Naperville School District 203 could increase its 2024 property tax levy by 3.81%, based on a proposal from administrators. The figure is tied to several factors — including, but not limited to, the consumer price index.
Based on preliminary details, the average taxpayer could see a 3.4% increase in District 203’s levy, though the actual impact it would have on an individual tax bill would hinge on assessment data. Property taxes comprise about 85% of District 203’s revenue each year.
How the levy funds would be allocated
Chief Financial Officer Mike Frances gave the board of education an initial glimpse into the levy proposal at a meeting on Monday, Nov. 18. If the board’s draft levy resolution is adopted, District 203 will submit a levy request to clerks in DuPage and Will counties in the amount of $304.67 million.
The majority of the levy request — $205.8 million — would be applied toward educational purposes that reflect day-to-day classroom activities. The second largest benefactor of the levy funds, under the proposal, would be special education ($42.35 million), followed by operations and maintenance ($31.6 million).
In his presentation, Frances explained the importance the tax levy plays in District 203’s finances on an annual basis.
“Property taxes are the largest piece of revenue for most school districts throughout the state of Illinois, and an even a larger share of revenue for districts in our area,” Frances said.
The board is slated to act on the levy figure at its next meeting on Monday, Dec. 16, which gives officials enough time to send the certified figure to county clerks by the statutorily required deadline of Tuesday, Dec. 31.
Three factors determine the levy
Frances said three different factors led to the recommended $304.67 million 2024 tax levy proposal. In addition to CPI, the rate of new construction across District 203’s geographic footprint plays into the estimated amount, as does the intricate calculations around equalized assessed value.
“Of the three, only the consumer price index is known at this time,” Frances said. “We work with our local tax assessors, who have been very helpful in providing estimates for our calculations.”
Since the statutorily required timeline for an adopted levy resolution does not overlap with the finalized new construction and EAV figures, Frances said District 203 is working off preliminary data and anticipates the actual amount of the levy increase going down.
“Not knowing what those final numbers will be, we typically increase the levy slightly to capture any unanticipated increase in new construction,” Frances said. “The board has the ability to decrease the levy after adoption, but cannot add to it.”
While District 203 is estimating the average taxpayer could pay 3.4% more toward its specific line item on next year’s tax bill, Frances said there are a number of granular variables in play that will have different impacts on property owners.
“Different assessment changes and whether an individual property assessment change is less than or greater than the average change, districtwide, can cause a single tax bill to be less than or greater than the average increase,” Frances said.
Board shares preliminary thoughts
While no formal action was taken on the levy at the board’s recent meeting, several elected officials shared their thoughts on the proposed figure, as well as some of the components of the overall budget.
“For the past four years, we’ve been pretty conservative with our budget and actually ended up ahead, versus a projected deficit,” board member Amanda McMillen said. “Why should we support a tax increase now, when we’ve been able to stay within our means for the past several years?”
Frances, in response said there are a “a variety of reasons” behind the request he is bringing before the board.
“The biggest thing is our forecasted revenue,” Frances said. “We’ve had anomalies in two very big areas — one is corporate personal property replacement taxes, and every school district got an influx in additional CPPRT over the last three years. That amount is coming down dramatically, back to normal levels. It went up from about $2.5 million to over $7 million, and it’s estimated to come back down to normal, at about $3 million.”
Frances said another reason the district is seeking a levy increase is an anticipated decrease in another revenue source.
“We had our best year ever of investment income, probably because of rising interest rates,” he said, referring to this past school year’s budget. “When rates went up, we earned a lot more in interest than we had budgeted. But, we also hear consistently from the fed that interest rates are starting to get cut and will continue to get cut in the future.”
If you have a story idea, we want to hear from you!
