Dear Editor,
At the June 24, 2025, meeting of the Putnam County Commission, Commissioners Wooten and McElhenney were joined by Chairman Sharp to vote against having ANY funding for road repairs in the proposed SPLOST No. 10 Ver. 2.0 budget. An alternative proposal containing some $3.6 million for roads was defeated in favor of a “staff” proposal containing NO funds for roads.
As your readers may recall, SPLOST No. 9, a one-cent sales tax for capital projects, is due to expire on Oct. 1, 2025. The first attempt to renew the sales tax was defeated by the voters in the November 2024 election. Now the county is proposing a second attempt at renewing the sales tax (SPLOST No. 10, Ver. 2.0) at the November 2025 election.
The alternative proposal, in general, sought to use excess funds in the fund balance to pay for some capital projects in SPLOST No. 10, thus freeing up money to be allocated for roads.
According to the county’s finance department, the fund balance for the general fund currently is $13,505,170.67. The county finance policy (Chapter 9) is to maintain three-month’s worth of operating expenses — about $6.7 million — which would leave almost $7 million in excess funds in the fund balance.
To my knowledge, SPLOST has always contained some funding for roads despite the fact that Putnam County has a T-SPLOST, the sales tax for transportation purposes. For example, SPLOST No. 9 budgeted $4.4 million for roads and has already overspent the budget by some $500,000, even though there is some $23 million in TSPLOST No. 2.
The County has some 460 centerline miles of roads to maintain. TSPLOST funds have generally been reserved for our main arterial roads but how do we pay for maintenance of our subdivision roads? Collections for SPLOST No. 10, if approved, would not begin until late 2026 and continue for six years. Will we have a need to repair subdivision roads over the next six years?
The county recently paid some $300,000 to purchase an asphalt paver capable of repaving roads. How will the county pay for the materials, e.g., asphalt, so that Public Works can pave our secondary roads?
Interestingly, the city’s project list for the SPLOST No. 10 proposal contains $3.5 million for roads, although the city has far fewer roads to maintain. Is city council wiser than the county commission?
Stephen Hersey Putnam County District 3 Commissioner