Ogden school board adopts final 2024–25 budget and tentative 2025–26 budget; sets certified tax rate

The Ogden City School District Board of Education on June 19 approved the district's final legal budget for fiscal year 2024–25 and adopted a tentative budget for fiscal year 2025–26, including a decision to keep the district's certified tax rate at the option presented by staff.

Board members opened and closed a public hearing on the budgets before voting. The board approved the final legal FY25 budget and then, after discussion of fund balance levels and tax-levy options, adopted the tentative FY26 budget and chose the certified tax rate option presented by district staff. The motion to adopt the FY26 tentative budget and certified tax rate was made by Board member Peterson and seconded by Board member Bridal; the motion passed after a roll-call-style confirmation of ayes.

Why it matters: the board's decisions set how much revenue the district plans to take in from local property taxes and how it will allocate revenues across operating, capital and other funds. Board members and staff framed the vote as necessary to keep the district solvent while continuing investments in instruction, staff pay and construction projects.

Key budget figures and context - Budgeted total revenue across all funds for fiscal 2025–26: approximately $187,000,000 (district presentation). The district presented the FY25 final legal revenue figure as roughly $183,300,000. - Budgeted expenditures across all funds for FY26 were shown in the presentation as roughly $206,000,000 (presentation slide language: “$2.00 6,000,000 approximately next year”). - Projected overall district fund balance at the end of FY25: about $37,000,000. The FY26 projection shown in the presentation reduced that overall fund balance to about $18,300,000, driven largely by capital-project draws and a structural deficit in the general fund. - General fund structural deficit: the business administrator described a projected gap driven by ongoing investments (salary and benefit increases, longevity steps and programs) and flagged the roughly $5,000,000 difference between projected general‑fund revenues and expenditures as a risk to monitor and address. - Food services: the district reported a structural deficit in the food-services fund of about $2,000,000 and said it is considering operational adjustments; staff cautioned the board that some districts now subsidize food service from their general fund.

Tax-rate discussion and vote District staff explained certified tax rates and the difference between the state-set “certified” rate (which preserves prior-year revenue, adjusted for allowed growth) and choosing to levy additional local revenue through a truth-in-taxation process. Staff said the certified tax-rate calculation lowered the district's property-tax multiplier and that, under the certified rate, an average home in the district would see a modest change (the presentation showed average-home values of about $432,000 and an illustrative tax-bill difference on the order of a few dollars annually). The board debated whether to keep the district’s locally controlled tax rate at last year’s level (option that would generate roughly an additional $1.15 million in local revenue, according to staff), or accept the certified rate and not pursue additional local revenue.

The board voted to adopt the certified tax-rate option presented by staff (option 1). Board members confirmed the motion by voice and roll‑call-style acknowledgement; the motion passed.

Next steps and follow-up Board members directed further conversations on addressing the general‑fund shortfall during the coming year. Staff noted several actions already taken: not refilling several district-level positions through attrition earlier in the spring (about five positions), and continuing detailed review of capital-project estimates (including an architect study for a possible new maintenance/operations shop). The district expects to finalize FY25 audit numbers and the annual financial report in the fall, which will show actual year‑end fund balances.

Provenance: district staff presented detailed slides and narrative during the public-hearing portion of the meeting and answered board members' questions about fund balance targets, food service and property-tax mechanics. Evidence spans in the meeting transcript include the announcement of Agenda Item 5C and the presentation and public-hearing exchange that followed.