Tooele school leaders outline $13.4 million shortfall, ask board for two budget scenarios
Loading...
Summary
Business administrator Lark Reynolds presented a proposed FY26 beginning budget that shows multi-fund deficits unless the district raises revenue or draws on reserves. The board asked staff to prepare two scenarios for the public budget hearing: a no-tax-increase budget and a ‘flat tax’ option roughly equal to levies falling off (about $7.45M).
Tooele County School District Business Administrator Lark Reynolds presented a proposed beginning budget for fiscal year 2026 on June 24, showing projected uses of fund balance across major funds that totaled about $13.4 million when capital projects and the general fund are combined.
Reynolds said the draft assumes staffing and benefits consistent with current practice, seven new teacher FTEs tied to new schools, increased utility and custodial costs for two opening schools, and an estimated $9.1 million still reserved for lingering construction invoices. “I usually build a budget without a tax increase,” Reynolds told the board, and said his estimates for certified tax rates were close to current county projections.
The presentation matters because the district faces a choice between drawing on reserves, increasing local property tax revenue, or cutting recurring expenses. Board members focused on the size and sustainability of ongoing deficits rather than one-time capital spending. Board member Scott asked the administration to show where TSSA (classroom-support) dollars and other spending have gone. Board member Valerie and others asked for a concise plan the public can understand, including short-term and longer-term options.
Several board members described the composition of the district’s shortfall: a roughly $4.4 million projected use of general-fund balance, about $9 million in capital project uses (driven by construction), and a separate food-service deficit of about $1 million driven by higher food costs and new staffing needs. Reynolds explained that some figures reflect conservative assumptions and that some construction costs will not be paid until invoices arrive, so final balances may be higher. He said a reasonable worst-case estimate left the district with roughly $54 million in combined fund balance at the end of FY26 and that the actual balance may be nearer $80 million after fiscal-year-close adjustments.
Board members discussed options. Emily asked for plain-language scenarios the public can understand and proposed asking staff to produce a plan showing how long it would take to restore a balanced position under varying assumptions (WPU changes, property-tax increases, cuts). Dr. Ernst (Superintendent) and others emphasized the district had expanded staffing and compensation in recent years and that some of those decisions were funded by temporary revenues that are now reduced.
By consensus the board directed Reynolds to prepare two clear budget scenarios for the public hearing: (A) a tentative budget with no property-tax increase, and (B) a “flat tax” proposal that would hold district tax rates so that local school taxes remain approximately flat for property owners and generate the revenue roughly equal to the levies that are “falling off” (approximately $7.45 million in new local revenue in Reynolds’ estimate). Reynolds confirmed he would deliver the requested version(s) in time for the scheduled budget hearing and public comment next week.
The board did not vote on a final budget at this meeting; members signaled they want more information before making formal decisions and stressed they will hold a public budget hearing as required by state law.
Looking ahead, the board asked for simple, auditable scenarios that show: revenue options (including the flat-tax approach), target cuts or reallocations, and one-time uses of reserves such as paying down the MBA bond versus retaining capital reserves for emergencies.
