District presents $12–15 million stabilization gap and convenes community steering committees for consolidation scenarios

Student Centered Services and District 65 staff presented Phase 3 of the Strategic Deficit Reduction Plan (SDRP) at the May 19 board meeting, saying the district must find an estimated $12–15 million in reductions or new revenue to stop multi-year deficit spending and avoid short-term borrowing. The presenters described an 11-month stakeholder process that will produce 3–5 scenarios for the board to consider in the fall.

Susan Harkin of Student Centered Services told the board the district faces enrollment declines and the loss of emergency ESSER grant revenue, and that deferred facility needs are substantial. “After this year, you will have had 3 years your enrollment is going down,” Harkin said, noting the district has “$188,000,000 worth of identified” facility needs in its master plan. “This is not going to be easy,” she added.

The SDRP timeline includes six meetings of a community steering committee and subcommittees (finance, facilities, programs) through June 30; a summer pause with internal staff work; and a planned set of modeled scenarios in August or September for board review. The plan’s internal steering committee will produce 3–5 scenarios that balance facilities, programs and finance. District staff said they will return with an update to the board on June 23 and that municipal advisors will present financing options in a forthcoming meeting.

Finance subcommittee members reviewed revenue options and financing levers with municipal advisor PMA Securities and are preparing scenario modeling that will combine expenditure reductions, potential revenue generation (including the possibility of a referendum), and borrowing strategies. The district said the immediate stabilization goal—estimated at about $12.5 million based on current projections—would restore the fund balance to policy levels, stop borrowing and address immediate cash-flow risk; it would not cover the district’s full long-term facility backlog.

Stakeholder engagement materials and meeting summaries were posted on the district SDRP webpage; staff said the community sessions and an online survey yielded common criteria for any proposed consolidations, including equity, walkability, program access and fiscal stewardship. Staff emphasized that any proposal to close schools would follow the state school code process and require additional public hearings, analysis and a final board vote.

Board members asked for clarity on the $12–15 million range and how sustainability is defined. Harkin and district staff explained the range reflects model sensitivity to year-end results and one-time versus ongoing savings. “At this point, we think we’re probably closer to about 12 and a half million dollars,” Harkin said; staff said the district will update projections after the June 30 close. The presentation also flagged that any long-term reinvestment in facilities would require an identified ongoing revenue source or additional reductions.

Board members and the public urged more transparency and faster communication to allay rumors about closures. Staff said more detailed briefings for board members will be scheduled over the summer and that legal counsel and advisors have been asked to define how board members may engage with stakeholder groups while complying with Open Meetings Act rules. No formal board decisions were made; the SDRP process is consultative through summer and modeling will return to the board in the fall for deliberation.