Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Apple Valley Unified proposes balanced 2024–25 budget but plans $12 million in cuts and a $2M uncommit to meet reserves
Summary
Assistant Superintendent Matthew Schellenberg told the board the district’s proposed 2024–25 budget relies on estimated 2023–24 actuals, assumes modest ADA growth and a 1.07% statutory COLA, and includes roughly $12 million in planned expenditure efficiencies and a $2 million uncommitment from Fund 14 to meet a 3% reserve.
Matthew Schellenberg, Apple Valley Unified School District’s assistant superintendent for administrative services, presented the district’s proposed 2024–25 budget and multi‑year projections to the Board of Trustees.
Schellenberg said the district sets its beginning balance using estimated actuals for 2023–24 and then applies state and county guidance (the LCFF calculator, School Services, and the San Bernardino County common message). “We are projecting our funded ADA at 12,602,” he said, and the budget assumes a statutory COLA of 1.07% for 2024–25. He described unrestricted revenue of about $192 million and a pattern of spending down one‑time restricted funds booked in prior years.
The presentation distinguished unrestricted and restricted fund dynamics: Schellenberg told trustees the district transferred just over $39 million from unrestricted Fund 01 to the restricted side this year, largely to support special education and routine restricted maintenance programs. He noted restricted revenues were about $61 million against roughly $112 million in restricted expenditures this year because prior one‑time grants are being spent down.
On the district’s multi‑year outlook, Schellenberg said district leaders are budgeting step‑and‑column salary increases and projecting approximately $12 million in expenditure efficiencies and reductions for 2025–26 — “approximately 5% of our total operating budget” — with most reductions on the unrestricted side. He cautioned the projections meet the state‑required 3% reserve but do not meet the district’s 5% board policy reserve.
Schellenberg also flagged specific decisions baked into the proposal: not budgeting for any fleet replacements next year (new buses can cost about $250,000 apiece) and recommending the board uncommit $2 million from Fund 14 to help meet the 3% required reserve. He said staff would revisit assumptions after the state budget is finalized and noted the board would receive updated analysis in July with possible changes at the August meeting.
Board members asked clarifying questions about restricted books and supplies, Title I and restricted lottery funds, and how the district will protect staff pay if COLA does not keep pace with inflation. Schellenberg replied that the district will prioritize expenditures and search for efficiencies, and that supplemental and concentration grant rules limit the types of cuts possible because unspent allocations affect future entitlements.
The board opened a public hearing on the LCAP and the budget; no public comments were recorded. The district presenter noted minor formatting corrections to the posted LCAP and told trustees county reviewers were satisfied with recent updates.
What happens next: the budget presentation will be followed by the district’s formal review and, as needed, adjustments after the state’s June budget actions; staff told the board it will return with updated figures in July and possible action in August.
