Central CUSD 301 board gets detailed finance briefing ahead of $90 million budget adoption

Dana, a district staff member who led the finance presentation, told the board on Nov. 7 that the district will present a proposed FY26 budget of about $90,000,000 for adoption this fall and that auditors will review finances at a July 21 session.

"We have 8 funds that we use within our budget," Dana said, summarizing the district's account structure and how revenues and expenditures are restricted or permitted among those funds. She described Fund 10 as the education fund (salaries, instructional services, TRS‑eligible benefits), Fund 20 for operations and maintenance (custodial, utilities, grounds), Fund 30 for debt service (bond principal and interest), Fund 40 for transportation, Fund 50 for IMRF and Social Security, Fund 60 for capital projects (fed by impact fees), Fund 70 for working cash and Fund 80 for tort/insurance costs.

The presenter said local property taxes are the district's largest revenue source. Based on the slide she showed, roughly 77% of revenues come from local sources, about 21% from the state and about 2% from federal grants. Dana noted the district receives evidence‑based funding from the state and that Central 301 is currently categorized in tier 1, which increases the district's EBF allocation relative to higher tiers.

Dana walked the board through how various revenue streams flow to funds: tax levy amounts are broken out by fund during the levy process; impact fees from the City of Elgin are applied to the debt service fund to offset a roughly $500,000 annual debt certificate payment; and the capital projects fund receives impact fees and interest but has no direct levy. She said the district applies annually for a state school maintenance project grant with a $50,000 local match.

On expenditures, Dana said salaries and benefits constitute about 63% of the operating funds' spending. "A lot of times it's between 60–70% of the budget is salary and benefits," she said, and emphasized that staffing choices — hiring experience levels, retirements and contracts — drive most long‑term cost variations.

Dana also reviewed the bond schedule: the district's current fiscal‑year bond payments were listed at $8.6 million with roughly $9.0 million next year, followed by a sharp reduction in payments (to about $1.6 million) when a set of bonds retire in 2027. She said that anticipated drop influenced past referendum planning, because a large reduction in the bond levy can make it politically more difficult to seek further borrowing in the near term.

Board members asked several clarifying questions. One asked why Central 301’s instructional spending per student appeared lower than neighboring CUSDs in a prior packet; another requested fuller explanation of the Veil procedure used to request levies that exceed a 5% cap. Dana and other board members said those topics will be explored further with auditors and in future budget workshops.

On timing and process, Dana said the FY26 budget must be adopted by state deadlines and uploaded to the Illinois State Board of Education via the ISBE 50‑36 form after the board approves the final levy in November and December. She noted that federal IDEA and National School Lunch Program funds remain smaller portions of the total budget (IDEA funding reported as more than $1 million) and that federal support for special education is far below the original congressional intent under Public Law 94‑142.

Following the presentation and brief discussion, board members moved to table remaining open‑session action items until after a scheduled closed session for candidate interviews and then convened closed session.

Less critical details: Dana pointed to corporate personal property replacement tax receipts (about $200,000 in prior years) and to recurring practices such as using the working cash fund to bridge short‑term needs by board resolution. She said legal review and board resolutions are required in order to transfer certain funds.