The Hart County Board of Commissioners held their regular meeting Tuesday night—a meeting filled with debate but little action taken. During commissioners’ reports, the mood was stable as each commissioner congratulated the Chamber of Commerce on recently celebrating 75 years of operation. During Commissioner Jeff Brown’s report, however, he took the opportunity to propose action on something that proved contentious.
“This started well over a year ago, discussions on TSPLOST and the option of it being put out for referendum or the public to choose whether they would like to add this or not…It’s been put off for some time, but I think it’s something that has been echoed to me…’When are we going to do something about TSPLOST?’ It’s very apparent to me that citizens want something like this for them to choose and to make their voice be heard. And with that I’d like to make a motion that we as a Board move forward with TSPLOST to put on this November ballot.”
Commissioner Michael Bennett quickly offered a second. However, Commissioner Dorsey asked if Brown would wait until after the night’s meeting because “there are some things we need to talk about and it involves litigation...before that point.” Commissioner Brown emphasized that they needed to have a detailed plan in place later that month; from that, to decide governmental agreement to sign and give to their attorney to have a referendum in early August.
“Time is not in our favor here,” he said. “I want to make sure this is something that is clear and concise and delivered to the public so they are informed when they go to the ballot box in November and they know exactly what they’re voting for and there’s no smoke and mirrors…The public deserves decisive decisions.”
Commissioner Dorsey maintained his opposition, saying there was a “pressing issue” that needed to be resolved first. Likewise, Commissioner Brown maintained that this was a matter he believed the public deserved an answer on as soon as possible and that from their decision, they would further develop a plan.
“The more expert advice we can get on something like this, the easier it is for us to sell or deliver it to the public when we’re dealing with their money…We’re very unique in our situation how our county can benefit from SPLOST. Even though the majority of the state has a TSPLOST, they do not benefit in the ways that we do from that sales tax,” he said.
He agreed to reserve his motion until the end of executive session at the end of the meeting, after further discussion. After executive session, the BOC eventually came to the decision to authorize Partain to move forward with preliminary acts related to TSPLOST—not an official decision to put it on the ballot, but in preparation so that the county may secure engineering studies and other information of use if TSPLOST is on the ballot and if it passes in November. Following executive session, the BOC also approved a motion to call a meeting with the city on service delivery.
Also related to roads, the BOC voted 5-0 to widen Farm Road, which has been a topic of concern in many of their discussions on traffic this year.
The BOC then revisited their discussions on their solar farm ordinance and the mobile home/RV parks ordinance revisions. They decided to return to the solar farm ordinance discussion at their next meeting for a first reading and table the mobile home/RV parks revision agenda item for continued discussion at their next meeting. They also voted 4-1 (Commissioner Dorsey opposed, saying it needed more work) to approve a job description for an assistant county administrator position approved in the FY24 budget, with additions that the individual will be willing to travel, take classes, and obtain certifications. The position will be listed this week.
Another agenda item that caused considerable dissent concerned a notification from the City of Royston for an annexation, which no action was taken on at their last meeting. Partain stated that he spoke to the mayor or Royston and the property owner and there was no specific plan about what the owner would do with the property, which is in the City of Royston’s water and sewer district.
“The issue I have with it is that everything around there is R1 or agriculture. He applied for R2…We’re trying to manage growth here and this goes against everything we’ve been preaching,” Commissioner Brown said.
According to the Association County Commissioners of Georgia’s (ACCG) government affairs arbitration guide, when the arbitration panel meets and hears the evidence by the county, city, and developer, “The county has the burden of proof to establish that the annexation and proposed change in zoning will result in a substantial change in the intensity of the allowed use.” This burden of proof, according to the ACCG, must relate to the material burden increase directly related to the proposed change in zoning or land use, the proposed increase in density, or infrastructure demands.
Commissioner Dorsey stated he did not see a reason for denial.
“This does not impact the county at all. Just because we don’t like it—we have to be able to prove or cite [a reason for our objection when it goes to arbitration],” Commissioner Dorsey said. “Just because we don’t like something doesn’t give us the option to deny it…I don’t see where there’s a material [burden] increase to the county here.”
Commissioner Brown maintained that “We’ve gotta be consistent here…We have beat people up over the head about annexation, where we really didn’t have any grounds to stand on, but we took the moral high ground on denying it...I’m at a loss. We just denied everything and now all of a sudden we’re trying to push this one through?”
Commissioner Bennett also stated that to stay consistent with the many other annexation requests they’ve heard, they needed the property owner’s intent and reason for their request, before they could approve the annexation. County attorney Kim Higginbotham stated that despite the property being in Hart County, the statute does not require the property owner to provide a purpose, nor does Royston’s zoning.
“Y’all have a moral objection to it, but the objection that actually has to be filed with DCA has to have a legal reason,” she said.
Commissioner Frankie Teasley proposed they table the matter once again, saying “our hands our tied.” A motion was on the floor by Commissioner Bennett to object based on not having necessary paperwork for the purpose of the property, and to be consistent in their past history of annexations. However, eventually, the BOC decided to take no action on the matter and to revisit it at their next meeting after further discussion.
The next BOC meeting will be June 25 at 6 p.m.