Indian Prairie projects balanced five‑year budget, recommends $12 million transfer to capital for technology

Matt Ship, who presented the district’s updated financial forecast, told the Indian Prairie School District 204 Board of Education on May 5 that the business office now projects balanced budgets for the next five fiscal years while recommending a $12 million transfer from operating to the capital projects fund to support technology upgrades.

The recommendation follows final property tax extension numbers from DuPage and Will counties that increased next‑year property tax revenue by roughly $700,000 and pushed the district’s tax rate to its lowest level in about 12 years, Ship said. He told the board the district expects to end the current year with about 38.8% fund balance as a percentage of local revenue, above the district target of 25%.

Why it matters: The district’s long‑range forecast guides staffing, capital planning and bond sales that will finance the Safer Stronger 204 referendum projects. Ship said the transfer to capital would allow one‑time technology investments to be paid from capital rather than ongoing operations, producing operating savings and helping balance multi‑year projections.

Ship outlined the main drivers behind the revised forecast. He attributed the improvement to stronger new property development and rising property values, which produced the roughly $700,000 permanent increase in property tax revenue used across the five‑year forecast. He also said the business office trimmed planned staffing reductions for next year from about 19–20 full‑time equivalents (FTE) to about 10 FTE and recommended the $12 million transfer to cover technology needs that otherwise would have been met from operations.

Ship said the district is planning a large bond issue of about $150 million in July to fund referendum projects and will present a bond parameters resolution to the board at its May 19 meeting. He also said the district has already issued a smaller bond in December and that bond sizing and interest costs depend on market conditions. “We are planning on presenting a parameters resolution to the Board at the next Board meeting that will give us the authorization to go forward with that issuance,” Ship said.

The presentation highlighted both local strengths and external risks. Ship noted good news in local property wealth per pupil (EAV per pupil) and that the district’s 2024 bond rate came in just under the referendum commitment of 37¢, at about 33¢. He also warned of state and federal uncertainties: he said the state’s evidence‑based funding (EBF) commitment is being funded but that smaller categorical programs (about 4% of district revenue) remain at risk and are being prorated. In particular, he said recently enacted legislation to change how public outplacements are funded could reduce categorical proration from under 70% to roughly 40% and, if unresolved, might create about a $1.5 million annual impact on Indian Prairie’s revenues beginning in later fiscal years.

Ship also recapped federal‑level concerns — tariffs, swings in Treasury yields and potential changes to municipal bond tax treatment — and noted the district saved about $800,000 on a large Chromebook purchase because of timing. He said federal revenue represents only about 3–4% of total district revenue and the district is continuing to assume relatively flat state and federal revenues in its forecast.

Board members pressed for detail. Board member Mr. Rising asked for clarification on why some homeowners’ tax bills rose by more than the district levy increase, saying, “If 204 is only levying 3.4% on the operation side and we are only receiving 3.4% from the assessor, why do people’s taxes appear to go up more than 3.4%?” Ship explained that assessed values and the distribution of the tax burden — residential versus commercial — are set by township assessors and the state Department of Revenue, and that residential values in the district have been rising faster than commercial values, concentrating more of the levy burden on homeowners even though the district’s levy growth was limited by CPI and levy law.

Board members asked for follow‑up detail on the potential impact of categorical proration changes and on transportation and special‑education reimbursement trends. Ship said administration and the board’s legislative contacts would pursue solutions and that the district’s associations (for example, unit‑district associations) were discussing the issue with lawmakers.

Next steps: Ship told the board the business office will present the bond parameters resolution on May 19, a referendum project update on June 9 and a preliminary 2025–26 budget in July, with final budget approval required by September 30. He stressed that the recommended $12 million transfer is intended for one‑time technology capital needs and to provide multi‑year expenditure stability, not to fund recurring operating commitments.

Board members applauded the presentation and asked for additional detail on the proposed capital transfer and on state categorical risks ahead of the July tentative budget presentation.