Today is Thursday, March 5th.

It's 8:31 a.m.

And I call to order the Lake County Board's Financial and Administrative Committee.

Please rise.

Member Clark, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'd like to be replied the United States of the mayor.

And to republicans.

Thank you.

Can we have a roll call?

Member Clark.

Here.

Chair Frank?

Here.

Member Hewitt.

Member Main.

Buster Park is on his way.

Member Peterson.

Member Volitzik.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

We'll proceed.

Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

I have no chair's remarks for us this morning, except to add that I know that we are all praying for the safety of service members serving in harm's way in the golf rate.

Unfinished business, we're going to revisit item 7.1, which we previously had and we sent back to committee.

7.1 is a joint resolution authorizing two new principal public defenders to staff a newly consolidated domestic violence courtroom at an estimated cost of approximately 135,000 for the remainder of remainder of fiscal year 2026.

Motion on this item by member Clark, second by member Maine.

Morning.

Good morning.

Just to recap, I am back.

It turns out I believe the state's training's office has a request for a victim specialist as a result, but my needs remain the same, and I'm asking for those two positions.

We do have money within our budget due to unfilled positions at this time that will cover the salary for this portion of the year because we won't fill that position probably for another month or two before the courtroom opens.

Okay, thank you for that.

And so one of the reasons uh I was supportive of taking a little bit more time on this is just because I felt like we just needed to have greater clarity on the total fiscal impact, not just in the um you know public defender's office, but the other justice partners that are going to be impacted by staffing the additional courtroom.

Do we have that information?

Do we know are there staffing and resource impacts for the clerk of the court for the sheriff's office?

Do we have answers to those questions?

I believe so.

At that meeting, it was determined that the only additional staffing that would be required of all the justice partners would be that of the state's attorney's office request for a victim specialist.

But the uh sheriff's department, the clerk's office, uh the courts, they all have the staff that they need for that particular courtroom.

So there will be a request coming forward from the state attorney's office for a victim services coordinator.

Yes, I believe it's on the consent agenda.

Okay.

Great.

We'll get to that.

Thank you.

Other questions on the item?

Okay.

All right, member Hewlett.

According to this, it's for the year of 2026.

What happens in 27th?

Is this then going to be just added into the budget for next year?

Yes.

Thank you.

Great.

In addition to, I believe it's item 8.5 on consent agenda.

Yeah.

Both uh are the costs that I would assume will carry over into the next fiscal year to continue the staffing.

Is that is that correct?

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

I see none online.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

7.1 is approved.

Thank you.

Now we're on to our consent agenda.

New business items 8.1 through 8.18.

Do any members wish to pull any items off of the consent agenda?

Motion on these items by member Peterson, second by member Volitzik.

Comments or questions on these items.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Consent agenda items are pleased.

Item 8.19 is a resolution authorizing Lake County to enter into agreements for temporary employee services with four staffing agencies for general administrative support to professional and credential positions.

Motion to approve this items by member Clark, second by member Belitzik.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Frank, and members of the committee.

I'm Krista Kennedy, contract administrator.

Um, so we issued an RFP for temporary staffing solutions.

Um, because our current contracts are expiring soon with no option to renew.

Um we sent it out to 155 different companies, and we received an overwhelming response of 61 proposals, um, more than we've ever received.

Um we had a phenomenal multi-departmental team consisting of HR finance courts, uh, workforce and facilities that evaluated all of the proposals.

Um, ultimately, the team decided that it was in the county's best interest to recommend award to four different organizations so that it offers the maximum um options available and flexibility for us to determine what's going to meet our needs best.

Um today we're we're asking for your approval um for these contracts.

Thank you.

Questions on these items.

Um, so the staffing agencies, are the contracts the same for each four of them?

Essentially, there's a few um differences between them.

Um, each of them had some pricing percentage increases that were different.

Um, a couple of them wanted other um additional um terms and conditions added in that's required for their specific agency, but essentially their um list of scope of work and their roles and responsibilities are are the same.

Um, and we did uh draft the contract in a way where we're not promising that they're going to receive any placement.

There's no um maximum or minimum listed in the contract, it's all based on what the need is.

Um, and we're also um moving forward with these um kind of uniquely.

Um, if it's a budgeted item um or explicitly budgeted already, or it um was grant funded, um, they wouldn't need to seek additional approval.

But if it's over the purchasing thresholds um and it's not explicitly um a line item budget or a grant fund, they would still need to come, the department would still need to come and get your approval.

Thanks for that additional detail.

Uh so just to follow up on my question, then is um do each one of these firms have sort of like different specialties, like we would use one for a certain type of position and one for another.

Um, to some degree, yes.

So one of the um one of the contracts is specifically for more of those specialized positions that would require credentialing, um, like uh engineering or specific scientific or technical types of of positions.

Um, and then the other ones do more of like a broad scale, but they they tend to have their their niche um as well.

Um the one that's more the specialized um does um have a little bit higher price.

The other ones are all pretty comparable um with what their markup is.

Um but it just gives the departments the opportunity to to kind of work with them and see who's gonna be able to fill the specific position that they have as easy as possible.

Got it.

Thank you, Member Carr.

Hopefully.

So it how would you decide?

Like if I had a position, I got these four.

Is there like an order or like would it depend on the position, or is it up to the individual to say, oh, I'm just gonna call this company because I've worked with them before.

Um, so I mean they it would be up to the department to review.

Um they could reach out to each of the companies and learn a little bit more about how quickly they'd be able to fill those types of positions.

Um so if if a department reached out to us and asked us what do we have available, we'd provide them all of those contracts to review and then determine which one makes the most sense for them to move forward to fill the position that they have.

Okay, because really just up to the department.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.19 is approved.

Thank you.

8.20 is a resolution authorizing emergency appropriations for fiscal year 2026 and various funds for certain projects, items, and activities.

Budget in the prior year, not completed.

Motion on this item by member Hewitt, second by member Clark.

Good morning.

Good morning, Michael Wheeler, budget manager finance.

Good to see everyone again.

Uh, just as this is our monthly uh request for carryovers for projects and grants that were started prior to fiscal year 26.

We're taking unused or unspent amounts that are related to ongoing projects and grants into fiscal year 26.

This is what we're requesting.

Uh, as you can see, there are a number of things going on here, and most of them, most of it is grants, uh, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

Comments or questions.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.20 is approved.

8.21 is a resolution authorizing an emergency appropriation and IMRF fund, fund 204 to fund penchant benefit expenses for fiscal year 2025 budget in the amount of 265,570 and 49 cents from the fund 204 fund balance.

Motion on this item by member Clark, second by member Hewitt.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Frank, members of the committee, Regina Tuzak, Chief Financial Officer.

Um, this item and frankly, the next few are all relating to our year-end closing process and um uh payroll matters late in the fiscal year.

Uh, as you can see, we are asking for an emergency appropriation for 265,000 for um IMRF pension expenses.

There is an appropriate uh fund balance in this fund of over $7 million.

Um, so there is adequate funding for this uh request.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

Yes, clearly there's enough money in the fund.

Um did were there more than anticipated retirements?

Why do we need this extra money?

As part of the budget strategy this fiscal year, um, there was a um a vacancy savings assumption that was utilized, which frankly reflected um high vacancies that had occurred during the the COVID years.

Um we had the the I guess the fortunate um compensation study that boosted up um a compensation for many employees throughout the county.

Um and with that, the vacancies that were actually experienced were um less than was part of the um assumptions in the budget.

So there are some um shortfalls in in the departments and frankly in the IMRF expense.

So and and I know that it's looked at each year in terms of uh employees and um returns and stuff like that.

Do you anticipate that as best you can that this is something that we should be putting more into um IMRF in the future?

Uh the strategy that was used for fiscal year 25 was um re-evaluated for 26 and the savings assumptions were were not um as uh aggressive given the fact that we had strong retention in fiscal 25.

So we are um hoping that these um budget needs will not be the same for for 26 with with the end of the year and the assumptions and the shortfalls.

And if I if I may, Mr.

Chair.

Just one if I may.

Uh so the new assumptions then have baked into it, the higher salaries, thus the higher pensions that people would get.

That's run out.

Yeah, you can you can look at it that way.

I think the I guess the way that I look at it is the um assumptions for vacancies were um not as significant.

And thus the um the the course it reflects the salaries and the pension, but we are not expected to have the same um this the same gap between the actual retention versus what was assumed.

But but the increased salaries in and of themselves are gonna that predicates that you're gonna need more in there for uh just yeah, I'm absolutely just yes, it's math.

I definitely mathematically the the IMRF calculation follows the salary.

So yes, the salaries that are used is the IMRF is calculated based on that.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh totally accurate.

Isn't it also accurate to say that we budget for that, right?

When we're talking about salary, we're not just budgeting the salary, we budget for the other expenses.

Absolutely.

IMRF, FICA, HLD, all of that.

Okay.

Other comments or questions on this one.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.21 is approved.

8.22 is resolution authorizing an emergency appropriation in States Attorney Money Laundering Fund, Fund 765 for personnel and benefits costs in fiscal year 2025 budget in the amount of $2,540 from the fund 765 fund balance.

Motion on this item by Vice Chair Parek, second by member Clark.

Thank you.

Uh, this particular matter, there was an employee that was uh moved into the money laundering fund in the middle of fiscal year 25, and the um budget was um short for the the last few payrolls of the of the fiscal year.

Uh this employee has subsequently is subsequently in in 2026 um gonna be charged to a grant.

We a grant was renewed and effective, I think January 10th, the salary is charged to the grant.

But for the rest of the fiscal year, there is a minor shortfall that is needed at emergency appropriation from fund balance to fund that difference.

Comments or questions.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, 8.22 is approved.

8.23 is resolution authorizing an emergency appropriation and recorder automation fund, fund 260 to fund personnel expenses of the fiscal year 2025 budget in the amount of $16,500 from fund 260 fund balance.

Motion to approve on this item by Vice Chair Perck, second by member clerk.

On this matter, um somewhat similar with regards to timing as part of the year end and some of the payrolls that came in at the end of the year, there is a shortfall in the budgeted expense.

And this is primarily due to throughout the year there was overtime and excess of budget, and then there was some one-time pay for those employees that are at the top of their range.

And at the end of the year, uh there's a need for $16,500 from the fund balance.

There is adequate funding in that fund of a million nine uh to cover the emergency repropriate emergency appropriation request.

Yeah.

So I thought, so this is moving, so it's the recording fund, and we're moving money to cover employ like employee salaries.

And I thought we were trying to move away from doing that, or not we, the clerk's office or whoever is doing this is is paying ongoing operating funds out of the technology or whatever the the fund automation fund, thank you.

Yeah.

Um is it just like a one-time thing, or is this like why was it not budgeted right?

Or why does it coming out of the automation fund?

I'm just curious.

Is like why?

These employ these employees were costed to that fund.

Um, I do think with the um some of the change in technology that that is slowly decreasing, but we still do have some employees, my understanding that are charged to that fund.

And do they do automation then?

Is that what they do as a job?

Uh their responsibilities are are related to this the um the setup of this this fund if I understand things correctly.

And so then going forward, is it gonna be an adjustment to the or are they are they just already getting paid out of this fund?

So I guess it would I guess they can't be getting paid out of this fund, or they were, but it's just that they have to get more money out of this fund.

They are costed to the fund.

Okay.

So these people are costed the fund.

Okay.

All right.

Well, I'm all right.

I I do think I get nervous sometimes when we have things coming out of automation fund that are really like the actual, you know, the the pay and salary and operating money.

But um, all right, I guess this is what we're gonna do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Remain.

Yeah, thanks.

My my questions are similar to member Clark, so I'll try not to be repetitive.

Um so, you know, there's a lot in this in this fund.

How many when you say they're costed, is that 100% or is it a percentage of their salary comes from this fund?

I'd have to, I'd have to check on that.

I don't know.

So related to that, and I I don't need an answer now, would be is this um historically?

Are we going back every year and saying, hey, we need a little bit more from this fund?

So it's kind of it's kind of related.

Like, are they a hundred percent and you know, someone got a raise and therefore it wasn't in the budget?

You know, just just trying to have um a better understanding of the trend line of salaries coming out of this fund.

Um perhaps is it I guess it's a very broad fund in terms of how the monies are allowed to be used.

There's probably a fee on something that people pay and it goes into this fund.

Is that how this fund is funded?

I I'd have to get back to you a little on a little bit more of that.

I I am not as familiar with um the mechanics, the specifics of the special revenue fund.

Ms.

Trader Sutton, did you have something you wanted to add?

Good morning, Patrice Sutton, County Administrator and former CFO, and I'm not stepping in because she's not capable.

I just have a lot of historical um uh knowledge and experience um that can help to answer some of the questions.

So if you don't mind, um we have tried to reduce the number of staff in the recorder automation fund over time.

So your recollection is correct.

Over the last three years, we've gone from 12 to 10 to eight.

And the the logic there is that we have to follow the state statute and have only the people that are doing recordings and that meets you know the requirements there.

And so as technology has increased over time, you know, the county, the former recorder of deeds, and now the county of clerk, the county clerk are working with us to you know right size the number of people that are directly costed to the recorder automation fund.

Um but they are 100% costed.

There are some people that are partially costed, so oversight.

Obviously, um some of the supervisors, managers, directors are not 100% on these types of functions.

And so we've got both full um employees as well as some partial employees' salaries going into this fund.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um obviously these people need to get paid.

I I can support this, but before I see it on Tuesday, I I would like to see more.

I personally would like to see more information.

I'd like to see some of this historical, and I'd like to see the language that clarifies how monies in this fund can what the language is around this fund, the authorization of this fund and and also where the funds are from the funds.

Is it like a two dollar, you know, we see these things, two dollars every time somebody follow files something, two dollars goes over here.

There's all these fees that get added on to filings that cost more than the filing does.

So I I'd like to see that personally.

I I think it's a good request.

Mike is related.

So Ms.

President, if we are over time moving personnel out of this fund, but the revenues are static or increasing, which I don't know that they are, but it's an assumption I'm making.

Um the challenge for us is hey, we have this revenue sitting in this fund and fewer purposes for it.

So I guess be useful for us to understand what the plans are, how those funds will be used.

Yeah, so um I forgot to answer that question, member Maine.

So I apologize.

It's the um fee is this is a flat fee on every single recording.

So to answer your question, as the recordings go up and down, the revenue into this fund um does go up and down accordingly.

So to your point, there is very specific usage for the fund, and we will share that with you and um, you know, let you know exactly how these funds can be used going forward.

Great.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry if I missed that, but I think, and did you say that we really don't have oversight of those funds, right?

That's a special fund that they kind of make the decision and we approve, but it's really up to the Yep.

The recorder automation fund is one of the special revenue funds that is at the discretion of the county clerk.

Okay, thank you.

And just to speak to that in a broader sense, there's a lot of special revenue funds out there.

Um, and you can see them in our budget book, but um, you know, we usually look at them piecemeal through the budget process.

So one of the things that Patrice and I have been talking about is perhaps it could be a good idea, either it might come to finance, or maybe it's a committee of the whole, so everybody can hear it.

Um, is really how uh let's take a look at what all these special funds are, how they can be used, how much is sitting in there, things like that.

So thank you.

Member Maine.

Picking up on that, this committee, I believe, has to approve the fund.

We have to approve that filing fee, right?

Like the state, a lot of times the state is permissive and says you may charge up to, I'll just pick a number, three dollars per filing.

You know, it used to be two, now you can charge up to three.

And we have to approve that as the board, right?

That this board, am I right?

Kind of some of them are prescriptive, some of them do have that language in there that says up to a certain dollar amount.

So I just think that this board should keep that in mind that if we are allowing them to have those monies, right?

We are essentially saying, yes, you can have this fund.

I I just think we should keep that in mind because then we're giving them, we're saying, here's monies that you can then use as you want.

Just a thought.

Great.

Thank you.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.23 is approved.

8.24 is your director's report.

Uh yes, two items on there.

First of all, as part of again, the year-end close-off process under the uh budget execution policy under the uh the authorities that are provided to the chief financial officer.

I have indicated to you all of the line item transfers that have been completed as part of the year-end process for the month of February.

This gets us very close to the end.

Uh we are have uh worked on closing our books and turning things over to the audit firm.

Uh, but I wanted to provide you the list of all the line item transfers that were approved in the month of February, which will be followed up with a cumulative total.

I know that's been requested of all the line item transfers that were made in in fiscal year 25.

Uh so that's that's presented to you.

There's no approval necessary.

And then the second item that I wanted to uh bring to your attention.

I'm very proud to say that the government finance officers association has once again awarded Lake County the certificate of achievement for excellence and financial reporting on our annual comprehensive financial report.

Uh and I just want to thank the finance team uh led by James and team members Errol, Ruby, Gerald, and Adam for all of their hard work to get this done under the leadership of County Administrator Sutton, who was uh the interim CFO at the time.

Congratulations to you and the entire team again.

Thank you.

Comments or questions on the directory report.

Thank you.

8.25 is the annual update for facilities and construction, Director Carl Crown.

Good morning.

Carl Carrard, Director of Facilities and Construction Services.

As the presentation is being brought up.

Um today I will be providing you a look at how the projects that we've done over the last year have supported the Lake County Strategic Plan.

We'll also walk through our work plan for FYA 2026, and we'll finish with a look at our progress and the new program request uh over the last three years.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know and interrupt me with them as we move along.

So we'll start off with a look at some of the projects and how they've supported it at Lake County Strategic Plan.

As a department, we are a supporting function that enables the operations of all the county functions or all the county departments and agencies.

We ensure the safe working environment so Lake County can really provide the services to residents, vendors, visitors, and taxpayers uh throughout the throughout the county.

You can see the different functions we have here, special events, uh, and the operational things we have with snow removal, supporting the elections, and uh heating and cooling systems throughout all of our buildings.

Uh Safe Communities is a strategic priority that we have a couple of projects that specifically address that.

The DEPC Juvenile Center and a women's residential support renovation project.

Uh that is an ongoing project uh that is directly with the juvenile detention and support area, uh, as well as in the center courts here, we are doing abestis abatement and renovation.

We're on a second phase of that project right now, and that's move along pretty well.

Uh the DEPC project as I'm kind of mentioned in the name there.

We also are supporting the health department's behavior behavioral health program with that with that project.

It's improving their portions of their area.

Uh the next strategic plan initiative that we're supporting is adaptive infrastructure.

Pretty much everything we're doing is trying to become more adaptive, more uh more usable for multiple functions and facilities that are out there.

The ROC facility, which just opened up this year, uh supports multiple agencies, and then the PW edition and then a picture on the right hand side.

Uh that's improving their operational effectiveness and their ability to support the community.

Sustainable environment is another initiative that we keep progressing on.

Uh, you'll see the picture on the right-hand side.

This is the solar project uh for downtown here.

Um facilities energy program is uh is here is well underway, and we're identifying focus investments to reduce our overall energy consumption and increase the renewable energy projects.

Um the project downtown here is a key initiative as part of that.

Uh now I'll look I'll go over some of the projects for work plan for this year.

Uh major initiative is to complete the design for the multiple department building.

This is a here to support the sheriff's office, coroner's office, and the county clerk's office.

Uh, this is a rendering and a very initial rendering.

We will be coming back to FNA in May and June, uh, probably the first part of May to present our uh initial plans for that and to discuss funding and how we progress on from that.

Uh as I mentioned, a deputy juvenile center is well underway.

This is as a large ARPA funder project.

Uh, it is our real priority to get this completed this year.

It has to be fully expensed by the end of this calendar year.

So we are pressing very hard to do that.

Uh right now it's projected to get done in the fall of 2026.

It's fall, so we'll we'll keep pressing hard on that.

Uh and the energy program is also a major initiative for our department.

Uh we have the new energy program manager on deck, and he's working diligently with this program.

Uh the intent is to come back this summer to inform uh to present where our findings and what his findings are and the projections for that overarching investment program uh so that it's able to inform the FY 2027 budget, and then we can get going on that.

And uh the below points there shows the energy program cycle, and right now where we're at is the uh we're on step three, which is setting up the cycle goals and creating that strategic plan.

Another one of our initiatives is uh space management.

Uh so our staff is as continuing to upload building data within uh our overarching GIS system, uh global system there, and allows the granularity of the buildings for our better data, uh better space management.

And that's the data resources for all of our planning and programming future uh future build outs.

Uh it clarifies the use of the space, who's in there, the amount of space that they're using, and it helps us really better manage the interior spaces throughout all of our buildings that we manage.

Uh so all of this and more this information supports some of our internal projects.

Uh one is the final finalizing and publishing our building standards, uh, which allows us to better plan and program and put out those specifics for those spaces, as well as the space planning to really support more efficient use of our buildings over Archie overall.

And uh some of those current initiatives are within the admin tower and CPF.

There is some space that we're looking at and be able to reorganize and better make use of some of those spaces with the departments.

All right.

Last item we have on here is a look at the new program requests over the last three years.

Really, it was just FY 2025 that uh facilities and construction services submitted MPRs and those were supported.

Uh three positions were within the ROC facility.

Two of them are filled.

Actually, we just were able to off and put an offer out there for the third position to finally get that filled.

Um two of them were for stationary engineers, and one of them was for a custodian.

Uh, they're all filled.

The performance measures are pretty straightforward.

Are we continuing to operate the building, sustain it and operate it safely, and we are continuing to do that.

Uh safe communities, adaptive infrastructure, what that rock facility supports.

And then the energy program manager, we're able to fill that position pretty quickly earlier in the year, and we are well on the way of uh meeting that.

So uh currently, what he's currently done is been really successful at is uh accurately tracking our utility consumption.

That was something that we had to really pull individually, and it was a real pain in the backside to do that.

So we he's been able to automate that in some respects, so we have more real time.

Uh the next steps to really get better at that is to get actually insert smart meters, something that is electronically that we can monitor on the hourly basis uh more than what we're doing now.

So that uh that is essentially where we're at.

So that's really the end of the presentation.

But what I do owe you, I have a couple notes of what the other items that I do owe you for this year.

Uh pest control.

It was a conversation we had earlier in the year that we do plan on coming back with that.

We have a contract, a new contract going out.

So we'll be coming back with some of those, some of those items.

Uh, we also talked about the employee parking garage.

And uh I owe you the conversation about it's an investment into more better controls, or to go ahead and leave it open fully open to the public.

Uh so we owe you some of that balance of what that's that's going to look like.

Landscaping is another ongoing initiative that's really being run by our sustainability person, Robin Grooms, but we're supporting her.

But all the information we're gleaning out of that will be including in our next landscaping contract.

Uh the facilities capital improvement plan.

Uh major projects are progressing, the multiple multiple department building, and we have other capital projects that are on there as well that we'll be coming back to you to discuss as they uh really mature a little bit more.

So those updates will be coming to you.

And then uh, of course, the Navy demo project we've talked, we talked before, that will be coming back in about the May time frame.

Uh, we're working very closely with them right now to finalize the details of that.

Uh, to say that it's complex and new to us is an understatement.

It's new to them as well.

So uh we are all kind of waiting through that as we as we go.

And uh the only last thing I want to share with you is uh happy 84th birthday to the U.S.

Navy CBs, uh, which I served in for 21 years.

So it's a big thing.

So today is the day.

Happy birthday, CDs.

Thank you for mentioning that.

Happy birthday to the CBs.

Amber Let's Thanks.

And thank you for this update and for keeping tabs on some of those previous conversations.

Um Jen Clark and I had a chance to tour DEPKE.

Um, and who was the project manager again?

Don Dugan.

Don Juan.

Um, it was it was quite a tour.

It's quite a project.

Um, I'd encourage anyone to everyone to go see all of the massive amount of work that is going on there.

It's pretty incredible.

Um the space planning, um what is there a plan for what happens next, or is it a we will um measure or um you know, study the space utilization that we have and then figure out what to do with extra space that we might have?

It's being clear with my question.

I guess to answer you, it's both.

Uh we've we know what space is maybe not as occupied as it was before.

And uh we we uh we as the department heads and internal staff will be with Patrice uh or will be muddling through that to to figure out where the best use that's I guess we're the best use of the staff and how they're going to be organized across all of our county spaces, and then we as facilities can take that information as we have those operational requirements, and then we can help inform and and better inform the decisions on where actual people are going to be residing, what departments are going to occupy and what floors or in what buildings.

Okay.

So do you foresee a scenario where I'm making this up, but say there's a um, you know, five-story building, and wow, we could really um only need to utilize four floors.

Then what happens with that extra space?

Do you figure out how to spread the people around, or do we are is everything on the table in terms of moving staff, moving equipment, moving like what's the end goal?

I'd like to say everything's on the table, but there are a lot of limitations when it comes to certain departments and how they operate.

Um case in point, the uh county assessor, they need to be within a secure environment because they have their hearings on site.

Um human resources, while they are focused here downtown, they uh they support everybody throughout the county.

So there's there are functions that can operate uh remotely, more remotely.

There are departments that can really have to be focused in person.

So we are balancing those operational requirements with the available space that we have.

And I think later on in the uh on the agenda there, you are talking about the directive, or I'm sorry, the the uh the policy for work from home, and that will have an impact as well.

So all these things kind of are in a big pot, we're stewing it around on right now.

Uh, we haven't quite determined it.

Now that we're out of COVID, we can have those more serious conversations about how we utilize our space.

And we are continually to talk about that.

It in fact, the uh different ideas about the first floor and how that's best supportive of uh customers and clients coming in uh as opposed to our some of the more vacant floors or more available space floors we have in this building.

How do we best use that?

How do we organize and how do we arrange?

And they're all it's all money related too.

So it's nothing's nothing's free.

Thank you for that.

And then just uh I don't know if this is a question, but the um the solar panels on the roof is when you said summer 2027 construction.

Is it expected is that the design is complex?

And so that will take um because that's over a year.

That's how long that will take.

I say 2027.

If I said that, I uh I was mistaken.

It's this summer.

Oh, okay.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I think you did.

Yeah, the slides had inside.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, but I apologize for that.

Okay.

But we'll see it this summer.

You will see it.

There'll be starting construction mid to late summer, yes.

Makes more sense.

Thank you.

No, they're not on this roof.

Okay.

Not on this roof.

Got it.

Okay.

Member Clark.

Thank you.

You um I had a question about I know the Navy, the contract with the Navy and the demolition contract is new and it's like, but I get a I've getting a lot of questions about this contract.

And I think uh that it's hard to understand what it is.

So even in just a general overview, like what is our role?

Like, are we going to be bidding out contracts like for them?

Are we project managing it?

I feel like I've asked this before, but just in general, so I can explain better to people who ask me about it.

Like, what is our role there?

Uh our role is the Navy looks at Lake County as being the prime contractor.

They are paying us to perform this work.

How we choose to perform that work is essentially up to Lake County.

Uh, our only contract vehicle that we have available to do this is the job order contract.

That is the only vehicle that we have that can do this demo contract.

Otherwise, we'd have to bid it out, and we're just not we don't have anything in place that that can perform that.

Uh so we are working very closely with the Navy to define the specific scope of work.

Uh once that is clearly defined and the Navy has that approval from Congress, which they did receive that to perform that work.

Uh, then we will we're in a process now.

We have the we're finalizing the proposal with our job contractor.

Uh once we get that final price, we'll share that with the Navy, and then it'll be the Navy's decision to either fund that or not fund that.

Uh, it is still their prerogative if they will use us for this, or they'll use some other kind of contracting vehicle, their own contracting vehicle.

Uh, and then once if they choose to use us, we'll ward it, we'll move forward.

Uh, we are going to we the county are going to do the administrative project management of the project, and the Navy is going to provide the people on site to do the day-to-day boots on the ground, actual uh observation and management of the contractor when while they're there.

So it's a we're both doing this, but it still comes down to the the Navy has all the power because they're funding.

Okay.

So they don't even have to.

That's so they wouldn't even have to use our contract if they didn't want to.

Correct.

And then they will directly pay for it.

Like we don't pay for it and get reimbursed.

I'm sorry.

So that therein lies the real the complex thing for that we are working with finance and the Navy right now to iron out.

Uh the Navy will pay us, we will pay the contractor.

Okay.

They cannot pay the contractor directly.

Interesting.

All right.

So it's it's very fascinating.

They're really fast, I'm sure, at paying their bills.

They are, believe it or not, once we submit the invoice, uh, they have a whole electronic service, and once it's approved, it's a 72-hour turnaround.

So we can get the funds pretty quick.

It, but it's the steps in between the people touching it, that it's it's a lot of a lot of hand holding as it goes through the system and comes back.

Yeah.

Well, I'm glad thank you for all the work doing this because this is so important for the whole, that whole region to have this done.

So I appreciate that.

And thank you for the explanation.

That really helps.

So thank you.

Vice Chair Park.

Yeah, thank you.

Carl, I had a question on the the work study plan or not works, the workspace plan.

Okay.

The um is that inclusive of what will happen to the sheriff's office and the coroner's office, and thinking that knowing that that those would be departed.

Is that the plan or that's more of the that is part of the plan, yes.

Uh the objective of constructing a new coroner's office and moving her function out there out to Libertyville, uh, saves that shores up the space here, and then we can have that discussion of what the future looks like for that.

Uh currently the intent would be to uh go into discussions of removing those buildings from our inventory so we don't have to maintain or manage them.

Um within the sheriff's office, that has been a long-term plan to remove portions, some administrative functions out of downtown here to shift it out there, as well as to consolidate their highway patrol and the 911 function outside of those buildings that are at currently at Libertyville campus.

Uh so there is we have plans already in place for those spaces.

Uh with the sheriff's office in particular downtown here.

They're vacant vacating some of the downtown areas, shores up space for an improved health facility medical wing within the jail, uh, which is in right now, they they're in dire need of improving.

So yes, we do have those plans in place uh for the follow-on work.

Okay.

And and partly I was asking because of the medical facility that the jail is just I think inadequate, right?

So very much so.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions.

Member Kasmin.

Thank you.

Um, Carl, uh on one of the bullet points on the rock facility was expanded duties.

Can you tell us what those are?

Expanded duties.

I'm gonna have to go back to that one.

Let's take my regard to the facility.

Um the new program request, I think, Carl.

Oh, the new program request.

Um take a look at my notes real quick.

Uh oh, expansion duties uh to the deliberately campus.

They're also supporting the all the other buildings within Libertyville campus.

So our intent is to our new stationary engineers that they will not just be monitoring and managing the rock, they'll also be doing CPF and some of the other buildings around that campus, as well as the custodians, they can spread their time supporting the other buildings, which gets us out of contracts that's that we currently have for custodial services.

Okay, great.

So it'll be more streamlined and efficient.

We'll be able to decrease costs over our overall.

So yes.

Great.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for the updates.

8.26 is a resolution authorizing the conveyance of property owned by Lake County, located at 105 East Illinois Route 83 in Muddleine to the Illinois Department of Transportation for its Route 60/slash 83 improvement project.

Motion on this item by member Clark, second by member Bulletik.

Good morning.

Briefly, there is a significant project that IDOT is undertaking around along it Route 83 from 60 to 176, and we're sure they're going to expand it to five lanes with bike paths and sidewalks, just like Lake County does land acquisition as part of our projects.

IDOT is doing the same at this point.

I think DOT'd let me know there was about 250 properties that they're looking at in order to accomplish this project.

This is our um uh Mundaline branch court right up along the front of Route 83.

And this uh this project will involve um a take.

They're just expanding the right-of-way, the green right here.

If you can see that is expansion of the right-of-way, uh, in which they're they're uh providing us uh funding to take that as part of the new right-of-and-the-blue is some temporary construction easements that they need uh to complete the construction of the project.

So uh not an impact to our access, not an impact to any of our parking lot or any of our infrastructure out there.

Uh just um uh a take of that parcel to expand the right-of-and and um they're gonna um they're gonna fix whatever they break out there as it relates to trees or grass.

John, did I forget anything in the most simplistic form?

Uh nicely summarized it.

Um the TEs, there's actually three TEs shown there.

Um with a label T E A, B, and C.

Uh, and then that's usually for a period of five years or until construction is completed.

Um as Matt said, they have quite a few properties.

I think they're in the process of obtaining.

So whenever hopefully the project gets going, um, they'll complete it and then they'll be done with RTEs.

And as you can see, the green is just a small strips, strip take along Route 83.

Comments or questions.

Member Clark.

It's gonna be a bike trail.

Is that correct?

With this as far as we know.

That's what I had a conversation with Lake County DOT, and I just kind of asked, like, what's the summary of the project?

And they did say a bike trail and a sidewalk.

Okay, but okay, good.

That'll be included in what and then for these temporary easements, like five years is a long time, and it's a lot of property there, three of them.

Did they just pick us because we would do it?

I mean, to is that are they gonna store things there for the project?

Or no, it's the five years is standard in even Lake County DOT when we obtain temporary easements, we do the same.

And it's not that we're doing construction for five years, it's that you have this period where you're obtaining all the properties.

You can't start your project till you've obtained every single property you need for it.

So it gives you a window to get that done, and then usually the construction period, you know, and I I don't know what their anticipated construction uh time frame is for this project.

But typically you're looking at one to two years.

Um, and then it's completed.

And within that time period, they may do it in segments, and you know, their use of RTE may be only for actual use, may only be for a year.

And it's like storing things or no, you well, it it depends on what they're doing.

Uh they may be breaking out curbing, re-grade.

Oh, you know, a lot of times it's grading because here they're widening the road.

I think they're they're improving that intersection with Diamond Lake Road.

So they're adding, I think, an extra turn lane.

Um, left turn lane.

So there are things usually involves curbing and then regrading to make sure water's flowing properly.

Um if they're adding a sidewalk, et cetera, again, you have grading that's happening with that.

Um it isn't maybe I'm looking at this the like a different way.

So is it an easement just so they could do the work they need on it versus they can keep things there, like or or use it for actual construction purposes?

Sometimes they they may use it for storage of construction equipment.

When you looked at these T's, they don't look that that large where they'd be storing things, like more access, then maybe uh this is probably more related to regrading and whatever you know, additional work they're doing.

Okay.

I just will, yeah, just because I mean there's three sites on our property.

I just want to like it'd be interesting to know what they're doing.

I'm I'll do it.

So if it's just for access or as long as it and it looks like it doesn't interfere with the use of our parking ladder anything.

I it it it would not have an impact, and usually they keep the access open even while they're doing the construction.

That's what the Lake County VOT does.

They make sure access is not cut off, even when they're improving it.

So I'm happy to see this project.

I know it's been a long time coming, but um, all right, as long as you're comfortable with the use of the land.

Thank you.

Thank you, member of Lizzie.

Thanks.

Yeah, so happy to see some of this stuff moving.

They're actually, unless something's changed in the last seven years.

Um, when we were first advocating for this, this is in my district.

They are also going to be creating an under or overpass at the railroad right there.

So it's um that this intersection, this area that the train tracks are just west of that intersection here.

Um, it's gonna be a massive, massive construction project.

So I imagine they need a lot of space.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.26 is approved.

8.27 is an ordinance abating the tax heretofore levied for general county purposes for the tax year 2025 and collected in fiscal year 2026 to authorize a property tax abatement in support of the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Development, Energy Transition Community Grant Provente and 86 cents.

Motion on this item by Vice Chair Park, second by member Hewitt.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

Betsy Brandon, assistant to the county administrator.

Um, so this item is related to a grant through the Illinois D CEO.

Um, and it will allow for the abatement of Lake County property taxes.

The funds for the abatement um are intended for local governments that were impacted by the closure of the Zion Nuclear Plant.

Um these grant funds will be used to abate the tax levy and therefore benefit all of the taxpayers in Lake County.

Um and it's so if passed, this ordinance will abate the full amount of the grant allocation, which is the 587,516 and 86 cents, and which will then reduce the tax amount owed by each taxpayer um for the tax year 25 collected in 26.

Comments or questions.

Member Clark.

I was reading this.

So it's 500,000.

And it's so is how does this actually work?

Like, do we have we don't have to like mail people checks or something, do we?

Or is this just gonna like be a on their next tax bill, it'll be like a line that says you saved a dollar or something.

Because it's obviously if you divide this by all the taxpayers, this is like not very much money.

And it would it be proportional to what they paid in taxes?

It seems like a lot of work.

It um so basically what happens if you recall when you pass the levies, you pass one huge number for county purposes.

So this will be filed with the county clerk and reduce that number so that they're only levying 500 and plus less.

So frankly, um part of the reason why we're bringing this to you now is because this was a very complex grant that we were all trying to figure out.

Originally, we thought we were going to have to apply it only to Zion pins, uh, which would have been a humongous deal.

But the fact now is we can submit this abatement to the county clerk.

They will reduce the number for county purposes, and then it will be allocated the same way that it always is.

Unfortunately, the residents will not see it as as you just indicated.

It will just be a lower number.

Okay.

And again, I would think by rep for residents not going to be very much lower.

But okay, so the overall levy then will be reduced by this much.

So I'm glad.

So at least it wouldn't be all this administrative cost.

That's correct, to like try to do everything.

Okay, well, great.

Right.

And this is a program created by statute by the legislature.

In response to the closure of the plan, correct?

Correct.

And legislation is being currently introduced that would ensure that this does not decrease the amount of the levy going forward.

Obviously, abatements actually do reduce the amount that you can levy the next year.

And that was the concern of some of the all of the impacted taxing entities.

So you know, that anxiety is trying to be addressed even as we speak.

And so we will submit this, and then the county clerk will give us the levy back.

And hopefully by that time, the legislation will have passed that will ensure that this does not impact our levy going forward.

And so just to clarify what you just said, the maximum amount that a school district or any other entities allowed to levy each year is based on what they levied the previous year.

That's correct.

And so the concern is that this abatement would reduce the levyed amount from the previous year.

Capacity going forward, correct.

And so that legislation, which is pending, may address that issue.

Exactly.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Members, well, let's take Chair Hart.

It's my understanding that the deadline for utilizing this grant and this program figuring out whether entities were gonna abate or not, that was extended, right?

And so this bill, I mean, I'd imagine it's gonna pass, because there must have been an extraordinary amount of pushback from local taxing bodies.

But would it make sense to wait for that to pass and then do this just to ensure that we're not affected?

Uh the county clerk has also um assured all of the taxing entities very recently that um we can opt not to take that abatement prior to the tax bills being um generated if that legislation hasn't passed.

So there is an opportunity for us to not utilize this should that legislation not be passed.

But it will be a decision on the spot that doesn't line up well with your direction, quite frankly.

So you have the authority to it was extended.

It's extended till this Friday.

Yeah.

So the extension um was till this Friday.

That doesn't really know.

Yeah.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, I just really want to thank Betsy and Matt and Patrice, and I mean, I don't remember, I think maybe Gina was part of those and Anthony Vega.

Uh I'll just say from late December, we were getting opposite information.

So we were told, like, no, this has to be just for the Zion parcel.

So think about the manual, the work that would have to be done manually to uh implement this property tax abatement.

I think it was it 12,800 parcels or something.

So um, but in conversation with Representative Mason, which I appreciated her time.

Um, it was like, oh no, this is for the entire county.

So that's why there's been a bit of a scramble because it's has been different from what we've understood.

Um so I just wanted to thank Betsy and and everybody else for their work on that.

Um, and I think, and I don't have the bill number, Matt, I don't know if you have it, but I believe it's past the House already.

Maybe the House and the Senate is just waiting for the governor's signature.

So it is highly likely to pass because the school districts were saying we're not doing this.

And it you can imagine it's the school districts that um are the biggest part of that property tax bill and is really focused on the people of Zion.

So um, if it doesn't work for the school districts, then it really wasn't the whole bill was for naught.

So, or the law, excuse me.

So, anyway, I just want to say thank you because there was an inordinate amount of time spent back and forth with DCEO and others.

So if I may, um, I was on multiple calls with the other taxing entities, and they were absolutely singing the praises of our county clerk's office and providing guidance on this.

Um, I really want to uh shout out Chris Lopez because he got lots of praise from the other taxing entities, and then Clerk Vega himself hopped on calls um, you know, to give this reassurance to all the taxing entities.

So I do just really want to shout out our county clerk's office and tax extension specifically because they have been bending over backwards to ensure that taxing entities can take advantage of this.

And and the bill was already signed by the governor and is already a public act.

That was pretty quick.

That was fast.

Okay.

On 8.27, all in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed, 8.27 is approved.

8.28 is resolution approving an emergency appropriation of $2 million to establish a federal funding contingency reserve from the general fund balance.

Motion to approve this item by Vice Chair Parak, second by member Clark.

Good morning, Patrice Sutton, County Administrator.

We did speak to you about putting a contingency into place because of the federal funding uncertainty in the last round of committees.

We have put the plan and the structure in place with our partners and are coming forward to you now asking for that $2 million set aside to be used only as needed.

According to some structure that I want to thank Matt Myers for putting together that we have been working with our partners to ensure that we know what those triggers are and how they would access these funds.

We believe that this is in compliance with our fund balance reserve policy, policy 3.2 under section 5.5 to fund emergency unanticipated expenditure requirements or to offset unanticipated revenue downturns occurring within a fiscal year.

Before we can actually tap into those funds, there does need to be a plan for replenishment, which will be outlined to address the situation that necessitated the use of the reserves.

So we will need to be tracking this as we need it.

And that's why we feel it's appropriate when we're coming to you to describe the use of the funds, which will be reported to you as soon as possible.

But this gives us the flexibility to allow our departments to continue operations until they have the opportunity to address the long-term need.

And it sort of came to a head with the you know the health department's need to, you know, imminently issue some work changes uh related to staffing because of some pending federal changes that were quickly reversed.

Um so this I think provides a little bit of time to make appropriate decisions and evaluate things.

And uh the, of course, the goal is continuity of services for uh people of Wake County.

So I think this is great work.

Appreciate uh the thought that went into this.

And the plan is to budget for this for next year as well, the same same amount, right?

I I feel like we would need to have that direction specifically and perhaps um incorporated into the policy.

So yes, I look forward to having that conversation.

Um I forgot one major point.

I want to thank Matt Myers.

He's been working with the partners to actually see the size and the magnitude of the problem.

Um there is, you know, an amount of 34 million that is at risk.

Um, when you break that down into the 60 days that we're trying to cover to give them that flexibility, that's approximately 4 million plus.

The reason we're going with $2 million is again because we feel that the worst case scenario in all of these is not going to happen at the same time.

And so we are um starting with $2 million and seeing how this plays out, and then uh we'll determine the appropriate amount, you know, now to meet the immediate need as well as what might be a long-term strategy going forward.

Great.

I saw a few hands.

Okay, member Maine.

Yeah.

Meryl Carr, yeah.

Thank you.

Um I was just wondering the second to last bullet point.

So we don't do we have those.

It's the accessing reserve, including verification, federal funding interruption and demonstrated operational need.

We have not shared that with you.

These are operations rather than policy, which is why we didn't share them with you.

But we do have the eligibility criteria, the allowable uses, a process for use, as well as access and sort of a pretty much a book here that kind of outlines all the steps that we will share with the partners if this is proven to approved to move forward.

So I understand what you're saying, but that's operational, but it's policy to determine who is going to get those.

We were just talking earlier today about the automation fund and how those monies are used, and we want to know more about that.

And so we're creating a fund here.

We have guidelines, but um not details.

I understand there's always a fine line between being having guardrails that are wide enough to allow you to respond to um important needs.

You don't want them too narrow that nothing fits it, but you don't want it too wide, also.

Um of the things that we talked about last time when we talked about um setting this up was I thought we said, well, maybe I just I said it, that we needed a criteria in terms of a hierarchy of where these monies would go, because there could be a lot of requests.

And I understand that you have these criteria, but I I can't vote for setting up a fund unless I know what the underlying criteria are, even if you consider that operational.

So I like the idea, but um I for me, I don't have enough detail in how this is going to be implemented to support it today.

I was thinking, so um, when we look at this verificate federal funding interruption, so this would be, and I understand we need flexibility, which I totally get, but so this would be different than like a grant just ended.

You know, like sometimes the grants end on a normal cycle, and and then sometimes they're not being renewed.

This is like, you know, because of maybe federal funding, but this fund is being set up really in case like there's an ongoing you know, federal program and it's cut, correct?

So, like if if a grant, if they said, okay, we're not gonna renew these grants in the they're gonna end in June, that would not be this fund, or maybe it would be this fund.

Would we still look at those things and say, even though the grant isn't interrupted, if they're not gonna, if they're like, okay, we're gonna stop finding that funding vaccines in June, even though that's not like interrupted, would it still be something that would give you the flexibility to look at and be like, well, this is something that we still want to do?

The eligibility criteria for only the three departments that you've heard from, um, they would be the only ones that would be able to access this at this time.

Um, the health department, community development, and workforce development, the eligibility criteria include verified federal funding interruption, meaning that the funding source is federal.

There's a formal or clearly documented interruption and that has either occurred or is imminent, and the interruption is outside the county's control.

There is a demonstrated operational impact.

The department must clearly be able to identify the programs or services impact, the number of staff impacted, community populations served, legal or contractual obligations tied to the program, and the timeline of operational disruption.

There has to be no immediate alternative available.

The funds will not be available for use if another immediate alternative is identified.

And the um there has to be an ability, because this reserve is temporary, the departments must provide an outline of a proposed long-term strategy if funding is not restored, a timeline for decision making and program modification or window and planning if applicable, as well as identification of potential replacement funding sources.

So all of that would need to be in place.

Um, and it's not for grants that are ending like a normal expiration of a grant.

Or state grants or no.

Okay, so this is really just interruption.

And also I like that, I mean, you it's up to your office, correct.

And then, but then you will report to us what's going on.

So we can always, I guess, adjust if we need to.

I want to be very clear that the long-term solution, um the only thing that's being approved, you know, by the county administration administratively is the gap.

Um, there would be no way for them to come up with the the remainder without coming back to you.

It's just to give them that ability to last until the next financial and administrative committee.

Well, I'm glad and thank you for working on this.

I mean, this has been something I know my residents worry about constantly is what happens if, again, like all the mental health services are cut or whatever.

And this way we can ensure a continuity of service for them and make sure we have a plan.

So I really appreciate all your work on that and your team.

Yeah, thank you.

I feel like there's some pretty specific situations that are you described in that section there.

And I think that the overall goal is for us to be able to make good decisions.

We see some hasty inconsistent policy decisions being made about funding at the federal level.

Sometimes they are stayed by the courts, sometimes they are reversed quickly when somebody says, oops, we shouldn't have done that.

And um, I think this fund will provide us some time to evaluate the landscape on when some of those decisions impact us and the services we provide.

Member Kasman.

Thank you.

Um I am elated to see this come forward today.

Um we talked about it in detail at HCS, and I really appreciate the amount of work and and care that you put into frankly everything, but um, this too.

Um at what point will we be coming to the board for like further direction, or is this the policy on under underneath it, the direction that the staff is going to be taking, and then we'll we'll sort of hear about it and approve it, or I if you can help me understand what those seconds are.

So, how this will play out operationally is it provides um the backstop that our departments need or um would like to have so that they don't have to make knee-jerk um reactions to um things that have been coming out and then you know been reversed a few days later or weeks later or are challenged in court.

Um that was putting these programs, you know, in an in a state of flux that we really were trying to mitigate.

So in some cases, just knowing that this is here provides them the time to wait out that uncertainty and it may not even be necessary for them to tap in.

Um in other cases, you know, they may need to tap in to make sure that they don't have to let go of employees while they're trying to figure out the long-term solution.

But to be honest, this only gives them a 60 days max without coming back to you because we assumed that they would be able to come up with the plan and get on an FA committee agenda within the 60 days.

So they they will not be able to act on the long-term solution without the FNA committee approving the long-term solution if it is going to be funded by anything besides the original funding source or this um 60-day reserve.

Did that help to answer the question?

It did.

So it helped for so in the case of, for instance, like the health department, where they got that email and the next day they felt like they had to fire somebody, um, that they will have some some assurances that if there is a court process going through that they can wait that out for those 60 days.

Okay.

Um, and similarly, I would assume if there are, you know, uh permanent supportive housing leases coming up, they can sort of feel like they can guarantee those or sign those, or or at least there's some contingency funding so that people aren't, you know, being thrown out on the street.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

That helps.

Thank you.

I just wanted to uh and and maybe this has come up a little bit, but you know, our staff has been working on this since 2025 because of what has been happening in the federal government.

So I just want to be clear that um, you know, it's not we maybe brought it up or something a couple months ago, but um they've been working on it for a really long time, and I appreciate their foresight and the planning and you know, Patrice, you spoke a little bit to your operational decision making, which I trust completely.

Um I think you know, having those regular reports being brought back uh will be really terrific and uh just appreciate all the hard work that went into this.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions.

Thank you again.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh 8.28 is approved.

8.29 is a resolution approving a remote work policy.

Motion on this item by member Clark, second by Vice Chair Parr.

Second by Vice Chair Parr.

All right.

So thank you for having the conversation earlier with our director Carrar regarding space needs.

One of the things that is driving this is we do currently have on the books an alternate work arrangement policy.

It does allow for remote work sites as an alternate work option, but it doesn't really provide standards specific to remote work.

And it it wasn't really meeting our needs because it was pretty much just left up completely to the departments, which was really quite frankly hampering both short-term and long-term space planning.

So the whole reason that I had Matt Myers and Jannah Phillip lead this effort, which is a difficult one, if if I may say, um, trying to get onto a piece of paper, something that will work for an extremely diverse workforce.

So I really do want to thank them.

We did have this did go through our policy on policies procedure.

And so they met with work groups initially, and then they took the whole policy to the policy work group.

Um to summarize, what this work policy does is it provides an opportunity for employees to work remotely when it fits operational needs.

The remote work can be upon employee request or built into a role.

However, it's not appropriate or guaranteed for all employees or positions.

That's you know, the critical thing is that there are a lot of positions where working remotely is just not possible.

It also does not change employment terms, classification, pay or benefits, and it does not include extra compensation.

So one point that is extremely critical is the last one on the slide.

It requires employees to maintain the same performance, productivity, and professionalism standards regardless of their work location.

As I mentioned, this did go through that policy making framework and was open to a lot of considerable uh review and discussion.

The feedback from the policy review team that was incorporated was that the scope was clarified to state that some offices or departments may not fall under the policy and may establish their own policies to be shared with the county administrator.

So the only ones that are absolutely bound by this are the ones that are appointed by the county administrator.

Um we also clarified that remote work is an operational option, not guaranteed for every role and may be required for some positions.

So again, really focusing on that operational need.

Um for some positions, it it may be actually built into the position description as an operational need.

Um, and that really has to be at the discretion of the department head.

It requires and expects uh the requirements and the expectations were aligned more with operational needs, as I just mentioned, and then um some of the department health felt strongly that uh the probationary period of six to twelve months, depending on the position was too long to have to wait to be able to offer this benefit.

And so that was allowed to be at the department head discretion.

Now there was some feedback or suggestions that were not incorporated into the policy.

Um, we do have a department that during COVID allowed for a stipend to be paid to people that are fully remote.

Um we feel that was specific to that era and shouldn't be incorporated into this policy on an ongoing basis and should continue to be an exception rather than the rule.

Um there were a lot of requests to kind of take the county administrator out of the umational loop.

Uh we accommodated that where possible.

Um, there were other areas where I felt like it was absolutely critical that I be kept in the loop.

And I think that that's absolutely necessary for equity across the organization because we have a lot of positions that are the same.

Um, and then also, you know, not just leaving these decisions solely at the department head level because I am going to be working with staff to make some really important spacing um decisions.

And if that can change at the whim of a department head or perhaps a department head change, that makes it very difficult to have short and long-term planning for space needs.

And then finally, some department heads, you know, preferred not to have to do this eligibility on an annual built basis.

But because things change over time, we're initially leaving that as an annual review process.

So that kind of summarizes what's in the policy.

If the work, if this is approved, we will go back and amend the policy that's on the books for alternate work to be in line with this.

Thank you.

Thanks for bringing it forward.

I think this is timely and appropriate comments or questions.

Member Clark, member May.

So I'm glad to see this because obviously the workforce has changed even in the last few years.

So it's good in remote work can be really good for beer productive employees.

So when I was reading the policy, so the so the policy, there is no specific like requirements on it's really up to the individual position and the department head in you, correct?

So there's no like countywide standards, like everyone has to be in the office three days a week or anything.

It's really looks like from what I've read, it looks like it's really just up to the department.

It and the needs of the job, maybe.

Um if if I may recall, um, the uh policy on policy framework that we all worked on together and that you've approved has the policy at this level, and then the next level down is a directive that is issued by the county administrator.

And there is that level of detail that is built into the directive.

So there are some standards for the number of days for certain levels of positions that have been built into that.

And then a lot of discretion has been left to the department head with the approval of the county administrator, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld.

I think I what I was trying to communicate to the department heads is that we just need to have consistency and uniformity, not necessarily uniformity, but like equity across the organization.

I think that is important because it sometimes it feels, I know for my other job, it depends on who you work for, whatever, and not the position is exactly.

So the details then are going to be, or maybe more details would be in this directive, which is not this.

So this is kind of just setting up that you will have a directive.

That's correct.

Okay.

But I do want to be clear that while we only bring the policies to this group because you are a policy-making organization, we did go through the directive with that policy group.

And so the departments have been allowed to um provide their input on the directive.

Okay.

And is there anything like any way of I mean, maybe this is I might be getting too much into this directive, but like if it's not working out or some kind of like, is there like a like there's something like that happens if it doesn't seem to be working out, and then it could be like, well, now you just have to work, you know, in person now.

But that would all be just covered in this directive.

It is.

Yes.

Okay.

So I yeah, I think all my questions are directive level.

So this all is fine for overall policy.

Thank you.

Thanks, member Maine, then vice chairpar.

Thank you.

Um, couple things.

Um, will the directive, is there gonna be a maximum number of days that somebody can work remotely?

Because there's a lot of recent, you know, now that it's been going on for a while, that two to three days is really sort of the sweet spot that once you start going more while you initially have good results in the long term, the person becomes disconnected from the organization and there's not that feedback.

Do you envision that or do you see that more as um depends on the job?

Currently, the directive states that that is at the department head's discretion with the approval of the county administrator.

So what do you see?

I mean, do you see that there could be cases when someone would be fully remote?

There are cases right now where there are positions that are very um site only on an event basis where there's like group training or whatever.

I think that there will be departments that feel that operationally that is working extremely well.

They're meeting their performance and their productivity measures, and I think that they will argue to maintain some positions having uh a remote, you know, a very long-term remote nature to them.

Um but that is why these discussion discussions really need to be held, because quite frankly, the county administrator's office lacks insight into how much of that is happening.

And that's currently like being noticed on a, you know, I just happen to walk through a department and notice that there's not a lot of people there that on that day.

And so we really want to be able to like not mess with the department head's ability to do their operations, but at the same time ensure that the approach is reasonable according to what everyone else is doing, and that if someone is going to have a good number of their employees working on a remote basis, they will need to use hotel space when they come into the office, for example, rather than having a cubicle that's specifically assigned to them.

So again, the idea here for the county administrator involvement is not to um over step um and certainly not to direct operations, but rather to understand the big picture and ensure that we're taking the same approach um consistently and fairly.

Oh, that's really helpful.

So my second question is related actually, something we talked about a little bit earlier when Carl Carrar was here and saying he'd get back to us on the parking garage.

And I was interested by in your presentation to say that there's no extra compensation, and I didn't understand that until you had the following slide saying that some departments had done that.

But de facto, the result of not having to come in is that somebody is getting a raise.

They get more time, they don't have wear and tear on their car, they're not buying gas, they're not doing all sorts of other things.

So, how are we gonna look at that?

Or was that looked at when we have a compensation study?

Because essentially those people getting to work remotely do have a raise.

And and I think we should have this remote.

It just concerns me with those jobs in which people cannot work remotely at all, often tending to be lower paid employees.

And so I feel it creates um a further um gap.

And how, you know, do they get free parking?

Are there other things that we can do for those people who have to show up every day and clean or do other things?

And and they can't do their job remotely.

I don't have the answer to that right now for sure.

Um it's a complexity that we are discussing.

Um, you know, I think uh when you advertise for those jobs, it's clear which ones have to be on site every single day.

I think the ones that are more challenging to not offer this benefits with are um the ones that have private sector equivalents.

And so that's where we're really feeling the um need to have a little bit more specificity into the position itself as to whether or not a remote work situation is available.

So it's something that we continue to look at on an ongoing basis.

That's that's great, because you know, COVID revealed who had to come in right every day and it tended to be people who earned less money.

And and I hope as we move forward, we can find ways to minimize that disparity in terms of who gets more time with their family, who who can go to that contrast, who can do all sorts of things because they have been able to have an education and a job level that allows them to do those things, whereas other people do not have that ability.

And that's I don't want to take things away, it makes sense, but it it is something that bothers me.

Good point by the chair.

Yeah, thank you.

Um these are these are the one having lived through many of these work styles, it's it is really hard.

It's very difficult.

Because there's a million different circumstances that you need to account for, right?

If someone's here and doing a wonderful job and they want to move, do not allow that employee to move, even though they've been doing a wonderful job remotely, you know, and only needing to come in maybe one day now.

What do you do?

And they've been a high performer, right?

So I'm just there's just a lot to try to figure out on this.

One question, two questions I do have is if people are in the same role essentially in a different department, could they have different work from home policies?

Right now it's at the department head's discretion.

And we do have department heads that have different views.

So our current state is that the situation could be different for very like positions.

Again, these are just the challenges of people like, well, I could be working in that department and have an exact same job essentially and have a different opportunity.

So these will just cause potential issues.

And so I I feel like, hey, this is going to be something we need to figure out ultimately how to help support people in recognizing that.

Um my second question is you mentioned the kind of the um maybe not you mentioned, but there are people who can work fully remote today.

And I'm okay.

I'm just that that's that's possible.

It's not fully remote.

I would say it's primarily remote with an on-site need for um departmental training and those types of things or event driven.

So if there's a crisis that needs a response or something like that.

But do we have employees that might say live without it within outside of 150 mile radius of here?

We don't have anything that prohibits that at this time.

Okay.

And the reason I ask is if we if we're good with things like that, and I'm okay with that, that um do we provide them stipends for their technology or things like that?

It seems like you said we removed those things.

Again, um currently that is at the department head's discretion and it widely varies amongst departments.

And so um the next level down, not at the policy level, but the next level down does outline you know, a consistent um provision of equipment that can be given to um people that are working primarily remote.

Yeah.

So I I personally would just encourage if we allow people to be nearly fully remote or fully remote.

I've seen the opposite often where they work longer hours.

I've done this where I just don't ever stop working, right?

And you're just you're tied and you don't know when you should stop working.

And so I feel like for those people who are remote that we do need to give them you know, stipends for internet or phone or things, so because they are saving the organization money in other ways, and we've allowed them to do that, and we shouldn't you know, fully commit ourselves into that type of situation.

So I would just say let's lean into supporting our policies and giving employees to feel like they're not being um punished for for doing things that we've kind of said that we're allowing them to do.

Um the last thing I would say is we should think about having some type of in member main mention this like morale, like can start to shift depending, and it starts to also shift depending on well, they can do that, and I can.

And so I think I would just encourage to get us some baseline of like how connected they feel to the organization and just constantly monitor it and see if we're seeing trends before between different organizations that have different policies.

Thank you for pointing out the extreme incredibly difficult nature of this exercise because I think member Maine's points were extremely valid.

Your points are extremely valid, and I I hear those points on a regular basis, and we're hoping to create a structure here that allows us to attract and retain amazing employees that really want to work here, and this is such an incredibly important aspect of that.

Thank you.

Member of Elisa, did you have your hand up?

I did.

I just thank you for your work.

I trust your judgment in reading through all these issues, and I think it's appropriate and important that you are involved, and that as the head of a large organization and um with the uh the broader view is a is a part of all this.

So I just wanted to say you have my support in that.

Thank you.

Chair Hart.

That was essentially what I was gonna say.

She's nicer problem.

Sorry.

It's a fine line if you're going to if you're gonna give a stipend to the people that are working at home.

Because the employees that are coming in here, um, you know, they're having to pay gas, they're putting mileage on their car.

I mean, they've got expenses that the people working at home don't have.

So I really think that's something you gotta really be careful of to try to be as fair on both sides as possible.

So just a thought.

Well said, and as I've indicated uh numerous times, I'm incredibly grateful to the people who've been on the front lines of these very difficult decisions, which are Matt Myers and Jana Phillips, who I brought with me today in case there were any questions that I couldn't answer.

She's been doing um the legwork on this, and I'm very appreciative.

These are incredibly challenging questions.

And we're working incredibly hard to try and make sure that there's some equity and you know sense of inclusion in these decision making by our department heads and allowing them to operate the way that they need to be effective, while at the same time incorporating fairness and quite frankly, you know, watching the expense of what is allowed.

So it's it's an incredibly challenging web of things that we're navigating.

Um frankly, there's a lot of government organizations that haven't tackled this issue because it's very difficult.

So, you know, we're we're looking for best practices, and there's not a lot out there because people don't really want to write this stuff down.

It's so hard.

Um, especially in an organization like a county that has so many different functions.

So again, you know, really proud of the work done today, but just want to acknowledge that this is a work in progress, and um there will be a little bit of figuring it out as we go along.

Thank you.

Member Clark.

Um during the discussion, I was thinking about the um mirror park right up about the distance.

And I know like at my my uh other job, we have to be in person um just because it's the job.

But also that you know, you can have limits on how far people like I know it's just something I'm sure you're thinking about, but you know, if people are remote, there's a difference.

I mean, I think that's what this maybe this policy is going to, because there is a difference thinking Hitley County, people have to be here, you know, in some respects because there is something like Bermin brought about the late morale, also teamwork working together.

And, you know, if people live 500 miles away, you know, they're gonna fly in once every two months.

That is very different.

And I know some organizations do require that you live is and then, you know, within a certain, and I think it's just something to think about.

Um, because you know, there is either we want people present in Lake County, or if we are just open to anyone, that does change the mix.

My my feeling is old school is I would I think it would be good if people were here.

And and also you hear about people that are like not real people that are working remote and they're really, you know, have IDs that if you look at our cybersecurity videos, I know we've seen an INGIO on this where there was, you know, we're workers that turn out aren't even who they are.

They're working 100% remote, and maybe they have like stolen identities or whatever.

So having people in person is becoming more and more important from like a cybersecurity issue, too.

So um, you know, I I think it's definitely something to look at is do, you know, is our expectations that people would really be part, you know, not live necessarily live in Lake County, but would live so they could, you know, come in person.

I vote yes.

I know I don't have a vote on that yet.

And again, you know, having um some consistent strategy rather than having that be department head driven is extremely important to me.

Yeah.

Great.

Good discussion.

Thanks for the work behind this.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, 8.29 is approved.

Members, I'll just say we have one item left, and we do have executive session, which will probably be, I would say 30 minutes is best guess.

So for time management, let's just think about that.

8.30 is a resolution committing Lake County's economic development opportunity fund in the amount of $2 million, too.

In Waukegan, Illinois.

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by Vice Chair Park.

Good morning, Madam Myers, Deputy County administrator.

I was in front of this committee over the summer talking about a potential economic development on a property close to here that is a super fund site with the potential to use the Monsanto settlement funds.

We did a deep dive into what those funds were and why we received them.

And then I came before you in front in uh September.

And I the way that we had structured it was I took two million dollars of the fund and just put it aside for potential opportunities, um, not knowing the level of commitment of any proposed project uh in Lake County.

Um I've since worked in that language.

I also stated that you know, Lake County, we would rely on Lake County partners to notify us and work with us as to any potential opportunities.

So as such, um, Lake County Partners has reached out and as Soul Large is nearing its final commitment on site.

They they have requested formal commitment of the $2 million to them, should they select Lake County as the final site.

So this this action this morning is um just committing the funds specifically to so large now for the for the purpose of um environmental cleanup and site preparation activities only on the property that they're looking at in Waukegan here.

And I did put a date on it of May 1st, 2026 to make that final decision.

Otherwise, it's gonna go right back into that economic opportunity fund that we created in September for other potential uses down the road.

Great.

Thank you.

And a great work uh in conversation with Lake County Partners uh Chair and to the county administration team.

Um, you know, we talked about this generally in the fall, and like you said, set aside the funds for this purpose.

This is a little bit more specific.

Um, we think that the the the partners are getting a little closer to the finish line, and this is an affirmation of our support for the project for this purpose.

But like you said, also there's there's an exploration on this that says, hey, if there's no decision here, these funds are still uh our settlement funds to be used for other purposes we deem in the future.

Any comments or questions?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.30.

It was approved.

County administrators report.

There's no county administrators report.

Okay.

Uh, can we please have a motion to go into executive discussion executive session to discuss claims, loss, risk management information, records, data, advice, or communications from or with respect to any insurer of public body or intergovernment risk management association or self-insurance pool, as well as to review closed session minutes.

Motion by member Hewitt, second by member Clark.

Roll call, please.

Member Clark.

Aye.

Chair Frank?

Aye.

Member Hewitt.

Aye.

Member Main.

Aye.

Vice Chair Park.

Aye.

Uh member Peterson, not president.

Uh member Bolitzik.

Hi.

Motion is approved.

We'll head into executive session.

Thank you.

We're back sooner than expected to uh action items.

Uh 11.1, committee action authorizing settlement authority or case number 22102 W001.

Just a question before we take the motion.

Is this the case that was discussed in executive session?

Yes.

Okay.

Just for clarity.

Great.

Thank you.

A motion on this item by member Volitzick.

Second by member main comments or questions.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item is approved.

11.2 committee action approving the FNA Committee executive session minutes for January 29th and 11.3 executive session minutes for February 5th.

Motion on this item by member Volitzik, second by Member Peterson.

Edits comments, questions, corrections.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Those two items are approved.

Any member remarks or requests.

We are adjourned.

We'll be back on April 2nd.

Thank you, everyone.