Vernon County approves 2026 budget, restores SMRT Bus funding, cuts Historical Society funds, uses borrowing to fund long-term costs

Nov. 21, 2025

By Tim Hundt

VERNON COUNTY, Wis. — The Vernon County Board of Supervisors finalized and adopted its 2026 budget on Thursday that includes both significant borrowing to finance capital needs and targeted cuts to discretionary programs. The approved budget includes authorization for approximately $4.7 million in new debt, a necessity driven by strict state levy limits that severely restrict the county’s ability to fund rising operational costs through property taxes.

Starting last year the county embarked on a strategy of borrowing for large capital projects and equipment as a way of creating more wiggle room with the levy cap. Payments on long term debt is not counted against the levy limit. County Administrative Coordinator Cassie Hannan laid out a plan last year to borrow up to $5 million a year for the next several years, mostly to catch up on road repairs, but also to shift capital expenses off the operating levy.

The board ultimately adopted the $12.7 million tax levy. Hanan confirmed that levy limits permitted an increase of only $171,425 for 2026, an amount far exceeded by rising service demands, such as a projected $500,000 increase in the Human Services budget.

Proposed 2026 Budget Prior to Amendments

Borrowing to Fund Infrastructure

The county approved an initial resolution authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Promissory Notes not to exceed $4,761,213 for capital improvement projects.

This borrowing strategy was established to give the operating budget “more breathing room”. Capital items, such as equipment and infrastructure, are financed through debt, which is levied separately and is exempt from state levy limits. The borrowing covers several priority areas:

• $3 million for Highway Road Projects.
• $695,123 for Highway equipment.
• $288,140 for four Sheriff squad cars and outfitting.
• $360,000 for an emergency management storage facility.
• $92,000 for a Vernon Manor van.

The 2026 budget also incorporates the first principal and interest payment on the $5.5 million bond that the county approved earlier in 2025.

Other Major Expenses

Hanan highlighted the key areas driving up expenditures, which forced the Finance Committee to make difficult cuts to stay within the mandated limits.

• Human Services Crisis: The largest unavoidable cost increase came from Human Services, which is projected to increase by about $500,000 due to increasing out-of-home placements. This includes “one out of state placement that’s $1,600 a day”.

• Technology: Software licensing and subscription needs saw a dramatic increase of “over $100,000” necessary to maintain cybersecurity and operational integrity.

• Wages and Benefits: The budget includes a 1% cost-of-living increase for all employees, plus additional increases for eligible staff. However, Hanan delivered good news regarding insurance: “Our health rates will decrease by two and a half percent,” a rarity among other Wisconsin counties, attributed to the utilization of the neighborhood family clinic.

To offset these pressures, the budget included targeted cuts to discretionary programs

• Scenic Mississippi Regional Transit (SMRT) Bus: The county eliminated its $15,000 contribution to the SMRT bus program. This decision followed information that La Crosse County was withdrawing support due to low ridership and budget pressures, creating a projected regional shortfall of $175,000 for the service in 2026. La Crosse County has since restored their funding for the SMRT bus and that could force Vernon County to restore their contribution. You can read our detailed story about that issue here.
• Historical and Agricultural Societies: Support for the Historical Society was reduced from $50,000 to $37,500 (a 25% cut), and the Agricultural Society saw its contribution fall from $5,000 to $3,750 (a 25% cut).
• Personnel Savings: The draft budget includes eliminating several positions expected to save approximately $140,000. This included transitioning an administrative assistant from full-time to part-time, not rehiring interns, leaving a Grants assistant position vacant, and ending a contract with UW Extension for the Community Development Educator.

Amendments Spark Intense Debate

During the budget adoption process, supervisors brought forth several key amendments, notably challenging the Finance Committee’s initial cuts to discretionary programs.

SMRT Bus Funding Restored

The original draft budget eliminated the $15,000 contribution to the SMRT Bus, based on the assumption that La Crosse County was withdrawing support. However, after La Crosse County subsequently voted to restore its transitional funding, Supervisor Martha Olson moved to amend the Vernon County budget to restore the local contribution, drawing funds from excess sales tax or Ho Chunk revenue.

The Board unanimously voted to reinstate its $15,000 contribution to the SMRT Bus system after a tense budget debate that pit the needs of rural constituents against the high operational cost and perceived financial mismanagement of the regional service. Numerous users of the system showed up at both the La Crosse County meetings to restore funding and the Vernon County meeting to give comments on the importance of the system to rural residents who are transportation dependent. You can read our previous story about those meetings and comments here.

The decision grants the struggling transit program a year-long reprieve, providing time to overhaul its structure.

The Vernon County SMRT Bus Debate

Supervisors who supported the amendment argued the county must maintain its commitment, especially for rural residents who lack alternative options, but expressed concerns over low ridership. Several supervisors said they often see the SMRT bus at stops with no riders.

Supervisor Will Beitlich referenced a previous agreement, asserting, “I think we’re obligated. We obligated ourselves to 2026, to support this smart bus so that 15,000 should we should do this”. Beitlich was referring to an earlier resolution passed by Vernon County that committed to funding the helping fund the system through 2026.

Supervisor Mary Henry acknowledged the service was critical for riders, noting that cutting it abruptly was poor timing and short notice. However, other supervisors voiced deep skepticism over the program’s value and Vernon County’s responsibility to fund it.

Supervisor John Pedretti challenged the financial impact of the contribution, asking, “if we don’t give them the $15,000 it’s not going to cancel the smart bus. So basically, we’re giving $15,000 for what reason I don’t understand”.

Supervisor Mary Henry, while sympathetic to riders, focused on the program’s lack of sustainability, pointing out the reported operational cost for a one-way SMRT bus ride: “The operational cost for a one way ride on the smart bus is over $43,” she said. Henry added that taxpayers need to understand that this massive cost, coupled with low ridership (averaging about 30 riders a day across all routes), “is just, I don’t see it being sustainable”.

Supervisor Nathaniel Slack voiced concerns about oversight, stating, “I really don’t like that. It’s like someone else is making decisions and we’re just throwing them some cash”.

Supervisor Charles Jacobson agreed, questioning La Crosse County’s administrative capacity: “who’s the oversight for that? La Crosse county? Okay, so they understand their business model is horrible”. Yet, Jacobson ultimately sided with the restoration, reasoning it was “not fair to the people that ride the bus and need it to cut them off that quick”.

The Inter-County Disconnect

The SMRT funding debate highlights a significant disconnect between Vernon and La Crosse counties, whose boards view the financial responsibility very differently.

In La Crosse County, supervisors expressed frustration that they were unfairly bearing the brunt of the transit costs, shouldering 62.80% of the local funding share, far exceeding Vernon County’s 9.60% contribution. La Crosse supervisors used the budget reversal as leverage, with Supervisor Ralph Geary explicitly aiming to use the transitional year to force neighboring counties to “pony up” and pay their “fair share”.

La Crosse County Supervisor David Hundt was highly critical of SMRT’s operational efficiency, observing, “We got busses running around with nobody on,” and questioned allocating funds to a broken program that he claimed was “not making anybody really happy, other than people in Vernon (County)”.

La Crosse County Administrators also pointed out the La Crosse County incurs significant cost for administering state and federal grants and ultimately they are on the hook for any cost overruns, which in the last few years have been significant. The program was projected to have a $157,000 overrun for 2026.

As one La Crosse County Supervisor put it, the other counties and partners are more than happy to “let La Crosse take it on the chin.”

A Surprise Cancellation and the Need for Communication

While Vernon County does have representation on a regional SMRT bus committee—Community Development Director Amy Oliver serves in this role—the process leading to the near-cancellation came as a surprise.

Oliver informed the Vernon County Board that discussions about low ridership and increased costs were routine in the quarterly committee meetings, but the idea of outright canceling the service came up “very abruptly”. Oliver stated, “I had no idea that they were going to do this,” referencing the sudden move by La Crosse County. She noted that the cancellation conversation seemed to be kickstarted by the retirement of the person overseeing the service in La Crosse County.

Vernon County supervisors agreed that better coordination and transparency were essential going forward. Director Oliver confirmed she would reach out to La Crosse County to press for more involvement. Supervisor Wayde Lawler suggested the board request a formal presentation from La Crosse County officials to clear up the confusion and ignorance regarding “ridership, routes, management, budget, all of that stuff,” ensuring Vernon County is better informed if this issue arises again. Supervisor Charles Jacobson added that bringing the management concerns “to the forefront now lets the ridership know there’s an issue, and if nothing can be changed, that they can start planning for the future as well”.

Historical Society Cut Maintained

The Vernon County Historical Society’s Board Chair, Dian Krause, and board member/historian Kevin Alderson appealed to the Vernon County Board for the restoration of their funding, emphasizing the critical role the society plays in the county and the detrimental impact the proposed cut would have on its operations.

Dian Krause’s Appeal: Education, Tourism, and Salaries

Ms. Krause stressed that the Historical Society (HS) is “more than a repository for artifacts and historical papers”. She framed the organization’s mission as promoting Vernon County history for the “education and enjoyment of all”.

Key points of her appeal included:

• Serving the Whole County: While the main museum (the Normal School) is located in Viroqua, she stated, “we serve the whole county, and we serve it in many ways”. Their exhibits highlight aspects of the entire county, including individuals, ethnic groups, industry, and agriculture, aiming to educate visitors on those items.
• Educational Outreach: The museum attracts numerous school groups, including fifth graders from Hillsboro, and fourth and second graders from Viroqua, Cashton, and Genoa, demonstrating its use as an educational resource.
• Historical Programs: The society conducts cemetery walks in locations across the county, such as Coon Valley, Westby, and Viroqua, highlighting the lives of people “important to the community”. They also began offering driving tours of the county’s one-room schoolhouses in 2021.
• Economic Benefit: Ms. Krause noted that the society is increasingly visited by tourists who “contribute to the economy of the county by spending money to eat, sleep and shop within the county”. She specifically mentioned that improvements, like the addition of heat and air conditioning on the second and third floors, are expected to draw “many more visitors in the future”.
• Stipend for Salaries: Ms. Krause made it clear that the funding received from the county is used “specifically for salaries” of their two part-time employees. She noted that the proposed reduction of $12,500 amounts to “18% of our budget”. Lonnie Muller, also speaking on behalf of the Historical Society, opposed the proposed $12,500 cut, which he calculated as a 25% drop from the original funding.

Kevin Alderson’s Account: Historical Context and Salary Deficit

Kevin Alderson, a historian who utilizes the museum for his research, focused on the unique historical resources available and provided critical context on how county funding was originally established

Alderson emphasized the county’s unique historical importance, noting that there is a “tremendous amount of very unique history in this county” that “needs to be remembered and shared”. He and his wife Patsy, an artist, conducted historical research at the museum archives for their book, Barns Without Corners, and he continues to conduct research for other topics, such as the history of the Amish and the Black Hawk War.

Alderson provided a history of the county’s funding, explaining that until 2010, museum employees were county employees with full benefits. To implement a cost-saving measure, the county board at that time decided the Historical Society would become the employer of the staff, and the county offered a stipend to support the salaries. He pointed out that the county’s contribution is directly tied to employee compensation. Just last year (prior to the 2026 budget discussions), the county had increased its funding to $50,000, which was “very close then to the museum salary budget of $51,670”. The proposed cut to $37,500 “does not come close to meeting our salary expectations”.

Summary of Vernon County Contributions to the Historical Society

The county’s contribution to the Historical Society and Museum has fluctuated over the years, with a major shift in how the funds were categorized:

• Long-Term Funding: The county had historically provided funding for the Historical Society, including supporting their staff salaries until 2010.
• Prior to Recent Increase: Until recently, the county was contributing $25,000 to support salaries, which eventually increased to $30,000 per year.
• Recent Increase: As part of the 2024 budget process, the Historical Society requested that the contribution be doubled to $50,000, which the board approved. This doubling was partially attributed to the society installing air conditioning and heating on the upper floors of the museum.
• Recent Cut: The proposed 2026 budget reduced this contribution from $50,000 to $37,500, representing a cut of $12,500.
• Property Support: The county continues to support the Historical Society by paying the property insurance on two of the society’s properties.
• Specific Grants: The county also gave the Historical Society $10,000 for the HVAC system.

Supervisor Sandy Schweiger proposed an amendment to restore the $12,500 using Ho Chunk funds. The Ho-Chunk Nation gives Vernon County $1.2 million a year for land held in trust as the result of a state agreement. ($1,000/acre and the HoChunk has 1,200 acres at the Kickpoo Valley Reserve) This sparked an extended discussion illustrating the tension between community support and fiscal restraint.

Supervisor Nathaniel Slack opposed the restoration unless the county received guaranteed governance or accountability for the allocation. Slack stated, “I feel like we should have a seat at that table to help encourage them to find alternative funding, instead of just saying, every year, here’s $50,000 you know, go do as you will”. He reiterated that simply handing over money “with no seat at the table is less than responsible”.

“Does anybody have any more context on what they do for fundraising?” asked Slack. “How much do they fund raise?”

Earlier in the meeting, Historical Society representative Lonnie Muller (who is also a County Supervisor) responded to a similar challenge about fundraising that came from Supervisor John Pedretti, who had stated that the Historical Society was “not doing anything to raise revenue themselves”

Muller refuted the idea that the society was inactive in generating its own funds, stating, “You obviously haven’t been participating in all the fundraising events that they have throughout each year”.

Supervisor Henry confirmed that the Historical Society “do write grants” and “most of it’s all done by volunteer”. Henry also pointed out they had just done a major fundraising campaign to install heating and air conditioning in the second and third floors which unusable for much of the year prior to that work.

Supervisor Martha Olson sought a middle ground, asking if they could approve the funds for just one year to give the society time to adjust, noting, “this is a limit to what we’re doing, and you can expect next year… this year, we were trying to gradually bring you down”.

However, Supervisor Will Beitlich strongly defended the Finance Committee’s initial decision to cut discretionary items to brace for future challenges. He reminded the board of the current debt commitment, warning that restored cuts compound future problems:

“I mean, when we sat there, you know, it’s a sign of the times that we’re all short of money. And if you heard Cassie here, next year is going to be even more of a challenge. So we thought this year was the year to start trimming off the excess any place we could”. He continued, expressing frustration, “You realize we just approved the resolution to borrow $4,761,000 already. Where is this money going to come from?… all the small amounts lead to big amounts”.

The amendment to restore the $12,500 funding to the Historical Society failed on a recorded vote of five in favor and thirteen opposed. Supervisors Schweiger, Henry, Easterday, Taylor and Jacobson all voted yes.

The Vernon County Board subsequently passed the overall 2026 budget, including the authorized borrowing and the approved amendments, by voice vote. Supervisors noted the budgetary challenges would likely continue into the following year, highlighting the need for ongoing evaluation of department consolidation and shared services.

Changes to Board Compensation and Board Chair Duties

The Vernon County Board of Supervisors took action to establish the compensation for the board members and the County Board Chair for the new term beginning in April 2026.

The action was initiated with Resolution 2025- 54, which was titled, “Established county boards of supervisors. Compensation for the new term beginning April 21, 2026”.

The specifics of the salaries approved for the supervisors and the Chair for the term beginning in April 2026 are detailed in the budget documents and related discussion:

• Supervisors’ Per Diem: The compensation for regular board supervisors, paid as a per diem for meetings attended, was set at $60,000 for the 2026 proposed budget year. This represents a 20.0% decrease from the 2025 adopted budget of $75,000. County Board of Supervisors meetings: $ 80.00 per meeting. Committee and Commission meetings: $ 50.00 per meeting.
• Board Chair Salary: The compensation for the County Board Chair was approved for $8,580 for the 2026 proposed budget. This amount remains unchanged from the 2025 adopted budget.

Establishing Chair Expectations

Following the vote to set the salaries for the new term, the board addressed the expectations that accompany the salary for the County board chair. This discussion occurred under Resolution 2025-59, to amend the county board rules regarding board chair expectations.

Administrative Coordinator Cassandra Hanan explained that the conversation began at the previous month’s meeting when questions were raised about the expectations linked to the chair’s salary. The resulting resolution formalized several “encouragements”—as they cannot be legally required—for the person elected as Chair:

• Maintain regular office hours, which would be set by the person elected in the spring.
• Meet with the Administrative Coordinator on a regular basis.
• Attend the annual Wisconsin Counties Association Conference and trainings.
• Attend public events on behalf of the County.
• Attend county committee meetings when available and as necessary.
• Respond to emails, texts, and phone calls in a timely manner.

Hanan clarified that although the resolution was effective immediately, the intent of setting these expectations was for the new term starting in the spring of 2026. The Board retains the power to remove a chair at any time during a term.

Marriage License Fee Increased

The Vernon County Board of Supervisors approved changes to the marriage license fees as part of the 2026 budget discussions.

This decision was formalized under Resolution 2025-60, titled “marriage license fee increase”.

Supervisor Jerry Pedretti explained that this resolution originated from the County Clerk’s office during budget discussions when departments were asked to seek ways to increase fees or reduce costs. The goal was not simply “money grabbing” but to evaluate if Vernon County was charging less than neighboring counties.

The changes approved by the Board were:

1. Marriage License Fee: Raised from $70 to $80.
2. Waiver Fee: Raised from $10 to $20.

The resolution passed by voice vote.

Flood Mitigation Grant Application Approved

The Vernon County Board of Supervisors considered and approved an application for the 2026 Pre-Disaster Flood Resilience Grant (Resolution 2025-62), administered through the Wisconsin Emergency Management. The application was a collaborative effort between the Community Development and Land Water Conservation Departments.

The grant sought approval to apply for a total project cost of up to $100,000. The core purpose of the project is to address 47 (and counting) acquired properties throughout Vernon County that are located in the floodplain, where structures were previously demolished after flood events. These properties are required by FEMA to be maintained as open space, with very few allowable uses.

The project’s key objectives are twofold:

1. Open Space Management Plan Development: Land and Water Conservation staff member Matt Eddy would spend time assessing these 47 (and counting) sites to determine the specific flood risks, proximity to nearby infrastructure and homes, and identify conservation practices that could be implemented. The goal is to create an open space management plan that proposes low-cost, low-maintenance, or higher-maintenance options for the local municipalities that own and maintain these sites. The conservation practices aim to “help infiltrate water much quicker during heavy rainfall events,” thereby protecting nearby infrastructure and homes.
2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) Studies: The grant funding would also be used to contract a third party to conduct a couple of Hydrologic and Hydraulic (H&H) studies in areas not currently being assessed. These studies are deep assessments that “analyze the flow of water through a watershed” to determine if nearby infrastructure, such as bridges and culverts, are “sized properly to handle certain flood events”.

Funding Details: The grant requires a 25% local match (up to $25,000). The Finance Committee approved $10,000 of that local match to come from Ho Chunk funds through the county’s grant match support program. The remaining $15,000 would be covered as an “in kind match” using the current salary of staff member Matt Eddy.

Amy Oliver, the Community Development Director, presented the resolution (Resolution 2025, 62) to the board. She emphasized that while the properties acquired after flood events currently “have to just sit open for water to freely move through,” she believes “there is more that could be done”.

Oliver explained the ultimate purpose of the grant:

• The project aims to create an open space management plan so the sites “will serve more of a purpose to help slow, you know, slow down water and infiltrate it much quicker”.
• The plan could lead to sites that are “more esthetically appealing for these neighborhoods” as some sites are right in the middle of cities and “just don’t look the greatest”.
• She noted that the idea was partially inspired by Monroe County, which manages a similar plan for their eight acquired properties, though Vernon County has significantly more with 47 and counting.

Supervisor Alycann Taylor noted that while this grant does not directly address the ongoing issue of dam decommissioning, it could serve as a model for future assessments of those properties.

Oliver confirmed this connection, stating the project is “completely separate from decommissioning” but could help improve assessments and planning moving forward. She added that this ongoing pursuit of grants, including the current one and the one they are applying for, “shows that the county is looking into this” and actively assessing the capacity of local infrastructure to handle flood events.

When Supervisor John Pedretti inquired about the comparison to Monroe County’s eight properties, Oliver confirmed that Vernon County has 47 and counting sites. She estimated that most sites are about “a half acre or less” and mentioned that some are right in the middle of Viola, where two houses she demoed previously are located.

Oliver expressed confidence in the application’s concept, mentioning that when she submitted the intent to apply to Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM), they responded that “this is a great idea, because Vernon County has a lot”.

The resolution to approve the application for the Pre-Disaster Flood Resilience Grant was successfully passed by the board.

SNAP Advisory Resolution Passed

The Vernon County Board of Supervisors passed an advisory resolution (Resolution 2025-65) urging the state to address funding changes related to the administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is known as FoodShare in Wisconsin.

The resolution was introduced because of federal changes to funding that require Wisconsin to increase its share of the financing for operating FoodShare duties.

• Federal Funding Shift: The federal government, in July (prior to the board meeting), reduced its financial contribution to the administration of the FoodShare program. Previously, the federal government had funded 75% of the costs, but it will now only fund 50%, expecting states to cover the remaining 50%.
• Financial Impact: This shift is expected to have a significant statewide impact, amounting to a $69 million burden on Wisconsin.
• Increased Workload and Penalties: The changes also result in an increased workload for administrators, and the state and counties could face penalties if compliance requirements are not met.
• Cost Shifting: Ultimately, these federal cuts are shifting the financial cost of administering the program to the state and, subsequently, to the counties.

Human Services Director Jill Bender explained the resolution, confirming that it was purely an advisory resolution intended to express the county’s concern over these changes. The resolution was approved by the Human Service Committee before reaching the full board.

Supervisor Dave Eggen noted that this matter affects a large portion of the county’s population, stating that the SNAP advisory resolution “affects nearly 10% of the population in Vernon County”.

The resolution to urge the state to address the SNAP program administration funding changes was passed by the board.