Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukegan CUSD 60 projects revenue drop for FY26, flags use of reserves and possible tax increase
Summary
District finance staff presented a FY2026 budget profile showing a projected revenue decline, planned use of fund balance to avoid an immediate deficit and a recommendation that the board consider restoring property tax capacity left unused since 2018.
Waukegan CUSD 60 officials presented a proposed fiscal year 2026 budget profile that assumes a sizable drop in revenue next year and relies on reserve funds to avoid an immediate deficit. Associate Superintendent for Business Services Gwen Polk told the board the district used conservative assumptions, including holding many line items flat while incorporating ISBE's 4.1% evidence‑based funding request into projections.
Polk said the presentation aimed to give the board a “picture of the landscape” and that the district does not intend to present a deficit budget for FY26. “We think that it's going to not create a deficit,” Polk said during the presentation.
The district's materials show a projected revenue figure of about $279 million for FY26 and list a budgeted total expenditure figure of about $327,000,003.00. Polk told the board the district expects to begin the fiscal year with an education fund balance around $65.6 million and projected an end‑of‑year education fund balance near $40.7 million if the proposed spending holds.
The presentation repeatedly emphasized that the budget uses conservative assumptions because some state and federal revenue sources remain uncertain. Polk and other presenters identified three revenue risks: delayed Medicaid reimbursements, outstanding reimbursement from the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) for capital/grant work, and potential federal or state executive actions that could reassign or alter funding streams.
Board discussion focused on the effect of the district's decision to keep property tax levies level for several years. District staff and several trustees noted that keeping the levy level since 2018 has left an estimated $35 million ‘‘on the table’’ in foregone tax revenue the board could not restore later. Polk said the district has about $105 million in cash on hand across funds, but also warned that using reserves to backfill structural shortfalls is not sustainable indefinitely.
No formal board action was taken at the workshop; staff said they will return with more detailed budget documents and scenarios, including comparisons to peer districts and the tradeoffs that would follow any decision to restore all or part of the tax capacity.
Polk urged a measured approach: if federal or state revenues change, the district will update assumptions and recommend changes. “We should not be impulsive in making changes,” Polk said about potential staffing and program adjustments, noting the administration is preparing options for the board’s consideration.
The administration recommended the board consider the full set of tools — including targeted expenditure reductions, use of reserves, and levy adjustments — and directed staff to provide impact scenarios so trustees can weigh tradeoffs ahead of formal budget hearings and truth‑in‑taxation notices.
The workshop closed with staff agreeing to provide detailed line‑item links and comparative data on tax impact by household for any levy proposal, and to circulate clarifying documentation on outstanding reimbursements and reserve balances.
