Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SpLOST Distribution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County staff recommends weighted split for proposed SPLOST IGA; board leans toward 1.25 ratio
Summary
County staff presented four distribution options for a proposed intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Madison County municipalities for a 2026 SPLOST; commissioners signaled support for option 3 — a 1.25 weighting for municipal populations — and directed staff to provide numeric allocations to cities for their consideration.
County staff presented options for dividing projected 2026 Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) revenue between Madison County and its municipalities, and commissioners signaled support for a distribution that slightly favors cities.
Why it matters: the board must finalize a distribution formula and a projected total before sending proposed allocations to city councils and placing the SPLOST question on the November ballot. The allocation method affects how much money each city receives over the SPLOST term and whether the county can set the district collection period to five or six years.
Staff described four options using two baseline population datasets (2020 census and more recent Atlanta Regional Commission/ARC estimates) and two weighting rules (1:1 and a 1.25:1 multiplier applied to municipal populations). The county packet included staff projections of total collections (an estimate presented around $15.3 million) and an Excel sheet prepared by Miss Payne with distribution calculations.
Commissioners and staff debated which population baseline to use. One commissioner noted previous efforts to dispute the 2020 census counts locally and said county estimates suggested the 2020 figure undercounted residents. Staff said ARC estimates for 2023–24 were available and included in the packet.
Several commissioners expressed concern about using estimated population numbers but also acknowledged municipalities carry fixed costs — notably sewer plants and other infrastructure — that may not be reflected fairly by raw population counts. One commissioner said increasing the municipal weighting “would only strengthen our partnership with them.” Another commissioner emphasized a preference for the official 2020 census data as a consistent baseline.
On process, staff said the county will prepare the numeric allocations for the mayors using the board’s preferred option so cities can review and return signed IGAs in June. Staff noted election-timing constraints: the county must issue SPLOST call materials about 90 days before the November ballot.
Direction and next steps: commissioners signaled a consensus in favor of option 3 (using the ARC/estimate baseline with a 1.25 multiplier for municipal populations) and for using Miss Payne’s projected total (approximately $15.3 million) to generate city-by-city dollar figures. Staff was directed to provide those numbers to the mayors and to return the IGA material for the board’s review at the June 2 meeting; the board also scheduled staff SPLOST work sessions in June.
No formal vote was taken on the final IGA at this meeting. Commissioners discussed legal and operational implications: if fewer than a majority of municipal population signs an IGA, state law limits the maximum SPLOST term to five years rather than six. County advisors also recommended projecting conservatively to avoid prematurely reaching a target collection figure and triggering an early end to the SPLOST term.
Background: county staff said prior IGAs and referendum materials historically cited dollar totals rather than percentages, and that some past local disputes over census counts had led the county to gather additional population estimates for planning.
