Kane County committee reopens debate on three second‑shift building management hires; motion to forward stalls

Roger Fonstock, executive director for IT and building management, asked the Kane County Administration Committee on May 20 to approve three second‑shift maintenance positions to reduce overtime and improve after‑hours coverage at county facilities.

Fonstock said the positions would be paid from the public safety portion of the county's RTA sales tax (Fund 125), not the general fund, and that $450,000 budgeted for two fiber connections could instead be used to fund personnel. "The $450,000 is there," Fonstock said, and the prorated 2025 cost for hiring the three positions would be "$180,193 at 7 months" with a projected 2026 cost of "$360,386." He identified the proposed titles as a building engineer, a maintenance tech 2 and a maintenance tech 3 and said the openings would primarily support courthouse, jail and juvenile facility work that requires after‑hours coverage.

The proposal prompted public comment and extended committee debate. Brian Anderson of Sugar Grove, a member of the public comment period, said he was concerned the item had returned after being tabled at a prior meeting: "I thought at the last meeting that there was some great robust dialog . . . and I thought it was tabled. I thought it was off. And you heard me speak yesterday." David Young, another commenter, criticized the proposal in the context of failed tax referenda and existing contracts: "The referendum failed 75% to 25%, yet we're here today hiring more people or looking to hire more people."

Committee members questioned the frequency and cost of after‑hours callouts, and whether existing staff could be reorganized rather than adding new hires. Commissioner Gums emphasized fiscal constraints: "I'm very familiar with first, second, third shifts . . . I'm saying we don't have the money for that across the board." Fonstock and other staff replied that much of the after‑hours work is at secure facilities where contractors must be escorted and where specialized knowledge of building layouts and secure access is required.

Procedural actions changed the item's status during the meeting. A motion to "untable" the resolution (so the committee could consider it again) passed by roll call 5‑2, reopening the matter for discussion. Later, a motion to postpone the matter indefinitely failed (did not carry). The committee then voted on whether to forward the resolution on to the full board and subsequent committees; that roll call resulted in a tie and therefore did not carry, leaving the proposal unresolved in committee.

Because the committee did not approve forwarding the resolution, the hires will not proceed through the approval chain at this meeting. Fonstock said that, were the committee to approve positions later, the hires would still go through the normal process (administration, human services, finance and budget, executive committee, county board) and that new hires might not be on board until midyear.

Why this matters: Fonstock and his staff told the committee that overtime and emergency callouts are frequent and that fatigue and staffing shortages are affecting delivery of maintenance services at 27 county buildings and 24‑hour facilities such as the jail and juvenile center. Committee members, however, pressed for more concrete callout data and expressed concern about using even restricted sales‑tax dollars while the county is reviewing broader budget constraints.

Next steps: Committee members asked staff to provide more detailed timecard and callout data and to explore alternatives (reassigning existing staff, clearer schedules or other cost‑neutral options) before reintroducing the hiring resolution for a vote.