Referendum

Should the referendum fail, the $13 million budget deficit would force us to further discuss implementing a Financial Crisis Plan, which inevitably moves beyond standard fiscal adjustments and will impact the services, offerings, and support currently provided to students, possibly causing a regression in recent academic student achievement gains.

This significant deficit would necessitate deep reductions, including those discussed early last fall as the Board’s initial level one, two, and three priorities, as well as all eight areas included in last fall’s community referendum survey.  

These measures penetrate the district’s core operational infrastructure and will inevitably affect our students. Every reduction presented here carries a significant and difficult impact. In making these choices, we carefully weighed Board priorities, community feedback, and long-term enrollment trends against the monetary scale of the deficit.

These cuts do not reflect a shift in our values; rather, they represent the hard reality of prioritizing core academics, essential student supports, and mandated services (often not fully funded).  

Summary of Impacted Areas & Opportunities

Over the years, we have reduced expenses in several areas, including consolidating schools, freezing internal department budgets, adjusting employee benefit plans, and reducing staff.  In addition, we will continue to explore potential efficiencies and revenue-generating strategies, to be researched regardless of the referendum's outcome.

Within the planning process, targeted attention has been given to consider non-instructional staff and operational functions before more student-facing positions; unfortunately, given 80% of school district budgets are staff-related, operational reductions alone are not sufficient to cover the current deficit.

As a result, we may be facing difficult decisions that will directly affect classroom instruction, student support services, and the programs our students rely on.

Although details are not final, the following areas represent the potential reductions should the referendum fail. These cuts extend beyond administrative overhead, directly impacting classrooms, student support, and district infrastructure.

Operations

• Technology & LMS: $1.4 million reduction in Learning Management Systems, Tech Services, and hardware.
• Facilities & Energy: $550,000 saved through facilities maintenance reductions ($150,000) and aggressive energy-saving policies ($400,000).
• Capital Projects: a $1 million reduction in maintenance projects across all buildings.  

Personnel & Professional Support

• Leadership and Professional Growth: $2.3 million reduction in Administrators ($1,000,000), Professional Development ($550,000), Teacher Leadership structures ($350,000), and Instructional Coaches ($400,000).
• Support Staff & Substitutes: $1.6 million reduction in support staff ($1,300,000) and substitute coverage ($300,000).
• Stipends: $400,000 cut in staff pay for additional work.    

Direct Instructional & Student Impact

• Staffing & Increases in Class Sizes: Approximately $2.5 million in reductions across Elementary ($200,000), Middle School ($800,000), and High School sections ($1,500,000).
• Specialized Programming: $800,000 in reductions to pull-out models for Elementary Specials such as Band ($250,000), Strings ($250,000), and TAG Services ($300,000).
• Curriculum & Instruction: $750,000 reduction in instructional materials, equipment, and technology.
• Co-Curriculars: This will include reductions in athletics, academic activities, clubs, theatre, and other after-school activities. $700,000 in reductions across elementary, middle, and high school.  

Revenue Strategies (Ongoing)

The District continuously reviews revenues and expenditures for efficiencies and potential enhancements. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the District will research identified opportunities for revenue enhancement, including:  

• Aggressively pursuing grants and community partnerships, summer school and virtual offerings, use of Fund 80, etc., to increase revenues by $1,000,000

Clarify the next steps:

Should the referendum fail, the Financial Crisis Plan would be further discussed and ultimately approved by the Board of Education. The reduction areas listed in the above plan may change, as may the reduction dollars in each area.

An operational referendum allows voters to approve additional local funding for ongoing school operations such as staffing, programs, and student services.

Since 1993, Wisconsin law has required voter approval for districts to exceed state-imposed revenue limits.

Currently, 87% of Wisconsin districts have relied on operational referendums to sustain quality education.

The question will read:

Shall the Appleton Area School District, Outagamie, Calumet and Winnebago Counties, Wisconsin be authorized to exceed the revenue limit specified in Section 121.91, Wisconsin Statutes, by $15,000,000 per year for four years, beginning with the 2026-2027 school year and ending with the 2029-2030 school year, for non-recurring purposes consisting of current operational expenses and operational expenses for additional services for students with mental health needs and students experiencing poverty?

The referendum question will ask voters to approve $15 million per year for four years.

The funding would be used to maintain current programs and services, prevent cuts caused by funding shortfalls, and expand support for student mental health and students living in poverty. 

The estimated tax impact is $0.15 per $1,000 of property value, or $45 per year on the average Appleton area home ($300,000).

For a $100,000 home, that equals about $15.00 per year.

For a $300,000 home, the average in the Appleton area, it equals about $45.00 per year.

If approved by voters, the operational referendum would provide the Appleton Area School District with $15 million per year for the next four years.

These funds would support schools and students across the District by

• maintaining programs and services,
• addressing the District’s budget deficit, and
• expanding certain student support services.

Approximately $13 million of the proposed funding would maintain existing programs and services and address the District’s ongoing budget deficit.

Without this funding, the District would face the possibility of reductions to programs, staffing, and services currently in place, including:

• Career and Technical Education electives, Advanced Placement (AP) courses, Youth Apprenticeships, and other specialized programs that provide choice, challenge, and real-world preparation
• Class sizes that support individualized attention and strong student–teacher relationships
• Early childhood programming that builds a strong foundation for learning
• Summer School opportunities for enrichment, credit recovery, and academic support
• Student support services, including mental health counseling, social work, and nursing
• Reading and math interventionists who provide targeted support for students who need extra help
• A wide range of clubs, activities, and athletics that encourage healthy choices and foster engagement
• Elementary band and strings that introduce students to music education early
• Talented and Gifted programming to challenge advanced learners

Around $2 million of the proposed referendum funding would expand critical student support services, including:

• A school counselor in every neighborhood school, every day
• A 50% increase in access to social workers, allowing students to receive help faster when facing mental health, family, or social challenges that are barriers to learning

To help balance budgets over the past 20 years, social workers and school counselors have been reduced. This funding would help to meet the needs of today’s students.

Students living in poverty or experiencing homelessness will also benefit from increased staffing to support their needs. Last year, 630 students required district support due to housing instability, and more than 500 students have already been identified this year, underscoring a growing need for targeted assistance.

These staff will focus on supporting students in need by removing barriers to learning and connecting them with school and community services, helping students stay engaged, supported, and ready to learn.

The district would add the equivalent of six school counselors. This would allow every neighborhood school to have access to a counselor every school day. Currently, many elementary schools have counselors only two to four days per week

The district would add seven social workers, increasing the total from 14 to 21. This represents a 50% increase and would:

• Provide more direct student support
• Help connect families to community resources
• Increase social worker presence in schools

A new half-time position would be added to work directly with students who are behind on credits. This staff member would help students create a plan to get back on track for graduation and, when appropriate, connect them to alternative pathways such as completing a high school equivalency diploma.

Yes. The District would add three positions to support students learning English as a second language, helping ensure students can read, write, and speak English proficiently.

No, the district cannot increase the amount on its own. When voters approve an operational referendum, they are approving a specific dollar amount for a set period of time. The district can only use the funds up to that approved limit.

If more funding is needed in the future, the district would need to ask voters again through a new referendum. This ensures that families and community members have a say in any changes to the funding.

The referendum will appear on the April 7, 2026, spring election ballot.

Find your polling place and learn more about the spring election here.

If the referendum does not pass, the district will make reductions to programs, services, and staffing to address the funding gap. In addition to certain programs and services, we anticipate eliminating over 100 positions. 

The impact is based on property value, so higher-valued properties would see a higher dollar impact than lower-valued properties.

State law limits how much revenue school districts can collect, even when costs increase. AASD has already reduced spending and used savings, but those options are no longer enough to cover ongoing costs.

The referendum would provide funding for four years.

This referendum is for a specific four-year period. Any future requests would require another vote by the community. 

The hope is that during the next four years, increases in state funding will reduce or eliminate the need for future referenda. 

If approved, funding would begin in the 2026–27 school year.

When the four years end, the additional funding would expire unless voters approve another referendum.

Renters do not pay property taxes directly, but landlords may factor property taxes into rent over time.

State funding has not kept pace with rising costs, including staff compensation, utilities, transportation, and student support needs. Referendums are the primary way districts can address this gap.

The primary focus is on maintaining current operations and preventing cuts. Some funding would also expand targeted supports for student mental health and students facing economic challenges.

No. Operational referendum funds cannot be used for building projects or facility construction. They are used for day-to-day school operations and services.

The referendum is intended to help maintain programs and services students rely on and avoid cuts that could affect classrooms, activities, and support services.

The referendum helps support the continuation of a well-rounded educational experience, including extracurricular activities and elective courses.

The goal is to help maintain current class sizes and avoid increases that could result from staffing reductions.

If you’re seeing an increase in the school district portion of your property tax bill in Appleton or Grand Chute, there are a few key reasons this can happen.

According to the Wisconsin Policy Forum, across the state, gross K-12 school property taxes are rising by 7.8% on December bills, the most significant increase in more than three decades. 

Is this a local problem?

No, districts across Wisconsin—urban, suburban, and rural—are experiencing the same problem. The average state increase of 7.8% is slightly less than the Appleton public and private schools’ increase of 8.3%.  

Some key factors contributing to this increase: 

• State aid freeze for public schools:  Without an increase in state aid, more of the district’s operational costs must be covered by local taxpayers.  
• Growth in vouchers to private schools in Appleton: A 12.1% increase in voucher costs significantly contributed to the increase in local property taxes. Taxpayers will pay over $9 million to private schools in Appleton this year.
• Changes in property values: Your individual tax bill is also affected by property values. If your home’s assessed value increased more than your municipality's average, your share of the school tax amount increased. So, if you received a property tax increase greater than the Appleton schools’ 8.3%, that means your assessed value increased at a higher rate than the average for properties across your municipality. Even if the overall tax rate stayed similar or decreased, higher assessments can still result in a higher bill. 

Appleton Area School District relies on a mix of state funding and local property taxes to operate schools. In 2019, Wisconsin’s bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on School Funding recommended that school funding increases be delivered through per-pupil revenue limit adjustments to provide districts with more predictable funding. This approach was adopted in the 2023–25 state budget, which included a $325 per-pupil increase in spending authority that was made ongoing. But, no new funding was put into the general aid formula itself — the formula that most districts rely on for basic classroom funding.

While the increase helped slow the erosion of school funding, it has not kept pace with inflation. Because the Legislature did not fully fund the increase through general state aid, many districts must rely more on local property taxes to access the additional funding.

When state funding stays flat while costs rise, the district must rely more heavily on local property taxes to maintain current programs and services.

General school aid typically helps districts keep up with:

• wages and benefits
• utilities and maintenance
• transportation
• classroom supplies

When that aid doesn’t increase, districts still face inflationary pressures but no new state funds to cover them.

No, historically, when the state matched revenue limit increases with increased general school aid, property tax impacts were significantly reduced. On a statewide basis, property tax increases were held in check. The 2025–27 budget broke from that precedent.

Yes, however, while the budget included increases, those increases did not keep pace with inflation or rising fixed operational costs. In addition, key components, like special education services, remain underfunded. 

The state legislature approved an increase in special education reimbursement to 42% of district costs, but did not budget for it. The difference in reimbursement we were told we would receive and the actual reimbursement is almost $1 million.     

Wisconsin sets revenue limits that control how much school districts can collect overall.

• Recent state budget changes allowed districts to raise more revenue per student.
• However, because state aid did not increase, that additional authority was funded primarily through local property taxes, not state dollars.

No, school districts can only raise revenue within state-imposed revenue limits. Spending more than those limits requires voter approval through an operating referendum, which we are considering.

The state authorized a per-pupil revenue limit increase that was less than inflation but did not provide the state aid necessary to fund it, thereby shifting costs to property taxpayers.

Two important terms often cause confusion:

• Tax Levy: the total amount Appleton public and private schools collect from property taxes
• Tax Rate: how the levy amount is divided among all properties in the district

A higher levy, combined with changing property values, can result in higher taxes for individual property owners.

Another reason for the tax increase was the growth in student enrollment and payments for private school choice programs.

Under Wisconsin’s K–12 funding system, when more students attend publicly funded private schools, property taxes increase.  Private school vouchers are entirely paid for by property taxes, whereas a combination of property taxes and state aid funds public schools.    

The 2025–27 state budget also increased the amount paid for each student in these programs, which added to the impact. Find more information on how private school vouchers impact districts across the state.

Property re-assessments do not automatically mean the school district is collecting more money. Instead, they change how the total school tax levy is divided among property owners.  Your taxes increase if the value of your property increases by more than the average increase across your town or city.  

What is a re-assessment?

A re-assessment updates property values so they more accurately reflect current market conditions.  Some municipalities reassess annually, while others only reassess every five years. 

• In Appleton, reassessments are done to ensure fairness so similar properties are taxed similarly.
• A re-assessment does not increase the school district’s total tax levy by itself.

How re-assessments impact individual tax bills

The Appleton Area School District sets one total levy amount for the entire district. That levy is then divided based on property values.

After a re-assessment:

• If your property value increased more than the district average, your share of the school tax levy likely increased.
• If your property value increased less than average (or decreased), your share may have stayed the same or gone down.

Even if the school district collects the same total amount, individual bills can change within a town or city because the distribution changes.

In 2022, voters approved a referendum to reduce class sizes in early elementary grades, expand STEM classes across all elementary schools, and complete essential building projects—including renovations and additions at many of our oldest facilities. These investments strengthened learning for our youngest students and addressed long-term facility needs. At that time, however, we were not anticipating the financial challenges that would emerge.

Wisconsin sets school funding on a two-year budget cycle, which supports short-term planning but makes long-term forecasting difficult. Each new state budget can bring different revenue levels and unexpected variables, such as inflation, that can quickly change a district’s financial outlook.

Over the past three years, a $13 million deficit has accumulated. This deficit is the result of inadequate state funding, the lingering effects of historic inflation and rising costs of goods and services, and a low reimbursement rate for expenses associated with providing required special education and English language services to students who qualify.

No, the AASD spends $2,400 less per student than the state average. 

If the district were to spend at the state average this year, we would spend $30 million more than our budget allows.

Yes, but when expenses increase faster than revenue, finances are difficult to manage.  To balance budgets, the district has needed to reduce staffing, which negatively impacts student learning.   

Since 1993, the State of Wisconsin has capped the amount of funding each school district can receive and spend per student. These limits were based on what districts were spending at that time.

Because Appleton was considered a low-spending district in 1993, our funding cap has remained lower ever since—forcing us to invest less per student than most districts in the state.

Appleton spends about $2,300 less per student than the state average. Matching the average would provide roughly $35 million more each year to invest in students’ education.

Because Appleton has historically been cautious about seeking additional funding, our spending levels remain lower than most comparable districts.

This year, more than $9.3 million in local property taxes collected for the Appleton Area School District is being redirected by the state to private schools through Wisconsin’s voucher program.

Although these dollars are shown under AASD on local tax bills, they never reach the District—they go directly to private schools. While the overall district tax rate has decreased, the portion sent to private schools has grown, though that change isn’t visible on tax statements.

Tax bills include taxes for various entities, such as the county, municipality, and Fox Valley Technical College. In addition, taxes are assessed to support the Appleton Area School District and the private religious schools in Appleton. However, it's important to note that taxpayer funding to public and private schools is not equal.

For 2025-26, the AASD receives $12,108 in funding per high school student, with approximately $7,265 coming from the State, and local taxpayers contributing the remaining $4,843. In contrast, for 2025-26, private religious schools receive $10,877 per student in kindergarten through eighth grade and $13,371 per student in ninth through 12th grade, entirely funded by local taxpayers.

The amount going to Appleton private schools has tripled since the 2018-2019 school year.

This discrepancy means that if a student attends an AASD high school, the cost to local taxpayers is $4,843. But if that same student opts for a private school with a voucher, the cost to local taxpayers significantly rises to $13,371. 

This year, the State Legislature increased the AASD’s per-student funding by 2.7%, raising it from $11,783 to $12,108, while the funding for private high school voucher students saw a substantial 5.7% increase, jumping from $12,731 to $13,371. The per-student funding provided to private high schools in Appleton now exceeds the funding allocated to public schools. 

Public schools are proud to meet the educational needs of Every Student, Every Day, including those with high-cost special education needs or students learning English as a second language. The AASD will continue to educate and support every student and every family while remaining good stewards of your tax dollars.

Since 2009, state funding has no longer been tied to inflation, meaning revenue has not automatically increased as costs rose. Inflation has steadily widened the gap between what schools receive and what it actually costs to educate students.

As a result, essential expenses like salaries, health care, transportation, and utilities have risen faster than our funding. The past three years of high inflation have caused expenses to far outpace revenue growth.

Over the past three years, inflation has risen two to three times faster than our allowed revenue increases:

• 2022–2023: No revenue increase; nearly 5% inflation → $1.5 million deficit
• 2023–2024: 3.0% revenue increase; 8.0% inflation → $7 million deficit
• 2024–2025: 2.7% revenue increase; 4.1% inflation → $13 million deficit

These deficits have been covered using district savings, which are now nearly depleted.

We’ve already reduced expenses in facilities, staffing, and operations. However, many costs are legally required, including:

• Transportation and school meals
• Support for English learners
• Services for students with disabilities
• State-mandated testing and curriculum changes

Because the state does not fully fund these requirements, districts must cover the remaining costs locally. Additional large cuts would directly affect student learning and opportunities.

We’ve used district savings to balance budgets for the past three years, but those reserves are now nearly depleted. Continuing to use savings is no longer an option.

No. Federal pandemic relief funds had to be spent by September 2023. Those one-time funds were never meant to support long-term ongoing operations.

Without additional revenue or voter-approved funding through a referendum, the District may face increasingly difficult decisions that could affect staffing levels, class sizes, and program offerings. Maintaining high-quality education for all students will require long-term community solutions.

Not necessarily, referenda are often the only remaining tool districts have to address gaps created when state funding does not keep pace with inflation.

When schools are only allowed to spend increases that fall below the amount necessary to keep pace with inflation, they must either cut programs and services for students or seek referendum approval.

Oftentimes, they resort to both.

Several core expenses continue to rise faster than funding:

• Education Costs: Offering comprehensive programs—from 4K to Advanced Placement and technical education—requires growing investment each year.
• Special Education: The state reimburses only about 25–30% of special education costs, far below the 67% once promised. Over the last four years, AASD has used more than $100 million from its general fund to cover the rest.
• Healthcare: Health insurance costs have been increasing by more than 10% per year.  This is occurring even though the district has made insurance changes to control costs.   
• Salaries: With statewide educator shortages and a competitive job market, attracting and retaining qualified teachers and support staff is more costly than ever.

The District continues to make difficult choices to operate more efficiently while maintaining student programs. Cost-saving measures include:

• Repurposing Columbus Elementary to reduce building and operating expenses
• Relocating a charter school from a rented facility into an existing school with available space
  Reducing staffing costs by not filling some open positions
• Managing healthcare expenses by:
  • Changing insurance carriers to secure better rates
  • Increasing staff contributions to premiums, copays, and out-of-pocket costs

Even with these efforts, rising expenses and limited state funding have resulted in a $13 million budget shortfall.

The District's recent Annual Budgets and Annual Financial Reports are available on our website.

Healthcare is one of our largest expenses and continues to rise faster than inflation, just as many families and businesses are experiencing. The District has:

• Changed insurance carriers for better rates
• Increased staff contributions to premiums and copays
• ​​​​​​​Partnered with local entities for shared clinics and pharmacy services
• ​​​​​​​Joined a healthcare cooperative
• ​​​​​​​Transitioned to a self-funded plan

Even with these efforts, costs continue to grow and strain the budget.

The district already has 36% fewer administrators than the state of Wisconsin's average.  This is based on the number of administrators per student in each district. 

If the AASD were to be staffed at the state average, 25 more administrators would be needed.

Yes. The 2022 referendum focused on reducing class sizes in early grades, expanding elementary STEM programs, renovating aging buildings, and building a new elementary school in the fast-growing northeast part of our district.

Those funds were dedicated to improving learning environments—not to ongoing operational expenses such as staffing, utilities, or healthcare. The current financial challenges stem from operational funding shortfalls, not capital investments.

Over the past 32 years, Appleton voters have approved four referenda, fewer and smaller than those in most comparable districts.

Many districts have increasingly relied on local referenda to sustain staffing, programs, and operations as state funding has lagged behind costs.

With a $13 million deficit at the end of the 2024-2025 school year, the district included options in the survey to cover the deficit or to cover $11 million of the deficit and reduce expenses by $2 million. 

The final two options would cover the deficit and add funding for high-need programs to support students with transportation needs, mental health struggles, and other poverty-related challenges. 

Included in the survey:

Option 1: An $11 million referendum would increase funding by $791 per student but would not balance next year’s budget. It would also require: 

• Cutting another $2 million from the budget.  
• Reducing programs/services and increasing class sizes.

This would increase taxes by an estimated $7 per $100,000 of property value for the next 4 years.

Option 2: A $13 million referendum would increase funding by $935 per student and: 

• Address the current budget deficit, but would not balance the budget in 3 to 4 years.
• Maintain most programs and services.

This would increase taxes by an estimated $22 per $100,000 of property value for the next 4 years.

Option 3: A $15 million referendum would increase funding by $1,079 per student and: 

• Address the projected budget deficits for the next 4 years.
• Maintain all current programs and services.
• Increase supports for students with mental health challenges and those living in poverty.

This would increase taxes by an estimated $37 per $100,000 of property value for the next 4 years.

Option 4: A $17 million referendum would increase funding by $1,223 per student and: 

• Pay for everything in option 3.
• Expand programs and services to better prepare students for life and careers.
• Improve teacher-to-student ratios.

This would increase taxes by an estimated $52 per $100,000 of property value for the next 4 years.