Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mesa board adopts final FY2024–25 budget revision after hearing public comment about enrollment and staffing
Summary
The governing board approved a final May revision to the district’s fiscal‑year 2024–25 budget that reflects average‑daily‑membership changes and one‑time state allocations; staff warned the legislature’s ongoing cuts could reduce funding further next year.
The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board approved a final revision to the district’s fiscal‑year 2024–25 budget on a unanimous 5–0 vote after a public hearing and staff presentation that explained changes to student counts and late, one‑time state allocations.
CFO‑level staff (mister Alexander) and Chief Financial Officer Scott Thompson told the board the revision mainly incorporates updated average daily membership (ADM) numbers and one‑time state allocations that restored, for this year only, funding reductions to District Additional Assistance (capital) and free‑and‑reduced lunch weighted funding. Alexander said the overall maintenance & operations (M&O) budget limit rose by about $2.7 million and the district additional assistance capital limit rose by roughly $1.4 million. Thompson emphasized the increases were largely one‑time restorations; current legislative budget drafts do not restore the funding for 2025–26 and beyond, which he said could mean a cumulative reduction of about $6.8 million over two years if lawmakers do not act.
Attendance and ADM: The revision reflected a net ADM decline (a drop of roughly 131 students overall between December and May) in K–12 counts but an increase of about 299 in Group B special education counts, largely due to revised free‑and‑reduced figures received from the Arizona Department of Education.
Public comment and board questions: During the public hearing, three speakers raised unrelated concerns and asked questions. Sherry Walton urged the district to abandon programs she described as “CRT/DEI/SEL” and called for a return to “traditional education”; Ed Still and Ray Deere urged fiscal scrutiny and asked why support‑staff counts rose even as teacher headcount declined. Board members asked staff for clarification about apparent headcount changes; staff explained the May revision “picked up” contract personnel and on‑site vendors that previously had been budgeted off the district’s position control inventory.
Vote and next steps: The board adopted the revision on the motion and second reported on the record; staff said follow‑up adjustments could be needed after the legislature completes its final budget. Administrators said they will continue monitoring ADM, state budget actions and potential downstream effects for 2025–26 and will return with recommended next‑year adjustments when details are available.
Why it matters: The revision raises the district’s budget limits but chiefly because of one‑time state restorations. District leaders cautioned the board and public that the underlying fiscal picture remains uncertain pending legislative action; the May revision does not eliminate the need for future budget adjustments should on‑going funds be reduced.
