Citizen Portal
Sign In

Fond du Lac board backs pursuing $7.5 million referendum after survey shows narrow community support

Fond du Lac School District Board of Education · December 9, 2025
Article hero
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After reviewing a 2,633‑response community survey, the Fond du Lac School District board directed staff to prepare a $7.5 million operational referendum question and to hold a second, larger question in reserve; the consultant said adjusted support for $7.5M was about 53.8%.

The Fond du Lac School District Board of Education on Monday directed staff to pursue a $7.5 million operational referendum question after a consultant presented community survey results showing modest majority support.

Bill Foster of School Perceptions told the board the survey had received 2,633 responses and, after adjusting for overrepresentation of staff, the analysis produced roughly 53.8% support for the $7.5 million proposal. “As of today or as of 01:00 today, we had 2,633 respondents,” Foster said. “For the sake of this analysis … we ended up at 53.8% support for the $7,500,000 proposed plan.”

The survey broke responses into three groups. Foster said staff support was high (reported at about 90% on one slide; an earlier slide cited 85%), parents indicated roughly 71% support and the non‑parent/non‑staff group — often the decisive voting bloc — registered about 48% support. Foster warned that adding an optional class‑size reduction package that raised the total to $9.5 million would lower overall support to about 50.3%, a “coin toss.”

Board members repeatedly named security work as a priority for the referendum funds. Consultants gave two illustrative options: a comprehensive $4 million plan focused on major renovations at Fond du Lac High School, or a districtwide cameras‑and‑door‑access plan estimated at about $3.5 million. As one board member summarized, those options would have to be prioritized if the district sought to balance security upgrades with other ongoing budget pressures.

Opposition themes in the survey centered on tax impact and distrust of the planning process. Foster said respondents who answered probably‑no or definitely‑no most often cited the tax increase as the principal barrier. “The number one reason was the tax impact was too much with some folks not trusting the planning process,” he said.

The board stopped short of adopting ballot language or placing the question on this meeting’s agenda for a formal vote. Staff and counsel reminded the board of the statutory timing: a resolution and the legal ballot language for an April election must be filed with the county by January. Board members agreed to additional workshops and to present final ballot language for formal action in January. “Marching orders on the 7.5,” the presiding officer said, summarizing the board’s direction.

Next steps include staff‑level work to prioritize security and other items to be funded, refining ballot language with the district’s counsel, and a planned informational review at an upcoming meeting before a formal vote in January. The board also asked staff to prepare a communications plan to address concerns about tax impact and planning transparency.

While the workshop gave direction, it did not constitute a binding vote to place the question on the ballot; that action will require a formal resolution and roll‑call vote in a future meeting.