Campton Hills trustees debate FY2025–26 budget, reserves and police grant assumptions

Campton Hills trustees spent much of their April 29 meeting working line-by-line through the proposed fiscal 2025–26 municipal budget, debating whether to book speculative state grants, how much of the village’s cash reserves to move into a restricted account for a multi-road project, and how to reflect police staffing costs if a large state recruitment/retention grant is not awarded.

The discussion matters because it determines how much the village will rely on one-time reserves and uncertain grant revenue to pay for operations and capital projects in the coming year. Trustees and staff repeatedly returned to a $140,000 downward revision in state revenue projections and to a previously discussed $600,000 transfer from unrestricted cash reserves to a restricted account to cover the village’s share of a roughly $4 million roads program.

Treasurer Tim, who presented the numbers to the board, said the document before trustees was “kind of our third version of the budget,” and explained the $140,000 change resulted from using different Illinois Department of Revenue projection releases. He summarized the choices the board faces: accept a deficit and use reserves, make additional spending cuts, or change the timing of the transfer that funds the village’s road cost share.

Trustees reviewed specific line items in detail. They agreed to revise the sales-tax projection upward to $427,623 on the basis of actuals paid so far, and to increase the video-gaming projection to about $35,000 reflecting two active establishments. Building-permit revenue was left at $100,000 after trustees discussed historic permit activity. On several smaller revenue lines (cable/telecom-related receipts) trustees agreed to reduce projections to reflect industry trends toward streaming.

Police department grant prospects were a major focus of the budget debate. Chief LeVand told trustees the village has applied for multiple grants, including a body-camera storage grant from the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (ILETSB) and a larger recruitment/retention grant that could cover two officers’ salaries and benefits for up to two years. LeVand said he was “extremely confident” of at least a partial award on the body-camera storage grant and that the retention/recruitment grant had promise but was not guaranteed. Trustees discussed whether to budget for the full grant amounts (which would substantially improve the budget picture) or to take a conservative approach and amend the budget later if grant dollars are actually awarded.

Trustees also revisited a prior decision to set aside $600,000 in cash reserves to cover the village’s $1.1 million share of the five-figure-per-road cost for the upcoming four-road project this summer. Staff explained an alternative used in prior years—to combine two years of Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) receipts—would reduce the one-year draw on cash reserves to roughly $200,000; the board did not finalize which approach it will confirm in the ordinance.

On personnel and operating expenses, trustees discussed a previously budgeted target of 10 full-time police officers, departures that left the department short of that target, and whether to delay hiring a tenth officer until after any retention/recruitment grant is awarded. Trustees noted that even with grant revenue the village would still show significant police-related expenses and that payroll and benefits estimates should be closely tracked.

Several trustees urged conservative assumptions for budgeting revenue lines that depend on external factors; others recommended budgeting expected grant revenue and amending the budget later if awards do not materialize. Treasurer Tim and staff said they can prepare a supporting schedule for any grant revenue the board prefers to include and that budget amendments remain an option after award letters arrive.

No final roll call vote on Ordinance 25-10 (the FY2025–26 annual municipal budget) is recorded in the transcript excerpt provided to the clerk; trustees continued the detailed line-by-line deliberations after a motion to approve the ordinance was moved and seconded.

The board also agreed to several operating-line edits suggested during the meeting: trimming some board/trustee travel and dues lines to better reflect recent actuals, reducing driveway/access fee projections to $6,000, and removing a proposed $22,000 intern position (the board discussed alternatives for covering grant-administration duties). The trustees asked staff to return a revised budget packet that shows the choices discussed and supporting schedules for any grant revenue the board wants included.