Will County Gazette

Will County Public Works and Transportation Committee met March 6.

Here is the minutes provided by the Committee:

I. Call To Order / Roll Call

Chair Donald Gould called the meeting to order at 9:00 am

Attendee Name; Title; Status; Arrived:

Donald Gould Chair Present

Tom Weigel Vice Chair Present

Steve Balich Member Present

Mark Ferry Member Present

Suzanne Hart Member Absent

Donald A. Moran Member Present

Annette Parker Member Present

Cory Singer Member Late

Jacqueline Traynere Member Present

Present from State's Attorney's Office: D. McGrath.

II. Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag

Mr. Moran led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

III. Approval Of Minutes

1. WC Public Works & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting - Feb 6, 2018 9:00 AM

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

Mover: Tom Weigel, Vice Chair

Seconder: Steve Balich, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

2. Executive Session Minutes - Public Works and Transportation Committee February 6, 2018

(Minutes)

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Steve Balich, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

IV. Old Business

1.Update and Clarification for the Temporary Signal at S. Carillon Drive & Weber Road

(Jeff Ronaldson)

Mr. Gould stated we received a communication from the Carillon residents and they need additional time.

Mr. Singer arrived at this juncture.

Result: Tabled [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Steve Balich, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Traynere

Absent: Hart, Singer

2. Authorizing an Agreement Between the County of Will and BP Pipeline (North America) Inc. for Reimbursement for Relocating Facilities Along 135th Street (CH 35) from Smith Road to Emily Lane, County Board District #7

(Jeff Ronaldson)

Motion to Remove from Table

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Jacqueline Traynere, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

Motion to Table-

Mr. Ronaldson stated the State's Attorney's Office is still reviewing the contract.

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Jacqueline Traynere, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

V. Other Old Business

VI. New Business

1.Discussion Regarding Reduced Oversize/Overweight Permit Fees for Companies near State Highways.

(Jeff Ronaldson)

Mr. Ronaldson stated last month we passed the on-line permitting and increased fees; these went into effect on Monday. A gentleman spoke at the Republican caucus regarding the fee increase to local businesses. Our office was directed to explore options to offer reduced fees to local businesses. It is difficult with many businesses, a big county and many variables. We met with the local business to understand their practice. Allowing a reduced fee for a business a quarter or half mile off the county highway; would not work for this individual because they go four miles on the county highway system and four miles is too great to grant countywide. They operate a limited continuous operation (LCO) which means they get a permit for either a day, a week or a month. This is in our Ordinance for sealed containers and with a month permit they can move as many times as they want. Obviously, the fee is more. This particular business operates this way. If this is opened to the entire county, we lose a measure of control, because you don’t know how many trucks are on the roads. As part of the Freight Study, we are looking at establishing truck routes, but that will take time to coordinate with the local municipalities. These routes will be for all trucks, legal or not. We are currently talking about over-weights. What is set up in the Oxcart system is for the LCOs and we could limit it to the freight clusters. Our Freight Study identified the freight clusters and we know where the sealed container trucks go. We could set up envelopes in the Oxcart system, keeping them to these specific routes. We don’t know the scheme of the truck routes yet, but we know where they are in our system in relation to the freight clusters. Staff has come up with a list, of what might work for these envelopes. Nicholas Crane would fit into this category, this would serve them, but the fees are still a problem in his opinion. I am asking for direction on a couple of items. Do we want to go forward with the LCOs in the clusters identified in the freight plan? Do we want to offer discounted rates, utilizing only these LCO for local businesses? We would have to define local businesses very tightly, since I don’t think you want to open it to everyone.

Mr. Moran asked what would prevent every business from doing a DBA with the SOS and getting a post office box in Will County? I agree local business would need to be tightly defined.

Mrs. Traynere asked why is a local business different? A truck is a truck and weight is weight, they are all causing wear and tear on the roads.

Mr. Moran asked is there a way to differentiate; a crane will always be overweight.

Mrs. Traynere asked is this crane company paying fees now?

Mr. Ronaldson replied yes, they are paying for permits. They pay the high end of the fee schedule and it hits them harder than most.

Mr. Moran stated if they take a crane out on a four hour job, we added a significant amount to their fee.

Mr. Ronaldson clarified it is roughly three and half times.

Mr. Singer asked is the business in unincorporated Will County? The County gave him the zoning to operate a crane company. We knew to operate a crane company, he would transport cranes and cranes are heavy pieces of equipment. Now there is another fee associated with his business. I don’t know if it is about discounts, but how can we tell him he can be in business, give the zoning and now tell the owner there is a series of fees on the backside for you to run that business.

Mrs. Traynere stated they have always had these fees. We just increased them.

Mr. Singer continued when it comes to containers or moving freight, those companies could reduce the weight of the containers or loads of grain to less than 80,000 lbs. and they would not have to pay the fees. This man is never in a position to reduce the weight of the crane.

Mr. Moran stated many of the containers are sealed and the weight cannot be reduced or divided. A crane company or any company that hauls heavy equipment will always be overweight and will want the same dispensation.

Mr. Gould asked how do other counties make a distinction?

Ms. Patti Killinger indicated she did not know about the other counties. Cook County gives a 50% discount to local businesses domiciled in Cook County. If they are within one mile of a county highway, they get two miles on an LCO.

Mr. Singer stated if we give a person zoning to operate a business, but we continue to raise fees, then we could keep doing this until he cannot stay in business. Companies understand the cost to ship containers, cost when it gets on the ground and other costs. If a person needs a crane for a few hours, there is a point where he is either out of business or passing these huge fees along to someone else.

Mr. Moran stated you could have a crane company from Cook County and they would stay on state highways and get off for a half mile, use the frontage road to get to the job site. Our local contractors are at a disadvantage because they have to buy a permit from the county.

Mr. Weigel stated we should allow some discount for the local businesses, if we can define local business.

Mr. Balich stated Mr. Moustis suggested for local businesses, actually doing business and not just having a post office box, get an exemption to get to the highway. There would be a certain limit to get to the highway from their business, without getting a permit.

Mr. Ronaldson stated we had that conversation with the business. If they are going west they can do that; they go half a mile to Cherry Hill Road to Route 52 to Richards Street to get I-80. If he goes east, the business does not like the ramp to I-80 so they use Laraway to Gouger and get on Route 30; that is four miles of county roads.

Mr. Balich stated if that is the only way they can go and they are a local business, could we waive the fees.

Mr. Ronaldson stated we don’t know how many businesses would fall into this category.

Mr. Moustis stated be careful when you say local business, because CenterPoint and RidgePoint are local businesses.

Mr. Weigel stated maybe a local business could be defined by volume or the money they operate on; $1 million versus $100 million.

Mr. Nichols stated the County is building a new courthouse, a contractor from out of county is doing the work. Over the course of the job, he had a $20,000 advantage in permit fees because he could come off the state routes to get to the job. I did not bid the job, but that was a disadvantage off the top. That is the type of impact this is having on my company and our location. The new fee structure set up in Oxcart is a 300-400% increase in permit fees, a severe disadvantage to my business. I hope we can find some common ground where this will be fair to everybody and protect our local contractors. I have been a Will County resident for 40 years and I paid enough tax money to the county I should have an advantage over someone from out of the county or state.

Mrs. Traynere stated could it be part of the process, if somebody thinks they are a local business, they should apply to be accepted as a local business. The criteria should include; you have an office, real estate, brick and mortar and you pay taxes to Will County.

Mr. Ronaldson indicated he is working with the State’s Attorney’s Office and would ask if this would be legal. We don’t want to overburden our staff to identify these businesses on every permit; criteria, it would be helpful for our staff. I need some direction from this Committee.

Mr. Singer stated we should consider a section that determines if by the nature of this company’s business they have to be overweight, then we should consider no increase in fees or a maximum.

Mr. Nichols stated it is an accepted practice to grandfather in certain businesses.

Mr. Singer stated the origin of the problem is the millions of cargo containers coming into the County annually. Why don’t we consider that is the issue, those companies made business decisions and will continue to transport 100,000 lb. containers, because it makes sense, the fee is still less than the increased profit from the overweight. Mr. Nichols’ situation is different. We need to consider what the real problem is and focus the fees there, not on people who have to be overweight to do their job.

Mr. Ronaldson stated the container industry may argue by definition they are overweight as well.

Mr. Moustis asked will AG be exempt because they are all overweight?

Mr. Singer stated they are overweight by decision. The overweight fee is less than the plus side of running heavy.

Mrs. Traynere asked could the crane or road equipment could be disassembled?

Mr. Moran stated they take off the counter weights, but cannot disassemble anything more.

Mr. Moustis stated at the last the freight group meeting, they said they don’t mind paying the overweight fees as they pass the expense to the customer. They figure that in their rates and don’t mind paying it. That may not be the case for this particular business. It is not just about a permit fee; it is about which roads you go on and letting him determine the routing to avoid certain roads. When you start talking about exemptions, you don’t want trucks going all over the county roads. As I mentioned, I would let this man get to the state roads with no permit, if he is within a half mile or so, with a non-divisible load. That should be part of it; a non-divisible load. If you don’t want to use what we determine as the preferred route, because you don’t like it, then what? Going west they don’t like the state route, the route we are suggesting. Laraway and Gouger are fragile roads, they are not improved, not very wide, and I don’t think they are the best roads for heavy equipment to be on. Not all of our roads are made for Mr. Nichols’s equipment. We have to have some restriction on what roads they can use.

Mr. Nichols stated a few years ago we travelled Laraway to Route 45, the County asked us to use Laraway to Gouger to Route 30. That is the route we began using, but it is an inconvenience because of the stop lights and that costs us time.

Mr. Moustis stated the permit fee is as much about the routing and roads to use as being overweight. I would say if you have a non-divisible load and your company is based in Will County, we will give you a reasonable amount to get to a state road. Mr. Singer mentioned we give zoning to these businesses. When a business gets zoning, they understand there are permit fees and costs. When they select a location, they should be aware of the permit fees to move out of the location. I would rather give a free route to a state route than reducing fees or not reducing fees, let them apply for an exemption for a length of a road. I don’t know what a reasonable distance would be.

Mr. Moran stated if we decided a local contractor with a non-divisible load is going to be charged the permit fee at the old rate, does Oxcart have a way to identify those in the system so they would be charged a different rate?

Ms. Killinger replied the first time it would be a manual two-step process. It would then become a one-step process, but they would be on their honor.

Mrs. Traynere asked do you think the mileage Mr. Moustis was talking about is the better way, versus having people apply?

Mr. Ronaldson stated one local business is 3.6 miles away. So what is the number?

Mr. Gould stated it is one thing to have a discount, but it is another to say exempt, because our roads are still subject to the wear and tear. Heretofore, everyone paid $20 with no complaints. When we raised the fees at the last Board meeting, they are at the low end of what other counties charge. We are not charging more than other counties. I think there should be some fee involved, it should not be totally exempt.

Mrs. Traynere asked if we are at the low side, why is Mr. Nichols seeing such an increase?

Mr. Ronaldson replied cranes are on the higher end of the fee schedule because they are heavier. Previously, that aspect was not part of our fees.

Mrs. Traynere asked what do other counties charge for cranes?

Mr. Moran clarified it went from $20 to more than two and half times. It is a big number. I think we need to go back and look at the numbers.

Mr. Gould asked Mr. Ronaldson to bring something back in writing to the next meeting.

Mr. Moustis stated if classification is what drives the cost for these loads, why couldn’t we look at the classification or create a classification specifically for moving equipment? Is there a way to have a classification that is not just by weight, but by type? We waive fees for the Ag people during harvest season. I think classification would be a way to approach this. Could you bring this to the Committee for consideration?

Mr. Ronaldson responded the current classifications are by weight.

VII. Other New Business

VIII. Resolutions To Be Recommended To County Board

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)

Mr. Ronaldson stated after our annual bridge inspection was done, three more bridges are in need of maintenance. This will include all maintenance into one contract.

Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Jacqueline Traynere, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

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)

Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

3. Resolution Granting a Temporary Access Permit for Carillon Lakes HOA on Renwick Road (CH 36), County Board Districts #9 and #13

(Jeff Ronaldson)

Mr. Ronaldson explained the HOA wants to build a shed and they have no access.

Result: Moved Forward [7 To 1]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Tom Weigel, Vice Chair

Seconder: Annette Parker, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Nays: Moran

Absent: Hart

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)

Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Tom Weigel, Vice Chair

Seconder: Steve Balich, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

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)

Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Tom Weigel, Vice Chair

Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

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)

Mr. Ronaldson explained the reconstruction on Briggs Street from I-80 ramps north.

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

To: Will County Board

Mover: Steve Balich, Member

Seconder: Annette Parker, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

IX. Director Of Transportation Discussion

1. Pavement Management Plan

(Jeff Ronaldson)

Mr. Ronaldson stated the federal government is initiating a payment management plan as a new standards to apply for STP funds. As part of that plan, we are required to get number values for friction, wear and tear and rutting of the roadways. They monitor our roads and then the best candidates for maintenance come forward. We do not have the plan they are looking for, we do it ourselves. The federal government wants to see hard numbers and to do that, we have to hire a company to survey the roads. Their information goes into a formula to create the number. It is an unfunded mandate. The other counties in the district already do this, we are the only one that does not; when you go south, very few of them do it. CMAP put together a grant and we have applied, they would establish this if we were the awardee. They would do the initial surveys, set up the system, with our input, at no cost to the County. We have made the application and hope to hear a response in the next few months.

Mrs. Traynere asked are the downstate counties eligible to apply?

Mr. Ronaldson answered no, they are outside CMAP.

Mrs. Traynere stated if we are the only county applying are we likely to get the award?

Mr. Ronaldson replied it is for municipalities as well.

Mrs. Traynere continued since the feds want us to have this, will they use the data to determine whether we deserve to get the grant? It seems the southern areas get more money than we do.

Mr. Ronaldson responded the money is distributed by regions and districts. Our money does not comingle, we would be competing with those in our district.

Mrs. Traynere asked would they use these numbers to determine how much money we will get?

Mr. Ronaldson replied yes, it is one of the criteria to determine awards. Moving forward it would be an $80,000 to $90,000 cost to maintain the system.

Mrs. Traynere asked would that cost be comparable to what you are spending now?

Mr. Ronaldson answered right now my staff is doing it as part of their day-to-day responsibilities and the cost is minimal.

Mrs. Traynere continued this means permanently having an outside contractor?

Mr. Ronaldson explained how the contractor would measure the roads and we don’t have that type of equipment.

Mr. Gould asked who is our CMAP representative?

Mr. Palmer responded Mayor Noak of Romeoville.

Mr. Gould asked Mr. Ronaldson to reach out to Mayor Noak and make sure he is aware of this.

Mr. Ronaldson reminded members of the open house for the 143rd Street Public Meeting tomorrow from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Hadley School.

X. State's Attorney Discussion

XI. Monthly Work Reports & Build Will Reports

1. Construction Status Report

(Jeff Ronaldson)

2. Maintenance Status Report

(Jeff Ronaldson)

3. Phase II Construction Status

(Jeff Ronaldson)

4. Phase II Summary Report

(Jeff Ronaldson)

XII. Reports By Committee Members

A brief discussion took place regarding the Resolution from the Village of Elwood regarding lane widening on I-80.

Mr. Weigel asked for an update on the Parker Road and Francis Road improvement. Instead of taking land on both sides of the road, could it be taken only from the north? There are four houses on the south side and one on the north side with a bigger setback.

Mr. Ronaldson stated when we initially looked at the project, we looked at alternatives for the alignment. There were a number of factors that played into the decision. If we shifted the roadway north, the roadway will be over a 24 inch Lake Michigan water main. We would to move the water main at an estimated cost of $1.4 million for a $1 million project. Also, the taper rates to the north are different and we would have to use different criteria as the tapers would then run into the railroad. We would have to coordinate with the railroad and potentially the bridge to the east. On the current alignment we don’t touch the railroad ROW. The property owners to the north have a number of trees that we will have to take, that owner would not appreciate us taking even more. We will hit them, but I think they would have comments whether we should go to the north or not. The main reason is the water main and the railroad. We are taking only 50 feet from each side; our standard is 60 feet. We are doing a reduced amount to accommodate the project and minimize the impact.

Mr. Weigel asked what is the present ROW?

Mr. Ronaldson replied it is 35 feet on both sides. We are taking an extra 15 feet from each side.

Mr. Weigel asked when will Briggs Street and Mills Road be widened?

Mr. Ronaldson replied it is an issue; the turning radius is very short. The engineering is done from Mills to I-80. That was to be constructed this year, but we are having ROW issues and now will be reconstructed in 2019 if we get the ROW.

Mrs. Parker asked for an update on I-55 and Weber Road.

Mr. Ronaldson stated the contract is out for letting and bids will be opened on Friday. Once the contract is awarded we will learn the schedule.

Mr. Moran added IDOT claims a 45 day mobilization after the award. The utilities are still being relocated.

XIII. Public Comment

XIV. Chairman's Report / Announcements

XV. Executive Session

XVI. Adjournment

1. Motion to Adjourn at 9:55 am

Result: Approved [Unanimous]

Mover: Donald A. Moran, Member

Seconder: Mark Ferry, Member

Ayes: Gould, Weigel, Balich, Ferry, Moran, Parker, Singer, Traynere

Absent: Hart

Next Meeting - April 3, 2018

https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=2923&Inline=True