DeKalb school board signals consensus to pursue 24-classroom early learning center without a referendum

The DeKalb CUSD 428 Board of Education signaled consensus on Oct. — during a meeting that included public comment and a multi-department presentation — to pursue construction of a 24-classroom Early Learning and Development Center and to fund the project without placing a referendum on the ballot.

The discussion centered on district capacity for preschool and early childhood services, the effects of enrollment shifts at Huntley Middle School, and a larger “Vision for ’28” plan that would reconfigure grade centers across the district. Board members and cabinet presenters said building a dedicated ELDC would expand slots for preschool, reduce pressure on middle-school classrooms and lower long-term capital costs.

“We have a practical, reasonable solution, building new early learning and development center without raising taxes,” public commenter Jenny Smith said during public comment, adding that the district has funding available and that “a referendum is not required by the Illinois State Board of Education when a new building increases classroom space for early childhood education.”

Why it matters: District staff presented data showing a substantial waiting list for preschool and enrollment “bubbles” that will increase demand for middle-school classrooms in the next two years. Administrators told the board an ELDC could roughly double current preschool capacity, create new preschool-for-all slots, and support a reconfiguration that moves grades 7–8 into a single middle-school building and reassigns grades 5–6 to two former elementary sites. Cabinet members also said the project reduces or delays other capital needs that would otherwise require additional debt.

Details and estimates presented - Cost estimates: District staff reported a preliminary cost estimate of about $32.3 million for a 20-classroom ELDC and presented a figure of about $38.7 million for a 24-classroom model; staff said a 20-classroom building could be enlarged later if needed. (Presented by Amir Doka, director of business and finance.) - Funding approach: Administrators proposed using district-held capital balances and anticipated receipts from the city’s tax-increment (E‑Zone/Meta/Facebook) distributions rather than seeking voter approval via referendum. Amir Doka described a plan to “commit” funds into a facilities account so construction funds would not mix with operating money and to leverage adjacent public infrastructure work to reduce utility and site costs. - Operational offsets: The administration estimated that adding early-childhood slots would also bring state early‑childhood grant revenue. The district cited current early childhood block grant rates (about $3,900 per slot under current guidance) and said a full‑day rate could be roughly $8,500 per slot; staff estimated additional annual grant revenue of roughly $600,000–$900,000 under conservative assumptions and higher amounts if full‑day slots were funded at higher per‑slot rates. - Capacity & site: Cabinet members said the district owns a parcel donated by the Katz family (approximately 12.25 acres near Normal and Dresser) as a feasible site. Staff said the city and district are coordinating site infrastructure so costs can be shared or reduced.

Board discussion and consensus Board members debated two questions: how large the initial building should be (options presented included 16, 20 and 24 classrooms) and whether to place the project before voters. Several members argued for building bigger now (24 classrooms) to avoid higher future costs and to allow half-day and full-day scheduling options. Others urged greater community participation through a referendum. After extended discussion, a majority of board members indicated consensus to proceed with a 24-classroom ELDC funded without a referendum and to return to the board with a formal resolution committing funds and with project timelines and designs.

What the district will do next Administration will return to a future board meeting with formal resolutions and budget language to commit capital funds, a refined cost estimate and a project timeline. Cabinet members identified the next formal steps as: complete schematic design, confirm site utility costs, present a finalized cost and financing plan, and then seek board approval of construction contracts and project budgets. Staff repeatedly said a formal vote on bonding or fund commitment would come at a later meeting.

Quotations from presenters and staff “Constructing a 20‑classroom … building … is estimated to cost about $32.3 million,” Amir Doka said while summarizing preliminary cost estimates and funding options.

Dr. Minerva Garcia Sanchez, superintendent, and cabinet members framed the project as a multi‑year strategy to address early‑childhood access and future capital savings through a coordinated grade‑reconfiguration plan called Vision ’28.

Outlook District leaders told the board the earliest construction milestones would require final design and board authorization; staff presented a target timeline tied to achieving the full grade reconfiguration by school year 2028. Board members asked administrators to continue community engagement in advance of formal votes and to return with firm cost figures and draft resolutions.

The board’s consensus does not constitute a binding, final authorization; a formal funding resolution and vote are expected at a later meeting.