Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1181

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 121.91 (4) (o) 4.; to renumber and amend 121.91 (4) (o) 1.; to create 121.91 (4) (o) 1. c. of the statutes; Relating to: the school district revenue limit adjustment for energy efficiency projects. (FE)

Summary

AB1181 changes Wisconsin law governing the school district revenue limit adjustment for energy efficiency projects. Under current law, a school board may adopt a resolution to increase a district’s revenue limit by the amount spent on a qualifying energy efficiency project, but that authority was limited to resolutions adopted before January 1, 2018, or after December 30, 2018. The bill removes that date restriction, allowing school districts to use the adjustment going forward whenever they adopt a qualifying resolution. The bill also narrows what counts as a qualifying project. It keeps projects that reduce energy consumption or operating costs, conserve water resources, or improve metering accuracy, but removes projects designed solely to ensure compliance with state or local building codes from eligibility. The bill retains the requirement that the project be governed by a performance contract under state law and that any related bond, note, or state trust fund loan have a term of no more than 20 years. The bill applies first to resolutions adopted on the effective date of the act.

Impact

AB1181 would amend s. 121.91 (4) (o) of the Wisconsin statutes, which governs school district revenue limit exceptions. By repealing the prior date restriction and revising the qualifying project definition, the bill would expand school districts’ ability to finance energy efficiency improvements through revenue limit adjustments while excluding code-compliance-only projects. The practical effect would be to give school boards more flexibility to fund energy-saving upgrades, utility-cost reductions, water conservation measures, and metering improvements, while limiting the exception to projects with a direct efficiency purpose.

Sentiment

The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, or at least no recorded opposition in the materials provided. The bill had additional cosponsorship added after introduction, which typically indicates legislative support. No committee transcript or vote record is included, so there is no evidence here of formal debate, amendment controversy, or recorded dissent.

Contention

The main policy issue appears to be the scope of the revenue limit exception. Supporters would likely favor removing the outdated date restriction so districts can continue financing energy efficiency work, while the narrowing of eligible projects suggests an effort to prevent the exception from being used for broader building-code compliance projects. The likely point of contention is whether excluding code-compliance-related alterations is too restrictive or, conversely, whether the bill appropriately limits a tax and spending exception to true energy efficiency investments. No specific objections from legislators or stakeholders are included in the provided record.