Will County Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee met June 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ms. Fritz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 2:06 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Vice-Chair | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Absent |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe and K. Meyers.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. Parameters for Reapportionment (Information)
Mrs. Tatroe stated legislation has been passed in both the State House and Senate that moves back the date by which the County Board has to approve a reapportionment map; it must now be approved by December 31, 2021. If you do not approve one by the third Wednesday in November, then the County Clerk is required to establish the reapportionment commission. I am not sure how this is going to work, because the legislation provides that the County Executive will present a map by the third Wednesday in November, which is the same date the County Board would have to approve a map or a commission would be established. I think there will have to be discussions between the Executive and County Board leadership to agree to an earlier date for the County Executive to present a map. The legislation pushes back the dates for petition filing and the primary date. I don’t know the exact dates, but everything is being moved back.
Mr. Moustis stated the County Executive has already presented a map. Just because they extended the deadline, does that mean the County Executive gets to redo and present a new map? I am not interpreting it that way. The County Executive Act says they will present a map on a certain day, which she has done. You are interpreting this as they can present another map and I disagree.
Mrs. Tatroe replied I think she can amend her map, based on comments she received, just like the County Board can do.
Mr. Moustis stated I agree, you can always amend the map. But, you said present another map versus amending the map.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I was reading the statute; that is the verbiage in the state statute.
Mr. Moustis stated I have no problem with an amended map, but I don’t feel the extension gives the Executive a redo. You mentioned there can always be amendments to the map, based on public input and that is what I would expect.
Mr. Fricilone stated January 13, 2022 is when you can start getting signatures on your petitions. March 7th through the 14th will be the filing period and the primary will be May 28, 2022. Did the legislation change the 21 days requirement for a public hearing after presentation of the Executive’s map? I did not see anything along those lines, which means we have to stick to June 8th to have our public hearing.
Mr. Marcum read the attached statement from County Executive Bertino-Tarrant into the record. She is withdrawing her map, so we are not required to have public hearing at this point.
Mr. Fricilone asked does the ASA have an opinion on the single member districts?
Mrs. Tatroe replied we have issued an oral opinion that you cannot do single member districts without a referendum.
Mr. Moustis asked with the timeline change, are we going to go forward now or wait? Do we have to have a public hearing? Where do we go from here? What are we going to do?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I am not sure whether there will ultimately be a public hearing, but at this point, the statute only requires a public hearing for the Executive’s map. So there is no reason to go forward with a public hearing at this time. If she bring forward an amended map, then you would hold a public hearing within the timeframe of when she brings forth the amended map.
Mr. Moustis asked if the Executive withdraws her map, can she later change her mind and present a map? It is like you are opening the door for something I am not in favor of. If her map was withdrawn, it is withdrawn and we missed the public hearing deadline of the state statute.
Mr. Fricilone asked how can you just withdraw the map, if by statute you have to have a public hearing, once you present it?
Mrs. Tatroe stated there is no map to hold a public hearing on and so there is no reason to hold a public hearing at this time.
Mrs. Traynere stated the reason the primary is being pushed back is because we don’t have accurate census data. How can the Board or the County Executive continue to move forward, when our state declared we don’t have all of the data and they are pushing everything back? If they made a mistake and did not mention the County Executive putting forward a map or the 21 days for a public hearing that at some point, they will fix that, if that was their intent. My understanding is we don’t have the deadline of July to have a map, is that correct?
Mrs. Tatroe replied the deadline to have a map has been pushed back. Ultimately, a map must be adopted by the County by December 31, 2021. The legislation addressed the data and it authorized counties to use whatever data was reasonable, such as the American Century Data, which is what our IT/GIS people are using.
Mrs. Traynere stated we should adjourn until we get all the data. Are you saying we are never going to get the data and we should use what we already have?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I am not commenting on whether we are ever going to get the data; that is not what I have said at all. I only said the legislation authorizes counties to use the American Century Data or any other reasonable data to draw their reapportionment maps.
Mrs. Traynere asked is there any reason to continue with these meetings?
Mr. Marcum replied we don’t have to meet weekly, since we have more time. However, I don’t see why we would stop what we are doing. We can get the maps in a better position for later.
Mrs. Traynere stated I was told that only the Chair and the Republican appointee on this Committee can make a map and the rest of us are out of luck. Is that true?
Mr. Marcum replied I have never heard that. I have never refused to accommodate any requests.
Mrs. Ogalla stated it makes sense for us to continue working with the maps we have and see if we can come to a consensus and then when we have the actual data, see if there is a need to tweak it. We have put in so much time, it does not make sense to stop now and start over again in a few months. We could decide on a couple of maps we feel comfortable with, make the revisions and maybe review it in another month. That would give us an opportunity to meet with our constituents to see what they have to say. We should move forward and when we get the final numbers, our GIS person can do the tweaks and then we won’t have to belabor it, as we have for the last several months.
Mr. Moustis stated I think that we should continue. We could do a public hearing at the July County Board meeting and do the adoption in August. It keeps it flowing and it gives us plenty of time to have a public hearing and then a month to make changes before adoption. That would be the timeline I would suggest. If the Committee is agreeable, I will make a motion to have further discussion on this and develop a timeline now. I think, what I pointed out is reasonable, but if someone else wants to look at something different, I am open to it. We should not lose our momentum or focus. I think if we recess for months, we will lose that. Do you think a motion would be in order at this time?
Mr. Marcum stated I agree, we should not stop. I have read they expect to get the census data by August. So, I would like to give us some time, in case it comes in August.
Mr. Moustis asked do you want to go to public hearing in August and adoption in September?
Mr. Marcum stated we can just agree to it and then in late July or early August we can firm all the dates down, in case we get more information.
Mr. Moustis asked would you like an option later; at the September County Board Meeting?
Mr. Marcum replied I would like to adopt this in October, just to be safe.
Mr. Moustis stated I am afraid we are going to lose momentum and focus. When a member says only the Chair and Vice-Chair can present maps, that is not true. Every County Board Member can put their input in. But, when you have one Board Member submit their own map and the Committee considers it, what is to prevent all 26 Members from submitting their own personal maps? There has to be some order to it. The maps are developed through the Committee, with input from County Board Members, Elected Officials and the public. It is not meant for County Board Members to submit their own map. I am going to suggest if you do that, there will be no order, it will all be chaos. County Board Members don’t submit their own maps. If we are going to start that, I have half a dozen people who want to submit their own maps. Of course, everyone protects their own self interest, so in their map, they are safe. It is important to establish that the Committee, through the Committee leadership, develops maps and upon suggestions, the Chair and the Vice-Chair, with the support of the Committee, can look at changes or see what they look like.
Mr. Marcum stated I believe I misspoke. I am not going to put everyone’s map on an agenda. You can request it to be put on, but I am not going to put 26 maps on an agenda, because I am not going to talk about 26 maps. I misspoke earlier; what I should have said is; if you have requests, we can try to accommodate it and see what it looks like, so everybody has a fair picture.
Mr. Gould stated the legislature authorized the use of the American Communities Survey as the statistics for formulating county maps in Illinois. Those are the same statistics they used to draw the House and Senate districts. We are using the same, exact data the State Legislature used. Ten years ago, it took many meetings before a consensus was developed. There were three maps considered. There were two 9 District maps and one 13 District map developed by GIS and with some tweaking, it was eventually the map adopted by the Board. I would be leery of setting any artificial dates today and saying we are going to have a public hearing in this particular month. The best thing the Committee can do is, do its business and continue to meet on a regular basis. Believe me, it will work, if we continue to meet to refine the maps and work and work, we will get the job done. We have done this much work already, let’s not stop, let’s keep working at it.
Mr. Fricilone stated I do not want to lose momentum, but it is difficult to do this virtually, especially when we are trying to talk about maps. I suggest we have our next meeting after the NACo Conference, then we can be in-person. We can all sit down and look at the maps together; we can point at the same things. Then we can ramp up at the end of July or early August to get where we need to be and maybe we can vote on it in September. It is difficult, when you are looking at maps on the screen and things are being changed.
Mr. Marcum asked Mrs. Tatroe, since the County Executive withdrew her map, do we need a motion to cancel the public hearing or is it just cancelled?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I think it is already cancelled.
Mr. Marcum stated to make it clear to anyone from the public listening; there will not be a public hearing next week.
Mr. Marcum asked has everyone received the links for the updated maps? I just want to make sure everyone has received them and had a chance to review them. If it is agreeable with the Committee, we can take our time to look at those and make suggestions. We need a motion to remove the 15 District maps from the agenda, since the State’s Attorney’s Office has issued an opinion on the single districts.
Statement from County Executive Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant (County Executive)
2. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 13 County Board Districts Original (Presentation)
Mr. Moustis stated there were some comments by Member Traynere about some of the precincts in Bolingbrook. A large part of the discussion took place regarding keeping the City of Naperville as whole as possible. That is what I would like to focus on the most, because there are not that many other changes. Can we ask Mr. Johnson to focus on what people wanted to see versus rehashing the old map again?
Mr. Johnson briefly reviewed the 13 District map in the agenda packet.
3. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 13 County Board Districts Version 9 Revised by Committee (Presentation)
Mr. Johnson compared the original 13 County Board District map and the revised 13 County Board District map and pointed out the changes.
Mr. Moustis asked does this meet what Mrs. Traynere requested?
Mr. Marcum replied from my recollection and understanding, this represents what she was requesting.
Ms. Mueller asked are we using ACS data?
Mr. Johnson replied we are using the ESRI demographic data, which has better numbers for Will County. They have Will County’s population at 705,000 versus the ACS data which does not have us at 690,000 people.
Ms. Mueller asked should we be concerned, since the legislation says we can use the ACS data and we are not using it?
Mrs. Tatroe replied no. The law was broader; you are able to use any data that is reasonable.
Ms. Fritz stated I appreciate Mr. Johnson taking all of our comments and incorporating them into this map. He included the list of the changes he made and showed the things that were said and what he did. The more I looked at this map, the more I liked it.
Mrs. Ogalla asked on this map, you took a portion of Wilton Township out; where are we number wise? What are the deviations? Are they different than in the previous map?
Mr. Johnson replied by putting Wilton Township into District #6, I needed to take from the Rockdale area, as well as the Joliet portion of Jackson Township to make those townships whole. In the previous map, District #1 was slightly over the deviation, so taking out 300 residents from Wilton, still kept us within the one percent.
Mr. Gould stated my issue with this version is, District #8. Legally, we were admonished in the beginning not to dilute minority voting strength. In this map, compared to the previous proposal, you have decreased the minority percentage in District #8, because you added white majority census tracks. I think the previous version of District #8 was better. This does accomplish getting Fairmont in, but it seems to take more than just Fairmont; it takes in areas of Homer, New Lenox and Lockport and when you add that in, you are probably adding 5,000 to 6,000 residents in those areas.
Mrs. Parker asked were there any changes made to District #9? I thought it was suggested to take some of the lower Joliet part out and put more of the City of Lockport in, since we were trying to make cities whole.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the notes in the packet regarding the changes to District #9.
Mrs. Parker stated you added more of Joliet to District #9 than what was there before. Some of the City of Lockport is in Homer Township and it was in District #9 before. Why did you continue to add Joliet?
Mr. Johnson replied we can still make changes.
Mr. Fricilone stated when you say we still have time to make changes; this was just some ideas someone had. I don’t think this map is as good as your original map. It starts breaking places into three districts. I know Mr. Gould worked on a map with you and perhaps you could explain that one as well. I don’t see taking Fairmont from where it is now; it is an island all unto itself.
4. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 15 County Board Districts Original (Presentation)
Motion to Remove 15 District Map from the Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [8 TO 0]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla ABSTAIN: Traynere ABSENT: Winfrey |
Motion to Remove 15 District Map from the Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [8 TO 0]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla ABSTAIN: Traynere ABSENT: Winfrey |
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 13 County Board Districts Alternative 1 Submitted by CBM Gould (Presentation)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the map and information in the agenda packet.
2. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 13 County Board Districts Alternative 2 Submitted by CBM Gould (Presentation)
Mr. Johnson reviewed the map and information in the packet.
Mr. Gould stated I tried to take into account what members were saying at the last meeting. I heard three things at the last meeting; the first was from Mrs. Traynere who said use Weber Road, which I asked GIS to do. The second, was keep Naperville whole, which is alternative one. This encompasses everyone, except four people, in the City of Naperville and it makes a district. There are unincorporated islands in Naperville that are totally surrounded by Naperville, but that is what it would look like if you want Naperville to be its own district. Maybe that is what the Board would like. Alternative 2 is not using the City of Naperville entirely; I asked GIS to draw a straight line through the middle of the township and see what it would look like. I think that a majority of Naperville is in the northern district. If you drew a west to east line, you would have the same areas of Bolingbrook west of Weber Road and the same areas of Plainfield in southern Wheatland Township, but instead of making a district that loops around, this is what you would have. I am not from the area, but I am interested in hearing what people think, because the first version GIS presented was a line going north and south through the middle of the township. I am interested in hearing what members have to say, but I thought it would be helpful for the Committee to see different versions.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to hear Mrs. Berkowicz and Speaker Cowan’s comments. It seems that these maps tried to address their concerns of keeping Naperville as whole as possible. The Will County portion of Naperville is the third largest municipality in Will County. So, the Will County portion is a very large municipality and there are challenges in trying to keep it whole because of the numbers.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is there a portion in south Naperville that is not in this district? If it has part of Bolingbrook in it, it seems it would be pretty large. Is the southern border at the edge of Naperville?
Mr. Johnson replied in Alternative 1, we have all but four people in the district. In Alternative 2, there are over 40,000 Naperville residents in District #11 and 10,000 in District #13. There is no Bolingbrook portion in the Naperville district. The only part that is not Naperville, for this alternative, is the City of Aurora.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked does it include a little bit of Bolingbrook? Mr. Johnson replied no, there is no part of Bolingbrook in this alternative. Mrs. Berkowicz asked is there any Bolingbrook in the other alternative?
Mr. Johnson replied no. For Naperville, a majority is in District #11 in Alternative 1. Then in alternative 2 there are 40,000 Naperville residents in District #11 and 10,000 in District #13. Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, it includes the north part of Plainfield and west part of Bolingbrook. The only change is south of 103rd Street is in District #13; everything north of that is in District #11.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked does that include the small pockets of unincorporated areas that are sandwiched around the incorporated areas?
Mr. Johnson replied yes.
Mrs. Berkowicz continued does this have Riverview, off of 111th Street, in the district?
Mr. Johnson replied in the alternative that includes all of Naperville, Riverview will be in District #11. If it is the other alternative, anything around 111th would most likely be in District #13.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is the district population the same in both of these versions? Mr. Johnson responded they are within 100 or 200.
Mr. Moustis stated we have gone through the presentation of the maps. I think we need to stick to a base map we are going to tweak. I like Mr. Johnson’s original map, but I also like this last map, because it addresses our members’ concerns. I think it helps consolidate the cities, municipalities and townships and making them as whole as we can. Are we going to stick with two maps that we continue to tweak? Are we going to select one and start tweaking it? The last one addresses the comments made about Naperville and Bolingbrook. It is just easier to work off of one map. Can we select a map to work off of? I suggest we work off of the last one, because it addresses concerns from the prior map.
Mr. Marcum replied I tend to agree since we are already building off of it, the second one would be our base map.
Ms. Mitchell asked what does the orange line at the west end of Bolingbrook and going into Plainfield, mean? Is everything within the orange lines a district?
Mr. Johnson explained the districts in the northwest corner of the County, using the map on the screen.
Mr. Fricilone asked if there was a way to better differentiate the district lines.
Ms. Mitchell stated Mr. Gould your map does address the concerns from the previous meetings and I feel in my portion of the County, this works well.
Ms. Ventura stated I had a lot of different comments on the first map that was presented and some of those were taken into account and Mrs. Parker addressed a couple that were not. Other things were changed and I assume it was because other Board Members were commenting. This is not what I thought we would be looking at, there were a lot more things changed. The map Mr. Gould brought forth seems to encapsulate a lot of the changes I was hoping to see, by keeping more cities whole. I like the first iteration where Naperville is kept together.
Wheatland Township, Aurora and Plainfield get grouped strangely on the map, but it makes sense because you are keeping the township and cities together as much as you can, except for the Bolingbrook part that has already been split out. If you were going to move a map forward, this is a better version. However, since we have time and we have not decided on what data we will be using, I would suggest that we postpone a vote to give us an extra week to look through the different versions and discuss them with Mr. Marcum and Mr. Gould. There is no rush. There is no reason to vote away the different 13 District maps or come down to just one today. I would really like to take some time. We found out yesterday that the deadline was delayed and we have the opportunity to look at different data. I think it would be in the best interest of everybody to take an extra week. Since we are not rushed, we can take more of a birds eye view, outside of Committee and tweak things. I would highly suggest that you postpone any vote or that you would not make any motions and really have the time to look at this so that when we come back, everyone feels confident with what the process is going to be and what maps are the best.
Ms. Mueller stated I agree with Ms. Ventura. I would like to have more time before committing to a specific map we are working off of.
Mrs. Ogalla asked are we now considering three maps; the first map, the tweaked one and the last map Mr. Gould created?
Mr. Marcum replied we have two different options that have been given to us. It seems everybody agrees on Mr. Gould’s map keeping Naperville whole. I think that having that and the other two would be much easier, than having more. My opinion is that we go with Mr. Gould’s map, keeping Naperville whole and then go from there.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I was thinking that we could come up with just two to move forward.
Mr. Moustis stated to make progress you have to eliminate some of the maps. If you don’t want to go to one map, we could have three maps. One of the maps is very similar, it is just a variation of the Naperville area and the other two. You have to work off of something. You could be working off of one map, and I could be working off of another; how will we ever get to a conclusion? I think you need to reduce the number of maps to be considered, so we are all working off of the same map. If you want to make progress, you have to eliminate some maps. My preference would be to get down to two. We will never get to a definitive map, if we are not working off of the same map.
Speaker Cowan stated in theory I agree with Mr. Moustis that to move forward we have to narrow things down. But, now we have extra time. Mrs. Berkowicz would like to print these and take a closer look. Since this impacts Ms. Fritz, Ms. Mueller,
Mrs. Berkowicz and my districts the most, I feel similar. We have time to wait, have everybody take another look at these and then we can pare down in a week or so.
Mr. Marcum stated everybody will take two weeks to review the maps, take notes and ask questions of Mr. Johnson, then we will meet and decide which maps to get rid of.
VIII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Jakaitis stated there are no public comments, but there were a few comments in the Q&A asking people to turn their mics off.
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 3:24 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla, Traynere ABSENT: Winfrey |
Alerts Sign-up