Waukegan CUSD 60 staff present FY26 budget assumptions, project modest revenue increase while monitoring risks

At a committee-of-the-whole budget workshop, district finance staff reviewed fiscal 2026 revenue and spending assumptions and urged the board to consider raising property tax levies to recapture prior years' lost base funding.

The presentation, led by Gwen Polk, focused on projections the district used to build a proposed FY26 spending plan: a projected $977,000 decline in local revenue, an increase of roughly $4.8 million in state revenue (driven in the presentation by an assumed 4.1% rise in evidence-based funding), and an approximate $1.6 million drop in federal revenue tied to expiring grants and uncertainty around Medicaid. Polk said the net effect across funds was a projected increase in revenue of about $2.2 million "across all nine of our funds." Polk added, "we're poised to pivot," describing the budget team’s intent to adjust if federal or state dollars change.

Why it matters: the district’s long-term fund balances and cash position shaped the discussion. Polk showed ending-year fund balances the presentation listed for FY25 projections (education fund, O&M, transportation and working cash) and said the district has about $41,000,000 in its working cash fund to manage cash flow. The presentation also flagged a roughly $12,000,000 deficit in fund 60, part of which Polk attributed to a historical $4,600,000 deficit that predates the current administration.

Key details from the presentation: Polk described core assumptions the budget uses — staffing levels largely stable, health care costs steady, and no large unplanned increases to worker's compensation or other claims. The budget materials included: estimates of revenue by source (local/state/federal), a list of major contractual obligations and contracted services (about $45.3 million in requested contractual obligations from two divisions), and school-level requests totaling more than $10 million outside salary and benefits. Polk told the board the district could not be certain of final state evidence-based funding until the state issues final allocations and cautioned the board about federal executive-branch proposals that could affect K–12 funding.

Board members pressed several practical questions: why local revenue is projected to fall (district staff pointed to flat property taxes and reduced transportation reimbursements), how the district manages unspent purchase orders (staff said many requested items are never delivered or paid and that finance will review requisitions and reduce the plan where appropriate), and how staffing counts were built into the salary projections (Polk said the budget uses filled positions rather than vacant roles and that vacancies must be resubmitted and prioritized).

Polk and board members discussed options for property taxes. Polk urged the board to consider increasing the levy to rebuild lost base revenue, saying, "we could never recoup that base, never ever," and recommended considering raising the levy now and abating later if the board chooses.

Contracts and priorities: the presentation separated costs tied to specific initiatives (aligned to the district’s Destination 2028 priorities) from recurring contractual obligations and general operating expenses (electricity, gas, etc.). Polk said the administration retains lists of funded and unfunded requests so the district can reprioritize if new revenue becomes available.

Timeline and next steps: Polk said the district will publish required notices, open a 30-day review period, and hold a public hearing and proposed budget adoption in September to meet statutory deadlines. The administration will return with additional presentations on high school transformation and other initiatives and will provide continuing-resolution authority and a proposed resolution authorizing interfund transfers to ensure cash flow until the budget is adopted.

What the board decided: there was no vote to adopt a budget at the workshop. The board approved procedural motions on meeting minutes and allowed one board member to participate by phone; no formal budget actions were taken at this session.

Polk repeatedly framed the budget as conditional: assumptions will be revisited if federal or state funding changes, and staff will monitor spending and report quarterly to the board.