Will County Board met December 19

By Michael Abella

Jan 29, 2020

Will County Board met Dec. 19.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

I. CALL TO ORDER

Executive Walsh called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

Member Berkowicz led the Pledge of Allegiance.

III. INVOCATION

Member Berkowicz introduced the Clergy, Father Dindo Billote from St. Mary Catholic Church in Mokena.

IV. ROLL CALL

Attendee Name

Title

Status

Arrived

Sherry Newquist

District 1 (D - Steger)

Present

Judy Ogalla

District 1 (R - Monee)

Present

Amanda Koch

District 2 (D - Frankfort)

Present

Jim Moustis

District 2 (R - Frankfort)

Present

Beth Rice

District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

Present

Margaret Tyson

District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

Present

Kenneth E. Harris

District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

Present

Jacqueline Traynere

District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

Present

Gretchen Fritz

District 5 (R - Plainfield)

Present

Meta Mueller

District 5 (D - Aurora)

Present

Donald Gould

District 6 (R - Shorewood)

Present

Joe VanDuyne

District 6 (D - Wilmington)

Present

Steve Balich

District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

Present

Mike Fricilone

District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

Present

Herbert Brooks Jr.

District 8 (D - Joliet)

Present

Denise E. Winfrey

Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

Present

Annette Parker

District 9 (R - Crest Hill)

Present

Rachel Ventura

District 9 (D - Joliet)

Present

Gloria Dollinger

District 10 (R - Joliet)

Present

Tyler Marcum

District 10 (D - Joliet)

Present

Julie Berkowicz

District 11 (R - Naperville)

Present

Mimi Cowan

District 11 (D - Naperville)

Present

Ray Tuminello

District 12 (R - New Lenox)

Present

Tom Weigel

District 12 (R - New Lenox)

Present

Mark Ferry

District 13 (D - Plainfield)

Present

Tim Kraulidis

District 13 (R - Joliet)

Present

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Beth Rice, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry, Kraulidis

VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. Will County Board - Recessed Meeting - Nov 21, 2019 9:30 AM

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)

2. EX SESS County Board Minutes Nov. 21, 2019

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

SECONDER: Gloria Dollinger, District 10 (R - Joliet)

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MEDIA PRESENT

Elected Officials present: Auditor, Duffy Blackburn; County Clerk Lauren Staley Ferry; County Executive Larry Walsh; Recorder of Deeds, Karen Stukel; State’s Attorney James Glasgow and Treasurer, Tim Brophy

Media present: Southtown, Alice Fabbre; Farmers Weekly Review, Nick Reiher; Herald News, Alex Ortiz and Times Weekly, Megann Horstead

IX. HONORARY RESOLUTIONS / PROCLAMATIONS

1. Check Presentation to Joliet Township High School Band

Member Winfrey stated since no one is here to accept it, we would like to move it to next month if we may.

RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/16/2020 9:30 AM

TO: Will County Board

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)

2. Recognizing National School Choice Week Jan 26 - Feb 1, 2020

Member Rice stated I would like to read into the record a proclamation recognizing School Choice Week in Will County.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Beth Rice, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

X. OLD BUSINESS

Status of Unsigned or Returned Resolutions/Ordinances by the County Executive

All Resolutions approved at the November 21, 2019 County Board Meeting have been signed by the County Executive

XI. NEW BUSINESS

XII. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - T. MARCUM, CHAIR

Member Marcum stated thank you Executive Walsh.

Open Public Hearing for all Land Use Cases

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

PLEASE BE ADVISED: ABSOLUTELY NO NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION WILL BE ALLOWED ONCE THIS LAND USE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

Executive Walsh stated we have one legal objection for case ZC-19-060 which will require a ¾ majority of the County Board, which means they have to get 20 votes.

We have three cases to be heard this morning: ZC-19-060, ZC-19-063, ZC-19-075. I have one person signed up, Mr. Tom Putz.

Mr. Tom Putz stated good morning County Board members, thank you for your time. The case number is ZC-19-060. I’m here on behalf of being the owner of this property. I’ve had it for 18 years (inaudible). I have a small business company that does use the property (inaudible). The gentleman’s been injured, he’s handicapped (inaudible) a pickup truck and a trailer. With the activity on the property, I’ve been working with Will County to get in compliance with the property to the violations of the activity using the property. (Inaudible). I’d like to continue with the Will County staff to get in compliance with the property and to do what’s necessary to work with people (inaudible). I like to store boats on the property. I own a marina and I travel from the (inaudible) about an hour to take the boats to (inaudible) marina. As a small owner and operator, it would be a tremendous asset to continue to try use this property for this purpose. I ask you for your support and your understanding. It means everything to me inaudible) my small business. I employ about eight people (inaudible) I couldn’t use it for what I was trying to use it for.

Member Weigel stated I was at the Land Use Committee meeting when this came up and I think he should be given more time to come into compliance. I recommend that this be pulled from the agenda and give him additional time to work with the Village of Plainfield to perhaps get a pre-annexation agreement and maybe change some of the uses that he’s doing on the property, maybe eliminate the pallet business if Plainfield doesn’t want that in the area. Although there is commercial in the area, there’s a gas station about a quarter mile away. I think that this requirement that the County is putting on him would go into effect in six months anyway automatically if we do remove it from the agenda so he still has to come into compliance. I recommend to give him more time to work with the village and I’d like to make that motion when we get back to regular session.

Executive Walsh stated Mr. Tom Putz would you be acceptable to table or push this back to give you more time to work with Planfield?

Mr. Tom Putz stated yes, sir. Thank you very much.

Executive Walsh stated anyone else from the public like to address County Board in this public hearing?

Close Public Hearing for all Land Use Cases

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

Motion to Remove ZC-19-060 from the Agenda

Member Marcum stated there will be two votes on this one. A zoning map amendment from A-1 to I-1 and a special use permit for a storage yard in Plainfield Township commonly known as 26049 W. Lockport Street, Plainfield, IL, County Board District number five. This is the one that we just heard about where Plainfield did send him an objection letter. I’ll start off by making a motion to approve the zoning from A-1 to I-1.

Member Weigel stated Executive Walsh I would like to have them withdraw their motion. I’d like to have a motion to remove this from the agenda.

Member Marcum stated I will just bring everybody’s attention to.the applicant filed for a pre-annexation agreement, but the Village of Plainfield also sent a followup letter to make sure that we understood that they are still objecting to the special use permit and the zoning. It does not fit in their long-range plans for that area. We are also dealing with a situation where there was access put onto a state highway without permission, which is in my opinion, a danger to everybody who drives that way. The state of Illinois has no idea that it’s there and there were too many trucks, or big vehicles that are coming in and out of there and the boats (inaudible). To me it’s pretty clear that Plainfield doesn’t want it, they’ve sent two letters now. This isn’t the first time the applicant has dealt with Land Use. He should have been aware of the process he had to go through before putting the businesses in that he did without permission. That’s where I’ll leave it.

Member Moustis stated before we vote on this I think it’s worth mentioning that this applicant has been in violation even when the Land Use Department told him to stop, to submit site plans, to not do some of the activities he was doing, he ignored and this went on for a couple of years. I don’t know if Land Use wants to comment on that. They certainly make comment both at the Planning and Zoning at the Land Use Committee which I attended both and I was pretty convinced that this was not a person who was being very cooperative with the Will County Land Use Department. He could have come into compliance from the beginning and it just shows that if you continue to ignore the codes of Will County and our Land Use staff, so what do you think is going to change outside of continuing to ignore it and it stretches it out for another year. He has to tear everything out of there, (inaudible) site plan, I don’t know if he’s going to do that but certainly I think it’s worth mentioning. He was not a cooperative person with the Land Use staff, it went on for years.

Executive Walsh stated Mr. David Dubois would you like to come down and explain the status of Land Use?

Mr. David Dubois stated good morning. I think a lot of what the department says is on the record. It’s pretty thoroughly explained in the staff report. Ms. Janine Farrell I would suggest speak for just a few seconds and kind of give a short synopsis.

Ms. Janine Farrell stated good morning everyone. I’m the zoning administrator with the Land Use Department. I compiled a packet and staff report for this case, so I will reiterate the things that have been said in the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Land Use Development Committee and even with the caucus this morning. Back in 2016, the applicant was put into violation for operating those uses (inaudible) the landscaping business and also the outdoor storage area for the boats on the property. He did meet with us at that time and we provided him guidance on the zoning action that would be required in order to bring the property to compliance and any kind of building permits or site development permits that would be required. I have a copy of those notes in the packet. The applicant signed them, he acknowledged them. The applicant continued to operate those illegal uses, those unpermitted uses in the (inaudible) and then was put in violation once again in 2019 after he had expanded the uses by putting down a three acre outdoor gravel storage yard out there and also that additional driveway access to route 126, an IDOT road, without an entrance permit or IDOT permission. Where we stand right now is the applicant has applied for zoning action to attempt to continue to operate these uses and that’s what’s before you today. I can answer any questions.

Member Weigel stated is it true if we remove it from the agenda, these things still take effect in six months automatically?

Ms. Janine Farrell stated I’m not sure what you’re referring to in six months.

Member Weigel stated these two requirements: The special use permit and outdoor storage?

Ms. Janine Farrell stated so if the County Board does not vote on the items, that they’re automatically denied?

Member Weigel stated they automatically go into effect? Or they’re denied?

Ms. Janine Farrell stated I think it was in an email to some of the County Board members, once this zoning case comes before you, the County Board must act upon it within six months or it’s automatically denied.

Member Weigel stated so if we take no action today then he’ll still be denied if he doesn’t do something in six months.

Ms. Janine Farrell stated correct, if no action is taken for six months, his requests are automatically denied.

Member Weigel stated so if he does meet with Plainfield and they have an acceptable agreement, he could bring it back in three months or whatever? Maybe a favorable opinion from Plainfield and maybe we would change our vote at that time. Is that true?

Ms. Janine Farrell stated I think it would have to be tabled, not taken off the agenda. Legally I’m not sure.

Executive Walsh stated Member Marcum has a motion to approve and Member Weigel has a motion and a second to remove it from the agenda. Should we take the motion Member Marcum has or the motion that Member Weigel has to take it off the agenda?

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated we’ve always functioned that you have to make a motion to approve to get it on the floor to even discuss it. So now the motion is to remove it. Once it’s removed.

Executive Walsh stated there’s a viable motion to remove it before we vote on Member Marcum’s to approve it.

Member Weigel stated the question is should it be tabled or just removed?

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated that’s up to you. If you remove it then there is no mechanism to bring it back automatically. If it’s tabled then it’s automatically comes back the next month. Or you could send it back to committee for further discussion. Those are your three basic options.

Member Weigel stated staff says these effects go into effect if we don’t take any action in six months.

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated there’s a pocket veto, basically. It’s not really a veto but it just dies. It’s denied automatically.

Member Weigel stated so if we remove it from the agenda, within six months then it would die? If he doesn’t come in to compliance (inaudible).

Mr. David Dubois stated historically when I’ve been with the County, the Board has typically not removed something in this manner. I’m not saying we can’t do it, but what could eventually happen is you lose continuity with other classes (inaudible) through the system. If it’s removed, there’s no mechanism to automatically bring it back up. You lose that continuity (inaudible) public meetings, public process (inaudible) notice this in postings for them to come back and know what’s going on. That is the potential risk.

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I think the motion on the floor is to remove it unless someone moves to amend that motion.

RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 24]

MOVER: Tom Weigel, District 12 (R - New Lenox)

SECONDER: Gretchen Fritz, District 5 (R - Plainfield)

AYES: Fritz, Weigel

NAYS: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Ferry, Kraulidis

1. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-19-060; Resource Bank Trust No. 36010000626, Owner of Record, (Thomas Michael Putz, 100% Interest), Tom Putz, Agent, Requesting a (M-19-016) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1 and (S-19-020) Special Use Permit for an Outdoor Storage Yard for PIN #06-03-18-100-004-0000, in Plainfield Township, Commonly Known as 26049 W. Lockport Street, Plainfield, IL, County Board District #5

Member Marcum stated I made a motion to approve. Planning and Zoning voted 4-2 to approve. Land Use and Development voted 1-6 to approve, so it came with recommendation to deny it, so if you do not want to approve it, you vote no.

Executive Walsh stated because of the legal objection, it needs to have 20 positive votes to be approved.

RESULT: FAILED [2 TO 24]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

AYES: Fritz, Weigel

PZC: 4-2 Appr Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1

PZC: 4-2 Appr SUP for Outdoor Storage Yard w/3 Conditions

LUD: 1-6 Appr Map Amendment from A-1 to I-1 - THEREBY DENYING

RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 24]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

AYES: Fritz, Weigel

LUD: 1-6 Appr SUP for Outdoor Storage Yard w/3 Conditions – THEREBY DENYING

RESULT: DEFEATED [2 TO 24]

AYES: Fritz, Weigel

PZC: 6-0 Appr Map Amendment from R-2 to R-3

PZC: 6-0 Appr Var for Lot Frontage from 90 ft to 32.57 ft for Lot 2

PZC: 6-0 Appr Var for Side Yard Setback from 10 ft to 6.2 ft for Lot 2

LUD: 7-0 Appr Map Amendment from R-2 to R-3

2. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-19-075, Wingren DG, LLC, Owner of Record (Jeffrey Wingren 100% Interest); Edward Kalina of Engineering Solutions Team, Agent; Requesting (M-19-019) Zoning Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2, for PIN #16-05-08-300-031-0000, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as Vacant Property on South Gougar Road, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

PZC: 6-0 Appr Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2

LUD: 7-0 Appr Map Amendment from A-1 to I-2

3. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, Zoning Case ZC-19-063; Pura Vida WBN Holdings, LLC – Series 20929, Owner of Record, Pura Vida, LTD (Corporation of Ownership); Nadina Shehaiber, Bassam Shehayber, and Wiel Shehayber each 33% Interest, Thomas Osterberger of Kavanagh, Grumley & Gorbold LLC, Attorney, Requesting (M-19-015) a Zoning Map Amendment from R-2 to R-3, (V-19-064) Variance for Lot Frontage from 90 feet to 32.57 feet for Lot 2, and Variance for Side Yard Setback (South) from 10 feet to 6.2 feet for Lot 2, for Pin #19-09-24-111-001-1001, 19-09-24-111-001-1002, & 19-09-24-111-002- 0000, in Frankfort Township, Commonly Known as 20929 and 20931 S. 80th Avenue, Frankfort, IL, County Board District #2

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mimi Cowan, District 11 (D - Naperville)

XIII. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS Motion to Amend Resolution 19-352

Member Tuminello stated thank you. Before I get into my discussion, I’d like to make a motion to amend 19-352 to include the 1.5 mile buffer around any community that has currently opted out of cannabis.

Member Brooks stated can you repeat that?

Member Tuminello stated before I get into my discussion, what I wanted to do is make an amendment to the motion to 19-352 to include a 1.5 mile buffer to any community that has opted out of cannabis. My reasoning and discussion.on December 16, the Village of Frankfort voted unanimously on their resolution 19- 51 asking the County Board for that mile and a half buffer for their community. We also received letters in our packet from Mokena, New Lenox, other communities as well that didn’t make the packet but we were emailed them. Sometimes I think that we concentrate so much on unincorporated areas and unincorporated residents; however, we do need to be cognizant of the fact that the majority of us have the majority of our constituents in corporated areas. I’m trying to give equal protection to individuals in the corporated and unincorporated area. I feel we need to respect them as well. There’s already statute in place from a Land Use perspective on the 1.5 miles. Obviously if there’s a text amendment, a map amendment, we have that 1.5 mile protection for the communities. There’s no such protection for special uses that would allow any community to file a formal objection. I know there’s some individuals that will say that this more restrictive, however, our role as legislators are to create the laws, not to determine if they are legal or not. If someone comes forward and challenges, I’m sure there will be many communities that will help us defend as well as the county. However, it’s not our role to determine the validity or legality of that. I would respectfully ask my colleagues here, as we seem to be heading down the path of allowing marijuana in the unincorporated areas, that we just respect the communities and the parts of the communities that already opted out, that don’t want it in their town and note that in Districts like Twelve and Two. The majority of our residents come from those incorporated areas that those communities have already spoken. I think it’s a very responsible thing to do. Thank you.

Member Balich stated I represent the city of Lockport and Homer Glen and New Lenox. City of Lockport Mayor called me twice. He’s upset that the county’s even considering opting in when Lockport opted out without giving him any protections. There’s little pockets within Lockport that could have a dispensary. That’s not right, Lockport says they don’t want it. I agree with the Mayor, I agree with Member Tuminello. The trucking company that we just voted on in unincorporated Homer Glen, they could put a dispensary there. Homer Glen said no, so did Lockport, that’s right in the middle of both of them. This mile and a half buffer, that’s a very important thing to protect cities that said no. I think that we have to be responsible enough to give that mile and a half buffer, otherwise, we’re really doing the wrong thing. God help us.

Member Ventura stated this was discussed in Land Use and it was shown that it (inaudible) overly restrictive, not from a legal validation but from a standpoint that this would opt out most of the county, unincorporated. So it’s not appropriate for those of us who believe it should be allowed in the county. I’m asking you guys to please vote no on Member Tuminello’s motion for the mile and a half buffer, thank you.

Member Moustis stated I just wanted to point out that the mile and a half is done by state statute for map amendments and such. There’s a reason they gave that authority to municipalities, because the larger community around a municipality has a lot of common interest with that municipality and identifies. There would be continuity in the growth of municipalities (inaudible). So I do think it’s appropriate. You could say that about any zoning (inaudible) some undue hardship, (inaudible) municipality have that ability to legally object. They don’t have the ability to legally object to special use permits and I did ask this in the Republican caucus this morning whether we could also place on the mile and a half that they would have the ability if we didn’t impose, they would have the ability to at least file a legal objection if not totally prohibit it. There’s another way of perhaps approaching this also, but I’m not so sure we have that authority in the state statute. I guess Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe I’m asking you, do you know whether we would?

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated let me first make sure I understand your question. I think your question is that can the County Board impose upon itself a requirement that you have a three-fourths majority to approve a special use for cannabis if a municipality files an objection. I do not know the answer to that. I think it’s an interesting concept and we’d certainly be happy to look at it. Without looking at it a little further, I’m not going to comment, but I think it’s an interesting concept that maybe you could do.

Member Moustis stated I’m going to wait until we get to vote on this and then maybe I’ll do it (inaudible) since we’re all here today.

Member Berkowicz stated thank you Executive Walsh. I’m getting a lot of feedback from constituents in my district in south Naperville. We have unincorporated areas that are right next to communities. One community, Carillon, there is a large industrial area right behind them. They have a lot of concerns about this and they would like to see that one and a half mile buffer. They are worried about safety, they’re worried about traffic, they’re worried about all kinds of activity that could occur at a facility based on, I believe the hours of operation, they’ve established with something like 6:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. For these concerns, they have a valid interest in the safety and the future impact this could have on their community. For that reason I think we really need to consider that one and a half mile buffer just to give everybody that security of knowing that their neighborhood will not change as a result if this were to pass. I wanted to share that. I think we should enact that and I think it would make a big difference to our residents to know that we do care about their concerns. Thank you.

Member Balich stated I’m on the Land Use Committee and when we discussed the zoning, the mile and a half buffer was on the screen to begin with and then we continued on talking about so many different things that we never voted on whether we liked a mile and a half buffer or not. The assumption like Member Ventura said, she was assuming that there was no mile and a half buffer, I assumed there was. When I went to amend a motion on that committee, I was told don’t worry about it, it’s all covered. I’m assuming this mile and a half buffer existed because we didn’t vote on it. I never agreed to put in a C-1 and I-1.

Member Ventura stated yes you did.

Member Balich stated no, I’m just looking at it like people have different opinions of the meeting but my opinion was the mile and a half buffer was included in the very beginning. I think it’s absurd that we don’t do it. If we’re going to cite Land Use Committee on this thing, I’ve got a totally different opinion of what was said.

Member Tuminello stated just a quick thing. Member Ventura is correct when you look at the map. However, after communicating with the Land Use Department, that map was created with a 1.5 mile buffer around every single community, whether they opted in or opted out. When you remove the communities that opt in, there are plenty of more locations that are viable locations for the cannabis sales. Thank you.

Member Marcum stated I guess I’ll address Member Balich’s concerns first. The way the committee did this was Land Use staff presented all the different options we had, they had maps, they had everything. There was a motion to approve a first scenario, so I walked through everything that was included twice. I made sure everyone knew what was happening. Member Balich was going to make a motion, after I walked through everything, I asked Member Balich if he wanted to make an amendment and he didn’t. He had the opportunity to include all of us, and I gave him two opportunities. I take a little bit of offense that you’re trying to say that I didn’t run fair meetings.

Member Balich stated I said it was confusing. There’s a big difference.

Member Marcum stated well I walked through everything twice and I asked the committee if everyone understood what we were voting on and everyone said yes. The reason why we didn’t include it was on the State’s Attorney’s recommendation. Mr. Matt Guzman had indicated that in his legal opinion, it wasn’t something that was a viable option for us to include. After last month when we talked about how we should respect the State’s Attorney’s opinion, and that’s the path the committee went down, respecting our State’s Attorney’s opinion since they’re our legal counsel. That’s why we didn’t include it. You could have made the motion. I gave you two opportunities. That’s all I have to say.

Member Traynere stated I hear the residents are concerned, they’re calling County Board members. I hear mayors are concerned, they’re calling County Board members. They’re worried about this unincorporated area. They do have some options. They can incorporate these areas and then they would be opted out like the community itself if they in fact opted out. The ones that did opt out, they may be opting out just to see how things go and they may choose at a later time to opt in. There’s opportunities on both sides. I would really prefer if no one abused alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or use any kind of drugs, but that’s free will. You can’t stop people from doing that. I drove by a liquor store on the way here. Big neon sign out in front, there was a big sale on Crown Royal or something and it’s right across the street from an unincorporated area, probably not even 500 yards. Those people didn’t all get up and move because a liquor store moved in. The graveyard behind it.they didn’t get up and move. I think there’s just a lot of unjustified fear here. I don’t know why people are ramping up so much. Alcohol is very addictive, very expensive. People don’t move away from stores that sell it, restaurants that offer it, liquor stores, bars. I just don’t understand the fears. I am going to vote yes on the motion, not on the amendment.

Member Koch stated I sit on Land Use and we put a lot of work in making sure that this was not overly prohibitive but did protect our residents. We have a 1,000 foot buffer from schools, daycares, universities and residential areas for dispensaries, and then cultivation is a 2500 foot buffer and that includes all that are in municipalities and out, so protecting all of our residents and all of our residential areas. I know this will probably be a destination thing, especially when it becomes legal. There might be increased traffic so that was important to me that we kept this stuff away from people’s neighborhoods. I think that that creates enough of a buffer to protect residents across the county without us instituting a 1.5 mile buffer, so I am going to vote no on the amendment but yes for the zoning that we worked really hard on. Thank you.

Member Balich stated I have to correct Member Marcum. I’m offended that he would think I’m an idiot, first off. Those screens were created with that mile and a half buffer. Just like Member Tuminello said, you take that mile and a half buffer out and it’s a whole different picture. We never voted whether to accept it or not. I’m under the assumption that all those screens were based on that, that we had the mile and a half buffer and I’m not an idiot.

Executive Walsh stated Member Tuminello’s.a mile and a half surrounding a village that has opt out. If a village has opt in (inaudible) a mile and a half.

RESULT: DEFEATED [12 TO 14]

MOVER: Ray Tuminello, District 12 (R - New Lenox)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

Motion to Amend Resolution 19-352 (Remove C-1)

Member Ogalla stated we had conversation in our caucus regarding a specific zoning classification and the location of this specific type of classification. I’d like to make a motion to remove C-1 from all the different uses within the zoning ordinance, prohibiting C-1.

Member Ventura stated this was also discussed at Land Use and also with the somewhat restrictive we did look into that and Member Koch’s point, we did put in safeguards in for schools and sensitive areas for colleges and universities, so I would ask that we vote no to this amendment motion. Thank you.

Member Moustis stated the reason I think we should prohibit it in C-1.C-1 is basically a very local, neighborhood type classification. When I hear that people say that we’ve already built in these safeguards, we’ve built in zero safeguards. What we have done is follow whatever the state has put out there. We did not do anything that was more restrictive than was already there by law. So you didn’t do anything to protect anybody or keep it away from the most local neighborhoods. C-1 would help accomplish that. Quite frankly, there’s not that much C-1 out there and any commercial that people are looking to zone, they don’t go to C-1, they go to C-2. If it was up to me, it would be eliminated in C-2 also. We’ve virtually allowed it in every single zoning classification that exists in Will County. You can eliminate one of them that really deals with very local neighborhoods. I’m supportive of C-1. It probably has little effect but it gives us some assurance that it will stay out of these very small neighborhoods.commercial type businesses. I think we should support the removal of C-1. Thank you.

Member Berkowicz stated thank you. This is such a small request to just withdraw this small area in our county. I think that everybody wants their neighborhood to be a safe environment and everybody cares about the appearance of their home, the quality of their streets, and activity. All of these things that make a neighborhood. Why is it too much to ask to withdraw this? This small area in our county which is so important to our families. If you don’t think this could get out of control, just go to Cook County where they have slot machines everywhere. I’m waiting for Dunkin Donuts to get slot machines now and video gambling. Now, Member Traynere, go over to Burbank and now they have signs littering the parkway.slot machines.everybody’s doing it. That’s all you see. It’s gotten to the point where you literally cannot drive down the street without having some form of gambling in your face. Given the size of Will County, the scope of our County, why is it too much to ask to just take this small segment out of this ordinance? I don’t think it’s too much to ask. I don’t think it’s unreasonable. I think common sense tells you. Member Traynere would you like a pot shop to open up next door? Maybe it doesn’t matter to you but talk to hundreds of people out there and get their opinion. I just think that it’s not an unreasonable request and I support it.

Member Tuminello stated just so everyone is aware, my colleague on the other side that said we’re trying to protect the residents, we do have a 1,000 foot buffer. She’s absolutely correct on schools, daycares, preschools. But just so everyone’s aware, I think there may be a little bit of confusion on C-1. C-1 is neighborhood commercial. There is a zero foot buffer between C-1 and a house. There is a zero foot buffer between C-1 and residential. So essentially behind your house, you walk over to the Dunkin Donuts, and you have a cannabis dispensary right next door. I don’t think removing C-1 with a zero foot buffer between marijuana and your residential home is too much to ask for. Thank you.

Member Traynere stated I’ve learned in my lifetime that once you start noticing something, you see it everywhere. I’ll give you an example. I bought a Chevy Volt a few years ago. I didn’t see too many of them on the road when I bought it. Now every time I turn around I see a Chevy Volt. It’s the familiarity. All of the sudden you start noticing them everywhere. I suspect that’s the case with the slot machines. They’re in our county, they’re not in the unincorporated because we didn’t vote to allow them, but they’re in our county. They’re everywhere in the municipalities. In fact in the establishment that the Democratic Party caucus is in sometimes. There are machines I have to walk by. Nothing happens to me when I walk by those machines. The machines don’t grab me and force me to put money into them. I know that’s not a good investment of my hard earned money. Prohibition of alcohol did not work. The war on drugs.we lost that a long time ago. We keep funneling money into that war, sort of like the one over there in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East. As far as saying we didn’t do anything, we added colleges and universities to the sensitive areas. We did do some things. There are areas all over our county, including inside municipalities that have opted out of cannabis. Liquor stores that are right in front of somebody’s house. If you’re afraid of cannabis, you must be afraid of liquor and tobacco and we should be talking about banning that, or putting in 1.5 mile buffer zones. I’m more worried about the (inaudible) effects that dealers bring. When people go to a cannabis dealer, again, like I said, after something happens a few times it becomes normal. The first time you go to a doctor, the first time you see that doctor, he’s a stranger to you. You really don’t feel comfortable. But by the fifth time, I would assume, if you’re a normal person, you’re not afraid of him anymore. Maybe I should have used dentist instead of doctor, most people are afraid of the dentist. You get comfortable. Drug dealers use that opportunity to upsell you. You’re not just buying cannabis anymore, now they’re trying to push something else on you. That’s why we call them pushers. Legal dispensaries are a far better place for people to purchase cannabis than an illegal transaction on the street from a drug dealer who is pushing, pushing you to more drugs, more expensive drugs, things where he or she can make more money. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with these legal dispensaries. I think the buffer zone the Land Use Committee approved is (inaudible) and not voting for this amendment. Thank you.

Member Koch stated thank you Executive Walsh. I do want to clarify that in our zoning that we are.the original thing that we are voting on, we are actually creating a 2,500 foot buffer and the 1,000 foot buffer from a.it says it right here.155-18.20 the definition. It includes pre-existing public or private preschool or elementary secondary school, college or university, or daycare center, daycare home, group daycare home, part-day childcare facility, or an area zoned for residential use. Essentially the C-1, it’s kind of zoned out by what we carefully worked on at our Land Use Committee. I did have a real world experience with a business owner who owns one of these local neighborhood strip mall things and wants to have a dispensary and he was unable to. He did not meet any of these requirements for the 1,000 feet; however, right around him was five liquor establishments. I think we’re kind of looking at this, trying to really overly restrict it when we don’t worry really at all about liquor sales. This was in Frankfort Township so I think that we should consider these 1,000 foot and 2,500 foot buffers are protecting schools and residential areas. I think we’ve done a lot of good work here and I’m going to vote no on this amendment as well.

Member Winfrey stated thank you Executive Walsh. I just want to remind everybody that all licenses are issued by a special use, unless I’m wrong.

Member Marcum stated for dispensaries they’re special use.

Member Winfrey stated yes, so at that point people will have the chance to say yes, no, based on where they’re next to, so you will always have that option.

Member Ventura stated thank you. I wanted to make that point too that this is special use for all the C categories that are listed on there. Also, only a handful of licenses are even going to be allowed in Will County. So even at the special use, we’re talking about a few places that we will have licenses for. To Member Winfrey’s point, if this comes forward and it’s right across the street from a residential area, those residents have the ability to come and talk to us about their wishes if they don’t want it in their neighborhood, then Land Use can take that into consideration and vote no for that particular location. To make this restrictive in all areas, some people, may indeed, want one across from their house. We don’t know that and we shouldn’t be making that determination for them. We should give them “their day in court” that you come and talk to the Board about it and we can make an informed decision at that point which is why Member Koch talked about the fact that we worked hard in Land Use to make sure this was fair to everybody and they had an ability to come and speak about their residents, but we have added additional beyond what the state allowed for since we did make colleges and universities sensitive areas.

Member Moustis stated I would just like to say, for me, we can’t make this too restrictive. It should be darn restrictive, really restrictive. It should be very limited in where you can get it in my opinion. For those of you who are big proponents of cannabis, marijuana, pot, whatever you want to call it, let me point one thing out. It’s illegal. It’s illegal by federal standards, it’s illegal in the majority of the country, in the majority of the states. There’s only a handful of states that are going to allow the legal sale of cannabis or marijuana. We should make it darn restrictive and for those of you that want to make excuses and say it’s restrictive enough.you want to make this comparison to alcohol. There is no comparison. That’s not a comparison. There’s a lot of things that can impair you, but alcohol is not illegal by the federal standards. It’s not illegal in most of the country. Most people do it on a social basis, maybe most people smoke marijuana on a social basis, I don’t know. But when it comes to being where you can purchase it, it should be restrictive. It’s just like pharmacies are restrictive. You can’t just go in there and get drugs. It takes a doctor to write a prescription. This idea of you don’t think it’s going to have an affect.there will be a trickle down. Once you normalize it amongst kids, then all kids will smoke it. You can show me your data, I’ll show you my data that says the opposite. There will be a difference of opinion. This is more my observation. It should be restrictive. Taking out C-1 really is a minimal thing to do. I would ask you to vote for it, it’s not really going to have that much of an impact but I do think it will keep it out of our most local neighborhoods.

Member Fritz stated thank you Executive Walsh. The problem that we have, if you lean too heavily on saying, “Well, it’s a special use permit and they’re going to have to come to us every time for an approval.” The problems (inaudible) and I will remind everyone what happened with Lenny’s Gas and Wash. There was no legal reason in the ordinance for us to deny whatever the permit was that he was currently asking for at that time and he sued us. If you want to get sued a whole bunch, then yes, let’s lean on this special use permit and say that’s our solution.

Member Ogalla stated I just want to make one more comment about my motion. If everyone read and listened closely to what Member Koch said and you read closely what it says, it makes sense to take C-1 out if it’s really not going to be allowed in C-1 because of all the restrictions that are currently in there, it makes sense to remove it so that we don’t have to worry about it being in C-1 and a possible lawsuit we did deal with Lenny’s Gas and Go. (Inaudible) as Member Koch pointed out, remove it, not allow it in C-1, it makes sense for us to take it out and we don’t have to deal with that situation moving forward.

RESULT: DEFEATED [12 TO 14]

MOVER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee)

SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

1. 19-352 Amending Sections 155-7.30 Use Table and 155-18.20 Definitions, of the Will County Zoning Ordinance - Adult Use Cannabis Businesses

Member Marcum stated I believe we have a motion and a second for the original so I have no further comments.

RESULT: APPROVED [14 TO 12]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Ray Tuminello, District 12 (R - New Lenox)

AYES: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

NAYS: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

2. 19-353 Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Decision to Deny the Variance Request for the Animal Confinement Structure Setback from 50 feet to 0 feet for Zoning Case #ZC-19-042, Javier Cervantes, Owner of Record, for PIN #10-11-13-100-012-0000, in Jackson Township, Commonly Known as 17215 W. Spangler Road, Elwood, Il, County Board District #6

Member Marcum stated I am going to make a motion to concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission, so if you want to deny then vote yes because that’s what’s Planning and Zoning did.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

Next Land Use & Development Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 14, 2020 @ 10:30 a.m.

XIV. FINANCE COMMITTEE - K. HARRIS, CHAIR

Member Harris stated good morning Executive Walsh, County Board members, media and all in attendance.

1. Monthly Financial Reports to be Placed on File

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Mimi Cowan, District 11 (D - Naperville)

Motion to Amend Resolution 19-354

Member Harris stated this is a tax that’s (inaudible) all people engaged in the business of selling cannabis. It can be opposed in.25 cent increments and cannot exceed 3.75% in unincorporated areas and 3% in municipalities located within the county. All proceeds or money generated from this tax will go towards a special fund that will be entitled “County Cannabis Retailer's (inaudible).

Member Balich stated I brought this is up numerous times and I’m going to say it again. I don’t think we should tax at all for this. State of Illinois has too many taxes that came in. People are going to be paying out their nose with taxes. If somebody wants to smoke pot or if I have a gummy, why should they have to tax it? There’s another side of it that nobody wants to look at. When we discussed it in committee, people thought I was crazy but I just saw a report that 20 percent of the cigarettes smoked in the city of Chicago are coming from outside the city of Chicago. Why? Because the tax is too high. We’re going to have a tax, and let’s just say.I don’t know what it costs for pot or any of that stuff so let’s just say they charge $10.00 a gram. The state taxes it, we tax it, the city taxes it, now it costs $14.00 or $15.00. The dealer can raise his price to $12.00 and everyone will still go there. If you’re worried about safety, it’s insane because right now everybody’s doing it. It’s legal as of January 1, 2020. Anywhere you go in Illinois to smoke it inside your house. I don’t get the idea. If you want to tax it, you guys are nuts. We shouldn’t be taxing it.

Member Dollinger stated I do appreciate in the bill that we have a county cannabis retailers’ occupation tax fund, but it doesn’t really specify where those funds will be used. I really am hesitant on approving a tax when it could be used for just miscellaneous things. I’d like to see us be more specific and make sure that we use it for the health and safety of our residents. Like so many things, there are unintended consequences that happen, especially when we’re talking about the health and wellbeing of our residents. I think for the first three to five years, the funds that go into this tax should at least go to the health and safety of our residents. I would like to see it go to the Health Department. There’s going to be a lot of demand on them and unintended consequences. We don’t really know everything that will happen with this bill. We don’t know all the things that will happen to, especially our youth. They have a great position paper from the Health Department and if you’ve read it, it talks about all the negatives that happen with the use of cannabis. I’d like to see us add that line there that is used for the Health Department and then increase funding for Dr. Kathleen Burke. Thank you.

I amend the motion to add that.

Member Harris stated that’s a valid point that Member Dollinger brings up. We have had quite a bit of discussion on this issue and all phases of this issue. There are plans in the Finance Committee to address the issues of how we are going to divvy up the money, whatever comes in. Right now we don’t know how much is coming in but there are plans for discussions to discuss how we would like to see this money divided up. That may begin next month at the Finance Committee with discussions. We still have time, if this should pass, to decide on how we want the money to go. Right now it’s going into the special fund. I don’t think it’s going to start coming in until later this year. We will have plenty of time to discuss and weigh in and make sure everybody has the opportunity to comment on where it goes.

Member Ventura stated I would ask that we vote no on Member Dollinger’s amended motion, some of the reasons Member Harris mentioned. This is creating a special fund for that tax. There’s been no appropriations in our budget for that so it’s not like we can spend it and we don’t know the funds that are coming in. As they come in I do agree with Member Dollinger that a conversation does need to take place, how and why and where we should spend this money. However, that doesn’t need to happen now. We can’t spend the money right now if we don’t have the money right now. Once it comes in we can see the projected revenues and we discussed some places beyond Dr. Kathleen Burke’s department; things like reparations. The city of Los Angeles has a very good program about helping people who are negatively affected by this. I will be bringing some of those ideas and language forth that kind of mirrors some of the (inaudible) programs the state will be doing that won’t necessarily affect people right here at home and that we might want to take that into consideration. There will be a lot of time to maybe perfect what that program looks like and where other funds may go for education or for drug prevention. That’s not the scope of this bill or this ordinance so I ask that you vote no on the amended motion. Thank you.

Member Brooks stated Executive Walsh my comments are different than the most. Yesterday, I turned 65 years old. With 65 years, I like to think of myself as two things: one, I have a good sense of humor, and number two, I’m probably one of the most bipartisan person that sits here today. I do believe my colleagues are but I’m probably among the most. However, for the record, I do have to state that I do take offense being called some names. I don’t think I’m crazy for voting the way I do and I think this body ought to stay with the issues before us and not the name calling because I do take offense to that. I just want you to know for the record. I like to think of myself as a bipartisan person. Now, back to cannabis. Thank you.

Member Berkowicz stated thank you Executive Walsh. I hesitate to approve anything when we don’t know the details. This tax fund.we know, even if we sell one bag of pot or recreational cannabis, we are going to make some tax dollars. We don’t need to wait and see how much we get. We need to do our job and rather than talk about this for hours and hours, it’s simple. The tax we receive should go directly to address all of the issues that are going to be created by recreational cannabis. We know there’s going to be many. We’ve heard from the Health Department, we heard from multiple sources. So again, the tax fund should be allocated only to those issues that are related to the use of cannabis. I feel today that is how we should be voting. We shouldn’t put this off and talk about it and debate because it just makes sense. We don’t want a tax fund where the money can be pulled off into other little pet projects. So let’s do the right thing and let’s specify that the tax fund will help the people in the county who are dealing with the results of recreational marijuana. Thank you.

Member Fricilone stated a couple of comments first. Member Traynere you mentioned the war on drugs is lost so maybe we don’t need Ms. Kathleen Burke anymore if the war on drugs is lost. I don’t think it’s lost, I think we need to continue the fight and I think we know there are going to be additional issues that come out of this recreational marijuana. I, too, like Member Balich, don’t like voting for taxes but when I do (inaudible) both know where they’re going to go and what they’re going to do. I don’t want to vote for something that goes into a black hole to be decided on at a later date. That’s not the way I roll. Unless we can put something in this resolution to say where this money is going, I’ll be a no on the taxes.

Member Gould stated I agree with Member Fricilone and Member Dollinger. If this passes there will be additional demands placed upon our Health Department. They issued a position paper which I thought was very comprehensive. Not only did the County Board (inaudible) Board of Health and they enumerated on some of the issues and the results, that would occur in other jurisdictions. I think Member Dollinger’s motion is well taken and at the Health Department is very capable of managing whatever funds come in because, again, the burden, the demand would fall on the Health Department so I am in support of the motion.

Member Koch stated thank you Executive Walsh. Listening here it seems like it’s the will of the entire Board to use the tax money from the sale of cannabis for any repercussions we might encounter. I am not comfortable deciding where that money should go at this time because we don’t know how much and we don’t know where all of the effects are going to be felt. There may be places that we do not see right now that might have an effect that could have a big effect. I’m thinking the coroner’s office, for example. That’s something that we’re not earmarking any money for but that might be a problem area. Just a quick example, I’m just throwing something out there. Just an example of a place where there might be some repercussions and we may might want to put some money there. I like all the ideas everybody is saying. I don’t feel comfortable voting on where the money should go until we know how much. Thank you.

Member Kraulidis stated thank you Executive Walsh. One of the things our constituents feel that we need to be as responsible when we’re approaching issues like this. I see the excitement and giddiness when we can get our hooks into our constituents’ pockets to raise taxes or increase the opportunity to get more taxes. The one thing I did want to make a point and maybe this is more to you guys in the gallery that are watching. When is the last time you heard a politician say, “We’re going to tax something but don’t worry about it, we’ll figure out what we’re going with that money and how we’re going to do it.” You made a reference Member (inaudible) about being comfortable. I can guarantee you our constituents are not comfortable with us putting things in a holding pattern to determine where we want to use money and then this discussion just comes out and we’re already talking about using it for something else. If we’re going to make a decision to allow this type of stuff in our community, then we should offer an opportunity to be able to treat the consequences of allowing this stuff in our community. Thank you.

Member Ogalla stated I do not see any reason why we should not support, at this time, making a specific (inaudible) to put the dollars that might be received from the cannabis tax into Public Health and Safety of our residents. That makes the most sense. The residents then would know where those tax dollars would go. If we do not approve this motion, and I’m going to be opposed to the tax because of this reason. If the true reason that we have made recreational marijuana legal in the state of Illinois is to ensure that our residents are buying a product that is safer than what they might purchase on the street. I believe, that we, at our county level, should not add another tax on top of the state tax because it’s going to cost so much more to go to a dispensary to purchase your recreational marijuana than it would be to get it from the black market. I’ve spoken with various different people in different areas of this thing and I think if we want our residents to want something that is safer, we should tax them out of it. The state has already done that and we’re going to be putting an additional burden on them by doing that. Those who are growers, especially the craft growers out there, I know they are very responsible and are looking to produce a very good product that is very safe. If we tax the residents out, they’re going to go down the street to the black market where they’ve currently been getting it because it costs too much money.

Member Mueller stated thank you Executive Walsh. I would like to echo Member Koch’s comments. I’ll even take it a step further and not only am I not comfortable earmarking this money for the departments that we aren’t sure are going to need it, as a result of this law. It feels a little irresponsible use of taxpayer money that we need to see maybe where our Sheriff.there’s multiple departments that could be affected. We’re going to need to talk to them and see what we can do to help them with this tax money. That’s how I feel about it. Thank you.

Member Moustis stated I prefer to see the money set aside for a purpose; however that may be impacts the county. Member Koch mentioned the Coroner. There will be additional deaths because of the legalization of marijuana, not only in Will County but throughout the state and that’s pretty data driven, additional car accidents and so forth. We do know that this will create additional deaths. We need that so the coroner can tell us how many cannabis deaths.

Member Mueller stated there have been zero, I’ve asked.

Member Moustis stated you can say zero but it’s not zero. I do think it should be safeguarded for offsetting impacts on the county agencies (inaudible). I’m just not for a tax not knowing where it’s going to go.

Member Winfrey stated Member Harris correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the special fund identifies marijuana, cannabis, whatever and is tied just to that which to me would include all the ramifications of that. I would expect there will be some need for public health and safety. To me that means not only the Health Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Coroner’s Department, all of those agencies that might need to have something tied to that. Is that correct? I believe then we have included in that special fund, the agencies, and I agree there are some ramifications that we need to protect people for that and plan the money separately. I believe by putting in that special fund it already ties it to what we want to fix.

Member Traynere stated thank you Executive Walsh. I promise not to put my hooks into anybody that doesn’t buy cannabis. You have to buy it to pay the tax. Don’t buy it, don’t shop there, you won’t have my hooks in you grabbing all your wallet money. But the other things I would say that was also brought up at committee and has not yet been mentioned on the Board floor is expunges. There was an article in the paper this week. There are a number of files that will get expunged automatically. There are some people that are also going to have to apply. Based on their timing need to apply and for whatever reason they might need to get their record cleaned, they might actually have to pay for that to get that expedited. I know we’re going to do another one of those expungement fairs this next summer. In those, the fees are either waived or reduced, but still, for somebody that can’t wait until next summer and they may need some assistance. There’s another area where the money can be used. I think Member Ventura talked about reparations. People that have been hurt by the fact they were put in jail or fined or whatever for illegal use at the time and now it is legal. There is a lot of areas. I do think the Health Department is probably going to be the most deserving and possibly the Sheriff’s Department, but to just make an absolute blanket statement at this point.they can’t spend it any way. It’s not in their budget. Why not just see how much money it is and then make the decision? That’s what the committee voted for and that’s what I’ll be supporting here this morning. Thank you.

Member Fricilone stated once again let me say the war on drugs rages on. This Body has talked about opioids since I’ve been on the Board. We lobbied in Washington to get more money. We’re constantly pushing to do more drug prevention, initiatives to get opioids out. If you look all of the data that came from the Health Department, and Ms. Sue Olenek did a great job putting all of the data from all of the other areas that have had this. Opioid use went up, opioid deaths went up. They are going to be massively affected. If Ms. Sue Olenek would like to speak she can but they’re going to be massively affected. The money needs to be funneled there right now. It is not going to be a gold mine if you saw what Joliet already did. They thought they were going to be in the million dollar range and put that in their budget that just passed. Already downgraded it to $250,000 in tax monies from two dispensaries. Even that, I think, is a high estimate. It’s not going to be tons of dollars, but we’re going to have the biggest fight, we still have that fight, unless Dr. Kathleen Burke can tell us she doesn’t need a job anymore that it’s over with opioids, that we’re all good, the money needs to go to the Health Department and to Dr. Kathleen Burke. Thank you.

Member Dollinger stated I appreciate all the discussion and I agree that.my thought was when we see this line that says “County Cannabis Retail Occupation Tax Fund” there’s no asterisk there that says we have discussed it and we have made a decision on where it is to go to the public health and safety. It’s still very vague. There is no commitment that it has to go there because there’s nothing in writing. I do believe we need to put an asterisk or something that says it will go to the health and safety of the impact of cannabis and to nothing else. I can amend it to make the language a little less specific, but I do think we are not committing ourselves to using these funds unless it is specified in the resolution. Thank you.

Member Harris stated the reason we entitled that fund, it gives our staff the ability to establish that fund and that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to establish that fund through this resolution and collect the money. As we talk about the war on drugs as we enter this discussion, it just recently made news our Sheriff had a big bus of drugs, cannabis, coming from California through our county. If the drug war continues, they were either going through the county or coming to the county from California, so the problem is already here if you want to talk about the war on drugs.

Member Balich stated as everybody knows I don’t want to tax it but obviously that isn’t going to happen so I would say we need to give the money to (inaudible). I certainly don’t want to give it for reparations for somebody that did something illegal and now they changed the law. I’m not sure it’s even constitutional to do that. I’m going to be voting what I don’t want to because it’s the next best thing.

Member Dollinger stated I would like to make a motion that the funds go to the health and safety effects of cannabis so it leaves it a little broader and not too specific, but yet it’s going to be used for just the impact of cannabis (inaudible). Thank you.

RESULT: DEFEATED [12 TO 14]

MOVER: Gloria Dollinger, District 10 (R - Joliet)

SECONDER: Ray Tuminello, District 12 (R - New Lenox)

AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

2. 19-354 Adopting a Will County Cannabis Retailers’ Occupation Tax

RESULT: APPROVED [14 TO 12]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)

AYES: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

NAYS: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

3. 19-355 Approval of a Change Request for the ERP Project with HSO

Member Ogalla stated I don’t have a question, I have a comment. In the entire thought process here in making this change request for the HSO vendor, what I understand is that the HSO vendor, who is very interested in getting into the government sector of the IT world for ERP Solutions. Because of that they gave us a very low bid on the product. If you do an ERP implementation, you know how long it takes. I was very concerned with the bid when they said they could do this in a year. When I worked at CANDOIT as a systems analyst, I was a project manager on the ERP for the financial systems. It took CANDOIT eight years to implement this. I thought for sure there was no way we could do it here in a year even though we don’t have modules like manufacturing and things like that. I was cautious about that. I mentioned that and our group knew that was the case, but HSO said that they could do it. Now they’re coming back because they knew our staffing at the time. Our staff here is only able to give so much money. There was no additional project manager hired for this project and now HSO is coming back and they need an additional $584,000. The original bid was $671,000, so it’s nearly the same amount. I understand that the contract going longer that there will be additional time commitments from them, but in the same breath it’s mostly due to time commitment to perform the implementation because they wouldn’t have spent time with our staff if our staff wasn’t able to spend time on the project. I just want to make a very public statement that HSO needs to work very diligently to get the information that they need from our staff in order for this implementation to move forward because it’s a negative to our constituents that they are paying more than what is anticipated. We didn’t just choose the D365 Project software specifically because of the low cost of HSO, but I think that I have not been shown to see that HSO has done that implementation in a year in other businesses and I had asked for that. We don’t have that information right now today. I will support this because we have to move forward on this project. I think that HSO should be aware of the fact that we, as a Board, want them to do all that they need to do to facilitate it for our staff knowing our staff is small and the different departments and the time requirement needed. I was in IT for nearly 30 years and that’s something that they should have known. Thank you.

Member Harris stated thank you Member Ogalla for the comments. As you know Member Ogalla is our IT Ad Hoc Committee Chair. We will be having a joint Finance / IT Committee meeting in February coming up to further discuss this and other issues regarding this project.

RESULT: APPROVED [25 TO 0]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

AWAY: Tuminello

4. 19-356 Appropriating Grant Funds in the Sheriff's FY2020 Budget from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)

Member Fricilone stated I thought we had a policy here that grants that we got went for either personnel or program and if the grant went away so did the program or personnel. I also thought if we (inaudible) and put the program (inaudible) that next year when we got the grant, it continued to pay for the grant or the personnel. Last year when we got this grant I suggested that we get two new COs to help with overtime and then that money went for the two COs rather than some tractors or other things we were going to buy. This year we get the grant and we’re adding two more people. Is this going to be an every year occurrence? Unfortunately, the first two people we hired last year, their salaries didn’t go away. I thought this grant would continue to pay for those two additional people, but if we’re going to get in the habit of adding two every year every time we get a little money.that pays for one year of salary.we’re going to be in deep trouble real soon financially. I will not be voting for this.

Member Harris stated we did discuss this (inaudible) Finance Committee meeting. This grant, when you apply for it, personnel is separate. We already had the two other employees in our budget for this year. That’s separate from this grant. The grant is not financing the salaries for those officers. That’s already been appropriated. It’s already been (inaudible) CO positions.

Member Fricilone stated what’s it financing then, the grant? Two new people don’t just get paid one year, they get paid every year they stay with us. If we have a grant program that we’re hiring two people and it costs us $160-$150,000 for those two people, it costs us $150,000 next year, $150 or $170 when they get their raises. If we keep doing this and we did this with all the grant programs, we’d be financially done in a year. You can’t keep just saying, “hire more, hire more” with one year’s worth of salary. You can say you already budgeted for it, but we can’t keep budgeting for things that we’re getting one grant year by year.

Member Harris stated we are putting this money into their salary line.

Member Fricilone stated for the two new people that you’re hiring. We hired two new people last year and that’s what the grant money was for.

Member Harris stated it was part of this year’s budget which was approved. I think you’re mixing the two.

Member Fricilone stated I’m not mixing the two. Those salaries continue forever which will continue to escalate and that’s the point. When we get a grant we establish a program. We don’t say, “Now that program exists forever,” and every time we get that new grant we’ll just add more programs. The idea is the grant will continue to fund what we did the first year. We’re not doing that. We’re going to use the money for new things every year when we’re getting the same grant every year. Whether you budget more money or not, the point is, that’s how we use grant money; for something that we continue to pay for and when the grant goes away the program goes away. Theoretically if the grant went away, the two people that we hire should go away.

Mr. Brian Conser stated if you guys recall, in 2017, we did our own study on eliminating the overtime. It was a problem in the ADF and that’s the Adult Detention Facility. Member Fricilone helped us with that study, and it indicated that there were approximately 20 to 22 people short to alleviate the overtime. What this will do is alleviate that even further. We never got the 20 bodies, we’re just asking to get to the staffing number we need to alleviate the overtime.

Member Fricilone stated but we never did see what the effects were of adding the two and closing down the sections in the jail.

Mr. Brian Conser stated we have (inaudible) the comp time. I did mention to you a couple of months ago that we’re down about 10,000 hours in comp time from bringing these bodies on, which is a liability to the county essentially.

Member Fricilone stated right but we haven’t been updated, we know the population went down with the new bond legislation.

Mr. Brian Conser stated it went down approximately 100 bodies so the one area it did go down is not a huge cost saver to the county. However, if you want to see where we’re at, I’d be glad to give you those numbers.

Member Fricilone stated I’m all about the numbers but we’ve never seen the results or what’s going on.

Mr. Brian Conser stated we needed 20 bodies, we got two, so we’re still way down. The end goal for you and I is to eliminate the overtime. There’s a cost savings.

Member Fricilone stated I understand.

Member Moustis stated I have a slightly different view than Member Fricilone. By the way, going through that comp time for those of you who may not always look at those types of issues that is a very good thing and I commend you for (inaudible). Comp time creates overtime on occasion. (Inaudible) and we’re short. That’s also working towards.going through that comp time is also going to help us with the overtime once we get it down far enough, I think. For me it’s not a matter of.these funds are going to be appropriated in the Sheriff’s salary line item. I don’t necessarily associate it with this grant hiring two more people. It says that it’s going towards salaries, which was approved in the budget. If you have an issue with the amount of personnel at the Sheriff’s department, they’re sworn officers, then you don’t expand the number to number. That’s how you kind of control that if that was your biggest concern. That’s also (inaudible) sworn officers. As I see it, this grant goes to salaries in the budget. If you don’t like the number of sworn officers or the increase in sworn officers, then that’s what you should maybe talk about. The justification of the (inaudible) officers. So I have a little bit different take on it, but I agree that this money should be appropriated into the salary line item of the Sheriff’s Department so we make sure it doesn’t go anywhere else. Perhaps we should have associated this with two more hires. Should this be for salaries that helps fund correctional officers? The additional correctional officers, you suggest (inaudible) with a study that we did. What it’s going to take to (inaudible) the overtime, maybe we need to redo that a little bit because when we did it all (inaudible) were open, the census is down in the Adult Detention Center. I suggest that we don’t necessarily associate it and in the future just show it being appropriated to the salary line items for the correctional officers and you won’t upset Member Fricilone.

Executive Walsh stated Member Harris is that grant money in a salary line item? Member Harris stated yes.

Member Ventura stated I just wanted to say that I agree with Member Moustis in the fact that I do think we should look at that, what the needs are so that we can continue to lower the overtime cost and if that means bringing on more officers, where they need to be at. I think that’s wise and good governing. Thank you.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

5. 19-357 Authorizing Temporary Loan to the County Highway Tax Fund 220 from Motor Fuel Tax Fund 222

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

6. 19-358 Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

Next Finance Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 7, 2020 @ 10:00 a.m.

XIV. PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - J. VANDUYNE, CHAIR Motion to Remand Resolution 19-359 back to Executive Committee

Member Van Duyne stated thank you and good morning Executive Walsh. This, before you, is a possible four cent per gallon of motor fuel sold, the tax sold and retail within Will County for the purpose of use of consumption and not for the purpose of resale. The proceeds of this tax shall be used by Will County solely for the purpose of operating, constructing and improving public highways and waterways. As you know, Executive Walsh, 63% of our semi-truck traffic does not originate from Will County and does not.their final destination is not in Will County. I think it’s a great opportunity to capture money from this traffic and lessen the burden on the constituents from Will County. In 2017 the 2040 transportation plan adopted by this Board, showed a $1.3 billion dollars in shortfall. I think it’s important to be proactive instead of reactive in providing safe roads for our residents. Therefore, I will be in favor of the gas tax.

Executive Walsh stated I have a list of about six people from the public that want to talk about the gas tax. We’ll bring them down first and hear what they have to say and then we’ll go back to the County Board members.

Ms. Regina Robinson expressed concern over the gas tax.

Mr. Jerry Hauert expressed concern over the gas tax.

Mr. Rick Curtiss expressed concern over the gas tax.

Ms. Patty Deiters expressed concern over the gas tax.

Member Ogalla stated thank you. I do appreciate all the Board members who took the time to set up town hall meetings so that the residents in their area could hear what the Director of the Highway Department and our staff members have to say about a possibility of a gas tax here in Will County. What I did find in the town hall meeting in my district was that if you looked at the people who were there, there were 20 people in the room, but of those there were actually just six residents. The rest were elected officials and staff members. Those six residents were able to make it out. When I looked at doing one myself in my district, I decided what made the most sense was to put this information out there publicly. I wrote a document and I put it out on Facebook and I will put it into a letter to the editor to the paper to the people in my district. Because there’s a lot of confusion on this. When we’re talking about a Will County gas tax, we are talking about Will County roads and bridges. We are not talking about I-80. We are not talking about I-55. Those are federal roads. We are not talking about roads in municipalities or roads in townships. We are talking about county roads. I also want to make sure, before I start, is that everyone should be aware of the fact that when the state of Illinois imposed an additional 19 cents to the current state gas tax, that all municipalities and all townships will be receiving an additional funding because of that 19 cents. That means all the townships, all the municipalities and Will County itself will be receiving more dollars. Part of the letter to the editor, I’m not going to read the entire thing, was to clarify this for our residents. The Will County Highway Department, the Department of Transportation, currently receives two sources of funding. One is MFT, Motor Fuel Tax, the other one is the RTA, which is the Regional Transportation sales tax. Of that, currently, we have approximately $9 million a year for our roads. The RTA tax we get approximately $23 million. Half of that $11.5 million is used for road and bridge improvements. The other half we use for paying out (inaudible) bonds for Public Health and Safety capital projects. With the additional 19 cents that the state has imposed bringing our state gas tax to 38 cents. Will County is expected to receive, on top of the money we already get, an additional $6.2 million annually. Another thing that not everyone was aware of when I was out speaking was that the state gas tax as the county tax if it’s approved, would be indexed to the CPI. The CPI is the Consumer Price Index. What does that mean to the resident? It means if the CPI goes up, so will this gas tax. This gas tax is not going to remain at 38 cents, or 4 cents here in Will County. It will continue to increase as the CPI increases. If you look at the CPI, the CPI basically increases nearly every single year. In addition to that, Governor Pritzker has also put a bond program in place for additional infrastructure revenue. Those bond dollars are expected to be paid out over the next three to six years. Will County is expected to receive $23 million from that bond program. My residents in eastern Will County are very concerned about a project where tax dollars have been wasted for decades, which is the Peotone Airport. In this legislation where they hope to take these tax dollars, is an interchange at I-57 and Eagle Lake Road. If you look at that area there, there’s nothing but homes and farms. That interchange improvement would lead onto township roads. If you look at the interchange at Monee- Manhattan and the interchange at Peotone-Wilmington Road, both of those interchanges are in dire need of an infrastructure improvement. There are potholes, there have been numerous accidents there and the Village of Monee is adding a new truck stop there and the Village of Peotone hopes to add a new truck stop at the Peotone-Wilmington exit. It would make sense that we look at the dollars we’re spending and spend them wisely. Everyone knows that Will County will always have an endless list of road projects that need to be done. That’s a given. The same thing like us looking at our home improvements. We always have something that needs to get done in our house. But as county residents we don’t have an endless pot of money we can draw from to pay more in taxes. I believe the additional $6.2 million annually plus the $23 million in bonds to be paid over the next three to six years is enough. There has to be a moment when elected officials say, “enough.” No more taxes. Therefore, I do oppose the gas tax. I then asked everybody to please take a moment and write a letter or send an email to County Board members that many of us received in our County Board packet. In addition to the fact I did attend various meetings and events in my district and I put this document before them and I said Will County Board Countywide gas tax. Do you support a new gas tax, do you oppose a new gas tax or don’t you have an opinion at this time? I have 117 names and addresses of people who signed this and they all signed in the “opposed” column. I only had two people who said they didn’t want to sign. I think that this information that we have here is pretty significant as to the impact of how our residents feel. I do want to reiterate that the biggest impact will be to our senior citizens who are on a fixed income. Many of them just living on social security, yet their property taxes go up every single year. If they live in a mobile home community as we do have in my area, that mobile home monthly rate goes up every single year. Their social security does not go up every single year to meet those needs. This also impacts our low income families, our low income families who are living week by week just to try and get by to pay the rent, to pay for the food. Another group that nobody has mentioned is our young teen drivers. Those kids who are just getting their driver’s licenses and have their job at McDonalds or somewhere where a young teen might work, or even at Menards, they now will be paying these additional dollars. Not only will any semi who decides to stop and get gas in Will County, but everyone who gets gas in Will County. One more thing that my constituents said at County Board District One is that they are so happy they live near the border of Indiana. Those in the southern portion are so happy that they live near Kankakee County. They already go there now because they’re not going to pay more taxes to Will County. I think that we really need to look at this and understand the fact that we are getting more money. Don’t think we aren’t getting more money. We’ll be getting it if it’s getting paid out over six years, the $23 million. That’s approximately $3.8 million on top of $6.2 million, so that’s an additional $10 million we’ll be getting if it’s getting paid out over six years. On top of what we currently get, from our motor fuel tax and the RTA tax. I think that’s enough. I think we need to say no at this time. If at some future date there becomes another need, possibly look at it again. I think we need to say no. We have additional monies from this tax and I think that you guys should listen to the voice of the people. I have 117 signatures, names and addresses, plus all the ones that we received in our mail. We’ve received a lot of negative responses. Thank you.

Member Kraulidis stated thank you Member Ogalla for that information. I just wanted to point out that like you saw with these folks, thank you for coming out and speaking with us. I’ve had an overwhelming opposition to this tax increase. People are upset about what the state of Illinois has done. One of my constituents said, “I can’t believe how dumb the state of Illinois is and I can’t believe you guys are willing to double down on dumb.” That was his statement. Because of this, I don’t want to heed more confiscatory burdens on our neighbors. I think enough is enough. I can’t believe we’re actually here debating this. If you even bother to look around or ask questions, you’re going to see people are tired of taxes. I put out a little poll in my district and it was a bipartisan poll. Ironically, and I think I’ve mentioned this before, the Democrats came out higher as far as their concern on taxes than the Republicans. That’s odd because the assumption is that we want less taxes. It’s a bipartisan situation and it’s going to affect everybody in the pocketbook. The lady that came up here first, she said, and I wrote this down: “Are we paying attention?” My response to you is no, many of us are not paying attention because this wouldn’t be up here for debate if we were. With that involved, I don’t think we’re hearing the peoples’ voices and I would like to put up a motion to have a referendum on this fuel tax. Unless, of course, there’s fear they’ll find out what the voters really think of this. It was told to me this referendum is going to be costly, but we don’t care about the cost we’re perpetrating on the citizens in our communities? Again, I just want to reemphasize, I want to put up the motion for a referendum on this fuel tax.

Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated there’s no item on the agenda for a referendum. We would need a resolution and everything to move forward with a referendum. I think it’s a separate enough issue.

Member Balich stated I’d like to make a motion to remove this and send it back to the Executive Committee.

Member Ogalla stated I would just like Member Balich to clarify what he’s removing and send back to Executive Committee.

Member Balich stated I would like to have this go back for discussion in Executive Committee. I brought this up at committee before and it seems to be overlooked like a lot of things, they say, but every time you raise that gas tax, the people that live in town and buy goods, they’re paying for it. The trucks have a fuel surcharge. Businesses that send out cars to deliver things, or trucks, they’re passing it on to the people that buy it. I think we need to have a real good discussion so I want to send it back to Executive Committee so we can have a better discussion and bring up all the issues because we’re not really talking about everything right now.

Member Van Duyne stated all the information about this topic has been provided for many months. There’s been plenty of opportunity, many town hall meetings and plenty of time to talk to their constituents. I consider this another stall tactic and I will not be in favor of sending it back.

Member Balich stated I did two town halls and I did a survey on Facebook with 1,700 people having 90 percent say no. We’ve done our due diligence, we have checked and I say let’s call for a vote.

RESULT: DEFEATED [12 TO 13]

MOVER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

SECONDER: Julie Berkowicz, District 11 (R - Naperville)

AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

ABSTAIN: Ventura

1. 19-359 Adoption of a Will County Motor Fuel Tax

Member Ventura stated Will County roadways have sustained more damage than other municipalities in the United States because we have the world's largest (inaudible) Centerpoint in our backyard. The massive warehouses draw elevated levels of truck traffic and pollution to our neighborhoods. According to our Friendly Freight Mobility Study in 2015, 380 million tons traverse through Will County every day with 17,000 trucks travelling per day just on I-80 alone. Some of our state and federal elected officials have done a good job securing funding for our infrastructure improvements but the cost to repair county roads falls on property owners. Recently, Republican Board members have raised opposition about this proposed gas tax. They have done nothing to offer alternative funding mechanisms to adequately repair our roads. In the past, Republicans have controlled the Will County Board and allowed the roads to go unrepaired and shifted the cost on to property tax owners. In additional to taxing homeowners, the Republicans have allowed these large warehouses to dodge paying property taxes by creating warehouse tiff districts. Today, the Board is faced with the decision to implement a user tax on motor fuel and to repair our roads. While a proposed tax would bring an estimated $12 per fill up for trucks, it is estimated to only affect passenger cars by about 40 or 60 cents per fill up or $28.00 a year. We cannot impose a tax on trucks only per the state law. The tax would have to be on all motor fuel sold in Will County, including passenger cars and of course, trucks. So while am I a 100 percent supporter of raising road maintenance revenues primarily from the heavy users of our roadways like our trucks, I cannot support this proposed raising of gasoline tax on top of what the state has already increased without being prepared to decrease property tax levy for our county roads. My goal in taxation would be to ensure that Will County homeowners experience a decrease in their property tax and the burden of paying for road maintenance is shifted to those heavy users and, in fact, switching the burden from property tax to a user tax. Therefore I cannot support this increase until the County Board is prepared to provide property tax relief to the Will County homeowners at the same time. Thank you.

Member Mueller stated thank you Executive Walsh. I just wanted to let everybody know that some of the feedback that I got from residents was why aren’t you charging impact fees on all the new construction we’ve had over the last ten years? After doing a little digging I came across an impact fee study that this Board, I assume paid for to have done and then did not decide to enforce or use. Over 66 percent of our county roads are 50 years old or over. Over 22 percent are over 70 years old. We are driving on roads that are designed for Will County as it was 50 years ago. It’s time we update this especially for the safety of our residents. I understand no one wants to pay another tax. Seventy dollars is a lot at my house (inaudible) $75,000 a year in my household. However, I did check out the gas prices over in Hammond, Indiana and Kankakee and I’m pleased to report they are 10 cents higher than gas near the County Building today. I understand that people think folks are going to leave town to buy gas. It’s just not less expensive somewhere else. That’s the facts. Thank you.

Member Traynere stated thank you Executive Walsh. Good afternoon. I do wish the resident from Bolingbrook that said he was my neighbor was still here because he really should hear these discussions and understand what’s going on. I know he did not come to the public information meeting that Member Harris and I had at Bolingbrook or I would have met him there. We are spending just our portion on the Weber Road interchange, $45 million. That’s more money than we take in, in one year, even under this new system. We had to save for years to be able to do that. We have to bond out and pay interest on the parts we don’t have up front which makes the cost of the road more expensive. To the discussion that the truck stops aren’t going to stop in Will County? Boy don’t we wish that would be true. We have two brand new ones right in Bolingbrook and Romeoville, right on Rt. 53. There’s a brand new one, Loves, that’s going to be built along I-80. These new truck stops are popping up everywhere. For somebody to tell me that the trucks aren’t going to fuel up.I don’t know what else they’re doing there. They’ve got to be getting gas somewhere. It would be nice to assume that a trucker could figure out exactly where they were going to fuel up in the beginning of the week when they start out on their journey. I doubt they’re looking at it that closely. They’re trying to make a deadline and get their materials where they need to go. Kicking the can down the road makes every one of these repairs that my colleague Member Mueller just mentioned even more expensive. Twenty and 70 and 50 year old roads, every year we wait they get more expensive because the cost of building that road doesn’t go down. People are upset about the gas tax with the state going up after 19 years with no increase. They should consider themselves lucky. Nineteen years with no increase? What a deal they got. I am going to be supporting the gas tax. We need to fix the roads in Will County now and save our residents car repair money.

Member Cowan stated thank you Executive Walsh. I did the math and I’ve done a lot of hard thinking about the gas tax and talked to a lot of constituents about it and did my own personal math. It will cost me less than 50 cents a week which is less than $30 a year. Let’s be totally honest, there have been times in my life when an extra $30 was going to make or break the bank and hearing I had to spend another $30 would cause me extreme stress and heartache. I am fortunate not to be in that position today, but I understand there are people in Will County in that position. My parents are in their 70s. They’ve been small business owners and worked for themselves for most of their lives and despite saving scrupulously and working hard, they will probably never retire. The crunch on the middle class is real. That being said, my job here today is to think long term. I want to clear up a couple of misconceptions in that arena. Research shows that people move to areas for three key reasons: Good jobs, good schools and safe communities. When they leave areas it’s because another area has better in those three areas. I’d also like to clear up the misconception that people are “fleeing” Illinois. The stats show that actually population loss, people moving out of Illinois at the same or slightly better rate than it does in any other state in the nation. We’re about dead even with every other state. The reason our population is decreasing at a higher rate than other states is because we are not attracting new residents. It’s because our birth rate is low, because our immigration rate is low and because our migration rate is low compared to other states. That’s why Illinois is losing population. Therefore, in order to stop that population decrease, we need to focus on the things that draw people to areas. Good jobs, good schools, and safe communities. Underpinning all three of these things, a necessary precursor to all three of these things is a safe and modern infrastructure system. While Will County is growing, we need to protect our economic growth by supporting infrastructure. To that end I’d like to note that the Center for Economic Development in Will County has offered a letter of support for a four cent gas tax. I consider them an independent source of good information about what will be the best economic plan, long term, for Will County. As such, I will be supporting the four cent gas tax. Thank you.

Member Fricilone stated thank you. I’d like to clear up a couple of things. Member Ventura mentioned I-80. I-80 is not a county road. I don’t know how many times we have to say that. You want to use that all the time to make it sound like this tax is going to go.and confuse the people that it’s going towards I- 80 and it’s not. When you talk about “in the past” the Board has done this or that. The Board has passed a five year road plan every year, every year I’ve been here, and funded it every year I’ve been here. Maybe some of our elder statesman can tell us how many years back that goes. We always fund the five year plan. We are going to get $10 million this year extra over what we’ve had before. I don’t understand why people can’t see that we should take that money, see what else we can do and then look at it next year. There’s such a rush to make a money grab right after people were jammed with the 19 cents, which was actually more like 20, because they taxed the tax at the state. This tax will be taxed as well. There will be a tax on both the state gas tax and our gas tax. There will be sales tax on top of that. When you talk about state numbers and people leaving, obviously there’s all kinds of numbers out there. It is a fact that we’re losing on the average of about 45,000 people a year, net, which means we will lose at least one congressman next census, possibly two. That’s not good. I don’t care what anybody says, it’s a tax burden. Anybody you talk to says, “I’m done with this.” They’re moving over the border because of the tax burden. I myself look at the numbers and say, “How long can I do this once I get into retirement?” I’ll be looking at some other place to go down the line. Thank you.

Member Newquist stated I live in the far eastern side of the county. I am almost to Indiana. I could easily go to Dyer, Indiana for my gas, but I don’t for three reasons. One is, the traffic is terrible, two is, the gas prices really aren’t lower. For the most part the gas prices stay the same. Gas station owners want to be competitive and they’re not going to price themselves out of the market. The third reason I don’t go is the roads are in terrible shape so you get what you pay for.

Member Berkowicz stated I had a town hall meeting and it had great attendance. We were very happy with it. I want to thank the county staff again for coming and taking time out of their day to meet with our residents. There was residing consensus in that room that they do not support an additional new motor fuel tax. In the last 24 hours, my inbox has been flooded with emails regarding the motor fuel tax and recreational cannabis. They are all very, very strongly against both issues. I wish we could take a look and see what this impact is on our sales tax receipts. We have a lot of people that are now, just to prove a point, in addition to saving money, going over to Indiana, buying their gas, buying their groceries, buying their clothing, doing all of their shopping, just to send the message that they’re tired of these ever increasing taxes. For that reason, I have to listen to my constituents and I agree and I understand the message that they’re sending to me. That is why I cannot support this tax. Thank you.

Member Ferry stated I just want to say that I will be in favor of this resolution for the motor fuel tax to promote more good paying jobs in Will County and promote safety on the roads.

Member Moustis stated I’d like to touch on a number of things. There’s times when there’s additional revenue necessary. This is just not one of those times. We have approximately $70 million in reserves for roads. We are getting an additional $10 million. Over that five year period we will get an excess of $200 million. I actually think with the reserves and the five year revenue stream currently, we will have approximately $350 million, $400 million available for roads in the next five years and you think you need more? You can’t spend it that quickly. We’re not capable of even doing that many jobs so I think putting on a gas tax is certainly premature. I’d also like to address something that Member Ventura said when she said, “Republicans gave tiffs.” Counties don’t give tiffs, number one. We never gave a tiff. Two, we do give tax abatements and almost all those tax abatements were supported by the Democratic Caucus because they were in Democratic districts. So when you start accusing the Republicans of giving away tax dollars, you should. For me, I’ll vote against every tax abatement that ever comes down the road because none of them are in my district. They’re carefully looked at and it’s for economic development and it creates jobs. When you start pointing the finger and saying the Republicans did this, you are absolutely incorrect.

Member Ventura stated you had the majority.

Member Moustis stated that doesn’t matter. It was voted by the Democratic Caucus. Don’t say we had the majority. And you have the majority now, and what it shows to me, you’ve got a majority that just wants to tax and spend. That’s what I see. How’s that? You’re the majority.

Member Van Duyne stated I would like to say that the potential road improvements that we’re looking at are not cheap. River Road, for example, four miles was built in 1980. It’s almost $30 million to reconstruct.four miles of road. A lot of these potential improvements are in Member Ogalla’s district. The extension of Crete-Monee Road east to Illinois Rt. 394, 2.5 miles of new alignment, $24 million. Nineteen million dollars for 1.8 mile new alignment for the extension of Crete-Monee Road. (Inaudible) to Illinois Rt. 50. We could go on and on. There’s a list of projects here and we’re talking multi-million. Once again, I will be in favor of the gas tax.

Member Ogalla stated I do want to say to Member Van Duyne that just because the majority of the projects are in my district, that’s irrelevant of the fact. I have a lot of county roads. I’m in an unincorporated area much more than a lot of the rest of you who live in municipalities or your district is entirely in municipalities. Even so, you have to recognize the fact that we are getting more money from the state gas tax, we’ll get more money from our bonds. Our residents do not need to pay more money because there is no end to the amount of money that we will need for roads. There has to come a time when there’s a limit.

RESULT: APPROVED [14 TO 13]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora)

AYES: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry, Walsh

NAYS: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

2. 19-360 Confirming Award of Contract to Various Contractors, Let on November 20, 2019, County Wide Maintenance Material - Bituminous Patching, All County Board Districts

RESULT: APPROVED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Beth Rice, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Fritz, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry, Kraulidis

AWAY: Traynere, Mueller

3. 19-361 Confirming Award of Contract to Various Contractors, Let on November 20, 2019, County Wide Maintenance Material - Bituminous Prime, All County Board Districts

RESULT: APPROVED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Mimi Cowan, District 11 (D - Naperville)

AWAY: Traynere, Mueller

4. 19-362 Confirming Award of Contract to Various Contractors, Let on November 20, 2019, County Wide Maintenance Material - Various Aggregate, All County Board Districts

RESULT: APPROVED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort)

AWAY: Traynere, Mueller

5. 19-363 Adopting IDOT Resolution for Improvement by County under the IL Highway Code for the County Wide Maintenance Material, All County Board Districts, Using MFT Funds ($4,399,520.00)

RESULT: APPROVED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

AWAY: Traynere, Mueller

6. 19-364 Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with Hutchison Engineering Inc. at the Intersection of Briggs Street (CH 54) and Mills Road (CH 51) Section 19-00053-20-TL, County Board District #8

RESULT: APPROVED [25 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry, Kraulidis

AWAY: Traynere

10. 19-368 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement for Improvements on Briggs Street (CH 54) from the I-80 Westbound Ramps North to Washington Street, County Board District #8

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller,

Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura,

Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry, Kraulidis

11. 19-369 Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with Robinson Engineering, Ltd. on 143rd Street (CH 37) from Lemont Road to Bell Road (CH 16), County Board District #7

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

12. 19-370 Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Bell Road (

RESULT: APPROVED [25 TO 0]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

AWAY: Traynere

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

12. 19-370 Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Bell Road (

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

Next Public Works & Transportation Committee Meeting is Scheduled for February 6, 2020 @ 9:00 a.m.

XVI. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE - T. MARCUM, CHAIR

Member Marcum stated thank you again Executive Walsh.

Next Judicial Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 7, 2020 @ 9:00 a.m.

XVII. PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE - D. GOULD, CHAIR

Member Gould stated good morning Executive Walsh. We have no resolutions to bring forward due to the holiday. Any business in January will go to the Executive Committee. Next Public Health & Safety Committee Meeting is Scheduled for February 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Immediately Following Forest Preserve Meetings in the County Board Committee Room.

XVIII. LEGISLATIVE & POLICY COMMITTEE - J. TRAYNERE, CHAIR

Member Traynere stated good afternoon Executive Walsh. Just wanted to say we did meet and we discussed a number of things from both state and the federal agenda. We are continuing to work on those. They’re a work in progress.

Next Legislative & Policy Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 14, 2020 @ 9:00 a.m.

XIX. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE - H. BROOKS, CHAIR

Member Brooks stated good afternoon Executive Walsh. Since I only have one resolution to bring forward, let me begin by thanking the Capital Improvement Committee along with the Will County Board for all of their input, all of their work all year long. We have two projects ahead of schedule. The courthouse is progressing very well, the rooms in there. I want to thank the Capital Improvements Committee, the Will County Board, along with the Executive Office Mr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Dave Tkac, Mr. Joel Van Essen and a gentleman by the name of Dr. Larry Walsh, Sr. Thank you Assistant State’s Attorney Mary Tatroe this year for your help on the Capital Improvements. We’ve gotten many reports and you have that in your packet.

1. Update on Capital Improvements Projects

Will County Capital Improvements Project Summary, December 19, 2019

2. 19-371 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Contract with Stromsland, De Young, and Prybys Architecture Group for Renovation Design Services for County Office Building

ESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora)

Next Capital Improvements Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 7, 2020 @ 11:00 a.m.

XX. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - D. WINFREY, CHAIR

Member Winfrey stated good afternoon Executive Walsh, thank you.

1. PUBLIC HEARING to Discuss Prohibiting the Establishment of Cannabis Businesses within Unincorporated Will County

Mr. Richard Wistocki spoke about cannabis.

Mr. Jesse Smedberg spoke about cannabis.

Ms. Patty Deiters spoke about cannabis.

Ms. Nikki Serbin spoke about cannabis.

Ms. Margaret (inaudible) spoke about cannabis.

RESULT: OPENED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)

Motion to Close Public Hearing

RESULT: CLOSED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee)

2. 19-323 Discussion to Ban Sales of Recreational Marijuana in Unincorporated Will County - Tabled at November 21, 2019 County Board Meeting

Member Winfrey stated I would like to make a motion to remove this from the agenda. You may remember that the language in it was not what we needed so we want to cancel that or remove it from the agenda.

RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora)

3. 19-372 Prohibiting the Establishment of Adult Use Cannabis Businesses within Unincorporated Will County

Member Winfrey stated I just want to remind everybody that our question is whether or not they are legal. That has already been decided from by the state so that’s not before us or how it affects schools. That is also not before us. Ours is only if we are going to opt out. The language is written to ban. I put the resolution forward as written.

Member Ogalla stated what I just wanted to say was I want to thank my small farmer from eastern Will County who came and spoke before us today. I spent a significant amount of time at his farm and he informed me of a lot of things that I was not aware of. I think as a Board if we had more conversation regarding each one of these seven items that we are opting out on, people would have understood things a bit differently. The biggest thing I came to realize is that if we truly want our residents to choose to use marijuana, if we truly wanted to do that then we would have made sure that the large cultivators had a very strict list of what they can put on it. The craft growers are dedicated to producing a product that is safer that has (inaudible) pesticides on them which makes it better for those users. Unfortunately for myself I just don’t support recreational marijuana. As far as the other lady who spoke, or the two ladies who spoke, medical marijuana is legal here in Illinois and I believe the entire Board supports the use of medical marijuana. I think that one of the things we should do as a Board and that would be you Member Traynere and the Legislative Committee to have a look with the craft growers at the different types of products and fertilizers and things that they can (inaudible) on that marijuana. My final statement is we want somebody to buy from a dispensary, we need to make it the most (inaudible), the most inexpensive as we can. Putting a tax on it, increase the cost of it. I am very concerned that people who cannot afford that cost will continue to go to the black market and use those products. The benefit would be that those who choose that there’s a craft grower nearby they could get a better product. So it’s not fair to all people who might want to use recreational marijuana. I will be a no vote on this. Yes vote on opting out. I think we should have had more conversation at the Board. Thank you.

Member Parker stated I sit on the Public Health and Safety Committee and every month we receive updates from the Health Department or Dr. Kathleen Burke and sometimes the Coroner on public health issues and concerns. We rely on their suggestions and advice to make decisions for Will County. Because of that, I cannot ignore the position paper sent to all of us by Ms. Susan Olenek from the Health Department opposing recreational marijuana and explaining the negative impact cannabis will have on individuals and the community. Come January 1, recreational marijuana will be legal and we are not here to change that, but we are here to vote on the accessibility in unincorporated Will County. As Ms. Susan Olenek has stated just because it is legal does not make it safe. Therefore I will be in favor of banning the sale of recreational marijuana in unincorporated Will County. I hope my fellow County Board members, especially those who sit on the Public Health and Safety Committee with me will vote with me as well.

Member Berkowicz stated I just wanted to share with the Board this morning that I was reached out to by Dr. Aaron Weiner, who is a licensed clinical psychologist and Director of Addiction Services at Linden Oaks Behavioral Health. He has encouraged us to opt out of selling recreational marijuana. He indicates that in Illinois, the medical marijuana dispensaries sell products with names like Platinum Girl, Scout Cookie, Alien Orange, Bruce Banner, Ken Dog and Green Crap. If you go on their website look at the menu and you’ll see more. Who are they pointing to with these products? Who are they marketing to? He was in Buffalo Grove a couple of months back at their marijuana hearing where 95% of that audience spoke in favor of opting out.153 to 10. The Board voted against the residents.

We’re hearing the same message from our residents. As I said earlier, my inbox is flooded. There is proof and data and Dr. Aaron Weiner lives this every day and he sees the results of this. He has encouraged each of us as an elected official who has a say and a duty in the safety and health of our residents to opt out of recreational cannabis. Thank you for allowing me to share that.

Member Balich stated the Village of Homer Glen opted out and they had the Lieutenant in charge there, who’s a Will County Sheriff, talk about why they should opt out. I was just wondering since we’re talking about it, if we can get our Sheriff to come down and explain why we need to opt out.

The individual that spoke about signing a document with the Fire Department about opting out. That was his personal opinion; that was not the view of the Sheriff’s office. The view of the Sheriff’s Office is that we’re here to uphold the laws, whatever you guys decide.

Member Weigel stated we’ve received an extensive paper from our Executive Director of our Health Department explaining all of the bad things that marijuana does to people and children. I think we should follow the recommendation of our Executive Director of our Health Department and opt out of any sales of marijuana in Will County. Thank you.

Member Cowan stated we’ve heard a lot talk about the social ills and the problems that cannabis causes. These are already problems that are here. They already exist. These social ills are among us. Unregulated cannabis is already widely available and incredibly widely used. Currently our residents purchase cannabis from drug dealers in illegal transactions. From drug dealers who sell a variety of much more dangerous substances who can add other substances to marijuana that they sell. Sales are made in dangerous places and under dangerous conditions. Furthermore, illegal dealers see no difference between selling to a 13 year old and selling to a 30 year old. Finally, and most germane to our decision today, all proceeds from illegal sales today, go to illegal dealers, gangs and drug cartels. Just like when alcohol was prohibited, proceeds of illegal sales of cannabis fund social ills. Therefore, today I will be happy to give responsible adults the opportunity to legally purchase a safer, regulated product from a reputable, legal source. My friends, family and neighbors who use cannabis tell me they’ll be thrilled to pay more in order to have access to a safe and legal source in a safe and legal facility. Their purchases will allow the county to use the proceeds to solve social ills. Thank you.

Member Berkowicz stated I just wanted to share one thing. It’s dangerous to assume that we’re selling recreational marijuana legally that it’s completely safe. There’s always a risk that something can go wrong. In October of 2019, Colorado issued a recall because one of their largest weed producers had mold in their cannabis. We have to understand that if you vote this in, we have to be diligent and there will still be safety concerns with a government regulated product. Thank you.

Member Traynere stated wow, recalls. Lettuce, tomatoes, beef, chicken, eggs. I can’t even think of anything that hasn’t been recalled in the last couple of years. We don’t outlaw food. We don’t even take these suppliers out of business. They still continue to produce and contribute to our food supply. I’m a little disappointed that that is being used as a concept as why we should not stay as a county that allows legal safe places for people to buy this product. It is not being marketed to children. They will have to be 21 years old. They will have to show an ID. Do I like those names? Do I find those names attractive? No, but I could probably pick out four or five men in my family that would think those names are really cute and that might actually entice them to buy it. They are over 21. This product is not meant for children, it is for adults to be used hopefully responsibly. As we’ve lately seen from adults, they aren’t always responsible. There are DUI arrests every single day, even from people you would not expect an arrest to be made or a conviction to be given. It’s legal in this state and I don’t see any reason to ban it in our county. Thank you.

Executive Walsh stated are we all clear on yes and no’s?

Member Winfrey stated this resolution is written prohibiting the establishment of adult use cannabis business within unincorporated Will County. A yes vote is to prohibit, a no vote is not to prohibit.

RESULT: FAILED [12 TO 14]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook)

AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Dollinger, Berkowicz, Tuminello, Weigel, Kraulidis

NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Rice, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Ventura, Marcum, Cowan, Ferry

4. PUBLIC HEARING Re: Amending Chapter 110, Alcoholic Beverages of the Will County Code of Ordinances (liquor Ordinance) Re: Number of Liquor Licenses

Member Winfrey stated previously on this Board we agreed to control the number of liquor licenses. I believe we have a license now that needs to be taken off the books. Am I right Mr. James Harvey?

Mr. James Harvey stated correct. (Inaudible) there is an available Class B license because of that (inaudible).

RESULT: OPENED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry, Kraulidis

AWAY: Rice, Ventura

Motion to Close Public Hearing

RESULT: CLOSED [23 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

AYES: Newquist, Koch, Moustis, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Ogalla, Rice

5. 19-373 Amending Chapter 110: Alcoholic Beverages of the Will County Code of Ordinances (Liquor Ordinance) Re Number of Liquor Licenses

RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Ogalla, Rice

6. 19-374 Suspending all Services other than Election Related Functions in the County Clerk’s Office on March 17, 2020, November 3, 2020, March 15, 2022 and November 8, 2022

RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Ogalla, Rice

7. 19-375 Setting the Number of Sheriff's Sworn Personnel - Correctional Officers

RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, District 3 (D - Bolingbrook)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Ogalla, Rice

8. 19-376 Setting Reimbursement for the Cost of Medical and Hospital Services Provided to Prisoners in Custody of the Will County Sheriff and Minors Held at the River Valley Justice Center

RESULT: APPROVED [24 TO 0]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)

AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Tyson, Harris, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Parker, Ventura, Dollinger, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Tuminello, Weigel, Ferry

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Rice

9. 19-377 Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute a Tolling Agreement for the Houbolt Road Extension among the County of Will, the City of Joliet and Houbolt Road Extension, JV LLC - To Be Distributed

Member Winfrey stated I will ask to table this. The city of Joliet is not quite ready for their portion of it. This is the tolling agreement for the Houlbolt Bridge project and I so move.

RESULT: TABLED [24 TO 0] Next: 1/16/2020 9:30 AM

TO: Will County Board

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

AWAY: Rice

10. 19-378 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Reimbursement Agreement between the County of Will and Houbolt Road Extension JV, LLC - Resolution and Attachment Added

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

11. 19-379 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Consent to Assignment of the Memorandum of Understanding among CenterPoint Properties Trust, the State of Illinois, the County of Will and the City of Joliet, in which CenterPoint Properties Trust Assigns its Duties and Obligations to Houbolt Road Extension (HRE) JV, LLC - Resolution and Attachment Added

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

12. 19-380 Supporting Denise Winfrey for a NACo Board Seat as Second Vice- President

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

13. 19-381 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute Renewal of State Lobbying Services Agreement with Curry & Associates, LLC

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

14. 19-382 Authorizing the County Executive to Execute Professional Services Contract with Federal Lobbyist Firm of Smith Dawson & Andrews

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

Next Executive Committee Meeting is Scheduled for January 9, 2020 @ 10:00 a.m.

Member Winfrey stated we will also hear through that Executive Committee any committees that were scheduled to meet on that first Thursday. Those will be heard on the 9th at Executive Committee at 10:00 a.m.

XXI. APPOINTMENTS BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE

1. December 2019 Appointments to Boards and Commissions

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Speaker, District 8 (D - Joliet)

SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee)

LEFT MEETING: Kraulidis

XXII. PUBLIC COMMENT

XXIII. COMMENTS BY COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS

Member Tuminello stated I just wanted to say thank you to the State's Attorney's office, and particularly the Sheriff's Department working in conjunction with the United States Secret Service, the United States Marshall's office and the Frankfort police detectives. We were able to apprehend the three individuals responsible for the kidnappings at gunpoint. They did phenomenal work. I could not be more happy with the work that they did to keep our people safe. We've had a long meeting here today. We've been here four our five hours and I think it's only appropriate to finish up with a resolution supporting one of our own for the NACo second place presidency. I know while we have our differences, I feel like this is our family table, right? You're at Thanksgiving and there's always somebody that you're fighting with, you object to, you don't agree, but when you walk out of this room no one says anything about your family. When we show up in Washington, the resolution at hand supporting Member Winfrey, I think that's kind of like our family. I wish you all the luck and any help that this side of the aisle can help you with, I know we're more than happy to help out. Thank you.

Member Mueller stated I just want to thank everybody for all the calls and messages I got last week when I had an unexpected anaphylactic reaction to something I ate at a Christmas party. I ended up at a hospital, you guys were awesome. I've never had so many coworkers reach out. I really appreciate all the support. I have Epi pens now so if I start to blow up we all know grab my Epi pens. Thank you everyone and have a great holiday.

Member Koch stated we had a lot of spirited debate today and I enjoyed it. A lot of contentious issues. I just want to mention really fast, when I was elected to this Board, I kind of had a reasonable expectation of professionalism here on the floor. I just want to remind everybody of the spirit of the holidays, let's refrain from name calling, interrupting fellow Board members, Executive Walsh, staff or the public as we're up here because I think it makes our debates more productive. I do wish everybody a very happy holiday season and enjoy the time off with your family.

Member Ogalla stated Member Koch stated thank you for that. I just want to say that works both ways.

XXIV. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAJORITY LEADER, MINORITY LEADER AND COUNTY BOARD SPEAKER

Announcements by County Board Majority Leader, Mark Ferry

Member Ferry stated I just want to say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone.

Announcements by County Board Minority Leader, Mike Fricilone

Member Fricilone stated I just want to say the war on drugs is still raging and we're going to fight the good fight. When I'm in Washington on our lobby trip, I will definitely continue to press for more money for opioids. I do want us to consider in the coming months the safety of our children when it comes to all the new devices out there for vaping. I still think we should ban sales here and let somebody sue us for that. Also, you may have seen the new commercials. We now have K-Cups that have powdered alcohol in them. I talked about this maybe a year or two ago about getting rid of powered alcohol. They're now in K-Cups you can make yourself a maitai. I think we need to put that on the agenda as well to talk about. I think we all live in a great country with many, many freedoms and when religion comes to mind this time of year we have all kinds of opportunities in this country. If you study hard, if you train hard and you work hard, anything is possible. At this time of the year when you exercise your religion, whatever freedom of religion you want, just make sure you do it with family and friends and think about all the freedoms you have. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Announcements by County Board Speaker, Denise Winfrey

Member Winfrey stated I just want to say thank you to everybody for all the hard work today. It was a long day and a hard day and we have more work to do so I appreciate that. Also I want to thank all of you for your support for me for this candidacy. We'll see what we can do for Will County. It's an opportunity to put the spotlight here so that's what we want to do. I want to wish everybody the very best of holidays whatever you celebrate. I hope it's joyful and have family and friends with you and have a great holiday and I'll see you next year.

Executive Walsh stated my wish is for everybody to have a very happy Christmas and a happy and healthy new year.

XXV. EXECUTIVE SESSION

XXVI. RECESS TO JANUARY 16, 2020

http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3691&Inline=True

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

Will County County Board

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.

Donate