Oak Park‑River Forest SD 200 reviews $91 million operating budget, fund‑balance policy and Project 2 update

Oak Park‑River Forest SD 200 board members and staff held a community engagement session on April 28, 2025, to review the district’s finances, capital spending and related policies. Presenters said the district’s operating budget is roughly $91,000,000, with local property taxes as the primary revenue source and state and federal dollars accounting for smaller shares.

The session aimed to explain “what the board is responsible for versus what the district leadership team is responsible for,” speakers said, and to give community members context on budget choices, reserves and major capital work. The board emphasized that policy changes adopted in recent years now codify a 25–50% fund‑balance guideline and clarify the budgetary process used to set levy and capital decisions.

Fred, staff member, presented the budget overview and said, “Our operating budget is roughly $91,000,000.” He described the district’s revenue mix as led by local property taxes with smaller amounts from investment earnings and food service sales, and noted that state funding is provided through the state’s evidence‑based funding model. Tony, staff member, confirmed the state allocation method, referring to “the evidence based funding model” used to distribute state resources to districts.

On expenditures, presenters said personnel costs dominate the budget. “Salaries are the largest by far” and account for about 61% of expenditures, with employee benefits the next largest item, followed by purchase services (about 11%), which includes contracted transportation, audits and outside technology services.

The board and staff described benchmarking and external reviews as part of budget oversight. Presenters said the district compares itself to eight peer districts and noted several independent measures of fiscal health: an S&P rating identified in the presentation, an unqualified audit opinion from outside auditors for the most recent fiscal year, and a Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Association of School Business Officials International for multiple years.

Fund balance and reserves were central to the discussion. Presenters said the district has carried an unusually large fund balance in recent years and now plans to normalize reserves within board policy — a 25–50% range of annual operating expenses. Tom, staff member, said the five‑year forecast is critical because it shows whether projections are conservative, base‑case or optimistic, and helps guide levy and spending decisions.

Presenters described how capital spending is funded. For capital shortfalls, the administration said it typically calculates the expected shortfall and then seeks board approval for an interfund transfer to cover capital bills when they become due. Tony described the mechanics: administration “would bring forward what’s called an interfund transfer, approval,” and the board approves such transfers when presented.

Project 2 — the district’s high‑profile construction program — was discussed as part of ongoing capital work. Speakers said routine facility maintenance, safety improvements, HVAC replacements and accessibility upgrades are managed through multi‑year planning and the district’s 10‑year plan. Presenters acknowledged procurement risks such as tariffs and noted that starting work earlier on long‑lead items can reduce exposure to price volatility.

Sustainability and community involvement were highlighted. Presenters said the district created a sustainability policy with input from students, community members and staff; the sustainability committee and a scorecard inform capital and operational decisions. One presenter noted that students are active members of the sustainability committee and the district’s environmental club.

Compensation and labor obligations were also raised. Presenters said the district has four collective bargaining agreements that cover the majority of personnel costs; the largest contract — the teachers’ contract — is up for renewal in summer 2026. Speakers stressed the balance between maintaining competitive compensation and living within the five‑year forecast.

On investments, presenters described a conservative strategy that places holdings in CDs and money markets and staggers maturities so cash is available when needed. They said many holdings are sized to remain below FDIC insurance limits to protect liquidity.

The board discussed levy timing and limits. Presenters said levy decisions are made annually in December and noted that Illinois statutes limit the maximum levy; the district has historically taken less than the maximum levy capacity. The five‑year forecast and fund‑balance targets are used as checks and balances when setting the levy.

The session closed with questions from board members about capital funding mechanics, cybersecurity and emerging needs (for example, AI and cybersecurity tools). Presenters reiterated that policy typically sets thresholds for board approval — for example, that expenditures or contracts above specified thresholds must come to the board — and that administration brings recommendations and offset plans when non‑budgeted needs arise.

There were no public comments at the start of the meeting. Thomas Kraske moved to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.; the motion was seconded and carried. The board adjourned after the presentation.