Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the District Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Plainfield SD 202 finance committee previews tax-levy numbers, formalizes fund‑balance rules and pares capital plan

6489714 · October 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Finance staff told the Oct. 15 committee that preliminary county valuations and CPI assumptions produce a projected tax extension of about $225.5 million, recommended a flowchart to treat certain reserves as restricted when assessing the district’s 30–50% operating fund target, and proposed paring 2025–26 capital work from roughly $18.5 million to $4.4 million.

Plainfield School District 202 finance staff presented a preliminary tax‑levy outlook, a recommended fund‑balance strategy and a trimmed capital projects list at a committee meeting on Oct. 15.

Tax‑levy and valuation preview

Staff reported an Oct. 1 projected net equalized assessed valuation (EAV) near $5.8 billion and noted a projected adjusted valuation base used in calculations of about $5.7 billion. Using a current consumer‑price index figure of 2.9% (the lower of CPI or the statutory 5% cap), staff said the district projects a tax extension in the order of $225,500,000 for the coming levy.

Fund‑balance strategy

Under current policy the district maintains a target operating fund balance between 30% and 50% of operating expenditures. Finance staff said they will adopt a structured flow to determine how to act if audited fund balances exceed 50%: the flowchart first considers possible revenue reductions and district initiatives, then removes restricted reserves and specified items before deciding whether to abate levy, reduce the levy or set aside funds for future obligations.

For the Oct. 15 review staff proposed treating several items as restricted when calculating the 50% threshold, including (figures as presented in committee): evidence‑based funding ($1.8M), restricted self‑insurance fund ($20.2M), activity accounts ($2.7M), lease certificates ($2.8M) and debt certificates (payment for One Oaks, $1.2M). Staff said the approach provides a transparent mechanism to consider tax abatement or other actions only after non‑recurring items are accounted for.

Capital projects

Staff proposed deferring several nonessential projects and reducing the board’s negotiated capital authorization for the year. The original list totaled roughly $18.5 million; the staff recommendation presented to the committee was to advance about $4.4 million in capital work now (boiler replacements, high‑priority roofs and playground surfacing) and defer the remainder to preserve operating flexibility.

Committee action and next steps

Committee members voted to receive the financial reports and to move the recommended items forward for board consideration; staff said they will bring the final levy recommendation and a fuller presentation to the board in November or December after final county EAV figures are available. Staff noted a possible October 24–31 release window for state report timing and said they will return with EAV per student data if requested by trustees.