Kane County Board approves $127,500 strategic-planning contract with Barry Dunn after extended debate

The Kane County Board voted to hire Barry Dunn to lead a countywide strategic-planning process, approving a contract the public record and speakers associated with the meeting showed would be $127,500.

The vote follows a 20‑minute presentation by Seth Hedstrom, principal with Barry Dunn, who described a four‑phase, roughly nine‑to‑10‑month process including project initiation, community engagement, strategy development and implementation planning. “We get that question a lot,” Hedstrom said when asked about timing. “Ideally, we would get through phase 2, that current state, understand the scope of the needs. But when we start into our third phase, which would be probably month 4, that’s when we’d start to have a rough estimate of budget impact.”

Board members said they welcomed the firm’s experience but pressed for clarity on governance and follow‑through. County Board Member Michelle Gumbs said the plan should identify cost‑saving opportunities as well as priorities. “I think the benefits will outweigh it,” she said, adding that the process should surface opportunities to delay or defer spending and reduce waste. County Board Member Sanchez framed the vote as a decision to adopt a strategic approach: “The question really is, do we want to be an organization that is operating strategically?” he said.

Opponents focused on price and oversight. County Board Member David Young said he would vote no because the presentation did not promise specific cost‑saving measures. “I am not gonna be voting for this because I did not see a plan that is in the best interest of the taxpayers,” Young said. Several board members urged that a steering committee or ad hoc board committee be named to oversee the consultant and to ensure the plan is implemented rather than shelved.

The board discussion also reviewed the county’s previous strategic planning work. Staff said an earlier county strategic plan dated to 2006 is publicly available and that the new work would be guided by a steering committee to be established by the board. Staff indicated the budget for the contract was already included in the county board office budget for the year.

After the full discussion the county board approved the contract. The roll call recorded 15 votes in favor and 7 opposed; board members who opposed cited lack of specificity on guaranteed savings and concerns about implementation and oversight.

The consultant’s stated deliverables include a documented current‑state analysis, a prioritized strategic plan with associated budget implications and an implementation package (dashboards, initial tools and an implementation roadmap). The vendor will present a more detailed schedule and a proposed steering‑committee structure during initial project setup.

Board members said they expect the steering committee and final governance plan to be resolved at project initiation and that committee membership and reporting lines will be determined before the consultant begins the community engagement phase.

The contract award means the county will begin outreach and interviews with internal and external stakeholders as part of the planned community‑engagement phase; staff said preliminary estimates of budget impact would be available around month four of the project and a fuller budget model about month eight.

Board members who supported the contract said they view it as a tool to set long‑term priorities and align budgets and personnel to those priorities. Detractors said the board must ensure the plan is used to change operations and not filed away.

Implementation steps and steering‑committee membership will be on a forthcoming agenda for the board’s review.