Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary CCSD 26 treasurer outlines 2025 levy plan; proposes modest reallocation to replenish operating funds
Summary
Business manager Mr. Shepherd presented a first look at the 2025 tax levy and the September financial report, recommending a levy request of $28.49 million (about 3.44% over last year) while reallocating increases toward operation & maintenance and Social Security/IMRF to restore funds that ran deficits.
Mr. Shepherd, Cary CCSD 26's business manager/treasurer, presented the district's September financials and a first look at the 2025 tax levy at the Oct. 20 committee meeting.
Shepherd reported that September uploads contained no errors and that local revenues are tracking at roughly 80% of expected for this point in the year. He said federal revenues have declined compared with pandemic-era funding: the district received about $3.2 million in ESSER 3 funding in past years but expects roughly $1.2 million in federal revenues this year. He identified Title I, II, III and IV funds as targeted federal supports and cautioned that Title funding levels appear uncertain for fiscal 2027.
On investments and capital funds, Shepherd said the district holds about $13 million in staggered investments, with approximately $3.25 million placed this month maturing in early spring. The capital-improvement referendum passed in November 2024 remains the district's primary capital funding source; Shepherd reported roughly $12 million remaining in referendum funds after summer projects and September construction payments of about $482,000.
Shepherd explained the mechanics of the tax levy (prior-year extension, CPI, equalized assessed value and new construction) and noted the December 2024 CPI figure of 2.9 as the primary driver. The administration estimated the district could receive about $28.35 million; Shepherd proposed asking for $28.49 million (3.44% over last year's extension) to capture available revenue and to reallocate growth to operation & maintenance and to Social Security/IMRF to address prior-year deficits. Transportation funding, he said, remains a "wild card" because roughly half the transportation budget depends on state reimbursements and those payments were delayed or reduced earlier in the year.
Board members asked for clearer public-facing visuals, including a combined salary-and-benefits figure and a per-student cost slide. Shepherd agreed to include a per-student breakdown at the next levy look and said solar energy savings were not yet included because realized savings are not available.
Shepherd warned that long-term projections depend on CPI, state and federal funding levels and on how the district manages post-referendum capital needs; he recommended a cautious approach to committing recurring expenditures to fund balance.
