Rumor Has It

Clarification: On May 12, 2026, the Green Bay Press‑Gazette reported that GBAPS was considering a $35M November referendum and a $90M future facilities referendum. The story was based on materials from the May 4, 2026 Board Retreat, which was publicly posted as an open meeting and noted that it would not be recorded.

The Press‑Gazette contacted the District to confirm whether a $35M referendum amount had been selected. The District responded: “At this time the District, nor the Board of Education, has determined a final dollar amount for the referendum in November.” A member of the Board also confirmed this information with the reporter. The $35M figure was part of preliminary discussion materials and not a finalized proposal.

The facilities referendum information was provided by Baird Financial as part of a modeling exercise. The $90M figure was used to help the Board understand how a potential future capital referendum and an operational referendum could interact when managing the District’s mill rate over time. It was not a recommendation or a proposed referendum amount.

The Board will determine a final referendum amount in June and will vote in July on the question that will appear on the November ballot.

Clarification: School districts have two main sources of revenue: property taxes and state aid. Since 1993, school districts have been limited in the amount of revenue they are able to receive through legislation that created revenue limits. In 2025, the District's revenue limit was $11,650 per pupil. It is unable to tax for more revenue than that, unless voters approve an operational referendum. 

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 levied $14,097,306 for vouchers. This is a $1M+ increase from the previous year which is primarily because of the increase in per pupil funding for vouchers. There were only 54 new voucher students for the 2025-26 school year.  

These factors 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 District does not own any debt on the District office building, nor does it pay any property taxes on the facility. The main cost for the building is yearly utilities, which are less than $200,000 per year. 

A few years ago the District reviewed the possibility of selling the building. At that time, the revenue raised by selling the building was significantly less than the cost to move all the resources that are a part of the District Office Building, which include:

• Office space
• Mechanic's workshop/garage for maintenance and repair of District vehicles
• Storage space
• Trades workshops and storage (painters, electricians, plumbers, etc.)
• Garage for District vans, lawnmowers and other equipment
• Network hub for all District internet services

The District continues to be open to exploring other possibilities for the District Office staff and support resources; however, these options must meet the District's fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers. 

A memo to the Board of Education on March 9, 2026, shared the following:

The leadership of the Green Bay Area Public School District (GBAPS) is committed to strategically aligning its budget with core priorities and goals while addressing current funding realities, enrollment trends, and regulatory requirements. Since 2021-22, this work has resulted in a net reduction of ten central office administrator/manager FTE, with another six FTE among supervisors, coordinators, and nonexempt clerical staff. During that same time period there was a reduction in six FTE among building administrators as well. These reductions have resulted in a savings of at least $3,000,000 and reflect both proactive organizational review and necessary adjustments in response to gradual enrollment declines, corresponding revenue reductions, and inadequate public school funding. This estimated cost savings does not include the additional savings associated with reclassification of positions and consolidation of responsibilities.

In comparison to similar districts, Hanover's study found: "The number of central office leadership positions in Green Bay Area Public Schools falls near the middle of its peer group. In the six benchmarked districts, the number of senior leaders reporting directly to the superintendent ranges from 2 to 12 and total leadership positions (including directors) range from 12 to at least 33. Green Bay’s central office leadership staff counts are moderate relative to peers, particularly when comparing student enrollment. Notably, the districts with fewer leadership positions have smaller student enrollments than Green Bay, while some districts with lower enrollment have more leadership positions compared to Green Bay. However, comparisons of total central office staffing (beyond the director level) are less reliable due to variation in the level of detail provided in the organizational charts."

Since the study was conducted, the District continued to reduce positions at Central Office, mostly through attrition.

Hanover Central Office Study