Logan County Board
Workshop:  CAPCIL application to be voted upon February 18th
Community Benefit Fund guidelines goes back to committee

 

[February 17, 2025] 

On Thursday, February 13th, the Logan County Board met for their monthly workshop meeting. Many items were discussed at this meeting, but this article is going to discuss the Community Benefit Fund and the Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois’s (CAPCIL) request for financial assistance.

To read about the other items discussed by the board at this meeting, please read LDN’s other article on the meeting:

Logan County Board
Workshop meeting sets agenda for Tuesday night, remembers Pat O’Neill
https://archives.lincolndailynews.com/
2025/Feb/17/NEWS/today_COUNTY.shtml

When the Finance committee was addressed, the first item on their agenda was bringing forth guidelines and an official application for the Community Benefit Fund. The Community Benefit Fund has been an item on the Finance committee’s agenda for many months. The primary issue the committee had was defining what ‘community benefit’ means. In the past months, the committee stated that, if an official definition were given, it could help them decide how to use the fund and what requests they would approve versus deny.

The application that committee Chairman Kathy Schmidt brought before the board capped the amount anyone would be able to receive at $7,500. Schmidt stated that she chose this amount after discussing it with board Chairman JR Glenn. Seeing as how CAPCIL has been waiting to see if they would be approved to receive that amount from the county, Glenn told Schmidt to make that the limit. State’s Attorney Bradley Hauge shared that he read through the application form, calling it “well-written” and needing only some minor changes before the regular board meeting on Tuesday, February 18th.

Keenan Leesman then spoke up, asking if there was specific guidance on how the Community Benefit Fund was intended to be used when it was originally established. Administrative Assistant Kati Newman explained that this fund was created was money from CRESCO and was unbudgeted. There were no guidelines or restrictions of any kind on how the money was to be used. Newman also shared that, so far, about $381,000 in donations have been made since the fund’s inception.

Leesman then mentioned that he disagreed with some of the wording in the application. The application used roads and streets as examples of things the Community Benefit Fund could be used for. Leesman argued that the Motor Fuel Tax is what is used to take care of these issues and so does not seem to fall under the purview of what the Community Benefit Fund’s intended use is. If it was a walking trail, Leesman said he could see it potentially being used for that, but not roads and streets.

Bob Sanders also brought up a potential issue he saw with the fund, that being people using the money to profit from. The example Sanders used was someone using the money they received to purchase land that would then be used to build an apartment complex on. He then asked if the board would be able to deny someone access to funding even if they met all of the criteria they would need to get it. Hauge chimed in, sharing that this was one of the things that he was going to tweak, making it clearer that the board can deny funds to anyone regardless of their qualifications according to the application.

Sanders then brought up if there was an amount of time someone would have to wait between applications. One year was brought up, but no official answer was given. He also brought up if there should be a “release valve,” making it so that the board could approve amounts over $7,500 in cases of emergencies, such as floods. The idea of removing the cap entirely, allowing people to apply for however much they thought they needed, was also discussed.

The Finance committee agreed to take roads and streets out of the language of the application, and Hauge shared that he did not think that he was going to be able to make all of the discussed changes before Tuesday. It was ultimately decided to send the application back to committee for March.

Before the board began discussing CAPCIL’s request, Michael DeRoss made a short statement that he would like to see a three percent tax be levied on recreational cannabis. All of the money made from that tax could then be put into a capital fund to be used for roof repairs within the county. The other board members liked this idea.

The board then discussed the $7,500 request made by CAPCIL. Breann Titus of CAPCIL was present and started by giving a recap to the board of why CAPCIL was requesting financial assistance. CAPCIL’s Lincoln building had a major issue with the roof that was going to need to be repaired. CAPCIL’s insurance covered most of the cost, but there was still over $20,000 that needed to be paid for. Seeing as how CAPCIL is a non-profit organization and primarily grant funded, this made paying for that amount very challenging.

For anyone unfamiliar with the finer details of grants, the money received from a grant has to be used in very specific ways. None of the grants CAPCIL gets are exclusively for capital improvements, such as fixing a roof.

Titus shared that she was encouraged by former Chairman Emily Davenport to apply for assistance from the Community Benefit Fund and did so in October of 2024. CAPCIL had received $7,500 from the city of Lincoln and so asked for a matching amount from the county. In the time that CAPCIL has been waiting, the roof project was finished, and they had to take the remaining amount out of their operating fund to pay for the repair.

Schmidt argued that, seeing as how CAPCIL does a lot for the Logan County community and has been waiting for so long, the board needed to approve the funding. Leesman asked if this was something the board wanted to use the Community Benefit Fund for. Leesman argued that setting this precedent will encourage other people with capital improvements they need done to come to the board and request funding. He also stated that roofs are not permanent, and that CAPCIL, or anyone else who has a roof project funded from the Community Benefit Fund, will likely come back once the roof is in need of repair in the future.

Leesman continued, stating that he would be willing to give the money toward one of CAPCIL’s programs that directly benefit the community, but not toward capital improvement. He encouraged Titus to resubmit the application, but this time stating what programs were “short-changed” by the amount they had to pay and requesting funding for these programs.

Titus stated that she understood why the board might be hesitant to use the Community Benefit Fund for a roof repair. She also explained that, while the programs may have been affected, their customers are not. “When you’re looking at a grant application, you have x amount of dollars set aside for client assistance and that money can’t be moved,” Titus said. CAPCIL would not have been able to move money from any of their programs because they are grant funded.

Titus then brought up that she filled out the application for financial assistance before the guidelines for the Community Benefit Fund were made. “I struggle… being penalized for guidelines that didn’t exist when the application was submitted and given to me.” Titus stated that, since this process has taken so long, and since the project has already been completed, this would be more of a reimbursement at this point rather than funding for the roof repair itself. Jim Wessbecher then asked where the money would go if they were to give it to CAPCIL, and Titus clarified that this would go back to their operational fund.

This CAPCIL application was moved to the board’s agenda for an official vote on Tuesday. The Community Benefits guidelines will go back to the committee for further enhancement.

[Matt Boutcher]