Verona presents proposed 2026 budget that meets levy limit; council told to expect modest personnel and capital investments

City Administrator Brian Ollick presented Verona’s proposed 2026 budget to the Common Council on Oct. 27, saying the plan meets the municipal levy limit and aims to balance growth pressures and service levels. “We’re up to 16,796,” Ollick said of the city’s population, and noted net new construction of about $230,000,000 in the past year that underpins new tax revenue and long‑term growth.

The proposal sets the allowable levy at $17,341,719, a roughly $795,000 increase the city can adopt under state levy rules, Ollick said. The budget would apply approximately $2.2 million of 2024 year‑end fund balance toward one‑time capital items — primarily street and sidewalk pavement rehabilitation — to reduce reliance on borrowing. Ollick also highlighted an implementation of a compensation study for non‑represented positions and targeted staffing additions in police, public works, building inspection and recreation.

Why it matters: Verona is growing rapidly, Ollick told the council, creating sustained demand for infrastructure and services. The presentation framed the budget as an attempt to keep the city’s services and bond rating healthy while absorbing cost pressures such as rising health‑insurance premiums and retirement contributions. Ollick cited health insurance increases of roughly 9.25% for general employees and 11.17% for police as key operating pressures.

Key numbers cited by staff include a proposed municipal levy of $17,341,719; net new construction of about $230 million; and a general fund share of approximately $7.3 million (about 42% of direct levy allocations). Ollick said debt service payments next year are projected in the neighborhood of $5 million in principal with additional interest; the staff presentation also noted the city is keeping its general obligation debt conservatively below the state guideline.

Council next steps: Staff reminded alderpersons that written budget amendments are due Nov. 6 and that a public hearing and possible action on the budget and levy are scheduled for the Nov. 10 council meeting. Ollick invited council members to consult finance staff in drafting any amendments, which must be budget‑neutral.

Ollick closed by urging council members to ask questions offline if more technical details were needed before the next hearing. The council did not take a final vote on the budget at the Oct. 27 meeting; the public hearing and adoption timeline remains as outlined by staff.