Sangamon Citizens' Efficiency Commission discusses planned advisory referendums
At a recent meeting, the Sangamon County Citizens' Efficiency Commission discussed plans to put advisory referendums on the November ballot.
The Citizens’ Efficiency Commission (CEC) for Sangamon County is an independent advisory body with the purpose of improving local government effectiveness by identifying opportunities for improved cooperation, coordination and reduction of duplication of services among local governments in Sangamon County."
Below are the minutes from this meeting, as provided by the commission.
CITIZENS’ EFFICIENCY COMMISSION August 3, 2016
Citizens’ Efficiency Commissioners
Larry Bomke Jackie Newman Josh Collins Robert Plunk Kevin Dorsey J.D. Sudeth Karen Hasara Robert Wesley Mike Murphy
Daniel Cadigan Cliff Erwin Carol Kulik Brian McFadden, Sangamon County Administrator Norm Sims – SSCRPC Molly Berns – SSCRPC I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Mike Murphy called the meeting of the Citizens’ Efficiency Commission to order.
II. ROLL CALL AND APPROVAL OF ABSENCES
All commissioners were in attendance.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Murphy asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the July 13, 2016, regular meeting. Mr. Josh Collins moved to approve the minutes. Hon. Karen Hasara seconded the motion, and the minutes were approved.
IV. INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Murphy asked Hon. Hasara to introduce the guests. Hon. Hasara explained she had sent an email to the first CEC commissioners for help with getting the word about the referendums. Hon. Hasara introduced Daniel Cadigan, Cliff Erwin and Carol Kulik. Hon. Hasara also stated that Marilyn Kushak could not attend this meeting but said she would help.
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
Chair Murphy reported that he did one radio interview and spoke to Bernie Schoenberg, (SJ- R) about the referendums. No other reports.
VI. REPORT OF STATUS OF PROPOSED REFERENDUMS
A. Brian McFadden, County Administrator/CEC members.
Mr. Brian McFadden stated he wanted to give everyone an update. He stated that County Board has every intention with following through with the commitment of putting up to three advisory referendums on the ballot. What hasn’t been determined yet is which questions will go on and the process of how to choose those questions. Mr. McFadden handed out the agenda for the next Election Oversight Committee. This will be the first step in the process. There is also the possibility that the Finance Committee will weigh in on this as well. The full County Board meets on Tuesday, August 9, 2016 to make the final determination. Mr. McFadden explained that these are four questions that were placed in front of the committee. Some of the questions have been modified since he received the recommendations from the CEC’s July 13, 2016 meeting, but the concepts are similar. Mr. McFadden said that the County Board Chairman, Mr. Andy Van Meter and he had been meeting with County Board members. The meetings have resulted in some modifications to the language in the questions. The first question hasn’t changed at all. Mr. McFadden said his understanding with talking with Mr. Van Meter and his conversation with board members there was very little opposition to this question. There were a few collectors that are calling them. Mr. McFadden reported he talked with Rose Ruzic today who is on the County Board and represents the north end of town in Springfield Township. She is very close to township government and believes this question is a “no brainer”.
Mr. McFadden stated question number one is pretty self explanatory. Mr. Dan Cadigan asked Mr. McFadden, how the County Treasurer feels about question number one? Mr. McFadden stated that the County Treasurer, Mr. Tom Cavanagh, has had several conversations with the CEC commissioners and himself. Hon. Hasara stated that Sen. Larry Bomke and she spoke with Mr. Cavanagh after the July 13, 2016 CEC meeting to plan out a campaign. Hon. Hasara stated that Mr. Cavanagh was excited about the question. Sen. Bomke explained that Mr. Cavanagh had sent a letter out a couple of months ago to all the townships suggesting that they abolish the collector. Sen. Bomke stated that Mr. Cavanagh referred him to the Supervisor of Williams Township, Mr. Lee Miller. Sen. Bomke stated that he spoke with Mr. Miller and they were the first township not to fill the position and he would be happy to respond to media if there are any questions. Hon. Hasara stated that Mr. Cavanagh also said he would handle media questions. Mr. Cliff Erwin asked if the treasurer’s office was still able to cover the collector’s responsibilities without additional cost. Molly Berns stated Mr. Cavanagh told her last month there would be only a slight increase in postage. Mr. Collins asked if the Capital Township Collector has a different opinion than the County Treasurer. Mr. McFadden stated they are the same person. Mr. Cadigan asked Mr. McFadden when the ballots get printed. Mr. McFadden stated sometime mid-October but the questions have to be submitted to the County Clerk by August 22, 2016, which is the deadline for the County Board to submit questions for the ballot. Mr. McFadden stated that next County Board meeting is Tuesday, August 9, 2016. Mr. McFadden stated that the Mr. Cavanagh is “all in” and he thinks this (abolishing the collectors) is doing the right thing. Mr. McFadden stated he may ask if Mr. Cavanagh can be at the Election Oversight Committee meeting tomorrow night to answer questions.
Mr. McFadden stated question number two is the question that is drawing most of the attention to date. The wording is different from the wording that was submitted to the County Board from the CEC and was changed as effort to try to come up with something that people could live with. He is not sure at this point where the whole board is; we do have some board members who are a firm “no!” Mr. Van Meter is still reaching out trying to see where people are at. The Illinois Association of Fire Protection Districts (IAFPD), which Sangamon County is a member, plans to have someone at the meeting tomorrow night as well. Mr. McFadden stated he has had a couple phone conversations with the IAFPD Association Administrator, Ms. Cheri Breneman. Hon. Hasara asked if she was opposed. Mr. McFadden stated she did not really say, and by her own omission, she was not very well informed as to the effort here. Mr. McFadden tried to explain to her, but did not want to speak for the CEC, that he didn’t think the point was to try to create a law as much as it was to just get a sense to where the community was on these issues which is exactly what an advisory referendum is meant to do. Mr. McFadden stated he referred Ms. Breneman to the CEC’s website to look at the white papers because she wanted to know some more. He doesn’t know where this question will fall amongst all of them, but it is the one getting all the attention right now. Hon. Hasara asked if all of the questions would be discussed at the Election Oversight Committee meeting. Mr. McFadden agreed and stated what he doesn’t know if the purpose of the meeting tomorrow night will be just to discuss these four questions and move them on to the board and let the board decide which of the three of the four they want to do, or if the intent is to have the Election Oversight Committee make the recommendation which three. It is very fluid and there is a lot of misinformation out there which board members are hearing from Fire Chiefs and Fire Protection Districts. Question number two is the one getting the most attention.
Mr. Cadigan asked Mr. McFadden if the CEC has evidence that is going to improve the response time, and if the CEC does, how someone could argue against it. Mr. McFadden explained that the CEC commissioners could answer that better than he could, but he knows there was an extensive study done by the CEC about the possibility of response times being improved. Opponents say that study is flawed because the data is not good. There are people who will tell you that it will absolutely improve response times, and there are other people who will tell you that if you move to a regional model it will slow down response times. Sen. Bomke asked if it would not be misleading to have a question like that, if you are saying to improve response times when the CEC really doesn’t know them. Mr. McFadden agreed and said he did not write the question. Mr. Cadigan stated if we could prove that, it would probably be a slam dunk. Dr. Kevin Dorsey said if we can’t prove it then it could “scuttle” the question. Chair Murphy stated it was the first time that he has seen the changes in that question and it is a little different. Mr. McFadden said he thinks the change is a result of a committee process. Mr. McFadden stated Mr. Van Meter has talked directly to the board members, Mr. McFadden has had several board members call him, but Mr. Van Meter is the one who actively reaching out to them. Mr. McFadden said he would know more tomorrow. Mr. Collins asked if the intent of this question was to ask more of an aspirational question: should we keep the status quo or should we look for ways to organize our fire districts to improve response times instead of just maintaining based upon arbitrary lines that were built years ago? Mr. McFadden believes that it is aspirational. Mr. McFadden said it is something that should to be looked at, on the county’s part, and this issue needs to be addressed. Sen. Bomke asked if this is taking the place of question number two: Shall the Sangamon County Board have the authority to change the boundaries of fire protection districts with the approval of the voters? Sen. Bomke stated the CEC’s whole intent was to make it more efficient, we didn’t need these (pass through) fire districts and it seems like we are getting away from that with this new wording. Chair Murphy agreed and said he had a problem with the way question two reads and maybe the CEC was trying to do too much with our recommendations because the CEC had two different issues: 1) the (pass through) fire districts, which he feels we need to do something about because they are not providing any service; and, 2) by doing some redistricting it would take care of the lack of volunteers. In some areas the CEC feels like people would be better served if they had three or four communities serving that area as opposed to three individual fire districts who cannot get enough manpower to do proper service. Mr. Plunk agreed that the CEC was looking at efficiency, but just as important the CEC is concerned with the ability for some of these districts to continue because of the problems they are having with getting manpower. Chair Murphy stated that rather than some, he would say most. Mr. McFadden stated the two are related: manpower is what is causing slow enhanced response times and so on. Mr. Plunk stated Mutual Aid agreements provide for good back-up but it can also involve a delay because there are so many calls that go out before the mutual agreements kick in. Mr. Erwin asked that at the time wasn’t the CEC looking for some reduction in staff or consolidation, and could there be a reduction in personal thus reduction in cost? Chair Murphy stated he didn’t think the CEC was ever talking about reduction in staff on the fire districts. On the nine (pass through) fire districts the CEC was talking about the costs involved with having nine attorneys and nine accountants. As far as the districts, he doesn’t think the CEC ever talked about reduction of staff but encouraged as many staff as possible because they are mostly volunteers. Mr. Erwin asked what the regionalization meant as far as the CEC’s focus. Chair Murphy explained that instead of Divernon, Auburn, and Pawnee each having fire departments there would be a South Sangamon County Fire Department and it might be located centrally, for example at the truck stop right of I-55. It would service all three communities much better. Chair Murphy said he predicted that at 3:20 P.M. if someone had a problem in Divernon, first fire department to respond would either be Pawnee or Chatham. Mr. Sims stated that members may remember that one of the other issues discussed by opponents is that the CEC’s data is not good and that we have fire districts through those mutual aid agreements basically serving other fire districts that are under staffed. This means the taxpayers in the first district are subsidizing the second district. Chair Murphy stated Chatham is subsidizing all of south Sangamon County right now. Mr. Cadigan asked if they complain about it. Chair Murphy stated the residents don’t because there hasn’t been an issue yet in which they have not received service because Chatham was in Divernon on a call. Chair Murphy thinks the first time that happens there will some discussion but the fire department is not concerned now because they like to go on calls. Mr. Collins asked if the CEC actually knows that that has not happened. Chair Murphy clarified that if someone in Chatham has suffered because the fire department was on a call in Divernon, he does not know personally. Chair Murphy just knows that Chatham is in Divernon a lot. Mr. Plunk stated that Mr. McFadden had mentioned the IAFPD, and that he was encouraged because he knew Randy Burge of Sherman was initiating a local Sangamon County, or possibly a multi- county association,but he did not know how far it had gone. Mr. McFadden said he was not sure if they had formed, but he knew that there was a County Fire Chief’s Association that meets on a regular basis as do the police chiefs. Mr. McFadden noted that every time the CEC starts talking about township government, the townships all get together and form a group. If the CEC stops talking about it then they dissolve. Mr. McFadden stated that it (CEC) is keeping them on their toes. Mr. McFadden stated the original wording of question number two ran into some issues and he thinks this version is something to try to get people to be comfortable. The conversation he has had with Mr. Van Meter is that if the decision is to do two or three, three may make more sense because it goes to governance. Mr. McFadden stated really governance is a more important issue right now. Chair Murphy asked if Mr. Van Meter or the Election Oversight Committee would be open to discuss question two and maybe change some of these tomorrow, or is this something that came from the States Attorney’s Office and is it going to be this way or nothing? Mr. McFadden stated he doesn’t think it is going to be this way or nothing. The Chairman of the committee is Sam Snell from Auburn and Mr. Van Meter is still talking to board members. There are some board members that are advocating combining questions number two and three, but a little support might be lost from the public because of the confusion related to electing or merging. Mr. McFadden stated that he did talk with the State’s Attorney’s Office and there are no legal guidelines as to what three things we could put on the ballot. Mr. McFadden stated that the intent is to try to get as much clarity as possible on the issue. Chair Murphy asked if there was some possibility of some movement and discussion. Mr. McFadden stated that it is possible and he thinks that if someone from the fire protection districts attends, it will probably be a spirited discussion. Chair Murphy stated he is excited to listen to this person from the state to see if they have done this process in other places. Mr. McFadden agreed and stated that he had to believe that they are seeing it. He was told, and he knows the CEC were told when the study was done that what is happening here is not that usual in other places. Chair Murphy asked if fire departments don’t want some consolidation (he knows that is a terrible word to say) then what is their answer for five years down the road because things are not getting better? Mr. McFadden agreed and noted that he is not even sure of the accuracy of what they are airing out. They argue that these regional departments are less efficient in responding because everyone has to run to the truck stop instead of meeting at Divernon or Pawnee. The underlying argument that Mr. Van Meter and he have been asking people is: What is the harm of getting the public’s input on this? The initial question number two was not interpreted as reality only to (pass through) Fire Districts so there has been discussion about doing a separate (pass through) Fire Districts question. Mr. McFadden stated that he did not know how the City of Springfield voters would respond to that or if they would feel it was a problem or not. Chair Murphy stated the problem may be the CEC was trying to cover both issues with one question. Mr. McFadden stated that the first question was kind of a mix of things that were all thrown together. The State Attorney’s Office did weigh in and said there are three or four things going on here. Their advice was to focus on the questions. Mr. Cadigan asked if question number 2 remains like that, will they ask: “what are the new regions?” Sen. Larry Bomke stated this is just simply an advisory referendum. If it came down to an actual referendum there would have to be additional studies done and be able to prove the argument. Mr. Plunk stated that the CEC document did speak to regional organization but tempered that with an alternative to what the CEC suggested as the four quadrants, a joining of some districts and especially with the (pass through) Fire Districts. Mr. Plunk thinks the CEC was looking at combining all of them or maybe a few as an alternative. Mr. Sims stated that the recommendation the CEC made was not necessarily to say there should be four quadrants and four of these districts. It was illustrative to show that there needs to be a plan in place and to look at where there should be combinations of districts that make more sense than what we have now. Mr. McFadden stated that there was another question that was talked about: if they should ask for another study, but it was decided that if the CEC has done a study why do we need another study? The goal of these questions is two-fold in his mind: 1) is to get the pulse of where the community is at and 2) is to generate a debate on something. So even if this question isn’t clear on what the regions are, it forces people to talk about possibly regionalizing. Chair Murphy stated that even though he is not really happy about this, he wouldn’t mind seeing it in on there because people might say “we need to look at that”. Like the CEC has discussed many times, most people don’t realize there is a problem until they personally deal with it and then it could be tragic. Mr. McFadden stated hopefully by 5:30 P.M. tomorrow he will know more.
Mr. McFadden stated question number three is the one that he referred to already about the elected rather than the appointed. Nobody on the board seems to have a huge problem with this one that he is aware of, or that Mr. Van Meter conveyed to him. Mr. McFadden stated that when he talked to the IAFPD, they didn’t seem to have a big problem with this either, but again she didn’t say. She kept saying “we know you are a member of our association.” We just joined and the paranoia is that we just joined to influence this but we didn’t. It was a fluke that we joined at the same time. Dr. Dorsey stated on the surface this looks like a “no brainer” but what is the answer to the question “why?” Sen. Larry Bomke explained that it is because these boards do not have to answer to anybody directly. Hon. Hasara stated she is on the Springfield Mass Transit Board and she is appointed and they do spend a lot of money. Mr. McFadden stated that he had spoken to someone who was unhappy with question number three, and they asked why we don’t elect the Springfield Mass Transit Board? His answer was state statue particularly provides a mechanism to elect fire protection district trustees but it doesn’t for Springfield Mass Transit Board or for the Sanitary District. The interest of the board is accountability because they are now appointed by the County Board. Many County Board members scramble to find people that want to serve on these. Now opponents use that argument against us, and say that they won’t find people to run for it either. Mr. Cadigan stated that he assumed these positions are unpaid. Chair Murphy stated trustees who are not trained receive $1,000 a year, and if the trustee gets additional training he receives $1,500 a year. Mr. Sims stated that this all grew out of the meeting that the CEC had with Fire Chiefs who said that their trustees were insufficient, and the reason why the trustees were not good was because the County Board had not appointed the right people. So in this case the County Board would not be appointing the trustees, the people would be electing them. Mr. Collins asked if we do question number two, do we really want more elected officials to deal with when we talk about combining districts? Hon. Hasara replied as a matter of public policy we do. Chair Murphy said he thought the CEC did, and he thinks it would be refreshing. Right now we have the same people who have been fire district trustees for fifty years, and it doesn’t leave the family. Mr. Sims stated he thinks the matter of public policy makes sense. If you do question number 2 in the original language it was putting it in the hands of the County Board to make those determinations so that it takes it out of the hands local votes. In this case it puts trustees back in the hands of local voters. Chair Murphy stated it would be provide good checks and balances. Ms. Carol Kulik asked what do the trustees do? Mr. McFadden stated they are the administrative board, they approve the budget, they appoint the fire chief, they discipline the fire fighters, and they buy the equipment. Sen. Larry Bomke stated the (pass through) Fire Districts don’t do much of anything but pass the budget. Chair Murphy stated they pass the budget which would set the tax levy; this is the main function that affects the taxpayers. Mr. Cadigan asked how many trustees per district? Mr. McFadden stated some have five but most have three, and not all are appointed by the County Board. There are elected trustees now in Rochester, Riverton and couple of others have chosen to be elected. Chair Murphy explained if the district lies totally within one township, the supervisor appoints them. Mr. Plunk stated that he understands that in the case of Island Grove and New Berlin those are appointed by those townships and he understand that Leland Grove’s village board actually appoints.
Mr. McFadden stated that the feeling was that an easier argument can be made that the overwhelming majority are appointed by the County Board, so give those the authority to be elected. The ones that are already elected don’t care and the ones that are appointed by the townships, you are going to stir up the township folks so focus on these initially. Chair Murphy stated he thinks it is cleaner this way because it is coming from the County Board to stay away from the township. Mr. McFadden stated he has learned over the years, and often working it with the Hon. Hasara, you want to get the momentum going. Once you get it’s going it hard to stop. So all of a sudden if all of these currently appointed by the County Board are elected, it is going to be hard to justify the ones to still be appointed by the township.
Mr. McFadden stated question number four did not officially come through with the recommendations, but he has spoken with a couple of CEC board members about this. The concern came about that if one of three doesn’t have the support of the County Board, and we still want to do three, and what would make most sense. Mr. Sims, Ms. Berns and I spoke, and I had a chance to talk to Hon. Hasara, Mr. Wesley and a few others who thought this question about the Regional Leadership Council, (RLC) would be a good one. Mr. McFadden stated that in his opinion, the RLC has been one of the great successes of the CEC. He attends all their meetings. They are struggling a little bit because they are a volunteer organization that is run by a couple of mayors who are already busy and swamped as it is. The county has been asked to provide staff and other support for the RLC. He doesn’t think the county has any problem doing that. As a matter of fact he thinks it already said yes. They feel it would not hurt to get the public stamp of approval, and also get some information out there about the RLC. He said when he spoke with Mayor Brian Cuffle of Spaulding and Mayor Mike Lopez of Jerome, they had concerns RLC attendance, because not everyone is going and the City of Springfield is not attending. Maybe this would draw some attention to it, and create some momentum for them to participate. Mr. Cadigan asked if Bernie Schoenberg will ask how much it will cost? Mr. McFadden stated they put the words in there “existing resources, existing funds.” Mr. Cadigan asked if it would be about $50,000? Mr. McFadden stated less than $50,000, and it is really part of one of Mr. Sims staff member’s time, stationary or supplies, and a meeting room. He thinks they are really need someone to do what Amy Uden was doing: coordinating meetings and making phone calls. Mr. McFadden stated if it gets really serious, like one of the things that has been discussed is going together and buying some law enforcement equipment, then the staff member at the County Sherriff’s office could do this because that is part of his daily job. The mayors have already met with the County Highway Department about the salt for the roads. Whenever everyone was scrambling to buy salt the county bought it and sold it to the villages, as well with the sign purchases. That is the vision. It wouldn’t be a specific person staffing the RLC; it is like giving a stance we are here to support the RLC. If they need help we will help them. Dr. Dorsey stated it feels like motherhood and apple pie. Mr. McFadden stated he envisions, whether it is through the organized effort the CEC was talking about putting together or just the newspaper and other media asking about these, to get some publicity for the RLC and maybe some people feel like they should participate, particularly the City. The City could help out the same way the County. Dr. Dorsey asked: for whatever winds up being on the ballot who determines the order in which the items are placed. Mr. McFadden stated the order would be how the County Board submits them to the clerk. The referendums are close to the bottom of the ballot. Mr. McFadden stated there will be a lot of questions on the ballot. He has already heard complaints from Don Gray because he thinks this is going to push him into printing another side. The state has a couple of referendums and the villages have got a couple things on the agenda.
Chair Murphy asked if Mr. McFadden would like the CEC to be there tomorrow? Mr. McFadden stated he will know more tomorrow whether the option is going to be send all (referendums), just have a discussion on the floor, and send them all to the County Board, or pick three. Either way, the CEC’s involvement would be helpful. Hon. Hasara asked who was on that committee. Mr. McFadden stated it was on line, but some members are Sam Snell, Tom Madonia, Jr., Catie Sheehan, Joel Tjelmeland, and Annette Fulgenzi. It is one of the bigger committees with 9 or 10 people. He said it will be in the County Board Conference Room in the County Board Office and there will be someone there from the County Clerk’s office to address questions or present information on how it is handled. Dr. Dorsey asked if there is an easy question that comes first then he thinks people get in a rhythm of saying “yes, yes, yes”. If it starts out with a contentious one, the other ones may fail. Mr. McFadden agreed.
Hon. Hasara noted she wanted to give an update about the meeting that Sen. Larry Bomke and she had with Mr. McFadden. They had met with Mr. Cavanagh after the CEC meeting and Sen. Bomke followed up with Mr. Van Meter and asked Mr. Sudeth to talk with the Farm Bureau and he assumed Mr. McFadden got a report back. Mr. McFadden said that Mr. Van Meter told him that the Farm Bureau approved putting them on the ballot. They made it clear not to read into it that the Farm Bureau supported the questions. The County Board thought their response was helpful because it underlies the argument to put them on the ballot see what people have to say. Hon. Hasara asked if they would say that in public. Mr. McFadden stated they had at the Governmental Affairs Committee meeting.
B. Discussion of Talking Points and Upcoming Public Meetings
Since the next CEC meeting is not until September 14th, the commissioners agreed that they should have four simple key points to share with the citizens about the referendums. The commissioners will submit four talking points on each referendum that they feel are of great importance to Molly, Friday morning, so she is able to rank them and disperse them back to the commissioners.
VII. DISCUSSION OF TASKFORCE WORK PLANS
A. Regional Leadership Council as Strategic Partner - Higher Ed Institutions as
Strategic Partner – Robert Plunk & Jackie Newman
Mr. Plunk reported that the RLC mayors meet July 27th, in the County Board Chamber. There were 11 villages and Sangamon County in attendance. The Mayor of Dawson, Jeremy Nunes announced a Water Operation continuing education class that Dawson is offering to other communities. Mayor Cuffle talked to Mark Pruitt about electric aggregation and it does not seem to be feasible to enter into a contract at this time. Mayor Cuffle stated that the development of the website for RLC has been suspended. The signage contract has been awarded, signs have been ordered and the contractor will be contacting the villages about putting their signs up. Mr. Norm Sims discussed several different items of which one was the economic revitalization through Brownfield’s. Mr. Sims explained the Brownfield’s Workshop is free on August 31, 2016 at Illinois National Bank Conference Center, 431 South 4th Street; pre-registration is needed by the 30th. Mr. Sims spoke about a grant available to the rural communities for transportation planning. Mr. Sims stated this was the first recommendation from the CEC, but the other part to this was to have people from different technical areas meet with the RLC and discuss these particular things and that did not happen so they are not getting that input.
Mr. Sims discussed the concerns of the decline in property tax revenue and the trends reducing property values. Mr. Sims said there are more people leaving than coming in, and the ones that are coming in are making 17.5% less than the people leaving. Mr. Sims stated that in the next 10 years the number of people in the county that will be eligible for one of the two Senior Citizen Homestead Exemptions is one third of the population, and the number increases to twice that many in the next five years after that because of the baby boomers. Mr. Sims stated the concern for attendance is that the larger communities do not participate.
B. Sewer Transfer Study – Dr. Kevin Dorsey & Chair Murphy
No report given.
C. Developing Legislative Linkages - Hon. Karen Hasara & Sen. Larry Bomke
See discussion under Section VI. Report of Status of Proposed Referendums.
D. Developing Linkages with Townships - J.D. Sudeth & Chair Murphy
See discussion under Section VI. Report of Status of Proposed Referendums.
E. Developing Linkages with Fire/EMS – Robert Plunk & Robert Wesley
No report given.
F. Create Network of Business Leaders - J.D. Sudeth & Josh Collins
No report given.
G. Regional Policing Study – Hon. Karen Hasara & Sen. Larry Bomke
No report given.
VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. Next Meeting Date – September 14, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
X. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
Chair Mike Murphy asked if there were any further comments. There being none, he called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Collins motioned to adjourn. Mr. Plunk seconded the motion. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Gail Weiskopf Acting as Recording Secretary
Organizations in this Story