Overview: During the recent Belleville School Board meeting, concerns were raised regarding the installation of a chemical treatment system at School No. 8 and the middle school, with an allocation of nearly $113,000. The discussion centered on whether the system was intended for potable drinking water or other uses, such as heating or cleaning. The potential risk to student safety if the treatment involved drinking water heightened the need for clarity. Additionally, an appropriation of nearly $9,000 for hazardous chemical management services in the high school science department was questioned, as it involved hiring an outside firm to dispose of hazardous materials. The board’s budgetary decisions came under further scrutiny when a participant critiqued the previous budget proposal, which initially called for a 10.2% increase in the local tax levy. Despite a reduction to a 4% increase, the final decision resulted in a 6.4% increase imposed by the district, prompting questions about the justification for exceeding the typical 2% cap, given the additional state aid of over $75 million.

Overview: During the recent Belleville School Board meeting, concerns were raised regarding the installation of a chemical treatment system at School No. 8 and the middle school, with an allocation of nearly $113,000. The discussion centered on whether the system was intended for potable drinking water or other uses, such as heating or cleaning. The potential risk to student safety if the treatment involved drinking water heightened the need for clarity. Additionally, an appropriation of nearly $9,000 for hazardous chemical management services in the high school science department was questioned, as it involved hiring an outside firm to dispose of hazardous materials. The board’s budgetary decisions came under further scrutiny when a participant critiqued the previous budget proposal, which initially called for a 10.2% increase in the local tax levy. Despite a reduction to a 4% increase, the final decision resulted in a 6.4% increase imposed by the district, prompting questions about the justification for exceeding the typical 2% cap, given the additional state aid of over $75 million.