Lockport high school board OKs budget amid dissent, discusses Central Campus renovations

The Lockport Township High School District 205 Board approved its 2023-2024 fiscal year budget Monday in a 4-3 vote, with dissenting board members signaling they prefer to spend down the district’s fund balance or use cash on hand as the district prepares strategies to fund the budget.

Board members Marty Boersma, Sandra Chimon Rogers and Zyan Navarra voted against the budget after four residents addressed the Board. They also cited emails received over the weekend urging them to vote against the budget to avoid a potential increase in the property tax levy later this fall.

The residents said the district’s projected $76.8 million fund balance as of June 30, 2024, which equals 12 months of cash on hand used to operate the district, should be utilized as a savings for taxpayers. In the 2022-2023 budget, the district’s fund balance was $70.6 million, said Stefanie Croix, the district’s director of business services.

“How many taxpayers do you know that are sitting on 12 months of expenditures in the bank waiting to be spent?” said resident Tammy Hayes. “It’s wildly unrealistic to think that you can keep 12 full months of expenditures sitting in the bank.”

Superintendent Robert McBride said the high school budget process has two parts, first approving the budget and then approving a method to pay for the budget, by approving a property tax levy or spending out of the fund balance. With an approved budget, district officials will now begin preparing strategies for funding district operations for the next year, he said.

The property tax levy, which goes before the board for tentative approval in November and final approval in December, would only increase if the board approved levying the whole budget increase onto taxpayers, McBride said.

According to the 2023-2024 budget, with new property, the 2023 property tax levy is estimated to increase 5.96% over the 2022 tax extension. Croix said Tuesday that historically the levy estimate included in the budget is proposed to the board in November.

Board members who voted against the budget did not give district officials the right opportunity to prepare presentations for funding strategies, McBride said.

“With all due respect, on behalf of Stefanie Croix, to the no voters, you did not give us time to present you options for the levy, which actually is the thing that lowers taxes,” McBride said. “We’ve been talking about this since July. The feedback you received was in the past 48 hours. I’ll just let that stand as a fact of which has more value.”

Navarra, who voted in favor of the tentative budget in July, said he voted against the budget because finding ways to save residents money shows the board “is listening and we care.”

“We should definitely explore other strategies,” Navarra said.

Boersma and Rogers both raised questions about the impacts of spending the district’s cash on hand. When the board approved the tentative budget in July, Boersma was absent from the meeting and Rogers voted in favor of it.

Boersma and Rogers, who ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and were endorsed by the Conservative group We The Parents Illinois, said they voted against the budget after hearing from residents about the district’s cash on hand via email and during public comments.

“We appreciate the engagement and dedication of our community members in contributing to the betterment of our community and high school, and we look forward to continued collaboration and dialogue as we work together to ensure the fiscal health and accountability of our institution,” Rogers said in an email explaining her vote.

It has been the board’s policy to operate with a fund balance that allows for six to 12 months of cash on hand to operate the district, McBride said, and that fund balance gets spent down throughout the year. By extension, if the district’s fund balance has between six to 12 months of cash on hand it ensures a strong bond rating, he said.

Croix said if the board were to spend its cash on hand then for a period of time it would be spending more than it would be bringing in.

The district’s fund balance grows over time when unexpected revenue comes in, such as when the district receives an unexpected grant or a cost comes in lower than the district budgeted for, Croix said. The district uses that fund to complete facility projects, she said.

Ahead of the budget vote, representatives with DLA Architects presented an initial vision for possible renovation of Central Campus, which included a tentative plan for departments and classrooms to have spaces near each other and a cafeteria with natural lighting.

The total cost of infrastructure and capital improvements of a renovated building ranges between $95 million to $115 million, said DLA Architects associate principal and project architect Peter Pontarelli.

The project cost requires a referendum vote, so if the Board approves moving forward with the referendum it would be presented to voters in 2024, said DLA Architects associate principal Richard Kocek. If voters approve the referendum, construction would begin in 2025 and would likely be completed in 2030, he said.

Board member Veronica Shaw said if the board spends down its cash on hand and the voters approve a referendum measure to renovate Central Campus the district would receive a lower bond rating, which would mean the renovation would cost the district more in the long run.

“We want this to continue as a freshman center,” said board President Ann Lopez-Caneva. “I feel we need to preserve our buildings.”