Harlem UD 122 reviews budget shortfall and recommends multiple procurements including six buses and a dust‑collection system

Harlem UD 122 finance staff reported a projected net budget deficit and presented multiple procurement recommendations intended to improve operations and contain costs.

Finance and business staff told the board they project a net deficit for the coming year in the range of approximately $3.8 million to $5.0 million after accounting for expected revenue changes. Staff highlighted a recent healthcare spending spike, reporting a $716,000 increase in high‑cost claims over three months and warning that health insurance trends are pressuring the district’s finances.

As part of the operational response, staff recommended awarding a bus contract to Central States Bus Sales for six buses (three conventional buses at $449,370 and three transit front‑engine buses at $514,740) for a combined cost of $964,110. Don West, director of transportation, and business staff described trade‑in values, bus cycle strategies and that the recommended vehicles are diesel Bluebird models after competitive bids and price comparisons with international manufacturers.

Facilities and administration recommended awarding a high‑school dust‑collection system contract to Miller Engineering for $370,917 from the life‑safety fund. The system is custom to the shop equipment and staff said the winning bid was substantially below an earlier estimate.

Other recommendations discussed included a contract with I A Health Care Inc. to provide nursing services at Loves Park Elementary at $80 per hour (approximately $60,000 to be paid from IDEA Part B funds for the remainder of the year), and a $10,500 Title I school‑improvement tutor contract for Rock Elementary. The board also reviewed a $3,600 one‑time cost to migrate Munis reporting off Crystal Reports to a SQL Server‑based reporting platform and discussed staff training for ongoing report writing.

Administration proposed issuing a new RFQ for benefits consulting (current consultant Gallagher) to ensure competitive pricing and stronger vendor services and recommended engaging an energy consultant (Nania Energy) to help with electricity procurement and community‑solar planning to lower energy costs and manage billing complexity. Staff described reverse‑auction techniques and potential fee structures to reduce current electricity supply charges.

Several board members asked for additional cost details, lifecycle assumptions and clarifications about how these procurements affect short‑term cash flow; staff replied that some items are funded from dedicated funds (life‑safety, IDEA Part B, Title I) and that transportation and energy procurement decisions will be revisited as state reimbursements and trade‑in values are finalized. No final roll‑call votes on the bids were recorded in the transcript; the items were presented with recommendations for board approval and discussion.