Beloit leaders debate cuts after finance report; board stops proposed layoffs

At a May 20 meeting of the School District of Beloit, finance presenter Stephanie Elwood reviewed the district’s March financial activity and fund balances as the board and administration continued to wrestle with steps to close the district’s projected deficit.

Elwood highlighted three cash items she said shaped March results: “the investment that we had of $6,000,000 did mature, and the interest on that investment was 51 a little over $51,000,” she told the committee, and a short‑term investment “just under 4,000,000” that is expected to mature after June 30. Elwood also told the committee March included a large state aid payment: “the very large payment of $17,000,000 revenue that we received in March is the per pupil aid.” She said the district’s Fund 39 (referendum debt fund) report showed “just over $2,000,000 or, I’m sorry, dollars 2,600,000.0 currently in fund balance.”

Elwood and a Baird representative briefed the board on long‑term debt options and limits under state law. Elwood said districts “are allowed to take 10% of your equalized value” and gave the district’s statutory debt limit as $292,000,000. She described referendum debt (Fund 39) and non‑referendum debt and noted the district has little referendum debt remaining; she said the fund’s balance could be used to pay off the remaining referendum debt but cannot be used to pay non‑referendum obligations.

The finance briefing led into a broader budget debate during the regular board meeting. Superintendent Dr. Mark Garrison told the board the administration had assembled proposed personnel and program reductions intended to produce a balanced budget for the June presentation and warned the district could not present a balanced budget without the staff‑reduction package included in the board materials. "Without Exhibit A moving forward, I cannot bring a balanced budget to the table by June," Garrison said.

At the full board meeting later that night, trustees voted against approving the administration’s complete set of recommended personnel actions (Exhibit A). Board members who opposed the package cited a desire to limit cuts to positions that directly reduce students’ classroom contact time and asked for additional options and greater clarity before approving large‑scale staff reductions. The board did approve a separate set of retirements, resignations and support‑staff items included in the packet.

Administration and board members agreed the district still faces a multi‑part budget challenge and that some of the positions identified as ‘‘economic layoffs’’ could be restored if additional funds become available. The board directed further work with administration and the ad‑hoc finance group to refine options before finalizing the budget.

The district’s finance staff will continue forecasting into June; administration said it will return with a revised budget plan given the board’s actions.

Ending: Trustees scheduled additional budget conversations over the summer; administration and board members said they will reassess staffing and debt‑management options once state revenue numbers and the district’s final preliminary figures are available.