Stephens County, Toccoa and other cities haggle over SPLOST split; no final vote

At a Stephens County Commission meeting, county commissioners and representatives of the cities of Toccoa, Avalon and Martin continued negotiations over how to split proceeds from the next SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) cycle, discussing allocations ranging from about 77% county / 23% cities to a compromise near 73.5% county / 26.5% cities. No formal vote on a final allocation was taken; the commission recessed to allow further discussion.

The allocation under debate will determine how roughly $29 million to $43 million in projected SPLOST revenue would be distributed for county and municipal “level 1” projects, including jail and judicial building work and government facilities. ‘‘We have 1 item tonight under new business and that is, our second, well, third and final meeting on this last 8 projects and expenditures, with our local municipalities,’’ said Speaker 1 (Stephens County commissioner). ‘‘And hopefully, we can come to a consensus tonight.’’

Why it matters: the split will change how much cash each jurisdiction receives for capital projects and whether the county or cities must issue bonds. County staff presented revenue and project estimates and said one allocation scenario (a 77/23 split) would put the county portion at approximately $29,650,855 and the City of Toccoa’s portion at $8,856,749; the project list submitted showed total project costs near $29,103,000. Speaker 7 (county staff presenter) summarized those figures: "77 23 split, we're looking at the county portion being $29,650,855 City of Tacoma portion being $8,856,749 The list we provided you showed a project cost of 29,103,000. So it's it's right on point of of what those costs would be."

City representatives and residents pressed for recognition of municipal enterprise costs and local needs. One Toccoa speaker (Speaker 14) said the city provides water, sewer and gas services and needs funds for near-term upgrades: "we provide water...and we provide sewer...and we provide gas lines...and another thing is that we have to maintain" (Speaker 14). Another participant asked how the county returns revenues from county-run services that also operate inside city limits.

Commissioners and staff also debated how financing method affects the calculation of “level 1” project costs. County staff explained that an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that included bond financing would change the debt service calculations compared with a population-based split funded largely in cash. "If we were to do it through an IGA, we wouldn't be able to fund it more. So we would have to issue a bond," Speaker 7 said. County and city speakers noted the same capital project might be treated as $14 million under one financing assumption and treated as $26 million in debt-service terms under another, because of differing financing horizons and debt service calculations.

Multiple allocation proposals were discussed on the record: earlier offers and calculations referenced 80/20, 77/23, a 75.25/24.75 idea, a 74.26/25.74 middle-split offer, and later counter-proposals in the 73.27/26.73 and 73.5/26.5 range. Commissioner-level speakers framed the negotiations as a split-the-difference exercise. One commissioner offered splitting the difference between the parties’ positions, which would move the county to roughly 74% and the cities to roughly 26%; other commissioners and city representatives suggested small adjustments and rounding to reach a compromise.

No final allocation motion was adopted. The commission voted to recess so county members could caucus and return with a clearer offer; the motion to recess carried. Earlier in the meeting the commission approved the agenda and later took the motion to adjourn after resuming the session.

Next steps and outstanding questions: commissioners said they would continue negotiations and reconvene to try to reach an intergovernmental agreement acceptable to both the county and the cities. Key outstanding items include a finalized, itemized cost estimate for the county’s level 1 projects (the county provided an estimate near $14 million for government/facilities under one scenario but described a $26 million debt-service figure under another), whether the parties will pursue bond financing under an IGA or fund projects from cash under a population-distribution model, and a final, agreed percentage split. Meeting participants also flagged that a 15-year regression forecast used by county staff produced a middle revenue projection that could change the net dollars available for allocation.