MULTI-YEAR ANALYSISWaunakee School DistrictSubmitted by: Jeff Pruefer

UW-WhitewaterSchool Business Management Graduate Program

FIVE AREAS EXPLORED District Membership (Enrollment) Property Valuation Equalization Aid Revenue Limit Tax Levy

MEMBERSHIP (ENROLLMENT)Years (data collected/Aid based on numbers would be for next year)

Membership

1999-2000 2,7182000-2001 2,8872001-2002 2,9402002-2003 3,0022003-2004 3,0702004-2005 3,1192005-2006 3,2412006-2007 3,3832007-2008 3,5012008-2009 3,5702009-2010 3,6662010-2011 3,7552011-2012 3,828

MEMBERSHIP (ENROLLMENT)

1982

-83

1983

-84

1984

-85

1985

-86

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

2011

-12

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Longitudinal Survey of Membership

Data Year*

FTE

Mem

bers

hip

*NOTE: The General Aid formula uses prior year membership data, i.e., "Data Year" 2011-12 is ued to calculate 2012-13 General Aid.

MEMBERSHIP (ENROLLMENT)CURRENT YEAR DATA

School Residents

Open Enrollment In

Open Enrollment out

Prairie 515 33 0Heritage 292 24 0Arboretum 522 10 04K 225 27 4EC 7 1 0Intermediate 584 14 8Middle School 622 12 6High School 1126 38 18

MEMBERSHIP (ENROLLMENT)CURRENT YEAR DATA

Students Factor FTE4K 229 0.6 137EC 7 0.5 4Full Day K 238 1 2381st-12th 3463 1 3463Total Rev. Cap FTE

- 3842*

*For DPI purposes, FTE includes open enrollment out, but not in.

MEMBERSHIP RELEVANCE District is an anomaly when compared

statewide (most districts losing students) State aid is reflected positively by

increased enrollment Revenue limit continues to increase due

to increased enrollment numbers Continuous expansion in community

equates to an increase in enrollment being anticipated in years to come

Open enrollment revenues have a positive impact on budget (more in than out)

MEMBERSHIP CHALLENGES

Increased enrollment might require additional staffing

Increased enrollment will require new facilities (See chart below)

Both of these items will lead to increase costs

PROPERTY VALUATIONAid Year District

Value Per Member

Tertiary Guarantee

District Value as a % of the Tertiary Guarantee

01-02 346,538 325,143 106.6%02-03 382,915 353,173 108.4%03-04 409,863 378,458 108.3%04-05 432,389 407,270 106.2%05-06 463,039 442,181 104.7%06-07 515,013 483,015 106.6%07-08 560,269 528,306 106.1%08-09 582,173 563,396 103.3%09-10 596,594 582,588 102.4%10-11 575,967 581,087 99.1%11-12 550,585 564,024 97.6%12-13 546,620 555,536 98.4%

PROPERTY VALUATION (WAUNAKEE COMPARED TO STATE AVERAGE)

1990-91Aid

1991-92Aid

1992-93Aid

1993-94Aid

1994-95Aid

1995-96Aid

1996-97Aid

1997-98Aid

1998-99Aid

1999-00Aid

2000-01Aid

2001-02Aid

2002-03Aid

2003-04Aid

2004-05Aid

2005-06Aid

2006-07Aid

2007-08Aid

2008-09 Aid

2009-10 Aid

2010-11 Aid

2011-12Aid

2012-13Aid

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Valu

e Pe

r Mem

ber

Green Boxes = State Average Blue Diamonds = District Value

DISTRICT EQUALIZED PROPERTY VALUE PER MEMBER COMPARED TOSTATE AVERAGE VALUE PER MEMBER

PROPERTY VALUATION RELEVANCE

Waunakee has average property value when compared to statewide averages Previously was above threshold for tertiary guarantee

Recently dipped below, despite inclusion of increased affluent neighborhoods

Currently gaining dollars in tertiary formula Value per member dip due to a few factors

Decreasing home values Lack of large business expansion actually keeps valuation down (and

general aid up) Membership is growing faster than property valuation (this trend began

in 2009-2010) Growing areas reflect higher property values

Valuation will increase once dwellings in new neighborhoods are completed (Bishop’s Bay)

As valuation increases, district will lose dollars at tertiary level (property tax increase will make up difference if spending patterns remain constant), unless enrollment growth keeps pace

PROPERTY VALUATION CHALLENGES

Property values have not increased significantly in recent yearsMany properties have decreased in value

(similar to rest of state)The same amount or less dollars coming in

from property taxes Property tax levy increases the tax rate

for property owners Increased taxes can drive down values

GENERAL AID

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

General Aid(includes Equalization Aid)

EQUALIZATION AID DATAYear Equalization

Aid% increase (decrease) from prior year

2004-2005 $14,145,889 4.1%2005-2006 $15,657,864 10.7%2006-2007 $16,299,809 4.1%2007-2008 $16,818,474 3.2%2008-2009 $18,177,347 8.1%2009-2010 $17,707,813 (2.6%)2010-2011 $18,955,948 7.0%2011-2012 (includes special adjustment)

$17,060,353 (10.0%)

2012-2013 $18,320,433 7.4%2013-2014 $18,904,517 3.2%

EQUALIZATION AID RELEVANCE For the most part, equalization aid has

consistently increased from year to year Recently, the percentage of dollars

received from the state is decreasing, while dollars received as a percentage of aid through property tax, is increasing

Equalized aid, as a percentage of revenue, has decreased over the past decade (see the next slide for an illustration)

REVENUES (GENERAL STATE AID VERSUS PROPERTY TAX)Years % State Aid % Tax06-07 53.5 42.907-08 50.7 45.308-09 51.3 44.609-10 47.9 48.110-11 49.1 47.511-12 44.6 49.812-13 46.8 47.813-14 46.5 48.0

**More dollars for schools are coming from tax versus state aid over the past eight years**

EQUALIZATION AID CHALLENGES Increased reliance on property tax levy

versus funding from state causes concerns from local taxpayers

Equalized rates have increased, despite equalized values remaining stagnant (see property valuation section) This leads to taxpayers paying more in local property taxes Discourages taxpayers in local communities

REVENUE LIMIT DATA

Total Maximum Revenue Limit w/ Exceptions

Oct. 15 Aid Certification Allowable Limited Rev

10, 38, 41 Levy+Src 691

02-03 22,709,450 13,077,766 9,631,68403-04 23,895,670 13,515,911 10,379,75904-05 25,396,885 14,032,802 11,364,08305-06 27,150,491 15,548,839 11,601,65206-07 29,241,873 16,159,434 13,082,43907-08 31,675,355 16,670,330 15,005,02508-09 33,782,910 18,006,306 15,776,60409-10 35,375,555 17,515,158 17,860,39710-11 36,922,684 18,709,155 18,213,52911-12 35,797,836 16,841,501 18,956,335

REVENUE LIMIT DATAYear Current

3-Year Avg. Members

Maximum Revenue Limit

Max Revenue Limit per Member

State Avg. Revenue Limit per Member

02-03

2,893 22,709,450

7,849.79 7,931.03

03-04

2,955 23,895,670

8,086.52 8,215.79

04-05

3,010 25,396,885

8,437.50 8,511.44

05-06

3,085 27,150,491

8,800.81 8,814.62

06-07

3,187 29,241,873

9,175.36 9,150.31

07-08

3,315 31,675,355

9,555.16 9,498.69

08-09

3,425 33,782,910

9,863.62 9,836.25

09-10

3,513 35,375,555

10,069.90 10,107.42

10-11

3,590 36,922,684

10,284.87 10,316.38

11-12

3,676 35,797,836

9,738.26 9,809.13

REVENUE LIMITS COMPARED TO STATE AVERAGE

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

Line 11: Maximum Revenue with Exemptions Per Member

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

06-07

♦ District■ State Average

REVENUE CAP INCREASE

REVENUE LIMIT RELEVANCE It is apparent that the district levies to the limit Due to steady enrollment increases, revenue

limit has increased in this district Saw dip in revenue limit in 2011-2012 due to WI

Act 10 (this put us at 2008-2009 levels) Treat this as an anomaly

If enrollment continues to increase (as expected), revenue limit will continue to increase as well

Increase in limit is significantly lower in more recent years, versus years prior (statewide)

Assume we will be back to 2009-2010 levels in the 12-13 year

REVENUE LIMIT CHALLENGES Increases in revenue cap do not keep pace

with increased costs Increase cap at more significant rate?Where does the funding come from?

Shared costs in 2011-2012 increased by 3.4%, however equalization aid decreased by 10%Dollars were recouped by altering pension and

health insurance contributions Difficult to plan when revenue limit increase

is unstableFiscal uncertainty makes it difficult to budget for

raises, increased health insurance costs, etc.

TAX LEVY DATAYear Total

Equalized Value

Total Levy Equalized Rate

Fall 2000 $999,858,071 $11,380,286

$11.38

Fall 2001 1,121,831,113 10,717,826 9.55Fall 2002 1,225,900,716 12,100,932 9.87Fall 2003 1,323,123,466 12,896,461 9.75Fall 2004 1,436,618,476 14,783,430 10.29Fall 2005 1,665,093,712 15,790,809 9.48Fall 2006 1,892,425,514 17,143,498 9.06Fall 2007 2,026,071,929 19,384,412 9.57Fall 2008 2,134,016,791 20,821,995 9.76Fall 2009 2,107,450,933 22,796,909 10.82Fall 2010 2,064,181,832 23,489,556 11.38Fall 2011 2,088,996,497 23,854,376 11.42Fall 2012 2,085,440,159 23,664,200 11.35Fall 2013 2,092,461,684 24,130,420 11.48

TAX LEVY WAUNAKEE VERSUS STATEWIDE(GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION)

Fall 1984Fall 1985Fall 1986Fall 1987Fall 1988Fall 1989Fall 1990Fall 1991Fall 1992Fall 1993Fall 1994Fall 1995Fall 1996Fall 1997Fall 1998Fall 1999Fall 2000Fall 2001Fall 2002Fall 2003Fall 2004Fall 2005Fall 2006Fall 2007Fall 2008Fall 2009Fall 2010Fall 2011Fall 2012

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

District State

Survey of Equalized Tax Rates

Dol

lars

per

$1,

000

of E

qual

ized

Val

ue

LEVY RELEVANCE Able to keep levy increases low the past couple of

years due to debt refinancing and lower revenue limit increases

The year 2000 saw a big decrease in the levy due to the creation of a full day Kindergarten

Fall 2006 required higher levy due to referendum approval

Steady increase in levy after 2006 Currently:

Due to a moderate increase in state equalization aid for the 2013-14 school year, the revenue cap formula requires a property tax levy increase.

In an effort to limit the increase of the property tax levy, the School Board approved a debt refinancing in the spring of 2013.

The property tax levy for 2013-14 increases by 1.97%.

LEVY CHALLENGES Increased levies provide challenges for

local taxpayers Increased levies make it difficult to pass

future referendums Increased levies discourage community

financial support

DISTRICT FINANCIAL HEALTH Increasing enrollment is essential to district success

due to stabilized/decreasing property valuations Increased state aid (due to increased membership)

will help offset costs (facilities, increased staff, etc.) associated with growth

Levy should remain fairly consistent with prior years Do not expect a big change in property valuation

Referendum Schools nearing capacity (Intermediate and Prairie

currently at or over capacity) Important to keep community support high with

referendum on the horizon Overall, Waunakee is in solid financial shape

Due to careful long-term planning Due to continued community growth