Tempe Elementary hears final revision to 2024–25 budget; special‑education weights drive revenue gain

The Tempe Elementary School District Governing Board on May 7 held a public hearing on the final revision to the fiscal year 2024–25 expenditure budget and heard from Chief Financial Officer Eric Thompson about shifts in state funding tied to student counts and special‑education weights.

Thompson told the board the district’s weighted Average Daily Membership (ADM) increased by 40 since the September revision, driven largely by a rise in special‑education counts. "The big reason for that increase is actually the special education weight," Thompson said. He explained that some special‑education categories carry much larger state weights — "if you have a student who is categorized with multiple disabilities or severe intellectual disabilities, the state will pay us six times what they would pay for a regular education student." Thompson said 54 additional students in high‑weight categories produced an increase of about 322 ADM on the weighted side.

Why it matters: Arizona school funding is calculated on counts during the first 100 school days and on weighted ADM. Thompson said the district is spending more than it brings in and that the budget revision primarily aligns the district’s formulas to the first‑100‑day counts rather than changing current year spending plans.

Thompson quantified the district’s budget position: the general maintenance and operations (M&O) budget limit, including carryover and one‑time funds, is roughly $113,000,000; removing carryover and one‑time items, projected revenue is about $96,000,000. He said encumbrances and planned spending amount to around $106,000,000 — a figure he described as a “worst‑case scenario” that will likely result in a smaller actual drawdown of carryover. On the capital side, he said the district carried forward roughly $13,000,000 plus $5,000,000 from the district additional assistance (DAA) override, leaving a projected carryover of about $12,000,000 into next year after roughly $6,000,000 in planned capital spending.

Board members asked for clarifications. Board member Windsor thanked the special‑education department for identifying needs that increased weighted ADM and asked whether natural staffing turnover would reduce expenditures; Thompson replied that turnover alone would probably not be sufficient and that the district will need to consider additional cuts unless enrollment improves. Board member Mangini (question on timing) clarified that the student losses referenced were since September.

Administrative process and next steps: Thompson said the district will present a proposed budget at the first June meeting and adopt a final budget at the second June meeting. He noted the legislature’s typical timing uncertainty and said the district will use the state’s minimum adjustment (2 percent inflation cap) as the working estimate; the budget can be revised again by the statutory September 15 deadline if state numbers change.

The board opened and then later closed the public hearing at the same meeting; the motion to close the public hearing was seconded and passed by voice vote.