Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance Csft topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Barrington CUSD 220 hears county sales-tax option that could fund facilities, SROs and mental-health staff
Summary
District staff briefed the board on a proposed Lake County School Facility Sales Tax (CSFT): a voter-approved up-to-1% sales tax that, if adopted countywide, could yield roughly $3 million annually to Barrington CUSD 220 (about 40% of county-collected dollars) to fund capital projects, debt abatement, SROs and mental-health professionals.
At the March 3 meeting, Sarah Lager presented a county school facility sales tax (CSFT) briefing to the Barrington CUSD 220 Board of Education and asked whether the board wanted staff to continue preparing a resolution for county consideration.
Lager described CSFT as a voter-approved county sales tax (implementable in increments up to 1%) that would be added atop existing county sales tax. "All of the money always follows the students," she told the board, explaining that distributions to districts are calculated by student residence and that Barrington's share would be based on the district's portion of Lake County student enrollment (about 40% in the example presented).
District staff estimated that under current assumptions the district's share would come in around $3 million annually, subject to monthly sales-tax fluctuations and enrollment adjustments. Lager said allowed uses include facility construction and renovation, parking, issuing or refunding debt, and — following a 2019 amendment — school resource officers and mental-health professionals; the tax cannot be spent on direct classroom instructional costs (textbooks, buses, furniture, most movable equipment).
Lager outlined the expected timeline: districts across Lake County are discussing resolutions this spring, administration would aim to bring a resolution to the Barrington board in April if the board supports it, a county certification would be made to place identical ballot language on the November ballot, and, if approved by county voters, the state would begin distributing revenues after required filings. Lager said administration anticipates submitting language in time for an autumn distribution following a successful ballot measure, and she noted that a filing with the Illinois Department of Revenue would be required as part of the process.
Board members asked questions about distribution (student residence drives the formula), variability (sales and enrollment fluctuations), who would decide allocation annually, and the process for educating voters. Several members expressed support for further study; the board directed staff to continue due diligence and prepare resolution materials for future consideration.
What happened next: Administration said it will continue analysis and draft resolution language for April board consideration; no binding board commitment to put the measure on a ballot was recorded at the March 3 meeting.
