SPLOST-law

The SPLOST law was enacted in 1985 at the request of ACCG. The SPLOST tax was conceived of and was enacted as a county tax for funding capital projects. It is not a municipal tax; nor is it a joint county-municipal tax like the regular Local Option Sales Tax (LOST). As a county tax, a SPLOST can only be initiated by the board of commissioners [O.C.G.A. § 48-8-110 and Op. Atty. Gen. U85-24].

Due to concerns from municipalities regarding adequate access to SPLOST funds for their capital improvement needs, ACCG and the Georgia Municipal Association negotiated legislative language promoting more cooperation between counties and municipalities thus hopefully generating greater countywide support for future SPLOST referenda. House Bill 709 [Ga. L. 2004, p. 69] was passed during the 2004 Session of the General Assembly and signed into law on April 23, 2004.

The governing authorities of the county and of each qualified municipality are to meet to discuss the possible projects for inclusion in the referendum, including municipally owned or operated projects. Such ordinance or resolution shall specify eligible expenditures identified by the county and any qualified municipality for use of proceeds distributed pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 48-8-115. Such ordinance or resolution shall also specify:

(3) The estimated cost of the project or projects which will be funded from the proceeds of
the tax,
(4) If general obligation debt is to be issued in conjunction with the imposition of the tax, the principal amount of the debt to be issued, the purpose for which the debt is to be issued, the local government issuing the debt, the interest rate or rates or the maximum interest rate or rates which such debt is to bear, and the amount of principal to be paid in each year during the life of the debt.

Resolution - Once the board of commissioners has compiled a proposed list of local projects to be funded with the SPLOST, the board must adopt an ordinance or resolution calling for imposition of the tax. The ordinance or resolution must include:
• A list of county and municipal projects for which the proceeds of the tax are to be used;
• The estimated cost of each project which will be funded from the proceeds of the tax; and
• The time period of the levy stated in calendar years or calendar quarters.


OCGA § 48-8-115. Disbursement of tax proceeds

(1) To the county governing authority and any qualified municipalities as specified in an
intergovernmental agreement. Where an intergovernmental agreement has been entered into, the agreement shall, at a minimum, include the following:
(A) The specific capital outlay project or projects to be funded pursuant to the agreement;
(B) The estimated or projected dollar amounts allocated for each project from tax proceeds from the tax authorized by this part;

(E) A provision that all capital outlay projects included in the agreement shall be funded from proceeds from the tax authorized by this part except as otherwise agreed;


A Model SPLOST Intergovernmental Agreement would include:

D. The County and Municipalities agree that each approved SPLOST project associated with
this Agreement shall be completed or substantially completed within five years of the
termination of the SPLOST. Any SPLOST proceeds held by a County or Municipality at the
end of the five year period shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be deemed excess
funds and disposed of as provided under O.C.G.A. § 48-8-121 (g)(2).

Effective Date and Term of This Agreement
This Agreement shall commence upon the date of its execution and shall terminate upon the
later of:

(ii) The expenditure by the County and all of the Municipalities of the last dollar of
money collected from the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax after the expiration of
the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax; or

(iii) The completion of all projects described in Exhibit A.

Can SPLOST revenues be moved between voter-approved projects to accommodate greater costs in one or more of the projects?

Yes. Since project costs are estimates, each local government receiving SPLOST revenues may shift funds between their approved projects (as long as all projects are completed). Be aware that this flexibility could be lost if the ballot language presented to the voters designates estimated dollar amounts for each project rather than the total estimated cost for all proposed SPLOST projects.

In case of a “shortfall” of SPLOST funds to pay for projects, what happens?

The approved projects could be scaled back, but not abandoned. A local government must make up any shortfall from their general fund or other funding sources.

Can a county or municipality change its mind and not fund one or more of the SPLOST projects despite voter approval in a referendum?

No. In a 1992 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the governing authority was obliged to use proceeds from the SPLOST tax for the projects approved in the SPLOST referendum. The Court held that the governing authority …is bound by the SPLOST budget and account reports to complete all projects listed therein unless circumstances arise which dictate that projects which initially seemed feasible are no longer so. In this regard, the governing authority has discretion to make adjustments in the plans for these projects, but may not abandon the projects altogether. Dickey v. Storey, 262 Ga. 452 (1992).

The Supreme Court, in the same ruling, recognized that the county could not use SPLOST funds for a project that had not been approved by the voters, noting that under O.C.G.A.§ 48-8-121(a) proceeds from the SPLOST …shall be used exclusively for the purpose or purposes specified in the resolution or ordinance calling for imposition of the tax.