Macon-Bibb Tax Equity Study

FOREWORD

In the Summer of 2010, the Bibb County Board of Commissioners and the Mayor and Council of the City of Macon requested that the Carl Vinson Institute of Government conduct a study of funding equity in the governments to determine whether residents and taxpayers are receiving the services they pay for. The study’s final report, An Evaluation of County Services Funding: Bibb County and the City of Macon, begins with an executive summary that summarizes the major findings for policymakers to consider. The study also contains a detailed analysis of both Bibb County’s and the City of Macon’s revenues and expenditures for countywide and unincorporated residents.

John O’Looney, Senior Public Service Associate at the Institute, served as the principal investigator.

We are pleased to present this report and hope that it provides useful information to the citizens and policymakers as they consider this issue.

Dennis Epps, Director

Governmental Services and Research Division

Carl Vinson Institute of Government

Evaluation of Services Funding _________________________________________________________________________________

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 5

General Approach .............................................................................................................................................. 12

Summary of Base Tax Equity Amounts................................................................................................................ 14

Revenue Off‐Sets/Allowances and Final Tax Equity Amount ............................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 2: REVENUE ALLOCATION ..................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 3: IDENTIFICATION OF CLASSIC TAX EQUITY SERVICES ................................................... 50

CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFICATION OF FUNDING EQUITY SERVICES RELATED TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS OR OTHER MECHANISMS OF LAW ................................... 58

Intergovernmental Agreements ......................................................................................................................... 61 Intergovernmental Agreements that appear on first reading to not involve an Equity Issue: ................................ 61 Intergovernmental Agreements that may involve an Equity Issue: ......................................................................... 62

Special Services: Services Provided based on Enabling Legislation ...................................................................... 80

CHAPTER 5: SPECIFICATION OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY THAT HAVE A POTENTIAL COUNTYWIDE BENEFIT ............................................................................................. 81

Airport Services ................................................................................................................................................. 81

Centreplex Services ............................................................................................................................................ 82

Bowden Golf Course .......................................................................................................................................... 83

Cemetery Services .............................................................................................................................................. 83

CHAPTER 6: ALLOCATION OF SUPPORT FUNCTIONS TO DIRECT SERVICE FUNCTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 7: BASE EXPENDITURES ON SERVICES ................................................................................ 92

Classic Tax Equity Services .................................................................................................................................. 94


3

Maintenance of Roads and Streets and Levee ......................................................................................................... 95 Other Public Works ................................................................................................................................................ 121 Levee ...................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Sheriff’s Services .................................................................................................................................................... 128 Court Services ......................................................................................................................................................... 140 Board of Elections .................................................................................................................................................. 142 Information Technology ......................................................................................................................................... 145 GIS .......................................................................................................................................................................... 150 Mapping ................................................................................................................................................................. 153 Animal Control ....................................................................................................................................................... 156 Lake Tobesofkee ..................................................................................................................................................... 159 Fire Services............................................................................................................................................................ 160 Housing of City Prisoners in the Law Enforcement Center .................................................................................... 163 800 MHz Radio System: .......................................................................................................................................... 165 Recreation/Senior Citizen Services ......................................................................................................................... 168 Traffic Engineering ................................................................................................................................................. 174 County Buildings ..................................................................................................................................................... 175

Funding Equity Services Provided as a Stand‐Alone Service by the City with Potential for Countywide Benefits. 179 Airport .................................................................................................................................................................... 179 CentrePlex .............................................................................................................................................................. 182 Bowden Golf Course ............................................................................................................................................... 185 Cemetery ................................................................................................................................................................ 187

Special Cases of 3rd Party Service Delivery ....................................................................................................... 188 Economic Development: ........................................................................................................................................ 188 Tri‐Party Transit Authority ..................................................................................................................................... 190 Cultural and Civic Services Jointly Funded ............................................................................................................. 199

Issues Where Core Funding Equity was Not Confirmed or that Can be Addressed Administratively ................... 201 Landfill .................................................................................................................................................................... 201 Building Inspections ............................................................................................................................................... 201 E911 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 203

CHAPTER 8: BASE FUNDING EQUITY ........................................................................................... 205

Summary of Tax Equity and Funding Equity ...................................................................................................... 206 Alternative Models ................................................................................................................................................. 212

CHAPTER 9: TREATMENT OF REVENUE OFFSETS AND FINAL TAX EQUITY AMOUNT 213

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS: AVERAGE FUNDING INEQUITY AND POSSIBLE MIDDLE GROUND POSITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 219

Options for Resolution ..................................................................................................................................... 224


4

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 228 A: Laws Related to the Sheriff –Other Law Enforcement Duties ........................................................................... 228


5

Executive Summary

This study was conducted in response to a request by the Bibb County Board of Commissioners and the Macon City Council to determine whether taxes and other funding are distributed equitably between residents and taxpayers1 in the incorporated area of the county (“incorporated residents”) and residents and taxpayers in the unincorporated area of the county (“unincorporated residents”) for the county services they receive. Bibb County provides a variety of services to both the incorporated area (the City of Macon) and unincorporated area residents of the county. These services are funded in large measure by county general fund revenues collected countywide.

Similarly, the City of Macon provides a variety of services to both the incorporated area (the City of Macon) and unincorporated area. These services are funded in large measure by municipal general fund revenues collected in the incorporated area, by revenues or services received from the county government, by service fees, area, and from other outside sources.

In principle, services provided countywide should be funded by revenues collected countywide, while services provided specifically in either the unincorporated area or the incorporated area should be funded by revenues collected solely from residents in those respective areas. In actuality, services are often provided by mixtures of funds from different sources. The purpose of this study is to determine whether and to what extent taxpayers in the one jurisdictional area provide funding for services that they do not receive or do not receive in proportion to their contribution.

While a primary purpose of a study of this sort is to determine how much municipal revenues are being used to fund services provided only in the unincorporated areas (i.e., classic tax equity) based on evolving understandings of the Service Delivery Strategy Act, CVIOG was charged with a conducting a study with a larger scope. Essentially, we were asked to review all joint service delivery operations, intergovernmental agreements, and city and county resolutions, budgeting and billing practices in light of the over‐arching principle of equity that “those who receive a service should pay for the amount of services received.”

The extent of inequity in this broader sense of the term than is specified in the Service Delivery Strategy Act depends upon the assumptions used in the analysis. The stakeholders in this study could not agree on all of the assumptions that were to be used in the analysis. As a consequence, the study does not present a single set of findings. Instead, the findings change based on the sets of assumptions that are used. Essentially, the study creates a number of scenarios with differing

1 In this report for ease of reading, the term ‘residents’ should be interpreted to mean residents and property owners and other taxpayers.


6

assumptions related to the treatment of revenues and services. Some scenarios tend to favor the County’s position, while others favor the City’s position.

The study examines services that involve potentially different types of funding equity due to the circumstances of the provision of the services. At the broadest level, one can make a distinction between classic tax equity and other types of funding equity.

Classic Tax Equity versus Other Funding Equity

In some funding equity studies the analysis of equity is limited to the classic tax equity issues or instances where the County provides a service only or primarily to the unincorporated area using funding sources that include funds from city taxpayers. This study will examine both the classic tax equity issues and the remaining issues that we will generically call ‘funding equity issues.’ For classic tax equity issues there is a fairly standard analysis method. For the broader group of funding equity issues there is potential to analyze these as if they resembled classic tax equity issues (i.e., we treat the service as if it had a unincorporated area component and a City component). We call this a Tax Equity Analysis. Or, alternatively, the service can potentially be treated as if it were a single countywide service that should be funded with a countywide funding source. We call this a Funding Equity Analysis. The following presents these concepts in more detail.

Classic Tax Equity

With regard to the classic tax equity issues, the methodology for this analysis is as follows:

1. Analyze all services (and sub‐services) provided by the county and identify those that appear to be provided only or primarily to unincorporated residents (i.e., unincorporated‐only services).

2. Analyze all the revenue sources for the county and identify a) the amounts that are collected countywide (or equally from all residents) and b) those that are collected only from the unincorporated area.

3. Offset the cost of services that are provided only or primarily in the unincorporated area with revenues generated from the unincorporated area or from service beneficiaries. Some of these funds are from revenue generated as part of the department’s service (e.g., user fees). The other part of these funds can potentially come from sources (e.g., hotel‐motel tax, alcohol taxes, etc.) that are only levied in the unincorporated area or from sources where a fairness principle would suggest that perhaps some credit for some portion of the revenue be provided (e.g., Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) revenue). Because of the ambiguity in the law and in practice concerning the appropriate treatment of LOST funds in tax equity studies, we allowed for a LOST


7

revenue offset or credit in the scenario that favors the County, but did not do so in the scenario that favored the City.2

4. Finally, if the offsets (i.e., revenues, fees, or contributions from the unincorporated area or service users) are not sufficient to cover the expenditures on services that are provided only or primarily in the unincorporated area, the remainder is the tax equity amount.

Overall, a tax equity analysis attempts to compare the contributions made by a jurisdiction’s residents and taxpayers to the benefits they receive, specifically related to services that they receive that are not provided to residents of the other jurisdiction.

Equity Arising from Intergovernmental Agreements

The CVIOG project team analyzed the entire set of City‐County governmental agreements and attempted to identify whether the agreement raised a possible equity issue. In some cases, the equity issue that was raised was as simple and non‐controversial as the failure to include indirect costs as part of the cost reimbursement related to the delivery of the service. In other cases, however, the potential equity issue was related to how one might best interpret the nature of the service benefit (i.e., to what degree did the service primarily benefit the unincorporated area, the incorporated area, or the county as a whole). Because there may be several principled ways to interpret the service benefit, and several ways to potentially measure the benefit, the CVIOG project team worked with the City and County managers and staff to arrive at a reasonable number of interpretations and measurement methods.

Funding Equity: Potential Equity Arising from City Provided Services or 3rd Party Services Jointly Funded that Provide a Countywide Benefit

2 Three principle‐based ways to allocate credit to unincorporated residents for their LOST contributions were identified. These are:

a. LOST‐to‐Unincorporated: Unincorporated residents get full credit for the entire county portion of the LOST revenue stream

b. LOST‐to‐Countywide: Unincorporated residents get no credit for the county portion of the LOST revenue stream

c. LOST‐with‐Unincorporated Compensated for Disproportionate Contribution: Unincorporated residents get a partial credit for the county portion of the LOST revenue stream


8

The City provides a number of services that generate a countywide benefit. Some of these services are provided based on written intergovernmental agreements (e.g., the 800mhz Radio system) or coordinated ordinances (Emergency Management Services); others are based on informal arrangements, while still others are provided by the City on its own accord (e.g., the CentrePlex, the Bowden Golf Course, the Cemetery, and the Airport).

In addition, the City and the County jointly fund 3rd Party Organizations for the delivery of services that have a countywide benefit. Some of these services are provided based on local legislation (e.g., Planning and Zoning), others are provided based on intergovernmental agreements or informal understandings that are demonstrated by coordinated budget resolutions (e.g., economic development services), while still others (e.g., cultural and civic services) are suggested by evidence of joint funding.

Because the circumstances under which a service is provided can have some bearing on one’s sense of whether a possible equity issue is a valid one, we categorize services into the following groups:

1) Services provided by the County that potentially raise an equity issue. In this group are classic tax equity issues or instances where the County provides a service only or primarily to the unincorporated area using funding sources that include funds from city taxpayers. Also included are services provided by the County where a potential equity arises from the existence of an intergovernmental or joint service agreements/arrangement that does not appear to provide for or fund the service in a manner that satisfies equity principles.

2) Services provided by a third party such as the Planning and Zoning Commission or Transit Authority where a potential equity arises from the existence of an intergovernmental or joint service agreements/arrangements related to the delivery of the services in question that does not appear to provide for or fund the service in a manner that satisfies equity principles.

3) Services can be provided by the City where a potential equity arises from the existence of an intergovernmental or joint service agreements/arrangements related to the delivery of the services in question that does not appear to provide for or fund the service in a manner that satisfies equity principles;

4) Services provided by the City on its own initiative that reasonably provide a countywide benefit. These are services that are provided by the City without support or input from or partnership with the County.

5) Services Provided by the County that Raise NO Equity Issue.

6) Services Provided by the City that Raise NO Equity Issue


9

7) Services Provided by a Third Party that Raise NO Equity Issue

Scenarios

Because of the complexity of the of the service provision circumstances, the legal context for service delivery agreements, and the assumptions that need to be made about the allocation of costs and benefits in certain situations, there is no one funding equity resolution that will fit all communities or even all reasonable citizens and stakeholders in specific community. Instead, different individuals and groups will prefer (out of their own sense of fairness) different methods for arriving at the funding equity amount. This report does not attempt to identify any single funding equity amount. Rather, it presents the data needed for stakeholders to build their own fairness scenarios.

The figure below presents a simplified matrix of how these scenarios would be constructed. Essentially, every scenario is comprised of a combination of the following choice factors:

1) an Inclusion/Exclusion choice of what services to include in an analysis (i.e., what services raise a tax equity issue)

2) a Treatment choice of how to model the costs and benefits of the service to the jurisdictional groups (e.g., does the unincorporated area receive 100%, 75%, 25%, 0% of the benefit of the service, etc. ; is the best proxy for modeling the benefit population distribution, program participation distribution?, etc. ) Some treatment choices will favor the City’s presumptive position while others will favor the County’s presumptive position.

2) a Revenue Offset choice as to how to treat a specific (and problematic) revenue sources. The matrix presents a way to understand how the different scenarios might result in findings that are more favorable to one stakeholder or the other.


10

Sample Matrix of Potential Scenarios for Identifying Possible Tax Inequities

REVENUE OFFSET CHOICES

INCLUSION‐EXCLUSION/ TREATMENT CHOICES

All of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

Some of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

Only a very few of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

1)Exclude the Sheriff/

Treat Roads based on County Assumptions

Findings that favor the County

2)Exclude the Sheriff /

Treat Roads based on City Assumptions

3)Includes Sheriff /


4)Includes Sheriff /


Findings that favor the City


11

The figure is entitled “Sample Matrix…” because it is meant to illustrate that the permutation of choices of service inclusion, treatment, and revenue offsets are too numerous to list—and the calculation of which would result in a document that would be several hundred pages.

In order to keep the length of the report to a reasonable one, we will organize the finding around two extreme positions which result in two major, but highly divergent scenarios: 1) a scenario favoring the City’s presumptive position where all possible tax equity issues are included and where the highest tax equity amount is used in cases where an individual service is modeled in multiple ways. And 2) a scenario favoring the County’s presumptive position where it is assumed that some services (e.g., related to Roads, the Sheriff’s Office, and the City’s secondary services) are not included in the analysis. For this scenario, when there are multiple ways of modeling equity, we choose the equity model that is likely to maximize an equity resolution in favor of the County.

The term ‘presumptive position’ is used to denote the use of analysis factors that would result in the highest or lowest amount of tax equity for the impacted group of residents and taxpayers (i.e., those in the unincorporated area versus those in the City area). That is, this analysis was developed without detailed and complete knowledge of the actual positions of the City and County elected officials with regard to what choices of factors would represent a fair position vis a vis their constituents or their own sense of fairness.

The two major, but divergent scenarios are used as a means of simplifying the reporting of results and clarifying the range of possible tax equity amounts. They represent the most extreme positions possible given assumptions, models, and data that would favor one position over the other. In between the two major, divergent scenarios are numerous middle ground scenarios. Middle ground scenarios would tend to combine the following elements:

1) The inclusion/exclusion of services from the analysis in ways that differ from the extreme position. For example, the scenario favoring the County does not allow for the inclusion of expenditures on the Sheriff or Roads paid for in part from revenues generated in the City even though City residents do not seem (from some citizens’ point of view at least) to receive benefits that are proportional to their contributions.

2) The use of alternative allocation models for determining tax equity rather than the model that is most extreme in favoring one jurisdiction over the other. For example, the allocation of benefit model used in the analysis of the Airport for determining the equity amount in the scenario favoring the City was one that used the proportion of employees from the two jurisdictions. Since there were a much higher proportion of employees from the unincorporated area than from the City, the amount of tax equity was substantially higher than if one were to model the benefit based on a measure such as the proportion of the population in the two jurisdictions.


12

3) The allowance of revenue off‐sets for tax equity liability that may differ from the extreme position. For example, in the scenario favoring the City few or no revenue offsets are allowed beyond service‐related user fees even though there are additional revenue sources that are generated solely from the unincorporated area.

It is recognized that both the City and the County can point to law that would seem to back major components of their polar‐opposite positions. While this study will on occasion reference certain laws related to the Service Delivery Strategy Act (SDS), the purpose of the study is to provide the stakeholders with the data needed to negotiate a fair resolution of the funding equity situation as it currently stands. While an adjudicated resolution of SDS issues is always possible and can provide a legal ‘stick’ as an incentive, the spirit of the SDS law is one that values local negotiations and local understandings of fairness. In order for the study to serve its purpose, the stakeholders will need to spend some time understanding the details of the analysis and to use their own sense of fairness with regard to choices as to: which services should be included, which allocation models should be used, and what revenue offsets should be allowed.

General Approach

Operational Revenues as the Focus and the Role of Capital

The value of the service was estimated based on the operational costs of providing the service on an annual basis. The value and cost of the capital involved in producing the service was not considered in the funding equity analysis for a number of reasons: 1) capital is excluded from the other analyses in the study; 2) it is typically impossible to trace all of the origins of capital in terms of the sources of the funding; and 3) in cases where capital is clearly owned by one of the stakeholders in the delivery of a non‐countywide service, it is assumed that the jurisdiction receiving the service would be responsible for capital replacement in the future delivery of the service. While capital is not taken into consideration in the study for methodological reason, the study authors recognize that there are capital requirements in the delivery of nearly all services. A conservative estimate of the relative value of capital in the delivery of services would likely be in the range of 8‐12% of operational expenditures. Also, although this study has not treated capital as part of a funding equity analysis for methodological and other reasons, in the process of resolving a funding equity condition it is important to include capital costs as part of the resolution.

Principles for Analysis

With regard to the broader funding equity issues, the general approach was to identify and analyze all of the intergovernmental agreements as well as informal understandings and funding formulas


13

related to joint service delivery or the exchange of services. For each of these, our analysis was guided by the following analytical principles:

1) Services that are provided solely or primarily for the benefit of the unincorporated area should be funded using an unincorporated‐only revenue source. (Classic Tax Equity Analysis)

2) Services that are provided by the vast majority of county governments in Georgia as a countywide service would be considered as a county government responsibility that should be provided countywide using countywide sources of funding. (Funding Equity Analysis)

3) Services that are provided as a countywide service where the County government has provided some recognition of the countywide nature of the service (e.g., through an intergovernmental agreement or joint funding arrangement) would be considered as a service that should be funded using countywide sources of funding. (Funding Equity Analysis)

4) Services where a reasonable person based on data provided could view the service as having benefits that are not equally distributed to the jurisdictions in question (i.e., the City and the unincorporated part of the County) would be considered as services that need to supported by two separate funding streams: 1) a city funding stream based on revenue generated in the City; and 2) an unincorporated‐only funding stream based on revenue generated solely from the unincorporated area. (Tax Equity Analysis using an Allocation Principle)

Complicating matters somewhat is the potential for some services to be modeled as either a Tax Equity service or as a Funding Equity service. 3 In distinguishing between a funding equity and a tax

3 In terms of the analytical treatment of equity (i.e., in order to arrive at an equity amount), there are two major groups: 1) classic tax

equity analysis and 2) funding equity analysis. In most classic tax equity situations the service is viewed as one that is being provided primarily to the unincorporated area but is being paid for with funds that are generated in part by municipal residents and taxpayers. In a classic tax equity analysis, analysts will give unincorporated residents and taxpayers ‘credit’ for unincorporated‐only revenue sources, for unincorporated residents’ share of the county property tax collections, and potentially for LOST revenues (or some portion thereof)‐‐ all in support of unincorporated‐only services. Once all credits have been applied, the remaining amount—the net tax equity amount represents the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the tax inequity.

For some classic tax equity analytical situations, the service itself may be provided countywide, but there is some evidence that the service is delivered in a way that is disproportionate in terms of the relative benefits received by the incorporated versus unincorporated residents and taxpayers. In these cases the analytical approach is to model the service as one where the city should pay for its part and the county should pay for the part going to the unincorporated area with funds that are generated from unincorporated‐only sources. Since the county in these instances is not using unincorporated‐only revenue sources, the part of the service that is for unincorporated‐only residents can be analyzed as a classic tax equity issue.

In a funding equity analysis the service is treated as one that is countywide in the nature of its benefits. That is, while there may be slight difference in the way that the two resident groups (incorporated versus unincorporated) receive service benefits the level of difference in benefits is minimal. However, in the funding equity situation the city residents/taxpayers will be contributing more to the provision of the service than they receive in benefits. In a funding equity analysis the goal is to identify the amount of city funding that exceeds the city residents’ responsibility for supporting the service. This is the amount that needs to become the responsibility of the county and that need to be generated from a countywide funding source. In this funding equity analysis, there is no need to ‘credit’ the county for their


14

equity analysis, it is useful to remember that once one decides to treat the responsibility for the funding of a service as something that the jurisdictions are individually responsible for in proportion to the benefit they receive, a tax equity analysis is the appropriate one. On the other hand, if one considers a service to be a countywide one where benefits are shared equally and to be paid for with a countywide funding source, the funding equity analysis is the appropriate one.

In tax equity studies the ‘tax equity amount’ is typically understood as the amount that that would need to be generated from a special services district made up of only the unincorporated area of the county. Because funding equity is modeled somewhat differently, i.e., as if the service were one that provides a countywide benefit and therefore should be funded through a countywide funding source, the gross funding equity amount would the amount that would be “resolved” were the county to fund this amount thorough the countywide revenue sources of their general fund. However, because property taxes represent the major source of any additional revenue that the county would need to generate to pay for additional countywide services, we can use the distribution of property taxes as the basis for translating the funding equity amount into a tax equity amount. Hence in this report we will develop a standardized equity amount which represents either the tax equity amount or a funding equity amount that has been translated into a tax equity amount. Essentially, to standardize funding equity we only need to multiply the percentage of property taxes paid by the unincorporated area times the full funding equity amount. This figure represents the amount of revenue that needs to be generated solely from the unincorporated area (e.g., as would be generated from a special services district comprised of the unincorporated area).

Consequently, in order to simplify and standardize the finding from the two types of analysis, we will summarize all the equity amounts as if they were tax equity amounts.

Summary of Base Tax Equity Amounts

The following tables summarize the findings related to the individual services.

unincorporated‐only revenues since the revenues that will be paying for the countywide service will be ones generated from countywide sources (generally the county property tax). Once a funding equity amount has been identified, we can then take the analysis one last step and identify the amount of the total funding equity that city residents would be paying for through their portion of the county property taxes. Finally, when you subtract the city residents’ payment (through their contribution to the county property taxes) from the total funding equity amount identified, you arrive at the amount of Net Funding Equity or the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the funding inequity.


15

For each service two scenarios are identified: 1) a scenario favoring the City where all possible tax equity issues are included and where the highest tax equity amount is used in cases where an individual service is modeled in multiple ways. And 2) a scenario favoring the County where it is assumed that some services (e.g., related to Roads, the Sheriff’s Office, and the City’s secondary services) are not included in the analysis.

For the purposes of the study services have been put into groups that help to define who provides the service and under what circumstances. The service groups for which a potential tax equity issue has been raised are listed first followed by lists of services for which no tax or funding equity issue was identified.

For services that potentially involve an equity issue, we identify the model that is used in determining the tax equity amount favoring either the City’s or the County’s position or understanding of funding equity.

Legend for Models Used

TE = Classic Tax Equity where the County’s expenditures on a service that is delivered only or primarily to the unincorporated area are generated from a countywide source rather than a valid unincorporated‐only source.

FE = Funding Equity. This is typically the case when the City has been providing a service that is countywide in benefit but is not being paid for from a countywide funding source (e.g., the City is assuming all or a disproportionate share of the funding responsibility). If services in this category were paid for with a countywide funding source there would be no funding equity issue.

TE(‘allocation principle’) = The service is modeled as a Tax Equity one (i.e., where the unincorporated area is to pay its share and the City’s its share of the cost of the service) based on a certain model or allocation principle of how the benefits are thought to be distributed (e.g., according to population, property tax distribution, participation in the service, relative employment, or share of hotel‐motel taxes).

Please Note: All positive equity amounts indicate the degree to which City residents and taxpayers have contributed in excess of the benefits they have received.


16

ServiceTax Equity Amount Most Favorable to the City

Tax Equity Amount Most Favorable to the County

Models Used for City/County

Road Maintenance ( including associated: engineering, streetlighting, drainage, sidewalks, streetlights) 8,036,710.70$ ‐$ TEGIS*^ 17,720.11$ 17,720.11$ TE & FEMapping*^ 75,414.74$ 75,414.74$ TE & FE

Computer/IT (75,561.35)$ (75,561.35)$ TE (Mainframe use:MIPS)

Levee Maintenance (including associated engineering,public works)* 37,017.35$ (87,130.44)$ TE (Pop. Basis)

Sheriff's Non‐Constitutional Services (law enforcement, investigations, forensics) 9,491,330.77$ ‐$ TE (Calls for Serv)Other PW Uninc. Only (Stormwater, Code Enforce. Debris) 226,177.27$ 226,177.27$ TEAnimal Control 121,989.09$ 121,989.09$ FE

Board of Elections* 224,733.96$ 224,733.96$ FECourt Services 0 (4,750,593.89)$ TE(Major Crimes)Total 18,155,532.64$ (4,247,250.51)$

#1a: City's View Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue An (*) indicates that the service involves an intergovernmental agreement or joint‐funding mechanism.

A (^) indicates a combination of Tax and Funding Equity.

Note: County does not agree that Road and Sheriff’s services raise a tax equity issue. The County’s view of these is presented in Table 1b. The City does not agree that Court Services raise a tax equity issue. The Amount Most Favorable to the City for Roads is the presumptive position rather than the ‘Buddy System’ alternative offered by the City.


17




GIS*^ 17,720.11$ 17,720.11$ TE & FEMapping*^ 75,414.74$ 75,414.74$ TE & FE



Other PW Uninc. Only (Stormwater, Code Enforce. Debris) 226,177.27$ 226,177.27$ TE

Animal Control 121,989.09$ 121,989.09$

FE

Board of Elections* 224,733.96$ 224,733.96$ FE

Court Services 0 (4,750,593.89)$ TE(Jail inmates)Total 627,491.17$ (4,247,250.51)$

#1b:County's View: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

An (*) indicates that the service involves an intergovernmental agreement or joint‐funding mechanism. A (^) indicates a combination of Tax and Funding Equity.


18




Public Transportation /Transit 851,888.00$ 9,897.23$

TE (Current % but from Uninc. Only funds)/TE(Bus Stops‐‐Keeping Current Funding Scheme)

Planning & Zoning 350,789.00$ 350,789.00$ TECultural Programs Jointly Funded 238,547.69$ ‐$ TEEconomic Development/Industrial Development 43,661.03$ ‐$ FETotal 1,484,885.72$ 360,686.23$

#2: Services Provided by a Thrid Party that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue


19




Emergency Mangement Services 136,998.95$ 136,998.95$ FE800 mhz Radio 73,691.02$ TE (Pop. Basis)Fire 349,390.52$ 349,390.52$ TE

Parks and Recreation 1,651,983.47$ 1,418,011.56$

FE /FE one‐third extra City participation

Levee (See County)Total 2,212,063.96$ 1,904,401.03$




Airport ‐$ ‐$ TE (employee basis)Cemetery 87,935.54$ ‐$ FE

Bowden 151,804.58$ ‐$ FE or TE(Property Tax basis)

Centreplex 1,772,372.99$ ‐$ TE (Hotel‐Motel Revenue basis)

Total 2,012,113.11$ ‐$

#3: Services Provided by the City in Cooperative Agreement with the County Government that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

#4: Services Provided Solely by the City that Benefit the Entire Community that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue


20

Sheriff's Office Constitutional Services (jail, warrants,civil papers, bailiff) Business licensesCode enforcementCourt ServicesCultural ProgramsIndigent Defense ServicesLibraryPublic HealthSolid Waste ManagementSolid Waste RecyclingTax AssessmentTax Collection

Building Inspection/Code EnforcementBusiness licensesE‐911Landfill

Land BankEconomic Development CommissionUrban Economic Development

#6: Services Provided by the City that Raise NO Equity Issue

#5: Services Provided by the County that Raise NO Equity Issue

#7: Services Provided by a Thrid Party that Raise NO Equity Issue

All ServicesTax Equity Amount Most Favorable to the City


Grand Total 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$

Average of City & County‐Favorable Scenarios 10,941,216.09$

Grand Total of all BaseTax Equity for all Services Groups


21

It should be recognized that in the Favorable to City scenario, the very large amount of equity found to be ‘owed’ to the City (compared to the small equity amount found in the Favorable to County scenario) was due to the following factors:

1) In the Favorable to City scenario when there was a choice between using funding equity and tax equity amounts for a service, the higher of the two amounts was use.

2) The Favorable to City scenario included a number of services that the County does not recognize as raising an equity issue.

3) The Favorable to City scenario does not allow for much in terms of revenue offset to potential tax equity liability.

Revenue OffSets/Allowances and Final Tax Equity Amount

The following tables outline the calculations for the allowance of various levels of offsets against potential equity liability. Once the revenue offsets have been subtracted from the base tax equity what remains is the final equity amount. The tables present a City‐Favorable Scenario and County‐Favorable Scenario. The City‐Favorable Scenario uses the base amount of tax equity identified in the All Inclusive City‐Favorable models presented in the last chapter, and it uses the City’s position on allowable revenue offsets. The County‐Favorable Scenario employs the base tax equity amounts and offset revenue amounts that were identified using the County assumptions. The first table shows what the remaining tax equity amount would be were unincorporated‐only taxes used as an offset against the grand total of tax equity liability. The second table shows what the remaining tax equity amount would be were LOST revenue used as an offset against the grand total of tax equity liability. Finally, in the third table both allowable unincorporated‐only taxes and allowable LOST revenue are subtracted from the grand total of the tax equity amount to show the final tax equity amount from the perspective of the two alternative scenarios.

Note on Tables Below: Any calculations of remaining tax equity liability where the amount of allowable offsets is greater than the total tax equity liability are presented as a zero.


22

City‐Favorable ScenearioCounty‐Favorable

ScenearioTotal Tax Equity Liability 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$ Amount of Allowable Offset Revenue 0 3,549,645.71$ Remaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average


ScenearioTotal Tax Equity Liability 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$ Amount of Allowable Offset Revenue 0 11,954,966.20$ Remaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average of Tax EquityTotal of Uninc. Only & LOST Offset Credits ‐$ 15,504,611.92$ Average of City/County Uninc. Only & LOST Offset Credits


ScenearioRemaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average of Tax Equity

11,932,297.72$

11,932,297.72$

7,752,305.96$

Allocation of Unincorporated Only Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity

Allocation of LOST Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity Liability

Summary Allocation of Unincorporated‐Only and LOST Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity Liability

11,932,297.72$

Some Middle Positions on Unincorporated Only Revenues and LOST

As the above tables suggest there is a radical difference in the amount of allowable revenue offsets in the City’s and the County’s respective positions. It should be recognized that there are numerous reasonable and principled middle ground positions that can be explored as part of the process of resolving funding equity in the community. The following table simply presents the final tax equity amount as the average of the base tax equity amount for the two major scenarios minus the average of the revenue offset amount for the two scenarios.


23

Average of Base Tax EquityAverage of All Revenue OffsetsFinal Tax Equity Based on Averages

Final Tax Equity Amount as Summary of Average of All Offset Revenue and Average of Base Tax Equity

$ 10,941,216.09

7,752,305.96$

3,188,910.13$

What does a resolution of tax equity mean for the taxpayer?

If one assumed for illustrative purposes that the final tax equity amount agreed to by the City and County was the same as the amount specified in the table above, this would not mean that the taxpayers in the unincorporated area would need to assume the burden of an additional $6 million dollars in property taxes. The exact amount of the additional taxes that would need to be levied in the unincorporated area cannot be determined until a funding equity agreement has been reached. However, if we assume that entirety of the tax equity amount is tied by agreement to the classic tax equity issues (i.e., those where an unincorporated‐only service is being funded by a countywide funding source), the actual amount of additional taxes to be assumed by the unincorporated area is equal to: The amount of final tax equity times the percentage of the county property tax base that is paid for by City taxpayers. Essentially, the unincorporated area taxpayers need only to assume the tax burden that the City taxpayers are now bearing for the services they do not receive. Put another way, the unincorporated area taxpayers are already paying for over half of the final tax equity amount. In the hypothetical scenario where the entirety of the tax equity amount is tied by agreement to the classic tax equity issues and the final tax equity amount is as specified in the above table, the amount of additional taxes to be assumed by the unincorporated area would be:

Amount to be Assumed by Unincorporated Area Taxpayers based on the Stipulation of the amount being a Classic Tax Equity Issue Amount 1,401,251.60$


24

Three Sample Middle Ground Scenarios

The following presents some sample/potential middle ground scenarios that split the positions of the two parties. These scenarios (and others) were developed by the mediator in the Tax Equity dispute, and the City of Macon requested that they be included in the report. These scenarios do NOT represent the position of or a recommendation by the Institute of Government.

Each scenario consists of a set of positions on the base tax equity amount for each service group and a set of positions on what would be considered as allowable revenue off sets. Finally, a “Remaining Tax Equity Amount” is presented as well as the amount of “Additional Revenue from the Unincorporated Area” that would have to be generated from that area were the tax equity situation to be resolved through a special service district strategy.

Note: In the 3rd Scenario the Roads are modeled as fully separate responsibilities (i.e., the unincorporated county takes care of/pays for all roads in the unincorporated area, and the city takes care of/pays for all roads in the city area).


25

Service GroupElements

Accepted/Rejected Amount#1: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

Accept Sheriff's Methodology/Reject City's; Accept Buddy Compromise for Roads/Reject City Presumptive; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 13,139,601.66$


Accept City's Scenario on P&Z and Econ.Dev.; keep Transit agreement the same use County's Bus Stop method; Reject City's position on Cultural/Civic programs 394,450.03$


Accept City's position on EMS, Fire, Radio; Accept County's position on P&R 1,978,092.05$


Accept County's Position on all

Total 15,512,143.75$

Revenue Group Elements Accepted Amount

Unincorporated OnlyAccept all except for the Hotel‐Motel 2,999,537.71$

LOST Accept the Share of LOST sceneario 6,965,107.40$

Total 9,964,645.12$

Remaining Tax Equity Amount 5,547,498.63$ 2,437,648.30$ Additional Revenue from Uninc. Only

Possible Middle Positions on Revenue Offsets

1. Possible Middle Positions on Base Tax Equity


26


Accepted/Rejected Amount#1: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue Accept County's position

on Sheriff; Accept Buddy Compromise for Roads/Reject City Presumptive; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 4,732,397.87$

#2: Services Provided by a Thrid Party that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue Accept City's Scenario on

P&Z and Econ.Dev.; keep Transit agreement the same use County's Bus Stop method; Reject City's position on Cultural/Civic programs 394,450.03$




Accept City's Position on all 2,012,113.11$

Total 9,117,053.07$


Unincorporated OnlyAccept all Uninc. Only Rev. 3,549,645.71$

LOST Accept City's Position on LOST ‐$

Total 3,549,645.71$

Remaining Tax Equity Amount 5,567,407.36$ 2,446,396.47$



Additional Revenue from Uninc. Only


27



Accept County's position on Sheriff; Accept separate Roads Responsibility; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 6,957,449.90$



#3: Services Provided by the City in Cooperative Agreement with the County


#4: Services Provided Solely by the City that Benefit the Entire Community that


Total 9,329,991.99$


Unincorporated OAccept all Uninc. Only Rev. 3,549,645.71$


Total 3,549,645.71$






28

County Alternative Scenarios

The County requested two additional scenarios. These scenarios do NOT represent the position of or a recommendation by the Institute of Government.

The County Alternative scenario presented below includes Parks and Recreation as a potential tax equity liability, but does not include either the Sheriff or Roads as a potential tax equity liability, and it includes all unincorporated area‐only revenue sources as a revenue offset, but does not include any LOST dollars as a revenue offset for tax equity liability. This scenario resulted in zero net tax equity. The second scenario requested by the County was essentially the same as the first except for the exclusion of Parks and Recreation as a potential tax equity liability. As the second scenario also did not the result in any net tax equity liability, only the first scenario is presented. Note: when there is more than sufficient revenue to offset the base tax equity, the final tax equity amount is reported as zero.


29

County Scenario Alternative 1‐‐Excludes Sheriff, Roads, LOST, Centreplex, Includes P&R

Service Group Elements Accepted/Rejected Amount

#1: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

Accept County's position on Sheriff, Roads; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group $ 590,473.82

#2: Services Provided by a Third Party that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

Accept City's Scenario on P&Z and Econ.Dev.; keep Transit agreement the same use County's Bus Stop method; Reject City's position on Cultural/Civic programs $ 394,450.03


Accept City's position on EMS, Fire, Radio; County's 33% less participation on P&R $ 1,978,092.05

#4: Services Provided Solely by the City that Benefit the Entire Community that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue Accept County's Position on all

Total $ 2,963,015.90



Unincorporated Only Accept all Uninc. Only Rev. $ 3,549,645.71


30

LOST Accept City's Position on LOST $ ‐

Total $ 3,549,645.71

Remaining Tax Equity Amount $ ‐

Additional Revenue from Uninc. Only $ ‐

Resolution

This study does not recommend how to resolve these inequities. Decisions concerning how best to solve the funding inequity outlined in this report should be made by local officials. However, several possible solutions exist and may be worth consideration by elected officials. These include having the County assume responsibility for services that have a countywide benefit; lowering county tax rates in the incorporated area; reforming the funding formulas in joint service delivery arrangements; finding new unincorporated‐only revenue sources in the unincorporated area to pay for services that primarily benefits the unincorporated area; and revising the distribution of LOST revenue to the respective City and County governments.


31

Chapter 1: Introduction

In terms of levels of equity, this report can be thought of as having three major parts: 1) an analysis of the classic tax equity issues (“Classic Tax Equity”). These classic issues are ones where the county government is providing services to the unincorporated area of the county but these services are being paid for, in some measure, with funds that were generated countywide, which includes contributions made by residents and taxpayers of the cities; 2) an analysis of more general funding equity issues that are involved when one government provides services based on an intergovernmental or joint service agreement (“Equity Arising from Intergovernmental Agreements”); and 3) an analysis of more general funding equity issues that are involved when the City provides services on its own accord and entirely from its own funds that nevertheless have a countywide benefit (“Equity Arising from City services that Provide a Countywide Benefit”).

In terms of the analytical treatment of equity (i.e., in order to arrive at an equity amount), there are two major groups: 1) classic tax equity analysis and 2) funding equity analysis.

In most classic tax equity situations the service is viewed as one that is being provided primarily to the unincorporated area but is being paid for with funds that are generated in part by municipal residents and taxpayers. In a classic tax equity analysis, analysts will give unincorporated residents and taxpayers ‘credit’ for unincorporated‐only revenue sources, for unincorporated residents’ share of the county property tax collections, and potentially for LOST revenues (or some portion thereof)‐‐ all in support of for unincorporated‐only services. Once all credits have been applied, the remaining amount—the net tax equity amount represents the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the tax inequity.


In a funding equity analysis the service is treated as one that is countywide in the nature of its benefits. That is, while there may be slight difference in the way that the two resident groups (incorporated versus unincorporated) receive service benefits the level of difference in benefits is minimal. However, in the funding equity analysis situation the city residents/taxpayers will be


32

contributing more to the provision of the service that they receive in benefits, and in many cases may be funding the entire service. In a funding equity analysis the goal is to identify the amount of city funding that exceeds the city residents’ responsibility for supporting the service. This is the amount that needs to become the responsibility of the county and in fulfilling that need the county should use funds generated from a countywide revenue source. In this funding equity analysis, there is no need to ‘credit’ the county for their unincorporated‐only revenues since the revenues that will be paying for the countywide service will be ones generated from countywide sources (generally the county property tax). Once a funding equity amount has been identified, we can then take the analysis one last step and identify the amount of the total funding equity that city residents would be paying for through their portion of the county property taxes. Finally, when you subtract the city residents’ payment (through their contribution to the county property taxes) from the total funding equity amount identified, you arrive at the amount of Net Funding Equity or the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the funding inequity.

In most cases a service will tend to be appropriately subjected to either a classic tax equity analysis or to a funding equity analysis. However, in the course of this study, we have identified a couple of services where there appears to be both a tax equity and a funding equity component, and we have identified a few services where a tax equity analysis OR a funding equity analysis could be seen as appropriate depending on how the service benefits were modeled.

Classic Tax Equity Issues

The Carl Vinson Institute of Government was asked to determine whether taxes are distributed equitably between the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Bibb County for county‐provided services. Bibb County provides a variety of services to residents of both incorporated (“incorporated residents”) and unincorporated areas (“unincorporated residents”) throughout the county. These services are funded from county general fund revenues collected in the incorporated area, the unincorporated area, and from outside sources (e.g., grants). As a guiding principle, it is assumed that services provided countywide should be funded from revenues collected countywide, while services provided solely in the unincorporated area should be funded by revenues collected from residents in the unincorporated area. The purposes of this study were to determine (1) whether and (2) to what extent the incorporated area provides funding for county services not provided within the city limits.

Local Government Service Delivery Strategy Act (HB 489)

Bibb County and the City of Macon submitted a service delivery plan to the Department of Community Affairs in 2007. Required by the Local Government Service Delivery Strategy Act (HB 489), the plan catalogues the services provided by their respective governments. The purpose of


33

the Local Government Service Delivery Act is to have a “concise agreement describing which local government will provide which service in specified areas within a county and how provision of such services will be funded (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐20).” Additionally, the agreement should “promote the delivery of local government services in the most efficient, effective, and responsive manner” and “identify steps which will be taken to remediate or avoid overlapping and unnecessary competition and duplication of service delivery and identify the time frame in which such steps will be taken (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐24).” The agreement also should “ensure that the cost of any service which a county provides primarily for the benefit of the unincorporated area of the county should be borne by the unincorporated area residents, individuals, and property owners who receive the service (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐24).”

The Local Government Service Delivery Act also states that municipalities providing “a service at a higher level than the base level of service provided throughout the geographic area of the county by the county is considered an enhanced service and not a duplication of the county service (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐24).” Further, “when the county and one or more municipalities jointly fund a countywide service, the county share of such funding will be borne by the unincorporated residents, individuals, and property owners that receive the service (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐24).” In Bibb County, various services are jointly funded by the City of Macon and the county government.

Finally, the Local Government Service Delivery Act states that services benefiting solely unincorporated residents should be “derived from special service districts created by the county in which property taxes, insurance premium taxes, assessments, or user fees are levied or imposed or through such other mechanism agreed upon by the affected parties (O.C.G.A. § 36‐70‐24).” Bibb County currently has a special fire service district, a special assessment district for street lighting, and the county also collects user fees for a number of services provided in the unincorporated area.

Tax Equity Definition and Methodology

To understand tax equity it is useful to keep in mind the following definition:

Tax Equity Amount = the difference in allowable contributions of residents (revenues) and the benefits provided solely to these residents (service expenditures). Methodology The methodology of a funding equity study consists of the following six steps.


34

Benefit‐Side (Service Expenditures)

1. Identify services that primarily benefit the unincorporated residents.

2. Identify the full cost of providing these unincorporated‐only services by allocating indirect costs, such as vehicle maintenance, commission office, purchasing, data processing, maintenance and building, benefits, and insurance. 3. Identify, where applicable, the amount of the service that is considered to provide a countywide benefit.

• To determine the countywide benefit, the raw percentages may need to be adjusted to the different population levels: Municipal Benefit Countywide Benefit ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ = ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Municipal Population Countywide Population

Contribution‐Side (Revenue) 4. Identify (and credit to the unincorporated area) revenue sources that come only from the unincorporated area or from the service beneficiaries (e.g., through service department charges). 5. Identify the sources of the remaining general fund contributions to the unincorporated‐only services and the amount of these contributions that come from the incorporated and unincorporated areas.

Summary Step

6. Determine the extent and direction of the total funding inequity (i.e., the difference in allowable contributions of residents and taxpayers (revenues) and the benefits provided solely to these residents and taxpayers (service expenditures).)

Equity Arising from Intergovernmental Agreements The CVIOG project team analyzed the entire set of City‐County governmental agreements and attempted to identify whether the agreement raised a possible equity issue. In some cases, the equity issue that was raised was as simple and non‐controversial as the failure to include indirect costs as part of the cost reimbursement related to the delivery of the service. In other cases, however, the potential equity issue was related to how one might best interpret the nature of the service benefit (i.e., to what degree did the service primarily benefit the unincorporated area, the


35

incorporated area, or the county as a whole). Because there may be several principled ways to interpret the service benefit, and several ways to potentially measure the benefit, the CVIOG project team worked with the City and County managers and staff to arrive at a reasonable number of interpretations and measurement methods. The intergovernmental agreements/arrangements examined include:

800 MHz Agreement Animal Control Building inspections (Inspections and Fees) E911 EMA Fiber Optics Agreement Fire Protection I Fire Protection II (sets up special tax district), 1975 General Services Exchange Agreement (Parks & Rec, Library, County Computer, Public Health) Housing of City Prisoners Land Bank Authority Landfill Levee Feasibility Agreement Levee Maintenance Agreement Macon Transit Authority Tri‐party Senior Center Lease and Operations Solid Waste Collection Funding in the County, 1981 SPLOST Tax Commissioner Billing of City Garbage Fees Traffic Signal Maintenance Workforce Investment Area Act

Potential Equity Arising from City Services that Provide a Countywide Benefit

The City provides two services that could be interpreted as providing a countywide benefit: the CentrePlex , Bowden Golf Course, and the Airport. The CVIOG project team worked with the City and County managers and staff to arrive at a reasonable number of interpretations and measurement methods related to the nature of the service benefit (i.e., to what degree did the service primarily benefit the unincorporated area, the incorporated area, or the county as a whole) and the way that this benefit could potentially be estimated.

General Data Choices The audited fiscal year 2009 financial figures were used in the analysis. Actual expenditure and revenue figures were used to identify the cost (or value or benefit) of services to the unincorporated area and the revenue used to support these services. Supplemental information


36

was collected to enhance the analysis, including property tax digest values and population figures for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas. Funding equity studies generally use population and property tax proportions in assessing and distributing the amount of tax equity identified. Background Information Property Tax Digest Comparisons Property taxes are the most important source of general fund revenues for most local governments. The following table outlines the distribution of the county property tax levy between incorporated and unincorporated taxpayers.

Assessed Value PercentCounty Unincorporated M&O 2,524,133,149.00$ 56.059%City M&O 1,978,535,365.00$ 43.941%TOTAL 4,502,668,514.00$ 100%

2009 Consolidated Digest ‐‐ Property Tax Assessed Values

1 Property tax digest breakdown provided by Bibb County (40% of the appraised value of property after exemptions). Population Comparisons The study stakeholders agreed to use the U.S. Census 2005 estimates as the population base for purposes of analysis in the study. The rationale for this choice was based on a balancing of the potential error in population estimation due to being further away from a decennial ‘true head count’ and the error due to the non‐capture of changes in population during the period between the decennial census and the current time.

Table: 2005 Census Population Estimate (7/1/2005) Bibb County 154,272 100%

Macon 93,969 60.90%

Unincorporated Bibb 60,303 39.10%

1 Based on information from the U.S. Department of Census.


37

Chapter 2: Revenue Allocation

Tax Equity Issues

Counties and cities fund services in a variety of ways, including through taxes, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, investment income, contributions, miscellaneous, and other financing sources. In addition to allocating costs to the various departments, it is important to differentiate revenue generated by departments versus general revenue and revenue generated countywide versus revenue generated in the unincorporated area. The following table outlines all county revenue sources for the general fund, including where the revenue is generated (countywide vs. unincorporated). The general fund is the fund that is of primary interest to this study because it is the fund that supports services that primarily benefit the unincorporated area but that includes dollars that have been collected from municipal taxpayers. Other funds operated by the county are generally not of interest or of lesser interest since they tend to collect dollars from the same set of taxpayers who are also the primary recipients of the services supported by these funds. However, the study team did check to be sure that the management of the other funds did not raise an equity issue.

Except for franchise fees, all property taxes collected by the general fund are collected countywide. The sales tax is collected countywide and then distributed back to the city and county governments based on an agreed upon allocation. The beer and wine tax, business taxes, and hotel motel tax are collected by the County from the unincorporated area. The City of Macon collects these taxes for its respective jurisdiction. Federal and state government grants generally are given to the county to provide specific services; therefore, the revenue is attributed to the department providing the service. The county receives revenue from a number of other minor sources which are lumped into the Miscellaneous category. For example, service fee revenues are generated by specific departments that charge residents in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas for specific services. These revenues are attributed to each department and will be discussed in detail with respect to the specific departments identified as potentially presenting tax equity issues. Similarly, fines and forfeitures generally are generated by the court system (a countywide activity). Finally, investment income, miscellaneous revenue, and other financing sources are relatively minor sources of revenue that are generally collected countywide.


38

Revenue Type Amount Percent Revenue SourceGeneral Property Taxes

Property Tax ‐ 39,696,823$ 47.4% Countywide

Railroad Equipment 81,011$ 0.1% CountywideMotor Vehicle Tax 4,391,818$ 5.2% Countywide

Real Estate Transfer 138,134$ 0.2% Countywide

Intangible Tax ‐ Recording 607,573$ 0.7% CountywideFranchise Fee* 582,778$ 0.7% Unincorporated

Financial Gross Receipts* 217,200$ 0.3% Unincorporated

General Sales and Use Taxes 0.0%Local Option Sales Tax 12,474,647$ 14.9% Treated Separately

Penalties and Interest on Delinquent Taxes 0.0%Tag Penalties 264,696$ 0.3% Countywide

Tax Penalties 664,985$ 0.8% CountywideInterest 662,314$ 0.8% Countywide

Total 0.0%Licenses and Permits 0.0%

Business License 830,401$ 1.0% Unincorporated

Total 0.0%Other/ Intergovernmental 0.0%

Grants for Countywide Services and Payments in Lieu of Taxes 2,012,650$ 2.4% CountywideCity of Macon Payments for Services 479,009$ 0.6% Incorporated

Other/ Intergovernmental (Macon‐Bibb Planning/Water Auth. GIS)* 65,901$ 0.1% Unincorporated

0.0%Charges for Services $ 5,482,288 6.6% Unincorporated

Fines and Forfeits 2,107,190$ 2.5% Countywide

Miscellaneous 756,941$ 0.9% Countywide

Miscellaneous ‐‐Special Assessment* 58,548$ 0.1% Unincorporated

Miscellaneous ‐ Interest 600,027$ 0.7% Countywide

Miscellaneous ‐ Interest* 85,760$ 0.1% Unincorporated

Selective Sales/Use Tax* 1,145,051$ 1.4% Unincorporated

Fire Dist 77,545$ 0.1% UnincorporatedLaw Enforcement Commissary 173,394$ 0.2% Countywide

Hotel/Motel* 49,509$ 0.1% Unincorporated

Special Street Light District 36,340$ 0.0% UnincorporatedLaw Enforcement Confiscation* 4,174$ 0.0% Unincorporated

SPLOST Transp. Improv. Fund 146,140$ 0.2% Countywide

Crime Victims Asst. 120,590$ 0.1% Countywide

Special Sanitation District 192,158$ 0.2% UnincorporatedBass Pro 104,835$ 0.1% Countywide

SPLOST Debt Service 9,107,350$ 10.9% Countywide

Other Sources (Sale of property etc.) 127,175$ 0.2% CountywideLEC Project 150,000.00$ 0.2% Countywide

TOTAL 83,694,955$ 100.0%

Note: Total does not include some funds in the County's CAFR that were determined to be debt payment related. Treated Separately‐‐LOST 12,474,647$ 14.90%

Unincorporated Total 8,827,653$ 10.55%

Countywide Total 61,913,646$ 73.98%

Incorporated Total 479,009$ 0.57%TOTAL 83,694,955$ 100.00%

Revenue Available as Off‐Set Credit 3,549,646$

NON‐GENERAL FUND: Hotel‐Motel Funds Potentially available as‐Credit to County for Use of Unin. Only Revenue for Countywide Service * 550,108.00$

Table: Major On‐going Revenue Types and Sources for the Bibb County General Fund

(Does not Include Department‐based Fees)*

NOTE: A number of Unincorporated‐only revenues are Not Eligible to be an off‐set credit because the revenue is already allocated to a specific service (e.g., Special sanitation, street light, and fire, hotel‐motel) or the service charge is already allocated to a specific, non‐equity‐issue service (e.g., as fees for boarding state/federal inmates in jail cannot be used to offset the patrol function as they are already being used to offset jail costs). However, the Hotel‐Motel funds currently allocated to the Lake Tobesofkee recreation program have been credited for unincorporated only use since this is a countywide service that can use countywide fund. This amount has been added to the Revenue Available as Off‐Set


39

Other Service Charge Revenue Available as OffSet Credit Revenue Source Amount

Development Permit 9,725 Total 9,725

Note: The potential offset revenues include those marked by an (*) in the list of revenues (including the non‐general fund hotel‐motel revenue for Lake Tobesofkee) and the development permit fees in the Other Service Charge Revenue table above. Other services charges that are specific to a service raising a tax equity issue are address in the analysis of the individual services.

In examining revenue sources with respect to tax equity issues, a key factor is the degree to which countywide revenue sources are used to support services that are primarily provided to residents of the unincorporated area of the county. Some countywide revenue sources, however, are allocated to very specific services. In Bibb County this allocation typically occurs within a special fund (e.g., hotel‐motel funds are dispersed to economic development agencies via the Hotel‐Motel Tax Fund). The key countywide revenue sources that are not allocated to any particular services are property taxes the Local Options Sales Tax. Residents of the unincorporated part of the county pay a portion of these two general purpose taxes. Identifying the portion of the Local Options Sales Tax paid by unincorporated residents is more complicated and is discussed in more detail below.

It is also important to know the amount of revenue that is collected exclusively from the unincorporated part of the county. Revenues that are collected only from unincorporated residents can potentially be used to off‐set the cost of services provided primarily to these residents. There are two types of such unincorporated‐only revenues.

Some unincorporated‐only revenues are tied to specific services such as building inspection permits, planning licenses and permits, and solid waste assessment. These revenues can be used to either exclude a service from tax equity consideration or to off‐set the specific unincorporated‐only benefits provided by the department collecting the revenue.

The second type of unincorporated‐only revenue is general purpose revenue such as beer and wine taxes or business taxes. There revenues can be used to off‐set the cost of any services that primarily benefit the unincorporated area.

Funding Equity Issues The primary funding equity issues in this study involve the City of Macon providing services countywide via a joint services agreement or services provided by the City on its own that have a potential countywide benefit. In some cases, these countywide services or countywide‐benefit services are funded entirely or primarily from municipal revenue sources.


40

Revenue Allocation Justification

In addition to outlining the services that the unincorporated area receives, the revenue sources generated solely in the unincorporated area need to be identified so that they can be used to offset the cost of services provided solely to the unincorporated area. The insurance premium tax is the only revenue source collected in the unincorporated area that legally must be used to pay for unincorporated services. Bibb County does collect other revenues, such as the beer and wine tax, solely in the unincorporated area. These revenues, from a tax equity perspective, should be used to pay for unincorporated services. The following outlines the revenue sources for Bibb County and identifies the potential justifications for using these revenues to provide services to the unincorporated area, to provide services countywide, or to provide services primarily in the unincorporated area, but also countywide.

Property Taxes

It is generally accepted in tax equity analysis that a portion of the property tax paid by unincorporated residents can be used to offset the tax inequity that occurs when county services are provided solely to unincorporated citizens. The amount of this offset is assumed to be the proportion of the unincorporated‐only expenditure that is equivalent to the proportion of the total county property taxes paid by residents in the unincorporated area.

Unincorporated‐Only Taxes

There are a number of taxes that are collected only from the unincorporated area. These are outlined and discussed below. With regard to the use of most of the unincorporated taxes (with the exception of the Insurance Premium tax) the City’s Attorney has indicated that there is no legal basis for requiring that these taxes be allowed as an offset against potential tax equity liability. However, parties to a funding equity study can choose on the basis of fairness principles to allow the use of certain taxes and fees that have been collected solely in the unincorporated area.

Cable TV Franchise Tax


41

Counties can “impose charges on private cable television systems in the unincorporated areas but not within a municipality, except by agreement.”4 Bibb County collects the cable television franchise tax from residents in the unincorporated area of the county, while Macon collects the tax from city residents. The revenue from the county tax may be used to pay for any county service. Since the tax is collected strictly from unincorporated residents, the revenue should be used to pay for unincorporated area services.

Principle for Use of Franchise Tax Funds: The revenue is generated in the unincorporated area and should be used to pay for services in the unincorporated area.

Beer and Wine Tax

State statute authorizes county and city governments to license the sale of beer and wine within their respective jurisdictions. “Counties may not levy the excise tax within cities imposing the tax (such as the City of Macon), but may levy this tax only in the unincorporated portions of the county.”5 The revenue from the county tax may be used to pay for any county service. Since the tax is collected exclusively from establishments in the unincorporated area, the revenue should be used to pay for unincorporated area services.

Principle for Use of Beer and Wine Tax Funds: The revenue is generated in the unincorporated area and should be used to pay for services in the unincorporated area.

Hotel‐Motel Tax

State statute authorizes county and city governments to apply a tax of up to 3 percent on charges made for hotel and motel operations within their respective jurisdictions. “Counties may not levy the tax within cities imposing the tax.6 A percentage of the revenue from the county Hotel‐Motel

4 Clements, Betty J., and J. Devereux Weeks, County and Municipal Revenues Sources, 3d ed., (Carl Vinson

Institute of Government, 1997), p. 11. See also O.C.G.A. Title 36, ch.18; § 36‐34‐2; Public Service Commission

Regulations: Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104‐104,110 stat. 56 [1996].

5 Ibid 10. See also O.C.G.A. §§ 3‐3‐2, 3‐4‐40, 3‐4‐8, 3‐5‐4, 3‐5‐40, 3‐5‐80, 3‐5‐81, 3‐6‐3, 3‐6‐40, 3‐6‐60.

6Paul Hardy and J. Devereux Weeks, Handbook for Georgia County Commissioners, 3d ed., (Carl Vinson

Institute of Government, 1997), p. 166.


42

tax must be used to pay for tourism related services. The tax is collected exclusively from establishments in the unincorporated area; the revenue should be used to pay for unincorporated area services.

Principle for Use of Hotel‐Motel Tax Funds: The revenue is generated in the unincorporated area and should be used to pay for services in the unincorporated area, but the funds are designated by law as being used to support a specific services that often do not present a tax equity issue.

Business Taxes and Other Licenses

State statute authorizes county and city governments to assess a business or occupation tax within their respective jurisdictions. Counties can only levy the business tax within the unincorporated area. 7

Principle for Use of Business Tax Funds: The revenue is generated in the unincorporated area and should be used to pay for services in the unincorporated area.

Other Charges for Services

Any charge for a service that raises a funding equity question (e.g., because it is provided to the unincorporated area only and is supported in part by funds drawn countywide) would automatically qualify as an offset for the funding equity amount. However, other charges for services (e.g., fees for services that do not raise an equity issue) may also qualify. Specifically:

1. these charges would need to relate to an unincorporated‐only service (and one that is not being raised as a funding equity issue...for these funding equity issues we will already be using their fees as offsets). If the service is a countywide one, the related fees would be considered to be a countywide revenue. 2. the fees amount that would under one scenario qualify as an offset would be the amount that was in excess of the cost of delivering the service itself, i.e., the surplus amount. However, under another scenario it would simply be added to the general fund as a countywide revenue source.

Local Option Sales Tax (LOST)

A major source of revenue for the City of Macon and Bibb County is the local option sales tax. The proceeds of the tax are collected by the Georgia Department of Revenue and disbursed to Macon and Bibb County based on an agreement negotiated among these governments. “As a

7 Ibid 9. p. 166. .


43

condition of imposing the tax in the years after the initial year of the levy, the tax bill of each property taxpayer must show the reduced county and city millage rate resulting from the receipt of the sales tax revenue.”8 However, in negotiating the distribution of the LOST revenues, the Georgia General Assembly has specified that the distribution of the proceeds should be based on, among other things, “the service delivery responsibilities of each political subdivision to the population served by the political jurisdiction.” The statement of intent explicitly mentions both the central business district and the unincorporated areas of the county as areas of service delivery responsibility. However, while it is clear that service delivery responsibilities to the unincorporated areas of the county can be taken into consideration in the distribution of LOST funds, it is unclear whether or not the General Assembly meant to sanction the use of the LOST funds for services that are primarily for the unincorporated area. For example, in Fulton County no LOST funds are provided to the Special Services District that supplies services only to the unincorporated area of the county. Rather, all LOST funds are applied to countywide services based on the idea that LOST funds should be treated as another form of property taxes. If we accept this assumption that LOST funds should be treated as a substitute for property taxes, there appear to be four reason‐based ways in which to treat LOST revenues within a tax equity analysis. Two of these ways (Interpretations 1 & 2 below) do not attempt to address the potential inequity involved in the relationship between the net unincorporated residents’ LOST contributions and benefits compared to the net incorporated residents’ LOST contributions and benefits. The remaining two ways (Interpretations 3 & 4 below) do result in some attempt to address the potential inequity involved in the relative contributions and benefits of LOST to incorporated and unincorporated citizens.

Interpretation 1: LOST funds should be treated just like property taxes except that no tax equity consideration should be given to the equity of the source of the funds. Under this assumption, there would be no special treatment of LOST funds and the credit given to unincorporated residents for their county LOST contribution would be the same as the credit given for their share of the ad valorem property taxes. That is, if the unincorporated area received $1000 in unincorporated‐only services (after subtracting user fees and other unincorporated only revenue shares), and unincorporated residents paid 70% of the property taxes, then the tax inequity would be $300 ( or $1000 – (.7 * 1000)).

Interpretation 2: County LOST funds should be dedicated only to countywide services. In this case, as more of the LOST funds are used for countywide services, fewer property taxes and other revenues are needed to support these services. These “left‐over” property taxes would then be

8 Ibid, 4. See also Ga Const. Art. 9, §2, para. 6; O.C.G.A. §§48‐7‐149, 48‐8‐3; Title 48, ch. 8, art. 2.


44

available to support unincorporated‐only services. While it might appear that the share of property taxes that the unincorporated residents pay as a contribution to the unincorporated‐only services would be larger than the share would be normally, in fact this is not the case. Rather, as one substitutes property taxes for LOST tax funds, the tax equity calculation result is the same as for Interpretation 1. Essentially, all non‐unincorporated‐only revenue is treated as property tax revenue. From a tax equity point of view, the problem with Interpretation 2 is that it constrains the county in terms of how it will benefit the two groups of county residents (unincorporated and incorporated), but it does not constrain the city, which can (and typically does) use the LOST funds to provide benefits to primarily one group—incorporated residents.9 From a results orientation, Interpretations 1 & 2 have the same practical result.

Interpretation 3: LOST funds should be treated just like property taxes except that some tax equity consideration should be given to the equity of the source of the funds. If one assumes that sales taxes are paid by the incorporated and unincorporated residents roughly in proportion to the population of the relevant jurisdictions, then any city‐county distribution of the revenues that was roughly population‐based could result in a tax inequity of a different sort. This would be the case because city taxpayers receive both the benefits of a city tax rollback and a county tax rollback (as well as their share of the city and countywide services being provided). Hence, if the county used all of its LOST funds for countywide services, city residents would receive more services than they had in fact contributed to. In this scenario, we would need to identify the value of the additional benefit

9 SAMPLE Calculation of Unincorporated County Residents Property Tax Contribution to Unincorporated Services Only Proportion of County Property taxes paid by City = 50% / Proportion of County Property taxes paid by Unincorporated residents = 50% Total County General Fund Expenditures: $4,000,000 County General Fund Expenditures on Countywide Services only: $3,000,000 County General Fund Expenditures on Unincorporated‐only Services: $1,000,000 Amount of County LOST funds = $1,200,000 70% of the General Fund is from Property Taxes = $2,800,000 30% of the General Fund is from LOST funds = $1,200,000 Amount of Countywide GF expenditures paid for by LOST: $1,200,000 Amount of Countywide GF expenditures paid for by Property Taxes: $1,800,000 Amount of Countywide Services supported by Unincorporated residents’ Property Tax contributions: $900,000 Amount of Property Taxes paid by Unincorporated Residents: 1,400,000 ($4 million * 70% * 50%). Amount of Property Taxes paid by Unincorporated Residents that is left‐over to pay for unincorporated only services: 500,000


45

that the city residents receive as an offset against the tax inequity found in the county’s delivery of services primarily for unincorporated residents.10

Interpretation 4: LOST funds should not be considered as part of a tax equity analysis. Typically, in a tax equity analysis one balances the unincorporated residents’ contributions (through taxes or fees) to the unincorporated‐only services against the value or cost of these services. In this case, the assumption is that it is impossible to determine the source of the LOST funds. (One could potentially estimate how much came from either retail outlets in the unincorporated area or unincorporated residents by making some assumptions, but the core problem is that there is no agreed‐upon method for determining the geographical source of these funds).

Unfortunately, there is no settled way in which to take LOST funds out of the analysis. One way would be to not include the percentage of service expenditures represented by the LOST part of the remaining general funds (i.e., after one has removed department‐generated and unincorporated‐only revenues) that are used to support these services. One would be left with only the amount of unincorporated‐only services benefit which is supported by property taxes. This result would essentially give credit to the unincorporated residents for the full amount of the LOST funding of the service. (The other way to “take LOST out of the analysis” would be to substitute LOST funds with property tax funds, the result would be the same as Interpretation 1 above. )

10 SAMPLE Calculation of City’s Disproportionate Share of LOST funds

Population of the City = 1000 /Population of the County = 1000 Because of equal populations the City’s contribution to LOST =50% and the county’s contribution=50% Actual Distribution of LOST (or the benefits of LOST funds)= 50% city/ 50% county Amount of LOST funds = $1,000,000 Amount Going to City Government = $500,000 Amount Going to County Government = $500,000 Property Tax Rollback (or benefit) to City residents = $500,000 in city taxes $250,000 in county taxes Total City Residents’ Rollback = $750,000 Property Tax Rollback (or benefit) to Unincorporated County residents = $250,000 City Resident’s Disproportionate Share of LOST benefits = 50% of the County LOST portion. Unincorporated Resident’s Disproportionate Contribution of LOST = 50% of the County LOST portion.


46

To complicate the matter further, the General Assembly’s statement of intent regarding distribution and use of LOST proceeds also includes a statement to the effect that local governments shall consider “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.”11 If we assume that the local governments in Bibb County negotiated their LOST distribution based, in part, on their perceptions regarding existing tax equity issues, then it becomes even more difficult to pull out from the allocation decision those elements or values that may have been incorporated so as to address an existing tax equity problem.

Summary of Principles for Use of LOST Funds:

Given these contrasting arguments for any particular use of LOST funds in a tax equity analysis, we have identified the three LOST treatment options and have generated scenarios for each.

1. LOST‐to‐Countywide: The LOST is generated from taxpayers countywide and should therefore be used to pay for countywide services.

2. LOST‐to‐Unincorporated: The County’s share of the LOST is generated primarily from unincorporated taxpayers and should therefore be used to pay for services to the unincorporated area.

3. LOST‐with‐Unincorporated Compensated for Disproportionate Contribution: The County’s share of the LOST is disproportionately from unincorporated taxpayers and should therefore be used to pay in part for services to the unincorporated area.

Current LOST Distribution

Macon’s and Bibb County’s local option sales tax agreement allocates the sales tax revenue as follows:

11 O.C.G.A. §§48‐8‐89.


47

Amount PercentCity LOST 17,412,769$ 58.26%County LOST 12,474,647$ 41.74%Total 29,887,416$

Total 29,887,416$ City LOST 17,932,449.31$ 60%County LOST 11,954,966.20$ 40%

City‐County LOST Distribution Adjusted

City‐County LOST Distribution

Calculation of Unincorporated Residents Disproportional Share of the Net LOST Contributions and Benefits Tax Abatement Benefits: Because state law requires local governments (both cities and counties) to rollback property taxes equivalent to the amount of LOST revenues generated, the current agreement results in incorporated residents receiving a City tax rollback from the city’s portion of the LOST, and a county tax rollback (on the City resident’s county taxes) from the application of the county’s portion of the LOST. In other words, incorporated residents are allocated property tax rollbacks because they are city residents and an additional rollback because they are county residents. Residents in the unincorporated area, however, only receive a tax abatement for the rollback of their County’s property taxes.

Unincorporated Residents’ Disproportional or Uncompensated Contribution: If we assume that unincorporated residents’ contributions to the Total LOST funds (the County’s plus the City’s portions) are equivalent to their proportion of the total county property taxes, then we can estimate the unincorporated residents’ contributions. The unincorporated residents’ uncompensated contribution can then be estimated as the difference between the benefit they receive in the form of a tax abatement and the contributions that they make. Based on this finding we can then identify the share of the LOST contributions that are ‘uncompensated.’ These calculations are presented in the following table.


48

Calculation of Proportion of Unincorporated LOST Contributions that are Uncompensated

1. Unincorporated % of Property Taxes 56.06%2. Incorporated % of Property Taxes 43.94%3. Estimated Unincorporated Contribution to TOTAL LOST $16,754,4684. Estimated Incorporated Contribution to TOTAL LOST $13,132,9475. Benefit of LOST to Unincorporated (Tax Abatement value;) $6,993,1136. Unincorporated Residents’ Uncompensated Contribution (#3 minus #5) $9,761,3557. Proportion of Unincorporated LOST Contributions that are uncompensated (#6/#3)

58.3%

#1: Property Tax‐Based Logic of Allocation of Share of LOST as Credit

Allocation to Unincorporated‐Only Services: In the LOST‐with‐Unincorporated Compensated for Disproportionate Share scenario, the amount of uncompensated contributions can be entirely allocated to unincorporated‐only services. The remaining part of the LOST funds used to support unincorporated‐only services is treated as if it were a property tax, and the portion of county property taxes paid by unincorporated residents of this mix of property and compensated LOST funds can be credited to the unincorporated residents as a contribution to unincorporated‐only services.

Finding a Middle Ground

The authors recognize that there is no generally accepted or accurate way to determine what portion of the sales tax is contributed by any particular jurisdictional group. It is also recognized that a fair amount of the LOST funding in actuality comes from persons who live outside of the county. Consequently, the method we employ here (i.e., using the distribution of property taxes as a proxy for the distribution of the sales tax contributions) is one of any number of methods that could have been used. Other possible and reasonable methods would be to use the distribution of the population or the distribution of total household income as the proxy for sales tax contributions.


49

Summary

Revenues generated in the unincorporated area should be used to pay for services provided in that area. Credit for LOST revenues as an offset against county tax equity liability can vary based on the assumptions about the attribution of LOST to different jurisdictional groups.


50

Chapter 3: Identification of Classic Tax Equity Services

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to examine the services provided to the unincorporated area in Bibb County to determine if they present a tax equity issue and, if so, the extent of the tax inequity that exists. In making the determination as to whether there is a potential tax equity issue, the project team went through a number of steps, including determining: 1) whether the service is primarily provided in the unincorporated area; 2) the extent to which the unincorporated area receives an exclusive and disproportionate share of these services; and, 3) the extent to which incorporated residents fund these services.

In some tax equity studies a service might excluded as a candidate that raises equity issues based on the premise that the service is delivered as part of a set of interwoven intergovernmental agreements or bargains regarding the production and delivery of services in the community as a whole. However, this study is based on the premise that there are potentially funding inequities in the set of interwoven intergovernmental agreements. As a consequence, this study takes the perspective of a person who takes a fresh look at the value of the implied exchanges in the set of interwoven intergovernmental agreements and does not simply accept that these agreement represent a good bargain for the parties who entered into them (in some case decades prior to the current day).

After it has been determined that a tax equity issue exists, we identify the extent of the tax inequity by: 1) identifying the specific revenue sources collected from the service beneficiaries or the unincorporated part of the county that might offset the cost of providing these services; 2) identify the remaining amount of general fund revenues needed to provide for these services; and 3) allocate the portion of the general fund revenue originating in the unincorporated versus incorporated areas.

Determining Whether a Tax Equity Issue Exists

Step 1: Is the service provided primarily in the unincorporated area by the county government? To answer this question the project team examined the service delivery agreements signed by the City of Macon and Bibb County. In these agreements, we discovered that the county provides a variety of services to residents countywide (e.g., State and Superior Court and related detention services). Countywide services should be paid for by all county residents regardless of how much of the service incorporated or unincorporated residents use the service because all county residents


51

can directly receive the service. For example, even if a larger percentage of the current inmates in the county jail were from the incorporated area, since detention (for a violation of state law) is a countywide service, incorporated and unincorporated residents should equally share the burden.

Step 2: Does the unincorporated area receive an exclusive and disproportionate share of these services? This question focuses on the issue of whether there might be equal access or equal benefit to all citizens of the county even if the service is provided primarily in the unincorporated part of the county. That is, if all the residents of the county (including those living in the incorporated areas) can and do access or benefit from the service, there would not be a tax equity issue. One potential example, of such a service would be roads and road maintenance. This service is available to all residents in the county (as well as non‐residents). Consequently, under one theory they should be paid for from general funds and there is no tax equity issue.12 However, the issue of road as a countywide services is disputed. Also, in some service areas, municipalities may provide a higher level of service or a service of a different type, while the county provides a baseline level of service or a service with different benefits. If the county services are available to all county residents, there would not be a tax equity issue. For example, if a county provides drop‐off sites for recycling that are available to all residents and are located in areas that all residents have access to, while a city provides a curb‐side recycling service, the equal access/benefit principle would apply—unless there was a way to clearly identify that municipal residents did have sufficient access to the service. Similarly, it may be the case that the county provides recreational programs that are available to all citizens in the county, but that are used more frequently by unincorporated residents than by incorporated ones. In this case, unless the county has placed obvious barriers to access to these services (e.g., by placing all the facilities in the unincorporated part of the county or by charging a fee for incorporated residents and not for unincorporated ones), the services should be considered as a countywide one and, therefore, not one that raises a tax equity issue.

Step 3: Is the service funded by a stream of revenue that comes exclusively from the recipients of the service (either through a special tax district or through fees)? A service may be provided by multiple jurisdictions and by Bibb County exclusively to the unincorporated part of the county, but if the service is funded only by residents of the unincorporated part of the county (or by the individual recipients of the service) then there is no tax equity issue.

12 This is the position taken by both ACCG and GMA as stated in: Charting a Course for Cooperation and Collaboration: An Introduction to the Service Delivery Strategy Act for Local Governments, June 1997.


52

Table C3.1: Table of Services that May Raise a Tax Equity Issue Due to the Service

Being Provided/Funded by More than One Jurisdiction

The following lists the services that are covered in the Service Delivery Strategy Agreement that could potentially raise a tax equity issue due to the service being provided or funded by jurisdictions other than the county. There are numerous other services not included in this list because these services are provided only by the county on a countywide basis (e.g., courts, district attorney.) For each service listed below, we have indicated whether the service is provided primarily in the unincorporated area, whether general funds are used to provide the service, and whether or not we believe there could be a tax equity issue that will need further study and an accounting. For each service that we have indicated as not raising a tax equity issue that needs further study we have provided a rational for this decision. The rationales in this regard are:

1. Separate Funding Streams: The service may be provided by multiple jurisdictions, but the funding for the service comes exclusively from a fund that is generated by the recipients of the service (either through a special tax district or through fees).

2. Equal Access/Benefit: The service may be provided by multiple jurisdictions but all the residents of the county (including those living in the incorporated areas) can and do access the service. In this case, the municipalities often provide a higher level of service or a service of a different type. For example, if the county provides drop‐off sites for recycling that are available to all residents and are located in areas that all residents have access to, while a city provides a curb‐side recycling service, the equal access/benefit principle would apply—unless there was a way to clearly identify that municipal residents did not use the service.


53

Table: Assessment of Services in Terms of Classic Tax Equity Criteria

County Provided SERVICE

ISSUES Some County General Funds Used?

Is the Service Primarily Provided in the Unincorporated Area

Possible Tax Equity Issue

Rationale for Exclusion

Animal Control

Y Y Y

Cultural Programs Y N N Equal access/Benefit

Debris Removal Y Y Y

Economic Development

Y ?? ??

Land Bank Y ?? ??

IDA Y Y Y

Engineering Each jurisdiction provides for own service—partially from general funds.

Y Y Y

Law Enforcement Each jurisdiction provides for own service—partially from general funds. The stakeholders disagree about whether the Sheriff should be considered as part of the tax equity analysis.

Y Y Y

Parks and Recreation Each jurisdiction provides this service and both

Y N N Equal Access/Benefit


54







services are available countywide. However, Macon provides the vast majority of recreational services as well as most park services. There is no differential in the fee schedule for unincorporated vis a vis incorporated residents.

Planning & Zoning Joint Service through 3rd party agency

Y Y Y

Public Transportation Provided countywide by Macon Transit Authority. Primary funding source is user fees with some grants.

County pays 40% of deficiency.

City pays 60% of deficiency.

Y N N Equal Access/ Equal Benefit


55







Road Maintenance Each jurisdiction—provides for own service.

The stakeholders disagree about the method by which any tax equity amount would be computed.

Y Y Y Equal Access/ Equal Benefit

Solid Waste Management

Each jurisdiction provides for own residential collection service through user fees within an enterprise fund.

N Y N

Separate Funding Streams

Solid Waste Recycling Each jurisdiction provides for own service through user fees within an enterprise fund.

N Y N


Storm Water Management

Each jurisdiction—provides for own services through a mixture of user fees and general fund revenues

Y Y Y

Street Lighting Each jurisdiction—provides for own services through a mixture of user fees and general

N –not in 2009

Y N/Y if a transfer is made



56







fund revenues

Street Lighting –Interstates/Collectors

Each jurisdiction—provides for own services through general fund revenues

Y Y Y

Tax Collection Each jurisdiction provides for own services from their respective general funds. Because the county service is one that has countywide benefits, no tax equity issue should exist.

Y N N Equal Access/ Benefit

Trash Disposal Each jurisdiction—provides for own services through general fund revenues

Y Y Y

Levee Maintenance Both jurisdictions provide some of this service

Y N N Equal Access/ Benefit

The services marked by cell shading in the table above are ones that appear to deserve additional study with regard to estimating a tax equity amount. The services that are not shaded, we excluded from further study based on different rationales including: their being provided countywide but available fairly equally by citizens of both the incorporated and unincorporated areas; their being


57

provided solely in the unincorporated area, but being paid for exclusively through a special taxing or assessment district or user fees. With regard to the latter case, the project team examined the financial report and policy document to insure that there was no cross subsidy of services that are designated as being funded in this manner.


58

Chapter 4: Identification of Funding Equity Services Related to Intergovernmental Agreements or Other Mechanisms of Law

Funding equity issues in this study can include any situation where the funding sources are not particularly proportional to beneficiaries of the services being supported by the funds in question. There are two typical cases of funding inequity: 1) where the city provides countywide a service using revenues generated from the incorporated residents and taxpayers (i.e., the contributions made by the unincorporated residents and taxpayers do not equal the benefits they receive). Another way of stating this case is where the city provides a service to the county on a fee or cost reimbursement basis and the fee or the cost reimbursement is less or more than the full cost of the service; and 2) where the county provides a service to the city on a fee or cost reimbursement basis where the fee or the cost reimbursement is less or more than the full cost of the service.

In making the determination as to whether there is a potential funding equity issue , the project team examined all the services provided by both the city and the county and determined: 1) Whether the city provides service to the county (essentially as a countywide service); 2) Whether the county provides service to the city; 3) Whether the funding sources appear proportional to the beneficiaries of the service; and 4) Whether all cost are accounted for in the funding of the services and whether appropriate funds are used. The following table presents the finding of this review for all the cases that met at least one of the first two criteria. Immediately following this table is a shorter table that summarizes the answers to questions 3 and 4 for intergovernmental agreement services that are provided by an outside agency.

Following these tables is a more complete description of the intergovernmental agreements that define the delivery of services on a joint services or contractual basis and a discussion of the potential means of determining the distribution of benefits of these services and the potential funding equity issues that may be at play in the delivery of the services.


59

Analysis of Service Agreements for Determining if a Funding Equity Issue is Potentially Raised where Services are Provided by One of the Two Governments

Legend Y=Yes N=No

A “?” indicates that the issue does not lend itself to a Yes or No answer

Service City Provides Service to the County

County Provides Service to the City

Funding Proportional to Benefit

All Cost Accounted

For/Appropriate Funds Used

SPLOST N N N/A N/A

Tax Commissioner Billing

N Y Y Y

Fire Services Y N Y N

800 MHz Y N ? N

Jail N Y Y ?

Senior Citizen Y N ?

E911 Y N Y Y

Building Inspections

Y N ? ?

Workforce Investment

Y N ? ?

Traffic Signal Maintenance

Y N ? ?

Landfill Y N Y Y

Levee Maint. Y Y ? ?

Computer N Y ? N/A


60

Services

Recreation Y N ? N/A

Board of Elections

N Y ? See Local Act

N

Mapping/GIS N Y ? ?

Analysis of Service Agreements for Determining if a Funding Equity Issue is Potentially Raised Agreements where Services are Provided by

An Outside Agency

Service Funding Proportional to Benefit

All Cost Accounted For

Planning & Zoning (defined by Constitutional Amendment)

? ?

Land Bank Y Y

Levee Feasibility Y Y

Fiber Optics Y Y

Transit Authority ? Y


61

Intergovernmental Agreements The following lists and describes the intergovernmental agreements that were provided to the project team for review. The lists are separated in to two categories: 1) agreements that appear not to raise and equity issue, and 2) agreements that may raise an equity issue.

Intergovernmental Agreements that appear on first reading to not involve an Equity Issue:

The SPLOST Agreement • Set out the cost/value of the respective City and County projects that will be part of the SPLOST.

The City will receive 33% and the County 67% of the proceeds of the SPLOST.

Levee Feasibility Agreement • Specifies that the City and County will share the cost of the study on a 50/50 basis. Since the

study was completed and the costs expended prior to FY2009, no funding equity issue was identified for the purposes and timeframe assumed in this study.

The Fiber Optic Cable Use Agreement • The City and the County will share the fiber network on an equal basis with each having full and

unrestricted use of 24 fiber for its own purposes.

The Tax Commissioner Billing for Solid Waste Agreement • Simply specifies that the City will pay some start‐up costs and then pay the Tax Commissioner 5%

of the fees collected as a payment for the billing service.

Land Bank Agreement The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The agreement set up an authority and specifies the purpose as “returning property which is nonrevenue generating” to an “effective utilization status”.

The City and County reserve the sole discretion to determine which property would be offered to the Authority.

The Authority is to be a non‐profit and can manage, lease, sell, etc. the properties it obtains.

The County and City will submit to the Authority Board their respective definitions of “low income” and “moderate income” which the Board can approve or disapprove.


62

The County and City personnel may be used to provide additional staff resources and shall cooperate with Authority staff regarding access to records, delinquent tax sales, foreclosure, maintenance, preparation for sale, etc.

Upon written request from the Authority, the Tax Commissioner shall process tax delinquent properties as soon as practical.

The County and City contributions are subject to the annual approval processes of their respective governing boards/councils. Procedures for budgeting and management of funds are outlined.

Authority’s commitment to pay for judgments, taxes, interest, penalties when purchasing tax delinquent properties is specified. Authority’s power to extinguish County and City taxes is specified. Authority’s ability to set development regulations is specified. The Authority’s sale of property is to contain a condition of automatic reversion of title to the property in the event that development has not commenced within a year of conveyance.

Potential Funding Equity Issues:

Because the agreement does not appear to involve any specific commitments of funds from the City and the County, no funding equity issue would seem to be raised.

Intergovernmental Agreements that may involve an Equity Issue:

Fire Services I The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The County defines the number, placement and density of fire stations in the unincorporated area of the county as it deems to be expedient, and the County pays for the maintenance of grounds and buildings and the furnishing of utilities.

The County pays for the equipment used by firefighters located in the unincorporated area stations. It also pays for the salaries and fringe benefits of the firefighters located in the unincorporated area.

The City provides the administrative, mechanical, clerical, fire prevention, training and investigative services for the entire department. The City is also responsible for answering calls for service and fighting fires in the unincorporated area using City‐owned equipment. The County is to reimburse to the city its reasonable costs for these services in the unincorporated


63

area. Agreement suggests that the “extent of Fire Department operations in the unincorporated area” as a basis for allocation of costs.

The County agrees to compensate the city for claims made pursuant to providing fire fighting services in the unincorporated area.

Potential Means of Determining the Distribution of the Benefits of the Service Include:

It may be the case that fire protection service calls in the unincorporated area are responded to almost exclusively by the fire fighters stationed in that area (and paid for by the county) with the exception of customary and mutually beneficial mutual/automatic aid policies. In this case, a potential means of determining the benefits of the administrative and other ancillary services could be determined using the method suggested by the agreement (i.e., “extent of Fire Department operations in the unincorporated area” relative to the incorporated area). This extent of operations could be measured by service calls in the two areas. While there are other factors that can affect service delivery costs (e.g., the need to have equipment to fight fires in tall buildings) that could vary by jurisdiction, because the two jurisdictions purchase their own equipment, this would appear to be addressed in the agreement.

Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:

The use of County general funds to support a service that primarily benefits the unincorporated areas.

The potential for indirect costs not being fully accounted for.

Fire Services II The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The beginning of this document is the same as the Fire Service I agreement. However, this document includes a provision for the creation of a Bibb County Fire District as a special taxing district comprised of the unincorporated area of Bibb County. The special property tax levy from this district can only be used for the purposes of supporting a Fire Department in the unincorporated area and any surpluses cannot be transferred to the general fund.

The County is allowed to use revenue sharing or other non‐ad valorem tax revenues and grants to defray the costs of the Fire Department.


64

No part of the ad valorem tax revenues derived by the County from property inside the limit of municipalities can be used to support the Fire Department.


The provision of a special tax district and the limitation on the use of ad valorem tax revenues from property inside the City effectively addresses the potential tax/funding equity issue assuming that all costs are appropriately accounted for.

Housing of City Prisoners in the Law Enforcement Center‐‐Jail The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The City agrees to pay a per diem rate that is based on the actual cost of services delivered with the cost including depreciation of buildings and equipment. The format of the cost accounting is to be mutually agreed upon by the County Finance Director and the City Finance Director.

Medical expenses above $8,000 for any one City prisoner shall be paid for by the city except in cases where the injury was caused by the personnel at the Law Enforcement Center. Medical expenses above the $8,000 limit are not to be included as an operating expense of the LEC.

The Sheriff will provide housing, food, clothing, medical treatment, booking, fingerprinting, photographing, and data entry.

The city is not obligated to pay for capital improvement or other additions to the LEC.


The agreement suggests that the City would be the primary beneficiary of the services provided by the Sheriff. However, the County also benefits in the sense that in cases where there is excess capacity, it is able to reduce its per bed cost and total cost to the county taxpayers.


If the City is not paying the full costs of the service (e.g., if all indirect costs are not accounted for) there could be a potential for funding inequity. However, in cases where there is a competitive service (e.g., another Sheriff who has beds available for lease), there is a limit on defining equity in terms of cost recovery. In such cases, the equitable price for the service is the price that is competitive in terms of the local market for jail beds.


65

In conversations associated with the study a couple of issues were raised related to the jail: 1) whether the booking fee was fair; and 2) whether the city was being charged inappropriately for inmates who alleged crimes were not municipal in nature.

With regard to the booking fee of $15, the City does receive a product for this service (i.e., a photograph and a set of fingerprints). The fee for this product does not seem unreasonable even though the Sheriff must create an initial set of these products for its own use. Were the product entirely electronic in nature (e.g., as are some of the web services provided by the County’s IT department to the Sheriff and to which the MPD receives access, an added charge for mere access would raise a funding equity question. While a separate booking fee for a photo and fingerprints of persons who are jailed for a non‐municipal offense would seem reasonable, the wording of the agreement suggests that fingerprinting and photographing are services which would be part of the per diem fee that the City would pay for the housing of a City inmate.

With regard to the billing for jail inmates brought into the Law Enforcement Center by MPD officers, we examined the intergovernmental agreement related to the Jail and interviewed the Sheriff. With regard to the agreement, we are uncertain as to what it does allow. It appears (at least to layman's reading of the agreement) that the agreement may allow a charge to the City for the boarding of an inmate in instances where MPD brings someone in on a charge that will go to the municipal court even though there may be an additional charge that would go to state/superior court. However, there does appear to be an exception for instances where the person already has a warrant out on them from another authority. We may be interpreting this exception incorrectly. The exact language is as follows:


66

In our interview with the Sheriff, we were told that the City of Macon is only charged for inmate days in jail when the booking either involved only city charges or when a state charge booking has been resolved and only a municipal charge remains.

In actuality, it may be that in some instances the "hold" by an authority other than the City's that is mentioned in the agreement relates to the state charge that is also booked and that the timing of this hold may determine the billing. Without looking at actual data from the jail, it would be difficult to tell exactly what is happening. Our review of the agreement did not suggest that there is a funding equity issues here so much as a possible need for additional clarification in the agreement and perhaps a way of testing the agreement specifications against actual billing.

Senior Citizen Services/Lease Agreement The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The County leases a facility to the City for 50 years for the nominal rent of $1 per year.


67

The City agrees to operate a senior citizen center for the benefit of all residents of the City and County and to pay for the maintenance of the facility and parking, pay for utilities as well as provide and pay for insurance, and in a case where insurance does not fully pay for a repair or restoration to pay for the part that insurance does not cover.

Certain portions of the facility will be sublet and the rents used for the operation/maintenance of the center.

In a case where the City defaults on the lease, the County agrees to operate the Senior Citizen Center for the remainder of the terms of the lease, and the parties agree that a failure of the County to operate the center for 6 months or less will not trigger the reverter clause in the original deed of the property from the City to the County.


The agreement appears to suggest that the entire county would benefit from the services provided by the City.


If the rents from the set‐aside portion of the facility do not fully pay for the operation and maintenance of the Center, and the deficit is paid for by the City’s general fund, then there is a potential for city residents to be paying a disproportionate share of a service that is of benefit to residents countywide. In terms of strict funding equity, the City would only need to pay for the share of the services that were being delivered to City residents assuming that the County would use an unincorporated‐only revenue source to pay for the services provided to the seniors who live in the unincorporated area of the community.

E911 The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The County will cooperate with the city in the implementation of the E‐911 system and the associated streets/address database.

The County will pass a resolution to impose the monthly 911 charge.

The County agrees to pay for any unpaid 911 charges not paid by the residents of the unincorporated area of Bibb County.



68

Since the E911 service covers the entire county, it is reasonable to assume that this service is of countywide benefit.


It is reasonable and should not raise a funding equity issue that the City and the County are responsible for their own respective street/address data development. This reasonableness is based on the fact that such development is typically an ancillary task to developing this data for other within‐jurisdiction purposes. However, the agreement provision related to the County’s obligation to be ultimately responsible for any unpaid 911 charge not paid by the unincorporated residents leaves unclear the funding source for paying the deficit in fees paid in the unincorporated area. If this deficit is paid from a countywide revenue source, there is a potential for funding inequity. The County Finance Director reports that to her knowledge there has not been a deficit that needed to be addressed, so a question about the choice of funds has never arisen.

Building Inspections The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The City’s Bureau of Inspections and Fees will conduct building inspections in the unincorporated area of the County.

The County’s rules for inspections can vary from the City’s.

The City will provide the County with a monthly report of the permits and the amount of revenue received.

On a quarterly basis, the City will provide the county with a cost accounting that does not include capital items other than necessary office machinery and equipment authorized in the budget. If the cost accounting shows a surplus, the City will pay the County one‐half of the surplus. If there is a deficit, the County will pay the City on‐half of the deficit.

The City and the County will pay for permit fees for their own work unless the work is a repair or addition/alteration that is valued at less than $25,000.


Assuming that the fees collected for permits/inspections are related to the actual cost of issuing the permits and conducting the inspections, the benefits would appear to match the cost for each individual conducting business with the Inspections and Fees Department. In a strict enterprise fund scenario (i.e., where all surpluses are held by the department and all deficits are entered as loans that the department must pay back in the future from future surpluses) there


69

would be no question of an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits. However, the current method of distributing the surplus/deficits on a quarterly basis does hold the potential for inequity. Assume for example, if during Quarter 1 a surplus is generated and 75% of the fees collected during this period came from the unincorporated area, but the surplus is distributed on a 50‐50 basis, then a funding equity would exist. A similar scenario resulting in a funding inequity could exist on the deficit side, and while it could be the case that over time the various quarterly funding inequities would cancel each other out, there is no guarantee that this would necessarily be the case.


(see above)

Workforce Investment Area Act and Board The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The City and County agree to set up a board with a specific set of representative appointments made by each.

The City will be the grant recipient and fiscal agent for the activities of the WIA.


The agreement appears to suggest that the entire county would benefit from the services provided by the Board.


There could be an equity issue in this area if the City were to incur expenses in excess of the revenues being provided by grants and contracts with the Federal and/or State governments.

Traffic Signal Maintenance and Installation The current intergovernmental agreement (1986) has the following major elements:

The City will install new traffic signals and perform maintenance work on new and existing traffic signals. Emergency maintenance services shall be provided on a 24/7 basis.

The County will pay the City on a monthly basis for labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the charges and rates set forth in an attachment. The attachment sets hourly rates for workers of different types/levels and for the use of specific types of equipment. The hourly rates are to be re‐evaluated annually and adjustments made in accordance with actual operating costs.


70

The County will also pay a surcharge equal to 30% of the total of said monthly bill for the City’s indirect costs from employee benefits and departmental and administrative overhead. Materials provided by Bibb County or the State of Georgia will not be subject to the surcharge.

The County agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Macon from claims related to incidents growing out of the services provided.

The agreement is for 25 years but can be terminated on 30 days notice.


Because traffic signals are essential to the effective operation of a road and street network, the means of determining the distribution of benefits would logically track that which is used to determine the distribution of benefits of the road system. This would involve distributing the inventory of signals among the various road classification types.


The current cost recovery formula (i.e., the surcharge specified in the agreement) used to reimburse the City for this service has the potential to achieve full and fair cost recovery. However, it also has the potential to fail to do so in ways that could favor either the County or City. The key factor driving the recovery of indirect cost is the rate at which the equipment and material costs exceed labor costs. For example, the surcharge of 30% appears to approximate the costs of employee benefits (which appear to be about 31%), but in an example where equipment and materials represented minimal costs such there the was only a minor additional reimbursement in the form of the surcharge on these costs, it would then be the case that the surcharge reimbursement for administrative costs would likely not cover the full administrative costs. In the opposite case (i.e., where there was a large amount of equipment and material costs), however, the reimbursement might exceed the actual administrative/indirect costs. Without further study, the question of full cost recovery cannot be answered.

Tri‐Party Transit Authority: The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The City will pay 80.4% (60% as of 2010) of the operating deficit on a monthly basis, but this payment should not exceed the amount that would be produced by a levy of one mill of tax on the City’s Tax digest in effect at the beginning of the fiscal year.

The County’s contribution will be 19.6% (40% as of 2010) of the aggregate of the contributions.

A fare increase is specified, and 1/3 of the fares will be placed in a capital improvement account.

The City and County can conduct full budgetary reviews.


71

An operating reserve of 17 days is specified.

No accumulations of funds other than the operating reserve and capital improvement fund is allowed. If the operating reserve falls below the specified amount, the City and County will pay to the Authority the amount need to bring the reserve up to the specified level.

The Authority will maintain liability insurance not less than the current amount, and the City and County will appear as “additional insurers, as their interests may appear.”

The contract is automatically renewed for terms of 5 years.


The agreement does not specify the rationale for determining the share of the costs. Also, since the initial agreement was signed, the cost sharing formula has changed so that currently the City pays 60% of the deficit and the County pays 40%, a formula that reflects the population distribution of the City vis a vis the unincorporated part of the county. Transit systems have traditionally been an urban service since certain population densities are needed to make the service economically practical. As such, in terms of ridership, these systems tend to benefit urban residents somewhat more than non‐urban residents. However, recent research suggests that transit services are highly complex in terms of their benefits. That is, while a transit rider may be the most visible beneficiary of the services, others also benefit indirectly through the impact of transit services on such things as the need to build and maintain new roads, the availability of parking spaces, the value of a reduction in congestion, the value of the reduction in the need for traffic services such as traffic policing and emergency services, the value to society of a diverse transport system, particularly for non‐drivers (e.g., so that driving friends and relatives do not have to spend their time transporting the non‐driver), a reduction in the increased service delivery costs due to sprawled development, and the reduction in the cost of vehicle ownership.

Because most all of the riders of the transit system are county residents (as well as city residents) and the beneficiaries of the services are also spread across the entire county, a good argument can be made that transit is a service with substantial countywide benefits.

Option 1: Model funding equity as if transit were a countywide service.

Option 2: Model funding equity as if transit were a service provided based on ridership in the respective areas of interest (incorporated versus unincorporated).



72

The agreement does not specify the source of the County’s share of the costs. If these funds are derived from the general fund, the city taxpayers would be paying an additional share of the costs of the service through their contributions to the County’s general fund.

800 MHz Radio System: The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The City owns and maintains two towers and the system, while the County owns and maintains one tower.

The City and County are responsible for the maintenance of their own radios.

The City and County maintain respective ownership of channels but agree to share them.

The City is responsible for overall administration/system management.

The City and County are to share the cost of repairs on a 2/3‐1/3 basis.

The fees from the rental of the system to some parties are reserved for one or the other of the two governments (e.g., fees from rental to the MWA goes to the City, fees from rental to DFACS go to the County). Other fees for rental of the system are shared on a 2/3rd to the City, 1/3rd to the County.


Treatment of the service as a countywide service.

The proportion of users who are primarily providing services to the unincorporated versus incorporated parts of the community.


Since the County’s system is used to support countywide services, there is a question as to whether city taxpayers should have to pay for both the city’s part of the integrated system as well as their share of the county’s part of the integrated system.

The full direct and indirect cost of the City’s assumption of system management duties may not be completely covered.


73

Landfill The current intergovernmental agreement (in the form of a letter from the County Chair, 1994) has the following major elements:

The County pledges its support of 50% participation in land acquisition, planning, engineering and preparation of the land in order to begin solid waste operations.

The letter does not specify the revenue source for its contribution to the landfill preparation.


The letter recognizes that “solid waste handling for this community is in fact a total county‐wide problem,” suggesting that the landfill should be a countywide service.


There could be an equity issue in this area in that City residents pay for their ‘share’ of the costs both through their direct contributions (i.e., in paying the City’s 50%), and indirectly through the revenues they contribute to the County for its share of the cost of this service.

Levee The current intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The Bibb County Engineer is continued as the Appointed Superintendent responsible for the Levee Project.

The levee is 29,159 feet.

The City of Macon agrees to maintain 14,579.5 feet of the Levee, and the County agrees to maintain the remaining portion.

Each party is responsible for maintenance on its section, unless the repair is of a major structural nature, in which case the cost will be shared equally.

The parties agree to conduct joint inspections.


If a breach in the levee could result in harm to residents beyond the specific area where the breach occurred (e.g., a breach in the County’s section results in flooding in the City’s section or vice versa), an argument could be made that the benefit is one that would be countywide in nature.


74

If, however, the levees themselves are owned by the respective governments there may be a duty to maintain the property that one owns. An interview with Russ Richmond of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicated that the ownership of the levees would be with the respective governments.

Finally, flooding typically causes the greatest harm to residents and business owners with property in low lying areas. One potential method of determining benefit would be to identify the proportion of the respective areas that are most vulnerable to flooding were the levee to be breached.


If the levee is considered to be of countywide benefit, there may be an equity issue to the degree that a city resident/taxpayer pays twice (i.e., in their capacity as county taxpayers and as city taxpayers) for the maintenance costs for the levees both in the City and in the unincorporated part of the County. In this scenario, the calculation of the equity amount would be based on comparing the current costs for City residents to what the City residents would pay were they to contribute their share of funds to a countywide levee repair/maintenance service.

If maintenance of the levee is considered to be a duty of the respective owners and the benefit is determined to be primarily to the residents in the respective jurisdictional areas, then there may still be a funding equity issue but of a somewhat different nature. In this scenario, the equity amount would be calculated as the amount City residents contribute to the maintenance of the levee portion that is in the unincorporated area.

General Service Exchange Agreement (expired 1990): The last intergovernmental agreement has the following major elements:

The County will assume the full financing cost and will administer:

o The Regional Library ($720K)

o The Board of Health ($328K)

o The Board of Tax Assessors ($290K)

o The Tax Commissioner’s Office ($258k)

o Macon‐Bibb County Computer Center($165k)

The estimated cost of the total of these services was set at $1.76 million.

The City will assume the full financing cost and will administer:


75

o Recreation (180K)

o Bureau of Inspections and Fees (80K)

The estimated cost of the total of these services was set at $268,000.

The parties agree that Lake Tobesofkee and its area are not to be deemed a part of recreation under the provisions of the contract.

The funding/administering party will have the right to make all the appointments to the committees and boards having to do with the respective function except for the Macon‐Bibb County Computer Center Committee which will continue to be appointed as heretofore.

The level of services is to remain substantially the same as in the past.

Reasonable additional services requested by the City or County should be furnished by the agency providing the service so long as the agency is able to do so without additional capital investment. In additional computer service request, The Macon‐Bibb County Computer Center Committee will determine what is fair and just and can require the city to pay all or part of the additional cost.

The County will reimburse the City for city employee working in the Library and Board of Assessors.

The City will continue to operate the landfill and charge the County at rates equal to the rates charged by the City to by commercial firms as of October 1, 1981.

The County will at its sole cost acquire and obtain all permits for a new landfill. The City shall be permitted to use this new landfill for a period of time equivalent to the period of time that the County has used the City’s landfill, and the City shall pay the commercial rate (or reasonable rate).

The County agrees to collect a fee, excise, or tax applicable only to the unincorporated area sufficient to pay the direct and indirect operating costs related to the collection and disposal of waste generated in the unincorporated area—provided that the County does not have to collect a fee in excess of $7 per month per customer. Should costs exceed $7 the County can pay for the costs using any funds except for LOST or countywide ad valorem tax. The County may purchase portable solid waste bins and pay from any fund. If the county contracts for solid waste collection and disposal, this paragraph will no longer apply.



76

Both custom and Georgia Law suggest that the agreement provisions related to the County assuming responsibility for providing and funding the Regional Library, Board of Tax Assessors, Board of Health and Tax Commissioner essentially made this responsibility clear. While there may have been some sense in which the County assumed these responsibilities as part of a quid pro quo for the City’s taking responsibility for recreation and building inspections, in the current circumstances and for the purposes of this study we assume that these are all countywide services that are and should be funded from a countywide funding source.

With regard to Computer Services, there is no issue of about the distribution of benefits in that the City pays for and receives the services from the county.

Consequently, the services for which a means of determining the distribution of benefits include:

Inspections and Fees: The benefit of this service could be specified by the dollar value of the permits in the respective jurisdictions.

Recreation: Both the City and the County provide some recreation services to the countywide resident population. In an ideal situation, it would be possible to identify the persons using the services, to identify if they were residents/taxpayers of the City or of the unincorporated part of the County, and to identify the actual subsidy for the service being provided for different services for different groups of service consumers (i.e., municipal versus unincorporated). However, even such an ‘ideal’ study would have a certain amount of error built in. For example, some people may be taxpayers in both jurisdictions. Moreover, besides being an expensive study to conduct, the City does not have information systems in place that would allow for such a fine‐grained accounting. At the opposite end of a fine‐grained accounting would be a simple stipulation that both resident/taxpayer groups have fairly equal access and make fairly equal use of the recreation programs in both areas. A potential argument against this stipulation would be the notion that City residents would be more likely to use recreational services because there are more services provided within the City than in the unincorporated area. (It should be recognized that this would also probably be the case were recreation to be a service provided by the County since central city locations tend to be optimum in cases where there will not be multiple facilities of that type provided.) Ways in which it might be possible to account for the possible higher‐use by City residents would be to: A) Stipulate that a certain percentage more than half of the benefit of the services provided goes to City residents. B) Identify the recreation centers and define different “draw rates” of city versus unincorporated residents based on distance from the centers.



77

Currently, the City does not pay for the direct or indirect cost of IT services (other than GIS and Mapping) provided by the County. A potential methods for accounting for the cost of this service would be to estimate the time staff spend on managing the various components of the service.

The unincorporated County residents do not pay for the recreation services provided by the City, and the City residents do not pay for recreation costs provided by the County.

It appears that the landfill agreement provisions related to collection and disposal of waste has been superseded by the use of an enterprise fund with service charges to pay for this service.

While the application of a set commercial rate for landfill use would appear to be fair, it may be the case that the commercial rate does not pay for the full cost of the service. The City reports that this is the case and that it uses a mixture of City general fund and City Solid Waste collection fees to make up the deficit. They also report that the County does not contribute beyond the payment of the commercial rate.

EMA The EMA was established by a set of coordinated ordinances/resolutions by the City and the County:

The City ordinance has the following major elements:

A department and director of Emergency Management is created with the director nominated by the Mayor.

The City department heads are responsible for developing emergency plans.

Specifies that the Mayor has the authority to declare a state of emergency, enforce rules related to emergency management, seize property, sell, lend or give property ; maintain a strict accounting of property; declare a curfew; prohibit the sale or use of gasoline, firearms, etc.; other functions duties for public safety.

The Mayor shall immediately contact each and every member of the council.

A majority of the Council shall have the power to terminate the state of emergency .

Specifies the duties of the director.

Specifies a violation for falsely displaying an emblem identifying themselves as a member of the EMA department.

Specifies that the director can remove an individual previously certified a civil defense volunteer.


78

The County ordinance has the following major elements:

Adopts the Macon‐Bibb EMA as the county’s Civil Defense and Emergency Management organization, provided that the plans, actions, recommendation affecting the unincorporated area are approved by the Board of Commissioners.

The Director has the same powers with respect to EM in the county as those enumerated by the City of Macon.

The Chair of the BOC or his designee, the Sheriff and the Engineer of Bibb County shall constitute an advisory board to the EMA.

The Chair of the BOC or his designee will have the same powers or duties as those of the Mayor with respect to emergency management in the unincorporated area.

If after reasonable effort to contact the Chair of the BOC have failed, the Mayor or in his absence the Mayor Pro Tem, may act for the BOC and its chair with respect to matters arising in the unincorporated area.

The Chair of the BOC is authorized to confer with the City of Macon and the EMA to negotiate the county’s proper contribution to Civil Defense, but no contribution can be made without first being approved by the BOC.


Identify if the services are evenly supported and delivered throughout the county.


Both tradition and Georgia law suggests that EMA services are the responsibility of the county. As such if EMA services are considered to be countywide, the allocation of funds should be based on a method that ensures that all residents and taxpayers in the county contribute in a manner that mimics the use of a countywide funding source.

Economic Development NOTE: No intergovernmental agreements (except for the Land Bank) have been provided.

Informal understanding is that:


79

• Urban Development Authority operational costs are split 50/50 between City and County.

• Industrial Development Authority operational costs are allocated as County funds 75% and the City funds 25%. In addition the County is obligated to fund the IDA at $350,000 for 20 years.

• Enabling legislation specifies in 1962 that city and county will both contribute.

• The IDA manages one park in the city with the remaining parks in the unincorporated area of the county. It is estimated that 95% of the property is in the unincorporated county and 5% in the city.

• County and City only funding jointly 77% of the total IDA budget, with remaining having to be generated by the IDA (e.g., in the form of admin fees from bond issues). In addition, the county provides $350,000 a year ( for 20 years) for property acquisition.

• Clean Air operational costs are split based on population

• Macon Economic Development Commission: funded by city, county and Macon Water Authority.

• 66% of the funding comes from The Chamber and the other 33% is divided equally among the other groups.


Economic development provides benefits countywide which benefits the general county taxpayer (unincorporated and incorporated alike) and to the degree that the development takes place in the city, economic development also provides benefits to the city taxpayer in the sense that if city taxes are spread across a larger base of taxpayers, the tax rate does not have to be set as high to provide the same amount of service.

For the IDA: 95% of the IDA property is in the unincorporated county, suggesting a larger benefit for the countywide taxpayer than for the city taxpayer. However, the City residents can access the jobs created and can benefit from the related increase in sales tax revenues. Because the IDA typically provides a large tax abatement for property taxes, the benefit to the county taxpayer may not be substantial in the short term.

For the UDA: Both the city and the county taxpayer would benefit from the increase in property values brought about by UDA‐initiated economic development.


For the most part, the location of economic development activity would not affect the measure of the benefits to a county taxpayer. That is, an economic development activity in the unincorporated area will also benefit a county taxpayer in the incorporated area to an equal degree. Hence, there is


80

no major equity issue involved in the use of county general fund dollars to support economic development in the unincorporated area.

However, the use of City funds for economic activity in the unincorporated area may raise a funding equity issue. Hence, there is some potential for a funding equity issue to be raised by the IDA funding formula. That is, if one accepts the proportion of IDA‐ available land in the City area as a good measure for the city taxpayer benefit, then funding equity principles would suggest that the funding from city taxpayers should be in proportion to this benefit.

Special Services: Services Provided based on Enabling Legislation

Board of Elections The distribution of cost for the Board of Elections is defined by a local act of state legislation. In this act, the cost distribution is specified as a 50/50 split between the city and the county.


While local legislation has a different legal status than an intergovernmental agreement, the approach taken in the current study is to identify a “fair” allocation of costs based on a “reasonable” understanding of the nature of the benefit in terms of the jurisdictional groups. One possible interpretation is that the current law adequately expresses the benefit to be of a 50/50 nature. Another possible interpretation—one that is expressed in the vast majority of cases the enabling legislation of boards of election in the State of Georgia—is that this service is one that is of countywide benefit that should be paid for by residents and taxpayers on a countywide basis. While the customary understanding of the basic voter registration and election preparation services of the Boards is that this is a countywide service, it is also customary that the cost of running municipal elections, particularly special municipal elections, should be borne by the incorporated residents and taxpayers alone.


The treatment of baseline Board of Election services as a countywide service.

The need to include indirect costs in the service accounting.


81

Chapter 5: Specification of Services Provided by the City that have a Potential Countywide Benefit

While the Service Delivery Strategy Act excludes enhanced services provided by a city from the definition of services that raise a tax equity issue, the stakeholders in this study have asked that CVIOG use a broad definition of funding equity to include all services where beneficiaries of a service may not be contributing a share of the revenue used to support the service that is proportional to the benefit received. While it is understandable that the County government may choose discount the equity amount identified in the analysis of services where the County was not an explicit party to or sponsor of the service, the County government may also desire to recognize in some measure the value that these services provide to its residents (the majority of which are also city residents).

The three major services that the City provides on a stand‐alone basis and that have the potential for a countywide benefit are the Centreplex, the Bowden Golf Course, and the Airport.

Airport Services While Airport service delivery involves the collection of fees (e.g., for landing rights) that offset the cost of these services, these fees have historically not been sufficient to fully fund the service. Currently, the deficit is made up from the City government’s general fund which is comprised of funds, with the exception of service charges and LOST revenue, that are derived entirely from City residents and taxpayers.


1) Airport service benefits distributed based on share of the population. In this distribution of benefits, City residents would be responsible for approximately 61% of the revenue and the unincorporated residents would be responsible for approximately 39% of the deficit amount.

2) Airport service benefits distributed based the share of the property digest. This distribution is based on the theory that the benefits of airport service are roughly proportional to the income and wealth of the residents in the area (e.g., larger more capitalized business are likely to use proportionally more air transport and air passenger services than smaller businesses).


City residents are currently paying the full cost of the airport services funding deficit but unincorporated County residents share in the benefit.


82

Centreplex Services While Centreplex service delivery involves the collection of fees (e.g., from concessions and

for conventions, exhibits and events) that offset the cost of these services, these fees have historically not been sufficient to fully fund the service.


1) Centreplex service benefits distributed based on share of the population. In this distribution of benefits, City residents would be responsible for approximately 61% of the revenue and the unincorporated residents would be responsible for approximately 39% of the deficit amount.

2) Centreplex services benefits are largely captured by retail businesses that are related to entertainment and retail food services e.g., when Centreplex users make purchases (e.g., at restaurants, hotels, etc) in concert with their use of the Centreplex facilities. As a proxy measures for businesses of this type we attempted to acquire data on annual payroll in businesses that fall into the arts, entertainment & recreation category that are published by the U.S. Census in their County Business Patterns series. Unfortunately, the Census has not created a Macon micro study area that would allow one to pull out Macon business patterns from unincorporated business patterns. While data are available for individual zip codes, the zip code boundaries in the Macon‐Bibb area are not congruent with the political boundaries.

3) Centreplex services benefits are largely captured by commercial businesses in proportion to the size of these businesses. The assessed value of commercial in the respective jurisdictions’ property digests could act as a proxy measure for commercial business .


City residents are currently paying the full cost of the services funding deficit but unincorporated County residents share in the benefit.


83

Bowden Golf Course While the Bowden Golf service delivery involves the collection of greens fees that offset the cost of this services, these fees have historically not been sufficient to fully fund the service. Currently, the deficit is made up from the City government’s general fund.


1) Golf service benefits distributed based on share of the population.

2) Golf service benefits distributed based the share of the property digest. This distribution is based on the theory that the benefits of Golf service are roughly proportional to the income and wealth of the residents in the area (e.g., wealthier individuals and groups are likely to use proportionally more golf services than less wealthy ones) and that total wealth can be roughly approximated by a measure of real property wealth.


City residents are currently paying the full cost of the golf services funding deficit but unincorporated County residents share in the benefit.

Cemetery Services The City provides cemetery services that are available to residents countywide. Currently, any deficit is made up from the City government’s general fund. The services involve a full‐time administrative staff person and associated ground crew staffs who work on an as needed basis. The city collects fees for burials.


Counting the former residence of the persons being buried and allocating the benefits based on the proportion of residences in the City vis a vis the unincorporated area. (This is deemed too expensive for the expected return given the small size of the maximum equity amount.


City residents are currently paying the full cost of the services funding deficit but unincorporated County residents share in the benefit.


84

Chapter 6: Allocation of Support Functions to Direct Service Functions

Once it has been determined that a service raises a potential tax equity issue, it then becomes important to identify the magnitude of the possible inequity. To do so requires that one accurately determine the cost of services in question. In most cases, local governments report only the direct cost of providing a service to citizens. Typically this cost is reported as a line item for a department such as Sanitation that provides a service. However, in order for this department to provide this service it will typically depend on the services of other government departments such as finance, administration, MIS, vehicle maintenance, purchasing, and other support departments/services. Hence, to obtain the true cost of delivering a service, it is necessary to add these indirect costs to a department’s direct costs of delivering the service. In addition to these support functions, some other expenditures (e.g., benefits and insurance) may also need to be allocated to each department to get an accurate picture of that department’s total expenditures. Unfortunately for the purposes of this study, neither Bibb County nor the City of Macon routinely conducts a cost allocation study (i.e., one that results in an allocation of indirect costs to direct service delivery expenditures). The gold standard in cost allocation studies is provided in the Federal OMB Circular A‐87. A cost allocation following the guidelines in the A‐87 Circular utilizes commonly accepted accounting assumptions and methodologies in order to identify the administrative costs and allocates these costs to the other departments. The cost of each administrative service is identified separately and an allocation basis is used that most accurately measures the benefits provided to each department by each service. To conduct a thorough indirect cost allocation study can take several months and requires a fair amount of staff time in addition to consultant time.

The cost allocations used in this report are based on a simplified method that attempts to employ as much of the A‐87 Circular standards as were feasible to use within the time frame allotted for the study. An example of a cost allocation refinement that was not used in the simplified method would be the cost allocation process known as a “double step down” method which is designed to assign costs from each central service department out to other central service departments prior to assigning central service costs to the direct service departments. The steps in the simplified cost allocation method included: 1. Arriving at a consensus as to what indirect costs would not be allowable. The A‐87 Circular

guidelines were used in this process.

2. Arriving at a consensus as to what costs would be include in the direct service base. The purpose of this step was to attempt to capture some of accuracy of the more sophisticated cost allocation methods that employ service specific analytics for allocating indirect costs to particular services. For example, the indirect cost of accounting/budgeting services might be allocated based on the


85

number of accounting/budgeting transactions made by the service unit. In the simplified method we attempted to have the City and County agree as to the exclusion of certain expenditure from the direct service base due to the knowledge that the services in question did not require very much in terms of support services. For example, when the government simply writes a check to the local hospital but does not provide accounting, payroll, HR or any other direct service, it would tend to skew the indirect rate if these are treated the same as expenditures on services that do require substantial support services.

3. Arriving at a consensus as to what services to include in the support services category. For example, the cost of operating the Tax Commissioner Office might be included in the County’s indirect service list as this is part of the cost of raising revenue for direct services, but the only the payments made to City to the Tax Commissioner (e.g., for billing services provided to the City) would be included as an indirect service cost for the city.

4. Estimating the proportion of indirect service use based on the proportion of direct service expenditures made in support of the services in question.

The following provides a list of the central or service departments whose costs are allocated to the receiving departments, which comprise

List of Central or Indirect Service Departments/Units

Administration and Governance Finance Purchasing Human Resources M.I.S./IT/GIS Building Maintenance Fleet Maintenance Insurance Tax Commissioner/Tax Assessor (for County) Legal Services

The following tables outline the calculation of the direct and indirect base costs, the adjustments made to the direct and indirect base costs, and the calculation of an indirect rate. Both the direct and indirect costs do not include capital, land, and construction expenditures as defined by the Department of Community Affairs with regard to their Local Government Finance Survey.


86

City of Macon

Tot. Op. Exp. 69,810,347.00$

Gen Gov. 4,132,606.90$ Finance 1,262,995.22$ Gov. Buildings 3,216,243.30$ Gen. Insurance 2,580,138.72$ Legal FeesTotal Indirect 11,191,984.14$ Total Direct 58,618,362.86$

City of MaconCalculation of Base Indirect


87

Unadjusted Direct Expenditures 58,618,362.86$ Unadjusted Indirect Expenditures 11,191,984.14$

Item AmountAppropriations to Other Agencies (3,865,522.01)$ Debt Service Payments (896,135.16)$ Other 81,163.88$ Debris Removal Other (304,280.61)$ Radio 299,872.23$ Non‐Traffic Fiber 4,641.74$

Workforce Development Fund 10% of Funding that is for Program Admin. 163,146Medical Disp. Credit Union (325,561.17)$ HOME/HUD (minus external support amts.) 3,466,566.17$

Total Adjustment (1,376,109.03)$

Item AmountRadio System (299,872.23)$ Non‐Traffic Fiber (4,641.74)$ Medical Disp. Credit Union 325,561.17$

Total Adjustment 21,047.20$

Total Direct Base 57,242,253.82$ Total Indirect Base 11,213,031.35$

Total Indirect Base for Fire 5,290,349.80$ Indirect Rate 0.195887314Indirect Rate for Fire 0.092420362

Deductions from Indirect for FireGov. Buildings 3,216,243Gen. Insurance 2,580,139

Adjustments to Indirect Base

Adjustments to Direct Base

City of Macon


88

Note: Indirect Base for Fire does not include Bldg. Costs, purchasing, and Gen. Insurance

Bibb County

Tot. Op. Exp. 94,292,316.00$

Gen Gov.* 4,119,562.31$ Finance 1,237,697.00$ Gov. Buildings 2,197,335.00$ Gen. Insurance* 1,734,049.67$ Legal Fees 1,113,636.00$ Tax Assessor* (FY2010) 511,144.20$ Tax Commissioner* 820,919.29$ Total 11,734,343.47$ Total Direct 82,557,972.53$

Calculation of Base Indirect Bibb County

* Adjusted based on allocation of benefits or multiyear average.

Adjustments

Adjustments were made to the base indirect amount to account for the fact that the Tax Commissioner, Tax Assessor, and Board of Elections services are ones that provide benefits to governments other than the Bibb County government. For the first two of these, we allocated a percentage of the expenditures for these services based on the proportion of total taxes levied by the governments that the Commissioner and Assessor serve. For the Board of Elections, we allocated a percentage of the expenditures for this service based on the proportion of the voting population in Bibb County’s elections relative to the total the total election populations for all the elections supported by the Board of Elections. These allocations are shown in the following two tables.


89

Macon 19,791,289.00Payne 26,902.68Unic 25,248,903.89Fire 5,424,362.14Total County 50,491,457.71Macon 20,489,379.00Schools 80,292,357.70Total Non‐County 100,781,736.70

Total All 151,273,194.41County as % of Total 33.378%

Adjustment for Tax Assessor & Tax Commissioner

Government Population BaseBibb County 154,272School Board 154,272Macon 93,969Payne (2000 Census) 178Total 402,691Bibb County as Percent of Total 38.31%Board of Elections Expenditures 806,855.00$ Amt. of BoE allocated to Bibb County 309,108.31$

Indirect Rate Adjustment for Board of Elections

Note: the Board of Elections adjustment is included in the Gen. Gov. category of indirect expenditures.


90

Unadjusted Direct Expenditures 82,557,972.53$ Unadjusted Indirect Expenditures 11,734,343.47$

Item AmountPayment to Hospital (3,900,000.00)$ Public Welfare Social Services (1,152,536.00)$ Public Health (1,353,316.00)$ Other (10,000.00)$ Transit Auth (851,888.00)$ RDC (76,855.00)$

Total Adjustment (7,344,595.00)$

Item Amount

Judgments (563,195.00)$ Fire District (77,545.00)$ Hotel Motel (49,509.00)$ Debt Issuance Cost (215,281.00)$ Splots Transportaiton (146,140.00)$ Special Street lights (36,340.00)$ Special Sanitation (192,158.00)$ Total Adjustment (1,280,168.00)$

Total Direct Base 75,213,377.53$ Total Indirect Base 10,454,175.47$

Indirect Rate 0.138993565

Bibb County

Adjustments to Direct Base

Adjustments to Indirect Base


91

Alternative Indirect Rates Because two of the services that are analyzed for potential inequity are themselves part of the typical indirect services—Information Technology/GIS and Board of Elections—we developed special indirect rates for each of these services so as to not include the expenditures on these services in the calculation of the indirect rate for these services. The calculations for these alternative indirect rates are presented in the following tables.

IT 1,679,563.00$ GIS 136,527.00$

Total Adjustment 1,816,090.00$ Adjusted Base Indirect 8,638,085.47$ Indirect Rate for IT/GIS 0.114847727

Adjustment to General Gov. for IT

Total Adjustment $769,508Adjusted Base Indirect 9,684,667.47$ Indirect Rate for BoE 0.128762566

Special Indirect Rate for Board of Elections

Conclusion It should be noted that the indirect rate for two governments can vary substantially for a couple of reasons: 1) a smaller‐sized government will have a certain number of fixed costs (e.g., for general governance and administration) that may be as large as a much larger government; and 2) governments can differ in how much indirect cost allocation they perform as part of their normal accounting process. For example, one government may include all employee benefits, insurance, or vehicle maintenance costs in the direct service costs accounted for at the department level while another government might place these costs in a central services department where they will need to be allocated back to the direct service departments. While indirect cost rates may vary by governments, these rates can nevertheless be used appropriately to achieve the goal of the cost allocation process: to arrive a full and fair accounting of the total cost of providing a service.


92

Chapter 7: Base Expenditures on Services

This chapter outlines the methods used to identify the direct and indirect expenditures on services for which a tax or funding equity issue has been raised. 13 A key factor in whether an issue is treated as a funding equity or tax equity issue is whether the county will be able to use some unincorporated‐only revenue as an offset against any liability identified. In distinguishing between a funding equity and a tax equity analysis, it is useful to remember that once one decides to treat the responsibility for the funding of a service as something that the jurisdictions are individually responsible for providing in proportion to the benefit they receive, a tax equity analysis is the appropriate one. On the other hand, if one considers a service to be a countywide one where benefits are shared equally and to be paid for with a countywide funding source, the funding equity analysis is the appropriate one. With regard to a tax equity analysis, application of unincorporated‐only revenue offsets (against tax equity liability) make sense because the service that is presented as being provided primarily to the unincorporated area needs to be paid for with unincorporated‐only

13 In terms of the analytical treatment of equity (i.e., in order to arrive at an equity amount), there are two major groups: 1) classic tax

equity analysis and 2) funding equity analysis. In most classic tax equity situations the service is viewed as one that is being provided primarily to the unincorporated area but is being paid for with funds that are generated in part by municipal residents and taxpayers. In a classic tax equity analysis, analysts will give unincorporated residents and taxpayers ‘credit’ for unincorporated‐only revenue sources, for unincorporated residents’ share of the county property tax collections, and potentially for LOST revenues (or some portion thereof)‐‐ all in support of for unincorporated‐only services. Once all credits have been applied, the remaining amount—the net tax equity amount represents the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the tax inequity.


In a funding equity analysis the service is treated as one that is countywide in the nature of its benefits. That is, while there may be slight difference in the way that the two resident groups (incorporated versus unincorporated) receive service benefits the level of difference in benefits is minimal. However, in the funding equity situation the city residents/taxpayers will be contributing more to the provision of the service that they receive in benefits. In a funding equity analysis the goal is to identify the amount of city funding that exceeds the city residents’ responsibility for supporting the service. This is the amount that need to become the responsibility of the county and that need to be generated from a countywide funding source. In this funding equity analysis, there is no need to ‘credit’ the county for their unincorporated‐only revenues since the revenues that will be paying for the countywide service will be ones generated from countywide sources (generally the county property tax). Once a funding equity amount has been identified, we can then take the analysis one last step and identify the amount of the total funding equity that city residents would be paying for through their portion of the county property taxes. Finally, when you subtract the city residents’ payment (through their contribution to the county property taxes) from the total funding equity amount identified, you arrive at the amount of Net Funding Equity or the net amount the city residents would gain through a full settlement of the funding inequity.


93

revenue. With regard to a funding equity analysis, use of offsets is not applicable because the service is one that is treated as being countywide in nature such that the County can use any funds it needs to employ. Ultimately, if one assumes that in a tax equity treatment the benefits are apportioned in a manner that reflects the distribution of property values and that all LOST funding offsets have been exhausted, then tax equity and a funding equity treatments produce essentially the same results for the city and unincorporated county taxpayer groups. However, in a case where there are unexhausted LOST or other offsets, a tax equity treatment would result in a lower net equity liability for the County.

Complex Treatment Cases

In most cases a service will tend to be subjected to either a classic tax equity analysis or to a funding equity analysis as the situation calls for. However, in the course of this study, we have identified a couple of services where there appears to be both a tax equity and a funding equity component.

For example, the county’s provision of unincorporated‐only animal control services indicates a tax equity treatment because this service is being provided to the unincorporated area alone. However, the City’s animal shelter component of its animal control service is essentially a countywide service that can and should be funded with a countywide revenue source.

We have also identified a few services where a tax equity analysis OR a funding equity analysis could be seen as appropriate depending on how the service benefits were modeled. For example, one can conceive of the Centreplex service as either one that is countywide in nature or one where the benefits of the service to the two jurisdictions are portioned out—with the city continuing to pay for its share and the county assuming responsibility for its share (i.e., of the benefits to the unincorporated area) with the provision that the funding of this responsibility come from unincorporated‐only revenue sources.

In a couple of cases (Recreation and Transit), we employed a funding equity treatment (i.e., one that considers the vast majority of the service to be of a countywide nature) but that made some adjustments for the potential of one set of residents (e.g., city residents) to use the service somewhat more than the other set of residents. In these instances, we essentially pulled out the disproportionate part of the service and indicated that the City should continue to pay for that part while the majority of the service would be paid for using a countywide revenue source.

Finally, there are a some services (e.g., services being provided by a 3rd party) where it may make sense to apportion the benefits, but where the equity amount is not a tax equity amount (but rather a funding equity amount) because the service being provide is one that has a countywide benefit—at least in terms of the county taxpayer. For example, the economic development services of the Industrial Development Authority can be viewed as primarily leading to economic impacts in the unincorporated area of the county. However, the county taxpayers as a whole can benefit from the


94

economic development that occurs such that this would not be a classic tax equity situation. However, there may still be a need to apportion out the benefit that would go to the City for the economic development services provided in the urban district.

Multiple Models

Finally, for many services there will be only a single model of funding or tax equity. These tend to be services about which there is little dispute or uncertainty with regard to the beneficiaries of the service. However, for some services there is substantial uncertainty, and for these services we have typically created multiple ways in which benefits and funding responsibilities may be modeled.

Services for which multiple models were developed include:

• Airport

• Centreplex

• Bowden

• Transit

• Parks and Recreation

Classic Tax Equity Services The classic tax equity services provided by the County were identified in an earlier chapter include:

• Animal Control

• Debris Removal

• Engineering/

• Road Maintenance

• Sheriff/Law Enforcement

• Storm Water Management

• Street Lighting

• Trash Disposal Because county departments provide multiple services that are most appropriately analyzed together, we have grouped these services into two major groups: 1) Maintenance of Roads and Streets and Levee and 2) Sheriff Law Enforcement. While the Levee service is technically a funding equity service, because it is intricately connected to public works budgets in both the City and the County, it is addressed in this section.


95

Maintenance of Roads and Streets and Levee

City’s Presumptive Position

The City's Presumptive Position on Roads is that all the roads in the unincorporated area of the county and the major arterial/collector roads that are in the city but that are part of a county road system should be paid for from funds generated only in the unincorporated area. In this analysis, the entire road maintenance equity amount will fall into the Tax Equity category (rather than the combination of tax and funding equity amount as is the case in the 'Buddy System' analysis). In this analysis the final tax equity amount is substantially more than in the 'Buddy System' analysis.

City's Contribution to County Road System (i.e., City's Contribution to Countywide) 1,582,604.17$ County's Total Uninc. County System Roads (Uninc. Only + County's Countywide) 6,454,106.52$ Tax Equity Amount : 8,036,710.70$

City's Presumptive Position on Roads: All County System Roads which includes Major Roads in the City Should be paid for by Unincorporated

‘Buddy System’ Alternative

The ‘Buddy System’ alternative to the City’s presumptive position is outlined in the following several pages:

For Roads: With respect to roads, CVIOG will calculate the value of funding equity based on the following methodology.

1. Use data on the Functional Classification of road in the Georgia DOT Mileage by Route and Road System Report 445 for 2009. ( DOT 400 Report Series Reports) found at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/statistics/RoadData/Documents/445/DPP445_2009.pdf

And associated map found at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/Documents/urbanized/Bibb_FC_09.pdf

2. Allocate the maintenance cost for streets and road according to the following table:

Allocation/Payment Principle Road System Type

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/statistics/RoadData/Documents/445/DPP445_2009.pdf�

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/Documents/urbanized/Bibb_FC_09.pdf�


96

Countywide‐Benefit to be Paid by Revenues Generated Countywide

(Note: for these classifications it does not matter if the road/street is in the City or the unincorporated County.)

Rural Minor Arterial (currently all State miles)

Urbanized Freeway/Expressway

Urbanized Principal Arterial ‐y

Urbanized Minor Arterial ‐y

Urbanized Collector ‐y

Benefit Primarily to Municipal Residents to be Paid for by Revenues drawn from City‐only Sources

Urbanized Local within the City (City Streets) ‐y

Benefit Primarily to Unincorporated Residents to be Paid for by Revenues drawn from Unincorporated‐only Sources

Rural Minor Collector

Rural Major Collector

Rural local

Urbanized local within the Unincorporated County (County Road)

*Note: Interstate and other state roads are not included in the analysis.

3. For the purposes of the study it will be assumed that the maintenance cost per lane mile for the different road system types will be equivalent.

The Components of the Transportation Network

In order to conduct an equity analysis of the road network it is necessary to analyze a number of components of the road system, including traffic signal maintenance, street lighting, sidewalks,


97

traffic engineering, and mapping as well as the various road maintenance activities including street repaving, street cleaning, ditching, mowing, and road‐related drainage. Currently, the city provides traffic signal maintenance and traffic engineering for the entire county under joint service agreements as well as street maintenance and drainage for its own streets. The county provides mapping services as well as street maintenance and drainage for its own county roads. In addition to parsing the various pieces of the road transportation system, it is also necessary to pull out of the various public works and engineering budgets work that does not relate to transportation (e.g., work on the levee). The following analysis first explores the city side of the service, then the county side, and finally the combination of the two.

I. City Street Expenditures by Road Classification

Traffic Signal Maintenance and Installation


Because traffic signals are essential to the effective operation of a road and street network, the means of determining the distribution of benefits would logically track that which is used to determine the distribution of benefits of the road system. This would involve distributing the inventory of signals among the various road classification types.


The current cost recovery formula (i.e., the surcharge specified in the agreement) used to reimburse the City for this service has the potential to achieve full and fair cost recovery. However, it also has the potential to fail to do so in ways that could favor either the County or City. The key factor driving the recovery of indirect cost is the rate at which the equipment and material costs exceed labor costs. For example, the surcharge of 30% appears to approximate the costs of employee benefits (which appear to be about 31%), but in an example where equipment and materials represented minimal costs such there the was only a minor additional reimbursement in the form of the surcharge on these costs, it would then be the case that the surcharge reimbursement for administrative costs would likely not cover the full administrative costs. In the opposite case (i.e., where there was a large amount of equipment and material costs), however, the reimbursement might exceed the actual administrative/indirect costs. Without further study, the question of full cost recovery cannot be answered.

Traffic Engineering

One of the potential types of analysis that we conducted related to traffic engineering was to allocate the cost of services to different road classes in a fashion that paralleled the methodology specified for road maintenance services. The Traffic Engineering department was asked to assign a percentage of its time to each class for each jurisdictional group (for which there are road/street


98

miles). The Department indicated that they may need to incorporate their sense that a larger percentage of their new design work is in the unincorporated area while a larger percentage of their old maintenance work may be in the incorporated area. Summary of Major Points in the Interview: 1. The Department does not provide any other services such as street lighting to the unincorporated or incorporated area besides traffic engineering. 2. The Department recognizes that the cost reimbursement from the county is based on a 50/50 split of operational costs but they were not sure if the cost reimbursement is based on a written agreement or not. 3. The Department had the ability to fairly easily associate the number of traffic signals/control devices with the road classification groups using a GIS that has the necessary data layers. 4. The Department general feeling is that the cost reimbursement is fair. 5. The Department stipulated that engineer time accounts for the vast majority of the cost of their service is a good proxy measure for other incidental costs. 6. Capital costs for traffic control equipment are covered by each jurisdiction for the equipment placed in the respective jurisdiction. These costs tend to be quite small (e.g., $0 for County and approximately $14,000 for the City) 7. The Department indicated that utility costs are split between the city and the county, but there are no rent charges for the facility as it was built with SPLOST funds about which the City‐County have an agreement. City Engineering (for roads, streetlights, drainage, and levee)

Summary of Major Points in the Interview: 1. The metric of lane miles as a means of allocating costs among the various road classification is one that fairly reflects the actual distribution of most of the cost elements of the road system with the exception of sidewalks which may have a less even distribution (i.e., to be worked out based on the data you will provide).


99

Data Request 1. Please indicate your best estimate of the percentage of your total staff time/effort spent on: a. Roads : 35% b. Drainage: 45% c. Sidewalks: 10% d. Levee: 10% 2. Within drainage please provide your best estimate of: Percentage of time spent on drainage projects that are part of the road system: 60% Percentage of time spent on drainage projects that are NOT part of the road system: 40% 3. Within Sidewalks, please provide your best estimate of the percentage of sidewalk work that falls into each of the following road classifications that are marked with a 'y' indicating that you provide sidewalk maintenance in these areas :

Urbanized Freeway/Expressway ‐ n ‐ 0% Urbanized Principal Arterial ‐y ‐10% Urbanized Minor Arterial – y ‐10% Urbanized Collector ‐y ‐10%

Urbanized Local within the City (City Streets) – y ‐70%

City Central Services

Summary of Major Points in Interview: 1. Central Services provides 'trade‐related' support services to a variety of city agencies/functions, some of which provide a direct service to the entire county. (e.g., Douglas Theater, Centreplex, The Brooker T. Washington program, Parks and Rec, EMA, Radio system, etc.) . However, these services are not provided to the unincorporated fire stations. Consequently, it will be necessary in determining an indirect rate for these services to not include the direct services cost of unincorporated fire services in the direct service base. 2. Except for occasional help to the County on signage, the Department only provides sign maintenance service (delivered by the Traffic Maintenance Operation unit) to the incorporated area. 3. The distribution of stop signals and flashers is as follows: City stop and go: 203


100

flasher 34 Unincorporated County stop and go 43 flashers 22 Board of Education school flashers (City) 58 school flashers( unincorporated County ) 22

Author’s Note: CVIOG eventually received a database that contained the raw data on these fixtures from which the analysis was conducted. 4. Signal installations are growing in the county. The county does some contracting out of the installation, but the Department still has to perform inspections prior to the approval of the operation of the signal. The City is currently being reimbursed for this cost even though it is not specifically mentioned in the intergovernmental agreement. 5. The City pays the utility and maintenance of streetlights on the interstate in the city and on state routes in the city. 6. The city pays the cost of maintenance of cameras on interstate and the maintenance of the fiber optic system for the traffic signal system. 7. The Department provides the maintenance of the fiber optic system for both city services that are city only and for city and other services (P&Z, courthouse) that are countywide in nature (fire stations, e911, the courthouse and P&Z)

8. Based on data provided related to fiber costs of traffic versus non‐traffic issues, we will allocate the non‐traffic costs to the general indirect base (e.g., just like a trade service cost). Data Request 1. What is the ratio of the average maintenance cost of a stop and go signal to a flasher signal based on a flasher signal being equal to 1? If it cost on average twice as much to service a stop and go signal as a flasher the ratio would be 1:2.

Answer. Ratio 1:24

2. What percent of the total staff time spent in the Traffic signal division is spent on fiber optics?


101

Answer. Ten percent (10%)

3. What percent of the total staff time spent on fiber optics is spent on traffic‐signal‐related fiber optic issues?

Answer. Ninety percent (90%)

4. Based on an analysis of the electricity use, what are the utility cost and the approximate count of streetlights in the following categories?

Street Lighting Cost Count Cost Urbanized Local 527 $2,998.63 Urbanized Collector 443 $2,581.27 Urbanized Minor Arterial 115 $707.44 Urbanized Principal Arterial 766 $6,480.63 Urbanized Interstate 967 $7,668.97 Monthly $20,436.94 Yearly $245,243.28

City Parks and Recreation

The City Parks and Recreation department provides mowing services both to park areas and for median and other road‐related work.

Summary of Major Points in Interview and Data Request:

1. The Parks and Recreation department provides two road‐related services: a) mowing of medians and road triangles; and b) road‐related tree trimming.

2. A fair way of allocating the road‐related mowing services is to identify the proportion of the total acreage that the Parks and Recreation department mows that is represented by the acreage of medians and triangles that the department mows but also taking into account that on average the mowing of medians requires approximately four times as much effort per acre as the mowing of open fields. This difficulty ratio is due to factors such as the nature of the equipment that can be employed, the existence of natural and man‐made barriers, the relative need to deal with traffic, and the amount of travel time from area to area.


102

3. The tree trimming unit is comprised of 4 persons. This unit spends 80% of its time on services provided in residential area (i.e., urban local classified streets).

City Public Works

Summary of Major Points in Interview: 1. The Macon Public Works Department does not provide any services to the unincorporated area. 2. All of the drainage work conducted is related to the road system (Some of the drainage design work by the Engineering Dept. is not related to the road system, but this work is contracted out to private firms). 3. The Department concurs that for basic street maintenance the per lane mile basis for cost accounting provides an accurate reflection of actual costs with the possible exception of drainage type work performed by the Street Maintenance division. 4. The City's departments (Street Maintenance, Parks and Rec., and Sanitation) do not pay fees to the landfill. CVIOG will need to check with finance to see how this works. 5. The Department provides levee maintenance work from the PW‐ Street Cleaning division 6. Costs for Drainage/Street Cleaning/Ditching do not track lane miles equally for each road classification. Request for Additional Data 1. What percentage of the total division effort for the division that mows the levee (e.g., PW‐Street Cleaning) is expended on levee maintenance? Answer: 11 persons for 16 total days. 2. What percentage of the Street Maint. division work is related to ditching? Answer: 20% 2. For the divisions where the cost of performing drainage, ditching and cleaning work does not track the lane miles in the various road classifications, what weight would you give to each road classification if the weight for urbanized local is a 1? For example, if the drainage work for the urbanized collector takes twice as much time to completed as it does for the urbanized local the weight for the urbanized collector would be a 2; it is takes half as much time, it would be a 0.5.


103

Answer:

Drainage:

Urbanized Local: 1 Urbanized Collector:1

Urbanized Minor Arterial:2

Street Cleaning:


Urbanized Minor Arterial:2

Street Maintenance (Ditching):


Urbanized Minor Arterial:2 II. Unincorporated County Road Data

The Bibb County Engineering/Public Works Department is charged with the overall responsibility of planning

and implementing all phases of transportation system needs for the County.

Some of the primary functions are:

• Coordination of County, State and Federal Projects

• Complaint Management

• Public Relations

• Planning & Development Coordination

• Solid Waste Contract Administration

• Development Plan Review

• Permitting

• Erosion & Sediment Control

• Plat Review

• Residential Plot Plan Checklist

• Solid Waste Collection ‐ Residential

• Storm Water Management Municipal NPDES Program

• Pavement Maintenance System


104

• Line Striping

• Road Construction Inspection

• Road Design

• Road Inventory

• Road Registration – Petitioning the County to accept your roads for maintenance

Summary of Major Points from Interview: 1. The levee was once in both the City and the unincorporated County, but was annexed by the City in 1994. . They agreed to provide routine maintenance on the portion of the levee that was annexed in 1994 (area that Bibb County previously maintained) Were the levee to be breached the impact would be entirely within the city, but the impact would be limited to property damage as there are no residents in the area likely to be impacted (with the exception that Cherokee Brick has a house in the area that would be impacted). The property that would be damaged would include facilities that are critical to both city and unincorporated county residents, e.g., the wastewater treatment plant and the landfill. There will be a period of about 2 years in the future where the city (and to a lesser degree) the county will experience increased costs due to need to conform to new maintenance rules put in place by the Corps of Engineers. 2. The metric of lane miles as a means of allocating costs among the various road classification is not one that accurately reflects the actual distribution of most of the cost elements of the road system (i.e., road maintenance and road‐related drainage). The lane mile maintenance cost of a subdivision street would be at a different rate than that of an arterial or collector. The Department’s overall level of effort is reflected in the following :

Maintenance on collectors and arterials‐‐‐‐‐‐70% of PW‐Street/Road Budget

Maintenance on local roads‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐18% of PW‐Street/Road Budget

Maintenance of dirt rural roads‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5% of PW‐Street/Road Budget

Maintenance of levee‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1.35% of PW‐Street/Road Budget

Maintenance of other projects‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.65%of PW‐Street/Road Budget

2a. Sidewalks: Up to 1995 there were very few sidewalks. New DOT projects have sidewalks. Because of the newness, there is little in the way of sidewalk maintenance costs, particularly as many neighborhoods do their own sidewalk maintenance.


105

3. Streetlights in neighborhoods are funded from special assessments. From time to time the fees are revisited. They are supposed to be revenue neutral, but this is not always the case. 4. Stormwater: From 1990 through 2010, the City and County have agreed to do a joint NPDS permit application. Initially, the County did not have to perform to the same level because of the proportion of the unincorporated area that was rural. In later permit periods, the County has had to provide services at the same level as the City since the unincorporated area had become more urban. Both the City and the County have a $40 per acre NPDS development permit fee and a land disturbance fee. Both jurisdictions have the same fee rate. However, the fees only cover a small percentage of the cost of the service.

5. The debris/trash service is handled by the waste disposal division of Public Works. The expenditures in this division are for landfill tipping fees. This budget accounts for disposal costs of litter pick up, dead animals, etc. and is associated with road maintenance.

6. The Public Works code enforcement division began as a State grant program for cleaning up of scrap tires. This part of the code enforcement program provides a service countywide. However, the Public Works code enforcement division also provides some enforcement services that are specific to the unincorporated area. It is estimated that 50% of the unit’s services are in the unincorporated area only.

7. The mosquito control services are provided countywide

8. The traffic safety unit provides utility expenditures in support of traffic signal and intersection street lighting. It also provides for signs and stripping of roads which should be allocated based on all lane miles. Costs will be much greater for arterials and collectors than for subdivision streets.

9. The Engineering unit provides planning and supervision of the work done by the other direct service units and would be appropriately treated in terms of cost allocation as an administrative cost for these units.

10.The shop repair unit provides vehicle repairs just for Public Works and its cost may best be allocated based on the fuel costs of the direct service units.

11. Mapping: Engineering support for the mapping unit is not reflected in the cost (e.g., Asst. county engineer spends about 50% (should be 90% of his time) of his time in mapping, but this cost is not


106

shown in the mapping budget and is not billed for. Also, no utility costs are included in the bill.) (Note: the utilities cost found in Building and Prop. will be accounted for through an indirect rate).

Data Request

1. What percentage of the total staff time in the PW‐Street/Road unit is used to maintain the levee in an average year? (If this work come out of a different unit , please advise).

Answer: 1.35%

2. What percentage, if any, of the total staff time in the PW‐Street/Road unit is used for projects other than the road/street/levee work? If this work is not primarily for the unincorporated area, please specify what proportion is not primarily for the unincorporated area.

Answer: 6.5%

3. What percentage of the Traffic Safety unit budget/effort is spent on signs and stripping? (We assume that the remaining percentage is for traffic signal and intersection street lighting utilities. Please correct if wrong.)

Answer: 21.2%

One concern is that the salary of the Sign Technician in Engineering and one laborer in Maint & Const is solely dedicated to signs and I think this should also be considered part of the cost.

4. What percent of street lights and traffic signals fall into the following road classes:

TRAFFIC SIGNALS FLASHERS INTERSECTION ST. LIGHTS

TOTAL NUMBER 50 24 598

Number % of Total Number

% of Total Number

% of Total

Urbanized Minor Arterial 28 56% 10 42% 188 31%

Urbanized Collector 1 2% 5 21% 73 12%

Rural Minor Collector 0 0% 0 0% 29 5%

Rural Major Collector 0 0% 0 0% 95 16%

NOTE: These signal and flasher data have been superseded by data provided by the Traffic Engineer.


107

Map of the road classes can be found at: http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/Documents/urbanized/Bibb_FC_09.pdf III. Analysis: Summing of City and County Data

Steps in City Analysis

1. Use Engineering‐based division of drainage working into road‐related and non‐road related categories to adjust Engineering and City Public Works budget so as to extract spending on non‐road‐related drainage.

PW Drainage Exp. 362,795.22$ City Engineering 602,855.57$

Roads 0.35 210,999.45$ Drainage 0.45 271,285.01$ Sidewalks 0.1 60,285.56$

Levee 0.1 60,285.56$ Allocation of Engineering Drainage to Roads

Percent of Drainage that is Road Related 0.6 162,771.00$ Allocation of PW Drainage to Roads

217,677.13$

Engineering & PW Drainage Basic Allocation

Base Expenditures Amounts Used in Calculations

2. Divide City Public Works road expenditures into those for which there is a road classification ratio factor and those for which there is a straightforward cost per lane mile.

3. Calculate a PW admin indirect for road related expenditures (i.e., subtract levee and other non‐road‐related work from the streets/roads/drainage budget categories).

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/maps/Documents/urbanized/Bibb_FC_09.pdf�


108

Total of Street + Drainage 2,998,899.77$ Drainage ‐‐Non Road Related 145,118.09$ Levee 40,647.39$ Total Adj PW Street Exp. = Tot. St. ‐ (Non RR Drainage + Levee) 2,813,134.29$

Total PW Non Admin 9,375,094.92$

Streets Percent of Tot PW Non Admin. 0.30006462Non‐Ratio‐Based Exp. (PW only) 1,129,458.79$ Ratio ‐ Based Exp. 1,683,675.50$ Total 2,813,134.29$

Calculation of Street PW Admin Percentage

PW Admin to be Allocated

452,429.54$

3b. Calculate the Central Services road related expenditures.


109

Traffic Maintenance 269,082.00$ Total as % of Direct CS 0.09$ Allocation of CS Admin 29,416.75$ Final Tot. of CS to Streets 298,498.75$

Expenditures on Traffic Signals 464,173.54$ Non‐Traffic Related Fiber Exp. 4,641.74$ Subtract 1% for Non‐Traffic‐Related Fiber Work 459,531.80$

Percent of Signals Countywide Respon. 96.26%

Allocation to countywide 442,350.18$

Calculation of Central Services Traffic Main. to Roads

Allocation of Central Services Traffic Signals to Countywide

4. Identify the percentage of expenditures that each group in #2 accounts for the total road‐related expenditures and apply this percentage of to the PW admin indirect for road related expenditures.

4b. Add Engineering and Central Services road related expenditures and add a Central Services Admin indirect to the straight‐forward cost per lane mile expenditure group.

5. Separate Expenditures for Ratio‐Related expenditures from Non‐Ratio‐Related expenditures.


110

Sum Street Cleaning 1,175,086.10$ Drainage Roads PW 217,677.13$ Sum St. Maint 1,454,561.33$ Ditching part of St. Main 290,912.27$ Total of Exp. To Allocated by Street Classificaiton Ratios 1,683,675.50$ Proport of PW represen. By Ratio‐Related 0.179590235PW Admin ‐‐ 81,251.93$ Adj. Tot. 1,764,927.43$

Expenditures On Ratio Roads‐‐Classification Ratio per Lane Mile

Sub‐Tot of Exp minus Admin and Ratio‐Related Work 1,129,458.79$ Sub total Minus Levee 1,088,811.40$ Proportion of PW Rep. by Non‐Ratio Highways/Streets 0.12 Admin Attributed to Highways/Streets 54,506.17$ Adjusted Highways/Streets Total 1,143,317.57$

Engineers Road Related Drainage 162,771.00$ Engineers Roads 210,999.45$ Central Services Traffic Main. Exp. 298,498.75$

Final Highways and Streets 1,815,586.78$

Exp. On Non‐Ratio Roads‐‐Same per Lane Mile

6. Add a government‐wide indirect rate to the total expenditures in each group.


111

Non‐Ratio Related Expenditures

Ratio Related Expenditures

City Expenditures on Streets 1,815,586.78$ 1,764,927.43$

County Expenditures on Roads 5,666,499.55$

Non‐Ratio Related


City Expenditures on Streets 2,171,237.20$ 2,110,654.32$ County Expenditures on Roads 6,454,106.52$

Unadjusted Total Core Expenditures on Roads/Streets

INDIRECT ‐‐Core Expenditures Adjusted by Indirect Rate Total Expenditures on Roads/Streets

7. Calculate the percent of the total lane miles in the City that each DOT road classification group accounts for. Separate out the percentages that are for countywide responsibility.


112

Road Classification Data

Allocation/Payment Principle Road System TypeCounty Roads

City Streets Total

(Note: for these classifications it does not matter if the road/street is in the City or the unincorporated County.)Rural Minor Arterial (currently all State miles)

Urbanized Freeway/Expressway 0 0 0Urbanized Principal Arterial 0 0 0Urbanized Minor Arterial 110 60 170Urbanized Collector 48 71 119Sub‐total 158 131 289Urbanized Local within the City (City Streets) 718 718Sub‐total

718 718Rural Major Collector 91 91Rural Minor Collector 24 24Rural local 360 360Urbanized local within the Unincorporated County (County Road) 446 446Sub‐total

921 921Totals

1079 849 1928

Allocation of Lane Miles to Jurisdictional Benefit Groups

Benefit Primarily to Municipal Residents to be Paid for by Revenues drawn from City‐only Sources

Benefit Primarily to Unincorporated Residents to be Paid for by Revenues drawn from Unincorporated‐only Sources

Countywide‐Benefit to be Paid by Revenues Generated Countywide

Lane Miles

Proportion of County Roads in Countywide 14.64%

Proportion of County Roads in Unincorp. Only 85.36%

Proportion of City Streets in Countywide 15.43%Proportion of City Streets in Municipal‐Only 84.57%

Calculation of Proportion of County Roads and City Streets in the Countywide versus Jurisdication‐Only Categories

8. For the straight‐forward cost per lane mile expenditure group apply the lane mile percentages for countywide responsibility to the expenditures.


113

9. For the ratio‐based expenditure group calculate the adjusted percentage for each DOT road classification group to account for the fact that Urbanized Minor Arterials are reported to cost twice the amount per lane mile as the other classifications.

Twice Min. Arterial 14.13%Urb. Coll 8.36%Urb. Local 84.57%Total 107.07%

Base Countywide 22.50%Base City only 84.57%

Base Countywide 21%

Base City only 79%100%

Calculation of Ratio‐Based Percentages ‐‐

New Percentages

10. For the ratio‐based expenditure group apply the adjusted lane mile percentages for countywide responsibility to the expenditures.

11. Add the ratio‐based expenditure group expenditures to the straight‐forward cost per lane mile expenditure group expenditures.

12 Identify the cost of street lighting by road classification group.

Cost for City Only $35,983.56 Cost for Countywide $209,259.72

Urbanized Local $2,998.63

Urbanized Collector $2,581.27Urbanized Minor Arterial $707.44Urbanized Principal Arterial $6,480.63Urbanized Interstate $7,668.97

Monthly Costs of Street Lights by Road ClassificationCity Only Group

Countywide Only Group

Allocation of City Street Lighting Exp. (12* Monthly Cost By Class Group)


114

13. Identify the road‐related costs for Parks and Recreation mowing and tree trimming services.

Grounds w/o Contractual Services 1,491,735.80$ Percent on Medians 5.3%Allocation Street/Road System 79,300.83$ Cost as percent of all direct costs 1.63%Admin 1,294.17$ Total P & R 80,595.00$ Indirect 253.51$ Final Total 82,142.68$

Total Grounds FTEs 23Staff Dedicated to Tree Trimming 4Percent of Total Effort on Tree Trimming 0.173913043Estimated Direct Cost of Tree Trimming 259,432.31$ Percent of Total Effort on Countywide Road Classes 20%Est. Direct Exp. On Countywide Tree Trimming 51,886.46$ Cost as percent of all direct costs 1.07%Admin 554.04 Total P & R 52,440.51$ Indirect 10,272.43$ Final Total 62,712.94$

Allocation or P&R Mowing to Street/Road System

Allocation of P&R Tree Trimming Effort to Street/Road System

Steps in County Analysis

1. Adjust the PW/Engineering expenditures so as to extract non‐road related expenditures for mosquitoes, code enforcement, mapping, etc. Perform sub‐calculation to extract street lighting expenses for use later. Perform sub‐calculation to allocate the shop repair expenditures to the various expenditure groups based on fuel expenditures.


115

Highways & Streets Administration $1,809,830 Shop Repair Service* $657,439 Mapping Department $ 253,480.00

Streets & Roads Construction* $2,820,708

Engineering $332,866

Storm Water Management $99,104

Mosquito Spraying $ 74,543.00

Traffic Safety Signs $ 65,737.56

Code Enforcement $ 50,735.00

Code Enforcement Edu.

Bridge Safety ‐ Road Crew Detail

‐ Prison Work Detail* $ 114,404.00

Waste Disposal $ 9,229.00

Traffic Engineering* $ 144,897.00

Total Public Works $ 6,951,996.00

Total Direct PW4,290,276.56$

Direct Road Related Expenditures w/ Alloc. of Shop 3,770,996.06$ Total Admin & Engineering w/ Alloc. Of Shop Amts marked by * (but shop service times % for 2,156,522Admin Indirect for Roads 1,895,503.49$ Total Roads 5,666,499.55$

Adjustments #1 to County Base Road Expenditures (Capital has been Deducted)

Total Traffic Safety $ 355,130.00

Traffic Safety Lighting 279,842.44$

Traffic Safety Signs/striping $ 75,287.56

Allocation of Traffic Safety to Signs versus Lighting


116

Admin 5,328.00$ 2.10%

Stormwater 698.00$ 0.28%

Traffic Safety 0.00%

Mosquito 4,736.00$ 1.87%Code Enforcement 1,643.00$ 0.65%

Streets/Roads 240,955.00$ 95.10%Total 253,360.00$ 100.00%

Allocation of Shop Repair Among Direct Service Units ‐‐Based on Fuel Use

2. Within the road‐specific expenditures, use the percentages of effort on local, arterial, levee etc., provided by the department to allocate expenditures.

Maintenance on collectors and arterials‐‐‐‐‐‐70% of PW‐Street/Road Budget 70.00% 4,517,874.57$ Maintenance on local roads‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐18% of PW‐Street/Road Budget 18.00% 1,161,739.17$ Maintenance of dirt rural roads‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5% of PW‐Street/Road Budget 5.00% 322,705.33$ Maintenance of levee‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐!.35% of PW‐Street/Road Budget 1.35% 87,130.44$

Maintenance of other projects‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.65%of PW‐Street/Road Budget 5.65% 364,657.02$

Adjustments #2 to County Road Expenditures

3. For the expenditures related specifically to roads that are classifiable, use the percentage of lane mile within each category to calculate a cost per mile for each category.

Lane Miles Cost per Mile

Local Roads Lane Miles 806 1,441.36$

Collectors/Arterials Lane Miles 273 16,548.99$

Adjustments to County Road Expenditures‐ Calculation of Cost per Lane Mile


117

4. Use the cost per mile metric times the number of lane miles in the countywide versus unincorporated‐only categories to estimate expenditures for these two categories.

Miles Est. ExpendituresCountywide County Lane Miles 158 2,614,740.59$ Uninc. Only Lane Miles 115 1,903,133.98$ Total 273

Allocation of Collector/Arterial Miles to Countywide versus Uninc. Only

5. Allocate street lighting expenditures based on proportion of street lights in the countywide road classifications.

Number % of Total

Urbanized Minor Arterial 188 31%Urbanized Collector 73 12%Countywide Group 261 43.6%

Rural Minor Collector 29 5%Rural Major Collector 95 16%Total 598

Uninc. Only Group

Countywide Group

Allocation of County Street Lights

Final Road Analysis

1. Summarize core road/street expenditures by public works and engineering.


118

Non‐Ratio Related Expenditures


City Expenditures on Streets 1,815,586.78$ 1,764,927.43$

County Expenditures on Roads 5,666,499.55$

Non‐Ratio Related


City Expenditures on Streets 2,171,237.20$ 2,110,654.32$ County Expenditures on Roads 6,454,106.52$

Unadjusted Total Core Expenditures on Roads/Streets

INDIRECT ‐‐Core Expenditures Adjusted by Indirect Rate Total Expenditures on Roads/Streets

2. Identify revenue off‐sets.

Source Expended ByDOT City Expenditures on Streets 67,790$

Revenue Contributions/Off‐Sets for Service Expenditures

3. Final equity analysis


119

City Expenditures on Ratio Streets 2,110,654.32$

Net City Expenditures on Non‐Ratio Streets (Off‐set revenues are subtracted from base Expenditures) 2,103,447.20$ County Expenditures on Roads 6,454,106.52$

City Sidewalk Exp. For Countywide (.3 * Eng. Sidewalk) 18,085.67$ City Non‐Ratio Expenditures for Countywide 324,560.17$ City Ratio Expenditures for Countywide 443,492.82$ City Expenditures for Countywide St.Lighting 209,259.72$

City Traffic Signal Exp. For Countywide 442,350.18$

City P&R Exp. For Countywide 144,855.62$

Sub‐Total City Exp. On Countywide 1,582,604.17$

County's contribution to Traffic Signals 58,795.91$ Total City Exp. On Countywide 1,523,808.26$

County Expenditures for Countywide Roads 2,614,740.59$

County Expenditures for Countywide St.Lighting 122,138.59$ County Expenditures for Countywide 2,736,879.18$

City & County Countywide ExpendituresCity's Countywide

County's Countywide Expenditures

Road/Street Funding Equity Analysis


120

Amount of City Expenditures for County's Countywide that the City Taxpayers are Responsible For (City's Percent of AV of Property Tax * City Countywide) 669,582.61$

Amount of County Expenditures for County's Countywide that the City Taxpayers are Responsible For (City's Percent of AV of Property Tax * County Countywide) 1,202,622.90$ Total City Responsibility for Countywide 1,872,205.51$

City's Current Contribution to County's Countywide (City's Percent of AV of Property Tax * County Expenditures on Countywide) 1,202,622.90$

City's Contribution to City's Countywide 1,582,604.17$ Total City Contribution to Countywide Costs 2,785,227.07$

Funding Equity Amount of City Overpayment for Roads (City's Current Contribution to Countywide minus Total City Responsibility for Countywide) 913,021.56$

Tax Equity Analysis ‐‐ County Expenditures on Countyroads Using Gen. Fund of which the City

Contributed a ShareCounty Expenditures for Uninc. Only Roads 3,717,227.34$

Tax Equity Amount : 3,717,227.34$

Funding Equity Analysis: 1) City's Responsibility for Countywide Streets/Roads

2) City Revenue Contributions to Countywide

Tax Equity Analysis

Payment to City for City Maintaining City’s Countywide Roads

In the analysis of the road network, the streets and roads that were identified as countywide in benefit were located in both the unincorporated part of the county and in the City. In terms of an administrative settlement of the equity issue that would leave the City responsible for all the streets


121

in the City’s jurisdiction, there would need to be a mechanism for compensating the City for their expenditures on the streets that were believed to be of countywide benefit. The amount of this compensation would essentially be the same as:

City's Contribution to County Road System (i.e., City's Contribution to Countywide) 1,582,604.17$

Since the service would be of a countywide nature, the payment from the County could be made from a countywide revenue source to which city residents contribute in their capacity as county taxpayers.

County Additional Cost for Maintaining Entire Countywide Road Network

Were the County to choose to maintain the entire countywide road network their additional cost would be the same as the payment needed to be made to the City were the City to maintain responsibility for the part of the countywide road network that lies in the city.

Other Public Works

There are three County Public Works services that are provided in whole or in part in the unincorporated area only. These are stormwater, a portion of code enforcement, and waste disposal.


The funding equity issue with regard to these services is that they are paid for using revenue collected countywide rather than from the unincorporated area alone.

Analysis and Findings

The following table outlines the calculations used to determine the tax equity amount for these other County Public Works services.


122

Stormwater 99,104.00$ With Alloc. Of Shop Repair 100,915.23$ Stormwater as % of Tot. Direct 2.4%Stormwater w/ Alloc. Of PW Admin 151,640.60$ Code Enforcement 50,735

With Alloc. Of Shop Repair 54,998.39$

Code Enforcement as % of Tot.Dir 1.3%Code Enf. w/ Alloc. Of PW Admin 82,643.51$ Half of Code Enf. To Unic. Only 41,321.75$ Waste Disposal 9,228.91$

Waste Disposal as % of Tot.Dir 0.22%Waste Disposal w/ Alloc of PW Admin 13,867.85$ Total of Unic Only Exp. 206,830.20$ Total with Indirect 235,578.27$

Stormwater Fee Revenue Offset 9401

Tax Equity Amount ‐Final Total 226,177.27$

Public Works ‐‐Other Uninc. Only


123

Levee


Property Ownership: City engineering staff indicated that the levee was owned by the individual private property owners who simply provided an easement to the respective local governments. Because property owners in the levee area pay both a city and county property tax, both governments would have an interest in protecting the property.

Flooding Victimization: Flooding typically causes the greatest harm to residents and business owners with property in low lying areas. One potential method of determining benefit would be to identify the proportion of the respective areas that are most vulnerable to flooding were the levee to be breached.

Jurisdiction: As the entire Levee is in the City, maintenance should be the City’s responsibility.

Expected Development Benefits: The City annexed the Levee area in expectation of State road development and associated development benefits. However, the County would also share in these benefits.


If the levee is considered to be of countywide benefit, there may be an equity issue to the degree that a city resident/taxpayer pays twice (i.e., in their capacity as county taxpayers and as city taxpayers) for the maintenance costs for the levee. In this scenario, the calculation of the equity amount would be based on comparing the current costs for City residents to what the City residents would pay were they to contribute their share of funds to a countywide levee repair/maintenance service.

If the levee is considered to be a City‐only responsibility, then the equity amount would be the amount of County expenditures on the levee that should be assumed by the City.

Notes/Findings from Interview with City Engineer: 1. The levee is owned by the individual property owners with the City having an easement. 2. The entire levee is within the City, but the county agreed to pay for a share of the costs of maintenance.


124

3. Were the levee to be breached the impact would be entirely within the city, but the impact would be limited to property damage as there are no residents in the area likely to be impacted. 4. The property that would be damaged would include facilities that are critical to both city and unincorporated county residents, e.g., the wastewater treatment. 5. There will be a period of about 2 years in the future where the city (and to a lesser degree) the county will experience increased costs due to need maintenance rules put in place by the Corps of Engineers.

Notes/Findings from Interview with County Engineer:

Data Request

1. What percentage of the total staff time in the PW‐Street/Road unit is used to maintain the levee in an average year? (If this work come out of a different unit, please advise).

Answer: 1.35%

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. In one analysis, we model the service as a countywide one (i.e., with countywide benefits). In another we model the service as a City‐only responsibility. Finally, we model the service as a tax equity service where the benefit is assumed to be distributed to the respective jurisdictions based on the distribution of the population.


125

City PW Maintenance Contribution 52,976.91$ City Recreation Maint. Contribution 7,392.45$ City Engineering 72,094.73$ Total City Maint. Cost 132,464.09$ County Maintenance Contribution 87,130.44$ Total Maint. Cost 219,594.53$

Funding Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a countywide source 132,464.09$

Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a City Only Source 87,130.44$

City Responsibility for Costs 133,733.07$ County Responsibility for Costs 85,861.46$ Uninc.‐Only County Maintenance Contribution (Contri. * Unic. Property Tax Proportion) 48,844.11$

Tax Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source 37,017.35$

Funding Equity Based on Treatment of Service as Countywide (Includes all Dept. Admin. & Indirect)

Tax Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Population Based Benefit

Funding Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a City Responsibility

Note the Reverse Equity: The Levee analysis that assumes a City‐only responsibility for the levee is one that results in a revere equity in that if we assume that the City is entirely responsible for the levee then it will need to take on the expenditures for maintenance that the county currently is making.


126

Department Specific Calculations for Levee Estimate

Number of Person Days on Levee 176Total number of Person Days Available (53 people * 49 weeks * 5 days) 12985Percentage Represented by Levee Work 1.36%Base Cost of Levee Work (% * Final Streets) 40,647.39$

Levee with Dept. Admin 44,299.25$ Levee with Indirect 52,976.91$

Engineering Exp. 602,855.57$ Cost of Levee Work (10% * Eng. Exp.) 60,285.56$

With Indirect 72,094.73$

Engineering Levee Work

City Public Works Levee Work

Base of Non‐Exluded PW Exp. (Includes Indirec) 6,454,106.52

Base Times Percent of Effort (1.35%) 87,130.44$

County PW/Engineering Levee Work


127

Person Days in Year 260

Holidays and Vaction Day 20Person Days in Work Year 240Person Days for Levee 24Percent of FTE on Levee 0.1Total Grounds FTEs 23Percent of Total Effort on 0.004347826Estimated Direct Cost of L 6,173.71$ Cost as percent of all dire 0.001270522Admin for Levee 7.84 Total P & R Levee 6,181.56$ Indirect 1,210.89$ Final Total for Levee 7,392.45$

Calculation of City P&R Levee Effort


128

Sheriff’s Services

Identifying Tax Inequity in the Delivery of Sheriff’s Office Services

As suggested earlier in this report, the process of identifying potential tax equity issues begins with an analysis of the Service Delivery Strategy Agreement. This agreement, which is made among the representatives of the county and municipal governments in Bibb County, addresses the issue of law enforcement as a service. In the case of Bibb County, the agreement specifies that the Sheriff will be responsible for law enforcement in the unincorporated part of the county. However, the Sheriff himself is not a party to the agreement.

City’s Position on Sheriff Office Expenditures: Under the legal assumption that the Sheriff is an arm of the county government and that the County government must assume responsibility for funding the Sheriff’s operations, the lack of the Sheriff’s participation in the agreement would not nullify a finding of tax inequity since the elected leaders of the two governments should follow a basic fairness principle of municipal residents not having to pay for services they don’t receive.

County’s Position on Sheriff Office Expenditures: However, if the assumption about the Sheriff’s position related to county government is incorrect, then the lack of participation of the Sheriff in the Service Delivery Strategy Agreement could be interpreted as nullification of any tax equity issue. That is, if the county cannot compel the Sheriff to provide or not provide services in any particular areas of the county, then the county government cannot be held liable for any tax inequity that occurs as a result of the Sheriff’s choices regarding a particular pattern of service delivery. A number of court cases suggest that the Sheriff is indeed not an arm of the county government, but is instead an arm of state government.

Because of the unique legal position of the Sheriff’s Office, two possible options exist with respect to identifying potential tax inequities with respect to the Sheriff’s delivery of patrol and investigation services.

Option 1: (County’s Position). Because the Sheriff is a constitutional officer with discretion over the scope of services to be provided and because the Sheriff has countywide jurisdiction and citizens can equally access these services (if the Sheriff chooses to respond), all law enforcement services are deemed to be countywide, and no tax equity issue with respect to these services exists.

Option 2: Even though the Sheriff is a constitutional officer with discretion over the scope of services to be provided, the Sheriff agrees that it is possible given an appropriate methodology to identify the distribution of service benefits between countywide benefits and benefits that are exclusive to the unincorporated area.

Under option 3 the Sheriff’s Office would agree to a specific set of methodologies for measuring services provided countywide versus those provided exclusively to the unincorporated area. This


129

section of the report outlines an equity analysis based on methodologies suggested by the Sheriff’s Office.

Option 3: (City’s Position). The Sheriff’s constitutional expenditures are to be paid from countywide funding sources. All other non‐constitutional service expenditures are to be paid for by funds generated in the unincorporated area only.

Background

Many of the Sheriff’s Office functions such as detention services are provided countywide, and therefore present no tax equity issue. The key service area that could potentially provide a tax equity issue is the Sheriff’s Patrol and Investigation services. The great majority of these services are provided in the unincorporated area of the community. Generally speaking, these services can be categorized as follows:

Table: Categorization of Sheriff’s Office Services that are Provided Primarily to the Unincorporated Area

Service Category

1. Response‐to‐call services are provided primarily to the unincorporated areas, but are occasionally provided to incorporated areas when officers in those jurisdictions are unavailable to take the call.

2. Basic patrol services or crime prevention services (i.e., the service provided by the fact that an officer is present in an area)

3. Response to immediate incidents services are those provided when an officer come upon a crime or accident and assists in the working of that event or case even though the case or event is in an incorporated area.

4. Investigation services follow the response‐to‐call services that are in the unincorporated area.

5.Drug Unit Investigations

Because the Sheriff’s Office has budget categories that track the service categories fairly closely, the key task in the equity analysis is to identify the amount of service that is being provided to City


130

residents. The cost of this service to City residents must be subtracted from the total expenditures in the service categories that are primarily for the unincorporated area.

Summary of Major Points in Interview: 1. The divisions that provide services countywide ("countywide group") include: Courthouse Services, Warrants, Crime Prevention, Corrections, and Detention. The divisions that primarily serve the unincorporated area ("primarily unincorporated group") include: Patrol, Criminal Investigations, Forensics, Evidence and Property, Animal Control (for FY2009) and Drug Investigation. Other divisions ("admin and support group") serve both the countywide group and primarily‐unincorporated group of divisions include: Administration, Civil/Central Records, Communications, Building Maintenance, Training, and Incentive Pay. 2. The patrol division provides services both as a result of a call for service from a citizen and when a patrol car initiates a stop. 3. The patrol division receives calls for services through a CAD system whereby it will be possible to get a breakdown of the number of calls in the unincorporated area and the City of Macon area. The patrol division incidental stops can also be identified by jurisdiction. The patrol division may receive calls for service straight through a non‐CAD system and there could be some overlap between these calls and the CAD‐system calls. The patrol division performs traffic enforcement functions on Interstates and major roads throughout the county, including the municipal areas.. 3b. The patrol service also will provide some specialized services (Task Forces) that are focused on a high crime area in the City (e.g., Village Greens and Houston Ave.). These Task Force operations are typically not requested by or coordinated with the MPD. It is offered that these services in a typical year will involve: 6 officers * 40 hrs. * 3 weeks. This is equivalent to 18 weeks of an FTE officer or .375 FTEs based on an 48 week yearly work contribution. 4. There are no major expenditures that are made by the "countywide group" of divisions that should be allocated to the "unincorporated only" group of divisions and vice versa. 5. When conducting traffic enforcement/officer initiated stops, the ticket/charge is processed through state court. 6. For purposes of cost/effort allocation Criminal investigations expenditures tend to track those of the Patrol Division.


131

7. Most of the Civil/Central Records division is processing civil papers which are a countywide function. However, 2 of the 9 staff members spend most of their time working on regular crime incident reports. The rough estimate of the proportion of this units budget that should be placed in the primarily unincorporated category is: 60% of 2/9th of Civil/Central Records division. Note: This preliminary data was later revised base on responses to the data request. 8. The Crime prevention service primarily consists of the Junior Deputy program which provides education, defensive driving, driving simulation and other prevention services in the schools and elsewhere throughout the county. 9. The Communications division serves both the "countywide group" and the "primarily unincorporated" group. The Sheriff will provide data on this. 10. The Sheriff's Office does not receive any revenue from the telecom fees that are charged in support of E911 type services. That is, there is no telecom fee support for the Sheriff’s communications center. 11. Building Maintenance supports all divisions, but may have a higher workload as it relates to the Corrections/Detention divisions. 12. The Evidence and Property, Forensics/Crime Analysis, and Criminal Investigation units support or track the patrol division effort, and the expenditures in these units should be allocated based on Patrol allocation. 13. The Drug Investigation unit is described as a service that is provided countywide but with a distribution of effort that may be tilted more toward cases/calls for service in the incorporated area than in the unincorporated area. This unit started out as a joint city‐county task force, but the city at some point broke away from the joint effort. Now the unit is one that is supported by the county only. The unit both responds to call and initiates investigations on its own. The majority of calls go directly to the unit, not through the CAD. There may be some distinction between the type of drug cases that the Sheriff makes versus those made by the MPD in that the Sheriff may be focused more on drug supply networks that are more regional in nature while the MPD may focus more on specific activity on city streets or within the city limits. 14. Police training supports both the "countywide group" of services and "primarily unincorporated group". Officers in each group tend over time to receive about the same amount of in‐house training from this unit. 15. Expenditures on incentive pay tend to be distribute somewhat more to the patrol/investigative


132

services than to the "countywide group" 16. The Sheriff charges $15 for a copy of the fingerprints and photo of bookings made by MPD. 17. It is asserted that the City of Macon is only charged for inmate days in jail when the booking either involved only city charges or when a state charge booking has been resolved and only a municipal charge remains. Data Request Response

Written Response for Funding Equity Study, Macon – Bibb County Local Governments, Provided by Bibb County Sheriff’s Office, August 27, 2010

1. What percentage of calls to the communication center concern issues handled by the "countywide group": 4 % versus the "primarily unincorporated group": 96 % (Please ignore the calls that serve the "admin and support group", and divide 100% between the "countywide group" and the "primarily unincorporated group".

2. What percentage of calls to the Building Maintenance work order concern issues handled by the countywide group”: 93 % versus the primary unincorporated group”: 7%

The only countywide divisions, sectors, or units are Civil Process, Warrants, and the Jail. There were a total of 9,500 work orders for calendar year 2009 issued. Of these, only 30 or 0.32% were for Warrants, none for Civil Process, and 8,873 or 93% for Corrections‐Detention. The City of Macon is fully billed at the calculated per prisoner housing rate and Identification costs for all “City of Macon” prisoners. Records evidence that about 55% of all inmates in the Jail come from arrests within the City of Macon. Many of these have State and other charges pending, thus are considered as State or Other prisoners.

Other Sheriff’s Office divisions work countywide by direct assignment. These include the Drug Unit, Criminal Investigation, and Patrol. However, the work order totals are insignificant for consideration as related to Building Maintenance.

3. What percentage of officers belong to the "countywide group": 55% (202 Officers) versus the "primarily unincorporated group" : 45% (160 Officers) (Please ignore the officers that serve the "admin and support group", and divide 100% between the "countywide group" and the "primarily unincorporated group". OR simply provide me a count of officers by each budget


133

group/unit.

4. What percentage of incentive pay went to the “countywide” group”:41 % versus the “primarily unincorporated group”:59%. Sheriff Administration is not factored in.

Annual Incentive Pay by Budget Group:

Sheriff Administration $14,400 Training 4,800 Communications 10,200 Patrol (Includes S.T.E.P. Unit) 135,800 Youth Services – Neighborhood Watch 7,200 Criminal Investigation 30,300 Drug Unit 23,400 Forensics & Identification 14,400 Evidence & Property 2,400 Courthouse Services 13,200 (Countywide) Warrants 12,000 (Countywide) Civil Process‐Central Services 16,500 (Countywide) Jail (Corrections & Detention) 117,600 (Countywide) TOTAL $402,200

5. What is the number of drug‐related calls for service from the unincorporated area: 7. From the City of Macon area: 66.

This is difficult to determine since the drug unit may receive several calls about a particular drug problem.

It is more specific to track the number of search warrants executed. This figure is reflected above.

6. What is the number of drug‐related case arrests made in the unincorporated area: 32. Made in the City of Macon area: 292. 7. What is the number of service calls (request for services from citizens) in the unincorporated


134

area: 50,928. In the City of Macon area: 878. 8. What is the number of officer‐ initiated calls and/or time on service calls in the unincorporated area: 16,626 calls resulting in approximately 6,928 hours. In the City of Macon area: 1,847 calls resulting in approximately 770 hours.

OTHER

Civil Process – Central Records

Civil Process is considered county wide. Central Records is primarily unincorporated Bibb County. For the first 6 months of calendar year 2010 the Bibb County Sheriff’s Office served 13,408 papers. Of these 9,613 or 72% were served within the City of Macon with 28% served in unincorporated Bibb County.

An estimated $523,900 of the $616,318 in operating costs for FY 2009 would be for Civil Process servers and support. That would be about 85% of the total costs.

Warrants

Warrants would be considered county wide. From January 1, 2010 through today, 2,721 warrants issued of 3,235 were for the City of Macon. Only 514 were for Bibb County. 84% of all warrants issued were for the City of Macon.

E‐911

Enhanced 911 under the City of Macon is considered countywide. However, the Sheriff’s Office has its own CAD system to answer all dispatched calls. All operating and capital outlay costs are paid for by the Bibb County General Fund. Yet all subscriber fees in all of Bibb County for land based and cell phones go to the City of Macon for the E‐911, Special Revenue Fund. The E‐911 Fund covers the cost of the operation. The irony is that the City of Macon only covers 22% of Bibb County. Why should City of Macon leadership oversee a countywide function where 78% of the geographical area is outside of their jurisdiction? When commercial and residential growth is the factor it is even more pronounced on the reverse of what it should be. Why should 100% of subscriber fees go to the City of Macon?


135

Other Background Information

Revenues $ 142,944.00

Expenditures on Capital $ 85,696.00

Expenditures on Operations $ 20,693.00

Expenditures $ 106,389.00

Balance $ 36,555.00

Law Enforcement Confiscation Fund

Analysis & Findings

Option 1: Sheriff is Excluded from an Assessment of Funding Equity

In this option there is no funding equity that is identified.

Option 2: Sheriff’s Office Methodology

The following tables present the allocation of Sheriff Office expenditures to the unincorporated‐only services group. The first and second tables show the base allocation to the unincorporated‐only group and the allocation of the Sheriff Administration expenditures and government‐wide indirect expenditures to the unincorporated‐only services group. The remaining tables present the sub‐calculations which were used to make the base allocation.

• In general, the allocation of patrol, criminal investigation, and forensic related expenditures is based on the percentage of service calls from citizens in the unincorporated area.

• The allocation of Drug Investigation expenditures is made based on the average of the proportion of drug‐related calls and cases in the unincorporated area.

• The allocation of training is based on the proportion of officers serving in the unincorporated services group times the proportion of service calls in the unincorporated area.

• Similarly, the allocation of incentive pay is based on the amount of incentive pay going to officers in the unincorporated service units times the proportion of service calls in the unincorporated area.


136

• The allocation of the Communication Center expenditures is based on the proportion of calls to the Communication Center that are delivered to unincorporated‐only service units times the proportion of service calls in the unincorporated area.

• Finally, the allocation of Building Maintenance expenditures is based on the percentage of building maintenance calls from the unincorporated service units times the proportion of service calls in the unincorporated area.

Expenditures Allocation to Uninc. Only

Adjusted Countywide Or City‐Related (Exp. Minus Uninc. Only)

Administration $ 1,162,587 Civil/Central Records $ 616,318 $ 90,881 $ 525,437

Courthouse Services and Security $ 742,444

Criminal Investigations $ 1,112,917.00 $ 1,094,055 $ 18,862

Warrants $ 548,907.00

Patrol + Heat Grant $ 4,651,088 $ 4,572,262 $ 78,826

Forensics/Crime Analysis $ 505,363 $ 496,798 $ 8,565

Crime Prevention $ 230,844

Corrections $ 11,663,210

Communications 745,764 $ 703,800 $ 41,964

LEC Building Maintenance $ 564,451 $ 38,842 $ 525,609

Detention $ 1,406,088

Evidence & Property $ 80,580 $ 79,214 $ 1,366

Animal Control $ 118,209 $ 118,209 $ ‐

Police Training $ 347,843 $ 190,811 $ 157,032

Drug Investigation $ 1,054,457 $ 102,628 $ 951,829

Sheriff ‐ Incentive Pay $ 485,196 $ 281,414 $ 203,782

Total Sheriff $ 26,036,266

Total Direct (Tot. minus Admin.) $ 26,036,266

Option 2: Sheriff's Analysis Option: Allocation of Sheriff's Expenditures to Unincorporate Only


137

Total Direct Countywide + City‐Related Exp. $ 17,104,764.35

Total Direct Uninc. Only $ 7,768,914.65

Uninc. Only as % of Tot. Direct 29.84%

Additional Admin for Uninc. Only $ ‐

Total Uninc. Only before Indirect $ 7,768,914.65

County Indirect $ 1,079,829.14

Fee/Charges Revenues 441,540.00$ Tax Equity Amount ‐‐Total Uninc. Only Expenditures (Tot. plus Indirect minus Fees) $ 8,407,203.79

Option 2: Sheriff's Analysis Option‐‐ Tax Equity: Allocation of Admin. & Indirct

Option 3: City’s Methodology Option

The key difference between the City’s methodology and the methodology offered by the Sheriff’s Office is related to the treatment of the Drug Investigation services. In the City’s methodology, this is considered to be a discretionary service provided by the Sheriff that should not be conducted in the City unless the City requests this service. As such the City considers the entire expenditure on this service to raise a tax equity issue.

Total Direct Countywide $ 16,152,935.46

Total Direct Uninc. Only $ 8,720,743.54

Uninc. Only as % of Tot. Direct $ 0.33

Additional Admin for Uninc. Only $ ‐

Total Uninc. Only before Indirect $ 8,720,743.54

County Indirect $ 1,212,127.23

Fee/Charges Revenues 441,540.00$

Tax Equity Amount ‐‐Total Uninc. Only Expenditures (Tot. plus Indirect minus Fees) $ 9,491,330.77

Option 3: City's Analysis Option: Tax Equity ‐‐ Allocation of Admin. & Indirct


138

Background Information Used in Sheriff Tax Equity Analysis

Calls Percent

Uninc. Only Calls for Service 50928 98.31%

City Calls for Service 878 1.69%

51806

Calls Percent



TOTAL 73

Calls Percent



TOTAL 324

Average of Cases and Calls for Uninc. Only 9.73%

Calls for Service from Citizens

Drug ‐Related Calls for Drug Investigation

Drug ‐Related Cases by Drug Investigation Unit


139

Uninc. Only Service Unit Proportion 96% Proportion of Uninc. Only Service Unit CC

Calls * proporton of Uninc calls for service by citizens

94%

Percent

Uninc. Only Calls for Service 7.00%

City Calls for Service 93.00%

TOTALEstimated Proportion of Building Maint. Calls from Uninc.‐Only Units * proporton

of Uninc calls for service by citizens

6.88%

Incentive Pay % to Uninc. ‐Only Units 0.59Percentage of Incentive Pay to Uninc.‐Only Units based on analysis of pay * proporton of Uninc calls for service by

citizens

58.0%

Calls Percent

Uninc. Only Units 202 55.80%

Countywide units 160 44.20%

TOTAL 362Percentage of Officers in

Uninc.‐Only Units * proporton of Uninc calls for

service by citizens

54.9%

Percent of Effort on Unic.‐only 15%

Percent of Effort on Countywide 85%Percent of Effort in Uninc.‐Only *

proporton of Uninc calls for Service by Citizens 14.7%

Allcation of Communication Center Calls to Unincorporated Service Units

Building Maintenance Call by Countywide versus Uninc.‐Only Units

Officers by Countywide versus Uninc. Only Service Units

Civil Proces ‐ Central Records

Incentive Pay to Uninc. ‐Only Services


140

Fees background checks 183,319.00$

Fees Id‐investigation 42,960.00$

Heat Grant 104,331.00$

Misc. Revenue 110,930.00$

Total 441,540.00$

Sheriff Fee Revenue Offsets

The final area of Sheriff Office services that potentially raises an equity issue is the officer‐initiated services provided by Sheriff Deputies in the City of Macon. Currently, all of the charges brought by deputies in making these within‐City cases are processed in state, magistrate or superior courts rather than municipal court. The revenues raised from the fines and forfeitures related to these charges are employed to replenish the County’s general fund. In a funding equity analysis, we would typically identify the amount of revenue raised in the provision of the service as an off‐set for the expenditures made in the delivery of the service. Unfortunately, the ability to identify the fine revenue amount that can be attributed to these services currently does not exist. Consequently, we cannot complete this analysis and because the county receives the fine revenue from its operations in the city, we have assumed that the city‐specific service expenditures are offset by these revenues.

Court Services

Court services are generally understood to be a countywide service provided by countywide funding sources. However, an argument is made by the County that these services disproportionately benefit City residents and taxpayers. The basis of the argument is that City residents consume more court services than they pay for through their share of the County’s property taxes. The following analysis shows an allocation of the ‘benefit’ of court services to the City area based on data from the Sheriff’s Office that 55% of jail inmates are residents of the City. It should be noted that the use of inmate residence as a proxy for the allocation of court services is not particularly satisfactory in that the benefit of criminal justice services goes to victims and society in general as much or more than to perpetrators. In addition, court services involve civil as well as criminal cases.

The City’s position on Court Services is that these are a countywide service—on where there is equal access and equal benefit‐‐that should be paid for from a countywide funding source.


141

Total Court services Expenditures 14,455,123.00$

Capital 99,158.00$

Fines 2,107,190.00$ Charges 1,571,033.00$ Judicial Council 110,343.00$ Grant 11,933.00$ Victim Witness 27,368.00$ State Court Victim Witness 39,496.00$ Juvenile Court Programs 5,870.00$ CYCC Unruly 15,335.00$ Peach County Public Defender 241,235.00$ Peach County Prosecutor 157,774.00$ Crawford County Public Defender 140,720.00$ Crawford County Prosecutor 10,863.00$ Total Revenue 4,439,160.00$

Adjusted Expenditures (Tot. minus Rev. &Capital) 9,916,805.00$

Indirect 1,378,372.08$ Final Expenditures 11,295,177.08$

Expenditures on City Benefit 9,713,852.29$ City Contribution (Exp. * City Portion of Property Taxes) 4,963,258.40$

Additional Contribution needed from City 4,750,593.89$ Tax Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source (4,750,593.89)$

Court Services

Revenue

Adjusted Expenditures

Allocation of Costs/Benefits based on 86% of Major Crimes from the City

Capital


142

Funding Equity Services based on Intergovernmental Agreements

Board of Elections

Summary of Major Interview Points:

1. The city and county voters voted the Board into being in 1969. Without the existence of a board the probate judge runs the elections and a registrar operates the voter registration service. Typically, both of these are county offices. However, there may be some cities that also have a registrar. Currently, the split of costs between the city and the county if 50/50 except for cases where one of the governments calls for a special election where the other government is not also holding an election. What this means is that the City will frequently be picking up 50% of the cost of federal/state/county elections even when the City is not itself holding elections.

2. Elections are becoming more involved. Early voting, electronic equipment, and other complications are making it such that more and more counties are forming boards which combine the running of the elections with the registration service. The tradition and practice of election services in the State of Georgia is that this service in general is and should be considered a countywide service.

3. All the costs involved in running the Board (except for general indirect costs) are accounted for in the Board expenditures. At one the County IT department did help out, but this no longer the case and was not the case in FY2009.

4. The Board expenditure for rent for a privately‐owned facility‐‐not rent to a local government.

5. If the city has their election in conjunction with the County, the City just pays the regular 50% of the total. However, if it is a stand‐alone election then the City pays 100%. Similarly, if the county has to have a special election, they also pay 100%.

6. Special Elections tend to run $60‐70,000 each. The costs include temp staff, advertising, postage, ballot printing, poll worker salaries, share of office supplies, signs, seals, per diem for poll staff, rental of poll sites, truck rentals, etc.

7. City does not run staggered elections, but does operate primaries.


143

8. If the city and county decide to change the Board (e.g., make it a county service or a consolidated service, it would be useful to take the word 'Macon' out of the name as the office gets a fair amount of mail intended for Macon County.

Current Board of Elections Billing Performed By: Financial Analyst (FA) In accordance with Sec. 2‐214 of the County Code, the Board of Elections shall periodically determine the actual cost of operations and the City of Macon shall pay to Bibb County 50 percent thereof as reimbursement to the county for the city’s share of the operations of the Board of Elections. FA 1 Print account activity for all accounts in Department 2200. FA 2 Obtain copies of invoices for Communications (AVAYA, AT&T, Bellsouth, and Cox Communications). These copies are provided by the Computer Center. FA 3 Enter activity on spreadsheet: Finance/Cindy/Monthly Billings. a. Enter numbers in 1st column into numbers in 2nd column (Be careful if using copy function, since there is a formula in the first column.) b. Enter all amounts (except Communications) from listing in 3rd column. c. Enter the amounts from Computer Center’s copies into the spreadsheet under “TCC and Board of Elections billing” and put that total into the Communications line. FA 4 Make copies of the spreadsheet, activity listing, and invoices. FA 5 Send the Board of Elections Supervisor the copies. The Board of Elections Supervisor reviews the spreadsheet. Most bills are split equally with the City. Special elections may be allocated 100% to City, County, or Board of Education. The Board of Elections Supervisor notifies Finance if anything is to be billed at 100% to any government. FA 6 Receive the Board of Elections Supervisor’s confirmation of review. Make any necessary adjustments based on the review. FA 7 Enter total billing amount into the letter in Board of Elections folder. FA 8 Give the Finance Director all documents for review. FD 9 Review the documentation, sign the letter and return everything to the FA. FA 10 Make copies of the letter and documentation and retain in the Board of Elections folder. Place the original letter with attached documents in the outgoing mail. FA 11 Make entries to record the receivable and move Communications expenses from Information Technology Department to Board of Elections Department. DR 121‐0000‐135.12‐11 Due from City‐Board of Elections CR 121‐0000‐343.10‐10 City‐Board of Elections Revenue DR 121‐2200‐414.50‐06 Communications‐Board of Elections CR 121‐3620‐415.50‐06 Communications‐IT FA 12 Monitor the status of outstanding receivables and follow‐up as needed. Backup: Financial Analyst – Cash Manager Revised: October 2009

Analysis & Findings


144

In the analysis presented in the following table, an indirect rate is applied to the direct service costs of providing Board of Election services. This indirect rate and total full cost amounts are presented for informational purposes only. For the purposes of identifying a funding equity amount (i.e., the amount that the county would owe the city for its contribution to a countywide service), only the amount that the city has contributed to the service is relevant. This is the case because the county is already supplying this countywide service and picking up the indirect costs.

Base County Expenditures 769,508.00$ Indirect $ 99,083.82 Total Full Cost $ 868,591.82 County Expenditures With the 4% Admin 801,782.20$ City's Share of Base Expenditures 400,891.10$

City Payment 420,760.31$

City Only Expenses (We assume the difference between this amount and the total expenditures with 4% is for city‐only expenditures) 19,869.21$ Funding Equity Amount ‐‐Based on Modeling as Countywide Service to be paid for with Countywide Revenue Source 400,891.10$

Board of Elections


145

Information Technology


The City’s payment for IT services may not be sufficient to cover the full cost of these services.

Summary of Interview Data 1. The IT budget is made up of three sections: general IT, communications and GIS. The communications expenditures are for cell phone and related services for county staff; therefore is a countywide service that does not raise a funding equity issue. 2. Within the general IT, there are essentially three types of services: 1) Mainframe services that include both countywide applications and city‐only application; 2) Web Based and Server Based Application and Systems that are countywide in nature and share with the City (with the exception of the document management system which is service provided to the City but not countywide in nature); and 3) IT services provided to the GIS service unit. 3. An appropriate way of identifying the share of expenditures going toward the different funding groups of interest would be to: a.) Identify the allocation of general IT effort/work to the three main service areas identified in #2. It has already been determined that the demands of GIS for general IT support represent approximately 5% of the demand for general IT services. This is somewhat less than a straight‐line time or budget allocation because GIS performs some services for itself. Hence, the remaining 95% of the total general IT budget will be allocated to either the Mainframe services or the Web/Server‐based Systems. The appropriate basis for this allocation will be the number of applications that are in each category. b.) GIS does not use all of the general IT support items; rather these items are limited to server maintenance, server licenses, cable services, and backup services. c) GIS does not appear to have a cost allocation for rent or utilities. The space for GIS represents approximately 7.2% of the IT total. d. Within the Mainframe category, the appropriate basis for allocation of expenditures to either the county services or city services will be the proportion of instructions per second (MIPS) that are used by the city vis a vis the county applications. 4. The $22,808 expenditure in FY 2009 in the GIS budget computer line was related to a one‐time purchase of software, but the $19,800 expenditure in the GIS budget Repair and Maintenance line is


146

for on‐going license renewal expenses. 5. With regard to the limited number of general IT services used by GIS, the department indicated the following, which we will subtract from the non‐salary related cost of general IT: For the web services needed for GIS, the below cost are one time 11639.80 x .05 = 581.99. [I will divide by 5]

Then there is $1023/yr x .05 = 51.15/yr for maintenance on the below server.

Licenses are $2900/yr x .05 = 145.00/yr

Cox Cable 1049.70 x 12 = 12596.40 x .05 = 629.82/yr

Backup Services One time 20,000 x .05 = 1000.00 [I will divide by 5]

Backup Services 20,000 x .18 = 3600/yr x .05 = 180.00/yr

6. We will take 5% of the general IT personnel/benefits expenditures and apply these to GIS to represent Melissa's work on GIS tasks. Data Request

1. Describe Services Provided to the City

Mainframe applications and systems (These systems perform reporting services overnight and handle money operations)

Vehicle Maintenance System City Jail Booking System Municipal Court System Detective Bureau Case Management System Paving Billing System (used by engineering/PW)Miscellaneous Tax (Beer/Liquor/Wine, Hotel/Motel) Receivable System Burglar Alarm Billing System MPD Drug Test Selection System Badge Management System Macon Garbage Billing System (they are charged for this service but, we have increased collection for approx 60% to over 95%) Collection of Ad valorem Tax …. Fire Department System


147

Access to applications Ad valorem Tax Information Information for UCR reporting Garbage Billing Accounts Tag Information Burglar Alarm Information Web Based and Server Based Application and Systems Access to applications ‐‐‐ Shared with County… Bibb County Jail Information Interface Vehicle Impound System Stolen Vehicle System District Attorney Criminal Case System Driver’s License System State Court Case System Incident Reporting System Pawn Shop System Document Management System …Unincorporated only Bibb Emergency Notification System GIS (they pay 1/3) Document management system…LaserVault…City ..municipal court and finance and others use it. 71,000+ 11,313 in maintenance costs per year ‐‐‐getting benefit of extra programmers/engineers who assist… Miscellaneous VPN and FTP access for various applications The City has 99 terminals and 3 printers attached to our mainframe. This includes 911 where all of their PCs have a session with the mainframe. Using taxmaster to verify addresses. GCIC access may still run through the router. MPD still has 13 GCIC sessions. City buys its own terminals. MPD still has 13 GCIC sessions running through our GCIC switch. We manage and backup at our location a MPD server that contains their Blackberry service.

2. Percentage of time dedicated to the Mainframe group: 50. Percentage of time dedicated to the Web/Server‐based Systems.group:50 3. What is the number of Applications that serve the county applications in an average month's time: __49___. What is the number of Applications that serve the city applications in an average month's time: __12___.


148

REVENUES AND RECEIVABLES PROCEDURES GIS Billing Performed By: Financial Analyst (FA) FA 1 Run an account activity listing for the quarter for all expenses in department 3630. FA 2 Enter expenses into billing spreadsheet. Finance\Cindy\Quarterly Billings\GIS Breakdown. FA 3 Ensure that any prior year encumbrances paid in the current year are included in the billing. FA 4 Calculate billing and add a 4% administrative fee. Current allocation of expense is 1/3 to each agency: City of Macon, Macon Water Authority, and Bibb County. FA 5 Copy everything and send to IT Director. IT will notify Finance if there are any charges in 3630 that should not be billed to the other agencies. FA 6 Update billing letters and give the letter and documentation to the Finance Director for review. FD 7 Review the documentation, sign the letter, and return everything to FA. FA 8 Attach copies to billing letters and retain a copy in billing folders. FA 9 Make entries to record the receivables. DR 121‐0000‐135.12‐15 Due from City Macon–GIS Reimbursement CR 121‐0000‐343.10‐14 City of Macon – GIS Reimbursement DR 121‐0000‐135.13‐48 Due from MWA–GIS Reimbursement CR 121‐0000‐343.13‐17 MWA–GIS Reimbursement FA 10 Monitor the status of outstanding receivables and follow‐up as needed. Backup: Financial Analyst – Cash Manager Revised: October 2009 2.16

Analysis & Findings

Steps: 1) Pull out IT support for GIS from General IT; 2) Identify general IT costs and apply an indirect rate; 3) Adjust for service charge revenue; 4) allocate general IT costs to County Only and shared County‐city; 5) Identify the City‐only costs; 6) Identify the adjusted GIS costs to carry over to the GIS analysis.


149

Web Services/5 116.40$ Server Maint 51.15$ Licenses 145.00$ Cable 629.82$ Backup one time/5 200.00$ Backup yearly 180.00$ TOTAL 1,322.37$

Personnel IT 1,038,238.00$ Benefits IT 367,055.00$ Total 1,405,293.00$ 5% of Total 70,264.65$

IT General (minus capital) 1,649,169.00$ IT Support of GIS 71,587.02$ Remaining IT General 1,577,581.98$ Indirect 181,181.71$ Total Expenditures 1,758,763.69$ Charges for Services 10,510.00$ Adjusted Total Expenditures 1,748,253.69$ Allocation of IT General Servers (County only) 874,126.84$ Allocation of IT General Mainframe (County/city) 874,126.84$ Allocation of Mainframe to City 171,959.38$ Funding Equity Amount (171,959.38)$

GIS $113,719.00IT Support of GIS 71,587.02$ Total GIS 185,306.02$ Discount for half of One‐Time Software 11,404.00$ Adjusted GIS 173,902.02$

IT Non‐Personnel Support for GIS

IT Personnel Support for GIS

GIS

IT Cost


150

GIS Potential Funding Equity Issues:

The City’s payment for GIS services may not be sufficient to cover the full cost of these services.

The County’s use of the general fund to pay for its portion of GIS services may raise a tax equity issue.

Data Request

1. What percentage of your time is spent on services/work related to the maintenance and use of layers related to: streets and roads plotted and identified; property lines delineated for each real property parcel; unique parcel identifier for each parcel; and physical dimensions or acreage estimate for each parcel. 59% 2. What percentage of your time is spent on services/work related to the maintenance and use of layers related to water/sewer system for use by the water authority.

1%

3. What percentage of your time is spent on services/work related to the maintenance and use of layers that you have been asked to create/maintain by the City that are in addition to the layers for the entire county that are specified in #1?

30% 4. What percentage of your time is spent on services/work related to the maintenance and use of layers that you have been asked to create/maintain by the County that relate only to the unincorporated area that are in addition to the layers for the entire county that are specified in #1?

10%


151

Analysis & Findings

The modeling of the responsibility for GIS services is based on Georgia Department of Revenue regulations that imply that certain layers of GIS are considered to be the responsibility of the county government to maintain.

Subject: DOR REGS concerning Mapping 560‐11‐10‐.09 Real Property Appraisal. (i) Geographic information. Cadastral maps or computerized geographic information systems are to be maintained by the appraisal staff for all real property located in the county. In the event the county governing authority has established a separate mapping office and the maps maintained by such office conform with the requirements of this subparagraph , the appraisal staff may provide relevant information to such mapping office and still be in compliance with this subparagraph. Minimum mapping specifications shall include the following: all streets and roads plotted and identified; property lines delineated for each real property parcel; unique parcel identifier for each parcel; and physical dimensions or acreage estimate for each parcel. The appraisal staff shall use the parcel identifiers to link the real property records to the maps. The appraisal staff shall notify the Revenue Commissioner of all proposed changes to existing parcel‐numbering systems before implementing such changes.

Steps: 1) Adjust the percentages identified in the data request to account for the MWA’s set charges/services. 2) Model based on percent identified in #1 of the data request is a countywide responsibility. 3) Carry over adjusted GIS costs from General IT analysis. 4) Apply indirect costs. 5) Allocate to city‐only, countywide and unincorporated only.


152

Total GIS + IT support $ 173,902.02 Indirect (IT indirect) $ 19,972.25 Final GIS $ 193,874.27

Percentage AllocationAllocation to MWA $ 64,618.29 33%Remaining $ 129,255.98

Allocation to Countywide $ 77,553.59 40%

Allocation to Unincorporated only $ 12,925.60 7%

Allocation to City Only $ 38,776.79 20%Payment by City 47,329.48$ Funding Equity Amt 8,552.69$

Tax Equity Amt. $ 12,925.60

GIS


153

Mapping Potential Funding Equity Issues:

The City’s payment for Mapping services may not be sufficient to cover the full cost of these services.

The County’s use of the general fund to pay for its portion of GIS services may raise a tax equity issue.

Data Request Response:

Mapping Function Mapping's primary function is to maintain the property databases and GIS map layers that define the property lines and ownership information on the property parcels in the city and county. Mapping also maintains the road centerline data and the infrequent changes to the city limits and county line map layers. It maintains map information on easements associated with private property in the city and county. We maintain a layer associated with the storm drainage system in the unincorporated portion of the county. In addition to the GIS information we maintain various hard copy maps for use by the public. None of the GIS work is associated with maintaining roads per se except the property parcel boundaries include the boundaries of the road rights‐of‐way in the city and county. About 10% of our time the last four years has been associated with developing from scratch the drainage layer for the unincorporated portion of the county. In the future it should take less than 3% of our time to maintain it. The rest of our time is associated with city and county wide duties associated with maintaining the property information and customer service associated with that.

REVENUES AND RECEIVABLES PROCEDURES Mapping Billing Performed By: Financial Analyst (FA) FA 1 Obtain annual Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30. This is received from Engineering in July. The spreadsheet shows the amount charged and amount paid for the fiscal year for all Bibb County and City of Macon Departments. FA 2 Run account activity report for 121‐0000‐352.50‐00 Mapping Revenue. Compare to the statement received from Engineering, and reconcile any differences. FA 3 Run an account activity report for account 121‐5028‐431.10‐10 through account 121‐5028‐999.99‐99. Enter itemized expenditure numbers into spreadsheet under expenditures. FA 4 Calculate Total Revenue less Total Expenditures = Excess Expenditures over Revenues. (This is calculated in the spreadsheet.) Bibb County and City of Macon split the excess expenditures evenly. FA 5 Prepare billing letter to City of Macon to bill for their half of the excess costs plus


154

a 4% administrative fee. FA 6 Give the Finance Director the billing letter and supporting documentation for review. FD 7 Review and sign the billing letter and return all documents to the FA. FA 8 Make a copy of the documents. Mail the billing letter with attached spreadsheet and retain the copy in the billing folder. Send the Engineering Department (Sherri Sawyer) a copy of the bill. FA 9 Post adjusting journal entries to record revenue due from City and billings from Engineering to other departments. These accounts may fluctuate from year‐to year, but are generally the following: DR 121‐0000‐135.13‐88 Due from Planning & Zoning DR 121‐0000‐135.12‐12 Due from City of Macon‐Mapping DR 121‐1015‐412.73‐02 District Attorney DR 121‐2800‐415.70‐01 Tax Assessor DR 121‐5010‐431.57‐13 Public Works CR 121‐0000‐352.50‐00 Mapping Revenue FA 10 Monitor the status of outstanding receivables and follow‐up as needed. Backup: Financial Analyst – Cash Manager Revised: October 2009

Analysis & Findings

The modeling of the responsibility for Mapping services is based on Georgia Department of Revenue regulations that imply that certain layers of GIS are considered to be the responsibility of the county government to maintain. Steps: 1) Model based on percent of mapping services identified the data request is a countywide responsibility. 2) Apply indirect costs. 3) Use the ‘normal times’ 97% of effort on road‐related layers as the metric for identifying countywide effort (i.e., 100% ‐ 3% identified in data request). 4) Identify city, countywide and unincorporated only responsibilities and payments. 5) Calculate the funding and tax equity amounts.


155

Mapping Department $ 253,480.00 Mapping Percent of Direct PW 5.91%Mapping Admin $ 127,412.55 Total Mapping $ 380,892.55

Percent for Basic Property/Centerline 97%Base Countywide Responsibility $ 369,465.77 Indirect $ 51,353.36 Total Mapping Countywide Resp. $ 420,819.14

Percent for Uninc. Only 3%Base Uninc. Only Responsibility (included indirect) $ 12,624.57 Total Mapping Uninc. Only Resp. $ 12,624.57 Mapping Fees 8,199

Uninc.Only Resp. Remaining after Fees 4,426

City Responsibility for Mapping 0City Payment for Mapping 126,633.84$ Funding Equity Amt 126,633.84$

Tax Equity Amt. $ 4,425.57

Equity Calculation

Mapping

Mapping Uninc. Only


156

Animal Control


The payments by the County to the City for shelter services may not reflect the full cost of the service and may represent a funding equity issue since the payment is made from a countywide revenue source.

Summary of Major Points in Interview: 1. The City has always provided animal shelter and related services for the entire county. 2. The County has (for as far back as is remembered) paid the City a flat fee for the shelter services, i.e., $15 per animal. 3. While the City will be taking over the animal control capture and patrol services in the unincorporated area based on a new agreement, during the year on which the study is focused (FY2009) the County provided its own animal control capture and patrol services. 4. A fair method for identifying the share of the animal shelter cost of the services provided to the unincorporated part of the community would be to identify the proportion of the total number of animal deposited with the animal shelter that came from the unincorporated part of the county. 5. A fair method of identifying the cost of the shelter operations is to identify the proportion of total animal services staff time that is spent on the shelter operation via a vis the capture and patrol services.

Analysis & Findings

. The service is modeled both as a potential tax equity issue (i.e., one where the unincorporated county’s portion of the benefit should be paid for from unincorporated‐only funds) and as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source).

Step 1: Allocate the Animal Control costs to the shelter operations. Percent of staff time to the shelter operations was based on staff estimations of the percent of time performing shelter‐related tasks.


157

Category Original Costs Allocation to Shelter % of Staff to ShelterSALARIES FULL-TIME 183,080.49 112,463.73 61%SALARIES OVERTIME 2,353.08 1,445.46 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 76,646.83 47,083.05 OPERATING SUPPLIES 16,264.72 9,991.19 CLOTHING & UNIFORMS 1,250.22 767.99 FUEL OIL & LUBRICANTSMTR. VEHICLE REPAIR - PARTSMTR VEHICLES REPAIR - LABORCHEMICALS DRUGS & MEDICINE 8,276.83 8,276.83 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 34,500.06 34,500.06 TRAVEL & TRAINING 215.00 132.07 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCECONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,063.29 5,063.29 DUES SUBSCRIPT & MEMBERSHIPS 444.00 272.74

328,094.52 219,996.42

Allocation of Animal Control Cost to the Shelter Operation

Step 2: Identify Percent of Shelter Cost that are Unincorporated‐Only based on source of cats and dogs.

Sum of All Animals 5637Sum of Unic. Bibb Co. Animals 1632Percent of All that are Unic. Bibb Co. 0.289516

Allocation of Animals to Uninc. Area

Step 3: Identify the full costs net of revenues and model the equity as either a funding equity or a tax equity.


158

Base Shelter Operation costs 219,996.42$ Indirect 43,094.51$ Adjusted Base Oper. Cost 263,090.92$ Fee Revenue 19,926.00$ Net Shelter Oper. Cost 243,164.92$

Shelter Operation costs 243,164.92$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 28.95%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 70,400.06$ Bibb Co.- Dogs --Payment 25,555.00$ Uninc.‐Only County Maintenance Contribution (Contri. * Unic. Property Tax Proportion) 14,325.78$


Shelter Operation costs 243,164.92$ Bibb Co.- Dogs --Payment 25,555.00$ Funding Equity‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from Countywide Source 217,609.92$

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐ Based Actual Benefit Received

Funding Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Countywide Service

Net Shelter Operational Costs


159

Lake Tobesofkee

Potential Funding Equity Issues/Conclusion:

Because the Tobesofkee Department is operated as an enterprise fund and provides services countywide from a countywide fund no equity issue was identified.

Summary of Major Points in Interview: 1. The Lake Tobesofkee service is operated as an enterprise fund for accounting purposes, but it has traditionally not been able to be self‐sufficient in terms of the revenues needed to operate the service. 2. The operation receive revenues from facility rentals, annual dock permit fees from landowners around the lake and other service charges. 3. In Fy 2009 one of the major parks was out of commission due to the storm of 2008, so the general fund subsidy was somewhat larger than is typically the case (i.e., by about $33,000 ) 4. The Department operates 3 major parks and 2 smaller parks. 5. The City recreation tends to provide traditional recreation programs while the Lake Tobesofkee Department provides boating, fishing, picnic shelters and the like. 6. The vast majority of the maintenance is performed by Department staff. The Department also provides its own law enforcement rangers. 7. The one exception to #6 is that Public Works does provide some assistance when the task involves equipment that the LT Department does not have. It is estimated that this assistance is less than an FTE staff person in a typical year. This assistance is valued at somewhere between $5‐10,000 per year. 8. The services provided are all countywide in nature. Also, all governmental groups (City and County) get to use the facilities at no cost during the weekdays. 9. The Building improvement expenditure in 2009 ( $302,190.27) was an unusual expense related to the storm; the Insurance revenue (designated as FEMA in the budget document) was an unusual revenue amount. 10. The question How the Depreciation amount ($115,786.24) was determined? will need to be directed to Finance.


160

Fire Services Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:

Details of Current Procedures for Cost Reimbursement for Unincorporated Fire Services

COMPONENTS INCLUDED IN COUNTY BILLING

- Salaries and benefits for up to 128 firefighters assigned to the county stations and the county side of station 102 (@ 100%) are recorded and tabulated. This comprises the majority of the county billing reimbursement and comes from the payroll warrant provided by Finance

- Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief salaries @ 35%

- Battalion chiefs and division chiefs salaries @ 35%

- Two county fire inspector benefits @ 100%

- Training division salaries and benefits @ 35%

- Fire Safety Education officer and inventory control officer salaries and benefits @ 35%

- Salaries and benefits for city to county and county to city manpower exchanges are recorded and tabulated

- Utility bills for station 102 (@ 50%) and Training and Fire Admin (@ 35%) are recorded and tabulated

- Communications expenses (copiers, phone repairs, etc) for county stations (@ 100%), chiefs (@ 35%) and station 102 (@ 50%) are recorded and tabulated

- Telephone line expenses for county stations (@ 100%), chiefs (@ 35%) and station 102 (@ 50%) are recorded and tabulated

- Vehicle repair fuel, parts, and commercial costs for county apparatus (@ 100%), shared vehicles such as service trucks and reserve trucks (@ 35%), and station 102 fire apparatus (@ 50%) are recorded and tabulated. This comes from the monthly vehicle mainstem report provided by Vehicle Maintenance

- Small tools, operating supplies, uniforms, and linens for county stations (@ 100%), chiefs (@ 35%) and station 102 (@ 50%) are recorded and tabulated. Each is recorded against the associated county account

- Any physical exams for county firefighters over and under 40 are recorded under the appropriate line item account and reimbursed @ 100%

- Training operating expenses are recorded and reimbursed @ 35%

- Any education expenses for county firefighters or department wide positions (Fire Safety education, Inventory Officer, etc) are recorded and reimbursed

- Workers compensation costs are provided by Karen Pennycuff at Risk Management. The county portion is billed against the related county expense account


161

- Finally, a 4% administrative cost is added the total for each line listed above and added to the final billing amount

Interview Findings 1. The method of accounting for unincorporated fire service costs is based on an historical, but informal interpretation of the broad intergovernmental agreement related to fire services. The interpretation is affirmed through the budgetary processes of both the County Commission and the City Council. This interpretation specifies that the responsibility for operations costs that cannot be tied directly to a particular jurisdiction's stations or staff will be based on the proportion of non‐administrative fire fighters assigned to the respective jurisdictions. 2. The Department believes that this method is an accurate reflection of the actual amount of service provided to the respective jurisdictions and that this method is comparable to other 'fair' methods of cost accounting (e.g., calls for service) since the adopted method does account for cross‐jurisdictional aid and support. That is, when a firefighter assigned to the City enters the unincorporated County to provide service, this time is charged back to the County and vice versa. This micro accounting for time would tend to make the results of the adopted accounting system potentially more accurate than a calls for service analysis since a calls for service analysis may not account for the value of having a "service capacity in waiting." while the adopted method does account for cross‐jurisdictional service response time. 3. The method of accounting for use of consumable supplies from the Department Store (direct 100% charge to the jurisdiction where the consumables are used) is very fair. 4. The one area where there may be some issue of funding equity is with regard to specialized services that are countywide in nature (i.e., Marine Rescue, Search and Rescue, and Hazmat units). While these services tend to be of a type that are only used on occasion (and are therefore not excessively expensive) and draw from both city and unincorporated staff and employ capital (e.g., a marine rescue boat) that is paid for on a 50/50 basis, they predominately draw on city‐based staff. The Department will attempt to identify the nature of the cost (percentage of total staff time) of these services with regard to the employment of City staff on unincorporated incidents and unincorporated staff on incidents within the city limits. 5. While all retirement benefits are paid out by the City, the cost of these benefits is shared in proportion to the respective staffing levels in the two jurisdictions. Hence, even though payouts for unused vacation days upon retirement are paid for by the City, the funds for these payments originate in both the City and the unincorporated County to the degree need to make it such that there is no funding equity issue in this regard,


162

6. There may be a funding equity issue if and to the degree the City pays for unfunded retiree health benefits.

Data Request:

1. One area where there may be some issue of funding equity is with regard to specialized services that are countywide in nature (i.e., Marine Rescue, Search and Rescue, and Hazmat units).

Fire Department Response: We have conducted an analysis of our water rescue emergencies dating back to 2001, and found that we had 37 responses in total. There were 16 responses in the city, 15 responses in the county, and 6 responses outside Macon and Bibb. We have approximately 50 firefighters that comprise our dive team and our dive master is assigned to the training division. The water rescue craft and accessories are primarily assigned at station # 1, which is a city fire station. However, due to our staff arrangements, work schedules, etc. the team members are subject to be at any one of the 19 fire stations in the event of a dive emergency. If the staff members are not available at station # 1, we will assemble a team based on wherever they are assigned that day. These could be city or county fire stations. My assessment of this arrangement is this is equitable for both the city and county as is.

2. Can you perhaps shed some light on the degree to which City IT services are provided to the fire stations in the unincorporated area? Essentially, do they receive the same level of service from the City IT as stations in the city? If not, by what percentage would you discount this service?

Fire Department Response: Our city IT department is tasked with the responsibility of providing information technology support to our city stations and one county station. We only have three stations that have connectivity to the city server, two city stations and one in the county. Our IT department will provide support to one of our county fire stations (108) for our mandatory fire incident reporting to the Georgia Fire Marshall’s office. However, this support is limited in scope to issues surrounding the computer software used to enter this data. The cost of this software is shared 35% with the county. All other IT related issues at this station (phone, fire alert response) are either handled by county IT or through a county contract with Macon Communications. All other links in the scope of city IT services are managed through the E‐911 Center.

Analysis and Findings

Based on the information provided by the Fire Department and after checking with City and County administrative staff, it was concluded that there was no need for additional analysis with regard to a possible disproportionate allocation of benefits and contributions.

With regard to the funding of retiree health benefits, the City indicated that: 1) they have not and currently are not billing the county for retiree health insurance; 2) The City has a large unfunded


163

retiree health benefits obligation for prior years; 3) They have thought about the mechanics of this several

times but have never come up with a practical solution.

The County indicated that when the City sets up a Trust Fund for retiree health benefits and starts to contribute to it, then the County will need to look at the amount that the County may have an obligation for (similar to the way they pay into the Pension Plan).

For the purposes of the present study it was concluded that until the City has set up the Trust Fund and identified the appropriate charge to the County for county‐funded firefighters, it is impossible to include this factor in the funding equity analysis.

Consequently, the following table shows the current distribution of costs and the adjustment to the cost so as to account for indirect costs. The indirect cost rate used in the fire service analysis is different from the regular city indirect rate. The fire service indirect rate reflects an adjustment to the regular indirect rate so as to account for the fact that the county already pays (through the current funding formula) for a number of support services that are in the regular city indirect rate.

Cost PercentFire Service Cost 18,850,024.28$ Payment from Bibb County Fire 6,931,774.83$ 36.77%Remaining City Cost 11,918,249.45$ 63.23%

Payment from Bibb County Fire Minus .04 Admin 6,665,168.11$ Indirect Rate 0.092Direct Service Not Paid for with Direct Payment 615,997.25$ Admin. Credit 266,606.72$ Tax Equity Amount 349,390.52$

Current Fire Service Cost Sharing

Adjustment for Indirect

Note: As Fire Services are already being paid for through funding sources that are drawn only from the unincorporated area, the resolution of any tax equity agreed to related to Fire Services—assuming the use of the same funding sources as are currently used‐‐ can be resolved through a change in the billing of the County for these services.

Housing of City Prisoners in the Law Enforcement Center Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:


164

If the City is not paying the full costs of the service (e.g., if all indirect costs are not accounted for) there could be a potential for funding inequity. However, in cases where there is a competitive service (e.g., another Sheriff who has beds available for lease), there is a limit on defining equity in terms of cost recovery. In such cases, the equitable price for the service is the price that is competitive in terms of the local market for jail beds. CVIOG contacted six area sheriff offices (Houston, Jones, Monroe, Twiggs, Crawford, and Peach) and received data on per day fees for housing inmates from three.

Houston: $45 per day

Jones: $45 per day

Monroe: $45


165

800 MHz Radio System: Potential Means of Determining the Distribution of the Benefits of the Service Include:

The proportion of users who are primarily providing services to the unincorporated versus incorporated parts of the community.


Since the County’s system is used to support countywide services, there is a question as to whether city taxpayers should have to pay for both the city’s part of the integrated system as well as their share of the county’s part of the integrated system.

The full direct and indirect cost of the City’s assumption of system management duties may not be completely covered.

Summary of Major Point in Interview: 1. The Department has not updated its billing of the County for maintenance and upgrades to the 800MHz system in a good while and the County has not increased its payments for maintenance. As a result, the county payments do not cover the full cost of providing the core functions ("intelligence/central electronics") of the service. That is, the vast majority of staff time, equipment replacement, repairs, bandwidth‐use associated costs, etc. are connected with the central part of the system rather than the "repeater/dumb tower" part of the system, and 1/3 of the actual costs (the county's reimbursement responsibility) is much greater than the actual amount that the county has been paying. As the County only has a single "dumb/repeater" tower, its expenses are fairly minimal. 2. The Department believes that simply treating the service as a countywide one (i.e., one whose benefits are generally countywide in nature) is more prudent and efficient than attempting to count and tract individual beneficiaries, particularly as these beneficiaries will change over time and many are themselves in roles where there is a countywide benefit (e.g., DFCS, Water Authority, Medical Center, etc.). 3. The treatment of this services as a countywide could potentially open the way toward a more efficient operation of the service, i.e., where one agency managed the entire network (thereby eliminating the County's need for a service contract with Macon Communications). In this scenario all lease revenue (which is currently distributed to the county and the city separately based on the current agreement) would be used to offset the cost of providing the service and the remaining deficit would be made up from a funding source drawn from residents and taxpayers on a


166

countywide basis. 4. Because there are a number of services that are countywide in terms of benefits but are supported by the City‐specific IT/Communications services, it is important to allocate these indirect costs. The proposed methodology should do this if basic equipment is included in the operational accounting category. The City will be checking to see if this is indeed the case. 5. The Department believes that an assessment of the benefit of the County IT service based on an allocation of IT support time is appropriate. 6. The Department's services to other countywide services (e.g., EMA) that are delivered by the City should be treated in a manner similar to the treatment of the radio communication services. 7. The Department may choose in the future to ask that the County provide some interface to its computer services or other additional service as is specified in the current intergovernmental agreement related to general services. Analysis and Findings

The service is modeled both as a potential tax equity issue (i.e., one where the unincorporated county’s portion of the benefit should be paid for from unincorporated‐only funds) and as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source). In the tax equity treatment, the service benefit (and corresponding funding responsibility) is considered to be one that goes to the respective jurisdictions in proportion to the their share of the total county population.


167

Total City Costs In Communication Budget 329,031.43$ Indirect 62,394.19$ Adjusted Total Cost 391,425.62$ City Tower Lease Revenue 202,957.53$ Deficit 188,468.09$

County Maintenance Contribution 20,335.87$ Funding Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a countywide source 168,132.22$

City Responsibility for Deficit 114,777.07$ County Responsibility for Deficit 73,691.02$


Tax Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Population Based Benefit

800 Mhz Radio Deficit

Funding Equity Based on Treatment of Service as Countywide


168

Recreation/Senior Citizen Services Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:

Senior Services: If the rents from the set‐aside portion of the facility do not fully pay for the operation and maintenance of the Center and the deficit is paid for by the City’s general fund, then there is a potential for city residents to be paying a disproportionate share of a service that is of benefit to residents countywide. In terms of strict funding equity, the City would only need to pay for the share of the services that were being delivered to City residents assuming that the County would use an unincorporated‐only revenue source to pay for the services provided to the seniors who live in the unincorporated area of the community.

Recreation: Both the City and the County provide some recreation services to the countywide resident population. In an ideal situation, it would be possible to identify the persons using the services, to identify if they were residents/taxpayers of the City or of the unincorporated part of the County, and to identify the actual subsidy for the service being provided for different services for different groups of service consumers (i.e., municipal versus unincorporated). However, even such an ‘ideal’ study would have a certain amount of error built in. For example, some people may be taxpayers in both jurisdictions. Moreover, besides being an expensive study to conduct, the City does not have information systems in place that would allow for such a fine‐grained accounting. At the opposite end of a fine‐grained accounting would be a simple stipulation that both resident/taxpayer groups have fairly equal access and make fairly equal use of the recreation programs in both areas. A potential argument against this stipulation would be the notion that City residents would be more likely to use recreational services because there are more services provided within the City than in the unincorporated area. (It should be recognized that this would also probably be the case were recreation to be a service provided by the County since central city locations tend to be optimum in cases where there will not be multiple facilities of that type provided.) Ways in which it might be possible account for the possible higher‐use by City residents would be to: A) Stipulate that a certain percentage more than half of the benefit of the services provided goes to City residents. B) Identify the recreation centers and define different “draw rates” of city versus unincorporated residents based on distance from the centers.


The unincorporated County residents do not pay for the recreation services provided by the City, and the City residents do pay for a share of recreation costs provided by the County.

Summary 1.The current P&R information systems do not track usage of facilities or program participation in


169

such a way as to be able to distinguish incorporated from unincorporated residents' use. All facilities and programs are open on either a no charge or equal fee basis to all residents of the county. 2. The central location of many P&R facilities is such that for specialized services, the distance to service is optimized for citizens in the unincorporated area of the county. Also, a number of services of an economic development nature (e.g., the sponsoring of Tennis Tournaments) are located in areas that would tend to provide a greater degree of economic stimulus to the hotel‐motel, restaurant, retail and entertainment businesses in the unincorporated area. 3. The Department recognizes that some community centers in the City may tend to serve a greater proportion (than the expected pro rata share) of incorporated residents than unincorporated ones, while other facilities tend to serve a greater proportion of unincorporated residents. It is the Department's objective to develop programs and facilities in the future that will attract broader constituencies in all areas. 4. It is recognized that while the cemeteries maintained by the City have and continue to service residents countywide and that depending on the interpretation of the intergovernmental agreement this is a service that may need a separate treatment. 5. The Department provides some tree trimming services related to the maintenance of the road system but only in the incorporated area. This service will be treated for analysis purposes as part of the road system analysis. 6. The Department provides mowing and other maintenance services for the Levee. These costs will be pulled out of the P&R expenditures. 7. The Golf Course is operated as an enterprise fund, but has been running a deficit for a number of years. The Department is in the process of upgrading the facility and services with the hope of a return to profitability; however, because of the competitive nature of golf course fees, it may not be possible to escape a deficit in the near future. 8. The intergovernmental agreement related to the Senior Center facility indicates that this is a countywide service and therefore this service may need a separate treatment in any analysis where recreational services are not considered to be a countywide service. 9. For the purposes of the study we will combine the budgets of the Business operations and the Admin units as both represent administrative costs for the P&R services. Data Requests

1. A general description of programs/facilities, the staff time/operational costs as a percentage of the staff time/total operational costs, and a description to whatever degree is reasonable of the beneficiaries of the individual services. This description will be for informational purposes and will


170

not be used (unless a reasonable way to do so is suggested) in any fiscal analysis.

City Response:

RECREATION/PARKS/COMMUNITY CENTERS

The Parks and Recreation Department provides services both directly though City‐sponsored programming as well as indirectly through support of private associations that operate athletic leagues. In addition the Department supports the general use of parks by residents. Neither the City nor the private leagues track the resident status (city versus unincorporated county) of program participants or park users. It is believed that the rate of unincorporated county participation in private leagues may exceed the unincorporated county participation in the Department‐operated programs. While no data on the resident status of participants are available, the community center directors’ perceptions as to the participation rate in center activities varied. The directors’ estimates of unincorporated county participation ranged from 5 to 50 percent.

FACILITY RENTALS Thousands of city and county residents attend events in the City of Macon’s parks and pavilions. Between events that take place inside of the community centers and those that take place in our parks, during any given week, there could be ten or more rental groups. With 50 to 200 people attending each event, numerous groups of people are catered to by the Parks and Recreation Department. In addition, the many larger events such as the State Fair and the Cherry Blossom events also attract and entertain County residents as much as City residents…in City properties. Unfortunately, it really cannot be distinguished as to how many county residents attend such events. What can be assumed is that since there are no other rental parks and facilities in the county other than Lake Tobesofke, any county resident that attended an event throughout the year, attended that event at a city property. STATEMENT BY DOC DOUGHERTY, MACON‐BIBB COUNTY DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION I don’t believe that there is a question as to county versus city in realm of Parks and Recreation. I don’t believe it is a case of us versus them. I believe we are them, they are us. For the residents of Bibb County (including the City of Macon) to benefit from a comprehensive Parks and Recreation Department of the future, we need to work together. There is no question that the image the City of Macon portrays, affects all of the residents of Bibb County. While my department maintains all of the parks and many of the triangles and medians in the urban areas, the upkeep of these properties affects the property values and attitudes of all of the residents. Everyone is affected by the Parks and Recreation Department…not just City residents.


171

The future development that will take place through the passage of a SPLOST is much needed and will revolutionize the department to better serve all of the residents of Bibb County. Large county/city recreation complexes could include well‐appointed mega‐centers offering a variety of activities (permanent aerobics rooms, fitness centers, racquetball courts, etc… The outside of the centers could include state‐of‐the‐art multi‐purpose athletic fields, walking trails, picnic facilities, and even a waterpark. While I would suggest that we continue to maintain some inner city facilities, the newer, larger properties on the edge of the county would clearly serve City and County residents alike.

2. Please provide: Data that would allow the allocation of P&R Ground Maintenance to either Recreation‐related services or Road‐related or Levee‐related services. (e.g., percent of personnel time spent on these service areas).

For road related services, please provide data that would allow the allocation of service expenditures to either Urbanized Local roads or Urbanized Collectors and Urbanized Minor Arterial roads. (NOTE: see Road Maintenance and Levee sections of this report for data response and analysis).

Analysis & Findings

The analysis of Parks and Recreation funding equity is based on the assumption that the terms of the General Services Agreement of 1976 that specified that the level and breath of service that the City was providing at that point would continue. When CVIOG inquired into whether the City’s cemetery services were part of the Parks and Recreation Department at the time of the agreement, the one remaining Parks and Recreation employee from that time indicated that it was. Based on this response, we have included this service in the analysis as a countywide service.

However, because some of the Parks and Recreation Department expenditure relate to services other than Parks and Recreation services and have been addressed in other parts of this study (i.e., Levee work and road‐related work) these expenditures have been deducted from the total Parks and Recreation expenditures. Also, fees and service charges have been deducted from expenditures to arrive at a base amount of expenditures to which a funding equity analysis is applied. This analysis is presented in the following table.


172

City Expenditures (Minus Cemetary Exp.) 5,067,734.93$ Indirect 992,704.98$ Total 6,060,439.91$

City Service Charges for P&R 324,292.60$ Levee Work 7,392.45$ Road‐Related Mowing 82,142.68$ Road‐Related Tree Trimming 326,816.15$ Voucher Exp. For City‐Only Residents 63,000.00$

Total Off‐Sets 803,643.87$

City Expenditures on P&R 5,256,796.04$

Amount of City Expenditures for Service that the City Taxpayers are Responsible For (City's Percent of AV of Property Tax * City Countywide) 2,309,909.52$

Funding Equity ‐‐ Amount of City Overpayment for Service(City's Current Contribution to Countywide Service minus City Responsibility for Countywide) 2,946,886.52$

Unadjusted Total Expenditures on P&R

Adjusted Expenditures (Tot. Exp. Minus Off‐Sets)

Parks and Recreation ‐‐ City Service to Countywide

Off‐Sets (Amts. Include Admin & Indirect Where Appropriate)

Funding Equity

Alternative Analysis Assuming City Residents Have a Higher Participation Rate

While in principle Parks and Recreation services are countywide in nature, the Parks and Recreation Department staff realizes that some services may be subscribed to more by city residents than by unincorporated‐only residents due in part to the location of many of the department facilities in the City.

Because the department does not keep data on participation rates for the two residential groups, there is no accurate method for identifying the amount of additional responsibility that the City might be said to have for funding parks and recreation services according to an equity analysis. However, in order to provide some insight into what such an analysis might look like based on a hypothetical scenario in which we assume that city residents participate in Parks and Recreation programs at a rate that is 33% greater than unincorporated county residents participate, we have performed the following alternative analysis.


173

City Participants 100County Participants 100City Additional Participants 33Total 233Additional City as Percent of Total 14.16%Funding Equity Cost of Additional Participants 744,524.76$

Added City Responsibility 744,524.76$ New Countywide 4,512,271.28$

Amount of City Expenditures for Countywide Service that the City Taxpayers are Responsible For (City's Percent of AV of Property Tax * City Countywide) 1,982,754.95$ Total City Responsibility 2,727,279.72$ Funding Equity ‐‐ Amount of City Overpayment for Service(City's Current Contribution to Countywide Service minus City Responsibility for Countywide) 2,529,516.33$

Model of City Having an Additional 33% More Participation

Funding Equity with City having 33% More P&R Participants


174

Traffic Engineering (Note: See interview notes in Road Maintenance Section) Note: The analysis of Traffic Engineering is presented for informational purposes only. The potential tax equity amount identified in this section is not included in the summary. The potential tax equity amount for traffic engineering has already been included in the analysis of Road Maintenance. The data in this section could potentially be of use if the there was a desire to treat traffic engineering separately from road maintenance.

Analysis & Findings

If we assume that the County’s expenditures on traffic engineering are for services that benefit the unincorporated area only, then the tax equity amount (i.e., the amount that needs to be paid for with unincorporated‐only revenues) is their total county expenditure on this service. However, because the County’s payment to the City only includes a 4% administrative fee and not the full indirect service costs, in order to identify the full cost of the service, we back out the 4% administrative fee and then use the City’s and County’s respective indirect rates to identify what the respective contributions to the service should be. Based on this amount we calculate a net under‐contribution by the County and add this to the actual contribution to arrive at the tax equity amount.

County Payment For Traffic Engineering from the General Fund

144,897.12$ Net County's Under‐Contribution 26,649.26$ Tax Equity ‐‐ Funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source 171,546.38$

City Payment to County 6,409.93$ County Payment to City 144,897.12$

City Payment to County 6,153.53$ County Payment to City 139,101.24$

County Services Contribution 7,008.83$ City Services Contribution 166,349.40$

City's Under‐Contribution 598.90$ County's Under‐Contribution 27,248.17$ Net County's Under‐Contribution 26,649.26$

Traffic Engineering

Back out 4% Admin Fee

Apply GovWide Indirect

Accounting for Indirect Costs

Calculation of Under‐Contribution


175

County Buildings.

Major Point in Interview:

1. The County maintains the Traffic Engineering Bldg. which is used for joint service delivery. It is estimates that the County Building Maintenance Dept. spends 500‐600 hrs. a year on this service, which is estimated to represent $15,000 in labor. Note: This service is included in the bill/funding formula for services.

2. The County maintains the Senior Center Building. The County owns the building. It is estimated that County Building Maintenance Dept. spends approximately $25,000 per year in labor for maintenance on the Senior Center

3. The county maintains the Sports Complex that is leased out to the Board of Education.

Analysis & Findings

The county bills for building maintenance services provided to Traffic Engineering. The building noted as the Senior Center Building does not actually house senior center services, rather it houses the EOC functions—a county service.

Conclusion: No funding equity issue needs to be addressed.


176

EMA


Both tradition and Georgia law suggests that EMA services are the responsibility of the county. As such, if EMA services are considered to be countywide, the allocation of funds should be based on a method that ensure that all residents and taxpayers in the county contribute in a manner that mimics the use of a countywide funding source.

Summary of Major Points from Interview:

1. EMA does not provide any services to the City that it does not also provide to the unincorporated County and vice versa. 2. The level of service provided to the two jurisdictional areas is essentially the same. For example, the EMA maintains 56 Sirens, fairly evenly split between unincorporated county and city (given the population base of the two jurisdictions, this siren service would actually suggest that the provision of the same number of sirens may be more costly on a per capita basis in the county than in the city). 3. EMA effectively acts as a countywide service. 4. EMA has traditionally been a responsibility of the county government. 5. The current funding formula for support of EMA (a 50/50 split of costs between the City and the County) is not directly specified in the intergovernmental agreement that is the governance framework for EMA. Rather, this funding formula was determined at one point by an advisory group and has not been changed. (Note: the EMA‐Related County Ordinance indicates that the Board of Commissioners is supposed to approve any County contribution to EMA) 6. The Transmitter/tower/encoder are located in and operated by the city. The operational costs for these are borne by EMA. New equipment the cost (e.g., for vehicles, radios, etc.) would be split between the city and county. 7. The County’s contracts directly with Macon Communications (a private company) for siren maintenance services. This expenditure is not accounted for in the EMA budget. 8. EMA also contracts with Macon Communication for maintenance of sirens in the city area. 9. The City's IT/Communication department manages some of the technology located in the E911 center on which EMA relies on. EMA does not pay IT for these services.


177

10. As for utilities, in EMA we pay $15.60 per month for 13 accounts, or $2,636.40 per year for what appear to be sirens. (Tom Barber)

11. EMA gets $44,000 from GEMA each year. (Tom Barber)

12. County Expenditures Not Accounted for in Payments to City : Utilities :$4,357.95 ; Other Contractual Serv. : $6,082.40

Analysis & Findings

The analysis for EMA services is presented in the following tables. The service is analyzed as a funding equity issue based on the assumption that it is a countywide service. Adjustments to the EMA expenditures are made to account for County expenditures not included in the EMA budget as well as for abnormal expenditures that were due to the storm that impacted the 2009 budget.


178

County Expenditures Not Accounted for in Payments to City 10,440$ Base Expenditure 293,510$ Deductions for Abnormal and City Only Expenditures 2,636$ Deductions for Grant/Fee funding $44,000Estimated Expenditure Based on Normal Conditions 246,873$ Indirect 48,359$ Total For Estimated (Inc. County Exp. Not Acct. for) 305,673$

County Expenditures Not Accounted for in Payments to City 10,440$ County Payment to City 50,847.65$ Total 61,288$

Funding Equity Amount In EMA as Countywide Service Model ‐‐ County Responsibility minus County Payments 244,385$

City Siren Maintenance (Macon Communications) 2,636.40$ Total 2,636.40$

Utilities 4,357.95$ Other Contractural Serv. 6,082.40$ Total 10,440.35$

County Expenditures Not Accounted for in Payments to City

Adjustment Tables

Note: Does not include capital items or rent

Adjusted Total Emergency Management Expenditures

County Contributions

Deducations for Abnormal Year & City Only


179

Funding Equity Services Provided as a Stand‐Alone Service by the City with Potential for Countywide Benefits

Airport

Major Points from Interview:

1. The Airport may not have run a deficit for FY2009. Further checking will be needed. 2. There is no one best way for allocation of the Airport benefits. Potential ways would include:

Allocation based on population distribution Allocation based on property value distribution Allocation based on the residence of employees in the Airport complex.

3. If a deficit is found, the director would provide the following information based on a database of employee badges.

Data Request

Number of employees who live inside the City of Macon: 52. Number of employees who live in Unincorporated Bibb County: 101.

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. The service is modeled both as a potential tax equity issue (i.e., one where the unincorporated county’s portion of the benefit should be paid for from unincorporated‐only funds) and as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source). Please note the governmental indirect amount has been adjusted to account for the City already charging some indirect cost to the fund.


180

Airport Base Expenditures (Minus Depreciation) 1,173,304.00$ Indirect 298,157.73$ Subtract Discount of Indirect for 3% Already Charged (45,303.03)$

Total Airport Cost 1,426,158.70$ Adj. Airport Revenues (Includes Airport Police Reimbursement and ASA and Zantop debt payments to the Industrial Development Authority ) 1,652,627.00$ Operating Deficit (226,468.30)$

Operation Deficit (226,468.30)$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 56.06%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible (126,954.97)$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$ Tax Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source ‐$



Airport Operating Deficit

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Property Tax Values Proportions

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Population Proportions

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Employee Proportions


181

Operation Deficit (226,468.30)$ County Contribution ‐$ Funding Equity‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from Countywide Source ‐$

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Funding Equity ‐‐ Countywide Service


182

CentrePlex


1. The CentrePlex ran a substantial deficit for FY2009 and is predicted to run deficits in future years as well. 2. There is no one best way for allocation of the CentrePlex business. Potential ways would include:

Allocation based on population distribution Allocation based on commercial property value distribution Allocation based on hotel‐motel tax distribution

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. The service is modeled both as a potential tax equity issue (i.e., one where the unincorporated county’s portion of the benefit should be paid for from unincorporated‐only funds) and as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source). Please note, the governmental indirect amount has been adjusted to account for the City already charging some indirect cost to the fund.


183

Sum of Centreplex Exp. (Minus depreciation & OPEB) $4,327,439Indirect 847,690.40$ Subtract Discount of Indirect for 3% Already Charged (129,823.17)$ Subtract Revenue (2,576,670.70)$ Deficit 2,468,635.53$

Operation Deficit 2,468,635.53$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 47.55%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 1,173,714.73$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$

Tax Equity ‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source 1,173,714.73$

Operation Deficit 2,468,635.53$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 39.10%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 965,236.49$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$


Operation Deficit 2,468,635.53$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 71.80%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 1,772,372.99$ Uninc. Only Contribution 0.00


Operation Deficit 2,468,635.53$ County Contribution ‐$

Funding Equity‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from Countywide Source 2,468,635.53$

CentrePlex Operational Deficit

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Commercial Property Tax Values Proportions



Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Hotel‐Motel Revenue Proportion


184

Additional Model

Operation Deficit 2,468,635.53$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 56.06%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 1,383,882.64$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$


Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Property Value Proportions

Data Used in Calculating Hotel‐Motel‐based Tax Equity

Macon Hotel‐Motel Revenue 653,374.81$ 28.2%Unincorporated. Hotel‐Motel Revenue 1,663,200.00$ 71.8%Total 2,316,574.81$

Hotel Motel Value


185

Bowden Golf Course

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. The service is modeled both as a potential tax equity issue (i.e., one where the unincorporated county’s portion of the benefit should be paid for from unincorporated‐only funds) and as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source). Please note, the governmental indirect amount has been adjusted to account for the City already charging some indirect cost to the fund.


186

Sum of Bowden Exp. (minus depreciation & OPEB) 495,623.55$ Indirect 97,086.37$ Subtract Discount of Indirect for 3% Already Charged (14,868.71)$ Subtract Revenue (307,045.00)$ Deficit 270,796.21$

Operation Deficit 270,796.21$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 56.06%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 151,804.58$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$


Operation Deficit 270,796.21$ Percent Attributable to Unic. County 39.10%Uninc. Only Amt. Responsible 105,881.32$ Uninc. Only Contribution ‐$


Operation Deficit 270,796.21$ County Contribution ‐$

Funding Equity‐‐ Remaining funds that need to come from Countywide Source 270,796.21$

Bowden Operational Deficit

Equity Based on Treatment of Service as a Tax Equity Issue ‐‐Benefit Received based on Property Tax Values Proportions




187

Cemetery

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. The service is modeled as a funding equity issue where the service is considered to be of countywide benefit (to be paid for from a countywide funding source). An indirect rate is applied to the expenditures that are related to city staff, but not to the prison crew contract amount.

Estimated Total Cemetary Costs 89,358.00$ Indirect 17,504.10$ Total of Direct City Staff Expenses 106,862.10$ Prison Crews 128,309.00$ Total Expenditures 235,171.10$ Cemetary Fees 78,307.50$

Funding Equity ‐‐ Amount of City Overpayment for Service(City's Current Contribution to Countywide Service minus City Responsibility for Countywide) 156,863.60$

Cemetary Services

The following presents the calculations related to Cemetery expenditures and how certain expenditures are deducted from the P&R admin amounts and other deducted from the P&R direct services amounts.

Cemetery Admin $44,007(40%) Business Manager $27,842 TOTAL ADMIN(5%) Director $4,636 $76,485

(25%) Grounds Superintendant $12,873TOTAL NON‐ADMIN (grounds + Prison

Total Departmental Staffing Costs $89,358 $141,182Prison Crews $128,309Total Departmental Costs $217,667

Calculations for Cemetery


188

Special Cases of 3rd Party Service Delivery

Economic Development:


For the most part, the location of economic development activity would not affect the measure of the benefits to a county taxpayer. That is, an economic development activity in the unincorporated area will also benefit a county taxpayer (in their role as a county resident) who lives in the incorporated area to an equal degree. Hence, there would not seem to be a major equity issue involved in the use of county general fund dollars to support economic development in the unincorporated area.

However, the use of City funds for economic activity in the unincorporated area may raise a funding equity issue. Hence, there is some potential for a funding equity issue to be raised by the IDA funding formula. That is, if one accepts the proportion of IDA‐ available land in the City area as a good measure for the city taxpayer benefit, then funding equity principles would suggest that the funding from city taxpayers should be in proportion to this benefit.

Summary of Major Points in Interviews:

1. Only 5% of the industrial development land is in the City of Macon.

2. With the exception of some incident work in the unincorporated area, the vast majority of Urban Development Authority’s work is related to the downtown area assisting the area with efforts related to commercial rather than industrial development.

3. There may be some differential in the relative jurisdictional benefits from the Urban Development Authority’s efforts due to differences in millage rates.

Analysis & Findings

Because the Urban Development Authority’s efforts benefit both the City taxpayer and the County taxpayer and because the differences in millage rates is minimal, it was determined that there was little or no funding equity to be identified.

With regard to the Industrial Development Authority, the following table presents the calculation of a funding equity amount based on the amount of likely benefit to the City vis a vis the


189

unincorporated area of the county. Because only 5% of the IDA land to be developed is in the City, only this amount of expected benefit is to be shared by the City and the County, such that the City’s share of the total benefit would be approximately 2.5%, while the County share would be 97.5% (i.e., the 95% in the unincorporated area and half of the 5% in the incorporated area.

ContributionsCity 86,344.00$ County 252,031.00$ Total 338,375.00$

City Benefit at 2.5% 8,459.38$ City Overpayment 77,884.63$ Total county benefit at 97.5% 329,915.63$ Amount to be supported by Countywide Revenue Sources 329,915.63$

Funding Equity Amount (Amt. To be Supported by Countywide Revenue ‐ County Payment) $ 77,884.63

Funding Equity Calculation for MBC Industrial Development Authority

Benefits and Equity

For the Industrial Development Authority, the vast majority of service is one that can have a countywide benefit even though the land to be developed is primarily in the unincorporated area of the county. For the 5% of IDA land that is in the City, the benefit goes both to the County and to the City. Hence, for the corresponding 5% of the expenditures we allocate half (2.5%) each to the County and to the City. Because the benefit to the county is a countywide one, they can use a countywide funding source to make the expenditures.


190

Tri‐Party Transit Authority


The agreement does not specify the rationale for determining the share of the costs. A case can be made for the service providing countywide benefits (e.g., less road congestion) even if ridership is disproportionally from one of the jurisdictions. However, ridership, route miles or other factors may be seen as potential proxies for benefits.


The agreement does not specify the source of the County’s share of the costs. If these funds are derived from the general fund, the city taxpayers would be paying an additional share of the costs of the service through their contributions to the County’s general fund.

Summary of Major Points in Interview:

1. The Fare box and other fee revenues account for approximately 15% of the operating budget for the MTA. The Federal government provides 50% of the different in the amount of fare box plus other fees and the full operational cost of the service. With regard to local funding sources, the 60/40 split seems reasonable. Dedicated funding sources (e.g., a special service tax district, a dedicated sales tax, etc.) seem to work best for transit systems.

2. All the routes pretty much go very close to the county boundaries, indicating that the service is one that is countywide in terms of access to the services.

3. It is not possible at this time to know who are the major beneficiaries of the service in terms of ridership, but the indirect benefits (e.g., related to pollution, congestion, parking, etc.) would seem to flow to all the residents of the county. To know exactly the ridership beneficiaries it would be necessary to know the beginning and end points of passengers. In the near future the MTA will be able to collect information about fare collection by entry point location which could provide a proxy measure for the jurisdiction of the riders. Since there is no way to generate this information at this point in time, a population proportion allocation may be the best that is possible.

4. Para‐transit is a mandatory as part of a regular transit system. This means that you must fund Para Transit fully from a local source to qualify for Federal Funding covering the existing Fixed Route systems. Para Transit must be funded via fare box and local funding sources only. Periodically there are temporary offerings from the Feds to fund portions of the Para system, but nothing all inclusive or permanent. The MTA is currently applying for a small grant that will cover a portion of the cost of going outside the ADA mandated ¾ mile radius of the fixed route system. With regard to local funding the split is the same as for the regular transit system.


191

5. The MTA director believes that the majority of riders is from the incorporated area, but is not sure if this majority represents a disproportionate share in relation to the general population split between city and unincorporated county. He will consult with his staff to see if a more precise accounting is possible.

6. In the near future MTA expects to build on a whole different concept in transit one that involve more powerful combinations of park and ride and an expansion of services to regional job centers such as the Warner Robins AFB.

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following tables. The service is modeled as both a countywide service (i.e., resulting in a funding equity amount) and as a service for which there is dual individual responsibility because there are different benefit levels for the two jurisdictions. In these latter models the amount of unincorporated‐only benefits being paid for from a countywide funding source would be the tax equity amount. There are two versions of the dual‐individual responsibility models: 1) a version where it is assumed that the current population‐based funding formula is essentially fair with regard to a basic allocation of costs, but that the basic allocation may need to be adjusted due to the potential for a disproportionate share of ridership coming from the city or of route miles or route stops in the city. In this version the county’s tax equity amount is discounted by the amount of the disproportionate share. 2) a version where there is a strict allocation of responsibility between the two jurisdictions with the city being totally responsible for its routes and the county (using only unincorporated revenue sources) being totally responsible for its routes. In this version, we only use the average of the distributions of bus stops and weekly route miles between the two jurisdictions as an allocation basis14 because there are no hard data on actual ridership vis a vis the jurisdictions of interest. Because the city stop/route miles represent a greater proportion of the service than the city’s proportion of the payment, the model result in both a tax equity amount (i.e., that if implemented would require a payment from the county to the city) and a funding equity amount that if implemented would require a payment from the City to the County.

14 Note: We used the average of the distributions of bus stops and weekly route miles between the two jurisdictions (rather than modeling both stop and miles) because the distributions of the stops and route miles were nearly identical.


192

Countywide Service Analysis

Amount %City Contribution 1,238,762$ 59.3%County Contribution 851,888$ 40.7%Total 2,090,650$

M1:Funding Equity Based on Model of Service as Countywide (Entire City Contribution Assumed by County) 1,238,762$

M2: Funding Equity Based on Model of Service as Countywide with City Paying for having an Additional 33% Ridership 942,661$

M3:Funding Equity Based on Model of Service as Countywide with City Paying for having an Additional 100% Ridership 541,879$

M4: Funding Equity based on Model of Service as Distribution of Route Stops/Miles 1,079,055$

Funding Equity ‐‐As Countywide Service

Contributions to Transit


193

Tax Equity Analysis Version 1: Dual Individual Responsibility Determined by Discount of Tax Equity based on Models of City Benefits

M1: Tax Equity Based on Model of Service as City Paying Current Percent and County Paying for Uninc. Riders from Uninc. Only Funds 851,888$

M2: Tax Equity Based on Model of Service as City Paying for Current Percent and County Paying for Uninc. Riders from Uninc. Only Funds with additiional 33% City Ridership 731,234$

M3:Tax Equity Based on Model of Service as City Paying for Current Percent and County Paying for Uninc. Riders from Uninc. Only Funds with additiional 100 % City Ridership 567,925$

M4: Tax Equity Based on Model of Service as City Paying for Current Percent and Couny Provided Discount on its Uninc. Only payment based on City's additional Perct. Of Stops/Miles 707,560$

Tax Equity ‐‐As Dual Individual Responsibility ‐‐Same Payment Responsibility but County Tax Equity Amount Deducted by Amount of Variation from the Current

Situation (City 60%/County 40%)


194

Data Used in Calculations

City riders 100County Riders 100City Additional Riders 33Total 233Additional City as Percent of Total 14.16%Funding Equity Cost of Additional Riders 296,100.64$

Tax Equity Cost of Additional Riders (Add.Percent * Tot.cost * County Portion of Tot. Cost) 120,653.67$

City riders 100County Riders 100City Additional Riders 100Total 300Additional City as Percent of Total 33.33%Cost of Additional Riders 696,883.33$

Tax Equity Cost of Additional Riders (Add.Percent * Tot.cost * County Portion of Tot. Cost) 283,962.67$

Model of City Having an Additional 1/3 Ridership

Model of City Having an Additional 100% More Ridership

City's Additional Percentage above 60% 0.169$ Cost of Additional Riders 159,706.94$ Tax Equity Discount of Additional Riders (Add.Percent * Tot.cost * County Portion of Tot. Cost) 144,328.00$

Model of City Having Additional Bus Stops & Miles


195

Tax Equity Analysis Version 2: Dual Individual Responsibility Totally Determined by Allocation of Benefits

City's Additional Percentage above 60% 0.169$ Cost of Additional Riders 159,706.94$ Tax Equity Discount of Additional Riders (Add.Percent * Tot.cost * County Portion of Tot. Cost) 144,328.00$

Total 2,090,650$

City Responsibility 1,603,196.24$

City Payment 1,238,762.00$

City Underpayment 364,434.24$ Gross Tax Equity Amt: Amt of County Responsibility 487,453.76$ County Payment 851,888.00$ Net Tax Equity Prior to Considering City's Contribution to County Taxes: County Overpayment (364,434.24)$

Model of City Having Additional Bus Stops & Miles

Tax Equity ‐‐As Dual Individual Responsibility‐‐Stops & Milage as Alloc. Mech.

It should be noted that under the existing funding scheme for the Transit Authority, the City’s contribution (i.e., their share of the county’s countywide property taxes) is nearly the same as their ‘underfunding’ funding of the service according to the ‘Stop&Miles’ model of equity for this service. Hence, if the current funding scheme is maintained, the amount of tax equity would be quite small as is shown in the following:

City's Contribution to County Payment 374,331.47$ Net Tax Equity Keeping the Current Funding Scheme 9,897.23$


196

Amount %City Bus Stops 1,313 76%County Bus Stops 405 24%Total 1,718

Amount %City Miles 24505.3 77%County Miles 7343.7 23%Total 31,849

City Percent 77%Unic County 23%

Average of Stops & Miles Proportions

Distribution of Bus Miles

Distribution of Bus Stops


197

Planning and Zoning


1. To the Commission’s knowledge there is no written agreement related to the funding formula of the Commission...just an informal agreement for 50/50 funding from the City/County for costs above what is supplied by fees and grants. 2. The Commission’s work involves a number of parts including:

Zoning permitting and enforcement Subdivision review and platting Design review Maintenance of official zoning maps and regulations Comprehensive planning Local area/corridor planning Urban redevelopment plan Design and concept plans for improvement projects Transportation planning (TIP, UPWP, public participation plan, transit planning, air quality planning)

GIS maintenance of layers such as land use, zoning, traffic analysis zones, and census layers. 3. If asked, the Commission could potentially break out the estimated cost of each of the functions; however, it would be “extremely difficult if not impossible to produce accurate costs for each of the specific tasks”. 4. The Commission can collect data on the number of permits in the two areas (e.g., in the recent past they have tended to run 60% city/40% unincorporated. However, the Commission feels that the count of permits by area does not accurately reflect the amount of time actually spent on permits within the respective jurisdictions. “Some permits are very simple and require less time and effort to process; others require much more staff time because of lengthy review, public hearings, etc. The same can be said for service requests, plat reviews and rezoning. “ 5. That the funding picture is complicated because some of the local planning activities (including rezoning reviews) can be funded with federal planning grants. Additional Data Gathering Because the City rents space to the Planning and Zoning Commission and thereby receives revenues that is paid for in part by the County, a question was raised as to whether the rent being charges


198

was at a normal market rate, i.e., not at an above market rate which could result in the City’s not paying its fair share of the Commission cots. Further investigation by CVIOG confirmed that the rents being charged were at a market rate. Conclusion: Representatives of the City and County both agreed that any additional analysis of the Planning Commission was not needed. Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following table.

County Payment to MBC Planning & Zoning from Gen. Fund 350,789.00$

Tax Equity ‐‐ Funds that need to come from a Uninc. Only Source 350,789.00$

Planning & Zoning


199

Cultural and Civic Services Jointly Funded


The City and County jointly fund a number of cultural or civic services that are provided by non‐profit organizations. For these services there is no written agreement between the jurisdictions about the amount of shared funding. The following analysis is based on the idea that these are services with a countywide benefit, which is implied by the County’s contributions to these services. However, there is an informal understanding that the City shares in the funding of the services as an equal partner. Consequently, if we assume that the City is providing its share on the part of citizens in the City area, under a fair share understanding of all citizens supporting these services equally, the County’s share of the funding of these services would need to come from an unincorporated‐only revenue source. If the current funding for these services is derived from the general fund, the city taxpayers would be paying an additional share of the costs of the service through their contributions to the County’s general fund.

Analysis & Findings

The analysis and findings are presented in the following table. Assuming that these services are considered to be of a countywide nature, the City share of the expenses would be the same as its share of the county property tax. However, because the data on the contributions to these shared cultural and civic services indicates that the city paid substantially less than its share, we have calculated a figure that would represent the total expenditures on cultural/civic services amount assuming that the City were paying its share of these expenditures. Based on this total, we can identify the amount that the County would need to contribute (from unincorporated‐only funds) in order to pay its share. This amount is the tax equity amount.


200

Service City Expenditures County ExpendituresKeep Macon-Bibb Beautiful 60,115.00 60,115.00$ Citizens Advocacy 4,700.00 4,950.00$ Museum of Arts & Sciences 51,170.00 314,041.00$ Macon Arts Alliance 36,000.00 48,060.00$ NewTown Macon, Inc 10,000.00 10,000.00$ Tubman African-American Museum 25,000.00 314,041.00$ TOTAL 186,985.00 751,207.00$ Calculated Amount of Total Funding Assuming the City Is Paying its Property Tax share of the total 425,532.69 Uninc. County's Funding Responsibility for Total 238,547.69 Total or Tax Equity Amount that Should come from an Uninc. Only Source 238,547.69

Cultural/Civic


201

Issues Where Core Funding Equity was Not Confirmed or that Can be Addressed Administratively

Landfill Potential Means of Determining the Distribution of the Benefits of the Service Include:

While a letter recognizes that “solid waste handling for this community is in fact a total county‐wide problem,” and thereby might suggest that the landfill should be a countywide service, further investigation indicates that this service is not one that meet key criteria for a funding equity issue. Essentially, the community is served by multiple landfills in a competitive market environment. The private solid waste collectors in the unincorporated area pay tipping fees for whatever landfill they chose to use. Similarly, the County Pub.Works/Street Maint. units pays tipping fees for disposing of debris, trash , etc. that they collect. However, because there private landfill operators will often charge less than the City, there is no reason for the County departments to necessarily use the City landfill. The City’s solid waste/landfill operation is designed as an enterprise fund, and, while in FY2009 the city ran a deficit in the solid waste/landfill fund, in the most recent year, the city did not run a deficit, probably due to increased collections. The City reports that any current deficit is made up by the general fund, but then paid back to the general fund by the enterprise fund. Conclusion: The bottom line is that if the City and County do not have an agreement related to the joint funding of the landfill and the landfill/solid waste unit is operated as an enterprise fund, then the landfill would not seem to raise a tax equity issue.

Building Inspections Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:

Assuming that the fees collected for permits/inspections are related to the actual cost of issuing the permits and conducting the inspections, the benefits would appear to match the cost for each individual conducting business with the Inspections and Fees Department. In a strict enterprise fund scenario (i.e., where all surpluses are held by the department and all deficits are entered as loans that the department must pay back in the future from future surpluses) there would be no question of an inequitable distribution of costs and benefits. However, the current method of distributing the surplus/deficits on a quarterly basis does hold the potential for inequity. Assume for example, if during Quarter 1 a surplus is generated and 75% of the fees collected during this period came from the unincorporated area, but the surplus is held by the city. Then in Quarter 2 a deficit occurs, which is split 50‐50. In such an example, there is the potential for a funding equity to exist. While it could be the case that over time the various quarterly funding inequities would cancel each other out, there is no guarantee that this would necessarily be the case.


202

Summary of Major Points in Interview:

1. The city is responsible for any deficit in the Department’s operation, but is also able to bank the surplus during years where such a surplus occurs. Over the last 10 years Inspections and Fees has run a net surplus; however, for FY2009, the Department ran a deficit that was identified as approximately $367,182.38 in direct and indirect costs. However, this amount would need to be discounted somewhat by the value of Business license inspections (estimated to be valued at $23, 275 based on a study of current costs since no data is available for 2009). While the 10 year cost/revenue accounting indicates an overall surplus, the next few years are projected to be deficit years. Also, the FY 2009 deficit and the 10‐year accounting surplus are based on cash balance figures and an indirect cost rate analysis conducted internally by the Department. While this indirect cost rate method is reasonable one, for the purposes of this study, CVIOG is obligated to use audited FY2009 figures to establish the revenue and direct service expenditure base and then to apply a standard, commonly‐agreed‐upon indirect cost rate being used in the study for both City and County analysis. 2. The City and County residents pay the same fees for the same services. 3. Fees have to follow state laws related to the actual cost of the regulatory service and as to the plan review fees for commercial properties set by the State Fire Marshall.

4. The Department provides Business license inspections in the city with no charge. 5. The Department does not charge fees for BOE permits or public good permits (e.g., for a city project/county project/work done by city/county crews)

6. CVIOG will use the relative permit cost amounts in the two jurisdictions as the basis for an allocation of the jurisdictions’ relative responsibility for any deficits.

7. In FY 11 the Department will be required to track the operating cost for the commercial division of property maintenance, which provides property inspections within the city limits of Macon. This division is not considered a regulatory function of the department, therefore it is totally funded by the city's general funds. I will track this cost as a separate part of our total operating budget starting in FY 11.

8. The Department experienced a major drop in activity from FY08 to FY09, particularly in the unincorporated area of the County. Monthly/Yearly Activity for unincorporated Bibb & Macon in these years are as follows: FY 08‐UI‐Bibb $608,651.00 / Macon $341,195.00 and in FY 09 UI‐Bibb total is $322,287.00 and Macon is $371,536.00.


203

Analysis: The funding equity situation for this service is very similar to Planning & Zoning, except that currently the City is responsible for any deficit, but is also the beneficiary of any surplus. In FY2009 there was a deficit. However, over the last 10 years there has been a net surplus. We have been tasked with identifying funding equity in FY2009. Given the overall surplus for the recent period, there may be a certain unfairness in identifying an amount, for example, that the County should pay the City for its share of the deficit for FY2009, if we are not also identifying the amount that perhaps the City should pay the County for its share of the surplus during a surplus year. An additional complicating factor is that the approach that we had first identified as the most appropriate (i.e., to allocate the share of the deficit based on the share of the permit fees collected in the respective jurisdictions) has a flaw of sorts. That is, the development pattern in recent years has been such that the unincorporated part of the county during a growth period has accounted for a disproportionate share of permit fees, but during a recessionary period it has accounted for a disproportionate share of the fall off in permit fees, thereby being a major cause of the deficit in that the Department is not able to shed staff and capability as quickly as revenue falls off. It is also the case that while permit fee amounts may fall off, the actual total number of permits and amount of inspection work does not decrease to the same degree. In an ideal world, the user fees would always pay for the cost of the service with no surplus, and it appears that they do over the long run. As such, from a long run perspective it would seem that there is no funding equity issue.

Conclusion: Based on the analysis of this service, representatives for both the City and the County stipulated that the service did not raise a funding equity issue that could or needed to be addressed.

E911 Potential Funding Equity Issues Include:

It is reasonable and should not raise a funding equity issue that the City and the County are responsible for their own respective street/address data development. This reasonableness is based on the fact that such development is typically an ancillary task to developing this data for other within‐jurisdiction purposes. However, the agreement provision related to the county’s obligation to be ultimately responsible for any unpaid 911 charge not paid by the unincorporated residents leaves unclear the funding source for paying the deficit in fees paid in the unincorporated area. If this deficit is paid from a countywide revenue source, there is a potential for funding inequity. The County Finance Director reports that to her knowledge there has not been a deficit that needed to be addressed, so a question about the choice of funds has never arisen.

Conclusion/Potential Solution: The City and County could both adopt financial policies that would specify how any deficit in E911 funding would be addressed (e.g., the City and County would share in responsibility for the deficit and the County would pay its share from funds generated from the


204

unincorporated area. Alternatively, the County could be responsible for the entire deficit and use countywide funds.


205

Chapter 8: Base Funding Equity

In this chapter we present the base funding equity amount for each service. The base equity amount is the amount of tax equity that is believed to exist prior to the provision of any off‐set credits for contributions/revenues that are generated solely in the unincorporated area. As discussed in the Introduction, the funding equity amounts have been translated into tax equity amounts as outlined in the following table.

ServiceAll Inclusive Equity

Amount County or Alt Scenario

AmountAll Inc. Translated to

Tax EquityCount Alt Translated to Tax

Equity

Roads & Engineering^ 913,021.56$ $ ‐ $ 511,827.15 GIS^ 8,552.69$ $ 8,552.69 4,794.52$ Mapping^ 126,633.84$ $ 126,633.84 70,989.16$ Computer/IT (171,959.38)$ $ (171,959.38) (75,561.35)$ Economic Dev. 77,884.63$ $ ‐ 43,661.03$ Recreation+ 2,946,886.52 $ 2,529,516.33 1,651,983.47$ 1,418,011.56$ Board of Elections 400,891.10$ $ 400,891.10 224,733.96$ Radio* 168,132.22$ $ 168,132.22 94,252.58$ EMA 244,385.22$ $ 244,385.22 136,998.95$ Levee 132,464.09$ $ (87,130.44) 74,257.52$ Fire (FE alternative) 615,997.25$ $ 615,997.25 345,319.46$ Animal Control* 217,609.92$ $ 217,609.92 121,989.09$

Airport*+ ‐$ $ ‐ ‐$

CentrePlex*+ 2,468,635.53$ $ ‐ 1,383,882.64$

Bowden*+ 270,796.21$ $ ‐ 151,804.58$

Transit 1,238,762.00$ ‐$ 694,432.69$ Cemetery 156,863.60$ ‐$ 87,935.54$

Translation of Funding Equity into Tax Equity

Note: In all cases where the service is a County service the translation formula is the gross funding equity amount times the percentage of assess property values in the County (i.e., the amount that in a Tax Equity analysis needs to be generated solely in the unincorporated area. In the case of the Computer/IT services which are provided by the county, the formula is the gross funding equity amount times the percentage of assess property values in the City (i.e., the amount that in a Tax Equity analysis needs to be generated solely in the City.


206

Summary of Tax Equity and Funding Equity

The following tables summarize the findings in the previous chapters for tax equity and funding equity.

For each service two scenarios are identified: 1) a scenario favoring the City where all possible tax equity issues are included and where the highest tax equity amount is used in cases where an individual service is modeled in multiple ways. And 2) a scenario favoring the County where it is assumed that some services (e.g., related to Roads, the Sheriff’s Office, and the City’s secondary services) are not included in the analysis.

For the purposes of the study services have been put into groups that help to define who provides the service and under what circumstances. The service groups for which a potential tax equity issue has been raised are listed first followed by lists of services for which no tax or funding equity issue was identified.

For services that potentially involve an equity issue, we identify the model that is used in determining the tax equity amount favoring either the City’s or the County’s position or understanding of funding equity.

Legend for Models Used

TE = Classic Tax Equity where the County’s expenditures on a service that is delivered only or primarily to the unincorporated area are generated from a countywide source rather than an unincorporated‐only source.

FE = Funding Equity. This is typically the case when the City has been providing a service that is countywide in benefit but is not being paid for from a countywide funding source (e.g., the City is assuming all or a disproportionate share of the funding responsibility.

TE(‘allocation principle’) = The service is modeled as a Tax Equity one (i.e., where the unincorporated area is to pay it’s share and the City’s its share of the cost of the service) based on a certain model or allocation principle of how the benefits are thought to be distributed (e.g., according to population, property tax distribution, participation in the service, relative employment, or share of hotel‐motel taxes).


207




Road Maintenance ( including associated: engineering, streetlighting, drainage, sidewalks, streetlights) 8,036,710.70$ ‐$ TEGIS*^ 17,720.11$ 17,720.11$ TE & FEMapping*^ 75,414.74$ 75,414.74$ TE & FE



Sheriff's Non‐Constitutional Services (law enforcement, investigations, forensics) 9,491,330.77$ ‐$ TE (Calls for Serv)Other PW Uninc. Only (Stormwater, Code Enforce. Debris) 226,177.27$ 226,177.27$ TEAnimal Control 121,989.09$ 121,989.09$ FE

Board of Elections* 224,733.96$ 224,733.96$ FECourt Services 0 (4,750,593.89)$ TE(Major Crimes)Total 18,155,532.64$ (4,247,250.51)$

#1a: City's View Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue An (*) indicates that the service involves an intergovernmental agreement or joint‐funding mechanism.

A (^) indicates a combination of Tax and Funding Equity.

Note: County does not agree that Road and Sheriff’s services raise a tax equity issue. The County’s view of these is presented in Table 1b. The City does not agree that Court Services raise a tax equity issue. The Amount Most Favorable to the City for Roads is the presumptive position rather than the ‘Buddy System’ alternative offered by the City.


208




GIS*^ 17,720.11$ 17,720.11$ TE & FEMapping*^ 75,414.74$ 75,414.74$ TE & FE



Other PW Uninc. Only (Stormwater, Code Enforce. Debris) 226,177.27$ 226,177.27$ TE

Animal Control 121,989.09$ 121,989.09$

FE

Board of Elections* 224,733.96$ 224,733.96$ FE

Court Services 0 (4,750,593.89)$ TE(Jail inmates)Total 627,491.17$ (4,247,250.51)$

#1b:County's View: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue

An (*) indicates that the service involves an intergovernmental agreement or joint‐funding mechanism. A (^) indicates a combination of Tax and Funding Equity.


209




Public Transportation /Transit 851,888.00$ 9,897.23$

TE (Current % but from Uninc. Only funds)/TE(Bus Stops‐‐Keeping Current Funding Scheme)

Planning & Zoning 350,789.00$ 350,789.00$ TECultural Programs Jointly Funded 238,547.69$ ‐$ TEEconomic Development/Industrial Development 43,661.03$ ‐$ FETotal 1,484,885.72$ 360,686.23$



210




Emergency Mangement Services 136,998.95$ 136,998.95$ FE800 mhz Radio 73,691.02$ TE (Pop. Basis)Fire 349,390.52$ 349,390.52$ TE

Parks and Recreation 1,651,983.47$ 1,418,011.56$

FE /FE one‐third extra City participation

Levee (See County)Total 2,212,063.96$ 1,904,401.03$




Airport ‐$ ‐$ TE (employee basis)Cemetery 87,935.54$ ‐$ FE

Bowden 151,804.58$ ‐$ FE or TE(Property Tax basis)

Centreplex 1,772,372.99$ ‐$ TE (Hotel‐Motel Revenue basis)

Total 2,012,113.11$ ‐$




211

Sheriff's Office Constitutional Services (jail, warrants,civil papers, bailiff) Business licensesCode enforcementCourt ServicesCultural ProgramsIndigent Defense ServicesLibraryPublic HealthSolid Waste ManagementSolid Waste RecyclingTax AssessmentTax Collection

Building Inspection/Code EnforcementBusiness licensesE‐911Landfill

Land BankEconomic Development CommissionUrban Economic Development

#6: Services Provided by the City that Raise NO Equity Issue

#5: Services Provided by the County that Raise NO Equity Issue

#7: Services Provided by a Thrid Party that Raise NO Equity Issue

All ServicesTax Equity Amount Most Favorable to the City


Grand Total 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$

Average of City & County‐Favorable Scenarios 10,941,216.09$

Grand Total of all BaseTax Equity for all Services Groups


212

It should be recognized that in the Favorable to City scenario, the very large amount of equity found to be ‘owed’ to the City (compared to the small equity amount found in the Favorable to County scenario) was due to the following factors:

1) In the Favorable to City scenario when there was a choice between using funding equity and tax equity amounts for a service, the higher of the two amounts was use.

2) The Favorable to City scenario included a number of services that the County does not recognize as raising an equity issue.

3) The Favorable to City scenario does not allow for much in terms of revenue offset to potential tax equity liability.

Alternative Models

The following table summarizes the funding and tax equity results from the various alternative models of the services for which alternative model were identified and analyzed. Note: All funding equity amounts have been translated into tax equity amounts.

All Inclusive Amt. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Recreation+ 1,651,983.47$ 1,418,011.56$ Transit 694,432.69$ 528,442.80$ 303,769.62$ 604,903.21$

All Inclusive Amt. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Airport*+ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Centreplex*+ 1,772,372.99$ 965,236.49$ 1,173,714.73$ Bowden*+ 151,804.58$ 105,881.32$ Transit 851,888.00$ 731,234.33$ 567,925.33$ 707,560.00$

Funding Equity Alternative Models ‐‐(Funding Equity translated into Tax Equity)

Tax Equity Alternative Models


213

Chapter 9: Treatment of Revenue Offsets and Final Tax Equity Amount

Introduction

Funding equity studies are based on a number of underlying assumptions. For example, both the City and the County have outlined rationales for including and not including different services in the mix of services that pose an equity issue. Similarly, in analyzing certain services afresh, we have suggested different ways in which it may be possible to interpret the proportion of service benefits that may accrue to the different jurisdictional groups. As a consequence, we arrived at different base equity amounts founded on different models of benefits. Finally, we have also suggested that for some services it is possible to analyze the service as one that raises a classic tax equity OR as one that raises more of a funding equity issue.

In this chapter, we attempt to add an additional layer of analysis so as to account for revenue sources and for the different treatments of local option sales tax (LOST) revenue. We also attempt to summarize the equity amounts based on the two options (classic tax equity or funding equity) for services that can be viewed as either raising a tax equity or a funding equity issue.

General Methodology for Classic Tax Equity:

The following presents the analysis methodology we have employed. Essentially, for each scenario we take the following steps:

1. Identify the base tax equity costs of these services.

2. Analyze all the revenue sources for the county and identify a) the amounts that are collected countywide (or equally from all residents) and b) those that are collected only from the unincorporated area.

3. Offset the cost of services that are provided only or primarily in the unincorporated area with revenues generated from the unincorporated area or from service beneficiaries. Some of these funds are from revenue generated as part of the department’s service (e.g., user fees). The other part of these funds can potentially come from sources (e.g., hotel‐motel tax, alcohol taxes, etc.) that are only levied in the unincorporated area or from sources where a fairness principle would suggest that perhaps some credit for some portion of the revenue be provided (e.g., Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) revenue). Because of the ambiguity in the law and in practice concerning the appropriate treatment of LOST funds in tax equity studies, we allowed


214

for a LOST revenue offset or credit in the scenario that favors the County, but did not do so in the scenario that favored the City.

4. Finally, if the offsets (i.e., revenues, fees, or contributions from the unincorporated area or service users) are not sufficient to cover the expenditures on services that are provided only or primarily in the unincorporated area, the remainder is the tax equity amount.

Based on the LOST‐attribution scenario, we identify the proportion of the remaining funds that can be attributed to a LOST source.

a. In general, since we account for the services’ specific use of other revenue sources such as fees and unincorporated‐only taxes (e.g., beer and wine), the remaining revenue contributions to the service can be specified as coming from either LOST revenues or property tax revenues outlined in the following table.

Proportion of Remaining Funds Accounted for by Property and LOST

Revenues

Amount PercentCounty LOST 12,474,647$ 18.68%County Property 54,306,934$ 81.32%Total 66,781,581$

County LOST and Property Taxes

b. Because of the ambiguity in the law and in practice concerning the appropriate distribution of LOST funds, we identified the appropriate principle‐based ways to allocate credit to unincorporated residents for their LOST contributions. These are:

i. LOST‐to‐Unincorporated: Unincorporated residents get full credit for the entire county portion of the LOST revenue stream as an offset against tax equity liability.

ii. LOST‐to‐Countywide: Unincorporated residents get no credit for the county portion of the LOST revenue stream as an offset against tax equity liability.

iii. LOST‐with‐Unincorporated Compensated for Disproportionate Contribution: Unincorporated residents get a partial credit for the county portion of the LOST revenue stream.


215

1. As outlined in the chapter on Revenues the portion of the LOST revenue that would be allowed as a credit in this option would be

7. Proportion of Unincorporated LOST Contributions that are uncompensated (#6/#3)

58.3%

5. Once the LOST revenue credit is provide, the total credits (or contributions) are calculated, if the contributions are not sufficient to cover the value of the unincorporated‐only services provided, the unincorporated residents are provided with a credit for contributing to unincorporated‐only services through their share of the property tax.

Classic Tax Equity

Sample Matrix of Potential Scenarios for Identifying Possible Tax Inequities

REVENUE ALLOCATION CHOICES

SERVICE INCLUSION/TREATMENT

CHOICES

All of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

Some of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

Only a very few of the possible Offset Revenues Allowed as Offsets against Tax Equity Liability

1)Exclude the Sheriff


Findings that favor the County

2)Exclude the Sheriff


3)Includes Sheriff


4)Includes Sheriff


Findings that favor the City


216

The figure is entitled “Sample Matrix…” because it is meant to illustrate that the permutation of choices of service inclusion, treatment, and revenue offsets are too numerous to list—and the calculation of which would result in a document that would be several hundred pages.

In order to keep the length of the report to a reasonable one, we will organize the finding around two extreme positions which result in two major, but highly divergent scenarios: 1) a scenario favoring the City’s presumptive position where all possible tax equity issues are included and where the highest tax equity amount is used in cases where an individual service is modeled in multiple ways. And 2) a scenario favoring the County’s presumptive position where it is assumed that some services (e.g., related to Roads, the Sheriff’s Office, and the City’s secondary services) are not included in the analysis. For this scenario, when there are multiple ways of modeling equity, we choose the equity model that is likely to maximize an equity resolution in favor of the County.

The term ‘presumptive position’ is used to denote the use of analysis factors that would result in the highest or lowest amount of tax equity for the impacted group of residents and taxpayers (i.e., those in the unincorporated area versus those in the City area). That is, this analysis was developed without detailed and complete knowledge of the actual positions of the City and County elected officials with regard to what choices of factors would represent a fair position vis a vis their constituents or their own sense of fairness.

The two major, but divergent scenarios are used as a means of simplifying the reporting of results and clarifying the range of possible tax equity amounts. They represent the most extreme positions possible given assumptions, models, and data that would favor one position over the other. In between the two major, divergent scenarios are numerous middle ground scenarios. Middle ground scenarios would tend to combine the following elements:

1) The inclusion/exclusion of services from the analysis in ways that differ from the extreme position. For example, the scenario favoring the County does not allow for the inclusion of expenditures on the Sheriff or Roads paid for in part from revenues generated in the City even though City residents do not seem (from some citizens’ point of view at least) to receive benefits that are proportional to their contributions.

2) The use of alternative allocation models for determining tax equity rather than the model that is most extreme in favoring one jurisdiction over the other. For example, the allocation of benefit model used in the analysis of the Airport for determining the equity amount in the scenario favoring the City was one that used the proportion of employees from the two jurisdictions. Since there were a much higher proportion of employees from the unincorporated area than from the City, the amount of tax equity was substantially higher than if one were to model the benefit based on a measure such as the proportion of the population in the two jurisdictions.


217

3) The allowance of revenue off‐sets for tax equity liability that may differ from the extreme position. For example, in the scenario favoring the City few or no revenue offsets are allowed beyond service‐related user fees even though there are additional revenue sources that are generated solely from the unincorporated area.

It is recognized that both the City and the County can point to law that would seem to back major components of their polar‐opposite positions. While this study will on occasion reference certain laws related to the Service Delivery Strategy Act (SDS), the purpose of the study is to provide the stakeholders with the data needed to negotiate a fair resolution of the funding equity situation as it currently stands. While an adjudicated resolution of SDS issues is always possible and can provide a legal ‘stick’ as an incentive, the spirit of the SDS law is one that values local negotiations and local understandings of fairness. In order for the study to serve its purpose, the stakeholders will need to spend some time understanding the details of the analysis and to use their own sense of fairness with regard to choices as to: which services should be included, which allocation models should be used, and what revenue offsets should be allowed.

Chapter 2 presented a review of the various taxes and fees that may be used as an offset against potential funding equity liability. With regard to the use of most of the unincorporated taxes (with the exception of the Insurance Premium tax) the City’s Attorney has indicated that there is no legal basis for requiring that these taxes be allowed as an offset against potential tax equity liability. However, parties to a funding equity study can choose on the basis of fairness principles to allow the use of certain taxes and fees that have been collected solely in the unincorporated area. Similarly, the City’s position on the treatment of LOST revenue is that these revenues should not be used as an offset against potential tax liability. The City’s position on LOST, similar to the their position on most taxes that are applied to the unincorporated‐only area, may represent the what would be the legally enforceable position. However, local officials may choose to employ their own sense of fairness in allowing revenue sources to be used as offsets against potential liability.

The following tables outline the calculations for the allowance of various levels of offsets against potential equity liability. The tables present a City‐Favorable Scenario and County‐Favorable Scenario. The City‐Favorable Scenario uses the base amount of tax equity identified in the All Inclusive City‐Favorable models presented in the last chapter, and it uses the City’s position on allowable revenue offsets. The County‐Favorable Scenario employs the base tax equity amounts and offset revenue amounts that were identified using the County assumptions. The first table shows what the remaining tax equity amount would be were unincorporated‐only taxes used as an offset against the grand total of tax equity liability. The second table shows what the remaining tax equity amount would be were LOST revenue used as an offset against the grand total of tax equity


218

liability. Finally, in the third table both allowable unincorporated‐only taxes and allowable LOST revenue are subtracted from the grand total of the tax equity amount to show the final tax equity amount from the perspective of the two alternative scenarios.

Note on Tables Below: Any calculations of remaining tax equity liability where the amount of allowable offsets is greater than the total tax equity liability are presented as a zero.


ScenearioTotal Tax Equity Liability 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$ Amount of Allowable Offset Revenue 0 3,549,645.71$ Remaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average


ScenearioTotal Tax Equity Liability 23,864,595.43$ (1,982,163.25)$ Amount of Allowable Offset Revenue 0 11,954,966.20$ Remaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average of Tax EquityTotal of Uninc. Only & LOST Offset Credits ‐$ 15,504,611.92$ Average of City/County Uninc. Only & LOST Offset Credits


ScenearioRemaining Tax Equity Amount 23,864,595.43$ ‐$ Average of Tax Equity

11,932,297.72$

11,932,297.72$

7,752,305.96$

Allocation of Unincorporated Only Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity

Allocation of LOST Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity Liability

Summary Allocation of Unincorporated‐Only and LOST Revenues as an Offset against Tax Equity Liability

11,932,297.72$


219

Chapter 10: Conclusions: Average Funding Inequity and Possible Middle Ground Positions

This study analyzed the provision of services and the collection of taxes and fees in the City of Macon and Bibb County in order to assess the degree of equity or inequity in the funding of local government services in the Macon‐Bibb community. While a primary purpose of a study of this sort is to determine how much municipal revenues are being used to fund services provided only in the unincorporated areas (i.e., classic tax equity) based on evolving understandings of the Service Delivery Strategy Act, CVIOG was charged with a conducting a study with a larger scope. Essentially, we were asked to review all joint service delivery operations, intergovernmental agreements, and city and county resolutions, budgeting and billing practices in light of the over‐arching principle of equity that “those who receive a service should pay for the amount of services received.”

Some Middle Positions on Unincorporated Only Revenues and LOST

As the tables in the previous two chapters suggest there is a radical difference in the amounts of base tax equity and the amounts allowable revenue offsets in the City’s and the County’s respective presumptive positions. It should be recognized that there are numerous reasonable and principled middle ground positions that can be explored as part of the process of resolving funding equity in the community. The following table simply presents the final tax equity amount as the average of the base tax equity amount for the two major scenarios minus the average of the revenue offset amount for the two scenarios.

Average of Base Tax EquityAverage of All Revenue OffsetsFinal Tax Equity Based on Averages

Final Tax Equity Amount as Summary of Average of All Offset Revenue and Average of Base Tax Equity

$ 10,941,216.09

7,752,305.96$

3,188,910.13$

What does a resolution of tax equity mean for the taxpayer?


220

If one assumed for illustrative purposes that the final tax equity amount agreed to by the City and County was the same as the amount specified in the table above, this would not mean that the taxpayers in the unincorporated area would need to assume the burden of an additional $6 million dollars in property taxes. The exact amount of the additional taxes that would need to be levied in the unincorporated area cannot be determined until a funding equity agreement has been reached. However, if we assume that entirety of the tax equity amount is tied by agreement to the classic tax equity issues (i.e., those where an unincorporated‐only service is being funded by a countywide funding source), the actual amount of additional taxes to be assumed by the unincorporated area is equal to: The amount of final tax equity times the percentage of the county property tax base that is paid for by City taxpayers. (i.e., Tax Equity Amount X 43.9%) Essentially, the unincorporated area taxpayers need only to assume the tax burden that the City taxpayers are now bearing for the services they do not receive. Put another way, the unincorporated area taxpayers are already paying for over half of the final tax equity amount. In the hypothetical scenario where the entirety of the tax equity amount is tied by agreement to the classic tax equity issues and the final tax equity amount is as specified in the above table, the amount of additional taxes to be assumed by the unincorporated area would be:

Amount to be Assumed by Unincorporated Area Taxpayers based on the Stipulation of the amount being a Classic Tax Equity Issue Amount 1,401,251.60$

Three Sample Middle Ground Scenarios

The following presents some sample/potential middle ground scenarios that split the positions of the two parties. These scenarios (and others) were developed by the mediator in the Tax Equity dispute, and the City of Macon requested that they be included in the report. These scenarios do NOT represent the position of or a recommendation by the Institute of Government.

Each scenario consists of a set of positions on the base tax equity amount for each service group and a set of positions on what would be considered as allowable revenue off sets. Finally, a “Remaining Tax Equity Amount” is presented as well as the amount of “Additional Revenue from the Unincorporated Area” that would have to be generated from that area were the tax equity situation to be resolved through a special service district strategy.

Note: In the 3rd Scenario the Roads are modeled as fully separate responsibilities (i.e., the unincorporated county takes care of/pays for all roads in the unincorporated area, and the city takes care of/pays for all roads in the city area).


221



Accept Sheriff's Methodology/Reject City's; Accept Buddy Compromise for Roads/Reject City Presumptive; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 13,139,601.66$







Total 15,512,143.75$


Unincorporated OnlyAccept all except for the Hotel‐Motel 2,999,537.71$

LOST Accept the Share of LOST sceneario 6,965,107.40$

Total 9,964,645.12$

Remaining Tax Equity Amount 5,547,498.63$ 2,437,648.30$ Additional Revenue from Uninc. Only




222


Accepted/Rejected Amount#1: Services Provided by the County that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue Accept County's position

on Sheriff; Accept Buddy Compromise for Roads/Reject City Presumptive; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 4,732,397.87$

#2: Services Provided by a Thrid Party that DO POTENTIALLY Raise An Equity Issue Accept City's Scenario on

P&Z and Econ.Dev.; keep Transit agreement the same use County's Bus Stop method; Reject City's position on Cultural/Civic programs 394,450.03$




Accept City's Position on all 2,012,113.11$

Total 9,117,053.07$


Unincorporated OnlyAccept all Uninc. Only Rev. 3,549,645.71$


Total 3,549,645.71$






223



Accept County's position on Sheriff; Accept separate Roads Responsibility; Reject Court Services; Accept County's Levee position; Accept city‐county position on all other services in group 6,957,449.90$



#3: Services Provided by the City in Cooperative Agreement with the County


#4: Services Provided Solely by the City that Benefit the Entire Community that


Total 9,329,991.99$


Unincorporated OAccept all Uninc. Only Rev. 3,549,645.71$


Total 3,549,645.71$






224

County Alternative Scenarios

The County requested two additional scenarios. These scenarios do NOT represent the position of or a recommendation by the Institute of Government.

The County Alternative scenario presented below includes Parks and Recreation as a potential tax equity liability, but does not include either the Sheriff or Roads as a potential tax equity liability, and it includes all unincorporated area‐only revenue sources as a revenue offset, but does not include any LOST dollars as a revenue offset for tax equity liability. This scenario resulted in zero net tax equity. The second scenario requested by the County was essentially the same as the first except for the exclusion of Parks and Recreation as a potential tax equity liability. As the second scenario also did not the result in any net tax equity liability, only the first scenario is presented. Note: when there is more than sufficient revenue to offset the base tax equity, the final tax equity amount is reported as zero.

Options for Resolution

This study does not recommend how to resolve these inequities. Decisions concerning how best to solve the funding inequity outlined in this report should be made by local officials. However, several possible solutions exist and may be worth consideration by elected officials. These include lowering county tax rates in the incorporated area; decreasing services in the unincorporated area; finding new revenue sources in the unincorporated area to pay for these services; and creating joint services provided by the city and/or county, or some other intergovernmental agreement.

Countywide Services Being Provided by the County but with the City Paying More than its Share of the Cost

Candidates: Board of Elections, GIS, Mapping,

Option 1: Have the County government assume the responsibility for funding the service from countywide funding sources.

Countywide Services Being Provided by the City15

15 In some cases the staff in the City departments that would be moved to the County would resist the change because there would be a potential for a negative impact on their retirement package. However, other


225

Candidates: Airport, Bowden Golf Course, CentrePlex, Traffic Engineering, Building Inspections, Fire, 800 Mhz Radio, EMA, Animal Control, Recreation

Option 1: Have the County government assume the responsibility for funding the service from countywide funding sources. Let the administration of the service remain with the City if they are currently being administered by the City.

Option 2: Have the County government assume the responsibility for funding the service from countywide funding sources. Let the County assume administration of all the services in this category.

Option 3: Reform the billing and revenue generation process such that when the City charges the County for the unincorporated share of the cost of services the City will receive the full cost of providing the service to the unincorporated area.

Special Enterprise Fund Cases: Airport, Bowden Golf Course, CentrePlex, and Building Inspections represent special cases because they involve enterprise funds that are loosely defined. That is, the enterprise funds do not include strict policies related to the management of deficits, surpluses and transfers to the general fund. If these services are determined to raise an equity issue and there is a desire on the part of the two governments to keep the current institutional arrangement, some reform of the enterprise fund and related fiscal policies would seem to be appropriate. For example, the enterprise funds could be organized in such a fashion as to require that any transfer of surpluses be made in such a manner as to meet equity criteria (e.g., such that a transfer is made to both the City and the County). Alternatively, the enterprise fund could be set up so as to require a certain reserve level with fiscal policies put in place that restrict transfers. While the City Council can always override a policy, they would have to do so explicitly which would notify the County that the equity agreement had been undermined.

Joint Services with Independent Benefits being Provided by a 3rd Party Agency

Candidates: Planning and Zoning, Industrial Development Authority, (Transit)

governments have transitioned retirement systems without a loss of benefits. This is accomplished by hiring an actuary to determine the dollar value of the current retirement. Once determined the city would provide that amount to the county, thereby enabling the employees to receive an equivalent benefit in dollar value under the county system.


226

Option 1: Have the organization providing the services split out the parts are considered to be of countywide benefit from those that are considered to be of independent benefit. Have the county pay for the countywide portion of the service with a countywide funding source. For the service elements that are not countywide in nature have the organization providing the service identify a per unit cost or fixed fee cost for each of the governments and have these costs paid for with funds generated in the area that receives the benefit (i.e., the City and the unincorporated part of the County)

Joint Services with Countywide Benefits being Provided by a 3rd Party Agency

Candidates: Economic Development (UDA and generally), (Transit)

Option 1: Have the County government assume the responsibility for funding the service from countywide funding sources.

Services Provided by the County that may Need to Have Stricter Funding Guideline

(Example: While a special assessment is used to fund residential streetlights in the unincorporated part of the county, and while these funds are typically sufficient to fully cover the cost of the service, there is no mechanism for ensuring that this will always be the case)

Candidates: Stormwater, Residential Streetlights

Option 1: Establish strict enterprise funds where these funds do not exist and ensure that the County has financial policies that prevent the long‐term transfers of general fund revenue to support these services.


227

The Role of Capital in Resolutions

While this study has not treated capital as part of a funding equity analysis for methodological and other reasons, in the process of resolving a funding equity condition it is important to include capital costs as part of the resolution.

Case A: The service has been provided by the City using City capital only and is to be transferred to or adopted by the county so as to be provided and funded on a countywide basis.

Resolution: The County should compensate the City for the fair market value of the capital that is transferred with the service.

Case B: The service has been provided by the City using City capital and County capital and is to be transferred to or adopted by the county so as to be provided and funded on a countywide basis.

Resolution: The County should compensate the City for the fair market value of the capital that is transferred with the service.

Case C: The City is to continue to operate a service that is countywide in nature and the City will supply all of the capital used in the delivery of the service; however, the County will be funding it share of the responsibility for the service from unincorporated‐only funds.

Resolution: The City and the County will agree to a depreciation schedule for major capital items based on general accounting principles. In addition, the County should pay the city a yearly land‐rent amount for the use of any land used in the delivery of the service.

Case D: The City is to continue to operate a service that is countywide in nature and the City will supply a disproportionate share of the capital used in the delivery of the service; however, the County will be funding it share of the responsibility for the service from unincorporated‐only funds.

Resolution: The fair market value of the disproportionate share of the capital to be provided by the City will be determined. For this share, the City and the County will agree to a depreciation schedule for major capital items based on general accounting principles. In addition, the County should pay the city a yearly land‐rent amount for the use of any land used in the delivery of the service.


228

Appendices

A: Laws Related to the Sheriff –Other Law Enforcement Duties

15‐16‐10 Duties of Sheriff 1) serve process 2) attend court – superior, probate 3) attend election sites on election day 4) sheriff’s notices – official advertisements 5) maintain execution docket 6) maintain record of all sales under court order 7) receive unexecuted writes, etc., from previous sheriff 8) other duties imposed by law 9) “To exercise the same duties, powers, and arrest authority within municipalities which such officer exercises in the unincorporated area of counties” 10) courthouse security; sheriff submits plan to chief judge of circuit who may modify it Section also contains ‐penalties for failure to comply with this section ‐counties with population between 625,000 and 725,000 under 2000 census, sheriff required to confine and provide for persons awaiting trial or convicted in recorder’s court (applies to DeKalb County) ‐electronic maintenance of records 15‐16‐13 Law enforcement contracts with cities authorized

Sheriffs may enter into contracts with municipal governing body, with written consent of county governing authority, to provide law enforcement services to municipality. Contracts may include any policy function.

Contracts don’t affect authority or powers of city or sheriff unless specified in contract. Contracts don’t affect powers or duties of county or city police departments. Sheriffs have same duties, powers, and arrest authority within city as they have in unincorporated areas of counties.

Contracts must provide for reimbursement of county for all costs incurred by sheriff in providing contract services, including but not limited to, compensation of deputy sheriffs and other personnel, costs of retirement, insurance, workers’ comp, other fringe benefits; costs of equipment, materials,


229

supplies, utilities (except as provided by contracting city). Contract must provide method for ascertaining costs of services. Contracts subject to general law restrictions on duration.

Payments by city under contract must be made to general fund of county. Funds must be used for purposes provided in this law and in the contract and must be paid by county governing authority.

Sheriff authorized to employ additional deputies and personnel as provided in contract and to purchase vehicles, equipment, materials, supplies, & utilities as provided for in contract, costs to be paid or funded by county in amount not exceeding contract payments made by city.

Law doesn’t apply to counties over 800,000 population (2000 census) – Fulton County

• 1999 case providing that a contract provide that city pay only a nominal fee for law enforcement services from sheriff violated this law.

40‐13‐29

Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction of all traffic misdemeanor cases originating outside cities (except where there is another court in the county assigned such jurisdiction, such as state court or recorder’s court); Municipal court has exclusive jurisdiction of such cases originating inside city limits. (If there is no municipal court, probate court retains jurisdiction of cases from city).

40‐13‐30

State Patrol officers and officers of any city or county that have authority to arrest for a misdemeanor have authority to charge for traffic offenses, except that city police officers don’t have authority to arrest beyond city limits unless provided by a local or other law. (case law notes an exception – ‘hot pursuit’ doctrine)

Macon-Bibb Tax Equity Study

Documents

Transcript of Macon-Bibb Tax Equity Study