Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saint Charles adopts FY2025–26 budget, capital plan and approves USDA signatory resolution
Summary
The Village of Saint Charles on March 2025 approved its fiscal year 2025–26 budget, adopted an updated six‑year capital improvement plan and authorized a resolution to proceed with a USDA Rural Development application tied to a roughly $1 million congressional appropriation.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance Budgeting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Village of Saint Charles on March 2025 approved its fiscal year 2025–26 budget and related financial measures, adopted a six-year capital improvement plan and authorized a resolution required to pursue a USDA Rural Development (RD) loan/grant tied to a roughly $1 million congressional appropriation.
The council held a truth-in-taxation public hearing before votes. Village staff said the combined levy in the proposed budget totals 15 mills — a 12.8029 mill base plus a 2.1971 road millage — and described a one-time increase in fund balance driven largely by grant receipts and upcoming bond payments.
Why it matters: The adopted budget finances a multi‑year water improvement program that will raise near‑term spending and debt service while relying on state and federal grants and a congressional appropriation. The village manager and staff said roughly $350,000 of the fund balance will be used for bond payments on a $5.2 million water project and $250,000 is reserved to meet a 25% local match tied to the congressional appropriation. Council members and several residents debated competitiveness of the tax rate and the village’s long-term revenue position during public comment.
Council members approved the budget and the related capital plan and RD signatory resolution by roll call votes. The finance presentation noted that constitutional revenue sharing and other state receipts have fallen or grown more slowly than inflation, that the village’s general fund balance will temporarily increase because of grants, and that bond payments will raise ongoing debt service in coming years.
Public comment at the hearing included concerns about the tax rate and local competitiveness. One resident said, “Why aren't you competitive? That 15 mills does not make us competitive.” Village staff responded with historical context for the levy and explained that some local road millage is scheduled to fall off in 2036.
The council also adopted an updated six‑year capital improvement plan (CIP) to guide spending on water, sewer, parks and public safety equipment, and discussed plans to use grant funding to avoid raising user rates where possible.
Votes at a glance - Resolution 25‑6, Fiscal year 2025–26 budget approval — Motion approved by roll call (Paul Jenderski: No; Jamie Kendall: Yes; Michael Nesbitt: Yes; Edgar Titoff: Yes; Cathy Harris: Yes; Darcy McSwain: Yes; Jennifer Rosser Nesbitt: Yes). Outcome: approved. Notes: Budget documents show increased fund balance driven by grants; $350,000 earmarked for bond payments on water project; $250,000 held as local match for a congressional appropriation.
- Resolution 25‑5, FY2024–25 budget amendment — Motion approved by roll call (members recorded in roll call as voting yes; outcome: approved). Notes: Amendment reflects updated property tax receipts and unpaid delinquencies; staff reported $54,211 in unpaid property taxes being handled via the county delinquent tax process.
- Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) adoption (motion to approve CIP covering FY2025–FY2031) — Outcome: approved by roll call. Notes: CIP lists bond payments for phase 1 and phase 2 water projects and planned equipment purchases; staff characterized the CIP as a planning guide rather than an immediate spending authorization.
- Resolution 25‑7, authorization to sign USDA Rural Development application and related documents — Outcome: approved by roll call (Paul Jenderski recorded voting No; remaining council members recorded voting Yes). Notes: Staff said the RD application is tied to a federal appropriation and requires a 25% local match; RD funds are subject to federal rules and permitting (EGLE) prior to disbursement.
Council members and staff indicated they will continue outreach and monitoring of grant and revenue projections, and that the village will seek to rely on grant funding where possible to limit increases to local tax and ratepayers.
Ending The council approved the budget package and associated plans after the public hearing and set the village on the schedule for water project permitting and grant match planning. Staff said they will return with updates as permitting, grant awards and project sequencing progress.

