[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6177563,"mediaKeyId","5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e","parentId",5335684,"title","Committee of the Whole begins service‑level review; requests benchmarking and shared‑service analyses","audioSeconds",451,"startMs",2372000,"endMs",2823000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e&start=2372&end=2823","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e/thumbnail_2372000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6177563/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Committee-of-the-Whole-begins-servicelevel-review-requests-benchmarking-and-sharedservice-analyses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177563-edd11f8328d7ae67c54295c8cfc0dcd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775408951&Signature=bjAP9ACTnTvpfMfngknHElFkGwBr5cVwKdJciy~9ASadO80NxHQdozNUMJIru9ZzeHBUQFrJifxOqFj~W5A1ijXIBbe-31~51eZaoJhkCDeB6rhdpjugfSqz-nxDTlIxMX-dWVWf~7yNCRJLaJlSYDICL2zu1xaqfgb2rqcIH3P-kmUUVA4aA0iGMbVizWvjMYAtV6~LHgT2pd7g2TVEJfUdrihfTY4-gGEFs-dSloYjuIKslnFLhPbnrTqJ0tdSE-0dnbL5mvXroGtlOnb5X7s4XUfeEnJu30L4l~gUVR8KTGbHbxz2Z~VIzQXduoy~l3rT7LrGYU4Zs~AuNWujuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Village of Shorewood, WI","date","2025-07-09T09:01:04.86Z","article","The Shorewood Committee of the Whole met to review village service levels and potential cost‑saving initiatives as part of 2026 budget preparations. The session was framed as information‑gathering: the committee will use the August 4 meeting to give staff direction on any items that should be studied further and on how to solicit public input.

Finance staff said the session is intended to establish a common baseline of services, the staff resources required to maintain those services, and which items the board may want to consider adjusting. \"Anything significant is going to change the village for many years to come,\" the finance director told trustees, urging caution and targeted follow‑up for the 2026 budget timeline.

Key topics the committee asked staff to research or clarify:
- Shared or consolidated court services: Trustees asked staff to provide background on previous shared‑service attempts (for example, past arrangements that included Brown Deer and Glendale) and to report whether a renewed study with neighboring municipalities (Bayside, Glendale, Brown Deer) is feasible. Staff said a grant application to study court consolidation was under consideration.
- IT and technology contract: Trustees asked for details on the village’s contract with Bayside IT (staff cited an annual payment in the neighborhood of $113,000 and a full‑time on‑site technician plus off‑site support). Staff will review the scope and costs and whether a reduced in‑house FTE or shared arrangement might be possible after recent infrastructure changes (server migration and cyber‑security upgrades).
- Police overtime and targeted patrols: Committee members asked whether targeted pedestrian‑safety and speed patrols are conducted on overtime and how event staffing affects overtime budgets. Staff said overtime and event duty are a visible driver of police costs and asked the committee to consider whether it wants staff to identify options for managing event-related overtime.
- Public Works services and DPW yard: Trustees asked staff to calculate potential savings from service‑frequency changes (for example, moving refuse, yard‑waste or leaf collection to less frequent schedules), and to provide options and community‑impact assessments. Trustees also asked staff to outline the economics and operational requirements for potential in‑house recycling and upgraded on‑site infrastructure that would change how materials are collected and hauled.

Staff and trustees noted that many potential changes (shared services, vehicle replacements, DPW facility decisions) are long‑term items that would affect future budgets; few members expected immediate, large changes for the 2026 budget. The committee asked staff to gather benchmarking data, cost estimates and community‑impact scenarios and to return with detailed options so the board can set priorities during fall budget sessions.

Next steps: Staff will compile benchmarking comparisons, summaries of prior studies (including the 2020 service/facility analysis), cost estimates for DPW service‑frequency changes, and the scope/cost of shared‑services options for court, radios and IT. The committee will consider those materials at the August 4 meeting and use them to shape the 2026 budget and the village’s communication plan for public input.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Budget & Finance and Committee of the Whole Meetings - July 7, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Committee of the Whole discussed village service levels, budget implications and possible cost initiatives; members asked staff for benchmarking, shared‑service studies (court, IT, radios), and DPW options including leaf/yard‑waste frequency and in‑house recycling feasibility for future budget planning.","taxTitle","Shorewood, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin","taxId",69871,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177568,"Committee forwards credit card fee policy to board; fee to be set on schedule, not fixed amount",236,2163000,2399000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e&start=2163&end=2399","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e/thumbnail_2163000.jpg","/articles/6177568/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Committee-forwards-credit-card-fee-policy-to-board-fee-to-be-set-on-schedule-not-fixed-amount","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177568-078b4097d702df13613878b404faf4a5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775408951&Signature=ZdMv4dWnmm0gbFdf~bCUGDHhUk2LVLZXCD~9PCHSVbB4DvWEYHhtzfkOuoWdjW8tlMa8nH-Qm52YEDywPdUojVGA9eb72MgZL8SJjaFxQ2l80a48Ux3b31Hwrg0Cucfp0cgN77txqQDLWDieVJ5SsYzBQk2qaD~hHMJXvufwoHvD6iXw-U2AF7e8moEYsGjAull06k1qXg31hOq4EinjOQ7YfJ3XxCBP9sxGAtytTIJSh6GtMD2Pp1D0flmIGmxWte~9Vlz1WposrPzPgPC97yur3PHqGoHPUFuIDQQ5NAgv6I6A47DN1x0obXE~hrRPDYu4Imf~22A3Cb732UDOIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Budget & Finance Committee voted unanimously to forward a village credit-card-fee policy to the full board that would allow the village to recoup credit card fees charged on public payments. The committee recommended the fee be stated in the village fee schedule as a percentage rather than a fixed dollar amount in the policy text.

Staff told the committee that including the amount in the fee schedule is preferable because the fee fluctuates with transaction costs; committee members agreed and recommended that the item go to the full board for final adoption. Committee members also noted that the credit-card fee policy will not apply to the municipal streetlight fee because the streetlight charge is reflected on the utility bill handled under the Public Service Commission’s framework and separating it would be complicated.

Why it matters: The committee’s action would authorize the village to recoup processing costs for credit-card payments on public bills and fees. Staff said the precise percentage rate will be reflected on the fee schedule the board adopts.

Discussion versus decision: The committee’s vote was to forward the policy and recommended approach to the full board; the committee approved the recommended policy language 3–0 at the committee level. The full board will consider final adoption and the exact percentage rate as part of the village fee schedule.

Next steps: Staff will present the policy and fee-schedule language to the village board for consideration.","Budget & Finance Committee voted 3–0 to recommend the village adopt a policy allowing the village to recoup credit card fees on public payments via the fee schedule (percentage basis), with committee guidance that the streetlight fee be excluded.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177573,"Committee adopts capital equipment planning policy; dissent raises oversight concerns",967,1186000,2153000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e&start=1186&end=2153","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e/thumbnail_1186000.jpg","/articles/6177573/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Committee-adopts-capital-equipment-planning-policy-dissent-raises-oversight-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177573-f66dfc3683251cb8b183eb7351057ee7/orig.mp4?Expires=1775408951&Signature=OE-CXLCUrDz1pSt4o0QXIw5l1m5G~6dg8vhuCSvVPYNZSrc08e6Hj4kiGl5zDhp0aomNTfVdf4BZ7Nrfs8siGsqneWTU9O7JmH~BFxfRKiEey4OfyVkeLU5WUO0VFjr49d1McAWXNJzKALEQggPfBinGC-sJRV8HndYnHLc77xw~uIi39aEe8uOW~idsjAG1q0A1snEz3ekfkIj~tUGYTz9nPkg3YN8mSd2YB3BlwatQg~qFbDTQU~9WTt~NOyo3iA~NJ9c6k--GEXGU2sgslZTAuI3liptZJDfw2Kry0LBi6~tK4teqwx4qPDovs1zUOOQY490gIhZ8KfCi8dn55Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shorewood Budget & Finance Committee voted 2–1 to adopt a capital equipment planning and funding policy that establishes an annual levy funding mechanism beginning in fiscal year 2026 and requires a rolling 10‑year equipment replacement schedule aligned with the village’s long‑term financial goals.

The policy clarifies the village’s capital-equipment definition to match existing policy number 6 (items with a useful life of two or more years and a purchase cost of $5,000 or more) and states that funds may be raised through the annual levy unless the board approves borrowing. The motion directs staff to maintain a rolling 10‑year equipment replacement plan and to include the planned levy amounts in future budget materials.

Why it matters: Committee members said the policy is intended to create a transparent, planful way to set aside funds for expensive future equipment — for example, a bucket truck or squad vehicles — rather than making year‑by‑year decisions without a long‑range plan. Staff and supporters said the policy does not delegate purchase authority to staff and that purchases would still require board approval.

Debate and vote: During committee discussion, one trustee voiced concern that routinely setting money aside without strict legal restriction could act as a “slush fund” and reduce the board’s flexibility to respond to other priorities. That trustee also questioned assumptions about useful life and urged stronger “green” and conservation considerations before routine replacement. Supporters responded that the fund would not be legally restricted funds (meaning the board retains the authority to reallocate designated balance) and that annual review of useful lives would be part of the process. The motion to adopt the policy passed 2–1.

Budget implications and clarifications: Staff told the committee that historically the village has levied about $600,000 annually for capital improvements in the capital equipment fund. Staff said the policy is intended to make the village’s fund balance more transparent by documenting the planned uses of capital-equipment fund balances and that large items such as refuse trucks could still be funded either by bonding or by the capital fund depending on future board decisions.

Discussion versus decision: The committee adopted the policy; implementation details, including precise levy amounts for 2026, will be recommended in the budget process. Committee members asked staff to return with a schedule and the recommended 2026 levy amount; staff said the recommendation would reflect historical levy practice unless the board directs otherwise.

Next steps: Staff will finalize a 10‑year replacement schedule, clarify how useful lives will be reviewed annually, and present recommended levy amounts for the board’s 2026 budget deliberations.","Budget & Finance Committee adopted a capital equipment planning and funding policy directing annual levy funding beginning fiscal 2026 and a rolling 10‑year replacement plan; the motion passed 2–1 after debate over oversight, useful-life assumptions and flexibility of set‑asides.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6177578,"Shorewood committee recommends public outreach, delays vendor selection for mobile paid parking",378,141000,519000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e&start=141&end=519","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5335684-c709d28423e61fbdf8dcb5c7b79aec8e/thumbnail_141000.jpg","/articles/6177578/Shorewood/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Shorewood-committee-recommends-public-outreach-delays-vendor-selection-for-mobile-paid-parking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6177578-33c826f33d22cbe9ec2862e197443d39/orig.mp4?Expires=1775408951&Signature=Y91ohSXpo7wMHZ2SULq4qLbLiHPaHjM1CCOMC-Ocpe2ARncXJl2YIjqtbWWLN1p2rw-sJPjSVULQ75MSrDPxzHlw~KKqdmI6Ez6F6EBeorwmigUry8NCqoZGqiPyleOuKoJjboExmOW4~Y0O27k1T90xkKoQeVR2m4tk44fbuTPsKXleUBsEKLrcWI7Fk-iXaPC9jTSFByc650VIvPY2u~-0vWKeYvq7NjvQyiN4N715mcVkjMT6LP3Xdm-7S7E3lOq1GcVGj8bSf6bfWNuLJYP55xUvogGJd89oNOoiRpapKgUR8NDs3XYoQeIysYftgB8jcYLWgDKH7OUqUtsaog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Shorewood Budget & Finance Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the village reject the current proposals for a mobile paid-parking system and conduct expanded public outreach before restarting the procurement process. The committee instructed staff to begin public engagement this year, delay reissuing a request for proposals until mid-2026, and target January 2027 as a potential implementation date if the village later chooses a vendor.

The committee’s recommendation, made by a trustee during the meeting, asked that outreach solicit community feedback on days, hours, hourly rates, transaction fees and time limits and to monitor motorist behavior and financial performance if the program moves forward. The committee also directed staff to allow a buffer for two construction projects — North Oakland Avenue and Lake Drive — that the village expects will change local parking dynamics.

Why it matters: Committee members and staff said they want more local input before changing on-street parking rules and before committing to a vendor and implementation date. Staff warned that added paid parking would increase citation workload and that the village should first explore procedural and technological changes to citation processing so enforcement and office staff can handle additional demand.

Staff told the committee that, using baseline assumptions and a 400-space scenario, the program could generate roughly 8,000 additional citations a year, about a 50% increase over current citation volumes. That estimate drove discussion about how many additional staff hours or outsourcing the village would need for citation processing, collection and customer inquiries. Committee members asked staff to review whether the village’s current AIMS citation/permit software could support mailed citations or other automated processing before a new procurement.

The committee’s recommendation contains a schedule and next steps: restart the mobile-payment procurement in mid-2026, make the RFP more prescriptive based on public input, select a vendor thereafter, and aim for a January 2027 implementation window for on-street and designated municipal-lot spaces in business districts identified in the motion. If the committee or board later directs an RFP, staff said it would be tailored to the information learned during outreach and the construction schedule.

Discussion versus decision: The committee’s vote was a recommendation to the full village board, not a final vendor selection. The committee formally voted to forward its recommendation and to reject the current proposals; it did not award any contract. The committee also asked staff to develop a public-survey instrument and return with findings to inform future procurement steps.

Next steps: Staff will draft outreach questions and return to the committee and then the full board in spring 2026 with public input and a recommended RFP scope if the board wishes to proceed.","Budget & Finance Committee voted 3-0 to reject current proposals and direct community outreach before restarting procurement in mid-2026, targeting January 2027 for possible implementation and asking staff to study citation processing impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee of the Whole begins service‑level review; requests benchmarking and shared‑service analyses

Committee forwards credit card fee policy to board; fee to be set on schedule, not fixed amount

Committee adopts capital equipment planning policy; dissent raises oversight concerns

Shorewood committee recommends public outreach, delays vendor selection for mobile paid parking