The Township High School District 211 Board of Education on Thursday approved a tentative 2025–26 budget that projects revenues of about 6.4% growth but an $8.3 million overall deficit, and directed the superintendent to place the budget on public display for 30 days before a final hearing in September. The board approved the tentative budget on a 4–1 roll call vote.

District finance staff presented details showing the educational fund expects roughly $272 million in revenue and $271 million in expenditures, with salaries and benefits accounting for more than 86% of educational‑fund spending. Controller/Treasurer Kathy Zalewski and presenter Miss Hummel attributed the all‑fund shortfall to delayed property‑tax receipts, uncollected TIF surplus payments carried from the prior year and higher health‑care claims.

Why it matters: Property‑tax revenue accounts for roughly 84% of District 211’s funding. Delays and one‑time shifts in tax distribution can create shortfalls that the district is managing using reserves while maintaining planned capital projects. Administrators said the district intends to use accumulated cash reserves intentionally to fund capital work rather than issuing debt.

Key details: Miss Hummel told the board the district ended fiscal 2025 with a $9.4 million deficit and that on a cash basis the operating fund balance was 48 percent. She said the district experienced more than $7 million less in property‑tax revenue than expected in fiscal 2025 and that TIF surplus payments of $1.7 million budgeted for 2025 were submitted by the municipality but received in a later fiscal year. The presentation also noted a projected drop in federal ESSER dollars and a decline in corporate personal property replacement tax (CPPRT) receipts compared with pandemic‑era peaks.

Board questions focused on utilities, capital timing and long‑term solvency. Board member Mr. Dombrowski asked, “At what point do we start reducing the expenditures in order to fall within what we can do with our revenue?” Miss Hummel and other administrators said the tentative budget already reflects expenditure reductions from an earlier projection and identified ongoing efforts—some contractual or subject to request‑for‑proposal processes—that they expect will yield further savings.

Utilities and energy projects drew particular concern. Administrators said a new electricity contract that began July 1 is driving an estimated 38% increase in utility costs for FY26, pushing operations and maintenance expenditures up by more than 15 percent. Responding to questions from board members, staff said the district is implementing building automation controls, replacing high‑use lighting (stadium lights and gymnasium LEDs), upgrading HVAC and prioritizing more efficient mechanical replacements to reduce consumption.

Capital spending: The budget includes roughly $14.48 million for major capital projects and about $4.3 million for routine maintenance capital in FY26. Administrators said roughly 75% of this capital outlay reflects projects planned in the prior summer that carried over into the current fiscal year; major upcoming projects include a locker‑room renovation, auditorium work and a chiller‑plant replacement.

Benefits and insurance: The board separately established 2026 Blue Cross Blue Shield premium equivalent rates and a wellness incentive structure and approved a three‑year MetLife contract for life, accidental death and dismemberment, and long‑term disability insurance. Both benefits votes passed unanimously.

What’s next: The tentative budget will be available for public inspection for at least 30 days, with a public hearing scheduled at the September 18 board meeting. Administrators said an updated five‑year forecast will be presented with the levy in October and that the district will continue to seek efficiencies—particularly in transportation, operations and special‑education contracting—to address structural cost pressures.

The board approved the tentative budget on a roll call vote: Ms. Cavill, Mrs. Lopez, Ms. Russell and President Steven Rosenblum voted yes; Mr. Dombrowski voted no.