Will County Executive Committee met March 10.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Ogalla led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:51 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 our first order of business is the American Rescue Plan update and I want to thank our friends from Anser for being here in person with us today. I think they have a little PowerPoint to share with us and this is going to be a high-level overview of what has taken place so far.
Mr. Mark Atkinson, with Anser Advisory stated we are your team supporting the county for the process and engaged for up to two years to help with that process and we wanted to share today’s recommendations for the process for the committee to consider. We are specifically looking at further engagement that you may choose to make with stakeholders and the community. To look briefly at analyzing the results of that engagement and then to make some recommendations about process for allocating the funds. The award was made back in May of 2021. The $133 million dollars that was awarded to the county and the engagement analysis and allocation is the middle of that process but there is an ongoing process after that which will be eventually awarding the monies and managing the delivery of those grants whether they are third party recipients or whether they are managed through the county. There are some fairly strict reporting requirements which we will support county in delivering. We outlined here just some of the progress to date just as a reminder of how of what’s going on to date. There was some initial engagement within the county in the summer of 2021 and that information has been made available to us and then there was some further engagement we believe through the board with constituents to express interests in allocations which we believe ran through September 2021. The process to engage in advisor was completed at the end of January; that’s where we started our work. One of the first things we did is worked with an executive team to complete one of those reports that is necessary to the federal government for U.S. Treasury for compliance which included some of the revenue lost replacement calculations. And then in February, two meetings ago the board prepared resolutions and approved resolutions both for the pillars under which money can be allocated within the county, delegated to this committee to consider the process and the allocation. Just in terms of timing we thought it was helpful to share with the committee some key dates that are fixed within the legislation which first of which why December 2024? The funds all need to be incumbered so, we have to have allocated them and committed them by that time. Then it’s up to two years for those projects that have been funded to be completed so, those two are fixed we don’t have a choice about them. We shared an example project very broadly of an infrastructure project just to give you some ideas of how long it might take for some of the larger projects that may be approved; the reason for sharing this there needs to be a sense of pace but there isn’t an immediate emergency. So, we need to and ensure that we meet these dates and that will enable us to have the most impact in Will County with this money.
Mr. Moustis asked is that a date to allocate the money or to complete the project. Based on water and sewer projects those typically can take some time. Is it the allocation or is it the project completing?
Mr. Atkinson answered there are two dates that are the last day of which you can do these things. The first date is the 31st of December of 2024, and that’s the last date you can allocate an award money. All of it need to be awarded by then and then all the projects that you award money to have to be completed by the second day which is the 31st of December 2026. Those are the end dates which you can allocate and complete projects before and indeed I’m sure we will. I just wanted to give a bookend for the schedule. We know there has been a fair amount of engagement but, we wanted to share what a lot of the counties, the municipalities that we work with often seek and further engagement across three primary audiences. The first would often be community stakeholders so that’s your constituents it’s non-profit and small businesses, religious groups, specific community leaders and indeed the residents of the counties. The second is the county stakeholders themselves so two pieces county board and the executive branch and as we said, there is some engagement already done but there will be further engagement to be done. For example, to flush out some of the information that was provided over a year ago and some things have changed in that time so for example the final rule has come out of D.C. explaining exactly what we are allowed to spend money on and that wasn’t available back in July when the county asked for departments and your wider constituents to express interests. We would want to make sure that the further engagement reflected that new information, and we got the level of detail that allows you to make informed decisions about which grants should be made. And then the final audience really is of the units’ other local governments so, knowing that there are components of county government and there are stakeholders. We want to see elsewhere that it’s important to engage with those and to ensure that there is joined up priorities and about spending.
Mr. Dave Jahosky, with Anser Advisory stated one of the things we wanted to try out today was some of the best practices we’ve seen since we’re working with approximately 30 different clients around the US right now. All in different stages, some a little bit behind were you’re at some are a little bit further along. One of the recommendations that we had outlined is one of the ways to engage with who we call the Q & A stakeholders. It’s the civic groups, it could be the other nonprofits, it’s the organization and individuals that really want to have their voice heard and what we have seen in one of the comments that has come across in other places that we have worked is that the local official wants to know what their constituents think.
What we have outlined here is a sample framework that basically allows the user to log into a website that says, okay you’re giving a million dollars how would you spend it? And we setup six different representative categories they can click on, and you can go into, and they can actually identify how much money they think they would spend in a particular area, either based on projects that we can help identify beforehand or they can write those in.
It’s a really good way to provide consistency and comparability amongst the category grouping. That way you can get a sense of not only what the constituents are interested in but where within the county because the software has the ability to track that from a GIS perspective. We can track that back to an area within the county to align to area. We found that it works well, it’s simple and the feedback that we’ve gotten thus far is positively received by those using this pool because it really helps drives home. You have $133 million dollars; at the end of all this, we probably will have a list of ideas in excess of $250 million dollars.
One of the things it will also try to do is help align their other pots of money for which we might be able to fund some of these programs. At least what it does is kind of set expectations that you can’t do everything.
Ms. Ventura asked are these categories based off of our previous survey and then the counties need, or will you be suggesting additional ones and will we approve that before it goes forward.
Mr. Jahosky answered right now, we don’t prepopulate anything. What we did here was based on the community that we’re working with right now in Massachusetts. These were the six categories that they had selected. We would suggest keep it to nine or less because visually it gets a little bit too busy. We can establish what the categories are. When you hover over a category you can provide a customized content, and this is an actual tool that will link into the county’ current websites so they will be redirected from The American Rescue Plan page to this site. No, the content would be customized, and we would work with you to determine what’s the most relevant contents to put on this site.
Mrs. Traynere questioned where the money is currently being held. Is this survey process something we pay for or is that something you pay for as the consultant? Dave Jahosky replied the second question; this is already part of what you’re paying us to do. There is no additional cost; it’s a tool that we would use to help manage this project program. Next, what we’re looking at here is that there are different processes that we’re looking for depending on who the stakeholder is. The second process that we are outlining is how do we reengage the counties stakeholders and that can be county departments, it can be individuals within the county specific departments that we can look at identify capital needs that are unfunded. But it has also refined some of the initial information that you put together. What this does is provide consistency in terms of how the requests are being made. It provides documentation of the project request so we can help analyze the eligibility under The American Rescue Plan Program. Another item is to identify what the potential risk of the project is. The lower the number the lower risk. The higher the number the higher the risk. If you are doing something with the city on a joint project or something, you want to consider that there’s projects with the water district and things like that. We want to make sure we have the ability to take to process these requests and it doesn’t always have to be online or through a simulation process. One of the things that have worked well that we’ve done with other clients is actually hold townhall client meetings, educational sections, whether in person or via web form. One of the things were trying to do is to make sure all the voices are heard and that we can put together a comprehensive list for you to make an informative decision and what’s the best and highest priorities for all the residents within the county. We have worked with other counties in municipal governments in terms of coming up with a scoring mechanism on how we provide ratings and rankings and factors. Then we would sit down with your county staff in terms of coming up with what are the relevant criteria that we want to look at. We can also look at whether the project will be serving those that qualified census track. We looked at the financial risk of the project. We can look at the timeline. We can look at potential offsetting revenue sources, either through other types of state or federal funding. It’s really to provide part of the comprehensive approach to make sure that the projects that we are recommending will minimize any potential call back from the federal government.
Mr. Atkinson stated having done some of that engagement and some of the analysis; what we’re suggesting here is in line with the allocation. The allocation set by the board in February and their authority delegated to this committee probably in April that we come back to you for review of some additional definition around those pillars.
Some potential allocation criteria and some conflict of interest for parameters so as you’re thinking about when you get to the point of allocating funds what conflict of interest may you want to take into account as you consider those requests and allocations. The second thing here was a recommendation where we provided summary of the requests that came out of the engagement that we talked about and a summary of the analysis of each of those requests. Then it was suggested that will probably be during June and July it just depending just how much engagement you as a committee would like to see as to how long that takes. Then finally, the executive committee awarding grant allocation against those requests that could include you prioritizing something earlier if you chose too. We would expect that again to be around July or August. Again, it depends on how much engagement there is; how many requests we get. That’s the kind of broad recommendation for the process of actually allocating this money. To the earlier point well before that deadline of 31st of December 2024. It’s moving with some pace to ensure that the money can be spent appropriately and beneficially impacting the residents of the county. After taking your direction today we would propose preparing a schedule of the engagement, the analysis, the allocation, and the award. We would make some suggestions, recommendations to you about the community and other units of government audiences. We would develop a plan for that engagement - a specific plan for your review. Also, prepare additional definitions around those pillars that you previously have considered and make recommendations about the allocation criteria and the interest parameters. We would be coming back to you with a more detailed package based on the guidance that you give us today.
Speaker Cowan indicated we talked in some of the leadership meetings that there are some things I think as a group we are probably more ready to launch right into specifically the sewer and the water projects and the request from our health department. I think those are at different stages two different proofs, but I think we’re a little bit more ready to move forward with that stuff. What do you need from us to get those two categories in specific kick started and going?
Mr. Jahosky answered working with the county staff to make sure that we have the complete list. I think the initial allocation infrastructure was $50 million, health department was $30 million. I don’t know if we have $80 million dollars’ worth of identified needs. So, I think the first thing we would need to do is to identify all the needs and the potential projects, assuming once we notify everyone that the monies are available, the total request will be some multiplier of the amount awarded. I think if we can go ahead and get authorization to move forward and start collecting the information and working these channels to make sure we know who and where we should be soliciting this information from then we can go ahead and start compiling a list and helping to provide you with a list and then work through priorities based on some parameters that we agree upon throughout the process.
Mr. Fricilone commented we’ve had several leadership meetings. On the water and sewer projects; I think we allocated $50 million. We know that for the most part they are coming out of a recommendation from CDBG. These are projects that we anticipated doing and the next year based on some monies we’re getting from CDBG and the following year; some of the projects are five-year projects. We know that we’re not going to have those money for five (5) years to allocate towards CDBG. Those are the projects I think that we can bring forward in the next month and say, let’s go. You know those are going to take a while to get those done. For example one of the projects is a Fairmont Project. We already started that project; we were going to do it over five years because we didn’t have the money. Now we have the money for that project we can say, do the whole thing. Get it done. I think we can vote on those in the next month. Also, in your next presentation we should have our pillars in there, so it gives everybody a sense that this is what we did vote on. We may not drill down on one of those other pillars for a couple of months because we need to talk more in this group and maybe even get some more input. With the water and sewer projects, we’re a year in; we could have started those 10 months ago because we know what they are. We should bring those forward next month and start getting that money out there. We can use the Land Use Group that works with all those projects as our group to make those things happen.
Mr. Moustis indicated in relation to the sewer and water projects; it would be going to CDBG. We could accelerate those projects but is this going to be funding from CDBG, from other grants? So, it’s going to be joint funding this won’t be funding from ours?
Fricilone answered correct; they have enough projects.
Moustis stated there’s other funding that’s giving joint funding or 100% funding. I would like to know where they’re going to reallocate all their money then. This might be a question for our consultants. Are we just letting CDBG have oversight? Are we going to have oversight and track these to make sure these projects are moving forward? Being on the CDBG board for many years; they allocate money for these projects and they’re not spending it or they’re not moving the project along and then we end up reallocating the next year. There has to be some mechanism to monitor that their staying on course.
Mr. Jahosky replied there’s a couple of things here we would look at. Not only the risk of the project but we would look to see if there are any exclusions within the CDBG aspect of the funding or The American Rescue Plan Act. There are match allowances and restrictions for both uses of funds. So, we would need to look at both those to make sure that we’re not putting the county in position of what they call duplication of benefits because that would not be a good thing.
We want to balance all these things but the other thing we would be doing as well as part our services is managing the status of all the projects and then we would say this project is ahead of schedule, this project is behind schedule. One of the reasons, therefore, is it supply chain issues, is it bidding issues, or is it just weather issues. It’s all sorts of different things that we would look to for this part of this process.
Mr. Moustis questioned will you give us what you would consider the risk to be in that project before we get started.
Mr. Jahosky replied yes; that’s an important part of the consideration.
Mrs. Traynere commented I’m still looking for who pays for the survey and where are the funds being held.
Speaker Cowan stated Answer would help establish the survey; it would live on our website.
Traynere asked where the funds are being held and are they being invested.
Speaker Cowan answered the county has the funds. We can have the Treasurer com and give us a report.
Ms. Ventura stated that’s a little bit of a danger approving projects before we have a full understanding of everything. Rushing into all these projects at once for sewer and water could be a missed opportunity for us to get to use our dollars for something we can’t use infrastructure dollars for. I agree with that if we wanted to do like a tier 1 here’s our immediate needs then we look at that but then we have some type of project by project. There are other dollars for this so then it can expand, and we don’t need the full $50 million dollars for sewer and water because we can get funding elsewhere. We really should put those dollars back into our budget. It would be nice if CDBG Came and gave an update for us by project. If we’re going to carve out money then we can tell our constituents exactly where those $50 million dollars went and then during that time, they can identify other funding sources. I would really like to do that before we vote on spending any more money. Regard risk versus reward; let’s say, on here is risk but there is a whole lot of reward. Somethings are a lot risky, but you can get a lot of rewards and I know you all get public broadband that is a great example of that. How do you build that in that even though something might be very useful for everyone in the county but could come with a lot of hiccups?
Mr. Atkinson replied on the reward really is about how it project best benefits the county. The risk piece is more about its eligibility across technical pieces. That reward piece really is about what the priorities are of this group and the board. It’s really the reward piece I think aligns with what you decide your priorities are for the county hopefully with the input of the engagement of the stakeholders and the community. The risks although we stressed that were trying to safeguard the county, but we want to balance that with the reward so that probably doesn’t come across in here but we’re passionate about that. The whole purpose of this is the benefit the residents of the county now and long-term.
Mr. Jahosky stated from the risk perspective we have a collection of risks categories that we have worked with through a variety of other communities so we can share that risk catalog essentially with you. Will County is different than a lot of other counties that we work with that you’re both rural and urban at the same time. That presents different challenges based on the project, even the work factor. Whereas, working in a county that’s strictly rural the issues are pretty marginalize across a larger base. It’s taking you to all these different factors and then getting back to information to make that decision based on the risk reward. We’ve identified the risk here the rewards how do you want to rate these from 1 to 10, 1 to 20.
Ms. Ventura asked when you give that report will it also be possible solutions, or will it just be this is a risky thing and you guys figure out how to deal with it.
Mr. Jahosky answered there are solutions that we provide in terms of risk litigations, solutions in terms of trying to minimize and mitigate those risks. There are also potential strategies that you can use based on money that you have in the lost replacement category. It’s not a lot of money; it’s $10 million dollars but if there are specific projects the county wanted to do you essentially have $10 million dollars where the rules are much more flexible then if they were under other parts of the program.
Ventura noted on conflict and interest parameters. What type of interest we might be talking about?
Mr. Atkinson replied it’s just making sure that voting members are not voting on something that they have an interest in. It is about safeguarding the controls, no doubt, that you have in place.
Mr. Moustis stated one of my high priorities is broadband for a number of reasons. It could be my #1 and the reason is when you look at reward; there are some things that have forever effects, broadband would be one of them. It helps us our economy it helps our educational systems, it helps our employment system. There are really a lot of different effects with broadband. This is why it’s such a high priority with me. It’s the lasting effects and the real impact. I think that it’s an extreme high award and I am concerned that we are just looking at the short term so we can look at some other projects it helps to bring it along. The sewer system may be good for 25 years or 30 years. The users of the system should be putting some money in this deal too. How you really measure long term benefits?
Mr. Atkinson replied I’m not sure we have a complete answer to how you measure long-term reward. Once we can provide some information on the benefit side and we certainly will be asking about that from those who request the information and I think at the end of the day the decisions about the allocation and how that risks balance is it totally sits with you.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I believe that’s the job of this committee - to determine how much reward we’re going to have. For example broadband they can give us statistic if they want but we know it our job as committee to figure that out on our own and where we want to put our money to get more bang for our bucks.
Mr. Fricilone stated when we talk about long-term, we don’t even know if broadband is long-term. There’s star link out there and there’s going to be something else out there, but you do need water for life. Some of the water projects that we are looking at, we are replacing things that are 100 years old and valves that are failing. You see what’s happening in Dixmoor right now; they have water problems every day over there. They’re going to have a boil order for the next two years until they get fixed. One of the biggest keys for ARPA was water and sewer projects. They talked about that in every meeting that we’ve been on, and I know there will be some other infrastructure money, but I do think we need to key in on some of these projects right now. Again, we know what they are like, the Fairmont ones that have been neglected for a long time or Preston Heights. We have those projects already listed on our CDBG for the next maybe 8 to 10 years, but we just don’t have the money yet. So, they are kind of in the waiting line we can move them up in the head of the line to get some of those done now, I think.
Speaker Cowan commented the good thing is we can do a little of everything. For April can we see some sort of movement on the sewer and water? And then, an intake form on how we’re starting to get more information about other projects that might be out there. Then I also think a review of the health department requests because I think that’s something that’s fairly cut and dried for the time being. It doesn’t mean we can’t revisit it but we can maybe even move forward with those in April or May.
Mr. Mark Atkinson replied yes.
Mr. Brophy advised the committee that we had $65 million last spring; $50 million of the funds is invested with a professional manager and we are managing the other $15 million.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorizing Contribution to United Way
(Nick Palmer)
Speaker Cowan stated we are authorizing a contribution to United Way. The County makes a charitable contribution using the Waste Management funds in the amount of $50,000.00. These funds are distributed to Will County Nonprofit Organizations.
Mr. Moustis noted we’re going to match up to $50,000.00 dollars for employees contributions. I think it is worth mentioning that our employees also contribute additional money.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Susan Olenek)
Will County, Illinois Posted: 6/9/2022 Page 10
Minutes Will County Executive Committee March 10, 2022
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Winfrey ABSENT: Ventura |
(Kevin Lynn)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Marta Keane)
Mr. Moustis asked when we have municipalities join the electronic recycling and that municipality in multiple counties, such as the majority of Aurora is in Kane County; does this recycling for all of Aurora including the Kane County portion?
Mr. Hartke answered yes it does. If any municipality is at least partially in the county we will take all the electronics from that entire municipality
| RESULT: APPROVED [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 |
| RESULT: APPROVED [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 |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Mitch Schaben)
No requests.
8. Replacement Hire for Emergency Management Director - Attachment Added (Regina Malone)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
No action on this item.
10. Proclamation(s)
Mrs. Adams stated we have 2 proclamations this month: Recognizing Welcome Home Day for Vietnam Veterans and recognizing Harold Damron on his retirement from EMA.
11. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. Executive Appointments
(Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: APPROVED [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 |
IX. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
Cowan - We have no request for State’s Attorney’s Opinion.
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
Mrs. Ogalla stated zoning case taking nearly 79 acres of property splitting it into 15, five acre partials like bowling alleys. It’s very bad thing. People move out from somewhere in the municipality most likely to the country and they think man I’m just going to do whatever I like and do all these things and it’s all these properties issues that I’ve dealt with through years because we use these bowling alley lots. They are not a good design. Not enough frontage. I know Kankakee County for instance doesn’t allow lots under 10 acres. I don’t want to restrict 5 acres, but I really think we should not have these bowling alley lots so I’m definitely going to be a no vote on that.
Mr. Moustis commented a lot of it depends on the zoning. If it’s a E-2 or E-1 zoning they have to get more frontage by zoning classification. The problem becomes the side yards set back there because now they’ll want to put up a shed when it’s supposed to be 15 ft. off the property line, and he need 15 ft. here or he can’t build his whole barn. Even though it sounds like they have 5 acres it causes problem. That’s why everybody should serve on Land Use for at least one term to understand it because it is a lot of what Judy is saying, it causes problems down the line. They think they have 5 acres and now they want to put up a 3,000 square ft. pole barn and may be allowed to do but they don’t have the side yard setback to do it. Then they are in here for variances all the time. Much of which you may never see because it’s done at Planning & Zoning Commission. I agree with Judy; to me if you’re doing an R1 or R2 on a 5 acre parcel, that means you may only have 150 foot of frontage and it doesn't work well. It works well for the property owner if he wants to cash in, but it doesn’t work good from a land planning standpoint. I think a 5-acre partial should have nothing less than 250 ft. of frontage.
Mr. Marcum stated a couple of months ago we had a similar issue by Egyptian Trails. I can make the request to have it assigned to committee to discuss it. It gets to be a tricky situation. I
Mrs. Traynere commented to prevent these bowling alley problems, Land Use could probably tell us what the setback is for each side when we get a case like this and how much space is left in the middle. Also, I had asked in Capital Improvements Committee that our State’s Attorney’s Office give us a what is possible scenario versus what the actual law says about the courthouse. I did not get an answer to whether that was request was going to go in. I know what the laws says, I want to know what’s possible.
Ms. Ventura indicated she has an issue about a case that is coming forward with the lighting and having to rezone it. They wanted to do a lighting warehouse it’s a warehouse I’m not saying this right a storing something. This is the exact thing I was asking for the A1 type zoning, and we were told we didn’t have to change it because we could just do special permits but now there in a different zoning and they have to move to I1 and so now it’s open to all warehousing for this because of this particular thing. I would like us to bring this one back once again. Why can’t we have landscaping businesses, lighting storage businesses, small garage type businesses without having to rezone I1 because we constantly see these cases all the time and I really don’t want all Will County to get the I1 just so people can have storage space. There has to be a better solution for that. Unless everyone wants everything to be I1 every time we have this storage container, which then once you make it I1 when they sell that property, they have every ability to purchase a giant warehouse.
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
Mrs. Ogalla indicated I was unable to attend the meeting, but I’ve heard many of the comments or conversations regarding the Executive Legislation down in Springfield. I’m in agreement with most everyone on our committee that had said and others who are not on the Legislative Committee came forward and spoke. I think that this if we’re going to be looking at if our County Executive is looking at making changes to that I think it should be inclusive of us because the fact it includes all of us. We are all involved with the County Executive form of government because that’s what we have here. We should definitely have input into what is said, and we shouldn’t just be tweaking the parts that the County Executive would like to tweak because that’s what they want to tweak. Now is the time if we are tweaking it let’s look at it to see what doesn’t work, see what needs to be further defined and that should be done. There shouldn’t be a rush on this. I wish the County Executive would say listen Springfield take a seat back because she’s got a lot of friends down there, she was in Springfield for a long time. I think we should have a hold on that. She should not move it forward. And have the people that she’s made friends with carry it forward for her when it goes against what we might want and the other county and we should work together with the other county, since there dealing with it come up with the best solution, make the best modifications, and this time and possibly in the future there may be others. Mr. Moustis provided a history of the Executive Form of Government in Will County. Quite frankly, I think from the very beginning what they did from the Executive Act when they brought it into Will County was unconstitutional, but it was never challenged. The Executive form of government was formed in the 1970’s Constitutional Convention. Until that Constitutional Convention this form of government did not exist. The reason it was considered was because some counties said, we’ll like a pathway to home rule and that’s why when you look at the Executive Act it clearly states you get home rule. How they were able to say were going to take something that was done by the Constitution and change it and put it out there is beyond me. I think it was an opinion made by the State’s Attorney, or whatever I don’t know. All I can tell you is I made no secret; I’ve objected to this form of government since day one and when it was on a referendum, I vigorously worked against it but it won by like 120 votes or something. It wasn’t an overwhelming thing, but I don’t know how you take something that was done in the Constitutional Convention and change what the purpose was and then say, we can take this out when that was actually the whole purpose of that form of government. I mentioned that because I think every change is not legislatively since is also unconstitutional because you’re changing a form of government that was clearly put in there by the Constitution and you start piece making it and that was for political, and the changes have all been in my opinion for political reasons. It wasn’t to make it better it was to enhance for example prior to former county executive put in that the Executive draws the map, reportion that. That was not in there it was clearly a duty of the County Board which then was not taken away because it all led to the County Board. Almost since day one the Executive Office has always interfered with legislative policy matters. This last one the County Executive hired a lobbyist specifically to enact legislation and that’s not their job. Their job is administrative and not legislative. I am going to put that aside. Even though our countywides may follow our personnel policies, purchasing policies, they don’t have to. If they want to have their own purchasing policy all they have to do is make sure that it’s in the state statue not what the County Board does. When you start talking about internal control for the Executive Office cause currently, we set the purchasing policy for the executive branch of government, we set personnel policy for the executive branch of government. That’s all the departments that come under them. The question then is if this is internal control, they would get all the same internal controls to set all those policies for employees and so forth, as other
Constitutional office holders get, or does it mean something different? Mrs. Tatroe replied let me first say, how it would be interpreted we won’t know until a court actually interprets it. Typically, under the interpretation of statutory language where there is president the term is used elsewhere it would be interpreted to mean the same thing. As indicated or the constitutional countywide elected officials who have internal control it does include, they do not have to follow your personnel policies. They do not have to follow the purchasing ordinances. We always recommend that they do but they do not have to do that. Mr. Moustis commented that is the real concern about internal control, and I heard this from this administration and past administration we just want to be like everybody else, but you’re not like everybody else. You want to take the Executive Act that was put in the 1970 Constitution and manipulate it to be something it wasn’t intended to be. If they did not want advice and consent in that Constitutional Convention, they wouldn’t have put it in there. They clearly said, the County Executive works under the direction of the County Board. This cherry picking that goes on well we just want to do past practice when it’s convenient for you want to do past practice, when it’s not you want to change everything. There certainly need to be a court challenge to this and this really all comes about because the courts did clarify it. You do it through the courts and not change legislation to suit you and the power of yourself. I think this need to be challenged. We’ll file or someone will do a filing on a Constitutional basis. I will thank this legislation for this because, boy has it united us. We are one and I think
that’s what people don’t remember, and we will come together. Mrs. Traynere asked does that give County Executive the complete authority to approve collecting bargaining agreements without bringing them in front of the board.
Mrs. Tatroe replied no.
Mr. Moustis noted we are co-employees of all county employees. Mrs. Traynere stated if this was done through the Constitutional Convention of 1970, I don’t understand how any legislative changes could have been done and we need to go back to the strict interpretation of the Constitution which to me, we need to file that lawsuit, get that attorney to represent us just like they did down in Champaign County. That is really important to me, and I want to make sure that we are doing things by the actual Constitution. If that gives us home rule, then that’s fine. I don’t understand why that would have been on the ballot and why it would have been defeated if we were given that in the 1970 Constitution change.
Ms. Ventura indicated I have the opinion piece written back in 1989 that says exactly that this was unconstitutional and it’s time to challenge this. How do we petition to get our own attorney and can we please add that to the agenda? If we have to have a referendum to undo this, I’m not saying that’s what we have to do and I’m not saying that’s the way we have to go but if we do can we get some information on what that process will look like.
County Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated a couple of things regarding legislation. As we know this is a repeated debate and this issue flames and flickers. There was an outside council in 2005 that came in and gave an opinion. I don’t know if it was sent to the Legislative Committee or not in regards to the response, so this has been reviewed before. If this clarifies things so we stop this debate, I have no issue with this. This is beyond this County Board; this is beyond me as the County Executive. Whether people dislike the County Executive Board of government that is also an independent decision. There are ways to change it via the citizen decree. I encourage that as well. This is about a position and not a person. This is about a board and not 26 members. If this can clarify things and put this to rest once and for all I think, we’ll all be happy. Because every time a new County Executive comes in, they won’t have to take their own style, take their own opinion on how they interpret it. I think we would all be happy with that. I know it did move quickly in the Senate and I did not ask for that, I did not control that. I do know how the Senate works and there was a deadline to get out of committee. For that I know it looks sinister and egregious, but I did not ask for that. I think we need to take it down where it’s not a personal thing. I like to think that my reputation proceeds myself and I have 15 as an elective official and it’s not just about me but about clarifying somethings. I understand that is hard to get 26 members to agree on something and 26 members to come together but we have put it in front of the proper committee. If there’s redlines, suggestions the appointment process too, again the change in that is fine. I’m not that crazy about appointments anyway. They put a lot of pressure on you. We need specifics. We need to put this to rest. If Will County no longer wants the County Executive form of government that is beyond me, or we just want to make some tweaks.
Mr. Moustis noted this is what the courts are for, and this has been my objection over the years, and this is not exclusive to your administration and this is nothing personal for me. It’s about the authority of the County Board within the Executive form of County government. This is what the courts are for not what the legislature is for. When we need an interpretation of something that’s in the Constitution we should go to the courts for interpretation as they did in Champaign County with the appointment of a board member for a vacancy. They are the court in my opinion is a nonbiased arbitrator of these issues. Before your administration it was all political. I understand your desire to get clarity but that’s what the courts are for. We should file within the courts where there is a process that can take you all the way to the Supreme Court. I think that’s the issue for me. If we can’t agree, then we would ask the courts to be the arbitrators of that to do the interpretation of the executive form of government and what it means.
County Executive Bertino-Tarrant indicated in my experience too there has been cases where the courts have said legislators need to clarify their intent. Mr. Moustis noted he difference was it was the intent of the Constitutional Convention not the intent of legislators. This form of government was not in a Constitutional Convention which I think makes a little different. County Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated this is a Constitutional office sir. You do recognize that?
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t want to debate that. But under the Executive form of government did not have the same internal controls that other officers held, and I consider Constitutional office holders my interpretation are probably different than yours. Every county is required to have that office holder whether it be treasurer, state’s attorney. I’m glad you are saying that it’s not personal because at least for me it’s not.
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Balich expressed concern about not receiving any reports on the landfill
Mr. Pretzel stated at the February County Board meeting I pointed out that national average per the cost of gasoline was $3.67. Since then, it’s increased by over another 10% and this is causing a lot of problems. A lot of tough decisions to be made by residents of Will County. I think it’s time for us to do something about it at least what we can. I asked Mr. Palmer to help draft up a resolution to repeal the motor fuel tax. I think this is something that will show them that were here, and we know what their dealing with the little bit we can do. I hope for a bipartisan support on this. I don’t think it matters if you’re a Republican or Democrat when the cost of gasoline is approaching $5.00 a gallon. Whether you live in Beecher of Bolingbrook this hurts. I am asking for everyone support on that and I ‘m hoping we can vote on that as soon as this next week’s meeting, March meeting. If not than as soon as possible.
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Palmer and I have been engaged in interviews for the communication position and finance position for County Board. We’ve had a lot of applicants and narrowed it down to some folks to interview and we’ve interviewed some really great folks. We’re hoping to move forward on offers on those position shortly. I will keep you abreast on how that kind of goes and turns out, so we can get a full staff on board again. We are hopefully starting next week to interview for open administrative assistant position; we are working towards again a full staff soon. To that end I want to publicly say, thank you to our Administrative Assistant Sandy Ceci. Obviously being down half of our administrative staff Ms. Ceci has taken on a much greater workload and certainly with Mrs. Adams needing to be out for family issues and taking care of her family. To say Ms. Ceci has stepped up isn’t really even beginning to say what she’s been able to do in these last few weeks and if you haven’t noticed a blip in our processes, it’s all because of Ms. Ceci at this point. I wanted to bring special attention to Ms. Ceci.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Approval)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
1. Motion to adjourn at 12:44 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Winfrey ABSENT: Ventura |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4286&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up