27J finance chief previews $390M plan for 2026–27, flags state funding formula and reserves

School District 27J’s chief financial officer presented a proposed 2026–27 budget to trustees on May 27 that projects roughly $390 million in total resources, a projected enrollment of 23,772 and targeted investments in employee compensation, special education and classroom technology.

“We're knowingly budgeting in a deficit spending, but... we're backed by that strong fund balance with the multi‑year spend down plan,” Chief Financial Officer Stacy Yashimoto told the board during the budget presentation. Yashimoto walked trustees through state funding changes — the new school finance act implementation was set at 30% with three‑year averaging — and explained how the district’s total program funding would increase from the old-formula numbers to an estimated $292.2 million after the phase-in.

Why it matters: the budget outlines staff compensation (steps and lanes of 2.4% plus an additional 1% across the board, an overall roughly $6 million investment), and allocates 86% of operating expenditures to salaries and benefits. District leaders emphasized investments in SPED and transportation growth and a pilot center to serve very high‑need students within the district rather than placing them out-of-district.

Yashimoto described revenue sources and reserves: a beginning fund balance of about $68.7 million, state equalization and property tax receipts, and an allocation of $85 million to charter partners. She said the district intentionally maintains a multi‑year reserve to support opening three new schools and to smooth variability in state funding runs.

Trustees pressed staff on liquidity and fund-balance mechanics. Yashimoto estimated unassigned liquidity at roughly $18–20 million and said that, factoring in board and other reserves, the district would carry a healthy fund-balance percentage (about 30% of expenditures) at year end under the proposal. Several trustees recommended drafting a formal fund‑balance policy to set guardrails and improve public clarity ahead of future bond or mill discussions.

Board members also asked for more detail on school-level allocations and a study session on middle‑school funding patterns; staff said some budget shifts were presentation reclassifications (for example moving assessment spending between categories) rather than net reductions in services. The district plans to present the adoption version of the budget at the June 10 meeting.

The presentation was informational; the board did not adopt the budget at this meeting.