Will County Board Executive Committee met April 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Ventura led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:03 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 | Absent | |
| 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: Nick Palmer
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Executive Committee - Assignment Meeting - Feb 3, 2022 10:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
1. American Rescue Plan
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated I am happy to announce that we had a lot of motion in the last few days on this. We spent a little over 4 hours with the consultants. The Executive’s staff and the consultants are starting to hash out some of the details on how the applications are going to work, what the criteria are, what kind of projects in each category are going to be funded, what we’re looking at, what we’re trying to do; the overall goals. We have made a lot of headway and it was a positive session; a lot of work got done. The consultants spent the rest of the day also meeting with some department heads, the Auditor, with finance to kind of understand what’s all going to be needed support wise there and we’re carrying on those meetings with them today. Hopefully by next week we will have something; it certainly won’t be a finished plan, it’s not like we’re going to unveil this complete package next week and vote on it and kind of be done and set things in motion, but we should have something more detail oriented to bring to this committee next week. The way the timing is working you might not get it too far in advance of the meeting.
Mrs. Traynere noted part of their presentation included surveys from the community; is that still part of the process?
Speaker Cowan answered we did an extensive public outreach campaign in 2021. We had our own survey that got over 700 responses and leadership has had extensive meetings with a lot of community partners in order to build the structure to see what was out there and what was wanted and needed. They’ll still be doing some outreach, but it will be more on - the applications are open and this is how to apply.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute an Agreement with Constellation Energy to Provide Electricity to the Will County Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Plant
(Mike English)
Mr. Mike English with Tradition Energy stated we’ve been working with the county here for several years to manage energy cost in particular electricity and natural gas. We’re here today to give a state of the market, understanding where things are as it relates to the energy market. Ultimately, try to figure out decision as to how to manage the energy cost for the new RNG plant that’s set to come online here shortly. The information here is telling us what is going on in the energy market and ultimately a recommendation. I’m just going to give you a brief history as to natural gas. We’re going to talk a lot about natural gas in this summary as it’s one of the primary fuels used to generate electricity across most of the US even here in IL, despite having robust generation of nuclear and other sources of electricity generation, but natural gas is the marginal fuel used to generate electricity so you have to pay close attention to what’s impacting the gas market because ultimately it sets a key cost component for generating electricity. Natural gas has been highly sensitive to weather events and other geopolitical issues as of lately so, prices I’m going to focus more in particular on the most recent 24 months. Really as a result of the weather storm Urie and what happened then we kind of found ourselves in a paradox where at the end of 2020.The beginning of 2020 that winter we had an ample amount of natural gas storage available commodity prices were extremely depressed and then you had the pandemic starting with that and that just exasperated the issue with energy prices collapsing, crude oil went negative and natural gas prices was at a decade low.
At that point oil and gas producers started to exercise a lot of diligence and cutting back on production there was a lot of consolidation in this space as a result of a lack of demand for energy. As the economy started to reopen throughout the course of 2020 demand started to pick back up but production remained stagnant. We saw this slight increase in prices across the US and then you fast-forward to winter storm Urie in 2021. The whole thing took an 180 and flipped on its head where we had this two-to-three-week period of record demand for energy across most of the US simultaneously there were production shut-in and cutbacks so, cold they couldn’t produce oil and gas. So, we went from having ample amounts of natural gas and storage to severe deficient so, throughout 2021 when we came into spring, summer, fall we were playing catch up and that’s where you see this persistent rise throughout 2021 prices leading to pretty high prices right before this past winter. We were able to catch back up what we’ll call the 5-year average for storage is kind of our benchmark which is outlined here by that blueline. The green line was 2021 storage levels so you can see throughout 2021 we were playing catch up like I said, and we got back to the 5-year average. However, after we finished this winter were actually 20% below the 5-year average. So, we are back at being behind the 8 ball again and hence were seeing natural gas prices at $6.00/$7.00 dollars per MMBTU that are trading on the exchange currently. The key results here is demand out pacing supply.
Weather obviously is a huge impact and factor we had late season withdrawals for natural gas. We actually had a withdrawal expected for the next storage report which would be one of the latest withdrawals we’ve seen in quite some time. The key reason for why we’re seeing this happen is production issue. We’re not seeing the investment coming back in from oil and gas companies to go and produce there’s a few reasons for that one of the biggest being this public and private sector sift to move towards more PGS focused landscape so, oil and gas companies aren’t willing to commit the capital investing millions of dollars to go drill for oil and gas.
You’ve seen state pension funds like the City of Chicago recently came out about a mandate that they’re not going to allocate public sector investment dollars towards oil and gas; it’s all going to be PSG focused. The SCC also mandating for public companies to start disclosing their carbon footprint and move towards more transparency in that space. We’re seeing from an oil and gas prospective no new investments being made to go out and produce more. Obviously, you factor in the GO political issues with Russia meaning Ukraine that only throws the situation more dire as Europe is highly sensitive to what’s happening with that issue where their getting almost all their energy from Russia they can’t flip a switch and transfer to another partner for that so, the US has announced long term strategies to send more natural gas to Europe. Those things are going to start to have a bigger impact farther out in future years. The US can only export so much natural gas through these terminals. We have a fine export capacity at present moment and were at capacity we cannot send any more gas through LNG cargo if we wanted too because of these events and the announcements from the Biden administration to send more energy there we’re seeing permits, contracts, dollars being committed to building more export terminals and those are set to come online in the next 18 to 24 months. We’re only going to be exporting more gas and the expectation we’re not going to see growth or production meet that export need. It’s just going to become more tighter supply demand dynamic going forward. This chart shows what the global price for liquefied natural gas trading for so, the number there is about $35.00 per MMBTU. Put that into perspective a county has a contract per natural gas you ‘re locked in for $2.75 per MMBTU. Huge economic incentive to send as much gas as you can if you’re export terminal to the market because you can get a much larger premium for it.
Mr. Moustis asked are we solid with our off taker or you said the contract can potentially expire because we’re not going to meet the date.
Ms. Snitko answered as we stand right now are solid. We are not scheduled to come online when we wanted to by June 1, so we have our penalties we have to pay, but that’s not going to affect our long-term agreement with them or the rate. Mr. Moustis asked can we negotiate out any penalties based on the fact that prices are going to be much higher.
Ms. Snitko answered have been negotiating with them. Unfortunately they are not presenting the best offer to the county.
Mr. English continued. Putting it into prospective the amount of gas exporting is significant so, we’re producing about 90 to 95 billion cubic ft a day. We’re exporting about 20 to 30% of that on any given day. About almost a third of that is leaving the US through export through pipelines in Mexico and Canada or through these L&G export facilities. We also have to look at the switching cost associated with for other alternative fuels like Mexico for example there very depended on US source gas because the alternative for them is to us diesel to generate electricity in most of their situations. Obviously, the price of diesel is very expensive. So, they’re going to continue to rely on the US to send more natural gas there as well.
The other factors that play from the demand side are power sectors we retired a lot of coal and nuclear plants across most of the US and a lot of power generation is being replaced with new natural gas fire generators and we expect power sector demand to also continue to increase. Obviously, were starting that transition to more renewable green infrastructure, but that’s going to take time so, gas is kind of recognized as that bridge fuel in the interim as we start to building out major infrastructure to bring in more renewable into the grid. Expecting that is going to continue to drive prices higher here in the foreseeable future and just getting some context as to how much of a share gas is it’s almost a quarter if not more of all our powers generated from natural gas. That’s expected to increase here as we retire more nuclear and coal in other parts of the country. We’ve done a lot from the renewable side it’s not worth discounting that we built a lot of wind in solar the unfortunate thing with these resources is there intermittent in nature there not dispatchable. We can’t rely on them to meet our base load needs per energy generation. It’s going to take time to build utility scout batteries destroy energy as well as transmission lines to bring from the rural areas where a lot of these things were built to the major. It’s going to take time before these things can really have a material impact on the greater grid. We have to pay attention to things like the ongoing drought out West. They typically would use a lot of hydroelectricity to generate their power but obviously without having those resources available their going to be coming on relying on gas to fill that gap to generate electricity. The store look going forward were forecasting that we’ll finish this withdrawal season again we’re expecting another withdrawal next week to be announced by the EIA. It will be about 20 to 21 % below the 5-year average for natural gas storage levels and even where production is currently were expecting to be at a deficit going into next winter and even going into winter 23/24. It’s going to be a firm or rising price for the foreseeable future as it relates to natural gas.
Ultimately, how will this all impact us in IL? That’s kind of what’s happening on the broader market from a gas perspective. Here in IL, we also have to pay attention to some other things that’s happening ComEd were part of the PJM, Independent Service Operators, they manage and schedule power plants and put power into the grid. They use what you call Capacity Option. Capacity Option is effectively a guaranteed revenue stream for power plants to be available to generate. It ensures that we don’t have brown outs and black outs. Like Texas for example, they don’t use a capacity option they use a pure market price mechanism where their incentive to allow prices to hit $9,000 per megawatt hour or at least that’s what the cap was. Here we have a capacity option effectively cost are going down through the option process primarily as a result as of some changes to the Burke Federal Energy Regulatory Committee. They manage PJM and other service operators in other grids. The Mopal rules is effectively a restructure how power plants can collect Compacity payments there were some arguments and discussions about whether plants that are receiving states subsides could also receive Capacity payments. As a result of those changes expectation that some plants will not be clearing the next Capacity Option.
For example, in Ohio there’s several nuclear coal plants that are expected to retire as a result of not clearing that option. There not going to make enough money to keep in business and keep the lights on, so to speak. We expect more power plants to be retired as a result of that here in the local grid FPJM. Just looking to put more pressure on the existing infrastructure that’s in place. As far as what’s currently installed here and PJM, obviously we have a lot of projects slated to come online with solar being the biggest slice of that pie. This kind of shows you what’s expected to be built into that grid solar going to be about 5800 megawatts and this is name plate compacity this is effectively what it could produce not what it will produce. Then you have natural gas the next biggest piece of that. It just means that we’re going to see more volume in our market going forward as it relates to energy crisis.
Ms. Mueller asked if all the coal plants in Illinois are closed.
Mr. English replied no, not yet. They have legislation a lot of the plants downstate like Prairie and some of the plants that’s owned by Vistra they are thought this legislation having to meet new compliance in the EPA standards. The expectations by the end of the decade they will be in check with that but most like these a lot of these will be retired. Vistra that owner of a lot of those plants have already announced plans to try to convert some of the coal plants to battery storage facilities. The expectation is probably in the next decade you’ll see a lot of what’s left exit the market. I think the Prairie State facility has politics involved with that one because there were some state dollars associated with that. I think that in operation until 2035. What this all means for the RNG Plant going forward is currently with the plant you an affectively do nothing and ComEd would be your supplier for the energy. Those rates are based on market prices and they invoice you accordingly. It’s just a pure pass through based on whatever the supply demand of the market is doing at that point and time. I couldn’t tell you exactly what that number will be we could use history as our guide to give you some prospective the most recent 12-month average has been about 7 ½ cents per kilowatt hour per your supply through ComEd. Going forward that obviously a lagging indicator based on the fundamentals expected that price would most likely be higher but, just kind of use a proxy for that. The idea here going forward we can precure some fixed price it will manage some of price risk going forward for the RNG Plant electricity needs similar to what we’ve done in the past for the other counties facilities. However, this time around because of the demand profile of the RNG Plant and the timeline and build and things like that we’re going to get a little more creative with it. We wanted to show two ways we can do this. There’s the traditional fixed all-in approach effectively that’s what these prices show. This first report on the screen is for what the market refers to as brown power. Brown power is effectively meeting the statement and the requirements for standards. It does not source any additional green energy on behalf of the facility. You may recall for the county contract that we structured before we have a 50% green component included. his price here does not include any additional green energy here the next page shows that. Effectively the RNG Plant could source a fixed price agreement today with NG Resources that’s highlighted as the most competitive supplier at a rate of about 4 ½ cents for 48 months that’s the lowest overall price.
Mr. Fricilone questioned what you figured that green -vs- the brown increase. Mr. English replied it’s about $60,000.
Mr. Moustis asked the electrical use on the plant.
Mr. English answered it’s forecasted to be about 35 million kilowatt hours annually. To put that in perspective, all the other county facilities that we’ve done a contract for is about 17/18 million so, about twice as much as all the other county facilities. This plant consumes.
Mike English stated the option here that we are recommending the county consider for this going forward were in a block and index strategy. If you think about the way to manage price risk fixed all in is your most conservative safest structure, it’s a set price for a set period of time. Down to your least conservative or most risky idea will be pure market effective with ComEd. In between that you can take a percentage of the risk off the table, and we refer to that in electricity as a block. You’re looking at the demand profile of the facility and less hedge 50% of that. We effectively proposing that the county lock ½ of the energy demand at a fixed price allowing the other 50% to be at market for the foreseeable future and we revisit that when we understand the demand profile of the facility because right now there’s a few question marks as to when this will be at full compacity when it’s going to be fully operational and something to that we need to consider. Suppliers if you’re trying to schedule a forecast what the demand is going to be for this facility there a lot of uncertainty and that comes at a price. The suppliers effectively are charging a risk premium associated with taking a boldly fixed product. The idea here is let’s hedge ½ of the power at a fixed at price allow for that partial budget certainty in control and then say six months from now when we have a better understanding at how the plan is operating its demand profile, it’s needs we can consider layering in additional hedges for the remaining balance or even fully convert the higher agreement to a fixed price. You can always flip the whole thing to a fully fixed product and any point during the agreement. It allows you to have some flexibility and not have to pay a premium on the front end for all those uncertainties that the suppliers are effectively unsure about. Also, taking the risk off the table today let’s hedge now while we know where the market is gotten ahead of future rising prices, and we can revisit the balance here as we know more information about this site. That’s the idea with this.
Ms. Ventura clarified the partially fixed, partially market price for brown power would be 4.83 cents.
Speaker Cowan noted rather than 4.5 percent for brown power. Mr. English stated exactly. The idea is we tried to give from a budgetary perspective what the historical index has been because you have to factor that in because ½ energy will be at market. That 50% or so will be at the index and the historical index number has been about 5 cents per kilowatt hour. So, what you would lock in for the block would be 4.132 the price you are hedging is 4.132. Speaker Cowan asked There will be a variable part on top of that you’re saying that could go up.
Mr. English answered 5, 6 cents or could go lower depending on the obviously our expectations is in that is will go lower but we will just caution not to jump into a fully fixed price product on something like this considering all the question marks that are still present but we would not advise not doing anything yet because there’s also risks that is we wait to get those questions answered when you go hedge something the higher it at that point.
Mr. Fricilone stated the block strategy is something you’re suggesting to us that makes sense. We need to clear out all the forms take the one that is the best price which is the NG and give us a comparison. I don’t think anyone want to do a total brown power. Get us a comparison between the 50% green and 100% green using the block strategy. We should have two lines then and it will be a little easier take a look at those two.
Speaker Cowan advised the committee that these rates can only be held for a month. We don’t necessarily have to decide this today but next Thursday next week we would get that information and make a decision.
Mr. Fricilone indicated then we should decide and then go to full board this month.
Mr. English stated unfortunately the timeline is actually tighter than that. We’ve seen incredible moves in the market like today this morning the market was up almost 4% based on the storm report that just came out earlier this week. It was up about 18% because of the EU announcing their going to cut ties to import coal from Russia effectively immediately. They’re just waiting for the block approval on that. You saw domestic energy prices move up on that announcement. So, I would say holding a price for more than a day at this point has been incredibly challenging. Obviously its circumstantial based on one rack sheet looking to make a decision. I just want to manage expectations with what I have here today.
Ms. Ventura indicated we may have gone after the lowest prices because every elected official - us and the ones before us want to make sure our tax dollars are serving our people to the best and were not doing undo waste. I think we all agree on that. However, what we’re seeing is there are hidden costs that aren’t sent to this chart that our government is going to have to pay one way or another to clean up carbon and the impacts of that. So, while that is not the intent there is a huge incentive for us to invest our tax dollars into moving the market into a cleaner renewable energy sector. If that means we must invest a little bit more now of those tax dollars that means that we may have a lot less to spend later on when we’re having to clean up our air, ground, water, etc. We’ve all seen some of those things play out financially we just seen the tip of the iceberg right now. I don’t know how everyone else feels but for me in this particular case I don’t think going with the lowest price is the best option for our taxpayers. I think considering what the future drive of the market when government invest in things it helps private sector also invest in things bringing the price down and that’s what we’re going to see in the next three years assuming all solar comes to fruition were going to see a huge shift in the market to renew energy and we can be a big driving factor on that. For that reason, I would be okay in saying that I want to support investing in the green energy. We didn’t see a chart but moving to that 100% that extra $35,000 that’s the riskier end of it and the pure market price I would rather see us invest in that than the brown one. If you needed us to go ahead whether it today or next week, I would say it’s not for price it’s the intent of the investment in our future. For that I think it’s worth an extra $35,000.
Mr. Moustis asked for clarification; is it 50 fixed, 50 market? I’m not so sure I agree with that in this market. The term of this what, would be a year? Four years? I wouldn’t even mind going four years because I don’t think the cost of energy is going to go down. There are constant disruptions they don’t have the capital to produce more at least in this county. It’s been discouraged investment going into these types of energies, so I wish I really knew the market would be because I could become very wealthy and sort of just sit out at the beach. Can we be fixed for the first year and then have options the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years?
Mr. English replied yes. We can structure it; there’s a lot of customization that can happen. We can structure where it’s a four-year agreement with NG or whoever and then just lock in a fully fixed price for all the energy for that first year and then over time look to layer an additional on the back end.
Mr. Moustis commented, first, we would know what our actual demand is for electricity for that first year. Second, we can then make a decision whether we want to go to stay fixed or go to market based on the energy market kind of easing down a little bit.
Mr. English indicated that’s the primary reason for recommending the block index as well is because effectively you’re only locking in half of the demand or the needs. Let’s say, 3, 6 months from now there’s a better understanding is what’s going on at the plants. We can look to flip this whole thing to a fully fixed price. The whole entire thing is at one number and you’re a 100% green or whatever you guys want to do. The only thing I wanted to mention too though if you look at that risk premium to do 100% fixed price right now, if you just look at the 4132 number that’s effectively the price you would hedge that block at. That’s what the suppliers quoting at 4.132 cents if you ‘re going to do 100% of the energy it would be at 4.69, so that’s the risk premium. It’s effectively a ½ penny and 35 million kilowatt hours that’s about 140, 150 thousand dollars. That’s the reason we were suggesting doing the block index.
Mr. Moustis commented it’s really whether we want to take on the risk or do we want to pay in the front. When you’re looking at your expenses it’s better to know what your fixed cost is rather than worrying about it later.
Mr. English stated I will get updated numbers from the fully fixed 100% green as well as the block index 100 green and we’ll just summarize what those two mean, the premium associated with each and the net difference on the front end.
2. Raffle License Waiver Provision Request(s) - Attachment Added (Mitch Schaben)
Speaker Cowan stated we have three requests for a raffle license waiver and I think we’re going to handle these separately; it’s my understanding is the final decision is made here on at this committee. It’s not going to full board. Mrs. Marcum indicated this is a bond waiver requirement that is part of the Illinois State Statue. We looked up and did some cleanup on the ordinance last November and as a result we revised some things and made this executive body to vote unanimously to grant these waivers for fidelity bonds for these small raffles. Each applicant is given the opportunity to either provide a fidelity bond or request a waiver that this body can vote to waive the requirement for their raffle. A brief discussion followed regarding the process and use of the fidelity bonds. Mrs. Marcum stated a point of clarity where we have phrasing or information on the unanimous, I do need to clarify; Mrs. Tatroe pointed out the inconsistency there. The County Board has delegated the authority for these waiver decisions in the past to the licensing committee that was in existence of the County Board. Obviously that committee doesn’t exist so, we did update the ordinance in November to list the Executive Committee. The County Board has delegated the authority to the Executive Committee to make the decision. The language that I shared in the packet on the action item saying that it needed to be unanimous vote was referencing the organization requesting the waiver. For example the Lincoln Way Area Disabled Veterans; their board needs to unanimously vote to support a request for this waiver. So, I apologize for the misunderstanding so, this body the Executive Committee just needs to vote a simple majority. Mr. Moustis commented perhaps this committee needs to create a policy for a waiver and what will be the conditions for a waiver. You can say that it has to be 100% but then we will say, you have to submit your board minutes where this was voted on. We may say, we would not provide waivers for any raffles over $5,000.00. If we don’t create a good policy on a waiver; the criteria for a waiver were just opening ourselves up for, I think.
Mrs. Tatroe indicated you are opening yourself up to criticism certainly. You absolutely have to follow the statute and you need to know that you have a unanimous vote from the prospective board.
Mr. Moustis stated we as a County Board and this committee are going to be responsible for this, we should have a set a criteria for ourselves to say, here is how we won’t waiver anything over $5,000.00 or whatever number. We need a unanimous vote by your board. They have to submit the minutes with this one when the vote took place on the board. This gets to how many people on the board. Maybe Mrs. Tatroe can work on something that the criteria should be. I think we can give you some guidance here. I wouldn’t do away for anything over $10,000.00.
Ms. Ventura suggested adding to ask them to get the quote of the bond cost so that we know what it is because if it is just $25.00 they may not know how to go get a bond in which case someone can just explain to them calling your insurance company and they’ll walk you through it. If its $25.00 they might even realize it’s not worth waiting to get the committee. Having them do the work to your point probably isn’t a bad thing; the question is some of these requests; the people who are asking today, if we don’t take a vote today then some of their drawings aren’t going to happen. I’m okay taking a vote on these three but moving forward I would like to see some type of policy clean up or to your point, requirements given with the waiver application including the board amendments.
Speaker Cowan stated we can also vote on these separately so the one that’s $400.00 maybe some of us will feel a certain way about that and the one that is $15,000.00 maybe some of us will feel a certain way about that. Will that open us up to criticism of being random?
Mrs. Tatroe answered I think you’re fine doing it one time and you get a policy in place because it is important that you be consistent and predictable to those that are applying. I will also say if you chose to take a vote today it should be conditioned upon the provision of the evidence that there was a unanimous vote. You just don’t know that sitting here.
Speaker Cowan stated we will go through these one at a time and we will approve with the condition that we get document of a unanimous vote by the governing authority of the organization. The first one is for Lincoln Way Area Disabled Vets. Mrs. Tyson brought to the committee’s attention that the applicant had not answered all the questions on the application.
MOTION FAILED 3-8
Speaker Cowan stated the next one is for the Will County Bee Keepers Association. This is for a $400.00 drawing once a month for a year.
MOTION CARRIES 10-1 (J Ogalla)
Speaker Cowan stated the last is for the Illinois Horse Rescue of Will County. This looks to be a maximum value prize of $2,000.00.
MOTION CARRIES 10-1 (J Ogalla)
Motion to approve raffle license waiver request by Lincoln-Way Area Disabled Vets
| RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 8]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Annette Parker, Member AYES: Cowan, Parker, Ventura NAYS: Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [10 TO 1]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura NAYS: Ogalla ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [10 TO 1]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura NAYS: Ogalla ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
Speaker Cowan stated there is one additional assignment request; authorizing a lease/purchase of real estate system will be added to the executive committee.
1. Land Use & Development Committee
T. Marcum, Chair
1. Request for Refund of Fees by Mr. Willam Bormet, Owner of Record, Requesting Refund for a Claimed Bond for Pin # 08-24-01-103-010-0000, in Wesley Township, Commonly Known as 1807 Roberts Street, Wilmington, IL, County Board District #6
(Brian Radner)
2. Finance Committee
J. Traynere, Chair
1. Appropriating Funds from the IDPH COVID-19 Response Grant into the Will County Health Department Budget
(Susan Olenek)
2. Appropriating Grant Funds in the Tuberculosis Clinic Budget (Joyce Parker)
3. Appropriating Grant Funds in the Sunny Hill Nursing Home Budget (Shelly Felkins)
4. Authorizing County Executive to Accept Additional Funds Granted by the Department of Human Services/SUPR to the Will County FY22 Illinois Prevent Prescription Drug/Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths (IPDO) (Kathleen Burke)
5. Transferring Funds within the State's Attorney Money Laundering Budget (Mary Tatroe)
6. Authorizing an Amendment to the Auditing Contract with Baker Tilly to Increase the Fee for the Fiscal Year 2021 Audit to a Not-to Exceed Amount of $147,010
(Karen Hennessy)
7. Transferring Appropriations within Various County Budgets
(ReShawn Howard)
8. Assignment of Tax Sale Certificates
(JEN ALBERICO/JULIE SHETINA)
9. Final Levy Numbers for FY2021
(ReShawn Howard)
3. Public Works & Transportation Committee
J. VanDuyne, Chair
1. Confirming Award of Contract to Denler, Inc. ($285,580.00), Let on March 16, 2022, Countywide Crack Sealing, All County Board Districts
(Jeff Ronaldson)
2. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for the Countywide Crack Sealing, using MFT Funds ($325,000.00), All County Board Districts (Jeff Ronadlson)
3. Confirming Award of Contract to P.T. Ferro Construction Co. ($683,714.10), Let on March 16, 2022, 191st Street (CH 84) Resurfacing from U.S. Route 45 East to 80th Avenue, County Board Districts #2 and #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
4. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for the 191st Street (CH 84) Resurfacing from U.S. Route 45 East to 80th Avenue, using MFT Funds ($750,000.00), County Board Districts #2 and #12
(Jeff Ronaldson)
5. Confirming Award of Contract to Decker Supply Co., Inc. $107,415.00, Let on March 30, 2022, Countywide Sign Materials, All County Board Districts
(Jeff Ronaldson)
6. Improvement by County Under the IL Highway Code for the Countywide Sign Materials, using MFT Funds $115,000.00, All County Board Districts (Jeff Ronaldson)
7. Confirming Award of Contract to Gallagher Asphalt Corporation ($161,440.85), Let on March 16, 2022, Green Garden Road District Overlay on Various Roadways, County Board District #2
(Jeff Ronaldson)
8. Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement for the Installation of Illuminated Street Name Signs at Intersections along Weber Road (CH 88) at Crest Hill Drive and City Center Boulevard, County Board District #9 (Jeff Ronaldson)
9. Authorizing an Agreement Between the County of Will and Enterprise Products for Reimbursement for Relocating Facilities at 143rd Street (CH 37) from Lemont Road (State Street) to Golden Oak Drive, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronadlson)
10. Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Laraway Road (CH 74) and the US 45 Intersection, Section 21-00138-45-LA, County Board District #2 (Jeff Ronaldson)
11. Providing Title Commitment Reports for Use by County from Wheatland Title Guaranty Company for Weber Road (CH 88) from Airport Road to 135th Street, Section 12-00170-41-LA, County Board Districts #3 and #13 (Jeff Ronaldson)
12. Authorizing Approval of a Supplemental Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering (Phase II) with Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc., for Wilmington Township Road District, County Board District #6 (Jeff Ronaldson)
13. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with V3 Companies for Laraway Road (CH 74) and the US 45 Intersection, Section 21-00138-45-CH, County Board District #2
(Jeff Ronaldson)
14. Authorizing Approval of the Establishment of Altered Speed Zone 597, County Board District #13
(Jeff Ronaldson)
15. Authorizing Approval of the Establishment of Altered Speed Zone 598, County Board District #13
(Jeff Ronaldson)
16. Accepting a Donation of $408,000.00 in lieu of Improvements from Charlevoix Capital Ventures near the Southeast Corner of Manhattan Monee Road (C.H. 6) and 88th Avenue.
(Jeff Ronaldson)
17. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Right-of-Way Acquisition Services (Negotiations, Appraisals, Review Appraisals, and Relocation Services) with Hampton, Lenzini, and Renwick, Inc. for Several Parcels of Property along 143rd Street (CH 37) from State Street to Golden Oak Drive, Section 08-00169-18-LA, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
18. Authorizing the Appropriation of MFT Funds ($1,031,670.00) for Right-of Way Acquisition Services (Negotiations, Appraisals, Review Appraisals, and Relocation Services) by County Under the IL Highway Code for Several Parcels of Property along 143rd Street (CH 37) from State Street to Golden Oak Drive, Section 08-00169-18-LA, County Board District #7
(Jeff Ronaldson)
19. Authorizing Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Design Engineering Services (Phase II) with EXP U.S. Services, Inc. for Weber Road (CH 88) from Airport Road to 135th Street, Section 12-00170-41-FP, County Board Districts #3 and #13
(Jeff Ronaldson)
20. Authorizing the Sale of Surplus Real Property Acquired by Condemnation (Chris Wise)
4. Diversity & Inclusion Committee
M. Tyson, Chair
5. Public Health & Safety Committee
R. Ventura, Chair
1. Awarding Bid for Housekeeping Supplies for Sunny Hill Nursing Home (Maggie McDowell)
2. Awarding Bid for Dietary & Nursing Products for Sunny Hill Nursing Home (Maggie McDowell)
6. Legislative & Judicial Committee
D. Winfrey, Chair
7. Capital Improvements Committee
H. Brooks, Jr., Chair
8. Executive Committee
M. Cowan, Chair
1. Authorizing the Will County Executive to Execute an Agreement between the County of Will and the Illinois Development Authority for the Purpose of Funding the Strong Communities Program
(Martha Sojka)
2. Ratifying Emergency Procurement for Adding Kennel Space at the Will County Animal Control Building
(Josh Emmett)
3. Awarding Bid for Household Hazardous Waste Collection
(Eric Fasbender)
4. Authorizing Three Year Contract Extension for Telecommunications Local & Long Distance Service
(Mike Kluga)
5. Authorizing the County Executive to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Drug Enforcement Administration Chicago Field Division to Provide Access to the Countywide Radio System
(Thomas Murray)
6. Authorizing Renewal of "Wrap Around" Professional Liability Insurance for the Will County Community Health Center
(Regina Malone)
7. Authorizing Will County to Execute an Operations and Maintenance Agreement with SCS Energy, to be the Operator of the Will County Renewable Natural Gas Plant, at Prairie View Landfill
(Dave Hartke/Christina Snitko)
8. Authorizing Change Order for Midwestern Contractors for the Additional Work Required for the RNG Pipeline
(Dave Hartke/Christina Snitko)
9. Authorizing Change Order from SCS Energy for Vendor Specific, Sole Sourced Spare Parts for RNG Plant
(Dave Hartke/Christina Snitko)
10. Authorizing Change Order from SCS Energy for the Removal and Mitigation of an Orphan Underground Storage Tank within the RNG Plant Construction Site
(Dave Hartke/Christina Snitko)
9. Motion to accept additional committee assignment request
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
X. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
XI. ACCEPT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT REQUESTS
1. Motion to approve committee assignment requests, as amended.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
XIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT/ANNOUNCEMENTS
XIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XV. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to adjourn at 11:41 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Marcum, Winfrey |
Alerts Sign-up