Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Apple Valley Unified reports $13M of planned reductions in second interim budget presentation
Summary
Assistant Superintendent Matthew Schulenberg presented the district’s Second Interim showing a roughly $13M of non‑specific reductions projected in 2025–26, LCFF assumptions (about $184M current LCFF), ADA trends and options including use of restricted funds and a supplemental retirement program to manage deficits.
Apple Valley Unified’s finance team told the school board on March 6 that the district faces ongoing budget pressure and has built assumptions into a multi‑year projection that includes non‑specific reductions and a supplemental retirement program as tools to stabilize finances.
Assistant Superintendent Matthew Schulenberg presented the Second Interim financial report (data as of Jan. 31), explaining the district’s use of prior‑year ADA for LCFF funding calculations and noting current LCFF revenue in the budget at roughly $184 million. He described the assumptions used for cost‑of‑living adjustments, PERS/STRS employer contributions, federal and state restricted revenues and the practice of moving expenditures between restricted and unrestricted funds to manage cash flow.
Schulenberg said the district is projecting approximately $13 million in non‑specific line‑item reductions for 2025–26 alongside other adjustments and one‑time actions already taken. He highlighted variables that could change the outlook, including the governor’s May revision, possible one‑time discretionary block grants, and a proposed increase to the TK add‑on that the district did not assume in its projection because the governor’s proposal had not been finalized.
Key figures presented: funded LCFF allocation of about $184M for the current year; a funded ADA assumption of 12,612 (with TK counted separately); projected reductions and a net deficiency trend that reduces unrestricted ending fund balance toward policy reserves unless additional actions or revenue occur. The presentation also discussed restricted programs (29 distinct restricted resources) and the district’s practice of expensing restricted dollars in its reporting assumptions.
Board members asked clarifying questions about ending fund balance components, transfers between funds (e.g., a $2M transfer from deferred maintenance), and the mechanics of title and other federal funds. Trustees and staff discussed options including shifting staff funded by short‑term revenue to ongoing restricted resources, reducing reliance on contracted providers, and targeting savings in special education contribution and consultant contracts.
The budget presentation set the context for later personnel actions at the meeting and for the district’s planned presentations to the county by the March 15 filing deadline.
