Winona Area Public Schools preview FY26 LTFM, technology levy and capital budgets

Superintendent Brzezinski briefed the Winona Area Public School District board on proposed budgets for three FY26 spending streams — long-term facilities maintenance (LTFM), the technology levy and operating capital — and answered board questions about priorities, recurring costs and specific large projects.

The district projects an LTFM beginning fund balance just over $675,000 for FY25, estimated FY26 LTFM revenue of $1,382,710 and proposed FY26 LTFM expenditures “just under $2,300,000,” Brzezinski said. He told the board a large portion of the FY26 LTFM request is tied to a Winona Senior High School (WSHS) chiller project the board previously approved; a revenue adjustment expected in FY27 would reduce a projected negative FY26 fund balance. "We are allowed to live in that negative fund balance space knowing that that reimbursement for the full cost of the chiller project will come back to the school district," Brzezinski said.

Board members asked for clarity on how items are prioritized. Brzezinski said principals and directors submit requests through a Google form and assign an initial priority; district directors — including the finance director — and cabinet staff then vet eligibility (LTFM vs. capital vs. tech) and prioritize further. He said some line items are recurring (annual inspections, licenses), while others are one-time projects identified by facilities staff and principals.

Directors asked about several large or recurring lines. Board member questions highlighted: a $264,000 total for “general repairs” across categories; about $63,000 for a baseball field; roughly $9,000 for fire alarm equipment maintenance; and the WSHS roof work, which the superintendent described as multiyear, section-by-section work rather than a single full replacement. Brzezinski and staff offered to provide a post-spending, line-by-line report showing recent LTFM expenditures and historical spending to help board oversight.

On the technology levy, the district noted it is year eight of a 10-year, $1 million-per-year levy (a voter commitment the district has maintained). The tech levy FY26 projection included a projected ending fund balance of $341,583, $1,000,000 in new revenue and proposed expenditures of $1,000,157. The budget lists staff coded to the tech levy (information systems salaries and benefits), infrastructure, devices (student and staff) and instructional software subscriptions. Board members asked about specific large lines: the auditorium lighting at a middle school was described as a full-system replacement because controls, dimmers and fixtures are at end-of-life; and $174,000 for Chromebooks reflects three overlapping leases for roughly 1,800 devices on a rolling three‑year replacement schedule.

Operating capital proposed FY26 expenditures totaled about $930,648, the superintendent said. Two large district-wide expenditures consume most of that budget: about $460,000 to fund five IT-related FTEs from capital (a choice the district made to preserve general‑fund positions) and roughly $305,000 for a K–8 math curriculum adoption. Board members requested a future briefing on rollout and implementation monitoring for the math adoption, including how the district will assess fidelity of use and intermediate results.

Brzezinski said all three budget items were presented as briefing items and will return for board action at the next regular meeting on March 20. He and directors agreed to provide further details before that meeting — including historical LTFM spending by category, a clearer breakout of chiller-related levies in the LTFM revenue line, and line-item explanations for recurring and one-time costs.

The superintendent and directors emphasized that funding rules differ across the three buckets: LTFM is more prescribed by statute, capital is more flexible, and the tech levy is constrained by the voter-approved amount but offers the district some internal discretion about eligible items.