Will County Executive Committee met Jan. 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Denise E. Winfrey called the meeting to order at 10:25 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Chair | Present |
| Mark Ferry | Vice Chair | Present |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present |
| Donald A. Moran | Member | Present |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present |
| Laurie Summers | Member | Present |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present |
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Fricilone led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion - Bond Issuance - Attachment Added (Karen Hennessy)
This item was discussed after Item #1 of New Business.
Ms. Hennessy reviewed the information in the packet regarding the upcoming bond issuance. The handout includes information people requested, including history of how we spent RTA dollars. We spend roughly half of the annual RTA revenue and reserves, on road construction projects. The debt service for the 2010 road bonds, is committed from RTA funds. We always intended to use part the RTA revenue for debt service requirements. The 2016 bonds were issued in August and a payment was due in 2016. However, we neglected to plan for the abatement that fall. The abatement was slightly over $11 million. We had hoped to use RTA funds for part of the public safety complex. In 2016 we used RTA funds to abate the bonds and in 2017 and 2018 for debt service. One thing that took up money from the RTA fund was $6 million for the radio system. We initially talked about paying cash for part of the public safety complex, we did not have the funds available as we had to meet our abatement requirement.
Mr. Fricilone stated according to this sheet, everything was paid by the bond proceeds.
Ms. Hennessy stated my recollection is the public safety complex was not going to be $32 million and we were going to use $15 million in RTA funds to pay for it. We about $15 million between the abatement and the radio system. The public safety project grew and ended up being $32 million; but I don’t believe that was the initial intent. Ms. Howard helped put together this information and Mrs. Johannsen and those who manage the capital projects reviewed it. We are of similar thought, we did what we could with the available funds.
Mr. Moustis stated we talked about paying cash for the public safety complex, from cash reserves; we did not say RTA. The county does have other cash reserves.
Ms. Hennessy stated the corporate fund has a cash reserve our understanding was to pay up to $15 million in cash; not the entire building.
Mr. Moustis agreed we talked about a portion, at least half, coming from cash reserves and we talked about the entire $32 million coming from cash reserves. It would have been easier if it had been explained it was coming from bond proceeds.
Mr. Fricilone stated at one point we said we would take the bond proceeds temporarily and replenish the bond proceeds with cash.
Ms. Hennessy stated we did a small amount of that.
Mrs. Johannsen stated we were only allowed to go back a certain period as there were restrictions on us.
Mr. Moustis stated we didn’t discuss the financing or abatement part of the bonds that had to be funded. Even this year we didn’t have the discussion until after the budget was presented by the County Executive, and recognized there would be a shortfall. I do understand what happened. It seems Mrs. Johannsen and the Finance Department were aware of it. I understand it, but it is not exactly what we thought it was going to be.
Mrs. Johannsen stated when we did the 2016 issuance, the abatement was forgotten about, it was $11 million. We put our heads together and that is how we took care of the issue.
Ms. Hennessy explained abatement process. If we don’t abate for the next year’s payment, the amount of debt service is automatically added to the real estate taxes.
Mr. Moustis stated we pledge real estate taxes for the bond, but we use alternative revenues to pay them.
Ms. Hennessy reviewed page three of the handout. The Animal Control budget did not include the building, we used bond proceeds and they will reimburse the bond fund.
Mrs. Johannsen added based on Mrs. Tatroe’s opinion we could not amend the Animal Control budget.
Ms. Hennessy continued they will spend their own funds which are in the FY2019 budget. When I completed page three there was $108.1 million left in the bond proceeds with monthly bills for the courthouse averaging $10 million. When they move fast, we are paying for that. The rule is, bond proceeds should be spent within three years of issuance; so we have until August. With two projects going at the same time, we want to have enough funds available and not stop and go through the entire process again to issue bonds.
Mr. Moustis stated in 2016 we were using RTA cash. Out of the $8 million; how much went back into the RTA?
Ms. Hennessy stated the bond fund did reimburse the RTA fund. I don’t know the exact amount, but I can get it for you.
Mr. Fricilone clarified we used bond proceeds for the entire public safety complex and bond proceeds for the debt services.
Ms. Hennessy answered no, you cannot use bond proceeds for debt service. Instead of using cash for the public safety complex, we used cash for the debt service, it is restricted. Bond proceeds can only be used for what you identity in your offering. Our offering indicated the proceeds would be used for capital project; with some flexibility on which projects. It has to be capital projects, you can’t use it for operations.
Ms. Hennessy reviewed page three. We still have the projection we could spend up to $9.3 million from owner contingency. We are not suggesting we would bond to that amount.
Mr. Fricilone asked what is the contingency on the Health Department? Ms. Hennessy replied it is $4.5 million in the construction part.
Mr. Fricilone stated we still could get closed to $30 million.
Ms. Hennessy stated I am not suggesting we bond for that at this point. A lot of the Health Department has not been bid out. These estimates are the best available for construction, demolition and abatement, soft costs, FF&E; at an expected cost of $33 million of which we paid $2 million, leaving nearly $31 million remaining. Wells Fargo is trying to put together an issuance to receive $65 million; not issuing $65 million in bonds.
Mr. Fricilone stated it is possible we could be $4 million short. Why would we bond for the full amount now and not half?
Ms. Hennessy stated the Ordinance expires in April and market volatility is affecting the bond market. We have other issues to address. We need employees for these buildings and other things to focus on. If we have the $65 million we should be able to pay for these two buildings and focus on other issues.
Mr. Fricilone stated I don’t understand why we are doing all of it now.
Ms. Hennessy stated if we don’t do it now, we have to go through the process again, which takes several months. We have the ability to do it now. I don’t think anyone thinks $65 million is too much. We are not issuing debt for more than we will spend. There is the potential to spend a little more than this, but we have the ability to issue bank qualified at $10 million per year. Well Fargo indicated there was not a lot of municipal bond activity in the last quarter of 2018 and this quarter is the time to hit.
Mrs. Johannsen stated any money left over can be used on other projects. Mr. Van Essen has given us an extensive list of things.
Mr. Fricilone stated last year we abated based on $35 to $40 million. What do we do if we go out for $58 million?
Ms. Hennessy replied we will have to identify where the money will come from. We can pay the debt service; the abatement we have to work out.
Ms. Howard stated we identified where those funds would come from when we finalized the budget. We did not have all the information so that was a preliminary estimate.
Ms. Hennessy stated we ended the fiscal year with the corporate fund a little under $25 million; that could be a place to take a few million dollars. I want to stay away from RTA because of the Weber Road project. Even with this new issuance there will be some level of RTA use to cover debt service and is projected to go on for the 30 year bond term.
Mr. Fricilone stated we planned for both projects.
Ms. Hennessy added we always intended to do an issuance in 2019 and it was built into the plan. Paying the debt service is not the challenge, it is the abatement. Next month I hope to bring more information about where we would cover the abatement from and if there needs to be any adjustment to the budget for debt service. Preliminary information from Wells Fargo looks like, if we move forward, with Board approval, we would issue bonds on March 21st. Is there consensus? Mrs. Tatroe has suggested we move this to the full Board and she will research whether we need a Resolution; we have the Ordinance that allows the issuance. I
Mr. Brooks asked what is the window for the bonding?
Ms. Hennessy stated the Ordinance expires in April. After that point, we have no authority and have to start the process over again. It takes about 60 days from start to finish.
Ms. Hennessy stated at the next Finance Committee, I would like to bring back the information of the co-managers. We did an RFQ and identified five co-managers. Wells Fargo provided information on how they performed on the last issuance and I believe we will not need to use all five again. I want to have a conversation with Speer to see what will best benefit the County. My recommendation is we continue with Mr. Ray Fricke, however we need to look for another disclosure counsel firm. The cost is not significant. Speer Financial has put out a request for quotes with firms they work with regularly. We can look at the list and make a selection from that. The preliminary schedule provided by Wells Fargo is for the sale to be March 21st. There are a lot of moving pieces to this. We could go one week later; but I don’t think we want to go into April since that is when the Ordinance expires. Are you comfortable with me working with Wells Fargo to get the process moving forward.
Ms. Winfrey indicated she was comfortable with Wells Fargo.
Ms. Hennessy stated when we issued the $175 million; Ms. Ng was lead at Wells Fargo, Ms. Howard and I were lead for the County and Ms. Raphaliate McKenzie for Speer. It was a woman led issuance.
Motion to Move the Bond Issuance to the Full County Board
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
2. Other Old Business
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion Re: Expungement Fair
(Judge Schoenstedt / Roger Holland)
This item was discussed first in the agenda.
Judge Schoenstedt explained expungement and the process. This is not for serious crimes; it is for people who plead or were found guilty and given a sentence of court supervision or conditional discharge. It does not include DUI or domestic violence cases. To qualify, they must have completed all the conditions of supervisor or conditional discharge and at least three years since the offence with no further issues. It is a very difficult, complex, daunting procedure to go through. Of the 24 Judicial Circuits in Illinois and only a couple of them do expungement. We began meeting in July to plan this expungement fair. Mr. Brooks has been at every meeting and has been important, because he has done a number of these at his church. We are planning the Fresh Start initiative for June 22, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. We will have employees from all the necessary departments under the judiciary along with the Circuit Clerk and Sheriff’s Department. We need volunteers who will be trained to help find out if the individual is eligible. If they are eligible they will file the Petition and we will do everything to be sure, under the law their Petitions is granted. The statute says objections can be made to the Petition by the Illinois State Police, AG or State’s Attorney, within 60 days. On June 22nd we will give court dates to the individuals after 60 days so they can come into court and have their Petition ruled upon. We are preparing a brochure to provide everybody with the initial knowledge they need for the pre-registration part. That will allow them at the onset to determine if they are eligible.
Mrs. Summers arrived at this juncture.
Mrs. Traynere asked do the victims get advised the person has applied for expungement?
Judge Schoenstedt stated nothing in the law requires the victims to have notice, because one of the requirements is they have done everything they need to do, including restitution has been completely repaid. We are not talking about aggravated or domestic battery; only simply battery. All of this could have been part of their conditional discharge. We wanted to get the information to you to take to your district. This has been successful in Cook County and another circuit downstate.
Mr. Moustis stated this is expungement for someone convicted of a minor crime.
Judge Schoenstedt stated when a person receives supervision, they were not convicted. An expungement applies to those given supervision. If they are not eligible for expungement because they received a conviction, the next step is whether they are eligible to have their conviction sealed. From an employment standpoint both are very important.
Mr. Moustis stated from an employment standpoint, having an arrest expunged is important. Many times a person can be falsely accused of something or arrested. The records will show the arrest but does not show when a Judge who looked at the facts, there were none and the Judge dismissed the case.
Judge Schoenstedt stated when a person is found not guilty at trial, they may leave happy, but not knowing there is a record of the arrest that needs to be expunged. Another part of the expungement process is the law enforcement agency with their finger prints on file has to destroy them.
Mr. Moustis stated many times people are arrested, with probable cause at the time, but when they got into the case there was no merit and the case was dismissed. If someone is falsely accused of domestic violence is that eligible to be expunged? During the heat of an argument people will do things they should not.
Judge Schoenstedt stated if the case is dismissed, the answer is yes; it never happened to a finding of guilt. A plea of guilty it is not eligible for expungement.
Mr. Moustis asked are sex crimes treated differently? If someone was found guilty of having child pornography, received probation and went to counseling are they eligible expungement?
Judge Schoenstedt answered no; serious crimes, violent or sex crimes are not eligible upon conviction.
Mrs. Traynere asked how long has this been on the books?
Judge Schoenstedt replied the law has been in existence for decades. Circuits are just starting to do initiatives to expunge the records. I liked the idea, but it is a massive undertaking. You have to bring all these employees in on a Saturday, which creates issues of payment or comp time and you need volunteers. Our Director of Family Violence Council, Ms. Lee Ann Lance, came to me last year and suggested this. She wanted to spearhead the program and with that I felt it was time to move forward.
Mr. Moran stated it used to be when a person applied for a job, a background investigation was only done on people with positions with access to money; now every minimum wage job does background investigations on employees. It has a bigger effect for the general public in getting a job or a better one.
Judge Schoenstedt stated that is correct especially in an economy where there are job and no body to do them.
Mr. Moustis stated there has been efforts by churches, Work Force Investment nd other groups to get expungements done. It is something that has been going on outside the court system. A young person caught with a small amount of marijuana at 19 and is now 30 should not be kept from getting a job. This will be a great program, but we won’t just rely on this program. Mr. Brooks has been involved for quite some time to help get young adults to get this off their record.
Judge Schoenstedt stated we fully expect churches, charitable organization and Work Force to bring people to us. They have all done a great job, but there is nothing like one-stop shopping and being able to walk out with an idea your case will be expunged.
Mr. Brooks stated I have been doing this for nearly 20 years, but what can be done in one day in June is a much better program.
Judge Schoenstedt stated I want to get out is this is not for serious offenses. This is not something the public needs to be concerned about in terms of expunging records for serious offenses. This is not a trick to bring in people with arrest warrants. This is a good program that will be great for the County and individuals. If you have a warrant, we don’t want you to show up, you are not in compliance with the rules that would make you eligible for expungement. The pre-registration will help the individual determine if they are eligible. We are limiting the first event to 150 people and we will be turning people away. Space is an issue. We want to keep it on the first floor of the courthouse due to the security. After the first one, we will have an idea of how many people we can handle in the future. The 3rd District has multiple counties in their circuit; they go to different counties each year, but the population of all the counties is less than half of Will County. They get hundreds each year.
Mr. Marcum asked is this open only to those who went through our circuit or is it open to anyone in the State of Illinois?
Judge Schoenstedt replied it is open to anyone with a Will County case. It does not matter if you are a resident or not, if you had a case in Will County then you can come.
Mrs. Traynere asked is there a flyer or something we could promote on Facebook?
It is important to get it to the people who need to apply.
Judge Schoenstedt replied we want you to let your constituents know. We are preparing a flyer and this information will be given to everyone before the end of January. We want to get it out to the public through agencies, churches, County Board Members, media in the next 60 days. We will start the pre-registration process immediately after that and it will give us a couple of months to go through the registrations before the actual event in June. We need to find volunteers; we will have training in March or April training for everyone. We will have the State’s Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office and Probation, bailiffs and interpreters. Recordkeeping is a vital component of this and that goes to Circuit Clerk Andrea Chasteen and her staff. She will be very important to this process. She has agreed to be the captain of the entire pre-registration process.
Ms. Berkowicz asked does this include minor drug offenses?
Judge Schoenstedt answered yes, this is intended for the minor drug offenses. By statute, before a record can be expunged the person has to pass a drug test. We intent to have that done either during the pre-registration process and it may be done on the same day as well.
Mr. Moustis stated things like marijuana has changed over the years. In many municipalities and in the County they are more or an ordinance violation, more like a ticket. Is there a record to that?
Judge Schoenstedt responded for those type of cases that go through the ordinance violation process; their records are automatically expunged after one year. It is a specific line of cases called “CL” just for that purpose.
Mr. Ferry asked how people could volunteer.
Judge Schoenstedt indicated information will be sent to the public. I hope Mr. Marcum, Chair of the Judicial Committee will be able to attend these meetings. I am hoping Mr. Brooks and Mr. Marcum will be my liaison to the County Board.
2. Governance Rules and Procedures for the Will County Board in the County of Will, State of Illinois - Attachment Added
Mr. Moustis asked Mrs. Tatroe are there any changes in the rules your recommendation?
Mrs. Tatroe replied on page 21; 3.06B the limitation on public comment was two minutes and I suggested that be qualified because there will be issues that come before the County Board that will need more than two minutes. Because of that, I added “unless waived by the presiding officer”.
Mr. Moustis stated the new language states “unless waived by the presiding officer”. The presiding officer is not a member of the Board, who technically cannot participate in our meetings, because he is not a member. Is the Board giving up its right or giving the authority to a nonmember? My preference would be to allow County Board Leadership, on the floor, the ability to waive the two minutes. The presiding officer has the authority the Board gives them. Do we agree the presiding officer, in an executive form of government, is not a member of the Board, cannot participate or make a decision for the Board, unless the Board grants them that ability? Would we be giving up the authority of the Board to the presiding officer?
Mrs. Tatroe replied the statute gives the County Executive the authority to preside over the County Board meetings. Inherent is some decision making with regarding to the running the meeting.
Mr. Moustis clarified the two minute rule, is a County Board rule; it not a statutory rule. If the Board wants to give authority to the presiding officer that is fine. My experience has been with a number of presiding officers at Board Meetings, they never enforce the two minute rule. It is frustrating from a Board Member perspective. A Board Member would have to make a point of order the speaker has exceeded their time. I agree there should be a limit. I am pointing out that the presiding officer is not a member of the board, this is a board rule and the board can do what it wants.
Ms. Winfrey asked would it make more sense to say “unless waived by the presiding officer at the discretion of the Board”.
Mrs. Tatroe added or upon a motion to suspend the rules and allow them. Mr. Balich asked does the two minute rule apply to Committees?
Ms. Winfrey answered this pertains to public comments at the County Board meeting.
Ms. Dunn reviewed changes to section 1.03B; “all staff of the Board shall serve the County Board Members at the direction of the County Board Speaker”; that is the proposed change.
Mr. Moustis asked exactly what does that mean? Currently, the County Board Members have access to staff and can ask questions or ask them to do something. When I was Speaker, everyone had access to staff, you could go to the Chief of Staff, Mrs. Johannsen or Mrs. Adams and if there was something they felt uncomfortable with; they would come to me and I would speak to the Board Members. None of that changes.
Ms. Dunn stated nothing changed, this is to clarify that point. It is now in the rules that a Board Member can come to staff with simple questions and if it is complicated or something not ready to be given out to everyone, then it would go to the Speaker and she would address the question or take up the issue. People wanted to make sure they had to ability to access staff.
Ms. Dunn continued the suggested change listed as part “C” will be taken out of the rules.
Mr. Moustis stated there are things that have just been practice and not in the rules. I am specifically going to talk about Board staff. With the exception of the Chief of Staff; and the Chief of Staff is different because they deal with both with policy and day-to-day administration. I always looked at the Chief of Staff as the person with overall operational authority over the staff on a day-to-day basis. I never got involved in how they split it up. When Mr. Friefeld was here; if Mrs. Adams was responsible for something; he would tell me. He may have not done all the day-to-day because Mrs. Adams did that. The Chief of Staff said who would be responsible for what. The exception to that would be our Budget Director who is basically separate and on equal footing with the Chief of Staff. There are political implications to the Chief of Staff position, the Chief of Staff serves at the pleasure of the Speaker and the Majority Leader. Everyone else, I want to make it clear, everyone else there is a regular employee. You can ask Mr. Tidwell, I always went through HR and I never interviewed people; I let HR do it and then the staff interviewed people and made a recommendation.
Ms. Winfrey stated that has not changed.
Mr. Moustis continued I want to make it clear, I don’t think we need to put it in the rules, but I followed the personnel policy in place for the Executive’s Office, which we set. I want to make it clear and make sure, with the exception of the Chief of Staff, our other employees are regular employees who have all the protections all the other employees have. They are general employees. All the employees we have today, either transferred in from another area, or came from the private sector, but jobs have always been posted. Mr. Tidwell always put it together. I was not involved in the selection; Mr. Tidwell and staff made the recommendations on who they thought would be the best person. Do we need to say that? Because to me, it is the way it is.
Mrs. Tatroe stated there was a request at the Democratic Caucus that I draft something to reflect the current practice and it be codified. I will be working on that and a vote can be taken in the future if you want add it.
Mr. Moustis stated in absence of that; I want to make it clear, they are employees. They have the same rules and same protections as any other employee of the County. They are nonunion. I want to make a distinction between a nonunion employee and an exempt employee, because there is a difference. The Chief of Staff would be an exempt employee. Just because you are nonunion does not mean you are an exempt employee. They have all the protections of any other employee.
Mrs. Tatroe added they are protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act. There is no overtime, but they are protected in that sense.
Mr. Moustis stated to my Democratic colleagues, if this was a subject for your caucus; I want to say we follow the law, we follow the labor laws and we follow the personnel policy that applies to the Executive’s Office, since that is basically our personnel policy.
Mr. Tidwell stated that is how it has always been.
Ms. Winfrey added and that is how it will be going forward.
Mr. Moustis stated every job has been posted and regular people should be treated fairly.
Ms. Winfrey stated you are exactly right. It was a proposal by one of our Members. After discussion it was determined it was not necessary and it is coming out.
Mr. Moustis continued they are regular folks.
Ms. Dunn reviewed a proposed change to rule 1.05 under Section A. There has been discussion by many Board Member on moving the budget presentation. The rule now will have the County Executive submitting his budget at the August Board Meeting and change the State of the County address to September.
Mr. Fricilone asked why are we doing the State of the County after the budget presentation?
Ms. Winfrey answered because the new budget information will be incorporated.
Mr. Moustis stated in the past the State of the County and the budget were presented the same day. Was that because of the statutes?
Mrs. Tatroe responded yes, one of them has to happen in August.
Mr. Moustis stated for years we did both on the same day and then the County Executive at that time, requested we separate them. I don’t know if it was meant to be a permanent accommodation.
Mrs. Tatroe replied I don’t believe they have to be on the same day; but I believe the State of the County has to be in September.
Mr. Fricilone stated if we are doing the budget in August and the State of the County will include budget information, it does make sense to do them together. If we are doing it at two meetings, it does make sense to do the State of the County first and then the budget. Why can’t you do them both together?
Mr. Palmer stated state law drives all of this, but I believe it has a reference to giving an annual report on the state of the county, I don’t recall if it said which month. If we are going to do it in separate months, we thought it made more sense to do it in September. We meet 12 months out of the year, so it will not matter which month it is. An argument could be the budget, will be even more tentative when presented a month earlier. However, that gives the Board an extra month. That was discussed throughout the fall, giving the Board more time to review the budget. It will be more fluid but gives more time to dig into particular departments at the County Board level. Ms. Howard deals with the departments throughout the year. There is an argument to be made if you give the budget address in August, now you have numbers to work with. The State of the County has been more budget and programmatic stuff and in September you could talk about what those dollars are going to drive. It might make it more have more meaning because the Board will have had a month to look over the numbers. Putting both of these in one meeting, will make the meeting go longer. It has been done both ways since Mr. Walsh has been County Executive. The budget address is generally much shorter than the State of the County.
Mr. Moustis stated because the budget is shorter, I don’t think it makes a difference if it is all at one meeting.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the only statutory requirement is that the County Executive prepare a report set in the month determined by the County Board.
Mr. Moustis asked does this set two meeting? The Board should leave some flexibility whether it is done in one meeting or in two meetings. The budget presentation is usually, here is the budget and it is balanced.
Ms. Winfrey stated with several new members, even though the budget is usually presented as “here it is”. I assume there will be questions that will lengthen the meeting. Perhaps we can add August or September for the presentations.
Mr. Marcum asked don’t we need to set a definite meeting?
Mrs. Tatroe stated it is important the County Executive know which month he will be presenting in. Who will communicate the date and when if you leave it open?
Mr. Fricilone stated if the County Executive presents the budget and goes right into the State of the County, it may make more sense to hear the numbers and the address. During my six years on the Board, we have never asked questions during the budget presentation. That is for him to give an address and there should not be a lot of questions. If all the information is given in one nice package, Board Members can see where we are and why the budget reflects this at the same time. I would agree with August, but both together.
Mr. Moran asked given the County Executive is statutorily required to given an annual report to the Board, why do we care when it is? Why do we need to have it in our rules? He is required to give us the report, let him give us the report when he is ready.
Mrs. Tatroe replied the statute indicates the date set by the County Board. There is logic to doing it toward the end of the fiscal year, when you understand the needs of the County when you are deciding on your budget.
Ms. Dunn reviewed page 8, item 4 d.
Ms. Winfrey stated most of our appointed Board and Commission Members receive no compensation or an amount less than $500 per year. Some of the larger Board may have compensation in excess of $20,000. For those, people want to see the qualifications and why that particular person was chosen. Those Boards would include Metra, RTA and such and for those larger Boards the resume would be part of the package for Board Members to review before voting.
Mr. Moustis stated some of our Boards, such as Historical Society, Stormwater are usually internal. For Metra, RTA and Toll Authority, those rules and qualifications are set by the State. If the State does not require a resume, can we ask for one?
Mr. Palmer stated the State has an on-line application process similar to ours. I don’t recall how deep they go and exactly what they require. All the names we bring forward have met the requirements of the State. The only people eligible to serve on the Pace Board are mayors or former mayors, that is the law.
Ms. Winfrey added if the State does not require a resume, we are not going to ask for one.
Mr. Palmer stated I think it should be worded to say for these particular Boards we are requiring a full application. When we have County Board Members appointed to something, do we have to have them fill out the entire application and submit a resume? Maybe it is helpful to understand their background. However, we know Mr. Ferry and he can be appointed to the Stormwater Board.
Ms. Dunn stated this was added as several people requested to see resumes if they had them.
Mr. Palmer stated that is more for the hiring. For the Boards and Commissions, several years ago we came up with a form that you see each month. We have tried to open up the process. All the Boards and Commissions are on-line with the statutory references, qualifications, makeup of the Board and if compensation is given. Very few receive compensation from Will County. The State appointments usually have compensation.
Mr. Moustis stated over the years I have had conversations with County Board Members and said “it is not your job to dig through HR files”. The Boards and Commissions, some are there by law, such as the ETSB. My concern is Board Members asking to see someone’s resume. If we don’t require it now, there should be a clear understanding we don’t require it. Going back to your comment about County Board Members; if there are Boards that require a Board Member be appointed; the Board Member should not give you a full application. The statute or bylaws require you to have a County Board Member on the Board. Leadership makes those decision.
Mr. Palmer stated I was thinking of the Stormwater Committee. Those Members can be a County Board Member or someone from the district. Many Board Members have either served of found someone from their district to fill those.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think a County Board Member has to fill out an application to be appointed.
Mr. Palmer stated the County Board rules require it.
Ms. Winfrey stated after this discussion it seems to me we will leave 4 d as it stands without the additional comments. Our role as County Board is not to do the HR functions. For the person who wanted to add this and have more control, it is not appropriate.
Ms. Dunn reviewed the changes submitted by the Republican Caucus to add item h and i on item 4. Item h would add compensation and would be a requirement on the form. The proposed i would include other positions the County Executive has appointed this person to. If you are applying for a Board and you are already appointed by the County Executive to something else, you would have to list those positions.
Mr. Fricilone stated we wanted to know what the compensation for each appointment and if a person has been appointed to another Board. If a person has been appointed to three other Boards, we want to know that.
Ms. Winfrey stated it is not in the rules; but the compensation is provided by staff when the e-mail is sent each month.
Mr. Moustis stated I take an exception to that because often County Board Members wind up on more than one Board. I would exclude County Board Members since we usually know who is appointed to each Board. At one time I was on several, because of my position as Speaker. I don’t believe it should apply to County Board Members.
Mr. Fricilone asked why should we not know? We don’t always know every Board a County Board Member is serving on.
Ms. Winfrey asked why do we need to codify that? It is one thing for people outside of County Board who are appointed to multiple Boards, but for County Board Members I would say being on a Board within a particular district or region of the County is the nature of the work. As a County Board Member you are required to be on some Boards.
Mr. Moran stated I am not comfortable adding item i. Requiring that information does not give you a clear picture of how many Boards they serve. I sit on the CED and Workforce Investment, neither of them are on behalf of the County. What is the point? You would know if someone was appointed to multiple committees by the County Executive, but you would not know that about me.
Mr. Palmer reviewed the on-line application and the information requested. We ask for references, but we do not do a background check.
Mr. Moustis stated perhaps there could be a separate question; current Boards you are serving.
Mrs. Ogalla stated the point was to list the other Boards or Commissions, appointed by the County Executive. It would help us to know how many Committees one person is on and perhaps spread out opportunities to others. Everyone should have an opportunity versus one person being on several Boards. It is fair to distribute power rather than have one person have a lot of power.
Ms. Winfrey stated some Boards require certain people from the County to serve on those Boards.
Mrs. Ogalla stated assume Mrs. Traynere and Mr. Harris are mayors. I would want to know how many positions Mrs. Traynere has been appointed for and perhaps give Mr. Harris the opportunity to be appointed.
Ms. Winfrey stated as a Board Member you would not be giving those opportunities; that comes from the County Executive.
Mrs. Ogalla stated if we knew all the information we could deny the appointment and have someone else appointed.
Ms. Winfrey stated you can do that now.
Mr. Marcum stated since we get a list of all County Executive appointments in December; isn’t this already covered? The list shows who currently serves in those positions.
Mr. Moran stated could we solve the problem by asking who applied? In many cases, only one person is interested in participating. Some people serve on multiple Board because they have more free time or enjoy serving the community. If we knew three people applied, then we would have a better idea of why the County Executive appointed someone to five committees.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked how does a Board Member get the opportunity to express an interest in serving on a Committee? I think item i is important because if the appointments are unbalanced, perhaps the opportunity should be given to another person.
Mr. Palmer stated per the existing rules, we are required to send County Board Members a list of all expected, upcoming appointments for the year. There are always situations where someone will resign during the year and we bring forward new appointments. Several years ago we created an on-line data base and you can see every appointment we make and every person in the position currently; this is available 24/7. We take letters of interest if there is no vacancy, and we keep the letters on file. With the on-line process you can nominate yourself or someone else and pick the Board or Commission you wish to be appointed to. There are Boards like cemetery, lighting and drainage district if we find someone willing to show up at a meeting it is a victory. The ones you care the most about are Metra, RTA, Pace and Workforce Investment. We, as a county have made an effort to diversify our Boards and we have not been completely successful; there is a need for more. Our Workforce Investment Board, by law is required to be 51% or greater business. We have tried to go beyond that and get all reaches and areas of the county involved. The PZC membership is spelled out by the law; specifically which areas they have to come from. If any Board Members has an interest or has a constituent interested, please come and talk with us. We would be happy to see if we have a position they are interested in being appointed to. We could also recommend them from a state appointment. DuPage County passed a law that gave them the ability to take action on their own to take greater accountability on the Boards and Commissions.
Ms. Dunn clarified currently you have to fill out the paper copy or on-line application. The application does ask if you are currently on a Board, it does not contain the compensation.
Ms. Winfrey stated since our staff provides the compensation for appointed positions, there is no value to adding that to the rules.
Ms. Dunn reviewed page 15, item 15 to include Sunny Hill Nursing Home.
Ms. Dunn reviewed page 19, currently item 3 reads Invocation. The Democratic Caucus’ proposed an amendment to add “or moment of reflection”. The Republican Caucus’ proposal is to remove “or moment of reflection”.
Mrs. Traynere stated it was pointed out at our caucus during the last 13 meetings; seven times the invocation was given by a Board Member. Based on our prior discussions of how that looks to the public and how it could expose us, it was mentioned if a Board Member could not get someone to give the invocation or if someone cancelled at the last minute, rather than have a Board Member give the invocation, we thought it would be beneficial to add moment of reflection instead of having a Board Member give an invocation. The issue is having a Board Member give the invocation.
Ms. Dunn stated we want to avoid the potential of any bias, having a Board Member give the invocation and then voting later in the meeting against a member of the audience who did not participate in the prayer. We want the public to understand we could have a moment of silence or an invocation. If anyone wants to bring in someone and that person cannot make it to the meeting, we would have the moment of silence instead of a Board Member giving an invocation.
Ms. Winfrey added then we would not have any liability of someone saying the reason they did not get what they wanted was because they did not participate in the prayer.
Mr. Moustis stated historically and traditionally we have had an invocations. My interpretation is this is to eliminate prayer. There is nothing wrong with a Board Member doing the invocation. I don’t see where it creates liability. Any person on the Board can give an invocation. Create a list and say you are next, if you want to do it. It does not show a bias. My prayer would always be “God let us do the right thing; let me do the right thing”. I think it sends a different type of message. It sends the message of anti-religion, anti-God. If you are a nonbeliever be a nonbeliever. I think having a prayer to ask for guidance for us to all do the right thing is a good thing. I would not be supportive of the change.
Ms. Winfrey stated I will be praying regardless. Is there is a reason, the House and Senate have a Chaplain separate from the Members. Mrs. Tatroe is there an issue?
Mrs. Tatroe replied there is nothing wrong with having an invocation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled and said legislative bodies may have an invocation, may have a moment of prayer. There is a federal decision from Michigan where at a local legislative body where only the members of that body gave the invocation. The decision was they gave the appearance it was the Board was presenting the prayer and it was their views. There were some additional comments about requiring the public to participate. It did go over the top. I don’t think the occasional invocation given by a County Board Member, when no one else is available crosses the line. I am concerned about the number of times we have done that in the last year, because it is getting to the point more than half the time that has happened. If the County Board wishes they can attempt to do other outreach to make sure that all of the faiths understand they are welcome to give the invocation and would be allowed to do so. You could let them know we have the opportunities available. I don’t know that you need to add a moment of silence in your rules. If you reached a point where Mr. Brooks or Ms. Fritz have given the invocation several times and would prefer to do a moment of silence instead, you can do that. If you don’t have someone, you don’t have someone to do it. You could even ask a member of the public to give the invocation. There is no requirement for them to be a pastor, minister or deacon.
Mr. Moustis stated perhaps Mr. Brooks could help us find a permanent person to come each month.
Ms. Winfrey stated in the past we have reached out to Board Members to bring someone. Many times the person giving the invocation is only here for 10 minutes and for some people the idea of driving here and then going back is overwhelming.
Mr. Balich stated I called the Center for Law and Justice and reviewed the Supreme Court ruling Mrs. Tatroe just mentioned. Under that ruling as a County Board Members, if you call a moment of silence, I can stand up after that and start reading chapters from the Bible.
Ms. Winfrey stated if you are given the floor and I can tell you right now, you will not be given the floor.
Mr. Balich continued if I am not given the floor I can file a lawsuit; which I will. The Center for Law and Justice will represent me for free. The solution is to tell the County Board Members to get someone. I will stand up and read for several hours from the Bible.
Mrs. Tatroe stated if you prefer you could do more outreach. Perhaps post on your website this opportunity is available if you are interested, please contact the office.
Ms. Winfrey asked County Board Members to reach out to their community and find people interested in attending the meetings and giving the invocation.
Ms. Ventura asked is there a process, not necessarily in the rules, that a person keep the invocation under a certain time limit?
Ms. Winfrey replied there is not a time limit, but it is usually very brief.
Ms. Summers stated I agree with Mr. Moustis, I believe we need to get a permanent Chaplain. I have reached out to people in my area. Unfortunately, it is 64 miles round trip for 3 minutes and that is an issue.
Mr. Moustis stated it does not have to be minister, you could bring in a deacon. If you have a friend willing to give an invocation, ask them. It does not have to be someone from the church. Mr. Brooks may have someone at his church who would like to give the invocation.
Ms. Winfrey asked the question is do we want to leave it as Invocation or add Moment of Reflection? What I am hearing there is willingness to leave it as invocation, with the understanding we will push for more outreach to get people from different districts, different religions and people who are not religious to come and speak to the group. We will pay attention to how often Board Members are giving the invocation.
Ms. Dunn continued under Order of Business; under Honorary Resolutions/Proclamations, the proposed change was to remove the word Resolution.
Ms. Dunn reviewed proposed changes to the Business/Travel Reimbursement.
Motion to Change County Board Rules to Include the County Executive Will Give an Annual Presentation in August to Include the State of the County and the Budget Presentation
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
Motion to Remove from the Appointments Item 4 d (Upon Request, Resume if Applicable)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Laurie Summers, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
Motion to Add to the Public Health & Safety Committee Responsibilities as Part of Item iii Sunny Hill Nursing Home
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
Motion to Remove Moment of Reflection from the Order of Business
RESULT: APPROVED [10 TO 1]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers
NAYS: Traynere
Motion to Remove from the Order of Business the Word Resolution and become Honorary Proclamations
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
Motion to Accept Changes to the Business/Travel Reimbursement Policy in the Rules
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
Motion to Move the Proposed County Board Rules to the Full County Board as Amended
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
3. Appropriating Grant Funds in the Sheriff's Budget from Department of Homeland Security Grant Program
(Lt. Nat Freeman/Vicki Hayes)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
4. Tax Abatement Request for Supermercado El Guero
(Nick Palmer/John Greuling)
Ms. Winfrey indicated this agreement has not been finalized and asked to have the item removed from the agenda.
RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
5. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program
(Julie Shetina)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
6. Renewing Contract for Pharmaceutical & Consulting Services at Sunny Hill
Nursing Home
(Rita Weiss)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Laurie Summers, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
7. Setting the Salary of the County Executive Legal Counsel
(Nick Palmer)
Mr. Palmer asked to have this item tabled until the February meeting.
RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 2/7/2019 10:00 AM
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
8. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement between the Village of Diamond and the County of Will for the Expansion of the Diamond Enterprise Zone
(Nick Palmer)
Mayor Kernc reviewed the information in the packet.
Mr. Palmer stated there are two items on the agenda. Sometimes we do the Ordinance and IGA at the same time. The Mayor is requesting we only approve the Resolution giving the County Executive authority to sign the IGA but we won’t sign the IGA until they bring back the Ordinance and do it all at once. The IGA references the Ordinance, this lets them know the County is onboard. It does not impact Will County directly, but will offer job opportunities for our residents.
Mr. Moustis stated I understand cooperation on regional projects and how it benefits the region. What is the direct benefit to Diamond?
Mayor Kernc replied this is a test. I told our Board we wanted to be good neighbors and help others with our EZ. When you are an EZ you can charge a 1⁄2% fee on the total construction cost, not to exceed $50,000. In this case Diamond will bill $50,000. We have an EZ administrator. When the contractors begin this project they will be entered into the state website and have a certificate created so they can purchase construction material with no sales tax. It will generate a lot of work on our part to do that. I anticipate between 50 and 100 contractors will be part of this project. This is the test to make sure I have not extended Diamond further than we can successfully handle. If we continue in the future, the fee on smaller projects would be much lower. The state recently made changes; in the past they were allowed to require much higher fees and the state thought it was getting out of hand and clamped down on the fees.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Kenneth E. Harris, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
9. An Ordinance Authorizing a Joint Application for Boundary Amendments to the Diamond Enterprise Zone
(Nick Palmer)
RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
10. Allocation of Recapture Money from Laraway Sewer & Water Project
(Nick Palmer/Dave Tkac)
Mr. Palmer stated during construction of the Public Safety Complex we were required to get water to the facility. We worked with Joliet and included a recapture agreement in the IGA for this project. A company has built on the corner of Laraway and Route 52 and they were required to pay us $100,000. After speaking with the Finance Department and County Board staff, we are recommending this money go into the capital facilities replacement fund.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
11. South Carillon Drive Traffic Signal Negotiations
(Nick Palmer)
Mr. Palmer stated this is a long term project request from the Carillon community, on Weber Road. It has been talked about extensively at Public Works. The Carillon community began in 1989, long before Weber Road became what it is today with traffic. With the construction at Weber Road and I-55, this community asked for a signal at South Carillon Drive. The previous County Engineer, Mr. Gould and Mr. Ronaldson have said that would be the likely location for a signal, should development occur on the east side of Weber Road. No one knows when a development may come to that area. The County Board passed a Resolution supporting the light, but no funding was identified. We have had discussions at the Committee and some members felt Carillon should pay for it all and they are asking the county to pay. We asked them for an offer and then we could actually have negotiations. They are proposing to pay $45,000 for the construction and $5,000 for the annual maintenance. The current estimate for the light is $230,000 for design and construction for the temporary signal. That is their offer and the Board needs to decide if that is adequate, not enough or if you want to give me direction to go back.
Mr. Moran stated the Committee also received a legal opinion that said this is a private road into a private development. If we were to pay for this signal and intersection improvements for a private development it opens us up to pay for future improvements on private developments. It sets a bad precedence.
Mrs. Tatroe agreed.
Mr. Moran continued the Committee offered to them the ability to make payments overtime on this signal. I believe we said three years. This would be $90 per person and they would have three years to pay if they collected a special assessment. I don’t think it is out of line for them to pay for the intersection improvement themselves.
Mr. Moustis stated I thought there was also an opinion we could not spend taxpayer money on a private road.
Mrs. Tatroe stated we cannot spend money on a private road. To me this is similar to a development like a Menards. If Menards built and created more traffic they pay for a light to accommodate their development. This is the same thing, this is a private road, it is not open to the general public and they are requesting a light be put in there.
Mr. Moustis stated part of this project is on a public road and part on a private development. We would have to determine what the cost is for the public portion and the private portion.
Mrs. Traynere stated there would not be a need if the private road and private subdivision did not exist. This light is just for that subdivision.
Mr. Palmer stated the private road is South Carillon Road. It was granted years ago and was built on the plan at the time, because they paid for the access at North Carillon Road and a signal they continue to pay maintenance on. They paid their share of that signal. Weber Road was not as busy when this development went in as it is now. The traffic is not because of Carillon; they are built out and have no further expansion. If they were coming in today, they would be required to pay based on the density and the impact they have on Weber Road. When development comes on the east side of the street, they will be responsible for half of the cost of the permanent signal. The thought of 25% of the temporary signal is based on that assumption. When this process began the signal was not warranted by traffic count. The WCDOT has determined it is warranted by the numbers; it is a matter of who will pay. We are talking about $230,000 for the signal.
Mr. Ferry stated the residents argue they maintain their own streets within Carillon and it is costly to do. They pay $7.9 million in real estate taxes and support two school districts. This is a safety issue. Ambulances need to get through and if there are traffic jams at one intersection, you hope they could get through the next one and I believe a light would help the situation. They formed a safety committee to start this approach. They think for the $7.9 million they pay in taxes they are not asking too much to get a light that will ensure their safety.
Mr. Moran stated several years ago we held an information meeting at Carillon during the planning phase with IDOT. Lockport Fire Department and Romeoville Fire Department were there and assured us there was not an issue with ambulance calls into or out of the community. There are two other signaled intersections from the community; North Carillon Drive and another between North Carillon Drive and 135th Street. The $7.9 million they pay in property taxes does not come to the County to pay for road improvements; only 7% of their total tax bill comes to the County and that is inclusive of all the services the county provides. The county does not provide schools or fire protection. What they pay to those entities is not received by the County.
Mrs. Ogalla asked who is responsible for Weber Road? Mr. Ronaldson replied Weber Road is a County highway.
Mrs. Ogalla stated if they are requesting this signal and we don’t do it; if there was an accident, would we be liable?
Mr. Ronaldson answered no.
Mr. Palmer stated we need to respond to these residents. They, along with county staff, have spent a lot of time going to these meetings. The County passed a Resolution they were supportive of the signal, but did not specify funding. They left with the impression you supported them. Public Works did ask them to put together a proposal and it has taken them some time. I need to know what our response will be; yes, no or we want to counter offer.
Mr. Ronaldson stated the temporary signal being proposed would be completely in the Weber Road ROW. The proposal does not specify if the $5,000 for maintenance is an annual contribution. The annual maintenance will be between $3,000 and $5,000; so is this is a onetime payment? This is just for the temporary signal. When additional lanes are added, we will take out the temporary signal and put in a permanent signal, the retrofit will be another $350,000 expense. If it was a Menards, the developer would pay the expense. There will be that second expense. We need to know who will pay for that expense.
Mr. Moustis asked could the infrastructure for the temporary light be used for the permanent light?
Mr. Ronaldson answered very little.
Mr. Moustis continued what would a reasonable cost would be? Would it be zero cost to the county, because we would be doing nothing at this intersection? In the past it did not qualify for a signal. Now it barely meets the minimum standards of a signal. If it far exceed the standard we would put in a signal.
Mr. Ronaldson stated our initial traffic counts did not meet the warrants. We did another one before the vote on the Resolution in support. It was one car shy of meeting the warrants. The warrants are based on the traffic on the side street, not on Weber Road.
Mr. Moustis asked should we take another look at it? Should we pay 100% of the cost? We supported the light, but we said we are not going to pay for it. We have to determine if we will pay something or nothing toward the light. We need more than they are offering. If this signal goes in, will there be benefit to the general public and would there be benefit to the project if the light was there? Is there is a benefit to the general public using Weber Road? We need additional information to move forward.
Mr. Palmer stated this is the county highway system and we granted them access in the past. When development comes to the east side, if a signal is warranted to support the development, they will be required to pay at least one-quarter of the price. The County will not pay for the entire project.
Mr. Ronaldson stated our permit would be with the developer on the east side. We are not involved in where they get their money.
Mr. Palmer clarified Carillon would not be responsible for the permanent signal. The only cost Carillon could pay is the cost of the temporary signal. This is a private road with public access to the golf course. There is no gate at the street preventing you from entering. They are accessing a heavily used county highway. People using Weber Road could have accidents with people turning left from South Carillon Drive. That is the safety issue and why we brought this forward.
Mr. Moran stated the golf course is owned by the subdivision and they make a profit from it. That is the same as if there was a Menards on the other side of the street. If we put a temporary signal, when phase one of the construction is completed and we add lanes between South Carillon and Airport Roads, the temporary signal will have to become a permanent signal whether someone develops the east side or not. You are not going to put in a temporary signal and take it out.
Mr. Ronaldson stated nothing says a temporary signal has to become permanent. However, it is reasonable to assume you would have to add a permanent signal.
Mr. Moran stated it is reasonable to assume we could incur the total cost of the permanent light if Carillon says they don’t have the money.
Mr. Ronaldson stated yes, if there is not a developer on the other side.
Mr. Moran continued we would be on the hook for an additional $350,000. Mr. Palmer suggested a recapture agreement with the Village of Romeoville.
Ms. Winfrey stated an option is to accept the money from them and we provide the rest of the money for the temporary light. Another is to go back and ask for a larger amount spread over three tax years so they would have a bigger share, but the balance of the signal would be the county responsibility. The county would be responsible to the entire cost of the permanent light unless there is a developer on the east side who would be responsible for a portion.
Mr. Ronaldson stated our current IGA states future improvements are borne by the development.
Mr. Moran stated if we talk to the State’s Attorney; they would tell you after you install the permanent signal you will not want to take it out. People will expect there to be a light and it will cause more accidents. If you put in a temporary light, the county has bought a permanent light.
Mr. Moustis stated we have not talked about a recapture agreement with Romeoville in the past. It is worth a discussion to find out how Romeoville feels about a light.
Mr. Palmer stated I have had discussions with the Village of Romeoville. The question is can we put the signal in now since the roadway will be widened in the future.
Mr. Moustis stated I was thinking about the infrastructure.
Mr. Palmer stated the equipment is not the same for the temporary and permanent signal. It will have to be replaced. There are places on Weber Road where signals are up, but have never been turned on because there was no development. Our gamble is when, will development come. If we do a signal soon, it will be a temporary signal replaced by a permanent signal.
Mrs. Dollinger asked do the future plans show a signal at this intersection? Mr. Ronaldson replied the phase one we completed did not include a signal.
Mr. Moustis stated thank Carillon for the offer. Let them know we are looking at it; we will crunch the numbers and get back to them.
Ms. Winfrey stated at the same time I suggest some discussion with Mayor Noak about a recapture agreement with Romeoville.
Mrs. Traynere added we have waited over a year to get something from them; clearly they are not in a hurry.
11. Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Lockport and the County of Will for Installation, Maintenance and Energy of Traffic Signals at the Intersection of 143rd Street and Prologis Parkway and Ridge Circle in the County of Will, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
13. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute an Amendment to the OPEB Retiree Health Insurance Trust Agreement
(Dan McGrath)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
14. Discussion Re: New Recycling Drop-Off in Crest Hill (WDOT Site) (Dean Olson & Marta Keane)
Mr. Olson reviewed the latex paint recycling site at the DOT on Caton Farm Road.
15. Renewing Contract for Electronics Recycling Turn Key Collection
(Marta Keane)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
16. Renewing Contract for Electronics Recycling One Day Collection Events
(Marta Keane)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
17. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Custer Park Fire Protection District to Provide Access to the Countywide Radio System
(Thomas Murray)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
18. Replacement Hire for Supervisor of Assessments Office
(Rhonda R. Novak)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
19. Replacement Hires for Sunny Hill Nursing Home
(Bruce Tidwell)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Laurie Summers, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
20. Replacement Hire for Sunny Hill Nursing Home - Food & Nutrition Services Manager
(Bruce Tidwell)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Laurie Summers, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
21. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Supervisor of Assessments Employment Agreement between the County of Will and Rhonda R. Novak
(Nick Palmer/Rhonda Novak)
Mr. Moustis stated the SOA is under contract through 2019. I am suggesting we removed this and address it when we talk about other salaries and budget items.
Ms. Winfrey stated there are no salary increases in the contract. It is a contract for the next four years. There is nothing for us to do since the salary is set through FY2019. Any future appointments and contracts will come from the Executive’s Office.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I don’t know there is a contract in place as the last time you just set her salary.
Mr. Palmer stated Ms. Novak had a contract, but we did not do a second. The contracts usually give both sides stability, knowing the salary is set and it will not go up unless there is a mutual agreement to change it. It makes sense to approve the contract with no increases and then it can only be changed by mutual agreement.
Mr. Moustis stated I would ask the Executive’s Office to request and forward your suggestions on the contract.
Mr. Palmer stated the SOA worked with the State’s Attorney’s office to draft this agreement. The contract states a four year contract with no increases in salary.
Ms. Winfrey clarified the proposed contract for the SOA is for the next four years at the current rate. All the duties and responsibilities stay the same.
Mr. Harris asked how could you change the salary?
Ms. Winfrey replied you would have to bring something forward. The only difference from the contract previously submitted, is the salary will stay the same over the four years, beyond December 2019.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
22. Presentation on Energy Savings Programs, Energy Markets & Renewable Energy
(Samantha Bluemer & Michael English (Tradition Energy))
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
23. Proclamation(s)
Mrs. Adams reviewed the Proclamations.
24. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
Mrs. Ogalla stated this month we have two new Board Members being appointed to Boards. These new Board Members have no background on the Board. I think it would be a good idea to have County Board Members with experience in being a County Board Member versus being newly elected. There is so much to learn.
Mr. Moustis stated what Mrs. Ogalla said has some merit. I believe new members can bring a lot to this Board and other Boards. It is a good idea when County Board Members are appointed to something the entire County Board knows. I always tried to get out to all the members a position was available. We should use the experience we have on the Board.
1. January 2019 Appointments to Boards and Commissions
(County Executive)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
VI. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Winfrey asked to save space on the County Board agenda for a Maintenance replacement hire.
1. Motion to Save Space on the County Board Agenda for Replacement Hire for Maintenance Department
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moran, Moustis, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
VII. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Fricilone and Mr. Moustis left at this juncture.
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Judicial
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Policy
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
X. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Labor Negotiations - Necessary
2. Land Acquisition
3. Pending or Imminent Litigation
4. Personnel - NECESSARY
Motion to go Into Executive Session at 1:34 PM for Discussion of Labor Negotiations
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Harris, Marcum, Moran, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
LEFT MEETING: Fricilone, Moustis
Motion to Come Out of Executive Session at 1:56 PM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Harris, Marcum, Moran, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
ABSENT: Fricilone, Moustis
Motion to Concur with Recommendation of Labor Negotiator
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Donald A. Moran, Member
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Harris, Marcum, Moran, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
ABSENT: Fricilone, Moustis
XII. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Information)
RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Harris, Marcum, Moran, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
LEFT MEETING: Fricilone, Moustis
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 1:59 PM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Winfrey, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Harris, Marcum, Moran, Ogalla, Summers, Traynere
LEFT MEETING: Fricilone, Moustis
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3156&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up