Will County Executive Committee met July 14.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Brooks led the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:15 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Absent | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Absent | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. American Rescue Plan - Attachment Added
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated we are making progress on the American Rescue Plan. The library and parks meetings were held yesterday, and I believe this afternoon. Today we are looking more at the health pillars and possibly make some decisions. You received the documents from Anser about this and you also have the PowerPoint that is being presented today. Leadership and the Executive’s Office have met with Anser and discussed the health pillar but, I want to be very clear that no final decisions have been made and that is why it is here today. We are bringing this information to you because Leadership met with Anser to discuss somethings and today is about looking at the internal health department requests seeing if we’re ready to move forward on that list and then talking about a broad overview on the rest of the pillar. Again, this is open for discussion. We’re going to look at the health department projects, and line-item requests and we will go into as much detail as the committee members would like. If we go through them and the committee members think they look good we can sign off on them, if you have questions, you can ask questions.
Mr. Burbach stated this is our opportunity for collaboration and feedback. We kind of set the initial framework for the health category and it’s also very different than what we’ve done with the other categories. Piggybacking off what we did in the May meeting where we set some of those subcategories under the sub pillars under the health category. I want to congratulate the Board and the Executive Committee on the progress made to date, it feels good to have the unmet needs pillar under our belt and moving on the health category and that’s the focus of today. I’ll go over the framework then I’ll call Ms. Olenek up to answer any questions regarding the Health Department itemized list and we’ll jump into what our 3 main sub pillars are. Yesterday we held what was very successful informational sessions with the library and park districts. We also have another round of informational sessions with the libraries and park districts today and we got a lot of feedback. The overview engagement update on the unmet needs the township received 17 applications and 5 are pending. The fire district received 25 applications and 2 are pending. The library and parks information session will be on July 13 & 14. We do have 1 complete LOI submission. On July 7, we issued the letter of intent as previously discussed on the infrastructure pillar to the townships, municipalities, water, and sanitation districts. We sent out 253 of those and we did get some bounce back on emails so, we are working through that process right now. We would like to have all the applications by the end of July. Based off a few key metrics which is impact, statistics, opportunities within the American Rescue Plan and eligibility plus additional feedback received in prime meetings. We broke up the health pillar into 4 main categories. We have tentatively about $4.5 million going to food stabilization, $13.5 million going to behavioral health, $3 million going to violence prevention. The Health Department is putting requests for roughly $7.75 million dollars which leaves us $1.25 million allocated unobligated and administration. This is based off ARPA allowing all the leases are the impacted communities are and what they can use the funds for and ensuring compliance.
Mr. Fricilone commented that leadership has not gotten the breakup on slide 3. Leadership has not vetted that. I want members to know this is just information right now. We have not talked about that other stuff and leadership would like to make some recommendations before we get in and start asking a thousand questions on these numbers.
Mr. Burbach responded to Mr. Fricilone we looked at eligibility, impact and we looked at how committee might want to spend it. I will go through the criteria of the program and that will probably help folks make more informed recommendations at the end.
Ms. Ventura commented that she would also like to advocate for behavioral health category as we see this has continued to be an issue since COVID. I don’t think the goal is only the Health Department.
Mr. Moustis commented I’ve been through the Health Department requests, and I have no problem with it; these are decent requests. Overall, I support what they are requesting, and I don’t think we need to rehash this plan line item by line item. Speaker Cowan commented consider this high level and we’ll come back to this intro-paragraph and we’re going to get the Health Department to Mr. Moustis point.
Mr. Burbach responded we want to identify who eligible applicants are -vs eligible recipients of beneficiaries. When you see non-eligible applicants like individuals that doesn’t mean the dollars aren’t going to help individuals it means that the folks coming to Will County right now as identified are eligible, 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Organizations, government agencies, and community-based groups with 501(c)(3) sponsors. Non-eligible applicants are individuals, businesses (sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLC’s, corporations, and companies or organized groups that are non-governmental) affiliated agencies or non-profit. This is the tentative framework given today for you all to discuss. I’m not going to go line item by line item, but I will highlight a few that are pertinent to the conversation today. Here is how we will base our decision for the grant and qualification on the assigned steps if selected in this process…qualification of assigned staff, sustainability of profit post grant funding, impact on communities and populations most disproportionately impacted, the availability to expend funds by Dec 31, 2024, fiscal and administrative capacity to administer funds, and other factors as deemed appropriate by the board direction. All these points and more can be found on the presentation. The next thing is the health department allocations, and we broke them up into categories. We handed out the projects list and the ARPA eligibility categories so, you can go from one sheet to the other.
Speaker Cowan stated this is the time to ask questions about these programs if you don’t understand what something is or if some point someone want to make a motion to allocate this amount of money $7,872,105.00 to the Health Department, we can entertain that.
Mrs. Mueller asked the column that says HD Priority there’s A, B, & C. What is that and please remind us of when we have to spend this money? Mr. Schaben replied 2024 and we must spend by the end of 2026.
Ms. Olenek responded to Mrs. Mueller at one point I was asked to categorize my requests so, that is what I did. That was the A, B, & C. The A was the higher priority, the B medium and C lesser priority. This was based on situation at hand, the other funding we had in place for that initiative.
Mr. Moustis asked is the Health Department making the request on behalf of the health care center or is that request coming from you or is that Board going to make their own request? What about dental care does that go through them? Ms. Olenek replied that is coming from me and yes that comes through them. We have received a couple of grants over the past couple of years that really brought our dental clinic where we want it to be. Good dental hygiene and good dental care is important for your overall health.
Ms. Ventura asked what kind of impact does this have on our budget? Meaning are these shortfalls or by funding these we’ll move our own money in the Health Department budget and do any of these increase future budgets like new positions?
Ms. Olenek answered Ms. Ventura there are a couple here where we did lose revenue in both our vision and hearing programs and in our immunization program during COVID. The staff that are in those programs are paid their salaries by grants or these fees.
Ms. Ventura asked do any of these increase the budget once ARPA dollars are spent or are we going to be expected to increase the budget to pay for those? Ms. Olenek answered it would be great, but the expectation would not be there. I realize this is one time funding and I realize if any of these items are funded, and we wanted to keep them I need to find a way to fund that. We are aggressive in seeking out grants and we do.
Mr. Moustis stated I make a motion to move forward the Health Department request for ARPA funding.
Speaker Cowan asked Mr. Moustis just to clarify was your motion to approve the number that is on this sheet.
Mr. Moustis answered correct.
Speaker Cowan stated the motion was for $7,872,125.
Ms. Sitton commented that it’s off by $112,000 but we will update that amount. Speaker Cowan stated we dabbled in the whole competitive grant space and that’s what a lot of the rest of this Health Department pillar and Economic Development pillars will be. It’s my intention with the approval of this committee that we will essentially approve the structure. What we need is a smaller group to be looking at every application that comes in along with answers so, we would have a subcommittee Ad-Hoc might include committee members. We can discuss exactly how that’s going to work. That committee will approve the projects that comes in and proposals that comes forward. They would come to this body for full approval and that would be the process.
Ms. Ventura stated can I suggestion something. I don’t know if we are making this process retroactive to some of infrastructure to perhaps but instead of having an Ad-Hoc for it have it go through the committee. If it’s health things, have it go through Public Health. If it’s infrastructure, have it gone through Capital Improvement.
Mr. Burbach stated as the committee mentioned the first thing, we have to identify is what the subpillars are. What I want to do is highlight what the applicants are going to see in terms of a program definition. If we brought back the RFP for applicants, we would be sitting here reading to you for 3 hours. Those copies will be made available but here’s the problematic overview for where we’re starting in our largest subpillar which is behavioral health. Where do you see the applicants that are in short expanding safe cultural affirming trauma in form of support? We want to have applicants that are contributing to social and emotional mental health. As part of our criteria that we are currently identifying prioritizing disproportionally people. What that means as far as in the American Rescue Plan as far as the basis for eligibility is low income. That doesn’t mean we can’t have other opportunities to influence to that in terms of but that is what the ARPA eligibility is. As far as our applicants we want them to focus on social/emotional health, positive childhood experiences, strengthening protective factors, addressing substance abuse issues, supporting domestic violence survivors, and suicide prevention. This is the framework this is being established for the behavioral health category. As far as the ARPA eligibility is concerned there is not the requirement that we focused on can be disproportionally people within Will County. For input today are we prioritizing disproportionally impacted or is it opened to all within Will County? That is one of the open action items to receive feedback as far criteria.
Mr. Moustis stated R3 areas are easier to identify. When we do setup programs how do we setup programs for people who may not live in one of those designated communities but need assistance because they are poor? Mr. Burbach responded there are a couple things we may do. That’s why we have our designated qualified census track. We can dwindle down to what our census bars what are very small puzzle pieces that add up to qualified census. We can look at it as a census block and meet 65% of the AMI of Will County. Mr. Moustis asked that the other group of people that I am concerned about are seniors who are poor. Many who are below the poverty level and may get assistance from their families and their kids help them, but I can tell you in my township where I run a significant food pantry our largest growing demographic is seniors who need food assistance. They may not live the community where they census track indicates that their poor so, can the County setup something that maybe they tell what their income and that qualify. Can we setup something like that?
Mr. Burbach replied it sound to me the recommendation of the County Program. They got their infrastructure that already exist that identify those senior populations that are in need of behavioral help. Those infrastructures are already setup by those applicants and that’s who will be making evaluations to your point.
Ms. Ventura stated my recommendation is to do a blend by using priority points. I think it’s almost impossible to say it can only be this disproportionately impacted when you’re talking about things like suicide prevention. Income does not dictate suicide prevention nor substance abuse, domestic violence, they are poor people and rich people who are impacted by that. Just by the nature of this we can’t just pigeon hold to just that. However, I think by adding priority points to it will help you rank the agencies or nonprofit agencies that who may be applying for this, but they can utilize this too.
Mr. Burbach commented we’ve used that method before and hearing that feedback, if that recommendation is good, we’ll make note and if that’s the recommendation and everyone’s good what we’ll do is use priority points for disproportionally AMI income.
Mr. Fricilone commented it doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor. There may be more suicide in the rich areas than in low-income area, so we’re going to prioritize the low-income area even if we have more suicide in the influent areas? I think we must give the money out to those organizations that do the best job at dealing with these issues. Food is another subject. These issues here should be County wide.
Speaker Cowan stated the organizations that will be applying for this kind of do that. They focus on where the services are. I would agree in behavioral health that a lot of these things as Ms. Ventura pointed out are kind of across the board as far as financial impact.
Ms. Ventura commented I think the difference in why it is disproportioned is because in rich areas there may be other resources that poor areas don’t have. This is not to cut anyone out this is to say where the lack is at. If we find that there are more resources in rich areas so, then why are they on the top of the list? I don’t want to cut anyone out in the County but saying where the people are who don’t have any of these resources and it’s not that we’re the service agency it’s who they are providing services too.
Mr. Burbach stated our focus area is going to be our Mental Behavioral Health and Substance Abuse Partners within Will County. This is going to include all folks not just low-income individuals. We want to look to support applicants that have opportunity for expansions evidence-based services for opioid use disorder, harm reduction and recovery. We want to emphasize access to behavioral health facilities as well as encourage applicants who have outreached individual educational opportunities regarding treatment and awareness. The next pillar that we have is the opportunity to invest in local programs and access services that affect violence prevention. As a County we are going to be looking at applicants that are contributing community safety and crime prevention. Address conflict resolution. All this information can be accessed in the attached document. The input that we are seeking from the Board is the criteria focusing on disproportionally impacted communities as part of the waiting criteria. Same question before you all today.
Ms. Ventura stated I make a motion to use the same priority points as before. Speaker Cowan stated if everybody’s good with what’s being presented and want to move forward with these as a package, I know we are voting on these specific things but are you essentially asking us to give you the go ahead on whole package?
Mr. Burbach replied we could go line item by line item but that’s at the discretion of the committee here. I think what we are presenting for the allocation on the slides that we will go to in the beginning of the dollar amounts, the criteria, and the consideration. Those are the 3 pages we are asking for direction on today.
Voted
Mr. Burbach continued our food stabilization pillar is a little more straightforward. We’re going to be looking for assisting food pantries and enhancing food accessibility. Food dessert alleviation programs we have proposed cash assistance for food and security, free and reduced lunch programs, and child nutrition efforts is more of a programmatic educational awareness. All those are ARPA eligible programs. Our focus areas for those are food banks, panties, and meal delivery assistant. Our school systems are not identified but they are in this category. Meals on wheels. This has to be focused on our impacted population so, in order to qualify you have to meet 65% of the County AMI. There is not much of process to go through. Our applicants will be servicing individuals. Will have to have some sort of certification saying, I am 65% AMI to be ARPA eligible. Madam Speaker if you’re comfortable I think what we can do as part of this is I can go over the next steps right now or I can close the next steps and I can go to the next slide 4. The last thing we need approval on is allocation per-pillar per service and access.
Speaker Cowan stated I feel like the committee can decide but I feel like this is the first time we’ve seen these numbers; I don’t know if everyone is ready to move forward with this as is with those 3 categories and those amounts. Mr. Burbach replied we looked at the impact that could be created in terms of saving a life and we looked at ARPA eligibility opportunities. There are a lot more ARPA eligibility within behavioral health. We also from previous meetings heard the feedback and that behavioral health from a few people was a bigger prioritization than food stabilization. One of the possible solutions is to equal out roughly about $7 million for all the categories but if you look at it from evidence based where can we spend the money, where can we get it out, where it will spend faster by the end of 2024 and 2026 these are the allocations that suited the Will County Building.
Ms. Ventura asked I’m okay starting with these numbers. I’m assuming that this is also competitive from our conversation let’s say we don’t get as much for food stabilization. At that point are we able to move the money into behavioral health? Mr. Schaben answered correct. This is authorizing us to go do the engagement and do the discovery and the information gathering and do the application receiving that says, this makes sense. For all we know one organization can put in for all one application behavioral health. That’s what we’re starting to process now. So, we can still pivot and have a living ARPA program.
Mr. Schaben stated and not the caveat too. We can go forward without having a Resolution that’s brought and considered later the actual dollar amounts. We’re not adopting anything that’s giving us direction. We don’t necessarily need approval on the dollar amount to go forward with the engagement. We can bring this to a later meeting to confirm.
Speaker Cowan commented that I think that might be preferable that we do the engagement and that kind help us gage how the buckets are structured.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne |
(Doug Pryor)
This item was discussed first under Old Business.
Mr. Pryor presented the CED overview. The goals for today are simple and I want to lay out what a revolving loan is and how it works and discuss the steps in how to set it up. A revolving loan fund is a source of money from which loans are made to small businesses as part of the development process. They are essentially a gap finance tool. The County could utilize cannabis funds to essentially be the initial funder or the first money in for a revolving loan fund. It is different from grants because it will be paid back. I believe there are significant opportunities. I’ve talked to some banks about this to leverage private dollars as well to try to achieve more. These are designed to fill small financial gaps. This loan can be very wide or targeted. There are a lot of ways this loan can be used, and you get to choose. The only real limitation is your funding source. Who and what you want to target typically directs the design and operation of the loan fund? I’m here today to discuss what these are, how they work, and what it takes to set one up. To setup a revolving loan fund is not as simple as deciding in this room and setting up the program.
Step 1 - Access community and needs.
Step 2 - Identify design criteria.
Step 3 - Review and test.
Step 4 - Create an operational plan.
Step 5 - Implementation.
All these steps are in the agenda for a better understanding. The loan review committee is typically a small group with an odd number of people is the preferred structure. You will want someone in local government, finance, an attorney, the development organization, someone from the communities that you are trying to target, but in general a small group that could look at applications as they come in and make recommendations and pass them along to the deciding bodies. So, ultimately you are providing loans and technical assistance to borrowers. The CED can help layout the process and it is a great opportunity for the County.
Speaker Cowan stated the reason I was interested in this program was because grants would be good but ultimately it was the cannabis funds. Mr. Mack indicated back in the late 90’s we did have a small business loan program partnered with the CED Program that worked with about 8/9 businesses and they were all paid out. The LDC was a revolving program. Most of the businesses did well. It was secured with private collateral so, if something went wrong, we could get our money back.
Mr. Fricilone stated my comments are then this isn’t necessarily a student grant program again, that’s a onetime thing that disappears. We want somebody that want to really invest in themselves. My thoughts are this is going to take time and they are a lot of pieces, and we don’t have data, yet. My suggestion would be that we ask the CED to do the assessment what is needed out there and then bring it back to the committee because we will have that assessment then this committee say, here the basic parameters now let’s establish a group. Whether it’s an Ad Hoc committee to say, the County Board, Executive’s kind of narrow it down now you can get more from the Board, but until we have more data just too many ideas are out there. Until we get that assessment of what’s needed then we can start putting those pieces together.
Speaker Cowan responded I agree. Mr. Pryor, do you think this is something the CED could provide?
Mr. Pryor responded I think we could. It may have to be a stand-alone survey targeted to some separate areas depending on what the overall goals are. Ms. Ventura asked is there an additional certified need to ask Countywide that you are looking for a million dollars to start this off more of less? What are you asking for?
Mr. Pryor responded how we envision the dollar amount again it’s going to ultimately be the decision of the body and it’s going to be contingent on sort of loans you want to do. For example, if you’re looking to target 20% project cost for construction loans, you’re going to need to ramp up the dollar amount because that’s going to be more significant than if you’re trying to do a startup loan or working capital loans for commercial operations within the R3 areas. But it you want to do smaller targeted start-up capital I think it could loan for $20,000.00.
Ms. Ventura commented I don’t know if we want to start jumping into working on this until there is direction of the Board. I agree we need to have an Ad-Hoc committee because there are a few things on here that should probably be worked out by a few committee members then bring it to the Board and say, okay here is what we like to see, and this is what we want for them. Unless we have already decided that our dollars are already going to go there, because I would hate to waste anyone’s time. I think this is a great program. I don’t want to see grants. What is the goal and is it going to be job creation? Is it going to strengthen the wealth gap? Is it going to community economic building by location? Such as targeting low-income areas. Those are some big goals the Ad Hoc Committee can look at and that would narrow this down substantially. I like the art thing, I like the minority women, but as well putting a profit cap on here.
There are a lot of parameters I would like to see regarding this loan. Mrs. Mueller stated I really like this idea. For me the priority is helping folks in the R3 communities, priority wise. I would also like to see some feedback. Mr. Moustis commented I have been around, and these are very difficult to run and very difficult to run successfully for several reasons. What are the cons? My recollection on programs like this is we never got a penny back. They may have going 2 to 3 years. This is really a difficult program.
Mr. Pryor commented to Mr. Moustis’ point it is difficult to stand on. That’s why I came here today not for the program but rather the steps because this is something that is difficult to stand up and it’s difficult to offer it really does take commitment. In terms of bank participation what I will say is banks and other lending institutions are very interested in investing in previously economic divested areas. My suggestion would be those regions are likely to be the targets for financial institutions.
Mr. Balich commented maybe we should explore the state and the programs they already have so, we don’t have to recreate the wheel. I don’t know if I would be in favor of this at all because of the risk. We’re going into a time right now in our economy inflation keeps going up and what I’m hearing they’re going to spend more money it’s going to get higher then. You’re going to start a program when it’s not a good time to start any business. What’s going to happen when they called because inflation is so high, are we on the hook for how much money or are we on the hook on if we lose money. I don’t think this is the right time and the other thing I know I’m not doing anything with the SPA they have all types of programs like this. If they already have it, why do we need to do it?
Mr. Pryor responded Mr. Balich you are correct about economic times. Anytime you are lending it’s an economic risk as a rule the SPA Program specific when filing partners with banks that are specifically tied to bank criteria’s. The objective on loans is not just to lend but to try to achieve specific targets in the community. Whether certain types of businesses, types of businesspersons or regions within geography. Revolving loans usually have a higher risk tolerance than a bank. The reality of this is we have an opportunity to be more effective because there is less capital.
Ms. Ventura asked how many presentations do you plan to have and what’s the timeline on giving direction on what we might be voting on?
Speaker Cowan responded we can probably start to make some decisions next month and maybe finalize things in September, if we’re aggressive and leadership is going to talk that this. My question for you Mr. Pryor is it’s your organization and we cannot give you direction. Are you willing to take on the preliminary data and then come back to us before we commit to doing it?
Mr. Pryor replied I’m happy to take back feedback when it comes to initial steps, I think that’s a fair ask.
Speaker Cowan commented I don’t think we need to get into the weeds about this we need more information and Mr. Pryor is willing to provide it and we’ll look at that. Maybe Mr. Palmer can work on the historical summary of the County program.
| RESULT: APPROVED [7 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Marcum, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey NAYS: Fricilone, Moustis, Parker ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere, VanDuyne |
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Approving Amendments to the OPEB Retiree Health Insurance Trust Agreement (Dan McGrath)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Mueller, Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Lauren Staley Ferry)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(County Clerk's Office)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Mitch Schaben)
Mr. Fricilone asked did we approve last month buying the new chiller? Mr. Palmer answered my understanding is the rental chiller was installed last month so; it’s been there for a month as this is just allowing for some funding should they run out of funds to pay for the rental. I was told they hope to have a permanent one in Aug or Sept. I was told this was covered by the warranty so, we are waiting to hear back from the warranty insurance what have you to have it paid back. Any of funds paid out of contingency that are reimbursed will be put back into the contingency fund should we need them for some other emergency. Historically when an emergency happens, they Executive’s Office let leadership know and then the next meeting we put a Resolution like this on so, the Board can approve the emergency action.
Mrs. Adams stated that the request is that is comes out of contingency but we did add a line in the Resolution that what is paid back from the insurance carrier will go back into contingency. The email that I have from Mr. Schaben does say, all other costs associated with the replacement chiller and installation are covered by warranty. He did state that in the email. This is just for the rental chiller and the insurance will cover everything minus the $25,000 deductible.
Speaker Cowan commented that is not the final say on this. This will go to the full Board.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Kevin Lynn)
Ms. Ventura asked are we changing our vendor company and not using our local farmers? Ist is this the same company or a different company and are we working with our local farmers to provide food?
Mr. Watkins replied the vendor is the same. What happened is the current contract we’re under is up for renewal on a yearly basis. There is a restriction in regard to the CPI what we’re allowed to do.
Ms. Symons answered ultimately what happened throughout the current contract that we have which it goes up for bid every 3 years was a 2, 1 year renewal. We are on our first 1-year renewal on this particular contract but due to inflation the crazy jump in the bid their requesting a CPI rate of 10.64%. Per our contract and per the Illinois Board of Education 5% CPI rate is what is allowed. It put us in a bind they were unable to come down to us and we were unable to come up to them at that time. They wrote a letter of separation from us, which of course is a bid to a noncompetitive emergency agreement for a contract and that’s where we’re at right now. It’s really a pinch. It’s happening throughout all of Illinois. We will be forced to go out for rebid next year so, we cannot redo this emergency noncompetitive bid.
Ms. Ventura asked are any of our local farmers working with this contractor now to provide food?
Ms. Symons answered our local farmers no. Everything that we received is United States though.
Ms. Ventura asked so if we vote no on this what happens?
Ms. Symons there is no food service. Our food service ends August 2ndand the new one begins Aug 3rd.
Ms. Ventura asked if we approve this, we have to wait a whole year before going to bid?
Ms. Symons answered we wait 1 year before going into bid again, yes. Ms. Ventura asked because the emergency contract forces us for 1 year. Ms. Symons answered correct.
| RESULT: APPROVED [8 TO 1]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Margaret Tyson, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Winfrey NAYS: Ventura ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Kevin Lynn)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Martha Sojka)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Martha Sojka)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Christina Snitko)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
(Denise Maiolo)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
Speaker Cowan stated I like to honor Dr. Judy Mitchell the retiring President of JJC. 21. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. Executive Appointment(s)
(Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
IX. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
2. Finance
3. Public Works & Transportation
Mrs. Parker stated I would like to make a motion to remove the 2 items regarding Caton Farm Rd and Bruce Rd. from the Public Works & Transportation report. More discussion is needed.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Annette Parker, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
8. Executive
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Adams stated this is from Erin Mongelli. I know there is talk about tearing the old courthouse down. What happens to the plaques and monuments on the grounds surrounding the building? I am on the advisory board for the Ladies of the Grand Army of Republic, and I am worried about what will happen to our markers.
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Speaker Cowan stated an executive session was necessary to discuss acquisition of real estate.
2. Motion to go into executive session at 12:53 p.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere |
4. Motion to come out of executive session at 1:06 p.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere |
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Exec Comm)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Moustis, VanDuyne |
1. Motion to adjourn at 1:06 p.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey ABSENT: Ogalla, Traynere |
Alerts Sign-up