Will County Executive Committee met Dec. 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Winfrey led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:20 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Also Present: N. Palmer and B. Adams.
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. American Rescue Plan
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated the Executive’s Office is negotiating, but we have not quite gotten there. Mr. Schaben, could you give us a brief update and talk about whether we can expedite this and if we can hope to get it moving soon?
Mr. Schaben replied we have had two conversations with Anser, but we do not have a draft contract yet. We are still waiting for that.
Speaker Cowan asked is there any projected timeline for this?
Mr. Schaben replied I wish I could give you a timeline. I asked them to give us a drop-dead date of when they think they can get us a contract and I just have not gotten it.
Speaker Cowan stated I don’t think we want to wait until the January Board Meeting to execute if we don’t have to; we have projects we need to get going on.
2. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Agreement with Will County Center for Economic Development (CED)
(Discussion)
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation by Northern Illinois Food Bank
(Jeannine Kannegiesser/Hester Bury)
Speaker Cowan stated we have a couple of presentations this morning. For the Northern Illinois Food Bank, and the Heritage Corridor & Convention Visitors Bureau and the Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors Bureau. These are basically for information only. These are projects we may want to fund through ARPA, but we are not allocating funding today. You will have more time to discuss them. This is to get people the information, start the discussions and see what questions we have before we can start allocating the ARPA funds. Ms. Hester Bury read the attached report into the record.
Mr. Moustis stated the only statement you made that I disagree with is when you said that you fund the local food banks, I disagree, because not all Will County food banks are part of the Northern Illinois Food Bank network. The Northern Illinois Food Bank does great work, and I am supportive, but we should also support the local food pantries.
Ms. Bury stated I would clarify that by saying the Northern Illinois Food Bank benefits all the pantries who are members of the food bank, because they have access to that food through the food bank. If there are food pantries that are not members of the food bank, then yes, we would support the County funding them independently. Of course, we would like to encourage them to become members.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked what does it take to become a member of the food bank?
Ms. Bury replied an agency needs to be a 501-c-3, distribute food at least one a month, be open to the public at least once a month, and agree to monitoring and buying food bank items for food safety.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is there a cost to be a member?
Ms. Bury replied there is not a cost to be a member. Once an agency is a member, they have access to food from the food bank and they pay a shared maintenance fee for food, which averages about six cents per pound, with some of the food going out with no shared maintenance fees. When we have grants, such as we had last year, that provides the food for agencies with no shared maintenance fee.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked could you give us the names of a couple of the food banks you work with currently in Will County? Do you work with Hands of Hope in Joliet?
Ms. Bury replied absolutely.
Speaker Cowan stated the full list, by community, is in your packet.
Ms. Bury stated we have 54 food pantries in Will County. Most of the food pantries you could think of are members of the Northern Illinois Food Bank.
Ms. Ventura stated I want to echo what Mr. Moustis said, I am supportive of the Northern Illinois Food Bank, but there are other needs, and we should also consider those. How much support or encouragement does the Northern Illinois Food Bank do with their partners to grow food? At St. Raymond’s, there is a group called Promised Land. They have a community garden where families adopt a spot, grow the food, and donate the food to the Northern Illinois Food Bank, as well as local families in the area. It is an excellent program, and I would like to see more of that. Does the Northern Illinois Food Bank provide that type of training or support for families? If that is something you have not done, but are interested in doing, is there something the County could do to help encourage that type of local food growing?
Ms. Bury replied absolutely. We encourage local food pantries, groups, and churches to establish community gardens and to donate that food to the local food pantries. We also encourage them to set up programs for residents to learn about gardening and do their own vegetable gardens. We would support that, but we have not done any specific training for our agencies on community gardens. We would be happy to partner with anybody willing to help us do that.
Mr. Moustis stated Ms. Ventura, that is a great idea. In Frankfort Township, we grow some of our vegetables. The Illinois Extension would be a perfect partner, not only to create the community gardens, but to show individuals how to grow gardens. Could the Northern Illinois Food Bank and the Illinois Extension talk about establishing a program? It is such a good idea.
Ms. Bury stated I totally agree. The Extension provides lots of services. At the food bank we suggest that an agency works directly with the Illinois Extension independently. We would certainly support all of those.
Speaker Cowan stated one of the reasons we thought about doing this is the CED hosted a volunteer day for their investors and executive board members a few months ago that I took part in. It was a lot of fun, and a great team building exercise. The amount we were able to get done, in just a few hours, seemed impressive. I would love to have the Caucus Leaders talk to their Caucuses about being able to have one or more volunteer days with County Board Members. We will be in touch. Thank you so much for coming today.
2. Presentation by Heritage Corridor & Convention Visitors Bureau and Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors Bureau
(Bob Navarro/Jim Garrett)
Speaker Cowan stated next, we have Mr. Bob Navarro from the Heritage Corridor & Convention Visitors Bureau and Mr. Jim Garrett from the Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors Bureau. This is a presentation for things we might want to consider funding with ARPA. We will not be making any decisions today, but they are here to give us their perspective and pitch to start a conversation to see what questions Board Members have. Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Navarro stated thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Bob Navarro, and I am the president of the Heritage Corridor & Convention Visitors Bureau. We are the designated marketing firm for Will County, as well as some surrounding counties. We have been around since 1984.
Mr. Jim Garrett stated good morning. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to join you today. My name is Jim Garrett, and I am president of the Chicago Southland Convention & Visitors Bureau. Our geographical area is from Midway Airport, south to Peotone and from the Indiana border to Joliet. Within Will County, we have 11 communities that we market. We have been doing this for well over 35 years. We have a great partnership with Mr. Navarro and his team. Mr. Navarro came up with a great idea. I have been working over here and Mr. Navarro has been working over there and we have Joliet and Will County right in the middle. Since a lot of my area is Will County, Mr. Navarro said why don’t we combine forces, collectively work together, and put a center focus on marketing, selling and promoting all of Will County, and that is basically what we are here to talk about today.
Mr. Navarro stated our Bureau covers six counties. We cover the first 100 miles of Route 66 from Chicago to Pontiac, the Illinois-Michigan Canal towns between the Chicago area to the LaSalle-Peru, and the Starved Rock area in LaSalle County. In Will County we have 65 hotel properties, with almost 5,000 hotel beds that we work with and promote along with Mr. Garrett and his team. We are here to talk about how important it is to invest some of your ARPA dollars in the travel, tourism, and hospitality industries along with hotels, restaurants, events, and attractions. We want to talk about the power that travel can bring regarding economic development and investments back into the County.
Mr. Navarro and Mr. Garrett reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation.
Speaker Cowan stated thank you both very much. Before we go to questions, I have seen this presentation three times in slightly different forms, so I appreciate the time you have dedicated to this. They spoke with Leadership about some of these ideas and we decided, as a group, to bring them to the Executive Committee. One of my first questions was, both of you handle areas that are not Will County and there is no one who handles only Will County and then we talked about how tourists don’t really care about county boundaries, so it makes sense to have these organizations grouped by theme areas. Also, the Leaders and I were very clear that if we were to contribute ARPA money towards these organizations, not just our own preference, but the federal guidelines, we would need to be assured that the money was being invested in Will County proper. Mr. Navarro and Mr. Garrett are very clear about that, and they understand that from a legal standpoint and from a focus standpoint. Could you address how we would be assured that the money is going into Will County communities.
Mr. Navarro stated we are absolutely committed to tracking that. Both of our offices do co-ops with municipalities or specific attractions, so we are used to setting up those specific account codes and tracking it. We would use a formula for Will County, if those funds come through. Because of those federal requirements, we have to report how the funds were spent and where they went. We are looking at funding coming from other counties. Mr. Garrett is looking at funding from Cook County and I am looking at getting some funds from LaSalle County and those requirements would be the same for each of these counties. We are definitely committed to setting up tracking mechanisms to report back to you how your dollars were spent to promote only Will County.
Mr. Garrett stated those dollars will not be comingled. That is not the intent. In our organizations, it is all about transparency. We want to be up front with you, and the accountability on our part is going to be there. We will figure out a way, so his thoughts and my thoughts are brought together to market and promote and sell Will County. That is our objective.
Speaker Cowan stated thank you. I appreciate the extent to which the two of you have worked together to bring this together.
Ms. Ventura stated thank you Mr. Navarro and Mr. Garrett for this excellent presentation. For full disclosure, I serve on the Heritage Corridor board as one of the County Board liaisons. The Heritage Corridor, as a whole, is working very hard to promote the County after COVID and even during COVID. They aggressively go after State and Federal grant dollars. They are a member run organization with other government entities who are members, like the City of Joliet, so the funding they get has specific purposes. I want to support them because money for things like that help with their city partnerships and with their local advertisements. This is talking about bringing Will County in as a whole. I am definitely encouraging this. When we get outside revenues, it increases our tax revenues, hotel, and sales tax revenues. This is a great way to increase local revenues without increasing taxes. This is a long-term investment in furthering our revenues and a way to invest in local businesses. The increase in revenues is not just from the outside people coming here, it also from the residents. This gives them more opportunities to visit small business and attractions. I have done sightseeing all over the United States, including in Illinois, but it is really nice to be able to take my kids to the Rialto or take them to a show or another attraction, sports events, local restaurants, and attractions and keep our dollars right here in our area. When we invest in things like this, it is an investment in the long-term future. We have a lot of entities in our County, not just in Joliet. There are attractions in Lockport, Lemont, Plainfield, and Naperville. Several of these places have been investing in their downtown. They have been creating a driving force for tourism with microbreweries, other boutiques, and stuff. We should continue to support that along with some of our farmland, with Agritourism. Some of these attractions bring in local visitors, visitors from across the United States and even internationally. Our prison in Joliet is well known in China and has brought a lot of international travelers. When we see things like that, we see people staying in our hotels for multiple days and that is really what we need to increase those dollars long-term. Signage and wayfinding is also important, it is not part of this presentation, but ultimately, advertising is the way we would get people here to begin with. The real estate business is “location, location, location” and in tourism it is “advertising, advertising, advertising”. I think that would be a long-term investment. People are anxious to get back to events and outings, but they want to do so in a safe fashion. This means a lot of investment for businesses to adapt to COVID, by advertising. Putting our money there, brings people in, and those local businesses create more profit and that allows them to invest in (inaudible). So, it is helping everybody, as opposed to just taking a few entities to give money to. By bringing people here, they are making choices of where to spend their money. I can’t say enough times how much I support tourism, and this would be the right move for the County. This is a proposal that I think is more in-line with what the County can do. I support this and I am asking other County Board Members to support this when we vote.
Mr. Garrett stated I wanted to mention that Mr. Hugh O’Hara serves on our Board of Directors.
Mrs. Ogalla stated the municipalities are also getting ARPA money, so maybe this should be a partnership with those municipalities, so the money is not just coming from us. We represent everyone, but we are supposed to be looking at the unincorporated as well and work with others. If we look into doing different things with organizations, we should also get support from the local municipalities, who got ARPA money, so they are invested in the same things we are. Working together as a team will make the end result much better.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked can you give us examples of some of the events you held in Will County in the past and the positive impact it had? You mentioned a trade show and a sports tournament, and I would love to hear a little bit more about that.
Mr. Garrett replied in Will County we hosted the National Wheelchair Championship, which was really good. People picked up hotel rooms on the Will County side in Tinley Park, Mokena, and Monee. Some of that overflowed into Matteson as well. There you can see the overflow, people don’t look at boundaries, they go where they have to be.
Mr. Navarro stated I would like to mention something on the leisure side. Last year we partnered with the Joliet Historical Museum for an event at the prison. This event won an award at the Illinois Governor’s Conference for an event of its size. We were able to bring in not just locals, but we brought in people regionally and we had some international people who were travelling that weekend. We are not in the business of creating events, but we promote the events that our communities and our partners are having. We do a lot of promotion of those events, letting locals and visitors know that those events are happening. We also go to trade shows and try to book business. A couple of years ago we did an event at the Joliet Speedway, and we brought in sports rights holders from the region and tried to book new tournaments in Illinois. We have the full support of the Illinois Office of Tourism to do that. It is not something like you turn on the faucet and you will see all of this business. It takes time to build relationships, bring those people on-sight and get those people interested to enter your community and book that business. It takes time to do that, but we are confident we can do it. You have great assets in the community.
Mr. Garrett stated one of the extremely frustrating things for us is, when you book a piece of business, it is not next week; it is two to three years out. We had a lot of business pre-committed to come to the Chicago Southland, but a lot of that business cancelled, then rebooked, and cancelled again. It is a stairstep approach, and we are still reaching out to make that happen. It happens with Mr. Navarro, and it happens with me, and it happens with every convention bureau in the State because of what we have experienced with the pandemic. For people entering the State of Illinois from Indiana there is the Chicago Southland Lincoln Oasis. It is a visitor information center that we operate seven days a week, with staff and we want to incorporate information on Will County at that location, including video clips. So, when people come in, they are getting the vision of what they can experience when they come to Will County. Those are some of the things we must work on.
Mr. Navarro stated our travel guides and maps are in that oasis if you want to stop by and grab one.
Speaker Cowan stated that is a good explanation of why this is very similar to economic development, and it would be under the heading of economic development, if and when we consider this.
Mr. Moustis asked what are the strengths and weaknesses of Will County? What are we not taking advantage of? Where are we strong? Where are we weak? What do we need to work on? I would be interested in seeing if you could help develop something along those lines. The one thing we have in areas, including the unincorporated areas, are some nice golf courses. Should we be promoting our golf courses in Will County? They could be a strength that we are not taking advantage of. How would you develop a game plan, moving forward, based on what Will County has to offer and what we might not be taking advantage of?
Mr. Garrett replied you need to identify what you think those assets are. Sit down, talk to them, and ask them the questions; what can we do to evaluate your value to potential customers. Sometimes you think just because you put their picture in a brochure, that will persuade a customer to go to a particular golf course. It does not work that way. It is maintaining a relationship with that organization to make sure there is a flow of information to let us know what we can do to raise the bar. Mr. Navarro does that with his people too.
Mr. Moustis asked how do you develop that? I threw out one aspect, but I am sure there are others. We have the Midewin Prairie, so we have a lot of natural areas. Midewin Prairie will eventually become the largest prairie in the Country. How do you develop that? Can you help develop that?
Mr. Navarro replied that is part of that branding process, that 35% I am asking you to allocate toward branding, that would include an inventory of assets Mr. Garrett mentioned. We would take an inventory of those assets, find out what are the destination drivers, and why people come to community. Something we might see as an asset; others might see as a weakness. We really need to look at that. Our proximity to Chicago can be good or bad. Our transportation roads are bad. You don’t have a major full-service convention center in the County. Right now, that is a good thing, because those structures have really been hit hard. Rosemont, Oak Brook, Chicago, and Schaumburg are really struggling. It is a good thing we don’t have a convention center now, but in the future, for us to be competitive with Rosemont, Chicago, Oak Brook, and Schaumburg that is something to look at. We would need to take an inventory of the County’s assets, what are the destination drivers; why would people come here over going to destinations in Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan or whatever and we would need to do that as part of the branding process as we develop the messaging to inspire people to come to the County.
Mr. Moustis stated regionally, there is the Tinley Park Convention Center, I am sure you are familiar with it. It is on the line, where Will and Cook Counties separate. One side of Harlem Avenue is Cook County, and the other side is Will County. The Tinley Park Convention Center is in the Cook County portion, but all the hotels are on the Will County side of Tinley Park. I mentioned that, because even though it is in Cook County, it is an asset for Will County. We should be considering it a Will County asset, because a lot of the business comes to the Will County side.
Mr. Garrett stated that is a win-win situation for both Will and Cook Counties. When you have a piece of business, a trade show, convention, or conference that goes to the Tinley Park Convention Center, they have only one hotel, with 200 rooms on the Cook County side, which is going to fill up quickly. We are going to market that facility, but the overflow of that business is automatically going across the street to Will County. That is how that works. In my area, I have 63 municipalities that we work with. We work in parallel with each of these communities and their economic development departments. If they have a potential customer, be it a restaurant or a new business, we always volunteer our time to be at the table, because when a company is coming to a community like Mokena, that company is not just looking at Mokena. We want them to see the broader picture of what is in the area and that area is going to include Will and Cook Counties, to encourage them we say this is a great quality of life area to live in, a great place to do business. We get incentives to move a business here and that is why we want to be at the table to help enhance that economic development effort. Mr. Navarro does the same thing. So, we work very closely with all our communities to make that happen.
Ms. Ventura stated I want to add one thing to what Mr. Moustis brought up and that is the importance of investing in our experts. The Heritage Corridor brings in a lot of data, not just dollars and cents, but where dollars are being spent. They finished a branding study that showed exactly what Mr. Moustis is talking about; our weaknesses and our strengths. They talked not just to their partners, but to people who visited the area. This is a great example of a working private/public partnership because some of the members are government entities, and some are private entities. My point is, they have a lot of the data that they bring on a regular basis and that allows them to make smart decisions when it comes to advertising. They know the markets to go after. They know where our strengths are. They know what will start bringing people in and they are using that, and they can start promoting other businesses that are not as strong to help building that branding long-term. This is a perfect example of when someone has already invested a lot of their time and money in an area and then we are investing a little bit more money in that area and it goes a lot further than if we were trying to do this on our own and start from scratch. I am sure the Southland does something very similar. I can only speak for the Heritage Corridor, because I have sat through the studies and the reports on a monthly basis. The amount of data they bring in is quite impressive, and that drives those decisions.
Ms. Freeman stated you are saying we should encourage the organizations and event planners to contact you, if we agree to this plan, and you would help push the upcoming event or business. Is there a cost to those individuals who would be coming to you?
Mr. Garrett replied I don’t understand your question.
Ms. Freeman stated you were saying we would have a golf course come to you and say “hey, could you help us push our golf course. Would that golf course pay a fee to you to help you advertise for it?
Mr. Garrett replied are you asking if they pay part of the cost?
Ms. Freeman replied yes.
Mr. Garrett replied that would be nice, we would take it. But that is not the intent or our objective. Our objective is to use those dollars to elevate and promote that particular golf course or whatever entity it would be.
Speaker Cowan stated the question comes from Chambers of Commerce, their members have to pay a fee to be a part of the Chamber and then the Chamber promotes those businesses. Can you explain how that works with your organizations?
Mr. Navarra stated our organizations are membership based. Our membership is usually less than a Chamber of Commerce, in all of our communities. It is just a nominal fee that helps us understand if people are interested in the tourism business. Of course, we have hotels, museums and convention centers who are members, along with restaurants and that sort of thing. It is a nominal fee, and it does not keep our doors open. It just lets us know who is interested in that visitor. Who are we trying to market and promote at that visitor? If we did not have a membership, we would be handing every visitor a phonebook and that is not going to be as effective as inspiration guides, digital ad campaigns and stuff like that. We are membership based, but what we are looking for with our Will County proposal is coming up with a brand and looking at what the destination drivers would be and promoting the entire County. We would not be going out and asking for specific membership for this.
Speaker Cowan stated the funding you are talking about today would be for a comprehensive strategy for the County and is parallel to and part of your normal operations and your normal operations are member based.
Mr. Navarra stated we would still need to continue what we are doing.
Ms. Freeman stated that answered my question. I know a lot of the little festivals are to raise money for the smaller businesses, and I did not want to see our smaller businesses have to pay a fee to get the advertisement we are trying to help increase.
Mr. Garrett stated those are the things that we want to do. We have a lot of work to do, but we are trying to create a win-win for everybody, so it is equitable across the board.
Speaker Cowan stated even if they are not members of your organization, if we bring tourists to the County, then they will stop at a diner to get a bite to eat.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I love the idea of promoting Will County and getting people to come here. We all live here, because we love living in Will County and the community we chose to live. Do you have a plan for doing this? Will this require you to hire more employees? Do you have a more detailed plan than this overview so we could see where the dollars will go? Granted, the dollars Will County has been given from ARPA is a significant amount and you are asking for $4.2 million, which is not significant as a whole, but it is something we have to balance. I am wondering do you have that information?
Mr. Navarro replied the short answer is no; we do not have a detailed plan. It is in development as we understand how much the County is willing to invest, then we will have some ideas. We know what we are working on with some of the other counties and municipalities and some of those programs can be mimicked or transferred. We do not have a detailed plan figured out for Will County yet. We have not spent any resources or dollars on that. If these funds come through, then we would be looking at hiring contractors or staff to help carry out the plan for us.
Speaker Cowan stated as we get closer to making a decision, we could ask Mr. Navarro and Mr. Garrett for more specifics and more details about their plan.
Mr. Garrett stated we will bring those to the plate. You mentioned how great it is to live in Will County, I must agree; I live in Frankfort.
3. Adjustment of Election Precincts - To Be Distributed
(Lauren Staley Ferry / Chuck Pelkie)
Speaker Cowan stated in our continuing quest to adjust our election maps after the census, the last step is the adjustment of the election precincts. The County Clerk is here to tell us a little bit about that process and where we are at. We will have 24 separate Resolutions on the County Board agenda. The Resolutions will have the details on the precincts in each township.
County Clerk Staley Ferry stated I am here to talk about the precincts, and it is the last step in the process. We had a condensed timeframe because of when the map got approved. Our objectives were to keep the precincts located within a single County Board District and we did well with that; with only four exceptions, in Joliet, Lockport, and Homer. As closely as we could, we split the number of registered votes evenly. We kept the total number of precincts at roughly the same number to avoid any additional costs. Obviously, the more precincts we have, the more election judges, polling places and election equipment we need to purchase and send out to the new polling places. Where possible, we reduced the number of registered voters in our largest precincts. We left the retirement communities alone. There are some places like Carillon where there is a higher number of registered voters, but they are used to the way everything works; it is like a well-oiled machine. In places like Frankfort, Manhattan, Plainfield, and Wheatland, we reduced the number of registered voters in precincts there. The biggest thing was to minimize disruption for the voters and the residents of Will County. We tried to avoid changing polling places and make sure everyone was in a single County Board district. We had 304 precincts and we now have 310. The additional precincts are in Manhattan, Homer and Wheatland. Outside of the retirement communities, the precincts range in size from 1,000 to 1,800 registered voters, which is where we wanted to be. A big thanks to Mr. Greg Johnson in GIS who helped us in working with the maps, precincts, the new districts and making sure we were able to follow our objectives. We felt the most important thing was to have the least number of disruptions for the registered voters. With the changes in the County Board districts and the condensed amount of time, we figured this was the best plan. My staff has done a lot of work. The election team is still working on the back end with the data entry. We wanted to get the precincts in front of you and let you know what we are planning here and see if you have any questions.
Speaker Cowan stated the precinct maps are not attached to the agenda today. Mrs. Adams added they will be on the full County Board agenda. Speaker Cowan asked are they currently on the full County Board agenda? Mrs. Adams replied they will be when we publish it tomorrow.
Speaker Cowan stated by the time the work was done, our agenda was already out, so these are going to be on the County Board agenda, and you can start looking at those when the County Board agenda is published tomorrow. When you said you reduced the number of voters in some precincts, you meant that you equalized it so the very large precincts may have had a line moved slightly so some voters will be in the next precinct over, is that correct?
County Clerk Staley Ferry replied absolutely.
Speaker Cowan stated I know you don’t have the maps in front of you, so you will probably have questions when you see them. Do you have any specific questions about the process, procedures, and the process they went through?
Mrs. Ogalla stated I appreciate you keeping as many precincts as possible where they are so the voters know where they are when they go to vote. I think that is very important to consider in every process that we do to try and maintain the voters so they are engaged by not changing where they vote or not disrupting their thought about they have always lived in a particular County Board district and now I am in a different County Board district. With the new County Board map, we changed all the districts number. I think we could have done a better job of having some districts keep the old numbers so at least some of our constituents could say they are still in District #7; that is good, and I like that. I think that is very important and I look forward to seeing the new maps.
Ms. Ventura stated I recognize there was no formal direction from the County Board for smaller precincts. Mrs. Traynere and I had discussed that during some of the reapportionment. The State changed the law, and it says that you must keep the precincts as close to 1,200 and if you are over 300,000 voters in a county, any precinct that goes over 1,800 has to be recut. My concern is that the County Clerk has said that the precincts are anywhere between 1,000 and 1,800. I would think you would want to try and get them a lot closer to 1,200 to get an equal vote across the board; so, one precinct does not have more weight than the others. I think you should look at keeping it as close to the 1,200 voters as possible without a big range of 1,000 to 1,800. It sounds like you are done, but we have not seen these, but those are my biggest concerns. I would anticipate since our population went up that we would have more than just six additional precincts. I understand there is an additional cost every time we create a new precinct because we have more election judges and stuff, but in the case of making sure our voters have equal representation even when it comes to our precinct captains, it is important to try and keep that number as close to 1,200 as possible. When the County Board agenda is published, could staff e-mail those maps to everybody? I will say there is a big discrepancy in precincts between 1,000 and 1,800 and I think we are going to have some problems with those, especially if we end up going over 1,800 in the next ten years, we are going to have to readjust those precincts based on state statute. I think it is in the best interest of the County to relook at that and make sure our precincts stay around 1,200.
Speaker Cowan stated to be clear, when the agenda is published tomorrow, each of those Resolutions will have a detailed map of each township so you can take a closer look once that goes up. One of the problems with equalizing the number of people in the precinct is Wilton Township has one precinct with 600 voters. Unfortunately, because of the vast discrepancy in population size of each township, it presents some challenges. I am sure after everyone has a chance to look at those, any questions they have, we will try to get to you ahead of time, Madam Clerk.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Lauren Staley Ferry/Chuck Pelkie)
Mr. Fricilone asked as a point of order, why are we doing 2020?
Speaker Cowan replied we are not actually amended those dates, it is the title of the Resolution we are amending. What we are amending in the Resolution is the March 15, 2022 date to move it to the June 28, 2022 primary date.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Mrs. Parker asked does this change include the Queen of Hearts? It looks like it is more for poker runs, but would it include the Queen of Hearts and anything like that?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I do not think the Queen of Hearts falls into this category. These amendments were to reflect the changes made under this particular section of the Illinois Compiled Statutes. I have had a discussion with the Executive’s Office to see what we can do to address the Queen of Hearts type gambling. I also don’t know how much of that is actually in unincorporated Will County. I know there are various Queen of Hearts events, but most of those are in municipalities. This amendment does not deal with the Queen of Hearts.
Mrs. Parker stated in my current district there is an Elks Club, and they are always looking at things and I was curious if this would address it.
Mr. Schaben stated I believe the question was does the raffle license cover a Queen of Hearts and it would if it were done by a charitable organization or a non for-profit. To clarify, it does spell out specifically about poker runs and that is directed based on a change in state law done a few years ago.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(County Executive's Office)
Speaker Cowan stated as discussed previously, we are going to hold this space in case we are able to get it by next Thursday.
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Nick Palmer)
Mr. Fricilone asked there is nothing attached to the agenda, what are we voting on?
Ms. Ventura asked is this connected to the increase in budget we did for paratransit? I want to suggest some type of joint funding since we are putting more money in. I don’t want to see the townships pull their money out and we are stuck with things where they are at. If we invest a dollar, the townships should invest a dollar, or they have to maintain their current investment and if they can go up, we can invest more dollars. I wanted to throw that out there, since there was nothing attached. Will the study mentioned in Item #8 dictate #7? I don’t know what the expansion of paratransit will entail.
Mr. Palmer stated this is not directly connected, but it is kind of connected to the next item. This is about an appropriation that was made late in the budget process, and we are just formalizing that. To your point, several Board Members, including Leadership, had asked about this. This is for expansion of the service. It is intended to grow the program and not for us to put more money in and someone else pull their money out. The goal is to grow the system. We have been doing more lately to memorialize these actions in a Resolution, so down the road people can refer back to it. The language we will attach is basically your sentiment that this is for expansion. After Mr. Schaben and Ms. Bottomley talk about the next item, I think there may be some additional funding needs for that, but we don’t know that because they are going to go out to bid. The intent of this Resolution is to formalize what was already taken action on in the budget.
Ms. Ventura asked do you need any more direction or do you already have in mind what you are going to do?
Mr. Palmer replied beyond what you have stated, if there are any other suggestions or comments, we can incorporate those into the Resolution. I get what you just said and that is the spirit of what I have heard, this is to say this is for expanding the services and not to subsidize it and have other people pull their money.
Mr. Fricilone asked are we saving space on the County Board agenda, and you are going to put something on the Resolution?
Speaker Cowan replied that is correct.
Mr. Moustis stated the way the program works it is a shared cost for the providers. They pay at least 50% of the cost for all rides; that can change a little, it could be 60/40. In order for municipalities to participate, they have to pledge dollars into the program. I don’t see where it would ever be 100% of the County’s cost, because of the way the program is set up.
Mrs. Ogalla stated so often it seems there is nothing attached to the agenda, and we get it later. When that happens, it removes the discussion and questions we might have from the Committee. As we move into the year, I really hope we put an end to this and have as much attached to the agenda as possible, so we are able to ask questions at the Committee level so when we get to the County Board meeting, we can just say yes or no. That would be helpful.
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Mitch Schaben / Elaine Bottomley)
Ms. Bottomley stated I think I have met most of you, but for those I have not, my name is Elaine Bottomley, the Deputy Chief of Staff in the County Executive’s Office. I am very excited that the first thing I am able to present to you is paratransit. Attached to the agenda were two documents; a one-page memo, and a larger document talking about the overall goals and outcomes of the paratransit study. I just want to take a little bit of your time to make sure we are all on the same page and answer any questions about what the Paratransit Integration and Efficiency Study is.
Ms. Bottomley read the memo in the agenda packet.
Ms. Mueller stated I am really excited to see this. I have talked with Ms. Garlich over the last few years about ways we could try to fill in some gaps. I was looking at the implementation schedule; are those goal dates for the implementation? I noticed there were things the consultant team would be working on, and I thought do we have a team. How do we know this will be the date? I want to clarify those dates are a goal versus a for sure thing that are happening on those dates or being executed by those dates. Mr. Brooks and Ms. Winfrey have been involved in a lot of the paratransit stuff and I was hoping they would be involved with this since they have some history with it.
Ms. Bottomley stated that is an excellent question. As of right now, this is our overall goal for an implementation schedule. These dates and timeframes will be spelled out in the documents we bring forward.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I would like to ask that Mr. Moustis also be included. He has been very involved with the paratransit program Frankfort Township has.
Ms. Bottomley stated absolutely. We are hoping to get as much input as possible into this study. As far as involvement from County Board Members, the more the merrier. We are happy to continue to add names to the list of people to reach out to.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am assuming that the money for this consultant is in the County Executive’s budget already.
Ms. Bottomley stated part of this study will be financed with the $200,000 Pace Paratransit Grant we received and was approved by the County Board two months ago. We are not sure what the final costs will be, but we will be able to cover all of the stuff.
Ms. Ventura stated thank you for commenting that you will not be asking the County Board for dollars. How in-depth will the study go into new technology? Like the Uber app for the dial a ride? They talked about expanding the services for that and even using more electric vehicles for their buses. Will the study look at some of those unique things or is it just the general ridership and regular routes?
Mr. Schaben stated we are unsure of the total cost of this study until we go out for an RFP. We have talked with a few of our collar county peers who have conducted the study and we think the cost range will be between $200,000 and $250,000. We may not have enough money on hand to do the study, if the RFP comes back higher than what we have allotted for this. I just wanted you to be aware of that. We may come back and ask for additional funds to pay once the RFP comes back.
Ms. Ventura asked are we approving you to go out for an RFP or are we approving the study, regardless of costs?
Speaker Cowan stated this is for informational purposes. The Board does not need to give the County Executive authority to go out for an RFP. They will need to come back to us once they have a consultant onboard to execute a contract and at that point we would discuss funding, if necessary.
Ms. Ventura continued you said that some of the collar counties had done a study like this. Do you know how intrinsic that study is into alternative ride options?
Mr. Schaben replied McHenry County was one of the first counties to do this specific type of study and they are a lot further along than our peer counties are in implementing a countywide paratransit system. I have spoken to Lake County the most and they just completed their study. Their needs were similar to our needs in that they have an urban core as well as rural municipalities. They are in the process of actually implementing the recommendations that came out of that study and ultimately, they are working toward a unified paratransit system.
Ms. Ventura stated I just want to make sure if we go out for a study that we are looking at the ways of the future. We are starting to see indicators that the current system is not what is going to be needed and used in the future. I just want to make sure if we go out for a study that we are trying to implement those ideas as well.
Speaker Cowan stated to the point of Board Member involvement, obviously Members Brooks and Winfrey are great resources, but they are also only from one district. The more we can involve Board Members from a variety of places from around the County would be a preferable idea.
Mr. Schaben stated I anticipate there will be a series of regional based meetings, and we will absolutely want to include Board Members in the process.
Speaker Cowan stated for any of the public meetings we will rely on County Board Members to spread the word about that to their constituents.
9. Authorizing the County Executive to Petition the City of Joliet for Annexation of a Will County Campus Parcel Pursuant to the County’s Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Joliet
(Mitch Schaben)
Mr. Schaben stated as the County was constructing the Public Safety Complex the County entered into an IGA with City of Joliet to connect the city’s sewer and water system. Part of the IGA included a provision that when requested by Joliet, the County shall petition the City for annexation for all or a portion of that campus. The City is in the process of developing that corridor and in order to connect their city parcels they want to annex a part of our campus. The exact parcel information is included in the agenda packet. The City reached out to us and made the request and as part of the IGA we are going to move forward with the petition process.
Speaker Cowan stated it is my understanding the IGA pretty much requires us to do it, is that correct?
Mr. Schaben replied correct. It is a shall in the IGA that requires us to do this.
Speaker Cowan asked do we have any information about what the development intent is of the area?
Mr. Schaben replied I don’t have any information about what they are looking to develop. In the letter they specified they are trying to connect to existing parcels that are surrounding the County’s campus.
Mr. Moustis stated it should be pointed out that the County paid for the extension of sewer and water, and Joliet participated in the oversizing of pipes so it would open up development of other properties. Is this going to potentially impact any boundary agreements that may be out there? Have we looked at any of that?
Mr. Schaben asked could you be more specific about the boundary agreements?
Mr. Moustis replied most of the municipalities have boundary agreements that say here is our boundary. It could be New Lenox; it could be Manhattan, or it could be other municipalities that border Joliet. I am wondering if this stays in line with any boundary agreements Joliet has with other municipalities.
Speaker Cowan stated this is a great question because that is right on the line. I am surprised that is not New Lenox already.
Mr. Schaben stated we can get further clarification on that question.
Ms. Ventura stated I echo Speaker Cowan’s question about the City’s intent to develop the land. On one hand they are saying they want continuity and that implies they are annexing for future land. There is a lot of concern about warehouses in that area, especially along Laraway Road and Route 52. It would be nice if the City gave us a heads up if they are asking us to do this annexation. The other aspect of this agreement is the water. As Mr. Moustis said, we paid to do that connection. The City of Joliet is currently moving forward with a plan to get Lake Michigan water and they have a price tag of over $1 billion. They are asking other cities and villages to invest with them in order to get a set rate. Is that something that they have offered to us? Ms. Ventura read the eighth Whereas, in the Resolution attached to the agenda packet. This sounds like this is already done, but are we going to be asked to pay for any of their future investment? Will it increase our costs or rates that we had initially with the City?
Mr. Moustis asked I thought there were some recapture agreements with Joliet for the costs of extending the line.
Mr. Schaben stated to Ms. Ventura’s question, are you saying the cost to the County for the use of the water?
Ms. Ventura replied I would like to know if our rate is changing for use, but also will we be responsible for them to continue water services for their future project?
Mr. Schaben replied we would not be on the hook for paying for any water used by another entity. We are already paying for our use. This would be essentially an additional annexation to that area. We are already paying for our water use.
Ms. Ventura read Section 2 of the City of Joliet Resolution, in the packet and stated I don’t want them to come back and say that in order to provide water you have to invest in this future project and here is your cost. I am no lawyer, but sometimes when I read these things, I wonder what we are signing up for. I am a little nervous that we don’t know exactly what Joliet is building here or what our investment for their water system is. This Resolution makes me a little leery. Is it possible to have the answers to these questions before it goes to the County Board?
Mr. Schaben replied absolutely. I will say again, just to be clear, the IGA you are referencing is the original IGA. I don’t think anything in this IGA specifies or would put the County in a commitment for the future use of end point user, beyond the County’s property.
Ms. Ventura stated I will abstain on this vote today. Hopefully, we will get some more clarification before the meeting next week.
Mr. Palmer stated I can answer a couple of the questions. I was here, along with Mr. Tkac, Mrs. Tatroe, and others when we set up this original agreement. The positive was we did not have to annex in originally. For the County, there are no benefits. We are not paying property taxes or anything like that. Usually, when you get water and sewer from a municipality you are required to annex in, but we were not required to, so it really did not make a difference. I think they put in these provisions just in case they wanted to do something in the future. I have not checked all of the parcels, but my understanding is if you go west on Laraway Road towards Route 53 and the racetrack, Joliet is over there, but there is probably a bunch of parcels that are not in the City of Joliet. In order for them to annex this particular parcel, they would probably have to go through quite a few parcels. To Mr. Moustis’ point, we paid to get a line run to our facility from the area of Route 52 to near the ComEd plant. However, Joliet also did a recapture agreement with the County and any development that occurred along there, those people paid tap-on fees and we get some of our money back, so the cost of running the line is shared by the users. A trucking company came in and paid the appropriate fees. The County received some money back on that original investment from the City because of that. The annexation is because it is easier to go through the County’s property to get to this new property. The question I can’t answer and perhaps we can get an answer for is, do they have any idea who is going to go there. The original IGA referenced four parcels south of our triangle and now they would be able to continue on with those with the continuity of having our parcel in their City. This is all spelled out in the original IGA. We agreed to some considerations to make this happen; they provide the water and sewer, and we agree to these stipulations. If we don’t go along, they could potentially say that was part of their considerations in providing service. I think being a good neighbor we need to go along with this. But we can still get the answers to what this is for. They may not know they may still be trying to develop it.
Ms. Ventura stated the parts I read are from the Resolution and you will see it is different in the initial Resolution. There are some changes in language. I hear what you are saying in that we should be a good neighbor, but also if they are changing or adapting the language, we want to make sure we know what we are signing off on. That is my biggest concern. Maybe our attorneys can look at this and see if this is actually necessary language or we reword it to say we have already paid for our water investment, and we will continue to pay for our usage, so it does not sound like we are on the hook for their future investments in their water system.
Mr. Palmer stated I am not an expert on water systems, but I have sat through a lot of meetings with Joliet and the Fairmont Community on these issues. The question asked earlier was is the County obligated for anything; we are no more obligated than any other customer. We did not pay a tap-on fee, but we pay our water and sewer fees. If they raise those fees, we are going to pay the increased fees just like a resident or another business. When they go to Lake Michigan water there will be additional costs, but the more customers they have in their system, the more the costs are spread out. We are not above being required to pay any additional fees, we just pay what we pay for water and sewer, just like anybody else. It makes sense for Joliet to get more communities involved with Lake Michigan water because it is a more sustainable source, but it is also more paying customers that spread the costs over many more people.
Mr. Moustis stated I am not overly concerned about Laraway Road. I am concerned about Route 52. I would like to see the facility planning areas of Joliet, Manhattan, and New Lenox. My concern is that the boundary agreement with Manhattan is going to expire in a short period of time. I am more concerned about the City’s continuing development of logistics on Route 52. I think knowing the facility planning areas is important because that could change the boundary agreements. Once the boundary agreement expires, they can say they can do what they want. I think they have to go to CMAP for that. I don’t know exactly how they determine facility planning areas. I think we should get that information just so we know the potential impact to other communities, both incorporated and unincorporated.
Ms. Ventura stated the boundary agreement expires in 2025 between Joliet and Manhattan.
Mr. Moustis stated that could impact the Manhattan community. I think we need to take that into consideration. To Ms. Ventura’s point, what is the land plan for that area? It may have no impact at all, but I would still like to know.
Mr. Van Duyne asked is this a time sensitive issue? Is there a possibility we could get some more information before the full County Board meeting, or could we push it back a month?
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Schaben in nodding, so we could postpone this until January and get some more information.
Mr. Schaben stated this is to get the petition process started and that would not be done by next month anyway. I don’t see a problem postponing this until next month.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan asked for a motion to dissolve the following Ad-Hoc Committees: CARES Act Funding, Complete Count Census, Reapportionment and RNG Facility.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated we all agreed and voted on the Sheriff's salary, with a percentage raise. The numbers I was given to read about what that 3% increase was, were wrong for years three and four. We are being extra clear about what our intention is and correcting this to reflect the 3% annual raise for the Sheriff.
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Marta Keane)
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
(Wendie Garlich)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
| 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, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Mrs. Adams reviewed the Proclamation for Rocky Donahue and stated it will be presented to him on Wednesday night and read into the record on Thursday.
IX. APPOINTMENT(S) BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
1. December 2021 Appointment(s) by County Executive
(Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
XI. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
XII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
Motion to Save Space for Four Zoning Cases and One Resolution on the County Board Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Motion to Remove Appropriation of Grant Funds in Coroner's Office from the Draft Agenda
Mrs. Adams stated Ms. Howard at the Finance Committee on Tuesday, there was a discussion about the grant funds for the Coroner's budget and you said that may already have been appropriated in the FY22 budget and that we would not need a Resolution for this. Have you been able to clarify that?
Ms. Howard replied I spoke with the Coroner's Office, and they verified that those funds were already included in the FY2022 budget. We do not need to move that forward.
Mrs. Adams asked Speaker Cowan for a motion to remove that item from the draft County Board agenda.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
Motion to Save Space for a Resolution for Additional Funding for the Morgue Project on the County Board Agenda
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Mr. Fricilone stated we have had some conversations about moving meetings back to in person, but in light in the recent increase in our positivity rate, to 8% and over, I think we should suspend that talk for a couple more months, until we get a clearer picture of what is going on in the County.
Speaker Cowan stated I appreciate that. Just so everyone is on the same page, I pulled up the Region 7 numbers today and we have had a steady increase in positivity over the last 30 days. We have been over the 8% line for a little over a week. Our ICU bed availability, and I think that is the number that should make us all nervous, is way low at this point; it is down to 7%. I checked Edward Hospital’s numbers last night and they are at zero percent. We have had over a month of patient increases in COVID-19. The numbers are not great. I would encourage both caucuses to discuss this and we will make an announcement next week about what our plans will be.
Mr. Fricilone stated the County Clerk gave a presentation about all the money that was going to be saved when we bought all the new equipment and then when we brought out at budget time that we had this extra $1 million in savings in the County Clerk’s department, they said we really didn’t save it. At that time everybody said we need to know what is going on; was this money in the budget or not. We were told we were going to get some kind of feedback, but I don’t think we ever got that. I would still like to get more clarification from the County Clerk’s Office on how the original budget had no money in it for the temporary workers that are not going to be needed now that we bought the new equipment. How was that money not in the budget to begin with? Where did it go? What is going on? I am just looking for more clarification, not today, but could we have the Clerk come back and clarify that for us?
Ms. Mueller stated I was going to speak on what Mr. Fricilone mentioned. It was my understanding when that presentation was made to us that these would be future savings of temp workers we would not have to hire in the next election. I just wanted to reiterate that was my understanding. Also, when we were discussing about coming back in-person, I want to be really clear and let you all know, I am an immuno-compromised person. I take these discussions very seriously because it affects my health. I also checked the ICU beds. Because I could need one of those on a moment’s notice, I like to keep track of whether they are available or not. I am definitely looking forward to having this conversation.
Mr. Moustis stated as a 72-year-old diabetic, I am hunkering back down. We have some older folks on the Board that could be more in jeopardy.
XIV. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan stated unfortunately we lost Mr. Bruce Tidwell and I wanted to make sure everyone saw the e-mail that visitation for Bruce will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. this Saturday, December 11th at the Joliet First Assembly Church at 1741 Essington Road in Joliet. In lieu of flowers, the family is asking that donations be made to Bruce's church, which is the Journey Church at 1303 S. Schoolhouse Road, New Lenox. If you need that information, please contact staff and they will be happy to share that information with you. Hopefully, we can all pay our respects to Bruce and his family.
XV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XVI. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Approval)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:26 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Alerts Sign-up