July 12, 1999

Mr. Peay,

In an open letter to the DNJ with your name attached, it is stated that a budget increase of $11.3 million was given to the educational system. It is also stated that the $11.3 million budget increase represents $0.61 on the tax rate.

Using numbers I obtained at the public hearing for the budget, $11.3 million represents $0.592 cents on the tax rate. (At the meeting, it was stated that every $0.01 of the property tax generated $190,000 in revenue for the schools.) The $11.3 million represents the increase in the budget over the revenue for the 1998-1999 fiscal year versus appropriations for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. That revenue figure for the 1998-1999 fiscal year did not include money from the ending balance, but the calculation of the $11.3 million did include money that would be used from the ending balance for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. This is an unfair comparison.

I have done some research of my own using information obtained at the public hearing and from Mr. Long's office. According to this information, the appropriation for the school system was $113,900,647.00 for the 1998-1999 fiscal year. The appropriation amount for the 1999-2000 fiscal year is $120,474,312.00. That is an increase of $6,573,665.00. That represents an increase in the budget of 5.21% or $0.34 on the tax rate. In the letter to the DNJ, you state that the increase was $11.3 million representing an increase of 9.5% or $0.61 on the tax rate. Why do these numbers not match?

Also, the increase in the budget represents $2,756,439.00 in Federal/State/Other Sources funding that has nothing to do with the property tax rate. I feel that it is unfair for the County Commissioners to take credit for that funding since they do not control that funding.

In the open letter to the DNJ, you state that the schools are receiving an increase in budget of 9.5% without a property tax increase. How can this be? The schools would have received an increase of just 7.7% with a $0.19 property tax increase. How does the budget increase 9.5% with no tax increase but would only increase 7.7% with a $0.19 tax increase?

Now let's take a look at the "General Fund". This fund had an appropriation of $32,227,428.00 for the 1998-1999 fiscal year. The amount has increased to $36,505,068.00 for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. That is an increase of $4,277,640.00. That amount represents an increase of 13.27% or $0.15 on the property tax. Again, this was done without a tax increase. It does show that the "General Fund" did grow at a rate much larger than the "School Fund". Why was this not stated in the DNJ letter?

As you can see, I have a desire to understand the inner workings of my local government. Maybe my calculations are in error. I have gone through them many times in a spreadsheet and always get the same results. I would be happy to supply you with the files that I used for my calculations if you feel I have made an error.

Thank you for your time and service to our community.

Sincerely,

Andrew C. Fowler