That most hallowed time of year is upon us once again, and by that I of
course mean football season.
First, let’s recap Stephens County’s last campaign, and a
fine one it was. The Indians finished
the season with a record of 9-3, losing to Cairo in the second round of the
state playoffs (the Syrupmakers were the
number one seed out of Region 1AAA; the road trip to Grady County for the
Indians was more than 300 miles – one way).
All three of the teams to beat Stephens County, Elbert County in Class
AA, Gainesville in Class AAA, and Cairo in Class AAA, all made it to at least
the third round of the state playoffs. So, all in all, not such a bad effort.
Second, a word about GSHA's revised regional classifications is in
order. SCHS jumps to Region 8AAAA for
the upcoming campaign. Perhaps “returns”
is a better terminology, as my admittedly feeble recollection is that SCHS was in Region 8AA through
my freshman year, moved up to Region 8AAAA for my sophomore and junior years,
and then dropped back to Region 8AAA for my senior year. And there the Indians stayed for more than
three decades (and yes, I am thereby dating myself).
Anyway, now that GHSA has expanded its classification system, I
guess that some reshuffling was in order.
The current composition of the revised Region 8AAAA is:
Chestatee (Gainesville)
Eastside (Covington)
Lanier (Sugar Hill)
Lumpkin County (Dahlonega)
Madison County (Danielsville)
Monroe Area (Monroe)
Stephens County (Toccoa)
Walnut Grove (Walnut Grove)
Finally, consider this season’s schedule:
17 August – St. Puis X Catholic makes the trip up from the
big city to take on the Indians in a scrimmage game at The Reservation. The Golden Lions are in Region 6AAA.
31 August – The season opens up with the Indians making a
short road trip to Carnesville to face long-time rival Franklin County. The Lions reside in Region 8AAA.
07 September – Habersham Central crosses the hump from Mt
Airy for the annual “Battle of Currahee Mountain.” The raiders are in Region 7AAAAAA.
14 September – The Indians trek down to Hartwell to face
Hart County. The Bulldogs are a Region
8AAA team.
21 September – The Walnut Grove Warriors come to The
Reservation for a Region 8AAAA conference game.
This is “Homecoming Night” at The Reservation.
28 September – The Chestatee War Eagles come to Toccoa from Gainesville
for a Region 8AAAA conference game. This
is “Recreation Night” at The Reservation.
05 October – OPEN
12 October – The Indians travel to Monroe to take on the
Monroe Area Hurricanes in a Region 8AAAA conference game.
19 October – Region 8AAAA conference play continues as the
Indians commute to Danielsville to combat the Madison County Red Raiders.
26 October – The Lanier Longhorns make the trip from Sugar
Hill to face the Indians in a Region 8AAAA conference tilt. This is “Band Senior Night” at The
Reservation.
02 November – The Eastside Eagles arrive at The Reservation
from Covington to battle with the Indians in a region 8AAAA contest. This is “Senior Night” at The Reservation.
09 November – The regular season ends with the real Indians
traveling to Dahlonega to take on the Lumpkin County (bizarre) Indians in a
final Region 8AAAA contest.
The tax should actually be termed TSPROST (R for "Regional") using the accepted convention, but even this would be incorrect. The actual language in O.C.G.A. is “special district transportation sales and use tax.”
The special district containing Athens, that of the Northeast Georgia Regional Commission, was created a half-century ago as a “focal point for regional issues concerning local government and to be a resource for those governments in a variety of specialized areas.” Interestingly, transportation is not enumerated among those specialized areas listed on the NGRC web site.
The amount of revenue returned to local governments will be determined by a formula employing the “LARP factor” ( from the Georgia DOT's Local Assistance Road Program). Per O.C.G.A., 48-8-242(6), this “means the sum of one-fifth of the ratio between the population of a local government’s jurisdiction and the total population of the special district plus four-fifths of the ratio between the paved and unpaved centerline road miles in the local government’s jurisdiction and the total paved and unpaved centerline road miles in the special district.” Centerline means the length in one direction, irrespective of the number of lanes.
TIA’s initial article ominously states that “This article shall be construed liberally to achieve its purpose.” Given our past experiences with SPLOST and E-SPLOST levies, that is precisely of what I am afraid.
Addendum - All of the material that I read in preparation for this column indicated that the situation was the way I described it, or at least that was my interpretation of it because maintenance/paving (or "resurfacing," if you prefer) was lumped in with the verbiage used and not split out into a separately administered category. Of course, this material dealt with TSPLOST as a political issue, not with the details of how various DOT programs operate.
Your comment set me to digging deeper, with the result being a convoluted thing. It appears that DOT funded local government maintenance and paving through LARP until 2010, when that and similar activities were consolidated within LMIG.
From the New Georgia Encyclopedia (2008). “Local Assistance Road Program helps local governments preserve their road systems by funding resurfacing activities. Each year, every city and county in the state is invited to submit a priority list of projects to the GDOT, which reviews requests and establishes priorities for resurfacing. In 2007 GDOT resurfaced 917 miles of roads under the program. Overall, there are 70,013 miles of city and county paved roads in Georgia.” See point number 2 under Support for Georgia Roadways, http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?path=/Transportation/....
From the Georgia Municipal Association (2010), “On July 1 the Georgia DOT began accepting new requests for local transportation needs through the Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) Program. Both the State Aid program and the Local Assistance Road Program (LARP) are replaced by the LMIG Program. GDOT held a series of workshops during the month of June to help local government officials understand the new process of applying for funds under the LMIG program. . . The total amount available in the LMIG program for FY2011 is $96 million. SB200 stipulated that LMIG must be funded at between 10-20 percent of motor fuel funds. The amount for FY2011 is approximately 13 per cent . . . While LARP funds were restricted to resurfacing projects, the LMIG program is intended to provide more flexibility and can be used for a variety of transportation improvement projects, including patching, widening, turn lanes, rehabilitation, intersections, traffic signals, safety upgrades, culvert/bridge repair and sidewalk/bike lane improvements that are within the roadway right of way. Parking lots are an eligible project, but priority will be given to road and bridge projects. . . For FY11, there is no match for resurfacing projects and a 10 percent match for construction projects. Money spent on preliminary engineering, right of way, utilities, etc. are NOT counted toward the 10 percent match.” See http://www.gmanet.com/MDR.aspx?CNID=53322.
From the DOT, “Due to motor fuel funds being used for this program only certain types of transportation improvement projects are eligible. Project types include but are not limited to: patching & resurfacing, new location, widening, turn lanes, rehabilitation, intersections, dirt road upgrades, safety upgrades, culvert/bridge repair or replacement. . . LG will be expected to match at least 10% of the construction cost on all projects except for resurfacing/maintenance type projects. LG may count monies spent on preliminary engineering activities toward the 10% match. In addition, monies spent on any construction items not included in the GDOT contract, can go toward the 10% match. See points number 7 and 10, http://www.dot.state.ga.us/localgovernment/FundingPrograms/LMIG/Document....
For what it is worth, I did not find a clear explanation on the DOT web site of how this process has changed over time (that doesn't mean that it isn't there, but I didn't find it).
So, it appears that resurfacing used to be covered by the DOT under LARP, but no longer is under LMIG, and that the percentage of the local government “match” required for construction projects may vary in any given year.
Is what you are saying is that the local government "match" for maintenance and paving, currently at 0%, will go up to 10% if the referendum passes and up to 30% if it does not? If so, then the TSPLOST idea is even worse than I originally wrote.