Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kane County proposal to retain grocery tax fails in finance committee amid debate over revenue and scope
Summary
A proposed ordinance to impose a 1% county grocery retailers occupation tax and related service occupation tax failed in the Kane County Finance and Budget Committee on July 23.
Get email alerts on the Local Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A proposed ordinance to impose a 1% county grocery retailers occupation tax and a corresponding service occupation tax failed in the Kane County Finance and Budget Committee on July 23. Sponsor Michelle Gumbs told the committee the ordinance would not add a new tax on residents but would retain tax revenue currently collected by the state and at risk of being lost on Jan. 1, 2026. "This is not adding a tax — it is retaining monies we cannot afford to lose," she said during discussion. Opponents and public commenters urged caution. Several members said the county lacks a reliable estimate of revenue that would transfer to the county; Finance Director Kathleen Hopkinson described state reporting that buries grocery receipts in broader categories, making precise figures difficult. Board member Leslie Lewis said if the state intended to give residents a break, the county should not immediately appropriate that revenue to new uses. County Attorney Stephen Ford said the ordinance language followed the new state statute and that the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) would administer the tax if enacted. Ford advised the county could request clarifying guidance from IDOR on the statute’s required subsections and the law’s references to a service-tax component. When the committee took a roll call vote, the ordinance failed 2–3. Chair Charles Leonard said the committee had to move forward with other items; the sponsor and some members said the ordinance could return to the board if members chose to continue consideration. Ending: Committee members agreed the question remained important to the 2026 revenue outlook; several asked staff to seek clarification from IDOR, and the issue could reappear before the full board ahead of the statute’s Jan. 1, 2026 effective date.

