Oak Park–River Forest committee reviews levy scenarios after FY26 budget updates

The Oak Park–River Forest School District 200 Community Finance Committee reviewed the district's finalized fiscal year 2026 budget and discussed three tax‑levy scenarios — with a fourth scenario to be added to the board packet — to maintain a healthy fund balance while limiting taxpayer disruption.

The committee heard from Tony Arras and Brian (finance staff) that updated state estimates for replacement taxes and payroll reconciliations improved the district's projection since the tentative budget. The administration now projects an ending operating fund balance of about $31,500,000, roughly 33% of operating expenditures, up about one percentage point from the August tentative budget.

Committee members then examined three levy scenarios prepared by finance staff and discussed a fourth, hybrid option to smooth recapture of prior under‑levy amounts. Scenario 1 would levy CPI plus new property each year (estimated 3.48% in 2025) and requires about $1.2 million of expenditure or transfer reductions beginning in fiscal 2027 (about $18.5 million over four years) to hold the fund‑balance ratio at or above 33%. Scenario 2 would pursue a larger immediate recapture, levying 5% in 2025 to recover roughly $1.7 million this year and the remainder the next year; that approach would increase the district portion of the tax on a $400,000 home by about $167 in 2025 but would require roughly $1.5 million of reductions by fiscal 2028 (about $9.7 million over the three‑year stretch shown). Scenario 3 smooths revenue with a 3.5% levy in each of the next three years, which would recapture some prior under‑levy dollars while limiting year‑to‑year swings; it shows a $700,000 reduction target beginning in fiscal 2027 and about $11.2 million over four years. Staff will add a Scenario 4 that smooths the recapture dollar amount (for example, roughly $700,000 per year) to the board packet for next week's meeting.

The committee reviewed the mechanics and constraints of recapture: a district that levied less than the maximum in prior years may certify and recapture the difference in a subsequent levy year if (1) a certification was filed in the year the district levied below the maximum, (2) the recapture does not push the levy above the 5% PTELL cap in any single year, and (3) the district holds an Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) recognition or review financial designation in the year of the recapture. Committee members were told District 200 has about $2.1 million of recapture available from 2023–2024 levies (approximately $1.1 million from 2023 and $1.0 million from 2024); those amounts expire if not recaptured within the statutory window.

Committee members raised implementation questions and priorities: some members pressed for immediate identification of expenditure reductions rather than relying solely on levy revenue, citing rising special‑education costs, transportation and insurance trends, and the need to align staffing to enrollment. Others favored smoothing the recapture to avoid large one‑year increases and to preserve flexibility for future boards to reduce the levy if cost savings are found. Staff described levy timing: board review next week, an estimated levy in early November, and a December public hearing and adoption (the district traditionally holds a Truth in Taxation hearing even when not legally required). Committee members also asked staff for additional context — the long‑term capital plan, clearer ties between the evidence‑based funding (EBF) metrics and staffing, and sensitivity runs showing different CPI outcomes — to inform any recommendation.

No formal committee vote was recorded. Finance staff said they will add an additional scenario reflecting the committee's smoothing suggestion to the board packet and will provide follow‑up materials (capital plan, EBF comparisons and sensitivity analyses) before the committee meets again.

Why it matters: district leaders said maintaining a fund balance near the 33% level provides a cushion against Cook County's unpredictable tax‑collection timing and the district's exposure to large drivers such as collective bargaining and special‑education costs. Committee members noted that revenue choices and expenditure reductions work together: a higher levy reduces near‑term pressure on reserves but pushes decisions about structural savings into future years; lower levies preserve short‑term taxpayer relief but may necessitate earlier, more substantial spending reductions.

The committee expects to finalize recommendations for the board at upcoming meetings; finance staff will present the four scenarios at the board's next regular meeting.