Jones County begins planning SPLOST referendum that could take effect in 2021

Jones County commissioners opened a work session Oct. 15, 2019, to begin setting a timeline and evaluation process for a possible Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) referendum that, if approved by voters, could take effect in 2021.

Jason (staff member) told the board that SPLOST is levied on transactions subject to sales and use tax, including food and motor fuels when applied as a prepaid local tax, and that collections and legal requirements are governed by state law and guidance such as the ACG SPLOST guide. He said the county can levy SPLOST for five years or, under certain conditions such as an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with a municipality or inclusion of countywide “level 1” projects requiring more than 24 months of revenue, for six years.

The staff review spelled out required steps and deadlines: at least 30 days before the election the county must meet and confer with affected municipalities (the city of Grey was cited as the negotiating partner), adopt a resolution listing county and municipal projects with estimated costs and the tax time period, deliver that resolution to the election superintendent for the call of the election, and provide a public notice published four weeks in the newspaper. The ballot question must include the total estimated revenue, a project list and the proposed time period, and state law treats the package as an all-or-none proposition rather than permitting voters to pick individual projects.

Jason also explained additional triggers and constraints: including general obligation bonds in the referendum triggers extra notice and legal requirements; infeasible projects from prior SPLOSTs must be addressed on the ballot if the county proposes to change them; and if voters approve the levy, the sponsor would begin collections on the first day of the next calendar quarter that begins more than 80 days after the election. If a referendum fails, state law requires waiting 12 months before holding another SPLOST referendum.

Commissioners discussed possible election dates and outreach. Sam (board member) recommended avoiding the heat of a presidential year campaign and suggested a March target, citing that SPLOST measures have historically done better outside presidential election years. Jason outlined even- and odd-year ballot timing options available under state law (for example, third Tuesday in March or the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd-numbered years; presidential preference primary, general primary or general election day in even years) and noted the March schedule gives more time for project preparation.

The board discussed revenue-sharing methods with municipalities: either an IGA to negotiate a split or a population-based formula that applies if no agreement is reached. Jason identified typical “level 1” countywide projects — examples given included a jail, courthouse, administrative building and hospital — and said money for countywide projects is usually taken off the top when calculating city–county percentages. He noted the current SPLOST contained ballot language authorizing up to $4,000,000 in bonding authority that the county did not exercise.

On project prioritization, staff recommended assembling department “wish lists” and organizing projects into tiers tied to collection scenarios (for example, a tier 1 list funding core projects under a conservative revenue estimate, with tier 2 and tier 3 projects unlocked only if growth raises collections). Commissioners debated whether to allocate SPLOST dollars to pay down existing debt service (recreation complex, jail) or rely on debt service in the general fund; they discussed the trade-offs of paying debt off now versus using SPLOST to fund capital work and leaving debt service for later decisions.

Jason said staff will collect prioritized lists from departments and present an internal working document showing specific uses and contingencies; the board asked for that material before the next work session. Commissioners and members of the public also discussed outreach: staff may explain projects and procedures to voters but may not use taxpayer funds to advocate for or against the referendum; community volunteers and private campaigns typically perform advocacy and fundraising for election outreach.

Public comments emphasized voter education and trust in county spending. A resident urged clarity and accountability, saying, “make me trust that you're gonna do what you said you were gonna do with that work on that money.” The board agreed to ask departments for prioritized lists and to schedule a follow-up work session in advance of upcoming meetings to finalize timing and project language.