Kane County finance and budget committee members on May 1 reviewed a budget presentation that showed roughly a $29.1 million shortfall for the county’s fiscal 2026 general fund and agreed in principle to pursue an attrition-based plan to reduce payroll costs.

The budget overview, delivered by Mavis Bates, laid out what she described as the county’s general-fund picture and several scenarios to close the gap — including a three-year phased program of departmental cuts, a limited property-tax increase tied to CPI, and a possible reallocation of some RTA sales-tax receipts. Committee members directed staff and chairs to engage department heads and elected officials and asked the finance director to present formal revenue estimates at the next meeting.

Bates told the committee, “This is the budget that we're talking about. This is the general fund budget,” and framed the work as identifying mandated versus non‑mandated services, grant- and interest-funded programs that sit outside the general-fund pie, and revenue-producing offices that return money to the county. Her slides (presented during the meeting) showed total general-fund expenses of about $138,000,000 and total revenues of about $109,000,000, producing a deficit she summarized as roughly $29.1 million.

Why this matters: state law requires local governments to adopt a balanced budget, and committee members and public commenters repeatedly said voters rejected new taxes in a recent referendum. The committee must either find offsets, identify new revenue sources that do not require voter approval, or use reserves within the constraints of county policy.

What the committee heard and discussed

- Presentation and scenarios: Bates walked members through multiple buckets — mandated services (set by state statute), county-funded programs created by county code, grant-funded and interest-funded programs outside the general fund, and revenue-generating functions such as permit and clerk fees. She presented model scenarios that spread reductions over three years (smaller annual percentage cuts) and alternative scenarios that include a modest CPI-based property-tax increase and a one-time reallocation of about $5 million of RTA sales-tax receipts as a revenue bridge. Bates also noted the county’s solar field and other sustainability programs are saving the county money.

- Public comment and tone: Multiple members of the public used the meeting’s public-comment period to press for no new taxes and for fiscal discipline. Janine Mayer told the committee, “The budget must be balanced, not on hope, not on hypothetical revenues, but on fiscal reality. The law requires a balanced budget, and the taxpayers demand it. Kane County cannot operate on wishful thinking. Our reserves are nearly exhausted. The COVID money is gone.” Brian Anderson said he had listened to the April 20 finance meeting and concluded “we don't have a plan,” urging faster change and new leadership on the finance committee. Other commenters echoed concerns about taxes and county spending.

- Personnel and attrition: Several committee members proposed an attrition approach (sometimes described as a hiring‑with-justification policy) rather than an immediate hiring freeze or large layoffs. Mr. Leonard (finance committee member) said the core idea was that “anybody who leaves — whether they're fired ... or they decide to leave voluntarily — may or may not be replaced. There will be an evaluation ... to justify rehiring that position.” Using a three-year average of separations and assuming an illustrative $100,000 fully loaded cost per position, Mr. Leonard estimated attrition could yield roughly $3–4 million annually; he framed that as one piece of a multi-prong strategy.

- Collective bargaining and revenue uncertainty: Staff and members flagged outstanding collective-bargaining negotiations as a material uncertainty. The committee was told three bargaining units have expired contracts and settlements will include retroactive pay back to Dec. 1, 2024; the amount was not finalized but members said it could be in the millions. Members also asked about the possible loss of the 1% grocery sales tax and other state-driven changes; the finance director said state-level estimates are not available for each local government.

- Grants, reserves and capital: Committee discussion repeatedly distinguished the general fund from other funds. Bates and others emphasized that many programs (for example, KDOT, public health, and certain grant-funded activities) receive no general-fund support and thus sit outside the immediate general-fund reduction conversation. The Grand Victoria riverboat fund and ARPA balances were discussed as possible sources to reassign or protect; Bates cautioned that some restricted funds exist for landfill emergencies or specific capital uses. Committee members also reiterated that county code requires a capital plan be included in the budget and discussed reserving funds to meet FEMA best-practice considerations for disaster resilience.

Decisions, directions and next steps

- Attrition policy: The committee reached concurrence to pursue an attrition policy (often referred to in the meeting as an attrition program) that would require justification before replacing positions vacated by resignations or separations; members asked human resources, the state's attorney, and the executive committee to help draft implementation language and return a formal resolution. The meeting did not record a roll-call vote on a resolution; the outcome is recorded as committee concurrence to draft policy and place a resolution on a future agenda.

- Revenue estimate and departmental engagement: Members requested that Finance Director Kathy Hopkinson provide formal revenue estimates at the next meeting and that department heads and the chairs of standing committees begin detailed reviews of their budgets and potential reductions. Several members asked for focused engagement with public‑safety and judicial offices (sheriff, state's attorney, circuit clerk, courts) because those areas account for a large share of the general fund.

- Additional items for staff work: committee members asked staff to (1) return with projected costs for settled collective-bargaining agreements (including retroactive pay), (2) report on the expiration/loss of the grocery tax and likely revenue impacts, (3) inventory grant-funded positions and expiration dates so the board can avoid inadvertently absorbing payroll costs after grants end, and (4) provide more granular, exception-based monthly budget reporting to the board.

Quotes from meeting participants

- Janine Mayer (public commenter): "The budget must be balanced, not on hope, not on hypothetical revenues, but on fiscal reality. The law requires a balanced budget, and the taxpayers demand it. Kane County cannot operate on wishful thinking. Our reserves are nearly exhausted. The COVID money is gone."

- Brian Anderson (public commenter): "We don't have a plan."

- Mavis Bates (presentation): "This is the budget that we're talking about. This is the general fund budget."

- Mr. Leonard (finance committee member): "Anybody who leaves ... may or may not be replaced. There will be an evaluation ... to justify rehiring that position."

Context and constraints

- The committee repeatedly emphasized that the county must balance the FY2026 budget in accordance with law. Several speakers — both public and elected — stated voters rejected new taxes and urged the committee to avoid new levies.

- Numerical figures presented during the meeting included Bates’ slide totals (general-fund expenses ~ $138,000,000; general-fund revenues ~ $109,000,000; deficit ~ $29.1 million), an example $5 million RTA sales-tax reallocation discussed as a scenario, Bates’ note that the county’s solar field and sustainability initiatives save “over $5,000,000,” and staff references to potential retroactive labor costs that “could be 4,000,000, 5 million” though no final total was available at the meeting.

What the committee did not decide

- The committee did not adopt any new tax or levy. Members debated one- versus three-year reduction timetables, and several argued for immediate, larger cuts while others favored a phased approach that blends cuts with limited use of reserves. Committee members did not finalize a target percent cut; Bates presented illustrative scenarios (various percent cuts with and without a CPI property‑tax adjustment), and members asked staff for more precise revenue and cost forecasts before selecting a path.

Bottom line

The Kane County Finance and Budget Committee opened its formal FY2026 budgeting work by receiving a detailed staff presentation, hearing public calls for no new taxes, and agreeing to move forward with an attrition policy and more granular revenue reporting. The committee directed staff and chairs to engage departments and return with formal revenue estimates and draft policy language for attrition and grant‑position accountability at upcoming meetings. The fiscal gap the presentation identified — roughly $29.1 million — remains unresolved pending those follow-up analyses.