Beloit board hears range of referendum scenarios totaling up to $42.4 million; district emphasizes pay, behavioral supports and transportation

Dr. Garrison, the district superintendent, told the Beloit School District Board of Education that the administration is proposing a nonrecurring operational referendum package to address what he described as an unsustainable fund balance trajectory and revenue limits that “do not currently provide the district with sufficient revenues to maintain our current operations.”

The presentation laid out guiding priorities — staff compensation and retention, academics and behavioral supports, facilities and transportation, and fund-balance restoration — and multiple scenarios that range from a base budget with no referendum to a four‑year package with higher annual salary increases. The scenarios produced modeled mill-rate impacts and projected surpluses or deficits over a three- or four-year window.

Why it matters: district leaders said state revenue limits and flat enrollment have squeezed local budgets for years and that administrators have used fund balance and recurring cuts to keep schools operating. Dr. Garrison said the district faces a potential fund-balance depletion in 2026 if no additional revenue is secured, warning that “in the year 2026, the district, the fund balance is projected to be depleted.”

Details of the scenarios and priorities - Staff compensation: The administration modeled a base scenario with a 3% annual increase for salaries and wages as the staffing component; the presentation noted each 1% increase adds roughly $505,000 in recurring costs. Dr. Garrison and finance staff said the district wants to strengthen recruitment and retention with more competitive pay. Board members repeatedly urged consideration of a larger, front‑loaded increase (multiple board members said they favored moving toward a 5% target or a larger initial bump followed by smaller increases).

- Academics and behavioral supports: District staff identified literacy and math programs to sustain or expand (for example, Lexia Core5 pilots and Imagine Math, and a three‑year renewal of Eureka Math). The presentation proposed restoring behavioral specialists, estimating roughly six positions and additional dean or assistant principal capacity at the secondary level; the administration said those specialists previously existed and “were able to work not only with students, but they worked with staff and the engagement of parents as well.”

- Facilities and transportation: The administration presented a one-time facilities package of about $2,000,000 for critical maintenance needs and a three‑year cost of about $1,500,000 to provide regular transportation for high‑school students (roughly $500,000 per year in the examples shown). Dr. Garrison said high‑school transportation currently is provided through Beloit Transit at discounted fares but that routes and walk distances limit its utility for some students.

- Fund balance and long-term outlook: Finance staff told the board that a baseline projection with no referendum produces a multi‑year deficit (the presentation cited a $6.2 million deficit in 2025–26 under a base 3% assumption). Board members pressed staff on assumptions such as enrollment changes and the sensitivity of the model to small adjustments.

Model highlights and the most expensive packages - Scenario C (a repeat of the prior $9 million/year request) generally produced a near‑breakeven over the three years modeled but left potential instability in later years. - An “all priorities” package that included staff pay, behavioral supports, transportation and facilities produced a total ask near $39 million across the modeled period and showed a modest three‑year deficit in the administration's spreadsheet. - Scenario E, a four‑year model with 5% annual wage increases, was the largest scenario shown at about $42.4 million; staff warned the fourth year carries additional uncertainty.

Board reaction and next steps Board members repeatedly emphasized two goals: (1) craft a referendum the public will vote to approve and (2) target money to priorities the community has identified. Board member Brian Anderson urged balancing ambition with passability at the ballot box; board member Amy Levy asked whether a smaller, stable mill‑rate package might be less risky for voter support. Several members said they favored mill‑rate stability and/or front‑loading salary gains to make the district more competitive in recruiting and retaining staff.

Finance staff, identified in the meeting as Mr. Chaney, told the board (as modeled in the slides) that “in 25/26 with the base, we anticipate a $6,200,000 deficit.” Mr. Chaney recommended the board identify which scenario(s) it wants refined so staff can prepare final ballot language for legal review.

Dr. Garrison summarized the timeline: the board asked for follow‑up work to refine packages and then for draft ballot language to be submitted to legal counsel within the district’s published schedule. He said the board’s next policy milestones are a January meeting to narrow choices and a mid‑January deadline to have direction ready for counsel so the referendum question and resolution can be finalized.

Votes at a glance: the meeting included procedural votes and extensions but did not record a final vote on any referendum package. The board did extend the meeting time to continue discussion and set additional meetings to refine referendum scenarios.

Ending: The board scheduled additional discussion and modelling. Staff said they will return refined scenario worksheets based on the board’s feedback (examples requested by members included mill‑rate stability near the mid‑7s, a 5% staff increase or a larger first‑year increase followed by smaller increases, and packages that prioritize staff and behavioral supports).