Cross Plains committee orders financial analysis of EMS options amid cost and governance concerns

The Village of Cross Plains Finance Advisory and Enhancement Committee asked staff to prepare a detailed financial analysis of emergency medical services options, including a worst‑case scenario of operating independently, after an extended discussion about district governance, recent financial irregularities and rising costs.

Committee members spent most of the Feb. 5 meeting examining how the village, which currently pays roughly 60% of the EMS district costs, could respond if other member municipalities reduce participation. The committee did not take a final vote but directed staff to return with spreadsheet analyses and scenario modeling by the spring meeting.

Why it matters: Cross Plains is one of four jurisdictions in the EMS district but contributes a disproportionate share of costs under the population‑based allocation method used by the district. Committee members and staff said the village’s share has driven strain on the local budget and left the village with limited control over budget decisions made at the district level.

Background and discussion: Committee members recounted two catalysts for re‑examining the district arrangement. First, the village experienced a steep budget increase in the district budget two years ago (discussed by committee members as an 89% jump in one year). Second, a former EMS chief was prosecuted after municipal review found payroll and other irregularities; insurance recovered most of the money the committee said was stolen. That internal case and the district’s budget trajectory prompted a village proposal — previously offered to the district membership — to move purchasing, payroll and budgeting responsibilities for EMS under village administration while leaving operational and policy powers with the district board. Only one partner municipality accepted that offer at the time, committee members said.

Committee members discussed four scenarios to be modeled in the requested analysis: - A: Cross Plains operates EMS independently and provides service for all current residents (worst‑case, village‑only revenue). - B: Cross Plains operates EMS and contracts to provide service to one or more neighboring towns (shared revenue model). - C: Current district structure remains but Cross Plains takes administrative control of purchasing/payroll/budgeting while the district retains policy authority (the earlier proposed hybrid). - D: All four jurisdictions remain together and keep current governance (status quo with operational changes).

Members emphasized analyses should show dollar impacts, not just percentages, and should model the revenue side (current ambulance‑billing revenue cited at about $240,000 annually) and the effect if one or more municipalities withdraw. Committee members also requested line‑by‑line review of day‑to‑day operating costs (payroll, benefits, workers’ compensation, supplies, LTE pay and overtime), and a projection of when call volumes would require a second ambulance. The committee asked that the analysis be ready for review by the regular spring meeting; one member volunteered to compile a spreadsheet and another to analyze possible western partners (District 1, Black Earth, Mazomanie/“Mazel” references).

Operational context and constraints: The committee cited contractual timing constraints: the current district contract language (discussed as a five‑year agreement that lapsed in 2022) would, under the committee’s interpretation, require notice by Dec. 1 two years before the end of the next five‑year term if a jurisdiction intends to withdraw. For planning purposes the committee treated 2027 as the expiration of a hypothetical renewed five‑year contract and identified December 2025 as a practical deadline to notify partners if the village chooses to pursue independence.

Concerns and risk: Committee members identified several risks to an independent or village‑operated EMS service: higher per‑unit costs if other jurisdictions leave; potential short‑term budget increases to absorb payroll and benefits; and the administrative burden of adding payroll and other functions to village staff. Members also described potential advantages: tighter financial controls (they argued payroll and purchasing under village oversight would have reduced past embezzlement risk), greater ability to manage overtime and staffing policies, and opportunities to pursue state and county consolidation grants if Cross Plains pursues regional mergers with neighboring jurisdictions.

Next steps: The committee directed staff and volunteers to produce a scenario analysis showing dollar impacts for the village under the models above; to identify grant programs that might subsidize consolidation or expansion; and to inspect billing and operational numbers (call volumes, ambulance mileage revenue, LTE costs and benefits) needed to estimate staffing thresholds. Members agreed to share draft materials before the next full meeting and to report back publicly to the district and to neighboring municipalities as part of a transparent process.

Ending: The committee left the item open for further study and scheduled staff follow‑up; no formal change to district governance was adopted at the meeting.