Hart County board approves T‑SPLOST IGA figures after debate over who should pay to pave city streets

The Hart County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously June 23 to adopt the posted intergovernmental agreement (IGA) figures that will be used to apportion a proposed six‑year transportation SPLOST (T‑SPLOST) should the measure move forward. Commissioners debated how absent municipalities’ shares are calculated and whether first‑time paving of dirt roads should be funded from county SPLOST proceeds.

County staff presented a six‑year plan and the figures that will appear in the IGA. Commissioners questioned whether population increases in particular municipalities should increase their share; one municipal representative said a locality had seen 47 new homes since 2022 and requested more local funding for street work. Staff noted the statutory formula that governs absent‑municipality splits: half of the city’s share is based on city population proportion and half is based on city centerline road miles proportion, a calculation drawn from the cited statute SCGA 48‑8‑260.

The board spent substantial time debating whether the county should pay to pave streets inside municipal limits. County officials emphasized that under current policy and the county’s T‑SPLOST plan the first priority is maintaining existing paved roads and that first‑time paving of dirt roads is not funded in the present program; if a street sits inside a municipality it is typically the city’s responsibility. A municipal representative requested $558,000 to pave two streets to sustain truck traffic; commissioners probed whether that work should come from city budgets or the shared allocation under the IGA.

After the discussion, Commissioner Brown moved to proceed on the posted figures and a second was recorded. The motion carried by a 5‑0 vote. Staff told the board there remains an administrative path for municipalities that dispute the calculated share to provide documentation to adjust the numbers, but the formula and census figures will be used to pull population and centerline mile data for the allocation.

What happens next: adopting the posted figures advances the IGA step of the T‑SPLOST process and fixes the numbers that will be included in ballots or intergovernmental paperwork. Municipalities that disagree with the calculated absent‑municipality share may supply data for recalculation under the statutory procedure; the board did not change the county’s policy that maintenance of the existing paved network is the current priority.