On Monday, Dec. 22, 2025, the Village of Lincoln Heights Committee held a Committee of the Whole meeting to consider the second reading of a temporary appropriations ordinance intended to fund the village’s first‑quarter 2026 operations. Managers and council members spent the majority of the discussion clarifying budget line items, grant carryovers and who is paid under mayor’s court contracts.

Manager Gaines described the ordinance as “simply the temporary appropriations, which is the first 3 months expenses for 2026,” and said the figures reflect amounts certified by the budget commission. Council members repeatedly asked for line‑by‑line explanations from the finance director and said they plan a deeper review by the finance committee.

A recurring point of concern was a line labeled “security of persons and property” (Section 109, program 1) listed at $21,274. Council members asked whether that amount paid for a physical security system or for personnel. Mr. Brown and Manager Gaines clarified the item funds personal services and contractual services — salary, benefits and consultant expenses — and is intended to cover personnel such as a code compliance officer rather than equipment.

Councilmembers also questioned the mayor’s court contractual services line. The committee was told the mayor’s court contract covers Ms. Charla Ponder’s services. Mayor RubyKenzie Mumphrey said the village has had operational problems with mayor’s court in the past, explaining that residents were receiving “blocks on their license,” which led staff to coordinate with another municipality to process cases. Mumphrey said Elizabeth Thai is serving as magistrate and John Coleman as prosecutor “until further notice,” and that mayor’s court is scheduled to be held in the village once a month for the coming year.

Members asked whether magistrate and prosecutor fees were included in the temporary appropriations. Officials said the prosecutor’s fee is paid by the solicitor’s law firm and not charged to the appropriation; a magistrate fee line in the packet lists "$2.75," which council members and staff flagged as likely incorrect and said would require correction and estimation. Manager Gaines said the temporary appropriation figures reflect only the first three months and that permanent appropriations will be addressed later.

The committee also discussed the Code Remediation Program Fund (Fund 2910). Manager Gaines described Fund 2910 as a grant‑funded special revenue account being carried over because prior years’ funds were not expended; he said the program is intended to help residents with financial hardship bring properties up to code. He added that eligibility is typically determined by low‑ to moderate‑income rules tied to household size and income, and that any HUD or grant rules must be observed. Gaines said staff will provide a more detailed explanation of eligibility at the finance committee level.

A brief item confirmed the location for a tree canopy project behind a commercial site and a councilmember placed on the record a plan to ask for a vote of confidence for the incoming mayor at the Jan. 1 regular council meeting. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.

No final council vote on the temporary appropriations ordinance was recorded in the Committee of the Whole minutes; councilmembers requested more detailed finance committee review and line‑item explanations before permanent appropriations are set.