The McHenry County Finance & Audit Committee met Oct. 9 and split over how much of last year’s levy base to restore and how much to abate, producing tied or unresolved committee votes on the county’s proposed levy and annual budget ordinances.

The committee discussed whether to apply a three‑year “look back” calculation to reestablish the county’s levy base and whether to include CPI and new growth in that calculation. Staff presented a worksheet showing several scenarios: a plain look‑back base and variants with new growth and CPI added. The worksheet showed the look‑back-only total at about $73,802,726 and a scenario that included CPI and new growth at roughly $76,776,707. Committee staff also modeled abatement options; an abatement of $5,000,000 was used in one scenario and members discussed a smaller $1,700,000 abatement in another.

Why it matters: the levy and abatement choices determine how much property taxpayers may ultimately be billed and how much reserve the county retains. Committee discussion tied levy choices to the county’s general fund reserves and a series of unresolved budget pressures, including retirement funds, jail overtime and vacant positions.

Staff presentation and numbers

County budget staff presented an interactive spreadsheet the committee could adjust during the meeting. The spreadsheet linked the levy extension used as a base to options that would add CPI and new growth and then allocate the resulting total across the county’s levies. Staff said that using last year’s extension plus CPI and new growth would have produced roughly a 4% increase in total extension compared with last year and that, after splitting revenue among levies and accounting for commitments, the model could still show meaningful fund balance if gradual CPI assumptions (2.5% in out years) were applied.

The committee reviewed several fund‑level figures called out by staff: an IMRF (retirement) infusion cited at roughly $6.5 million to stabilize that fund; a Social Security fund request shown near $6.0 million (the transcript also referenced a $3,000,000 figure as a base level for Social Security); and a modeled multi‑year payback for an internal general‑fund advance scheduled across 2027–29 in some scenarios. The staff packet listed general‑fund supplementals totaling about $805,000 (roughly $136,000 of personnel changes and $668,000 of one‑time items).

Debate: look back vs. cuts

Members were sharply divided. Some members favored using the look back as a way to reestablish a levy base after recent changes and to avoid larger near‑term cuts. Others argued the committee should first pursue deeper expense reductions, not levy increases, warning that abating now and promising reductions later was “disingenuous” to taxpayers. Several members pressed for more granular lists of proposed non‑mandated program cuts, vacancy moratoria and departmental savings before adopting a levy that would enable abatement.

Operational and program pressures cited in the debate included:
- Jail overtime: committee discussion attributed most of the county’s overtime (a figure referenced at about $1.7 million) to the sheriff’s office and the jail, noting contracts and training requirements that increase overtime costs and trade‑offs between overtime and hiring new correction officers.
- Vacant positions: staff listed 18 current vacant positions, with 16 included in the proposed budget and two not; staff and members discussed prior removal of about 13–14 positions in the '26 budget proposals and the accounting approach to vacancy budgeting (holdbacks and turnover estimates rather than line‑by‑line vacancy funding).
- Mental‑health sales tax: members debated whether the county’s prior move of a mental‑health levy to a sales tax (roughly $10.9 million in sales‑tax revenue for the mental‑health board) changed the politics or mechanics of applying a look back; several members argued the tool would have existed regardless of that sales‑tax shift and should be considered on its own merits.

Votes and committee action

The transcript records multiple formal motions. On routine business, the committee approved the consent agenda items (7.2–7.15) by roll call (Terry voted no; John, Carolyn and the meeting chair voted yes).

Two ordinance motions that would shape revenues were moved but recorded without a clear final committee adoption:
- Ordinance providing for the levy of taxes for fiscal year 12/1/2025–11/30/2026: the committee considered a motion that would have filled the ordinance blanks using a look‑back base (figures discussed included $73,802,726 for total extension and $45,362,726 for the corporate/general fund portion). The transcript shows members casting conflicting votes and a committee member saying the vote “tied,” after which the chair said the item would go to new and unfinished business for further consideration. The transcript does not record the levy ordinance being adopted at the committee meeting.
- Annual budget and appropriations ordinance for fiscal year 12/1/2025–11/30/2026: a motion to adopt the proposed budget (totaling $287,233,622 on the document the committee examined) was seconded and put to a vote. The roll call recorded on the transcript shows two members voting yes, two voting no and one abstention; the transcript does not record a final declaration of passage for that motion in committee and discussion moved on to reports and next steps.

Other committee steps

The committee also: discussed the list of supplementals (IT cyber subscriptions, an AI‑agent proposal tied to the county’s ERP, building cellphone coverage improvements listed as a specialty capital item); reviewed staff notes about fund balances and quarterly resolution impacts; and voted to go into executive session on auditor/audit matters and to forward executive‑session minutes from Jan. 9 and Feb. 6 to the state’s attorney’s office for review.

What comes next

Because the levy item was recorded as tied and the budget motion did not produce a clear committee adoption on the record, both ordinances will return to the full board or be reconsidered at future committee or committee‑of‑the‑whole sessions. Staff told members they could continue refining scenarios — for example, setting the abatement lower (the discussion included a $1.7 million test figure) or zeroing CPI/new‑growth for the model — and that the county has statutory windows (staff referenced February or March as practical deadlines) to finalize abatement decisions.

Meeting context and tone

The discussion ran long and detailed, with multiple board members calling for more concrete departmental cut lists and clearer proposals to tie any levy decisions to commensurate expense reductions. Several members emphasized the political optics of levying and abating without ready evidence of permanent savings. Staff repeatedly said the spreadsheet was interactive and that the committee could adjust assumptions before final ordinances were adopted by the board.

Ending

No final levy or budget ordinances were adopted by the committee on Oct. 9; the matters were left for further board consideration. Committee staff will update levy and budget models, and follow up items — including the list of non‑mandated program savings and the disposition of the supplemental requests — are expected at subsequent meetings.