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)

1 1975 Ga. Laws 984, § 2 (as amended by 1976 Ga. Laws 1019). 2 Augusta v. Mangelly, 243 Ga. 358 (1979). 3 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-81; Taylor County v. Cooper, 245 Ga. 251 (1980). 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.

4 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-80. 5 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 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

13 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(1). 14 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). 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 If agreement on a renegotiated distribution certificate is not reached, the parties must Negotiations submit the dispute to nonbinding arbitration or mediation. Start Within 30 Days If the parties fail to come to an agreement during the 60 day nonbinding dispute resolution After Arbitration period, one of the parties may file a petition with the superior court of the county within Fails 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. § 48-8- 89 (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 conten- tious. 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 theGeorgia 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.

23 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. 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” municipali-

24 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-80. 25 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 O.C.G.A. §§ 48-8-89(b), -89.1(c). 27 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 under- standing 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 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(d)(3). 29 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 See O.C.G.A. §§ 48-8-89(b), -91(a). 31 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 concen- tration 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 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(3). 33 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 dis- tinguish 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 com- pensate 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.

34 See generally O.C.G.A. § 48-8-121. 35 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(5). 36 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(6). 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 indi- rectly 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 effec- tively 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.

37 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(7). 38 O.C.G.A. § 37-70-24 (3)(A). 39 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b)(8). 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 tran- sition 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.

40 O.C.G.A. § 48-8-89(b). 41 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. 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 48-8- 83, 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 48-8- 82 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 par-

19 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 -mu nicipalities 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 15- 1-9.1 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 Sec- tion 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 unicipalitym 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 qualifiqualified ed mu-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 48-8- 89, 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 an- nexed 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.

(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 21- 2-540. 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 Com- merce 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

(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. 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

2. 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

3. Shares of property taxes

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

4. Shares of property tax digest

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

5. Shares of total expenditures

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

40 Appendix E Statistical Data

41 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures APPLING Baxley 9.75 12.950 6.890 5.940 $696,149.23 $988,743.73 30.00% 30.00% 4150 4,400 23.82% 24.13% $2,905,800 $3,305,596 Graham 9.75 12.950 0.000 5.940 $46,409.95 $65,913.23 2.00% 2.00% 312 291 1.79% 1.60% $99,484 Surrency 9.75 12.950 0.000 0.000 $46,409.95 $65,913.23 2.00% 2.00% 237 201 1.36% 1.10% $108,022 $111,480 Unincorporated Appling 9.75 12.950 $1,531,528.31 $ 2,175,239.14 66.00% 66.00% 12,720 13,344 73.02% 73.17% $7,930,395 $11,681,184 Fire District 0.4 0.470 $2,320,497.45 $3,295,809.33 17,419 18,236 ATKINSON Pearson 16.877 17.361 13.000 12.000 $139,667.46 $ 202,351.91 30.00% 30.00% 1,805 2,117 23.72% 25.28% $574,639 $1,107,081 Willacoochee 16.877 17.361 13.000 13.000 $116,389.55 $ 168,632.79 25.00% 25.00% 1,434 1,391 18.85% 16.61% $309,772 Unincorporated Atkinson 15.165 17.361 $209,501.19 $ 303,509.59 45.00% 45.00% 4,370 4,867 57.43% 58.11% $2,660,506 $3,618,246 $465,558.20 $ 674,494.29 7,609 8,375 ATHENS-CLARK (unified government)

AUGUSTA-RICHMOND (unified government)

BACON Alma 13 13.988 10.280 12.060 $381,317.63 $ 471,699.55 40.00% 40.00% 3,236 3,466 32.03% 31.24% $2,191,169 $2,702,693 Unincorporated Bacon 13 13.988 $571,976.43 $ 707,547.86 60.00% 60.00% 6,867 7,630 67.97% 68.76% $4,203,163 $6,457,650 $953,294.06 $ 1,179,247.41 10,103 11,096 BAKER Newton 11.26 8.790 7.000 5.054 $43,474.65 $ 25,528.79 19.00% 9.99% 851 654 20.89% 18.95% $462,295 $271,615 Unincorporated Baker 10.11 7.620 $185,339.26 $ 229,921.72 81.00% 90.01% 3,223 2,797 79.11% 81.05% $1,643,295 $2,256,586 $228,813.91 $ 255,450.51 4,074 3,451 BALDWIN Milledgeville 12.52 8.640 9.750 9.120 $1,976,742.72 $ 2,492,211.57 39.74% 39.74% 18,757 17,715 41.96% 38.75% $7,995,189 $10,564,645 Unincorporated Baldwin 12.52 8.640 $2,997,446.30 $ 3,779,067.53 60.26% 60.26% 25,943 28,005 58.04% 61.25% $12,830,016 $23,024,122 $4,974,189.02 $ 6,271,279.10 44,700 45,720 BANKS Alto 6.24 8.979 0.000 0.000 $49,755.83 $ 72,308.63 2.10% 2.48% 438 516 3.04% 2.81% $115,374 Baldwin 6.24 8.979 4.050 3.800 $95,483.79 $ 87,479.49 4.03% 3.00% 485 741 3.36% 4.03% $1,043,595 Gillsville 6.24 8.979 0.000 0.000 $7,581.83 $ 5,648.09 0.32% 0.19% 195 28 1.35% 0.15% $35,200 $44,654 Homer 6.24 8.979 0.000 0.000 $200,681.81 $ 192,183.38 8.47% 6.59% 950 1,141 6.59% 6.20% $228,016 $321,409 Lula 6.24 8.979 0.000 0.000 $20,376.20 $ 16,903.78 0.86% 0.58% 144 158 1.00% 0.86% $227,051 Maysville 6.24 8.979 1.500 0.000 $106,856.55 $ 135,900.96 4.51% 4.66% 748 926 5.19% 5.03% $154,353 $596,047 Unincorporated Banks 6.24 8.979 8.979 $1,888,588.86 $ 2,405,786.81 79.71% 82.50% 11,462 14,885 79.48% 80.92% $4,896,085 $2,369,324.88 $ 2,916,211.14 14,422 18,395 BARROW Auburn 7.57 10.338 0.000 4.796 $595,781.42 $ 969,707.96 10.56% 12.55% 5,178 6,678 11.22% 9.63% $1,872,116 $3,320,790 Bethlehem 7.57 10.338 0.000 0.000 $66,050.30 $ 105,072.96 1.17% 1.36% 716 601 1.55% 0.87% $58,731 $166,078 BRASELTON 10.338 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 35,523.64 0.00% 0.46% 1,206 1,085 2.62% 1.56% $428,939 $2,808,230 Carl 7.57 10.338 0.000 0.000 $49,917.32 $ 30,112.15 0.88% 0.39% 205 255 0.44% 0.37% $44,135 Statham 7.57 10.338 6.120 5.619 $258,127.65 $ 299,025.24 4.58% 3.87% 2,040 2,408 4.42% 3.47% $595,046 $1,081,062 Winder 7.57 10.338 0.000 0.000 $1,399,393.59 $ 1,496,649.43 24.81% 19.37% 10,201 14,099 22.11% 20.33% $5,513,421 $11,764,328 Unincorporated Barrow 6.22 10.338 $3,271,768.04 $ 4,790,579.13 58.00% 62.00% 26,598 44,241 57.64% 63.78% $12,975,028 $33,701,696 Fire District 1.75 Winder Fire District 1.000 46,144 69,367 $5,641,038.32 $ 7,726,670.51 BARTOW Adairsville 8.08 9.070 0.000 3.640 $611,643.62 $ 766,088.69 3.81% 3.34% 2,542 4,648 3.34% 4.64% $1,774,626 $2,331,527 Cartersville 8.08 9.070 16.520 1.380 $3,456,348.28 $ 4,754,854.71 21.53% 20.73% 15,925 19,731 20.95% 19.70% $23,706,483 $36,849,717 Emerson 8.08 9.070 0.000 0.000 $343,547.85 $ 451,849.41 2.14% 1.97% 1,092 1,470 1.44% 1.47% $422,921 $1,226,549 Euharlee 8.08 9.070 0.000 0.000 $244,015.30 $ 917,473.84 1.52% 4.00% 3,208 4,136 4.22% 4.13% $451,556 $1,300,085 Kingston 8.08 9.070 0.000 0.000 $176,590.02 $ 219,040.45 1.10% 0.95% 659 637 0.87% 0.64% $402,728 White 8.08 9.070 0.000 0.000 $157,325.65 $ 219,040.45 0.98% 0.95% 693 670 0.91% 0.67% $231,548 $365,520 Unincorporated Bartow 6.82 7.730 $11,064,167.35 $ 15,608,736.62 68.92% 68.05% 51,900 68,865 68.27% 68.76% $34,362,626 $60,993,817 $16,053,638.07 $ 22,937,084.17 76,019 100,157 BEN HILL Fitzgerald 13.94 13.660 6.400 10.000 $1,291,186.08 $ 1,157,507.68 50.00% 50.00% 8,758 9,053 50.09% 51.34% $5,182,938 $7,530,056 Unincorporated Ben Hill 13.94 13.660 $1,291,186.08 $ 1,157,507.68 50.00% 50.00% 8,726 8,581 49.91% 48.66% $6,792,588 $9,973,794 $2,582,372.16 $ 2,315,015.36 17,484 17,634 BERRIEN Alahapa 13.25 18.000 9.500 9.500 $92,698.65 $ 70,578.81 5.70% 4.80% 682 668 4.20% 3.46% Enigma 13.25 18.000 2.000 0.000 $69,930.56 $ 82,359.62 4.30% 5.60% 869 1,278 5.35% 6.63% $199,291 Nashville 13.25 18.000 7.000 8.000 $549,686.71 $ 455,886.19 33.80% 31.00% 4,697 4,939 28.93% 25.61% $2,172,721 $2,836,153 Ray City 13.25 18.000 8.000 10.000 $69,930.56 $ 70,578.81 4.30% 4.80% 746 1,090 4.60% 5.65% $418,224 $665,140 Unincorporated Berrien 13.25 18.000 $844,045.57 $ 791,207.65 51.90% 53.80% 9,241 11,311 56.92% 58.65% $4,566,572 $9,546,283 $1,626,292.05 $ 1,470,611.08 16,235 19,286 BIBB Macon 13.168 10.003 9.100 9.800 $25,595,032.39 $ 18,211,185.19 80.40% 60.00% 97,255 90,885 63.20% 58.43% $59,589,140 $68,746,368 Unincorporated Bibb 13.168 10.003 $6,239,585.02 $ 12,140,807.11 19.60% 40.00% 56,632 64,662 36.80% 41.57% $66,589,560 $94,292,316

AUGUSTA-RICHMOND (unified government)

42 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Fire District 3.000 2.149 $31,834,617.41 $ 30,351,992.30 153,887 155,547 BLECKLEY Cochran 10.900 14.052 6.000 9.183 $566,882.21 $ 551,238.61 50.00% 50.00% 4,455 5,150 38.19% 39.42% $2,138,480 $3,236,589 Unincorporated Bleckley 9.000 14.052 $566,882.21 $ 551,238.61 50.00% 50.00% 7,211 7,913 61.81% 60.58% $3,770,506 $6,029,932 $1,133,764.42 $ 1,102,477.22 11,666 13,063 BRANTLEY Hoboken 18.06 22.730 3.000 3.400 $69,385.02 $ 80,661.28 7.00% 7.00% 463 528 3.16% 2.87% $124,780 $194,945 Nahunta 18.06 22.730 6.330 11.200 $133,813.97 $ 155,604.80 13.50% 13.50% 930 1,053 6.36% 5.72% $355,553 $671,020 Unincorporated Brantley 15.89 20.450 $788,015.61 $ 916,380.56 79.50% 79.50% 13,236 16,830 90.48% 91.41% $4,950,661 $9,368,123 unincorporated Fire Districts 2.430 14,629 18,411 County Special Fire District $991,214.60 $ 1,152,646.64 BROOKS Barwick 10.92 11.185 10.970 10.750 $6,748.48 $ 7,057.39 0.59% 0.65% 222 146 1.35% 0.90% $107,261 $130,950 Morven 10.92 11.185 12.560 10.187 $13,142.84 $ 17,799.01 1.16% 1.65% 634 565 3.85% 3.48% $206,401 $358,075 Pavo 10.92 11.185 12.940 0.000 $7,918.71 $ 7,947.93 0.70% 0.73% 711 248 4.32% 1.53% $317,410 $309,381 Quitman 10.92 11.185 4.750 5.480 $221,303.65 $ 210,718.19 19.48% 19.48% 4,638 3,850 28.19% 23.70% $2,312,592 $2,954,663 Unincorporated Brooks 9.33 9.849 $886,945.83 $ 838,221.33 78.07% 77.49% 10,245 11,434 62.28% 70.39% $3,576,942 $8,196,239 Fire District 0.98 1.000 $1,136,059.51 $ 1,081,743.85 16,450 16,243 BRYAN Pembroke 7.16 7.900 7.000 8.359 $232,440.36 $ 504,408.00 10.25% 10.00% 2,379 2,196 10.16% 7.26% $801,474 $1,516,633 Richmond Hill 7.16 6.900 5.912 4.209 $544,250.60 $ 1,664,548.92 24.00% 33.00% 6,959 9,281 29.72% 30.70% $2,847,308 $6,701,078 Unincorporated Bryan 7.16 7.900 $1,491,019.87 $ 2,875,131.36 65.75% 57.00% 14,079 18,756 60.12% 62.04% $8,334,695 $16,907,996 $2,267,710.83 $ 5,044,088.28 23,417 30,233 BULLOCH (gives LOST to schools)

BURKE Girard 5.18 6.723 2.000 2.000 $21,299.10 $ 40,291.81 0.74% 0.74% 227 156 1.02% 0.67% $17,830 $30,938 Keysville 5.18 6.723 10.000 12.025 $31,085.18 $ 58,834.77 1.08% 1.08% 180 332 0.81% 1.42% $9,700 $141,086 Midville 5.18 6.723 12.000 16.000 $67,639.07 $ 127,993.17 2.35% 2.35% 457 269 2.05% 1.15% $262,055 $218,236 Sardis 5.18 6.723 10.000 12.000 $121,750.32 $ 230,376.53 4.23% 4.23% 1,171 999 5.26% 4.28% $387,422 $595,940 Waynesboro 5.18 6.723 12.000 11.000 $621,703.77 $ 1,176,402.73 21.60% 21.60% 5,813 5,766 26.13% 24.73% $2,490,586 $3,735,206 Unincorporated Burke 5 6.264 $2,014,780.76 $ 3,812,421.67 70.00% 70.00% 14,395 15,794 64.72% 67.74% $16,875,027 $21,053,223 $2,878,258.20 $ 5,446,320.68 22,243 23,316 BUTTS Flovilla 14.15 17.413 0.000 0.000 $93,525.11 $ 213,256.44 3.93% 5.40% 652 653 3.34% 2.76% $170,858 $430,181 Jackson 14.15 17.413 0.000 0.000 $633,019.85 $ 1,050,542.01 26.60% 26.60% 3,934 5,045 20.15% 21.33% $1,909,353 $3,341,370 Jenkinsburg 14.15 17.413 0.000 0.000 $33,078.86 $ 118,460.75 1.39% 3.00% 203 370 1.04% 1.56% $40,785 $183,497 Unincorporated Butts 14.15 17.413 $1,620,150.06 $ 2,567,120.96 68.08% 65.00% 14,733 17,587 75.47% 74.35% $10,183,549 $18,193,118 $2,379,773.88 $ 3,949,380.16 19,522 23,655 CALHOUN Arlington 11.46 13.057 4.17 8.030 $85,124.62 $ 97,480.73 23.70% 23.40% 1,602 1,075 25.35% 16.06% $574,221 $913,522 Edison 11.46 13.057 9.932 13.536 $84,693.61 $ 110,410.15 23.58% 26.50% 1,340 1,531 21.20% 22.87% $563,984 $681,045 Leary 11.46 13.057 10.000 13.000 $50,212.75 $ 54,450.15 13.98% 13.07% 666 618 10.54% 9.23% $307,628 $285,927 Morgan 11.46 13.057 4.960 3.840 $18,066.53 $ 29,281.42 5.03% 7.03% 1,464 240 23.16% 3.59% $116,558 $234,382 Unincorporated Calhoun 10.66 12.210 $121,078.10 $ 124,981.59 33.71% 30.00% 1,248 3,230 19.75% 48.25% $2,460,550 $3,134,078 $359,175.62 $ 416,604.04 6,320 6,694 CAMDEN Kingsland 13.82 11.700 6.970 8.000 $1,119,375.20 $ 1,431,835.53 20.49% 20.61% 10,506 15,946 24.06% 31.57% $3,996,478 $9,761,851 St. Marys 13.82 11.700 6.500 5.351 $1,598,483.09 $ 1,875,750.96 29.26% 27.00% 13,761 17,121 31.52% 33.89% $5,238,302 $9,288,511 Woodbine 13.82 11.700 9.970 10.000 $367,115.73 $ 166,028.45 6.72% 2.39% 1,218 1,412 2.79% 2.80% $672,097 $742,646 Unincorporated Camden 13.82 11.700 $2,378,057.72 $ 3,473,638.37 43.53% 50.00% 18,179 16,034 41.63% 31.74% $16,879,483 $29,920,226 Fire District 0.85 $5,463,031.74 $ 6,947,253.31 43,664 50,513 CANDLER Metter 12.37 9.227 7.96 7.430 $575,000.00 $ 623,604.25 50.00% 49.00% 3,879 4,130 40.50% 37.55% $2,195,885 $2,437,479 Pulaski 9.227 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 25,443.87 0.00% 2.00% 261 266 2.79% 2.42% $19,106 $37,649 Unincorporated Candler 10.87 10.078 $575,000.00 $ 623,604.25 50.00% 49.00% 5,431 6,602 56.71% 60.03% $4,084,162 $5,967,199 $1,150,000.00 $ 1,272,652.37 9,577 10,998 CARROLL Bowdon 4.58 8.500 8.79 8.660 $384,190.20 $ 221,874.00 3.20% 1.46% 1,959 2,040 2.24% 1.85% $1,341,207 $1,884,110 Bremen 4.58 8.500 7.22/2.888 7.047 $38,419.02 $ 48,616.02 0.32% 0.32% 92 45 0.11% 0.04% $3,411,046 $4,040,782 Carrollton 4.58 7.230 5.24 4.690 $3,042,306.12 $ 3,851,017.98 25.34% 25.34% 19,843 24,388 22.74% 22.07% $12,298,486 $20,193,322 Mount Zion 4.58 8.500 1.000 7.290 $86,442.79 $ 109,407.27 0.72% 0.72% 1,276 1,696 1.46% 1.53% $280,507 $649,323 Roopville 4.58 8.500 0.000 0.000 $48,023.77 $ 18,209.91 0.40% 0.12% 177 218 0.20% 0.20% $22,974 $49,917 Temple 4.58 8.500 7.49 7.050 $314,555.72 $ 398,165.67 2.62% 2.62% 2,383 4,228 2.73% 3.83% $955,160 $1,793,353 Villa Rica 4.58 8.500 7.7 6.775 $780,386.34 $ 987,830.36 6.50% 6.50% 3,886 8,367 4.45% 7.57% $3,081,829 $8,467,827 Whitesburg 4.58 8.500 7.75 8.250 $129,664.19 $ 75,967.75 1.08% 0.50% 596 588 0.68% 0.53% $281,185 $490,119 Unincorporated Carroll 4.58 8.500 $7,181,955.48 $ 9,486,211.27 59.82% 62.42% 57,056 68,957 65.38% 62.39% $21,010,026 $48,178,472 $12,005,943.63 $ 15,197,300.23 87,268 110,527

43 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures CATOOSA Fort Oglethorpe 3.266 5.386 8.35 6.495 $1,156,913.46 $ 1,745,507.80 17.00% 20.47% 6,940 9,013 13.03% 14.10% $4,765,521 $5,232,226 Ringgold 3.266 5.386 3.07 2.707 $408,322.40 $ 807,528.29 6.00% 9.47% 2,422 3,580 4.55% 5.60% $1,121,161 $2,207,936 Unincorporated Catoosa 3.266 5.386 $5,240,137.42 $ 5,974,152.56 77.00% 70.06% 43,920 51,349 82.43% 80.31% $14,732,442 $23,600,140 $6,805,373.27 $ 8,527,188.65 53,282 63,942 CHARLTON Folkston 12.43 17.030 7.93 7.290 $226,823.16 $ 331,249.43 26.90% 28.90% 2,178 2,502 21.18% 20.56% $1,159,760 $1,468,915 Homeland 12.43 17.030 2.000 2.250 $97,380.05 $ 109,427.43 11.55% 9.55% 765 910 7.44% 7.48% $227,111 $245,581 Unincorporated Charlton 12.43 17.030 $519,162.33 $ 705,694.49 61.56% 61.56% 7,339 8,759 71.38% 71.97% $4,732,518 $15,120,296 Hospital 4.14 4.080 $843,365.54 $ 1,146,371.35 10,282 12,171 CHATHAM Bloomingdale 10.439 10.537 0.000 0.000 $495,274.32 $ 780,722.53 1.14% 1.36% 2,665 2,713 1.15% 1.02% $1,054,138 $2,410,771 Garden City 10.439 10.537 0.000 0.000 $1,611,813.80 $ 3,312,306.21 3.71% 5.77% 11,289 8,778 4.86% 3.31% $3,459,639 $8,576,688 Pooler 10.439 10.537 4.22 0.000 $977,515.11 $ 1,831,247.47 2.25% 3.19% 6,239 19,140 2.69% 7.22% $4,121,628 $9,625,121 Port Wentworth 10.439 10.537 3.7 4.397 $877,591.34 $ 958,671.06 2.02% 1.67% 3,276 5,359 1.41% 2.02% $2,434,911 $5,052,839 Savannah 10.439 10.537 13.7 13.000 $29,859,828.14 $ 38,582,379.75 68.73% 67.21% 131,510 136,286 56.67% 51.40% $114,650,290 $178,422,247 Thunderbolt 10.439 10.537 6.84 6.377 $612,576.13 $ 688,847.41 1.41% 1.20% 2,340 2,668 1.01% 1.01% $1,489,496 $2,452,433 Tybee Island 10.439 10.537 4.76 4.000 $629,954.18 $ 993,104.59 1.45% 1.73% 3,392 2,990 1.46% 1.13% $4,105,537 $9,785,415 Vernonburg 10.439 10.537 0.000 0.000 $30,411.58 $ 40,144.71 0.07% 0.07% 138 122 0.06% 0.05% $28,055 $103,598 Unincorporated Chatham 10.439 10.537 $8,350,151.27 $ 10,218,224.73 19.22% 17.80% 71,199 87,072 30.68% 32.84% $98,877,433 $177,975,391 Special Service Districts 3.48 3.475 $43,445,115.87 $ 57,405,648.46 232,048 265,128 COLUMBUS-MUSCOGEE (unified government)

CUSSETA-CHATTAHOOCHEE (unified government)

CHEROKEE (no LOST)

CLAY Bluffton 15.32 15.152 0.000 0.000 $12,515.42 $ 10,246.24 4.00% 4.00% 118 103 3.52% 3.24% $29,273 $25,811 Fort Gaines 15.32 15.152 14.5 14.950 $150,185.08 $ 102,458.41 48.00% 40.00% 1,110 1,107 33.07% 34.78% $455,377 $734,360 Unincorporated Clay 15.32 15.152 $150,185.08 $ 143,441.41 48.00% 56.00% 2,129 1,973 63.42% 61.99% $1,704,318 $3,710,455 $312,885.59 $ 256,146.06 3,357 3,183 CLAYTON College Park 3.913 11.327 6.93 11.560 $794,718.44 $ 453,126.52 1.60% 1.00% 20,382 1,272 8.62% 0.49% $15,480,528 $27,633,291 Forest Park 3.913 11.327 3.043 13.343 $4,619,300.95 $ 4,440,523.01 9.30% 9.80% 21,447 18,468 9.07% 7.12% $13,390,964 $18,578,178 Jonesboro 3.913 11.327 0.000 0.000 $1,092,737.86 $ 951,529.35 2.20% 2.10% 3,829 4,724 1.62% 1.82% $2,209,969 $2,909,611 Lake City 3.913 11.327 0.000 5.737 $844,388.35 $ 951,529.35 1.70% 2.10% 2,886 2,612 1.22% 1.01% $2,041,745 $2,956,938 Lovejoy 11.327 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 521,071.29 0.00% 1.15% 2,495 6,422 1.05% 2.48% $1,470,847 Morrow 3.913 11.327 0.000 6.000 $2,533,165.04 $ 1,540,588.25 5.10% 3.40% 4,882 6,445 2.06% 2.48% $6,303,593 $9,431,077 Riverdale 3.913 11.327 1.000 7.500 $2,533,165.04 $ 2,537,438.06 5.10% 5.60% 12,478 15,134 5.28% 5.83% $7,208,586 $11,189,813 Unincorporated Clayton 3.913 11.327 $37,252,427.01 $ 33,915,714.42 75.00% 74.85% 168,118 204,347 71.08% 78.77% $114,993,979 $214,204,755 Fire District 4.625 3.900 $49,669,902.68 $ 45,311,520.25 236,517 259,424 CLINCH Homerville 11.17 10.959 7.75 10.750 $285,885.67 $ 326,684.34 47.23% 44.20% 2,803 2,456 40.75% 36.13% $831,217 $1,836,584 Fargo 10.959 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 44,338.56 0.00% 6.00% 380 321 5.53% 4.72% $15,383 $125,033 Unincorporated Clinch 11.17 10.959 $319,435.89 $ 368,079.96 52.77% 49.80% 3,695 4,021 53.72% 59.15% $3,445,572 $4,657,300 $605,321.56 $ 739,102.86 6,878 6,798 COBB (no LOST)

COFFEE Ambrose 6.318 7.847 0.000 8.347 $40,503.10 $ 47,174.91 0.80% 0.86% 320 380 0.86% 0.90% $52,303 $91,473 Broxton 6.318 7.847 8.000 7.446 $170,306.32 $ 209,571.18 3.37% 3.82% 1,428 1,189 3.82% 2.81% $405,427 $786,357 Douglas 6.318 7.847 5.4 7.510 $1,654,230.76 $ 1,700,951.09 32.69% 31.00% 10,639 11,589 28.44% 27.36% $9,204,513 $13,645,587 Nicholls 6.318 7.847 7.000 6.873 $141,052.40 $ 246,885.20 2.79% 4.50% 1,008 2,798 2.69% 6.61% $425,549 $742,229 Unincorporated Coffee 6.318 7.847 $3,054,264.59 $ 3,282,318.15 60.36% 59.82% 24,018 26,400 64.20% 62.33% $9,387,444 $15,575,121 $5,060,357.16 $ 5,486,900.53 37,413 42,356 COLQUITT (gives LOST to schools)

COLUMBIA Grovetown 6.56 6.402 4.7 7.000 $1,013,900.44 $ 1,521,105.47 10.70% 8.25% 6,089 11,216 6.82% 9.04% $1,952,293 $4,385,087 Harlem 6.56 6.402 5.5 5.350 $568,542.30 $ 737,516.33 6.00% 4.00% 1,814 2,666 2.03% 2.15% $945,735 $1,885,109 Unincorporated Columbia 6.56 6.402 $7,893,262.31 $ 16,179,174.41 83.30% 87.75% 81,385 110,171 91.15% 88.81% $28,581,126 $65,256,855 $9,475,705.05 $ 18,437,796.21 89,288 124,053 COOK Adel 7.75 9.565 5.96 6.450 $443,797.87 $ 213,481.87 25.92% 11.68% 5,307 5,334 33.65% 30.99% $3,501,751 $5,269,134 Cecil 7.75 9.565 3 10.912 $27,242.77 $ 16,526.91 1.38% 0.90% 265 286 1.68% 1.66% $64,047 $150,561 Lenox 7.75 9.565 10 0.000 $88,410.83 $ 57,363.75 4.48% 3.14% 889 873 5.64% 5.07% $623,571 $539,083 44 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Sparks 7.75 9.565 10 8.000 $137,447.39 $ 103,242.41 6.97% 5.65% 1,755 2,052 11.13% 11.92% $495,357 $1,079,688 Unincorporated Cook 7.75 9.565 $1,207,988.56 $ 1,436,476.76 61.25% 78.62% 7,555 8,667 47.90% 50.35% $4,306,050 $7,598,263 $1,712,398.79 $ 1,827,091.70 15,771 17,212 COWETA Grantville 6.2 7.790 5 4.490 $337,629.88 $ 332,729.95 2.64% 1.76% 1,309 3,041 1.47% 2.39% $557,840 $1,696,240 Haralson 6.2 7.790 3.400 2.710 $0.00 $ 35,896.52 0.00% 0.19% 144 160 0.16% 0.13% $41,810 $97,159 Newnan 6.2 7.790 4.7 4.390 $3,568,133.99 $ 4,138,471.73 27.90% 21.89% 16,242 33,039 18.21% 25.95% $12,201,127 $16,464,581 Palmetto 6.2 7.790 4.5 8.450 $92,080.88 $ 83,169.98 0.72% 0.44% 340 300 0.38% 0.24% $1,242,030 Sharpsburg 0 7.790 0.000 2.800 $0.00 $ 79,371.68 0.00% 0.42% 316 341 0.35% 0.27% $19,842 $126,387 Turin 0 7.790 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 41,805.66 0.00% 0.22% 165 274 0.18% 0.22% $31,831 $89,959 Senoia 6.2 7.790 9.53 6.110 $272,405.93 $ 442,402.01 2.13% 2.34% 1,738 3,307 1.95% 2.60% $1,149,429 $1,864,933 Unincorporated Coweta 5.21 6.860 6.860 $8,518,760.03 $ 13,751,861.59 66.61% 72.74% 68,961 86,855 77.30% 68.22% $31,033,635 $71,920,323 $12,789,010.70 $ 18,905,709.12 89,215 127,317 CRAWFORD Roberta 13.66 14.270 4.92 4.300 $115,614.97 $ 149,077.55 25.00% 25.00% 808 1,007 6.47% 7.97% $324,186 $531,986 Unincorporated Crawford 12.06 12.530 $346,844.92 $ 447,211.17 75.00% 75.00% 11,687 11,623 93.53% 92.03% $3,837,825 $2,668,385 $462,459.89 $ 596,288.72 12,495 12,630 CRISP Arabi 12.945 10.749 0.000 0.000 $47,918.88 $ 77,773.40 1.50% 2.00% 456 586 2.07% 2.50% $90,071 $169,662 Cordele 12.945 10.749 11.31 13.500 $1,565,350.12 $ 1,983,319.42 49.00% 51.00% 11,608 11,147 52.77% 47.56% $5,847,463 $8,437,627 Unincorporated Crisp 12.945 10.749 $1,581,323.08 $ 1,827,760.73 49.50% 47.00% 9,932 11,706 45.15% 49.94% $9,951,070 $14,914,768 $3,194,592.09 $ 3,888,853.55 21,996 23,439 DADE Trenton 7.85 8.198 3.5 3.500 $390,514.47 $ 450,504.50 20.00% 20.00% 1,942 2,301 12.82% 13.83% $1,185,193 $1,554,653 Unincorporated Dade 5.65 6.478 $1,562,057.90 $ 1,802,076.59 80.00% 80.00% 13,212 14,332 87.18% 86.17% $4,926,912 $7,819,146 $1,952,572.37 $ 2,252,581.09 15,154 16,633 DAWSON Dawsonville 6.212 8.138 0.000 0.000 $339,124.78 $ 794,971.08 10.00% 14.00% 619 2,536 3.87% 11.36% $306,154 $404,900 Unincorporated Dawson 6.212 8.138 $3,052,123.02 $ 4,883,378.60 90.00% 86.00% 15,380 19,794 96.13% 88.64% $11,547,355 $22,966,377 $3,391,247.80 $ 5,678,349.68 15,999 22,330 DECATUR Attapulgus 9.99 8.560 0.000 21.570 $98,248.48 $ 115,131.17 2.46% 2.46% 492 449 1.74% 1.61% $160,165 $177,559 Bainbridge 9.99 8.560 3.5 3.570 $1,652,651.24 $ 1,937,032.33 41.38% 41.38% 11,722 12,697 41.51% 45.60% $4,863,385 $8,778,250 Brinson 9.99 8.560 0.000 0.000 $43,133.48 $ 50,540.48 1.08% 1.08% 225 215 0.80% 0.77% $51,108 $81,435 Climax 9.99 8.560 5.000 6.500 $65,099.60 $ 76,281.37 1.63% 1.63% 297 280 1.05% 1.01% $126,249 Unincorporated Decatur 9.99 8.560 $2,134,707.80 $ 2,502,061.92 53.45% 53.45% 15,504 14,201 54.90% 51.01% $9,265,316 $3,993,840.59 $ 4,681,047.27 28,240 27,842 DEKALB (no LOST)

DODGE Chauncey 10 10.000 4.000 3.000 $31,394.99 $ 39,584.59 1.88% 1.88% 295 342 1.54% 1.57% $80,942 $149,359 Chester 10 10.000 1.000 1.000 $108,212.51 $ 136,480.52 6.48% 6.48% 305 1,596 1.59% 7.32% $164,613 $240,495 Eastman 10 10.000 6.000 6.000 $520,021.21 $ 655,824.40 31.14% 31.14% 5,440 4,962 28.38% 22.77% $1,734,630 $2,373,128 Milan 10 10.000 6.000 6.000 $56,444.18 $ 71,183.38 3.38% 3.38% 506 364 2.64% 1.67% $187,694 $339,471 Rhine 10 10.000 10.000 0.000 $47,092.48 $ 59,378.79 2.82% 2.82% 422 394 2.20% 1.81% $63,453 $176,391 Unincorporated Dodge 10 10.000 $906,780.72 $ 1,143,607.29 54.30% 54.30% 12,203 14,138 63.65% 64.87% $5,794,332 $7,877,984 $1,669,946.08 $ 2,106,058.97 19,171 21,796 DOOLY Byromville 13.25 17.890 4.000 0.000 $39,381.63 $ 57,305.94 3.70% 3.70% 415 546 3.60% 3.66% $95,379 Dooling 13.25 17.890 0.000 0.000 $12,027.36 $ 17,495.14 1.13% 1.13% 163 154 1.41% 1.03% $26,142 $21,781 Lilly 13.25 17.890 0.000 0.000 $17,029.89 $ 24,774.44 1.60% 1.60% 221 213 1.92% 1.43% $25,091 $66,424 Pinehurst 13.25 17.890 4.5 4.500 $33,740.48 $ 49,093.48 3.17% 3.17% 307 455 2.66% 3.05% $96,265 $118,352 Unadilla 13.25 17.890 8.75 7.500 $141,028.81 $ 250,948.28 13.25% 16.20% 2,772 3,796 24.05% 25.45% $786,125 Vienna 13.25 17.890 7.5 11.000 $235,757.59 $ 297,447.85 22.15% 19.20% 2,973 4,011 25.80% 26.89% $1,266,474 $1,726,888 Unincorporated Dooly 13.25 17.890 $585,402.60 $ 852,048.14 55.00% 55.00% 4,674 5,743 40.56% 38.50% $7,923,333 $10,098,948 $1,064,368.36 $ 1,549,113.27 11,525 14,918 DOUGHERTY Albany 11.1 11.894 9.8 8.660 $10,315,377.13 $ 9,983,311.29 60.00% 60.00% 76,939 77,434 80.09% 81.88% $61,402,592 $50,172,879 Unincorporated Dougherty 11.1 11.894 $6,876,918.08 $ 6,655,539.37 40.00% 40.00% 19,126 17,131 19.91% 18.12% $39,441,281 $54,414,432 Special Service Districts 609 7.272 $17,192,295.21 $ 16,638,850.66 96,065 94,565 DOUGLAS Austell 9.464 9.900 3.5 3.123 $40,385.55 $ 51,162.41 0.25% 0.25% 54 40 0.06% 0.03% $3,115,782 $6,477,481 Douglasville 9.464 9.900 4.591 3.854 $3,084,316.31 $ 4,148,249.97 18.85% 20.00% 20,065 30,961 21.77% 23.38% $12,030,791 $17,159,252 Villa Rica 9.464 9.900 7.7 6.775 $48,264.92 $ 142,389.28 0.29% 0.69% 248 5,589 0.27% 4.22% $3,081,829 $8,467,827 Unincorporated Douglas 9.464 9.900 $13,190,908.89 $ 16,399,432.88 80.61% 79.07% 71,807 95,813 77.90% 72.36% $43,625,439 $72,011,046 $16,363,875.68 $ 20,741,234.54 92,174 132,403 EARLY Arlington 8.2 11.720 7.93 8.030 $38,071.47 $ 54,407.21 2.50% 3.10% 160 404 1.30% 3.67% $574,221 $913,522 Blakely 8.2 11.720 0.000 0.000 $609,143.51 $ 701,896.71 40.00% 40.00% 5,696 5,068 46.11% 46.04% $2,857,544 $4,913,218 Damascus 8.2 11.720 0.000 6.140 $30,457.18 $ 35,106.73 2.00% 2.00% 277 254 2.24% 2.31% $105,049 $135,421 45 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Jakin 8.2 11.720 0.000 0.000 $15,228.59 $ 21,923.99 1.00% 1.25% 157 155 1.27% 1.41% $24,925 $38,451 Unincorporated Early 7.66 11.440 $829,958.03 $ 941,447.80 54.50% 53.65% 6,064 5,127 49.09% 46.58% $5,360,202 $8,008,921 $1,522,858.77 $ 1,754,782.44 12,354 11,008 ECHOLS (unified government)

EFFINGHAM Guyton 10.265 8.558 2.924 2.240 $108,355.24 $ 243,654.74 2.88% 2.90% 917 1,684 2.44% 3.22% $312,982 $888,738 Rincon 10.265 8.558 0.000 0.000 $438,257.99 $ 1,162,751.39 11.65% 13.84% 4,376 8,836 11.66% 16.91% $1,131,521 $2,209,510 Springfield 10.265 8.558 4.75 4.300 $207,194.42 $ 483,915.44 5.51% 5.76% 1,821 2,852 4.85% 5.46% $876,943 $1,251,178 Unincorporated Effingham 10.265 8.558 $3,007,482.35 $ 6,511,162.86 79.96% 77.50% 30,421 38,878 81.05% 74.41% $13,933,470 $29,277,695 $3,761,290.00 $ 8,401,484.43 37,535 52,250 ELBERT Bowman 7.95 10.496 0.000 0.000 $97,792.08 $ 116,206.70 5.00% 5.00% 898 862 4.38% 4.27% $200,771 $341,143 Elberton 7.95 10.496 0.000 0.000 $567,194.06 $ 674,028.12 29.00% 29.00% 4,743 4,653 23.12% 23.07% $3,885,908 $4,676,957 Unincorporated Elbert 7.13 9.656 $1,290,855.45 $ 1,533,990.75 66.00% 66.00% 14,870 14,651 72.50% 72.65% $6,963,095 $12,205,480 $1,955,841.59 $ 2,324,225.57 20,511 20,166 EMANUEL Adrian 11.5 10.970 4.79 10.005 $26,605.46 $ 36,114.06 1.37% 1.37% 289 270 1.32% 1.19% $247,580 $290,842 Garfield 11.5 10.970 5.000 6.500 $23,059.36 $ 31,314.66 1.19% 1.19% 152 201 0.70% 0.89% $76,092 $137,167 Nunez 11.5 10.970 0.000 0.000 $12,285.41 $ 16,670.32 0.63% 0.63% 131 147 0.60% 0.65% $23,481 $32,715 Oak Park 11.5 10.970 0.000 0.000 $24,377.04 $ 42,424.71 1.26% 1.61% 366 484 1.68% 2.14% $26,910 $58,903 Stillmore 11.5 10.970 0.000 0.000 $55,613.75 $ 84,356.07 2.87% 3.21% 730 532 3.34% 2.35% $427,043 $218,062 Summertown 11.5 10.970 2.000 3.000 $13,758.11 $ 18,669.18 0.71% 0.71% 140 160 0.64% 0.71% $40,775 $31,528 Swainsboro 11.5 10.970 6.042 19.575 $666,531.75 $ 905,055.22 34.40% 34.40% 6,943 7,277 31.79% 32.20% $4,322,262 $6,089,154 Twin City 11.5 10.970 0.000 7.750 $132,814.16 $ 202,565.18 6.85% 7.70% 1,752 1,742 8.02% 7.71% $483,118 $625,360 Unincorporated Emanuel 11.5 10.970 $982,716.27 $ 1,293,969.39 50.71% 49.18% 11,334 11,785 51.90% 52.15% $5,826,401 $8,529,124 $1,937,761.30 $ 2,631,138.79 21,837 22,598 EVANS Bellville 7.03 10.450 0.000 0.000 $36,906.69 $ 12,940.47 3.00% 1.00% 130 123 1.24% 1.12% $28,913 $39,589 Claxton 10.450 8.38 0.000 $465,569.72 $ 297,829.75 38.00% 23.00% 2,276 2,746 21.68% 24.96% $1,378,937 $1,981,493 Daisy 7.03 10.450 0.000 0.000 $24,604.46 $ 12,940.47 2.00% 1.00% 126 129 1.20% 1.17% $24,004 $35,189 Hagan 7.03 10.450 2.78 2.350 $110,720.08 $ 116,533.75 9.00% 9.00% 898 996 8.56% 9.05% $256,252 $406,743 Unincorporated Evans 5.5 8.350 $590,507.10 $ 854,644.63 48.00% 66.00% 7,065 7,006 67.32% 63.69% $4,001,207 $5,176,284 $1,230,223.12 $ 1,294,889.07 10,495 11,000 FANNIN Blue Ridge 6.27 5.160 6.32 6.320 $284,752.29 $ 367,360.86 12.03% 11.10% 1,210 1,290 6.11% 5.45% $1,184,663 $2,384,172 McCaysville 6.27 5.160 5.000 5.000 $270,313.48 $ 327,629.19 11.42% 9.90% 1,071 1,056 5.41% 4.46% $437,045 $807,885 Unincorporated Fannin 6.27 5.160 $1,811,952.43 $ 2,614,505.87 76.55% 79.00% 17,517 21,336 88.48% 90.09% $8,830,524 $15,560,846 $2,367,018.20 $ 3,309,495.92 19,798 23,682 FAYETTE Brooks 7.56 7.391 0.917 0.789 $91,504.58 $ 112,581.89 0.59% 0.59% 553 524 0.61% 0.49% $89,311 $157,270 Fayetteville 7.56 5.400 3.22 3.240 $1,761,850.83 $ 2,253,892.72 11.36% 11.81% 11,148 15,945 12.22% 14.96% $6,341,879 $10,482,635 Peachtree City 7.56 5.400 3.836 6.384 $5,527,496.79 $ 6,383,772.61 35.64% 33.45% 31,580 34,364 34.60% 32.25% $11,696,430 $24,418,396 Tyrone 7.56 7.391 2.5 2.889 $761,504.19 $ 792,009.88 4.91% 4.15% 3,916 6,879 4.29% 6.46% $1,561,288 $2,736,677 Unincorporated Fayette 10.34 7.391 $7,366,893.87 $ 9,542,265.44 47.50% 50.00% 44,066 48,855 48.28% 45.84% $32,141,231 $56,067,223 $15,509,250.26 $ 19,084,522.54 91,263 106,567 FLOYD Cave Spring 9.78 8.767 0.000 0.000 $245,076.40 $ 265,889.00 1.80% 1.80% 975 1,200 1.08% 1.25% $571,436 $656,533 Rome 9.78 8.767 7.95 8.700 $5,677,603.21 $ 6,159,768.45 41.70% 41.70% 34,980 36,303 38.62% 37.69% $18,894,856 $31,460,342 Unincorporated Floyd 9.78 8.767 $7,692,675.81 $ 8,345,976.54 56.50% 56.50% 54,610 58,814 60.30% 61.06% $45,846,369 $64,042,783 $13,615,355.42 $ 14,771,633.99 90,565 96,317 FORSYTH Cumming 2 4.734 0.000 0.000 $2,793,879.78 $ 4,123,317.75 15.00% 15.00% 4,220 5,430 4.29% 3.09% $4,056,069 $7,814,296 Unincorporated Forsyth 2 4.734 $15,831,985.45 $ 23,365,499.80 85.00% 85.00% 94,187 170,081 95.71% 96.91% $35,271,270 $107,247,282 $18,625,865.23 $ 27,488,817.55 98,407 175,511 FRANKLIN Canon 11.27 9.214 0.000 0.000 $118,172.30 $ 126,922.16 4.20% 4.20% 612 761 3.02% 3.45% $224,794 $420,506 Carnesville 11.27 9.214 1.51 0.907 $84,408.79 $ 90,638.21 3.00% 3.00% 541 577 2.67% 2.61% $112,958 $254,406 Franklin Springs 11.27 9.214 5.000 8.000 $149,122.19 $ 160,165.66 5.30% 5.30% 762 952 3.76% 4.31% $325,993 $521,016 Lavonia 11.27 9.214 10.000 10.000 $374,212.29 $ 401,928.26 13.30% 13.30% 1,827 2,156 9.01% 9.76% $1,393,156 $2,065,833 Royston 11.27 9.214 10.000 10.000 $326,380.64 $ 350,550.59 11.60% 11.60% 2,493 1,931 12.29% 8.74% $1,572,807 $2,161,170 Unincorporated Franklin 9.86 8.134 $1,761,330.02 $ 1,891,767.96 62.60% 62.60% 14,050 15,707 69.26% 71.12% $5,617,831 $12,263,741 $2,813,626.23 $ 3,021,972.84 20,285 22,084 FULTON Alpharetta 13.31 0.000 4.93 4.215 $3,467,020.31 $ 11,277,004.75 1.71% 5.22% 34,854 57,551 4.27% 6.25% $24,456,266 $49,285,576 Atlanta 13.31 0.000 6.76 10.240 $96,164,771.47 $ 92,551,222.46 47.40% 42.88% 416,474 391,711 51.04% 42.55% $510,443,420 $644,429,044 College Park 13.31 0.000 6.93 0.000 $4,663,272.16 $ 4,504,268.90 2.30% 2.09% 20,383 12,670 2.50% 1.38% $15,480,528 $27,633,291 CHATTAHOOCHEE HILLS 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 576,736.78 0.00% 0.27% - 2,378 0.00% 0.26% East Point 13.31 0.000 10.5 0.000 $9,184,519.85 $ 9,481,510.66 4.53% 4.39% 39,595 33,712 4.85% 3.66% $27,531,290 Fairburn 13.31 0.000 4.5 7.500 $1,074,516.59 $ 1,308,505.21 0.53% 0.61% 5,464 12,950 0.67% 1.41% $2,666,039 $10,702,479 JOHNS CREEK 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 15,039,385.91 0.00% 6.97% - 76,728 0.00% 8.33% $41,548,662 46 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Hapeville 13.31 0.000 10.000 0.000 $1,459,808.70 $ 1,479,880.18 0.72% 0.69% 6,180 6,373 0.76% 0.69% $9,378,595 $9,090,998 Milton 0 0.000 0.000 4.731 $0.00 $ 3,682,081.83 0.00% 1.71% - 32,661 0.00% 3.55% $15,706,580 Mountain Park 13.31 0.000 7.499 11.780 $142,024.47 $ 118,650.35 0.07% 0.05% 497 526 0.06% 0.06% $241,351 Palmetto 13.31 0.000 4.5 8.450 $608,270.53 $ 735,847.52 0.30% 0.34% 3,061 4,188 0.38% 0.45% $1,242,030 Roswell 13.31 0.000 5.809 0.000 $12,793,564.63 $ 18,997,796.65 6.31% 8.80% 79,334 88,346 9.72% 9.60% $31,387,848 $55,437,000 SANDY SPRINGS 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 $0.00 $ 20,534,251.40 0.00% 9.51% - 93,853 0.00% 10.19% $56,138,205 Union City 13.31 0.000 4.5 7.650 $2,371,605.83 $ 2,782,828.28 1.17% 1.29% 11,621 19,456 1.42% 2.11% $6,003,423 $13,441,646 Unincorporated Fulton 13.31 0.000 $70,962,731.42 $ 32,786,718.69 34.98% 15.19% 198,543 87,478 24.33% 9.50% $558,785,294 $698,650,618 $202,892,105.98 $ 215,856,689.57 816,006 920,581 GEORGETOWN-QUITMAN (unified government)

GILMER East Ellijay 5.75 5.778 0.000 0.000 $204,806.72 $ 366,713.02 9.00% 10.00% 707 546 3.01% 1.93% $545,681 Ellijay 5.75 5.778 5.9 2.849 $364,100.83 $ 623,404.05 16.00% 17.00% 1,584 1,619 6.75% 5.72% $807,525 $1,566,616 Unincorporated Gilmer 5.75 5.778 5.75 $1,706,722.64 $ 2,677,010.10 75.00% 73.00% 21,165 26,127 90.23% 92.35% $8,004,486 $20,028,690 $2,275,630.18 $ 3,667,127.17 23,456 28,292 GLASCOCK Edge Hill 14.39 14.390 2.000 4.500 $3,384.16 $ 4,965.74 2.00% 2.00% 30 24 1.17% 0.78% Gibson 14.39 14.390 3.000 10.730 $50,762.34 $ 74,476.02 30.00% 30.00% 694 663 27.15% 21.51% $105,372 $280,833 Mitchell 14.39 14.390 4.000 5.631 $13,536.62 $ 24,808.44 8.00% 9.99% 173 199 6.77% 6.46% $50,285 $62,194 Unincorporated Glascock 13.26 14.390 $101,524.67 $ 144,007.08 60.00% 58.01% 1,659 2,196 64.91% 71.25% $1,112,254 $169,207.79 $ 248,257.28 2,556 3,082 GLYNN Brunswick 6.99 5.673 11.000 12.250 $5,676,901.21 $ 6,245,085.15 37.00% 35.00% 15,600 15,383 23.09% 19.32% $12,278,138 $18,668,069 Unincorporated Glynn 6.99 5.673 $9,666,075.03 $ 11,598,026.30 63.00% 65.00% 51,968 64,243 76.91% 80.68% $41,272,702 $65,534,893 $15,342,976.24 $ 17,843,111.45 67,568 79,626 GORDON Calhoun 7.62 8.919 1.7 $ 1.59 $1,541,680.60 $ 2,069,456.04 22.00% 24.87% 10,667 15,650 24.19% 28.36% $8,606,466 $12,712,626 Fairmount 7.62 8.919 6.45 5.000 $175,190.98 $ 268,475.59 2.50% 3.23% 745 720 1.69% 1.30% $304,228 $550,468 Resaca 0 8.919 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 142,852.10 0.00% 1.72% 815 544 1.84% 0.99% $64,586 $499,788 Unincorporated Gordon 7.62 8.919 $5,290,767.53 $ 5,841,310.36 75.50% 70.19% 31,877 38,272 72.28% 69.35% $12,094,753 $30,200,289 $7,007,639.11 $ 8,322,094.09 44,104 55,186 GRADY Cairo 7.27 10.500 9.55 7.490 $836,935.01 $ 999,329.73 40.00% 37.75% 9,239 9,607 39.05% 38.41% $3,865,657 $5,060,431 Whigham 7.27 10.500 8.15 6.000 $39,545.18 $ 66,166.28 1.89% 2.50% 631 471 2.67% 1.88% $253,497 $435,326 Unincorporated Grady 7.27 10.500 $1,215,857.33 $ 1,581,709.93 58.11% 59.75% 13,789 14,933 58.28% 59.71% $7,297,996 $10,007,360 $2,092,337.52 $ 2,647,205.94 23,659 25,011 GREENE Greensboro 9.17 5.030 6.02 5.826 $481,035.63 $ 753,466.92 25.25% 22.50% 3,238 3,359 22.48% 21.00% $1,746,119 $3,245,042 Union Point 9.17 5.030 7.75 9.318 $276,238.28 $ 388,447.44 14.50% 11.60% 1,669 1,617 11.59% 10.11% $856,400 $945,308 SILOAM 9.17 5.030 0.00 0.000 $37,946.25 $ 77,023.09 2.00% 2.30% 331 282 2.29% 1.76% $101,312 $132,925 White Plains 9.17 5.030 0.000 0.000 $38,101.83 $ 66,957.34 2.00% 2.00% 283 284 1.96% 1.78% $53,175 Woodville 9.17 5.030 0.000 0.000 $57,152.75 $ 93,764.93 3.00% 2.80% 400 321 2.78% 2.01% $48,795 $129,797 Unincorporated Greene 9.17 5.030 $1,014,461.28 $ 1,969,075.50 53.25% 58.80% 8,485 10,131 58.90% 63.34% $10,029,481 $12,982,193 0.000 $1,905,091.61 $ 3,348,735.22 14,406 15,994 GWINNETT (no LOST)

HABERSAM (gives LOST to schools)

HALL Buford 6.94 6.250 0.000 13.150 $6,613.88 $ 7,389.03 0.03% 0.03% 102 964 0.07% 0.54% $10,839,182 $23,324,789 BRASELTON 0 6.250 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 2,434.81 0.00% 0.01% 1,206 1,690 0.86% 0.94% $428,939 $2,808,230 CLERMONT 6.94 6.250 0.000 0.000 $96,598.59 $ 108,950.86 0.47% 0.44% 419 875 0.30% 0.49% $127,741 Flowery Branch 6.94 6.250 2.44 2.837 $306,443.07 $ 344,234.70 1.39% 1.39% 1,806 5,679 1.30% 3.16% $1,049,547 $2,405,311 Gainesville 6.94 6.250 1.36 2.920 $4,380,592.72 $ 4,920,804.92 19.87% 19.87% 25,578 33,804 18.36% 18.81% $18,851,526 $32,328,849 Gillsville 6.94 6.250 0.000 0.000 $19,841.64 $ 22,251.01 0.09% 0.09% 167 207 0.12% 0.12% $35,200 $44,654 Lula 6.94 6.250 0.000 0.000 $231,485.78 $ 260,032.81 1.05% 1.05% 1,354 2,600 0.97% 1.45% $227,051 Oakwood 6.94 6.250 2.48 2.480 $359,354.11 $ 403,646.89 1.63% 1.63% 2689 3,970 1.93% 2.21% $2,283,279 $3,116,972 Unincorporated Hall 6.94 6.250 $16,644,929.56 $ 18,695,093.95 75.50% 75.49% 105,956 130,859 76.08% 72.83% $61,919,318 $116,816,333 $22,046,264.32 $ 24,764,838.98 139,277 179,684 HANCOCK Sparta 26.95 15.460 14.55 0.000 $124,027.59 $ 135,173.32 30.00% 30.00% 1,522 1,400 15.11% 14.85% $854,985 $940,584 Unincorporated Hancock 26.95 15.460 $289,397.71 $ 315,410.83 70.00% 70.00% 8,554 8,029 84.89% 85.15% $14,509,991 $7,068,681 $413,425.30 $ 450,584.15 10,076 9,429 HARALSON Bremen 11.06 11.020 2.888 7.113 $484,924.22 $ 788,400.27 21.80% 21.84% 4,487 6,182 17.47% 21.48% $3,411,046 $4,040,782 Buchanan 11.06 11.020 6.85 5.614 $111,733.70 $ 181,541.46 5.02% 5.03% 941 1,104 3.66% 3.84% $536,984 $765,575 Tallapoosa 11.06 11.020 6.49 7.270 $403,917.08 $ 656,770.58 18.16% 18.20% 2,789 3,170 10.86% 11.01% $1,538,237 $2,366,220 Waco 1.06 11.020 2.000 2.000 $60,196.60 $ 91,074.36 2.71% 2.52% 469 516 1.83% 1.79% $86,158 $323,205 Unincorporated Haralson 9.09 11.020 $1,163,147.48 $ 1,891,820.06 52.30% 52.41% 17,004 9,779 66.19% 33.98% $2,223,919.06 $ 3,609,606.73 25,690 28,780

47 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures HARRIS Hamilton 7.48 6.140 5.25 7.025 $52,929.04 $ 77,848.16 3.10% 3.10% 307 1,016 1.30% 3.17% $223,017 $395,214 Pine Mountain 7.48 6.140 10.49 10.770 $127,712.66 $ 187,885.24 7.48% 7.48% 1,141 1,238 4.82% 3.87% $986,794 $1,792,685 Waverly Hall 7.48 6.140 8.000 8.250 $99,370.01 $ 146,178.80 5.82% 5.82% 709 735 2.99% 2.30% $280,947 $426,434 Shiloh 7.48 6.140 5.96 4.500 $44,221.36 $ 65,053.99 2.59% 2.59% 432 445 1.82% 1.39% $122,878 $57,554 West Point 7.48 3.680 7.93 9.781 $105,687.35 $ 155,498.54 6.19% 6.19% 676 850 2.85% 2.65% $3,311,404 $4,394,165 Unincorporated Harris 7.48 6.140 $1,277,468.11 $ 1,879,454.64 74.82% 74.82% 20,430 27,740 86.22% 86.62% $6,807,764 $13,986,355 $1,707,388.54 $ 2,511,919.37 23,695 32,024 HART Bowersville 5.4 1.000 1.000 1.000 $11,641.23 $ 29,354.70 0.50% 1.00% 334 465 1.45% 1.84% $41,301 $90,378 Canon 5.4 0.000 0.000 0.000 $5,820.61 $ 7,331.27 0.25% 0.25% 76 43 0.33% 0.17% $224,794 $420,506 Hartwell 5.4 0.000 8.6 0.000 $535,496.53 $ 616,766.88 23.00% 21.00% 4,188 4,469 18.21% 17.72% $2,725,631 $3,649,769 Royston 5.4 10.000 10.000 10.000 $74,503.86 $ 88,109.62 3.20% 3.00% 2,494 648 10.84% 2.57% $1,572,807 $2,161,170 Unincorporated Hart 5.29 $1,700,783.54 $ 2,195,439.21 73.05% 74.75% 15,905 19,588 69.16% 77.69% $6,690,958 $10,367,206 $2,328,245.78 $ 2,937,001.68 22,997 25,213 HEARD Centralhatchee 9.5 6.940 0.000 0.000 $64,732.50 $ 245,906.82 3.50% 4.50% 383 408 3.48% 3.45% $89,560 $129,275 Ephesus 9.5 6.940 0.000 0.000 $64,732.50 $ 245,906.82 3.50% 4.50% 388 427 3.52% 3.61% $109,145 Franklin 9.5 6.940 4.000 0.000 $199,746.00 $ 655,743.25 10.80% 12.00% 902 993 8.19% 8.39% $862,720 $910,325 Unincorporated Heard 9.5 6.940 $1,520,289.00 $ 4,317,080.71 82.20% 79.00% 9,339 10,006 84.81% 84.55% $6,739,411 $11,060,095 $1,849,500.00 $ 5,464,637.60 11,012 11,834 HENRY Hampton 7.63 10.035 0.000 0.000 $1,411,651.82 $ 2,476,167.78 8.84% 8.84% 3,857 6,987 3.23% 3.43% $1,470,136 $2,988,801 Locust Grove 7.63 9.803 7.76 0.000 $881,483.94 $ 1,546,208.30 5.52% 5.52% 2,322 5,402 1.95% 2.65% $1,215,875 $2,890,054 McDonough 7.63 8.655 7.76 3.450 $1,534,612.44 $ 2,691,846.74 9.61% 9.61% 8,493 22,084 7.12% 10.83% $3,635,828 $8,676,591 Stockbridge 7.63 11.750 9.41 0.000 $1,761,370.99 $ 3,089,603.31 11.03% 11.03% 9,853 25,636 8.26% 12.57% $2,362,292 $4,637,052 Unincorporated Henry 9.41 11.750 $10,379,792.79 $ 18,207,171.79 65.00% 65.00% 94,816 143,813 79.45% 70.52% $46,447,684 $125,831,523 Water/Hospital $15,968,911.98 $ 28,010,997.92 119,341 203,922 HOUSTON (gives LOST to schools)

IRWIN Ocilla 11.15 12.376 0.000 13.850 $223,391.90 $ 252,452.11 38.00% 38.00% 3,270 3,414 32.93% 35.79% $1,443,727 $1,890,837 Unincorporated Irwin 11.15 12.376 $364,481.51 $ 411,904.73 62.00% 62.00% 6,661 6,124 67.07% 64.21% $2,913,494 $4,848,343 Industrial Authority $587,873.41 $ 664,356.84 9,931 9,538 JACKSON Arcade 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $144,744.42 $ 335,463.64 2.31% 3.95% 1,643 1,786 3.95% 2.95% $582,303 $724,091 Braselton 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $87,180.58 $ 143,510.39 1.39% 1.69% 603 1,763 1.45% 2.91% $428,939 $2,808,230 Commerce 3.64 9.550 1.000 2.290 $856,789.65 $ 1,165,188.10 13.69% 13.72% 5,292 6,544 12.72% 10.82% $3,434,087 $5,023,805 Hoschton 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $133,899.26 $ 218,267.55 2.14% 2.57% 1,070 1,377 2.57% 2.28% $284,082 $607,750 Jefferson 3.64 9.550 5.65 6.398 $576,267.94 $ 781,315.96 9.21% 9.20% 3,825 9,432 9.20% 15.59% $4,686,516 $5,258,432 Maysville 3.64 9.550 1.5 0.000 $69,452.21 $ 117,184.61 1.11% 1.38% 499 872 1.20% 1.44% $154,353 $596,047 Nicholson 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $111,582.50 $ 253,924.15 1.78% 2.99% 1,247 1,696 3.00% 2.80% $129,730 $201,675 Pendergrass 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $62,152.22 $ 87,462.88 0.99% 1.03% 431 422 1.04% 0.70% $50,598 Talmo 3.64 9.550 0.000 0.000 $39,418.69 $ 96,804.93 0.63% 1.14% 477 180 1.15% 0.30% $14,624 $93,199 Unincorporated Jackson 2.57 8.610 $4,176,539.83 $ 5,293,502.60 66.74% 62.33% 26,502 36,413 63.72% 60.20% $16,157,775 $38,120,253 Various Fire Districts $6,258,027.30 $ 8,492,624.81 41,589 60,485 JASPER Monticello 13.53 14.480 7.94 6.910 $257,246.23 $ 269,451.36 27.00% 30.00% 2,428 2,657 21.25% 19.12% $1,524,162 $2,109,655 Shady Dale 13.53 14.480 0.000 0.000 $28,582.91 $ 26,939.80 3.00% 3.00% 242 249 2.12% 1.79% $26,884 Unincorporated Jasper 13.31 13.980 $666,934.67 $ 601,824.96 70.00% 67.00% 8,756 10,994 76.63% 79.09% $5,707,341 $8,536,929 $952,763.81 $ 898,216.12 11,426 13,900 JEFF DAVIS Hazlehurst 8.8 12.880 4.000 6.000 $837,023.55 $ 787,816.02 43.00% 40.00% 3,787 4,226 29.86% 28.05% $2,379,234 $3,071,349 Unincorporated Jeff Davis 7.64 12.880 $1,109,542.85 $ 1,181,737.52 57.00% 60.00% 8,897 10,842 70.14% 71.95% $4,982,033 $12,158,417 $1,946,566.40 $ 1,969,553.54 12,684 15,068 JEFFERSON Avera 13.25 12.750 5.000 5.000 $22,429.73 $ 25,893.26 1.35% 1.26% 217 246 1.26% 1.45% $78,273 $123,131 Bartow 13.25 12.750 9.5 9.000 $32,232.35 $ 36,801.32 1.94% 1.79% 223 286 1.29% 1.69% $103,199 $150,993 Louisville 13.25 12.750 5.44 8.490 $235,761.33 $ 323,073.73 14.19% 15.71% 2,712 2,493 15.71% 14.73% $1,067,421 $1,523,033 Stapelton 13.25 12.750 6.000 8.000 $35,056.83 $ 37,828.20 2.11% 1.84% 318 438 1.84% 2.59% Wadley 13.25 12.750 12.000 14.000 $229,115.49 $ 248,823.71 13.79% 12.10% 2,088 2,061 12.09% 12.17% $1,327,338 $2,262,523 Wrens 13..25 12.750 8.000 18.700 $228,949.34 $ 275,575.42 13.78% 13.40% 2,314 2,187 13.40% 12.92% $1,236,037 $1,894,540 Unincorporated Jefferson 13.25 12.750 $877,916.06 $ 1,108,438.44 52.84% 53.90% 9,394 9,219 54.41% 54.45% $6,613,433 $11,462,613 Economic Development 0.5 $1,661,461.13 $ 2,056,434.08 17,266 16,930 JENKINS Millen 14.98 10.695 0.000 8.073 $191,527.56 $ 263,192.09 35.00% 35.00% 3,492 3,120 40.72% 37.41% $1,138,940 $1,930,227 Unincorporated Jenkins 13.14 10.695 $355,694.03 $ 488,814.39 65.00% 65.00% 5,083 5,220 59.28% 62.59% $3,263,999 $4,939,741

48 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures $547,221.59 $ 752,006.48 8,575 8,340 JOHNSON Adrian 16.43 14.660 4.79 10.005 $16,959.85 $ 22,148.14 4.00% 4.00% 290 394 3.39% 3.95% $247,580 $290,842 Kite 16.43 14.660 7.000 7.528 $16,959.85 $ 22,148.16 4.00% 4.00% 241 241 2.82% 2.41% $37,580 $86,989 Wrightsville 16.43 14.660 9.5 9.397 $118,718.98 $ 155,118.76 28.00% 28.00% 2,223 2,195 25.97% 21.99% $794,117 $1,207,281 Unincorporated Johnson 16.43 14.660 $271,357.66 $ 354,567.45 64.00% 64.00% 5,806 7,150 67.83% 71.64% $3,157,872 $3,787,258 $423,996.35 $ 553,982.51 8,560 9,980 JONES Gray 11.83 14.730 8.000 9.500 $265,846.70 $ 389,862.31 15.50% 15.50% 1,811 3,276 7.66% 11.43% $1,019,185 $0 Macon 11.83 14.730 8.5 9.500 $10,290.84 $ 15,084.19 0.60% 0.60% - 466 0.00% 1.63% $59,589,140 $68,746,368 Unincorporated Jones 9.85 13.310 $1,439,002.45 $ 2,110,330.59 83.90% 83.90% 21,828 24,927 92.34% 86.95% $8,139,659 $15,286,482 $1,715,139.99 $ 2,515,277.09 23,639 28,669 LAMAR Aldora 8.25 8.942 0.000 0.000 $12,900.85 $ 18,491.76 1.00% 1.00% 98 103 0.62% 0.56% $83,886 $18,919 Barnesville 8.25 8.942 4.75 4.063 $457,980.30 $ 656,745.33 35.50% 35.50% 5,972 6,755 37.53% 36.88% $2,567,982 $4,235,410 Milner 8.25 8.942 2.000 3.659 $45,152.99 $ 64,741.89 3.50% 3.50% 522 610 3.28% 3.33% $131,517 $265,420 Unincorporated Lamar 8.25 8.942 $774,051.20 $ 1,109,999.69 60.00% 60.00% 9,320 10,849 58.57% 59.23% $5,167,602 $8,516,572 $1,290,085.34 $ 1,849,978.67 15,912 18,317 LANIER Lakeland 7.23 14.080 10.25 0.000 $200,652.18 $ 273,230.97 51.00% 50.00% 2,730 3,366 37.70% 33.40% $1,130,279 $1,057,960 Unincorporated Lanier 7.23 14.080 $192,783.46 $ 273,230.97 49.00% 50.00% 4,511 6,712 62.30% 66.60% $1,945,468 $3,872,657 $393,435.64 $ 546,461.94 7,241 10,078 LAURENS Cadwell 6.5 6.300 3.000 0.000 $56,614.16 $ 71,390.92 0.86% 0.86% 329 528 0.73% 1.09% $70,254 $206,640 Dexter 6.5 6.300 3.000 2.660 $58,719.27 $ 74,039.58 0.89% 0.89% 509 575 1.13% 1.19% $70,667 $167,223 Dublin 6.5 6.300 3.41 6.360 $2,180,934.55 $ 2,833,466.25 33.15% 34.15% 15,857 16,201 35.34% 33.45% $6,853,757 $11,773,537 Dudley 6.5 6.300 5.5 4.800 $53,153.89 $ 67,019.55 0.81% 0.81% 447 571 1.00% 1.18% $163,389 $282,037 East Dublin 6.5 6.300 5.29 4.800 $312,015.99 $ 393,486.38 4.74% 4.74% 2,484 2,441 5.54% 5.04% $1,083,172 $1,765,112 Montrose 6.5 6.300 5.000 5.000 $14,466.02 $ 18,224.13 0.22% 0.22% 154 215 0.34% 0.44% $22,610 $29,633 Rentz 6.5 6.300 0.000 0.000 $44,996.61 $ 56,724.85 0.68% 0.68% 304 295 0.68% 0.61% $60,496 $108,727 Unincorporated Laurens 6.5 6.300 $3,857,551.80 $ 4,781,987.51 58.64% 57.64% 24,790 27,608 55.24% 57.00% $17,750,845 $25,756,386 $6,578,452.29 $ 8,296,339.17 44,874 48,434 LEE Leesburg 13.991 12.766 7.989 6.000 $235,636.00 $ 609,668.29 17.50% 17.50% 2,633 2,896 10.64% 10.23% $864,166 $1,935,837 Smithville 13.991 12.766 8.993 4.000 $155,654.41 $ 402,711.66 11.56% 11.56% 774 575 3.13% 2.03% $350,017 $668,781 Unincorporated Lee 13.991 12.766 $955,201.03 $ 2,471,447.42 70.94% 70.94% 21,350 24,827 86.24% 87.73% $9,234,878 $18,794,931 $1,346,491.45 $ 3,483,827.37 24,757 28,298 LIBERTY Flemington 11.5 11.980 0.000 0.000 $25,164.51 $50,824.94 0.53% 0.60% 369 743 0.60% 1.17% $99,285 $419,548 Hinesville 11.5 11.300 11.3 9.500 $1,948,490.84 $ 4,181,140.96 40.96% 49.33% 30,392 33,437 49.33% 52.70% $11,192,463 $16,540,442 Midway 11.5 11.980 0.000 0.000 $77,838.61 $ 151,723.89 1.64% 1.79% 1,100 2,121 1.79% 3.34% $204,458 $852,693 Riceboro 11.5 11.980 0.000 0.000 $67,195.56 $ 100,852.76 1.41% 1.19% 736 809 1.19% 1.27% $116,322 $324,102 Walthourville 11.5 11.980 0.000 0.000 $182,555.45 $ 554,313.75 3.84% 6.54% 4,030 4,111 6.54% 6.48% $602,271 $1,148,908 Unincorporated Liberty 11.5 11.980 $2,456,110.47 $ 3,436,972.87 51.63% 40.55% 24,983 22,232 40.55% 35.04% $13,668,710 $30,586,364 $4,757,355.44 $8,475,829.17 61,610 63,453 LINCOLN Lincolnton 12.84 9.700 7.000 5.600 $105,049.48 $ 142,994.66 19.83% 19.83% 1,595 1,566 19.11% 19.58% $579,781 $851,650 Unic Lincoln 12.84 9.700 $424,700.82 $ 578,153.18 80.17% 80.17% 6,753 6,430 80.89% 80.42% Industrial Authority $529,750.30 $ 721,147.84 8,348 7,996 LONG Ludowici 18.83 15.710 12.25 10.000 $98,961.92 $ 162,175.72 32.50% 32.50% 1,440 1,703 13.98% 11.77% $454,305 $1,058,241 Unincorporated Long 17 15.710 $205,536.31 $ 336,838.71 67.50% 67.50% 8,864 12,761 86.02% 88.23% $2,642,487 $304,498.23 $ 499,014.43 10,304 14,464 LOWNDES Dasher 9.01 7.310 0.000 12.180 $110,699.43 $ 157,486.80 0.70% 0.73% 834 912 0.91% 0.83% $51,573 Hahira 9.01 7.310 5.5 5.380 $234,050.22 $ 306,345.07 1.48% 1.42% 1,626 2,737 1.77% 2.51% $784,011 $1,038,899 Lake Park 9.01 7.310 5.99 4.703 $64,838.24 $ 103,526.88 0.41% 0.48% 549 733 0.60% 0.67% $282,731 $389,615 Remerton 9.01 7.310 3.5 6.387 $91,722.38 $ 159,624.28 0.58% 0.74% 847 1,123 0.92% 1.03% $627,576 $1,198,838 Valdosta 9.01 7.310 4.64 4.112 $6,325,681.62 $ 8,334,147.50 40.00% 38.63% 43,724 54,518 47.47% 49.91% $20,964,686 $35,218,129 Unincorporated Lowndes 7.39 7.310 $8,987,212.16 $ 12,513,083.08 56.83% 58.00% 44,535 49,210 48.35% 45.05% $46,359,096 $56,480,062 $15,814,204.04 $ 21,574,213.61 92,115 109,233 LUMPKIN Dahlonega 12.74 7.907 3.986 3.988 $629,291.62 $ 748,676.27 25.00% 25.00% 3,638 5,242 17.31% 17.49% $1,187,668 $2,309,429 Unincorporated Lumpkin 11.59 6.987 $1,887,874.87 $ 2,246,058.10 75.00% 75.00% 17,378 24,724 82.69% 82.51% $16,788,246 $16,138,674 $2,517,166.49 $ 2,994,734.37 21,016 29,966 MACON Ideal 11.21 11.430 8 9.350 $46,418.82 $ 50,148.23 4.22% 4.04% 518 499 3.68% 3.39% $172,775 Marshallville 11.21 11.430 10 13.500 $122,206.89 $ 129,199.52 11.11% 10.41% 1,335 1,448 9.49% 9.82% $637,942 $1,004,854 Montezuma 11.21 11.430 11 12.000 $377,950.38 $ 387,123.90 34.36% 31.19% 3,999 3,460 28.41% 23.47% $2,131,169 $2,434,783 Oglethorpe 11.21 11.430 10 12.000 $109,227.22 $ 116,174.33 9.93% 9.36% 1,200 1,328 8.53% 9.01% $535,662 $689,132 49 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Unincorporated Macon 10.81 10.730 $444,168.70 $ 558,521.04 40.38% 45.00% 7,022 8,005 49.89% 54.31% $6,789,494 $5,978,575 $1,099,972.01 $ 1,241,167.02 14,074 14,740 MADISON Carlton 10.38 12.129 2..90 2.000 $37,345.27 $ 49,354.18 2.50% 2.50% 233 260 0.91% 0.92% $44,250 Colbert 10.38 12.129 5.5 3.500 $82,159.60 $ 108,608.86 5.50% 5.50% 488 592 1.90% 2.11% $197,669 $287,768 Comer 10.38 12.129 4.7 4.400 $119,504.87 $ 157,965.99 8.00% 8.00% 1,052 1,126 4.09% 4.00% $407,008 $622,196 Danielsville 10.38 12.129 2.85 4.000 $89,628.65 $ 118,474.17 6.00% 6.00% 457 560 1.78% 1.99% $226,025 $334,261 Hull 10.38 12.129 0.000 0.000 $22,407.16 $ 29,607.61 1.50% 1.50% 160 198 0.62% 0.70% $29,741 $59,181 Ila 10.38 12.129 3.97 10.000 $37,345.27 $ 49,354.18 2.50% 2.50% 328 337 1.27% 1.20% $73,014 $117,714 Unincorporated Madison 8.54 11.158 $1,105,420.01 $1,461,261.04 74.00% 74.00% 23,012 25,047 89.44% 89.07% $4,291,633 $12,312,665 Industrial Authority $1,493,810.82 $ 1,974,626.03 25,730 28,120 MARION BUENA VISTA 8.94 8.188 16.500 16.750 $146,185.04 $ 163,143.79 35.00% 35.00% 1,664 2,173 23.52% 24.86% $965,358 $1,338,777 Unincorporated Marion 8.94 6.833 $419,459.83 $ 302,991.99 65.00% 65.00% 5,408 6,569 76.47% 75.14% $2,101,194 $3,422,611 $ 466,135.78 7,072 8,742 MCDUFFIE Dearing 8.85 8.500 0.2 0.000 $29,809.81 $ 36,967.24 1.00% 1.00% 441 549 2.08% 2.51% $68,295 $118,992 Thomson 8.85 8.500 7.305 5.399 $953,913.95 $ 1,183,623.24 32.00% 32.00% 6,828 6,778 32.16% 30.99% $2,277,426 $3,673,740 Unincorporated McDuffie 7.81 7.800 $1,997,257.32 $ 2,478,187.33 67.00% 67.00% 13,962 14,548 65.76% 66.51% $8,599,628 $13,904,034 $2,980,981.08 $ 3,698,777.81 21,231 21,875 MCINTOSH Darien 9.75 12.490 4.25 3.800 $353,812.96 $ 363,724.03 25.00% 25.00% 1,719 1,975 15.85% 13.78% $857,208 $2,660,600 Unincorporated McIntosh 9.75 12.490 $1,061,438.89 $ 1,091,179.31 75.00% 75.00% 9,128 12,358 84.15% 86.22% $6,250,337 $11,143,678 Industrial Authority $1,415,251.85 $ 1,454,903.34 10,847 14,333 MERIWETHER Gay 9.43 12.287 2.25 2.340 $16,886.23 $ 15,897.57 0.97% 0.96% 149 89 0.66% 0.40% $32,962 $44,906 Greenville 9.43 12.287 0.000 15.124 $109,191.77 $ 102,853.96 6.24% 6.24% 946 876 4.20% 3.98% $576,504 $648,276 Lone Oak 9.43 12.287 0.000 1.767 $6,999.47 $ 6,584.22 0.40% 0.40% 104 92 0.46% 0.42% $27,157 $18,798 Luthersville 9.43 12.287 0.000 7.462 $52,496.04 $ 49,449.57 3.00% 3.00% 783 874 3.47% 3.97% $299,146 $420,789 Manchester 9.43 12.287 16.33 17.242 $391,620.49 $ 368,886.78 22.38% 22.38% 3,589 4,118 15.93% 18.72% $2,610,372 $3,479,878 Pine Mountain 9.43 12.287 0.08 10.775 $349.97 $ 321.07 0.02% 0.02% 1,142 66 5.07% 0.30% $986,794 $1,792,685 Warm Springs 9.43 12.287 0.000 12.003 $53,633.46 $ 50,520.09 3.07% 3.07% 485 425 2.15% 1.93% $277,087 $471,914 Woodbury 9.43 12.287 15.65 18.700 $156,263.23 $ 147,181.87 8.93% 8.93% 1,184 961 5.25% 4.37% $742,791 $888,943 Unincorporated Meriwether 8.04 12.287 $962,427.49 $ 906,533.39 55.00% 55.00% 14,152 14,491 62.80% 65.89% $6,937,670 $1,749,868.16 $ 1,648,228.52 22,534 21,992 MILLER Colquitt 14.68 17.500 9.34 8.710 $186,102.63 $ 241,336.30 37.50% 37.50% 1,939 1,992 30.38% 32.52% $1,002,956 $1,455,201 Unincorporated Miller 14.09 17.500 $310,171.04 $ 402,235.83 62.50% 62.50% 4,444 4,133 69.62% 67.48% $2,871,815 $5,289,162 $496,273.67 $ 643,572.13 6,383 6,125 MITCHELL (gives LOST to schools)

MONROE Culloden 8.25 9.431 0.000 0.000 $96,257.56 $ 124,224.08 2.40% 2.40% 223 175 1.02% 0.66% $114,115 $167,584 Forsyth 8.25 9.431 7.3 0.000 $1,327,552.17 $ 1,475,422.97 33.10% 28.50% 3,776 3,788 17.36% 14.34% $3,092,598 $4,574,663 Unincorporated Monroe 8.25 9.431 $2,586,921.90 $ 3,577,279.96 64.50% 69.10% 17,758 22,461 81.62% 85.00% $11,504,453 $21,107,364 $4,010,731.63 $ 5,176,927.01 21,757 26,424 MONTGOMERY Ailey 10.89 11.846 4 4.000 $39,516.34 $ 37,362.42 8.08% 6.37% 394 432 4.76% 4.74% $101,243 $160,984 Alston 10.89 11.846 0.000 0.000 $10,906.12 $ 11,256.28 2.23% 1.92% 159 159 1.92% 1.74% $26,528 $22,342 Higgston 10.89 11.846 0.000 0.000 $18,682.23 $ 22,409.86 3.82% 3.82% 316 323 3.82% 3.54% $73,717 $47,613 Mount Vernon 10.89 11.846 0.000 0.000 $130,677.81 $ 138,284.62 26.72% 23.57% 2,082 2,451 25.18% 26.87% $304,280 $800,328 Tarrytown 10.89 11.846 0.000 0.000 $8,852.05 $ 7,151.49 1.81% 1.22% 100 87 1.21% 0.95% $13,483 $21,545 Uvalda 11.846 6 5.200 $38,293.68 $ 37,537.69 7.83% 6.40% 530 598 6.41% 6.55% $143,342 $279,551 Unincorporated Montgomery 8.68 11.846 $242,135.41 $ 332,669.48 49.51% 56.70% 4,689 5,073 56.70% 55.61% $2,489,719 $4,071,776 $489,063.65 $ 586,671.84 8,270 9,123 MORGAN Bostwick 11.25 8.400 0.97 1.123 $0.00 $ 20,724.15 0.00% 0.50% 322 365 2.08% 0.92% $68,226 $50,772 Buckhead 11.25 8.400 3.49 2.000 $0.00 $ 13,825.16 0.00% 0.33% 205 171 1.32% 0.43% $28,320 $58,664 Madison 11.25 8.400 3.22 4.794 $521,845.39 $ 760,335.01 23.00% 22.22% 3,636 3,979 23.52% 22.27% $1,899,860 $4,144,938 Rutledge 11.25 8.400 5.19 3.734 $90,755.72 $ 138,270.45 4.00% 4.04% 707 781 4.57% 4.37% $279,598 $256,067 Unincorporated Morgan 11.25 8.400 $1,656,291.89 $ 2,523,631.66 73.00% 73.74% 10,587 13,108 68.49% 73.36% $10,474,549 $14,667,714 $2,268,893.00 $ 3,422,237.12 15,457 17,868 MURRAY Chatsworth 6.58 6.012 7.969 2.342 $384,966.47 $ 585,648.03 12.66% 14.00% 3,531 4,299 9.67% 10.85% $2,370,911 Eton 6.58 6.012 2 4.000 $46,220.30 $ 63,553.44 1.52% 1.52% 319 910 0.87% 2.30% $217,934 $324,141 Unincorporated Murray 5.8 5.800 $2,609,622.65 $ 3,533,949.41 85.82% 84.48% 32,656 34,419 89.45% 86.86% $9,903,871 $15,293,568 $3,040,809.43 $ 4,183,150.88 36,506 39,628

NEWTON

50 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Covington 9.73 10.910 5.86 8.208 $1,389,616.39 $ 1,831,416.64 18.95% 18.47% 11,547 13,118 18.62% 13.12% $12,376,248 $18,715,781 Mansfield 9.73 10.910 5.4 5.580 $39,598.57 $ 62,439.29 0.54% 0.63% 392 410 0.63% 0.41% $193,832 $174,713 Newborn 9.73 10.910 0.000 1.935 $34,465.42 $ 82,281.49 0.47% 0.83% 520 696 0.84% 0.70% $97,888 $150,240 Oxford 9.73 10.910 4.64 6.280 $161,327.50 $ 299,435.71 2.20% 3.02% 1,892 2,134 3.05% 2.13% $379,941 $746,962 Porterdale 9.73 10.910 8.1 0.000 $208,259.13 $ 203,265.39 2.84% 2.05% 1,281 1,429 2.07% 1.43% $419,467 Unincorporated Newton 9.73 10.910 $5,499,801.02 $ 7,436,787.57 75.00% 75.00% 46,369 82,171 74.79% 82.21% $21,024,063 $58,964,930 Hospital/Fire District $7,333,068.03 $ 9,915,626.09 62,001 99,958 OCONEE Bogart 8.48 7.486 3.75 2.935 $143,175.59 $ 174,585.12 5.00% 3.55% 945 894 3.60% 2.72% $177,660 $413,891 Watkinsville 8.48 7.486 3.678 2.937 $272,033.61 $393,438.34 9.50% 8.00% 2,097 2,832 8.00% 8.63% $553,265 $1,263,123 Unincorporated Oconee 9.36 6.686 $2,448,302.53 $ 4,349,951.96 85.50% 88.45% 23,183 29,082 88.40% 88.64% $10,187,417 $24,239,072 $2,863,511.73 $ 4,917,975.42 26,225 32,808 OGELTHORPE Crawford 7.393 9.062 3.5 3.500 $42,341.69 $ 50,653.31 7.10% 6.38% 807 832 6.39% 5.58% $120,436 $136,251 ARNOLDSVILLE 7.393 9.062 1.000 1.000 $0.00 $ 19,606.95 0.00% 2.47% 312 357 2.46% 2.40% $18,823 $47,702 MAXEYS 7.393 9.062 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 13,176.56 0.00% 1.66% 210 224 1.66% 1.50% $15,232 Lexington 7.393 9.062 2.3 2.000 $16,161.41 $ 15,001.90 2.71% 1.89% 239 228 1.89% 1.53% $52,749 $68,429 Unincorporated Oglethorpe 5.984 7.662 $537,858.76 $ 695,682.85 90.19% 87.60% 11,067 13,258 87.59% 88.99% $3,715,697 $7,116,712 $596,361.86 $ 794,121.57 12,635 14,899 PAULDING Dallas 6.75 7.600 2.38 0.000 $744,859.73 $ 1,293,827.89 9.50% 9.50% 5,056 11,544 6.19% 8.11% $1,545,678 $3,743,222 Hiram 6.75 7.600 0.000 2.400 $261,877.00 $ 454,883.83 3.34% 3.34% 1,361 3,546 1.67% 2.49% $456,859 $2,482,626 Unincorporated Paulding 6.75 7.600 $6,833,892.04 $ 11,870,682.66 87.16% 87.16% 75,261 127,234 92.14% 89.40% $23,100,246 $59,167,321 $7,840,628.78 $ 13,619,394.38 81,678 142,324 PEACH Byron 14.86 13.555 8 9.000 $288,942.35 $ 302,110.67 10.74% 8.50% 2,887 4,512 12.20% 16.29% $1,443,240 Fort Valley 14.86 13.555 10 11.855 $1,040,795.05 $ 1,119,540.64 38.69% 31.50% 8,005 9,815 33.82% 35.44% $3,331,589 $12,128,567 Unincorporated Peach 14.86 13.555 $1,360,350.60 $ 2,132,449.44 50.57% 60.00% 12,776 13,368 53.98% 48.27% $8,877,184 $25,170,505 $2,690,088.00 $ 3,554,100.75 23,668 27,695 PICKENS Jasper 2.84 6.260 4.63 4.690 $722,812.72 $ 979,752.27 25.70% 25.70% 2,167 3,684 9.43% 12.52% $1,702,227 $3,009,050 Nelson 2.84 6.260 1.878 1.538 $78,750.02 $ 106,727.63 2.80% 2.80% 313 715 1.36% 2.43% $133,082 $383,519 Talking Rock 2.84 6.260 1 1.000 $42,187.51 $ 57,169.32 1.50% 1.50% 49 64 0.21% 0.22% $68,440 $78,815 Unincorporated Pickens 2.84 6.260 $1,968,750.60 $ 2,668,620.69 70.00% 70.00% 20,454 24,968 89.00% 84.84% $7,884,162 $2,812,500.85 $ 3,812,269.91 22,983 29,431 PIERCE Blackshear 9.45 9.920 8.95 11.990 $287,041.37 $ 463,580.33 23.49% 24.70% 3,283 3,445 21.00% 18.37% $1,181,335 $1,709,992 OFFERMAN 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 57,039.75 0.00% 3.04% 403 441 2.57% 2.35% $24,634 $113,785 Patterson 9.45 9.920 10 8.880 $79,550.42 $ 128,383.53 6.51% 6.84% 627 730 4.01% 3.89% $350,889 $335,343 Unincorporated Pierce 7.6 8.150 $855,380.83 $ 1,227,883.66 70.00% 65.42% 11,323 14,142 72.42% 75.39% $4,769,144 $6,460,160 $1,221,972.61 $ 1,876,887.27 15,636 18,758 PIKE Concord 7.75 12.864 7.54 0.000 $25,027.78 $ 35,752.59 3.55% 3.55% 336 375 2.45% 2.10% $103,469 $134,165 Meansville 7.75 12.864 0.000 0.000 $24,040.77 $ 30,208.80 3.41% 3.00% 192 182 1.40% 1.02% $45,205 $95,731 Molena 7.75 12.864 6.75 7.780 $30,244.84 $ 43,207.29 4.29% 4.29% 475 474 3.47% 2.65% $110,661 $154,779 Williamson 7.75 12.864 0.000 0.000 $20,374.73 $ 33,235.65 2.89% 3.30% 297 352 2.17% 1.97% $70,786 $102,186 Zebulon 7.75 12.864 6.5 0.000 $79,383.89 $ 113,442.68 11.26% 11.26% 1,181 1,174 8.63% 6.57% $671,586 $941,726 Unincorporated Pike 7.75 12.864 $525,935.92 $ 751,544.52 74.60% 74.60% 11,207 15,312 81.87% 85.69% $4,637,380 $9,932,112 $705,007.94 $ 1,007,391.53 13,688 17,869 POLK Aragon 11.17 10.850 10.25 12.000 $126,023.84 $ 165,926.34 3.46% 3.46% 1,039 1,249 2.73% 3.01% $391,310 Cedartown 11.17 10.850 9.94 10.980 $1,091,963.75 $ 1,437,760.73 29.98% 29.98% 9,470 9,750 24.84% 23.51% $5,430,941 $7,175,698 Rockmart 11.17 10.850 9.953 9.160 $448,003.81 $ 589,882.03 12.30% 12.30% 3,870 4,199 10.15% 10.12% $1,811,278 $4,332,069 Unincorporated Polk 10.91 10.850 $1,976,315.98 $ 2,602,168.65 54.26% 54.26% 23,748 26,277 62.29% 63.36% $10,949,076 $19,618,755 $3,642,307.37 $ 4,795,737.75 38,127 41,475 PULASKI Hawkinsville 14.26 13.703 5.61 5.600 $380,640.84 $ 460,118.29 50.00% 50.00% 3,280 4,589 34.21% 38.21% $1,948,881 $2,421,381 Unincorporated Pulaski 12.31 13.703 $380,640.84 $ 460,118.29 50.00% 50.00% 6,308 7,421 65.79% 61.79% $2,915,621 $4,936,321 Fire District 1 $761,281.67 $ 920,236.58 9,588 12,010 PUTNAM Eatonton 9.464 5.400 0.000 0.000 $1,378,146.99 $ 2,033,208.98 47.00% 47.00% 6,764 6,480 35.96% 30.54% $2,146,850 $3,948,097 Unincorporated Putnam 9.464 5.400 $1,554,080.65 $ 2,292,753.38 53.00% 53.00% 12,048 14,738 64.04% 69.46% $10,477,226 $18,682,013 $2,932,227.64 $ 4,325,962.36 18,812 21,218 RABUN (gives LOST to schools) Unincorporated Rabun 8.1 8.540 $2,348,886.21 $ 3,086,919.23 100.00% 100.00% 15,050 $10,399,181 $14,712,712 16,276 RANDOLPH Coleman 10.21 14.795 2 0.000 $8,790.23 $ 12,086.67 1.50% 1.50% 149 127 1.91% 1.65% Cuthbert 10.21 14.795 7 8.500 $234,406.18 $ 322,555.71 40.00% 40.00% 3,731 3,873 47.89% 50.17% $1,512,154 $1,310,169 51 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures SHELLMAN 14.795 9.000 10.000 $70,027.75 $ 96,755.29 12.00% 12.00% 1,166 1,083 14.97% 14.03% $486,153 $522,354 Unincorporated Randolph 8.79 13.745 $272,497.18 $ 374,988.16 46.50% 46.50% 2,745 2,636 35.23% 34.15% $3,068,911 $3,581,922 $586,015.45 $ 806,385.83 7,791 7,719

ROCKDALE (no LOST)

SCHLEY Ellaville 10.14 13.250 3.74 3.381 $141,955.08 $ 159,529.06 48.00% 50.00% 1,609 1,812 42.72% 36.17% $640,011 $854,076 Unincorporated Schley 10.14 13.250 $153,784.68 $ 159,529.06 52.00% 50.00% 2,157 3,198 57.28% 63.83% $1,182,002 $1,737,828 $295,739.76 $ 319,058.12 3,766 5,010 SCREVEN Hilltonia 14.94 11.936 0.000 0.000 $32,721.04 $ 37,559.38 3.00% 2.40% 421 342 2.74% 2.34% Newington 14.94 11.936 9 8.500 $25,086.13 $ 29,735.74 2.30% 1.90% 322 654 2.09% 4.48% $135,972 $220,789 Oliver 14.94 11.936 3 2.000 $18,541.92 $ 23,485.30 1.70% 1.50% 253 239 1.65% 1.64% $131,204 $355,039 Rocky Ford 14.94 11.936 5 0.000 $15,269.82 $ 17,217.18 1.40% 1.10% 186 144 1.21% 0.99% $60,772 Sylvania 14.94 11.936 9 5.000 $225,775.15 $ 244,279.50 20.70% 15.60% 2,675 2,956 17.40% 20.26% $2,475,429 $3,111,726 Unincorporated Screven 12.97 11.936 $773,307.14 $ 1,213,530.99 70.90% 77.50% 11,517 10,258 74.91% 70.29% $5,074,111 $9,409,258 $1,090,701.19 $ 1,565,808.09 15,374 14,593 SEMINOLE Donalsonville 10 13.420 4.864 6.680 $268,450.60 $ 390,740.76 33.00% 33.00% 2,796 2,650 29.84% 30.36% $1,490,455 $2,362,763 Iron City 10 13.420 10 0.000 $32,539.47 $ 47,358.71 4.00% 4.00% 321 310 3.43% 3.55% $52,118 $80,517 Unincorporated Seminole 10 13.420 $512,496.60 $ 745,952.25 63.00% 63.00% 6,252 5,769 66.73% 66.09% $3,075,833 $5,755,649 $813,486.67 $ 1,184,051.72 9,369 8,729 SPALDING Griffin 9.7 14.810 9.46 8.636 $3,202,637.97 $ 3,348,145.43 38.00% 40.00% 23,451 23,643 40.14% 36.90% $15,484,532 $19,826,221 Unincorporated Spalding 9.7 14.810 $5,225,356.68 $ 5,022,218.92 62.00% 60.00% 34,966 40,430 59.86% 63.10% $26,542,996 $44,054,063 Fire District 3.08 $8,427,994.65 $ 8,370,364.35 58,417 64,073 STEPHENS Martin 7.1 11.320 0.5 0.000 $40,107.48 $ 41,266.75 1.40% 1.23% 311 381 1.22% 1.46% $107,508 Toccoa 7.1 11.320 4.05 7.190 $1,197,494.78 $ 1,183,320.38 41.80% 35.26% 9,323 8,491 36.65% 32.44% $6,778,292 $7,322,945 Unincorporated Stephens 7.1 11.320 $1,627,217.78 $ 2,131,395.49 56.80% 63.51% 15,801 17,303 62.12% 66.11% $8,174,028 $13,925,589 $2,864,820.04 $ 3,355,982.62 25,435 26,175 STEWART Lumpkin 11.41 12.740 12.2 18.000 $86,038.79 $ 96,284.09 26.00% 26.00% 1,369 2,741 26.07% 45.25% $730,913 $575,635 Richland 11.41 12.740 11 19.750 $102,584.71 $ 114,799.85 31.00% 31.00% 1,794 1,473 34.16% 24.31% $461,980 $806,400 Unincorporated Stewart 11.41 12.740 $142,294.92 $ 159,231.70 43.00% 43.00% 2,089 1,844 39.78% 30.44% $2,226,144 $2,745,048 $330,918.42 $ 370,315.64 5,252 6,058 SUMTER Americus 11.447 7.85 10.250 $1,644,802.19 $ 1,857,773.80 44.36% 44.36% 17,013 17,041 51.24% 51.92% $9,649,313 $9,545,884 Andersonville 11.790 0.000 0.000 $33,480.37 $ 37,800.95 0.90% 0.90% 331 255 1.00% 0.78% $58,546 $341,248 Leslie 11.790 8.5 11.500 $55,318.63 $ 62,475.64 1.49% 1.49% 455 409 1.37% 1.25% $241,630 $353,105 Plains 11.790 12 12.000 $72,040.27 $ 81,362.90 1.94% 1.94% 637 776 1.92% 2.36% $299,804 $407,677 Unincorporated Sumter 9.6 11.790 $1,902,041.22 $ 2,148,326.91 51.30% 51.30% 14,764 14,338 44.47% 43.69% $11,536,889 $16,321,288 Various Fire Districts $3,707,682.69 $ 4,187,740.20 33,200 32,819 TALBOT Geneva 16.71 16.050 5 6.000 $14,890.98 $ 22,761.17 3.77% 3.77% 114 105 1.75% 1.53% $64,161 $62,760 Junction City 16.71 16.050 5 2.210 $16,022.69 $ 24,490.31 4.06% 4.06% 179 177 2.75% 2.58% $38,790 $27,266 Manchester 16.71 16.050 16.33 17.242 $8,517.64 $ 13,021.11 2.16% 2.16% 399 112 6.14% $2,610,372 $3,479,878 Talbotton 16.71 16.050 9.5 10.500 $62,244.29 $ 95,154.20 15.77% 15.77% 1,019 970 15.68% 14.13% $282,752 Woodland 16.71 16.050 10.5 14.500 $41,039.54 $ 62,735.33 10.40% 10.40% 432 408 6.65% 5.94% $138,659 $172,752 Unincorporated Talbot 16.71 16.050 $251,895.80 $ 385,156.15 63.83% 63.84% 4,355 5,093 67.02% 74.19% $3,486,844 $5,251,612 $394,610.95 $ 603,318.27 6,498 6,865 TALIAFERRO Crawfordville 19.09 22.420 17.56 16.950 $26,277.38 $21,939.71 23.00% 22.99% 572 534 27.54% 31.10% $240,212 $205,925 Unincorporated Taliaferro 17.77 21.370 $87,972.10 $ 73,501.05 77.00% 77.01% 1,505 1,183 72.46% 68.90% $1,157,651 $2,461,448 $114,249.48 $95,440.76 2,077 1,717 TATTNALL Cobbtown 15.51 13.014 0.000 0.000 $22,863.18 $ 26,316.41 1.94% 1.39% 311 351 1.39% 1.38% $48,250 $102,215 Collins 15.51 13.014 4 3.141 $40,883.07 $ 44,695.25 3.47% 2.37% 528 584 2.37% 2.29% $187,907 $188,865 Glennville 15.51 13.014 9.5 7.750 $252,207.18 $ 410,364.05 21.39% 21.73% 3,641 3,569 16.32% 13.99% $1,650,579 $2,320,646 Reidsville 15.51 13.014 7.8 7.000 $128,632.07 $ 189,216.94 10.91% 10.02% 2,235 4,944 10.02% 19.37% $986,351 $1,324,263 Unincorporated Tattnall 15.51 13.014 $734,684.30 $ 1,217,807.36 62.30% 64.49% 15,590 16,072 69.89% 62.98% $7,129,241 $11,216,179 $1,179,269.79 $ 1,888,400.01 22,305 25,520 TAYLOR Butler 12.19 9.880 7 6.980 $161,132.45 $ 205,123.94 24.70% 24.70% 1,907 1,972 21.63% 22.14% $614,885 $937,997 Reynolds 12.19 9.880 7.87 8.530 $107,639.08 $ 137,011.16 16.50% 16.50% 1,036 1,086 11.75% 12.19% $542,558 $848,998 Unincorporated Taylor 10.33 8.190 $383,586.55 $ 488,264.14 58.80% 58.80% 5,872 5,848 66.61% 65.66% $3,394,247 $4,684,241 $652,358.08 $ 830,399.24 8,815 8,906 TELFAIR

52 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Helena 9.1 13.199 3.6 0.000 $110,705.60 $ 217,556.45 10.81% 19.56% 2,307 2,883 19.56% 17.47% $397,899 $646,795 Jacksonville 9.1 13.199 0.000 0.000 $19,253.15 $ 11,114.25 1.88% 1.00% 118 140 1.00% 0.85% $51,589 $32,033 Lumber City 9.1 13.199 4 10.000 $123,916.53 $ 117,563.46 12.10% 10.57% 1,247 1,328 10.57% 8.05% $568,682 $635,655 McRae 9.1 13.199 8.5 10.396 $283,471.87 $ 252,930.85 27.68% 22.74% 2,682 5,740 22.74% 34.79% $1,405,523 $2,143,671 Milan 9.1 13.199 6 6.000 $52,946.16 $ 54,495.33 5.17% 4.90% 506 336 4.29% 2.04% $187,694 $339,471 Scotland 9.1 13.199 1 3.000 $21,506.18 $ 24,237.96 2.10% 2.18% 240 328 2.03% 1.99% $77,646 $72,600 Unincorporated Telfair 9.1 13.199 $412,304.11 $ 434,338.71 40.26% 39.05% 4,694 5,745 39.80% 34.82% $3,157,851 $6,636,590 $1,024,103.59 $ 1,112,237.01 11,794 16,500 TERRELL Bronwood 13.2 14.800 5 7.000 $25,780.74 $ 28,997.30 3.10% 3.10% 513 225 4.68% 2.42% $245,470 $172,895 Dawson 13.2 14.800 7 8.112 $277,184.56 $ 311,689.20 33.33% 33.33% 5,058 4,540 46.11% 48.74% $2,007,974 $2,628,829 Parrott 13.2 14.800 0.000 5.000 $11,393.42 $ 12,821.13 1.37% 1.37% 156 158 1.42% 1.70% $32,828 $51,844 Sasser 13.2 14.800 0.000 0.000 $17,464.37 $19,628.82 2.10% 2.10% 393 279 3.58% 3.00% $49,216 $85,479 Unincorporated Terrell 13.2 14.800 $499,813.75 $ 562,048.10 60.10% 60.10% 4,850 4,113 44.21% 44.15% $5,311,845 $6,362,103 $831,636.85 $ 935,184.55 10,970 9,315 THOMAS Barwick 6 6.719 10.97 10.750 $16,284.94 $ 20,085.80 0.28% 0.28% 223 240 0.52% 0.54% $107,261 $130,950 Boston 6 6.719 11.99 11.510 $86,622.05 $ 106,919.60 1.50% 1.50% 1,417 1,315 3.32% 2.94% $470,886 $586,066 Coolidge 6 6.719 14.2 11.262 $37,824.96 $ 46,676.71 0.66% 0.65% 552 525 1.29% 1.17% $239,800 $410,078 Meigs 6 6.719 11.99 11.000 $66,294.74 $ 81,816.06 1.15% 1.15% 1,036 993 2.42% 2.22% $521,166 $472,793 Ochlocknee 6 6.719 8.98 7.083 $36,496.75 $ 45,037.75 0.63% 0.63% 605 676 1.42% 1.51% $154,147 $185,815 Pavo 6 6.719 12.94 0.000 $28,585.27 $ 35,271.71 0.50% 0.49% 712 379 1.67% 0.85% $317,410 $309,381 Thomasville 6 6.719 0.000 1.440 $2,459,430.85 $ 3,036,064.16 42.59% 42.59% 18,162 18,413 42.50% 41.17% $8,551,473 $13,482,056 Unincorporated Thomas 4.58 5.597 $3,043,263.43 $ 3,756,788.24 52.70% 52.70% 20,030 22,179 46.87% 49.60% $16,573,786 $26,464,034 Various Fire Districts $5,774,803.00 $ 7,128,660.03 42,737 44,720 TIFT Omega 9.54 10.390 0.000 0.000 $183,108.16 $ 256,928.06 3.05% 3.05% 1,327 1,209 3.46% 3.01% $302,089 $697,383 Tifton 9.54 10.390 4.5 6.759 $2,000,981.91 $ 2,807,806.50 33.33% 33.33% 15,060 16,350 39.21% 40.75% $7,465,254 $15,334,451 Ty Ty 9.54 10.390 0.000 0.000 $98,458.16 $ 138,138.06 1.64% 1.64% 716 725 1.86% 1.81% $175,691 $262,188 Unincorporated Tift 9.54 10.390 $3,720,997.87 $ 5,221,337.98 61.98% 61.98% 21,304 21,834 55.47% 54.42% $15,530,754 $29,029,427 $6,003,546.09 $ 8,424,210.60 38,407 40,118 TOOMBS Lyons 7.35 9.614 2 2.890 $508,473.71 $ 670,046.16 15.00% 14.66% 4,169 4,367 15.99% 16.04% $1,871,320 $2,116,159 SANTA CLAUS 9.614 4.000 0.000 $0.00 $ 45,691.19 0.00% 1.00% 165 0.00% 0.61% $10,107 $39,811 Vidalia 7.35 9.614 5.228 4.486 $1,440,675.51 $ 1,927,371.16 42.50% 42.17% 9,442 10,337 36.22% 37.97% $5,551,287 $7,753,793 Unincorporated Toombs 5.83 9.614 $1,440,675.51 $ 1,927,371.16 42.50% 42.17% 12,456 12,354 47.78% 45.38% $6,733,125 $13,619,654 $3,389,824.73 $ 4,570,479.67 26,067 27,223 TOWNS Hiawassee 6 5.570 3 0.000 $112,765.06 $ 149,470.91 8.00% 9.00% 808 880 8.67% 8.40% $330,847 $717,524 Young Harris 6 5.570 2.99 2.493 $126,860.70 $ 149,470.91 9.00% 9.00% 604 899 6.48% 8.59% $107,850 $296,535 Unincorporated Towns 6 5.570 $1,169,937.54 $ 1,361,839.14 83.00% 82.00% 7,907 8,692 84.85% 83.01% $4,728,134 $8,677,388 $1,409,563.30 $ 1,660,780.96 9,319 10,471 TROUP Hogansville 8.83 10.560 10.5 7.950 $495,570.43 $ 529,463.76 5.36% 5.00% 2,774 3,060 4.72% 4.56% $1,515,918 LaGrange 8.83 10.560 0.000 0.000 $4,261,350.99 $ 4,765,362.27 46.09% 45.00% 25,998 29,588 44.23% 44.13% $15,802,608 $19,981,410 West Point 8.83 10.560 7.93 9.781 $469,682.43 $ 529,439.63 5.08% 5.00% 2,706 2,624 4.60% 3.91% $3,311,404 $4,394,165 Unincorporated Troup 8.83 10.560 $4,019,113.21 $ 4,765,362.27 43.47% 45.00% 27,301 31,772 46.45% 47.39% $21,953,563 $37,772,228 $9,245,717.06 $ 10,589,627.93 58,779 67,044 TREUTLEN Soperton 17.89 14.390 5.5 3.080 $126,429.97 $ 185,840.02 35.00% 40.60% 2,824 3,115 41.20% 45.24% $963,974 $980,269 Unincorporated Treutlen 15.38 12.357 $234,798.52 $ 271,890.40 65.00% 59.40% 4,030 3,770 58.80% 54.76% $2,603,668 $3,487,985 $361,228.49 $ 457,730.42 6,854 6,885 TURNER Ashburn 13.61 16.019 9.5 11.000 $340,495.43 $ 242,556.28 40.75% 27.00% 4,419 4,152 46.50% 46.49% $2,542,765 $3,920,522 Rebecca 13.61 16.019 7.5 7.984 $25,317.82 $ 26,939.92 3.03% 3.00% 246 187 2.59% 2.09% $92,889 Sycamore 13.61 16.019 9.5 11.500 $51,972.55 $ 44,899.30 6.22% 5.00% 496 711 5.22% 7.96% $291,953 $326,210 unincorporated Turner 13.61 16.019 $417,785.80 $ 583,984.98 50.00% 65.00% 4,343 3,880 45.70% 43.45% $3,935,903 $6,894,246 $835,571.60 $ 898,380.48 9,504 8,930 TWIGGS Danville 13.01 16.600 0.000 0.000 $31,867.75 $ 27,273.80 4.00% 4.00% 168 209 1.59% 2.32% $110,048 $101,342 Jeffersonville 13.01 16.600 9.5 0.000 $159,338.76 $ 136,411.90 20.00% 20.00% 1,209 1,035 11.42% 11.47% $498,189 $280,507 Unincorporated Twiggs 11.57 16.600 $605,487.29 $ 518,368.81 76.00% 76.00% 9,213 7,779 87.00% 86.21% $4,792,793 $6,546,889 $796,693.80 $ 682,054.51 10,590 9,023 UNION Blairsville 4.8 4.930 2.85 2.000 $400,247.64 $ 646,906.72 20.00% 20.00% 659 652 3.81% 3.05% $472,835 $990,895 Unincorporated Union 4.8 4.930 $1,600,990.56 $ 2,587,599.92 80.00% 80.00% 16,630 20,704 96.19% 96.95% $7,630,825 $12,126,303 $2,001,238.20 $ 3,234,506.64 17,289 21,356 UNITED GOVERNMENT OF WEBSTER (unified government)

UPSON

53 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Thomaston 13.09 12.720 4.63 3.620 $1,317,301.35 $ 1,359,520.28 43.00% 43.00% 9,411 6,778 34.10% 24.96% $6,183,172 $6,804,518 Yatesville 13.09 12.720 0.000 0.000 $61,269.83 $ 63,212.32 2.00% 2.00% 408 357 1.48% 1.31% $48,788 Unincorporated Upson 10.95 12.720 $1,684,920.34 $ 1,738,934.41 55.00% 55.00% 17,778 20,018 64.42% 73.72% $10,042,460 $13,609,762 $3,063,491.52 $ 3,161,667.01 27,597 27,153 WALKER Chickamauga 4.25 7.196 3.46 0.000 $121,249.91 $ 138,760.66 2.64% 2.64% 2,245 3,101 3.68% 4.51% $552,668 $986,521 Fort Oglethorpe 4.25 7.196 8.35 6.495 $4,040.13 $ 4,715.33 0.09% 0.09% 6,941 250 11.37% 0.36% $4,765,521 $5,232,226 LaFayette 4.25 7.196 3.8 2.990 $436,885.34 $ 500,373.51 9.52% 9.52% 6,702 7,121 10.98% 10.36% $3,843,734 $4,815,612 Lookout Mountain 4.25 7.196 9.5 8.500 $101,186.98 $ 115,632.84 2.20% 2.20% 1,617 1,602 2.65% 2.33% $671,808 $874,439 Rossville 4.25 7.196 9 9.035 $254,849.78 $ 291,698.84 5.55% 5.55% 3,511 4,105 5.75% 5.97% $1,624,598 $2,042,270 Unincorporated Walker 2.44 4.918 $3,672,848.58 $ 4,204,836.01 80.00% 80.00% 40,037 52,577 65.58% 76.47% $15,101,238 $23,791,865 $4,591,060.72 $ 5,256,017.19 61,053 68,756 WALTON Loganville 10.05 10.542 0.000 10.270 $393,958.83 $ 670,108.39 6.50% 7.36% 3,805 7,984 6.27% 9.53% $2,814,531 $6,667,531 Monroe 10.05 10.542 7.967 5.512 $1,394,008.15 $ 1,791,838.71 23.00% 19.68% 11,407 13,234 18.80% 15.80% $6,199,457 $10,165,627 Social Circle 10.05 10.542 6.98 7.411 $393,958.83 $ 550,835.03 6.50% 6.05% 3,345 4,221 5.51% 5.04% $1,199,388 $2,915,503 Walnut Grove 10.05 11.032 0.000 0.000 $60,609.05 $ 185,709.78 1.00% 2.04% 1,241 1,330 2.04% 1.59% $163,212 Unincorporated Walton 10.09 11.032 $3,818,370.16 $ 5,906,319.23 63.00% 64.87% 40,889 56,999 67.38% 68.04% $21,489,286 $46,529,860 $6,060,905.02 $ 9,104,811.14 60,687 83,768 WARE Waycross 13.5 16.549 9.37 10.998 $2,496,290.81 $ 3,167,503.10 50.00% 48.00% 15,333 14,640 43.21% 40.32% $8,438,903 $11,641,691 Unincorporated Ware 13.5 16.549 $2,496,290.81 $ 3,431,472.23 50.00% 52.00% 20,150 21,672 56.79% 59.68% $12,283,103 $20,839,605 $4,992,581.62 $ 6,598,975.33 35,483 36,312 WARREN Camak 3 12.250 4 5.753 $19,999.77 $ 14,449.36 3.36% 2.60% 165 138 2.60% 2.37% $30,042 $40,411 NORWOOD 3 12.250 3.25 3.250 $24,285.44 $ 26,107.64 4.08% 4.70% 299 239 4.72% 4.10% $34,342 $61,936 Warrenton 3 12.250 12.42 14.223 $196,902.51 $ 176,654.91 33.08% 31.80% 2,013 1,937 31.77% 33.20% $839,663 $1,279,542 Unincorporated Warren 3 12.250 $354,043.58 $ 338,332.77 59.48% 60.90% 3,859 3,520 60.91% 60.34% $1,966,248 $3,947,624 $595,231.30 $ 555,544.68 6,336 5,834 WASHINGTON Davisboro 9.17 8.420 5 4.379 $58,577.50 $ 67,414.43 2.13% 2.13% 1,544 2,010 7.29% 9.49% $239,304 $347,182 Deepstep 9.17 8.420 2 2.750 $15,950.68 $ 18,352.24 0.58% 0.58% 132 131 0.62% 0.62% $37,906 $57,483 Harrison 9.17 8.420 3.5 3.881 $59,677.55 $ 68,693.28 2.17% 2.17% 509 489 2.40% 2.31% $102,795 $181,117 Oconee 9.17 8.420 0.000 0.000 $33,551.43 $ 38,613.93 1.22% 1.22% 280 252 1.32% 1.19% $49,496 $102,859 Riddleville 9.17 8.420 1 0.713 $11,550.49 $ 13,284.58 0.42% 0.42% 124 96 0.59% 0.45% $10,552 $24,220 Sandersville 9.17 8.420 3 3.000 $905,063.69 $ 1,042,068.93 32.91% 32.91% 6,144 5,912 29.01% 27.90% $3,429,280 $4,510,556 Tennille 9.17 8.420 8 11.174 $223,309.55 $ 257,105.66 8.12% 8.12% 1,505 1,539 7.11% 7.26% $735,497 $1,170,415 Unincorporated Washington 9.17 8.420 $1,442,436.67 $ 1,660,818.78 52.45% 52.45% 10,938 10,758 51.65% 50.78% $10,229,129 $12,000,643 $2,750,117.57 $ 3,166,351.83 21,176 21,187 WAYNE Jesup 12.48 12.970 4.91 5.374 $1,366,864.93 $ 1,663,049.99 41.90% 41.90% 9,279 10,214 34.93% 33.93% $3,639,086 $5,474,150 Odum 12.48 12.970 3.358 5.117 $48,933.11 $59,520.22 1.50% 1.50% 414 504 1.56% 1.67% $180,352 $236,585 Screven 12.48 12.970 5.865 4.968 $114,177.26 $138,906.64 3.50% 3.50% 702 766 2.64% 2.54% $242,343 $624,126 Unincorporated Wayne 12.18 12.970 $1,732,232.17 $ 2,107,588.78 53.10% 53.10% 16,170 18,615 60.87% 61.85% $11,714,552 $15,806,676 $3,262,207.47 $ 3,969,065.63 26,565 30,099 WHEELER Alamo 8.95 18.103 10 8.400 $54,650.60 $ 102,697.20 18.00% 21.00% 1,943 2,797 31.45% 37.69% $308,317 $730,246 Glenwood 18.103 4 6.000 $54,650.60 $ 102,697.20 18.00% 21.00% 884 747 14.31% 10.07% $237,250 $265,918 Unincorporated Wheeler 7.28 16.345 $194,313.25 $ 283,643.46 64.00% 58.00% 3,352 3,877 54.25% 52.24% $1,476,561 $2,844,287 $303,614.46 $ 489,037.86 6,179 7,421 WHITE Cleveland 4.48 9.190 4.298 3.475 $469,242.82 $ 655,090.34 20.00% 20.00% 1,907 3,410 9.56% 12.56% $1,301,806 $1,795,716 Helen 4.48 9.190 4.98 4.900 $469,242.82 $ 655,090.34 20.00% 20.00% 430 510 2.16% 1.88% $1,725,296 $2,460,470 Unincorporated White 4.48 9.190 $1,407,728.47 $ 1,965,265.78 60.00% 60.00% 17,607 23,224 88.28% 85.56% $8,535,854 $16,836,356 $2,346,214.12 $ 3,275,446.46 19,944 27,144 WHITFIELD Cohutta 3.29 5.061 0.000 0.000 $64,004.92 $ 63,232.93 0.38% 0.38% 582 661 0.70% 0.64% $120,384 $207,875 Dalton 3.29 5.061 4.907 2.875 $2,638,500.58 $ 2,512,083.15 15.50% 14.93% 27,912 33,128 33.42% 32.29% $18,969,081 $27,164,954 TUNNEL HILL 0 5.061 0.00 0.000 $0.00 $ 109,178.51 0.00% 0.65% 856 0.00% 0.83% $286,627 Varnell 3.29 5.061 0.000 2.404 $43,407.59 $ 134,761.99 0.26% 0.80% 1,491 1,744 1.79% 1.70% $112,278 $1,678,016 Unicorporated Whitfield 2 5.061 $14,276,671.29 $ 14,006,393.38 83.87% 83.24% 53,540 66,210 64.10% 64.53% $17,022,584.37 $ 16,825,649.96 83,525 102,599 WILCOX Abbeville 14 18.250 13 12.000 $75,217.13 $ 100,480.70 21.00% 21.00% 2,298 2,908 26.79% 31.42% $332,664 $450,206 Pineview 14 18.250 5.5 5.500 $39,399.45 $ 52,641.24 11.00% 11.00% 532 523 6.20% 5.65% $195,487 $185,815 Pitts 14 18.250 0.000 0.000 $17,908.84 $ 23,914.31 5.00% 5.00% 308 320 3.59% 3.46% $45,268 $70,912 Rochelle 14 18.250 12 13.500 $121,780.11 $ 162,690.89 34.00% 34.00% 1,415 1,174 16.50% 12.69% $614,208 $791,767 Unincorporated Wilcox 14 18.250 $103,871.27 $ 138,785.06 29.00% 29.00% 4,024 4,330 46.92% 46.79% $2,650,917 $4,297,586 $358,176.79 $ 478,512.20 8,577 9,255 WILKES Rayle 8.25 0.000 0.000 0.000 $7,939.49 $ 9,399.47 0.70% 0.70% 139 199 1.30% 1.88% $11,837 54 Percent of Percent of Amount of LOST Amount of LOST LOST LOST 2000 County 2009 County 2000 City 2009 City 2000 County Tax 2010 County Tax 2000 City Digest 2010 City Digest Distribution Distribution Received Distribution Distribution 2000 2010 Percent of 2000 Percent of 2010 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund County / City Digest Mill Rates Digest Mill Rates Mill Rates Mill Rates Received in 2000 in 2010 2000 2010 Population Population Population Population Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Tignall 8.25 8.500 5 8.500 $55,576.44 $ 65,831.51 4.90% 4.90% 653 546 6.11% 5.15% $164,975 $204,295 Washington 8.25 0.000 10.5 0.000 $333,458.61 $ 395,055.32 29.40% 29.40% 4,295 4,134 40.19% 39.03% $3,071,179 $5,000,436 Unincorporated Wilkes 7.32 8.445 $737,238.42 $ 873,417.53 65.00% 65.00% 5,600 5,714 52.40% 53.94% $4,132,066 $6,867,503 $1,134,212.96 $ 1,343,703.83 10,687 10,593 WILKINSON Allentown 10.41 12.440 0.000 0.000 $18,021.73 $ 23,020.05 1.30% 1.30% 287 110 2.81% 1.15% $24,266 $37,962 Danville 10.41 12.440 0.000 0.000 $6,931.44 $ 8,847.78 0.50% 0.50% 206 29 2.02% 0.30% $110,048 $101,342 Gordon 10.41 12.440 2.574 4.473 $437,928.06 $ 559,632.81 31.59% 31.59% 2,152 2,017 21.06% 21.09% $1,244,871 $1,382,711 Irwinton 10.41 12.440 5.11 6.500 $38,261.52 $ 48,875.04 2.76% 2.76% 587 589 5.74% 6.16% $183,926 $254,540 Ivey 10.41 12.440 5.75 5.384 $95,653.80 $ 122,249.97 6.90% 6.90% 1,100 981 10.76% 10.26% $315,725 $337,440 McIntyre 10.41 12.440 1.9 3.059 $46,717.87 $ 59,691.04 3.37% 3.37% 718 650 7.03% 6.80% $594,706 $1,244,342 Toomsboro 10.41 12.440 3.912 5.500 $35,766.20 $ 45,689.70 2.58% 2.58% 622 472 6.09% 4.94% $104,192 $177,524 Unincorporated Wilkinson 10.41 12.440 $707,006.37 $903,501.87 51.00% 51.00% 4,548 4,715 44.50% 49.30% $4,162,211 $7,305,577 $1,386,287.00 $ 1,771,508.26 10,220 9,563 WORTH Poulan 10.55 10.262 4.25 5.486 $67,556.39 $ 71,263.09 4.65% 4.30% 946 851 4.31% 3.93% $199,108 $1,049,818 Sumner 10.55 10.262 4 5.000 $15,399.95 $ 23,362.38 1.06% 1.41% 309 427 1.41% 1.97% $45,004 $105,915 Sylvester 10.55 10.262 3.25 5.253 $443,111.82 $ 452,014.33 30.50% 27.27% 5,990 6,188 27.27% 28.54% $2,124,348 $4,292,809 Warwick 10.55 10.262 3.29 3.863 $36,901.77 $ 32,478.33 2.54% 1.96% 430 423 1.96% 1.95% $211,798 $358,236 Unincorporated Worth 10.55 10.262 $889,855.70 $ 1,078,409.62 61.25% 65.06% 14,292 13,790 65.06% 63.61% $6,672,559 $10,272,215 $1,452,825.64 $ 1,657,527.75 21,967 21,679