Source: d128-budget-presentation FY27.pdf, pp. 4, 6. Excludes Capital Fund.
| Period | $ Change | % Change | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY23 → FY24 | +$379,000 | +2.9% | Actual |
| FY24 → FY25 | +$1.29 million | +9.5% | Actual |
| FY25 → FY26 | +$1.17 million | +7.9% | Unaudited |
| FY26 → FY27 | +$611,000 | +3.8% | Budget |
| FY24 → FY26 | +$2.46 million | +18.1% |
Revenue grew 4.2% per year. Spending grew 6.0% per year. That's how you get a $2 million deficit.
| Feb 2024 Forecast | What Actually Happened | How Far Off | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY25 | |||
| Expenses | $14.08M | $14.87M | +$792,000 over |
| Deficit | ($268,000) | ($720,000) | 2.7x worse |
| FY26 | |||
| Expenses | $14.63M | $16.04M | +$1.41M over |
| Deficit | ($472,000) | ($1.97M) | 4.2x worse |
| FY27 (Budget) | |||
| Expenses | $15.11M | $16.65M | +$1.55M over |
| Deficit | ($764,000) | ($2.02M) | 2.6x worse |
Sources: 128 Financial Projection 2-26-24.pdf, p.3; d128-budget-presentation FY27.pdf, pp.4, 6
Staffing memos document some additions (+2.3 FTE in FY26, including special ed and art), but the FOIA production does not include payroll data or the collective bargaining agreement needed to fully reconcile the salary increase.
| Year | Total Salaries | Increase | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY24 | $7.51M | — | — |
| FY25 | $8.01M | +$505,000 | +6.7% |
| FY26 (unaudited) | $8.85M | +$836,000 | +10.4% |
| Two-Year Total | +$1.34 million | +17.9% |
Without FY26 payroll detail and the collective bargaining agreement, taxpayers cannot determine how much of this growth came from raises, step increases, new positions, or other factors.
| Year | Purchased Services | Change |
|---|---|---|
| FY24 | $1.44M | — |
| FY25 | $1.49M | +$49,000 |
| FY26 (unaudited) | $2.02M | +$531,000 (+35.8%) |
The FOIA production did not include FY26 account-level expense detail sufficient to explain the $531,000 increase in purchased services.
Source: d128-budget-presentation FY27.pdf p.6; FOIA response contained no FY26 expense detail
The budget presentation reports operating and special fund reserves declining from 213 days (FY24) to 106 days (FY27 budget). For context, Illinois school districts below 90 days are generally considered in financial difficulty.
The FY27 fund balance report and budget presentation show somewhat different ending balances by fund, and these have not been fully reconciled. The overall trajectory — declining reserves — is consistent across both sources.
Source: d128-budget-presentation FY27.pdf, p. 9; FY24-FY27 Fund Balance Reports. Note: Fund balance reports and budget presentation figures differ modestly, likely due to accounting basis differences.
The deficit is $2.02 million. The ask is $2.346 million. Where does the extra $326,000 go? No calculation was provided.
The district has publicly promised approximately $1 million in cuts. But when asked via FOIA:
Public discussion has mentioned possible ISBE financial intervention. We requested any communications with ISBE regarding financial oversight.
The district's own 2024 forecast missed FY27 expenses by $1.55 million. What changed?
FY26 saw approximately $16 million in spending. Was that within the approved budget?
A salary account (10.5.2212.111) appears in FY27 that was not present in FY24 or FY25 trial balances and is not referenced in any staffing memo. Is this a new position, a reclassification, or a restructuring?
| Vendor | Amount | What For |
|---|---|---|
| Wight & Co. / Beyond Your Base | $48,621 | "Public Policy & Engagement Services" — includes voter data ($450) and text service ($171) |
| Handprint Media Productions | $2,860 | "Referendum Video" |
| Clearly Referendum-Related | $51,481 |
In addition, the district has a $12,500 annual financial advisory agreement with Illuminate, Inc. (which also prepared the budget presentation) and paid $2,465 to Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost for legal services. These invoices cover general services, not exclusively referendum work.
Sources: Invoice PDFs in FOIA production.
Spending rose $2.46 million in two years. The district's FY27 expenses are $1.55 million above its own 2024 forecast. The FOIA production does not contain enough detail to fully reconcile those increases, does not include a finalized expenditure reduction plan, and does not show the calculation behind the $2.346 million referendum amount.
Demand complete answers first. Vote NO.
Every document below was obtained via FOIA from District 128. Verify everything yourself.
The complete 14-section financial audit with all calculations, source citations, and detailed analysis: