Will County Board met June 16.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Executive Bertino-Tarrant called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Member Koch led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. INVOCATION
Member Koch led the invocation.
IV. ROLL CALL
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Sherry Newquist | District 1 (D - Steger) | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | District 1 (R - Monee) | Present | |
| Amanda Koch | District 2 (D - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | District 2 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Raquel M. Mitchell | District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | District 3 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Saud Gazanfer | District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) | Late | |
| Gretchen Fritz | District 5 (R - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | District 5 (D - Aurora) | Present | |
| Donald Gould | District 6 (R - Shorewood) | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | District 6 (D - Wilmington) | Present | |
| Steve Balich | District 7 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | District 7 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | District 8 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | District 8 (D - Joliet) | Absent | |
| Annette Parker | District 9 (R - Crest Hill) | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | District 9 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Natalie Coleman | District 10 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | District 10 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | District 11 (R - Naperville) | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | District 12 (R - New Lenox) | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | District 12 (R - New Lenox) | Present | |
| Mica Freeman | District 13 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Debbie Kraulidis | District 13 (R - Joliet) | Absent |
VI. MOTION TO PLACE ON FILE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
| RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]
MOVER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis AWAY: Traynere |
1. Will County Board - Recessed Meeting - May 19, 2022 9:30 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis AWAY: Traynere |
IX. HONORARY RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
1. Check Presentation to National Hookup of Black Women - Early Childhood Books
Member Brooks stated good morning ladies and gentleman. I have three check presentations. This is the best part of my job. I love doing it. The first check I am going to present is the National Hookup of Black Women in the amount of $5,000. Thank you County Board. The next one is to the BluePrint Agency. On behalf of the County Board, our host agreement with Waste Management disposal, our Executive Bertino-Tarrant, and my partner Member Winfrey, we present BluePrint Agency a check in the amount of $5,000. Thank you all again, ladies and gentleman.
2. Check Presentation to Greater Joliet Area YMCA Summer Camp
Member Brooks stated on behalf of the Will County Board, our Executive Office, Waste Management Host Agreement, my partner Member Winfrey, we are presenting this check to the greater Joliet YMCA Summer Camp in the amount of $10,000.
3. Check Presentation to BluePrint Agency
4. Recognizing Judy Mitchell on Her Retirement as President of Joliet Junior College Postponed.
5. Recognizing Will County's Better Buildings Challenge Energy Performance Goal Achievement
Member Weigel read the proclamation
Ms. Christina Snitko stated Ms. Breanna Moore went to Washington, D.C. last month and we received the award for this.
Ms. Breanna Moore stated we also received this really nice crystal trophy, so we’ll have it on display in the Land Use Department.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated thank you to you two ladies and the department for all the work that you do on behalf of Will County. I was at an event this weekend and many people at the event, the the Water Conservation event, noted what a great job you ladies do, so thank you very much.
X. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
Ms. Chris Myers expressed the importance of 708 Mental Health Boards.
Mr. Michael Murray expressed his support for a mental health referendum on the ballot.
Mr. Peter Katowicz expressed his support for postponing Land Use zoning case ZC-22- 015.
Ms. Donna Prepejchal expressed her support for mental health boards.
Ms. Susan Olenek stated expressed her support for continued funding for the Will County Health Department mental health programs.
Ms. Laurie Summers expressed her support for the 708 Mental Health Board as a referendum on the ballot.
XI. OLD BUSINESS
Status of May 19, 2022 Resolutions/Ordinances
XII. NEW BUSINESS
XIII. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - T. MARCUM, CHAIR
Member Marcum stated good morning everybody.
Open Public Hearing for all Land Use Cases
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Marcum stated Case ZC-22-015, I did request that we postpone the vote for their application so they can work with the surrounding community to come up with a new plan.
Close Public Hearing for all Land Use Cases
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Moustis stated I have some questions. I don’t know what they need to work out, or who they’re talking to, but my understanding is that Homer Glen has objected. I don’t know if they have filed a legal objection, but if they haven’t, they should. I think there are some other objectors that are adjoining property owners. Quite frankly, I don’t know how this got passed to these various committees, especially going from A-1 to I-1. I would rather postpone this. I’m not going to object to the postponing so to have further discussion by the community. I don’t think this zoning is appropriate for the area because of the way it developed. We as a County Board, really need to make a request at the Executive’s Office to look at our Land Use plan so we can eliminate what I think are conflicts in uses, because if Land Use approved this, they’re letting something go from A-1 to I-1, basically a local community, then I would say there’s something wrong with our Land Use plan. Maybe we need to look at that too.
Member Balich stated I am the Supervisor of Homer Township and we objected to that plan also. Pretty much everybody had the same problem that Member Moustis just talked about. If it went through as it is, you would have industrial for the whole 159th Street corridor. The Village of Homer Glen was here this morning. They would like to work something out with the people to let it get in there, but they would have to change the zoning, and the same with us. We can’t do it for a while until we go through public hearings, and everyone agrees and blah blah blah. I’m sure there’s other areas of the county that are going to be affected with similar types of development. We need to find something that’s middle ground. It might take six or seven months, but we have to work on it, whatever it is. Otherwise, we’re going to be screwed. We’re going to have to turn down all sorts of projects just because of the industrial portion.
Member Marcum stated Member Moustis made a couple of good points. The village did file a legal objection, and the neighbors, so this would have required 20 votes. I forgot to mention there was a legal objection.
Member Ventura stated I spoke with the applicant, as well as the real estate representative, and they are trying to work with our staff so that they can be responsible and not changing everything to I-1 necessarily. I believe at committee they’re going to look at zoning changes and trying to find a solution that doesn’t take six months, so that’s why they are looking for another month. It has nothing to do with the legal objection, but it has to do with our zoning plan that our staff is trying to work out, and Member Marcum is working with them directly.
| RESULT: POSTPONED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
PZC: 5-0 Appr SUP for Self-Service Storage Facility w/4 Conditions
PZC:5-0 Appr SUP for Outdoor Storage w/4 Conditions
PZC: 4-1 Appr Var for Maximum Self-Service Storage Bldg Height from 12 ft to 28 ft
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Maximum Self-Service Storage Unit Floor Area from 600 sq ft to 700 sq ft
LUD: 2-4 Appr Map Amendment from A-1/C-2 to I-1 - THEREBY DENYING LUD: 4-2 SUP for Self-Service Storage Facility w/4 Conditions
LUD: 4-2 SUP for Outdoor Storage w/4 Conditions
2. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended for Zoning Case ZC-22-017, Jake A. Bruns & Joann De Erio-Bruns, Owner of Record, Cos Dekker, Agent, Requesting (M-22-008) Zoning Map Amendment from C-2 to R-3 with Variance Requests; (V 22-013) Variance for Minimum Lot Area from 20,000 square feet to 8,659 square feet; (V-22-014) Variance for Minimum Street Setback from 30 feet to 11 feet (Frank Street); (V-22-016) Variance for Minimum Street Setback from 30 feet to 13 feet (Hickory Street); (V-22-015) Variance for Minimum West Side Yard Setback from 10 feet to 0 feet;(V-22-017) Variance for Minimum South Side Yard Setback from 10 feet to 2 feet, for PIN #23-15-32-205-005-0000, in Crete Township, Commonly Known as 27446 S Hickory Street, Crete, IL County Board District #1
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum Lot Area from 20,000 sq ft to 8,659 sq ft
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum Street Setback from 30 ft to 11 ft (Frank Street)
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum Street Setback from 30 ft to 13 ft (Hickory Street)
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum West Side Yard Setback from 10 ft to 0 ft
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum South Side Yard Setback from 10 ft to 2 ft
LUD: 6-0 Appr Map Amendment from C-2 to R-3
3. Ordinance Amending the Will County, Illinois Zoning Ordinance Adopted and Approved September 9, 1947 as Amended, for Zoning Case ZC-22-032, Justin & Kathy Hassert, Owner of Record, Nathaniel Washburn of KGG LLC, Attorney, Requesting (S-22-023) Special Use Permit for Keeping of Farm Animals and (V 22-043) Variance for Minimum Animal Confinement Setback (West) from 50 feet to 7 feet, for PIN #12-02-24-200-009-0000, in DuPage Township, Commonly Known as 17152 Bluff Road, Lemont, IL, County Board District #3
| RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 1]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman NAYS: Moustis ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
PZC: 5-0 Appr Var for Minimum Animal Confinement Setback (West) from 50 ft to 7 ft
LUD: 6-0 Appr SUP for Keeping of Farm Animals w/7 Conditions
XIV. LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS
Next Land Use & Development Committee Meeting is Scheduled for July 12, 2022 @ 10:30 a.m.
XV. FINANCE COMMITTEE - J. TRAYNERE, CHAIR
Member Traynere stated good morning fellow County Board members.
1. Monthly Financial Reports to be Placed on File
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Sherry Newquist, District 1 (D - Steger) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
XVI. PUBLIC WORKS & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE - J. VAN DUYNE, CHAIR
Member Van Duyne stated good morning, everyone.
1. 22-153 Adopting the Will County FY2023-2028 Transportation Improvement Program
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Saud Gazanfer, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Donald Gould, District 6 (R - Shorewood) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Mica Freeman, District 13 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Joe VanDuyne, District 6 (D - Wilmington) SECONDER: Donald Gould, District 6 (R - Shorewood) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
XVII. DIVERSITY & INCLUSION COMMITTEE - M. TYSON, CHAIR
Member Tyson stated good morning, everyone. The Diversity & Inclusion Committee continues to work with the Executive’s office and our consultant to advance the Diversity & Inclusion master plan. We have been focusing on county procurement and human resources as our primary targets. We hope to have more information in the coming months to share with the Board. Will County values our diversity and continues to work on ways to improve what we do both with the services and products we purchase. We also want to continue to work on improving our recruitment of our workforce, so our county staff is even more reflective of the population we serve.
Next Diversity & Inclusion Committee Meeting is Scheduled for July 6, 2022 @ 10:00 a.m.
XVIII. PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITTEE - R. VENTURA, CHAIR
22-162 - Motion to Postpone
Speaker Cowan stated I asked to make some comments about this because I am the one who initially brought it to the Public Health Committee and asked them to consider this. This is a constituent initiative, frankly. I received in my area, as I think in all our areas, a grave concern about mental health, mental health services and substance use disorder services. There’s been a lot of talk in my area about the creation of a 708 Mental Health Board, and I was asked a number of times by constituents why Will County didn’t have one. I asked the Public Health Committee to look into what that would look like and if there was a taste for it. I am pleased that it passed through committee. To clarify, we are only asking today whether or not we should ask the public if this is a priority for them. When we talk about funding, I think we can all agree this is a priority, but we need funding for these services. As the Executive Director of our Health Department pointed out, we do have these services, but there might be some misunderstanding. This doesn’t create a new Health Department, this doesn’t create a new organization to dispense these services, it creates a funding line. I think if these services are important to our community, as I believe they are, it is our responsibility to make sure we can pay for them. This 708 Board would provide, essentially, a locked box. The funding, instead of being up to the whims of the County Board every year as to how much we would allocate to the Health Department, we would be able to have a dedicated stream of revenue for these services. There’s every possibility that that mental health board would decide to fund the Health Department with these services, or other related organizations. Of course, it’s not our job today to decide whether or not to have a 708 Board, it’s our job to say whether or not we’d like to ask our residents to weigh in on this. I think it’s appropriate to ask them. So, I would ask everyone’s support in adding this referendum to the ballot so that we can get a gauge from our constituents about whether or not this is something they would like us to pursue. Thank you.
Member Fricilone stated I was unaware that the Board of Health was not doing their job, and our Health Department isn’t doing their job. Adding more taxes on to an already overtaxed constituents…if you want to raise the county levy, that’s your prerogative, you guys have the majority. But to add another tax on and take total control out of the County Board’s hands? Obviously opposite of what Speaker Cowan is saying. This is a County Board decision. We’re going to leave it to another Board, which of course won’t be picked by us. I don’t understand where you’re going. You heard the Director of our Health Department tell us we are providing these services. If you want to tax more just raise the county tax.
You’re probably going to do that anyway. But to put another tax on…I know the numbers that we’re hearing, but if you look at what the first speaker was talking about, the small amount, the $900,000, you have to have 37,000 residents, we have 700,000 residents. Are we going to be taxing $300-400 a house in my neighborhood, in a lot of our neighborhoods? You wonder why people are leaving Illinois? This is why. Spend your money wisely, but don’t just add on and add on more taxes. Secondly, I honestly think we should postpone this vote because all it was (inaudible) Health Department. I understand we bring resolutions forward that come from the Health Department or any other committee, but this is about adding a referendum to ask people about taxes. We have no idea what this is going to create in money, what the anticipated thoughts are on what percentage we’re going to tax. Shouldn’t some of that be discussed in front of the whole Board? Maybe you need to do a Committee of the Whole, or at least bring it to Executive. You have it at one small committee, the Public Health Committee, and you’re going to ask this entire Board to vote on sending a referendum out to add additional tax, and to take Board control of how money is going to be spent. If you all do pass this now without further discussion, I will have to say that I will be voting against any additional monies that go to the Health Department, and maybe we ought to take away the money they are getting now for mental health, because this Board will decide everything. Secondly, and I’ve said this many, many, many times; we have $134 million dollars of ARPA money. We haven’t given out a nickel out yet. It’s been over a year and a half. We’re already in some of the pillars allocating $15-20 million to mental health. Don’t you think we should give that money out before we go to the taxpayers and say, “We want to tax you some more,” even though we’re sitting on a pile of money here that can go to mental health right now. I make the motion that we postpone this until we get some more information on what this is going to cost our taxpayers before we put something on the ballot and make ourselves look ridiculous. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we have a motion and a second to postpone this resolution. We are now speaking about the postponement.
Member Balich stated I’m looking to postpone it forever because we’ve got seniors…you’re talking about mental health…they can’t even afford food right now because the cost of all the natural gas, electric, car gas, the cost of food going up all the time. Now you’re going to make them mentally disturbed because these poor seniors are on a fixed income and can’t afford any more money. We’re talking about raising money? Especially in this type of environment with everything going up? The stock market crashed again today. Their 401-Ks are going away, the ones that actually have them. I think it’s a crime to even think about this. I would like to postpone it forever. Thank you, Member Fricilone, for doing it now.
Member Weigel stated I’m not in favor of an additional levy and this additional tax. I think our Health Department is doing their job. If you do create a new Board, they may want a new building which is much more costly. I would agree to postpone it, but I don’t think we should even go into this adding a new Board.
Member Traynere stated I don’t see a need to postpone it. All we’re doing is putting a referendum on the ballot. That’s what we’re voting on here. We’re not voting to tax anyone. We’re letting the voters decide if they want to pay an additional tax for community mental health. We’re leaving it up to the voters. Every Board member here is a voter and will be entitled to vote on the question of levying the tax when they go to their ballot box in November.
Member Berkowicz stated I am not in support of an additional levy, or an additional tax, and I would like Member Ventura and our secretary to provide us with some information now, before it’s postponed, or before we’re forced to vote on something we had no information about. What I would like to know is who will have authority over this Board? I would like to know who will sit on this Board, and what the size of the Board is. You must have discussed this in order to bring it forward. I would like that information and I would also like to know what is the cost to bring forward this referendum? If we could have that information, I would appreciate it.
Member Ventura stated it’s in her packet. It’s been provided both at the committee level as well as at caucus and again today. She just needs to read her packet.
Member Berkowicz stated I don’t think it takes an extra effort to provide those answers. We have people in the audience, we also have constituents who don’t have the benefit of having this information. As a courtesy I request that it be disclosed.
Member Moustis stated we’re all for mental health but let me tell you how I feel. When the state kind of baled out on mental health a number of years ago, and they did that by closing facilities, cutting funding and basically said we’re going to push this down to the local health departments. The health departments should do the mental health, and we’ll give grants to the health departments to provide mental health. They do give us grants. Ms. Susan Olenek mentioned the levy, but also grants come from the state of Illinois to help provide mental health. So, obviously the state of Illinois didn’t say we’re going to send this money to the health boards, they said its going to sent to the health departments of the counties. I think that’s the appropriate government agency to provide these services, and indeed they do. When we have talked about giving funding, like the cannabis money, to mental health and to addictions, there hasn’t been a lot of support from the other side of the aisle. They wanted to use it more for social programming. What I think we’re being asked to do here today, you’re asking me and others on this Board, sign the check and we’ll fill it in later. I know in this information that you gave, what is actually the levy going to be? This is something I would probably ask Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe, if we’re going to approve this, you should have the levy included in it, which you have not done. It should be what’s going to go on the ballot. Not an idea, but what’s going on the ballot, including the amount of the levy. Obviously, this is, I think, premature. Here again, I know we’re going to hear it, we’ll fill in the blanks later. Just sign the check and we’ll fill in the amount later. I’m not going to do that. Even the numbers that you show, in my area you show a $300,000 house, and there’s not too many $300,000 houses that exist in my area, and a lot of others, to be asking $150.00 additional on their tax bill. (Inaudible) taxing Will County taxpayers anywhere from $10-20 million dollars depending on what the actual levy is going to be. You can give me estimates but you haven’t shown the actual levy, and how much that levy generates in revenue. We all know that with assessments going up the way they have and the way they’re going up in the future, that $150 is going to turn into $200 or $250. In my area where the average house is more like $400,000; they are probably going to be $200-$250. Even if it's a $100,000 house, who lives in those houses? People who can’t afford it at all. You’re taxing the poorest people or lowest income people in this county. If they’re renters, their rent is going to go up. I think it’s a regressive kind of tax when you do this. Everything that was commented was they don’t provide services; they hand out money. They hand out grants. You’re not providing any mental health services, or the police departments, or whoever they’re giving it to. I realize those programs are important but it’s not providing mental health services. They’re not providing them, or drug addictions…they’re handing out money. I think that can lead to many conflicts.
Member Ogalla stated I served on the Public Health & Safety Committee for a long time, and I was a chairperson for four years. During that time, the Health Department Director, Ms. Susan Olenek, has always come forward and provided us some information. I know there’s some things that she wasn’t able to get out during her three minutes so I would like to ask her to come forward right now and have the opportunity to speak on that, as well as other comments that I would like to make.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we have a motion to postpone right now. This is not the appropriate time. Right now, we’re voting on whether or not we should postpone.
Member Ogalla stated speaking on that, I usually attend the Public Health & Safety Committee meeting on a regular basis. This month I was unable to do that due to various different things. I think it is totally appropriate when asked that we do have the answers to the size of the Board, the cost, all the questions that Member Berkowicz asked, we should have those answers. You can’t go forward without that. You need to have a full discussion. In my conversation with Member Fricilone, he has never had this conversation at a leadership meeting. How are we bringing forward a referendum that we’re going to vote on without even leadership having had those conversations, without having a full conversation I think at the Committee of the Whole so that everybody hears everything. To expect everybody to be able to attend a committee meeting is great, but if everyone doesn’t do it, they can’t do it…I think if we’re doing something as important as putting a referendum on a ballot, we as members deserve the right to hear everything and ask all the questions that we need to ask prior to making a vote on it. In addition to that, our residents deserve to hear that and have those questions answered as well because we’ve had a public hearing on a conversation, which we have not done except at the Public Health and Safety Committee. I, as a Chair, have always made sure that everything was brought forward and discussed, but this I think is a blatant powerplay and I think that we shouldn’t do this. I think we should postpone at a minimum. Every day I am going to people’s houses and the main thing they say is what can you do to lower my taxes? I don’t have an answer for them because it just seems there is nothing I can do to lower their taxes and that all we want to do as a Board is to continue to raise taxes and now add another tax.
Member Koch stated I’m noticing some willful obtuseness regarding the comments made by Speaker Cowan. This is just to put the referendum on the ballot. It’s not increasing taxes. You guys may or may not remember but several years ago we passed a motor fuel tax and my Republican colleagues were very vocal about that going to referendum because if we were going to increase taxes, voters needed to say yes to it. I should hope that they should also be in favor of allowing residents to speak on this referendum and if it is true that in the many, many houses that you’ve spoken to that they do not want their taxes to increase under any circumstance, then this is likely to fail in any case. However, bringing it forward and allowing our residents to speak on it is exactly what’s been asked for in the past, so I would hope that we can do that this time. Thank you.
Member Coleman stated I second what Member Koch just said, but I had to speak on this because of what the coroner came to speak on. Stating the age of the people who she’s seen for the toxicity levels, and deaths. There’s plenty of examples that were given today. Two people came and spoke. There’s been information in the packet, there’s a cap. We talk a lot about mental health. Mental health is not just going to a therapist, or receiving some type of services, I receive mental health services. I’ve been receiving them for a long time as a veteran. There are other things that need to be supported that keeps young people’s mental health in a better place. There is a gap in understanding generations because people are on social media when they’re born now, and through the ages of 20-something, that’s a completely different demographic who face mental health issues that we have no idea about. When we think about we’re just giving money to organizations to help, that’s a good thing. Organizations are in the community, they’re seeing people on a regular basis, and it’s supporting the Health Department. Some of these funds can go back to the Health Department, and there’s also a cap if I’m not mistaken on what the levy would be. So, I am completely against postponing voting for this because there is a higher need than some of us realize in some of these communities that are not getting the attention they need when it comes to mental health. Thank you.
Member Mitchell stated apparently my colleagues want to move forward with it and obviously some of my colleagues do not, so I am going to be for postponement. Thank you.
Member Pretzel stated you have to pass it to find out what’s in it. That’s what I’m hearing here. I’ve heard it before and didn’t like the end result. I’ve committed to my constituents that I will oppose any new taxes. I scratch my head in disbelief that all of you are willing to go to your constituents at this time with a new tax, or even a proposal for a new tax. I will be opposing this; I support postponing it indefinitely. That all, thank you.
Member Newquist stated Member Moustis asked who lives in these $100,000 houses. I do and most of my neighbors do. I live in a very underserved community, and I am very willing to trust my voters to decide if they want to allocate additional funds for mental health services or not. Thank you.
Member Brooks Executive Bertino-Tarrant, as you have stated several times discussion right now is on whether or not we want to vote on the postponement. Even though the Public Safety Committee is a smaller group of us, the bigger body is 26. However, over 700,000 residents of Will County is a much bigger body than we are. I think the power is in the people. Send it to a referendum and let them take all the comments today into consideration and they vote yes or no. Thank you.
Member Tyson stated I think people should think in terms of let the voter decide. They are intelligent people, we represent them, they tell us what they want, put it on the ballot and let them decide. Thank you.
Member Berkowicz stated I have again looked at my packet and I see a corrupted file, and a couple of other documents, however, I do not see any information in respect to the questions that I presented. So again, even if we postpone it, these are questions that should be answered, and I would like to have the information provided today. It must be available because Member Ventura indicated that it’s in the packet. Given that I can’t put my hands on it, can you please provide it? Thank you. Also, the cost for bringing a referendum forward. I also asked if we had any information about that. Thank you.
Member Ventura stated I’ll make my comments about the postponement first and then I’ll answer Member Moustis and Member Berkowicz’ questions. Several residents from DuPage Township, Joliet Township and Wheatland Township have approached me about this and have approached Member Cowan. There are two people currently downstairs who are also advocating this with banners. When Mr. Ron Melka came in and spoke to our committee, he spoke about how the funding could be spent on public uses like our Health Department and other services governments provide, private uses and non-profit uses. That is for the Board to decide on those if one was to be created. We heard from our coroner today and we all know and have seen increases in suicide, drug overdose and gun violence across our country. Member Mitchell specially asked me a few months ago what are we doing about teen suicide. We are aggressively trying to address that, and this is one of those answers. Member Cowan did ask us to address it in Public Health & Safety Committee, our staff has supported this. When Ms. Susan Olenek spoke at our committee, she had supported this and her one ask was that we do not defund the current Health Department in order to fill the gaps of where we are missing it in mental health, and while we do provide mental health services, it does not provide services for everybody. I now here that Member Fricilone is threatening to defund her, and I can’t help but think that might be one reason that Ms. Susan Olenek came before us with a different opinion today. This is a vote for the power of the people to decide. To Member Koch’s point, yes, there is some willful ignorance happening in this room, everything from being rude when our speakers were talking this morning, talking over them to not reading our packet. The certifying of our question in front of us and also just completely ignoring that this is not the County Board raising taxes, this is the County Board asking our community and our residents and constituents to vote with their own money. No one has said that our Health Department is not doing their job. Quite the opposite. We want to have a dedicating funding source for those services, and we can expand those services to people who need them. The County Board is not raising taxes. This is not the Board raising taxes. There is a huge difference between raising taxes and having a referendum. What Member Fricilone is suggesting we do is raise taxes. That is exactly what he said. We’re not doing that; we’re giving the vote to the people. These are dedicated for mental health, so to ARPA funding, that’s temporary. When the money is gone, it’s gone. Substance abuse and behavioral services are grant funded. The state and federal government at any moment could change that funding and that would impact our services substantially. If we had a dedicated funding source for that, there would be no question on whether we would continue these services or not. We are not making anyone do anything, to Member Balich’s point. We are giving the voice to the voters. To Member Moustis and Member Berkowicz, the information is in the packet, but I am happy to provide it. The first thing, to Member Moustis’ point, on the question that we’re voting on is certifying the question on the levy.
Member Ventura read resolution 22-162.
Member Ventura stated to Member Berkowicz’ questions. What is a community 708 Mental Health Board Authorized to do? Illinois statute, 405 Illinois Compiled Statutes for Mental Health Authorities May 2006, (405 ILCS) sets forth the rules for addressing mental health support in Illinois including the establishment of community mental health boards. Under the statute, community mental health boards are not service providers. Their key role is strategy and planning, allocation of funds and coordinators and evaluators who provide information referrals and bring together agencies and social workers to work on projects for the whole community. In order to meet the needs of those eligible to receive mental health services, the 708 board has broad authority to act. Some of those powers are as follows: “…in consultation with and being advised by the Department of Human Services, shall have the power to contract repair, operate, maintain and regulate community mental health facilities to provide mental health services as defined by the local mental health board, including services for persons with a developmental disability or substance use disorder, for residents thereof and/or to contract therefore with any private or public entity which provides such services.” (405ILCS20-2). How is a mental health board selected? Board members are appointed by the chairperson who is the head of the governing body. To be a member of the board, you must be a residents of the area covered. Board members are to be representative of “interested groups of the community such as local health planning agencies, hospital boards, lay associations concerned with mental health, developmental disabilities and substance abuse, as well as the general public.” However, “no member” can be an “employee or any other individual receiving compensation from any facility or service operating under contract to the board.” As outlines in the statutes, 708 board members have significant responsibilities and latitude. By statute boards consist of seven members with the option of appointing two additional members. “If a successful referendum is held, all members shall be appointed within 60 days of the referendum.” How is a community mental health board funded? Once a referendum has been approved by the voters of the governing body, a levy for the community mental health board is included in the property tax assessment. The maximum amount of money the board can levy per the statute is 0.15%. Typically, this levy is the primary funding mechanism, however, in addition to the levy, several other options are available for funding. They include gifts and grants from private sources and other federal, state and local funds consistent with the board’s mission. In addition, the board may organize a “not for profit corporation for the purpose of raising money to be distributed by the board” for providing services. What would it cost to the taxpayers? The maximum amount that could be levied is 0.15% of the assessed value of your property. Assessed Value is generally 1/3 the amount of the fair market value of a home. You can find the Net Taxable Value of your home on your tax bill. Then is has a breakdown here that you can see. This first example they have, it would be $21.00 of additional tax services for a $1,000,000 home. You heard the man today who had $16.00 a year. If we were to levy the entire max, the referendum says it because that’s what the state statute provides, that does not mean what this Board would decide as a levy. The max would be $90.00 for a $100,000 assess, so that would be a $300,000 house at the maximum. There’s a lot of information in here. Two other things I will point out, under Illinois law, the maximum property tax rate increase for the board is .15 percent of the property’s currently assessed value. The actual rate is significantly less based on the community needs, but never more than .15%. The Bloomingdale township board assessed .0214% in 2019 or $21.00 on a $300,000 home. There was also stuff put in there that talked about the savings of our county. For every dollar invested (inaudible) for depression and anxiety leads to a $4.00 return in better health and ability to work. Which means our businesses would also be prospering under this. There are several examples on here. Every $4.00 in health care costs and $7.00 in law enforcement and other criminal justice causes are saved. I really would have hoped you guys would have read this stuff in the packet and gone through this. This is bipartisan support. There were Republicans who came and presented this at our Board. My concern is that this postponement as heard by the members today, is not to postpone to understand this better and vote for this for their constituents, it’s to kill it. This is a dirty tactic.
Member Van Duyne stated my intentions were, since I did not speak on this matter, I was waiting for my turn, I would like to call the question. Thank you.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated this is to postpone this resolution.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [11 TO 13]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) SECONDER: Steve Balich, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Ogalla, Moustis, Mitchell, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Berkowicz, Pretzel, Weigel NAYS: Newquist, Koch, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Cowan, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Moustis stated I did see the numbers. I don’t know if it’s actually in resolution form the way it should be. I would like to see it all in one resolution. I don’t know if that’s what I’m seeing here. I would like to make a motion to amend the motion that the amount of the levy does not exceed .05.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we now have a motion to amend the levy not to exceed .05 moved by Member Moustis, seconded by Member Ogalla.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated the statute allows you to levy up to that amount. You can levy a lesser amount. You would just change it from the .15 to .05 is what you would be changing it to.
Member Moustis stated not to exceed .05 and the only thing I’ll say is if the numbers you are providing are correct, and it’s $150.00, but I actually think it’s more than that, but if it’s $150.00 on a $300,000 house, this would bring it down to basically $50.00. Which I think is still a pretty good amount. It will be in the millions of dollars, for sure, so I think that would be more appropriate. We do not need to tax to the max all the time. I think it’s a good way of getting started if the voters want to bring this forward.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we have a motion and a second. We’re going to have discussion just on the .05 percent amendment.
Member Traynere stated if that is what the resolution says and that’s what the voter’s pass, I assume then that it would take another resolution to move it up to the full amount that currently the state has written into the process. We would have to do another referendum if we started to run out of funding, is what I’m saying.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated you would have to pass another referendum to increase it.
Member Balich stated .05 to me is no good either. Hopelessness is probably one of the biggest causes of suicide. Money is one of the biggest causes of hopelessness. So, when we’re talking about mental health, even a tax of $10.00 right now for a lot of people is devastating. I would be voting for the .05 because it looks like the other garbage is going to pass and this is better than that, but I don’t understand why we’re doing it at all. We create a crisis by something and then we vote to do something to fix the crisis we created. It doesn’t make sense. Think about the people in your district that can’t afford .05. The people in your district that don’t want to spend an extra dollar for something because they’re stretched so bad with money now. The other side of the aisle, which I’m not trying to be political about it, but one side of the aisle says we don’t really care. We don’t care about hopelessness of people because we think everybody’s got a lot of money. That’s what you guys are saying. I’m sorry but I have to vote with Member Moustis on it, but I sure don’t like it. I think the whole thing is wrong.
Speaker Cowan stated Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe I wanted to ask for clarification on the process. If we passed the referendum with .15…let’s say the referendum passed through the voters and the voters said yes we approve up to .15. Would we then at County Board have to come back and decide what level up to and including but under .15 to tax that?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated it would authorize you to levy to .15%, so you could levy something less than that.
Speaker Cowan stated let’s say then we decided to levy .015, in a year from that could we then say this is working really well we would like to levy more, or we would like to levy less, or would that have to go back to a full referendum again?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I apologize, I am not sure of the answer because in Truth in Taxation, once you set a levy you are limited as to how much you can increase it. I am not sure if this particular legislation is subject to Truth in Taxation. The legislature has passed some that have taken certain levies outside the Truth in Taxation, but typically it would be. Most levies are under the Truth in Taxation. I am not sure what the numbers would be, so you might be able to raise it some, but you would be limited as to how much you can raise it.
Speaker Cowan stated so if we put a referendum on the ballot for .15%, if that passes, we’re not necessarily doing .15%, we would be coming back to the Board to decide what level under that?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated correct.
Member Weigel stated my insurance company says my house is worth $400,000. At .15% that would cost me $200.00 a year in increased taxes. At .5% it would cost me $66.00 a year. I think that’s much for reasonable. Thank you.
Member Ventura stated my question is to Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe as well. I don’t necessarily have a problem with setting at the .05%. My question is more about the legality of it all. My understanding was that the reason we had to choose this wording of not to exceed .15% is because that is what the state is telling us to have the wording. Is there a way to add to that? Are you sure you can change it to .05% or should we add to it under the referendum language that says not to exceed .05% for the county? My understanding is that we set that after the referendum passes if it passes. We don’t even know if the referendum will pass.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated you can change the number and then when the voters pass it, then you are limited to that amount, versus if the voters were to pass .15% then there’s more latitude for the County Board to decide to go over the .05%. I just wanted to make sure we didn’t somehow mess up the referendum by lowering that. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that. We need a dedicated funding source and if future boards want to increase it, they can do the referendum, then. It’s up to the Board if you guys want the .05% or the .15%. The reason I put .15% there is because it was my understanding that based on the state statute that’s what had to be put in there.
Member Fritz stated this is going to throw a total monkey wrench into it if I am correct. I believe that once this Board is created, I think we are going to lose all of our authority to pick a number. I think it would be the new Board that would determine the exact levy because we’re creating a new taxing body. Every taxing body sets its own levy to my understanding. I’m also looking forward to legal clarification on that question.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated she’s asking if this group becomes their own taxing body. Do they become their own taxing body?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated the County Board would still pass the levy, but they would have control over the funds that come in. It’s more like the Board of Health.
Member Ogalla stated I think it’s so obvious by the questions that are coming out here. There’s a reason why this should have been postponed. These questions should be clear in all of our minds as to the cost of putting it on the ballot as a referendum. There’s a cost to that. There’s a cost to all these things, we should have had all these questions done before today. Before you’re asking for us to vote on it, we asked to postpone or now Member Moustis is asking to lower the amount because we didn’t have the opportunity in a full committee with all of us to ask these questions. That is an unfair thing to ask and bring it forward in the manner in which it is done today.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated at this time, we have a motion and a second to limit the levy to .05%. We are voting on if this goes to referendum, the amount that will be put on the ballot will levy at .05%. The County Board can not exceed .05%. If this passes, we will vote on the original resolution as amended with the .05.
| RESULT: APPROVED [20 TO 4]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Weigel, Freeman NAYS: Mitchell, Fritz, Gould, Pretzel ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Ogalla stated I chaired the Public Health & Safety Committee for four years. Prior to that I was on it for two years. During that time, I had the Executive Director of the Health Department come forward and bring up all the different things that the Heath Department does provide. It is possible that many people don’t understand all the things that the Health Department provides. I would like two things to happen. One, I would like Ms. Susan Olenek to come forward and add some additional things she didn’t get to put out the first time because she was limited to three minutes, and I have a couple of questions I would also like to ask. Ms. Susan Olenek, while I understand that the Health Department provides these mental health services. I know there were a couple of things that weren’t explained, or you didn’t have the opportunity to speak about. Could you please bring those forward now?
Ms. Susan Olenek stated I want to be clear; I’ve talked about wearing my public health hat here all the time. I am not opposed at all to additional services coming into the county, no doubt we need them. But I am concerned about funding being taken away from the Health Department. We strive very hard to provide good services. We have a large gamete of services. There are very, very few local health departments in Illinois and across the nation that provide behavioral health/mental health services. For those to provide the amount and number of services that we provide, it’s unusual. We have many people that come working at the Health Department that say, “You provide behavioral health services?” Yes, we do. We need more services in the community, but I worry about a duplication of services that would affect our funding, that would affect our billing. There was a point in time where we would receive what was called capacity grants. Member Moustis brought up the whole grant situation after I spoke. We don’t receive capacity grants anymore. That means that the state or the DMH, somebody would throw money at us. They would throw us $600,000 and would say do this program. We would do it to the best of our ability and spend that money the way we could to provide those services. That’s no longer. There aren’t capacity grants anymore. Even with grants there are certain deliverables. There are specific things we have to do. We have to bill our services against the grant. We have to also build our services against medicade or medicare or private insurance. So, there is no more of them just throwing money at us and see what you can do with it. That’s not the way it is anymore. If we have another entity within the county that’s providing a service that we provide that we bill for and they’re competing with our services, that will affect our revenue. I would encourage you all and constituents to find out more about mental health and behavioral services that are provided in this county. Speaker Cowan mentioned this came from a constituent. I don’t even know if the constituent knew that Health Department provided mental health services. I would recommend that everybody educate themselves on who does what and how many services are out there and where they are. The Health Department is not the only one who provides behavioral and mental health services. There are a lot of other agencies out there. So, a little bit of education is always a good thing.
Member Ogalla stated one of the other things I wanted to ask was, I think we need to have this answered. What is the cost to put the referendum on the ballot?
County Clerk Staley Ferry stated the cost for my office is just to publish it in the newspaper, which can range from $40 to around $200. But for anybody that wants to put that question on the ballot they would need to advise their attorney or whatever those costs would be. The Clerk’s office doesn’t give legal advice so it would be on whoever wants to put those questions on the ballot.
Member Ogalla stated Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe can you answer the question what is the cost to the county to put it on the ballot?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated you’re not allowed to either promote or work against it using county funds, so that would be zero. The cost would be whatever the County Clerk has and she has said it’s publication. I don’t know if there’s a cost for programming if they have to program in one more question whether that’s a set fee, I don’t know of any other costs. The county would want to get facts out there without either promoting or working against it. You can issue facts about the impact of the referendum.
Member Ogalla stated which I assume we would want to do because it would be fair to let the people know why the question is on the ballot. I just want to say the fact that I think it is inappropriate that we did not have this conversation anywhere prior to today except for at a specific committee that everyone does not attend. This is a referendum that we should all be discussing in a full meeting with all of our questions answered prior to coming to County Board. We should know coming into a County Board meeting whether we are going not support something or not support something and all of our questions should be answered. This was done in a very political fashion to get it done and get it passed right away without answering questions. We may have been worried about it, but we didn’t have any questions answered to us. This wasn’t discussed even at leadership. If somebody doesn’t think that that’s wrong? I think it is wrong. It’s a disservice.
Member Pretzel stated if my house needs a new roof and I don’t have enough money in the bank, I have to make some cuts. I don’t go to my neighbors and say, “Give me some money so I can fix my roof.” I hear things like it’s only $200 a year or a month, and $10 for the gas tax and $300 for this tax. “It’s only” I keep hearing that. To me it’s like there’s a small fire in my kitchen or a little water in my basement. There’s a bigger problem here. The problem is we’re not living within our means. I’m not opposed to doing more for mental health, everybody in my caucus would agree that we could do more, but we have to live within our means. We can’t keep going back to the taxpayers every time we want something and ask them to foot the bill. Thank you.
Member Mitchell stated I do care about young people who want to commit suicide, and I do care about mental health and drug addiction. Member Ventura said that the waters were muddied, yes, they are muddied because it seems like if we don’t vote yes for this then we obviously don’t want good mental health and we don’t want to prevent suicides…that is far from the truth. We would like to give funds to those things that are already in place and not levy a new tax for it. It’s bad enough if we raise the tax, now we’re adding a tax. This is like a slap in the face to our taxpayers. I spent $99 to fill up a Honda. So, we’re going to go to our taxpayers in November and say, “Would you like to increase your taxes on top of the price of a dozen eggs?” It’s like you don’t care, you’re deaf. You’re not hearing what we’re trying to put out here. I just don’t understand why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don’t even want to hear it. You don’t feel that? You said you live in a community with $100,000 homes and they’re not doing well and not financially well off. You live in that kind of community and that’s what you want to do? Do you think that somebody that have to spend an extra $2-3 for eggs wants to spend any extra money? The property taxes went up, that’s a shame, especially for people on a fixed income. I’m young enough that I have the ability to go out and get a second, third or fourth job, but what about the 80-year-olds who can’t do that? You think they can afford another $10? Nothing in your heart that says this isn’t, okay?
Member Ventura stated I want to clarify for the record some questions for Ms. Susan Olenek. I think we can all agree that the value and services at the Health Department are invaluable, and I would hope that there would be dedication from every member in this room to fund your services. I am a little concerned with the comments I’m hearing but I understand your concerns. In committee we discussed some of that, but we also discussed that the state statute limits the ability of duplicate services.
Ms. Susan Olenek stated that was discussed but I don’t know if it’s ever enforced.
Member Ventura stated in committee we also talked about the gaps in services that exist already can you tell us a little bit about that?
Ms. Susan Olenek stated yes, there are some gaps in services. One is the living room set up where you have a building, a site, where individuals who need to talk to somebody, maybe they’re not all the way in crisis but are feeling like they need to speak to somebody, they would go there and be assessed. Then they would speak to a clinician and kind of deescalate their situation and be assessed before they leave and then they would leave. That might prevent somebody going out and doing drugs or going out and causing harm to somebody else. That is something we don’t have in Will County. The other thing is we do need more residential hospital beds. When the state closed the Tinley Park mental health hospital, it left a huge hole. We still see the effects of that hole. Another thing that, from my understanding, that 708 boards can do is bring in services for those with development disabilities. The Health Department does not have any specific program for developmental disabilities although those services are in the county like Easter Seals and I’m sure there’s others. I don’t recall if there was anything else, but I recall seeing those things.
Member Ventura stated the last question that I have is, in committee we also discussed this, but you are aware that the Health Department can also receive the funds from this levy. Is that correct?
Ms. Susan Olenek stated yes, I understand that.
Member Ventura stated for those reasons that Ms. Susan Olenek just mentioned, I encourage board member to vote “yes” on this. It gives the option to the voters. If they want this, they can vote “yes” on the referendum and they don’t, they can vote “no.” This is only saying the county values mental health and we’re giving the option to the voters. Thank you.
Member Parker stated listening to not Ms. Susan Olenek’s comments, if this referendum goes on the ballot and it passes, does it have to go to a 708 board?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated you have to create a board within 60 days and the money has to (inaudible).
Member Berkowicz stated I ask specific questions and one of the biggest concerns I have is that we are literally taking another county’s plan and their numbers and their figures and their rhetoric and we’re pushing this forward. There’s no plan or no thoughtful conversation regarding Will County. Will County is not DuPage County. We have unique characteristics. We have unique challenges. We have similar challenges, but I don’t see a Will County plan here. I see a compressed League of Woman Voters, Downers Grove, Lisle, Woodridge, 708 study report. To me, that’s a bit lazy. After listening to the Director of our Will County Health Department, which, having had a family experience this year, I appreciate the professionalism their service all around. I don’t feel that we’re listening or weighing the impact of the advice she’s given us. I am concerned about that. I want to be able to have the time to listen to her concerns and her recommendations. The last thing that I’m going to say is that, like the motor fuel tax, and the legalization of cannabis, we went out and we provided town halls to our residents and I’m sure there was a cost to that. That’s a part of the process if this passes today that I’m going to request that we have again for this particular item because we need to get this out to the public. We can’t just have them walk into the booth on election day and say what is this. Thank you very much.
Member Moustis stated budgeting and taxation is all about priorities. Ms. Susan Olenek mentioned earlier that we increase her levy and I supported that, and I actually think that I spearheaded that levy at the time because I could see a real need. What that means is readjusting the priorities of the county. If we increase the Health Department levy, that affects the other levies because we’re still capped for the total. But it certainly demonstrates priorities. This Board has the ability to do that. We’re entering the budget processing period, along with that comes the levy. If we feel that it’s that important, and I think it is that important, then change the levy to the Health Department and let them provide the services. You don’t need to raise more taxes; you just need to reprioritize what we already have. By the way, I think the revenue increases are going to be very substantial, and I might also add, as Member Fricilone said, we have all this ARPA money, and certainly, even though it’s a temporary, make the Health Department and how they provide services in the mental health area. We don’t need to redo the wheel, folks. Let’s set the priorities of what we have. I personally am going to vote “no,” but I don’t think we need additional resources, we have them. You just need to set the priorities for the county.
Member Traynere stated we have the ARPA funds, you’re right. We’ve been sitting on them for a year and a half. They haven’t gotten out to the community and we’re seeing more and more deaths each and every week. By the time we get this money out there, there will be even more deaths. Mental health is not something you fix like paving a road. It takes a long time, just like the intersection of Weber and Interstate 55. Fourteen years I have been on this Board, and it’s not done yet. If, in fact November comes and they pass this it’s going to take a long time to put this Board together. It's going to take some time to make decisions. Then we’re going to have to wait for the next levy because clearly, we will have missed that levy. We’re talking about money that’s not coming for several years, if at all. Maybe in your world maybe by then because of the ARPA funds won’t need it and then we won’t need to levy. We’re not even giving ourselves the opportunity, and we’re trying to shut down the voice of the very people that we claim to represent.
Member Ogalla stated I always do want to represent the voice of the people. In the past we have seen things such as the gas tax come forward. I attended many of the gas tax forums that were around the county and people loudly said no don’t do it and we taxed them. The cannabis tax…I was opposed to the legalization of cannabis because of personal experiences within my life. But then we want to provide a safe source for people who do choose to use cannabis. What do we do? We tax them. That makes it more expensive, so what do they do? They go out and buy it off the street rather than paying more then they were currently paying. Those things happen. Here’s a question…is this mental health board a paid board? So again, another question that could have been answered before today. It’s ridiculous to insinuate the members in our caucus haven’t read our packet because we have questions. We have questions that need to be out there. The public has the right to hear our questions, the media has the right to report on these questions, and we have the right to have it recorded in a meeting somewhere so people have some understanding of what we’re talking about. All we’re asking for is fairness here. This is an unfair process that is being pushed through by the majority caucus. This is something that is continued since you guys got majority. We hadn’t done that on our side prior. You weren’t here, you don’t know it. Please stop telling us what we should do. We’re all adults, we all know what to do to be a good board member. Is this a paid board?
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated it is not. Right now, we have a motion and a second to certify the question of levying a tax for a community mental health as amended with a .05 limit.
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [13 TO 11]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Koch, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Mueller, VanDuyne, Brooks Jr., Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Cowan, Freeman NAYS: Ogalla, Moustis, Mitchell, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Berkowicz, Pretzel, Weigel ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 0]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis AWAY: Ogalla |
XIX. LEGISLATIVE & JUDICIAL COMMITTEE - D. WINFREY ,CHAIR
Member Coleman stated we did not have a meeting this month.
Next Legislative & Judicial Committee Meeting is Scheduled for July 12, 2022 @ 9:00 a.m.
XX. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE - H. BROOKS, CHAIR
Member Brooks stated I have no resolutions to bring forth.
Member Fricilone stated I just want to find out for everybody here, where are we at on the bid for the asbestos abatement. Is it out? Is it coming back? Did we get it? What are we at? At the last meeting we were told it was going out.
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated if I remember correctly at the Capital Improvements meeting, I think it was the 17th for the bid packages to come back to us. (Inaudible).
1. Update on Capital Improvement Projects
Next Capital Improvements Committee Meeting is Scheduled for July 5, 2022 @ 10:00 a.m.
XXI. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - M. COWAN, CHAIR
Tabled at May 19, 2022 County Board Meeting
22-133 - Motion to Remove Table
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Fricilone stated I am going to ask about this since we just got this yesterday with the final numbers in there since we weren’t involved on the negotiations on this, on the numbers for the budget. I’m looking at the budget right now and what’s kind of concerning me is I understand their labor quote, a million eighty-three for running the place. I get that. When it comes to the second part where subcontractors and I see that there is a ten percent markup, and that’s pretty normal in the industry. But to have a five or ten percent contingency on top of the numbers. They’re giving us a budget. Are they saying this is a hard and fast budget, they’re not going to go below these numbers, so they have to put a contingency on top of it? Wouldn’t the contingency have been in the numbers for the first year? Belts, gauges, and fittings, okay…miscellaneous supplies $50,000? But then we’re going to put a five or 10 percent contingency on that? It seems like they’ve got their butt covered in every way to Sunday on this. It just seems like there’s a little ups and extras in this. Have they said anything about how realistic they think these numbers are?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated Ms. Jane Montgomery did you hear the question from County Board Member Fricilone?
Ms. Jane Montgomery stated the contingency would not be spent if there was no need for it. Because there aren’t a lot of pricing variations at the moment that have caused a lot of difficulty in getting firm pricing on some of these items. There’s a lot of competition from the oil and gas industry for these exact same products and a lot of them are coming from overseas so there are supply chain difficulties. The prices are as firm as SCS can make them. We will be reimbursing SCS for direct cost with a 10 percent markup, whatever those are. The contingency is just so if they do end up costing more, you are aware they are potentially going to cost more than is listed in the budget. How comfortable are they with the numbers they are giving us or are they raising the numbers they’re giving us in the budget and then putting the contingency on top of that? When you have $20,000 for travel cost, who the heck is travelling? Where are they going back and forth to the bathroom? I don’t understand. It’s like they’re adding extra numbers just in case.
Ms. Jane Montgomery stated the company’s headquarters is in Virginia and they have people out in California, so there are some people who may end up travelling in terms of the design if any issues come up. All of the costs in the reimbursables, if spent, they are not commitments to spend those dollars, it’s if those dollars are spent.
Member Fricilone stated but this isn’t a not to exceed number, is it? Ms. Jane Montgomery stated no it is not to exceed.
Member Fricilone stated so even though they have a contingency on there, if all of the sudden they say we’re $100,000 or more over, they can hit us for another $100,000?
Ms. Jane Montgomery stated we have to operate the plant with the equipment that is needed and SCS has to provide an invoice for every expenditure.
Member Moustis stated I guess my question is basically identifying funding for this contract. I understand that eventually it comes from the operational revenue. I don’t know how long it’s going to take us to actually recognize or see this revenue, but in the interim, how’s the operational cost going to be paid because I don’t believe they can be paid out of bond funds. Have we identified the funding?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated Member Moustis that’s a great question. We’ve been in conversation with leadership about this and what we’re looking at is essentially identify funds to float this for about six months operationally with the assumption that after six months of operation we should have revenue coming in. Obviously, it’s a projection, but that’s what we’re in conversation about right now.
Member Moustis stated then I assume you’ll bring that back to Finance Committee for review?
Mr. Mitch Schaben stated yes absolutely. Just to clarify, having this set helps that conversation.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: OPENED [23 TO 0]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis AWAY: Brooks Jr. |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort) SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Sherry Newquist, District 1 (D - Steger) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mica Freeman, District 13 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura,Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mica Freeman, District 13 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Mica Freeman, District 13 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Speaker Cowan stated leadership met with the Executive’s Office and our consultants yesterday and we agree that we needed some more work on the remaining unmet needs, specifically the park district stuff. They’re going to come back to us with some more information and we’ll be bringing this back to Executive Committee on July 7th.
Member Moustis stated I know I’ll have the opportunity to do this at the Executive Committee, but I would like us to consider the special rec districts for some funding, which basically help the recreation for people with disabilities of all types. Park districts are supposed to be funding them. Municipalities are supposed to be funding their park districts, but I’m going to say this: the park districts or rec districts were obligated by federal law to set up programming for people with disabilities. They felt, in general, they couldn’t deliver that. They were going to be mandated by the federal government to do so. So, they created these rec districts that they were supposed to fund. In reality, they don’t really fund them. These special rec districts are going out and raising their own money, having fundraisers all the time to try to keep their operations going. Member Fricilone has talked to me about this, and we basically have three special rec districts within Will County and there could be a fourth. There’s two in their entirety and one partially in Will County. They should be considered. If we can’t help fund people with disabilities, these programs are so important, why should they, unlike park districts, have to go out and raise their own money? I think they should be considered, and I think they’re extremely important to our communities. I’m hoping they can be considered. I’m hoping to have this discussion, but I’d like to see Anser come back with a number that we may consider. Executive Bertino-Tarrant, I know you’re working with them, so when they come to the Executive Committee, perhaps they can suggest a funding consideration for special rec and what that might be.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated just so you’re aware, leadership is making the parameters for this, and Member Fricilone has brought it up too.
Member Moustis stated you should suggest it to Anser before they come to the next Executive Committee meeting so they’re prepared and maybe suggest a number and exactly how many special rec districts may be considered.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated I think that is the message that was taken away from our meeting yesterday.
Member Traynere stated I had presentations at my local rotary about the special rec districts and I do think it would be helpful. I believe the Bolingbrook Park District contributes a small amount and they do spend a lot of time raising funds. That was one of the things that I liked about this referendum that we approved this morning, was that they would be able to assist people with disabilities as well as folks with mental health issues. I didn’t realize that group wasn’t on our list, so good to hear that somebody else was thinking the same thing.
| RESULT: REMANDED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 7/7/2022 10:00 AM TO: Will County Executive Committee
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Member Fritz stated I just wanted to point out that this resolution is incorrect. This is not a replacement hire; this is a new hire. I wanted to get that corrected and point that out.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated for the Volunteer Coordinator?
Member Fritz stated yes. In the resolution it says it’s a replacement hire but in the background information on the form that was filled out “new position” is checked.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated the position was there, we’re just hiring a new person for it. That’s why they put it as a replacement if it’s not a brand-new added position we have to the county.
Member Fritz stated what I’m saying is that the resolution and background information don’t match so that should be resolved.
Member Moustis stated my question would be we already had a person doing the volunteer coordination function, and I assume it was a paid position, and now we’ve just retitled the position, but the function stays the same of the position.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated it’s not new funding to a new position.
Ms. Allison Anderson stated earlier this year we had two resignations, one was Mr. Harold Damron and the other was Maria, who left just a few weeks before Harold. This position would be replacing one of those headcounts. The position itself is a new title but the headcount is still within our operating budget.
Member Moustis stated so you have the funding from another position, but you’ve created a new position. I think that Executive Bertino-Tarrant, is a new position, and I understand we’re not asking for funding. People leave, people retire, but it’s been funded. So now you’re going to reallocate that funding for a new position. We had a practice for a long time that if the position wasn’t filled the funding went away. You can create new positions, but it can impact budgeting down the road. Just because you have the funding, doesn’t mean we should be hiring any new positions. I would like to see some justification for the position.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated I rely on my department heads to lead these discussions and what they need. We did not have a volunteer coordinator before, so that woman did have that title but she…
Ms. Allison Anderson stated the tasks were being performed by Maria, however, because we have such a large volunteer base, it does consume quite a lot of time, so her primary responsibility of planning for emergencies were kind of pushed to the side. We felt that the benefit would be to our volunteers and to our agency and our community to separate those two individually, so having someone focus solely on our volunteers because it is such a large volunteer base. That’s why we decided to separate that function.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated let me clarify. When someone asks, we have these conversations. A Director will come to us and say someone has left. This responsibility has not been filled; I would like for someone to focus completely on this responsibility. The first question I always ask is it a position that we are asking for additional funding. The answer was no. It is a current position, and they are just reallocating the role. By HR standards we have to follow their direction of what is in our collective bargaining. Whether we’re asking for a completely new position that’s new or if we’re just replacing an individual and changing the title it is my understanding is that’s the title of it just based on what we have done in the past. If you want to change how that is presented to the Board, it’s not a new position, we’re not asking for additional funding. It was an existing role somewhere else, we’re just reallocating someone else’s responsibility.
Member Gould stated for greater certainty for the future, so the person who will resign, what was their title?
Ms. Allison Anderson stated her title was Planning Officer.
Member Gould stated and this person is going to be Volunteer Coordinator? Ms. Allison Anderson stated yes.
Member Gould stated so then what happens to the Planning Officer? That’s eliminated then?
Ms. Allison Anderson stated we posted for that one too recently.
Member Gould stated so it is a new position. So, it’s an increase of one. It would have been easier and more transparent if it was laid out for the Board. Then everyone on the Board would know what’s going on.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated what she is saying is that she replaced Mr. Harold Damron, but we didn’t replace her. It’s like when any new Director comes in. They are reallocating what they want their staff to do, how they can be better utilized and that is what Allison did.
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated the concern is that the resolution was not properly titled. It says it is a replacement hire and it appears that it is a new hire. What you’re looking to do is reconsider the vote to approve a replacement hire, which it is not. Then, if you decide to rescind it, you will amend this resolution to say that it is a new hire for an EMA Volunteer Coordinator so that it’s clearly an authorized new hire. You passed it as a replacement but it’s not a replacement, so you didn’t approve what she really wants.
Member Fritz stated I was going to propose a much simpler fix for this. Ms. Allison Anderson already clarified that the money is in the budget. It’s really a scrivener’s error. Can’t we do it as a scrivener’s error?
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated I’m not sure when people voted they understood it as a scrivener’s error. They saw this as a replacement hire. It’s a different concept. You voted to pass this but there was a misunderstanding to whether it was a new hire or replacement hire. We’re just trying to fix it so it’s clear that this is a new hire. In order to fix it you have to reconsider the previous vote, then you would vote to amend the resolution, if you so choose, to say a new hire for EMA, and then vote to pass it as amended.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated we have a motion to reconsider on the table, do we have a second? Previous roll, the motion to reconsider carries. Now we need a motion to amend, previous roll call, motion carries. At this time, I need a motion to approved as amended. Motion carries.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Amanda Koch, District 2 (D - Frankfort) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Saud Gazanfer, District 4 (D - Bolingbrook) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Assistant State’s Attorney Tatroe stated under your rules you have to set your agenda at least seven days before the County Board meeting. Because you are moving the date next month for NACo, you will only have six days. You are suspending the rules to allow setting of the agenda with less time than you normally would.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, District 1 (R - Monee) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
XXII. APPOINTMENTS BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Member Parker stated I am just wondering about the Sunnyland appointments. I can’t click on it and open it up, can anyone else?
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated I know there have been no changes. It’s still the existing people.
1. Executive Appointment(s)
| RESULT: APPROVED [23 TO 1]
MOVER: Mimi Cowan, Speaker, District 11 (D - Naperville) SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, District 10 (D - Joliet) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman NAYS: Ventura ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
Ms. Ashlee Anderson expressed concern over the recent hiring of two shift supervisors at the Laraway Communications 911 Center.
XXIV. COMMENTS BY COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS
Member Ventura stated I have three quick comments. The first is congratulations to our Land Use Department for their energy conservation award. Brianna and Christina worked very hard to engage stakeholders, many of whom are on this Board, before the County Board passed this. It is a huge congratulations to our staff. The second thing..the RFP on the housing and ask that we get an update on where we stand on that. More than an update, action on it. The last thing I have is happy Father’s Day this Sunday and happy Juneteenth to everyone. There are several events happening in the county, so I encourage everyone to check it out, including the one the speaker just spoke on. Thank you.
Member Fritz stated we started this session with a moment of silence which was dedicated to victims of gun violence. I’m constantly frustrated, somewhat mystified, why we talk about gun violence. Guns don’t commit violence, people commit violence. Are we going to talk about water violence? The father who drowned his three children in Round Lake Beach last week. Are we going to talk about hatchet violence like we had in Naperville the other day? I ask and pray that concerned people will focus on the evil and the hate and the hearts of those who commit violence, instead of focusing on a particular weapon being used. It’s just violence. Thank you.
Member Pretzel stated how about those gas prices? In Will County motor fuel tax is an additional burden on the residents of Will County. I am going to continue to bring it up at every meeting until we can at least have a discussion about repealing the tax. There’s a resolution out there. I can’t believe that we’re not even open to looking at that resolution. I’m asking that it be assigned to an agenda. Thank you.
Member Balich stated I agree with Member Fritz. I just wanted to publicly thank the South Suburban Black Chamber of Commerce. They represent Cook and Will County for nominating me as most outstanding County Board member.
Executive Bertino-Tarrant stated congratulations.
Member Mitchell stated that’s because you’re outstanding, Member Balich. I would like to also acknowledge Juneteenth. I’ve been involved with Bolingbrook’s Juneteenth committee since…I look back and it’s been eight years. For a lot of people who don’t know, Juneteenth started in 1865 when Abraham Lincoln, after the Civil War, sent a member of his army to Texas to say you’re free. They didn’t know they were free. It used to be a Texas thing or something that was done in the south but hadn’t spread. We opened this up to the north to celebrate the same thing and we’ve been doing it and it’s been a great time. We’ve had some elected officials involved and they’ve happily given to the Bolingbrook Juneteenth event which will be happening this Saturday, at noon at the Roger Claar Preforming Arts Center. I invite all of you to join, it’s a really great time, especially when the sun goes down and the band starts playing. It’s nothing but fun. Please join us in celebrating freedom. This is just another part of our American History and I invite you all. Thank you.
Member Ogalla stated I have three things I would like to discuss. One is next Friday, June 24th at 8:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m., the Chicago Wilderness is offering a special tour of innovative conservation agriculture practices taking place in Will County. We will meet at the Monee Reservoir and travel by bus to (inaudible) organic and conventional farms around the county, committed to sustainable and regenerative farming practices and food production. I encourage all of you to sign up for that, tickets are $10.00. The other event I would like to tell you about is in a little over two weeks from now, on Wednesday, June 29 the South Cook Soil and Water Conservation district is having their annual recognition dinner. This is recognizing the Gorman Farm Fresh Produce as winners of the conservation family farm of the year winners. That will be held at 1201 South Gouger Road in New Lenox. For those of you who are like me, there will be a margarita truck so come on down and let’s enjoy a couple of drinks. Now there’s something really serious I’d like to talk about. Since I’ve been elected as a Board Member I’ve talked about the Peotone Airport, that there is no need for it and the airlines have not supported it. Our elected officials and the south suburban mayors and managers have pushed forward for this for many years. We’ve recently talked about a new interchange that was proposed off of I-57 and Eagle Lake Road. I have continuously brought forward, and our state legislative agenda also identifies the fact that both the Monee-Manhattan interchange, as well as the Peotone-Wilmington interchange both have severe safety issues concerned with them and both need to be improved. We had asked that this money be spent on that rather than new interchanges. It’s terrible that, as Board members, we know what we need here in Will County and that the state is not hearing our words and yet moving forward with their mission to build an airport that has been talked about since 1968. I’m upset with that. I think the residents in eastern Will County are upset with that and you have a conversation with your legislator, please have a conversation to say safety issues are huge at both those intersections that exist today. We should redirect those funds and put them where they belong. Thank you.
XXV. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAJORITY LEADER, MINORITY LEADER AND COUNTY BOARD SPEAKER
Member Fricilone stated last month we approved the zoning for the ECS facility, and I started an envelope for us to make a donation, I know we’re always here spending our constituent’s money, if you want to spend some of your own money you can donate. The envelope will close up at the end of this month and then we’ll make an appropriate donation from whatever we get in the envelope. Thank you.
XXVI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion to go into Executive Session
Executive Session is for the purpose of collective bargaining negotiations.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Raquel M. Mitchell, District 3 (R - Bolingbrook) SECONDER: Natalie Coleman, District 10 (D - Plainfield) AYES: Newquist, Ogalla, Koch, Moustis, Mitchell, Tyson, Gazanfer, Traynere, Fritz, Mueller, Gould, VanDuyne, Balich, Fricilone, Brooks Jr., Parker, Ventura, Coleman, Marcum, Berkowicz, Cowan, Pretzel, Weigel, Freeman ABSENT: Winfrey, Kraulidis |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4319&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up