Peoria County Board met March 12.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
Attendance
Members: Member Dillon, Member Williams, Member Blair, Member Bryant, Member Coates, Member Daley, Member Duncan, Member Elsasser, Member Groves Allison, Member Kelch, Member McCann, Member Phelan, Member Reneau, Member Rieker, Member Ruhland, Member Salzer, Member Windish
Absent: Member Rosenbohm
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. ROLL CALL BY THE COUNTY CLERK
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
5.1 Approval of Minutes
A motion to approve the February 12th, 2026, minutes was made by Member Blair and was seconded by Member McCann.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
6. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
6.1 A proclamation congratulating River Kitty Cafe on two years of business and their successful partnership with PCAPS.
6.2 A proclamation congratulating DLD VIP on their 10 year anniversary.
6.3 A proclamation congratulating Grafelman Farms Rescue on 10 years of fostering, rescuing, and caring for animals.
6.4 A proclamation recognizing Dr. Sheila Quirk-Bailey for her leadership of Illinois Central College.
6.5 Discover Peoria Update
Postponed until the April 2026 Board Meeting.
7. CITIZENS’ REMARKS
7.1 Citizens’ Remarks
Travis Wheat spoke against the Four Creeks Wind Road Use Agreement. Tracy Fox spoke in favor of the Four Creeks Wind Road Use Agreement. Seth Uphoff spoke on the Four Creeks Wind Road Use Agreement.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A motion to approve the consent agenda, except Item 8.9, was made by Member Salzer and was seconded by Member Phelan.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
Member Salzer asked to pull Item 8.9.
8.1 The Treasurer’s report consisting of the Bank and CD’s Portfolio for the month of January 2026 and Revenue & Expenditure Reports for January 2026.
8.2 The Finance Department’s report of expenditure reports.
https://www.peoriacounty.gov/199/Transparency-Portal
8.3 Intergovernmental Agreement with City of Peoria for Off-Street Parking A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Peoria for Dedicated Off-Street Parking Spaces.
8.4 Federal Legislative Agenda for the 119th Congress
A resolution from your Finance, Audit, and Legislative Affairs Committee recommending approval of the County’s Legislative Agenda for the 119th Congress.
8.5 Building Agreement with Peoria County Emergency Telephone System Board A resolution from your Public Safety & Justice Committee recommending approval of a Building Agreement with the Peoria Stark Joint Emergency Telephone System Board.
8.6 Bid #18-03-25, Demolition of Unsafe Structures
Bid #18-03-25. A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a bid award to Sprocket Excavating of East Peoria, Illinois in the amount of $41,948.64 for the demolition of three (3) unsafe structures through the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) Strong Communities Program.
8.7 Approval of a Workers’ Compensation Settlement for Case 010015-006589- WC & 010015-006619-WC for a total of $31,557.00
A resolution from your County Operations Committee recommending approval of a Workers’ Compensation Settlement for Cases 010015-006589-WC & 010015-006619-WC for a total of $31,557.00.
8.8 Approval of Workers’ Compensation Settlement in Case 010015-006355-WC for $50,000.00
A resolution from your County Operations Committee recommending approval of Workers’ Compensation Settlement in Case 010015-006355-WC for $50,000.00.
8.9 Road Use Agreement with Four Creeks, LLC to utilize roads under the jurisdiction of Peoria County
A resolution from the County Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a road use agreement (RUA) with Peoria County (“County”) and Four Creeks, LLC (“Company”) to use roads under the jurisdiction of the County to construct and operate a wind energy facility (“Project”).
A motion to approve Item 8.9 was made by Member Salzer and was seconded by Member Williams.
Motion Carried. (16-1)
Nays: Member Elsasser
Chairman Dillon explained there was an informative presentation by attorney Andrew Keyt about what the Road Use Agreement entails, and thought for transparency to the public that it would be good to go over with the whole Board. He added that the explanation will include details of the Road Use Agreement, the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and why a Road Use Agreement is in place.
Attorney Andrew Keyt, from Heyl Royster, explained that the Peoria County Zoning Ordinance requires a Road Use Agreement in place prior to the wind project being able to apply for a special use permit. He added that the special use permit process also requires a public hearing, as the Road Use Agreement only covers the county, not the townships, and if the Special Use Permit is approved, construction can only begin after a building permit is approved. He noted this is very early in a very long process, though similar across the state, except in Peoria County, where we require a Road Use Agreement prior to allowing them to apply for a special use permit. He added that the State’s Attorney’s Office, County Administration, the County Engineer, County Finance, outside and 3rd party engineers, and the County Zoning Department have all been involved with negotiating the agreement from the beginning. He noted the 2 aspects: the county’s control of roads within its jurisdiction during the construction process and financial assurances in place, being his main points for this evening. He stated that the control of roads is to make sure that whatever design plans are provided by the developer are approved through our county engineers, as well as 3rd party engineers. He noted that when it comes to control of the roads, there are several things the County retains, such as making sure all plans are in accordance with the engineer’s standards, the means and methods the County requires. He added that this allows the County to close a road to construction traffic and issue fines and penalties that, if not paid by the developer, must be paid to an escrow account until resolved by a 3rd party. He added that the roads remain public roads, with local, agricultural-based, school buses, mail, funeral processions, and school traffic all taking precedence over wind farm traffic. He noted that when a project like this comes into the community, the County wants to make sure they don’t have to use public funds to do any maintenance, improvements, or reconstruction to the road after construction has been completed. He added that the developer is required to post financial assurance to the County’s benefit in the event the County is not satisfied with the work that has been done and can pull the financial assurance. He stated that the Road Use Agreement estimated cost of repairs to the road is multiplied by 1.5 or 150%, and that amount is then placed in a letter of credit to the County’s benefit. If the contractor walks away or does not perform the work they are supposed to do, the County could claim those funds if needed and do the work themselves. The financial assurance is comprised of both the letter of credit and the escrow account. He noted an evergreen clause that states if the balance of the escrow account drops below $750,000, the contractor must reimburse up to $1,500,000 during the course of the construction project so that at no point in time will the escrow account reach zero. He stated the Road Use Agreement allows the County the flexibility so that if at any point in time an additional road has to be added or additional discussions related to the construction traffic might be, the County has the flexibility to add additional roads within the concept of the Road Use Agreement as well as a clause within that states that all interpretations of ambiguity are to be resolved in light favorable to the County in the event of court litigation.
Member Rieker asked if the end of the useful life of this project requires the windmills to be removed, if the County has any escrow or money to manage the Road Agreement at the time of decommissioning and removal.
Attorney Keyt responded that a decommissioning event on a wind project falls under two phases. The first would be a planned decommissioning event, meaning the project is at the end of its useful life, and where the project developer is still around and would then have to decommission or deconstruct the project and remove it. The project developer would have to notify the County within 180 days of when that might occur and then negotiate a new Road Use Agreement. The second type would be an unplanned decommissioning, where the project stops operating, taxes are no longer being paid, and the land owners are no longer being paid; the County or a land owner could step in and perform the decommissioning. He added that a decommissioning agreement would have to be in place before a building permit could be obtained. He noted that decommissioning agreements are revisited about every five years to refresh the dollar figure so the amount doesn’t come up short in case of a decommissioning event. He added that to date, there has not been a wind farm that has been involuntarily decommissioned in Illinois.
Member Rieker asked if any escrow would be part of the decommissioning terms and agreement, as well as if any cost for the road use at the time would be tied to the decommissioning agreement.
Attorney Keyt confirmed that it is correct.
Member Elsasser referred to the Road Use Agreement having to be obtained ahead of the Special Use Permit in Peoria County. He asked how other locations issued theirs, whether they lump them all together or issue the Special Use Permit first.
Attorney Keyt stated the Road Use Agreement is a condition of approval for the Building Permit. He noted that the Special Use Permit Public Hearing phase goes through the County Board votes, and if approved, the developer can obtain a building permit. He added that it has been beneficial to the County to have it this way.
Chairman Dillon confirmed that it has been a long-standing practice to require this type of agreement, to give a voice to the townships, and that when the case comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it makes it much more transparent.
Member Elsasser clarified that the four townships will come up with an agreement and vote on the township level.
Attorney Keyt confirmed that it is correct and that they are voting together, while waiting for the County’s decision.
Member Elsasser stated he is not comfortable with the length of the warranty period, as he feels like it doesn’t protect the County enough.
Member Phelan asked if the contract includes a circumstance under which a decommissioning agreement would be revisited for any reason.
Attorney Keyt stated they could refer back to the agreement if there was any sort of substantial change in the layout of the project or in the event of an extraordinary event, such as a turbine catching on fire. He added that there are various events that could occur that would require a sit-down and conversation about the issues.
Member Phelan asked if the agreement was to be approved tonight, and if there was an extraordinary event that required a new agreement, what would happen if they were unable to come to another agreement?
Attorney Keyt stated he would be surprised if they were unable to come up with another agreement. He noted it would typically be submitted to a third-party engineer who resolves the issue.
Chairman Dillon concluded that this is just the Road Use Agreement, while the townships are still working on their Road Use Agreement, then the contractor would apply for a Special Use Permit, and then the Building Permit.
Attorney Keyt added that, due to the staging, a clause was added stating there are no guarantees related to whether or not a Special Use Permit would be granted or a Building Permit would be provided; it is only for the provision of protecting the county roads and ensuring the County has sufficient financial assurance.
8.10 Revisions to Qualification Based Selection Process for Procurement of Professional Services related to Highway Projects
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of revisions to the Qualification Based Selection Process for Procurement of Professional Services for Peoria County Highway Department transportation related projects.
8.11 Riekena Road Culvert Replacement Preliminary Engineering A resolution from your County Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with the Ciorba Group in the amount of $253,750.00 for Phase I and II Preliminary Engineering of the Limestone Township Riekena Road culvert replacement project.
8.12 Riekena Road Intergovernmental Agreement
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending an Intergovernmental Agreement with Limestone Road District for the replacement of Structure Number 072-5506 on Riekena Road.
8.13 Radnor Road Joint Funding Agreement for Federally Funded Preliminary Engineering
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Joint Funding Agreement for Federally Funded Preliminary Engineering with the State of Illinois in the amount of $1,407,000.00 for the Phase I Preliminary Engineering of Radnor Road.
8.14 Mossville Road Resurfacing Bid Letting
A resolution from your County Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of the low bid from R.A. Cullinan & Son, a Division of UCM, Inc. in the amount of $812,852.85 for resurfacing Mossville Road.
8.15 Township Maintenance Sealcoating- Hollis Township (MFT)
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of the 2026 Hollis Township sealcoat contract with R.A. Cullinan & Son, Inc. in the amount of $97,683.19, utilizing Township Motor Fuel Tax funds.
8.16 Design Services for Highway/ETSB Consolidation
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a contract with PJ Hoerr for the design, plan review, and development of construction documents related to the consolidation of the Highway and Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB) groups into a remodeled and expanded office space currently housing solely the Highway Department at a cost of $85,018.85.
8.17 2026 ADA Transition Plan
A resolution from your County Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of the 2026 ADA Transition Plan.
8.18 March Appointments
9. ZONING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
9.1 Zoning Case #ZBA-2026-0004, Petition of James & Heidi Golden A Rezoning request from “A-1” Agricultural Preservation to “A-2” Agriculture. The petitioner proposes to rezone 14.76 acres in order to operate a Landscape Contractor business at this location.
A motion to approve the petition was made by Member Ruhland and was seconded by Member McCann.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
9.2 Zoning Case #ZBA-2026-0005, Petition of James & Heidi Golden A Special Use request from Section 20-5.2.2.2.e of the Unified Development Ordinance, which allows for Landscape Contractors provided the minimum lot size is two (2) acres; no retail sales are permitted; and the business shall not be located in a recorded subdivision. The petitioner proposes to operate a Landscape Contractor business in the “A-2” Agriculture Zoning District.
A motion to approve the petition was made by Member Ruhland and was seconded by Member Windish.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
9.3 FY25 Additional Appropriations and FY25 Rollover and Additional Appropriations to FY26 Minus Items U and R
A resolution from your Finance, Audit, and Legislative Affairs Committee recommending approval of FY2025 supplemental appropriations, and FY2026 supplemental appropriations in multiple funds.
A motion to approve the resolution was made by Member Williams and was seconded by Member Daley.
Motion Carried. (16-1)
Nay: Member Rieker
Member Rieker stated, on behalf of transparency, this encumbrance roll-over, which is the practice of rolling over encumbered expenses from the prior fiscal year to the current, to finish contract agreements, has been a practice for many years. He noted that the addition of appropriations is a budget amendment item and should go through the proper committees before being brought to the full Board. He stated he will be asking the CFO during committee meetings to walk through every line item and identify which one is a true encumbrance and which is a budget amendment. He added that there were quite a few budget amendment items or appropriations. He asked that, going forward, they be separated to assist in transparency.
Member Williams stated that CFO McCord has taken care of that, and they are divided out.
Member Rieker stated that he asks that budget amendments go through the budget amendment processes to run them through the respective committee for each budget amendment.
Chairman Dillon stated that Member Williams and Member Daley, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Finance Committee, have always been open to listening, and it would be a conversation for them. He added that he would encourage certain Chairs of committees that have an opinion to express, as a committee, back to them.
Member Elsasser asked if the $400,000 in consulting fees is in this item or the next item.
Chairman Dillon stated it is on a separate amendment, Item U.
9.3.1 Subsidiary Motion to Split the Resolution
9.3.2 Approval of Item U
A motion to approve the petition/resolution was made by Member Williams and was seconded by Member Daley.
Motion Carried. (14-3)
Nay: Member Daley, Member Elsasser, and Member Rieker
Member Williams stated she asked Administrator Sorrel to prepare some remarks on this item.
Administrator Sorrel stated that CFO McCord pulled data from FY24 and FY25 to go over some line items. He noted that in FY24, there were initial expenditures tied to the Bicentennial, the smart mobility lab, which is a match for a grant that the County has, the ribbon cutting and grand opening of the new HHS building, and the fee study. He added that FY24 was the final year that the County used and paid for a contract for the Minority Business Workforce Compliance, while in previous years, those contracts were paid from this account. He stated that in FY25, it was used for the leadership team, a variety of resources, including training and coaching, economic development, and some financial services not related to the fee study. He concluded that some of the fees are recurring, while others are not recurring and are paid out of this fund.
Member Williams stated she had not supported this as a rollover, and that after discussions, she is going to support this, while being very aware of how it is spent.
Member Rieker asked why this was omitted from the 2026 budget, when it was known there were recurring expenses, and it has been something that has been done annually.
Administrator Sorrel stated that the recurring expenses are included and that the general fund budget for this line item was reduced in the FY26 budget between the amount requested and the amount that was eventually appropriated. He noted that he believes the adopted number for FY26 is somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, while the appropriated amount is around $250,000, and this is one of the areas where expenditures could be cut.
Member Elsasser noted we made a conscious decision to reduce this to balance the budget, but we are coming back 3 months later asking to add it. He asked if there was a line of sight for a project that needs consulting, which could be put on the table, and the budget can be amended at that time. He added that he would rather vote on a specific project and make the amendment when that comes in. He asked if there is a specific project at this point.
Chairman Dillon stated that there is no specific project. He noted that this is accounting where the County is parking the money as a line item for the time being, and if an event were to come, it does not give staff, committee, or any one-member permission to do what they want with it.
Administrator Sorrel stated the spending for FY25 was $621,000, and the appropriation for FY26 is $228,000, a significant difference, which was done to try to balance the budget.
Member Elsasser stated that it was explained to him that on the agenda, the 4 different resolutions are not separated out, which is why he was confused. He stated he has always voted against consultants and will be continuing that with this item.
Member Phelan stated that he intends to support this, but asks that the Administration think about the money that is put into this account when departments and elected officials are pushed to budget in a way that’s transparent to the community.
9.3.3 Approval of Item R – AS AMENDED
A motion to approve the petition/resolution was made by Member Williams and was seconded by Member Daley.
Motion Carried. (14-3)
Nay: Member Daley, Member Elsasser, and Member Rieker
Member Williams stated there was a lot of discussion about this in the finance meeting. She noted this item moves $100,000, which was for the art project for the health building. She added that the funds were initially going to take it out of capital, but it will now be taken out of the Health Department reserves.
Member Elsasser stated that with all the money the County has received from the federal government over the last several years, he doesn’t think we should be taking any money out of the reserves. He added that the reserves should be used for a rainy day. He added that this is still taxpayer money from the Health Department.
Member Williams noted that the $124,000 that went back into the reserves for the health building is just being taken back out.
9.4 Public Defender Appropriation (Pending Committee Approval) A resolution from your Public Safety & Justice Committee recommending an appropriation of funds in the amount of $107,385.45 to the Public Defender FY2025 budget and a rollover to the FY2026 budget.
A motion to approve the resolution was made by Member Groves Allison and was seconded by Member Phelan.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
Member Groves Allison asked if, since the Public Defender was present, he could explain a little background quickly.
Kristen Collins, the office manager of the Public Defender’s Office, summarized that there was a $107,000 appropriation received from the AOIC in September of 2025. She noted this is the third time they have received this allotment in regard to the implementation of the Safety Act. She stated that the money is received from the State during the State’s fiscal year, from July to June, and was unable to spend the money in 2025. She explained they are asking for the rollover of funds from 2025 to 2026 with the intent to spend the money by the end of the State’s fiscal year, which is June 30th, 2026.
9.5 Mossville Road Resurfacing Construction Engineering Agreement (Pending Committee Approval)
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Construction Engineering Services Agreement with Millennia Professional Services for the resurfacing of Mossville Road in the amount of $69,128.00. A motion to approve the resolution was made by Member Salzer and was seconded by Member Kelch.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
9.6 Kickapoo Edwards Road / Civil Defense Road Construction Engineering Agreement (Pending Committee Approval)
A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Construction Engineering Services Agreement with Hutchison Engineering in the amount of $124,708.00 for the reconstruction of Kickapoo Edwards Road and Civil Defense Road.
A motion to approve the resolution was made by Member Salzer and was seconded by Member Kelch.
Motion Carried. (17-0)
Chairman Dillon stated there is earth-moving that has been seeing development progress, which will hopefully see construction soon. He added that these contracts are in place because we lost Josie.
10. MISCELLANEOUS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
10.1 Miscellaneous and Announcements
Member Daley extended a hearty congratulations to the Coroner’s Office for their accreditation with the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners. She added that there are only 4 that have this in Illinois and 55 in the US.
Member Rieker acknowledged the work of the Highway Department and Mossville Road, which is in his district.
Member Elsasser stated he agrees wholeheartedly with Member Rieker. He stated Amy and her crew do a great job out there.
Chairman Dillon stated seal coat bids came in last week. He added that multiple commitments were received, and one of the commitments is meeting with the two township road commissioners, which was set up by Member Kelch and Amy and her team.
11. ADJOURNMENT
11.1 Adjournment
There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman announced the meeting was adjourned.
https://www.peoriacounty.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_03122026-1875
