Cross Plains trustees press staff to cut $50,000, debate water meter replacements and interest allocation in 2026 budget review

President Langdon opened the Nov. 10, 2025 Village of Cross Plains Board of Trustees meeting by reviewing the board's 11 budget goals and the levy/mill-rate context for 2026, saying the board would not take final action at that meeting but needed direction. Langdon emphasized the village's operating-budget target of a 3% increase and said staff's current package would need about $50,000 in reductions to meet that goal.

Why it matters: The trustees said staying within the levy limit matters because exceeding it can change the practical tax impact on residents and affect eligibility for an EMS levy exception the board has previously used. Langdon said the board's materials show a levy figure presented as roughly $3.0 million and a projected mill rate increase from about 8.97 to about 9.36 absent changes; to reach the 3% target the board would need roughly $50,000 in cuts.

Key budget items discussed

- Recycling fee: Staff said the village's switch to bin-service pickup extended the solid-waste contract through 2028 and introduces an increased recycling cost (presented as roughly an extra quarter per household per month). Trustee Michael suggested the village could consider adding recycling as a separate line item on property tax bills the way Middleton does; trustees asked staff to research administrability and the levy-limit implications.

- Library automation maintenance: Library staff requested a supplemental appropriation to reinstate a building-automation maintenance agreement that expired in 2023. The supplemental request is about $4,001.50. Langdon noted the library fund showed a surplus in the presented materials (about $15,950) and asked whether the library could use that balance rather than request additional tax funding. Library staff acknowledged past timing and vendor turnover increased the quote.

- Water cross-connection inspections: Trustees reviewed a contract to perform cross-connection inspections, which staff said is an ongoing water-revenue expense rather than a tax-levy item. Board members discussed whether the village has ordinance authority to charge businesses directly and the administrative burden of tracking and billing third-party businesses; trustees asked staff to examine fee options.

- Meter replacement program: Staff reported the village's last major meter swap was in the mid-1990s and that roughly 950 of about 1,700 meters are that vintage. Trustee discussion referenced Public Service Commission guidance calling for roughly 20-year replacement cycles; trustees expressed concern about utility cash flow if the village accelerates replacement and proposed phasing the program (examples discussed included initial batches of 100 or 160 meters). Staff said a phased approach with two days per week of dedicated crew time was feasible and that new meters could enable tower-read capability and customer alerts.

- Dual meters, appeals and billing policy: A public participant, Paul Ortiz, urged the board to inform new developments (Marchstone) about the option of dual meters to reduce sewer charges for irrigation. Trustees discussed the village's $25 per-bill appeal process, whether habitual appeals could be abused, and whether a policy or ordinance should limit repeat annual appeals; staff agreed to review existing policy language.

- Interest income allocation: Trustee Michael and others raised that pooled interest income presented in budget materials (a combined number reported as about $275,000) is generated by balances across many funds but currently flows to the general fund in the village's consolidated accounting. They asked staff to explore a policy to allocate interest earnings back to the specific funds (library, parks, utilities), noting that implementing such allocation would materially lower general-fund interest receipts and change the revenue picture used for the 2026 operating plan.

Savings ideas and operating lines

Langdon walked trustees through operating increases driving the budget (police contract +$13,003.25; a COLA increase presented as about $23,001.28; longevity increases ~ $25,009.90) and proposed several savings levers, including eliminating a long-standing $20,000 contingency line in the general fund. Trustees also discussed trimming health-insurance assumptions to reflect actual enrollment and using mid-year budget amendments or contingency transfers if coverage changes occurred.

Board direction and next steps

Langdon said staff (Carly, Bobby and finance staff) should reconcile the items discussed and return in two weeks with updated supplemental and operating numbers so trustees could take final action. "We're not gonna be able to take action tonight; it's just discussion," Langdon said, asking staff to bring back a smoother package at the next meeting. A motion to adjourn was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

Attributions: Quotes and paraphrases above are taken from statements made during the meeting by President Langdon, Trustee Michael, library staff and other trustees as recorded in the meeting transcript. Where the transcript used only a first name (for example, "Michael"), the article labels those speakers with the name used at the meeting.

What remains unresolved: The board did not adopt any budget amendments at the Nov. 10 meeting. Staff will return with revised budget options addressing the levy/mill-rate trade-offs, the library supplemental funding source, meter-replacement phasing, possible recycling-fee administration, and an interest-allocation proposal at the next board meeting.