Kane County Board Met April 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Adjourned Meeting of the Kane County Board was held at the Kane County Government Center, 719 S. Batavia Ave., Bldg. A, Geneva, IL 60134.
Chairman Pierog called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL
| Attendee Name | Organization | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Corinne M. Pierog | Kane County | Chairman | Present | |
| Deborah Allan | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Mavis Bates | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Dale Berman | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | 3:56 PM |
| David Brown | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Mark Davoust | Kane County | Board Member | Absent | |
| Ron Ford | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Drew Frasz | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Michelle Gumz | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Mo Iqbal | Kane County | Board Member | Absent | |
| Michael Kenyon | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Chris Kious | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Tom Koppie | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Bill Lenert | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Anita Lewis | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| John Martin | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Myrna Molina | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Jarett Sanchez | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Kenneth C. Shepro | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Monica Silva | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Cherryl Strathmann | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Clifford Surges | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Vern Tepe | Kane County | Board Member | Present | |
| Steve Weber | Kane County | Board Member | Remote | |
| Barbara Wojnicki | Kane County | Board Member | Present |
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Buildings & Facilities Director Chris Allen led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT (Agenda & Non-Agenda Items)
Chairwoman Pierog opened the meeting to public comment. No comment was received.
5. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. PRESENTATIONS/DISCUSSION
· Introduction to Reapportionment 2021
Chairwoman Pierog discussed the importance of the apportionment that would be taking place in the near future. It meant the board will:
1) decide if it wants to increase or decrease the size of the board (currently 24 members);
2) decide if it wants a two- member district (or more) board and whether members want to be elected at-large or by cumulative vote;
3) need to determine the redistricting (drawing) of the maps which must meet certain criteria (details followed);
4) need to determine the compensation for the board members before the November 2022 election. If no change in compensation takes place the board must set the compensation in 180 days before the November 2022 election; and
5) have to determine the terms of the members (two groups with each group serving a staggered term for 10 years) by September 1, 2022.
Madam Chair Pierog shared her plans to create a committee to discuss member compensation. The Reapportionment Task Force would be making recommendations to the board on its size but ultimately it would be the board who makes the final decision.
Chairwoman Pierog recommended that board members review the maps in the room and at County Board offices. Discussing precinct sizes, Madam Chair explained that they will be drawn last. Currently, there were 17 precincts that ranged from 1500 to 2000 people. The average precinct was supposed to be about 800 people. Currently, there were 20 precincts that had a population of 2000 to 3000 people. Three precincts had 3,000 to 4,000 people and one precinct had 7500 people.
Lastly, Madam Chair announced the names of the voting members of the Reapportionment Task Force: Ron Ford, Michelle Gumz, Cherryl Strathmann, Drew Frasz, Mike Kenyon and John Martin. She thanked them for volunteering.
Assistant State's Attorney Niermann provided a detailed PowerPoint overview of the statutory requirements for the redistricting under state and federal law, which was to be used as the framework for the reapportionment work. Parameters under the Illinois State Constitution followed.
Dialog followed on what the rationale was for reducing the size of the Du Page County Board while its population increased. Shepro and Niermann explained that a statute was specifically written for DuPage County and the reason for reducing their number of board members was because their board split off their forest preserve commission. Details followed. Madam Chair shared her thoughts on the law that surrounded this matter, commenting either the board would have to revise the law or begin considering if the board wants to move forward. Due to the current demographics, she believed this matter could move forward another 10 years but, at that point, future boards would have to be proactive to reducing the size to 18. Member Wojnicki recalled previous conversations with senior board members about the separation of the two boards and asked if this was the appropriate time for it to take place. (Madam Chair asked Atty. Niermann to research the matter and return with information at the next board meeting.) Dialog followed on future population projections.
Atty. Niermann discussed the parameters for redistricting under the federal law:
1. Districts must be equal in population. Population deviations greater than 10% are presumed discriminatory and when challenged, must be justified. Population deviations of less than 10% between the smallest and the largest district are presumed valid.
2. Non-Discrimination and the Federal Voting Rights Act (Section 2) followed. 3. Vote dilution was prohibited.
Atty. Niermann reviewed the factors establishing violation and requiring a majority-minority district under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the role of race, and the rules for drawing map lines.
She further reviewed the tasks that needed to be completed by the County Board by current statute. However, se explained that obtaining the latest census data presented a challenge in that the U.S. Census Bureau would not have the latest data until after September 2021. Legislative actions were also spelled out as were possible court actions, such as asking the court for a reasonable period of time for the board to complete its apportionment plan. Seeing that the current census data was not available yet (Tepe steps away 3:56 pm), Atty. Niermann discussed the tasks that could be completed by the board in the meantime and then those tasks that could be completed once the U.S. Census data (or approved substitute) was available.
Atty. Niermann introduced Mr. Phil Lucahans, an expert in redistricting and related litigation since the 1990s. Member Martin, in reviewing the maps today and considering the voting rights provisions, and hypothetical questions being raised, asked Atty. Niermann if there were any current federal issues to be addressed or if a framework existed, before working on such questions. Niermann explained that Director Fahnestock and his GIS team would address those types of questions as it pertains to populations. (Tepe returns 4:06 pm). Niermann explained the process she envisioned which was to set the number of board members first and using the American Community Survey (ACS) estimated data for planning purposes.
Mr. Lucahans explained the benefits of using the ACS data as it pertains to creating the districts and looking at the demographics of an area. Section 2 issues could be identified easily. Addressing Member Martin's concerns, Mr. Lucahans believed the ACS data was the best place to start. Madam Chair also added to the discussion that at a recent legislative meeting, it was mentioned that there was no interest at the state/federal level to delay the primary election and that the State appeared to support using the ACS data. Details followed.
Per member questions on community interest hearings, Madam Chair explained that four public outreach meetings were being planned to discuss the maps, etc. and Mr. Lucahans emphasized that the board members should also speak to their communities since that was where they lived and worked.
Mr. Brian Pollock, on behalf of the Kane County Clerk's Office, explained that Clerk Cunningham was offering his assistance in any way possible regarding this process. He relayed that the Clerk’s Association was working on legislation that revises the data language to allow the board to “use the most recent data available to counties from the U.S. Census Bureau” seeing that Kane County was a larger county as compared to the smaller down-state counties. Reasons for the legislation were explained in more detail. Addressing Senate Bill 1666, Mr. Pollock reported it never got out of committee so the primary election would not be moved. The Clerk’s Office was also working with the Association of County Board Members and UCCI to get buy-in with a number of counties to change the data language so that it benefits all 102 counties and not just Kane County. Mr. Pollock reminded the board of the importance of completing its work prior to July 1st with consideration of the Primary election just around the corner. He explained that the internal tasks of the Clerk’s Office had to be completed, voter cards had to be mailed out and, from an election perspective, candidates needed to have updated district information. Mr. Pollock recommended that members speak to and reminder their legislators. On that note, Madam Chair asked Mr. Pollock to draft language for the Reapportionment Task Force to consider as well as for lobbying purposes. A brief dialog followed regarding member terms.
I.T. Director Fahnestock referenced three different district maps (2000, 2011 and 2020 estimated) and the data estimates associated with each map. He communicated that the data were (ACS) estimates - meaning a margin of error existed -- and the actual census data may not be available until after September 2021. Precinct information was provided to the board, which information was separated by population, race, ethnicity and registered voters. Director Fahnestock believed the demographer, the attorney, and others engaged in this process could help the board better understand the populations. Various maps were referred to by Director Fahnestock and he would make them available to the board. However, he asked that any requests for maps go through the new task force or the County Board office.
In reviewing a precinct map, Member Allan noted all of the districts appeared to be sized between 21,000 to 22,000 in population except for Districts 9, 15, and 18. She proceeded to discuss how the districts were remapped during the last redistricting -- explaining that all of the districts grew slightly west and the population numbers were eventually picked up. During the last redistricting, Allan said the population averaged 22,167. If that number increased to 25,000 during this redistricting, she estimated the district population would be pushed to 600,000 but the county was not quite there yet. Her observations followed. In addition, Member Allan shared her comments about the joy of being a board member as well as a forest preserve commissioner.
Madam Chair then relayed that the Reapportionment Task Force will be meeting tomorrow with their first task to determine the size of the board. While she had mentioned a possible Special board meeting to occur on April 27th, the meeting would be postponed until early May in order for the task force to review the topic and then hear the task force’s recommendation at its regularly scheduled meeting. Last comments included the sizing of the board. Frasz suggested that those board members that are not going to be running for re-election to contact the Chairwoman to let her know their intention.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION (if needed)
No executive session was called.
This meeting was adjourned at 4:57 PM.
http://kanecountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileView.aspx?Type=12&ID=2958
Alerts Sign-up