Kane County staff warn five-year transportation plan shows mounting financing pressure

Kane County Department of Transportation staff presented a draft five-year financial plan and updated Transportation Improvement Program to the Kane County Transportation Committee on March 10, 2025, warning that long-term contractual obligations and rising costs are reducing the county’s ability to match federal and state grants.

The presentation, led by Tom (Kane County DOT staff) and finance staff member Mike Sikoziak, summarized projected revenues, personnel and capital needs across preservation, modernization and expansion projects. Tom said the county currently tracks roughly $90,000,000 in purchase-order and contractual obligations tied to projects and operations.

Why it matters: committee members were shown that much of the county’s near-term spending is committed to existing projects or to contractual obligations—reducing the pool of local matching funds typically needed to access federal and state grant programs. Staff said that trend, combined with inflation, has diminished the county’s ability to take on new projects without new revenue or external assistance.

Key details from staff presentation: - Existing obligations and timing: Staff said the financial plan lists expansion, modernization and preservation projects at various stages. Tom said some projects were functionally complete but still carry multi-year billing obligations, and that the county routinely carries purchase orders for projects completed three to five years earlier. - Recurring maintenance costs: Tom said the county “probably spend[s] about $12,000,000 a year just to maintain structures” (bridges and box culverts) and “probably spend about $13,000,000 a year” on paving, striping and safety work along roadways. Those two lines of business are the primary annual operating pressures identified in the plan. - Revenues and matching capacity: In the presentation staff noted recurring annual revenues and a limited ability to set aside local matching funds for federal grants; the transcript of the meeting contains inconsistent figures for the annual revenue/shortfall statements. Staff emphasized that available local match is small relative to project costs and that matching constraints reduce grant eligibility. - Project obligations that cannot be deferred: The single-sheet summary included several major items staff said the county must advance irrespective of fiscal stress: bridge replacements (including the Kirk Road railroad bridge), local match obligations on federally funded intersections, and replacement of multiple tollway overpass decks for which the county said it is responsible for deck maintenance. Staff identified about $25,000,000 in required roadway and deck work tied to tollway crossings over the next 3–5 years. - Randall Road / I‑90 interchange: Tom and staff described Randall Road over I‑90 as a multi‑year, costly project. Staff said phase‑one engineering is underway, construction is likely five to seven years out, and the overall program will require funding agreements with the Illinois Tollway; staff gave a county share estimate for local costs in the tens of millions of dollars while describing total interchange costs as substantially higher.

Committee discussion and follow-up requests: Committee members asked for clearer, consolidated columns in the plan showing the county’s committed portion and the anticipated outside funds (federal/state/tollway) so the public and board could see why local funds are being reserved. Member Roth suggested adding a column that shows external matching so it is clear why funds are earmarked. Staff said the county’s financial system (New World) lacks integrated project accounting, and staff and the newly promoted Ashley Young (promoted to the head financial position) will work to produce clearer project-level summaries.

Uncertainties and record notes: During the presentation the speaker gave several numeric examples and then corrected himself; those corrections appear in the record and some figures in the transcript are inconsistent (for example, a one‑page summary in the packet was described in two different places with different shortfall numbers). Committee and staff agreed to finalize the financial plan in April if feasible but signaled the work might slip into May because of a countywide referendum scheduled for April 1.

Next steps: Staff asked committee members to review the draft plan and bring questions to staff for follow-up; staff said they will return with a finalized financial plan for committee action after clarifying project‑level commitments and external match assumptions.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on the financial plan at the meeting; the plan remained in draft and staff will revise the packet to show clearer breakdowns of county versus outside funding and to reconcile the differing figures noted during the presentation.