Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Splost 2026 Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outlines compressed timeline to place SPLOST continuation on November ballot
Summary
Deputy COO and legal staff briefed commissioners on Georgia SPLOST statutes and a tight calendar that pushes the county to decide on a citizens committee and municipal meetings quickly if it wants a referendum this November.
Get email alerts on the Splost 2026 Timeline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clayton County Deputy Chief Operating Officer Landry Markerson and other staff briefed the Board on state statutes and a compressed timeline for placing a continuation of the county special purpose local option sales tax (SPLOST) on the November 2025 ballot.
The presentation reviewed the governing code sections—Georgia Code 48‑8‑110.1 and 48‑8‑111—and described key requirements: the governing authority must meet with municipalities at least 30 days before issuing a call for a referendum; notices to municipal chief elected officials must be sent at least 10 days before those meetings; SPLOST collections generally run for no more than five years, with a six‑year exception for certain level‑1 county projects; and a county may call for reimposition of an existing 1% SPLOST to continue collections after the current SPLOST expires rather than adding a separate tax.
“Long story short…we don't really have a lot of time, to put this together,” Markerson told commissioners, underscoring a calendar that makes the board’s last scheduled meeting to pass a call for the election August 5, 2025. Staff laid out a backwards timeline that included municipal coordination meetings, board deadlines and election‑board deadlines for ballot language, publication and certification.
Staff recommended that the board decide how it wants to structure public participation—whether to form a citizens committee by resolution, as was done in prior SPLOST cycles, or to use internal processes—and noted past practice in 2015 and 2009 where the Board created citizen committees and negotiated intergovernmental agreements with municipalities. Markerson said the county historically used population‑based percentage splits when dividing proceeds with municipalities and that an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) is typical prior to calling a referendum.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about “level‑1” projects that can be designated to come off the top of SPLOST proceeds (examples: county administrative buildings and jails) and about when collections for a successful November referendum would begin in relation to the current SPLOST’s December 2026 expiration. Staff explained that a successful November vote would not result in collections beginning until after the current SPLOST expires; the code requires a waiting period tied to the next succeeding calendar quarter at least 80 days after an election date.
Staff noted several near‑term decision points: the board must tell staff whether it wants a citizens committee (which could be created by resolution), provide a project list and meet statutory notice deadlines with municipalities. The office of the COO asked commissioners to provide direction between April 15 and May 6 so staff can meet the 30‑day municipal engagement window and other statutory milestones.
Ending: Commissioners directed staff to return with options for forming a citizens committee, potential timelines and draft resolutions to put the question on the November ballot; staff emphasized the board’s August 5 meeting as the last scheduled chance to approve a call without a special meeting.

