Waukegan CUSD 60 board hears $10M-plus plan to reduce FY27 shortfall; staffing, programs targeted

Board President Rodriguez opened a public budget workshop and the Waukegan CUSD 60 administration on Tuesday presented a plan intended to reduce the district's projected shortfall for the 2026–27 fiscal year by roughly $10 million, with staff detailing about $11.5 million of proposed reductions across positions and programs.

The superintendent (identified in the record only by title) told the board the district faces a multi-year drawdown of fund balance after the end of federal ESSER/ARPA funding and years of flat tax levies. "We're going to show you how we're going to get there," the superintendent said, describing a plan that balances preserving instruction with cost containment.

Presenter Miss Poke walked board members through historical fund swings, noting the education fund fell from earlier highs after ESSER and evidence-based funding changes. The administration said the education fund had been about $69 million and projected it could fall to roughly $36–37 million without action; board policy currently cites a 25% fund-balance target, but staff recommended focusing on a 90-day cash threshold as a more realistic near-term goal.

The core of the presentation laid out categories for reductions: vacancies and attrition, staffing adjustments and centralization, contract reviews and program/utilization changes. Staff said they would prioritize maintaining instruction and mandated services while seeking "sustainable cost containment." The administration listed an overall package that exceeds the board's $10 million target: proposed reductions total about $11.5 million, including an estimated $5.3 million from human-capital changes.

Specific personnel proposals included recommendations such as centralizing or eliminating vacant positions and targeting reductions where contractual staffing levels (tied to enrollment or IEP minutes) allow it. Examples the district presented: a plan to not refill certain vacant nurse positions (20 filled, seven vacant, with a recommendation to reduce seven vacancies), reducing DL (dual-language) specialist positions from 11 to 6, trimming computer assistants from 19 to 10 through centralization, reducing bilingual tutors from 32 to 22, and reducing DL paraprofessionals (the district reported 156 current positions with a recommended target of 108, a reduction of 48 positions that includes both vacancies and filled posts). Staff emphasized many cuts would use attrition or vacant roles and that supports tied to IEP minutes would remain funded.

Administrators also flagged uncertainty around grants: a pending grant for a community "wraparound center" could preserve some positions; if that grant is not awarded, staff said the district would consider operational reorganizations to continue services at lower cost. Miss Poke said the wraparound item "may completely come off for the next budget meeting" if the grant is awarded.

Board members pressed staff about special-education capacity, bilingual/dual-language programming, Medicaid reimbursements and the timing and types of grants being pursued. Miss Hannah asked whether reductions to staff who provide services covered by federal laws would leave the district able to meet legal obligations; the administration said the DL and special-education directors audited minutes, caseloads and staffing levels and that a formal audit of DL/EL expenditures and Medicaid claiming would begin in the coming weeks.

Multiple board members also raised operational concerns: transportation impacts from collapsed classroom sections, the need for professional development for general-education teachers who will have reduced paraprofessional support, and whether consulting contracts and outside venue rentals could be curtailed. Several trustees asked for a follow-up report with audited details and for the administration to return with any additional modest savings found while noting the $11.5 million is the current staffing-and-program estimate.

Public commenters who attended the workshop praised the presentation's clarity but urged better advance notice of meetings and warned the board to consider deeper structural changes (facility use, contract renegotiation and consultant reduction) if enrollment declines continue. One attendee urged leaders to "lead by example" on compensation if staff reductions touch bargaining units; the superintendent publicly said she would forgo a cost-of-living increase before asking staff to accept a pay freeze.

No final budget votes were taken at the workshop. The board unanimously approved procedural items earlier in the meeting (allowing a member to participate remotely and approving amended minutes of the May 13 workshop). Administrators said the board will receive ongoing updates, expect additional detail at the next budget workshop and that the final budget timeline remains for approval in September.

What happens next: staff committed to begin audits of DL/EL expenditures and Medicaid claiming, continue contract reviews (including nutrition/food services), and present more detailed follow-up information at the board's next budget review. The administration said the current package of reductions would protect instruction where possible while returning the district toward a more sustainable cash position.

(Reporting note: speakers and roles are taken from the meeting transcript; where a speaker's full name did not appear in the transcript the article uses the honorific and role as recorded.)