Tempe board adopts final FY25–26 budget revision after CFO details enrollment, special‑education weighting

The Tempe School District governing board voted May 6 to adopt the final revision to its fiscal year 2025–26 expenditure budget after a public hearing in which Chief Financial Officer Eric Thompson explained how enrollment and special‑education weightings affect revenue.

Thompson told the board the district’s funding is driven by enrollment (Group A weights) and additional “Group B” weights for students with higher needs. He said kindergarten counts as one‑half for funding purposes, the district’s total average daily membership dipped by about 223 students, but special‑education identification rose by 36 students this year — each with a Group B weight of roughly 5.988, “so when you multiply the 36 by the 5.988, it’s the equivalent of gaining 216 students,” Thompson said.

That extra weighted enrollment, Thompson said, helped offset revenue losses from declining regular enrollment. He reported the district’s available spending capacity at roughly $114,000,000 (including continuing funding and carryover) and said capital funds included a $7,000,000 capital override plus an $11,000,000 carryover balance.

Why it matters: board members pressed for clarity on whether higher special‑education counts produce a net financial gain after extra services are provided. Mr. Cherry — a board member — asked whether the increase in special‑education students represents better identification or a referral shift; Thompson said both: the district has improved child‑find and corrected prior misclassifications. Dr. Driscoll warned that state budget or formula changes could alter next year’s position, noting the governor had rejected a proposed state budget earlier the same day.

Board members also asked how identification timing affects funding. Thompson said funding depends on when services begin and that the district can set the student information system to match the service start date; late‑year identifications will not generate a full year’s funding. The board asked about staffing and caseloads; administrators said they monitor ratios, provide additional pay when caseloads exceed thresholds and are raising starting salaries for specialists to reduce reliance on expensive contract providers.

The board discussed carryover limits and earlier cost‑cutting steps. Miss Eures noted the district drew down reserves and asked when the carryover would become critical; Thompson said cuts made earlier (including the $7 million identified in January) were designed to preserve viability and that the district expects to be comfortable in the near term unless enrollment declines further.

Outcome: After discussion the board adopted the final revision to the FY25–26 annual expenditure budget by voice vote. The public hearing was closed at the end of the budget discussion.