Will County Executive Committee met May 13.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Pretzel led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:31 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 | Late | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Absent | |
| 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.
Speaker Cowan expressed her condolences to Mr. Weigel on the passing of his wife.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Amending Bronner Contract
(County Executive's Office)
Speaker Cowan stated to be clear, we are not looking for approval of a contract. We are looking for authorization for the County Executive to negotiate a final contract, which will be brought back to us for final approval in June. Today is when Board Members can offer suggestions to the Executive’s Office on changes you would like to see on this contract.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am concerned we are moving forward now. We just got the criteria for the American Rescue Plan. I think the Executive Committee needs to review it and look at suggestions on how we are going to move forward. How can a contract be negotiated until we decide what we are going to do with the ARP funds. In the CARES Act, we created buckets and decided how we were going to distribute it at the time Bronner was getting involved. We have $134 million; if we decide to use it strictly for housing, then we would need Bronner to do one thing. However, if we break it into 15 different buckets, for housing, for businesses and other things, then the contract would be something else. How can we give authority to start negotiating a contract when we have not decided how we are going to use the money? We are premature in giving them the authority to negotiate.
Ms. Ventura asked what are our options, if we postpone this for 30 days? Is the first contract ending, since it was for CARES money? Is there a reason we can’t wait until we decide the buckets for the American Rescue Plan?
Mr. Moustis stated I agree; we need to develop the program and the policies on how we are going to appropriate dollars. Once we set the policy and appropriate the dollars, then the County Executive administers the program. This is much different than the CARES money. We were under the gun with CARES; they dropped $121 million in our lap and told us we had six months to allocate the money. We also got the allocations for all of the taxing bodies. We needed to quickly get the money out to offset their PPE costs and other expenses. We have three years to disburse the funds. We should be looking at three-year programs, whether it is a three-year program for food or housing security or whatever, but it will be a much longer program. Leadership, the County Board and the County
Executive should sit down and talk about what we are looking for. We hired a PR firm to help with public outreach for COVID. Perhaps, the County Executive would like to continue outreach with that company and extend something with them, or it could be something else, because of the length of the program. Before we ask the County Executive to negotiate, leadership and the County Executive need to talk about scope. Perhaps it would be the scope for Bronner or the scope for another company that would take a portion of it. We need to take our time and work with the County Executive to come up with a plan on how the Executive envisions the administration of the programs.
Speaker Cowan stated I understand your points, but let me clarify a couple of points that might amend how we feel about this. I think it is pertinent between now and the Executive Committee meeting on June 3rd, that staff and leadership sit down and have some potential plans hashed out for the ARP funds. At that Executive Committee, the Committee can hash those out and make decisions on how we are moving forward with the ARP funds. If we give the authorization today, we ask the County Executive to wait until we have the scope on the 3rd and then we have a conversation about the contract, depending on what our plans are for the ARP funds. At that point, they are able to negotiate the contract with Bronner and bring it to the June meeting and finalize the contract. I am not sure if that changes how people feel.
Mr. Palmer stated traditionally, the Board authorizes a Resolution allowing the Executive to formally negotiate a contract. Occasionally, the Board has given authority to negotiate and execute, but most of the time, it is a Resolution giving the Executive the authority to negotiate. Then they come back with a draft contract and there is a Resolution authorizing an execution of the contract. In this case, the Board asked the Executive’s Office to get a draft of the contract so we can start somewhere and that is the attachment in the packet. In talking with the Executive’s Chief of Staff, that is their idea too. This is a starting point and we can wait a little longer. We have a contract with Bronner for CARES money, they are being paid out of CARES funds and the contract goes through July. Their current contract is for the CARES program and this is for the American Rescue Plan. When we launch a consultant contract, it is at the Executive’s and your discretion. If we want to hold off on doing a Resolution giving them negotiation authority, we can wait. We have multiple years to do this and we want to do this right and dig into the issues and see where we can get the best bang for our buck.
Ms. Winfrey stated I am pleased with the work Bronner has done so far. If I understood you correctly, you are looking for an agreement to have a general framework of work with them on some of the higher level elements of the outreach with the specifics to be defined after we decide what our buckets are going to be.
Speaker Cowan stated the point others made is we won’t know Bronner’s scope of work until we know the scope of what we are doing with the ARP funds. We will have conversations about the specifics of this contract after we decide the specifics of the ARP funding.
Mr. Schaben stated it sounds like everyone is on the same page. In Bronner’s proposal, they acknowledge that it is not feasible for them to provide a detailed project estimate because it depends on where the County decides to go with some of these programs. The current Bronner contract ends on July 15th. In the proposal Bronner submitted, it would be a new contract for the ARP funding starting on July 15th so they would coincide with each other. We brought this forward, after speaking with Board leadership, to map out what Bronner was proposing for their assistance with the ARP program.
Speaker Cowan asked if we waited until next month, then would it be a motion to negotiate and execute, because we want to get it done before their contract ends on July 15th?
Mr. Schaben replied it is the decision of the Board. We are not under any specific timeline to have this done. The Board will decide where we want to go with the funding. After discussions, we can determine Bronner’s scope.
Speaker Cowan clarified it will not be a problem if we wait on this.
Mr. Fricilone stated it doesn’t matter that their contract ends on July 15th. We want to continue working with them. If the new contract does not start until August, when we are ready to do something with the money, it is not a big issue. I hate voting on anything we are not ready to do yet. I think we are better off waiting for another month.
Ms. Ventura stated if you want us to give an indication of what we would like to see in the contract, we need to brainstorm. If each of us had several things we wanted to do with the money, we could have 50 different ideas and the contract would depend on those things. Their contract for CARES was a very hefty fee. With those parameters in mind, we need a special meeting or workshop to determine what we would like to do with the ARP money and then we can give direction to the Executive. When are we planning to have this workshop?
Speaker Cowan replied that is the process I just laid out. On June 3rd we are going to be presenting potential plans for discussions. If we need more than a month for the contract, we can bump it again.
Mr. Moustis stated with CARES we started from ground zero. We were into the third month before we were distributing funds to the taxing bodies, businesses, nonprofits and creating a business plan. We have time because we have a structure in place and we have a better idea of how to move forward. I would ask the Executive’s Office to look at how many of these programs could be handled internally and we would not use Bronner for all of them. As an example, Ms. Sojka does the CDBG program; she may have a program in place that she works with every day; whether it is rental assistance, homeless issues or utility issues. We have the infrastructure within the executive branch of government to do that. We might not ask Bronner to do some of the programs, because internally we are capable of doing them. The staff who work on the CDBG programs already handle millions of dollars of funding every year. I would like to have the County Executive’s Office do an assessment and depending on the programming, what could be done internally and not involve Bronner.
Speaker Cowan agreed. I think we are all onboard that we need to bump this.
Mr. Moustis continued the Executive’s Office needs to be prepared to tell us what they believe they can do internally within the executive branch.
Speaker Cowan stated that is going to have to be a large part of the conversation on June 3rd.
Mr. Harris arrived at this juncture.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/3/2021 10:00 AM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Sarah Oprzedek, Interim Pres & CEO/Vice-Pres, Operations & Development) Ms. Oprzedek thanked the County Board for their support and announced the new Director will begin on May 17th.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(County Executive's Office)
Speaker Cowan stated this is not something we need a vote on, it is for your information. Mr. Schaben is going to explain a funding issue with our capital projects.
Mr. Schaben stated in 2016 and 2019 the County authorized two bond transactions, totaling $276.4 million. The bond proceeds were to cover expenses associated with several capital projects; the Public Safety Complex, which began in the fall of 2016, the Health Department Complex, which began in late 2018, the Animal Control and EMA buildings, which started in early 2019 and the courthouse, which began in early 2019. The Capital Improvements Committee was charged with overseeing these projects. The courthouse is the only active project, but is nearing completion. There are outstanding invoices from Gilbane, the CM and retainers still owed on the projects. I am here to notify the Board that the bond funds from the 2016 and 2019 bond transactions are exhausted and that a request will be coming to cover the outstanding expenses from the corporate fund. Staff is compiling a summary on the total cost and scope associated with each capital project, which will be presented to the Board. We estimate there is $6 million in outstanding expenses for the courthouse. Staff is preparing a comprehensive overview of past major projects, in anticipation of a presentation to the County Board next month. The County Executive and County Board staff met to discuss a different reporting method for capital projects going forward, including capital summaries when presenting capital project information to the Capital Improvements Committee. The changes to the reporting method is to ensure Board Members have complete and relevant information about each project, to allow for a holistic view of the project, when decisions are being made. With multiple, active projects, it is imperative for Board Members to have a complete financial picture of each project.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have been asking for this type of report for months, going back to last year. How do we not have some kind of running total of what we are expending? The Capital Improvements Committee approved bills every month, but they were never told we were over budget. While the courthouse was being built, every time there was an additional expense, it would say on the agenda that this expense is for door locks in the amount of $25,000 and it is coming out of contingency. I don’t remember any agenda item saying we are spending money we don’t have. We were told we were doing so great that the courthouse would be at $207 million, under the original projection of $215 million. Now, it seems we are back to the $215 million and I don’t know how we got there. I sure hope, that when we get the numbers, someone will explain to us how we got here. We should have some kind of running total of the money being spent. We were told we were within budget; I don’t know what budget we were within. I hope this happens sooner than later and that we are not going to be told we have to come up with $6 million and don’t worry where it was spent. I am worried about where it was spent.
Mr. Moustis stated even though we did two bond issuances, every project was treated separately, reported separately and budgeted separately. There was never any comingling of funds between projects; they were always treated as standalone projects. All the other projects came in on or under budget, as we anticipated. It is the courthouse that has run over. At one point, towards the end of the project, we were told we would be under budget so we spent $3 million on a parking lot. We would never have spent that money if we thought we were over budget. We added projects, based on the fact we were under budget. I don’t know what happened, but it sounds like someone dropped the ball and it is going to be at the expense of our taxpayers. We would not have made other decisions had we known. It was never reported that we were over budget, ever.
Speaker Cowan stated I tend to agree. This is not a small amount of money. I would have assumed somebody would have raised a red flag and said we are heading in the wrong direction; we are over by $100,000, now $500,000 and now $1 million. I would have expected someone to bring that up before it got to this level. We have several issues; figuring out what happened, why it happened and putting in systems so this does not happen again.
Mr. Fricilone stated I don’t believe our current and past Capital and Finance Chairs had this information either. I am sure they would have brought it to the attention of everybody. It is curious they were not given anything either. I don’t know where the slip is, but we need to find it.
Mr. Brooks stated since I have been the Chair of Capital Improvements, when projects go over budget, Mr. Tkac and I have had conversations and he has brought it to the Committee. Nobody likes surprises and there needs to be a process for overseeing the projects.
Speaker Cowan stated you are right. We all know budgeting errors happen and projects go over. My dad is in the building trades and I know how with one little change, suddenly it is twice the cost and that happens. However, we did not get to the depth of an overage overnight. A heads up and warning that we were on the wrong path would have been a good idea.
Ms. Ventura stated when I was on the Capital Improvements Committee, Mr. Tuminello brought up a couple of times, even exhaustedly going over how much we got from the bonds, the costs and whether we went over the allotted amounts. From the Board’s standpoint, we have gone over those numbers in the past. Mr. Tuminello had an eagle eye on those numbers and Mr. Fricilone asked us to go through those projects line-by-line, so we knew exactly what the bonding was covering. I am also curious as to what transpired. When I was on the Committee, we looked at those numbers every single month and we asked questions about them. There was nothing brought up saying we were going to be short. We did go over those numbers, to make sure we were not using our contingency funds and not having them available if changes were made. We all look forward to seeing this report and the numbers line-by-line, to see exactly where these shortfalls are coming from.Speaker Cowan stated we all look forward to hearing more from the Executive’s Office about how we got here and a presentation on how we are going to change our process to make sure this does not happen again.
4. County Office Building Security - Additional Staffing Request (Dave Tkac)
Mr. Fricilone stated I understand we need some additional security, but we already have somebody and this is asking for two additional people. I am not sure why we need three people. I could see needing one additional person with another person at the desk and they would take turns working the metal detector.
Undersheriff Conser stated we have somebody at the front of the metal detector, telling people to empty their pockets. The second person watches the screen when bags go through and would indicate if there was a weapon. The third person will wand or search the bags, if the alarms go off or they see something that looks like a firearm. At the busiest times you want three, but they will take breaks and lunch, or if something happens in the building you could leave one downstairs and have two respond. It is up to you, but to run it effectively, I recommend three. Without three, you are running barebones at the metal detector. At the courthouse, RVJC and EMCO we keep three at a metal detector.
Speaker Cowan stated the security staff working in the building are wonderful; but I don’t think it is appropriate to have security doing greeting and customer service; it takes away from doing security, if they are directing people. Are we looking at three security officers plus a front desk person? We can’t rely on security people to do customer service and front desk duties as well.
Undersheriff Conser replied it is not a problem. Even at the courthouse, they direct people, our people will ask where they are headed. If they say “to get a marriage license”, security would say “go to the County Clerk’s Office on the left”. It is something we do in all buildings. I don’t know that we need a greeter, but we do assist the public.
Mrs. Ogalla stated when I looked at this, I was surprised to see we are going to have security like going through the airport, where my bags are checked and I walk through a metal detector. It seems like we are putting in a lot of security and it will require a lot of people. I don’t think whoever is doing those jobs is so busy they could not direct somebody who is asking. A lot of people have been in the building before and know where they are going. It seems like a lot of extra people. I don’t know if we have that many people coming and going on a regular basis; except during elections and when taxes are being paid. It seems like a lot of people and a high level of security for the County Building.
Speaker Cowan stated I agree. There might be days when there is a large volume of people and it is advantageous to have three people. Most days; I don’t know.
Ms. Ventura stated I will be a no on this. We just got done talking about how we are $6 million in the hole on projects, how are we budgeting for this? From a budget standpoint, I don’t feel we have dollars in the budget. I understand there are times when a large number of people come to the Treasurer’s Office or the Clerk’s Office and it is important to have some security. I voted to approve this project when Mr. Tkac first brought it up, but I was not aware this was going to be the design. I envisioned going through a metal detector at the main doors. I feel it is doing the opposite of what we had hoped to do with our constituents; that is welcoming them to the County Office Building and having a very service orientated experience. This sends the message that we assume everyone is coming with a loaded gun to harm us. I don’t think that is appropriate. I might be open to having additional security by the Treasurer’s Office, since they handle a large amount of money. This is sending a message to our constituents that I am not comfortable with. I think having a more open, welcoming area is more appropriate. I am fine with one security officer and perhaps better signage or a part-time person to direct people who come into the office. I want people to understand the County is here for them; their tax dollars serve them and we are service for the public. I don’t think this is appropriate and I will be a hard no.
Ms. Mueller stated I have concerns with this and how it affects people with disabilities and senior citizens getting into the building to do simple things like pay their property taxes and access the County Clerk’s Office. As a person who has taken care of a person with disabilities and brought them into the County Building, it is hard enough the way it is setup now and this will make it a lot harder.
Speaker Cowan stated we are specifically talking about the staffing increase and not the physical layout of the project.
Ms. Mueller stated the additional staffing will make it that much harder.
Mr. Fricilone stated I would be good with adding one additional person and then during peak times, elections or tax paying season, we could add a third person. For the amount of people coming into the building, one additional person, which will bring us to two, should be enough. Regarding comments about making the building welcoming, this is a fact of life. When you go into any government building or many of the buildings around us, you go through security; this is a fact of life. I don’t think the security is up for debate. I think we could get away with one additional, except for the peak times.
Speaker Cowan agreed.
Mr. Brooks stated in the times we are living in now, we can never be too safe and I would rather be safe than sorry. I concur with the Sheriff’s Office and I have no objection to the number of staff being added. We also need to keep our constituents who come into the building safe.
Speaker Cowan asked Mr. Brooks would your preference be to approve three security officers?
Mr. Brook replied yes.
Mrs. Ogalla asked is this additional staffing in the current budget? Mr. Fricilone replied it is not.
Mrs. Ogalla stated it is not in the budget, but we knew last year we were going to do this. The staffing should have been put in the budget. When would the staffing requirement come? When is this project planned to be completed?
Speaker Cowan replied the scheduled completion date is June 14th. If we make a change to the staffing, it would commence on June 14th.
Mr. Tkac stated I would say after July 1st is a better target date. We would like to give a couple of weeks after June 14th to actually reopen the lobby in its modified format.
Speaker Cowan stated the increase for two additional security officers for the rest of FY2021 is $49,680. I am assuming, if we approved one additional person, it would be approximately $25,000.
Mr. Tkac replied that is correct. It is factored on a FTE for 40 hours per week.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I am confident the Sheriff’s Office has requested the resources they need to do the job. It is a very critical job and they know it best. The officers are in charge of our safety. I support this request.
Mr. Pretzel stated I support the three officers. Having security is a lot like having insurance; you hope you never need it, but when you do, you are sure glad it is there. I would hate to see us cut corners and look back some day and wish we had not. It is not just their job to keep the elected officials and staff safe, but everyone who visits the building. If something were to go wrong, we would be grateful that we had the three security guards on staff.
Mr. Moustis stated for many years we have talked about securing the office building in a more robust way. We were perhaps not giving the employees who work in that building the security they needed within the building. This really is about protecting the people who work in the building. Over the years, there have been incidents in the Clerk’s Office, the Treasurer’s Office and other parts of the building, including our County Board Room. I support this, because we owe it to the people who work in the building to make them as secure as possible. I support this and I think it is the right thing to do for the public and for our employees. However, I am concerned about the funding. We need to have a discussion on where the money will be coming from. Another concern is sustaining this in future budgets. I would like to see the funding.
Speaker Cowan added this is a forever cost we are agreeing to.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Winfrey to approve two additional security officers, for a total of three security officers. On a rollcall vote: Mueller, Brooks, Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Tyson, Van Duyne and Winfrey voting yes. Ogalla, Ventura and Cowan voting no. MOTION CARRIES.
Mr. Fricilone asked when this comes to the full County Board, can someone give us an update as to where the money is coming from; for this year and where they anticipate it coming from next year? Perhaps the Sheriff’s budget has extra money and they will use what they have.
Mr. Schaben indicated he noted Mr. Fricilone’s concerns.
Mrs. Adams asked does this require a Resolution for the full County Board? We don’t set staff, so what is the Resolution stating?
Mrs. Tatroe replied typically, a Resolution would be necessary, if you had to move funds. Otherwise, the County Executive has the authority to hire the additional staff and pay for it from their budget, if they have it in their budget.
Mrs. Adams added if they run short toward the end of the year, we could address it then.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the best thing would be to move the funds.
Undersheriff Conser stated currently we do interdepartmental transfers; I bill the County Office Building monthly and it comes from their budget, depending on how many hours we work.
Mrs. Adams and Ms. Howard agreed to work on a Resolution, if needed.
Mr. Fricilone replied that is great, if it is coming out the Executive’s budget; but next year they are going to ask for $130,000. Unless they know where it is coming from, it is a big number.
Mr. Moustis stated the County Executive can hire, with advice and consent of the Board. If there was no funding, the Board would say no. Usually, there would be a request from the Executive’s Office for additional funding that would go to the Finance Committee and the appropriation would take place. Then, the Executive’s hire would come back to the Board for advice and consent. I don’t know why we would have any Resolution; it is an appropriation and then advice and consent. It does not seem right, to go to the Board with a Resolution, without going through Finance to discuss the County Executive’s request and the amount of money, because it is not only salaries, the fringes have to be funded. We need to see the total cost of these employees. I don’t see the rush to do this, we could do it next month. It would be more appropriate for a request from the County Executive’s Office for an appropriation go to the Finance Committee and perhaps to the Public Safety Committee. Mrs. Tatroe, isn’t that the process we have used in the past?
Mrs. Tatroe replied this is unique in that it is not the County Executive who is hiring staff; it would be the Sheriff hiring staff and there would be an interdepartmental transfer of funds. It is a funding issue, whether or not the County Executive has sufficient funding in her budget, to cover these additional costs or whether it is something that she would need to supplement her budget to cover the additional costs.
Mr. Moustis stated we have buildings where the Sheriff is mandated by statute to have security. In this case, the County Executive is responsible for the security of this building. The Executive’s Office may be using the Sheriff’s Department as security, but they could hire a private security firm. I still see it as the responsibility and the duty of the County Executive and not the Sheriff. The Sheriff is simply providing the services.
Mrs. Tatroe agreed. We have done it both ways, we had the Sheriff and we had private security.
Mr. Moustis continued the County Executive makes that determination.
Mrs. Tatroe stated it seemed it was getting a little muddy on whether there would be advice and consent to hire personnel and I was trying to make it clear the County Executive is not actually hiring personnel, so much as having an agreement with the Sheriff that the Sheriff will provide the personnel and she will do the interdepartmental transfer to cover the costs.
Mr. Moustis stated I understand there is no advice and consent; it is an appropriation. I still think it should go to the Finance Committee with a request from the Executive’s Office of how much funding will be necessary, including fringe benefits, so we can see the true cost. Then, a recommendation of where the money will come from or how much money is in the current Executive’s budget and whether they could cover it for the rest of the year. Then, it become a budget issues going into next year. A Resolution at County Board deviates from our normal procedures. I will probably be a no if it does not go through the Committee structure and goes directly to the full Board.
Speaker Cowan stated I am confused. Mr. Moustis, are you saying instead of a Resolution at County Board you want the information presented at the Finance or Public Health & Safety Committee and moved through the Committee process, then it would be at the June County Board meeting?
Mr. Moustis replied correct and that would be a better process and we would have a much better discussion. Then the request would be coming from the Executive’s Office with how much funding is going to be needed and whether they need additional funding this year.
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Fricilone since you were the one who raised the question about the funding and the Resolution at County Board, is Mr. Moustis’ suggestion amenable to you?
Mr. Fricilone responded yes.
Speaker Cowan asked Mrs. Tatroe, do we need a motion to that affect or can we just direct staff to bring this to Committee?
Mrs. Tatroe replied you can direct Mrs. Adams to put the Resolution on the next Finance Committee agenda.
Mrs. Adams asked should they remove their motion to move this forward to the full Board. We had a rollcall on that motion.
Mrs. Tatroe replied if they want to do that; someone would have to make a motion to reconsider.
A motion was made by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Winfrey to reconsider the previous motion and vote.
Speaker Cowan clarified we will have a vote on the motion to reconsider and then we will vote on the item again, is that correct?
Mrs. Tatroe replied yes.
Speaker Cowan stated we have a motion to reconsider. This is not to deny the proposal, but to put it back into the Committee process.
A rollcall vote was taken at this time on the motion to reconsider. Mueller, Brooks, Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, Van Duyne, Ventura, Winfrey and Cowan voting yes. MOTION CARRIES.
Speaker Cowan asked do we need to take the same vote, as we took originally and then would we make a motion to remand this to the Finance Committee or the
Public Safety & Health Committee?
Mrs. Tatroe replied you would just remand it. Then the funding comes out of those Committees for the staff you wish to move forward.
Speaker Cowan stated we just took a vote to reconsider. Do we actually have to revote on the initial item?
Mrs. Tatroe replied no. It is going to go through the Committee process so at that juncture the Committees will have that vote.
Speaker Cowan asked for a motion to remand this item to the Finance Committee.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Mueller, to remand this item to the Finance Committee. Motion for previous rollcall by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Winfrey. Ms. Ventura announced she was opposed. MOTION CARRIES.
| RESULT: REMANDED [11 TO 1] Next: 6/1/2021 11:00 AM TO: Will County Finance Committee
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Winfrey NAYS: Ventura ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Maggie McDowell)
Speaker Cowan stated this item was at the Public Health & Safety Committee and they sent it to our Committee because they did not have the actual wording on what we were looking to do.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the Director of Sunny Hill brought forward a request for the County Board to amend the nursing home admission policy relative to non-residents. Currently, the County Board allows non-residents to be admitted to Sunny Hill under two conditions; they have a relative who is a resident of Will County or that person was a Will County resident, previously, for at least five years and was a taxpayer. At this point, the nursing home population is low. We believe, because of COVID, family members are choosing to keep family members home or due to the number of elderly people who passed, due to COVID. Regardless, the population is low, there are many beds available and from an operational standpoint, it no longer makes sense, at this time, to limit the number of residents based on residency of Will County. Her request is for a temporary period of time, so the Resolution we drafted would end on November 30, 2021, unless the County Board chose to extend the temporary amendment. The way it would be amended would be to allow non-Will County residents to be admitted to Sunny Hill. Residents of Will County would continue to take precedence and would have priority.
Ms. Ventura stated the things that came out of Committee were to do a PR push to Will County residents to let them know beds are available. I was hoping staff would come back with an answer on how they plan to do that. I suggested working with the utility companies to put a notice in the bills to let them know beds are available. The Executive’s Office hired The FOURCE for vaccine PR and I don’t know if they could help with this or if that is strictly for vaccines. I would like to see a plan to get that information to our constituents that beds are open so people who live in Will County can fill those beds. We have a waiting list, but the Will County residents on the waiting list are not ready to take those beds. We set the temporary status at six months and we will re-evaluate after six months. That is why the Resolution has the November date in it. The last thing we want, is to fill all of the beds with people from out of the area and then someone from Will County need a bed and it not be open.
Mrs. Adams stated the revised letter from Ms. McDowell talks about the PR they are doing to let the public know beds are available. She is working with her PR people to get the message out to residents. We did not add that to the Resolution, because it wasn’t needed.
Mr. Fricilone asked since this expires on November 30th; what happens if someone admitted under this amended plan, do they have to leave?
Mrs. Tatroe replied no. There would just be no further out of county admissions under this particular policy.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Caroline Portlock)
Mr. Fricilone asked is $12,000 per person being trained typical of what we pay a firm?
Ms. Portlock replied yes, it is in line with what we have paid this firm in the past to help us with the on the job training program.
Mr. Moustis asked is this the firm we have used in the past for these services?
Ms. Portlock responded yes. This is a renewal with them. They have been our subcontractor for the past five years.
Mr. Moustis asked are you satisfied with their services?
Ms. Portlock replied yes. In fact, they also provide services in other local workforce areas. They have gotten to know Will County very well. They have two staff members located at our center full-time. They are fully ingrained in Will County, which is what we wanted and have been moving towards this past few years. I am happy to say, they are starting to see some results.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Caroline Portlock)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Caroline Portlock)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Caroline Portlock)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
Will County, Illinois Posted: 6/10/2021 Page 17
Minutes Will County Executive Committee May 13, 2021
Applicable Fee or Funding through the Duration of the Intergovernmental Delegation Agreement
(Dean Olson)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Dave Hartke)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Dave Hartke)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Wendie Garlich)
Mr. Moustis stated I wanted you to know, this is a great organization. A lot of the funding and programming comes from Age Guide to our Will County seniors and Catholic Charities. This will help offset the cost for the Will Ride for our seniors. This is a very important program. Hopefully, we will be successful in getting these grants.
Speaker Cowan stated I agree with you. I try to get to their quarterly legislative breakfast. If you are not familiar with Age Guide and their services, try to attend one of their breakfast meetings. They do great services and great programming.
Mr. Brooks stated I concur. I retired from the Illinois Department on Aging and I sit on the Senior Services of Will County Board. I can't tell you how effective they are and what they do for our residents.
Ms. Winfrey added it is a great program.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Bruce Tidwell)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
(Bruce Tidwell)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
Mrs. Adams reviewed the Proclamation requests.
23. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
(Mitch Schaben)
A motion was made by Ms. Winfrey, seconded by Mr. Moustis to move the Appointments by the County Executive to the County Board agenda. There was no motion for previous role.
Ms. Ventura stated I would ask that we pull the vote on the CDBG appointment separately. I have concerns about that appointment. Mr. Michael Simelton does not live in Will County. He is part of the Housing Authority and works in Will County, but he lives in Kendall County. We get a lot of money for this Board and I would like to see someone appointed, who lives in Will County. I don’t know if there is a backup for this appointment or if this is someone the County Executive absolutely wanted, but I would like to have a conversation about the pros and cons of what he brings to the table and is there someone else with the skill sets that lives in Will County? Otherwise, I think I will be a no.
A motion was made by Ms. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Moustis to amend the Appointments by the County Executive and separate appointment L, for Mr. Michael Simelton. Previous role by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Mueller. All in favor. MOTION CARRIES.
Mrs. Adams asked are you removing that from the packet moving forward or are you removing this completely?
Speaker Cowan stated we should vote on that one separately, but we have already moved forward the first appointments.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the vote was to remove that particular appointment from the packet. I don’t think there has been any discussion or vote on what to do with the appointment you are taking out. You would need to move forward the appointments, as amended. Then you have to decide what to do with that other appointment.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Ventura to approve the appointments as amended. Previous role by Ms. Mueller, seconded by Mr. Fricilone. All in favor. MOTION CARRIES.
A motion was made by Mr. Marcum, seconded by Mr. Brooks, to move the appointment of Mr. Michael Simelton to the full County Board.
Mr. Brooks asked has it always been a practice to only appoint people who live in Will County? I believe we have appointed people who do not live in Will County.
Mrs. Tatroe replied it depends on the particular Board and the member. Some Boards require there to be certain qualified individuals serve on the Boards. I do not recall for this particular appointment, whether it is required to be certain qualifications. I don’t know that we have eliminated people, because they don’t live in Will County.
Mr. Brooks stated my question is not about qualifications, my question deals with residency.
Mrs. Tatroe replied when I said qualifications, I meant certain Boards require there to be certain professions on the Board. On the Board of Health, as an example, you must have a doctor on the Board. We can’t always find a doctor from Will County willing to serve on the Board, so we have, in the past, appointed from outside of Will County. I am not sure what the particular circumstances are of this particular appointment.
Mr. Moustis asked this person is not representing themselves, they are representing the Joliet Housing Authority and that is how the person was selected. Is it a person being represented or an organization? We have County Board Members on Boards who represent the County, they don’t represent themselves.
County Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated Mr. Moustis you are correct, it is because they are part of the organization, he is the Executive Director. I mentioned to Leadership that the CDBG is looking at their by-laws to allow for organizations and/or county officials to appoint a designee; because we need to make this geographical, regional and have certain entities on this Board. One of the proposed changes Ms. Sojka has been working on, is to look at the criteria. He does not live here, but we want the Joliet Housing Authority as part of this discussion, because they play a critical role. That is going to be part of this discussion. Mr. Simelton has been on this Board. We have to appoint people, in order to review and change the by-laws. I agree, people who live in Will County should always be our priority. However, because he is of a certain occupation, we have to have someone from that organization. We will allow for him to have a designee. He has employees who live in Will County.
Mr. Palmer stated I echo what the County Executive said. We have a preference for Will County residents, but we don’t prohibit people who live outside of Will County from working for the County. This is absolutely an agency that has the expertise and a countywide reach. The Joliet Housing Authority does not just work in Joliet; they work throughout the County because they are an authority. The by-laws are recommended by the advisory board, but they come back to the County Board for approval.
Mr. Moustis replied we have to follow the federal guidelines.
Mr. Palmer stated the Joliet Housing Authority is an important partner and has been for many years.
Ms. Mueller stated the documents attached clearly state that this gentleman is a community agency representative for the Housing Authority of Joliet. That makes sense to me. I noticed it says the term is on-going and then it says member since, new. Is he a new member and will his term will be on-going?
Mr. Schaben replied the term aligns with their election.
Ms. Mueller stated it is confusing because under his term it says on-going. When I first saw this, I thought we were renewing his term. Then when further down it says member since, new. It created confusion for me. Has he been on this Board and he is continuing or is he new to this Board and he will have a term that is on-going, that we have not determined?
Mr. Schaben responded he is a new member and his term will be for two years.
Ms. Mueller stated it would be helpful if the paperwork reflected that his term would be for two years, instead of just on-going.
Mr. Schaben stated that is one of the things we are trying to clarify in the by-laws. We have to have the Board meet and discuss the by-law changes and bring those back to the County Board for approval.
Ms. Ventura stated there are other Housing Authority members who live in Will. I understand they are not the Chief Financial Officer, but they are well informed and can represent this entity. I think it would be good to look at a
Housing Authority member who actually lives in Will County. I think that is in the best interest of our taxpayers.
Speaker Cowan asked for a rollcall and clarified the motion was made by Mr. Marcum, seconded by Mr. Brooks, to move the appointment of Mr. Michael Simelton to the full County Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Marcum, seconded by Mr. Brooks, to move the appointment of Mr. Michael Simelton to the full County Board. On a rollcall vote, Muller, Brooks, Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, Van Duyne, Winfrey and Cowan voting yes. Ms. Ventura voting no. MOTION CARRIES.
VIII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Speaker Cowan stated I have four additional items I would like to save space for: the first two are for Waste Management, a 5th Amendment to the Prairie View Host Agreement and the 1st Amendment to the Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement, and for two Sunny Hill Replacement Hires.
Speaker Cowan continued the next one is a little more involved. The VAC has a plan for the YMCA that is for sale. Ms. McNichol has been working with a coalition of partners to put together a plan for that space. However, they are not the only organization interested. It is for veteran housing and it is really a complex plan. It is not just housing, it is a full life support plan. The catch is the letter of intent has to be submitted on May 21st. This is normally something we would want to take more time to investigate, think over and talk about. But, we don’t want the VAC to lose this opportunity. A letter of intent would include a list of due diligence items that would be executed before a closing date, which could take months. We do not have enough information to move forward with this today. I am asking for Ms. McNichol to get us more information next week, so we could consider it. I want to save space on the County Board agenda for this item, so if we are amenable to what she puts together for us, we would be able to move forward on the 20th so the VAC could take advantage of this opportunity and hit the May 21st deadline. If we feel we cannot move forward, we can remove it from the agenda at that point. Ms. McNichol is going to give a really high level overview today.
Ms. McNichol stated our plan includes the VAC, the Food for All Collaborative, Will County Land Use and the Will-Grundy Medical Clinic; we work together all the time. When the Smith YMCA property came up we thought this was something we could do with the $1.5 million earmarked for the VAC during the first round of CARES Act funding. We want to build something that will have a large, positive community impact in the areas of the 60433 and 60432 zip codes. We were excited listening to the Franklin County people talk about their Family Stabilization Unit, because there are pieces of the Franklin County plan in our plan. The YMCA property has 26 acres. The VAC housing would take 10 to 15 acres, after the infrastructure goes in. The YMCA building would bring in all of our partners to help promote a healthy lifestyle. The 60433 and 60432 zip codes are a food desert. The population is mostly 35 years old and younger. The housing costs are $100,000 and there is no transportation. It is the number one area missing high school diplomas and has the largest lack of education. The Hub, the building itself, would offer food and growing, which is where the community growing project comes in. There would be (inaudible) and training classes. We would partner with the After the Peanut Foundation to have K-12 students do summer camps and field trips there. There would be a grocery store in there, once we get all the growing done. The end goal is that the YMCA building would become self-sustaining. There are grants that Will County can’t even think of applying for because we do not have the social service infrastructure to gather the data for the grants. The veterans would have an opportunity at the Hub, to get job training on growing, cooking and education and then the community in the 60433 and 60432 zip codes would be able to take advantage of those programs at the same time.
Speaker Cowan stated in order to do this, Ms. McNichol needs money and we are thinking we could use ARP funds. We have not set up the program yet and I am not inclined to start handing out money before we have a comprehensive program. However, I want us to have the opportunity to consider this since we are under a deadline and we don’t want to miss out on a great opportunity, just because we could not hit the deadline. I am asking, if we can save space for this on the County Board agenda.
Ms. Winfrey stated I am familiar with the program and I have had a chance to see it in depth from a number of the partners. I absolutely support this, it is a great thing for the area. It is in District #8; we definitely need this and I encourage people to vote for this. I am in favor of allowing them to move forward with the application, with the understanding as they get more details, they will come back to us.
Mr. Moustis stated I support this. Is this area within the City of Joliet corporate limits?
Ms. McNichol replied yes, it is within the City limits. I have spoken to the City Manager about this. I have also spoken with Mr. Jim Torrey about the zoning requirements we would be asking for and the conversation was very positive. We went over the HUD definitions, density, we reviewed Liberty Meadows and I threw a bunch of statistics at him. At the end of the conversation his comment was “I think we could work something out”. That is where we are.
Mr. Moustis stated my concern is Joliet would not be supportive and would not give us the needed zoning. We have seen this before. Mrs. Tatroe if we were to go forward, can we make the sale contingent on the zoning change by the City of Joliet?
Mrs. Tatroe replied absolutely. That would have to be one of the qualifications in the letter of intent.
Mr. Moustis asked would you do that letter, Mrs. Tatroe?
Mrs. Tatroe replied Mr. Chris Wise from our office is currently working on it.
Mr. Moustis stated if zoning would be part of the MOU, I will support this going forward to the full Board.
Ms. Ventura stated the Ad-Hoc Modern Housing Committee had an hour presentation from the five partners. Perhaps, Ms. McNichol could give a condensed version of the presentation at the next meeting. There are a lot of components of this we have been brainstorming about in regards to the American Rescue Plan, so it checks a number of the boxes. There is fine tuning of the details we can work through at the different phases of the project.
A motion was made by Ms. Ventura, seconded by Ms. Mueller, to save space on the County Board agenda for the VAC Housing Letter of Intent.
Ms. Mueller stated I am excited to learn more about this project. I agree with the zoning concerns with the City of Joliet. I definitely want to see that as part of the LOI.
Speaker Cowan asked what is the Committee Members' comfort with this? We can have Ms. McNichol present more information at the County Board meeting. However, if people want more time to think about things, we can have a presentation so we are just focusing on that. It will give people an opportunity to ask questions and think about it. We could do a special Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday, immediately prior to the Special County Board meeting, where Ms. McNichol would present a larger, more in depth plan.
Mr. Moustis and Ms. Winfrey agreed it was a good idea.
Speaker Cowan announced there will be a special Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 18th at 12:00 p.m. We will be looking to seeing a full presentation on that on Tuesday.
Ms. Ventura asked is there a reason we would not do a Committee of the Whole, since everyone will have to vote on this on Thursday as opposed to an Executive Committee meeting?
Speaker Cowan replied everyone is welcome to attend the meeting; but we are going to keep it at the Executive Committee because that is where the item was.
1. Motion to save spaces for a 5th Amendment to the Prairie View Host Agreement and the 1st Amendment to the Landfill Gas Purchase Agreement.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
Speaker Cowan stated the State's Attorney's Office has given us opinions on two matters. I would like Mrs. Tatroe to give a brief, high level review of those opinions and allow Board Members time to ask question at the June 3rd meeting.
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
Mr. Van Duyne stated if anyone would like to make a comment on the Joliet Intermodal Transportation Master Plan, you can find it on the County's website. The due date for public comment is May 17th. I encourage everyone to leave a comment.
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
Ms. Ventura stated the Regional Office of Education report will be placed on file at the County Board meeting.
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
Ms. Mueller asked is there any update on the morgue project and where we are with that project?
Mr. Schaben replied we have yet to do an internal review of the submissions from the RFQ. We will be reviewing those and sending out a packet to Board Members and an outline for the next steps, which will include a Committee to review the RFQs.
Ms. Winfrey asked do we know how many people bid?
Mr. Schaben replied there were two different RFQs. The first was for the construction management and one for the engineering and design. There were four for the engineering and design and ten for the CM.
8. Executive
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Ogalla stated a Board Member brought forward a Proclamation request for Mother's Day. I did not hear that was one we were going to do. I was curious, why that decision was made. We tend to do Proclamations on some things, but not all things. What is the standard for decision making on what we will do and won't do? Mother’s Day is very important to many people and they appreciate the extra recognition; as is Father's Day, Asian-Pacific Islander's Month, Black History Month and all those different things. I would like clarification on how decisions are made on what Proclamations move forward?
Speaker Cowan stated Leadership will look at it. We got an e-mail about Mother's Day, but it did not get on staff's list.
Mrs. Jakaitis announced there were no public comments.
Ms. Ventura stated we approved moving forward with the Energy and Conservation Plan; will there be a presentation on the plan at the County Board meeting? It was quite an extensive document and it is quite impressive.
Ms. Moore stated I was one of the authors for the Energy and Conservation Plan. If there is an interest, I could put together a presentation for the Board meeting.
Speaker Cowan asked could you be available at the County Board meeting for questions? If the Board is interested, we could set up a Committee of the Whole to go over the details and have a more wholesome presentation.
Mr. Moustis stated the County Board meeting is probably not the best place. A good presentation would take 45 minutes or more and could go two hours with questions. I would support a Committee of the Whole or a presentation for those who are interested.
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan stated last Friday Mr. Van Duyne, Mr. Fricilone and I were at an event with the Governor and others from Will County. I don’t want anyone to think they were left out, but they called us on Thursday evening; it was a very last minute thing. A deal came through to bring what will become the country's largest manufacturing plant of large and medium sized electric buses and transportation vehicles. It is on the Joliet/Channahon border. We were able to be there and meet some of the leaders. This was the work of people at the State and our Will County CED. Daily, the CED tries to bring jobs to Will County. This project has committed at least 700 good paying jobs to Will County. This is something that is exciting. They are a green energy manufacturing jobs. It is likely to be more than 700 jobs, but that is the minimum they have committed, at this point. Thank you, CED for your continued advocacy for Will County. In the next week, we will be working on nailing down the plans for the ARP funds. We will bring a proposal to the Executive Committee meeting on June 3rd and give the Committee a chance to tweak the proposal before we move forward. If you have any input, send it to Mr. Palmer or myself and we will add it to our discussion. Myself, Mr. Fricilone, Ms. Winfrey, the County Executive and both of the Chief of Staffs, are meeting with our congressional delegation over the next couple of weeks. Typically, this is done in the spring as a trip to Washington DC where we meet in-person and advocate for Will County needs, especially our transportation and infrastructure needs. A lot of them have been put on the Representative's list of projects they would like to see funded. So we are going to give an extra push, and hope they will give an extra push for those things. We want to keep Will County in the forefront of their minds. We will be participating virtually in those meetings. The County Executive has called a special County Board meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. to present her version of the reapportionment map. I hope everyone has an opportunity to see her map ahead of time and we have wholesome conversation. At noon we will have a special Executive Committee meeting to review the VAC project. Finally, I don't have any inside information, but I have a suspicion we will be back to in person meetings sooner rather than later. We are entering the Bridge Phase, which is between Phase 4 and Phase 5, in the next couple of days. Phase 5 is set to start on June 11th, if everything goes as everyone hopes it does, which is back to normal. We have been allowed to have remote meetings due to Executive Orders that have been refreshed every 30 days. I have a suspicion that after the General Assembly finishes at the end of May that an Executive Order allowing for virtual meetings may not be issued. I could be wrong, maybe it will be later, but I would ask that you start thinking about your schedules now as there might be a chance we will be in-person at the County Building in June. It will be great to see everyone's faces, but it will be an adjustment for all of us.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Approval)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Parker |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4066&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up