Kane County officials present early 2026 budgets for IT, building management and GIS; propose cuts and fund reallocations

Kane County leaders presented the first draft of the 2026 budgets for Information Technology, Building Management and Geographic Information Systems at the Kane County Administration Committee meeting on July 9, 2025. Roger Fonstock, identified in the meeting as the executive director for IT and building management, said the materials were an “early snapshot of what we submitted for ITD, building management, and GIS.”

Fonstock said the departments had sought reductions while protecting core services. “We try to prioritize safety, life safety, public safety, and then preservation of assets,” he told the committee, and said the departments had cut operating contracts and other nonessential spending to approach a roughly 9% reduction in IT operating costs for 2026 compared with 2025, a net savings the presentation described as “roughly half a million dollars.”

Committee members pressed for more detail on several line items. Commissioner Juvy Juby asked about the jump in the employee‑training line for IT (2024 actual $3,400, 2026 budgeted $20,005). Fonstock and Charles Lasky of the IT department said training had been deferred during recent projects and that mid‑year 2025 training spending was trending up (about $9,000 midyear), but that finance would be consulted before finalizing the training budget.

The submission shows several accounting moves intended to reduce general‑fund pressure by recharging costs to special revenue funds. Fonstock said some prorated salaries and overhead will be shifted to the Mill Creek special service area and to the GIS fund, and the packet projected tens of thousands of dollars of relief to the general fund from those reallocations.

GIS officials told the committee software licensing costs continue to rise. Fonstock and Kurt Lebo of GIS said the county relies on specialized parcel and cadastral software and faces increases; the GIS submission shows a year‑over‑year increase of about 16% driven primarily by software licensing and by moving prorated staff costs into the GIS fund. Lasky and Fonstock said the department expects current fee changes to cover the increased GIS costs and to maintain or grow the GIS fund balance.

Building management submissions track operating and repair needs across nearly 1 million square feet of county property and show major repair and maintenance accounts (the presentation referenced repairs at about $1.4 million). Fonstock said some capital projects — for example work at the adult corrections facility and kitchen repairs — have uncovered additional needs and may shift items from operational repair to capital projects depending on cost and scope. He said the county is trying to finish ARPA projects and 2025 capital work in 2026 but cautioned the general fund contribution to capital will likely be smaller than last year’s $6 million.

Committee members pressed on utility savings and solar. Fonstock said electricity, gas and water billing comes from multiple providers and that solar offsets have reduced the size of otherwise large increases but do not eliminate them; he described efforts to assemble 12‑ to 15‑month consumption and rate trends to estimate realistic savings. Commissioner Gumbs asked for follow‑up analysis showing measured savings from recently installed efficient equipment.

Labor costs and a pending collective bargaining matter were also raised. Fonstock and Kevin (building management) said a proposed collective bargaining agreement covering operator/engineer maintenance staff has been through drafts and is under review by the state’s attorney’s office and HR; no final cost was available and officials said they had not budgeted a set dollar amount for a contract increase.

Fonstock said the county is continuing to work with finance, HR and a multi‑department working group to refine the submissions; he described the package as a first draft that will change after finance committee direction and additional reconciliation of special revenue allocations.

The committee did not take votes on the budget submittals during the session; Fonstock said the departments will return as the documents are revised and as finance provides guidance.