Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forest Park residents and commissioners flag $15 million shortfall; revenue options discussed
Summary
A resident cited a $15,000,000 budget shortfall and urged zoning reform and revenue options; a commissioner said the council supports a places-of-eating tax in principle but that timing is wrong, and raised stormwater and zoning concerns tied to proposed code changes.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott Preslak, a Forest Park resident, told the village council on Aug. 25 that a recent review indicates the village faces a $15,000,000 budget deficit and urged leaders to consider ways to increase revenue and permit context-sensitive growth.
"I rise tonight to express my deep concern about the village's current financial situation, which according to the Forest Park review, includes a $15,000,000 budget deficit," Preslak said, and he asked the council to weigh zoning reform and other revenue measures to avoid service cuts.
Commissioner Vogt, in his commissioner’s report, said the council has discussed a places-of-eating tax for several years and that while the idea has merit, the present economic climate makes implementation difficult. "I was disappointed to have to put off instituting the tax at this time," Vogt said, adding that education and planning would be required before attempting to roll out such a tax.
Vogt also urged a transparent, resident-driven update to the village code and highlighted stormwater risks tied to proposed zoning changes. He said the proposals would "increase impervious lot coverage from 40% to 80% in the R-3 with 0 setbacks," and warned that recent heavy rainfall showed limits in the village’s stormwater infrastructure.
The meeting record shows no formal council action on new revenue sources at this session. Speakers recommended next steps such as further study, public education and inter-commission collaboration. The council did not vote on any ordinance or resolution related to these revenue options at the meeting; procedural follow-up would be required for any code or tax change.

