Rec eived MAY O:J 1986 DOCUMENTS UGA LIBRARIES GEORGIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT F I NANCE ~ 1985: AN OVERV I EW Georgia Depart me nt of Commun i t y Affair s Jim Higdon ~ Co mmis s io n e r Governmen t Inform atio n Div is ion 4 0 Mariett a Street A tlanta~ Georgia 3 030 3 J anua ry 15~ 1986 An Equal E~ployeent Opportunity Employer GEORG IA LOCAL GOVERNM ENT F I NANCE PROG RA M -- P RO J ECT S TA FF - - Project Coordination~ Research Analysis, Data Base Management Depart me nt o f Co mm u ni t y Aff a ir s, Gove r n me nt In f orm ati on Di vi s ion Reporting, Lynn T ho r n t on ~ As s is t an t Com mi s si on e r Win fr ed Ow en s ~ Assi s t a nt Di v i s io n Di r e ctor Paul W. Lycett, S e n i o r Ana l ys t/ Co mp u te r Ap- pli c ation s Speci a li s t Data Collection and Local Government Coordination Dep a rt me n t of Co mmu nity A f+ a i r s ~ Te chnica l As s i s tanc e Di vi s ion Ke n Co o k ~ Ass is tan t Co mm i ssi o n er Mi k e She rberg er~ Assis t ant Di vision Director William A. Huffm ast e r , Lo c al Go ve r n me n t F inancial Sp eci al i st Computer Programming and Data Processing Un i v e rsit y of Georgia, In s ti tut e of Community and Area De v elopm ent Dr. Joseph Whorton , Director Jim Feldt, Policy a nd Decision Analyst Carl Vinson Institute of Go vernment Patty Glynn, Research Anal yst Robert Sellers, Operations Re search Ass ociate ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Th e . D e p a ~ t m e n t of Communit y A ff ai ~ s g r atefu l ly ac - k n o wled ges t he cooper a ti o n of c it y a nd count y o f fi c i al s in comple ting a n d r e tur n in g t he s u~vey f o r ms f r o m whi ch t h e da ta in t h i s ~e por ts wer e d e~i v ed. The De pa r t me nt a lso ex presses i t s a pp~ecia tio n t o th e fo l l o wing o rga n- i z a ti o ns a n d a ge ncies . wh ich co ntr ibuted t o t h e r e por t de sig n~ or t o t he co l l e c t i o n, a na l ys is ~ a n d p ro c e s sin g o f t he f in an ci al d a t a . Ar ea Plann ing a nd De ve lo p me n t Co mmi ss i o n s Ass o c i a t io n Co un t y Commissioners o f Geo rgi a Bu r e au o f the Ce n s us ~ U. S. De p a r t me n t of Commer c e Carl Vin s on In sti tu te of Government~ Unive r sity o f Georgia Georgi a Department of Audit s Ge o r g i a Dep artm ent of Educ ation Georgi a De partment of Education Georgia Dep artmen t of Human Resource s Georgia Dep artment of Revenue Georgia Municipal Association Georgia Societ y of Certified Public Ac c o u n t a n t s Office o f Revenue Sharing, u.S. Department o f th e Treasur y TABLE OF CONTENTS Finance ' 8 5 1 Reader ' s Guide 3 Highlights. County Government Finances . 9 Municipal Government Finances 27 Appendi x A: Dat a Categories 45 Appendi x B: Local Government Financ i al Dat a 51 Appendi x C: Percentage Comparisons of County and Municipal Revenue~ Expenditure~ Debt and Asset Items. Appendi x D: Counties Included in Survey Results. Appendix E: Mun icipali ties Included in Survey Results . 59 FINANCE ~85 No a spect of lo cal government causes mor e problems for local government officials than does local government f i n a n c e . The v e r y mention of finance in a county commi s sion or a cit y council meeting is certain t o res u l t in a cl a sh of opinions and wills. Information contained in this report is not p v- pected to solve the finance problems that confront lo- c al government officials. Nor will it reduce the amount of contention that might res ult from the mention of the word finance in a commission or council meeting . It is hoped~ however~ that Georgia Local Government Fi- nances, 1985: An Overview~ will help local government leaders understand and cope with the fiscal issues that e>: 1 st. As late as 1979~ Georgia was one of just three states with no laws requiring counties and cities to conduct audits or prepare financial reports. In 1980~ the Georgia General Assembly enacted the Local Govern- ment Financial Management Standards Act (Act 1405~ Georgia Law s 1980~ as amended) placing financial manag ement requirements on localities and requiring the Department of Community Affairs to prepare an annual report on loc al government finances. This, the fourth annual report, was presented to the Go vernor, the Sp eaker of the House of Representatives~ and the Presi- dent of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor ) by January 15~ 1985~ in conformance with provisions of Ac t 140 5. The information used to prepare Georgia Local Government Finances, 1985: An Overview, was collected through a comprehensive survey of every county and city <;.Iovernment. in the state. Onl y general ptrr o o se local governments are surveyed. Excluded are such entities as school boards and most special districts or authorities. The survey is the product of a coopera- tive agreement between the State of Georgia and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Survey results are provided to the Census Bureau for its nationwide reports on lo- cal government, and to the U.S. Department of the Treasury~ Office of Revenue Sharing. The Treasury uses the data to assist in establish annual levels of Revenue Sharing funding to local governments during the following fiscal year. The survey obtained data for each government's most recent fiscal year~ end i ng beb-H:.' en Jul y 1 ~ 1984 E(r, d J ur, (~ 30, 1 Ci'8 5. Th us the data r eported doe s not 1 c o nfo~m t o a nyo ne s peci f ic 12-month c a l e n da~ p e ~iod o ~ fi sc a l y ea ~ , as l ocal g o v e ~ n m e n t s hav e v a~ yin g f isc a l yea ~ s _ Ad ditio na l l y , s u~ vey ~ espon s e s a ~e n o t a ud i t e d ~ e p o ~ t 5~ ne cess i tati n g a d e g~ee of c a u t i o n i n th e a na l y s i s a n d inte ~p~ etat io n o f t he ~ e sult s. A l s o~ l o - c al q ov e ~nments us e di ff e~ en t budge t i n g syst em s . C o nse q ue n t ly ~ ce~tain da t a ~ e q u e sted i n t he su~vey ma y n ot be .o b t a i n a b I e f ~ o m ev e l- y go ver-n me nt >:; Lo ca l a c- co u n t s a n d ~ e c o ~d s . This ye a ~ , a e i n p ast y e a ~ s , th e ~esp o nse o f count y a nd cit y o ff icials was o ut st an d ing. Al l 1 5 9 c o u nty gove~ n me n ts co mp lete d and ~ e t u ~ ned thei~ s urvey fo~ms. Th e Co l u mb us - Mus c og e e Count y con solidat e d gove ~nm en t is clas s i fi ed a s a c i t y, howev e ~, i n k eepin g wi th wi th Ce nsus Bu~ e au classifications. F o~ th at r e a s on, fo~ th e pu~po s e of the Local Gov ernment Finance P~oj e c t , Co l u mb u s - Mus c o g e e is c ounted a s a cit y g over n men t . Of the 5 34 municipalities sent s u ~ v e y f orms , 4 91 completed surveys and are included in thi s a na lysis . Ev e~ y city with a population of ove~ 2,100 i s i nc l u d e d , In Septembe~ of 1985 the Dep a~t men t o f Commu n ity Af fair s p ublish e d a collect ion of p ubl i c ations ent i t le d th e 198~ Ge o r- q~ Lo c a l Gover nm en t Fi na.nce s : [ i SCi:u:" F' J.anr'!..:.~.9. Gui de . The !3u id e h as compa~ativ e d a t a us eful fo~ l o ca l bu dgeting, w h a t eve ~ the size of the jLw i s d ic tion. S i rn i l a ~ in content t o t he 1 9 84 F i__scal F'l a r~Q~D.~ G u id~, the 1(78 5 Guide diffe~s i n th at a s e p - a~ a t e ~ ep o~t was prep a~ed for each ind ivid u al c o u nty and mun icip al po pul ation g r o u p . The ~ epo~ts not onl y p~ e s en t t he f i na n c i a l data fo~ the membe~s of the g~oup bu t a l so for t h e county and municipal t otals a s well. Th e ~ ep o ~t s are available upon request fr om th e D ep a~t rn en t of Co mmu n it y Affairs. Up on r e q cre s t , local and state agencie s a~e a f forded a c c ess t o the data base of local f isc al in fo~ma tion maintain ed by the DCA, allowin g oth e~wise unpublish ed d at a to be made available. Da t a fo ~ i nd iv i d u a l j u ~ i s d i c t i o n s i s ~el e a s ed onl y wit h c e r t a i n r est r i cti ons, includ ing n o t i f i c a t i o n o f ea ch l o c ali t y u p o n ~el ease of i t s d at a to othe~ th a n g o ve ~ nment u s e r s . READER'S GUIDE TO GEORGIA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES~ 1985: AN OVERVIEW A book f u l l of numb e r s u suall y will n o t ma ke fo r e asy rea di ng . Rea l iz i n g t h is , e v e r y e f fo r t wa s made t o make t h is r e p ort a s presentable as p o s sibl e f or t he p eopl e who wi l l b e interes ted in local g ov ernment f in an c e. Fo r th at reaso n , eac h chapt er in thi s rep or t wa s wri t t en s o th a t i t could b e read a l o ne with out r e ad in g th e contents of ot h er chap ter s. For a br i e f look a t the overall picture o f l ocal g overnme nt f inan c e in 19 85 , the Highlights ch a pt e r i s t h e o ne to r e ad. Highlights shows the import ant dif- f eren ces in re v enu e sources~ expenditure patt erns, and borr oNing p r ac t i ces . It is clear from a readin g o f thi s c hap t e r th at any p articular state-level action co ncer n i ng l o c a l fin ance, such as a ma nd at ed lo c al f u nct i o n , i s likel y to aff ect counties and mun ici - pal i t i e s very d if fe ren t ly . T he two mo st i mp o r ta n t chapters o f t he report, the backb one o f t h e report, are County Government Finances and Municipal Government Finances. Both chapte r s ar e i d e n t i c a l in s t r u c tur e . Major topics o f thes e c hap ters, in order, are : Gener al Revenue s Utilit y S ystem Revenues Gene r a l Expenditures Utility System Expenditures Debt Ca sh and In vestment Asset s Gr aphic s th at accompan y each secti on show th e v~hol e "pi e ", s.u c h a s generc<.l revenue s. Th e sec t i o ll then takes a closer look at each component of the pie, pull in g e ach s li c e o u t to examine it in detail, as pullin g th e l oc al t a x s l i ce out of the general r e venues p i f~ . Appendix A d etails what c o mp r i s e s a c e r t a i n cat e- gory. The c at eg ories and s u b - c a t e g o r ies of da t a c ol- l ect ed fr om c o u n t ie s and citi e s are listed. The a c t ua l financial data for counties, munici - p allt e s a n d tot al local government i s presen t ed i n Ap- pendix B. "T"', e data presented i n t h i s r-er) ort i s p ~ e l i ol i l-la ~y (j a "ta i s s L,bje c t to char1ge irl ttl e fljtl~~ e as 3 da t a in more thoroughl y e xami ned and r efined. Append i x C contains a ta b le si mi la r t o Ap p e n d ix B with perc ent ag e c om p ari sons for c oun t ie s a n d municip al i ti es. Although this d a t a is contai ned elsewhere in d i f f erent sec tio ns of t h e r epor t ~ the re ader can use t h is t ab le t o mo re eas il y mak e comp arisons of county and mu n i~ipal r e v en u e sources~ o r e xpen d iture or de bt items. The lis t s o f the coun tie s a n d mu nicipalities re- s p o n d i n g to the 1985 Surv e y o f Loc al Go vernment are presen ted in Append ices D a nd E . Population figures pro vided are Jul y 1~ 1982 estimates f r o m the Bureau of the Census. 4 HIGHLIGHTS Thi s chapt e~ pr e sent s a cursor y e x amin ation of th e major hi ghl i gh t s o f t he find in g s of th e 19 8 5 loc al g o v e rnment fin an ce s u ~vey ~ pointing out th e import ant t~ en d s a n d co n t~asts o f t he d a t a. F o~ a m o ~ e d etail ed an 3 1 ys.i ~:. . o f th ('? d ,3.t c:i see t hE> ch a.pte r-s on C D U r \ t y and mu n i cip al f in an c e s a nd t he appendix on t he c omp a~isons of co u nty a n d mun icip al d at a. General Reve nues * G eo~ g i a ' s Io c 3l go ve ~ n me n ts rep ort ed re venue s of $3 .6 bill ion in F Y 1985 f ~om all source s . Gen eral ~ev e n ue s ~ excluding ~ evenues from u t i l i t y systems ~ amount ed to a repo~ted $2.4 billion . Utility revenues amounted to a ~ epo rt ed $ 1 . 2 billion . * P~op e~t y t a xe s a ~e a ga i n the large st reported s o u ~ c e of loc al go v e r n me n t rev enues~ a lthough co l l e c t ions decreased b y 1% to $792 mil lion from $ 8 0 0 million in F Y 1984. Real and pers o n a l prop erty t axes account for much o f the d e cr ea se, with co l lec t i o n s of $63 3 million~ $ 7 million l e s s than the amount r eported in FY 1984. * Propert y tax e s a r e not as important to munici - p alitie s a s th ey are t o counties . For munici - pal itie s ~ p rop ert y taxe s account fo~ 19% of g ener al r evenue s. Counties~ however~ receive 44% of their general re venu es fr om the proper t y' t a;.: . * Local op tion sa les tax collections were reported b y 125 countie s and 334 municipali ti e s . The loca l option tax accounted for 12% of count y and 16% of municipal general r e \/ enl.l t~ ~:~ " * The local op tion sales tax has b e e n the f astest growing local revenue source. Amount ing to a tot al of $ 323 million~ the local op tion tax h a s in creased by $66 million in each o f the l a st two r ep orting period s. Amounting to a r epo rt ed 9 % of c o mb i n e d g en er al revenu es in F Y 1 9 8 3~ th e local option ta x amounted to a rep orted 13 % in the past year. * Th e i ns u ra n c e p r e miu ms t a x, a l i n e i t e m o f t h e sa les, e x c ise , a n d special use t a x e s categor y, p r o ved t o be t he s i ng le f a ste s t g rowi n g r e v enue s o ur ce in t e rms of p ercen t ag e g r o wt h fo r c o u nt ies . Du e to a c ha n ge in s t a t e l aw, th e i ns ur a nc e pr em i ums ta x, amount in g to $ 9 mi l l i on in F Y 19 84, g r ew at a r e p or t e d ra t e of 20 8 % to $ 3 3 mi l lion i n FY 19 8 5. * Af t e r two year s of decli ne , F e d e r a l f u n ds to G eor ~ ia ' s lo c a l g ove rn men t s s ho wed a n a l mos t 13 % i n cr e ase f r o m FY 19 8 4. State i nter- government al f u nd s t o l oc alit i es s h owed a s li g h t ly hi gh er re po rte d g ro wt h rat e, 14% , f o r th e year . General Expenditures * Loca l gove rnment g e ner al e xpenditures, n o n - utilit y s y stem s pendi n g , t o ta ll e d $2 . 4 b il l ion fo r t he yea r, a n inc r ease o f 8 % o v e r th e previ o u s y ea r . Lin e it e ms r e c e i vin g the ma jor ity o f t h e s pen d i ng were p ub l ic s a fe t y, $570 milli on; ad mi nistrati o n, $ 4 45 million; h ealth and hum an s e r v i c e s , $3 19 milli on; a n d highway s, s t r e e t s a n d dra i n age , $283 million. * Sign if ic a nt s p e n d i n g i n c r ease s included mu ni c i pal c our t s , up 38% ; co un ty a d mi n is t r a - tion an d lei sur e serv i ce s , b ot h up 30%; c ounty pub li c works , up 2 2%; c ou n ty publ ic s af e t y , up 16%; a n d mun ici p a l a d mi n ist r a t io n up 1 5 %. * Sign i f i c a nt spen di n g dec re a s e s included mun icipal h e alth and hum an ser v i ces, down 2 3%; a nd munic i pal e d u c a t i o n (n on-s chool b o a r d e x p e nd i t u r es ), dow n 2 6 %. Utilities * Wa ter and s e we r sy s t e ms con tin u ed as the dom in an t l o c al g ove r n me n t utilit y with repor t ed r e ven u e s of $ 504 million and e xpendi t ures o f $ 459 milli on. Combined r evenues incr e a s e d b y 17% o ver t h e prev ious ye ar and e xpe n di tur e s i n c re ase d b y 20 %. ~ Uti lities can b e a s i g n i f i c a n t re v en ue s o u r ce fo r mu n i ci pa l i t i es . El e ctri c s y s t e m r even ue s t o t a l l ed $3 23 mi l l io n a n d g as s y s t e m re ven ues 6 totalled $247 million. Electric systems could claim net revenues~ an exces s of revenues over e x p e n d i t u r es ~ of $5 2 million and gas s y s t e ms could claim net revenues of $ 35 million. County electric s ys t e ms an d county gas s y s t e ms are r ar e ~ onl y one of e ach s y s t e m was reported. * Municip a l wat e r a n d sew er system s mo v ed back a h ead of electri c s y s t ems as the number one mu n i c i p al ut i l i ty rev enue s o ur ce . Municipal water r e ven ues inc r eased by 17% o ver the y e a r whil e e le c tr ic r ev enu e s increa sed by 8% . Debt * Local governments reported outstanding debt of $2.5 billion at the end of the fiscal year~ a s l i g h t increase of 3 % o ver the amount reported at the end of the pr e vi ous year. The majority of t h i s debt~ 7 5 % or $ 1 . 8 billion~ is in the form of revenue bonds. The Cit y of Atlanta alone is resp on sible for $991 million or 40% of the local government debt outstanding in the state. * Local qov ernments report ed issuing new debt during the fiscal year of 544 6 mi l l i o n . Each of the past two years has seen an increase in the amount of debt issued from $119 million in FY 198 3 to 5 310 million in FY 1984. Thirty- two percent or $141 million of the new debt incurred was borrowed for county and municipal water and sewer systems. * Counties a n d municipalities have different borrowing patterns. Counties reported a higher percentage of their new debt being issued in the form of s h o r t - t e r m debt~ 55% as opposed to 15% for municipalities~ while municipalities i s sued a t,igher percentage of their debt as revenue bonds~ 68% to 28% for counties. Cash and Investment Assets * Local g o ve r n me n t s r eport ed co mb i n ed cash and investment asset s of s l i g h t ly less th an $2 billion at th e end of the fi sc al y e a r . 7 Counti e s r ep ort e d a sset s of $ 7 18 million and mun ic ipalities reported a s s ets of $1 . 3 b i l li o n . The c omb ined tot al rep ort ed wa s 15% ove r the a mo u n t r eport ed a t the e n d of th e pr e vious ye ar. The Cit y o f Atl an t a alone can claim 4 5% of th e c a sh a n d inve s tm e nts a s sets rep o r t e d b y muni c ip aliti e s . 8 COUNTY GOVERNMENT FINANCES In fi scal ye a r 1 9 85~ Geor gi a ' s c o u n t ies rai sed $ 1. 5 42 billion from all revenue s o u r c e s. Count y spending for o t her th an deb t serv ic e t ot all ed $1.467 billion. The amount of n ew deb t in curred far ex c e e d e d the a mo u n t of de bt I'- eti n~cl b y ~;;; ~7'=;) m i Ll Lori , \."Ihil t:~ . the a ino u n t of interest p aid on t he debt o utstan d i n g equ aled $ 53 mi 11 i OI"I. O verall~ c o u nty r ev enu e s incr e ased by 14 X in FY 19 85 ~ rising f r o m a r e p orted $ 1 .35 5 b illion in FY 1984. Exp e n d i t u r e s inc r ea s ed b y 15 . 1 X ~ f r o m a b as e o f $1 .274 in F Y 1984 .. Flow of County Finances GeneraloS" REVENUES ~ DD 0 .~62 B DO 0 0 0 .. eO M , L=:::::..~~~~~~ Utility Ceneral EXPENDITURES Utility COUNTY REVENUE County revenue con si st s o f two parts: general r evenues and utilit y revenues. The two are e xamined s e p a r a t e l y because proc eed s from u t i l i t y operation s~ although a part of t ot al c o u n t y funds~ are typically r estr icted to use with in util i t y ope rations~ and thu s ar e unavailable for other fi s c al p ur pose s . COUNTY REVENUES Utility Revenues $18? HUllon Other Revenues $234 Million 15.2% Property Taxes $ 59 3 Ht.Ll.Lcn Int er gov ernm ent al $311 HUllon Sa le s , Exc i s e, S pec i a l Use $22 4 HUllo n GENERAL REVENUES The p~imar y l eading cou nt y revenue s ou ~ c e is the p ~ope~ty ta x, a c co u n t i ng fo ~ 3 8 % o f total county income , down however f ~om 41 % of total count y i n come in t he l a s t f isca l year . Rep orte d p r op e~t y taxe s were $593 mi l l .i o n i n F Y 1 9 8 5 . an i nc ~e a se o f $2 5 mi l l io n o ve l~ 1984 . A CLOSER LOOK AT PROPERTY TAXES 15.2% 29 .9% Re al & Per s on al Property Tax e s S~60 Hillion Hator Veh i c l e S5 0 Hill ion Pu blic Utilit i e s Ta xe s $~ 1 Hil lio n 1.0% <, 'rax Co llect i o n Fees 1. 5% S16 Hill i on I Ot her Pro pe r ty Tax es S2 5 HUlion Real and pe~ son al p rop e~t y t a x e s account fo~ 7 8 % of all county prope~t y t a x coll ecti on s, the sam e pe~ centC?:1.ge a 0::. in the lc.~ st fi s.ccd y e c<. ~- ~ and 2 7 1. of total counity ~evenue s. In th !? l a st fiscal y e a ~ , hO\.-l ever ~e cd and pe~sonal p~operty t a x coll e c tion s accounted for 3 31. of total revenues. O v e~ the year~ ~eal a n d pe~sonal p~op e~ty t a x collectio n s in c~ eas ed by 3 . 9% . Due to the incr eased importance of the l oc al o ption sal e s tax , the ~a te of g~owth o f ~ e al a nd p ersonal p r o p e r t y ta x col- lection s ha s g ~own at a decreas ing r a t e. F~om 1982 to 198 3~ th e ~ a te of gro wth wa s 6. 0 %; f~ om 198 3 to 1984, 5.8 %; and f ~ om 1984 t o 19 8 5 , 3. 8 %. Th i s s e ri e s of smal l e r in c ~eases i s d ue i n l a ~ g e pa~t t o the p~ope~t y t a ;: ' II ~ 0 I I b a c k s II i n t Ii 0 s e c 0 u n t i e ~':, im p I e me n t in CJ tile 1 % loca l option s a l e s tax. Int.er- go v E~~nment al ~ e ve n u e5. t hose f u nd s f r-orn othel~ th a n l o c al S[.Ju~ces, ~e mained th e ru.unb e-r t~'IO S:O U I~C:[:? of 10 A CLOSER LOOK AT INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 15. 2% 11.7% Oth er Local $8 M11110n<, ::c::::::::::::::::===-- 0 .5% Fedeca1 $91 Million State $212 Million county revenues. Revenues from stat e , feder al, and other local governments added $311 million to count y c of f e r s , an i n c rea s e o f 8% over the p r e v i o u s year. Last year's Overview, however, s h o wed th a t intergover nmental revenue s declin e d b y s l ig ht ly o ver 1% from FY 1983 to FY 1984 for coun ti es. The fo l lo wi n g t a b l e su mmari zes the changes in in ter go v ernm ental re venues o ver t he past two fiscal years. Plmount Net Change Total Sta-te Total Federal Total Other Local F Y83-F Y84 -$4 mill i on - 1 . 5 1. +$15 million -$ 20 mi 11 i ori No ch ange O~84-FY8 ~ -$ 2 3 mi. 11 i on 7.7i: +$1 7 million +-$5 mi 11 ion +$1 million State intergovernmental funds continue to be a more important portion of the c o u n t y revenue pie. Wh ile federal fund s continued to d e cr e a s e as a pe rcent- a g e of total intergovernment al f unds, state funds r emained as 681. of intergovernmental funds, the same pel--cf2ntage as the previous y e a r' . Since 198::, a s last year' s Overview report showed, fed er al funds as a per- centage of total count y intergovernmental revenues have d e clined from 421. to 29%. Th e a mo u n t of federal funds, however, have inc reased fro m $86 million to $90 million. State funds increased fr om $195 million to $211 million since 1982. The largest categorical revenues from other g o vernments were state health g r an t s, $ 140 million; 11 f ed eral revenue sharing~ $67 million; state road a n d b rid ge funds, $21 million; oth er s t a t e intergov ernmental fu'lds, $18 mill ion; a n d o t h e r- fed f';;l~ al fur-ids ar,d f ederal communit y development bl oc k gr ant funds, $ 10 mi L l Lori e ac h. A CLOSER LOOK AT SALES, EXCISE AND SPECIAL USE TAXES 15.2% 20.2% 10.4% Local Option Sa les All Other..__ 0.5% 1.9% $ 1 60 Million $9 Hillion 1.7% -------- In su~anc e Premiums Tax $29 Million Alcoholic Beverage Tax $26 Hillion Although sales, ex c i s e and sp ecial use taxes s h o we d growth as a percentage of total count y rev enue s, th e y remained as the third largest sourc e of tot al county revenues. In FY 1984 , sales, e xci se and special use taxes amounted to 12.7% of to tal count y revenues. In the past year, the perc entage increased to 14 .5%. Local option sales taxes are th e major par t of t h e category of sales, e xcise and speci al use tax e s. In th e past fiscal year, sales, e :-:ci se., and =,pecial us e t a xes contributed $224 million to total count y r e venues. The rate of incr ease i n t h is category was siqnificant. In 1984 sales, e x c i s e , a n d special use t a x e s amounted to $174 million, which ex c l u d e s the proce eds from the MARTA sales ta x collected in DeKalb a n d Fulton Counties. From 1984 to 1985, th e rate of increase was 29 %. Thi s growth wa s caused primarily by increased collections in loc al opt ion sales taxes from $1 3 0 million in 1984 to $16 0 million i n 1985. Although the number of counti e =:., 1 25, r ep ortin r;] c o l l e c t i o n s from the local op t i o n sales tax did n ot 12 vary f r om 1984 to 1 9 8 5, in 19 8 5 Fu lt o n Coun ty c o l lected th e tax fo r the fir s t t ime for a n entire year . A l a r g e portion of t h e inc r ease in the local op tion s a l e s tax co ll ection s c an b e a t t ri b uted t o this fact. F u l t o n Co u nty repo r t ed c o l l e c t io ns o f $26 mi ll ion in t he p a st y e a r , a l a r g e port i o n of th e 530 mi ll io n i nc rea se . Although not con sidered as a part of c ount y general reven ues , t h e loc a l option sa les tax c o l lect ed i n Fult on a n d De Kalb Counti e s f or th e MARTA s yste m de ser ves a c urso r y e x amin ation. In FY 1 9 84 t h e t wo countie s r e p or t ed c oll e ct io n s of $ 11 7 million . In t h e p ast fis cal year, the reported collections t o t a l l e d $13 1 mil l ion, a n i nc r e a s e of 11 %. A r efin em ent o f th e s u r vey q uesti o n na ir e pr o v id e d d a t a wh ich was n ot av ail able i n t h e p revi o u s years on the dedi c a t e d sal e s t a x which is being col l e c ted in two c o un t i e s for speci al purposes. Spa ld i ng and Union Count ies repo rted total collections of $ 4 mill i o n f ro m a 1% l o cal option sales tax . Al coho lic be vera g e t a xes amounte d to $26 mi l lion i n 1985 , t h e sam e amoun t a s i n th e previou s year. Th e co l lectio ns of county insuranc e p r em i ums t a xe s, h owe v er , exper ienc e d a larg e increas e. From a l e v el of $9 mil lion i n 1984 t h e proceeds fr o m this tax i ncreased to 529 mi l li o n in 1 98 5 , ma k in g it the l a rgest growing county revenue source in th e year i n terms o f p erc e n tage g r o wt h. The incr ease in the insuranc e p re mi u ms tax can b e attribut ed to a change in t he law in 19 84 whi ch a l lowe d counti e s to levy the t ax o n prop e r t y a nd casual t y p o l ici e s a s well as o n lif e insu r a nc e po licies . The top thr e e county reve n u e sour ces - - propert y t axes , sales, e xcise, and s p ec ia l use tax es , a n d in t e r - gov e rnme ntal reven ues -- equaled 73% o f tot al c oun t y revenue . In t h e fiscal y e a r , t h e t hr ee g ained $ 98 mi llio n , a n i nc re a se of 9% o ve r the pr e vio us year . Other additional types of count y rev enue s inc r e a s e d o v er t h e p ast fisc al yea r . Us e o f mon e y a nd pr o perty re v enue gre w f r o m $4 2 mi l li o n i n FY 1 9 8 4 to $60 mi ll io n , a n in crea se o f 4 1%. This i n creas e can be at t r ibu t ed t o three factors: inc r eas e s o f $1 2 mi ll ion fr om inve stmen t e arning s; receipt s f r o m sa le s o f r e al property , up 73 %; a n d r eceipt s f r om s a les o f ma t e ri a l s and equip ment , up 34%. Reve nues t h a t s ho we d app re cia b l e losses were ra ilr o a d e qu i p me nt t axes, - 25 %, mob il e h om e t a x e s, - 14% ; i rlt an gib le t a x e s , -7% o r $1 mi l lio n ; an d, mo st n o t a bl y, fin es, for feit ures , and courts fees, -8% or $5 mil lion . A CLOSER LOO K AT SOME OTHER IMPORTANT COUNTY REVENUES Business Licenses $ 1 5 Hi l lion " " Carbage & Trash Cha rges $21 IH Uion - 1.0% 1.4% Other Rev enues $85 Hil lio n f i n e s, Forfei ts , & Fee s $64 Hillion Change in Selected County General Revenues 1984 to 1985 (Amounts and Percentages Rounded> To t a l General Revenues +$ 149 Mil lion +1 2. 3 :/: ~~:evenue So ur"c e t'1 i 1 1 i on ($) Loc al Opt i on Sal e s Ta x +30 I ns ura nc e P re mi u ms Tax 19 Re al & Pe rso n a l Proper ty Tax 17 Stat e I nterg o ver nmenta l 17 In t er e s t Earn ing s 12 Fee Co l lect i o n s Co un t y Of fice r s -::- Bui l d inq Pe r mi ts ..::. Re c e ip t s Sal e of Materials 1 Landfill Fees 1 Receipts Sale Rea l Property 1 Ambulance Charges 1 Rail road Equipment Charg es ( (J ) Mobile Home Ta xes (I ) F ines, Forfeitures & Fees (5 ) +23 :/: 208 4 9 34 27 .-_::r- 0..'.;:r- :::A 26 73 ".::.'0 - " c "'::'~I -1 '1 -8 14 Utility Revenues Count y utilit y sy s te ms c an include water a n d s ew er systems ; ele c tric s y s t e ms ; n a tu ral g a s sy s te ms ; air p o rts; and t rans i t sys tems . A CLOSER LOOK AT COUNTY UTILITY REVENUES Ot h er Utilities __ 1 0% $15 Mill ion . ~at er & S ewer $165 Million Utilit y s ystems are not the major source o f re ve n ues for countie s a s th~y are for municipaliti e s . The f ollowi ng chart outlines the n umber of count i e s repor ting rev enues fr om e ach o f the different t ypes of uti l i t i e s . Number of Utility Systems: FY 1985 Utilit y Number Reportin g Water and Sewer ~1 Electric 1 Ga s 1 Airports 14 Public Transit 6 Utility revenues~ which are not part of g e n e r al revenues~ amount to 12Z of total county revenues~ a t o t a l of 5180 million in FY 1985. Water and sewe r s y s tems are the predominant count y utility~ accounting f or p roceed s of $165 million in t h e past ye a r~ 92 Z of a ll cou nty utility revenues. Othe r county utilities~ mo s t n ot a b l y electric systems ( $ 1 1 million) and airports ($ 3 million)~ totalled 515 million. Ove rall. county utility revenue s~ as summarized in th e following chart, increased by 26% or $37 million o ver the past y e a r . Th e p e rc ent a g e incr ease wa s the 15 sa me a s that r eport ed from F Y 1 8 93 t o FY 1984. How - e v e r , o n e factor that s h o u l d b e considered is that th e one cou n ty electric syst em that was reported th is year was n o t r epor te d in a ny of t he pr eviou s ye ar s of th e L o c al Go ver nme n t Fi n a nc e Pro j e ct. Ga s sys t em rev enue s i nc reased b y 10 % and airp or t revenues increased b y 22% . Al t houg h o n ly a s ma l l net c h a n ge (- $1 3, 0 00) tran si t s y st em rev e nues d e cr e a sed b y - 2 8%. Change in County Utility Revenues 1984 to 1985 Total Utili t y Re v enu e s + -$3 7 "1i 1 1 i em Utility l\later and Se"lel~ El ect r i c Gas Ai r p o r ts Public Transit 1'1i I I i on ($ ) +25 11 o 1 - - (> ;. 18~<' (1 10 27 -28 COUNTY EXPENDITURES County e xp enditur es c o nsi s t o f general e xpendi tur es a n d utility e xp end itures. Debt s e r v i c e , the payment of both principa l and interest on borrowed money, is not consid ered as an e xpenditure for the purposes of thi s s e c t i o n of the report but is addressed in the Co u n ty Debt S e ction o f th i s chapter. COUNTY EXPENDITURES Public \lorks $44 Hillion Leisure Services $67 Hillion Other $45 Hillion Utilities \ Admlnls~ratlon $160 HUlion 3 .1% $239 Hillion 3 0% ~---,+r---_ 16.3% 7.0% :~~~l iIlI JIm~;;~~\)If1 TI1.[l l lIlI-l il p~U bl l 'l1YC Health/Human Services SaC ety $308 Hillion 1.3% $284 Hillion High\Jays Housin g -------- $200 Hllllon $19 Hlll10n 1b Expen ditures for genera l p urpos es wer e 89% of to- ta l expenditures whi le uti lity ex pen d itures accoun ted for t he rem ain ing 11% . I n FY 19 8 4 gene ral expenditure s accounted for 9 1% of total e xpe n ditures . Ge n e r a l e x- p enditures t ota l led $1.308 billion, u p 13 % from $1 .1 5 7 b ill ion in F Y 1984 . County uti l ity e xpenditures amount ed to $ 160 million, u p 36% from the FY 1984 l e v e l of $11 8 million . Utili t y e xpe nditures, in contr a st, decreased 12% in the period of FY 1983 to FY 1984 . GENERAL EXPENDITURES County s p e n d i n g c at e g or ies ex per ien ced numerou s in cr e a s e s in the past year . Publ i c safet y functions ':';"H-J i nc t-e i::\. Si?S; of 16 :1..; publi c I--J or- k s, :2 1 %; a dmin i. ~,. tr ati on, 29% ; a n d l ei. sur e se rvices , 2 9% . Th e le ad in g expen d i t u re catego r i e s , whi ch will be exam i ne d in mor e detail in the f o l l o wi ng parag raphs , we r e hea lt h and huma n service s , to tallin g $ 3 0 8 mi l l ion or 2 1%; and public s afety a nd c o rrecti on s , t o t a lling $283 mi l lio n , tot a lling 1 9% of cou n t y ex pend it ures . A CLOSER LOOK AT PUBLIC SAFETY; CORRECTIONS EXPENDITURES Fire Depa r t me n t $ 76 Hi U lo n She r i f f 's Dep ar tme n t $74 Hill10n Polic e Depa r tme nt $68 Hf Ll I on J ail $46 Hlllion 1.3% I Corr e ction al I nst ltu te $19 Hl11lon Spe nd ing for fire s ervi c es mo ve d ah ead of sp endin g for sher iff's departm en t s as t h e n u mb er one public safety e x p en d i t u r e i te m. Fir e d e p a rt me n t spending t otal le d a reported $ 7 6 mi l l i o n in FY 19 8 5 , or 5% o f total county s pending, an inc r e a se o f 19 % in t he y ear . A tota l o f 121 count ies r eport e d expend i t ures f o r f i r e d ep.::.rtm~~ nts . H cwJ(:? v el~ , t h e La rq e s t; 15 fi lre depal'-tmel,t~:; 17 in terms of e x p enditures coul d claim 85X of t h e total e xp enditures for t he ite m wh il e t h e largest , De Kalb Count y, r e ported 19% of t he total expenditures for c o u nty fi r e dep artment s . Spending f or sh eriff' s departmen t s inc reased b y 9 % or $6 million. Ex p e n d i- tur e s for county p olice d ep artments t otall e d j ust o ver $68 million . Tot al l a w enforcement spendin g, s her i f f ' s and police departm ents , wa s 10% of coun ty spending, totall in g $ 1 42 mi l lion o r just over 50 % of p u b l i c sa f e ty s pen di n g. Exp end i tur es for jails, totallin g $ 4 6 mill i on in t he past y ear , increased 3 2 % over t he previ o u s ye a r from $35 mill ion, a burden imp osed b y cour t mandated j ail i mprove me nt s . Spe ndi ng for c o r r e c t io n a l in stitutes or coun t y work ca mps t ota l le d $19 mi llion or IX of total county s p e n d i n g . A CLOSER L OOK AT HEAL TH/HUMAN SERVICE EXPENDITURES Pu b lic lIelfare _ 1.2% -G~=======~~~~\~~~------ Ambulanc e Service $11 MU$2l8ionMUlion Public lIea lth $5 0 MU lio n Pa ymen ts Other lIo sp i t a l s $60 Mill io n State DIIR Crant s Expended $140 Mil lion The l arges t c o mp o n e n t s of health vices were physical and menta l h e al t h $ 140 mil lion; and pa y ments t o o th e r million . and human ser-gr-ants e x p e n d e d , hospitals, $ 6 0 Ranking fourth among expenditure cat e go ries wa s spending fo r highways, roads and bridges . Expenditures for thi s item r each ed 5200 million in FY 1985~ an inc r e a s e of 12% from the previous yea r . Hi g h wa y s p e n d i n g amounts to 13% of tota l cou nty expenditure s . All additional genera l e xpendit ures amount to 16X of count y ex p e n d it ur e s , or $277 million. In clud ed a re 18 sp endin g f o r c o urts ~ hou s ing a n d commun i t y de v elopm e n t~ le isure s er vi c e s~ p ubli c work s~ non - s chool boa rd edu c a t ion , a n d ot her mi s c ell an eou s ex pe n d i t u r es . Misce l l aneou s g e nera l expe n d i t ures a re actually a ttributab le to just a f e w c ount i es . These count ies a s sig n c ert a i n c o st s t o t h is c ategor y~ r a the r t han to s'f.)(;?c i fic . ci::,t:.e~folr iE~ ~5 ~ a c o n t i n ui n g p r o b I e m in t he a b - s e nc e of a s ta n d a r d local a c c o u n t i n g sys te m. Change in Selected County General Expenditures: 1984 to 1985 Tot a l Gener al Exp endi tur es +~;155 l"li 11 ion + 1 :::::i: Ex p e n diture Ca t e gor y Milli on ($ ) Percent Ge n e ral Ad mi n is t r a ti o n Gen eral Go ve r n me n t Buildings Hi ghway s~ S t re e t s a n d Drainag e Fi r e Dep al'-tm E.'n t J .::~ i 1 Garb a ge a n d Tr a sh Di sposal Li brat-i e ~:; P a yment s to other Ho spital s Police Dep artment Par k s and Recr eation Sheriff 's Dep a rtment Pu blic HE'3 1 t h Ga rbage a n d Trash Collection Communi t y Development + $27 22 21 1 "..::. 11 10 9 8 8 7 6 6 -2 - ~, ~:. -+5 8 61 12 1 '::;> ..,. ,. ,,\ ....:' ..::. 90 46 16 13 zo 9 3 - 12 - 18 Th e annu al survey of local government finances collects general ex p e n d i t u r e data by t y p e (lin e it em) as well as by e xpenditur e category. The th ree types o f e xpend it ures ar e c ur r e n t operations; capital p u rc h ase~ includ ing land, structures~ and major equi pm ent; and construction. Continuing a p attern highlighted in l ast y e a r' s O ver_,!:..ie\i~ sp endinq fot- c ur r errt ope rc\t ions deet- ea sed as a p ercen t of to t al spendin g to 89%~ dow n f r o m 92% i n F Y 1983. Cap it a l p u rch a se sp e n di ng r ose sli ghtl y t o 6 % o f t o ta l sp e n d i ng wh i l e construct ion sp ending~ prima r il y a non-r ecur-r i n g item, r-o se to 5% of t.otal e ;.: p end i t ur e s . 19 County General Expenditures by Type 1984 and 1985 -----------1984-- --------- -----------1985----------- Expenditure Type AllilJunt ($) Percent Aillount (l) Percent Current Operat ions Capital PurchasE Construction Total General Expenditures 1,056,556 ,141 50,256,140 45,315,258 1,15 2,127,539 91.ti 4.4i: 3.n IO O.O~ 1,165,5 16,683 73,220,163 68,659,360 1,307,396,206 89 .n 5.67. 5.31 100.0;: All expenditure t ypes inc reased from 1984 to 1985. Alth ough spending for current operations increased by 10%~ it was fa r outdistanced b y the increases in other c a t e g o ries . Cap i t a l purchase spending increa sed by $23 mi l l io n o r 46% over th e year and spending for constr ucti on i n c r eas e d by a like amount or 52% over the year. Change in County General Expenditures by Type: 1983 to 1984 Ex p eri d i t u re Type Current Operations Capi tal Put-chase Con struction Tot al Amount ( -$ ) 108~960~5lt2 22~964~023 23~344~102 155~268~667 Pet-cent 10. 3i: 45.7i: 51.5i: 13.5i: Ut i l i t y Exp en ditu re s With reported expendit ures of $160 million in FY 1985~ county utilities amou nt to 11% of total county e xpenditures. Water and sewer systems account for the ma jority of the spending: $144 million. The 1984 Qv~:~vi ew showed that Ylater and SeWf?r sys- tem e xpenditur es had dropped steadily over the years sinc e 198 2 ~ decreasing from a l e v el of $144 million in 198 2 to a level of $114 million in FY 1984. However~ t he p a s t y e a r , FY 1985~ saw a significant increase in the a rnou n t; of Yl ater a n d Seyler system e x p erid i tUl-es. From F Y 1984 to FY 1985~ s p e n d i n g inc reased by 27 % back tu the FY 1982 l evel of $144 milliun. 2 () A CLOSER LOOK AT COUNTY UTILITY EXPENDITURES u t. bc r County Ut t l Lt Lc s S16 MU llan - 1.0% v a t c r 6. Seve r $ 144 Mlilion 9 . 8% 16.3% As t he followinq ch art sh o ws ~ the increase in s pe nd i n g f or c o u n t y wat e r and s e we r syst em s was present i n eac h li n e i t e m, bu t particu l arl y s o i n the purch a se of land an d e qui pmen t . Curr e nt o p er a tio n s expenditur es in crea sed b y 23 %. a n d c on s tru c t ion~ 29% . The purch a se of l and a n d eq uip ment~ how ev er ~ s a w an incre a s e of 50 % fr o m $ 12 mi l l ion t o $18 milli o n . Change in Water and Sewer Spending 1984 to 1985 Jt en 1984 1985 Z Change Current Operations Purchase Land, Eq uip~e nt Cons trueti on Total 75,627,592 12,061,944 26,175 ,299 113,864 ,835 92,760 ,841 18,047,877 33,673,189 144 ,481,907 22.n 49.6% 28 .6! 26 .91 Expenditures for airpo rts al so s aw a signific ant incr ease o v e r t h e y e ar. Expenditures more than doubled fl~om a level of '$ 2 . 8 million in FY 1984 to more than $6 mil lion in FY 1985 . Only one county reported e xpend it u r e s f or an electric system. As pointed out in the c o unt y utili t y rev enu e s e ction~ thi s system was not repor te d i n a ny of t he previous ye a r s o f the study~ ma k i n g a n y tr end a n a l ysi s i mp os si b le . Ex p e n d i t u r e s for count y p u b l i c transit s ys t e ms declined f r o m $23 2~OOO in FY 198 4 t o j us t ov e r $7 0~OOO in FY 1 9 85~ a small net c han ge i n th e o ve ra l l picture of count y utility spendinq. 21 Change in County Utilit y Ex pen d i t u r es 1984 to 1985 Total Utility Expenditur e s +$42 Million -tM :3 i.1 'X. Ut i l it y r-h 11 ion ( 't ) vi a t E~ t'" an d Se l~J e r E l E~ c t l'- i c: ('ii I'-p c)rt r:;a S"> j='ub 1 i c: Tr"ansi t ~: 1 27 i: 9 10 0i: "-_::... 1 1 1 :/: 0 0 1. 0: 0 ) -70i: In summar-y, county utility e xpenditures increased b y 'p4- 2 rni 11 ion, an increase of 3 6 1., from F Y 1984 to FY 1 ~i8 5 .. COUNTY DEBT Georgia' s counties reported ending the fiscal year with out standing d ebt totalling $ 8 03 million. New debt of all types incurred during the fiscal year exceeded d ebt r etired: 5 321 million to $2 4 3 million. Interest c o s t s on debt reached $ 53 million. 1'1i 11 ion ($ ) Debt I ncul~red Debt F:et ired In terest Paid on Debt Debt Outstanding at End of FY $321 $243 $5 3 $80~: Short-term borrowing normally exceeds long-term debt a c t i v i t y for most governments, as highlighted in 1 ast; y,?at- ' s OVf?.rV.LeW. State 1 aw requi res that shortterm debt be retired within the calendar year that it is incurred. During the past year, short-term debt accounted for 5 6 % of all count y debt incurred, and 671. of a l l d ebt retired. Short-term borrowing amounted to $178 million with $162 million being retired . Counti es reported borrowing $91 million in revenue bond s and retiring 563 million while i ssuing $52 milli on in g eneral obligation bonds a n d retiring $18 million. 22 OUTS TANDING DEBT AT END OF FISCAL YEAR Gen era l Obl l gatlo n $2 77 HlI lion Shor t -Te rm $70 HUllon 8. 7% Rev enue Bond s $457 Hi ll i on At the end of t h e fisca l year ~ countie s re por te d $80 3 million i n outs t andi ng b on ded in debtedness , mo s t o f wh ich~ 5 7 % ~ wa s in the form of revenu e bonds . The r e la t i v e ly small am ount of outstanding short - term debt i s d u e t o coun t ies h avin g fi s cal years th at d o not mat ch th e c a l en d a r ye a r ~ r ather than of counties viol atin g t h e p rovi sion s of t he s t a t e constit ut ion d escribed ab o v e DEBT INCURRED DURING FISCAL YEAR Re v enue Bonds $90 HUllon Sbo r r -cre re $178 Hil lion Ce nera l Ob l l g a t i o n $52 HUlion Count ies reporte d issu i n g 514 3 mi llion in b o nd s du r i n g t he ye ar ~ much h i gh e r th an the S1 0 8 mill ion i 5 :::.UE'd d u r i IIC] F Y 19 8 4 ~ an i n c r-e a s e of :::::2:'-:. '-'Jat e r and sewer s ystem bor ro wi n g a ga i n a c cou nt ed f o r half o f a l l n e\.-J bo n de d d(~ bt : $7 4 mi 11 ion. Th (? c a t e q or v of " '::;.11 ot h e l"" "- e 'l e n u e b ori d bO I~ t- o~"Jing d otrb Ieid of ,. 'L>1.. 2.0 1. I. 51 I . ~ .. jk O.6X DEBT RETI RED DURING FISCAL YEAR ( Ex cl u d es Ci ty of At lant a Data) Sho r t - Te rm $ l~ HUlton Cenera l Obl igat ion $ 10 HU lton 69 .9% Revenu e Bond $55 Hillto n Mu n i c i p a l utility s ys t e ms accou nt for 8 1% of t he b on d e d ind e b t ednes s that wa s o ut stan di ng at th e e n d of FY 1 9 8 5~ fo r ci ties o t he r th an At l anta . Water and sewer s ys t e ms ac c oun te d fo r 6 2% or $416 million, e l ec - tri c s y s t P ID =; ac cClu nt('2 d F or $ 122 mi llion or 1 8 %~ an d ga s s y s tem s ac c o unt e d f o r $ 7 mi l l i o n or 1%. Oth er l clr q e d eb t c a te c:j or-i F~ ~, i ric l u de the mi s c e ll C\ n e o u s "a ll ot h e r" r ev e rru e bon d s ~ qe n e t- a l q o v e rnrne n t; e d uc at i o n ~ a nd h i g h wa y s. s t r e e t s a n d dr a i nage . To t al municipal debt o u t st andi n g at th e e n d of the y e a r , e x c l u d inq th at rep o r t e d b y t he Cit y of At l ant a , equal ed $67 6 milli on . 42 The C"l rTI ou n 't out st andi n g d e c r e a s ed by s l i g h t ly over 1 "/ !. f r-o m F Y 19:::14 t o FY 1 985 f ro m $ 6 8 5 mi ll i on. MUNICIPAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OUTSTANDING AT END OF FY 1985 SIGNIFICANT ITEMS ( Exc l u des City o f Atlan ta Dat a l Purpose Bond Type Percent of Outstanding Total Bond Debt Million ($) Outstanding Water &Sewer REvenue 395 Electric Utility Systeffi Revenue I"1.'i.". Education (Gen. So'~t . ) G.O. 31 All Other Re venue 26 Highways, Streets, Drainage 6.0. ".1..'1 Water .It Sewer Multi-Purpose G.O. 21 6.0. is Public Buildings 6.0. 12 Sas Utility System F:evenue 7 Total All Other Revenue and G. O. 33 58.41. IB.O:' 4.64 3.9i: 3.64 3.n 2.2l l. 87. l.OX 3.5X CASH AND INVESTMENT ASSETS At the e n d of t he f iscal ye ar ~ Georgia's munici- palities repor ted ca sh a n d in v e s t ment a s s e t s on hand o f $1. 26 8 billion~ a n in cr e a s e o f 1 2 % ov er the $1.13 7 bil- lion report ed at th e end of th e previous fiscal year. Again ~ the influen ce o f th e City of Atlanta must be considered. Atl anta repor t ed c a s h and investment as- set s totalling $ 569 milli on, 4 5 % of the total re - p a r- t e d . Over"all, th (2 rnaj DI'-it '~,1 of t h e f uri d a , 62:1. 01'- $7t37 in i l l i on w e n:~ IH? J. d i n th ,? c:a t e(;)or-y of "othel~ funds". Sinkinl,::j funds ,,~ c c o u n t e d + O l~ $ ~)44 mi Ll ton or 27% a n d bond fund s a ccou n te d f o r $1 3 7 million or 11%. Change in Municipal Cash and lnvest.ent Assets Held at End of Fiscal Year : FY 84 -85 Total lnves t~ents Hel d +,1 31 Million +In Type Millions (~ l Percent Held in Sinking Funds Held in Bond Funds Held in All Other Funds 33 12. 31 (16) -10.27. 109 16.1l MUNICI PAL CA SH AND INVESTMENT ASSETS CAll Municip aliti e s ) S Lnk Lng Fund s $ ) 44 Hllllon 27.n All Ot he r Funds $78 7 Hillion Bond Fund s $137 Hillion Th e Ci t y o f At lant a ac count s for 6 1% o f the sin k- ing funds , 4 2 % of the bond fund s . and 38% of the "o the l- II f u n c:Js.. Atla.nta ' s pattel~n of holdings- i ss slightly dif f er ent from the municipa l p icture as a whole. At la nt a main tained a larger per centage of f und s in s i n k i n g fu n ds , 3 7% as oppo sed to 2 7 Z , and a l o we r per cen -tage in "othel"-" funds, 5 ::::;i: to 6 :2%. The pet-cent- age held in b ond f u n d s was ver y c l ose: 10% to 11Z. 44 (iF'PEN DI X j:\: DAT A [:{H EG OF: I ES Appen d i x A i s a l i s t o f ~e venue~ ex pe n di tu~e ~ d e b t and as s e t item s ~equested of lo cal gove~nments b y the DCPi f in ,~, n c i c3. 1 stu.dy. In e+f .?c t ~, r:\p P'2n d i ;-: (\ is <"" "ske IE'rori ' of t. h .=.-;t SU t-Vf?V , f ~ (J :r: \'Ihi c h thE~ d d t .::! i n t.his 1-e po l~ t was d e ~i ve d . Us in g th i s Appendix th e ~ead e~ wi l l be t te~ u nd e~st a n d th e st ~ u c tu ~e of lo c al g ove~ n me n t fi n a n ce s u s e d i n t his ~ e po ~t and the t e~minolog y e mpl o ye d. COUNTY GENE RAL RE VENUES F'~ O Pf.?~ t y T .3 :-: '':;'5 Rea l and Pe~sanal P~ ope~ty Ta :-: e s Pub l i c Utili ties Tax e s Mo t o ~ Vehicle Ta x e s Mobil e Home Tax e s FIFA ~ Pen al t i es~ In t.e ~ es t~ Cost I n t a n g ible Ta xes Tax Collection F e es Othe r P~o pe~t y Ta xe s Sales . Ex cise , and S p e c i a l Use T a :-: t':::. Loca l Option Sales Tax Al c o h o l i c Beve~ ag e Ta xes In su~ ance Premiums Ta x Hot el -tolD-te l Tc:~ :-: Mi s cellaneo us Othe~ Taxes Licens e s an d Pe~mi ts Reve nue s Bu sin ess L i c en s e s / Oc c u p a t i orr a I Tax e s Alco h o l i c Beve~age License s Building Perrnits Ot he r License s a n d P e r mi t s Int e r qove ~ n m e n t a l Rev enues . b y Type Payments in Li eu of Taxes Ge neral Pub l i c P u~ p os e GI~c\n t s ( S t a t e ) Fuel Oil~ Mil ea g e ( St ate) Roa d a nd 8~idge F unds W at e~ ;W astewate~ G~an ts S oli d Wa ste G~ants Cou n ty Health 8oa~d Rev e n u es 45 Inte~go v e~nm ental R e ve nu es~ b y Tvp e (Cont . ) Cr i me and C o ~ ~ec t i o n5 Grant s Co mmu n i ty Deve l o p me nt B l o ck C3 t-a n ts Dev elo p me n t A u t h o ~ ity Re v e - nu e ~=- P u bl ic Wel f a ~e G ~ an t s General Rev e nue Sha r in g Rea l Estate T ~ a ns f er Ta x P hys ic a l an d Men t a l Healt h GI- a n t s O the~ Inte~ go ve~nmental F: e vi=nue In te~ government al Revenue s~ b y S o u~ c e S t a tE~ Oth e~ Loca l Go vernment s Fed(? I~ a l Se ~vic e Charg e Reven u e s Garbage /Trash Co l l e c t i o n Ch ar- ges L a.ndf ill Fees Pa~ ks and Rec reation C ha~ g es Amb u l a n c e Ch a ~ g es Hos pi t al C ha ~qe~~ F i~e S e ~v i c e S ubscr i pti o n Ot he r Ser v i ce Cha~ge Reve nues Us e of Mon e y a n d P r o per ty 1 ~:e vE:~n ut-?S Re ce i p ts f ro m Mate ri al ! E q u i prn E~ ITL !:)cd e'3 Recei p t s f r o m Real Propert y Sa l e ~;; Rent s a n d Ro y al ti e s Oth er Gen e ra l Reven ues S p ec ia l As s e ss me n t s Ot h E'r- F:? VE' n u e~,. COUNTY UTILIT Y REVE NUES 8- "f P u r p ose Water a n d S e we r Sys t e m El ectric S u p pl y Syst e m Gas Su p pl y Sy stem {~ i I'" P c)t- t P u b l ie TI'''a ns.i t By Type 0+ 1';:e 'h?nU e Ope r at ing Reve n u e Ot he r" l~ e V E?n U e COUNT Y GENE RAL EX PEND I TURES Cou n t y Admin i stration Financi al Ad mi n i st r a ti on Ta x Cornm i ssi ori er Ta x As s e s s o r/ Ap p ra i s e r Ge ner a l Admi n ist rat i o n Co u r t h o use and General County Bu i Ld in q e General In sur ance Employee Benefits Hou sin g an d Com mu n it y De velop men t Ho u sin g a n d Co mmunity De velopmen t Bu i l d ing I nsp ect io n a a n d F:i?g UJ. a t i on Hi gh!'i 3 Vs Hig hw a y s. Ro ads, an d 8ri dge s Court s Superior Court St.ate COUI~t Juvenile and Magi strate COUt- t. F'1~obate Cou r-t C l e r k of Co u r t. s P ubl i c S a fet y a n d Co r r e c t i o n s Sher iff ' s De p a rt me nt Polic e Dep ar tmen t COI'Tl'?c::ti ori a l In st :i tu te Jai I Fi r" e Df.?pi,u-tm ent. Heal th a nd Hum a n S e r v i ce Count y Hosp i t c:1l P a ym ent s t o Other Ho s p it al s F'u b l ic He alth Publi c lA) e l i: an~ Amb u lan ce Servic e L.c= i ~3 U r" e Set" v i ces P arks a n d Re cr ea tion Lib t- a 1-' :i e s F'ub I i c (Jor k => 1,Ja t UI~ aI f;:esoun: e<:: G arb a ge / r ~as h Co l l e c t i o n La.ndf ill O t he ~ Ex pe nd i tur e s 46 CU UI'JTY UT I L IT Y EX PEN DITUr;;E S Uy F'Lwp ose Wat e r a n d Se we r S ys tem E lec t r ic Supp l y S ystem Gas Supp l y Sys t e m ri irp iJr t Publ ic Tr a nsit By T yp e o f Expen d it u r e Cu rre n t Oper ati on s P urchas e of E q u i p me n t , 2.nd St l~ u c t u.I'- e ~-3 Cona t. ru c c i on I n ter-' es,t. E>: p e n 5 (? La nd , CUUNTY DEBT 8 0nd De b t , b y P urp os e vJatel~ S ystem Ga s S yst em El e c tric t:l y st em Ed u c a t i o n (Non - Sch o ol Boar d) Fir'e Prot ecti on Pu blic Bu il d i ng s S t r e e ts / Ro ads /H i gh wa y s t1 ul t i - Pul~ pose F: ecreat i o n J ail s Bo n d De b t , Out s t andin g a t Df F'i sc c<.! Y e a, l~ Ge n er a l Obli g ati Dn F: f3:! \/en U E:' En d De b t Is sue d , Ret ir ed, In t e r e st P a id , and Amount Ou tst and in g at E n d of Fi s ca l Ye a r Bonds L o n g- T e r m, Oth e r t h an Bo n d s S h o l~ t - T el~m CO UNT Y CASH AND I NVES TMENT AS S E TS Cas h and Deposi t s By Ty p e Federal Securities Sinkin g F unds F e d eral Ag ency S e c u r it ies Bon d F u n d s Sta~e and Loc al Go ve r n me nt Held in Other F u n ds Sf? CLW i ti es Other- S e c u r- it i e s 47 MUNI CIPAL GENERAL REVENUES F'r-o pel- t y Ti':\ >: e.s Re a l a n d Pe rso na l P r o per t y T o;":': P u b l ic Ut il iti e s Ta x es Motor Ve h icl e Ta x e s Mobil e Home Ta x e s FIF f~~ P e n i:\ l ti E? S:,~ I nt('? I~e ~::; t; t C; D~:; Iri t a n q i b I e Ta,>: es Ra i l r oa d E q ui p me n t Ta x Sales ~ E :{cise~ anej S p e <: i a ]. LJ s e Ta >: es Local Op tion S a l e s Ta x Ins u r an c e Pr emi u ms Ta x Hotel -I'I Dtel Ta x Fran ch ise P a yme n t Tax (Pu b l ic utilit i es ) Alcoholi c Beverage Ta x e s Miscell an eo u s Ot her Ta xes Service Ch a r g e Re ven u e s Parking Fa ci li ties / Par king r'let e l~ s Garb ag e /Tr a sh Co l l e ct io n Chan:.~e s Landf i 1 1 F E~ e s Parks a n d Re c r e a t i o n Ch ar- g f25 Ambulanc e Char g e s Hospi t;:d Ch .ar o e e Fire Service Su b s cr i p t i o n Fees Cemeter-y F ees Other S ervic e Ch a rg e Re v e n ue s L i c e nse s a nd Pe rm i t s Reven ues Bu si ne ss L icens e s/Dc cupa tic-j nt:.. l T"H: es Al c o h o l i c Be v e r a g e Licen se s Bu i 1 d i i-I q F E:i'- ili i t ~; Other Licen ses a n d Permits Interg ov er n me n t a l R e venues~ b y Typ e Pa y ment s in L ieu of Ta xe s Gener al Public Pu r p o s e Gr-' i:\fl tS. (S t a.t e ) Capi t a l Outlay Gr ants (Stat e ) Road a n d Brid g e F u n d s Wate r /Wa s t e wa t e r Gra nt s So lid Wast e Gra n ts Crime and Corrections Grants Community Development Block Gr c:\ n t s P ubl ic Wel f are Grants General Re v e n ue S h a r i n g Real Es t a t e Tr a n s f e r T ax Other Intergover nmental Reve n u e Int ergo v ernmental Revenues~ b y Sour-ce S t clte Other Loca l Go vernments Federcd Mi scell aneous Gene r al Re venues Speci a l Assessments Other F:evenues:, Use of Mone y a nd venues Receipts from S a 1 r~ ~; Prop ert y ReRe a l Prop erty 48 MU NI C I PAL UTILIT Y REVENUES Bv Pur pos e Wat er and S e we r Sy st em E l ec t r i c S u p p ly S ys t em Gas Sup p ly Sy s tem Ai r p o rt Public Transit By Typ e o f Re v enu e Op e ratinq Rev e n ue Ot her Reven u e 11UN IC IPAL GENERAL EXPE NDIT URES Ci t y Ad mi n i s t ra t i o n Fin ancial Administration Ge n e ra l Adm i n ist r a t i o n Ge n e ra l Munici pal Bui l d i ng s Ge ne ra l In s uran ce Employee Benefits Co ur ts Municip al Co ur t Public Safety and Correcti ons Police Dep artment J ail Fire Depar tment Health and Human Service Municipal Hospital Payments to other Ho spi tals Soci al Se r v i ces Public Health Public Welfare Ambulance Service Pu b l i c Work s Streets /Drainage Gar bag e /Tr a sh Co l l e c t i o n Lan d fill Pa r k i ng F acili ties / Met e r s Housing a n d Community De velop ment Hou s ing a n d Com munit y Devel o p me n t Building In spection and Regulation Leisure Se r v i c e s Parks and Recreation Libraries Educ ation Non-School Board Expend itures Other Expenditures MUNICIPAL UTILITY E XPENDITURES By P u r p o s e Water and Sewer S y stem El e c tric Sup p l y System Gas Suppl y Sys t e m Airport Public Transit By Type of Expenditure Cur r ent Operation s Pur c has e o f Equip men t , and S t r u c t u r e s Con struction Interest Expen s e Lan d. 49 MUN IC I PA L DEBT Bo n d Debt , b y Pu rp o s e Wat er S yst em Gas ~3 Y 5teln E l e c t r ic Sys t e m I n d u st ria l Reven u e Educ ati on Tran si t Other Bo n ds Bond Debt, Out st and i n g a t End of Fiscal Ye ar Gen er al Ob l i gat io n Re venue De b t Is sue d ~ R e t i red ~ Interest Paid~ a nd Amou nt Ou t s ta nd i n g at End o f F isca l Year Bond s Lo ng - T erm~ Other t h a n Bo n d s Short -Term MUN ICIPAL CASH AND INVESTM ENT ASSET S Ca s h an d De posi ts Fede r a l Secur i t i es F ede ral Ag en c y Se c u r i t i e s St a te and Local Governmen t Securities Ot h e r Securities 50 r:4F' F'E:ND 1 X E!: LOCAL GOVERNM ENT F IN AN CIAL DATA: rv 1 r:;f3 ~:S (A l l Amo un t s i n Do l lars ) Total local It en Governeent Counties Munic ipal itiEs ------------------ -- ----------------- -- ------------------ --------------------------- 6eneral Revenues 2,406 , 353.44 9 1,361 ,766 ,596 1,044,586, 853 Utility Reven ues 1,212 ,802 ,544 180,043,401 1,032,759,143 Total Revenues 3, 619, 155, 993 1,541,809,997 2,077,345 , 996 General Expenditures Utility Expenditures Total Expenditures 2, 185 ,859,41 0 1,307,396, 206 878,463 ,204 1,057,434,753 159,969,601 897,465, 152 3, 24 3, 294 ,163 1,467 ,365,807 1,775,928, 356 Revenue Items Property Ta xes Sales, Excise, Special Use Taxes (1) Intergovernmental Revenues Use of Honey and Property licenses and Permits Service Charges Fines, Fees and Forfeitures Federal Intergoverniental State I ntergovern~ental Other local Intergovernmental Water and Sewer Utilities Electric Ut ilities 6as Utilities Ai rports Public Transit Systems Real and Personal Property Taxes local Opt ion Sales Taxes MARTA Sales Tax Dedicated Sales Tax Alcohol ic Beverage Taxes Franchise Payment Taxes Insurance PrelJiums Taxes Interest on Investments 792,06 0,695 555,163,704 583, 748,991 111,520,582 96 ,630,665 166,728,612 100,500,200 592,590,31 2 22 4,027 .064 310, 715,967 59,581,856 75, 306,659 63,981,377 199 ,470,383 33 1, 136. 640 273 ,033,024 51,938, 726 61 , 067,304 91,421, 953 36, 518, 823 283, 087,077 277 ,01 3,626 23,722,029 90,586 ,406 211 , 759 ,528 8,370,033 192, 500,671 65, 254 ,098 15,351,996 50 3,879,883 333,990, 595 247 ,627,657 123,281,7 30 4, (122 , 67 9 165 ,412 ,684 10,668, 243 916,084 3,011,320 35, 070 338 ,467,199 323,322 ,352 246,7 11,573 120,270,41 0 3,987,609 633,138,577 322 , 743 , 227 130,753,830 3,860, 086 78,982, 005 72 , 917,618 62,024,956 92,082,1 38 460,311 , 232 160,169 , 295 130,753,830 3,817,791 26, 157,092 2, 008,0 33 28,56 2,115 49, 065,544 172,827, 345 162,573 ,932 o 42,295 52, 824,913 70,909,585 33,462,841 43, 016,594 51 Total l ocal Ite m Governiilent Count ies Munici palit ies -------------- --- --------------- ---------------------- ------- --- -- ----------- ------- E ~penditure Items Public Safety Publ ic Works (2l Adlli nistr ati on le is ure Services Housing and COf.ffiunity Develop ment Healt h and HUR an Services Court s Highwa ys - Street s and Drainage Educati on (Non-School Boar d) Other Expend itures 57 0 ~ 24 2~ 7 (16 n l ,759 , 697 445 ,156, 035 13 3,674 , 695 81 , 284 , 762 318, 833, 077 108, 972 , 11 7 282 , 61 3,01 2 11,506,880 101,816,4 09 283 ,506 ,837 43, 985 , 347 239, 11 5,671 66 ,815, 21 9 19 , 222 , 233 307,524,56 2 102,609, 683 199, 776,932 814,686 44, 025, 036 286 , 735,869 87,774 , 350 206 ,040,364 66 ,859 , 476 62,062 ,549 11 . 30B,51 5 6,362,434 82 ,836,080 10 ,692,1 94 57,791,373 Water and Sewer Uti l it ies (3) Elect ric Uti liti es (31 Gas Utiliti es (31 Air ports (31 Transi t Systeffis (3) 459 / j50. 498 279, B25,175 212 ,257,26 2 97,340,753 8,961,065 144,481, 907 8,699, 901 686, 169 6, 030,88 5 70,739 314,568,59 1 271, 125, 274 211 , 57 1,093 91,309,868 8,890, 326 Debt Itess Outstanding at End of Year Revenue Bonds General Obl igat ion Bo nds Short- Ier n Debt 2,477 , 002,339 1,846,650 ,759 553 ,402 ,501 76,949, 079 803 ,024, 393 1,673,977 ,946 456 ,631 ,558 1,390 ,019,201 276 ,693,498 276, 709, 003 69,699,337 7,249,742 Issued Dur ing Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds General Obligation Bonds Short-Terl! Debt 446 ,466,094 175, 061,B20 74,631 ,41 3 196,772 ,B61 321 , 344,838 90,715 , 291 52,385,457 178,244 , 090 125,1 21 , 256 84, 346 ,529 22,245,956 18,528, 771 Retired During Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds General Obligation Bonds Short-Terl! Deb t 357,157,909 140,498 ,229 40,031,889 176,627 ,791 242,702, 092 62,728,984 17,507,648 162 ,465,460 114,455, B17 77,769,245 22 ,524,241 14 ,162, 331 Interest Paid on Debt During Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds General Ob li ga ti on Bond s Sh ort-Ter ~ Debt 163,353, 390 120,602,947 33 , 183, 934 9,566,509 52,681,960 27, 168,44 2 16, 757,206 8,756, 312 11 0, 671 ,430 93, 43 4,505 16,4 26, 728 81 0,197 Cash and In vest llent Asset s at End of Fiscal Year Held in Sinking Funds Held in Bond Funds Held in Al l Other Funds Tot al 428,07 0,711 346,396,096 1, 211 ,987,271 1,986,454, 078 84 ,033,212 344,037, 499 209,22B,213 137 , 167 ,883 425, 121 ,403 786,865,868 718, 382,828 1, 268, 071, 250 No t es : 1 ~ Exclud e s $ 13 0 ~7 53 .83 0 in MA RTA S a l e s T a x col l ect ed b v De Ka l b a n d F u l to n Co u nties a nd $ 3 ~ 860 . 0 86 i n Dedic a t e d Sa les Ta x c o l l e ct ed b y S p a l di n g a n d Unio n Co u n t i es . Th e muni ci p a l tI g ur e e xclud e s stre et s and dr a in ag e. which i s s h o wn i n the Highwa ys line . Stree ts a n d d ra i nag e is con s ider e d a municip al p u b l i c wor k s it e m el se wh e re i n t h i s r ep o r t . Ex c lud e s d e p r e c i a t i o n a nd in t erest p a ymen t s on debt. PIF'F'E:I\Jl) I XC : P ERCENTAGE COMP ARI SONS OF COUNTY AND MU NI CI P AL F:E\/ENUE ~ EX PEND I TUr;:E " DEB T ?lND (1!3S ET I TG1 ~; The f o l l o wi n q tabl e p ~ovi des a s u m m a ~ y v i e w o f t he per ce nta qe c om p a ri s o n s of co u nty a n d mu ni c i p a l d a t a i t e ms. . Co mp a r i s o n s a n d c o nt ~as ts c a n be d r awn o f t h e fi sca l p ra ct ic e s o f l oc a l g o ver n me n t s i n Geo rg i a . Itell 6eneral Revenues Utilit y Revenues To tal Revenues 6eneral Expendit ures Utilit y Expenditures Total Expenditures Count ies Municipalities B8.3 ~ II.n 1(1 0.01 50.3% 49.n 100.0% 89. 14 10. 9'1. I (i O . O:~ 49.5 ~ 50.51 100.OX Revenue Ite~s (As a Percent of Total Revenuesj Property Taxes Sal es, Exc ise, Special Use Taxes Intergovernmental Revenues Use of Honey and Property Licenses and Perlits Servi ce Charges Fines, Fees an d Forfeit ures 38.4I 14. 5'1. 20 .2% 3.9'1. 2.3'1. 4.n 4. 1'1. Federal Intergovernmental 5.9Z State Intergovernmental 13.7Z Other Local Intergovernlental 0.5! Water and Sewer Utiliti es Electric Utilities 6as Util it ies Airports Pu bli c Transit Systems 10 .7Z 0.77. 0. 1% 0.2I .0'1. Real and Personal Propert y Ta xes Local Option Sales Taxes MARTA Sales Tax Dedicated Sales Tax Alcoholic Beverage Taxes Franchise Pay~ent Taxes Insurance PreliuBs Taxes Interest on Investments 29.9'1. 10.47. 8.57. 0.2'1. 1.7i. 0. 1'1. 1.9'1. _ ') u J.L L 9. 6'1. 15 .9'1. 13.1 'I. 2.5X 2. 91 4.4'1. I.B:' 9.3% 3.1'1. 0.7'1. 16 .31: 15.61 11 .9'1. 5.8% e.zr 8.31 7.81: 0. 01 .0'1. 2.51 3.4! 1.61 2.1! .c...J-C -_-'' Expend iture Ite~s lAs a Percen t of Tot al Expenditures) Counti es Municipal ities Public Safety Fubl ic Wor ks Adllinist rati on Le isure. Ser vices Hous i ng and Conmunity Development Health and Human Services Court s Hig hways - Streets and Drainage Ed ucation (No n-School Board ) Other Ex pend itures 19. 31. 3.01. 16. 3% 4.6;( I. 3! 21. 01. 7. 0l 13. 6! 0.14 3.0 1. 16.1 i: 4.9X 11.61 3. Bi: .. c' , .) .J.t. 0. 6i: 0.4 : 4. 7i: ,~ . 6X 3.3% Water and Sewer Util ities El ectric Ut ilities Gas Util i ties Ai rpor ts Trans it Systems 9.8! 1/. 7'1. 0.6:' 15.3X . o! II. 9Z 0.41. 5. Ii: . 01. (i.5% Debt It ens Outstanding at End of Year Revenue Bonds General Obligat ion Bonds Short-Terl! Debt Issued Dur ing Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds Genera l Obligat ion Bonds Short- Terl Debt Retired During Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds Gener al Obligation Bonds Short-Terll Debt Interest Paid on Debt During Fiscal Year Revenue Bonds General Obligat ion Bonds Sho rt- TermOebt 100 .01. 56. 9!. 3 4 . 5~ B. n 100.OX 28.27. 16. 3% 55.5Z 100. OX 25. 81. 7.21. 66 . 91. 100. 0:' 51.6i. 31. 81. 16. 61. 100.OX B3.0i: 16. Sl 0.41. 10 0. 01. 67 .41. 1/ .8 l 14.B'l. 100.0! 6/. 9i: 19. 7I 12.U 100. OX B4.4X 14.81. s.n Cash and lnvestffient Assets at End of Fiscal Year Hel d i n Sinking Funds Held i n Bond Funds Held in Al l Other Funds Total 11 . 71. 29.1i. 59.21. 100. 0! 27. IX 10 .Bl 62. 1:( lOO. OX AF'F'E I\l D I x D: COUNT I ES I tjC"::LUDE:D H~ 1985 SURVEY F,ESU L T5 population figures are esti r.ates obtained frol the Bureau of the Census for July 1, 1982. These esti~ates are prepared, in part for use by the Of fice of Revenue Sharing, Depart~ent of the Treasury, and are widely u ~e1 by go vern~ent agencies and private concerns. Countv Appling County Atk inson County Bacon Count y Baker County Baldwin Count y Banks County Barrow Count y Bartow County Ben Hill Coun tv Berrien County Bibb County Bleckley Count y Brantle y County Brooks Count y Bryan County Bulloch County Burke Count y Butts Count y Calhoun Count y Callden County Candler County Carroll County Catoosa County Charlton County ChathaIR County Chattahoochee County Chattooga County Cherokee Count y Clarke County Clay County Clayton County Clinch County Cobb Count y Coffee County Col qui tt Count y ColuJibia County Coo k County Coweta County Crawford Count y Crisp County Dade County DaMson Count y 1982 Es t tQQ. Grouo 15,803 D 6,180 F 9,379 F 3,927 F 36, 71 4 C 9,231 F 2 2~283 0 42, 21 3 C 16,449 0 13, 726 E 1,531.840 A 10, 780 E 8, 981 F 15, 2'16 [I 10,818 E 30 ,498 C 19 ,905 D 14,88B E 5,737 F 15,787 D 7,555 F 59, 026 B 38,113 C 7,464 F 209,791 A 20 , 795 D 21,542 [I 56,970 B 75,783 B 3,530 F 155,625 A 6,697 F 320 , 647 A 27,531 C 36. 24 0 C 43 ,823 C 13,779 E 41.122 C 7,164 F 20, (1()7 [I 11,798 E 5,186 F :=i:1 County Decatur County DeKalb Count y Dodge County Dool y County Dougherty County Douglas County Earl y Coun ty Echols Count y Eff in g ha~ County Elbert County Ellanuel County Evans County Fannin County Fayette County Floyd County Forsyth Count y Franklin County Fulton County Gillier County Glascock County Glynn County Gordon County Grady County Greene County Gwinnett County Habershall County Hall County Hancock County Haralson County Harris County Hart County Heard County Henry Count y Houston County Irwin County Jad son Coun t y Jasper County Jeff Davis Count y Jefferson County Jenkins County Johnson County Jones County 198 2 Est EQQ. Group 26,319 C 492,195 A 17,083 0 10,692 E 102,704 A 58,587 B 13,298 E 2,24 2 F 19,41 3 D lB , 98 2 [I 21,231 D 8,634 F 15, 029 D 33,732 C 79,468 B 30,151 C 15,434 D 601 ,287 A 11 ,466 E 2,359 F 56,073 B 30,656 C 20, 032 D 11,579 E 192,160 H 26,073 C 78,120 B 9,416 F 18,924 D 15,461 D 18,956 D 6,609 F 38,141 C 79,509 B 8,977 F 26,286 C 7,454 F 11,747 E 18,505 D 8,737 F 8,659 F 17,431 D ~ l.s na r Coun t Y Lanier Count y Laurens Count y Lee Count y Liberty CQunty Linealn County Long Cou nt v Lownd es County Luspk in Coun t y NcDuff i e County Mcint osh County Macon County ~adison Count y ~arion County Meriwether County Ni ller County Mitchel ! County Non roE Co unt y Montgomer y Cou nty Horgan Count y /'lurray County New ton County Oconee County Oglethorpe County Pauld ing Count y Peach County Pi ckens Count y Pierce Count y Pike County Pol ~ Count y Pulasl:i County Putna~ County Quiblan County Rabun County Randolph Count y Richf.lond County F:oddale County 1982 Est EQ.2. Group 12, 052 E 5,747 F 37, 737 C 12, 6:'1) E 41, 026 C 6, 720 F 4,970 F 68. 915 B 11,254 E 18,906 D B,150 ~ 14 ,277 E 18,395 D 5,207 F 21,206 D 6,989 F 21,41 7 0 14 ,656 E 6,959 F 12,068 E 20,706 D 37,280 C 13, 144 E 9,172 F 27, 325 C 19 ,867 0 12,165 E 12 ,343 E 8,525 F 32,820 C 9, 012 F 10,632 E 2,331 F 10, 613 E 9,634 F 183,153 A 39,445 C ~ SchlE YCounty ScrevEn Cou nty Sellinole County Spalding County Stephens County Stewart Count y SUllter County Talbot Count y Taliaferro County Tattnall Count y Taylor County Telfair County Terre ll County Thomas County Ti ft Coun t y Too;Bbs Count y TOHns County Treutlen County Troup Count y Turner County THiggs County Un i on County Upson Cou nty Walk er County Walton County Ware County Warren Count y Washington County Wayne County Webster County Whee ler County Whit e Count y Whi tfi eld County Wilcox County Wi l kes County Wilki nson County Worth Count y 19B2 Est ~ 3,417 14,319 8,956 50~ 132 21, 972 5,893 30 , 120 6,774 2,056 17,61 0 7,967 11 , 369 12 ,044 38,717 33,637 22,967 6,088 6, 216 50,726 9,606 9,436 9,865 26, B65 56,962 31,098 37,460 6,722 19. 085 21,571 2,378 5,141 10, 675 65,83 3 7,632 11,177 10,454 18,432 Gr oup F E F B 0 F C F F D F E E C C D F F B F F F C B C C F 0 0 F F E B F E E 0 58 f~1 I::'F'EJm I X E : MUN I CI PALI T I ES IN CLU DE D IN 19 8 5 S UR VEY RESULTS Population figures are esti ~ates obtained fromthe Bu reau of the Census for July 1, 1982 . These esti~ ates are orepared, in part for use by the Office of Re venue Sharing, Depart ment of the Treasury, and are ~ i de! y used by govern~ent agencies and private concer ns. 1982 l1uni ci pal i ty Est EQQ. Gro up Abbevi 11 e Ci ty 1,0Ot F Acworth Cit y 3,908 E Ada irsville City 1,773 F Adel City 5,688 D Adrian City 768 6 Ailey City 570 G Alalllo City 1,003 F Alapaha City 758 G Albany Cit y 84,771 A Aldora Cit y 139 H Allenhu rst Ci ty 6'O~L G Al lentown Ci ty 316 H Aila City 3,977 E Al pharet t a City .). L'JL""'t E Alston Citv 97 H Alto Ci ty 647 6 Alllbr ose Ci tv 342 H Americus City 16,522 C Andersonville City 288 H Arab i City 392 H Aragon City 856 G Arcade Cit y 232 H Arg ~'le City 195 H Arlington City 1,621 F Arnoldsville City 209 H Ashburn City 4,860 E Athens City 42,863 B At! anta Ci tv 428, 153 A Auburn City 860 G Augusta City 46,449 B Austell City 3,880 E Avera City 229 H Avondale Estates Cit y 1,254 F Baconton City 782 6 Bainbridge City 10 ,758 C Baldwin City 1,254 F Ball Ground City 669 6 Barnesville City 4,771 E Bartow Cit y 398 H Barwick City 41 3 H Baxley Ci ty 3,612 E Bellv ille City 163 H 5 (]i ~unicipalitv Berkeley La~e City Berlin City Beth lehe~ City Bibb City City Bishop City 81 ackshear Ci t y Blairsville City Bla kely City Bloomin gda le City Blue Ri dge Ci ty Bluffton Cib' Blythe City Bogart City Boston City Bowdon City Bowlllan City Brasel ton Ci ty Braswell Ci tI' Bremen City Brinson City Bronwood City Brooklet City Brooks City Broxton City Brunswic k Ci ty Buchanan Ci ty Buena Vista City Buford City But! er Ci ty Byromville City Byron City CadNel1 City Cairo City Calhoun City CalJlilla City Canon City Canton City Cad City Carlton City Carnesville City Carrollton City Cartersville City 1~82 Est E2.P. 626 561 267 893 170 3,465 597 5. 935 1,908 1,31 9 141 ~.C' ')'lJ 764 1,467 1,801 B67 336 269 4,048 299 561 1,071 22 2 1,087 17,790 1,068 1,586 7,097 1,99B 574 1,685 339 8,856 5,902 5,429 723 3, 766 239 282 48 0 14,836 9,217 ~ 6 G H G H E 8 D F F H H 6 r I F G H H E H 6 F H F C F F D F 6 F H D D D 6 E H H H C D Muni cipal i h Cave Spr ings City Cecil City Cedartown Cit y Cen tervill e Ci ty Centra lhatchee City Challiblee Ci ty Chat svorth Ci ty Chauncey City Chester City Chickaf.duga City Clar kesville City Cl arkst on Ci ty Claxton City Clayton City Cleveland City Cl ima, City Cobbtown City Cochran Cit y Colbert City Cole~an Ci t y Col lege Park City Coll ins City Colquitt City Co luebus City COSIer City Coenerce Ci ty Conyers City Coolidge City Corde Ie Ci tv Corinth City Cornelia City Covingt on City Crawf ord City Crawfordville City Culloden Ci ty Cusseta City Cuthbert City Dacula City Dahlonega City Daisy City Dallas City Dal ton Ci t y Dallasc us Ci ty Da nielsville City Darien City Da visboro Cit y Dawson City Dawson ville City Decatur City 198 2 Est ~ 915 283 8, 715 ') . ~ - L,t:J:J 1 241 6,711 2,656 354 411 2,270 1, 288 4,639 2,728 1, 741 1, 589 418 463 5,11 0 511 148 25,348 594 1,993 174,348 987 4,068 6,906 752 11,268 70 3,299 11,992 494 655 296 1,184 4,311 1,599 2,922 171 2,566 20,183 385 338 1,681 403 5,747 390 18,185 Group G H D E H D E H H F F E E F F H H D G H B 6 F A 6 E D G C H E C H 6 H F E F E H E C H H F H D H C 60 1982 lIunic ipal i tv Est tQ!!. Group Deepst ep City 127 H D e~ ores t City 1,138 F Dex ter Cit'! 571 6 Dillard Ci tv 215 H Doerun Ci ty 1, 082 f Donalsonville Ci ty 3,275 E Dorav ille Ci ty 7,321 II Doug las Cit.,. 11 ,184 C Douglasville City 8,182 D DuPont City .?/-b' H Dublin City 16,414 C Dudle y Ci ty 412 H Duluth City 3,451 E East Dublin City 2,691 E East Ellijay City 533 6 East Point Cit.,. 38,297 B Eashan City 5.288 D Eatonton City Edgehill Cit y 5,056 D ".,..Ji. H Edison City 1,174 F Elberton Ci ty 5,783 0 Ellaville Cit.,. 1,661 F Ellenton City 307 H Ellijay Cit y 1,509 F Emerson City 1,265 F En iglla City 636 6 Ephesus City 196 H Eton City 285 H Fairburn City 3,912 E Fairsount Ci ty 905 G Fa yettev ille City 3,218 E Fitzgerald City 10,447 C Flellington City 495 H Flovilla City 461 H Flowery Branch City 753 G Folkston City 2,277 F Forest Park City lB,186 C Forsyth City 4,660 E Fort Ga ines City 1,228 F Fort Oglethorpe Cit y 5,351 D Fort Vall ey City 9,224 D Fran klin City 720 G Fran klin Springs City 8'."..10 6 Funston Cit y 334 H Gainesville City 15.155 C Garden City City 6,027 D Gay City 161 H Geneva City 233 H Georgetown City 937 G Munic ipal ity Gibson City Gil ls ville Cit y Girard Ci t y Glennville Ci ty Glenwood City Good Hope City Gordon Cit y Grantville City Gray City Grayson Ci ty Greensboro City Greenville City Griffin City GrovetOlIO Ci ty GUI Branch City Guyton City Hagan City Hahira City Hali Iton Ci ty Halp ton City Hapeville City Haralson City Harlell City Harrison City Hartwell City Hawk insville City Hazelhurst City Helen City Helena City Hephzibah City Hiawassee City Higgston City Hilltonia City Hinesville Ci ty Hoboken City Hogansville City Holly Springs City HOleland City HOler City HOlerville Ci ty Hosch ton Cit y Ideal City Iia City Iron City Cit y Irwi nt on City Ivey City Jackson City Jacksonville City Jak in City 1982 Est ~ 742 139 222 4, 206 899 188 2,874 1,163 2,300 551 3,084 1,243 21,538 3,555 267 801 96 0 1,596 520 2, 378 5,775 107 1,580 41 7 4,978 4, 372 4,381 306 1, 391 1,570 501 l 37 536 13,078 496 3,421 734 698 798 3, 173 500 62 0 300 390 841 476 4,200 190 187 Gr ou p G H H E G H E F F G E F C E H G G F G F D H F H E E E H F F G H G C H E G G G E G G H H G H E H H 61 198 2 Munic ipal i t v Est Em!. Group Jasper City 1,601 F Jefferson Ci ty 1,914 F Jeffersonvi ll e City 1,542 F Jenki nsburg City 351 H Jersey City 176 H Jesup Ci t y 9,847 D Jonesboro City 4,232 E Junct ion Ci ty City 259 H KennesawCity 5,752 D Kingsland City 2,296 F Kingst on City 718 G Kite City 313 H LaFayette City 6,306 D LaGrange Ci ty 25,023 B La ke City City 3.075 E La ke Pad : Ci ty 446 H La kela nd City 2,652 E Lavonia City 2,073 F Lawrence ville City 9,964 D Leary City 733 G Leesburg Ci ty 1,383 F Lesl ie City 445 H Lexington City 259 H Li Iburn Ci t y 4,299 E Lilly City 213 H Li ncol nton Ci t y 1,419 F Linwood City 420 H Lithon ia City 2,687 E Locust Grove Ci ty 1,724 F Logan ville City 2,090 F Lone Oak City 134 H Lookout Mountain City 1,520 F Louisville City 2,825 E LovejOy City 228 H Ludowici City 1,387 F Lula City 842 G LUlber City City 1,456 F LUlip kin City 1,348 F Luthersville City 608 G Lyerl y City 504 G Lyons City 4, 248 E Macon City 118,730 A Madi son City 2,974 E l1a nassas City l12 H Man chester City 4, 779 E l1ansfield City 422 H Hari etta Ci t Y 33 ,687 B l1arshallville City l,570 F Martin City 337 H Municipal ity McCa ysville City f1c [)onough Ci ty Mclnt yre Ci ty McRae Ci ty l1e ansville Ci ty Me i gs Ci ty Menlo Cit y Me tter Ci ty Midvi li e Ci ty Midwa y Ci ty Milan City Milledgev ill e City Millen City Ni neral Bluff Ci ty Hitt hel l Ci ty Mo len a Ci ty Monroe City Montezuma City Monticell o City Mo reland City Morgan City Morganton City No rrow City Norven City Noul tr ie Ci ty Hount Ai ry City ~ount Vernon City Houn t lion Cit v Moun tain City Ci ty Mounta in Par k Ci t y Nahunta City Nashv ille City Nelson City Newborn Cit y Newington City Nellnan Ci ty Newton Ci ty Nicholson Ci ty Norc ross Cit y Norma n Par k City Norwood City Ilun ez Ci t Y Oak Park City Oa~ wood City Oc i l la Ci ty Oc onee Ci ty Odul Ci ty Ogl ethorpe City Ol iver Ci ty \982 Est EQ.P. \,23\ 3,014 364 3~ 378 3\2 1,238 548 3,605 693 r"r ..1.,) ..' \, 04 7 13, 235 3, 952 144 212 35 1 8, 776 5, 114 2,378 370 3b8 294 3,692 520 15 , 517 70 1 1,718 511 .f'Ll ?~ 426 1,025 4,84 2 600 41 0 390 11,772 75 6 539 4, 498 830 326 155 272 727 3,377 304 41 \ \, 34 5 238 Group F E H E H F G E 6 6 F C E H H H D D F H H H E 6 C 6 F 6 6 H F E G H H C 6 s E 6 H H H 6 E H H F H 62 Municipal it y O'laha Ci ty Ollega City Orchard Hi II City Or.f ord City Pal set to City Parr ott City Pat terson Ci ty Pavo Cit y Peachtree Ci ty City Pearson Ci t y Pelhall Cit y Pe~br o ke Ci ty Perry Cit y Pine La ke Ci ty Pine Moun tain Ci ty Pinehurst Ci t y Pinev iewCi ty Pitts Ci ty Plains Ci tv Plainvill e City Pooler Cit y Port Wentwor th City Port al Cit y Pou l an Ci t y Powder Springs City Preston Ci t y Pulaski Cit y Quit ll an City Ray City Cit y Rayle City Rebecca City Register City Reidsvi l le Cit y Reflerton City Rent z Cit y Resaca City Rest Ha ven Cit y Reynolds Ci t y Rhi ne Cit y Riceboro Ci ty Ri chl and Ci ty Richmond Hill City Ri ddl evill e Cit y Rin con City Ringgold Cit y Riverdale Ci ty Riverside City Robert a Ci t y Rochelle Cit y \ 98 2 Es t. POP 15 1 1,051 19\ \,890 2,34\ 202 695 BOB 7,860 1,884 4,284 1, 36 0 9,389 979 1, 026 386 565 396 64 9 271 2,763 3,850 687 786 3,71 3 433 27 9 5,164 64 6 192 262 l Q, "I 2, 400 405 339 352 L' 1O',") 1,281 618 245 1,744 1,215 154 2,055 1,992 7, 498 101 76\ 1,627 Group H F H F f H 6 G D F E F D 6 F H 6 H 6 H E E 6 G E H H 0 6 H H H F H H H H F 6 H F F H F F [) H G F Muni cipali ty Rodllart Ci ty Rocky Ford City ROlle Cit y Roopvi ll e City RossviIIe City Roswel l Cit y Royston City Rutl edge Ci ty Sale City City Sandersville Cit y Santa Claus Cit y Sardis City Sasser City Savannah Cit y Scot! and Ci ty Screven Cit y Senoi a City Shady Oale Cit y Sharon City Sharpsburg Cit y Shel lean Ci ty Sh iloh Cit y Sky Vall ey Ci tY Smit hville City Slyrna Cit y Snellville City Social Circle City Soperton City Sparks City Sparta City Springfield City St. Harys Ci tY Stapelton Ci ty Statesboro City Stathal City Stockbridge City Stone Hountain Cit y Sugar Hill City SUllIertOllO Ci ty SUlimerville Cit y SUliner Cit y Surrency Ci ty SUManee Cit y Swainsboro City Sycallore City Sy lvania City Sylvester City Talbotton City Tall apoosa Ci t Y 196 2 Es t EQQ. 3, 621 22 4 30 ,393 264 3, 619 26, 300 1,893 733 304 6, 204 190 1,215 4 :~J"t. 145, 699 ' L.).)~ ~. 913 953 170 144 193 1,255 422 59 913 20,34 1 9, 458 ,., .,.,c t.,II .J 2, 986 1,396 1,830 1,125 5,036 403 14,994 1,10 I 2,246 5,120 2, 743 199 4,809 228 350 1, 261 7,84 4 507 3,364 6,096 1,155 2, 76 0 Group E H B H E 3 F G H 0 H F H A H G 6 H H H F H H G C 0 E E F F F 0 H C F F D E H E H H F 0 6 E 0 F E 63 Muni cipalit y Tal lulah Fal ls Cit y Tarrytown City Ta ylorsvill e City Temole City Tenni lle Ci tv The Rod Ci ty T ho~asto n City T ho ~asville City Tho flson City Thun derbo lt Ci t y Tifton Cit y Tiger Cit y Tigna ll City Toccoa City Tooflsboro City Trenton Ci t y Tr ion City Tunne l Hi l l City Turin Ci ty Twi n City City Ty Tv Ci t y Tybee Island City Tyrone City Unadill a City Union City City Un ion Point City Uva lda City Valdosta City Varnell City Vidalia City Vienna City Villa Rica City Waco City Wadley City Waleska City Walnut Grove City Walthourville City War. Springs City Warner Robins City Warrenton Ci ty Warwick Cit y Washington Ci ty Wat ki nsv i lle City Waverl y Hal l City Waycross City Waynesboro City Wes t Po int City Weston City Whighu City 1982 Est E.QQ. 81 129 286 1,603 1,84 1 90 10,162 18 ,675 7,147 2,073 6,51 0 336 848 8,B15 66 0 1,685 1,634 1,021 247 1,456 695 2,385 1,345 1,54 0 5, 08 2 1,687 621 38,562 275 10,544 2,91 7 3,55 2 516 2,447 484 405 1,260 468 42,2 03 2, 145 457 4,71 0 1, 372 948 19,589 5,879 4,064 101 48 2 Gr oup H H H F F H C C 0 F D H G 0 6 F F F H F 6 F F F D F G B H C E E 6 F H H F H B F H E F G C D E H H Municipality White Ci t y White Plains City Whitesburg Cit y Willacoochee City Williafison City Winder City Winterville City Woodbine Cit y Woodbur y Ci t y 1982 Est tQ.D. Group 491 H 246 H 797 6 1,158 F 212 H 6,692 D 632 6 968 6 1,747 F Hunicipali ty Woodland City Woodstock Ci ty Woodville City Woolsey City Wrens City Wrightsville City Yatesvi IIe Ci t y Young Harris City Zebulon City 1982 Est tQ.D. 678 3,143 446 100 2~465 2,545 410 708 924 Group 6 E H H F E H 6 G 64