Mokena School District 159 Board of Education Meeting | October 15, 2025

Article Summary: The Mokena School District 159 Board of Education approved a cost increase for a new storage shed at Mokena Junior High School, raising the project’s total cost to a maximum of $176,000. The decision, which passed in a contentious 5-2 vote, sparked a debate over fiscal responsibility in light of the district’s budget deficit and the intent of referendum funds.

MJHS Storage Shed Project Key Points:

• The board approved a revised project cost not to exceed $176,000, an increase from the previously approved $162,500.

• The cost increase is due to a newly required perimeter frost footing for the shed’s foundation, a change from the original design.

• The project is funded through the “Warm, Safe, and Dry” referendum funds, designated for facilities and maintenance.

• Board members debated whether the expenditure was responsible given the district’s budget deficit and if the funds could be better used elsewhere.

MOKENA, IL — The Mokena School District 159 Board of Education on Wednesday, October 15, 2025, approved an increased budget for the Mokena Junior High School (MJHS) storage shed project, bringing the total cost to a maximum of $176,000. The vote followed a lengthy and pointed debate among board members about the project’s necessity, timing, and funding source amid a projected $1.3 million budget deficit.

The project, initially approved in September 2024 for $162,500, requires additional funding due to a change in construction requirements. According to a memo from Dr. Teri Shaw, the district’s Chief School Business Official, the shed’s provider now requires a perimeter frost footing instead of the previously planned thickened slab edge. This change necessitates deeper excavation and more concrete, increasing the cost for contractor Bear Construction by $14,600 to a total of $159,600. The total project cost is not to exceed $176,000.

Board member Kelli MacMillan voiced strong opposition to the project, calling it an “irresponsible spend.” She argued that the district is operating without the shed now and could delay the project indefinitely, particularly given the budget deficit.

“We are in a deficit, meaning we are spending $1.3 million… more than the revenue we have coming in,” MacMillan stated. “I don’t feel good about prioritizing a shed over students and staff. I don’t feel good about it and that’s why I won’t do it.”

MacMillan also questioned the use of referendum funds, which she said were intended to keep students “warm, safe and dry, not construction equipment.” She pointed out that the district is budgeting to transfer $190,000 from its working cash fund reserves to its Operations and Maintenance (O&M) fund. “Essentially, we’re saying we need money from our reserves to pay for a $176,000 shed that does not impact our classrooms. And I have an issue with that,” she said.

Board President Jim Andresen countered, stating that the funds for the shed come from the “Warm, Safe, and Dry” referendum, which are legally restricted for facilities, maintenance, and equipment protection. He stressed that this money could not be reallocated to classroom or salary expenses.

“This does not impact a classroom. The promise was made… to use that money for the facilities,” Andresen said. “This is not making the students do without. This is making sure we are protecting the capital investments we made with our equipment… We have to take care of our equipment and this is no different.”

Andresen added that a “forever lock” was placed on the referendum funds, requiring a unanimous board vote to ever use them for purposes outside of facilities, such as salaries or school supplies. “Please do not think for a second that that trust is going to be violated,” he said.

Board member Lisa Zielinski also expressed reservations but ultimately supported the project. “I struggle with the warm, safe, and dry and if it’s aesthetics,” she commented, before thanking the administration for bringing the cost increase to the board for a vote, even though the amount was within a 10% threshold that did not technically require re-approval.

The motion to approve the increased cost passed 5-2, with members MacMillan and Julie Oost voting against it.