Good morning.

Today is June 2nd, 2026.

And I call Lake County Legislative Committee to order at 1 p.m.

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

This meeting is being recorded to through Zoom.

And I believe we do not have any remote attendees.

Very good.

Gina, would you please lead us in a pledge of allegiance?

Pledge of allegiance by the United States of America.

And to the Republican.

Thank you.

Yes.

Vice Chair.

Sorry.

Member Frank?

Member Hunter.

Member Roberts.

Member Schlick.

Here.

Member Volitzick.

And Chair Wasig.

Here.

Do we have any addenda to the agenda?

We do not.

Any public comment for items not on the agenda?

There is no public comment today.

Yeah, really briefly, we're going to have a review of what happened in Springfield or didn't happen from our lobbyists and a brief update from Washington.

We have some special presentations that will refer to our NACO resolutions a little bit later on.

Right.

Do we have any unfinished business?

We do not.

All right.

May I have a motion and a second to approve our consent agenda minutes.

Motion by Jim.

Sure, there's no consent agenda this this uh month.

Oh, no approval minutes.

We'll bring the minutes next month.

Okay.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you anyway.

That'll do it.

Beat me to it.

Uh so we'll zoom right to uh 8.1.

The update from Springfield session just ended this Monday.

And we have Mike.

Hello, Mike.

How are you?

And Derek?

Yeah, we're both here.

We uh we we we uh uh survived uh the legislative session and the uh 4 a.m.

adjournment uh on June 1st.

And uh excuse me, Kevin.

Could we turn up the volume a little bit more on the on the room?

Thank you.

Sorry, guys.

Wow.

It's not often uh I'm accused of being too quiet.

Anyway, uh I was just saying, uh, you know, uh both Derek and I.

Uh we we uh session ended uh uh at about right around 4 a.m.

on June 1st.

And uh, you know, we've been kind of you know gathering ourselves after the the final few marathon days.

I'll give a a quick, you know, I guess 10,000 foot overview, and then we can talk a little bit more about some of the some of the specifics, which I know uh Derek uh has a few that he wants to get into.

Um, you know, I I would just start by saying that, you know, I think we we reported to you early on this year that uh when the General Assembly uh released their schedule for uh this particular spring, it was as if the legislative leaders designed a schedule uh almost uh built in a lab to try to make it as difficult to pass legislation as possible.

And I think that the results of this legislation large or this legislative session largely bore that out.

Um May, I believe there were only three weeks where both the House and the Senate were in session, which uh unfortunately, when you don't have all the players in town at the same time, it makes it difficult to hammer out the big issues.

And so as we came to the end of the legislative session, um, they did get out of town with a uh uh a budget that is uh balanced.

Um the the budget that uh uh passed was uh roughly 56.9 billion dollars, which was just slightly less than what uh Governor Pritzker uh proposed in his budget address back in February.

Umcluded in the budget uh was uh I believe about an 800 million dollar supplemental appropriation for the current fiscal year to close gaps.

Uh uh uh cost from shortfalls in terms of uh revenues versus expectations, and that that pretty much kept funding largely flat going into fiscal 2027.

Um they closed some of those budget holes with some uh with some uh new taxes uh that would be implemented on social media companies uh based on the number of users that they have in the state.

Uh some taxes on prediction markets, fantasy sports, and uh digital assets.

Um, you know, these were not these these are not the type of uh revenue uh sources that bring in big money, but they were enough to uh essentially balance uh balance the boat, so to speak, so that they could keep floating uh at least until we get to the other side of uh uh the election and uh get to veto session, which is uh currently scheduled for November.

I would say the big headline uh issues uh and things that were being talked about as potentially big issues for this year largely fell flat.

Um, obviously, I'm sure all of you know that there was no deal to keep the bears uh in uh the state of Illinois passed.

Um the House passed their version, the Senate passed their version, but there was no uh agreement in the end on what would happen.

Uh the governor uh uh made some uh much ballyhood uh uh announcements about wanting to have uh a large affordable housing program.

Um nothing really happened on that.

Uh and you know, the economic on the economic development side, a big part of that bearish proposal was the governor's desire to uh build a new economic development incentive tool that would benefit the entire state called the pilot program or payment in lieu of taxes uh program to give potential large mega projects uh tax certainty.

That did not make it through the General Assembly.

So again, as I said, I think that I think a lot of this was, I don't want to say by design.

I don't think anybody was looking to uh not pass uh the governor's agenda, but I think that uh uh the way that the uh session was scheduled and the way things ultimately bore out.

Um complicated issues are difficult to put together in the final hours.

Uh, we saw a lot of crazy act, not crazy, but uh uh frantic activity in the final hours, uh, trying to, you know, salvage something from these ideas, but it's really hard to put together uh really complicated legislation at the uh 11th and a half hour.

And and I think that was largely the result.

Uh, in any event, um, as I said, they have released the veto session schedule.

Uh uh, we will be in uh, I think it's the third week of November, and I think the first week of December in both the House of Senate.

And uh it's likely, uh, given that we've got an election coming up that uh uh they may want to do a what's called a lame duck session uh in uh uh this coming uh January uh during that period, that interregnum uh before the new General Assembly is sworn in when they can pass things uh with an immediate effective date and a simple majority.

Um with that, I'm gonna pause and turn it over to Derek because I know uh he he can probably get into more detail on some of the specifics of those things.

And I also know that uh one of the bigger things that impacts local government has to do with the uh uh property tax sale uh issue, uh Tyler v.

Hennepin uh information.

And so uh I'm gonna hand it off to Derek for his thoughts.

Excuse me.

Very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, then I'm happy to answer questions.

Just three or four topics that I just want to wrap back on based on questions that I received in previous legislative committee meetings.

Um e-bikes.

The e-bikes issue that we discussed last month passed it around 2 a.m.

on June the first.

We're happy to send the bill to you later today.

On the question of local authority, e-bikes remain in the Illinois Vehicle Code, meaning counties and municipalities will not be able to regulate.

But forest reserve districts, transit districts, uh park districts, and other special districts that you local government can regulate on paths and roadways within their jurisdiction.

There's one component in the revenue package.

It's the digital advertisement tax.

This issue is currently the subject of federal litigation in the state of Maryland.

I believe litigation was filed against it based off of 2021 action.

Um it remains pending today.

Digital ads was codified under the guise of we will have a framework.

If constitutionality is determined to exist in Maryland, so we can come back and implement rules or implement a specific dollar target amount that we will seek to raise for fiscal year 2028.

There are no collection amounts in 2027 based on the Maryland litigation, but the framework to implement in a quick pace, if constitutionally is whose constitutionality is determined, has been laid in the budget that we passed earlier this week.

I received a question from a member a few months ago on fuel taxes.

Within the budget, there is a six-month sales tax holiday on the imposition of the new inflationary fuel tax that would have taken a place on rather would have been implemented on July 1st.

It's only 1.3 cents.

But because of fuel prices of where they are dovetailing into another budgetary decision because of strong fuel prices and obviously strong collection tax prices as well, or strong tax collection numbers.

There's a 150 million dollar diversion off of taxes that we receive from fuels that was placed in the general revenue fund for other budgetary whole purposes.

Finally on pensions.

We continue to talk about the inevitability of a tier two safe harbor fix that intentionally was not addressed by me 31st, June 1 this year.

Already there are just a few legislators saying maybe this would be a good subject for November.

I'm not sure it's November, but it could be a possibility between January 1 and January 12th.

I'll stop there.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have on the fiscal year 2027 budget package for any other item that we hadn't spread for this year.

Thank you.

Questions for Mike or Derek.

Yes, Paul.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mike and Derek.

On the governor's housing initiative.

Is your is it your sense that some of the issues that came up uh if in the legislative process are issues that that will get addressed and we'll see something come out of the legislature, or was the pushback from the uh municipal leagues and so forth so significant that that you don't think it's gonna advance?

I think it was a combination of pushback from local officials on the proposed package.

The production of a substantive alternative uh package.

And frankly, the fact that we had amendments on these subjects being final being filed in the last 72, 96 hours.

Frankly, I think we ran out of time there.

I do know there would be a push to return this subject to an agenda, if not fall veto session.

I assume January of 2027.

Is this issue debtor going away?

I don't believe it is.

Thanks for that.

And I when I was down there with Mike uh in April, um the the whole build act was was several pieces.

And I think the major stumbling block, at least that was my perception that municipalities didn't want to see loss of control over uh their own building and zoning uh codes.

Is that what you've been seeing uh in terms of the the pushback on this?

Certainly.

Yeah, I think that I I think Derek said it very well.

I I think that uh a lot of the the a lot of the initial pushback came uh from local municipalities, Illinois Municipal League, et cetera.

Um, but I don't think we've heard the last of the issue.

I think uh there's a desire to uh um there's a desire to do something on this uh uh very strongly from uh uh the administration.

And as Derek said, I think they they simply ran out of time, you know, at the point where actual real negotiations were happening.

Um there was just too much stuff going on, trying to push too much stuff through a very small funnel.

Thanks for that.

And just just as a footnote, uh this will probably remain on our legislative agenda, you know, subject to the committee's concurrence, but it's still a big uh topic for us, you know, in terms of what we're looking at.

So uh we'll be keeping a close eye on that.

Uh some other specific items.

There was a um a request to transfer some land from IDOT to IDNR and eventually the forest preserve, we hope.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, Jessica.

And first for whatever reason it got derailed or there's miscommunication.

Do you have any insight into that?

Sure.

Um, I wouldn't say it got it got derailed or there was any miscommunication.

I think what you've got to keep in mind is that state government is moving at the speed of state government.

And I think that's really what's going on here.

Um the the process is is multi-step.

Uh the first step of the process is for uh the the property, which is currently in the hands of IDOT to be transferred to the Department of Natural Resources.

After that is completed, then we get to the point where there's a land, there would be a land transfer legislation uh passed by the General Assembly uh sending that uh uh uh uh sending the ownership of that land to the Forest Preserve District.

Um it's my understanding that while there have been uh many, many meetings between IDNR and IDOT in terms of defining the different parcels of land that would be part of the transfer and others that IDOT needs to hold on to for various reasons, whether it's right away or whatnot, um, that that uh process between the two agencies has not been completed yet.

Um, it's a process that continues to be ongoing.

Uh there's there's been no pushback or anything to suggest that uh uh this is not going to happen.

It's it's more of an issue of um, you know, state government moves at its own pace.

And uh unfortunately it's not always uh the pace that that we like.

Um, but uh we have we have every reason to believe this is still very much on track.

Uh more likely that uh more likely than not that this becomes uh something that gets folded into activity perhaps during the beat-up session.

Thank you.

Jess, did you have a question?

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you for um clarifying that for this committee, um, Mike and and for Chair Wasik.

We did discuss this yesterday uh in response to Chair Wasnick's um question.

And that is what you just related, um, Mike, is 100% our understanding at the forest preserves.

And I think we need to be careful about using words like derailed, um, simply because they're not accurate.

And it's it's our understanding that IDOT and IDNR are continuing to discuss and um fine-tune a draft, sort of inner departmental agreement, and that there um that work is ongoing, and just as you said, at the at the pace of government.

So thank you.

And I apologize if I've mischaracterized that with the wrong verb, and I should know better, but I'm I will use another word.

Thank you.

Um, and we had a couple of minor items that we were been pushing for a while.

We wanted to get uh PTAB hearings are relocated from Springfield to Lake County.

Any action on that?

If I recall that bill was referred to the Senate Executive Committee, but this year at the executive committee, instead of being the leadership committee that passes and packages everything appropriately, seems to have been the committee where um all good proposals sit and are not heard.

Um the bill was referred back to the Senate Assignments Committee.

We know this is an important issue.

We continue to talk to Lita Morrison and others about it, but there was no action on it during the spring session.

Can we get that uh refiled in veto session?

Would that be appropriate?

Perhaps we can draft it and have it refiled for for the 105th that will be given in January.

Okay.

Yes, yeah.

All right.

Great.

And we had another item uh regarding the volunteer links management program, which was a line item for IEPA.

Any action on that?

Uh to be perfectly honest, uh, Mr.

Chair, and and I know we uh spoke to uh almost all the members of our delegation when you and I were together uh down in Springfield on that.

Um I have been working my way through the budget on a number of different things.

I have not found uh a new line item for that in there, but the budget was about 3300 pages long.

So I'm still working my way through it.

Uh, but uh I'll uh double check and get back to you uh and and give you a definitive answer.

Thanks for that.

Any other questions for Mike or Derek?

Okay, we're good for now, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike come back to you.

Um and we have a presentation 8.2 on pending legislative items in Congress.

Do we have uh everybody?

Good afternoon.

Um, to stick with the theme of moving at the pace of uh government.

Um don't have a ton of big updates from the federal uh from the federal side of things from last time, but do want to sort of talk about the three main buckets of uh where things are kind of moving right now in Washington.

Um those three buckets, number one are reauthorizations for bills that are for uh major pieces of legislation that expire this year, um things like uh WordA, which aren't really moving water resources.

There hasn't been too many big updates there, ag, which is moving, I'll talk about a second, surface transportation, um, which had some movement last week, the um 21st century Road to Housing Act, which affects housing.

Uh, I'll talk about, and then also we'll finally uh close out on reconciliation and appropriations, given how important those are to the county, and um and as much as they're taking up a lot of oxygen on the news.

Um to dive into reauthorizations.

So right now, um surface transportation bill, uh, which is the extension of the um IIJA, which was the investment infrastructure jobs act of 2021.

Uh that was also known as the bipartisan infrastructure law.

Um that was a big piece of legislation during the Biden administration, um, all kinds of new funds and programs for infrastructure across the country.

Um, it is being uh reauthorized under the name the Build America 250 Act.

Um that came out of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee last week, passed overwhelmingly bipartingly, uh probably 60 to 2 or something very uh, which is pretty remarkable for a big piece of legislation in the state and age.

It plussed up some money into the highway trust fund, tacked on.

There's some things that are, you know, kind of, I think, noteworthy and controversial.

Added a fee to electric vehicles that they have to pay yearly that goes into the highway trust fund.

That was a big uh priority for the majority.

Um that appears to be on more sort of tenuous ground in the Senate.

Uh, Senate Democrats have said that they will not stand for uh the fee on electric vehicles, want to find some other way to put more money into the highway, National Highway Trust Fund.

Um, there's also some uh changes to some of the formula allocations for roads and bridges that allows uh local governments to have a little more control.

NACO is really uh trumpeting this and be able to move around some of the bottlenecks that can happen with a state department of transportation, uh department of transportation.

Um there's also been some changes to the NEPA process.

So I think the whole ethos of this reauthorization is to really get shovels in the ground to get projects moving.

Some of the things that were authorized in 2021 from IIJA sort of took a while to actually get the money out the door and then to actually get shovels into the ground.

So it's been a major priority of um, I think Republicans and Democrats to see things move a little faster.

Um, as far as the AG, uh the farm bill, which is expires September 30th, um, that passed the House back in April 30th.

Um that was a more contentious vote.

Um, it contains some changes, makes the SNAP program a little uh stricter, probably not as uh strict as some had feared.

Um, does make some uh new uses, things like rotisserie chickens are now SNAP uh permissive.

Um, also maintains some changes to the uh specialty uh crop block grant program.

Um, and also has some new eligibility limits for USDA rural programs, which are funded in that bill.

Um, our second bucket is the 21st Century Road to Housing Act.

Uh, that is, I think the biggest piece of housing legislation in a generation.

We talked about this last time, um, but that passed the House overwhelmingly uh within uh the last two weeks on May 20th.

Um that bill contained uh a lot of changes to the sort of supply side of housing, trying to free up uh local governments to basically be rewarded with better allocations of HUD funds for having more uh permissive uh building policies, more permissive uh housing policies, trying to get less uh single family home development.

Um, it also has uh sort of streamlines the environmental reviews and other processes and modernizing the uh manufacturing code for houses.

Um it does include uh some expansions of the CDBG program and some changes to disaster relief and recovery.

Um, there's also the provision that the president wanted in, uh, which sort of bars investor uh investors from buying up housing just to then rent out and sort of uh kink up the supply of housing in a community.

Um that will go to the Senate now because they've made enough changes in the House bill that the original Senate pass version will have to go back.

So the Senate can either take it up as is or uh decide to make some changes themselves.

I would look at things like investor, uh investor-owned homes as a piece that will be sort of controversial going forward.

Also, any changes to HUD funds.

Final bucket to watch, uh, and this is really, I think what's taking up a lot of the news right now is reconciliation 2.0 and 3.0, as well as appropriations.

These all tie together because they all involve the budget in some way, shape, or form, and the future sort of outlays of the federal budget as a reminder, the federal budget expires, uh, runs through the end of September.

Um, so I think it's highly, highly likely we'll get a CR that sort of kicks the budget till after the midterms.

And depending on the outcome of the midterms, there could really be some different leverage for Democrats to try and get some changes into the appropriations bill, but nonetheless, they will continue on uh with the appropriations process as it's going now.

Currently, we're starting to see uh some of the appropriations bills from the House start to come out.

Uh, the appropriations bills in the House last year sort of mimicked a little closer to the president's budget uh than the Senate version.

The Senate version basically had flat funding sort of across the board or small increases.

Um I would look for a similar dynamic given the uh Senate's more bipartisan nature in the appropriations process.

Um, some of the house funding that's rolled out so far.

There's been some cuts to the home program, cuts to CDBG.

Uh, these were not the sort of draconian cuts that the president put forward, but still cuts nonetheless.

I think the Senate appropriators have been a little more in line with keeping things flat or slightly increasing.

Uh so that is something we continue to uh put our finger on the scale on and make sure because we know how important those funds are to Lake County.

Um, as far as reconciliation, um, right now it's in the news is reconciliation 2.0.

The president asked for a reconciliation uh bill on his desk by yesterday.

That has not happened yet.

Um, as we discussed before, this reconciliation bill will be sort of handling the final of the 12 appropriations bills, which is um Department of Homeland Security.

So they're looking for a way to fund uh so the more controversial uh departments of Homeland Security, the more controversial agencies, things like ICE, things like border patrol, um that is how they're uh gonna fund them for the next three years.

Um so the majority has passed it uh in the Senate.

Now it's in the House.

The sort of controversial provisions are things like money for uh the ballroom that the president once built and other Secret Service upgrades.

There's about a billion dollars in there.

It looks like that will be dropped out, and we will see a vote this week of just uh probably around 69 billion dollars for ICE and border patrol.

Um, the quicker that that moves, so reconciliation 2.0, the quicker we will see reconciliation 3.0 get picked up.

Um, reconciliation 3.0 is uh being considered a bill that's largely going to look at um a much wider scope of issues.

You will see more committees given uh jurisdiction over the bill and given instructions to go after and find savings or find things to spend money on.

Um that's where we will see likely more tax reform, more tax cuts, uh, more changes to any sort of uh tax incentives that were passed by the Biden administration or previous Democratic Congresses, likely repealed back.

Um, I think overall reconciliation 3.0 still looks to be a very hard road, given that you still have these reauthorization bills to pass.

You still have the funding of the military, the NDAA that's done every year, that authorization bill.

Um, there's a lot of big things to do between now and election season.

Um, they typically adjourn by the end of September, allowing folks to go campaign in October.

Um, so and not to mention there's August recess.

So there's not a lot of legislative time left on the clock.

I think reconciliation 3.0 is something that's a little, you know, hard to see how it sort of pans out at this moment, but we're continuing to monitor and again, a lot of that depends on how quickly reconciliation 2.0 moves.

So that's um kind of where we're at.

We're continuing to monitor the appropriations process, um, weigh in with our congressional delegation that we don't want to see cuts to the CDBG program or the home program, um, and that we continue to be sort of viable in those discussions.

Um piece I'll end on.

I will be at a reception tomorrow, Senator Duckworth and uh the likely uh one of our the Senate nominee on the DIM side, uh Julia Stratton, uh, just to say hello and go make introductions for the county.

So uh look forward to any questions, anything I would like to hear, but that's sort of the it's as clear of a picture as we can paint of what's going on in DC right now.

Thanks for that.

Any questions for Clayton?

Paul.

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you for the summary, Clayton.

Um as you're probably aware, uh Congressman Schneider has been really effective at directing uh member directed appropriations to transportation, public safety, water sewer, open space, or you know, really key priorities in Lake County.

And um it's a funding stream that's been really important for our communities.

Not asking to to tell the future, but maybe you know, use your best guess.

If there's a change in control for party control in one or both of the chambers, do you anticipate a change in that process?

Do you think that member directed appropriations will still be possible in divided government?

I think if they've survived under the current uh leadership of the House and Senate, I think they're very likely to survive into if uh control flips of one of the houses or both.

I think it's uh very likely in the event that it did flip uh members like uh Representative Schneider would move into the majority, and then they would have probably more leeway when it comes to member controlled spending and things like earmarks.

Um, they would have uh more ability to pick more projects and probably uh be able to fight for larger sized ones, um, is typically what we see uh with the majority party.

So I I think they're um on pretty good ground right now.

Uh you have seen under uh the current control of Congress a little bit of winnowing down of what accounts are allowed to accept member directed spending.

Um you've seen some changes on like nonprofits are not particularly looked kindly upon anymore, uh, in the House at least, uh, for their version of member directed spending.

So there will always be some reforms and changes and nips and tucks, but I think for the most part, they've been a pretty popular tool and they've been pretty bipartisan for the most part.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Clayton?

Okay.

I think we're good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh moving on, 8.3.

Um, Matt will be um coordinating some presentations that we will make at NACO coming up in July in New Orleans.

And um who's first, Matt.

Yep.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, so this morning, as I talked about last month, uh staff were working with members on requests for policy resolutions and what uh they'd like to see potentially submitted this year for um uh county support at NACO.

Uh this is a process at NACO in which we're able to kind of speak at the federal level and participate in some of these national um and congressional items of interest and NACO would be kind of our lobbying arm in that regard.

So uh the there's seven that I have here attached to the agenda.

A number of these are duplicates from previous years, and we'll talk about that as we kind of go through as you continue to submit the same thing, and it seems to be overwhelmingly adopted by NACO.

They typically like you to submit a platform change, which then makes a permanent change to their American County platform, which is their kind of national guidance uh lobbying document and their uh legislative program.

Um I've I've got some feelers out from NACO to try and see if it's something that uh they'd be they they would think would be favorable for specifically the national railway um safety one that we'll talk about in a second.

So that one may change to a platform change right now.

It's still in the form of a policy resolution.

But the first one that we have, and we'll just go through these one by one and just talk about some of the background, and I'd ask the participating member if they'd like to provide any comments.

The first one that we have is uh support of community-based violence intervention programs.

This was a resolution that Vice Chair Mary Ross Cunningham um requested the drafting of, and she submitted and presented it last year at the Justice and Public Safety Policy Steering Committee at NACO that overwhelmingly passed.

It's basically seeking for uh financial support from Congress as was previously available through the Safer Communities Act um for these community-based violence intervention uh programs, gives the county also an opportunity to talk about the success of our uh gun violence prevention initiative.

This is a duplicate of what was submitted last year.

Um I'm working with the station's office to see if there's any um changes they'd like to make as it relates to just including some updated data or information.

But um, I talked to Vice Chair Cunningham uh and asked if she'd like to resubmit it.

She's requested that um member Roberts uh present it on behalf of both of them at NACO.

Uh member Roberts, I don't know if you want to say anything.

No, I'm actually um honored to be asked to do this.

It's important work, and I'm glad we're gonna continue to present it.

And I think it'll again pass unanimously.

So I just have one question, Jeanette.

Is this request based on a loss of funds for this program from what the Department of Justice?

I believe that's right, isn't that?

Yeah.

Yeah, there was there was uh in it references a bipartisan safer communities act, which included certain dollars, it's references 250 million in funding for this evidence-informed um uh CVI programming.

And I think that that funding was placed on hold or something early on a number of years ago.

And um, while I know the state's attorney's office has been successful in obtaining funding, state and federal.

This is requesting the the federal is.

I think the federal has not necessarily moved as quick as uh or and roughly do you know how much in terms of funding that we're not getting?

Is there a dollar amount that we know?

I that I don't have that answer.

No, I don't have that answer either.

I'm just curious, it's not germane to our discussion, but I think it's important for us to note that.

Yes, Mara.

We have lost some funding for these types of programs.

That's one of the reasons.

Attorney Reinhardt is gonna be at our budget session asking for more money for the G VPI program because the federal portion of the money he was getting some of it's not there already.

And I think his question is how much?

We know we don't have the money.

Yeah.

How much of it?

I mean, I think it's it could be more than a hundred thousand dollars.

It could be up to like 500,000.

They're missing, they were getting a lot of federal money that they're not gonna get.

So I it is gonna be a significant amount, and whatever we can lobby to get from the federal government, it's really important to um achieve that.

I think it would be helpful when we make the presentation in NACO that we have a dollar amount on this.

Is it 10,000 isn't a hundred thousand is on a couple of million?

It's it's oh, we can certainly ask uh state's attorney Reinhardt about it.

Yeah.

Paul.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

I mean, I've had several conversations with the state attorney about the funding for the G VPI program, as you're aware, it was a lot of conversation during the fiscal year 2026 budget.

Um at the federal level, those grants don't exist anymore.

They were basically zeroed out by the administration.

And so the challenge that the office and our county has been having is you know, securing the state funding, and then would the county, as we did, step in for part of the year.

But uh I would say as it stands right now, it's essentially a state funded program with our support.

I I don't know that those types of federal grants are currently available.

Okay.

That's why I mean I think the resolution is really important to advertise for the support, right?

Because um, I mean, and we I can certainly call um the the chair of this committee and and ask it what the I'm sure they'll have those numbers.

Yeah, oh yeah, yeah.

So I can get that for you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I think it's essential when we present the proposal that we say, hey, this is hurting us X amount.

And this is where the money's going, and it'll be in the proposal.

Just the dollar amount of how much the federal funding has cut.

Yeah, not just for what disappeared.

And we can always make the case for why we're doing it, but it's like, well, are we talking about a large amount of money?

Or it's it I think it's it will kind of round out our case a little bit.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

The next one that I have um is one that we've this is the third or fourth time I think we've submitted this one.

And that's why we're requesting from uh NACO if they'd like us to submit this as a platform change, so it's a permanent um uh staple in our American County platform.

Is there's once we start looking into this, there's really nothing.

There was nothing really in there on railway safety in there in in what NACO um uh lobbies for at the federal level.

So um, member clerk, I don't know if you want to present this one.

This is this is all specific to railway safety, looking for safer and innovative methods of routing uh toxic materials through communities and looking for funding for uh grade separations and uh full requesting reviews of safety standards for rail cars.

Yeah, I can say I think this is our fourth time.

So last time when we did it last year, I have to say every year it's been very well received.

Um, this really was the first is the first part that uh resolution about railway safety for whatever reason.

So we were asked last year to probably this year uh submit it for the platform.

So this will be hopefully an official change of the NACO platform.

But yeah, it really focuses on safety for first, you know, first responder plans.

Um, you know, answer the questions, but as I said, very well received and I think really important for the platform.

And Jennifer, for the purpose of the recording, could you identify yourself, please?

That is a good idea.

We know who you are.

I know.

I'm Jennifer Clark on the League County board.

And also uh yes, my chair's chair of the public workers and transportation committee, exactly.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Sorry.

Just for our I know I get to folks at home.

It's kind of fun.

So uh just is it your perception that this is a bipartisan kind of very much it would seem that it would be.

It is very much.

In fact, but the first time we presented it, there were quite a few questions, but it turned out they all were s really supportive of all the different parts of it.

So it's very bipartisan.

It passed you know it's passed unanimously every year.

And it's a very large committee, the transportation committee.

And so um, as I said, they literally were like, could you just please make this permanent?

We really want it to be part of the platform.

And do you think it will address the issue of uh rail car safety in terms of the tank cars?

We have like thousands of these things coming through our community every day.

Definitely.

That's the review of the safety standards, everything, great separations, who pays for it, plans, and also just looking at the track conditions, people are worried about you know things being derailed, all that goes into that.

So it's kind of a long resolution, a wrong along policy.

Great.

Uh, any other questions for Chair Clark?

Yes, Adam.

Jennifer, is there anything in here?

I think some of the biggest things is notification of what's on these rail cars.

It seems like we don't we don't ever know what's on them until something goes wrong.

That is one of the questions that was exactly was one of the things.

And so if you look at uh I know it's long, but the assessment of community communication with an emphasis on first responders.

That's why I thought it felt under that bill point, but I was just like it seemed kind of broad, and it was like, hey, you know, they carry direct sheets to tell you what's on there.

It's just yeah, you never know until it's that's what we've heard from many people.

So this is more communication with first responders, but also we had requests from counties, municipalities for the same information.

Yeah, so I would just stress like the preemptive communication of it instead of just hey, it crashed, here's the data sheets.

Exactly.

Because that's usually what it is.

It's crashed, here's the problem.

So yeah.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

The next one is a combination of previous policy resolutions that we've submitted related to digital literacy and broadband adoption initiatives.

We kind of attempted to combine everything into one resolution this year.

We talked a little bit to NACO and the head of the technology committee through NACO to get their thoughts on this.

They had some suggestions, but also ultimately this is looking for um support, expansion of funding and support for commun uh county-led or community-based digital literacy and broadband adoption programs.

And we've also added a component related to the affordability of broadband plans through ISPs and the request for reliable internet.

So this is a combination of everything basically that we've supported and the county has led through our uh digital uh literacy programming um in resolution form.

And we have submitted this just for initial feedback from NACO and gotten some great feedback and have incorporated that as such.

And I know Kay and Betsy are here or instrumental and kind of trying to jam all this onto one page, which is what the way that NACO likes it.

So member Clark.

I think yeah, it really does reflect what we're doing with our digital grow digital growth growth initiative.

Um, and so I I think the last time we just had it in two, so it was very well received in two.

The federal government was providing a lot of this uh funding um for like digital skills and things like that, but most of that funding was cut.

And so um, it's very bipartisan that across the country, people are would like more funding for the skills, um, you know, technology, all the things we're really doing right here at Lake County.

And Jennifer, uh, explain to us so that the umbrella of digital literacy is designed how to help our communities.

For um role for did like digital skills, digital digital literacy is to make sure people can for employment purposes use the internet, educational purposes, just communications with their family, applying for jobs.

So all those, there's different ways to train people for all that.

But so even just starting with how to use email and everything, and also this safety, have it being able to understand how to use technology safety safely is very much a part of it.

Being aware of fraudulent uh chatbots and stuff like that.

Yeah, I did my Ninjo today.

So I'm it's really helpful.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for Chair Clark here?

Okay, looks good.

Next one.

Uh this is one that uh member Clark has coordinated with Clerk Vega on related to um uh security funding for elections that was discontinued a year ago.

Uh uh federal funding through the elections infrastructure information sharing and out and analysis center.

They call it EIISAC funding.

Um cybersecurity and uh local election system funding um that was received by counties throughout the United States that was discontinued while the county is in a good place with respect to funding.

This this has uh significant impacts to smaller southern counties in the state of Illinois and across the the nation.

And this request is to restore the funding.

Okay.

Yeah, the feedback we got last year was very positive in that people really need it again here at Lake County.

We you know, I want to thank Anthony Vega, the clerk for working with us on this.

Um we have funding, but most counties don't have it.

And this was where especially uh cybersecurity funding for elections.

So that's what this really focused on in the the whole program was cut.

Um, and so counties across the country would really like to bring this back to ensure safe um, you know, election security.

Okay.

Uh any questions for Chair Clark.

Okay.

Next item.

The next one is related to funding received through the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the early 2000s, and funding that counties receive with respect to that.

And while this funding is um still ongoing, and there's resolutions at NACO to expand the funding.

Um, those resolutions didn't speak to the concerns with respect to the reduction or elimination of the funding.

I did reach out to NACO to have a discussion with them on that.

And they were open to a resolution being submitted basically in ensuring that the funding is not reduced or eliminated through Hava.

And we did um I don't wanna speak for you, Mr McClark, with respect to the conversations you had with uh Clerk Vega.

Yeah, when I was speaking to him about the other resolution, he was explained to you about the Hava Act.

So this is actually where Lake County and most counties get most of their grants regarding voting in general, like access.

I think the grant we just got for the preamp in front of the building was from this.

So these are really important grants that go across the country and really, I mean, started what twenty over like 20 years ago, but this is the main funding for everything from replacing voting systems and cybersecurity training of election workers.

So this is where we and most counties get their funding.

So there's just some concern.

Um there's been some talk about potentially this being cut, and so it has not been, but this would just encouraging um to just keep the funding for the Hava program.

Yes, John.

Thanks, Chair.

This is a result of the hanging chat.

Oh that's what this was back in 2000 in Florida.

Yeah.

So that's how long it's been around.

Yeah, you're right.

I know that.

Uh any other questions for Chair Clark on this item.

Okay.

Uh the next one is uh a duplicate of a resolution that we actually submitted as an interim resolution at the legislative committee meeting in March related to the local control preservation of uh for artificial intelligence uh policy making.

We had a brief discussion on this at that time.

Uh member Clark has partnered with a commissioner in Wayne County, Michigan.

Um this is a and and that individual is open to submitting this again in partnership.

And there's been a couple updates to this based on some um happenings specifically in March of 26.

The White House releasing legislative recommendations for a national policy framework for artificial intelligence, calling on Congress to establish a unified federal approach to AI regulations.

So uh the concern is still uh alive, and that is the reason for the resubmittal uh to make it permanent for a year uh through this.

Yeah, and I think I believe the president um actually uh released an order or today uh regarding artificial intelligence.

Um and so basically with this with some kind of procedure that he's proposing uh for companies to submit their uh AI software to what this proposal does is that um there's concerns that the the federal government will not allow for local any local policies about artificial intelligence um from a state, county, local level.

So this um there had been talk in that original um executive order about cutting funding for like any funding for people who had ex um any policies regarding artificial intelligence.

So what this uh resolution says is that counties and local governments should be able to have artificial intelligence policies um and there should be no funding cut if we decide to have them.

And it was very we did this as an interim resolution, so that was done like six months ago, and so it was it was new all this then, and it was very very positive bipartisan feedback at the you can imagine um at the at NACO.

So I expect it to be again very well received.

Okay.

Any questions?

All right, thank you.

One more item, I believe.

That we have um uh member Altenberg reached out and wanted to see if there were some potential priorities we could focus on for um that we could submit potentially to the environment, energy, and land use policy policy committee, which I believe member Altenberg is a member of at this point.

Uh we've been working on that one a little bit, but um we had a sit down with Robin and talk to her, and uh we focus a lot on um transition of fleet, our fleet, uh, but it's been a lot of the the cars and the day-to-day driving and inspection vehicles and such, uh, but it hasn't focused so much on the more harder to electrify vehicles, such as our trucks and our our larger fleet snowplows.

So this is a a request to NACO to support uh providing counties with financial and technical assistance to transition our harder to electrify fleets away from traditional fossil fuels, and that is um more focused on uh bio and renewable diesel.

And it also supports federal agriculture, energy, and infrastructure policies that increase the domestic availability affordability of renewable diesel in those lower carbon fuels.

And I'm Rombler, I don't know if we're gonna do that.

Yes, I think you described it exceptionally well.

Anybody have any questions?

Um describe to me what renewable diesel is.

It's kind of unfamiliar to me.

I didn't know it was renewable in any form.

So what are we talking about?

I think it's just a different mixture that's better for the environment.

You know, they're coming up with new types of um mixtures for people to use that will lessen the carbon footprint.

Okay.

So that's what's going less in particulate per emissions as well.

Yes.

Absolutely.

I mean, I think that's what everybody's striving for at this point.

And if we had the money, everybody would love to electrify their vehicles.

I think it's just a question of how long is that gonna take.

I think it's gonna take a while.

I'm just wondering, too.

I mean, some of the heavy vehicles we have, snow plows and dump trucks.

Are we closer to getting those those to be electrical and you know with big batteries in them?

I I'm not familiar with the technology.

I don't think we're as close as we would like to be, because I also think a lot of people before this administration were counting on more federal money out there to do these types of things.

And since a lot of that's dried up, I think it's gonna take a little while longer to uh get to that point.

But that is, I know for our county that's the intention.

You know, how can we get there?

We're you know, we're working on that, but you know, every county has a different idea, but that's definitely part of our strategic plan.

You know, everything we want to be sustainable.

So we're very much hoping, you know, at some point we're looking for those grants, we're looking for the technology.

And I think what they're also buying new things as the things wear, you know, as our vehicles wear out.

So they're not gonna just buy something and get rid of something that's still in good condition.

So I feel like it's like as things are phasing out, we're trying to phase new things in.

Yeah.

Well, it's definitely uh a move in the right direction and congruent with our strategic plans.

So thanks for bringing this to us.

And thank you.

Do we vote on this as a package, Matt?

Or one at a time?

This I think on uh to support uh the submittal of the policy resolutions from the legislative committee.

So if I get if there could be a motion a second to just vote on the policy resolutions that we're a motion and a second, please.

Motion by Vice Chair Compost, second by comment.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief.

I just want to say these are incredible uh demonstrations of policy leadership and work.

And I just really want to commend Jennifer Clark, Mar Altonberg, Gina Roberts, and uh Vice Chair Cunningham for their work on these.

Uh I'm really proud that uh these are coming from Lake County members.

So thank you.

Great work.

Thanks for that.

And second as well.

Okay, good.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries, thank you.

Do we have a county administrator's report?

We do not.

Okay.

Do we have an executive session?

We do not.

Okay.

Any member remarks or requests?

I think we're good.

Thanks, everybody, for your your contributions and hopefully we can all see it in AICO.

But if not, uh, we're gonna advance these policy resolutions.

Appreciate it.

And our next meeting is July 7th.

Thank you and have a good afternoon.