Residents and trustees press for clearer process at University Park budget hearing

University Park held a public hearing on the proposed annual budget for the fiscal year commencing 05/01/2025, where residents and trustees pressed village staff for clearer notices, detailed line items and written responses to questions that some trustees said went unanswered.

Mister Covington, a member of the public, opened the comment period by saying the finance committee had not completed its review and that a meeting had been “missing and not posted,” adding he had not received the final budget or email notifications. “I didn't get a copy of the final budget either. No emails. No notification,” he said.

The exchange set the tone for the hearing. Several trustees said they had submitted written questions and recommendations—one trustee said she had sent “three pages of questions and recommendations” on Sept. 16 and had not received written replies—and urged the board to ensure finance‑committee recommendations were formally presented so the full board could act on them.

The village’s finance staff answered detailed queries about the numbers in the packet. A staff member explained why the financial statements showed a roughly $4,000,000 accrual in sales tax: “In fiscal year 24, we had the $4,000,000 that we got in sales tax revenue,” the staff member said, describing the effect of posting accruals that relate to prior‑year revenues. The staff member also said state procedures limit disclosure of vendor‑level distributions: under Department of Revenue rules, only entities enrolled on the state portal can disclose those details.

Trustees asked for additional report lines and clarifications. One trustee asked for a column that shows the percentage spent year‑to‑date; staff said the packet lists monthly dollar amounts and that a percentage column could be added for review. Trustees also pressed on specific line items: collection‑agency fees were described as reclassified (noted in the packet as $10,800 for FY2025 and $400 through May), bus‑shelter revenues could not be located without a line‑by‑line cash‑receipt review, and franchise fees had been consolidated into utility‑tax accounts though the board could direct a different presentation.

Personnel and contract lines drew repeated attention. Trustees debated whether the executive‑liaison role should remain part time (one trustee recommended restoring a $30,000 part‑time salary) or be made full time (the packet showed $40,000 with insurance assumptions). A trustee questioned a proposed $55,000 administrative‑assistant salary and suggested $40,000 would be more in line with local comparators; she also recommended restoring a part‑time clerk secretary at $28,000 and proposed raising the finance‑director salary to $110,000 while adding accounting positions. Finance staff said many numbers were projections, that union contract language affects some titles and starting salaries, and that final decisions rest with the board.

On funding rules, a trustee argued that road‑and‑bridge and motor‑fuel‑tax proceeds should be dedicated strictly to transportation infrastructure and not used for public‑works payroll. Finance staff responded that charging portions of public‑works salaries to Road & Bridge or the motor‑fuel‑tax fund is common practice, is allowable under state reporting, and would require explicit board direction to change.

Trustees also asked about capital projects and redevelopment agreements. Finance staff said several capital items are place‑holders and noted that TIF 7 includes reimbursements tied to redevelopment agreements with Central Steel and Amazon; trustees requested documentation and clearer itemization of which projects on the capital list have been completed.

No final vote on the budget was recorded during the hearing. As one trustee noted earlier in the meeting, questions and amendments can be raised when formal action is on the agenda; the packet and staff responses will inform subsequent board consideration. The hearing concluded with the chair thanking attendees and closing the meeting.

The transcript shows multiple trustees seeking written follow‑up on unanswered questions, staff offering to update or add report lines on direction from the board, and public commenters urging better notice of finance committee meetings. The budget remains subject to amendment and formal action at a later meeting.