Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sycamore board weighs property‑tax levy and earned‑income tax to shore up forecasted shortfall
Summary
Treasurer Brody Buren told the Sycamore Community Schools board that expenditures are projected to outpace revenues and that the district could fall below its 25% cash‑balance policy; the board discussed running a property tax levy (examples include seven mills) versus a 1% earned‑income tax and set a timeline to decide by its April 29 meeting.
The Sycamore Community Schools Board of Education spent its meeting focused on the district’s fiscal outlook and whether to ask voters for new revenue.
Treasurer Brody Buren presented a multi‑year forecast showing expenditures rising faster than revenues and warned the board’s cash balance could fall below the district’s 25% reserve policy in coming years. "We are not in fiscal emergency. We are not close to fiscal emergency," Buren said, but added the district must plan now to avoid future state intervention.
Buren described two main options: a property‑tax levy and an earned‑income tax. He explained a mill as "$1 for every $1,000 of assessed value" and used a seven‑mill example to show the household impact, saying a seven‑mill levy would add about $245 per year for every $100,000 of auditor‑listed assessed value. He and other staff noted that, unlike an earned‑income tax, a property levy’s collections are predictable and quicker to implement.
Proponents of the earned‑income tax argued it grows with inflation and does not tax retirement or Social Security income; opponents warned it shifts the tax burden away from businesses and toward working residents, and that implementation and collection of an earned‑income tax can be delayed and require significant voter education.
Board members pressed staff on outreach and timing. The superintendent and staff outlined plans for community sessions, virtual meetings and partnerships with business and PTO groups to explain the choices and gather feedback. Board members asked legal counsel to prepare two draft resolutions so the board could vote once it settles on an option. The board’s goal is to make a decision at its April 29 meeting to allow time for community engagement and any required filings.
The board’s next steps: refine the public materials (including a QR code and an auditor link that will show exact cost by property), hold a series of community information sessions, and return with a formal recommendation and a resolution drafted by counsel.
The board did not take a formal vote on a specific levy at this meeting; instead members agreed to continue outreach and to aim for a decision at the April 29 meeting.
