Kane County's ad hoc Riverboat Grant Committee discussed whether to fund roughly $5.2 million in internal grant requests for fiscal year 2026 and to what extent the county should set aside money for external grant awards.

The committee heard a staff presentation that the combined internal requests total about $5,200,000 and that, based on casino disbursements of $4,896,289.97 and about $4,500,000 in unobligated funds, the riverboat fund has just under $9.4 million available for FY2026. Staff said funding all the requests would leave roughly $4,200,000 remaining in the fund.

The discussion centered on three broad options: approve all internal requests and reduce reserves, make a proportional or across-the-board cut to internal requests, or preserve money for the external grant cycle (historically about 20 percent of available funds). Several committee members urged caution about drawing down reserves; others argued the current year is an unusual opportunity to fill department needs.

Chris Cristal, staff presenting the budget table, summarized the figures: "If you will look at the handout I provided to you and on the screen, you'll find a list of departments that have requested funding from the Riverboat Fund for 2026. Combined, the total amount requested is roughly $5,200,000 for 2026." Cristal said the requested amounts are part of departmental budgets and that any committee adjustments would require departments to revise their budgets.

Committee members highlighted specific items. Laura Barrett, director of disease prevention for the Kane County Health Department, described the Nurse Family Partnership home visiting program: "The majority of our funding comes from the Illinois State Board of Education through granting for their preventative initiatives... This helps support the things that are not covered by that grant, such as supervisor salary." Barrett said the program historically is 100 percent grant funded; the riverboat request covers supervisory and other costs not eligible under the ISBE grant.

Motions to alter line items were not made at the meeting. Several members proposed concrete approaches: a 10 percent across-the-board reduction, proportional reductions, or targeted cuts (for example, eliminating a $30,000 internship line item was suggested). Committee member Leonard said he was "mixed" about reducing reserves and suggested splitting a proposed reduction across requests, but also urged keeping the farmland preservation allocation intact because of its matching effect.

Committee members noted particular clarifying details: the farmland preservation program requested $750,000 and county members said that amount produces roughly $1.4 million in purchase power when matched; an economic development fund carryover of $100,000 reduces the new funds departments must request; and one strategic-plan contract totals $127,000, of which $100,000 is being requested from riverboat funds for FY2026 while remaining invoices would be paid from this year's budget or rolled into next year.

Several members objected to making a final recommendation without more time and data. The committee asked staff to produce a one-page summary showing the current request, what each department received in prior years (three years was suggested as acceptable), and the effects of alternative scenarios: (1) fund all internal requests, (2) apply a specified percentage reduction to internal requests and reserve the balance for externals, or (3) fund internal requests at a level that preserves a chosen reserve balance. Mark Mankirkoff (staff) said departments could be asked to identify whether their request offsets general-fund spending.

The committee scheduled a follow-up meeting for next week to review updated materials; staff said the packet and two spreadsheets would be redistributed in Excel form to facilitate comparisons. Members emphasized the county timeline: the Finance Committee and executive committee schedules make a quick follow-up necessary to meet county budget deadlines.

Procedural actions taken during the meeting included adoption of minutes from the May 7, 2025 meeting by unanimous consent and a motion to adjourn that was moved by Strathman and seconded by Garcia. No formal vote on FY2026 allocations occurred at this meeting; committee members left the options open for the reconvened meeting.

Kane County officials and departments will return with the requested one-page summaries and itemized history of awards before the committee votes on a recommendation to the Finance Committee and the full county board.