Georgia Cities Response to the Current Economic Downturn

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research Georgia Cities Response to the Current Economic Downturn Prepared for: The Georgia Municipal Association Prepared by: The A. L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research Kennesaw State University 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, Georgia 30144-5591 770-423-6464 770-423-6395 (FAX) www.kennesaw.edu/burruss_inst

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research Georgia Cities Response to the Current Economic Downturn Executive Summary Overview In July 2009, the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) contracted with the A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research at Kennesaw State University (Burruss) to survey the GMA member cities to learn how they are coping with the economic downturn. The survey asked cities a wide range of questions regarding recent budget history, expenditure adjustments, and revenue changes for the current fiscal year and for the upcoming year. Budget History Cities were asked to indicate the level of budget increases or decreases each year beginning in 2005 and up to the planned fiscal year ending 2010. Expenditure Adjustments Cities were asked to indicate budget changes in city services of departments, boards, and agencies. Another set of questions focused on how cuts were made in the departments, boards, and agencies. In addition, a series of questions was asked to ascertain what management assessments and changes have been instituted as a way to perform services more efficiently and effectively. Finally, the survey inquired about the impact of the economy on approved and planned capital projects of the cities. Revenue Changes These survey questions focused on recent decisions on taxes, fees, and borrowing. A final series of questions were asked to ascertain if cities were using their Fund Balance to help balance their Operating Budget. Methodology After the survey instrument was agreed upon by GMA and Burruss and designed for both a web based and fax return, GMA sent a letter to member cities urging participation. There were a total of fifty one survey questions and sent to 505 municipalities. The survey was open for responses for approximately a month (mid-julymid-august) with one reminder to complete the survey sent by Burruss. Because of the wide range of populations of Georgia cities, municipalities were assigned to one of five population categories using the 2000 U.S. Census.

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research Summary of Findings The survey yielded a total of 229 responses, which represents a 45% response rate from those who received the survey and 43% of all cities in Georgia. As the following chart shows, the responses by population category are uneven. Population Class Number of Cities in GA Number Responded Responded Less than 2,500 363 106 29% 2,500-5,000 69 41 59% 5,000-10,000 41 23 56% 10,000-25,000 42 35 83% Greater than 25,000 20 14 70% All cities 535 229* 43% *10 cities did not report population Though the smallest cities (less than 2,500) comprise over 2/3 of the total number of cities, their response rate is the lowest at 29%. Other population categories show a response rate of over 50% with a high of 83% (in the population category 10,000-25,000). Notable Survey Results For the 2009 budget, 43% of the cities reporting indicated no increase or a decrease in their General Fund Budget. For the 2010 budget, 68% of the cities reporting indicated a no increase or decrease in their General Fund Budget. Road Improvements and road maintenance are the areas that are cut the most (42% and 41%, respectively). Between 30% and 40% of the cities cut the following services: General Administrative, Environmental Beautification, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, Code Inspection, and Law Enforcement. Over half of the cities responded that they had made cuts in equipment. Travel inside and outside the state, and supplies are also frequent targeted areas for cuts. Discontinuation or cuts in Overtime pay was the most frequent area (32%) targeted for cuts of the cities reporting. Other personnel targets were also utilized: not filling positions due to retirement (28%), not filling positions open due to other than retirement (31%), changes in numbers of hours worked (17%), layoffs (10%), and reductions in health benefits (17%). Nine cities (4% that reported) have established a furlough system. Twenty six cities (11%) have laid off employees. 2

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research There were 124 employees laid off by the cities reporting in 2009. As of June 30, 2009, there were a total of 672 unfilled budgeted positions. Forty-three cities (19%) have made changes to their budget process. Eleven cities have instituted new budget systems for departments. Ninety three cities (41%) indicated they have conducted a special informal assessment of departmental expenditures. Twenty-three cities (10%) reported they have conducted special formal assessment of departmental expenditures. Forty-six cities (20%) reported they have conducted a special informal assessment of agencies expenditures. Over half the cities (56% or 129) have asked their department to provide the same level of service without an increase in funding. Fifty cities (22%) have asked outside agencies to do the same. Over half the cities reported making a stronger effort to secure grant revenues. Eighty-eight (38%) indicated they are making a stronger effort to deliver services in cooperation with other jurisdictions and thirty-eight (17%) reported making more use of state agencies and/or Regional Commissions to deliver services. Twenty-three cities (10%) indicated they had contracted services to private providers in the past two years and 19 (8%) reported they are anticipating contracting more services in 2010. In FYE 2009, thirty-six (16%) reported cancelling planned capital projects. Seventy cities (31%) postponed planned capital project. The following are highlights from questions regarding taxes, fees, borrowing, and fund balances: In 2009, five cities initiated a property tax for the first time and twenty-eight cities (12%) increased property taxes. Fourteen cities plan to enact a property tax increase in FYE2010. Seventeen cities increased their occupational taxes in FYE 2009 and seven cities plan to increase them in FYE2010. Sixteen cities initiated user fees and 53 (23%) increased user fees in 2009. Thirty-nine cities (17%) reported the levy of impact fees on new development and eleven cities have increased impact fees in the last three years. 3

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research One hundred and ninety-eight cites (87%) have a SPLOST in effect and forty-one cities plan to ask for a SPLOST (either for the first time or an additional SPLOST) in 2009 or 2010. Eighteen cities rely on franchise fees (from electric, natural gas, cable, and/or telephone companies) for greater than 25% of their general fund revenue. Sixty cities (40%) rely on these fees for between 11 and 25 per cent of their general fund revenue. Seventy-three cities (48%) depend on these fees for 10% or less of their general fund revenue. Thirty-three cities ((14%) have engaged in short term borrowing in order to meet changing demands in the last two years. Sixty-five cities (28%) used a portion of their Fund Balance to balance their Operating Budget in FYE 2008 and sixty cities (26%) used their Fund Balance for the same purpose in FYE 2009. Twenty-three cities responding (10%) currently have a millage cap on property tax. Two cities have an Assessment cap. Three cities have an Assessment freeze. Fifteen cities (7%) indicated their city has a Floating Homestead Exemption. Conclusions It is difficult to make generalizations given the wide variety of city experiences, current economic condition, and population. Indeed, the results do show a mixed bag how cities are coping with the national economic downturn. Some cities in Georgia apparently are doing better than others. It is also apparent that those cities having unexpected short falls in revenues are responding in a variety of ways both on the revenue side and the expenditure side. For the most part, cities experiencing difficulties are responding in traditional or expected ways. In addition to traditional coping mechanisms, however, it is important to note that many cities are endeavoring to find better, more efficient ways of getting the tasks accomplished. In hard times of the past, cities first cut back on non essential services and defer maintenance. Personnel cuts via layoffs, furloughs, overtime, hours worked, and/or benefits, generally follow. On the revenue side, fees are usually adjusted first, then taxes. Borrowing and using fund balances come next. In all of this, employees often are expected to perform the same level of service with fewer resources. This study verifies that these processes are now taking place within various cities in Georgia. In addition, some cities are now facing, or will soon face, a third tier of adjustments. When put in place, this will severely limit the service level for citizens as well as test the tipping point for significant change. With city budgets so closely tied to the economy, it is inevitable that some cities will face this point soon. 4

Appendix A GMA Web Survey

Georgia Municipal Association City Budget Survey Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Georgia Municipal Association City Budget Survey. The survey should take you less than 15 minutes to complete. Your responses to the questions asked herein, will be completely confidential. The information gathered will be used to help policymakers predict the long term impact of the current economic downturn. If you have questions about this survey, please email Paul Vaughn, Research Associate, A.L. Burruss Institute, or call us at 770-423-6464. 1) What is your city's Less than 2,500 2,500-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-24,999 25,000 + In the first section we would like you to answer a few questions about your city s budget. 2) Please indicate the percentage change (increase or decrease) in your city s General Fund budget from the previous fiscal year. For example... FY2005 +2.1 FY2006 +3 FY2007-1.6 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY2010 (planned) % % % % % % 6

3) To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted in FYE 2009 by the current economic downturn? 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase Service Not Provided Parks and recreation Library Public health Road maintenance Road improvements Social services Waste management Environmental beautification Historic preservation Planning and zoning Code inspection Water 4) How were the following city services impacted in FY 2009 by the current economic downturn? 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase Service Not Provided Law enforcement Jail/ inmate costs Fire Emergency medical (EMS) Animal control General Administrative City court Non-Departmental (NGO s) Other - 1 Other - 2 Other - 3 5) If you responded to any of the "Other" categories above, please specify what the "Service" is, here. Other - 1 Other - 2 Other - 3 7

6) Has your city adopted any special strategies for deciding on budget cuts (i.e., across-theboard ; targeted, etc.)? Yes continue with question #7 No skip to question #8 7) Please explain the special strategies and how they were implemented. 8) Which of the following cost areas, if any, have been targeted for cuts? Please check all that apply. Travel within Georgia Travel outside of Georgia Supplies Equipment Personnel through attrition by not filling positions due to retirements Personnel through attrition by not filling positions due to means other than retirement (resignations, firings, etc.) Personnel through layoffs Personnel through changes in number of hours worked Discontinuation or cuts in overtime benefits Health care benefits Pension benefits Vacation benefits Our city has not cut costs in any area Other specify 9) How many budgeted positions were unfilled, as of June 30, 2009? 10) Has your city implemented a furlough system? Yes continue with question #11 No skip to question #12 11) Please provide details on the furlough system your city has put in place. 12) Have any employees have been laid off during FYE 2009? 8

Yes continue with question #13 No skip to question #15 13) How many employees have been laid off during FYE 2009? 14) Please provide specific information on how layoffs in your city will impact service delivery, and if applicable, the local economy ( e.g. city planning staff has been cut by 3 employees, hence plan review process is slowed down significantly which has a direct impact on local builders, engineers, architects, etc.). 15) Has your city changed the budgetary process in response to recent changes in revenue? Yes continue with question #16 No skip to question #17 on the next page 16) Please describe how the budgetary process has changed. 9

17) Please check any changes listed below that you have initiated in the past two years (FY 2008-FY 2009). Note: "department" means a city department such as the Police Department or Finance Department; agency means an outside organization (i.e., history museum, youth program, etc.) to which city funds are appropriated. Our city has conducted a special informal assessment of department expenditures. Our city has conducted a special formal assessment of department expenditures. Our city has adopted a new budgetary system for departments to justify their expenditures (such as Performance Based Budgeting, Zero Based Budgeting or PPBS). Our city has conducted an informal assessment of agency expenditures. Our city has conducted a formal assessment of agency expenditures. Our city has adopted a new budgetary system for agencies to justify their expenditures (such as Performance Based Budgeting, Zero Based Budgeting or PPBS). City departments have been asked to provide services at the same level without an increase in funds, or to do more with less. Our city has asked agencies to provide services at the same level without an increase in funds, or to do more with less. Our city has made a stronger effort to secure grant revenues. Our city has made a stronger effort to deliver services in cooperation with other jurisdictions (such as the county or other municipalities). Our city made more use of state agencies and/or the Regional Commissions to deliver services? Our city contracted out additional services to private service providers in the past two years, in order to cut costs. Our city is anticipating contracting out more services in 2009 and 2010 than in previous years, in order to cut costs? Other specify 18) Did the FYE 09 budget result in the cancellation of any planned capital projects? Yes continue with question #19 No skip to question #20 on the next page 19) Please elaborate on what actions were taken and what effect the actions had. 10

20) Did the FYE 09 budget result in the postponement of any planned capital projects? Yes continue with question #21 No skip to question #22 21) Please elaborate on what actions were taken and what effect the actions had. 22) Did the FYE 09 budget result in the cancellation of any capital projects already underway? Yes continue with question #23 No skip to question #24 23) Please elaborate on what actions were taken and what effect the actions had. 24) Did the FYE 09 budget result in the postponement of any capital projects already underway? Yes continue with question #25 No skip to question #26 25) Please elaborate on what actions were taken and what effect the actions had. 26) Please comment on the impact of unfunded mandates by the state and/or federal government on your city s budget. 11

The next few questions deal with revenues, including taxes, fees, and borrowing. For each of the following categories, please indicate whether your city has proposed or enacted revenue increases. 27) Property Taxes Proposed but not Enacted Neither Proposed nor Enacted Enacted Initiated a property tax for the first time Increase in property taxes in FY 2008 Increase in property taxes in FY 2009 Increase in property taxes planned in FY 2010 28) Occupation Taxes Proposed but not Enacted Neither Proposed nor Enacted Enacted Increase in occupation taxes in FY 2008 Increase in occupation taxes in FY 2009 Increase in occupation taxes planned in FY 2010 For each of the following categories, please indicate whether your city has proposed or enacted revenue increases. 29) User fees for services Proposed but not Enacted Neither Proposed nor Enacted Enacted Initiated user fees for the first time in FYE 09 Increase in user fees for services in FY 2008 Increase in user fees for services in FY 2009 Increase in user fees for services planned in FY 2010 30) Other fees (not including impact fees) Proposed but not Enacted Neither Proposed nor Enacted Enacted Initiated other fees for the first time in FYE 09 Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) in FY 2008 Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) in FY 2009 Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) planned in FY 2010 12

31) What new fees were proposed, or have already been put in place? 32) Does your city currently assess impact fees on new development? Yes continue with question #33 No skip to question #34 33) Have the city s impact fees been increased in the last three years? Yes No 34) Does your city currently have a SPLOST in effect? Yes No 35) Does your city plan to ask for a SPLOST (either a first-time or additional SPLOST) in 2009 or 2010? Yes No Currently under consideration 36) Does your city have a millage cap? Yes No 37) Other than the temporary assessment freeze required by HB233, which passed during the 2009 Legislative Session, does your city have an assessment cap, assessment freeze, or floating homestead exemption? Mark all that apply Assessment cap please answer #38 Assessment freeze please answer #39 Floating homestead exemption skip to #40 13

38) Please describe the assessment cap. 39) In what year was the assessment freeze enacted? 40) What percentage of your city s general fund revenues come from franchise fees paid by electric, natural gas, cable, and/or telephone companies? percent of total general fund budget 41) Please provide any additional information regarding any other changes in revenue your city has had in the past three years. 42) Has your city engaged in any type of short term borrowing in order to meet changing demands in the budget in FYE 2008 or FYE 2009? Yes No 43) Has your city engaged in the issuance of general obligation bonds in order to meet changing demands in the budget in FYE 2008 or FYE 2009? Yes No 44) In regards to potential borrowing, has your city delayed a vote on any bond issue in FY 2007, 2008, or 2009? Yes No 45) Has your city used any portion of its Fund Balance to balance its Operating Budget in FYE 08? Yes No 14

46) Please explain what portion of the Fund Balance was used, and how it was used. 47) Has your city used any portion of its Fund Balance to balance its Operating Budget in FYE 09? Yes No 48) Please explain what portion of the Fund Balance was used, and how it was used. 49) Has your city used any portion of its Fund Balance to balance its Operating Budget in FYE 10? Yes No 50) Please explain what portion of the Fund Balance was used, and how it was used. 51) Are there any additional comments you would like to make regarding the budget process in your city? Please include any comments you feel would be particularly informative to state legislators. 15

Thank you very much for participating in this very important gathering of information. If you have questions about this survey, please email Paul Vaughn, Research Associate, A.L. Burruss Institute, or call us at 770-423-6464. Please return the completed survey to: Kennesaw State University A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service and Research Attn: GMA 1000 Chastain Rd. MD 3302 Bldg. 33, Rm 312 Kennesaw, GA 30144-9732 If you prefer, you may fax your completed survey to: (770) 423-6395 16

Appendix B Graphs

60% What is your city's 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 2,500 2,500-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-24,999 25,000 + 18

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Parks and recreation Library Public health Road maintenance Road improvements Social services Waste management Environmental beautification 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase Service Not Provided 19

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? (cont.) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Historic preservation Planning and zoning Code inspection Water Law enforcement Jail/ inmate costs Fire Emergency medical 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase Service Not Provided 20

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? (cont.) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Animal control General Administrative City court Non-Departmental 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase Service Not Provided 21

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? -- Service not provided REMOVED 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Parks and recreation Library Public health Road maintenance Road improvements Social services Waste management Environmental beautification 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase 22

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? -- Service not provided REMOVED 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Historic preservation Planning and zoning Code inspection Water Law enforcement Jail/ inmate costs Fire Emergency medical 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase 23

100% To what degree have the provision of the following city services been impacted? -- Service not provided REMOVED 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Animal control General Administrative City court Non-Departmental 5% or greater reduction 1% - 4% reduction No Change 1% - 4% increase 5% or greater increase 24

60% Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? "Yes" responses only 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Travel inside of Georgia Travel outside GA Supplies Equipment Not filling positions due to retirement Not filling position NOT due to retirement Layoffs Change in num of hours worked 25

35% Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? "Yes" responses only 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Discontinuation or cuts in OT Health benefits Pension benefits Vacation benefits Cut no costs in any area 26

Appendix C Overall Frequencies

Frequency Tables GMA What is your city's Frequency Valid Valid Less than 2,500 106 46.3 48.4 48.4 2,500-4,999 41 17.9 18.7 67.1 5,000-9,999 23 10.0 10.5 77.6 10,000-24,999 35 15.3 16.0 93.6 25,000 + 14 6.1 6.4 100.0 Total 219 95.6 100.0 Missing System 10 4.4 Total 229 100.0 28

FY 2005 percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -17 1.4.8.8-13 1.4.8 1.6-9 3 1.3 2.4 4.0-6 2.9 1.6 5.6-5 1.4.8 6.5-3 1.4.8 7.3-2 1.4.8 8.1-1 5 2.2 4.0 12.1 0 43 18.8 34.7 46.8 1 18 7.9 14.5 61.3 2 12 5.2 9.7 71.0 3 10 4.4 8.1 79.0 4 5 2.2 4.0 83.1 5 5 2.2 4.0 87.1 7 1.4.8 87.9 8 2.9 1.6 89.5 10 1.4.8 90.3 11 2.9 1.6 91.9 12 1.4.8 92.7 14 2.9 1.6 94.4 15 1.4.8 95.2 22 1.4.8 96.0 23 1.4.8 96.8 24 1.4.8 97.6 25 1.4.8 98.4 27 1.4.8 99.2 30 1.4.8 100.0 Total 124 54.1 100.0 Missing 98 1.4 99 4 1.7 System 100 43.7 Total 105 45.9 Total 229 100.0 29

FY 2006 percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -29 1.4.9.9-17 1.4.9 1.7-12 2.9 1.7 3.5-10 1.4.9 4.3-6 1.4.9 5.2-2 3 1.3 2.6 7.8-1 4 1.7 3.5 11.3 0 32 14.0 27.8 39.1 1 16 7.0 13.9 53.0 2 10 4.4 8.7 61.7 3 11 4.8 9.6 71.3 4 6 2.6 5.2 76.5 5 8 3.5 7.0 83.5 6 1.4.9 84.3 7 1.4.9 85.2 8 1.4.9 86.1 10 5 2.2 4.3 90.4 11 2.9 1.7 92.2 12 3 1.3 2.6 94.8 14 1.4.9 95.7 17 1.4.9 96.5 21 1.4.9 97.4 30 1.4.9 98.3 33 1.4.9 99.1 43 1.4.9 100.0 Total 115 50.2 100.0 Missing 90 1.4 99 3 1.3 System 110 48.0 Total 114 49.8 Total 229 100.0 30

FY 2007 percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -11 1.4.9.9-6 1.4.9 1.8-5 1.4.9 2.7-4 1.4.9 3.6-3 2.9 1.8 5.4-2 2.9 1.8 7.2-1 2.9 1.8 9.0 0 26 11.4 23.4 32.4 1 13 5.7 11.7 44.1 2 11 4.8 9.9 54.1 3 13 5.7 11.7 65.8 4 4 1.7 3.6 69.4 5 5 2.2 4.5 73.9 6 3 1.3 2.7 76.6 7 2.9 1.8 78.4 8 1.4.9 79.3 9 3 1.3 2.7 82.0 10 5 2.2 4.5 86.5 11 1.4.9 87.4 13 1.4.9 88.3 14 2.9 1.8 90.1 15 1.4.9 91.0 17 2.9 1.8 92.8 18 1.4.9 93.7 23 2.9 1.8 95.5 27 1.4.9 96.4 31 1.4.9 97.3 46 1.4.9 98.2 49 1.4.9 99.1 55 1.4.9 100.0 Total 111 48.5 100.0 Missing 99 3 1.3 System 115 50.2 Total 118 51.5 Total 229 100.0 31

FY 2008 percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -36 1.4.9.9-19 1.4.9 1.8-15 1.4.9 2.6-13 1.4.9 3.5-12 1.4.9 4.4-10 1.4.9 5.3-9 2.9 1.8 7.0-8 1.4.9 7.9-7 2.9 1.8 9.6-5 1.4.9 10.5-4 1.4.9 11.4-3 3 1.3 2.6 14.0-2 1.4.9 14.9-1 1.4.9 15.8 0 25 10.9 21.9 37.7 1 23 10.0 20.2 57.9 2 10 4.4 8.8 66.7 3 10 4.4 8.8 75.4 4 2.9 1.8 77.2 5 3 1.3 2.6 79.8 6 5 2.2 4.4 84.2 7 2.9 1.8 86.0 9 4 1.7 3.5 89.5 10 2.9 1.8 91.2 11 1.4.9 92.1 13 2.9 1.8 93.9 14 1.4.9 94.7 16 1.4.9 95.6 18 1.4.9 96.5 24 1.4.9 97.4 48 1.4.9 98.2 64 1.4.9 99.1 81 1.4.9 100.0 Total 114 49.8 100.0 Missing 99 1.4 System 114 49.8 Total 115 50.2 Total 229 100.0 32

FY 2009 percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -64 1.4.9.9-55 1.4.9 1.7-29 1.4.9 2.6-25 1.4.9 3.5-16 1.4.9 4.3-15 1.4.9 5.2-10 1.4.9 6.1-8 3 1.3 2.6 8.7-7 1.4.9 9.6-6 1.4.9 10.4-5 2.9 1.7 12.2-4 1.4.9 13.0-3 3 1.3 2.6 15.7-2 9 3.9 7.8 23.5-1 9 3.9 7.8 31.3 0 14 6.1 12.2 43.5 1 18 7.9 15.7 59.1 2 7 3.1 6.1 65.2 3 11 4.8 9.6 74.8 4 2.9 1.7 76.5 5 6 2.6 5.2 81.7 6 5 2.2 4.3 86.1 7 1.4.9 87.0 8 2.9 1.7 88.7 9 3 1.3 2.6 91.3 10 4 1.7 3.5 94.8 11 1.4.9 95.7 12 1.4.9 96.5 13 1.4.9 97.4 17 1.4.9 98.3 21 1.4.9 99.1 47 1.4.9 100.0 Total 115 50.2 100.0 Missing 97 1.4 99 1.4 System 112 48.9 Total 114 49.8 Total 229 100.0 33

FY2010 (planned) percentage change in your city s General Fund budget Frequency Valid Valid -995 1.4.9.9-17 2.9 1.7 2.6-15 1.4.9 3.4-14 2.9 1.7 5.2-12 1.4.9 6.0-10 9 3.9 7.8 13.8-8 2.9 1.7 15.5-7 1.4.9 16.4-6 2.9 1.7 18.1-5 4 1.7 3.4 21.6-4 3 1.3 2.6 24.1-3 4 1.7 3.4 27.6-2 4 1.7 3.4 31.0-1 9 3.9 7.8 38.8 0 34 14.8 29.3 68.1 1 10 4.4 8.6 76.7 2 5 2.2 4.3 81.0 3 7 3.1 6.0 87.1 4 4 1.7 3.4 90.5 5 5 2.2 4.3 94.8 7 1.4.9 95.7 8 1.4.9 96.6 10 3 1.3 2.6 99.1 87 1.4.9 100.0 Total 116 50.7 100.0 Missing 98 1.4 99 1.4 System 111 48.5 Total 113 49.3 Total 229 100.0 34

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Parks and recreation Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 23 10.0 10.4 10.4 1% - 4% reduction 32 14.0 14.5 24.9 No Change 85 37.1 38.5 63.3 1% - 4% increase 21 9.2 9.5 72.9 5% or greater increase 6 2.6 2.7 75.6 Service Not Provided 54 23.6 24.4 100.0 Total 221 96.5 100.0 Missing System 8 3.5 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Library Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 11 4.8 5.1 5.1 1% - 4% reduction 11 4.8 5.1 10.2 No Change 58 25.3 27.0 37.2 1% - 4% increase 7 3.1 3.3 40.5 5% or greater increase 6 2.6 2.8 43.3 Service Not Provided 122 53.3 56.7 100.0 Total 215 93.9 100.0 Missing System 14 6.1 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Public health Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1% - 4% reduction 3 1.3 1.5 2.9 No Change 29 12.7 14.2 17.2 1% - 4% increase 2.9 1.0 18.1 5% or greater increase 3 1.3 1.5 19.6 Service Not Provided 164 71.6 80.4 100.0 Total 204 89.1 100.0 Missing System 25 10.9 Total 229 100.0 35

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Road maintenance Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 29 12.7 13.5 13.5 1% - 4% reduction 50 21.8 23.3 36.7 No Change 85 37.1 39.5 76.3 1% - 4% increase 22 9.6 10.2 86.5 5% or greater increase 8 3.5 3.7 90.2 Service Not Provided 21 9.2 9.8 100.0 Total 215 93.9 100.0 Missing System 14 6.1 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Road improvements Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 46 20.1 21.1 21.1 1% - 4% reduction 35 15.3 16.1 37.2 No Change 88 38.4 40.4 77.5 1% - 4% increase 19 8.3 8.7 86.2 5% or greater increase 7 3.1 3.2 89.4 Service Not Provided 23 10.0 10.6 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Social services Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1% - 4% reduction 6 2.6 2.8 4.2 No Change 39 17.0 18.3 22.5 1% - 4% increase 3 1.3 1.4 23.9 5% or greater increase 1.4.5 24.4 Service Not Provided 161 70.3 75.6 100.0 Total 213 93.0 100.0 Missing System 16 7.0 Total 229 100.0 36

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Waste management Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 8 3.5 3.6 3.6 1% - 4% reduction 22 9.6 9.9 13.5 No Change 100 43.7 45.0 58.6 1% - 4% increase 42 18.3 18.9 77.5 5% or greater increase 13 5.7 5.9 83.3 Service Not Provided 37 16.2 16.7 100.0 Total 222 96.9 100.0 Missing System 7 3.1 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Environmental beautification Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 21 9.2 9.7 9.7 1% - 4% reduction 29 12.7 13.4 23.1 No Change 82 35.8 38.0 61.1 1% - 4% increase 10 4.4 4.6 65.7 5% or greater increase 2.9.9 66.7 Service Not Provided 72 31.4 33.3 100.0 Total 216 94.3 100.0 Missing System 13 5.7 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Historic preservation Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 10 4.4 4.6 4.6 1% - 4% reduction 7 3.1 3.2 7.9 No Change 86 37.6 39.8 47.7 1% - 4% increase 6 2.6 2.8 50.5 5% or greater increase 3 1.3 1.4 51.9 Service Not Provided 104 45.4 48.1 100.0 Total 216 94.3 100.0 Missing System 13 5.7 37

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Historic preservation Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 10 4.4 4.6 4.6 1% - 4% reduction 7 3.1 3.2 7.9 No Change 86 37.6 39.8 47.7 1% - 4% increase 6 2.6 2.8 50.5 5% or greater increase 3 1.3 1.4 51.9 Service Not Provided 104 45.4 48.1 100.0 Total 216 94.3 100.0 Missing System 13 5.7 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Planning and zoning Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 36 15.7 16.5 16.5 1% - 4% reduction 22 9.6 10.1 26.6 No Change 100 43.7 45.9 72.5 1% - 4% increase 21 9.2 9.6 82.1 5% or greater increase 6 2.6 2.8 84.9 Service Not Provided 33 14.4 15.1 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Code inspection Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 34 14.8 15.6 15.6 1% - 4% reduction 21 9.2 9.6 25.2 No Change 94 41.0 43.1 68.3 1% - 4% increase 22 9.6 10.1 78.4 5% or greater increase 5 2.2 2.3 80.7 Service Not Provided 42 18.3 19.3 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 38

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Water Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 17 7.4 7.6 7.6 1% - 4% reduction 29 12.7 12.9 20.5 No Change 71 31.0 31.7 52.2 1% - 4% increase 48 21.0 21.4 73.7 5% or greater increase 24 10.5 10.7 84.4 Service Not Provided 35 15.3 15.6 100.0 Total 224 97.8 100.0 Missing System 5 2.2 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Law enforcement Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 19 8.3 8.6 8.6 1% - 4% reduction 34 14.8 15.4 24.0 No Change 68 29.7 30.8 54.8 1% - 4% increase 45 19.7 20.4 75.1 5% or greater increase 11 4.8 5.0 80.1 Service Not Provided 44 19.2 19.9 100.0 Total 221 96.5 100.0 Missing System 8 3.5 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Jail/ inmate costs Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 4 1.7 1.8 1.8 1% - 4% reduction 8 3.5 3.7 5.5 No Change 51 22.3 23.4 28.9 1% - 4% increase 27 11.8 12.4 41.3 5% or greater increase 13 5.7 6.0 47.2 Service Not Provided 115 50.2 52.8 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Fire 39

Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 6 2.6 2.8 2.8 1% - 4% reduction 20 8.7 9.3 12.0 No Change 97 42.4 44.9 56.9 1% - 4% increase 31 13.5 14.4 71.3 5% or greater increase 8 3.5 3.7 75.0 Service Not Provided 54 23.6 25.0 100.0 Total 216 94.3 100.0 Missing System 13 5.7 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Emergency medical (EMS) Frequency Valid Valid 1% - 4% reduction 1.4.5.5 No Change 38 16.6 17.8 18.2 1% - 4% increase 7 3.1 3.3 21.5 5% or greater increase 3 1.3 1.4 22.9 Service Not Provided 165 72.1 77.1 100.0 Total 214 93.4 100.0 Missing System 15 6.6 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Animal control Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 6 2.6 2.8 2.8 1% - 4% reduction 11 4.8 5.0 7.8 No Change 72 31.4 33.0 40.8 1% - 4% increase 14 6.1 6.4 47.2 5% or greater increase 6 2.6 2.8 50.0 Service Not Provided 109 47.6 50.0 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - General Administrative 40

Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 29 12.7 13.2 13.2 1% - 4% reduction 50 21.8 22.8 36.1 No Change 87 38.0 39.7 75.8 1% - 4% increase 45 19.7 20.5 96.3 5% or greater increase 3 1.3 1.4 97.7 Service Not Provided 5 2.2 2.3 100.0 Total 219 95.6 100.0 Missing System 10 4.4 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - City court Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 8 3.5 3.7 3.7 1% - 4% reduction 29 12.7 13.3 17.0 No Change 100 43.7 45.9 62.8 1% - 4% increase 37 16.2 17.0 79.8 5% or greater increase 9 3.9 4.1 83.9 Service Not Provided 35 15.3 16.1 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Non- Departmental (NGO s) Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 6 2.6 3.2 3.2 1% - 4% reduction 12 5.2 6.4 9.6 No Change 70 30.6 37.2 46.8 1% - 4% increase 2.9 1.1 47.9 5% or greater increase 1.4.5 48.4 Service Not Provided 97 42.4 51.6 100.0 Total 188 82.1 100.0 Missing System 41 17.9 Total 229 100.0 41

To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Other - 1 Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 6 2.6 5.9 5.9 1% - 4% reduction 4 1.7 4.0 9.9 No Change 14 6.1 13.9 23.8 1% - 4% increase 1.4 1.0 24.8 5% or greater increase 2.9 2.0 26.7 Service Not Provided 74 32.3 73.3 100.0 Total 101 44.1 100.0 Missing System 128 55.9 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Other - 2 Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 2.9 2.2 2.2 1% - 4% reduction 2.9 2.2 4.3 No Change 12 5.2 13.0 17.4 1% - 4% increase 2.9 2.2 19.6 Service Not Provided 74 32.3 80.4 100.0 Total 92 40.2 100.0 Missing System 137 59.8 Total 229 100.0 To what degree has the provision of city services been impacted - Other - 3 Frequency Valid Valid 5% or greater reduction 2.9 2.2 2.2 1% - 4% reduction 1.4 1.1 3.4 No Change 11 4.8 12.4 15.7 5% or greater increase 1.4 1.1 16.9 Service Not Provided 74 32.3 83.1 100.0 Total 89 38.9 100.0 Missing System 140 61.1 Total 229 100.0 42

Has your city adopted any special strategies for deciding on budget cuts (i.e., across-the-board ; targeted, etc.)? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 70 30.6 30.8 30.8 No 157 68.6 69.2 100.0 Total 227 99.1 100.0 Missing System 2.9 Total 229 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Travel within Georgia Frequency Valid Valid No 128 55.9 55.9 55.9 Yes 101 44.1 44.1 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Travel outside of Georgia Frequency Valid Valid No 152 66.4 66.4 66.4 Yes 77 33.6 33.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Supplies Frequency Valid Valid No 131 57.2 57.2 57.2 Yes 98 42.8 42.8 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Equipment Frequency Valid Valid No 110 48.0 48.0 48.0 Yes 119 52.0 52.0 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 43

Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Personnel through attrition by not filling positions due to retirements Frequency Valid Valid No 166 72.5 72.5 72.5 Yes 63 27.5 27.5 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Personnel through attrition by not filling positions due to means other than retirement Frequency Valid Valid No 157 68.6 68.6 68.6 Yes 72 31.4 31.4 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Personnel through layoffs Frequency Valid Valid No 207 90.4 90.4 90.4 Yes 22 9.6 9.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Personnel through changes in number of hours worked Frequency Valid Valid No 191 83.4 83.4 83.4 Yes 38 16.6 16.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Discontinuation or cuts in overtime benefits Frequency Valid Valid No 155 67.7 67.7 67.7 Yes 74 32.3 32.3 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 44

Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Health care benefits Frequency Valid Valid No 190 83.0 83.0 83.0 Yes 39 17.0 17.0 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Pension benefits Frequency Valid Valid No 221 96.5 96.5 96.5 Yes 8 3.5 3.5 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Vacation benefits Frequency Valid Valid No 224 97.8 97.8 97.8 Yes 5 2.2 2.2 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Our city has not cut costs in any area Frequency Valid Valid No 185 80.8 80.8 80.8 Yes 44 19.2 19.2 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Which of the following cost areas have been targeted for cuts? Other Frequency Valid Valid No 214 93.4 93.4 93.4 Yes 15 6.6 6.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 45

How many budgeted positions were unfilled, as of June 30, 2009? Frequency Valid Valid 0 104 45.4 50.5 50.5 1 24 10.5 11.7 62.1 2 18 7.9 8.7 70.9 3 9 3.9 4.4 75.2 4 11 4.8 5.3 80.6 5 5 2.2 2.4 83.0 6 8 3.5 3.9 86.9 7 2.9 1.0 87.9 8 2.9 1.0 88.8 10 3 1.3 1.5 90.3 11 1.4.5 90.8 12 4 1.7 1.9 92.7 14 2.9 1.0 93.7 15 1.4.5 94.2 16 1.4.5 94.7 19 1.4.5 95.1 20 1.4.5 95.6 21 1.4.5 96.1 25 1.4.5 96.6 27 2.9 1.0 97.6 35 1.4.5 98.1 46 1.4.5 98.5 47 1.4.5 99.0 50 1.4.5 99.5 98 1.4.5 100.0 Total 206 90.0 100.0 Missing System 23 10.0 Total 229 100.0 Has your city implemented a furlough system? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 9 3.9 3.9 3.9 No 219 95.6 96.1 100.0 Total 228 99.6 100.0 Missing System 1.4 Total 229 100.0 46

Have any employees have been laid off during FYE 2009? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 26 11.4 11.5 11.5 No 200 87.3 88.5 100.0 Total 226 98.7 100.0 Missing System 3 1.3 Total 229 100.0 How many employees have been laid off during FYE 2009? Frequency Valid Valid 1 8 3.5 32.0 32.0 2 6 2.6 24.0 56.0 3 2.9 8.0 64.0 4 1.4 4.0 68.0 5 2.9 8.0 76.0 7 3 1.3 12.0 88.0 8 1.4 4.0 92.0 25 1.4 4.0 96.0 30 1.4 4.0 100.0 Total 25 10.9 100.0 Missing System 204 89.1 Total 229 100.0 Has your city changed the budgetary process in response to recent changes in revenue? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 43 18.8 18.9 18.9 No 185 80.8 81.1 100.0 Total 228 99.6 100.0 Missing System 1.4 Total 229 100.0 Our city has conducted a special informal assessment of department expenditures. Frequency Valid Valid No 136 59.4 59.4 59.4 Yes 93 40.6 40.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 47

Our city has conducted a special formal assessment of department expenditures. Frequency Valid Valid No 206 90.0 90.0 90.0 Yes 23 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has adopted a new budgetary system for departments to justify their expenditures Frequency Valid Valid No 218 95.2 95.2 95.2 Yes 11 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has conducted an informal assessment of agency expenditures. Frequency Valid Valid No 183 79.9 79.9 79.9 Yes 46 20.1 20.1 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has conducted a formal assessment of agency expenditures. Frequency Valid Valid No 216 94.3 94.3 94.3 Yes 13 5.7 5.7 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has adopted a new budgetary system for agencies to justify their expenditures Frequency Valid Valid No 222 96.9 96.9 96.9 Yes 7 3.1 3.1 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 48

City departments have been asked to provide services at the same level without an increase in funds Frequency Valid Valid No 100 43.7 43.7 43.7 Yes 129 56.3 56.3 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has asked agencies to provide services at the same level without an increase in funds Frequency Valid Valid No 179 78.2 78.2 78.2 Yes 50 21.8 21.8 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has made a stronger effort to secure grant revenues. Frequency Valid Valid No 101 44.1 44.1 44.1 Yes 128 55.9 55.9 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city has made a stronger effort to deliver services in cooperation with other jurisdictions Frequency Valid Valid No 141 61.6 61.6 61.6 Yes 88 38.4 38.4 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city made more use of state agencies and/or the Regional Commissions to deliver services Frequency Valid Valid No 191 83.4 83.4 83.4 Yes 38 16.6 16.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 49

Our city contracted out additional services to private service providers in the past two years Frequency Valid Valid No 206 90.0 90.0 90.0 Yes 23 10.0 10.0 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Our city is anticipating contracting out more services in 2009 and 2010 than in previous years Frequency Valid Valid No 210 91.7 91.7 91.7 Yes 19 8.3 8.3 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Other Frequency Valid Valid No 226 98.7 98.7 98.7 Yes 3 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Did the FYE 09 budget result in the cancellation of any planned capital projects? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 36 15.7 15.8 15.8 No 192 83.8 84.2 100.0 Total 228 99.6 100.0 Missing System 1.4 Total 229 100.0 Did the FYE 09 budget result in the postponement of any planned capital projects? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 70 30.6 31.1 31.1 No 155 67.7 68.9 100.0 Total 225 98.3 100.0 Missing System 4 1.7 Total 229 100.0 50

Did the FYE 09 budget result in the cancellation of any capital projects already underway? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 2.9.9.9 No 222 96.9 99.1 100.0 Total 224 97.8 100.0 Missing System 5 2.2 Total 229 100.0 Did the FYE 09 budget result in the postponement of any capital projects already underway? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 12 5.2 5.3 5.3 No 216 94.3 94.7 100.0 Total 228 99.6 100.0 Missing System 1.4 Total 229 100.0 Initiated a property tax for the first time Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 8 3.5 4.7 4.7 Enacted 5 2.2 3.0 7.7 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 156 68.1 92.3 100.0 Total 169 73.8 100.0 Missing System 60 26.2 Total 229 100.0 Increase in property taxes in FY 2008 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 9 3.9 4.3 4.3 Enacted 37 16.2 17.8 22.1 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 162 70.7 77.9 100.0 Total 208 90.8 100.0 Missing System 21 9.2 Total 229 100.0 51

Increase in property taxes in FY 2009 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 19 8.3 9.0 9.0 Enacted 28 12.2 13.3 22.3 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 164 71.6 77.7 100.0 Total 211 92.1 100.0 Missing System 18 7.9 Total 229 100.0 Increase in property taxes planned in FY 2010 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 28 12.2 13.9 13.9 Enacted 14 6.1 6.9 20.8 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 160 69.9 79.2 100.0 Total 202 88.2 100.0 Missing System 27 11.8 Total 229 100.0 Increase in occupation taxes in FY 2008 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 8 3.5 3.7 3.7 Enacted 12 5.2 5.6 9.3 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 195 85.2 90.7 100.0 Total 215 93.9 100.0 Missing System 14 6.1 Total 229 100.0 Increase in occupation taxes in FY 2009 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 11 4.8 5.1 5.1 Enacted 17 7.4 7.9 13.0 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 187 81.7 87.0 100.0 Total 215 93.9 100.0 Missing System 14 6.1 Total 229 100.0 52

Increase in occupation taxes planned in FY 2010 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 19 8.3 9.0 9.0 Enacted 7 3.1 3.3 12.3 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 186 81.2 87.7 100.0 Total 212 92.6 100.0 Missing System 17 7.4 Total 229 100.0 Initiated user fees for the first time in FYE 09 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 5 2.2 2.5 2.5 Enacted 16 7.0 8.0 10.6 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 178 77.7 89.4 100.0 Total 199 86.9 100.0 Missing System 30 13.1 Total 229 100.0 Increase in user fees for services in FY 2008 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 4 1.7 1.9 1.9 Enacted 49 21.4 23.1 25.0 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 159 69.4 75.0 100.0 Total 212 92.6 100.0 Missing System 17 7.4 Total 229 100.0 Increase in user fees for services in FY 2009 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 9 3.9 4.2 4.2 Enacted 53 23.1 24.8 29.0 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 152 66.4 71.0 100.0 Total 214 93.4 100.0 Missing System 15 6.6 53

Increase in user fees for services in FY 2009 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 9 3.9 4.2 4.2 Enacted 53 23.1 24.8 29.0 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 152 66.4 71.0 100.0 Total 214 93.4 100.0 Missing System 15 6.6 Total 229 100.0 Increase in user fees for services planned in FY 2010 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 31 13.5 15.0 15.0 Enacted 26 11.4 12.6 27.5 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 150 65.5 72.5 100.0 Total 207 90.4 100.0 Missing System 22 9.6 Total 229 100.0 Initiated other fees for the first time in FYE 09 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 5 2.2 2.4 2.4 Enacted 12 5.2 5.8 8.2 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 190 83.0 91.8 100.0 Total 207 90.4 100.0 Missing System 22 9.6 Total 229 100.0 Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) in FY 2008 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 4 1.7 1.9 1.9 Enacted 17 7.4 8.2 10.1 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 186 81.2 89.9 100.0 Total 207 90.4 100.0 Missing System 22 9.6 Total 229 100.0 54

Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) in FY 2009 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 6 2.6 2.9 2.9 Enacted 25 10.9 12.2 15.1 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 174 76.0 84.9 100.0 Total 205 89.5 100.0 Missing System 24 10.5 Total 229 100.0 Increase in other fees (not including impact fees) planned in FY 2010 Frequency Valid Valid Proposed but not Enacted 16 7.0 7.9 7.9 Enacted 12 5.2 5.9 13.9 Neither Proposed nor Enacted 174 76.0 86.1 100.0 Total 202 88.2 100.0 Missing System 27 11.8 Total 229 100.0 Does your city currently assess impact fees on new development? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 39 17.0 17.3 17.3 No 186 81.2 82.7 100.0 Total 225 98.3 100.0 Missing System 4 1.7 Total 229 100.0 Have the city s impact fees been increased in the last three years? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 11 4.8 28.2 28.2 No 28 12.2 71.8 100.0 Total 39 17.0 100.0 Missing System 190 83.0 Total 229 100.0 55

Does your city currently have a SPLOST in effect? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 198 86.5 87.6 87.6 No 28 12.2 12.4 100.0 Total 226 98.7 100.0 Missing System 3 1.3 Total 229 100.0 Does your city plan to ask for a SPLOST (either a first-time or additional SPLOST) in 2009 or 2010? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 41 17.9 18.8 18.8 No 142 62.0 65.1 83.9 Currently under consideration 35 15.3 16.1 100.0 Total 218 95.2 100.0 Missing System 11 4.8 Total 229 100.0 Does your city have a millage cap? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 23 10.0 10.6 10.6 No 194 84.7 89.4 100.0 Total 217 94.8 100.0 Missing System 12 5.2 Total 229 100.0 Does your city have an Assessment cap Frequency Valid Valid No 227 99.1 99.1 99.1 Yes 2.9.9 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Does your city have an Assessment freeze Frequency Valid Valid No 226 98.7 98.7 98.7 Yes 3 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 56

Does your city have an Floating homestead exemption Frequency Valid Valid No 214 93.4 93.4 93.4 Yes 15 6.6 6.6 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 Does your city have an None of the above Frequency Valid Valid No 61 26.6 26.6 26.6 Yes 168 73.4 73.4 100.0 Total 229 100.0 100.0 In what year was the freeze enacted? Frequency Valid Valid 1 1.4 100.0 100.0 Missing System 228 99.6 Total 229 100.0 In what year was the assessment freeze enacted? Frequency Valid Valid 1971 1.4 33.3 33.3 2000 1.4 33.3 66.7 2009 1.4 33.3 100.0 Total 3 1.3 100.0 Missing System 226 98.7 Total 229 100.0 57

What percentage of your city s general fund revenues come from franchise fees paid by electric, natural gas, cable, and/or telephone companies? Frequency Valid Valid 0 2.9 1.3 1.3 1 5 2.2 3.3 4.6 2 1.4.7 5.3 3 3 1.3 2.0 7.3 4 4 1.7 2.6 9.9 5 12 5.2 7.9 17.9 6 8 3.5 5.3 23.2 7 4 1.7 2.6 25.8 8 8 3.5 5.3 31.1 9 4 1.7 2.6 33.8 10 22 9.6 14.6 48.3 11 6 2.6 4.0 52.3 12 11 4.8 7.3 59.6 13 4 1.7 2.6 62.3 14 4 1.7 2.6 64.9 15 10 4.4 6.6 71.5 16 2.9 1.3 72.8 17 1.4.7 73.5 19 2.9 1.3 74.8 20 12 5.2 7.9 82.8 21 3 1.3 2.0 84.8 24 1.4.7 85.4 25 4 1.7 2.6 88.1 27 1.4.7 88.7 30 2.9 1.3 90.1 32 1.4.7 90.7 33 1.4.7 91.4 35 3 1.3 2.0 93.4 40 3 1.3 2.0 95.4 42 1.4.7 96.0 50 4 1.7 2.6 98.7 75 1.4.7 99.3 98 1.4.7 100.0 Total 151 65.9 100.0 Missing System 78 34.1 Total 229 100.0 58

Has your city engaged in any type of short term borrowing in order to meet changing demands in the budget in FYE 2008 or FYE 2009? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 33 14.4 14.7 14.7 No 191 83.4 85.3 100.0 Total 224 97.8 100.0 Missing System 5 2.2 Total 229 100.0 Has your city engaged in the issuance of general obligation bonds in order to meet changing demands in the budget in FYE 2008 or FYE 2009? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 6 2.6 2.7 2.7 No 217 94.8 97.3 100.0 Total 223 97.4 100.0 Missing System 6 2.6 Total 229 100.0 In regards to potential borrowing, has your city delayed a vote on any bond issue in FY 2007, 2008, or 2009? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 2.9.9.9 No 222 96.9 99.1 100.0 Total 224 97.8 100.0 Missing System 5 2.2 Total 229 100.0 Has your city used any portion of its Fund Balance to balance its Operating Budget in FYE 08? Frequency Valid Valid Yes 65 28.4 29.1 29.1 No 158 69.0 70.9 100.0 Total 223 97.4 100.0 Missing System 6 2.6 Total 229 100.0 59