District 202’s finance team presented unaudited year‑end financials to the Board’s site and finance committee on Aug. 20, reporting overall revenues and expenditures close to budget but flagging an evidence‑based funding (EBF) tier change that will reduce expected state revenue next year.

Finance staff said year‑to‑date revenue was about $451 million (unaudited) with a favorable variance of $4.6 million. Local sources were reported at $261.7 million (favorable $3.7 million), state revenue about $152 million (unfavorable $9.26 million versus budget), and federal revenue about $18.5 million (favorable $1.8 million). Staff cautioned all figures are unaudited and subject to audit adjustments.

On expenditures, staff reported total spending of about $452.2 million, approximately $8.5 million more than budgeted; personnel and purchased services drove major variances. Staff explained some large variances were timing or account‑coding offsets (for example, technology purchases budgeted in equipment vs. purchases coded to services), and that transportation billing timing created a late spike in pupil‑transportation costs.

Finance staff told the committee they had budgeted a larger EBF payment for the coming year based on prior trends, but an email from the state education funding support group indicated the district will be classified as a Tier 2 district rather than Tier 1 for EBF. Staff said that change will lower projected state receipts and that they will analyze possible expenditure adjustments over the next months to keep fund‑balance targets in range.

Staff reviewed fund‑balance strategy and said the district has been intentionally using reserves to bring employee pay toward targeted percentiles while keeping a planned variance target (1–2% of budget). The presentation included monthly financial packs, treasurer’s reports and details by fund; staff will return with recommendations if budget reductions are needed.

No formal budget revision was adopted at the meeting; the committee received the unaudited report and planned follow‑up analysis.