19. Dr Laurie Scandrett asked -

(a) For a Parish what has been the "assessment percentage rate" that was passed by this Synod in the Synod Appropriation Ordinances in 1994 (for 1995), 1995 (for 1996), 1996 (for 1997) and 1997 (for 1998)?

(b) What "assessment percentage rate" is proposed for the year 1999 in the 1998 Ordinance?

(c) Is any justification for this year's proposed "assessment percentage rate" included in the report on the Synod Appropriations Ordinance 1998?

(d) What would be the difference to the total assessments raised next year if the formula agreed to by this Synod in 1997 is used instead of that currently proposed in the draft 1998 Ordinance?

To which the President replied -

(a) The relevant Synod Appropriations Ordinances for the years sought indicate for a parish -

1994 for 1995 3.5% of net receipts over $200,000 (or a minimum charge of $7,000 whichever is the greater)
1995 for 1996 3.5% of net receipts over $237,143 (or a minimum charge of $8,300 whichever is the greater)
1996 for 1997 4% of net receipts over $248,750 (or a minimum charge or $9,950 whichever is the greater)
1997 for 1998 4.3% of net receipts over $70,000 (plus a minimum charge of $8,810)

The % rates above isolated from the rest of the elements of the formula used in these years is not strictly comparable. For example 1997 (for 1998) is a completely different formula from the other three.

(b) 4.95 % of net receipts over the threshold of $73,000 (plus minimum charge of $8,535).

(c) Yes, relevant parts of items 4.1 and 4.5 on pages 305/6 of the report. The % rate is the final or balancing element of the formula after calculating recoveries from minimum charges, extra clergy charges and allowing for possible changes to the estimates. The increase is to achieve full cost recovery in 1999 and pay for 50% minimum charge reduction for the provisional parishes.

(d) The formula being used is as agreed by Synod in 1997 except that the rates and charges are different because costs have changed and full cost recovery will be achieved in 1999. Presumably the question intended to ask that last years minimum charge, income threshold and percentage rate be applied again in 1999.

If this is what was intended then -

Total recoveries raised would be $3,559,000
Short Fall $(31,000)

To use last years minimum charge makes little sense as costs have changed. For example, there is no sexual misconduct protocol grant proposed for 1999, insurance has decreased, superannuation has increased. Further, the "integrity" of the justifiable minimum charge and the agreed formula would be undermined.