Shorewood presents FY‑26 preliminary budget showing flatting deficits, proposed levy increase
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District finance officials outlined the FY‑26 preliminary budget and long‑range forecast, noting efforts to flatten post‑referendum deficits, increase capital reserves and maintain working capital; board members pressed for further financial oversight and possible advisory structures.
Shorewood School District officials presented a proposed FY‑26 preliminary budget and long‑range financial forecasts at the board meeting, outlining strategies to reduce future deficits, shore up capital funds and preserve working capital.
Director of Business Services Heather (last name not specified) and Superintendent Lori Burgos walked the board through revenue and expense assumptions, fund balance allocations and a scenario analysis showing the financial path taken after the 2023 referendum. Heather said the district is budgeting just over $31 million in general fund revenue and proposed a levy that would be approximately an 8% increase over the current year in the preliminary projection; she noted she was being conservative on state aid until final state numbers are available.
Heather said the district has focused on four strategies: flattening long‑term deficits, increasing capital fund balances to smooth large future maintenance costs (roofs, boilers, tuckpointing across 500,000 square feet of historic property), building a healthy working capital cushion for first‑half cash flow and earmarking funds for potential healthcare self‑funding. “We want to be able to put money into capital now so that we don’t have to put the same amount in later years,” she said.
The presentation included a multi‑year forecast showing earlier projections with steeper post‑referendum gaps and a newer projection with smaller deficits in later years, achieved by raising capital reserves in advance and implementing spending controls. Heather said the district projects a general fund expense of roughly $30 million (a 2.4% increase) and described the major revenue sources — property taxes, state aid and federal funds — and the sensitivity of Shorewood’s levy to state aid changes.
Board members pushed for additional transparency and suggested structural changes to board oversight. Nathan (last name not specified) and others recommended forming a finance committee or a financial sustainability task force to delve into details such as compensation, benefits and long‑term liabilities; Heather said she would bring a formal proposal for board consideration. A few board members cautioned that past attempts to convene a community finance committee had uneven attendance and recommended careful scoping and recruitment if the board proceeds.
Several board members asked for more granular reporting (salaries and benefits, consultants) and Heather said some breakdowns are straightforward while others require additional time to compile from thousands of line items. Burgos suggested the question of “where do we want to be at the end of the operating referendum” should guide long‑term planning; board members agreed that alumni outcomes, enrollment trends and program offerings should inform any future referendum strategy.
Heather proposed shifting the board’s regular meeting start time to 6 p.m. beginning in July and moving a September meeting that conflicts with Rosh Hashanah; the board agreed to a 6 p.m. start and to shift the September meeting date.
No final votes on the budget occurred at the meeting; the board is scheduled to consider a preliminary budget adoption on June 10 and a final adoption in October after state aid and property valuation information is finalized.