« When Property Tax Bills Arrive, It’s Important To Tell The Whole Story | Home | Wisconsin’s Budget Surplus: Meet the Need, Keep the Commitment »
Increased Tax Collections Announced
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | January 15, 2026
While finger-pointing continues in Madison over the 400-Year Veto and rising property taxes, these talking points can help increase transparency, foster honest community conversations, and clearly illustrate how state policy decisions have affected your school district and local taxpayers:
- Meeting the state’s commitments to special education and investing in general education are not competing priorities; both are essential to stabilizing school district budgets and protecting local taxpayers.
- Stronger-than-expected state revenue projections create a real opportunity to move beyond acknowledging the special education funding gap and to take meaningful action to address it.
- Lawmakers approved a modest increase to revenue limits but did not pair that increase with the state’s share of funding. As a result, the state shifted its responsibility onto local taxpayers.
- Districts were allowed a modest revenue-limit increase that again fell below inflation—for the 17th straight year—and was not paired with increased state aid. Unlike past practice, the 2025–27 budget shifted more cost pressure onto local property taxpayers.
- Taxpayers send their dollars to Madison with the expectation that community needs are reflected in the state budget.
- Share how the so-called “record investment” in special education has affected your district and how much your district still must transfer from the general fund to cover mandated services.
- Explain how rising fixed costs—such as fuel, utilities, cybersecurity insurance, wages, and health insurance—are putting additional pressure on your budget.
- Discuss how increasing student needs and the growing cost of specialized services continue to draw resources from the general fund and limit flexibility in your district’s budget.
Background:
This week, Governor Evers announced that the Department of Revenue (DOR) will soon release updated revenue collections that significantly exceed prior projections. Concurrently, the Governor outlined his legislative priorities for the remaining months of 2026 and the ongoing 2025–27 Legislative Session. In a letter to members of the Wisconsin State Legislature, he urged lawmakers to continue building on the bipartisan budget enacted last summer with additional investments.
The Governor’s letter called for bipartisan support for several priorities, including providing property tax relief and the funding necessary to meet the agreed-upon special education reimbursement targets of 42 percent in 2025–26 and 45 percent in 2026–27, or converting the appropriation to sum sufficient—an approach that aligns with the budget priorities of the SAA.
The Legislature returned this week for the first two sessions of 2026 in the Wisconsin State Assembly. Speaker Vos announced that the Assembly will adjourn the 2025–27 legislative session on February 19, 2026. Speaker Vos stated that undoing a 400-year extension of revenue limit increases for local schools “has to be part of the discussion” if Republicans and Democrats are to reach a compromise on providing property tax relief. The Governor’s use of his veto pen continues to be a sticking point around the Legislature’s willingness to provide a general aid increase, this was evident from the way the budget came together last July.
The updated revenue projections provide a clear opportunity for the Legislature to keep its commitment to special education. We know, legislators across the state heard from school leaders in the closing months of 2025 after the special education reimbursement rate came in lower than anticipated, and a proposal was circulated to provide the needed funding to reach 42% and 45% reimbursement rates. While they acknowledged the shortfall, they also cautioned that remaining state dollars were being closely guarded in anticipation of increased FoodShare costs and a looming Medicaid shortfall. With the additional revenue DOR is now expected to announce, those same legislators have an opportunity to move beyond acknowledging the problem and actually address the special education funding gap and growing taxpayer concerns about affordability and sustainability.
With legislative action focused on a constitutional amendment to limit the Governor’s future veto authority and a bill to repeal the Governor’s 400-year veto, which mirrors the political rhetoric and finger-pointing that school districts were caught in the middle of when property tax bills arrived in mailboxes last month. Speaker Vos and other legislators have suggested that responsibility for recent outcomes rests with school districts, asserting that lawmakers acted based on the advice of school administrators. Speaker Vos stated: “We said, following their advice, we’ll put a historic investment into special ed. Now, they’ve got what they wanted, and they’ve come back and still said, ‘Well, we still need to have this maximum property tax increase, no matter what you did on special ed funding.’ So, I guess if we had to do it over again, we should have probably put it into general education, as opposed to special ed, but we did what they wanted.”
This frame, however, does not fully reflect the broader policy context. State support for special education remained largely stagnant for nearly a decade before recent budget actions, contributing to reimbursement rates falling to historic lows. Throughout that period, districts continued to meet their legal obligations under state and federal law to provide special education services, even as costs increased due to transportation, contracted services, health care, and more complex student needs. Because special education aid does not automatically adjust to reflect these cost pressures, reimbursement rates are routinely prorated—even in years when increases are intended. As a result, recent increases are best understood as an effort to address a longstanding funding gap rather than an expansion beyond unmet needs.
It is also important to note that while districts were permitted a modest increase in revenue authority, that increase again fell below inflation—for the 17th consecutive year—and was not accompanied by an increase in state general school aids. Historically, when the Legislature allowed revenue limits to grow, it has paired that authority with increased state aid to reduce pressure on local property taxpayers. The 2025–27 budget departed from that approach.
These dynamics are further compounded by maintaining special education as a “sum certain” appropriation, which has resulted in reimbursement rates falling short of stated targets and requiring districts to redirect general operating dollars to cover mandated services. Taken together, these state-level decisions limit local flexibility and place increasing strain on district budgets.
The result is predictable: continued pressure on property taxes, growing frustration within communities, and more frequent local referenda simply to sustain basic educational services. School districts also face rising costs for fuel, utilities, food, and health insurance. Providing full context is essential. While differing perspectives are part of the policy process, focusing solely on local decision-making risks overlooking the structural funding choices that have contributed to current outcomes and may leave communities without a clear understanding of why their tax bills have changed.
It is important to remember, meeting the state’s special education funding commitments and investing in general education are not competing priorities—they are both necessary to stabilize school budgets and protect local taxpayers.
Additional Resources:
WASBO: WASBO statement
Southeast Wisconsin School Leaders: https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2025/12/15/wisconsin-school-property-taxes-increase-pay-more/87702802007/?tbref=hp
Green Bay Area Public School: https://fox11online.com/news/crisis-in-the-classroom/green-bay-public-schools-expect-another-2-million-gap-due-to-lower-special-ed-funding
Commentary from Oconomowoc Superintendent: Beyond the numbers: Understanding the financial complexities driving OASD’s budget and lower mill rate or Link to PDF
Myth vs. Fact: School Funding and Property Taxes
Myth: School districts raised property taxes because they chose to spend more than inflation.
Fact: School districts can only raise revenue within state-imposed revenue limits. To spend more than those limits requires voter approval via operating referendum. The state authorized a per-pupil revenue-limit increase that was less than inflation but did not provide the state aid necessary to fund it, shifting costs to property taxpayers.
Myth: Schools received “record funding” in the state budget.
Fact: While the budget included increases, those increases did not keep pace with inflation or rising fixed costs, and key components, like special education aid, remain underfunded due to sum-certain appropriations.
Myth: Referenda are a sign of poor local fiscal management.
Fact: Referenda are often the only remaining tool districts have to address structural gaps created when state funding does not keep pace with mandated costs and authorized spending authority. When schools are only allowed spending increases that fall below the amount necessary to keep pace with inflation, they must either cut programs and services for students or seek referendum approval. Oftentimes, they resort to both.
Myth: Property tax increases would have happened regardless of state action.
Fact: Historically, when the state matched revenue limit increases with increased general school aid, property tax impacts were significantly reduced. On a statewide basis, property tax increases were held in check. The 2025–27 budget broke from that precedent.
Myth: This is a local problem.
Fact: This is a statewide policy decision with statewide consequences. Districts across Wisconsin—urban, suburban, and rural—are experiencing the same pressures because the revenue limits apply uniformly and the school aid formula applies to all school districts. Almost three quarters of Wisconsin’s school districts will receive less general aid than they did in the prior year. And the number of districts that lost so much aid they qualified for stop-gap hold harmless funding went up by nearly 30% compared to the previous year.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Comments are closed.