Spalding County, Griffin and Orchard Hill outline 62/38 proposed SPLOST split for November ballot

Spalding County officials and representatives of the cities of Griffin and Orchard Hill discussed a proposed Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) at a special called meeting and agreed to move a 62/38 split forward for placement on the November ballot.

The deputy county manager opened the meeting by describing the proposal as a local sales tax intended “to finance major permanent improvements,” and said the proposed 62/38 split would be between Spalding County and the City of Griffin, with Orchard Hill included in the plan.

Meeting participants said the county’s project list under the proposal includes roughly $25,000,000 in capital projects, with a final piece—listed as sewer and bridge replacements—budgeted at about $4,700,000. A City of Griffin representative said the city would budget about $15,000,000 for fire-related capital, including a rebuild of Station 3, a new station and equipment for Station 4; the city also listed $3,000,000 reserved for a bike program, a $3,000,000 line for blight/nuisance abatement, and transportation projects funded from the remainder.

Officials discussed a specific allocation for Orchard Hill. Participants first mentioned $500,000 and then agreed to $600,000 as the amount to subtract and set aside for Orchard Hill before dividing the remaining proceeds under the 62/38 split. Orchard Hill representatives discussed park improvements and estimated a small skate park at about $150,000 (based on 2023 figures) and noted potential tree-removal costs of roughly $150,000; participants cautioned those were estimates and would vary with design and market changes.

On timing and revenue flow, staff said the initial April-through-December collections would follow a 38.5%/61.5% distribution for city/county, and that starting in January 2027 collections would follow the 38% (city) / 62% (county) split for the remainder of the SPLOST term. Participants said the collections schedule is intended to align with how LOST proceeds were previously distributed.

Commissioner Flowers Taylor raised process concerns, saying there “has got to be a formula” to justify allocations and that partner governments should not feel like “an add in.” Participants agreed that the detailed project lists, priority sequences for roads and bridge work, and the final project descriptions would be included in an intergovernmental agreement and separate resolutions each jurisdiction must approve before placement on the referendum.

A motion was made and seconded to proceed with the proposed SPLOST structure and scheduling; members voted in favor by voice/hand. The meeting concluded after members moved to adjourn and the chair called for the next steps: drafting the intergovernmental agreement, finalizing the committee and chair for campaign/oversight work, and scheduling a formal resolution in each jurisdiction’s next meeting cycle.

Participants said staff will return with a prioritized road list, line-item project detail for the county’s 48% allocation (debt reduction and building repairs were discussed), and draft intergovernmental language for each jurisdiction to vote on separately.

Ending: The group confirmed the plan to present the SPLOST as a November ballot measure and scheduled follow-up work; a resolution and the intergovernmental agreement will be prepared for each government’s upcoming meetings for formal approval.