Scottsdale Unified budget discussion flags $4.1 million shortfall; board weighs cutting assistant principals to half-time

Scottsdale Unified School District finance staff told the governing board on April 14 that the district faces a roughly $4.1 million shortfall for the 2025–26 fiscal year and described options to close that gap, including reduced school allocations and position adjustments.

The district’s budget presentation laid out revenue assumptions, including a projected 2% decline in average daily membership and a modest state base funding increase. Shannon Crozier, who led the budget presentation, said the district expects a drop of 463 weighted students — a change she said equals about $2.3 million in lost state revenue. “The last few years, our decline has been 2 percent,” Crozier told the board while walking through enrollment and weighted‑count trends.

Why it matters: the district’s maintenance and operations fund covers most daily operations and salaries. With more than 80% of M&O expenditures tied to salary and benefits, small enrollment or funding shifts force hard tradeoffs that affect staff on campus.

Board members and speakers pressed administration for options to preserve school‑level staff. Vice President Mike Sharkey and Member Amy Carney repeatedly asked whether cuts could be concentrated at the district office rather than the schools. Crozier said staff had identified about 13 district‑level positions proposed for reduction and expected another $2.9 million in recommended savings, but she cautioned that the list still required more work and could change before the May budget revision.

Proposed changes and timing: the administration’s near‑term plan includes reallocating about $4.2 million in one‑time capital carryover to M&O to offset recurring revenue loss, budgeting $1.5 million for salary increases, and setting aside $1 million for medical insurance. The package also lists reductions that would total roughly $2.9 million in savings, including private special education placement adjustments, vacancy eliminations and combining certain district roles.

Assistant principal proposal: One of the most contested items was a proposed change to assistant principal staffing ratios that would convert some full‑time assistant principal positions to half‑time at smaller campuses. Board Member Amy Carney said the community has asked for full‑time assistant principals at every site and moved repeatedly for the district to find offsets to preserve those positions. Crozier said staff had already reduced most department budgets by 3% and had been searching for additional savings but had not yet located the roughly $300,000 needed to reverse the AP proposal.

Board reaction: members split on approach. Some members urged patience and asked administration to return with a prioritized list of tradeoffs that could preserve APs; other members argued for immediate cuts to district contracts and memberships to free M&O dollars for school staffing. No new policy was adopted; the board asked administration to continue refining options ahead of the required budget revision in mid‑May.

Votes at a glance: Several formally recorded votes at the meeting affected the district budget posture. The board approved the fiscal year 2024 audit and compliance questionnaire (roll call vote, 5–0), authorized development of an employee‑insurance RFP (voice vote, passed), and later approved the reclassification of 17 positions to non‑exempt status (roll call vote, 5–0). Motions to discontinue two outside lobbying agreements (State 48 Public Affairs and Greater Phoenix Educational Management Council/"Guppy Mac") were both put to the board but failed in roll call votes (each motion to cancel failed 3–2). The board also approved other routine items on the agenda that affect the overall budget cycle; see the actions array below for full tallies and motion text.

Background/context: budget development for the district is an annual 10‑month cycle that begins in August and runs through June; major decision points occur in January–March when staffing and contract offers are made for the coming year. Crozier told the board that many budget variables — including state funding finalization and health‑insurance renewal rates — arrive late in the process, which complicates planning.

Next steps: the board directed staff to continue refining reductions, to return with clearer lists of tradeoffs and to prioritize options that limit impacts to school‑based personnel. The district plans a mid‑May budget revision and will present a proposed and adopted budget in June according to state timelines.

Ending: The budget discussion set a timetable for further review but produced no binding changes that night; board members and community speakers left the meeting with clear, unresolved differences over whether to preserve assistant principal staffing or to pursue additional district‑level reductions.