Will County Executive Committee met Sept. 10.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:35 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Mark Ferry | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present |
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Brooks led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Executive Committee - Assignment Meeting - Aug 6, 2020 10:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
2. Executive Committee Executive Session Minutes August 6, 2020 (Minutes)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
3. WC Executive Committee - Board Agenda Setting Meeting - Aug 13, 2020 10:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
4. WC Committee of the Whole - Informational Meeting - Jul 8, 2020 9:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
5. WC Committee of the Whole - Informational Meeting - Aug 6, 2020 10:30 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
6. WC Budget Workshop - Special Meeting - Aug 25, 2020 10:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
IV. OLD BUSINESS
1. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Project Partnership Agreement with the Department of the Army for the DuPage River, Will County, Nonstructural Flood Risk Management Project (Brian Radner)
Mr. Radner stated a couple of months ago we were here to discuss how the final report on this project was out and the County needed to determine if they were going to continue with the engineering and implementation. At that meeting we were asked to meet with District Members individually. We did meet with all the District Members to go over the projects in their area, general project history and costs. Today we would like to talk more about this project. The item is on the agenda to determine the County’s level of Commitment to the DuPage River Project. We are looking to find out if the County is committed this project and if so, it would lead to a Resolution allowing the County Executive to enter into an agreement for this project to go forward.
Mr. Killinger reviewed the attached PowerPoint. If we sign the agreements, the Army Corps could invoice us and we could use 2020 money. The balance would be $117,525 due in FY2021. When the engineering is done the Army Corps will be looking for $2.4 million for engineering. That number assumes everybody will participate, which is probably not going to be the case. They will ask all the affected people and if they don’t want to participate, they are not forced to. There could be less scope of work, these numbers are the estimates and best guess we have at this point. If we participate, then we need to sign three documents, the Letter of Intent, Certification regarding lobbying and the non-federal sponsor’s certification of financial capability. If you go forward, we will prepare Resolutions for the Board meeting to authorize the County Executive and Treasurer to sign these agreements. These documents are the same as those for Phase 1.
Mr. Moustis asked the project goes over a number years; can we do the funding over multiple budget years? What do you think the annual commitment would be and how many budget years?
Mr. Killinger replied in talking with the Army Corps the $2.4 million for the engineering they anticipates this project will take three to five years. You could spread the payment over three to five years at $500,000 per year.
Mr. Moustis stated I would not want to stop funding the local flooding and drainage programs we participate in with the townships and municipalities. I think that is a valuable program because we are able to leverage dollars for the local programs and in many cases they have no alternatives. The past County Board committed to this project and I would like to go forward. What is the local participation from the local municipalities? How do they contribute?
Mr. Killinger replied the Stormwater Committee project comes from two different funds. The Board appropriates $150,000 every year for capital improvements and those projects come from that. Last year there was additional money because there was no Army Corps study going on and we were able to use that money as well. Those projects would not stop. The Stormwater Committee would be disappointed if that money was no longer available. The Army Corps is only entering into an agreement with Will County. There is no local participation at this time. The Stormwater Committee could possibly put a moratorium on funding for the Villages of Bolingbrook, Plainfield, Shorewood and Channahon and give those projects a lower amount and then the $150,000 capital dollars would go to other places. That is one way we could do it, in a backdoor way. I have talked with the local municipalities and they do not have money in their budget and they feel the County should go ahead and keep going with this project.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t have a problem with that and I hope other Board Members would not have a problem. I think the County should take on this project.
Mr. Killinger added there are no State dollars either.
Mr. Moustis asked do you think there could be some type of funding coming from the State?
Mr. Killinger replied originally the State was supposed to pay for 25% of the Phase 1 study. They opted out because of budget concerns. Will and DuPage Counties picked up the State’s share. I am not aware the State is going to say they have money available.
Mrs. Traynere stated it sounds as though nothing has changed since our last conversation, we still do not have an agreement from Bolingbrook. Did I understand your answer, we would just stop funding Bolingbrook with Stormwater money?
Mr. Killinger responded what I suggest is, if the Board really wants a local contribution from the Villages, you could backdoor into it. I could tell the Stormwater Committee that the Board is asking that they give a lower priority to projects in Bolingbrook, Plainfield, Shorewood and Channahon, because the DuPage River project is the project these communities are getting this year. This could change year by year, depending on what work was being done. I am throwing it out as an idea if the Board wants to direct the Stormwater Committee that way.
Mrs. Traynere asked what dollar amount is attached to the Village of Bolingbrook’s funding. I am worried about adding more costs to our budget.
Mr. Killinger answered in District 1, the Village of Monee has been a very active participant and they have a phased storm sewer project coming out of the capital improvement funds which is $150,000. We match at least 50/50 on every one of these projects. If the project is in a township they pay at least 50%. The Village of Bolingbrook has not done a project since 2017. If an entity does not ask for any projects, there is no way to fund something, because it has to be shared. The County does not manage these projects, we provide funding and the entity manages the project. There is $150,000 set aside and the Stormwater Committee does everything it can to get the money to where it can do good for the taxpayers.
Mrs. Traynere asked how many years would it take to withhold money to cover what the Village of Bolingbrook should be contributing to this project?
Mr. Killinger replied during the engineering portion of this; the Army Corps estimated Bolingbrook’s share was about $87,000 and that would be their local share. In the implementation phase it is about $500,000 if all the projects went forward.
Mrs. Traynere stated that is my point; $500,000 at the rate of $150,000 will take several years to get the amount needed. This seems like a lot of money for the County, without community participation. I don’t see a way for us to stop midstream. Have you spoken to Bolingbrook?
Mr. Killinger replied I have spoken to the Bolingbrook staff. They believe that the County should just do this. I have not talked to any of the elected officials.
Mr. Fricilone asked didn’t DuPage County have a stake in this when we started?
Mr. Killinger responded DuPage County was part of the Phase 1 study. In the report there are projects in DuPage and Will Counties and the Army Corps wishes to proceed with individual, local sponsors.
Mr. Fricilone asked is DuPage County moving forward?
Mr. Killinger answered the Army Corps told me DuPage County is not going forward this year; which does not mean they won’t next year. The reason the Army Corps shared is it is not necessarily financial, they have questions. They have questions about the design assumptions of a levy in Lisle the Army Corps made. So there is a discussion about that and they are not prepared to move forward this year.
Mr. Fricilone asked if they don’t move forward; does that affect our projects?
Mr. Killinger replied any project done upstream is not allowed to raise the water level downstream. The projects in Will County would help the individual property owners so you are not paying damages for flooding. What is done in DuPage County will not directly affect that.
Mr. Fricilone stated you are saying our projects will mitigate the damages for our residents, but not necessarily those in DuPage County.
Mr. Killinger stated that is correct. The projects in DuPage County will mitigate damages to residents in DuPage County and not necessarily in Will County.
Mr. Fricilone stated we do a budget annually. If we commit to the project, and the funds are not there two years from now; what happens then?
Mr. Killinger replied the Army Corps is asking you to commit to the full $2.9 million. I asked what if we cannot do it and they replied they understand, things happen. Basically, they said if you don’t have it, I don’t know what we can do about it.
Mr. Fricilone asked will it be in the agreement that things can happen? Mr. Killinger responded I don’t believe that is in the agreement.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am in favor of going forward with the project if it is going to mitigate problems.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked when you approach the property owners are you asking them to sell their property, is that the remediation? What happens to the properties we purchase?
Mr. Killinger replied the Army Corps sent certified letters to the property owners and they are aware there is a potential project there. As we move forward there would be more dialog. Some of them may not wish to participate and then there would not be a project there. There are three projects. During the buy-out process there is an appraisal process and the County takes possession of the property. The Army Corps does not do that. The County pays for all of that upfront and it counts toward our 35% share. In the past, the County has turned property over to the park district or Forest Preserve because it becomes a maintenance issue. The other projects are elevation and flood proofing. Some properties could be raised to get them out of the risk area. Some can be flood proofed by sealing low windows or putting up a temporary barrier at the door and it mitigates the flood risk.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked what if the property owner wants to keep the property and gets the improvements done, but they don’t work? Has that ever happened? Who would be liable for the additional expenses if that was the case?
Mr. Killinger replied I am not aware if that has ever happened before and I don’t have an answer about liability. I can talk with the Army Corps.
Mr. Van Duyne asked if the federal government is on the hook for all the properties, 100%; what would make the County want to participate and have to pay 35% of the total costs? What if we decided we did not want to participate like the local governments? Would they proceed?
Mr. Killinger answered the Army Corps will not proceed without a local sponsor. If we don’t participate and there is damage, the costs continue to go through. Like what happened in 2013, FEMA would come in and give some emergency funding. That is one way to look at it. By doing the project you are reducing the risk and inconvenience to the residents.
Mr. Moustis stated my very first initiative as a County Board Member was to establish the Countywide Stormwater Management Committee. It took three years to establish and two years before the Executive appointed members and then it was several years before it received any funding. The idea behind the countywide Stormwater Management Committee is to look at stormwater and flooding as a county and establish standards everyone would follow. Prior to that, the County had one calculation and municipalities used another calculation. There was a lot of development going on, causing quite a bit of flooding and in the Ag community it was flooding their fields probably more than anyone. Stormwater was established with the idea the County would take the lead because we go across all Will County jurisdictions when it came to stormwater management. That is the reason we take on this role. Municipalities can decide if they want to participate, but that would not prevent us from moving forward to manage and mitigate problems. Most of the structures along the DuPage River should never have been built. Whether they were built in the unincorporated areas or within municipalities or areas annexed in later, I don’t think it should matter. The County needs to mitigate as many flooding problems as we can. The feds are not on the hook, they just will not do the project. It does not mean we can’t get additional funding or we don’t look for additional federal funding. I ask this Committee to keep in mind the spirit of what the County’s Stormwater Management Committee is about; it is about taking the lead role in flooding throughout the County and hopefully we get good participation from our partners. The Committee is made up equally of County and municipal members and I think that helps. Our municipal tax payers do put money into the coffers and maybe more so than the unincorporated areas so this is just getting some of their tax dollars back for problems they have that we oversee.
Mr. Palmer stated the County started this process many years ago when the Water Resource Development Act (WARDA) was rewritten. We have had this in our Federal Agenda for many years. When we were eligible, we applied and received funding. A brief history of the project was given between DuPage and Will Counties. This project has been vetted heavily. We are at the point of the funding and construction level. This started a long time ago and all along the way we could bail out, but if you drop out, the projects don’t move forward. This is valuable because storm after storm there is public and private damage and the inconvenience of flooded roads. That is why you want to spend the money, because it is more effective to fix or mitigate the problems instead of letting it happen over and over and expect a different result. People assume the County is taking the lead because every County resident is a County taxpayer. When the municipalities say the County doesn’t do much for them, you can tell them we are doing the stormwater, we do roads that lead into their communities and this is an example of what we are doing for them that they sometimes forget. It has been a long process to get here and I hope we keep moving forward and figure it out. We can make requests to the municipalities and the State, but I would not hold your breath that we will get a lot from them.
Mr. Dubois explained the next steps.
Motion to Continue with the DuPage River Project
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
2. Discussion Re: Disparity Study (Discussion)
Mr. Palmer stated we continue to work on this study. We have spent hours looking at studies done by other organizations, such as CTA, RTA, larger counties and cities. I had conversations with DuPage County, who is undertaking similar efforts. We spoke with Ms. Collette Holt who is the general counsel for the American Contract Compliance Association and her PowerPoint is attached to the agenda. Ms. Holt is a nationally recognized expert and in the PowerPoint she has listed all the private and public sector partners she has worked with. She gave us a lot of good advice, including not to proceed too quickly to an RFQ for a disparity study. Instead she gave us some things we can do now, rather than waiting a year or more to get a study done. They will provide a legal defense for whatever we do. They will help us set goals for minority and women owned businesses improvements and give us an opportunity to do a review. She walked us through things we could do holistically, looking at our current outreach beyond construction contracts, but other contracting, how we handle customer reviews and how quickly we pay our bills. For smaller businesses, minority or otherwise, if you don’t pay bills quickly it can be a challenge to the cash flow of small businesses. Please look through the PowerPoint and bring back questions. The action she suggested and is a contract data system which she estimated to be $30,000 or $40,000. That is where you collect your data, put it into the system to have the data available and searchable to help us with a disparity study. She is going to send us job descriptions for someone to come on staff and be our point person. County Executive Winfrey and Speaker Cowan agree having someone as the point person would help with a disparity study and they could begin the preliminary work to get us ready. We understand everyone wishes to move this along and not just talk about it. The challenge is doing it right and making it meaningful to build a strong foundation. After we get job descriptions we could bring back to the Board a plan to hire someone internally to be this person and do the data collection. DuPage is doing the data collection component and also a small minority owned business program. They are not moving to a disparity study yet. Their goal is to do it, but they are currently doing the preliminary things.
There is a lot more to this. If you have questions or comments, I would be happy to try and answer them.
Mr. Brooks stated yesterday I had a visitor who represents the Will County Black Contractors. He let me know the organization was smaller, but still functional. He asked why are you meeting about these issues, but not going out to the community or for their advice and voice.
Mr. Palmer replied we are trying to set up a program to do that. That would be part of this person’s work and the disparity study to do interviews and data collection from the impacted community. It is asking people like the Contractors Association and other small owners what the impacts are, how they have been challenged and what road blocks they have run into. We want to collect the information, but you have to have a plan to do that. We are not at that stage yet. I can assure you and you can assure anyone who asks, that would be a component of the study to interview the impacted people to get firsthand information.
Mrs. Traynere asked Mr. Brooks, who was the representative you met with and what do they represent? I am not aware of a countywide group. I am trying to understand who is coming forward.
Mr. Brooks replied the Black Contractors have been around for decades. Mr. William Sellers and Mr. Foster came to visit me. They are still functional, they don’t meet like they used to, but they are very concerned about the disparity study.
Mrs. Traynere asked do they represent or reach out to communities outside of Joliet?
Mr. Brooks responded they call themselves the Will County Black Contractors Association, but I can’t answer your question. I asked them to get in contact with Mr. Harris as chairman of the CARES Committee. Mr. Sellers can answer that better than I can.
Ms. Ventura stated I think some of those members belong to the Chicago unions and have a wider range than just Will County.
Mr. Fricilone asked why don’t we establish an Ad-Hoc Committee for the disparity study?
Dr. Cowan replied that is a good idea, especially since we have a couple of issues. We want to not just work on a disparity study but also put together something on procurement.
Mr. Fricilone added also diversity within our ranks and staff. That could all come under one Ad-Hoc Committee.
Dr. Cowan indicated she would work on that.
Mr. Palmer stated we do not need formal action. We are going to move forward on the data collection, because it does not require County Board approval. When we have the job descriptions I can share them with the Board. If you are going to establish an Ad-Hoc Committee that would be a great place to do a lot of this work. I think that is a great idea.
Mr. Moustis stated I would ask that we look at our house as part of the discussion and whether there are issues within our internal practices.
Dr. Cowan stated that will absolutely be part of procurement and all the things we have to look at. A disparity study will help us look at those kind of issues; our internal dynamics of our hiring process.
Mr. Palmer stated the County can lead by example, but we cannot force other levels of government to do the same thing we are doing. Part of this is being driving because it is the right thing to do. There will probably be requirements for our DOT to have a plan in place for MFT spending. It has been talked about, but the law has not been passed yet. We want to look at all of our procurement. We just completed several hundred million dollars of vertical construction so we will not be hiring many vertical contractors, but we buy commodities and other services we could apply some of this work to. It could include our recruitment for positions. We have Equal Opportunity Plans but there could be room for improvement including better outreach, mentoring or outreach to colleges and high schools to recruit people to get involved with County government. That is what we control. I think people come to the County to talk about issues that are at their local municipality level, which we have no direct say in; we can lead by example.
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of Not To Exceed $175,000,000 in Taxable General Obligation Advance Refunding (Alternate Revenue Source) Bonds (Karen Hennessy)
Mr. Brooks left at this juncture.
Ms. Hennessy stated Wells Fargo has informed of us of an opportunity to save some money by refunding some of our existing bond issuances. When Mr. LePenske reached out to Ms. Howard and I, the potential savings was as much as $1.2 million per year. Now, it has dropped to $800,000 annually. Mr. LePenske offered to give a quick overview on what is going on in the market, what is different with refunding versus the last time we did that in 2015, why Wells Fargo is targeting the issuances they are and why. He will talk about the timing. What we would look for would be some direction from the Board. Do you want us to pursue this? If you do, we would like some guidelines. These transactions take eight to nine weeks to process. I don’t want to get to the end and find out there is nowhere to go. After the presentation, perhaps we could revisit and establish a threshold or target for going forward with the refunding.
Mr. Brian LePenske reviewed the PowerPoint attached.
Mr. Moustis stated you mentioned tax exempt refunding is currently not allowed. I am on the NACo Finance & Pension Committee and this is one of the main issues NACo is taking up and trying to get the legislature to allow it. There is support and nonsupport on both sides of the aisle for different reasons. What would be the difference in rates in this market between a tax exempt and taxable? I am asking because if there is a big difference what would be the savings if we hung around to see if Congress was going to act on this?
Mr. LePenske replied we can start providing that type of analysis. Absolute interest rates, the yields are lower in the tax exempt space versus taxable. Taxes on bonds are typically issued with a premium; the County would pay 5% and the yield would be much lower. Currently, a 20-year, tax exempt bond for Will County would yield around 2%; but a taxable bond would yield around 2.61%. Since tax exempt rates are callable at par after 10 years, we calculate the yield to maturity in case the bond is not refunded. If interest rates go up, it does not make sense for the County to refund it. The maturity on the same tax exempt bond is 3.13% versus taxable bonds issued at par. At 100% it remains at 2.61%. On longer maturities taxable refunding provides better savings than a tax exempt refunding. Understanding, that the County would not be able to refund the tax bonds again in the future. If 10 years down the line tax rates go down, you could refund the bond again. In this market, we are seeing taxable refunding in longer maturities out preform tax exempt. We have been running the analysis assuming the taxable bonds would be callable after 10 years as are all your other transactions. It provides flexibility in case the County needs it down the line.
Mr. Moustis stated when COVID became a serious problem, the market went pretty soft on municipal issued bonds because of the uncertainty of revenue streams for local governments. Is the market still soft on municipals, which caused some rates to go up initially because of the uncertainty? Has that left the market now?
Mr. LePenske responded the municipal market has rebounded quite a bit, starting in May when the federal government and Federal Reserve started rolling out CARES money. The Federal Reserve created an ability to purchase tax exempt bonds and be a backstop in the event the issuers were unable to access the market. The State of Illinois was one of the first movers for a one year rate of 3.83%. Since then the market has settled down. Tax exempt rates are actually lower than they were one year ago. The key reason interest rates went up in April and May was because investors were fleeing the market and needed liquidity and tax exempt bonds were a good way to get out of the market. Over the last four months we have seen investors pouring more money back into the tax exempt market and having comfort this is a short lived problem and governments will weather the storms for the next couple of years, but they will be around for the long haul.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think the next CARE Act will change the advanced refunding for tax exempt. If we said go today, how long would it take? When can we pull the plug within that timeframe?
Mr. LePenske replied if you were to say go today; it will take a week or so to get the finance team up and running. You need to get a financial advisor and the attorneys rolling and organized. We would kick off the transaction within a week. Over the next three weeks we would be drafting documents for the transaction. We would need the attorneys to get your official statement in order. You issued bonds in 2019 so it should be in good order. Also in your favor is on August 21st your proposed budget was introduced. Absent any material changes we can start using that information in the offering statement. For two or three weeks we would be drafting documents then we would reach out to the rating agencies to do a review of the County’s credit, that takes approximately 10 days to two weeks. After that is complete we would put a preliminary official statement on the street for investors. I suggest putting that out after the election as we don’t know who will win. With the official statement on the street for 10 days or two weeks we would move into the pricing. The earliest we could sell bonds would be the week before Thanksgiving. You have to be flexible with the holidays and the election this year.
Mr. Fricilone asked if we decided to issue bonds for another project six to eight months from now, would this refunding affect that in a positive or negative light or not at all?
Mr. LePenske replied definitely not a negative light. It would possibly be in a positive light because you are lowering your debt burden on debt services by almost $1 million annually. Investors would see that as a positive as you are taking advantage of the market and lowering your debt service. If the later transaction was tax exempt, you would be moving some bonds from tax exempt to taxable and looking at different investors. Those investors who held your tax exempt might be eager to get back into the County’s bonding and look at that next transaction more favorably to get a portion of it.
Mrs. Traynere asked you mentioned a timeline of Thanksgiving. Once the paperwork is done, how long do we have to go to market with these?
Mr. Mr. LePenske replied once we have all the documents in order and you have a rating, we will continue to provide updates to the County on where this stands and how it looks. Once you put the documents on the street, it is typically 10 days to two weeks, we can move quicker if we want to hit a hot market, it can be as short as a week. After that it takes about two weeks, but you are setting the rate on the pricing day. If we have all the documents ready right after the election and the market moves against you, or the County is not feeling comfortable about the market, then we hit pause and we wait.
Mrs. Traynere asked how long can we hit pause?
Mr. LePenske replied from the rating agency perspective typically once they make a rating public it is good for up to three months unless there is other material news that may impact that rating. Then we would have to be in contact with them. For the rest of the transaction we could wait months. You are not paying anyone until the transaction comes to market and closes. Once the documents are prepared the attorneys will not continue to work on them. In March and April there were lots of issuers waiting to issue bonds and the market went soft. At one point there were billions of dollars on the sidelines waiting for the right market. The key is to be ready to hit go and take advantage of when the market turns before anyone else has the opportunity to do so. Once the documents are ready, you can wait as long as you want.
Ms. Hennessy stated the bonds for the RNG plant has a separate revenue source. It will not impact the coverage on our existing bonds and we will have the savings. I had concerns about how we would pay for each of these groups and found there should not be things to be concerned about. In this environment what are you seeing as far as ratings? A lot of our counterparts are struggling with sales tax revenue. We are not as reliant on sales tax revenue. While we are seeing some reduction in 2020 versus 2019, it is not substantial at this point. To me that is a risk and would not want our rating to drop during this. What have you seen happening?
Mr. LePenske responded since COVID there have been more ratings downgrades than upgrades. Your revenue streams are diverse and sales taxes are not a huge part of it and it has not been hit as severely as other issuers. Rating agencies have been giving issuers the benefit of the doubt unless they have really seen their revenue streams drop like a rock. The County has AA or AA+, you are one of the best credits in the State and this would be a positive you are saving money. You might see a decrease in sales taxes but your savings from this might offset that. If you had budget issues there are ways to structure the bonds.
Ms. Hennessy asked how would we structure parameters for this for the Board to issue and Ordinance? Is it better to have a floor we want to hit, a goal of annual savings greater than $800,000 or is there an interest rate we should reflect? What have you seen other municipalities do?
Mr. LePenske answered I would put a floor on the annual savings. Depending on the interest rates certain maturities may look very good to take advantage of and still provide very good savings. Putting them all together may not get to the $1 million of annual savings. I would be happy to come back with the answer. I have seen where there is a minimum net present value savings as a percent of refunding par amounts. At least 3% or 4% on a transaction basis or maturity basis. Usually, it is on the full transaction basis. Putting all the bonds together you are currently at 14.4% savings as a percentage of your refunded bonds. Typically we have seen it as a percentage of refunded bond savings and not necessarily an annual savings amount.
Ms. Hennessy stated if the Board decides to move forward, I would need some help in finding a number to point to.
Mr. Moustis stated we talked about when we would issue, savings and typically we have put in a target rate or savings. If we were to go forward, I suggest we move forward with the idea the target would be nothing less than the $18 million over the reissuance as a floor. Do we want to do it less than $18 million in savings? Would it be worth waiting if we could not obtain that savings? We don’t what will happen after the election. You could have everyone fleeing from equities into a safer, more stable investments which could drive down rates. Should we set some parameters on rates or savings going forward?
Mr. Harris indicated he was in support of a floor also.
Dr. Cowan, Mr. Fricilone, Mrs. Traynere and Mr. Van Duyne were all in agreement. Motion to Move Forward with a Refunding Transaction for Bonds
RESULT: APPROVED [9 TO 0]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne ABSTAIN: Gould
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
2. Discussion Re: Date of Will Be Well Response (Discussion)
Dr. Cowan stated anyone on the County health insurance knows every year you have to do a series of things and if you complete them by the deadline, you are not charged an insurance surcharge. Despite the fact the requirements were lessened this year due to COVID and the due date extended, there were a couple of people who did not complete the requirements by the deadline and they are facing the surcharge on their health insurance. People have reached out to Board Members and asked for a pass this year. There is more to this issue than just saying okay. I asked Mr. Tidwell to come and explain the requirements this year, how it differed from previous years and what it would mean to give a pass this year.
Mr. Tidwell reviewed the memo attached to the agenda.
Mr. Tidwell continued we have an e-mail list we get off of the wellness portal. Every new hires who attends the orientation receives a brochure on how to register on the wellness portal and they are advised to do it as soon as possible. The e-mail address on file with the portal is the e-mail address we use for the blasts.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I don’t get insurance, but I still receive all the e-mails.
Mr. Tidwell continued Ms. Malone also uses the county e-mail addresses for the blast.
Mrs. Ogalla stated we only have 12 more people than last year who missed the deadline.
Mr. Tidwell stated the percentages are pretty equal.
Mrs. Ogalla asked once people miss the deadline, what is the opportunity for them to no longer pay the additional monthly premium.
Mr. Tidwell replied the surcharge continues for the remainder of the plan year which would be June 30, 2012. There are no exceptions to reopen the plan if the deadlines are missed. We open the plan for new hires and give them 30 days to complete the requirements. The only other time we may be able to stop a surcharge is if the employee does their requirements, but the spouse does not. The employee still gets the surcharge because of the spouse not completing the requirements. If the employee gets divorced during the plan year we stop the surcharge because their spouse is no longer covered under our plan.
Mrs. Ogalla stated we had this agreement with the union employees. Could we do something different for the nonunion employees?
Mr. Tidwell replied it would cause a big backlash.
Mr. Moustis stated it is against the law. It would be considered discrimination. Dr. Cowan stated it sounds like the will of the Committee is to keep this as it is.
3. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Contract with Southwest Infectious Disease Associates (SWIDA) of Joliet for Consultant at Sunny Hill Nursing Home (Nick Palmer)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Kenneth E. Harris, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
4. Disc Re: Compliance with Illinois Noxious Weed Law (David Dubois)
Mr. Dubois stated this on the agenda today to request assignment to the Land Use Committee. This was brought to the County’s attention and our department has picked it up to get the ball moving. There are a variety of issues under the statute that the County needs to address; which department will take it. There are also compliance and standard procedures that need to be addressed. In other counties, a variety of departments deal with this; some it is the Land Use, Zoning, Health Department, Highway Department and some contract it out to the local extension. There are a lot of things we need to talk about from a statutory level and also consult with the State’s Attorney’s Office to help on how to be proceeding. This is just a request for assignment.
Mr. Gould stated if you look through the archives Will County actually had a noxious weed and thistle committee in the 1960’s and 1970’s and back then it was handled by the Highway Department. Maybe someone can check that out.
Mr. Moustis stated before we assign this, we should have a discussion on what area is going to do the enforcement and compliance going forward. Is it going to be Land Use? Highway? A combination? Other enforcement? Will it be the Health Department? Over the years these type of issues have gone to Public Health Committee to address. It seems Land Use would make sense for enforcement. Where is it going to go? I don’t assume it should just go to Land Use.
Dr. Cowan asked Mr. Gould if he had a preference for the Committee to handle this?
Mr. Gould indicated he would be willing to take it on. When it comes to terms of doing the work and performing what needs to be done, it could fall under multiple things. It might be most logical for the Highway Department to get involved with the ditches and weeds on the roadside. It might make sense for Public Health or Land Use to be involved in another situation. Maybe we need a little more input from Mr. Dubois and others on how to proceed. It may not just be one Committee, because it could affect multiple departments.
Mr. Moustis stated as far as going through the Ordinance, I like the Public Health Committee. The Land Use Committee already has a full plate. I think Public Health & Safety could more thoroughly have a discussion and bring people in. From their they could make a recommendation on enforcement. From a County perspective these type of weeds are in our ditches; not just the County’s but also the township and municipalities. I look at some of the Ordinances from other counties that say the townships and municipalities will do the enforcement and mediation. That would be an unfunded mandate to the local government. I think Public Health & Safety would have more time to devote to it. The Public Works Committee usually has a full agenda. In the past when it came to weed cutting Ordinances and burning of landscape debris, usually the Public Health & Safety Committee listed to those issues.
Mr. Dubois stated this is why we brought this to the attention of the Executive Committee was for this discussion as to the responsible party. To be fair to Ms. Olenek and Mr. Ronaldson, I have not reached out to them to go into detailed discussion. We are bringing this forward to start the discussion and address it. We currently have one complaint. We have been contacted by the Department of Agricultural. Our department is taking this up and pursuing it. We have consulted with Will/South Cook and NRCS for assistance because we do not have the expertise in-house to deal with this. We are working to address the particular complaint. We need to address this because it is a statutory requirement and JCAR has rules. In my 20 plus years with the County, this is the first time I have had knowledge of a complain like this coming through the County that ended up in our office. This is something we have to address.
Ms. Ventura stated it seems like there are a couple of issues here; first is setting the policy mandated by the stated, second is doing the work and third is enforcement. It seems to me going to Land Use for the policy would make sense since that is where we set our land use policies. With regard to doing the work we don’t have the expertise, but we do have a Forest Preserve with the expertise. I would suggest contracting out those services. I don’t know if that would go through the Transportation Department or whatever department is up for discussion on how those dollars would be allocated. Lastly, is the enforcement. If most of the noxious weeds are on the roadside it would make sense the enforcement is done by the Land Use Department or DOT. This seems to be a policy for the land and should stay at Land Use and they could consult with the Health Committee. I brought this up at Land Use that we should be working with the Forest Preserve and earlier I asked Mr. Schultz about that since some Board Members have a concern using BT toxins and the affects they have on public health. That might be a worthwhile conversation. The Forest Preserve is doing a testing program in the spring and before we set policy we might want to wait for some of those experiments to be done first.
Mrs. Traynere stated I understand why Ms. Ventura would mention the Forest Preserve and I was going along with that. Then I realized the Forest Preserve when they have a problem with weeds and invasive plants it is because they are at the preserve and they know about the problem and they are there on a regular basis, they do not police the regular roadways. They don’t actually do the work to eradicate those weeds they contract it out. I don’t know if it makes sense to have the Forest Preserve do the work as much as I thought. The information in our packet mentions we have to have an action plan. I would like to know when was the last time we had an action plan? Was that in the 1960’s? The newspaper publishing I get, but I am not sure that makes sense in todays’ world. There are not a lot of newspapers. There is no newspaper that covers Bolingbrook and we are the second largest village in Will County. Number three says an annual activity report should be sent to the Illinois Department of Agricultural detailing the number of complaints. Is that complains from the public? What does that mean? Then it continues about the control authority which is defined as the governing body of each county; is that us? I just want some clarification on number 3.
Mr. Dubois stated as far as the control authority, it is the County that would be the agency that would submit the annual activity report. The activity report is a compilation of complaints, not only within unincorporated Will County, but also if there are municipal and townships complaints they have addressed. It is very comprehensive.
Mrs. Traynere asked when is the last time we did such a report? I would really like to have someone report back when we did an action plan. Who handled it the last time it was completed? I think that would tell us a lot about how we want to move forward.
Mr. Dubois replied I have no knowledge of that. I asked the State Department of Agricultural how many counties filed the annual reports and they reported the compliance is about 50%.
Dr. Cowan asked Mr. Van Duyne if he had an opinion on whether this matter should go to Transportation or Health Committee.
Mr. Van Duyne indicated he had no opinion. If staff determines it should go to the Transportation Committee then absolutely. Let’s find out what staff has to say.
Mr. Ronaldson stated I am vaguely aware of the noxious weed law. This is the first I have heard of it. I am not aware of any of the previous County Engineers dealing with it. We can look in our files, but I am betting we will not find anything on it. It is a big thing to tackle.
Dr. Cowan asked to we need to decide today which Committee this will go to?
Mr. Dubois responded it is whatever Committee wants to initiate the discussion regarding the matter. If Land Use gets into it and determines it needs to go to Public Health it could go over to that Committee to finish it. I just think we need to get the parties to the table and figure out how we are going to deal with it and then we will move on it. This was to initiate this and get it assigned so we can figure out which direction we want to go.
Dr. Cowan stated Mrs. Adams is going to do some digging in the files to figure out where it was before. Is it a problem if we wait and do the research to determine where it is going to go?
Mrs. Adams stated we would be working towards getting some type of compliance put together. If I work with Mr. Dubois, Mr. Ronaldson and the Health Department we can see what we find out and bring it back in October with more information, would that work?
Mr. Dubois replied that is fine. We can start working toward a goal of creating a framework for this. We are still going to be working on the complaint we received regardless, we will not let it go. We are working within our CS on that. I don’t think if there is a delay of 30 days, I don’t think there is huge consequence on that.
Dr. Cowan stated I think taking some time to do the research and answer these questions and look at what we did the in the past and see if it makes sense now is a question in itself. We will bring this back in October.
Mrs. Ogalla asked this seems like a very difficult task because there are weeds everywhere. I don’t know how we can control this. Why were we notified of this problem from the Illinois Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Dubois replied the County received a notice of noncompliance that we were not fulfilling our statutory obligations under the Illinois Noxious Weed law. There are JCAR rules as well. We are bringing it to the attention of the board and we asked for assignment so we get into this and figure out what we need to do to get into compliance with law.
Mrs. Ogalla asked when did this become a law?
Mr. Dubois responded I don’t have the exact date, but it has been at least two decades.
Mrs. Ogalla stated this is a very complicated thing. All the residents are responsible for eradicating noxious weeds on their property.
Mr. Moustis asked could someone send us the statute on the Illinois Noxious
Weed law? What is a noxious weed?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I will give the statute to the County Board office. There is a list of weed specified in the statute.
Mr. Moustis asked do we know the purpose behind this legislation? Was it a health issue? Do they kill other plants? Was it health based or invasive species based?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I think it is a combination of issues. I think some of it is health based, such as ragweed is one of the noxious weeds. I believe certain types of thistles are considered noxious. The thistles can be toxic to farm animals, so that may be the reason it made the list. Some of them are invasive. The list of weeds is not very long.
Mr. Dubois read off the list of eight weeds.
Mr. Moustis stated we are talking about a very small list of weeds that people may be able to identify. I would like to have a better understanding of this and the rationale behind the law. It is not really a Land Use issues. When you are looking for the Committee to assign this matter to; what was the purpose of the legislation. We need to be as informed as possible.
Mrs. Tatroe stated we can look into the legislative history and see if there is any commentary on what the purpose of it was. I believe the legislative comes from even more than two decades ago.
Dr. Cowan stated this discussion was to determine which Committee should take on this matter. We have determined we are going to wait until October to get more information, answer questions and send it to Committee.
5. Awarding Bid for Mobile Generator Purchase & Install at the Will County Community Health Center (Tom Dolan)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Donald Gould, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
6. Renewing Contract for Telecommunications Time & Material (Mike Kluga, Kevin Lynn)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
7. Renewing Contract for Janitorial Cleaning Services for Various Will County Office Buildings (Mike Miglorini, Kevin Lynn)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
8. Declaring Various Equipment Surplus and Authorizing Disposal (Kevin Lynn)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
9. Supporting the Lower DuPage River WaterShed Coalition (David DuBois)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
10. Supporting the Lower DesPlaines Watershed Group (David DuBois)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
11. Authorizing a Joint Funding Agreement with United States Geological Survey (USGS) for the Operation of Will County Rain Gages (David DuBois)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
12. Authorizing the County Executive to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Midwestern Contractors for Installation and Oversight of an RNG Pipeline from the Prairie View Landfill to the MGT Interconnect Location (Dean Olson)
Mrs. Traynere stated I received an e-mail from a company suggesting that we should not own this because it would put us at a big liability. Do we have enough insurance to cover any liability for future problems? I have no problem owning it, I just want to make sure we are properly insured.
Mr. Olson stated we will make sure of that in our agreement.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
13. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Facilities Construction Agreement with Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (MGT) for the Interconnection of RNG Pipeline from the Prairie View Landfill (Dean Olson)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
14. Replacement Hires for Sunny Hill Nursing Home
(Bruce Tidwell)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
15. Replacement Hire for the County Executive Finance Department - Accountant - Added - To Be Distributed (Bruce Tidwell)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
16. Declaring a Vacancy in the Office of the Will County Coroner - Added - To Be Distributed
(Discussion)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
17. Proclamation(s)
Dr. Cowan indicated there were no Proclamations this month.
18. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. September 2020 Appointments to Board and Commissions (County Executive)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
SECONDER: Donald Gould, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Dr. Cowan asked to save space on the County Board agenda for two Resolutions regarding parking terminals. Staff is working with the Farm Bureau to schedule a tour of hemp farm and processing plant. The date will be September 23 or 24. If you are interested in joining this tour, please send Mrs. Adams an e-mail and let her know.
Motion to Save Space for Two Additional Resolutions
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
VIII. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
IX. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
Mr. Harris reminded everyone of the next Finance Committee meeting on September 15th at 10:00 a.m. when the expenses will be discussed.
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Judicial
5. Public Health & Safety
Mr. Gould reviewed the Resolutions.
6. Legislative & Policy
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Adams indicated there were no public comments.
Mr. Balich stated I have an issue with the Health Department. We have a government agency asking people to rat out their neighbors for breaking the rules. I find that to be a revert back to communist Russia. The Russian government does not do that anymore. I was appalled. How can we have the Health Department sending out a post and saying if you see someone not wearing a mask, report them. If you see a restaurant having too many people, report them. If your neighbors have too many people talking in the driveway, report them. What are we doing? I know we have no control over the Health Department, but as Board Members and as a County Board we should stand up for not allowing behavior like that in Will County.
Mr. Van Duyne stated for the record, I was disappointed with the post as well.
Ms. Olenek stated the post was removed as soon as we saw the type of responses we were getting. We made the post because the Health Department has received 243 complaints since March regarding COVID, with 101 in August along. We have receive countless complaints every single day from the general public. People will call and say they were at a particular place and no one was wearing a mask. My staff and I have received e-mails and videos from the general public, about people in bars with no masks, servers with no masks. We put this out as an attempt to inform people we are interested and this is where you need to call. We were trying to let people know we are interested. We are the one that would investigate and this is where you call. We had no idea people were going to take it to that level. I got e-mails from my staff last night that the internet was blowing up and people were getting nasty. I told them to take it down. Our intention was not to rile everyone up. Our intention was to put information out because people want to know. There are people who are sick and tired of being within the restrictions. There are food establishments tired of following the guidelines, yet other food establishments are not. That is why we were doing it.
Mrs. Ogalla stated there are so many different feelings about this issue in the general public. The post telling people to call on each other, just opens the door for too much trouble. I am glad it was taken down. The biggest problem comes from the fact we do not have clear information. Our information about this virus has changed since the beginning of time. We are not sure because the data changes daily. All we know is we have had 124,000 positive cases. Is everyone still positive on that? Today, do we have 124,000 positive cases? Perhaps since the beginning of COVID Will County has had 124,000 positive cases. Mixed information comes out all the time and we are not sure what is or is not accurate. We are told wear a mask, don’t wear a mask, it doesn’t work. That is why the public has this feeling. Then you have those who completely think it is ridiculous and they don’t want to follow any rules. You have others who feel it is very severe. Nobody knows the actual facts. I know a lung doctor and he said he doesn’t have anyone in the hospital. The lack of facts is what is causing so much trouble.
Mr. Fricilone stated I would like the Health Department or someone to give us clear information. A consortium of mayors from Will County had phone call with the governor and asked ten specific questions and no answers were given on the call. The ten questions were to receive written answers yet only three were answered. One of the questions was we want to get the numbers that are getting us into Phase 3.5. The mayors were told it is the County. Then when you call the County they say no, we are going by the Illinois numbers. I think this is retaliation for us trying to get out of the Zone 1 with Chicago. My constituents are asking me about a WJOL report, where they are hearing people are being double counted. If you are at the University of Illinois, you are tested and you put down your home address in Will County, you are counted in Will County even though you got it in Champaign. Nobody knows what is going on and they are getting angry. I would like someone to clear it up.
Ms. Olenek replied we specifically asked about the college situation. We were concerned because students go away to college, they are living there and tested there and we were afraid because their home address was in Will County they would be counted in our numbers. The answer we received was if they are a student who stays on campus, the number would be attributed to the county where the campus is located. Your questions about how do we get back to Phase 4 guidelines. I am on a Region 7 call every week and one of the questions asked of Dr. Ezike was what will it take for Region 7 to get back to Phase 4. The information we received verbally on that call was if Will and Kankakee County, as a region, could get to a positivity rate of 6.5% for three consecutive days then we would go back Phase 4. IDPH has decided to look at a positivity rate well lower than the 8%, not looking 7.5% because there is too much of an opportunity to be going back and forth. There is not a lot of difference between 7.5% and 8%. There is a lot of difference, overtime between 6.5% and 8%. If we could sustain for three days, 6.5% positivity rate, then we could go back to Phase 4.
Mr. Fricilone stated I believe all the numbers are made up. There is no one on a ventilator at Silver Cross. If you test positive, then you go back 10 days later to get tested so you can go back to work, if you are positive again is that two or one?
Ms. Olenek replied that is one case and two positives.
Mr. Fricilone asked do the two positive tests contribute to the positivity rate?
Ms. Olenek responded yes. I have been tested four times for various reasons and it has always been a negative. That helps the positivity rate. You do it to not figure out how you attain the right number, you do epidemiologically what makes sense. People can say testing people multiple times with positives skews the number, but we are testing people multiple times and we have negatives as well.
Mr. Fricilone asked does that mean we should tell all the healthy people who have no symptoms to get tested because the odds are they will not have it and then our positivity rate will go down.
Ms. Olenek stated anyone can get tested.
Mr. Fricilone stated people who are not sick are not getting tested and that keeps the rate higher. We continue to hear from people who fill out paperwork, wait in line for hours and go home before getting tested and then they get a call that they are positive.
Ms. Olenek stated that is not happening at the Health Department sites. I don’t know where it is happening or how it can be happening. If you did not get a test performed, you should not be getting results. I went to our site in Bolingbrook on Friday and got tested. I was there at 8:55, I was the seventh person in line and I was done by 9:20. If people call and complain about testing sites, the best thing for you to do is give them my e-mail address and give me the specifics or you find out the specifics of where they went. People making general comments and complaints helps nobody. If we have the details I can go back to the site and find out what is going on.
Mr. Fricilone stated I don’t believe any of the numbers anymore. It is going to destroy our businesses. Instead of going to dinner in Homer, I walk across the street to Orland Park to a restaurant full of people and it makes no sense.
Ms. Olenek stated many of our Will County people are doing that. They have been doing it throughout. I feel for the businesses. There is a definite social impact.
Mrs. Traynere commended the Health Department site in Bolingbrook. I got tested once, but have visited several times. All of the testing have been very fast including the response with my results. I was driving through my community over the weekend and I saw big parties going on and no one was wearing a mask. I stopped at two community events, under the 25 permitted people, but no one was wearing masks and they were not social distancing. I don’t know how you can go to an event with only 25 people and social distance, you cannot scream across the room. It is silly we cannot get this under control. We got what we asked for, we are out of Cook County. I am not sure that was a good thing for us. We seem to have a problem obeying the rules and that seems to cause the positivity issue. I am not going to say our Health Department is not doing their job, because I think they are.
Mr. Balich stated according to the current data; 455,618 cases, 8,433 deaths; but we are never told there are 197,136 people have recovered. There is 50,049 active cases and the population of Illinois is 12,671,821. A tiny percent of the population has been affected and died. Out of those deaths, half of them came from nursing homes. The rest of them had other contributing issues. Those deaths are a tiny fraction. What are you telling the parents of the adolescence children who are committing suicide? The suicide rate for adolescence is climbing. What do you tell the businesses owners who have been forced to shut down and they have lost everything they worked their whole life for? What do you say when they kill themselves? Should they all go on public welfare? This virus will be with us a long time because it is contagious. It is mutating to be less dangerous. I spoke to the head pulmonary doctor at Silver Cross and he told me the problem is not ventilators because no one is on them. People are coming in with mild cases of the flu. Hospitals are in trouble because people are not going there anymore. At what point will the hospitals be shutting down because they operate on having 80% of the rooms in use. Most of them are currently at 50% to 60%. This disease was a bad thing in March and April, but the consequences of the ancillary things of suicide, depression, bankruptcy is worse. If the hospitals don’t start getting people in the rooms we will have no place to go. Do you have the answer to questions like those?
Ms. Olenek indicated she had no answers.
Mrs. Ogalla stated Ms. Olenek you mentioned you were attending a meeting because you had questions on how they calculate the positivity rate. What did you learned at that meeting?
Ms. Olenek replied we had a meeting here with our epidemiologist, myself, Ms. Bilotta and a couple of members of the Intelligence Data section at IDPH and Regional Health Officer. I have followed up with them more than once, with different people, about our positivity rate and the data did not seem to match, the numbers did not calculate. At that meeting is when we found out that the raw data that the State Health Department statisticians are using to calculate the metric is not on the website. The number of tests positive really does not equal the number of cases; they are not one in the same. It goes back to what Mr. Fricilone was saying about an individual who might test positive more than once. Each one of the positive tests is a positive test, but they are only one case. There are differences in how we were looking at the data on the website and what the State was using. We pressed them to put not only the raw data but the data they are using to do the calculations on the website. I had inquiries from law enforcement, fire districts, school districts, elected officials and the general public. People are looking at the data and doing the calculations and this has to be right. In addition to the numbers, if you look at their methodology, they would have a narrative section but the methodology in the narrative did not match the method. So we asked them to please make all of this very accurate and transparent. We want to make sure everyone can look at it and understand how it is being calculated. They understand why we want to be transparent. They were having a meeting with their data team and they would let us know when they were able to make the changes on the website. I am waiting to hear from them. If I don’t hear from there today, I will contact them tomorrow and find out when they plan to make those changes to the website.
Mrs. Ogalla stated that is where a lot of the questions come from. In order to keep the positivity rate low, we need everyone who is not sick to get tested every week. People want to get back to normal and you have identified that the data is not good numbers and doesn’t match and people are not going to listen because they don’t know what to believe. It is not fair to us and mostly it is not fair to the small business owners who may be following every rule, but are all lumped together.
XI. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIII. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda (Discussion)
RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 1:34 PM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member
AYES: Cowan, Ferry, Fricilone, Gould, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne
LEFT MEETING: Brooks Jr.
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3859&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up