Board directs budget reallocation to keep social workers at comprehensive high schools amid multi‑year shortfall

The Salt Lake City School District board pushed for targeted changes to the draft 2026–27 budget Wednesday after public commenters and board members warned cuts to school-based social workers would reduce crucial mental‑health supports.

Finance staff presented the district’s revenue and expenditure summary, showing no proposed property‑tax rate increase but an overall decline in certain revenue streams. Alan, the district business administrator, told the board the draft budget reflects a $642,000 projected decrease in minimum school revenue and shifts tied to bond proceeds, land trust and at‑risk funding.

Public commenters framed the stakes in personal terms. Dane Hess, a school social worker, said school‑based social work ‘‘creates the conditions where students can stay’’ and urged the board to preserve those roles. East High counselor Grace Humanuk described students facing ‘‘anxiety, depression, housing instability’’ and said referrals to outside providers often fail when families face transportation, insurance or language barriers.

Board debate focused on how to respond to grant‑fund expirations that would remove six social‑work FTEs and whether those roles could be covered by reallocating existing district positions. Ashley (finance committee chair) summarized the committee’s recommendation: move three staffed positions (school collaboration specialists and high‑school community coordinators) into a social‑worker program so each comprehensive high school would have one dedicated, ongoing social worker funded from property‑tax‑supported programs instead of short‑term grants.

Several board members urged a parallel study of staffing ratios beyond teachers. ‘‘We need a two‑part dialogue,’’ Ashley said, asking the board both to approve the reallocation and then work on long‑term ratios and department‑level zero‑based budgeting so future cuts are guided by clear criteria.

Alan said the change could be made programmatically in the budget book at the program level and would be permanent unless the board later took action to reverse it. He also offered to meet individually with board members in small groups ahead of the June 2 public hearing and the possible adoption vote.

The board did not adopt a standalone ordinance or vote specifically labeled ‘‘social worker reallocation’’ at the meeting. Instead, members recorded broad support on the record and directed staff to make the program‑level reallocation in the upcoming budget update; a formal public hearing and potential vote on the full budget are scheduled for June 2.

What’s next: district staff will reflect the reallocation in the draft budget materials and the finance team will continue to develop ratios and a longer‑term staffing plan that accounts for grant expirations, declining enrollment and other constraints. The board also asked staff to return with department‑level shortfall analyses and a plan to use property‑tax growth more strategically.