Will County Public Works & Transportation Committee met March 1
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLIGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Ronaldson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Joe VanDuyne called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Joe VanDuyne | Chair | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Also Present: N. Palmer
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: C. Wise
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Confirming Award of Contract to Northern Contracting, Inc. ($227,433.00), Let on February 16, 2022, Countywide Guardrail Maintenance (Various County Highways), All County Board Districts
(Jeff Ronaldson)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] Next: 3/17/2022 9:30 AM
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mica Freeman, Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
(Jeff Ronaldson)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
(Jeff Ronaldson)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] Next: 3/17/2022 9:30 AM
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
VII. DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSION
1. County Eng Discussion - 1st One Year Extenstion - Build Will - Phase II Consultant Program
(Jeff Ronaldson)
Mr. Ronaldson stated on your agenda item #1; attached was a resolution we approved last year for our Phase II Consultant Project Coordinator which was H.R. Green. They have been serving for us as a review of our various plan documents before we go to letting on all Phase II related items. One year has passed, as stipulated in the agreement under Section 7.3, we can extend that contract an additional 12 months and then another 12 months after that. This would be the first extension that I am requesting and recommending for approval; as allowable under Section 7.3 of the attached resolution.
Mr. Moustis asked if a motion is needed for this.
Mr. Ronaldson stated this will not go to County Board, but I do need approval of the committee.
Moved by Mr. Moustis; seconded by Mr. Weigel.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Tom Weigel, Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
Mr. Ronaldson stated item #2 is quick take consideration. These would be for projects that were slated for this year; I have attached a memo; I will go through that briefly and take any questions you may have. 95% of cases have land acquisition involved in them; that’s appraisals, negotiations, when negotiations are unsuccessful, we have court proceedings known as eminent domain. When they go to eminent domain and most of those projects may only take one parcel to go to eminent domain. We have delays anywhere between two, three, and maybe even five-years because of the court system. If you move down on the memo there is a list of four projects that have been in this situation for several years. You can see the list; Laraway Rd., Nelson Rd., and Cedar Rd.; we lost two construction seasons because of the court process. I will grant that COVID-19 has not helped the situation whatsoever. The court system has been at a standstill for quite some time; so, we can’t have jury trials. We tried to settle before the judges hoping to have the jury trial, but they are not there yet. There are three projects that have been hanging out there as you can see, the original program letting date for the two jobs were 2016. Those have been in court for six-years, that is an enormous amount of time. On 135th Street it has been eleven-years; that has to do with Cook County being involved, and that is another thing. The same situation applies the court process is very slow. Those are the normal court proceedings that we have; under the statute there is another option called quick take. The title does not do it justice, it has a negative connotation so let me tell you what it is. You file just as you do any other court case; this time though instead of the money being established at the end of the court proceedings. It is established right up front; typically, it is the fair market value or the appraisal that we have; there might be an up tick for various things. The compensation is established very early; then the property owners get their money right then. Therefore, we get the property right then. That does not end the court case; the property owner still gets their chance before a jury and establish the actual final amount, so they are afforded that opportunity no matter what. It just allows the County to be able to take possession early and get the project done in the street. Because each year we delay construction cost go up and then more importantly is the safety that is afforded by these projects is delayed that many years. Then there are utilities themselves, they do not start until we have the property acquired and they have their own delays, the sooner we get utilities out there the better. There are three prong positives to a quick take. But quick take takes time on the front end, which means we must go to special legislation. That means we must put a bill together and go before the Legislators to get approval for this. We have done this successfully three times as I put into the memo, Weber Rd. we did it twice and 80th Ave. was the most recent one. I pointed out in the memo that we completed the job by several years before we even finalized that last case. Again, the property owner got their money up front at least 95% of it; I want everyone to realizes that. It afforded us to get that needed project out when it needed to be done. At the end there is a list of projects that are going to be ready for this year, and ready next year. We are starting land acquisition appraisals and negotiating; so those are the ones that we will be looking forward on in Quick Take but again it takes time to put these packets together. I will need to start on that right about now so that I can coordinate with the Legislators and our Lobbyist; there is just a lot involved. Some of these we would take to the Fall Session and the remainder would be in the Spring Session; we will prioritize them as we get a little further along in the right-of-way. Those listed there you can see the number of parcels; they vary from 29 to 52. Again, it only takes one parcel to go to court to bring the project to a halt. The costs are associated there; I have listed if they are federally funded or not; and the ADT also. I can go through each project individually if you would like to discuss their merits. Again, I would recommend us proceeding with all of them just to make the $65 million worth of projects here. I hate to see them fall as they have the projects in the beginning of the memo; they have been hanging out there a very long time. If the committee is willing to allow us to pursue that; again, each project must come back individually before the committee, with a public hearing, after all the property owners had been notified to come to the public hearing; After that we go for the bill. I would recommend that the County move forward with these projects to make sure we get them done. The bottom of the page has the seven projects. In a separate meeting I have heard that the docket on eminent domain cases is upwards of five-years; that is not a good sign for us to be able to close out any projects if they go to court proceedings. I will take any questions.
Mr. Van Duyne asked if you are looking to have a motion for recommendation to move forward with this.
Mr. Ronaldson replied yes.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I am looking for a motion and a second and then we will go into discussion. I have a motion by Ms. Winfrey and seconded by Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Van Duyne asked Mr. Ronaldson if the County does a quick take and pays the resident for the property. Has there ever been a case where the County has overpaid; and if so, how difficult is it to get the reimbursement from the property owner. Mr. Ronaldson stated there has never been a case where we have overpaid; it is always the appraisal or a little more. That could be a possibility; but once we pay them, we would never get the money back; that is the whole point of the pre compensation. The amount is set in front of the judge, and it is not going to go down. I see Mr. Moustis with his hand up then Ms. Newquist.
Mr. Moustis said I have looked at quick take very hesitantly, but I have come to learn there is public safety issues involved, there are dollars involved, there are seasonal projects never getting done, and I do believe it is something on these projects that after years of trying to settle it, it is a tool that we should perhaps consider. This is just the beginning of the project; we will go to public hearings on these and we will do go the full board. I think we should at least get the process started so I will be supportive of this for those reasons.
Ms. Newquist said in these cases where we are looking to use quick take; are there situations where the current property owners are generally willing to sell, just not at the price we are offering? Or are there any instances where the owner is adamantly not wanting to sell, and we are using eminent domain and quick take as the only way of acquiring the property.
Mr. Ronaldson stated if the homeowners are agreeable then we settle it and we don’t even go to court; it is just a negotiation phase. It is when the property owners do not agree with a number, or they don’t agree with the project; whatever their reason might be that is when we must file through the court process. That could be the eminent domain or quick take it doesn’t matter we have to file it through the court process.
Ms. Newquist said right but what I am wondering is do you know if their reason for not being willing to sell is just because of the money or do they not want to lose the property. Or would you even know that.
Mr. Ronaldson replied I don’t know that for these projects; but when we get into the negotiation phase it becomes abundantly clear that it is either money or they don’t want to lose the property. By parcel by parcel it is both; we won’t know that until we get to negotiations.
Mr. Van Duyne asked if there was any other discussion; seeing none I am now looking for a previous roll call.
Mr. Moustis moved for a previous roll, and Ms. Newquist seconded it.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
IX. MONTHLY WORK REPORTS
1. Construction Status Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
2. Maintenance Status Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
3. Phase II Summary Report
(Jeff Ronaldson)
X. REPORTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 9:20 a.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Mica Freeman, Member AYES: VanDuyne, Newquist, Brooks Jr., Freeman, Gould, Moustis, Pretzel, Weigel, Winfrey |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4254&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up