The next board meeting is a special meeting (in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings) this Monday, August 31, at 5pm. Time for public comments will be soon after the meeting is called to order. So if you can’t make one, you’ve got a second option. Check out our Board Advocacy Guide if you haven’t spoken at a meeting before and don’t know what to expect, or just for some extra info.

Coming up this Monday-

District 65’s board sees an updated tentative budget for the current school year. This is an information item and a procedural vote, not a decision on spending. But the numbers in it are the most current picture we have, and several of them have moved since the year-end report three weeks ago. The board will hold a public hearing on the budget on September 28. (more detail below).

Other items in the agenda-

The board will vote to approve the superintendent search firm agreement with Alma Advisory Group.

A routine review and vote on recommended changes by IASB to policy language, approval of contracts over $25k, and bills payable.

The agenda also shares new board committee assignments, school liaisons, and School Work Plans by school (item 17 in the agenda links to each school’s work plan).

What the budget materials say-

The district projects it will spend about $5.1 million more than it takes in this year. About $3.6 million of that is a one-time payment closing out Foster School construction. Setting that aside, the operating deficit is about $1.45 million.

The operating fund balance is projected to end the year at $40.8 million, which is 22% of annual spending, or roughly 81 days of cash. The board’s own policy sets a floor of 25%, or 90 days. So the district is projecting it will finish this year about $4.5 million below its own minimum.

The budget report compares the most recent three years of the operating fund balance.

Excluding the close-out costs from Foster, the balance has fallen about $5 million, or 10%, in two years. It’s a continued decline that crosses the board policy line this year. The structural deficit is evident in levy increases of 2.9% while inflation’s impact on expenses are growing faster.

As a reminder less than 5% of school districts in Illinois have under 100 days cash according to the Illinois State Board of Education’s Financial Profile.

Five things account for most of the movement from earlier estimates of FY27’s budget:

Foster’s construction closeout landed as a $3.625 million one-time transfer from the Working Cash Fund. The memo says most of it had been anticipated, and it has been represented in various financial models in the SDRP reports.

A $4 million asset sale came out of the budget. The previous estimates assumed the sale of Bessie Rhodes for $4 million, which was presented in tandem with the close-out payment for Foster in financial models. That is not in this budget. Had it stayed, the projected fund balance would be about $44.8 million, or roughly 24%, still under the policy minimum but much closer to it. This single change accounts for most of the gap between the earlier outlook and this one.

Property tax revenue was revised down $2.5 million. The levy is limited by PTELL and driven principally by a 2.9% CPI factor.

Interest income was budgeted conservatively. Roughly $1.6 million across operating funds, reflecting last year’s actual experience rather than the more optimistic prior assumption.

Out-of-district special education tuition was rebuilt from actual student placements. After exceeding budget by about $1.5 million last year, the FY27 estimate is about $1.8 million below FY26 actual spending. This is an item that is likely not to land spot on to the estimate, because placements can change during the year. Special education expenses are legally required to provide a free appropriate public education to all students. Both Dr. Witherspoon and Mr. Miller discussed this at the August 10th board meeting to provide context on the volatility of these expenses to board members. The memo commits to monthly monitoring of these costs to provide more accurate projections.

A more specific number on health and life safety borrowing

The board will vote on approval to submit to ISBE the Health Life Safety Survey. The budget in the board packet includes $22.1 million in anticipated Health Life Safety bond proceeds, against $4.35 million in eligible spending this year. These may be eligible to be levied in taxes without a public referendum.

This is the first figure the district has put on the borrowing. The August memo presenting the 10-Year Health/Life Safety Survey identified $128.8 million in work and named a levy or bond issuance as the funding path, but did not quantify it. The near-term borrowing is far smaller than the ten-year total, which is consistent with the survey work being phased rather than done at once.

The first meeting was a brief vote by the board authorizing the issuance of up to $22.97 million in interest free tax anticipation warrants through the Cook County Bridge Loan program.

Additional context on this from our preview written for this meeting:

Thrive65 Note: The TL; DR - Board is approving borrowing because Cook County will likely be late paying again. This meeting is evidence of the significant cash challenges the district faces. All Cook County schools are feeling the pinch due to the County’s continuing problems paying our school districts. The Illinois Federation of Teachers has sued over the impacts to students and educators.

However, not all Cook County Schools are feeling it like D65. When it comes to days cash on hand, D65 is in the bottom 5% of schools in the state. That means we are less able to draw from our own reserves when situations like this arise. The District will likely seek more borrowing in September.

This meeting’s agenda indicates a special meeting for a board vote to apply to Cook County’s Bridge Loan Program for tax anticipation warrants. Those are basically short term borrowing mechanisms to get cash while waiting on payments from Cook County.

It is not the first time District 65 has approved tax anticipation warrants. In 2025, the board approved them in September and December. What is different about the County’s bridge loan program, is that these would be interest free. Evanston Now reported that last year’s warrants cost the District about $180,000 in interest and fees. While it would certainly help to avoid those fees, the bigger financial impact from the delayed payments from Cook County are the lost interest the District would gain if it had those owed property tax dollars in the bank. That same article reported the District’s spokesperson indicted last year’s delays cost the district almost $1 million in lost interest income.

The board will vote on a resolution authorizing $22.97 million in warrants, interest free, through the County’s program.

Importantly, the memo from D65’s CFO says “Although the $22.97 million will help the District meet payroll and vendor obligations, it will not fully address the projected cash-flow shortfall. The District expects to issue additional tax anticipation warrants in the near future.”

A memo from the district’s external financial advisors, PTMA Financial Solutions, provides more detail on this; indicating that the board may need to approve additional warrants at the September 14th board meeting, in order to ensure the “interim liquidity to ensure it can continue meeting payroll, vendor payments, and other operating obligations without disruption.”

The second meeting on the 25th was the City School Liaison Committee Meeting. At public comments, three people spoke about the concerns of the reduction of crossing guards and the inadequate communication about the changes. Speakers also encouraged the City to rethink their agreement to fully put the cost of crossing guards on D65 starting next year.

The meeting then commenced, and attendees heard a presentation from the city on potential opportunities for TIF districts to provide additional resources to D65, either via closing TIFs early to return that annual tax revenue to the schools sooner, or through opportunities to expand districts to include certain schools (Foster, Lincoln, Park, and/or King Arts), who would then be eligible for funds for capital expenditures (including lease certificate payments). TIFs have different end dates, and some may be more likely than others to be considered for early termination of the TIF. The second option to put schools in the TIF could possibly free up a larger amount of dollars in a short term for a capital project (versus annual payments from regular tax distribution). Either option would require more deliberation and approval from the City Council.

The next board meeting is a special meeting (in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings) this Tuesday, August 25, at 4:45pm. There is then a separate City School Liaison Committee Meeting starting at 6:00pm. Time for public comments will be soon after each meeting is called to order. So if you can’t make one, you’ve got a second option. Check out our Board Advocacy Guide if you haven’t spoken at a meeting before and don’t know what to expect, or just for some extra info.

The City School Liaison meeting has an agenda that lists “TIF Districts Discussion” with no other context or supporting documents. My guess is it is to continue conversations being had about retiring TIFs to potentially add more tax revenue back to the schools. This was reported on by the Roundtable and others.

Thrive65 Note: The TL; DR - Board is approving borrowing because Cook County will likely be late paying again. This meeting is evidence of the significant cash challenges the district faces. All Cook County schools are feeling the pinch due to the County’s continuing problems paying our school districts. The Illinois Federation of Teachers has sued over the impacts to students and educators.

However, not all Cook County Schools are feeling it like D65. When it comes to days cash on hand, D65 is in the bottom 5% of schools in the state. That means we are less able to draw from our own reserves when situations like this arise. The District will likely seek more borrowing in September.

This meeting’s agenda indicates a special meeting for a board vote to apply to Cook County’s Bridge Loan Program for tax anticipation warrants. Those are basically short term borrowing mechanisms to get cash while waiting on payments from Cook County.

It is not the first time District 65 has approved tax anticipation warrants. In 2025, the board approved them in September and December. What is different about the County’s bridge loan program, is that these would be interest free. Evanston Now reported that last year’s warrants cost the District about $180,000 in interest and fees. While it would certainly help to avoid those fees, the bigger financial impact from the delayed payments from Cook County are the lost interest the District would gain if it had those owed property tax dollars in the bank. That same article reported the District’s spokesperson indicted last year’s delays cost the district almost $1 million in lost interest income.

The board will vote on a resolution authorizing $22.97 million in warrants, interest free, through the County’s program.

Importantly, the memo from D65’s CFO says “Although the $22.97 million will help the District meet payroll and vendor obligations, it will not fully address the projected cash-flow shortfall. The District expects to issue additional tax anticipation warrants in the near future.”

A memo from the district’s external financial advisors, PTMA Financial Solutions, provides more detail on this; indicating that the board may need to approve additional warrants at the September 14th board meeting, in order to ensure the “interim liquidity to ensure it can continue meeting payroll, vendor payments, and other operating obligations without disruption.”

The board had a brief meeting to deliberate on and choose a search firm for our new superintendent. You can check our recap to see more details on those firms.

The board voted to select Alma Advisory Group, and will be finalizing an agreement for approval soon. Board members were generally aligned that, while higher in cost, they felt this was an investment in the future of our district, with many referring to the desired next superintendent as a “generational leader”. The next runner up appeared to be IASB, mostly because of the significantly lower price tag. Some members of the board noted that this fall will be a challenging period, thinking about the future of our district in the search process while also making hard choices on the budget.

Dr. Witherspoon gave credit to the board for taking the search process seriously. He recognized the consideration and collaboration of the board which strengthens the likelihood that the process will be successful.

• Alma Advisory Group (Proposal, Presentation) - Hyde Park
• Cost is $80,000 with a not-to-exceed total inclusive of marketing and travel of $95,000. This equals 32% of salary, which they have benchmarked at $250k
• We did not see any additional services offered at additional cost in the proposal.

• Conducted ETHS 202’s superintendent process in 2022

• HYA (Proposal, Presentation-not in board materials) - Arlington Heights
  • Cost is 25% of total compensation (as opposed to the other proposal, which is based on salary, total compensation includes benefits, PTO, etc., in the total), inclusive of costs like travel, etc.
    • For comparison to Alma’s proposal, HYA’s rate would be the same range of $80-95k if the total compensation of the new superintendent’s total salary and benefits totaled $320,000-380,000. (Dr. Turner’s total compensation was $324,000 in the most current info)
  • Provided an “Optional Services” section with items for added costs (page 39).
  • Conducted D65’s superintendent process in 2014
  • The FOIA Gras blog reported that HYA facilitated a search for Benton Harbor, MI’s superintendent, where they selected a candidate who was formerly D65’s Director of Research, Accountability and Data from 2022-2023. The blog reports that this person left before the first year had completed, with some controversy explained in the blog.
• IASB (Proposal, Presentation) - Lombard
  • Cost is not to exceed $11,900, with optional add-ons such as “Conduct Focus Groups” ($4,500), “Facilitate Stakeholder Group with Finalists” ($1,500), and “Conduct Mock Interview” ($4,500).
  • Total with the above options is $21,900. IASB indicated in its presentation that its fees are lower because D65 is a member. (IASB is the Illinois Association of School Boards)
  • Conducted D65’s superintendent and CFO processes in 2023-2024.

Thrive65’s TL;DR

Top takeaways from this meeting, more detail below.

1. Board received presentations from the 3 firms bidding to do the superintendent search. 2 are similar in cost at ~80k, one is ~20k.
2. New CFO, Eric Miller, reports that our SY26 revenue was $6.8 million under projections. Expenses were $5.2 million under expected. This is a $1.6 million deficit under the former way we have seen financials, but a $3.4 million deficit excluding certain restricted funds.
   • His team has identified transportation route savings that should lead to $900k in savings in SY27.
   • Cash on Hand at end of SY26 is 95 days, which he noted leaves very low room for error.
   • CFO stated that substantial savings are needed immediately and school closures must be a part of the solution. Cash flow remains a concern. We need to realign resources to what we can afford, and build a smaller, more efficient cost structure prioritizing education.
3. Dr. Witherspoon noted that no budget ends to the dime, but his goal is for us to budget even more conservatively with the hopes of being pleasantly surprised by year end results, rather than seeing bigger deficits.
   • Dr. Witherspoon said that transportation and special education are priorities to look at for cost controls, while recognizing that we first must ensure special ed students are getting what they need.
4. Dr. Beardsley presented a Health Life Safety memo, which the board approved submission of its findings to the state board of education for its approval.
   • This will lead to the District securing life safety bonds to cover urgent maintenance needs. This will be a tax levy that does not require public vote.

The Details

Superintendent Search

Board received presentations from three firms:

• Alma Advisory Group (Proposal, Presentation) - Hyde Park
• Cost is $80,000 with a not to exceed total inclusive of marketing and travel of $95,000. This equals 32% of salary, which they have benchmarked at $250k
• We did not see any additional services offer at additional cost in the proposal.

• Conducted ETHS 202’s superintendent process in 2022

• HYA (Proposal, Presentation-not in board materials) - Arlington Heights
  • Cost is 25% of total compensation (as opposed to the other proposal which bases on salary, total compensation includes benefits, PTO, etc in the total), inclusive of costs like travel etc.
    • For comparison to the Alma’s proposal, HYA’s rate would be the same range of 80-95k if the total compensation of the new superintendent’s total salary and benefits totalled 320,000-380,000. (Dr. Turner’s total compensation was 324,000 in the most current info)
  • Provided an “Optional Services” section with items for added costs (page 39).
  • Conducted D65’s superintendent process in 2014

Thrive65 Note

The FOIA Gras blog reported that HYA facilitated a search for Benton Harbor, MI’s superintendent, where they selected a candidate who was formerly D65’s Director of Research, Accountability and Data from 2022-2023. The blog reports that this person left before the first year had completed, with some controversy explained in the blog.

• IASB (Proposal, Presentation) - Lombard
  • Cost is not to exceed $11,900, with optional add ons such as “Conduct Focus Groups” ($4,500), “Facilitate Stakeholder Group with Finalists” ($1,500), “Conduct Mock Interview” ($4,500).
  • Total with the above optional items is $21,900. IASB indicated in their presentation that their fees are lower since D65 is a member. (IASB is the Illinois Association of School Boards)
  • Conducted D65’s superintendent and CFO processes in 2023-2024.

Financial Report

• New CFO, Eric Miller, presented a SY26 year in review, supporting a memo on how SY26 ended.
  • Reports that our SY26 revenue was $6.8 million under projections. Expenses were $5.2 million under expected. This is a $1.6 million deficit under the former way we have seen financials.
  • CFO is now excluding certain restricted funds that he feels should not be included in operating. In that model, we have a $3.4 million deficit.
  • Revenue was hurt by lower state funding including a grant that is not renewable from SY25, lower federal Head Start revenues, and local revenues under by more than $2 million due to the delays in Cook County payments.
  • Expenses were lower than expected in purchased services and overall salaries and benefits. However, there were some significant increases in special education salaries based on their contract finalized last year. Additionally, outplacement of special ed students was $1.5 million over budget.
  • Cash on Hand at the end of SY26 is 95 days, which he noted leaves very low room for error.
  • CFO stated that His team has identified transportation route savings that should lead to $900k in savings in SY27.
  • He also said that substantial savings are needed immediately and school closures must be a part of the solution. Cash flow remains a concern. We need to realign resources to what we can afford, and build a smaller, more efficient cost structure prioritizing education.

Health/Life Safety (HLS)

• Dr. Beardsley reviewed the HLS Memo from the board packet. There is $128.8 million of maintenance that is considered a Health/Life Safety item. The memo explains this is a requirement from the state board of education, ISBE, to complete every 10 years. The memo presents this amount as the total 10 year items in categories A, B, and C.

Thrive65 Note

A, B, and C correlate to ISBE’s definitions of urgency. A is “Urgent” and requires repairs in 1 year. B is “Required” and requires repairs within 5 years. C is “Expedient” and requires repairs within 10 years. The discussion at the board meeting clarified that Urgent repairs total $1 million, Required repairs are $20.6 million, and the rest is in the Expedient category.

• The board approved submission to ISBE. When ISBE approves, the district will be able to issue Life Safety bonds without a referendum vote, per Illinois school code.

Thrive65 Note

The community may want to seek clarity and more proactive communications from the District on what that means for their taxes, especially as future operating and/or capital referendums are likely.

• Chris Van Nostrand asked Dr. Beardsley how we ensure we do not invest in buildings that will be closed. She noted that in board materials (not on their website), it is broken out by building. Beardsley also noted that her team is working on bundling work in the Urgent and Required categories with other repairs that would make sense to prioritize for cost and time efficiency, in collaboration with StudioGC.

Power out at JEH, board meeting held with only the light from the windows! Short meeting, so these notes are more brief.

Board reviewed IDOT Hazards and the list of crossing guard locations for SY27. Significant reduction in crossing guards for many schools. Regarding concern about some of the areas where crossing guards were removed, administration explained that making Ridge a designated hazard means those students will be eligible for bussing.

Thrive65 Note

In practice this may mean that kids who live a block or two away from a school on the other side of Ridge would now need to take a bus. It may be worth asking board if the additional hazard transportation reimbursement from the state will fully cover the new busing, or if the administration feels confident folks living a couple blocks away will actually use the bus versus kids just continuing to cross a busy street with no crossing guard now.

Thrive65 Note

Some community members have reached out with concerns to Admin or Board and received varying information that more crossing guards may be added to some locations, but the district has not verified anything publicly to help families know what to expect for their school commutes.

SY27 Board Calendar This will be subject to changes, so always check before you go!

RFP for the new superintendent search