Superintendent outlines referendum priorities, shortfalls and consequences if it fails

Superintendent Dr. Bryan Garrison presented the School District of Beloit's April 1 referendum proposal and described the district's fiscal needs, priorities and potential program consequences if the referendum fails.

Priority buckets: Garrison said the referendum funding is organized into four priority areas: (1) staff compensation and retention, with an administration target to support raises (presentation materials cited a goal of roughly 4% to 5% for staff but noted final numbers depend on collective bargaining); (2) academic supports and curricula, including reading and math tutors (virtual and in-person) and curriculum materials; (3) behavioral supports, including assistant principals, deans and additional paraprofessionals to support interventions and classroom safety; and (4) operational and district-stability needs such as special-education transfers, transportation, technology, utilities and other districtwide operating costs.

Garrison warned that without new revenue the district would face planned reductions: "If this referendum fails, the district would need to find another $6,200,000 to cut next year, followed by an additional $8,900,000 the following year," he said. He added that the next realistic opportunity to run a successful operational referendum would be April 2026; there is no November ballot opportunity this year for the district to seek operational funding.

Garrison and board members emphasized the referendum is intended to stabilize operations and preserve program offerings. He said the district has made multiple prior reductions and currently transfers money from the special-education fund (Fund 27) into the general fund (Fund 10) to cover mandated services; those transfers are substantial and not indefinitely sustainable.

Public and board discussion: Board members and public commenters urged transparency and specificity on how money in the largest "operational stability" bucket would be used. Several board members asked administration to break that bucket into a clear pie-chart or line-item list so voters can see examples (special-education transfer amounts, transportation, technology, utilities and insurance) and to show direct classroom impacts. The superintendent agreed to provide more detail online and at informational sessions.

Board follow-up: The board discussed recommended SMART goals drafted by the referendum ad hoc committee (measurable targets for academic progress, behavior and teacher retention) and asked administration to schedule a focused workshop to refine measurable targets and reporting plans.

Timing and outreach: Administration outlined a schedule of community information sessions and encouraged voters to review district material on the referendum web page. The superintendent and board members repeatedly urged residents to weigh the consequences of operating-budget reductions in the absence of new local revenue.

Ending: The board extended the meeting to continue discussion and asked administration to provide more detailed breakdowns of the operational bucket and to return with SMART-goal language and proposed monitoring metrics.