What did I say at the Board Table?

Over the course of the budget discussions my focus has been on ensuring that we adopt a budget that prioritizes affordability for everyone in Oak Park.

My priorities were to ensure that any new RECURRING spending was paid for out of RECURRING revenue and also that we use our reserve and ARPA fund to pay for one-time project expenses that benefit the community.

Further, I wanted to ensure that any new spending (regardless of type) wasn’t creating a deficit for FY2024. In other words, I wanted to ensure that we weren’t taking a victory lap in 2023 while kicking the can to 2024.

Why?

ZERO PERCENT LEVY.

Affordability impacts all of our core values. An unaffordable Oak Park is a less diverse Oak Park, a less inclusive Oak Park, and a less welcoming village overall.

Freezing the levy for even just one year, by even just one government, grants relief to folks who need it - some who might be on the brink of affording to stay in our village. And hopefully, it helps keep Oak Park as an option for those who might want to relocate here.

We also anticipate a small surplus in the neighborhood of $366k. That surplus will be added to the general reserve which protects us against unforeseen economic impacts. That reserve is anticipated to be around $34MM by the end of 2023. A great rainy day fund.

This levy does NOT kick the can to 2024. Our current projections for 2024, which are subject to change as this is VERY early, project a levy increase of less than 3% in 2024. That, too, would be well below the anticipated level of inflation.

Transformational Government. This board is executing at a high pace and we need a government that can keep pace. Village Manager Jackson is committed to building that government and his changes to our government, including staffing up in some places, provide us with the ability to drive the core values of Oak Park.

That transformational government includes the hiring of a Chief DEI Officer (Welcome Dr. Walker!) & the implementation of a DEI initiative that will span the village and help create a village where everyone feels welcome in every space.

What did I say at the Board Table?

I was disappointed that the report stopped short of calling out the glaring bias that exists in our field stop data. From 2015 - 2020, 95 Black kids (18 and under) were stopped by police in what is known as a ‘field stop’. During that same time only 1 white kid was stopped. So 95 - 1 over 5 years of data.

I also would have rather seen some of the items marked as high priority bumped to critical and recommended for immediate implementation.

Why?

Accepting the report is a formality. I think the report forms a cornerstone of the future of law enforcement in our community and we can’t go forward with creating a best in class police force without understanding our current situation. And despite my issues with the report glossing over the apparent bias in the Field Stop data, I think the work done was good, thorough, and will help us build a much more equitable and transcendent police force for the future of Oak Park.

What did I say at the Board Table?

There were two meetings on this issue. In the first, I spoke in favor of the cooperation between the 3 boards. In the second I spoke extensively about ensuring that our kids' rights are respected and that no kids are questioned by police in schools without parents/guardians and/or legal representation present.

Why?

Between the first and second meetings, I became aware of an issue where police might, under the ‘right’ circumstances, be expected to question kids in schools without their parents/guardian and/or legal representation present. This is enabled by a law recently signed into force by Gov Pritzker. While this agreement was moving from board to board, I spoke with several school board members (past and present) to get a better understanding of the issue. I also expressed my concerns internally to the Village Manager.

When the agreement came back to the Board, it came with a police policy change that the police would not question any kids under the age of 18 in schools without a parent’s permission or presence. Further, students who are 18 won’t be questioned unless requested by the school administration. I would prefer that the same blanket ‘no question’ policy apply to these students as well but that is currently not the case.

Finally, I recommended that the high school incorporate a civics type program for the kids that are reaching the age of majority so that they understand their rights well in advance of being placed in a stressful and adverse situation of having to speak to a cop in school. Chief Johnson volunteered to participate in such a training and one of my goals for 2023 is to work with the Chief and D200 to make something like this happen.

What did I say at the Board Table?

I'm pro RCV in general, but that I have a few concerns locally. Concerns that I would like to discuss more with my colleagues at the Board table. Those concerns:

1)This only impacts the Village Municipal elections (Village Board, Clerk, President). I worry that we're introducing a lot of confusion for very little impact.

2)This is a complex issue and the short deadline and limited debate (maybe an hour total) to potentially make a significant change to democracy in Oak Park left me uncomfortable. I take my job responsibilities to democracy very seriously, especially in an era where challenging the validity of elections is the new status quo.

"Our elected officials, regardless of body, are entrusted with our Democracy, regardless of scale."

3)The education plan is cloudy. Who will own it? Who will pay for it? Can we reach all voters (not just the engaged) to educate them on RCV and its implementation in Oak Park BEFORE they have to vote on whether they want it? Will this suppress some voting demographics like minorities and seniors? We need answers to these questions before I can recommend moving forward.

4)Are we forcing Staff to forego their Holiday because of this board's lack of planning? Staff are people, not a black box of labor. They deserve the same respect we give ourselves. This isn't an emergency and a lack of planning on our part doesn't create an emergency on theirs. Or shouldn't outside of an actual emergency.

Why?

Inclusive of my concerns noted above, we instead asked Staff to prepare a study session in the first quarter where we will attempt to iron out a lot of the issues and get more educated on what RCV means in Oak Park - especially our at-large Trustee race.

Assuming we all agree to move forward, there will be a referendum on the ballot in 2024 that would be binding for the 2025 election. Voting 'NO' here gives us more time to discuss this topic, ensure we get it right, and doesn't change the implementation timeline. It's a win-win.

What did I say at the Board Table?

This is a case where equity and sustainability meet and clash. Both of these are major village values but banning leaf blowers on an aggressive schedule could cause severe economic impact to minority business owners while effectively privileging white business owners with more resources to adapt quickly.

Why?

This will come back to the Board table at a later date but the data that we have shows a 3 - 7 year ROI on electric leaf blowers. We will need to figure out a way to either financially decrease this impact in an way that doesn’t impact the village or lengthen the replacement period to give these smaller businesses more time for planning their equipment replacement cycles.

What did I say at the Board Table?

I was supportive of the proposal viewing it as a win/win for Oak Park.

The current parcel is an unimproved vacant lot that’s used to store cars. After construction, this will be a modern EV dealership with rooftop solar panels and generate a 5x increase to property taxes on the lot.

Why?

1)The dealership wants to improve a currently vacant lot that they own that's only used to store cars. That's a benefit to the community in a number of ways:

-increased property taxes which aren't shared with the dealer (5x increase)

-Replacing a vacant lot that stores cars with something useful and is more visually pleasing than a vacant lot.

2)The agreement is just for the EV brand, not the legacy ICE brand. This tax sharing agreement promotes environmentally friendly cars instead of gas cars and hopefully convinces some buyers to go EV over gas by proximity and having both options in house.

3)It's a tax-sharing agreement. That means that their business needs to earn any subsidy. Which means that this is net-positive revenue for the village. If they make $100, we get $40 in new tax revenue that we would not otherwise have. If they make $0, they get $0 but we still get the 5x increase to property taxes. We have no downside risk here.

4)Combined with whatever eventually happens with the Mohr site, this will contribute to a substantial improvement to the Garfield corridor. And the building itself will be climate forward by including solar panels on the roof to help power it. This is an improvement for the folks in that area and the village as a whole.

What did I say at the Board Table?

The Park District of Oak Park created a class that was entitled and described using racially insensitive language and context. I spoke about the harm caused, the values that are held at the Village Board, and the path forward for a ‘Yes’ vote for me.

My comments can be viewed here (timecode 2:37): https://oak-park.granicus.com/player/clip/2122?view_id=2&redirect=true&h=762535398263308044dd09f17e0c1025

Why?

Because it’s the right thing to do. The academic differences between the governments notwithstanding, we all govern the same 54k people. And while it's collegial to stay out of issues like facilities, it's much harder to remain silent when you see the people you represent being disrespected, traumatized, and marginalized.

Because we all serve in leadership positions of the Village of Oak Park. The differences between our jurisdictions are functional, not personal or geographic. And when we see injustice, it is our duty to speak up. Even when our words can't be curative, they can be supportive. Even when we have no actions to take, we can publicly take a stand with those who are harmed.

Because taking a stand for justice, racial or otherwise, is always the right thing to do.