207U Committee Reviews Budget Adjustments, Facility Planning and Operations Issues

By Andrea Arens

Peotone CUSD 207U board members spent more than an hour discussing budget projections, long-term facility planning, salt procurement and a land ownership question during a recent Committee of the Whole meeting.

The meeting included public comment related to the district’s financial challenges and potential building changes, as well as detailed financial and operational discussions among board members and administrators.

Public Comment Urges Revenue Discussion

During public comment, community member Victoria Theodossopoulos addressed the board regarding the district’s financial situation and the possibility of a future referendum.

“Community shows up,” she said, referencing examples of residents supporting one another through emergencies and school-related initiatives. “Yet, some choose to focus on how the community will fail.”

Victoria urged the board to consider not only facilities planning but also a long-term financial strategy.

“We must not only get out of debt, but have a plan for how we will manage our finances moving forward so we will never end up in this position again,” she said.

She referenced information shared earlier in the evening indicating that approximately $63 million over 10 years would be needed to maintain existing facilities.

“Can we honestly even afford that bare minimum maintenance plan right now?” she asked.

Victoria encouraged the board to openly discuss increasing revenue, including the possibility of a referendum.

“A referendum may not be the plan you want, but it is time to start discussing it as it is the plan we the community who are committed to the district need,” she said.

FY26 Budget Amendment Previewed

Administrators outlined proposed amendments to the current fiscal year budget, which will be formally presented in March.

On the revenue side, the district is projecting a net increase of approximately $187,000, driven by higher-than-expected interest earnings and finalized state reimbursements, partially offset by decreases in impact fees and private tuition reimbursements.

On the operating expense side, the net change is projected to be zero, due largely to a hiring freeze for an instructional coach position offsetting increases in transportation, facilities and liability insurance costs.

Capital projects are projected to decrease by $4.8 million following the board’s earlier consensus to discontinue baseball and softball field projects at this time.

Additional variables include potential costs associated with closing Peotone Intermediate Center (PIC), estimated between $50,000 and $150,000 for moving and transition expenses, as well as lump-sum payouts related to recent reductions in force.

Board members discussed transferring the working cash bonds into Fund 60 for capital projects. Administrators noted that such funds must be earmarked for specific projects and cannot simply remain unused.

A board member requested an updated cash flow analysis incorporating the additional bond funds to determine whether reallocating capital expenses could extend the district’s operating runway.

“We’re on a downward trajectory and we’re not stabilizing,” Business manager Adrian Fulgencio said, referencing the district’s projected structural deficit of approximately $3.6 million.

Administrators indicated they do not expect the district’s cash position to remain stable through the end of fiscal year 2029 under current projections but will provide updated forecasts.

Officials also confirmed that planning for the FY27 budget has already begun, with board members requesting earlier involvement before next year’s tentative budget goes on public display.

Long-Term Facility Study Discussion

Board members briefly discussed next steps following a recent long-term facility study presentation by the district’s architects.

Questions were raised about whether a comprehensive site plan for athletic facilities, including football and track improvements, should be incorporated into future planning. Both board members Ashley Stachniak and Mark Jones believed that a site plan for athletic facilities was to be included in the presentation from Wight.

Administrators clarified that the current agreement with architects covered a facilities and feasibility study but did not include full site planning for athletic complexes. Stachniak and Jones both believed it was directed to be included, mentioning that they would review the meeting.

Board members agreed to hold further direction until after additional decisions are made regarding potential building closures and broader strategic planning.

Salt Storage Proposal

Facilities Director Mike Singleton discussed the district’s reliance on an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Village of Peotone for road salt procurement.

During this winter’s regional salt shortage, the village notified the district that it could limit salt availability under the agreement. While the district was able to manage through the event, Singleton recommended entering into the state purchasing cooperative independently and storing salt onsite.

He proposed committing to approximately 80 tons of salt under a state contract, with storage in a temporary block enclosure covered by tarps. The estimated cost for blocks and setup would be a few thousand dollars.

“I hate relying on somebody else,” Singleton said. “I’d like to completely control our destiny as far as having salt on hand.”

Some board members suggested renegotiating the IGA with the village to ensure proportional access during shortages, while others expressed support for the temporary storage solution due to its relatively low cost and operational flexibility.

No formal action was taken.

Land Ownership Question

The board also discussed a parcel of land dating back to 1874 that remains in the district’s name but is being claimed by a private party seeking to complete a property sale for solar.

Board members debated whether to incur additional legal fees to conduct a deeper title review or respond directly referencing Illinois law related to public land ownership.

“I would like to know what other property do we own that we do not know that we own,” said Stachniak.

Several members favored sending a written response citing applicable statutes before engaging in further legal action.

Board member Steven Clark suggested just sending a letter from the district without legal. “Hey, we have this information. We’re public land, here’s the law, the bylaw that states all of this about squatters rights not being applicable. Cease and desist. But hey, get off our land,” said Clark.

The consensus of the board was to draft a letter from the district with a response.

The Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned shortly after 11 p.m.