By Andrea Arens

Peotone —While newly confirmed Superintendent Dr. Mark Cohen watched and took notes, District 207U officials spent hours April 27 reviewing policy updates, financial projections, and long-term facility options, while signaling that any potential referendum remains a distant consideration rather than an immediate plan.

The April 27 committee meeting covered a wide range of topics, but a consistent theme emerged: board members want more clarity on the district’s finances and future direction before asking voters for additional funding.

Policy Updates Move Forward

Administrators presented several policy revisions, most of them technical in nature. Among the more notable changes was an update to the district’s policy on preventing child grooming behaviors, which removes a requirement that parents receive written notice at least five days before related topics are discussed in class.

Other updates included clarifications to drug-free workplace language, adjustments to employee leave policies to account for situations such as neonatal intensive care, and minor grammatical or compliance changes across several policies.

Outgoing Superintendent Brandon Owens indicated the updates will move through the standard approval process in the coming months.

Finances Show Ongoing Deficits

Outgoing Business Manager Adrian Fulgencio, who also resigned at this month’s regular board meeting, outlined a financial picture that, while improving, still includes structural deficits. The district projects a shortfall of about $1.4 million in the upcoming fiscal year, growing to nearly $3 million in later years without further changes.

Recent cost-cutting measures —including staffing adjustments, deferred spending, and operational changes — have reduced projected deficits by several million dollars over the past few months. Still, officials acknowledged the district remains on a “downward trajectory” without new revenue or additional reductions.

Referendum Discussion Remains Preliminary

Board President Dawn Love stated she added a referendum discussion to the agenda, suggesting that education might be the key to the process. Review included timelines and tax impacts.

But board members Tim Stoub, Steven Clark and Robert Janeliunas repeatedly stressed the need to identify the district’s true operating costs before making long-term financial decisions.

“We need to know exactly where we’re at before we go to the community,” said Janeliunas.

While the board reviewed how a referendum would work—including timelines and tax impacts—members emphasized that no decision is imminent.

Projections show a $1 million increase in operating revenue would cost the owner of a median-value home roughly $343 more each year, a $191 difference from the baseline, with larger increases tied to higher funding requests.

Also, if the district were to seek a referendum to remodel buildings at the lowest cost option of $70 million, homeowners would see a $981 increase, and to build, at the high end option of $142 million, would be a $1,982 increase on their property tax bill for the next 30 years.

Still, several members pushed back on the idea of moving forward too quickly, particularly with a new superintendent set to begin July 1.

”I think this board in three months has almost saved close to $3 million. I think we’re not done figuring that out. I think we can’t know if we need a referendum or not if we don’t know what our capital costs are,” said Janeliunas.

Board Member Jennifer Moe said learning about the process helps to create a long-term plan. Stoub quickly suggested Moe should know the process after being on the board for 15 years and putting three previous referendums on the ballot to the community.

”In 15 years, a lot of laws have changed, and I think we owe it to the community to reeducate; everyone can get a reminder,” said Moe.

Stoub again quickly retorted, “I’m not a fan of your education.”

Both Stoub and Board member Steven Clark said they’ve heard more people talk about the technology fee than a referendum.

Janeliunas chimed in, “I don’t think we can just keep asking for money until we figure out what our operating cost is and what is our future plans.”

Clark agreed, “We need to show the community how we’re spending efficiently and how we’re spending effectively. We can’t just throw money at things.”

Board member Ashley Stachniak reminded the board that the feasibility study for the fields hasn’t been completed. She added, “We can’t borrow land and build a house.”

Fulgencio reviewed financials and said the district is still on a downward trajectory, but has now extended the district going into the red by another couple years.

The earliest possible referendum would be November 2026, though multiple members indicated they would prefer to wait longer to allow new leadership to help shape a long-term plan.

Facility Options Narrowing

The board also reviewed multiple long-term facility scenarios, ranging from maintaining current buildings to constructing new schools, with estimated costs between $70 million and $142 million.

Members discussed narrowing the list of options to two or three more realistic choices, noting that early concepts may include features that are not essential.

Stoub suggested exploring a design before a referendum because if the referendum was for $70 million, the design will cost $70 million. He added, “Because if we build it with that in mind, we’re going to build what we need, instead of building to what we have.”

Officials noted that current estimates are preliminary and based on conceptual designs. More detailed planning — and cost refinement — would occur in later phases.

If voters were to approve a project, officials said it would likely take three to four years before completion.

The board continued to discuss ways they could evaluate operating costs for efficiency. Stoub added that he would not make a decision based on fears of cuts.

Clark also added that he wanted to sit down with Buildings & Grounds Director Mike Singleton to review some expenses to see if there was room for saving some costs.

Stachniak asked if those costs included overtime and Clark said they did not, that he was evaluating the constant variables and Stachniak added that overtime was a huge variable.

Overall, five board members, Stoub, Clark, Janeliunas, Stachniak and Mark Jones agreed they did not want to pursue a referendum at this time.

Technology Fee Draws Mixed Reaction

The committee also considered implementing a $50 annual technology fee to support device replacement cycles.

After accounting for fee waivers and unpaid balances, the proposal would generate about $37,000 annually.

Some board members supported the fee as a practical way to maintain technology, while others raised concerns about affordability, especially given existing registration costs.

Board Member Ashley Stachniak discussed options such as allowing students to keep devices after several

Ultimately, the board consensus was to move forward with the $50 technology fee.

Operations and Maintenance Under Review

In an effort to improve efficiency, officials proposed hiring an in-house HVAC technician to reduce reliance on outside contractors. The district currently spends about $144,000 annually on outsourced HVAC services.

The proposed position would cost between $85,000 and $105,000 not including overtime, with potential savings tied to reduced service calls and more preventative maintenance. One of the general maintenance technicians is retiring at a salary of about $65,000 and the HVAC position would replace that retiree.

Clark mentioned that a compressor is down at the high school auditorium and that it’s easily $20,000 to repair, and requires a team. A job that the district could not save money on with the addition of the HVAC technician position.

Stoub inquired how much of the cost was preventive, and Singleton didn’t have specific numbers. Singleton said if he had someone on standby, he wouldn’t have to make a list.

Stoub said he was comfortable with approving the position but only if actual numbers of costs were tracked for the last two years, and moving forward after the technician was hired.

Board members expressed cautious support, but requested ongoing tracking of costs and savings to ensure the move is financially beneficial.

“If we do this, we need to see the numbers,” Stoub said.

Singleton also brought to committee the costs of two preventative maintenance contracts for the next year; to give a new hire time to get up and running. Singleton presented quotes from Midwest Mechanical for $52,000 and Glade for around $46,000. Midwest offered 24/7, 365 emergency repair with their contract.

Stoub suggested there was no cost savings in hiring and having the maintenance contract; and he wasn’t interested in spending more to do both. Clark agreed and added that there was additional costs with tools and chemicals.

After porous discussion with board members Stoub and Clark inquiring about the cost savings that could not clearly be identified, agreement was to move forward with spring preventive maintenance, track HVAC expenditures both past and future, and move forward with hiring the HVAC technician.

Consolidation Progress Continues

Administrators provided an update on ongoing school consolidation efforts, reporting approximately $143,000 in cost savings, below the original $300,000 estimate.

Additional planning is underway for student logistics, parking, and building transitions, with more detailed information expected soon. The district is also planning community events to allow residents to tour impacted buildings.

Throughout the meeting, board members emphasized a measured, step-by-step approach to decision-making.

No formal action was taken, with officials indicating that further analysis, planning, and community input will guide the district’s next steps.

Andrea Arens is a freelance reporter.