Madison does not need to choose between supporting its schools and protecting
affordability. It needs the planning discipline, transparency, and community
partnership mindset to do both.
LAURA SCANDURRA
JAN 01, 2026
A lot of Madisonians had the same experience this winter: the property tax bill
arrived, and the reaction was some version of “Wait—what?”
A significant portion of the property tax increase is tied to the $607 million
school referendum approved in November 2024. That package had two parts: a
$100 million operating referendum and a $507 million facilities referendum to
repair and renovate Madison’s aging school buildings. When the district
presented the referendums to voters, the combined first-year impact for the
“average” homeowner was estimated at about $364. For many households,
however, the actual tax bill was much higher.
This Isn’t a One-Time Increase
The operating referendum runs for four years and is recurring, meaning those
taxes don’t go away. They are baked into your tax bill and become part of the
district’s ongoing budget, which, for the 2025–26 school year, increased by
20.2%, the largest jump in decades. The facilities referendum is even longer-
lived. It is financed over 23 years, so debt payments will be built into school tax
bills for decades. In other words, the increase you saw this winter isn’t a one-
time spike. It’s the front edge of a longer curve. How steep that curve becomes
depends on factors that are still uncertain.
What Drives School Taxes
State funding is a major one. Wisconsin school aid is tied primarily to
enrollment, and enrollment has been flat or declining. Costs for staffing,
transportation, utilities, and special education continue to rise, but the state
contribution has not kept pace.
Federal funding is another wildcard. Temporary federal dollars that helped
stabilize school budgets during COVID are expiring, and future federal budgets
may reduce education funding further— shifting even more responsibility to
local taxpayers. And then there’s assessed home values. As the value of your
home rises, so does the share of school funding you’re responsible for,
regardless of whether your income has increased along with it.
Property Taxes and Affordability
Property taxes are not based on income or ability to pay. They’re based on the
assessed value of your home. That means tax increases fall unevenly. Seniors,
people on fixed incomes, and long-time homeowners are especially exposed
when assessments rise faster than incomes. Higher property taxes also raise the
cost of buying and staying in a home.
Renters are not immune. Property taxes are a cost landlords factor into rents,
which puts upward pressure on rental prices. Over time, that pressure can push
residents out, discourage new families from moving in, and contribute to
enrollment decline—tightening school budgets even further.
This is why property tax decisions aren’t just about school finance. They’re also
about who can afford to live, work, and learn in Madison.
Why Madison Has It Harder Than Some Neighbors
Madison is not alone. Across Wisconsin, districts are facing rising costs, flat
state funding, and expiring federal relief dollars. But Madison is at a structural
disadvantage compared to nearby districts. Middleton has passed operating
referenda too, but it benefits from more stable or growing enrollment tied to
new housing and a tax base that can spread costs across growth rather than
concentrating them on existing homeowners. The infill growth happening in
Madison adds taxable value and helps spread costs, but because it brings fewer
school-aged children, it does not generate the enrollment-based state aid that
helps stabilize school funding in growing suburban districts.
When Higher Property Taxes Make the Problem Worse
City and school district leadership are working to make Madison an affordable
destination city where people want to live and work. Here’s the feedback loop
that doesn’t get enough attention: higher property taxes make housing less
affordable; less affordable housing discourages families from moving in; fewer
families mean fewer students; fewer students mean less state aid; and less state
aid puts more pressure back on property taxes. Layer on the current realities—
heavy reliance on property taxes, federal relief dollars expiring, and
questionable federal aid in the future—and the problem gets worse.
School district leaders have been explicit about the implications. If federal
funding continues to decline and state aid does not keep pace, the options
become familiar: cut programs, reduce services, or return to voters for
additional levy authority. That’s why decisions made now matter. They
determine whether the district adapts within existing resources or asks
taxpayers, again, to close structural gaps.
This Is a Math Problem
This isn’t about whether schools matter. They do.
The question is whether a funding strategy that relies ever more heavily on
property taxes — in a city already struggling with affordability — can work
over the long term. Property taxes now fund roughly 90% of the school district’s
budget, and Madison’s effective property tax rates are already high by both
Wisconsin and national standards.
When the primary funding tool undermines housing affordability and
enrollment stability, it stops being sustainable. That isn’t ideology. It’s basic
math — and math problems don’t go away because we ignore them.
Where Do Planning, Transparency and Accountability Fit In?
Planning: The funding from the voter-approved facilities referendum covers
major rebuilds/renovations at ten schools based on building condition – not
enrollment. Voters agreed that Madison schools needed updated heating and
cooling systems, accessibility and safety upgrades, and updated spaces for
STEM, arts, libraries and cafeterias.
But deciding what needs fixing is not the same as deciding where – or how
much – to invest. The school district’s investment planning process identified
building needs but it was not tied to current enrollment or enrollment
projections. Some schools operate at roughly 60% capacity and districtwide
enrollment is projected to continue declining.
To its credit, the district has begun a boundary review to examine enrollment
patterns and space use. But that work comes after the borrowing authority and
project list were approved — not before. Once debt is issued, flexibility
narrows, and planning choices become harder to unwind. This makes
transparency essential, especially around the assumptions and enrollment
projections driving long-term budgeting and facilities planning.
Transparency: Voters approved the $507 million facilities referendum without
a clearly articulated, publicly visible plan for how decisions would be made
once the vote passed. There was no standing oversight body, no public
framework for prioritizing projects, and no commitment to regular, project-level
reporting that would allow residents to track budgets, timelines, or tradeoffs
over time.
Other districts facing similar pressures have taken a more deliberate approach.
Facilities packages in places like Austin, Denver, Seattle, and Los Angeles were
paired with publicly adopted facilities master plans tied to enrollment
projections, clear sequencing of projects, and routine public dashboards. In
those cases, voters weren’t just asked to approve funding — they were shown
how decisions would be made and adjusted over time.
Accountability: Madison voters approved the funding. What they didn’t
approve — because it wasn’t presented — was a governance plan for how
decisions would be made after the vote. Projects perform better when budget,
schedule, and scope are reported regularly and publicly. Raising taxes is not a
substitute for disciplined planning, transparent decision-making, or ongoing
accountability once the money is collected. That gap now needs to be filled.
So, What Now?
If Madison wants to be a city where people can afford to live, work, and learn,
that requires clear expectations for how major public investments are managed
going forward. City residents should reasonably expect clear answers to
questions such as:
· What guardrails are in place to keep projects on schedule and within budget?
· How will the district report publicly on progress, changes, and tradeoffs?
· What triggers or decision points exist to pause, revise, or reprioritize projects
before additional costs have to be passed on to taxpayers?
Asking for transparency and accountability isn’t opposition — it’s good
governance. Until Madison confronts the math and pairs funding decisions with
clear, credible governance, we’ll keep opening tax bills, saying “Wait—what?”,
and repeating the same debate.
What Madison Could Do Now
Madison has already approved the funding. The next step is to ensure those
dollars are governed with the same care, discipline, and transparency residents
expect in other well-run cities. None of the following requires another
referendum. All are policy and governance choices the district and board can
make now.
1. Adopt a Public Facilities Governance Framework: Establish a clear,
board-approved framework that defines how priorities are set, how projects are
sequenced, and how tradeoffs are handled as costs, enrollment, or timelines
change.
2. Create a Standing Independent Oversight Committee: Form a citizen
oversight body with expertise in finance, construction, and public accountability
to review budgets, monitor progress, and report regularly to the board and the
public.
3. Publish Project-Level Dashboards: Provide routine, accessible reporting for
each major project showing budgets, timelines, changes, and explanations — so
residents can see how referendum dollars are being used in real time.
4. Define Guardrails for Scope and Cost Changes: Adopt clear rules in
advance for how cost overruns, scope reductions, or project deferrals are
handled, and when board action or public re-engagement is required.
5. Tie Facilities Decisions to Enrollment and Housing Trends: Explicitly link
facilities planning to enrollment projections, neighborhood demographics, and
housing affordability — recognizing that school finance, family mobility, and
state aid are interconnected.
6. Commit to Ongoing Public Engagement: Move beyond one-time votes.
Schedule regular public briefings and feedback loops so residents can
understand decisions, ask questions, and assess progress over time.
Good governance doesn’t eliminate hard choices — but it makes them visible,
deliberate, and accountable. Madison does not need to choose between
supporting its schools and protecting affordability. It needs the planning
discipline, transparency, and community partnership mindset to do both.
