Kenosha school committee weighs outreach plan and possible cuts as $17M shortfall looms

The Kenosha School District’s finance-and-operations committee met in a special session to continue planning for a possible November 3, 2026 operational referendum and to solicit feedback on outreach, messaging and potential budget cuts. Doctor Weiss, presenting the timeline, said the board had not yet voted to place a referendum on the ballot and that any formal decision would need to align with a state statute requiring finalization 70 days before the election, pointing toward an August 25 board vote if the district pursues the November date.

The committee heard a recap of the district’s 2024 public survey, which modeled several referendum scenarios. Speaker 5 said the consultant’s weighted results showed about 61% support for a modeled $19 million-per-year, five-year option; larger options ($28 million and $34 million) had much lower projected pass rates. "In the end, looking at the survey results, the board decided to go with a $23,000,000 referendum question that included money to pay a loan for controlled entrances as well as some other safety enhancements," the presenter said.

Community members and board committee participants urged a different approach to outreach and clearer, simpler public communications. "I think the KUSD has is is viewed in the community as an isolationist and doesn't partner well with the community," Suzette Jasky told the committee, urging broader engagement and questioning the prior consultant’s recommendations. A committee member who identified himself as Ryan said, "There seems to be a lack of or at least a perception of a lack of transparency from the board and the administration on exactly ... what goes into the finances," and recommended adding footnotes and plain-language explanations to published budgets.

Students also weighed in. Megan Straka, a Tremper student, said cuts to activities and athletics had real impacts on students’ mental health and recommended more direct outreach to students and families: "I just feel like we should always, like, share the information ... with us."

On potential cost-saving measures, district staff outlined options that could reduce spending in the short term but would be disruptive. Proposals included increasing some class sizes (presenters estimated approximately $4,000,000 in potential savings from certain configurations), reworking the instructional-coaching model (an estimated $1,000,000), reducing maintenance and technology refresh spending in the short term, and eliminating or trimming some extracurricular programs (district staff estimated $300,000 for middle-school athletics). The district also noted one-time revenue opportunities: staff said there is a public offer on a major parcel for about $2,000,000 but cautioned that proceeds from property sales are not sustainable operational revenue.

Doctor Weiss emphasized trade-offs and legal limits: some positions and services required by individual education plans cannot be cut because of federal law, and district staff cannot use district funds to promote a yes-or-no vote on a referendum; they may provide factual information about what a referendum would fund. The presenter also described that, after tallying the currently identified measures, the district estimated roughly $5,300,000 of achievable savings, with other accounting options potentially covering another $3,000,000, but said a substantial gap would remain unless additional actions or referendum revenue are secured.

Committee members recommended three areas for immediate follow-up: broaden targeted outreach to community groups (United Way, Building Our Future, CABA and others were suggested), involve teachers and students in communication efforts so messaging connects to classroom impacts, and circulate more detailed budget documentation to committee members to allow informed feedback. Tanya, who described working with the Donovan Group on the prior survey, said the previous outreach included paper and electronic surveys in multiple languages and weighting to distinguish community members from families with students in the district; the prior referendum failed 54%–46%.

The committee agreed to circulate requests for additional budget detail (members may make individual requests and be copied on responses), to continue the discussion at the June 11 meeting, and then adjourned. No formal motion to place a referendum on the ballot was made during this session.