The Prescott School Board unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting Wednesday, Jan. 17 to ask voter permission in an April 2 referendum for an additional $1.2 million annually.

If approved, the school share of tax on property in the district would increase 80 cents per $1,000 of property valuation.

Using this year’s tax numbers, a home valued at $350,000 in the district would see the school district share of its taxes go from $2,695 to $2,975, an increase of $280.

It’s not new news that PSD is in need of additional funding. Since last April, Superintendent Dr. Rick Spicuzza and Finance Coordinator Sue Gerdes have been briefing the board and community on the fact that state per pupil funding has lagged inflation. The district had predicted it would need a per pupil aid increase of $650 per student this year to balance the budget. The two-year budget passed last summer by the legislature offered half of that.

The district budget approved by the school board in October was out of balance by $900,000, and the district turned to reserves to operate.

Spicuzza told the board 82 percent of the 421 public schools in Wisconsin have had to ask voters for additional funding.

“The burden has fallen to the local taxpayers because it’s been underfunded with regards to what’s coming out of Madison,” Spicuzza said.

School aid was decoupled from the rate of inflation in 2009. The district was able to use federal COVID-relief funds for the last two school years, but that program ended.

“The two years during COVID, there was no additional funding coming from Madison. As you can imagine, it’s nearly impossible, based on inflation, to continue to run any business that is flat funded for eight years when you consider all the costs with regard to salaries, benefits and utilities,” said Spicuzza.

The $1.2 million number will be levied annually. The district came to that number because it allows it to meet what Gerdes termed the “safe harbor” goal of meeting three requirements:

• Having at least $2 million on hand.
• Having 25 percent of the annual budget on hand.
• Being able to cover four months of expenditures with reserve funds if necessary.

“If we do nothing, we make no cuts, we will be completely out of cash by the end of the school year 2027,” said Spicuzza.

A second proposal to only seek an additional operational levy of $1 million would have the district below “safe harbor” in the 2028-29 school year. At $1.2 million, the district will stay above those limits through three state budget cycles.

Spicuzza pointed out the district also plans to make budget cuts of up to $650,000 as part of its financial plan.

“We’ve had a lot of conversation about this,” board member Pat Block said. “I view this as a necessary step.”

“I can agree with that,” said board member Tanya Holub. “This is something that we’ve talked about. It’s been going on a year we’ve been predicting that we’re going to be in this situation, and we’ve been talking about it. We’ve been saving money. We’ve been really responsible with our spending. This is not something we take lightly.”

She said the legislature is signaling to districts that it needs to pick up the funding slack.

“At the state level, they’re showing us with how they’re funding us that they want these to be local decisions. And that’s us here,” said Holub.

Board member Vicki Rudolph asked for clarification that the additional money will be levied annually. Spicuzza said that if additional state funding does arrive in the future, the district can always reduce the amount it needs from the local tax levy.

“I just wanted to clarify that the state legislature hasn’t really given us any options. This is in our control here in the district and among our taxpayers,” Rudolph said.

Board member Helen Stoeckel echoed those sentiments.

“We’re very clear about what we need to continue to be a successful district and to meet everything for the students and the staff and what they need. And the $1.2 million was where we came out. I don’t think any of that is being spent frivolously. We understand taxes that when they go up ours go up as well. That is tough, but this is what we need,” she said.

Board president Mike Matzek said he believes the $1.2 million will be supported by the community.

“I think the board has done an excellent job of coming up with that spot where we feel this is what we need to get through. And where it boiled down, to me, was the biennium (state budget) cycles, asking for $1 million versus $1.2 million. The $1.2 million buys us another biennium cycle, so that gives us three cycles at the state level to see if they can get their affairs in order as far as I’m concerned and get public school funding right. That remains to be seen, but it buys us some time,” said Matzek. “We’ve been fortunate enough with the support that we’ve had from the community, and the fiscal responsibility by our administration to be able to absorb an entire year with our fund balance.”

“I’ll hit the panic button after April if this doesn’t pass,” said Matzek. “The belt buckle is already tightening next year. We’re cutting almost $650,000 out of our budget. That isn’t easy. There’s belt buckle tightening going on for next year even if this passes.”

Academic calendar

The district surveyed staff before setting next year’s academic calendar on when they wanted to come back from winter break. Option one was to return Thursday, Jan. 2, 2025. Option two was to resume classes Monday, Jan. 6. Nearly 60 percent of staff preferred Jan. 6, which means the last day of school will be Wednesday, June 3. Under option one it would have been Friday, May 30.

The first day of school will be Tuesday, Sept. 3. Spring break for the 2024-25 school year will be March 17-21.

Open enrollment

The board voted to not allow open enrollment students in special education programs for the 2024-25 school year because of staff shortages and the higher costs of the programming.