Good afternoon.

Today is October 7th, 2025.

I call Lake County legislative meeting to order at 1 p.m.

In addition to being able to attend in person.

Remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom at the link on the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Isaiah, would you please please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God individual with liberty and justice for all.

Could we have a roll call, please?

Vice Chair Campos.

Member Hunter.

Member Kyle.

Member Roberts?

Member Schleck?

Here.

Member Villzek?

Here.

Chair Wasn't here.

Thank you.

Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comment for items not on our agenda?

There is no public comment today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just a few remarks.

We'll be reviewing our draft legislative agenda for 2026.

Um, and as far as we know, we haven't seen any federal grants canceled as a result of the shutdown.

Uh, we'll get an update from Greg on that a little bit later.

And we're also going to review some new items that have been added since we last discussed our agenda last week or last month, sorry.

Um, and we'll be moving forward towards a vote next month on the finalized agenda.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any unfinished business?

We do not.

All right.

Uh may I have a motion and a second for a consent agenda to pass the minutes.

Motion by Gina.

Second find coming.

All those in favor.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Uh do we need to take any committee action?

That was it.

There, no, okay, we could not.

All right.

Uh, first off, we're do we have um we do Derek online here.

So Derek will walk us through what's going on in Springfield.

You're on, Derek.

Welcome.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Great to be here with you today.

Just a short report.

And I'm obviously happy to answer questions.

The full veto session is scheduled to convene on Tuesday, October 14th.

And as we suggested a few months ago, three main issues of discussion.

Not sure if any of them will actually have any motion to them.

Um, by the time we conclude on October 30th, first of the budget.

On September 23rd, Governor Pritzker issued an executive order um requiring a 4% suggested holdback be identified by agencies and departments under his control.

This is separate apart from any constitutional officer, excuse me, and excludes topics like elementary and secondary education.

So from exclusionary amounts, a $55 billion budget resulted in about a $28.1 billion pot of money off of which that 4% holdback would be identified.

About 1.12 billion dollars is the 4% figure.

And this is added to the 100 million dollars in fund sweeps that was authorized in the 2026 budget, along with about a 2.32.4 billion dollar figure currently sitting in the state's rainy day fund to obviously be used if economic conditions warrant, if the unknown continues to happen from the federal government, or some other unidentified circumstance that will require an infusion of dollars.

Everybody has heard and read over the past year on where mass transit is for RTA CTA metro in pays.

As of this week, revenue sources continue to be identified and um altered.

Uh governance discussions continues, particularly by suburban mayors in the rings surrounding the Chicago area.

No decision has been made, although there is a clear desire to pass mass transit reform in the veto decision.

Veto session, no decision has been made on that topic as well.

And three pensions.

That bill suggested approximately a 62 billion dollar cost to it once it was all in and paid for over the years.

It is extremely unlikely that pensions will advance during the veto session for two reasons.

One, the unknown uh economic situation in which we find ourselves based in part on federal government actions, and two the cost to it as the state budget continues to be under strain.

As of now, six session days, as is tradition, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, the 14th through the 16th, and the 28th through the 30th, Mr.

Chairman.

Happy to keep Matt updated as we go day by day.

And obviously, if there's anything that there that affects us, obviously Matt will inform the members as appropriate.

I'm happy to answer questions, Mr.

Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to join you today.

Thank you so much.

Kevin.

Thanks, Chair.

Darren, I was really curious because I haven't gotten a definitive answer yet on this fiscal cliff for mass transit.

All of a sudden, miraculously he falls from 711 million dollars down to 200 million, and nobody says anything.

What the heck happened?

So it's it's one of those questions you ask seven attorneys, you may get eight different answers.

Um it's my understanding that two major things happened.

Number one, strong revenue collections came in from quarter two and through quarter three.

Um, and two uh various fiscal um actions were taken by the service boards, delays in hiring, delays in in in in capital purchases.

I'm sorry, not capital purchases, major purchases to help shrink the quote unquote deficit number from about 780 million dollars to a few hundred million today.

Now, that doesn't mean, of course, the need isn't there or or the dollars just mysteriously appeared.

Some of it was, it's my understanding, some of it was stretching out obligations into the following fiscal year.

But the fact does remain if the mass transit service boards are not the recipient of hundreds, plural, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Cuts across the board will have to occur, job reductions will occur, and most importantly, it will take individuals much longer to go from their place of origin to their destination location.

But your point is shared by others in Springfield.

It has not gone unnoticed that the number has dropped precipitously.

Um if any topic on mass transit will be discussed in the veto session with respect, sir.

I think it was the point you just raised over the next three weeks.

Yeah, I mean, it was a half a billion dollars.

I mean, it was just it, and it came out of, oh, by the way, look what happened.

So I'm I'm very concerned about that and and the credibility of their numbers going further.

So I guess we'll see when we when they next couple weeks.

Yes.

Any other questions for Derek?

And Derek, I am too very really perplexed over that mass transit funding um fluid situation, as they would call it.

Um, what would you say are the chances that uh they will take up this final RTA bill in the veto session?

Good, bad, not likely.

This is probably the question that I appreciate.

I've appreciated the least over the years.

Um and let me explain why.

I have heard from members.

We are definitely going to address this proposal by the end of October.

I have heard from members that based on the gentleman's previous comments.

We are definitely going to continue discussions, get to the bottom of why the numbers change so dramatically and ensure no transit agency goes off of the cliff, but discussions will push into 2026.

And then I've heard there is a possibility.

Well, maybe we split the two, we do quote unquote some reform-like legislation in the veto session, and we hold off fiscal solutions until 2026 to help scrub budgets and ask questions as appropriate.

I think it's everyone's desire to ensure this is taken care of in the next 30 days.

I'm not sure if both components are, in part because questions that have been raised over projected deficits prior to May 31st, and now with new revenue projections and deficit projections that came out several days ago.

If if you're asking me to shake my magic eight balls, sir, and in in guess, it is my desire, it is my 100% desire to see this done soon.

I'm not sure realistic expectations are that high.

So, in other words, roll the dice, right?

Your words, Mr.

Chairman, not mine.

Any other questions for Derek?

Thank you very much.

Please hang around for a while.

Thank you, sir.

Of course.

And uh come back to you.

Thanks.

Uh Greg Bales, you are up, sir.

Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, we're on the item 8.3.

Thank you.

I'm parked, but I'm in my car.

I'm on the road today.

Just wanted to make sure you know I wasn't driving and zooming.

Never do that.

Uh the federal government is shut down.

I'm sure you've all read the news.

Fiscal year 25 ended uh at midnight September 30th, and Congress could not reach a deal on how to extend or either pass a continuing resolution or pass uh a plan for fiscal year 26.

In my sort of regular updates to Matt, I will kind of reiterate a few points.

Regular order for the appropriation process is the appropriation committees in the Senate and the House have to pass 12 appropriation bills.

Each bill covers various facets of the federal government.

Uh the Senate and the House kind of were actually steadily moving through those bills.

Actually, both chambers uh in entirety passed three of the 12.

Those were the agricultural bill, military construction and VA, and the third one was the legislative branch.

In fact, those uh three bills had gone to uh conference, and uh members from both chambers were negotiating the details.

I actually uh those three bills are kind of important here because while we were shut down and while uh people are trying to figure out what is the path forward, there's been some chatter of figuring out if passing those three bills and what is affectionately referred to as a minibus.

That's where they sort of package things together, could be sort of a small path forward.

If we can get three done in a bipartisan fashion, maybe that's the first step in reopening the government.

But as it stands, neither side can come to an agreement.

Um Republicans in the House have passed what is considered a clean continuing resolution.

Of course, there's some things in there kind of referred to as anomalies, small extenders of certain enhanced budgetary matters, but for the most part, a clean package.

In the Senate, uh you do not have 60 votes to pass that bill.

Democrats have laid forth a couple things they believe would be required to negotiate in fair and and fair faith here.

And uh so far, no one wants to come to agreement on those.

The main item that Democrats are asking for is an extension of the ACA premium tax credits uh for health care.

Uh notices of increases in premiums are actually going to be coming out probably later this month as open enrollment uh comes upon us.

So uh a big looming deadline that could impact how or if we reopen the government is October 15th.

That is when potentially uh pay for active duty military runs out.

And if we reach that date, uh that could be a pressure point for folks to come to negotiating table.

So uh we stand here today with um certain mandatory spending ongoing.

That's things like Medicare, Medicaid, but there's always kind of things that could could happen, things that could run out, things that operate on different uh fiscal calendars.

Uh it's really a kind of who's gonna blink first the moment we're in.

Uh something slightly different from past shutdowns.

The last one was in 2019.

The something different here is the White House Office of Management and Budget uh directing agencies to come up with reduction enforced plans.

You may have heard about RIF uh RIFs going on earlier in the year for agencies that the administration has uh fired and let go uh numerous members of executive branch agencies.

What's different here is that these RIF plans that are being asked of agencies, while you typically would see furloughs occur temporarily during shutdowns.

There's an intention of the administration that with these plans that they may eliminate those positions entirely if and when the federal government reopens.

So there's there's a lot to kind of wait and watch.

Uh, we've shared a memo with the county of sort of things that may happen during a shutdown, which funding things may not uh flow, which ones will continue to flow.

TSA still shows up at the airports, they don't get paid until the uh government reopens.

There is law on the books that does say that uh federal employees uh who are not being paid currently will be guaranteed pay when the government reopens.

So a lot of moving pieces, we're keeping an eye on it, but we are still uh officially shut down as of today.

That's a lot in one long sentence, I feel like.

So I I'm happy to pause there.

I can talk about some other things, including uh what's going on with federal grants being, I don't want to say clawed back, but paused by the administration.

We so far haven't seen any for Lake County, but um that's the state of play.

That would have been my first question, but any questions from committee for Greg.

So let me just kind of get down to the bottom line here, Greg.

Are there any grants?

I saw Chicago got uh put aside for two billion dollars worth of infrastructure grants.

Are any of our grants in jeopardy that you know of?

I I didn't see the memo, but um are there any things that we should be concerned about?

Keep our eyes on.

We keep your eye on all of them, and in many ways, you may hear about them first because uh a notice would be sent to the county from whichever agency is pausing or terminating a grant in Chicago.

What they did was with the CTA red line extension and the purple line extension.

Their uh impetus for doing so was to go after to investigate if any of the grant making or the contractual decisions are are race-based or diversity-based.

Um we're entering sort of uh unique territory here, and I don't want this to come across as political, but there's been some chatter and allegations that the administration is in violation of the Hatch Act.

For example, you the U.S.

Department of Transportation, which oversees the grants we just mentioned and similar ones in New York, has specifically said on their website that this is the result of a shutdown orchestrated by Senate uh minority leader Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries in the House.

Um USDOT actually just recently reviewed over 300 3,000 uh grants that were sort of carried over from the past administration, and part of the scrutiny was just what I mentioned with the CTA one.

If it doesn't align with administration objection uh objectives, or if they believe it's in violation of these things, such as um uh sort of DEI related decision making to sort of overgeneralize it.

But again, nothing is crossed my desk that's Lake County related.

You again, you may hear about it first uh and just let us know if and when.

Right.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, Greg, I just had a few questions regarding the uh um the shutdown and the Democrats' uh position regarding health care and their ask uh and their uh you know uh our uh so my question regarding uh the shutdown.

That that has been the position uh for the the federal democrats um in in in in the Senate that I understand.

Uh my question is pertaining to MPala.

Uh if if so the emergency medical treatment and labor act, which basically uh requires that hospitals are um required to treat any individual when they come into the door, regardless of documentation, regardless of uh sorry, documentation status or their ability to pay.

Um they have to be treated for medical conditions, uh life threatening, whatnot.

Uh that's not part of the negotiation, that's not part of negotiating negotiating, right?

We're the federal government.

I guess I'm getting trying to ask for clarity.

The federal government is required to set money aside based on that law, correct?

I don't know the answer to that.

But if they have to set aside money to provide the uncompensated medical care, I do know that is a law that they have to provide it.

I don't know what the reimbursement policy is.

Okay.

What I can't, I could provide you though, a laundry list of the sort of requests that democrats have made as far as a negotiating position.

They did release their own uh plan.

Uh yeah, that that list would be that last would be great.

But uh to my understanding, uh, and I'll see the list, you know, we'll see the list later, but and there's no expansion to Intala, right?

So the uh narrative, you know, the counter-narrative that this is about uh providing uh free health care to uh individuals.

Nobody gets free health care in this country, by the way.

So um that's not part of the plan.

I won't see Mtala on that list of demands uh expanding for Mtala, correct?

I I would have to go back and look at their list.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Greg?

Okay, thank you very much, Greg.

Keep us posted, and um we will talk to you soon.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Item 8.4.

Matt will walk us through our draft agenda.

He's been working very hard on this.

And we have a few new items.

And um gentlemen, our and Robin, does anybody have to get out of here soon?

So we'll pull you up first if you need to be.

Okay.

Thanks.

So uh thanks, Chair.

And today, this is all draft still.

This is all discussion still.

There are seven or so initiatives that we're still going to talk about, four or five are bills.

First, we'll talk about three new initiatives that um could potentially be added to the program based on some feedback we've got.

What I wanted to do real quick, and I would like the committee to tell me if I'm going too fast is just bring up the program.

If it'll work.

What does that say, Kevin?

Matt Myers has guarded the screen.

Oh, there it goes.

It's working then is what that means.

All right.

So thanks, Kevin, for your help.

Um so legislative program.

This is the color scheme that staff has selected this year for our program.

And uh not a lot has changed with respect to the contact information for our delegation, state and federal, uh, small table of contents, a little information about um Lake County introduction to our program.

Our guiding tenants have not changed.

I'm not gonna go through those unless the staff uh would like me to.

The uh it references uh some of the values in our strategic plan, the purpose of our program, um, how we develop it, how we change it if we need to, and what our positions look like throughout the program.

We start with the state initiatives to sponsor, and the first one is the Freedom of Information Act.

Um some challenges we've had with uh vexatious requesters that uh Betsy Brandon and Jana Phillips spoke on last month.

That's in the program uh in draft form.

The uh PTAB hearing locations, Assessor Glukirk came and talked about some of the challenges you continue to have with that.

That'll be one that we sponsor and try and get a bill out of this year.

Uh Illinois Homes Tax Credit Act uh was an initiative that Eric uh Wagner and Dominic Streso came and talked about as a concept last month.

Local health protection grant funding increases is something that I mean Emily Gelber and uh Chris Hoff came and spoke about last month.

Decriminalizing homelessness is an initiative that member Casmin brought forward with some information last month.

So that's uh uh that would request an amendment to the Bill of Rights for the Homeless Act.

The Waqegan coal plant environment.

This is mandating that they complete removal of the coal ash here products uh ponds in Waukegan.

Solid waste agency.

This is a duplicate of last year that we're gonna talk about here in a second with Walter, who's present with us today.

So this will probably end up getting changed because Walter, I think things have changed in your program this year.

Uh state task force recommendations.

So monitoring this is a monitoring one for any bills as a result of the ad hoc missing middle housing solutions advisory committee report that was uh put forward.

Uh Eric and Dominic talked on that one last month.

Impacts of uh let's monitor for any impacts regarding to the big uh the one big beautiful bill act.

Um, and then we'll bring forward any initiatives that um or any bills that come out of that federal uh kept in e-vehicle fire standards.

We did have some discussions on that, and when I mean we, I mean um uh Greg and I had some discussions with some of our delegations' offices, and there was some interest to start trying to have a discussion regarding that at the congressional uh level.

Railway safety for local communities.

This mirrors uh a resolution that we this was in the program last year, and this is mirrors a resolution that we just brought forth to NACO again uh by member Clark.

Uh Ford Low High Speed Internet.

That's that's kind of the same um same same deal with this one, and it's a a topic and a resolution that we bring forward to NACO every year and uh get support at that level.

And this this is a duplicate from last year, and then there has been some bills that have been put forth over the last year, two years that would increase the weight limits on heavy trucks that would have an impact on our infrastructure here in Lake County that we would oppose uh because of those impacts to infrastructure.

So we kept this one in here as well, and then finally the last one, which this this committee and board has has made statements on at the state or federal level that we're going to um recognize any changes or amendments that and support any that bans the sale of assault rifles, mandates firearms safe storage, food card process, training related to the sale of possession of firearms, and funding for gun violence prevention initiatives.

This remains unchanged from last year.

And that is the summary.

We have a topics of importance page.

The only staff recommendation that we've kicked around a little bit, Eric Wagner and I is removing the bird-friendly building design topic of importance because we have we have exhausted and uh achieved what we've wanted to that at the state level.

I guess it doesn't hurt to leave it in.

I guess the concern would be if if if any legislation comes forward is backtracking anything that we've worked on and achieved.

So I think I think we're probably just resolving to just keep it there.

So that's what I got for the program.

And so what I wanted to do now, unless there's any comments or questions on the program, was go through uh three additional initiatives.

What I would before you go any further, um you alluded to um maybe some changes in in Walt's proposals.

Yeah.

Walt, did you have anything to add to what we have on our agenda right now?

So what I wanted what I was going to do is have Walter come up and actually provide a summary of his program.

And if the committee's comfortable with the concepts he talks about, I'll replace that page with whatever Walter talks about.

Is this a good time for him to come up?

If there's no questions on the program, then yes, I'm I'm I'm ready to go.

Any questions before we bring Walter up?

Okay.

Come on up, Walt.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Walter Willis with Swalco.

And first I want to say I truly appreciate uh the close relationship we have on our legislative policies and your support for three of the bills, which we intend to run again in 2026.

So that will remain the same, Matt.

Um, those being the two uh food scrap diversion related bills, uh Cynthia 1397.

Um, and these are in it were introduced by Senator Johnson, would help develop markets uh for compost.

Right now, the one big compost site we have in our county, Midwest recycling organics, organics recycling.

We have other compost sites, but that's the largest one.

They cannot market what they have.

They're basically at a point where they can't take more material because they can't market enough.

They've got mountains and mountains of it out there.

So market development is key if we're gonna divert more organics from the landfill.

Um so, and then 1398 is the food scrap diversion bill.

Uh, Maine just became the 11th state in our country to pass some sort of bill that would drive food scraps out of the landfill.

Um, and with the snap cuts that we're looking at coming down the uh the road here, uh food recovery since we waste 40% of the food that we produce.

Um we really need to recover more of that food so we can feed people in the face of these snap cuts.

Um we're working with the Paul University right now, they're doing a deep dive on the impact of grocery stores right now.

40 Aldies in the Chicagoland market, most of the Walmarts, the Marianos, a lot of the grocery stores are already in the food scrap uh composting space.

Most of them are in the donating space.

Um, so we're getting a deeper dive on what this law might do as far as increasing that recovery.

And we've seen these other states that have these laws that food donations do go up.

Um we also are working with the National Ref Resources Defense Council uh on a uh economic impact study.

Uh getting that material out of the landfill will will create jobs.

Uh that's been Massachusetts has one of the more uh long running and successful programs diverting food, and it's created significant economic activity.

So we hope to make this uh legislation uh nonpartisan.

Uh the Trump administration has come up with a new program called uh feed it onward.

So that's on the USCPA's website, and they are recognizing the importance of recovering food and not wasting food and feeding people.

So we do think it's a bipartisan issue.

Um so continue support for that.

Uh the feed and conserve IL.org is our website.

That's our movement.

We've got over 60 organizations that was feed and conserve IL.org um that are formally you know supporting the legislation.

And um we have over 280 people that have given us their emails so that they can become active on it.

So say that again, I think somebody some folks are writing that down.

Feed and conserve IL dot org.

And if you want to put your email on there and become part of the group, um, we'd appreciate that.

So um, and I do have flyers on all the bills that I can leave uh for you guys to look at.

The other one um is the household hazardless waste.

We own and operate one of the five in the state.

It costs us collectively, since you're a member, about 450,000 of our own money that we budget for to collect products from uh the various manufacturers.

And we're looking with extended producer responsibility, like we have for paint and for batteries and for drugs and electronics.

We've had a partnership with the manufacturers where we're shifting some of that responsibility and cost.

Uh so that's Senate Bill 1394 and House Bill 1893.

We are in discussions with the uh the industry, uh, the household and commercial products association, um, which represents most of the manufacturers.

And um, so we are having good discussions with them.

And whether or not that's going to lead to you know, passing a bill in 2026, I don't know.

But we are going to continue to work this.

This is our budget's 1.5 million dollars, so to save 400,000 or even half of that if we do a kind of cost share would be significant for Swalco.

Um, and then the other two that um I want to put on your radar that I don't think are on your list, Matt, are um mattresses uh have become a growing issue.

Uh, they become very expensive to uh dispose of.

Most of the landfills now charge $75 to $100 for a single mattress or box spring.

That's significant, uh higher than it was.

And we've seen this in the last year.

A lot of us have the option to put a bulk item on at the curb through our hauling contracts, and that bulk item does typically include a mattress, but we can see those days are probably number as we continue to negotiate new contracts.

The haulers are gonna go, hey, that's a special pickup now.

We can't absorb a hundred dollar fee uh from a disposal site when we're collecting 200 from you over a year.

So that we're very concerned about that.

Um swank will take take the lead on that legislation.

But the good news there is the uh mattress industry uh is supportive of the legislation.

There's four other states that have it, but there is a fee when you go to buy a new bed, you would pay an eco fee or an upfront fee.

Right now it's roughly about $20 per unit, and that would fund the recycling and recovery of the mattresses.

So that legislation will likely be introduced uh in 2026.

And uh right now where I'm at with the Swalco Board is the legislative committee and the exec committee have approved our proposed policy, and that's in there.

But we have a meeting on October 16th, so everything is tentative.

Um, but I do believe that um we will be supportive of that legislation because it is a growing issue um for residents.

And then the final one that I haven't been talking about it quite a bit because there is currently a bill, Cynbill 1827, which deals with plastic bags.

Um we initially supported it, but the more we thought about it.

Um we have a long history with plastic bags, um, going back to 2009, where Senator Link introduced a bill to make it mandatory the grocery stores take back the bags.

That was the approach back then.

If you're gonna give out a bag, you need to take it back.

Um that that became a pilot study in Lake County only, and what didn't become become statewide.

In 2012, we attempted to pass EPR legislation to make the bag manufacturers stand up a more robust film recovery program throughout the state.

That got vetoed by Governor Quinn, and we cannot overcome the veto.

And then in 2017 and 18, we came back to Senator Link, and we had IMA and Irma support along with local government to put a five cent fee on the plastic bag and to divvy up the money.

Um so we would have gotten about two cents of that, which would generate hundreds of thousands of dollars for the agency, and that bill would have earmarked it for specifically for sustainability-related purposes.

So as I and my board thought about it more, it was like, well, the the pending bill uh would get rid of plastic bags three years out.

It does have preemption in it, so there's seven communities that have their own ordinances that would get preempted, Chicago being the big one.

Um, and it would get it have a 10 cent fee on paper bags, and that 10 cent fee would stay static, and then the larger, more rigorous, uh not larger, but more durable plastic still reusable bags are mentioned in the bill, but there's no fee on those.

And other states we've seen where these more durable bags just basically get handed out again to the consumer at no cost, or for 10 cents.

We've seen in with the Chicago legislation that 10 cents will drive bag use down by about half.

Um we have really good data on Chicago.

The average person consumes about 360 plastic bags per person per year.

Um and in Chicago, it's about 160, it's about half.

So we do see that an increased fee does change consumer behavior.

We believe the fatal flaw with 1827 is it's the fee stays static at 10 cents.

People 10 cents isn't what it used to be, right?

People will pay for that and not change their behaviors as significantly as we would like to see them, and then all the money, paperback costs about four cents.

So the six cent delta goes to the retailer.

And when you do the math on that, that's uh about a hundred million dollars a year going into retailers' pockets, and none of it being shared with state government or with local government.

So we believe we need to go back to the old model and have the fee escalate over time on all three products the paper, the plastic, and the more durable.

Um, and then through an escalating fee, we do believe that that would try that will change consumer behavior.

They will finally start to use their reusable bags, and we would we would recommend that there be a significant cost share with the state, make their retailers whole.

Um, so that but they're not make money, and then to share the rest with local government for programs that Swalco has.

So we do not have a sponsor.

This is still in the discussion phases, and it's you know, most of our senators have jumped on and co-sponsored 1827 right now.

Um, so whether or not we'll get legs on that, I don't know.

But um with our long history and just the way that the current bill really won't change the consumer behavior like we want and perpetuate the use of paper bags, which have a significant carbon footprint as far as greenhouse gases, because making paper is a pretty dirty industry.

Um that's kind of the new wrinkle, and whether that's gonna get legs, I don't know.

But um, if you don't try, you never know.

So those those are the the big ones, and really uh they're all very important.

And uh I'll take any questions.

I do have the flyers if you want me to leave some on the bills.

Yeah, it provides a good overview of them.

So, Walter, if I can walk you back a little bit, um you threw a lot of acronyms at it at us.

I know what they are, but I don't suspect most of us don't.

Irma, uh IMA, um swank.

I I know them, but just just to kind of get us up to speed here.

Yeah, Irma is the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.

Now they are in favor of the current bill because they are going to benefit significantly uh from that bill.

Um and IMA is the Illinois Manufacturers Association, and they are opposed um because they typically don't like bans that will impact producers and manufacturers.

Uh Swank is our sister agency, the Salaway CNC in Northern Cook County.

Um got a pretty full plate with the HHW and the food scrap diversion bills.

Um, and so that's why we kind of partner on some of these.

Who takes the lead?

We would still obviously look for support from our delegation as well.

So are you looking for our support in the plastic bags and the mattress bills at this point, or just kind of to monitor them?

Um it we're much more impactful if I can say Lake County as well.

So, yes.

Um, I don't know if I've given you enough details on the plastic bag or if you want to reserve until and if we find a sponsor.

But uh the mattress one I think is is kind of a no-brainer.

Um, let's let's discuss it.

Adam Thanks, Chair.

You know, as I listen to the plastic bag thing, I get a little uncomfortable with it.

Just sounds like the companies might be making out and the government might be making out.

I just I'd like to see more concrete plans in place.

So what's actually gonna drive these bags into some type of recycling or you know what I mean?

It just I'm not not telling you no, but the money grab it when a corporation's on top of it and they're all right with it, they're gonna line their pockets.

I see us being accused of lining our pockets, it just think the devil might be in the details in that one before I would be completely comfortable with that one.

I'd love to see kind of what the plan would be in place to put that money to work, not just well, we'll come up with a plan.

I no, I we've I've definitely heard that feedback.

I trust you, and I trust Walco, and obviously, but it's you know definitely heard the feedback.

So in the bill, um, you know, we're giving a significant amount that the estimations we've done on bag use and the fee that would be in there, that the state would make about 45 million dollars that first year.

Um the retailers would be be based basically their bags would be paid for, so they get a win.

There's no cost for them anymore, right?

And then the rest would go to local government.

I projected it's about 800,000 to Lake County.

Now, as we do the fee increase, and we what the purpose is to drive down bag use by 90%, you have to keep raising the fee.

And so we're guessing at cer a certain point.

Um, but ultimately we get down to seven bags per person per year.

And our belief if you have a 25 cent fee on the bag, our revenue is very, very small.

So it's a short-term cash infusion, if you will, but the bigger win is we can use the marketplace to change consumer behavior.

If we just go with 1827, we're gonna have paper bags proliferating.

They're not as bad as plastic as far as the litter goes.

But I do understand what you're saying.

Now, if we were to earmark and try to tell the General Assembly how to spend that money, you know, use that money to cover your snap costs or whatever else we might come up with.

Um I don't know how that's gonna play down there.

Yeah.

Um, but we are tying our own hands that we would use the money uh locally for litter cleanups, recycling, composting, sustainability programs.

Um, but the idea is to drive bag use down to such a point where in five or six years, if we truly get down to seven bags per person per year, pretty easy just to ban them.

New Jersey is the only state that's done it.

They banned everything.

You can't get a paper bag, can't get a plastic bag.

You gotta bring your own bag.

And I think I guess that's kind of why I would say philosophically I don't like bands.

I can at least settle a ban better than a cash grab.

But it's uh yeah, curious to see how it rolls out.

Thanks for the information.

Yeah.

Just and then Isaiah.

Um is that what st the studies or some of these pilot projects or other states have shown that it's the increase of the fee or the cost that drives behavior more than other tactics.

So we've done a lot of research, and the highest fee we've seen is like 20 cents.

I think Monterey, California or somebody had it.

Um so we're we're we're making assumptions uh because no one's really taken this approach of continuing every year raise the fee five cents, it would be the approach.

Um, and then benchmark it against that first year, because we'll have good data the first year because the department of revenue will track it, we'll probably be down to that 160 bags per person.

Well, we want a 90% reduction from there, or else the fee keeps going up.

And it's any bag.

When you're talking 160, you want it down to any bag or plastic.

So 1827 would get rid of the plastic bag in three years.

They gave a lot of ramp up time for it because City of Chicago generates about 20 more than 20 million dollars a year with their fee.

And they would get preempted ultimately.

So that would go away.

Um and we're sensitive to that.

Um, but we are kind of experimenting here with with the marketplace, change that consumer behavior.

And I think at the end of the day, 10 cents, yeah, you know, but you start charging me 25, 30 cents a bag, and I got 10 bags, and you're charging me three or four bucks every time I come in, I'm gonna go, all right.

I'm using I'm gonna use the reusable bag.

I see the thought behind it.

Um it, yeah, it's interesting.

I mean, I you can go to plenty of um places around the world and not get a bag.

Um, and people are living and existing and surviving just fine.

I mean, New Jersey's probably the And I that was gonna be my question is like, are there any lessons from New Jersey?

I mean, I kind of I hope I know the answer, but I mean in New Jersey, they are still grocery shopping and buying makeup and clothes shopping, right?

Like people didn't stop going to stores.

The difference is they're just bringing their own bags, or they're buying a bag at a cloth bag at the establishment, right?

And then that that retail place is making more money than they were giving out plastic bags.

So it seems like such a no-brainer to me, but um we're a stubborn country.

Um okay, thank you.

So thank you, Chair.

Um yeah, I do understand the philosophy behind it, but uh, I'm wondering if thought has been uh brought uh has been thought of um that stores are already charge for using bags and whether um they're just gonna tack on that extra they're gonna they're gonna do the tax and then they're also going to charge 30 cents, 40 cents, whatever it is, bake in their profit, right?

Um so like something like Aldi's, Aldi's already uh charges you for bags, and then if you bring your own, you don't have to, right?

So um if this were to go through, well, they already charge for bags.

Now they're gonna charge a little bit more, right?

And so I'm uh I'm guessing what's to stop the other stores from saying, hey, well, we're gonna charge two, since we already have to.

Um just just for a thought, right?

Has has that thought process allowing um companies to have that extra revenue source?

Um the bill wouldn't wouldn't stop an Aldi type thing where they would charge unilaterally just if you're gonna take a bag, we're gonna charge you.

But most of the stores you go to, that's just built into their cost.

Um and but this the bill that we've drafted would not stop that.

Right.

Um what it would do is say, hey, that 10 cents you're gonna get for all those paper bags, we're gonna split that.

Sure.

I guess what I'm saying is maybe I already alluded to it.

Meyer doesn't do that.

Meyer doesn't charge for bag, but if this were to go through, maybe they start charging five cents, ten cents, whichever uh that they had in previous yeah, we we I guess we we haven't seen that in Chicago and the other six uh towns that have their own local ordinances.

Um, Batavia's got it, Park has it, uh, Evanston.

So we haven't I haven't seen that, but that's something I should look for.

Um, because most of the time the retailers are like, we just want to give out bags so we can make it easy so you can get you out of the checkout line.

And um uh so we haven't seen this as an opportunity for them to go, oh, there's a state fee now, we're gonna lop on our own fee.

Um that would really drive people to using their own bags, which that's really what we want at the end of the day.

Sure.

Yeah, it'd be interesting to know that if that that's that historically that's ever happened.

Other questions for Walt.

Yes, Kevin.

I I figure I might as well check in on this too.

I'm all for not having bags blown around and everything else.

But I'm also not a real advocate of giving government uh uh a revenue stream, because when you do, it never goes away.

And and I mean never.

You can look at what's going on in the federal government right now, trying to claw back some things that were taken away that were there.

And um, I see it in my industry um with ground ambulance medical transports, the state of ill the federal government gave money to augment Medicare, Medicaid transports, and the state took 50% of that before it even got to the fire department.

Um I shouldn't say that, it gets to the fire department, and then the fire department the state claws back 50 percent.

The state of Wisconsin just did this, and they claw back this very little.

In other words, they did it, and it was meant to be what it was meant to be to augment the high transports of Medicare and Medicaid patients.

And I I just that's an example I fight every single day.

And you know, and the the fire departments end up saying 50 first cent is better than nothing.

Okay, so they take it, but then the state has got a revenue stream that that's um godly, and they didn't do anything but be the middleman between the federal government and the fire department.

Uh that's the part that concerns me.

I don't know if there's a better intermediate, but I mean you have to get buy-in from the state, and I get that, and that's and if you can prove that they can make money, that's the buy-in.

I'm just not a fan.

Yeah, I guess um the the intent though ultimately is to dry up that revenue source by raising the fee.

And the at least the projections that we've done, the amount of money that is in the pot after the fee gets up, and you're only buying seven bags a year is very small amount of money.

And at that time, to be honest, um it's time to ban them.

Um so it's not as the fee continues to go up, people will change their behavior and the money will go down.

God, I hope so.

But I I'm just voicing my opinion.

I understand, and that's I I've definitely heard what what uh you and Adam have said.

So um before, and I and I understand it.

Um but at the same time, you know, we're we're gonna let the retailers literally make hundreds of millions of dollars off their bags.

So if if I date myself, I I apologize.

I remember when returnable bottles and cans in the state of Michigan went into effect in 1976 because I was working in a store that took them.

And a coke or a Pepsi that was 25 cents went to 50 cents.

And there were and I'm going, wait a minute, it's a 10 cent deposit, 25 plus 10 is 35.

Where's the other 15 going?

Oh, that's the management fees in between.

Never came back down.

No.

Thanks for that.

Gina and then Sandy.

Thank you.

Um I I am all for banning.

We're all for banning.

So if it takes to raise the fees to 25.

And like what I did have a question, but you answered it.

You you said it'd be five to six years before we got up to 25 cents.

Couldn't you do that sooner?

Is it just too much of a jump?

I know there's um ordinances that try to get passed throughout the county by different villages or cities, and they won't do it.

I don't know why they won't do it, but they won't do it.

I know when I went to Anchorage, Alaska, I was shocked when I left.

I couldn't even well, you couldn't buy it.

You couldn't buy a bag, you couldn't get a bag.

If you didn't bring it, you just put brought it out in your car.

And it was a it was it wasn't a bad thing.

I mean, I tend to do that if I don't bring my get my grocery bag, my usable bags.

I just leave them in the cart.

So I just throw them in my car without a bag.

I think we just need to change that mindset on people and just get rid of these bags.

Because if we if they're not there, then I can they're not there, that's just too bad, right?

So I don't sure what my point is.

I don't like I don't like real retailers making money off of this, but if that's what it takes to eventually get rid of them, then so be it.

Yeah, the current bill would perpetuate the use of paper bags for sure.

Um and the retailers would be making the money, and we just with our long history and the idea of sharing and actually using the market to change behavior because people will just start taking the paper back, and they won't get the reusable bag, and paper bags have a carbon footprint.

Um they're much more impactful to greenhouse gas uh generation than the plastic bag is.

But the plastic bag is it's totally a litter problem, and it's a single use plastic.

Well, so one more can I ask one?

So that so that would that fee be for both the same fee for both plastic and paper?

Yes, yeah.

So just before just straight down, whatever whatever you get, it's gonna have a fee on it, and ultimately over time you will change your behavior, and the money will dry up to your point, Kevin.

Um, but it is a short-term cash infusion without a doubt for Swalco and others.

Um can't hide from that.

Um, but also um, you know, seven, eight years ago when we were running the other bill.

We came very, very close at that time too.

But we got opposition from the environmental community because of preemption.

Well, now they're on board with preemption, and they're also okay with the retailers getting all the money.

That was they do have a deal.

Retailers and the Aloy Environmental Council do have a deal on this legislature.

Whatever.

Thank you.

Sandy, love to put it on.

Um, so I just want to say, like, look, some of these costs, when we talked to uh about government and they're gonna get some money.

Where do you think it comes from when plastic bags get all caught up in the recycling units and they have to go in there and repair that?

That's a government cost.

Where do we think the money comes from when we need to have teams of people go out and pick up all of this plastic, whether it's in our oceans or like uh, you know, in our parks or whatever, it's usually government employees.

So this idea that government is like, you know, I don't want to say stealing your money or taking your money, it's just uh I'm just not buying it, right?

There is a cost to having plastic bags in our uh in our community, and I'm you know, I'm just gonna say if if that means that you raise the price, then so be it, because there is a cost to government.

I was at, and I heard somebody say five cents or ten cents or whatever.

I was at the airport at uh Barbara's bookstore, and she was like, Well, that bag will be 10 cents, and the lady was like, that's outrageous, I'll just carry it.

She was so angry that she didn't take the bag, you know.

It is just to change behavior, and look at tobacco for an example.

Oh, all these high taxes on tobacco and government is taking all that money.

Well, there's an enormous cost to having people die of lung cancer, you know.

So I I'm just I'm just saying we can figure it out.

Whole countries have figured it out.

And I know we all want our liberty to have our plastic bags, but you know, maybe we should think about what's good for the common good once in a once in a while, instead of, oh, that's a pain for me, right?

So anyway, that's my rant.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good good thoughts on every every uh side of this.

Um, why don't we just add this as an item of interest, Matt, and and just see what the the viable bill that makes it out of committee looks like we'll find a sponsor.

Was that is that okay, everybody fine with that?

Just we're just gonna monitor and see what it looks like.

I mean there's interest there, so I think we can see what takes shape in the legislation.

And on the mattress uh bill, are we what do we think about that?

Do you want to give um Walter support on that or more discussion?

Any questions?

Okay.

So we'll add that to our there is there is a bill on that or not?

I'm sorry, I missed that.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Okay, so we are working towards filing one in 2026, and actually, we just saw Senator Morrison had a round table at the Botanic Garden.

And she expressed a little interest in maybe being the sponsor, so um just a little off topic, but I think it's the same thing.

Where do we stand with the carpet one?

It's our subject, Kevin.

I don't think so.

I think it's a great idea.

I don't know where it's I don't know where it's I know it's been tough and difficult and all that, and I know it's been for a couple of years we've talked about it, but it just the lobbyists that tends to not get any traction.

Yeah, it's a great idea, and this is the same concept.

Yeah, we uh yeah, the carpet industry uh is not the same as the mattress industry and the battery industry and the electronics industry, they fight it tooth and nail.

Even if we put an extra fee on the carpet, it's really not hitting their bottom line.

They still fight it.

Um, and we we just run out of steam on it.

Uh I hate to say it because my Grady, Derek's partner, and I that's one of our biggest regrets.

And I made a joke with Senator Morrison about it because she fought really hard for us on that bill, and the lobbyists just came out of the woodwork at the end.

And um everybody laughs about it in Springfield, they all know about the carpet bill.

I I just it was it just was sounded so great.

And I mean, and it made so much sense.

And and I just and this is so similar to that with the mattresses.

I know uh up in my other home in this state of Michigan, you roll in, it's $25 a mattress.

I mean, that's cheap, but where they're at, that I mean what it is.

But I mean, it's that's what it is.

It is and if they can recoup that on the time that you buy it, heck yeah, let's do it.

Yeah, okay.

And I have to add that Walter has been a tireless advocate on the carpet recycling front for years.

I hated to see him come back from Springfield.

It's like I was facing an army.

I got the rug pulled off.

Yeah, uh I had to, sorry.

They're all from Dalton, Georgia.

So anyway, um, let's let's add the mattress bill to our item of interest since we don't have a it does get filed.

They got filed this session.

Oh, it did.

Yeah, she just I asked her why you do that.

She just kind of smiled and she didn't really give me an answer.

Okay, I think she just likes it.

I could I can find it.

Sure.

Uh let's keep it on our monitor list, and if that's okay with that.

Yeah, I mean, Grady would love to hear that.

I'm gonna jump back in.

I bet okay.

Matt, you had a couple other items, right?

Thank you, Walter.

On updating the page related to Swalco's legislative program.

Um, and and uh proceed with the other direction that um was provided.

So, Matt, after the 16th, I'll send you the final policy and then I can work with you on it.

Yeah, and I'll dress something up and we can bring it back.

Okay, okay.

Thanks again, Walter.

Thanks, Walter.

Good seeing you.

Um, the next one, uh, Chair Hart had uh an initiative that she wanted to to chat on related to um state statutes regarding licensing requirements for um engineers.

Thank you.

Um Chair Wasick had heard me talk about this on our uh call, but essentially there are nine states in the country in which um if someone is someone is not allowed to sit to become a professional engineer, this licensing exam in the state, uh there are nine states, and um that they don't even allow you to sit for that exam unless you graduate with an engineering degree from college.

If you graduate with an engineering technical degree, I think technology degree, that's not good enough.

So the rest of the states, my understanding is what they do is if you can sit for the exam, you had to have taken certain classes, and then you can sit for the exam.

Um, and if you pass it, then you can be an engineer in that state.

So why do I care about this?

Why do I bring this up?

Uh there is a shortage, a national shortage of engineers in our country.

And there is also um historically black colleges and universities, because they've been underfunded by the federal government, and there was a lawsuit, I don't know, X number of years ago, uh, where it was founded to be correct, that they didn't get the dollars that they should have received, and as a result, many of these HPCUs didn't were unable to afford uh an engineering department.

So what they did instead was have an engineering technology degree.

So my only point to this is that um in my mind, and I'm looking at this map right here, Indiana allows it, Michigan allows it.

Um let me see, uh Iowa, Missouri, all of our surrounding states, Kentucky, oh no, Kentucky is restrictive also.

Um it just seems like we are limiting the ability of somebody who wanted to uh live in Wisconsin or live in Indiana or whatever, or move to in to Illinois.

They really can't work here as a PE because they cannot sit through the exam, they cannot be licensed in the state of Illinois.

So I I just think it's something that we should look at.

Um the other states that we share this is um Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, uh oh, excuse me, sorry, Illinois, can't so it's Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, my mistake, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.

So it's just that um if we need to hire more civil engineers, we know the costs are high.

Kurt Wolford comes and talks to us.

He can't hire people, he's got to have consultants.

Um I just think it's something that we should we should look into.

And Matt was curious about it, being an engineer himself, and so um he was just noodling around on it.

Sounds like there's some um sort of pre-work people have to do.

So I think the question is I I know as much as I kind of know, but Matt, you were saying maybe there's a couple other things you could discern if it would um determine if we should.

I think what what I would look for if it's okay with you, Chair, is um direction from the committee for staff to do additional research on this one, make sure we fully understand it.

Where's the statute that would need to change and all that uh based on the information that the chair has provided?

Um, and we can come back for a discussion on that one uh at the next meeting or draft something, I suppose, if if there's something that's that's easily find.

But I I did I was trying to look at some of the other states in the short amount of research that I did, and when I looked at Indiana, it wasn't clear as to which degrees you needed to take and sit through the fundamentals of engineering exam, which is the prereq for the PE.

Um, but there was a process, and it seems like it's similar for Illinois, which well, here I took these classes, and it's this many credit hours.

I don't have an engineering degree, but I took prereq classes, and I could still sit for the exam.

So if there's a process that is exists already that allows you to take the exam without the specific degree, what additional work needs to be done?

So that's what I want.

I just wanted to look at it further, and I just didn't want to go too far outside the two hours.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

So would we like to have Matt research this further?

Seeing yeses?

Okay, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you too.

Thank you, Sandy.

All right, um, and the next one is related to uh Chair Wassick um funding for the statewide volunteer uh lake monitoring program that the IEPA used to provide for five years.

Do you want to introduce that one?

I do have Emily uh from the health department on and she can give a little bit of background on it, but she's not she's not the subject matter expert at the health department.

Sure, I'm not either, but basically this is a program that was funded through the IEPA that would provide a um support to a volunteer core of people who monitor lake conditions specifically for cyanobacteria, which is toxic and becoming a big problem as we uh have you know later and warmer summers.

So I asked um Chris Hoff, the the executive director of uh our health department and also our environmental health department to weigh in on it, and they said, well, if funding was restored to the IEPA program to do this, then we could engage more volunteers and have coordination and get this testing done.

And right now we have basically uh correct me if I'm wrong, Emily, about two people to monitor more than 100 bodies of water recreationally.

So that's why I asked the health department for their support and advice on this, and I'd just like to introduce it as an item of interest to have a bill out there to say can we restore funding to this program?

It's not a real big cost item.

So that's why I'm putting this forward.

And we all have bodies of water uh in which which their recreational purposes in all of our districts, so this is something that's becoming a uh much bigger problem.

So this this could be an item of support or sponsorship to restore funding for the volunteer lakes monitoring program that we could work on uh with the health department to put into the program.

Yes.

Yes, Kevin.

Do you know you know how much funding was taken away that they used to have?

I mean, I'd hate to just say restore funding.

I'd rather be more specific.

It wasn't a huge amount.

Emily, do you know the the dollar amount roughly?

So each year um it was somewhere between 30 and 40,000 was the grant that we we received as part of this program.

Thank you.

I knew it wasn't a big number, but uh it was something that IEPA was doing, and they couldn't do it anymore because they lost their funding.

So a modest request in terms of the state budget.

Thank you, Emily.

Uh any other questions or comments on this?

Yes, Jessica.

Was the money directly from IDPH or was it like a pass-through from the federal government?

Do we know like why IDPH was it IDPH that you said or AEP IAPA?

Sorry.

Who where the funding source originated and why they did they it was it just a matter of budgetary or was it not a utilized program or not sure.

Emily, do you know why that money was cut?

Was it a pass-through kind of grant?

My understanding is it was from the the Illinois EPA.

Um I don't believe it was it was federal pass through, but I can confirm with our environmental health program.

Thank you.

And it ended this year.

No, a couple years ago.

Oh, okay.

2019.

Oh, okay.

Missed that.

Okay, thank you.

Adam, did you have a question?

Okay.

Other questions on this?

Um, would you like to add this to our agenda?

Okay, we have a consensus.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So those are the three initiatives concepts that I wanted to at least present here and talk about uh adding for the legislative program that um based on the feedback here, I'll make those changes and then I'll bring back the program for final adoption action by this committee next month.

So now I want to talk about uh bills.

And the first bill that I want to talk about is with respect to what member campus had provided uh some background on at the last meeting, and I got direction to do a little bit of work with respect to the masking bills, and there were two there's a state version of it, and then there's a a federal version of it.

And um they kind of follow along with the concept of federal agents not uh mandated not to wear masks um such as ICE.

So uh House Bill 4086 was the state bill, and then the no secret police of 2025 was the name of the federal bill, and I think that that was um house.

So Greg Bales had to bail on us.

Uh he did have another sorry funded.

Sorry, sorry.

Uh he he had uh don't tell him I said that.

So um he had to another commitment, so he had to uh run.

But he he had done some initial research on this, and he actually looked it looked at our delegation to see um who on our delegation was or was not on the no secret police of 2025 act, and um just rep rep Foster was the only one that was not on it.

Everybody else had already signed on in support of that.

So um, and there's nothing um he didn't really have much additional information to share.

We could reach out to Rep Foster's office and see if if there's a reason as to why he hasn't um uh signed on to the bill, but that was that.

And Derek, I wanted uh if Derek's still on right.

I I asked Derek to take a look at the bill, ask around a little bit and see if there's any information that he could find out that he could provide related to the House bill um that is currently in Springfield.

So Derek, if you if you could provide that summary.

So very very briefly about the House 4080 was introduced on July 18th.

And like every bill without exception that was introduced during the summer months, the bill was automatically referred to the bull screen.

As of today, representatives Joyce Mason and Laura Favor Diaz are co-sponsors of the proposal.

And the bill is literally three pages long.

It just does a couple of things.

Or anybody acting on his or her behalf.

In the proposal says a law enforcement officer shall not wear any mask or neck gator while interacting with the public in the performance of his or her duty, with the exception of wearing a surgical or an N95 mask.

The proposal does not apply to him or her.

It also requires those who are executing law enforcement duties to display on their uniform that the officer wears the name or badge number of him or her in the agency that employs the officer itself.

Again, no decisions have been made on this proposal or anything else that's was introduced during the summer.

If it does run the regular course, the first time it would be referred would be in the spring session, January or early February of 2026.

Although there was always an opportunity to amend another bill, take language from this for any other proposal, place it on and propose it as an amendment.

But as of no, no decisions on this or any other proposal that was introduced during this summit as today.

Thank you, Derek.

Questions on this bill.

Thank you.

Um just to reiterate, what um who of our delegation has already signed on to you know you said Laura Favor Dios?

Joyce Mason.

And then Joyce Joyce Mason.

Are those the only two reps in our uh um congregation that that that signed on?

It's my understanding as of today, the answer is yes.

Okay.

Um I don't have much questions.

I know a lot about this bill, so I'll defer to uh uh the uh committee.

Uh I just uh obviously in uh very very supportive of this bill.

I think it it it it it will help.

Um it will help with uh you know with the state of affairs currently.

Um and and and having um uh people feel a lot more safer.

So Adam and then just and then oh wait, and because I think I'm the only person here that's a first responder and that's worn my name on my chest and been threatened.

I've had people threaten me and my family because they saw my name on my shirt.

So I get a little nervous when people say, Oh, why are these guys covering their faces?

Why are they covering their names?

And it's you don't understand.

I understand the fear that they're instilling.

I understand the fear that somebody may have, but you don't understand the fear that a first responder probably has when they get a crazy person sending him a text message.

I'm looking at your house, the ready to kill your family.

So just use some sense when you talk about stuff that there's two sides to a story, and that I won't support something.

I think it's a if a federal agency or if the Lake County Sheriff says, Hey, I don't want my folks wearing masks, that's his prerogative.

That's what he should do.

I don't, I'm not a big fan of government making some type of wide casting thing to say, hey, we know better than anybody else.

So that's I get a little I get a little touchy when this stuff comes up because I've lived it before.

And I I don't think there's enough respect out there from people who haven't lived it.

So just put that in your thought when you when you think about stuff like this.

Thank you, Adam.

Just Jessica.

Well, uh first, I I appreciate your words.

I think you're absolutely correct that we have to be careful how we speak about this, that we aren't two enemies, we aren't two sa two groups of evil people wishing others harm.

Um I do understand as a human, um the thought that covering your face doesn't always mean it's because you want to do something harmful, it's because you're protecting yourself and your family in some cases.

However, I would I would argue that as elected officials and the public, we have all felt, I think I have, uh, what it feels like to have someone threaten yourself, your life, your family, and know where you live.

Um and not covering my face.

I have chosen to be here as an elected official, and in the same way that uh um first responders and agents um with law enforcement have chosen to be there.

I know we don't all it's it's not as easy as like we all have choices and just choose not to be.

I I don't mean to be flippant about it, but we are making choices to be here, it it's difficult in many cases.

And the government, when you when you said that just I'll push back a little bit on when you said that as if government knows better, government is us, government is the people.

We're all elected to be here.

Um those residents and immigrants in this community haven't asked to um be uh um what's the word?

I can't get interrogated out of my mind, um, intimidated in that manner.

I think it's important to um for the respect of law enforcement and for trust on both sides to the degree that it can be earned, um starts with transparency and and a and a clear, a clear vision of who you're dealing with and and um and who you are.

And so I would support, I would support this.

I understand it's a lightning rod of a topic, but I think it's important for us to all be open and transparent and stand for what we believe in openly and without masking our faces.

Thank you.

Gina.

Well, I couldn't say it any better, and I I'm I'm sorry you've been threatened.

We've there's we we're all being threatened.

Um our senators have been threatened.

There are people knocking on senators' doors and shooting them.

Um can you imagine if we all wore masks?

My God, I mean, when does it when does it end?

What you're gonna arrest you how you're gonna arrest me.

You I I can wear a mask all day long.

I mean, the government told us to wear a mask when there was COVID, and everybody said not everybody.

A lot of people said, you can't tell me I'm gonna I can wear a mask.

You can tell me to wear a mask.

I'm not gonna wear it, whether it saved lives or not.

No, you're you don't wanna wear a mask because the government's telling you to wear you can't have it both ways.

I I feel that maybe if you go onto the streets and you see people taken out of their cars and thrown thrown into a vehicle and they're an American citizen, and you don't know who's arresting, how do I know you're really a cop?

I could have been in a Halloween costume with a badge and kidnap this a young woman and and pretend to be a cop.

And who I could be a horrible bad person in in traffic this person.

I I I understand how you feel.

Like Jessica said, we're all we're government.

We we ran for office.

Um we're all going to be we can all I'm sorry, this is upsetting to me.

We have to be transparent.

We should know who's arresting us.

And and it and we can't hide behind a mask.

Period.

So I will support it.

Thanks so much, Ivan.

Thanks, Chair.

Um as retired EMS fire for 25 years.

You know, when somebody whether it's any of us or anybody dials 911.

We don't ask where you're from.

You don't ask your orientation.

We don't ask anything.

We just show up.

We didn't because it's what we swore to do.

And we have regulations in what we do that say you will be with your name and your badge and your rank on your uniform that you wear every day.

We don't have a choice.

So we're pretty indiscriminatory when it comes right down to it.

We don't we just we don't know.

911's 911.

We've we've been like that for my whole life.

I I walk in the in the houses at the worst time.

Most of the time we're invited.

There are arguments to be made on both sides.

And there is also the argument to say we should be able to agree to disagree.

But when you've lived it, I've got extra patrol on my house right now because of threatening things.

Um if as uh member Schlitz said, if the individual agency will use Lake County Sheriff as a matter, if they decide that they don't want to do it, or it's this and it's a danger to their people or their jurisdiction, fine, they should have the ability to be able to do that.

But there is quite frankly, no way I can support something like this, knowing what I'm currently going through and what I did go through, and the regulations that are out there for everybody who puts on a uniform to either fight a fire, law enforcement, or run an ambulance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gina.

I I have just one more comment.

Covering your face isn't gonna hide change if somebody's gonna come after a police officer if your name is on, if you have to continue to wear your your name tag in your badge.

They're gonna find you whether you have a mask on or not.

If somebody wants to find you, I think it's important that the people who are being arrested should be able to see who's arresting them.

I mean, you go to court and you have to identify somebody, they can identify it.

You you as a police officer can identify me, but how am I supposed to know that that was you in court it does go both ways, but I I just I I support this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry you're being threatened.

Sorry.

Um yeah, what uh I would also echo a lot of what my colleagues have said.

I also want to keep in mind that um concealing one's identity is it is a very specific thing, right?

You're concealing your idea.

If you look at the video that was shot yesterday, those agents, some of them realize their face mask was not on.

And their agents told them or their their buddies told them, hey, put your mask on, right?

Because they saw the video cameras, they saw everything.

So that's the the intent is to conceal your identity.

And when people ask for their badge number, the name, you see it on TikTok, you see it on YouTube.

Um citizen owns, you know, cop tells him the law, whatever it is, right?

And you see these videos, and uh they ask for their name and badge number.

Sometimes they don't uh they don't uh identify themselves, whether that's right or wrong.

Uh so it has nothing to do, shouldn't say a blanket statement.

This concealing the one's identity um is not foreign to us, it's happened throughout the years.

Um if if concern for officer safety that they're going to be threatened, whatnot.

Well we don't see the everyday police officer walking around with a mask.

But this this bill is very specific to solve a problem that we are now starting to see become, and we don't want to see it bleed into our state law enforcement, our municipal law enforcement.

We want to feel uh we want to feel safe in our own community.

So I would uh I sorry, and I know that it does happen that law enforcement does get targeted, elected officials get targeted, you know, it happens literally all the time.

Um but this is a very specific problem, and we're those of us who have been on the front lines, you know, whether you were there yesterday or whether you were not, you we are all on the front lines, um, and we uh we put our so this would that I don't feel this would jeopardize uh police safety.

This will not say Adam.

Thanks.

I'll just close with this.

I wasn't there yesterday because I I was unfortunately at a budget meeting.

Um but I think you answered your own question.

Cover your face, because that video you're taking, that TikTok is gonna get hundreds of thousands, if not millions of views.

And if you don't think they can take a picture of your face and search the internet and find out who you are, find your Facebook profile, find your Instagram profile, find your TikTok, you are in for a rude awakening, or rude awakening.

So you're part of the issue when you're out there putting a camera in their face, which you are legally obligated to do, you are legally allowed to do.

The met the constitution allows you to do a lot of stuff, but there's a reason they're doing it.

It's I don't fear.

It's fear.

Fear of being fear of their being retributed because my face, because a 30-second video catches me doing something, should be a comment.

But please let them finish.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Listen, we could take this offline.

I don't think you'll I don't I could show you some of the messages, you won't like them.

So I think you're willing to look at it.

I understand, I understand completely the fear and intimidation that some people feel.

But the other side's feeling it too.

So just know that.

When you sit there and you say, hey, they shouldn't be afraid, they should be loud and proud to do it.

Well, just know that your video could lead to something you're not going to be very proud of what happened.

So I'll close with that.

Thanks, Joseph.

I just wanted to say I I we aren't all saying that.

And I just want everyone to know that that we're not wanting to support no masks because of the impact that some of masked men, there are communities, women included, where historically and almost like in ourselves in our beings, trucks of masked men jumping out to zip tie you without badges, faces covered, and put you in a van is flipping terrifying.

So for is as terrifying as I'm sure your messages.

So I just don't believe these people should be wearing masks.

I believe they should be doing their job in an upstanding, transparent way.

Um, and I think that trumps anything else, but it's not because I don't support that because I don't care about some of the threats against law enforcement.

I don't agree with that either.

I just want to be clear about that.

Thank you.

And just I think we have to put this in perspective very carefully.

And I cannot empathize with you, Adam or or Kevin.

And I I think what you have done and are doing was was purely heroic in my perspective.

I'll I'll never feel what you felt.

And and um I'm genuinely aggrieved that somebody is threatening you for doing your job, and and that's it's not something we should tolerate.

But I also believe in transparency.

I also believe that we need to know who is doing the arresting.

Um and we need to have this in order to function as a democracy.

And I I'll just relate one little story that happened on Saturday.

I was sitting through a presentation from Mono Mono, one of our great partner agencies, and they were just describing what happens during some of these ice raids, and uh men in in flat uniforms and they're all black and they have no identification and masks, are just randomly extirpating people from their homes, and you don't know who's who's doing the arresting, there's no accountability, and there's no warrants.

So I I think that we don't have the power to influence what a federal agency does, and probably to some degree the state agency, but um when our sheriff's deputies are approaching somebody, they have to identify themselves, they have to have a badge, they have to have use of a camera.

And my wife was listening to uh the Mono Mono presentation.

She lived through that in Belfast during the troubles, where members of her family were just pulled out of the street by the British Army who went into their home and and interrogated them, and and she didn't know who they were, they're just British soldiers, but it was and it was during a civil war, but she was in terrorists.

Uh so she could relate to that, and indirectly so could I, but I would support this, and I think we need to have at least some sort of accountability for you know, at the very least federal agents.

I'm not quite sure how we would protect you, and I'm sure there's some provisions that we could put in there to say, you know, um, we have to pay really close attention to making our first responders safe, but but I will support this, and I think we will vote on this now.

Carissa, go ahead.

Thanks.

Um I have immense respect for you, Adam and Kevin.

Um, and I thank you so much for the service you give us all the time.

Um the traumas that you've endured as as first responders.

I think um you can't overstate the amount that you sacrifice and your family's sacrifice to um make the world whole to some degree.

So thank you.

Um I think um here it's a little bit different.

Um because we're dealing with um the federal government meeting the state government.

We're in a state where we've decided to mandate um body cameras, we've decided to, we have laws saying that um our police officers have to be identified.

Um and we're dealing with this bizarre situation where the federal government has descended unbidden.

We have not invited them, and they are actually oppressing from my point of view, the state and the local governments.

They are asserting themselves and to do that while also not being respectful of the laws that we've put in place for accountability to sow trust between the community and law enforcement is terribly offensive.

And I think I also think it should be illegal.

And I don't know any police officers who would voluntarily mask themselves because it goes against all of the tenets of community policing, building trust in the community.

You're accountable no matter who you are, and no one's above the law.

So it's a difficult situation, and I understand what you're what you're trying to say, and I haven't lived that particular challenge.

Um but I think at the end of the day, it's it's for the in the public's best interest to not allow um masked people to obduct people from their homes.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And Teresa, let's do a roll call on this.

If you vote I, you're in support of our backing these two bills before us.

And if you vote uh no, then you're against it.

So it was it was um the state version is HB 4086, and then the the federal version is H4176.

Sorry, yes.

What agenda item are we doing, right?

Where is it?

So there's no committee action.

This is consensus.

This is majority consensus.

It sounds like the chair just wants to do it via roll call.

I just want to get a vote on this.

Okay, Teresa.

Vice Chair?

No.

Member Kyle.

Oh, sorry.

Uh Member Roberts.

Aye.

Member Schlick?

No.

Member Volitzek?

Aye.

Chair Wasek.

All right.

Okay, so the county will proceed.

I'll work with the lobbyist team to support those bills.

The next um bill that I wanted to brief was uh a topic that member Kasmin brought forth from some conversations and discussions she had.

Um I don't want to speak for you, Member Kasvan, with uh Visit Lake County, and this is for SB 2053 and HB 3100 related to stopping the diversion of state tourism funds.

This is new, right?

It is it is new for this committee, correct.

I'll I'll send you some thank you for letting me present this today.

Um I am asking for uh the committee to support SB 2053 and HB 3100 to stop the diversion of state tourism funds.

Um, just a little recap.

Um, visit Lake County is our county's convention and visitors bureau.

Um we are third in the state, uh, Lake County is for uh visitor spending.

Um our county supports tourism in our strategic plan, in our budget, and um we always have a board member on the visit Lake County Board of Directors.

I am said board member.

Um just a quick recap.

Tourism return on investment.

In Lake County, we uh collect almost two billion in visitor spending a year.

Um in Illinois, every one dollar spent in tourism marketing equals 91 dollars in visitor spending, and every dollar in tourism uh marketing equals $10 in state and local tax revenues.

So it's a major economic driver in Illinois.

Um the problem under the current law, 28% of hotel motel tax is used to pronounce uh promote tourism in Illinois.

Only 28% of that tax.

Visit Lake County from the state has been flat for some time, and that's because there is a tiered system for funding.

Um Lake County is a very populous county, uh, so we are at the max tier, but there's a ceiling.

There's a ceiling so that at every county gets at least something.

Um so we are in the top tier because we're big for tourism and we're also big in in in population, but we are our funding from the state has been flat every year for for some time.

But we are our funding from the state has been flat every year for some time.

The most concerning problem of that 28% problem is the amount advanced to the Illinois, the Illinois uh sports facilities authority, because that diversion grows by.

So basically the the history of it is the state of in 2001, the state of Illinois passed legislation that allowed the um Illinois Sports Sports Facilities Authority to redevelop social soldier field.

And part of that legislation provided the state would advance the annual debt service on the bonds for the project, and then the ISFA would repay the state that money by the end of the fiscal year.

The debt service was structured in a manner that the fiscal year 2002 payment was 22.1.2 million, but it increases by 5.615% each year until the debts is paid off in fiscal year 2033.

The state advances the annual payment to the ISFA out of the state tourism funds each year.

Because of the increasing debt service, the diversion has grown from 22.2 million in fiscal year 2002 to 77.9 million in fiscal year 25, squeezing out the funds available for tourism investment.

So the solution they're proposing is not to put all that money into tourism because they know that the state government relies on that money now.

What they're saying is, okay, can we please freeze it at the 77.9 million and not increase by um 5% every year?

So basically they would they would freeze the the amount that goes into the general revenue revenue fund at that 77.9 million, and any amount that more that is um garnered by that 5% increase every year would be returned to tourism funding.

So it's kind of a way to split the difference and and help uh fund tourism a little bit more while also um holding ill the state of Illinois General Revenue Fund harmless.

Does that make sense?

Yes, yeah.

Questions for Chrissa, yes, Sandy.

Thank you for bringing this forward.

It's funny, I was at a uh like a partners meeting and somebody was talking about something like this.

So it's interesting.

So since we know that it grows at 5.615% every year, do we know?

And we're in fiscal year 2025, so it ends in 2033.

So we're really looking at eight years.

So how much money is that?

I I mean, I I guess it might take me a little bit of time to do all the compounding and whatnot, but how much money is it that this Illinois state tourism board would get if you held it at the 77 million?

Well, it I mean you can kind of figure it out by looking at if it in 2001 it was at 22.1 million, and now it's at 77.9 million, and that's over the last 25 years.

We're looking at then eight more years or seven more years.

So it it just you could kind of figure it out by the amount it's grown every year since 2001.

Well, it actually grows much more because it's right instead of right.

So yeah, you got it.

Right, you can get the proportion though.

But I I don't know the exact amounts, yeah.

Yeah, it's gonna be more.

So I think that is something that I would be interested in knowing from the 77 million um now 5.615% every year until 2033.

How many millions is that difference, right?

And then the state is relying on that, as you wisely said.

So what are they doing?

And does the Illinois tourism board have an idea of how they would fill that gap for the general revenue fund?

That would just be my question for you know, maybe Lake County Visitors Bureau has a sense of what their thought is on that.

Well, I mean, since there is that home hold harmless bit, it's um so um instead so the additional uh the additional advance amount would be instead be repaid to the tourism funds.

Um, by freezing the amount of the transfer, the general revenue fund is held harmless and will still receive 50% of the annual growth of the hotel motel tax, but we can't stop that, but it can stop the further deterioration of tourism resources because that deterioration has grown every year.

So we're just trying to stop the growth, but we're not um the growth in the deterioration of tourism funds.

We're not we're not saying we want the whole 77.9 million.

If I may, I yes, I understand you're not looking for the whole 77.9 million million.

You're cat you want to cap it or they want to cap it at 77.9.

And I'm saying between the 77.9 year over year, I was hoping somebody might have a calculator out, but year over year it gets to 2033, it's X dollars.

So there's this gap, and that's what what the tourism board is saying that they would like.

And so my only question is uh, and my guess is that the state is budgeting.

Um what are they how is the tourism board saying, hey, here's where we think you guys should be getting those millions from instead well, I mean they wouldn't have to cut anything because it wouldn't be shrinking, right?

The amount wouldn't be shrinking.

It's it they're holding it harmless.

I'm not trying, I'm trying to understand.

No, that's okay.

I must not be explaining it.

No, I mean, are you saying the projected amount that they're going to be getting in the future years that they've um put into the budget, perhaps?

Right.

So above the 77 million, you know, because it increases by a set number, a set percentage every year, you know, everybody would know, okay, we're at 77.

It's gonna increase to 5.615%.

New number plus another 5.615% plus another new, right?

So those are the dollars that I think you're saying, hey, those are the dollars that the Illinois tourism.

Well, this says Illinois Destinate, whatever.

But that's the money that they want.

So I I guess I would say maybe from my perspective, I'd like to know you know how much money that is and what kind of hole that is in the budget.

That's all.

Well, I think that's you know, probably for the state government to solve, but I think it's it's also arguable that the hotel motel tax was meant to go in large part toward tourism, and maybe it wasn't the best idea to divert that funding to to to fund a renovation on soldier field in 2001.

So I mean, I think I don't think that was great to begin with because every dollar that we spend again on hotel motel uh on tourism um yields 91 dollars and ten dollars in state and local tax.

So I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by diverting uh this money into one project, and then saying, okay, but you can pay us back, but then we're gonna chuck it into the general fund.

It feels a little bit bait and switchy on that on that account.

I mean, I don't that's not something Maureen would say, but from my point of view, it's a little strange that they you know that they created this situation where they diverted money meant for tourism all across the state into this one project for soldier soldier field.

Um, and then they they get the money back.

It doesn't go back into tourism, it goes into the general fund, and that amount grows by five percent every year.

So that's more every year that's diverted from tourism, which was the original intent of that tax into the general fund.

So I think they're just saying, okay, can we stop the madness and can we freeze it here?

We don't want to, we don't want to claw back that 77.9 million that you're that you've depended on, and that you're you know, but we we should probably stop this madness now because I don't think anybody really expected that it it that much money would be diverted from tourism.

Thanks.

I think we get the general drift here.

Uh did you have some numbers, Gina?

I think that it stands kind of popular.

Oh, it's more than that.

I was gonna say that was way off the that's right.

I'm almost there.

Did you get it?

I got like but I would say multiply that 4.1 million by 91 dollars, and that's how much revenue would be generated if it were spent on tourism.

Does that make sense?

What was the 5.61% of that?

Is it struck?

Yeah.

Like 33 million over seven years.

Yeah, and this is just one year.

Oh, I see.

Yeah.

Yeah, and it's it per year.

Yeah, so it's the 77, yeah.

So I think I think the argument is if we spent that money on tourism marketing, it would equal 91 dollars in visitor spending and then ten dollars in revenue to state and local into state and local government.

The state is actually shooting itself in the foot right now by by diverting this funding from tourism marketing into like it's literally we are shooting ourselves in the foot because it it would multiply if it were spent on tourism marketing, it's just dumped into the general fund right now, and I think Lake County especially would benefit from from that because we're such a high tourism county.

And I think Lake County especially would benefit from that because we're such a high tourism county.

This is something we want to support.

Any more questions?

Yes.

There's a bill number.

So who sorry, who's sponsoring this?

I actually don't know.

I can I can look that up.

This is is this new this year?

Do you know, or has it been in the I think it's new this year?

This is the first time um Maureen has brought it to the board um for us to advocate for, and so I had her forward it to me to um bring to the legislative committee.

Yes, I wonder if we could just if we could maybe can you bring it back?

No, you need to have it now, right?

And answer if we can find that.

Who's supporting it and if there's some you know, uh a lot of you know if there's momentum there and I did you know, and I didn't um I was kind of looking for the direction committee today, and I can I can have uh Derek Mike kind of do uh a review as well and kind of come back with a summary as well.

We can get that number that was requested, and because we have time.

This we're not gonna be able to react on this until session starts anyways in January.

So we can I can bring this back next month if the committee's okay with that with some additional.

I'm not against supporting it, I just like to have some more exploration.

So we have a consensus to do more research on this and bring it back next month.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Parisa.

And a few more things, ma'am?

Two more.

So uh the next one is related to solar.

And this is member Velitzic's uh uh based on the discussion she had with representative HP 4141.

I just printed out a copy of the bill, and uh member Belitz reached out to Eric and I just talk about um general thoughts on the bill and what our intention thoughts uh would be on supporting it.

Do you want me to speak?

Member Volitzik, if she wants to introduce the item.

Sure.

I so this originated because I was learning about um solar projects around the world, and um there are many countries where it is cheaper and easier because they um there's just more supply, there's more demand because it's easy it, you know, there's less restrictive permitting.

Um so I wanted to see what was out there in our legislature that could help make having solar at your home or business easier.

Um wanted to run it by staff to see if they had um any thoughts.

I was directed to some legislation that Representative Dan Diditch sponsored last year.

Um that's not what you see before you.

This is a sort of a carve out of the part of the legislation from last year that had the most support and was the cleanest and clearest and and sort of um perhaps easiest passage this year.

Um I think um, you know, solar is the most avoid, I think it's the most affordable form of energy.

Maybe I don't know if wind is more or not, but it's certainly more um affordable than fossil fuels, and it is where um where the world is going.

And I think um this where this is unique, where it would be unique if we were to support it, is that it limits our power.

It's actually it actually bans banning.

So perhaps um uh my Republican counterparts would support it.

It would essentially um provide that a county or municipality may not adopt an ordinance or resolution um or exercise any power that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the installation of solar energy system.

Um I think it would make um uh unfortunately it's it like like many issues lately, it has become a wedge issue, but it doesn't need to be.

And I think allowing um homeowners, farmers, whomever to um implement solar and their own property is something that um certainly aligns with our um strategic plan.

Yes, this is uh thank you, Chair, and thank you, uh member of Litzick for bringing this forward.

I just have a few uh questions, so uh just me reiterate.

Um governments will still be able to be like, hey, we like it to be this dimension, that dimension, you know, we it's literally just banning banning.

They can't tell a homeowner, they can't tell.

So this is kind of expanding property rights, right?

Like so okay, so um there's there's no way that if if if a uh municipality comes up with a uh code on on the types of dimensions, there's no like, hey, don't take my solar, you know.

Um okay, good.

So that's all I had to question.

Um so would this apply to homeowners associations as well?

It would.

Oh good.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I'll I'll point out Eric Wagner, planning building development director.

There's already an existing statute that was passed by the Illinois legislature a few years ago called the uh homeowners energy policy statement act.

Um, and that's actually referred to in this bill.

That's a predecessor uh legislation and in the sense that it sort of governs the same kind of activity, the solar homeowner solar projects.

The current statute effectively prohibits HOAs from banning solar solar um installations on homeowners' properties within their communities.

So it's already um it's already prohibited to ban these types of things in it in developments that are subject to an HOA.

Okay.

And so this would then extend that that uh that ban or effective ban on bans to um Illinois local governments, including municipalities and counties.

So the language in here refers to home rule units, and that's a very specific thing.

I know my village is not a home rule unit, neither is Lake County.

So would that apply to every unit of government?

Do we need to change the language?

Or I'm not quite sure.

So we're not a home real unit of local government.

Cook County is uh in a number of municipalities in Lake County are home rules.

A lot of this would preempt or not.

But but a number of them are, yeah, and this would also preempt their authority for non-home rule units of local government.

This provision would apply as well.

Okay, good.

Um did you have a question?

Okay, okay, Kevin.

Thanks, Chair.

I don't know if any of you guys are fighting solar farms in your districts.

I know that whenever Volitsek had one and and that was reverted by the village of Hawthorne Woods that ended up re uh ended up uh annexing the property and their local rules applied.

I have one going on right now that I've had two hearings with over 300 people at both.

It is an absolute nightmare.

And the nightmare that I'm having and that we are having is the fact we have no control.

We can't stop it.

It's not even the matter of stopping it.

We can't regulate it, we can't tell them not to.

The state of Illinois has allowed that anywhere there's agricultural zoning, you can plop this in.

You can put in whatever you want in solar fields, and the only thing we can do as a county government is the berming and how it looks from the street, and to the other neighbors.

I've got neighbors completely surrounding this, this 67-acre property, and they don't have a leg to stand on.

So when you mention, you know, as a general norm, yeah, I'm I'm an anti-you know, government rule guy.

But on this point, those neighbors are looking to us in the unincorporated area, looking for us to do something, and and my hands are tied.

I can't do a thing.

And I have a witness that sat with me for the for eight hours of this stuff.

That's my input.

Thank you.

Oh, it's any.

Yeah, if I may, we had a conversation about this with Iseiko, and uh my feeling is it's gonna pass, and so um, do you want the things to come before the county where we really don't have a lot of authority, or do we just want it to kind of go to the state?

Because we don't have a lot, we do have some that we can speak on, but um, like I think they would maybe take away the um ability to require a berm.

So I guess I would just say it feels to me like it's happening, but Eric might have different or more information on that.

So we're we're talking about two different legislative pushes right now.

So the omnibus bill, which will likely be filed in uh veto session, does address the current on the books statutes related to uh wind and solar at the commercial scale.

Um, and yes, there are some changes to that that um we would would not necessarily support.

Um, however, this proposal is really focused on the sort of the non-commercial applications, and then to be clear, um, in the unincorporated area, we've already established a policy and regulations that very strongly promote um local solar applications.

We have we essentially allow solar installations on any residential property on any non-residential property um as an accessory used to that development.

Um we allow it on roofs, we allow ground support structures.

The effect of this bill on our ability to regulate and our regulations themselves is negligible.

Notwithstanding the fact that it philosophically represents, you know, a preemption of our authority.

There's actually we've already opened the door ourselves by virtue of the county board's strategic plan where we really lean into promoting solar development and renewable energy in in general.

And that is a strong policy that has motivated our department to push for changes to how we regulate these types of facilities.

And so we've gotten really good about facilitating local solar at the homeowner level.

We actually are for several years.

We've been awarded the Sol Smart Gold status by the by the US Department of Energy for an extraordinary effort that we've undertaken to streamline the permitting process for residential solar applications and to open up our ordinance to make it easier for homeowners to do this kind of stuff.

Energy independence is a really important goal here, and we're already doing it.

Do we have a consensus to support this?

Based on what you said I was sure.

Okay, thank you.

One more, well, actually, two more items.

I gotta go with two hours.

So um if I can serve if I could call for she's got two uh brief items to prep the committee on for comments for uh uh consensus to support.

We still had the minutes thing too, right?

Uh yeah, we do that should be quick.

All right, I think okay.

Hi everybody, Robin Groom, sustainability programs manager.

Following up on a number of environmental uh bills for the 2026 agenda, thank you.

Um two bills I'm talking about today have been detailed in the handouts I've given to you similar to layout in September.

They're gonna give a written summary of the information I'm about to give you right now.

So the first one I wanted to talk about was House Bill 1370 microfiber act.

So the most common microplastics in the environment right now are microfibers and they're tiny thread-like pieces of plastic that are shed from synthetic fibers or textiles like polyester, rayon, nylon, acrylic, and fleece.

Thanks, Eric.

And a single load of laundry can release up to 18 million microfibers, where our wastewater treatment plants cannot filter them out properly.

Uh, and they end up in our environment and our water.

So this bill would address this problem by adding a microfiber filter to new washing machines by 2030.

This is being considered in a number of different states currently, but much like uh lint filters in dryers, um, they would just help prevent millions of microfibers from becoming pollution.

So, what does it do?

Beginning January 1st, 2030, no person sell shell or offer for sale a new washing machine for residential or state use unless the washing machine has a microfiber filter with a label indicating so, which is visible to consumers.

Yes, yes.

I think this is awesome.

I'm sorry, was that a pause?

I thought that was a positive.

No, all good.

I I think we we're we're we're going at short and sweet right now.

I think that's amazing.

Thank you for bringing this.

I love that this bill exists.

I think we should support I can't believe it took them this long to figure that out.

So I think this is great.

Yeah.

The industry wants to do it.

I mean, but if they're required to do it, that's a different thing.

So let's okay.

I think you got support there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do we still have a quorum?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, all right.

Nobody leave, but yeah.

Wow, I can't tell.

No.

So if we're okay with that one, I'll describe the next one.

Uh, Senate Bill 2196, the Powering Up Illinois Act.

This is a new one.

Uh so the Powering Up Illinois Act would make it state policy that large utilities must prepare the grid for transportation and building electrification that's needed to meet federal, state, regional, and local air quality and decarbonization standards.

So interconnection time for electrification projects have faced some significant delays uh oftentimes on the utility side.

So, what does this act do?

It's a it's a larger one, so some various provisions.

It requires electric utilities serving over 200,000 customers to upgrade their electrical distribution systems, promptly energize new customers, including new housing, businesses, and electric vehicle charging stations, and ensure those quick service upgrades.

Utilities must conduct advanced planning and pre-order the necessary equipment, such as transformers and maintain a qualified workforce to meet these objectives.

It also introduces flexible connection agreements, which allows customers to choose service levels that align with their needs and utilize demand response technology for the first time.

And additionally, the bill includes safety provisions for electric vehicle charging infrastructure installations.

So it requires that certified electricians and specific training standards are met uh in order to complete those those installations.

Um and we believe that this is gonna really help hasten our own projects um from coming to completion as we try to electrify our fleet and as we're doing our own um building out of renewable energy systems, it's going to help uh mitigate a real inefficiency that burdens those projects from completion.

Robin, wasn't this part of that larger clean energy bill that the IEC was pushing, or is this a separate?

Oh, I'm forgetting the acronym for that one.

I think this was one CE.

They're they're individual bills, they're not talking about yes.

No, CJ was something that was clean.

Jobs at there was another one that was clean energy grid or I forget the the acronym or the total title, but I'm also I'm also not remembering it right now.

This was bundled under these umbrellas of hey, this could be a really big giant energy package.

I don't think all of them made it through last session, but this one is still going.

This is a standalone that could pass.

This is a standalone that could pass by itself.

Okay.

Any other questions for Robin?

Wanna move this forward?

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you guys.

Thanks, Rob and we had um one item that I'd like to add to our items of interest, which has been floating around for years.

Jessica, I'll let you take the lead on this because you more know more about this than I do.

So there may be legislation relating to the Route 53 Greenway.

Currently, it's in fluid discussions between IDOT, IDNR or Forest Preserve.

I just want to add it's just a line in our items of interest on the state side saying we we're monitoring this.

And if we have to um, you know, look at some legislation that we're just like, hey, we know about it, so heads up.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

I think um yes, it's not ready at those discussions are still um ongoing, but they are being had um regularly.

Um, but I think it's okay to put a general statement, yeah, that we um are at least keeping our eye on any future legislation.

There isn't right now, and there aren't sponsors right now, but I'll say that it is already included as an item of interest in our legislative program.

And it says green way on it.

We would bring back to this committee for discussion.

Yeah.

Everybody okay with that?

Yep, yeah.

All right, great.

Um, so one last item, and I think this will be pretty much a slam dunk.

Uh item 8.5 regarding minutes.

So we've come forward with recommendations from the state attorney's office in the past uh related to the opening or closing of executive session minutes.

This one's a little bit different, and that this is actually we're eliminating old recordings of those executive sessions in which the minutes have already been approved.

So recording in progress.

This is actually um the destruction of minutes from the RRL committee, the previous committee that's no longer in existence that turned into this uh legislative committee you're sitting in today from 2013 and 2016.

So staff is recommending the uh elimination of those.

And you do need a motion and a second for this one.

Okay, motion and second.

Motion by CS, second by Gina.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Any opposed?

No.

Okay.

Um is there county administrators report?

There's not.

Uh I assume there's no executive session.

There's not.

Any member remarks or requests.

Okay, we're good.

Thank you.

We have to.

Oh, can I make a remark really quick?

Yes, Mara, glad you got back on again.

Sorry.

I froze right when you were talking about 53.

Yes.

So I just want to say, you know, John and I, and I think Jessica, we're very closely.

I know Jessica.

We're very closely monitoring 53.

This is a huge issue in our areas.

And we're really want to do whatever we can and get our legislators, you know, to keep nudging Springfield to really get this moving, especially.

Not far from my house.

So you know, we all need to get behind this.

It's great for the environment.

This is, you know, all our communities wanted this greenway.

And so we've just got to do whatever we can to uh keep the momentum going.

So thank you very much.

It was a very substantive meeting.

Yes.

A lot of great environmental things today.

And um, I think we're in, you know, we're on a good track with everything.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mara.

Any other comments or we're good.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.