Will County Public Works & Transportation Committee met Sept. 3.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Joe VanDuyne called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Joe VanDuyne | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice-Chair | Present | |
| Edna Brass | Member | Present | |
| Mark Ferry | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Ray Tuminello | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present |
Also Present: Ms. Cowan, Mr. Fricilone
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Moustis led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Public Works & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting - Aug 6, 2020 9:00 AM
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: Mr. Wise
Also Present: Ms. Cowan, Mr. Fricilone
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Moustis led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Public Works & Transportation Committee - Regular Meeting - Aug 6, 2020 9:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice-Chair
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. CMAP Pavement Management Presentation
(Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Ronaldson stated last year I briefed the committee that the County applied to CMAP for a study. We received Grant money to do various surveys for various entities. We will present to you what the Pavement Management is; in short it is a tool that will assist us in our maintenance projects. We will go through the details of what that was and the end results; also how we will use it into the future.
At this juncture Mr. Stefanski reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation. A brief question and answer period took place.
Mr. Fricilone stated you said that every 3 to 5 years we should do another analyst; is it pretty predictive that you don’t need to do them until 3 to 5 years later.
Mr. Stefanski replied yes, I believe that is the best; it allows us to recalibrate each pavement segment and gives us an idea of where each segment is at. That way we can improve the recommendations for where to do work.
Mr. Weigel stated I noticed Francis Rd. has a coating on it; is that a result of this study.
Mr. Ronaldson replied yes it was shown that Francis Rd. needed an overlay or treatment. We chose this year because we also wanted to include a test run between Cedar Rd. and Gouger Rd. of another treatment on the service; it is reclamite which you might have seen put on the road after the road was completed. We talked about that product last year it is used due to the overgrowth of the trees; it keeps the moisture off of the surface.
Mr. Van Duyne thanked the team for a great presentation.
Handout from Joe Stefanski at Committee
(Handout)
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Disc Re: Request for Installation of License Plate Reading Cameras in County Right-of-Way
(Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Van Duyne stated he would like to open up a discussion for the request for installation of license plate reading cameras in the Counties right-of-way.
Mr. Ronaldson stated DOT within the last several weeks have been contacted by four municipalities about these license plate reading cameras. I have included the information that I received about them. This is something new and we will be talking about what the Villages are looking to get out of these cameras; and why they would need them. If it were to be allowed it would be under permit. We are looking for the committee and the Board to take in and understand what this device is used for; and whether or not we want this in our right-of- way. We provided information to the State’s Attorney’s Office so they have looked at it as well; and can render an opinion at the end if you would like.
Chief Burica of the Frankfort Police stated we are using them as another technology to keep the community safe and lower crime. They can be used for investigations such as reading stolen plates; which will assist in car thefts. It assists to see which direction vehicles are coming from and which way they are heading. We are trying to get these cameras installed on either existing poles; or Flock Safety can install their own poles. The cameras run on solar power they would not require any attachment to electricity; they basically are self-contained units. We would like them in hopes of lowering crime; which it has been proven to do so in several other areas where they are already deployed.
Mr. Tuminello asked if a vehicle is reported stolen and the license plate is entered into the system; does this technology have the ability to alert law enforcement if that vehicle goes past a camera.
Chief Burica stated yes, it would alert any computers in cars as well as in the cloud. It also has the ability to track plates; if there was a plate we were looking for in an investigation. It also has the ability if the car has no plates; it can send an alert that this make and model of a vehicle has entered or passed in the area.
Mr. Tuminello stated it would also assist in child abductions as well. Chief Burica said yes.
Mr. Fricilone asked if any of the municipalities have already installed them in the right-of-way.
Chief Burica stated we want them to be installed where we have the most traffic; that tends to be County and State Highways. We also have a 60 day trial on them; if we don’t like them they will take them back.
At this juncture there was a discussion on the where the cameras would be installed and which crimes would be best assisted by the cameras.
Mr. Quintrell from Flock Security explained the features of the cameras and how the installation is done.
Ms. Berkowicz asked how long the videos are keep and who are they shared with.
Mr. Quintrell stated individual of each vehicle images are stored for 30 days. Each city owns their data collected from the cameras; and they can exercise their own judgment on sharing it even with neighboring jurisdictions. It can have a very positive impact.
Ms. Berkowicz asked if we have a camera on a county road or intersection; who would be responsible for that camera and data collected.
Mr. Ronaldson stated if it were put into the County right of way it would be done under a permit. The Village or local agency would still own it and maintain it. We would have nothing else to do with it.
Ms. Cowan stated I have some pretty serious concerns about this; that is born out of the fact that I believe we do not have explicit State regulations on license plate cameras. It is great the examples that’s been given about tracking down someone who is a suspect of kidnapping. We would want to aid in those situations whenever we can. It is also nice that the images are only kept for 30 days; however without State regulations on this that is left to the goodwill and private decisions of the company and the orginizations that are running these cameras. There have been quite a few cases throughout the County of films being kept substantially longer than 30 days and being used for other purposes. I think this runs the risk of severe infringement of personal liberties. I would be floored to hear if anyone on this call would be cool with taking a picture of everybody’s license plate who goes through a given intersection and hold on to it for whatever reason and go and look at it later. I think that is opening up all sorts of folks to law suits; on the bases of infringement of privacy. Until we see some State regulations on the process of taking these images and storing them. I am strongly opposed to this.
Mr. Quintrell stated we completely share the concerns; that is why we have very different policies across our company than the historical industry. Our view is that you can’t store it forever you must have rules on how it is used. Rather than waiting on State we would suggest that perhaps the Cities and Townships define a publically posted policy that they agree to abide by. That way there is transparency and clarity with the community.
Mr. Balich stated I agree with Ms. Cowan; I think it is unconstitutional. We have privacy rights and the right of due process in the US Constitution. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. How much of our rights do we want to give up in the idea of the protecting us. I think it is getting way out of hand and I oppose it with Ms. Cowan.
Ms. Berkowicz asked isn’t this what our tollway system is already doing when we pay tolls. I think it is already here and out there.
Chief Burica stated that is a very similar system as well as is the license plate readers on police cars.
Mr. Moustis stated I think this would be a great time to hear from our State’s Attorney.
Mr. Wise stated I have looked into it and Ms. Cowan is correct. There are approximately 16 States that have regulations for these types of cameras; Illinois is not one of the. From a legal standpoint it is about liability and protecting the County of possible liability. If the policy is such that the County decides to go ahead and allow these cameras; I would suggest that we have strong indemnification language from the Village to protect us and pay for any cost of any law-suits that we might get involved in. I would also suggest that until the State gives us some regulations; that I assume will eventually happen. We should insist that each community have policies in place for who this information will be shared with, and how long they are going to keep it; so that we can have some comfort that there are some parameters on the use of it.
Mr. Moustis stated I would rather wait to see some types of guidelines that are uniform across the State. Perhaps it would mitigate any labiality that the County may have. I agree with the State’s Attorney there would have to be a lot of work done; specifically who will have access to the images.
Mr. Weigel asked if the Sheriff’s Department also has license plate readers. I also would be in favor of having these cameras. We have satellites all over; they can track our cell phone and what have you. I think technology is all over and I think we should use it to our advantage.
Mr. Van Duyne asked if this was time sensitive.
Mr. Ronaldson stated it did not give a time frame. I mentioned earlier that there would have to be an IGA in place to do this. I would be looking for direction if I am to pursue with the State’s Attorney’s office and IGA with the strong language that you are looking for. Or should we wait for State regulations. How would you like us to pursue; I would not move forward unless an IGA was in place.
Mr. Tuminello stated I feel Ms. Cowan and other members brought up some good points. I myself would like to give law enforcement another tool in their tool chest to make sure of their safety. I want to make sure our concerns are covered like the ones that have been brought up. I would be in favor of it after a successful negotiation with an IGA agreement; with all of our concerns addressed in that.
Mr. Moustis stated let them draft their policies in relation to this; and bring their policies back first and let the State’s Attorney’s office look at those policies along with the County Board and Executives office. I think they have more to do; let them do that work and bring it back to us and we will move forward from there. I would like to see some type of model policy drafted that we could look at first.
Mr. Van Duyne stated yes, I would like to see that in black and white for the committee to read and also the State’s Attorney to scour the documents.
Mr. Moustis stated perhaps we might want to hear from our Sheriff’s department and see what his view is on these cameras. As well as what type of access would he have. We might also want to develop a similar policy for the County for these types of surveillance equipment.
2. Authorizing the Use of County Bridge Tax Funds for the Troy Township Road District Reconstruction of the Shepley Road Structure Over the DuPage River (Design Engineering - Phase I), County Board District #6
(Jeff Ronaldson)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] Next: 9/17/2020 9:30 AM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Member
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
3. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for the Countywide Crack Sealing, Using Additional MFT Funds ($135,762.71), All County Board Districts (Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Ronaldson stated with our crack sealing contract we had additional work we needed to do; the quantities were larger than what we had anticipated for a variety of reasons. This is just a supplemental resolution to authorize the MFT and I would request an amendment be made because of the numbers we submitted last week; we do have final numbers now, so they have increased. I would request and amendment from the additional amount to $135,762.71 raising the total to $365,762.71.
Mr. Moustis asked Mr. Ronaldson if we are implementing the plan that we saw the presentation on; for sealing cracks with this project.
Mr. Ronaldson response was yes; we have been using that tool for some time.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] Next: 9/17/2020 9:30 AM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice-Chair
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSION
1. Gougar Road Study-Public Engagement- September 2020 GougarRoadStudy.com (Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Ronaldson stated I have two items; the Gouger Road Study is currently under its Phase I process and we are having our first public engagement meeting virtually. It is open from September 1, 2020 till September 30, 2020 a link has been provided gougerroadstudy.com. We are putting that out there for you to go on there. There is quite a bit of information on that website; and a brief survey at the end. This site is to gather public comment on the existing conditions of Gouger Road; and what the public feels that Gouger Road should look like at the end of the project. This is the initial public engagement and there will be another one in the Spring on 2021; and hopefully a Public Hearing in the Summer of 2021.
2. Moving Will County Forward Truck Routing Public Engagement Deadline September 8, 2020 http://www.thelakotagroup.com/projects/moving-will county/
(Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Ronaldson stated on this project the public engagement period is ending on September 8th for the CMAP Study of the Will County Forward Truck Routing Program. There was a Public Hearing held last month which I attended; but the public comment period is still open. This is the link for anyone who did not get to attend; there is a presentation as well as an interactive map and comment section on that site. That is to recommend truck routes through the western part of Will County.
Mrs. Brass stated I remember there was a virtual meeting on August 13th; so that site remained open and is scheduled to close on September 8th?
Mr. Ronaldson replied that is correct.
Mrs. Brass stated my only concern is that there are some constituents in District #8 who were not aware. Because the public engagement was open on August 13th.
Mr. Ronaldson stated I believe it was open a few days before but the meeting was actually held on August 13th.
Mrs. Brass stated my concerns are that some people didn’t know about that meeting; I know people need to be proactive; but sometimes they aren’t. I know there were some concerns to extend it past September 8th.
Mr. Ronaldson stated that would be up to CMAP who is running the study; we would not have any control over that. Perhaps if you put that on their comment section of the site they might entertain that or get back to you on the subject.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I would encourage all of our Board Members to put it out on social media and talk to their residents about going on-line and engaging in both of these studies. They are truly important; I know I saw the Will County Forward Truck Routing in the Farmers Review and I know that they have thousands of subscribers.
IX. STATE'S ATTORNEY DISCUSSION
X. MONTHLY WORK REPORTS
Mr. Fricilone said I appreciate you taking my suggestion and putting a sign out when you are doing work on a county road stating this is our county dollars at work. I think this goes a long way to show that their dollars spent in Will County are going to fix those roads. I have one more suggestion would it also be possible to add an estimated completion date on those same signs.
Mr. Ronaldson stated I will take that into consideration.
1. Construction Status Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
2. Maintenance Status Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
3. Phase II Summary Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
XI. REPORTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
XII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Ann Baskerville said thank you I live in Manhattan Township and am also an organizer with the Illinois Sierra Club. I would like to make a comment on the proposed Briggs Street Truck Route that was introduced at that the August 13th meeting of the CMAP project. I’m really concerned about adding anymore semi-trucks to that route; there are homes, 4 churches, and the YMCA. In Manhattan Township there are a many people who work in Lockport, Joliet or any place north; that is a major route for commuters and most folks are aware a lot of issues with congestion already. I would like to make a specific comment about the CMAP process; one thing I did not see in their presentation was an analyst of how the Houbolt Bridge Project could be an alternative to get the trucks out of the inter-model onto I-80. We would like to see that alternative studied; especially when comparing it to using Laraway and Briggs Street as a way to get trucks to I-80. I understand there is going to be some local traffic; people understand trucks have to get to stores but to make such a residential street an industrial thoroughfare is very concerning. I also have other concerns about the length of the comment period; I agree it was in the Farmers Weekly I also know that people saw it online. I think now that Briggs St. is identified as a potential truck route; it would be good to give people that live along that route some more time to really comment specifically on that route. Also to include participation from the East Joliet Fire Protection District. Personally as a resident of Will County I feel that we are at the tipping point of the whole truck traffic issue; and the Houbolt Bridge is a really good way that we can get this under control and try and keep up the quality of life; and keep residential areas residential. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Van Duyne stated thank you Ms. Baskerville for your comments.
Ms. Cooper stated I am calling in about the proposal of Briggs Street being turned into a truck route. My first issue with this is community outreach; we actually put up a petition and within three days we have over 300 signatures and multiple comments. Residents are upset about this because they feel they are just finding out about this proposal of becoming a truck route. This was set up for an interactive map and you are able to leave a comment on that site; however the interactive map is not user friendly what so ever. The second part of this is being able to view the maps in person at the local Township and Libraries; yet there is no form for the public to comment when viewing in person. How are people that are not technology savvy able to actually comment upon what is going to be going on in their community and in their neighborhoods. Also is the one zoom conference that was set up for all truck routes; this is very large and significant decision that is going to be made. When you are making this type of decision what is the rush. There should be multiple conferences for all the truck routes so you do have access to public comment so that people can express their concerns and maybe give different ideas or suggestions like thinking outside the box. Like Ms. Baskerville said about Houbolt Road Bridge. The concern is we want to get these trucks off of our local residential streets and get them onto I-80. Not bring more in; haven’t we learned anything about Rt. 53. Are going to put another disaster in by making another residential road into a truck route. We are supposed to learn from the past this is not going to stop congestion. It’s just going increase congestion through the neighborhoods; because you are actually adding more warehousing; case in point NorthPoint. You know this is going to have a significant impact on the communities. When I say communities I mean multiple communities; not just the ones that are surrounded by Briggs St. We are hearing from people from Manhattan, Elwood and New Lenox. They actually have to use these back roads because of the congestion of trucks. Now with the proposal of turning Briggs St. into a truck route; this is significant and there needs to be more community outreach and impute into this. Let’s post it within the local businesses; within the neighborhoods maybe reach out to some of the churches their parishioners. Let them know what is going on; their needs to be some leg work being put into this not just I’m going to post it on line and if you’re able to see it or make it they hey it is what it is. This is a significant decision that is being made and we need community impute; therefore this needs to be delayed and there needs to be a total restructure of how this is being done.
Mr. Van Duyne stated thank you Ms. Cooper for your suggestions and your comments.
Mr. Palmer said I would like to give a brief comment and I will do some follow-up on the two public comments. Just to remind Board Members the Houbolt Road Bridge; the county signed an MOU with the City of Joliet; but also with IDOT and CenterPoint to limit access to intermodal facilities. To limit the spread of truck routes all over the area. Those intermodals were built with limited access for that reason; so the Manhattan, Arsenal Interchange, to Rt. 55, to Laraway Rd. takes them up to Rt. 53 then to I-80, and the Houbolt Rd. Bridge is the third access point. The goal was to limit the access points so there weren’t trucks going all over the place. Second’ our Community Friendly Freight Study which was the foundational document that we did several years ago. It was meant to be community friendly that it was trying to balance growth with the residential areas. Now the subsequent plans; one the IDOT Plan and the other the CMAP Plan that the last caller was referring to are meant to do this in a proactive positive way. One comment I will make is there was a zoom meeting that was a public meeting that was pretty well advertised; I would argue. But it’s not the only meeting; there are going to be additional meetings. The comments that we are getting back via the CMAP process is exactly why they did it; that is the whole idea there are going to be subsequent public meetings. Because of COVID-19 we are limited on how many public interactions that we can do. I will see what is planned and if there is anything else we could do; like the one suggestion of maps out where they can look at physical maps and make comments. These were both good comments from the two people who called in; I do think the County is taking this very seriously but the County is not approving these projects; the Municipalities are approving the projects and unfortunately the County has to compensate or deal with the road improvements that are necessary. That is the challenge that we face.
Mr. Van Duyne stated Will County Board Member Mr. Herb Brooks from District #8 just sent me a message and he assures me he’s going to reach out to the residents in the Briggs Street area. To let Ms. Cooper know and I am sure she will be glad to hear that as well as all of the residents. Thank you Mr. Brooks.
Ms. Ventura stated I sat in on the calls with the polls where they were showing the different roads. I remember that Briggs St. did not have a very high percentage on that poll. Did we get additional information that indicated that it would be the best truck route? If I remember correctly it was Rt. 52 had the highest percentage in that poll of that meeting.
Mr. Palmer stated that was just the initial survey of options; that is not the final decision by any means. It is just surveying different options and this is the challenge when we have Municipal Elected Official in the room; on some of these discussions they talk about the different routes; and nobody likes any of the routes. That is the problem we have these facilities some that are already built and operating and some that are planned. We have to come up with a plan to deal with them. Right now Rt. 53 as the main route that trucks are now using and Rt. 52 coming out of Manhattan is the other. None of that was a final decisions; it is really an initial survey and getting residents involved so the study can report back the feedback that we received; that study is still on going. It is not the final decision it’s an initial survey of people to get a feel of what the community thinks.
Mr. Ronaldson stated you are correct; I don’t recall how high Briggs St. was on the list; it wasn’t very high if I remember right. They should be posted on the website as well. It is a moot point because it is an initial information gathering. Once they get the information they will fine tune it for the next one.
Ms. Ventura stated I know this is kicking the beehive here; but in the past the Serra Club and Ann Baskerville was just on and had suggested that the county have a moratorium on warehouses until some of this infrastructure is worked out. It may be something that we look at and consider placing a hold on building until we have a clear plan for infrastructure. I will leave that for some of the other board members but it is to the point that Mr. Palmer just made. When they are building stuff up and we then have to get the trucks there it may not be the will of the residents and the will of the people who live in Will County. Just because one city or business wants to put something up and then everyone else is scrambling around. Instead of working together and to make sure we have the best infrastructure ongoing for all business.
Mrs. Brass said I will work closely Mr. Brooks in regards to getting information to the Briggs St. residents. I would just hope that as a County Board even though it is not our decision; that we do everything possible to gather this information. Go through as many means as possible to make sure people know. I know in this age of technology we think one way and we expect people to be able to lock into to that and move on. But that’s not the case. For me as a County Board member and a resident it is very disheartening to even think that Briggs St. is even being considered as a truck route.
Mr. Van Duyne stated thank you for your comment.
XIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Motion to Go into Executive Session for Land Acquisition at 10:18 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice-Chair
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
2. Motion to Come Out of Executive Session at 10:38 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Donald Gould, Member
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
3. Motion to Concur with the Recommendation with the Director of Transportation and Negotiator of Land Acquisition
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Ray Tuminello, Member
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice-Chair
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
XV. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 10:40 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, Member
SECONDER: Ray Tuminello, Member
AYES: VanDuyne, Mueller, Brass, Ferry, Gould, Harris, Moustis, Tuminello, Tyson
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3851&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up