Jenny Logan, the district treasurer, opened the board’s financial presentation on Nov. 20 with an overview of the district’s updated five‑year forecast and the assumptions behind it. "So, tonight what I wanted to do was review the 5 year forecast," she said as she began the slide presentation.

The forecast — updated from the prior meeting and extended through fiscal 2029 — shows Sycamore could fall below the board’s cash‑balance goal in 2028 and would be at risk of a cash shortfall in 2029 if the district’s current revenue and expenditure assumptions hold. Logan and board members modeled alternative scenarios including a fully phased‑in Fair School Funding Plan and a potential 6.5‑mill levy (4.5 operating mills, 2 mills for permanent improvement) to estimate how each option would affect the long‑range outlook.

Why it matters: Sycamore’s revenues are heavily local; Logan told the board that local sources supply the lion’s share of district revenue and that state foundation funding accounts for a much smaller percentage. Under the assumptions presented — including no guaranteed completion of the state’s Fair School Funding Plan in the next biennium — the district’s built cash reserves would be drawn down unless new revenue or sustained reductions in expenditure growth are secured.

Details and assumptions
- Revaluation/update assumptions: Logan said last year’s countywide revaluation produced unusually large increases (a 22–24% overall jump); the forecast assumes an 11% update in 2026 unless sales data indicate otherwise. "If we see the sales data start tracking a more reasonable market, then I think it makes sense to adjust that downward," she said.
- State funding: The forecast does not assume the Fair School Funding Plan will be fully phased in in the 2026–27 biennium. Logan said the district will await clearer signals from the governor’s budget in February and finalized action by the end of June.
- Expenditure drivers: The forecast assumes 3% base wage growth beyond negotiated contracts, a 10% assumption for healthcare premium increases, and a 3.5% ongoing supplies/materials inflation after a one‑time spike tied to new curriculum purchases. Logan noted some spending in 2024 was supported by ESSER funds and Science of Reading stipends that affect year‑over‑year comparisons.

Modeling outcomes
- Full FSFP phase‑in alone would not eliminate fiscal pressure: board modeling showed that a full phase‑in of the Fair School Funding Plan would improve results but would still leave the district below its cash‑balance target in 2028 and at low cash levels through 2029.
- A 6.5‑mill levy (4.5 operating / 2 PI) approved in calendar 2026 would provide additional revenue, but under the modeled assumptions it would likely be insufficient to prevent future requests for additional revenue in later years. Logan cautioned the board: "This, in and of itself, standalone with no other action, is not enough." (paraphrase of remarks during modeling).
- Expenditure‑reduction scenarios: The board ran models showing that limiting expenditure growth to 1.6% annually through 2029 would require finding roughly $23 million in recurring savings across the period (about $5.74 million realized in year one and repeated annually). A less severe cap of 2.25% plus a 6.5‑mill levy produced a materially improved outlook.

Board discussion and next steps
Board members asked for additional modeling — including a comparison of asking voters in calendar 2025 vs. 2026 — and discussed balancing long‑term service levels (class sizes, program variety) with fiscal sustainability. Dr. Brian Durkin, a board member, said he favored starting from the 6.5‑mill request used in the district’s last campaign and noted community reaction historically when millage asks exceed 7 mills.

Logan recommended continued advocacy for full phase‑in of the state funding model, consideration of permanent‑improvement (PI) millage to create a dedicated funding stream for facilities and buses, and a February or March financial retreat at which the administration would bring recommendations on expenditure parameters and levy timing for board decision. "This is a great tool for us to look at...no action is not an option," Logan said in summation of the forecast discussion.

Ending
The board directed staff to return with additional models — including a version assuming no FSFP phase‑in and a model for a 2025 ask — and scheduled further work at the district’s upcoming financial retreat. The forecast document and presentation materials will be posted on the district website for community review.