Multi-Year Analysis
description
Transcript of Multi-Year Analysis
![Page 1: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
MULTI-YEAR ANALYSISWaunakee School DistrictSubmitted by: Jeff Pruefer
UW-WhitewaterSchool Business Management Graduate Program
![Page 2: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
FIVE AREAS EXPLORED District Membership (Enrollment) Property Valuation Equalization Aid Revenue Limit Tax Levy
![Page 3: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
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
![Page 6: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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)
![Page 8: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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%
![Page 10: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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
![Page 12: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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%
![Page 15: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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)
![Page 16: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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**
![Page 17: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
REVENUE CAP INCREASE
![Page 22: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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.
![Page 24: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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%.
![Page 27: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
LEVY CHALLENGES Increased levies provide challenges for
local taxpayers Increased levies make it difficult to pass
future referendums Increased levies discourage community
financial support
![Page 28: Multi-Year Analysis](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070504/56816687550346895dda3495/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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