Budget FAQ

The District’s budget deficit for the 2026-27 school year started at approximately $12.5 million (with CPI raises and steps), which includes a conservative estimate of 39% special education reimbursement, instead of the 45% approved in the state budget. District administrators have been working to address the structural deficit created by not receiving a cost of living increase in the state budget, and declining enrollment. Without providing any type of salary increase for staff, the District currently has a balanced budget for the 2026-27 school year. This was made possible through attrition, staffing methodologies to address declining enrollment, reducing contracted services, and school consolidations. The District will be requesting the Board of Education to provide direction to administration on further cuts in order to provide salary increases while maintaining a balanced budget. 

The 2027-28 school year will mark the conclusion of the 2017 operational referendum, resulting in a revenue loss of $16.5 million. In addition to the expiring operational referendum, the district’s overall structural deficit continues to grow due to rising inflation, declining enrollment, and ongoing staffing retention efforts. The projected deficit is approximately $24 million to $32 million for the 2027-28 school year (factors include: inflation, salary, benefits, ESSER contracts). Any reductions/cuts that have annual savings made prior to the 2027-28 school year, will help to reduce the structural deficit.

Fund balance is essentially the District’s net financial resources - the difference between what it owns (assets) and what it owes (liabilities) in its governmental funds. It is an accounting snapshot which reflects the overall financial position at a moment in time; it is not a savings account. The DPI and the district’s auditors recommend keeping a 15–25% reserve to cover cash‑flow needs and unforeseen expenses, and Board policy sets a minimum threshold of 15%. For 2025–26, the District’s projected unassigned fund balance is 22%.

A healthy fund balance helps the District:

• Manage cash flow needs despite revenue timing issues
• Manage emergencies or unexpected costs
• Support long-term financial planning

Demonstrate fiscal responsibility to the community and credit rating agencies (the District currently holds an excellent rating of Aa2 which allows the District to borrow at lower interest rates allowing taxpayers to pay less)
The District’s fund balance is a critical financial safeguard, not an ongoing revenue source. While it can be appropriate to use fund balance strategically and occasionally, relying on it year after year to support recurring operations creates significant long‑term risks for the District. It is a one-time resource, and when it is used to pay for recurring expenses such as staffing programming, or utilities, the District creates a structural imbalance. Using fund balance sparingly and strategically preserves the District's ability to respond to future needs while maintaining stability for students and staff.

To address budget deficits GBAPS has implemented strategies such as:

• Closure/consolidation of seven buildings and one virtual school) (Keller, Tank, Wequiock, Elmore, Langlade, Kennedy, MacArthur, and KJ Academy)
• Reduction in staffing through attrition and staffing methodologies
• Reduction in department budgets
• Employee Benefits Plan design changes (2024-25 and 2025-26)
• 2024 referendum to prepare for consolidation and energy efficiency savings (long-term operational savings in staffing, energy and avoidance of facility maintenance and repair of older facilities)

As stated above, public schools have not had a cost of living increase in 17 years from the state. Public schools are impacted by inflationary costs, just as homeowners. Whether it's the cost of daily supplies (toilet paper, copy paper), utilities, fuel, health insurance, building materials, replacement costs, or vendor contracts -- most of these costs are outside of the school district's control, with the only tool available to school districts to increase revenue is an operational referendum. 

It is also important to know that not all government agencies tax the same way. Brown County and municipalities tax against your assessed value, and the school district taxes against your fair market value (a decision by the state legislature). Fair market values recently have been increasing at a faster rate than assessed values due to the housing market and inflation. Ten years ago, fair market values increased on average 2-3% across the District. In more recent years fair market values on average have increased between 8-14%. 

GBAPS explained that for 2025 the overall the tax levy increased by 5% from $109 million to $114 million because of three major factors:

• The state budget extended the $325 per pupil increase on the revenue limit but did not increase equalized aid, resulting in the additional $325 being shifted to local taxpayers. 
• The District received $3 million less in equalized aid this year, which directly affects the levy (when aid goes down, local property taxes increase).
• The District will be levying $14,097,306 for vouchers this year. This is a $1M+ increase from the previous year which is primarily because of the increase in per pupil funding. There were only 54 new voucher students for the 2025-26 school year.  

These factor resulted in an increase to property taxpayers despite the fact that the mill rate (tax rate per $1,000 of fair market value) decreased to $7.41, which is about a 3% drop from 2024. 

The 2022 and 2024 referendums were for capital improvements. Voter approval for these referendums allows the district to borrow funds to make the needed improvements that were listed in the ballot questions. The funds may not be used for the operation of the district. 

GBAPS passed an operational referendum in 2017 for $16.5 million each year. The 2026-27 school year will be the final year for the referendum. When the District asked voters to support the referendum, it did so with the hope that the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission on School Funding would make positive and impactful changes to the school funding fo

As enrollment declines, GBAPS continues to look for efficiencies and has decreased staffing to right-size the district (6.20% reduction in employees since the 2021-22 school year).

GBAPS student enrollment (headcount) has continued to decline by 2,315 students since 2018. As student numbers drop, the state funding formula, which ties revenue to enrollment, results in reduced financial resources for the district. However, the District expenditures do not decline proportionally with revenues. This ongoing decline places pressure on our budget and requires us to adjust our planning and operations to ensure we can continue providing high‑quality educational opportunities for all students.

The following chart shows the projected enrollment in GBAPS will decline from 17,862 students in 2025-26 to 16,291 in 2035-36. 

School districts receive reimbursement for the special education services they provide. The following chart from the Wisconsin Association of Business Officials provides a visual representation of what has occurred with the special education reimbursement from the state.

School districts were advocating for a 60% reimbursement rate prior to the adoption of the 2025-27 biennial budget, which ultimately increased special education reimbursement to 42% in 2025-26 and 45% in 2026-27. However, those amounts are not guaranteed. GBAPS entered into the 2025-26 school year with the assumption it would be a 39% reimbursement, which is approximately $5 million more to support our students with disabilities, than the previous school year. In late November 2025 public school districts were notified that the rate could potentially be as low as 35%.

Why this matters is because GBAPS transfers approximately $35 million each year from the general fund (Fund 10) to the special education budget. 

When the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program was started in the 2014-15 school year, the cost of the program was paid from the state’s general fund. 

Beginning in 2015-16, the Legislature changed the funding. The voucher payments for students within a school district are withheld from a school district's final state aid payment, and show up as an expense in a school district’s budget. In order to have enough money to cover their budget, School Boards may increase their levy to cover the reduction for vouchers, thereby passing the cost on to taxpayers, or cut their budgets by the reduction in aid. (For this 2025-26 school year, that would have required the District to cut more than $14M.)

The Green Bay Area Public School District has chosen to levy for the reduced state aid. Since 2015-16, the amount the District has levied for private school vouchers has increased by 902%. 

The amount levied has grown significantly due to the increase in voucher payments, more so, than an increase in students participating in the program. In 2015-16 and 2016-17, the total number of pupils residing in the district who could participate in the choice program from each district was limited to no more than one percent of the district’s prior year membership. Starting in the 2017-18 school year, the enrollment limit increased by one percentage point in each year. This continued until this school year (2025-26) when the limit reached 10%. Beginning in 2026-27, there will no longer be a student enrollment limit. Students using a voucher to attend a private school has grown from 223 students in 2016-17 to 1,217 students in 2025-26 (446%). 

While vouchers were originally promoted by School Choice advocates as a way to educate students at a lower cost than public schools, today the reality is there is not a significant difference between a voucher/independent charter payment (and in some cases they receive more) and the per pupil amount for Green Bay Area Public Schools. In addition, the GBAPS provides services for private schools, including transportation, assessments, special education services, and multilingual services.

Wisconsin’s voucher program harms public schools by diverting state aid away from local districts and sending it to private voucher schools, even though public schools still have the same fixed costs to cover. As voucher enrollment and payments grow, districts lose more funding and often have to raise property taxes or go to referendums just to maintain basic services. At the same time, public schools have seen little or no increase in general state aid, creating a widening financial gap. In other words, many voucher students may have never attended a public school or would have all attended the same public school, meaning the district cannot reduce staffing or overhead in any meaningful way despite losing funding. The result is a system where taxpayers fund two parallel school systems while the public one is left with fewer resources to serve the majority of students.

Learn more about vouchers and the impact on GBAPS and taxpayers. 

District administration has stated that the selling of DOB is not off the table; however a 2023 study into the selling of the 200 S. Broadway building and relocating of the District office did not show it to be a cost-effective decision.

The study showed:

• The annual cost of the building (utilities) - $147,347
• High priority facility improvements needed - $237,100
• Estimated retail value of the building - $2.9 million
• An estimate of approximately $20-$30M was provided to relocate all areas within the 200 S. Broadway office, which includes office space, auto shop, mechanical shop, paint shop, woods shop, plumbing and electional shop, garage, storage space for the Trades, and the current location for internet fiber. 

The District partnered with Hanover Research to analyze our central office staffing model against comparable local and peer districts. Hanover found that the District's executive staffing levels are appropriately scaled and proportional to the size and complexity of the district. 

As the District has needed to make cuts in previous years, through attrition there have been reductions in central office staff.  Since 2021, the following reductions have occurred:

• Reduction of 3 administrative positions 
• Reduction of 3 technology integrators (3 remaining)
• Reduction of 3 curriculum coordinators (8 remaining)
• The Deputy Superintendent position has remained unfilled for two years, and will not be filled for next year

In addition there are 2 additional administrator positions that will not be filled for the 2026-27 school year:

• Director of School Leadership - Secondary
• Manager of Custodial Services

GBAPS Administration is committed to evaluating positions, reducing redundancies and aligning staffing with measurable goals. 

To support this effort, GBAPS is partnering with Hanover Research (Hanover) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its International Baccalaureate (IB), AVID, and Fine Arts Pathway (East, Washington and Webster) programs, to assess how well they are supporting the strategic plan and advancing the district’s vision for student success. In addition to examining student outcomes, the evaluation will explore the demographic reach of each program. As a follow-up study, Hanover may conduct a program cost and impact analysis to assess the financial resources required to sustain them. Findings from this evaluation will provide GBAPS with critical insight to guide future planning, investment decisions, and continuous improvement efforts in alignment with its strategic priorities.

Strategic Goals:

• English Language Arts performance as measured by state assessments
• Math performance as measured by state assessments
• ACT composite score for 11th graders
• Percentage of students earning dual credit through GBAPS coursework
• Percentage of students graduating with an industry credential
• Percentage of students with favorable responses to "social emotional wellness," "sense of belonging" and "student-teacher relationships" as measured by Panorama
• Percentage of students "chronically absent"
• Percentage of students graduating with demonstrated proficiency in multiple languages

The District has reduced its spending on coaches and sponsor riders by 10% each over the last two years. The District has also instituted a methodology that adds coaches or additionals sponsors to teams, clubs and activities in relation to the student participation number.