Public critics and board subcommittee press county on delayed strategic‑plan work and consultant spending

KANE COUNTY — Multiple public commenters told the Kane County Executive Committee on Sept. 3 that the county should halt or reevaluate consultant-driven projects, including a countywide strategic plan whose contract the county signed this year.

Why it matters: Commenters said consultant projects have delivered little tangible return and cited prior expensive initiatives. County leaders said the strategic‑plan contract was signed in February and that staff delays — not the consultant alone — contributed to the late start; the executive committee’s strategic‑plan subcommittee said it will reconvene to oversee next steps.

Public criticism of consultants: Several members of the public questioned whether the strategic‑plan contract was a prudent use of funds while the county faces a budget shortfall. A commenter identified as Brian Anderson said the process so far was “an embarrassment” and criticized slow progress: “It’s been 200 days since the contract was signed. 200 days, and we’re just now getting to it.” Another public commenter, Michelle Battag, said she had seen similar consultant spending on past county projects (a climate action plan, a new government center study and a health department plan) and said, “We do not need this $127,000 plan that’s going to collect dust.” Several commenters referenced an invoice they said they had seen for $3,000 tied to the project; the committee later confirmed an initial invoice had been received.

Committee response and subcommittee work: Members of the strategic‑plan subcommittee reported a substantive meeting the previous day. A staff speaker (identified in the record as Cheryl) told the committee that the contract had been signed in February and that the consultant had been waiting for county direction. "We had a very robust meeting yesterday," Cheryl said, and the subcommittee planned additional meetings and engagement with staff and consultants. The subcommittee said it will consider whether the work should be completed in 2025 or rebudgeted to 2026; staff noted that rebudgeting (rolling unspent project dollars into the next fiscal year) is common for capital or large multi‑year projects and does not increase total spending.

What the record shows: The committee has not voted to cancel the strategic plan. A subcommittee of the executive committee will continue oversight, and members suggested that any resolution to stop or rescind the contract should be filed formally if board members want a vote. Committee members also asked for clearer reporting of consultant invoices and for contracts to be routed earlier to county counsel and the contracts office before being placed on the board agenda.

Next steps: The strategic‑plan subcommittee will schedule further meetings and ask staff to provide a timeline and a list of deliverables, invoices paid to date and remaining contract amounts; the committee also discussed whether remaining expenses should be rebudgeted into the next fiscal year.