Will County Board Republican Caucus Committee met Aug. 18.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Fricilone reminded everyone this is a public meeting and is being recorded, so whatever you say, can be heard by anyone.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Balich led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
III. ROLL CALL
Minority Leader Mike Fricilone called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mike Fricilone | Minority Leader | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Minority Whip | Absent | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Raquel M. Mitchell | Member | Absent | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Absent | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Late | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present | |
| Debbie Kraulidis | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: K. Meyers.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Republican Caucus - Special Meeting - Jul 14, 2021 5:30 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Fricilone, Moustis, Balich, Parker, Berkowicz, Pretzel, Weigel, Kraulidis ABSENT: Ogalla, Mitchell, Fritz, Gould |
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of County Board Agenda
Proclamations:
Mr. Fricilone reviewed the Proclamations.
New Business:
Mr. Fricilone stated the County Executive will give the State of the County address and the budget proposal, so it will take a while.
Land Use & Development Committee:
Mr. Fricilone stated we are going to talk about Item #1 last. Mr. Gould is coming and he wanted to mention something on that.
Mr. Pretzel stated regarding Item #2, both of the people called me this week. One person I talked with said he had a disgruntled neighbor. He is working on the issues, acknowledges them and has offered to plant trees on the other guy’s property.
Mr. Fricilone stated that item is under the Resolutions. Item #3 will be postponed.
Mr. Weigel reviewed Resolution #21-102 and stated the fee schedule was updated.
Mr. Moustis stated I received a call from the press on Resolution #21-269; is there any controversy? I’m not on Land Use, but it is in my district.
Mr. Weigel replied it is a barn they have fixed up and they want to preserve it.
Mr. Fricilone stated Item #3 is overturning of the PZC decision. Land Use was in favor of overturning this.
Mr. Moustis stated this case is where the guy is close to the property line and he has something that hangs over the property line.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I went there this afternoon and it is just barely over the property line. He is willing to remove half of the balcony overhang. I think it is an appropriate solution. I looked at the house and the way it is configured. The balcony is on the second story and it is quite high, the neighbor’s house is a single story house, so you do not have a second floor looking into a second floor. If he reduces the size of the balcony and does the modification, it is acceptable to me.
Mr. Balich stated we did not put any restrictions on that.
Mr. Meyers stated if he is encroaching on the neighbor’s property, he has to take it down.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated he intends to do that. He even offered to pay for a tree for his neighbor’s property; something like a blue spruce, to provide year round buffering, and the neighbor declined. He has made good and appropriate gestures. They have a long history. He owns the driveway, yet he lets the neighbors access and use it, and nobody pays him anything. I am happy with this. I don’t think he should be punished; he has gone above and beyond and I support the homeowner.
Mr. Moustis indicated he would support the variances.
Mr. Fricilone stated as the Resolution is written, we would be voting yes, to overturn the PZC.
Mr. Kavanagh indicated he was at the Caucus to answer any questions about this case.
Mr. Moustis stated it might come out about modifying the structure, which I don’t think is unreasonable.
Mr. Kavanagh stated he is going to have to modify the structure, because he built it so it encroaches, by a couple of inches, onto the other guy’s land. He has to take the balcony down. It would cost about $20,000 to move the structure, either three feet or three miles. He has to get approvals for his plans. He is paying a 50% penalty, because he did not apply for the permits before he did the work. He is paying the 50% penalty and he will be taking down the balcony.
Mr. Fricilone reviewed Item #4.
Finance Committee:
Mr. Fricilone reviewed the Resolutions.
Mr. Moustis asked why are we paying more?
Mr. Fricilone replied because of the CARES Act, they have a lot more work to do. Mr. Gould arrived at this juncture.
Mr. Palmer stated the $145,530 is the total cost. There is an e-mail in the packet that explains the increase.
Mr. Fricilone stated Mr. Gould is here; let’s go back to the Land Use Committee discussion for Item #1.
Mr. Moustis stated I received phone calls from people objecting and the Village of Shorewood is objecting.
Mr. Gould stated this is a special use permit application for a landscaping business. I am going to be opposed. The Village is opposed, because it does not fit into their comprehensive plan. Mr. Van Duyne is also against this. Mr. Gould reviewed a letter sent to Mr. DuBois that was included in the agenda packet.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked for an explanation of what they mean about access to the property.
Mr. Gould replied I don’t know. I would have to call and ask. I just got this today.
Mr. Balich stated when you read that letter, it sounds pretty bad; but when we heard this at Land Use, it did not sound bad. It reminded me of Orland Park trying to tell the people in Mokena that they can’t have what they have had for years, because it doesn’t fit into what they think.
Mr. Gould stated every time we have these things, I ask myself, “why do people buy property and not make it contingent on having the zoning or the SUP before they buy it”? They buy it and then they come to the County Board and ask for a SUP or say they need to come into compliance. Why buy it, if it is not right to begin with.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is the 565 Farm LLC the property that is next door with the large existing steel structures?
Mr. Gould replied I don’t know. Mr. William Kobe runs a trucking business there. I don’t know if he owns it or if they own it.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated we need to know that. They don’t identify who 565 Farm LLC is or where it is.
Mr. Gould replied if you read the first paragraph it says “we surround to the east, south and west, the property which is subject of the above referenced SUP”. They own everything on the south side of Black Road.
Mr. Fricilone stated if you read the other letters in the packet, there is a letter of support from the guy across the street who said there are many businesses like this. There is a letter of objection from Mr. Kobe. The neighbor across the street is saying Mr. Kobe has a trucking firm on his property.
Mr. Gould stated Mr. Kobe has been there for a long time. He hauls grain out of there from the farms along Black Road to different places.
Mr. Fricilone stated it sounds like he has his business there, but he doesn’t want the guy next door to have a business.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated this is the one sentence that says it all for me, “the 565 Farm LLC property is currently used for agricultural purposes, but was acquired with the intent for residential development”. These people have a right to have a landscape business. You can grandfather people, but new people can’t move in and have the same desire to use their property.
Mr. Gould asked why didn’t they check that before they bought the property?
Mr. Moustis stated they bought it, but the zoning does not allow them to have that business.
Mr. Pretzel asked is Mr. Kobe’s property zoned for his business? Mr. Gould replied I am sure it is, it has been there forever.
Mr. Moustis stated if he is doing Ag business, it would be allowed. Mr. Pretzel stated she is saying he is not zoned for it either.
Mr. Gould stated I don’t know if he is zoned for it or not; but why wouldn’t the County write him up since he has been there for as many years as he has.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated they want residential there and that is the message I heard during the Land Use Committee meeting.
Mr. Gould stated the Village is very close to where this is.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated it is not in their village.
Mr. Gould stated please don’t interrupt me. Let me finish my comments and you can say whatever you want to say. All I am telling you is, Saddlebrook Subdivision is across the street and it is annexed into the Village. All of this is within their comprehensive plan. I have seen this movie before. Villages want to keep orderly development and in this case, residential development. I get it, you feel differently.
Mrs. Adams read from an e-mail that came in at 4:50 this evening from Ms. Kenny, the zoning administrator. She said there were two errors in the memo that was sent out earlier. The memo was addressed to Land Use and it should have been addressed to County Board. The memo refers to the parcel surrounding the subject parcel owned by Mrs. Davalos. The previous owner, Shorewood Farmers LLC, sold the 10 acres to Mrs. Davalos and then sold the remaining acreage to 565 Farm LLC. She wanted to make sure everyone was aware of that.
Mr. Weigel stated it looked like an industrial area to me. I can’t see a problem with it. If they want to build houses there, they can buy the land back and build houses. The landscape business could be there today and gone tomorrow; it is not something that will be there forever.
Mr. Moustis stated I have fought for the municipalities over the years, because if it is within their mile and half jurisdiction, they have planning jurisdiction. For those of you who think this is okay, this will come up on you. When municipalities in your districts have objections, because it is not in their comprehensive plan, remember don’t make the argument of “I don’t care, it doesn’t matter”. We follow orderly land planning. In some cases it is done by the County and in some cases it is done by the municipalities within their mile and half jurisdiction. The reason they have the mile and half jurisdiction is so they have orderly development. I am going to vote no. I am going to support not only District 6, but I am going to support Shorewood and their desire to have their land use plan followed.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated did I hear that Shorewood has not annexed that area yet. It is near, but it is not part of Shorewood.
Mr. Moustis replied it is within the mile and half jurisdiction planning authority. It does not have to be in the Village. If it was in the Village, it would not be here.
Mr. Gould added if they annexed it, they would not be coming to the Board.
Mrs. Parker asked is she living on the property? When was the property purchased?
Mr. Fricilone asked did Land Use take into consideration the objection of the Village?
Mrs. Berkowicz replied it was purchased a few years ago. Did anyone get a telephone call from the person who owned the property and sold it to the current homeowner? I did; his name is Mark. He called me and told me that they owned all of the land, they purchased it from Midwest Bank. They are farmers, but they moved their farm to a different parcel and split the 145 acres. He worked with Ms. Davalos’ family to separate that particular parcel. Then he said, for the remaining acres, his intent was to have them divided into 10 acre agricultural residential parcels.
Mr. Fricilone clarified he sold the land.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated yes, he sold the land.
Mr. Fricilone stated it does not matter what his intent was, he sold the land.
Mrs. Berkowicz continued we heard from people who support them and people who don’t.
Mr. Weigel stated the Village’s objection is not a legal objection because it is a SUP; it is not something that deals with zoning and does not require a super majority. Staff recommended approval of the SUP, before they got the letter from the Village of Shorewood; I don’t know if that would have changed their mind or not.
Public Works & Transportation Committee: - No discussion.
Diversity & Inclusion Committee:
Mr. Fricilone stated the language has been cleaned up. We are voting to authorize the County Executive to hire Carmona Strategic Solutions, for a not-to-exceed amount of $128,240. Is everyone aware of what is going on with this?
Mr. Weigel asked why do we want to do this?
Mr. Fricilone replied the Diversity & Inclusion Committee decided we needed a consultant to look at the County government employees and the way County government runs and if we are diverse and inclusive.
Mr. Balich stated I think we are and I will be voting no.
Mr. Weigel indicated he did not agree with it.
Mrs. Parker asked is this the same company that gave a presentation a couple of meetings ago?
Mr. Fricilone replied yes.
Mr. Balich stated I have said this at the last five meeting; they want to go outside and pay a lot of money to someone, to do something that already exists for free. They don’t want to hear about the SBA, who would come in and help all of those people. Why should we pay money for this? I am going to vote no, every single time. It does not fit their narrative that someone is prejudice against somebody; that is what the whole narrative is. All they have to do is get involved with the Federal Government and they can qualify for all these bids, but they don’t want to. I will never vote yes for this. They should get rid of the Committee, but they won’t.
Mr. Pretzel asked didn’t we vote on the diversity consultant in June and it was half this amount?
Mrs. Adams replied no. It was just to negotiate.
Mr. Fricilone added they negotiated and this is what they came back with. Mr. Pretzel asked how did it get to $128,240?
Mr. Fricilone replied that is the price that the company proposed to do the work and the County Executive was okay with it.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated at Committee, we brought up several issues; one was the scope. We can grow government or we can just do the job we are supposed to do, knowing the taxpayers are paying for everything we do. Paragraph two says “they are going to identify challenges, with the assistance of Will County stakeholders impacted by the performance of Will County services, outline technical assistance plans”. What technical assistance plans? What does that mean? “Transforming challenges into opportunities”; what does that mean? If we are concerned with diversity and inclusion, we want to make sure when we hire, all people have an equal opportunity. How many people do we plan to hire? We hire maybe a dozen every year. Maybe we need to go into our departments, someone made a comment about Land Use, and find out if they are or are not inclusive. Beyond that, these County stakeholders are just a duplication of everything we have out there. We give money to nonprofits. We give money to the CED. It seems $128,240 is a lot of taxpayer dollars. We questioned the scope and said there is no scope here. They want to develop their strategic plan, they want to go to nonprofits and schools.
Mr. Fricilone stated they gave a presentation on everything they do; not what they are going to do.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated when we talked about it in the Committee, they mentioned schools. They want to develop this strategic plan. I asked if they have clients in Will County, or if this is all new for you. They are going to reach out and develop relationships, using all taxpayers’ dollars and then, if they get a Will County client, our taxpayers have essentially helped their company establish relationships with the schools, the nonprofits and the CED. In IT consulting, they are very conscious about forging relationships; and who is actually paying for this. This whole thing is paid by the taxpayer and there is no reference to it. The other Committee Members said they will never use this research for anybody else.
Mr. Moustis stated it is public research.
Mr. Pretzel stated I have a problem with the 16-month term. What happens if two months into the contract we decide they are not doing anything; can they still bill us 109 hours per month for another 14 months?
Mr. Fricilone stated it is a $128,000 contract.
Mr. Pretzel continued you know they are going to work up to the end, they will not come up short. I am a strong no.
Mr. Balich stated if we are supposed to be working with the taxpayer dollars, you are not supposed to pay for any color, nationality or anything, you are supposed to hire the best. Why doesn’t the Diversity & Inclusion Committee say we are not going to allow anybody’s name to been seen, just read the resumes and then interview the people who correspond to the good resumes. Then, you won’t know if they are black, white, pink or purple or whatever, then maybe we will get the best, instead of garbage. If you pick people based on a religion, sex or race, you are not getting the best and you have problems because you are hiring inferior people.
Mr. Moustis stated initially we supported and encouraged this. A majority of the Board did and a majority of this Caucus did. We supported them putting out an RFQ. We had people from both caucuses on the committee. We did not develop the scope, but we supported this all along. I am going to vote yes. When I hear things like the public will use this; unless the State’s Attorney’s Office tells us there is a reason this is a proprietary document and it cannot be given to the public, if there is a FOIA, anybody can have the material. The public doesn’t own it; the County doesn’t own it; you don’t own it and County government doesn’t own it; the people of the County own it. I am a little concerned about the scope, but I was told they will stay within the County lines and will do what they feel is the County’s policies and whether we are doing what we need to do to be inclusive. I may not agree with it necessarily, but I don’t support something and at the last minute say I don’t like it.
Mr. Pretzel stated the price increased.
Mr. Moustis stated there was no price.
Mr. Palmer stated this was an RFQ, a request for qualifications, not price. Sometimes the consultants or vendors will put a price in. I think their price was higher than what the contract was, but that was before we had a scope. With an RFQ, the person is saying this is my firm, here is what we do and does it match with what you are looking for? You rank the firms, select the firm, negotiate a contract and settle on a scope.
Mr. Moustis stated I listened to the Committee meeting when they accepted this. One member of the Democratic Caucus said it was not enough, it should be double this amount, and we should give them twice as much. I am sitting there asking what. This is what was negotiated. Do I think it is an outrageous amount of money for this type of work; no, it is probably the normal parameters. I don’t get it; we encouraged this and now we are going to shoot holes through it. I will stick by it, even if I don’t necessarily like the process, I supported this and most of you did too.
Mr. Meyers stated there are five termination reasons in the contract.
Mrs. Kraulidis asked Mr. Fricilone if he supports this?
Mr. Fricilone replied yes. I pushed for this initially, when Ms. Winfrey was the County Executive. Like Mr. Moustis, I don’t necessarily agree with the process nor do I necessarily agree with how we came to an agreement. I talked to the County Executive about their presentation and she assured me that is not the scope. The scope is a little loose on how it is worded, but this is basically to consult and look at County government to see how diverse and inclusive we are and if we are following what we need to do. They will then make recommendations on what other things County government needs to do to be more diverse and inclusive, within County government, not the whole County. I think the County Executive will be a good steward on this and watch how this plan works out.
Mr. Balich stated when we go through the hiring process, a lot of people who were qualified for jobs did not get jobs, because of the way the system works. I went through Mr. Tidwell and he looked at all of the stuff and gave everything to Mr. Walsh to pick and the guys Mr. Walsh picked were not necessarily the best; there might have been people who were better. We had a black guy from Lockport who wanted to be a truck driver. He was a master diesel mechanic and had all of the proper licenses and they would not even interview him.
Mr. Fricilone stated this is what this consultant should be finding out for us.
Mr. Balich stated we are so worried about diversity and inclusion, but if you know someone is hiring for a job and you bring qualified people here, the chances they are getting the job is slim and none.
Mr. Moustis stated this is perhaps going to be one of the good things that comes out of this. The only involvement the County Board has is when a new hire comes on board, you can say yes or no. You can’t say I want to talk to the other guys. Perhaps it is up to us to set the policy that forces elected officials in the executive branch to follow what we set. Hopefully, that is what we will get out of this.
Mr. Fricilone stated hopefully out of this consultant we will get that information. It is about being inclusive.
Mr. Moustis stated we started this before we got a ruling from the State’s Attorney’s Office that basically said we are out of the process. The County Executive does all the picking and all we can say is yes or no to who they pick. Even though the County Executive put some County Board Members on there, initially the County Executive’s Office did not want too many County Board Members on, because they did not want to violate the Open Meetings Act, because they don’t want an open, transparent process. As far as I am concerned, when that opinion came from the State’s Attorney’s Office, it changed a 30-year process that the County Board has been doing and it has made it not a cohesive process. Quite frankly, I think it creates mistrust. It certainly created mistrust with me, not only for this one, but for others we have coming up that involve the morgue and how they did contractors; who was excluded and who was included and comments that were made about what may disqualify companies that I found a little concerning. Part of this is messed up because of the process. We should vote no until the County Board gets a process too. I think that also affected the mindset a little bit, because we were not involved and we were always involved in these selections. Now we are just told, “here you go”.
Mr. Fricilone stated vote your conscience, but I will be a yes.
Mrs. Parker asked after they present their plan in 16 months, will this company go away?
Mr. Fricilone replied that depends. If the Board brings something forward and wants to do something else with them, they could.
Mr. Moustis stated if you don’t like it, when the money runs out, the money runs out and don’t give them another penny.
Mr. Balich asked talking about money, how many more years do we have before we go into the red? The way they are spending money, how many years have we got?
Mr. Moustis replied that has nothing to do with this consultant. The increases in personnel wages and health insurance will bankrupt the County. Don’t worry about this.
Mr. Pretzel stated I knocked on a lot of doors to get elected and not one person told me they wanted me to be on the County Board so we can be more diverse in the people we hire. That was not the problem; it was taxes. It is how much money we spend and how irresponsible we are with money. I can’t support this.
Mr. Moustis stated this is not something that people necessarily would bring up to you. We have a responsibility to govern, not to politic and not always do the popular thing, but you have the responsibility to govern. I am not just talking about this, I am talking in general. I could make those statements all day. If I knocked on a 100 doors and they said this was the only thing they cared about, it is the only thing I care about and that is not necessarily the right way to approach it. We have to govern also. Vote the way you want to vote.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated there were comments made, and it is not in the contract or the Resolution; this is Phase 1. They explained they would first complete Phase 1, which they extended from 12 months to 16 months.
Mr. Moustis added but the dollars did not change.
Mrs. Berkowicz continued there is no reference to Phase 1, Phase 2 or anything.
Mr. Fricilone stated there is no Phase 2, at this point.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated so there is nothing binding us to anything past this.
Mr. Fricilone stated that is correct and we have outs in this contract as Mr. Meyers pointed out.
Mr. Palmer stated my understanding is that everything is covered in this contract for $128,000. Phase 1 is not for $128,000 and Phase 2 is more money. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 are all part of this plan. This cost is all written into this document and it has Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 and it is all part of the $128,000 for the contract.
Mr. Moustis stated we can get clarification. For $128,000 we are getting a complete report.
Mr. Palmer continued Phase 1 is the internal discussion. The plan is to go from internal to talk to external people and develop the master plan and that is for the $128,000. We are not just going to get Phase 1 for $128,000. It is the whole process.
Mr. Fricilone stated it is developing a plan, the whole County should follow to be diverse and inclusive.
Mr. Palmer stated if you don’t talk to anyone on the outside, it is like saying everything is good here. You have to talk to the people on the outside because they are the people who want to get to the inside, whether they are vendors or perspective employees. My understanding is all three phases are part of the $128,000. They are not going to do Phase 1 and then come back and ask for more money.
Mr. Fricilone stated from what I heard, they are going to create a plan that we should follow. They talked about implementing the plan and that is not part of this.
Mr. Moustis stated we could implement the plan ourselves.
Mr. Palmer stated when we talked about this before, it was whether we would hire an employee or a consultant. Nobody knew where to start, so the discussion became let’s hire a consultant and do a review. If everything is great, then we are done. If there are some things we need to work on, then we decide whether that is for the consultants, existing employees or a new employee. This will all be decided when we see the plan. We are going to spend the money on this study and assuming it gets to the end, the County Executive and the Board can decide whether they want to do anything else.
Public Health & Safety Committee:
Mr. Fricilone reviewed the Resolution.
Legislative & Judicial Committee: No discussion.
Capital Improvements Committee:
Mr. Fricilone reviewed the Resolutions.
Mr. Moustis stated I am going to vote no on the CM Resolution, because I don’t like the process. We had a process that we were a part of and we were very transparent with. Everyone who applied was interviewed. When it comes to the diversity and inclusion, a lot of people are just giving lip service to it. They give lip service, because when they are given a chance to do something, they don’t do it. There was a minority contractor, who worked for Will County in the past, not a huge company, but more than capable of doing a $7 million project, who was not included in the interviews. They were not included and this is the process the County Board was cut out of. This is a process the State’s Attorney’s Office thinks is a better process or this is what the process has to be. Based on that, I am voting no, against this CM company, I am voting no on the process.
Mr. Fricilone stated if you are against the process, you should vote no on both of these.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I don’t understand why it was not an open meeting for the whole Capital Improvements Committee; it was a meeting for a select number of people. I sat through the interviews, but I was told I could not talk, nor comment. I don’t understand that.
Mr. Moustis stated that is the process the State’s Attorney thinks is a better process.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I don’t get that. Did they tell us we could not speak?
Mr. Moustis stated originally they wanted to have only two County Board Members, so it did not have to be an open meeting. We took the process from having an open, transparent meeting, to saying it is going into the backroom of the County Executive’s Office, because that is what the State’s Attorney’s Office said was the procedure. If the County Board is cut from the process, we will never do anything again, because we won’t send anything over. The County Executive’s Office can’t do it on their own; the County Board has to initiate it. As far as I am concerned, I will never initiate another thing, if this is the process. Certainly, it is a process that is not as transparent and open as we used to have. When we held the interviews, every County Board Member could come to those meetings and at the end they could make comments. They could not always participate, but in the end they were allowed to say a word. We voted openly on who we were selecting, how they were selected and how they were scored. I am voting no on both.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I could not ask the question I had, because I was not allowed to say anything.
Mr. Moustis stated that is the new process.
Mr. Fricilone asked Mr. Meyers is that correct? This was a posted, open meeting and a Board Member cannot ask a question.
Mr. Meyers replied that is correct, if the Chair does not recognize you during a meeting. However, there is public comment for every posted meeting.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated there was no public comment announced.
Mr. Meyers stated I cannot speak specifically about that meeting, because I was not there.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated you are saying there should have been public comment. I think we missed that part.
Mr. Palmer stated when it was a quorum of County Board Members, we were required to post, but this was not a County Board Meeting. We posted the meeting because we did not want to commit an Open Meetings Act violation, so we posted, even though the County Executive was the chair of the meeting.
Mr. Moustis asked was it really a posted meeting? Did we just post it because County Board Members were there?
Mr. Palmer replied it was posted and if someone came to the meeting we could not turn them away. It was not a private meeting. If someone from the public chose to come to the meeting, they could sit in the meetings.
Mr. Moustis stated if there was no public comment, then it was not a public meeting.
Mr. Palmer stated we did minutes, so we can see if there was a call for public comment, but there may not have been.
Mrs. Adams stated there was an item for public comments on the agenda.
Mr. Fricilone stated if you are against the whole process, then you should vote against both. The difference between the design interviews and the CM interviews, is everyone who submitted for the design was interviewed. They were not all interviewed on the CM side. If you wanted to split your vote, you could under that premise.
Mr. Moustis asked if we vote no, then what do we do? I think the County Board is still entitled to have its own process. If we say no, we are not going to accept this, we are going to do our own interviews and we are going to suggest, perhaps a different ranking. I don’t think there is anything that could stop us.
Ms. Kraulidis clarified that would not be required, that would just be an option. I understand what you are saying, but if we are going to make that a policy or a principal, then what do we do with that? If we take a stand for something, we need to have an option.
Mr. Moustis replied the option could be that we are going to do our due diligence. We are going to ask the companies to come in, we will ask the questions, we will give a ranking and we will negotiate with the County Executive’s Office and say we have a difference of opinion on who we should bring forward.
Mr. Palmer stated I don’t think the Board can come up with their own recommendations, because the County Executive makes the formal recommendation. Once they make the recommendation, the Board can have a process to review the recommendation and then vote on it. In the past, the Board and the County Executive got all of the proposals and they met to decide how many they wanted to do; all of them, half of them or a quarter of them. Then, we decided on who would be interviewed, based on a process and we put those forward. That has not happened with the last two. For the diversity consultant and the architect, we interviewed everybody; but for the CM, there were more applicants than we interviewed. The County Executive’s Office decided who was going to get interviewed.
Mr. Fricilone stated that is because the State’s Attorney’s Office told them they could do that.
Mr. Moustis stated the County Executive’s Office always reviewed the RFQ; they always came to the County Executive’s Office. Then they were looked at, primarily leadership or a committee would look at them and decide how many to interview, then there was a discussion between the County Board and the County Executive’s Office. Even though we didn’t always want to interview ten companies, we pretty much had a policy, if they qualified and they were capable of doing the work, we interviewed them. Sometimes it was seven or eight companies. The County Board committee would look at all of the proposals so they had input on who they wanted to interview.
Mr. Palmer stated not all 26 Board Members had input. If there was a 7-member Ad-Hoc Committee; one was the County Executive and one was an elected official and the Committee would have the input. You can’t have 26 people saying I want to give input.
Mr. Fricilone stated the opinion from the State’s Attorney’s Office was that the way we operate now was always within the Executive’s right and he gave up that right to let us do that.
Mr. Palmer stated the previous County Executive saw the value in working together. It was not giving up, it was a collaborative approach.
Ms. Kraulidis stated it was a perspective and approach from two different perspectives.
Mr. Fricilone stated he said that the County Executive has always had that right, by state statute, to do it the way they did it now; the previous County Executive just gave up that right.
Ms. Kraulidis asked is that something you can do?
Mr. Fricilone replied if that is the case, the County Executive is operating the way she wants to operate.
Ms. Kraulidis asked has leadership had this discussion with her?
Mr. Fricilone responded yes, but we can vote no anytime we want and it goes back to the drawing board. She can run her process again and again and again.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think the process can be run by her again and again. We have to tell her to do an RFQ, she can’t just do it on her own. She can’t just decide to build a new office building and put out an RFQ; that has to come through the Board.
Mr. Fricilone stated we did and then from there she took it. Now we can vote no on any of the ones that are up and then it would go to negotiate with the second one, then we could say no again.
Mr. Pretzel asked how was it done in the past?
Mr. Fricilone replied we would get the responses, as did the County Executive’s Office. We would have Ad-Hoc Committees made up of five Board Members, someone from the Executive’s Office, and someone from the agency we were working for; when we were doing interviews for the courthouse, the Chief Judge sat in. Then, those seven people would decide how many we wanted to interview. If we got seven responses and two don’t fit the criteria, based on their qualifications, we interviewed five. We would interview those five and each person on the Committee, including the Executive, had one vote and the County Board had five votes and with the courthouse, the Chief Judge had one vote. Then, we ranked them and said this firm has our number one ranking; County Executive go and negotiate a contract. If you can’t, then we will drop down to the number two ranked company. That is how it was done in the past.
Mrs. Parker stated I see the ranking in the Resolution, and I see a rubric was used; are we able to see how they were ranked? Why they were ranked in a particular order?
Mr. Pretzel stated it does exist.
Mr. Fricilone stated I did not do a rubric, I just ranked them.
Ms. Kraulidis asked could we do a letter from our caucus, asking to go back to that process?
Mr. Fricilone replied leadership did that and she has already said no. This is the way the process is and the State’s Attorney’s Office agreed.
Ms. Kraulidis asked did we ever get a unified letter?
Mr. Fricilone replied what’s a letter going to do? She said no and the State’s Attorney has backed her up. The State’s Attorney said she is within her rights to follow this process.
Mr. Moustis stated our process is over.
Mr. Fricilone continued now it is up to vote yes or no.
Mr. Moustis stated or we can say we want to continue the process or ask certain questions. If the only thing the County Board can do or the only authority we have in this process is to say yes or no, I might as well go home. What is the point of us being here? What is our role? What is the role of County Board; to be a rubber stamp? Are we just here to say yes or no? If we say no, then it is over.
Mrs. Parker asked can we request to see how the firms were ranked?
Mr. Fricilone replied I guess you can, but when I did my ranking, I just said one, two and three.
Mr. Pretzel stated I was on the design interviews and we gave them a point system. It was close.
Mr. Moustis stated for me it is the diminished role the Board seems to have. It is how the County Board, not the Republican Caucus or the Democrat Caucus, but I am talking about the Board and how the interpretation of the State’s Attorney’s Office, under the Executive Act, basically drastically diminishes the role of the County Board. We should get rid of the executive form of government in this County, it stinks.
Mr. Fricilone asked how does everyone want to move forward?
Mr. Moustis replied everyone can do what they want, but I am voting no.
Mr. Balich stated I will be a no on both.
Mr. Weigel stated the write up says they were ranked by the Committee.
Mr. Fricilone replied they were.
Mr. Moustis replied they were, by the Executive.
Mr. Weigel asked what is the objection?
Mr. Moustis replied the objection is that they excluded people from even being interviewed.
Mr. Weigel stated they interviewed five.
Mr. Fricilone stated on the design all of them were interviewed, but there were more people on the construction, than were interviewed.
Ms. Kraulidis asked why were people excluded?
Mr. Fricilone replied the County Executive decided they did not meet the qualifications and did not interview them. Again, vote your conscience.
Mr. Moustis stated I will probably vote for the design, because everyone was interviewed. I will probably vote no on the construction, because they excluded people, including a minority contractor, which I am hoping other people in the Democratic Caucus bring up. They talk about diversity and inclusion, so where are they at? I don’t know why I have to bring this up; I did before with them.
Mr. Fricilone indicated he would be voting no on the building, as well.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I brought this up in a Capital Improvements Committee meeting, I can’t recall Leopardo coming in and giving a summary or an update.
Mr. Fricilone stated they came in and did plenty of summaries.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked was that on the Health Department?
Mr. Fricilone replied yes.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked was that recently?
Mr. Fricilone responded until Mr. Brooks took over, they were here every month giving an update.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated when Mr. Brooks took over is when I got on the Committee. Then when we were talking about the confusion in the budget, I wanted them to come forward.
Mr. Fricilone stated the chair has to ask them to come forward.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked wouldn’t it have been appropriate for us to understand why we kept getting invoices and why it needed a new generator and all of that? That would have been my questions that day; transparency. You said they gave a report, but as long as I have been on the Capital Improvements Committee, I have never seen a monthly report.
Mr. Fricilone replied the chair did not ask for it.
Mr. Moustis stated we did not get good reporting and we did not get good reporting from the County Executive’s Office. Hopefully, that will change, even though I don’t see it, I keep hearing “you can have anything you want, just ask for it”.
Mr. Fricilone stated it is supposed to be coming.
Executive Committee:
Mr. Fricilone reviewed the Resolutions. Regarding Item #5, the equipment will cost $1.8 million, but over a five-year period we will save $2 million in outside printing costs and hiring of additional staff. It will be a wash, but it will be much more efficient and they will be able to control things much more than they can now. Regarding Item #11, we said at the Executive Committee meeting it is $7 million all, all, all in. That includes all FF&E, the contract for the designer, the building and all IT; there should be no other costs than the $7 million budget. That is what we are going to set it at and when the Executive negotiates these contracts, she has to negotiate to that number. We were good with the $7 million number.
Appointments:
Mr. Fricilone stated there are no appointments this month.
VII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
VIII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Fricilone stated the information will be coming to us next month, what they anticipate the costs to be to renovate Silver Cross to put in the CAC and the VAC. I already think it is too much money, but we will see what numbers come back to us. I don't want to speak to it, until they give us numbers.
Ms. Kraulidis asked if we vote yes on the morgue project, is there any potential that it will raise our taxes and become a financial issue?
Mr. Fricilone replied no, we are using money that was initially in the CARES Act that was defederalized and put into contingency, based on us building the morgue.
Mr. Pretzel asked does anyone know what the estimated operation costs will be, when we go into a bigger building, with new technology?
Mr. Fricilone replied I don't know if they can give us a hard number on that. They will have a similar number of employees that they have right now. It should be more efficient. I don't think the cost of operations will be that much more.
Ms. Kraulidis stated when people see new building, new morgue they want to know how much this will cost the taxpayers.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENTS
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 6:55 P.M.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Frankie Pretzel, Member AYES: Fricilone, Moustis, Gould, Balich, Parker, Berkowicz, Pretzel, Weigel, Kraulidis ABSENT: Ogalla, Mitchell, Fritz |
Alerts Sign-up