Beloit board narrows April referendum options, leans to three-year ask with higher staff pay and supports for academics and behavior

The Beloit School District Board of Education spent the Jan. 13 special meeting narrowing options for a proposed April 2025 nonrecurring operational referendum, with board members coalescing around a three-year proposal that would increase staff compensation and direct new funds toward academic and behavioral supports. No formal referendum vote was taken at the meeting; the board scheduled additional meetings and a tentative vote for Jan. 16.

Board President Tia Johnson opened the session by asking for options and scenarios that could preserve a stable mill rate while addressing the district's budget gap. Dr. Garrison framed the choice as a tradeoff between mill-rate stability and the size of salary and program investments; finance staff later presented modeled scenarios showing the mill-rate and projected surplus impacts of several packages.

Why it matters: district officials said the district faces an approximate $6.2 million deficit for the 2025-26 school year. The board's choice about referendum length, salary increases and additional program funding will determine both how much revenue the district seeks from property taxpayers and how much additional funding the district will have to pay staff and add academic and behavioral services over the next three years.

Board deliberations and key figures

Dr. Garrison described two earlier scenarios the board had reviewed and then summarized five additional midrange scenarios built around a $7.15 gross mill rate. Finance staff (Mr. Chaney) said scenario G from an earlier packet was roughly a $6.80 mill rate and scenario H about $7.50; scenarios labeled I through M were built around the $7.15 midpoint and varied the size and timing of compensation increases and whether an additional $1 million would be added for program needs.

Mr. Chaney told the board that the district used conservative assumptions for equalized value growth in the budget model and that stronger growth would lower the mill rate, noting that the Department of Revenue's equalized value figure is a key input and is received on Oct. 1 each year.

Board members repeatedly identified three spending priorities: staff compensation, academic supports and behavioral supports. Board member Amy Levy said, "My preference is to have a 4 year non reoccurring referendum." Board member Brian Nichols said, "I'm I'm more in favor of the 3 year re non recurring." Board member Brian Anderson said his "preference would be 3 years" but that he could be convinced otherwise. Megan Miller said she was "leaning toward 4" for accountability reasons but that she was "convincible for 3." Greg Schneider said he was "kind of a toss-up between 3 and 4" but favored a longer term for stability.

Compensation and the package options

After extended discussion the board landed, for the purposes of further work, near a compensation package that would start with a 5% increase in personnel compensation in the first year and then cascade (the working label in the packet was shown as a "5-4-4" pattern). Mr. Chaney and Dr. Garrison explained the effect of higher salary increases on the mill rate and on three-year projected surpluses.

Members debated whether to prioritize transportation funding for Beloit Memorial High School, behavioral specialists, increased paraeducator capacity, or investments in early literacy. Levy said she was uncomfortable using projected surplus dollars for unspecified purposes and wanted the referendum to explicitly fund the supports the community requested. Miller and other members described behavioral supports as both student-facing and staff-facing, with Miller noting the value of adults in buildings who can help students regulate and return to class.

Numbers discussed and reported by staff

- Approximate 2025-26 operating deficit used in scenarios: $6,200,000 (staff estimate). - Example mill rates discussed: scenario G ~ 6.80; midpoint scenarios ~ 7.15 gross; scenario H ~ 7.50 gross. - Scenario variants: some scenarios included a $1,000,000 unearmarked bucket to address additional staffing, transportation or curricular needs. - Transportation estimate for Beloit Memorial High School was ballparked at $500,000 by staff. - Package cost estimates cited during discussion: roughly $1,800,000 for academic supports over three years, $1,600,000 for behavioral supports over three years, and $1,500,000 for expanded transportation over three years (figures presented by staff as planning estimates). - Projected three-year surplus/deficit examples presented by staff: one midrange package (labeled H1) showed a projected surplus just under $2.7 million over three years; another package (H2, a consistent 5% each year) showed a smaller projected surplus of roughly $1.6 million in the packet as presented.

Board direction and next steps

Board members did not vote to adopt a final referendum question. Instead, they asked staff to refine packet and question language around the emerging preferences: a nonrecurring referendum (the board's discussion leaned toward three years given the members present), a compensation plan beginning at roughly 5% in year one with lower percentages in later years, and a package that prioritizes academic and behavioral supports (with transportation to be explored further and potential partnerships with the city flagged as a possibility). Dr. Garrison and finance staff said they would return refined figures and draft resolution language to the board; the president noted the district could not legally post final resolution language in time to vote the next day, which is why a tentative vote was set for Jan. 16.

Quotes from the meeting

"My preference is to have a 4 year non reoccurring referendum," said Board member Amy Levy during early discussion of term length.

"I'm I'm more in favor of the 3 year re non recurring," said Board member Brian Nichols.

"I really, really like, scenarios m as in Mary and l quite a bit," said Board member Megan Miller, describing preference for front-loaded pay increases to help recruiting and retention.

"It could be 5 or 6 percent; what it means is we're committing to that amount because we're gonna spend that from referendum dollars," said Board member Brian Anderson in support of front-loaded pay increases for year one.

What the board did formally

The board approved the meeting agenda by motion (motion by Brian Nichols, second by Greg Schneider), with the motion carrying unanimously; and later adjourned by motion (motion by Brian Nichols, second by Greg Schneider), also carrying unanimously. No formal referendum resolution or ballot question was adopted at the Jan. 13 meeting.

The board scheduled additional meetings: Jan. 14 (TLE committee, 5 p.m.), a regular board meeting on Jan. 14 at 6 p.m. (rescheduled), and a tentative meeting to vote on referendum resolution language on Jan. 16 at 5 p.m.

Additional context and limits on reporting

Board members and staff repeatedly emphasized tradeoffs between mill-rate stability and the scale of salary increases or new program spending; staff emphasized that equalized value estimates and local tax credits will affect the final gross mill rate that appears on property tax bills. The figures reported above are the scenario and packet estimates presented at the meeting and were described by staff as planning numbers that will be refined before any final ballot language is filed. The board did not adopt a final financing figure or ballot question during the Jan. 13 meeting.