At the same time the school system is preparing to deal with the ramifications of House Bill 581 on January 1, they are also engaging with another tax-related issue that comes into play in the new year.
An E-SPLOST, or Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax, is a one-cent sales tax on all retail purchases in the state earmarked for special school projects.
Lumpkin County citizens last voted to approve an E-SPLOST on March 24, 2020. That iteration of E-SPLOST had an anticipated revenue of $25 million over a maximum period of five years.
Some of the stated purposes of that E-SPLOST were to acquire land for, and build, a new elementary school, as well as to renovate both the high school and Blackburn Elementary and update the system’s aging bus fleet.
Now the school board has voted unanimously to authorize a new special election to be held on March 18, 2025 to decide whether another one percent E-SPLOST will replace the expiring 2020 tax.
In addition to funding a portion of the debt service on the school district’s 2020 bonds, the list of proposed uses in the draft resolution casts a wide net, including the potential for even more land acquisition, new facilities or existing facility renovations.
However, during the December work session Superintendent Sharon Head told the Board of Education that the system has no concrete plans for future expansion at this time, and that the focus for now will be on maintenance and improvements of existing property.
“Out of the funds that remain in the next E-SPLOST after paying bond debt, we will continue to follow our Georgia DOE capital outlay plan to renovate and repair our schools as identified,” Head told The Nugget when asked if more specific projects will be named ahead of the special election next year.
TAXING DISCUSSION
At the board’s December work session, Chief Operations Officer Greg Trammell led a discussion on the forthcoming E-SPLOST resolution.
“I think the early voting starts on February 24 and [Finance Director] Whitney [McPherson]’s already been working on a E-SPLOST campaign, putting some stuff together. The County Board of Elections wouldn’t give me an exact number, but they said it was going to be between $12 [thousand] and $15,000 to run this election, which can be paid for with E-SPLOST,” Trammell indicated.
“Okay, this is a special election just for E-SPLOST? But it’s not running with anything?” asked board member Lynne Sylvester.
“Correct, as far as we know,” replied Head.
“Oh my gosh,” exclaimed Sylvester.
“I was advised by everyone ‘You don’t want to do it during a presidential election.’ And so that’s why we opted to go with a March, on-our-own election,” Head continued.
“I would just be interested to see how many people actually come out,” Sylvester commented.
“It’s usually a lower number?” asked board member Jim McClure.
Head acknowledged that is typically the case.
“But it’s usually a higher percentage of ‘yes’ [votes]? McClure asked.
“That’s right, yes,” Head responded.
Head said she and her team did their best to estimate what the tax would likely collect over the next five-year period. The number the administration came up with was $38.2 million, a significant jump from the previous E-SPLOST target.
“The other number I’ll point out to you is the bond amount that we will pay over the five-year period: $12,534,047,” Head said.
She also noted that the general language in the proposed ballot question includes references to technology, school buses, text books, and more.
“What is not in there though, in this next one, is an additional bond. We didn’t feel like, with this money that’s already tied up in bond payments, that we wanted to include additional bond language for the next one. That’s a little bit different from the last E-SPLOST that we ran. So I just wanted to point that out,” Head continued.
Trammell said he was confident the district will hit the $38.2 million revenue target, and Head agreed.
“We are capping early on the $25 [million] that we thought was going to be a high number last time,” she pointed out.
“So this is just a continuation of the one percent we’ve had?” asked board member Mera Turner.
Head assured her it was.
“I think that will help people, to know we’re just continuing, that it’s not going to add another one percent. That needs to be clear,” Turner emphasized.
Head agreed, and said there would be a big push in the new year to educate the public both on how previous E-SPLOST funds were spent and how important it will be to approve this seventh version of the tax in 2025.
Turner also asked about the language in the draft resolution authorizing the acquisition of new property. Head said that is a standard inclusion.
“The law says you can put that in there. We don’t anticipate [that], but you never know. We didn’t know when we were going to buy the property adjacent to us, but when that became available we knew that for future purposes we needed to purchase it,” she said.
“This resolution is written as friendly as the law will allow,” Trammell added.
He mentioned that a new addition to the upcoming resolution would also authorize spending for educational subscriptions and licenses.
“Sometimes it ends up costing more than the textbook does. So they’re allowing us to use that this time, so we’ve added that in there as well,” he explained.
Head told the board that they would be required to advertise the special election in The Nugget, and she had a schedule drafted for that, but that no public meetings are required ahead of the key vote.
“Really?” asked Sylvester, sounding surprised.
“Really. All we have to do is get the resolution to put it onto the ballot and hold the election. And that’s what we’re going to ask your approval for Monday night,” Head responded.
At the following week’s regular session, the board did just that, unanimously approving the March 18 special election for E-SPLOST on a motion by Turner.