School District of Monroe School Referendum Frequently Asked Questions September 2016 Q: Why is the district holding a referendum? Why does the deficit continue to grow? A: As a starting point, it is important to answer the question of how we have gotten to this point. Since 1993, Wisconsin schools have been working under the state revenue cap limits. The caps have worked to reduce or limit spending in our schools. The issue for our school system, as with many Wisconsin schools, is that revenue caps, combined with declining enrollment, are creating a structural deficit in the District s budget. The allowed increases in the revenue limit have not matched the cost of inflation and increases in cost. Over the last six years the allowed revenue limit per pupil was decreased by $567 in one year and was $0 in two other years. The net change per pupil in revenue limit over the last six years is a reduction of $367 per pupil. Our District s Fund 10 revenues are currently equal to where they were ten (10) years ago. With costs continuing to rise and limited to no allowed revenue growth from the state, the only solution for districts is a local referendum. Over 300 districts in our state have ran an operating referendum since 2000. In the case of Monroe, we have actually reduced our deficit and the amount being requested in this referendum compared to the previous two referendums by making continual changes to staffing, compensation, benefits, vendor contracts, projects and services over time to save costs and limit the annual deficit. Q: What will the referendum allow us to do? A: A passed referendum will allow the District to maintain the current educational services and program offerings available to students and would help maintain District staffing at close to the current level for the next three years. The Board will continue to evaluate the budget on an annual basis and make reductions in staff or programs where appropriate. Q: What happens if the referendum fails? A: Should the November referendum fail, it would result in a significant reduction in services and staffing. The necessary reductions would be implemented at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year. While these decisions have not yet been made, it is projected that a failed referendum would result in the following: Significant reduction in staffing numerous positions eliminated Increase in class sizes Potential elimination of instructional programs, classes, and course offerings Potential elimination of extra and co-curricular activities Reduction in programming for at-risk students and students with disabilities Inability to address necessary safety, security, communication and maintenance needs Q: If the referendum passes will there still be reductions? A: Yes, the Board of Education will continue to closely monitor and scrutinize the District s budget to ensure we continue to provide quality learning experiences for our young people while maintaining a fiscally responsible approach. There also remains the very real possibility that the state will reduce funding of schools over the next couple of years. Should that happen, it would likely cause the District to implement further cuts and reductions, even if the referendum is passed. Q: How does our current level of spending compare to other school districts? A: The School District of Monroe s educational spending has been typically under the state average every year. The lone exception being in 2014-15 when the District had to record the total value of leased equipment received that inflated the cost per pupil. Without that, the District would have again been below the state average. The Total Education Cost (TEC) per member does not include Fund 50 Food Service program spending nor Fund 80 which for Monroe includes the expenditure for the Monroe Public Library. The attached graph shows the comparison between per member total education cost for the District and the state average.
Total Education Cost (source DPI) $13,000 $12,500 $12,000 $11,500 $11,000 $10,500 $10,000 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 District Educational Spending State Avg Educ Spending *Information from Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Q: Didn t the District already have referendums for operating purposes? Why are they asking again? A: The District passed a referendum in the spring of 2007 for four years, encompassing the school years of 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011. Over those four years, the District was able to manage the budget, find additional efficiencies, and realized actual budget expenditures lower than projections, meaning the District did not need to utilize the full amount of the referendum. Over the course of the four years, the District used just over $4 million of the $8,350,000 authorized. The District did not levy nearly $4,300,000 of the referendum authority granted. A commitment was made prior to that referendum where the District, its administration and school Board said that if they could find a way to bring the budget in at better than projected and avoid using the full referendum authority, they would. The District clearly followed that commitment by not utilizing over half of the referendum authority granted in the last referendum. In the spring of 2011, another referendum was run to ask for authorization above the revenue limit for another four years. That referendum did not pass. The District has been operating without any revenue limit override authorization since 2011-2012. Q: How much has staffing changed as compared to enrollment? Have staff been reduced as enrollment has dropped? A: School Year Enrollment Change Staff FTE s Change 2002-03* 2,645 431.9 2015-16* 2,406-239 310.8-121.1 * FTE s & Enrollment figures based on Wisconsin's Information Network for Successful Schools (WINSS) DPI web-site Overall enrollment since 2002-2003 has decreased by 9% and we have reduced our staff size by 28%. (Note: The way DPI calculates support staff FTE has changed since 2002-2003. Counting our full-time school-term staff as a 1 FTE we would have a total staff FTE of 345 which would still represent a 20% reduction from 2002-2003. Q: Are the District s budget problems due to a decline in student enrollment? A: Our District s decline in enrollment has certainly magnified the problem with the revenue limit. Monroe, as well as many other Wisconsin districts, would have budget shortfalls with the cap gap caused by revenue limits not keeping up with the cost of inflation even if we were maintaining our enrollment. The fact that the revenue limit formula is driven by student enrollment means that as enrollment declines, the amount of revenue limit authority the District has also declines. While the loss of ten to twenty students in a year, spread across many grade levels, may not be enough to warrant any immediate reduction in staff, there can be a significant impact on the amount of revenue the District has.
Q: If the referendum passes, what is being planned to stop this same scenario from happening all over again? A: This referendum would cover the projected budget shortfalls for the next three years. While the District will annually monitor and evaluate the District budget and make necessary budget reductions when they make sense, please know that the District will need to come back for another referendum in three years unless the current funding formula changes. Since 1993, Wisconsin schools have been working under state-imposed revenue limits, often referred to as revenue caps. These caps have worked to reduce or limit spending in our schools. The issue for our school system, as with many Wisconsin schools, is that revenue caps, combined with declining enrollment, create a structural deficit in the District s budget. This creates a budget shortfall, or cap gap. The only way districts can address this cap gap is by continually making reductions each budget year or by passing an operating referendum which allows the district to exceed the revenue limit. The District has implemented a number of control systems to become more efficient and maximize budget resources. But will continue to need to run future referendums if revenue limits remain and the District wishes to maintain its current programming and level of education. Q: Why do we need a referendum? A: The state-allowed increases in the revenue limit have not kept pace with the increase in expenditures. In fact, the District receives $367 per pupil less now than it did six years ago. The District s revenue budget is essentially the same now as it was ten years ago. The current state funding system has not allowed revenue limit growth to keep up with the cost of inflation. It has created a system of haves and have nots where suburban districts with growing enrollments are doing well and more rural districts are not. The system leaves it to the local taxpayers to determine the funding level and quality of education for their local students. The fact that over 300 of 426 school districts in Wisconsin have had one or more operating referendums since 2000 clearly shows that this is now the norm for Wisconsin. Q: Why are the surrounding districts (Juda, Argyle, etc) not experiencing similar problems? A: Unfortunately most of our area districts have had similar problems and have run operating referendums. Currently every school district in Green County except Monroe is authorized by their voters to exceed the revenue limit for operating purposes. Albany, Brodhead, Monticello and New Glarus all have revenue limit operating exemptions for the 2016-2017 fiscal year that on a per-pupil basis would exceed Monroe even if both of the School District of Monroe questions would pass. Albany, Baraboo, Benton, Black Hawk, Brodhead, Cuba City, Darlington, DeForest, Dodgeville, Evansville, Fort Atkinson, Juda, McFarland, Middleton, Madison, Milton, Mineral Point, Monona Grove, Monticello, Mount Horeb, New Glarus, Oregon, Parkview, Pecatonica, Portage, Reedsburg, Shullsburg, Stoughton, Sun Prairie, Verona, and Waunakee have all had referendum questions to exceed the revenue limit for operating purposes. That leaves only Argyle and Belleville as district that have not had a referendum question to exceed the revenue limit. Belleville has had as energy exemption authority to exceed the revenue limit. Q: How many other districts in Wisconsin have gone to operating referendums? A: According to information from the DPI website, since 1/1/2000: - 939 referenda questions have been posed - 305 districts have gone to referendum (over 70% of Wisconsin school districts) Of the 939 questions: - 503 passed - 436 failed - There are 21 districts asking 25 operating questions this November. Q: What will the referendum cost? A: Should both questions of the referendum be approved; it would raise the mill rate $1.89 per $1,000 of assessed property value. On a $100,000 home, it will cost the taxpayer: $189 per year, or $15.75 per month, or.52 cents per day Prior to the cost of the referendum, the 2016-2017 District levy is projected to be the lowest in 10 years and the District mill rate the lowest it has been in 18 years.
Tax Levy per Pupil Q: Why is the mill rate for Monroe so high when compared to other districts in Wisconsin? A: Monroe s mill rate for 2015-2016 would place it about 1/3 (140 th )from the highest rate in the state. One key factor that distinguishes Monroe from all other school districts in Wisconsin is our public library. Monroe is the only school district in the state which has as part of its mill rate the public library. Typically, the cost of the public library is part of the municipality and thus is included in calculating cities mill rates, not the schools. The inclusion of the public library in the District s mill rate will make the Monroe School District s levy and mill rate appear high when compared to all other public schools in Wisconsin who are not levying for a public library. If you remove the levy and mill rate for the Monroe Public Library, the mill rate for the School District of Monroe is actually well below the state average. The other factor to consider is that the mill rate is simply a factor of the District s levy divided by the District s property valuation. The District s property valuation per pupil is considerably less than the state average which leads to the District receiving more state aid, but still having a higher mill rate than if we were a more property-rich district. How does Monroe compare when we remove property valuation and simply look at the levy rather than the mill rate? When compared with the rest of the state, the School District of Monroe s property tax levy per pupil (including the cost of the public library) was 23.8% less than the state average in 2014-2015, the most current year for which there is published data. The chart below shows that the District s property tax levy per pupil has been under the state average for of the ten years 2003-2004 through 2014-2015 even with the cost of the Monroe Public Library included. The gap has widened in recent years with Monroe taxpayers paying significantly less than the state average per pupil. 6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 Property Tax Levy per Pupil District Levy per Pupil State Average K-12 Levy per Pupil Fiscal Year *Source Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction **School District of Monroe tax levy per pupil includes the levy for the Monroe Public Library. The School District of Monroe is the only school district in the state that is the taxing authority for a public library. Q: The District has a fund balance. Doesn t this mean they have extra cash they aren t using? Can t they simply use the fund balance instead of going to referendum? A: For starters, we need to understand a bit about fund balance. Fund balance is not cash on hand. It is the net difference between revenues and expenditures. How is this different? The first thing to understand is the District s two primary sources of revenue are state aid and taxes. The District receives its taxes predominantly in January and again in August. The District receives 15% of its state aid in September, and the remaining 85% between December and June, with some even delayed to July. In addition, the District s fiscal year runs from July 1 through the following June 30, meaning there are expenditures that begin immediately on July 1 st. Beyond the small aid payment in July, the District basically has expenses to operate for the first half of the year with very little revenue until the December aid payment and January tax payments arrive. Expenditures continue through the second half of the year, with the final large aid payment not being received until the middle of June and about 40% of taxes are not received by the District until the following August, well after the fiscal year end, even though these dollars are considered a revenue in the current fiscal year. This significant lag between when expenditures are spent and received creates a significant cash flow deficit. When the District had little to no fund balance, cash flow borrowing was understandably significant, given the timing of revenues. Interest expense in some years was in excess of $300,000 as a result. By having healthy fund balance, the District has currently been able to
greatly reduce cash flow borrowing, meaning that funds that were once used to pay interest can now be used to fund staff and programs. In addition, a fund balance gives the District some security to cover costs should an unexpected maintenance expense arise such as a boiler or AC chiller unit going bad. Another benefit of having a fund balance is in the District s bond rating. The District s bond rating was increased by a reportedly unprecedented four bond grades. This helped allow the District to get a much better bond interest rate and saved taxpayers over $110,000 per year on the debt service levy for the last 8 years of the District s debt service levy. Although the District had a reported fund balance of $5.4M at the end of the fiscal year, over $4.6M of that was for aids and taxes that had not yet been collected so as we said at the start of this paragraph, fund balance is not the same as cash or available funds on hand. Over the course of the last four years, the District has had to use $2.6M of fund balance in order to fund long-term maintenance projects and avoid making significant reductions. The fund balance has been reduced to the point where cash flow borrowing will need to begin again to cover times of the year when the District is waiting for revenues to come in. This typically happens in late fall/early winter prior to January tax revenues and late spring prior to June aid payments. Question: How are our local Students performing academically? The School District of Monroe continues to provide excellent educational opportunities for the students of this community. When considering the most recent state test scores reported by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Monroe schools realized proficiency levels that were well above the State average. In fact, Monroe students were 8 percentage points higher in English Language Arts proficiency and 11 percentage points higher in Mathematics proficiency when compared to the State average. Monroe High School students are achieving at impressive levels. All MHS junior students now take the ACT with an average score of 21.1. This average score is the highest among schools in Green County. ACT Scores from Green County Schools Monroe 21.1 Monticello 20.9 New Glarus 20.9 Brodhead 20.0 Albany 19.5 Juda 19.8 Blackhawk 18.7 Question: What opportunities do Monroe students have to earn college credit? Monroe students have taken more rigorous coursework which allows them to earn college credit at 4 year and 2 year institutions. The type of classes available to our students is: Advanced Placement, Cooperative Academic Partnership Program (CAPP) with UW Oshkosh, Project Lead the Way (PLTW) with Milwaukee School of Engineering, and Articulated and Advanced Standing classes with Blackhawk Technical College and Madison College. Taking these classes has resulted in our students receiving more college credit while still in high school. This can be a significant savings for students and parents when it comes to paying for tuition. Due to the increase in AP classes we have increased the number of students taking advanced placement tests for college credit. Currently, 79.7% of students taking Advance Placement Exams have scored a 3 or higher earning them college credit. This is above the state average as seen the graph below.
AP Exams *Information is taken from Wisedash Public http://wisedash.dpi.wi.gov/dashboard/page/home/topic%20area/wsas/act%20statewide Question: How does student early release on Mondays contribute to student success? Monroe continues to put students first by making sure teachers have time to collaborate. Monday early release time allows our teachers the time needed to work as a team on student data and achievement. Teachers can then make sound decisions based on data and best practices to support all of our students in every subject area. Having time to make these very important decisions is essential for our teachers to meet student s individual instructional needs. Q: How does Monroe compare in the number of administrators & will there be reductions in this area? A: District Business Curriculum Pupil HS HS Asst. MS MS Asst. Elem. Prin./ School Admin Adm/HR Director Services Principal Principal Principal Principal Asst. Prin. Total Baraboo 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 15 DeForest 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 15 Mt. Horeb 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 12 Portage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 10 Reedsburg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 12 Sauk Prairie 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 12 Waunakee 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 5 17 Ft. Atkinson 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 13 Milton 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 14 Monona Grove 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 13 Monroe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 11 Oregon 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 5.5 15.5 Stoughton 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 13 Since 2003, the School District of Monroe has eliminated a total of three administrative positions: 1. Community Relations Coordinator 2. District Technology Coordinator 3. Assistant Director of Special Education
The School District of Monroe has examined the administrative staffing of other districts in the Badger Conference. The conference average is 13.25 administrators per district. We currently employ 11 administrators which is well below the conference average. Portage is the only district with fewer administrators and they have a Dean of Students at both their high school and middle school which is not included in their total above. The Board evaluated the comparative data, the reductions already made, and the multiple roles filled by a number of administrators. It was determined that if the District is going to continue to move forward with initiatives to improve the instruction and academic performance of our students, that there would not be a further reduction in administration. Q: Why can t the School District live within its means? A: The District s means are limited by state law through the revenue limit. Between 1994-2009, the state granted a revenue limit increase of 3.19% per year, on average. From 2009-2016, the state granted a revenue limit increase of 0.14% per year, on average. Had the revenue limit continued to increase at an average of 3.19% from 2009 through 2015-16, the District would have had approximately $5.7 million more funding in 2015-16. With inflation increasing from 2009-2016 by an average of 1.69% per year, as compared to the average revenue limit increase of 0.14%, the District cannot keep up with the cost increases of current programs and services without a referendum to exceed the state imposed revenue limit.