Will County Executive Committee met September 6.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. Call To Order/ Roll Call
Chair Jim Moustis called the meeting to order at 10:10 am
Attendee Name; Title; Status; Arrived:
Jim Moustis; Chair; Present
Charles E. Maher; Vice Chair; Present
Darren Bennefield; Member; Absent
Herbert Brooks Jr.; Member; Present
Mike Fricilone; Member; Present
Donald Gould; Member; Present
Suzanne Hart; Member; Present
Judy Ogalla; Member; Present
Annette Parker; Member; Present
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. Weigel led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. Approval Of Minutes
1. WC Executive Committee - Assignment Meeting - Aug 2, 2018 10:00 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
Seconder: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
2. Executive Committee - Executive Session Minutes
(Minutes)
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Seconder: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
3. WC Executive Committee - Board Agenda Setting Meeting - Aug 9, 2018 10:00 am
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Donald Gould, Member
Seconder: Ray Tuminello, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
IV. Old Business
1.Bid Results for Consultants for Solar Photovoltaic Application on County Owned Land & Buildings
(Discussion)
Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Tkac and Ms. Bluemer to recap the RFQ for Solar PV Applications on County owned sites. Would it make sense to use the power onsite or put it on the grid?
Ms. Bluemer stated it would be more financially advantageous to use onsite.
Mr. Moustis stated the court’s view on juveniles has shifted with less detention and I wonder about the future of RVJC. So has a 25 year life, and it can go to 40; I don’t know that RVJC has 25 years of life as a detention center; it does not mean it won’t be a county facility. Judge Schoenstedt was asked to give an update to the Judicial Committee on what the future is for juvenile detention. The courts are shifting more to treatment than detention; that makes sense for a young person. Do we have other sites?
Mr. Tkac replied the primary site is the ADF, but it could be put on any of our sites. This RFQ was to assess the viability of the building or property prior to bringing any recommendations. The vendor will look at the ADF and determine whether solar could be added to the roof without structural improvements.
Ms. Bluemer stated there will be a due diligence period before any solar projects are brought for consideration. We want to understand what is available for solar implementation and prioritize them.
Mr. Moustis stated we will interview firms to assist with an assessment of where solar applies.
Mr. Tkac stated we had a strong response from a number of highly qualified firms.
Discussion took place regarding past interview process for consultants and previous Committee Members, potential dates for interviews and time allowed for presentations and Q&A. Consensus was 25 minutes for presentation, 15 minutes Q&A. Dates selected were either September 24 or 27.
Motion to Create Committee to Interview Consultants for Solar Photovoltaic Applications on County Owner Land & Buildings
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Ray Tuminello, Member
Seconder: Mike Fricilone, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
2. Amending Chapter 110: Alcoholic Beverages of the Will County Code of Ordinances (Liquor Ordinance) Re Number of Liquor Licenses
(Jim Harvey)
Mr. Harvey stated this is an Ordinance reducing the number of liquor licenses from 57 to 55; as two businesses went out of business.
Mr. Moustis replied this ensures there will be a public hearing to allow the public to participate. Without the Ordinance, if one is available, they go to the Liquor Commissioner, the County Executive, if they qualify and their paperwork is in order the license is issued. This gets the Board and community involved, because we have to add a license and do a public hearing. A public hearing will be done at the County Board meeting.
Result: Moved Forward [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Judy Ogalla, Member
Seconder: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
V. Other Old Business
VI. New Business
1. Grant Writer Update
(Lois Mayer)
Ms. Lois Mayer reviewed the spreadsheet in the agenda packet, highlighting the Drug Free Grant received. It is a countywide project, it allows us to apply for more grants in that specific area and will help leverage additional federal funds. The federal amount is $125,000 with a 100% County match. This is a good, five year project for the County. It was decided two years ago the project would be housed in the Sheriff’s Department, working with youth up to age 18 with substance abuse. He established a 501-3(c) as required for the grant.
Mr. Moustis stated I have concerns, we have the Sheriff, Dr. Burke and Health Department, three different agencies within the County, doing similar work.
Ms. Mayer stated this is an epidemic level and the more forces working together the better.
Mr. Moustis stated I have issues with enforcement doing treatment. You said we determined two years ago it would go to the Sheriff’s Department. When we do these grants, we should not duplicate efforts. Is there coordination between all the agencies doing the same type of work? Will you work with everyone so there is no duplication? The County is committing $125,000 of our revenue to this grant; it is a $250,000 program going to the Sheriff. Is this for a specific treatment? Why did this wind up in the Sheriff’s Department?
Ms. Mayer replied this is building a coalition throughout the County to address a public health, public awareness strategy to address youth. The Illinois State Survey is surveying high schools to help guide the project. This went to the Sheriff because the Health Department chose to not take on this project.
Dr. Burke state the difference between the work the Sheriff’s Department deals with children and I deal with adults. It is important we are connected. This normally would not be in the Sheriff’s Department, but the timing was off, and there was an opportunity. I helped write the grant. We are connected and collaborating. It is not an enforcement grant, it is an education grant.
Mr. Moustis stated who is qualified at the Sheriff’s Department to do the education? We had DARE officers and the program was discontinued because it was felt the program was not effective enough. How will they apply this?
Dr. Burke stated the DOC grant is very strict and outcome based. You have to meet the outcomes or you will not get the grant the second year. The Sheriff’s Department has posted for a grant coordinator. There is a similar coalition in Wilmington with a coordinator and they work with the Board for the grant. It is very important this is coordinated and I have been working with the Sheriff’s Office.
Mr. Maher asked when will we receive the award?
Ms. Mayer answered it was awarded and the implementation date is September 1st.
Mr. Fricilone asked is the $125,000 matching in our budget?
Ms. Mayer replied yes; we used in kind and cash. It would not have been awarded if we had not had the finances in place.
Dr. Burke stated I am concerned about raising money in five different places.
Mr. Moustis asked Dr. Burke to do the coordination and talk with the Sheriff to avoid duplication.
Mr. Maher added working with youth is very different than working with adults.
Dr. Burke stated the statutes are the same and based on the Illinois Youth Survey. The Committee this year got all Will County schools to come on board and have IYS. The challenge will be making sure the strategies are substantive and researched based. I would like to make sure that happens.
Ms. Mayer stated the Sheriff’s Department implemented this to a very high degree this year, without this grant. Components were put in place to apply; the coalition was established, provided the MOU and did one year of groundwork to apply. They hit the ground running. They are working to hire a Director of the project.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like the Sheriff’s Office to explain how they are going to put this together.
Ms. Freitag stated at the Public Health Committee there was some discussion. Dr. Burke gave her report and Mr. Contro was here. Currently, they have Mr. Jeff Jerz coordinating. He was doing this prior to Dr. Burke and they are working together.
Dr. Burke clarified I trained Mr. Jerz, but he is not qualified to run an education program.
Mr. Moustis stated there should be a discussion whether Dr. Burke can do that also and be compensated. I want this to be an effective and efficient program and you need qualified employees. Dr. Burke what qualifications do you think this person would need? You could also give the Sheriff guidance on qualifications a person would need to do an educational program.
Dr. Burke stated the Wilmington Coalition told me the person needs to know how to run a grant. The financial responsibilities to the feds is very different than a small corporate grant. They have to keep books, monitor the work and where the money is going. You also need an educational strategy. You must understand what makes an impact when you teach a class or offer a large group meeting. They want things that change policy; you need to change policy, which impacts changing policy long term. The DARE program did not change policy, it was an educational program.
Ms. Winfrey asked are you on the Sheriff’s review committee for the person they are looking at?
Dr. Burke replied no.
Ms. Winfrey stated most places have more than just you; that may be the opportunity for us to expand your area to cover coordination, strategizing and get a quality education for all people.
Mr. Tuminello stated to avoid duplication and overlapping of some services, it might be well served to go to Public Health with an overview and structure moving forward.
Mr. Moustis agreed Ms. Mayer, Dr. Burke and the Sheriff’s Department could come to a meeting and let us know how this all coordinates.
Ms. Mayer clarified I have nothing to do with implementation other than to make sure they are matching what we said in the grant.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to see; Dr. Burke, Health Department and Sheriff’s Department be involved in drug treatment and education and how they will coordinate.
Mr. Maher suggested adding someone from drug court.
Dr. Burke indicated Ms. McCabe would be a good person as she deals with the same things.
Mr. Moustis continued we will add Ms. McCabe and it will be a panel discussion of how everyone will work together.
Mr. Maher agreed it has to be a coordinated effort. Too many things end up in the Courts and they need to understand the direction and policies to influence and provide suggestions on a legal aspect.
Mr. Moustis stated we are matching $125,000 a portion will come from general revenue or tax dollars. Changes in the law means a new way of distributing funds to the Problem Solving Courts. We need a discussion with the Chief Judge about how the fees go into programs through the courts. Ms. McCabe spoke on her concerns with the specialty courts. We need a meeting with everyone to talk about coordination. We have a successful drug program and our two main programs are the Drug Courts and Dr. Burke’s programs.
Ms. Winfrey suggested Dr. Burke lead the meeting since she has the necessary background.
Dr. Burke stated I communicate what we are doing across the State. Our drug court is different and successful because we run them differently. It is important for me to know what is going on so I can communicate it to the community. I like being the collaborator.
Mr. Moustis stated this is a youth program and no agency or division of government sees more troubled youth, than the courts. They see kids in real trouble. Since this is youth based, what are the courts doing with youth with addiction problems? This grant brings more education to children. Some kids start using drugs at a young age, 12 or 13, and wind up in the system.
Judge Schoenstedt stated some children are born addicted and they fight it their entire lives. We have psychologists on staff at RVJC; they don’t do treatment, but they recognize treatment is necessary and refer the child out. There is a big move statewide, including our circuit on sending someone to St. Charles as a last resort. Getting the services they need is far more important and usually that means not being detained. We eventually want to get them to the point they can be back out in the community, hopefully with their family.
Mr. Maher asked could I get a copy of the grant to see the outcomes? Was reducing recidivism one of the outcomes?
Ms. Mayer replied no.
Mr. Maher continued this is all about the impact of policy and looking at how we address the problem? It would be good for Public Health & Safety to get a copy of the grants to get an idea of the required outcomes.
Mr. Fricilone suggested a workshop to bring all the parties together with the County Board so we can understand where were we are going and what we are doing.
Dr. Burke stated given the statistics in our community it is important for the County Board set strategy and policy on how to handle.
Mr. Moustis suggested setting up a meeting off-site to talk internally and bring in speakers and interested parties. I am interested in kids and how we can head it off at an earlier age. Very often it is not addressed and they don’t get into recovery until they are in their 20’s and 30’s; then they are really a mess.
Mr. Palmer stated Dr. Burke and I met with Mr. Doug O’Brien, Regional Director for HHS. He is a good contact for us and very focused on what we are doing. He was going to come here and give a presentation, but we have been unable to coordinate schedules, if we do a bigger program, he could talk about what they are doing on a national level and bring in additional resources, we could make this an all-encompassing topic.
Mrs. Ogalla stated first we should have a meeting with the immediate group develop a plan and have the large presentation.
Ms. Mayer stated the coalition will have all the grant advisors from the Federal Drug Free project to help them. They want this to be successful. There is an evaluation component and there is a person from UIC on the program. The only other grant I want to emphasis was money from the DOJ for the Cops program for the school violence program. The Homer School District was the only district interested. We applied for a $500,000 grant for Homer Schools for infrastructure projects to make their schools safer. I hope next year more Will County schools will be interested in this program. The grant runs through the Sheriff’s Department and he was extremely supportive.
2. CMS Update
(Mike Shay)
Mr. Shay stated this month were awarding Karpel the CMS contract and granting the Executive permission to negotiate. I have been reviewing the contract and getting clarification from the vendor for the ability and costs for using the option of a hosted versus on premise solution. We will not be buying hardware, but move to a hosted cloud based solution. The annual cost is $28,400 and is reasonable for a system of this size.
Mr. Moustis asked is this an on-going negotiation?
Mr. Shay stated no. In the bid document we asked them to price both on premise and hosted, cloud based solution; we have the option to select either one. I am confirming the costs of the options and how those are included in their response to our bid.
Mr. Moustis stated this is a straight out bid scenario; they are bidding the service.
Mr. Shay continued the option was in the bid and I have confirmed price, their response was written very tightly. The cost to implemente and all the first year costs, based on their bid response is $781,150, if we use the hosted solution. There would be no maintenance cost for 2019. The 2020 maintenance cost, because Probation would not have a cost while they developed their system would be free to us. The maintenance for 2020 is around $119,000 and in 2021 we would go to the true annual maintenance cost from their bid; un-negotiated, of $162,150 per year. That is all the licensing and hosting costs.
Mr. Moustis asked have we selected this vendor?
Mr. Shay answered this was the recommendation of the selection committee; it has not been awarded yet.
Mr. Moustis asked are you bringing a Resolution with the amounts you listed or are you negotiating something else? I want to move this forward because the sooner it is implemented, the more positive results we will have. What can we afford now or are we waiting for negotiations to take place?
Mr. Shay responded the only negotiations are other small options included in the bid response.
Mr. Moustis clarified everything you mentioned we can move forward to the full County Board. After the review of the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Shay indicated everything is included in the annual fee of $162,150; the licensing fee is based on the current number of users. If we change the number of users the number will vary. It includes the hosting fee, support costs; it is an all in annual cost, unless we request something special from them.
Mr. Maher asked what kind of data are they storing? Are we storing JPEG and videos?
Mr. Shay replied yes. An explanation was given on how the law enforcement agencies, State’s Attorney’s, Public Defender and Probation will use the system and attachments of evidence that could be added. Some of the files will be large and will be hitting their data storage. The first two terabytes are included; additional terabytes are $100 per month.
Mr. Moustis asked do we need that in place before the Board meeting? Can we do incrementally or do we just give permission to continue?
Mrs. Tatroe stated if you give clear parameters, you can allow them to execute the contract as within the parameters. If you are not comfortable with that, you can bring the contract back after everything has been resolved.
Mr. Moustis asked is that the preference of the committee to give them parameters?
Mr. Fricilone asked what is the costs of things you are negotiating?
Mr. Shay answered approximately $20,000. My memo asked for permission to negotiate and to execute. The Resolution before you gives permission to award and permits me to negotiate, it does not give permission to execute. I can bring it back next month or you can add the additional parameter to execute.
Mr. Moustis stated we can allow you to execute as long as it is within the parameters we set. What parameters would you suggest?
Mr. Shay replied I am asking for permission, up to $825,000 total for implementation and first year costs with State’s Attorney’s approval.
Mr. Moustis agreed.
Mr. Maher stated because we don’t know all the additional things from the RFP; will they be implemented right away? This will be a big rollout; why do they need to be addressed now, instead of after the rollout?
Mr. Shay answered they are options and to discuss them I need permission to negotiate.
Mr. Maher asked do you need these options today in order to rollout and what you are trying to accomplish? Why were those not put into the original RFP.
Mr. Shay explained they have a recommended training schedule, but they offer additional training at $1,200 per day per trainer. I need to talk with the State’s Attorney, Public Defender and Probation to determine if their training is sufficient, do they believe the consultant will meet your needs? If we want to build in additional training time, based on need, then we can do that. I cannot talk to the vendor about that, until you grant me permission to negotiate.
Mr. Moustis stated this Committee spent a lot of time asked a lot of questions. This vendor stood out by far both performance and cost.
Mrs. Ogalla explained the interview process and participants. The people using this are not IT people, they are attorneys. This software offered them one screen to look per case. The other one we liked was more complicated. Our decision was not based on cost. This system stood out so much more and everyone liked it. Everyone asked questions during the interviews and felt confident this was the right solution.
Mr. Shay stated the implementation timeline for this is six months. We will be in this system and operating before we move to the courthouse.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I believe the program will be understood. It is so easy to look at. When a new person comes into any of these offices, they can learn from the person sitting next to them.
3. Authorizing the County Executive to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Karpel Solutions for Case Management System (CMS)
(Rita Weiss/Mike Shay)
Motion to Amend Resolution with Parameters of up to $825,000 and Subject to Review and Approval of State's Attorney's Office
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Seconder: Mike Fricilone, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Motion to Move Resolution to County Board as Amended
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Denise E. Winfrey
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
4. Discussion re: Houbolt Rd. Bridge/BNSF Legal Fees
(Discussion)
Mrs. Tatroe gave background information on the IGA the county entered into with IDOT, City of Joliet and CenterPoint. The basis was this would not cost Will County anything, it was an intergovernmental cooperative. We would work them to make sure they had the proper permits to move the Houbolt Road Bridge project forward. With the advent of litigation, we had to hire outside council to represent us and it is costing the County money. There was discussion because of that, the County might entertain the possibility of terminating the agreement with CenterPoint. They have agreed to compensate us for attorney’s fees and Mr. Mock drafted an agreement. We would retain the right to give direction to the attorneys, they have no control over the attorney, but they would agree to pay their fees both retroactive and moving forward. They sent us back some changes on Tuesday, we have not had the opportunity to look at them closely, although I don’t think there are a lot of changes. I expect we will have this worked out before this month’s County Board.
Mr. Moustis asked can this go through the State’s Attorney’s Office or does the Board have to take action?
Mrs. Tatroe stated there was latitude within the IGA that allows us to move forward without taking it to County Board.
Mr. Moustis stated we entered this agreement with the understanding there would be no liability on the County’s part. Part of this was dealing with truck routes. We are into litigation and it can get very expensive. We have had to hire outside council, it is in the Federal Courts; our taxpayers should not have to pay for that. CenterPoint did agree to pay the legal fees and the outside council will continue to work under the direction of the State’s Attorney’s Office. If that is not accomplished, I think we have to strongly consider withdrawing from the agreement. We are moving in the right direction. If we do not have an agreement by the County Board meeting, we should move forward with withdrawing from the agreement.
5. Motion to Save Space on the County Board Agenda for the Houbolt Bridge Agreement
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Member
Seconder: Ray Tuminello, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
6. Discussion re: Policy on Cost Sharing w/Other Goverment Entities
(Discussion)
Mr. Moustis stated we have had issues come up regarding additional improvements on the 95Th Street Bridge and at Carillon with a signal. Municipalities have a share program for sidewalks. If a homeowner want to replace their sidewalk the municipality will do a 50/50 cost share. These items come up from time to time. The latest request is from Carillon, the private sector, wanting a signal, but who pays for what. We are not responsible for any of that, if it does not meet our criteria. The problem is we have no policy under what circumstances and what levels would there be a cost sharing program, usually with government entities. With a policy we would have guidelines to follow, we won’t include private sector roads, but will do IGAs with other governmental entities. Does it make sense to have parameters of what we would consider in the future?
Mrs. Tatroe replied yes, where we have infrastructure under County jurisdiction and where there may be obligations from other government entities, such as bridges, usually there is a component that it is the State and County responsibility. There are some practices we have followed with regard to the proportionate share. Are you talking about something that is not under our jurisdiction, but we would be willing to pay for?
Mr. Moustis stated something along or connected to our jurisdiction. Take 95th Street; some people want us to do fencing or sound barriers. It does not meet our criteria, we are not going to do it, but I think there was some discussion we would do some cost sharing. At Carillon there is a connection of a private road with Weber and we talked about a temporary light. If we put a temporary light there, how will it be funded? We need something as a guideline so people and governments will have an expectation what we will do.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I would like to sit down with the Highway Department and see how often this comes up or if we did it in the past. Part of my concern is, if you put a policy like that in place it will be an invitation to the areas of local government to say you have a policy you cost share on sound walls and bike paths. Traditionally, we have not done any of that, unless there are very specific, unique circumstances.
Mr. Moustis stated it is either we put some policy in place or make it clear we do nothing for anyone. I am looking for consistency. It is we don’t do it at all, make it clear we don’t do it and we won’t consider it.
Mr. Gould stated if issues come up in Fairmont and you will say we won’t do it; they do not have the resources to do it.
Mr. Moustis stated that is the point, you have to be consistent.
Mr. Gould asked where will they go if you say no?
Mr. Moustis replied our practice has never been to pay. Carillon on a private road; there are a lot of private roads in my district that could potentially have issues. I will pay for those. Lakewood Falls in Plainfield is a community with all private roads; what happens when all those are falling apart. Will we pay to replace all of their roads? Do you believe Carillon has the ability to contribute more than Lakewood?
Mr. Gould stated the road at Carillon intersects with the most heavily travelled road in Will County. It is different than most.
Mr. Moustis stated that is why we need a policy. Either we don’t do it at all and we end these or we set guidelines of when we would consider contributing.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I will meeting with Highway and determine which issues come up and craft something. Maybe it is one thing if it is in unincorporated Will County and there is a need. If it is in a municipality and happens to be on County road maybe it is a different situation. All those things need to be considered. I am not prepared to answer the question at this meeting.
Mr. Moustis stated we need to be consistent and fair across the County. We have used CDBG funds for improvements in the Fairmont Community. That is a federal program and a way to address this in certain communities.
Mr. Palmer stated s part of this discussion we have to talk about economic development and leveraging of dollars. There are projects in lieu of a tax abatement where we can do an infrastructure investment. We will have further discussion with our Freight Study about collaboration, cooperation and leveraging dollars between municipalities, the county, state and private investments. It should not be limited to the Highway Department; they are focused on the County’s system, not the regional system and how that works with the Freight Study. The Freight Study looks beyond just the County’s system. This topic came up at Pubic Works about projects within the municipality don’t just have an effect on the municipality; it has an impact on the county and state roads to a degree. We need a policy to ensure we are not opening Pandora’s Box for everyone to come looking for funding.
Mr. Moustis asked Mrs. Tatroe to look at a larger scope, do we set parameters and policy for investment off the county system?
Mr. Maher stated we need to look at the scope of the project we are getting involved with. On 95th Street, communications were attempted, but citizens didn’t understand what was going on. They are just asked to be part of the project. When I look at the full project they should have been included in the beginning and they were not.
Mrs. Hart stated each situation is clearly different. I think it will be hard for use to do a blanket policy.
Mr. Fricilone agreed with Mrs. Tatroe; this opens up for everyone to ask for money. I go over the budget line by line and there is no line for projects districts would like to have that are not our responsibility. We budget for things the County has to do. If the Village has to do something; it is their responsibility. Our job might be to help communities find money from grants, but not to give them money.
Mr. Moustis stated that is the answer, we don’t do anything so don’t bring it to us.
Mr. Balich stated we can’t take on projects that are not our responsibility. We tell everybody no.
Mr. Moustis stated I tell people, we don’t do it. We are not going to fund it. I have no problem saying no. Elected Officials and Board Members need to stop going out and saying we will fund it. We can’t. It is not allowed under our policies.
Mr. Maher stated if we develop a policy there has to be a differential between an IGA and making sure the scope is well defined.
Mr. Moustis stated our scope is determined by what the law says is within our parameters. If our parameters say no fence or no signal that means no fence or signal. If it qualifies on one side, but not the other; that is what it is. I have no problem with status quo. I personally like where we are. Don’t bring it up; there are no exceptions. We don’t even have the authority to do it. We will only do what the Illinois Statutes require us to do.
7. Replacement Hire Pre-posting for Supervisor of Assessments Office
(Rhonda R. Novak)
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
To: Will County Board
Mover: Ray Tuminello, Member
Seconder: Donald Gould, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Staleyferry, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
VII. Other New Business
Mr. Moustis stated I asked Chief Judge and Mr. Holland to come here today. Mr. Holland came to Board Leadership and talked about challenges within the Probation Department with state funding and an anticipated shortfall. The Bail Reform Act brought more work to the Probation Department; and less to ADF because of a smaller population. I don’t always know if there are shortfalls because we did not appropriate enough money and the costs were more. Sometime it is waiting for the State to make payments and we never know when or if money will come later; that is a cash flow problem. We always address the shortfalls at the end of the year, but, it cannot be because a department spent too much money.
Judge Schoenstedt stated historically Probation has only been involved in criminal cases, post disposition. The day a person is given probation, they go to Probation and begin working. This is not an appropriation issue; it was a new law effective January 1, 2018 creating a new division within Probation and reducing the daily custodies at the ADF. In April 2017 the Conference of Chief Judges realized Springfield was going to pass the bond reform statute, effective January 1, 2018 and I began a pretrial division within Probation, consistent with the new law. The 24 circuits realized they needed a pretrial program and the best department to accomplish that was Probation. The Probation Department never had a pretrial division. Kane County has a pretrial division with 10 people; Lake County has 14 people and I started our department with 8 people. We took four people from within the department and with the Board’s permission hired four others. Those salaries were not accounted for in the FY18 appropriations. This was not a bad thing as it relates to the intention of the law and county expenses. The purpose of the law is to not have people sit in jail, because they cannot afford to pay bond. What the law did throughout the state, was release all the misdemeanants and many felons, non-violent criminals, on a pretrial basis. Many who have jobs and can continue to work. We had a concern in April if we let these defendants out, were they a risk to the community? Were they likely to recommit? Would they show up to court? After 18 months the stats are very good because of the pretrial program. Everybody arrested and taken into custody has a risk assessment done before their bond hearing. Conditions placed on the defendants by the judges. Each circuit has discretion on conditions placed on the pretrial defendants to make them more likely to follow the law, not reoffend and show up to court. Our stats are better than statewide. The statewide average is 10% for reoffending and we are between 7% and 9% and at 98% for people showing up to court. We do more conditions than many circuits do. Our conditions include having to report or call in to Probation, drug testing or electronic monitoring. We average 35 people per day on electronic monitoring and the number was climbing until we had these financial issues. We are holding back to see what happens. The win for defendants is they get back into the community and work. The win for you is there are between 140 and 150 less people at the ADF per day. The lowest per day expenses for housing an inmate is $55; or $20,000 per person, per year. If we take 150 out daily; about one-third on electronic monitoring devices, that is $3 million. This division is so important, but if we cannot get the money we need; $500,000 between now and November, we will have to make cuts. Other options include terminating the program. Kane County did that a number of years ago, because it was not funded; then reinstated the following year. I want you to a direct benefit to this program. None of us could have known last year the cost. We started with eight people in the division. Since April they have done over 3,000 risk assessments. The August report from Mr. Prinzi shows the pretrial division, supervises 959 people currently; of those 140 were added in August; we never had people served by Probation in the past. Without the pretrial services, many of them would be in jail, since we would have to issue a money bond, which many cannot afford.
Mr. Moustis stated let us know the exact shortfall amount for November 30th. We will treat it as a shortfall. Is the Executive considering this in his FY19 budget? You need to let them know this is additional money, additional program and funding that has to be considered in the FY19 budget.
Mr. Maher asked is it additional funding or restructuring?
Mr. Moustis replied the Sheriff’s Department was able to shut down a pod. It does not mean a reduction in bodies, but could help with the overtime. Mrs. Johannsen will advise us where she thinks appropriations need to be changed. We have a program, not started until after the FY18 budget year began and we did not appropriate for it, it has caused a shortfall and we will address the shortfall in the FY2018 budget and give the appropriate appropriations for FY19.
Mr. Fricilone stated there was a dollar amount in your letter that includes the hiring of four new personnel and salary increases associated with the bargaining agreement. No salary increases were put into the budget. What is the difference on those?
Judge Schoenstedt replied I put them both in the letter because they go hand and hand. This is what we need to keep the division running. I did not want to be disingenuous in this letter asking for the four spots and then later write asking for increases, which are needed or we cannot function. It was in one letter so it was transparent what we need and why. If we run short, the last hire will be the first out and the program will be terminated. The four spots were just less than half of the amount requested.
Mr. Fricilone clarified you are asking for salary increases of $200,000 for eight people.
Mr. Moustis stated the County only funds a portion of Probation Officers; a large portion of their salaries come from the State. They have cut money, and restored it, because there was no way the counties could make up their proposed cuts. Do the four new employees, qualify for state funding or does it all come from the County? Is the state current for personnel? If the state is in arrears, it is a cash flow problem and eventually we will get some money. Has the lack of payment from the state caused the shortfall? If there are 50 Probation Officers and the state is going to pick up 80% and the county has to pick up 20%; we need to know. We need a clear understanding where you are with the state.
Judge Schoenstedt asked what will happen between now and November as we run short?
Mr. Moustis stated we don’t like when departments go over their appropriation, but federal law requires us to pay employees.
Judge Schoenstedt stated there is a direct savings to you.
Mr. Tuminello stated the problem is we never see savings. We talk about $3 million in savings, but when you talk to the Sheriff’s Department there really isn’t $3 million. Where is the money? When you look at the cost of the program on paper, but it never works out.
Mr. Moustis stated it is not a savings, it is a reappropriation to a different area. There may be $3 million less in one department, but another department is picking up additional expenses and the overall savings may only be $500,000.
Judge Schoenstedt stated our obligation is to follow the law; and follow the law to the extent I can. I am asking you to help me do that.
Mr. Fricilone stated will you run $250,000 short because the state is not giving you any money or they are giving you money, but you have not received it.
Mr. John Prinzi stated for the four positions it will cost $260,000.
Mr. Fricilone asked does the state still owe you money?
Mr. Prinzi replied when we make our budget request we make it for 100% of the costs. It is an accounting function. We will not run short because the state is late, we will eventually get the money.
Mr. Fricilone stated if the state owes you the money, we can loan you money to cover until they pay.
Mr. Moustis stated since we did not start the program until after the budget year, we did not account of the revenue for the four additional that the state will reimburse you for.
Mr. Prinzi stated in terms of those total positions, six of those are funded by the state and two were existing positions we moved from a different unit.
Ms. Staley-Ferry left at this juncture.
Mr. Moustis stated we did not appropriate or account for the revenue for those four positions. All the benefits fall on the County plus 15% of the salary. We do have additional revenue coming. We never appropriated the money from the state.
Mr. Fricilone asked how much money are we supposed to get from the state we did not appropriate because we didn’t know you were getting?
Mr. Hollard stated the Probation Department does not get the money it goes into the general corporate fund and we don’t know when the funds are received.
Mr. Moustis stated the revenue from the state for those four positions was not appropriated. The appropriation was never given to Probation for the four positions. Keep things the way they are. At the end of the year we will look at the shortfall and fund the shortfall in different ways. We may look in your budget to see if money can be moved around. My biggest concern is to make sure the appropriation for FY19 is appropriate.
Mrs. Johannsen stated at the end of the year, many departments go over, but all the employees are always paid. No additional appropriations will be done in advance, it is done during cleanup. The cleanup happens in December, January and February. In terms of the FY19 budget. I meet daily with Ms. Howard. The department requests exceed last years’ by $10 million. Will they get all four positions next year? I don’t know, because we have to balance the budget.
Mr. Moustis stated if the state funds the positions, you have to appropriate them. If the state no longer funds them or severely cuts the funding that creates a problem. Take the information to the budget people and let them know how much they need to budget.
Mrs. Johannsen stated if they are $460,000 short during the cleanup we will look within the various court budgets to clean it up, as we do with other departments.
Mr. Holland stated historically the courts have given money back county at the end of the year.
Mr. Prinzi stated even the positions that are county funded, we submit reimbursement for that to the state. They know exactly the number of positions we have within the Probation Department. We make that request in our annual plan regardless of state funding.
VIII. Committee Assignment Requests
A. Land Use & Development Committee
T. Weigel, Chair
B. Finance Committee
M. Fricilone, Chair
1. Abating the Taxes Heretofore Levied in Tax Levy Year 2018 for the Year 2019 to Pay Debt Service on $71,430,000 Outstanding Principal Amount of General Obligation Transportation Improvement Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source), Series 2010, of The County of Will, Illinois.
(Karen Hennessy)
2. Abating the Taxes Heretofore Levied in Tax Levy Year 2018 for the Year 2019 to Pay Debt Service on $13,930,000 Outstanding Principal Amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source), Series 2012, of The County of Will, Illinois.
(Karen Hennessy)
3. Abating the Taxes Heretofore Levied in Tax Levy Year 2018 for the Year 2019 to Pay Debt Service on $5,480,000 Outstanding Principal Amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source), Series 2014, of The County of Will, Illinois.
(Karen Hennessy)
4. Abating the Taxes Heretofore Levied in Tax Levy Year 2018 for the Year 2019 to Pay Debt Service on $16,565,000 Outstanding Principal Amount of General Obligation Refunding Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source), Series 2015A, of The County of Will, Illinois.
(Karen Hennessy)
5. Abating the Taxes Heretofore Levied in Tax Levy Year 2018 for the Year 2019 to Pay Debt Service on $173,975,000 Outstanding Principal Amount of General Obligation Bonds (Alternate Revenue Source), Series 2016, of The County of Will, Illinois.
(Karen Hennessy)
6. Discussion Re: New Policy for Process & Procedures of BMO Procurement Card
(Duffy Blackburn)
7. Transferring Appropriations within Various County Budgets
(ReShawn Howard)
8. Assignment of Tax Sale Certificates
(Julie Shetina)
C. Public Works & Transportation Committee
D. Gould, Chair
1. Granting County Aid in Construction of a Bridge over the DuPage River on Shepley Road as Petitioned by Troy Township Road District, County Board District #6
(Jeff Ronaldson)
2. Granting County Aid in Construction of a Bridge over Deer Creek on Kings Road as Petitioned by Crete Township Road District, County Board District #1
(Jeff Ronaldson)
3. Authorizing Approval of the Establishment of Altered Speed Zone 557, County Board District #1
(Jeff Ronaldson)
4. Authorizing Approval of Supplemental Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with Hutchison Engineering Inc. on Mills Road (CH 51) at the Intersection of Briggs Street (CH 54) Section 15-00053-18-FP, County Board District #8
(Jeff Ronaldson)
5. Granting a Variance for the Proposed Fuller's Car Wash on Weber Road (CH 88), County Board District #9
(Jeff Ronaldosn)
6. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Drainage Agreement with Commonwealth Edison Company in the County of Will, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
7. Resolution Granting a Temporary Access Permit for Highland Ridge on 143rd Street (CH 37), County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
D. Judicial Committee
D. Bennefield, Chair
E. Public Health & Safety Committee
J. Ogalla, Chair
1. Awarding Bid for Nursing Services (CNA, LPN & RN) at Sunny Hill Nursing Home
(Rita Weiss)
F. Legislative & Policy Committee
S. Hart, Chair
G. Capital Improvements Committee
R. Tuminello, Chair
1. City of Joliet Presentation Update on the Downtown Sanitary and Storm Sewer Project
(Allison Swisher)
2. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Amend Contract with Kluber Architects & Engineers to Include Services for Specialty Sub-Consultants and Additional Services by Kluber During Construction and Post- Construction Phases for the New Will County Health Department Facility
(Dave Tkac)
3. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Amend Contract with Farnsworth Group to Include Building Commissioning Services for the New Will County Health Department Facility
(Dave Tkac)
4. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Amend Contract with Farnsworth Group to Include Building Commissioning Services for the New Will County Animal Control Facility and EMA Storage Building Project
(Dave Tkac)
5. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Harbour Contractors Inc. for Construction Management Services Required for the New Will County Animal Control Facility and Emergency Management Equipment Storage Building Project
(Dave Tkac)
Motion to Save Space on the County Board Agenda for a Resolution Amending the Contract with Wight & Company
Mr. Tuminello asked to space for a Resolution to Amend the Contract with Wight & Company.
H. Executive Committee
J. Moustis, Chair
1. Update on Kankakee River Valley Water Planning Area Alliance
(Joe Cosgrove)
2. Awarding Bid for Communication Headsets for Sheriff's SWAT
(Rita Weiss)
3. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute the Updated Title VI Program
(Wendie Garlich)
4. Declaring Various Equipment Surplus and Authorizing Disposal
(Rita Weiss)
IX. Request For State's Attorney's Opinion
X. Accept Committee Assignment Requests
Mr. Moustis asked to save a space on the County Board agenda to address tipping in the Travel Policy.
1. Motion to Accept Committee Assignments as Amended
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Parker, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Left Meeting: Staley-Ferry
XI. Public Comments
XII. Chairman's Report/Announcements
XIII. Executive Session
1. Labor Negotiations - Necessary
2. Land Acquisition
3. Pending or Imminent Litigation - Necessary
4. Personnel
Motion to go into Executive Session at 12:15 pm to Discuss Pending or Imminent Litigation
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Denise E. Winfrey, Member
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Hart, Ogalla, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Left Meeting: Parker, Staley-Ferry
Motion to Come Out of Executive Session at 12:30 pm
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Member
Seconder: Donald Gould, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Ogalla, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Left Meeting: Hart, Parker, Staley-Ferry
Motion to Concur with the State's Attorney's Recommendation
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Herbert Brooks Jr., Mike Fricilone
Seconder: Judy Ogalla, Member
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Ogalla, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Left Meeting: Hart, Parker, Staley-Ferry
XIV. Adjournment
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:30 pm
Result: Approved [Unanimous]
Mover: Mike Fricilone, Member
Seconder: Charles E. Maher, Vice Chair
Ayes: Moustis, Maher, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Ogalla, Tuminello, Weigel, Winfrey
Absent: Bennefield
Left Meeting: Hart, Parker, Staley-Ferry
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3073&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up