Kane County Board holds town hall meeting on sales tax referendum in advance of April vote
Next month, Kane County voters will be asked whether they support a 0.75% sales tax increase meant to boost funding for the county's public safety services.
The town hall was held at the Santori Public Library in downtown Aurora, and offered residents a chance to learn and ask questions about the referendum in advance of next month's election.
District 4 Kane County Board member Mavis Bates gave a presentation at Monday's town hall, emphasizing the public safety services the funds generated by the referendum would be earmarked for, per state law.
The majority of the county's funds already go toward public safety costs, Bates said on Monday.
'That's our main job, as it should be,' she said Monday.
The presentation also highlighted some of the public safety services that would be funded in part by the referendum, such as prosecuting child pornography cases, veterans suicide prevention support programs and opioid abuse prevention services. Bates also noted that some of the funds generated by a successful referendum would go toward upgrading aging public safety facilities.
A sales tax increase of 0.75% means buyers would pay 75 cents more in tax on every $100 they spend on items covered by the tax in Kane County. The county has said there are exemptions for essential items like groceries and prescription medications, which Bates noted are determined by Illinois tax law.
Bates said the referendum proposes a sales tax, rather than a property tax, so as to share costs with visitors to Kane County and because homeowners already contribute 'their fair share.'
'We've been working on a flat budget,' Bates said Monday, noting that the county has not seen a property tax increase – aside from increases for new construction – in more than a decade. 'Imagine if your family had had no raises, your Social Security checks had had no cost of living increases. … Our belt just keeps getting tighter and tighter and tighter.'
Bates said the sales tax offers another revenue option besides a property tax increase.
Separate from the proposed sales tax measure, the county board's approved 2025 budget does include a $2 million property tax levy increase, the first hike in the levy since 2013 except increases to account for new construction, according to past reporting. The property tax levy increase, excluding an increase for new construction, was proposed for 3.4% to match the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation set by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
While the sales tax referendum only addresses public safety expenses, Kane County Finance Director Kathleen Hopkinson has previously said that the referendum would have a spillover effect, freeing up some of the funds going toward public safety already to other departments and offices.
According to the county, services that would receive revenue from the successful passage of the referendum question include the offices of the sheriff, state's attorney, public defender, coroner and circuit clerk; KaneComm 911; Public Health and the Office of Emergency Management.
The proposed 0.75% sales tax hike is expected to generate upwards of $50 million annually, Hopkinson previously said. If voters don't approve the referendum question, the county would have to dip into its 90-day reserve funds to balance the 2026 budget, according to past reporting, provided spending remains about the same as 2025. That would leave the county with only about $8 million above the required 90-day reserves, Hopkinson has said.
A sales tax referendum has been top of mind for the county board for months, touted by some as a possible solution to the county's cash flow problems. The county has been dipping into its cash reserves to balance its budget, which officials have previously said will be used up by 2027 or 2028 if spending or revenue doesn't change.
For example, the county's proposed $416.6 million budget for 2025 uses $29.3 million in reserves from its general fund, not including millions in cuts proposed by the Kane County Board Finance Committee. The referendum wouldn't help balance the county budget until 2026, however, Hopkinson previously said.
In September, the Kane County Board approved putting the sales tax referendum question on the April 1 ballot.
In opposition to Bates' presentation, that was largely in support of the referendum's role in advancing public safety programs and infrastructure, public comments at Monday's town hall came in sharply against the measure over the cost to residents – including some pushback from within the county government.
Kane County Treasurer Chris Lauzen asked Bates a series of questions about the sales tax increase's expected collection, how much the county receives in general fund revenue and other finance questions, criticizing the county's spending and board members' not furnishing some figures about the budget at Monday's meeting.
Cheryl Dennin, a resident of the county, asked why the county's annual budget had increased significantly between 2020 and 2024.
According to county records, the 2020 budget's general fund expenditures increased from nearly $88 million to just over $92 million from 2019 to 2020. In 2023, that number reached just over $123 million, and went down to around $122 million in 2024.
Bates said that lower operating costs for the county during the COVID-19 pandemic were an 'anomaly' due to the influx of federal pandemic funds, and said that federal money the county no longer has was used to pay for some staff salaries during that time, though Dennin suggested that salaries alone were not enough to explain the increase in spending over the past few years.
'In order to retain the best of the best, we need to provide a good incentive to them,' District 6 Kane County Board member Sonia Garcia said on Monday about the need for salary increases to remain competitive with neighboring counties.
Kane County Board Chair Corinne Pierog also noted that infrastructure repairs were also increasing expenses – replacing air conditioners at the Kane County Judicial Center and elevators at the courthouse, for example.
Brian Anderson, a resident of Sugar Grove, also criticized the county's hiring of a lobbyist, which board members said was hired to help the county save money in the long run. After some back-and-forth, Bates ultimately called the meeting.
This town hall was the fourth hosted by the county about the referendum. They will be holding three more in-person meetings for residents to ask questions and offer feedback on the referendum: at the St. Charles Public Library at 5:30 p.m. on March 6, at the Geneva Library at 5:30 p.m. on March 10 and at the Sugar Grove Public Library at 5 p.m. on March 25.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Don't Need Your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) Right Now? What Can You Do With the Cash Influx?
Key Points The IRS eventually comes looking for the tax revenue it didn't get to collect earlier on the money invested within IRAs and other tax-deferred accounts. Just because you withdraw money from a tax-sheltered retirement account doesn't mean it can't continue providing value, or continue growing. There's a financial maneuver that can help negate your need to make future RMDs. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Are you going to be 73 years old (or older) at any point in 2025? If so, whether or not you need it -- or even want it -- you will be legally required to start taking money out of most types of tax-deferred retirement accounts you may own. These withdrawals are called required minimum distributions, in fact, or RMDs -- and failing to make those taxable withdrawals each year before the annual deadline can result in decent-sized penalties. Don't stress out if you just don't need this cash at this time, though. While you can't refuse to withdraw it, you can still do constructive things with it outside of your IRA. Here's a review of your four best options. But first things first. What's an RMD? If you've already been through your first required minimum distribution, then 2025's RMD isn't your first rodeo. If you're unfamiliar with them, though, here's the deal. All the money that's been growing tax-free inside your (non-Roth) IRA, 401(k), or similar account? The IRS eventually wants its cut. The federal government's revenue-collection arm figures that 73 years of age is about as late in life as it wants to let you keep this money completely untaxed. And once you start, you'll take these required minimum distributions every year for the rest of your life. But what's the minimum? It varies with your age. When you're 73, you'll only need to withdraw about 3.77% of your retirement account's value as of the end of the prior year. The proportion gets progressively larger as you age, though, reaching 50% of the prior year's closing value at the rarely seen age of 120. Your brokerage firm or your account's custodian will supply you with the information needed to determine your RMD, and in many cases can figure it out for you. Otherwise, refer to the IRS for instructions. If you own more than one retirement account, that's OK. You can mix and match your withdrawals from the same kinds of retirement accounts to come up with a sum-total RMD figure, and then make the withdrawal from just one of these accounts, or portions from each. The IRS only cares about the total amount it's owed -- not where the money comes from. However, you can't mix and match among different kinds of retirement accounts, like a 403(b) and a traditional IRA. Both of them do have RMDs, but you'll have to handle each category separately. You can only combine like-categorized retirement accounts for RMD calculation and withdrawal purposes. There's one exception to this: 401(k) accounts. If you happen to have more than one 401(k), you need to take your calculated RMD for each one from that one. As for timing, your very first required minimum distribution doesn't need to be completed until April 1 of the year after you turn 73. Past that point, these withdrawals are supposed to be completed by the end of the calendar tax year. That means if you wait to make your first one, you may end up taking two years' worth of RMDs in the year you turn 74. Options Suppose you don't actually need all of that money in that year, though. No problem. While you'll still need to make these withdrawals, there are several options for what you may want to do with the cash influx, some of them specific to IRAs. 1. Give it away (tax efficiently) You can always give money to charitable causes. And, while there are limits, donations to legitimate charities are at least somewhat tax-deductible. If you're over 70 and a half and are willing to transfer cash or assets directly from your IRA to a charity, though, tax-deductibility limits are much higher. Specifically, by categorizing your RMD as a qualified charitable distribution (or QCD), you can take as much as $108,000 worth of an IRA distribution that would have been considered your taxable income (or up to $216,00 for a married couple) and directly transfer it to a charitable cause -- and that maneuver will still satisfy your minimum distribution requirement. You can't do this with 401(k)s or similar accounts. Contact the charity in question for instructions on how they can receive this gift, and then confirm it for your record-keeping and documentation purposes. 2. Tuck it away for a rainy day Just because you don't need this money right now doesn't necessarily mean you want to get rid of it altogether, of course. The day may well come when you do need it. If that's the case, leaving a sizable wad of cash in a checking or savings account is an option, but arguably not your best one. These accounts pay little to no interest. If you're willing to make a minimal amount of effort to shop around, you can find a high-yield money market fund you like instead. Such accounts are currently paying in the ballpark of 4%, and almost all brokerage firms and most online banks offer them. Now, moving money into and out of such funds involves buying and selling just like an ordinary mutual fund. So, to convert that money back to something liquid and cash-like will take one full business day. It's certainly worth the trouble, though, for a good interest rate on the kind of money you're likely to be reallocating with an RMD. 3. Invest it -- or reinvest it -- with its new taxable status in mind Most people slated to collect a required minimum distribution who don't actually need the money at that time are likely just going to reinvest it. However, if you're only going to repurchase the same investments you sold to facilitate the RMD, you need not bother. You can simply request a transfer of assets from an IRA and into an ordinary brokerage account. Just instruct your broker/custodian to do what's called an in-kind transfer. It may take an extra day or two to complete, but you'll still get a precise distribution value figure for the day the transfer was officially done. That being said, while you're moving things around anyway, you might want to use the opportunity to make some smart changes to your portfolio. Just consider the new taxable status for any freed-up money or assets. Nothing that ever happened within your IRA was a taxable event. Now, everything this money could become presents a potential tax liability. If you want to keep your tax bill to a minimum, you probably won't want to invest your entire RMD in dividend stocks. While they're riskier, buy-and-hold growth stocks are also rather tax-efficient. 4. Start saving for a Roth conversion Finally, if you know taking taxable withdrawals out of your retirement account every year is going to be more of a drag than you care to deal with, you've always got the option of converting an ordinary IRA into a Roth IRA -- Roths aren't subject to RMDs. The downside to this move is that when you convert money from an ordinary IRA into a Roth, all the taxes on this withdrawal come due at once. This can get expensive, especially if doing so bumps you into a higher tax bracket for the year. That's why many people who opt for Roth conversions perform them over the course of multiple years, completing the conversion in tranches, each of which is a relatively small income-taxable event. Assuming you'd rather not leave any money out of the newly converted (but still tax-deferring) Roth when you don't have to, you can cover this tax bill with other funds ... including your RMD money. Just bear in mind that a Roth conversion doesn't satisfy your RMD for that year. And, paying taxes on one doesn't negate the tax bill for the other. Every year's required minimum distribution is already determined at the end of the prior year, and is owed whether you do a conversion that year or not. If you like this idea, you'll simply want to convert as much money as possible as quickly as possible to keep your RMDs -- and the number of years you must take them -- to their lowest-possible minimum. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Don't Need Your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) Right Now? What Can You Do With the Cash Influx? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Delaying Social Security Leads to Bigger Benefits Payments. 3 Ways to Help Make It Happen
Key Points You don't need to start your Social Security benefits and IRA withdrawals at the same time. You may wish to work more years -- and so consider what kind of work you can reasonably do. Adding a few more years of wage-producing work could also bolster your calculated benefits. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › You probably already know that postponing your Social Security retirement benefits will make your eventual payments bigger. Specifically, as things stand right now, for every month after reaching your official full retirement age (or FRA) that you wait to claim, your future payments grow to the tune of 2/3 of 1%. That's 8% per year, for a little more meaningful perspective, which isn't a bad little pay bump. And the program will continue adding this credit every month you postpone your payments all the way until you turn 70. With the average monthly Social Security check now worth $1,976, waiting this long to file for benefits can mean a few hundred extra bucks per month. It's easier said than done, however. Life's realities -- like health issues or expenses -- can get in the way. With that as the backdrop, here's a look at three things you can do to help yourself delay claiming Social Security's retirement payments for as long as possible, beefing up the size of your checks once you do decide to initiate these well-earned benefits. Start your IRA distributions before your Social Security payments Many retirees begin collecting Social Security payments and start living on their retirement savings right after they retire. They often have to, in fact -- life requires it. Even if the mortgage is paid off, groceries must still be bought and utility bills need to be paid. You're certainly not required to tap both sources of retirement income immediately after you stop earning a work-based income. If you only need one or the other, only utilize one and let the other continue growing for at least a little while longer. But why not claim Social Security benefits first and let your retirement savings continue to grow in the interim? There's certainly a case to be made for this alternative. For instance, if health issues create a better-than-average chance of shortening your life span, you may be better served by collecting as much Social Security as you can while you can. In this same vein, when you initiate your Social Security benefits can potentially impact your spouse's Social Security income later in life. Conversely, if you've got a sizable stash of money in an ordinary (non-Roth) IRA or 401(k), taking more but smaller taxable distributions from these accounts by starting withdrawals at a relatively early age might reduce your total lifetime tax bill resulting from these distributions. Withdrawals from retirement accounts are also flexible, meaning you can take more, or less, as needed. That's not the case with Social Security. What you get is what you get, and with one time-limited exception, once you start collecting Social Security you don't have the choice of stopping. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure which of these plans makes the most sense for you is by pulling out a pencil and paper and doing a side-by-side comparison. This will require a bit of data-gathering just to make sure you've got all the information you'll need to do the math. But it would be time well spent if you've feasibly got the option of only tapping one source or the other when starting your retirement. Consider the practicalities of working for more years That being said, if delaying Social Security benefits for as long as possible means you'll also need to work -- at least part time -- to make ends meet in the meantime, some strategic career planning may be in order. Namely, you'll want to make sure you're able to continue working past an age when many other people are calling it quits. And it's not just a matter of making sure your age doesn't translate into health-related reasons for leaving the workplace, although this is certainly something to consider. (For example, handling heavy equipment, tools, and materials can take a sizable toll on an older body. If the option to move to a more administrative role materializes, take it.) Later in your career also isn't a time to sacrifice job security for a chance to work at a start-up that might be out of business within a year, for instance. The point is, you want to give yourself the very best chance of continuing to work well past your earliest eligibility for Social Security benefits. Make as much money as you (reasonably) can for at least 35 years Finally, not only will holding off on the initiation of your Social Security benefits make your eventual payments bigger, but postponing these payments could also give you more time to pay more Social Security taxes that bolster your future benefit. Many people may not realize it, but when the Social Security Administration determines how much it owes you in retirement benefits, it looks at your 35 highest-earning (adjusted for inflation) years. Not working a total of 35 years doesn't mean you won't get anything -- the Social Security Administration simply credits you zero dollars' worth of income for every year less than 35 that you worked. This, of course, results in a smaller benefit. Even if you're not "maxing out" your taxable work-based income, though, something is better than nothing if you'd otherwise have fewer than 35 years' worth of taxable wages. But what if you've already worked a full 35 years? There may still be an upside to continuing to work. If you happen to be earning relatively more now than you did earlier in your career, these higher-earning years will replace any lower-earning ones when Social Security determines which of your work years are your 35 best in terms of taxable work-based wages. Of course, working for longer also allows you to tuck more away into a retirement savings account. Just be realistic. If you physically shouldn't continue to work or if you're miserable while you're working, don't do it. No amount of money is worth lowering your overall mental and physical well-being at any stage of your life. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Delaying Social Security Leads to Bigger Benefits Payments. 3 Ways to Help Make It Happen was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
