Citizen Portal
Sign In

Antigo school board holds budget hearing; business manager cites $1.9 million voucher impact, mill rate of 6.77

Unified School District of Antigo Board of Education · October 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Unified School District of Antigo held its annual 2025–26 budget hearing, during which Business Manager Mrs. Fassbender reviewed the district—s budget calendar, revenue sources and fund structure and said private school choice (voucher) claims had grown from roughly $1.2 million in 2023—24 to about $1.9 million in 2025—26, a change that raises the district—s mill rate compared with a scenario without vouchers.

The Unified School District of Antigo held its annual 2025–26 budget hearing, during which Business Manager Mrs. Fassbender reviewed the district—s budget calendar, revenue sources and fund structure and said private school choice (voucher) claims had grown from roughly $1.2 million in 2023–24 to about $1.9 million in 2025–26, a change that raises the district—s mill rate compared with a scenario without vouchers. The district—s proposed mill rate for the 2025 tax levy was presented as 6.77, down from last year—s 7.16.

Mrs. Fassbender said the district issues a preliminary budget in June but does not receive final allocations from the state until Oct. 15 and that "the school board clerk must set the levy and adopt the original budget on or before November 1." She described major revenue streams that fund operations: property tax (general fund and referendum debt service), state equalization aid, referendum receipts for capital projects, and federal aid previously included in operations. She told the board the district had included approximately $8 million in ESSER (federal COVID) funds in prior operational budgets and that administrators reduced reliance on those funds to avoid an operational referendum while targeting spending to strategies intended to raise academic outcomes.

On fund-level detail, Mrs. Fassbender said general-fund revenues and expenditures were both shown at $30,188,914 in the presentation. She described Fund 27 (special education) with revenues of $4,274,806 and Fund 49 (referendum capital projects) with estimated revenues of $20,322,477 and estimated expenditures of $26,813,773. She said the district—s OPEB (other post-employment benefits) trust (Fund 73) had a balance of $2,441,756.92 and that Fund 80 (the community aquatic center) had estimated revenues of $600,005, with expenditures contingent on donations and grants.

Resident George Shenners, who signed up to speak during the public-comment portion, asked the board whether Fund 46 (the long-term capital improvement trust) "will help take care of some of this $125,000 of repair work" and requested the district—s 10-year capital improvement plan in writing. He said he had been asked to find funds for maintenance and wanted clarity on how Fund 46 fits the 10-year plan. The presiding officer and board members replied that Fund 46 covers capital improvements listed on the district—s 10-year capital improvement plan and agreed to provide Mr. Shenners a copy of that plan.

Mrs. Fassbender explained that referendum funds must be used for the projects specifically listed on the ballot question and that the establishment of Fund 39 (referendum debt service) and Fund 49 (referendum capital projects) allows the district to account for those projects separately from operations. She also described how passing the capital referendum increased the district—s state aid the year after project spending began, which she said reduced the net mill rate compared with a scenario in which the referendum had failed.

Board members asked questions after the presentation, including where excess costs for Fund 80 would be covered if expenditures exceeded revenues; Mrs. Fassbender said those shortfalls would be covered by the levy (taxpayer funding) on the revenue worksheet. A board member also noted a typo on a slide (the slide read $5.75 where it should read $5.73); Mrs. Fassbender acknowledged the correction.

A motion to adjourn the budget hearing was made by Jill Nelson; the presiding officer called for the vote, board members voiced their approval and the budget hearing was adjourned.

Provenance: portions of this article are drawn from the public-comment block where George Shenners spoke (transcript excerpt: "Will that fund help take care of some of this $125,000 of repair work that I've been asked to get involved in?"), and the subsequent budget presentation by Mrs. Fassbender (selected excerpts: "we had about $8,000,000 that was in our operational budget"; "you don't actually get your allocations until October 15").