Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hazel Park previews tentative 2026–27 budget with EV buses, special‑education expansion and modest staffing increases
Summary
At a June 1 workshop the Hazel Park School District outlined a tentative 2026–27 budget that includes $1.6 million for electric buses, a net addition of nine positions (estimated $677,000 in salary and benefits), and plans to add special‑education resource rooms as special‑ed enrollment rose from 583 to 634 this spring. The budget is framed as 'teaching and learning' focused but remains subject to state funding and pending legislation.
Board workshop participants reviewed a tentative 2026–27 budget that district staff and their consultants described as ‘‘a teaching and learning budget’’ focused on curriculum, student supports and stability while flagging exposure to state funding changes.
Rochelle, one of the consultants presenting the overview, told the board: "It's a teaching and learning budget. It's about kids," framing the broader priorities of the draft. Staff said the district is using a zero‑based budgeting process to link each cost to an educational justification and to rebuild public confidence through transparency.
Why it matters: The tentative budget shows increases in a few prioritized areas while projecting a healthier fund balance than in recent years. That gives the district more flexibility to manage grant timing, reimbursement lags and unexpected repairs, but several revenue assumptions remain contingent on the state budget and pending legislation, presenters warned.
Major details
- Electric buses and capital: Finance staff and Monica Papazian said the tentative budget reflects $1.6 million in EV bus capital tied to ordered vehicles; the district also kept a $75,000 used‑bus line item for replacement/rotation. "We have the $1.6 million for the EV buses," Monica said when summarizing capital requests.
- Special education: Megan, the student‑services presenter, told the board the district recorded a rise in special‑education counts (from 583 in the fall to 634 in the spring) and proposed adding 2.0 FTE to support level‑4 resource classrooms, including a $16,623 furniture package for a Hoover classroom and $81,070 in curriculum/subscription additions to serve newly opened rooms and students with higher needs.
- Staffing and personnel: The tentative budget includes a net increase of nine positions with an estimated salary-and‑benefits cost of $677,000. Some positions remain pending formal board approval; other line items were retained at zero cost for tracking.
- Curriculum and instructional pilots: Presenters highlighted planned or conditional purchases, including an estimated $225,000 for K–5 math resources (part of a ~$293,000 math pilot package that includes materials and pilot‑teacher compensation), $35,000 for ARC core curricular materials for 12th grade, and ongoing professional development for dyslexia/Orton‑Gillingham implementation.
- Transportation and student access: Transportation staff reported buses have been ordered and that the EV bus capital is reflected in next year’s budget; the district presented a plan to add one bus and driver to increase in‑district service to United Oaks and Hoover should the board approve the service. Staff noted air‑quality problems at the transportation garage that currently require staff to work out of a classroom space.
- Revenue assumptions and fund balance: Enrollment projections presented were 2,868 for 2026–27 (up slightly from a recent actual of 2,839). Presenters included the governor’s budget figures as the working assumption (reporting a $1,104,000 positive change from the governor's proposal in their slides) but cautioned about cuts in categorical lines such as bilingual (Section 41) and the volatility of 31A grants. With the tentative assumptions and planned amendment items, the district projected an ending fund balance of about $5.8 million (approximately 10.04%).
Board questions and uncertainties
Board members asked repeated clarifying questions about whether ‘‘additional cost’’ items represented new spending or reallocated amounts, how pilot and grant funding would be split between general and grant funds, and the basis for some enrollment projections (particularly large year‑to‑year jumps in some alternative‑education grades). Presenters repeatedly noted that some items would be delayed or held pending state guidance, grant awards or staffing availability.
Next steps
The budget materials presented were described as tentative; presenters and consultants said amendment‑4 items would be brought forward in the coming week and the superintendent and business office would keep the board updated as state budget actions and grant awards change the district’s estimates. No formal budget adoption vote occurred at the workshop. The meeting adjourned after routine closing remarks.
