Last Thursday and Friday, the Wyoming State Board of Education met in Cheyenne. Among the items on the Board’s two-day agenda was the transfer from Sublette County School District (SCSD) No. 1 to SCSD No. 9 of tax district 102. After some discussion, the Board tabled the motion for 30 days pending the response to the State Attorney General’s request for more information.
The tax district transfer was approved by the Sublette County Boundary Board May 24 as part of the resolution of ongoing discussion of mill parity between the two districts, which had been the subject of many public meetings starting last October.
The switch would bring in an additional $219,212.03 in mill funds annually to SCSD No. 9, and take a corresponding amount from SCSD No. 1.
Both the districts and the Boundary Board agreed they’d like to have the transfer completed by August.
“If the change takes place by then, the mills will be allocated to the appropriate district,” SCSD No. 9 Superintendent Gerry Chase said.
Last week’s tabling of the motion may put that deadline into question.
“August 10 is the deadline for certifying funds for school districts,” Assistant Attorney General Shumway added.
He added he wasn’t sure if the Board of Education could receive and review the information and schedule a meeting to make a formal decision before then. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board is after the deadline, but Shumway mentioned the possibility of the Board meeting via teleconference to make the decision.
“I really don’t know,” he said. “That’s up to them.”
Teresa Canjar, division secretary for the Wyoming Department of Education said it depends on when the requested information is submitted and received.
“So long as it is submitted and can be reviewed, we will do everything in our power to hold a teleconference and push the issue forward,” she said.
This will be the second request from the Attorney General’s office. Deputy County Attorney Matt Gaffney said the County Boundary Board received a similar request for historical documents on boundary changes June 9.
Gaffney said County Assessor and Boundary Board member Janet Montgomery sent the Attorney General what information she had and forwarded the request to Chase.
Still, on Friday, the motion to transfer the district was neither approved nor
“We were told the Board of Education didn’t receive the necessary information,” Chase, who attended the meeting with SCSD No. 9 Business Manager Amy Anschutz, said.
Shumway said the failure of receipt was likely due to a technological hitch associated with the State’s new email system.
The second request is a reiteration of the initial request as well as for some additional information, including a record of the Boundary Board hearings, a summary of how the change will improve education in the county, the use and location of buildings and evidence the Boundary Board considered the ratio of ADM (average daily membership) and assessed valuation.
“There is a list of things in the statute that are required,” Shumway said. “They may not be relevant, but the State Board asked to include them in the request.”For the complete article see the 06-24-2011 issue.
Click here to purchase an electronic version of the 06-24-2011 paper.