Jeff Seeley, a financial adviser with Ehlers Financial Advisors, told the Winona Area Public School District Board of Education that the district's capital project levy (CPL) passed by voters in November 2016 is limited by the ballot language to technology expenditures and is levied on the district's net tax capacity (NTC) base rather than referendum market value (RMV).

"What a capital project levy is, it's it's a flow of funds through tax levy that comes into the district and you can use it on certain capital expenditures. Your particular case, it was limited to technology," Seeley said during the presentation.

The adviser explained the mechanics: a CPL establishes a tax rate (3.383% in the 2016 ballot language) applied to the NTC tax base. When the tax base grows, the levy can generate more revenue; the 2016 ballot included a conservative 10-year estimate of $1,000,000 per year but the district has historically levied only $1,000,000 annually even as its authority rose.

Seeley presented a range of historical and projected numbers showing that if the district levied its full 2016-authorized rate on current NTC, it could generate an estimated $1,670,000 in the first year of a renewed term (tax payable 2027). He said that for an average $250,000 home the first-year increase would be roughly $30 annually if the district exercised full authority rather than continuing the district's practice of levying $1,000,000.

Superintendent Brad Brzezinski and board members described the district's long-standing public commitment to levy only $1,000,000 annually despite growing capacity. "We used that $1,000,000 mark as a talking point in the community," Brzezinski said, adding the board has affirmed that practice repeatedly in budget cycles and has declined to levy the full statutory authority to date.

Board members and staff discussed election timing and ballot language. Seeley listed five permitted special-election dates (Feb. 10, April 14, May 12, Aug. 11 and Nov. 3) and noted deadlines the board must meet to place a CPL on a given ballot. He also said renewal language must match the original ballot language to qualify as a renewal: if the district changed the rate or material terms the measure would no longer be a straight renewal and the ballot wording would have to reflect a new request.

Directors asked how increases in NTC have changed the district's authorized amount over time, differences between NTC and RMV tax bases, and whether a mail-in ballot option could be used. Seeley and district staff said attorneys differ on whether a mail-in-only question can be placed outside the standard election dates, and recommended counsel review the timeline and language.

Brzezinski and directors said the district will prepare more granular historic spending detail showing how CPL revenues were used over the past nine years (the presentation lists roughly $9 million expended to date) and expected categories for future use (student and staff devices, telecommunication systems, software licensing and cybersecurity among listed items).

Board members asked to see a breakdown of prior CPL expenditures and a plan for any broadened language the board might approve for a renewal ballot. The board operations committee was scheduled to review the topic at its next meeting, with a return to the full board expected on Nov. 6.

Ending: The board did not take a formal action on the CPL at the meeting; members asked for additional analysis, legal review of election options, and a more detailed historic and prospective spending plan ahead of any decision to place a renewal on a ballot.