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.