Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sycamore board weighs levy options as five-year forecast shows cash shortfall
Summary
Board financial staff told the Sycamore Community Schools Board that current forecasts project a cash shortfall by fiscal 2030 and outlined two main revenue options — a traditional real-estate millage and a residency-based earned-income tax — with differing timing, revenue and control implications.
The Sycamore Community Schools Board spent the bulk of its work session reviewing a five-year forecast that projects the district will meet its 25% cash-balance goal only through fiscal 2028, then face a growing shortfall by fiscal 2030.
Treasurer Jenny Logan told board members the district's permanent-improvement needs average roughly $5.4 million annually while existing annual transfers to the PI fund total about $4.1 million. "That average need, if you look at it and equate to millage, it's right about 2 mills annually just for needs," Logan said.
Why it matters: the board must decide whether to go to voters in calendar 2026 and, if so, whether to ask for revenue via a real-estate tax levy, an earned-income tax or a combination. Logan used a $350,000 home example to show a 6.5-mill levy would cost a homeowner "just under $800" annually and estimated that a 6.5-mill ask would generate about $18.7 million annually for the district under current assumptions.
Board members pressed staff on timing differences between the options. Logan said a real-estate levy approved in November 2026 would start producing half the fiscal-year revenue in January 2027 and reach full collections in fiscal 2028. An earned-income tax, she explained, would have delayed receipts: roughly 20% of the projected annual revenue in the first fiscal year (about $4 million on a $19 million estimate), 77% the next, and full collections by the third fiscal year because of tax-filing timelines.
Members also discussed structure. Staff modeled a split in which approximately 62% of a levy goes to operations and 38% to PI; the board debated whether PI dollars should be ballot‑designated or transferred annually from a general fund if an income tax were adopted. "If it's not designated, it's up to the board to do that transfer every year," Logan told the board.
Legislative developments added urgency and uncertainty. Logan warned that a statewide ballot initiative to eliminate property taxes could appear on the November 2026 ballot, and that four related bills sit on the governor's desk that would cap growth in inside millage to inflation. Board members said those developments strengthen the case for diversifying revenue but noted legal uncertainty and possible litigation should property taxes be repealed or substantially altered.
What the board decided: no final levy request was adopted. Staff recommended a timeline of work sessions and a financial retreat in early 2026 to firm a direction, suggested adopting a levy resolution in April–May if the board opts for the November 2026 ballot, and recommended a public engagement campaign including listening sessions and a levy calculator for homeowners. The board agreed to return to the topic in upcoming meetings and to plan for an early‑year retreat to evaluate levy options.
Next steps: staff will prepare detailed levy scenarios, a financial prospectus and a quality profile for community outreach, and will bring the capital-projects plan forward for board review so the district can show a concrete spending plan if questioned by county or state officials.
