Residents rally behind Lee schools as accountability questions persist

LEESBURG — As Lee County officials move forward with plans to provide refunds for taxpayers following errors in the county’s rollback-rate calculations, school district leaders continue to argue that the Lee County School System’s role in the controversy has been widely misunderstood.

That argument surfaced repeatedly during a recent meeting of the Lee County Board of Tax Assessors, where officials, citizens and school system representatives discussed the coding error that contributed to incorrect rollback calculations and higher-than-expected tax collections.

The discussion comes as the Lee County Board of Education prepares to adopt a Fiscal Year 2027 budget that projects increasing operating costs, growing debt-service obligations and continued reliance on reserves.

According to budget documents released by the district, the school system projects general fund revenues of approximately $72.6 million against expenditures of roughly $80.3 million. The district expects to begin the fiscal year with an estimated $14 million general fund balance and finish with approximately $6 million in reserves.

While those figures could raise questions about long-term sustainability, school officials have argued that the ongoing tax controversy cannot be viewed in the same manner as actions taken by the county and city governments, both of which have moved toward issuing refunds by reducing their effective tax rates to corrected rollback levels.

During the tax assessors meeting, Lee County School System Executive Director of Finance Gary Kelley said the district’s millage rate was not based on the rollback calculation that later proved inaccurate.

“We set our millage rate based on our budget, so to fund our budget, we needed 15.96 mills,” Kelley said.

Kelley maintained that the coding error affected whether additional tax-increase hearings should have been required under state law but did not determine the amount of revenue the school system believed was necessary to operate.

“We set our millage rate on what we needed to fund our budget; that’s it,” Kelley said.

The comments provide important context to ongoing public discussions about potential school-system refunds. Unlike the county and city of Leesburg, which have publicly adopted resolutions authorizing taxpayer refunds based on corrected rollback calculations, school officials have indicated that any action involving school taxes would require additional legal and financial review.

In response to questions from The Albany Herald, district officials confirmed that the proposed FY 2027 budget does not currently account for any taxpayer refunds or revenue adjustments related to the rollback controversy.

“No, it does not,” the district stated in an email response. “As you may or may not be aware, the Lee County Tax Commissioners Board has taken no official action on the matter. The Lee County School System is waiting for confirmation of a certified change in the digest before we can move forward on a solution. We very much would like to make things right for Lee County citizens.”

District officials also pushed back against suggestions that projected fund balances indicate excess collections.

The FY 2026 budget projected an ending general fund balance of approximately $6 million, while the FY 2027 proposal begins with an estimated balance of roughly $14 million.

Officials said the apparent discrepancy reflects actual year-end expectations rather than prior budget projections.

“This is not uncommon for school systems,” district officials said. “The FY ’27 budget is based on the actual fund balance the 2026 year will end with, not the budgeted amount in the prior year budget.”

Officials added that budgeted expenditures are not always fully spent during a fiscal year.

“In order to ensure that we meet the fiscal needs of running a school system, there are times that the expenditures planned are not fully expended,” district officials wrote. “Through good fiscal management and spending structures, there are times that we end the year without expending all funds.”

At the center of the controversy remains the coding error itself.

During the public meeting, Lee County Board of Tax Assessors Chairman Philip Husain described the issue as “a miscoding that put the residential revaluation in the wrong column.” Husain emphasized that the error did not alter the county’s overall tax digest.

“The columns still add up to give you the same gross digest,” Husain said.

Kelley later provided a more detailed explanation of the problem.

“There is growth and re-evaluation, and he put more … in growth than there was in re-evaluation,” Kelley said.

The meeting also highlighted an unresolved question that several citizens raised publicly: Who actually made the coding error?

While Husain repeatedly described the issue as a miscoding and Kelley explained how residential re-evaluation was improperly categorized, no county official identified the individual, office or process responsible for the mistake. Nor did officials explain how the error survived internal review and ultimately became part of the certified rollback calculations used by local taxing authorities.

That lack of clarity became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, as several speakers argued that public criticism had increasingly focused on the school system despite widespread acknowledgment that the rollback error originated within the tax assessment process.

One citizen stated that the school board had been “thrown under the bus” for something it had “zero control over.”

Another questioned why tax officials had not more aggressively explained the nature of the error before recent school board elections, arguing that public perceptions may have been shaped by incomplete information.

Kelley also directly defended Board of Education Chair Claire Lang, whose signature on the original PT-32 form became a focal point of criticism during the controversy.

“She did not,” Kelley said when addressing allegations that Lang knowingly certified inaccurate information. “She attested to the fact that we didn’t hold meetings, and we used the rate that we’re given.”

Several citizens echoed those concerns, arguing that school officials relied on information provided through the tax assessment process and certified documents in good faith based on figures supplied to them.

The district’s proposed FY 2027 budget also reflects significant changes following voters’ rejection of the Education Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax renewal referendum.

The FY 2026 budget included approximately $13.7 million in capital outlay expenditures and more than $10 million in projected bond proceeds. The FY 2027 proposal includes no capital outlay expenditures and no projected bond proceeds, while capital project revenues fall to approximately $200,000.

Debt service expenditures, however, are projected to increase from roughly $4 million to nearly $4.5 million.

Instructional spending is budgeted to decline from approximately $51.9 million to $48.9 million, while several operational categories, including transportation, maintenance and support services, show increases.

District officials said the budget changes do not reflect staffing reductions, position freezes or program cuts. According to the district, the decrease in instructional spending is largely attributable to normal staffing transitions as veteran teachers retire and are replaced by less experienced educators with lower salary costs, as well as accounting changes that moved counselors and technology specialists into other budget categories.

Officials said increases in pupil services primarily reflect those reclassifications, while higher maintenance and operations expenditures are largely driven by rising operating costs, including fuel and other expenses associated with maintaining district facilities and services.

The district also disputed suggestions that the proposed budget reflects ongoing operating deficits, stating that the budget includes contingencies for variable expenses such as fuel costs, health insurance and other expenditures that can fluctuate throughout the school year. Officials said the school system remains financially stable and noted that Lee County has consistently ranked among the most financially efficient school districts in Georgia.

Regarding the failed E-SPLOST referendum, district officials said no capital projects have been delayed, canceled or modified at this time. However, current E-SPLOST collections continue to be committed to repaying bonds issued for previous projects, while existing maintenance and capital needs will need to be addressed through future budgets and funding decisions.

Officials also noted that maintaining stronger reserves has become an increasing priority. While the district historically maintained fund balances between approximately 12% and 15%, state lawmakers recently approved Senate Bill 33, which encourages school districts to maintain reserves equal to 25% of annual expenditures. According to the district, the current fund balance would allow the school system to continue operating for approximately 1.6 months in the event of a significant financial disruption.

The Lee County Board of Education is scheduled to hold a final public hearing on the proposed FY 2027 budget June 8 before considering final adoption later that evening.