Villa Park trustees continue detailed discussion of paid parental leave; no policy adopted

The Village of Villa Park Board of Trustees spent more than an hour May 19 continuing an in‑depth discussion about a proposed paid parental leave policy, reviewing options ranging from six to 12 weeks of paid time, distinctions between parental and paid family leave, and the differing benefits available to employees covered by the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF).

Board members and staff described the matter as largely policy design rather than a single statutory requirement. A staff presenter told the board that "that bill provides firefighters with 6 weeks of paid family leave," referencing HB 3908 as context for design choices; the presenter also warned that projected costs are variable and depend on temporary-staffing and overtime needs.

Why this matters: Trustees said paid parental leave could affect recruitment and retention, create new budget liabilities, and raise equity questions between different classes of employees. Several trustees pressed for more precise financial estimates and for comparisons with neighboring municipalities before voting on any policy.

Trustees and staff discussed three major decision areas: the length of paid leave to offer (presenter framed six weeks as a baseline and 12 as a possible maximum), whether to limit paid leave to birth/adoption (parental leave) or broaden it to cover other qualifying medical and family needs (paid family leave), and how to treat employees who are and are not covered by IMRF.

Staff presented several clarifying details to the trustees: IMRF short‑term disability generally has a four‑week unpaid waiting period followed by six weeks paid for a typical birth and eight weeks for a cesarean at two‑thirds of salary; employees not in IMRF typically rely on leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and accrued paid time off. Using an example of two employees out on leave, the presenter estimated temporary‑staffing costs would be about $34,310 to cover their shifts while they were absent. The presenter said roughly "60 employees" work outside IMRF (another board member later said 70), and that differences between IMRF and non‑IMRF benefits complicate a one‑size‑fits‑all approach.

Legal constraints were raised by Village Attorney Wolf, who cautioned that "the mother versus father component of the leave may . . . have some limitations because of discrimination elements or disparate treatment based upon a different class." Wolf advised the board that any policy should apply equally to parents to avoid disparate‑treatment claims, although the board could craft other permissible distinctions (for example, how spouses employed by the same municipal employer split leave).

Trustees asked staff to return with additional materials, including: a side‑by‑side comparison of options (6 weeks vs. 12 weeks), a days‑lost and cost estimate expressed in days (so trustees could assess budget impact without needing per‑employee wage detail), the number of positions that could perform part‑time or remote work as a phased return, examples of how surrounding municipalities (and union contracts) handle leave, and clarified counts of IMRF vs. non‑IMRF employees. Trustee comments included requests to consider phased returns to work (half days or temporary reduced schedules), how health‑insurance premiums would be handled during leave, and whether the village could require a period of service after receiving paid leave (reimbursement if an employee left soon after a paid leave period).

Board direction and next step: Trustees agreed to continue the issue as unfinished business and asked staff to prepare the requested analyses. The board chair asked members to forward additional questions by email so staff could prepare more focused answers for a future meeting.

No formal motion or final vote was taken on a leave policy during the May 19 meeting.