Putnam County and City of Eatonton officials met on June 30 at the county commission building to discuss plans to continue the one-percent Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST), which is designated for future transportation and capital improvement projects.
The meeting fulfilled a state requirement for the county and city to jointly discuss a proposed SPLOST before both governing bodies consider approving an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that would place the measure on the November ballot.
The proposed agreement would maintain the existing 75-25 split of T-SPLOST revenues between the county and city while extending the collection period from five to six years, a change made possible by recent state legislation.
County Chairman Bill Sharp said the agreement reflects a cooperative effort between the two governments.
“We’re both not trying to play games,” Sharp said after the meeting. “I’m pleased and excited about us agreeing and not having to fight about percentages. I think we’re together.”
Sharp said the six-year term provides additional flexibility by allowing collections to continue throughout the authorized period without exceeding projected revenues. If approved by both governing bodies later this month, voters will decide in November whether to continue the existing one-cent transportation sales tax.
“It’s already in existence,” Sharp said. “This is just an extension of what already exists.”
The tax would continue to fund road paving, resurfacing, and reconstruction, safety improvements, equipment purchases, and other transportation projects. Eatonton is expected to receive nearly $12 million under the proposal for street resurfacing, drainage improvements, and pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks.
Mayor John Reid welcomed the agreement, noting that previous discussions between the city and county have sometimes been contentious.
“We appreciate that we don’t have to fight about the numbers again,” Reid said. “We can stay with the steady numbers and ... be ready to move forward.”
District 2 Commissioner Richard Garrett asked whether voters would see a list of specific road projects included on the ballot. Interim County Attorney Byron Lombard said state law only requires a general question asking voters whether to approve the transportation sales tax.
“We do have a road list, but it’s not necessarily binding,” Lombard said, explaining that the list could change as construction costs and priorities evolve.
Commissioners also discussed amending the existing SPLOST No. 10 intergovernmental agreement to allow both local governments to begin receiving project funding immediately, rather than waiting until the first $9.1 million is collected for the voter-approved Level One jail project.
Under the current agreement, all early SPLOST collections are directed toward the jail before any funding is distributed for other projects. The proposed amendment would reserve approximately 19% of monthly collections for the jail while immediately distributing the remaining revenue between the county and city under the existing 75-25 formula.
Sharp said the change reflects the reality that major construction or renovation at a facility that opened in the early 1990s is not expected to begin soon.
“All this does is allow you, instead of waiting two years for all the money to be collected, to put away 19.1% every year until it’s used,” Sharp said. “Then, whatever comes in addition to that, you can start your SPLOST 10 projects. It makes sense.”
Commissioners also unanimously authorized staff to schedule a public hearing on several proposed amendments to the ordinance.
The package would repeal outdated technical building code provisions and nuisance building regulations while adding language allowing planned unit developments (PUDs) to expand by annexing adjoining property under certain conditions.
The proposed amendment was prompted by a request from Cuscowilla, which recently acquired adjacent property beyond its current PUD boundaries. The ordinance would allow expansions of less than 10% of an existing PUD, subject to approval by the Putnam County Board of Commissioners.
Commissioners generally supported the concept but discussed whether the 10% cap should remain. They also emphasized that any future expansion would still require public review and board approval.
Shortly before adjourning, District 4 Commissioner Jeff Wooten, who said the meeting was likely his final joint meeting as a commissioner, thanked city officials for helping strengthen the relationship between the two local governments.
“I think the county and the city have got along better than we’ve got in the past,” Wooten said. “So, I do appreciate y’all working with us.”