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.

Over the past five years, the district has spent an average of $2.37 million annually on capital projects in order to keep pace with facility needs. With referendum approval, that annual capital requirement would decrease to approximately $750,000 to $1 million per year, creating significantly more long-term financial flexibility.

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.

No.

The middle school will 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.

The rest is:

• HVAC replacement

• fire safety code compliance

It’s essentially infrastructure and safety not cosmetic improvements.

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.

The High School HVAC has been maintained as best as possible over the years. It is increasingly hard to source parts for repair, meaning the district must either find a company to manufacture custom parts or allow parts to remain non-functional.

The Middle School, not only has many systems running past the end of their service life, but also difficulty meeting current accessibility, educational, and safety standards without significant investment.

The 2008 referendum debt is rolling off, providing long term financial flexibility for the district.  And waiting will only cost more because:

• construction inflation (4-6%)

• emergency failures

• repeated temporary fixes

• continued maintenance expenses

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.

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. Our immediate neighbors - 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.

From the district:

The 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.