Beloit board narrows plan for April referendum, signals 3‑year ask and 5% pay plan for staff

The Beloit School District Board of Education on Jan. 13 discussed possible questions for an April 2025 nonrecurring operational referendum and signaled a board preference for a three‑year measure that would prioritize staff compensation and funding for academic and behavioral supports.

Board President Tia Johnson opened the meeting saying, “Tonight, we are here to discuss the referendum to share with board members information, scenarios, and potential action for a 2025 April referendum.” The discussion that followed focused on alternative mill‑rate scenarios, projected budget shortfalls and how much of any referendum revenue should be devoted to raises versus programmatic supports.

Why it matters: The district projects a multi‑million dollar shortfall for the 2025–26 school year and is considering asking voters for additional, nonrecurring operating authority that would be collected over multiple years. The board’s choice of term length, mill‑rate target and what items to prioritize will shape how much revenue is available and whether voters view the ask as affordable.

Director of Finance/Staff presenter Bob Chaney (identified in the meeting as Mr. Chaney) walked board members through multiple scenarios that used different gross mill‑rate targets and different salary increases. “We have an approximate $6,200,000 deficit for the 25, 26 school year,” Chaney said while outlining the baseline and alternative mill‑rate packages. He showed scenarios ranging roughly from a 6.80 to a 7.50 gross mill rate and a set of midpoint scenarios around 7.15 that layered in 3%–6% starting salary adjustments and, in some packages, an additional $1,000,000 for unspecified priorities.

Board members debated the length of a potential nonrecurring referendum and the share of revenue devoted to pay. Several trustees said they preferred a four‑year question to allow tracking of a cohort through high school; others said a three‑year question was more likely to pass. After discussion, Johnson summarized that the board was “landing in a 3‑year nonrecurring space” as the working preference but did not take a formal vote to adopt that as the question’s term.

On compensation, the board coalesced around a target increase near 5% for staff in year‑one budget planning. Johnson stated, “So 5% ... That's where we'll kind of land at for now with this scenario,” reflecting the majority view expressed in the discussion. Trustees repeatedly emphasized that higher starting increases would help recruitment and retention: "I think we need to make up some time that we've lost over the last couple years," Trustee Greg Schneider said when arguing for a higher floor.

Board members also discussed programmatic priorities to pair with pay increases. The recurring priorities identified were academic supports (literacy and math interventions), additional behavior supports (behavior interventionists, systems work and building‑level coaching) and transportation options (trustees discussed an estimated $500,000 figure for some high‑school routes but noted that estimate needs verification). Members emphasized that the district could prioritize these buckets differently within a package and that some items might be funded from anticipated surpluses or later budget adjustments rather than the referendum itself.

Several trustees expressed caution about relying on district reserves. Trustee Amy Levy asked whether projected surpluses would be used for unspecified items and said she was “not comfortable with using the surplus for something that's not specifically identified.” Chaney and Dr. Garrison said surplus estimates and equalized valuation changes can materially affect final mill‑rate outcomes and that further refinement of the nonrecurring referendum amount would follow.

Formal votes at the meeting were limited to routine procedural items. The board approved the meeting agenda (motion by Brian Nichols; second by Greg Schneider) and later moved to adjourn; both procedural motions carried unanimously. The board did not adopt final referendum language or set a binding mill‑rate figure for the question at this meeting. Johnson said staff would return with refined language and numbers to support a likely vote on Jan. 16.

Looking ahead: Board members scheduled follow‑up meetings and indicated they would continue refining a referendum package — including the precise dollar amount, the term length and the allocation between compensation and programmatic supports — before finalizing question language for voters. The board also requested follow‑up information on contracted recruiting services and more detail on the cost and structure of proposed behavioral and academic positions.

Votes at a glance

• Approval of meeting agenda — Motion by Brian Nichols, second by Greg Schneider; outcome: approved unanimously (all members present except Tom Hankins).

• Motion to adjourn — outcome: approved unanimously (all members present except Tom Hankins).