Higley USD reviews FY2026–27 capital outlay budget; district braces for limited state relief
Loading...
Summary
At a first review of the FY2026–27 capital outlay budget, district staff outlined steady per‑pupil capital rates, reclassification of some software costs into department budgets, planned leaseback payments for two middle schools and limited short‑term relief from a long‑running state capital funding lawsuit.
President Wade convened the Higley Unified School District governing board on April 20, where district staff presented the first review of the FY2026–27 capital outlay budget.
Miss Rushcamp, who led the presentation, said the district is carrying forward the same per‑pupil capital allocation it has used for the last three years: $549.45 per ADM for kindergarten through eighth grade and $600.86 per ADM for grades nine through 12, plus a $84.93 textbook allocation for high school grades. Rushcamp described capital as the district’s District Additional Assistance (DAA) and contrasted it with M&O (maintenance and operations), which covers salaries, benefits and supplies.
The presentation flagged several notable budgeting choices for next year: the district will not include an inflation adjustment in its capital ADM figures; certain software purchases will be moved from an IT central budget into department budgets so departments see full lifecycle costs; and the district will not rely on transfers from M&O to fund major projects going forward because the M&O override expires after FY2027. Rushcamp said the district will continue a customary transfer for leaseback costs to cover two leased middle schools.
On major maintenance, Rushcamp said the district plans to budget roughly $2 million for projects including HVAC work, chiller and cooling‑tower repairs (two cooling towers failed this year) and a flooring project at one campus. For technology, the draft allocates roughly $800,000 for student devices, $300,000 for staff refresh and $1,200,000 for district‑wide software (the latter includes a 10% inflation assumption).
The presentation also reviewed estimated carryover: the district projects roughly $4.5 million available to bring into FY2028 and a budget capacity figure of about $6.8 million. Rushcamp cautioned these are conservative estimates and that final numbers will depend on legislative action and textbook adoption outcomes.
Board members pressed staff on contingency balances and long‑term alignment between capital plans and facility needs. Board member Van Hook asked how the capital plan aligns with preventive maintenance and the district’s long‑term facility plan; Rushcamp said staff maintain spreadsheets and a capital plan that prioritize painting, carpet replacement and scheduled preventative work to avoid larger capital replacements.
On state funding, Rushcamp reiterated that the district’s capital lawsuit—filed in 2017 and decided in the district’s favor last fall—will not deliver immediate relief. She said the state has eight months under a court order to propose a funding solution, and that appeals were filed nine days later; as a result, any redistribution of funds could take years and should not be counted on in next year’s budget.
Looking ahead, staff said the board will receive a second review in May that would allow tentative approval and permit requisitions for FY2027 work with the understanding that projects could only begin on or after July 1. The proposed combined M&O and capital budget will be presented on June 2, with a planned adoption on June 23.
The board did not take a final vote on the capital budget at the meeting; staff will return with updates and refined numbers at upcoming meetings.
