Peotone School District 207-U Meeting | November 17, 2025

Article Summary:
Peotone School District 207-U administrators on Monday presented a deficit reduction plan that includes a proposed $1.225 million in workforce and facility spending reductions for the 2026-27 school year, while also introducing a controversial scenario for a significant operating tax rate increase.

Deficit Reduction Plan Key Points:

• Administration proposes a tentative workforce reduction of approximately $1 million for the 2026-27 school year.

• A scenario was presented to raise the operating tax levy by $3.47 million, which would cost the owner of a $385,000 home an estimated additional $781 annually.

• Board member Tim Stoub called the tax increase discussion “premature,” urging the board to wait for a facility feasibility study.

• Without new revenue, the district warns of drastic future cuts, including the potential elimination of all extracurricular activities by the 2028-29 school year.

The Peotone School District 207-U Board of Education on Monday, November 17, 2025, reviewed a multi-phase deficit reduction plan that includes $1.225 million in proposed cuts for the next school year and a contentious scenario for a future tax referendum to close a projected multi-million dollar budget gap.

Presented by Business Manager Adrian Fulgencio, the plan aims to address a projected $4 million operating deficit for the upcoming fiscal year 2026, which is being offset by issuing $4.85 million in working cash bonds. Fulgencio noted this action will max out the district’s borrowing capacity.

The plan’s second phase, proposed for the 2026-27 school year, includes a tentative workforce reduction of approximately $1 million and a $200,000 pause on planned facility investments, for a total projected impact of $1,225,000. These cuts would lower the projected deficit for fiscal year 2027 from approximately $5 million to $3.77 million.

Fulgencio explained the proposed workforce reduction aims to “rightsize” staffing levels to align with current and projected student enrollment, with the goal of having minimal impact on the learning environment. Details on which positions would be affected were not shared.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on a potential revenue-generating solution: an operating tax rate increase. Fulgencio highlighted a $3.47 million “funding gap” between the local revenue the district actually receives and the amount the state’s Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) formula assumes the district should be able to capture based on local property values.

A scenario was presented showing that closing this gap would require an increase that would cost the owner of an average $385,000 home an additional $781 per year in property taxes.

This part of the presentation drew immediate criticism from board member Tim Stoub.

“We’ve not taken step one yet and you’re jumping to step three,” Stoub said, referencing a pending facility feasibility study that could identify significant savings through school consolidation. “We’ve seen this scenario in 2020. We saw it in 2016. It’s the same scenario. It hasn’t changed… The community has repeatedly said no to this one. We have an opportunity to create a different one.”

Fulgencio defended the presentation, stating, “The discussions have to start somewhere.” Another board member agreed, saying, “I think we still have to have all options on the table just to examine and see what’s out there as possible scenarios.”

Stoub later clarified that the proposed $1.225 million in cuts are for operational alignment and are independent of any potential referendum.

If no new revenue is secured, the administration warned of more drastic cuts in the future. A slide presented at the meeting indicated that further phases of workforce reductions could lead to increased class sizes, limited course offerings, and the elimination of all extracurriculars, including sports and clubs, by the 2028-29 school year.