FAQs

The vast majority of the District’s  funding comes from a complicated formula, a school district revenue limit, that dates back to 1993.  When simplifying it, all Wisconsin schools are funded based on a certain amount per student multiplied by their three year membership average.  Originally, the amount per student increased annually to keep up with inflation.  For many years, that has not been the case, and subsequently, is why schools are relying more on referendums to support operational costs.  Even if the state increases the District’s per pupil amount in the future, it will be to offset future inflationary increases and will not be enough to "catch up" for increases that did not happen in the past.  If the District were to ask for a non-recurring referendum that expires, SASD would be creating yet another, larger fiscal cliff where the District’s revenue would not be enough to support ongoing expenses.  This would put SASD in a similar position of asking for additional tax support or making budget cuts.  

Forward Analytics recently released a research article explaining the reliance of referendums for school operations.  The article does a great job explaining the history of revenue limits and why lagging increases are affecting schools so much.  The paragraph below (from page 6) helps one understand why schools are finding it nearly impossible to manage cost increases without making significant cuts:

"After 2011, allowable increases lagged.  Facing large deficits in the 2011-13 state budget, lawmakers cut per student revenue limits 5.5% for the 2011-12 school year.  This was paired with the minimum health and retirement contributions for school staff that were designed to reduce school district costs.  Some districts generated sufficient savings to offset the reduction, others did not.  Since then, revenue limits have been allowed to grow much slower than they did during 1994-2011.  In six of the 11 years since 2012 the limits were not raised, including 2022 and 2023.  In the other five years, allowable increases ranged from $50 per student to $1789 per student."

Yes, although the 2022 Facilities Referendum and improvements are not related to the current operational budget deficit. 

Thanks to the generous support of the community, the Stoughton Area School District passed a $36.3 million SASD Capital Maintenance facilities referendum and an $11.7 million facilities referendum in November 2022.  This referendum allowed SASD to:

• Invest in capital maintenance improvements
• Make important safety and security enhancements
• Consolidate and expand physical education spaces at River Bluff Middle School
• Renovate the High School cafeteria and kitchen

A facilities referendum typically deals with funding or approving construction, renovation, or improvement of physical structures or facilities within a school district.  SASD’s 2022 referendum to address the District’s capital maintenance needs and add a new gym to River Bluff Middle School was a facilities referendum.
Operational referendums, on the other hand, deal with the ongoing operational expenses of a school district. These day-to-day expenses can include salaries and benefits, educational programs, transportation, utilities, and technology.

The mill rate is a product of two things – our total tax levy and the equalized property value.  The mill rate is the result of dividing the total levy by the total property value. 

For the mill rate to increase, the total levy needs to increase at a higher percentage than the property value increases.  If the property value increases at a higher percentage than the levy, the mill rate will decrease. 

The referendum is classified as a recurring referendum, which means the additional funding approved each year is added permanently into how much we receive per student in our revenue limit.  The other option would be a non-recurring referendum.  A non-recurring referendum would identify a set dollar amount for a specified period of time (e.g. four years).  When the specified period of time is up, the additional funds would simply cease to be available and spendable revenue would drop to the levels they were at prior to the referendum.  Unless the state increases how much we receive per pupil to make up for the funds no longer available via referendum, we find ourselves with a large fiscal cliff (ongoing expenses that exist without a revenue stream to pay for them).  Our Board felt that a non-recurring referendum would "kick the can down the road" and chose the recurring referendum option to build dependable resources into our budget.