Information from the Sublette County Assessor’s Office

There’s certainly a lot of information out there regarding the Sublette 9 proposal. The fact of the matter is that each school district views the facts through their own lens, and the philosophical differences are significantly different. You can’t fail to recognize that both sides highlight the individual facts that support our arguments and the conclusions we’ve drawn regarding the issue. There’s nothing wrong with that, this is a debate of sorts when you get right down to it.

Perhaps in response to our North and South tinted lenses, the Sublette County Assessor’s Office has released a document entitled Information Regarding Disparity between District 1 and District 9. This is obviously the result of a tremendous amount of work by Janet Montgomery and John Paravcini. I would like to thank them for the time and efforts they took to prepare this document.

I would encourage each of you to review this document. It does not emanate from either school district, and it is not a paid advertisement. I would like to highlight some of the information contained in the document. And yes here’s the disclaimer that states I feel the information below supports our argument, but there is no question the data is factual:

BOCES and Recreation Mills are not the same as educational funding

  1. School funding has been equalized in the state of Wyoming
  2. Recapture money was removed from Districts 1 & 9 via Amendment B.
  3. BOCES and Recreation Mills are for the benefit of the community, not just students.

Acreage

  1. District 1 contains ~2,386,102 acres (Sublette GIS data)
  2. All Forest Service acreage lies within District 1
  3. There is ~1,119,621 acres of FS acreage in District 1
  4. Forest Service property does not contribute an appreciable amount to a district’s assessed value. (In 2010, District 1 received $8712 from the forest reserve and District 9 received $4526.)
  5. Removing this acreage creates a net land amount of ~1,266,481 acres in District 1
  6. District 9 contains ~772,461 acres within Sublette County and ~275,049 acres in Lincoln County. A grand total of ~1,047,510 is contained in District 9

District 102 (also known as the Gerrymander)

  1. Was created in 1972 and transferred to District 1
  2. Funding at that time was utilized solely for education and directly affected schools and students
  3. Was a result of the Decision and Order from the State Committee on School District Organization in 1971
  4. 50/50 equality in assessed value has never been fully achieved
  5. Can be easily returned to District 9 with both school boards approval
  6. Can be in effect as early as 2012

Residential Tax Difference

  1. Property taxes in Wyoming are based on sales prices
  2. Average sales price per district per year from 1990 was calculated from historical records
  3. District 1’s average 2010 home sales price $297,154. Average property tax paid $1805.
  4. District 9’s average 2010 home sales price $134,290. Average property tax paid $990.
  5. Property taxes paid by homeowners, businesses and agriculture not including the minerals industry show a 82.6% paid by district 1 taxpayers and 17.4% by district 9 taxpayers.

Recent County Funded Recreational Projects (Within district boundaries).

  • District 9 – $13.5 Million
  • District 1 – $2.3 Million

So there are the facts from the Sublette County Assessor’s Office.  Again, I hope you will take the time to review the entire document and attend our meeting on March 22nd in the HS Auditorium at 7PM.  A link to the entire document is below.  You can also access this document on our webpage.

District 1 vs District 9 Facts

Advertisements

About Jay Harnack

Superintendent of Sublette County School District #1
This entry was posted in Sublette 9 Proposal and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Information from the Sublette County Assessor’s Office

  1. Susan Anderson says:

    Jay, if “BOCES and Recreation Mills are not the same as educational funding” I do not understand why the science position at the elementary school would be sacrificed if the funds are split 50/50. I didn’t think educational benefits for the students would be affected. I wish I could attend the meeting tomorrow but have another meeting I must attend in BP.

    • Jay Harnack says:

      Sue – The funding model does not provide for a stand alone science education position at the elementary level. They expect classroom teachers to do it. As a district we feel that our students benefit from a program that is taught by a highly qualified science teacher. Based on the funding model, anything that we do outside of the classroom teacher in this area is enrichment, therefore it is funded with BOCES funds. The Sublette 9 proposal would require our BOCES to reduce their budget by approximately $500,000. The science position at the elementary is one of the most costly expenditures in the BOCES budget. In order to meet the budget reduction threshold of $500,000, the BOCES board determined it would be necessary to eliminate that position.

  2. John Paravicini says:

    Superintendent Harnack,
    Another issue pertaining to BOCES that I think needs to be highlighted is the ability of either District to have up to a 2 mill increase put on the ballot. Such a move would provide ample funds for either district to operate while not providing too much of a burden to taxpayers. We did, indeed put a great deal of effort into this report and we hope it will reach all across Sublette County. Thank you for providing it to your constituents.
    Sincerely,
    John Paravicini
    Sublette County Assessor’s Office

  3. Dr. Tom Johnston says:

    The district evaluations for educational purposes are essentially the same per state regulations and state formula. Return the District 102 (with a ribbon). Property tax receipts/equality are not a function of a political entity– only of the market place, and that is not possible to regulate or equate. The inequalities of County funding are dramatic. What happened to the concept of cross county participation –it is present in athletics– why are the BP residents reluctant to take significant advantage of the current SD1 BOCES offerings? What is the SD9 valuation estimated to be when the Cimarex plant comes on line in the near future? Why not wait and see? In the meantime, they are asking for a blank check for expenditures they will not reveal and that would devastate an ongoing established educational and recreational program that has proven successes.
    In Conclusion———–There is no reason to say anything but NO to these requests

Comments are closed.