Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Projection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget presentation: District warns rising special‑education costs and capital transfers could shrink reserves without policy changes
Summary
District business staff told the Oak Park–River Forest board that FY26 is a pivotal year because of large capital spending on Project 2 and rising special‑education costs, and they presented scenarios that would require levy or expenditure changes to maintain reserves.
District finance staff presented the tentative FY26 budget and two five‑year projection scenarios, warning that ongoing special‑education cost growth and large transfers to capital related to Project 2 will set a new fiscal baseline.
Brian, the district business officer, told the board that property taxes supply the majority of revenues and that the tentative FY26 revenue budget is about $108 million. He said FY26 includes approximately $62 million in construction costs (roughly 40% of the budget), $54 million of which are for Project 2, and that operating funds will transfer about $42 million toward capital work during the year. "We have, in this year's budget, we have over $62 million, which is about 40% of our overall budget, going towards construction costs," Brian said.
Special education is the largest single driver of operating increases. Presenters said outplacements are expected to increase (about 42 to 52 students) and residential placements from four to six, producing roughly a $2.2 million increase in FY26 for special education tuition, nursing and one‑to‑one support, transportation and related services. "Many of those reimbursements are prorated, meaning each dollar of expenses we have may only result in say, 50 to 80 cents of revenue," Brian told the board.
Staff also described downside risks: Cook County delays in tax bill issuance that affect cash flow, uncertainty about federal/state grant timing and potential tariff‑driven cost increases for construction and supplies. Board members pressed staff for a formal scenario plan for tariffs and asked whether reductions in staffing (FTE) should be modeled if enrollment declines; staff said those are longer‑range personnel decisions and suggested a collaborative process across departments.
Two five‑year scenarios were shown. The base scenario—if current assumptions persist—would gradually lower the district's fund balance percentage and could reach a low of roughly 11% by 2030. An alternate scenario blends partial levy recapture, targeted operating reductions (an example of $1 million in FY27 ramping to $2 million annually) and changes to the 10‑year maintenance plan; together those actions hold projected fund balance nearer a 33% target in later years.
Administrators also reported a $3.5 million one‑time state grant (part of prior year funding) with $2 million budgeted in FY26 and $1.5 million planned for the following year. The board asked for updates from vendors and Verity regarding geothermal tax credits tied to a separate project component, and staff said messaging from the developer remains mixed but indicated deadlines for eligibility.
