Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CUSD 300 reviews master facility plan and funding options for FY26–27
Summary
Consultants and district finance staff presented a prioritized five-year master facility plan and a range of funding options including life-safety bonds, debt certificates and a potential Kane County school facility sales tax; the board asked for more detailed funding scenarios before deciding priorities.
CUSD 300 administrators and consultant Leggett presented a five-year master facility plan and a menu of financing options during the board operations committee meeting, with administrators urging the board to consider which projects to prioritize in fiscal years 2026 and 2027.
The plan outlines “good, better, best” tiers for projects—starting with essential safety and compliance work, then capacity and educational enhancements—and identifies roughly $68,000,000 in life-safety needs and $480,477,008.87 in non-life-safety projects over five years, according to the presentation.
Kelsey Jordan, a consultant from Leggett, reviewed the planning process and the good/better/best criteria, and highlighted recommended projects for 2026, including an addition at Parkview to address secure entry and capacity, and traffic improvements near Westfield. Jordan said the district is prioritizing safety and compliance first, then capacity and educational enhancements.
Liz Hennessy, who presented the funding analysis, said the district’s capital projects fund balance is about $69,000,000 and noted the district typically transfers about $8,000,000 per year from operations to capital. Hennessy outlined options to finance the plan: life-safety bonds (outside the tax cap, requiring life-safety amendments to the regional office of education and final approval from the Illinois State Board of Education), debt certificates or alternate bonds paid from operating revenues, a county school facility sales tax (a countywide sales-tax referendum being discussed in Kane and McHenry counties), and school building bonds that would require a district referendum.
Hennessy said preliminary totals shown for FY26 and FY27 include approximately $26,600,000 for FY26 and about $117,000,000 for FY27. She emphasized that some non-referendum options (life-safety bonds, capital fund balance and debt certificates) could address projects planned for 2026–27, while the broader five-year plan likely would require referendum-backed or county sales-tax financing.
Board members asked for more detailed scenarios showing which funding sources would free up what amounts and how different financing choices would affect the district’s tax rate and operating funds. A board member said the materials were dense and requested a separate walkthrough of the funding scenarios. Hennessy agreed to provide additional breakdowns.
Administrators noted that the board will be asked to approve the master facility plan (a five-to-ten-year plan) before the board would decide on specific funding actions. Jordan and Hennessy said funding decisions could change the schedule for projects and that the good/better/best framework lets the district adjust scope based on available financing.
No formal motions or votes on funding were recorded during the meeting; the presentation concluded with agreement to provide further detail for board consideration.
The board operations committee scheduled its next meeting for March 11, 2025.
