A proposal to begin issuing up to $84 million in bonds to fund the first phase of Bulloch County’s long-planned jail expansion was met with skepticism and ultimately tabled at the May 6, 2025 Board of Commissioners meeting, as members raised questions about cost overruns, public transparency, and the long-term financial risk to taxpayers.
Doug Gebhardt of Davenport & Company, the county’s financial advisor, and Roger Murray of Murray Barnes Finister, the county’s bond counsel, presented two financing options to fund the $61.5 million first phase of the jail project. Although $51 million has been allocated for the jail expansion in the voter-approved 2025 SPLOST referendum, Gebhardt explained that bonding is necessary to bridge the gap between the allocation and the total project cost, including interest.
Gebhardt told commissioners the proposal was meant to be interactive, encouraging questions throughout the presentation. “We’re here to get your blessing on a recommended path forward,” he said.
Two Financing Options: 12-Year vs. 20-Year
The presentation included two financing scenarios.
Scenario 1 would stretch payments over 12 years, using the full $51 million in current SPLOST proceeds during the first six years. The remaining debt would require an additional $4.5 million annually from a future SPLOST, totaling roughly $27 million. The all-in interest rate was estimated at 4.29%.
Scenario 2, the staff-recommended option, proposed spreading payments over 20 years, lowering the annual debt service after year six to $2.4 million. While this plan results in a higher total interest payment, it preserves flexibility to fund other future capital projects and minimizes the potential financial burden on the general fund. This structure also allows early repayment after 10 years without penalty.
Kristie King, Bulloch County’s Chief Financial Officer, supported Scenario 2, saying the longer term gave the county more breathing room if a future SPLOST fails or priorities shift. “At first, I was leaning toward a shorter term,” she said. “But after thinking all the way through it, we don’t know what’s going to happen six years from now. If SPLOST didn’t pass, it would be nice to have a smaller payment. Especially with the flexibility to pay it off early, that’s the recommendation I support.”
Gebhardt stressed that either option relies on the assumption that future boards will continue allocating SPLOST dollars toward the jail. “We cannot obligate future boards to reauthorize this project on a SPLOST ballot,” he said. “If they don’t, or if the referendum fails, the general fund would have to absorb the debt service.”
In that scenario, Gebhardt said the general fund could face the equivalent of a 1.29-mill tax increase under Scenario 1 or a 0.69-mill increase under Scenario 2. “We’re not saying a tax increase would have to happen,” he added, “but you would either have to cut expenses, raise other revenues, or both.”
Questions About Transparency and Cost
Commissioner Nick Newkirk voiced concerns about what voters actually knew when approving the SPLOST referendum in March. “I know the citizens approved this, but I don’t know if they would have voted for it had they known it was going to cost $84 million,” Newkirk said. “There was no mention of bonding in the ballot language. Everyone assumed we were just going to build it.”
Murray acknowledged that while the SPLOST ballot did not mention bonds, the intergovernmental agreement approved at the same time explicitly included bonding authority through the Bulloch County Public Facilities Authority. "You're right, the ballot didn't specifically mention debt," Roger Murray said. "But the intergovernmental agreement that was approved at the same time as the SPLOST referendum did authorize the issuance of bonds through the Public Facilities Authority."
Newkirk also pushed for more time to digest the complex financing structure, criticizing the late delivery of documentation. “This is more than our annual budget,” he said. “And we go through a long process for that. We got this 20 minutes ago.”
Commissioner Anthony Simmons cited concerns about delaying construction, pointing to the cost increases seen with the Ag Arena project, which ballooned due to repeated postponements. “The longer we wait, the more expensive it’s going to be,” he said.
Gebhardt agreed, noting that inflation has already driven construction costs significantly higher since the project was first studied. “If you wait until 2031, you’d still only have $51 million collected, and you’d likely be short again,” he said. “Building now lets you use today’s dollars and avoids years of inflation.”
Understanding the Project Scope
The current vote only addressed financing for Phase 1 of the jail expansion, but the full project spans three phases and is estimated to cost $167.4 million. The phases, outlined by design firm Goodwyn Mills Cawood (GMC), are as follows:
- Phase 1: New housing building for 160 male and 128 female inmates — $61,580,345
- Phase 2: Demolition of existing Correctional Institution and replacement with new 160-bed housing — $39,460,305
- Phase 3: Razing of the CI building and construction of a 136-bed housing facility — $66,366,522
Recommendation and Delay
Davenport recommended the county pursue the 20-year Scenario 2 option using Intergovernmental Revenue Bonds issued by the Public Facilities Authority. Under the proposal:
- The PFA would issue the bonds
- The County would pledge its full faith and credit for repayment
- Sales tax revenues would cover annual debt payments
- Bonds would be competitively bid on the open market
- Interest rates would be locked in the day of sale
A detailed timeline for bond validation, credit rating meetings, and an August bond closing had been laid out. However, the vote to table the resolution puts that schedule on hold.
Newkirk made a motion to delay approval of the resolution, saying commissioners needed time to study the proposal further. “We just need time to digest it,” he said.
The board voted 3–2 in favor of tabling the resolution, postponing a decision on how and when to move forward with the jail expansion financing. The issue is expected to return for further discussion at a future meeting.