Because the referendum passed in 2016 had a non-recurring component, it is set to expire June 30, 2020.  As a result, the funding available under that referendum goes away and the District needs to ask the taxpayers to grant that funding again along with funding for additional expense increases.

Keeping in mind that the school district taxes are the only part of your property taxes that the District has control over, the referendum is currently projected to have no impact on local property taxes.  Below is a graph showing the tax levy rate since 2010/11 and the projected rate for the next three years. Wondering how this can happen? See the next question!

As outlined in the first question above, the District knew in 2016 that it would be back for another referendum for a larger amount this year.  So, we have been planning all along for this through the restructuring and prepayment of our debt to be able to minimize the tax impact. In the graphic below, you can see how the total tax rate remains fairly stable, while what makes up the tax levy changes by shifting tax dollars from debt to operations.

As outlined in a prior question, the District only has control over the school district taxes on your tax bill. Overall changes in your tax bill may have been due to various things such as changes in property values, local municipality initiatives, or changes other taxing entities made. For more information on this, check out this resource from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance.

Related to the school portion of your taxes, as you can see in the chart below the tax rate did increase for the School District of Fort Atkinson taxes in 2019. This increase was the result of an increase in private school vouchers, for which the local school district taxes to make up state aid it lost to pay for the vouchers. However, as you can also see in the chart, even with the increase in 2019, the rate was well below the 2016/17 rate and still lower than the rate in 2010/11.

There are students in Fort Atkinson that receive private school vouchers however, the public schools have not seen a large decline in students as a result of the vouchers. As the program has grown, income eligibility levels have been changed by the State, and more private schools and parents apply for the program; students that were already attending these private schools are becoming eligible for state-funded vouchers.

More information at the state level can be found here: https://dpi.wi.gov/sms/choice-programs/data

The list of private schools participating in the program for 2020-21 can be found here and include the following in Fort Atkinson:

• Crown of Life Christian Academy
• Saint Paul’s Lutheran School
• *Lakeside Lutheran in Lake Mills may also impact the private school voucher program in Fort Atkinson as it is the nearest private high school.

At the local level, the State of Wisconsin withholds aid from the School District of Fort Atkinson to pay for the private school vouchers of District residents. The District then makes up that lost aid by taxing more. This year the only increase in the tax rate from the School District was to make up for the lost aid for private school vouchers.

Since the inception of the program in Fort Atkinson, the amount of taxes levied to local residents to make up the state aid lost for private school vouchers is as follows:

• 2016-17 = $31,876
• 2017-18 = $24,528
• 2018-19 = $172,218
• 2019-20 = $481,127

For questions pertaining to enrollment data, please visit: https://dpi.wi.gov/open-enrollment/funding

A recurring referendum to exceed the revenue limit allows the District to levy an additional tax above the allowable limit indefinitely if needed.  The tax is added to the base calculation of the revenue limit. A non-recurring referendum to exceed the revenue limit allows the District to levy a tax above the allowable limit for a given number of years if needed.  The tax has a “sunset” and once it is done, the District no longer has the authority to levy that tax.

Revenue limits were established for school districts in Wisconsin in fall, 1993 by the state legislature.  They were intended to be a means by which the state could control property taxes. A district’s revenue limit is made up of state aid and local taxes.  As state aid to the district decreases, property taxes increase and vice versa. Up until 2009, the state granted an inflationary increase to the revenue limit each year so school districts could keep up with increasing costs for the same services.  Since then, the revenue limit has decreased or seen only small increases. In order to exceed the state-imposed revenue limit a school district must go to referendum and ask the local taxpayers for the additional revenue it may need.

As discussed in the prior question, the state has established a maximum revenue amount allowed for each school district through the revenue limit.  Since the state legislature has the desire to not increase property taxes, more and more of the funding for local schools has shifted to the local property taxpayer. While this is a shift, it does provide more local control over school funding as the state is not taxing the property and deciding where the funds go.  Rather, the local school district is taxing the property and each dollar that is approved through a referendum goes directly to the schools rather than flowing through the state. 

The school district’s “means” are limited by state law through the revenue limit and state aid.  Since 2009 inflation has increased by an average of 1.76% per year. Even with the recurring portion of the 2016 referendum and increasing state aid, the district’s allowable revenue increase has averaged 1.63% per year. In fact, without the recurring referendum in 2016, the allowable revenue increase from the state would have averaged only 1.07% over that same time frame. As a result, the District cannot keep up with the cost increases of current programs and services without a referendum to exceed the state-imposed revenue limit.

If the state were to grant additional revenue to the district, the Board of Education would have several options.  They may decide not to levy some of the referenda approved property taxes; carryover those funds to determine the best long-term course of action based on changing state and federal funding; invest those funds into new programs and services to enhance the educational offerings of the district; or any combination of these.

Being a local government entity, the federal and state governments drive much of what can be done in a public school.  Unlike a private business where sales drive revenue, the school’s revenue is at the discretion of state and federal government officials, which cannot be easily predicted.  Also, as a public school, we are mandated by law to provide an education to any student that shows up at our doorstep regardless of socioeconomic status, language barriers or special educational needs.  While we openly embrace all children and work to meet their needs, sometimes the funding granted by the state or federal government is insufficient to cover all of the costs associated with the educational challenges students face.

The District’s mission is to help each and every student achieve their potential, whether that is in math, science, agriculture or music.  The opportunities and services the District provides to the children of the Fort Atkinson community give each student what’s needed, whether they plan to attend a four-year college, a two-year technical school or directly enter the workforce.  From a financial perspective, many students from outside the District open enroll in Fort Atkinson because of our varied program offerings, bringing with them additional funding for the District. Should these offerings disappear and open enrolled students leave, the funding that follows those students also leaves the District, thus creating a downward spiral in the financial viability of the District.

Over the past three years of the referendum that was approved in November 2016, the District has continued to make strategic improvements while still keeping tax rates below the level they were at in 2016/17. This improvement has been guided by the community-developed strategic plan, which was developed in 2017 and provided the District direction on areas most important to the community for enhancement.  

Some of these strategic improvements include:

• Launching a District-wide system for equity
• Revising the elementary schedule and adding additional art and music programming
• Improving communications and community engagement
• Providing additional supports to English Language Learners and students with special needs
• Enhancing social-emotional and behavioral mental health services at all levels
• Strengthening academic and behavioral intervention programming and services
• Increasing the number of staff in vocational programs at the High School
• Increasing services to youth who are considered at-risk of not graduating high school
• Integrating data practices to inform teaching and learning
• Continuing to offer competitive wage and benefit packages to attract and retain high-quality team members

The proposed referendum is simply to allow the District to keep up with projected expense increases for current programs and services.  Over the past couple of years, the District has worked hard to plan for this referendum and minimize the local tax impact. We have restructured and prepaid debt to make this possible without a tax increase.  We have also heard feedback through the surveys and focus groups that some citizens want the District to offer more. Any increase in services would come along with a tax increase unless funding is found within current resources by reducing elsewhere in the budget, or funding beyond what is projected is granted by the state.

If the April 2020 operational referendum does not pass, the Board of Education would then strategize when to go back to the community with another proposed operational referendum.

If that referendum does not pass, there would be no easy way to cut enough from the budget without drastically affecting the programs and services the District provides.  It is estimated that the District would need to cut $3.95 million for the 2020-21 school year and an additional $1.1 million each year thereafter. The mission of the District is to deliver the quality opportunities and services each student needs to achieve his or her academic and personal potential.  All of the District’s programs provide something of value to students. If a list of potential reductions were to be published, it would simply put the supporters of those programs in an adversarial position and divide our community.

Due to the district having only two main sources of revenue (taxes and state aid), and the timing of when those funds are received, it is necessary for the district to maintain a fund balance to avoid borrowing to meet short-term cash flow needs. In fact, due to the timing of when our revenue is received, our fund balance gets low enough that it could not cover one month’s worth of expenses. Therefore, the district maintains this fund balance at a level that avoids having to borrow funds to pay monthly operating expenses.

It should be noted that there may not be any reduction in taxes if the referendum does not pass.  Over the past several years the Board of Education has prepaid and restructured the referendum debt for the High School and Geothermal projects to make this referendum possible with minimal tax impact.  If the referendum does not pass, the Board would have the option to continue to keep the tax levy at the same level and continue to prepay debt, therefore saving taxpayers additional interest costs. This would not, however, grant the money the District needs to continue operating the same programs and services currently offered.  Rather, the funds would be used to prepay debt. While taxes would not decrease and debt payments would be made earlier than scheduled, the Board would have to navigate a projected budget deficit in 2020-21 of approximately $3.95 million and an additional $1.1 million deficit each year thereafter.

The referendum question on the ballot is asking taxpayers permission to levy an additional tax above the revenue limit for operational purposes.  Therefore, a “Yes” vote means that you support the District’s ability to levy that tax and a “No” vote means you do not support the District’s ability to levy that tax.

The Facilities Advisory Committee is a group of community and school district stakeholders that have been brought together to meet once a month since September 2019 to develop a long-range strategic facilities plan for the School District of Fort Atkinson. This group was given a Master Planning Charter by the Board of Education. 

As the charter outlines, the goal of this group is to develop, “...a master plan that will guide the investment into district facilities to support future academic programs and create safe and vibrant learning environments.” Inherent in this strategic facilities planning process is the need to look long-term and consider that these buildings will last the community 50+ years. It is important to note that while there may be some short-term changes that are reasonable for the Board to consider for a possible referendum in the future, there may also be some changes that the Board will not act on for quite some time. This process is meant to guide the District’s long-term facilities planning.

Many have asked if this facilities process is tied into the April 7, 2020, operational referendum. 

It is not. 

In fact, the Facilities Advisory Committee will not be making any recommendations to the Board of Education regarding long-term facilities plans until after the April 7, 2020 referendum. 

The operational referendum is to fund ongoing annual operations of the School District of Fort Atkinson - not facilities enhancements, renovations, or replacements.  Securing operational funding through the operational referendum on April 7th is the District’s priority to allow for further progress in the long-term facilities planning process.  

The Board of Education considered several referendum scenarios, including whether it should be two questions or one.  The common belief with two questions is that it allows the voters to approve one and not the other. If that were the case with this referendum, no matter which part were approved it would not be enough to cover the projected deficit in 2020-21, resulting in the need to either go to another referendum or make budget reductions.  It was clear through the feedback received from the community that additional reductions are not desired, leaving the only option to be holding another referendum. With that in mind, the Board decided to make it one question in order to cover the entire need for the next three years and only put it before the voters once.