Park City School District finance staff presents budget snapshot and multi-year salary increases
Loading...
Summary
District finance staff reviewed a working budget snapshot, explained recent multi-year salary schedule changes and how property-tax increments affect revenue, and said the current projected operating shortfall has narrowed from about $600,000 to roughly $2.68 million as of the presentation.
District staff delivered a budget overview and detailed how multi-year salary agreements have changed pay scales across teacher, administrative and classified salary schedules.
The presentation, given during the district’s work session, outlined property-value history, the local levy rate and how a single “increment” on the district’s tax rate translates to revenue. The presenter said the district’s assessed value for tax-rate math is $36,000,000,000 and that, on that base, one increment generates about $3,600,000.
District staff explained that the board approved a levy for the current fiscal year and noted the district has gone through truth-in-taxation proceedings the last three years. The presenter said the local capital levy is being charged at about 53 percent of what state law would allow and that the district is not declaring a tax increase at this meeting.
Staff reviewed salary-schedule changes negotiated beginning in 2023 for pay periods covering 2024–26. Examples shown to the board included: a teacher in the bachelor’s lane moving from step 15 to 18 (an illustrative movement that would increase base hourly equivalents from roughly $48.47 to about $69.13 over three years, a cited 42 percent increase); administrative examples showing roughly 34–35 percent increases on various admin lanes; and large classified-market adjustments, including a cited bus-driver example moving from about $26.63 to roughly $47.20 (presenters identified a roughly 78 percent change for some classified lanes when an early market adjustment is included).
Staff said the large first-year increases included both a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and market/step adjustments and that some educator-salary adjustments were partially funded by the legislature. The presenters emphasized these raises were designed to attract and retain staff who live near the district.
On revenue and the operating gap, staff said earlier estimates showing a $600,000 deficit had been adjusted to $200,000, but the latest snapshot presented at the meeting showed a larger structural shortfall: staff reported a working forecast of about $2.68 million that they expected to continue to change as negotiations and legislative actions proceed. They reminded the board that the district will not present a final budget until May and that the budget remains a “snapshot” that may be updated daily.
Board members asked follow-up questions about the salary schedules, whether any employee remained on an exception contract outside the standard schedules (staff cited one sustainability position on a special assignment contract), and the timeframe for a final budget presentation.
In closing, staff reiterated that the district was not making a final decision on tax-rate changes at the meeting and that the numbers presented were an informational update as the district works toward a May budget presentation.
