3.123
3.854
6.775
$40,385.55
$3,084,316.31
$48,264.92
$13,190,908.89
$16,363,875.68
$
$
$
$
$
51,162.41
4,148,249.97
142,389.28
16,399,432.88
20,741,234.54
0.25%
18.85%
0.29%
80.61%
0.25%
20.00%
0.69%
79.07%
54
20,065
248
71,807
92,174
40
30,961
5,589
95,813
132,403
0.06%
21.77%
0.27%
77.90%
0.03%
23.38%
4.22%
72.36%
8.2
8.2
8.2
11.720
11.720
11.720
7.93
0.000
0.000
8.030
0.000
6.140
$38,071.47 $
$609,143.51 $
$30,457.18 $
54,407.21
701,896.71
35,106.73
2.50%
40.00%
2.00%
3.10%
40.00%
2.00%
160
5,696
277
404
5,068
254
1.30%
46.11%
2.24%
3.67%
46.04%
2.31%
DEKALB (no LOST)
DODGE
Chauncey
Chester
Eastman
Milan
Rhine
Unincorporated Dodge
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$137,447.39
$1,207,988.56
$1,712,398.79
$47,918.88
$1,565,350.12
$1,581,323.08
$3,194,592.09
45
$9,265,316
$5,794,332
$43,625,439
$7,877,984
$72,011,046
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$495,357
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$1,079,688
$557,840
$41,810
$12,201,127
$1,242,030
$19,842
$31,831
$1,149,429
$1,696,240
$97,159
$16,464,581
$324,186
$531,986
$90,071
$5,847,463
$169,662
$8,437,627
$1,185,193
$1,554,653
$306,154
$404,900
$160,165
$4,863,385
$51,108
$126,249
$177,559
$8,778,250
$81,435
$80,942
$164,613
$1,734,630
$187,694
$63,453
$149,359
$240,495
$2,373,128
$339,471
$176,391
$126,387
$89,959
$1,864,933
$95,379
$26,142
$25,091
$96,265
$786,125
$1,266,474
$1,726,888
$61,402,592
$50,172,879
$3,115,782
$12,030,791
$3,081,829
$6,477,481
$17,159,252
$8,467,827
$574,221
$2,857,544
$105,049
$913,522
$4,913,218
$135,421
$21,781
$66,424
$118,352
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$15,228.59
$829,958.03
$1,522,858.77
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
21,923.99
$
941,447.80
$
1,754,782.44
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
1.00%
54.50%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
1.25%
157
53.65%
6,064
12,354
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
11.720
11.440
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
0.000
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
0.000
10.265
10.265
10.265
10.265
8.558
8.558
8.558
8.558
2.924
0.000
4.75
2.240
0.000
4.300
$
$
$
$
$
243,654.74
1,162,751.39
483,915.44
6,511,162.86
8,401,484.43
2.88%
11.65%
5.51%
79.96%
2.90%
13.84%
5.76%
77.50%
917
4,376
1,821
30,421
37,535
1,684
8,836
2,852
38,878
52,250
2.44%
11.66%
4.85%
81.05%
3.22%
16.91%
5.46%
74.41%
ELBERT
Bowman
Elberton
Unincorporated Elbert
$108,355.24
$438,257.99
$207,194.42
$3,007,482.35
$3,761,290.00
7.95
7.95
7.13
10.496
10.496
9.656
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
$
$
$
$
116,206.70
674,028.12
1,533,990.75
2,324,225.57
5.00%
29.00%
66.00%
5.00%
29.00%
66.00%
898
4,743
14,870
20,511
862
4,653
14,651
20,166
4.38%
23.12%
72.50%
4.27%
23.07%
72.65%
EMANUEL
Adrian
Garfield
Nunez
Oak Park
Stillmore
Summertown
Swainsboro
Twin City
Unincorporated Emanuel
$97,792.08
$567,194.06
$1,290,855.45
$1,955,841.59
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
10.970
4.79
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
6.042
0.000
10.005
6.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
19.575
7.750
$26,605.46
$23,059.36
$12,285.41
$24,377.04
$55,613.75
$13,758.11
$666,531.75
$132,814.16
$982,716.27
$1,937,761.30
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
36,114.06
31,314.66
16,670.32
42,424.71
84,356.07
18,669.18
905,055.22
202,565.18
1,293,969.39
2,631,138.79
1.37%
1.19%
0.63%
1.26%
2.87%
0.71%
34.40%
6.85%
50.71%
1.37%
1.19%
0.63%
1.61%
3.21%
0.71%
34.40%
7.70%
49.18%
289
152
131
366
730
140
6,943
1,752
11,334
21,837
270
201
147
484
532
160
7,277
1,742
11,785
22,598
1.32%
0.70%
0.60%
1.68%
3.34%
0.64%
31.79%
8.02%
51.90%
1.19%
0.89%
0.65%
2.14%
2.35%
0.71%
32.20%
7.71%
52.15%
7.03
7.03
7.03
5.5
10.450
10.450
10.450
10.450
8.350
0.000
8.38
0.000
2.78
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.350
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,940.47
297,829.75
12,940.47
116,533.75
854,644.63
1,294,889.07
3.00%
38.00%
2.00%
9.00%
48.00%
1.00%
23.00%
1.00%
9.00%
66.00%
130
2,276
126
898
7,065
10,495
123
2,746
129
996
7,006
11,000
1.24%
21.68%
1.20%
8.56%
67.32%
1.12%
24.96%
1.17%
9.05%
63.69%
FANNIN
Blue Ridge
McCaysville
Unincorporated Fannin
$36,906.69
$465,569.72
$24,604.46
$110,720.08
$590,507.10
$1,230,223.12
6.27
6.27
6.27
5.160
5.160
5.160
6.32
5.000
6.320
5.000
$
$
$
$
367,360.86
327,629.19
2,614,505.87
3,309,495.92
12.03%
11.42%
76.55%
11.10%
9.90%
79.00%
1,210
1,071
17,517
19,798
1,290
1,056
21,336
23,682
6.11%
5.41%
88.48%
5.45%
4.46%
90.09%
FAYETTE
Brooks
Fayetteville
Peachtree City
Tyrone
Unincorporated Fayette
$284,752.29
$270,313.48
$1,811,952.43
$2,367,018.20
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
10.34
7.391
5.400
5.400
7.391
7.391
0.917
3.22
3.836
2.5
0.789
3.240
6.384
2.889
$91,504.58
$1,761,850.83
$5,527,496.79
$761,504.19
$7,366,893.87
$15,509,250.26
$
$
$
$
$
$
112,581.89
2,253,892.72
6,383,772.61
792,009.88
9,542,265.44
19,084,522.54
0.59%
11.36%
35.64%
4.91%
47.50%
0.59%
11.81%
33.45%
4.15%
50.00%
553
11,148
31,580
3,916
44,066
91,263
524
15,945
34,364
6,879
48,855
106,567
0.61%
12.22%
34.60%
4.29%
48.28%
0.49%
14.96%
32.25%
6.46%
45.84%
9.78
9.78
9.78
8.767
8.767
8.767
0.000
7.95
0.000
8.700
$
$
$
$
265,889.00
6,159,768.45
8,345,976.54
14,771,633.99
1.80%
41.70%
56.50%
1.80%
41.70%
56.50%
975
34,980
54,610
90,565
1,200
36,303
58,814
96,317
1.08%
38.62%
60.30%
1.25%
37.69%
61.06%
$45,846,369
$64,042,783
FORSYTH
Cumming
Unincorporated Forsyth
$245,076.40
$5,677,603.21
$7,692,675.81
$13,615,355.42
2
2
4.734
4.734
0.000
0.000
4,123,317.75
23,365,499.80
27,488,817.55
15.00%
85.00%
15.00%
85.00%
4,220
94,187
98,407
5,430
170,081
175,511
4.29%
95.71%
3.09%
96.91%
$35,271,270
$107,247,282
FRANKLIN
Canon
Carnesville
Franklin Springs
Lavonia
Royston
Unincorporated Franklin
$2,793,879.78 $
$15,831,985.45 $
$18,625,865.23 $
11.27
11.27
11.27
11.27
11.27
9.86
9.214
9.214
9.214
9.214
9.214
8.134
0.000
1.51
5.000
10.000
10.000
0.000
0.907
8.000
10.000
10.000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
126,922.16
90,638.21
160,165.66
401,928.26
350,550.59
1,891,767.96
3,021,972.84
4.20%
3.00%
5.30%
13.30%
11.60%
62.60%
4.20%
3.00%
5.30%
13.30%
11.60%
62.60%
612
541
762
1,827
2,493
14,050
20,285
761
577
952
2,156
1,931
15,707
22,084
3.02%
2.67%
3.76%
9.01%
12.29%
69.26%
3.45%
2.61%
4.31%
9.76%
8.74%
71.12%
FULTON
Alpharetta
Atlanta
College Park
CHATTAHOOCHEE HILLS
East Point
Fairburn
JOHNS CREEK
$118,172.30
$84,408.79
$149,122.19
$374,212.29
$326,380.64
$1,761,330.02
$2,813,626.23
13.31
13.31
13.31
0
13.31
13.31
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.93
6.76
6.93
0.000
10.5
4.5
0.000
4.215
10.240
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.500
0.000
$3,467,020.31
$96,164,771.47
$4,663,272.16
$0.00
$9,184,519.85
$1,074,516.59
$0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,277,004.75
92,551,222.46
4,504,268.90
576,736.78
9,481,510.66
1,308,505.21
15,039,385.91
1.71%
47.40%
2.30%
0.00%
4.53%
0.53%
0.00%
5.22%
42.88%
2.09%
0.27%
4.39%
0.61%
6.97%
57,551
391,711
12,670
2,378
33,712
12,950
76,728
4.27%
51.04%
2.50%
0.00%
4.85%
0.67%
0.00%
6.25%
42.55%
1.38%
0.26%
3.66%
1.41%
8.33%
County / City
Jakin
Unincorporated Early
ECHOLS (unified government)
EFFINGHAM
Guyton
Rincon
Springfield
Unincorporated Effingham
EVANS
Bellville
Claxton
Daisy
Hagan
Unincorporated Evans
FLOYD
Cave Spring
Rome
Unincorporated Floyd
46
34,854
416,474
20,383
39,595
5,464
-
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
155
1.27%
1.41%
5,127
49.09%
46.58%
11,008
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
8.2
7.66
$5,360,202
$13,933,470
$6,963,095
$5,826,401
$4,001,207
$8,830,524
$32,141,231
$5,617,831
$8,008,921
$29,277,695
$12,205,480
$8,529,124
$5,176,284
$15,560,846
$56,067,223
$12,263,741
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$24,925
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$38,451
$312,982
$1,131,521
$876,943
$888,738
$2,209,510
$1,251,178
$200,771
$3,885,908
$341,143
$4,676,957
$247,580
$76,092
$23,481
$26,910
$427,043
$40,775
$4,322,262
$483,118
$290,842
$137,167
$32,715
$58,903
$218,062
$31,528
$6,089,154
$625,360
$28,913
$1,378,937
$24,004
$256,252
$39,589
$1,981,493
$35,189
$406,743
$1,184,663
$437,045
$2,384,172
$807,885
$89,311
$6,341,879
$11,696,430
$1,561,288
$157,270
$10,482,635
$24,418,396
$2,736,677
$571,436
$18,894,856
$656,533
$31,460,342
$4,056,069
$7,814,296
$224,794
$112,958
$325,993
$1,393,156
$1,572,807
$420,506
$254,406
$521,016
$2,065,833
$2,161,170
$24,456,266
$510,443,420
$15,480,528
$49,285,576
$644,429,044
$27,633,291
$27,531,290
$2,666,039
$10,702,479
$41,548,662
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$1,459,808.70
$0.00
$142,024.47
$608,270.53
$12,793,564.63
$0.00
$2,371,605.83
$70,962,731.42
$202,892,105.98
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
1,479,880.18
$
3,682,081.83
$
118,650.35
$
735,847.52
$
18,997,796.65
$
20,534,251.40
$
2,782,828.28
$
32,786,718.69
$
215,856,689.57
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
0.72%
0.00%
0.07%
0.30%
6.31%
0.00%
1.17%
34.98%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
0.69%
6,180
1.71%
0.05%
497
0.34%
3,061
8.80%
79,334
9.51%
1.29%
11,621
15.19%
198,543
816,006
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
10.000
0.000
7.499
4.5
5.809
0.0
4.5
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
0.000
4.731
11.780
8.450
0.000
0.000
7.650
5.75
5.75
5.75
5.778
5.778
5.778
0.000
5.9
5.75
0.000
2.849
$204,806.72
$364,100.83
$1,706,722.64
$2,275,630.18
$
$
$
$
366,713.02
623,404.05
2,677,010.10
3,667,127.17
9.00%
16.00%
75.00%
10.00%
17.00%
73.00%
707
1,584
21,165
23,456
546
1,619
26,127
28,292
3.01%
6.75%
90.23%
1.93%
5.72%
92.35%
$8,004,486
14.39
14.39
14.39
13.26
14.390
14.390
14.390
14.390
2.000
3.000
4.000
4.500
10.730
5.631
$
$
$
$
$
4,965.74
74,476.02
24,808.44
144,007.08
248,257.28
2.00%
30.00%
8.00%
60.00%
2.00%
30.00%
9.99%
58.01%
30
694
173
1,659
2,556
24
663
199
2,196
3,082
1.17%
27.15%
6.77%
64.91%
0.78%
21.51%
6.46%
71.25%
$1,112,254
GLYNN
Brunswick
Unincorporated Glynn
$3,384.16
$50,762.34
$13,536.62
$101,524.67
$169,207.79
6.99
6.99
5.673
5.673
11.000
12.250
6,245,085.15
11,598,026.30
17,843,111.45
37.00%
63.00%
35.00%
65.00%
15,600
51,968
67,568
15,383
64,243
79,626
23.09%
76.91%
19.32%
80.68%
$41,272,702
GORDON
Calhoun
Fairmount
Resaca
Unincorporated Gordon
$5,676,901.21 $
$9,666,075.03 $
$15,342,976.24 $
7.62
7.62
0
7.62
8.919
8.919
8.919
8.919
GRADY
Cairo
Whigham
Unincorporated Grady
7.27
7.27
7.27
10.500
10.500
10.500
GREENE
Greensboro
Union Point
SILOAM
White Plains
Woodville
Unincorporated Greene
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
5.030
5.030
5.030
5.030
5.030
5.030
6.94
0
6.94
6.94
6.94
6.94
6.94
6.94
6.94
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
6.250
HANCOCK
Sparta
Unincorporated Hancock
26.95
26.95
HARALSON
Bremen
Buchanan
Tallapoosa
Waco
Unincorporated Haralson
11.06
11.06
11.06
1.06
9.09
GEORGETOWN-QUITMAN (unified government)
GILMER
East Ellijay
Ellijay
Unincorporated Gilmer
GLASCOCK
Edge Hill
Gibson
Mitchell
Unincorporated Glascock
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$558,785,294
$698,650,618
$20,028,690
$65,534,893
$1,541,680.60
$175,190.98
$0.00
$5,290,767.53
$7,007,639.11
$
$
$
$
$
2,069,456.04
268,475.59
142,852.10
5,841,310.36
8,322,094.09
22.00%
2.50%
0.00%
75.50%
24.87%
3.23%
1.72%
70.19%
10,667
745
815
31,877
44,104
15,650
720
544
38,272
55,186
24.19%
1.69%
1.84%
72.28%
28.36%
1.30%
0.99%
69.35%
$12,094,753
$30,200,289
9.55
8.15
7.490
6.000
$836,935.01
$39,545.18
$1,215,857.33
$2,092,337.52
$
$
$
$
999,329.73
66,166.28
1,581,709.93
2,647,205.94
40.00%
1.89%
58.11%
37.75%
2.50%
59.75%
9,239
631
13,789
23,659
9,607
471
14,933
25,011
39.05%
2.67%
58.28%
38.41%
1.88%
59.71%
$7,297,996
$10,007,360
6.02
7.75
0.00
0.000
0.000
5.826
9.318
0.000
0.000
0.000
$481,035.63
$276,238.28
$37,946.25
$38,101.83
$57,152.75
$1,014,461.28
$1,905,091.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
753,466.92
388,447.44
77,023.09
66,957.34
93,764.93
1,969,075.50
3,348,735.22
25.25%
14.50%
2.00%
2.00%
3.00%
53.25%
22.50%
11.60%
2.30%
2.00%
2.80%
58.80%
3,238
1,669
331
283
400
8,485
14,406
3,359
1,617
282
284
321
10,131
15,994
22.48%
11.59%
2.29%
1.96%
2.78%
58.90%
21.00%
10.11%
1.76%
1.78%
2.01%
63.34%
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.44
1.36
0.000
0.000
2.48
13.150
0.000
0.000
2.837
2.920
0.000
0.000
2.480
$6,613.88
$0.00
$96,598.59
$306,443.07
$4,380,592.72
$19,841.64
$231,485.78
$359,354.11
$16,644,929.56
$22,046,264.32
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
7,389.03
2,434.81
108,950.86
344,234.70
4,920,804.92
22,251.01
260,032.81
403,646.89
18,695,093.95
24,764,838.98
0.03%
0.00%
0.47%
1.39%
19.87%
0.09%
1.05%
1.63%
75.50%
0.03%
0.01%
0.44%
1.39%
19.87%
0.09%
1.05%
1.63%
75.49%
102
1,206
419
1,806
25,578
167
1,354
2689
105,956
139,277
964
1,690
875
5,679
33,804
207
2,600
3,970
130,859
179,684
0.07%
0.86%
0.30%
1.30%
18.36%
0.12%
0.97%
1.93%
76.08%
0.54%
0.94%
0.49%
3.16%
18.81%
0.12%
1.45%
2.21%
72.83%
$61,919,318
$116,816,333
15.460
15.460
14.55
0.000
$124,027.59 $
$289,397.71 $
$413,425.30 $
135,173.32
315,410.83
450,584.15
30.00%
70.00%
30.00%
70.00%
1,522
8,554
10,076
1,400
8,029
9,429
15.11%
84.89%
14.85%
85.15%
$14,509,991
$7,068,681
11.020
11.020
11.020
11.020
11.020
2.888
6.85
6.49
2.000
7.113
5.614
7.270
2.000
788,400.27
181,541.46
656,770.58
91,074.36
1,891,820.06
3,609,606.73
21.80%
5.02%
18.16%
2.71%
52.30%
21.84%
5.03%
18.20%
2.52%
52.41%
4,487
941
2,789
469
17,004
25,690
6,182
1,104
3,170
516
9,779
28,780
17.47%
3.66%
10.86%
1.83%
66.19%
21.48%
3.84%
11.01%
1.79%
33.98%
0.000
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$9,378,595
$241,351
$1,242,030
$31,387,848
1.59
5.000
0.000
GWINNETT (no LOST)
1.7 $
6.45
0.000
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
6,373
0.76%
0.69%
32,661
0.00%
3.55%
526
0.06%
0.06%
4,188
0.38%
0.45%
88,346
9.72%
9.60%
93,853
0.00%
10.19%
19,456
1.42%
2.11%
87,478
24.33%
9.50%
920,581
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
County / City
Hapeville
Milton
Mountain Park
Palmetto
Roswell
SANDY SPRINGS
Union City
Unincorporated Fulton
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
13.31
0
13.31
13.31
13.31
0
13.31
13.31
$10,029,481
$12,982,193
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$9,090,998
$15,706,580
$6,003,423
$55,437,000
$56,138,205
$13,441,646
$545,681
$807,525
$1,566,616
$105,372
$50,285
$280,833
$62,194
$12,278,138
$18,668,069
$8,606,466
$304,228
$64,586
$12,712,626
$550,468
$499,788
$3,865,657
$253,497
$5,060,431
$435,326
$1,746,119
$856,400
$101,312
$53,175
$48,795
$3,245,042
$945,308
$132,925
$10,839,182
$428,939
$127,741
$1,049,547
$18,851,526
$35,200
$227,051
$2,283,279
$23,324,789
$2,808,230
$854,985
$940,584
$3,411,046
$536,984
$1,538,237
$86,158
$4,040,782
$765,575
$2,366,220
$323,205
$129,797
HABERSAM (gives LOST to schools)
HALL
Buford
BRASELTON
CLERMONT
Flowery Branch
Gainesville
Gillsville
Lula
Oakwood
Unincorporated Hall
$484,924.22
$111,733.70
$403,917.08
$60,196.60
$1,163,147.48
$2,223,919.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
47
$2,405,311
$32,328,849
$44,654
$3,116,972
County / City
HARRIS
Hamilton
Pine Mountain
Waverly Hall
Shiloh
West Point
Unincorporated Harris
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
HART
Bowersville
Canon
Hartwell
Royston
Unincorporated Hart
HEARD
Centralhatchee
Ephesus
Franklin
Unincorporated Heard
HENRY
Hampton
Locust Grove
McDonough
Stockbridge
Unincorporated Henry
Water/Hospital
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
2000
Population
2010
Population
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
5.25
10.49
8.000
5.96
7.93
7.025
10.770
8.250
4.500
9.781
$52,929.04
$127,712.66
$99,370.01
$44,221.36
$105,687.35
$1,277,468.11
$1,707,388.54
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
77,848.16
187,885.24
146,178.80
65,053.99
155,498.54
1,879,454.64
2,511,919.37
3.10%
7.48%
5.82%
2.59%
6.19%
74.82%
3.10%
7.48%
5.82%
2.59%
6.19%
74.82%
307
1,141
709
432
676
20,430
23,695
1,016
1,238
735
445
850
27,740
32,024
1.30%
4.82%
2.99%
1.82%
2.85%
86.22%
3.17%
3.87%
2.30%
1.39%
2.65%
86.62%
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.29
1.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
1.000
0.000
8.6
10.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
$11,641.23
$5,820.61
$535,496.53
$74,503.86
$1,700,783.54
$2,328,245.78
$
$
$
$
$
$
29,354.70
7,331.27
616,766.88
88,109.62
2,195,439.21
2,937,001.68
0.50%
0.25%
23.00%
3.20%
73.05%
1.00%
0.25%
21.00%
3.00%
74.75%
334
76
4,188
2,494
15,905
22,997
465
43
4,469
648
19,588
25,213
1.45%
0.33%
18.21%
10.84%
69.16%
1.84%
0.17%
17.72%
2.57%
77.69%
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
6.940
6.940
6.940
6.940
0.000
0.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
$64,732.50
$64,732.50
$199,746.00
$1,520,289.00
$1,849,500.00
$
$
$
$
$
245,906.82
245,906.82
655,743.25
4,317,080.71
5,464,637.60
3.50%
3.50%
10.80%
82.20%
4.50%
4.50%
12.00%
79.00%
383
388
902
9,339
11,012
408
427
993
10,006
11,834
3.48%
3.52%
8.19%
84.81%
3.45%
3.61%
8.39%
84.55%
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
9.41
10.035
9.803
8.655
11.750
11.750
0.000
7.76
7.76
9.41
0.000
0.000
3.450
0.000
$1,411,651.82
$881,483.94
$1,534,612.44
$1,761,370.99
$10,379,792.79
$
$
$
$
$
2,476,167.78
1,546,208.30
2,691,846.74
3,089,603.31
18,207,171.79
8.84%
5.52%
9.61%
11.03%
65.00%
8.84%
5.52%
9.61%
11.03%
65.00%
3,857
2,322
8,493
9,853
94,816
6,987
5,402
22,084
25,636
143,813
3.23%
1.95%
7.12%
8.26%
79.45%
3.43%
2.65%
10.83%
12.57%
70.52%
$46,447,684
$125,831,523
$15,968,911.98 $
28,010,997.92
119,341
203,922
$223,391.90 $
$364,481.51 $
252,452.11
411,904.73
3,414
6,124
32.93%
67.07%
35.79%
64.21%
$2,913,494
$4,848,343
$587,873.41 $
664,356.84
3.95%
1.45%
12.72%
2.57%
9.20%
1.20%
3.00%
1.04%
1.15%
63.72%
2.95%
2.91%
10.82%
2.28%
15.59%
1.44%
2.80%
0.70%
0.30%
60.20%
12.376
12.376
0.000
13.850
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
3.64
2.57
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
9.550
8.610
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
5.65
1.5
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.290
0.000
6.398
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.53
13.53
13.31
14.480
14.480
13.980
7.94
0.000
6.910
0.000
JEFF DAVIS
Hazlehurst
Unincorporated Jeff Davis
$257,246.23
$28,582.91
$666,934.67
$952,763.81
$
$
$
$
8.8
7.64
12.880
12.880
4.000
6.000
JEFFERSON
Avera
Bartow
Louisville
Stapelton
Wadley
Wrens
Unincorporated Jefferson
Economic Development
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13.25
13..25
13.25
0.5
12.750
12.750
12.750
12.750
12.750
12.750
12.750
5.000
9.5
5.44
6.000
12.000
8.000
5.000
9.000
8.490
8.000
14.000
18.700
JENKINS
Millen
Unincorporated Jenkins
14.98
13.14
10.695
10.695
JASPER
Monticello
Shady Dale
Unincorporated Jasper
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
6.140
6.140
6.140
6.140
3.680
6.140
11.15
11.15
JACKSON
Arcade
Braselton
Commerce
Hoschton
Jefferson
Maysville
Nicholson
Pendergrass
Talmo
Unincorporated Jackson
Various Fire Districts
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
7.48
7.48
7.48
7.48
7.48
7.48
HOUSTON (gives LOST to schools)
IRWIN
Ocilla
Unincorporated Irwin
Industrial Authority
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
0.000
8.073
$6,807,764
$6,690,958
$6,739,411
$13,986,355
$10,367,206
$11,060,095
38.00%
62.00%
38.00%
62.00%
3,270
6,661
9,931
9,538
2.31%
1.39%
13.69%
2.14%
9.21%
1.11%
1.78%
0.99%
0.63%
66.74%
3.95%
1.69%
13.72%
2.57%
9.20%
1.38%
2.99%
1.03%
1.14%
62.33%
1,643
603
5,292
1,070
3,825
499
1,247
431
477
26,502
1,786
1,763
6,544
1,377
9,432
872
1,696
422
180
36,413
41,589
60,485
269,451.36
26,939.80
601,824.96
898,216.12
27.00%
3.00%
70.00%
30.00%
3.00%
67.00%
2,428
242
8,756
11,426
2,657
249
10,994
13,900
21.25%
2.12%
76.63%
19.12%
1.79%
79.09%
$5,707,341
$8,536,929
$837,023.55 $
$1,109,542.85 $
$1,946,566.40 $
787,816.02
1,181,737.52
1,969,553.54
43.00%
57.00%
40.00%
60.00%
3,787
8,897
12,684
4,226
10,842
15,068
29.86%
70.14%
28.05%
71.95%
$4,982,033
$12,158,417
$22,429.73
$32,232.35
$235,761.33
$35,056.83
$229,115.49
$228,949.34
$877,916.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
25,893.26
36,801.32
323,073.73
37,828.20
248,823.71
275,575.42
1,108,438.44
1.35%
1.94%
14.19%
2.11%
13.79%
13.78%
52.84%
1.26%
1.79%
15.71%
1.84%
12.10%
13.40%
53.90%
217
223
2,712
318
2,088
2,314
9,394
246
286
2,493
438
2,061
2,187
9,219
1.26%
1.29%
15.71%
1.84%
12.09%
13.40%
54.41%
1.45%
1.69%
14.73%
2.59%
12.17%
12.92%
54.45%
$6,613,433
$11,462,613
$1,661,461.13 $
2,056,434.08
17,266
16,930
$191,527.56 $
$355,694.03 $
263,192.09
488,814.39
3,492
5,083
3,120
5,220
40.72%
59.28%
37.41%
62.59%
$3,263,999
$4,939,741
$144,744.42
$87,180.58
$856,789.65
$133,899.26
$576,267.94
$69,452.21
$111,582.50
$62,152.22
$39,418.69
$4,176,539.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
335,463.64
143,510.39
1,165,188.10
218,267.55
781,315.96
117,184.61
253,924.15
87,462.88
96,804.93
5,293,502.60
$6,258,027.30 $
8,492,624.81
35.00%
65.00%
48
35.00%
65.00%
$16,157,775
$38,120,253
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$223,017
$986,794
$280,947
$122,878
$3,311,404
$395,214
$1,792,685
$426,434
$57,554
$4,394,165
$41,301
$224,794
$2,725,631
$1,572,807
$90,378
$420,506
$3,649,769
$2,161,170
$89,560
$109,145
$862,720
$129,275
$1,470,136
$1,215,875
$3,635,828
$2,362,292
$2,988,801
$2,890,054
$8,676,591
$4,637,052
$1,443,727
$1,890,837
$582,303
$428,939
$3,434,087
$284,082
$4,686,516
$154,353
$129,730
$50,598
$14,624
$724,091
$2,808,230
$5,023,805
$607,750
$5,258,432
$596,047
$201,675
$1,524,162
$26,884
$2,109,655
$2,379,234
$3,071,349
$78,273
$103,199
$1,067,421
$123,131
$150,993
$1,523,033
$1,327,338
$1,236,037
$2,262,523
$1,894,540
$1,138,940
$1,930,227
$910,325
$93,199
County / City
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Distribution Received
Received in 2000
in 2010
$547,221.59 $
752,006.48
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2010
2000
Population
8,575
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
8,340
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
JOHNSON
Adrian
Kite
Wrightsville
Unincorporated Johnson
16.43
16.43
16.43
16.43
14.660
14.660
14.660
14.660
4.79
7.000
9.5
10.005
7.528
9.397
$
$
$
$
$
22,148.14
22,148.16
155,118.76
354,567.45
553,982.51
4.00%
4.00%
28.00%
64.00%
4.00%
4.00%
28.00%
64.00%
290
241
2,223
5,806
8,560
394
241
2,195
7,150
9,980
3.39%
2.82%
25.97%
67.83%
3.95%
2.41%
21.99%
71.64%
JONES
Gray
Macon
Unincorporated Jones
$16,959.85
$16,959.85
$118,718.98
$271,357.66
$423,996.35
11.83
11.83
9.85
14.730
14.730
13.310
8.000
8.5
9.500
9.500
$
$
$
$
389,862.31
15,084.19
2,110,330.59
2,515,277.09
15.50%
0.60%
83.90%
15.50%
0.60%
83.90%
1,811
21,828
23,639
3,276
466
24,927
28,669
7.66%
0.00%
92.34%
11.43%
1.63%
86.95%
LAMAR
Aldora
Barnesville
Milner
Unincorporated Lamar
$265,846.70
$10,290.84
$1,439,002.45
$1,715,139.99
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.942
8.942
8.942
8.942
0.000
4.75
2.000
0.000
4.063
3.659
$
$
$
$
$
18,491.76
656,745.33
64,741.89
1,109,999.69
1,849,978.67
1.00%
35.50%
3.50%
60.00%
1.00%
35.50%
3.50%
60.00%
98
5,972
522
9,320
15,912
103
6,755
610
10,849
18,317
0.62%
37.53%
3.28%
58.57%
0.56%
36.88%
3.33%
59.23%
$5,167,602
$8,516,572
LANIER
Lakeland
Unincorporated Lanier
$12,900.85
$457,980.30
$45,152.99
$774,051.20
$1,290,085.34
7.23
7.23
14.080
14.080
10.25
0.000
$200,652.18 $
$192,783.46 $
$393,435.64 $
273,230.97
273,230.97
546,461.94
51.00%
49.00%
50.00%
50.00%
2,730
4,511
7,241
3,366
6,712
10,078
37.70%
62.30%
33.40%
66.60%
$1,945,468
$3,872,657
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.300
6.300
6.300
6.300
6.300
6.300
6.300
6.300
3.000
3.000
3.41
5.5
5.29
5.000
0.000
0.000
2.660
6.360
4.800
4.800
5.000
0.000
$56,614.16
$58,719.27
$2,180,934.55
$53,153.89
$312,015.99
$14,466.02
$44,996.61
$3,857,551.80
$6,578,452.29
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
71,390.92
74,039.58
2,833,466.25
67,019.55
393,486.38
18,224.13
56,724.85
4,781,987.51
8,296,339.17
0.86%
0.89%
33.15%
0.81%
4.74%
0.22%
0.68%
58.64%
0.86%
0.89%
34.15%
0.81%
4.74%
0.22%
0.68%
57.64%
329
509
15,857
447
2,484
154
304
24,790
44,874
528
575
16,201
571
2,441
215
295
27,608
48,434
0.73%
1.13%
35.34%
1.00%
5.54%
0.34%
0.68%
55.24%
1.09%
1.19%
33.45%
1.18%
5.04%
0.44%
0.61%
57.00%
$17,750,845
$25,756,386
13.991
13.991
13.991
12.766
12.766
12.766
7.989
8.993
6.000
4.000
$235,636.00
$155,654.41
$955,201.03
$1,346,491.45
$
$
$
$
609,668.29
402,711.66
2,471,447.42
3,483,827.37
17.50%
11.56%
70.94%
17.50%
11.56%
70.94%
2,633
774
21,350
24,757
2,896
575
24,827
28,298
10.64%
3.13%
86.24%
10.23%
2.03%
87.73%
$9,234,878
$18,794,931
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.980
11.300
11.980
11.980
11.980
11.980
0.000
11.3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
$25,164.51
$1,948,490.84
$77,838.61
$67,195.56
$182,555.45
$2,456,110.47
$4,757,355.44
$
$
$
$
$
$50,824.94
4,181,140.96
151,723.89
100,852.76
554,313.75
3,436,972.87
$8,475,829.17
0.53%
40.96%
1.64%
1.41%
3.84%
51.63%
0.60%
49.33%
1.79%
1.19%
6.54%
40.55%
369
30,392
1,100
736
4,030
24,983
61,610
743
33,437
2,121
809
4,111
22,232
63,453
0.60%
49.33%
1.79%
1.19%
6.54%
40.55%
1.17%
52.70%
3.34%
1.27%
6.48%
35.04%
12.84
12.84
9.700
9.700
7.000
5.600
19.83%
80.17%
19.83%
80.17%
1,595
6,753
1,566
6,430
19.11%
80.89%
19.58%
80.42%
8,348
7,996
LAURENS
Cadwell
Dexter
Dublin
Dudley
East Dublin
Montrose
Rentz
Unincorporated Laurens
LEE
Leesburg
Smithville
Unincorporated Lee
LIBERTY
Flemington
Hinesville
Midway
Riceboro
Walthourville
Unincorporated Liberty
LINCOLN
Lincolnton
Unic Lincoln
Industrial Authority
LONG
Ludowici
Unincorporated Long
$3,157,872
$8,139,659
$13,668,710
$3,787,258
$15,286,482
$30,586,364
$105,049.48 $
$424,700.82 $
142,994.66
578,153.18
$529,750.30 $
721,147.84
$98,961.92 $
$205,536.31 $
$304,498.23 $
162,175.72
336,838.71
499,014.43
32.50%
67.50%
32.50%
67.50%
1,440
8,864
10,304
1,703
12,761
14,464
13.98%
86.02%
11.77%
88.23%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
157,486.80
306,345.07
103,526.88
159,624.28
8,334,147.50
12,513,083.08
21,574,213.61
0.70%
1.48%
0.41%
0.58%
40.00%
56.83%
0.73%
1.42%
0.48%
0.74%
38.63%
58.00%
834
1,626
549
847
43,724
44,535
92,115
912
2,737
733
1,123
54,518
49,210
109,233
0.91%
1.77%
0.60%
0.92%
47.47%
48.35%
0.83%
2.51%
0.67%
1.03%
49.91%
45.05%
$46,359,096
$56,480,062
748,676.27
2,246,058.10
2,994,734.37
25.00%
75.00%
25.00%
75.00%
3,638
17,378
21,016
5,242
24,724
29,966
17.31%
82.69%
17.49%
82.51%
$16,788,246
$16,138,674
50,148.23
129,199.52
387,123.90
116,174.33
4.22%
11.11%
34.36%
9.93%
4.04%
10.41%
31.19%
9.36%
518
1,335
3,999
1,200
499
1,448
3,460
1,328
3.68%
9.49%
28.41%
8.53%
3.39%
9.82%
23.47%
9.01%
18.83
17
15.710
15.710
12.25
10.000
LOWNDES
Dasher
Hahira
Lake Park
Remerton
Valdosta
Unincorporated Lowndes
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
9.01
7.39
7.310
7.310
7.310
7.310
7.310
7.310
0.000
5.5
5.99
3.5
4.64
12.180
5.380
4.703
6.387
4.112
LUMPKIN
Dahlonega
Unincorporated Lumpkin
12.74
11.59
7.907
6.987
3.986
3.988
MACON
Ideal
Marshallville
Montezuma
Oglethorpe
$629,291.62 $
$1,887,874.87 $
$2,517,166.49 $
11.21
11.21
11.21
11.21
11.430
11.430
11.430
11.430
8
10
11
10
9.350
13.500
12.000
12.000
$46,418.82
$122,206.89
$377,950.38
$109,227.22
$110,699.43
$234,050.22
$64,838.24
$91,722.38
$6,325,681.62
$8,987,212.16
$15,814,204.04
$
$
$
$
49
$2,642,487
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$247,580
$37,580
$794,117
$290,842
$86,989
$1,207,281
$1,019,185
$59,589,140
$0
$68,746,368
$83,886
$2,567,982
$131,517
$18,919
$4,235,410
$265,420
$1,130,279
$1,057,960
$70,254
$70,667
$6,853,757
$163,389
$1,083,172
$22,610
$60,496
$206,640
$167,223
$11,773,537
$282,037
$1,765,112
$29,633
$108,727
$864,166
$350,017
$1,935,837
$668,781
$99,285
$11,192,463
$204,458
$116,322
$602,271
$419,548
$16,540,442
$852,693
$324,102
$1,148,908
$579,781
$851,650
$454,305
$1,058,241
$51,573
$784,011
$282,731
$627,576
$20,964,686
$1,038,899
$389,615
$1,198,838
$35,218,129
$1,187,668
$2,309,429
$172,775
$637,942
$2,131,169
$535,662
$1,004,854
$2,434,783
$689,132
County / City
Unincorporated Macon
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
10.81
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
10.730
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
8.54
12.129
12.129
12.129
12.129
12.129
12.129
11.158
MADISON
Carlton
Colbert
Comer
Danielsville
Hull
Ila
Unincorporated Madison
Industrial Authority
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
2..90
5.5
4.7
2.85
0.000
3.97
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
2.000
3.500
4.400
4.000
0.000
10.000
Amount of LOST
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Distribution Received
Received in 2000
in 2010
$444,168.70 $
558,521.04
$1,099,972.01 $
1,241,167.02
$37,345.27
$82,159.60
$119,504.87
$89,628.65
$22,407.16
$37,345.27
$1,105,420.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
40.38%
49,354.18
108,608.86
157,965.99
118,474.17
29,607.61
49,354.18
$1,461,261.04
2.50%
5.50%
8.00%
6.00%
1.50%
2.50%
74.00%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
45.00%
7,022
14,074
2.50%
5.50%
8.00%
6.00%
1.50%
2.50%
74.00%
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
8,005
49.89%
54.31%
14,740
233
488
1,052
457
160
328
23,012
260
592
1,126
560
198
337
25,047
25,730
28,120
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,789,494
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$5,978,575
0.91%
1.90%
4.09%
1.78%
0.62%
1.27%
89.44%
0.92%
2.11%
4.00%
1.99%
0.70%
1.20%
89.07%
$4,291,633
$12,312,665
$1,493,810.82 $
1,974,626.03
$146,185.04 $
$419,459.83 $
$
163,143.79
302,991.99
466,135.78
35.00%
65.00%
35.00%
65.00%
1,664
5,408
7,072
2,173
6,569
8,742
23.52%
76.47%
24.86%
75.14%
$2,101,194
$3,422,611
MARION
BUENA VISTA
Unincorporated Marion
8.94
8.94
8.188
6.833
16.500
16.750
MCDUFFIE
Dearing
Thomson
Unincorporated McDuffie
8.85
8.85
7.81
8.500
8.500
7.800
0.2
7.305
0.000
5.399
$29,809.81
$953,913.95
$1,997,257.32
$2,980,981.08
$
$
$
$
36,967.24
1,183,623.24
2,478,187.33
3,698,777.81
1.00%
32.00%
67.00%
1.00%
32.00%
67.00%
441
6,828
13,962
21,231
549
6,778
14,548
21,875
2.08%
32.16%
65.76%
2.51%
30.99%
66.51%
$8,599,628
$13,904,034
9.75
9.75
12.490
12.490
4.25
3.800
$353,812.96 $
$1,061,438.89 $
363,724.03
1,091,179.31
25.00%
75.00%
25.00%
75.00%
1,719
9,128
1,975
12,358
15.85%
84.15%
13.78%
86.22%
$6,250,337
$11,143,678
$1,415,251.85 $
1,454,903.34
10,847
14,333
$16,886.23
$109,191.77
$6,999.47
$52,496.04
$391,620.49
$349.97
$53,633.46
$156,263.23
$962,427.49
$1,749,868.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
15,897.57
102,853.96
6,584.22
49,449.57
368,886.78
321.07
50,520.09
147,181.87
906,533.39
1,648,228.52
0.97%
6.24%
0.40%
3.00%
22.38%
0.02%
3.07%
8.93%
55.00%
0.96%
6.24%
0.40%
3.00%
22.38%
0.02%
3.07%
8.93%
55.00%
149
946
104
783
3,589
1,142
485
1,184
14,152
22,534
89
876
92
874
4,118
66
425
961
14,491
21,992
0.66%
4.20%
0.46%
3.47%
15.93%
5.07%
2.15%
5.25%
62.80%
0.40%
3.98%
0.42%
3.97%
18.72%
0.30%
1.93%
4.37%
65.89%
$6,937,670
$186,102.63 $
$310,171.04 $
$496,273.67 $
241,336.30
402,235.83
643,572.13
37.50%
62.50%
37.50%
62.50%
1,939
4,444
6,383
1,992
4,133
6,125
30.38%
69.62%
32.52%
67.48%
$2,871,815
$5,289,162
$11,504,453
$21,107,364
MCINTOSH
Darien
Unincorporated McIntosh
Industrial Authority
MERIWETHER
Gay
Greenville
Lone Oak
Luthersville
Manchester
Pine Mountain
Warm Springs
Woodbury
Unincorporated Meriwether
9.43
9.43
9.43
9.43
9.43
9.43
9.43
9.43
8.04
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
12.287
2.25
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.33
0.08
0.000
15.65
2.340
15.124
1.767
7.462
17.242
10.775
12.003
18.700
14.68
14.09
17.500
17.500
9.34
8.710
8.25
8.25
8.25
9.431
9.431
9.431
0.000
7.3
0.000
0.000
$96,257.56
$1,327,552.17
$2,586,921.90
$4,010,731.63
$
$
$
$
124,224.08
1,475,422.97
3,577,279.96
5,176,927.01
2.40%
33.10%
64.50%
2.40%
28.50%
69.10%
223
3,776
17,758
21,757
175
3,788
22,461
26,424
1.02%
17.36%
81.62%
0.66%
14.34%
85.00%
10.89
10.89
10.89
10.89
10.89
8.68
11.846
11.846
11.846
11.846
11.846
11.846
11.846
4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6
4.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
37,362.42
11,256.28
22,409.86
138,284.62
7,151.49
37,537.69
332,669.48
586,671.84
8.08%
2.23%
3.82%
26.72%
1.81%
7.83%
49.51%
6.37%
1.92%
3.82%
23.57%
1.22%
6.40%
56.70%
394
159
316
2,082
100
530
4,689
8,270
432
159
323
2,451
87
598
5,073
9,123
4.76%
1.92%
3.82%
25.18%
1.21%
6.41%
56.70%
4.74%
1.74%
3.54%
26.87%
0.95%
6.55%
55.61%
MORGAN
Bostwick
Buckhead
Madison
Rutledge
Unincorporated Morgan
$39,516.34
$10,906.12
$18,682.23
$130,677.81
$8,852.05
$38,293.68
$242,135.41
$489,063.65
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
8.400
8.400
8.400
8.400
8.400
0.97
3.49
3.22
5.19
1.123
2.000
4.794
3.734
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,724.15
13,825.16
760,335.01
138,270.45
2,523,631.66
3,422,237.12
0.00%
0.00%
23.00%
4.00%
73.00%
0.50%
0.33%
22.22%
4.04%
73.74%
322
205
3,636
707
10,587
15,457
365
171
3,979
781
13,108
17,868
2.08%
1.32%
23.52%
4.57%
68.49%
0.92%
0.43%
22.27%
4.37%
73.36%
$10,474,549
$14,667,714
MURRAY
Chatsworth
Eton
Unincorporated Murray
$0.00
$0.00
$521,845.39
$90,755.72
$1,656,291.89
$2,268,893.00
6.58
6.58
5.8
6.012
6.012
5.800
7.969
2
2.342
4.000
$384,966.47
$46,220.30
$2,609,622.65
$3,040,809.43
$
$
$
$
585,648.03
63,553.44
3,533,949.41
4,183,150.88
12.66%
1.52%
85.82%
14.00%
1.52%
84.48%
3,531
319
32,656
36,506
4,299
910
34,419
39,628
9.67%
0.87%
89.45%
10.85%
2.30%
86.86%
$9,903,871
$15,293,568
MILLER
Colquitt
Unincorporated Miller
MITCHELL (gives LOST to schools)
MONROE
Culloden
Forsyth
Unincorporated Monroe
MONTGOMERY
Ailey
Alston
Higgston
Mount Vernon
Tarrytown
Uvalda
Unincorporated Montgomery
NEWTON
50
$2,489,719
$4,071,776
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$44,250
$197,669
$407,008
$226,025
$29,741
$73,014
$287,768
$622,196
$334,261
$59,181
$117,714
$965,358
$1,338,777
$68,295
$2,277,426
$118,992
$3,673,740
$857,208
$2,660,600
$32,962
$576,504
$27,157
$299,146
$2,610,372
$986,794
$277,087
$742,791
$44,906
$648,276
$18,798
$420,789
$3,479,878
$1,792,685
$471,914
$888,943
$1,002,956
$1,455,201
$114,115
$3,092,598
$167,584
$4,574,663
$101,243
$26,528
$73,717
$304,280
$13,483
$143,342
$160,984
$22,342
$47,613
$800,328
$21,545
$279,551
$68,226
$28,320
$1,899,860
$279,598
$50,772
$58,664
$4,144,938
$256,067
$2,370,911
$217,934
$324,141
County / City
Covington
Mansfield
Newborn
Oxford
Porterdale
Unincorporated Newton
Hospital/Fire District
OCONEE
Bogart
Watkinsville
Unincorporated Oconee
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
9.73
9.73
9.73
9.73
9.73
9.73
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
10.910
10.910
10.910
10.910
10.910
10.910
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
5.86
5.4
0.000
4.64
8.1
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
8.208
5.580
1.935
6.280
0.000
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$1,389,616.39
$39,598.57
$34,465.42
$161,327.50
$208,259.13
$5,499,801.02
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
1,831,416.64
$
62,439.29
$
82,281.49
$
299,435.71
$
203,265.39
$
7,436,787.57
$7,333,068.03 $
9,915,626.09
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
18.95%
0.54%
0.47%
2.20%
2.84%
75.00%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
18.47%
11,547
0.63%
392
0.83%
520
3.02%
1,892
2.05%
1,281
75.00%
46,369
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
13,118
18.62%
13.12%
410
0.63%
0.41%
696
0.84%
0.70%
2,134
3.05%
2.13%
1,429
2.07%
1.43%
82,171
74.79%
82.21%
62,001
99,958
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$21,024,063
$58,964,930
$10,187,417
$24,239,072
8.48
8.48
9.36
7.486
7.486
6.686
3.75
3.678
2.935
2.937
$143,175.59 $
$272,033.61
$2,448,302.53 $
$2,863,511.73 $
174,585.12
$393,438.34
4,349,951.96
4,917,975.42
5.00%
9.50%
85.50%
3.55%
8.00%
88.45%
945
2,097
23,183
26,225
894
2,832
29,082
32,808
3.60%
8.00%
88.40%
2.72%
8.63%
88.64%
7.393
7.393
7.393
7.393
5.984
9.062
9.062
9.062
9.062
7.662
3.5
1.000
0.000
2.3
3.500
1.000
0.000
2.000
$42,341.69
$0.00
$0.00
$16,161.41
$537,858.76
$596,361.86
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,653.31
19,606.95
13,176.56
15,001.90
695,682.85
794,121.57
7.10%
0.00%
0.00%
2.71%
90.19%
6.38%
2.47%
1.66%
1.89%
87.60%
807
312
210
239
11,067
12,635
832
357
224
228
13,258
14,899
6.39%
2.46%
1.66%
1.89%
87.59%
5.58%
2.40%
1.50%
1.53%
88.99%
6.75
6.75
6.75
7.600
7.600
7.600
2.38
0.000
0.000
2.400
$744,859.73
$261,877.00
$6,833,892.04
$7,840,628.78
$
$
$
$
1,293,827.89
454,883.83
11,870,682.66
13,619,394.38
9.50%
3.34%
87.16%
9.50%
3.34%
87.16%
5,056
1,361
75,261
81,678
11,544
3,546
127,234
142,324
6.19%
1.67%
92.14%
8.11%
2.49%
89.40%
14.86
14.86
14.86
13.555
13.555
13.555
8
10
9.000
11.855
$
$
$
$
302,110.67
1,119,540.64
2,132,449.44
3,554,100.75
10.74%
38.69%
50.57%
8.50%
31.50%
60.00%
2,887
8,005
12,776
23,668
4,512
9,815
13,368
27,695
12.20%
33.82%
53.98%
16.29%
35.44%
48.27%
PICKENS
Jasper
Nelson
Talking Rock
Unincorporated Pickens
$288,942.35
$1,040,795.05
$1,360,350.60
$2,690,088.00
2.84
2.84
2.84
2.84
6.260
6.260
6.260
6.260
4.63
1.878
1
4.690
1.538
1.000
$
$
$
$
$
979,752.27
106,727.63
57,169.32
2,668,620.69
3,812,269.91
25.70%
2.80%
1.50%
70.00%
25.70%
2.80%
1.50%
70.00%
2,167
313
49
20,454
22,983
3,684
715
64
24,968
29,431
9.43%
1.36%
0.21%
89.00%
12.52%
2.43%
0.22%
84.84%
PIERCE
Blackshear
OFFERMAN
Patterson
Unincorporated Pierce
$722,812.72
$78,750.02
$42,187.51
$1,968,750.60
$2,812,500.85
9.45
0
9.45
7.6
9.920
0.000
9.920
8.150
8.95
0.000
10
11.990
0.000
8.880
$
$
$
$
$
463,580.33
57,039.75
128,383.53
1,227,883.66
1,876,887.27
23.49%
0.00%
6.51%
70.00%
24.70%
3.04%
6.84%
65.42%
3,283
403
627
11,323
15,636
3,445
441
730
14,142
18,758
21.00%
2.57%
4.01%
72.42%
18.37%
2.35%
3.89%
75.39%
PIKE
Concord
Meansville
Molena
Williamson
Zebulon
Unincorporated Pike
$287,041.37
$0.00
$79,550.42
$855,380.83
$1,221,972.61
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
12.864
12.864
12.864
12.864
12.864
12.864
7.54
0.000
6.75
0.000
6.5
0.000
0.000
7.780
0.000
0.000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
35,752.59
30,208.80
43,207.29
33,235.65
113,442.68
751,544.52
1,007,391.53
3.55%
3.41%
4.29%
2.89%
11.26%
74.60%
3.55%
3.00%
4.29%
3.30%
11.26%
74.60%
336
192
475
297
1,181
11,207
13,688
375
182
474
352
1,174
15,312
17,869
2.45%
1.40%
3.47%
2.17%
8.63%
81.87%
2.10%
1.02%
2.65%
1.97%
6.57%
85.69%
POLK
Aragon
Cedartown
Rockmart
Unincorporated Polk
$25,027.78
$24,040.77
$30,244.84
$20,374.73
$79,383.89
$525,935.92
$705,007.94
11.17
11.17
11.17
10.91
10.850
10.850
10.850
10.850
10.25
9.94
9.953
12.000
10.980
9.160
$
$
$
$
$
165,926.34
1,437,760.73
589,882.03
2,602,168.65
4,795,737.75
3.46%
29.98%
12.30%
54.26%
3.46%
29.98%
12.30%
54.26%
1,039
9,470
3,870
23,748
38,127
1,249
9,750
4,199
26,277
41,475
2.73%
24.84%
10.15%
62.29%
3.01%
23.51%
10.12%
63.36%
$10,949,076
$19,618,755
PULASKI
Hawkinsville
Unincorporated Pulaski
Fire District
$126,023.84
$1,091,963.75
$448,003.81
$1,976,315.98
$3,642,307.37
14.26
12.31
1
13.703
13.703
5.61
5.600
$380,640.84 $
$380,640.84 $
460,118.29
460,118.29
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
3,280
6,308
4,589
7,421
34.21%
65.79%
38.21%
61.79%
$2,915,621
$4,936,321
PUTNAM
Eatonton
Unincorporated Putnam
$761,281.67 $
920,236.58
9,588
12,010
9.464
9.464
5.400
5.400
0.000
0.000
$1,378,146.99 $
$1,554,080.65 $
$2,932,227.64 $
2,033,208.98
2,292,753.38
4,325,962.36
47.00%
53.00%
47.00%
53.00%
6,764
12,048
18,812
6,480
14,738
21,218
35.96%
64.04%
30.54%
69.46%
$10,477,226
$18,682,013
8.1
8.540
$2,348,886.21 $
3,086,919.23
100.00%
100.00%
15,050
$10,399,181
$14,712,712
OGELTHORPE
Crawford
ARNOLDSVILLE
MAXEYS
Lexington
Unincorporated Oglethorpe
PAULDING
Dallas
Hiram
Unincorporated Paulding
PEACH
Byron
Fort Valley
Unincorporated Peach
RABUN (gives LOST to schools)
Unincorporated Rabun
$3,715,697
$23,100,246
$8,877,184
$7,116,712
$59,167,321
$25,170,505
$7,884,162
$4,769,144
$4,637,380
$6,460,160
$9,932,112
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$12,376,248
$193,832
$97,888
$379,941
$419,467
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$18,715,781
$174,713
$150,240
$746,962
$177,660
$553,265
$413,891
$1,263,123
$120,436
$18,823
$15,232
$52,749
$136,251
$47,702
$1,545,678
$456,859
$3,743,222
$2,482,626
$1,443,240
$3,331,589
$12,128,567
$1,702,227
$133,082
$68,440
$3,009,050
$383,519
$78,815
$1,181,335
$24,634
$350,889
$1,709,992
$113,785
$335,343
$103,469
$45,205
$110,661
$70,786
$671,586
$134,165
$95,731
$154,779
$102,186
$941,726
$391,310
$5,430,941
$1,811,278
$7,175,698
$4,332,069
$1,948,881
$2,421,381
$2,146,850
$3,948,097
$1,512,154
$1,310,169
$68,429
16,276
RANDOLPH
Coleman
Cuthbert
10.21
10.21
14.795
14.795
2
7
0.000
8.500
$8,790.23 $
$234,406.18 $
12,086.67
322,555.71
1.50%
40.00%
51
1.50%
40.00%
149
3,731
127
3,873
1.91%
47.89%
1.65%
50.17%
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$70,027.75
$272,497.18
$586,015.45
8.79
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
14.795
13.745
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
9.000
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
10.000
SCHLEY
Ellaville
Unincorporated Schley
10.14
10.14
13.250
13.250
3.74
3.381
SCREVEN
Hilltonia
Newington
Oliver
Rocky Ford
Sylvania
Unincorporated Screven
14.94
14.94
14.94
14.94
14.94
12.97
11.936
11.936
11.936
11.936
11.936
11.936
0.000
9
3
5
9
0.000
8.500
2.000
0.000
5.000
$32,721.04
$25,086.13
$18,541.92
$15,269.82
$225,775.15
$773,307.14
$1,090,701.19
10
10
10
13.420
13.420
13.420
4.864
10
6.680
0.000
SPALDING
Griffin
Unincorporated Spalding
Fire District
$268,450.60
$32,539.47
$512,496.60
$813,486.67
9.7
9.7
3.08
14.810
14.810
9.46
8.636
STEPHENS
Martin
Toccoa
Unincorporated Stephens
7.1
7.1
7.1
11.320
11.320
11.320
0.5
4.05
11.41
11.41
11.41
12.740
12.740
12.740
9.6
11.447
11.790
11.790
11.790
11.790
County / City
SHELLMAN
Unincorporated Randolph
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
96,755.29
$
374,988.16
$
806,385.83
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
12.00%
46.50%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
12.00%
1,166
46.50%
2,745
7,791
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
1,083
14.97%
14.03%
2,636
35.23%
34.15%
7,719
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$3,068,911
$3,581,922
$1,182,002
$1,737,828
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$486,153
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$522,354
$640,011
$854,076
$135,972
$131,204
$60,772
$2,475,429
$220,789
$355,039
$3,111,726
$1,490,455
$52,118
$2,362,763
$80,517
$15,484,532
$19,826,221
$6,778,292
$107,508
$7,322,945
$730,913
$461,980
$575,635
$806,400
$9,649,313
$58,546
$241,630
$299,804
$9,545,884
$341,248
$353,105
$407,677
$64,161
$38,790
$2,610,372
$282,752
$138,659
$62,760
$27,266
$3,479,878
$240,212
$205,925
$48,250
$187,907
$1,650,579
$986,351
$102,215
$188,865
$2,320,646
$1,324,263
$614,885
$542,558
$937,997
$848,998
ROCKDALE (no LOST)
SEMINOLE
Donalsonville
Iron City
Unincorporated Seminole
STEWART
Lumpkin
Richland
Unincorporated Stewart
SUMTER
Americus
Andersonville
Leslie
Plains
Unincorporated Sumter
Various Fire Districts
$141,955.08 $
$153,784.68 $
$295,739.76 $
159,529.06
159,529.06
319,058.12
48.00%
52.00%
50.00%
50.00%
1,609
2,157
3,766
1,812
3,198
5,010
42.72%
57.28%
36.17%
63.83%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
37,559.38
29,735.74
23,485.30
17,217.18
244,279.50
1,213,530.99
1,565,808.09
3.00%
2.30%
1.70%
1.40%
20.70%
70.90%
2.40%
1.90%
1.50%
1.10%
15.60%
77.50%
421
322
253
186
2,675
11,517
15,374
342
654
239
144
2,956
10,258
14,593
2.74%
2.09%
1.65%
1.21%
17.40%
74.91%
2.34%
4.48%
1.64%
0.99%
20.26%
70.29%
$
$
$
$
390,740.76
47,358.71
745,952.25
1,184,051.72
33.00%
4.00%
63.00%
33.00%
4.00%
63.00%
2,796
321
6,252
9,369
2,650
310
5,769
8,729
29.84%
3.43%
66.73%
30.36%
3.55%
66.09%
$3,075,833
$5,755,649
$3,202,637.97 $
$5,225,356.68 $
3,348,145.43
5,022,218.92
38.00%
62.00%
40.00%
60.00%
23,451
34,966
23,643
40,430
40.14%
59.86%
36.90%
63.10%
$26,542,996
$44,054,063
$8,427,994.65 $
8,370,364.35
58,417
64,073
0.000
7.190
$40,107.48
$1,197,494.78
$1,627,217.78
$2,864,820.04
$
$
$
$
41,266.75
1,183,320.38
2,131,395.49
3,355,982.62
1.40%
41.80%
56.80%
1.23%
35.26%
63.51%
311
9,323
15,801
25,435
381
8,491
17,303
26,175
1.22%
36.65%
62.12%
1.46%
32.44%
66.11%
$8,174,028
$13,925,589
12.2
11
18.000
19.750
$86,038.79
$102,584.71
$142,294.92
$330,918.42
$
$
$
$
96,284.09
114,799.85
159,231.70
370,315.64
26.00%
31.00%
43.00%
26.00%
31.00%
43.00%
1,369
1,794
2,089
5,252
2,741
1,473
1,844
6,058
26.07%
34.16%
39.78%
45.25%
24.31%
30.44%
$2,226,144
$2,745,048
7.85
0.000
8.5
12
10.250
0.000
11.500
12.000
$1,644,802.19
$33,480.37
$55,318.63
$72,040.27
$1,902,041.22
$
$
$
$
$
1,857,773.80
37,800.95
62,475.64
81,362.90
2,148,326.91
44.36%
0.90%
1.49%
1.94%
51.30%
44.36%
0.90%
1.49%
1.94%
51.30%
17,013
331
455
637
14,764
17,041
255
409
776
14,338
51.24%
1.00%
1.37%
1.92%
44.47%
51.92%
0.78%
1.25%
2.36%
43.69%
$3,707,682.69 $
4,187,740.20
33,200
32,819
1.53%
2.58%
TALBOT
Geneva
Junction City
Manchester
Talbotton
Woodland
Unincorporated Talbot
16.71
16.71
16.71
16.71
16.71
16.71
16.050
16.050
16.050
16.050
16.050
16.050
5
5
16.33
9.5
10.5
6.000
2.210
17.242
10.500
14.500
TALIAFERRO
Crawfordville
Unincorporated Taliaferro
$14,890.98
$16,022.69
$8,517.64
$62,244.29
$41,039.54
$251,895.80
$394,610.95
19.09
17.77
22.420
21.370
17.56
16.950
TATTNALL
Cobbtown
Collins
Glennville
Reidsville
Unincorporated Tattnall
$26,277.38
$87,972.10 $
$114,249.48
15.51
15.51
15.51
15.51
15.51
13.014
13.014
13.014
13.014
13.014
0.000
4
9.5
7.8
0.000
3.141
7.750
7.000
TAYLOR
Butler
Reynolds
Unincorporated Taylor
$22,863.18
$40,883.07
$252,207.18
$128,632.07
$734,684.30
$1,179,269.79
$
$
$
$
$
$
12.19
12.19
10.33
9.880
9.880
8.190
7
7.87
6.980
8.530
$161,132.45
$107,639.08
$383,586.55
$652,358.08
$
$
$
$
TELFAIR
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
22,761.17
24,490.31
13,021.11
95,154.20
62,735.33
385,156.15
603,318.27
$5,074,111
$11,536,889
$9,409,258
$16,321,288
3.77%
4.06%
2.16%
15.77%
10.40%
63.83%
3.77%
4.06%
2.16%
15.77%
10.40%
63.84%
114
179
399
1,019
432
4,355
6,498
105
177
112
970
408
5,093
6,865
1.75%
2.75%
6.14%
15.68%
6.65%
67.02%
14.13%
5.94%
74.19%
$3,486,844
$5,251,612
23.00%
77.00%
22.99%
77.01%
572
1,505
2,077
534
1,183
1,717
27.54%
72.46%
31.10%
68.90%
$1,157,651
$2,461,448
26,316.41
44,695.25
410,364.05
189,216.94
1,217,807.36
1,888,400.01
1.94%
3.47%
21.39%
10.91%
62.30%
1.39%
2.37%
21.73%
10.02%
64.49%
311
528
3,641
2,235
15,590
22,305
351
584
3,569
4,944
16,072
25,520
1.39%
2.37%
16.32%
10.02%
69.89%
1.38%
2.29%
13.99%
19.37%
62.98%
$7,129,241
$11,216,179
205,123.94
137,011.16
488,264.14
830,399.24
24.70%
16.50%
58.80%
24.70%
16.50%
58.80%
1,907
1,036
5,872
8,815
1,972
1,086
5,848
8,906
21.63%
11.75%
66.61%
22.14%
12.19%
65.66%
$3,394,247
$4,684,241
$21,939.71
73,501.05
$95,440.76
52
$172,752
County / City
Helena
Jacksonville
Lumber City
McRae
Milan
Scotland
Unincorporated Telfair
TERRELL
Bronwood
Dawson
Parrott
Sasser
Unincorporated Terrell
THOMAS
Barwick
Boston
Coolidge
Meigs
Ochlocknee
Pavo
Thomasville
Unincorporated Thomas
Various Fire Districts
TIFT
Omega
Tifton
Ty Ty
Unincorporated Tift
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$110,705.60
$19,253.15
$123,916.53
$283,471.87
$52,946.16
$21,506.18
$412,304.11
$1,024,103.59
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
217,556.45
$
11,114.25
$
117,563.46
$
252,930.85
$
54,495.33
$
24,237.96
$
434,338.71
$
1,112,237.01
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
13.199
13.199
13.199
13.199
13.199
13.199
13.199
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
3.6
0.000
4
8.5
6
1
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
0.000
0.000
10.000
10.396
6.000
3.000
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
14.800
14.800
14.800
14.800
14.800
5
7
0.000
0.000
7.000
8.112
5.000
0.000
$25,780.74
$277,184.56
$11,393.42
$17,464.37
$499,813.75
$831,636.85
$
$
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4.58
6.719
6.719
6.719
6.719
6.719
6.719
6.719
5.597
10.97
11.99
14.2
11.99
8.98
12.94
0.000
10.750
11.510
11.262
11.000
7.083
0.000
1.440
$16,284.94
$86,622.05
$37,824.96
$66,294.74
$36,496.75
$28,585.27
$2,459,430.85
$3,043,263.43
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,085.80
106,919.60
46,676.71
81,816.06
45,037.75
35,271.71
3,036,064.16
3,756,788.24
$5,774,803.00 $
7,128,660.03
$
$
$
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
10.81%
1.88%
12.10%
27.68%
5.17%
2.10%
40.26%
28,997.30
311,689.20
12,821.13
$19,628.82
562,048.10
935,184.55
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
19.56%
2,307
1.00%
118
10.57%
1,247
22.74%
2,682
4.90%
506
2.18%
240
39.05%
4,694
11,794
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
2,883
19.56%
17.47%
140
1.00%
0.85%
1,328
10.57%
8.05%
5,740
22.74%
34.79%
336
4.29%
2.04%
328
2.03%
1.99%
5,745
39.80%
34.82%
16,500
3.10%
33.33%
1.37%
2.10%
60.10%
3.10%
33.33%
1.37%
2.10%
60.10%
513
5,058
156
393
4,850
10,970
225
4,540
158
279
4,113
9,315
4.68%
46.11%
1.42%
3.58%
44.21%
2.42%
48.74%
1.70%
3.00%
44.15%
0.28%
1.50%
0.66%
1.15%
0.63%
0.50%
42.59%
52.70%
0.28%
1.50%
0.65%
1.15%
0.63%
0.49%
42.59%
52.70%
223
1,417
552
1,036
605
712
18,162
20,030
240
1,315
525
993
676
379
18,413
22,179
0.52%
3.32%
1.29%
2.42%
1.42%
1.67%
42.50%
46.87%
0.54%
2.94%
1.17%
2.22%
1.51%
0.85%
41.17%
49.60%
42,737
44,720
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$3,157,851
$5,311,845
$16,573,786
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,636,590
$6,362,103
$26,464,034
9.54
9.54
9.54
9.54
10.390
10.390
10.390
10.390
0.000
4.5
0.000
0.000
6.759
0.000
$183,108.16
$2,000,981.91
$98,458.16
$3,720,997.87
$6,003,546.09
$
$
$
$
$
256,928.06
2,807,806.50
138,138.06
5,221,337.98
8,424,210.60
3.05%
33.33%
1.64%
61.98%
3.05%
33.33%
1.64%
61.98%
1,327
15,060
716
21,304
38,407
1,209
16,350
725
21,834
40,118
3.46%
39.21%
1.86%
55.47%
3.01%
40.75%
1.81%
54.42%
7.35
2
4.000
5.228
2.890
0.000
4.486
$508,473.71
$0.00
$1,440,675.51
$1,440,675.51
$3,389,824.73
$
$
$
$
$
670,046.16
45,691.19
1,927,371.16
1,927,371.16
4,570,479.67
15.00%
0.00%
42.50%
42.50%
14.66%
1.00%
42.17%
42.17%
4,169
7.35
5.83
9.614
9.614
9.614
9.614
9,442
12,456
26,067
4,367
165
10,337
12,354
27,223
15.99%
0.00%
36.22%
47.78%
16.04%
0.61%
37.97%
45.38%
$6,733,125
$13,619,654
6
6
6
5.570
5.570
5.570
3
2.99
0.000
2.493
$112,765.06
$126,860.70
$1,169,937.54
$1,409,563.30
$
$
$
$
149,470.91
149,470.91
1,361,839.14
1,660,780.96
8.00%
9.00%
83.00%
9.00%
9.00%
82.00%
808
604
7,907
9,319
880
899
8,692
10,471
8.67%
6.48%
84.85%
8.40%
8.59%
83.01%
$4,728,134
$8,677,388
8.83
8.83
8.83
8.83
10.560
10.560
10.560
10.560
10.5
0.000
7.93
7.950
0.000
9.781
$
$
$
$
$
529,463.76
4,765,362.27
529,439.63
4,765,362.27
10,589,627.93
5.36%
46.09%
5.08%
43.47%
5.00%
45.00%
5.00%
45.00%
2,774
25,998
2,706
27,301
58,779
3,060
29,588
2,624
31,772
67,044
4.72%
44.23%
4.60%
46.45%
4.56%
44.13%
3.91%
47.39%
$21,953,563
$37,772,228
TREUTLEN
Soperton
Unincorporated Treutlen
$495,570.43
$4,261,350.99
$469,682.43
$4,019,113.21
$9,245,717.06
17.89
15.38
14.390
12.357
5.5
3.080
185,840.02
271,890.40
457,730.42
35.00%
65.00%
40.60%
59.40%
2,824
4,030
6,854
3,115
3,770
6,885
41.20%
58.80%
45.24%
54.76%
$2,603,668
$3,487,985
TURNER
Ashburn
Rebecca
Sycamore
unincorporated Turner
$126,429.97 $
$234,798.52 $
$361,228.49 $
13.61
13.61
13.61
13.61
16.019
16.019
16.019
16.019
9.5
7.5
9.5
11.000
7.984
11.500
$
$
$
$
$
242,556.28
26,939.92
44,899.30
583,984.98
898,380.48
40.75%
3.03%
6.22%
50.00%
27.00%
3.00%
5.00%
65.00%
4,419
246
496
4,343
9,504
4,152
187
711
3,880
8,930
46.50%
2.59%
5.22%
45.70%
46.49%
2.09%
7.96%
43.45%
$3,935,903
$6,894,246
TWIGGS
Danville
Jeffersonville
Unincorporated Twiggs
$340,495.43
$25,317.82
$51,972.55
$417,785.80
$835,571.60
13.01
13.01
11.57
16.600
16.600
16.600
0.000
9.5
0.000
0.000
$31,867.75
$159,338.76
$605,487.29
$796,693.80
$
$
$
$
27,273.80
136,411.90
518,368.81
682,054.51
4.00%
20.00%
76.00%
4.00%
20.00%
76.00%
168
1,209
9,213
10,590
209
1,035
7,779
9,023
1.59%
11.42%
87.00%
2.32%
11.47%
86.21%
$4,792,793
$6,546,889
4.8
4.8
4.930
4.930
2.85
2.000
$400,247.64 $
$1,600,990.56 $
$2,001,238.20 $
646,906.72
2,587,599.92
3,234,506.64
20.00%
80.00%
20.00%
80.00%
659
16,630
17,289
652
20,704
21,356
3.81%
96.19%
3.05%
96.95%
$7,630,825
$12,126,303
TOOMBS
Lyons
SANTA CLAUS
Vidalia
Unincorporated Toombs
TOWNS
Hiawassee
Young Harris
Unincorporated Towns
TROUP
Hogansville
LaGrange
West Point
Unincorporated Troup
UNION
Blairsville
Unincorporated Union
UNITED GOVERNMENT OF WEBSTER (unified government)
UPSON
53
$15,530,754
$29,029,427
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$397,899
$51,589
$568,682
$1,405,523
$187,694
$77,646
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$646,795
$32,033
$635,655
$2,143,671
$339,471
$72,600
$245,470
$2,007,974
$32,828
$49,216
$172,895
$2,628,829
$51,844
$85,479
$107,261
$470,886
$239,800
$521,166
$154,147
$317,410
$8,551,473
$130,950
$586,066
$410,078
$472,793
$185,815
$309,381
$13,482,056
$302,089
$7,465,254
$175,691
$697,383
$15,334,451
$262,188
$1,871,320
$10,107
$5,551,287
$2,116,159
$39,811
$7,753,793
$330,847
$107,850
$717,524
$296,535
$1,515,918
$15,802,608
$3,311,404
$19,981,410
$4,394,165
$963,974
$980,269
$2,542,765
$92,889
$291,953
$3,920,522
$110,048
$498,189
$101,342
$280,507
$472,835
$990,895
$326,210
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$1,317,301.35
$61,269.83
$1,684,920.34
$3,063,491.52
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
1,359,520.28
$
63,212.32
$
1,738,934.41
$
3,161,667.01
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
43.00%
2.00%
55.00%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
43.00%
9,411
2.00%
408
55.00%
17,778
27,597
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,183,172
$48,788
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,804,518
$552,668
$4,765,521
$3,843,734
$671,808
$1,624,598
$986,521
$5,232,226
$4,815,612
$874,439
$2,042,270
$2,814,531
$6,199,457
$1,199,388
$163,212
$6,667,531
$10,165,627
$2,915,503
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$8,438,903
$11,641,691
$30,042
$34,342
$839,663
$40,411
$61,936
$1,279,542
$239,304
$37,906
$102,795
$49,496
$10,552
$3,429,280
$735,497
$347,182
$57,483
$181,117
$102,859
$24,220
$4,510,556
$1,170,415
$3,639,086
$180,352
$242,343
$5,474,150
$236,585
$624,126
$308,317
$237,250
$730,246
$265,918
$1,301,806
$1,725,296
$1,795,716
$2,460,470
0.64%
32.29%
0.83%
1.70%
64.53%
$120,384
$18,969,081
$286,627
$112,278
$207,875
$27,164,954
26.79%
6.20%
3.59%
16.50%
46.92%
31.42%
5.65%
3.46%
12.69%
46.79%
$332,664
$195,487
$45,268
$614,208
$450,206
$185,815
$70,912
$791,767
1.30%
1.88%
County / City
Thomaston
Yatesville
Unincorporated Upson
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
12.720
12.720
12.720
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
4.63
0.000
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
3.620
0.000
WALKER
Chickamauga
Fort Oglethorpe
LaFayette
Lookout Mountain
Rossville
Unincorporated Walker
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.25
2.44
7.196
7.196
7.196
7.196
7.196
4.918
3.46
8.35
3.8
9.5
9
0.000
6.495
2.990
8.500
9.035
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
138,760.66
4,715.33
500,373.51
115,632.84
291,698.84
4,204,836.01
5,256,017.19
2.64%
0.09%
9.52%
2.20%
5.55%
80.00%
2.64%
0.09%
9.52%
2.20%
5.55%
80.00%
2,245
6,941
6,702
1,617
3,511
40,037
61,053
3,101
250
7,121
1,602
4,105
52,577
68,756
3.68%
11.37%
10.98%
2.65%
5.75%
65.58%
4.51%
0.36%
10.36%
2.33%
5.97%
76.47%
WALTON
Loganville
Monroe
Social Circle
Walnut Grove
Unincorporated Walton
$121,249.91
$4,040.13
$436,885.34
$101,186.98
$254,849.78
$3,672,848.58
$4,591,060.72
10.05
10.05
10.05
10.05
10.09
10.542
10.542
10.542
11.032
11.032
0.000
7.967
6.98
0.000
10.270
5.512
7.411
0.000
$393,958.83
$1,394,008.15
$393,958.83
$60,609.05
$3,818,370.16
$6,060,905.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
670,108.39
1,791,838.71
550,835.03
185,709.78
5,906,319.23
9,104,811.14
6.50%
23.00%
6.50%
1.00%
63.00%
7.36%
19.68%
6.05%
2.04%
64.87%
3,805
11,407
3,345
1,241
40,889
60,687
7,984
13,234
4,221
1,330
56,999
83,768
6.27%
18.80%
5.51%
2.04%
67.38%
9.53%
15.80%
5.04%
1.59%
68.04%
$21,489,286
$46,529,860
13.5
13.5
16.549
16.549
9.37
10.998
$2,496,290.81 $
$2,496,290.81 $
$4,992,581.62 $
3,167,503.10
3,431,472.23
6,598,975.33
50.00%
50.00%
48.00%
52.00%
15,333
20,150
35,483
14,640
21,672
36,312
43.21%
56.79%
40.32%
59.68%
$12,283,103
$20,839,605
3
3
3
3
12.250
12.250
12.250
12.250
4
3.25
12.42
5.753
3.250
14.223
$19,999.77
$24,285.44
$196,902.51
$354,043.58
$595,231.30
$
$
$
$
$
14,449.36
26,107.64
176,654.91
338,332.77
555,544.68
3.36%
4.08%
33.08%
59.48%
2.60%
4.70%
31.80%
60.90%
165
299
2,013
3,859
6,336
138
239
1,937
3,520
5,834
2.60%
4.72%
31.77%
60.91%
2.37%
4.10%
33.20%
60.34%
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
9.17
8.420
8.420
8.420
8.420
8.420
8.420
8.420
8.420
5
2
3.5
0.000
1
3
8
4.379
2.750
3.881
0.000
0.713
3.000
11.174
$58,577.50
$15,950.68
$59,677.55
$33,551.43
$11,550.49
$905,063.69
$223,309.55
$1,442,436.67
$2,750,117.57
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
67,414.43
18,352.24
68,693.28
38,613.93
13,284.58
1,042,068.93
257,105.66
1,660,818.78
3,166,351.83
2.13%
0.58%
2.17%
1.22%
0.42%
32.91%
8.12%
52.45%
2.13%
0.58%
2.17%
1.22%
0.42%
32.91%
8.12%
52.45%
1,544
132
509
280
124
6,144
1,505
10,938
21,176
2,010
131
489
252
96
5,912
1,539
10,758
21,187
7.29%
0.62%
2.40%
1.32%
0.59%
29.01%
7.11%
51.65%
9.49%
0.62%
2.31%
1.19%
0.45%
27.90%
7.26%
50.78%
12.48
12.48
12.48
12.18
12.970
12.970
12.970
12.970
4.91
3.358
5.865
5.374
5.117
4.968
$1,366,864.93 $
$48,933.11
$114,177.26
$1,732,232.17 $
$3,262,207.47 $
1,663,049.99
$59,520.22
$138,906.64
2,107,588.78
3,969,065.63
41.90%
1.50%
3.50%
53.10%
41.90%
1.50%
3.50%
53.10%
9,279
414
702
16,170
26,565
10,214
504
766
18,615
30,099
34.93%
1.56%
2.64%
60.87%
33.93%
1.67%
2.54%
61.85%
$11,714,552
$15,806,676
8.95
7.28
18.103
18.103
16.345
10
4
8.400
6.000
$
$
$
$
102,697.20
102,697.20
283,643.46
489,037.86
18.00%
18.00%
64.00%
21.00%
21.00%
58.00%
1,943
884
3,352
6,179
2,797
747
3,877
7,421
31.45%
14.31%
54.25%
37.69%
10.07%
52.24%
$1,476,561
$2,844,287
WHITE
Cleveland
Helen
Unincorporated White
$54,650.60
$54,650.60
$194,313.25
$303,614.46
4.48
4.48
4.48
9.190
9.190
9.190
4.298
4.98
3.475
4.900
$
$
$
$
655,090.34
655,090.34
1,965,265.78
3,275,446.46
20.00%
20.00%
60.00%
20.00%
20.00%
60.00%
1,907
430
17,607
19,944
3,410
510
23,224
27,144
9.56%
2.16%
88.28%
12.56%
1.88%
85.56%
$8,535,854
$16,836,356
WHITFIELD
Cohutta
Dalton
TUNNEL HILL
Varnell
Unicorporated Whitfield
$469,242.82
$469,242.82
$1,407,728.47
$2,346,214.12
3.29
3.29
0
3.29
2
5.061
5.061
5.061
5.061
5.061
0.000
4.907
0.00
0.000
0.000
2.875
0.000
2.404
$64,004.92
$2,638,500.58
$0.00
$43,407.59
$14,276,671.29
$17,022,584.37
$
$
$
$
$
$
63,232.93
2,512,083.15
109,178.51
134,761.99
14,006,393.38
16,825,649.96
0.38%
15.50%
0.00%
0.26%
83.87%
0.38%
14.93%
0.65%
0.80%
83.24%
1,491
53,540
83,525
661
33,128
856
1,744
66,210
102,599
0.70%
33.42%
0.00%
1.79%
64.10%
14
14
14
14
14
18.250
18.250
18.250
18.250
18.250
13
5.5
0.000
12
12.000
5.500
0.000
13.500
$75,217.13
$39,399.45
$17,908.84
$121,780.11
$103,871.27
$358,176.79
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,480.70
52,641.24
23,914.31
162,690.89
138,785.06
478,512.20
21.00%
11.00%
5.00%
34.00%
29.00%
21.00%
11.00%
5.00%
34.00%
29.00%
2,298
532
308
1,415
4,024
8,577
2,908
523
320
1,174
4,330
9,255
8.25
0.000
0.000
0.000
$7,939.49 $
9,399.47
0.70%
0.70%
139
199
WARE
Waycross
Unincorporated Ware
WARREN
Camak
NORWOOD
Warrenton
Unincorporated Warren
WASHINGTON
Davisboro
Deepstep
Harrison
Oconee
Riddleville
Sandersville
Tennille
Unincorporated Washington
WAYNE
Jesup
Odum
Screven
Unincorporated Wayne
WHEELER
Alamo
Glenwood
Unincorporated Wheeler
WILCOX
Abbeville
Pineview
Pitts
Rochelle
Unincorporated Wilcox
WILKES
Rayle
54
582
27,912
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
6,778
34.10%
24.96%
357
1.48%
1.31%
20,018
64.42%
73.72%
27,153
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
13.09
13.09
10.95
$10,042,460
$15,101,238
$1,966,248
$10,229,129
$2,650,917
$13,609,762
$23,791,865
$3,947,624
$12,000,643
$4,297,586
$11,837
$1,678,016
2000 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
8.25
8.25
7.32
2010 County Tax
Digest Mill Rates
8.500
0.000
8.445
WILKINSON
Allentown
Danville
Gordon
Irwinton
Ivey
McIntyre
Toomsboro
Unincorporated Wilkinson
10.41
10.41
10.41
10.41
10.41
10.41
10.41
10.41
WORTH
Poulan
Sumner
Sylvester
Warwick
Unincorporated Worth
10.55
10.55
10.55
10.55
10.55
County / City
Tignall
Washington
Unincorporated Wilkes
2000 City Digest
Mill Rates
5
10.5
2010 City Digest
Mill Rates
8.500
0.000
12.440
12.440
12.440
12.440
12.440
12.440
12.440
12.440
0.000
0.000
2.574
5.11
5.75
1.9
3.912
0.000
0.000
4.473
6.500
5.384
3.059
5.500
10.262
10.262
10.262
10.262
10.262
4.25
4
3.25
3.29
5.486
5.000
5.253
3.863
Amount of LOST
Distribution
Received in 2000
$55,576.44
$333,458.61
$737,238.42
$1,134,212.96
Amount of LOST
Distribution Received
in 2010
$
65,831.51
$
395,055.32
$
873,417.53
$
1,343,703.83
$18,021.73
$6,931.44
$437,928.06
$38,261.52
$95,653.80
$46,717.87
$35,766.20
$707,006.37
$1,386,287.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$67,556.39
$15,399.95
$443,111.82
$36,901.77
$889,855.70
$1,452,825.64
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
4.90%
29.40%
65.00%
Percent of
LOST
Distribution
2000
2010
Population
4.90%
653
29.40%
4,295
65.00%
5,600
10,687
2010
Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010
Population
Population
Population
546
6.11%
5.15%
4,134
40.19%
39.03%
5,714
52.40%
53.94%
10,593
$
23,020.05
8,847.78
559,632.81
48,875.04
122,249.97
59,691.04
45,689.70
$903,501.87
1,771,508.26
1.30%
0.50%
31.59%
2.76%
6.90%
3.37%
2.58%
51.00%
1.30%
0.50%
31.59%
2.76%
6.90%
3.37%
2.58%
51.00%
287
206
2,152
587
1,100
718
622
4,548
10,220
110
29
2,017
589
981
650
472
4,715
9,563
2.81%
2.02%
21.06%
5.74%
10.76%
7.03%
6.09%
44.50%
1.15%
0.30%
21.09%
6.16%
10.26%
6.80%
4.94%
49.30%
$
$
$
$
$
$
71,263.09
23,362.38
452,014.33
32,478.33
1,078,409.62
1,657,527.75
4.65%
1.06%
30.50%
2.54%
61.25%
4.30%
1.41%
27.27%
1.96%
65.06%
946
309
5,990
430
14,292
21,967
851
427
6,188
423
13,790
21,679
4.31%
1.41%
27.27%
1.96%
65.06%
3.93%
1.97%
28.54%
1.95%
63.61%
55
2000 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$4,132,066
$4,162,211
$6,672,559
2009 County
General Fund
Expenditures
$6,867,503
$7,305,577
$10,272,215
2000 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$164,975
$3,071,179
2009 City
General Fund
Expenditures
$204,295
$5,000,436
$24,266
$110,048
$1,244,871
$183,926
$315,725
$594,706
$104,192
$37,962
$101,342
$1,382,711
$254,540
$337,440
$1,244,342
$177,524
$199,108
$45,004
$2,124,348
$211,798
$1,049,818
$105,915
$4,292,809
$358,236