Budget Development

Board of Education reviews and approves new courses and/or curriculum proposals for following school year.

• Updated enrollment projections
• Budget forecast
• Administrative review of staffing
• Analysis of class size
• Review of department needs

Administrative budget development

• Discussions with principals/departments related to class size, staffing, program needs
• Review of all preliminary requests
• Decision analysis to prioritize requests

• Administrators present upcoming school year new initiatives or facility projects to Board of Education

Board action: Approval of new initiatives, facility projects, staffing recommendations

Final staffing plan submitted to business services

Preparation of annual report to community

Distribute annual report and notice of annual meetings

Annual meeting held

• Board action to approve upcoming year budget
• Community action to certify tax levy

Certify enrollment (3rd Friday)

• Equalized valuation certified from Department of Revenue
• Certification of State Aid

Board action - October adjustments/certification of tax levy

A shortfall or budget deficit exists when expenses exceed revenue. To eliminate a deficit, the district must increase revenue or reduce expenditures.

The largest source of revenue for MTSD is the local property tax (80%). State law enacted in 1994 places a cap, or limit, on the amount a school district can collect from local property taxes. This limit is directly related to student enrollment.

Public school districts are a labor-intensive business. The largest expenditure is employee compensation. While employee compensation is quite competitive with comparable districts, increases in compensation have exceeded the growth in MTSD’s available revenue, causing budget shortfalls or deficits. Prior to 2011, school boards were required to offer teachers a minimum 3.8% annual increase in total compensation (salary and benefits) over the previous year or face going to mediation/arbitration and risk higher settlements. Act 10 legislation has allowed more authority to control those costs.

No. Districts may only exceed the revenue limit if voters approve the increase in a referendum.

Yes–but not proportionately. For 2018-19, the district’s taxing authority (revenue) will go down by $10,725 for each full-time resident student reduction over a three-year period, but certain costs are not reduced in proportion to student headcount. For example, a classroom for 22 students has the same fixed costs to function as a classroom for 25 students, but having three fewer students in that classroom would result in the district losing $32,175 in revenue over a three-year period. Similarly, there is no cost savings to operate a bus transporting 70 students versus 76 students, but since the revenue available to the district is calculated on a per-student basis, there would be less revenue available to meet the costs for bussing those 70 students.

No. The Wisconsin Constitution limits a school district’s authority to assess fees except under limited circumstances, providing that public schools “shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years.” Courts have ruled that schools may charge fees for books and items of a similar nature, except in cases of indigence, and for social and extracurricular activities because they are not “necessary elements of a high school career.” Schools may not charge for instructional time, such as teacher salaries, apparatus, building costs or maintenance. Any course that is credited for graduation, even if it is not required for graduation, must be provided without charge.

A school resource fee helps to offset the cost of materials necessary to complete coursework, such as books, and other educational supplies.

It would be unwise to do so on a regular basis. District fund reserves are maintained for cash flow purposes (to minimize the expense of short-term borrowing) and to provide for unplanned expenditures. Using fund reserves to balance budgets is a borrowing technique that does not address the financial situation. Operating budgets include recurring costs that must be funded annually froma recurring source of revenue. Declining fund reserves would have a negative impact on the district’s long-term financial position, resulting in lower credit ratings that increase the cost of borrowing.

A school district’s operating levy (fund 10) is determined by taking the district’s total revenue limit authority (resident membership FTE x $ per pupil) and subtracting state general aids, with the largest portion of that being state equalization aid. It is important to note that equalization aid does not provide additional funding for schools - it is put in place to reduce the reliance on the local tax base, and ensure that educational opportunities are available to students regardless of a district’s local tax base’s capacity. It essentially determines “who pays” - The state or the taxpayer.

Because MTSD is so property rich, this is really what affects how much our operating levy increases or decreases. The amount of equalization aid received from the state of Wisconsin has decreased 32% from 2016 to 2020. In order to account for the loss in state equalization aid, the district operating levy naturally increases. If we kept the levy the same, we would lose significant revenue from year to year, taking funds away from students. The general fund operating levy has increased 5.96% from 2016 to 2020.

*Increase attributed to the MTSD 2020 referendum.

The information in the above table is available to the public via the 21-22 Proposed Budget book.

The Joint Finance Committee funding plan increases the amount of money being put into the state’s equalization aid “pot.” Equalization aid does not provide additional funding for schools - it is put in place to reduce the reliance on the local tax base, and ensure that educational opportunities are available to students regardless of a district’s fiscal capacity. It essentially determines “who pays” - the state or the taxpayer.

MTSD is considered a “property rich” district due to the fact that our equalized tax base is almost $5.5 billion, meaning we already have a low reliance on the local tax base. This is reflected in the fact that in the 2020-21 school year, only 4% of the school district's revenue limit authority is funded through state general aid with the largest part of that being equalization aid. The remaining 96% is funded through the local tax levy.

Because of this, the Joint Finance Committee’s current funding plan does not impact any students attending the Mequon-Thiensville School District. It also does not provide tax relief as intended by the Joint Finance Committee because of our district’s already low reliance on state aid through the funding formula.

The MTSD does not have much control over the factors that go into the district’s revenue limit authority distribution (levy versus state aid), which is why we have put a heavy focus on mill rate management to lower the impact to our taxpayers through strategic decision making, which has allowed us to maintain one of the lowest mill rates in the area.

No. The referendum financing proceeds must be used in accordance with the project purpose language that was included in both the initial resolution previously adopted by the School Board and in the corresponding referendum ballot question that was approved by the majority of the District's voters at the April 2020 election.