Today is November 4th, 2026, and I call the Lake County Legislative Committee 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.

The link on the agenda.

This meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Per County Board Rules and the Open Meetings Act.

Tenants via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons, as long as the majority of committee members are physically present, and we have uh member Schlick um attending remotely.

Would you please leave us lead us in a pledge of allegiance?

I pledge a leaders to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands on the liberty control.

Yes.

Member Hunting?

Member Kyle absent.

Member Roberts?

Member Schlick.

Not online yet.

Member Bolitzik?

Chair Wasick.

Here.

Do we have any addenda?

Oh, we have a quorum.

Thank you for that.

Do we have an addenda?

Any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

Okay.

Any public comment for things not on the agenda?

We do have one public comment.

Um that we could take now, Chair if you'd like.

Why don't we do that?

So if I could just read a couple instructions here.

Um, all individuals providing public comment will be provided three minutes of cumulative time to provide their public comment.

Public comment must be related to the business of the county board uh and not redundant or political.

When appropriate matters raised by public comment, we'll be referred to the appropriate standing committee.

The public shall refrain from commenting on private activities, lifestyles or beliefs of others, including county employees and elected officials that are unrelated to the business of the county board or county government in their public comment.

Comments that are uncivil, rude, vulgar, profane, or otherwise disruptive will not be allowed.

Candidates running for public office must refrain from including comments that are political in nature or that promote or support a specific candidate, including refraining from identifying oneself as a candidate for public office.

And Teresa, if we could bring over James Bland, please.

If you take yourself off mute.

Yep.

Please proceed.

Oh, okay.

Um a little bit about my background.

I'm an aquatic biologist that uh I work for the field museum for five years.

I work for USEPA for eight years.

I did um a research and conservation work with the SHET Aquarium.

I'm uh here to talk uh and promote the idea of the reinstatement of the volunteer lake monitoring program.

The volunteer lake monitoring program was created by Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in 1981 with the intent of generating late water quality, training volunteers, gathering data which would not be possible with existing IEPA resources, and creating public support for lake management alternatives.

According to IEPA, this program provides a service to the agency by harnessing the time and talent of citizen volunteers to help gather fundamental information on more Illinois inland lakes than would otherwise be possible with existing staff.

Thus, it leverages their resources.

Uh from and from the citizen volunteers it generated.

There are 129 lakes that were part of the program statewide, and 255 volunteers that had been trained for the program.

The program when it uh uh ended had three tiers of volunteer activity.

Um it was with some degree of irony that IEPA discontinued the program in 2019.

Uh we think that it's important to get the program back both with AI and with uh uh citizen volunteers.

It was a highly successful program.

It helped and supported lake management through uh Lake County and through many other county counties uh uh statewide.

Uh the purpose of the program was uh the purpose of IEPA's lake monitoring uh efforts are to determine an attainment.

James, that's that is your three minutes.

Can you give me uh about half of about 30 seconds?

Sure.

Yes, 30 seconds.

Okay, the the protocols of the volunteer lake monitoring program support uh the general uh uh processes of IEPA in terms of managing lakes.

Um it is an important program.

There is a movement afoot here in uh Lake County uh for additional types of lake work, and we think and believe that it's highly desirable that you'd be supportive of the reinstatement of the volunteer late monitoring program.

And thank you.

Thank you, James.

Thank you.

And just as a footnote, um uh Jim's comment is reference to the Voltaire Lakes Management Program on our agenda, we'll discuss later.

Thank you.

Uh just uh a few remarks.

As you know, we just came off the veto session in Springfield, had a couple of uh huge bills passed through, uh created a new agency called NEDA, a Northeast uh Illinois Transit Um agency, which which will replace the RTA, we think.

Um, and we're still trying to parse through it to find out how it affects our transportation funding here in Lake County.

Hopefully, uh Mike can shed some light on that.

Also, there was a bill passed to uh promote clean and renewable energy and store it.

Um we think that aligns pretty well with our strategic plan.

Um, and also hopefully getting some insight in that.

And I think uh if I'm not mistaken, there was also bill that uh referenced a masking of federal agents, and uh we'll get some more details on that later.

Thank you.

And we are reviewing our legislative agenda for 2026, and we're going to vote on it and send it to the board.

Thank you.

Do we have any unfinished business?

Uh Chair, we don't, but if I could very quickly, I just want to correct um something that was stated earlier.

Member Schlicks uh did apologize this morning that he had a last-minute challenge and he's unable to make the meeting.

He didn't say that he could uh attend virtually.

Oh, okay.

That's that was my understanding.

Uh I'm mistaken.

Let's correct that for the record.

Thank you.

Uh any new business.

Yes.

Okay, could I have a motion the second to approve the consent agenda, which is the minutes.

Motion by Vice Chair Isaiah and second by Gina.

All those in favor?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

And on to item 8.2.

We're going to bring across Mike.

And Mike will give us an update on the exciting veto session.

Uh uh, thank you, Chairman Wasik.

And uh Derek, of course, is uh here to also assist in that process.

Um, you know, you refer to it as an exciting veto session, and I would say that was definitely true for the final 24 to 36 hours.

Um everything before that seemed like nothing was happening, and then all of a sudden everything was happening.

Um I will uh touch specifically on the issues that you brought up in your opening remarks, Mr.

Uh Chair.

Uh uh I will end on you know, kind of a high level with the transit because I'm gonna let Derek get a little bit more into into the weeds on uh uh the details of that.

Um, but you know, starting with uh your reference to uh energy legislation.

Uh it is true that that the uh General Assembly did pass uh, I think it's the third major clean energy package in the last five years.

Uh it's really uh a piece of legislation that's aimed at um expanding the use of uh uh grid battery and geothermal uh energy uh by providing incentives for both, the with the goal of uh creating roughly three three gigawatts of uh new clean energy in the state of Illinois by 2030.

Uh so the environmental community and uh and uh some uh uh and and many other groups were for it.

Uh there was substantial pushback by the business community.

Uh you know, one side is uh saying that this is going to help bring down uh utility prices that are going up.

Uh others say that it's going to exacerbate the problem.

I think the fact of the matter is that we're going to see, but in but in the in the long term, uh grow your own energy and having the clean energy alternatives is at the end of the day uh very much in line with our priorities and uh uh likely very much in line with us trying to bring prices down.

Um you did mention uh that you uh that you thought there was a bill uh regarding uh masking of federal agents.

Um that's not exactly uh uh what the legislation that they passed did.

So um the legislation that was considered by the General Assembly and passed by both chambers uh dealt with um really uh to simplify it as best I can.

It it creates a civil right of action for for individuals who feel that their uh US and or state uh constitutional rights, human rights have been violated by um officers in the uh uh in the conduct of their duties related to immigration enforcement.

Um uh Senate President Harman uh carried the bill uh in the Senate and gave the final speech on the bill.

And I think it's it's important to note that um uh even he, as the sponsor is making it clear at the outset that they fully expect this bill is going to be challenged in court.

Uh they tried to draft it in a way that would uh best protect it from that, particularly when it comes to uh you know, qualified immunity for law enforcement officers and all that.

So there's going to be some uh there's gonna be uh a lot of activity around that in the courts before we actually probably see it play out uh in practice in any large way.

But uh, if nothing else, it was a it was a pretty loud and clear state from the General Assembly uh that you know they want to they want to see some of the tactics that uh you know have been shown on the news and whatnot uh to be reined in uh regarding the uh the activities in the Chicagoland area.

Um so lastly, transit.

And I actually think this is um the most important issue as it relates to Lake County, uh, because obviously you all are part of the uh metropolitan transportation area.

Um we've been very engaged uh on the transit issue for you, going back to uh the summer before this last summer when uh Senator Villa Villam was doing his regional uh hearings on uh transit and uh we were able to secure a meeting here in Lake County uh that allowed Chair Hart and others uh uh in the area to testify about the local concerns here.

Um the the short version, and and I'll turn it over to Derek for some of the more intricate details, is the log jam was essentially broken um that has existed for quite some time when uh Governor Pritzkriger himself got involved uh and really pushed for usage of what is what has been a very large surplus in the road fund to be used for these mass transit activities.

Um you know, one of the probably bigger hang-ups that uh has been run into in both this House and the Senate, particularly last spring and as we were going into the veto session was uh the attempt to cobble a wide degree of different uh types of taxes to get to the 1.5 billion necessary to not only solve the fiscal cliff, but also uh um allow for the reforms to take place that everybody agrees needs to happen.

Um that road fund uh uh move uh effectively uh took care of roughly a billion dollars, you know, more you know, give or take of that deficit.

And then the rest of the funding uh will be coming from uh uh 0.25% uh increase in uh RTA taxes on transactions uh through the RTA, or I guess the now the new uh NETA, the Northern Illinois Transit Authority.

Um this is important for a couple reasons.

Um first and foremost, um, we've managed to solve, or the General Assembly has managed to solve one of the biggest uh uh funding anvils hanging around their neck without having to resort to any type of broad-based uh tax increase, uh, which is its own minor miracle.

Uh the state still faces a lot of uh fiscal um challenges ahead, uh, not least of which are in the area of Medicaid and whatnot, but being able to remove 1.5 billion dollars worth of problem uh before going into next spring, um, is gonna provide potentially a little bit more flexibility to deal with those other problems.

Uh I don't think anybody thinks that we'll be able to make the other uh problems related to the passage of uh federal house resolution one uh go away completely.

You know, there are still going to be cuts, it's still going to be a difficult budget year, but it will be less difficult uh with them having done this now.

Uh, last thing I would mention that's kind of you know similar to that, uh, not related to transit, but they did also pass legislation, pardon me, uh, that decouples Illinois corporate taxes uh from federal corporate tax law.

Uh, as in the in in recent months, we've been seeing the that one of the perhaps intended or unintended consequences of House Resolution One was that it was really affecting uh corporate tax receipts at the state level in a very large and unexpected way.

And so the hope was that with this decoupling that at least a portion of uh of those losses that the state was seeing uh would be uh uh recouped.

Um, and so you know, those are all intermediate steps that have been taken before we go into the spring step spring session that are aimed at helping uh stabilize what is already going to be a difficult budget year.

Um, for a little more detail on on transit and how it works, I'm gonna turn it over to Derek because uh he was very he was in the room for for most of those discussions and uh can really uh get into the weeds if if if that is your uh drrothers.

So Derek, can I uh ask you to jump in?

So, Chairman, thank you for having me today.

I will be as brief as I can on two topics.

One, I think it's really important to understand the financing model behind mass transit.

And then very briefly on a hearing on the tier two safe harbor pension bill that was also held in the final days of session.

Ultimately, the mass transit bill will generate about 1.4 to 1.5 billion dollars in annual revenue to finance regional transit operations.

And here's the breakdown.

About 860 million dollars, and these are estimates, obviously, between the time the bill was filed and the time it was considered on the floor.

About 860 million dollars will come through redirecting sales tax revenue charged on motor fuel to public transportation operations.

$860 million of redirection as opposed to new taxes, new fees that were contemplated during the first version of the bill that was considered by the Illinois Senate on May 31st.

Remember some of the most um lively discussion from the Senate bill that came over to the House around Memorial Day, was for lack of a better term, um the Amazon tax, which morphed into the pizza delivery tax into other um quips, if you will, um, that were banied about that you've seen in the media over the summit.

That tax, that fee is not included in the final package.

Rather, the base is an $160 million redirection of funds from uh sales tax into public transportation operations.

But the constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot several years ago about lockboxing the road fund.

The General Assembly intentionally included public transportation as an appropriate use.

There were objections to using road phone road fund money for mass transit purposes back in May.

Hence the reason why it was not included in the Senate though.

This proposal basically lockboxes, the lockbox.

What does that mean?

200 million dollars comes from interest in the road fund, keeps the corpus whole, but directs the interest that was generated from the principal itself to public transportation related purposes.

So without a general tax or fee increase, now we're up to 1.06 billion dollars.

In 2007 or 2008, the last time the Chicago Transit Authority came to Springfield and said we need extraordinary assistance to help operations continue.

Part of the bill was requiring the Chicago City Council to affirmatively vote on increasing the real estate transfer tax within the city to direct the funds generated over to CTA operation purposes.

That tax remains today.

And an appropriate hike in Cook County as well to generate approximately $478 million.

I'm sure you've read, and I'm sure you've heard multiple stories about the toll hike.

Passenger vehicles on Illinois toll roads found in Northeastern Illinois will pay an additional 45 cents more toll, in part to help create a new capital program for tollway projects.

That 45 cents will increase by the rate of inflation per year, and is projected today to generate approximately $1 billion on an annual basis.

Excuse me.

In law today is something called the fare box recovery ratio.

And large transit systems across America have something similar.

Illinois, by far and away, is the most stringent statutory requirement that would require local transit agencies to generate 50, 50% of their entire revenue base to sustain their operations before other assistance could be accessed.

That percentage threshold practically became unattainable during and after the pandemic.

One for clear planning purposes and practicality, allowing the systems of change to collect in redistribute revenue as appropriate, found in this 1,100 page bill.

Some have dubbed this as a 2025, 2055 solution to regional transit cooperation and operation.

That agency will be responsible for coordination.

Something that, with respect, has been a major criticism of the transit boards in Springfield.

One of the reasons why NETA has come into existence and is coming to fruition.

In order to begin this process, the bill says local fares from local transit agencies are frozen for one year to allow the provisions of this bill to take effect.

Excuse me, I think it is safe to say that there will probably be a trailer bill.

And why do I say that?

One, because the bill is over 1,000 pages long.

And whenever you pass a substantively complex piece of legislation like this, there's always things that obviously unintended consequences of drafting error or cross-reference that needs to be changed.

I assume you will see that sometime during the 2026 session.

A massive, massive first step in the process in rectifying issues that have been identified with our regional systems.

But Mike is right.

Excuse me, because we're running out of time.

And maybe we'll address this next year.

Taking us into years and decades to come.

On pensions.

We've talked in previous legislative committees about Senate Bill 1937.

This was the omnibus bill that was filed that sought in part to address tier two and safe harbor IRS violations.

The issue here was all of the other items that were found again in a bill that was hundreds and hundreds of pages long.

Before veto session, there was a price tag placed on the bill by a state agency, virtually the equivalent to the entire state budget for fiscal year 2026.

Since then, there were estimates as low as about 52 billion dollars, up to I heard last week, over 770 billion dollars, total all in price tag, state and local governments costs combined.

During a subject matter here, that's not true.

During a committee hearing on which uh the bill was passed out of committee on a partisan roll call.

The sponsor of the bill said he knew this proposal as it was pending before committee last week, was too expensive.

Governor Pritzker said that he would not sign the bill if it was presented to him as is because of potential state bond downgrades.

Others pointing to the very likelihood of property tax increases.

The governor said we have to go back to the drawing board because I believe his words were a lot more work has to be done on this.

Here's the good news.

When an individual who entered government service after 2011 retired, and his or her benefits were found to be my word, no one else's substandard to that when compared to Social Security.

It's my understanding, not one dollar has been paid out of that line item because no violations have been found since the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1st.

This subject will continue to be debated during the spring session.

Will anything happen on tier two safe harbor by May 31st?

I don't know.

But I can tell you this.

But I appreciate the amendment sponsor in the House saying the price tag is heavy.

My point here is discussions will continue.

We will attempt to be part of them all.

And as we have substantive updates, particularly on financing of the pension proposal as it moves through process as discussion continues.

Chairman, we're happy to bring those back and discuss them in future committee hearings.

I know I've spoken for a while.

I apologize.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today, sir, and happy to answer any questions if I can.

Thanks for that, gentlemen.

Any questions for Mike and Derek?

So I have a, you know, where the rubber meets the road kind of question.

Maybe this is for you, Derek, but I think our prime concern here in Lake County is that under the new formula for need of funding, are we going to lose any dollars that uh we need to fund our transportation projects?

We had budgeted um, you know, we have more than 100 million projects on the on the drawing board, and we're just wondering if we're going to lose anything under this new formula.

They bumped up the RTA tax, what was a quarter percent.

Now it's more than a percentage, right?

Um so we we need to know that number if we're gonna be in the in the in the red or the black on this.

Chairman, I have about 1,050 pages of paper sitting on my living room floor.

Um it's been my experience that the only way to go through this and ask appropriate questions back to staff and the sponsors is to go through a bill like this page by page.

I'm about halfway through it.

I do know you're asking the same questions that others are, and I have no doubt what the intention is.

I just want to make sure that's what the language says.

Sure.

I'm happy to follow up with you as soon as I possibly can um to give you a substantive answer to your question.

Yeah, that's but please you are not the only person asking that question today.

It's kind of essential information if you can get back to us.

Hopefully next month.

I haven't had a chance to get through those thousand pages either.

So if that's any consolation, but questions for Mike or Derek on state legislation or what just happened in Springfield.

Okay, very good.

Gentlemen, Mike come back.

Did you have a question, Jess?

Okay.

Mike come back to you in a few minutes, gentlemen.

Thanks.

Yeah.

If I could um there was one follow-up that uh as relates to the state legislation legislative session that I wanted to hit on under this item, and that was um some bills related related to the visitors bureau that uh a member Kasmin had referenced.

And um, I think the question that was asked, and this is related to Senate Bill 2053 and House Bill 3100.

Um, it was related to the sponsors of those bills.

And I did want to provide that information.

Uh, for Senate Bill 2053, it was uh Senator uh Feigenholz that is the chief sponsor.

Uh one of our local delegations, Senator Redley Allen was also a sponsor.

And then for House Bill 3100, it's uh Representative Crespo is the chief sponsor, and representatives Diddich and Mayfield are a local delegation that have signed on to that.

I don't know if Member Kasmin had anything else she'd like to add based on the discussion last time, or if there are any other questions from the members.

Go ahead, Chris.

Um, so they have a verbal commitment from Representative Mason as well.

Um she's not official yet.

Um and they haven't yet talked to Senator Johnson, but they think that she'll probably be amenable.

But um I think there was also a question about um the revenue to the state.

And um that is so if if it goes if 50% of that again, the state was held harmless.

So the state will not lose any revenue.

It's that 77.

I don't know if you remember, but it's um basically the state will not, but it what it will do is prevent the further diversion of money that should uh hotel and motel operators tax money that should be going into tourism from being diverted back into the general fund.

Um, it was a little bit of a long story, but I can recap it if you'd like.

But um basically when that happens though, each dollar turns into 91 dollars in visitor spending and ten dollars in state and local tax.

So it's even though um, I mean, the state is held harmless, and they all they won't, they just won't be getting the amount of the debt service increase from the year before.

So we're talking about, I think it ends up being four million dollars maybe a year, but each that four million dollars, uh 50% of it will go into hotel, motel um will go into um visitor spending and the visitors spending will then yield $10 for every one dollar in state and local tax revenue directly.

So it's just a way to because tourism, the the money available for tourism funding has been eroded because of this whole investment in Soldier Field in front in 2002 and the compounding that service that um the state is fronting um this uh entity through um hotel and motel tax revenue that should be going to tourism.

Um I I know that's complicated.

Um, I can recap the whole thing if you want, but um we we may revisit this later.

Um so this would be coming up in the spring session, right?

Yeah, but if we could um sign on uh to support the effort now, uh it would be quite helpful as they are trying to gather momentum going into the next legislative session.

Um it is uh tourism funding has been flat for the last six years.

So um this would help and and some of it what then it would they could increase the funding to um tourism marketing um and and local tourism efforts in throughout the state.

Thanks.

We might come back to you.

Uh we have a question from Sandy online.

Oh, thanks.

And thank you very much to Member Kasman for that recap.

And I I know I would appreciate sort of uh a one-pager and member Kasmin had sent something over to me about that bill.

Um, I think Matt had calculated something out, which I had done as well.

Um, so I don't know if you want to talk about it now.

Uh but Matt, I can't remember what the dollar figure was on potential impact.

So that's my first question.

And then my second question is more process.

While we give money to visit Lake County, um, they are not part of Lake County government.

And so I just wanted to understand.

I can't remember what decisions we've made as far as um advocating for or against bills that do not impact Lake County government.

So those are my two questions.

So the I'll just say the the question did come up last time with respect to how much money would uh be if if the process continues as it is, which is um the pay repayments are are fronted by uh the the tourism um fund.

But then when the uh Illinois Sports Facilities Authority pays it back, it goes into the general uh revenue fund at the state, and there is a compounding effect of five percent.

If um they cap that um if they cap that amount at of the that goes back into the GRF, the general revenue fund at 77.9 million, that compounding effect through 2033 would be roughly 179 million dollars is what I had calculated.

Um based on the discussion last time.

So I think there was one outstanding question there, Matt, whether this is something directly related to county business, hence uh our purview over it.

Um I'm sure you've had chance to review this matter with Patrice and uh as per our roles.

Yeah, I I don't know if that's I think that's the committee's decision if this is a topic that they'd like to present as related to county business or not, not necessarily the county administrator's office.

Okay, Krista, one more.

Um, it's in our strategic plan.

So that would make it seem to be.

And it's pretty high up on our strategic plan because visitor spending is so important to Lake County, and we get so much local tax in the county government from visitor spending.

So it's a significant part of our economic engine in Lake County, and thus we've put it in our strategic plan.

We I think I would say we have a board member on the visit lake county board, which would seem to indicate that it's yeah, we was me.

Um, which would seem to indicate that it is county business.

So all right.

We'll take another look at yes, Syan.

Yeah, I couldn't agree with uh member Kasmin more.

Uh and thank you for the one sheet uh that you provided to the committee today.

Um definitely read this.

Um yeah, so it I would I would I have to agree with you that it would be very pertinent to uh county business because I mean we do provide money to visit Lake County, right?

Um and and if there were to be any issues, whether we decide to fund it or not to fund it, right?

Uh whether they are um becoming insolvent or having issues with funding, and there's able ways to solve it via supporting legislation through uh county government, uh supporting legislation to help an entity that we regularly and and benefit from immensely.

I think that is very pertinent to county uh county business.

So I would definitely love to see it uh support this in the future and uh talk about it some more.

Thanks for that.

Yes, Jim.

I think the tax revenue they bring in is very important to the county, and I would support this.

Okay, thanks.

All right.

Any other questions from Mike or Derek on state issues?

Okay, gentlemen, might be coming back to you.

Okay, gentlemen, might be coming back to you, but right now we're on to 8.3, the federal update.

Greg, are you with us?

Can you hear me okay?

Uh last week was not excited about it.

We're coming back to the agenda.

I'm sorry, Greg, go ahead.

Uh I was gonna say uh while it might have been exciting in Springfield last week, it was not exciting in Washington.

And I lament that my update is the government is approaching its 36th day of being unfunded for fiscal year 26 and being shut down.

I it will uh surpass the 2019 record uh come tomorrow.

The Senate voted for the 14th time today to uh on a continuing resolution and it did not pass.

Uh, I'm apologize if I'm reiterating things I've said on past calls or in past email updates, but uh a lot of the crux of this is uh the Democrats requesting and Republicans negotiate with them on some health care related matters, particularly extending the uh expiring premium health uh premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act for health insurance.

There is some uh palace intrigue, that's like my term of the month, about some negotiations with members to come to an agreement on that.

There are uh four House members, two Republicans, two Democrats that are uh kind of teased a proposal to set some income limits on those premium tax credits as a compromise.

Uh, there's discussion of if they do vote on a CR, a continual resolution, that there'd be an agreement from uh Republican leadership to have a vote on the ACA tax credits, but uh no public agreement has been released.

So while we remain shut down and federal funding dries up for programs that uh are running out of fiscal year $25, you're seeing things like SNAP benefits shut off on November 1st.

Now some states, including Illinois, sued the federal government to have contingency funds released to cover those SNAP benefits.

That's money that exists to cover situations like this.

The uh Rhode Island federal court uh compelled or ordered the uh federal government to release those funds.

It is being publicly reported that that could take days, if not weeks to get done.

USDA replied to the courts and said they would be releasing a little over four and a half billion dollars.

That is uh purportedly only going to cover about half of benefits that are need to be paid out.

So we sit in this period of time where uh federal funds are are are cut off, federal employees aren't being paid.

Just a couple of hours ago, US Department of Transportation stated they may as early as next week start limiting uh flights across the country as you see TSA and air traffic controllers uh enter their I think second pay period where they do not receive a paycheck, and that'll be pretty disruptive as we creep up on the uh Thanksgiving holiday window.

So I I don't have a crystal ball update for you on how, if and when it's a lot of uh hearsay and sort of chatter amongst members and staff about what are the pressure points for people to come to the negotiating table.

Uh the president has uh is threatening the Senate that they need to eliminate the 60 vote filibuster, and he's going to be pressuring Republican members to do away with it.

This is a Senate parliamentary rule.

They can disband if they want, uh, but they'd be pretty fairly unprecedented in the history of the United States Senate.

Um I I left I glossed over or left off one thing as it relates to SNAP benefits.

Well, the USDA is stated to the courts they're going to comply with releasing those contingency funds.

The president today, and he communicates a lot sometimes via Truth Social Truth Social, uh, the social media platform.

He stated that uh they would not be releasing the funds until the government shutdown ended.

It it can be sometimes difficult to discern, you know what what he says on this platform, what he says sometimes, whether or not it's is in alignment with what the government itself will do.

So that's another sort of unknown that we're monitoring.

Um so yeah.

Uh uh the one update I wanted to add that's sort of a follow-up from last week.

Uh the request uh to support the legislation federal bill about ice agents and other federal agents not wearing masks.

Uh everyone in the Lake County congressional delegation, uh House delegation had co-sponsored it except Representative Bill Foster.

Uh, we reached out to his office after your uh meeting and flagged the request for him.

And as of what's the date on it here?

Uh as of uh October 24th, he has a co-sponsor of the legislation.

So I think you guys made an impact there by making that a policy priority.

I could go on probably about other programs that are not happening, not being funded, but I think that's sort of the heart of what's happening in Washington.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you, Greg.

Uh, any questions for Greg or lack of uh activity in Washington?

Go ahead.

Not so much of a excuse me, not so much as a question, but more of a uh a thank you.

And uh I seen you have uh you found some time to shave.

Uh um next month it might be back, you never know.

Um let's hope it doesn't come back.

So you know we'll get you back to work.

Um I just want to say thank you for reaching out to uh Bill Foster and to our uh congressional delegations.

I know um this is a very uh very important issue.

Uh to Weston Lake County and personal issue as well.

So uh it's good to know that our congressional uh delegation is uh behind it.

And um I'm glad that Lake County took a step forward to uh sponsor this great uh legislation.

Thanks.

Any other questions for Greg?

All right, good for now, Greg.

I don't know that we'll be coming back to you, but thanks again.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, item 8.4.

We're going to be reviewing our proposed uh agenda for next year.

Matt will give a summary of each item.

You have questions, um, let's discuss them.

Um be a bit of a round robin, and we're going to vote on the entire package.

Correct?

Correct, Chair.

All right, good.

So um, this is very similar to what I had shown last month uh as a as an initial draft for our 26th uh legislative program.

And this is the action uh item in front of you today.

What I'll do is just briefly go through the item.

Um, and sure, uh that's a good point.

If I could get a maybe a motion, a second to get it on the floor.

Yes, motion is second.

Motion by Saya, second by Jessica.

Thank you.

What I will do is just briefly go through the items.

It's ones that we've talked about over the last two months.

And um uh I'll I'll point out where we've made some additional amendments based on last month's discussion.

So uh everything has stayed the same with respect to contact information and the the background information.

We've tried to update as much as possible based on census, and nothing has changed with respect to our guiding tenants, the processes that we follow in which we establish and amend this document um and what our positions are, the Freedom of Information Act related to addressing vexatious requests and defining that is continues to be included, as well as the PTAB uh hearing locations and allowing for virtual Illinois Homes Tax Credit Act uh was something that we're gonna continue to support.

And uh the health department came and gave some presentations two months ago related to the local health protection grant funding.

And um can I go back to that first page?

Um so the FOIA uh position that uh also references uh AI generated requests.

Do we have that specific language in there or do we need it?

Uh it's I mean, vexatious is kind of a broad term.

Into some of the recommendation there, it does reference bots and some of the camera.

Yeah, sorry, with respect to AI, it is referencing the issue in the background statement.

Right.

That yeah, it was a challenge.

Um, the local health protection grant funding was another one in which we're looking for additional increases.

Um support with any respect to that decriminalizing homelessness, Dominic and Eric came in and talked about um that particular item.

Nope, I'm wrong with that one.

That was that came from another uh that was member Casman that said, I'm sorry, Carissa.

Uh that was I'm getting all these mixed up at this point in time after two months.

So um that was an item that was presented by member Casbin and included um with respect to amendments to the Bill of Rights for the Homeless Act and uh the Joaquin Coal Plant environmental remediation, the complete removal of the coal ash ponds is an item that's been in our agenda and we'll continue to support the city of Waukegan.

Swalco came last month and uh talked about their legislative program.

So we did amend this page on the left to include household chemical waste DPR legislation.

We'd support uh food scrap diversion, compost market development, uh mattresses, uh EPR bills, and we'll not monitor continue to monitor carry-out bags and come back with any um traction that that makes.

And if I can stop you there, Matt.

Yep.

The two new items were the mattresses and the plastic bags, right?

And those are just monitor items, right?

The mattresses will support uh and that and we'll monitor the carry-out bags.

And we did develop this and and reviewed it with uh Walter.

Yes, yes.

And just to clarify, we're monitoring because he wasn't quite sure whether they were going to introduce new legislation, correct, or what the final legislation might look like.

Or what it was going to look like, correct.

Okay, so we'll see what it looks like, and then we'll bring it back for discussion should it should it appear.

Okay.

Um the other item here on the right side that's tough to see is the uh legislation to ensure uh redevelopment of the volunteer lake monitoring program, which was part of the uh discussion of the public comment this morning and reintroduce funding and start that program again.

And just to add just one point to that.

So this would be advocating for restoring the funding for this program uh to the IEPA, uh, which was largely um operated by volunteers, but it would be coordinated through our health department, which has the responsibility for monitoring our recreational waters.

Yes.

Well, they eliminated funding for the program uh in 2019, and this this uh position would say we need to restore the funding so we can keep doing this and monitoring our more than 100 bodies of water that we swim in boat and fish in.

Yes.

It's a little late to be asking, but do we know what the health department's position is on this?

Oh, they support it.

They they brought it to us.

Just they brought it to us.

Yes, and environmental health division of the health department.

I asked not because I questioned their concern about healthy water, but just because they have to manage the volunteers and run the program.

But okay, good to know they brought it.

Thank you.

Um the one on the left here is monitor for any bills related to the uh state task force recommendations of the ad hoc missing middle housing solutions advisory committee.

We continue to wait for that.

Um the health department brought forward uh uh monitoring for any impacts of the House Resolution One, uh, basically the one big beautiful bill act, um, or the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act, bring forth any um impacts related to that and monitor and support that if necessary.

Can you give us a little summary on that?

I just refresh your memory on that.

I don't remember what that was exactly.

This was basically determining if there were going to be any federal funding impacts to the health department related to the passage of those bills and bring forth any legislation that could either support the health department or some of that local funding or oppose any ones that would impact that funding.

Okay.

These are federal items.

Uh uh, this this these two pages here align with what we bring to NACO over the last two years, which is railway safety for local communities.

And this does a variety of things, which talks about um looking for studies for assessments of railways in relation to critical infrastructure, um, look at what communities want or hear or what they would want to see and how they impact said communities, a review of safety standards for rail cars.

Basically, it's just asking for a kind of a full review, conduct a full review of railway safety throughout the United States.

Uh e-vehicle fire standards is uh is an item that uh member Hunter has brought forward based on some experiences that that he has uh has had and seen in that um space.

And we have started some discussions with Representative Schneider's office that we'd like to continue to work through.

And then I think the last item here, oh, sorry, affordable high speed internet is an item that has been of importance to uh Lake County with the loss of the affordable connectivity program, the ACP.

Is there any something similar that we could reauthorize or find another federal initiative that could support that to create high affordable high speed internet for those in need?

And then the last one there on the left for federal is uh to oppose legislation that increases weight limits on heavy trucks.

It's a topic that's come up over the last number of years in various forms that we'd like to continue to oppose that it does, it does have long-term impacts on our uh road infrastructure.

The one on the right is just a general support initiative for any firearm regulations, banning the sale of assault rifles, mandating firearm safe storage, any FOID card process reform, mandating training related to the sale or possession of firearms or and looking for any further funding for G VPI related initiatives, and then topics of importance.

The only comment a lot of this has stayed the same.

The only comment I had was can we just make sure we include the Route 53 Greenway?

And that is still included there.

Okay.

Any questions on any of these items?

regulations banning the sale of assault rifles mandating firearm safe storage any FOI card process reform mandating training related to the sale or possession of firearms or and looking for any further funding for G VPI related initiatives and then topics of importance the only comment a lot of this has stayed the same the only comment I had was can we just make sure we include the Route 53 greenway and that is still included there okay any questions on any of these items so we need to um discuss okay and member Frank has his hand raised oh yes um go ahead Paul I thank you chair I just wanted to um add a couple of comments based on your question about the health department um and monitoring for state impacts for related to HR one the most notable and immediate impact that we're gonna see is that um the federal centers for Medicaid and Medicare are going to issue rules requiring states to create work requirement programs which will determine who's eligible for Medicaid going forward and the department the health department's going to have a big role to play in terms of ensuring that uh Medicaid beneficiaries know how to complete that paperwork and and stay eligible for Medicaid throughout that process and the state of Illinois is going to probably have to create either their own rules or there may be legislation related to that about trying to ensure that people stay uh covered and so that's that's an important thing for us to be looking for and I'm really supportive of that being on our agenda well thanks for that um I think the wording we had in our our position was was broad enough to say look we gonna have to look at this and see what kind of shakes out after the wash and um good point thank you Jessica and then Gino sorry I'm I skipped over I looked at the screen first and see your hand no problem I just have a language request um language change request under the topics of importance if we could change Route 53 greenway to the Lake County Greenway Trail um I think it's important we start calling it something different.

Very good thanks Gina and then Isaiah can I just is there general consensus to make that language change oh yes yes absolutely I'm just gonna make the change before this one I was going to got trying to figure out how best to amend that but I think that that's I think it doesn't need strong rights that let's just okay so my question is I did I miss this on here when does this come the the um thanks member Roberts the the the reason I brought that up under 82 is that's general support for a a current bill in existence that's gonna we know is going to continue in that form a lot of these other ones are just topics that we're we're either going to try and sponsor or get bills drafted for or look for opportunities to work with legislators to get them drafted those are bills that are in existence which I handle separately staff handle separately from our legislative program so that if that's something that the county wants to support we would need consensus of this committee to do that that's that's outside of this item 8.4 we can we can okay well I want to make sure it gets sure I don't know how you can yeah I don't have to do that today in terms of adding it to the package or is this for further discussion I'm I'm not going to put that in the legislative program because it's an existing bill okay but it's something we would support if we were to get uh majority consensus from this committee okay so I think what you're saying is we'll discuss it next month and then decide if we're gonna add it to our agenda or we can does this need to be part of our vote next we we could finish this bill and we can talk about that item further if you'd like or if you want me to put it on the agenda for next month I can what's a consensus you want to talk about it now and consider adding it to the agenda for next month yeah since I brought it up I I I would like to continue talking about because we talked about it last month and then to put it off for another month I mean okay that's it's fine with me.

Yeah sorry go ahead and then my question sorry to switch gears here um I know I can't talk to members directly so if I could have to talk to discussion yeah talk to the chair um regarding member frank's comment on the eligibility for Medicare and the work requirements for the eligibility for Medicare but again um perhaps I misunderstood was he in support of the requirements for Medica or supporting legislation to amend that portion or I'm not gonna interpret your comments but go ahead I know you're still there of course I appreciate the question no as a policy I think um it it it will hurt people by creating administrative barriers for access to coverage I think it's a terrible idea but as a state Illinois will be required to comply uh and as uh as our health department will have a significant role in keeping our uh constituents on Medicaid so it's it we need to watch what the rules are we're gonna have to see what the state does in this space but no I I'm I'm not supportive thank you for asking to answer your question yeah it answers my question because there's just the the scope of the wording of it confused me so I apologize.

So it's it we need to watch what the rules are.

We're gonna have to see what the state does in this space.

But no, I'm I'm not supportive.

Thank you for asking.

Yeah, it answers my question because there's just the the scope of the wording of it uh confused me.

So I apologize.

Thank you, Paul.

I just have a point of order, perhaps, about this process.

So item 8.2 is not um an action item.

So isn't it correct?

We can't take a vote on something, or is it just discussion and then consensus about that bill?

It wouldn't be added just to clarify to the legislative agenda, we could still take action on 8.4 because it's not going to be added to the agenda.

Staff would I would prefer that we finish the discussion and take the formal action on 8.4, and then we can handle the discussion related to those two bills.

And if I can get general consensus, you're right, it's not an action item.

Okay, but we typically handle a supportive bills or opposition of bills via general majority consensus.

Consensus.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that we can pass 8.4.

We're not asked, or at least for my position, we're not asking to postpone that until next month.

No, staff would prefer the 8.4 is handled today in whatever form necessary to make sure that we can start work with uh the general assembly on getting bills directed.

Okay.

Well, let's do a roll call vote vote on 8.4, which is the legislative package for 2026 as presented.

Uh Teresa, please.

Vice Chair Campos.

Member Roberts.

Member Volitzek.

Hi.

Chair Watson.

Hi.

Okay, that's done.

And let's return to uh basically tourism funding.

Yeah, basically we're going back to discussion of bill of discussion of state related legislative session and reviewing the discussion of those two bills, and if there's any further discussion or if the chair wants to take a consensus of the committee.

Well, let's let's have a little bit more discussion.

I'm I'm not exactly clear on what the bill will do, even with the summary.

Is it so I like to boil it down to like it does this or does that?

So we'll will it put more money into if we advocate for the bill of you described, we'll put more money into our tourism budget ultimately.

Yes.

Um the statewide, it'll prevent this diversion.

Um, the continued diversion or the increased diversion of funds away from tourism and into the general fund.

Okay.

Um from a local standpoint, there will then be more money that will be available to be used for tourism spending, and that will be distributed to the CVBs um across the across the state and with and visit Lake County is one of them.

So um, and then that money would could would be spent here.

Any increase we would get would be spent here in Lake County, which would generate um more money in in visitor spending.

And increased tax revenue, right?

Yes.

Okay, all right.

That's I'm good on that.

Uh any other questions on this uh bill.

Yes, just can you talk through more or someone talk through more the diversion?

I I get that it's diverted to this to the ISFA.

I get why that's concerning, but then that money that would go to ISFA is this what is this bill saying?

I'm I haven't gotten down to the bottom where it says what the solution is yet.

Yeah, or who whom whomever um does it go directly to tourism, or does it go to like the Illinois General Fund with the purpose of a percentage of that going to tourism?

Or is it the whole thing?

So right now, um in this deal, they said, okay, uh, the state of Illinois said we're we'll use tourism hotel motel tax operator, so tourism funds, right, to front you the amount of the annual debt service on the bonds for creating that social for financing that soldier field project.

They said we'll front it to you, and then you'll pay us back before the end of the year.

So they front it at the beginning of the year.

The um uh the ISFA pays them back by the end of the year, but they front it from the the tourism funds or the hotel motel tax, right?

But then when ISFA pays it back, it goes into the general fund.

And because that has increased that over 5% every year compounded, what was originally a 22 million dollar diversion or two 22.2 almost million dollar um diversion has become with compounded interest over the years, 77.9 million dollars that's been diverted of hotel motel tax money that's been diverted from tourism marketing into the general fund.

So, and what they're saying, and I think the reason why our state delegation is you know is signing on is because it's such a reasonable, like it's meeting more than halfway.

They're not saying we want to get all the money back for um tourism marketing, right?

What they're saying is okay, we're gonna hold the state harmless at 77.9 million dollars.

They're gonna get that every year.

So we're not, you know, until this is paid off in in 2033.

So we're not taking anything away from the state.

What we're doing is that amount that it compounds every year will from here forward will go back into tourism that or the hotel motel tax fund for tourism marketing.

Does that make sense?

Um, who's sponsoring this?

Who are the so um on the Senate side, Feigenholz, um, and Senator Edley Allen has signed on on the uh state the on the state of the uh general assembly side, it's Crespo and um right now uh representative Mason has indicated verbally, and then uh Mayfield and Diddic have also signed on.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Uh Sandy, you had a question.

I did, thank you.

And and I'm sorry, uh Matt.

So the money that you had talked about, how I can't remember how many millions it was, that was over and above the 71 million, I think the number Casman was talking about.

Is that correct?

Correct.

It's the it's the it's the just the compounding effect over the next uh till through 203 over the 77.9 million.

Got it.

Okay.

So thank you.

And obviously I don't have a vote on here, and uh deep respect for our state legislators who um support this.

I can just say that especially in these trying times, I'm loath to support something that um takes money away from the general fund, which can be used in so many different ways and put it directly into tourism.

Because of course, just like ours, if we have money in the general fund, or they have money in the general fund, they can choose to put it towards tourism, or they can choose to um you know provide food for people or help with vaccinations or whatever that might look like.

So um that's really my greatest concern.

Um, I think Visit Lake County is an excellent organization, and we're lucky to have them.

Um that's just that's just my concern.

I I would prefer to have something, and I'm not in the General Assembly, obviously, but with less strings attached and having it leave the general assembly, it's only until 2033 anyway, uh, is why I wouldn't support it.

But thank you.

Oh, sorry, sorry, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and maybe this is uh for Carissa K.

Maybe this is uh a crude way of putting it, but this is the way it makes sense in my head.

So Peter paid Paul with David's money, and Paul paid David back with interest, and we want that interest to go back to Peter.

What I will say is this is money, hotel motel tax was is money that's intended to go toward tourism marketing, which that which again yields every dollar yields $91 and in visitor spending and $10 in state and local tax revenue.

$101 equals $10, right?

So what we want to do is that the money that was intended for the hotel motel operators tax was intended for tourism, was the state decided to divert it.

And now what we're saying is okay, we're not asking you to not divert it at all anymore.

All we're asking you to do is not it with compounding interest every year.

So the just the interest part would go back to tourism spending.

And one could argue that it's kind of a bizarre way to do books anyway, to take money that is intended for one purpose, divert it in this kind of not entirely transparent way toward this one project, but then say, hey, when you pay us back, where it's not going to go back into the hotel motel top operators tax.

Instead, we're going to divert it into the general fund.

I mean, I think that's I don't, I don't know.

I mean, I would I would ask Patrice.

I mean, that's not really a normal way to do finances, right?

Like to say, okay, we'll front you this, you'll pay us back, and then we're going to put it in a completely different fund.

I think you know, we can argue about the yeah.

Especially since it was their money in the first place, they should be capturing the the interest that was used or that was made off their their money originally.

Well, it the problem is that more and more money is diverted every year.

Correct.

Because of that interest and less and less is available for tourism marketing, which again compounds it comes back times 10 in state and local taxes.

So we're really just kind of shooting ourselves in the foot.

So we're not diverting money from the general fund.

There's money that has been diverted from the hotel motel tax account.

That we're just asking, hey, let's just stop the interest.

We're not saying you have to pay us back.

We're not saying that you that you have to lose this 77.9 million dollars.

What we're saying is just stop freeze it there, and then the compounded interest goes back so that the diversion doesn't keep increasing every year.

Does that make sense?

So the harm doesn't continue to deepen every year.

It's really, I mean, it's quite it's quite reasonable for, and I just, you know, since since tourism is such a big is so important to Lake County, it would seem that we would want to support this.

Um I think it'd be it's reasonable too.

Thank you.

Thanks for that.

So at this point, uh, do we have a consensus to add this to our legislative agenda?

Is that the correct wording?

For the county to support these bills.

For the county to support these bills.

Yes.

Yes, okay.

We're good on that.

All right.

Do we have another item?

We do not.

Okay.

Do we have a county administrator's report?

The only comment I was going to make is that Lake County Municipal League has reached out to me to see if we could potentially coordinate a legislative breakfast joint legislative breakfast as we have every year sometime in uh January prior to the session's start.

So I will look for dates unless this committee states otherwise and see if we can coordinate something.

Is that okay with everybody?

It's the breakfast of the year.

It's a it's a great chance to be in the room with most of the mayors, state uh legislators, um, sometimes representative Schneider's there, depending on his session.

Um, but it's it's a great event.

That's it's a great way to connect and see what the mayors are doing.

All in one place.

And the bacon's good too.

Okay, we're good on that.

Uh, do we have an executive session?

We do not.

Any member remarks or comments?

I'm sorry, we have one more comment from Sandy.

Thank you so much.

I just wanted to thank uh the members of the board who had signed a letter um to the chief judge um asking that he um have an administrative order to not have unwarranted arrests in the um in the courthouse.

I did forward that letter on to um Sheriff Eidelberg is of course the sheriff's office is responsible for the overall security of the courthouses.

Um Eric Reinhardt or state's attorney had also signed the letter, and he spoke in Springfield last week.

And if I understand correctly, that um that bill passed.

Whoops, sorry, the bill passed both houses and is hopefully going to be signed by the governor.

And I just wanted to thank my colleagues on the board um for being a part of of sending that letter over.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we are adjourned.

Our next meeting is December 2nd.