Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board details market-value splits, support-unit counts and levy effects under deconsolidation
Summary
Presenters showed proposed market-value and support-unit splits (CV ~ $706M market value with ~21.43 support units; Grangeville ~ $919M with ~43.59 units), explained how ADA and support units drive state funding, and gave example levy figures residents asked to see compared across scenarios.
Get email alerts on the Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presenters and administrators spent substantial time laying out the fiscal mechanics that would follow deconsolidation and answering residents' questions about taxes and staffing. The presenter said proposed market values would be about $706,077,647 for Clearwater Valley (SD 245) and $919,790,169 for Grangeville (SD 246), compared with a combined current market value of about $1,625,867,816. He tied property value and average daily attendance (ADA) to the district's levy capacity and to the state support-unit formula.
Administrators explained that Mountain View currently counts roughly 65 support units; under the proposal, Clearwater Valley would have about 21.43 support units and Grangeville about 43.59. The presenter described what a support unit funds (teachers, pupil services, administrators and classified staff) and noted last year a support-unit salary component was roughly $143,000 (plus trailing benefits and discretionary funds). Board members and staff said the example levy shown in the packet would reduce a property-owner's levy cost in some scenarios (per $100,000 of assessed value) from about $185 down to roughly $115, though they cautioned levy amounts depend on future levies and are only illustrative.
Residents repeatedly asked for more precise, boundary-specific property-tax projections and scenarios showing the financial effect if students shift enrollment across districts; presenters said Elk City–specific valuations were not yet prepared and would require county valuation data and a board directive to produce.

