At the July 23, 2024, meeting the Putnam County Commission approved an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the county and the city of Eatonton regarding SPLOST #10. This IGA will form the basis for a referendum on SPLOST #10 to be voted on in the November election.
The IGA was approved on a 3-1 vote – I voted against the motion on the basis that the proposed IGA is ambiguous and potentially deceptive.
The ambiguity lies in contradictory provisions. Article 4 clearly states that the division of collections is to be 69% to the county and 31% to the city. However, Exhibit A – the list of projects to be funded – shows the county will receive 75% of the proceeds and the city 25%. Which is correct?
Hypothetically, if the first quarter of collections yields $1 million, would the city receive $310,000 or $250,000?
The potential deception lies in the total amount of money projected to be collected over the six-year term of the SPLOST. The IGA proposes to collect over $43 million –an average of over $7 million per year. The sales tax collections for FY2024 are projected to be just over $5 million –down 8% from the previous year.
Is it reasonable to think that sales taxes will increase by an average of 40% over current collections? What happens if the collections fall short of the projected $43 million?
Be aware that the voters approve projects and not the funding. If SPLOST #10 is approved by the voters, the county and the city have a legal obligation to complete the projects. Do we want a new jail, pickleball courts, enhancements to the golf course, upgrading Putnam General Hospital, etc.?
I, for one, favor all of the projects. However, I find the scope of the proposed projects to be more aspirational than financially realistic. Will we end up paying for the projects through an increase in property taxes?
As a noted economist is fond of saying: “Government spending is taxation.”
Stephen Hersey Putnam County District 3 Commissioner Eatonton