Urbana council rejects budget coding correction for proposed community engagement station; main omnibus budget passes

The Urbana City Council on Dec. 9 approved a broad budget amendment but voted down a set of five line items that would have reallocated existing budgeted funds to pay for office leasing and supplies for a proposed community engagement station in Southeast Urbana.

The omnibus ordinance revising the annual budget (budget amendment number 2) was moved by Council member Chandra and seconded by Charisse; the council divided the question to separate out the police/community engagement line items for individual consideration. After debate and public comment, the omnibus amendment without the police items passed by unanimous roll call; the five police-related line items failed on a separate roll call, 5 yes to 3 no (a majority of 6 of 8 was required for passage).

What council heard in public input: Residents and community organizations gave mixed testimony. Brian Maxwell, who lives in East Urbana, told the council he opposed the proposed station and said, “I think that this sounds like this is probably just a clerical vote to confirm the money.” He asked the city to consider other uses of the funds and to consult neighborhood residents before proceeding.

Other public commenters urged approval. Giovanna Di Benedetto, executive director of Silver Hearts, described a neighborhood recovery effort that relied on community engagement and asked the council to “vote to fix this so that we can move forward and rebuild Silverwood.” Jeremy Overman, a volunteer with Silver Hearts, said, “A community engagement office of the police would increase the sense of safety among residents of this neighborhood.” Larry Lister, a Ward 2 resident, also supported the office, saying proximity of resources helps build relationships and reduce dangerous rapid responses.

Chief Boone presented the police department’s vision for the space as a community station rather than a traditional substation, describing a mix of community engagement officers, social workers, a bike team and outreach partners. “Envision a space where there's community engagement officers in a building that's called a community station,” he said, and added that the model emphasizes “awareness, intervention, lastly, enforcement.” He also said emphatically, “This isn't about locking people up over policing. This isn't about scaring black folk.”

Council debate and outcome: Council members expressed differing views. Supporters argued the funds in question were already approved in the 2025 budget and that the vote sought merely to correct coding errors so the city could execute the planned program. Opponents sought more written detail and broader community input before reassigning the line items. Council member Jaya pressed for a written program plan and community engagement before additional expenditure on office leasing.

The final roll call on the police-related items recorded five affirmative votes (Council members Wu, Hersey, Bishop, Quisenberry and Mayor Marlin) and three negative votes (Council members Evans, Colosetti and Wilkin), failing to meet the six‑of‑eight threshold required for passage. The larger budget amendment without those items passed 8–0.

What remains: The council retained funding for two outreach positions in the originally approved accounts, but the office leasing and associated supplies were left without the requested re‑coding. Council members and staff said they will continue community outreach and asked the police and grant managers to provide written program details and cost estimates for the community station model.

Provenance: Public testimony from residents and nonprofit leaders and council discussion and roll call votes recorded at the Dec. 9 council meeting.