County Board - Regular Meeting

All right, we know we have 16 members here. I thought I knock and they can come start trickling in a little bit. There we go. All right. Yeah. All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the county board meeting for February 19th, 2026. I'll call this meeting to order. Member Burkowitz will lead us in the pledge of allegiance and introduce the clergy. 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.

Good morning everyone. Um, I am pleased this morning to invite our very own Herb to join us uh today, lead us off today in a prayer and a memorial dedication. Thank you. Madam, do you mind if I come to the podium? I want to make sure everybody's smiling behind me.

Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Julie. Ladies and gentlemen, as you well know, during this Black History Month, we lost one of our civil rights icons in the person, Reverend Jesse Lewis Jackson, Senior. So, I would ask if you would just join me in a moment silence in the memorial for Reverend Jackson. Would you please? Thank you very much. Shall we pray? Father God, we thank you Lord for this day, this time that you have ordained to bless to be here today in Will County government. We ask you bless each and every county board members that we might make the right decision for all of our taxpayers in Will County. Bless all of our elected countywise and all those that enjoy the fruit of Will County. Now Lord, give us your grace, the wisdom as we go forth to do your work and do your will. In our Lord's name we pray. Amen. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Madame clerk, will you please call the role? Richmond, Williams, Dean, Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler, Newquist, Oxley, Brooks.

Yeah. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, Freeman, Revvis, Mitchell, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trineer, Van, 18 members present. We have a quorum. I need a motion to place on file the certificate of publication. Motion by Dean Schlottman, seconded by Ballage. Uh, Madame Clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams, Dean Schlottman, Oala, Pretzel,

yes. Butler Bich, Brooks, yes. Winfrey, Logan, yes. Freeman, Revis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickeyi, Costa, Traineer, Vanine, yes. 18 affirmative. The motion carries. Moving on to the approval of minutes. I need a motion to approve the minutes from the January 15th, 2026 board meeting.

Motion by Revvis, seconded by Freeman. Previous roll call by Winfrey, seconded by Co Costa. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. At this time, madame clerk, will you please acknowledge elected officials and the media present? Today we have County Executive Jennifer Bertino Tarant, County Clerk Annette Parker, coroner Lorie Summers, auditor Duffy Blackburn, and recorder of deeds Karen Stucel. And I don't see any media. We do not have any resolutions or proclamations. So, we will move on to public comment for agenda items only. At this time, I invite anyone to come up for public comment for today's agenda items. Do you have comments now? This is for any This is for any issue coming before the board today. Any issue coming before the board, you are to speak now during public comment. Just a reminder, you have three minutes and please state your name. I think I remember how to do this. There we go. Um, good morning. Thank you all members of the board and county staff um and personnel for being here this morning. My name is Britney Krebs. I'm here with Pivot Energy. Um, we have a zoning case number one this morning. Um, I know you all have probably heard plenty about this thus far, so I'm just going to do a really brief overview and then of course I'm here to answer any questions. Um, Pivot Energy is an owner operator. So, we originate, develop, install, and own long-term our projects. Um, we're founded in St. um St. Louis, but now are headquartered in Denver. We have operational projects um across Illinois. Um this project that we're um going for today is 8 megawatts about 42 acres about half mile um west of

Shorewood at 52 County Line Road. Um per the zoning office their staffing report that hopefully um you reviewed we are in full compliance and they had recommended approval. Um I just wanted to cover our community engagement. We started community engagement on this project back in 2024. Um held a community meeting in um September of that year. We did have four neighbors attend. um they did not go on to attend any of the other public hearings. Well, actually they attended but did not speak. Um I remember running into a couple of them. Um but we did have Shorewood of course attend um as the nearby village. Um and of course they have been um opposed to our project and I will touch on that just briefly. Um we do at Pivot have a community investment program um that is $5,000 per megawatt of our projects which would equal $40,000 for these projects. Um those go to 4H clubs, um farm bureaus, local 501c3s. We have been in communication with um Joliet Junior College for their agricultural program to utilize these funds. Um in addition, you all have probably heard about the property tax revenue for solar projects. Of course, the site is currently being used for agriculture. um just in the first year it's approximated to be a 350% increase in um that tax revenue that goes of course to local schools, the county, the townships, etc. Um so overall we do believe this project as designed in compliance with um local and state law that we would be a passive neighbor a temporary land use that can be developed um in other ways or returned to egg um later on and have a value ad to the county and townships in in the time being um to um you know we've we've heard and we are aware of course of the concern for taking up future land for residential um development in the future. So, um, in response to Shorewood's opposition, we did offer a, uh, mitigation package. Um, we shortened the project lifespan almost by half from 40 years to 25 to free up

that land sooner. Um, we also offered a healthy, um, impact mitigation package with pre-annexation agreements, looking into easements, we can offer Shorewood um, a development plan so they can have access to our materials and site as that development comes closer towards the end of the project life. Um and that all is a goal to provide temporary value ad in the meantime while that development makes its way west um through the tax revenue etc. Um and to date as we are aware the land owner has not been approached for this land um by Shorewood or otherwise for development. So um we are pursuing this um solar project here of course but I need you to wrap up. Yep. Thank you. Perfect. Look at that.

Great timing. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Jim Griffin. I'm a law fir with the law firm of Shane Banks. We're the attorneys representing Pivot Energy, the first matter on your land use agenda today. I did want to point out a few things. The uh county staff uh did uh provide in its report that this project meets all of the county's standards. We believe all of the evidence that was presented at the public hearing supports that conclusion that this project meets all of the county's standards and all the statewide sighting standards for a solar project and that there was no contrary evidence submitted at the public hearing. Uh we do realize Shwood has an objection as Britney spoke. We have attempted to engage and and offer some uh benefits to them. Um Shwood's objection is based upon this project being incompatible with their comprehensive plan. But I do want to let the board know even before statewide sighting was enacted, the Illinois Supreme Court had held that incompatibility with a comprehensive plan is not a basis to deny a special use for a project. So again, that even predated the statewide sighting rules. So, uh, we do believe that we've made significant concessions, uh, as part of, uh, our negotiations or discussions with Sherwood, including limiting it to a 25-y year lifespan. And that's a condition that this board can impose, a 25-y year project lifespan. And we would ask you to take that into consideration when you vote on this project and vote in favor of this project and impose that condition. And we're here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kathy Helina and I'm with the Will County Environmental Network. We are a nonprofit organization formed in 1981. We've been working to protect the environment in Will County since that time. I am here in regards to case number WIL25-3574 ZC-25-111. Dear Chairperson Jennifer Bertino Tarant and the Will County Board, the Will County Environmental Network requests that the Will County Board deny the reszoning of an agricultural wooded area south of Joliet near the Dplaines River from A1 to I2 for a CCDD fill operation. We oppose this change because it is inconsistent with the adjacent zoning land use of A1 staff report page nine and the 2007 city of Joliet Southside comprehensive plan which indicates approximately half of the proposed site future land use to be flood plan flood plane excuse me wet land open hydric soils located at this site have seasonally high water at or near the surface andor have potential for flooding or ponding. This is sourced from Will South Cook Soil and Water Conservation District report number 5823. National Wetlands Inventory identified PEM1F, a marsh located on the property with continuation of wetland on the adjacent property. The Illinois State Geological Survey identified the region as a cared aquifer with sink holes in 1994. The echoat number 2605358 has indicated records that the state listed osprey bird occur in the vicinity of the project area. Echoat stands for ecological compliance assessment tool which generates reports for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources or IDNR

that determine if proposed actions may impact natural resources. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources recommended a survey and habitat assessment due to the project scope and proximity to to protected resources. The applicant did not submit a survey and habitat assessment performed by a qualified biologist to IDNR for a final determination on potential impacts to the osprey and other migratory bird species. The echoat number 2605358 also has indicated a record of the state listed rush dy patched bumblebee occurs in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the IDNR recommended that work within the wooded area occur between April 1 and October 1 to avoid potential impacts. As of November 17th, 2025, staff photos captured the woods, the wooded area. By December 3rd, 2025, the woods were clear-cut. What this means is that the woods were cut down outside the IDNR recommended time because Will County staff states the applicant shall comply with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources recommendations outlined in the echoat number 2605358 as conditions for approval and the applicant has not complied with these conditions, the Will County Environmental Network requests the board to deny this zoning change. Thank you. Guys, you're doing well. I was just Hello, I'm Sue Stylin. I'm the supervisor for Homer Township and I'm here to state our opposition to the land use item number four, the Cedar Road special use permit for a landscape business. uh Homer Township as opposed

to any business being located in that area of that section of the road because there are two curves if you look in your packet. I had appeared before the land use committee a couple weeks ago and I'm sorry my letter is not included in there but the the road has two curves and there is a road Bruce Road comes straight into the curb and if you live in that area you know that it is any any resident in that area will tell you that there are safety concerns. When I was here before the board before for another road project I had requested that that section of road be looked into. Um so before you approve a business I think you need to do the traffic study and site studies before a land use um a special permit is given to the business. There have been four traffic fatalities in that area of road in the last eight years. I don't know how many accidents there are with personal indust uh injuries. I did do a foyer request with the sheriff's office. So, I also encourage you to talk to your public safety officials because I've talked to sheriff's deputies and they would all agree that a business should not go into that section of road. The uh fatalities went there was one in October. It didn't show up. I think it might have just been like right at Cedar and Chicago Bloomington. It was a 30-year-old woman at 4:30 in the afternoon. There was another one on October of 23. An 18year-old woman uh died in a head-on collision with three others injured. Uh it was a threecar um collision driving southbound on Cedar Road. That happened at 11:42 p.m. There was a 51-year-old woman who died at Cedar and Bruce in a two vehicle collision. The woman was pronounced dead at 607. So I'm guessing that the accident occurred about that time. Uh there was a 22year-old man in

um August of 2017. He died at 4:45 a.m. in the morning at uh Cedar near Bruce. the vehicle left the roadway and struck a tree. And the the problem there is if you're traveling northbound coming from the south on Cedar off of Route 6, the speed limit is 50 m an hour when you first enter the road. Just a little further down, it goes up to 55 miles an hour. Then again, it goes down to 50 miles an hour. And then when you hit the curb, it tells you that it's just like 35 miles an hour. And we know how many people think that they can handle more than 35 miles an hour going around a curb. There's maybe 800 feet between the curb and the designated area for the entrance for this business. How long does it take a car to stop when they see another car stopped already making a lefthand turn? So they're their in their reaction time is even slowed more. Now you're also going to have a business that's going to have trucks. This is a hardscape land business that's having trucks hauling rock. So these trucks are not going to be pulling out very fast or if it's a landscape business with a a truck pulling a landscape trailer.

I have to wrap up close. These are just the points that I think I need to make that you consider these things before you approve a special use permit. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning board members. My name is John Fe and I'm here for the same matter. I think it's number four in the land use um permit. So, we're we're building a home and I could I figured it'd be easier to show you a picture. So, where the landscape company would like to put all of their facility is literally right back here, which is right next door to our home. When when we first heard about a landscape company uh as a potential neighbor, our view was like, well, that's nice. You know, trees, bushes, all those type of things that I would have thought a landscape company would sell. The reality is this is a a heavy industrial commercial enterprise. Uh, apparently Mr. Lobos had wants to have, I think, nine semi- dump trucks parked back here. In addition to that, they'll there will be material bins for hardcapes. So, for gravel, rock, which he will be using a front end loader, scooping the material off the ground, dumping it into those trucks. So, as you can see from where he and it's not on this picture here, but where he proposes to put it, it is literally within yards of our property. I had talked to him about locating it somewhere closer to the road, and he said that he doesn't want to do that because he's afraid of theft. So, when my wife and I brought this bought the property, you know, we we were mortified when we found out what was going here. Um, you have diesel smells, trucks that are going to be going in and out, obviously, in addition to all the danger that is there because of that intersection, but it's just something that we would be completely opposed to. Um, so we would ask that you would deny this permit.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Fe. I'm here for the same case as my husband and the lady from Homer. Um I'm very concerned due to the street of Cedar Road and Bruce, the danger that happens there. Um we have three young kids. one's starting to drive and I'm very concerned um with the speed. I'm concerned with no stop sign in the area. Um just basically the safety as she explained earlier. Um, in addition, when we bought the land being A1, like my husband said, we thought it was more just for uh trees, landscape cutting, the minimum, but not knowing that it was going to be an industrial type of business on less than 20 acres in a dangerous area um on Cedar Road in Bruce there. Um it's definitely not just your typical cutting grass and this is what we have to smell and listen to daily um as we build our home there and tend to raise our children there. So we are asking for the board to deny this not to approve it. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Jim Murphy of Mahoney Silverman and Cross in Joliet. Um I'm also a resident of Shorewood. I'm here on the first matter um for land use development. Uh the village of Shorewood um opposes granting this application because the property is within a half

mile of the village boundaries. it is within the village's planning and the planning has this area designated as residential. Um quite often that's viewed as sometimes pie in the sky, but this is a reality. What's happened with uh development and blocking development west of the tracks that run through Shorewood is that water and sewer has been very expensive to get there. That's why there hasn't been development. village of Shorewood is actually getting water and sh water and sewer under the tracks under pipelines that they're at over a cost of $2 million to develop this area and areas of west of the tracks. Um, one of the things I'd point out with regard to um comprehensive plans is council for the applicant said that the Supreme Court said you couldn't look at that. We have a much different reading of that particular case. I know what it is, but I don't think that's your job today to figure out where the Supreme Court lands on whether you should consider it. It's whether you should consider it. And under county's own comprehensive plans, there is difference that's given to local municipalities as to how they should zone their own property because they're the ones that usually get stuck with it. So, I would um ask that you deny this particular application. Um, and that's a request that I make from the village of Shwood and also as a resident of Shorewood.

Good morning. My name is Natalie Engel. Um, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the village of Shorwood. I'm their economic development director. As you know, this property is just over half a mile from the village. Um, as such, it was really considered when we did our comprehensive plan back in 2023, and we've relied heavily on that plan ever since. Um, as Mr. Murphy mentioned, we really have used that as a tool. Um, and we've made some financial decisions based on it. Um, we project this area west of our boundaries to be largely residential up in the Jefferson Street area with a little bit of commercial. Um, and we took those figures and we considered them when we did calculations on future population projections that we then used to come up with our allocation for the Lake Michigan water uh, project which we're pairing with other municipalities on. So we have expended a lot of money to be able to provide water to the village and to this future growth area and we've made a lot of financial decisions including you know extending some um water infrastructure building a water um storage facility and um we're really concerned about how we'd have to pass those extra costs on if there's no growth to our existing residents your existing residents as well. Um as Mr. Murphy mentioned we're $2.5 million into a project to b bring um sanitary sewer and water treatment across the tracks at Jefferson Street. That'll be half a mile from that property. So, we do think it is very viable. Um we understand that they haven't had any offers. I don't actually think the property has been on the market which could account for some of that stuff. The um solar farms do approach um farmers and ask them to purchase their property quite frequently. Um we think that um you know a lot of decisions have been made based on assuming that area is going to be residential. The village has made expenditures. The Troy Fire District has also bought a facility and they're creating a fire department training facility right there. Um multiple school districts um Muka grade school district

high school district have purchased um property right in that vicinity assuming they're going to serve those areas. So we are concerned about the financial outlay. I I know you've heard a lot of these arguments before. Um so I I'll just ask that you consider the standards and whether this would truly be impactful for the area. Um we understand that in the very short term it'll bring additional taxes, but in the long term um the way the solar facilities work and the way the taxes depreciate, we think it would actually be many, many times higher if it were developed residentially. And we're very close to being able to do that. Um so we would respectfully ask that you consider um saying no to the solar energy facility. Just last week, our board approved one in an area that's designated for industrial, which is where we think it belongs. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Nathaniel Washman with KG LLC. I'm the attorney for the applicant on I believe it's the second item under land use uh committee. Uh it is the Brandon Road CCDD project. I'll keep my uh comments brief. uh staff was recommending support of this. Plan uh commission represented uh recommended support of this. There have been two lengthy hearings at land use committee uh where a lot of questions were asked and answered uh to address the items uh brought up previously. I would say this we did submit for an ecoat report. The ecoat report came in with suggestions as to timing where the language is not mandatory. It is recommended. County has suggested that condition be added to the request which would make those obligations mandatory and we have agreed to comply with them. There was one hiccup in timing. My client acquired the property in May, reached out to Homer Tree Service to cut down the trees. Uh they said they would get to it as soon as they could. And when that came out, uh, it just happened to be outside of the window that we again was a recommended window and something that we got in October when the request for the trees was back in May. We just did not, again, it was a timing gaff. We did suggested land use if that was something that the county felt sufficiently compelling. my client was willing to increase landscaping uh add an additional condition to increase landscaping or otherwise uh you know make some uh modest donation to the forest preserve district in light of that timing error. However, uh we do believe that this is the highest and best use and we would ask for support uh and to address Wil uh Juliet Southside comprehensive plan. Wetlands is not a zoning designation in any municipality. It is simply a condition of the soils.

Uh so again, I1 industrial uh which is what we're asking for would or I believe I1 or I2 would be appropriate and is uh both what Joliet would have earmarked this for and is consistent with the trend in development. Certainly uh appreciate your time this morning and we would ask for your support. Thank you. Good morning, Madame Chairman, members of the board. My name is Richard Kavanaaugh. I'm an attorney with KG LLC. I'm here representing Cedar Road Associates. It is the landscape business on Cedar Road. um the land use department, the staff did a very thorough job with respect to the analysis of this case. A couple of things that I'd like you to keep in mind. Uh with respect to Cedar Road, I believe the speed limits are very high there. Okay. I used to drive up to Lockport using Cedar Road when I lived in New Lennox. Uh we are required by the highway department and by the ordinance that uh we were we that we request that you pass to obtain a traffic impact study speed limits etc etc and we have already hired KOA in order to do that. That's one of the conditions on the ordinance. So we're going ahead and doing that. We had a hearing before the Will County Planning and Zoning Commission. We noticed up for that hearing uh the village of Homer Glenn, Homer Township, all neighbors. The two

neighbors that you've heard from appeared that night. We originally had planned to put a six-foot burm all along Cedar Road east west as it becomes Bruce Road and then north south on Cedar Road and plant evergreen trees on top of that. When we heard the objections from the neighbors to the south, we agreed in addition to that to put the same burm along the south end of our property where it adjoins the neighbors property. Uh it will be a six-foot burm with evergreens on top. We believe this is a good project. Uh we believe that traffic safety is important, but we will do whatever the county requires us to do to get the entrance from where it is located on the plans. And that is where the county said we should have that entrance and we will have the traffic study check the speed limits. It's a county highway. It's a county highway. So the county can reduce the speed limits if it chooses to do so. I'd be happy to answer any questions that any members have at this time.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Um, my name is Patricia Nent. I'm with the Will County Environmental Network and I have been asked by Open Lands. Um, they just sent an email and they asked me to read it into the record. Um, it's to um for public comment on zoning ZC2511. Dear members of the Will County Board, ma'am, I'm sorry you can't read someone else's comments. They have to be your own public comment. Those if they sent them into the board, they will get get them. But you can talk on your behalf. On my behalf of On behalf your personal Yeah, you can. Yeah, you can't read. Yeah, you can't read someone else's letter. So, how can how can

Did they email that to the staff already? Because they will get it to if they've emailed it to the staff prior, they should have it already. Yeah. So, yeah, I I will summarize in my own There you go. Thank you very much,

Mr. Butler. Um in summary, um the conservation group Openland Lands, who is a a n uh a regional environmental group, has asked this board to deny um the permit to change from A1 to um I2. I will have them submit it correctly. Um they just actually finalized it today. um their denial for it. Um because um they're very similar to our complaints of being able to to go through zoning without doing the actual studies for those two endangered species. So that's a brief summary. They ask you to deny. Open lands is requesting that this board denies the application. Thank you, Patricia. Any more public comments from today? Any more? Going once. Oh, hold on. You know what? There's You can come. Oh, actually, no. You have to go that way. Yes. Thank you. Well, we're Go ahead. You can go now while and we'll get Yeah, go ahead.

Thanks.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Thomas Becker and I'm the chairman of the watershed committee. Uh we've been involved in preserving natural resources uh in Green Garden Township and the local area for over 20 years. I'd like to speak briefly about a large solar facility that is proposed, the 6,000 acre facility that will impact our township of Green Garden as well as Manhattan and Wilton. I came before the executive committee before to talk about this briefly over the the reasons all the reasons this should not be going through, but I wanted to talk briefly tonight today about the wetlands themselves. Uh this is an issue of concern to everyone. uh the wetlands are to be protected under your county code and uh I believe it's 164.067. Ordinarily, when you have a a transition from agricultural to industrial, which is what you're talking about with the solar facility, you end up with the uh you end up the wetland ordinances trigger and you go ahead and then you get all of those protections. The wetlands are not to be developed. you have to have an Army Corps uh determination and you do a wetland delineation. That's not happening with your solar cases. What's happening is you have agricultural land that's shifting to an industrial use with a special use and therefore the wetland ordinances are not being triggered. These are waters of the US. I'm talking about Fort Creek and Prairie Creek. There are thousands of acres of wetlands that will be damaged and destroyed because there is no protection. There is no language in your solar ordinance to protect the wetlands. There should be army corps review. There should be wetland delineations. Many of these sites in this solar facility that's proposed are farmed wetlands. There is no inventory of what is there. These are ancient wetlands. They should be

preserved. If they are not going to be re if they cannot be protected by the federal law, which is what's happening with your ordinance, they will be destroyed. I don't think anyone wants to see the your largest stream system in Will County of Fort Creek being destroyed as well as uh Prairie Creek. Our goal is to resolve this ordinance so you don't damage the wetlands. Uh this is a vi the ordinance actually is in violation of the clean water act and it is important that we preserve our wetlands and this ordinance and this uh facility will destroy that. Thank you. No, this during public comment

I just mentioned this is our sign. No solar on farm prime farmland and we're asking you to preserve the wetlands of Prairie Creek and Fork Creek and your ordinance right now will destroy those areas. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to have you can you press the button there and we will get you set up there. There we go. All right. No, hold on. It didn't go on. So, hold on a second. There it is. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Please uh state your name for the record.

Good morning. My name is Anita Cotton and I'm here today representing the Hope Center of Juliet on Curtis Avenue. I'm here because we received u an award for a revitalization grant for the community to install chair lifts into our facility. So, we have gone through all the steps. We've sent in our invoices and photos of the work being completed. At first, we were getting responses back to what we were doing and suddenly we haven't heard anything. So, I'm here today to try to find out when the dispersement of the funds will be made and if there's anything else that we need to do in order to get the funds.

Well, this is public comment and I'm I don't know what you're referencing either. So, I'm going to have we'll make sure that we follow up with you with staff. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.

Uh good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Uh my name is CC Dol. I'm the mayor for the village of Shorewood. Uh I do come to you this this morning regarding your item number one which would be the pivot energy project. It is a zoning case of ZC25-028. A as noted in many times before the village of Shore doesn't have a concern about zoning or I'm sorry about solar energy. We have an issue about sighting. Sighting is the concern. Again, we argue and we urge that solar facilities are placed in an appropriately zoned location. The proposal of this project, Route 52 and County Line Road, has already been deemed a dangerous intersection. We're currently working with IDOT to improve this into a roundabout. Matter of fact, we had an accident there two days ago. It's being discussed on a radio show again this morning. It's a dangerous intersection. Again, we have annexed. We have welcomed green energy. We have welcomed renewable energies in an appropriate zone location. Yes, we have comprehensive plans. And again, the sighting of this location of this project isn't two miles outside the village boundaries. It's across the street. So, this isn't that a project's not going to have an implication to the village. It is. This isn't two miles away. It's across the street. The village is working on running sewer and water to the west of the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, we know working with railroads isn't the easiest to try to get permitting. In doing so, the village is already upwards of $2.2 $2 million to relocate the sewer lines going under the tracks that go to the west to continue to support western development for the

village of Shorwood. We're trying to be part of the solution for housing, affordability, things that strike home to us. The vulture is part of the water commission. We had to use our comprehensive plan to make planning assert assertions as to where the village chord can go. There's a financial implication to continue to allow solar facilities in improperly zoned locations. By doing so, it will increase the rates to all of our residents. There are financial implications to this. Again, it just falls back to sighting. No different than when the county built a new courthouse. You didn't stick it in the middle of a farm field. You stuck it in an appropriately zoned location. These projects, this project specifically, right on the border of County Line Road, Baltz Road, Route 52 does have a negative impact to the village. We can talk about contaminants such a this project was being proposed at 8 megawws almost like they're trying to skirt some of the local community resource rules. We're going to do a 4.9 and a three. Folks, you guys have the property right next door that wants to build a wedding venue. County Line Road in Boltz.

Mayor, I'm going to need you to wrap up, sir. All right. My my apologies. By all means. Real quick, let me hit a couple of the quick highlights. 52 County Line Road, dangerous intersection. We support green energy, but it's only 2% of our grid, folks. Community solar projects. You cannot guarantee that our residents are going to be the ones that are going to benefit from this. Lastly, let me at least cite the 10 objections to this project. You have objections from the village of Shorewood, City of Joliet, Troy Township, Troy Fire, Manuka Community High School, Troy Drade School, Joliet Township High School, the Grand Prairie Water Commission, State Representative Harry Benton, and the Rosal Leo families that own the property next to it. There is a reason.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. All right. I I have to stop. Thank you, Mayor. Sorry. I know it.

Any other public comments before us today? Any other public comments before us today? All right. Thank you. Uh Madame Clerk, will you please add Doug Bulock to the roles? Moving on to old business. All resolutions and ordinances from the January 15th, 2026 board meeting have been returned. There's no new business, so we'll go on with our agenda items. Uh, moving on to land use and development kit committee chair pretzel, but I do believe our state's attorney would like to make a statement before we go uh through the the list of land use cases. Just as a reminder, oh, sorry.

Oh, I think I'm on. Just as a a reminder, as I always do from time to time, um, you're limited to LAL factors. Uh, you hear a lot of information. Uh, we have talked about those. uh when you consider land use cases going forward um and you're consider you're limited to the evidence that was laid out in public hearing. So I just like to make that um those announcements from time to time. Thank you. Chair Pretzel, did I turn you off?

And thank you, Madam Executive. First up on today's land use and development committee agenda, ordinance 26-025 for zoning case 25-028, requesting a special use permit for a commercial solar energy facility in Troy Township, commonly known as 26347 West Baltz Road, Giulia, Illinois County Board District number one. PCC recommended denial 2 to four with four conditions and land use and development recommended denial 0 to six with five conditions and I so move motion by motion by pretzel seconded by Dean Schlotman. Any discussion?

Discussion something to answer. You're on Stillia. I'm sorry.

So this one's an easy one for me. Um, as you heard the the mayor up here saying, this portion of uh the county is ripe for development of residential. Uh, it's literally knocking on the door there. They're bringing water in. If you look at where growth is coming in will county, there are certain spots. This is definitely one of them. And in my opinion, to tie that up for 25 years with the solar project would be detrimental to not only Shorewood, but to Will County. I'm a no on this one. I hope you guys are as well. Thank you. Member O' Gallo.

Oops. Yeah, we're doing it's they're taking care of it. So once so you are aware once you press right now you're you're live. So just um but so you're up a member of Gallo. Thank you.

So I I think it's an absolute shame that our state legislature has continue to vote for laws that take away local zoning. I think that we at the county board, we know what's best for our community. The people in Springfield, I don't think they care at all because they keep changing the law to make it worse. I think that it's the responsibility of the county board to vote according to how whether we would allow a zoning change to this area in this situation if it were anything else besides zoning because the existing uses in the zoning area are not complicit with this zoning for solar. There's no match there. there's no be benefit to the community that they can that they can state that this community would actually benefit from this particular solar facility. I think that we need to really take into consideration as the legislators in Springfield should the time and dedication and money spent by our municipalities when they've done their comprehensive zoning plan and not discredit it. They know what they want want for their community. They know what's best for their community and because of that I will be a no.

Thank you. And so just so people are aware once you press your mic you are live. So our our system picks up everything. So I'm just letting you know that you are live once you hit that that mic. Uh member Dean Schlottman. Oh, I did it again though. It's okay. It's all right. Um I again I'm going to be a no on this not just out of the fact that it's solar but this is in the my backyard. I know this area very very well and I know the residents in this area do not want this here. So along with the community that has also said that they do not want this in this particular area along with the money that taxpayers from the municipality have already put on the line here. This just is not the proper place for a solar facility, period. So, I am absolutely a no on this.

Thank you, member Hickey. Thank you, Madam Executive. Can I ask you a question, Kevin? I It is. It is. Um, I just want to make sure that I'm clear. We are not to consider then anything that happened in public comment. Is that correct? Correct. It was not part of a public hearing. Okay. And so can uh can you just talk a little bit about LEAL factors and comprehensive plans and remind us?

Sure. Sure. I I and I got the LEAL factors for you guys right here. Um, so stop me if anyone doesn't doesn't hear what I'm saying, but the the cell factors are the compatibility with the existing use and zoning of nearby property, the extent to which property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning restrictions. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of uh of the or the county. The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant. The suitability of the subject property for the purposes for which it is presently zoned. The length of time which the length of time which the subject property in question has been vacant as presently zoned considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located. the consistency of the proposed amendment with a comprehensive plan and any adopted land use policies and the propo that the proposed amendment will benefit the needs of the community. Those are the eight uh lal Sinclair uh factors. Um what was your second question? I'm sorry.

So I I mean I think that these pertain mostly to the current situation and the proposed action. It's but where does the long-term planning for the communities fall into with the south factors? So it it is your your plan is one of the factors. Um I I know that the the attorneys have both presented a different um opinion that is a a legal discussion that I don't think we want to have an open session. Okay. Um but they obviously you have seen the two attorneys are going to present two different um visions of what they believe that case says. Um so I don't want to say anything further about it in open session.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Member Butler. So I recall hearing that if one of these solar facilities was being planned within a mile and a half was it of the municipality that we had to take in strong consideration what the m municipality wanted. Do I got the mileage wrong or the mile and a half is the is the uh the relevant frame. Maybe it'd be more uh appropriate to have land use come down and talk to you about the overall planning of the areas. Um I if somebody from land use would like to discuss those rather

I was just I was just curious cuz if it's a mile and a half and this is a half mile outside, you know, and and many different districts have already weighed in on this. I'm I'm going to have to be a no on it as well.

Like them to give the exact mileage. Is it a mile and a half? Okay, David Dubo, director of the W County Lies Department. Um, so I just what could you please repeat the specific question? I wanted to know what the distance was from the municipality that they had to be in order to not, you know, adhere to the municipality's wishes.

Okay. Jurisdictional review applies to um mile and a half. Jurisdictional review applies to to map amendments, not to special use permits nor variances. And so that requires us when there's a change of zoning to notify the municipalities. And then by action, notify them within a mile and a half and notify them. And then by their action, if they object to the zoning, then they propile a written protest to the county through the clerk's office. And then that affects the county's required vote to supermajority for approval. That does not apply to special instruments. I have a question.

Member, they're going to stay. I I was so Yeah, we'll go through it and they'll I think Landu says because you're going to be the the question answer from now on. So, uh member Ballage, my mic's on. I'm used to it is I'm I'm used to hitting you on so I'm accidentally turning you off because they're all live now. Sorry.

Okay. I I wish that there was a legal objection to this thing. But uh you know I'm just looking at it like this. There's the no gain at all for the community. Zero. And that's obvious, right? And there's a hardship caused by this. The word hardship is very important in this case. There's a hardship. So it's our duty to decide whether the hardship is greater than the need or the benefit to the community. And there is no benefit to the community. So when you look at it the way we're supposed to be looking at it per the state's attorney, correct? Because I got a paper that says exactly what I just said, it goes by the hardship and the gain for the community. That's one of the issues. I can go through all 10 of them.

Correct. Number four is the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship to the applicant. By by just what the state's attorney said means that we should deny it and say no. Member Freeman, I just have a question to Kevin. How I actually have this in my desk because I'm one of those. Um how many of these does it have to go against to

there? They're factors rather than elements. And and so in legal mumb mumbo jumbo, it's a balancing test rather than a um an element where you have to hit all the ones. So they may so heavily outweigh, you know, four or five may so heavily outweigh the minor ones that are in favor. Um it is that that is more what a court will weigh. Um but you guys are the ones that are kind of looking at this and saying, "Here's what I think." It's not a bright line rule. It's it's a totality of all the evidence. Okay? You know, so one could be so bad that you say the minor benefit does outweigh the fact that it is going to destroy um the public health, you know, those sort of things. Um so it's it's more of a feel than a bright line 55%.

Thanks, Member Trir Vanine and then Ogala. Thank you, Madame Executive. Um a question for our state's attorney. Um I understood the LEAL factors were for zoning and planning. Do they actually um work on special use permits as well? They are for both uh they are for both for both MAP and uh both the amendments and special use. Um correct. Okay. All right. Um I think that's my only question. Speaker Vanad.

Thank you, Madam Executive. Um, I just want to re reiterate what some of the members of this board had already stated. Um, it it really is um disappointing that the state of Illinois puts us in this p predicament of of making decisions when um certain factors are made. Um, the simple fact that we have 10 taxing bodies that that wrote a letter of objection to this. Solar farms are good in certain areas. I believe it's not uh prudent in this area itself and it does it does uh have a hardship on those taxing bodies. So therefore I will be a no. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Ogala

said to be patient with me. Yeah. Yep. There we go. I don't remember was the I believe we added the condition for 25 years which is what the um compromise offer was from the uh solar company solar development company. I believe that was done at the land use and development committee meeting.

I just wanted to make sure about that. I just would like to say one more thing. I think that I I know there's been talk about taking the public hearing away from the county board agenda for a long time, December of 22. I think we should have made notice to the public prior to this meeting so that they were aware of that because they were not aware that the county board agenda was going to be changed that you could not have public public that we were no longer going to have public hearing here. I also think that with that change, we should offer the opportunity at times for a motion to amend the rules to allow the people who come for public comment to speak longer than the three minutes allowed. Thank you.

I I actually just wanted to chair say for those of you that don't know, we are going to have an executive session to address the changes to the public comment today. It's really not. It's really not. You'll see. So, thank you. All right. Seeing Thank you. Seeing no further discussion on this item, uh, madame clerk, will you please call the role, Richmond, Williams, Dean, Slotman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler, Bich, Brooks, no. Winfrey, Bullock, Logan, no

Freeman, Revis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trineer, Vandine, 90 negative. The motion fails.

Okay, thank you. Next on the agenda, OD26-026, zoning case 2511. We're going to vote twice on this one. The first one is for a map amendment from A1 to I2 and the second vote will be for a special use permit for clean construction and demolition debris fill operations. Both projects are are both both cases vacant Brandon Road, Joliet, Illinois County Board District number six. On the map amendment, PCC approved it with a vote of 4 to two and land use recommended denial with an even vote of 3 to three and I so move. Motion by Pretel, seconded by Revvis. discussion. Yeah. Thank you, M. Member Prtil.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Executive. So, this one um a lot of talk today about zoning in Will County. It's a head scratcher to me that this one is zoned agricultural. And I know we often look at, you know, changing agricultural to industrial. This is literally 30 feet, not yards, 30 feet away from some of the most industrial land in all of Will County. There's a coal ash plant nearby. There's a quarry nearby. This uh will never be agricultural land as as you think with corn or soybeans or uh anything like that. Um in addition, the applicant does a lot of road construction in Will County. I think it we you could argue it's the biggest name in Will County for road construction. They have to have a place to put this clean construction debris. The farther away from the projects, the more the project cost. It's it's pretty simple. Also, clean construction debris isn't subjective. It's monitored. They they can't fudge it. They go through testing before they actually dump it in the ground. This is safe debris. This area is already industrial. In my opinion, this is a perfect place for this. My concern is that we see this with certain projects where people just don't want it no matter what. So, you you start to throw things and see what sticks. And I think that's what's happening here. I'm going to be a yes for this. I encourage you all to be as well.

Thank you. Member Richmond, do you still No. Yes. No, I'm good. Okay. Uh member Traneer O' Gallo.

Thank you, Madame Executive. Um, I did look through the packet. I I looked extensively at the map. I agree with board member Pretzel that this area is just totally industrial, totally surrounding it. Don't know why we made this little strip be agricultural. But what puzzles me and um I'm just kind of curious, maybe member Pretzel can answer or maybe there's somebody from the applicant that can answer. I don't see a quarry here and I and maybe this is you know a mistake on my part but I always assume that clean construction degree debris is going in a hole and then it's going to get covered and it's typically all the ones that I recall have been quaries and again from the photo I can't tell that this was this property was ever quarried um because I see a lot of grass and I see a lot of trees. So does somebody know something that I don't know? Can you put clean construction demolition debris on the top of the ground at ground level?

So, I'm I'm going defer to the case. It doesn't look like a we can't have the attorney come up. So, we're going to have staff is going if you want to answer, but you can also have staff is going to just have to I you probably just need to be close here if you can. My understanding is there's something like 30 feet of grade change from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. They're they're going to level it up. Yeah, because when you look at this photo, you can't really Yeah, if you looked at it from, you know, the the side, you would notice from the street to the back is about a 30 foot um grade change. Okay. Okay. Are you are you comfortable? Do you Okay. Okay. That's fine. That's what I was looking at. Thank you, Frankie.

Looking at the photo and reading the packet, it doesn't really describe this as having, you know, a hole. Mhm. Okay. Thank you, member O'allen.

Thank you. So, the reason why this property would be zoned A1 is before anything is is zone not agricultural back in back in the day, this land was probably farmed. So, it was A1. It doesn't change from A1 until somebody comes forward and asks to have the zoning change from A1 to a residential area, a commercial area, an industrial area. So, it's not a surprise that it's zoned A1. It just naturally is zone way A1 from the beginning. So there there really shouldn't be a surprise there. That makes sense. Member Brooks.

Thank you, madam executive. This uh project falls within county board district, my district. And just so that my colleagues on this board understand, I sit on land use committee. I do respect the comments of my chairman and uh uh unfortunately I disagree and I disagree because I am holding out hope with the residents in that area. Everything he said I don't deny. But I want you all to know I'm going vote no to deny because of the residents in that area. I think that everything that was said I have no problem with it at all. However, I am here to represent the residents of my district. So I will be a deny. Thank you.

Thank you, member Butler. So, when they say clean construction debris, are we talking about rocks and sand and steel from roads? Is that what we're talking about? We're not talking about like construction debris from a house where there's going to be drywall and insulation and that kind of stuff in there. This is just basically concrete and and maybe some other road materials. There's a specific definition to CCD. I'm not gonna misstate it. So I will invite staff up to tell you what that is. But I will tell you that it is monitored. They have to go through testing before they can dump it. So but please staff come up. Can staff complete up come up here please?

CCD. Yeah. So clean construction and demolition debris is identified by state statute here in Illinois. And it is exactly that. It's dirt, it's rocks, it's um concrete that doesn't have any rebar. It could be sand, anything like that. It is not insulation. It is not wood. Um it's not like demolition debris. This is actually dirt, rocks, concrete with no rebar.

Thank you for that clarification. And as mentioned, it is regulated by the state and they do in have to do inspections for the loads coming in and um our office does uh annual semianual uh inspections of each facility.

Burkowitz. Thank you, Madame Executive. Um, so can you remind us of the um requirements for containment? I believe in past permits we have required that these materials be covered and secured. So what are the requirements? Um, they can't just create huge mountain piles of these materials. Is that correct? because of dust and things like that. Um, we have to have some measure of containment there. Can you tell us what that is?

Uh, member Burkowitz, I am not familiar with any of those requirements. Uh, generally when you're filling a site, it can't be filled any higher than the surrounding ground level. So, there shouldn't be piles, uh, you know, creating hills, as you might want to say, of contained material. So, it's level with surrounding ground is uh how all these facilities have been in the past. I I can't tell you specifically how much plus or minus it's going to be. Uh they do have to get a permit to fill it in. The state will regulate it and they will impose other regulations on the site and our office will inspect them to make sure that they're met.

Okay. So, we had we had a question earlier that wasn't answered. um a county board member um a county board member indicated couldn't tell if there was a a depression here or not. It wasn't possible. It wasn't visible. So apparently there is there is an area that can be filled and then you're stating that that will be monitored and it will also be um leveled and controlled in that fashion. That's that's what you're saying. Correct.

That's correct. Um, you know, we only have, when I say we, the county only has access to a handful of different years of, uh, historic aerial imagery. And if you go back in time, at one time there was uh, when I go back, I think 60 70 years, there's a quarry to the north that somehow this property had some connection to, and there was uh, piles of material on this site. Um, and so when this applicant came forward with this request, we spoke with Dave Harky, who's the resource recovery and energy division director in our office and has the most knowledge of clean construction and demolition debris facilities. and he said this site would be eligible for a CCDD permit and it would be in the county's best interest to be able to have that regulation uh because that is a much higher uh regulated uh facility than if somebody was just filling the site with dirt which they could do through a site development permit.

Okay. Thank you, Brian. Seeing no more discussion, um, madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond, this number. Yeah. On the map amendment. Yeah. Yes. Williams. Dean Schlottman. Yes. Ogala. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. Yes. Yes. Brooks,

no. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, Freeman, Revvis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trineer, Vanden, Yes.

13 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Next, we're going to vote on the special use permit for clean construction and demolition debris fill operations. Uh, land use and development, I'm sorry, PCC approved 4 to2 of four conditions. Land use and development recommends denial 3 to three even split. And I so moved. Motion by pretzel, seconded by Revvis. Any discussion on previous ro previous role by Van Dine, seconded by Dean Schlottman. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay. Okay. Next on the agenda, OD 26-027 for zoning case 25-123. Special use permit for recyclable material drop off facility outdoor Frankfurt Township 11103 West 189th Place Moina Illinois County Board District number four. PCC recommended approval 6 to zero with four conditions. Land use and development recommended approval 5 to1 with four conditions. And I so move motion by Pretzel seconded by Revis. Any discussion? This is member Richmond.

Yes, this is in uh district 4 um in our town and I've gotten uh letters both from the village as well as from the township uh requesting this be denied. So, I'll be a no. Member Uh I agree with Mr. Richmond. Um, and again, they're not using the word hardship where they should be uh saying whether it's a hardship or not. And um I'm assuming I didn't see the letter, but uh if they were here, they would explain what the hardship was. So, I'm a no vote on that, too. That's my district.

All right. Anything else, Member Pel, before I call roll? Okay. I just I don't believe so. Okay. Um, madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond Williams Dean Slapman Ogala. No. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. no. Brooks, Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. No. Freeman. Yes. Revisits.

Yes. Icky. Yes. Costa R. Vanden.

Yes. 10 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Next on the agenda, OD26-028, zoning case 25-121, special use permit for a landscape business 17958 South Cedar Road. PCC recommended approval with a vote of 4 to zero. Land use and development recommended approval with a vote of 5 to1. And I so move second Revvice discussion.

Motion by Pretzel, seconded by Revvis. Uh member Revvice for discussion. Yeah, I just wanted to say, you know, businesses, uh bringing new businesses into not only will county, but Illinois is, uh, you know, it's a very difficult thing right now. We're not a very businessfriendly climate. So, uh, that we have a landscaping business that's interested in, you know, setting up shop here in Will County. I think for those reasons alone, we should, uh, support it. And uh you know, I think the applicant uh took ample measures to uh ease the hardship and the burdens that they're putting on uh the neighbors. So uh for those reasons, I'm a yes. I encourage everyone to be a yes as well. Member Traneer.

Thank you, Madame Executive. Um I'm inclined to support this, but I I am concerned about the plight of the neighbor who's building a home next door to it. Uh, can somebody tell me because I didn't see anything in the packet. Um, are we asking for fencing or any sort of mitigation at the end of the property where he's parking all these trucks? Yeah, I'll invite Land up for that one.

Okay. Margaret Kennyville County Land Use. So, land use and development um approved or recommended approval of the special use with the added condition that a burm 650 ft long. So along the southern property line that is 6 foot tall with um evergreens as the attorney stated earlier would be added to that southern property line to add that buffer.

Um so would this burm have trees on top of it too like maybe evergreens? Yes. Okay. So that is a requirement. Yep. Looking and listening at the same time and I'm not doing well with that today. Um uh you said the south end of the property. So, is that where these vehicles are going to be? And is that adjacent to where the home's being built? Yes. So, then there's also the requirement of a 50-ft setback um from property lines. Generally speaking, um with the burm, they're not going to be digging into the burm. The burm has a certain ratio to make sure that it is um engineerally sound sound and does not right. It's not going to have a landslide. It's not going to collapse or anything. So,

so there's a burm and there's trees. Is there also a fence? Um, in terms of the Burm, if it provides natural screening, they do not have to fence. Um, it's really the applicant's desire if they want that as an additional security requirement. Um, most likely that would be either on top of the burm or it could be inside the burm. Okay. Yeah. And and obviously the property owner building the house can also choose to put up a fence. They don't have to look at it if they don't want to. But um, they mentioned trucks. Are they selling trucks?

No. So, the trucks they use, it's my understanding, is part of their business. They may have a couple that they own to pick up deliveries and keep on site. Um, but primarily it's going to be, you know, the hardskate, the rocks, the gravel that's kept on site. And is there any sales tax revenue involved with this sort of business at all that would somehow impact the county in any sort of positive way? I I'm assuming the prop the business owner pays his his business taxes. I would think so. They are putting in an office and a pretty large structure um on the property as well. So, you will get some added tax benefits from that structure and the property tax. Okay. Thank you.

Member Balich and Butler. And this is my district and I live there. And I agree with the supervisor when she said that there's a hardship already existing with the uh traffic because Bruce Road comes in and it's a dangerous real dangerous intersection there. You got to be really careful when you go around that curve. So when when we look at it from that perspective, this is only an added hardship. So, we're we already have a hardship and we're going to get another one added to it. So, you know, I'm going to vote no. And I do understand it because I live there and I actually travel that way sometimes and it's it is extremely dangerous, especially at night.

Remember Butler than Richmond? So, I know the burm is 6 feet high. How wide is it? Is that a single row of trees or is it big enough to have them staggered? So, it's a little bit more substance for the neighbors. So, in terms of BMS, um, usually to be structurally sound, they need a 5-ft planting top of the burm. And then our ratio usually is for every foot up, it's 3 ft wide. Um, so that could be 18t wide would be the base of the burm. And then of course you have the 5ft planting on top to again basically secure the sides of the burm. It's a

single row. Correct. Um I don't recall the provisions, but usually the trees are every 10 feet, 25 ft again to allow them to thrive and grow appropriately. Thank you. Member Richmond.

Thank you. So I am going to be a no on this, but I think there's something else that we should look at. That area is becoming more populated and with more population comes more cars. With more cars is going to come more fatalities. We heard today that there were a number of fatalities out there. Um I I'm going to talk to uh public works and transportation and see what we can do about um taking up that those S-curves there and looking at how we can mi mitigate uh those. I mean you know just looking at the map there we could make them a uh that road dead ends cedar dead ends at both ends of that. So I think what we should do is take that up as an initiative too uh so we can reduce further discussion of fatalities in that area. So thank you.

Thank you member Ogala. Thank you. Um this would be a question for uh our director of transportation Jeff Ronaldson. Good morning. Good morning. Could you uh please let us all know what the jurisdiction is for Boroth Cedar Road there and Bruce Road.

Cedar Road itself is a county highway. The legs that connect into Bruns Road, the triangular shapes, those are township roads, but Cedar Road itself is a county highway. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Chair Pretzel.

So, a couple things. I I actually agree this is a dangerous intersection. We've heard Homer Township come and talk about the fatalities they've already had. So, I would like to see some changes to the speed limit. I know this isn't the time for that, but I I hope that that happens. whether this project passes or not. I do want to also point out that where this applicant wants to put their entrance into this property uh along that stretch that goes between the two curves, it goes uh east and west to the west side of this proposed entrance by no more than a couple hundred yards if that. There's already an entrance and that entrance belongs to the forest preserve district. So, I just don't know if it's fair for us to say you can't have an entrance there, but we can. So, uh I don't know. I I get it. These people are building I I drove by this. I drive by it all the time. It's an absolutely beautiful home they're putting up there. They have a dream raising their family there. And obviously, I think that's wonderful. But this business owner also has a dream. He has a dream of opening up a landscape business. He bought the property. He thinks this is a good place for it. It's up to us to decide if it is or not. I I personally think it is. Um I do agree that we have to do something about the speed limit there because people do fly around that curve. I don't know if it's a a challenge to themselves to see if they can do it or not, but I I've seen it firsthand. So I would like to see that change, but I do support the project.

Thank you. Member Bulock then Burkowitz. So there is supposed to be a traffic study done, correct? as part of one of the conditions. Is that my understanding? So then if that's the case, the results of that study, can those results uh mean a a speed limit change or is that something has come from a different place? You do you would do that in transportation department, but yes, you have the ability to do that as a county board to change the speed limit on Cedar Road. given the results of the I mean are we gonna get the results of that study?

Yeah. Yeah. The the speed limit on the county or on the county roads falls to the to the county board member. So no I understand that.

Will they give you it? I I don't know if this is I mean Jeff could answer better. I'm not Jeff you want to come up but yes you can change the the speed limit. I if you're asking whether or not there's a current study I will let Jeff answer that. Uh my understanding is the development is doing their studies. They've had initial conversation with our office. We haven't had a lot of contact with them yet. It's mostly been with land use. It's now just coming to our department. So yeah, they're going to do site studies and check some of that out. A speed study would have to be done to show if a speed limit reduction is warranted. And then if it is, we would bring that to you for consideration.

Okay. So my question is, thank you. Is the study they are doing good in place of because I'm assuming if I come to you as a board member say, hey, I want to propose we change the speed limit. You're going to have to do some testing as well. So is this testing as good as your testing? You know what I mean?

From what I'm from what I'm seeing in the land use notes, they just asking for a site study. Now we can also include a speed study with that although we might do that ourselves. We have the equipment to do it. So we have studied that corridor a number of times over the years and only been able to reduce it to 50 through the corridor and then the curves are 35 advisory. So but we as a county can go ahead and do our own speed study independent of what they're doing. So I will do that. Right. Okay. I think you may have more questions though because we just lit up. Uh, member Burke and Butler.

Thank you. Uh, so Jeff, how is this categorized in terms of priority? Is this high priority or is this just something you're going through this study process and then you'll bring it forward? Um, are you talking about the development or the speed study itself? The the speed study. And then I'm going to follow up with a question regarding the road configuration. So the speed study, is this a priority? What is the length of time before you come to a conclusion on this study?

Well, given this is the first time I've heard about it, I will direct staff today and it'll be the course of time. It will take a few weeks. A few weeks. Okay. Uh there is an absolute issue with the configuration of this road. I've driven it many many times and I can't even imagine and I have driven this road at night in the dark and it's you know it it's concern

member Burk which we're going to have to keep you on to the topic. Yeah. So any development in this particular location for me I I have a concern with the existing road and really what what needs to be done there is it needs to be like a T intersection with a light so traffic and I understand that this is this is dollar signs but live you can't put a a value on on life. So, if this is not on our, you know, list, top 10 list of projects, uh, I would request that it it be considered to be placed on that list and brought forward either at public works committee or wherever it's appropriate. But, um, also the the fact since it's a county road, it's also rather narrow. So do you would you come to the conclusion that the road should maybe have a shoulder as well?

Member Burkovitz. Yeah. This is not this is not gerine to the actual project. I I understand what you're trying we we know that there needs to be discussion on this road and I think a couple members but it's it's it does relate because if anybody who builds there whether it's a house or a business that they need to exit and enter off of this road and it it's narrow as well. So, what are your thoughts about I would just say is the the 2050 plan does show that we would reconstruct that corridor to a three-lane cross-section and build it to standard. That's what the the 20-year plan shows. Now, that's not in our current plan to do anything with it at the moment. Okay.

Um the historical value though, I mean, from 56 between 61, if you look at the arrows, it was a T way back in the day. And then at that time the county built those curves to allow free flow traffic. So many years ago in their first attempt at a diamond correct something like that.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Member Butler. So, I'm not sure if this is a question for Jeff, but um I just first I just want to say that looking at this area on the map, I could see how they have some really big estates on here. Some, you know, wealthy property owners probably figured all these lots were going to be like that. And I, you know, I could sympathize with the business owner um wanting to come in here because maybe a lot of his clients are going to be in that area, you know, and centrally located. But I just wonder if they've extinguished all negotiations because I, you know, listening, I heard, you know, objections to the trucks being right next to the property line and and, you know, if that were eased off that could make a difference. And I I don't know if uh our negotiations over, are they all extinguished? Have they drawn the line? because, you know, I just feel like when you come in, you want to come in as a good neighbor and, you know, I I feel it's incumbent on that new business to to really blend in if you want a special use permit and not upset the neighbors. Uh, so is there any way to find that out if you know?

I'm going to let the state attorney address it. So, that would be a it's not really a factor that you consider legally. Um, and B, those that's not information that was provided to you as part of the public hearing. Um, now whether the land owner wants to come back and say, "Hey, I'll I'll, you know, I've heard all your things. I'll come back and let's postpone this." They could. Um, but they're not obligated to negotiate with the um, and I don't think that's a fact that we can introduce into evidence because it's not relevant for the South Sinclair factors. I understand your concern about why that would be an important thing for them to do. Thank you, member Ter.

I'm still trying to get my bearings around this because the more I read, the more confused I get, but um is it considered Cedar Road on the north side where it says Bruce Road on the map? That's still Cedar Road, correct? Yes. Okay. So, that's where the Burm's going to go all around Cedar Road. And so, this new house ostensibly is on the north end of the project, the north of the property. You're I think we're let Okay, there you go. The south portion. Now we are going to BM it. Okay. Thank you. That's what I need to clarify because the the project just talks about the burm being on the basically the cedar roadside. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Madame clerk, we're going to please take the role. We are number four. Richmond, Williams, Dean Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, yes. Butler, new uh no. Brooks, yes. Winfrey Bulock Logan Freeman Revis Ortiz Hickey I'm sorry Burkowitz

Hickeyi Costa Trineer yes Vanden Yes.

11 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Executive. Next on the agenda, OD26-029, special use permit for an attached accessory dwelling unit at 1458 Elgen Avenue, Juliet, Illinois. Uh, land use and development recommended approval with a six to zero vote with two conditions and I so move. Motion by Pretzel, seconded by Traneer. Any discussion? Any discussion? Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond. Williams. Yes. Dean Slottman, Ogala, yes. Yes. Butler,

yes. no. Brooks, yes. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, yes. Freeman. Revisits, yes. Hickey Costa Traineer, yes. Van Dine, yes.

198 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Next up, OD26-030 for zoning case ZC25128. Special use permit for an outdoor storage facility at vacant New Avenue, Lockport, Illinois County Board District number five. PCC recommended approval 6 to zero with four conditions in land use and development recommended approval 6 to zero with four conditions. And I so move. Motion by Pretzel, seconded by Trir. Any discussion? Any discussion? previous roll call by uh Winfrey, seconded by Freeman. Um, okay. We uh member Ballage would like to change it to a yes. So, all in favor?

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Next. OD26-031 for zoning case ZC25130 special use permit for a non-conforming use at Wilton Township 29450 South Cedar Road, Manhattan, Illinois County Board District number two. PCC recommended approval six to zero with two conditions. Land use and development recommended approval six to zero with two conditions and I so move. Motion by pretzel seconded by Ogala. Any discussion? Discussion. Previous

previous role by van second by Revvis. All in favor any opposed? Motion carries. Resolution 2632 for a second extension 2525 for zoning case ZC23006 special use permit for a commercial solar energy facility with it says 96 conditions I don't remember the actual uh north northwest corner of Munz Road and South Cottage Grove Avenue in Cree Illinois County Board District number three land use and development approved this 6 to And I so move motion by pretzel, seconded by Revis. Any discussion question? I'm a go on.

Okay, we'll take roll call. Me uh member O' Gallo. Thank you. I didn't ask this at committee. I I for I apologize for that, but if uh maybe Landies could come up. I'd like to know if this company um Cottage Grove Solar One LLC if the company for this for commercial energy facility is the same as the one that we approved when the project was originally approved.

Looks like they're looking it up right now.

Yeah, I did. I forgot to ask that then. Hi, Margaret Kenny, land use department. Um, give me one second as I pull up the staff report. Yes. So, um, it's my understanding the current owner is Saltage and I believe at the time of the zoning case, um, it was Um, give me one second. It was always named as Cottage Grove Solar One. So, I believe um there was a previous um agent associated with the Creek Cottage Grove Solar. They did not disclose who the actual company was at the time of the zoning case.

So, we don't know if it was Saltage or not. Correct. Thank you. Member Burkowitz and then Butler.

Thank you. So, um Margarite, looking at the agenda packet in uh previous minutes, this the initial permit for this project went back to 2023. that according to the it's it was zoning case 23-003. How I didn't think the extensions went that long. So special uses currently um are they have a 2-year window to legally establish. So, when this was approved back um let me just pull up the ordinance real quick. Doesn't have the date

in August of uh 2023. So, August of 2025 would be their two-year window. They applied for a 180day extension which was their first extension. Um that is approaching um expiration. So they are requesting the second one to continue on for another 180 days. Okay. And I see they have a battery energy storage system. So, um, were there any objections from the fire district or the local townships regarding the battery storage? They decided to not pursue the battery storage. So, um, in both memos for both extensions, they mentioned that they are just requesting for the solar to be continued and request the extensions regarding that. So, they will not be pursuing any battery storage with these projects at this time.

Okay. Thank you. member Butler. So, I I think the name was Turning Point or something like some something like that, but isn't it common for these other companies to come in and kind of pave the path and work the negotiations and then afterwards it goes it they're commonly not the same company that actually does the work. We've seen a few instances where companies come in and through the permitting phase they hire another company to actually do the construction and then there may be a third company that comes in and owns and operates. Um some companies

do the whole thing. They'll come forward for zoning and they keep the projects. Um this particular project looks like it changed hands. Yeah. And and you don't recall if it was turning point because I I remember talking with these people. This was turning point. This was not them. No. Okay. Any more discussion? Madame clerk. Thank you. Madam clerk, please call the role. Richmond. Yes. Williams. Dean Schlottman. Ogala. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. Yes. no. Brooks,

yes. Winfrey. Bulock Logan. Yes. Freeman Revis Ortiz. Yes. Burkowitz. No. Hickeyi. Hosta. Trineer. Yes.

17. Oh. Six. 16 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Okay. Next on the agenda, resolution 26-033 for second extension 25-026, zoning case ZC22096, special use permit for commercial solar energy facility with nine conditions commonly known as vacant property on the northeast corner of East Goodnau Road and Dutton Road, Creek, Illinois County Board District number three. Land use and development was 6 to zero. Uh approving and I so move. Motion by pretzel, seconded by Winfrey. Any discussion? Any discussion? Question.

Uh member Ogala. Yeah, I'm going to ask a question. Uh this is of course for land use, please. Oh, sorry. You're good.

Um, sorry about that. I was waiting for you to introduce yourself, but okay. So, sorry. Everyone should know who you were. You were just spoke spoke a second ago. So, is the current owner for this also Salt Saltage? Correct. It is also Saltage. Do we know who the prior owner was for this as well? Um, if my memory serves me correctly, it was the same applicant as the last zoning case originally. Um, both projects were sold to Soultage. Then we don't know who they were though, right? Um, I believe when they came forward for their application, they just named the same solar facility. So, this was um, Creek Good Now Solar One.

Yeah. And I know these were from a long time ago. So, we've grown so much from that time till this time. So, I understand that. Um, that's all. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Madame clerk, please call the role. Richmond. Williams. Yes. Dean Slottman. Ogallo. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. No. Brooks. Yes. Winfrey. Bulock. Logan. Yes. Freeman, Revvice, Ortiz, Burkowitz,

Hickey, Costa, Trainer, Bandit, yes 16 affirmative. The motion carries. Okay, thank you. Next land use and development committee meeting is scheduled for March 5th, 2026. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Moving on to finance committee. Uh, Chair Nquis is second. Member Burkowitz.

Thank you. Good morning. Uh, so for finance committee, we have our consent agenda which includes resolution 26 26-034 uh, year-end budget transfer and numerald B resolution 26-035 authorizing use of contingency for the sheriff. ADF C. Resolution 26-036 delinquent tax resolutions and finally D. Resolution 26-037 resolution authorizing the county auditor to enter into a professional services contract for financial and operation analysis of law enforcement services provided to the village of Homer Glenn. And I some

All right. So, we're gonna I I I know you don't usually do this, but I member because you at the beginning, remember me, we're going to try to because they're consent agendas. Once we list them, we move forward. So, we're going to try to ask if things need to be removed before we read them. But, uh member uh leader Richmond. Yes. Uh we've spoke about it uh for the past couple days and having uh letter D removed from the consent agenda. We don't have to vote. No, that's right. Yes. Okay. So, we are just going to be voting on in the consent agenda A, B, and C. A through. Yeah. And we had a motion by Burkowitz. I'll second that. Seconded by Van Dyne. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you. And sorry, I'm sorry. We had three. We had several nos that time. So, we're going to have to let's just take a clean roll. Madam clerk, please call the role. Oh, then what's on the consent agenda? So, consent agenda. Yeah. A, B, and C. Can I just change them then? Okay. Sorry. We do not have to do it yet. Thank you. You're go ahead. Which? Go ahead. Continue. Um, this is the removal. Oh, okay. So, we like you're going to vote. We have to have a roll call to the consent agenda.

We just did. We don't because it's on the consent agenda. So, that means everybody is automatically yes unless we pull it out. So, now we're on D. So, we're on to Thank you. Um, resolution 26-037 uh 26-4190 resolution authorizing the county auditor to enter into a professional services contract for a finan financial and operational analysis of law enforcement services provided to the village of Homer Glenn. And I so move motion by Burkowitz, seconded by Triner. Discussion discussion.

Uh, now we had uh some questions regarding this item and I believe um we requested that the county auditor be available for some questions. Is he here? Yes, he's Thank you. Appreciate that.

You're on. Yep. Okay. Uh, good morning. Kevin Duffy Blackberg, county auditor. Thank you. Um, Tony, did they give you the questions in advance? Oh, I thought you were gonna start answering questions. Member Burke, you Yes. So this uh some of the questions if you could please explain the reason why you determined that you needed to go to an outside company for this analysis uh to and and basically the the reason why we're at that point where you feel we need to re-evaluate what we are um charging for our services.

Yeah, that's a good question. Um so in 2001 the village of Homer Glenn incorporated uh the county sheriff's department has been providing a public safety function since then in 2007. Uh they did uh make an the latest contract for that. So it's been since 2007. Each year the the sheriff's department does maintain a cost analysis. They put together a cost matrix. They put the together direct labor costs, indirect labor cost, overhead, um different types of costs that we have uh shown. They put together a spreadsheet basically for the contract for law enforcement that's been provided. Um there's been, you know, our our county sheriff's department, county executive, our our budget team and their budget team and uh you know, our office, we provide as much help and um support for those calculations. uh you know and there have been a question there's been questions from constituents that would ask we are providing services to the village of Homer Glenn I live in Joet I live in Frankfurt I live somewhere I pay for my police department why am I paying for Homer Glenn's police department we they pay us for that though so they do we do charge them that currently it's $5.1 million right now. Um now this the the county auditor's office does by statute collect preserve and analyze statistical information. So we are able to put together information that could further help us discuss this

matter as well. Uh but for us to go from just what our office is doing uh to have maybe a methodological defensible uh study if we go and you know make any changes to this determine is this the full impact and value of the public safety function that is being provided to them. I I would move from just our compliance to our the county auditor statutory requirements and move to seeking someone who has subject matter expertise in public safety and law enforcement that would be able to do that. Um yeah, and as far as as far as to help out the discussion as well, I did talk to uh uh Chuck Pelky. I we have information that we can discuss and we can share with the county board. We we do look at different cities and counties. We can we can offer what it costs. The village of Shorewood, uh the village of Bowling Brook, city of Joliet, Moina, Frankfurt, what how many FTEEs they have sworn and civilian, how much they have for all these different types of costs where what we could do as well, we could take a look at the per capita cost of law enforcement or public safety per resident. We could also see how many FTEEs per thousand residents you have. Now some of our our communities do have on average within the national average of like the national average is about two to five FTEEs per thousand. We get in somewhere in the zone of that. Now looking at you

know Bowling Brook Frankfurt Moina Joliet we can compile that as an auditor's office to support them going forward. I'm not sure who the the what county office would want or who they would depend on putting together this uh methodology and this study than to defend or go to contract or change any terms. Now the only thing we would be providing would be something that would be possibly just labeled as a internal spreadsheet which I don't believe is probably as defensible as you know finding an actual subject matter expert in the law enforcement cost studies. Now there are there are examples of these cost studies uh counties within Illinois, counties within Florida, Midwest. We can take a look at regions. It changes per region of the United States. Those studies cost anywhere from 50 to 150 to $200,000. Uh we would try to do this cost effectively. We would try to not use a large big four firm. We would try to find something that has, you know, a little bit more bespoke or boutique that would have actual law enforcement uh cost analysts, experts that would get to study this. We would also stage the data. We would we have a lot of the data already from our county sheriffs. We would provide that and we would also we we could have like a phase approach as well. So we can go back and forth and build their methodology that would be able to supply and provide the the the

uh the defensible cost study that if we go back and ask to renegotiate if the sheriff's or the executive or whomever is going to be doing that. So Deffy, you mentioned it's a $5.1 million cost to Homer Glenn. Has that cost risen though? So we started our uh relationship in 2007. Has that cost been adjusted periodically to get to this five.1 million?

Yes, Member Burkeritz, that's a good question. It has it has been adjusted each year. There is a uh cost matrix that that informs that cost. The general uh lieutenants, sworn, clerical, uh employee benefits, overhead, equipment cost, all the different types of costs do go into this. And then that is just then

and what about what about the number of officers that they require? I would imagine in 2007 they didn't require perhaps as many as many personnel as they do today. No, no, that has risen. Um currently it is 20 full uh assigned officers. Now that is 16 patrol 16 patrol, three administrative and one lieutenant. Three sergeants and and one lieutenant. Now we are our our one of the concerns as well is that this doesn't in it doesn't accumulate all costs. We're trying to absorb all costs. So this is going to be fully burdened labor rates fully fully absorbed cost rates all of this. We don't we don't have now we don't have uh direct costs. We we lump them into this sort of overhead rate that we put together, prorated rate based on some application basis that the the county sheriff puts together because they are law enforcement. I don't understand relief factors. I don't understand 80our shifts. I don't understand all these different things as I'm not an law enforcement expert. We also know that there are some costs that they are trying to come up with as far as post arrest operating business process. Um, so through litigation, through investigations, through these different types of costs, they're trying to incorporate with that. So those also have gone up as well. And some of that stuff is we see the documentation, we see what they have put together, but as far as like a set of criteria for my office to say, "Yeah, that's right." I'm not an expert to to determine that criteria set.

And and I feel that we needed more documentation probably from the sheriff to answer all of these questions. Um I also had wondered about facility. Are there any facility um uh facilities that we have to maintain? Do they have an office in city hall? Does that cost us money? These are all things that I I think if we had some documentation, something information rather than just a resolution. Um, I I know other board members have questions, but I'm going to just suggest that I I would like to in order to support this request and I think it is a valid request, but I would like more information to be be brought forward to allow us to understand uh what is our objective and who is out there that can provide the expertise that we need and then move forward at that point in time. So, um, but I think this is long overdue and I there we may very well find that it's costing the county much more money than we are getting um in return from uh from the uh recipient. So, and we have to be uh we have to answer to the taxpayer make sure that um that it it's b being done fairly and accurately. So, thank you for your time.

Okay, member Balich and then Hickeyi.

Okay. Um, I had a conversation a while back with Brian Conner, the under sheriff at the time, and we talked about exactly what's going on here. By state law, they can't make the our sheriff's department can't make a profit off of Homer Glenn. So in order to come up with an accurate figure, they need to have what you're doing now so that Homer Glenn can see it and they see it. So that's why that's important. The other thing is that Homer Glenn doesn't even have to hire the sheriff's department and they would have the sheriff's department automatically. There's a lot of cities, big cities like Los Angeles that the sheriff takes care of all the policing and there's no cost to it like that. So the only difference is if Homer Glenn was to say we don't want the sheriff, we would lose all the benefits of the sheriff's department because they'd have to go out and buy various items that they don't have that costs a lot of money. And if there's a problem like forensics, uh a helicopter, a boat, I mean, we can go down the list and there's so there's a big benefit for contracting out with the uh Will County Sheriff's Department and that's why they do it. The sheriff's department wouldn't have I think they have three cars on patrol per shift. I think that's was I'm not sure, but they wouldn't have control of how many cars are going to be on shift or how many police because the police cover the whole county. So if there's an incident in Homer or Glenn, the sheriff would have to dispatch somebody that might not be in Homer Glenn. It take longer to respond. That's why it's in the benefit of Homer Glenn to use the sheriff's department. So, you know, when when we're talking about this, it just makes sense to do this

study because it is breaking the law. If we're overcharging them and if we're not overcharging them, we're hurting the county. So, we need to have the idea figure. May I respond to member Balich very quick? Yeah. And just from your location, your background and experience, you understand this a little bit more. I appreciate that. And I'm again, I can come back with more u information as well if that needs to be. Yeah. Thank you. Member Hickey, then Butler, then Richmond.

Thank you, Random Executive. Um, so would this entering into this contract would make it so that we could be more transparent about the price that is that you know the amount that is being paid by Homer Glenn and making sure that we are covering all the expenses that the sheriff's department is putting out there. Correct.

No, it wouldn't make it any more transparent. All of this is voyable information. It's all open to you. Um, as far as for for would it be more scared? I think it would be well it would be more methodologically defensible for any changes because we haven't they have not done this in since 2007.

Things change in 19 years. So, okay. Um, I am very much for doing this. I know how specific audits can be. um when you come to different areas of service specifically. So I think that it's it's right and I think that it would be very expensive for you to try to duplicate the services that an outside agency could do. Correct.

It would be both costly to our office which is working and I don't believe it also still adds the value of an expert and that uh methodology. So it wouldn't be that that objectivity wouldn't have be there. I I think it offers the subject matter objectivity that they can provide in their expertise. Perfect. Okay. So I mean and I think you alluded to it at the very beginning in order to give the most complete amount of information to the taxpayers across Will County. The best thing we can do is enter into this and and look at these things at a little bit more granular level. Correct?

Yes. Okay. I think that we're all kind of saying the same thing at this point. So, thank you. Thank you. Member Butler. Okay. So, you said that they first entered into this agreement in 2007. I believe in 2001 there was 2001. Yeah. The beginning. Okay. And since then it's been modified to there was more money being charged and less fluctuating with whatever the times, the usages and stuff like that. That's that's what you reported before. Well, it is it's not being like the contract hasn't been modified since then.

So it's been the same number every year. Not the full the the sheriff's department has their costs have changed. So their cost matrix that they are sharing with homework glenn and then billing homework glenn has changed. It has changed the matrix has changed. So the amounts may have been different that they were charging homework.

Well come come on up. This is yeah you'll have to introduce yourself. Hi Kathy Pleasant deputy auditor. Um the costs have changed because the allocations the percentages of the allocations changed based on costs contract costs material costs squad new squad cars s whatever administrative the way the percentages are are sent out. So sometimes they're up sometimes they're down. It just depends on the numbers

and that and that's what I I thought you guys I'm sure that you're very good at modifying or keeping up with those extra costs and stuff. So, I'm just I'm just confused if if we've been able to make all these adjustments and track all these costs. What was the motive for um challenging that system? Like, are are is the sheriff's office losing money and they're trying to find out if maybe this isn't a good deal or was Homer complaining that they were paying too much? Like, what what brought this on? I mean, we've been doing it since 2001. We've been able to modify and stay on top of this. I what don't we know that we we have to hire and pay someone $75,000 to find out?

Great great question. So what we don't know is if the allocation methods that we're using and the matrix that has been passed down since way back when 2001 is actually good based on subject matter expertise, right? Is it all-incclusive? Is it was it uh run kind of like a business? Did we use like a business mentality to put this together? What was the logic back in 2001? Has it changed? Is it the same for all municipalities in the United States that do this type of thing? We don't know because we we don't know. We're not, you know, public safety experts. So, that's where that stems from.

So, okay. And that's that's a great question to ponder on, but I'm just saying, are we losing money? Are we charging too much money? Is there a suspicion of that? Is did something come up? No. So then we're just doing this just to satisfy the curiosity that you know maybe our matrix isn't right.

No. And and to answer the the specific question like what was the impetus for this right now? It was from constituent conversations, conversations in our professional organizations, the governmental uh accounting and auditing professionals of the IIA chapter. Discussion with another consultant that has law enforcement has just been it has been developing and now it seems like now would be a good time as any. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Uh

member Richmond. So Duffy, thank you for coming up here and uh I appreciate uh um answering the questions and that. Um so help me understand this. So what were who's establishing the statement of work for this? Are you overseeing that Duffy or how how are we going to establish the statement of work so we can then in turn put it out there? And my next question is going to be the interview process on who we're going to determine is going to be the right professional to come in here and their expertise and who's going to evaluate that. And then I guess after that then I totally see and I apologize for the run-on question but the need for subject matter experts so we can come up with industry best practices. We can apply those to our scenario and that you can use that as a benchmark moving forward. uh because we don't know what we don't know I guess. So hopefully you've got

Yeah. So that's a that's a good question for like RFP, RFQ, SO the statement of work. If we are putting that together, obviously we would go to examples. What have other communities done? So we have examples from the Midwest, the the southeast, a lot of a lot of the east, the southeast and southern region does have a lot of counties that provide these services. So we would probably look at some of those examples. We would study their RFPs, their statement of works. we would try to come up with something. Now this is normally done through these cost studies are normally done either through like large accounting like Ernstston Young or something that is large. We would try to find if they had providers that were a little bit more uh specialized in law enforcement and who have shown this body of work. Um we would we would have you know the input of the sheriff's department. Um, we would have uh Deputy G Chief Vuna, we would have those in there. Um, also, I mean, through this study, I should also let everyone know as well that the statement of work would probably include interview discussions with the village of Homer Glenn because this is going to incorporate them. So, there's going to be costs for, you know, uh, going out to that. So, maybe that would be your answer to that. And your second question, tell me again. I'm sorry, Jim.

Um, so who So, all right. So, we've gotten to the point of we've established a statement of work. We've then uh established the process that we're going to go out and um uh uh try and find people and the bidding process, who then is going to do the evaluation. And I totally agree with you, Duffy, the fact that we need to include all parties that are impacted by this. I lived in Fairfax County. We had county policing, county public libraries, things like that, county schools and that. So, I'm familiar with the county service type thing. But to your point is the drill down on how we're going to deliver this service to Homer Glenn. We need to have all parties involved. Sheriff's office, Homer Glenn, your office. Um, you know, I don't know who all the right parties are, but I just want to make sure that we're if we're going to do this, we're going to do this, you know, with our eyes wide open so we understand the full impact of it. That that's a very important point. Yes, that makes

tremendous sense. Very reasonable. So then is the decision today for the $75,000 or is the decision that we're going to come back and gather a little bit better understanding of the package that needs to be evaluated and moving forward? I guess that's the question and I'm going to let the but is my understanding that the decision is to the funding to allow us to put out an RFP would this be or Q because it seems as though the package isn't well defined yet.

No, no, no. I I think it's the funding. So it's it's the funding in uh for the auditor's office to enter into a professional service contract. They would have to apply. They would have to abide by state law which includes you know the competitive bidding. Those sort of things if they were to apply those would go through the purchasing department. Uh state's attorney would help review for legal compliance. Um and then they would be awarded through the standard RFP or RFQ depending on what purchasing thinks is the best process. So I think it's a combo of both. it's funding and authorizing them to enter into the professional service agreement.

Okay? Because what I'm hearing is that, you know, we're we're for for doing something along these lines. The question is is when do we get another look see at what's going on or how it's going to be transpire that and who all is going to be at the table. Um because sometimes and this this is no accusation on anybody is you know we go we vote on something like this and then you know uh I think in this case here we need to have some updates in that because obviously it's a spend but it also impacts not only our taxpayers but also impacts a a village that relies on our public safety services and I want to make sure that all the right parties are at the table so everybody has a voice heard.

I would like to respond to his comments. I I think that's great. Um, as you've asked, would there be a more discussion? It could be here or it could be later. As far as the resolution, it would be on then the finance chair to make sure I come back. I can present all the information that we are seeing. I can I can uh collect and organize the the the cost currently. You guys, I would like to have the county board's you know, discussion further in this topic. So you can have, as member Hickeyi had said too, an open and transparent formulation of this the process, this new process. I think that's very appropriate. No, and I I I I know you're going to do that. I I just want to make sure that at the end of the day that everybody here in this room is comfortable with the decision that we make because we're representing the citizens throughout the whole county, but this could have an impact on, you know, everybody. So, thank you. And uh I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Welcome. Member Logan. Uh just quick question. You're not asking for any more money. You're just asking to spend the money that you already have budgeted, right? This is this is u appropriation for additional 75,000. So is the additional more than your budget then? Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Do you want to add something? Okay. All right. Seeing no more discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Auditor Blackburn. See no more discussion. Madam clerk, please call the role Richmond. Dean Schlottman. Yes. Ogala. Pretzel. Yes. Butler. Yes. Brooks, yes. Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, yes.

Freeman, Revvis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Trineer, Vandine, yes. 19 in the affirmative. The motion carries. Thank you. And then uh last on the agenda 26-4136 monthly finance reports to be placed on file. You can review these in your packet and I so move. Motion by burkowit there seconded by hickey. Discussion all in favor.

Any opposed? Motion carries and our ne next finance committee meeting is scheduled for March 3rd 2026.

Thank you. Um before we meet move on to public works and transportation, I can tell people are starting to get antsy. So we are going to take a quick 10-minute re uh recess. So uh we will be back shortly. Oh yeah, might as well. Uh

All right, I think we're wrapping up. I I waited for the last person I saw online come back, so I think we're all set. All right. So, we are May lost one, two. I'm easing into it. We lost at least one more. I don't know if I don't want to. I just I was trying to wait. Um

well I think we will get started here because I think the first is consent agenda anyway. So um moving on to Chair Traneer. We're back to me getting you on. Thank you.

Thank you Madame Executive. So yes, good morning. We have quite a number of items on the consent agenda. Does anyone want anything removed? uh letter A through G hearing. None. Uh A. Resolution 26038 authorizing intergovernmental agreement between Lockport and the County of Will for the intersection of Brig Street and Oak Avenue County Board District 5. Letter B 26-039 authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Romeoville and the county of Will for installation of ma and maintenance of landscaping at the northwest corner of Weber Road and North Carolina Drive. County Board District 9, letter C, Resolution 26-040, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement between the village of Frankfurt and the County of Will for the maintenance and energy of four traffic signals along Larway Road County Board Districts 2 and three. Letter D, resolution 26-041, improvement by county under the Illinois Highway Code for Wilmington Pietone Road from US Route 4552 to Center Road using motor fuel tax funds. County Board District 2. Letter E. Resolution 26-42 confirming award of contract to preform traffic control systems limited. Let on January 21st, 2026, countywide striping all county board districts. Letter F, resolution 26-043 improvement by the county under the Illinois Highway Code for countywide striping using motor fuel tax funds all county board districts. Letter G. Resolution 26-044 confirming award of contract to Van Mack electric company let on January 21st various highway county highway traffic signal upgrade county board districts 2 3 4 5 7 8 and 9 and I so move

motion by trir second by revis all in favor I any opposed the motion carries and our next public works and transportation committee meeting is scheduled for March 3rd And I am pretty sure that we will have Cedar Road on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to public health and safety. Cheer Butler. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have nothing to move forward. Our next meeting is scheduled for March 5th. Thank you. Moving on to legislative committee. Chair Winfrey.

Morning, Madame Executive, fellow board members. We are bringing forward the federal agenda which is excuse me resolution 260162542202 for your approval and I so move by Winfrey seconded by Freeman. Any discussion? Is there previous? Oh madam clerk please call the role. Richmond, Williams, Dean, Schlottman, Ogala, Pretzel, Butler.

Do you know you're on mine? Brooks, yes. Winfrey, yes. Bulock, yes. Logan, Freeman, Revis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Hickey, Costa, Traineer, Van Dy, yes. Yep. 10 members in the affirmative. The motion carries. Committee will meet again on March 3rd. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on uh to chair Freeman, capital improvements and IT.

Madam Executive, I have nothing to bring forward. We are working on the policy for AI and that has consumed a lot of our time, but we are making progress. Thank you. Thank you. Um landfill committee, I don't know who the vice chair. All right, member Hickey. Thank you, Madam Executive. Um, we have nothing to bring forward at this time and our next landfill committee meeting is scheduled for March 10th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you. Um, executive committee speaker van.

Uh, thank you, Madame Executive, and good afternoon, board members. We do have, um, under item number one, A through O is under the consent agenda. Would anyone like any letter removed from the consent agenda? Hearing none. So A is resolution 26045 a resolution adopting an agreement between the county of will and ASME for one-year rate wage increases. Resolution 26-046 an agreement between the county of will and BNSF railroad for the U grade separation. C26-047 resolution authorizing the county executive to to approve an uh IDA with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Resolution 26048, the extension of environmental facilities revenue bonds with Exxon Mobile. Resolution 2649, resolution for extemp extension of exempt facilities refunding revenue bonds exon mobile. Um resolution 26-050 authorizing the county executive to execute aou with Union Pacific Railroad uh police department to to use our countywide radio system. I believe um and the the rest are ordinances and I believe in chapter 75 under under G there was a scrier's error it did it did list 72 point something and it it needed to read 75 um they said we don't need to vote on that it's just a simple scrier's error that will be corrected that is chapter uh 75 with the motorcycles bicycles and pedal cycles h is resolution or ordinance uh amending

the ordinance Uh, title N uh, chapter 90. We have chapter 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, and 97 on our agenda. And I would like to make a motion to approve them all.

Motion by Van Dy, seconded by Hickeyi. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, number two on our agenda, resolution 26-060, resolution authorizing the county executive to negotiate and execute an agreement of intent to abate taxes for project Northwinds. According to the uh applicant, they would like me to make a motion to postpone this item until next month. So, I would like to make that motion.

Motion by Van Dy, seconded by Revvis. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, our next executive committee meeting is scheduled for March 12th, 2026. Moving on to the appointments by the county executive, resolution 26-061, approving county executive appointments to the planning and zoning commission of Will County. And I will make that motion. Motion by Van Dy, seconded by Winfrey, previous roll call, previous by Brooks, second by Hickeyi. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. That concludes the executive committee's report. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh we're going to now move on to public comments relevant to matters under the jurisdiction of the county. Are there any comments relevant to general matters under the jurisdiction of the county? A reminder when you come up, if you could please uh state your name and you have three minutes. My name is Brian Jones. I'm a resident of Wnebago County. Good morning. We are here today to share critical information regarding our state's voter roles and voter history from the 2024 general election. This information comes from extensive research conducted by a team of data experts at Unite for Freedom, a nationwide nonpartisan volunteer organization. Their team meticulously analyzed official election files from both federal and state sources. While I am not a official spokesperson for Unite for Freedom, I am a dedicated volunteer who is deeply concerned by the findings findings that are based exclusively on official state election data. Our analysis of the certified results from both 2022 and 2024 general elections reveals that not all votes counted were valid and accurate under the law. These findings are substantial and warrant careful consideration. They have already been shared with the state election officials and law enforcement agencies and have been submitted as evidence in federal

court as part of ongoing litigation by Unite for Freedom and other parties. Unite for Freedom is not alone in raising these concerns. Recent executive actions at the federal level, such as the executive order entitled preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections, underscore the urgent need to enforce and clarify existing election laws. These directives are intended to guide state compliance and ensure that election crimes are prosecuted because the integrity of our election system is at stake. Therefore, we are here to seek your awareness, understanding, and support, and action. We are proposing a resolution that highlights key statistics and calls for an end to inaccuracies and uncertainties that compromise our elections. By adopting this resolution, you will demonstrate your commitment to your constituents concerns and dedication to upholding voter civil rights and the integrity of our elections here in this county. It is imperative to address these issues now. If we do not act, the same election systems and procedures that led to the errors in 2022 and 2024 will likely produce similar results in the upcoming 2026 general election. At this time, I'll turn over to the next reader. Thank you.

My name is Dean Barker. I'm from Wnebago County. to continue. I will now read the resolution. A resolution for a legally valid 2026 general election. Whereas free and fair elections from the cornerstone of the Republic of the United States is stated in Reynolds versus Sims, which is 377US 533 from 1964. The right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of the citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. Whereas election officials bear the responsibility to ensure that elections remain accurate and free from manipulation. That's from Enroy Koi 127US 731 from 1888. The United States Supreme Court affirmed that election officials must strictly adhere to federal and state laws governing the process. Defining election misconduct is as follows. The evil intent consists in disobedience to the law. Whereas our constitutional system of representative government relies on four fundamental principles for validity in our elections. Number one, accurate voter roles. Election officials must maintain voter registration lists that are current and correct, which includes facilitating the registration of eligible citizens as well as preventing the registration of non-citizens. Fictitious names and ineligible applicants. That's from the National Voter Registration Act from 1993. Number two, eligible votes only. Election officials must only count votes cast by eligible citizen voters. That's from the US Constitution 14th Amendment section two. Number three, voter reconciliation. Election officials must ensure that the number of votes matches

the number of participating voters. Number four, system accuracy. Voting systems must achieve accuracy standards set by Congress by limiting ballot counting errors to no more than one out of every 125,000 ballots. That's from the Help America Vote Act from 2002. Election officials must substantiate assertions of accurate outcomes with transparent records. Thank you. Good morning. Or is it afternoon? I think it's afternoon. Hi, my name is Kathleen Wagner. I am a resident of Will County and I will continue the resolution. Whereas, Unite for Freedom conducted an independent audit of the Illinois 2024 general election data and uncovered alarming irregularities. The Unite for Freedoms auditors directly measured 4,566,25 material registration errors and omissions in the voter database. 1,45,659 votes improperly counted from these ineligible or uncertain registrants. This one gets me. 56,164 excess votes counted beyond the number of voters who participated with no explanation for their origin. 1,45,613 voting violations exceeding the legal error threshold where only 46 errors were allowed under federal law. I'll say that once more. In Illinois, we were

allowed 46 errors under federal law, but we had 1,45,659. The audit findings indicate severe violations of state and federal election laws and potential fraudulent certifications. Whereas election accuracy is defined as the ability to capture and report voter selections without error. By definition, only eligible citizens are voters. Election officials violate civil rights, undermine public trust, and jeopardize national security when they certify an election that fails to reach this standard. Whereas the irregularities in the official records of the 2024 general election call into question the validity of the election, threatening the guaranteed protection of our natural rights under a Republican form of government. This emergency inflicts immeasurable harm upon our families, our way of life, and the fabric of these United States. It raises this spectre of false representation in US Congress and state governments. An allegation that election officials are currently unable to disprove. Good afternoon. My name is Babe Poxis and I am a resident of Cook County. I will conclude the resolution. Therefore, be it resolved, the Will County Board demands immediate action to ensure a legally valid and transparent 2026 general election. By implementing the following measures, one, infrastructure compliance, election officials must ensure that all voting systems meet

Federal Information Security Modernization Act, also known as FISMA, standards, and maintain compliance throughout the election process. Number two, voter verification. Verify that all voters are legally eligible. US citizens before their votes are counted. If a voter's eligibility is in question, their vote must be held as provisional until legally verified. Three, ballot security. Enforce all issued and counted ballots to comply with robust chain of custody protocols. Two, secure ballots from forgery, tampering, coercion, destruction, or injection. Number four, accurate counts. Ensure all voted ballots are received and every valid ballot is accurately counted with any material questions resolved through lawful adjudication procedures with oversight. Number five, proven outcomes. Election officials must investigate and resolve or if necessary readminister any elections that cannot be proven accurate and compliant. In every jurisdiction, officials must provide records substantiating election and initiative results to citizens. Additionally, officials must securely store all ballots and operational records, including electronic records, to protect them for auditing purposes, from tampering or alteration. Be it further resolved that the Will County Board calls upon county, state, and federal legislators, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, judges, and election boards to uphold these principles, ensure legal compliance, and restore public confidence in our electoral system. Your signatures to this resolution affirm your commitment to protecting the constitutional mandate of legitimate representative government and ensuring that every valid vote is counted accurately and lawfully. In conclusion, you have just heard a resolution that exposes significant

inaccuracies from voter registration through the certification of the 2024 general election. It calls for immediate substantive action to ensure the integrity of the 2026 general election for all voters. The resolution is firmly grounded in multiple US Supreme Court presidents which underscore the necessity of these corrective measures. Our current election procedures do not fully comply with established laws and these laws are too often disregarded. Some citizens, including elected officials, mistakenly believe that these issues can be ignored because the president, the current administration, and other officials are handling it. This complacency represents an abdication of civic responsibility. Benjamin Franklin's warning, it's a republic if you can keep it, applies not only to his generation, but to ours as well. Your leadership and decisive action are urgently needed. Our vote,

I need you to wrap up. Thank you can wrap up.

Our voting system uh which should protect our most fundamental right, the right to choose our representatives is failing to deliver accurate, transparent, and verifiable results. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jody Ziko. Um, I am a co-director for the Illinois State chapter of United uh, Unite for Freedom. Should we continue to ignore the anomalies within our election system, a system essential to our national security, the cost of inaction extends far beyond dollars. It threatens our economy, military, foreign policy, public health, the confidence of our youth, and the national dignity. The stakes couldn't be higher. I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to the American representative government by evaluating and therefore passing this resolution. Let us consider the broader context. Many Americans, including a s significant number of residents in Illinois, have concerns about the reliability and transparency of our elections. While we all wish this were not the case, official government data substantiates these concerns, and the law requires that they be addressed to safeguard our liberty. Regrettably, government representatives at various levels have not been transparent or responsive to citizen audits of official election data. The right to choose our representatives through lawful and transparent elections is the cornerstone of our constitutional republic. A right fiercely defended for over two centuries by sacrifices of our brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, and for some of us, our children. Today, you have the opportunity to uphold that legacy and demonstrate your to your constituents that you value American liberty by evaluating the resolution. It's worth noting that we'd been here before. Well

over a year ago, Unite for Freedom, some of the same people that repres that presented today presented a resolution for a legally valid 2024 general election. We presented here and in 50 other counties across the state of Illinois. A year ago, we presented a scorecard for the 2022 general election. Today, we present our resolution from the g the 2024 general election. It shows that the numbers of apparent violations and the number of seemingly invalid votes are increasing. We presented a lot of information, so let me summarize. We are here asking the county board to support the work for Unite for Freedom is doing in an effort to hold the state election authority accountable. Evaluating this resolution and therefore signing it would demonstrate that you stand with us and demand fair and valid and certifiable elections. I realize this issue may not may need to be on your agenda for the board to discuss and vote on it. If that's the case, we ask that you invite us back, place this issue on the agenda so we can provide a more detailed presentation and answer any questions the board may have. Contact information uh for the state chapter directors will be included in the document that I have here to leave with you. Finally, for further information, Unite for Freedom's website provides informative videos explaining the anomalies, apparent legal violations, and lawsuits identified in Illinois and other states. I encourage you to visit uniteforfreedom.com. That's unitethe4freedom.com to learn more about this vital issue. Thank you very much for your attention today.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm going to give that to you. the clarity spot right there. Beth, thank you. Thank you. Moving on to public comments by board members. We if you press your button, we'll go through remind you of three minutes. Member Brooks, you were the first one. Quick. Real quick.

Yeah. Quick with a draw. I didn't mean I didn't mean to. Quick with the draw. Madam Chair, I sit as board director Stepping Stone Treatment Facility of Joliet and we're proud to announce we built a new woman women treatment center in Joliet. There's a ribbon cutting March 11, 11:00 a.m. Wednesday, 16:14 Blankfield Road. And you get to meet our new director we hired as well, Jenny Steinberg hyphenated Martinez. And I'll sit at the executive office and the county board. I would love to have you on there on March the 11th. Thank you, ma'am. Was that fast enough? I didn't I didn't mean quick. I meant you were quick to the draw. You have your three minutes. Um and seeing no one else, we are going to move on to leadership. Leader Williams, I just wanted to tell everybody that I have not forgotten about the strategic plan. It is still in the works and I will be meeting with Mr. rink tomorrow by Zoom and I will be reporting on what we come up with and hopefully we'll be getting started on that very soon.

Nothing. Okay. Okay. Speaker, you have anything either you're not if you're not pressed Oh, you do. Okay. Speaker Van Well, I feel like I I do need to say something at least. Um uh I today was uh a little bit different board meeting that that typically we have. Um it was nice to see that we had some bipartisanship votes which which is always um you know it's a healthy discussion um with the with the uh members of our county being Republican and Democrat. It's nice to see that some of us uh can can cross party lines. It it was um it was a productive meeting and everybody kept their cool and it was I enjoyed it. So thank you everybody and enjoy the rest of your day. All right. I we are going to need a motion to go into exection exe executive session discuss pending litigation and collective bargaining. Motion by Revvis, seconded by Triner. Um I don't remember our last roll call. So madam clerk, please call the role. Richmond. Williams.

Dean Schlottman. Ogala. Pretzel. Yes. Butler Bich, Brooks, Winfrey, Bulock, Logan, Freeman, Revis, Ortiz, Burkowitz, Icky, Costa, Trineer, Bandine.

Yes. We're now in executive session. Right. Madame clerk, will you please call the role? Richmond Williams. It's gone. Ogala, yes. Russell, yes. Butler,

yes.

Brooks, Uh, Brooks Winfrey Bulock. Breeman. Yes. Yes. Travis is gone. Ortiz is gone. Burkowitz. Hickeyi. Costa. Trainer. Yes. Van Dy. Yes. We are now out of executive session. Speaker Vanine. I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh recommendation of the negotiating lawyer.

There's a motion by Van Dy, seconded by Winfrey. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. With that, this concludes our meeting. We are recessed until March 19th, 2026.