Appoquinimink School District leaders told the board and public on June 25 that accounting errors and a county reassessment combined to cut the district's projected carryover from $7.9 million to roughly $3.0 million and that the board will present revised tax-rate recommendations at its July 8 meeting.

Board President Richard Forston told the workshop the district's March Financial Position Report misstated payroll timing and other expenses, lowering the projected year-end carryover to about $3 million. "We are only gonna carry over $3,000,000 rather than $7,900,000," Forston said. He urged the board to focus on steps to ensure fiscal stability going forward while noting the district will update figures after New Castle County provides revised assessments.

The board’s finance team presented a tentative combined tax warrant of 64.21¢ per $100 of assessed value, composed of a 35.73¢ current‑expense rate, a 7.53¢ debt‑service rate, a 3.36¢ match tax, and a 17.59¢ tuition (special education) tax. Finance advisor Scott Kessel described the calculation as a conversion from last year’s rates to the new reassessment base (reported at $15.2 billion) with a 10% allowance built in to offset reassessment uncertainty. "The total, tentative recommended tax rate of 64.21¢, per 100 assessed value, comes out to this chart right here," Kessel said.

Why it matters: the district must certify a tax warrant to New Castle County in early July. District officials said they expect updated assessment data by July 1; the board will reconvene July 8 to adopt final rates. If assessments rise, the district said, the per‑cent rates could be lowered prior to formal adoption.

What caused the shortfall

District staff identified three main causes that together reduced the available carryover: an incorrect payroll count in the March projection, missed stipend/one‑time payments, and misclassification of summer school spending. Forston explained the March report assumed six payrolls in the period but there were seven, each payroll being roughly $2.1 million. That single extra payroll reduced the projected carryover by about $2.1 million. The district also discovered approximately $1.1 million in summer‑school expenses that had been recorded to federal accounts and cannot be charged there; those expenses must be paid from operating funds. In addition, the report did not include certain twice‑yearly stipends and coaching payments.

The board president also said district revenue was reduced this year because New Castle County did not process supplemental assessments during the reassessment year; historically the district has received roughly a 4% in‑year revenue bump as new properties come online, which Forston estimated would have yielded about $2 million this past fiscal year.

Special education costs and the tuition tax

Superintendent Matt (identified only by first name in the workshop) and district staff told the board special education spending continues to rise. Matt said rising utility costs, higher special‑education placements and staffing pressures have driven costs up, and noted the district has seen a large increase in students identified with autism. "We have come with reduction in spending of $2,500,000 as we go into next year," Matt said, describing both identified cuts and the need to consider revenue adjustments.

District staff cautioned the tuition tax (the special‑education portion of the warrant, set by the district) must be stress‑tested because of ongoing growth and uncertain placement and contracting costs. Dr. Burrows, a district special‑education staff member, said contracted services have increased where the district cannot hire required specialists: "Contracted services is another area where we've seen an increase partly because we can't find, for example, psychologists." Board members asked staff to double‑ and triple‑check the tuition tax projection before the July vote.

Tentative rate details and next steps

Scott Kessel said the tentative rates use the district’s current reported assessed value ($15.2 billion) minus a 2% delinquency allowance and an $245 million "assessments at risk" figure the county has pending on appeal. Kessel and the board noted those at‑risk appeals may be resolved at lower totals later; the district plans to adjust rates if the assessment base changes. The presentation included these component recommendations (tentative):

- Current operations: 35.73¢ per $100 (tentative) to produce about $54 million.
- Debt service: 7.53¢ per $100 to cover capital debt obligations.
- Match tax: 3.36¢ per $100 to capture state match program opportunities.
- Tuition (special education): 17.59¢ per $100, projected to raise about $25.8 million for special‑education costs and out‑of‑district placements.

Kessel and board members emphasized the July 8 meeting is the legal deadline to submit the tax warrant to New Castle County (the county sets a July 10 processing date). The district expects updated county data by July 1 and plans to revise the rates if that data increases the assessment base.

Board responses and fiscal actions

Board members pressed staff for additional vetting of the tuition tax projection and for more details on the planned $2.5 million in cuts. The district said it has identified cost‑reduction items and is already beginning to implement some measures, but did not provide a line‑item list at the workshop. No formal rate was adopted at the workshop; the board scheduled a formal vote for July 8, after receiving updated county assessment data.

What remains unresolved

District officials said they will: obtain New Castle County’s updated assessment figures (expected by July 1), finalize any adjustments to the tentative rates, further stress‑test the tuition tax projection for special education, and produce a refined recommendation at the July 8 meeting. Forston said the district will work to prevent similar projection errors going forward and to ensure adequate cash reserves.

The board adjourned after staff closed the presentation and confirmed the July 8 adoption meeting.