Will County Board Republican Caucus Committee met Sept. 15.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Minority Leader Mike Fricilone called the meeting to order at 8:51 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mike Fricilone | Minority Leader | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Minority Whip | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Raquel M. Mitchell | Member | Absent | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Absent | |
| Donald Gould | Member | Present | |
| Steve Balich | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Present | |
| Julie Berkowicz | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Tom Weigel | Member | Present | |
| Debbie Kraulidis | Member | Absent |
Present from the State's Attorney's Office: K. Meyers
Also present at the Meeting: N. Palmer, B. Adams
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mrs. Berkowicz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion of County Board Agenda
Mr. Fricilone noted what I want to concentrate on today we have 8 resolutions that were added after the fact. On the Resolutions, if we go to Land Use the attachment was updated on the solar farm, special use permits. Any problems with that? We have the zoning ordinance, warehousing and freight movement, grain storage, which is coming out of I1. We also have a Resolution added for request of refund of fees, which Land Use said no. The first Resolution is allocation for additional funds for the new morgue.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked we’re not giving them more money?
Mr. Fricilone replied we are adding the money to buy the equipment which came in high and we’re taking it out of ARPA because we got confirmation that it is ARPA legible. It was $9.4 million and now it’s $10.4 million.
Mr. Moustis stated the only thing I want to say about these Land Use cases, there’s 2 cases on there that I’m very apprehensive about. When you are zoning for C1, C1 is like an industrial zoning and in some cases it’s even heavier than an industrial zoning. For example, if you want to put an auto repair, paint booth, where chemicals are being used. You have to get a special use for industrial. It’s permitted in C1. C1 is for construction yards and so forth. When you are taking something that would be more appropriate, like this one on Archer and you taking to C1 and it’s right next to residential for a truck terminal, that’s not the right zoning for this. I mean the heaviest I would do is a C2. I would even see if it could be done under C3, which is a very light commercial. When we do these don’t think about the current use, you have to look at what can they put here down the line. Both of those C1’s, one is on Archer and the other is on 127th, in Plainfield. When you are changing things and you see that C1, it’s heavier than I1 with permitted uses. Why would you recommend C1? I would not and I’m going to vote against both. I think it’s too heavy of a zoning classification, especially around Archer where you have residents. You should be aware and we should start asking Land Use as part of the report to show us what’s permitted in the zoning, in the report, so we can have a better understanding. I think when Land Use is changing zones, they should put in there what the zoning description is.
Mr. Fricilone noted on number 4 in Land Use, amending sections of the zoning ordinance to allow soft storage facilities in C2 and C3 with special use. That’s on the list that was attached to it showing the changes they want to make. Including the I1, would not include warehouse, freight movement, and grain storage. That would be taken out of I1. Amending the parameters for expenditures for the American Rescue Plan Funds. If you looked at what we’re doing we’re restating what the breakouts are for the pillars and pulling out the administrative dollars, which we voted on in Executive and we voted to put the money that was shown in each pillar administrative in a separate fund and that was $8 million dollars but after thinking about that leadership talked about it and it seemed like a lot of money. We have a $1.5 million contract with Anser and realistically that could go to double or triple. We have them for several years, but we have them doing a lot of stuff but even if we triple it we’re at $4.5 million. I don’t think we need $8 million in there. Mrs. Hamann did a breakout for it which I saw yesterday, which brings it down to $6 million and that Resolution we should be able to amend it to say, using the parameters that Mrs. Hamann setup for $6 million administrative and then the dollar amount increases in each pillar for the actual stuff that we’re doing in that pillar.
Mr. Moustis asked can we tighten up how that money can be used?
Mr. Fricilone replied no. And that’s what I’m going to say in the meeting before we pass this because in Executive I said, we don’t only want to create that administrative pillar with $8 million, now $6 million amended, but we want some kind of caveat in there that allow us to monitor how that’s being spent.
Mr. Palmer commented as I pointed out in my memo at the bottom it does include language that says, all expenditures should be in compliance with such plans and directives adopted by the County Board. It does point out to you need to come back with but I’m not sure if that is strong enough. This is where our purchasing policy review and potentially state law needs to be clarified because Mrs. Tatroe has an opinion that she hasn’t had approved yet, by Mr. Glasgow, but I think speaks to some of these contracts that are for Will County should be coming to the Board. If an individual office holder signs a contract for their respective office, I think that’s probably allowable. But if it’s for Will County, those came to the Board. That is what we’ve always done in the past.
Mr. Fricilone asked so, what’s the thought then. Do we need to hold this over for her to tidy up the language?
Mr. Palmer replied I think there’s language in there at the bottom of the Resolution.
Mr. Moustis commented Mr. Palmer, rather than wait for the revamp to the entire purchasing ordinance we should perhaps address this specific thing within the purchasing ordinance.
Mr. Palmer replied I agree Mr. Moustis because the thought process among leadership and others. Looking at the purchasing ordinance and things like that, the current Board is here who has experience, especially some of the more senior members because if we wait until the next Board they are not going to know. We can do that right now in October or November, but we need to do something.
Mr. Fricilone asked but does that mean we want to postpone this one?
Mr. Palmer stated here’s the argument for passing this though. This is the overarching umbrella of what we’re spending, and the breakouts and it does have that language in there. I think we can strengthen it next month, but I think by not doing this, there’s been money spent administratively that is not authorized by the Board and it’s potentially continuing to happen because there’s nothing to tell them that they can’t do it. This would at least put something on paper that says you can’t do that and there hasn’t been any other invoices since Mr. Fricilone raised issue at the one Board meeting which makes us wonder are they not spending or they’re not submitting invoices.
Mr. Fricilone replied we’ll amend this to $6 million.
Mrs. Adams commented I thought that she tightened it up in that other resolution that says, there should be no expenditures from any of the pillars until the board has adopted a specific plan or directive for the pillar and then all expenditures shall be in compliance with such plans and directives as adopted by the County Board. She put that in yesterday.
Mr. Fricilone stated I’ll amend it to $6 million from the $8 million. Then we’ll pass it and work on the purchasing ordinance to make sure we get a double whammy on it. That’s #1 under Executive, #2 under Executive for those of you who were at the Executive meeting we moved forward a plan to come out of economic development to spend about $10 million for a program that will include 4 universities within Will County that are establishing a nursing and teaching scholarship program. Potentially the individual would get $5,000.00 a year for their 4-year program or 2-year program, but that money would have to be repaid if they did not serve 2 years as a nurse or teacher in Will County, depending on the program. Now, there are details to still be worked out on this. This program wouldn’t start until the fall of the 2023 school year but we wanted to codify this so we can get rolling on working all the details out on how we’re going to meet the ARPA guidelines. Because more than likely what’s going to happen is, it’s going to have to be like a loan program. It’s going to have to be a payback or an elimination of the loan, sign off, once they get the 2 years in, which could be potentially beyond the 2026 year. They’re going to have to structure that but that’s Anser’s job to work on those details to make it work. That Resolution was just added so you have those details. #3 was just codifying the economic development in what areas we’re spending the money on, which includes this, but it codifies unmet needs one.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is any of this money going to be available for local businesses and small businesses?
Mr. Fricilone replied that’s in the economic development, but we still have to breakout what we’re codifying the overall.
Mr. Palmer commented on the economic development pillar 2, if the first pillar setting the overall pillars is amended, successfully, the $6 million. Then we should make an amendment to amend the economic pillar to reflect that because that would increase that number a little bit because we going to take less admin for it. Formally we should do that too.
Mr. Fricilone replied remind us. The next one allocating $500,000.00 of cannabis tax revenue funds to the Child Center. In the budget only $150,000.00 was put in from the County and we did a $500,000.00 last year. To be able to get them more whole as they have more cases the Speaker and I recommended that we use money from the cannabis funds $500,000.00 dollars to go on top of the $150,000.00 that we’re giving them, so we wouldn’t take even more money from the corporate fund just the $150,000.00 that’s in there already. This $500,000.00 would be added to it so they’ll have $650,000.00. We can’t do it for the future, but I think it does say in here that we anticipate that in the future that this become an annual piece of the cannabis tax.
Mr. Moustis commented I won’t say that I’m not supportive of their mission, but maybe CAC been answering to the Board. Basically, they haven’t been answering to no one and that was fine when they were basically raising their money and they weren’t using taxpayers’ dollars. Now, we’re going to give them taxpayers dollars starting last year. They need to answer to the Board. They need to tell us how this money is being used. How they organize. They now have to come under the same scrutiny and same standards that Will County is under as far our auditing and accountability.
Mr. Palmer replied Mr. Moustis, I hear you and I think they will be willing to come make a presentation to the Board, they’ve done it in the past but they are in the budget and they do submit a budget request, so it’s just a question of maybe we haven’t demanded or required them to present more details to the Board. I know they present a request with details to the Executive’s Office when they create the budget. I am very confident that they will come and tell you all that you want to know financial stuff.
Mr. Palmer replied but you have more ability to control them than you do the VAC.
Mr. Moustis stated when tax dollars start going into something we have to make sure that the Board has accountability.
Mr. Fricilone replied well bring that up. We’ll ask them to do that in this meeting so it’s in the minutes for this meeting.
Mr. Moustis asked do they submit their budget to the County Board office?
Mr. Palmer replied we get the budget draft from the Executive’s Office. I made a note we will have them on a future agenda where they can give a presentation of what they do, work structure and so on and you can ask all the questions. On this Resolution, I want to point out to Mr. Fricilone’s point it says in this Resolution that the $500,000.00 plus the $150,000.00 because I think some people are going to say, that you’re giving them $500,000.00 from cannabis we can take out the $150,000.00 and that’s not what the Resolution states. I’m very confident that Ms. Las will come.
Mr. Fricilone stated #5 Resolution was added and this was in anticipation of Will County Board members elected before 2016, and the IMRF. The situation is that the State eliminated the IMRF. One of the counties sued and won that it was unconstitutional. The ability for people that were elected before 2016, to get back in get their years of service. They are going to have to pay to get them current but it gives them that ability. All we’re doing is saying it’s okay to move forward with that.
Mr. Gould stated I’m one of the people who was here in 2016, when they passed this before the 2016 election, and I was part of IMRF and Mr. Moustis and some others at the time. We were told by the State’s Attorney’s Office at the time it was predicted that this was going to be found to be unconstitutional as Williamson County sued and later discovered that it was unconstitutional. What this does, they won’t let us go back in under an individual basis they need a Resolution from the County that says, you’re back in for prior to 2016.
Mr. Moustis replied Will County took no action on the advice of the State’s Attorney’s Office. We don’t think necessarily they had the right to do this. The County Board action because they would be lawsuits, so we never took any actions.
Mr. Meyers replied the reason no action was taken it was afraid that it was going to be a labor issue.
Mr. Fricilone stated we’ll try to pass it. There is one more Resolution that was added and this is to create a special fund to put the money in that we’re going to get from the opioid settlement. One thing that we’ll be doing is telling Brophy to put that money somewhere where it’s making some money. That money is restricted.
Mr. Palmer replied there is reference in attachment A, in the Resolution that I don’t believe is attached but we don’t necessarily need that for today. Today is setting up the special funds. The expenditures will have to come back later when we decide what we want to spend it on, but they are restricted on what it can be spent on.
Mr. Fricilone stated the last thing that was added was we were going to be approving an appointment to an interim Supervisor of Assessment. Ms. Novak’s last day is September 30. They don’t have a new supervisor ready to go, so you have to appoint immediately an interim for up to 60 days. I think they are close to having somebody. They did interviews and they are doing second interviews last week, so they are close on getting somebody because they have to appoint somebody to take over the day that she leaves so are going to appoint the Deputy Assessor, Ms. Harris.
2. Discussion of FY2023 Budget
(Discussion)
VII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to adjourn the meeting @ 9:25 a.m.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Raquel M. Mitchell, Member SECONDER: Frankie Pretzel, Member AYES: Fricilone, Ogalla, Moustis, Mitchell, Fritz, Gould, Balich, Parker, Berkowicz, Pretzel, Weigel, Kraulidis |
Alerts Sign-up