It is 8:31 a.m.

on Thursday, October 30th.

Call to order the Lake County Board's Financial and Administrative Committee.

Please rise and join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

The United States of America.

And to the Republic or which States, one nation under God, indivisible liberty, and justice for all.

In addition to being able to attend in person, remote attendance has been made available to the public via Zoom.

We also uh per our board rules and the open meetings act attendance via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons, as long as the majority of committee members are physically present, and they are.

We've been notified in advance by member Ann Main that she's requesting to participate electronically due to one of the Oh, you are here.

Surprising us.

After all, I apologize, I got the dates wrong.

So we are all here.

Please disregard that notice.

Chair Frank?

Here.

Member Hewitt.

Here.

Member Maine.

Here.

Member Peterson.

Member Bolitzek.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Do we have any agenda to the agenda?

No, we didn't.

Do we have any public comment?

No.

Um chair's remarks today.

Unfinished business.

None.

Um, our new business consent agenda is item 8.1, committee action approving the FA minutes from September 4th.

Motion to approve by member Hewitt, second by member Clark.

Any edits, comments, or corrections to the minutes.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, 8.1 is approved.

Moving on to our regular agenda, 8.2.

Via Zoom, we are uh joined by Kevin Consendine for Lake County Partners Update.

Good morning.

Sorry I can't be there in person, but you can probably hear in my voice that you don't really want me there in the room anyway.

Uh, but uh happy to be here for our uh what will be the last update of the year.

And uh pretty excited about bringing this one home.

We've got a couple of slides.

I'm not sure if those are up in the room or not.

There we go.

Um but uh so we're I'm excited to bring this update.

We're we're bringing home a terrific year.

Let's go ahead and go to the next slide.

So we are on track to uh finish, and I'll I'll uh get to this in the next slide as well.

What is likely the uh the best year in that history of the county, and you've actually heard me say that before, which is kind of cool.

Um so you've you've seen this logo slide.

We keep adding more logos, uh, which is great.

We've had a few um uh uh few new additions since uh the last update.

Uh Bel Air Creations, uh, which is a um uh a scent company, S-C-E-N-T uh company in uh Libertyville and Round Lake Park.

Uh so they make uh scents that go in lots of uh whether it's candles or cleaning products.

I assure you you have their products uh under your kitchen sink or elsewhere in your home.

Um they have uh made their third expansion in the last four years or so um uh in Round Lake Park, and we had that groundbreaking a couple weeks ago.

So really exciting uh further addition and growth for Bel Air.

Um MSI Express uh is a food company uh moving into uh the former Jelly Belly space in North Chicago.

We're really excited about uh being able to fill that.

Um because it's also a they were interested in the property because it was uh existing food company, um and they were happy to uh to be able to hire a lot of the uh existing or former Jelly Belly employees as well, which is a double win, uh, which which we're excited about.

Um the pipeline remains full.

There are a couple, there's at least one more um project that I'm confident will close by the end of the year, maybe two, um, which could uh could kick this over into uh pretty pretty fun territory.

Um let's go ahead to the next slide showing kind of the our typical the the five-year run we're on.

Uh you can see 2023 was previously the best year ever.

Um, and this one will is sort of crushing that.

Um if either one of those the the projects close that are still out there, um uh that should kick us over a billion dollars in direct capital investment this year alone.

Uh which is uh I don't we've we've never done that.

Um so pretty exciting that uh that this trend continues and that we're able to continue that um that momentum and the growth here in Lake County, and that so nearing so that five year total, you know, I was I was pretty excited to be to say one billion a couple years ago.

Uh you you can see where I'm going with this one.

I I hate to jinx it.

Ron's already cringing um hearing me say this, but costing the two billion mark would be would be pretty fun.

Uh let's go to the next slide.

In addition to the kind of our our economic development or our business attraction retention bread and butter.

Um, you all know there are uh a handful of initiatives that came out of our comprehensive economic development strategy that we believe are also critical for the long-term competitiveness of the region.

Um I am very happy to say that the top bullet there is the one I'm perhaps most excited about.

We have a new new team member.

Some of you might have met him.

Uh Steve Dobretto is our new director of strategic initiatives.

He came on board uh October 1st.

Um, and so he will be leading uh all of the SEDS initiatives, primarily housing, college going and career awareness, um, early childhood and care.

And actually, he's eagerly uh through the the rest of the SEDs to see what's next.

Um and there are uh as you know from your other committees, uh there are a number of things uh happening on the housing front.

The Housing Lake County Task Force uh that the county is is coordinating and running um is continuing to make good headway, and we're about halfway through that six month process.

Um there are a number of other projects um that are um being that are coordinated among some other groups also working for housing development, some of the others specifically around affordable housing or uh workforce housing uh from a few different groups, which which we're involved in and helping to spur as well.

Um, and then lots of onesie twosies, um, which is often how this is gonna work.

So that's working with a number of municipalities and developers.

Um sometimes uh the role is literally introducing those two parties and help making sure that developers understand where there are some parcels that municipalities would like to see residential development.

Sometimes it's uh it's working through other pieces of the process, uh, which we are always happy to participate.

Um the college going and career awareness had a really cool milestone, and it was the background photo on the opening slide.

Um some of you might have been there, but we had the Navigate Eight or Navigate Lake Youth Career Fair, middle school and high school career fair last week.

Our second annual, you can't say annual until it's the second one.

Um really put on by the uh regional office of education and uh and the career technical education leaders uh across mostly the the high schools.

Um it was an unbelievably impressive event.

You always want the next one, you know, the the second year to be better than the one before it.

Um over 6,000 students, just about every eighth grader in the county uh was there, and most of the high school students to see about a hundred companies uh exhibiting across a breadth of manufacturing, agriculture, health care, professional services, uh life sciences, um the trades were there in force, which is great.

Um perhaps the the coolest uh piece was a number of the fire departments got together and so they teamed up to bring in uh one truck and students got to um you know try on equipment.

They also brought in a training uh like pole to slide down, uh, which was very popular.

Um so you got to put on the equipment, feel what that was like, slide down a fire pole, get a chance to talk to the uh to the uh firefighters to understand what that career was like.

Uh that was that was really cool.

Lots of really neat experiential um uh exhibits and uh everything had to be hands-on.

It was it was pretty cool, including a uh uh little dirt track race car that is driven by the uh number one driver in that class in the country, who's a 13-year-old uh boy from here in Lake County.

Really cool.

And uh it was neat to see heaps.

So he was among his contemporaries exhibiting um his primary hobby, and he's got a chance to take tires off and put them on and understand how the car goes together and how it races.

It was it was pretty cool to see.

Um at any rate, their planning is already underway for uh for next year.

We've also the Lake County Workforce ecosystem, which is the partnership of the uh VROE, community college workforce, LCP, um, along with uh and supported by a number of our family foundations, um, just released an RFP uh last week for a study that we anticipate to be roughly 12 months, maybe just short of that.

Um again, a landscape study of the career pathway system and what's the landscape like within the within the county um for the career education uh system to understand where are the gaps, what do we have, where should we focus, um, which will be uh really enlightening, and we appreciate the the leadership of those family foundations, those being Schreiber Philanthropy, the Hunter Family Foundation, and uh Gordon Family Foundation, um to really help bring that uh shape help us shape up that vision and and bring that one home.

So we'll be spending uh some of the holiday time reading proposals and getting that started in January, which we're excited about.

Um there is a similar um study happening in the early childhood space, which uh should be out pretty soon, understanding kind of deeply understanding uh the cost of early childhood across the county.

Go to the next slide.

Yes, thank you.

Um we have uh officially renewed the um the partnership, the GSEP partnership.

Uh so we're we're wrapping up the the three-year pilot.

Um and there are naturally there's uh a few data nuggets from that.

We're up to 228 pro-Chicago land decisions against a goal of 150.

So we're pretty excited about that.

Um glad to get it renewed for another year, and we're we're deep into planning for what 2026 looks like from uh from an activation and work plan standpoint.

Um we will have our our third annual Select Shy foreign direct investment event.

That's a spin-off uh from Select USA, which is a US Department of Commerce sponsored uh convention in uh in DC in May.

Um and so what we're doing, this is the third year.

So this is to vetted international investors who are coming here specifically to uh to look for investment opportunities and ways to expand in the US.

We're saying, hey, you're already coming over to DC, come three days early and stop in Chicago first.

The first year we had about 20 companies, last year we had 50.

Um so we're excited about that.

Um we have two uh chosen industries, and that is um clean tech um and food innovation, which we're uh we're looking forward to.

Uh we are also planning a uh business delegation trip to Germany in the spring, which will pivot around the uh Hanover Mesa, which is the world's largest uh manufacturing technology trade show, um, which is good.

Obviously, you all know we've been to Japan a couple times, uh, so we're excited to get to Europe.

Um we also have uh it's a little surprising that this this is one of those, like, wait, you mean we don't already do that?

Um, but a plan to maximize also the conventions that are coming to that are already coming to Chicago.

So targeting a few of those again in our target industries to what kind of activations can we do basically to bring those companies, put prospects together and give a pitch on why you should locate in Chicago.

Um so that's coming together now.

Um and we also with uh CMAP's leadership, uh they are leading a project among the GSEP partners uh and WBC to build out the development of what's the private sector funding model look going forward look like going forward.

So that has just kicked off.

Uh it's probably not gonna be a super long project.

We'll get that nailed in the next couple months.

Next slide.

Uh it's been a fall chalk full of events.

Uh many of you were at our September and uh Invested Together event.

Uh we've had a very busy October.

Uh we had a great municipal workshop uh a couple weeks ago with Joe Schweederman from DePaul University who runs the Chaddock Institute for Planning and Transportation and Planning there.

And uh and Chris Brewer from uh the chief economist for AECOM, big uh engineering firm.

And so they came saying to talk about the the trends that they see um in the marketplace.

Uh was really great.

They're they have a pretty um entertaining back and forth, and we had terrific turnout, really interesting discussion.

Also with that great presentation from uh Courtney Combs from the Lake County Community Foundation, who for the last couple years has been running their small business growth initiative.

She had a chance to share kind of the lessons learned from the uh I think maybe they're in the fifth year here.

Uh and the the first year was a cohort of one.

Uh believe last year had a cohort of 20 or 25, and they're they're looking for that uh the 2026 number to be even larger.

Really interesting, the insights that they've that they've pulled from that cohort.

Um every it's an ex gotta be an existing small business.

This is for startups.

Um they get a $30,000 grant, um, grants, not alone, um, as well as uh uh business coaching connections, et cetera.

It's been a really successful program.

Um if you're not familiar with it, uh it's worth looking into.

Uh November has a couple of great ones.

Uh Rosalind Franklin continues their really impressive uh series, biomedical innovation series.

Um they've got a uh great lineup of speakers for that day, well beyond uh the university's walls, both from private industry, other major universities and research institutes.

Um pretty pretty cool day, um, as well as bringing together funders and uh and entrepreneurs.

Um LCP is co-sponsoring uh along with CLC and the Illinois Manufacturers Association, a uh regional manufacturing roundtable uh in November.

We are also co-sponsoring along with the village of Libertyville, uh the a uh commercial real estate summit that we're hosting at Innovation Park in Libertyville.

Um if you're interested, let me know.

I'll get you those dates.

Uh those should both be uh really good programs, which we're excited about.

It's gonna be a strong finish to the year.

And uh next slide.

And we're excited looking forward.

Uh we're we're going through the budget uh process right now.

Um for those of you who are also on the LCP board or have maybe heard some of that.

It's that budget's gonna look uh pretty similar to the last couple of years from uh uh you know, continuing to do more of the same.

We're gonna try and pour some fuel on a couple of those uh initiatives.

Um, but we're excited to continue the trend of our events and groundbreakings and additional business attraction.

There's a full pipeline that we need to bring home.

Um we are bumping up some of our uh nationwide marketing efforts uh in order to do that, as well as the the GSEP work um will continue uh to will continue to push that.

And I think some of those SED initiatives, particularly in housing, we'll get to make some some exciting head lay on once some of the initial studies come to fruition.

And that I believe don't think there's a next slide.

Like I said, that is your morning briefing from LCP.

Uh terrific updates.

Uh thank you, Kevin.

We hope you feel better soon.

And uh, we're sorry you're not with us today.

Questions.

Member Clark.

Good question.

Yeah, and thank you as always for the interesting update.

I had a question about um when you're looking at forward and you're looking now.

I mean, there's been a lot of talk nationally, kind of against Chicago as being a terrible place by the president and other people.

There's been these ice raids, there's been, you know, people, you know, we've all seen it.

I mean in person.

Is this affecting when people are looking at coming to Chicago?

Like, is this gonna is this affecting people choosing to visit, choosing to look at moving their uh their um companies here?

Not yet.

Um, but we're we're we are thinking and talking about data.

How do we handle that objection?

Um and we'll see when what that looks like for Select Shy.

Uh, we would expect, you know, we went from 20 to 50 to so we're gonna expect that number to go up.

Let's see what that number looks like.

Um we have talked about there's some of the specific attraction strategy, but the the details of which I'm I'm uh holding back that we'll see what it's like.

We have heard um, we've probably all heard uh some snippets of whether it's friends or businesses from elsewhere in the country kind of going wait, Chicago.

Um just because of the national headlines.

We do understand that that is a that is a significant obstacle that we have to overcome.

And that is a that's that's part of our messaging strategy for 2026 as well.

Okay, thank you.

I'm glad to hear it's a priority.

A little early to see it show up, but we're we're alert to it.

I'm glad to hear it's a priority for the organizations that are responsible for managing the reputation.

Um I'll just say following up on your comment, member Clark.

I mean, the the misperception and the false information about the the safety and security and the wellness of the city of Chicago is not a new issue.

It's it's it has persisted for a while.

But those of us who visit and spend time and have family members living there are there regularly, and we know the truth.

And I think it's incumbent on us and and the organizations that are here to promote the business environment to tell the story, the success story that the entire region is.

Appreciate all the work on that.

Other comments or questions.

Thank you, Kevin.

Thank you.

Happy Halloween.

Item 8.3 is a resolution establishing the 2026 Lake County holiday schedule.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Parak, second by member Bolitzik.

Good morning, Darcy.

Morning, Darcy Edcock, HR director.

Uh, quick item for you this morning.

The county holidays are described in section 4.1 of the employee personnel policy manual um titled Paid Holidays.

That policy is not changing for 2026.

We have nothing on the agenda to change for that policy.

Um, I do have two items to note for you.

One, uh, per administrative order 25-06.

The courts will be closed on president's day, Monday, February 16th.

That is an addition to the list of holidays that is in our policy.

And then the second item is that the treasurer's office is requesting to close their office on Friday, February 12th, per our policy that is a floating holiday.

So they are requesting your approval to close it entirely for the day for purposes of training.

I do believe we have um Deputy Um Stephen Gray here.

If there's any questions for the treasurer's office, and that is something they did last year as well.

Correct.

Other comments or questions?

Member Maine.

So I just wonder what sort of notification, you know, someone were to someone wouldn't necessarily think to check if the treasurer's office was closed and they made their way here.

That that's my that's my concern.

Is there like not the ability to have a skeleton crew, you know, somebody there because somebody came all this way and it's closed.

Okay.

Oh yeah, so that is actually our slowest time of the year.

And generally um, on those floating holidays, there's a from my perception, a general assumption that most government will be closed.

Um, so it's typically our our lowest foot traffic um in calls of the year in those days.

Well, I can understand a phone call, right?

And I understand that you chose it for that reason.

I'm just concerned for that person who for whatever reason just comes and you know, it is like the schools don't always take that off, right?

And so a lot of people go by what the schools are doing.

I I'm just concerned for that person that comes.

I just don't know if there's any cross-training or just that somebody else that there could be one or two people in that office.

Sure.

So it it really is um our ideal time to close again.

We're not in that.

So the answer is no.

Okay, well, it would um I think it would be a disservice to not include the entire staff in uh all staff training.

Um so we certainly could, but I don't think the the loss of them in the institute day would justify the one or two people that may trickle in throughout the day.

And we do do our best uh via social media and everything to get information out to the public that we will be closed that day.

Thank you, Stephen.

Other comments or questions?

Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.3 is thank you.

8.4 is a resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Knickerbacker roofing and paving of Harvey, Illinois, in the amount of 1 million 39,000, 900 for crosswalk and jail secure detention roof replacement.

So this project was budgeted and funded as part of the capital budget process and it replaces the roof over parts of a part of the annex the Washington Street pedestrian bridge and a roof over the Babcock courtroom spaces so the roofs were not replaced when we did the criminal court tower when that was built and those roofs actually saw some excessive wear during that time and what this project does it corrects that problem.

So we bring the roofs back to where they should be they are down to a point where they need to be replaced and that's what this project does.

So we received one bid for this it's compliant with our bidding process and rules of course were there others who indicated interest was there uh an attempt to uh additionally solicit other bids before the closing of the deadline uh it was a full and open bid and I can let you vet dive into that uh but some of the information we got back from the ones who didn't bid uh because we did pull some of the the interested parties uh some chose not to bid because of the weather conditions upcoming weather conditions they didn't want to work over through the winter uh one wasn't able to get a warranty for the roofing system and one was waiting on clarifying clarification of the scope which we provided but they missed it and then didn't have time to submit a bid so uh there were no addendums to the purchasing bid based on any kind of questions because we didn't receive any and the actual the the Knickerbacher the contractor uh they were they were kind of surprised by this uh because they are actively there's a lot of work out there and they're they're ready to go to work they're they're very motivated to get there and and and keep working so they were surprised that there weren't any other bids in competition with it.

Okay.

I appreciate the comments about the uh the contractor I have no concerns about them specifically just you know just wanted to understand uh how we react when when we say a single bid like this members comments questions chair heart thank you so just one um one other vendor express concern about doing work in the I don't I'm not sure when this is going to happen winter time so only one about the weather correct okay and does it feel like it this needs to get done right away yes yep we have programmed it that we assessed it that these particular roofs are a need to be replaced okay and when I say right away I guess I mean um before April 2026 yes I mean ideally we get it done immediately um to just this is program we're ready to get to work and they can replace roofs and really any kind of in any season uh of course you want to avoid snow and kind of heavy material on the roof but yes they can work throughout the winter okay thank you other comments or questions on this item none all in favor please say aye aye any opposed 8.4 is approved item 8.5 is committee action approving a contract modification number two for an agreement two five two three one five nine for job order contracting with McDonough demolition of Chicago AGAE contractors of Elk Row Village and Leonardo companies of Hoffman estates to increase the value of the contract by four million dollars for each contractor per renewal year for the exclusive use of the intergovernmental support agreement between Naval Station Great Lakes and Lake County motion on this item by member Clark second by member Hewitt.

Good morning again uh so as it says in the title this modification of the jock is in direct support of that IGSA with the Navy uh and this is for the demolition of the Hall Halsey village structures and that if you need to uh directions there it's the corner of Buckley which is 137 and Green Bay Road so that corner in North Chicago that portion of the housing which uh has many different kind of names for it but uh yes that that's what this work is for uh so jock is the only contract vehicle we can use for the demolition and we're going to we need to increase the capacity of the jock to meet the estimated construction demolition cost that the Navy has come up with and they're estimating about 30 million dollars uh of course that is will ebb and flow on the the amount of money they have uh but this modification allows us to actually to fully execute that work for them should those funds show up and uh and move forward so there is no intention of moving forward with using that capacity for any other work other than what we're doing for the Navy uh it's just that we have that ability to do that and we'll be able to support them with that work.

Uh it's just that we have that ability to do that and we'll be able to support them with that work.

I appreciate your comments about the intention.

And just to clarify, this the way this action item is worded.

It regardless of intention, it is designated this extra capacity is specifically for this process for this project for the IGSA.

We can't use that additional spending capacity in jock for anything else.

Correct.

Okay.

Right.

And that funding for this project at Halsey Village is a pass-through in itself.

We're not funding it.

It's actually a federal grant, correct?

100% correct.

This is fully funded by the Navy.

They will once the logistics of how that all's going to work out.

We're still noodling through, but yes, it is fully funded by the Navy.

Plus, we have an administration fee for our the amount of work and effort that we're putting towards it.

So yes.

Thank you.

Clarifications are helpful.

Member Maine, member of Alitzik.

Okay.

Member Volitic.

I just want to confirm you'd said pass through, so it's not a reimbursement method policy or procedure in any way.

It's correct.

We are not forward-funding this.

This is a completely 100% funded by the Navy.

It is a pass-through.

So any invoices that come to us, we will provide to the Navy.

They will pay us, we will pay the Navy.

So it's literally just we're just a routing admin.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Super excited about this project.

And maybe just for the full county board, we just add some verbiage in there, making it clear that this is not money that's being spent by the county.

Do you have uh a time frame of when the demolition should uh yes?

So government shut down aside.

Uh this has delayed really the interaction we've had with uh our Navy partners there of programming and scoping out the work.

Uh it is looking to start about April May time frame.

Uh that's all dependent on government coming back to work and uh with the the paperwork that has to uh move through.

Our side is relatively fast, but any kind of major capital investment that the Navy makes has to go up through their higher chain chain of command.

So it's the same sole process that they have for approvals on their side.

But yeah, we're looking at April May as a potential start.

Okay, thank you.

And not that they're listening, but I just want to do a shout out to Senators Durbin and Duckworth and Congressman Schneider for paying attention to this parcel that has really been uh terribly uh the homes in there terribly dilapidated.

I think over 70% of them were condemned.

Um, and it's I think it's just hopefully the start of great things for that for that area.

So thank you.

Chair, want to acknowledge and thank you for your leadership on this.

Um, I I'm not sure we'd be talking about it today if it wasn't for your work.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Member Clark.

Very true.

Um, and so this is he said it's gonna be about 30 million in they think about and so this increases it by 12 million, right?

The ability.

So is it all the work going to be done through these three?

Are they do they have the capabilities of doing all the demolition?

Do you think?

Or is this gonna are we gonna have to like broaden it as you get into the contracts?

The the contract actually has demolition as part of it.

All three are capable of doing it.

Uh, one in particular, it's demolition is literally in their name.

Uh, so they they're the one we first identify, but the other two are very capable and performing the same work.

So we will determine which one to press forward with, and if we or have the ability of splitting it up, we will do that.

And I know this is but like, are you splitting it up just because we have this three jock things, or would it make more sense?

Like, what if it makes more sense for one company to do it, but it's gonna cost 30 million dollars?

Like, can we come back?

Like, will you come back?

And I just, you know, I don't I guess this makes sense to have it just be like you have to use three and they each get this amount versus just going out for the best contractor to do it.

Uh we or does it do, but do you feel like this works?

Uh we'll we'll assess it as we move along and especially with the performance as one does it.

Uh, it really kind of it depends on the relationship we have with them and their ability to perform the work, but all three are very capable of doing that.

And uh, we've selected one to move forward the first phase.

Uh my understanding is the Navy is does not have the full funding allotment this year, but they do plan on pulling it in for the next three consecutive years.

Okay, that was my other question.

So this year, probably you're thinking it would be under 12 million dollars what they're gonna be spending.

Okay, right.

Thank you.

Additional comments or questions.

Thank you for all the explanation and walking it through with us.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

8.5 is approved.

8.6 is a discussion on our fiscal year 2026 budget.

We'll have a presentation from administrator Sutton walking us through some of the carryover items that we discussed during our budget meetings.

Good morning.

Patrice Sutton, County Administrator.

I wanted to um start.

There was an attachment on the public agenda that showed the amendments that were um approved through the um budget meetings that we did last week.

And I wanted to kind of start with that right now.

So yeah, that's what we're doing first.

So if you could bring down the presentation and show the amendments first, I'd like to just walk through those to make sure that we fully understood and have actioned those appropriately.

So the first one on the list um is a transfer within the GOE section of our budget to reduce um dues and subscriptions for the cost of the LCTA or Lake County Transit Alliance membership that we had previously had, and then increasing the contribution to Lake County co-op extension of $10,000.

So taking that from 39,000 to 49,000.

So that is a net zero um change to our budget.

I'm just gonna keep going unless um yeah, and I know I'm here.

I just want to say that that is the request that I have heard like every single year from the from that co-op extension.

I I just want to say that that comes up every single year.

As for 20 years, so we can just keep that in mind that for budgets, like is that something that people want to do or every single year?

Or who knows, and you could have this next year say now we want that more, but um that is 20 years, I've been a hearing request.

Thank you.

So I feel like um member Was it sent out some information that um they do a lot of work with SNAP, but I was unable to find that anybody know okay.

So we'll just look at it.

I've been learning a lot about SNAP this week.

Uh-huh.

You know, given the federal funding is about to expire uh tomorrow.

Um I'm not familiar with their work with SNAP either.

Uh it could just be on the education and you know, promotion side.

But you know, for everyone's awareness, the way that that works is it's not like food banks, it's dollars, it's dollars in the hands of consumers that they spend at our grocery stores.

And so the secondary impact, aside from those who are gonna have a lack of access to food, is gonna be an economic impact on stores and food sellers uh across the country, but here as well.

And um, it's obviously something we we all need to pay attention to and be concerned.

Member of Litik.

Sorry, I missed the beginning of this um conversation, but um I did I I also wasn't sure.

So I read through their site as far as I know, it's education, it's um nutrition education is it's called is the is what that the extension provides, not food, but education about food.

Okay.

But you had also mentioned, I think during the hearing that there was there's a matching component, right?

That they're what they're able to capture additional dollars if the local sponsor provides another.

Yeah, that was you, sorry, I apologize.

Okay, member Clark.

That's what I was gonna mention.

And so um if I know when I visited the UFI extension, so I just myself, not with anyone else have visited, and um they do uh unfortunately some of their funding is tied to the funding they get from the county.

So maybe we could use in our legislative agenda that that shouldn't be true.

Um, but that is they get some matching funds for whatever we give.

And the U of I extension does a lot with nutrition education.

Maybe the teacher and me, I like the education part.

Um, also about um soil, growing gardens, things like that.

It's a small amount of money, but their funding is dependent.

I wish it wasn't dependent on us giving them money, but it is.

So I think the work they do is important.

I don't also do not know about the SNAP thing.

I don't think it has to do directly with that.

But I I have I've known a lot of I have constituents that go to these programs, um, and they really do good outreach in the community.

And so since they are dependent on us for some of their funding, um, I would like that's why I made that motion.

So I stand.

I hope we can fund it.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Member Bain.

Yeah, I was just gonna say, you know, in the past, uh the director of the U of I extension has approached us.

I think um member Cunningham would remember like a number of years ago.

It was gonna be zeroed out, and a bunch of us gave up our raises for the year and turned that money, remember, turn that money over to the extension service um instead.

So I I just um, you know, as again, I wasn't here, but it it just seems a little not that they don't do good things, but it seems just a little loose.

Uh like we're just giving, and that's wrong.

We're giving money, it's not necessarily targeted to education uh of food programs or things like that.

I mean, they do, they do master gardener and stuff like that.

I'm just a little uncomfortable with saying here's more money for your budget, and maybe we leave it, but I I really suggest that we kind of look at something because it's to it's a general for their budget, it's not related to SNAP, right?

We're just giving them money.

So I think we just need to be clear that we're just giving them money.

Sure.

Um thank you.

I guess I'm I think that's a really good point.

So if we have $10,000, um, I think I I just looked really quickly at uh member Wassex that says everything from formula to education.

Um SNAP directly supports women and children with everything from formula to education.

I do see the education in here.

Um, but I remember when I looked at this years ago to member Maine's point um to take a look at when we gave them that extra money, I can't four years ago, five years ago, whatever it was.

I didn't see an increase in the number of programming that was occurring in Lake County, and I did talk to the executive director about that.

So if we're going to give $10,000, it would be interesting to know like what are we giving the $10,000 for?

How is it helping people?

I see a lot of the things that they do here.

Looks like um, you know, similar to what Lake County Health Department does.

Would it if we if we're concerned about SNAP, um, would it make sense for us to be giving money to um an agency that has food pantries or or whatever?

Um so you know, I don't have a vote on here, but I I you know, on their cover, it's um master gardener composting important things, right?

Uh the great seed event, they had a Lake County seed expo.

Um just wondering if that's a good yeah, I I agree with what you said there, Chair.

It's um, you know, you have the townships, you have the other organizations that are much closer to urgent human services needs.

Uh, and that's you know, as important as they're these services that you described are that's they're different.

It's not it's not the same.

Yeah, appreciate it.

Uh I had a couple other hands up.

Um okay, I see I have I'll get to you in a second, Vice Chair.

Uh member Hunter and then Vice Chair Cunningham.

Thanks, Chair.

Just uh just a point of order.

Everybody's sounding very good, but you can't hear member main at all.

So I don't know if there's a problem with their microphone or it's just not being turned on.

Thanks.

I'll fix that right away, Member Hunter.

That sounds great.

Vice Chair Cunningham.

Uh University Center, I was one of the director board members for a long time.

And when they change hand with the director there, um I think ten thousand dollars is no money to that they ax info.

I'm supportive of this because I know what they do.

I don't speculate what they do.

I was on the board.

And we shouldn't, you know, what is ten thousand dollars?

I know the the first guy we had there for the director, you know, he but she when this director we got now, she came and built it up, got many, many programs.

I don't know who had it.

They didn't, we didn't ask them what program.

We can't speculate what they do in there, because it's still feeding the community, it's still you know, doing what the community still is still uh uh serving the community.

So uh uh we shouldn't uh um say what they've not done.

I don't know how many people's how many commission been there and seen what they done.

I know yeah, I know you've been there uh member main, but uh and see what they done and talk to the director because she done a great job out there because our bees out there.

So uh I don't when we get to other programs to say, yeah, yeah, yeah.

But when we get to somebody that in need, and we all everybody gonna be in need, you know what's going on now in in the in the uh in this in this country.

Uh uh, everybody gonna be in need.

So uh I'm supportive of this because what I'm hearing, the commission is saying I don't like it.

I don't like it.

So I'm gonna be supportive of this.

Don't pick out one agency saying I won't do this, I won't, you know, it's it's bothering me to hear it and it nibble.

We always support it, always fund it.

Uh you of a universal out there.

We always so we can't just sit here in uh and say, well, what they've done.

I don't see none of done.

Have you been there?

And did it?

Well, you can uh flap on less my feeling on it, because I know the agency real well because I've been on that board.

Thank you for that, Vice Chair.

Um, so members, just for clarity, this is uh uh discussion and update um about some of the carryover items.

This is not final action.

We're gonna take final action next week.

So um I've heard some really good questions, and maybe it'd be useful for us to inform our decision if we could get some um some input from the U of I extension about their plans if we were to increase their funding by 10,000.

That'd be useful for us.

Okay, great.

And um I have confirmed that we did have an amendment that was approved by the FNA committee last week to include this.

So I am going through the things that are actual amendments that were approved.

So I today we don't have the ability to take it out.

So what we will do is get the additional information for next Thursday, and then you will have to amend it next Thursday because this was already approved and is now going to be in the budget that we show to you next Thursday.

Thank you for clarifying my statement.

I'm sorry, member of Liz.

Um, I was going to ask, did they request this money?

No, okay.

That was my understanding.

I just wanted to confirm that.

And so we don't have in their request, might have been some of this information, like how many people in my county we have served and in what ways, but we don't have that.

I can try to request it.

Okay.

I can get that information hopefully before next Thursday.

But I know that's okay.

I just wanted to okay, clarify.

This is not coming from them.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, no, I yeah.

Go ahead, member main.

I I was just gonna, I'm not sure if chair chair, I'm sure Chair Hart gets so many emails.

This was a request from in an email from member Wasick.

Yeah.

Okay, can we move on?

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, so then PTO2.

I I named the amendments for ease of reference.

The next item is um just a correction to the fiscal year 26 budget because there was a wage adjustment done by the clerk.

The I apologize by Hulse Detention Center to one of their employees, and we didn't want to knowingly be shorting the fiscal year 26 budget.

So this is just a clarification of the salary for the next year.

PTO3 is the correction needed for the video gaming policy.

We did bring this policy back in September and update it to include additional funding for the 211 system.

We then forgot to amend the budget to incorporate the new policy.

So these are the transactions that are needed to um be in compliance with the updated video gaming revenue policy.

SR number one is the circuit court clerk operations and administrative fund.

We had created the fund at the October board meeting, and then during the budget meetings, we established a budget um for this fund.

And um, so this is just showing that, and then SR2 is the removal of the um garage credit card receipt funding because it was insufficient to um be able to do what we were trying to accomplish.

So this is just a a summation of everything that we umended during the budget meeting.

Any questions before I go on to the things that were kind of left for additional discussion?

Okay, if we could switch to the PowerPoint presentation, please.

So uh the initial part of this PowerPoint presentation are some um items that staff has found since the since we last talked.

I did um mention this when we were going through the county board budget.

Um there is a line called constituent services, 79915, which we kind of zeroed out for fiscal year 26 originally because there was very little activity in fiscal year 25, the current year.

But um, as we reviewed that further, every other year is a very high year in that category.

And so I felt uncomfortable having it zeroed out.

So when we took out the garage credit card receipt funding of 75,000, we did not originally reduce the operational transfer to capital to cover that portion of the facilities.

So my recommendation today for your discussion is that we actually remove that 75,000 from the operational transfer and put that into constituent services to better align with the historical activity in county board member mailings.

I see nodding heads.

I'm seeing nodding heads.

We will incorporate that for um a proposed amendment for next week.

This is the next one, the circuit court clerk expenses to that new fund that we were just referring to.

Um $750,000 was budgeted on the expense side as an amendment coming out of the budget meetings.

Um the budget that was established at that time was a commodities budget of 150,000 and a contractuals or services um budget of 600,000, just as placeholders.

Um in the county clerk's office general fund budget in those categories, they do have commodities budgeted of 116,000 contract contracts and services are budgeted at 162,940 and capital of 19,900.

So what we had done was establish the budget last week, but we didn't move over any of the operational uh expenses from the general fund that could now be covered by this new circuit court clerk operations and administrative fund.

So um I have been talking to the circuit clerk's office, and I'm very grateful that Jennifer Rathunda from that office is here today.

Unfortunately, the circuit clerk is out of town and was unable to join us.

Um the funds, uh the definition of what um collection and disbursement of funds um is not well defined in the statute, to be perfectly honest.

And um, you know, through my conversations with the circuit clerk, I've uh discovered that their definition of that is much more narrow and very um precise.

And I was looking at it much more broadly.

So what we are looking to establish is an amount that can be moved or removed from the general fund because this new fund is specifically for the operations and administrative functions of that office.

So in our initial conversations, Jennifer has been able to find roughly 48,000 and we're continuing those discussions.

Okay.

So let's pause here and discuss because members, we need to give administrator Sutton some direction on this piece.

Um, as she said, you know, what we've done the last few weeks is identified this revenue that was previously collected but on budgeted.

We created the fund, so it is now budgeted, but we need to uh make a decision about spending it.

And I think we need to consider the fact that we're contributing operating funds from the county revenue sources to the office, and they have a revenue source that can cover some of these expenses.

As the administrator said, there's some um ambiguity in the statute and there's some discussion about the interpretation.

I understand those questions remain, but um there are funds available to cover some of these operating expenses, and it seems redundant.

And if you know, inappropriate for us to be double funding if there's a revenue source to cover some of these expenses.

We wouldn't, we wouldn't do that in any other department if we thought there was revenue to cover expenses.

Would like members to to weigh in it.

Member Volitic, Member Clark, member Maine.

I won't take too much.

I just absolutely agree.

I don't think we should be double budgeting.

I think that would be irresponsible.

And if there's ambiguity, I would rather um air on what I consider the safe side and then hear direction from the state's attorney's office or clarification.

But if also if there's ambiguity, I guess I'd be willing to bet that it's okay and appropriate that we do this.

So I'm supportive.

Thank you, Member Clark.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, the only reason that the state would allow them to collect this money is to spend it in the department.

I mean, they aren't just collecting money to have money.

And so it's supposed to be used from what I understand for the clerk of clerk's office.

So I can't imagine just since it makes no sense that they would collect money just to hold, like to not be able to spend it, then that money I think should be used for the operations as it says of the office.

So I again I don't know why we would double, you know, bill people in a way to uh do that.

So I think we should definitely budget for the money.

I mean, that that should be, I mean, it is in their budget, it is their money, and they should use it and we should budget it.

So I think that works for me.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Number main.

Yeah, I agree.

I have a question.

This 750, that is the accumulation of how many years of collecting the fee.

That number at my understanding includes the projected revenue for 2026 as well.

Okay.

Because we're talking about the 26 budgets.

Okay.

Because I was just thinking like how much, because I agree with my colleagues.

And do we have an historical sense of how much comes in and therefore kind of how much we should budget?

And I just wonder if this year we might want to just back off a little bit of the whole thing so that we get a sense of kind of ramping it up over time so that we're not bouncing around too much.

But I agree we should spend the money.

Yeah, I think the only question that I heard that I heard the clerk of the court raise was the projection for 2026.

I think she uh thinks that that revenue will not be the same for 26 because of is some of it was tied to transitions under the safety act.

Um, but we do we do know what what's in the account, what was in the bank account that was opened that was not budgeted previously was 500 something.

Yeah.

Member Maine.

Then to me, it would go, we should what was there, spend it and then see what comes in.

So maybe we're backing off on our revenue projections, but if we know we've got X amount there, we could spend X, and then next year we'll have a better sense of what comes in and can kind of um even out expenses.

Chair Hart.

Ms.

Person.

I certainly don't want to put anyone on the spot, but in my conversations, I did um understand that there was some expenditures that had already been planned for the funds.

Would would you mind just updating us, Jennifer?

All right.

Um yeah, we have uh we we did identify some things as as um Patrice uh Sutton shared that we can move from our general fund to the clerk operation administrative fund at a quick glance.

Um, and we are continuing to look.

There are some things that we are looking at um using or improving our financial reporting from uh the e-court system and um making some modifications to how we can disperse within the system that are going to cost money so that uh because it's a change to the core of how eCort works.

So there is some financial disbursement and um modification to our system that we're looking at spending the funds on, in addition to um some of the operational stuff that we can move over that does directly impact as we have interpreted the uh statute uh the a collection and disbursement of funds.

So as that conversation continues, we can better identify.

But yeah.

Yeah, I just I'm I'm very grateful.

I know I put you on the spot, but um, in our discussions, it does seem as though they have some plans um for some additional expenditures too that we would just need to incorporate um in the amount that we're transferring over from the general fund.

So thank you very much, Jennifer.

Okay.

So just to clarify what you just said, there's still a little uncertainty about the planned expenditures for those dollars.

So we don't have an exact dollar amount what we want to transfer at this point, but by next week we would.

Yeah, I'm hopeful that um the additional discussions will firm up that number.

Yes.

But I'll just say it's the consensus of the committee members based on our discussion that we would not be funding operations that could be funded, you know, with this fund.

I hear that loud and clear.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to understand, did any of these additional expenditures ideas come up during the budget conversations with the department, or is this just over the last few days?

And it's just taking time to get the statements of work to find out what those costs may be.

But it wasn't included in the budget document that those dollars would be coming out of that particular fund, because if I recall correctly, the fund wasn't even included in the budget documents.

Is that right?

Correct.

We were, I'm so sorry.

Yeah, please.

I uh we were originally considering them potentially coming out of document storage if they were where we have our um our reserve for SOWs currently.

Um our hope was that we would be able to use the funds differently, especially since the special revenue fund was created.

Um, but like if they are paid out of the new special revenue fund, they will not be paid out of the document storage fund.

So it kind of offsets that fund balance.

Um we didn't have that at the time, uh, the special revenue and um it's just been recent conversations, not even since last week, but I think I put in the statement of work requests two weeks ago.

Um, and it was after the creation of the special revenue fund, but before the budget last week.

So um that I put in the three different requests for modifications.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Because I think the special this fund was created by your office in was it March or May 2024?

I'm just not sure.

So it doesn't really matter.

But I my other question is uh sort of following up on what member Maine was saying.

So there was about $518,000 in there end of September.

It was open in March or May.

I think you've programmed about, oh, pardon me, sorry, March 2024.

So it's about it's over 250,000 a year.

So if we're already at 518 at the end of September, it's highly likely that there would be 750,000.

Um, because you've seen historical information.

So I guess we usually are budgeting is this question for you, but we're usually budgeting off of the money we're receiving in 2026.

So, in other words, I see member May's point, but we're still going to be getting money in 2026.

So we can forecast that we're going to receive that money and then spend it in 2026.

That's how we do that.

We do that with all the time.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I would be comfortable, and you guys are going to come back next week, but for that higher number, not just necessarily what's sitting in that account today.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah.

Other comments or questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So I'll summarize here at the end, but I'll continue.

So those were the two new items that we hadn't really discussed last week.

And now I'm moving on to the items that did come up.

Um at the end of those budget meetings, there were certain new program requests that you wanted to try to figure out how we were going to incorporate.

So the first of those was the state's attorney's office gun violence prevention initiative grant gap.

And just to be clear again, the request um was a little bit fuzzy, but in the end, what they are requesting is the amount that is not currently grant funded, which is July to November of 2026.

So given the fact that this truly is just a grant gap and not something that we've heard from you that we should program as operations.

I neglected to mention one other thing.

Um, the original request based on that shortened time period was $879,132.

Um, I did meet with the state's attorney's office and um we we really dug into the details of the request.

They had hoped to move from four people, four full-time people to six full-time people.

I um we had a very healthy conversation about the fact that when you have uncertain funding, it doesn't make sense to expand a program that's already being successful and doing wonderful work with what they have.

So they agreed um to remove uh the one brand new person, um, the brand new FTE that they were originally um requesting.

And then there had been another FTE where they currently have a contract with that person and uh they were gonna move that person into a full-time role, but the contract is in the neighborhood of 28,000 on an annual basis.

So obviously continuing with that arrangement instead of bringing that person on full time when we have some uncertainty with funding, um, seems to be a prudent path forward.

So they were in full agreement with that.

We also write sized um the amount of the peacekeeper transfer to be more in alignment with what we've seen on an annual basis in our historical history.

So I did meet with them.

They are agreed upon this revised number of 642.07 for that period from July to November.

And because I'm not looking to put this into operational funds, I think that the appropriate way to um include this in our fiscal year 26 budget is to reduce the um capital improvement transfer or the operating transfer to capital by this amount of $642,077, because our capital fund is for the purpose of one-time expenditures and capital projects.

Happy to answer any questions or clarifying.

If we decide that we want to fully fund this program out of county operations going forward, and this becomes a county funded program, which it has not been in the past, that is a decision that we'll make and will impact our budget going forward.

But I don't think that's where we were at during our budget meetings, and we were faced with this sort of um gap um challenge, uh, you know, almost a little crisis uh to sustain the program.

And so I'm supportive of the recommended uh funding source for the one-time uh transfer for the six months.

We will have a discussion about it and uh if if we're needed to sustain the program long term, if if that's something we're going to do or not in the future.

But I've I feel like this is appropriate.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

So this is called a grant gap, which means the grant, the money has gone away, and then they're waiting new monies.

I remember hearing that the state's attorney said last time, well, I'm always going to have this situation because of when the um the budget cycle came of when they got the monies from the state.

So this is a gap because they have not gotten the money from the state.

Is that correct or not?

I've I've had a lot of conversation with states attorney about the state funding, and it was uh appropriated, it's in the state's fiscal year budget for the current fiscal year.

Yeah.

I know he was in Springfield this week.

Okay.

That's so that's my question is simply is this because they haven't gotten the money from the state?

It's because it hasn't been released.

Okay.

So I think this is a very good program.

I'm I'm not comfortable with this because it happens all the time.

I mean, go to the board of health.

This happens all the time.

And then this idea that the state's attorney said, well, I'm always gonna have this problem because of when the state, when their budget is, it's off-cycle with ours.

Well, the board of health deals with that all the time.

So that doesn't make sense to me that the logic that the state's attorney presented.

And this you can call it a grant gap, but this changes materially how we have dealt with not having money for grants.

It's a material change that we've never said, okay, we're gonna fill this in.

And all I say is if we go forward with doing this, then I think you should look forward to many other departments, the health departments and others saying we have a grant gap because they do.

They have it all the time and they work with it in their budget.

What happens if in like May the money is released to the state's attorney's office from the state?

It's my understanding that the dedicated funding that they have right now only goes for expenses from July of 25 through June of 26.

There is no use of the funds any period beyond that.

It still expires, even though the there's a humongous delay in getting it.

So to be perfectly honest with you, this money is for July through November, but they would utilize it until that state money comes through.

But there is still an expectation that the state funding for that period of June, July of 25 through June of 26 is still going to come through.

But this gives them the ability to know that they don't have to otherwise their funding from other sources.

So this is actually going to be used until they get the state funding, but then when they get the state funding, that will be what that will reimburse us.

And then this funding will be used from July to November.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Vice Chair.

Okay.

Got it.

Additional comments or questions.

Sorry, Member Peterson.

I skipped you.

Um I just want to clarification.

They're giving up both positions or just one.

They um so they have four people on staff, and those four people are included in the funding.

There was included in the new program request, one additional new person, which they have agreed not to fund.

And there was another conversion of a contract into a full-time employee, and they've agreed to continue it with a contract agreement.

So both positions that were that do not have a person in them right now, are um they've agreed that we're not funding them.

Okay.

Thank you.

Member Hewitt.

Patrice, I'm curious.

If we do this for the second half of 26, what happens when we hit 27?

Is everything just gonna magically go away and we're gonna forget about the whole program?

Or are they gonna be requesting more money for 27?

I have a thought on that.

And I I know your question was directed to Patrice, but I'm gonna just jump in to say that's fine.

Well, of course, they are going to ask, yes, definitely.

But we're gonna have a discussion about uh once we have clarity about does federal funding go away for sure.

We know that.

And that was a question we talked about during the budget meetings because there was some confusion in the handout that said there was uh a delay because the government shutdowns and or government funding has gone away because that they've eliminated funding for the program.

I don't think we have clarity on that question.

So if it's gone away because the administration is not funding this type of work anymore, then that's that's permanent, right?

It's not just a delay because of the shutdown.

And the same thing, same situation with the state.

The state is contracting funding for these types of programs because they are investing in other priorities because of contracted federal funding, then we'll know.

Hey, there's no more external dollars.

Are we gonna fully fund this as a county or are we not?

And that's a discussion we we will need to have in 2026 for sure.

Well, I'm just how certain, how positive are we that this additional funding is going to happen?

We're assuming, but I would say we have nothing in writing.

No, so it's simply an assumption that we will get it.

So we could be on the hook before it even gets here because we don't know.

We're making assumptions.

We have based on the consensus of the committee during our budget meetings, expressed our willingness to fund half of it.

Six months.

Yeah.

Member Maine.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I request that when we have this conversation of funding, that we really turn it into a broader conversation about how we approach grants that have been funded and may not be funded.

I I don't think it would be, in my opinion, that it would be appropriate to have the conversation about one single program when we have I dozens is probably not a sufficiently high enough number of programs that could fall in that exact same situation where there's contraction of the funding, whether programs have been discontinued.

What about vaccine programs?

What about other things?

Plenty of things that also fall under the rubric of safety.

So that's my respectful request.

I think that's an important suggestion.

Other comments or questions.

Uh so members, um I'm just looking for wait, is this something that's already been voted on?

I'm just trying to clarify that that's not is um something that I'm recommending that we include for next Thursday as the funding source for this initiative, if in fact we want to include it.

Okay.

Just looking for some nodding heads or thumbs up in terms of support to move forward with this recommendation.

Okay.

I see nodding heads, uh, at least for uh a majority of consensus.

Okay, thank you.

Um the next one is circuit clerk attorney and public access eye calendaring.

Um, the original amount requested was 150,000 upon further research.

They have been able to uh reduce that down to a $50,000 um new program request.

Um the options for funding are either the general fund or the court automation fund.

Um the court automation fund is used for the record keeping and reporting services of the circuit court clerk, and it does require the approval of the circuit court clerk and the 19th judicial circuit chief judge.

So I guess what I'm looking for today is um, you know, I I do believe that again, in my interpretation, the court automation fund is a special revenue fund that was specifically, you know, put into place for these types of improvements.

Um, I've had some initial conversations with both the circuit court clerk and the chief judge.

Um, obviously they would have to have the final say as to whether or not they're willing to fund this initiative through that fund.

So I'm looking for the direction today, whether you would like me to make that a formal request, or if you would like this to be funded through operating funds, which would have to be the general fund.

Okay, I'm supportive of this recommendation.

Member Main.

Yeah, I think it's fine.

My question just is related to the amount required.

Have they narrowed the scope or found a hundred thousand dollars someplace else?

Would you mind, Jennifer?

Sorry.

The original request included two other enhancements to the portal.

Um, one has been determined to be delayed because it just hasn't been sussed out well enough to figure out how we would um provide that level of security for the public and not attorneys.

Uh and the other piece we uh between submitting our figures for the budget in June and um hearings last week, uh, was able to actually have been completed and paid for.

So it brought it down.

Um, and that was the security for the attorneys, uh, allowing them better access.

And I'm not the IT person anymore.

So I think it also improved their added to the um documents itself.

So it left only the I calendaring eye calendaring request for fiscal year 26.

Thank you.

Great.

And like to uh Patrice's comment.

Have you guys had a discussion with the court administration?

Do you know if they're supportive of this?

I uh I know that there have been discussions.

I've not been part of it, so I don't want to speak to it.

I I wish I knew better.

Sorry.

Find out.

Okay, thank you.

Members, are we supportive of this recommendation?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

The next item that you had asked that we um try to figure out how we would um fit in is the court administration's self-represented litigants paralegal.

Uh that original request was 93,927, consistent with the other ones that they have.

Um, there are no special revenue funds that would be able to be utilized for this purpose.

So uh the recommended funding, should you want us to include this would be um the general fund and we would reduce the GOE contingency so that we would not have to have any additional funding.

Um contingency, we are still above the policy required amount for our contingency.

Well, I think this is important.

Um I've you know been educated on the need for this, and it's essentially a person who is assisting, helping helping individuals who are representing themselves to navigate the process.

It's not legal advice, it's not an attorney, but it's really uh there to help folks so that they are uh understanding what they need to do in terms of filings and deadlines and submissions and things like that.

So I'm supportive of the recommendation, Chair Hart.

Thank you.

I am also supportive.

Can you tell me where our current self-represented litigant folks work out of?

Or do they are they mostly on the court tower side?

I said should look that way.

Are they in the law library?

Do you know?

I I believe they're in the law library.

I believe that they are funded in the law library, but the budget team is going to check it in the back row even as we speak.

Okay.

So they might be funded out of there, but did they, I guess, were they physically work?

Are they usually, I mean, it would feel like it would make sense to me that they would be over by the courthouse.

I mean tower.

I believe in the new program request, they stated that they would actually be in the courtroom helping the people as they're leaving the courtroom because sometimes what the judge says is so confusing that they need assistance in trying to figure out what the next steps are and how they accomplish that.

So I do believe that the expansion of the program is for the purpose of trying to assist people on the spot as they're trying to figure out next steps after a court hearing.

Okay, thank you.

And that use um makes sense to me.

I'm just thinking about uh that space on the first floor.

And you know, it's essentially like a research library.

And so I just want to make sure that if we and I agree with this uh additional head count, that it doesn't mean that oh, we can't look at potential other uses for that space.

So understood.

I just want to follow up on your comment, Chair.

Which department operates and owns that law library.

Court administration.

So it's their it's their law library.

It is.

Are there revenues collected?

Do attorneys or self-represented litigants have to pay to access the library?

Nobody has to pay to use it, but there are fees generated by court cases that fund the law library as a special revenue fund.

I do not believe the funding for this SRL though would be in the law library.

So again, the team is looking for the answer back there.

Um, but they they generally operate out of the law library, but I believe that the whole intent of this was to be more um active in the court setting.

Okay, appreciate it.

I think the the location for the SRLs and the location of the law library and other legal resources is an important question that we should be having conversations with them about.

Because that's a it's a that's prime real estate for our other departments as well.

I do believe their home base would be in the physical law library space, but we can certainly work with them to discuss that.

Okay, appreciate it.

Other comments or questions?

Member Clark.

I just have to say I'm very happy to see this.

I know, I knew I think they mentioned last time 25,000 people or more, you know, walk out of a courtroom with no lawyer and really have a hard time just filling out the right forms and knowing what to go.

And I think of the core things we do as a county, having people have the access to justice is so important.

And I know uh um just I have a student who's interning doing this, and and it is like she said she said it is life-changing by spending five minutes showing saying here's what the judge said, feel the forum is, here's how to fill it out, go turn it in.

Without that, they could, you know, it all could be for nothing.

Like they could, they don't get it.

So having this person, I said I wish we could have more, but having this person will make such a difference for so many people.

So I'm really glad.

And I want to thank the board for supporting this.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, the SRL um paralegals are funded by the general fund, but generally operate out of the law library.

Got it.

Okay.

Members were supportive of the recommendation.

Yep.

Great.

Okay.

Next one, um, the state's attorney's office cyber forensic analyst slash software slash training.

Um, in working with the state's attorney, he made it very clear that they really need this software.

Um, that that actually was their highest priority along with the G VPI.

Um, they do have a computer fraud forfeiture fund uh that is generating, you know, it's it's funded by an unpredictable revenue source of forfeitures.

So there is, it's not like a court fee that can be estimated, similar to a lot of these other court fees.

This one is very um irregular and just when the circumstance happens.

However, in um reviewing the budget that they did enter, um, they already had included uh some budget in this fund 770 computer fraud forfeiture fund, and um they agreed that they can pay for the software out of their special revenue fund.

Um there is already 20,000 worth of training budgeted.

So there is no recommendation for that.

That's already included in their special revenue fund.

And um I'm not making a recommendation on the additional analyst at this time.

I did talk about this when I met with the state's attorney's office.

And I don't want to speak with for him, but they agreed to this strategy for 2026, acknowledging that the long-term health of their special revenue fund is very unpredictable, but acknowledging that they do have sufficient fund balance at this time to handle this for 2026.

I think this is a good recommendation, not speaking for anyone, but I did have conversations with several members.

And I think a lot of us were uh saying that the additional personnel was not the top priority at this moment in time.

So members, are we in agreement with the recommendation?

Yeah.

Yes.

Another item that came up during the budget heating hearings were the was the county clerk voting tabulation system upgrade.

Um originally the recommendation was to kind of wait and see when that product was certified by the state for use in elections.

Um I did hear that you were looking for um potentially a more proactive solution.

Quite frankly, the funding source is the same, whether we put it into the fiscal year 26 budget or we emergency appropriate it.

So I'm happy to include the um the item in the fiscal year 26 budget if that's how you choose to do it.

Um as I mentioned, we anticipate these types of replacements in our capital improvement fund.

That would be the source.

So I'm just looking for direction whether you'd like me to proactively put it in for fiscal year 26, or if you would prefer to wait until the certification happens and then we would bring forward an emergency appropriation when the clerk is ready to purchase this.

Yeah, and I think what what we originally indicated was hey, we'll deal with this after the certification and we'll wait and see.

I think the recommendation to budget it for capital and then make a modification if it's not certified or it's not something that the clerk is not able to proceed to purchase.

I think that makes more sense that we budget and we plan for it.

Very good.

Other comments or questions, members, are we in agreement?

Yes.

Yes.

So let me just summarize all of the changes.

Um what I'm trying to prove on this slide is that on the left hand side, um, the general fund expense will net to zero.

So you'll you'll note that that circuit court clerk expenses item is to be determined.

Um, but what I commit to you is that what we'll do with those funds that we move out of the general fund for the circuit clerk is to put them into GOE contingency.

As you've noted, with some of these other items, we've taken them out of contingency.

So in a year where we do have some uncertainty, you know, within the health department, within our federally funded programs, we really would like to ensure that our contingency um is above the minimum of our range regarding the policy.

So that would be where we would stick any um expenses that were able to move out of the general fund of the circuit court clerk.

So very importantly, what we've been able to manage to do is to have all of these changes be a net zero to the um property tax operating funds, such that we would be able to operate within the original half of the allowable seat CPI for property tax.

Um as I mentioned, the capital improvement fund would be the source of the voting machine.

And then we will work very diligently to utilize um the special revenue funds for the couple that do have an appropriate special revenue fund.

Great summary of where we're at and uh great work uh since our budget meetings.

I think we had a lot of questions and uncertainty on funding sources on some of the things that we were looking to do.

So really want to thank you and the team for the great work.

Member Clark.

I had a question.

So this would be keeping it at half of CPA.

That's correct.

But I mean, I am a little concerned.

I know we talked about having more contingency for next year in case some of these things happen where we get decreased funding potentially in the health department or other things.

And we had talked about, I know in the original like the budget book when we looked at the we looked at so many things, but it had a potential if we increased it a little more by having some contingency.

And so I'm a little, I mean, I'm just a little concerned that I am concerned about what might happen next year.

And I don't know if we should have the conversation of if if if, and I'm very loath to increase, you know, our levy, but if we increase it by a tenth of a percent, would that give us a little bit of contingency money in case we need to do some really important um, you know, we have to fill in some gaps or some, you know, we have you know some grants that are canceled, there are things that we really need.

You know, do we have the contingency built in now?

And I guess that's like what I want to worry about.

Uh fully appreciative of the thinking there.

And and I think, you know, scenario too, did add contingency funding, as you mentioned, but um our fund balance policy already prepares us for uh you know emergency situations.

We we're we're not operating on 30 days cash, you know.

That's not right.

So I I think I think our reserves provide us that uh emergency uh safety net if we need it.

Um so I I'm comfortable with this approach.

Members, comments, thoughts?

Member Maine.

Yeah, I appreciate that concern.

And I've talked about the health department, but I I do agree with the chair.

It's that balance of to provide, we're then also asking the taxpayers to provide more.

So the money is coming from them for other things.

So we um have our reserve policy, and it is generous.

So um I'm comfortable.

And it and it may be you're right, member Clark.

It may be that we just have to later make difficult decisions and change programs.

I mean, there's times when we've changed um for a while, the um the DOT five-year plan was a six-year plan.

I mean, there's a lot of ways that we can um pivot and modify and adjust as things move along.

But thanks for bringing that up.

Yeah, and I think we should all be prepared to think about the fact that there's a potential for us to have to make you know emergency type decisions in 2026.

There's the potential that uh economic activity is gonna adversely impact county revenues in a way that we didn't anticipate that we have uh services and partners at the health department side and the human services side who are going to be coming to us with emergency situations.

It's absolutely possible that we're gonna be dealing with some unprecedented uh scenarios in 2026.

I think this budget prepares us for that.

I think I think we're, you know, um in a good shape, striking that balance.

Um, so I appreciate all the comments and thoughts.

Other members, other comments.

Great.

So do you have the direction you need to move forward for the final amendments for final proof up for next week?

I do.

Thank you very much.

You can go ahead and bring down the slides.

Thank you, Ms.

Fair Sot.

Do you have an administrative report as well?

No report.

Do we have any executive session today?

No.

Do you have any member remarks or requests?

Member Clark.

Thank you.

I have a request.

I've talked to, I know I've talked to Member Hewitt about this and Chair Hart.

But next year is the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence.

And I would like to request that we um to be able to have to spend a few staff hours on thinking figuring out working on what we at Lake County could do to honor that.

Um, I know member Hewitt and I have talked a little, um, but even just here at Lake County government, um, I've got some ideas we could do to celebrate that day on July 4th.

July 4th is going to be here before we know it.

And so I would my request is to have be able to spend um a few hours of staff time on thinking of what we could do here at Lake County to honor that day.

Okay, so I just want to clarify policy requires committee uh support for more than two hours, but up to two hours, it doesn't require committee direction.

I'm just wondering like, can you clarify what you're thinking about?

By more than two hours.

Okay.

Members, thoughts, comments, Chair Hart.

Um, thank you.

So I just want to understand.

So um, Member Hewitt and Clark and I were on a call, and I think I sent an email.

I think member Kasmin also, um, so visit Lake County is doing some work, uh, Lake County Forest Preserves are doing some work.

Um, I know there's uh calls that people can be on.

So uh, you know, whatever the committee decides, my only concern is really so the work that's being done, it is a lot of municipality work.

Um so I I that's not what I'm I'm not asking.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

It's okay.

So I just uh I think it's good.

What I just don't want to do is overwhelm staff, and this is above two hours, whatever it turns out to be.

Um, but I know that there are things going on at a couple of other agencies already.

So my suggestion would be, and I I want to hear what you're you here you clarify your request, that we give some specific direction about coordinating, collecting information.

You know, I'm not sure that we're saying today, hey, we want to invest in a huge Lake County celebration, but let's find out what's being planned and developed and if the county can participate.

Um are we close?

I guess to clarify, I'm just talking about what we could do here at Lake County.

I'm not talking about of Lake County, like I'm not saying what we want to do in all of Lake County.

I'm just saying here at Lake County government.

Okay.

Like how can we honor it?

How can the county with our facilities, employees, and and you know, partners celebrate?

Exactly.

That's what I'm saying is just here at Lake County, but not all of Lake County.

Got it.

Thank you for the clarification.

Remember, Maine.

Yeah, I think um that's really helpful.

To me, it seems like there does, and is there a place for that information?

Like, can we say to staff, spent you know, in two hours or in four hours, can you go find out what's going on, right?

And then that would, and maybe you guys have that already, right?

And then based on that, we're like, okay, these things are going on, and then we could have a sense of where we might fit, right?

And then say they could come back and say, well, this is what's going on.

We need 10 more out, 10 more hours to develop a plan to fit in with this.

That's kind of like what I'd like to see, like a bigger sense of the whole, and then we might see where the gap is.

But to your point of we're not coordinating everybody, but if we know and I don't know, is visit, I mean, maybe visit Lake County has got the calendar and they're already setting up a calendar of events.

They may so can we say up to F number of hours to bring us back an initial, you know, uh comment.

So six.

Yeah.

Up to six hours.

I I don't know.

Can I ask the county minister if that makes sense?

Or with six hours, eight hours?

I don't know.

I don't want to be like upward.

Well, we're done.

Well, they remember Hewitt.

Uh, under 10.

Interrupt.

I I just right now we have discussed many, many options.

But there's not uh per se one option that we're all passionate about.

So we could say we're looking at this one option and it's gonna take this much staff help.

We don't have that at the moment.

We're just kind of out there trying to figure everything out, and maybe a little bit of extra staff time would help us narrow that down to know where our little niche is in the big picture.

Because the state's doing something, municipalities are doing something.

You know, everybody's on board on doing something, but what is that something?

So I that was really helpful for me to understand where we're going here.

Because I will often have this conversation with Patrice or Matt or someone from the team, and they'll say, that's an easy thing, I have that, or hey, I need some more time on this.

So their professional uh perspective can help inform and guide that.

I think that's useful.

Correct.

Ms.

Fray Sutton, you have thoughts or comments?

May we please have up to 10 hours?

Okay.

Members, we good with that.

Okay, up to 10 hours to gather some information and get back to us with thoughts on how to best celebrate the anniversary of the declaration of independence in 2026.

Terrific.

Thank you.

Other member comments, remarks, member main.

Uh I think that's great.

I just um don't want to spend time doing more time, but I would be kind of curious, like an end-of-the-year report out, like how many times over the course of the year is staff asked to do these kind of one-offs.

And and just for us to maybe have a sense of they've got their regular workload, and then how much more is added over the course of the year?

I think it could be perhaps helpful.

I I love that question.

I don't have any idea on the minus two hours.

I could tell you this is the first one that we've had to come to committee this year.

We had one other request last year to exceed the two hours.

So but they could go to other committees.

Correct.

Right.

Correct.

That's yeah.

Vice Chair.

Is this first time here?

Is this in the is this is in the rules?

Uh uh that we put this in the rules.

Yeah, the rules specify that if a member wants to direct staff to spend time on a project that exceeds two hours, committees can authorize it.

Yes.

So this is for the fourth of July, because uh I'm um I'm first time handed.

Uh this is for the fourth of July day on the fourth of July day.

Because I know all the municipalities, most most I know Joaquin have a big one.

This is just for the county.

I think that's what I heard that their the request was uh for the county, not not a public celebration necessarily.

Not not a public celebration necessarily.

This is just a way that we would as an organization commemorate the two hundred fiftyth anniversary of the declaration of events.

Did I say that correctly?

Yes.

Yes?

Okay.

So we had a staff to set up.

I think of it as um maybe similar to like a county holiday where we have something on the calendar that we recognize or celebrate as an organization, but it's not.

We're not doing fireworks, right?

We're not doing a parade, those kinds of things.

Yeah.

Maybe.

I didn't hear parade.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Okay.

Other comments or questions?

Okay.

Seeing none.

We're turned.

We'll be back here next Thursday.

Thank you, everyone.