Good afternoon.

It's one o'clock on May 5th, 2026, and I call the legislative committee meeting, Lake County Board, to order at 1 p.m.

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

Meeting is being recorded through Zoom.

Members Schlick and Hunter said they will be um attending remotely.

If there's any objection, let me know.

Um, we're good.

Um we have a pledge of allegiance, Gina.

Would you please lead us?

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible of liberty and justice for all.

Could we have a roll call, please?

Yes, sir.

Uh Vice Chair Campos, Member Frank here, Member Hunter is I believe here.

There is a member Roberts, Member Schlick is online.

Uh member Volitzik and Chair Wasik.

Here.

You have six members present.

Six members present.

We have a quorum.

Yeah.

Member Hunter, if you can turn your camera to partner.

Thank you.

And Chair Hart.

Okay.

Uh, do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

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

There is no public comment today.

Okay.

Uh a few remarks.

Um I was in Springfield with uh Mike Grady, and uh we had a very good um time connecting with most of our Lake County delegation, uh including Representatives Mason, Favor Diaz, um Sayed Morgan, Diddic, and Senator Julie Morrison.

And thanks for Mike for your excellent uh shepherding of me around the Capitol, which is always interesting, and we'll be coming back to you later.

Uh and we'll have a very brief closed session uh at the end of this meeting.

Well, toward the end.

Okay, do we have any unfinished business?

We do not.

Okay, uh consent agenda.

Uh item 8.1.

Could I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes?

Motion by Paul, second by Gina.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And uh on to item 8.2.

An update of what's happening in Springfield.

We have Derek and not Mike today.

Mr.

Chairman, Mike continues to sit in a meeting that's gone um exceptionally long for our first day in Springfield this weekend.

So fortunately or unfortunately, you only get me.

Take it away.

And I'll be brief.

The month of May, as you know, the three most important components of the budget, the budget and the budget.

In April revenues have come in an exceptionally strong to allow our legislature a little bit of weeway to construct the fiscal year 2027 appropriations package.

Just for reference.

April obviously is one of the strongest collection months in Illinois.

Traditionally, historically, we collect about 11 and a half percent of state revenues during the month of April.

Last month we collected about 13.2%.

Bringing Illinois's total revenue collection this year so far to about an $800 million surplus.

Allowing a setup for three possible scenarios.

Number one, the legislature can obviously spend in a surgical manner, not allowing for an increase in the total overall 2027 spend number, but surgically appropriating additional dollars into existing programs is always a possibility.

Number two, remember back in February, the governor proposed sequestration of about 1.1 billion dollars worth of funds, a four percent budgetary holdback in case the economic situation and climate of the state of Illinois continue to fall off or play an impact into future fiscal years.

The legislature is well within their rights to restore some of that reserve spending.

Or three, and this is probably the most likely scenario as of today.

The legislature will roll a portion of those dollars into next and probably fiscal year 2028 to deal with what everybody believes is an unknown budgetary deficit figure.

Now three main topics of conversation continue to permeate Springfield, Illinois today.

Number one pensions.

It is exceptionally unlikely that we will solve for tier two safe harbor pension situations before May 31st.

Remember, the early number first year uh figure of full implementation of a bill that was filed previously, somewhere between 600 and 650 million dollars.

That absolutely will not happen this year.

Most likely those discussions will continue over the summer, and possibly a legislative solution in January of 2027 before this legislature during the signing that.

E-bikes, Senate Bill 336 has been filed.

It's a Secretary of State proposal that basically makes e-bikes a universal standard under the Illinois Vehicle Code and other statewide codes today.

There was language that was deleted from future drafts of that proposal, allowing local governments, forest preserved districts, park districts, so on and so forth, the ability to regulate in a manner not less than what the state bill would grant, but in a heightened uh fashion to protect the health safety and welfare of those who live and work in the state of Illinois.

Through a great conversation with the Secretary of State's general counsel, it has been represented that language will return when the bill is heard in the House of Representatives that would provide this board and the board of the forest reserve district with additional flexibility to promulgate rules in a manner which best uh fits our county uh portfolio in data centers.

The House and the Senate have had competing subject matter hearings on this topic.

There is no draft of legislation floating around the Capitol building today.

And depending on which publication you read, depending on which podcast you listen to and other factors, there you will hear or claims that chambers are going in opposite directions.

Will there be an attempt to do something on data centers by the end of this month?

Possibly.

All of the major fundamental factors and what data center regulation would require.

Those are the top three issues that continue to interlace discussions on a daily basis.

It is possible none of those issues will be legislatively solved for by May 31st.

The low-hanging fruit here is e-bikes, with the Secretary of State being all in favor of that proposal.

Budget discussions continue over the next three weeks.

The target adjourned is May 31st.

The Senate currently is in possession of a House appropriations bill.

It is likely the budget will start in that shape.

I'll stop there.

I appreciate the ability to join you today via Zoom.

Happy to answer any questions that you have for me.

Thanks, Derek.

Questions for Derek.

Paul.

Thank you, Derek.

I think it's safe to say for us and other local governments, preemption, anything in a bill that would preclude our ability to regulate in a manner that we normally would, whether it's e-bikes in terms of public safety or a specific specific type of usage for land use, you know, as you you mentioned related to data centers.

Have you seen or heard anything out there that is concerning in terms of preempting local authority in those two bills or related?

For data centers, the answer is no, for no other reason than no draft legislation that has the possibility to move through both chambers has been floated.

On e-bikes, remember the vehicle code does not have preemption language per se, because it is a statewide uh section of our statutes with a statewide application.

Having said that, is the practical preemption there?

The answer is yes.

It's the reason why we had the discussion with the general counsel seven or 10 days ago.

And I'm confident based on representation, local authority will come back into that proposal when it's considered by the House of Representatives.

Yes, Chair Hart.

Thank you.

I I also had a question about the e-bike thing, and I think I just want to make sure that I can understand it.

And maybe the question.

So I recall that there was like sort of the patchwork quilt problem of some municipalities allowing some things on their paths.

And so this would just be if it passes as is.

If the bill passes as is, I think that's right.

I think it's one statewide standard, regardless of your homework status, regardless of where you're located in the state of Illinois.

We've asked, and others have asked for language to allow locals to continue the ability to regulate with a heightened standard.

So if it's appropriate, for example, for Lake County to ban e-bikes on certain roads or areas of the county, they would still have the ability to do that.

Unlike the current version of the bill as it passed the Senate, that language is not included.

But we'll continue to work with the Secretary of State's office and others to make sure that Lake County and others have the ability to go further than the state law, which we believe as of now would be the floor for regulation.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess I wanted to understand that.

Is that a request that our county has made?

I apologize.

Is that a request?

Is that a request that Lake County government has made to say, hey, we want to make sure that we can do it differently instead of having one statewide um sort of statewide rule, because what I recall was there were issues with e-bikes.

You know, what what grade was allowed on different paths and all of those things?

So I I guess I I'm just maybe that's an internal question.

So are you doing that on behalf of Lake County to say, hey, we want to make sure that we have the ability to do that?

It's a request that has come from various statewide organizations.

And I believe the member who spoke before you, and I apologize, it's hard for me to understand who is actually asking me the previous question because of the preemptions and because of the restriction, whether it's in the vehicle or out, we always make sure that your authority is protected to the greatest extent possible.

So we've made those requests of the Secretary of State's office as well.

Let's keep let's keep the ability for local units of government to regulate as appropriate under their ability, current laws today.

It's just like a general statement per tenants, but it's not we're not specifically looking for anything on this particular bill other than we're monitoring it as it does have impact on our bike paths and things like that.

That's correct.

Okay, because I I guess I just wanted to make sure if, and maybe I'm recollecting it incorrectly, but I thought people were coming to like the forest reserves or and saying, hey, and then there were articles too about sort of these patchwork of different rules.

Am I just am I just making this up?

So this patchwork of different rules.

So if we're going to argue for this, doesn't it sort of kind of fly in the face of the problem that that we've had?

That's an that's an I I guess that's an internal.

Oh, Paul has a thought.

So uh Gina, then Paul.

Thank you.

Then that's okay because I I know I I believe there was an ordinance in the forest preserve, or we were thinking about it because somebody came to us because we didn't, we had uh you can ride an e-bike, but it had to be a certain class because but then an older gentleman is like, but I'm I'm you know, we like to ride faster, or if I remember it correctly, so I don't know how this affects our rules on the forest preserve of how what kind of bike you can have on the trails and how what class it could be.

Because I think we said you can only have it if it's not what it's not it can't go over some the speed, right?

So I don't know how does this affect our ordinance?

So the bill is written.

Let me let me try to try to simplify this as much as I can.

The bill is written would take away the ability for local governments, Lake County, the forest preserve, but I only talk about Lake County government proper here today to institute more stringent rules or the ability to restrict, for example, like the member just said, certain classes of bikes or vehicles under the code, certain speeds or or areas where e-bikes would be prohibited today.

This would be a blanket standard.

Under the requests that have been made by many statewide organizations, it would be to allow language into uh future amendments to allow Lake County or forest preserves across the state to impose additional rules and restrictions where those governments may believe in their own personal individual governing discretion that it is okay to say, hey, maybe the speed limit should be a little bit slower, maybe we should regulate certain types or classes of bikes in certain areas.

It is okay to say, hey, maybe the speed limit should be a little bit slower.

Maybe we should regulate certain types or classes of bikes in certain areas.

The request that has been made by many is to give governments or allow them to maintain discretion in regulation of certain e-bike areas if the bill ultimately passes.

Under the version today, it's more strict.

The request that has been made by many is to allow you the ability to regulate further if in your discretion you choose to do so.

Paul.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, Derek, this is Paul.

I'm the one who made the comment about preemption before, just for clarity.

But I'm gonna attempt to answer Chair Hart's question if I can.

And I apologize if I've got a tough terrible question, terrible uh uh shot at answering.

Yeah.

Based on my my recall, we did hear from some riders and some feedback at the forest preserve district when we were talking about a regulation saying, hey, there's inconsistencies and things like that.

But I would argue that the inconsistency is actually not our problem, that we have an obligation to uh have rules and regs over the pathways that we govern here, you know, LCDOT or trails at the forest preserve that we think implement safety.

I think that should be our priority.

If if the riders are like, hey, I don't know what the rules are here.

That's I understand that that presents one challenge, but like if Grace Lake wants to say you can go 35 miles an hour on 120 because it's transportation, that doesn't work for our trails in the forest preserve where you have people walking two, three across.

It's not safe to go that speed on our trail.

So I I would just say I would still err on the side of local control.

I would not want to have the state saying you can't implement something that's that's more safe or a lower speed.

Yes.

Thank you.

I think that's really uh a good example.

So do we have detail on some of this?

Because I so I happen to see one of our state senators, and I see a couple of our state senators have sponsored this bill.

Um so, you know, and I am I right that it passed close to unanimously and they had input from hospitals and public safety.

I guess I just I I think it's an important bill.

And I um I like to think somebody's taken into account, like I mean, there's forest reserves all over the state.

You know, that there's different um miles per hour.

I I think your point, Paul, is a really good one.

Like, hey, that's not our problem if you have to keep up with what these different things are.

But I would hate for this to fall to the wayside.

Um sort of on what I think might be, well, we need local control when we should be looking bigger picture.

I'm 80%, 90% of the time I want local control, but maybe there are some times when I might argue, you know, having one standard within the category of road path makes sense.

So I don't know, maybe I just need to look more closely at the bill.

It's a surprise to me, even that it was coming up and it makes sense.

It was coming up the forest preserve.

I didn't realize that discussions that occurred at the forest reserve on the same bill as well.

Not on the same bill.

This is probably a year or two.

I see, I see.

Okay.

And then there's been at least along where Paul and I live, there's been a lot of articles in the paper because municipalities have different rules.

Oh, so anyway.

Okay.

And here's the good news, Chim.

Assuming the bill passes with the language in it, allowing you to um further regulate.

The county is under no obligation to do so if the body determines that it would rather have one universal standard.

Um, there's no requirement, no mandate, no date certain by which that would happen.

Um, you would obviously, you and your colleagues would obviously be in control of the next step if the bill would pass uh with the language in it.

And Derek, I'm sorry, just a point of order.

If you don't mind speaking more closely to the microphone, because some members it's a little bit harder to hear.

Thank you.

Sorry, Chairman.

I'll bring you.

Thank you very much.

Oh, thanks.

Appreciate it.

Of course.

You know, you had a question.

Well, more of a comment.

I'm not and now I'm thinking about I'm not sure if it was PWPT or the Forest Preserve.

About it was a for the forest preserved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Derek at this point?

So, Derek, I want to catch up on a few things.

Um, when I was doing the Capitol with Mike a couple weeks ago, there were a couple items of interest that we wanted to pursue.

For example, bringing public hearings on the PTAB to Lake County, um, Route 53 and Mike and some other representatives indicated these could be incorporated into the grand revenue bill toward the end of the session.

Is that still the case?

Or what does it look like?

This year has been an exceptionally tight funnel placed on bills moving through the process.

And I'm doing this off the top of my head, but let me give you an example.

The House of Representatives passed about 330, 340 bills this year.

It's it's fewer than three bills per member.

The Senate passed over about 170 bills.

That means obviously simple mathematics means every member will not get two bills to sponsor in the opposite chamber this month.

All of those bills are not posted for hearing.

And with respect, I know for a fact in both chambers, some of those bills will simply not move.

I think by default, you're going to see a handful of packages built in May, but more comprehensive and complicated packages between January 1 and January 12 during the last two weeks of session before this General Assembly adjourned Sinai D.

I think at the end of the month, you'll see two things.

We'll see a balanced budget package and very few heavy pieces of substantive legislation, because you're going into a general election, and because everybody realizes or is acknowledged overtly, tacitly or otherwise, we're going to be back in a few months after November 5 or 6 to build those complicated packages before this assembly adjour.

So I think is there opportunity?

Yes.

I think that window can tear continues to narrow every day we get closer to that date.

Okay.

So one of our top priorities was the build act, which when I was down, there was a pastiche of different bills.

The realtors were supporting permitting reform and other little pieces of of what we've discussed here in Lake County.

Is that moving in any comprehensive or sort of um one package is what's going on with that?

The Senate Executive Committee, I believe it was the full committee, held subject matter hearings in part on the build package several days ago.

Last week, the Illinois Municipal League released a package of proposals, I think about two dozen or so components, as a response to the governor's initiative.

Both of those are under consideration today.

The IML's package has not received a hearing, formal subject matter or otherwise, because it was just uh released several days ago.

But I do know two things.

One, like every fundamental proposal, there are people who are for and there are people who are against it.

Makes sense, particularly with housing local control.

And on the local control issue, remember some of these proposals do affect local government's ability to zone, plan, and restrict other fundamental governmental functions today.

I'm not sure on May 5.

How many or what portion of build will cross the finish line?

Do I think some will?

Yes.

Are there discussions, internal meetings happening with Democrats on this and other issues?

Of course.

But when you seek to member Frank's point to restrict local ability to govern, particularly in zoning housing.

There are objections that are raised very quickly.

And I know some of those objections haven't gone away.

I think the IML proposal allows two competing platforms to exist, and maybe there's a middle road between them.

But I'm not willing to bet on what components will pass and which will not by May 31st.

I think there's a long way to go on some of them because of the fundamental characteristics of some of the components, the local control aspect of it all.

And I wanted to kind of get an update on what happened to the Power Act, which was addressing data centers.

It was largely fronted by the environmental lobby.

I know it's not on our agenda, and we've discussed it quite a bit.

It's a local issue here that's heating up.

Is that still a viable bill?

Did it get out of committee?

Did it get to both houses yet?

The end the answer is no, it hasn't gone to both since there was a subject matter hearing before the House Executive Committee on the Power Act two weeks ago.

Um and again, I'm doing this off the top of my head without notes in front of me.

So please take this for what it's worth.

There were three or four individuals who testified for the bill.

Um obviously industry, others, water usage, location, whether or not, and the comparison is Illinois regulations, California and New York comparisons, as opposed to a patchwork of statewide data center regulations passed across the country.

The hearing wasn't very long.

Let's say maybe 45 minutes.

It was one of three.

Okay.

All right.

Are there any other questions for Derek on any items that are on our agenda and where they're at right now?

And looks like there's a lot of work that needs to be done down there.

And uh, I know you'll keep a surprise of it.

Yes.

I'm sorry if I missed this, but the RIFL Act.

Oh, yeah.

Is there any movement on the RIFL Act?

Did that get out of committee?

The answer is no.

Okay.

The Senate bill remains in that chamber.

The House bill remains in that chamber.

It's been re-referred to the rules committee.

Um, I've had great conversations with a few members of the board about it.

I appreciate their time.

I know um some of them were lengthy.

Um, I I appreciate their ability to um discuss important public safety issues.

But as of today, neither one of those bills sit on the calendar.

But under no way does that mean the bill is quote unquote dead, because if it doesn't pass by May 31st, especially on this subject, discussions over the summer will continue.

Okay.

Thanks for reminding me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I think we're good for now.

Derek, thank you.

And hold on for a bit.

Um, we're moving on to 8.3, our federal update.

Clayton's on.

We have Clayton and Hello.

Just me today, but uh good to be with everybody.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good to be with you, uh, Madam Chairwoman and uh team and the rest of the uh members of Lake Counties.

Um to dive into our federal update, very similar to uh the um what Derek identified as a sort of factors going into the state legislation and federal right now.

It's all about sort of appropriations and the budget.

Right now, Congress is not in session.

They are on break uh this week.

They had a pretty busy last week.

Um they were able to sort of thread the needle and in the uh Department of Homeland Security shutdown, which have been going on for 75 days.

Um, they finally the House finally passed the legislation that the Senate had passed, which essentially carved out ICE and uh border patrol from the appropriations package for the Department of Homeland Security.

Um so that was the final appropriations piece of uh fiscal year 26.

Um the House and Senate Republican leadership and the White House plan on funding uh those pieces of Department of Homeland Security.

So ICE and Border Patrol, they plan on funding them through um what's been called reconciliation 2.0.

Um, that will be a big piece of news here in DC over the next month or so that'll take up a lot of oxygen.

Um, the leadership of the House and the Senate is really trying to push forward what we're calling a skinny reconciliation.

They want legislation that only deals with ice and border patrol and sort of nothing else.

Um everything should be germane to that.

Uh so they unveiled the package today.

Um, it is 72 billion dollars um with no pay fors, which is I think good for uh local governments because last year uh the reconciliation package, which totaled almost a trillion dollars, um had a good amount of cuts to government services, uh things like Medicaid and SNAP and others that affected a lot of local governments and the ability to serve their constituents.

This bill, $72 billion, $38 billion for ICE, $32 billion for border patrol, $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to use it as discretion, and then a billion for the White House ballroom and some other Secret Service updates.

Again, there are no pay for's in there.

So it's just $72 billion.

It is the way that House and Senate Republican leadership want to make sure that ICE and the Border Patrol agency is funded for the next three years.

And if one were to read a step deeper into that, it would sort of be thinking that regardless of whatever the midterm outcome is, this is their way of ensuring that those agencies that are central to the president's agenda are funded and that there's not another similar shutdown.

So going forward, um, as reconciliation 2.0 really becomes, I think, uh a big piece in DC, as much as uh leadership will try and make this thing go by as fast as possible and try and get this thing through the House and the Senate very quickly.

They'll there's a lot of different uh procedural maneuvers and others to get a reconciliation bill done.

Um they're gonna try and get those done as soon as possible.

Um the talk from there is a reconciliation 3.0.

Um reconciliation 3.0 would essentially be uh a way of going back at some of the um majority parties uh initiatives and things that they feel like are not finished uh going into the election year.

Um I would look at potentially things like uh more changes to the healthcare system to the Affordable Care Act, uh potentially further tax cuts and rescission of clean energy tax credits.

Um I think the difficulty in getting reconciliation 3.0 done uh is just how difficult it is to get reconciliation done, period.

It's a party-line vote.

There are very tough margins in the House and the Senate, um, especially in the House, where uh the leadership only has about one or two votes uh based on the given day uh to play with.

So it's gonna be very hard.

It's an election year, so that's another dynamic that makes things difficult in DC.

Outside of uh the reconciliation 2.0 and 3.0, the big thing that should be on your radar and that we have been tracking has been the appropriations process, uh, which could coincide with the appropriations process and typically does.

Um the first sort of the starting gun of the appropriations process was started uh with the president releasing his fiscal year 27 budget.

The president's budget included a 10% uh cut across the board on domestic spending programs.

Um that was largely to help pay for a $500 billion increase in the defense budget.

Um, some other headlines you might have seen in the president's budget, uh at half the EPA budget, uh 13% cut to um to HUD uh with the complete elimination of uh community block grants, uh CDBG grants, and then a two-thirds cut to the small business administration.

Um as we've discussed uh with Matthew and others, um, the the what the president tends to throw out is usually not followed by the appropriators.

Um last year, a lot of the cuts the president proposed didn't even make it into the first draft of the bill.

Um so we're more anxious to see what the appropriators' original drafts uh that will come out over the coming weeks.

You've probably seen some of the headlines.

We've had um secretaries and agency heads appearing before appropriations committees over the last few weeks, um, going through their budget, going through any increases they're asking for or any sort of uh why were certain dollars not spent.

Um, so the oversight process of uh Congress's uh power of the purse uh is playing out right now.

We expect to start seeing drafts and other pieces of uh this uh patchwork quilt of appropriations coming together in the next few months.

Um the main challenge will be as discussed earlier, it's an election year.

So I would expect uh whereas last year Democrats were you know fairly eager to play ball as the minority party.

I think they feel fairly emboldened and are less likely to cut deals going into the midterms.

And so I think you really won't see a lot of things done until uh probably after the election.

Um it's pretty much a hallmark of uh an election year where these big packages get sort of punted to um after uh after November, much like uh what Derek alluded to in Illinois.

Um the other things to watch outside of appropriations and reconciliation and um any changes handed down by the Trump administration um with sort of regular on the regulatory front would be uh potential to have any kind of um reauthorizations.

Um I think Congress will probably only take on things which uh must be dealt with.

Uh so that they could do a sort of temporary reauthorization, much like they did with the Department of Homeland Security uh budget where they approved it for another 45 days and kick the can down the road.

I think that probably happens with some of the big pieces of legislation that are uh due to expire uh at the end of September, things like the farm bill, uh, which actually the first version of it uh got out of the house last week, surface transportation bill, which uh was known as the uh infrastructure investment and jobs act IIJA from five years ago.

That is expiring at the end of September.

So there will be some changes made there.

And then WERTA, which dealed with deals with water resources, um, will also expire.

So uh there's gonna be some reauthorizations.

There's also the the potential you might see some legislation on a few things that can be agreed upon when it comes to AI.

Again, I think it's not exactly too terribly likely, but you could potentially see something, you know, some sort of agreement on consumer safety or children's safety on AI.

Another piece of this would be um housing.

A lot of folks are interested in fixing the supply side of the housing issue.

Uh so you've got the 21st century Road to Housing Act, which was uh passed out of the Senate um with a pretty bipartisan margin.

Uh that's back to the house because they made some significant changes.

Again, the margins are very tight tight in the house.

So it's it'll be hard to say if we get that housing bill uh through the house into the president's desk or not.

Um, but we continue to track that.

Um what uh sort of to bring it all home to Lake County, what kind of I think really needs to be focused on here and your sort of attention paid to.

Um, I would look at the farm bill reauthorization.

There are going to be some changes to the SNAP program, um, changes to the equip program, conservation reserve program, um, some some different edits.

I think you know, the the White House will want some pretty significant changes.

I would imagine things aren't as drastically cut um if it's anything like how it's played out over the last year or so.

Um another push coming from the White House and from the administration will be fraud prevention.

This plays into everything from Medicaid to SNAP, uh home home and community community-based services with Medicare, uh, that'll be a big one.

Um the White House has started their own fraud prevention task force led by the vice president, uh, where they're sort of going state by state and looking at different um you know federal dollars that are handed down to states.

So that could something that uh we will keep an eye on.

Uh we will also continue to monitor the congressionally directed spending process, which uh we've you know so far only heard on the five million dollar uh Des Plains water reclamation uh facility, uh, which is a great win for the county.

Um another thing to keep track of is uh Medicaid, the changes that were put in the one big beautiful bill act last year are coming into effect now.

So the the Trump administration has written changes to um Medicaid qualifications to um how one reapplies uh to be eligible for uh Medicaid.

Those changes are being handed down.

Uh states like Illinois are particularly vulnerable.

I believe Illinois is one of nine states that has a sort of trigger clause uh if the federal match drops drops below a certain amount or certain percentage.

Um so as those new Medicaid uh changes come into effect, I think that is something that you'll start to see more and more stories on.

Um we will also monitor the housing bill.

That's obviously something that a lot of folks are very interested in.

But it's it's really hard to say where that goes.

Um we continue to monitor uh the Department of Justice put out a uh sort of pushed off on a um regulation to update websites to certain ADA standards for local governments.

Um that one has been pushed off until next year.

Uh so we'll continue to watch and see what Department of Justice uh hands down there.

But that is a regulation that could really have a big impact on everything that's forward-facing for the county, all sort of websites and things like that uh and materials that are put out.

And then finally, we watch uh and continue to track the Illinois uh Bede program application.

Illinois is one of three states that is not yet approved by the administration for their broadband program, uh statewide program to be approved.

Um we've done some sort of you know, some back channeling to kind of get a good read on why that is.

Um, and uh we continue to monitor that.

So I'm happy to take questions on any of these uh topics or issues and uh appreciate uh the opportunity to be here.

Thanks, Clayton.

Gina.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

We're one of three states that don't get the Bede money.

What are the other two?

I believe I'll have to look it up, but uh I think Oklahoma is one, and I cannot remember the third, but there are three states that are not yet approved.

It's been communicated that uh the Bede application for Illinois should be approved within the next month or so.

Thank you.

Yes, Jess.

Thanks.

Um, you listed in your when you were kind of going through a quicker laundry list of of bills, the that there was um I don't know if it was one or a package of AI regulation, particularly around safety in children.

Can you speak more about that?

And do they lean or any of them lean toward more of the regulation of AI companies or the accountability side?

That's a good question.

Um, so right now like I think I've tried to demonstrate there's hard for a lot of consensus to come together on very many things in Washington.

Um AI is one area where I think the pendulum started on one side at the beginning of the administration and has kind of moved a little bit because it's gotten tied in with data centers and other things.

The legislation, it appears the only thing that's really been um sort of agreed upon so far on AI or agreed upon enough for legislation to move, I should say, uh, is sort of in the area of children and deep fakes and things like that.

Um, there's a piece of legislation that the first lady sponsored actually that that got through and assigned into law in 2025.

Um this time around, it there I believe they're trying to strengthen rules on what AI companies have to do.

I I'm happy to get you uh some uh some more background on where those pieces of legislation are.

But again, the AI stuff, it's sort of like a big hot topic, gets discussed a lot, but there's not a lot of movement because it will require so much on each side just forward there.

But I can uh get that down to you.

That would be wonderful.

And just for your sort of contextual awareness, Lake County has had instances at schools with AI deep fakes and um children um children being victims of that.

So it's definitely something I'd be interested in, and I assume the rest of the committee and board as well.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Clayton.

Okay.

Thanks so much, Clayton.

Uh moving on to 8.4.

May I think you're gonna update us on the NACO resolutions?

Yeah, eight four A4 was um just discussion related to bills.

We did that throughout A2 and A3.

So thanks, Chair.

Uh last one, I just wanted to put it out there um and actually try and get ahead of it this year a little bit.

Uh NACO's uh annual conference is coming up at the end of July.

There is an annual process that is afforded to uh county participants and members of NACO, which Lake County is to um give us the ability to participate in national policy discussions through the form of submitting policy resolutions to NACO.

They have 10 policy steering committees that uh a number of our board members are members of, and they listen to different uh uh policies and um items of support and things like that from states across the nation.

And a lot of the things that we hear about are things that we're also dealing with as well.

So uh we have participated in this process uh in years past, and last year I believe we had four or five that we submitted um related to railway safety, election security, uh cybersecurity funding, uh digital literacy, um, the BEAD, the Bede program was actually amend uh a policy that we submitted, and then um there was one last one community violence intervention funding, I believe we also submitted for this year.

Um I have had some outreach from member Clark who has submitted a number of these over the last number of years.

She is interested in not to speak for her, but I told her I was going to.

She is interested in the railway safety resolution again.

She is interested in the election cybersecurity funding uh reauthorization and then having some kind of digital literacy or affordable um uh connectivity program type resolution again that we'll take a look at.

If if you remember, I also came and spoke to you on an AI policy about um being against the setting of national standards or preempting uh counties' authorities on setting AI policies locally.

That was an interim resolution that we submitted um in partnership with another county in Michigan, and there is interest in in uh that has since that was interim that only lasts through the end of July.

We'll have to submit another one if that's what we want to do.

And I believe member Clark is also pursuing that one.

So um there will be a couple.

My intention is to bring back uh policy resolutions that I I am um that that are brought before the county administrator's office to discuss and review, and I believe I've in the past I've gotten committee action from this committee to proceed with the application of these policy resolutions as Lake County is the one that's signing them at the bottom.

So I wanted to get out there that this process it actually has not been announced.

I don't have a date yet through NACO, but I know it will be coming, so I wanted to try and get ahead of it.

If there's interest from members, I would welcome uh discussion.

Um just reach out to me and the county administrator's office, and I'd be happy to talk to you.

Yes, would you like to review those uh resolutions say next month or early July?

Well, I don't know if we can do that early July with that.

Yeah, that's that's typically the challenge is I I believe the June meeting that we typically have works out perfect from a timing standpoint that I can bring those in front of the committee.

We can review them prior to me submitting them to NACO, and then they're presented by those members at the NACO annual conference and acted on by the committee and their executive committee.

So consensus to review them again?

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

And I is there a county administrators report.

There is not a county administrator.

Okay, but I know we do have a very brief executive session.

And uh can I get a motion and a second to enter into executive session for the purpose of periodic review of closed session minutes.

Motion by Gina, second by Zion.

You need a roll call for this.

Vice Chair Campos.

All right.

Uh member Frank.

Member Hunter.

Yes.

Member Roberts, Member Schlick.

Yes.

Member Vlitzik and Chair Wasick.

All right.

Uh for executive session items.

We need a vote.

I got a motion and the second to approve um our action.

Motion by Gina, second by Jessica.

Roll call, please.

Sure, if I if I could, the uh the action is that uh none of the items be released to the public, and you're accepting the state's attorney's recommendation related to the closed session minutes.

Thanks.

Didn't read that part.

And there's uh by uh voice vote voice votes.

All those in favor?

I any opposed motion passes.

Actually, was there a motion and a second on that one?

Yes.

Yeah.

No.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Have a good afternoon.

We are adjourned.