Village of Lombard Legistar System

Chairperson DeStephano reiterated to the committee that we really need to be

supportive of the schools because we spent a lot of time last year updating the

application and talking to the schools about the grant.

School District 44

Jendras explained that her main concern was this being an ongoing expense. She

suggested that we recommend that we would like to see unique projects, we don't want

to fund a reoccurring program. DeStephano said that the point was well taken, but then

perhaps as a group we should help them come up with ideas so we're not funding the

same grant year after year. Adams suggested that it was like the seed money, it's to get

started but don't keep asking for the same thing. Lyons stated the she is against the

money being used for the busing. Schukat felt that considering they did put in an

application we should give them something. At least 1/2 would be fair. Jendras

suggested we either fund the first grade or the four classes that didn't go last year. If we

pay for busing they don't have anything to show for it, if they ask for kits, etc., that's

something they can use over and over. She further commented that she doesn't mind

paying for a one-time thing if it's something new. DeStephano commented that then we

need to tell them that they need to focus on different programs every year. Loebach

commented that he doesn't understand how the committee decided that busing was not

a valid expense. It's no less legitimate than buying lab materials, videos, etc. It's filling

a gap that will enable these students to take advantage of the program. If we have the

funding available we shouldn't change mid-stream the parameters of what we're going to

accept. Loebach suggested we, at a minimum, fund 3/5 of the request. He also

suggested that if we're really concerned about establishing precedent it behooves us to

communicate with the people who want to apply. He felt that we should fund the whole

grant. Jendras agreed as long as it's made known to them. Adams agreed with one

time funding. Lyons explained that it's a hands on experience and they do plan to keep

this up for the future. She thought that we could tell them we could give them money to

defray the cost of setting it up. They are going to have to replace and extend some of

this each year.

The committee reviewed the letter going out to the schools and made several changes.

Schukat reported that she received the binder for publicity. Lyons commented that she

spoke with Joelyn Kott regarding putting information in the Pride.

There was brief discussion regarding training of volunteers. This will be discussed

further at the next meeting.

Adams pointed out that we need to verify what we're going take. Burg will do vendor

contacts. Loebach also commented that if we are going to add new materials we need

to get into that soon.

Next month the committee will discuss recycling vendors, food vendors, training and

apparel. Burg explained that we don't need to discuss the site plan, it's pretty routine.

Sub-Committee Reports

Multi-Family Commercial Recycling

Loebach read the draft letter that will be sent to businesses in the TIF District. Smaller

businesses may be more receptive. Burg commented that you're going to have to use

great charm, because they get no break on costs for recycling. Loebach suggested that

we may be able to do a single site for multiple users. All three subcommittee members

are going to do the survey, which will hopefully be completed in May.

Materials Recycling

Lyons commented that she had a problem with the custodian wanting to lock door.

Lyons informed the committee that the meeting went great. She called most of the

electronics recyclers on the list from John. She had contact with Arlington Computer

Products, it seemed like he was willing to negotiate and he was cheaper than United.

DeStephano asked if she's talked to Kay McKeen. Lyons responded that she did and

Kay informed her that we've missed all the grants that were out there. The

subcommittee members have tried to contact various surrounding municipalities. One

place, Chesapeake Electronics Recycling gave a list and their price is 13 cents per

pound for all electronics. They will send 4-8 people, the labor fee is $200 per worker

and the trucking is approximately $500.00 per load including packing materials. The

company out of Arlington is not going to charge for that. The subcommittee members

were not comfortable talking with other towns because we don't have enough

information on how much it will cost. DeStephano reiterated that the Board of Trustees

said they would like to seriously consider recycling computer monitors, etc. So we have

to find municipalities and vendors that are interested. Lyons explained that they hit a lot

of dead ends. A lot of these companies are only interested in monitors and a lot are

only interested in big companies. DeStephano asked if any of the other towns are

interested in paying $5.00 per monitor. Lyons responded that they didn't seem to be.

DeStephano commented that that she didn't see why Lombard should be paying for

everybody's recycling. Jendras suggested that it only be open to Lombard residents.

There was further discussion regarding recycling vendors and area municipality

participation. DeStephano suggested that we write a letter to area municipalities

explaining that we're considering an electronics recycling program. We need to find out

if there's interest. Burg agreed that sending it to the Board of Trustees of the various

towns is a good idea. Loebach suggested that the Materials Recycling Subcommittee

present the two best vendors at the next meeting. We should also discuss volunteer

labor vs. charge for employees.