Prairie du Chien School District makes final case for referendum

By Steve Van Kooten

A little more than two weeks before the spring election, the Prairie du Chien School District held public information sessions about the proposed operational referendum.

The sessions were originally supposed to take place on Monday, March 16, but were rescheduled to March 23 at the Prairie du Chien Area Arts Center (PAAC) at 12:30 and 6:30 p.m. due to inclement weather.

The district’s board of education approved asking the community for a three-year, non-recurring operating referendum. The district would get $975,000 per year starting with the 2026-27 school year and ending in 2028-29.

“We’re not asking for the throne; we’re asking for help—we know they’re going to have reductions. That’s why we went to two buildings,” said District Administrator Andy Banasik.

Todd Hajewski, senior vice president of Baird and school business specialist, said the referendum amount adds up to approximately $1,000 per student—much lower than the average amount currently being asked by districts. The estimated mil tax impact would raise the district’s mil rate to around 6.81, which Hajewski noted is still below the state average (7.09).

An operating referendum is different from a capital or building referendum in that the money will be used for regular costs to operate the school district rather than a building project.

A non-recurring referendum means if the district is in need of money beyond their regular levy after the 2028-29 school year, the district will have to go back to the voters during the 2029 election.

The district failed to obtain an operating referendum during the fall of 2024 (four years for a total of $10 million) and the spring of 2025 elections (four years for a total of $7 million).

Revenue limit

Hajewski explained how school levy limits are calculated and how they’ve changed over the past three decades. The revenue limit was created in the early 1990s and generates 75-90 percent of the district’s revenue. Prior to that, schools could levy “whatever they wanted in order to run the operations of the district.”

The formula for the limit uses district membership (i.e., students the district is financially responsible for) on a rolling three-year average multiplied by a per-pupil amount that varies district to district. The per-pupil amount is a number given to the district from the state. From its inception in 1994 to 2009, the number was based on inflation.

“After 2008-09, they said, the State is just going to decide how much money a school is going to get per pupil. Sometimes, it’s a dollar amount, and sometimes it has been zero,” said Hajewski.

He added that the per-pupil amount has historically not kept up with inflation each year—sometimes dramatically so. Since 2013, the cumulative gap between the rise of inflation and the increase in per-pupil funding is about $2,500 per student. “That’s why many districts have had to make cuts or go to operating referendums.”

There aren’t many ways a district can consistently increase their authority limit other than recurring or non-recurring referendums.

After the revenue authority is calculated, the State subtracts an amount equal to equalization aid allocated to that district, with the remaining amount being the levy limit a school district can tax for.

At a listening session in Wauzeka earlier this year, Representative Travis Tranel (R-Cuba City) said that the State is funding school districts “more than ever” and said by going to referendums, districts are being held financially accountable by their communities. Hajewski noted that the State is offsetting approximately 12 percent of every dollar of taxpayer money the Prairie du Chien district spends.

Not alone

“You’re not alone. This is not district specific; this is happening across the state,” said Hajewski.

In Wisconsin, 87 percent of school districts have asked for an operating referendum since 1990, and more than 50 are seeking one during the spring 2026 election, including Wauzeka-Steuben.

In CESA 3, which includes 31 districts primarily in the southern portion of the state, 27 districts have asked a referendum question since 2020. Of the remaining four, all of them passed a recurring operation referendum between 2007 and 2016.

District Administrator Andy Banasik attributed the district’s current financial position to several factors, including declining enrollment. He said the district’s student population had decreased from approximately 1,250 students to around 800 in the past 35 years. The district expects to see enrollment decline over the next four to five years before the number of students stabilizes.

The failed referendums and dwindling student numbers have already had an impact on the schools, which began making more than $1 million in cuts and other adjustments to balance a budget shortfall, including the reduction of 15 staff positions, one bus route and five in-town bus stops. The district also decreased funding to the athletic department by 18 percent and cut academic and co-curricular activities.

Banasik said the reduced athletic funding means the district will pay for transportation and officials, while other costs will fall to coaches. “They’re going to have to find different ways to fundraise for those things.”

The district’s workforce decreased as well, with teachers going from 89 to 77 positions in the past two years.

“We’ve always done that through retirements, except for last year,” said Banasik. “We did have to let some staff members go because of the enrollment for the first time since I’ve been here.”

Administration staff has also slightly decreased (by one position each), with existing staff taking on additional duties. Banasik, for example, now functions as the head administrator and the high school principal.

The support staff roster also changed; part-time positions decreased from 23 to 16, and full-time personnel stayed steady at 11.

Banasik noted that the district hasn’t reduced cooking staff because they are all part-time employees that don’t draw benefits, and the district is now serving more students at breakfast than ever before. “This is a need in our community... They’ve done a great job with our breakfast program.”

In the past few months, the school has decided to sell two houses and closed the elementary building. The board of education approved the sale of the houses for a total of $355,000. Banasik suggested the money from the sales could be used for changes to the Bluff View building to accommodate the 4K-2nd grade students moving over from B.A. Kennedy. “There’s going to have to be some changes to the building because it wasn’t built for early childhood. When we’re talking about bathrooms for kids at that age, we’re talking about four-, five and six-year-olds.”

Even with these moves to help the school’s ledgers, Banasik said the district will still need to look at more reductions. “Even if we pass a referendum, we know there are going to be reductions that need to be made due to declining enrollment.”