Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Splos Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spalding commissioners debate November SPLOS to fund roads and provide property-tax relief
Summary
Commissioners discussed placing a special-purpose local-option sales tax (SPLOS) on the November ballot to fund transportation projects and provide property tax relief; board asked staff to model different revenue scenarios, legal constraints on homestead targeting were cited, and cities Griffin and Orchard Hill will be consulted.
At a March 16 workshop the Spalding County Board of Commissioners spent significant time discussing whether to place a special-purpose local-option sales tax (SPLOS) referendum on the November ballot to fund transportation projects and provide property-tax relief.
County staff said the board’s retreat directed them to prepare SPLOS materials for November with two primary priorities: continued transportation investments (road resurfacing, sidewalks and related safety and mobility projects) and property tax reduction for residents. Staff asked the board for direction on priorities, duration and distribution to allow staff to draft a resolution and a project list.
Commissioners debated what a meaningful tax reduction would look like. Gwen asked for an analysis showing the per-household impact of various targets — board members used $500 and $1,000 as illustrative examples during discussion. "What is significant? If we're able to reduce a person's taxes... by $500, is that significant?" a commissioner asked, pressing staff for budget scenarios and per-taxpayer math.
Several commissioners and staff noted legal and practical limits on selectively targeting homesteaded properties. One commissioner said the county cannot create new homestead exemptions locally and can only currently adjust military exemptions; staff reiterated that targeted homestead exemptions likely require state action. The board discussed alternatives including uniform millage-rate reductions, debt reduction strategies or returning funds through general-fund actions.
Legislative items were raised: Senate Bill 362, House Bill 581 and a recently failed House resolution (1114) were mentioned as potentially relevant to county options. Staff recommended watching pending state action but also preparing a local resolution: the earliest a county resolution could be adopted would be at the April meeting once project lists and numbers are compiled.
Revenue and timing options were discussed. Board members discussed a six-year SPLOS term, the start date for collections (options discussed included February vs April), and the board said it did not intend to bond the program. Staff was asked to prepare scenarios (for example, $10 million over five years) and show what that would translate to per homestead or per $100,000 of assessed value.
The board instructed staff to: run fiscal scenarios showing different SPLOS collection amounts and corresponding tax-relief options; draft a project list for transportation needs (needs-only emphasis was requested by several members); share the draft resolution and project list with the cities of Griffin and Orchard Hill and return to the board with a recommended resolution in time for consideration at the April meeting if the board elects to proceed.
Next steps: staff (Steve) will prepare detailed fiscal scenarios, a draft resolution and project lists and provide those to the board and the two cities for review ahead of the board's next formal decision point.
