[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6078941,"mediaKeyId","2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa","parentId",2957169,"title","District presents budget outlook and staffing priorities; board weighs moving one‑time pay into ongoing cost‑of‑living increases","audioSeconds",1502,"startMs",7886000,"endMs",9388000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa&start=7886&end=9388","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa/thumbnail_7886000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6078941/Utah/District-presents-budget-outlook-and-staffing-priorities-board-weighs-moving-onetime-pay-into-ongoing-costofliving-increases","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078941-7b8a9e0f14fcb339215ca63201cefb6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770901453&Signature=aKRoP7XygKxcLa1xVsFAg6blLzl37RmA6wIecH5jSKASJMnNAplfSkRnMxlG5sO8DjAENo-xwSvirbL-FFMpqFEcYDMzKNP6fsrwsFXHrr0EP8nqV3-cLu8gJS2DoDaFRRmJZlN3T9fyaKPN0dRez44XKBsW4SdvqeQhUVrmwAqjGESKaSHuD0rpviSL0hioLNIO16nFcgaJfJN5VE0B2whDM2d2qCVNXW0M1mG0a2ZN~znLq-AXJ9ji8o9bmPRV~oAM6PrP13KcdEbRYFS7pFd9z1DryEOo1FPiDF0b0~fr8ZGBuDt4an-3KH1qU9g8uqndiI4Wdc-Ur1kAxEWoiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-11T05:39:27.107Z","article","Note: The following article presents the budget discussion and staffing priorities the board reviewed in the April 9 work session. It summarizes administrators’ estimates and board questions; it does not record a formal budget adoption vote.

District finance staff reviewed preliminary FY26 projections and staffing openings during the April 9 work session and asked the trustees for guidance about priorities. Staff said FY26 growth in district revenue (largely from property-tax growth) is estimated at roughly $726,692. The presentation listed a set of anticipated baseline costs including salary lane/step movement and a cost-of-living adjustment, a large increase in medical insurance, technology-contract increases and the ongoing cost to continue a school resource officer.

Numbers presented (preliminary)
- Estimated new funding (FY26): $726,692.
- Combined baseline cost (salary lane/step movement + 1% COLA): about $345,000 (presented as the baseline combined cost for levels and COLA).
- Technology commitments (onward services): $125,000 (district estimate for technology increases/commitments).
- School resource officer (SRO): $85,000 (previously funded from ESSER; continuing cost would fall to district).
- Medical insurance: staff used an example that a 7% insurance increase would add about $115,962 to district costs and said insurers’ actuaries suggest FY26 could see a significant increase; final actuarial numbers are pending.

When the district combined the baseline costs, the technology commitment and the SRO cost and added an illustrative medical‑insurance increase, administrators showed total commitments approaching $671,087 (district example figure). With the $726,692 of estimated new revenue, that left roughly $54,000 of new funds available for other priorities. The presentation emphasized these figures were preliminary and that the state and county numbers will be finalized in mid-April.

Board discussion and priorities
Trustees discussed strategies to keep the district competitive for hiring. Administrators recommended reconsidering the district’s recurring reliance on so-called \"one-time\" compensation payments and moving toward regular annual cost-of-living increases to make pay adjustments visible on the salary schedule. Board members warned that converting repeated one-time payments into ongoing increases would create a sustained new expense and reduce fund-balance flexibility.

Staff and trustees identified several district priorities for further consideration, including special education staffing (advertised openings), health aide continuity (previously grant-funded), CTE staffing and technology. The board asked staff to bring a shortlist of must-have priorities (items that cannot be postponed) so trustees could decide which items, if any, should be funded from one-time resources rather than from the operating baseline.

Personnel openings and hiring practice
Administrators provided a list of current certified and classified openings across the district (positions at elementary, middle and high school levels) and outlined a renewed emphasis on earlier recruiting, an applicant-tracking system rollout (Frontline) and behavior-based interviews. The board reiterated that transfers and building-level staffing decisions are generally administrative, but asked for transparency when involuntary transfers or budget-driven changes are proposed.

Ending: Administration will return to the board with a clarified list of top priorities and a recommendation about one-time vs. ongoing compensation; final FY26 revenue and actuarial insurance numbers will be updated when the county/state releases final figures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","GCSD Board Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","At the April 9 work session administrators presented preliminary FY26 revenue and cost estimates, saying estimated new growth of about $726,692 will not fully cover combined baseline increases plus technology and school‑safety costs without drawing on fund balance.","taxTitle","Grand County School Board, Grand County School District, Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",75982,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078945,"District seeks Marzano ‘high reliability schools’ training; year‑one cost largely covered by school councils",686,6448000,7134000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa&start=6448&end=7134","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa/thumbnail_6448000.jpg","/articles/6078945/Utah/District-seeks-Marzano-high-reliability-schools-training-yearone-cost-largely-covered-by-school-councils","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078945-b80dd0c5ea75546100a5cdd0d835d4fb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770901453&Signature=SHwkM4LrjXR6R2GN8fY6u3zjH68IbwohflcruFqufWKnbU8h97K2GYb1XCYJ7kYU3VX6AMZvrK0l7iFPzWhpPFZ07r4VvMZT9CoWTC1hff1-9fDyCpzvp-aMja7A-Xc1OyGrampovpFJHeOWXfihX9pTL4Yq1EgLENxV5h00E4xDvc52-Dcrs5HE8jnO6mdJbIjUDKlvxnYI9DnkOBno8eKuzTbEUbMU464CbKqb8PDKgQVIiG4DITJX28w4bmFjviJk3qPbJO8nKdF5LXQh0~vOFiYYRxVrwVAqTy66EJM702gLOG3Kh~Ky6Ezg84rKHHMKpOLeNtw6nLTTBccT5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Grand Canyon School District administrators briefed the board on a proposed two-year engagement with Marzano Research’s High Reliability Schools (HRS) framework, a systems-oriented professional-development and certification program for school culture, teacher clarity and a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

Cost and funding
District staff reported an invoice for year‑one services totaling $37,117.82. Administrators said school community councils at the high school and HMK have each pledged $16,000 toward the first year’s cost; after those commitments the district would need to cover the remaining balance — roughly a little over $5,000 for year one — from district funds if other local fundraising does not close the gap.

Program details and expected outcomes
Staff described the HRS work as a multi-year systems investment rather than a quick training series. Year 1 includes surveys to tailor supports to campus needs, certification fees, interactive webinars and three days of on-site professional development at each participating campus. Year 2 adds another professional-development day and continued coaching; staff described the overall effort as a multi-year (approximately five- to eight-year) pathway to deeper integration and continuous improvement.

Why it matters
Administrators argued the HRS framework will create consistent systems across campuses so instruction and accountability are less dependent on individual personnel changes and more reliant on documented processes and shared expectations. The program aims to produce measurable changes in school culture, teacher clarity and curriculum consistency that district leaders said will support recruitment and instructional continuity.

Board direction
The board did not vote on a formal purchase at the work session. Administrators said principals would cover much of the initial cost through school community-council funds and that the district would consider a modest year-one contribution if necessary. The board and staff indicated they will continue to discuss funding and rollout details before final approval.

Ending: Staff invited board members to attend training sessions as observers and said they will return with a recommendation and final contract details when funding sources and year-two expectations are firm.","Administrators outlined a two‑year plan to pursue Marzano’s High Reliability Schools certification. Year‑one cost is $37,117.82; school community councils pledged principal support funds and the district would cover an estimated $5,000 gap if needed.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078951,"District clarifies student internet-access policy; administration to post revised language",688,5472000,6160000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa&start=5472&end=6160","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa/thumbnail_5472000.jpg","/articles/6078951/Utah/District-clarifies-student-internet-access-policy-administration-to-post-revised-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078951-983b9ddfa77a40b1da3f2d515a62be73/orig.mp4?Expires=1770901453&Signature=Q9GV3wX7-3JLdhVKj~Zgz3zj47yWPSt-q8Yjr78P9UDHn-2KLwqki6edSkU2auiWnENQ~pA6nZZ7FicgHhgyA-Su6dtUlkM~hVuj4bjJ7XrAhchV8ZM7rra5ID8s4Q3BD~4n7zef63CyD7iw24Lwiy8VHmEdRqA8GcIQLjtk5I51ZMwGGB6lpqad4hViJk3t2La8ODseO-tEDCwkJSQq~0KhW~LoxOlLP~pKwWn7Gr9QhUL5f~ApNS0kd~6FBBsHV3nV7o0AFCpngGu8YrTjYggDfIHbZUadbSgvn-c-zcOi77v7z9IkNiYCuSv~RduOrMUw-f7878HmqmrwKuLmfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The board reviewed a proposed update to the district’s student internet-protection and acceptable-use policy (item labeled EEV/Internet protection access) during the April 9 work session. Staff described recent technical problems affecting student logins (Eduroam / CK Express) and advised straightforward troubleshooting steps for families (delete and re-add network profiles).

Administrators proposed posting the policy with the suggested edits discussed in the meeting (removing enforceable time limits and clarifying language about parental consent and exhibits). Staff said the policy would refer readers to the student handbook and online registration forms for parental photo-consent and internet-use forms, rather than embedding full exhibits in the policy text.

Board direction
Trustees asked that the posted draft be redlined so the public could see what language was being retained and what was removed. Board members also discussed the practicalities of student images on school social-media pages and the district’s process for removing unauthorized third-party posts; staff said district pages are monitored and content would be taken down upon request if it violated parental preferences.

Next steps
District staff will post the policy text with the agreed edits, redline the removed language for public review, and note that exhibits (parental consent/registration forms) are available in the handbook or registration materials. Staff also said IT staff will continue to provide troubleshooting instructions for off-campus Wi-Fi and school trip connectivity.

Ending: No formal vote was required; staff will update language and post the revised policy for public view.","Board and staff reviewed a proposed student internet-protection and acceptable-use policy and agreed to post a revised version with edits. Discussion covered parent responsibility to monitor student network use, technical fixes (Eduroam / CK Express), exhibits and handbook cross-references.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078954,"Grand Canyon board debates open vs. closed high school lunch; safety, equity and cafeteria capacity raised",1771,3725000,5496000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa&start=3725&end=5496","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa/thumbnail_3725000.jpg","/articles/6078954/Utah/Grand-Canyon-board-debates-open-vs-closed-high-school-lunch-safety-equity-and-cafeteria-capacity-raised","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078954-ad253dfa89a19e42f65a60edbdc64d4e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770901453&Signature=RAkeYhfJ2GMMKCQXAYlmvASt1pVjQW1WZrIX-Velc3uJxShSCzOy5sbYmSsLJtYAfOfT-un349fPZmCs8InnK8JcVEBDxFkG3YL1piaDMM90oielN3g6nJeeykfG2OAg9XepxA3c5LE-hfWhImfabWTUVvyjxQEqNYXgvIHax~i7~rkXoVNYurgMB3-wIwizsGEbWOlfNL3I9lPuHJy2sLs4y7kz0zxrAvlBLx5uxwm7PEQMa8DdyqW0Nmo~dQ1bwFYk91GRfD3xA2svD9mZaFXyNmTuzsC0DnUUzFDA~hJZ3doVkoAebXf5oEWCLZHD8LcOeb~N0jng1rM~pR0pDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members and administrators spent an extended segment of the April 9 work session discussing whether Grand Canyon High School should remain an open-campus operation during lunch, switch to closed campus, or adopt a partial privilege system.

District staff framed the item as a feasibility discussion rather than an immediate policy change. Staff and board members raised four recurring concerns: student safety (drivers and distracted driving during a compressed lunch window), attendance and tardies, equity for students receiving free and reduced-price meals, and the district’s ability to staff and serve a shortened lunch period.

Key points from the session
- Safety: Multiple speakers raised the risk of auto accidents when students leave campus in a tight timeframe, noting that motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for teenagers and saying the district should avoid an ‘‘accident at lunchtime’’ if the campus remains open. The board discussed restricting driving privileges while allowing walking or biking privileges, and whether parental waivers for release time would be required.
- Attendance and discipline: Several board members said students who are late repeatedly are typically repeat offenders and that enforcement (consequences) would be needed if an off-campus privilege were conditioned on punctuality or behavior.
- Equity and food access: Staff reported that roughly 40–50% of the high-school population are on free and reduced-price meal programs; speakers warned that off-campus options (restaurants) can cost $15 or more per meal and are not affordable for many families. The district’s cafeteria is still completing work to increase capacity, and staff said reducing lunch time to 32 minutes (as proposed in the schedule discussion) tightens service capacity.
- Logistical alternatives: Board members and staff suggested partial solutions including: a fully closed campus; a closed campus for underclassmen with juniors/seniors granted privileges; gating or controlling vehicle access to the lot while allowing walking/biking; establishing privileges tied to behavior or attendance; and developing a strategic implementation plan before any change to avoid operational chaos.

Process and next steps
The board directed administration to prepare a feasibility plan that would examine risk, personnel needs, cafeteria capacity, parental-consent options and communication. Several trustees recommended soliciting public comment on any formal plan. The board did not adopt a policy change at the April 9 session; instead, members asked administration to return at a later date with a detailed plan and recommendations.

Ending: Administration said it would examine logistics, liability questions, and staffing needs and would report back with options so the board could decide strategically rather than reactively.","Board members and staff discussed whether to keep high school lunch as open campus, close it, or adopt a hybrid approach. Safety, student tardies, inequities for low-income students and cafeteria capacity under a shortened lunch window dominated the discussion.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6078959,"Grand Canyon board reviews proposal to move high school from 4x4 to five-period day",2366,1391000,3757000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa&start=1391&end=3757","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2957169-f71236e8c114498ecf8a606fc69f72aa/thumbnail_1391000.jpg","/articles/6078959/Utah/Grand-Canyon-board-reviews-proposal-to-move-high-school-from-4x4-to-five-period-day","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6078959-a39c97a203c728fcfbbc38b241a0cf92/orig.mp4?Expires=1770901453&Signature=KtNH3Otje3b-3TCtVQ7jPfmqx3nwBGWO5dbdbwoTXi5xzKBZnFFP1fdDmNymLelCBjjczftmZUD21l5eQm5L890IY47WOlDva8dqdb~EyB3RPZHJI9psoY2Pgmb98KO36R-zIRuBmRlxyaqYt7uOPoJ2ZGDV~9FS~c1mikNxG-ZauP7NK1F5zxK922QhUfgV3~ZX6oaSvbEJdsKmp9xU7oU8bCzHzaQpXNhDFc9V--~DQdFDW3DBGnG6s6pP6PszQvr3nZIFM~CQo6pbXwdsC0yFKw7TdAaEvm4YaiHh6vbcjRecLw2laT2UnDAFhrnfmxICnvCPKsiIilM1WrSIew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Grand Canyon School District staff presented a proposal at the board’s April 9 work session to switch Grand Canyon High School from a four-by-four block schedule to a five-period day beginning in 2025–26. District presenter Kari explained the change would add elective options and allow year-round offerings for courses like math, science and English while preserving the board’s 28-credit graduation requirement under current review.

Kari (presenter/district staff) said the five-period model yields more instructional flexibility. She summarized the draft schedule by noting the district would ‘‘gain 21 instructional minutes’’ overall under the five-period model and that classes would still be scheduled as 75-minute periods with a 32-minute lunch. Kari told the board the district is still reviewing how year-long, trimester and quarter classes translate into credits but that the plan assumes every class will count for 0.5 credit under the proposed conversion rules.

Why it matters: The schedule change would affect how students earn credits, who can accelerate into Advanced Placement and concurrent-enrollment classes, and how remediation is scheduled for students who need extra support. Board members repeatedly pressed staff for clarity on credit translation, diploma pathways and how the change would be communicated to families.

Details of the proposal and board discussion
- Structure: Under the presented draft, core classes could be offered year-round (two semesters), allowing students to pursue sequential courses (for example, math year-round) without losing elective options. The district shared illustrative student schedules showing how accelerated students could continue into AP and concurrent-enrollment courses earlier in high school.
- Instructional minutes: Kari showed the comparative math: under the draft, the district would net an increase in overall instructional minutes across the week but a small per-class reduction in some periods compared with the 4x4 block (the presentation cited an overall gain of 21 instructional minutes in a day and described some periods effectively losing 13 minutes depending on the comparison method used).
- Credits: The district’s working assumption is still 28 credits required to graduate; staff said that remains \"under review\" and that the board will decide any change. Kari explained that yearlong classes and varied term lengths (quarters/semesters/trimesters) will be standardized on a common credit translation so like-length offerings count equally in transcripts. She told the board the district is researching best practice and vendor guidance (PowerSchool) and consulting other Utah schools.
- Utah State 24-credit diploma: Staff raised the question of whether the district is required to offer the state’s 24-credit diploma option and how students who meet only that pathway would participate in the district graduation ceremony. The district said it is investigating legal and policy details and will report back.

Board concerns and timeline
Board members asked for detail on several fronts: what number of credits would be required after conversion, how credit minutes would be defined and translated for transfer students, how the change could affect acceleration and remediation, and how the district will communicate course offerings to families. Kari said her goal is to have a draft master schedule developed before teachers leave for summer (teachers’ contract time), ideally before May 23, and that a final recommendation on graduation credits would come to the board by June.

Next steps
District staff will continue to refine credit conversion rules with counselors and teachers and to develop a master schedule draft for board review. Staff told the board they will return with additional analysis on graduation-pathway options (including whether to offer the Utah 24-credit diploma) and with plans for communicating course-selection information to students and parents.

Ending: The board did not take a formal vote on graduation-credit requirements or final schedule adoption at the April 9 work session; staff said they expect to bring final recommendations back to the board in the May–June timeframe for formal action.","District staff presented a proposal to change Grand Canyon High School’s master schedule to a five-period day for 2025–26, a change administrators say would increase students’ options but raises questions about credit accounting, graduation requirements and schedule rollout.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

District presents budget outlook and staffing priorities; board weighs moving one‑time pay into ongoing cost‑of‑living increases

District seeks Marzano ‘high reliability schools’ training; year‑one cost largely covered by school councils

District clarifies student internet-access policy; administration to post revised language

Grand Canyon board debates open vs. closed high school lunch; safety, equity and cafeteria capacity raised

Grand Canyon board reviews proposal to move high school from 4x4 to five-period day