County Board - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. Happy new year. Thank you for your patience. Uh welcome to the Will County Board meeting for January 15, 2026. I'll call this meeting to order. Member Costa will lead us in the pledge of allegiance and introduce the clergy.

Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please remain standing as I introduce to um the community, Father Patrick Murphy with St. Francis of Aissi Catholic Church in Bowling Brook. Like Pope Leo, Father Pat was raised on the south side of Chicago by wonderful parents with a twin sister Patricia and her and brother and sister who are also twins and 22 months older. In his ministry life, he's a Catholic priest for the last 21 years in Hinsdale, Neapville, and Bowling Brook. And he's also served in the military after college as a military policeman in Germany and 31 years in various assignments with AT&T. I am honored to have Father Pat join us this morning for our invocation. On a personal level, Father Pat facilitated my children's first reconciliation and has over the years provided guidance, perspective, and blessings to my family. We are grateful to have him in our spiritual life and I'm grateful to have him join us today. Thank you, Father Pat.

Good morning. Morning.

It is great to be here. I just met Julie Burkowitz here. I had never met her before and I asked her, "Do you know why I wear this collar?" And she said, "Sure, I know. It's because it kills fleas and ticks up to 30 days." But we're here to ask the Lord to be with us, to guide us, to direct us in this new year, this calendar year of 2026. It's a new beginning for all of us. Lord, guide us, direct us, certainly love us. I ask you to bless this board with strength and endurance as they carry out their duties, often under challenging and stressful circumstances. Please grant them wisdom and discernment so they can work with sound advice and make wise decisions. I also ask you to help them maintain a spirit of service and selflessness, always putting the needs of others ahead of their own. Help them to seek your guidance in all they do and be driven by a desire to serve you and make a positive impact on Will County and its citizens. Give them a sense of purpose and fulfillment in their work, knowing that they are a valuable contribution to our county. May they know they are appreciated and their efforts valued. And we pray that the county may be a beacon of hope and a model of good governance. May it work to promote peace, justice, and common good. And may it be a last seen blessing to all who live in Will County. I pray that you will bless our leaders with your presence and guidance and use them to bring positive change. Lord, we know that this world can be dark and difficult and that we face many

challenges today, but we also know with you all things are possible. So I pray that you would raise up leaders who are unafraid to stand for what is right, guided by your truth, committed to making Will County a better place, a place where government rep leaders represent all citizens with respect for their human dignity. And above all, I pray that you could uh that you will give Will County a place of blessing, a kingdom that will be in line with the kingdom of God. And we ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen. Have a wonderful day and a wonderful year. God bless you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, madame clerk. Will you please call the role? Richmond Williams here. Dean Schlottman Ogala here. Pretzel. Butler here. Newquist. Balich. Axley. Axley. Yes. Brooks. Yeah. Winfrey. Bulock.

Logan. Freeman. Revvis. Mitchell. Ortiz. Burkowitz here. Hickey. Costa here. Trineer. Vandine. Having 20 members present. We have a quorum. Can I get a motion to place on file the certificate of publication? Motion by Trir, seconded by Brooks. Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams, yes. Ogala Russell. Yes. Butler Newquist Yes. Oxley. Brooks.

Yeah. Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. Freeman. Revis Ortiz. Burkowitz. Yes. Hickey. Costa. Trineer. Van. Yes.

20. In the affirmative. The motion carries. This time we'll move on to the approval of minutes. I need a motion to approve the minutes from the December 18th, 2025 board meeting. Motion by Traneer, seconded by Costa, previous roll call by Winfrey, seconded by Nquist. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. At this time, madam clerk, will you please acknowledge the elected officials and media present today? Today we have County Executive Jennifer Bertino Tarant, County Clerk Annette Parker, coroner Lorie Summers, auditor Joffy Blackburn, and Treasurer Tim Brophy. Thank you. Today we have two uh pro honorary resolutions proclamation recognizing uh two of our employees who will be uh retiring today. We're going to begin with honoring Will County Finance Director Karen Hennessy. if you'd come up. And we have member Newquist who will be reading the proclamation. Hi Karen. Okay. It is my honor to read this proclamation. Whereas Karen Hennessy has served as director of the Will County Finance Department for 12 years, overseeing financial operations, reporting, and long-term planning for all county offices. And whereas Karen Hennessy has served with distinction over her 20-year career with Will County, earning the respect of her staff and colleagues with her leadership and work ethic. And whereas under her tenure as finance director, Karen Hennessy has

overseen budgeting and fiscal implementation for several large-scale initiatives, has modernized internal operations, and has strengthened countywide policies and procedures. And whereas her vision of responsible financial planning has ensured a strong credit rating for Will County. millions of dollars saved through bond refunding deals and 12 consecutive years of receiving the certificate of excellence in financial reporting award from the government finance officers association. Now therefore, be it proclaimed that the Will County Board and the Will County Executive do hereby recognize the leadership and dedication of Karen Hennessy to the county of Will and the people of Will County through her 20 years of service in the Will County Finance Department. Be it further proclaimed that the Will County Board and the Will County Executive wish her a long, healthy, and happy retirement dated this 15th day of January, 2026.

Thank you. then I'll make a goofy comment. Thank you for the recognition. Um I keep hearing about my big feet and um I have to tell you that is not a requirement of the position and uh you won't even notice I'm gone. The people that will be stepping in will be doing a fabulous job with smaller feet. Um thank you very much again.

Thank you Karen. Wait, you got to take a picture. There you go. You want to hold this mold?

No. Thanks, Karen. We're done. Get my glasses.

Next, we're going to have uh member Ogala who will read the proclamation uh recognizing Marta Keane's retirement. Thank you. I feel it's very important that we do proclamation to rec recognize our employees who've worked so hard for the citizens of Will County. I am honored to read this proclamation today. Whereas Marta Keane has devoted 20 years of distinguished service to Will County, providing guidance and expertise for a variety of recycling, waste reduction, and environmental stewardship programs. And whereas during her two decades with Will County, Marta Keane has been instrumental in building durable systems and trusted partnerships that have increased local recycling access, improved public participation, and delivered long-term environmental benefits to residents. And whereas Marta Keane has guided the planning, implementation, and continuous improvement of countywide recycling and waste reduction initiatives, ensuring that Will County remains responsive to community needs. And whereas Martya King has solidified Will County's place as a leader in statewide recycling environmental protection. Now therefore, be it proclaimed that the Will County Board and the Will County Executive do hereby recognize Marta Keane's 20 years of exceptional service to Will County and her lasting impact on recycling and sustainability. Be it further proclaimed that the Will County Board and the Will County Executive wish her a long, healthy, and happy retirement. dated this 15th day of January, 2026. And I so move.

Congratulations. Would you like to say? Perfect.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Um, I did write this down so I would get it right. So, excuse me while I'm reading it. Uh, I want to thank all of you for your support over these past 20 years. I want to thank you for your leadership in turning the waste services division into the resource recovery and energy division in 2010. Um, I want to thank you for embracing the Will County Green website, Will County Green Newsletter, um, and also just widening our scope to include energy efficiency and water conservation. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you. um as our elected officials um and then also our departments which include the health department, transportation, maintenance, also the forest preserve um not only to improve our sustainability efforts but to educate our residents and our businesses on the value of each of their actions. None of our success is possible without partners from the townships and municipalities that host our collection events to organizations such as Sherfest, Joliet Junior College, the University of Illinois Extension Office, Master Gardeners, and the Conservation Foundation, just to name a few. It has been my honor and pleasure to work with all these different organizations and all of you. and I want to thank you so much for all the things that we've been able to accomplish together.

Thank you for being a true leader in that. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yeah. Take your proclamation and show it off.

Okay, I'll put that there. Thank you for everything. Thanks for the tour. All right. Thank you everyone for being here and celebrating with us. We will now move on to public comment for agenda items uh items only. At this time I invite anyone to come up for public comment for today's agenda items. Um unless you have a land use case and then we will let you speak before the land use hearing. So if there's anyone here for an agenda item outside of land use would like to speak. Once twice, three times. Okay, very good. Moving on to all old business. Uh, all resolutions and ordinances from the December 18th, 2025 board meeting have been signed and returned. Uh, we'll now move on to land use and development committee. Chair Pretzel.

Thank you, Madam Executive. I'd like to make a motion to open public hearing for all land use cases. Second. Motion by Pretzel, seconded by Revvice. Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams, yes. Ogala, yes. Pretzel, yes. Butler, yes. Newquist, yes. yes. Oxley, yes. Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock. Logan, yes. Freeman, Revvis, Mitchell, yes. Ortiz Burkowitz Hickey. Yes. Costa say yes. Trineer. Vanine. Yes.

20. Oh. Yep. 21 in the affirmative. The motion carries. A if you so um we are now in public hearing. A reminder that absolutely no new evidence or information will be allowed once this land use public hearing is closed. So, if you have some uh if you would like to speak on any land use case, please come forward now once. Oh, wait. Yep. There you go.

If you will just state your name and case for us. Thank you.

Uh Bill Kosal. Um I'm not sure the case number here. Ordinance 25298 25-2837 ZC2508080. So, I don't know if if it's necessary for for me to say anything because um I don't believe the owner or the agent is here today and the uh zoning committee voted unanimous unanimously to turn this request down as did the land use committee. Um, so I don't know what else could be said, but just so everybody's aware, what the owner is trying to do is he's trying to put a commercial lot in the middle of a residential area. Um, there's a house on either side of them. Uh, he wants to put this commercial development right at the entrance to the Sugar Creek subdivision. Um and it would totally destroy the zoning in the area. Uh I would refer to it as haphazard zoning. Um you know zoning is to delineate residential areas from commercial areas. He wants to put a commercial area right in the middle of this residential area. Um he wants to put a retail establishment there uh which would uh uh alter the traffic patterns, cause traffic congestion, probably uh uh ruin the property values in the area. Um and once this parcel would were to be zoned uh commercial, of course, it would remain commercial. So that when this owner that who's proposing this um ordinance uh moves away, uh he wants to put a fencing company there now, it could become anything. It could become a trucking

parking lot there. Uh so the the the future uh of of the area would be uncertain. So, I'm urging everybody to vote against this proposal. Thank you.

So, just point of order here. Yeah. Yeah. The applicant has requested to withdraw this from the agenda. I think he's withdrawing his his whole u application. So, you guys are free to talk about the case, but we won't be voting on it today. This is your chance to talk about it, but the applicant has withdrawn. So, can Yeah. Can you I can't say forever, but we're not going to be voting on it. This is the fifth time we've been It's been Yeah. What can you get going? Thank you. Thank you, sir. We We've been here. This is the fifth time we've been here. It's been going on since September. It keeps on getting continued and it's hindered. I mean, this is ridiculous. Yeah. We need to vote on this thing and get it over with. Yeah.

Well, I object to any any continuence of this in any way. And so, let's let's get a clarification because I agree with you. Let's can we get a clarification what withdrawal means? He's withdrawn his application. He has not asked for a continuence what we understand. So, if you can explain Hold on, I lost you. There you go, sir.

There's no continuence being requested. Uh this time, the applicant has withdrawn his request. Therefore, if he wanted to go back, um I believe he'd have to wait a year at least. Um and but he would have to go through a whole new zoning case. Uh so he would start back at the beginning. This is not a continuence as it was before. Um I don't know why the applicant has withdrawn. Uh but he withdrew I believe early this week. Um and so at this point there's already been a published public hearing. Um I agree that the public should be allowed to give their their viewpoints. Uh but he has withdrawn and the applicant does have the absolute right to withdraw the Yeah, you're still welcome to give your comments and we just wanted to let you know that it's not going to be voted on today.

You're offer

Jerry Gregory Ford 90 Sugar Creek Drive. Uh, I I'm I'm glad they withdrew their well, I guess they're looking for a permit, but the problem right at the moment is that it it's terrible over there. They got trailers laying there. They got housing laying there. There's somebody staying there. There's no approved there's no permits. Uh there's a building should have been torn down 45 years ago and it's still standing. They removed all the asbestous out of the place and the plaster and it was without permits and it's still standing. I think it just needs to be this board needs to take some action. I I don't like looking at it to tell you the truth. I my I've lived there 75 years or 74 going on 75. Uh it's never been that ugly over there and it's uh it's not detr uh it is detrimental to the neighborhood. Oh the the east side of Joliet has been overrun by trucks uh lay down yards, construction equipment thrown on and you go to Allesio Drive that's adjacent to that. There's trucks all over the place. There's no parking. There's no road. There's um it's terrible. There's a railroad easement that's being used for truck parking. I I I thought you used to Randle's Pat. He built a beautiful truck park over by his business and everybody else is just parking in the dirt. I I don't understand what's going on, you know. Uh there's a few buildings over there built before uh zoning. I mean, I guess they're grandfathered in or great-grandfathered in. And um the rest of it's looking pretty sad. I mean, you go look at Joliet East. I went to school

there. The layown yard there is a complete mess. There's crap in the road. I understand they're building the place, but there's no burm. There's no I know it's in the city of Joliet, but it was Will County and uh the borders aren't clear. They're not enforced. Uh Juliet doesn't know where the road stop or the county doesn't know where the road stop and you got a road commissioner in the township doesn't care because his name's on the road. So I don't know. I wish this would go away. I wish it would go back to where it was, but I wish it' be cleaned up also. That's Thank you.

I think we have a couple question. Do you have a question for him, Mr. Brooks? Oh. Oh, okay. Uh, do you have a question for this gentleman? Yep. Member Burkowitz, thank you for being here today. Um, have any of the neighbors submitted a complaint with our land use regarding this property? Uh, yes. We've been to Will County, we been to the EPA, we've been uh everywhere about it.

Uh, just not that property and adjacent properties and nothing's been done. What what what happens is the city of Joliet sues people and then um they settle out of court and it's back to the same old thing. So uh the will county they've all been notified. I mean, when I get a notice from the Will County Board, uh, I respond to it immediately and like this is well, that So, for the, uh, complaints that have been submitted to land use, what has the response been from Will County Land Use?

Well, there's been no response to our community organization or or homeowners organization. We haven't heard anything from anybody. I'm not I'm not saying anything bad about Will County. I'm just saying there's no response. Okay. Uh Madame Executive, I'd just like the count uh land use to respond to this at the appropriate time. Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. I I appreciate your comment, but one more thing is I wish you'd all get in a bus and go over there and take a look, you know, cuz uh it's you need to ride around the east side and sees what happened to it, you know. I mean, you just you're Will Countyy's redoing the roads and they're

You mentioned the structure that's on there that's not uh it's not habitable. has is is it is it um secured in any way uh to prevent people from going in it or in the last couple weeks they screwed a couple pieces of plywood up. The doors are open. There's people living there. I I I don't I don't know what I I haven't I haven't gone on the property. I'm not able to do that. Um but I can tell you from the road it looks terrible. There's trucks. There's crap in the back. I I've got my own share of problems, but um yeah, it's

so obviously this is an unincorporated, so it's under the county of will. What about the sheriff's department with the people you say who are living there? Has there been any any response? I'm not privy to that, ma'am. But I do know that it's a a jurisdictional nightmare because the Manhattan roads, route 52, which is a state highway, the city of Joliet has a water mane running through it. That means the city of Joliet has annexed it. The road, they haven't annexed the property, but so the roads should be maintained by Joliet. I I I I know it's a strange statute, but I've run into a place where half the roads annexed and the other half isn't. And the state says that whoever annexed the half, like city of Juliet, they have to take care of right away to right away. And

I understand it can be very confusing, especially with our roads. Well, one other uh follow-up question. You mentioned that people are living on the property. Is it the owner or are they squatters? Ma'am, I I really don't know. I don't think the owners filed a complaint with uh the sheriff about the people there.

We made the complaint at at the with the board meeting uh the last appearances. Every appearance we've been here, we've complained about it and nothing's been done. That's been five appearances a year ago and uh nothing's been done since. Uh I I don't know when land use is sitting here and I'm talking to them, they haven't done anything. Thank you for coming forward and we appreciate your time. Appreciate anything the county could do. Yes. I mean

and I I think we're going to have land use because sometimes like I said I'm not sure if the property I'm assuming you're talking about the property that is in unincorporated or you're talking about some other property. So we have someone from land use who can at least address some of the uh the comments you had. This David So, David Dubo is director of language department. Um, I'm looking in our uh e court right now. There's notes as of yesterday um that she was notified again no longer proceeding with the case and uh they've reached out to the owner. They're keep they updated the photos and they will be proceeding with the open violation at 501 Manhattan. Hold on. Go ahead. You're still on.

Uh what are the violations they're proceeding with? Does it include um the reference to the the people I guess living in the house? Uh let me look at the summary here for a second. So I guess what violations are we pursuing? Uh two campers on the property if people have uh individuals living in them. Um buildings appear to be dilapidated. Um there's other photos that are attached in the file as well. And and what about the debris there? That that would be included probably in the in the complaint. So, it is I I don't want to probably If it's not, I can make sure the inspector's aware of it. Okay.

And I'm going to move us on because again, now we're getting a little too far away from what we originally this is something different than the land use case we're were dealing with because these are larger issues. Um, but if m Thank you for coming up and just and if you just like to say one more, you sure can. Abs the abandoned house. There's nobody living in it. It's vacant. It's gutted. There's an RV and a trailer on the property that's being occupied. It's adjacent to the house. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Member Brooks.

Thank you, Madame Executive. Um, as you know, this property is in the district 6, Denise Win and I, and we see it. We go by it every day. We're aware of it. But my question, states attorney, because chairman Pritzo, you mentioned is off the agenda, but Kevin, you mentioned they can wait a year and come back. Is that correct? Spoke.

I misspoke. If they had been denied, it was a year. Um, there is no, at least in quick research here, there is no time limit when they withdraw, but they will have to go through the entire process, right? Uh, again, all the steps going through PZC posting. Um, like I said, I don't know what the basis of the withdrawal was. Um, usually I mean I've seen in the past because they've had a negative experience they've withdrawn rather than getting denied. Yeah. No, I know what the basis is. They got targeted by complaining because they know they are compliance. But you didn't hear that. Thank you. I'll also say I mean this got zero support in PCC and land use. So it wasn't likely to pass here either which is likely why they withdrew.

Yeah. I think we we have another question for the state's attorney's office. So, just to clarify, if they had been denied, then it would take another year. Correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I correct. I misspoke on the first time around. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, I don't anyone else and for any other land use cases? If not, I'm going to need a motion to close. Motion to close public hearing. Second. Motion by pretzel, seconded by uh pretzel I mean by Mitchell pre

we have to yeah we have to do roll call on ending the hearing. So madam clerk please call the role. Richmond Williams. Ogala Pretzel. Yes. Butler Nquist. Yes. yes. Axley, yes. Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. Freeman. Revvis. Mitchell. Yes. Ortiz. Burkowitz. Yes. Hickeyi. Yes. Costa. Trineer. Mandine. Yes. Member Pretzel.

Thank you, Madam Executive. Uh, we only have one item on the agenda today, but I would like to make to make a motion to remove zoning case 25-080. Motion by Pretzel, seconded by Revis. Any discussion? Previous roll call by Ogala, seconded by Brooks. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. And that's all I have. Next land use and development committee meeting is scheduled for February 5th, 2026. Thank you. Moving on to finance committee chair Nquist.

Good morning everybody. We have a consent agenda with the following items. Ordinance 26-2 abating taxes for the GO alternate revenue bonds series 2025A B. Ordinance 26-003 abating taxes for the GO alternate revenue bonds series 2025B. Resolution 26-004 appropriating enterprise zone payment in the land use budget. D. Resolution 26-00005 FY fiscal year 25 budget transfer. E resolution 26-006 appropriating funds in the coroner's budget. Those were grant funds. F. Resolution 26-00007 budget amendment within the Will County Health Department budget and ISO move.

Motion by Nuclas, seconded by Winfrey. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. I don't think there's discussion when there's a consent agenda. So that's what I've been told. Am I correct? No. Oh, wait. Yeah. Don't we Okay, folks. We do that at the beginning. That's what we Yeah. All right. That's fine. I don't I'm not I'm not But there's I think before we say there's a consent agenda, you have to let us, you know, know we have need to remove something. So, okay. So, how do we do this now? Because we went through She did not He did not have a light on. He was So, so tell us just how to fix it. Just how to fix it.

Yeah. Just whatever item he'd like to remove. Um obviously, that is the cleanest way before we start reading off the agenda items. Ask have whatever agenda item three removed. Uh or E. So, so maybe moving forward I guess before we start this I guess I I I can if the chair if we have a consent agenda say you know this time I'm going to move over if anyone has any objection maybe then we'll know that they have to do it at that time moving forward. All right. So um member ballots which one would you like removed? I just wanted to remove E so we could talk about it. That's fine. Okay. So now, how do we correct what we did last time? Cuz that was on there.

Yeah. So, uh, we can move forward with the consent agenda and once the consent agenda has been approved, we'll discuss item E and then item well. We've already motioned pass. So, what how do we It has No, it has not. He was trying to make a move motion to remove it. I I don't think we have to do anything. He was attempting to make a motion to remove it. Do I need to amend my motion to Yeah. Why don't we just Let's play clear. amend your motion for the consent agenda and just read the numbers excluding each because I think we did get through the whole I will amend my motion to pass the consent agenda to limit it to items A B C D F only and I some move motion by Nquis seconded by Winfrey all in favor.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Okay. I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. We need to add um member Dean Schlottman. Do you want to be a do you want to be a yes on that last motion or want to wait till the next one? Thank you. Okay. So now we'll move on to E. Appropriating funds in the coroner's budget. Okay. Is that a motion? And I so move. Motion by seconded by Triner Triner. Any discussion? Member Balanch.

Yeah. I just have a qu, you know, I think I have no problem with the uh actual item, but the question is like uh when when the county board voted to uh appropriate money to the uh clerk and to the roe, then now it's not being appropriated. Is this the same type? You know, this the same thing. We're appropriating money to a budget and so we're appropriating bud money to the corner's budget which I agree with but at the same time is it the same thing where once it gets appropriated we have to have a a big argument about get giving her the money.

Excuse me. I don't what I'm trying to get at is I don't understand the process why because I always thought the county board appropriates the money and you just give it to them and that's not the case for the REO or the clerk. So I wanted to clarify you know how this works.

I think the chair is going to be able to I can respond to that. This is it's it's a it's part of a program called the missing pieces program sponsored by Lorie's Children's Hospital and it's to um uh in in support of a program that provides um grief support services to parents that have had the death of a child. And it is not money that comes from taxpayers. It is money that was it's it's from Lor's Children's Hospital as part of this program. So, we could not include it in the original budget because we did not we didn't know we were going to get it number one and we didn't know how much we were going to get number two. So, this is just like any other external grant money that we once we receive it, we have to appropriate it in order to be able to spend it. I hope that helps.

Yeah. Um, I'm not sure if that the difference is you are appropriated directly to the coroner's office. That's the difference.

Hang on. I don't understand the difference. If the county board appropriates money, I agree to give her the money. I don't I'm not saying no, so I'm a yes on it. But I guess what I'm I guess you got to answer it, Kevin. How do How do we appropriate money to a budget for a department and then the department gets the money removed? I don't understand how just like this is saying we're appropriating money even though it don't come from tax dollars. Uh all right, we're appropriating money to the budget and the county board's voting yes. And then the county board voted yes to appropriate money for the clerk's office and the REO and they're not getting the money, you know. So I don't understand the difference. So I need an explanation how we can appropriate money and then it don't get appropriated.

Sure. So with regard to this resolution, my understanding of what has happened here is that as the chair said, this was not a guaranteed thing. So there was no there was not a line item for this. You are creating a line item for this now that you've gotten the um gotten the grant. So again, I know you've asked for a written opinion on the ROE and the uh the clerk's office. That's not gerine to this. Uh and like I said, if we get the appropriate thing, we will issue a written opinion for this. It's because the money was not put anywhere in the budget because we didn't know we were going to get it. So now that it has been given, um it is moving from anticipated revenues to a line item for this specific program. I think it's creating versus

those those are that's the special funds are completely different thing. This is creating a line item. Member van. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh I the way I understand it, Mr. Ballots is probably looking forward to a conversation about the the special fund, the cannabis fund. Um, and maybe that maybe he can have that explanation at at some other point to uh to satisfy his needs there, but that that has nothing to do with uh this particular item. So, I can help you with that, Steve, to get you that answer um if you like. Thank you.

All right. So, we have a motion and a second. Would you like a roll call vote on that or would you all or do we have a um Previous previous roll call. Previous roll call by Botage, seconded by Brooks. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Number two. Uh we just have a number of monthly financial reports to place on file. Um the primarily the auditor's quarterly reports and I so move. Motion by motion by uh Nquist, seconded by Costa, previous roll call by Traneer. Seconded by Brooks. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

That's all I have. Our next finance committee meeting is scheduled for February 3rd. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to public works and transportation. Chair Traneer. Thank you, Madam Executive. We have a number of items on the consent agenda. Would anyone on our board like to remove any of those items? Going once. Going twice. This is for going three times. All right.

May I proceed?

You may proceed. Yeah. I think uh letter A, resolution 26-008, confirm confirming award of contract to Homer or tree countywide removal number. Letter B, resolution 26-009 confirming award of contract to deconstruction uh let in December on Lorenzo Road over the BNSF rail road county board district 1. Letter C resolution 26-010 granting two accesses for ingress and egress for the new businesses on Lairway Road in County Board District 2. Letter D, Resolution 26-011, appropriating transportation funds for the acquisition of necessary right-of-way by agreement or condemnation or other right-of-way costs associated with the improvements for Francis Road and Marley Road County Board District 24 and 5. Letter E, Resolution 26-012, authorizing approval of professional services agreement for engineering services for the 2026 Willil County Bridge inspections with Willlet Hoffman and Associates County Board Districts 1 through 11. Letter F resolution 26-013 authorizing approval of professional services agreement for design engineering services phase 1 with HDR Inc. for Mills Road from US Route 52 to Brig Street County Board District 6. Letter G, Resolution 26-014, authorizing the county, Will County States Attorney's Office to proceed with condemnation cases regarding the county's improvements of Francis Road and Marley Road County Board Districts 2, four, and five. And I so move.

Motion by Traneer, seconded by uh Freeman. Previous roll call by Brooks, seconded by Ogal. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Our next public works and transportation committee is scheduled for February 3rd at 9:00 a.m. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to public health and safety. Cheer Butler. Uh, public health and safety has nothing to move forward. Our next meeting is on February 5th. Thank you.

Legislative committee chair Winfrey. Good morning, Madame Executive, fellow board members. The legislative committee this morning has two items. The first being the state agenda and we need to do an amendment there. On page one of the state agenda, there is an item referring to foyer requests. Can we let's let's get it moved first and then we will we will so I need a motion. Motion motion uh by Winfries, seconded by Traneer. Discussion. Go ahead.

Thank you. On the state agenda on page one, there are two items referring to foyer requests. And it says both oppose and support. That was overlooked when we were filing that before. So, we need to make a decision, an amendment that says which one we do. I'm assuming we support, but we need that amendment. So, I would move. We're making a motion to change that word to support. Motion by Trir, seconded by by Hickeyi. Is there any discussion? Okay. Um we have a couple we have three questions here. Member uh

Revis uh for the after this I want to make an amendment. Gotcha. Member Oxley. Thank you. Is this the paper that was put on their desk this morning? Okay. I'd like more time to review this before we act on it. Thank you. Just for everyone's uh edification, this is not a new information. This is the same thing we went through in the legislative committee. The issue is that at the top of that paragraph, we have support and opposing. We didn't determine which one it was. We assumed there was support, I believe, and so we passed it as it stood. So, it's just a correction there.

If that's helpful. We have one spare time member Burkowit. Uh okay. So, um I've just heard that it is on the agenda. These this change that that I'm holding in my hand is in the agenda because I don't see it. Uh so my question is is this language is this posted so the public can view it on our agenda because I can't find it. Uh so is it in fact uh on this agenda? Uh can you bring it up please? This is the language that is currently in the state agenda.

What was handed out this morning? I'm referring to the information that the piece I didn't finish. The piece that was handed out this morning is a copy of what is currently in the state's agenda. The thing that is different is at the top of the paragraph it says opposed deleted would be the red section when we went through the agenda in the committee. What we did not do is make a determination of oppose or support for that paragraph. That is the only thing that is different. The body of the paragraph is not changed either this one or the item behind it. Neither of the two items is changed in the body. The only change is at the top of the paragraph for each of them where it says oppose and support. We cannot have both. So we need to make a decision either oppose or support for each of those two items. And that's what we're asking for in the amendment is for the first item. We're doing them one at a time. For the first item, the amendment has been offered to support that foyer information that you had before in the committee and you have a copy of again this morning. Okay. So, I I just want to make sure that the public who's viewing this message can understand what we're doing. So, um they don't have a copy of our state agenda in front of them. So, if they're on the computer, what page is this? Let's just make it clear for the public. I So I don't I mean I don't know if I guess I don't know the page number. So I I guess you're page on your on what?

Page one page one of the cons of the page of the state agenda. I member Richmond. Sorry. I think some of it may have already been clarified a little bit. It's page one in the state agenda and it's it's the foye legislation. We just didn't choose one. We it has both support and oppose. Correct. And from what I understand, Denise, is we're looking for clarification. Do we support or do we oppose? So, one of those words will be scratched out. Yes. Exactly. And one will be chosen. That's it. And right now, you're voting on the word support. So,

so that was the motion. The word paragraph. Yeah. So, that's that's all that there is. Yeah. All right. So, um the language has changed. Member Traneer and then Butler. I don't really have a question. I just want to apologize for pointing this out. Oh, okay. We could have just passed it the way it was. That's fine. And it would have just confused any legislator that was looking at it. Member Butler.

Okay. So, I just wanted to um just make sure that I'm understanding this correctly. I mean, I don't have any objection to doing this. We should do this, but uh on the first one, we're limiting the amount of footage that can be accessed through FOYA under the six conditions. Is that correct? And then on the second one, we're extending We're only on the first one right now. We're only only doing them one at a time. Okay. All right. So, is that correct? Is that we're limiting the amount of foy video that can be foyed? Um because these six conditions don't exist now. Is it is that correct?

They're in your agenda. They are in what you approved in the meeting, but you didn't say I understand that. I'm I'm just saying how does this change from the law that is currently on the books. Are we asking for something different or are we supporting the law? And now we're getting to like do there questions that you this is I guess things we should have probably worked out in committee before we got here to vote on the final. I didn't think this was moving forward. I I didn't think we we didn't think we'd be done before, you know, our new chair came and we never thought we would be done this quick. We thought there was going to be more things to go over. So I'm just asking before I vote on it. Is that what this if I'm reading this correctly?

Amends. Yes. Amen. for the state's attorney to answer maybe the state's attorney as I read it uh and I'm pulling up the body cam act right now uh and we do have a fair amount of experience doing this I think it actually expands access um expands access okay

okay we have a couple more member Ortiz thank you Um, as I'm reading it, I don't see where Kevin would say that it expands access at all cuz it literally says limits disclosure. This to me says that it's going to make it harder for the general public to obtain certain body camera footage. Um, so I would encourage us to oppose this bill. Uh, that would be my suggestion. It's li limiting disclosure of body camera footage from news media, from the general public. So I I would say that we should oppose this bill. So I'm going to Are you asking for clarification from the state's attorney whether it ex bands or okay on that

you're sorry your answer

under the old act or in the current act it was limited as well I'm trying to pull up the actual um limitations u but it was not it was not cart blanch when body cams became uh available and there's a whole process of flagging there are different instances when a um when a item is considered flagged under the law. Uh like I said, I'm running a compare right now to show you, but before I don't recall witnesses ever being considered. Yeah, it's so anyways I um let give me two minutes to look through this but um in the past we have not necessarily um given just a witness or somebody who is they use the term involved um they have not been given cart blanch to get access to body cams especially when there's a pending investigation or things like that.

All right. So while he's you have some things to look up we will continue with discussion. So, we have Member Butler, do you want to circle back on something? Yeah. I just think you I think it's important to to make that distinction when we're going to vote whether we oppose or support if it's an increase or a decrease. And I and I'm not comfortable that we actually know that. I think we need a little time. I wouldn't mind postponing this until next month to give the state's attorney the the time to properly address this. Chair Winfrey, what's the statute? Hold on. I'm sorry. Can you Are you red? Yes. All right.

Another option for us is since the rest of the agenda seems to have met the approval of the committee, we can eliminate, we can amend the agenda to take out these two items. These are currently in the rules committee, which means that's going to be a long process. We don't have to have them. If we want these two items to go forward, then we need to decide support or oppose. we can take these two off and then at some later date if uh we hear from the rules committee what their position is we can add those. So I would offer that as an option for us as well. Member Traneer.

Thank you Madame Executive. I I just heard it said that it limits the news media and I wanted to clarify that it absolutely allows a representative of the news media to request these uh footages. So I don't feel again without knowing the exact verbiage and I'm not on this committee uh but without knowing the exact verbiage and what the changes might have been but this seems very reasonable to me court order person involved legal representative of the person involved witness of the encounter legal representative of the witness and the news media I don't necessarily think that it's fair to any unit of government that anybody can just go in and ask for a foyer every single day of every single piece of body camera. I mean, it that would tie up the government and and that agency immensely and potentially either cost a lot more money or not allow that agency to function properly. So, um I'm in favor of supporting this. That seems fair to me, the people that are requesting uh the copies of the footage, and I will support it.

Thank you. Member, we're going to get people who have not spoken. Mr. Revis, you were next, but you're still on the next one. I meant outside of this issue. Okay. Uh, we have member Burkwitz because it's conf you keep I'm turning off because you stay on a list of names. Go ahead. Member Burkwitz. You are green. Now you're red. Thank you. Um, I'd like to know what is Mr. Glascow's position on this? Does he oppose or support this? He doesn't have we don't Mr. Glasgow has not weighed in on this. I don't believe um he has position. Okay. Has our sheriff

Do we have any feedback from the sheriff? I'm asking the state's attorney. I I couldn't speak for the sheriff's office. I don't know. So, we don't have feedback from either. Uh be but I I I think this is probably important to them. Um I absolutely think their their um concerns and opinion is would matter. Okay. Yeah. We can go forward or we can look for some input from these two additional. All right. Member of Gallup.

Thank you. So since this is in the rules committee, I think it's important for them to hear our position on it. So because what we can do because this is important if it's in rules, we could go ahead and say send a letter from our county board to say the county board supports or opposes either one of these. That way when they're making their decision on how they're going to vote to move it out of committee or not, they at least hear how Will County thinks about it. So I think it's a good idea for us to vote on it today, to include it, to not include it. support it, oppose it. I think it makes sense for us to do that today. That That's my position. Member Oxley.

Yes. I think we should listen to Chair Winfrey and remove it till further discussion is had. Member Freeman. So, I was just wanting some clarification because I mean, this did go through committee and um it's here and they just messed up with the support or oppose. I know they were doing some like straw polls. Um, do we know how the committee felt when this came through if it was supported or opposed? The vote in the committee was to accept the agenda as presented. Okay.

The assumption was that either support or opposed have been chosen. We did not do that and so we're just looking to correct that. Now, however, if there is strong sentiment against these two items, we can remove them from the agenda and move the agenda forward. So, I think we have to also remember we have a legislative breakfast coming up where we will be presenting our state and federal agendas. And I do believe that's in February. Um, so if we send this back, I do believe that would we would only be taking these two items. We would approve the agenda with the exception of these two and present the the agenda. This would go back to committee. Just that thing.

All right. Thank you. So we could still have the agenda for the breakfast. Speaker Bandai. Thank you, madam. I know that uh this has been said multiple times and I just want to make it crystal clear. This did this body uh uh this came out of committee already once. Everybody has had plenty of time to review the body of the document. It's simply just removing a word either support or oppose it. And it was under the impression that the committee wanted to support it. So I think we should just end discussion and and vote. Thank you.

Member Nquist. Yeah, actually that was my question and I think it's been answered. Did the committee support these two even though they didn't make a formal choice? And it sounds like the committee did was in support of both of these unless I'm hearing everything. No, you're right. Okay. Thank you. Member Butler. So, uh I'm not clear. Did um member uh Winfrey uh make a motion to remove this? I did not. She did not. Okay. So then I would like to make that motion. I believe we have one already on the floor.

I'd like to make the amendment to pass the uh legislative agenda without these two items in it. Believe we have an amendment already on the floor. Motion to the I thought Jake made an amendment to support. Yes. Make a motion to amend the amendment to remove these two. No, they have to act on the they have to withdraw or act on the motion. Uh then we can move to remove these from we we can also amend the amendment if if the mover uh consents. I didn't make she suggested it. So yes,

I thought you were withdrawing the whole agenda. She she made the motion for the amendment. item number one. Okay, that's just one piece. But then he's asking to have those two items removed. But he what we're being told is that the the the person who made the motion has to make the amendment. Is that what I'm No. No. Now that she's now that she's with removed her agenda, we're fine. So now we can now he can make the Yes, he can make his most his amendments to remove those two items now that we don't have a pending motion on the floor. All right. I I make the motion to amend to remove. So, we have a motion to uh can does just so people are clear, can you state which two you want to have removed? I I'm not We're going to have that's going to be the next question, Mr. Butler. So, you might as well

Okay. So, I would like to uh make a motion to amend removing the FOYA legislation on the HB 3380 and the HB1740 from the uh state agenda. legislative agenda. Perfect. There's a motion. Is there a second? Any discussion on the the motion? It madame clerk, please call the role on removing those two items from the state legislative agenda.

Richmond Williams. I'm sorry, Dean Schlapman. No. Ogala. Sorry, I missed that. What was that? No. No. Pretzel. Yes. Butler? Yes. Newquist? Yes. yes. Oxley, yes. Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock, no. Logan, yes. Freeman. We came up with the idea first.

Revis Mitchell. No. Ortiz Burkowitz. Hickey. Whichever. This pointion. I would rather just take it out and be done with it. Trainer Vanine. 14 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Chair Winfrey.

Okay. So then I present the federal uh the state rather agenda as uh presented with the word support. No, no, no, no, no. We just to pull those two pieces out. So it's as amended. Oh, I'm sorry. We lost track of the amendments. There was so much dissension. Okay. So, so then I move that we take we just have a motion to just motion to approve as amended. As amended, rather sec motion by Winfrey, second by Hickeyi. Discussion. There you go.

Okay. So, I like the uh state legislative agenda, especially after that change. However, on uh of course I had the page pulled up and then I scrolled away when we were doing the other thing, but I would like to add one uh word and concept into the housing uh section. Um specifically um so this is on page number four uh number nine in the page nine in the PDF, number four in the document. Um it's underneath community development and housing. Uh and it says Will County supports the following initi initiatives. Restoring funding for home Illinois, protecting and expanding affordable housing programs. Prioritizing resources with people with the greatest housing needs. And this is the one that I'd like to change. Promoting sustainable home ownership. And in that paragraph, uh I think we need to make a mention of property taxes. So, for example, supporting policies that address the root causes of eviction such as high property taxes and pro promote sustainable home ownership through various programs and initiatives. Um, and I would like to make a motion to include the word or phrase such as property taxes after the root causes of eviction. Insert. Yes, insert.

Motion by Revvis, seconded by Dean Schlotman. Is there discussion on that uh motion? Member Traneer. Per our rules, that should have been presented in writing. Do we have that available in writing? Yeah, you give me 30 seconds. I can do that. Uh I guess I'm going to have to email it to uh Chief of Staff Chuck. Chuck, it'll be coming to your email here in a moment. Sorry to make you run. All right. Um, while we are waiting for that, is there any other discussion on agenda?

No. No. On what we're discussing right now? Yeah. On that? No, we're not. All right. Right. Do I We're going to recess for until Mr. Pelky can come back and with the print or your staff can come back with the printed I Bye.

All right, member Revvice, I'm going back to you so you can once again we are in the middle of an a Yes, ma'am. We are in the middle of an we are in the disc discussion portion of the already amended state agenda. So, why don't you once again explain where we're at, what you want?

Yes, ma'am. So, uh page number four or marked page number four, uh number nine on your document if you're looking at the PDF. Um, we want to change the last section uh underneath in the housing section uh underneath the promoting sustainable home ownership. And it would now read in in its entirety that we would be supporting policies that address the root causes of eviction and foreclosure such as high property taxes and promoting sustainable home ownership through various programs and initiatives, supporting court-based rental assistance programs. So the change would really come uh after root causes where it would say of eviction and foreclosure such as high property taxes. That's the language that we're adding.

There's already been a motion in a second. Is there discussion on that additional word? Member Burkwitz, you have a discussion on this additional word. Okay. Nope. Speaker Van Dy. Thank you. Um it seems like we're just singling out such as high property taxes. In in my mind, uh there's a lot of root causes of evictions and foreclosure. I don't think it's necessary to just take one particular item and add this into our uh our agenda. So, I will not support that. Thank you. Okay. Member Balage.

Uh I don't want to say this. I don't want to say it wrong. Uh, I used to have a real estate company and when I would sell a house, if the taxes were too high, the people that wanted to buy the house couldn't buy the house because they don't qualify for a loan. So, when the taxes keep going up, like I live in Homer Glenn and my taxes rise pretty much every year, a lot. And now if you have a a bigger home, you have more you spend more money, but people can't afford to pay the asking price unless you lower that. So you you got to keep lowering your price. So there's a point where people can't and like we have a water bill. So I mean, when you're talking about property taxes, that's what everybody looks at, but they don't look at water bills. My water bill averages between uh 260 and uh 290 a month just for the water. So I mean you when you add up cost people that go to buy that house, they're they're going, "Wait a minute, you got uh close to $300 just for water. Then you have property taxes and that's like $600 a month. So that's $900. So you start limiting the people that can afford to buy the houses that are there unless the people are willing to sell them for a real low price. So you know I guess when I say such as property taxes that's a big problem for everybody and like with the water that's a problem for us but it isn't problem for everybody else but they have different problem. Everyone's got something where they live and it's should be addressed, but property taxes is uh probably the only thing that everybody has a problem with.

I thank you. I don't see any other comments. So, we are going to now um take a vote on adding such as high property tax. Madame clerk, please call the role. Right. Wasn't there two things? It just it also adds and revis. It just adds the foreclosure language, but All right. All right. Thank you. Sorry. All right. So, we're now voting on those two additions to the language that is sitting before you. Madam clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams Dean Schlottman. Ogala. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. Yes. Newquest. yes.

Oxley, yes. Brooks, yes. Winfrey. Bulock. Logan, yes. Raymond, Revis, yes. Mitchell, Burkowitz, Nikki, Costa, Traer, Bendine,

Y. All right. 13 members in the affirmative. The motion carries. So now sorry I move to accept the state agenda as amended. Motion by uh motion by Winfrey, seconded by Ogala. Any discussion? Um, Matt member Burke.

Thank you. Uh, so on page nine under the Will County Community Mental Health Board, I would like to uh remove I'd like to uh make an amendment and remove the paragraph um on page or page nine. It's the uh second paragraph. It says, "The Will County Board adopts the following position. supports a legislative effort to expand mental health research into the birth to five age group and the expansion of services required to serve children in this age group and their families. Just from a common sense perspective and not even the dollars I see in this paragraph, I would like this removed. I I do I sit on the county board and I do not support this. Uh I don't know um what kind of research you can you can get at birth um on mental health. So to me this I I would like it completely removed and um that does everybody find it

page nine. It's uh page nine. The second paragraph that says, "Will county board adopts the following positions." First bullet point supports a legislative effort to expand mental health research from birth to age five. I would like to make a motion to have that removed. There's a motion to have that line removed. Seconded by Dean Schlottman. Discussion. A lot of it. Member Costa,

there's there's well-known research around ACEs, which is understood to be adverse childhood experiences that do occur at the early stages of life. And I do think that is important that um as we, you know, take care of our children and we consider the work that um our mental health board and the community is doing to try to resolve um adult related traumas. A lot of that is stemming from youth experiences from zero to five. So this is not, you know, it this doesn't have a dollar amount. It supports whatever research that is currently occurring. Maybe there's an expansion of that. I would highly recommend that we support maintaining this language on this agenda. Thank you,

member O'allenum.

Thank you. So unless you've adopted children at an older age, not at birth, although I know birth comes into it, it's maybe hard to understand. I took various classes and became certified through the workforce investment services program that we have on epigenetics. And epigenetics is something that happens through families and is passed down. So even though the child doesn't experience a certain thing because the parent experienced it possibly when the child when they were pregnant or whatever it's built into becomes built into their genetics and they did research as crazy as this might seem. One of the examples they showed were they showed mice, adult mice in a situation and they were exposed to the smell of cherry blossoms and when they were exposed to that something scared them. So then they were always scared when cherry blossoms were they smelled cherry blossoms. Then they found that their children who were never exposed to cherry blossoms when they had that same smell, they became scared. And it's just part of the science of epigenetics. And I agree with everything that U. Member Costa said. It's very important. You may not think that 0 to five is very critical, but 0 to 5 is extremely critical and what children are exposed to can have a big impact on them later in life. even though they seem very young at maybe two years old or something like that. So I think the more information they can that can be gathered the more services could be provided to children. So I will be supporting keeping this in the language. Member Hickey. Um, okay. As the parent of two kids who needed services in that age range, what

I can tell you is that at least back in the day, insurance companies would bulk at anything that didn't have that wasn't a proven intervention. You needed longitudinal studies in order to make sure that you could get insurance coverage for any of these interventions. So I I mean when when we're talking about this, I don't think that we're talking about doing something bad to a kid during cherry blossoms. Although I'm not I understand the epigenetics part but um I think what we're actually talking about is making sure that we are providing best practices in that really critical time during the birth to five window so that we can make sure that we are making the right choices then because I there's some statistic out there and it's like for every dollar you spend on a child before the age of five you'll have to spend seven after to get the same kind of result. So, I think that this is very important and very important to um parents especially in the autism community that we make sure that we um expand this research. So, I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Well, her her her motion is to remove it, just so you know.

Yeah. Yeah. I member Burkwitch, anything else to add? Is your light still on? My response to um the comments that were made is this this language. This there's no accountability here. There's no details. This is a general statement indicating that we support an unknown process. I haven't seen any results of mental health research. I haven't seen any proof or validation. What does this mean? Expand mental health research. Does that mean that if a physician or a government official thinks that a child is experiencing from birth to five mental health issues that they have the ability to interject into a family home or that child's life? This is too too broad and and dangerous. When we adopt policies, we see what's going on in the all over the country today with money. This is money. We're supporting an expansion to spend money, taxpayer dollars in mental health research. What does that mean, mental health research? I am asking for common sense. Let's keep our agenda focused. focused broad things like this without any anything substantial, anything proven. And I bring this motion forward and let's have a vote. Member Bulock, call a question, please.

We have to take a vote on that, but I think we were already we were already done anyway, so we can I didn't see any. Um, so we are now voting on removing the line item. So if you vote yes, you are voting to remove the light line item. I said that right. Right. Madam clerk, please call the role. Richmond, Williams, Dean Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Axley, Brooks, Winfrey, Bulock,

no. Logan, Freeman, Revis, Mitchell. Ortiz, no. Burkowitz, Hickey, Posta, Trineer, Van Dy, 20 in the negative. The motion fails. Any other disc? Uh, Chair Winfrey. Back to the full agenda. I'll just say about that particular line item. Sorry. As a It's Yeah, it's done. It's done. Moving on. Okay. Move on then. Um, state agenda as amended.

The motion by Winfrey, seconded by Ogala. Madame clerk, please call the role. This is the full state agenda now as amended. Richmond Williams. Dean Slottman, Ogala, Russell, Butler, Newquist, Axley, Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock, yes. Logan, Freeman, Revvice, Mitchell, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Traineer, Vany. Yes.

22 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Chair Winfrey, thank you. Next up is the H federal agenda 254. Oops. 022-01 federal agenda for moving for approval. Second motion by get to make sure you say motion please. Motion by Winry, seconded by Free Freeman. Any discussion? Ma um member Burkwit. Uh I just uh have an item I'd like to have removed. Of course you do. Um

and so it is on page one uh under community development and housing and uh it is the one two three fourth bullet point and the sentence that I would like removed is um let's see it says the Will County Board opposes es cuts to HUD subsidies that discourage institutional investors in affordable housing, which strains an already stressed housing stock. Uh I served on a homeowners association for uh well over a decade. Uh part of my um most unpleasant responsibilities was going to all the properties that had been abandoned. And these are these are nice homes, squatters that had taken over properties. Um and uh just the the general marketing uh uh housing market crash uh that time, especially in 2008. It was a horrible, horrible time. And we had a budget too, our homeowners association, to keep our assessment fees lows. We had properties that were mismanaged, properties that were not taken care of, prop properties that were trashed. That that caused us a lot of financial strain. In addition to the impact on the community, the homeowners were upset. The police said there's nothing we can do. We We were It was It was a terrible terrible period. What I was dealing with was a lot of absentee owners, institutional investors, people who were companies that were buying our properties. So for

that reason, based on my experience um with that type of a market and also um it it happens that uh just recently uh in the last few days that uh the president um issued an executive order removing institutional investors from um home ownership. So, for that reason, I would like to have that last sentence removed. And that sentence states that the Will County Board rejects policies. Oh. Oh, no. It's the next one. And the Will County Board opposes cuts to HUD subsidies that discourage in institutional investors in affordable housing, which strains an already stressed housing stock. I can tell you that individual homeowners

Yeah. I'm just waiting for you to make the mo. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah. I make the motion and bring it for motion to remove that line item. Is there a second? Second. Second Ogala. Now discussion on the removal of that line item. Member Butler then trire. All right. So I'm sorry my computer's down but it sounded like a double negative. Like if if we're discouraging funding for institutional investors, does that limit in institutional investors? is I'm not understanding 100% on that. Should Should I Well, you want to explain what you Yeah, this is your

The statement says that the Will County Board rejects policy board opposes cuts to HUD that subsidizes or cuts cuts to HUD subsidies that discourages indust institutional investors. So, we're saying in affordable housing, we we want those. We want to encourage institutional investors. No. Well, no, you're okay. I I guess the way it was Let's make sure I'm not reading. I think I understand now. So, we're we're we're we're discouraging the encouragement of entitled.

I'd like it completely removed. Well, as it's written now, it supports your position. No, it doesn't. No, it's a it's like a double negative. So, for that reason, I I think we should just remove it. Yeah, you made a motion to remove. Okay. Yeah, we're working on that. So, um we now have member Traneer. Um I would agree with uh the previous member, the previous speaker. Uh this is basically a double negative. So, this does give member Burkowitz what she's looking for and to remove it would take away what she's looking for. It's opposing cuts that discourage the and don't have the language. I'm a great wordssmith. I love a good word.

So, if you have a better way to do it, it comes stinking and working. So, I would like to finish. I guess I'm sorry. I thought you were done. This we we want to uh not oppose but support. Right. Right. That's what you're saying is that we don't want to oppose. We don't want to say oppose or we want to support. I mean, we we could just say, will county board supports the discouragement of institutional investors in affordable housing? Yeah. I I want it just completely removed, please. Like right now, let's just stick with what the what member Burkowitz has wanted. She wants it completely removed. And then you can Yeah, I agree.

Yeah. Um completely removed. So, we still have discussion on the removal of what member Burkitch uh is asking. Member Nquis.

Yeah. Yeah, I I was very confused about the wording of this, but I'm also wanting to point out that in many communities, what is deemed affordable housing is the result of institutional investors. I mean, there are usually developments that are developed by um you know, a particular group and with a with the with the housing range price geared, you know, the housing price geared toward a certain range. So, I mean, it really depends on what your definition of affordable housing is, I guess, because because outward in the south suburbs, almost all of quote affordable housing developments, unquote, are developed by institutional investors. Member Mitchell and Hickey,

I was a realtor. I was a realtor and um I would have uh clients who were looking to have an apartment, have a a rental in a in their area of choice and I'll just say this one particular area was Ro area was Romeoville. So I would take them to Romeoville and uh they want to go look at all these apartments or whatever or no these homes that were owned by institutional investors in Romeoville. They were rental homes, single family homes. They were owned by institutional investors. And each one I would take them to would be owned by the same ones. So it' be the same rules, the same barriers to them getting into those homes. It was very annoying. I was like, I you know, I didn't know any It's funny how years later it gets to this point, but it it really barred entry level rental into getting your family, get, you know, a single mom with their child getting into those properties because they had um a very strict uh a strict point of entry into those homes. It would be different if it was mom and pop, you know, looking at a a renter and going, "Oh, this is nice. You know, you're a nice family. Looks like you have a good, you know, credit rating or you're building it up. Let's work together and get you into this um into this rental." It wasn't like that. It was very cold. It it did it did prevent um renters, low-inccome or rather moderate to low income renters from getting into a home. So for this I I do agree that we should not encourage institutional uh institutions uh from purchasing uh properties that are out there.

Member Hickey.

Okay. Um when we looked at this, my recollection is that the we're not we want to keep the current level of HUD subsidies going out and by that happening that discourages institutional investors in affordable housing which I believe is more purchasing and raising the prices rather than the original builders. But I I that was my understanding. I I know there's a lot of levels of abstraction here. Um so I I completely understand and I apologize that uh I didn't point this out that we could simplify this language, but I I thought that it anyway. Thank you. Member Bullock, then Buller.

Okay, let's look at the language. It says that right now there are currently HUD subsidies that discourage institutional investors in affordable housing. Okay, that's they're they're out there. What we are saying is that we oppose cuts to those subsidies because we like those subsidies because they are discouraging institutional investors. It is written correctly. It is just confusing.

So, HUD subsidies exist that discourage institutional investors. We like that. Which means that we will then oppose any cuts to those types of subsidies. So, this is written correctly and I believe we should support it the way it is. Member Butler.

Okay. And I I that's what I kind of thought. I was kind of confusing because I thought it did support what she was getting at. But just to be clear, Madam Chair, if we vote to to take this out, we're opposing um No, if we if we keep it in, we're we're supporting the reduction of in institutional uh investors. It right. I mean, so yes. I mean, that's I think what she just read because if you increase HUD, you decrease institutional investors.

That's what I thought it said. I was just having a little trouble getting to it. Yeah. I mean, okay. Can and then we're going to let we'll let the attorney kind of weigh in on what how he's that's how Go ahead, sir. So, you're going to hate the lawyer answer. I'll tell you this much. If this was a contract dispute, we would say it's totally ambiguous. You you'd construe it against the drafter. I I can't I can't tell you. There are a number of concepts. Both sides think it supports one thing. I think you can read it. It's an ambiguous. It's an ambiguous thing. That's how you look at it as a contract is this is ambiguous language. Thank you.

I I think there are two reasonable interpretations of this and thank you. Yeah. All right. So I know how to read me Kevin's right. That's first member uh member Revvice or I'm sorry we're because you spoke on did you speak on this one or I'm get someone okay member Revis and Williams supports the discouraging discourage

supports discouraging institutional right they want it okay so I mean I guess I'm not committed to this sentence but we're arguing whether or not that this sentence discourage says inst institutional investors and the way it's written we we don't want to encourage institutional investors. You just said that we don't want to encourage institutional investors. We want to discourage institutional investors. So we the will county board oppose cuts to the HUD subsidies that exist that discourage institutional investors in affordable housing.

I mean there's only one way to read this sentence. I think it's fine. I'm not going to support any changes just to be difficult and it's fine as it is. It accomplishes what member Burkowitz wants. There's no need to change it. Member Williams. So if the language is removed, then they don't know where we stand, right? So we do want to have a stand and the stand is to oppose these institutional developments and that's what this language does. Thank you, member Richmond.

So there's times I agree with my attorney and there's times I don't. It depends on the context of the discussion. If it's a business decision, I like to take my decisions. But in this case here, it's a wording decision or a wording discussion. And I agree with Kevin. The fault falls on the person that wrote it. In this case here, it is unclear. So what I would like to do is defer to Kevin so we could clarify the two possible ways and then we vote on those ways. Does that does that make sense? Manager, I am okay if the state's attorney is comfortable doing that.

I'll be quite honest. If I understood how HUD subsidies affected the real estate market, I'd be a much richer man. I'd be happy to get you word wording to accomplish what you would like to accomplish. Uh I think what I'm being told here, and again, I'm not an expert on housing policy, is that we want to continue these subsidies. So there there is one camp that wants to continue the subsidies so as to remove institutional uh lenders from being involved in the market and there is another camp that wants to keep the institutional investors well in general but I think we're all in agreement here.

I think in general we're in agreement that we don't want the institutional investors and I don't mean to speak for the whole board but I think that's what we want. And so I I think maybe what we look to do is get correct language. Mike, I know you're you're chomping at the bit up there, too. Um, but I I think what we should do is we should get this right because last thing we want to do is, you know, misstate if Mr. Mahoney has a good clarification. Kevin, great. He's going to give you an example here.

So just so I understand, we want to remove institutional investors from the equation is is the will of the board or at least one of So I I I would say we just we we we support policies that limit institutional investors uh role in the res residential real estate market. Something to affect remove. Are you satisfied with that? All I wanted to do is get to get to wording that everybody can understand and not have any double talk or ambiguity like Kevin had mentioned. So I appreciate it. So now how so now so now we have to figure out how to put this in there. Hold on. I Mr. Butler I have a list we're going I see that you want to speak.

Kevin, can you restate your position? Sure. So, so if if member Burkowitz would withdraw her motion to completely remove it, if we wanted to move towards having positive language and opposition, it would be that we support policies that limit or exclude uh institutional investors from the residential real estate market. I would agree with that with excluding institutional. Sure. Whether it's excluding or limiting I, you know,

I would so Okay. So what I'm hearing then is you would have to withdraw your motion to remove and then we will let you can amend it or Mr. Richmond can amend it or um so I'm withdrawing my initial motion and then I would like this uh rewritten to to um clarify that the Will County Board does not support institutional investors in housing. So that's

and I'm making that motion. I I'm I make the motion and it needs to be. Okay. So, just I I I think it's fair to say that if if it is if it we want to make sure that but you went Okay. So last time we went to support policies that limit you just said

well I think policies everybody is the reference to like Kevin said HUD and that's very confusing. So I think it if we were very specific and we say we don't support the purchase of by institutional investors of where's my yeah I'm with you in housing. Do you mind because he's gonna he's gonna jump off his seat. So can Mr. Butler help you with the language? Yeah. I Yeah. Oh no. We do have we wouldn't be disc we do we have a motion in second. Um

um Burkwitch made the motion. Dean SL made the second and so member Butler you say will county board supports uh HU HUD subsidies that discourage institutional investors. It's it it's saying that we support the subsidies that discourage institutional investors. Okay. Again, if that's what they do, again, I'm not an expert. That's not a double meaning. No, no, that is a direct that is a specific we are against kind of institutional investors. Okay. So, I'm going because this is now becoming a wording thing and we're kind of losing control here, but I want I want I don't think you're going to have member Galla agree with you.

Okay. So, we want to strike and the or and we want to strike opposes cuts or opposes and just put supports cuts to HUD subsidies that discourage institute. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Strike opposes cuts to and put supports subsidies that I HUD subsidies that discourage institutional investors. And then it's very specific. We're supporting HUD subsidies that will prevent or limit institutional investors.

Okay. And I'm going to before they go off and I I want make sure that is member Burkowitz is okay with that because she's the one making the the amendment. But before we go and have them type it, I'm going to listen to member Ogala who I think is going to come up with a different language and so we can have this done once.

So I'm just going to clarify. I don't know anyone here who spoke with Martha Soya from the land use department who works with CDBG who does h who works with these HUD subsidies. Hub subsidies are created specifically to encourage investors. There are a certain group of investors that invest to purchase affordable housing for people. She does not want to have cuts in those hub subsidies which would then discourage them from applying. So she wants the hubs, she wants us to oppose cuts to hub subsidies that would discourage people these institutions from a from buying land from buying properties that make it affordable. That is what I sp talked with Martha so I understand what she's saying. So, hub subsidies exist today that institutional investors can apply for to purchase affordable housing units. That's what it does. So, so the way it's written, the way it's written is like, and I completely agree with what your opinion was, it's ambiguous because it's the intent of the writer. The intent of the writer, like I'm telling you, is Martha does not want to see any cuts in hub subsidies because if there were, it would discourage these investors from purchasing homes.

Member Ogala, since you did have a C, and I understand what you're saying, and since you have this knowledge, can we just say, and I'm sorry I'm interfering, but this could go on all day with words, but can you just say do not support cuts to HUD and leave it at that? I I I don't know. Do you feel based on that conversation possibly? I didn't ask her that question. Unfortunately, she isn't here. We we could hold the whole federal agenda till next month and clarify it.

But there's two intents on this board. There's I believe there's a group that wants to see hub subsidies where in institutional investors can get grants to purchase affordable housing. I would think there are Yeah. versus those that want to go with the executive order that the president just issues. So, it's it's ambiguous as written and I think because of that it should just be removed or somebody should replace it with non-ambiguous language.

I we are working with member Burkwitz on the proper language what you you want to that you have a motion and a second here. Can you please state how you since you withdrew your to remove please state how you would like this worded whether you use Mr. But I have a very clear simple statement. The Will County Board does not support the purchase of housing stock by institutional investors which strains an already stressed housing stock and you want to add that to the So now you're adding that

remove that sent um Kevin I could also withdraw my motion and again ask to have this sentence removed and then at the next committee meeting we can determine in the language of that and I'm and have it added to the agenda. It it can still be a part we're gonna Yeah, I see that. We're gonna we're gonna let me get control of this meeting again. Um I'm going to go back to the chair

while I do see Martha came up and Martha we're going to put you on the spot because this is really this is we are doing way too much committee work here right now. So, um, Martha, we're going to do, but remember member, we're going to let the chair speak, or would you rather first hear Martha speak? Uh, let me just say this, okay? And I understand what Martha would like. I do agree that the language is maybe not as clear as it could be. I don't necessarily disagree with the language. So, I'm offering that we would take it back to committee and then working with Martha, we could work to make the language more clear so that people could more readily understand what our intent is. Absolutely. I support that. She walked all the way if you

just Sorry, you came all the way up here. All right. So, we have a Okay, hold on. But we have a motion second on the floor. Hold on a second. So, they are just making a motion to bring this back to committee. You could talk. Are you So, you'd have to withdraw your motion again. Okay. So, I withdraw the motion. I was recommended to change it too. Okay. So, I'm withdrawing it and going back to my original motion where I would like this removed and then I'm perfectly happy with having it come back to committee and then we can have the appropriate language.

Okay. So, so just in in the interest of time here, in the interest of time, member Burke has asked that we just remove the the language. We know that member we know that member Winfrey is going to offer to take it back. So if we just want to vote on this and if you you want it to removed if if you don't then vote you would vote no and then you know it's going to come back to committee. So it it's right. All right. So then you vote to do Okay. So she has because you withdrew it again. So now you made a motion again. So you're going to need a second on that. So she has a motion once again. Member Burkwitz has a motion again to remove it from the agenda. Thank you.

Sure. And no, she didn't just remove it. And then she wanted No, just to Yeah, just to remove it. That's right. Correct. You just want to remove it. I want to remove it. And there is a second. And there is a second by Dean Schlottman. So we are just going to if we can if we can have a discuss I mean if we can just hold off and just vote yes or no on whether or not you want that line removed and then if it happens, you can still bring it back to committee to talk about it. All right. Am I correct there? We're going to take a vote. You're going to vote on removing it from the agenda. No, removing the language.

Removing that removing that sentence from the We all understanding that. Do you have something to say on that? I did, but it's fine. Let's just All right. All right. Madame clerk, please take the role on removing the sentence from the federal agenda. Richmond because it's already on the floor. You have to settle down. Williams, she will. And can you clarify does this this is your amendment? Does it but does this remove the ability for us to take it back to committee like Denise agreed she right now? Well, if that's the case, we do that next. Correct. We do that next. It's going to go back.

You should have taken mine. It's going to go back. Yes. Means we town said, "Hey, this is unbelievable. You're on." Yeah, you're on. So, the the motion the motion is to remove this sentence line sentence, right? The the and wool county if if we want to send the entire and I'm not clear what the will is. If we want to send the entire agenda back to committee, just a segment I thought. Well, but if you pass it, my concern is how do you amend it once you've already passed it and it's been I would like to send the entire thing back. That was a living document.

Yeah. So, if you would like to take send the entire document back, you would vote no. If you would just like to have this removed, you would say yes. And then the chair would we would then do voted as amendment. So if you again if you want this removed it will be voted on as amended. If you want to send it back you'd vote no on this completely and then we'll need a motion. Then we'll need the motion to send it back. Yes. Everyone understand? Okay. So we are in the middle of a vote I think. Right. Are we in the middle of a vote? Yes. Oh yeah. So it's the same same motion. We're in the same motion to remove it from the agenda. So I have Richmond as no, Williams is no.

Dean Schlapman. Oala pretzel Butler Newquist. Oxley. No. Brooks. Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. Freeman Revis Mitchell Ortiz Burkowitz.

Yes or no? Just vote yes or no. No. Hickeyi Costa Trainer Vandine 21 21 in the negative. The motion fails. Chair Winfrey. Madame Executive, I move that we take the federal agenda back to committee. Second motion by Winfrey, seconded by Ogala. Any discussion? Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond, yes. Williams, Slapman, yes. Ogala, yes. Butler, Newquist. Oxley, Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock.

Yes. Logan, Breeman, yes. Revis Mitchell, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa R, yes. 22 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Chair Winry. Okay. Thank you, Madam Executive. So on February 3rd when this committee sits again we will go through the federal agenda use the help of Martha Soya to get the language so that we are able to all understand it clearly and we'll bring it forward at that time. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to capital improvements in it. Chair Freeman

I have nothing to bring forward and if you want to know what happened it's online. Thank you. When's your next meeting? All right. Uh, next meeting is scheduled for February 3rd. Thank you, Chair Oxley, Landfill Committee. Thank you, Madam Executive. We had a meeting. Uh, we had a very good meeting. Some changes will be coming forward and our next meeting is scheduled for February 10th. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker Vanine, Executive Committee.

Thank you once again, Madame Executive. We have three items on our consent agenda. the executive appointment of director of Will County Finance and Budget Department. A resolution authorizing the county executive to execute an IGA with the city of Joliet and Southeast Joliet Sanitary District. And authorizing the county executive to execute an IG with the city of Joliet to perform water meter replacements. And I and one more. Thank you. Um, does anyone feel the need to remove any of these items from the agenda? I should have asked before. All right. So, I will make that motion. Motion by Van Dy, seconded by Freeman. All in favor?

Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, number two on our agenda, resolution 26-02025-3991 amending county board county board rules proclamations for retiring Will County employees and I would like to make that motion. Motion by Van Dy second. Seconded by previous Winfrey Reneer. Is there any discussion? We have discussion. Member Butler.

So, uh I think that this is the one area where the whole board has to come together to make a decision and support. And we've already proven twice in two retirements that we're we're in favor of this. Our rules say that it has to be unanimous. And I think it's good that we would come together to support somebody for their service and they know they have the support of the whole board. So I would definitely be opposed to changing our rules.

Seeing no other discussion, madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond, Williams in Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist Bich Axley Brooks. Yes.

Winfrey Bulock Logan Freeman. Revis Mitchell. Yes. Ortiz Burkowitz. Yes. Hickeyi. Costa. Traineer Vandine. Yes.

18 in the 18 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Thank you. Uh our next scheduled meeting would be February 11th, 2026. Moving on to the appointments by the county executive. Number one, resolution 26-021 approving county executive appointments to the workforce investment board of Will County and I so move. Motion by Van Dine, seconded by Goggala. Previous roll call by Winfrey. Oh, I'm sorry. We need a clean roll. Y madam clerk, did you have a comment on work for Madam Clerk? Please call the role. Richmond Williams.

Yes. Dan Schlottman Ogala. Pretzel, yes. Butler, Newquist, Alich, Oxley, yes. Brooks, yes. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, Freeman, Revvice, Mitchell, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickeyi, Costa, Trineer, yes, Van, yes.

22 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Uh number two, resolution 26-022 approving the county executive appointments to the community mental health board of Will County. Uh before I make that motion, it was a request from uh a handful of board members that we separate the three the three different appointments. So I will make that motion. Motion by Vanine, seconded by Ogala to separate the three. So we will take a All in favor. Any oppose? Motion carries. Thank you. Uh will the appointment Will County Community Mental Health Board uh Jui Fahhem and I so move

motion by Vanine seconded by Costa any discussion? Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Jui Fahhem District 8. Done. the Will County Community Health Metal mental health board uh county board district 2 appointment Timothy Mcan and I so move motion by motion by van seconded by Kosa previous roll call by Van or by Winfrey seconded by Ogal all in favor I any opposed motion carries

then the executive's appointment to the will county community mental health board Cadia Sufi and I so move motion okay motion by van seconded Costa. Madame clerk or I'm sorry. Yep. Member Revis. I'd like to call the question, please.

You need a you need a you need a second to call the question. Second. Costa. Madam clerk, please call the role. Richmond, Williams, Dean, Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Ballot, Oxley, Brooks. Yeah. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, Freeman, Revvice, Mitchell, Ortiz, Burkowitz,

Hickeyi, Costa, Trineer, Van Dy, yes,

12. We need 15 to call the question to the Yeah, we need 15 to call the because it's Yeah. 15 to call the question, correct? Yeah. So, the motion fails. Uh, member O Gallo. Thank you.

So, we do have many appointments come before us as a board. They come through the executive's office, then it comes to us whether we support it or not. I think we should make it a standard that when we have a board where they are responsible for distributing making decisions to distribute something like $10 million in funds that the a person getting appointment should not have any other um strong affiliations that might impact it such as being an employee for a state representative or a state senator. regarding what political party they are. I think the influence would be too high and we should not appoint that person. So because of that I will be a no for I forget her I can't pronounce her name correctly but I think that we need to have that as a policy. There are a lot of boards that we do appoint mayors and such like that but they are not directly influenced or able to to distribute $10 million. I think that this should be subjective to the rules that uh Tina Mackey and her group have put forward as to what they should do and I think that influence from somebody especially in this situation who's chief of staff of a state representative should not be there regardless of political party I think it should be a standard. Thank you.

Thank you speaker van. Oh sorry I don't know why. No I have no comment. Oh I'm sorry. Okay. All right. See no more comments. Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams Slapman Ogala Pretzel Butler Newquest. Yes. no. Axley Brooks. Yes.

Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. Freeman. Revvice. Mitchell Ortiz Burkowitz Hickey. Yes. Costa R. Yes.

Affirmative. The motion carries. Oh, now you're off. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Um, moving on to number, excuse me, number three on our agenda, resolution 26-023, approving the county executive appointments to the Historic Preservation Commission of Will County. Motion so move. Motion by Van Dy, seconded by Winfrey. Uh, Madame Clerk and Madam Clerk, please call the role. Richmond, yes. Williams, Dean, Schlottman, Ogala, Fretzel, Butler,

Newquist, Oxley. Um, vote Oxley. Your vote won the historical. He said yes. Oh, sorry. Uh, Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock. Logan, yes. Raymond, Revvis, Mitchell, yes. Ortiz, hickey, yes. Costa R. Yes. Going to affirm it. The motion carries.

Thank you. Lastly, uh, resolution 26-024 approving county executive appointments to the Elwood Fire Protection District of Will County. And I would like to make that motion. Motion by Van Dy, seconded by uh Freeman. Previous roll call by Ogala, seconded by Oxley. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. That concludes uh the executive committee's report.

Thank you. This time we'll move on to public comments relevant to matters under the jurisdiction of the county. Is there anyone here who has any public comments regarding any general county issue? Going once. Going twice. All right. Very good. We're going to move on to comments by county board members and I will call you as you light up. Reminder that you have three minutes and let's please be respectful of that. Member Traneer. Thank you, Madame Executive. Just a reminder to my fellow board members. I know we all have different opinions on many of the things that come in front of us. That's evidenced by our lengthy meetings. But if you want to make a change to something, you should either do it in committee, contact uh a member of the committee or the chair of the committee, um let people know before the board meeting, and if you're going to bring it up as a motion, you need to have it in writing. And that's our rules. And I'm just reminding everyone, I think this would be a whole lot better if we just did it in committee. um especially for members of that committee, um waiting until the day of the board meeting is is not very professional. Um and it does seem to get people confused about what we're voting on. Um so I just really want to encourage people watch the meeting, go to the meeting, write down your changes before you get here on board day. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Burke and Freeman. I I have a question. I see an attachment um under public comment. Um I try to download it. When I open it, there's nothing there. So, is there a public comment? Uh if it is, it's you're not able to view it. There is um an attachment on the agenda, but when you download it, it's empty. So if somebody has submitted public comment, I do not see it. I think it Yeah, if you can I I don't know exactly. Um if there is I think you

Is it there? Okay. Can All right. It's there. Well, I can show you my download. It's absolutely blank. Yeah. Can we read it? No, we cannot read them. All right. So, moving on. Member Freeman, you don't Thank you. comment.

Um, I will do my best to get through three minutes. Um, Will County officially became into existence on January 12th, 1836, which for the record was 190 years ago this past Monday. So, yes, Will County is officially very well seasoned. The county was formed from parts of Cook and Ikquoy counties and named for Conrad Will, who was a businessman, salt producer, and a public servant who managed to wear several hats at once. He served in Illinois's very first constitutional convention in the state legislature, making him the kind of overachiever local government has always relied on. But long before county lines, plats, and paperwork, this land was home to the Podawatami people. European fur traders followed, and then in the 1820s and 30s, pioneer farmers arrived. Early settlements like Walker's Grove near present- day Planefield were established in 1826 by Jesse Walker. There were so many families that helped lay the foundation for the communities we recognize today. They weren't just building houses. They were building a future. Near a century later on September 25th, 1928, August Mao, I do believe is how you pronounce his name, summed it up beautifully when he was in Joliet, he said, and I quote, "The history of Will County will fascinate everyone who yields to the romance of the explorers or the enthusiasm of a pioneer. The future beckons onward and upward into new realms of greater achievement. And the county's history didn't slow down. At a major turning point came in 1948 with the opening of the Illinois Michigan Canal. By connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River, the canal turned Will County into a highway of commerce before highways even were a thing. It fueled growth, brought industry, and helped establish Lockport as an administrative center. While Joliet the county seat from day one grew into a thriving civic and economic hub. Agriculture was the backbone of Will County. But it didn't stand alone for long when industry soon joined the mix. Joliet earned the proud nickname Stone City thanks to its limestone quaries which supplied

building stones for iconic structures including the Chicago water tower. Growth came fast. So fast in fact that it helped drive Will Countyy's separation from Cook County and later contributed to the creation of Cana County in the 1850s. Then came World War II and with it another transformation. Will County became a center of wartime production with facilities like the Juliet Army Ammunition Plant playing a critical role in the war effort and bringing a surge of people and industry to the area. Today the same land has been reborn as the Middayin National Tallgress Prairie. A powerful reminder that places like people can evolve and be renewed. From native lands to pioneer farms, from canals to quaries and factories and restored prairies, Will County's story is one of constant change and constant resilience. It's a story shaped by those who came before us and was strengthened every day by those who are still proud to call Will County their home. So with all that background information, happy birthday will county.

Thank you. Yeah, member member Ortiz and then Ogalo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In December, I was removed as chair of my committee without a motion, without a vote of the board, and without an explanation at the time that raised a procedural question. If a committee chair is removed through the proper authority and process, that is within the board's right. The concern here is process. Under the rules, the speaker appoints committee chairs in consultation with the Democratic and Republican leaders. Our rules are silent on removal, so Robert's rules of order apply. Robert's rules require that removal follow the same authority and process as appointment that did not occur. Additionally, a public reported statement was made at the time indicating the removal was related to conduct deemed inappropriate at a prior meeting. When removal is based on conduct, Robert's rules treats that as a disciplinary matter which requires notice and action by the board. That did not occur. A point of order and appeal was raised to address the issue, but the process question remains unresolved. The question before us is not why a chair was removed. We already know why, but whether the required process was followed. Accordingly, I'm asking that the process used to remove a committee chair be reviewed and corrected as necessary to ensure compliance with our rules and with Robert's rules of order. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Ogala.

Thank you. So, I just want to make a statement. As a county board member, we have the ability to vote our conscience and we also have the ability to decide at the county board meeting if if we've changed our mind, something else has happened. It is optimal if we know beforehand how somebody might want to make an emotion to amend, to remove, what have you. But there is nothing that says we should not do it here. I find that sometimes the conversation such as the ambiguous question we had on the federal leg legislative agenda becomes very clear that we need to take it back and redo the wording. So I think that although some would like everything to be perfect and everybody vote yes and no and we move on. I think a good healthy conversation is is perfect for our constituents. They hear what our thoughts are. They understand what we're thinking or we're not thinking, whatever the case may be. So, um I I support of course having knowing information beforehand knowing maybe the morning of so perhaps the leaders and the speaker can get together and come to a resolution. But I totally support any board member coming forward and and and making a motion that they may not have thought about possibly until the day of the board meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Preachel.

Thank you, Madam Executive. I am very concerned with some of the things I'm seeing in the news these days when it comes to how we are treating our um law enforcement officers. Uh if you disagree with what the law enforcement officer is asking you to do, you are legally entitled to an attorney and you will have your day in court. What you are not legally allowed to do is resist, throw snowballs at, drive your car toward, uh, be disrespectful really in any physical way. And if you do, you have to understand that those law enforcement officers are very focused on getting home at the end of the night and you may be met with physical restraint, possibly them pulling their firearm. So I would encourage all of us as elected officials, people with social media followers to encourage those that you have an impact on to be respectful to any law enforcement officer and to not try to uh keep them from doing their job. So keep that in mind. Be respectful and a lot of the things that we're seeing happen to people will not happen. Thank you. Member Brooks.

Madame Executive, in 1968, the late civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King, Life Parish. On Monday, January 19th, we observed that holiday. We call it not a day off, but a day on. All around Will County, there are projects where people can donate their time and resources to remember that legacy. And that I want to do on today. Dr. Martin Luther King on Monday. Thank you. You final call for county board members. Member Richmond or later Richmond.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to push my button on, but thank you very much. Uh um I I think we did a good job today. I think we represented our citizens well and uh everybody have a good uh weekend. Thanks. Go Bears.

Leader Williams. Um, I wasn't going to say anything about this though, but as a former police dispatcher for the Will County Sheriff's Department, I too am appalled by the um treatment of some of the officers, but I'm more appalled by the officers that refuse to identify themselves and who mistreat these citizens that they are supposed to serve and protect. So while I do agree that we are supposed to be in support of our police officers and I do support our police officers, I think that the climate of today is there is no courtesy on either side and I believe that it is probably more the onus is more on the law enforcement officers than it is on the citizens to not react or to react accordingly. And from what I'm seeing, I I've never seen police officers act like this in my life. And I don't know a police officer that would not identify themselves. So, I do hope that while we are encouraging people to have the um courtesy and respect for law enforcement, that law enforcement has that same courtesy and respect for the citizens that they are there to serve and to protect. I do not want to see any law enforcement officers pointing guns at anybody. And I will tell you that when I was a dispatcher, if one of the police the Will County Sheriff's deputies had to pull that that had to fire their weapon, there was a big procedure afterwards for for them to account for pulling that weapon and and firing it at somebody or and if they if somebody was killed, it would be even more extensive. So we need to understand that although law enforcement has a great duty, it is not to just do whatever it is that they want to do. They do not have the right to just take and shoot citizens or even

to subdue them the way that I have seen things being subdued. And again, I am thankful that the Will County Sheriff's Department, from what I know, they don't do that. And I'm very grateful for that. But I do think that there needs to be some reassignment. And these people are people. They're not animals. They are people and some of them have even been American citizens. So my last words to everybody, I do think that we're doing a better job, but I think that we should be kind. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker Van.

Thank you. Um just a reminder, uh February 9th at the Jenry Jacob Henry Mansion, we will be having our uh legislators invited to breakfast. I want to make sure that everyone knows it's a wonderful event. I hope everybody can make it. I know uh Mr. Hendris uh is gonna provide us with a full breakfast uh instead of pastries from last year. So, thank you, Mr. Hendricks. Um I also want to take a couple of items from some of the other members. Absolutely. Bear down. Thank you, Mr. Richmond. Um, I want to wish uh Will County uh a happy anniversary for their 190th year. And also um I would like a special thanks to u member Brooks and member Balich uh for serving the entire 190 years on this board. So, so, so with that being said, uh, I hope everyone enjoys the rest of their afternoon and and have a great weekend. Go Bears. Thank you.

With that, can I please get a motion to to recess until February 19th? Motion by Mitchell, seconded by Freeman. All in favor? Any opposed? We'll see you February 19th.