Sun Prairie presents first draft of 2026–27 budget; projects $99.7 million levy

Matt Clark, director of business and finance for the Sun Prairie Area School District, presented the board with the first draft of the 2026–27 budget and the assumptions underlying revenue and expenditure projections.

“This first draft really provides a solid picture of where we currently stand and the assumptions being used,” Clark said, framing the presentation as a work-in-progress that the district will refine before final adoption in October.

Clark said the draft builds revenue authority from Wisconsin’s revenue-limit formulas and the district’s resident membership. He cautioned that additional state aid typically provides property-tax relief rather than new district revenue under the state’s revenue-limit system and that final state-aid numbers and equalized property values are not available until mid-summer and October, respectively.

The draft assumes a decline of 75 students for 2026–27, a more conservative estimate than a UWPL projection of a 45-student decline. “We are assuming in this budget a decline of 75 students,” Clark said, noting enrollment is a primary driver of both revenue and staffing needs.

Clark said the budget includes a $325 per-pupil increase for 2026–27 resulting from a partial veto by Gov. Evers in 2023, but added that the amount does not keep pace with inflation. Using a Robert W. Baird forecast model, the district is projecting about a 2.7% increase in state equalization aid; Clark said the district will update that estimate when the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction releases its official aid numbers on July 1.

Clark laid out the district’s revenue mix: roughly 53% local sources (primarily property taxes), about 42% state sources (largely state aid) and about 1.5% federal revenue. He said the draft projects a total school-based tax levy of approximately $99.7 million and a mill rate near $10.42, and showed the levy rising about 6% with a mill-rate increase of about 2% under current assumptions, while noting those figures can change as state and property-value inputs are finalized.

Clark raised a particular concern about federal Title funding, saying Title I and Title IV revenue is projected to decrease by about $157,000 next year. Because those funds primarily support staff in the district’s highest-need schools, the district developed a one-year mitigation plan that uses general-fund dollars and reductions in non-classroom expenditures to maintain services for 2026–27. “This reduction is significant and noteworthy,” Clark said.

On expenditures, Clark said salaries and benefits make up over 75% of the general-fund budget, with purchased services at about 17% and supplies at about 7%. As of June 15, the draft budget includes a net reduction of 6.0 professional-educator full-time equivalents; Clark said those reductions were achieved through attrition and natural staffing changes rather than layoffs.

The draft includes a 2.63% base salary increase for professional educators and an additional 1% compensation increase for staff members who meet professional-development requirements, subject to school-board approval. Benefits assumptions include a 10% increase in health-insurance costs, no increase for dental, and an as-yet-uncertain change for Wisconsin Retirement System contributions.

Clark also described planned capital and program spending above $250,000, including curriculum adoptions in science and math and a roofing project for the district office expected in 2027, amounting to just over $2 million for several large items.

The presentation addressed special-education reimbursement volatility. Clark said the district is conservatively budgeting a 39% reimbursement rate for 2026–27 even though the state’s promise was 45%; current calculations for the prior year had tracked around 38%. That gap, Clark warned, could mean roughly $1.5 million less revenue than the higher promised rate would have produced, and any shortfall would require fund transfers from the operating budget to cover fund 27 obligations.

Clark noted proposed uses of the district’s November 2024 operating referendum for the 2026–27 year, including $200,000 for an expanded dual-credit program with Madison College STEM Academy and $1 million for staff-compensation investments as part of a $4 million programming allocation, leaving roughly $3.2 million available for other future programming investments.

Despite the uncertainties and conservative assumptions, Clark presented the Fund 10 operating budget to the board as balanced under the draft assumptions, while emphasizing continued monitoring and updates ahead of the October final budget and levy adoption. He invited board members and community members to ask questions and submit feedback as staff refine enrollment, staffing, state-aid and property-value assumptions.

The board is expected to receive updated aid estimates after DPI’s July 1 release, continue budget work through the summer, and consider the final 2026–27 budget and tax levy at public meetings leading to an October approval.