Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hazel Park board hears strategic-plan input and 0‑based budgeting, staff urged to set fund‑balance target
Summary
Consultants and district staff walked the board through stakeholder input for a strategic plan, urged more survey participation (survey open until March 13) and recommended a fund‑balance goal and 0‑based budgeting steps to address an early‑warning fund status.
Get email alerts on the Strategic Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants and district staff used the committee workshop on Feb. 9 to gather board input for a strategic plan, review engagement timelines and outline steps to modernize budgeting and financial controls.
Greg Janicki of MASV led an input exercise that mirrored the online survey used with staff and community and asked board members to encourage participation; Janicki reported 95 online responses to date and said the survey remains open through March 13. He said the board retreat is scheduled for April 25 and that the strategic plan is expected to be presented for board consideration on June 15.
A second presentation from the district’s financial consultant focused on sustainability and 0‑based budgeting. Staff described work to break district accounts into cost centers, identify opaque line items and set a fund‑balance policy. The presentation cited Government Finance Officers Association guidance and GASB Statement 54, and recommended a minimum unassigned reserve target in the mid‑teens (15% or two months of operating expense) with a multiyear replenishment plan if the district falls short. Staff noted the district is currently in early‑warning status on fund balance and outlined a March 23 cost‑center budget milestone and a June 1 joint budget workshop with administration.
Board members debated where a reserve target should be recorded (policy vs. administrative procedures vs. organizational statement) and asked staff to return proposed administrative procedures that capture the target while avoiding rigid policy language that could be interpreted as mandatory. Several board members supported publishing a written board goal to communicate fiscal priorities during the coming budget process.
Administrators also reviewed capital priorities, RFP plans for facilities work and approaches to long‑range financial projections as part of the strategic‑plan and budgeting work.

