Habersham approves city pact for proposed sales-tax renewal, but voters have not yet decided

Habersham County commissioners unanimously approved a proposed SPLOST VIII intergovernmental agreement with Alto, Baldwin, Clarkesville, Cornelia, Demorest, Mount Airy and Tallulah Falls at a specially called meeting July 28, 2025. The agreement followed the commission’s approval one week earlier of the county’s project list for the proposed sales-tax package, creating a formal framework between the county and its seven municipalities but not a recorded voter decision.

The proposed measure concerns continuation of Habersham’s existing 1% special-purpose local option sales tax, rather than a tax that can take effect simply because local governments reached an agreement. County officials described the county list as largely focused on public-safety needs. For residents, the practical stakes are which county and municipal projects could receive sales-tax proceeds, what terms would ultimately be placed before voters and whether the 1% levy continues into a new cycle.

The process moved from planning to intergovernmental agreement during July. At a July 21 work session, commissioners discussed priorities that included public safety, jail needs and road-resurfacing capacity. Officials said municipal project lists needed to be finalized before the county could consider both the intergovernmental agreement and a referendum resolution, and that sequence prompted the need for a special called meeting. Later that day, the commission approved the county SPLOST VIII project list 4-1 for use in drafting the agreement; the July 28 special-meeting minutes then record approval of the agreement with all seven cities.

County commissioners and the seven participating municipalities are the governmental parties to the agreement. County officials framed the proposal as a continuation of the current sales tax and emphasized public-safety-oriented needs in the county project list. The July 21 county-list vote was not unanimous, passing 4-1, while the later city agreement was approved 5-0. During the work-session discussion, officials also distinguished this SPLOST effort from a possible future additional 1% FLOST; no FLOST action occurred.

Two actions are complete: the county project-list vote on July 21 and the seven-city agreement on July 28. What remains unproven is just as important: the cited record does not establish a resolution calling an election, voter approval, authority to issue bonds, collection under a new SPLOST cycle or construction of any listed project. The July 21 regular-meeting minutes use “SPLOST VII” in the closing motion even though the agenda identified SPLOST VIII, leaving the precise wording of that motion unclear.

The next consequential public action would be a county resolution formally calling a SPLOST VIII election, potentially setting final project terms and addressing any bond proposal. The July 21 discussion anticipated consideration of such a referendum resolution, but neither those minutes nor the documented July 28 agreement establishes that it occurred. Until an election call and election result are recorded, Habersham voters have not been shown in this record to have received or approved the package, and the future of the proposed 1% continuation remains undecided.