Will County Board Executive Committee met Feb. 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Van Duyne led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 11:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Absent |
Also Present: N. Palmer
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. American Rescue Plan
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Palmer is setting up a meeting with Anser and working on getting dates and times for a kickoff meeting with the county board leadership office and the Executive’s office and we will keep you abreast of that. Hopefully we will get that set up sooner rather than later so we can get rolling on the bigger issues. One thing I also wanted to let you know is that Mr. Palmer and I met with the Presidents of Lewis University, St. Francis, GSU, JJC, Caroline Portlock from Workforce Investment, Michelle Stiff from Workforce Development, Garland Mays represented the Executive’s office and also the CED to talk about a vertically integrated education training workforce and what we can do in that area. It was a really productive conversation. The end result was some discussion about more immediate things, some small-scale things. One of the ideas was helping people experiencing homelessness, to establishing an address so they can apply for jobs. A common hurdle we can help with the ARPA funds to get those things done. Also, some bigger thoughts about incentives for students to study particularly nursing and teaching and remain in those professions in Will County for a number of years. This was just kind of an idea that everyone on the call agreed this was something to pursue with the help of the ARPA money getting that setup. The presidents needed to go back and work out what that would actually look like and then come back to us with some concrete ideas that we as a board can make a decision on. We talked about pillars or buckets or categories; the next step is setting those up. We will be bringing those forward to the full board now that we have Anser on board and putting some financial figures with them. We do have a number of water, sewer, stormwater projects that we will be able to move along quickly as well as revenue replacement and then looking at health care related expenditures and then economic development and business-related funds too. Hopefully we will have that for you soon to bring forward to the full board. With the CARES Act we had the ad-hoc committee, and they were empowered to make decisions about the CARES Act. We are not having an ad-hoc committee for the ARPA funds; we will do everything through executive committee. Would we like to empower the executive committee to make some of the day-to-day decisions that need to be made quickly so we don’t have to wait for the full county board meeting for every decision? Certainly, we would want everyone included in the larger decisions, such as the guidelines, with the full board.
Mr. Brooks noted in the past everything that the executive committee votes on, would still have to go through the entire board.
Mrs. Tatroe stated most things do, but what I’m understanding is being discussed here is an actual delegation of authority to the executive committee with defined parameters as to what the committee could vote on.
Mr. Brooks stated he would certainly be in favor of a resolution for that. Mr. Moustis indicated he also favors that; it’s almost impossible to do. But the full board would set all the parameters - the pillars, buckets, or silos. The board would decide how much goes into each one. It is really the execution part that the committee would move forward with. I think it is really the only way to do it. Mrs. Traynere agreed; I am getting a lot of questions from people in my community about their requests. I really want to see that money get to the community as soon as possible.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I think that is a very good plan to have the executive committee do it, the rules and approval of the resolution by the full board. If we could get something together for this month - the sooner the better. I would be in favor of it.
Ms. Ventura indicated I would like to see what that resolution looks like; moving forward is important. Will we be meeting on a separate day? This seems like this is the best way to move forward, if we are not going to do an ad-hoc committee. Speaker Cowan stated we would try not to create extra committee meetings; we would try to do it during the standard executive committee meetings. Either way we would bring something forward in March.
Mr. Fricilone commented if in March we bring forward a resolution, basically first having the executive committee decide on pillars and bring that resolution forward that these are the pillars, and the executive committee will be in charge of making those allocations all in one resolution.
Ms. Mueller indicated I know it has taken us a while in getting this money out, but we have to be careful how we are doing this. I’m anxious to get it going. Ms. Tyson asked will there be a dollar amount that does not require the full board to weigh in on.
Speaker Cowan answered we will work on setting the parameters but to that point; even the CARES act committee they did not vote on every single disbursement. They weren’t voting on every single small business who applied. That is one thing that we have to balance with Anser to set up how that flow will look like.
Mr. Palmer stated the key is setting the parameters for the bigger pillars and then the reason we hired Anser is to help us set up a formal deliberate process that the projects and those decisions would come back. Speaker Cowan is correct; we did not approve each expenditure. We approved a business program or a revenue replacement program. You will vote on those at executive committee if the full board empowers the committee. We will have to set up parameters at each level so there is accountability. Those details are yet to be worked out.
Ms. Traynere noted I would like to see us get the authority for the executive committee on the agenda for county board next week. We can decide the pillars and the dollars amounts at the next executive meeting and bring to the next board meeting, but I’d like to get through one step of the process.
Mr. Palmer stated I agree with you; however, I am still trying to get a meeting with leadership and the Executive’s office to formally kick this off with Anser. I would hate for us to approve next week something that then we meet with Anser and they say you should have done x, y and z, we should have done something different.
Ms. Ventura questioned if you can save a spot on the agenda and just remove it if it doesn’t move forward.
Mr. Moustis commented I think we should take a step further and put it on the county board agenda and put suggested pillars or buckets and let the board discuss it and do some framework next week. When we did the CARES, we did the silos and we adjusted those. But we did the basic kind of stuff. I think we can perhaps approve a framework next week. If we have to wait another month for the board, it just goes on and on. It may not be the perfect; we may have to come back and make some adjustments but at least we are moving forward with a basic framework for distribution of funds and give the executive committee the authority to act as the board’s agent to execute. We’re on our way; I would hate to wait another month. If it doesn’t work out - it doesn’t work out, but at least have it on the agenda for next week.
Mr. Palmer clarified we are doing one resolution to designate the executive committee to be the entity that can approve these things. We will have to spell out the parameters between now and next Thursday. We can debate it on the floor if we have to. But then the second resolution you are suggesting is setting of dollar amounts for the different pillars as a starting point, knowing we can change it. That will help drive the conversation with Anser and the board.
Motion to place 2 resolutions on the County Board Agenda, delegating authority to the executive committee to make decisions on developing the programming for distribution of ARPA funds and establishing the parameters for the expenditure of American Rescue Plan Funds
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Allocation of Cannabis Tax Revenue
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan indicated this is another item that has been in and out of committees and discussion. We were waiting for some of the ARPA stuff to settle out and see where these 2 things could work together. Our latest financial report has Cannabis funds at over $1.8 million. That is good news. This money isn’t going anywhere until we allocate it. It is staying in this fund and growing until we make decisions about how to allocate it. One of the things that has come up in conversations; one thing is a little more complex is the potential of starting a revolving loan small business program. In conversation with CED, financial professionals, and some local business owners, we recognize this is a worthy thing to pursue but also complex. We do not need a vote on this. Just like we gathered the group together on the education and workforce development portion for the ARPA funds, we are going to put together a meeting to talk about what a revolving loan program would look like. I am going to ask the Caucus leaders, we will ask at least one person from each caucus, include the executive’s office, CED, financial professionals and a couple of local business leaders to talk about what that would potentially look like and then we can bring it forward to the board so you can see exactly how it would work. We could tweak it as a board and then potentially be able to move forward with that.
Mr. Moustis stated the county, through federal grants have had these programs in the past. The oversite agency was CDBG. How you want to measure success, becomes more complex than you think. The success rate is sometimes not what you are hoping for. Perhaps CDBG can give leadership information on how the past programs have worked and how they feel they have been successful. Some years ago, we had these same types of programs for housing, revolving loan program. CDBG would be a great resource on their perspective on how some of these federal programs worked.
Speaker Cowan noted that is a great suggestion. We will put them on the list to include.
Mrs. Traynere indicated I understand that this revolving loan would take a considerable amount of time. Also, we talked about a scholarship, education fund, just like the ARPA funds, I have been very patient with the Cannabis tax revenue and the ARPA funds. I’m tired of being patient and would like to see us move some of this money in a direction. One of the conversations that you held was about a revolving scholarship fund. If we can’t move on the small business loan quickly. I do understand the complications with that. Can we set a dollar amount for each and at least on the education one, maybe start moving forward a little quicker? I know the money is sitting in the bank somewhere. We’ve been collecting for a while; we have a nice chunk. I think it’s time to at least designate dollar amounts and the projects where we can start to move forward.
Speaker Cowan stated we will try to bring something forward in March. We want to make sure we are considering a couple of different things and what the balance of that will be.
Mr. Fricilone said we need more conversation. The revolving loan program is one thing. That’s loaning money out and then getting money back. This isn’t a grant program. This is a loan program. Giving out scholarships is totally different, and I would continue to advocate for us using a good portion of that Cannabis money to help us do the stand-alone CAC building since over 70% of the people are a product of drug or alcohol situation with family. The revolving loan program: besides CDBG giving us some information, hopefully at NACO this week, we will learn what some of the other counties are doing in that regards. It’s one thing to become a bank - start loaning money out. You do have to get paid back; this isn’t a grant program. It is a lot more complicated than just saying this group deserves money and you give it and that’s the end of it. We need a lot more discussion.
Ms. Mueller stated it is very important to me that we use these funds to help the communities that are most greatly affected by Cannabis prohibition over the last several decades. I did some calculations with the R3 zones and Will County has over 60,000 residents living in those zones. I’m sure we have businesses too that can benefit. I’m definitely interested in hearing more about the revolving business loan. I read yesterday we have a new president of the CED, Doug Pryor. I’m definitely excited to hear more about that especially with the changes coming up in the CED. I really do believe that CAC is a worthy cause of funds. This is something that this County should have been talking about a long time ago. I want to be careful in relating the services of the CAC with Cannabis dollars. It is important to fund but want to be careful about how we are framing that; all the children in the CAC are not there as a result of Cannabis. Some children might be, but we need to be careful with that.
Mrs. Ogalla indicated I do not support a revolving loan; I think that would be difficult to do fairly. I would like to know what is the average we get per quarter on the Cannabis sales. I would like us to look at it and setting up something for a 3- or 5-year term and take dollars to put into different programs. If maybe like the revolving loan, that would be one program. The CAC, children are not all there because of Cannabis, many of them are there due to some sort of possible addiction issue that the parents have, whatever it is. Helping build the stand-alone building would be a nice friendly place for the children to come. They have already been traumatized. Perhaps planning to take half the funds every year and continuing with that and possibly coming up with a different plan for the other money we might use. I think scholarships might be a very beneficial program to use and if we could set it up for 3 years and look at it again in 3 years to see if the funds are being used and working right in the scenarios that we have chosen instead of setting up a program for an indefinite amount of time.
Ms. Ventura suggested creating an ad-hoc committee under finance; it is important to have outcome driven data. A couple of things I don’t think we started getting money until August or September, so that 1.2 isn’t even indicative of that first full year. January for the state were a lot less than December. I don’t know if that’s because of the holidays and people had to destress because of their families, I’m not sure. It does flow and need some sort of quarterly averages probably the best way to go. I want to congratulate Doug, I saw in the paper the other day too, now for the cannabis stuff I’m going to recommend that we create an Ad-Hoc committee under finance, so this all-County Board Members. Not all of them but, County Board Members will be selected for the Ad-Hoc committee. And it will work sort of similar like CDBG can interview people who need funds. They might see presentations, maybe people who are free money might want to come get some county money as well and maybe they come forward to that committee but, it allocates time specifically for people who are on the finance or want to be involved in this to hear those ideas. It also allows reporting on a yearly basis; to Judy’s point I think it’s very important to have outcomes driven stuff that’s based data; what did we try and what happened. That prevents us from just throwing money in a problem hoping for the best. If we throw money in a problem after a year we can see if it was successful. Did it meet the objectives and the outcomes that we were hoping for, this allows people to spend a little more on that than just the normal finance committee? Under that committee I would hope that they would talk about 3 of the 4 things that we talked about today including percentage of those funds may be allocated to our 3 areas. So, while we may not want to use whole percentage of it this way, we definitely want a quarter or it or ½ of it to only go to our 3 areas we are definitely making sure those dollars are going back into the places that were hit harder by the war on drugs. So, I think I’m with Meta on that that this is important that we do invest those dollars back into the areas hit hardest that helps even out the wealth disparities in our county. Obviously support the revolving loan, I think that is a great idea and I am okay even without a committee moving forward with that as long as in the resolution it says, that when those dollars are repaid, they will be repaid to the cannabis funds. So, that will allow us to use those dollars now on the basically we can look at it as an investment. Every investment has a risk. This too would have a small risk but obviously it has a potential to pay itself back. Then those funds can be allocated in future years so, I feel that is the smart way to go forward. As for the CAC this is something if we had an Ad-Hoc committee they could hear what they ask for. I do want to be careful, I’m with Meta on this as well. That were saying that the CAC only helps people from families of drug abuse and just not true. There’s sexually abuse, trauma and lots of other things that unfortunately children who are using the CAC have had to go through in their life but, there may be a chance to be an investment in the areas that had been impacted so, I think the Ad-Hoc committee specifically for cannabis dollars with appropriate to make those best decisions and equally for scholarships and we can sign a percentage to go to scholarships great. Who determines those scholarships? Who will be looking at the applications like all of those questions have to be answered and again an ad-hoc committee would be the best source to review those applications on a regular basis. As long as money is put back to this fund, I think ultimately it is time to setup some type of committee in finance that would review all these ideas and possible more.
Speaker Cowan commented ad-hoc committees are not made up by motions. Mrs. Tyson noted when it comes to revolving loans, I didn’t think that the County Board was in the business of being a bank. I think maybe revolving loans should be left to banks and we shouldn’t look at that because you must have punitive things in place in case people don’t pay back the money which happens in small percentages of loans. They’re not going to be paid back. Also, I would like to see the money go of course to scholarships, and educational efforts and maybe instead of a loan to business maybe an educational effort to help their business succeed. New businesses fail after five (5) years. So, give them the tools to go forward and not fail.
Speaker Cowan stated to clarify a revolving loan. The reason it’s called a revolving loan is to Rachel’s point; when people pay back the loan it goes back into the loan fund. So, often times with revolving loans programs you start with say, a million dollars and the loan fund stay relevantly consistent. The interest that is charged is lower than what a bank would charge because we are not looking to make a profit off these loans; the county wouldn’t be profiting because that’s not our business. The interest rate would be to cover any defaults. Banker and financial guys know more about this than I do but it would be a lower loan rate than what a bank would provide and that makes it more accessible and more successful to especially our small business owners in the area. The loan amounts are typically smaller than what most banks would afford because Margaret to your point when businesses fail sometimes, they can’t get those large loans because of those interest rates, or they don’t have the capitol. This allows them to invest in their future of these businesses which helps keep the economy afloat. The county likely would not be the agency of this. Jim’s agreeing with me on this one. But it would be providing that base loan fund amount and the good thing with cannabis funds it could continually increase, if we wanted it to be. So, in that way it would be slightly different than a revolving loan. We certainly would not be in the business of being a bank. We would have fiscal agents that would manage the process for us. Revolving system will help people for years to start it will help people for years and years to come that’s the whole point. We need to work out some of these details and see if it’s something we want to move forward with and once we get sort of a plan of what it could look like we will bring that back to probably the finance committee for a decision.
Mrs. Ogalla indicated I am not in favor of the revolving loan but, so if you guys are and I know we can have that discussion. What if we decided to go forward with a couple other ideas while the revolving process is looked into so we can at least start something where we could say, we all agree that we want to do scholarships. It seems like a lot of people did say, okay we going to take $400,000 of the $1.8 million that we have right now and setup where kids or adults of any ages could apply for scholarships and whether you guys want to specify what type of scholarships or whatever but, we could get something going. I think the revolving loan if everyone is in agreement, and you move forward with that is going to take a while to setup and figure out and it would be nice to start allocating some of this money towards that and while all the kids at CAC are not impacted by that this is a revenue source that we have that could continue to fund the CAC and we currently don’t have that. Maybe we can take a portion of that and do that and really consider the first thing we do that stand alone building and maybe have further discussion on that but, while the information is giving to the revolving loan if we can maybe say, let’s move forward with a couple other ideas that we all agree with or most everyone or maybe I’ll be the last man standing there not agreeing which is fine and move forward with something so that we can start taking dollars and putting it towards good use.
Mr. Moustis commented I was going to concur with Judy as far as some other ideas come forward also. I’m big on work force, education, getting people jobs. The old let’s teach them how to fish and not give them a fish. In the past these loan programs and the business for federal grants there was a work force component it was about jobs creation and what kind of job creation could they create if they were given this money? I personally think we should tie it all to job creation and work force development very exciting to hear by the way madam chair. That you met with some of our educational institutions here in Will County because they can help make the difference. That really makes the difference in life, in a person’s life. And any case in cases of relation marijuana that’s not illegal the amount of people that was negatively affected and couldn’t get work because they may have had some marijuana convictions. To me that’s the person we want to seek out or the families we want to seek out. Because they were denied access to the market and opportunities because of a nonviolent, crime and there were areas that were more affected by this. Those that couldn’t defend themselves. Those that didn’t have the money to go into court. Those that couldn’t hire an attorney. Those were the folks that most likely get beat over the head with this. So, I would really like for us to focus on that. You can do it all different ways whether someone could be with…let me just stop! I like for us to focus on education, all types of education and job creation to help people to get a job and start their life in a positive way. And I hope we get some other ideas in that regard.
Mr. Balich stated I’m listening to the conversation, and I agree with Jim and Judy but, at the same time all the money were talking about is money we would never get unless the federal government was sending us money. We’re flush because of the federal government. That’s going to end. I said this last year and I’m saying it again now, how long before our county goes broke? Because we spend more money than we should on a lot of things. We hire people all the time for $100,000 or better pay and we don’t realize that this is going to go on for a long time. We’re not going to be firing people, we’re not going to stop projects or programs in the middle. Just because we got a bunch of money from the federal government, we have to be careful how we spend it because our county is not flushed. We are only flush because of the federal government. I know we’re talking about the local tax money from the cannabis is going into the same thing. We got a bunch of money how are we going to spend it? Well maybe we should look into taking the money and applying to the CAC. At least we wouldn’t have to fund it maybe. But I’m just trying to point out that we have a lot of programs but we’re never looking at how do we cut our expenses? That’s what driving me. I’m listening to everybody, and they sound great but why are we going out and spending money that we really don’t have? We’re only flush like I said because of the money coming in from the federal government. If we didn’t have that our cost for insurance goes up all the time. The cost for gas really going nuts in the last year. I mean all the expenses are going up and we’re talking about spending money on programs instead of saying, what are we going to do to start making ourselves flush because I can recall Mr. Moustis talking about how many years before we can’t pay our bills. Is it 5 years or 10 years, I don’t know the number because I’m not a genius but, what I’m talking about I might have said it the wrong way but the bottom line is we can’t be going out and spending all this money for new programs and new things. We should be looking at saying, we got extra money let’s find a way to use it to offset some of our current expenses and the CAC is current expense we always give them money. Well, if we’re using that money for CAC we don’t have to give them the money anymore. So we’re saving some money on expenses.
Ms. Traynere noted I just have one more thing; in the thought of education which I am totally onboard with the idea of scholarships by the way and having the schools help administer them but, my other thought was because I served on the committee very late in the grant process for the education that they did up here at Bolingbrook High School on teenage pregnancy prevention. It made me think I was wondering if we had considered any kind of a program or grant or working with the health department or whatever to have a drug education program in our school or anti-drug program. Just wanted to throw that idea out there. That is all.
Mrs. Ogalla indicated what Mr. Balich said makes a lot of sense. I think a lot of us are in favor of the scholarships because it does help people move forward and we could specify, I think we should leave it open and people should be able to put an application for it because the impact from cannabis is very wide in my opinion but the scholarship thing will be great but it does make sense what Steve says and it fit in with what Mike had said where we do give money to the CAC every year. If we take a portion of this and put it in there then we don’t have to fund the CAC out of tax dollars we collect we can fund it out of the cannabis tax revenue and that would be a different revenue source and we don’t have to go to the tax payers for and that helps us keep our budget a bit lower because we don’t have to continue to tax to help fund the CAC. I know other counties do fund their CAC from various sources. We don’t except for giving them money every year. I think what Steve says makes a lot of sense and instead of creating a these other programs it might make more sense to do something like that. I do like what Steve had to say. Thank you.
Ms. Ventura indicated I wanted to clarify for the resolution when I said that the money goes back to the cannabis account. What I meant was the interest. I’m assuming there charging some interest on the loan the loan based on a million dollars would stay is the CAC going to run it would stay in their basic account and then the interest would go back into cannabis until that million dollars was replaced. That could take a long time depending on how much interest is being charged. But I do think the reason why revolving loans program is a good idea is first of all, this is covering maybe 20% of the business loan that is needed. So, a bank will still need to come in and give a high percentage of that and the percentage wanting the business to put down collateral as well. I think Doug had talked through some of these points with the committee when he first presented the idea. The idea is that this is a typically don’t have all of the collateral up front could get a little push. So, this isn’t your chain restaurant or your people who are already very successful. These are people or families, individuals who are trying to grow maybe a business out of their garage or have a small store front and need to expand now. That’s what we’re kind of talking about. Those are individuals who are trying to create more wealth in our community, grow businesses. That’s why I think this is a good program because it could help people who have struggled in the past, who have been overlooked maybe because they don’t have as much collateral as needed to do that. That’s why this is a little bit of a risky investment, but all things considered the board looking at it does minimize the risk. I also want to clarify when we talk about these tax dollars the tax dollars are generated from people buying cannabis, not federal revenue. We do get a smaller percentage from the state selling cannabis that comes out but the vast majority of these funds are locally here people buying cannabis. I would like to see those dollars invested in the community I’m not opposed to some ideas that Jim gave but, again there’s a whole lot of time that we can spend discussing this which is why I think a committee dedicated to just that would be great.
Ms. Traynere stated I just wanted to clarify for the record I’ve been on this board elected in 2008. We have only recently started to give the CAC funds I would say probably the last three (3) years while the Democrat, I don’t want to get into the political part but it’s only been the last three (3) years that I’m fully aware that we’ve been giving to the CAC and lately in larger amounts but I’m not opposed to the idea of using some of the cannabis money for the CAC either. Because many times the reason those children are in those position is because their parents have had difficult times either struggling with drugs or alcohol abuse or mental health conditions. I’m not opposed to that but, I don’t know if that should be the only funding source. Nor do I know that we always have to give to the CAC because clearly we didn’t give to the CAC before.
2. Awarding Contract for Paratransit Integration and Efficiency Study (PIES) Consulting Services - Resolution Added
(Elaine Bottomley)
Ms. Bottomley stated I just want to give a brief overview just like you asked, currently we do have Paratransit service that we oversee through Will Ride. However, the county as a whole has a patch work of services. Many of these services that exist throughout the county outside the ones that we manage are limited to certain segments of the public and limited to certain types of trips that you pretty much have to be preapproved for. The purpose of this study is to overall develop a mobility management structure to better coordinate ADA Paratransit and on demand services throughout the entire county and to just truly provide a comprehensive service. Our hope is that we are going to be able to fill geographic destination and hours of operations service gaps and really make sure that this is a system that fully efficient and accessible to everyone that needs it. Our goal for our consultant team is to make sure that we have various public involvements and engagement analysis of existing services, identification of these gaps and any existing services while also looking towards our future needs while giving us a financial funding analysis. To give us alternative and recommendations for coordination of services. This is all information I mentioned back in our Dec 9, Executive Committee meeting. I know that was a while ago, so this is on track for what we discussed then. The ultimate goal is to fully have this process and this study wrapped up within the next years.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
Speaker Cowan indicated this is authorizing the Resource Recovery and Energy Division of the Will County Land Use Department to begin the process of the Prairie View Land Fill Expansion. This is just the very first step in what I believe to be a very long process. We’re not talking about bidding any of it today. This will essentially give the Executive office and Land Use the authority to start assembling the info. We will have a presentation of this process in the near future that will lay out a schedule for us and explain exactly what this is and how it all works. I’m going to turn it over to Mitch for a second.
Mr. Schaben stated the resolution on today’s agenda is step one in a multi-step, multi-year process for expanding the footprint in the County’s Prairie View Land Fill. As estimated by the Illinois Environment Protection Agency in the landfill disposal capacity report in the County’s Resource Recovery and Energy Division. The Prairie View Landfill expected to reach capacity by approximately 2036. As the resolution states the recital is in the best interest of the county to pursue landfill expansion as it’s a necessary service to residents for the county to be responsible for ways generate in the county. Further generate revenue to support county functions and services. Staff has estimated that the duration of the entire process from start to finish will be 8 ½ to 9 years. If the process begins in 2022, we should expect this process to be completed by 2031. I do want to highlight recital number six (6) in the resolution any landfill expansion subsequent operator should have to comply with all Illinois procurement laws and applicable county ordinances. So, this process is highly subjected to Illinois law. If the resolution is approved the Resource Recovery and Energy Division and Land Use will begin putting together a comprehensive outline of the expansion process to include all the necessary steps, procedures and a recommended budget for the entirety of the process. We will notify the board when that information is ready for presentation to the board and that conclude my remarks.
Mr. Moustis asked for additional clarification of the process. Mitch you can probably answer this. One of the first things I would think we could look at and we have to demonstrate is of course whether the County Board wants to pursue expansion. I’m wondering if we’re going to do some steps to say okay. We demonstrated a need. Have the board say, okay we should go forward because they’re going to be the need. I also want to point out since I was around for the last process even though we might talk about the revenue and how it helps to support the county, certainly the waste program. Revenue is not the motivation. As we determine the need, I just want to point out that it’s not for revenue. It’s for waste management initially. The fact that we get some money from it is nice but, that is not the purpose. I’m just warning county board members to stay away from that as a reason you want an expansion. The other thing that may complicate this a little bit more; I think we had a good formula is that we don’t put more waste in as generated by Will County because we export some waste. I think we initially demonstrate that need at the board. Include that there is a need and then move forward with the rest of the study.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I realize this is step 1. I hope that as part of this process we will look at what we have here at the county versus tipping fees and other landfills to ensure that our local trash haulers can choose us versus other locations for the cost and then I know that were supposed to get audits from landfills which we keep getting. I’ve heard that they are on the Auditor’s website. I look for them I can never find them. Nobody ever gives us that information back; we just discuss it. So, it would be good to have an audit program together on that. I think it’s good at some point in the future to have a tour of the landfill that we have in the past, so the new county board members many have not been to the landfill who are on the board today. I also feel we need to be comparing what we do with what other landfills do; perhaps we don’t or that we do that is better. Hopefully, all that will be covered in this lengthy process.
Ms. Ventura noted I do want to clarify that my motion is to take this first step. I am not saying we should expand or shouldn’t but, I want to get the information. To Jim’s point that is not about making money this is a service that we need to deal with our trash. How the best dealing with it. Obviously, the way we are generating it or capturing the menthane gas in the future that might allow for us to have more space or make things more complicated. This process will help to outline all that. I think that’s important. When you talk about the State of Illinois procurement process it’s important that we go out to open bid. If we decide to go forward and open up the footprint or the length of the time that this landfill is open that we allow for any qualified bidders to come in and help us maintain our landfill. That just protects the taxpayer their dollars making sure we protect their dollars as well as we’re providing the best service as possible. Just wanted to point that out for anyone who didn’t catch when Mitch was going through it.
Mr. Fricilone indicated I just wanted to mention regarding Judy comment and others that all our tipping fees and all of the numbers for our operations are set forth in the agreement we signed a little over a year ago with Waste Management;, really has nothing to do at this point with any expansion. We are going to need expansion we do have to prove that to get federal approval. To be able to expand and will be a big process at that point but it really doesn’t have anything to do at this point and have nothing to do with numbers and tipping fees and all that right now. That has all been laid out in the contract we just signed. That contract goes to 2043.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(County Executive's Office)
Speaker Cowan stated this was an IDOT funded study that looked at the infrastructure around the Intermodals. Both Will County and Joliet contributed funds. It was consultant led and Ann Schneider was also involved. We would like to have a presentation about this at an executive committee in maybe March or April. We can consider taking action to adopt or accept this plan.
Mr. Schaben noted our plan was to bring the Intermodal Master Transportation plan for presentation in March and then the CMAP Moving Will County study in April.
5. Approval of the Moving Will County Truck Routing and Communities Plan as presented by Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)
(Patty Mangano, CMAP/Civiltech & CDM Smith)
Speaker Cowan stated this is kind of the same deal. This is the truck routing CMAP Moving Will County study. This was largely driven by CMAP and focused on truck routing and land use. Again, it was consultant led and Ann Schneider was heavily involved. We will have a presentation about this in a month or so and consider whether we would like to officially adopt this as well.
Mr. Van Duyne indicated he is anxiously awaiting the study and results because the district that I represent and everything south of I-80 definitely needs some serious attention when it comes to truck routing. The residents are very excited to get these results.
Ms. Ventura noted to be very clear, we had finished the Moving Will County Forward study. Is this the one that was done with Joliet or is this the moving Will County forward study that just ended 6 months ago?
Mr. Palmer s Mimi said, the Joliet Will County Intermodal was the first item. They both were collaborative with other people. this one; Joliet was not the only partner - there were others involved. The first one was more Joliet and the second one was not as much Joliet, but they were invited to participate in both.
Ms. Ventura commented I would very much want us to adopt this plan. Speaker Cowan stated as I just said we’re going to bring presentations forward to the Executive Committee probably March or April and at that time, we’ll be voting whether to adopt them.
Mr. Moustis said it might be better to have the presentation at a County Board Meeting or special County Board Meeting. It should be a presentation the full County Board should hear. I would like to have the whole County Board here. Speaker Cowan indicated we can either have the committee as a whole or decide if it makes sense to bring it to full board.
6. Recognizing Juneteenth as a Federal Holiday
(County Executive's Office)
Speaker Cowan stated this was a request of the Executive office. Juneteenth has recently been recognized as a state and federal holiday. Basically, June 19th is on a weekend. Whether or not at the county we would then create an extra day paid holiday for union employees? This is something the union proposed and asked collective bargaining agreement negotiations.
Mr. Schaben indicated the federal government recognized Juneteenth as a National Holiday in 2021 and then the state recognized it as a state holiday for employees and for the schools for both state employees and school employees in January 2022. What we are proposing is the County follow suit and adopt this as a County observed holiday for the purpose of employees.
Speaker Cowan said in case some of you don’t know, the Emancipation Proclamation emancipated slaves in the confederacy because we didn’t have the technology as we do now. Obviously it took a long time for the word to get out. The official word was received on June 19, 1865. This recognizes spreading of emancipation in the confederacy.
Mrs. Ogalla asked how many holidays do our employees currently get. Because we are paying these individuals with tax dollars to have another day off and the average person is working to help pay their day off. Not everyone gets that day off. I would like to know many holidays they currently have and what the cost of an additional day would be. It seems as we’re on a roll of having endless time off - another holiday.
Speaker Cowan noted this would be our 14th paid holiday. We’re currently at 13. Mr. Schaben stated as far as the cost, we looked at the typical cost of other holidays; county wide this would include every department and county wide official offices for a cost of $516, 839.98.
Speaker Cowan asked if we don’t adopt this, I believe our employees would get the day off because it’s a state and federal holiday when it’s during the week correct? This is just about adding an extra day on the years when it would fall on the weekend, is that correct?
Mr. Schaben replied that’s my understanding. However, in the past I believe we adopted additional holidays. In this instance both the feds and the state have adopted this.
Speaker Cowan questioned are we just adding another paid holiday then from what they would normally get twice every 7 years? The years when it falls on Monday through Friday is a state/federal holiday? Even if we said no to this resolution, do our employees get that holiday off paid.?
Mrs. Tatroe answered I think not unless it’s bargained for. The offices might be closed but it will not pay.
Mrs. Ogalla commented all the holidays and sick and personal days, vacation days is a lot.
Mrs. Traynere indicated it’s a lot for some folks, depends on where you’re from; other countries have far more holidays than we do here in the U.S. My only question is about the pay if it falls on a weekend, do we give them the actual pay and the following Monday off? I’m not real clear on that. Some of it is negotiated but only if you’re represented by a union.
Mr. Moustis suggested a couple of things here. First, bringing this forward now is a little premature and the reason I am saying that is because it is part of negotiations. I am not in favor of adding another paid holiday, if we’re going to do this, we swap Lincoln’s Birthday for Juneteenth, and this is how I would negotiate it with the collective bargaining. I would not add another paid holiday. I would eliminate one that not the entire state gets. They chose either Lincoln’s Birthday of President’s Day. That’s why I think it’s premature. You should continue to negotiate the paid holidays in collective bargaining. Hopefully, that will be accomplished before Juneteenth. That’s what I strongly suggest and not moving it forward now. I think you might have to look at Lincoln’s Birthday as the obvious one to switch out.
Speaker Cowan stated you are not necessarily saying no, but keep it in negotiations.
Mr. Moustis indicated I do recognize that it is a holiday and it’s a state and federal holiday but, should it be a paid holiday? And/or should we look at the other paid holidays and see what we may switch out for a paid holiday.
Ms. Mueller commented what a history lesson. I didn’t realize that we were the only ones that it wasn’t common for both President’s Day and Lincoln’ Birthday to both be holidays. I definitely support folks being off, I guess I was also supportive of making it a paid holiday. I want to see the numbers too.
Ms. Ventura stated I am interested in moving this forward and I 100% support this and I’m going to be blunt. We celebrate religious holidays and pay for them, and we celebrate holidays that have been rooted in white successes like the 4th of July and several other holidays that a lot of our presidents have been white. We celebrate President’s Day/Lincoln’s Birthday, so I understand that you want to swap It but we have approved all these other holidays and paid for them when there federal holidays. I think that we’re dangerously close to appearing that we don’t support a holiday that is rooted in racial disparities. And I am not okay with that. I think we need to be very careful. I understand that we are in negotiations with the contract with the unions and all of this will be part of it but at the end of the day this is a state and federal holiday and if we pay for all the other state/federal holidays when they have days off and don’t have days off than this need to be included too. And that’s all that really needs to be considered. Either we do all or we do not. The fact that we’re hand picking which holidays because why are we celebrating religious holidays? We’re looking at a slippery slope if we want to start picking which holidays, we don’t approve. So, I just ask that you guys consider that. I think that this is important and there is another state holiday that the state recognize, and we don’t and that’s Casmir Pulaski Day.
Mrs. Tyson indicated the City of Joliet has selected my constituent Tony Greyhouse as the organizer of the Juneteenth celebration. I would come to the board and do a presentation for Juneteenth. And I’m in favor of a federal holiday. Jackie commented bring back Casmir Pulaski Day.
Mr. Van Duyne stated since we’re discussing paid holidays I just want to bring my perspective being from the public sector and also working for the government. I believe in the professional trade or any trade you can be a clerk, you can be electrician and so on. In the public sector you have a higher scale. You tend to have more money going into your pension provided by your contract or what not. When you work for the government, your scale is not quite as high, but you do reap extra benefits that the public does not and that is paid holidays and vacation days. When you look at the whole entire picture, I don’t think one side is favored, either the public or the government side, they are pretty much equal. I wanted to let the board members know from my perspective.
Mrs. Ogalla said my husband is a retired IBEW 134 employee, electrician. Usually when you’re working in that trade a lot of times you work for an employer, and you don’t get any holidays. You might get the day off but you’re not getting paid. You don’t get vacation days, sick days, if you work you get paid and you don’t work you don’t get paid. You have to look at all the benefits. The cost that our employees pay for insurance is very low and it only grew since the Affordable Care Act came and it cost a lot more money and we had to change the way that we did it because the cost of insurance rises every year. So, you can’t just clarify by that one statement. Nothing is equal and there are risks in different jobs that our employees may not have, and electrician is working with hot electricity all the time and he could get electrocuted. You can’t make everything fair. Holidays continuing to grow is a cost to us and that would make 14 days; that’s two (2) weeks and that’s a lot. Mr. Moustis mentioned we have to be able to negotiate this; it would be one negotiating factor and I think we should keep it as that. I don’t think Ms. Ventura has anything with us saying, something about racial disparities holidays started in the past long before many of us were on this earth and have grown since then. There’s always something we could be celebrating, and we can always add another holiday, but we can’t afford to not have our employees not working so many days of the year.
Mr. Van Duyne indicated I’m aware how IBEW works since I am actually a member as well. My point is if an electrician works in the public field say for an average of 2000 hours in a year, that person will be compensated just overall as a government employee. His/her wages may be higher, they may be putting more money into their pension; the government does not pay as much on their check, but they do have other benefits. That is paid holidays, paid vacation, sick time, etc. In my opinion government employee and public employees are compensated equally.
Mr. Moustis said a number of years ago, the federal government looked at federal holidays - there were getting to be too many. How were they going to address this? The federal government did away with Washington’s Birthday and Lincoln’s Birthday as a holiday and made President’s Day. Lincoln’s Birthday is not a federal holiday. It’s a state holiday. Very few employers recognize Lincoln’s Birthday as a paid holiday. Lincoln’s Birthday is no longer considered a federal holiday. That’s why we should consider swapping it out. Why we kept Lincoln’s birthday I guess because he’s a favorite son here in Illinois. Pick or choose which one you want as a paid holiday.
Ms. Ventura stated I just want to clarify again this is not about getting the day off. If the day falls between Mon through Friday, it is a state/federal holiday, all of our employees will be off but paid. The two choices are either will they get paid on that day Mon thru Friday and/or will we also designate if it falls on a Saturday or Sunday will it be celebrated on a Friday or Monday? So, they will get a day off instead of just a Saturday and would it be paid on that day? So, those are the 2 things that we’re discussing here. My point is if every other holiday we designate for Saturday or Sunday to be celebrated on Monday or Friday and every other holiday is a paid holiday and one stands out if really does not look good. I understand Jim’s point; maybe we’ll say we’re only celebrating 14 holidays and we will decide what 14 there are and so be it. I understand that. But what I’m talking about with this is but if we’re going to say, this is the one holiday we’re not going to pay, or this is the one holiday we’re not going to celebrate the Saturday/Sundays on a Monday/Friday that does not look good and it does not support this holiday. And our elected officials and higher levels fed, and state have awarded this. I think it’s a good holiday. I think it celebrates other successes throughout cultural divides and it’s an important step moving forward. I am in favor of both designating Saturday/Sunday on a Friday/Monday, and I am also in favor of this being a paid holiday.
Mrs. Berkowicz noted I remember this subject being discussed in a previous meeting; I can’t remember exactly when it was a while ago. At that time it was also discussed that there are other days that the office is closed, and the employees are paid. So, is it possible to get from H.R. the list of all the actual days including days such as election days and anything else such as would have our employees stay home with full pay and compensation? Is that possible to get so we can have everything accounted for? A list of all these days? I didn’t see it.
Speaker Cowan stated we will get you some information.
Mr. Brooks indicated you gave some history of what Juneteenth means and I hope everybody takes the time to Google and look it up and what you will find out is that a lot of people that is tied to this issue not because of the pay but because of what it means. Every holiday that has importance in this segment is about pay and holiday but there’s a lot of people attached because of what it means and what it means to them. So, if they take the time to Google the history you will see it’s not about the pay but what it means to them.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to make a motion that we remove this so that it is not given to the whole County Board for a vote. I’m going to make a motion to remove it so we can get additional information and also, we can get an updated on how negotiations are going.
Ms. Ventura noted I had made a motion to move this forward.
Mr. Moustis asked did you get a second.
Ms. Ventura asked if someone would like to second that motion. We were still in discussion. That’s not fair.
Mr. Moustis said let’s not rush it. Anytime you want to rush something is because you don’t want to discuss it and you don’t want everyone to get involved. I have no problem. I support Juneteenth. I support it even as a paid holiday but, it’s a little more complex. There’s no reason to move this right away. Juneteenth is 4 months away. We can do it anytime.
Speaker Cowan clarified If you vote yes, you are voting to postpone this; if you vote no you are not supporting postponement and if it fails.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, second by Mr. Fricilone, to postpone the resolution Recognizing Juneteenth as a Federal Holiday. On a roll call vote, Fricilone, Moustis and Ogalla voting yes with Mueller, Brooks, Marcum, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, Van Dune, Ventura and Cowan voting no.
MOTION FAILS.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [9 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Marcum, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura NAYS: Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla ABSENT: Winfrey |
Ms. Moore stated today we are bringing the 2021 Climate Action Plan for the Chicago Region which was written by the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Our county leads by example when it comes to environmental stewardship, we have preserved agricultural land, promoted clean and renewable energies and completed many more that protect our environments and promote community and economic development. We’ve made even further progress recently by acknowledging sustainability plans such as the Greenest Region compact which the Will County Board endorsed in 2019 and the 2021 Energy and Conservation Plan which the Will County Board adopted just last year. Following these developments comes an opportunity to lend support for the municipalities focused climate action plan for the Chicago Region, one of the first regional climate plans in the nations. Workshopped by 175 local and national organizations including Will Counties own governmental Forrest Preserve district emergency management agency and land use dept the climate action plan details high levels goals and concrete action municipalities can take to address present and incoming threats to their own jurisdictions. All with the end goal to protect people places and assets at risk in the changing climate. This climate action plan connects with the greenest region compact and the aligns well with the goals in the 2021 Energy and Conservation Plan by incorporating the advancement of clean and renewable energies like nuclear and solar energy efficiencies the resilient local economy and sustainable water and waste management. At the same time its direction focus turns to climate mitigation and adaptation strategies that when implemented can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst environmental economic and social harms of the changing climate in an equitable manner. Please note that there are no monetary costs long term reporting requirements or additional times, or work commitments associated with our endorsements of the climate action plan nor is Will County making formal commitments to specific goals and the climate action plan through this endorsement. We are already working on initiatives at the county level to forward these initiatives and plan to continue doing so, as detailed in the 2021 energy and conservation plan. Endorsing this climate action plan for the Chicago Region simply allows us to encourage and support our cities and villages in their municipal level’s environment efforts leaving room for beneficial collaboration as well as freedom to pursue which ever actions are best suited to protect their jurisdictions. At this time, I’ll like to take any questions if there are any.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I had read that entire document that was presented attached to our agenda. And so, I really think that many of this sounds very good and that sounds like were being very proactive but, I don’t think we look at the long-term impact of what some of these green energy sources that we have to look at the future. Let’s just take electric cars for instance. So, electric cars need lithium batteries. Lithium is mined, dirty mined in third world countries which produce a lot of carbon and other hazards. When the battery is no longer useful, they have to have a recycling of it which there’s very few recycling places available right now and the process of recycling does produce carbons. So, I think we really need to look at some of the things and maybe some of this is just early in the nature of their development as the first airplane was and the first automobile but, I think were tying ourselves into situations that without looking at the full impact of what some of these green energy things mean. I am just very hesitant on that because by giving an endorsement while we don’t have to do anything giving endorsements is, we do agree with all the things that are listed in this climate action plan and I just think that the people who support green energy and you know I have help support the solar farms and such in our area but, I think we need to have an unbiased look at those sides of the issue and not just keep promoting the one side to say, well this is what’s going to happen. This is we need to look at both sides. When we look at the negatives the green energy source that are out there right now cause as well as the positive. I’m not going to be a yes vote on this.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [9 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Marcum, Moustis, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura NAYS: Fricilone, Ogalla, Parker ABSENT: Winfrey |
Speaker Cowan indicated this is authorizing an amendment to a sublease agreement for office space at 203 N. Ottawa St, Joliet. I believe that’s the CED offices for use by Workforce Investment and this a request from the State’s Attorney office.
Mrs. Tatroe stated this sublease is reducing the amount of space that we need, so it’s reducing our rent. It’s a positive from a financial perspective and from a space need prospective.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Lauren Staley Ferry)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(County Board)
Speaker Cowan stated recapping what’s been happening the last few months. Typically, in Will County what we’ve done for the last couple of decades when there is a vacancy on the county board, the county executive brings forward a nomination. The County board has advice and consent to seat that person. So, there is a lawsuit going in Champaign County that has so far progressed through the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court’s decision is that the County Board chair has the authority not the county executive to make that appointment. And as you all know we have a vacancy that needs to currently be filled. That is why we are engaging with this whole process at this moment. According to the decision of the 4th Appellate Court and our advice from our States Attorney’s office, since we do not have a county board chair what we’re going to have to do is to elect a county board chair with one duty. The county board chair will have duty of nominating someone to fill a vacancy on the county board. So, we will have some of the details of all that and we’re hoping at this point were trying to work out the nuts and bolts but basically, we will have an election for this chairperson the chair will bring forward the nomination and we will seat the person in the vacancy. Just to fill everybody in, we talked about this before, and it’s been on the agenda before. The County Executive, myself and the Democratic party chair have agreed on the nominee; that is not in question here. That at least is not the problem or issue at this point. We are just trying to make our process conform with recent court rulings. So, we just want to let everybody know where that is, and I think we’re going to have to save space for the election of the chair at the full board meeting.
Mr. Moustis asked if this going to require a change to the county board rules or can we just vote in a chair.
Mrs. Tatroe answered the law requires a chair, so I don’t think it requires a change of the rules at this point.
Mr. Moustis commented I’m in support of voting for the chair at the next meeting. I guess the other question would be for the appointment. Do we then have to wait to do the appointment, or can it be done?
Mrs. Tatroe replied that depends upon who is chosen as the chair.
Mr. Moustis asked if the chair can nominate; can we vote for the chair at the next meeting, and can the chair put the name in nomination.
Mrs. Tatroe replied if, whomever is elected as chair is prepared to bring forward their appointment then it can move forward at the same meeting. If the chair is not yet prepared, you may be in a position where you will postpone the appointment at which point you would have to hold a special meeting because you have to appoint within 60 days.
Mrs. Ogalla questioned how long does this person stay as the chair. Is it from now until the election or is it one position? I’m just wondering what that rule would be.
Mrs. Tatroe answered it would be until the election unless there is a change of the law, or the Supreme Court should weigh in on the issue.
Speaker Cowan stated can I have a motion to place the action of the appointment for District 4 on the agenda.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Regina Malone)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Regina Malone)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(County Executive's Office)
| RESULT: WITHDRAWN [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
Speaker Cowan stated we would like to bring forward a Proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month. I don’t think I need a motion on that. Just letting you know.
15. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. February 2022 Executive Appointments
(Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
IX. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements 8. Executive
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Edmond Baldwin stated I am a retired IDOC State of Illinois employee, I was going to speak from my heart and it’s about the funds from the marijuana allocations. And I heard several suggestions about where the money should be spent. One is the allocation supposed to be given or is that something voted on that where it goes? Is it voted on where the money goes to what? Okay. And I’m hearing that scholarships were one of the highly recommended things but, I want to address this issue and I don’t want to make it a personal issue but, I have to make it a foreseeable issue. Scholarships are not just academically; there’s also sports scholarships or any other scholarships that you can obtain arts and what have you. And I have to address this because it’s seems to be ignored because we can’t see the pink elephant in this room that when money goes to education is it to a certain jurisdiction or is it to the whole entire town of Joliet? Because let’s just speak about real for a second and I don’t want to offend anyone in here but, on the east side of Joliet we wake up with our eyes and we can see what’s existing and what’s existing on the west side. You guys spoke about small businesses failing in 5 years. Certain businesses stride like franchise business like the old K-Mart that’s not having anything to do with failure to Joliet that’s a corporate situation but, businesses are not being seen on the east side of Joliet where we know what racial cultural ratios resides there. So, here’s what we have on the eastside of Joliet and -vs- the westside of Joliet. If, kids want to go to the college to practice baseball or basketball or anything else other than academically because everybody is going to have to be academically or whatever. But on the westside you have the park district that got an ice-skating rink, you got hockey, you got swimming, you got baseball fields you got a stadium over there. What the eastside has is a park district no swimming pool, basketball, weightlifting gym, but there’s no baseball. They play baseball in the gym. So, if I wanted my kids to go play baseball the kids on the westside can ride their bikes and practice. As you practice you get better at something. So, these kids are being deprived of being better at something because we keep overlooking as if we don’t see the eastside. Because I’m wondering who makes the decisions where this money goes because for years, we speaking about marijuana money is only because it's a marijuana dispensary or alcohol dispensary supposed to be giving us money years ago. We’re not asking for a handout. No one ask for a handout but, what is asking best believe eastside money takes a lot of their money to Walmart on the westside. Eastside take a lot of their money to Burlington Coat Factory on the westside. Eastside takes their money to park district on the westside. They support their businesses but no money is coming back to the eastside to build business’s over there. Because I can guarantee you the eastside will support the westside but, if you put a business over here will the westside come over and support the business’s over on the eastside? Cause here’s what we got on the eastside. We have a public aid office. We have a county jail. We have a Will County Court building. We even have the job core for the disadvantage or misbehave children. We have all those negative things. We have a police station. Westside don’t have a police station. Westside don’t have a courthouse. Westside do not have a jailhouse. So, it seems to me that we are no blind to say these things are convenient for this community and we’re not going to pretend like we just we don’t, we’re looking at that. We been looking at this for years. We we’re going to look into that. We’ve been looking into this is beginning to get real insulting. Cause now their building a Tony’s. You think people when they get off their jobs that the mother’s going, parents going to come home from their jobs where they have to travel to there’s no business’s they can work on the eastside. They going to come home and their kids want to go they going to get back in their car, go back to the westside drop their kids off and come back home. No, they’re not going to do that. But we steady putting monies because we’re building on the westside. I really say, we should not build another brick on the westside until we make the eastside as least comparable to the westside. Because everything is negative the police don’t have to go far to get those people in that community to take them to the county jail. Then you have to audacity I found out a year ago and I oppose to that at a townhall meeting. It is really, really insulting they built or the were building, I don’t know if they stopped it. Building a drug rehabilitation center on the east side directly across the street from a liquor store, 200 yards away from the park and the park district where kids should have a safe haven. They saying, put it here. And all these drug people come through the community and where do you think they will go on the weekend when they want to get a liberty? They’re going to go to that park where our kids should be at. This is insulting. We got, you guys got to speak about what’s priority on this board as say, where does the money go? No one spoke about a priority. Everybody gives suggestions but, something has to be a top 1, 2, 3, priority. We keep giving sympathy. We’ll we’re trying to get that; we’re trying to get that. No one is asking for a handout cause let me say this to you. And not disrespect, we know what’s on the eastside, we know what’s on the westside we know what we’re speaking about here but, I can guarantee you I can reassure everyone here every black person that I know in my life that had a job, that had a decent job we didn’t commit no crimes. It’s not a black or white thing, its’ an economic thing. I think Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd portrayed it in a movie once Trading Places. If that culture is poor, they will resort to whatever means they have to do. So, we can’t say it’s a black thing that they are criminals, or they are crime cause that’s what a police station or jailhouses are for, right here in the black and brown community. But if they don’t have jobs, I can guarantee you when they have jobs were not out here doing that. No of my family or friends say I known for 55 years have not committed a crime to do stupid stuff what we see the poor people do. So, let’s not keep skipping this and act like we don’t know where that money really belongs. It needs to be invested. We don’t need to talk about well education for this, school scholarships. It needs to go into this community because this community definitely 100% doubt supporting that community on the westside. But no one is investing back to the eastside. They are losing. They are losing and their going to continue to lose and you even skipped the eastside you even go to a little south, north I mean Lockport. Then you go a little west of Joliet and go to Crest Hill. They got more than what the eastside has. How do we keep skipping, bouncing around the eastside of Joliet? So, we can’t keep insulting people like this. We cannot keep insulting everyone that’s important on this board if anyone vote anything else other than what they see right here then all of y’all is just faking. Cause this is the most important thing should be because I can guarantee you these businesses are striding already. And we are definitely taking our monies over there supporting every business over there. Because there are no businesses over here to support. I just one to say one little story and this is a personal story takes like a few minutes. I went to a clinic not a doctor and I went over there and I go to several doctors office on the westside and I don’t see culturally diversity. When I went in there 1 time and I said, “this Doctor John Doe recommended me to go see doctor specialist John Doe. But I can’t see Dr. John Doe because they’re not in my network. What do I do? Four people called me within a 10- minute time frame. Well Dr. John Doe wants you to go see Dr. John Doe. I said, I can’t go see Dr. John Doe because he’s not in my network. We’ll call you back. Someone called me back and gave me the same story. Again, I can’t go see Dr. John Doe he’s not in my network. Third person called me, fourth person called me they say, “we can’t figure this out talk to Doctor John Doe and let him make the decision.” We just spoke with Dr. John Doe, Dr. John Doe said, you need to go. You think either Dr. John Doe is an idiot, or you think I’m one. Because you could not have spoken to Dr. John Doe, and he gave you that answer. After I told you I can’t go to that. My point to say that was no disrespect to anyone in here but I had to think of this because I live in this world as a black man. I had to say to myself are you telling me that there are no black applicants in that draw that could have gave me any stupid answer than what you gave me and provide for their families but, you’re telling them no. They can’t work at this establishment they can’t provide for their family but, you idiots are here working and providing for your families, and I know black people have applied. And we keep saying, we’ll look into that we apologize. Sorry is not a magic word. If I knock every table over in here and say, “I’m sorry” it won’t fix it. Sorry is never a magic word. I apologize for the inconvenience that is never a magic word. I would never even say that to anyone in here. So, we need to address the real issues. We’ll need to say, ‘we’ll look into it.” It needs to be done because you have to power make it happen. Thank you.
Ms. Ventura thanked Mr. Baldwin for coming in and speaking those truths. I do think we need some priority in, and I like to echo what I said during the committee. This is exactly why we need some Ad-Hoc committee so that the members of our communities can come in and tell us what the priorities in their communities are. So, we can make an informed decision. So, thank you so much for coming in and sharing your story with us.
Mr. Fricilone stated we need to get a letter of support as soon as possible for the resolution that representative DeLuca has introduced down in Springfield which would restore the LGDF Funds to 10% over the next 3 years. Next year’s would go to 8%. We are at 6.06% or whatever now but, I think we ought to draft a resolution in support of that as soon as possible. Because that would certainly help us with our LGDF Funds, or can they go back to where they were. I think it’s HB 4619 or 4916.
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan noted I have one quick announcement. A lot of you may have heard that the Governor yesterday stated that as long as things continue as they have been the indoor mask mandate will be lifted on February 28. Additionally, we suspect we don’t know this for sure but, we suspect that what that means is that the executive order that allows us to hold virtual meetings will likely not be renewed. So, even if it is if there’s no mask mandate inside, we will attempt to return to in person meetings for our March meetings; there’s some question on whether or not that first week of March. That first week of March were still under that current executive order so, technically we can hold virtual meetings through the first week of March. So, the committee meetings in the first week of March could be virtual but the committee meetings the second week will almost definitely be all in person. Obviously, you can see there are a couple of details we have to work out here but, I wanted to give you as much heads up as possible. I know this is going to be a change. I mean we literally have been doing these 2 years, so it’s going to be a change and adaption for everyone, and I know some people are going to have to work on schedules for that. So, I want to give you as much heads up as possible. What I would say is be prepared to be back for in person for all March meetings and we may be able to allow you to remain virtual for the first week of March but, I wouldn’t expect anything beyond that. So, if you have questions about that call me, talk to Nick and Beth and we will go from there.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. 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, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
1. Motion to adjourn at 1:17 PM
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4270&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up