There is this strange idea in western culture that idealizes independence and freedom, while shunning collaboration and compromise and dependence. I don’t exactly know all of the reasons for that, but I do know that in highlighting independence and freedom, westerners have sometimes resisted collaboration at the expense of the whole. In seeking our own best interests, we have infringed on others’ liberty and happiness.
That isn’t how healthy communities are created. Healthy communities realize that each individual part is affected by a larger system. If we don’t invest in schooling and public transit, we will then have to bear the consequence of homelessness, unemployment, and crime – things which affect individuals. Without seeing how the two are connected – that systems impact people’s individual situations – we will never be able to come up with a sustainable solution.
Which is why I want to talk about SPLOST and TADs (great segway, huh?). SPLOSTs and TADs are public financing mechanisms that help support healthy systems. These healthy systems help promote healthy lives for all individuals living within them. Healthy systems require compromise, time, effort, collaboration, and leadership, and a SPLOST and a TAD are two of the ways our financial economy has devised in order to fund these ideas into existence.
If we feel our schools are underperforming and underfunded, then we need to look at ways to maximize our funding and our performance. If we feel that one of the reasons our schools struggle is because of the high number of families living in poverty and in blighted communities, then we need to look at ways to address that, too.
And what if actualizing both of these goals could be partially achieved through public investment using a SPLOST and a TAD?
What Is SPLOST?
“SPLOST can fund any capital outlay projects that are owned or operated by either the county, a qualified municipality in the county, a local authority in the county, or some combination thereof. Capital outlay projects refers to major, permanent or long-lived improvements such as land, buildings and other structures, roads and bridges, and major items of equipment and vehicles.”
Click here to view more about what has been specifically proposed by DeKalb County Schools for SPLOST V.
What Goes on the Ballot?
(adapted from Smith, Gambrell, and Russell, LLP)
“The form of ballot language is set out in O.C.G.A. § 48-8-111, and reads as follows:
Shall a special 1 percent sales and use tax be imposed in the special district of _________ County for a period of time not to exceed __________ and for the raising of not more than an estimated amount of $_________ for the purpose of ______________?
When general obligation debt, repayable from the SPLOST, is to be authorized, certain language described below must be added to the ballot.”
Is DeKalb County School’s eSPLOST Specific Enough? Yes.
Last week, Senator Fran Millar wrote an open letter to Dr. Stephen Green, superintendent of the DeKalb County School District, warning him of possible legal challenges facing, what he calls, the lack of “specificity” in the SPLOST project list.
However, from what I have seen, it appears that DeKalb County has good legal precedent for proceeding with their current SPLOST project list. (And, for the record, I do not support the strong arm tactics that Senator Millar has at times attempted with the school district, so I hope that this post is not conflated with such tactics.)
Read below for an excerpt about SPLOST, also taken from the information provided by Smith, Gambrell, and Russel, LLP:
“Despite the apparent simplicity of the ballot form, it can present questions and difficulties. The ballot form requires that the purposes to which the tax will be applied be inserted. The degree of specificity required is not stated, but Unofficial Opinion of the Attorney General of Georgia No. U90-18 (1990) concludes:
There is no necessity that the description of the purpose or purposes for the tax be in exacting detail. Rather, . . . the description and the purposes must be only so specific as to place the electorate on fair notice of the projects to which the tax will be devoted.
The opinion suggests that a brief statement such as “county judicial facility” or “recreational facility to be constructed within the City of Canton” is sufficient. In the case Dickey v. Storey, 262 Ga. 452 (1992), the referendum question described county “recreational facilities and multi-purpose governmental facilities.” The Georgia Supreme Court apparently found this description adequate, and permitted the proposed location of facilities to be changed to some degree.”
Dr. Green and the proposed SPLOST projects seem to be within the law, and as such, I believe we should be able to vote for this E-SPLOST on May 24, 2016. Since Dr. Green has stated that he so strongly believes in the voters’ ability to decide on this SPLOST (as stated in his open response to Senator Fran Millar’s open letter), I believe the voice of the voters should also be heard when considering the school district’s participation in the Doraville TAD.
A Little Give and a Little Take
In my opinion, the SPLOST and the TAD represent a bit of a give and take for both the county and the school system. If DCSD wants to use a 1% sales tax (which is has for decades) to finance school projects and, in essence, the community, then I believe it to be reasonable to expect that DCSD (which spends more money per pupil than any other metro Atlanta county) could freeze the tax rate on the Doraville TAD site so that the increases in taxes on that site could be inserted into the development of that community.
If DCSD participates in the TAD, the school system would only be giving up the hypothetical increases in taxes for the 25-year life of the TAD, but during that time, DCSD would be receiving money from SPLOST funds – if approved.
Even if the development languishes, or if it develops into something less than desirable, DeKalb Schools will be no worse off than it is now. Currently it only receives $385,000 a year from the site as is. If the development takes place and is only half as successful as they say it will be, DCSD would get $8.5 million a year after the TAD. If it is worse off than it is now – which I cannot even fathom how that would be possible – then DCSD will have been shielded from a decline in taxes for that 25-year period. However, the projected value of the property taxes received annually after the 25-year TAD is about $17 million, which is 47 times the amount we currently get annually.
I believe working together and compromising is a part of building a successful school district, and our district is and has been divided for too long. We need to stop focusing on only fixing one certain attendance zone, or one particular region, or one particular school. Perhaps this year can mark the beginning of a new DeKalb in which the northern and southern parts of the county unite to see a significant investment in our schools and our communities – which are interconnected.
This will take the voters – who don’t all have children in the school district – approving a SPLOST district-wide, and it will take the school district – who needs to capitalize on opportunities to grow the tax digest in order to have money to educate students — approving a TAD in order to put the maximum amount of funding into our school district.
We must invest in all aspects of our community – but we have to begin to see that one region’s economic success (or failure) affects the entire region.
What Are the Real Risks?
There are really only 2 risks, as I see it:
- Some people still do not understand what a TAD is, and because of that, if Dr. Green participates, it may be unpopular with that group.
- Some people – who believe the development will happen without the TAD – will believe we have given up valuable property taxes. (I can respect this position, but I, and others, definitely believe the development will be significantly less successful, without the creation of the TAD. In this case, the school district will be worse off if we don’t participate.)
Conclusion
We need public funding to accomplish community revitalization, and we cannot just address economic development or just education. When possible, we need to address these things in tandem, maximizing the positive outcomes for our communities.
I only ask that Dr. Green and the DCSD school board consider the benefits of a TAD and at least talk with the stakeholders in the community. At the very, very least – please allow the school board members the opportunity to represent their constituents by allowing the board to vote on the school district participation in the TAD. The school district is asking the same for the SPLOST vote on May 24, and I only believe it is fair for the board to have the opportunity to say “yes” or “no” to the TAD.
Georgian Educator 
April 23, 2016 at 11:30 am
I support the principle of SPLOST to fund capital improvements in a school district. I want to vote for SPLOST V in May, but I can’t.
I can not support another SPLOST without improved accountability. For nineteen years DeKalb County Schools reaped in hundreds of millions of dollars through SPLOST. For nineteen years, stakeholders have been perplexed by the decision made and the lack of accountability.
Ignore the convictions related to SPLOST mismanagement and review the current SPLOST with me.
Between the vote and the start of any projects the district announced, “Oops! We miscalculated, again. All project budgets have to be decreased by 15%.”
Also, among the first purchases were 15 Ford Fusions for district employees to use. After the first year the average number of miles driven on them was less than 2,800. Obviously, there wasn’t a need for new cars for employees to use.
The Henderson Middle School renovation is a cautionary tale. The school has engaged parents who wanted to be part of the process to the point where there is a construction committee. The operations department ignored them and had architects draw up plans. The plans did not address the needs of the school. The school needed a ramp to improve handicap accessibility, but it wasn’t in the plans. The locker rooms had life-safety code violations which were not addressed. The parents had to fight with the district for several months before the locker rooms were addressed. I could go one, but understand, the HMS renovation is typical of how DCSD handles SPLOST projects.
When gyms were built at the elementary schools (pre SPLOST) they did not include air conditioners. SPLOST IV is paying to install air conditioners at every elementary school. Why do elementary gyms need air conditioners? When it is hot outside, don’t we want the children outside? Air conditioning gyms is a colossal waste of money because the gyms are not properly insulated. The air conditioners will be incredibly inefficient. If, after 25 years, the gyms really needed remediation, a more cost effective strategy would have been to apply spray foam to the underside of the roofs.
When the current SPLOST was proposed, voters were told there would be a Local School Priority Request fund of over $3 million. That fund was not used for Local School Priority Request, but was diverted to purchase custodial equipment. Custodial equipment, while needed, is not a capital purchase. When the BOE voted on Superintendent Thurmond’s request, they were not told where the money was coming from. Thurmond, and Josh Williams, denied the schools funds they need for repairs to purchase custodial equipment that wasn’t used for more than a year. You see, Mr. Williams assumed he could use the same contract that the Marietta School District was using to purchase the equipment and training for the equipment, but the Marietta contract couldn’t be used to pay for training. Consequently, DCSD purchased approximately $2.5 million worth equipment that sat in storage for 11 months.
I haven’t even discussed the lack of oversight, financial or otherwise. The SPLOST program is audited annually. However, that audit is only a process audit and does not look at where or how money is spent. The Citizen’s Oversight Committee, which meets monthly, recommended the operations department keep track of vendors which performed substandard work and deduct points when scoring future bids by those contractors. The operations department refused to do that. The Clifton Elementary School replacement project experienced delays and cost overruns because of faulty contractor work. I was at the Oversight Committee meeting where this was discussed. What was said in that meeting was different than what was told to the BOE when they asked about the delays and costs. The Oversight Committee got the full story. The BOE got a version in which the contractor was not at fault which is an obvious falsehood because of the information left out.
I like and respect, and trust Dr. Green. I can not trust many of the central office employees who run the day to day operations of the school district. If there were accountability measures put in place, I would vote for SPLOST V. With the continuation of business-as-usual, I can not.
I urge everyone to read the referendum, talk to your local teachers about what SPLOST means to them and come to your own conclusions. Then vote the way you feel comfortable.
LikeLike
April 23, 2016 at 11:33 am
Geez,
I forgot to point out the fact that after 19 years of SPLOST money, DeKalb County will have approximately 400 trailers/portable classrooms in the district in August 2016. If that doesn’t demonstrate ongoing mismanagement, I don’t know what could.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 24, 2016 at 8:48 pm
Kirk, I completely sympathize with your concerns. Those are legitimate, and the central office staff is — in this regard — still pretty much the same as it was when these issues were present. However, I do think it matters that we have a different “driver,” if you will. I say we give it a shot and see if there isn’t more oversight, accountability, and discretion in the use of the SPLOST funds.
Let’s just say the voters don’t approve SPLOST: what do you think will happen to the schools? I’m curious because if our district truly has mismanaged the “excess” money, what do you think will happen with the current funds — that they will be managed appropriately?
LikeLike
April 25, 2016 at 7:21 am
Rebekah,
First, let me say there is no “excess” money. Operations has committed every dollar of “excess” that comes in. For example, Redan H.S. is getting lights and bleachers for their baseball field. Those are add ons to their SPLOST renovation. When Lakeside H.S. asked for lights for their baseball field, the response from the district was, “we don’t put lights at baseball fields.” Also, Lakeside’s foundation is raising money to donate bleachers. The district will only pay for installation.
There is no equity regarding SPLOST money.
With the SPLOST technology refresh, Redan will have more computers than students when classes resume in August. It will be the only school in the district capable of providing the “mythical” one-to-one learning environment. Think about the classrooms at Cross Keys. Are they even close to having a computer for every student? The district continues to spend money, not based on needs, but political desires.
Assume you have a next-door-neighbor who has an old car on blocks in his front yard. It is an eyesore and drags down the value of your house. Also, this neighbor has a drinking problem. Every time he gets some money, he goes on a bender. How many times are you going to loan your neighbor $500 to fix his car when it never moves off the blocks when you do?
Right now, the Midvale E.S. School Council is trying to get repairs (which were identified in the 2011 Facility Condition Report) addressed. These repairs were not included in any SPLOST IV projects at Midvale. What the principal was told is there isn’t any money to make the repairs. In Midvale’s current Facility Condition Assessment, there are 15 building “systems” whose average length of time past their expected service life is 23.5 years. Think about that. 15 areas of the school building that should have been updated before SPLOST revenues even started. Why can’t Midvale get its outdated (and called unsafe by the consultants) systems addressed? Why can’t Midvale get repairs made which have been waiting, at least, five years? Why are lights for a baseball field more important than cracks in the walls at Midvale?
There is no equity regarding SPLOST money.
I can not vote to give DeKalb Schools $500,000,000 dollars when the “pretty much the same” central staff are making decisions on how it will be spent and there is no plan to increase the level of accountability. The fact they didn’t feel as though the voters needed to see more specificity in the project list is a clear sign of the expectation of business as usual.
Business as usual means over 330 trailers used to meet the capacity needs of schools after 19 years of SPLOST money to address capacity. Adding the trailers needed associated with SPLOST projects, the district will have approximately 400 trailers in August. Business as usual means not having a plan to reduce the need for those trailers within the next five years. Business as usual means a BOE which does not ask difficult questions, and when they ask one which might be embarrassing to the administration, the reply is, “I will have to get back to you on that.” Once, I made a list of unanswered questions, my BOE rep. confirmed none of them had ever been answered. I would like everyone to contact their BOE representative and ask them how many times anyone from administration has actually gotten back to them. The answer is predictable.
To answer your question regarding not passing SPLOST, capital improvements will be done using “traditional” methods of financing, such as bonds and borrowing money. When you owe someone else money, the management of that money becomes much more important than if you have large amounts waiting to be spent. The accountability is exerted from the lender. The GaDOE refuses to require DeKalb Schools to use the accrual method of accounting. This results in invoices being held for months (and even years) before being booked. This is evident in the Vendor Spends Report which is part of the Monthly Financial report to the BOE. Interestingly, those attachments were not posted on eBoard with the agenda the week before the April BOE meeting. They appeared the morning of the meeting.
I believe external accountability would be better than no accountability.
LikeLike
April 25, 2016 at 7:53 am
Great points — I think that last part of your argument is key bc without knowing what the other ways of financing other VERY necessary improvements and renovations, it seems hard to argue against SPLOST. But I definitely see your point and your emphasis on external accountability. Is there a way to build in a stronger mechanism of accountability with SPLOST? Or is the Oversight Committee the only thing we have?
Sometimes I worry that those arguing against SPLOST just want to see the district collapse so that it loses its accreditation (not saying you, necessarily, but some for sure). Obviously if the system lost its accreditation or was on the brink of failure, then the student would surely be the biggest losers. It would also be easier for the independent school district advocates to make their case. Obviously I don’t want to see the district collapse, and I definitely don’t support the creation of independent school districts. But I also don’t want to support reckless spending either. I guess I still want to have faith that Dr. Green will be able to lead the district and those in the operations/planning department in a way that will be equitable for all DCSD students. I just don’t want the students to lose out, bc they are the ones who ultimately pay the price for our inefficacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 25, 2016 at 12:04 pm
Rebekah,
Yes. There are ways to build stronger mechanisms of accountability for SPLOST. The district could pay for financial audits, not only process audits. There could be a web page where changes to projects can be posted so stakeholders can track them. RFPs can be shared with school councils prior to bidding to make sure the project addresses the needs of the school. Project managers could attend school council and PTA meetings to provide updates on projects. There are multiple options for increasing accountability.
In case you missed it, The name of the Citizen’s Oversight Committee has been changed to the SPLOST Advisory Committee. I believe the current members proposed that because they are frustrated at their inability to do any actual oversight. Regardless of the name, those committee meetings could be videoed and posted on the districts website.
The one thing, which wouldn’t cost any money, is having one BOE member attend the Advisory Committee meetings on a rotating basis, just as Advisory Committee has a representative at each BOE meeting. The more informed the BOE is about SPLOST the more likely it is they will actually ask questions when SPLOST items are on their meeting agenda.
LikeLike