Waunakee budget committee advances first draft of 2025-26 budget built on state aid assumptions

The Waunakee Community School District Budget Committee voted May 5 to forward a first draft of the 2025–26 budget to the full school board for review, saying the draft is built on assumptions about the state budget that remain unsettled.

The draft includes an assumed $3.25 per‑pupil increase in the state revenue‑limit formula, a 0‑dollar per‑pupil increase for categorical aid, a 2.95 percent CPI adjustment, and district compensation increases; it also factors in a 5 percent increase for district‑paid health insurance, 5 percent increases for utilities and transportation, and 0 percent dental increases. “We still don't have the state budget yet,” Ally, a district staff member, said. “So the first draft is built on assumptions.”

Committee members said the draft is intentionally conservative while the Legislature completes its work. “Until the state budget process is completed, we're just making assumptions on things like what type of state equalization aid we are receiving,” Steve, a district staff member, said, noting the tax levy page on the draft relies on those estimates. Mark, a committee member, told colleagues that roughly half of the $3.25 per‑pupil increase would likely be borne by local taxpayers if the assumed funding materializes — approximately $750,000 under current estimates.

Key items included in the draft

- Compensation and benefits: The draft includes proposed pay increases and the district compensation system implementation; administrators stressed pay increases were proposed now because, they said, the state and courts have so far preserved the $3.25 baseline. Ally summarized the budget assumptions and specific fund changes during the meeting.

- Staffing and positions: The draft incorporates 1.4 full‑time equivalent (FTE) positions (details in the draft's page 13), including one 1.0 FTE for a one‑to‑one assignment for a newly enrolled student and a requested 0.4 FTE increase in occupational therapy services. The committee also discussed shifting the second special education coordinator position from a flow‑through grant to district funding so both coordinator positions would be district funded and eligible for state transfer‑of‑service reimbursement.

- Fund allocations and capital: Capital maintenance projects remain budgeted in Fund 49. The debt service fund reflects the district's financial plan tied to the borrowing approved in March. Committee members noted the district has been using interest earnings and project savings in Fund 49 to provide some short‑term flexibility.

- Student and facility fees: The packet included a student fee schedule with changes highlighted; the kindergarten mat fee was added as a new charge and several fees were increased after years without change. Facility use schedules (including the Performing Arts Center and aquatic center) were updated; the aquatic center added a senior rate pass.

- Transportation and safety technology: The draft includes two related transportation safety options from Lamers that combine GPS/app functionality and security cameras. Administrators told the committee that the app cannot be purchased separately from the equipment the app requires; the district can either buy the equipment outright or add the equipment and camera cost to the per‑route charge from the transportation vendor. Staff estimated the combined per‑year cost for the two options at about $50,000 for the school year. The committee discussed reallocation options to fund that cost, including moving $100,000 in utility costs from Fund 10 to Fund 80 and reducing private‑vendor McKinney‑Vento transportation by using district staff or retirees to provide some trips.

- McKinney‑Vento (students experiencing homelessness): Committee members and staff discussed the high cost of contracting out McKinney‑Vento transportation for students who live outside district geography. Staff said some private vendor trips can cost roughly $250 per day; by hiring district drivers or retirees and structuring incentives, they estimated costs could fall substantially. Brian will take the concept to the HR committee to identify incentive and scheduling approaches.

- Food service and federal/state programs: Administrators flagged a state proposal to provide free school meals statewide modeled on Minnesota and COVID‑era programs; they said the district would monitor the proposal and may reevaluate participation in the National School Lunch Program (which the district previously participated in for some grades) if funding or policy incentives change.

- School resource officers: The draft includes expanding the existing school resource officer (SRO) program by one position using Fund 80. District staff said the village of Waunakee and the district would likely share costs, but the village budgets on a calendar year and staffing the second SRO might not be possible until January 2026. The village has already provided an officer at no cost to help the middle school while the district waits for a permanent solution.

Committee action and next steps

A motion to forward the first draft of the 2025–26 budget to the board carried unanimously. The committee expects to reconvene in June to review budget revisions and a second draft. Administrators emphasized the first draft is intended as a status‑quo document that preserves services while the state budget outcome is awaited; if new state revenue becomes available the committee will advise on long‑term priorities such as contingency, post‑employment benefits and maintenance.

The committee recorded several follow‑up tasks: staff will refine cost estimates for the transportation app/camera options and for McKinney‑Vento alternatives; HR will explore incentives for employees to provide occasional transportation; administrators will monitor the state budget and the proposed free‑meal legislation; and the district will continue to identify which expenditures are appropriate for Fund 49.