Kenosha committee outlines $17.6 million shortfall and catalogues potential cuts ahead of referendum planning

Members of the Kenosha School District Audit, Budget and Finance Committee spent a special meeting reviewing community survey responses and staff cost models as they plan for a possible operational referendum and for cuts to close a projected structural deficit.

Tanya, a district staff presenter, said the district’s ParentSquare survey produced 259 responses and more than 1,300 ideas from families, staff and some students. She walked the committee through categorized suggestions—costed items in green, existing processes in yellow and items that do not address the Fund 10 deficit in red—and identified recurring themes including evaluating underused buildings, consolidating specialized programs and rethinking extracurricular spending. “We had 259 responses with more than 1,300 ideas generated,” Tanya said, noting some suggestions reflected a misunderstanding of which district funds cover certain services.

Tarek, the district finance staff member who presented the fiscal simulations, told the committee that declining enrollment and rising costs are driving a structural problem. He said the district expects roughly $1.7 million of additional revenue next year but faces larger expense increases—particularly health insurance—and presented a projected $17.6 million budget deficit for 2026–27 absent additional revenue or major cuts. “That’s why we’re not just talking about one year,” Tarek said. He added health insurance premium increases alone were running about $4 million and that some combination of vacancy savings and targeted reductions could reduce the immediate draw on reserves.

Staff outlined a long list of potential reductions and changes, some of which the committee asked to cost out further: increasing class sizes to eliminate teaching positions (staff modeled scenarios that could remove up to roughly 40 teacher FTE in the most aggressive simulations, with other scenarios estimating reductions of about 20–34 FTE by level), evaluating and possibly repurposing underused facilities (including discussion of Reuther and the Roosevelt enrichment program), consolidating elective and low‑enrollment courses, reducing or restructuring middle‑school athletics and other student‑facing programs, pausing technology refresh purchases, renegotiating benefit plan design to shift costs to employees, and trimming central‑office or ESC expenditures (staff noted at least $500,000 of ESC reductions were on the table contingent on board direction).

Several board members urged caution. Tierney said the process needs more transparency and urged either an independent review or a line‑by‑line public accounting of proposed savings, especially when large cuts to programs could undercut community support for a future referendum. “If we push it to the max…people that can pull their kids are going to yank their kids,” Tierney said, warning that aggressive reductions could accelerate enrollment loss. Tierney also raised safety concerns, asking how the district would conduct ALICE or active‑shooter drills with much larger classes: “If you have 40 kids in a classroom, how can you get in a corner… it can’t happen.”

Board members and staff discussed tradeoffs and equity issues for several options. Presenters cautioned that moving advanced courses off site—placing students at colleges for classes previously offered in the district—would require transportation and could produce inequitable access; staff said state rules require the district to fund certain outside tuition when the district does not offer a comparable course. Staff also noted some clubs and activities self‑fund and that eliminating district support for such groups would create different impacts than cutting directly district‑funded programs.

Mr. Keckler presented 10 years of student exit data showing post‑COVID increases in students leaving the district (exits rose above 300 in the most recent year) and described return‑rate patterns for certain competitors; staff and members agreed declining birth rates and local competition are both contributing to lower enrollment and long‑term revenue pressure.

No formal votes were taken. Staff asked the committee to indicate, at the following Tuesday meeting, which items the board wants costed out and which cuts it would be willing to include in referendum messaging or implement if no referendum is pursued. Staff said polling results later this month should help the board decide whether to seek a referendum that merely maintains current services or an expanded question with specified enhancements.

The committee left the meeting with a clear procedural next step: staff will provide more granular capacity and utilization charts, run cost scenarios requested by board members, and present a prioritized list of cuts and a refined revenue question for further discussion at the next meeting. The committee set that follow‑up to provide the specificity the community and members have requested.