Over the last 12 months, Gillett School District Administration and School Board have taken thoughtful and intentional steps to restore the District’s financial situation and develop a comprehensive, long-term plan to protect our community’s assets. The last year of planning, development and community engagement have included:

• Developing a community-based Strategic Plan to provide a future-focused roadmap for student success.

• Completing a comprehensive facilities audit to identify and prioritize our District’s facility challenges.

• Surveying community members to gather feedback and prioritize potential solutions.

• Reviewing facility study data and community survey data to help determine fiscally-responsible next steps. 

All of this careful and collaborative work helped inform the School Board’s final decision to pursue an operational referendum on April 7, 2026. 

• Shall the Gillett School District be authorized to exceed state revenue limits on a non-recurring basis by $2,000,000  in the 2026-2027 school year; $2,800,000 in the 2027-2028 school year; $3,200,000 in the 2028-2029 school year; $3,700,000 in the 2029-2030 school year; and $4,300,000 in the 2030-2031 school year, for nonrecurring purposes, with such revenues used to maintain the District’s instructional programs and operations?

For the most fiscally-responsible approach, the Board studied costs over five years and proposed a phased approach, over the next five years, to address: 

• Staff Salaries & Benefits: retain and attract quality teachers and support staff by bringing compensation up to the area AVERAGE.

• Student Programming: maintain current programming, manage class sizes and staff-to-student ratios while providing competitive opportunities for our students to keep them in our district.

• School Operations: sustain core operational and maintenance funds as we work to stabilize our District’s financial situation.

• Instead of a single large increase, this referendum proposes a five-year, phased plan that would increase funding by $2 million dollars in the first year, with a projected year one increase of $19.75 per month, per $100,000 of property value beginning in 2027.

• This gradual approach was designed to spread the investment over time and ease the impact on taxpayers. It would allow increased funding by $2,000,000 in the 2026-2027 school year; $2,800,000 in the 2027-2028 school year; $3,200,000 in the 2028-2029 school year; $3,700,000 in the 2029-2030 school year; and $4,300,000 in the 2030-2031 school year, for costs such as staff salary and benefits, programming and operational expenses.  

• The plan allows our District to catch up our staff and programming between the 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 school years, and maintain it over the remaining three years of the referendum.

The amount of revenue a district can raise from state aid and local property taxes is restricted by state statutes. This restriction has been in existence since 1993 and Gillett has been a low revenue district since that time.

• Wisconsin’s School funding formula has not kept pace with inflation, which means even maintaining the current level of services has required the Gillett School District to operate at a deficit over the past two years.

• This is a statewide funding challenge causing Gillett and districts all across the state to seek community approval for operational referendums to increase funding.

• Our fund balance will be depleted at the end of the 2026-27 school year and community approval is needed for a revenue increase to maintain current staffing, programming, and class sizes. 

• The District has been operating at a deficit and drawing down its fund balance to levels that may require short term borrowing to cover basic operational costs. At the same time, Gillett is the lowest compensated district in the region for salary and benefits, making it increasingly difficult to attract and retain qualified staff.

• Our fund balance will be depleted at the end of the 2026-27 school year and community approval is needed for a revenue increase to maintain current staffing, programming, and class sizes.  

If the district continues operating, we would need to increase average class sizes to over 40 students per class in any building teaching staff were to be cut. At this point, the only thing left to cut would be educational programming and these cuts would not prevent the need for a future referendum.

District closure also becomes a real possibility. Students would be required to attend schools in neighboring communities and local taxpayers would be supporting those districts through property taxes. 

• We would contact the DPI regarding how we start the process to close the school district.

• The district would likely run another referendum in November to avoid dissolution. The cost of this referendum could be higher, as we factor in the depletion of our fund balance and the need for short term borrowing.

• It would likely result in a bigger swing in our mill rate leading to less certainty in property tax rates.

• We anticipate the potential for higher staff turnover with the uncertainty of the District’s future.

• The process to close a school district takes a year, so the district would be open for the 2026-2027 school year as long as buildings can be staffed.

  Dissolution of a School District | Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

• The public school funding model Wisconsin established in 1993 was designed to empower local voters to decide how to fund their district rather than automatically keeping pace with increasing costs through state funding and automatic tax levy increases. 

• Since then, education funding from the State Legislature has not kept pace with inflation, causing school districts across Wisconsin to navigate serious funding issues. The gap between rising costs and insufficient state funding is necessitating more districts to turn to voters to maintain operations and meet capital needs.

• An OPERATIONAL referendum asks voters to approve additional funding above the annual revenue limit to maintain things like class sizes, programs, staff compensation and student services. Funds secured are intended to be used within the year(s) they are received.   

• A CAPITAL(BOND) referendum asks voters to approve the district issuing debt to pay for major building projects, such as maintenance, remodeling or additions to school buildings. Much like a home mortgage, a facility (bond) referendum is typically financed over an extended period of time, often 20 years. 

• 2022: Voters approved a three-year, $600,000 per year non-recurring referendum.

• 2018: Voters also approved a three-year, $600,000 per year non-recurring referendum.

• Both approvals were for temporary funding to support school operations—not permanent increases.

The District has taken a thoughtful, step-by-step approach to planning for the future. After developing a strategic plan focused on student success, responsible operations, and long-term stability, our priority is getting the operational budget in order so day-to-day needs—such as staffing and programming—are addressed responsibly.

Looking ahead, it is likely that the District will need to address long-term facility needs. When that time comes, it may require a bond or facility referendum and the District is committed to open communication, transparency, and community involvement.

Election day voting is April 7, 2026.

• Polls are open from 7 am to 8 pm 

• Polling places can be found here

If you have any questions about your polling place, voter registration, or early in-person and absentee voting please visit MyVote.wi.gov for more information.

• The district is working with Robert W. Baird and Co. to ensure that we have an accurate forecast of revenue and expenses. They are providing us with comprehensive financial data to determine the full extent of the budget deficit, to advise on spending without impacting student experiences, and to seek additional revenue opportunities. The district also remains in contact with its legal and fiscal counsel on all relevant matters.

Over the past several years, the Gillett School District has taken meaningful steps to manage its finances responsibly. The District has already reduced expenses through staffing reductions, limiting curriculum and technology updates, reducing supply purchasing, and deferring maintenance where possible. These reductions were implemented to slow the growth of budget shortfalls while minimizing the impact on students.

Since the beginning of 2026, the District has also reduced administrative costs, while continuing to support behavioral needs of our students, by replacing the Dean of Students position for next school year with a behavioral interventionist teaching position. However, despite these efforts, existing revenues are not sufficient to maintain current programs and services without additional support. Even with conservative spending, the District now projects a $2 million deficit in 2026–2027 and $2.8 million in 2027–2028 without additional revenue authority.

Finally, policies and procedures have been updated to provide clearer and more consistent financial reporting to the School Board and the community to ensure transparency. Gillett School District’s 2025 Annual Reports can be reviewed here.

Throughout the past year, but specifically in December 2025 and January 2026, the School Board considered a number of scenarios and decided on this plan – spreading the cost of increasing salary and benefits to the average in our region over the first two years of the referendum.

• With voter approval of the referendum, projected revenues would cover expenses each year and maintain a positive Fund 10 balance.

• Without the referendum, even with the same compensation adjustments, expenses exceed revenues every year, resulting in growing annual deficits. 

  CLICK TO VIEW PROJECTED BUDGETS WITH AND WITHOUT REFERENDUM:

Baird projected cost increases over five years using the cost of the increase and then projected future increases to maintain an average compensation for our staff. The cost of compensation and expenses goes up exponentially each year.

Based on Baird’s projections the cost to catch staff up over the first two years is approximately $800,000. This includes salary and benefits.  

Baird used statewide data and an Oconto County wage study to generate the numbers for our five-year projection. This data will be used to look at each individual salary in our district to catch those wages up with the average in the state.

After this our goal is to maintain our compensation, looking at a combination of wages and benefits, to ensure our staff falls between the 40th and 60th percentile over the next five years, so that we never fall to a place where we struggle to attract and retain quality staff. This is key goal identified in our community-based, strategic plan. 

The District will lose $600,000 from the last referendum when it expires at the end of the 2025-2026 school year. There is also a projected deficit of $514,569 for the 2025-2026 school year. This means if nothing else goes up in cost, we would still need approximately $1.1 to $1.2 million just to break even. 

Over the last 18 months, the district has been maximizing grants. All money has been spent, including totals that were carried over from previous years. We have worked hard to maximize what we can get and ensure we spend the money effectively to provide the most savings for our tax payers.  The cost of competitive compensation and projected increases in all other areas, particularly the cost of special education services, is what makes up the remainder of the projected need. 

If there were a major change in our revenue or expenses that were to lead to our projections being incorrect, the school board would decide what to do with the extra money. The board could choose to levy less money, the board could decide to put this money into fund balance to ensure we do not need to short term borrow and pay interest, or the board could put the money into Fund 46, which is a fund that can only be used for improvements to our buildings and grounds maintenance and projects. 

If the Gillett School District dissolves, residents would still pay school taxes, they would just go to the new district in which residents are assigned. This includes taking on their referendum taxes and debt.

Surrounding districts have passed larger referendums than Gillett, and absorbing Gillett students would likely require them to raise taxes to accommodate new students. As a result, your taxes would most likely increase if Gillett School District were to dissolve.

The school board has committed to a strong standard for our school district. In the end, our citizens will need to choose between three options when thinking about referendum:

1. Approval of this plan to increase staff compensation so that we can attract and retain quality staff, maintain elective programming such as music, tech ed, art, and keep class sizes to a reasonable size.

2. Run a school district that has the lowest compensation in our area, increases class sizes to over 40 students per class, and cuts significant programing (electives).

3. Dissolve the school district.

The district generally receives revenues three times per year, but has weekly expenses. In order to pay the bills, the district must maintain a fund balance to cover its costs. If the fund balance is too low, the district must borrow money (and pay interest) in order to pay its bills.

Currently the district has a line of credit because our fund balance is at the point that we may need to borrow money to cover costs. If that fund balance were completely depleted, we could no longer pay our bills and we would have to close our school district or make major cuts that would not fit with our communities expectations for our school district. Even without an increase to average for our wages and benefits, we project our fund balance to be depleted by the end of the 2026-2027 school year. 

The cost of this move has been factored into the referendum. The exact cost of a behavioral interventionist will depend on experience and qualifications, but will be on a standard teacher contract.

In Gillett, the Dean of Students has been an administrative position that generally works in the realm of student discipline. The Behavioral Interventionist is a teaching position whose focus is on teaching students and working with classroom to help students control their behavior.

A team of community members, staff, and administrators is being formed to review curriculum to help address behavior issues at the elementary level. While the school board cut the administrative dean of students position, it committed to hiring a behavioral interventionist for the district. 

The key difference with this position change is that the behavioral interventionists focus will be on proactively managing student behaviors. This includes working in classrooms with staff on ways to support teaching and student development. This work will take time, but the goal is to reduce the number of negative behaviors among students over the long term. 

If the referendum were to pass, it would return to a mill rate comparable to 2021, which was $8.97. The projected mill rate if the referendum were to pass would be $8.85. The mill rate in 2020 was $9.72 and reached $12.23 in 2015.

The District’s goal is to stabilize the mill rate over time while ensuring our schools are properly funded and facilities remain safe and functional. A more predictable approach helps avoid sharp spikes and supports responsible financial planning.

Student-to-staff ratios often seem artificially low because they are calculated by dividing the total number of students by the total number of staff, including non-classroom educators like specialists, counselors, special education teachers, and administrators, rather than just classroom teachers. This statistical average obscures the reality of classrooms. To see how Gillett’s numbers compare to other schools our size in our area, please see the annual meeting information. Our district lands in the average range for all positions. 

Baird currently works with 375 of 421 Wisconsin School Districts in some sort of financial capacity. They also work with school districts around the nation. 

Yes, additional informational meetings are scheduled with local village boards and city councils.

Dates and locations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_DPxjNNz8sJNwgH5bvtg6_s5WWKypj5953-RyDeShhc/edit?usp=sharing

Please reach out if your organization would like to schedule a presentation.

The Morris Leatherman Company conducted the polling study. This company conducts polling studies for many school districts and regardless of community size, always polls 400 people. This means that school districts significantly larger than the Gillett School District and smaller school districts always have 400 people surveyed as part of the study. The focus of polling is to gauge public opinion across all demographic groups and municipalities in a representative way. The non-response rate of this polling study was 5.5%. Based on this and other factors, the margin of error for the poll was + or - 5pts. 

https://morris-leatherman.com/methods.php

The short answer is no, the tax rates on farmland or forests aren't the reason the school district might be struggling financially, but they do affect how the tax bill is shared among neighbors.

Here is a breakdown of how it works:

• The State Sets the "Cap": Since 1993, the state has put a limit (called a Revenue Limit) on how much total money a school district can collect from state aid and local taxes combined. For a long time, this limit hasn't kept up with the rising costs of things like heating, fuel for buses, and insurance.

• The "Pie" Analogy: Think of the school’s budget as a pie. The size of that pie is determined by the state. The school district doesn't get a bigger pie just because property values go up; they are stuck with the size the state allows.

• Tax Shifts (The Burden): This is where crop land and managed forests come in. To support agriculture and conservation, the state mandates these lands be taxed at a lower value.

  • Because the school still needs to collect its "pie," the portion of the bill that isn't paid by those lands gets shifted to other property owners (like residential homeowners or businesses).

  • The Result: Other taxpayers might see their bills go up to cover the difference, but the school district itself doesn't actually get any extra money.

Gillett isn't alone. Most school districts in Wisconsin have had to ask voters for more funding (a referendum) because the state-imposed "pie size" hasn't grown at the same rate as inflation. When the state funding doesn't cover the gap, the law requires the district to ask the local community to exceed those limits.

The resolution wording can be found on the Voting Information page of our website under the section titled “What’s on the ballot?”.

No, the current referendum ends at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 school year.

You should use your Assessed Value. It is very common for these two numbers to be different, and using the wrong one can lead to an inaccurate estimate of your taxes. Here is the breakdown:

• Appraised (Market) Value: This is an estimate of what your home would sell for on the open market today. It fluctuates based on real estate trends and what buyers are willing to pay.

• Assessed Value: This is the value placed on your property by the local municipality specifically for taxation purposes. In many areas, the assessed value is a percentage of the market value and is often considerably lower.

The referendum tax rate is applied to the assessed value of your property. If you calculate your impact using your market appraisal, you will likely arrive at a total that is much higher than what you would actually pay.

You can find your property’s current assessed value on your most recent property tax bill, by visiting your county’s website, or by contacting your local municipality for more information.

If approved, the referendum would result in a year one mill rate comparable to the 2021 mill rate of $8.97 and the remaining years would see the following increases:

CLICK TO VIEW PROJECTED MILL RATE TABLE

The projected mill rates for this five-year phased plan would remain lower than the 2015 mill rate, which reached $12.23 per $100,000 of property value.

The District’s goal is to stabilize the mill rate over time while ensuring our schools are properly funded and facilities remain safe and functional. A more predictable approach helps avoid sharp spikes and supports responsible financial planning.

This year’s average mill rate is $6.48, which equals $54 per month per $100,000 in assessed value.

Click to view enrollment data provided by Baird

The expected cost difference is approximately $40,000 between the Dean of Students position and the Behavioral interventionist position after projected raises. We cut $40,000 from our projections for this change.

The district has partnered with Baird five of the past ten years for our school district’s budget projections, and plan to continue working with them for long‑term financial planning support. This year’s cost was $7,000, which includes five‑year budget projections, a data analytics tool, and ongoing support.

The legislature and Governor have discussed increasing special education funding and/or increasing aid to offset property tax increases. If they reach an agreement on this, special education funding increases would provide more money to the school district. If they chose to increase aid for property taxes, property tax owners would see a lowering of their tax bills.

If the school district were to receive more special education funding, the board could choose to lower the needed levy, put the money into fund balance to try to prevent short term borrowing, or move the money into fund 46, which would be used on maintenance and building projects.  

The lawsuit is predicted to take years to come to completion. If the school district were to receive more money because of the lawsuit, the board would need to decide if they wanted to lower the levy, put the money into fund balance to try to prevent the need for short term borrowing, or put the money into fund 46 for maintenance and repairs.

Any student who moves within the boundaries of the Gillett School District is entitled to attend school in Gillett. Currently we have an open enrollment cap on special education students because of the cost and capacity of our system.

For utilities, there is a 10% increase each year for gas and electricity and 15% for water and sewerage. For maintenance and repairs: there is a projected increase of 25% next year and 5% each year after that.

No, the last referendum did not go to staff salaries. Due to our budget deficit the money was used to maintain basic school operations.

According to data provided by Baird, our District has the second highest percentage of special education students (25.3%) in CESA 8 and is the 9th lowest in Special Education spending (Fund 27) when compared to the rest of CESA 8. 

The Gillett School District spent $2,105,365 out of Fund 27 during the 2024-2025 school year – which is below the state average. These costs are just special education related costs, and do not include the cost of building maintenance, non-special education supplies, etc.

View Special Education Expenditures - Neighboring District Comparison

While we have the highest percentage of Special Education Students of our neighbors, we also spend the least per pupil.