The last couple of meetings were relatively uneventful, but I still wanted to update everyone.

Two meetings ago, we approved a study on a Wolf Road I-80 interchange by a vote of 5 to 1 (Mike Carroll voted no and Jim Dodge was absent).  This study is important for a few reasons.  First, an interchange will be needed between LaGrange and I-355 due to the increased traffic that is expected in the future.   Additionally, another interchange will be required as the I-80 corridor develops.  Second, we need to know if Wolf Road is an option given the tanks on our side of I-80 and the likely inability of Mokena to acquire the land required to widen Wolf Road.  Lastly, having a plan in place will make the interchange more likely to be built when I-80 is widened.  A proactive approach makes it much more likely to get a new interchange and make sure that it is put in the best place.

Also, at this meeting, we voted 5 to 1 to join a class-action lawsuit regarding opioids.  I was the sole no vote.  I did so because I don’t believe that this lawsuit is appropriate for government agencies.  The opioid epidemic is real, but I don’t think that casting blame on (and grabbing money from) drug companies that manufacture drugs that help a lot of people is the answer.  I think this was concocted by a group of attorneys trying to cash in.  I understand why Trustees would vote for it, as it doesn’t cost the village anything.  However, on principle, I don’t think that more lawsuits solve the problem.

This week, we had only a consent agenda.  However, I took two items off of consent.  The first was because we had a competitive bid, but only one bidder.  We recently switched to a new bidding process and wanted to make sure we were confident that these bids are received.  Recently, we have had a couple of bids with just one bidder.  I was assured that we continue to mail out bids to those on our bid list and that it is still available on our website.  

The other item taken off consent was because we waived the bid process.  Staff indicated that the rationale for this was that it was Phase 2 of an ongoing project.  Trustee Dodge suggested (and the remainder of the board agreed) that we make sure to include the rationale for waiving the competitive bid process in the meeting packet for the board and the public.

The biggest issue facing the Village currently is our budget.  A lot of the discussion has involved new revenue sources.  I am open to discussions on new revenue, however, not without similar conversations on cutting costs. These are difficult conversations, but is part of the realities that we are faced with given an economy that is shifting away from retail.

I have made it clear to staff and other Trustees that I will only consider new revenue sources if the following conditions are met as well.

1. Operational expenditures are significantly reduced.  The cost curve on annual operating expenditures has been growing annually.  This curve needs to be flattened and costs reduced.  It is not appropriate for new revenues to fall on the backs of our residents without similarly making cuts to expenditures.
2. These new revenue sources will be targeted for capital expenses.  These expenses include roads, parks, buildings, etc.  Many of our capital needs have been deferred in the last 15 years while resources went to the Triangle and we need to catch up.  In any case, new revenues should not be used for ongoing operating expenses.  Shortfalls in this area should be met with appropriate cost reductions.  

• I was given a complete list of potential new taxes that was seven pages long from staff.  Examples include a real estate transfer tax (regressive and increases home purchase costs), bag tax (which would further damage our retail businesses and everyone who shops for groceries, and a soft drink tax (up to 9%).  These are just a few examples of taxes that would be damaging to our economy and our residents.
• As we diversify the Village’s economy away from retail we will continue to add restaurants and entertainment.  Currently, the Village currently has a home rule tax but not on anything else.  We will need to balance our revenue sources with our new economic base.  For this reason, I am willing to add a small restaurant tax and an entertainment/amusement tax.  Additionally, a large portion of these taxes are paid by non-residents.  Lastly, having these in place gives us the ability to share back a portion of them as an incentive to attract businesses that we want.
• It is in the Village’s long-term interests to diversify our revenue streams just like we need to diversify our economy.  Given the options presented to us, the least onerous to our residents were the two I mentioned. 
• Orland Park does not have a Park District and the policy set decades ago was to subsidize 50% of our Parks & Recreation programs.  At that time, this subsidy was supposed to be reduced over time.  The subsidy has never been reduced and is something we may need to consider. 

I want your feedback on these issues.  Any changes in our revenue structure must be accompanied by cost reductions.  I think all of us would like to see the same high level of services in the Village in a fiscally responsible way.  I believe it is possible to do so, but some difficult decisions will need to be made to make it happen.