Shorewood board previews 2026–27 budget assumptions and five‑year gap of about $7.3 million

The Shorewood School District on March 10 heard a detailed presentation of preliminary assumptions for the 2026–27 operating budget and a five‑year financial forecast that, under current assumptions, could produce a budget gap approaching $7.3 million by fiscal 2030–31.

Superintendent Laurie Burgos opened the discussion and framed the district’s priorities, then the district’s finance director (referred to in the meeting as Director Hetland) outlined the central assumptions behind the projection: total enrollment of 1,895 for next year; a working assumption of $325 per pupil in additional state funding for resident pupils; special education aid estimated at 40% of costs; and a status‑quo approach to staffing in the forecast. The presenter said local revenue currently makes up roughly 66% of district revenue and that many cost increases are effectively fixed.

"This results in a whopping and highly impressive 0.13 increase in revenue for next year," the director said while noting that most of any modest revenue growth is absorbed by increases in medical insurance, utilities and liability costs. The presentation showed personnel costs as the largest expense category — roughly $20.8 million in salaries and benefits in the current year — and projected average annual expense increases of about 2.35% on the assumptions used.

Board members pressed the administration on several assumptions. The board asked for the source of the 2.63% figure the district used for bargaining and salary modeling; the presenter said it reflects the certified CPI amount used in collective‑bargaining guidance and is the figure the district has used as its bargaining ceiling. On staffing, the director said the five‑year forecast models no planned reductions in FTE; "this doesn't have any changes in staff," the director said when asked whether headcount falls with projected enrollment declines.

The administration also reviewed the district’s work on health benefits and a likely move toward self‑funding the district’s health plan within about a year. The presenter said the district had completed an RFP for benefits consultants and is planning to bid components of self‑insurance (including stop‑loss coverage) but emphasized that expected savings would likely take several years to appear and that outcomes depend on claims experience and negotiated terms.

Board members sought clarity on property‑tax implications. Using a $450,000 home for illustration, the director said the projected shift under status‑quo assumptions and a continued operating referendum at the assumed level would raise an owner’s tax bill by about $600 over five years; to fully close a gap of about $7.3 million could require higher increases.

The presenter summarized staff and community priorities gathered in recent input sessions: staff prioritized salaries and wages and core class sizes, while community participants emphasized maintaining reasonable class sizes and exploring efficiencies in non‑student‑facing support roles. The administration said more granular budget tactics and capital discussions will follow in forthcoming meetings.

The board took no formal budget action at the meeting; members generally described the assumptions as reasonable for a status‑quo budget and directed staff to continue work with the task force and return in April with an update.

What’s next: the administration plans additional budget work over the spring, a capital maintenance proposal for 2026–27 and a follow‑up to the board in April with refined figures and next steps.