Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parkland SD projects $246 million in 2026–27 revenue; board warned local funding still drives per‑student costs
Summary
At a Feb. 17 workshop, district staff told the board Parkland’s 2026–27 revenue assumptions rise to about $246 million, with roughly 70% of revenue from local sources and per‑student spending averaging about $23,000; special‑education costs and flat state funding were singled out as pressure points.
Leslie, the district’s presentation lead, told the board at the Feb. 17 workshop that updated revenue assumptions put Parkland School District’s 2026–27 budgeted revenues at about $246 million — roughly $923,000 higher than the board’s January assumption. “We have increased our revenue, budget assumptions to an estimated 246 million dollars of budget revenues,” Leslie said during the presentation.
The slide deck showed Parkland’s revenue mix remains heavily local: roughly 70% local, under 30% state and less than 1% federal. On a per‑student basis, the district’s total cost to educate a student rose from about $18,900 in 2019–20 to roughly $23,000 in the 2026–27 proposed budget.
Board members and staff repeatedly flagged the district’s structural reliance on local revenue. Leslie noted real estate assessed‑value growth has helped the district in recent years — taxable assessed value rose from about $8.2 billion (2019–20) to a projected $9.3 billion for 2026–27 — but cautioned that appeals and the timing of new development can reduce realizable revenue. “That assessed value growth generates about $20 million of tax revenue annually to the district,” she said.
Special education emerged as a particular pressure point. Staff presented district special‑education spending per student at roughly $26,575 for 2026–27 while state special‑education funding per student has declined in real terms; board members said the state formula exists but argued that available state dollars have not kept pace. “As our special‑ed costs have increased, our special population has increased; the state funding for special‑ed students has actually decreased,” a board member summarized during the discussion.
On state funding, staff built early revenue assumptions off the governor’s budget but cautioned the House and Senate had not finalized figures. Much of Parkland’s projected state revenue growth in the presentation came from reimbursement line items tied to specific expenditures, not broad increases to basic education aid.
Next steps: the board heard that March meetings will shift to expenditures and staffing, with more detailed proposals and potential cuts to be presented ahead of the district’s budget seminar in May and final adoption in June.
What to watch: staff will return with detailed expenditure scenarios in March, and any material changes to county assessments or the state budget could prompt further revisions before the final adoption timeline.
