The County Clerk's YouTube channel has the various County Board and committee meeting videos up for the month of February:
- Facilities Committee 2/4: Video, agenda packet and Cheat Sheet post here.
- Environmental and Land Use Committee 2/6: Video and agenda packet.
- County Board Committee of the Whole 2/11: Video, agenda packet and Cheat Sheet post here.
- Regular County Board Meeting 2/20: Video and agenda packet.
There's also a video of one of the County Board of Review meetings (video here, agenda here) for anyone interested in seeing that board in action, though for an unusual circumstance. In this meeting they're looking at the charitable organization exemption for local hospitals in light of a recent ruling (more on that at this recent Cheat Sheet post here). The Board of Review's normal duties are explained on their web page here. Excerpt:
There was an earlier Cheat Sheet post on the February Committee of the Whole meeting here.
The February 20th regular County Board meeting was a culmination of earlier work and discussions in the Environment and Land Use Committee on Solar farm regulations changes. Two versions of the revised regulations similarly addressed concerns about timing and the ability of localities to have sufficient notification and ability to respond to possible solar farm projects near their communities. They differed on how far outside their municipal borders and into unincorporated County jurisdiction that the balance of County versus local concerns was weighed in the process.
In both the ELUC committee and the regular County Board meeting, the issue came down to a 1.5 mile versus a half mile where the nearby municipality had greater influence on weather the solar farm would be placed there. Municipal concerns included future expansion and growth, which over the 20+ years of some solar farms could be highly unpredictable. The Mayor of St. Joseph attended both meetings (she had a five minute overview in the regular meeting here, but she spoke at length to the ELUC here) and explained those concerns in detail. There were also letters and input by proxy by other towns and villages in the County.
Another concern raised by some Democrats on the board was representation, since the unincorporated areas can't vote for the representatives in those nearby municipalities, the County has a role in representing and prioritizing their interests. Some of the nuance included whether a municipality had a Continuous Urban Growth Area (CUGA) that would give additional consideration to planned future growth. There's a wonky explanation here. Excerpt:
Localities would still have the ability to protest and make their case against developments they don't want, but depending on the distance they'd essentially have more leverage closer to their borders than other areas.
In the end the Democrats passed the version that weighed the County's interest more up to the half-mile of the municipality. Republicans, Chairman Giraldo Rosales and Connie Dillard-Myers appeared to join the Republicans in wanting to weigh the municipal interests more out to 1.5 miles out.
Other Issues:
The jail consolidation plans were discussed at length in the Facilities committee meeting (at the 11 minute mark in the video). For activists concerned about consolidation plans and what the hurdles and pressures specifically are, the full discussion is nearly an hour long, but addresses a lot of critical questions and issues.
The meeting documents included a letter from the Sheriff explaining some of his response to potential reform impacts on future jail populations raised by criminal justice reform activists including State Representative Carol Ammons (Cheat Sheet post including video link for recent panel event here). That full letter is here. While backing reforms in future possible legislation, he highlights the urgency of the current situation under current law, especially in the downtown jail:
At the regular County Board meeting the public participation also included advocates for criminal justice reforms to avoid adding overall bed space to the satellite jail that could create systemic and budget pressures to fill.The Board of Review reviews property tax assessments in the County. Three (3) members are appointed by the County Board after passing an exam administered by the State of Illinois. The Board of Review meets each June to select a Chair and Secretary and to formulate and publish rules and regulations for that year's session...More information, including more meeting documents here. I don't entirely understand the Board of Review yet, so that'll almost certainly be a future Cheat Sheet post. I'm especially curious where more current minutes are kept and if they're more detailed than older ones I've found, like this annual one from 2015.
Other duties of the Board of Review include the following: intra-County equalization of property values, representing the County in all State of Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board proceedings, adding omitted properties to the tax rolls, acting on exemption requests and performing sales ratio studies.
There was an earlier Cheat Sheet post on the February Committee of the Whole meeting here.
The February 20th regular County Board meeting was a culmination of earlier work and discussions in the Environment and Land Use Committee on Solar farm regulations changes. Two versions of the revised regulations similarly addressed concerns about timing and the ability of localities to have sufficient notification and ability to respond to possible solar farm projects near their communities. They differed on how far outside their municipal borders and into unincorporated County jurisdiction that the balance of County versus local concerns was weighed in the process.
In both the ELUC committee and the regular County Board meeting, the issue came down to a 1.5 mile versus a half mile where the nearby municipality had greater influence on weather the solar farm would be placed there. Municipal concerns included future expansion and growth, which over the 20+ years of some solar farms could be highly unpredictable. The Mayor of St. Joseph attended both meetings (she had a five minute overview in the regular meeting here, but she spoke at length to the ELUC here) and explained those concerns in detail. There were also letters and input by proxy by other towns and villages in the County.
Another concern raised by some Democrats on the board was representation, since the unincorporated areas can't vote for the representatives in those nearby municipalities, the County has a role in representing and prioritizing their interests. Some of the nuance included whether a municipality had a Continuous Urban Growth Area (CUGA) that would give additional consideration to planned future growth. There's a wonky explanation here. Excerpt:
CUGA represents areas with multiple planning jurisdictions that are destined for urban type land uses. Area inclusion within a CUGA is largely dependent on physical feasibility and established planning for expanding sanitary sewer service. CUGA is defined as unincorporated land within the County that meets one of the following criteria:The nuance gets even more complicated since we're mainly talking about the default process for solar farm approval. Exemptions can still be made by the County Board, but these bills differed in what distances and situations exemptions would be made versus a more straightforward approval process.
- Land designated for urban land use on the future land use map of an adopted municipal comprehensive land use plan, intergovernmental plan or special area plan, and located within the service area of a public sanitary sewer system with existing sewer service or sewer service planned to be available in the near- to mid-term (over a period of the next five years or so).
- Land to be annexed by a municipality and located within the service area of a public sanitary sewer system with existing sewer service or sewer service planned to be available in the near- to mid-term (over a period of the next five years or so); or
- Land surrounded by incorporated land or other urban land within the County
Localities would still have the ability to protest and make their case against developments they don't want, but depending on the distance they'd essentially have more leverage closer to their borders than other areas.
In the end the Democrats passed the version that weighed the County's interest more up to the half-mile of the municipality. Republicans, Chairman Giraldo Rosales and Connie Dillard-Myers appeared to join the Republicans in wanting to weigh the municipal interests more out to 1.5 miles out.
Other Issues:
The jail consolidation plans were discussed at length in the Facilities committee meeting (at the 11 minute mark in the video). For activists concerned about consolidation plans and what the hurdles and pressures specifically are, the full discussion is nearly an hour long, but addresses a lot of critical questions and issues.
The meeting documents included a letter from the Sheriff explaining some of his response to potential reform impacts on future jail populations raised by criminal justice reform activists including State Representative Carol Ammons (Cheat Sheet post including video link for recent panel event here). That full letter is here. While backing reforms in future possible legislation, he highlights the urgency of the current situation under current law, especially in the downtown jail:
A concern raised by Member Goss at the COW about the County Clerk's polling place location in his district was answered and explained it appeared to everyone's satisfaction to avoid another move and the costs of reissuing new registration ID cards.
Towards the end in New Business, Member Fortado uged expediting the selection of a replacement Treasurer. There appears to have been an expectation by some for a decision sooner rather than later. She expressed disappointment it hadn't been brought to resolution at this meeting. (the YouTube video is cut off, but the streaming buffer link still has it at the 1:42:33 mark here).
The meeting ended in closed session to discuss litigation issues, which I believe was related to the property tax ruling given the news that emerged from the Board of Review afterward in support of an appeal decision. More on that here. One issue that was raised before the Board went into closed session was the timing on the agenda. It had apparently been placed at the beginning of the meeting as lawyers were waiting and possibly billing waiting for it at the end. I couldn't tell if that was just a possible concern or a definite cost issue at the time. The discussion happened at the 1:44 mark on the video (cut off on the YouTube channel, but still available on the streaming buffer here).
No comments:
Post a Comment