La Crosse County votes to save SMRT Bus, but points to partners to step up

Nov. 17 2025

By Tim Hundt

LA CROSSE, Wis. — In a dramatic reversal driven by dozens of personal appeals, the La Crosse County Board of Supervisors voted 18-to-12 late Monday, Nov. 10, 2025, to restore $157,000 in transitional funding for the Scenic Mississippi Regional Transit (SMRT) bus service.

The funding, pulled from the county’s fund balance after a separate amendment specified the source, ensures SMRT’s continuation for a single year. This vote overruled a decision made earlier in the budget process by the Executive Committee to eliminate the SMRT’s funding shortfall from the 2026 budget, granting the regional system a temporary reprieve.

The Lifeline Under Financial and Administrative Pressure

Scenic Mississippi Regional Transit, often referred to as the SMRT bus, began service in December 2012 by the Mississippi River Regional Planning Commission. La Crosse County took over the administrative role in 2019 after the service expanded into Monroe County. The service includes routes from La Crosse to Tomah, Viroqua and Prairie du Chien, with stops at a number of communities along the way. The system is operated with support from state and federal grants and under a contract with Running, Inc. based in Viroqua, who owns and operates the buses.

Sara Koopman, La Crosse County Associate Administrator, provided an overview of the program during the Executive Committee public hearing on Nov. 6. She stated that the service is funded by federal, state, and local sources. The projected total expenses for 2026 were $747,716, with the Running Inc. contract accounting for 79.20% of the total expense . Federal sources contribute 34.02% of the projected 2026 funding, with the federal grant and local match contributing another 20.40%.

The county’s need to cover the growing funding shortfall placed a significant burden on La Crosse taxpayers and staff. The projected $157,000 county contribution for 2026 made up the program’s shortfall. Staff noted that the County’s projected contribution of $157,000 does not include the considerable amount of time staff spends administering the SMRT bus program. La Crosse County shoulders 62.80% of the local funding share, far exceeding the contributions of partner counties like Crawford (4.20%), Vernon (9.60%), and Monroe (8.20%). Staff clarified that they must solicit contributions annually as there is “no ongoing commitment from the other communities” to fund SMRT.

The current funding model mandates the county must continue running SMRT as long as it receives the associated federal grant, because the grant’s terms require the money to be used for the SMRT bus. Any changes, such as reduced routes, would necessitate a new Request for Proposal (RFP), which takes time. Grants for SMRT funding are awarded in year increments, meaning the county cannot easily decide to run the service for only six or eight months.

SMRT Financial & Ridership Snapshot (2026 Projections)

Emotional Testimony Overcomes Fiscal Doubt

Advocates repeatedly emphasized that SMRT is a crucial lifeline for rural residents, especially those dependent on transit for health and economic stability. Over 800 signatures were gathered on petitions in slightly over a month, despite “zero publicity” from the county, demonstrating strong public interest.

For many non-drivers, cutting the bus meant sacrificing fundamental needs or independence:

“I woke up one morning in 2019 and went about my day. I work from home, and suddenly a shadow crossed my vision, a sheet of bubbles,” said Viroqua resident Jennifer Morales, explaining a medical emergency. “I was like, I guess I’m going to eye surgery on the SMRT Bus. And that’s what I did. The SMRT Bus took me right to the eye clinic. I went in there had an absolutely effective and terrifying laser surgery.” Morales used the SMRT bus to get to Gunderson eye clinic in La Crosse and take the bus home afterward.

Karen Hillman shared her brother’s dependency on the service.

“My brother, David, lives in Viroqua, and he’s 63 years old,” said Hillman. “At the age of 17, he suffered a traumatic brain injury playing high school football. He also uses the bus to get to his doctor, dentist and other health appointments at Mayo Clinic. The SMRT Bus is the most reliable, efficient and affordable means of transportation that David has for getting to places outside of Viroqua. He and his family consider to be an essential means of transportation for him, and we urge this board to renew and continue funding for the smart bus so that it can continue to offer its exceptional services to all people living in the southwest.”

Margaret Moore, a 90-year-old resident outside Viroqua, expressed gratitude for the reliability of the SMRT service for medical needs.

“So I would say, please to keep that bus going, and I would be glad to pay a little bit more, not a lot, but a little bit more for my ticket, because it is so it’s reliable,” said Moore. “It goes several times a day, and we need it. We don’t need more cars driving our highway. Some of us don’t have cars anyway to drive, so please, let’s keep that service going.”

Francesca Voeltz countered the focus on financial losses, telling the La Crosse County Board of Supervisors she uses the SMRT Bus for appointments and it is a necessary public good.

“I have a car. It’s not super reliable, so I do rely on the SMRT to get me to medical and dental appointments, and Amtrak,” said Voeltz. “I love my La Crosse dentist. I spend a lot of money on my La Crosse dentist. That’s money going here (La Crosse).”

Voeltz said she has used the bus to get to and from appointments that restrict her driving because of treatments.

“SMRT has been my chauffeur, SMRT plus the La Crosse area transit,” said Voeltz. “I shouldn’t have to be here telling you about my health conditions, but I guess that’s what those of us who don’t have reliable cars or can’t drive have to do right now. Needless to say, it would put myself and many others who rely on this service in a bad spot. SMRT is a community service, just like our roads, like our sidewalks, like our library. We don’t expect them to make money. So why would we expect the service to make money, or to maybe not lose money? Sidewalks lose money, but they’re great. They get us places. Help us keep getting places. We really need it”.

Supervisors Seek Partnership, Marketing, and Efficiency

Despite approving the funding, many supervisors voiced concerns about the program’s unsustainable structure and La Crosse County bearing the financial brunt. The La Crosse County Board of Supervisors did ultimately approve an amendment to their budget to include the projected $157,000 overrun by a 18-12 vote.

Yes votes included Leibold, Geary, Freedland, Anderson, Mathu, Padesky, Isola, Cable, Scheller, Erickson, Larson, Kruse, Cornforth, Doyle, Tweed, Hundt, Rothering, Mader.

No votes were D. Balduzzi, M. Baroni, T. Elam, D. Ferries, D. Jacobsen, J. Kovacevich, D. Pierce, J. Pogreba, K. Schlimgen, T. Tryggestad, D. Wacek and P. Wuensch. 

Supervisor David Hundt was critical of the program’s lack of efficiency, arguing that simply allocating funds for a year was not solving the fundamental problem. He spoke during discussion in an amendment to only commit to a half year of funding.

“I’d like to know who’s running this program to start with,” said Hundt. “Are we responsible for this mess? Who is and who’s going to fix it? It needs to be fixed. We got busses running around with nobody on. Why aren’t we switching to vans? I’m all for this program, but why it’s just being run terribly. You want us to commit for a year. I’ve got to vote for it, but I sure don’t like what’s going on here. I mean, we’re running a program that’s not making anybody really happy, other than people in Vernon. I don’t totally get this whole program. I mean, I’m all in favor of transporting these people, but let’s do it efficiently. Let’s do it the right way. We’re not doing that.”

Hundt also asked if they “really have to allocate the money for a whole year to a program that is broken”.

Supervisor Paul Wuensch commented on the lack of concrete plans to fix ridership and funding issues.

“Again, reading through all the emails, hearing all the testimony,” said Wuensch. “It will work if we do X, but X costs money. Nobody has $1 figure for what that marketing is going to cost. Nobody has $1 figure for what’s going to happen if the other communities are saying, hey, let’s let La Crosse take it on the chin.”

He also stressed the danger of prioritizing emotional pleas over fiscal planning.

“I find it a little disappointing that you know, the one spokesperson tonight said, well, it’s just about numbers, but you have to keep the human element,” said Wuensch. “Well, the human element can go too far.”

Supervisor Ralph Geary focused on leveraging the transitional year to force neighboring counties to contribute their fair share.

“Did they put money in their budget?” asked Geary. “If they all didn’t put money in their budget, just because we put money in a budget that doesn’t mean we have to spend it,” said Geary. “I concur that we should do this transition year, try to market it better…somebody’s going to have a target these counties…are they going to pony up? Are we going to spend it all? Are they going to pay their fair share?”

As of the time of print the City of Viroqua and Vernon County had removed line items from the budgets on the assumption that La Crosse County was ending their support for the service. Both the City of Viroqua and Vernon County have yet to finalize their budgets and could restore their support for the service. Vernon County had been contributing $15,000 a year and the City of Viroqua was contributing $5,000.

County administrators said the drop in ridership and low partner support “hasn’t been for lack of effort from us, talking to the businesses, talking to other communities”. Furthermore, staff confirmed that currently, increasing SMRT marketing would be an additional unbudgeted cost. Adding, if there are cost overruns, “it will fall to La Crosse County”.

Supervisor Dan Ferries suggested that marketing responsibility should be externalized.

“It’s Runnings business,” said Ferries. “If they wanted to succeed, that responsibility for marketing should fall on them, not us.”

Supervisor Kim Cable acknowledged the financial non-sustainability but cited human necessity as the tipping point for her decision to support the amendment.

“The turning point for me is that, yes, while we know that our current model for this is not sustainable financially, there is emotion that comes in because we have built a service that now people are dependent on,” said Cable.

Cable noted that relying on the service are “folks who we’ve heard tonight have disabling conditions or can’t afford transportation on their own, and so of course, these are the people that we for sure wanted to reach out to.”

Supervisor Dillon Mader, who introduced the funding amendment, framed the decision as buying time to align transit solutions with broader planning efforts.

“The 157,000 was chosen because it becomes for the county’s historical $30,000 contribution, plus the 127,000 projected shortfall,” said Mader.

He added that the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) study is “underway, expected to wrap up in mid 2026,” which should provide key insights to inform alternative solutions.