Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Survey Content topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee trims survey: judicial and sheriff items removed; elections moved under voter services
Summary
Members agreed to remove county judicial and sheriff budget items from several survey lists, to move elections/questions under a voter services heading, and to retain granular ‘future challenges’ items such as senior services and transportation for vulnerable residents.
At its Sept. 24 meeting the Kane County Strategic Plan Subcommittee narrowed and reorganized survey content intended for public feedback, removing several judicial and law‑enforcement items and consolidating election‑related questions under a voter services heading.
A staff member presented draft survey questions and the subcommittee agreed to delete specific items that belong to separately elected offices and have their own strategic plans. The items removed from the “county performance” and related lists included criminal prosecutions, correctional facilities and rehabilitation services, judicial/court services, and sheriff law enforcement. The committee recorded that those offices “have their own strategic plans” and that the county has limited jurisdiction over their budgets.
The group also added a voter services/elections item under a broader public safety and services category. “Just leave that category, but add elections,” one member said, and the committee agreed to include elections as a topic that respondents can rate under the criminal justice/public safety and voter services heading.
Members reviewed the “future challenges” list and adjusted items to reflect what the county would find actionable in budgeting and planning. The revised list retained topics such as affordable housing and homelessness prevention, behavioral health and substance‑use referrals, road and bridge maintenance, and transportation for seniors and people with disabilities. The subcommittee agreed to remove “animal welfare” from the list and to add a specific “senior services” line item; members also recommended adding farmland protection as a discrete item rather than subsuming it under a broader category.
Staff cautioned against over‑aggregating items into a single public‑health bucket because that would reduce the granularity of responses. A staff member said the more specific items allowed the county to capture “tricky budget decisions” — for example, whether to fund transit for low‑income seniors or support community mental‑health referral networks — which are the kinds of tradeoffs the board may face.
The subcommittee asked staff to implement the edits in the survey and to ensure the rating scales are clearly labeled (for example, whether 1 indicates strong approval or strong concern). The revised survey will accompany the virtual idea wall and the public forums scheduled for early November.
