Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb board reviews tentative FY2026–27 budget, plans $2.5M shortfall to begin ELDC construction
Summary
District finance staff told the board the tentative 2026–27 budget includes a planned $2.5 million deficit to fund initial Early Learning and Development Center construction and warned that state and federal aid remain uncertain pending Springfield and federal decisions.
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Armida, the district staff member who presented the tentative budget, told the board the district is proposing a FY2026–27 budget that is still preliminary and could change before final adoption in September. She said local property taxes account for roughly 51% of projected revenues, the state’s evidence‑based funding (EBF) would provide about $57 million of the state contribution, and federal grants account for roughly 6% of revenues.
Armida said the district expects to run a planned deficit of about $2.5 million next year, largely to cover the initial construction phase of an Early Learning and Development Center (ELDC). She estimated a $7.4 million initial outlay tied to ELDC construction and said the district intends to use reserves intentionally rather than describing the situation as a structural deficit.
Board members pressed for detail on revenue assumptions. Armida said local property tax revenue is projected to increase about 6.7% year over year and that corporate personal property replacement (CPPRT) is estimated to rise roughly 2%. She cautioned the board that Springfield had not finalized the state budget and that ISBE and the governor’s office were using different EBF assumptions (ISBE seeking roughly $350 million for EBF-related items while the state’s proposal showed about $307 million). That uncertainty, she said, affects the district’s final EBF tier assignment and mandated categorical reimbursements.
Armida warned the board that several mandated categorical reimbursements — notably special‑education transportation — have been prorated downward at the state level. She gave an example showing a fall from roughly 81% reimbursement in 2024 to a projected 60% in 2027 for special‑ed transportation, producing a locally borne cost increase if the state continues to prorate those funds.
On expenditures, Armida noted salary and benefits remain the largest line items: the budget proposal assumes negotiated teacher increases near 5% for some employees, 2.9% (CPI) for others, and benefit costs that may rise (an initial planning assumption of about 9% for benefits was presented). She emphasized that many numbers remain estimates until state, federal, and contractual clarifications come in during the summer and that the district will return with adjusted figures before final budget adoption.
The board did not vote to adopt a final budget at the meeting; Armida said the district will present a revised tentative budget for public inspection in August and seek final adoption at the board meeting on Sept. 15.

