Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fond du Lac board directs staff to pursue flat $40 million, four‑year operating referendum
Summary
After reviewing three models to close a projected deficit, the Fond du Lac Board of Education asked administration to prepare ballot language for a flat, non‑recurring $40 million referendum over four years (roughly $10 million per year). Trustees said a single, steady annual amount is clearer to voters.
The Fond du Lac Board of Education on Dec. 9 directed district administrators to prepare ballot language for a flat, non‑recurring operating referendum of $40 million over four years, the equivalent of about $10 million per year.
Administrators presented three scenarios during a workshop: Option 1 (a $40 million plan with $2 million in years 1–2 set aside for security work and variable annual amounts), Option 2 (a larger, staged $46 million plan that front‑loads revenue and raises taxes more in early years), and Option 3 (a simple $10 million per year flat plan). Finance staff said the options were projections and depend on enrollment and construction costs.
Board members raised tradeoffs between minimizing short‑term cuts and presenting a referendum question voters can readily understand. Trustee Joel (last name given in meeting as Joel) said a single number is "a little easier to read when you're looking at a referendum." Several trustees echoed that view and ultimately favored the flat option.
Administrators gave examples of the tax impact the presentation attributed to Option 3: roughly $62 per year for a $100,000 home, about $124 for $200,000 and about $186 for $300,000 in assessed value. The presentation also said the district would still need to pursue internal budget adjustments unless revenue or state support changes.
During discussion trustees and staff warned that without a referendum the district may need to cut $7 million to $9 million by July 1 to balance the next fiscal year, which the presentation estimated could eliminate 80 to 100 positions and increase class sizes.
The board did not finalize ballot language at the workshop but agreed on Option 3 as its direction and asked administration to return with proposed wording at a special meeting the following Monday. The presentation materials cited the need to preserve fund balance and maintain the district's bond rating if short‑term borrowing is required.
No formal referendum question was adopted at the meeting; trustees asked staff and counsel to draft the question and present it for board approval.
