Conflicting Points with letter from the commissioners that appeared
in The Daily News Journal.
Commissioners:
In April 1999, the Commission voted to authorize the following building projects: Siegel Middle School, Blackman Elementary, Walter Hill Elementary.FACT: The commissioners did vote to fund these schools. The problem was that they voted to fund them based on the County Commission and Public Building Authority having authority to select the sites, design the buildings, and oversee construction. The lawsuit filed by the Board of Education was to maintain its authority over these facets of construction. This authority is stated in Tennessee state law and was affirmed TWICE by the State Attorney General.
Commissioners: The County Commission approved an $11.3 million budget increase for the Board of Education with no tax increase.
FACT: The County Commission approved an increase of $6.57 million for the Board of Education with no tax increase. Their figure, $11.3 million, is based on a comparison of 1998-1999 revenue versus 1999-2000 appropriations. They did not compare 1998-1999 appropriations to 1999-2000 appropriations. If you compare revenue, the situation is worse. The increase is only $5.7 million if you compare revenue. What these Commissioners did was add in the money that would be taken from the ending fund balance (reserve) to cover the Technology Plan that is included in the budget. This was also in the 1998-99 fiscal year budget.
Commissioners: This combination of growth monies and capital
expenditure monies equals 61 cents on the tax rate.
FACT: The combination of growth monies, the stated $11.3 million, would not represent 61 cents on the tax rate. This would represent 59.2 cents on the tax rate. One cent on the tax rate generates $190,615 in revenue for the schools. This actual combination of growth monies and capital expenditure monies, $6.57 million, would equal 34 cents on the tax rate. This combination of monies includes $2.75 million in State, Federal, and "Other Source" money that the County Commission had to include in the budget. The actual growth monies from local taxes is $2.9 million.
NOTE: If you are terribly confused at this point, so was I. Try printing the General School Fund Spreadsheet and looking at it as you read. This is very confusing, but look at the figures that are in bold type.
Commissioners: The Commission dedicates a 9.5 percent increase to school budget even though rate of growth is 4 percent, because education is a top priority. After all, America's future walks through the doors of our schools every day.
FACT: The increase in the school budget was only 5.2%. The 9.5% cited by the Commissioners can't possibly be correct. The school budget would have increased 7.7% with a 19 cent increase in the property tax rate. How do the Commissioners obtain an increase in the budget with NO tax increase that is 1.8% higher than the increase would have been with a 19 cent property tax increase? I can't figure it out, can you?
Commissioners: The Commission is very concerned that students do not have enough textbooks for learning, yet Board of Education used only a portion of the $2 million funded by Commission (in last year's budget) for textbooks, leaving a $550,000 surplus. Where is the money?
FACT: This $550,000 did not just disappear. It most likely ended up in the ending fund balance. I will ask my school board member this question and post the answer.
Commissioners: The Commission is very concerned that students do not have enough teachers, yet $298,000 (in last year's budget) was not used as intended for special education teachers. Where is the money?
FACT: First, where were the new teachers supposed to teach. There are no classrooms. Second, the money most likely went into the ending fund balance. I will ask my school board representative and post the answer.
Commissioners: The Commission approved a technology budget designed to prepare our school children for the 21st century. Board of Education attempted to fund unauthorized architectural fees with technology money.
ANSWER: I won't call this fact. I am under the understanding that this money was going to be used for design fees for new schools. The reason the commissioners call this an "attempt", is because the school board must get THEIR approval before they can move money from one item to the other. I will get clarification on this and post it.
Commissioners: The Commission recognizes that school children are still participating in fund-raisers, parents are paying class fees and teachers are still paying for basic supplies out of their pockets. However, some of the "activity funds" (monies generated from fund-raisers, vending machines, parent-paid class fees, etc.) are quite phenomenal at various schools. Total of the unspent activity funds is $2.7 million.
ANSWER: If this $2.7 million figure is true, and this wouldn't include PTO money, the commissioners have pointed out a problem. I will see what the school board has to say about it. Remember one thing, this money is what is paid EXTRA to the schools and is not included in the budget passed by the commission.
Commissioners: The Commission has provided funding for education. The
Board of Education complains that County Commission does not provide enough
funding, even though the Board has the following unspent funds, year after
year.
1997 -- $2.1 million surplus
1998 -- $3.8 million
surplus
1999 -- $3 million surplus (estimated as of June 30,
1999)
ANSWER: The commissioners are throwing stones about left over money. They have a similar problem with the General Fund. On one hand they argue that the schools cost too much. On the other, they beat them over the head with having left over money. That does not make sense.
Commissioners: Although the budget increase is quite substantial, no amount of money can compensate for poor fiscal management. Local government is a trust and the officers of local government are trustees. With the challenges growth has brought to our county, it is especially important that our commitment as trustees is to ensure that tax dollars are used efficiently.
FACT and RESPONSE: The commissioners are talking about poor fiscal management. They are correct, no amount of money can compensate for poor fiscal management. That is why since 1991, the County Commission has moved 18 cents of the property tax rate AWAY from the schools. The General Fund, controlled by these same commissioners, had a budget increase of 13.27% for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. That is equal to an increase of $4.3 million. The General Fund was funded completely for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. They did not make a single cut in this budget. Is that good fiscal management? The schools have operated for 8 years with a shrinking share of the property tax rate. The General Fund is the cash cow of the county that is grazing unchecked. Just last year, 5 cents of the school fund was moved to the General Fund to cover monumental pay raises for commissioners among other things. The commissioners can turn a blind eye to their own fiscal problems because they have managed to play a shell game with taxpayer money. Look at the General Fund Spreadsheet and you will see the "diverted funds" to cover this year's General Fund.