The District 59 business office presented a long-range budget timeline and assumptions for fiscal 2026, explaining why the district is projecting about $162,000,000 in budgeted expenditures, why operating fund balances are high and how the district plans to use capital reserves for construction projects instead of issuing a bond.

The presentation laid out calendar steps: Skyward budget entry opened in February, department allocations expected in late March, a board budget hearing anticipated in August, budget adoption targeted for Sept. 30 and state submission by Oct. 31. The business official said some dates routinely slip and described the budget as a “living, breathing document.”

Why it matters: board members were shown that the district’s operating fund balance (Ed Fund, O&M, transportation, working cash) is strong — the presentation cited a 75.9% operating-fund balance figure — while the broader set of funds including capital projects (the “60” fund) held nearly $140 million in beginning balances. Staff said the larger dollar amounts in the FY26 expenditures reflect capital projects in progress, not overspending: payments on projects such as Brentwood and HVAC upgrades are held until punch lists and sign-offs are complete.

District staff described revenue assumptions: about 87% of revenue is projected to be local, roughly 10% state and about 3% federal for the year presented. The business office warned that some mandated state categorical funding may be prorated and federal pandemic-era funds (ESSER) have declined. The presentation noted a projected rise in interest earnings from about $400,000 in FY23 to roughly $4,000,000 as the district laddered investments while interest rates were higher.

Staff walked through key expense drivers: salary and benefits remain the largest category, with benefits increases noted (medical PPO 13.9% noted; dental and workers’ comp percentages referenced). Capital projects listed in the presentation included a Brentwood project (presenter cited $15,000,000 as the contract amount still largely unpaid), an ELC HVAC upgrade (cited as $1.185 million in an example slide) and a mobile unit for John Jay (projected in the low six figures). The capital projects fund was shown drawing down from roughly $18 million toward a projected balance around $9.4 million after the planned work.

Board members asked about oversight and constraints on building- and department-level budget requests. The business official said the office aligns requests with district goals and reviews recent multi-year spending trends to flag outliers; purchasing staff and a designated purchasing agent assist buildings with price comparisons and bid processes. The district uses a procurement card (P-card) program with controls and said the last day to charge for the fiscal year is June 30.

Several trustees pushed staff to produce more transparent, regular budget detail for the community and the board. Staff said the full budget book will be posted to the district website with links and that staff will deliver the state budget form and account-level details in future updates. The business office also agreed to provide a schedule or crosswalk showing the 10-year facility plan items and completion status on projects for board review.

Board members and the business office emphasized a longer-term staffing conversation: the presenter noted the district has about 1,100 employees for about 6,000 students and recommended strategic staffing decisions tied to long-term plans rather than ad hoc hires, which have recurring long-term cost implications.

The presentation closed with staff saying the district is intentionally spending down some non-operating capital balances to complete projects while maintaining sufficient operating reserves.