Board hears facilities update and amended budget; staff to post budget for 30‑day public display

District staff presented an update on building projects, procurement practices and an amended fiscal‑year budget at the Moline Board of Education meeting at Bartlett Performance Arts Center on March 10, 2025. The board was told the amended budget will be posted for a 30‑day public display, followed by a public hearing and a planned adoption on April 14, after which the district will submit the budget to the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE).

The amended budget presentation tied directly to the district’s facility work, staff said. “So based on that facility presentation, this is partially why we are amending the budget,” a district finance staff member, Mr. Gallo, told the board as he outlined the schedule for public display and ISBE submission.

The nut graf: the district is shifting one‑time surplus dollars into capital projects and deferred maintenance while explaining how it chooses procurement methods. Staff said the changes will reduce a planned operating surplus and fund a slate of construction, roofing and security projects across the district.

Most important facts first: staff described completed projects such as a welding lab at Moline High School, stage lighting and secure entry work, and parking/playground resealing. Current and planned projects listed in the presentation included the Wilson fire alarm, Lincoln/Irving expansion, secure front entrances at Wilson and John Deere, MHS pool condition work requiring Illinois Department of Public Health review, D‑wing flooring abatement and infill, Browning Field upgrades, Franklin gym soundproofing, auditorium audio/projector upgrades, roof replacements at Jefferson and Logan, and multiple classroom and furniture upgrades. Staff identified Estes Construction and Leggett Architects as partners on some projects and said they are working with consultants for technical reviews (for example, the pool work and IDPH requirements).

On budget figures, staff reported revenue and expenditure allocations: roughly 68% of revenue is local, 23% state and about 9% federal; property taxes make up about 40% of revenue. Expenditure breakdowns shown to the board included personnel services at about 71% of the budget and capital outlay near 9%. Staff said the education fund’s ending balance was expected to fall from an originally projected $71,000,000 to about $69,900,000 but remain above roughly 200 days cash on hand.

Staff described the cause of the change: a plan to spend down part of a prior surplus. “Originally, in the education fund, we had a $1,200,000 surplus that we were planning on. But after all of these projects ... we’re probably gonna look at a $2,600,000 deficit, but that is solely due to the $6,000,000 surplus that we had last year,” the presenter said. Board members were told the district does not view the revised balance as a risk, given the multi‑month cash reserve.

The board also discussed procurement approaches. Staff explained three primary methods: requests for proposals (RFPs) for solution‑based work where factors other than price matter; invitations for bid (sealed bids) for well‑defined scopes and selection of the lowest responsible bidder; and cooperative purchasing (piggyback) agreements for equipment or smaller projects. A staff presenter asked the board to review an RFP evaluation rubric that was provided to members and invited feedback. One board member requested a one‑page glossary of procurement terms so members and the public could more easily understand why the district chooses one method over another.

What’s next: staff directed that the amended budget be placed on public display for 30 days, that a public hearing and adoption be scheduled for April 14, and that the adopted budget be filed with ISBE the next day. Several projects described still require external approvals (for example, IDPH review for pool mechanicals) or future board votes on specific contracts, staff said.

Quotes in context: Mr. Gallo summarized the timeline for the budget posting and ISBE submission. Dr. Savage (district leadership) described the district’s annual planning process and the move to a more frequent five‑year facilities plan, saying the district seeks stakeholder input and fiscally responsible sequencing for projects.

Ending: Board members asked follow‑up questions and suggested improved materials for future procurement briefings. No formal budget adoption vote occurred at the meeting; the presentation set the public display and hearing schedule and described the projects and financial tradeoffs that will be considered at the hearing and in upcoming votes.