From the very beginning of the Oconee County Board of Education meeting on Monday evening, there was no doubt whom the Board was going to elect as its new chair.
When the five Board members, one after the other, entered the Board public meeting room from the smaller executive board meeting room, Ransom took the chair position, next to Superintendent Jason Branch.
Following a swearing-in ceremony before Probate Court Judge Mike Hunsinger for Ransom, re-elected to the Board in November, and new Board members Adam Hammond and Brock Toole, Ransom again returned to the chair position and called the meeting to order.
Ransom next asked for nominations for chair.
Board member Amy Parrish nominated Ransom. Toole seconded.
The vote was 5 to 0, with Ransom voting for his designation as chair.
The Board then voted to make Parrish vice chair–the position she held last year–and Ryan Hammock legislative liaison. Both votes were 5 to 0.
The vote for Ransom as chair untangled the contradictory decisions made by Oconee County voters in November.
Voters had elected Ransom to Post 1 on the Board with the designation that he be Board Chair, but they also approved a referendum that the Board had put on the ballot negating that vote in favor of the Board selecting its own chair.
In other action on Monday night, the Board received an update on discussions on a Memorandum of Agreement for police security officers as well as on creation of a school police force and on the Board’s decision to state its intent to opt out of a statewide homestead exemption.
Swearing In And Vote
Since 1964, voters had selected the Board Chair when they elected the person who held Post 1 on the Board.
![]() |
Board Votes To Elect Ransom (Third From Left) Chair 1/13/2025 |
Ransom, who had held Post 5 on the Board last term, decided to run for Post 1 when then Post 1 Board Chair Kim Argo decided not to seek re-election. Ransom had opposition in the May Republican primary, but was unopposed in November.
At the request of the Board, Marcus Wiedower and Houston Gaines, who represent Oconee County in the state House of Representatives, introduced legislation last year that let voters decide if they wanted to continue electing the Board Chair.
That question was on the ballot in November with the Post 1 election of Ransom.
Across the county, 65.5 percent of the voters opted to allow the Board to negate the vote for Ransom and elect its own Board Chair. (Ransom, in his election, got 100 percent of the counted vote, but 254 people did write in an untabulated name, and 3,561 skipped the race entirely.)
The result of the November election was that as of Jan. 1, when the results of the referendum went into effect, the Board did not have a chair.
Ransom said before the November election that he had talked with Parrish and Hammock about his decision to run for Post 1 Board Chair, but he said they did not commit to voting for him as chair if the referendum passed.
The terms of Ransom, Hammond, and Toole officially began on Jan. 1, but they had not been sworn in as members of the Board until they took the oath of office and a loyalty oath administered by Judge Hunsinger at the beginning of Monday’s meeting.
The first item on the Monday agenda was the swearing in ceremony, followed by a call to order, which Ransom made, and then the election of officers.
The law behind the resolution approved by voters in November says that “As of Jan. 1, 2025, the Board shall elect, by majority vote of the full membership, a chairperson from among its membership who shall serve for a term to be determined by the Board or until a new chairperson is elected by a majority vote of the full Board's membership.”
The motion selecting Ransom as chair did not indicate what the term of the chair will be.
School Resource Officers
In other action on Monday, Kevin Yancey, Director of Student Services, updated the Board on the status of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for provision of school resource officers in all 12 of the system’s schools.
![]() |
Hunsinger (Back To Camera) Toole, Ransom, Hammond 1/13/2025 |
The Board approved the MOU on Dec. 9, and Yancey said “the following day the finalized document was sent to both the Sheriff and Board of Commissioners, along with the request for official action.”
“At this time,” Yancey said, “discussions continue between the Board of Education and the Board of Commissioners, the superintendent, his team, and the sheriff and his staff as we continue to work through the process, reviewing the MOU.”
“At the same time,” Yancey continued, “given the direction by you, our Board, we continue to actively review school systems that operate with a school-based police force.”
“This includes studying implementation guidelines, associated cost, and best practices to ensure that all potential avenues for enhancing school safety are thoroughly researched and explored,” he said.
The MOU calls for the Sheriff’s Office to provide one school resource officer in each of the system’s 12 schools next school year.
The Sheriff’s Office budget is part of the overall county budget, which is controlled by the Board of Commissioners.
The Board of Education included the Board of Commissioners in the MOU on the advice of their attorneys late in the discussions about the MOU.
Homestead Exemption
Chief Financial Officer Peter Adams updated the Board on Monday on the impact on Oconee County Schools of the statewide homestead exemption approved by voters in November, repeating the comments he had made at the Dec. 9 meeting of the Board.
![]() |
Page A3 The Oconee Enterprise 1/9/2025 |
The Board took no action at that Dec. 9 meeting, but Ransom said he decided after that meeting that the Board would announce is intent to opt out of that exemption. Oconee County Schools issued a press release stating that intent on Jan. 2.
Ransom said he got the “approval” of Parrish and Hammock before making that decision. The Board did not actually meet in public to make the decision.
“We have placed the legal ads for the hearings for HB 581,” Adams said on Monday, referring to the legislation setting up the homestead exemption, “stating the intent to opt out, which was a requirement of the law.”
The advertisement appears on page A3 of the Jan. 9 edition of the county’s legal organ, The Oconee Enterprise.
The Board will hold three public hearings on its stated intent to opt out, at 6 p.m. on Jan. 23, at 6 p.m. on Jan. 28, and at 4 p.m. on Feb. 3 at the Instructional Support Center, 71 North Main Street in Watkinsville.
After the hearings, the Board must pass a resolution opting out of the exemption and file a copy of the resolution by March 1 with the Georgia Secretary of State.
The homestead exemption created by House Bill 581 is referred to as a floating homestead exemption, so named because the value of the exemption changes based on the inflation rate.
If a homestead property has an increase in assessed value from one year to the next that does not result from improvements in the property, any increase in assessment higher than the inflation rate would be exempted from taxation.
Impact Of Exemption
Adams told the Board that “this is a one-time decision with a long term economic impact for the Board.”
![]() |
Adams 1/13/2025 |
“This could significantly change property tax revenues from the school district and student services,” he said.
“This is a local control issue,” he said. Opting out “gives you the control to determine where we should be and what we need to do for what's best for Oconee County Schools.”
Not opting out “would reduce your flexibility to meet those local needs and maintain competitive salaries and benefits for our staff,” Adams continued.
Adams said that not opting out also would adversely affect state funding through the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula.
Each school district must identify the revenue produced by 5 mills of property tax, Adams said, and this amount of revenue “gets deducted from the QBE earnings.”
This five mill contribution to funding of the QBE formula will be calculated on the tax digest before it is reduced by the floating homestead exemption, he said, while the revenue produced by the millage rate if the Board does not opt out would be based on the tax digest reduced by the floating homestead exemption.
Initial Board Comments
When Adams had finished, Hammock asked him if the legislation “placed any other requirements on a Board to begin the scheduling of these meetings? The scheduling of these public hearings?”
![]() |
Hammock And Adams (Back To Camera) 1/13/2025 |
“No sir,” Adams said. “There's no language that says the Board has to do that. It’s just, if you intend to opt out, you have to have the ads be posted.”
“So I would like to confirm as a new Board member,” Hammond said, “no decision, or opinion, unified decision as Board is made on this, there's a hearing process?”
“There's a desire for transparency,” Hammond said. “There's a desire to be listened to. There’s a vote on this--64 percent of the public said yes, we support this, that exemption tax.”
Across the state, 62.9 percent of the voters approved the amendment to the state Constitution allowing for the exemption. In Oconee County, the percentage of voters approving was 64.3 percent.”
“So I think it behooves this Board and everyone to be a part of this conversation about whether we opt in, whether we stay out, because at the end of the day, it is a very complex issue,” Hammond said.
“So I've talked to people and they think it's a done deal, the School Board's doing this, we approved this,” Hammond said. “I just want to confirm that is not the case. This is a hearing process.”
“That's exactly right,” Adams responded. “The law says this is what you have to do. The ad must say you intend to opt out even if you haven't made that decision yet. The language says the intent is opt out.”
More Board Comments
Ransom asked if the Board needed to make the decision by March 1.
![]() |
Parrish And Adams (Back To Camera) 1/13/2025 |
“No, sir,” he said. “We have to have the package into the Secretary of State's Office by March 1st. So there's a whole package. If you do move forward, there's a resolution that would need to be adopted.”
The package also would include documentation of the hearings and the advertisements for them, Adams said.
“We're working on a pretty tight time line,” Ransom said
“Just to go back to local control,” Parrish said to Adams. “I think that's an important piece that you mentioned.”
“This is a one time,” she said. “If we don't opt out now, then they said we can never opt out again.”
“So it's not going to change necessarily immediately,” she said, “meaning higher taxes.”
“It would just keep the status quo where we had local control,” she said.
Ransom said “in the HB 581, they speak about if you stay in, there's an ability to add a 1 cent Local Option Sales Tax.”
“The school districts do not have that option,” Adam said. “The counties and cities do.”
Only counties are allowed to have a Local Option Sales Tax, and they can partner with cities on sharing the revenue.
School Districts are allowed to issue a Education Local Option Sales Tax, but revenue can be used only for capital projects, not for operating costs.
Financial Reports
Adams also presented the Board his seven standard financial reports.
The District has received $46.5 million in ad valorem taxes, or 94.6 percent of the $49.2 million budgeted, and $857,448 in investment income, or 1,714 percent of the $50,000 projected.
The General Fund Cash Balance stood are $77.9 million on Dec. 31, up from $77.8 million on Nov. 30.
Education Local Option Sales Tax (ELOST) receipts for November of last year were $1.1 million, up 6.4 percent from that same month in 2023.
Spending on the current ELOST now stands are $69.6 million, with expenditures still outstanding for Dove Creek Middle School, the Malcom Bridge Elementary School classroom additions, the Instructional Support Center, and systemwide technology.
So far, $3.9 million in bond payments have been made, against $46.7 million in required payments running through calendar year 2033.
Total ELOST collections after nearly two years of the tax are $23.4 million.
Collections will continue until either $48.5 million is collected or the five year tax collection expires.
Other Action
The recognitions section of the meeting on Monday was devoted to the 2024 Georgia High School Association 4A Football State Champion and the 2024 Georgia High School Association Division 2 Flag Football State Runner-up.
![]() |
Board With North Oconee High School Flag Football Team 1/13/2025 |
Both teams were the North Oconee High School Titans.
Team members paraded through the meeting room, were congratulated by the Board members, and pictured with them.
In other action, the Board voted to retain again Hall, Booth, Smith, PC and Pereira, Kirby, Kinsinger & Nguyen as legal counsel representatives for 2025.
The Board also adopted a calendar for School Year 2026-2027 that includes a fall break of a full week.
No citizens addressed the Board during the public comment section of the meeting.
The Board, after an executive session, adopted personnel changes recommended by Branch, but those changes have not been made public as of the time of this post.
Note: The personnel report released at some point on 1/15/2025 shows that the Board approved the hiring of six individuals, including two bus drivers. All were labeled as replacements. The report also included the termination of eight individuals, including one bus driver.
Video
I recorded the video below of the Jan. 13 meeting of the Board of Education, included of that small section after the executive session.
As required by Steven Colquitt, Communications Director for Oconee County Schools, I recorded from the rear of the room, behind those addressing the Board.
Oconee County Schools usually uploads its own video from the meeting, but it has not uploaded the video of the meeting on Monday at the time of this post.
The video released by Oconee County Schools usually does not include any action taken after the executive session, and, on at least one occasion, Oconee County Schools removed part of the video it did not want to be included in the publicly released video.
In the video below, the swearing in is at 1:04.
The actual vote on the Board Chair is at 5:23 in the video.
Yancey’s report begins at 38:27 in the video.
Adams began his presentation to the Board at 47:12 in the video.
2 comments:
We appreciate the excellent reporting you do for Oconee County. I have an interest in seeing our schools and local governments excel in carrying out their mission. I also have an interest in knowing these officials want to serve in a way that shows they care about the concerns of local citizens. Almost 65% of the citizens voted for the statewide homestead exemption so why do we need a hearing to give the officials more time to make a decision whether to go with the voters or to choose another path? Why was this on the ballot in the first place?
Schools will always spend every bit of revenue they raise. The economist and university administrator Howard Bowen put forth the revenue theory of cost for colleges and universities, which I think applies to all educational institutions. In its simplest terms, expenses are a function of revenue so the costs will always rise to the point of revenue raised. So officials look for more revenue. Oconee County has benefited from significant increases in property values and new homes built over the past few years as well as increased commercial activity. The Georgia Department of Revenue publishes the annual figures for counties in their Tax Digest. ELOST monies also continue to increase. I offer these comments with hope that we all work together to make our county a fine place to live for future families and homeowners. I think taxation is going to be the prominent issue as the county experiences the growing pains and burdens of growth. We need for it to be reasonable.
I think Adams claiming that the floating homestead exemption robs the BOE of "local control” is at best misleading. (Local Control is that reliable red flag that politicians wave in front of residents whenever there's a new rule or law that the locals don’t agree with - and of course the BOE took the bait.)
The BOE has control over their spending, which they didn’t exercise much of over the cost of the ISC for example, but not property assessments (thankfully). Defying 64% of the voters is thumbing your nose at them.
Post a Comment