Roscoe staff outlines FY2025 operating and capital budgets, demos ClearGov portal

Village of Roscoe staff presented the draft fiscal year 2025 operating and capital budgets at the Jan. 21 Board of Trustees meeting and demonstrated the ClearGov online budget portal trustees will use to review departmental detail.

Staff framed the session as the board’s “big first discussion about budgets and operational budgets,” and walked trustees through how the village consolidated multiple legacy account numbers into standardized account objects, how to use ClearGov to comment on specific line items and view attachments, and the high-level capital spending capacity staff expects to draw from general and capital fund balances.

The presentation aimed to make the village’s accounting and budget detail easier to review. A staff member described the work as consolidating “multiple different account numbers, multiple ways of tracking budgets,” so the village now groups expenses into standard objects (salaries, benefits, contracted services, etc.) that can be viewed by department or by object in ClearGov. The presenter said trustees will be able to add comments on specific line items that route to staff and department heads and that many backup documents and vendor quotes are attached to capital-project entries.

Why this matters: staff said the village will continue to use year-to-date worksheets for planning while moving toward the ClearGov system for public transparency and trustee review. The portal allows the board to filter by department or object, view attachments such as vendor quotes, and leave questions that staff will answer before future meetings.

Key budget figures and reserves: staff said the packet shows total non‑capital operating expenditures in the general fund and related object categories and identified the village’s fund‑balance reserve policy as a constraint on how much can be used for capital. In the presentation staff cited an ending general fund balance of about $5.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2024, and said roughly $2.6 million of that was currently spendable without breaching the reserve (figures presented by staff in the meeting). Staff also reported a capital‑projects fund balance of about $1.4 million; combining that with the $2.6 million listed as spendable produced a working estimate of about $3.7 million available to commit to capital projects in 2025. Staff noted the packet and portal list larger totals of project requests, and that the $3.7 million is the staff estimate of what can reasonably be drawn down this year.

Staff cautioned trustees that some large liabilities and debt service items may not be visible in the single‑page summaries and said they would provide a deeper line‑by‑line reconciliation in coming weeks. Trustees asked for additional drill‑downs on how accounts map to objects and for tutorials on using ClearGov; staff agreed to deliver training sessions and in‑person walkthroughs.

Operational highlights discussed: department leads summarized planned operational expenses and notable items included vehicle leasing for public works and police (staff said the village currently uses a leased fleet), ongoing maintenance and small capital for parks and public works (examples: resurfacing and crack repairs for Leland Park courts; shingling and repairs for park pavilions), and planned purchases such as enclosed trailers for Public Works to address storage shortfalls.

Public safety and Axon contracts: police-related costs and training were covered as part of the operational review. Staff said recurring contracted services to Axon (body cameras, TASERs, fleet cameras, evidence cloud storage and related services) are a material line item, where cloud storage and evidence management account for most of the recurring cost. Staff said body cameras are replaced on a multi‑year cadence under contract and that Axon contract documents and quotes are attached in ClearGov for trustee review. The police budget line also includes training (academy and state‑mandated minimum standards) and an overtime/special‑events allocation; staff noted state reimbursements for academy costs are not guaranteed.

Capital pipeline and ClearGov scenario planning: staff demonstrated ClearGov’s capital dashboard, which shows all project requests, attachments and “scenarios” that let trustees toggle priorities. The demonstration highlighted three projects staff said are effectively committed (a developer‑related street/parking project, Hodges Run development obligations, and Porter Park Phase 2) and noted committed and priority lists together exceed available spendable capital. Staff encouraged trustees to review the attachments and to use ClearGov comments to flag items for more detail.

Next steps: trustees requested targeted training on ClearGov (in‑person and remote options) and asked staff to return with reconciled line‑by‑line worksheets and capital‑project pricing. Staff said they would provide follow‑up materials and schedule trainings before the board finalizes the budget.

Ending: trustees did not finalize any budget votes at the Jan. 21 meeting; staff will return with additional detail and training opportunities before the board’s deliberations and any adoption vote.