Will County Executive Committee Met April 1.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Mueller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Absent | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe and K. Meyers.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Executive Committee - Board Agenda Setting Meeting - Mar 11, 2021 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
1. 21-121 Establishing an Agricultural Area Committee for Will County (Colin Duesing)
Speaker Cowan stated we started this conversation at our last meeting and we are continuing discussion today on establishing an agricultural area committee for Will County.
Mr. Duesing stated there was a request for more information about how this would affect eminent domain procedures. As far as I know, that has not been addressed directly and I do not have anything new to add. The agricultural area committee is a process. It is not a zoning process, but it is like a zoning process. The ultimate decision comes down to the County Board on whether or not to approve the agricultural area. This is highly recommended by the Land Resource Plan of Will County to have these agricultural areas within the County. As long as we start the process, we can end the process and that would allow the County Board to approve or deny an agricultural area as they deem it fit. If you do not allow the agricultural area committee to proceed, we will never know.
Speaker Cowan stated it is important to know we have a clear cut recommendation from staff to move forward with this.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I am prepared to address the issue with regards to eminent domain. It was asked at the last committee meeting that we bring something forward. I have done the research and consulted with our in-house attorneys who handle eminent domain cases regularly. Nowhere in the legislation is there any verbiage prohibiting the County from filing an eminent domain case on property that happens to be in an agricultural area. Furthermore, there is a case out of the Fifth District that directly addresses this issue and I would like to read the quote, which is: “The Act does not create a barrier to eminent domain simply by virtue of the fact the property sought is utilized for agricultural purpose. Condemnation of tracks in the instant case, was not in our judgment precluded by either the statue or the policy upon which it was found”. I think that makes a lot of sense, because arguably if you had areas that completely encompassed a public improvement, there would be no way for a government entity to expand or make changes to that, if they were precluded from taking property under the eminent domain act. For instance, if it was a road and both sides of the road were agricultural property in an agricultural area, you would never be able to widen it. You may not even be able to repair it, if you could not take a temporary easement for the purposes of storing equipment on that property that would be necessary to do the paving, dig out the bedrock or whatever you needed to do for the foundation of the road. To me it makes absolute sense that you would still be able to go forward with an eminent domain. There is language in the statue that indicates public entities should try to respect these areas and I would encourage if we were in that situation, whether we were expanding a building or road that other options be explored, but I do not think it would preclude an eminent domain if that were determined to be necessary.
Mrs. Traynere stated I have a question about the process; it says the committee would consist of a County Board Member, but later in the statute the appointing authority for the Committee consists of the County Board Chair; would that be the Speaker or the County Executive?
Mrs. Tatroe replied that would be the County Executive.
Speaker Cowan stated it is the statutory responsibility of the County Executive. In the past, if a County Board Member was being appointed to something, the County Executive conferred with the Speaker and we worked together on that.
Ms. Mueller asked what happens to future landowners, such as the descendants of the landowner, the farmers who go to request this? Are their children able to sell this land easily in the event they pass away? Are they free to do with this land what they want, if it is trapped in one of the agricultural areas?
Mrs. Tatroe replied there is a procedure for disconnecting. There is also an obligation, under the statute that once an area is created, it must be reviewed initially after ten years.
Mr. Duesing added it is ten years for the first time and eight years thereafter.
Mrs. Tatroe stated there is a process where within that eight or ten year period the property owner may petition the County Board to disconnect from the area. They can sell the property, it just needs to be used as Ag.
Ms. Mueller asked do they petition the County Board or Agricultural Committee?
Mr. Duesing replied it would go through the Agricultural Area Committee then to County Board.
Ms. Mueller asked if the Agricultural Area Committee said no, are they allowed to go the County Board?
Mr. Duesing replied the Agricultural Area Committee is like any other committee it is a recommendation committee and the County Board makes the final decision.
Mr. Moustis stated one of my concerns is large public projects. An example was given of the road project. What happens if rather than challenge the area, they avoided going through the agricultural area? I am going to mention a couple of potential large projects that may come through Will County and whether you support them or you don’t like them or you hate them, I am going to throw them out. The Illiana is one. This could potentially keep a project like the Illiana from going through these agricultural areas, if one was established there. Rather than them trying to fight it, they may say we are not even going to do the project. The other is the airport. I don’t think it will ever get done, but how would it affect that project? How does an agricultural area affect these large projects? I hear the Farm Bureau supports this, but I have not heard from the Farm Bureau directly. I have been on the County Board, lived in Will and talked to a lot of farm folks over the years, they are not always crazy about things that potentially affect the value of their property. I think this could potentially affect or not give them the highest and best use. I would like to hear from them. People have to enter this area voluntarily, correct?
Mr. Duesing replied that is correct.
Mr. Moustis continued if they want to go in voluntarily that is really not a concern; it may be a concern of their descendants. I am concerned about how this could potentially affect the Illiana going forward, whether you like the projects or not.
Speaker Cowan stated if it doesn’t protect people from eminent domain and they can change it at any time; I don’t understand what the purpose is.
Mr. Duesing responded the biggest, direct impact is the avoidance of ad valorem taxes. This is where a municipality comes in on one side of the road and puts in sewer and water, they can charge the adjoining property owners, whether or not they are in the municipality, a fee to have sewer and water adjacent to their property. This provides protection from that; the municipality could not charge the adjoining property owners a fair share of the sewer and water project. One of the cases I was part of in Kendall County, was when the Chicagoland Speedway was proposed to be in Kendall County. The property owners in that area started putting land into the agricultural areas to avoid that development coming into their particular area. It would affect not only public projects, but private projects.
Mrs. Tatroe stated under the legislation it does restrict the ability of local governments to regulate the property, which would be through zoning or building. There are already restrictions for limiting governments from imposing building standards on Ag, but it would further limit some of that regulation.
Speaker Cowan stated let’s say I am a landowner and Chicagoland Speedway comes in and says we want to buy your land to build the speedway. I look around and my neighbors are refusing to sell, so I can’t sell because the speedway is not going to get all the land they want so they are not going to be able to build the speedway, whether or not I want to. That is because the individual landowners are saying no, I don’t want to sell. How is that changed in anyway by people putting in an agricultural area restriction on their land?
Mr. Duesing replied it is an impediment. It is a speedbump to future developers at least during the first ten years or eight years thereafter. It is basically a declaration; if you want our land you have to jump through additional hoops and it would be up to the County Board to make that decision and not necessarily a municipality that annexes.
Speaker Cowan stated I don’t see a functional difference. The ad valorem taxes, you are saying that without the request or wish of the landowner, a municipality can come, put infrastructure across the road and charge taxes to the adjacent landowner.
Mr. Duesing replied yes, they charge the landowner a fee.
Speaker Cowan asked even if they are not connected to the system? Mr. Duesing replied correct.
Mrs. Tatroe stated it would be a special service area.
Mr. Moustis stated I am not aware that has ever happened where a fee was charged. I suppose it could happen, but a special assessment area is an area that could take in more than the municipality. That is a whole different thing. If you are saying they cannot be part of a special assessment area; I am not aware of it ever happening. I think it is a stretch Mr. Duesing.
Mr. Duesing stated it is in the statute.
Mr. Moustis continued it is in the statute, but it is a stretch that it actually happens. It may be in the statute, but as a practical matter, I am unaware of it ever happening. I think part of what this is about and you basically said it; it is a road bump and it impedes potential development. That is one of the areas I am looking at, this is antidevelopment. This is to basically, potentially say we are going to slow development in these areas. It impedes municipalities from perhaps developing or annexing areas to develop. Maybe I am just not understanding this.
Mr. Duesing stated that is the whole point of the County Board making the decision. If the County Board feels this is going to severely impede development, they can deny the request. If they believe it is going to preserve agricultural use for at least ten years, it should be approved. It is still up to the County Board to make the determination.
Mr. Moustis stated it is an extra hoop they have to jump through to get themselves out to develop.
Mr. Duesing stated if in ten years the County Board sees this is going to be a severe impediment they can say no.
Mr. Moustis stated landowners have to petition to get into this agricultural area. You could have one parcel really impact other parcels, because of the way it is strategically positioned within an area. It can potentially affect other properties that are not in the agricultural area from moving forward with development because maybe it slices through or whatever it may be. I just don’t really see the purpose.
Mr. Duesing stated the cases I have seen, the people who want to do this usually have a high capital cost on the property with structures and heavy equipment. An example would be a dairy or hog farm. Other than the ones in Will County, I have never seen one that is just tilled farmland. Most of the others I have seen, have always been something with a lot of development on the property and they don’t want to lose that ability.
Mr. Moustis stated that makes senses. It is interesting you said you have not seen it applied to farms being tilled. There was a time when we had a lot of hog and dairy farms, but I don’t know if we have any left. For me, it is more an uncertain thing. I am trying to weigh the pros and cons and at this point, I just don’t see a lot of pros. It might just be me not understanding it.
Mr. Duesing stated think about it as a zoning case and they are looking for a super A-1 property, does that help you?
Mr. Moustis stated I am still weighing whether this is a positive or negative thing for us.
Mr. Brooks asked can you explain the ten year term?
Mr. Duesing explained when an application comes in and is approved by the County Board, the agricultural area is set for a ten-year period and it is automatically renewed every eight years, if the property owner does not request the discontinuance of it. The plan is set for the first ten years and then the owner can discontinue and it goes through the process and is dissolved. If they continue it for ten years, then it is an eight year cycle.
Mr. Brooks stated the County Board has passed many Resolutions, many of them for five years out. However, every year they are assigned to a committee to review and relook at. Is that an option?
Mr. Duesing replied it would not be. This is property owner initiated and it is up to the property owner. If there becomes a point within that ten years that there needs to be a disconnect, they can apply to disconnect as long as the threshold of area remains. The threshold of area in Will County is 100 acres. As long as it does not drop below that 100 acre minimum, they can apply for disconnect within the eight or ten year period.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I support this. One reason is that particular area is experiencing major infrastructure issues and a lot of it is created by the industrial use that is growing there. We have damage and high use to the roads in that area primarily trucking and semis. The community has been very vocal about the issues they are dealing with as the area continues to be developed. Do we know what our revenue is from these industrial businesses? The speedway sold some of the land and that is going to be developed as an industrial business leading to more transportation issues. We talking about all of the major roadwork we need to have done and the bigger, heavier trucks are all part of a dynamic conversation we are having. My concern is the financial impact of allowing this industrial base to grow. The other reason I support an agricultural area is because it gives us an extra layer of transparency for the community and the taxpayers so they understand the changes that may be coming; they can come forward, share their concerns with us, which we should be available to hear those concerns. When we moved to Naperville, within eight years or so, all of the local farmers had left. They left because they told us when their parents died they could not afford to keep the property because of the taxes and the costs. They sold and moved to Oswego or some other county where they could buy their land and it was much more reasonable. I would like Will County to help protect and maintain the diversity of resources we have in our county and one important part of that base is agricultural. That is one reason I support this. I don’t think this is a hindrance for some company that comes in and has a lot of money and wants to build here. I don’t think this is going to be a hindrance to them, but it does provide an extra step and opportunity for our residents and the landowners to get the support they need and not be bullied by somebody that has a whole lot of money. Do you have any information on the revenues we get from all the big warehouses and trucking companies?
Speaker Cowan replied we have revenue reports about our tax base. We can connect you with that in another conversation. I am sure Mr. Palmer would be happy to get that information to you. Also, just to clarify, when Mr. Duesing and I were talking about the Chicagoland Speedway we were talking about it in its proposed location in Kendall County. He was talking about a theoretical situation that happened in Kendall County, not about where the Chicagoland Speedway is now or anything about that.
Mr. Van Duyne asked can you remind us why this ended up on our agenda and who it came from? Was it from a small group of farmers? Was it from the Farm Bureau?
Mr. Duesing replied I had inquiries from two separate farmers from throughout Will County that want to participate in the agricultural area process that the statute provides. Since we do not have an Agricultural Area Committee currently set we need to set one up through the Executive Committee to start the process and that is why it is on the agenda today.
Mr. Van Duyne clarified you are saying two individual farmers brought this to your attention and you put it on this agenda.
Mr. Duesing replied correct.
Ms. Mueller asked are there areas being considered for this? I heard Mrs. Berkowicz bring up areas and I did not think there were specific areas defined at this moment; are there?
Mr. Duesing replied yes there are. There is one agricultural area in Peotone Township that has been set up since the 1990’s and there are two current landowners that would also like to participate.
Ms. Mueller stated as a person who is currently in the process of dealing with property from deceased parents, this extra layer of work it would take would really be discouraging for me and I think it would be for a lot of people. I appreciate what they are trying to do, but it feels like calling this an extra layer of transparency, is calling it your right to look at what I am doing with the land I own and that is a really hard one for me to swallow. I will keep listening.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Mr. Van Duyne to move this item forward to the County Board with no recommendation from the Executive Committee.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
(Mimi Cowan)
This item was discussed after Item #3 under Old Business.
Speaker Cowan stated we have a couple of topics under this heading. We are working on this in a number of areas on the County Board and the County in general. I think the American Rescue Plan will overlap with some of this. I think the discussion of the cannabis allocation, which we will have later as an assignment, is probably going to overlap with this. Since last fall the CED, has been working on some outreach. Mr. Palmer is going to connect with them and see where they are with that and how we can continue to work with them. We want the community to know this is a priority for the County Board and we are going to have more information in the coming weeks and months. I want to keep the conversation open with Board Members. I have some ideas about some things I would like to discuss and potentially move forward with. I want to see if anyone else has other ideas and things we can move forward with. Some of these things will fall under Diversity & Inclusion Manager or whatever the position is titled. There has been some background things happening on that in the last few days and I wanted to pull back the covers and let everyone know what is going on with that. As you know, we put out the RFQ a couple of weeks ago. The applications were due on Friday. I talked to a number of you about serving on the Committee that would review and rank the proposals and give authority to the Executive’s Office to negotiate, based on our ranking of the proposals and they would typically come back to us with a contract we would approve. However, the Executive's Office has decided to pursue a different procedure. They are managing the process and are targeting interviews for next week sometime. They have invited two County Board Members to join in the process. I made the decision to have our Chair and Vice-Chair of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee. If there are only two Board Members it made sense to have it be them. Both Ms. Tyson and Ms. Winfrey agreed to be part of that process with the Executive’s Office. I wanted to be open and transparent about what has been going on and where that stands right now. Do any Board Members have questions about that?
Mr. Fricilone asked are we going to be able to see the applicants and the information they get on the people who have applied for us to be aware of what is going on? We are not going to comment on the initial interviews because you have the two Board Members on there, but we are going to be having advice and consent on this? It would be nice to see the applications and see, in our minds, why one person was picked over others.
Speaker Cowan stated I requested the packets from the Executive’s Office last night. The County Executive told me she would direct that they be sent to me this morning. I have not checked yet to see if that has happened, but that is my understanding.
Mr. Moustis asked are we actually hiring an employee? The reason I am asking is, if we are hiring a consultant, if we are hiring a firm or an individual consultant, that does go through us for review and ranking. If it is an employee, that is the responsibility of the Executive’s Office. I wanted to clarify this is going to be a regular employee. Will it be a temporary or permanent employee?
Speaker Cowan replied perhaps Mr. Schaben would like to address this, but our direction was this is a consultant and not an employee.
Mr. Schaben stated this is a consultant. We are just finishing up the ranking matrix for everyone to see how the applicants will be ranked. That will come along with the applications as well.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t want to throw a wrench into the works here, but if it is a consultant, that is a County Board process and it is not a County Executive process. The County Board would interview consultants and rank them. The County Executive hires employees, not consultants. When I hear the Speaker say the Executive’s Office changed the process, I don’t think so. I would ask for clarification from the State’s Attorney’s Office. I don’t think the Executive is necessarily prohibited from hiring consultants on their own, if they have the money within their own budget to do so. For me, it is about the responsibilities of the County Board and the responsibilities of the Executive’s Office. The Executive’s Office does not necessarily dictate the process to the County Board. Quite honestly, it is the exact opposite; the County Board directs the Executive’s Office, the Executive’s Office does not direct the County Board. I would like some clarification on this from Mrs. Tatroe.
Mrs. Tatroe stated under the Professional Services Selection Act it does say the public, I don’t think it is entity, it is a different word, but basically, it is referring to the government body, will rank the various applicants when you are dealing with a consultant that is a professional service. I am not clear on what we are doing here either.
Mr. Moustis stated this started out as a County Board process to put out an RFQ. Then we interview and rank the applicants and then we turn it over to the County Executive’s Office to negotiate within the ranking. If I understood the Speaker correctly, she said the Executive’s Office decided to use a different process. In my view, the way the executive form of government is set up, it is not the pervue of the County Executive, it is the County Board that does the ranking. Then the County Executive negotiates. I respectfully disagree with the County Executive’s Office saying they are changing the process. I don’t think they have the ability or the authority to change the process.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I don’t recall what the Resolution provided. Was this a position that was moved under the Executive’s Office?
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think we decided. We understand that once the person is hired it is under the Executive’s Office, but the ranking process and the recommendation to hire comes from the County Board. The Executive’s Office is changing a process we have used since I have been on the Board. I have to stand up for the authority of the County Board, which is, it is our responsibility to rank them and then the County Executive negotiates and if they have a successful negotiation, they bring it back to the County Board for approval. It is not up to them to decide what the process is, it is the County Board’s decision on the process.
Mr. Fricilone stated the way I remember it, we decided we were going to bring a consultant onboard who was going to do a study to see what we need to do. Then if needed, hire a full-time or part-time Diversity Coordinator; but we were hiring the consultant to do the study. Hiring someone permanently or full-time was not what the Board decided. We need to find out what we need first and in order to do that we need to do the study and that is what the consultant was for.
Mr. Palmer stated Mr. Fricilone is correct. We went back and forth on this over the last six months or longer. The recommendation coming from the Committee and it was not a resolution, but the Committee reviewed and there was a lot of discussion at Committee of the RFQ, which spelled out the process we were going to follow. It included a combination of Board and County Executive reps to do what we have done in the past. It may not be required by law, but is the process we have followed when we hired other consultants that serve a broader interest, we have had a joint committee to interview and rank and through a resolution it becomes the Executive’s responsibility to negotiate the final scope and terms, then they come back to the Board. This is what we had discussed previously with the Executive and Mr. Schaben.
Mr. Moustis stated this is a County Board process and we should continue that process. It is a process we have used for the 30 years I have been on the County Board, under the executive form of government. The Board should not give up its responsibility and authority in such matters. It is a County Board process. When I hear the Executive’s Office decided to change it and they only want two County Board Members on it; no. The Speaker should select a County Board committee to interview applicants, rank them and then give the Executive our ranking. That is the process we should stick to. I don’t think we should move forward with any other process. It is not the way we have done it in the past and certainly, if we let the Executive’s Office decide how we are going to hire consultants, we are changing the process we have used for 30 years. It is up to the County Board, we decide.
Ms. Winfrey stated I agree with Mr. Moustis and Mr. Fricilone. I have not been here 30 years, only 12, but that is my recollection and that is how we have done this in the past. I am happy to be on the review Committee and I appreciate Madam Speaker you asking me to do that, whichever way we end up. Typically, the process is opposite of what has most recently been proposed. It is typically a majority of County Board Members with representation from the County Executive’s Office not the other way around. Unless there is something I am missing here, I am not sure that I understand why we would need to change that.
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Schaben when you spoke earlier you said the ranking criteria is being created, but that is obviously being done without the input of County Board Members. I have some concerns about that. I think it would be important and appropriate to include them in the process of creating the standards by which the applicants are going to be evaluated.
Mr. Schaben stated to address a couple of things, the funding for this consultant is in the County Executive’s professional services line, so it is within our budget. That was done under the previous County Executive during the budget negotiations last year. I am referencing the Will County Purchasing Ordinance, Section 41.015 Authority and Duties it is the responsibility of the County Executive to conduct pre-bid and pre-award conferences as necessary in cooperation with requesting County agencies. If that is what was done in the past it was certainly not a practice that was falling within the governing ordinance of this procedure. I would be happy to send that around to all the County Board Members that have any questions about what we are referencing for this process.
Speaker Cowan stated I want to address something Mr. Schaben said, as a point of clarification; that is what the statute says but we have opted for a slightly different process in the past. The County Board is not asking what the statute says, but why the process has been changed. There is no legal problem with how the process has been handled before. Whether or not the statue allows for the Executive to take this process, I think people are confused about why the change.
Ms. Mueller stated I was going to clarify that as well and reiterate Mr. Moustis’ point; I want an opinion from the State’s Attorney’s Office, since they are our legal counsel about the legalities of it. Again, if anyone can tell us why it is being changed that would be great. I have huge concerns about the ranking criteria and who is choosing what criteria fits what we are looking for here. This is a specific type of work and the criteria is not going to be your typical criteria. I want to know how that is being decided.
Mrs. Traynere stated the statute you just read says “county agency”. I do not consider the County Board a county agency. We are an elected body and an entity unto ourselves.
Mr. Fricilone stated no matter what Mr. Schaben is saying, we decided to hire a consultant, the County Board did. We were moving forward with hiring a consultant, the Executive’s Office doesn’t just take over from what we planned to do. That is what we talked about, hiring a consultant, not asking the Executive to hire one.
Mr. Moustis stated I want to repeat what Mr. Fricilone just said; this is a County Board process. We decided to hire a consultant, not the County Executive’s Office. I don’t think the area he quoted on the purchasing ordinance is applicable to hiring a consultant. Let me say, if it is a problem, we will change the ordinance. I would recommend we clarify the purchasing ordinance. The County Board can change the purchasing ordinance to clarify this does not necessarily pertain to consultants or to the County Board process for consultants or whatever language we would have to come up with to amend the County Purchasing Ordinance to make it more clear what we meant. I don’t think what Mr. Schaben quoted was necessarily for the hiring of consultants or the process for hiring consulting; a process that has been well established in past practices of the County, the County Board and the Executive’s Office. If it is a problem, I recommend we clarify the purchasing ordinance to make it clear. I think the purchasing ordinance deals more with the purchase of goods and so forth.
Ms. Tyson stated as Chair of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee, we voted to hire a Diversity & Inclusion consultant; so don’t we have the right to make the decision of who we want? Doesn’t the County Board as a whole get to vote on this?
Speaker Cowan stated even if the Executive follows through with this course of action, they would have to bring the contract to us and we would, as a whole County Board vote on whether or not to execute the contract. Mrs. Tatroe is that correct?
Mrs. Tatroe replied contracts would definitely have to come back to County Board. Due to the nature of this question, I would prefer to respond with a written opinion. I will do that and we will get it done posthaste.
Mrs. Traynere stated I want to reiterate what I said before; Mr. Schaben specifically read “county agency”, the Board is not an agency.
Ms. Ventura stated I think everyone has made some good points. Mrs. Traynere I think your point is well taken, if it doesn’t apply it doesn’t apply. I also agree with Mr. Fricilone, this is a County Board hire not an Executive hire. Speaker Cowan, to your point, the contract needs to come before the Board to be approved. I think it is important to make sure we all follow the three branches of government and make sure we have our checks and balances and we are following the procedures and interpreting the policies correctly.
Mr. Schaben stated just to clarify, we are not the ones hiring the consultant. The committee will be the ones that will make the recommendation to move forward. The firm put forward will go to the Board and the Board will make the decision to move forward, not the County Executive’s Office. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Moustis stated the County Executive’s Office is doing the ranking and that is the point. They are putting a committee together to review and do a ranking, not the County Board. If the Executive’s Office wants a smooth process they would not deviate from what we have done in the past.
Speaker Cowan asked who is on the Committee as the Executive’s Office is planning this?
Mr. Schaben replied Ms. Tyson, Ms. Winfrey and the County Executive.
Mr. Moustis stated one of the reasons we have the process we have and one of the reasons I object slightly to what the Executive’s Office is proposing, our process is an open, transparent process. It is open to the public, it is not in a backroom somewhere with a few people making the decision. That is the other reason we have always done the process we have in the past because it is a transparent, public process. The meeting is posted, done in the public, people can come and watch if they choose. In my view, it takes away the transparency of the process we have used for many, many years and it is the reason I think our process has been a good one.
Speaker Cowan stated I will add our process is a bipartisan process in that we have more Board Members weighing in on something they will eventually be voting on in a bipartisan fashion. In addition, to being an open and transparent process.
Mr. Moustis stated very good point Speaker Cowan, because all County Board Members can attend.
Ms. Winfrey stated typically we have five people not three so we have a mixture of County Board people voting. We also have in that group people from purchasing sitting in so they can give some guidance and anybody else who wants to speak so we have the room open and everybody gets to participate if they choose. The Committee is actually doing the selection, but the packets are there and anybody can see the presentations, can hear what is going on and have an understanding of what is being offered and who the candidates are. I support us continuing with the process we have used successfully the 12 years I have been here and as I understand from Mr. Moustis the 30 years he has been here.
Ms. Mueller stated I agree with Ms. Winfrey and Mr. Moustis on this. When they speak of this being more transparent, it lends itself to my concerns of how these are being ranked and things like that. I would prefer that was done in an open process where we are all able to attend, if we so choose, like we have in the past. I would support that moving forward as well.
Mr. Brooks stated I agree with Ms. Mueller, Mr. Moustis, Ms. Winfrey and everybody else. That is a very small committee Mr. Schaben mentioned. Ms. Winfrey clarified a lot of things. Even though it sounds like a three member committee, during the process does any other County Board Members have the opportunity to ask a question even though we are not on the Committee?
Mr. Schaben replied the process would be for County Board Members, if you have questions you would like to be asked, to submit them to any person on the selection committee. It is not a matter of transparency, we had concerns about Open Meeting Act violations by having too many members who were part of the Diversity & Inclusion Committee. We would be open to increasing the size of the Committee assuming not all members were on the Diversity & Inclusion Committee to avoid the issue of an Open Meetings Act violation.
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Brooks, I believe the answer is no, you would not be allowed a live interaction with the process. Mr. Schaben you are saying you are willing to make it larger, but what many Board Members are saying is, if it was on the Board side we do this as an open meeting, so there is no OMA violation because it is open and transparent. I don’t think that addressed the topic.
Ms. Tyson stated I agree with everyone. I heard Mr. Schaben say they are agreeable to widening it to more than three people for the review process. That is a start, we need to open it up for more people so we have more voices to talk about the hiring of the consultant.
Speaker Cowan stated I believe Mr. Schaben is correct, if it is not an open meeting that anyone in the public can attend, we are going to have a tough time opening it up to more than two committee members.
Mr. Moustis stated Mr. Schaben you are making my point. You want a closed, behind the door process, not open to the public. We have always used an open process, open to the public. When you say you don’t want to violate the Open Meetings Act that is because you don’t want to have an open meeting and that is one of the things I object to. We have always had it as an open meeting, not as a backroom meeting. We were transparent so everybody could see what was going on. A record is kept, minutes are taken and so forth. You made the point of why we should not go forward with the process the Executive’s Office is proposing. We, the County Board, want an open process, open to the public and a public record kept of the process. What you are suggesting is we don’t have a public process. That is one of the things I have difficulty with.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am going to agree with Mr. Moustis. I will be voting no on any advice and consent about anybody who comes out of a backdoor meeting. If it is not open and transparent, I am voting no on whoever it is, I don’t care what the qualifications are. I am not getting in the middle of that. We have never done that during my eight years here and I am not going to start that now.
Mr. Moustis stated I am with Mr. Fricilone and I will be a no also.
Mr. Brooks stated it sounds to me there needs to be some more homework done. There are a lot of unanswered questions and I don’t want to take up a lot of time with the floor. Is it possible to move this item to the next month? I think there are a lot more questions that need to be answered. Some people don’t feel comfortable about moving this forward.
Speaker Cowan stated we are not taking a vote today. This was just informing you the process was changed.
Mr. Brooks asked we are not moving this to the full County Board? Speaker Cowan replied we have nothing to move forward right now.
Ms. Ventura stated along with Mr. Moustis and Mr. Fricilone, I will be voting no regardless of the name put forward if this is a backroom deal. I am absolutely, positively against that and there is no way I feel comfortable voting for that. That is not what the taxpayers elected us to do and the process needs to be clear, transparent and public.
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Brooks to your point, we obviously need more information. As Mrs. Tatroe stated she will provide us with a written opinion on this and we will make sure we get that out to County Board Members as soon as Mrs. Tatroe is able to provide that to us.
Mr. Moustis asked why would we, the County Board abandon our process because the Executive’s Office wants to do another process? I would say we should continue our process. If the Executive wants to go through her additional process go ahead. If you want to give us your recommendation from your process, go ahead. But, we should not abandon our process. We should go forward with the County Board process and that is we put out an RFQ, we put a selection committee together and we move forward regardless of what the Executive’s Office is doing. I just want us to move forward with the County Board process we started. Let’s just keep moving forward with the County Board process.
Speaker Cowan stated thank you Mr. Moustis for your suggestion. I believe Leadership will discuss and consider that.
Speaker Cowan continued under this heading of minority business participation, we are working on this on a number of fronts. We don’t have to make a motion on this today, but I would like to get input from folks today. The State has a business enterprise program (BEP) and it assists businesses owned by minorities, women and people with disabilities to gain access to the State of Illinois procurement process. I am wondering if there would be some sentiment on the Board that we could work with the State to use the list of businesses they qualify in the BEP that we could rely on? We could somehow accept that as the list we use to identify minority, women and disabled owned businesses and I think veterans are on there too. That way, rather than creating a huge administration and administrative process within the county that would cost us a lot of money to vet organizations, we could formally accept the State’s list and then help our local business owners get on that list. Is there any feedback on that? Does anyone have an opinion, thought or comment?
Ms. Winfrey stated I agree, let’s use that list. Along with that, let’s share the list with some of the local agencies and organizations so they can look at it and if they know people who fall into those categories they can arrange for them to add their names to the list. Then we can gradually broaden it through the use of our different neighborhood organizations. We have AABA, Illianza, the NAACP and a number of groups that can add to the list so we don’t need to start from scratch, but we can enhance the list by engaging some of our other local groups to help us with that.
Speaker Cowan stated I think that is a great idea and exactly what I was trying to give life to. I think that is a great route to go.
Ms. Tyson stated I agree with Ms. Winfrey. Often times the government might miss out on some people because they did not make it in time to get on the list. It will be nice that we are not excluding people. If someone comes to us who did not get on the list, we can vet them with other community groups and get them on the list. This will prevent us from excluding anyone.
Ms. Mueller asked when we are helping people get on the list, will that open them up to more business outside of our county since they will be on the State list? Do other counties use the list, as you are suggesting?
Speaker Cowan replied I don’t know if other counties use the list, but we could find that out. It would help them be able to get business from the State at the very least. The CED has done some programs and partnered with the DCEO to help people get on the list. They take them through the process, because it is a whole application process and we all know how onerous that can be. We could potentially work with CED or DCEO or both to enhance visibility and as Ms. Winfrey said, get it out to community organizations.
Ms. Mueller stated I really like that a lot. I like the idea of piggybacking on the State and not recreating the wheel in our county, when we don’t have to. It is a much more efficient use of time and funds. It will help these people get more exposure with State projects. I love it. I think it is a great idea.
Speaker Cowan asked staff to follow up with myself and leadership about how we can take steps forward to help our local businesses become aware of and get signed up on the BEP at the State. Maybe we can reach out to the CED to see what we can do jointly. If we can follow up with staff on this, it would be great.
3. Coroner Staff Update - Attachment Added
(Laurie Summers)
This item was discussed after Item #1 under Old Business.
Everyday our cases are increasing, becoming more serious and more time is spent out in the field by our deputies. I have two deputies out due to injuries. They need the extra help. They were alone on cases and these were heavy cases and that is how the injuries occurred. What I have proposed is looking for another person and a half within the office and minimally three more deputies.
Ms. Mueller thanked Ms. Summers and stated your report was very informative and I can tell you put a lot of time into it. I think you need more help and I hope we can work this out for you so you can get the support you need.
Ms. Summers stated we received the e-mail and thank you Speaker Cowan, on the American Rescue Plan. The Rescue Plan talked about if you had a decrease in fees. In our case, absolutely not; we have had an increase in the dollars being brought in due to the increase in deaths and cremation permits. There are a lot more fee dollars coming into the County. The letter we sent to the funeral homes is at the back of the attachment. That took up a lot of time within the office and is very detailed in how to work hand-in-hand with them. We are trying to do everything we can to save hours and to work within the budget. I am going to do that in the office, but I desperately need help in the office. We are all working overtime and every one of us come in early, every single day to get the job done for the citizens of Will County.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I appreciate your review. It really is incredible the amount of work the Coroner has to perform. You mentioned to me when you do your toxicology reports you don’t test for cannabis use, is that true?
Ms. Summers replied no, cannabis is part of the initial toxicology we send out. There are new outlying drugs we do not screen for. We screen for alcohol, regular medical medications, to fentanyl. However, there are designer drugs we are seeing an uptick in and that is an extra test, it is not included in our 4-ANPP or 6- MAN. I got into a study to save the County money on one of the new designer drugs testing, if they see it is possibly positive, they are running that for us for free at this point of time.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked if cannabis use is attributed or shown when testing?
Speaker Cowan stated Mrs. Berkowicz I am going to interrupt you. The agenda item is about a staff update and this is specifically supposed to be a conversation about staffing at the Coroner’s Office. Your questions are very important and I think we are all concerned about drug use and addiction, but that is really not appropriate for this agenda item. It would be an appropriate agenda item in a Public Health & Safety Committee meeting. If you want to have a conversation with the Coroner about addiction, we can certainly put that on a Public Health & Safety Committee agenda.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated my question was about funding. I wanted to ask the Coroner if she feels she should get an allocation from the cannabis sales tax receipts sales to help her perform her duties.
Speaker Cowan stated that is still not an appropriate question for this particular item.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think we need to look at the American Rescue Plan and see how we can do some allocations from there. Even though you don’t have lost revenue, it seems pretty broad and we might be able to do some hiring through that plan. There is certainly a lot of money there and we are seeing that almost everything we talked about at our last meeting of the Rescue Plan, there is more money coming for those things as well. There should be a way to find the money on that. I think your report does exactly what we thought it was and it shows the need for the new morgue, which even though we have a few glitches getting it going, I think we need to get going on that pretty quick.
Ms. Summers agreed and thanked Mr. Fricilone. Mrs. Berkowicz I would be more than willing to talk to you next week if we can arrange something. I appreciate you taking time to read this and hopefully see how much of a struggle we are having right now.
Speaker Cowan stated we appreciate your time and certainly, there are a multitude of issues we need to discuss with you about health and safety in the community. Thank you for providing this update. We will certainly be having this spill over into other conversations as well.
Motion to move this subject matter to item #2 on the agenda.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated I want to thank everyone for their input during the special Executive Committee meeting last week, where we starting gathering information from County Board Members. County Board Members, if you have more ideas, please do not hesitate to send them in an e-mail to myself and Mr. Palmer. We are compiling those lists. I would encourage County Board Members to seek ideas from the public and private constituents in your district, whether that is business owners, community members or nonprofits, keep getting input from them, because we never know when that next great idea will be out there. I authored a letter, with Mr. Palmer’s help, that we sent to the other countywide elected officials and department heads, requesting the same from them. I asked them to submit, in writing, by April 9th the needs they see from their vantage point in their department and their office. We made it clear, April 9th, is not the date we want to stop hearing from them, but we want to be proactive about moving this process forward, getting some of those ideas down and start hashing out a plan. Again, department heads and countywide elected officials, please submit those ideas, in writing, to County Board staff. The County Board has the amazing duty of allocating $134 million over the next few years. None of us are happy about the circumstances, but this is quite the silver lining to that. Ms. Winfrey is reaching out to the executives at Franklin County to see if they can tell us about their family stabilization program and perhaps we can take pieces or all of it. We will set up a special Executive Committee meeting for that. We are still working on nailing down a date, but watch your e-mails. Of course, even though it is an Executive Committee meeting, I hope everyone would attend, if they can. Other funding sources are available for bars and restaurants, and childcare. Regarding the local government piece; we heard from the Executive Director of NACo that townships were going to get direct allocations. That may not have been entirely correct for Illinois. It sounds like there is a question and townships may not get a direct allocation, it may end up being up to the county to give part of thier funds to townships. The Treasury has not quite decided that yet; so put that in the back of your minds and we can come back to that later.
Ms. Ventura stated I wanted to clarify, we brainstormed ideas at the last meeting. Do we now need to officially write those up or you are asking for additional ideas?
Speaker Cowan replied if you had other new ideas, please submit them in writing. There is no need to formally draft what we have been through.
Mr. Fricilone stated we do need more ideas. If you take a look at the infrastructure bill, which I think something will pass, almost every one of the things we talked about such as broadband, they put a bunch of money from the infrastructure bill there. We certainly, want to make sure we get that other money and not spend it all in this plan and then they tell us you don’t need any more for broadband, you did enough. We are going to have to think harder about what other things we could do. We may have to prioritize things that are not in the infrastructure bill so we are spending that money first, in case we get money from the infrastructure bill to take care of some of these other things so we can reallocate again. I think it is going to be harder than the CARES Act when we didn’t think there was any money coming and now there is money falling from everywhere. The more ideas, the better.
Mr. Moustis stated I recently heard from a couple of small manufacturers asking about our business assistance program. We did not hear from a lot of those folks under the CARES Act because many of them got PPE money and we did not include anyone who had received direct payments from the federal government.
It does not appear they are going to get direct assistance from the federal government in this round. I think we should consider doing some outreach to small manufacturers and industrial companies we did not include in the CARES program. I agree with Mr. Fricilone, we need to see what other money is going directly into infrastructure. In our next round of assistance to business we may want to do some additional outreach to those small manufacturers or industrial companies that have 15 to 20 employees.
Speaker Cowan stated I agree. I think part of our funds should be expended and focused on more intensive outreach.
Mr. Harris stated my question was mainly focused on the remaining fund balance of the CARES money. It was along the lines of what Mr. Moustis was getting at. Earlier we approved the minutes for the last Ad-Hoc Committee meeting and we discussed opening a second round for those unable to apply under the CARES money. I feel we should revisit that. I am hopefully going to get that on the Finance Committee agenda for next week to get an update on the remaining CARES funds. We are still gettng inquires about the CARES money from businesses that would have qualified had they got their application in and I think we should consider that.
Speaker Cowan stated you are right and I appreciate you putting on the Finance Committee agenda an update on the CARES funds because I think we would all like to see that specific stuff.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
Speaker Cowan asked to add the following assignments to the Executive Committee agenda: Correcting Scrivener's error in appointment to the Rockdale Fire Protection District, Realigning terms of Will County Merit Commission appointment, Authorizing agreement with Will County CAC for purposes of NCA and Parameters Ordinance for Bonds for RNG Facility.
Motion to Add Additional Assignments to the Executive Committee Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
A. Land Use & Development Committee
T. Marcum, Chair
Ms. Farrell stated we have two adjustments to our committee assignments. The first item is going to public hearing at PZC on April 20th, so it will be on the May Land Use agenda. If possible, we would like to add the building codes and fee schedule amendments, they should be going to public hearing after the April meeting. We have been discussing those for the last couple of months.
Speaker Cowan clarified you would like to have item #1 removed from the agenda?
Ms. Farrell replied that is correct. It will come back to you in May. Speaker Cowan asked do we need a motion to remove it?
Mrs. Adams replied we can leave this on the agenda for assignment and we will put it on the May agenda. It will go through the process after the public hearing this month.
Motion to Add Additional Assignments to the Land Use Agenda.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
(Colin Duesing)
2. Discussion: Exotic Animals Veterinary Services, Care and Boarding (Colin Duesing)
3. Solar Farm Review Data
(Janine Farrell)
4. Text Amendments to the Will County Zoning and Water Resource Ordinances, Will County Zoning Ordinance 155-17.10 -C, Water Resource Ordinance 164.141-C in relation to the PZC by-laws
(Brian Radner)
5. Overturning the Decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Approving Appeal #APCD-21-002, by Jeffrey Wingren, 100% Beneficiary of Wingren DG, LLC, Edward Kalina, Agent, Applicant for Zoning Case #ZC-20- 080, in Homer Township, Commonly Known as 14815 S. Gougar Road, Homer Glen, IL, County Board District #7
(Janine Farrell)
B. Finance Committee
K. Harris, Chair
Mr. Harris briefly reviewed the assignments and asked to add an update on the CARES funding to the agenda.
Motion to Add an Update of the CARES Fund to the Finance Committee Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kenneth E. Harris, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
(Susan Olenek)
2. Appropriating Funds in the Will County Treasurer's Budget for Reimbursement for COVID Related Expenses
(Tim Brophy)
3. Appropriating Grant Funds in Veterans Assistance Commission Budget (Kristi McNichol)
4. Creating Fund 2713 for American Rescue Plan and Appropriating Funds (Karen Hennessy)
5. Transferring Funds within CDBG Budget for Additional Project Managers due to Substantial Increase in HUD Funding from Stimulus Initiatives (Tim Mack)
6. Final Levy Numbers for FY 2020
(ReShawn Howard)
7. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program
(Jen Alberico/Julie Shetina)
C. Public Works & Transportation Committee
J. VanDuyne, Chair
Mr. Van Duyne reviewed the assignments. We have the opportunity to join the JULIE system which is to locate all of our underground utilities. It will save us the $630,000 fine. However, in the future we may need to hire somebody to help us complete the JULIE process.
1. Request by Speedway LLC for Highway Authority Agreement (Chris Wise)
2. Confirming Award of Contract to P.T. Ferro Construction Co. ($452,180.99), Let on March 17, 2021, Cedar Road (CH 4) Resurfacing from 159th Street South to Reiter Drive, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
3. Confirming Award of Contract to P.T. Ferro Construction Co. ($123,774.55), Let on March 17, 2021, Manhattan Road District Overlay on Various Roadways, County Board District #2
(Jeff Ronaldson)
4. Authorizing Approval of Supplemental Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering (Phase II) with Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. for Jackson Township Road District - Cherry Hill over Jackson Creek, County Board Districts #2 and #6
(Jeff Ronaldson)
5. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Membership Agreement between JULIE, Inc., and the County of Will through the Division of Transportation
(Jeff Ronaldson)
6. Granting Ingress and Egress for the New Lenox Water Resource Recovery Facility on Laraway Road (CH-74) County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
7. Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Will and the Crete Township Road District for Improvements at the Intersection of Exchange Street (CH 49) and Burville Road /Stoney Island Avenue, County Board District #1
(Jeff Ronaldson)
8. Manhattan-Monee Road: Western Monee Village limit to I-57 – Virtual Public Engagement Webinar March 30 – In-Person Open House April 7 - www.manhattan-monee-study.com
(Jeff Ronaldson)
9. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for the Cedar Road (CH 4) Resurfacing from 159th Street South to Reiter Drive, using MFT Funds ($500,000.00), County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
10. Authorizing Approval of the Expenditure of REBUILD Illinois Funds ($8,854,765.00) for the Improvements on Laraway Road (CH 74) and Cedar Road (CH 4) County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
11. 21-116 Authorizing Approval of an IDOT - County Joint Agreement for Improvements on 80th Avenue (CH 83) from 191st Street (CH 84) to 183rd Street, County Board Districts #2 and #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
12. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with Farnsworth Group on Laraway Road (CH 74) from East of Cherry Hill Road (CH 86) to West of Nelson Road, County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
13. Authorizing Approval of an IDOT - County Joint Agreement for Improvements at the Intersection of Laraway Road (CH 74) and Cedar Road (CH 4) County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
14. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for Laraway Road (CH 74) from East of Cherry Hill Road (CH 86) to West of Nelson Road, County Board District #12, Using MFT Funds ($1,089,868.00), County Board District #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
D. Diversity & Inclusion Committee
M. Tyson, Chair
Ms. Tyson stated as we have been discussing, the RFQ was put out and we have four consulting firms to interview. We will find out sooner or later if it will be the County Board reviewing it or just three people; to be determined.
Speaker Cowan stated we have some other things for discussion at your Committee coming up soon, but we will discuss that in Leadership and help you build that.
E. Public Health & Safety Committee
R. Ventura, Chair
Ms. Ventura stated we had a mass vaccination clinic open today. Some of our County Board Members are there. Thank you to Ms. Olenek for helping to arrange that. A big thank you to EMA who was very instrumental in making that happen. The National Guard is there. We will be posting photos. If this goes well we hope to see a lot more people getting vaccinated. That is the big news. At our meeting we will have our updates from Dr. Burke, Ms. McDowell and Ms. Olenek.
F. Legislative & Judicial Committee
D. Winfrey, Chair
Ms. Winfrey stated the Legislative & Judicial Committee will be discussing the updates we have been getting from Ms. Julie Curry about what is happening at the State. We will look through those and Committee Members please read through them and be ready to discuss them and how they pertain to the County.
G. Capital Improvements Committee
H. Brooks, Jr., Chair
Mr. Brooks stated I have no Resolutions to bring forth. We still have on our agenda a discussion of the morgue and the RNG facility. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend on Tuesday and Mr. Van Duyne will conduct the meeting.
Mr. Moustis asked since the State’s Attorney’s Office has advised us that we cannot use design/build at the morgue; are we going to put an RFQ out for designers? We have been using Wight for that process. Are we going to move forward with Wight & Company, which we can do as a professional service, or are we going to put out an RFQ for design? We need to make that decision to move this process along.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I reviewed an RFQ. Mr. Kevin Lynn will be putting that on the street if he has not already.
Mr. Moustis asked is that for design?
Mrs. Tatroe replied yes, for design. I think we need to bid at this point. It has been a long time since we have done an RFQ.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t disagree with that. I just wanted to make sure we are moving along to select an architectural company, so we are moving forward. Mrs. Tatroe, if I understood you correctly we are preparing the RFQ.
Mrs. Tatroe answered it has been prepared and reviewed by the State’s Attorney’s Office. It may be on the street, if not I anticipate it will be very soon.
Mr. Moustis asked Speaker Cowan if the Capital Improvements Committee is going to do the interviews? In the past, we put together a separate committee so we can include more people in the process. Are you going to suggest an interview committee on this?
Speaker Cowan replied yes, it is my intention to put together an interview committee. I will work with Chair Brooks and Leader Fricilone to constitute that committee.
H. Executive Committee
M. Cowan, Chair
Speaker Cowan stated most of the items are routine, but I wanted to bring to your attention item #2, Allocation of Will County Cannabis Revenue. We have had multiple conversations and a lot of community input on this and I want to start moving forward with this process. What I would like to do next week at the Executive Committee, is sort of parallel to what we did with the American Rescue Plan at the special Executive Committee meeting last week; which is to hear from Board Members, your ideas and priorities. I will then ask staff to compile those and put together three or four plans of action. We will then bring them back to a Committee, either Executive or possibly Diversity & Inclusion, depending on what seems to make sense; discuss those plans and then move forward with those in the next couple of months. Please jot yourselves some notes and come prepared with ideas about how we can use this cannabis revenue to improve our community. I will appreciate hearing all of your input on that.
1. Request by Speedway LLC for Ordinance Prohibiting Use of Groundwater as Potable Water Supply
(Chris Wise)
2. Allocation of Will County Cannabis Revenue
(Mimi Cowan)
3. Supporting the Extension of the Plainfield Downtown TIF District and Authorizing the County Executive to Execute the Related Intergovernmental Agreement
(Mitch Schaben)
4. Awarding Bid for Ventilator Furnish & Install Services at the Department of Transportation Administration Building
(Dave Tkac)
5. Authorizing Renewal of "Wrap Around" Professional Liability Insurance for the Will County Community Health Center
(Bruce Tidwell)
6. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Braidwood to Provide Access to the Countywide Radio System
(Thomas Murray)
7. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Village of New Lenox to Provide Access to the Countywide Radio System
(Thomas Murray)
8. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with Peotone Fire Protection District to Provide Access to the Countywide Radio System
(Thomas Murray)
IX. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
X. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
Speaker Cowan stated we requested a State's Attorney's opinion. Mrs. Tatroe do you need any more clarification on that?
Mrs. Tatroe replied no.
XI. ACCEPT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REQUESTS
Motion to Accept Committee Assignment Requests as Amended
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
Mrs. Jakaitis announced there were no public comments.
Ms. Tyson stated Ms. Freeman and I attended the grand opening at the Toys R Us mass vaccination site this morning. We took a lot of pictures and got to meet Dr. Campbell who works for IDPH. It was thrilling to see our tax dollars in progress; people working, the National Guard, the nurses, everybody was ready to work and do their job. It was quite pleasant. I want to take my hat off to Ms. Olenek and her staff. Thank you so much.
Ms. Mueller asked do we have any press release information or anything for the new vaccination site that we are able to share? That is the closest one to my district and I want to push that out and let folks up here know how to schedule themselves. Hopefully, we will be getting something soon.
Ms. Olenek stated there will be press information coming out soon. However, we opened the appointments for that site and within a few hours it booked through April 27th and IDPH took it down. At this point, no one will be able to make an appointment. You don’t want to put appointments too far out into the future. Maybe in a week or two, they will open up additional appointments. If anyone wants to make an appointment at any of the 50 sites in the County, you can go to our website, it is on the front page, left hand side, a big button “Get your Vaccine” and you can see where all the sites are.
Ms. Tyson stated don’t forget to mention you need volunteers and you are going to send us an e-mail with a link so we can volunteer.
Ms. Olenek stated I have been approached by several County Board Members, Ms. Tyson was one of them, and BOH Members; I will be sending out the link to the two groups and you will be able to go on the link and self-register for whatever site and whatever shift. I appreciate any help you can provide. I worked yesterday and the Monee site and it was wonderful. I did registration for several hours and it was really a nice feeling to get face to face with the public again. Everybody was really happy. They all had their QR codes and it went very smoothly. If you would like to help us, we would be glad to take the help.
Speaker Cowan stated I will say from experience, I went on to look at the slots available at the Wilmington site and there were voluminous amounts of slots available. If the slots filled at the Joliet location that fast, it is more indication that is where the site is really needed. Thankfully, we have that site. If you are looking for a vaccine appointment, check out the Wilmington site. Vaccines are now available for government workers and any staff listening as well, you can get your shot now. You can go to the IDPH website to see the categories and who is in 1a, 1b and 1b+. I would encourage everyone to do that and get vaccinated when you can. The County Executive sent out a press kit for County Board Members to help push out information, check your e-mails it came out a couple of days ago. There are things to help you reach out to your networks and use social media to help get the word out about these things.
XIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Speaker Cowan stated April 1st starts the new Will Be Well session. If you have the County health insurance, you need to get your screening and get your points to avoid the surcharge. I am going to make it a point to remind everyone, in every meeting, for the next couple of weeks, so we don't have the problems we had last year with people being distracted and forgetting. We had a couple of Board Members go through the NACo Leadership Academy last fall and we had people go through it earlier as well. Currently, Mrs. Berkowicz, Ms. Tyson and Mr. Palmer are going through the program. A new session will be starting in a couple of weeks. If you are a Board Member and interested in going through this program, please speak to your caucus leader about your interest. If you are a staff member, please express your interest to your department head or countywide official. Department heads and countywide officials, please reach out to me and I will help you see how you can get staff registered for this. We have focused on sending elected officials, but what we hear is a majority of the people who take the program are staff from throughout the Country. I think this is useful for staff and elected officials, especially for our staff, this is a great opportunity to enhance their ability to serve in their position. If you are interested, please reach out. Would Ms. Tyson, Mrs. Berkowicz and Mr. Palmer want to say anything very briefly about their experience?
Ms. Tyson stated to anyone who has been thinking about this, it is a good program, you learn a lot. It helps you think outside the box. It helps you think about how to talk to people and how you communicate. They constantly emphasize communication is key for everything. One of the phrases they use is “bring your own weather”.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated it is a great leadership program. It is very intuitive, it encompasses a lot of techniques and values that are very helpful, especially when you have the role as a Commissioner, speaking to and listening to all different levels of leadership and community members, etc. It is an incredible program. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in it. It is very well done.
Mr. Palmer stated it is a great program and I appreciate the opportunity also. For those who might be considering this, it is largely web based. We have two meetings, one with a small breakout, which is one hour, one day a week and then one with a larger group where you are just listening unless you are reporting out. They give you three proposed days of work, but you could do that in one day. It is very well put together, web based, lots of videos and things you comment on or think about. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is featured in this prominently. They have lots of educational and private sector leaders talking about the various topics. I would highly recommend it because it is really doable if you commit to doing it. You have to commit to doing the work weekly. It is very applicable to what we are doing, all the comments on leadership, communication and the like. It is very well done.
Speaker Cowan stated Mrs. Tatroe would you be willing to give your opinion on the agricultural area committee and eminent domain in writing so we have that.
Mrs. Tatroe replied affirmatively.
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XV. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:05 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4022&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up