Washington County School Board reviews state bills that could shift school funding and alter staffing pay

Washington County School District board members spent a large portion of their Jan. 27 working session on an overview of early 2025 state legislation that administrators said could change how districts raise and receive money and how employees are paid.

District staff warned that SB 37, described in the meeting as a bill that would send the basic property-tax rate (the “basic rate” used in the Minimum School Program) to a state account instead of directly to local districts, raises two immediate concerns: timing of revenue receipt and lack of an explicit requirement that the revenue be spent for K–12 education. “If it goes to state and they give it to us later, then we're going to lose out on interest,” a staff speaker said. The staff speaker added that, because the bill’s language does not specify that the funds would go to the Uniform School Fund, “the belief is that this is their way around dealing with Amendment A,” meaning the money could be spent on non-education items.

Why this matters: district officials said the basic-rate receipts arrive in December and that districts currently earn interest on those balances during the school year. Administrators argued diverting the receipts to a state account could reduce local districts’ cash flow and, depending on legislative language, shift long-standing local revenue into the state’s budget control.

Board members and administrators also reviewed other priority bills and JLC (legislative committee) positions. Highlights the board heard include:

- SB 102 (described as a “public education funding modification grant”): the draft merges many targeted programs (accelerated students, concurrent enrollment, student health and counseling, dual language immersion and others) into a grant structure and places repeal dates on most programs between 2027 and 2028. The bill’s draft language, as read at the meeting, also includes a section that appeared to repeal or change 53F-2-305 (professional staff weighted pupil units), which district staff said underlies “step and lane” salary components. A staff speaker said the bill’s effective date language reads as if those provisions could take effect May 7, 2025.

- SB 28 (Utah Retirement System): would again allow districts to pick up amounts above the state-required contribution for Tier 2 members; staff explained that, as drafted, if a district pays above the required percentage for one plan it must do so for both the Defined Benefit (pension) and Defined Contribution plans.

- SB 37 (minimum basic tax rate amendments): described above; district staff said the bill could shift roughly $810,000,000 next year into state control under the current estimates discussed in the meeting.

- HB 267 (public-sector labor union amendment): JLC took an opposed position, and staff noted the bill’s language is broad and would affect police, fire and teachers. Board members said local relations with teachers have been productive and expressed concern about broad state-level changes.

- Other bills discussed briefly included HB 77 (flag display clarifications described at the meeting as an LEA decision), HB 189 (public education course grade requirements) and HB 191 (packets and credit recovery limits). Administrators described local credit-recovery practices (focus center at Mill Creek, Edgenuity use and supervised in-room packet completion) in response to HB 191 language that would limit packet usage.

District finance and policy context provided during the presentation included an explanation of the Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU). The staff presenter described the WPU amount as roughly $4,500 per student and said the governor and legislature have so far budgeted a 4% increase in the base WPU for the coming year, a number board members were told likely reflects the legislature’s constrained fiscal picture.

Administrators urged board members to help by contacting legislators before a Feb. 5 Public Education Appropriations Committee hearing, where district representatives expected to testify about fund balances shown in a June 30 report and to explain why district fund balances include restricted and earmarked amounts (OPEB liabilities, self-funded insurance reserves, construction cash saved to avoid bond interest, and recommended rainy-day reserves). “June 30 is just gonna have a chunk of cash there; that's part of it — timing of disbursements,” a staff speaker said. Several board members indicated they would coordinate outreach to local legislators on that Feb. 5 committee hearing.

Board discussion distinguished types of concern: (a) discussion of policy impacts and fiscal timing, (b) directions to staff to pursue meetings and outreach with legislators, and (c) a formal motion later in the session to go into closed session (see “Votes at a glance”).

Quotes used at the meeting were recorded verbatim by staff and read into the record. In context, a staff presenter summarized the district’s view of SB 37: “If they do this we as school districts should not be levying that money anymore; it ought to be moved — not called a basic school levy.” Another staff speaker said of fund-balance reporting: “When you look at school districts in total, they had over $2,000,000,000 in the state treasurer's pool in cash,” then explained many districts’ balances reflect legally required or purpose-specific reserves.

Clarifying details captured during the discussion included the November committee vote history (some bill iterations appeared in committee with limited prior district input), the district’s current staffing ratios (the district reported staffing at 30.5:1 in several grades for planning), and administrators’ estimate that the basic rate could represent about $810,000,000 statewide in the coming year under current assumptions.

Ending: Board members asked for a short list of key dates and requested staff follow up to confirm which districts will present at the Feb. 5 hearing so the board can coordinate legislator outreach. The meeting record shows the board later approved a motion to move into a closed session.