Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the T Splost topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cherokee County staff preview T‑SPLOST project list and timeline ahead of possible referendum
Summary
Staff shared a draft T‑SPLOST intergovernmental agreement and project list that would expand roadway, intersection and trail projects countywide; execution of an IGA is expected in August and a referendum could follow, with county share roughly 65.27% under the proposed split.
County staff updated the board on a draft transportation SPLOST (T‑SPLOST) intergovernmental agreement and a proposed project list at the July 15 work session, asking for commissioner comment before city councils and the county consider formal adoption.
Staff described the kinds of projects under consideration — corridor reconstructions, intersection improvements, stormwater and bridge work, multiuse trails and sidewalks — and said the draft IGA and project list had been distributed to the county and to municipal partners for review. Staff said the current draft uses the 2024 SPLOST population split, which would allocate about 65.27% of T‑SPLOST funds to the county under the present model.
The timeline staff described calls for the IGA to be executed in August so that the county could meet deadlines to place a referendum before voters, with a key administrative deadline around early September for referendum notice. Staff reported they had asked the Atlanta Regional Commission for 2028 population projections; ARC’s numbers slightly shifted shares (county share estimated at 66.39% under that projection), but cities raised concerns about the changes.
Staff also provided a draft partner-funding scenario showing proposed joint county-city project splits for Canton, Holly Springs and Woodstock. Commissioners asked about when the full project list would be published; staff said a consolidated T‑SPLOST list, including city projects, would be the appropriate public document once the IGA is finalized.
Several commissioners noted they had seen negative social‑media reaction to early posts about the program and that public opposition was likely. Staff reminded the board the referendum would be the public decision point and encouraged early outreach and transparent publication of the project list.
Ending: Staff will continue to refine the IGA and project list, meet one-on-one with city partners, and return to the board with an updated package for consideration; the board did not vote on the IGA at the work session.
