Committee explores fixes after recalibration leaves some small schools with large activity shortfalls

Matthew Wilmarth, the Legislative Service Office’s budget fiscal deputy administrator, told a joint interim committee that the 2026 recalibration moved student activity funding from a school‑based to a district‑based, evidence‑informed formula and produced mixed results: 26 districts would gain funding while 22 would lose under the new approach. "Student activity funding is approximately $43,000,000," Wilmarth said, and he emphasized that about 70%–71% of those dollars have historically been spent on salaries and benefits.

Wilmarth and the committee laid out the mechanics: the new formula applies a size multiplier by district (small districts receive a larger per‑ADM multiplier, districts with 2,000 or more ADM have a factor of 1) so districts with multiple high schools or disaggregated grade bands can experience large percentage swings. He said the recalibration increased elementary funding about 22.6% and middle school funding about 18.4% (roughly $1.7 million) while high school funding fell about $5.9 million, yielding an approximate $3.9 million net decrease compared with the old formula. Using a "greater‑of" approach (the greater of the new or prior formula) Wilmarth estimated during a break it would raise statewide funding by roughly $5.3 million and change which districts use which calculation.

The LSO also presented expenditure history back to school year 02/2425, showing districts have consistently spent more from their general funds on activities than the block grant provides; for school year 02/2425 districts expended about $4.3 million more than the model allocated. Wilmarth characterized the central policy problem as a loss of "fungibility"—districts can no longer move block‑grant dollars freely between categories to cover shortfalls in activities—and offered options including embedding activities inside the larger instructional resources silo or reviewing strategies from the Wyoming High School Activities Association. "This is a tough, tough nut to crack," he said, and the LSO offered to continue exploring technical fixes and sensitivity analyses.

Public testimony focused on equity for small schools attached to larger districts. Kenneth Dietz, principal of Cokeville Schools, told the committee that his district faces a roughly $130,000 hole in activity funding under the new model that "would have killed all activities in Cokeville within a single year." Shannon Davis, a Cokeville parent, said forcing her town to raise an extra $200,000 through fees or fundraising would be devastating for participation and for the community economy. Multiple superintendents and school business managers described using district reserves or other local funds to preserve activities and urged the committee to consider retroactive fixes or leniency for the current budget year because many districts already set contracts and budgets for the coming year.

District leaders and associations flagged operational pressures beyond activities. Justin Perintoni, superintendent in a larger district, and Travis Pearson, a school board chair, pointed to rising utilities, technology and audit costs and described how districts historically used internal reallocations (sometimes called "ghost teachers") to smooth shortfalls; the recalibration removed some of that flexibility and revealed component mismatches that the committee asked districts to document. Boyd Brown, executive director of the Wyoming Association of School Administrators, and Brian Farmer of the Wyoming School Boards Association echoed calls for grace during the first year of implementation and for the committee to reconcile expenditures versus funding components.

Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as unintended consequences rather than deliberate cuts. The chair said there was "never any intention to reduce funding for activities" and asked LSO and the consultants to produce clearer sensitivity analyses, per‑district dollar impacts, and options for implementation timing. The LSO agreed to return with more precise figures and to work with the chairman on whether any fix should take effect immediately or be phased into fiscal year 28.

Next steps: the committee asked LSO and consultant staff to provide detailed expenditure crosswalks to funding components, sensitivity analyses of school‑level versus district‑level counts (including implications for online/distance‑education pupils), and cost estimates for scenarios under consideration (greater‑of, modified multipliers, or embedding activities in instructional resources). The committee scheduled follow‑up work and meetings in August and an October session to refine a bill draft.

What remains unresolved is the implementation path: whether to adopt a greater‑of remedy (LSO estimated a roughly $5.3 million gross impact), return to a school‑level basis with inflation‑adjusted rates, or embed activity funding into a larger, more fungible instructional category—each choice would shift winners and losers among districts. The committee closed public testimony and directed staff to return with data so members could weigh equity, cost and timing before drafting legislation.