Kane County’s Ad Hoc Riverboat Grant Committee met Sept. 25 and, after detailed spreadsheet review and discussion, reached a working consensus to recommend that the county's executive committee approve most departments' internal requests for fiscal 2026 as submitted while holding the State’s Attorney's riverboat allocations to their 2025 level; remaining funds would be made available for external grants. The meeting was called to order by Chair Chris Caius at about 11:30 a.m.

Why it matters: the committee was balancing department requests against expected riverboat revenue and cash-on-hand across special-revenue funds. Staff and committee members said the raw requests exceeded available new riverboat revenue, and members pressed for limits to avoid drawing on county reserves.

The committee and staff worked through a spreadsheet that subtracted unobligated fund balances (cash on hand) from applicants' new requests to calculate a revised recommendation for new riverboat funds for 2026. Staff reported the initial sum of new requests at about $5.20 million; after subtracting unobligated balances (roughly $697,110 as shown in the packet) staff produced a revised recommended total for new riverboat funds of $4,504,655. Committee members later reviewed alternative allocations and a working proposal that would hold many internal allocations to 2025 levels to free funds for externals.

Public comment and committee concerns: resident Steve Lefler urged continued support for external nonprofit grants and warned that operating expenses are hidden in one-time purchases listed in applications: "I'm in favor of a balanced budget without going into reserves," Lefler said, and he asked the committee not to zero out externals that many nonprofits rely on. Committee members repeatedly raised the question of whether to use reserves; Mr. Leonard stated plainly, "My personal opinion, no, there's no appetite for that," when asked whether to tap reserves to meet the full set of requests.

Legal and accounting limits: Kane County financial staff and Terry Hunt, the county CFO who addressed the committee on behalf of the State’s Attorney's office, said many of the funds listed are standalone special-revenue funds with statutory or grant-driven restrictions. Hunt told the committee: "These are all individual special revenue funds which have restricted uses and restricted sources of money that comes into that." In particular, funds listed under "Title IV" (child support) and other State's Attorney special-revenue lines include non-riverboat grants and fees; Hunt and county counsel cautioned the committee that cash on hand in those funds cannot simply be swept into other programs if the fund source restricts use by statute or grant terms.

Resulting direction and next steps: committee members and staff coalesced around a working recommendation to forward to the executive committee: (1) accept most internal department requests as presented by staff, (2) limit the State's Attorney's riverboat allocations to the 2025 level (so the large year-over-year increases in some State's Attorney funds would not be funded at the requested levels), and (3) use the resulting balance to support external grants at a reduced but nonzero level. Chair Chris Caius said staff will prepare a revised spreadsheet and that the committee's consensus will be included on the executive committee agenda; members also agreed it would be acceptable to call a short special meeting if exec committee timing required it.

Formal action recorded: the meeting ended with a routine motion to adjourn that was moved and seconded and approved by voice vote.

What remains unsettled: the committee did not adopt final, binding dollar-by-dollar allocations at the Sept. 25 meeting. Members asked staff to circulate the updated worksheet showing the recommended internal allocations with the State's Attorney reduced to 2025 amounts and the resulting external grant pool; the committee will either finalize that recommendation at a short follow-up meeting or send the working recommendation as an agenda item to the executive committee.

Ending: Committee members said they would circulate the revised spreadsheet to the executive committee and to committee members ahead of any special meeting. The committee adjourned after the chair called for a motion; the motion was moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.