Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glenview schools project deficits, Superintendent tells village board
Summary
District 34 Superintendent Dane Deli told the Glenview Board of Trustees the district faces 5‑year projected deficits between $1 million and $3 million, warned of falling operating balances around 49–50%, and described enrollment and funding patterns that shape future options.
Superintendent Dane Deli, of District 34, told the Glenview Board of Trustees on Oct. 21 that the district expects deficit spending over the next five years ranging from roughly $1 million to $3 million and that the district’s operating fund balance has declined to about 49–50 percent of recommended levels.
Deli said the district serves roughly 4,300 students from preschool through eighth grade, speaks 65 home languages (with Spanish and Mongolian among the top languages), and that 25 percent of families qualify as low-income and 18 percent of students are English learners. He noted capital projects funded by a 2020 referendum allowed full‑day kindergarten and building repairs but the district has since purposefully drawn down fund balance to complete work.
Deli emphasized timing and cash‑flow pressures: Cook County tax receipts are delayed into December or January, the district carries about $6.5 million in monthly payroll and has a Dec. 1 bond and interest payment of about $8 million, so the board recently issued tax‑anticipation warrants to bridge timing gaps. He also warned federal and state funding levels can change and make multi‑year budgeting unpredictable.
On revenue sources, Deli told trustees the vast majority of revenue is local property tax revenue and that state/federal formula dollars are a small portion of the roughly $100 million budget. When Trustee Dhillon asked whether the district can increase property tax revenue without a referendum, Deli said annual increases are constrained by the CPI or 5 percent and a permanent tax‑rate change would require a referendum.
Trustees asked about impact fees and whether to tie them to inflation; Deli and village staff agreed they can draft language to permit periodic or annual adjustments while preserving evaluation triggers tied to local market conditions. The presentation concluded with Deli inviting trustees to visit district schools for a closer look at programs and facilities.
The board took no formal fiscal action at this meeting; Deli framed the report as an overview to inform future policy choices by the school board and coordinating governments.
