Will County Capital Improvements Committee met April 5.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Traynere led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Herbert Brooks Jr. called the meeting to order at 10:04 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Chair | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Absent | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Absent | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Capital Improvements Committee - Regular Meeting - Jan 4, 2022 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Parker |
1. RNG Facility Construction Update/Financial Summary
(Christina Snitko)
Mr. Palmer said welcome back I believe this is the first time this committee has meet fully in person in two years. I am pleased to announce we have two new staff members who have joined the staff as of yesterday. Budget and Finance Analyst is Marcie Hamann, and Kasondra Van Treeck is our Communications Person. You are going to get to know them more, but we wanted to quickly introduce them; we have one other person starting next Monday, Pam Dantzler, we will introduce her at the next round of meetings.
Mr. Brooks said let’s move on to old business, the RNG Facility Construction Update/Financial Summery.
Ms. Snitko said good morning, everybody it is good to be back in person. I will hand it over to Mr. Kozak he is going to give the construction update presentation. Then I will go into the RNG Project.
At this juncture Mr. Kozak reviewed the PowerPoint presentation that he provided for the agenda.
Ms. Traynere asked how many people work in this office, one or two at a time.
Mr. Kozak stated that is up to the operational side, but I think it is only a couple of people.
Ms. Traynere asked who is responsible for the employees that are operating it; is it county employees or an outside contractor that is going to do the work.
Ms. Snitko said right now we are working with an Attorney for an Operations and Maintenance Agreement. Whoever the operator of the Plant, they will decide how many staff members will be at the facility. Typically, we see about two people full time alternating shifts; so, one would be working 12-8, the other working 6-2 or something like that. other than that, there would be another staff member on call; if there is something urgent that happens at the plan they can drive over there and respond to that. As for who from the County oversees that, it has not been decided yet.
Ms. Traynere stated I am just a little fuzzy on how all of this is going to work.
We’ve been pushing to get this building done but we haven’t really talked about the cost to operate it, and who the operator is going to be.
Ms. Berkowicz said I have the same question; would it be possible next month to be able to share that information with us. What the operational side will look like, and how does that relate with the county ownership. We are owners, but however we are not operators. I would like to have a conversation so that everyone understands those relationships.
Mr. Schaben stated in relations to the operating; we are going to hire an outside entity to do the operations of the plant. I would imagine that there is going to be oversite from a department. It would likely be someone in Land Use who has been working primarily on this project to oversee the operator of the plant. The budget of the plant will still be housed underneath the County Executive’s budget like any other entity.
Ms. Berkowicz said since we want to make sure that everything is always done correctly; you would have some type of inspection schedule. Is there another regulatory organization or company that would assist us because we are not RNG specialist?
Mr. Hartke said we are consulting with an Engineering Consulting Firm right now. Helping us get the applications for various permits and we will be securing permits. There will be certain paperwork and inspections, and different actions and reporting that will be submitted and that will need to be conducted because of all these permits. The big one will be under the Bureau of Land; and then we have air permitting so there is work that will need to be done. Most likely we will only have on retainer some type of Engineering Consulting Firm to continue to monitor that and assist us with submitting any amendments to any applications or permits. Just like a landfill there is constantly new applications that must be submitted. Every time something else is built or a change has been made that needs to occur. With that being said, the Operations and Maintenance Contractor will also be required to do certain quality testing and continued maintenance as it operates. So, it will be exercising valves and other electrical equipment making sure it continues to operate and is maintained properly. That will need to be done to try to prevent failure or shut down of the plant. We will also need to order spare parts so that if anything fails, we have those parts in place.
Mr. Brooks asked before you go further could you introduce yourself to the new members of our team.
Mr. Hartke replied I am Dave Hartke, and I am the Director of the Resource Recovery and Energy division. Ms. Snitko and I have been working very diligently on this project, probably put in 90% or more of our time on developing this project.
Ms. Berkowicz asked will you have a plan with EMA if something catastrophic or an emergency may happen.
Mr. Hartke said certainly, for the plant as well as the pipeline. That will be done as we secure the Operations and Maintenance Operator; because their staff will also need to come into play with any of those plans and need to understand those as well. We have already reached out to EMA, but we do need to further develop the emergency management plan. That is part of the responsibility of the O&M Operator.
Ms. Traynere said other than our initial, and I think that was a little over $2 million in changes and change orders. I am looking at the bond proceeds and the project budget so far. Have there been any other unanticipated costs. Are we still on track to finish this without any more major surprises?
Mr. Hartke stated we do have change orders before the County’s Executive Office. You will see that the Executive Committee Agenda does have various change orders. Some of the causes of those change orders are expected and are within this budget; there are portions of some of them that are not. You will see one that was pointed out by Mr. Kozak’s presentation, there was an underground storage tank change order that will be before the Executive Committee. The amount of that change order was roughly $730,000. That was the USD tank removal, in the budget we anticipated it to be around $400,000. It did cover most of the tank removal costs. It was a lot of permitting and reporting to the LUST Division of the EPA (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) and then we had to transfer it into the site remediation program. That tank and remediation is currently under their purview. There may be additional reporting with that however that tank was right in the footprint of the footing wall of that building.
Ms. Traynere asked if we can get any federal funding from the EPA to remediate this or are we just on the hook.
Mr. Hartke replied from what we have been able to determine we are on the hook for it.
Ms. Traynere asked if we have talked to the EPA about this.
Mr. Hartke said we have submitted all the paperwork to them yes and have worked with our Consulting Firm.
Mr. Hartke said it also caused delay in the building. There was some double handling that had to occur during construction. Some of the concrete had to be poured when it was colder, so that required some additional work and cost. That is why the cost ended up being $730,000.
Mr. Brooks said one of the things our Chief of Staff Mr. Palmer just informed me; some of the things that Mr. Hartke is talking about will be on the Executive Committee on Thursday. I also know there are some other changes on there that we will be talking about then.
Ms. Snitko reviewed the RNG Monthly Project Update that was provided in the agenda.
Ms. Snitko said I do want to say despite us having some delays I do want to hand it to SES Energy and Harbor Contractors, they have compromised and worked at different plans and tried to keep the project going despite doing the UST remediation, so I do want to mention them they have been doing an amazing job.
2. County Office Building Renovations/Financial Summary
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac reviewed the Project Summary of the County Office Building Renovations packet that was provided in the agenda.
Ms. Traynere said it looks like we came in a little bit under budget. You did mention some vending machines, so I did take a jog through the basement. I had not ever seen the basement before. I did see the whole Clerk’s operation today; I didn’t know that that basement was so huge. I saw the lovely new break area down there; but then I saw no refrigerator, no vending machines, and I thought what is going on with that? You alluded to vending machines what can you tell me.
Mr. Tkac said we are working with a vending contractor that currently does business with Will County in the new Courthouse. It is not the new food service manager, but it is a company that is affiliated with the state and their effort to bring business opportunities to visually impaired individuals and business owners. We thought the performance that’s provided by this company at the Courthouse and the jury gathering area and in the Circuit Clerk’s breakroom is exemplary and that we would sit down and talk with him, we did that last week and are waiting for him to finalize his proposal upon which time it will be revied by the County Executive and hopefully we will be set up with this firm in short order.
Ms. Traynere said I didn’t look around too much, but it sees that I might have saw a microwave on a countertop, but I didn’t seem to notice any water or sink or any kind of clean up. Was that included in that break area. Was there any kind of kitchenette?
Mr. Tkac said there is no sink there, but we do have the ability to put one in. Or to connect vending machines to a water source. But you are right all that we have down there for right now.
Mr. Palmer asked are you done down there.
Mr. Tkac said yes, except for that break area. It would also be nice to maybe talk to the County Clerk to see if we could get some demonstration of the new equipment in there as well.
Mr. Palmer said maybe we can get together and schedule something with the Clerk and have that tour.
Ms. Mueller said I really like this idea of using the company that we are using at the courthouse in supporting local. I think that is a wonderful direction to be heading to maybe replace vending machines in places where it makes sense for us, I love that and want to see us doing more of that.
Ms. Berkowicz said we also talked about a mother’s room. Has that happened?
Mr. Tkac replied we still have space available on the lower level as you alluded to that is not ideal. What we would like to do is find another location in the building that is more suitable for that use.
Ms. Berkowicz said I would like you to make sure that is done, and the sooner the better. What is your time frame of getting that done?
Mr. Tkac said we can get that done by the end of June.
Ms. Traynere said with that room you will need to provide some refrigeration device.
3. Morgue Project Update/Financial Summary
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Tkac said I am pleased to report that bid package #1 which will include site work, site utilities, site concrete, site electric, and bituminous paving will be available to the public for bid on April 13th. We have a pre bid meeting scheduled on April 18th five days after that and bids are due by April 27th.
Ms. Traynere said I have learned a lot about this process now in my role at the township. I used a company by the name of Demand Star to get the word out, what do we do?
Mr. Tkac said in conjunction with our purchasing department; Demand Star is our go to vendor for publishing those bid documents. We also provide them hard copies for those who won’t be able to obtain them online. We also notify the public with ads in both the Joliet Herald News and the Farmers Weekly.
Ms. Traynere asked if we ever do anything like the Patch which is free.
Mr. Tkac replied I don’t think that we do use the Patch, but we could investigate it.
Ms. Traynere said maybe just even an article mentioning that this is going to be available, because you can post your own article under events. I think some of these smaller companies do not use Demand Star, may not get the newspaper. If you’re a subscriber to the Patch you get a notice everyday of this that and the other.
4. Discussion of 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan
(County Executive's Office)
Mr. Schaben stated the Capital Improvements Plan will cover a 5-year span. First year of that plan will be the budget, the subsequent four years will be plan only not actually funded. In subsequent years there will be a review of the CIP and then additional projects will be added to that budget. It is going to be on an annual basis of review. Last week in concert with our budgeting documents the Capital Improvements application and instruction manual which I have copies of the application if you want to see it. Along with an instruction manual was sent out to our department heads and we have aligned a schedule for this with the budget. Departments will have about a month and a half to complete the crunching documents as well as applications for Capital Projects to be considered for adopting into the Capital Improvements Plan. The schedule for this information went out April 1st, the submissions are due on May 13th. When we do our budget meetings with department heads that usually occurs in the month of June. We will also be discussing their capital requests, and the compiled document will be in the month of September. It will include all the applications as well as a very condensed spreadsheet of all of the projects that were submitted as well as a ranking criteria for each one of those projects. I want to stress that even though a project may be ranked number one as far as our criteria is concerned doesn’t guarantee funding. That is going to be the work of this body and the Finance Committee to ultimately decide which projects will be funded for the coming Fiscal Year.
Mr. Brooks asked what was that threshold that you told me, what was that the dollar amount?
Mr. Schaben said we are trying to distinguish the difference between general maintenance and what an actual Capital Project is. We looked at a lot of Capital Improvements Plans to try and come up with a good definition; what we landed on was we tried to align it to closely to what a purchasing ordinance threshold are. Items that have a single acquisition cost of $25,000 or more and have a useful life of 5 or more years. The information that you will be seeing in your application is going to included project title, a description, ad justification site requirements, project costs, a schedule for the project, funding distribution, impact on the operating budget, and then we have a comprehensive list of metrics that we are going to use to sort of rank all these different projects. Again, I did provide a copy if you want to take one with you, that will be included in the plan that will be presented by September. The application and instructional manual are on the County’s Intranet; it is available for Department Managers to download and complete in the next month.
Mr. Brooks said I think it does simplify things when I looked at it. First, it was something that we didn’t have before; we had a process, but I like the way you put that one together. It makes it an equal distribution to all the departments regardless of whether it is big or small.
Mr. Schaben said that is a good point Chairman, it was sent out to all Department Heads as well as Countywide Officials; we are receiving request from the entire county.
Mr. Brooks asked what the deadline for them was to fill it out and get back to you.
Mr. Schaben replied all submissions are due for this coming year for May 13th; this is an annual review that will happen. If a department or countywide official doesn’t get this application completed by the deadline that would then be something that they would prepare for the next fiscal year.
Handout from Mitch Schaben at Committee
5. Disc Re: Status of Old Courthouse, 14 W. Jefferson St.
(Discussion)
Mr. Tkac stated back in 2019 we had a very strong idea that there would be some asbestos containing materials, given the date when that the courthouse was built. We engaged the services of Midwest Environmental Consulting to do the initial survey which they produced; and there were no surprises there. There were a lot of ACMs (Asbestos Containing Materials) throughout the building. We asked them to prepare bidding documents so that we can begin the process for bidding and awarding that contract. No matter what happens to that courthouse those ACMs must be abated. I just wanted to make sure that this committee was informed.
Mr. Traynere asked why they were not abated before 2019.
Mr. Tkac said that is a very good point; if you disturb the area that contains asbestos whether it is pipe insulation, BAP vinal, asbestos tile, or adhesives and so forth and so on. Then that must be abated at the time the work is done. If it is un disturbed in other words, it is not harmful. If it is disturbed, then the particulate matter becomes airborne and that is the health risk. If we are not disturbing it through construction, demolition, renovation then we don’t have to remove it. But we know we are going to have to do it regardless of what is going on happen to that building.
Ms. Traynere said I guess because I never got the answer to my question which is what is possible with that building regarding The Bartlee Decision or whatever it was called. They told us what the interpretation was, I understood that; but I wanted to know what was possible. Not what the document said because I can read. I wanted to know what was legally possible. I’m still very interested in knowing if that designation for that property can just be transferred over to the new courthouse or if it can be erased since that is no longer a courthouse.
Mrs. Tatroe said we did issue an opinion indicating what can be done with that property. Before the County of Will was even a county, before the City of Joliet was even a city it was designated as land dedicated to the people of Will County The Bartlee Decision interpreted that the County does not own it, the hold it basically in trust for the benefit of the people. It doesn’t say that it is a courthouse, but it does have to be used for public use. Will County can transfer it to other government entities, it can be used for a variety of public uses, but that public use must be the dominant use of that property no matter what you use it for. It cannot be transferred for private use.
Mr. Hollister stated I am Hudson Hollister and I have been working on options for the Will County Courthouse Building for some time now. Tycee Bell has also been working hard on developing opportunities. I have three updates for you all. The first has to do with research that we have conducted related to the legal posture of the site. The second has to do with action by the state government that happened in February, the third update is just an invitation. I am grateful to the members of this committee for the opportunity to review the very detailed memo that Mrs. Tatroe put together, it is quite detailed it does explain very well the status of the site under the 1961 decision. As the memo points out as the 1961 decision says under the original dedications of the site. The building and the land must be devoted to public use. That is correct, the County does not have the authority to transfer it to private ownership or to enter any other arrangement that would allow for private use. That original dedication comes from the 1834 incorporation of the Village of Juliet. Then it was replicated for the 1836 incorporation of East Juliet, and then an incorporation because we had some economic problems and then the incorporation of Joliet happens in 1852. That same block was then dedicated for public use in that 1852 incorporation. That 1852 incorporation is governed by State Law. It was back in the era when incorporations were done individually by the State Legislature, The Legislature would individually vote on each one, he State Legislature originally set this up. This means that the State Legislature could change it, the State Legislature has the authority to change the disposition of the site. Chairman Brooks you and I have had a couple conversations about how that has been done for other sites in this county. Notably for school buildings to allow them to be turned over to private use if the school district didn’t need them anymore. This has been done in other counties; those of you that have been to Wheaton know that the original courthouse building that they have there was redeveloped in the early 2000’s. Yes, the County does not have the authority right now to transfer use; nor does the county have the authority to enter in to a long-term lease where there would be private use. But the State Legislature does have that authority. We do know that a couple of the State legislative offices have had interest in investigation of what kind of action might be necessary to give the County more flexibility over the site. Also, to give protection to the new site where the 2020 building is, that right now doesn’t have. The original plat from 1834, 1836, and 1852 never contemplated that the courthouse would be erected somewhere else, so it would be proper for the State Legislature to consider this. That is the first point; the second is that there has been new action by the State Government that obviously State action would be necessary for a redevelopment to occur for anything but full nonpublic sector use. State action is also necessary for demolition to happen. This is because on February 20th a State Historic Preservation Office issued a preliminary favorable opinion about this site. What that means under State Law if a State Permit is to be sought to use state roads for a demolition project or a State Permit is needed to relocate the ComEd substation then the State Historic Preservation Office gets a consultation. The State Historic Preservation Office then needs to sign off on whether redevelopment options were pursued. What we have got here is a situation where the State Government action is going to be needed for redevelopment options to be opened. State Government action is also going to be needed for demolition to happen. Either way the State Legislative Offices that represent the site and that represent the districts around are eager to engage. I know some compositions are happening already. I would be happy to answer any questions around that but first all describe the third point. Many of you all have joined some of the meetings that our redevelopment and business group. Tycee and myself and several others are working on identifying redevelopment options. Our next meeting is on Zoom tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Central time. I am so excited that we will be featuring Lynn Krowsky who was the architect in charge of the redevelopment of Chicago Union Station. Chicago Union Station is a great example both of historic redevelopment of a structure that at one time was almost written off. Also, of a public private partnership, where private sector funds can be utilized to bring new life to a structure that is privately owned. So, for both those two reasons the agriculture and the legal engagement we are so excited to hear from Lynn Krowsky who is a principal at Goettsch Partners in Chicago. That’s my three points, the legal disposition of the site, the action that happened in February by the State Historic Preservation Office; and our invitation tomorrow. Full details are on the Facebook page that is maintained by the Redevelop the Will County Courthouse Group. I will be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Bell would you like to add anything?
Ms. Bell stated I don’t need to add anything. I think Mr. Hollister did a great job of making those points; but I do want to introduce myself. My name is Tycee Bell, I am the Visionary Director of the Community Cultivation Project which is a not for profit here in the Joliet area where I work with other community originations. We work on collective impact, and then I own and work on Seven Mountains as a consultant where I advocate on diversity and inclusion, work with corporate clients, local business owners. The focus is just changing some of the systems for resources, advocating for solutions in our communities, and making sure that we look at social economic changes especially where it is healing from COVID. In that we work together with our government, local arts, museums, and places like that. I am here to support this redevelopment project and thank you all for having us.
Mr. Brooks said Mrs. Tatroe I have to ask you, since this is on my agenda for discussion. That means that anyone can ask questions is that right. Are there any questions form the committee?
Ms. Traynere said I just wondered if Mrs. Tatroe had anything that she wanted to share in terms of what Mr. Hollister just said that this really must be approved by the Legislature even if we are going to demolish the building.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I was unaware of any historic designation of that building. Normally when something receives an historic designation or is up for that; there is notice given to the owner. I don’t know that the County received notice, I am unaware of any of that.
Ms. Traynere said I understand that she didn’t receive the notice; I will say that for the people out there in zoom land that might be listening. She said she is unaware of the County receiving any notice of an historic designation, or the owner of the building. This concept that it was incorporated in two or three other iterations before it finally came forward as Joliet in 1852, it was long before I was born. If in fact the Legislature made that happen, I don’t know if there are some rules that they must be involved to do anything different with the building.
Mrs. Tatroe stated if the Legislature created the dedication, then the Legislature would have to change it. If it was a private person even the Legislature would not have authority to change it.
Ms. Traynere said so based on what Mr. Hollister said it was the Legislature even though a private person donated it the Legislature took the action; is that what I heard.
Ms. Berkowicz said if there was some type of State Legislature action. Mrs. Tatroe you are not aware of it, but Mr. Hollister says there is. I would think we would need to determine is that true or isn’t it. We need to understand that fact I think; because right now how do we proceed if this is true.
Mrs. Tatroe said we need to get that information; I would have expected that the State would have sent some notice to the County’s Executive’s Office. I know of nothing; it didn’t come to my attention that is all I can say.
Ms. Berkowicz said I think we need to answer that question and again that also gets back to the whole talking about ComEd. I believe I asked this in the past, if the building is repurposed then that question goes away as well. There’s no need to remove or relocate the ComEd, the electrical. So, I think we are kind of at a standstill here.
Mr. Brooks said I do know with ComEd; and correct me if I am wrong Mr. Tkac. It is still pending, and we have not gotten a cost yet on that. We have information about the asbestos, but we haven’t about the removal of the ComEd Station on the bottom yet. What I have learned is that there are multiple facilities Downtown Joliet that depend on that; it is imperative if it is moved that remains in our around downtown. Those costs have not come back to us yet.
Ms. Berkowicz asked Mr. Tkac if we should continue with the business regarding the asbestos. Either way no matter what action must occur that needs to be done.
Mr. Tkac replied yes, no matter what happens to that building whether it is renovated or demolished.
Mr. Brooks said this is just a discussion today, no action will be taken.
Mr. Tkac said I would just like to elaborate for a moment in terms of the Commonwealth Edison issue and the primary service to that building. It is a primary service to not only the building, but it is a primary service to a lot of the downtown businesses. I believe it is ComEd’s intent no matter what happens to the building to separate the service to that building from the other services such as the downtown businesses. I think that is what they want to do, also regardless to the fate of the building.
Ms. Berkowicz said if that is the case as a County, we are not paying the whole cost, we are only paying the cost that is to separate our power.
Mr. Tkac said I understand completely what you are saying. It is the opinion of this office and the County Executive’s Office that we shouldn’t have to pay anything for the relocation of any service; that is all on Commonwealth Edison.
Ms. Ventura stated the last committee I asked about doing a micro grid like Brownsville did if there needed to be a shared cost to remove that station; we were investing into something else it might give them incentive to move. Did you have any conservations with them, there is a reprehensive at ComEd, Ms. Traynere and I meet them when we up there for a meeting who knows about this and what they are doing in Brownsville, is that something that we can enter those conversations with them?
Mr. Tkac said I think it might be a bit early for those conversations; but we would be glad to have them at the appropriate time.
Ms. Ventura said I just suggested this because sometimes solving one problem is solving multiple problems. So, if half of Joliet is on this substation and we can modernize what is happening here but also have back-ups for climate disasters and stuff. Now you are investing in something new while solving an existing problem. I felt the conversation might be prudent to what is happening currently.
Mr. Tkac replied thank you.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Hollister you referenced the February 20th decision and I know there is some confusion about that. You said it was a preliminary favorable opinion, so the word preliminary to me suggests that it is not fully designated and maybe that’s why we haven’t received notice yet.
Mr. Hollister replied that might be; I am learning on the fly. I’ve learned for the first time in February what the State Historic Preservation Office was. I will send you the link to the opinion. I do know that where the State Historic Preservation Office issues that sort of opinion, then it triggers a review process whenever another agency of the State Government receives various kinds of applications for permits. An intergovernmental process is triggered because of it; whether it is preliminary or not I am not sure.
Mr. Palmer stated Mr. Chairman I think we can do some further research with the Executive’s Office. There maybe a comment period for the county to take a position of whatever we want to take on this. I am not an expert on the State Historic Preservation, but I have been involved in some of these processes. There are many steps to get there and usually there is an opportunity for us to comment on our opinion.
Mr. Van Duyne said if I remember correctly, we passed a resolution back in 2019 to have this courthouse demolished. If so, I am a little confused why the historical society is taking so long. I mean this building could have been demolished by now; that is confusing to me. I appreciate you bringing it up now; my suggestion is that they move quickly.
Mrs. Tatroe said I think the question that might need to be asked is how did it come to their attention?
Mr. Brooks said in April 2019 the Capital Improvements Committee 100% voted for demolition. A lot of things have happened through the pandemic that set in. Also, at that time we were waiting on costs for the asbestos, and information from ComEd. Those things took a little longer, I know that is what happened in 2019.
Mr. Hollister said I am appreciative of all the committee’s time, and I know that committee would love not to spend any more time on it. I think it’s clear that there have been new facts and new possible funding that have come to light in the three years since the original County Board vote. We also have got new members of the County Board in office that didn’t have a chance to have their voices heard on this issue. I think there is a lot of desire among the State Legislative Offices to work collaboratively with the county on all the different options. I also think it is possible to investigate whether a public/private partnership for redevelopment is truly viable without changing the time frame. Because we see that there is funding in the Capital Budget for 2023; that would be devoted toward demolition. We have some months still before 2023 there is time to fully investigate all the options with us without delaying anything. I appreciate the committee’s time and consideration of these options.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 11:16 A.M.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Member AYES: Brooks Jr., VanDuyne, Berkowicz, Fritz, Gould, Mueller, Traynere ABSENT: Coleman, Parker |
Alerts Sign-up