Will County Executive Committee met March 1.
Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:
I. Call To Order/ Roll Call
Chair Jim Moustis called the meeting to order at 10:09 am
Attendee Name; Title; Status; Arrived:
Jim Moustis Chair Present
Charles E. Maher Vice Chair Present
Darren Bennefield Member Present
Herbert Brooks Jr. Member Absent
Mike Fricilone Member Present
Donald Gould Member Present
Suzanne Hart Member Absent
Judy Ogalla Member Present
Annette Parker Member Absent
Lauren Staley-Ferry Member Present
Ray Tuminello Member Present
Tom Weigel Member Present
Denise E. Winfrey Member Present
Also Present: R. Freitag and M. Johannsen. Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe and K. Meyers.
II. Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag
Mr. Maher led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. Approval Of Minutes
1. WC Executive Committee - Assignment Meeting - Feb 1, 2018 10:00 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Tom Weigel, Member
Seconder: Donald Gould, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Gould, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
IV. Old Business
1. Discussion Re: Compensation for Elected Officials
(Discussion)
Mr. Moustis stated at least 6 months prior to the November general election, we look at compensation for elected officials. We have not given raises to elected officials, including County Board for a number of years. I believe the compensation is adequate; compensation is more than pay; elected officials, excluding County Board, receive a pension and are eligible for health insurance. After 30 years your pension is considerable; if, based on your length of service, you don’t qualify for pension, you get your money back.
Mr. Tuminello suggested a study be done based on job responsibilities, role of the office and compensate them adequately and fairly for the role they perform, each elected office is different. People running for office know the salary. Some are 7 days per week, 365 days per year, others are not. We could look at the number of employees, budget issues and responsibilities of one department versus the other. I struggle to find each one is worth the same amount.
Mr. Moustis stated there was a time when they were not compensated the same. Obviously, the responsibilities can be different, certainly budgets are different. Because the Sheriff may work more hours at certain times, he is paid more than everyone else, they are not the same. In the past, the countywide elected officials, fought the County Board and lobbied hard as they thought they should be compensated the same. The County Board is the only office where it costs you money to serve. We are not living on the $23,000 per year. The State Legislator took away County Board members’ ability to participate in the pension and that was part of the total compensation. Every elected official in this county will tell you how hard they work. What do you look at? The size of their budget? The number of employees? It was their decision to run for office. I have concerns County Board it is such a sacrifice that no one will want to do it.
Mr. Tuminello stated when you ask; what do you think they should be paid, I don’t know, because I don’t know their job.
Mr. Moustis stated the average household income in Will County is $66,000, and the elected officials’ total compensation is well into the 6 figures; is that reasonable? Should they make three times what the average household makes? We have looked at what elected officials in collar counties were being compensated, we could look at that again.
Mr. Fricilone stated we talked about elimination of pensions for countywide elected officials after we eliminated ours. We have no control over that, because there is no time clock punched by the countywide officials. They can say they work 20 hours and we have no way to prove that; if they say they work 20 hours we have to take them at their word. They don’t keep a log. If the legislature makes changes, so we can eliminate pensions for countywide officials that is something that might be warranted. Everybody looks at the $100,000 salary, instead of the total compensation.
Mr. Moustis stated all elected officials receive an additional stipend from the state, on top of what we are paying. We do not set the salary for the State’s Attorney; he is technically a state employee and they set his compensation. His salary has not been raised for several years.
Mrs. Tatroe indicated it has been about a decade.
Mr. Moustis stated the State’s Attorney’s has 24/7 responsibilities and the state has not raised the compensation either. Holding the line on compensation for elected officials is going on statewide.
Mr. Maher stated this is not about the person and how long they have been in the position. It is about the position and what the compensation should be for the office. They may get less than other counties, but that is the way this Board works and why we are a fiscally sound, responsible Board. We don’t let prices, wages and compensation go overboard. We will continue to do that.
Mr. Moustis stated we will go through each individual office and decide whether to increase, decrease or leave the compensation the same. In the case of the County Board, I don’t think there will be an increase and I would be open to a decrease. I think in the future, we might see different scheduling for the County Board. We have a difficult time filling committees, because we all have jobs, it is difficult to come here four, five, six or more times a month. We might need to condense committees and the times we are here. That is a discussion for when we reorganize.
Mr. Tuminello stated it is deceiving to just look at committee attendance. Ms. Winfrey will not attend Land Use Tuesday. Her record will show her absent, but she is in Washington DC representing the County.
Mr. Maher stated I would like this discussion continued to next month so the caucuses can come up with a plan. The caucuses are open meetings and the public can come in and listen to where we are going.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think it takes a lot of analysis to determine whether people are being properly compensated.
Ms. Winfrey stated I agree to moving this to the next meeting. A number of people are in Springfield and unable to participate in the discussion. Since the retirement package was taken away for County Board members, how does that get reimbursed? Are people going to be made whole from that? I think that would be one of the discussion points.
Mr. Balich stated the average household income is $66,000 for 40 hours worked.
Here our elected officials don’t have to show up and are paid. They answer to the people every four years. As long as people run for the offices, why do we need to give more money? We cannot say an elected official is full time; they are full time only to the extent they want to be.
Mrs. Ogalla stated we have never had a shortage of people running for any office. There are four of us on the March ballot. It is a decision you make to be of service to your community. It is up to the elected official to determine how much they want to be in the office. I think the compensation is fair. County Board is different, because we lost IMRF, but it is your choice to be here. If you don’t want to do it, you can choose to stay at your job and not come here.
Mr. Moustis stated I have probably served with 100 County Board members over the years; no one said they were here for the money. I don’t recall any countywide elected officials saying they ran for the money.
Mr. Maher stated there is a lot of work that goes into preparing for the meetings. That work takes place whether you miss a meeting to go to Washington or attend a work assignment. You have to earn money for your family to eat and to live in communities you do. This salary will not allow us to live in our communities as public servants. I never missed a meeting where I needed to take a critical vote. I missed meetings because I had to go somewhere as a requirement for work. That does not mean I don’t know what is going on. We are the only County Board in the region that does not give themselves raises on a constant basis. The DuPage County Board members give themselves raises and are making over $50,000 per year as a straight salary.
Mr. Moustis stated County Board members are the only elected officials the legislature and the press feels need to be accountable. This is what makes people not want to run, it is not the money. I am more concerned that is the reason for people to not serve versus salaries. This will come back in April. If an elected official wants to explain why their office needs to be compensated more, feel free to come in front of us and tell us why.
V. Other Old Business
VI. New Business
1. Presentation on the Hiring Process - Added
(Bruce Tidwell) Mr. Tidwell reviewed the attached Recruiting and Selection Processes summary.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions during the presentation for clarification.
Mr. Fricilone stated when a hire is sent to the County Executive to sign off on; why wouldn’t he sign off and how often does that happen?
Mr. Tidwell replied I have never seen where he has not. We try to make our process as fair and transparent as possible. We are an equal employment opportunity employer. We are required by the DOJ, to update and work on our EEOP plan every two years. If we are missing certain minority areas, by department, by office, we try to zero in on the weaknesses within that plan.
Mr. Moustis stated we don’t give preference, certainly we need to do outreach programs so minority groups are encouraged to apply. What type of outreach programs do you do encourage certain groups to seek and look at county employment? Mr. Tidwell basically has the executive branch. I don’t know what the elected officials do, since they have their own policy; maybe we should have them all come in and tell us what they are doing in terms of outreach.
Mr. Tidwell stated that is another perception of the public, they don’t understand the elected officials have the internal control of their offices.
Mr. Maher asked is there a 90 day review?
Mr. Tidwell replied there is a probation period for union employees; there is none for non-union employees, it is at will. Union employees have a six month probation, except for tele-communicators, which is 12 months and CO’s which is 12 or 18 months. The departments review their progress during that period. It is rare, but we have let someone go during the probationary period because they were not up to speed with the internal training. Typically departments have formal orientation and training for the positions. They know by the fourth month is the employee will make it.
Mr. Maher asked what is our average training time for the departments under the Executive?
Mr. Tidwell responded it could be from one week to six months or longer. Sometimes the department cycle is 12 months and you would not get to teach the person until their twelfth month.
Mr. Moustis stated we should be doing outreach internally to encourage employees at the lower paying job to get training so they are qualified for other County jobs. Maybe we could talk to them about opportunities within the county and the qualifications they need. Sometime employees need encouragement.
Mr. Tidwell stated there are some positions with career ladders built in, there is training. You don’t get promoted just because you have five years of service. In others, there are similar skills, but different work, but it is the same or more, we do encourage internally. If they are union positions, obviously seniority comes into play.
Mr. Moustis stated the CNA’s at the lower end of the pay scale at the nursing home, have to know there are opportunities, not just at the nursing home, but throughout the county.
Mr. Tidwell stated we have CNA’s transfer to other positions.
Mr. Moustis asked do we encourage them to look at other things? Do we do outreach?
Mr. Tidwell replied internally the departments should be encouraging those people.
Mr. Moustis stated we should have something to encourage people within the county to apply for everything available to them.
Mr. Tidwell stated we offer career development programs and tuition reimbursement, but it is budget driven. They can obtain the education or skills to move to another position, if we don’t have the money internally to pay for it, it is up to them to pay.
Mr. Moustis stated maybe that is something we should look at in the budget.
2. Replacement Hire Pre-posting for Supervisor of Assessments Office
(Rhonda R. Novak)
Ms. Novak stated previously, you gave me authorization to pre-post three positions, this is for one additional position. Those previous positions have been posted and hired, they will come to you next week. Those were entry level replacement positions. We went through the process Mr. Tidwell explained. Today I have another replacement. We received her notice, she is going to the City of Joliet and tomorrow is her last day. This puts me with four brand new people. It takes at least 90 days to get these people up to speed. The first three will start on March 26th, if approved at the Board meeting. It will take me into April to be able to fill this position. The statute changed for the senior freeze, the household income was $55,000 and is now $65,000. That puts us over 32,000 households who will qualify; currently, we have 10,500. Our typical mailing at the end of March is 11,000 new applications; this month we are mailing 42,000.
Mr. Fricilone asked why is there no salary range on the posting?
Ms. Novak replied this is not a union position, someone from within could apply for; this is not an entry level. This position as an administrative assistant does more of the verification and proof reading. Depending upon qualification, it would not exceed $38,000.
Mr. Maher asked is this in your current budget?
Ms. Novak answered yes.
Mr. Moustis asked to you have an independent policy, you have to also follow? I would like to see your process of hiring.
Ms. Novak replied I follow the process of HR.
Mr. Moustis stated if she needs advice and consent from this Board, she doesn’t have total internal control of her office. I would like Mrs. Tatroe to look at this.
Mrs. Tatroe stated she can have whatever process she wants. She can bring it forward and you can choose to say yes or no. You cannot force her to put in a system. If you don’t think she is following an appropriate system, you can say no.
Mr. Moustis stated until there is a system, it will be no. Tell us officially that you are adopting the HR policy. I want to make sure you have a fair process when you hire.
Ms. Novak stated I have adopted the HR policy. Mr. Tidwell, Ms. Malone or Ms. Hasbrouck handle this.
Mr. Moustis stated they may handle it, but I want to know you are going through the same process.
Mrs. Tatroe stated at the time the hire comes to you, ask what procedure she followed and get the answers you want. It is up to Ms. Novak to set whatever policy she wants. You can ask her about the policies, but you cannot make her have a written policy.
Mr. Moustis stated we are getting many questions about the County hiring process. When we can affect it and make sure everyone is getting a fair chance I am going to do that.
Ms. Novak stated I will get something that says that is what I have adopted. I can assure you, we are very careful and make sure we have those two piles. We cross over to the Hispanic and other minorities.
Mr. Maher stated are you using HR to assist you in this process?
Ms. Novak replied when you give me approval for a pre-posting, Ms. Evette Foster will immediately call HR and tell them. The only thing we do is put it in the system to ask you for approval. HR does the rest, take the applications, pull them, meet with Ms. Foster, set out the qualified and non-qualified, set the interviews, interview, do testing, all of it. I don’t sit in any of it. HR and Ms. Foster sit through the interviews.
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Ray Tuminello, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Gould, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
VII. Other New Business
Mr. Tuminello read the attached statement.
Mr. Moustis stated when I was in school, we had two Chicago policemen there. They were not there to deal with the student body, they were there for security, to make sure people were not hanging around the school and to make sure people had limited access to our building. We had two access points and they were usually at those points to make sure people who were not to be there were not, that included people who dropped out of school, they did not want to be in school, they wanted to hang out by the school. They made sure they did not. I agree, we should provide as much security as we can. Certainly, law enforcement can help with that. I think these could be excellent positions for retired law enforcement, qualified to carry a firearm, just like at the RVJC and here. Perhaps the Sheriff and other law enforcement could help put together a program using retired law enforcement officers to work 15 hours a week. Of course, they may say it would be better to have the same officers there. It is worth taking a look at, we should try to step up and make our schools secure as much as we can, perhaps we should start a dialog with the Sheriff.
Mr. Tuminello stated I want to work the Sheriff’s Department and develop an action plan. Then take it to the schools in the unincorporated areas and let them know we are willing to make the commitment. Then, go to the other municipalities within our County with the plan and tell them this is how we can help you. I would like to be the one who develops the model to make sure these children are safe.
Mr. Maher stated I recently had the opportunity to walk around Neuqua Valley High School with the principal for a safety walk. He had 50 or 60 parents with him to see what Neuqua was doing to keep the students safe in District 204. This is an important dialog to have because we can make assumptions as elected officials looking from the outside in, but we have to understand what the inside environment is already doing and what their needs are. The real discussion is when does safety begin. When you have 4,000 students walking into a building or being bussed to an area, where does the safety begin? In the neighborhood, in the school and when you look at who perpetrated the shootings in the schools, almost 90% were disgruntled students or students who had issues. One thing I talked about was the mental health aspect. The schools have weekly meetings to look at who may need the extra services. This is not just a Sheriff’s discussion, it is also a health department discussion. What can we do with those students who need wrap around services? It is not a person walking in off the street who shoot up schools, it is students who are perpetrating this issue. I think this is a great dialog to start. I am happy to see you bring this forward. When you start your dialog, are you going down a path that has already been gone down? If we are bringing in the leadership of the schools, school boards, health department and Sheriff’s department, and having this discussion, what are the resources available and what do we need. That gives us a way to fill gaps so we are safety conscience and fiscally conservative.
Mrs. Ogalla asked the Public Health & Safety Committee should start the initial conversations.
Mr. Moustis indicated the Judicial Committee should also be included and suggested a joint meeting. It is important to identify children who may have issues; teacher and students know who they are. Let us start with you have to make the perimeter as secure as you can. Determining the perimeter is part of the discussion.
Mr. Gould left at this juncture.
Mrs. Ogalla stated at Land Use we have been discussing the outstanding permits that were not closed and the process going forward. Mr. Mike Smetana put a process in place so it would not happen. Mr. David Dubois mentioned we originally had over 700 outstanding and there are now over 200 they are looking to close. The original letter sent out, should not have been threatening and we should have gone through a process to allow a waiver. Prior to a certain date there were waivers. Who made the decision to waive or not waive? At our next Land Use meeting I would like a copy of the Ordinance regarding putting a notification on the persons’ title, so it is done publically. All the responsibility was put on the land owners when they received the threatening letter. They have gone out, in some cases five years later, to do the final inspection. We need to have a better process.
Mr. Moustis stated I agree, the process used was a little threatening. There are two groups here; those who pulled the permit and those where the home may have turned over once or more and they are getting notifications and don’t know what they are talking about. I think there should have been alternative methods of addressing this. I would like to ask, who had the authority to put these notices on deeds?
Mr. Bennefield stated we need to pause the process and determine the legitimacy of what has been filed. Every agency has the ability to say this is a problem and it could cause problems.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t know who authorized this; I would not have had such an issue had it been brought to the County Board or Land Use Committee. Part of this is Land Use letting these things get to that point.
Mr. Palmer stated we were made aware of this issue and involved the County Board’s Chief of Staff and the SAO. We also met with the realtors. There is a process and the SAO, Ms. Freitag and I can explain. If you are selling a property where you took out a permit, did work, never had the work inspected and are quickly unloading it, this is a right for the new owner what they are getting themselves into. There is a process to remove this and get it cleared up at no charge to the owner. We can give a presentation and explain. Some Board Members do not want us to do any permits. We have permits for a reason and there is a process.
Mr. Moustis stated if this situation was brought to us in the very beginning, and we were asked how to move this forward, we would not be having this discussion.
Mrs. Tatroe stated there is a clerical error in the Ordinance, but recording the notice is in the Ordinance. It says record it with the Circuit Clerk; we don’t do that, it is recorded at the Recorders Office. That needs to be cleaned up. They followed the process in the Ordinance.
Mr. Palmer stated our staff is trying to be user friendly and help people clear them from the books. We have technology now that will help the process.
Ms. Freitag stated I have been working with the Executive’s Office, Mrs. Tatroe and Land Use and last week we met with Mr. Blustein. Originally there were 3,000 outstanding permits; 2,000 were closed right away. There were 850 people who received a letter and 534 were resolved without fees to the owner. Land Use and our staff worked with them. If an inspection needed to be done they worked with them and there were no fees. There were 360 subject to notice and recorded on title, some were resolved and there are 246. We talked about different options of sending a second letter. We have had internal talks and would like to work with the Board.
Mr. Bennefield stated my concern about the process if there has been a conveyance. The new owners have no idea what was going on.
Mrs. Tatroe stated a letter was sent to the address of the home, if they are living there they should have gotten the letter.
Mr. Bennefield continued it is addressed to the initial occupant, who was somebody else. They are getting something filed on their property history and they do not have any control over it.
Mrs. Ogalla stated where there is an issue like this, where a lot of people falling into a bucket and you are rectifying it, I would to know, before I get a call from a landowner. As a County Board rep for my area, I would like to know upfront about situations going on.
Mr. Palmer stated County Board Members hear from constituents all the time. Sometimes they contact you; sometimes they contact the department and sometimes they contact you, the department and the County Executive. We don’t always know about issues until Board Members calls us. If you contact Ms. Freitag regarding calls you receive from a constituent, she will probably contact me or the department and we will get it resolved. This issue came up, we heard about it and put a meeting together.
Mrs. Ogalla stated it is the responsibility of Lane Use to make sure the job is complete, not the customer. If something like this happens, I want to know upfront so we can have the conversation among ourselves and the department so we know what is going on. This was a big issue and it was very intrusive to the landowners. People are angry about the letters. Maybe we didn’t hear back from some of the homeowners, because it was a threatening letter. People did not know what to do. A lot of people are scared of government.
Mr. Palmer stated going forward if there are issues, contact the County Board office or our office.
Mrs. Ogalla continued I can’t contact you about an issue until I know there is an issue. I want to know about the issue prior, so we can talk about it. If something big, like 3,000 permits are not closed, I would like to have a conversation about it.
Mr. Palmer stated Mr. Bluestein did not come to our office first, he went to a caucus. If he came to us, we could have had a meeting much sooner.
Mr. Moustis suggested Land Use give a presentation at the next Land Use Committee meeting.
Statement on School Shootings (Handout)
VIII. Committee Assignment Requests
A. Land Use & Development Committee
T. Weigel, Chair
B. Finance Committee
M. Fricilone, Chair
1. Appropriating Safe Passage Donation from Joliet Township
(Kathleen Burke)
2. Transferring Appropriations within Special Funds for the Sheriff's Department
(Robert Contro / Vicki Hayes)
3. Transferring Appropriations between Funds and Budgeting Funds on Hand for Sheriff's Department
(Robert Contro / Vicki Hayes)
4. Transferring and Increasing Appropriations in Various County Budgets to Fund Year End Shortfalls
(ReShawn Howard)
5. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program
(Julie Shetina)
C. Public Works & Transportation Committee
D. Gould, Chair
1. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Supplemental Design Engineering Services Agreement with Willett, Hofmann & Associates Inc., on Various County Highways, County Board Districts #5, #12 and #13
(Jeff Ronaldson)
2. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering (Phase II) with Willett, Hofmann and Associates Inc. for Jackson Township Road District, County Board Districts #2 and #6
(Jeff Ronaldson)
3. Resolution Granting a Temporary Access Permit for Carillon Lakes HOA on Renwick Road (CH 36), County Board Districts #9 and #13
(Jeff Ronaldson)
4. Authorizing an Agreement between Enterprise TE Products Pipeline Company, LLC and the County of Will for Continued Maintenance, Operation, and Location of Fourteen Inch (14”) Pipeline, County Board Districts # 1, 2 & 12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
5. Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Laraway Road (CH 74) from Cedar Road (CH 4) to Stonebridge Drive, County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
6. Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Briggs Street (CH 54) from the I-80 westbound ramps north to Washington Street Section 17-00053-19-LA, County Board District #8
(Jeff Ronaldson)
D. Judicial Committee
D. Bennefield, Chair
1. Amending Section 43.03 of the Administrative Adjudication Ordinance
(Mary Tatroe)
E. Public Health & Safety Committee
J. Ogalla, Chair
F. Legislative & Policy Committee
S. Hart, Chair
G. Capital Improvements Committee
R. Tuminello, Chair
H. Executive Committee
J. Moustis, Chair
1. Authorizing Name Change of Hills Street to Hill Street in Joliet Township, County Board District #8
(Barb Steffen)
2. Voiding Bid for Well Abandonment - Land Use
(Rita Weiss)
IX. Request For State's Attorney's Opinion
Mr. Weigel asked Mrs. Tatroe for an opinion to explain the interpretation of the off- street parking as listed in our Ordinance. A copy of the Ordinance was provide and attached.
Mrs. Tatroe stated we are working with Land Use regarding outstanding questions about vehicles and who owns them. If there is parking attributed to the home occupation, it should be off-street.
Mr. Weigel stated Land Use needs to enforce our Ordinance.
Mr. Moustis clarified you are saying they cannot park on the public ROW, they have to be on the private property.
Mr. Weigel stated in the opinion received said they could park on the street. This says they cannot.
Mrs. Tatroe indicated she would review the opinion. There were parking regulations separate and distinct from this being interpreted. Are the vehicles attributable to the home occupation? I don't know. If they are personally owned, by the resident, he can park them on the street. There are questions that need to be answered.
Mr. Weigel continued if they are associated with the occupation of the business being operated there, then they are not personal vehicles.
Mrs. Tatroe stated if they are titled to the person, they are personal vehicles. There is no way to prove in court they are not.
Mr. Moustis stated the interpretation of the Ordinance is one issue; the other is whether they are in violation.
Mrs. Tatroe stated we have been trying for quite some time to set up a meeting.
Mr. Bennefield clarified in this scenario the occupation is out of the home, therefore if the individuals parks the vehicles used to support his occupation in the driveway, he can park his personal vehicles on the road.
Mrs. Tatroe replied he is okay.
Mr. Moustis stated he can register all the vehicles in his name. I think that is a weakness in the Ordinance we need to address. There are no company vehicles, they are all personal vehicles.
Mrs. Tatroe stated from a tax perspective the owner is probably better off having it titled to his business.
Home Occupations Ordinance
(Handout)
X. Accept Committee Assignment Requests
1. Motion to Approve Committee Assignments as Presented
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Seconder: Mike Fricilone, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
XI. Public Comments
Ms. Fritz stated I would like to make a point of correction to something Mr. Tuminello said. He used the phrase machine guns. That is not proper or correct. Most people associate machine guns with fully automatic guns, those are highly regulated. The federal government only issues a very small number of licenses for people to own those, so small that there is a waiting list. You cannot get a license for a fully automatic weapon unless someone dies. The other terminology that is not correct is assault rifle; that is an undefined phrase. An AR-15 does not refer to an assault weapon, the AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the original manufacturer of that style of rifle. The proper accepted terminology for an AR-15 or AK-47 or anything similar would be called a modern sporting rifle. I would like to insist that when these discussions come up in the future, if we are talking about or documenting anything regarding AR platform rifle, we either call it an AR platform or modern sporting rifle.
XII. Chairman's Report/Announcements
XIII. Executive Session
1. Motion to Adjourn at 11:45 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Darren Bennefield, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
2. Motion to Reconsider Motion to Adjourn
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
3. Motion to go into Executive Session at 11:45 AM for Land Acquisition
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Seconder: Mike Fricilone, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
4. Motion To Come Out Of Executive Session At 12:25 PM
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Member
Seconder: Ray Tuminello, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
5. Motion to Concur with State's Attorney's Recommendation
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Member
Seconder: Ray Tuminello, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
XIV. Adjournment
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:27 pm
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Ray Tuminello, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Bennefield, Fricilone, Ogalla, Staley-Ferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Brooks Jr., Hart, Parker
Left Meeting: Gould
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2930&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up