The Putnam County Board of Commissioners held its first meeting of the new year on Jan. 3. Richard Garrett, the newly elected District 2 representative, made his debut, and District 4 Commissioner Jeff Wooten was absent.
County Manager Paul Van Haute then brought up a need for the county to pursue more grants, specifically to support the needs of the recreation department that oversees the Poole Recreation Center, Oconee Springs Park, Jimmy Davis Park, and the Uncle Remus Golf Course.
These county-owned and operated entities are primarily funded through the hotel-motel tax supporting the Eatonton-Putnam Chamber of Commerce.
However, he added, that pursuit is made more difficult because Putnam County is in “a weakened position to apply for grants because there’s a lot of wealth and affluence out here,” clearly referencing the eastern and southern reaches of the county alongside its lakes over the remainder.
Regardless, Van Haute reminded commissioners that they previously discussed the option of setting up a separate government authority to explore securing potential grants but then told them county attorney Adam Nelson could explain the potential of setting up a non-profit 501c3 option “that may work even better.”
While certainly an option, Nelson said creating a separate authority would remove considerable control from the council, according to state law.
“If you wanted to maintain personnel, instead of directly reporting to the board of commissioners, they could report to the recreation director,” he told the commission. “And it would also, I think, the thing that I’ve heard the most conversations about, we could include in their duties the establishment of a 501c3 organization that could accept donations of both monetary or land or any other product that I think gets at what the main purpose [is].”
Nelson said Henry County has apparently done something similar, but he added that more study would be required. He also pointed out potential drawbacks to setting up non-profits, such as losing hands-on control, creating more bureaucracy, and the inability to revert course without satisfying external legal restrictions.
“I think what I’m hearing from most of the board is at least some interest. And if we do it, it would be a creation of our own, not a state entity or anything from a legislator,” Nelson said. “And it may be that at the end of this process, we determine that we already have a pretty good system.”
Hersey expressed skepticism and flatly stated, “I could not support an independent recreation authority.”
However, Garrett suggested, “I guess it depends on how broad we define the word ‘recreation.’ I think if we use quite a broad definition, then I could see some interesting possibilities. That’s just something to bear in mind.”
After a few minutes more of back-and-forth debate on the merits and drawbacks of creating a 501c3, the commissioners unanimously agreed to meet for a Feb. 5 work session at 10 a.m. to address and try to reach an agreement on whether or not to pursue the non-profit grant option.