Wisconsin’s revenue limits are designed to fund yearly operating costs — teachers, staff, transportation, utilities, and basic upkeep — not large once-in-a-generation building replacements. The system essentially gives schools just enough to run each year, so there isn’t a realistic way to accumulate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for major facilities without a voter-approved referendum. Referendums, by design, are the mechanism Wisconsin school districts use to fund large capital projects.

The math
The district receives about $35M/year. 80% ($25M) is used for staff pay and benefits, leaving ~$7M for utilities, insurance, technology, supplies, and maintenance. After that, only a few hundred thousand dollars a year remains for repairs. A single major project like the high school HVAC (~$29M) costs more than the district’s savings and annual available funds combined.

Small repairs already happen every year. The issue is large systems all aging at the same time — roofs, HVAC, electrical, plumbing. Those aren’t patchable indefinitely, and emergency failures cost more and disrupt school.

The referendum allows planned maintenance instead of emergency repairs.

The district has about $14M in capital project savings (Fund 46), which is for emergencies and financial stability.
A single project — the high school HVAC — is roughly $29M. Using reserves alone would: not complete the projects, remove emergency protection, create financial instability.

This is the most important question.

The current building might be repairable with a significant amount of disruption. It cannot be functionally fixed:

• Classrooms do not permit the collaborative learning needed for best practices. 

• Student electives choices (or wheel choices) that inspire learning are fewer because there is no space

• Layout limits supervision

• Students lack a commons area to meet and connect with their peers

• No full-size gymnasium 

• Student services are fragmented

• Accessibility is difficult and not conducive to inclusive learning 

• Entrance needs security enhancements

• Systems, including fire system, are aging simultaneously
  
  

Renovation would have design limitations due to the current layout and structure (and inability to move loadbearing walls), resulting in difficulty creating the best educational spaces. In addition, renovation would span multiple school years, causing disruption to teachers and students, who would be trying to learn on an active construction site. There would also be a lot of logistical complexity since there is no space to move teachers/students to during renovations. Lastly, renovating is estimated to cost more than building a new school.

The new school solves building systems, layout, and long-term operating costs at once. The new school ensures that middle school maintenance items stay off the district maintenance plan for some time, which frees up maintenance money for other projects.

No — most of the referendum is:

• HVAC replacement

• fire safety code compliance

• plumbing and electrical

• enhanced school entrance security

• roofs and windows

• accessibility

It’s essentially infrastructure and safety not cosmetic improvements.

The middle school will also be a standard middle school with a full size gym, a cafeteria to house all students with clear sight lines, a large gathering space for students to collaborate, and a few specialty classrooms for art, science, and digital technology.

No — that’s actually part of the reason for the referendum.

Building repairs and teacher pay come from different funding structures. Without the referendum, large repair costs would have to come from the same limited operating budget that funds staff and programs.

The referendum protects the operating budget for teachers and academics.

Many of these building systems, such as the HVAC systems, have been maintained as best as possible over the years. No more can be done on the margins to improve these systems. They are in danger of large breakdowns. 

On top of that, the 2008 referendum debt is rolling off, so it’s easier to continue another investment into infrastructure than waiting longer and have prices increase.

Waiting usually costs more because:

• construction inflation (4-6%)

• emergency failures

• repeated temporary fixes

• continued maintenance expenses

Also, many upgrades are required when safety systems are touched, so partial repairs don’t actually save money.

Answer from the district:

The District is at an important planning juncture as we prepare for the future of our school infrastructure. While the remaining debt from the 2008 facilities referendum is scheduled to be retired over the next year, providing a modest degree of long-term financial flexibility, the urgency for continued investment is driven by the physical state and reliability of our buildings. Many core systems, including HVAC, plumbing, and electrical, have reached the end of their service life, and the Middle School requires significant investment to meet current accessibility, educational, and safety standards. By addressing these needs now, the District can take a proactive, coordinated approach to construction rather than reacting to costly emergency repairs that disrupt the learning environment. This timing ensures our facilities continue to reflect the community’s high expectations for an “Exceptional Place to Learn,” as detailed in the Facilities Survey Presentation.

https://www.wfbschools.com/district/long-range-facilities-planning.cfm

No. The middle school is sized for projected enrollment and designed for efficient use of space —a commons, a regular size gym, multipurpose areas, shared learning spaces, and flexible classrooms.

The goal is a right-sized, long-term facility, not a larger one.

Answer from the board

This is a vital question for understanding the "Long-Range" part of our Facilities Plan. It gets to the heart of whether this is a one-time request or the start of a recurring cycle.

Is the Middle School unique?
Yes, the Middle School is currently in a unique category of "critical need." While all of our schools are aging, the Middle School faces a combination of factors that the other buildings do not: it is the most "landlocked" site, has the most significant student supervision and accessibility (ADA) challenges, and its core infrastructure is the closest to failure. Our middle school was originally constructed in 1918, during a time when long-term campus expansion was not part of the design approach. As a result, the building and site evolved incrementally over time, with additions responding to immediate needs rather than a comprehensive long-range plan, which makes modernizing the current footprint significantly less cost-effective than a new build.

What is the remaining useful life of the other schools?
In contrast, our high school and elementary schools, built in the 1920s and 1930s, were designed with greater consideration for future growth. Early conceptual planning identified where additions could occur and how those expansions would integrate with the original structure. That foresight has allowed those campuses to evolve more cohesively over the decades, and with the renovations included in this referendum, their "useful life" can be extended by several decades.

The Goal of This Referendum: By allocating $67.9 million for district-wide renovations, we are specifically targeting the "internal organs" of the High School and Elementary Schools (HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and roofing).

Extending the Horizon: When we replace 30 plus year-old systems (i.e. complete HVAC systems, not just some of the components) with modern, high-efficiency systems and update the electrical and plumbing systems to meet current demands of our schools, we effectively "reset the clock" on the infrastructure of these schools. With proper maintenance, these structures can remain functional and "future-ready" for another 30 to 50 years.

Should we expect another new building soon?
The current Long-Range Facilities Plan does not project the need for another brand-new school building in the foreseeable future. The strategy is to "Build New" where the current structure is no longer viable (the middle school) and "Renovate Deeply" where the bones of the building remain strong (High School and Elementary). This balanced approach is designed to be a "generational fix," stabilizing our facility needs so the District can return to its primary focus of student learning for decades to come.

The needs don’t go away.

The district would still have to:

• perform emergency repairs

• use reserves

• delay projects

• potentially cut or defer other spending

Voting NO does not remove the need — it changes where the money must come from.

That said, districts have a limit of 2 referendum questions they can ask a year, so if this April 7 one fails, they can come back in Nov to ask a different question.

The reality is that we have around 5 years of runway left (per Ben Irwin) if no referendum passes at all. After 5 years, our reserves would have run out and then we need to start making serious cuts to staff and programs. Keep in mind that $1M = 10 teachers, and the emergency clock tower leak repair itself cost $1.5M.

No. Fox Point/Bayside school district approved $343 per $100,000 over 21 years in April 2022 across two referendum questions.

Fox Point/Bayside school district approved their April 2022 capital referendum to build the new Bayside middle school and update infrastructure at Stormonth Elementary. The tax impact of that referendum was $232 per $100,000 of home value over 21 years. (https://www.foxbay.k12.wi.us/cms_files/resources/Fox%20Point%20Bayside%20Fact%20Sheet-web.pdf)

They approved a second capital referendum on the same April 2022 ballot - to renovate Nicolet high school (Fox Point / Bayside share Nicolet high School with Glendale/River Hills and Maple Dale/Indian Hills school districts). The tax impact of that referendum was $111 per $100,000 of home value over 21 years. (https://www.nicolet.us/o/nhs/page/financial-impact).

Fox Point/Bayside school district provides a similar example to Whitefish Bay in that they have high home values and not a high commercial tax base to offset costs to homeowners.

School operating budgets are designed for annual expenses. There has been no extra from the State to fund public school education. State funding has not kept pace with inflation since 2010.

Major building replacements happen once every 50–80 years, so districts use referenda to fund large capital projects.

Many districts are also using operational referenda to supplement their operating budget as well.

No.
The projects focus on:

• safety systems

• infrastructure

• accessibility

• reliability

• efficient operation

The goal is functioning buildings, not luxury features.

Answers from the district:

We understand that the War Memorial and the green space at Armory Park are deeply woven into the fabric of our Village. It is vital to clarify the District’s commitment to these assets and our ongoing collaboration with the community.

Honoring the War Memorial

The District has been in direct, ongoing communication with the Friends of Armory Park. These discussions have been characterized by a shared goal: ensuring the Memorial’s mission of honoring our veterans is protected and preserved for the next century.

Collaborative Process

We have met with key members of the organization who represent the vision of those who established the site. Their stated position is one of support for the new Middle School, provided the District follows through on the promise to integrate, protect, and enhance the Memorial.

Preservation Strategy

The District is committed to not paving over the Memorial. Instead, the design process is centered on an "integration approach." This means working with architects and veterans’ representatives to ensure the Memorial remains a prominent, accessible, and dignified feature of the landscape, either by maintaining it in its current location with enhanced surroundings or by creating a dedicated, reflective space within the new site design that elevates its prominence.

Answer from the district:

Green Space & Environmental Stewardship

We hear the concerns regarding the finite nature of our parkland. The District’s strategy is a "net-zero" approach to green space, utilizing the land swap to create a better, more functional park system for the Village.

Comparable Size

We can confirm that the design plan aims to create a reallocated green space at the current Middle School site that is, at minimum, comparable in total square footage to the open space utilized at the Armory site. Our goal is to shift from the current "fragmented" layout to a single, contiguous block of green space, which provides far greater recreational and environmental value.

Answer from the district:

The assertion that 25 trees will be cut down is an estimate that does not account for the comprehensive landscape replacement plan. If the referendum passes, the next phase is a detailed site survey. The District’s goal is to maximize the retention of existing mature trees. For any trees that must be removed, the District will implement a replacement ratio (typically planting multiple new trees for every mature tree removed) to ensure our long-term canopy remains robust. At this point, we also do not know if all the trees will need to be removed with the construction of a new Middle School and there could be some trees that remain within the footprint.

Answer from the district:

Public Use

The green space created at the current Middle School site is intended to be an asset for the entire Village, not just for school-day operations. After-school hours and weekends will see this space open to the community for public recreation, much like current municipal park space.

Moving Forward

The current sketches are conceptual. The "Hard" design, the exact placement of the Memorial, the final count of trees, and the specific layout of the public park space, will be determined at a later date in collaboration with neighbors and community advocates if the referendum passes. We are not just building a school; we are designing a neighborhood asset.

Upon a successful referendum, we would invite any resident with specific ideas on the Memorial’s placement or park design to participate in collaborative planning opportunities. Your voice is essential to ensuring these spaces honor our history while serving our future.

From the district:

The $135.6 million estimate includes two distinct layers of protection: a Construction Contingency held by the builder for known risks during the build, and an Owner’s Contingency held by the District for unforeseen site conditions or regulatory changes. These funds act as a financial safety net to ensure the project is completed as promised without asking taxpayers for additional money. If these contingency funds are not needed or come in below what is budgeted, these funds can not be reallocated to the District's operating budget. Instead, the District can use the remaining balance to reduce the total amount of debt issued, pay down the principal on the bonds early to save on interest, or fund additional facility improvements within the scope of the referendum question. 

Prioritizing District needs involves a rigorous analysis of both educational impact and facility condition, and while all our schools require investment, the Middle School has been identified as the most pressing priority due to the compounding failure of its core infrastructure and its inability to support modern learning. Unlike the targeted HVAC or localized infrastructure updates needed at the elementary and high schools, which can often be managed through smaller, phased projects, the Middle School's challenges are systemic, involving non-compliant accessibility, failing mechanical systems, and a rigid layout that cannot be modernized through simple repairs. Should the referendum not pass, the Board would face the difficult task of diverting significant funds from our limited operating budget to "patch" a building that is functionally obsolete, potentially delaying the very elementary and high school improvements our neighbors are concerned about. Ultimately, replacing the Middle School is the most fiscally responsible "first move" because it addresses the District’s greatest liability while clearing the path for future, smaller-scale investments across our other campuses.