East Troy board reviews budget shortfalls after referendum defeat and explores a fall ballot

The East Troy School District Board of Education spent much of its May 20 meeting reviewing the financial fallout from a failed operational referendum and considering whether to bring a new question to voters this fall.

Administrators told the board the April 7 referendum — a proposed $4 million per year for three years to cover operational expenses and staffing — failed 61% to 39%. The district’s budget model originally projected a $4.3 million deficit for 2026–27; after a better‑than‑expected 0% health‑insurance renewal and other adjustments the shortfall was described as roughly $4.0 million. The board approved $2.7 million in expenditure reductions for 2026–27, but administrators said that still leaves an estimated $1.3 million gap for 2026–27 and growing projected shortfalls for subsequent years.

“Revenue growth from the state has lagged inflation for nearly two decades,” an administrator said during the presentation, describing the structural funding pressures that helped prompt the referendum request. The presentation highlighted that had revenue limits grown with inflation the district would have roughly $5.4 million more authority today.

Board members were told the reductions already adopted include salary freezes for administration, certified and support staff; department spending cuts; and reductions totaling 18.37 full‑time equivalent positions (a mix of partial FTE reductions, unfilled positions, and eliminations). The administration also used $975,000 from a subfund balance for the coming year, a one‑time measure administrators warned would not be sustainable.

Those staffing and program cuts will have concrete effects, the presentation said: elimination of a middle‑school testing center used for accommodated testing, reductions to English‑language services, larger class sizes, and a reduction of one section each in first and second grade. The district also expects a reduction in its Title I allocation of $83,580 based on federal census data.

Several board members and the presenting administrator said the failed referendum campaign was hampered by community misinformation and low turnout. “We heard a lot of questions and some confusion about what referendum dollars do versus what state aid does,” the administrator said, urging better community education.

Directly after the briefing the board discussed next steps. Administration recommended that, if the board wants a November referendum, a resolution must be adopted and filed by August 25 for placement on the November 3 ballot (earlier filing was recommended to allow legal review and clerical work). Members asked the finance subcommittee to meet frequently over the summer to develop clear visuals, refine the size and scope of any potential question, and craft targeted messaging for community outreach. The board signaled that any future referendum proposal should state both the projected tax impact and the concrete programmatic outcomes voters should expect.

The board did not set a date for a new referendum at the meeting. The finance subcommittee will report back with options and likely dollar amounts; the board said that subcommittee work will then be distributed to student‑learning and salary/benefits subcommittees for cross‑validation of projected educational impacts.

The presentation and discussion closed with repeated appeals from multiple members for broader grassroots outreach and clearer community communications ahead of any future ballot placement.