Village finances
See what the Village planned, what audited reports say actually happened, and the financial projects and questions being followed. Figures stay tied to their reporting periods and official sources so unlike numbers are not presented as direct comparisons.
At a glance
What was received and spent
FY2025 · ended Apr 30
- Revenue
- $33.0M
- Spending
- $25.1M
Final General Fund results from an audited report.
What the Village planned
2026 · Calendar year 2026 (Jan 1 – Dec 31 2026)
- Budgeted revenue
- $30.2M
- Budgeted spending
- $40.4M
A forward-looking General Fund plan, not final results.
Planned and audited figures can cover different periods. Each card shows its own dates; no variance is calculated unless the periods and scopes match.
Where the money goes
Choose a reporting period to see actual spending by category and revenue by source.
Figures read directly from Village of Oswego — CY 2025 ACFR (audited ACFR) (FY2025) — General Fund schedule — and arithmetic-checked against the report totals. Not generated by the language model.
View official source ↗How to read the adopted budget
A budget records what the Village authorized ahead of time. Audited actuals report what was ultimately received and spent. The periods below remain separate when their dates do not line up.
2026 · Calendar year 2026 (Jan 1 – Dec 31 2026)
Also on file: 2025 (20-mo) — budgeted revenue $46.5M · spending $47.1M.
These are planned appropriations the Village adopted ahead of time — read from the Village’s Open Budget transparency portal, not audited actuals. General Fund only, shown with the portal’s own totals (not the language model). Audited actuals for the same period will appear above once an official report is filed and added to the source collection.
View on the Village’s Open Budget portal ↗Projects and questions we're following
These labels describe the state of the available records, not a judgment about the people or organizations involved. Open any topic for the complete facts, remaining questions, context, and sources.
Special-census paymentThe ledger entries represent one net payment, not three separate costs.Context verified
What records show
The ledger shows an original $977,448 entry, a reversal, and a reissued entry—one net payment. Board materials projected about $1.5 million of additional annual revenue if the population estimate is achieved.
What remains unclear
The final population count and the additional revenue attributable to it are not yet available in the records reviewed.
Why it matters
The large payment has a plausible economic rationale that should be tested against the final population and revenue results.
Sources and records
WaterLink cost and financingThe response establishes the current estimate and issued-debt costs, but key reconciliations and final loan terms are still missing.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-363-2026 puts the current connection-and-local-project estimate at $209.378 million—$33.798 million, or 19.2%, above the January 2025 WIFIA application total. It records $61.506 million paid to DWC through July 15, 2026, and says $20.627 million of a planned $46.302 million Village cash contribution had already funded local improvements. The 2025A and 2026A water bonds total $44.58 million of principal and $80.302 million of scheduled debt service through 2051. A fully drawn $26.248 million bridge line carries a 4.2% rate and matures May 14, 2027. The plan assumes a $102.595 million WIFIA loan and an interest-free $11.048 million DWC loan in 2028; EPA still listed Oswego's WIFIA status as Applied on August 28. After WIFIA, the statement projects $192.65 million of total Village GO debt, with $148.625 million supported by water-system revenue.
What remains unclear
Published totals still cover different scopes, and no component-level bridge explains the changes. The response omitted DWC invoices and quarterly escrow reconciliations, the executed bridge agreement, final WIFIA and state-loan terms, a combined debt schedule, remaining contingency, and an updated household-bill analysis. DWC's August records separately report $124.388 million in the shared escrow and $48.12 million spent project-wide, but do not allocate those figures to Oswego. Not all construction contracts had been awarded, and both the Village and DWC identify remaining cost risk, including a substantial spoils-removal change order whose price was not yet established.
Why it matters
Water rates and real estate transfer-tax revenue are expected to carry the financing plan, while the issued bonds retain a property-tax pledge as the legal backstop. The 2026A disclosure says tax abatement is expected but not required and that the Village is not required to set system rates sufficient for that bond's debt service. Residents need a current, like-for-like cost and debt schedule to understand the eventual effect on bills and Village finances.
Response received September 2 · follow-up needed · VH-363-2026
$24,999 fireworks purchaseThe payment is verified; several approval and contract records remain unresolved.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-362-2026 confirms a $24,999 invoice for the 2024 display. The administrator-signed agreement lists displays in 2024, 2025, and 2026, while internal correspondence contemplated Board consideration for the later years. The purchase order was created after the display, and the supplied certificates show $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate despite a $5 million contract requirement.
What remains unclear
The response contains no Board approval record for the later years and did not include the alternate bid attachment. The available records do not resolve the timing and insurance-control questions.
Why it matters
Clear approval, bidding, purchase-order, and insurance records let residents verify that ordinary purchasing controls were followed. These open questions are not a conclusion of wrongdoing.
Response received August 21 · follow-up needed · VH-362-2026
Lobbying costs and reimbursementsGross cost is verified; Oswego's net cost and documented results remain unknown.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-366-2026 supplied two accounts-payable exports covering 52 service months from May 2022 through August 2026. They show $650,000 paid to Elevate Government Affairs and $364,000 paid to Kasper & Nottage, or $1,014,000 gross.
What remains unclear
The response did not include partner reimbursement billings or receipts, annual gross-to-net reconciliations, activity reports, or quantified legislative and funding outcomes, so Oswego's final net cost and results remain unverified.
Why it matters
Gross invoices alone do not show the amount ultimately borne by Oswego or what the shared services produced.
Partial response received August 21 · follow-up needed · VH-366-2026
Sources and records
Revolving Loan FundAudited balances add important context, but current payment performance and capacity remain unknown.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-364-2026 lists six loans approved since 2022 totaling $1,060,344. The 2025 audited report provides a separate year-end snapshot: $279,704 cash, $349,117 in notes receivable, and a $628,821 restricted fund balance at December 31, 2025. Its four outstanding notes were Nash Vegas ($295,262), Hell's BBQ ($23,089), A2T ($22,048), and Tap House Grill ($8,718). Tap House is absent from the FOIA's since-2022 approval list. The public checkbook also verifies the separate $40,000 Nash Vegas grant payment and $602,628 of loan-principal postings across four businesses through August 2026.
What remains unclear
No current borrower payment histories, receipt ledger, cash balance, available lending capacity, loan-loss reserve, or complete servicing report was supplied or found online. The audit does not establish Tap House's status after year-end. Three FOIA balances match schedules through September 1, 2026, then still a future date. The public revenue ledger reports $12,354 of 2026 interest through August, but it does not separate loan receipts from investment income or show principal collections.
Why it matters
Schedule-based balances are not proof that payments were made. A complete portfolio report would let residents evaluate repayment status, available funds, reserves, and concentration without relying on projections.
Response received August 24 · follow-up needed · VH-364-2026
Transition-period budget resultsThree funds finished above their final eight-month budgets.Audited result
What records show
The audited 2024 transition report shows Public Service at $329,850 versus a $272,360 final budget (+$57,490, or 21.1%); Motor Fuel Tax at $1,544,754 versus $1,500,000 (+$44,754, or 3.0%); and Debt Service at $5,510,503 versus $5,501,505 (+$8,998, or 0.16%). The auditor issued an unmodified opinion and reported no identified material weaknesses or reportable noncompliance.
What remains unclear
The budget schedule confirms the amounts but does not, by itself, explain the operating reasons for each variance.
Why it matters
The scale differs substantially among the three variances, so the amounts and percentages should be read together with the clean audit context.
Sources and records
Public Works expansionThe signed maximum price does not reconcile to the Board authorization or itemized budget.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-365-2026 includes a Board resolution and itemized budget of $24,395,180, plus authority for up to $100,000 for a covered walkway. The signed guaranteed-maximum-price amendment instead states $24,627,212—$232,032 above the base and $132,032 above the base plus the full delegated increase.
What remains unclear
No included approval or reconciliation explains the difference. The response also omits the requested current commitment, contingency, allowance, change, pending-change, schedule-impact, and forecast-at-completion records.
Why it matters
The document mismatch needs an explanation, but it is not by itself proof of an unauthorized expense. Current project controls are also needed to determine whether the project remains within budget today.
Response received August 24 · reconciliation needed · VH-365-2026
Sources and records
Payroll and overtimeThe FOIA omitted the data, but the public budget ledger fills the department-level overtime gap.Follow-up open
What records show
FOIA response VH-367-2026 contains only the April 2025 personnel manual. However, the Village's official Open Budget ledger identifies overtime account 511300 by department. It shows FY2024 actual overtime of $412,484 against a $532,872 budget; the eight-month 2024 transition period at $320,698 against $375,510; calendar 2025 at $616,499 against $560,723, or $55,776 (9.9%) over; and calendar 2026 postings through August at $404,697, or 60.2% of the $672,322 full-year budget.
What remains unclear
The public ledger is an unaudited interim source and does not provide employee-level actual pay, overtime, compensatory-time or leave payouts, or employee-level employer pension and insurance costs. The 2026 figure is partial and may not include a completed August posting cycle. Those requested payroll fields remain unverified.
Why it matters
The Village's published compensation schedules are budgeted figures and may differ from actual compensation. Actual-payroll and department-level overtime reports would let residents compare policy, budget, and results without publishing unnecessary personal information.
Partial response received August 24 · data still requested · VH-367-2026
Sources and records
Checkbook period and status labelsPortal totals should not be treated as clean annual spending totals.Reporting note
What records show
The portal's 2025 bucket spans 20 months, from May 2024 through December 2025. Its totals mix expenses, balance-sheet activity, revenues, loans, escrow deposits, reversals, and credits. The 2026 extract reviewed on August 18 also contained a September 1 future-dated vehicle payment.
What remains unclear
The portal does not consistently separate transaction type, payment status, and reporting period in a way that supports a clean annual expense total.
Why it matters
These are reporting and interpretation issues, not evidence that the underlying payments were improper. Clearer labels would prevent misleading comparisons.
Sources and records
About the records review
Read the methodology, records-request tracker, reporting ideas, and limitations
Review scope
Last reviewed September 2, 2026 · coverage begins May 2022
Audited result means the number appears in an audited or official record. Follow-up open means a response was reviewed but still leaves questions. Records requested identifies a documentation question, not an allegation. Monitoring means current controls or explanations appear reasonable while future costs still matter. Reporting noteidentifies a limitation that could lead to a misleading comparison.
Freedom of Information Act request tracker
Records requested August 18, 2026.
VH-362-2026Five Alarm Fireworks procurementResponse receivedVH-363-2026WaterLink costs and financingResponse receivedVH-364-2026Revolving Loan Fund portfolioResponse receivedVH-365-2026Public Works expansion cost controlsResponse receivedVH-366-2026Lobbyist reimbursements and deliverablesPartial responseVH-367-2026Actual payroll and overtimePartial responseOnly public reference numbers and reviewed aggregate facts are shown. Raw productions remain offline and are excluded from the site and deployment builds. Private tracking keys, requester information, vendor banking and tax fields, and direct contact details are never published here. Business names appear only when needed to explain publicly approved loans, grants, or contracts.
Ideas for clearer public reporting
These ideas address gaps encountered during the review. They do not assume misconduct or replace policy choices made by elected officials.
Publish all-in capital project forecasts
For WaterLink, Public Works, and other major projects, show the original baseline, current budget, commitments, paid-to-date, pending changes, contingency remaining, forecast at completion, financing cost, and completion date on one quarterly scorecard.
Add a WaterLink affordability and debt dashboard
Reconcile the older $73.1 million estimate to the current complete scope, then publish WIFIA, state-loan, and bond principal, interest, annual debt service, rate assumptions, transfer-tax support, and household bill scenarios.
Use quarterly forecasts and a variance register
Publish budget-to-actual forecasts by fund and department, with a short explanation and corrective action for material variances. Bring amendments to the Board before a fund exceeds its legal budget when reasonably foreseeable.
Attach procurement method to significant payments
For each nonroutine purchase, disclose the purchase order, contract term, solicitation or cooperative contract, bids or quotes, responsible department, and any exemption. A public exception log would make threshold questions easy to resolve.
Report the public-loan portfolio like a lender
Quarterly reporting should show outstanding principal, cash available, arrears, collateral coverage, restructurings, charge-offs, concentration by industry, loan-loss reserve, grant obligations, and economic-development outcomes.
Show net cost after reimbursements
Shared lobbyists and other intergovernmental services should display gross invoices, amounts billed to partners, collections, receivables, and Oswego's final net cost—not only the check written by Oswego.
Publish actual payroll and overtime
Supplement budgeted compensation schedules with annual actual regular pay, overtime, specialty pay, leave payouts, employer pension, and benefit costs by employee and department, plus overtime budget-to-actual reporting.
Make the checkbook accounting-aware
Label issued, scheduled, voided, reversed, cleared, escrow, loan, revenue, balance-sheet, and expense entries separately. Use explicit start and end dates rather than a single year label for transition periods.
Scope and limitations
The review used the Village's official checkbook exports for the 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026 portal buckets, then traced selected entries through official budgets, audits, minutes, procurement pages, contracts, bond records, six reviewed records-request responses, and limited outside benchmarks. Portal activity includes transactions that are not expenses, so headline portal totals are not presented as annual spending here.
This is independent civic research, not a CPA audit, legal conclusion, or accusation of fraud. The review will be revised when responsive records supply a better explanation.