Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Splost Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newton County commissioners deny SPLOST resolution after debate over project list
Summary
After extended discussion and public comment about delayed SPLOST projects, the Newton County Board of Commissioners voted to deny the resolution on implementation and directed staff to provide a comprehensive SPLOST status update at the Feb. 2 meeting.
The Newton County Board of Commissioners voted 5-0 on Jan. 29 to deny Resolution R20324, a measure tied to the implementation of projects on the most recent SPLOST ballot, after commissioners debated whether the resolution should explicitly list projects in all five districts.
The vote came after multiple commissioners and residents urged clarity and renewed focus on projects they said have lingered for years. Dennis Taylor, a resident who lives in multiple districts, told the board the pace of work risks eroding public confidence in SPLOST and urged commissioners to “get these projects going.”
County Attorney Patrick Jogstetter told the board the SPLOST law already obligates completion of projects on the ballot and that a revised written resolution could be useful primarily as a public-status statement. Commissioner Edwards proposed a substitute motion to expand the resolution to list all SPLOST projects for districts 1–5; that motion generated debate about process and whether a new, separate resolution should be drafted. Edwards ultimately withdrew the substitute motion, and Commissioner Long moved to deny the agenda resolution; Commissioner Henderson seconded the denial, which passed 5-0.
County Manager Cooper recommended the board receive a comprehensive SPLOST update at the board’s second meeting in February and said any substantive project follow-ups could be handled by work sessions targeted at projects deemed stagnant.
Why it matters: SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) proceeds fund capital projects across Newton County. Residents and several commissioners framed the debate as one of restoration of public trust and timetable transparency for projects that voters approved at the ballot.
What happened next: The board directed staff to prepare a full status report on SPLOST projects for consideration at the February meeting; commissioners debated whether a new resolution formalizing the board’s intent would be useful after the report is drafted.
Quotes: “Actions are better than words…we’re in danger of losing SPLOST if we don’t get these projects going,” said Dennis Taylor. Patrick Jogstetter said the proposed broader resolution would be largely symbolic because the county is already legally obligated to pursue projects listed on the SPLOST ballot.
Ending: The board did not adopt a new resolution on Jan. 29. Instead, commissioners asked staff to produce a written, project-by-project status update for the next meeting, and to schedule any needed work sessions to address projects that appear stalled.
