2008 General Election: Kane County Board District 2

Donnell Collins, 52, a Democrat, was appointed in 2007 to fill the seat vacated by Linda Holmes. He faces Doug Sullivan, 32, a Republican. The 2nd District includes northeast Aurora and southeast Batavia.

Donnell Collins
Why are you running for this office? It is not the politics that I enjoy so much but it is the opportunity to share some of things that I have learned while serving on the board. I personally have everything that I need and this is a chance to help people of Kane County that are less fortunate acquire some of the things that they need.

Why are you the most qualified for this position? As a freshman board member I don't necessarily think I'm the most experienced person for the position but I'm the person that best understands how to work within a system to get the best results for citizens of this county. The citizens of this county need someone that will listen to them and work with fellow board members to make the best choices based on their needs.

What major needs of the county would you like to see addressed? Public safety and transportation issues take up a large portion of our county budget. I would like to see more preventative measures taken to offset some of the expense in these two areas. The way to do that is by taking preventative measures such as early intervention programs that will lead to more involvement with the care and education of our youth. In the area of Transportation we need to work on the issue of mass transit and integrate new technologies to improve traffic flow.

What do you think budget priorities should be? How sound do you believe the county's finances are? In the past the counties leadership has been fiscally conservative such that even in these hard times we do not find ourselves in the difficult position of other counties (state). We will have to continue to be very careful moving forward with our expenditures in this fiscally difficult time while keeping our eye on the bottom line. We will still need to provide critical services to the citizens of Kane County including public safety, public health, road maintenance, and even issues of economic development.

Now that the federal government has given its blessing to the Prairie Parkway, do you believe this road will become a reality? What role do you see the county taking assuming this project progresses? Will the parkway be beneficial to Kane County? With the current economic climate it is difficult to predict whether or not such large projects will be funded. Giving that it requires both state and federal participation it is dubious at best that this project will go forward. If it were to go through I am not convinced of the economic benefits to Kane County of the initial leg of this project. It appears that the connection up to route 88 provides more benefit to Kendall County than to Kane County.

How should the county fund future transportation needs? Are toll roads/bridges the answer? Can/should we expect more from the state or federal governments? Through our impact fees, gasoline tax and other revenue sources the county can only meet a portion of our transportation infrastructure needs. Even under the best of circumstances we will always need state and federal participation to meet our transportation goals. This is appropriate because it is a return of our federal and state tax dollars of which we have not been getting our appropriate share.

Do you support the plan for the future county campus?
I support having a centralized campus in the future with satellite facilities strategically placed outside the campus for the convenience of seniors and the rest of the population of the county.

If the economy continues to falter and budget cuts must be made, what departments/programs would you like to cut first? When one is put in the position where cuts must be made it must be done with a critical eye and sensitivity to the needs of the citizens. We will then have to have a comprehensive review of all services and departments with an eye toward reduction of service hours., which might be functionally replaced by allowing citizens greater access to county services through the internet. This of course will require the cooperation of other election officials.

Doug Sullivan
Why are you running for this office?
I'm running for the Kane County Board primarily to help solve the transportation problem that exists in our area--too much traffic and not enough alternative transportation options available. I can draw upon a decade of work experience and relationships with key players in the transportation industry to develop the much-needed solutions. The residents of Kane County know that the attractiveness of our communities has caused a huge increase in population and resulting congestion, but the situation is not hopeless. A balanced investment in both roadway improvements as well as high-quality, high-speed public transportation infrastructure now, before our communities become too overdeveloped, will set our transportation planning process on the right path towards less reliance on foreign oil, less traffic and less pollution.

Furthermore, I want to once again give the residents of District 2 a leader who wholeheartedly participates in the governing process, listens to their needs and looks out for their interests. Our current representative has not lived up to his responsibility.

Why are you the most qualified for this position?
Most importantly, I exhibit the dedication required to serve my constituents well and advocate effectively for my district's needs, in direct contrast to my opponent. Additionally, my qualifications for this position are extensive. I have lived in southern Kane County nearly my whole life and have witnessed firsthand its extensive growth and change. I have a decade of experience in government at all levels and both as a staff member and an elected board member. I currently serve on the local public library's Board of Trustees and on the Zoning Board of Appeals, which provides a wealth of insight into the issues local governments face. Furthermore, I work for Pace Suburban Bus, and have been the agency's liaison to municipal, county, state and federal governments. Not only does this work give me expertise in transportation, but also knowledge of the funding streams and complicated interactions between the many levels of government in the transportation funding process.

What major needs of the county would you like to see addressed?
Kane County's population is growing rapidly, and as a result, two particular aspects of life in Kane County are becoming strained: transportation and law enforcement. The County's road network is bursting at the seams every rush hour, and a jail opened only 33 years ago was recently replaced because it could hold only 500 of the County's 700 inmates.

Traffic congestion is not only frustrating, but it has real economic costs to our businesses and our residents. To help solve this problem, the County needs to take a leadership role in making a balanced investment in both roads and public transportation, because Kane County can't solely build roadways to mitigate its congestion. Rather, we must truly offer commuters a viable alternative to the automobile if we are to ever stem the tide of costly and frustrating traffic congestion.

Next, while the new jail solves both operational and financial efficiency problems, there are technological advancements and policy changes of which the Sheriff's Office can take advantage to improve our law enforcement efforts. We can't expect the hardworking deputies to effectively police our streets without GPS navigation systems, the "LEADS 2000" software or signal preemption for their vehicles.

The portion of the proceeds from the recently-enacted sales tax increase directed towards public safety purposes can be used for these projects, as well as the relocation of the 911 call center. Additional funding to fight crime, especially for investment in technology, can come from state and federal grants, which I've been successful in securing.

What do you think budget priorities should be? How sound do you believe the county's finances are?
The county's budget priorities should be, first, to fulfill its basic constitutional responsibilities--such as the operation of the court system and the jail--and second, if revenue allows, to undertake new programs that improve the quality of life here in Kane County. I believe there is room for improvement in the County's budgeting process, as evidenced by the recent situation in which the Board--with the help of a 'yes' vote from my opponent--approved raises for county officials that they now realize they cannot afford. Clearly, a comprehensive discussion of 2009 financial projections at that meeting would have led to a better decision on elected officials' salaries, as the board would have been more aware of the state of the County's finances for the coming year.

The County, like many units of local government, is in poor financial condition, although not entirely because of mismanagement by the County Board. Lackluster economic activity throughout the Chicago region has produced lower than expected sales tax and other revenue in 2008. Exacerbating the problem is that many expenditures are over budget this year, such as housing criminals at other jails, fuel for sheriffs' squad cars, personnel salaries and the extra election in March. To remedy the situation and enact a balanced budget in 2009, real cost-cutting measures are necessary.

Now that the federal government has given its blessing to the Prairie Parkway, do you believe this road will become a reality? What role do you see the county taking assuming this project progresses? Will the parkway be beneficial to Kane County?

At this point, even though the federal government has signed off on the project with its Record of Decision last month, the State has secured from federal grants only 20% of the approximately $1 billion needed to fully implement this project. Given the state legislature's inability to pass a capital bill, the $200 million in State matching funds needed for this project are nowhere to be found. Furthermore, without the power previously wielded by a Speaker of the House from the area, these massive federal earmarks will be harder to come by in future years. It appears that a short segment of the highway will be built from IL 71 to US 34, but the likelihood of IDOT generating the remaining $800 million needed to complete the project lessens with each dysfunctional day in Springfield.

If the project--either as originally intended or as an improved IL 47--does progress, Kane County's role will be in the planning for growth and development in the corridor. As a board member, I would advocate for a development plan that produces a result other than 25,000 new houses inhabited by people who have no choice but to drive their 25,000 cars on our already-congested roadways every day. The parkway can be beneficial to Kane County if it attracts commercial development and is part of a balanced, multimodal transportation system.

How should the county fund future transportation needs? Are toll roads/bridges the answer? Can/should we expect more from the state or federal governments?
Fortunately, the County can now take advantage of the 1/4-cent sales tax created by recent state legislation to fund improvements in transportation. I also support "user fees," such as tolls, to help pay off investments in new transportation infrastructure, such as roads, bridges and rail lines. The County's existing impact fees can also help pay for some of the infrastructure improvements necessitated by traffic growth.

At this point, we should expect nothing positive from our state government, given the political climate in Springfield. As the federal government looks to pass a multi-year transportation bill (the current law expires in 2009), it is examining the possibility of a role much different from the current one in which it collects a large gasoline tax and then doles out huge grants back to the states. Furthermore, the federal highway trust fund is teetering on insolvency, meaning we cannot expect much of an increase in federal transportation dollars even if the basic funding process continues past 2009.

Do you support the plan for the future county campus?
There are clearly some efficiencies created by moving certain County facilities, such as the jail and sheriff's office, adjacent to the new judicial center, because the County saves money by no longer needing to transport prisoners and employees from one facility to another. However, the potential efficiencies gained by relocating other buildings, such as the Recorder's office, are negligible. During a time when the County government is undergoing cost-cutting, there is no justification for the tremendous capital expenditures required for a mass relocation. Thus, I do not support moving any more County offices to the Route 38 campus at this time.

The County should keep the remaining acreage at the judicial center under its control to be available for future construction of facilities. At some point in the decades ahead, all the County's offices will become obsolete, so new buildings are inevitable. Those offices related to criminal justice should be the top priorities for relocation to the Route 38 campus.