Lauzen no fan of using reserves to bring back electronic monitoring

Two weeks after law enforcement officials said the termination of electronic monitoring for potentially dangerous offenders left local residents less safe, Kane County Board Chairman Chris Lauzen dug in his heels against the use of any reserves to revive the program.

Lauzen's comments came Wednesday in the context of the county's overall financial picture and upcoming budget preparations. Part of that discussion will involve how to treat about $2.1 million in unspent funds from 2017. Some county board members have suggested using that money to reinstate electronic monitoring.

"The study of the so-called reserves, these are funds set aside for various purposes, there's been talk about decreasing those," Lauzen told the board's finance committee. "That limits choices in the future. Those funds are assets. Once you use them up, you don't have them anymore. When a financial problem arises after that, the only thing you can do is more deeply cut or raise taxes."

Lauzen said fewer people are calling his office to tell him they can't absorb any more tax increases. He has no interest in giving residents a reason to start calling him about taxes again.

County finance director Joe Onzick buttressed Lauzen's comments by reminding board members the $2.1 million is what remained of the 2017 budget after a call for spending cuts. Not every department made the cuts. Some of the cuts were one-time reductions that came voluntarily.

"It is unrealistic to think that such savings could be repeated next year," Onzick said. "The $2.1 million should be considered one-time savings."

Chief Judge Susan Clancy Boles will co-chair a task force with Sheriff Don Kramer to explore reviving the electronic monitoring program. Boles signaled some agreement with Lauzen two weeks ago in calling for a stable funding source that will keep the program from reappearing on the board's chopping block. Lauzen referenced the divided final budget vote for 2018 that cut the electronic monitoring program as disunity he wants to avoid.

"In the end, we were not unanimous," Lauzen said. "One-third of the board disagreed with the conclusion. Hopefully, we'll start the next budget discussions with a common understanding of what we have and what we have to do with what we have."