The commission’s meeting was marked by initial confusion over Ordinance 2025-01, which proposed adopting a millage rate higher than the rollback rate. The proposed millage rate was set at 9.3 mills per $1,000 of assessed property value, with an increase mistakenly noted as 9.03 percent above the rollback rate. After deliberation, the commission clarified that the actual increase was 10.7 percent. This necessitated a rereading of the ordinance, leading to a unanimous decision to table its vote until after budget discussions were concluded.

Attention then shifted to the budget proposal, which had undergone several revisions before presentation. The proposed budget of $3.2 million aimed to address operational costs, personnel expenses, and capital improvement projects. During budget workshops, adjustments were made, such as removing vehicle expenses from the police budget and verifying departmental needs. These changes were aligned with the village’s strategic goals and fiscal responsibility. The finance director noted a $125,000 savings in operating costs and emphasized improved financial health, with an unassigned fund balance contributing $177,000 and an emergency reserve projected at $2.88 million.

A significant topic was the proposed pay increase for the village attorney, whose firm requested an increase from $99,996 to approximately $175,000. Discussions revealed divided opinions on this matter, with some members advocating for exploring other legal service options through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Others suggested offering a counterproposal of $125,000 to maintain the relationship with the current firm. This debate underscored tensions between valuing established partnerships and maintaining fiscal prudence.

Further discussion addressed public works and parks and recreation budgets. Concerns were raised about traffic data collection and the necessity of an additional full-time position in parks and recreation. The historical underutilization of part-time hours prompted a call for clear job descriptions and performance evaluations before approving new positions. The commission was urged to consider flexibility in budgetary allocations, allowing for mid-year amendments if staffing needs arose.

The police department’s budget was examined, with emphasis on the need for an additional officer to prevent excessive regular budget expenses. The department’s absence of this position risked losing valuable funds, highlighting the critical nature of the issue.

The meeting also covered capital improvement projects, with the manager outlining priorities such as a building roof project tied to grants, a state allocation for infrastructure, and stormwater repairs funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The commission considered potential reallocations if project costs were lower than anticipated, emphasizing the need for flexibility.

Additionally, the commission addressed cybersecurity concerns, proposing $25,000 for a vulnerability assessment to safeguard public data. This was part of a broader discussion on utilizing available funds effectively, with tree planting, website upgrades, and park improvements identified as potential projects.