Forest Park staff budgeted for a $9 million deficit for fiscal year 2025, which wrapped on April 30. Though the village still has a few bills to account for and hasn’t yet completed its audit, that number was down a bit after ending the 2024 fiscal year with a total deficit of $11 million.
But in fiscal year 2026, spanning from May 1, 2025 to April 30, 2026, the village expects $49 million in revenue and $63 million in expenditures, or a $15.4 million deficit.
The projection came as a part of the village’s appropriation process for the current fiscal year, when commissioners annually vote to establish legal spending limits for the village. After a budgeting discussion on July 28, commissioners unanimously passed the appropriation ordinance for the upcoming fiscal year at the village council meeting that same evening.
Village Administrator Rachell Entler said at the start of the budget discussion that the conversation usually entails having staff go line-by-line through budget items. But she did that with department heads ahead of the meeting so village staff could instead discuss bigger picture questions — like how to get the village out of a $15.4 million deficit.
“I’ll be the first to say, when I saw that, I freaked out,” Entler said, adding that there’s a deficit across all the village’s funds.
Some of the largest price tags for fiscal year 2026 include new police cars and public works vehicles, water main projects and lead service line replacement. Other spending priorities include planning for building repairs and water reservoir improvements, public safety and services, and pension liability management.
Digging out of a deficit
The projected deficit doesn’t account for the village’s reserves or savings and operates under the assumption that the village will be fully staffed, which it likely won’t be in certain departments. Regardless, the village is bound to be millions in the hole this time next year, unless something notable changes.
To reduce the deficit, Entler said the village has a few options. It could try to cut expenditures, though Entler said she’s sat down with department heads to streamline costs as much as possible. The village could also increase revenue through taxes or fees or prioritize economic development through corridor revitalization and redevelopment. Or the village could explore structural reforms for healthcare cost control, multi-year budgeting and pension liability. The latter, for example, caused the village to funnel nearly $1 million more of its property taxes into pension funds from 2024 to 2025.
When it comes to reducing expenses, village staff have discussed in previous budget meetings the options of leasing police and fleet vehicles, amending its crossing guard agreement and altering leaf pickup processes.
Entler said she and Police Chief Ken Gross are talking with Enterprise about a program where police cars, and possibly even specialty vehicles for the public works department, are replaced every two or three years. She said Enterprise will present the village with an estimate for the vehicles in August.
To cut costs, the village may not help sponsor school crossing guards this year. According to Entler, the crossing guard program is run through the village, and the cost is split in half between it and School District 91. But workers’ compensation liability has increased, and the village often has trouble staffing crossing guards, so police fill in. Village officials estimate that Forest Park would save over $50,000 a year by removing its sponsorship, though the village has included the program in this fiscal year budget. Commissioners asked Entler to contact D91 about amending their contract for the program, and if D91 needs more time to work out a new contract, Entler said she will come back to the council.
Though amending leaf pickup could reduce expenses by $100,000, it likely won’t be changing, largely because of the concern residents shared at last year’s town hall that some locals physically aren’t able to pick up their leaves.
“We’re going to have to do it regardless,” Entler said of the village picking up leaves. “We can take on a bit more of an aggressive campaign this year and encourage people to bag, compost or mulch their leaves.”
Increasing revenue
With few cost-saving options for the village, officials are also exploring how to bump up their intake of money.
One possible avenue that’s been discussed at previous meetings is to create a 1-to-2% tax at restaurants and eateries in Forest Park. Officials estimate that a 1% tax would bring $500,000 to the village. But at the July 28 budget discussion, all four public commenters asked commissioners not to pass a place of eating tax.
Laurie Kokenes, executive director of the Forest Park Chamber of Commerce, said she’s heard from several restaurant owners who are members of the Chamber that they have had slower business recently.
“They’re concerned that a potential place of eating tax would negatively impact them,” Kokenes said during public comment.
Joseph Sullivan, owner of Duffy’s Tavern, also spoke against the tax.
“One of my fears about 1-to-2% is that, to residents of Forest Park and other people who don’t know the industry, it doesn’t seem like much,” Sullivan said. “For a restaurant that grosses $500,000, that’s $10,000 additionally a year. With all due respect, if you think that a restaurant that grosses $500,000 a year is swimming in profits and has $10,000 to give, frankly you’re wrong. You don’t understand what we do for a living.”
“I don’t think a lot of you realize that an average restaurant profit margin is 3-to-5%,” said Dennis Miller, an owner of Duck Fat. “My real estate taxes last year went up $40,000. You see driving down Madison Street how many of the restaurants are closed.”
As a result of the public commenters, commissioners agreed to not pursue a place of eating tax for now and instead focus on filling empty storefronts downtown to increase revenue.
“Anything that’s going to make your livelihood more difficult is not something I want to sit here and talk about,” said Maria Maxham, commissioner of accounts and finance, addressing the public commenters directly.
Another suggested path for more revenue is a parking amnesty program and boot program — both of which commissioners directed Entler to move forward with.
According to Gross, since January 2024, the village has seen close to $2 million in uncollected money from tickets and citations.
“Right now, there’s not really a consequence for not paying,” Entler said. As a solution, she suggested instituting a parking amnesty program that allows people to reduce the amount owed for past tickets if they pay in a certain time frame. She also suggested a program, which was suspended during Covid-19, which would allow police to boot cars after so many unpaid tickets.
At the end of the budget discussion, Ryan Nero, commissioner of public health and safety, suggested pursuing property tax reallocation.
Of the property taxes that the village of Forest Park collects, about 75% go toward the village’s schools, park district, and library. Schools get about 62% of that, and the village receives under 14%.
Nero said, of about $50 million that Forest Park gets in property tax revenue, the village only gets $7 million, while D91 gets closer to $19 million. According to Nero, that’s $26 million for under 700 students, or $38,000 per student when the state average for kindergarten through eighth grade is $16,000.
To amend this difference in percentage, Nero called on residents to create awareness of the inequity and potentially collect signatures to change the amount of property tax Forest Park is allocated.
Michelle Melin-Rogovin, commissioner of streets and public improvement, doesn’t think it’s that easy. She said the Cook County Assessor’s Office decides how real estate tax is appropriated to different taxing bodies.
“The questions that you’re raising are factors of state law,” Melin-Rogovin said to Nero.
Jessica Voogd, commissioner of public property, added that the village has a capped levy for how much it can ask the county to increase its share of property taxes, so even if the county appropriated less money to D91, it likely wouldn’t go to the village. So, Voogd suggested lobbying the D91 school board to ask if they might levy less to give taxpayers a direct tax break.
Entler said she’ll ask the village’s legal team about the possibility of a nonbinding local referendum or state legislation that would amend the village’s property tax allocation. She said she’ll report back to commissioners with her findings, ending the meeting with few solidified paths forward for significant ways to reduce the village’s deficit.
“We sit here as a council year after year and talk about how we’re going to increase revenue, but we’ve never actually done it,” Maxham said during the portion of the budget discussion about places of eating tax. While she said that specific avenue is a hit to restaurant owners, the council needs to agree on how to get the village into a healthier spot. “We can’t continue the way that we’re going financially.”
Correction, Aug. 12, 11 a.m.: An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported Commissioner Jessica Voogd’s comments on the portion of property taxes that the village receives. The article has been updated to accurately reflect her comments. We apologize for the error.
