In a statement she shared during the school board’s Finance Committee meeting on Monday afternoon, District 65 interim Superintendent Angel Turner shared a list of strategies she and the district’s financial advisers have identified for making budget cuts ahead of the 2025 fiscal year.
Robert Grossi, one of the district’s financial consultants, said at a meeting in February that without immediate action before finalizing budget plans for the next school year, District 65 will incur a projected $4.2 million deficit in 2025. To avoid that impending shortfall and pass a balanced budget, the school board needs to permanently cut between $5 million and $6 million of its expenditures, he recommended at the time.
“It is the goal of this administration and of our school board to change the district’s financial trajectory once and for all,” Turner said. “Our team has taken the charge to make significant financial reductions with the utmost seriousness and care. Budget reductions are always painful, and yet at this time, they are necessary.”
This spring, the first phase of the “FY25 budget reduction plan” – which will be presented in public at the April 15 Finance Committee meeting – will include three categories of cuts, according to Turner:
- “Right-sizing staffing levels across departments to better match current school and student enrollment.”
- “Creating operational efficiencies by reimagining certain non-teaching staff roles and responsibilities.”
- “Slowing the growth rate of non-personnel expenditures across department.”
The district will launch a second phase of the budget reduction plan at the start of next school year that “will be predicated on updating longtime financial projections,” Turner said. Those longer-term efforts will include a “building consolidation plan” designed to address declining enrollment that “will undoubtedly be extremely difficult,” she added.
In a reversal of the district’s previous statements to the RoundTable, Turner also acknowledged past overspending on the central office administration, which board member and committee chair Joey Hailpern thanked her for bringing up. Last year, the RoundTable reported on the district’s ballooning expenditures on administrative staff.
“We know we need to create greater efficiencies in our central office and administration, which has a much higher admin-to-student ratio than our peer districts,” she said.
A group of about 25 teachers and staff members from across the district attended the meeting wearing red union T-shirts in support of the workers who could have their positions eliminated. Most of the personnel cuts will be accomplished through attrition and retirements, according to Turner, though many in the crowd Monday afternoon meeting whispered their approval when she mentioned the need for administrative reductions.
Transportation costs and crossing guards
So far this year, the district has targeted consulting agreements, purchased services and transportation as prime areas for cutting costs, the interim superintendent said.
Transportation, in particular, has become a thorn in the school board’s side, with expenditures last year on buses and cab rides for individual students drastically increasing over previous levels. Before 2023, the district had never spent more than $6 million on transportation. Last year, it spent $10 million on buses and cabs, fueling a 2023 fiscal year budget deficit of more than $7 million.
The district is now on track to close out FY 2024 having spent $9.8 million on student transit, down $500,000 from the $10.3 million budgeted. Most of those savings are the result of Transportation Services Coordinator Lou Gatta renegotiating part of the district’s contracts with cab provider BriteLift and school bus company Positive Connections. The month-by-month breakdown of transportation spending this school year through January is below, copied from a memo to the school board written by Gatta.
- August: $325,820.13 (seven school days – $46,545.73 per day)
- September: $1,055,406 (19 school days – $55,547.68 per day)
- October: $1,053,984.72 (20 school days – $52,699.24 per day)
- November: $837,856.43 (17 school days – $49,285.67 per day)
- December: $783,037.11 (16 school days – $48,939.81 per day)
- January: $769,360.86 (16 school days – $48,085.05 per day)
Meanwhile, another issue the district is dealing with now is its transition toward taking over crossing guard expenses and management duties from the City of Evanston. District 65 is in year three of a five-year deal with the city to eventually shift responsibility to the school district, which is now paying about half of a $550,000 contract for crossing guards.
“In response to growing concerns over the adequacy of our crossing guard services,” Assistant Superintendent of Operations and Planning Terrance Little wrote in a memo to the board, he is recommending a $23,410 contract with All City Management Services to conduct an audit of the crossing guard system. If the board chooses, the firm can also provide crossing guard services for the district moving forward, according to Little.
“While this represents a significant investment, it is a prudent allocation of resources given the critical importance of student safety,” Little wrote.
The full school board is expected to vote on the crossing guard audit next Monday night, March 18.
Between the two school districts, it is incredible that they are 65% of our property tax bills. I’m all for public education, but it needs to be reasonable. Another helpful step would be if D202 and D65 combined. We’re paying for 2 sets of administration.
I’m impressed with Angel Turner. She’s a no nonsense, straight talker who is willing to bring the bad news of past fiscal mismanagement. But where was the board when the district was spending itself into a hole? Obviously not watching the bottom line which is what they were all elected to do.
Would love to see a breakout of what we are paying for busses vs cabs.
How many bus routes are we talking? This is a staggering number – September: $1,055,406 (19 school days – $55,547.68 per day) but would love to see it with more context.
“Before 2023, the district had never spent more than $6 million on transportation. Last year, it spent $10 million on buses and cabs, fueling a 2023 fiscal year budget deficit of more than $7 million.”
Let’s be clear that these extensive budget cuts are only “necessary” because of the financial mismanagement of the board which is most glaringly exemplified by the loan scheme they chose to fund a new school as enrollments decline.
Rather than having a bond issue, they decided to raid the operating budget. These cuts, summer school tuition, and more fees and cuts to come are the predictable outcome of the Board’s policies.
So to the extent they are “painful,” it is a self-inflicted pain that did not have to happen.
I wish that they would stop using the euphemism “consolidation” to describe the school closures (plural) that are going to be coming to make up for the utter financial mismanagement of this District over the last 4+ years.
I agree. What the heck is ‘consolidation’ and how much did they pay a consulting firm to teach them when to use that word. Is the new 5th Ward school an ‘expansion’? The D65 board is so clueless it’s painful to witness.
Pretty wild considering they just gave Dr. Horton a $10k discount on his late fees related to the repayment agreement. Austerity for everyone but the out of state guy making $320k I guess!
D65 should never have agreed to a repayment plan knowing he filed for bankruptcy twice. No lender would have been that irresponsible and neither should the district.
They never should have HIRED him knowing he filed for personal bankruptcy twice!
You’re asking someone to be in charge of a $150 million budget. A simple background check would pick this up. And for a normal board member, it would have been disqualifying.