Kenosha Unified outlines $8 million in new expenses and cuts after referendum defeat

Kenosha Unified district officials outlined how the failure of a recent referendum will reshape next year’s budget during a special agenda‑review meeting.

“Right now this is what we know in March,” Dr. Weiss, the superintendent, said, summarizing preliminary budget work. The district presented three categories of budget items: long‑term hold, short‑term hold, and reductions. Long‑term hold items — such as controlled entrances and some security hardware updates and high‑school prep time — would remain unfunded in the near term because the referendum failed.

District staff said they will cut the major maintenance capital projects budget from $2,000,000 to $1,000,000 and reduce planned curricular adoption funding to $500,000, focused on middle‑school science materials. A district staff member said the $500,000 represents the “bare minimum” for curriculum adoptions this year.

On revenue assumptions, staff said enrollment declines have grown from an earlier estimate of about 335 students to roughly 550, producing an additional revenue change of about $3.5 million under current projections. The district also pointed to per‑pupil categorical aid (about $742 per pupil) and changes to the revenue‑limit formula as factors that will alter revenue over multiple years rather than immediately.

The presentation sought to correct public confusion about the district’s fiscal position. “We were not saying we had a $19,000,000 or a $23,000,000 deficit,” Dr. Weiss said, explaining that the larger figures described the total of expected items to be funded rather than an immediate shortfall. Staff presented a structural deficit range near $800,000 and noted an adopted deficit budget of $800,000 for the current year.

Staff also said they had planned borrowing — roughly $12.5 million — to fund some security projects if the referendum had passed; because it failed, no borrowing has occurred. Health‑insurance costs have been revised from 11% projected to a final figure of 9.9% from UnitedHealthcare; dental costs are projected to rise about 6%.

On personnel, the district identified several approaches under review: hiring freezes or wage freezes (which would include the superintendent’s recently renewed 2% contract increase), staffing adjustments and program reductions, and the use of attrition for administrative/supervisory/technical (AST) positions. The district said restoring a technology refresh budget and some short‑term maintenance work remain under consideration depending on state budget actions.

Administrators emphasized the budget stage is early and contingent on state budget outcomes, enrollment trends and other moving parts. No formal motions or votes were taken at the agenda‑review meeting; the presentation was framed as guidance for the March 25 regular meeting and further budget deliberations.

The district intends to revisit detailed staffing and program proposals in subsequent public meetings, and staff warned that some proposals — such as increasing class sizes outside K–3 or suspending recognition/retention budgets — could have operational impacts if implemented.