When Property Tax Bills Arrive, It’s Important To Tell The Whole Story
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | December 17, 2025
On short notice, the Assembly Education Committee is holding a public hearing today on several bills, including Assembly Bill 391. This proposal would eliminate the $325 per-pupil adjustment in the school district revenue-limit formula beginning with the 2027–28 school year. Given the heightened attention on rising property-tax bills now reaching taxpayers across the state, this legislation is likely to receive significant media coverage.
Taxpayers are understandably frustrated by increases they did not anticipate. In many communities, that frustration is being directed at local school districts, based on the assumption that higher property taxes are the result of increased school spending. At the same time, policymakers in Madison are publicly debating who is responsible.
What is often missing from this conversation is the impact of state policy decisions made in the 2025–27 state budget. Under Wisconsin law, school district spending authority is largely governed by state-imposed revenue limits, not unilateral decisions by local school boards. While districts were permitted a modest increase in revenue authority, that increase was below the rate of inflation for the 17th consecutive year and was not accompanied by any increase in state general school aids.
Historically, when the Legislature has allowed revenue limits to grow, it has paired that authority with corresponding increases in state aid to limit the impact on local property taxpayers. The 2025–27 budget broke from that long-standing practice. As a result, costs were effectively shifted away from the state budget and onto local property taxpayers—despite no change in local spending decisions.
These pressures have been compounded by continued underfunding of special education. The use of a “sum certain” appropriation has resulted in reimbursement rates falling well below promised levels, forcing districts to divert scarce general operating dollars to cover mandated special education costs. Together, these state-level decisions leave districts with limited options and place increasing strain on local budgets.
The outcome is predictable: higher property taxes, growing frustration in communities, and more frequent local referenda just to maintain basic educational services. If state leaders are serious about property-tax relief and predictable school funding, they must acknowledge that failing to fund authorized revenue increases with corresponding state aid is a core part of the problem.
It is important that the full story is shared. Finger-pointing in Madison only creates confusion locally and fails to provide an honest explanation of why tax bills look different this year. Please feel free to use this information in conversations with your community or as the basis for an Op-Ed. If you would like assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Below are three latest news stories from dedicated school leaders and a myth-vs.-fact overview designed to help counter statewide commentary that seeks to shift responsibility for funding challenges onto local school districts.
Media Coverage
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 »
$10 Million State Violence Prevention Grant Program Announced
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | December 10, 2025
The Department of Administration, in partnership with Governor Evers, recently announced a new Grant program focused on Violence Prevention. The State Violence Prevention Grant Announcement, Application Instructions, and application forms by program category are now available on the Office of Violence Prevention webpage.
Grant Funding Available
A total of $10 million will be awarded through this competitive grant process to eligible organizations in the following categories:
- Suicide Prevention and Firearm Storage Grants
- Evidence-Based Violence Intervention and Outreach Programs
- Criminal Justice-Based Initiatives
- Domestic Violence Prevention Initiatives
- School-Based Programming
Applicants may apply for funding in multiple categories by submitting separate applications for each. School-Based Programming applications require a narrative that describes services or programming to be delivered during the grant period and how those activities promote violence prevention and safer communities through school-based and youth-focused programming.
Key Application Information
- Applications must be submitted through DocuSign
- Deadline: Friday, January 16, 2026, at 2:00 PM (Central)
- Questions: ovp@wisconsin.gov
- More Details & Application Materials: Office of Violence Prevention webpage
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Action Alert: Urge Support For LRB 5599/1 and LRB 5695/1
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | December 9, 2025
Wisconsin school districts were recently notified that this year’s special education reimbursement rate will fall significantly short of what was promised in the state budget. The Department of Public Instruction has confirmed an initial reimbursement rate of 35%. While DPI typically begins with a more conservative rate until all district claims are finalized at the end of the fiscal year, it is already evident that the final reimbursement will fall well below the 42% pledged for this year due to statewide special education costs exceeding the projections used during the budget process.
This shortfall means districts will receive far less than anticipated to provide legally required special education services to students with disabilities. As a result, districts will be forced to transfer additional dollars from their general fund, impacting staffing, class sizes, programming, and taxpayer pressure.
Yesterday, Democratic members of both the Assembly and Senate introduced a proposal for co-sponsorship that would fulfill the commitment made in the budget by converting special education reimbursement from a sum certain to a sum sufficient appropriation.
LRB 5599/1 and LRB 5695/1 would:
- Guarantee the full 42% reimbursement rate this year
- Guarantee 45% reimbursement for 2026-27 and beyond
- Ensure districts are reimbursed based on actual costs, not outdated estimates
- Prevent midyear reductions that destabilize district budgets
What You Can Do
I encourage you to contact your legislators and ask them to support this proposal and keep the commitment made to our students and communities. You can find your legislators here.
- If your Representative or Senator is a Democrat, please thank them for co-sponsoring LRB 5599/1 and LRB 5695/1 and share how the lower reimbursement rate affects your district.
- If your Representative or Senator is a Republican, please consider using one of the sample emails below to encourage them to sign on as a sponsor. Including specific examples of how the reduced reimbursement impacts your district’s budget is especially effective.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with questions. Additionally, if you receive a response — positive or negative — it is helpful if you forward it to me so I can track legislative feedback across districts.
Thank you, as always, for your partnership, your advocacy, and your willingness to share your district’s story. Your voice makes a difference.
Email Example #1:
Dear [Senator/Representative] [Last Name],
I am writing to respectfully ask for your support of LRB 5599/1 and LRB 5695/1 to make special education funding a sum sufficient appropriation to ensure the reimbursement rate promised in the state budget is delivered to school districts. We were recently informed that the initial reimbursement will be approximately 35%, leaving a significant unplanned gap. This gap must be filled from our general fund, even though special education services are legally required and essential.
This change destabilizes responsible budgeting, strains local taxpayers, and reduces the resources available for all students. Converting the funding to sum sufficient would provide predictability and keep the state’s commitment to students and families.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community. I would welcome a conversation about how this shortfall affects our district specifically.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title / District]
Email Example #2:
Dear [Senator/Representative] [Last Name],
Our district — like many others — takes seriously our responsibility to serve students with disabilities. These services are mandated, essential, and increasingly complex. The Legislature and Governor recognized this need in the most recent budget by pledging to increase the reimbursement rate to 42% this year and 45% next year. The recent announcement that the initial reimbursement rate will instead be 35% means our district will receive significantly less than planned to support students who require specialized instruction, support staff, mental health services, transportation, and contracted placements.
The proposed legislation (LRB 5599/1 and LRB 5695/1) changes special education aid to a sum sufficient appropriation, which would ensure districts receive the reimbursement level agreed upon — regardless of statewide cost fluctuations that are outside local control.
When funding falls short, we are forced to redirect dollars from general education, impacting class sizes, course offerings, and staffing stability. Making the appropriation sum sufficient gives districts the ability to budget accordingly and keeps our systems strong for all students.
Thank you for considering support for this legislation and for prioritizing students with disabilities and their peers.
Warm regards,
[Name]
[Title / District]
Email Example #3:
Dear [Senator/Representative] [Last Name],
I hope you are well. I am reaching out requesting your support for LRB that would ensure Wisconsin fulfills the reimbursement rates for special education that were approved in the state budget. The state committed to a 42% reimbursement rate for this year. Districts were informed in November that we will instead receive an initial reimbursement of 35% due to statewide costs exceeding the estimates used when the budget was passed.
This results in districts, and ultimately our local taxpayers, covering a larger share of mandated services than anticipated. In our district, this means absorbing a shortfall that limits flexibility and shifts more responsibility to property taxpayers. By making special education reimbursement a sum sufficient appropriation, the state would avoid mid-year reductions and uphold the commitment made to Wisconsin students when the budget was passed.
These proposals are about predictability, transparency, and honoring the commitments made in the budget process. I appreciate your consideration and would welcome the chance to discuss how this affects our district.
Respectfully,
[Name]
[Title / District]
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Capitol Update 12-08-25 Governor Evers Vetoes K-12 Related Bills
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | December 8, 2025
On Friday, Governor Evers vetoed nine bills, including Senate Bill 10 related to mandating access to public high schools for military recruiters. This bill was proposed under the implication that school districts were not giving military recruiters fair access to students for recruiting purposes. SB 10 was largely viewed as duplicative and over prescriptive, given that federal law already requires public high schools that receive federal funds to provide military recruiters with the same access to high school students that is provided to postsecondary educational institutions or to prospective employers.
This bill prescribed that school boards must specifically allow military recruiters access to common areas in high schools, and to allow access during a school day and to school-sanctioned events.
Governor’s veto message on SB 11:
“I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to undermining local decision-making regarding when military recruiters may access high schools. I support and have great admiration for our armed forces, our service members and their families, and their sacrifices and service. By restricting the ability of locally elected school board officials, administrators, and school principals to determine when and how military recruiters access school common areas during the school day, the Legislature once again attempts to usurp local control. Additionally, federal law already requires schools receiving assistance through the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, including all school districts and independent charter schools in Wisconsin, to provide military recruiters with the same level of access to students as provided to higher education institutions and prospective employers. I support and have great admiration for our armed forces, our service members and their families, and their sacrifices and service.”
Other bills veto messages issued by the Governor include:
SB 424:
“I am vetoing Senate Bill 424 in its entirety. Currently, teacher preparation programs must provide for a full semester of student teaching during the school year or the equivalent. This bill permits the state superintendent to approve a teacher preparation program that requires students to complete student teaching for full days of a full summer session as an alternative to a full school-year semester.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to potentially reducing the duration and rigor of student teaching, which is a critically important part of ensuring our future educators have the qualifications and experience to educate, empower, and inspire our kids. What’s best for our kids is what’s best for our state, and lawmakers should be doing everything they can to ensure our kids continue to receive instruction from talented, experienced, and well-trained education professionals. Parents and families in Wisconsin deserve and expect the very best for our kids, and our kids and their futures should not accept anything less.
A full 15 weeks with a full classroom during a regularly scheduled school semester will better prepare aspiring teachers for their careers and likely provide them with a broader range of experiences, such as parent-teacher conferences, which are integral to the education profession. Ensuring student teachers have opportunities for meaningful classroom observation and support, guidance, and mentorship from experienced educators is an essential part of learning to be an educator.
Moreover, as I have said before and am obliged to repeat again today: reducing training, qualifications, experience, and work ages are not real solutions for solving Wisconsin’s generational workforce shortages. Wisconsin’s challenges recruiting, training, and retaining exceptional educators will not be aided by making education professionals less trained, less qualified, and less experienced—nor will our kids.
If the Wisconsin State Legislature is interested in doing the important and meaningful work of bolstering our education workforce statewide, I would certainly welcome them to revisit any of my previous budget proposals and investments designed to achieve that goal, most of which have been rejected over the course of my tenure. I will remain hopeful there are opportunities for bipartisan compromise and work on this topic yet this session.”
AB 166:
“I am vetoing Assembly Bill 166 in its entirety. This bill requires University of Wisconsin System institutions, technical colleges, and private nonprofit colleges in Wisconsin to annually submit to the Higher Educational Aids Board several categories of information relating to certain salaries, graduation information, popularity of select degree programs, among other data.
I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to burdening institutions of higher education in Wisconsin with additional administrative requirements, most especially when the Wisconsin State Legislature imposes such mandates without providing the necessary resources to successfully implement those requirements. Further, many of the mandated reporting as required under this bill will, according to the University of Wisconsin System, “overlap substantially” with existing information that is already available and submitted to the federal government. Therefore, I must veto this bill.”
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Legislative Update 11-13-25
By Wisconsin School Administrators Alliance staff | November 13, 2025
Assembly Committee Moves Quickly on Behavior/Discipline Bills and Consolidation Package
The Assembly Committee on Education is moving at a rapid pace—holding a vote today following two public hearings last Thursday and Monday on both the “behavior/discipline response mandates” and a package of school district consolidation-related bills. It remains unclear what the Senate will take up as the legislative session appears to be racing toward the finish line.
These bills mandate how school leaders must respond to student behavior and prescribe specific discipline procedures and policy requirements. They were met with bipartisan concern and strong opposition from advocates for students with disabilities. Implementation of AB 613 would likely be in conflict with FERPA.
Bottom line: these proposals are not practical and fail to address the larger needs facing schools as they navigate increasingly complex student situations—often without sufficient access to pupil services professionals and other highly qualified professionals needed to support students and classrooms.
Consolidation Legislation Package
The committee also considered a package of consolidation-related bills. Three of the proposals—AB 645, AB 647, and AB 648—depend on the passage of AB 649, which serves as the funding component. Without AB 649 and corresponding approval from the Joint Committee on Finance, the other bills would not provide any additional financial support or incentives for districts exploring consolidation or whole-grade sharing.
One bill, AB 644, would be funded through an existing sum-sufficient appropriation.
As school leaders know, consolidation is far more than an administrative adjustment. It affects how districts deliver academic programs, share staff, manage facilities and transportation systems, and plan for enrollment and budgets, all with an eye on increasing student opportunities and outcomes. It also has deep implications for the families and communities districts serve. Even with incentives, these conversations require years of planning, analysis, and transparent community engagement.
District leaders who have been through the process consistently emphasize the importance of moving carefully, sharing data openly, and giving residents time to fully evaluate both potential cost savings and the impact on student opportunities before determining whether consolidation is the right course.
While some legislators’ messaging comments on the bills is concerning, it’s important to note that these proposals do not mandate consolidation—they are intended to create incentives and provide optional support for districts interested in exploring it.
Summary of Consolidation Package:
Increases initial consolidation aid for newly consolidated districts to $2,000 per pupil in the first year for consolidations effective in 2026, 2027, or 2028. While this provides a short-term boost, the rapid drop-off in subsequent years could create financial instability. Additionally, no districts could access 2026 funding due to statutory timelines.
An amendment is proposed to adjust the timeline and change funding allocation to $1500 in year one, $650 in year two, and $150 for the remainder of the years.
Creates grants for districts studying consolidation or whole-grade sharing to offset feasibility study costs. The SAA has requested committee members to consider inserting an effective date of July 1, 2025, to aid districts already exploring these discussions to avoid delays or lost reimbursement opportunities.
For districts where there are whole-grade sharing (WGS) agreements by providing DPI-administered grants at $500 per pupil. It would be helpful if the bill clarified how priority will be determined and funds distributed in order to better help districts better assess if WGS and grants are a practical option. However, at this point SAA is not aware of any districts engaged in whole grade sharing agreements at this time, despite having the statutory and rule framework to do so, thus it seems unlikely the demand would outpace the initial funding.
Creates a new aid program to help reduce property tax impacts following consolidation, if the mill rate was lower in one of the districts than that of the newly consolidated district. Because levy calculations across merged tax bases are complex, the committee should ensure fiscal experts review the methodology before passage. SAA has expressed the need to have a fiscal expert like the DPI or Legislative Fiscal Bureau review the statutory language to meet the intention of the bill and not have unintended consequences elsewhere.
Serves as the funding mechanism for the broader consolidation package. Without it—and the necessary funding from the Joint Committee on Finance—the remaining bills offer procedural updates but no new incentives or supports for districts considering consolidation or WGS.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »