2026 Bad News Budget Bloaters

   I have complained at Board meetings since July about the budget secrecy and the fact that the public and the Village Board have been locked out of budget development.

Dave Baker personally caused this when he set up this closed procedure for the budget development to be driven at private meetings by staff wants, needs, and desires, while refusing to allow the transparency of committee open meeting discussions or trustee involvement. I was the lone voice on the board, and unfortunately, the inexperience of the other board members perhaps inadvertently, caused them to follow the lead of Baker and Jacobs.

Both Dave Baker and John Jacobs assured us that it would be a TIGHT BUDGET, but that it would still replace and provide the usual funds for capital road projects. I took a "we'll see" attitude, since I had no other support from the Board to do anything else. I did warn some people that I talked to that I expected a nasty "October surprise" and sure enough we got it.

   They had the Board approve a switch to a "cost center" system which allows for much more shuffling around of funds after the budget is approved. I pointed out that this would lead to more spending without Board awareness or approval, but was told, as I recall, that this would be a "tight budget" that would not allow for much if any excess funds to be spent.   Looking at the current budget that does not appear to be true. 

Plain and simple - I think this budget is a disaster of overspending even though some departments like Public Works are reasonable. I think that unless it is modified, it will be a turning point to a future of significantly higher taxes.

The reason given for the bloated budget is that there was a sudden discovery of a $250,000 shortfall in revenues for 2025. Even if we take this story at face value, it does not justify the excessive spending and projected borrowing plan that far outweighs the $250K. 

We have $400,000 missing from the Capital Projects Fund that should have been there, once again hitting up Public Works in order to fund other less efficient departments.

   There is  $90,000 cash taken from undesignated funds for use in balancing this budget overall, To me, a "balanced budget" is where the new revenues from that year will cover the expenditures of that year. Taking cash on hand from previous years and adding it as "revenue" to the current budget, by definition is deficit spending, not a "balanced budget".

    $800,000 for a "wants and desires" 4-bay garage, of which at least $530,000 of which is slated to be borrowed, even though it doesn't look like that in the budget. The Capital Improvements fund shows $900K at the beginning of the year, but over $700,000  of that is already earmarked for another project that is in the works. 

   Additionally $2-3,000,000 in borrowing for road projects. This apparently is because of a lack of fiscal discipline, in that every time a few hundred thousand is saved up for Capital projects, someone seems to find some other use for it. The revenue due to that fund should be $400,000 for 2025, but instead is at $0.

   Projects must be discussed and at least gain some amount of approval before they are put in the budget. Last minute pushes for items like these are not sound policy. I know from experience that once something is budgeted for, it is 80% in the bag for project approval later. The psychology is "Oh well, it's already budgeted, so we might as well approve it."  

Every department budget is increased in this so-called "tight budget" that has "loose money" built into it. Some departments are up significantly. This padding essentially creates a "slush fund" that can be spent without Board approval or awareness. 

    The police budget has been increasing by leaps and bounds - from $940K in 2022, to $1,740,000 in this budget. This is an 85% increase in 4 years. Keeping this under control is the trustee's job. It is not a matter of "defunding the police", as it is a matter of shoeing the fattest hog away from the trough and at least leave a little money for infrastructure and other priorities.

   Law enforcement is one thing, excessive law enforcement creates its own problems when too many hammers are looking for anything that might be construed as a nail. Rib Mountain with about 15% less people but lots of businesses, has a police cost about one third of Kronenwetter's. 

Compare the 85% growth in the police budget to Public Works,  which has effectively maintained Village infrastructure with only a 2.5 - 3% per year increase. 11% overall increase since 2022.

Municipal Court fund up from $58K to $84K in this budget alone. 

It was apparent to me that "the fix was in" on this budget, and that the only reason for all the budget secrecy, was to get away with something that they would not have gotten away with if transparency and public involvement had existed in this process from the beginning.

The behavior of the police in this regard was particularly troubling. They sprung their $800,000 "want" of 2 new officers, an additional SUV (2 total for this budget) and a part of the new garage, all at the last minute at the APC budget presentation. It was inserted into the budget with inadequate investigation, because at least one committee member was lobbied beforehand at a private meeting with the chief. Such discussions should be held in open forums not private meetings. 

APC went ahead with this because of the last-minute urgency that had been created by withholding the budge and the police want list for so long. A new expenditure this huge should have, without a doubt, gone to CLIPP committee for review, research, discussion, or any substantial information, as is required by Village ordinance, and then gone to the Board well ahead of the budget meetings.

   APC and the Board accepted a hard sell based solely on skewed, misleading, and irrelevant statistics, and a good sales pitch. No objective investigation or questions involved.

    Interestingly,  before the budget meetings, someone orchestrated a letter-writing campaign to the Village Board, all with glowing, gushing support for these police expenditures. Then a group of supporters stacked the meeting room.

    All this was arranged and done with insider knowledge, before the vast majority of the public even knew what was in the budget or that the special budget meeting was being held.

What was actually needed or not needed by the police is not the issue here. That is a matter that should have been discussed and approved weeks ago under normal circumstances.

   The real, more concerning issue is what I'll call the textbook play of  hard-sell, prearranged, underhanded tactics that took place here to ramrod approval of this expenditure past a Village Board, most of which were doing their first budget. 

   No one can tell me that the Chief just suddenly realized at the last minute that he wanted/needed these things and then quickly went to APC with "oh gee, I forgot to tell you..."

 . It is plain to me that this was all a planned operation to manipulate approval to get what they wanted without effective pubic representative review.

The lack of above-board transparency underscores the perception of disrespect for taxpayers, who are always the last to know, and serves to undermine trust and denigrate the integrity of a representative government.

    On top of that, it was all largely unnecessary as approval through the proper channels was reasonably likely anyway. 

It is interesting to me how the Board wanted a $2200 survey "to seek the will of the people" before they would consider eliminating a known neurotoxin from the Village drinking water (they voted to leave it in), but were completely content to basically bypass the public and  saddle the people with an ongoing additional annual expenditure of about a quarter million dollars, whether the people wanted it or not.

Treasurer Jacobs published the budget as it stood Wednesday night. He said now is the time for public input on it. He says that the Board can still make changes to the budget based on public input, and that any changes beyond that can still be made right up to the Board's approval of the budget. He says that these changes can include any cuts or other spending that might be suggested, and it might even include additional increases in the tax levy if the Board chooses to do so.

My observation is that the treasurer and former President Baker have kick-started a drive to have Village policy shift from a balanced budget and reduced debt which have both been part of the Village Strategic Plan for years,  to a tax/borrow/spend mentality such as Weston or Wausau. How is that working out for their tax rate?

   The lure of easy money now, via borrowing, does not reveal the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be paid in interest rather than spent within the Village to its benefit, as a disciplined, conservative spending policy would have it.

 Unfortunately the new Board has thus far been following that lead of staff as a substitute for what the Board themselves should be doing, and that is thinking, considering the consequences, and standing up for what is best for the future, not for what is convenient now.

    Whether or not any of them realize how any upcoming pro-spending, pro-debt decisions on the table will negatively affect the Village for years to come, I don't know.

Given these facts, and certain special interests bending trustees' ears, don't be surprised if we get a "November Surprise" of even more spending in this budget as well.