Note that,
according to whom one is speaking, the terminology concerning a school
district’s sales tax levy varies. The
technically correct term is “SPLOST,” just like with a county’s sales tax levy,
though the two are (sometimes) governed by different O.C.G.A. sections. The terms “E-LOST” and “E-SPLOST” are
similarly used, but all three means the same thing.
Remember that,
legally speaking, school districts cannot levy taxes; they are “requesting”
authorities. The actual imposition of
taxes falls to county governments; they are “levying” authorities. Of course, case law leaves essentially no
leeway for county governments not to approve whatever the4or respective school
districts request, assuming that the requests are otherwise legal.
Some of my concerns
about the CCSD’s SPLOST 4 bonds actually began with questions I had about the
SPLOST 3 bonds – questions to which no one seemed to know the answers. After very long and circuitous investigations
through quite a number of local and state bureaucracies (CCSD, Department of
Education, Department of Revenue, etc.), I eventually found the answers to a
couple of them. The first listed below,
about exceeding the 20 mills limit, is courtesy of the Attorney General’s
office. The second is the result of a
conversation I had with a bond attorney over in Atlanta (because the AG’s
office clammed up on me):
Seaboard Air-Line Railway Company v. Wright,
comptroller-general, et al.
I
could not find the text of this decision online, but I am told by the AG’s
office that this is the case that exempts bond debt service form any
constitution limit on a school district’s millage rate.
O.C.G.A. §48-8-121(c) – Use of proceeds; issuance of general
obligation debt:
“General obligation debt issued under this part shall be
payable first from the separate account in which are placed the proceeds
received by the county or qualified municipalities within the special district
issuing such debt from the tax authorized by this part. Such debt, however,
shall constitute a pledge of the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the
county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such
debt; and any liability on said debt which is not satisfied from the proceeds
of the tax authorized by this part shall be satisfied from the general funds of
the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such
debt.”
Readers
can follow the progress of the SPLOST 4 bond resolution for themselves below
(note that the agenda items in January concerned the SPLOST 4 “schedule and
plan,” not the bond resolution itself, so I have omitted those meetings):
December
2012 – Board Regular Meeting Agenda (no agenda meeting in December)
See
page 88 PDF. Note that the memorandum
had to do with initiating the bond issuance process only, having nothing to do
with the bond resolution itself or any other links or background material.
December
2012 – Board Regular Meeting Brief
See
page 4 of the PDF. Concerning the SPLOST
4 bonds under New Business, it notes “The Board approved the
authorization to initiate the process to issue bonds for the upcoming SPLOST 4
construction projects.” That’s it; no
other information or links to background material are provided.
December
2012 – Board Regular Meeting Minutes
See
page 5 of the PDF.
March
2013 – Board Regular Meeting Agenda (no agenda meeting in March)
See
page 1 of the PDR. Under
Superintendent’s Report, all that is mentioned is “SPLOST Bond Resolution.” No additional or background information or
links are provided.
March
2013 – Board Regular Meeting Brief
See
page 2 of the PDF. Note that the
paragraph pertaining to the Superintendent’s Report merely says about the
SPLOST 4 bonds that “After that, attorney Terrell Benton introduced a
presentation on a SPLOST Bond Referendum that will be voted on at a called Mar.
20 Board of Education meeting.” Note
also that no time or place is given for the special called meeting nor are
additional or background information or links are provided.
Calendar
of Events
Note
that the finance committee and full Board meetings on 07 March are clearly
indicated, but that the special called meeting on 20 March is notable by its
absence.
“This
Week in the CCSD”
It
is true that the email message forwarded to me by a member of the local new
media did contain notice of the Board’s special called meeting in the text of
the email message itself. Note, however,
that three is no mention of the special called meeting in the document. Had one not received the email directly and
relied on the attached file, one would not have known of the special called
meeting.
For
a further critique and timeline of the hurried process used to pass the bond
resolution and the stunning lack of public notice, see my first comment
following this news article:
I
received three responses to my emailed inquiries about how much money would be
saved by issuing SPLOST 4 bonds and how such savings could be calculated, which
were sent to Board members (as elected officials) on purpose so as to establish
that I had concerns about the SPLOST 4 bond issue. One indicated that the Board member had
forwarded my questions to the appropriate CCSD administrative personnel, which
was a fair enough response, as I knew that Board had no idea. The second merely was a “reply all” that sent
my questions to all of the other members of the Board, the email addressed of
whom I had purposefully included in the address line (not the CC or BCC line)
specifically for the purpose of letting the Board Members know that I had sent
my questions to all of them. The third
response was to ask me if I had received any other responses.
Finally,
I must thank Denise Spangler and Ted Gilbert.
When I asked the former, after the Board meeting on 20 March, where a
member of the public could get a copy of the various resolutions just approved,
she graciously gave me her copies. That
is the only reason I have them – to my knowledge, they are still not available
anywhere else. The latter, with whom I
have had amicable dealings in the past, has indicated that he will try to come
up with some numbers for me as to how much money the CCSD ostensibly saved by
issuing bonds under both SPLOST 3 and SPOST 4.
Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment