Litchfield District 12 Sets Sept. 17 Hearing on 2026-27 Budget

Litchfield Community School District #12 Board of Education | August 18, 2026

Article Summary: The Litchfield school board voted 6-0 on Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2026, to set a public hearing on the district’s 2026-2027 fiscal year budget for Thursday, Sept. 17, at 6 p.m. at the district office, and to make the budget available for public inspection for at least 30 days before adoption.

2026-2027 Budget Key Points:

• The hearing is set for 6 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, at the district office, 1100 N. Old Route 66.
• School code requires 30 days of public display before final action, and adoption must come within the first quarter of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2026.
• The district’s evidence-based funding came in just above $115,000 more than last year, and it moved back to Tier 2 from Tier 1.
• Superintendent Dr. Kelly McClain said the district is being “conservative on our revenue and realistic on our expenditures.”

LITCHFIELD — The Litchfield Community Unit School District No. 12 Board of Education voted 6-0 on Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2026, to set a budget hearing for the 2026-2027 fiscal year for Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, at 6 p.m. at the district office, 1100 N. Old Route 66.

The motion, made by David Belusko and seconded by Secretary Valerie Cain, also provides that the budget as prepared by the district’s chief fiscal officer — Superintendent Dr. Kelly McClain — will be available for public inspection for at least 30 days prior to its adoption on Sept. 17, and that proper notice be given. Vice-President Ron Anglin was absent.

The timing is driven by statute. According to the background supplied with the motion, school code requires that the tentative budget be on display 30 days before final action, and the budget must be adopted within the first quarter of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2026. The Sept. 17 hearing falls inside that window.

McClain told the board the district spent a significant amount of time over the summer reviewing revenues and expenditures so the budget would reflect the most current information available.

Two revenue lines have firmed up since the spring. The district’s evidence-based funding, McClain said, puts it “a little bit above $115,000 more than we received last year,” and the district moved back to Tier 2 after a year in Tier 1. “We seem to fluctuate between there,” she said.

The district also received its corporate personal property replacement tax figure, which McClain said increased. In consultation with the district’s business consultant, however, she said the district will likely hold that line level in its projections, because the district did not receive the full amount it had been estimated to get for the replacement tax last year.

“We are being conservative on our revenue and realistic on our expenditures with our budget,” McClain said. “This is just the tentative budget. Next month I will have a full presentation and the full budget for your review.”

The board’s financial picture entering the budget cycle is unusually flush on paper. The treasurer’s report accepted the same night put the ending balance in all funds at July 31, 2026, at $21,134,457, with $17,403,554 in operating funds and $1,746,423 in capital projects — a figure McClain cautioned is inflated because the district had just received a large property tax payment.

The budget item also sits alongside the board’s other major financial action of the evening. In recommending a four-year structure for a proposed $1.1 million working cash bond issue, financial adviser Kendall King told the board the structure was shaped to lower the bond levy slightly and create room for the district’s IMRF and Social Security levies when the board adopts its levy this fall.

One point about Tuesday’s action is unsettled in the district’s own records. The printed agenda described the item as “Review/Approve the tentative budget and set budget hearing,” and McClain told the board, “we do recommend approval of the tentative budget.” The motion as it appears in both the board packet and the approved minutes, however, addresses only the hearing date and the 30-day public inspection period. Whether the board’s 6-0 vote also constituted approval of the tentative budget itself is not clear from the record and has been flagged for confirmation.