Bainbridge Pulse
← Peach State Pulse
Unofficial demonstration dashboard

City of Bainbridge, Georgia

The county seat of Decatur County, presented through its own audited financial statements — not a budget, not a forecast, and not a current-year report.

Basis — read this first: every figure on this page comes from the City's audited Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025 (auditor: Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC). It is not an adopted budget for any later year. The FY2026 adopted budget document itself was not verified (only a public notice was found), so no FY2026 adopted figure is used anywhere on this page. Figures the audit does not support are left out, not estimated. One internal discrepancy is disclosed in Sources & notes: the audit's narrative (MD&A) figures differ from its audited statements by exactly $159,580, and this page uses the statements.

Overview

Bainbridge is the county seat of Decatur County, and it runs far more than a general government: alongside police, streets and general government, the City operates four enterprise utilities — Water & Sewer, Natural Gas, Sanitation, and Telecommunications. That is why this dashboard has two lenses throughout: the governmentwide view (everything, accrual basis) and the fund view (spendable resources, fund by fund).

The headline for FY2025 is a split story. The City as a whole lost net position — down $2,463,171 on the audited statements, from $62,121,555 to $59,658,384 — while the General Fund itself grew, adding $1,203,378 to reach $5,235,387. The governmentwide decline was driven by governmental activities (down $1,815,843) plus business-type activities (down $647,328), even though the enterprise funds earned $3,087,778 on operations: large transfers out of the Water & Sewer fund more than erased that operating gain.

Source: City of Bainbridge FY2025 Financial Report, Statement of Net Position (p. 13), Statement of Activities (pp. 14–15), governmental funds statement (pp. 18–19), proprietary funds statements (pp. 21–22) — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

At a glance — FY2025 audited

$59,658,384
Total net position, Sep 30, 2025
$1,162,848
Unrestricted net position
$5,235,387
General Fund ending balance
$11,082,111
General Fund revenues
$15,737,210
General Fund expenditures
$15,374,053
Enterprise operating revenues
$86,755,636
Total debt, net of premium
$147,389,937
Capital assets, net

Source: FY2025 audit, Statement of Net Position and Management's Discussion and Analysis (capital assets and debt) — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

Net position — September 30, 2025

Net position is what remains after liabilities and deferred inflows are subtracted from assets and deferred outflows. Each column below sums exactly to its total. Note the negative unrestricted balance for business-type activities: the enterprise funds' capital investment exceeds their total net position, so their unrestricted position is a deficit of $1,456,192.

ComponentCity total
Net investment in capital assets$56,641,853
Restricted$1,853,683
Unrestricted$1,162,848
Total net position$59,658,384
Net position by activityGovernmentalBusiness-typeTotal
Net investment in capital assets$32,442,871$24,198,982$56,641,853
Restricted$1,853,683$0$1,853,683
Unrestricted$2,619,040−$1,456,192$1,162,848
Total$36,915,594$22,742,790$59,658,384

Restricted detail, governmental activities only (sums to the $1,853,683 above): capital projects $849,344, public safety $587,629, debt service $241,786, general government $174,924.

Change in net position — FY2025

ItemAmount
Beginning net position, Oct 1, 2024$62,121,555
Governmental activities change−$1,815,843
Business-type activities change−$647,328
Ending net position, Sep 30, 2025$59,658,384

Source: Statement of Net Position, p. 13, and Statement of Activities, pp. 14–15 — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

General Fund — FY2025 actuals vs. budget

The General Fund is the City's chief operating fund. It took in $11,082,111 and spent $15,737,210 — a $4,655,099 operating deficiency that was more than covered by $5,858,477 of other financing sources, so the fund balance grew by $1,203,378. Against the final amended budget, revenues came in $173 over and expenditures $390,314 under (final budget $16,127,524 vs. actual $15,737,210).

Revenues — $11,082,111

SourceActual
Taxes$8,569,822
Licenses and permits$425,999
Intergovernmental$1,287,878
Charges for services$144,075
Fines and forfeitures$334,894
Investment earnings$43,459
Other revenues$275,984
Total revenues$11,082,111

Expenditures — $15,737,210

FunctionActual
General government$2,583,758
Judicial (city court)$355,662
Public safety$5,533,801
Public works$5,153,578
Community development$1,383,852
Debt service — principal$701,083
Debt service — interest$25,476
Total expenditures$15,737,210

Fund balance walk

ItemAmount
Beginning balance, Oct 1, 2024$4,032,009
Revenues over (under) expenditures−$4,655,099
Other financing sources, net$5,858,477
Ending balance, Sep 30, 2025$5,235,387

Of that ending balance, $2,451,924 is unassigned — 15.58% of General Fund expenditures (the audit's narrative rounds this to 16%). The balance is otherwise tied up in nonspendable items: inventories $68,561, prepaid items $185,693, notes receivable $912,757, and long-term interfund advances $1,616,452, plus $849,344 restricted for capital projects.

Source: Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances, pp. 18–19, and General Fund Budget and Actual schedule, pp. 68–69 — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

All governmental funds — FY2025

Beyond the General Fund, the City reports the SPLOST VII and TSPLOST capital-project funds as major funds, plus nonmajor funds (including the Local Relief Fund) and the blended Public Facilities Authority. Every row below sums across to its total; the combined "all other" row is derived from the audit's total minus the three named funds and is shown so the table reconciles exactly.

FundRevenuesExpendituresEnding balance
General Fund$11,082,111$15,737,210$5,235,387
SPLOST VII Fund$2,538,875$2,188,501$849,344
TSPLOST Fund$2,125,677$2,136,175$240,236
All other governmental funds + Authority (derived)$2,102,288$4,133,578$742,317
Total governmental funds$17,848,951$24,195,464$7,067,284

Combined, the governmental funds spent $6,346,513 more than they took in on operations ($17,848,951 − $24,195,464), partly offset by $5,907,241 of other financing sources, for a net fund-balance decrease of $439,272 — from $7,506,556 to $7,067,284. The Local Relief Fund alone ended the year in deficit, at −$21,786, against nonmajor funds of $764,103.

Source: Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances, pp. 18–19, and Governmental Funds Balance Sheet, pp. 16–17 — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

Enterprise funds — FY2025

The City's four business-type funds earned $3,087,778 on operations combined — but transfers, mainly out of Water & Sewer, turned that into a $647,328 governmentwide decrease for business-type activities. Telecommunications is the standout on paper: a small operating loss became a $4,174,310 net-position gain after $4,289,858 of transfers in.

Operating revenues — $15,374,053

FundCharges for servicesOther revenuesTotal operating revenues
Water & Sewer$7,252,824$215,069$7,467,893
Natural Gas$1,910,061$111,181$2,021,242
Sanitation$4,944,783$112,730$5,057,513
Telecommunications$801,008$26,397$827,405
Total$14,908,676$465,377$15,374,053

Operating results and net position

FundOperating expensesOperating income (loss)Change in net positionEnding net position
Water & Sewer$4,858,893$2,609,000−$5,160,002$415,672
Natural Gas$2,274,158−$252,916$776,169$6,061,695
Sanitation$4,205,220$852,293−$418,181$508,783
Telecommunications$948,004−$120,599$4,174,310$15,672,620
Total enterprise funds$12,286,275$3,087,778−$627,704$22,658,770

Enterprise-fund net position of $22,658,770 plus an $84,020 internal-service consolidation adjustment equals the governmentwide business-type net position of $22,742,790. Every enterprise fund carries a negative unrestricted position — Water & Sewer −$3,023,048, Natural Gas −$470,927, Sanitation −$577,656, Telecommunications −$1,580,667 — meaning their capital investment, not spendable resources, is what holds their net position up.

Source: Proprietary Funds Statements of Net Position (p. 21) and of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Position (p. 22) — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

Debt & capital assets

The City's total debt, net of premium, was $86,755,636 at September 30, 2025, down $260,439 during the year. Almost all of it sits in the Water & Sewer enterprise: bonds payable of $63,556,919 (non-current) in that fund alone, against a governmentwide bonds-payable total of $87,313,420 ($1,140,000 due within one year plus $86,173,420 due later).

ItemAmount
Total debt, net of premium (governmentwide)$86,755,636
Decrease during FY2025$260,439
Bonds payable — due within one year$1,140,000
Bonds payable — due in more than one year$86,173,420
Bonds payable — total$87,313,420

Capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation — $147,389,937

CategoryGovernmentalBusiness-typeTotal
Construction in progress$4,472,896$17,844,841$22,317,737
Land$5,241,439$109,267$5,350,706
Buildings and improvements$27,657,868$90,740,213$118,398,081
Machinery and equipment$10,166,027$4,145,145$14,311,172
Infrastructure$37,186,492$0$37,186,492
Less accumulated depreciation−$24,408,750−$25,765,501−$50,174,251
Total capital assets, net$60,315,972$87,073,965$147,389,937

This capital-asset total excludes lease assets, net ($1,148,919 governmentwide), which the Statement of Net Position reports separately. Major FY2025 additions included $1,323,071 of gas lines in the Downrange Industrial Park, $621,220 for ten public-safety vehicles, $400,253 for River Connectivity, $296,109 for the Tallahassee Highway water-line extension, and $69,893 for a public-safety generator.

Questions about the report itself may be addressed to the Division of Administrative Services, P.O. Box 158, Bainbridge, GA 39818, per the audit's "Requests for Information" notice. Elected officials at September 30, 2025: Mayor Edward Reynolds; Board of Aldermen Keenan Adams, Glennie Bench, Sylvia Washington, Kregg Close, Roslyn Palmer, and Don Whaley; City Manager Roy Oliver.

Source: Management's Discussion and Analysis (capital assets and debt) and Statement of Net Position, p. 13 — audited FY2025 report (PDF).

Sources & notes

  • Only source used: City of Bainbridge, Georgia, Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025 (audited; Mauldin & Jenkins, LLC). Read the audit (PDF, UGA TED portal).
  • Not used: no FY2026 adopted budget figure appears anywhere on this page — the FY2026 adopted budget document itself was not verified (only a public notice was found), so the page is built from the FY2025 audit only.
  • Sum checks: every breakdown table on this page was added up before publishing; each shown total equals the sum of its shown parts.
  • Disclosed discrepancy inside the audit (read this before quoting the MD&A): the Management's Discussion and Analysis highlights state total net position of $59,498,804 and a decrease of $2,622,751, and a General Fund increase of $164,338 — but the audited statements themselves show $59,658,384, a decrease of $2,463,171 (beginning $62,121,555), and a General Fund increase of $1,203,378 ($4,032,009 to $5,235,387). The gap is exactly $159,580 in every case and sits entirely in governmental activities (the MD&A's governmental net position of $36,756,014 vs. the statement's $36,915,594). This page uses the audited statement figures throughout, because they sum exactly from their components. The MD&A's original General Fund budget figure ($15,772,497) likewise differs by $134 from the budget schedule's $15,772,363; the schedule figure is used here.
  • What is missing: this page has no current-year budget, no FY2026 actuals, and no population, staffing, or service-level figures — the FY2025 audit does not supply them in a form used here, and none were invented. A newer verified document would be needed to update this dashboard.
  • City palette: no high- or medium-confidence City of Bainbridge palette was on file, so this page uses the neutral Peach State Pulse dark-glass theme rather than a city color.

← Back to Peach State Pulse