After years of balancing its budget by dipping into a dwindling reserve fund, the Kane County Board on Wednesday OK’d a $402.9 million county budget for fiscal year 2027 that doesn’t, at this point, rely on using any cash reserves.
The board voted 13-9 in favor of the budget, as some members took issue with things like the reallocation of some sales tax money away from county transportation spending and the county’s planned vote before the year’s end on raising its property tax levy. The new fiscal year begins on Dec. 1.
However, while a near-term draining of the county’s emergency funds appears to have been averted for the time being, some uncertainty still remains about possible amendments to the budget, the county’s fund balance and how its reserves can be rebuilt in the future.
Like last year, the county board’s budget-making efforts of late have largely centered around addressing a looming budget shortfall in the county’s general fund.
For the past three years, the board has dipped into its general fund’s general account to balance its budget — and has used money from other general fund reserve accounts to balance the budget dating back as far as 2020, according to Kane County Finance Director Kathleen Hopkinson.
For years, county staff cautioned that using reserves this way wouldn’t be an option forever, warning that the county had to make significant cuts or find new revenue before 2027 to avoid falling below 90 days’ worth of reserve funding to cover county expenses — having 90 days’ worth of funding available is best practice, according to Hopkinson.
One possible solution to the county’s budget woes was a 0.75% sales tax referendum question, but it was overwhelmingly shot down by voters in 2025.
Last year during the budgeting process, 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 the county’s fiscal year 2026 budget — down from about $27 million used to balance the county budget the year prior.
This year, the county board indicated its plans to use little to no reserves to balance the general fund portion of the county’s fiscal year 2027 budget, tasking board members with finding other ways to balance it.
More Top Picks Best Shoes For Support And Stability
The county’s budget is broken largely into two sections, the general fund and the various special funds, which represent dollars that are restricted to certain uses. The general fund, the county’s primary operating fund, is the one that has been facing a shortfall.
The general fund spending in the 2027 budget totals about $131.6 million, according to documents included in Wednesday’s meeting agenda. That’s about $1.4 million higher than the county’s 2026 amended budget, per the county’s numbers.
But that number is — at least at this point — balanced with the county’s expected revenue, thereby not requiring the county to further spend down its reserves.
The county’s other non-general fund expenses total a little over $271 million.
The total budget, then, amounts to just under $403 million in projected spending for fiscal year 2027, about $7 million less than last year.
In looking to balance next year’s budget, the board requested 5% cuts be made across the county’s departments and offices, as well as looked to revenue-related solutions — like reallocating some of the county’s mass transit sales tax funds away from transportation costs and capital projects toward public safety and judicial costs, a move that the county also made the year prior.
The mass transit sales tax helps fund public transportation in Cook and the collar counties. One third of the 0.75% tax collected in Kane and the other collar counties is distributed back to each county for it to spend on transportation and public safety.
Last year, the county also hiked its motor fuel tax and added a 1% grocery tax replacing the state’s grocery tax that was set to expire as ways of generating additional revenue for the county.
And the 2027 budget relies on a planned property tax levy increase of 2.7%. In May, the board voted to use that rate as the planned levy hike for the year in the budget, but has not voted on the increase itself.
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.
The county is expecting to see an additional roughly $2.3 million in its general fund from property taxes in fiscal year 2027 as compared to the year prior.
Nevertheless, though it was ultimately passed, a few issues arose at Wednesday’s meeting with the budget.
At the Wednesday meeting, board member Leslie Juby expressed concern about the board approving the budget without first approving the property tax levy, noting that if the board doesn’t pass the levy in the coming months, they’d no longer have a balanced budget.
Hopkinson said levies are traditionally taken once the county has all of its tax assessment information completed, and that the levy increase doesn’t have to be adopted until Dec. 31. Amending the budget in the future is also an option, she noted.
Juby, however, said her “preference” would be to not pass the budget until they pass the levy.
“People are voting for (the budget) because it’s balanced,” Juby said, “and it wouldn’t be balanced then.”
Bill Lenert, the board’s Finance Committee chair, said he understands Juby’s concerns, but noted that one major reason to pass the budget now is so that elected officials and department heads will know their budgets and have several months to prepare for the coming year. It’s been a goal of the Finance Committee, he said, to not fire anyone, so the additional time gives departments and offices a chance to reduce their staff via attrition as needed.
Additionally, he reiterated, the budget is “not locked in,” he said, and amendments could be made to it.
Board member Michelle Gumz also expressed concern about why they wouldn’t vote on the levy first. She said that the county is going to be making amendments to the budget as it stands, but that she was not comfortable voting on the budget with the assumption that they’d just be making adjustments.
“It looks pretty, but it’s not really what we’re going to be doing,” Gumz said.
In defense of the approval timeline, board member Verner Tepe said that the budget and property tax levies can be voted on separately, and noted that the board has already voted to use the CPI as the planned levy increase — which is not the same as approving the levy itself, but he indicated that he doesn’t expect changes to the budget.
Board member David Young also suggested waiting on approving the budget, on the grounds that the county is waiting for its September tax payments to come in.
Other board members, including Mavis Bates and Deborah Allan, expressed appreciation that the board was getting a jump on the budget.
More Top Picks Best Electric Pasta Machines
Allan, however, expressed concerns she’s indicated previously — namely, her opinion that the county’s non-union employees should get higher raises than the 2.5% that was approved so as to be in line with other employees, and her concern with the fact that a higher portion of the county’s mass transit sales tax revenue would be used for public safety and taken away from transportation. She argued that it would be “more transparent, more honest” to use reserves to pay for public safety costs “instead of stealing from transportation.”
Lenert, in response, acknowledged the reallocation of the mass transit sales tax funds, but pointed out that the county’s gas tax hike is set to amount to about $6.3 million per year in funding for transportation costs, more or less filling the gap created from diverting funds away from transportation.
Lenert also said that the county’s reliance on reserves isn’t an option anymore, and that they needed some reserves to be left for emergencies. And he said he wouldn’t condone firing county staff “because (the board) didn’t budget things properly.”
Board member Mohammad Iqbal also expressed concern with the diverting of the mass transit sales tax funds, and voiced his opposition to the increases in property taxes, the grocery tax and the gas tax.
Board member Michael Linder likewise sounded the alarm about potentially putting transportation projects on the back burner, particularly given his view that a major project fixing Randall Road is likely, and that the county should use transportation money now for small projects so that they can focus on Randall later.
“It’s coming, folks,” Linder said.
Tepe said the county’s consultants did an estimate on key future road projects, and that the work expected is in excess of $1 billion. But such projects have to be taken on one at a time, Tepe said, and the only way the Kane County Division of Transportation can complete a project is through securing matching funds. Therefore, while Linder is right about Randall Road, according to Tepe, a difference of a few million isn’t going to solve that.
Lenert also said that the county’s Division of Transportation generally has $80 million to $100 million set aside to pay for future projects, which it receives several million annually in interest on to use for its purposes.
And he added that, if the board opts not to approve the budget over these concerns, then it needs to come up with solutions on how to fund the county’s operations.
“Ultimately, we don’t have any more money to fund anything else,” Lenert said.
Despite the concerns voiced Wednesday, the budget narrowly secured approval, with board members Jennifer Abbatacola, Alex Arroyo, Sonia Garcia, Jon Gripe, Chris Kious, Bill Lenert, Anita Lewis, Michael Linder, Myrna Molina, Ted Penesis, Cherryl Strathmann, Verner Tepe and Rick Williams voting for it. Voting against the measure were members Deborah Allan, Michelle Gumz, Mohammad Iqbal, Leslie Juby, Bill Roth, Clifford Surges, Bill Tarver, David Young and Kimberley Young.
But the board passing the annual budget doesn’t necessarily solve all of its concerns for the future.
Board Chair Corinne Pierog said that, for a number of years, the board froze property tax levy increases for the county, which is now “biting” the county because it doesn’t “have that additional revenue.”
“We are never going to be able to get caught up,” Pierog said. “It’s impossible.”
Meanwhile, she noted, the cost of commodities like gas have gone up, which have to be accommodated amid the “stable” increases in tax revenue.
And, with the board having spent down a portion of its reserves, she questioned what the board’s plans are to build that fund back up.
“Once your savings account is gone, it’s gone,” Pierog said. “It’s a savings account.”
Earlier on Wednesday, at a meeting of the board’s Executive Committee, Hopkinson indicated that the county board was technically below its 90-day reserve policy — which would require the county to have available $32.5 million. The county currently has about $26 million in its general fund reserves, but is over the 90 days’ worth if taking into consideration its other special reserve accounts.
“Technically, we’re not meeting our 90-day policy,” Hopkinson said, “and we’re forecasted to still be slightly under for 2027 as well.”
But a balanced budget this year is a good start, she indicated.
“Because if we can continue to have a balanced budget,” Hopkinson said at the Executive Committee meeting, “it’s possible that we could start growing our reserves back up to that 90-day.”