Gadsden school board approves resolution to place half‑cent capital outlay surtax on ballot

At a special meeting, the Gadsden County School Board voted unanimously to approve a resolution to place a discretionary half‑cent capital outlay surtax referendum on an upcoming election ballot. Board members and staff said the surtax is expected to generate about $2,000,000 annually for school facilities and capital needs, with final figures varying month to month based on local sales activity.

Staff presented the process and legal constraints that govern a school‑district surtax referendum. Dr. Jackson, who led the presentation, said the district must submit the board resolution and county ordinance to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) at least 180 days before the referendum and that OPPAGA must complete its performance audit no later than 60 days before the vote. "We anticipate somewhere around $2,000,000 generated annually," Dr. Jackson said when explaining the district's estimate based on 12‑month sales averages from the Florida Department of Revenue.

The draft referendum language and an attached Exhibit A list eligible uses consistent with Florida Statute 212.055, including renovation, repair, remodeling, modernization, improvements for safety and accessibility, athletic field enhancements and, where needed, servicing bond indebtedness. Staff noted that Florida Statute 1013.62 requires a portion of capital outlay proceeds be shared with current and future charter schools; staff said the district would calculate and transfer the charter share monthly after state approval of charter fixed capital outlay plans.

Board members raised several concerns before the vote. Some asked whether selling district property could raise the necessary funds instead of a surtax; others objected to the draft's 15‑year time span and broad language that could allow land acquisition or new construction. "I probably will not oppose the vote for this tax even though I am opposed to it," said board member Mr. Scott, summarizing his conflicted position. Staff said the broad statutory language is standard to allow flexibility across a 15‑year period and that all individual projects would be brought to the board for approval after recommended priorities are set.

Staff and board members discussed oversight and accountability. Exhibit A requires a district facilities committee with not fewer than two independent citizens to monitor and advise the board on surtax expenditures; staff described an existing five‑year work plan (produced annually) that will be used to align projects and priorities. The board was also reminded of restrictions that apply to elected officials once a referendum is on the ballot: members may provide factual information about needs and uses but must avoid explicit advocacy for passage.

Other operational details noted in the meeting: staff said the Department of Revenue remits sales surtax revenue monthly and that the district's estimate was driven largely by transactions near the interstate interchange and seasonal peaks. The superintendent and staff also flagged the need to correct minor drafting errors in the packet (for example, pluralizing "sites" where appropriate); Dr. Jackson was directed to make those corrections and return the document for signature and submission.

The board made and seconded a motion to approve the resolution and voted in favor. The motion passed with no recorded no votes or abstentions; staff were instructed to finalize the corrected resolution and pursue the next steps in the OPPAGA review and county ordinance process.

In other business the board discussed the old gym/property and archival records stored there. Board members asked staff to research options to secure, digitize or dispose of historical records and to propose next steps for the underused property. The superintendent noted existing records‑retention schedules drive some retention decisions and said staff would return with recommendations.

Next steps: staff will finalize the corrected resolution for signature, submit materials to OPPAGA and the county commission according to the statutory timeline, and develop a public timeline for the referendum process for board review.