Will County Board Democratic Caucus Committee met June 15.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Freeman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Majority Leader Meta Mueller called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Meta Mueller | Majority Leader | Present | |
| Sherry Newquist | Member | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | Member | Absent | |
| Margaret Tyson | Majority Whip | Present | |
| Saud Gazanfer | Member | Absent | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Absent | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Absent | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Speaker | Absent | |
| Mica Freeman | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Democratic Caucus - Special Meeting - Mar 16, 2022 6:30 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Majority Whip SECONDER: Joe VanDuyne, Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Tyson, Traynere, VanDuyne, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Freeman ABSENT: Koch, Gazanfer, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Cowan |
| RESULT: APPROVED [8 TO 0]
MOVER: Mica Freeman, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Freeman ABSTAIN: Traynere ABSENT: Koch, Gazanfer, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Cowan |
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of County Board Agenda
Land Use
Mr. Marcum stated we have three Land Use cases this month, the first one is a request for a Zoning Map Amendment from A-1/C-2 to I-1 a Special Use Permit for a self-storage facility and a Special Use Permit for an outdoor storage facility. The Village of Homer Glen and a neighbor have a legal objection, it will take 20 votes. I had a conversation with the applicant’s Real Estate Agent today; they are going to request that we postpone this until next month, so they can work out a solution to some of the objections. There was some push back at the committee from Homer Glen, and Homer Township about the I-1 zoning.
Ms. Ventura added I also spoke to their real estate agent; and the Representative from Homer Glen; they said that they were surprised that the county still had warehousing in I-1. If we want to make sure that we are proactive about the rest of our county not being built up for all warehouses, then our I-1 needs to be more restrictive. In this case the easiest solution looks to be to remove the warehousing from I-1 to I-2 or change it from permitted in I-1 with a Special Use in I-1, and permissible to I-2 and above. That would not impact any current I-1 due to being grandfathered unless they had a variance or wanted to expand. They then would be considered non-conforming and must apply for I-2 or above, or some Special Use at some point. It then would allow for all these other categories to still be I-1 but it would limit new warehouses from popping up wherever in I-1 areas. It would have to go through committee, Land Use would review it, it would be voted on and go to Public Hearing all before this applicant could bring it back. If they feel the Board would go that way in a timely manner, they are willing to hold on to their application until we figure out the zoning. I am not comfortable committing to vote on these, we can’t keep allowing this if we don’t have a solution. This would be a practical streamline solution.
Mr. Marcum stated we don’t have any warehouses in unincorporated Will County; the reason being they need sewar and water. I also don’t know if Homer Glen’s objection is going to go away even with the zoning change.
Ms. Traynere stated it could happen and I was surprised that people from the other side of the aisle supported this.
Ms. Newquist said we are saying that we are more welcome to the storage facilities than we are with warehousing. While we are at this are there any other categories that we need to adjust?
At this juncture the committee had a brief discussion about what the changes to I 1 would entail, and how the changes would affect future of Zoning Map Amendments.
Mr. Marcum stated our second case is changing from C-3 to R-3; this is in Crete in District #1. There were no issues with this case, it passed PZC with no problem and they have all their variances, it was approved 6-0. Our third item involves horses, this is in DuPage Township on Bluff Rd. in Lemont. They will be having the horses there on the weekends. They built their barn without permission; they have their variance and now they want a Special Use Permit.
Ms. Freeman added they will be able to keep the horses all the time, and that they can keep up to five horses.
Mr. Marcum stated I believe you are right, if we give a Special Use Permit, we cannot restrict them to just weekends with several conditions. The conditions are about manure, water, and snow. There were no objections.
Finance
Ms. Traynere stated we have nothing special, and we just received the official request for the We Will Grow Community Garden Program that we talked about last month. They will be getting the first allotment for that.
Ms. Coleman asked when we will have a spread sheet put onto the Capital Improvements Committee agenda about the RNG plant versus what we budgeted for.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that will be coming to Finance Committee in July.
Public Works & Transportation
Mr. Van Duyne stated the main vote tomorrow will be the adopting of the FY2023- 2028 Improvement Plan. In committee it was unanimous; we’re anticipating spending $568 million over the next 5 years. Some of that comes from our $0.04 gas tax. Other than that, we are doing what we do every month, putting money back into the infrastructure.
Diversity & Inclusion
Ms. Tyson stated there is nothing to report.
Public Health & Safety
Ms. Ventura stated I don’t think anyone will be presenting on this issue, there could be some public comment in the beginning of the meeting on this. At committee Speaker Cowan asked us to discuss the 708 Board; it is a Mental Health Board; it has its own levy and State Law stated it is up to .15%. In your packet there are a couple of things you will find; you will find the League of Women Voters polled information; about why 708 Boards are important; Ms. Olenek provided a graphic of which counties have different types of boards. Also, the Lyons Township Supervisor who has a 708 Board came and presented at my committee and gave a report of what they use their dollars for. The Board itself will be mandating how these dollars are being spent. We also had presentations on what we could use it for like the Living Room, which is a Mental Health ER room. You could go there regardless of insurance you could get counselling services. This would help people with or without insurance, it would fill the gap from what our Health Department is already providing. Mental Health is an issue right now between drug use, gun violence, coping with our economy; this provides a dedicated funding source. It is not us voting to increase taxes, it is on here for you to vote to add a referendum to the ballot in November. The dollars would be mandated for mental health, and it is all run by the State Statute. The League of Women Voters packet has a lot of information about the board. The County Executive would appoint members, and we would confirm them.
Ms. Mueller stated this is something that we can debate between now and November; all we are doing is putting this information out there.
Ms. Ventura stated the only thing we would be voting on at this time is if we want this to be a referendum on the November ballot.
At this juncture the members discussed the difference of what we have at the county for mental health issue, and what the 708 Board would provide that is different.
Mr. Palmer added we can vote on this tomorrow, or in July, the deadline to vote will be August. There may be questions, because there was a presentation during Public Health, there was not much discussion during that meeting. It is on the agenda and if you want to vote on you can, but again the deadline is August.
Ms. Ventura stated if the County takes a bite of the apple, let’s say we lose, then the townships can put a referendum on their ballot, there are three townships that are talking about doing that, DuPage, Wheatland, and Joliet. If one township passes it, it will prevent the County from adding it later. Then each township would have to individually do it on their own. We have a deadline to do this which is August, that is the reason we are trying to get it voted through.
Ms. Mueller asked if we are going to postpone this because the other side of the aisle wanted more information.
Ms. Ventura replied we should not postpone this; the other side just wants to kill it.
Mr. Palmer stated it can be voted on tomorrow, it could be voted on in July, or it could be voted on by August. There may be questions because there was a presentation at Public Health, there wasn’t much discussion, it is on the agenda, and you can vote on it tomorrow if you want.
Ms. Traynere asked if it would need a super majority vote.
Ms. Mueller answered no.
Ms. Freemen asked if this is a volunteer position for the board members.
Mr. Palmer stated that was asked by the committee, they can reimburse for expenses, but it is not a paid position.
Ms. Newquist asked is there a downside to this.
Ms. Traynere advised your taxes will go up; but it would be up to the voters to raise them.
Mr. Palmer stated I want to clarify something that Ms. Ventura said, if the County passes it, it is a County Tax Countywide, and there is only one board, not 24 boards.
Ms. Ventura said perhaps Ms. Tatroe can help us with that question. It allows the townships if they choose to do that they are under that umbrella, they can create their own board.
Mr. Palmer advised it is one board that collects all the money, and they distribute the funds. Otherwise, you would have to have different tax rates.
Mr. Van Duyne asked when this come up tomorrow do we anticipate the Republicans making a motion to suspend it; and are there any Democrat’s that are not willing to go forward with it. What are the feelings on this; you mentioned that maybe the Republicans want more information, where do we see this going tomorrow?
Mr. Palmer stated I heard that they have questions; and were not ready to vote on it at this time.
Mr. Van Duyne asked if the Republicans make a motion to suspend it, what are we going to do as a caucus?
Ms. Ventura stated I think we vote no on their postponement. Let us give the powers to the voters.
Ms. Traynere stated we are not voting to raise taxes; we are leaving it up to the voters to raise their own taxes for mental health.
Ms. Freeman said I don’t know how I feel about it; if they want another month to talk about it and get more facts; I just don’t see where it is a bad thing to get more information if it is needed.
Ms. Ventura suggested that is not what they want, they want to confuse the issues and muddy the waters. In the end they will say that the Democrats are wanting to raise taxes. We want to let the voters make the decision to raise their own taxes.
Ms. Coleman said this will help the entire county, I am all for voting yes. We need to educate people on the difference between raising taxes and a referendum.
Capital Improvement
Ms. Ventura stated there was much discussion about whether there should be an RFP for the Court House; on this I am going to say yes. Ms. Traynere makes some good points on how we are a disposable country and how we could put more investment in. However, if there is a reasonable solution, at a reasonable price, and if somebody wants to do something, I think it is dead in the water anyway. What I think we should do is allow the people to decide that. If there are organizations out there who feel they can redo this building to be fabulous then let them present. What they are asking for is to let the Executive put out an RFP that says give us your best options. In my opinion I would like a park to be between that building and a future building, someone could come in with an RFP of a park. I think we should move on this RFP; if the Executive doesn’t want to do it then the County Board could put it on an agenda and vote for it.
Ms. Traynere stated I have requested on my Finance agenda that we are going to take a vote on directing the State’s Attorney’s Office to investigate all the things that this private company has already done to say whether other things are in the public use. Whether it is preserving the building and selling it; because that could be public use if we are preserving it, at least that is what I have read in some of the Supreme Court cases. The State’s Attorney has never taken up this question they just have interpreted what was already on the record. I wasn’t smart enough to know that I could have put this on my agenda a long time ago and taken a vote and directed the State’s Attorney as the Chair on my committee to do this investigation, so now I am going to do that next month.
Mr. Palmer stated I don’t believe that is correct for our rules. You are a member of the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee is where we ask for the State’s Attorney’s opinions. All the Chairs are members, Leadership are members, and a couple of other Board Members, Mrs. Tatroe has given us opinions on this already.
Mrs. Traynere replied but not what might be possible, just what is, and I believe there is a difference.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I think there is a little bit of confusion based upon what was brought forward by Hudson Hollister. What he fails to point out is the case that I cited was addressing this particular property. It is a case, and it is way too late to appealing that case. That case says you may not sell it to a private entity, the only way you can sell it is to another government entity. In 1960 they had the opportunity to review that, and they made the decision that they did.
Ms. Traynere said my question regarding that is, even though that case stands as it is, is there anything prohibiting, and you have not explored this to my knowledge, prohibiting the State Legislature from changing the rules on that property. Because we are governed by the State Legislature just like the townships are.
Mrs. Tatroe replied there is a constitutional concept that they cannot pass retro legislation, which means if one thing different than another thing. If they are changing legislation, then they will have to change the whole law regarding dedications in this manner where something is given for the public use; and it would affect all properties throughout the State.
Ms. Traynere advised here is what I have to say about that. Executive Bertino Tarrant had people issue a special bill pertaining only to Will County; so, if they can do something only for Will County it seems to me, and I am not a lawyer.
Mrs. Tatroe continued, and I said to them I think that is special legislation; and downstate they said no, it’s not.
Ms. Traynere stated then I think we must fight it out. All I can say that at the end of the meeting the consensus was let’s see what the private sector can come up with and let’s see what the County Board can come up with and look at both and decide.
Ms. Coleman asked did you say earlier that the building can only be sold to another government entity.
Mrs. Tatroe stated according to the Judge Bartley decision in 1969, and it dealt with this parcel, not some abstract legal concept.
Ms. Coleman asked if we could own it and then lease it to someone private.
Mrs. Tatroe advised no. The primary use must be for a public use, there may be some supporting ancillary uses which might be private, but they cannot be the predominant user of the property.
Ms. Traynere said but that was the argument that they were making that preservation is public use. There was a former State Senator that said he would carry a bill in Springfield to make that change; again, whether that is legal, we don’t know.
Mr. Palmer stated we have studied this property several times, we studied what it would cost to rehabilitate it basically; just to a base level and it was $40 million, because it needed new elevators, new roof, new windows, and HVAC. That was partly why we moved to building a new Court House across the street. We looked at potential use and there is a concept plan that was presented at a committee. It had auxiliary buildings for Criminal Justice related things, there was a separate study about using the federal corridor there as a County Complex, that was prior to building the courthouse too. There have been other studies, I guess when people say we are comparing it to the cost of the demo, we don’t have a demo price, that is what we have been waiting for many months for putting out a bid for asbestos, and then we can get a price to demo the building.
At this juncture there was a brief discussion about different ideas that have been brought up about uses for the Old Courthouse property.
Executive
Ms. Mueller stated you should have the attachment for the operations and maintenance agreement with SCS, be sure to look at that.
Mr. Palmer stated we have discussed this in Executive Session, now the Executive’s Office is ready to move forward with this. Mr. Schaben sent me the memo to officially distribute because it is now public, not a private matter anymore. In your inbox you have that memo, exhibits and the agreement. In the eyes of the Executive’s Office that is ready to move forward to vote on.
Ms. Traynere asked what we are going to make on this facility if we are giving them over $2 million to run it for us in one year.
Mr. Van Duyne stated $10 million per year.
Mr. Palmer added $10 million gross, the net net is not very big now because we must pay it back. I have been told by Land Use staff that they are being very conservative. It could be $2 million plus, or it could be $6 million; they don’t know. That is while we are paying off the principal and interest, I believe it is going to be twelve-years to pay that off. After that we could be $10 million plus potentially; we were conservative in our approach we did a fixed and a variable rate. The fixed rate will cover the cost of the bonds, and the variable rate is kind of our profits. We are loaning the money to bridge from bond; we bonded for $48 million. We are loaning from the cash reserves to pay for this and the net net after the bonds and operations and maintenance, that money will go to pay back the cash reserves first. Once the cash reserves are paid off, that money becomes discretionary money.
At this juncture there was a discussion on different options of paying the RNG Facility off and what the projections for profit would be after that occurred.
Ms. Mueller stated we had a Leadership call today with Anser; we talked about the Park Districts and Municipal Park Districts; the numbers just didn’t look right. We asked them to make some adjustments on the formulas that they are using. I feel that we have them back on the right track; we expect to vote on it at the first Executive Committee in July.
Mr. Palmer gave a brief update of the leadership meeting and explained how Anser was figuring out how to distribute $3.5 million amongst the Park Districts. The caucus members gave their opinions of different ways they would like to see the funds distributed.
Ms. Traynere stated Anser stated the applications needed to be in by July 1st, they said there would be some leeway if you didn’t have it in. They gave an email address that I sent a question on Friday, and it took four days to receive a reply. My application wasn’t even complicated, I just needed help with the sam.gov. After four days their reply was to not worry about it.
Ms. Ventura said I am very concerned about that because we specifically asked those questions about handoffs. Will there be someone helping them, especially townships that are small. The fact that July 1st is a quick turnaround, I know it was initially 45 days, that 45 days could be eaten up just with email communication.
Ms. Mueller stated they are not going to cut them off.
Ms. Ventura stated we need to make that determination not Anser. We need to tell them that we need another month for townships to get their information in, and we need a phone number that they can pick up the phone and talk to them.
Ms. Mueller stated I will let them know you said that.
Ms. Ventura stated I will let them know that too.
Ms. Mueller reminded the committee that we need to take turns talking, and you need to allow other people to have a chance to talk as well.
Ms. Traynere explained the website for the application that Anser is using for the applications of money.
Mr. Palmer stated at the session it was made very clear that they are not cutting the dollars off; the County Board has allocated a funds. We are not clawing back money. Some agencies are going to be able to apply and get their money. They said they will work with everybody to help them get their funds. Our goal is to get everybody every dollar that they are eligible for and to help them get there. It may take a little time; they told us today that they are going to bring on more staff so that they have more of a capacity.
Ms. Coleman stated I am happy to hear that. Will this application also be for businesses and non-profits when that window opens?
Ms. Mueller stated that depends what we vote on when that comes up. I believe everything that they are collecting is what we need for reporting to the federal government.
Ms. Traynere said maybe it is but 35 questions, and 30 of them were more of the narrative type, not yes and no questions.
Ms. Newquist said CARES was very different, it had to be certain COVID related services, and they had to be reimbursable for the most part.
Ms. Traynere left the meeting at this juncture.
Ms. Mueller stated you must tell us what you are spending it on, we are not just cutting them checks, you also must prove what you purchased with the money.
Ms. Ventura left the meeting at this juncture.
Ms. Muller asked if anyone had questions about the County Executive’s Appointments?
Ms. Newquist asked if the Steger Estates fire appointment is on there, I emailed Mr. Schaben because the Executive must make those appointments.
Ms. Mueller replied I don’t see it on the agenda.
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
1. Speakers Update
X. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Novak stated I thought there would be more people here tonight. I just wanted to let all of you to know that it’s become a rumor and now it is getting to be public. I wanted to let your caucus know that I’m going to be retiring on September 30th after 35 years with the County. I just want to thank all of you that I have worked with even though it has been a short time for many of you for your support and for trusting me to take the office where it is today. I am not patting myself on the back; I am patting my staff and the Township Accessors, we are really the #1 model County in the State of Illinois, and I hope that we can stay that way. I have loved every day of the position that I have been the SA and the other 15 that I spent climbing the ladder. This is not an easy decision; it is time and I know that for several reasons. I have trained a replacement for the last several years who can sit in my seat and there would be no change in the entire office, and I can guarantee that. We will continue to be the model County; the tax cycle will continue as it has. I know that the position has been posted; I was told that today. That is not normally what happens, and it has happened in the past; with the new regime it is going to be posted. I would respectfully ask all of you to support my Deputy that I have trained that has been by my side and can do this job, her name is Cindy Harris. I recommended her to the County Executive, the other offices within the tax cycle are also recommending her. As I said the office would stay just as it is today, I am respectfully asking you to support her. I understand many things will come along. I spent a lot of time with those who stayed and stuck around. I do really appreciate you trusting me, and I feel good about what we’ve accomplished, and it will continue that way. Thank you all very much.
Ms. Mueller said I hope you have a lovely retirement and enjoy your grandchildren.
Ms. Novak said I will, I won’t be around much until I retire because I have a lot of vacation time to use; you won’t see me much, but I will make the County Board Meeting. I will be talking to the other caucus tomorrow morning.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 7:38 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mica Freeman, Member SECONDER: Sherry Newquist, Member AYES: Mueller, Newquist, Tyson, Traynere, VanDuyne, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Freeman ABSENT: Koch, Gazanfer, Brooks Jr., Winfrey, Cowan |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4336&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up