[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6286857,"mediaKeyId","2556377-f8a33422d53c8b61b1076f033511041f","parentId",2556377,"title","Kane County Board approves zoning rezonings and a slate of resolutions; multiple votes recorded","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",6415000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2556377-f8a33422d53c8b61b1076f033511041f&start=6415&end=6415","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2556377-f8a33422d53c8b61b1076f033511041f/thumbnail_6415000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6286857/Kane-County/Illinois/Kane-County-Board-approves-zoning-rezonings-and-a-slate-of-resolutions-multiple-votes-recorded","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286857-1a6dc71e9829755ab0470ec85067ba4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167414&Signature=Q93L~5VhSns-dG0rjjqGwrh4JI8X5Hp8PdBmUFzSmPT3wxTzGV3RZkeMtudJnuEHCkr2NCRV8kAu1mEQ7UmcKQ02F72UHB0RERSXMRXQDyeja-WDEmN6PiVmAjm0JeJiHttwIhvcsj7n3OqnErCjWhtMP1IO2UpV7Jt5GUshP3DTKLay3fFfF2vBgX2gpjpyJJhcVTZgqrEMRg-9hf5bWryBHmbkPZE8y92Lc8yxiSS71rxw3qpFdU1JArpnWUworpcBmI0RViF6gwUXkOSpD2aUb5O1Au9GBHR5w0PedjLLttcfGxxD3P2-kdMddSTAxO~oc7d7iYUEvX1tA1b6eg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kane County, IL","date","2025-03-11T14:41:42Z","article","The Kane County Board approved two zoning petitions and a package of resolutions and administrative measures during its March 11 meeting.

Zoning decisions
- The board approved TMP-24-3361 (Petition 4650), a rezoning request from Lehi Wakefield to a residential district (E-1) after development committee and zoning-board-of-appeals approval. The motion was moved and seconded on the floor and passed on roll call.
- The board approved TMP-24-3362 (Petition 4653), a request by Weiss Commercial Properties LLC to rezone a parcel at the northwest corner of Peck and Kesselinger Road from agricultural (F) to an F-2 district and to grant a special use for a landscape business; the zoning-board-of-appeals had approved the request with stipulations and the board followed that recommendation.

Resolutions and administrative items
- The board considered and approved multiple resolutions (identified on the agenda as items 25-102 through 25-110). Those items included ARPA-related adjustments discussed in committee, updates to county depositories and housekeeping measures required by county code. Several measures passed by roll call; item 25-102 was called and passed after a roll-call tally reported in the meeting (the chair announced that the motion passed during the roll call). Other items in the series (25-103 through 25-110) were also approved during the meeting; where noted during the record, some members raised process concerns and asked for better committee-level involvement before such allotments are finalized.

Other board business
- Two resolutions previously considered in February (items numbered on the agenda as 107 and 108) were brought forward for a final vote and passed as the board confirmed that those items had been intended for the executive-committee consent list.
- The board entered executive session to discuss employee matters, probable or imminent litigation and potential settlements. After closed session the board took up additional consent matters; one item (25-111) was placed on the agenda but no member moved it out of the tabled/muted status and it failed to advance for lack of motion.

Votes at a glance (selected items)
- TMP-24-3361 (Petition 4650, rezoning to E-1): approved (roll-call vote; mover and seconder recorded at the meeting; tally not specified in transcript beyond unanimous committee recommendation).
- TMP-24-3362 (Petition 4653, Weiss Commercial Properties LLC): approved (roll-call vote; zoning-board-of-appeals stipulations recorded in the meeting).
- Item 25-102: motion to approve moved by Commissioner Sanchez, seconded (record shows a second by Commissioner Allen); the clerk recorded a roll-call vote and the chair confirmed the motion passed during roll call (the meeting transcript records the chair’s confirmation of passage).
- Items 25-103, 25-104, 25-105, 25-106, 25-107, 25-108, 25-109, 25-110: all were reported passed by roll-call vote during the meeting; the records in the transcript show votes and confirmations on the record.
- Item 25-111: no motion to bring the resolution back for discussion after closed session; the chair noted it did not advance.

Board members and staff present on key votes included the chair (Madam Chair Michelle Gumbs), county clerk and the county state's attorney’s office; many individual roll-call votes were recorded on the official record. The board heard public comments earlier in the meeting that focused heavily on a separate retail sales-tax referendum that the board previously placed on the April ballot.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Kane County Board Meeting March 11 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the March 11 Kane County Board meeting the board approved two zoning petitions and passed a series of resolutions and administrative measures including depository updates and other routine items; one item listed for follow-up was muted for lack of motion following closed-session discussion.","taxTitle","Kane County, Illinois","taxId",12845,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6286860,"Kane County public commenters urge both support and opposition for proposed 75¢ retail sales tax for public safety",3007,2017000,5024000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2556377-f8a33422d53c8b61b1076f033511041f&start=2017&end=5024","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2556377-f8a33422d53c8b61b1076f033511041f/thumbnail_2017000.jpg","/articles/6286860/Kane-County/Illinois/Kane-County-public-commenters-urge-both-support-and-opposition-for-proposed-75-retail-sales-tax-for-public-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6286860-db821b331d7e10c11b25883fa3810d18/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167414&Signature=GaaEHt7TK~gz5jFgh3wVz1SXXXGHmVcLt0MYY7jxoyPRwKkKlqX-aHV1G2AGv9vi~8ceVIm3kGcOoz5eqB1sbZrbtTY5-3mL7~eQZcZMOV4d6eGuZ5qdIkfI6p0wN4u~0RtB6L8j701Oc5M4HmbC7c4SitAXDB4RelELd2uGUo9TdxmbQZufM98tzcuvkSTAHT9UYB-V6MeQYfE1raiPGlU-JXbC~4i99nOf-skBKOPyOr0cJf7xWaG81QaYIzSbjz51oBQ336CMMXP~jJ4wUL7IT6W~2jMXrwm9WbQGUIDGsvtbPkGKa-ythG1lZtsEiSF6ww~~CdWEg6nAHvbTxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dozens of Kane County residents filled the public-comment period at the March 11 Kane County Board meeting to press competing views on a county proposal to place a retail sales tax referendum on the April ballot.

Supporters said the 75¢ tax per $100 of sales would shore up public-safety services — including sheriff staffing, 9-1-1 dispatch, court services and child-advocacy and mental-health programs — without relying further on property taxes. “Is 75¢ for every $100 spent worth protecting our kids?” asked Jody Kanakula of Batavia, urging a yes vote. Several other speakers, including Bob Lindell and Denise Theobald, told the board they favor the referendum because it spreads the burden to visitors and retail customers as well as residents.

Other speakers sharply disagreed. Several residents called for spending cuts and process changes rather than a new tax: William Wurst and others blamed recent board spending increases and use of federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the county’s budget pressures. One speaker who identified himself as Lawson said, citing the county’s own budget figures, that placing the tax on the ballot would increase general-fund revenue by about $51,000,000 — a 47% increase to the general fund as presented by county numbers — and would raise the county sales-tax burden by roughly three-quarters of a percent. Another recurring claim from commenters concerned perceived misuse or poor targeting of ARPA and other one-time funds; Sylvia Shragi and others pointed to ARPA allocations the board made earlier and questioned why lead service-line replacement and other public-health priorities received relatively small amounts compared with other projects.

Speakers pressed the board for clearer baseline data on current public-safety spending. Janine Mayer (appearing as Gina Mayer in the public-comment roll) asked board members repeatedly for a simple baseline number: “What are you now spending on public safety? ... What is the number out of that $138,000,000 budget?” Several speakers said that figure was not provided in public materials and asked that staff publish more detailed projections showing the effect of the 0.75% tax over five- and ten-year horizons and how revenue would be distributed among law enforcement, courts and mental-health services.

Other themes during the comment period included concern about pressure tactics by unions, calls for a public vote or review of tax-increment financing (TIF) districts, and local examples of how sales taxes affect households that were described as especially hard-hit: renters, young families and retirees. Several speakers expressly separated opposition to the tax from opposition to public safety; for example, Gina Mayer said she and others object to the tax because of what they described as recent fiscal mismanagement, not because they oppose law enforcement.

Board response during the meeting emphasized that the referendum was placed on the ballot following prior committee discussion; several board members acknowledged the request for a clearer spending baseline and for more detailed public materials. State's Attorney John Frank was present and was later referenced in the meeting when a speaker offered to share documents with county counsel. No formal board vote was taken during the public-comment segment itself.

The board moved on to other agenda items after the 30-minute public-comment block. Residents’ calls for clearer baseline numbers and for an accounting of ARPA and one-time funds were a repeated theme; several speakers said they would follow up with the state's attorney’s office or with individual board members to press those requests.","At the March 11 Kane County Board meeting dozens of residents spoke during public comment about a proposed 0.75% retail sales tax referendum the board has placed on the April ballot, with speakers providing competing views about fiscal management, public safety needs and alternative funding options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kane County Board approves zoning rezonings and a slate of resolutions; multiple votes recorded

Kane County public commenters urge both support and opposition for proposed 75¢ retail sales tax for public safety