Cave Creek USD board approves proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget after presentation on enrollment, carryforward and federal cuts

The Cave Creek Unified School District governing board voted to approve the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget after a presentation by district staff that highlighted lower student counts, reduced federal grant funding and new budget-form lines for carry forward.

Dr. Plutnik, the district presenter for the budget item, told the board the proposed budget “sets the budget capacity limit. It's not actually how much we spend, it's how much we can spend.” He explained the proposed budget will be posted on the district website for 10 days and that a final adoption will occur at a later board meeting after required revisions.

The presentation emphasized enrollment uncertainty and how that drives the district's spending capacity. Plutnik said the district is estimating average daily membership using multiple scenarios — a full rollover of current students, expected grade‑level losses tied to recent school closures, and a scenario that adds new enrollment packets. He noted the district used a per‑pupil base of $5,013 on the preliminary forms but said the amount could change if the state budget action in the summer raises funding.

Plutnik described a major change to the state budget forms: additional explicit lines for budgeted carry forward, which he called a transparency improvement. He said the forms now allow districts to budget a carry forward amount — the money left unspent at fiscal year end that can be carried into the next year — instead of having to allocate every dollar into spending categories. Quoting the auditor general language shown in the forms, Plutnik said the added lines “provide more transparent information for budget form end users regarding the amounts districts estimate they will maintain for spending after FY26 in these budget controlled funds.”

The district presented specific budget numbers and assumptions discussed with the board: an estimated decrease in maintenance and operations (M&O) capacity from about $28.5 million in FY25 to about $26.5 million in FY26 under the preliminary figures; an estimated M&O carry forward reduction from roughly $2.7 million to $1.8 million if the state does not increase per‑pupil funding; and a capital allocation that the district plans to leave at approximately $1.0 million in the capital fund rather than shifting additional capital dollars into M&O as in some prior years.

Board members and staff discussed how the district closure of two elementary schools has affected both costs and enrollment. Plutnik noted school administration costs were estimated to drop from roughly $1.36 million (FY24 actual) to just over $1.0 million under current staffing models after the closures, and he said teacher salary expenditures also fall under the staffing models used in the proposed budget. Plutnik also offered to produce a full “rollover” calculation comparing budgets with and without the closures if the board wanted more detail.

The presentation addressed federal funding declines and special education costs. Plutnik said federal funds were projected to decrease — in part because fewer students qualify under the census numbers used in some formulas — and cautioned that special education needs and costs are rising, which creates pressure on local dollars to fill gaps when federal grants fall. He said Career and Technical Education (CTE) grant funding also showed a slight decrease.

Board members asked about use of restricted buckets of money and about a proposed dropout prevention pilot. Plutnik explained the district can use Classroom Site Fund (CSF) or the instructional improvement fund (the district’s 020 instructional fund) to support a dropout prevention program and noted that the CSF increase to $842 per pupil can be applied to teacher pay and program support. “We did budget in money in the instructional improvement fund for dropout prevention,” Plutnik said, explaining that 50% of instructional improvement funds may be used for teacher salaries while the remaining portion can support program costs.

The presentation reviewed other cost drivers reflected in the proposed budget: a three‑year one‑time stipend to employees that is in its third and final year, a roughly $81,000 insurance increase tied to a prior property revaluation, a modest workers’ compensation decrease, a district‑funded health insurance increase (the district is not shifting the increase to employees), and a roughly 1% general wage increase for non‑administrative staff estimated at about $226,000 (subject to change as staffing levels adjust).

Next steps explained by staff were that if the board approves the proposed budget it will be posted for 10 days and returned for final adoption at the next board meeting; staff also said the budget will be revised in September using the 10‑day student count and again in December as needed, with a final revision in the following May. Plutnik said the district can and will revise the proposed budget after the state sets final figures and after the district’s September and December counts.

At the meeting, a motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 budget "as presented." The board approved the motion by voice vote; the meeting minutes show the board called for the ayes and recorded no opposition.

The board also discussed property valuations and the tax rate: staff noted assessed valuations have increased, which typically lowers the district's qualifying tax rate and can result in more tax dollars flowing to state allocations rather than staying in the district. Plutnik said the district will work with the Maricopa County Superintendent's Office to calculate the tax rate and that staff can model scenarios showing how different tax‑rate choices would affect district revenue.

The board approved the proposed budget and directed staff to publish the proposal for the statutorily required public posting period and to return the budget for adoption at the next meeting following the posting period.