Villa Park trustees postpone paid parental-leave policy after budget and implementation questions

Trustees for the Village of Villa Park voted on April 28 to postpone consideration of a proposed paid parental-leave policy (agenda item 13F) indefinitely, after residents and several trustees pressed for more detail on costs, funding sources and eligibility rules.

The board’s action followed public comment from residents and an extended staff presentation exploring cost scenarios and administrative implications. Acting Assistant Village Manager Elizabeth “Liz” Scott, who drafted the proposal, said staff used the village’s leave records from the last three years to model the budget effects of options such as eight weeks or 12 weeks of paid leave and noted the policy as drafted would take effect May 1, 2025 if adopted.

The debate centered on where the village would find recurring funds and how the policy would interact with existing paid-time-off banks and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Resident Christine Murphy said the draft is a “wonderful and perfect start” but asked how the village would pay for it and suggested integrating the benefit into next year’s budget because the board had already approved the current budget. Resident Tina Constatos raised concerns about whether the staff estimate for direct wage costs — cited during public comment as about $85,000 — accurately reflected how employees actually draw from PTO while on leave.

Scott told the board her cost model separated direct wage costs from payroll-related expenses, temporary-staffing estimates and the accounting liability for accrued vacation or sick leave that could be paid out if an employee later separates from service. Scott said the draft policy was built to limit potential extensions of total leave by restricting how the new paid leave could stack with other PTO.

Trustees and staff discussed whether the policy should be retroactive for employees who already took parental leave earlier in the year, and whether union contracts would require additional bargaining. Village Attorney Wolf said collective-bargaining units typically have "me too" clauses; the village would notify unions of the new policy and the unions could request bargaining over terms.

Trustee discussion emphasized the fiscal and policy trade-offs. Trustee Josie O'Fano and Trustee O’Farrell both urged delay so trustees could vet the policy more fully. Trustee Patrick and Trustee Kumar backed requiring comparison data and recommended retroactivity be considered if a policy is adopted.

After discussion the board approved a motion to postpone consideration of item 13F indefinitely so staff can return with additional analysis. The board also directed that the Committee of the Whole scheduled for May 19 include further discussion of paid parental leave (and a separate discussion on railroad grade-separation issues). Manager Hartline said the board could make any approved policy retroactive if it chose to do so.

Why it matters: The draft policy would create an employer-paid parental benefit for eligible village employees, an added recurring cost to the village budget and a change to benefits that could affect retention and payroll liabilities. Trustees said they wanted clearer revenue and liability estimates before adopting a permanent policy.

What’s next: The item was postponed indefinitely; staff will prepare additional comparisons, cost breakdowns and options for committee-level review ahead of a future board decision. The board directed that Committee of the Whole discussion on the topic be scheduled for May 19.