Kane County is getting a jump on the budgeting process for the 2027 fiscal year, which starts on Dec. 1.
Several budget-related items secured approval at the board’s regular meeting last week, including plans to use the Consumer Price Index of 2.7% in the budgeting process as the planned property tax hike for the year, raises for non-union employees and the doling out of some of the county’s Grand Victoria Riverboat funds toward county projects.
Another measure allocating the county’s mass transit sales tax funds for the coming year, however, failed to secure board approval last week.
Kane County has been facing a looming budget shortfall in its general fund in recent years, which its board has been solving since 2023 by dipping into the county’s cash reserves.
But, county staff has cautioned that doing so won’t be an option forever, and that the county must make significant cuts or find new revenue before 2027 to avoid dipping into its required 90-day reserves.
That’s left the board with the task of finding new revenue or cutting costs to avoid spending down its reserve funds.
One of the possible solutions was a 0.75% sales tax referendum question, but it was overwhelmingly shot down by voters in 2025.
Last year, in the wake of the referendum question’s failure, the board took a variety of measures to close the gap, but ultimately ended up using about $6 million in cash reserves to balance its fiscal year 2026 budget. That amount, however, is down from about $27 million used to balance its budget the year prior.
At last week’s board meeting, Finance Committee Chair Bill Lenert affirmed that the board is looking to use little to no reserves to balance the 2027 budget.
So, the board is again tasked with finding a way to balance the coming year’s budget. And several measures approved May 12 begin to set the stage for the county’s budget plans.
Plans to use 2.7% as the expected levy hike
Among the items approved last week is a proposal to use 2.7% as the planned property tax levy hike for the year in the upcoming budgeting process.
That 2.7% is the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, to be used for tax extensions in 2026, for taxes to be paid in 2027, according to documents in the May 12 meeting’s agenda.
The board’s approval last week, however, is not for the property tax increase itself, which would need to be OK’d by the board at a later date. The measure essentially allows the county to use this percentage increase in calculating its property tax levy request as it prepares the budget for the upcoming year.
The matter did still generate some discussion among the board last week before being approved in a split vote.
Lenert, for example, said he was concerned because the county levies other taxes, and that, if the county wants to try to put a retail sales tax referendum question to voters again, increasing property taxes “is not going to help (its) cause.”
Other board members disagreed.
Board member Michelle Gumz said it is possible to pass the property tax increase and a sales tax referendum question.
“If we neglect this, we’ll continue to dig a hole,” Gumz said.
Taking a CPI-based property tax increase is “best management practice,” according to board member Chris Kious, who said most other municipalities and government entities take the CPI increase yearly.
And board member Michael Linder pointed out that the county’s current financial problems are in part because the county “took a pass on CPI” for a number of years.
“One day, it would be nice to get back to that place that we could take part of the CPI, or not take it at all,” Linder said. “But we’re not there yet.”
Raises for non-union employees
Last week, the board also approved 2.5% raises for non-union county employees in 2027.
The raise applies to county department heads and Animal Control employees, per the measure included in the May 12 meeting agenda. It doesn’t include employees whose pay is set by a collective bargaining agreement, statute, ordinance or employment contract, nor does it apply to those employed by the county for less than 90 days.
At a Finance Committee meeting in April, county staff indicated that the raises would amount to an annual increase of a little under $500,000.
But, before the 2.5% raises were approved last week, the board mulled a proposal by board member Deborah Allan to change the increase to 2.7% to be in line with the CPI.
During that discussion, Gumz asked what the dollar amount change would be if the raises were upped to 2.7%, and Lenert said the county could “handle that (change) if need be.”
But board member Myrna Molina pointed out that the county’s department heads have already been directed to factor a 2.5% increase into their budget requests for the year.
“I believe we should do this, but we didn’t start off this way,” Molina said, expressing concern that any additional funds would have to come out of the county’s reserves. “It might not be a lot, but … without knowing anything else, that’s kind of where I’m looking at this.”
Board Chair Corinne Pierog suggested the board could review the proposed change once the annual budget has been put together. Lenert said that could be done, but that the county department chairs and elected officials have agreed to cut their budgets by a certain percentage, so asking them to cut more would require the county finding the money elsewhere.
The proposal to increase the non-union raises to 2.7% ultimately failed in a split vote, but the original measure secured approval Tuesday.
The 2.5% raises will go into effect on Dec. 6, the first pay period of the 2027 fiscal year.
Grand Victoria Riverboat funds allocated
Another budget-related measure ultimately securing board approval last week — albeit with some changes — was the county’s annual allocation of Grand Victoria Riverboat funds toward internal county projects.
The county receives an annual contribution from the Grand Victoria Riverboat Casino in Elgin to support educational, environmental and economic development activities, according to officials. Some of those funds are awarded to outside organizations, and the rest are allocated to county projects and programming.
Last week, the board voted to allocate over $600,000 in existing fund balances toward project requests this year, as well as to use around $3.5 million in new funds to projects across varying departments and offices — from Animal Control to IT to the Health Department and State’s Attorney’s Office.
This leaves a little over $1 million in fund balance remaining to be allocated toward outside organizations, according to documents included in the May 12 agenda.
But, this allocation was not without debate among the board. Long in question has been the county board’s lobbying and strategic plan contracts — which were initially allocated $132,000 and $150,000 from the riverboat fund for the coming year, respectively, based on committee recommendations.
Last year, the board ultimately opted not to use riverboat funding to pay for its strategic plan, along with a few other county board projects.
At a recent meeting of the board’s Executive Committee, votes to remove the lobbying and strategic plan requests — both requests made by the county board — from the riverboat fund allocations failed.
But those suggestions then got a second life at the board’s full meeting.
After some discussion last week, a vote not to fund the lobbying services contract via riverboat funds passed narrowly in a split vote at the meeting. Pierog indicated that the lobbying contract needs to be funded, so funds need to either come out of the riverboat fund or the county’s general fund.
Not all board members were in favor of the last-minute adjustments, however.
Board member Jarett Sanchez said the county should be “more proactive” about determining such requests, and that any changes should be made before the matter reaches the full board meeting.
As for the strategic plan, Pierog confirmed that the county does not currently have a strategic plan contract, since its previous contract was not funded and then left to expire, but this funding request would allow the county to pursue a contract in the future.
Though the board was largely united in its support for a strategic plan, it was split about whether now is the time for it, and whether it should get riverboat funds.
Board member Mavis Bates, for example, said she “(doesn’t) see how (the county) can possibly afford not to have a strategic plan.”
But board member David Young said he feels the strategic plan doesn’t fit with the goals of the riverboat fund in the first place.
And board members Jon Gripe and Michelle Gumz said they think the county needs to do some work before it again pursues the strategic plan. Gumz, for her part, suggested that the board could ask county leadership about their top priorities, and that funding for the strategic plan contract could be approved later.
Board member Clifford Surges similarly pointed out that the county could “set the table” for the strategic plan first and then revisit the matter down the road.
Ultimately, the board opted to remove the strategic plan request from its allocations of the riverboat funding, too, to which Pierog said the board now needs to decide if it wants to use money from the county’s general fund to pay for it.
The board also passed an adjustment to the original requests that removes $50,000 from a Child Advocacy Center project slated to get over $1 million and allocates those funds to the county board’s Farmland Preservation program to fund it at the level it was initially requested.
Discussion about RTA sales tax funds
One matter the board did not find consensus on, however, was the allocation of the county’s RTA sales tax funds.
The RTA sales tax helps fund public transportation in Cook and the collar counties. The RTA collects a 0.75% tax in Kane and the other collar counties, one-third of which is distributed back to each county for it to spend on transportation and public safety.
In fiscal year 2024, for example, Kane County received just over $26 million in RTA sales tax funding. Almost $20 million of that went toward transportation and the rest to public safety and judicial safety funds.
Last year, however, a measure passed by the county board increased the amount of that sales tax revenue to the general fund so that half of the county’s RTA sales tax revenue was allocated for public safety and judicial costs, while the other half went toward transportation costs and capital projects.
That reallocation was only for one year, however, meaning any future reallocations had to come before the board again for approval.
So, on May 12, the board discussed — but ultimately failed to approve — extending the same reallocation as last year.
The measure considered by the board stipulated that 35% of the RTA sales tax funds the county receives would go to its general fund for public safety operating costs, with 9% going toward capital projects related to public safety and 6% to capital projects relating to technology improvements for the judicial system. The remaining half would go toward transportation costs.
Discussion from the board centered around concern about the reduction in funds toward county transportation costs.
“Everyone is affected,” board member Mohammad Iqbal said of transportation needs in the county.
Allan also argued that more of the funds should go toward transportation, pointing out that the board last year had agreed that the prior reallocation was a one-time fix.
A motion to send the matter back to the Finance Committee ultimately failed, but the measure also failed to secure the needed votes for approval last week.
“Goes back to the drawing board,” Pierog said at the meeting.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
