Reedsburg schools ask voters to approve $2.5 million, four-year operational referendum on April 7

Tom Burkhalter, district administrator for the School District of Reedsburg, urged residents to support a $2,500,000 nonrecurring operational referendum on the April 7 ballot, saying the measure is intended to stabilize the district’s finances for four years and protect classroom programs.

Burkhalter told the Reedsburg Common Council the district’s request is smaller than a failed $4 million operational referendum from November 2024 because the district cut roughly $1,000,000 from its budget, anticipated a modest reimbursement-rate increase that came in lower than expected, and saw open-enrollment revenue fall by about $350,000. “We cut 1,000,000 dollars out of our budget,” he said, and those three factors together moved the ask to $2.5 million.

He framed the request as a response to Wisconsin’s revenue-limit framework, dating to a 1992 revenue limit and a 2009 change that largely ended routine inflationary increases. Burkhalter said that historical policy has left many districts with mismatched per-student spending limits; he estimated that keeping funding at the level implied by 2009 adjustments would amount to roughly $2,800 per student or about $7.3 million in the district’s budget. “The system’s broken, and broken beyond what, anyone would typically believe,” he said.

If approved, the $2.5 million would be nonrecurring and expire after four years. Burkhalter said the money would be used to balance recurring deficits over the next four years, maintain academic programming, pay for deferred maintenance, and cover smaller safety improvements — including upgrades to cameras and replacement buses for an aging fleet. He emphasized the measure is meant to “maintain what we have” rather than produce long-term new spending.

Burkhalter also described how the district plans to limit immediate tax-rate impact. He said the board expects to preserve a $7 mill rate and use available funds — including a planned early payoff of some debt through defeasance — to offset school levy pressure. “Just this year alone, we are gonna save over $770,000 in interest payments” by paying debt early, he said, and the district intends to move some budgeted community-service spending into operating funds rather than raise new taxes.

On school choice vouchers, Burkhalter argued local taxpayers pay more per voucher student than per public-school student, saying the district pays about $6,800 per resident student while a resident student receiving a voucher costs the local levy about $11,100. He described the state invoicing process for voucher costs and characterized that funding transfer as concerning for public schools, calling the shift “deceitful” in tone while urging voters to consider the district’s fiscal constraints.

Burkhalter closed by asking the public to be informed and to vote on April 7. After the presentation, council members expressed appreciation for the outreach and reported that community groups, the ministerial association and civic organizations have been engaged on the topic.

The district’s presentation detailed both historical context and specific figures used to justify the referendum; officials said questions about longer-term structural reform remain directed at state policymakers.

The district advised residents to review the fact sheet distributed at the meeting for local tax-rate examples and further detail about where the referendum funds would be allocated. The council did not take action on the referendum itself during the meeting; the presentation was informational and intended to inform voter outreach ahead of the April 7 election.