Viroqua Area Schools propose $1.8 million referendum on November ballot

Sept. 8, 2026

By TIM HUNDT

VIROQUA, Wis. – Voters in the Viroqua Area School District will decide this fall whether to allow the district to exceed its state mandated revenue limit by $1.8 million annually for four years. The nonrecurring operational referendum will appear on the general election ballot on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

According to a school press release, the funding request is aimed at addressing expected budget deficits, supporting educational programming, retaining staff, and funding minor capital maintenance. The request represents a $500,000 increase over the current $1.3 million operational referendum, which is scheduled to sunset at the end of the 2026 to 2027 school year.

The Local Revenue Limit History

The financial challenges facing the district are tied to a state education funding formula established in 1993 that restricts local school spending. According to the school website, if state funding had kept pace with inflation since 2009, Viroqua Area Schools would have received roughly $3,500 more per student during the last school year, which would have provided an additional $3.5 million in annual spending authority.

District Administrator Dr. Jeremy Hill noted that operational referendums have become standard practice for Wisconsin school districts because of the structural limitations of the state funding model.

“Operational referendum funds have been an important part of our district’s budget for many years, and we appreciate the support voters have generously provided to VAS,” said Dr. Hill. “A renewed referendum will provide budget surety and allow VAS to continue meeting the expectations our community has for its schools and ensuring students have the resources they need to be successful.”

Before asking voters for additional local tax support, last year the district implemented significant budget reductions to show fiscal responsibility. The administration trimmed $1.2 million from the budget by choosing not to fill several open positions following retirements and resignations, which allowed the district to project a modest surplus of about $122,000.

According to Dr. Hill, the district needed to make these hard choices internally before going back to the taxpayers.

“We hear people say a school district should operate within their means,” said Hill. ” And I believe that a school district should operate within their means. We cut $1.2 million going into this particular fiscal year because we knew we needed to do our part before we went to the community and asked for anything.”

Dr. Hill explained that if the district had not made those reductions, a larger request would have been unconscionable. He expressed that a $2.5 million request would have been too high for local property owners.

“I do not believe in good conscience that the school district can go to voters in November and say we want to keep everybody so we are going to need you guys to support a $2.5 million referendum,” said Dr. Hill. “I am new here, but I can read the room to know that is just unconscionable to me, that we wouldn’t clean our own house first.”

The proposed $1.8 million referendum utilizes a strategic funding approach that seeks to pool savings early on to cover rising costs later. Under the plan, the district projects a budget surplus in the first two years of the referendum, which will be put into reserves to cover projected deficits in years three and four.

Dr. Hill contrasted this operational request with a traditional building referendum, which involves taking on 20 year debt to pay for major construction. He explained that any early surplus from the operational referendum could be used for targeted facility improvements.

“We think that we could have a little bit of a surplus in those first couple years,” said Dr. Hill. “And if we do, what we would like to do is then go to our voters and say, what do you think that we should spend this money on? If we have some extra money, should we replace the roof at the bus garage?”

School Board Discussion

The proposal was not approved without debate. During the August 17, 2026, school board meeting, board members discussed three different funding scenarios before ultimately selecting the $1.8 million option.

Board member Robert Nigh questioned the size of the request, arguing that a lower option of $1.6 million annually might be a more appropriate ask given the ongoing decline in student enrollment.

“So we have 10, 12 percent less kids than we have now, and we are going to be talking an increase in tax levy,” said Nigh.

Board member Angie Lawrence defended the higher $1.8 million figure, pointing out that a lower $1.6 million limit would not cover the district’s projected deficits in the final year and would leave no funding for capital maintenance.

“So when you review the amount that was sent out, the extra that is on the first two will actually be put aside because of the second two, because we would be short a little bit in year three and four,” said Lawrence.

Lawrence also emphasized that the district must maintain its core classes and academic programs even as enrollment fluctuates.

“It does cover capital expenses, and we still need the same programs, and we have made reductions, a lot of reductions, but we still need the same classes also,” said Lawrence. “We also don’t know what the state is going to do for funding as well.”

Board President Matt Tubbin analyzed the tax impact of the different scenarios, noting that the overall property tax rate is projected to remain relatively steady under the proposed plan.

“Yeah, looking at the difference, the 1.8 average mill rate was 7.16, the 1.6 average mill rate was 7.02 per 1,000,” said Tubbin.

Lawrence explained that the marginal mill rate difference between the two proposals would be about $13.00 or $14.00 per $100,000 of equalized property value.

Projections for the Property Tax Impact

According to school records, the district has a long history of seeking operational referendums to exceed state revenue caps, beginning with an initial measure in 2004. Voters subsequently approved renewals in 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025.

Most recently, voters approved the current $1.3 million nonrecurring referendum in April 2025 by a margin of 2,244 votes to 1,615 votes, after a similar $1.3 million proposal narrowly failed by 31 votes in November 2024. These operational referendums are distinct from the $20.5 million capital referendum approved by voters in November 2022, which legally restricted those borrowed funds to district wide building security and facility construction projects.

If the November referendum is approved, the school tax rate is projected to stand at $7.33 per $1,000 of fair market value in the first year, before declining to $7.00 per $1,000 of property value by the 2030 to 2031 school year.