Will County Gazette

Will County Board Landfill Committee met Jan. 4.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

Mr. Logan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

III. ROLL CALL

Chair Katie Deane-Schlottman called the meeting to order at 11:43 AM

Attendee Name	Title	Status	Arrived
Katie Deane-Schlottman	Chair	Present
Steve Balich	Member	Present
Daniel J. Butler	Vice-Chair	Late	12:30 PM
Sherry Newquist	Member	Present
Annette Parker	Member	Absent
Joe VanDuyne	Member	Present
Frankie Pretzel	Member	Absent

Present from the State's Attorney's Office: M. Guzman

Also Present: K. Fladhammer, and Chair Ogalla

IV. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. WC Landfill Committee - Regular Meeting - Oct 5, 2023 11:00 AM

RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Sherry Newquist, Member SECONDER: Daniel J. Butler, Vice-Chair AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Balich, Butler, Newquist ABSENT: Parker AWAY: VanDuyne

V. OLD BUSINESS

1. Status of the Plans for the Expansion of the Landfill

(Chuck Helston)

Mr. Helsten said good morning, as the Chairman said I am here to give you an update on where we are, as far as the process of coming up with options for you to consider. By way of background before I get into specifics; what we have done is to bracket the suggestive approach. I have done this for 45-years, and Devin Moose has done this for about 40-years. We bracket the approach, set the outside parameters, and then move in from there and identify which things we think would be the most feasible or readily attainable options for you to consider. There will be no handout today because this is the first cut, there is still a lot of discussion to be had. As the policy makers for county government, you need to start to consider the things that are ultimately going to be proposed to you. These are still a work in progress, the options that I will get into in a minute include a minimal lateral expansion; I will explain why because of space constraints within the sited boundaries of the existing facility. The other alternative, either in combination with the lateral or separately is a modest horizontal expansion. I will go through the additional cubic yards and how that translates into additional life for the facility. I think as Mr. Moose told you the last time, the currently permitted design is slightly over 30 million cubic yards, translated to when your annual input for most years was anywhere from 700,000 tons to 750,000 tons, I see now that you are closer to almost 900,000 tons with the change in the host agreement, which has made it market driven and you are getting more waste in, all be it at a lower host fee. Originally, we thought the 30 million cubic yards of total waste in design capacity, at the time we thought the annual waste in, would be somewhere between 700,000 or 760,000 tons per year, because most of it we were laboring under the Weller Amendment that constrained a significant amount of waste receipt to the Will County service area. The Will County service area was defined as the physical four boundaries of Will County, plus any municipality located within part of Will County which then included all of Naperville. Right now, as Mr. Moose told you last time, it appears with the increase in volume over the last few years that your available disposable capacity is probably going to be 10 million cubic yards or slightly less. If you do the straight forward math at 900,000 tons a year you are looking at about 10 years of available disposable capacity in the current permitted facility that is left. That is what we start with and then we go to what we think are the two most practical and the two most attainable or feasible proposals to expand are. That is your decision, you will decide that in the way that you craft your Solid Waste Management Plan going forward as policy makers. I will now give you some rough-cut figures, someone will ask why they are rough cut, why aren’t they more precise at this point. We started this in May or June, to put this into context again as Mr. Moose told you last time around, Mr. Moose and I were here from the onset of 1992, so we went through the original planning. Not the original permitting and siting process that was the late 1990’s, but we were involved from the time the same amendment was passed which granted the 400 acres for the landfill through all the planning, the formulation of the Joliet Arsenal Development Authority (JADA) which I know you are all familiar with. The initial planning process took between 3 to 4 years before we ever got to a precise design proposal that would be incorporated into a sighting application. Granted, we have an existing landfill, that is our springboard and something that we didn’t have before. We have only been working on this for about 6 months but are in the process of refining it very soon, we will be down to what we think is pretty much a final proposal. Getting back to why it isn’t final now, it is because you have a few variables when you are dealing with a lateral expansion that you need to consider.

I will go through some of them with you, first, your stormwater management system as you go up you are going to have more surface area, you are going to have to determine if your existing Stormwater Surface Management System accommodates that, we will get to other accommodations that you need to determine. You need to determine your existing design which has been able to meet the demands of the existing landfill, we have had no problems out there. You can credit the Operator, and your Land Use Department, this landfill has a sterling compliance record. We want to continue that based on the design that was proposed when it was originally sited and permitted. There was a lot of time, thought and effort that went into that. APTIN now needs to determine whether you need upgrades and revisions to the existing system. That may in turn inform or direct and guide how much existing capacity that you have, because the more upgrades that you do takes more physical space away. Another important item is a Hydro Geologic investigation, this was provided the first time around, the siting was deemed to be an ideal site based by hydro geological conditions that underlay this facility. With the lateral expansion you need to determine whether the hydro geological conditions out there will be altered or impacted and that must be taken into consideration. Part and parcel of that is geotechnical, geotechnical is just a fancy term that people like Mr. Moose used because he is an Engineer, it simply means slope stability basically. As you are going up you will be expanding on top of the existing landfill, and do a settlement study, you need to determine what the settlement will be. You then will determine how much it has settled in the last 23 years, and how much more to expect in the next 10 years, you need to see how stable your base is going to be, that is what they are in the process of doing now. If there are some problems, the lateral expansion will not be the figures that I will give you in a while, it will be less than those figures. Those figures are important for you as policy makers to use to determine how much longer you want the landfill to provide local disposal capacity for Will County residents. To me one of the most important things that APTIN and you need to determine is what the settlement will be. The more that you tax the system, the more you may need upgrades that will need to be done. This is one of the most critical ones that they are in the process of determining, will there be upgrades to the extension, that induces the number of areas that you have for physical expansion, because you are going to have to do upgrades in one sort or another. You want to avoid cris crossing because that takes away the physical space that you have for expansion. The First option is a horizontal expansion or a lateral expansion as we call it, not a vertical not going up. Right now, we have the original criterion design for the landfill that sits there now. We had a nationally known landscape designer named Chris Lannard, that came in and designed the landform to make sure it was compatible with the surrounding area. Right now, if you never had another expansion out there, in ten more years you will have an undulating final land form that is compatible and complements the surrounding area. When you look at the areas that are closed now you will see that they all blend in at this time. A lateral or horizontal expansion will simply be incorporated into that, so that land form will not change it will be as originally designed and approved almost unanimously by this Board in 1999. Also, the Pollution Control Board unanimously approved on numerous challenges the proposed siting and design that we came up with at that point in time. That is the good news, and now here is the bad news. The lateral area would be between 20 and 25 acres, with today’s technology you can do a lot in terms of landfill design to maximize the amount of waste that you put in there, you must do something first. You have the surplus soil that resulted from the construction of the existing landfill; that was deposited, and in the original siting design. You have a substantial portion of those 20 to 25 acres that has a soil pile. APTIM did the estimate, and I believe it is around 1.7 million cubic yards of soil, some of the piles that are close to 75 feet tall. Before you do the lateral expansion, you would need to move the 1.7 million cubic yards of soil that is there. You are now thinking what the cost is of moving it, it depends on how far it must be moved, as you all know the farther you need to transport something the larger your transport costs are. APTIM does the scope hauling cost for waste and aggregate material companies across the nation, so they are very good at this. Their first rough cut is 8 to $9 million assuming that you can find a nearby place to move the soil, so you aren’t occurring significant transport cost. That comes right off the top of your revenue figures if you decide to do the lateral, because it will blend in with the existing facility now, there is some desirability to that. Then you would ask what our revenue is to offset that, that will depend on the host fee at that time. APTIMs first rough cut of additional Air Space Capacity is 7,391,000 or about 7.4 million cubic yards, doing the straight math assuming you are getting up to about 900,000 tons per year if you divide 900,000 tons per year into 7.4 you have 7.6 or 7.7 years of additional capacity. Remember that is in addition to your 9.5 years of available disposable capacity that you now have in the existing facility. So, 9.5 plus 7.6 you would have 17 years of additional available disposable capacity, to get there you incur up front a soil re-location cost of 8 to $9 million. This is all good soil so who is to say that you could eventually get rid of it and perhaps sell it, but for the time being it would have to be moved offsite to develop a cell on that facility.

Ms. Newquist asked are we limited to expanding the current site, whether that is lateral or horizontal verses a whole new site.

Mr. Helsten said no, that is the next step.

Mr. Balich asked if we are using the soil that we have for cover.

Mr. Helsten said, I believe that we are already using it, but they still have the remaining 1.7 million cubic yards. This is like the old novel The Jungle that Upton Sinclair did where they use everything but the squeal on the pig, you use everything you possibly can. The figure that they are coming up with is net of what they are going to be using because they have been using it for final cover all along. The next option standing alone or in conjunction with a lateral is a vertical. The higher up you go the more it deviates from the original final land form design that was sited back in the late 1990s. That being the case APTIM has suggested to me, and I agree, you do a modest vertical expansion proposal of 45 feet. The modern ones that you see now across the state are 100 feet up to 150 feet, where the landfill is much taller and much more prominent in the landscape, the term we use is the back scape. Forty-five feet from a distance will not be discernible, it will not look that much different from the original proposed landform, it will be compatible with the surrounding area and complement the surrounding area. It will not be as undulating because like anything when going up it is no longer flat it is more of a rounded heap. Some things can be done to temper that form an aesthetic point of view, when you get guys like Chris Lanner who has won 8 national awards for design for end use landfill designs, they can do some things. That is why you want to be cognizant of how far you are going up and how it will affect the end appearance. Right now, you are just under 800 feet, if you go up 45 feet you are then up to 845 ft above sea level. Here is what you all want to know, do the math of additional available disposal capacity, the driving force behind the first landfill and George Sangmeister’s idea when he got the Sangmeister amendment passed was given dependable, convenient, cost-efficient, long-term disposal capacity, and he meant long term, he was a forward thinker looking way out into the future. Disposal capacity for the citizens of Will County, you have 9 ½ years now if you do this and you are up to 11 and leave the lateral alone if you don’t want to move the pile you are up to around 20 to 21 years available disposable capacity. You are then getting up to that quarter century mark, a quarter century of capacity is a thoroughly recognized milestone. The third option is you combine the two of those, the 45 ft vertical expansion with the horizontal and if you are doing one it might make sense to just do the other one at the same time. Add it together it would be 19 years, add them together and you would be up to 29 years of available disposable capacity to be used by the county residents going forward. That goes to Ms. Newquist’s question, are we constrained to the site itself, we want to provide you with all options that we can, so it is something that we are looking at and is tentative and would invite a lot of speculation. Currently, you are held by your host agreement till the permitted capacity ends with Waste Management for another 10 years. That is very clear in the host agreement and that is the way all host agreements are, there is a significant amount of capital involved with operating and developing a landfill, that is all put on the landfill operator. If you only do the lateral and come up with 7.5 to 8 years of additional capacity and put that out for bid alone, remember what Mr. Moose told one of you in response to the question of what would happen if there was a successor with the closure post closure liability for the existing landfill. Some type of allocation would have to be worked out that has happened at other places, it happened at Peoria Disposal and Waste Management was there for years and then lost the contract for expansion. Peoria Disposal took it over and there was a negotiation of who would take what part of the old closer post closer liability. My observation in the market place would be if all you are offering because I represent solid waste companies more than 50% of the time. If all you are offering is 7.6 years, I don’t think you’re going to get much outside interest because that is not enough to justify the commitment that needs to be made going forward. If you combine the lateral with the vertical now, you’re up to 19 years now you have something to talk about. Mr. Balich has said we want to maximize the attractiveness of the next bid if you are doing one you probably want to do both going forward. Once they do their further analysis, they will try to increase these numbers to the greatest extent as they can. Bear in mind that these are the first numbers, that basically where we are now you are not confined to this site, but you will obtain additional if you want to expand laterally off site. With this up are up to 28 or 29 years of available disposal capacity. You’re the custodians of the citizens of this county from a planning point of view. This has been an ulcerative for the county with your generation of your RNG Plant, revenue going forward which I don’t know what your proforma was, I wasn’t involved in that process. I wasn’t involved but I assume once you work the kinks out and get your initial capital outlook covered, you’re going to be making $2 million on top of host fees. The host fee that I negotiated was the highest host fee by far in the State of Illinois for close to 20 years. The problem with that was they are saddled with that cost when they bid on contracts, and they compete with companies whose host entities have much smaller host fees. That is why we gave them relief. It is because of the increase of waste that you bring in, now you have a second form of revenue where before your revenue source was one dimensional, it ends when you run out of disposal capacity, and you don’t get tipping fees anymore. Back then we asked how we make your revenue two or three dimensional going forward, it is landfill gas that will continue to be generated for years to come and that is your supplement. That in a nut shell is where we are, we are working on these and we will work as quickly as we can to get you something from a first cut to a well-defined analysis. In the interim you have the figures in front of you as policy makers so you can start to determine what do we do here because that is your job as a committee.

Mr. Van Duyne stated I know you say that 30 years is good to provide a service to our county residents. In your experience have you ever seen anything more. What about 65 or 70 years, because my thinking at this point if we can purchase land now it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than purchasing it 20 to 25 years from now, we would own the land and provide forward thinking for the next 75 years. Is that something that you have seen?

Mr. Helsten said it reminds me of a point that I should make. You are governed by the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act in Illinois. That is the act that governs solid waste acts for counties, you do a five-year update that involves updating your plan and filing your report with the State every 5-years. On a rolling basis, to avoid landfill capacity shortages like we had in the late 70’s and 80’s and the late 90s, we are getting close to one again. We had a lot of testimony at Zion Landfill and the expansion of that about two years ago. We had national experts talk about unless we start to develop more landfill capacity in the Chicago Metro Area there is going to be a short fall from anywhere from 80 to 100 million tons in the foreseeable future. You must demonstrate 20 years of rolling availability disposable capacity, and you must report how you are going to address that. The General Assembly has determined to avoid these chaotic situations where we have short falls, like supply chain shortfalls. To avoid that we are going to have counties demonstrate how they are going to get rid of their waste on a rolling basis for 20 years. You don’t need to have a landfill within your boundaries. What a lot of counties say is, we have two transfer stations, and we have a long-term relationship with them, part of our host agreement is a commitment that on a rolling basis if they are there; and transfer stations are usually there for 40 to 50 years. What those counties are doing for the next 50 years is they can hold up the host agreement and just file that provision with the State. They are saying that they are guaranteed that they have a disposable capacity somewhere within their system for the next 50 years. Landfill design capacity, the largest landfill in the state is one that I represent. It is Winnebago Landfill just south of Rockford. It takes in a considerable amount of the overall waste from the Chicago Metro Area. That expansion was made twelve years ago, the proposed life of the expansion was over 50 years. What has happened there is none of the plan has anticipated the amount of waste that would come out of the service area that came out of Winnebago County Board included Cook County, and DuPage County and it has been very successful, successful to the point that the available life is starting to rapidly diminish. The Lake County Landfill owned by Republic has an expansion of over 50 years and most of the expansions are because of political palatability, and most are 25 to 28 years. Businesses are going to look to see if they have cost efficient convenient waste disposal in the county. If it comes down to one county or the other, logistics will be the number one thing, then tax breaks that are given if they are choosing a new location.

Mr. Butler said suppose you didn’t have any disposal sites, and maybe 50 years is a creditable size to start a dump. Based on that, how many acres would be required for a dump that size.

Mr. Helsten said based on history I would say about 500 acres.

Ms. Newquist said with what you have said it sounds like in 15 years we will have to start this process all over again and at that point we will most likely have to look for a new site.

Ms. Berkowicz asked is there a figure on how much garbage an individual produces.

Mr. Helsten replied APTIM the Consultant that you have has done that research, they have needs experts that have done that analyzing of the increase of per person, per capita waste generation, net of recycling, and waste minimization and all those things for the projected life of the expansion for Zion Landfill.

Ms. Deane Schlotman asked if you think we are behind or on schedule or are we where we need to be.

Mr. Helsten replied I think you are where you need to be, one of criterion aid is consistency with the current version of the County Solid Waste Plan when you do your expansion. You will determine whether you are consistent with your own plan at the time a siting application is filed and whether your plan has encompassed everything that is going forward that you wanted.

Mr. Balich stated the Solid Waste Plan that we had originally called for less disposal, then we increased it to get more money about four years ago. I remember because I was dead against it. Are we violating our own written land plan by increasing the amount of tonnage and decreasing the tipping fee.

Mr. Helsten replied no, a plan is simply an overarching policy guidance. The two acts that mandated the plan, and the two acts that mandated the formation of plans by counties, the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act and the second is the local Solid Waste Disposal Act. Both say these are simply planning tools and they have flexibility.

Ms. Fladhammer stated I have one question for clarification. When you say that the Solid Waste Plan is a living document you mean that it can be added to at any time. If it is expired, then it is no longer living.

Mr. Helsten stated that is right.

Ms. Fladhammer stated and ours is expired.

Mr. Helsten stated you have not done a 5-year update, if so, you may want to do an amendment to your plan that simply says that you are in the process of evaluating long term expansion alternatives, in the interim you are reaffirming for the time being until you come up with something new, you are just reaffirming that.

Ms. Deane Schlottman said we have been told it is being worked on and we will have something in February some time.

Mr. Helsten asked if IEPA asked for it?

Ms. Deane Schlotman said we don’t know.

Chair Ogalla added the County Board might not know, but the department doing that plan should.

Ms. Deane Schlotman thanked Mr. Helsten for coming today.

Mr. Helsten said we will be back to you with a handout, we are in the process of doing that now. I assume that you want APTIM to go forward with refining that.

Ms. Deane Schlottman advises yes, we do.

VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS

VII. NEW BUSINESS

1. Update on the Revenue for the Landfill - Attachment Added

(Dave Hartke)

Mr. Hartke stated it is a state law that each county must update their Solid Waste Plan every 5 years. In some cases, we have delayed that update due to sightings and other landfill expansions occurring. The last Solid Waste Plan update before this, there was a plan in 2007 updated and then it wasn’t updated again until 2016 and approved in 2017, sometimes that five years is not exact. In some cases, we will wait until we know what we are going to do, or make sure we fully understand what type of expansion is going to occur, the last one was the Laraway expansion. That update was delayed a bit to make sure we had adopted the plan and appropriated the wording in there to make sure that the expansion could occur. As Mr. Helsten mentioned criteria 8, during siting it needs to show that the Solid Waste Plan is in agreement with the siting so that is why it was delayed at that time. In this case again we were also informed it would not hurt us at all to go ahead to make sure what we are doing, making sure we are going with this expansion or these options to make sure we formulate the language within that plan.

Ms. Deane Schlotman stated we are not going to know what expansion we are doing for some time, that’s not going to be brought to our attention right now, and we need a Solid Waste Plan because ours is already expired. Even without knowing if we are going lateral, vertical, or if it is a whole new site or doing it both together, we still need a Solid Waste Plan for other reasons so even without knowing what that is we still need it to move forward.

Mr. Hartke said we are working on it, we are working with internal staff as Ms. Keane presented and we are also working with APTIM and Phil Kowalski as mentioned.

Ms. Deane Schlotman said hopefully maybe next month there will be something solid to look at.

Mr. Hartke stated the plan is to have a draft to you and it will be an agenda item in February.

Mr. Balich stated when we increase the number of locations that can dispose in our landfill, and we cut the tipping fee we were told the reason we were cutting the tipping fee is we would be making more money with the gas from the RNG. I don’t believe that is true, but at the same time I would like to know how much money we lost by not getting the full amount of tipping fees for the last two to three years, and how much money we gained in gas revenue. I know it is something that may take some time to figure out and you can bring that back at another meeting. Also, if the tipping fees from the garbage is collateral for any of our bonds or was that something that we used to back up our bonds.

Mr. Hartke reviewed the attachment Update on the Revenue for the Landfill.

Mr. Butler asked when changing the fees is there a difference between commercial or residential fees. Also, is it a different fee if it comes from outside the county.

Mr. Hartke said as far as the county sees it, it is all the same for both. Whether Waste Management has contracts with different companies, or haulers but that depends on their contracts.

Mr. Butler asked what the advantage is of lowering the fees.

Mr. Hartke said at the time it was because of the RNG revenues that were being projected, we wanted to help Waste Management because they did have the highest host feen in the state at the time. They then could compete better in the market and then bring waste into the landfill so it would generate more gas so the county could see more revenue that way. It has not increased outside waste that much.

Ms. Berkowicz stated we need to address where the solar panels go in the landfills, can we get these questions answered from Land Use and have a conversation about this information.

Mr. Hartke asked when you have that on the agenda if you could have those questions in writing so we can understand what information we would need to provide.

2. Hiring a Consultant for the Landfill Committee

(Katie Deane-Schlottman)

Ms. Deane Schlotman said I believe based on all the knowledge that we are getting thrown at us and the fact that there is so much to take in that it would be beneficial for this committee to have its own consultant for us to be able to bounce questions off of, or even give us direction if we are missing anything that we should be asking for.

Mr. Balich said I agree, I think we really need to have somebody that understands more than what we do; I have been around this business for a long time, but we need somebody to help guide us.

Ms. Newquist asked; don’t we already have a consultant.

Ms. Deane Schlotman stated that it is not specific to this committee.

Ms. Newquist said I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea, but I am saying, what would a consultant do that our consultant that is working with Land Use wouldn’t. I guess I’m confused why we would need two consultants.

Ms. Deane Schlotman replied it is not that they are not working with us, it is just to give us an outside opinion, and it is something that we have in the budget.

Ms. Newquist said I do think it would be helpful to go to the existing consultant first; then if we can’t get answers maybe then we do need to look at hiring an outside consultant. I mean we had a consultant that we hired that we are paying who is supposed to be guiding us through this process, at least that is my opinion and maybe I am wrong on this scope of consultant work.

Mr. Van Duyne stated I am with Ms. Newquist; we do have a consultant now.

Mr. Hartke stated the current consultant and even Mr. Helston that was here today, is paid through our division, it is an approved part of our budget. We have a consultant line, a legal line, and an engineering line. We pay for our division operations with a surcharge fee that we receive.

Mr. Van Duyne said if I can get this straight; the County Board approved the budget in your department, and with the fees that the Landfill is collecting pays for the consultant. We have that by the Land Use Departments choice of consultants.

Mr. Hartke stated it is a consultant that we have used for 25 to 30 years, so yes, it is our choice.

Ms. Schlotman asked is there any way we can get a copy of the contract for the consultant that you have, and did the County Board have any input on that consultant?

Mr. Dubois stated Mr. Helston is a Specialist Assistant with the State’s Attorney’s Office, paid through the Land Use Departments budget. The other consultant that you are referencing is through AFTIN which is paid through Land Use Departments professional services.

Mr. Butler said he has never been to any of our meetings.

Mr. Balich said perhaps we need a consultant that can give us directions and not necessarily that is what we already have had but maybe something new. We need somebody with the ability to help the committee with certain decisions and answering questions that we have or even assist us with gathering questions to ask.

Chair Ogalla said we have Mr. Helsten, who is a Special Assistant State’s Attorney who ensures everything is correct when we are doing it. He said we need the Solid Waste Plan every 5 years, and we don’t have that, and we need that to be clarified. Mr. Helsten suggested putting some things in there as an amendment to state we are in the process of doing this. I am assuming that Devin Moose is the consultant that you are talking about, but he is an engineer that works on our Landfill and has for a very long time. I can see what you are talking about having your own consultant who can assist you in formulating questions that you are concerned about.

Ms. Newquist said what I am looking for and I don’t particularly care who does this, but what I am looking to get out of this process as a committee member is; here is a list of your options, here are that list of the pluses and minuses associated with all the options. None of us are experts and I do get what you are saying that we need an expert in this process. That is clear whether we use our existing expert or hire a different expert, I could be persuaded either way. What I’m really looking for is a list and it sounds like we are just not there yet because there is just too much unknown at this point. I am assuming at some point soon we will get a list of options and then we must evaluate the information and see which direction we are going in.

Mr. Van Duyne stated I am comfortable with the Land Use Department and value their opinions and maybe we can ask your consultant to join us in these conversations. I would be more than happy to listen to their expertise opinion as well. I will be voting no because I don’t think we need an extra consultant.

Ms. Newquist said if we don’t get what we need from our existing consultant then I would reconsider hiring another consultant.

Motion to hire a consultant for the Landfill Committee

RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 1] MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Daniel J. Butler, Vice-Chair AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Balich, Butler NAYS: Newquist ABSENT: Parker NOT VOTING: VanDuyne

VIII. OTHER NEW BUSINESS

IX. PUBLIC COMMENT

X. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT/ ANNOUNCEMENTS

XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Motion to Adjourn @ 12:46 PM

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Steve Balich, Member SECONDER: Daniel J. Butler, Vice-Chair AYES: Deane-Schlottman, Balich, Butler, Newquist, VanDuyne ABSENT: Parker

https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4713&Inline=True