>> TRANSPORTATION
Baldwin County and the city of Milledgeville have agreed to call for a referendum in November to decide whether a penny sales tax will be levied to fund transportation projects locally, and the two bodies met this past Tuesday to discuss a proposed agreement.
No formal intergovernmental agreement has been signed yet, but the county and city agree in spirit on the proposal, which includes a Nov. 7 referendum date for the Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) vote. County Manager Carlos Tobar said the agreement is on the county commission’s agenda July 18, and he asked the city council to vote on it before then.
This will not be the first T-SPLOST vote in the county. Multi-county, regional referendums were held in 2012 and in May of 2018. Both were defeated, and commissioners decided after the second setback to partner with the city and call for a referendum in Baldwin County only.
Voters did not go for that approach, either, and the sales tax measure was defeated in 2018 by a 7,862-6,991 margin, 53-47 percent. That referendum was held in conjunction with the General Election November 6, 2018, with a turnout of 67.1 percent. The special purpose tax will presumably be the only question on the ballot this November.
As was the case in 2018, under the current draft agreement, Baldwin County would receive 65 percent of the net proceeds and Milledgeville 35 percent for projects within the city limits. It is estimated that up to $45 million would be collected with the one-cent tax, which would run up to five years beginning April 1, 2024.
A considerable portion of the discussion Tuesday centered on whether specific roads should be listed on the ballot. None appeared on the 2018 ballot, and Tobar said that was criticized by some.
‘Some of our commissioners were told after the last T-SPLOST that the reason they didn’t vote for it was because it wasn’t specific enough,” Tobar said.
Tobar stated that a list of county roads has been attached to the draft agreement. Over 150 roads are included. Tobar said Wednesday morning that list totals 147 miles, and all the roads potentially could be resurfaced.
“The concern is that we may not have enough money to do all the roads on the list,” he said. “That list, in today’s prices, could be done, but we have no idea what is going to happen in the future.
“However,” Tobar continued, “the public needs to know the top priority is resurfacing roads, and they need to see what will be done first. They should see a prioritized list.”
All commissioners who spoke appeared to be in favor of listing roads, though there were differences in opinions as to the criteria for prioritization. Commissioner Sammy Hall said the more heavily- traveled roads should be addressed, while Commissioner Kendrick Butts referred to roads that had not been resurfaced in 50 years.
Hall also said in addition to showing the public what roads will be resurfaced, the referendum is about trust.
“I think we need to make sure we convince the public that we’re going do what we say we are going to do. And get it done.” Hall said, “Then, I think they will be more willing to pass a T-SPLOST in subsequent years.
“I think the reason they didn’t pass it prior to now was some questions about what we were going to do, how we were going to do it. We need to tell them what we are going to do, then follow up.”
The issue of division of tax proceeds was raised by commissioner Henry Craig, who noted the resolution calls for Milledgeville to receive 35 percent of the funds.
“Is the city satisfied with what it says?” Craig questioned.
City council member Steve Chambers had a quick answer.
“Like the county, we always want more,” Chambers said.
In response to further discussion, Tobar said the agreement in 2018 was based largely on road mileage for the respective parties to the agreement. The county’s offer to the city then was 27 percent, and the final split was 65-35. He also said with the allocation of 65-35 and the road mileage, the city gets almost twice as much per mile as the county.
City council member Denese Shinholster questioned the division of the funds and whether there would be a vote that day. No official action was to be taken then, and Tobar reminded everyone the county will vote on the agreement July 18. He requested that city council vote prior to that date.
City council member Walter Reynolds said Wednesday morning that he is satisfied with the proposed division of funds and thinks the council as a whole is accepting of it.
“I am satisfied with the proposed split for T-SPLOST,” Reynolds said. “65-35 may not seem like a fair arrangement on face value, but on a dollars-per-mile basis, the city will receive almost double that of the county.
“This council approved the same arrangement in 2018, and what I took away from the meeting was a sense that everyone was comfortable with keeping those terms.”
Blackwell was asked prior to that meeting what would be the cost to the county for holding the referendum. Based on his estimation, the expense will be one-tenth of one percent of the maximum proceeds of the one-penny tax.
“The current cost to conduct a county-wide election is $45,000,” Blackwell said. “This includes all costs associated with early voting, absentee by mail voting, and election-day voting.”
Tobar said Wednesday the expense is part of the process.
“That is the cost of doing ‘government business’,” said Tobar. “The public needs to decide if they are willing to pay this tax.”