Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Spost 8 Negotiations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stephens County, Toccoa and smaller towns continue SPLOST 8 negotiations; no funding decisions made
Summary
County commissioners and municipal leaders spent the meeting negotiating how to split proceeds from a proposed SPLOST 8 sales tax, discussing a six-year intergovernmental agreement, level‑1 (debt) projects and study needs; no formal SPLOST vote was taken.
Stephens County commissioners and leaders from the City of Toccoa and the towns of Martin and Avalon discussed how to divide proceeds from a possible SPLOST 8 sales tax but did not adopt any funding allocations or final agreements.
The county presented two primary distribution approaches: (1) a six‑year intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that would allocate an agreed percentage to the cities up front, and (2) a default population‑distribution method under state law that would fund “level 1” projects (debt servicing for major county facilities) first and distribute remaining proceeds by population. County staff said the county’s working estimates for a six‑year IGA would produce about $36 million in SPLOST proceeds under a conservative 1% growth assumption and about $38 million under a 2% assumption; staff emphasized these are forecasts, not guarantees.
Why this matters: municipal officials said they rely on SPLOST to fund capital work that utility enterprise funds or property taxes do not cover. County staff and city leaders warned the split method matters because a population distribution approach would fund the county’s level‑1 projects first — delaying city receipts by several years and reducing the amount available for municipal projects during the SPLOST period.
Discussion highlights included: the county’s list of level‑1 projects (debt service for a proposed government/courthouse project and jail upgrades), municipal requests (water and sewer planning and repairs, road work, park and building upgrades, economic development pad‑ready sites), and timing for engineering studies and cost estimates. County staff said level‑1 projects were being budgeted at roughly $16 million in total (a combination of debt service and repair/upgrade costs), with debt servicing for a proposed new building estimated crudely between $12 million and $14 million depending on final borrowing terms. The county also cited a rough class‑5 construction estimate of roughly $22 million for one building concept and additional estimates for a parking deck ($7–8 million) that have not been developed into final designs.
Municipal leaders asked for clearer project lists and dollar amounts so they can evaluate any proposed percentage split in a six‑year IGA. City representatives asked the county to provide the water‑system study scope and cost estimates so municipal leaders can judge what a $5 million SPLOST allocation toward water planning would accomplish versus longer‑term federal or state funding needs. County staff said the water study and a feasibility study for the county building were already under way; staff estimated final study deliverables in roughly 60–75 days but did not give precise completion dates.
No final agreement was reached. County staff said the board and municipalities will continue negotiations and will prepare written project lists, dollar estimates, and potential IGA percentages for a future meeting. Commissioners agreed to additional meetings and to circulate more detailed project breakdowns ahead of public outreach and any referendum timetable.
Administrative vote: the meeting opened with a voice vote approving the agenda; no substantive SPLOST motion or referendum call was made during this session.
