Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Cedar Springs board adopts 2024–25 final budget and 2025–26 initial budget; staff outlines key revenue and expense changes
Summary
The board approved the district’s 2024–25 final budgets and the 2025–26 initial budget. Staff highlighted state school-aid proposals, revenue increases from grants and IDEA flow-through funds, insurance premium changes tied to construction projects, and projected fund balances for bond and capital funds.
The Cedar Springs Public Schools Board of Education on June 23 adopted the district’s final budget for 2024–25 and its initial budget for 2025–26 after reviewing changes since the prior meeting.
Staff reported several budget drivers and adjustments. They summarized the recent state House proposal to set a $12,000 per‑pupil figure by splitting it into a $10,025 foundation allowance (a 4.3% increase) and a new $1,975 Section 22f payment; staff noted that the House proposal eliminated many categoricals (for example, some universal breakfast and enrollment‑stabilization proposals) and said the House plan’s funding would likely be unsustainable beyond one year. For district planning staff used more conservative executive/senate proposals in the initial 2025–26 numbers.
For the 2024–25 final General Fund, staff reported a net revenue increase of roughly $124,000 driven by a $29,000 Section 147 benchmark assessment grant, a $9,000 ISD pass-through, and a $39,000 increase from the Medicaid administrative outreach program; expenses were projected to increase by just over $100,000 with the largest single planned transfer being $95,000 to a new capital improvement fund. The net change yielded a near‑breakeven position for the general fund at fiscal year end.
In the 2025–26 initial budget staff projected revenue increases of about $150,000 and modest expense increases of roughly $13,000. Key additions included an $87,000 IDEA flow‑through allocation that will be grant funded rather than charged to the general fund, an anticipated $30,000 Medicaid AOP adjustment, and realignment of the I‑Ready assessment cost from basic programming to instructional staff services (+$29,000). The board was also told that some salary savings are anticipated as open positions are filled with internal candidates.
Staff said property and casualty insurance premiums rose about $17,000, largely because builder’s risk coverage had to be increased while construction projects remain near completion; staff indicated they expect a partial rebate or premium adjustment once projects move to completed asset status in late summer. The bond construction fund’s projected fund balance at June 30, 2025, was reported around $7.3 million; projected fund balance for the following fiscal year was roughly $1.8 million after timing adjustments and retainage accounting entries.
Board members asked about enrollment forecasting methods; staff described using county live birth rates, historical grade-to-grade rollover rates and summer enrollment tracking. The board passed the final and initial budget resolutions by recorded vote. Staff noted state-level school-aid numbers remain subject to change and that final state allocations likely will not be known until later in the summer or early fall.
The budgets were adopted to meet the state requirement that boards adopt budgets before June 30; staff will update the board with any substantive changes when state school-aid numbers are finalized.
