Kenosha board outlines timeline and potential cuts as it plans for November referendum

Kenosha School District trustees opened a special meeting to plan for an operational referendum and to identify the specific budget reductions that would follow if the district does not seek a referendum or if voters reject it. Dr. Weiss told the board he aimed to finalize reductions by the June 23 meeting, survey the community in July, and observe an August 25 statutory deadline for placing a question on the Nov. 3 ballot.

“Any communication that we put out regarding this referendum is very clear on what the reductions will be,” Dr. Weiss said, urging the board to agree on a list of cuts the public can review before a survey. He emphasized that the board had not yet voted to proceed with a referendum and that the current work is planning and outreach.

District finance staff presented the near-term fiscal picture. “We have about $1,700,000 additional revenue,” Tarek said, and later summarized the expense side: “we have a total of $12,400,000 of net expense change compared to the 1.7 of revenue,” which he said produces “that projected shortfall of $10,700,000.” Administrators also noted a separate structural deficit carried from the current adopted budget.

Board members and administrators moved through a menu of potential reductions the district could present to voters or enact if a referendum is not pursued. Proposals discussed included raising class-size averages (the administration provided an estimate of about $4,000,000 in potential savings if class-size targets were adjusted across grade levels), exploring block scheduling at the secondary level (administrators said that would require detailed schedule runs and policy changes), and cutting middle school athletics (administration estimated total elimination of middle-school athletics would save roughly $300,000 but warned of Title IX complications).

Other suggested reductions or one-time measures included pausing the technology refresh program (about $1,300,000 for 2026–27), deferring $1,000,000 in major maintenance, reviewing instructional-coach deployment (a centralized model could save roughly $1,000,000), and considering property sales as one-time cash inflows. Administrators cautioned that facility sales and paused capital programs are not sustainable operational fixes and would not close recurring deficits.

Several trustees urged clarity and specificity in public messaging. “We have to show them what could possibly be cut,” Ms. Stevens said, listing music, theater and sports among programs voters might be asked to preserve. Other trustees recommended comparative data showing peer-district pay and services to make the case for restoring or increasing pay and staffing levels.

The administration identified roughly $5,300,000 in possible reductions at this stage but said the board must reach toward a $17,000,000–$17,600,000 target if salary raises or step increases are included in the plan. Dr. Weiss asked trustees to attend a June 11 Audit Budget Finance Committee meeting where staff will return with costed options, with the goal of finalizing a public survey and a board decision prior to the August statutory deadline.

Officials also clarified several technical items that affect the district’s finances: private-school voucher payments are largely pass-throughs that appear on the tax levy but do not reduce district operating expenditures; state and federal rules (including Title IX and enrollment-count rules such as the third-Friday count) limit some options for shifting students or funding; and federally funded professional-development allocations (Title II-A) will be reduced by about $200,000 next year.

The meeting ended without a decision to place a referendum question on the ballot; trustees voted to adjourn following the scheduled discussion. The administration will return to the audit committee June 11 with detailed cost estimates and to the full board June 23 and in July for further action and public outreach.