Kane County treasurer and public speakers clash over spending as retail tax referendum nears

Kane County Treasurer Lawson and public commenters sparred Wednesday over the county’s finances and an upcoming retail sales tax referendum, with the treasurer presenting monthly investment results and residents saying the referendum is unnecessary.

Public commenter Michelle Battag of St. Charles told the Finance and Budget Committee she has attended many town-hall meetings on the proposed retail tax and said the public has not been told several facts she considers important. “We have increased our spending 88% in the last 4 years,” she said, and argued the county has received large federal and pandemic-related infusions, citing “$93,000,000 in COVID money … a hundred and 3,000,000 in ARPA funds we received, 27,000,000 windfall in interest income.”

The treasurer’s presentation to the committee focused on investment performance and fund balances. The treasurer said interest income has been substantial in recent periods and that balances have declined as reserves were used. He told the committee the county’s pooled balances are down roughly $24 million over the past year and described an annualized pace of interest receipts that he characterized as a material revenue source.

Why it matters: Committee members and members of the public framed the referendum debate around whether the county needs a retail sales tax to meet operating needs or whether recent one‑time revenue gains and prior surpluses mean a tax increase is not warranted. Several board members called for clearer, consistent explanations to residents about where new revenue would be placed and how existing interest and reserve balances have been used.

Details from the meeting: Battag complained that presentations at town halls emphasized public safety and other expenditures without disclosing the county’s broader revenue picture. She said the referendum’s sales-tax increase “will generate $51,000,000” and called the proposed special fund a potential “slush fund for projects.”

Treasurer Lawson (identified in the record as the county treasurer) walked the committee through the monthly report and historic revenue/expense slides, noting multi‑year surpluses prior to recent years and an overall reduction in public debt during an earlier period. He described shifting investment allocations between managers to pursue higher returns and said the county’s investment performance outpaced inflation over the last two years.

Board reaction and context: Several committee members said professional staff should continue to present clear, nonpartisan data. One member asked whether interest earnings from special funds can be reallocated to the general fund; the county legal advisor and finance staff explained state and federal restrictions vary by fund source. The county’s legal perspective shared at the meeting indicated interest derived from special revenue or fee‑derived funds generally must remain in those accounts unless legally permissible to reclassify; by contrast, some federal funds such as ARPA were described as more flexible.

Ending: The treasurer’s report prompted requests for more granular, board‑level briefings and follow‑up on which specific funds’ interest could legally be returned to the general fund. Public speakers reiterated opposition to the retail tax, saying the county should prioritize spending freezes and better transparency instead of asking voters to increase sales taxes.