Kane County Board Rejects Motion to Terminate Five-Year Strategic Plan Contract

The Kane County Finance and Budget Committee on Sept. 24 considered a resolution to terminate a five-year strategic planning contract with Barry Dunn McNeil and Parker LLC. The motion to terminate the contract was defeated by a 4-2 vote; a "yes" vote would have terminated the contract and a "no" vote maintained it.

Julie (last name not provided) moved to terminate; Louis seconded. Several members spoke for and against termination. Commissioner Juby said she would support termination, citing budget priorities and concern about using riverboat funds for the contract: "I just do not feel that we're in a situation now where we can afford to support it ... we are taking this money out of the riverboat, which I have strongly believed should be serving our external partners, makes it an even easier decision for me to vote to terminate."

Commissioner Sanchez opposed termination and argued that a strategic plan is necessary for an organization of the county's size. "I think an organization of our size, the fact that we aren't doing strategic planning is a red flag," Sanchez said, urging the board to keep the contract and participate in the process. Commissioner Berman also supported continuing the contract: "We haven't had a strategic plan for so many years. And maybe that's the reason why we are where we are," he said.

Other members expressed mixed views. Commissioner Lewis said she did not oppose strategic planning in principle but objected to using riverboat funds for the expense. Commissioner Leonard said he opposed termination on budgetary grounds, noting the county's current fiscal constraints would make proceeding risky. Commissioner Bates argued the work would be spread over five years and could save money over time if it improved county decision-making and community outreach.

Outcome: The roll call recorded two "yes" votes in favor of termination and four "no" votes against; the motion to terminate failed and the strategic planning contract remains in place. The committee noted concerns about timing and funding and asked that the plan and vendor performance be monitored, but did not adopt any amendment to the contract during the meeting.

Why this matters: Committee members framed the vote as a choice between immediate expense control and longer-term organizational planning. Supporters of the contract said the process is an investment that will be amortized across five years; opponents said the county should prioritize current program funding amid a budget gap.

Attribution: Quotes and positions attributed to commissioners are taken from their statements during the Sept. 24 committee meeting; the motion to terminate was moved by Julie and seconded by Louis, and the roll call reflects the committee vote.