Peoria Standard

Peoria County Board met December 14.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Call To Order

Moment Of Silence

Pledge Of Allegiance

Roll Call By The County Clerk

Attendance was taken with the Roll Call-Pro voting system, and the following members of the Board were present: Adamson, Baietto, Dillon, Elsasser, Fennell, Harding, Mayer, Morris, O'Neill, Pastucha, Rand, Rieker, Robinson, Rosenbohm, Salzer, Watkins and Williams, with Parker absent.

Parker entered the meeting.

I. Approval Of Minutes

• Approval of November 9, 2017 County Board Meeting Minutes

O’Neill moved for approval of the minutes, Pastucha seconded. The minutes were approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.

Chairman Rand announced that all Peoria County Board Members are invited to the 35th Peoria County Employee Luncheon presented by the Elected Officials on Friday, December 22nd from 11am-1pm.

II. Citizens' Remarks

Bob Grogan, DuPage County, Illinois Auditor and President of Illinois Association of County Auditors, addressed the Board with regards to the referendum on the County Auditor position. He said that County Auditors only occur in the larger counties with about 17 in the state. He noted that as any organization gets larger there is a need for an internal auditor. He believed that it is the intention of the Board to make it an appointed position, and that other Counties which have eliminated the elected position have intentions to have internal audits, but it doesn’t happen. He highlighted that an elected county auditor and other elected officials believe they can run their own destiny, while the County Board has its own fiduciary duty to set the budget. He stated that this creates a natural tension and that is the way it should work. He declared that taking away the elected position and placing it in the auspices of the County Board, there is no longer neutral analysis of spending too much or wasting money because it is wholly owned by the County Board. He brought up that it would be another place that the County Board can assert its power. He emphasized that he is a peer among other elected officials and is treated that way. He noted that there is only one other appointed Auditor in Illinois, which is Cook County. He remarked that eliminating the elected official would set up a model like Cook County, and that should give people pause. He explained that there is a question about professionalism in the office, but that is taken care of by the community and the press. He emphasized that someone hired through an electoral system places that person in front of the people every four years and an appointed person is only held accountable to the Board. He described that Kendall County declined having an elected auditor, but within 19 months, the County Board had a scandal involving overpayment in per diems. He conveyed that the referendum is asking that the Board police itself, but in Illinois there is a need for more auditors due to places like Dixon where there was no independent auditing. He recommended that the people continue to choose the Auditor and have them hold the office to a higher standard because it is more transparent.

III. Consent Agenda

C1. The Treasurer report consisting of the Bank and CD's Portfolio for the month of October 2017 and Revenue & Expenditure Reports for the month of September 2017.

C2. The Auditor's report of expenditures from Accounts Payable system is accessible at www.peoriacounty.org/auditor/transparency.

C3. A resolution (items 1 – 17 conveyances) from the Ways and Means Committee recommending that the County Board Chairman be authorized and directed to execute deed of said property to the highest bidder, and be authorized to cancel the appropriate Certificates of Purchase. This resolution shall be effective ninety days from December 14, 2017 and any transaction between the parties involved not occurring within this period shall be null and void.

C4. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval to abate taxes on real property located in the City of Peoria Rivers Edge Redevelopment Zone resulting from an increase in assessed valuation attributable to construction, renovation or rehabilitation of existing improvements.

C5. A resolution from your Public Safety and Justice Committee recommending approval of the creation of a Body Worn Camera Program through a joint U.S. Department of Justice grant award with Peoria City Police Department and other participating agencies.

C6. A resolution from your Public Safety and Justice Committee recommending approval of the appointment of Thomas Kahn to the Peoria County Sheriff’s Merit Commission for a 6-year term with a retroactive date of appointment effective June 1, 2016

C7. A resolution from your Public Safety and Justice Committee recommending approval and appropriation of Victims of Crime Act FY2017 grant funds from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority for the Children’s Advocacy Center of Illinois.

C8. A resolution from your County Operations Committee recommending approval of a contract with Excess Risk/Ironshore at an estimated annual cost of $708,251.76, for the provision of Stop Loss Excess Insurance coverage for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018.

C9. A resolution from your County Operations Committee recommending approval to renew the contract with Gallagher Bassett for Risk Management Third Party Administrator Services and through Arthur J. Gallagher (AJG) received quotes from various underwriters for an estimated premium of $905,175.00.

C10. A resolution from your County Operations Committee recommending approval of revisions to the Employee Health Plan.

C11. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of an annual appropriation of 2018 Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) funds for County Highway maintenance activities in accordance with IDOT regulations in the amount of $4,000,000.00.

C12. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a Preliminary Engineering Services Agreement with Midwest Engineering, East Peoria, IL, for Phase 1 and 2 engineering of a retaining wall at the intersection of Airport Road and Garfield Avenue at a cost not to exceed $27,500.00.

C13. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval for the County Administrator to sign permanent and temporary easement documents on behalf of Peoria County for county owned property along Farmington Road.

C14. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval of a 12-month extension of a 2015 Intergovernmental Agreement with the Greater Peoria Mass Transit District retroactive to July 1, 2017 and terminating June 30, 2018.

C15. Chairman Appointments.

Mayer moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Robinson seconded. Morris asked to pull Item C12. The Consent Agenda, except for Item C12, was approved by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 1 nay, with Harding voting nay.

C12. A resolution recommending approval of an agreement with Midwest Engineering, for engineering of a retaining wall at the intersection of Airport Rd. and Garfield Ave.

Fennell moved to approve Item C12 and Williams seconded.

Rosenbohm asked if there was a need to get an engineering firm to figure out how to fix it, or would it be better to just hire someone for $27,000 to fix it. He expressed that it could probably be done for less than that. Mr. Sorrel stated that the work to be done will determine if it can be repaired or if it needs to be torn out and replaced. He expressed that the Library District has concerns that the wall could fall and damage vehicles, the wall was built a number of years ago when the County redesigned Airport Road, and it is prudent that it is done correctly. Rosenbohm asked if there was a warranty on the wall, and Mr. Sorrel said that it is old enough that it is well beyond the warranty.

Morris stated that he would be abstaining due to a business interest.

Item C12 was approved by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 1 abstention, with Morris abstaining.

IV. Zoning Ordinance And Resolutions

1. Case #051-17-U, Petition of Kevin & Michelle Windish. Four Special Use requests to vary from the requirements of a major home occupation in the "A-2" Agriculture Zoning District. The petitioner would like to operate a trucking & excavating business, from this 8.74 acre parcel, for agricultural and commercial construction projects.

(1) A Special Use as required in Section 20-7.3.2.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that the home occupation may employ no more than one (1) person who is not a resident of the dwelling unit. The petitioners propose to employ 2 persons who do not reside in the dwelling unit.

(2) A Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that the home occupation may occupy no more than twenty-five (25%) of the habitable floor area of one floor of the dwelling unit and no more than 1,000 square feet of an accessory structure. The petitioner is proposing to utilize a 4,800 square foot pole building for the storage of commercial vehicles, equipment, and trailers.

(3) A Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that the home occupation may involve the use or indoor storage of tractor trailers, semi-trucks, & heavy equipment, and that the equipment may only be stored in the dedicated accessory structure. Only 1 vehicle and only 2 trailers or pieces of equipment may be permitted. The petitioner is proposing to allow 1 commercial vehicle and 11 trailers or pieces of equipment, including 5 trailers or pieces of equipment to be stored outside.

(4) A Special Use request as required in Section 20-7.3.5.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance to vary from the requirement that Landscaping shall be required to screen off-street parking areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas and outdoor work areas from the view of adjacent landowners, according to the provisions set forth in Section 7.6 ("Landscaping and Bufferyards"). The petitioner will not meet the landscaping points requirements on the west property lines, will not meet the tree/shrub ratio on the east, south, west, and southeast property lines, and will not meet the evergreen ratio on the south or west property lines.

The property is located in Rosefield Township. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the first three requests and denial of the fourth request. The Land Use Committee denied the resolution as amended.

Dillon moved to withdraw the petition at the request of the petitioner and O’Neill seconded. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes.

2. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of a Referendum question for the March 20, 2018 General Primary Election regarding whether the County Auditor shall be appointed rather than elected.

Mayer moved to approve the resolution and Rieker seconded.

Mayer reported that he previously was against the proposal to completely remove the office and placing the functions into the Finance Department, but this is not that proposal. He said that it is about having a professional internal auditor with the best way to guarantee the most independence without electing them. He noted that the person would have a five-year term, that they cannot be removed without malfeasance or official misconduct, that the Board would require professional credentials, the Board could not reduce their salary or budget, and the person could not use the position to run for political office. He stressed that the Board is trying to make sure that it is an independent professional internal auditor. He mentioned that there have been instances of embezzlement and it is important to have an independent professional auditor, which is why the Board has drafted the proposal. He urged an aye vote.

Adamson thanked Mr. Grogan for giving prospective from an Auditor on the importance of the position. He said that it is a good thing for whoever is running for Auditor of Peoria County to have the necessary background, education, understanding, and wherewithal to perform their job, which has great oversight responsibility. He said that his concern is the oversight might be gone if they are working for the Board.

Harding identified that the Board has a great opportunity to help its reputation, and when it places a referendum on the ballot, that means it wants it to happen. He said that the Board should wait until petitions are brought forward from the public. He reported that the Board has already played politics with the position by reducing the budget to the point where the job cannot be done. He detailed that the people put the Board in office and why should it not be the same for the Auditor. He conveyed that the current auditor can resist political pressure because they are independent. He highlighted that the Board appointing the auditor is like a fox watching the hen house. He stated that if the Board was serious about auditing, it would have added to the budget. He discussed that the powers of the elected position would not be given to an appointed position. He believed that if the Board is doing the heavy lifting to put an appointed auditor in place when there already is one, it may not be making the wisest decision.

Elsasser reported that he is torn because the people should be able to select the person for the position, but it would be good to have a CPA in the position. He noted that an appointed position would report to the Board but it would be the Board that sets the budgets. He asked for how the Board could play favorites.

Mayer asserted that an appointed auditor, as part of the finance department, can be used as a weapon, which is why the referendum language states that the person could only be removed for malfeasance or misconduct; which does not give the Board leverage. He said that the position is more like the Highway Engineer or Supervisor of Assessments. Elsasser asked if the person would be under Administration. Mayer reported that they would be appointed by the Chairman and confirmed by the Board; they would report to the audit committee and that committee can ask to have audits performed, but it would be their decision whether to incorporate that in their audit plan.

Baietto assured that Peoria County is audited, it has an Auditor, there is a tax auditor in the CFO, and audited by an outside firm. He said that it is the Board’s responsibility to know what is going on and functions very well with what it has.

Adamson remarked that the current system is designed with checks and balances and it is good that the Auditor operates at arm’s length. He believed that the County is surrounded by talent who give value and they are held at a higher standard due to the public service. He said that sometimes things go haywire and it seems safer to have an independent Auditor.

Fennell informed that the present Auditor has recommended the elimination of the position, and there is a separation from Administration and Finance, with the auditor checking their work. He said that the Board wants answers from the Auditor on the finances and how they are being done, which shows that it wants checks and balances.

Chairman Rand thanked Mr. Grogan for coming and he stated that the language of the referendum asks simply if the people would like to elect an auditor or if they would like to have a professional appointed. He observed that in his experience there has not been a professional auditor through the current method and he said he is unaware of any audits of the elected offices by the Auditor’s office. He believed the public will do just fine with picking the result of the question.

Adamson summarized that the people have a right to decide and the Auditor protects against human nature, but the people should weigh-in.

The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 16 ayes and 2 nays, with Baietto and Harding voting nay.

3. A resolution from your Infrastructure Committee recommending approval to enter into a Ground Lease Agreement with Trajectory Energy, LLC for a Community Solar Project on a portion of the County Farm Property.

Salzer moved to approve the resolution and Dillon seconded.

Salzer reported that the committee thought the proposal is good for the citizens, it came through his committee twice, and passed after getting questions answered about the fair market value of the land, a RFP question, and some tax questions. He detailed that the questions were answered because it included an escalation clause and it was done publicly and brought forth by Trajectory, which meant that it did not need a RFP. He explained that it is a new source of revenue for the County and a similar proposal was passed unanimously by Fondulac Township. He noted that the company did not ask for any incentives to bring the project to the area. He urged support for the resolution.

Baietto contended that the Board should go out for contract, and maybe there would be more money for the residents. He believed that there is competition and there could be better offers.

Rieker expressed that having a competitive bid would be the right process.

Pastucha contended that she had a lot of concerns due to it not being competitively bid, but in discussion with Mr. Sorrel and Mr. Evans, the project is novel and it was brought to the County by the company. She stated that she would like the Board to come up with a policy and investigate other ways to implement similar projects. She predicted that there would be a solar rush in Illinois and this is just the beginning.

Fennell detailed that because there was no RFP and the length of the contract could be up to 30 years, he is concerned with going forward without due diligence. He asked for more information on why a RFP was not used.

Mr. Sorrel stated that the County would receive $1,000 a year, per acre, and a 2% annual escalation in the agreement, which are both top of the market in his research. He noted that the Board could adopt a policy and carve up a portion of what is left over on the farm and get multiple vendors on the land.

Rieker identified that the County needs to find other sources of revenue and he is in favor of renewable resources. He inquired about an exit clause where if the company leaves, would the liability fall to the County. Mr. Sorrel explained that in the event the land is no longer being used, whether under early termination or at the end of the life of the lease, there will be a planning document and bonding held in escrow for decommissioning.

Adamson discussed that a deal like this is very common at this time. He asked if there was a deal with an energy supplier already in place. Jon Carson, Managing Partner, Trajectory Energy Partners, identified that it is a community solar project, where subscribers in the Ameren distribution territory could purchase energy. He described that there are four parts to the project, the site lease contract, the zoning, working with Ameren, and finally subscribers sign up. Adamson asked if there is an arrangement with an energy provider to receive financing from a large bank. Mr. Carson stated that a community solar project does not need that. Adamson inquired about the way someone can participate. Mr. Carson explained that if there were solar panels on a school’s roof, the power would go directly there, but with community solar, electricity is added to the grid and the subscribers can be anywhere in the Ameren territory, they get credit for the electricity on their bill, and they receive a bill from Trajectory. Adamson asked about the strategy for the energy credits being produced. Mr. Carson described that the State will be administering a program where a project can apply for the energy credits, which becomes a revenue stream for the project. Adamson highlighted that the lease is the smallest bucket of money coming from the project. He identified that there will be money paid by Ameren for the energy and the renewable energy credits will be valuable. Adamson reported that he spoke with knowledgeable people at Schneider Electric, a Fortune 500 company, where he found they believed it would be in the best interest of the residents to put a project like this up for bid. He said that there are economies of scale and 30% of the capital cost is paid by the taxpayers. He believed that the Board should do its due diligence and make it go through a RFP. He noted that Schneider recommended an RFP, possibly yielding a better solution than accepting a single solution.

Pastucha asked for Mr. Evans to address the concerns about a RFP. Mr. Evans explained that it is a novel concept where the developer approached the County, not the County approaching vendors. He said that because they came to the County and made a full open presentation to the committee, it would not be fair to the vendor to go out to RFP. He emphasized that the Board could develop a policy in the future, but it would be unfair to the vendor to go out after everything being disclosed.

Dillon discussed that the Board should see it as a win-win situation because it is a new revenue stream. He stated that the Board was happy with $305 an acre for farm land, but because a vendor came to the committee with a novel idea that allows to bring up the value of the land to the County. He explained that what is driving the developers to the projects is the tax credits, which are done on a timeframe that must be followed and that the County could lose out if there was a RFP. He believed that the County is getting a good deal and it is at a value that is at the top of the market. He suggested that the Board could develop a policy for other properties and issue RFPs. He encouraged the Board to approve.

Elsasser observed that the Board was not seeking out the deal, but he would feel better if there was at least one more company bidding. He stated that there are people that have been contacted by other companies and that there is a lot of competition. He described that in the past, the Board has looked at the big picture and bid out these types of projects.

Adamson asserted that there is no urgency in the deal and the incentive does not go away until 2020 or longer because renewable energy is the future. He contended that the cart is being put before the horse by not engaging all the stakeholders and seeing what can be had for money. He said that there is potentially $500,000 worth of tax credits and it would not be the best deal for the citizens for it to not be put it out to a RFP. He noted that most of the solar panels are from China or Europe, but there are American manufacturers that he would like to see the Board support.

Morris asked if there is a plan in place for the end of the cycle or if the company goes out of business as to what the County does with everything on the property. Mr. Sorrel stated that there is a requirement for a bond to be in place to decommission the development.

Chairman Rand asked about the financial condition of the proposer. Mr. Sorrel said that there was not a financial analysis done on the company.

Baietto brought up that at Landfill #1 there were two generators purchased to sell electricity from the methane gas produced, but the County is now in litigation over them. He stressed that whatever the Board does, it should make sure that it doesn’t make those mistakes.

Chairman Rand asked for an answer regarding Trajectory’s financial stamina. Mr. Carson discussed that the company is a partnership and came together because of the new State law. He said that it is a well-financed company with financing for projects like this. He noted that the proposed ordinance requiring bonding and plans for decommissioning is a good idea.

Fennell inquired what the advantage is for the end user by subscribing. Mr. Carson commented that they would save money on electricity and the company weighs the costs and revenues and only goes forth with a project when the end user saves money. He expressed that anyone on Ameren’s grid could subscribe, but he looks forward to working with the Board to get subscribers in Peoria County.

Fennell asked if there is any effect on the Good Energy agreement that has already passed. Mr. Sorrel reported that there was a green energy requirement to the agreement, the County has aggressively negotiated prices for its own property, but the project could be advantageous to private home owners in the County.

Chairman Rand asked about the source of the panels used in the project. Mr. Carson explained that 90% of the panels are not made in the United States and there is not a contract in place for the panels for this project. Chairman Rand inquired about US based suppliers who meet the specifications for the panels on the project. Mr. Carson described that they will be meeting with Caterpillar about several projects.

Adamson contended that the project was not done in a competitive manor and it has not been completely transparent. He urged the Board to send it back to committee and hopefully a RFP.

Harding perceived that without a RFP, the Board doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. He noted that the land is not convenient to farm and great progress is being made in electrical generation, but to start without a RFP could affect everything downstream. He said it was the choice of the vendor to disclose everything and it sets a bad example. He inquired on how the County circumvented the requirement to make no improvements on the ground due to its location in the Illinois 336 corridor. He stressed that the energy credits are so lucrative that there is no need for the company to ask for incentives.

Salzer reported that he spoke with someone from the East Peoria Chamber of Commerce about Trajectory who said that it could have given less for the land, but they were fair to give $800 and an escalator.

Adamson insisted that if Trajectory is the best company, it should put it to bid and let it show it.

Chairman Rand conveyed that in any other circumstance a developer would come to the County and ask for a confidentiality agreement, but this is 23 acres that does not have a marketable asset. He noted that the Executive Committee evaluates loans one-at-a-time not competitively. He believed that it may not be the way that the Board should be doing business with private companies because after the company laid out the project, the Board wants to come back and do a RFP, but because it is a development project, it should be voted up or down.

The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 14 ayes and 4 nays, with Adamson, Elsasser, Harding, and Rieker voting nay.

4. Review of Executive Session Minutes.

Mr. Evans stated that the recommendation of the State’s Attorney’s Office is that all prior Executive Session minutes greater than two years old be destroyed, other than those related to pending litigation which should remain sealed.

Mayer moved to approve the recommendation of the State’s Attorney’s Office and Morris seconded. The motion passed by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 1 nay, with Harding voting nay.

V. Miscellaneous And Announcements

Mr. Sorrel requested that all Board Members use their new parking card to enter the parking deck beginning Monday, December 18th. He announced that three employees, Angie Cramer, Barb Bishop, and Sharon Kramer are celebrating their 30-year anniversary with the County.

VI. Adjournment

There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman announced the meeting was adjourned.

http://www.peoriacounty.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_12142017-465