Huron Valley Schools reviews budget projections as board weighs cuts and fund-balance use

Administrators presented a detailed budget work session showing the district is balancing lower state revenue, enrollment declines and rising operating costs against program priorities and fund balance.

Mister Van Gogham, who led the presentation, said the board had previously approved an earlier budget that “showed a expenditures over revenue budget of about 2 and a half million dollars” and walked the board through later adjustments that expanded the estimated shortfall to about $6.5 million before the administration’s proposed reductions. He told the board the district’s blended full-time-equivalent count is 7,415 and that the current per-pupil foundation figure used in the draft is $10,050.

The presentation flagged specific revenue and cost pressures: a roughly $150,000 reduction in prior-year insurance-claim revenue, higher fuel and utility costs (the transportation garage’s recent fuel fill cost “a little over $50,000”), and contracted transportation increases for specialized routes. Van Gogham said those factors, combined with a modest projected enrollment decline of roughly 200 students, contributed to the gap.

To narrow the shortfall, administration described a package of strategic adjustments including smaller operational cuts, trimming certain one-time or nonessential purchases, rightsizing some classroom staffing to reflect enrollment, and reducing portions of private security costs. Those moves, coupled with using a portion of the district’s maintenance and operations fund balance, were projected to lower the forecasted imbalance to about $2.5 million.

“We took a long hard look at some of our expenditures,” Van Gogham said, and recommended presenting a more conservative budget in two weeks for board approval.

Board members pressed administration for specifics. Missus Pestana asked whether athletics are part of the general fund and how activity and athletic funds are tracked; Van Gogham confirmed athletics are included in the general fund while distinct activity funds are tracked separately. On early childhood and school-age care, board members noted those programs are showing operating losses. Van Gogham and Dr. Salah described staffing constraints, inconsistent daily attendance patterns and competition from tuition-free programs as contributing factors and said administration has explored collaborative options such as partnerships with community providers.

Several trustees expressed unease about the strategy of drawing fund balance to cover recurring costs. “I’m frustrated because… these are people,” said Amy, emphasizing the human impact of staffing and class-size decisions. Treasurer Mister Wiseman urged caution and noted the district’s historically conservative budgeting approach; he said audits in past years have sometimes reduced projected structural deficits but that the board cannot count on one-time fixes indefinitely.

Administrators emphasized the budget presented is a work session—not a final vote—and that the state foundation allowance remains uncertain; the draft assumes a $200 per-pupil increase but legislators were discussing $250 per pupil. The board scheduled follow-up action items and planned to revisit third- and fourth-quarter adjustments and the full 2026–27 budget at the June 1 meeting.

The presentation closed with administration asking members to submit follow-up questions and staff to bring more detailed supplemental documentation before any final vote.

The board will consider adoption of a balanced budget by the statutory June 30 deadline.