Marshall Board Weighs 1% County Sales Tax Projected Above $900,000 a Year

Marshall C.U.S.D. C-2 Board of Education | September 10, 2026

Article Summary: Marshall C.U.S.D. C-2 board members spent part of their Sept. 10, 2026, meeting discussing whether to ask Clark County voters to approve a 1% school facility sales tax, which Superintendent Ross said would bring the district more than $900,000 a year. No vote was taken, and the board will return to the question in December.

County School Facility Tax Key Points:

• Based on recent disbursements of the existing Clark County Safety Tax, the district projects to receive over $900,000 per year from a 1% tax.
• Because Marshall educates a majority of the county’s students, the measure cannot reach the ballot without a resolution from the Marshall board.
• Ross suggested any plan to seek the tax would include abatement of at least half of the district’s current yearly bond levy.
• No action was taken. The board took no motion and no vote; more discussion is scheduled for December.

MARSHALL — The Marshall C.U.S.D. C-2 Board of Education on Thursday, Sept. 10, 2026, opened a discussion that could eventually put a county-wide sales tax question before Clark County voters — and that, under the structure of the law, only the Marshall board can start.

The item was listed on the agenda as a discussion of the Illinois County School Facility Occupation Tax, and the board treated it as one. No motion was offered and no vote was taken. The minutes record that general information was shared and that more discussion will be held in December.

Superintendent Ross told the board that other county schools, including Casey-Westfield, Martinsville and Hutsonville, have approached the district about the possibility. What those districts asked for, and in what form, is not described in the record.

Why It Runs Through Marshall

The information shared with the board set out the mechanics. Illinois legislators passed the Illinois County School Facility Tax Act, abbreviated CSFT, in 2007, with the stated intent of providing a new funding source for schools as an alternative to traditional property taxes. The act provides for a retail sales tax of up to 1% on “non-essential” goods sold in a county, for the purpose of funding school facility needs, and was described to the board as very similar to the County Safety Tax already in place in Clark County.

The measure cannot reach the ballot without a resolution from the Marshall board requesting it, because of the share of county students the district enrolls. It then becomes a question for the voters, and it takes a similar referendum to remove the tax once imposed. The county board, the information noted, used to play a large role in decisions regarding this type of tax and no longer does.

The record of the meeting states the student-share threshold two different ways — as Marshall “having more than 50% of County students” and as “over 51% of the students living in Clark County being ours.” That discrepancy is flagged below for editorial review.

What Would Be Taxed, and What the Money Could Do

Under the act as described to the board, only “non-essential” goods are taxed. Groceries, over-the-counter and prescription medicines, cars, boats and other licensed vehicles, and farm equipment, parts and inputs are excluded. The summary put the principle plainly: “If it is not currently taxed, it will not be taxed.” The tax would reach restaurant food, alcohol, clothing, fuel and other items already covered by the state sales tax.

Revenue is distributed among a county’s districts according to the number of students each district has living in the county. On that basis, and drawing on recent disbursements of the Clark County Safety Tax, the Marshall district projects to receive over $900,000 per year for school facility, safety or mental health professional purposes.

The money is restricted. It can be spent on school facilities-related expenses — building or repairing facilities, safety and security measures, roofing projects and energy efficiency improvements were the examples given — and cannot be used for operating or administrative purposes such as salaries. The one exception is safety officers and mental health professionals, such as social workers, school psychologists or school counselors, and only if the board chooses to add those provisions to the ballot question.

Two possible benefits to property owners were set out. Revenues can be applied to paying off district debt from past facilities improvements, and Ross suggested that any plan to ask for this tax would include abatement of at least half of the district’s current yearly bond levy. Separately, sales tax revenue can fund facilities projects, safety officers or mental health professionals that would otherwise fall on property owners.

The tax is paid by everyone rather than property owners alone, the summary noted, including tourists to Clark County and travelers who stop near Interstate 70.

No draft resolution, ballot language, abatement figure or timetable was presented to the board, and no date in December was set for the next discussion.