O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-82-100 (2019)

Expenditure of bond proceeds; auditing

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term ‘‘bonds’’ means any revenue or general obligation bonds issued under this chapter. (b) When bonds are issued by a county, municipality, or local authority in the amount of $5 million or more, the expenditure of bond proceeds shall be subject to an ongoing performance audit or performance review as provided in this Code section; but this Code section shall not apply if such bond issue is below $5 million. (c) Each county, municipality, or local authority expending bond proceeds shall provide for a continuing performance audit or performance review of the expenditure of such funds. The county, municipality, or local authority shall contract with a certified public accountant or with an outside auditor, consultant, or other provider accredited or certified in the field of performance audits or performance reviews. Such accountant, auditor, consultant, or other provider shall only be qualified to perform the audit and review functions under this Code section if such accountant, auditor, consultant, or other provider has significant experience and competence in conducting comprehensive audits and reviews in conformance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The performance audit or performance review contract shall: (1) Include a goal of ensuring to the maximum extent possible that the bond funds are expended efficiently and economically, so as to secure to the county, municipality, or local authority the maximum possible benefit from the bond funds; (2) Provide for the issuance of periodic public reports, made accessible through electronic or printed format, or both, at a location advertised in the legal organ not less often than once annually, with respect to the extent to which expenditures are meeting the goal specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection; and (3) Provide for the issuance of periodic public recommendations, made accessible through electronic or printed format, or both, at a location advertised in the legal organ not less often than once annually, for improvements in meeting the goal specified in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (d) The auditor, consultant, or other provider to carry out the performance audit or performance review shall be selected through a

public request for proposals process. The reasonable cost of the performance audit or performance review shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds unless a specific waiver of public accountability is included in a legal advertisement in bold print contained within requisite public notice soliciting public preapproval of the applicable bond issue which expressly states that no performance audit or performance review shall be conducted with respect to such bond issue. (e) On and after May 5, 2006, the expenditure of bond proceeds shall be under the jurisdiction of and subject to review by the inspector general of this state with respect to any claim of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of funds. (f ) This Code section shall apply with respect to any bonds which are subject to the requirements of subsection (b) of this Code section which are issued after May 5, 2006, until the proceeds of such bond issue have been expended.

History

Code 1981, § 36-82-100, enacted by Ga. L. 2006, p. 1021, § 2/HB 1012.

Annotations

Code Commission notes. - Pursuant

to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2006, ‘‘May 5, 2006,’’ was substituted for ‘‘the effective date of this Code section’’ in subsections (e) and (f ).

ARTICLE 5 REGULATION OF INTEREST RATES FOR BONDS AND OBLIGATIONS OTHER THAN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Barton Malow Co. v. Metro Mfg., Inc., 446 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barton Malow Co. v. Metro Mfg., Inc., 446 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 16× “The flesh and bone of the Act, ignored by the majority in order to reach its result, may be found at OCGA § 36-82-100 et seq. For an excellent discussion suggesting how this case should be decided under our statutory scheme, see J.”

Bates & Assocs., Inc. v. Romei, 426 S.E.2d 919 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Moreover, we conclude that by promulgating statutory payment bond requirements designed to protect, in addition to all subcontractors, all persons supplying labor, materials, machinery, and equipment in the prosecution of the work provided for in the contract, the General…”

Tom Barrow Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 421 S.E.2d 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “The question in this appeal concerns the application of “the Little Miller Act” (OCGA § 36-82-100 et seq.) to a materialman that furnished materials to a second tier subcontractor on a public works project.”

S. Elec. Supply Co. v. Trend Constr., Inc., 578 S.E.2d 279 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2 Although in effect at the time Southern’s claim arose, OCGA §§ 36-82-100 through 36-82-105 were repealed and later reenacted.”

R. J. Griffin & Co. v. Cont'l Ins., 497 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “499 ( 304 SE2d 544 ) (1983), a case involving a public works bond under OCGA § 36-82-100 et seq., is inapposite here.”

Sunderland v. Vertex Assocs., Inc., 404 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “[OCGA § 36-82-100 (2)] reads in pan as follows: ‘The term “subcontractor” includes but is not limited t those having privity of contract with the prime contractor.”

Devore & Johnson, Inc. v. Bowen & Watson, Inc., 453 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-82-100 et seq. is derived from the federal Miller Act, 40 USC § 270a et seq.”

Fireman's Fund Ins. v. Foster Remodeling Co., 340 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “ublic contract job and who has no direct contractual relationship with the contractor who furnishes the payment bond, shall have a right of action on the bond “upon giving written notice to the contractor within 90 days from the day on which such person did or performed the last…”

State of Georgia v. Jeffrey v. Mckenzie (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “It was concern about the economic feasibility of the bonds and the Project which caused the superior court to find it to be not sound, feasible, or reasonable for the Project to be exempted from public audits pursuant to OCGA § 36-82-100 (c), despite finding that the JDA…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.