Putnam school board orders review after officials say tax collector kept large share of bond commission

The Putnam County School Board on May 12 voted unanimously to authorize the superintendent and the board attorney to investigate commissions the county tax collector retained from the district's bond issuances, after the district's chief financial officer presented figures showing a substantial portion of bond‑related fees did not return to the district.

The board acted after Jonathan Odom, the district chief financial officer, walked trustees through reconciliations from bond issuances and said that of the $127,728 collected from the district’s first $100 million bond issuance the tax collector retained roughly 76.62 percent and the district received $29,688.86 back under the statutory distribution formula. “Of that $127,000 they collected from us, they were able to keep 76.62%,” Odom said. He warned the pattern could total millions over the life of the bonds and provided illustrative multi‑year projections.

Board member David Buckles framed the issue as money approved by voters for school construction that has instead been kept outside the district’s capital accounts. “This is alarming to me,” Buckles said, urging the board to seek legal and administrative remedies to restore funds for school projects. Trustees debated whether the tax collector’s assessment is statutorily required or discretionary, citing competing Attorney General opinions and a pending lawsuit elsewhere in the state that seeks declaratory relief.

Board attorney and other trustees said the statutory language and prior opinions are unclear, and that the district needs a definitive legal and factual assessment. The board approved a motion directing the superintendent and board attorney to consult counterparts, review pleadings and legal options, and return recommendations at a subsequent meeting. The motion was made by Buckles and seconded by the chair; the board approved it by voice vote.

What the board asked staff to gather includes district reconciliation documents, an accounting of commissions collected by the tax collector for the bond issuances, and any comparable litigation or voluntary reimbursements from other counties. Odom told the board the district had been returned $29,688.86 of a $127,728 collection in the first year and $28,621.76 after the second issuance, and that current collection activity suggested similar annual amounts could continue. He said the figures could vary based on statutory thresholds and collection timing.

The board did not vote on litigation at the meeting; instead trustees charged staff and counsel with compiling facts and options. The board’s next steps are contingent on what the superintendent and the attorney report back, including whether administrative negotiation with county officials or formal legal action is warranted.

The board discussed the matter as an emergency item during the meeting’s business portion after presentations and recognitions concluded, and leaders described the matter as urgent because of its potential impact on funding available for finishing school projects.