Commissioners consider SPLOST funding for demolition, ask attorney about authority and land bank options
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners debated whether SPLOST funds can support blight demolition and discussed recovery of demolition costs through the land bank; county attorney said SPLOST can't directly fund nuisance abatement but can support demolition tied to county projects or property acquisition.
Commissioners pressed legal and financial staff about using SPLOST dollars for demolition of blighted properties. Commissioner George Johnson proposed allocating $1,000,000 as a starting point for demolition and said the county previously demolished hundreds of properties when funds were available. He said, "passing a sploss without the necessary dollars for blight demolition would be, a little shortsighted."
County attorney Pluckett explained legal limits: SPLOST funds cannot be used for nuisance abatement takedowns in their ordinary sense. "You cannot use it for nuisance abatement," he said; instead, demolition can be funded through SPLOST only if the work is part of an acquisition or structured county project. He added that SPLOST can fund projects on authority or state‑owned property under certain circumstances.
Commissioners also discussed ways to recoup demolition costs when property owners do not reimburse demolition liens. Attorney Pluckett said the land bank has been used as a conduit to acquire demo‑cleared land and sometimes to recover funds, but recoveries are uneven. He described options including tax sale, land bank acquisition and conditional waivers depending on redevelopment priorities.
No formal action was taken. Commissioners directed staff to explore SPLOST‑eligible mechanisms for demolition tied to county projects, to coordinate with the land bank on reimbursement strategies and to identify how to structure projects so SPLOST eligibility is clear.
