Mr. Steimel opened by noting that Mr. Gary Hanson would represent Ms. Karen Grush from the Health Department who could not attend the meeting. Mr. Miller then began with a review of his budget proposal noting that it had been reviewed by Mr. Hanson and Mr. Bockman and they had no objections. He noted that the overall budget showed only an increase of 2.2% for commodities and services, once adjusted to remove mileage and copy charges for the Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Steimel noted that the permit fees are somewhat down from their projected levels. Mr. Miller commented that but that permit fees are a very mutable figure and making projections annually was a very speculative process.

Mr. Simonson then commented that he would like make a motion to ask the Planning and Zoning Director develop a program with a $35,000 budget that would be devoted to activities which would encourage the saving of farmland. He felt this was necessary to offset the impact of $35,000 which is budgeted to the Economic Development Corporation. He went on to add several comments regarding the negative impacts development has had on the County with respect to the tax structure.

Mrs. Dubin commented that she agreed with some of Mr. Simonson’s comments and that she too had concerns regarding workforce traveling out of the County for employment and the transportation problems that are created.

Mr. Hanson then reviewed the budget of the Health Department noting the apportionment of support received from tax revenues, levies and other sources. He noted that the Home Health component is a self supporting business and does not receive assistance for FICA nor IMRF contributions. He added that Ms. Grush had some concerns regarding the funding level of the FICA/IMRF component and the fact that the County has begun a trend of not fully reimbursing the actual expenses in that line item. Mr. Steimel asked about a $180,000 special project item for Home Care. Mr. Hanson explained that this was a project designed to get laptops into the hands of field personnel. The intention is to eliminate the need for the field personnel to bring their notes back to the office and then have them transcribed by a third party for record entry. This should significantly save staff time and resources.

Mr. Steimel then asked about a 19% increase for Home Care Physical Therapy and Speech Therapy. Mr. Hanson explained that this was a rapidly growing field and the therapists were in great demand. He then noted that there was Federal and other reimbursement for these expenses. Mr. Steimel asked if the Home Care service was breaking even and Mr. Hanson noted that it was currently showing a small profit. However, he cautioned than any change in the Federal reimbursement schedule could easily change that. Mrs. Allen commented that she supported any help to the Nursing Home on paperwork issues.

From the audience, Mr. Wiegand asked if the line item for this assistance would be subject to bid or if there is already a selected provider. Mr. Hanson indicated that it was his belief it would be bid out and likely as a software and a hardware component.

Mr. Hanson closed by noting that there is also a $15,000 item to fund the Soil and Water Conservation funding. He commented that this might help address Mr. Simonson’s concerns regarding funding allocated to save and preserve farmland.

Mr. Miller opened by reviewing the work of the Regional Planning Commission, Land Vision Inc. and County staff on the Unified Comprehensive Plan project to date. He then presented a Future Land Use Plan reflecting the work of each of the municipalities incorporated into a county-wide map. He commented that the process undertaken by the County had been intended to provide the municipalities the funding and opportunity to update their comprehensive plans in a coordinated manner. This should, he continued, result in a more unified front when dealing with developers and development issues in the future. He noted that several communities were near completion with the process with Sycamore and Kirkland fully completed. All of the other municipalities are scheduled for completion dates, with the exception of the City of DeKalb. He closed by noting that when the overall process moves to formal adoption by the County, it would reinforce the stance that there would be no development in unincorporated DeKalb County.

Mr. Miller noted that the Information Management Office (IMO) of the County has done extensive work on mapping the comprehensive plans, existing land use plans and transportation plans and made them available through the County website. He commended Mrs. Berkes-Hanson and Ms. Minogue on the work they have devoted to the project.

At this point, Mr. Miller had the IMO staff demonstrate what was on the GIS system and began with an example of the Cortland plan. He noted that while the Cortland growth seemed extreme, it represented a principle that many of the communities adopted of presenting an ultimate build-out scheme.

Mr. Hanlon, from Land Vision, commented that there was a very strong educational process that made it clear as they filled in their mile-and-a-half jurisdictions that agricultural use was a viable choice. Subsequently, several communities do show a substantial portion of their boundaries as remaining in agricultural use. Mrs. Dubin asked what sort of time frame the plans represented. Mr. Miller responded that calling this a 50-year plan would be reasonable. He went on to point out that the plans showed other interesting points, such as that the communities wish the growth to occur from the current edges of the communities outward rather than occurring on the fringes first. He closed by noting that it also demonstrated that the communities do not aspire to be Naperville or Aurora-like. Mr. Hanlon commented that this principle was supported by the stance of many communities to not even place proposals which are not contiguous to the cities in front of their Plan Commissions. He added that Sycamore was a good example of the control of the timing of build- out via annexation. Mr. Steimel asked if the Cortland plan reflected the recent discussions on population increases and sewer expansions. Mr. Miller replied that he was not sure if they were.

Mr. Simonson asked if the communities were going forward with these plans without impact fees. Mr. Miller noted that Cortland had recently adopted impact fees. Mr. Simonson noted that Genoa had adopted what he considered rational impact fees.

Returning to the plans overall, Mr. Miller commented that many of the municipalities had adopted very clear boundaries and many utilized the Kishwaukee River as a growth boundary.

Mr. Simonson commented that he wondered about the County role in preventing developers from evading impact fees by placing large tracts under contract before the fees are established. Mr. Miller noted that the real question for the County Board is what role can be played with respect to the development of the municipalities. He commented that the County has done and continues to do more than many counties in the State with respect to cooperating and coordinating with the individual municipalities and through the work of the Regional Planning Commission. These efforts have kept dialogue open and keeps the County in the loop when discussing development. He noted that keeping that line of communication open is critical to keeping a County role in managing overall growth.

Mr. Miller then presented a comparison of the 2000 Future Land Use Map vs. the current proposal. He commented that the new map showed updates on all the communities except for Maple Park (who have not shared their Comprehensive Plan information) and DeKalb ( who is still reconciling their Comprehensive Plan and the recent Growth Summit).

Mr. Miller noted that this item was brought to the Committee asking for authority to proceed to a public hearing on October 30, 2003 which will finalize the County Plan endorsing what has been done in the municipalities. The item could then be returned to the Planning and Regulations Committee in November and passed to the County Board for its December meeting. He noted that there would be a concurrent round of intergovernmental agreements surrounding the Plan approval.

Mrs. Dubin asked if there was anything controversial that arose during the Regional Planning Commission meetings? Mr. Miller noted that the recent issues between Somonauk and Sandwich were momentarily problematic, but the issues were resolved to a degree. Mrs. Dubin went on to ask if the municipalities had planned for sufficient industrial growth. Mr. Miller and Mr. Hanlon echoed statements that the communities had actually been overly ambitious in the amount of industrial growth shown as anticipated. Mr. Simonson commented that with so many manufacturers taking operations out of the Country, it would be interesting to see what sorts of industrial uses the municipalities were anticipating.

Mr. Miller asked if there were any questions regarding the text of the Comprehensive Plan presented. Mr. Steimel asked if there had been an update of the IDOT traffic counts. It appeared that the most recent counts were from 1997. Mr. Miller responded that there were not more recent, official figures at this time.

Mr. Steimel commented that if all of the growth shown as anticipated on the Plans were to materialize, the population of the County (currently around 80,000) would increase by 123,000 individuals. However, this underlined the fact that this plan is very far reaching and unlikely to occur in a short period of time. He went on the add that the value of a Plan like this is to set rational and mutually agreed upon limits for growth. Mr. Miller noted that this will be extremely valuable in dealing with developers who may approach the County not expecting this level of mutual cooperation.

Mr. Wiegand from the audience asked if the Plan were directed to proceed to public hearing, could the exact acreage or square miles represented by the various colored areas of the map. Mr. Miller and the IMO staff indicated this could easily be done. Mr. Wiegand then asked if the success of the Future Land Use Map development eliminated the purchase of development rights proposal Mr. Miller had previously discussed. Mr. Miller responded that the concept of obtaining permanent conservation easements is still viable and an effective tool to assist in supporting the ultimate Plan and to work to preserve agricultural land. He closed by noting that the most logical places for the County to concentrate these efforts would be Paw Paw, Victor or South Grove Townships where development pressure is not currently occurring. Mr. Wiegand then asked about the unincorporated areas of the County where many of the homes and businesses are considered "non-conforming". He asked for comment on the ability of these areas to be allowed to renew or grow marginally their current uses to avoid their eventual death or stagnation. Mr. Miller noted that the Plan does not encourage growth and new development in the unincorporated areas of the County. However, the areas referred to by Mr. Wiegand could potentially replace and even slightly grow within the current regulations governing non-conforming properties. He closed by noting that many of these small areas do not contain the necessary infrastructures to support any kind of sizable growth. Mr. Wiegand closed by asking if there had been attention to redevelopment of existing land and structures. Mr. Hanlon commented that several municipalities had focused efforts to redevelop existing down towns and industrial areas.

Mr. Milburg from the Farm Bureau commented that his only concern was that a public hearing scheduled for October 30 could prove difficult for local farmers to attend. Mr. Miller acknowledged that concern and noted that it might be relieved by the fact that this hearing really only represents an endorsement of those Plans which will have already had individual hearings in their communities. He added that the motion to approve setting a hearing does not require a date to be specified.

Mr. Steimel began by noting that this item had been requested be placed on the agenda by Mr. Sands. Mr. Sands commented that a project of the scope reported by the local news media would completely blow apart sections of the proposed Comprehensive Plans. He acknowledged that while there is very little firm detail known at this time, it is still vital for discussions to be held. He noted that he recently met with Ray Bockman, DeKalb County Administrator, and Ron Matekitis, DeKalb County State’s Attorney, and they had jointly agreed to send a letter to Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert and Governor Blagojevich requesting that the County be given a role in any discussions regarding the disbursement of land to the identified Indian tribe. He went on to add that they had also begun a coordination of a letter writing campaign from other local entities.

By way of background, Mr. Sands commented that the issue revolves around word that a tribe of Native American Indians, the Prairie Band Potawatomi, who are interested in opening discussions to recover a considerable area of land in the Shabbona area. The land had been given to the tribe in a Treaty and the tribe appears to be interested in recovering the land for a casino and resort area.

Mr. Sands noted that he had also had conversations with John Countryman, one of the tribe’s designated representatives. In those conversations, he had received assurances that the tribe was not interested in displacing existing home or property owners, nor the State Park and Forest Preserve. He further noted that this is, of course, dependent on where the case is ultimately resolved by the State or following discussions with the Federal Government.

Mrs. Dubin asked if there would be public hearings if the land were to be returned. Mr. Sands assumed there would. Mr. Sands noted that there were extensive rumors about what exactly may be built and that’s why they felt it was important to have these conversations now. He commented that there were many aspects to the situation that the County needed to consider. One area of concern would be having sufficient water supplies to support a casino and resort, as well as road issues, housing for employees and fire and police protection. Mr. Miller noted that a project of this scope could also cause transportation issues to accelerate.

Mr. Miller commented that he had been looking into the question of what role a County can play when faced with a Native American Tribe seeking treaty considerations. At this point, he noted that his research concludes that there is not much of a role at all for Counties. The advice he had received from other State’s who have faced the question was essentially that the County must try for a seat at the table when the Governor’s Office is negotiating the gaming license. This is the only place and time to have meaningful input into the process. Mr. Steimel asked if there were any restraints to Indian facilities. Mr. Miller replied that there are rules and regulations, but they are Federal and State rather than local. He cautioned that the State may approve deals that do not require adherence to local rules and regulations.

Mr. Sands reiterated that he had received assurances that the Tribe wished to handle the process as openly and above board as possible. Mrs. Dubin asked what would occur if the Governor’s Office could not reach agreement. Mr. Miller commented that the issue would pass to the Federal level for conclusion. Mr. Steimel asked if it might be possible that the Tribe would negotiate for lands outside the identified Treaty area. Mr. Miller responded that was one possibility, to trade some other site for the Shabbona area lands. Mrs. Dubin asked if there were any idea who might be brought into run a casino and how successful did they really consider they could be at getting people to come to Shabbona. Mr. Sands responded that the Tribe had built a highly successful casino operation operated by Harrah’s in Topeka, Kansas in a very remote area. This area is now identified as the second most popular tourist spot in the State. Mr. Sands then distributed an article from an area newspaper that gave some additional background on the issue and Mr. Miller noted that the Prairie Band Potawatomi had a very informative website. Mr. Steimel noted that there are often situations where the Casino profits are not directed to operations and projects for the good of the Tribe. Mr. Sands cautioned that such concerns do not seem to apply to the Potawatomi. Mr. Simonson closed discussions by recommending that if a representative from the County is identified, that it should be Mr. Sands, owing to his good relationships in the areas in question.

Mr. Steimel noted that due to the fact that the November and December regular meeting dates fall on the day before Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve, the Committee needed to discuss alternate dates. It was recommended that the November date be moved to Monday, November 24, 2003 and that the December meeting be moved to Monday, December 22, 2003. Mr. Miller will check on room availability or any conflicts with any other regularly scheduled meetings. The Committee members will reserve those dates barring any discovery of a room difficulty or conflict.