Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Grant Spending topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kane County clerk office grant spending questioned; clerk says awards spent per agreement
Summary
A public commenter and committee members pressed the county over a $2 million Center for Tech and Civic Life grant to the county clerk's office. County Clerk Jack Pollack said portions were spent on election equipment and that the grant remains subject to the award agreement and deadline.
A public commenter told the Kane County Public Service Committee on May 22 that the county clerk’s office had received a $2,000,000 award from the Center for Tech and Civic Life and asked where the funds would be spent as the grant deadline approaches.
The question matters because the grant—described by the commenter as a $2,000,000 CTCL award to the clerk’s office—was originally slated to be spent by the end of 2024 and reported in January 2025, and the commenter said that schedule had been extended to July 31, 2025.
During public comment the speaker said the award included two disbursements, “$650,000 in July of 2023 and then $1,350,000 in December of 2023,” and reported information from Kathleen Hopkinson that “$400,000 was allocated, and the rest of the money has not been allocated, $1,600,000.” The commenter asked whether any unspent grant funds could be returned to the general fund to help with county budget constraints and said they would meet with county staff to follow up.
County Clerk Jack Pollack responded in the committee’s business portion, saying the clerk’s office had used grant funds according to the award. “The grant has been spent according to the agreement and will be spent according to the agreement,” Pollack said, adding that the grant is reimbursable and that equipment and allowable staff costs were the types of expenditures budgeted in the award. Pollack said the clerk’s office had spent money on election equipment and that the reimbursed funds help relieve pressure on the general fund.
Committee members asked for more specifics. A request was made that the clerk or finance provide a memo or status update on remaining grant funds and the planned expenditures; the committee chair asked that an update be provided next month so members could see the current plan.
No formal vote or other binding action on reassigning funds was taken during the meeting; committee members said they wanted clearer accounting and a plan for the remaining funds before any discussion of returning money to general revenues.
The clerk’s office and other staff named in the discussion were identified as the appropriate contacts for follow-up information about exact line‑item spending and whether any extension or amendment to the grant agreement had been sought with the funder.
Committee members and the public will revisit the question when the clerk’s office provides the requested memo or presentation at a future meeting.
