The meeting kicked off with a truth and taxation hearing led by Trisha Zachchek, the district’s director of finance. She detailed the proposed levy for taxes payable in 2026 and provided an overview of the district’s financial landscape. Zachchek clarified the intricate process of levy determination, which involves multiple steps from property assessment to legislative formula application, before culminating in the board’s final levy adoption.

Central to the discussion was the strategic timing of levy renewals, especially in light of a recent legislative change that allows school boards to renew an operating referendum levy once without voter approval. This change sparked conversation about when to pursue voter-approved increases to avoid funding gaps. The board considered the risks associated with potential levy failures and discussed past instances of both failed and successful bond issues to inform their strategy.

An important topic was the Achievement Integration (ANI) levy, which could impact the district’s finances. The board debated whether to proceed with the full ANI levy or under levy amount, given that the program had not levied in the prior two years but remained eligible this year. The ANI program, supporting individualized student work and educational opportunities, relies heavily on this funding. The board weighed the importance of these activities against the financial implications for taxpayers, considering a potential decrease in state aid if the levy is not pursued.

Long-Term Facilities Maintenance (LTFM) funding was another major point of focus. The board reviewed detailed financial analyses to understand the funding’s implications, including the impact of adjusted pupil units and average daily membership. The LTFM revenue breakdown revealed a combination of state aid and district levies amounting to over half a million dollars. The conversation touched on the A credit applied to agricultural land, which eases the tax burden on property owners, and the uncertainty surrounding future state budget surpluses that historically influence these credits.

Enrollment trends presented a issue, with the district experiencing a consistent decline over the past five years. This decline not only affects the district’s funding but also raises concerns about the stability of future financial resources. The board discussed the implications of a loss of 217 resident students, attributing it to both demographic shifts and students leaving for other districts. The operating referendum levy, based on resident districts rather than total enrollment, was highlighted as a critical factor in maintaining funding stability amidst these changes.

The board also considered community service funding, which saw a decrease due to a dip in the Early Childhood Family (ECF) population. They acknowledged the role of state aid in the school readiness program and the necessity of levy components in non-public education funding. The new tuition-based preschool cup house was noted for its self-sufficiency, generating significant revenue without state aid or levy funds.

Long-term debt from a voter-approved building project from 2015 and other non-voter approved debts were reviewed, with expiration dates set for fiscal years 2045 and 2029, respectively. The board examined the debt service levy requirements.

Budget discussions emphasized the need for clarity across different funds within the district’s budget. The general fund, construction fund, and other specific funds were analyzed, with particular attention given to food service expenditures. Rising food costs and necessary upgrades to the kitchen’s HVAC system were discussed.