Davis School Board approves $12.7 million property tax increase after public hearing

The Davis School District Board of Education voted to approve a proposed $12,725,298 property tax increase for the 2025–26 school year following a public hearing that drew dozens of citizens, teachers and community groups.

Business administrator Timothy Leffel explained the proposal at the start of the hearing, saying the district was seeking the increase primarily to cover a $8,200,000 shortfall created by changes in the state—s guarantee program and to address rising capital and operating costs. "The 8,200,000.0 is the difference between the old law and the new law," Leffel said, describing how adjustments to the state—s hold-harmless calculation shifted more of the guarantee burden onto local levies.

Why it matters: The district said nearly 70% of its revenue comes from state funding and about 21% from property taxes; the proposed increase affects only the property-tax portion of district revenue, not the entire district budget. Leffel told the board and the public the increase would be split between the operations and capital envelopes and used for items such as reimbursements for school resource officers, subscription-based curriculum, utilities and maintenance, student supports and limited class-size relief.

Leffel walked through the mechanics of the certified tax rate and the state guarantee program, saying Davis previously received about $53,000,000 from the state guarantee and that, under the new statutory approach to hold-harmless calculations, the district would need to levy about $17,000,000 more locally to qualify for the same guarantee. Leffel said the legislature provided a partial offset of $8,800,000 this year, leaving the district—s share of the change at approximately $8,200,000 — the amount tied to the tax notice residents received.

The hearing drew a large public turnout. Speakers opposing the increase cited the district—s overall reserves, recent budget increases and perceived administrative growth; speakers supporting the increase said state funding changes and inflation left the district no practical alternative. Don Guymon, chairman of the Davis County Republican Party, said the party planned to hold elected officials accountable for spending decisions. "When the government functions in its proper role, tax increases are not necessary," Guymon said.

Teachers, classified employees and parents urged the board to approve the levy. Danica Puente, a fourth-grade teacher at Holbrook Elementary, told the board that legislative changes have shifted costs to local districts and called the increase "an investment in the future of our community." Sherry Lam, president of the Davis Educational Support Professionals, described many classified staff who earn well below living-wage levels and said modest tax increases are needed to keep schools staffed and safe.

Several commenters questioned specific district spending decisions and asked for additional transparency and audits. Alex Densley and others cited independent audit figures showing multi-year increases in property-tax revenue and asked the board to explain accumulated reserves and past spending choices. Multiple speakers asked the board to seek cuts to administrative overhead and to reconsider technology refresh policies funded with one-time COVID-era dollars.

Board discussion focused on balancing stewardship of taxpayer dollars with maintaining current service levels. Board President Michelle Barber moved to adopt the proposed 2025–26 budget and tax rate as presented; Vice President Bridget Price seconded the motion. Board member Julie Powell offered a substitute motion to reduce the proposed increase by $2,000,000; that substitute motion was debated and failed. The original motion to adopt the proposed tax increase then passed.

The board did not record a roll-call tally in the public portion of the transcript for either the substitute motion or the final motion; the transcript records the motions, seconders and that the original motion carried. The district scheduled a closed session after the vote for personnel matters.

What the district said the money will buy: District materials presented at the hearing itemized uses for the property-tax revenue increase in the operations and capital envelopes, including reimbursements to cities for school resource officers, recurring subscription costs for curriculum, utility and risk-management increases, maintenance for 11,500,000 square feet of district buildings, routine capital needs such as boilers and roofs, and modest additions to a centrally managed pool to reduce class sizes in high-need classrooms.

What remains unresolved: Several members of the public challenged the board to identify specific cuts and to produce an independent review of administrative staffing levels and contract expenditures. Board members said they would continue to seek efficiencies and noted that many funding drivers (for example, changes in state law, the certified tax-rate formula and state appropriations) are outside local control.

The board—s action: The board approved the proposed property tax increase of $12,725,298 for the 2025–26 school year after the public hearing and subsequent board discussion. The board then moved into a closed session for personnel matters.

Ending: The board chair thanked attendees for their comments and adjourned the public portion of the hearing; the district said budget documents and the full audit are available on the district—s transparency website for public review.