Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lockport council holds budget hearing and debates whether to capture new property-growth and CPI in levy
Summary
At a public hearing covering the draft 2026 budget, Lockport officials discussed a $92 million revenue plan, a $94 million expense projection and a proposed $8.096 million levy that includes CPI and $14 million in estimated new growth. Council debated a one-year freeze on capturing new growth, but the mayor said the levy will remain as proposed and will be voted on in December.
The Lockport City Council opened a public hearing on the proposed 2026 budget and heard a summary from finance staff before a long council debate over whether to capture new property growth and include a cost-of-living adjustment in the levy.
Lisa (city finance staff) told the council the city’s proposed budget shows $92,000,000 in revenues and $94,000,000 in expenses, with a planned use of $2,800,000 from excess reserves and a budgeted surplus of $901,300. Lisa said the city plans to use an IEPA loan of $29,000,000 toward the wastewater treatment plant and that capital construction and equipment make up roughly 57% of the $94 million in expenses.
Most of the meeting’s substantive debate focused on the property tax levy. Lisa explained the mechanics: the draft levy amount is $8,096,500, which includes a 2.9% CPI adjustment and an estimated $14,000,000 in new growth from recent development (Oak Valley subdivision, Port Apartments, Panda Express, Scooter’s, 7 Brew and similar projects). That new growth is projected to generate roughly $92,000 in additional tax revenue for the city’s levy.
Council member Steve proposed a one-year pause on capturing new growth (and/or foregoing the CPI increase) so residents would see no added city portion on their tax bills. Steve said that, in his view, a symbolic step to hold the city’s portion flat would offer relief to taxpayers feeling inflationary pressures.
Other council members and staff countered that the combined CPI and new-growth capture amount — about $280,000 in potential additional revenue in 2026 under the proposed levy — is earmarked for long-deferred capital work, stormwater remediation and pension obligations. Several members argued that delaying capture would reduce the city’s ability to address infrastructure needs now and could increase costs later because of inflation.
Council member Darren and others highlighted past investments and the 10–11 years of rate reductions previously achieved by the city, saying the council has been deliberate in balancing rate reductions with capital needs. Some council members said that if the council were to reduce the levy by the proposed amount, staff would have to identify alternative cuts or find other revenue to preserve planned projects.
After extended discussion, the mayor said the council would leave the levy as proposed and move it to the formal vote calendar in December. No formal change to the levy was made at this meeting; the public hearing closed without public testimony and the council will vote on the levy and the final budget on the scheduled date.
What’s next: The budget will return for formal action in December. Lisa indicated staff can be authorized to adjust the levy downward if final assessed values or new growth estimates warrant it, but the council must set any maximum before filing with the county.
