Good morning. We're still morning. Mhm. Okay. I'm going to call the committee of the whole work session to order um on this day, Tuesday, May 19th at 10:40. Um so on our agenda, we have the minutes from the previous meeting of our work
session um April 21st. And then on our agenda today, we're going to discuss the um expectations on collaboration with the Grandmarie on um sawtooth bluff planning. Also in our packet, we have the minutes of the standing committees
information only, the airport advisory commission, the budget and facilities advisory um committee, and the highway advisory committee. Our next meeting is June 18th um of 2026. So I'll open our discussion
for the um consideration and collaboration of the Sawtooth Bluff planning. >> Madame Chair, before we open, if I may, um Brady and I have a couple follow-up questions on the budget process that we would like to discuss at the end of the meeting if possible as well.
>> Okay, good. Yes. Okay. Travis, would you like to >> Sure. Yeah, I'll attempt to launch into it. Um, >> so yeah, I mean, just to kind of bring you all up to speed. So, we do I do have I don't know, maybe you've had in your packets, we've got a couple of Gant
charts. Um, one of them being the the Sawtooth Bluff Regional Park designation and construction process. Um, so if you look, we do have kind of that starting at the top, we've got the county board decision on the bluff feature. It took us a few months at the end of 2025. Um
we're currently in the second phase of of the Gant chart and kind of looking for city council decision on contract assistance. Um as well as just kind of needing input from the the commissioners as to what expectations from city is on
the collaboration with the HKGI contract. Um to provide a little bit of context, it was it had been part of discussions with the city that it would be a collaborative effort in terms of funding the uh the contract with
whichever group we chose. Um, so after um after receiving that decision at the end of 2025 from the county board, I took this kind of memo in February to the city council um to get feedback as
to, you know, how they wanted to contribute financially and what involvement they wanted to have in the steering committee. To try to be brief, they did want to participate in the steering committee. However, there was uh a couple of different thoughts on
financial contributions. The board or city council seemed a little bit split on that. Um subsequently, yeah, there was some conversation with between city administrator and and county administrators. >> Correct. Thank you, Mitch. So, um I meet
with Mr. administrator Roth um every other month and we had a discussion about the conversation that happened at the city council and from his perspective he thought it would be helpful if we had really clear direction from the county board on what our
expectation is of the city. So, for example, if um if we're asking for 50% contribution to the total cost, are we asking for less than that? Um the letter indicates 50% was kind of our starting
point for the discussion. Um and so I think it's important for us to discuss um if they're not willing to provide 50%, what does that mean? Um and and how does the board want us to proceed in discussions with them? So, I had shared
with administrator Roth that we'd be happy to come back to the city council with a more finite uh recommendation from the county board on what we're expecting from the city. >> So, we'll open it up for discussion to kind of help sort this out so you can
meet with city council next month perhaps. >> Okay. And with that, Madam Chair, I'm um I have not talked about this specific date with Administrator Roth. Um the last time we had the discussion, we were anticipating sooner than than now. It
took us a little bit of time to get this before all of you. So, I meet with him again tomorrow. Uh so, if we do have a direction, then we'll discuss if it's the next city council meeting or the the meeting after that, but I do anticipate it will be in the near future.
So, Madam Chair, one of the things I think about when I look at this plan, I think it's very beneficial to community members of the city of Grand Marray, uh, county residents as well. Um, could potentially use this resource and it could also be an opportunity for
tourism. Um and given that I I think it's really important that we have a significant contribution by the city for MRA um because I do see that residents as well as tourists who that um would potentially stay in hotels or um VRBOs
or vacation rentals um would be in the city of Granary because of the proximity of the project. So I'd just like to open up with stating that on a personal level. So, where we've come so far is that it's going to be an outdoor type of activity
at this piece of land, trails, and no infrastructure, no big condos or that type of purely a outdoor. >> Well, with this, you know, contract with HKGI, we would sus that out. You know, what exactly is it going to be? there's,
you know, public engagement built into that, you know. So, we did have the 2018 >> 2016, yeah, 2016 plan for Sawtooth Bluffs. Um, that kind of spelled out generally what it might look like. Um, but this would kind of going through
HKGI's process would give us a product that we could plug right into the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission application for regional park process. And so, through that, we identify exactly what it's going to be. It could include infrastructure. It could include trails.
Um, but how much and where, you know, and if there's going to be a campground is all stuff we haven't identified yet. So, >> so how would you determine a cost if we're going to go, let's say, 50/50 with the city council?
>> So, we did, so this was previous to our discussions back in August of 2025. I did receive this um approximate draft uh proposal from HKGI as to what it might cost to get us to the finish line. Um
that was in the neighborhood of about $52,000 at that time. I have sought an update on that price from HKGI. Um assuming they're probably quite busy, they haven't quite gotten back to me with a new figure. >> Okay. And and just to clarify, what
we're talking about is just the cost for the AK um HKGI, not the total cost of Okay. >> Yes. >> Um and so we we've uh budgeted 30,000 out of >> for sure at least 52, probably more at
this point. Um and the city was sounding split on sharing that cost 5050. >> I mean we asked them to contribute 30% or I
mean what is I guess I didn't listen to I said I was going to listen to it >> just to get the tone and that sort of thing. Can I add one more piece of information that I think is important and that's that when they had the discussion there was a lot of discussion around the fact that we were using what
we had identified as PILT funds for the project and so um some of the city council members um I think had the understanding that that money had um was earmarked and could only be used for this project which as you all know is
not the case. So, I think that's an important factor as well. Um, because the discussion was and and help me fill in the the the blank here, but um the discussion was really about um the the county has these funds set aside
already, which which we do. We have the 30,000 earmarked for it, but again, it's not the PIL funds could be used for other designations as well. It's not earmarked specifically for only for this project. So, I think that's something
that we can clear up when we go back to the city council as well because I'm sure they have, you know, different um funding sources within their line items within their main budget that they could use um for projects like this as well.
>> Just to add to that a little bit too, I when we held that city council meeting back in February, administrator Roth was not present. um and his kind of institutional knowledge of what funds they have to operate with was not available. So I you know like I said
previous discussions there had always kind of been an understanding that there would be a collaborative effort. Um but it was kind of remained unknown as to if there was funds already set aside or where they were intended to be drawn from. We we don't know.
Okay. Well, personally, I I feel um you know that the 50% is very reasonable um given what the benefit might be with whatever buildout might be suggested um after public listening sessions. Um and
PIL money certainly is used for a lot of things in our budget. I know um we've talked with Firewise about the fact that that funding has been diminished and PILt is an opportunity to maybe set aside some fundings for that purpose which is a high priority not only for
the city of Grand Marray and and protection but for uh rural parts of the county. So, I would um stand that I would like to to really look at that 50% number um with maybe a cap for us at 30 30,000. Um maybe the cost has gone up a
little over 52 at this point in time, but that's certainly a little more than 50% for us is fine, but to go with that allocation of 30,000. >> Do you know what the new cost is? >> No, I haven't been able to hear from HKGI yet. reached out to them a couple
of weeks ago and they haven't provided a new figure. >> That certainly is an important component to understand >> overall cost. >> The proposal was from August of 2025. I wouldn't anticipate a drastic change.
>> Did they give any indication when you approached them >> about a change? >> I think just Yeah, you're right. Given the fact that it was August, you know, that we would anticipate, but I don't see it being much. In other words, just the sense of it when you contact them to ask for an updated
>> and I haven't I haven't heard back from them in any capacity. So, >> all right. Well, I I guess what I would say is that um um the the basis under which which we would proceed answering some of those
fundamental questions is is very important. And um in in my conversations with you know individuals uh city council that the uh yeah the perception is that well you've already got money
why do we have to pay any money and um so that's that's a that's a different place of perception from when we initially looked at this way back when that sure we'd be willing to partic
participate and um and to where it is right now where there's some concerns about whether or not we will contribute to it. I think just as our discussion in public health concluded relative to first call,
tell me what it is you do, how you do it, and why we should go with you and then we will make a commitment to provide the monies in order to establish that relationship. All the unknowns in this regard, if we're willing to say,
are you willing to explore? We've got some general ideas. Commissioner Storley referenced, you know, infrastructure. It was outdoor activities, but it we said we haven't specified whether it's going to be infrastructure or not. It just, you know, there's multiple things and
multiple things came out of our initial discussions and surveys and whatever else. Um, so there's a lot of unknowns and if if I were member of the city council, they'd be asking the questions to want to know to the extent that I
could clarify those unknowns. Um, if uh to your to your point that we should we should let them know I mean PILT funds we were looking at funding mechanisms and to your point that you know administrator Roth wasn't there. So he wasn't there to say well we could
take it from here to explore where revenues would be that it wouldn't impact you know levy. Um so uh I I guess if you're asking us what do we go back uh to city council with one
would be that give a clear explanation of how the board um proceeded looking at what our revenue sources might be. And because it falls within the preview of what PILT funds could be,
that's where we said, but with the understanding based upon previous conversations that we be sharing this cost and so qualifying our funding mechanism, but with an understanding that we'll call it a gentleman's or
whatever you want to call it agreement. Um, in principle at this point, um, I, you know, I I I would agree that if it's a partnership, it's a partnership. If you want to look at who owns the land
and who's going to benefit in proximity and things, you know, you look at the West End and you look at, you know, where this is happening, I'd want to know that. I don't want my levy to be impacted by things that are constantly, you know, providing benefit to the Grand
Marray area. And um the other thing is is that uh which you know I don't know to the extent that you can speak to it but our our um our joint powers agreements with the
city are anything but the model for how we should operate. And and what that says is if we can't get our joint powers agreements operating right and updating it and a willingness to it's if the l reluctancy isn't a part that is is um
facilitated by a commitment on both parties then we find oursel in a position where we have to take the initiative because otherwise they're comfortable where they're at in these joint power agreements letting them ride. And so if our previous experience
says anything to us, it says if this is going to be a joint power agreement, we need to clean up and make sure that we write some things in there that the accountability factor and the review factor is going to be based upon something that is very direct, very
clear, very understandable. So we got two things. we seem to have um a misunderstanding relative to will we share costs or not share costs. If they're asking well what are we going to do we don't know that. So then that's the card ahead of the horse relative to
defining the particular so that they can respond financially and the other thing is we don't have by experience we haven't had really good experience relative to joint powers. So we'd be very clear on that component. >> Commissioner thank you madam chair. Um,
I also thank and I appreciate Auditor Powers joining us at this point because it might be helpful for the city council to find out how those PILT funds, whether they're state or federal PILT funds, are spent here in the county because they're used for a wide variety
of things. As as uh Commissioner Gamble mentioned, it replaces lost property tax revenues for um everyone in the county, but it funds public safety operations. um search and rescue in remote areas. Um
some of the funds are appropriated down to townships, um local school districts, um law enforcement, fire safety. Um, so there are lots of ways that those funds are used and I think this is an opportunity to perhaps educate not only
the city council but residents of the city of Grammar of how those funds are used and then after that understanding is reached then addressed you know what percentages or how we might divide up the costs of um this particular piece.
um right now at $30,000 we're looking at contributing to 57 almost 58% of the costs. And so um I think that is useful information to go back to the city with and then having administrator Roth there to respond to some of their questions
about their particular budget. So to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying, um, regarding the cost, um, you would propose that we would continue to pay the 30,000 and then anything above and beyond that would be the responsibility of the city.
>> Correct. Well, okay. Just to clarify >> once we know the total, I mean, what we're hear what we've heard from staff is that um it was 52,000 um back in 2025 and that we anticipate there might be an
increase. We don't know that number. So, within reason, um if it's a significant increase, then I think we would need to come back to this board for discussion. Mhm. >> Is that an accurate summary of what >> that's what I was trying to >> Yeah. Just the assumption is it'll be
less than 60,000 so that they won't be paying more%. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Just to clarify though >> and you know if thinking about just the reality of the world we're living in right now, they might have increase for gas costs coming up here um to do some
of the work things like that. I would fully anticipate those additional costs. >> Sure. So previously you said that uh you feel that it's entirely reasonable and fair that to make it 50/50 >> and so >> that that was a general what we what we
haveated in our budget is $30,000 which is literally 57 almost 58%. >> Yeah. So I mean it in from the standpoint of being clear that if the board's consensus is that we feel we
should share this cost. If we see the county is being deeper pockets than the city and we say our commitment is 30. So anything above that would be your commitment and it's probably not going to be a 50/50 which is addresses the issue that the county with the deeper
pockets is is willing to commit the 30 but we'd like to see you commit and because it primarily is your area that's going to benefit on this. Um that that's how I guess I I would represent that.
But the questions that to be a answered I I believe if I were sitting on the city council is um um we need to make a a commitment which the county board made a commitment to
contribute $30,000 to define what in fact we want because this is something that began way back when and things have changed in the interimm. Therefore, we need to get clarity on what this is going to be and that clarity will come
to us through a proposed committee that um uh would be comprised of these people. So where we're at if we are aligning these things is saying we need to make a commitment to define what it
is we want and it's going to cost us this and this is what we think that shared cost should be. And then under the basis of what we determine, we need to have a commitment to have a joint powers agreement that it define defines
specifically responsibilities, roles, and how we build accountability and updating into this moving forward. So I think we we need to outline the things that need to be addressed and and then
address it with them. Well, and just to clarify with you, Gary, so our our memo as staff kind of requested that we engage in planning process with steering committee, so appointed members from city, county, uh, Grand Portage, others
to be determined and then through the process of working with HKGI, hoping to come out of the end of that with a joint powers agreement. So that would kind of we're we're approaching this with in good faith with you know appointed membership hopefully coming out with a
joint powers agreement we can all agree to. And the other thing is if if we say whoever instigates the conversation initiates it. It's if we say I've got this idea
and uh I just an example if I decide that I want to build a fence around my yard because I'm going to get a puppy. The neighbor I'm just saying, "Hey, I'm thinking of building a fence and just wanted to let
you know and hey, I I'd like a a fence, too. So, I'm willing to share that cost with you." But if you don't have that shared value, you make that decision independent of any other outside resource. And in this case, the overall big picture of pursuit of
something needs to be a shared value that has to be ratified by the city council to agree both financially and from an ongoing maintenance standpoint. And um you know feedback I get is that uh the county is weary of the
volunteerism that's required to maintain trails and infrastructure and if we want to look at our experience in an idea relative to the YMCA that did not shake out well and and the county's responsibility
they've been they have benefit from the fact that they've stood their ground. They said, "This is it. We aren't going to contribute anymore." And yet we contribute continue to pay. It is not a It is not a partnership.
But if you I don't know, Commissioner Stoley, do you know people in your community? And if Commissioner White here, I'd say how many of them are participating with memberships in the Y? >> Oh, quite a few. Okay. >> Oh, yes. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Just two new members last month.
>> Okay. So I'm just saying that we we see the benefit >> because we're accused of a lot of times of self- serving and so >> to the extent that the facts represent differently then that helps inform decisions. Well, just to just to speak
to that a little bit too. I mean, you covered a lot, but you know, I think it's important distinction that one, you know, the entirety of the proposed Sawtooth Plus property is within city limits. So, whatever happens there is city jurisdiction. Um, so we'd have to go through their planning process for
that. Additionally, in terms of land area, it's about 5050 county land and city land. And so I think that's just relevant to the conversation. Um let's see where else was I going to go with that. Um
yeah and then kind of relative to what you know what's intended for the property. I mean it it had it has always been a part of the discussion that you know we need to identify operation and maintenance through this planning process about what can we bite off and
be very clear about what expectations are from both entities with the another important distinction being that you know there will be user groups that will be approaching joint powers board for
sawtooth bluffs to kind pitch whatever plans they would like to have. And so like they're going to be the ones spearheading the effort. We're going to be sitting back and asking acting as fiscal agents. I mean unless again there's infrastructure that we identify
that we we can maintain. Um you know but that's just kind of I felt go ahead. >> Yeah. I just wanted to add to the conversation um just to step back just a little bit because we kind of dived into the deep end right away and for any of the listening public I just wanted to
kind of provide just a a larger scope that what is being proposed is to update the existing bluffs plan. Um and in that original plan we do see elements that have been built out since then. So, the dog park is a an item that was initially
conceived in that original plan as well as the Gunpoint View Apartments. So, in a way, this is a plan that has been in motion and has been taking some action. Uh, I think the dog park is just like a really wonderful example of something that benefits the community. Um, and is being well stewarded by the volunteers
that have, you know, initiated that. Um, and with this plan element, if anyone is curious, in this packet is the original HKGI document that does set the expectations of what this plan would be. And as we talked a lot about last year is there's going to be public engagement
to talk about what what is wanted. We had a lot of conversations in 2025 about what activities specifically people would or would not want to see and that would really be crystallized through this next process with HKGI to finalize and update this plan. So, I I see from
my perspective that the update to this plan will not only um get that updated Cook County Grand Marray citizen feedback to really make sure we're on the right track with what activities specifically and what infrastructure that site could sustain reasonably and
sustainably. Um but also unlock the funding mechanisms um with this new designation. Um it's basically what kind of started all this was that the original plan isn't it's not checking the boxes to be eligible for certain funding mechanisms in the state and so
this would allow the updated plan to be able to access those funding mechanisms. So um you know for anyone's I hope that's helpful um just provide a little bit more context. So thank you. >> The the funding mechanism being legacy
dollars. >> Yeah. Greater Minnesota's legacy. >> And as we discussed before, I mean, when you when you're looking at granting funds from a funding source, you are
looking at it based upon the the established criteria that matters most to that providing entity, that funding entity. And in this case that funding uh from
legacy funds it has to have a regional impact which means that regionally it has to attract tourists. That's that's what it says in their language. So, if if we're going to give
money to you out of a funding source that is regional, then you're going to have to have a regional return on our investment. And that means that it has to benefit people outside of your county as well as people within your county. But that's another
component of evaluation from the standpoint of it seems that there's an awful lot of that is proposed in requests for dollars sometimes grant often it's it's levy dollars in order to
feed tourism and we have a funding mechanism that is significant when it comes to funding tourism and I I as a commissioner representative of constituents believe that there needs to be a discipline in
that evaluation process is is yes tourism important but at what cost overall. So the evaluation needs to be something we see it in in in how our residential homes are being bought up. There's a number of things that are
being impacted by tourism. So that and it's not unique to Cook County, but it means that we have to have an honest discussion of how much is good and and how much is not good. That needs to be an honest discussion. We don't want it
to be perceived that it is that we come out with winners and losers. We have to come out with a balance between what we as a community provide for the whole of our community. And I think that there needs to be an honest discussion. So why
I say that is that if in the presentation requesting these dollars is saying we need this for tourism, how often do things come and say we need this for tourism and I'm saying let's put it in the context of the big picture
of how much is the is tourism driving decisionmaking without the context of how it impacts the ripple effect in our community as a whole. One of the benefits I always see in my
end is the development of the Gigami bike trail. >> It isn't just tourists. It's locals out there with their families and roller blading and and that type of thing or getting from one spot to the other to work >> which has really been helpful in ToFi
for the folks there. Uh my question would be what if we do nothing with that land? >> It's beautiful land. We see it from many angles going up and coming down. >> It be like preserve the bluff.
>> I think that will come out when there is discussion and we have um people involved in the community providing their input. That's that's the key piece that is so critical to the project is the public input. >> Right. >> And we did have that and we had mixed
comments about that. If Travis can remember, some of the comments were go for it and we want to have we as a community want to see something developed and others just let it be. >> Yeah. >> And by moving forward with this proposal
proposal, we're not committed to developing the land. It would just to your point, commissioner, be a step forward to gather the information, engage again um with the community to get feedback and then determine you know do we develop anything or do we leave
the land, >> right? Y right. >> Yeah. The the one thing I would say though just caution is that um um it's it's going to be whose voice we choose to listen to. And while we say
that we have community participation, I can I can tell you that in in the process for the YMCA sitting in on those meetings, the vested interest groups drove the decisions and and what was uncomfortable with me was that it was
like we didn't want to listen to the other group because we wanted to be the first at the table and we wanted to be sure that we got what we want. And I I think that uh if if everybody comes to the table with that broad perspective of
being community informed and and being willing to let go of what is self-serving in nature, in other words, I want this and if I can use these revenues to get it, I want to be on that committee. And that's where I'm saying leadership and the basis under which
that discussion needs to be taken place has to be weighted in it such a way where it respects the collective voice. I think the user groups are going to have a huge impact in how how that land would be used. So that would be a very strong voice. You aren't going to have
the tourists saying we want to come up and use your land. They're not going to be here mostly. So, we're going to have the user people saying this is a piece of land that we see for whatever hiking, biking, whatever. >> And and I think when you look at the survey results that was taken way back
when that there was a lot of it that was informed from people outside of the county. So I'm just saying when you look at that you can look at what is county informed and that has a different perspective than those that saying well gee I if we want to add this up there
that'd be great you know but we have to understand who are stewards and who's paying for it. So >> yeah the hkgi when they worked with the city before had that differentiation in the survey is like are you a resident are you a visitor I think it is really important.
Yeah, >> I I was looking for the language for the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails, and I know it needs to have regional significance, but I didn't know it needed to have regional tourism draw. Um, maybe that's just implied, or maybe that's
>> Yeah, I think I have it in the document that I drafted, so I could give you the specific >> because I mean, anything we do is going to benefit visitors like >> in the whole community, you know, but I but I absolutely want to focus on what benefits our community. And and what I'm
saying is that that this this is where the evidence-based component comes in where we can stand confidently behind the information the research that backs our decision that we're supporting and um if if the loudest voice becomes you
know not that >> and and our responsibility is to respectfully just say let's make sure that we build integrity into process. Yeah. >> So, since you're going to be meeting with them tomorrow, what kind of bullet points do we want to
send with you? >> Well, let me summarize, if that's all right, what I think I've heard to make sure that we've got the plan moving forward. >> So, what I've heard is that when we present to the city, it's going to be really important to explain what the PILT dollars can be and what they have
been used for and the Go ahead. I I feel like that's even tangental to the like um it um I don't understand how this the city was concerned on how we were paying
for it. Like I feel like they should just be concerned if they want to participate. So I feel like that's almost justing around. Well, I don't know if we need to address that directly. Maybe we do. >> I would just indic indicate that pill isn't used just for this. the ways we just
>> Yeah. But but also I would say that you know to Mitch's comment that administrator Roth wasn't there so he can identify similar funding things. So I think it is an important element but I but I I think it needs to be represented in a way where again we're not trying to
us versus them. We're trying to partnership and understanding how we might go about this. So the county when it came to us, we had to look at funds that we did not want to be, you know, levy derived and therefore we looked at
this which has multiple applications which is an assessment of priority but you might as well in respect to the fact that your administrator wasn't here maybe you could look at those funds but the board does feel that it should be a shared cost
and yeah >> and I I think how I can address that is in a conversation with administrator Roth to make sure that there's understanding um and that uh I can share the details and get kind of more in the weeds with him about that and then keep it broader for the board keeping it
higher level um about those funds if if that's agreeable. Um, I think the one of the most important next steps is to get the contract number updated. >> Um, because I would like to have that before we go to the city council and
then um recommend that from this body that we would pay the $30,000 um towards the total cost um and they would pay the remainder if it's under 60. If it's over 60, then I think we need to pause that discussion and come back before all of you to have um have
further discussion about it. And then um I know this isn't something that needs to be addressed at this meeting or at this city council meeting, but making sure that when we have the joint powers agreement um per your recommendation um that we have a very strong contract and
joint powers agreement about what the operations are going to look like, what the ongoing tales are, ongoing costs are for both the county and the city as we move forward. And and there's in my mind there's maybe two different
or maybe there's not two different joint powers agreements but one for the steering committee and then one down the road for a park. Right. Okay. >> Yep. Did I miss anything? I I would just say in you know how this conversation is
couched is that um there was an initiative back in da da da da in that time if I'm correct in that regard it was a partnership between the city and uh you know other vested interest so you look at all the stakeholders involved in
this and we're just bringing it up because the funding mechanism that is in place and the opportunity we have here uh but we also want to be realistic about ongoing costs that won't be funded through operational grants. >> Oh yeah.
>> Yeah. >> And so we're having that conversation. We we are not trying to drive anything other than follow the stewardship on a on something that had been approached before. If you look at um and and I'm
just saying this by way of information example that when we the highway department was going to address Wisconsin Avenue and the city saying wait a minute that's in our jurisdiction. How come you never talked to us about it? So we're having a
conversation upfront and we want it to be seen as a partnership which is mutual respect and regard for both parties. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Okay. >> Do we need anything else? >> I was kind of wondering if it would be useful since we have Brady here too to
describe I mean so we're talking about pill funds and there's a specific portion of that which is dedicated to recreation. Correct. >> The state uh we have both state and federal. >> Yeah. Um
well I shouldn't say that the the federal portion was part of tax forfeit funds. >> Okay. um which we don't expect to see much of that in the future because of the change in tax. >> Yeah. >> But the history of it includes a lot of
of uh those funds also. >> Um but yeah, there's 35,000 that can be used for that, >> but it also can be used for levy. It's our choice. >> But 35 per year. We have Yeah, that's
that's what's in current statute. >> Sure. >> But that's a policy decision the board makes >> to use that. It's not >> rather than letting Right. >> Correct. The the other thing I I would say is that um and I keep bringing this
up, but it puzzles me and I don't know if we have an attorney's opinion on this or not, but uh the monies that come through the lodging tax If if that is for tourism
and to promote tourism, anything that is connected especially when it is proposed on the basis that it this benefits tourism um credibly why we can't allocate dollars towards anything that's tourism
related. Yeah, because statutory it's pretty specific in that law. >> It's to fund a tourism bureau to um promote the area. >> Yeah, it might be worth the conversation. >> I would like to see the statute on that
and read that. >> Sure, I can provide that. But uh I mean it's a it's a good discussion for the legislature. Well, it it well I agree and I think when we had a discussion today about something and it's like say
the context in which we operate when we often say that well what's what's statute or what's our policy that limits the context in which this conversation happens and if we find out that there are structures that are inhibiting our ability to do things we need to
respectfully address those and change it >> and for example we added a 1% % tax, but that was a special law that they wrote for Cook County and it allowed spending on events. That's why it's called the
Events and Visitors Bureau. So, >> they're they're open to things like that, but I don't know about the Could be a little tougher. And what I was going to say is I think that's a great a great thing to look into um and worth having a conversation
with Linda about is let's say it is over 60,000 and the city is like no we're not going to maybe visit Cook County would be willing to contribute >> in the context of what we can do but now with the golf course thing on the horizon I mean if that's $160,000 right
there that is freed up and and now we can go we can hire more people and we could do more promotion for tourism. I'm just saying >> it'd be nice if you go to projects. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And I can certainly have that discussion
with the executive director of visit Cook County and ask um because per Brady's point I mean the statute specifies that funding needs to go to the chamber in Visit Cook County. However, how they spend it, I I don't know that the statute clarifies once the
the funds are within. So, I think they have some flexibility. >> One page on this whole thing. >> Yeah. >> But I think we we in if we're going to have that conversation, we need to know the basis, the foundation of which that conversation can happen. So without
clarifying with specivity, we we better wait till we know and then say would be could we? Yeah. >> Yes. I just wanted to thank you all for your time on this subject. It's definitely been a project that is
decades old and uh you know Mitch and I now working together on this. It's definitely we're looking for guidance and vision um to the point of you know the do nothing scenario. Um there is a full spectrum of things here and our jobs are to facilitate the process and
this is the process that's been laid out before us and so you know going to the city now coming back here um potentially back to this you know it's like >> a little bit of ping pong once in a while and that's what group projects are. We all have been a part of that in our lives. Um, but we just appreciate
the time that you've given this. Um, and we're appreciative of the clarity. Um, this feels consistent with how Mitch and I proposed this to the city back in February. And so, I hope that that will reinforce um the wanting of a partnership for this project. So, thank you. Yeah. And I and I think the two
things, you know, as far as expectation that we as a board need to understand is what is the city's position on this overall >> and what are they willing to commit financially, not only initially but
ongoing. >> Yeah. Yeah. An anecdotally we were informed going into this process that the city was hesitant about contributing too much staff time and too much like actual participation. and was more comfortable with the financial aspects. Um, but because the administrator wasn't
there and he couldn't identify a specific funding source, that's where the hesitancy felt originated. >> Madam Chair, before we lose you today, is there any chance that you could provide a quick update on the budget shop hours?
>> Oh, yes. Um, so the budget shop will be opening on Saturdays again. we were able to reconfigure some staffing arrangements between our recycle center uh assistants and our budget shop attendant. Um so we will be reopening the budget shop. Um I believe it's the 9
to1, but we'll have a news release going out for that. Um so the public is welcome to visit the Cook County website to um see that news release and participate in the budget shop. It's a wonderful community resource. >> Good. Okay. Can you tell me? It's crazy
that I have to ask this question, but the revenues that are generated, where are where do they go? >> Well, Auditor Powers, um although I have familiarized myself with the land services budget, I believe it goes in our >> budget. It's in our budget. It pays for
the staffing that happens there. But >> does it pay for this then? >> I mean, I probably hard towards it. Yes. It's not that high. Such a great community. >> Oh my gosh, >> that's wonderful. >> Yeah.
>> So, was there anything else? >> Well, I just wanted to um I re after I I I touched base with um Mitch finally. um we had had some challenges connecting, but um just regarding the CJ
Ramstead ATV uh trail and how how to navigate that and um you know uh Mitch is part-time as our parks and trails uh coordinator and so his capacity is limited into how much he can do and and
is maybe doing more than he should have um which doesn't surprise me knowing him. Uh but then I uh it sounded like we were kind of waiting on uh the ATV club. You know, there's been changes there. Uh and so I reached out >> and on our user groups too because we
haven't heard back from all our user groups. >> Um well, yes. Um, in particular, I was just thinking about uh what this means, uh, if we talk to the state, uh, what it
means for our community, what our options are, where do we as a county board fit into the process, where does our community fit in the process? And so then I reached out to the ATV club and just said that I touched base with Mitch and that it was our understanding that
we're kind of waiting on the user group to to bring this forward. Um and and just as an update they they have their uh 5013 C status. I don't know if that's different through the cracks
before, but I think just trying to show that they're they're for real. Um they had membership drive last Friday. Um things are looking well for the club I guess and now they're working on trail maintenance having a meeting with the
DNR grant maid program. Um but I guess the fires have taken a toll on just staffing at the DNR right now. So, um I don't know if they're going to touch base with the state and then get back to us until what's I was hoping to bring the DNR here kind of ahead of time just
to learn like what does this mean? Um but that's not been the easiest thing either. So, um just wanted to touch base with the board and see if there were further thoughts or expectations um or um strategy.
If if I may add, um we've been trying to work on formalizing more of a policy and procedure for how user groups um can expect to interact and how to get to the board's attention. Um so I I envision it similar to how like we have conditional
use permits go to the planning commission. Planning commission gathers information, sees whether or not it's relevant to our current existing plans and policies and goals, and then they would make a recommendation to you guys. only in this case instead of a planning commission it's a parks and trails committee. Um so we've got that in
writing now. Um as well as like a little very simple form about how the user group should fill that out and submit it to Mitch. Um and so essentially if a user group wants to approach the county board for action. Um they would submit this form to Mitch kind of describes
what type of request is it. Obviously there's a variety. Uh Mitch would kind of verify all the details, collect what information he might need, forward that over to the parks and trails committee. Parks and trails committee would review that request and speak with the user group and answer a lot of the questions,
save you guys a lot of time hopefully and energy in thinking through the the quirky questions that come up um and also review that plan relative to our greater planning documents for the county. And then the parks and trails committee would make a recommendation to you and um Mitch would bring that to you
at a following county board meeting. And so that's the kind of framework and structure so that hopefully we can um have all these user groups have a consistent experience at the county. >> Right. I think I think to you know kind of a desire for transparency and providing venues for folks who might
oppose such things to you know to be aware it's coming down the pipe and to provide comment. Um, I know that it's it's not similar in a planning commission and that we don't notify neighbors about things that are happening, but just to try to get the word out there as soon as possible so
that it doesn't appear, you know, it doesn't appear like we're fasttracking anything and >> um because we had quite a few, you know, folks that felt like they were not a part of the process and so just trying to avoid that. >> Yeah, >> I really appreciate the formalizing of
the process. I feel like we did a lot of that, but just it's very good to have it now as a as a formal process. >> I feel like we're going to be doing it like we'll almost be a redo for the ATV club. It's how it's feeling. But
>> yeah, >> if that's what it takes to have a better process, then I think that's really important. Mhm. >> Yeah. Back to the saut to bluffs, one other point that I didn't bring up that should be clarified is that um I think
coming out of that city council meeting, one of the concerns was that they didn't want to have competition for legacy dollars when they're looking for dollars for their park. And so if they're going to prioritize, you know, where they'd like to see
dollars, it would be their park would take priority uh because that's significant for them. So whether or not uh those that administer the legacy funds could address that issue about
competition or not, we should do that because if it becomes an encumbrance to discussion, answer it. And if it's on the merits and not based upon you know we got to deviate up amongst multiple
whatever then we should know that >> and then if I may go back to the process that Nema just outlined because we didn't hear full support from all of the user groups or um heard no comment I believe from one of them um I do support this going through that process so that
we can ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard that we have a recommend recommendation from the parks committee and then bring it forward to the board if the board supports that approach. >> You know, I think that's great. Is there anything that indicates into there the the the merits under which it gets
evaluated? >> Yes. And um with that, I want to be clear that the parks and trails committee isn't holding a public hearing quote unquote. It's not that type of body. Um but they are an open meeting and they are still subject to open meeting law. So, um, we should, you
know, keep in mind that the public is, you know, we have that transparency because this is an online meeting and it's recorded and and all of that. There's minutes um in in the parks and trails committee, the elements that they're looking at um is the compatibility with the existing parks
and trails plan. Um, this is the community adopted comprehensive plan for trails in the county. So, this is okay, here's a proposal. Is this aligned with this document that we have all already agreed to? And that's where we might have people might be opposed to something, but the project might meet
that. Um, so that's where it's really good to identify those things and talk through that a little bit if there's concerns that can be addressed through that process that's healthy. Um, and then also that, you know, operations and maintenance question that comes up in every single project. You know, what is this user group's plan? You know, build
it and assume it'll take care of itself or what is what is that process? So, answering those kind of key questions um is front and center for this process. It's good. >> Okay. Anything else? If you think of something else, you can
let administrator dribble know before noon tomorrow. >> Yep. >> Whatever. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, we have no other discussion. So, >> we do have one other item and that's regarding the budget process. Oh, if that's okay, Madam Chair. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. So Brady and I um uh Auditor Powers and I met yesterday and talked through our budget process for this year. So for just kind of walk through it and then we have a couple questions just to make sure that we're we're all on the same page and we're headed in the right direction as we move forward. So
the first um is that um we plan to provide direction to our department directors um which will include budget guidelines that we have prepared. Um my understanding is budget guidelines were prepared for 2026 and so we've updated that with some additional information um
so that the directors know exactly what we're looking for with the the um budget proposals. Uh we have a template for them to use same template as last year that outlines the changes from this year to the next year um and the the reason
for those changes in their budget. um an outline letter that explains the timelines and our expectations for the directors. Um and then uh we haven't talked about this, but this is something that um I was thinking about last night is just to schedule an open hour for
Brady and I um for any directors to attend and ask questions about the budget if they have if they're seeking any assistance. And I know that Auditor Powers is always willing to meet with them as am I to answer any questions, but just creating that space for them.
So that's our plan for the department directors. The offices, our um county attorney and um sheriff have gone through the same process in the past. And so as long as they're willing to do that, I don't anticipate any changes for them as well. But we haven't had those
discussions yet. >> Okay. Okay. Any questions on the departments? Okay. So, then our non-mandated um we have a letter going out to them as well kind of outlining the process. Um
Auditor Powers had sent an application last year that they need to complete and fill out for their budget requests as well. And so, we're um recommending the same process as last year. With that application, we're identifying the non-mandated
as the EDA, the HRA, the historical societies, and soil and water. So, those would be the four agencies that we would request that they complete this application. And then we have kind of an other category that we're trying to determine
um how to address and that's where we've got some questions which would be our airport, the community center and extension, the parks department, the PHS grants, and then we also have a question about the hub because that has always or
at least in the last few years has been part of the PHS grants. Um but I know the board has had some discussion about how to address the hub. So before we get to that that category, let me just walk through two other pieces. Um the fire departments. So we talked about the fire
department when we had the recommendation from Loots and Fire for their truck about changing their process slightly this year where we asked about their equipment schedules. Um so Auditor Powers has developed a letter for them asking for some specific information in
their budget request. And then we have two um agencies that are under joint power agreements which are the library and the YMCA. So just trying to kind of figure out how to um move these different pieces forward. Uh before we open it up to all
of you, I want to make sure I didn't miss anything. Auditor Powers, >> I don't think so. So yeah, just from my perspective, we've we've listed things like the airport
um YMCA library because they're not mandated. I think it's just a perspective, but it's not really something uh that you would do in a regular budget process and treat them like other entities. They're established.
Um those are different processes to change those things. Those are joint powers agreements that you that you have to engage in that. you're not going to change anything they do by a budget letter, for example. Um, that's my perspective anyway. Um,
the airport, yes, you don't have to have an airport, but there's there would be a long process if you decided you wanted to change that. Um, >> and to be clear, we would still ask for their budgets. Sure, you're going to get their budget, but I'm saying the uh a a
process like you you're putting through the non-mandated are you going to fund them or not and to what level or not? These others are really county departments, if you will, and it a different kind of structure for uh
looking at those changes as opposed to a department. Will this be presented this afternoon at the budget meeting or >> No. Yeah, it's >> I was ready for today. >> Hey, then I really will be ready for
next week. >> Personnel I >> We can to answer your question. Um but we we we would like to get these letters out per our calendar >> and just to make sure that people have adequate time to start working on their
budget. So we we could postpone until next week if that's what you would like us to do, but we were hoping for feedback today if possible. >> Yeah. >> From my standpoint, I um I I refer to the umbrella under which you know we as
a county do business, we'll say provide services, whatever. Um, if we take, you know, things that you've referenced here and you put them under that umbrella, I would like to see, for instance, if you
look at the YMC, the airport, um, the hub, all of these different things. I'd like to see the things as they are broken out into the categories and with the dollars associated right now where we're at with them. So if we look at
non-manded mandated, if we look at the items that you referenced, I mean these ones that go through. Okay, voice is going. You're all going to benefit. Anyway, that's what I'd like to see. I'd
like to see the umbrella with these categories that you addressed >> with dollars associated. So, you want their full budget, the the budget for each one of these agencies, >> which we want to see. >> Yeah. We've
>> Yeah, I'd like to see So, when it comes to We hear that um we've got to do more with less, but if we don't know what it is we're doing and what it's costing us, how do you make that determination? So,
it's a matter of evaluating priority. And the only way you could do that is see costs associated with the entity >> and and we will do that as part of the budget process. We can show last year's costs and in comparison to their
requests for the next year. But my question really is um do you want some of these others, the airport, community center, park, PA or um hub to go through an an application process
or do we do we have them move forward with their budget request like we have in the past where they submit that to auditor powers? Um, we could ask them to present their budget if that's something that you want additional information, but we just are really seeking clarity
before these letters go out so that we understand >> Yeah. >> what you want and it's not our decision, it's the board's decision. >> Yeah. From my standpoint, I I I feel that the the letters are um
are preceding the evaluation. So if I if I were to evaluate then I'd say this is the process I think we should use based upon that evaluation. Obviously looking at budgets is important from the fiscal standpoint. I
want to see I want to be informed how did they approach their budget. Let's just take the library as an example because I referred to it because it has a in drafted in the agreement in the joint powers 5% increase. How often have
we looked at the library budget to determine whether that 5% is justified by analysis uh or it's simply because it's in there, let's just put it in there. Let's work with that increase of 5% each year. And
um if we don't evaluate it, we don't know. It's driven more by the joint powers definition than it is driven by >> evidence-based analysis of of expenditure. >> And that plays out over everything. >> And it is absolutely I mean it's driven
by the joint powers agreement. And so in order to make any changes to their budget requests, we would need to address that through the joint powers agreement. Correct. >> Yes. But we can do we can ask for even in that joint powers you can say yeah
but we want to we want to discuss it. >> That's right. Because the provision is is that unless the board says no. Well, how do we know whether to say yes or no if we never look at it? >> So it could be that they're on the list to make a presentation. >> Yeah.
>> Every year. >> Yeah. Justify why. >> Yeah. That would be one. And >> the library goes to the city for that. And >> yeah, >> I guess I don't know why it hasn't been to the county for a number of years now. >> Consistent. >> Everybody needs to come to the county.
>> Y >> and and with that consistency, I think the airport isn't any different than the EDA or the H. Um if we get into an extremely tight budget situation, we're going to have to sit down and do a force matrix. This is more important than
this. >> That's exactly right. It's a little bit different. You know, >> I think there's entanglements with millions of federal dollars being taken and I don't think you can just abandon it. >> No, I don't think you can abandon >> No, you can abandon the H and the EDA
pretty easily, but airports a different. >> Oh, thank you, Bri. >> So, what I'm hearing is um we want a presentation from the two organizations that we have joint powers with, the library and YMCA. Is that
accurate? >> Yeah. I mean, that'd be great. It's always >> It It used to be that we regularly had presentations at committee of the whole and groups came and presented. Every month there was a presentation. >> Okay. >> I I'm sorry. I maybe I'm confused about
the first tier there. EDH. What was that? Historical water. >> Soil and water. It's an application. Is that correct? >> Just like the departments. Is that >> No. >> Can you walk through it? >> Here. Let me >> um >> let me find it. >> No, that's a big that's a question
because they're going to they're I think they're going to look at it. They haven't done that before >> and they're going to go what? >> Right. >> Um why am I doing this? >> Sure. >> So, they'll need an explanation. >> And why I know I have talked to the historical society when when things were
looking >> Yeah. >> really bleak starting in January. I said don't rely don't count on anything. you know, we have an unfolding budget situation. So, I know they are aware >> H and EDA will be different um because
they've not gone through right >> an application process of any kind. >> Um we created the HA >> and we created the EDA. >> They're not outside entities coming here. We created them for certain
purposes. So, you know, they're going to part of the application is, you know, what are you do? Why are you doing this? Who are you serving? Well, we created and we told them what to do basically. So, I mean, it's just a it's going to be a different kind of letter and different
kind of understanding. I just don't want to send them the the same thing you send historical society, etc. It's different. >> So, I've pulled up the application and and we we haven't reddrafted this. Um, we will do that once we have direction
from all of you. Um but basically it's just completing a summary page um with with their the name of the organization, address, um what what they the services they provide, just a high level overview, the amount of funding they're requesting, population served, and then
it goes into a category of different questions. So, organization information, a summary of the organization's mission goals, programming areas, how do they collaborate with others in the community, what are their funding strategy, um potential conflicts, intended use for requested county funds,
and then it has a list of about six different questions related to the the requested use of the funds. um any challenges um that they may have currently the measuring the impact of the activities that they provide um and
then some detailed financial information. So I don't know that application is really the best term for it. It's more a way of gathering specific information from one of the agencies. >> Very reasonable. I I would I would agree.
Yeah, I I think from an assessment standpoint uh on the part of you know administration and and commissioners that that when we do an assessment then
we establish the criteria under which we want to assess the various elements that we're looking at whether it's mandated not mandated or this or that or the other joint power but in in doing that assessment then we inform the process.
So, >> and it my sense of it and I if I'm wrong on this then I can clarify, but it it seems like we're just we're making some some movement in a in a direction, but it's almost like we're ratifying something without that assessment that
prioritizes >> into I guess in my perspective the having them present their budgets before all of you is the assessment process. If we if we give them questions ahead of time that say, you know, we want you to be prepared to present and speak to
this, this, this, and this just based on some of the discussions and the themes that have come out of our budget discussions with the board. >> Um, then your role as commissioners is to assess the budget presentations and determine what you want to fund as we go
into 2027. So maybe I'm missing >> well no I I would say when it comes to department heads established framework of what we need and what's in many cases mandated then that's that's different process theoretically could be different
than the process that comes with somebody like the YMC historical society or from uh violence prevention. In other words, these are these are different groups and and some things we're required to and
that evaluation of budget and presentation. Yes, that's important. And the letter that goes out in the forms, some counties will say, well, looking at the budget and and the cutbacks and this and that and the other thing, uh, this is what we're saying. So be aware of
that going in and that that might include that that um we want to see a reduction in in your ask and we want to freeze you know hiring or whatever else but that comes through an evaluation and then that evaluation
informs the ask when you go to departments. But if when I was in the uh Arrowhead Corrections meeting, not the one that you attended, but the one previously, then the chair, St. Louis County, was just saying
that uh we've got to I I want to see our board take a look at all of the mandated and non-mandated and do an assessment. And we can't go into this budget cycle this year and have the levy that we had
this year. and I am trying to stay on top of that. And I hear her say that and I said that that to me resonates. That's what we need to do. And and so I don't know. >> I'm kind of hearing that's what we're doing. >> We're asking people to present to us
>> in the paperwork that you're sending out. We'll get that and then before us they'll come. We'll choose which ones if we want all of them or whatever. Then we have the final assessment of the importance of a group or whatever. So
that's what we're doing. Am I missing something? >> Yeah, let's just say that the uh >> the non-mandated that uh so we have this process that we're going to send out evaluation and plman referenced it today recommending we not go behind the below
the $150,000. Well, we haven't even done any evaluation of of those entities. it. So if we're going to send it out there, it's the same old same old. Then when we come to the nitty-gritty of trying to evaluate it, it's towards the end of the
budget cycle, we say it'd be too unfair to tell them no at this point. So at what point is that evaluation done before it gets to the end where we feel we can't do it? >> So I I will say that I think we're starting the bud we historically and now
are starting the budget process a lot sooner than a lot of counties. So, um I think there's that that you know it's May and we're starting this process and the final determination isn't for several months.
>> We are including in the letter um that um the I mean the intent of the letter is to make sure that agencies know that their budget will be analyzed and that it may not remain the same that the board has the ability to change the
funding. Um, so I think we're addressing that by the letter and by having them come and present to the board. Um, so if you have recommendations on I mean that's why we wanted to have the discussion today is if there are recommendations on other ways that we could or should approach this, we're
open to that. But we really are seeking that direction from you because our intent at this point is from what we've heard from all of you to move forward with the letters to move forward with a workshop where we have the presentations and then plenty of time following the
workshop for that decision-making process to happen. >> Yeah, I I think it would be healthy for us to uh put together an an objective or a definition of budget process. In other words, what is it that that we want to
focus on? And um in the uh uh you know evidence-based budgeting course that I took um that was fundamental and they gave examples of states, you know, and
counties and and how you work together to do this definition. Part of it was saying that as you took the course, you needed to do that. And I said, well, I'm not going to do that independent of a discussion with the full board. But that is important because what it does is it
focuses on the things similar when we talk about negotiating contracts. We need to have things that keep us on the track when we're going through these processes. And that should be true of the budget. So to respond to that, Commissioner Gamble and you have not
seen this yet. So this will be um brought or we can bring this to the budget and facilities advisory committee next week. But with the 2027 budget guidelines, what we put together as the 2027 budget goals and this is based on prior years is transparency. Ensure the
process is transparent and communicate budget decisions. Datadriven decision-making. Use data and evidence to identify most needed government needed services. Prioritize core mandates and align resources with strategic priorities. And then we talk
about the known and the unknowns. The COLA increases um step increases are known. Um COLA increases being unknown. Benefit costs are unknown. Um and health insurance costs are unknown. And I should add to that also. Um actually I
have it next under risks. State and federal budget impacts are unknown currently but increased costs to the county are anticipated. >> And then we go into the the department budget development process. Um and then additional questions for the department
directors. What is the service you're providing? What outcomes are you seeking to improve? What resources are required? What other resources are being leveraged? How does the request fit into our strategic priorities? and how will this program be sustained over time? So essentially, what are the tales? So we
could take the budget goals um and share that on our letter too if that's helpful. Um but that's what we've that's what we have so far to send out to the department directors. >> Yeah, I think I think like in this discussion, I think that what you've put
together there is what the discussion should be relative to moving forward. and it it's partly addressing the the defining the budget process, but I'm I'm happy to send you examples of of what that includes. I would agree that that
uh this is an outline of of a number of those elements, but I think we should be having a discussion on the proposed which you just read to us as because that's foundational to this whole process if you follow me. Mhm.
>> Yeah. >> So, given the the budget calendar that was adopted at the last meeting, we actually stated that we would get the direction out to the department directors on Friday and haven't because we really
wanted to have this discussion. So, we can bring that to the budget and facilities advisory committee next Tuesday and then get get that out at a >> later. Mhm. Next Tuesday is the budget facility.
>> But you said you were hoping to get this out by Friday. >> Last Friday. Last Friday. Oh. >> Yeah. Was the was the deadline. So I would like to get something out to them to start working on it. Um,
>> and I would just say that it sending it out so that they they have that perspective and put that in the context of the budgeting cycle, you know, this year with the understanding that the board is working on refining this. I
would do that. >> We can do that. we can let them know it's a draft and it's it's a living breathing document that might change the interest as early as possible give you you know I would agree with that. >> Okay. So what I'm hearing is we'll leverage the budget and facilities
advisory next week to kind of walk through the guidelines and and the process and ensure that they support the approach. um that all of the agencies that I had mentioned, we will ask them to provide a presentation when we have the budget workshop. Um and that we will
we'll just um formulate letters for each one of the agencies specific to um the questions that apply to them and what we need from from them. Um I think that's what I heard. >> Okay.
>> And then my last question is is the hub. I mean again historically that has been included in the PHS grants. Are you wanting a separate do you want them to go through the PHS grant process? Um if not how do you want to approach that?
And then I think um you know there for some of the agencies there are statutes related to how um the funding that can be provided by the county and I think that was something we were going to look into for the hub as well if I'm not mistaken. That's what we need to look at because we want to make sure we're being
consistent. And because they are a 501c3, I can see if we create that line item that we're going to have other groups that will approach us. >> It's statutoily. >> Yeah. A lot there. It's even mentioned in a state audit document.
>> Making sure we have that >> centers the specifics that's different. But in general >> that that's an analysis in my in my mind when you're looking at the big picture we only have so much money. So if we
look at independent of money, we can and that's why I say where we find through the year, we get a budget, we approve it, and then we go through the year, we find out we got people coming in and and it's not planned. It's not in our budget, and we get nickeled and dime to death because we're looking through a
single lens at a moment in time and not in the context of the big. So that's why when you have a definition that clarifies it helps discipline that process because >> otherwise how do you control it
and I'm not saying I mean in my experience I don't know what other you know fellow commissioners experience has been that there are entities that come in last minute and we've got to have this approved and when you say no because we need time to think
on this and they say well No, if you don't do it today, we won't get this. It's sort of a learned behavior and we have to have a process that allows us to make informed decisions which we can't be informed at the moment that it's on
the agenda. We had never had any prior knowledge of it. So I'm just saying to that issue about coming in, not only is it coming in unaware, it's and there are circumstances, but it's coming in as a as a strategy last minute in order to
get funding. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's important we have an application with a deadline and a process that's the same for everyone to avoid that last minute. >> I would agree. that I come back to um our administrator's remarks about the
alignment with stated goals and kind of a long-term vision. Does it fit with Cook County government and our strategic plan? And I would add one thing we haven't talked about is equity. Does the service that's being provided by any of
these groups prioritize marginalized or underserved or vulnerable populations? I think that's important data to collect as well for some of these other groups. >> And and specifically to the hub, I've I've kind of wrestled with this because
like I want to support them as I >> Yep. >> I'm all in. It's a very important organization, but there's the accountability aspect, too. If we're just public dollars going to a nonprofit, where how do we follow? >> Well, this is evidence-based, right? I
across anybody. There needs to be evidence that in fact what you are doing has value. The other thing that was important to me is that if I see the res resourcefulness of an organization generating their own operational income that that they earn their opportunity at
least that they've demonstrated good stewardship and resourcefulness. Some organizations come in and they just depend on us and they aren't doing anything to generate revenues and that and then they have change over in leadership constantly
>> and it's like why are we giving taxpayer money when we haven't earned your opportunity. >> Um >> right now I feel like there's pretty good stability at at the hub. um that is not that has I mean in recent years >> true it's dependent upon leadership and
>> yeah so so that's part of why I'm like a little leerary of it but I'm trying to >> well and the other thing I would say is that there I proposed that there needed to be audits for that accountability and then the entities would say well that's
going to cost us a lot more money I said if you're getting more than this amount of money from the county taxpayer dollars there needs to be a credible audit That's kind >> but it doesn't mean that we as a county can't come along and tutor you provide information so that your board conducts
a credible best practices audit but it's the accountability factor and so there's other ways that we can help organizations that aren't necessarily levy levy dependent and that's what we need to explore. It's like the conversation
about at the leadership meeting about creating trust and we have to look at these things and that's what it's like uh what is it it's with the hub there's the situation the lack of funding has created some resourcefulness
and creativity on their part to try to contribute more to their existence >> and when you see that that's should you be noted >> well I think because they've had a lot of changes there to be fair to them. I think they should come again and give a
presentation just like they did last year and they were in flux and they were trying to write grants. I think they have made progress in order for us to say yes, we'll help you. We need to know where are they at now. >> So, you know, in the future I agree with that um those types of
>> but the criteria and the assessment needs to be based upon our priority and the amount of understanding of the dollars that we have. So with with that um so how we have my understanding is how we've addressed 503 or 50c3s in the past was that they would
go through the PHS screening process and so I'm am I hearing that have them present through that process again? >> Uh well I don't know about them. I think we need to hear it. >> I would agree with that. I would uh
>> and and and this is why stepping back and looking under the umbrella said are we doing it the way we should be doing it and what drove the decision to do it the way we are doing it and maybe there's a better way but that's that's why I think that overall discussion needs to look at the entities and then
decide best way for us to be evaluate that with limited dollars. I I don't know if that structure makes sense but if I it what's mandated is one thing and what's non-mandated is another and
what's 503 can be another and what's you know this for subsidizing child care or businesses allocation that's that's another so now if and the EDA and I'm not going to be able to make that meeting but I wanted to because I think
it's going to be a budget discussion that in my discussion with Lucas, it it's like he's going to say, "Well, we're going to just ask for 100,000 this year for that business side of things." And he says, "I think you'll like that, but the other thing I'm going to ask
for, I don't think you'll like that, and I don't know what that other thing is." Let's just say that if the ask is $200,000, but we're going to allocate it, you know, distribute it different ways. It doesn't what you do with it
hasn't change. It changed, but it doesn't change what happens to us when you're asking for $200,000. You know, that is this year, this past year, totally levy dependent. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. The ask is um 100,000 for the small business development grant
fund and 100,000 for um for lack of a better term opportunity fund. Will allowing the EDA allowing our director to um uh build a fund to try to work on larger
projects whether it's for leveraging for grant matches or just even investments to try to do something you know rather than just And then also the change in the business de he's going to he's also suggesting a
change in the business development fund grant to >> 50%. >> Anything less than five grand is just out and then I guess I haven't heard about that. >> Yeah, there is he wants it to be a match. >> But but I mean these are things they're
saying is does that does that make sense? But it still goes in the context of when we make a decision to subsidize child care. When we make a decision to subsidize give, you know, no interest, no payback
to businesses, that's a subjective decision. I don't know the criteria that defines it. And when it comes to us, we're just saying, well, how about, and this is interesting because in the meeting yesterday that we had more on the um
oh the language is the it's equal application through rule of the law or or um >> yeah, it equal protection clause. It's who are we protecting with the allocation of our dollars? equal
protection. Are we protecting one one entity uh be it you know business be it child care be it and then the taxpayer can come and say when when are you going to protect me and and
>> that's our job to communicate what our initiatives are doing right >> that's where we have to see the return on investment on that but when we see some of these allocations and people are just going are you kidding me >> I'm so yes I'm sorry I I just want to clarify that the equal protection clause
when it's invoked you're talk generally talking about protected classes. So the business decisions that the board makes is a different consideration and certainly a board services and protections for people but different from the realm of equality. I I understand that because because it's
application there, but those words in proximity when I heard them, I'm just saying we have an obligation for equal protection. Not in the context of it's how it's understood in the rule of law, but in principle relative to that it needs to be demonstrated that we are
mindful of our community as a whole and the ripple effect of our decisions. Are we protecting and are we mindful of need and the effects of our decisions on everybody? So I I I think that's why we're moving towards this process of
having the presentations from each one of the department so that that information is available to all of you >> so that we can have discussions about >> what are the mandates, what are the non-mandates, what how does that align with the values and the goals and the
strategic plan to make as as informed of a decision as possible going into 2027. I think we can leverage the budget and advisory committee um to review some of the the resources that we're developing as we move forward in this process to
get feedback and provide recommendations and information to all of you as well. Um so I think we're we're starting to move in the direction that you're requesting, but um I know you know this is going to be a process as we move forward too,
>> right? >> No, I agree. And my my comments aren't to discourage. My comments aren't to encourage that we we ratchet up and and that we have have the evidence and and the substance that demonstrates to community that they they are good
stewards and they are really chewing on this. So that's important. >> So this is the first step. We'll evaluate as we go along and tweak it and get an understanding from the departments and from the other areas. >> So >> that sounds good. >> Okay. Can I just say two more things
really quickly? And these are just um timing um timing discussions. Um we do have June 8th um uh kind of marked right now as a potential date for our courthouse visioning. And so for our two
commissioners, Commissioner White and Commissioner Sullivan, that were engaged in that effort, um, if you wouldn't mind marking that date on your calendar for now, and we'll get more information out to you soon. And then we're also looking at a date for the transfer station ribbon cutting. So, we're reaching out
to our JAMAMA is reaching out to our representatives to find a date that will work for them. And then we'll work with Dustin and all of you on finding a date for ribbon cutting. Okay, sounds good. I got to see it yesterday. It's huge. >> It is huge.
>> Yeah, it is. >> So, do you have do we have clarity on the hub um process? >> No. >> Yeah. Probably not. >> Well, if we say that not not if we say
that it's under PHS, then we don't want to overstep what they're doing. So the steps that they take would have to be relevant to their review. >> So they have a screening process and um
and then they bring a a recommendation forward to all of you >> and it's a very thorough process. I've participated in it. >> So at that time >> can we see what that process is? Yeah, absolutely. >> It's actually on the website. Um if you go to DHS it's right there.
But we can we I'll forward it to everyone. >> It to all of us. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, is that the >> Yeah. >> Do we have clarity now? Is that the answer? I'm just concerned because uh we're
reducing what that total grant um amount is the 150 >> and I know the hub's uh finances are you know struggling and so >> I'm not sure that this the structure is
right now other words where we choose to put that but I think that again would be that's the that's the overall evaluation >> I think it's helpful to review it and Brady mentioned, you know, statutoily what we can do. It might be good to look at the statute, >> right?
>> I think we can absolutely do that and then have further discussion. I think either way we can let the hub know that they're they're going to be in one of the two categories so they can start prepping their budget and we'll provide a presentation to either the PHS board
or advisory committee that reviews the applications or this board. Mhm. >> And and I think the important thing to communicate is is um that um we hear we hear I mean Commissioner
White brings it up, you know, continually. We hear and and I've had conversations with them and and uh uh we we want we want to hear, but we're not making any commitment. But uh on the other hand, we don't want
to write them off like we aren't here. >> And I I think we've talked to them about data and collecting information. I think maybe we could do a better job of asking them for very specific data, letting them know what might be helpful that
does align with our county goals and our strategic vision. And that's where we can do a better job. And that's why I think that the discussion relative to what it is we ask, if if we're going to be evidence-based, then that means here's the question that need to be
asked because in my my first term, it basically was like a community wanting the Super Bowl in their backyard. Whoever did the best show got the money. So, we need to have >> the criteria that PHS has set up is
very, very thorough. um when Grace was doing that um she just did an outstanding job and so I feel very comfortable with that process but again I think we can do a better job of saying what are the data points >> that we would like to see we have not
been specific >> and and that's honest that's the intent of this letter and in following up with all of the agencies to make sure that we're clear on what's the data that we're expecting them to bring forward making sure that it's the decisions then
are evidence-based based on their outcomes and how it connects to the strategic plan and and the county priorities. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And looking at it, you'll see it in front of you and decide if there's other things >> maybe for next year.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Take a step, make it the first step. >> Yeah. It's It won't be perfect this year, but we'll >> It's always a process. >> 50 years ago, they had probably Yeah, sure. That's all good here. Now we're not so able to do that anymore. So is
there anything else otherwise we are adjourned? >> Oh, I would just say that if uh if you want to go online and find out what the legislature did cover under the bonding bill. >> Mhm. >> Overall, it's an interesting study when
it comes to prioritizing where dollars would go. >> Would you like to see what they did? >> I did. Oh, >> there's a lot of Oh my gosh, there's a lot out there. >> Is that on Facebook? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.