Will County Board Finance Committee met Nov. 2.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Tyson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 11:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Chair | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Absent | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - Oct 5, 2021 11:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Frankie Pretzel, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
1. Discussion of FY2022 Budget
(Discussion)
Ms. Howard stated these are the proposed changes from the County Executive’s recommended; you see these every November. These are changes that have come forth since the draft budget was presented. It is made up of the adjustments to the levy, based on the Resolution Estimating the Levy you approved in October, grants that will be allocated in FY2022 and any other revisions to department budgets.
Ms. Howard reviewed the spreadsheet under New Business Item #4.
Mr. Fricilone stated we are moving the money for the revenue replacement, but we were able to move that money in FY2021, which we did not do, so we are moving it in FY2022, but we also need to move money in FY2022. Why are we not doing both of those at the same time?
Ms. Howard replied the $5.7 million was calculated for FY2020. The way I understand it is, we can take 2020 and 2022, we can take 2021 and 2023 or we can take 2022. We have not calculated the figure for 2021 yet. So that is why you don’t see that.
Mr. Fricilone stated so we are just doing the one, in arrears.
Ms. Howard replied yes. From my understanding, that is what the guidelines allow.
Mr. Fricilone stated we got $67 million this year, where is the rest of it at?
Ms. Howard replied we are going to get to that. The American Rescue Plan is a special fund. I have that too.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am going to vote present on this today. Leadership got it at 5 o’clock or 7 o’clock last night and everyone else just got it this morning, when it was just attached to the agenda. That is not enough time to look at numbers and figure things out.
Ms. Howard asked are you talking about the proposed budget changes?
Mr. Fricilone replied these changes, we just got these.
Ms. Howard stated they were distributed on Friday with the agenda. This was not done last minute. I sent it last week so the County Board Members would have time to review it.
Mrs. Jakaitis stated I received this update from Ms. Howard yesterday, a little before noon. I posted it on the agenda and sent an e-mail to all County Board Members saying that this sheet had been updated. It would have been sent out yesterday, I would guess before 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Fricilone stated I saw it yesterday, I don’t remember what time. Mr. Moustis asked was it sent out Friday after hours?
Mr. Fricilone stated yesterday was Monday.
Ms. Howard stated this was also attached to the agenda on Friday, is that correct Mrs. Jakaitis? The only change from Friday was adding one department; the other changes were attached to the Finance Committee agenda that was distributed on Friday.
Mrs. Jakaitis stated I agree with that. There was a spreadsheet attached, when I posted the agenda on Friday. It was updated yesterday afternoon.
Ms. Howard continue to review the spreadsheet expenses.
Mr. Fricilone stated I thought we were working to get rid of paying for parking and they were going to park in the flat lot on the other side of the tracks. How come we are still paying? There are a couple of line items in there for parking.
Ms. Howard replied you are correct. From what I was told and my understanding, all of the parking spaces have been exhausted. Some of the Probation Services employees were not included and this is additional parking for the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Mrs. Tatroe stated even now, we have 20 or 30 employees parking in the parking deck. When I saw there was no money for those permits in the current budget, I called Mr. Tkac and asked if there were spaces in the flat lots left and he said “no, those are fully accounted for”. We would have no place for those people to park.
Mr. Fricilone clarified there are no parking spots left on the other side of the tracks?
Mrs. Tatroe replied that is what I was told.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have never seen that lot full.
Mrs. Tatroe stated they have not had a full complement of jurors recently. If all the jurors are brought in for trials, that is where the jurors park. That might be what he is factoring in.
Mr. Palmer stated the County owns the lot between the old courthouse and the train station. I have driven by there many times and there are very few cars in there. To Mrs. Tatroe’s point, the courts are not fully operational. We own that lot, so if we gave them a placard or something they could potentially park there for free, at least while we are not busy. Mrs. Tatroe, these parking permits are with the City of Joliet, is that correct?
Mrs. Tatroe replied yes, those are for parking spaces in the deck. It is what is left from what we could not move to the flat lots.
Mr. Palmer we have the flat lots, south of the tracks, which we negotiated a number of years ago and expanded for both jury parking and staff parking. We have expanded the paid lot for the public, which has not been used much over the last year and half. That may be a cost savings option.
Mr. Fricilone asked what is the cost to park in that structure?
Mrs. Tatroe replied what is in the budget is our actual cost for the State’s Attorney’s Office to park employees in the parking deck.
Mr. Fricilone did the math for the seven new positions and stated it comes out to about $13 per day. I thought it was cheaper than that.
Ms. Howard stated the parking permits are for more than the seven new positions. How many parking spaces does your office use?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I don’t remember if the number is 20 or 30 employees parking in the deck. There was no money in the budget to pay for those permits, and they have been there forever. As long as I have worked here, we have had people parking in the deck. I contacted Mr. Tkac to see if we could move them into a flat lot and I was told “no, there are no remaining space in the flat lots and at this point, we probably have it over committed”. Due to people being out sick or on vacation we have not had a problem, but we could. I was told there is no way we could move any more people into the flat lot. Then we have the seven additional employees coming on that need parking. That is the actual cost, for the current employees who are parking in the deck and the seven additional parking spaces we will need to purchase.
Mr. Fricilone asked were we paying for those other people to park before? Mrs. Tatroe replied yes.
Mr. Fricilone asked why was it not in the budget.
Mrs. Tatroe replied it was in the prior budget, but it was not in the proposed FY2022 budget. We have always had money in our budget before, this is not a new expense for us, it is an on-going expense. Several years ago we had more people in the deck and when the City of Joliet increased the prices, we moved more people. That was when the flat lots were opening, so we immediately moved as many people as we could into the flat lots, rather than come back to ask the County Board for more money, which was not an option. If there is another place to allow people to park, that is fine. Just make sure it is safe, which we have been dealing with those issues. Parking is parking.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I had a family member who served jury duty. They went to the courthouse two or three days and there was no parking pass included. They actually paid for street parking. I don’t know how it is arranged for jurors, but I know, there was not any type of accommodation for this juror. Also, there was no compensation for it.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that would be up to the Jury Commission. There are signs indicating that jury parking is in the lot south of the tracks. I am not sure how that is communicated to the jurors. I don’t know if there is something in a letter when they are sent their notice.
Ms. Freeman stated I have been called for jury duty several times and you do receive a parking pass you put on your dashboard. Both times I went, the parking lot was pretty full. It was a year ago, and I assume that has not changed.
Mr. Harris stated I spoke with Mrs. Tatroe when I saw the number and asked them to look at it again. They mentioned it was not in the budget and should have been. This is not new and it should have been there. It may have been an oversight for whatever reason.
Ms. Howard stated the reason it was removed from the draft budget is because of the County owned parking lots and everyone received passes. I was not aware that some departments needed additional parking spaces or that all of the spaces had been filled and some departments did not received funding. That is why it was not included in the draft budget, because I thought we had County owned parking lots and most departments received the placard to use for parking. That is why you are seeing some departments’ parking permits being put back into the budget.
Ms. Howard continued to the review the spreadsheet in the agenda packet.
Mr. Fricilone asked can you go back to page 7 on the morgue? We increased the morgue to $7.27 million, but have a Resolution that the all-in budget is set at $7 million. Why are we allocating an additional $270,000?
Ms. Howard replied that is what is already in this line item. If you look at what is recommended, once the budget has been approved, the line for the building will go down to the $7 million. The $7 million is for the morgue and the $270,000 is for other projects.
Mr. Fricilone stated let’s get to the $67 million. I am still way confused on this. Is the money in the budget or is the money not in the budget?
Ms. Howard replied the cash is in the ARPA Fund. We received the funds, however, there has been no decision on how to spend the funds. So cash is sitting there. In order to spend those funds in FY2022, because those funds have been received, but not allocated, there are no expenses assigned to those. In order to spend those funds in FY2022, we need to make sure we budget for that. What you see in the funds on hand, is allocating that into the FY2022 budget so they can be spent as the Board decides. The two lines you see for new revenues and new expenses, we are anticipating the funds we are going to receive for FY2022. That would be about $130 million that will be available to spend.
Mr. Fricilone stated what you are saying is, when the presentation was made and showed our budget went down $16 million, when we allocate and appropriate this money, then our budget is going to go way up and we will not be minus $16 million, we are going to be up maybe $60 million from last year. Is that what you are telling me?
Ms. Howard replied no, I think you are confusing the two. The anticipated increase of $16 million is in the corporate fund, and has nothing to do with this. This fund, is a special fund.
Mr. Fricilone continued so did the overall budget go up or down now with all of these changes?
Ms. Howard replied with these changes the overall budget will increase. The corporate fund is increasing by $8.4 million. Then the special funds, because we are increasing the anticipated expenses under ARPA of $67 million and there are some increases in some of the other special funds, that will increase as well. The overall, bottom line budget will increase.
Mr. Fricilone asked by how much? Will it just increase by the $8 million?
Ms. Howard replied that is just the corporate fund.
Mr. Fricilone stated I understand. The overall budget is increased by what?
Ms. Howard responded the overall budget, in the corporate fund, is increasing by $8.4 million. It will go from $242 million to $251 million.
Mr. Fricilone states so instead of being down $16 million, as was stated, we are only going to be down $8 million from the previous year, because the CARES Act money was still in there.
Ms. Howard stated I don’t want to confuse you, but the ARPA and the corporate fund are two different pots. Are you are speaking of the defederalized funds in the anticipated line item in the corporate fund?
Mr. Fricilone replied when we defederalized the CARES Act money, it made the FY2021 budget go up. In this budget, it looks like it came down $16 million, but it didn’t really, it went up $3 million and we are adding $8 million, so it actually up $11 million, if you take out the CARES Act money.
Ms. Howard stated yes, if you take out the defederalized.
Mr. Fricilone stated so we are up $11 million over last year.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to take Mr. Fricilone’s questions and get a little more clarification. The special fund for ARPA, is $67 million and that will be reflected in the overall budget. It is very likely that through the budget year, that money will get appropriated, perhaps into the corporate fund. I don’t know the methodology we are going to use to distribute that money. From what I am hearing from different folks is, perhaps a large portion of that money is going to go into the County coffers, beyond what we have already done for County projects or initiatives. That money is going to have to be appropriated in this year's budget, at some point. Correct? Outside of the special funds, we have to appropriate it to spend it; is that right?
Ms. Howard stated the funds will be appropriated and they are currently appropriated. What is sitting in the ARPA fund is the revenue and there is a contingency line on the expense side the $67 million is in. However, the Board has not decided how they want to spend those funds. It is being carried over to FY2022 and once the Board makes a decision as to how they want to spend those funds, then the expenses will be budgeted or allocated to the budget lines in the ARPA fund. Those expenses will stay in that fund.
Mr. Moustis clarified the appropriation or the spending of the money will come directly from that fund.
Ms. Howard stated yes.
Mr. Moustis continued so if there is anticipation by the County that these funds are going to be spent, even though we have not identified how we are going to spend it, it is reflected in the overall budget that the $67 million is part of the overall budget and it will be reflected in the overall budget, is that correct?
Ms. Howard replied that is correct.
Mr. Moustis stated I want to make sure it is actually shown in the overall budget. The corporate fund is not the entire budget; it is a large portion of the budget, but certainly it is not the only part of the budget. I want to make sure it is going to be reflected in the overall budget.
Ms. Howard stated you can see this in the spreadsheet and that is the reason I keep reiterating the anticipated new revenues and new expenses on top of what we have already received, we are also anticipating additional dollars coming in next year.
Mr. Ronaldson stated we had some e-mails back and forth in September about the highway fund, 2106. There were three large snowplows ordered in March that have not come in; they will not start building them until next year, so it will increase the funds on hand and the expense of that line item, but I don’t see that on this list.
Ms. Howard stated if I missed that, I will add it to this list.
Mr. Ronaldson continued in the RTA tax, we discussed our request was (inaudible) and it was brought down to $1.6 million and we had some discussion back and forth. Did that not come to fruition to bring that up partially?
Ms. Howard responded a portion of the debt service comes out of that fund and adjustments are made. We can talk off-line about that.
Mr. Ronaldson stated that is fine. I did not see it on here so I wanted to circle back on it.
Ms. Tyson stated the monies that come in from the government, are they comingled from an accounting perspective or are they kept separate at all times, so we can continuously see the flow?
Ms. Howard replied the monies are not comingled; they are kept separate. For funds, such as ARPA and CARES, a separate, special fund was set up for both of those funds, so those funds were not comingled.
Mr. Fricilone stated I just want to clear up, the $67 million is included in the budget. So what is our overall budget dollar amount right now, versus what it was when it was presented to us a couple of months ago by the Executive? What is the total number?
Ms. Howard replied I will get the total overall budget amount and have it for you for the next meeting. I have the corporate fund number.
Mr. Fricilone stated the whole number is the one we are looking for. We are anticipating cranking the RNG facility up in September of 2022, but it is a slow crank, so it will not be producing fully in September or October. We may have only one month of revenue, yet we are showing $8 million in revenue. Next the cost of O&M and RENS; I thought the RENS were a revenue, not a cost. We are going to get money from the RENS, so I don’t understand why there is a cost. If we are looking at the O&M contract, if it is anywhere near $4 million, that is a ridiculous number, but even if it was, it would be for a year and they are not going to be onboard for a full year. Why are we using those numbers?
Ms. Howard responded this is just an estimate. The line item for RENS could be some other cost. I will clarify that. The estimated O&M costs we had was $3.5 million. These numbers could very well change, they are estimates because this is our first (inaudible) funds.
Mr. Fricilone stated that might be the off-takers costs, not the RENS. Mr. Harris stated the next item on the agenda is the RNG Facility.
Mr. Schaben stated there will be a cost associated with the RENS and the total costs will be discussed later in the budget.
Mr. Harris stated this was a discussion under Old Business. When we get to New Business Item #4, which Ms. Howard just went over, we will be voting to move it to the full Board.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have a question for Mrs. Tatroe. Those last couple of lines we talked about, we are potentially in negotiations with Waste Management, should we be showing numbers like that?
Mrs. Tatroe replied that does not mean that is what we are going to negotiate with them. As they said, this is a large estimate that was put in there. You have to have some number in your budget.
2. Monthly Summary - Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Collections
(Karen Hennessy)
Ms. Hennessy stated due to the month end being so close to the date of the meeting, Mr. Harris was gracious enough to allow me to not prepare the report this month. I can have it available, if there is a meeting on November 9th. If not, we will have the update in December. Just so everyone is aware, the recording of revenue does not happen in one place; it is in multiple departments. When the month ends that close, I can’t guarantee that everything will be recorded for me to prepare the report on the first day of the month. So rather than present a half done report, I thought it would be best if we waited and I can update it for your next meeting.
Mr. Moustis stated if that report lags a month, it is not a big deal. I would rather give Ms. Hennessy ample time to record the numbers correctly. What are your thoughts on letting the report lag a month?
Mr. Harris replied I don’t have a problem. The more transparency the better, but it has to be accurate. We will get you some numbers as soon as possible.
3. Establishing All-In Budget for the Renewable Natural Gas Plant at the Prairie View Landfill and Recycling Facility - Remanded from October 21, 2021 County Board Mtg
(Mitch Schaben / Tim Mack)
Mr. Harris stated I met with the Land Use staff, the Executive’s Office, Mr. Palmer, Ms. Howard and Ms. Hennessy. I would like to have a discussion on how we got to this point and make sure we all have the numbers. I think another 30 days will give us time to have more accurate numbers, especially the variable costs like the line and stuff which makes a difference. I think we are ahead of the game, so we don’t have to rush. Mr. Schaben has a presentation and we can vote today on whether to send this forward to the Board, or give it another 30 days.
Mr. Schaben reviewed the presentation in the agenda packet.
Mr. Fricilone stated we approved bonding up to $55 million. So we can go back and get the additional money we need. We could make the RR&E whole again from the additional bond proceeds. We probably need to decide that by the first quarter of next year, because it will take a couple of months to go out for additional money and take that money to pay things off before June. Since we did $39 million, we have authority to go out and get what we need to finish this project, the way it stands right now, even with contingency.
Mr. Schaben stated that is a good point and that is why, when we had a meeting on Friday, we decided to hit a pause button on this Resolution. The biggest unknown for the cost is the pipeline and we are still working through the easements. Every time an easement changes, we have to change the pipeline route and that adds more to the cost of the project.
Mr. Moustis stated Mr. Fricilone brought up a good point; we did not go to the full bonding authority. We did the Resolution and I don’t recall how long the $55 million bond authorization is good for. We should look at it. I would ask the State’s Attorney to advise us what timeframe we have with that Resolution. I think the decision should be made sooner than later if we are going to need additional bond proceeds.
Mrs. Tatroe replied I will have to pull it and see when we did it. I can get back to you at the Executive Committee meeting next week.
Mr. Moustis stated it has been a while, so we need to look at it. A decision or recommendation from the Executive’s Office needs to be made whether additional bond proceeds are going to be needed. Mr. Fricilone mentioned we can do it next year, but maybe not. It might require another Resolution. We need to take a look at that and evaluate it sooner than later.
Mr. Schaben stated what we are trying to determine is whether we are able to use cash reserves so we don’t have to go back out for bonding, because there is an expense for that. We talked about doing a bank qualified loan; it is an option. The third option would be going out for bonding. To your point, the bonding is probably the path that would take the longest from the start to getting the proceeds. We would need a clear picture of the total costs of this project to make that determination.
Mr. Moustis stated you make a good point on the bank qualified loan, which we can do fairly quickly. We can go up to $10 million and that would probably be the best route.
Mr. Schaben stated we would have the most flexibility with that route. The problem with bonding is, we would have to use the bond proceeds for the project. If we bonded for more than we needed, we would not be able to use it for other projects. If we did a bank qualified loan, we could utilize those funds in different ways. The County Board has done a great job of managing the funds and we have a pretty healthy cash reserve fund, so if we needed to dip into reserves for a year or two, until we actually receive revenue, we would be able to do that as well.
Mr. Moustis stated we have done bank qualified financing before. It would not be something new. Bank qualified financing allows us to draw the funds down as we need them.
Mr. Schaben continued to review the presentation in the agenda packet.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have said this before, I don't know why we need to show what costs are being paid by which fund. We have bond proceeds and we have RR&E money. We should have a total at the top of the sheet with the revenue we have right now. If it is $51 million, it is $51 million. It really does not matter which fund it comes from. Usually when you do a budget, you just list all of your expenses, anticipated or already contracted; you have a line of expenses. It makes it a little disjointed when you have the anticipated expenses at the end. They are part of the budget and they should be in a line. If you do everything in one line, where it showed all of the expenses; it should not make a difference where the money is coming from. If right now we are going to be at $53,626,000 and we only have $48 million plus the $3 million, whatever it is, let's figure out what that dollar amount is and start the process to get the bank qualified loan or whatever we need. We have money in contingency, so that is included in that. The contingency, if not spent, could go back into the RR&E fund to make that whole again. We need to get that total number and see what total money we have and then decide what we are going to do. If we want to do bonds, we need to get that rolling. If we are not, then maybe we go for a bank qualified loan or we just use reserves, but we need to decide that before the end of the year so we can start the process of whatever we decide. This is the number I set, based on the last set of sheets we got with all the expenses, the $53,626,000 should be our budget, which includes a $1 million contingency. If more is needed, then the Executive's Office needs to come back to the Board and say we ran over because of this and we need more money and we will look at it then. I am good with the number, they say it is right now.
Mr. Moustis stated when the Board authorized $55 million worth of bond proceeds, it was my assumption that we were going to bond for the entire project, as I think is appropriate, because the expense of the project should be put on the project versus using cash reserves. I look at this like an enterprise endeavor. We want to see the ROI. It is not that you can’t show cash reserves as the other money we put in. We should proceed with a bank qualified loan or bonds. We have done it in the past. You never have to draw on it, until you need it; it is like a line of credit and that would be the prudent thing to do. If not, then I would like to see a proposal with exactly how much reserves we are putting into the project so we can reflect what our overall return really is; because there is a cost to all money, whether it comes from reserves or it comes from borrowing, there is always a cost. Since the Board authorized up to $55 million, the intent was it was going to be a financed project. The only reason we did less is because at the time, we thought the project was going to come in a little less. I want to put that out there. We should proceed with a bank qualified loan and we can draw on those funds in $1 million increments, if we need to. We could set that up with the bank chosen. I would just like to put the whole financing of this to rest. I am pretty convinced that we are going to wind up with a $55 million project or pretty close to it.
Mr. Schaben stated we would like to wait just a little longer before determining which financing path we head down, until we get a clearer picture on the costs associated with the pipeline.
Mr. Moustis added keep in mind we might be under some time restraints.
Mr. Schaben stated we can continue this discussion and provide updates on this project.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree with Mr. Moustis. We need to remember that we are going to get revenue from this. Some of these things can be paid back quickly. If we get some bank qualified monies, we should be able to retire that fairly quickly. The bonds are a different situation; we did 15 year bonds, so that will be over 15 years. That does not mean if we get $8 or $10 million in the first year we need to spend all of that money on other things. My dad used to say “pay it off first”. The faster we can get the bank qualified loans paid off with the initial revenue, while we are paying our debt service, the better off we are.
Mr. Brooks stated as the Chair of Capital Improvements, we are authorized to pay bills. In other words, you give me the money and I spend it. I would rather have the money and not need it than to need the money and not have it to pay the bills. Mr. Schaben mentioned that a bank qualified loan doesn’t have restrictions that some of the other sources have and that would give us the ability to funding the project as it goes along. I concur with the conversation, I believe the project is going to cost every bit of $55 million. When it comes time for my Committee to pay the bills, would it not make sense to have the money there and I don’t have to come back for the money.
Mr. Fricilone stated the Capital Improvements Committee is not going to pay the bills. For this project, the Capital Improvements Committee is not the owner’s rep. The bills will go to the Executive’s Office, you will not see them. You are not going to be approving anything. This is why I wanted, as a check and balance, a $1 million contingency. If we give them a $5 million contingency, the Executive’s Office can spend that anyway they want and they don’t have to come back to us.
Mr. Harris stated what I am hearing is we want to look at some additional financing, whether it is bonding or a bank qualified loan. The Executive’s Office is asking for more time to have better numbers. If it is okay with the Committee we can bring this up at the December meeting. Then you will have a recommendation and give them authority to proceed with the bank qualified loan.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Finance Committee MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Appropriating Grant Funds in the Coroner's FY2021 Budget
(Laurie Summers)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
(Susan Olenek)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Ventura NAYS: Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel ABSENT: Traynere |
(Jen Alberico - Julie Shetina)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
(Julie Shetina and Jen Alberico)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:29 P.M.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Ventura ABSENT: Traynere |
Alerts Sign-up