|
|
|
Hinsdale, IL —
Hinsdale residents will see increased water rates after May 1 — they can also expect to see improvements in the town’s infrastructure, as well as more capital projects down the line.
By a 4-2 vote Tuesday, March 23, the Hinsdale Village Board adopted a balanced 2010-11 budget that includes a 31 percent water rate increase for residents and earmarks more than $1.1 million for new capital projects.
Trustees also approved tripling the village’s contingency fund from $100,000 to $300,000. In addition, the spending plan also calls for an increase in the village’s corporate fund cash balance to $3.9 million from $3.7 million.
“This a a good budget. It has been vetted,” said Village President Tom Cauley. “Everything is not written in stone, but this budget is a good guide for us.”
Allocating $1.1 million for capital expenditures is a significant increase over the $358,000 budgeted for projects during the current fiscal year. The village expects to spend only about $250,000 of the 2009-10 total by May 1.
In addition, the board approved adding a stipulation to the budget ordinance calling for $200,000 earmarked for potential improvements at Duncan Field to be used for other Parks and Recreation Department projects in the event the Duncan Field plans do not materialize.
In a separate move, trustees voted 4-2 to increase water rates 31 percent for residents — with a 35 percent hike for non-residents and large water users — the rate recommended by staff.
The water rate for residents will rise from $5.85 per 1,000 gallons consumed to $7.67 per 1,000 gallons.
The increase is expected to impact homeowners by about $225 annually, officials said.
Prior to that vote a motion by Trustee Cindy Williams to cap the water rate increase at 18.8 percent failed by a vote of 4-2. Williams and Trustee Robert Schultz voted against both the water rate increase and the budget itself.
How the budget was prepared also elicited heated debate.
“I have said since January this (budget) process is absolutely backwards,” said Williams. “My fundamental problem is with the process.”
A few months ago, the village cut two police officers and announced the fire department eventually would be reduced by two firefighters.
Williams has said in past meetings the village should have developed a target budget number for expenditures, then examined ways to meet that goal in subsequent budget discussions.
“But you took the guts out of the budget by firing two officers before the budget was completed,” Williams said. “We have increased capital expenditures, and I would favor underfunding capital expenditures and saving staff.”
Hinsdale residents will see increased water rates after May 1 — they can also expect to see improvements in the town’s infrastructure, as well as more capital projects down the line.
By a 4-2 vote Tuesday, March 23, the Hinsdale Village Board adopted a balanced 2010-11 budget that includes a 31 percent water rate increase for residents and earmarks more than $1.1 million for new capital projects.
Trustees also approved tripling the village’s contingency fund from $100,000 to $300,000. In addition, the spending plan also calls for an increase in the village’s corporate fund cash balance to $3.9 million from $3.7 million.
“This a a good budget. It has been vetted,” said Village President Tom Cauley. “Everything is not written in stone, but this budget is a good guide for us.”
Allocating $1.1 million for capital expenditures is a significant increase over the $358,000 budgeted for projects during the current fiscal year. The village expects to spend only about $250,000 of the 2009-10 total by May 1.
In addition, the board approved adding a stipulation to the budget ordinance calling for $200,000 earmarked for potential improvements at Duncan Field to be used for other Parks and Recreation Department projects in the event the Duncan Field plans do not materialize.
In a separate move, trustees voted 4-2 to increase water rates 31 percent for residents — with a 35 percent hike for non-residents and large water users — the rate recommended by staff.
The water rate for residents will rise from $5.85 per 1,000 gallons consumed to $7.67 per 1,000 gallons.
The increase is expected to impact homeowners by about $225 annually, officials said.
Prior to that vote a motion by Trustee Cindy Williams to cap the water rate increase at 18.8 percent failed by a vote of 4-2. Williams and Trustee Robert Schultz voted against both the water rate increase and the budget itself.
How the budget was prepared also elicited heated debate.
“I have said since January this (budget) process is absolutely backwards,” said Williams. “My fundamental problem is with the process.”
A few months ago, the village cut two police officers and announced the fire department eventually would be reduced by two firefighters.
Williams has said in past meetings the village should have developed a target budget number for expenditures, then examined ways to meet that goal in subsequent budget discussions.
“But you took the guts out of the budget by firing two officers before the budget was completed,” Williams said. “We have increased capital expenditures, and I would favor underfunding capital expenditures and saving staff.”
Schultz said the process lacked transparency because the first public board discussion occurred Tuesday, long after separate elements of the budget were discussed at staff and committee levels.
“We’ve talked about this publicly for 52 minutes,” Schultz said just prior to the vote.
Cauley and other board members defended the process.
“The draft budget was placed online for more than a month prior to this meeting, I have spoken to residents via e-mail and answered questions, we met extensively with department heads and worked with the Finance Commission throughout the last few months,” Cauley said. “This was transparent.”
Cauley said the previous method of working with various committees has not worked the last several years.
“Yes, we did change how we produce the budget because I don’t think the process worked the last 10 years,” Cauley said.
Trustee Doug Geoga, one of the architects of the budget, told Schultz the board was willing to openly discuss any item in the budget for as long as it took to resolve the issue.
“We are here to discuss this, so we’ll be glad to answer any and all questions you have,” Geoga said. “We’ll stay here all night if we need to.”
In addition to trying to prepare a balanced budget, officials said they also were cognizant of the need to begin saving money for infrastructure needs that could cost more than $100 million over the next 15 years.
“Facing $100 million in infrastructure improvements, it doesn’t matter if the cart is in front of the horse or behind it. Our attempt here is to lighten the load,” said Trustee Bob Saigh.
“This is not just a one-time deal. We have to plan accordingly,” Saigh said.
