ELOST III
ELOST II collected $8,277,000. The next (and current) tax, ELOST III, which went into effect December, 2005, has a revenue target of $21,260,500. That is more than 2 1/2 times the previous target. Why? Did the school administration suddenly decide that the economy would explode, resulting in fantastic tax revenues?
The answer, of course, is "no." The school administration realized a couple of things about milking the public. First, the tax runs until the revenue target is hit, or for five years, whichever comes first. When the tax expires, you have to go through an election to authorize another. So, why not set a very high target? If the target is so high that there is no chance it will be achieved, then the tax will run for a full five years without the inconvenience of having to gain taxpayer approval again. Obtaining taxpayer approval once every five years is inconvenient enough.
Second, the ELOST resolution does not require a specific set of projects. I will not bore you with the whole thing (the full resolution, if you are interested, is posted here), but the beginning of the description of projects from ELOST III will give you the flavor:
"Acquiring, constructing, equipping and furnishing new school buildings and facilities useful and desirable therewith; adding to, renovating, repairing, improving and equipping the existing schools and facilities; . . ."
Not very specific, is it? So, what if you tell the voters that the ELOST will fund a fairly specific set of projects: a new football stadium, a new gymnasium, a new school, a new three level parking deck, whatever you choose? Then you actually fund the projects you want to fund, knowing full well that you aren't going to fund others. The unfunded projects become a "sinking fund." The money gets diverted from these unfunded projects, which stay on the books for the next ELOST, to the projects you really want.
An advantage of the "sinking fund" approach is that you are allowed pretty substantial cost overruns on the projects you do fund. Again, the resolution submitted to get the ELOST on the ballot isn't very specific about the projects, so if they are not named specifically, how can you attach a price tag to them? You can tell the taxpayers one thing while campaigning for their approval, and then spend what you wish afterwards.
Here is an example. I petitioned the Morgan County School system under the Georgia Open Records law to obtain a summary of ELOST III projects: the original estimated cost, the actual cost, the amount of money unspent, etc. My request is posted here, and the report I received from them is posted here.We built a new high school gym, a very nice one. The taxpayers were told in 2005 that the gym was estimated to cost $3.5 million. When they finally got around to getting a bid, it came in at $5,259,700. But they completed the gym for $5,205,119. They were able to brag that the gym was built at less than the bid. What they didn't remind the taxpayer is that the bid was 50% higher than we were told prior to the election. So, where did that money come from?