1. Taxpayers' Dollars – please respond by February 29, 2024
Currently the AISD has the highest M&O rate of any ISD in Tarrant County. Staff has started budgeting for the paying of recapture (“Robin Hood”). How fiscally responsible should the board be with taxpayers' dollars and why? How high of a priority should fiscal responsibility be and why? What are your suggestions to be more fiscally responsible?
Did not respond.
2. Transgender – please respond by March 7, 2024
Which locker rooms/restrooms, etc., should transgender students be using? Should there be a District policy? Why or why not?
Did not respond.
3. Teachers' Salaries – please respond by March 14, 2024
Is having the highest teachers' salaries in the north Texas area a good thing? Why or why not?
Did not respond.
4. Student Achievement Goals – please respond by March 21, 2024
The district has performance improvement plans where the goals are for less than 50% of the students meeting or exceeding grade level expectations on the state achievement assessments. Is this acceptable? Why or why not? What are your suggestions regarding student achievement goal plans?
Did not respond.
5. Communications – please respond by March 28, 2024
If you receive an e-mail from a constituent on an AISD issue and the constituent logically laid out and well documented the issue, will you respond to the constituent? Why or why not? What actions will you take?
Did not respond.
6. Issues – please respond by April 4, 2024
What is the most important issue the board is currently facing? Why? What are your suggestions for addressing this issue?
Did not respond.
To: fowler.aisd@gmail.com <fowler.aisd@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 09:19:17 AM CDT
Subject: Five questions
Ms. Fowler,
Since there is a very confining two-minute time limit for speakers I am forced to send you an e-mail with my questions.
Here is my two major problems with the 4% raise.
1. As Dr. Reich stated at the May 18 meeting, we are already at the top of the chart [setting the standard concerning salaries]. By giving another 4% [for the fourth? year in a row] you are NOT just staying competitive [as Ms. McMurrough stated], but actually causing ISD inflation. Think about it, you are already on top and setting the price even higher. If the only way you can get people to come and/or stay is to overpay over everyone else's price, there must be something else that is wrong, and I say fix that. I also have to question the "heart" of people that are only going where the top dollar is. For paying the top dollar, are we on top of all the ratings? NO, we are not. There are other districts that are paying less and rated higher [obtaining more from their employees]. [I am NOT trying to imply AISD is doing bad, certainly a whole lot better than say FWISD, but others are doing better with less dollars.]
2. ESSER funds are limited and not forever lasting. So you may think $8.6 million deficit for FY23-24 already accounting for ESSER and vacancy funds might be good, but when no more ESSER funds are available, you are talking an already vacancy adjusted $33 million deficit for future years. The raises accumulate. The ESSER funds expire. We are being set up for a disaster.
1. Do you see how a 4% raise is causing ISD inflation?
2. Do you believe there might be better solutions other than just giving a 4% raise?
Another thing discussed at the May 18 meeting, with no fanfare, was the debt service fund having a $10.6 million surplus. The debt service fund should basically have a cushion (for protection of soft tax collections) then basically aim for annual zero balances for debt service expenditures [The district should already have a good idea what the value of those expenses will be tor the year]. In my mind that is another 3-cent reduction that should be coming off the total tax rate.
3. Do you think the district should be investigating lowering the taxpayers' tax rate by looking at lowering the debt service piece?
The Dallas Cowboys and Texas Rangers make payments to the AISD for taking properties off the tax rolls for stadiums. I believe both pay a six-digit figure. In theory, how school funding works, the M&O total dollars are not affected by whether these properties are on the tax rolls or not, but the debt service piece certainly is. In fairness to the taxpayer these funds should be going to the debt service fund, not the general fund.
4. Do you believe that in fairness to the taxpayers, these stadium payoffs for taking properties off the tax rolls should be added to the debt service fund, helping to lower the total tax bill to taxpayers?
5. Do you believe two minutes is the correct time limit for AISD speakers?
Did not respond.
======================
To: fowler.aisd@gmail.com <fowler.aisd@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:18:15 AM CDT
Subject: Two questions
Ms. Fowler,
The FY2023-24 Budget discussed at last night's board meeting has the taxpayers spending greater than $6.1 million on recapture/"Robin Hood".
Question 1: Is this efficient use of taxpayers' dollars?
Question 2: What options are available to reduce that amount to $0?
Sincerely,
From: Melody Fowler <fowler.aisd@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:19:22 AM CDT
Subject: Budget
Good morning,
Thank you for reaching out to me. I would like to answer the two questions you asked.
1. The district is required by the Texas Education Code 49 to pay recapture.
2. The increase in taxable values and the decrease in student enrollment can lead to a district being identified as having excess local revenue as determined by the Texas Education Code. An increase in student enrollment and decrease in taxable values can reduce excess local revenue (recapture). The district does not determine taxable values. Taxable values are determined by the Appraisal District.
I hope this answers your questions. Again, thank you for reaching out.
Best,
Melody Fowler
