The council examined the proposed millage rate of 6.4595, a 60% increase over the rollback rate of 5.9479 mills. The village manager presented the budget details, explaining that the millage increase aimed to cover rising operational costs, particularly in parks and mobility. A summary provided by Jeff Snider highlighted that the budget served as a management guide. The budget process began in February, followed by workshops in June and July, culminating in this first budget hearing. Taxes are set to increase by 9.56% in taxable value, primarily due to new construction and property sales.

The discussion also covered the limitations imposed by the Save Our Homes exemption, restricting homestead property tax increases to the lower of the consumer price index or 3%, with a 10% cap on non-homestead properties. The proposed salary increases for village employees included an 11% raise for police officers and a 4% increase for non-represented employees and CWA staff. The general fund expenditures were estimated at $19.5 million, with wages and benefits comprising a portion.

Council members discussed the implications of ongoing salary negotiations and potential funding sources. One council member raised concerns about sourcing funds for salary agreements. This led to a debate on the council’s discretion in budget adjustments and the possibility of drawing from the vehicle replacement fund instead of the park funds.

Another council member praised the finance staff for maintaining a competitive millage rate compared to surrounding municipalities. The conversation then shifted to specific projects, including the Bridge concentrate disposal and a vehicle for the damage assessment team. Questions arose about funding and timelines, particularly regarding the vehicle replacement fund and its impact on the general fund or departmental funds, such as the building department fund.

The need to confirm budget allocations for various projects, including a generator project, was addressed. Adequate funding was reported to be secured for all planned projects, alleviating concerns about potential shortfalls. The council delved into details of the capital improvement plans, with significant allocations for water utility projects and improvements to local parks and infrastructure.

The meeting also focused on the Desta Park Improvement and Remembrance Park’s development phases. The initial budget for Desta Park Improvement was projected at $931,000, with a consultant, Kimley Horn, engaged for designs. The anticipated costs might come in lower at around $758,000, with $340,000 sourced from state appropriations and an additional $250,000 from other funds, predominantly the 301 fund, separate from the general fund revenue.

Consideration was given to the planning of Remembrance Park’s second phase. Completing the first phase could provide insights influencing adjustments in the second phase’s planning. The sunsetting of the 301 fund was a concern, prompting deliberation on delaying certain expenditures. The council agreed that while the second phase is included in the strategic plan, it might be prudent to defer some planning expenses until after the first phase’s completion to avoid redundant expenditures.

Further discussions turned to a transportation plan with a budget of $125,000. The council anticipated receiving a $50,000 grant from the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA) to support this initiative. Appreciation was expressed for the staff’s efforts in securing additional funding, recognizing the grant’s significance in addressing community mobility issues.

The administrative charge associated with the recent rate increase in refuse and recycling services was also discussed. There was a suggestion to establish a policy to clarify how these funds could be utilized, with an agreement to consider this proposal in future workshops.