Will County Board Executive Committee met June 9.
Here is the agenda provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Marcum led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:31 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Absent |
1. WC Executive Committee - Board Agenda Setting Meeting - Mar 10, 2022 10:00 AM
Also Present: N. Palmer.
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
| RESULT: APPROVED [11 TO 0]
AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey AWAY: Parker |
1. American Rescue Plan - Attachment Added
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated our first item of business today is the American Rescue Plan, we have Anser here today, they’re going to present a Power Point on where we stand with both Infrastructure and Community Health; we will also be wrapping up the Unmet Needs Category. With this is new information. We have a choice, we can listen, we can discuss, or we can pass it today as is. Other options are we can listen, amend it, and pass it today. Or we can listen, discuss, and wait to pass it at our next Executive Committee meeting. Since this is new information, I want to make sure everyone has the time to digest it, and make sure they are comfortable, just like we have done before. I ask that we let them get through the entire presentation; so, hold your questions and write down your notes, we will open it up for questions and see where we go from there.
Corey Burbach stated we appreciate the opportunity to be here, we have gotten into the routine of coming to the second Executive meeting of the month to provide an update on the current standing of the American Rescue Plan. On April 14th we had the opportunity to have our initial discussion; since then, we have started allocating funds and presenting to the committee for approval to start the disbursement of the American Rescue Plan dollars. On May 12, 2022, we had the opportunity, and approval from the Executive Committee to review the Unmet Needs Category for approval of the Township Fire District, and the Forest Preserve allocations. We are here today to update the Board; we met with the Townships, getting a lot of great feedback from them as far as what their projects are. I will let Ms. Sitton cover that in a little bit more detail. As the Speaker referenced earlier today, we are here to allow the opportunity for discussion, input, and approval should you all choose to do so, on the remaining portions of the Unmet Needs Pillar.
At this juncture Mr. Burbach, and Ms. Sitton reviewed the PowerPoint presentation provided at committee.
Ms. Ventura asked what the Township submission deadline is.
Ms. Sitton stated July 1st, it is also flexible, and it was made clear based off their staff capacity,
Ms. Ventura said my next questions refers to the Park District, did you do this by population; do they have to include the data of how much revenue that they lost.
Ms. Sitton replied that was collected by looking at their 2020 Consolidated Financial report.
Ms. Ventura asked could you give us an example of what we are going to be looking at with Municipal Parks.
Ms. Sitton stated it would be along the same lines as the Fire Districts; where they may want to purchase equipment, or maybe to reimburse an influx of staffing due to the COVID response for vaccination or calls. It could be facility improvements if they have a capital campaign, and they need to replace their HSs for better air filtration. It is open-ended with the understanding that they will be reviewed for eligibility and prioritized based off the readiness and urgency of the project.
Speaker Cowan asked Ms. Sitton to bring back the slide of the Unmet Needs - Allocation Proposal. This is where we can discuss this; do these amounts seem appropriate, do these categories seem appropriate, there has been some discussion about these. Some people want to do these, and some don’t. This is where we open it up to conversation, we also can wait until next month if you choose. We can modify it today and pass it, or we can accept these recommendations as they have been given by Anser and pass it today.
Ms. Traynere asked if on Park Districts is this just for purchases does it include lost revenue.
Ms. Sitton replied there is no replacement of lost revenue.
Ms. Traynere said with Municipalities and Public Safety, I will use Bolingbrook as an example. I did a FOIA request, they received $9 million, every single dollar went to Public Safety, they did nothing else with their money. I didn’t think to do a FOIA for the Cares package to see if it helped anybody in the community beside the Police and the Fire Department. Is that going to be looked at when Bolingbrook puts in for Public Safety; would you be looking at the fact that they already gave $9 million for Public Safety, or does that not matter to anyone else?
Ms. Sitton stated I can speak from a requirement, regulatory standpoint. We conduct a duplication of benefits review to ensure that anything that is applied for has not already been paid for or is supplanting any other types of funding source. If they say we want to bump up staffing again they must demonstrate exactly how and why that is an eligible expense and how it does not supplant any additional funding source.
Speaker Cowan said I think what we were envisioning with these categories is what you just said; we are not going to be looking at individual requests; we have said these are the buckets, these are the guidelines for these groups. When we get into the applications for non-profits, we might have some more involvement. The idea was to streamline this, it is a framework for government bodies.
Ms. Traynere asked what the Unobligated/Admin is.
Ms. Sitton stated this is admin set aside for staff and for future potential expenses; unobligated is if any additional funds are needed to close the gap, or down the road there is an opportunity, this gives that wiggle room for that.
Ms. Traynere replied for contingency then, thank you.
Mr. Moustis said the townships have already started applications; I think that program should go forward since we have already started it. One of the areas that I am trying to stress to townships is that there is other funding. I want to make sure that the townships also can access infrastructure money going forward. Are the townships going to be included in the other Pillars, like culvert work, infrastructure, or other types of public works, or basically sewer and water types of projects?
Ms. Sitton said that will be what we assess on the next pillar so it will be open for discussion with the group.
Speaker Cowan noted we have dabbled with this, the general sentiment is if a township has other unmet needs and it fits in the infrastructure category; then they can apply for that, yes absolutely.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to know how you came up with the dollar amount, and is it fair under the per capita, can a municipal district ultimately get more money per capita then the Park District received?
Ms. Sitton explained the Municipal Parks and Public Safety are going to be open applications that they will be submitting a request, and that will be evaluated. At this point there has been no formula allocation associated with Municipal Parks.
Speaker Cowan said I think what he is asking is; how did we decide $2.5 million for Park Districts verses $1.5 million for Municipal Parks.
Ms. Sitton stated that is based off the priorities and the subcategories that were determined under the Pillars, there is flexibility in those dollar amounts.
Mr. Moustis stated it doesn’t tell me if it is equitable or not; I want to make sure it is an equitable number to Park Districts.
Speaker Cowan asked if we have access to how many residents live in a Park District verses how many live in a Municipal Park District?
Ms. Sitton stated I would have to look at what GIS provided; I know I have only reviewed in depth the districts.
Mr. Moustis said I think the limit that any Municipality Park Districts could receive it has to be based on the per capita basis just like it was done for the Park Districts
Mr. Brooks asked why is Public Safety only $2 million, and why is the Park District and Library are allocated, when Public Safety is competitive?
Ms. Sitton replied that is error, the Library District should also be considered competitive.
Mr. Brooks asked why would Public Safety be competitive?
Speaker Cowan clarified the Public Safety category; they are all municipal entities who did receive their own allocation.
Mr. Brooks asked all 24 townships.
Speaker Cowan stated Townships don’t do Public Safety, we are talking about Municipal Police Departments and Fire Districts. We expect the municipalities, if their municipal Police and Fire Districts do need stuff, we do expect municipalities to be helping their own organizations out. The wiggle room here, has been there might be some situations and we all want to support Public Safety where there is an opportunity for us to add to that support.
Mr. Brooks asked then why was it only $2.2 million.
Ms. Sitton said this was an opportunity to balance all the Sub-Pillars, this was the proposal we put forward to assure that all were addressed with some level of funding, with the understanding that for Public Safety there are dozens of entities that may choose to apply, municipalities, emergency management, dispatch, and fire departments with the understanding since those are municipal departments, they have already received that. Our assumption was that they didn’t need more because this is like filling in the gap with what they already have received from the municipality.
Speaker Cowan stated to be clear we could say nothing to Park Districts, Libraries, and Municipal Parks and give it all to Public Safety if you wanted. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend that because as we have said Municipalities have some obligation, they have gotten their own funds and they should be supporting their own districts. This is our nod that we can help.
Mr. Van Duyne said with Mr. Moustis’ amendment I think you have balanced this very well. I am happy to move forward but I am very happy that Mr. Moustis brought up his point; it seems like the rest of the committee can agree to that. From the actions that you have already taken, I was hearing conflicting stores whether every Township or Fire District was contacted. You said that they have been, so I just wanted to reiterate that they have and if not, you are going to contact the Board Member in that District.
Ms. Sitton said as of today we have gotten information for Custer, which has not been contacted. We also have played phone tag with Judy Wooten from Channahon Township. After going through the attendance cards this morning and I believe all were addressed. For Fire Districts, Naperville was reached out to, so they will be getting an allocation, I do know that with confirmation that every Fire District was in attendance.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I believe you covered the two that I was interested in, so thank you for that.
Mr. Fricilone stated let me clear on a bunch of things up, The Townships and Fire Districts; I attended both of those meetings yesterday and I think everyone has a good understanding. Number one take the Fire Districts out, they know exactly what they need, their applications will be in, in a week. It is all about equipment, they either need a truck, or vests, so that is going to be very easy. As far as the Townships, and as well as the Park Districts and other things; that is why they need to do this in front of the full County Board, this portion of this. If you have a Fire Department, or Park District that is in your District you should be calling them; if you are not calling your Township Supervisor and saying there is money that is being allocated, get over there, then that’s on you. These guys are doing the notifications but ultimately comes down to us, we are the Representatives of the Districts. The Townships did have a bit of an issue about the timeframe; I’ll take the blame; in our Leadership meetings I said let’s push these deadlines up. The longer we wait the longer it takes, we don’t have to be hard and fast. Mr. Burbach and Ms. Sitton mentioned to them that it is not a hard and fast rule, if you need a little bit more time because you must go to your Boards that is great. We have Townships that will have their requests in this week; Anser will be able to review them, and that money will be able to go out and get it off the table. That is why I didn’t want the lead time to be so long to put an application in; because it allows people to sit around and get lazy. The next thing is the cities are getting their own allocations, that was based purely on population. But they may or may not have a Park District which is a separate taxing body, if there is a separate taxing body for the Park District, they are given an allocation; and I do agree with Mr. Moustis as I am looking at this, Municipal Parks should be on the same plan, reason being those Municipal Parks were a part of the city and the city got an allocation, they got it by the amount of people, not the amount of departments they have, since their park isn’t separate. I do agree we look at it like we do, just regular Park Districts per person, you can’t do it on an allocation basis because the thought process of doing 50% if we get $3 million worth doesn’t make sence I am thinking of it. I will tell my Park District put in $4 million request, because if it goes to 50%, they are going to get $2 million. I think we must get rid of that allocation type scenario, and maybe we should go per capita kind of like we are doing with the regular Park Districts.
Ms. Sitton said, and you want it kept competitive?
Mr. Fricilone replied no, just go in the same way, even though it is not a separate Park District the Village got money based on the amount of people that they have, not the fact that their Park District are separate or not. I think we need to continue to think about that on anything else that we do; that the Villages got money based on the individuals that they have living there, not that they have their own police, or they have separate taxing bodies or something else.
Mr. Moustis asked would that be the same thing with Municipal Fire Department.
Ms. Sitton stated they would fall under Public Safety, but also be up against Police Departments, Emergency Management Agencies, and then Dispatch as we have it set up right now.
Mr. Moustis stated just to clarify, Municipal Fire Department’s don’t come under the same guidance that Fire Protection Districts are going come under; they are going to come under Public Safety.
Ms. Sitton stated that is the way it is currently set up.
Mr. Moustis said I would ask Madam Chair, just to look at it to make sure it is equitable to the Fire Protection Districts.
Speaker Cowan replied I think you are right, let’s look at what the Fire Districts work out as per capita, and make sure that the Municipal Fire Districts aren’t getting more per capita. The Non-Municipal Fire Districts, make sure what it looks like per capita; make sure the Municipal Fire Departments are not higher per capita; also, to Mr. Fricilone’s point, if we are saying $2 million and there is $4 million worth of applications, we give everybody 50% that does encourage people to be I would like $10 million. We don’t want to create a disproportionate playing field.
Mr. Burbach asked is the thought process to put a ceiling per capita, and still have it as a competitive grant process. It is still going to be apply, you are not getting the money regardless, you still need to apply, we can always reallocate after to other areas if needed. It is set up as a per capita max, it is still competitive.
Speaker Cowan stated I think we go forward with that, once you flush this thing out bring it back and at least let Leadership look at it, and we will review it with our members to make sure it is what we meant it to be.
Ms. Ventura said to muddy the waters a bit, going to Public Safety first. I don’t think I want $2 million; this is for City Public Safety; this is not for our Sheriffs money. Will there be a separate entity; we talked about more ballistic shields; this is not for EMA, this is not for our Sheriff, is that correct?
Speaker Cowan said no.
Ms. Ventura stated the cities got a lot of money, they could allocate that to their Fire and Police as their city saw fit; I don’t think it is the County’s business to say you didn’t meet all your needs, let us do that. I would rather those dollars go somewhere else unless you can give me some clear explanation of why we should be putting $2 million into Public Safety. I do agree that there should be some type of limit on those dollars if we did allocate to Fire whatever the per capita was for those areas, that should have a ceiling of those dollars. For the Municipal Parks I would like to see that decreased down to $1 million, and move the Park Districts up to $3 million and put that per capita and any dollars that are not spent in the Municipality area automatically move over to allocation; our Park Districts who probabl need the most funding out of all of them, maybe the libraries are in there too. A lot of people went to the parks during COVID, and they took the biggest hits, while they didn’t have programing where they couldn’t recover those revenues, they were still needing to spend them. I would like to see an increase in that area and a catch all, anything that is left over from Municipal Parks that might not be competitively spent gets moved over. When we talk about competitive, I would like to see that on a revenue loss basis. Just because they want to do something new, we have a million projects on our list and we are not accelerating those, we need to look at what really was impacted by COVID. I am okay in putting in an investment in something if it is really going to pay off, because that is one of the main goals in ARPA dollars. What I don’t want to happen is that we have all these pet projects when there are some true needs in this county.
Speaker Cowan stated I think with the municipal question, I understand your point and that was how I was originally thinking of it, but I also see the other side of it.
There was a discussion on the direction that Anser will follow and come back to the Executive Committee and make sure that it is what the committee is asking for.
Ms. Mueller stated to Ms. Ventura’s point about Public Safety; I appreciate if we want to fill in any gaps that we might come across, one of the ones I think of when I hear Public Safety, is the Storm Shelter that needs a generator. I am also concerned does our Sheriff who provides Public Safety to the whole County, is there anything that they are needing. I would also like to see the numbers so that we can hone them a bit.
Speaker Cowan stated I think we have an outstanding question about Public Safety. The County is taking $10 million in essentially revenue replacement, there will be some discussion about that.
Mr. Moustis asked what actions we need to take now.
Speaker Cowan stated the question is do we want to move forward with the understanding that Anser is going to go back and look at the per capita numbers, put some per capita caps on these, and balance things out a bit, but as is as we a have discussed today.
Mr. Moustis made a motion to move it forward with the initiatives that we currently have.
Speaker Cowan asked for a second.
Seconded by Ms. Mueller.
Ms. Ventura stated I think we should take Public Safety out for now and discuss that separately. I am okay moving forward with the other stuff. I think we need to look at that a little bit more.
Mr. Moustis said I will make a motion to exclude Public Safety. Ms. Mueller seconded the motion.
Speaker Cowan stated that means the motion on the floor is to accept the allocation proposal in front of you for Park District, Library District, Municipal Parks, and Unobligated. We will wait on the Public Safety to do further discussion.
Mr. Burbach said I have a clarifying question; is the motion for the amounts that are listed or are they going to be adjusted.
The consensus was no, they will need to be adjusted.
Mr. Fricilone said if we can get those populations done in the next couple of days then leadership can make that adjustment before the next meeting, and we can vote on it then.
Speaker Cowan stated you are asking to have the whole County Board make this decision.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am saying we’re voting on the resolution, hopefully in the next couple of days we are going to make the appropriate adjustments based on the population that was recommended and then we can do a final vote at County Board. Even though Executive Committee is deciding it we could have full County Board vote on it because that gets it moving instead of waiting until the next meeting.
Speaker Cowan stated we will have to save a space on it for full County Board. Ms. Tyson asked where Public Safety will be moved to.
Speaker Cowan stated we are removing that from this discussion, and we will continue to discuss that once we get the numbers.
Speaker Cowan said we have a motion and a previous roll, Motion Carries.
At this juncture Ms. Sitton continued with the PowerPoint presentation on the Foundation of Infrastructure.
Speaker Cowan said Ms. Berkowicz I meant to call on you before, but I got caught up in things; would you like to still make a comment.
Ms. Berkowicz stated yes regarding Public Safety. I am also concerned with our Sheriff and EMA; I know you are going to have that conversation in the future. I think that allocation is a bit low; some of the reasons why; when you look at their responsibility it has quadrupled. They are tackling mental health issues, increases in all sorts of challenges, on top of that they are seeing Police Officers retiring, they have multiple struggles going on. When I talk to my neighbors Public Safety is their number one concern. I would like the committee to adjust that Pillar a little more; we heard the Sheriff’s critical need for gear; what we approved at committee was only a fraction of their needs. Thank you for letting me share my concerns.
Mr. Fricilone said I would like to reiterate what Mr. Burbach is saying. What we are trying to do is put out a more finite survey to find out what projects are out there. We are trying to find out as much information as we can so that they can put out applications based on our recommendations. Secondly, to Anser make the questions as simple as possible otherwise we aren’t going to get good information back. I would also like to mention the broadband and Feasibility Study unless we are getting a consortium of the cable companies first and ask them what they know, I’m not in favor of any feasibility study until they tell us what they know or what they don’t know. If they say they know where all the issues are at that may be enough instead of spending $500,000 to duplicate what they have already done; they may know where the bad situations are, they may not want to service them, but we could get a lot of that information from them.
Mr. Burbach said to your point Mr. Fricilone part of that process for a Feasibility Study is not just saying we are going to do a Feasibility Study; it is going out for an RFI and a RFP to demonstrate value to what we do, and do not know. We will be able to evaluate those proposals on the Feasibility Study side and see what is the benefit that we are driving from doing some sort of study; then weigh that and say if it makes since or not. To your point if somebody says we already know where the hotspots are in the unincorporate parts of Will County then there would be no point to do a study. A Feasibility Study will also include how do they propose to fix those hotspots, it is more about a strategic plan.
Mr. Fricilone replied yes, I would like to spend more of the money for the fix, rather than doing the study when somebody may already have that information.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to give some definition of sewer systems, for most of my entire time I have represented large areas of unincorporated rural Will County. The areas that I have represented the sewer system is overland, it is water running over the land, it is culverts and so forth. Also, it is the Drainage Districts that helps drain water off. Sometimes when people talk about sewer systems, they think it is a municipal pipe, I would like to clarify that we have an understanding when it comes to sewer systems it is not all pipe it is overland which go into ditches, its culverts and of course our Drainage Districts maybe not as active as we would like to see, but they are not active because they have no money. I could see them coming forward with some drain tile proposals, are we including all of that?
Mr. Burbach replied yes; Anser does have Sewer and Water Engineers that are involved in this process; when we do have conversations about the projects those folks will be sitting next to us to help in those conversations.
Mr. Moustis said also which I thought was a mistake was handing over ponds that had to do with stormwater runoff to HOA’s or to homeowners; they never have the resources to maintain them. They usually need to be dredged out. Do you think they would be considered?
Speaker Cowan said yes, I think in the outreach.
Mr. Burbach replied it is not about saying no or yes to who we are having contact with it is about bringingversesthe idea in so that we can bring back to you to say yes, or no or should this be considered or if it would be a municipal request. That is what we plan to do with the data that we get, to identify who’s been reached out to, what the feedback was, what the opportunity is, and allow for the Executive Committee to say that’s an opportunity we want to consider.
Ms. Ogalla said thank you for bringing that up, it is good to know.
Ms. Ventura asked when will we be deciding on the amount that some of these entity’s will be putting in; will it be a 50/50 match; will we set policy?
Speaker Cowan stated if we get a couple of projects that total $30 million, then we will have to sit down and figure out which need to be funded completely; or are there other funding souses that we ask them to rely on.
Ms. Ventura replied I don’t want to be accused of is having all these projects, and then you set policy to cut people out.
Speaker Cowan said there is also the Unobligated part in there too, we are keeping those cushions in every category. There is also a possibility that we have some funds left over in some other category.
Ms. Venture said I would like to see a larger percentage to go toward Public Use; the reason being, those areas have already invested tax dollars over time versus private areas such as HOA’s. I don’t think that we should cut them out, but we need to be responsible in helping them out. For the broadband, is that public and private, or is it limited to one or the other?
Mr. Burbach said right now we don’t have a good sense of what the need is, the purpose is to put this into a two-step process. Unlike the Library Districts or the Park Districts where you can have an allocation methodology based on per capita; here we don’t know what the magnitude of the requests are going to be. Generally, what we see in other places, it is generally the private contractors, or the private companies are the ones that are really providing the broadband services because that is the business, they are in. Government typically is not in the broadband business. Right now, there are no rules, part of what this process is to do is to determine what the magnitude of need is by the subcategory with an infrastructure.
Ms. Ventura stated this is my pet issue, What I don’t want to see happen is that we are using our tax dollars to pad the pockets of private companies and then turn around and charge us more money for the stuff that we just gave them. I want to see a high preference on schools, libraries, and other government entities furthering their broadband options because everybody gets to use those. I want to have more broadband access everywhere. I would say that I would be in favor of limiting private companies from applying for this, at least until every government entity has had an option to upgrade their broadband option.
Speaker Cowan stated point taken, but you are two steps ahead of what we are proposing today. I think you are misunderstanding the function and purpose of what is being developed. Currently, we are trying to figure out what the state of broadband availability is, and what the possible solutions are to fill in those gaps. We are going to do the Feasibility Study before we start giving out contracts for broadband.
At this junction there was an explanation and a discussion of the steps that will be taken with the Feasibility Study. Gaining better knowledge of what projects need assistance, and how the funds will be distributed amongst the different categories after the information has been reviewed.
Mr. Fricilone made a motion to go forward with gathering information on what projects are out there.
Seconded by Mr. Moustis. All in Favor Motion Passes.
At this juncture Ms. Sitton continued with the PowerPoint presentation the Foundation of Community Health.
Ms. Ventura said in the beginning you said that you looked at this dollar amounts on who might be eligible and will be applying for them. I don’t think that is the best way to go about it; I think instead of who could apply I think we should have looked at the priority of the needs, and the severity of the need must be taken into consideration. In these categories should be in my opinion on an outcome based, and data driven decisions, and not on who is accessible to apply. There are a lot of non-profits in our county that could apply for all kinds of these things; but at the end of the day what is non-profit or profitable company offering as far as a long-term investment into our communities that is going to go long. The reality is where can we invest these dollars that are going to long term solve some of these program’s versus who can apply; I feel like that is just a band-aid fix.
Mr. Burbach stated we did look at, at risk populations to the best of our ability; it is a very hard statistic to measure in terms of drug abuse or food stabilization; that was considered in terms of who’s at risk. You are right, food stabilization is going to also increase given the number of Food Pantries that are available in Will County.
Ms. Venture asked if you have spoken to the Continuum of Care. Before you bring this back to us you might want to contact them; there are sixty agencies that are part of that. The United Way is now the leader of that, they would have a good set of data and experiences on that. They should be a part of this conversation.
Mr. Burbach said after hearing the conversations on the Unmet Needs category and its options for disbursement, do we fully fund the project, or do we fund projects that represent per capita limits. We will bring that information back to you next week.
Speaker Cowan stated thank you for that hearty discussion and think about some of that Community Health items, talk to your Caucus Leaders with your opinions so that we can start to shift Anser in certain ways, and we will bring it back shortly.
Handout provided by Anser at Committee
(Handout)
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Amending Liquor Control Ordinance, Chapter 110 Code of Ordinances (Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Ann Schneider & Associates)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Thomas Murray)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Thomas Murray)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Susan Olenek)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Caroline Portlock)
Ms. Ventura stated there has been talk about some of the programs at Joliet Jr. College (JJC) versus some of things that we offer. Can someone give us a rundown of the differences between our Workforce Services and what JJC is doing specifically with their contract.
Mr. Palmer said JJC is a partner with the Workforce; they are a mandatory partner, so we have contracted some things with them. Historically we have done this for years. All the workforce boards work with their local Junior Colleges. That’s why this is part of that, if you need something more specific, we will have to get them in to talk about it.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Caroline Portlock)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Caroline Portlock)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Marta Keane)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Dave Hartke)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Dave Tkac)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Dave Tkac)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Dave Tkac)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Dave Tkac)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: TABLED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 7/14/2022 10:00 AM TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Jim Moustis SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
Ms. Mueller stated I received a list this morning; it looks like we have four. Three are check presentations; one to National Hookup for Black Women, the YMCA, and BluePrint Agency which is Ms. Winfrey's and Mr. Brooks presentations that they do. The last one is recognizing Will County's Better Buildings Challenge Energy Performance Goal Achievement, that was requested by RR&E
IX. APPOINTMENT(S) BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
1. Executive Appointment(s)
(Mitch Schaben)
Speaker Cowan said we have several Appointments; Sunnyland Sanitary District, Will County Board of Review, PACE Suburban Bus Board, Oak Highland/Ingalls Park Sanitary District, and the Will County Board of Health.
Ms. Ventura said on the Board of Health I know there are certain statutory positions that must be replaced, but on the printout that we received it didn’t say which ones they are replacing, can we get that by next week?
X. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
Speaker Cowan stated we are moving the July County Board Meeting from Thursday to Wednesday, so it will be held on Wednesday July 20th. This is due to several folks traveling to the National Organization of Counties (NACo) on Wednesday evening. We must set the agenda seven days prior to the Board Meeting per our rules. We will place a resolution on the agenda to suspend the County Board Rules to allow the July 20th Will County Board agenda to be set on Thursday July 14th.
Motion made by Mr. Moustis and seconded by Ms. Ventura. All in favor.
Motion Carries.
XI. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
XII. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
Mr. Marcum stated I need to save space for three Zoning Cases on the agenda.
Mr. Marcum made a motion to save three spaces on the agenda seconded by Mr. Moustis. All in favor.
Motion Carries.
2. Finance
Speaker Cowan said we are going to have Executive Session today. A couple of things before we get there; on the Finance Committee, item #3 is authorizing the use of Federal Forfeiture Funds for the shields. It turns out that the money is already in the right place; so, we don’t need to have this on the agenda it has already been done. I would like a motion to remove item #3 on Finance Committee.
Motion made by Ms. Traynere and seconded by Mrs. Ogalla. All in favor.
Motion
Carries
Ms. Traynere stated there was a lot of discussion in committee and they would like to see the Sheriff’s Department to buy many more shields.
3. Public Works & Transportation 4. Diversity & Inclusion
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
XIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Will County, Illinois Posted: 9/1/2022 Page 22
Minutes Will County Executive Committee June 9, 2022
Mrs. Adams read a Public Comment into the record.
Theresa M. Hoogstra, Will County Real-estate taxes are exorbitant, and are taxing me out of my home. What is being done to provide some tax relief.
Mr. Fricilone stated in the past our Grant Writer would come every so often and give us an update on what grants that we have applied for, and what we have won. We haven’t heard about that in the last year. I request that the Executive’s Office would have the grant person who I haven’t met yet. Could they come to the next Executive Meeting to give us an update?
Ms. Ventura stated another reminder to the Executive’s Office to find out where our Homelessness RFP is at; I am going to keep asking about this until it comes forward. The rest of our county should be concerned that for over a year that we passed this to give direction to the Executive to execute this and they put it our and companies applied; and they have not brought together the Board to interview these companies. There have been all kinds of delays, we are passed all those delays, we have been passed those delays for some time and yet no action has been taken on this. I think our county should be very concerned about this.
Mr. Moustis stated along those lines I was going to ask Mrs. Tatroe the question, when the County Board instructs the County Executive to go out for an RFP, and it is done within the Executive Branch just holds on to them with no recommendation. I would think there is some recourse. What I am going to ask is when the County Board makes a request; can we also make part of that the County Executive must respond within a specific number of days to report back with their recommendations or results.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I think that is probably executable, I will investigate that and verify. It seems to be a reasonable request.
Mr. Moustis said to Ms. Ventura’s point you can’t just sit on it because you don’t want to do anything with it; that is basically bypassing the direction of the County Board to the County Executive’s Office. Despite what a lot of people want to think, the County Board does direct the County Executive’s Branch on behalf of our constituents. I ask in the future we make a condition that it must come back within a certain period. Well, I am not so sure we can’t do something with this, I would ask Mrs. Tatroe what the recourse of the Board is; do we have to do another instruction to say they need to report back to us on this RFP.
Mrs. Tatroe stated you always have the latitude to ask for reports so that’s acceptable. Part of what you will be dealing with is there is a certain level of discissions in carrying out some of these, where they must allocate resources or whether there are timing issues, as far as holding their feet to the fire there may be some latitude for them.
Mr. Moustis said it’s been a year, even if they give a report to say here is what it is but it doesn’t appear that we have the funding, they have to come back with something.
Mrs. Tatroe state you can request a report and ask them where they are at with it.
Ms. Ventura state I have, and Mr. Schaben has come, but they talked about the previous. They had companies apply and then Ms. Parker and I were going to be the liaison and a few other people were going to sit on that review board of the RFP, this is for the homeless. At that point there was some delay because Continuum of Care (COC) was going to be a part of that; but they had a turnover in their leadership; in January of this year that took place and United Way had taken over. At that point it seems that we should have moved forward, and it has been several months since then and I have continued to ask about this month after month. Mr. Schaben did give a report what is not clear is why are we not moving forward at this point, or a few months ago when I brought it up.
Mr. Schaben replied what I am looking for is an old resolution, I can’t track it down. If I am not mistaken a year and a half or maybe two years ago the Board passed a resolution to do a homeless study. I think it was in concert with the COC, the City of Joliet and maybe two other entities. There was CARES Funds put aside for that study; we started the RFP process, and then there was a change over at the COC. I asked Ms. Sojka for an update on how that transition is going with the COC and the United Way of taking that over. She gave me a timeline on what the COC internal process is looking like. Their new staff just came into place the first week of June. They have a 90-day period where they want to get staff orientated, started and moving in the right direction. The other thing that they are focused on right now is their federal grant funds, which is about $4 million to $5 million which is the bulk of the funding for the COC. What they have indicated that likely around November is when they think that they should have staff in place, trained up and ready to go and then we can move forward with the RFP for the community wide strategic plan.
Ms. Ventura stated therefore we need to make homelessness a priority; because you are talking about two to three years from when we passed the RFP; and then you are finally going to set down and do the study, let alone actually the solution. This is just not okay; you can sit down an interview; they are one voice on that board to interview these candidates. So, to delay this for one staff member. It is probably a staff member who will have been the COC and now is just umbrellaed under the United Way. This is a delay tactic and November is right after the election, so I find it very convenient that you are waiting until I am off this Board to convene this, I’m sorry that is not acceptable. That is politics over people who need homes.
Mr. Schaben stated County Board Ventura that is unacceptable; we have talked about the transition of the COC for a very long time, that is number one. Number two we do not have anybody on staff that this is their responsibility, that is why we are working with the COC, that is why they wanted to work with the City of Joliet. This is not a delay tactic this is ensuring that the people who are going to be doing the study are able to effectively do that study.
Speaker Cowan state I’m going to interrupt at this point because this was under Public Comment where we normally make comments, and we don’t respond to those comments. I provided some latitude to let Mr. Schaben respond to this. This deserves more conversation but would be more appropriate at a committee on a agenda item. I want to mention one thing of a serious nature, some of you may have heard that within a 24-hour period on June 6th and 7th the County had eight overdose deaths, it is unheard of, but it does appear that there is probably a shipment of street drugs that are laces with very deadly doses of Fentanyl. Please reach out to your constituents we obviously don’t want to encourage drug use, but if you know people with substance use disorders or organizations that are helping these people. Tell them to get rid of these drugs because they will kill them. This is a serious issue with larger solutions that need to be put in place but in the immediate there is obviously a very tainted very dangerous batch of drugs out there.
Ms. Ventura stated Dr. Burke has talked to our committee and let us know that there are Fentanyl strips available. We recognize that people who do these types of drugs are going to not do them because there is Fentanyl in it. What it does is it allows them to make sure that they are doing the drug not alone, that they are with someone and that they are using smaller amounts. If you know someone or you can get the information out that our Health Department or our substance abuse team has Fentanyl strips, we want to get them into the hands of people to save their lives.
XIV. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan stated you should have received multiple emails about this; the CED’ Eye Opener Breakfast is on June 23rd from 7:30 a.m. at Tuscany Falls in Mokena. Members Brooks, Winfrey, Berkowicz, Fricilone, and Chief of Staff Mr. Palmer have replied they will be attending. If you would like to attend, please let Mrs. Adams know, RSVPs are due today. This is another CED event to get acclimated to what they do and how they do it.
XV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - NECESSARY
Motion to go into Executive Session at 12:37 p.m. for negotiations of property.
Motion made by Ms. Traynere, Seconded by Ms. Mueller. All in favor with a Roll Call Vote: Mueller, Brooks, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, Tyson, Van Duyne, Ventura, Cowan all voting yes.
Motion Carries.
XVI. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Approval)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Traynere, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey |
1. Motion to Adjourn @ 1:05 PM
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4364&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up