Kane County executive committee sends proposed 90‑day reserve ordinance back to finance committee after heated debate

The Kane County Executive Committee voted May 7 to send a proposed ordinance requiring a minimum three‑month (90‑day) general fund reserve back to the Finance Committee for further work after a lengthy debate about the measure's effects on budgeting and emergency flexibility.

The measure would change the county's current financial policy into an ordinance that directs the finance director and county board to maintain a minimum reserve equal to at least three months of operating expenditures in the general fund. Supporters said the requirement would protect the county's cash flow and credit standing; opponents said an ordinance could limit the board's ability to use reserves during unanticipated shortfalls.

Finance staff told the committee they are attempting to accelerate the budget schedule this year and to get departments to enter budgets into the county's New World financial software earlier than usual. "I think we can actually get all the departments to get all their budgets entered. I'm gonna push by, June, mid‑July, with a final draft budget to the board in August, early September," said Kathleen Hopkinson, finance staff. Hopkinson said the county would rely on automation and on-line modules to meet an abbreviated timeline and that revenue estimates for 2026 would likely be available by June.

Committee members expressed a range of concerns. Some members said turning the guideline into an ordinance could inadvertently prevent the board from using legally available reserve funds during legitimate emergencies or during normal seasonal cash swings. "The whole point, I think, of having a reserve is for emergencies," said one committee member during the discussion. Other members said a firmer rule would give the county discipline and help protect its credit rating if the county had to borrow in the future.

Board members also flagged near‑term budget pressures. Finance staff and several committee members noted the 2025 budget appropriates use of fund balance; Hopkinson said the county's combined general account and special reserve funds were expected to total roughly $53–55 million at year end under current assumptions and that the 2025 budget included roughly $27 million of planned use of reserves. "If we put another budget together that requires the use of $25 million, we're already digging into our special reserve," Hopkinson said during the meeting.

After more than an hour of discussion, a motion to refer the ordinance back to the Finance Committee for further drafting and clarification passed on a roll call vote. Committee members directing the referral asked staff and the county attorney to draft clarifying language that would preserve the intent of requiring a multi‑month reserve while making explicit how the reserve can be accessed, replenished, and accounted for during the fiscal year and in emergencies. The committee also requested that any explanatory "whereas" material be reflected in operative language rather than only in prefatory clauses.

The county's current financial policy already states a 90‑day objective; the proposed ordinance would elevate that guideline into binding local law and add procedural direction about transfers between the general fund (fund 001) and the general fund special reserve (fund 112). Committee members asked staff to return with precise language on: what events qualify as emergencies; whether the ordinance should require a specific path to restore the 90‑day balance; and how the policy interacts with other restricted general‑fund subaccounts used for audit reporting.

The committee also repeatedly urged the Finance Committee to finalize guidance on whether departments should prepare alternative budgets (for example, a no‑increase scenario) and what assumptions the county should use for union increases, cost‑of‑living adjustments and other pressures while the longer ordinance discussion proceeds.

What happens next: the Finance Committee will redraft the ordinance language to address the committee's concerns and return the measure for further consideration. Members said they want the revised language to clarify access rules for the reserve, specify whether the reserve target is a budgeting guideline or a legal requirement, and identify any circumstances that would permit temporary draws below the target and how those draws must be replenished.