Discussions are ramping up among Kane County Board members about how to solve the county’s impending budget shortfall, as the county grapples with a failed sales tax referendum, the expiration of its COVID-19 relief funding and a county reserve fund being rapidly depleted as it’s used to plug holes in the county budget each year.
At a special Finance Committee meeting last week, board members floated suggestions for cost-cutting measures as the county approaches having to dip into its required 90-day reserve funds, and returned again to the idea of a county-wide hiring freeze.
“We have not done our jobs,” Kane County Board member Leslie Juby said at Thursday’s meeting about the board’s impending budget crisis.
County officials have been sounding the alarm on looming budget problems for more than a year, warning of an impending shortfall as other options were used up or made unavailable, according to past reporting.
In recent years, the county had been using federal pandemic relief money for both capital projects and paying for salaries and benefits, but all of that funding had to be allocated by the end of 2024. COVID-19 money enabled the county to build up its reserve funds, but those too have been spent down to balance the budget each year since 2023, according to past reporting.
The county is on pace to dip below the required 90-day reserves in 2027 if revenue and spending remains level, county officials have said.
One solution was an additional revenue stream, most notably a proposed 0.75% sales tax touted by some as a viable solution to the budget gap. But, in April, voters overwhelmingly shot down the measure.
County officials have previously noted that Kane County had been delaying the start of its budgeting process to wait for the results of the referendum.
But now, with the failed sales tax referendum and limited revenue options, the county is facing tough choices and weighing cost-cutting options over the next few months. The board must approve a budget by Dec. 1, the first day of the county’s new fiscal year.
One solution that has been on the table for the board is an employee attrition program. In March, it was proposed to the Kane County Board Finance Committee as a hiring freeze for county departments, as well as establishing an evaluation panel to determine on a case-by-case basis how to accommodate vacancies that arise in the county without directly hiring employees.
The county’s executive director of human resources Jamie Lobrillo noted at the March meeting that the county is already under a sort of hiring freeze, but the current policy has no uniform process across departments for evaluating vacancies and approving hires when needed.
A key part of the proposal is establishing an evaluation panel — made up of the executive directors of the county’s finance and human resources departments, the county board’s vice chair and another board member — who would determine how a vacancy can be remedied and when a new hire is necessary.
“I think the idea of never replacing any positions isn’t realistic,” Lobrillo told the board’s Finance Committee in March. “We have business we have to … get done.”
The proposed resolution generated concern among Finance Committee members.
Juby, for example, said the proposed plan’s evaluation panel effectively puts finance and human resource department heads over other department heads in the county. Board member Verner Tepe and County Board Chair Corinne Pierog said evaluating hiring should be a board process.
The Finance Committee ultimately voted to send the resolution to the Human Services Committee, which discussed it at its April 9 meeting. The resolution pitched to the Human Services Committee in April also included a voluntary separation incentive plan for county employees willing to resign. The make-up of the proposed evaluation panel again led to pushback from the board.
In addition to the employee attrition program, board members at last week’s special meeting began floating other ideas to reduce costs.
Juby, for example, suggested fixes like transferring expenses to special funds to free up other money, ensuring the county purchases commodities at the most affordable price and considering fee increases in the county.
Tepe said the county could reallocate Regional Transportation Authority funds and replace them via increasing the county’s gas tax, or make reductions in IT and maintenance.
He also noted that the majority of the county’s general fund goes toward public safety, the leaders of which have staff of their own responsible for budgeting.
“We should be sitting with them at this table,” Tepe noted.
Board member Bill Roth suggested fixes and policies ranging from reducing items in storage to outsourcing services like payroll. He also noted procedural changes like more thorough grant reporting and the idea of departments forming five-year budgets.
Pierog also noted grant accountability to ensure that general funds don’t end up paying for programs and services after the grant money for them expires.
On Thursday, Bates suggested the idea of cuts to services and programs occurring over a three-year period so that the effects are felt by the county less intensely.
Not all board members agreed.
Board member Ted Penesis suggested the board aim to cut what needs to be cut — which Pierog said Thursday was in the range of $25 million to $29 million — in next year’s budget.
“We have a statute that we have to balance our budget for (2026),” board member Bill Lenert said. “So it’s not an option to phase in,” he said, saying that using reserves to phase cuts in over multiple years is pushing the problem down the road.
The county’s potential attrition program is set to be discussed at a future committee meeting later this month.
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
