Sangamon Sun

Sangamon Sun

Sunday, October 20, 2019

Sangamon County Board met July 9

By Kristine Gonzales-Abella | Sep 9, 2019


Sangamon County Board met July 9.

Here is the minutes provided by the board:

he Sangamon County Board met in Reconvened Adjourned June Session on July 9, 2019 in the County Board Chambers. Chairman Van Meter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Snell gave the Invocation and Mr. O’Neill led the County Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll. There were 28 Present – 1 Absent. Mrs. Small was excused.

PROCLAMATIONS

There were no Proclamations.

SMART UPDATE‐KATE DOWNING

Kate Downing updated the County Board on the Smart Program. Since they started in Sangamon County in July they have provided 3,404 rides. The interesting difference between Sangamon and Menard County is they have provided more trips to work than they have to health appointments. They also had 5 kids under 18 who ride with them regularly, two to three times per week, to work. Sherman is the work destination next to Springfield. The Subway and the grocery store there have quite a few riders that work there. They sell passes that are $2.00 each for Sangamon County. They have sold 69 of those, and that is encouraging. That means people foresee this is something they really want to use.

They average about 38 rides per day, but are getting to the point where they give over 50 rides on some days. They are going to the Pawnee, Auburn, Williamsville, and New Berlin areas. In Menard County they have 3,878 riders. A gentleman had called and needed to see his wife in the nursing home. He was paying $170 to go round trip to visit her, so he couldn’t do it very often. He does require a large wheelchair van, and is a very personable guy. This has been so successful for him that he also uses the service to go to rehab three days a week. They like to hear those kinds of stories. Every day they are really making a difference for people. They also have a person who rides with them to go to dialysis. His goal is to see his daughter graduate from nursing school. He is riding with them twice a week, and now his goal is to walk her down the aisle when she gets married. He has walked to the van himself a couple times. She wanted them to know they are responsible for making those kinds of differences for people.

Annette Fulgenzi stated she has an elderly aunt who lives in Georgia and found out they have a similar service there. Kate is doing a lot better job compared to what they are doing there. It was a very frustrating experience and makes you appreciate what a good job their people are doing.

Mr. Thomas stated there are residents in the Pawnee area that use this service, and they are so excited. There are people on dialysis, and they use it like three times a week. They appreciate the service very much. Mrs. Downing stated they should use word of mouth to spread the word about this. One of the questions they get a lot is people don’t understand what is considered rural and what is urban. People do appreciate having the rides and that they can go to the County website to see if they can ride. Chairman Van Meter asked for clarification if they make people aware there is another service available if they are not in this service area. Mrs. Downing stated they do. They try to help them and show them how to go to the website rather than pushing them off to call someone else. Chairman Van Meter asked if they are helping students get to Lincoln Land as well. Mrs. Downing stated they are trying to work on something. They currently take some students there, but they are from Menard County. They haven’t had a lot of calls yet for Sangamon County. Dave Mendenhall is trying to work with LLCC to get some things going. He had some meetings with LLCC and UIS about the program. Chairman Van Meter stated the President of LLCC was very enthusiastic about the program. Chairman Van Meter asked if they are picking up the students from Menard County at a transfer point. Mrs. Downing answered no. They do Menard County just like they do Sangamon County. They haven’t done a transfer site yet because they need to get the transfer centers going first.

EXTERNAL AUDITORS‐CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN

County Auditor Goleman addressed the County Board. Tonight they will have a report of the FY2018 Audit from Katie Bermingham with CliftonLarsonAllen. Mr. Goleman stated on June 18th they put a copy of the report on the County Auditor’s website, and an email was sent on June 19th to all the Finance Committee members of the full report. They had great cooperation from all the elected officials and department heads, and they are very appreciative of that.

Katie Bermingham addressed the County Board. She stated she met with the Finance Committee earlier this evening and gave a presentation about the process and more detailed report of the audit. She is going to provide the County Board with a brief summary. They did issue a financial statement as well as a single audit report that both have clean unmodified opinions. There was a change in the accounting policy this year that was issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, called GASB 75 that did affect all governmental entities including the counties that have other postemployment benefit premiums.

Their summary of any audit adjustments was provided to the Auditor’s Office and approved by them. They tested two programs for the single audit including the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act as well as the Home Weatherization and LiHeap Program. There were a couple recommendations provided to the Auditors Office, and they have actually gone ahead and completed the implementation of those recommendations. They encountered no difficulties in working with anyone during the audit and came across no disagreements with anyone. They really appreciate everyone’s hard work. There is a lot of work that goes into the audit. All the departments were easy to work with and got them what they needed for the preparation of them getting here today.

MINUTES

A motion was made by Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Bunch, for approval of the Minutes of June 11, 2019. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED MINUTES ADOPTED

CORRESPONDENCE

A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mrs. Williams, to place Correspondence on file with the County Clerk. A voice vote was unanimous.

RESOLUTION 1

1. Resolution approving the FY2019 Unified Planning Work Program for the Springfield‐ Sangamon County Regional Planning Commission.

A motion was made by Mr. Fraase, seconded by Mr. O’Neill, to place Resolution 1 on the floor. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll. There were 27 Yeas – 0 Nays.

MOTION CARRIED

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTIONS 2 ‐ 4

2. Resolution approving a Coal Lease Agreement with Ark Land, LLC.

A motion was made by Mr. Ratts, seconded by Mr. Miller, to place Resolution 2 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mr. Smith, to consolidate Resolutions 2 – 4. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to read Resolutions 3 and 4.

3. Resolution approving the purchase of a Ford F150 pickup truck from the Illinois Joint Purchase Program.

4. Resolution approving the construction contract with Kinney Contractors for the Wildwood Road culvert replacement.

A voice vote was unanimous on the consolidation. A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle,

seconded by Mrs. Fulgenzi, that the roll call vote for Resolution 1 stands as the roll call vote for Resolutions 2 – 4, as consolidated. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 5

5. 2019‐020 – Christina Yoc, 5363 Mansion Road, Chatham – Granting Variances and Denying a Variance. County Board Member – Craig Hall, District #7.

A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf, seconded by Mrs. Deppe, to place Resolution 5 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf to waive the reading of the professional staff’s report. There were no objections. A voice vote was unanimous for the adoption of Resolution 5.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 6

6. 2019‐021 – Joshua Badman, 1 Timberline Drive, Springfield – Granting Variances. County Board Member – Brad Miller, District #13.

A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Tjelmeland, to place Resolution 6 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf to waive the reading of the professional staff’s report. There were no objections.

A voice vote was unanimous for the adoption of Resolution 6.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 7

7. 2019‐022 – John & Doris Powell, 5545 Stagecoach Road, Pleasant Plains – Denying an Amendment and Granting Variances. County Board Member – Tom Fraase, Jr., District 1.

A motion was made by Mr. Fraase, seconded by Mrs. Hills, to place Resolution 7 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf to waive the reading of the professional staff’s report. There were no objections. A voice vote was unanimous for the adoption of Resolution 7.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 8

8. 2019‐023 – Tony L. Grissom, 1157 Geary Road, Cantrall – Granting an Amendment and Denying a Variance. County Board Member – Mike Sullivan, District #11.

A motion was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Melchin, to place Resolution 8 on the floor. Chairman Van Meter asked the professional staff to give the procedural history of the case.

Trustin Harrison, professional staff, stated the petitioner is requesting a rezoning from “A” Agricultural District to “R‐1” Single‐Family Residence District and a variance to allow the front yard setback to be approximately seven (7) feet instead of the required thirty (30) feet for the purposes of constructing an accessory structure. Emily Prather, professional staff, stated the staff recommends approval of the requested “R‐1” zoning. The LESA score of 180 indicates the property is suitable for agricultural use only; however, the area has a rural residential trend and the subject property contains a residence and is only one acre, which makes it highly unlikely the subject property could be economically converted to cropland. Recommend denial of the requested front yard setback variance. Floodplain being located on the subject property is not a unique circumstance for the area since approximately seven other parcels in the area contain large amounts of floodplain covering the parcels. Further, most of the residence and part of the proposed accessory structure are in the mapped floodplain according to the site plan submitted with the petition. No other unique circumstances to the subject property were mentioned in the petition.

The Standards for Variation are not met. Mr. Harrison stated the Zoning Board of Appeals concurs with the staff recommendation.

Petitioner Tony Grissom, residing at 1157 Geary Road, Cantrall, addressed the County Board. This is not what they consider unique for this area. He is trying to keep a two car garage out of the floodplain, and not to evade the right‐of‐way. If he can get seven feet, it keeps his garage out of the floodplain, which would be the least expensive for him and his wife. This is going to be their retirement home. This is not going to be pole barn, but will be an actual garage with siding that will match the house. They are trying to make the property more valuable for them since they are going to reside there. His whole house is in a floodplain. If he can’t get the seven foot variance, it pushes the garage all the way back to the house. The whole garage would then be in a floodplain. That would be expensive. He does not see why this would be a problem in his neighborhood.

Mr. Stumpf asked the professional staff to explain why they decided not to bring this forward. Steve Keenan explained that the owner can go through a process called the map amendment process. This process removes the floodplain from that portion of the property. The alternative would be to go through the full floodplain development permit process, which would require an application be submitted. That would be sent over to an engineer to review things like making sure the building is one foot above the base flood elevation. Once approved, then the permit could be issued. Building permits would also have to be issued as well. In moving this forward, there is the possibility that the road can be expanded, and that would be something the County would have to potentially acquire in the future too.

Mr. Fraase stated he did meet with Tony and looked at this piece of property. He told Tony to talk with the Road Commissioner. The Road Commissioner did not have a problem at all with this. This is a township road, so the township will be dealing with it.

Mr. Krell asked him if he mows his own road sides. Mr. Grissom stated he does.

Mr. Madonia asked what Pandora’s Box they would be opening by allowing him to put this seven feet from the road. Trustin Harrison stated he doesn’t know if they will set a precedence. In this case, based on the right‐of‐way, allowing him to build what would be considered the front yard and front setback, the precedence would be whether they want to start allowing this.

Mrs. Hills asked if the concern is if ten or fifteen garages would be in the area years from now. Mr. Harrison stated he is seven feet from the right‐of‐way. The road right‐of‐way would be 80 feet, so from the center line of the road it is 40 feet back. He is measuring 47 feet back. There would be no acquisition of land in this case. He would just be seven feet from what would be that potential expansion. Chairman Van Meter asked what the standard is. Mr. Harrison stated the standard is 30 feet from the right‐of‐way. That is 70 feet from the center line of the road. He would be 47 feet instead of 70 feet.

Mr. Smith asked if there was a process not too many years ago where they were acquiring properties that were in floodplains and they went through a process to get properties out of floodplains so they didn’t have issues. There was some federal funding issues with that.

Steve Keenan stated they had two buyouts in the past. One was on Bakunas Road and the other was in Driftwood Acres off of Mechanicsburg Road. Mr. Smith stated it seems odd to him that they have an owner who is trying to stay out of the floodplain, which has been their past practices so they don’t have liability of properties being in floodplains. He believes this is a finding of fact that there is good reason to keep him out of the floodplain. It seems reasonable that he would be able to build here when this is the high point on the property. Mr. Keenan stated it is possible that this appears to be the highest point on the property. He could go through the process to remove that portion of the property from the floodplain. If the owner does believe he can do that and the variance is denied, then he could go through that process. Chairman Van Meter asked if there is a cost for this. There is some expense for engineering plans. Chairman Van Meter asked if there is an advantage for the owner to do this. Mr. Keenan explained if the landowner were to submit the whole house, for instance, and they can show through engineer drawings that the whole house is out of the floodplain, then there may be a savings in the long term for insurance purposes. It could also add to the resale value of the property.

Mr. Stumpf asked how often an owner has tried to get it changed to keep it 100% out of the floodplain by moving closer to the road. He doesn’t recall any at all. Mr. Harrison asked if he means as far as a request for a variance. Mr. Stumpf answered yes. Mr. Harrison stated there have been none that he can recall. In most cases the structures can be situated to meet the setbacks and also avoid being within the floodplain. This is a unique situation because of the amount of floodplain on this piece of property. Mr. Stumpf asked if they are more concerned with the floodplain aspect of it or the road right‐of‐way only being seven feet off that forty. Mr. Keenan stated they recommended denial for the purposes that the road right‐of‐way sits back because it’s going to be very close to the road. If there is an expansion in the future, then there could be a cost to the County.

Mr. Fraase asked Mr. Grissom how far his house is from the 40 foot variance. Mr. Grissom stated it is 71 feet from the center of the road. Mr. Fraase asked him how far back his house is. In other words, you are asking for the seven foot variance from the 40 feet from the center road. How many more feet back is your house? Mr. Grissom stated it is 24 feet. Mr. Harrison clarified that the house is currently in compliance. It is 31 feet from the right‐of‐way, so they would be moving the garage 24 feet forward from the house. It would be 24 feet pushed into that setback area. Mr. Fraase asked if there still would only be a foot difference. Mr. Harrison stated that is correct.

Mr. Preckwinkle asked how they would vote if they want to allow both the motion and the variance. Assistant State’s Attorney Dwayne Gab stated a yes or no vote would address this. They would first need a motion and a second to amend it to allow the variance. Because the variance was denied at the ZBA, it would take a super majority to allow the variance. It would only take a majority to get the variance, but would take a super majority to actually pass the new resolution.

Chairman Van Meter asked if by giving the petitioner the amendment it could pose a greater risk that he may not get the zoning. Mr. Gab explained if it was denied in relationship to the variance, but he doesn’t know if they really have a problem to go back and amend the resolution back to the way it was. He suggested they do an amendment, and if that amendment passes, then do a vote as amended. If the vote doesn’t pass then make another amendment to go back to the original resolution.

A motion was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. DelGiorno, to amend Resolution 8 to Grant the Variance.

Chairman Van Meter asked the professional staff what the principles are that they are in competition with. Avoiding the floodplain and not wanting to have construction in a floodplain is one concept that is important. Another value that is important is not to have construction within 70 feet of the center line of the road. Those two values are in conflict here. The professional staff’s judgement was to maintain the value of the setback from the road because that is an issue that comes up over and over again in their experience. Mr. Harrison and Mr. Keenan agreed. Chairman Van Meter asked why they chose one of those values over the other. Mr. Keenan explained that they looked at this as the potential for a negative precedent to be set. The County has to go and purchase this right‐of‐way because the road is expanding in the future. They looked at those two values and made the judgment call, and thought it was better to deny the variance. Chairman Van Meter asked if it is somewhat frequent that landowners want to build closer to the road than you allow, and have them say “well you let this guy do it”. Mr. Keenan stated this is the first case he’s run into in his experience. Dwayne Gab stated he would disagree with the professional staff on how often this comes up given his years here. He thinks they see a lot more of these kinds of cases where they want to be closer to the roadway based on all sorts of unique property issues. Is he really fearful about this one setting precedent? No he is not. He thinks they need to be aware, and the professional staff is right, because it is a slippery slope. If you do four and then eight of these, then it does become a precedent.

Chairman Van Meter asked Highway Engineer Brian Davis how often they have experienced the situation where they need to acquire road right‐of‐way and it’s more expensive because of that. Mr. Davis explained that they have run into it a few times with some of their subdivision properties. They usually try to work with the owner on some type of variance to get around whatever the requirements are. In this case in particular, he did talk with the township road commissioner, since this is a township roadway, and he expressed the interest of not approaching that setback requirement. Mr. Fraase stated that he has since talked with the road commissioner and he was okay with it. Mr. Grissom stated after the road commissioner had seen the property he didn’t really have a problem with it.

Mr. Krell asked if the house is in the floodplain and if it’s his biggest asset. Mr. Grissom stated it is. Mr. Krell commented that he would be more worried about his home rather than the garage. Mr. Krell asked if they have flooding now. Mr. Grissom stated they did once in the past ten years.

Mr. Stumpf stated he has the utmost respect for the professional staff. They did a great job in keeping them in line with everything. He thinks this here has a position of a difference they should look at. Mike Sullivan is getting ready to make that proposal on the variance, and he thinks they probably should follow his suit on this. He does respect the professional staff’s decision and understands where they are coming from on both sides, but they ultimately have to make the decision here.

Mr. DelGiorno asked the professional staff about the administrative process of applying for FEMA or for removing the property from the floodplain. He asked how often those types of applications are successful. Steven Keenan stated last year they had around six in Sangamon County. Mr. DelGiorno asked what the timeline is for that process, and what the cost is. Mr. Keenan stated the cost is usually whatever the engineer is going to charge. He’s heard some have been $500 and others were $1,500 or more. The process takes approximately four to six weeks, and you can submit it online.

Mr. Snell asked what the proper result on this would be. The road is already in a floodplain so sometimes a berm could be built. Just because you get this released from a floodplain, it will still have the same amount of water. It may help out with insurance, but does not help with water.

Chairman Van Meter asked for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 8, as amended. Upon the roll call vote there were 27 Yeas – 0 Nays. Resolution 8 was adopted, as amended.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 9

9. 2019‐024 – Dave Telger & Laura McCune, 1405 & 1409 Adlai Stevenson Drive, Springfield – Denying a Conditional Permitted Use and Variance and Granting a Variance. County Board Member – Joel Tjelmeland, Jr., District #14.

Chairman Van Meter stated that Resolution 9 has been withdrawn. RESOLUTION WITHDRAWN

RESOLUTION 10

10. 2019‐025 – United Regional Water Coop., 20180 Dale Davis Drive, Illiopolis – Granting Variances. County Board Member – David Mendenhall, District #3.

A motion was made by Mr. Mendenhall, seconded by Mr. Krell, to place Resolution 10 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf to waive the reading of the professional staff’s report. There were no objections. A voice vote carried for the adoption of Resolution 10. Mr. DelGiorno and Mr. Hall voted Present.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 11

11. Resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Illinois Department of Agriculture and the Sangamon County Department of Public Health.

A motion was made by Mrs. Scaife, seconded by Mr. Thomas, to place Resolution 11 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf, seconded by Mrs. Williams and Mr. Bunch, to amend Resolution 11. Mr. Stumpf stated the Illinois Department of Public Health needs to be included on the first page. Also, on the third page under Compensation, add IDPH shall pay County a flat fee of $50,000 for State Fair services upon completion. Also, IDOA shall reimburse County $75.00 for each vendor inspected, including re‐inspections, after receiving an itemized bill from County detailing its activities at the event. Chairman Van Meter asked if the purpose of this amendment is to correct the amount of the contract. Mr. Stumpf stated yes that and the other two changes should be included as well. A new amended document has been submitted to the County Clerk.

A vote was unanimous on the amendment. A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle that the roll call vote for Resolution 1 stands as the roll call vote for Resolution 11, as amended. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTIONS CARRIED RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 12

12. Resolution approving the amendment of Resolution 15, adopted on December 9, 2014 to extend the territorial boundaries of the Enterprise Zone by including property bounded by Third Street, Washington Street, Fourth Street, and Adams Street in Springfield.

A motion was made by Mr. Madonia, seconded by Mr. Forsyth, to place Resolution 12 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle that the roll call vote for Resolution 1 stands as the roll call vote for Resolution 12. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

WAIVER OF TEN‐DAY FILING PERIOD

A motion was made by Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Bunch, to waive the ten‐day filing period. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED

TEN‐DAY FILING PERIOD WAIVED

RESOLUTIONS 13 – 17

13. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Court Services and the Gateway Foundation Inc. for residential and outpatient substance abuse treatment services.

A motion was made by Mr. Hall, seconded by Mr. Ratts, to place Resolution 13 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mr. Smith, to consolidate Resolutions 13 – 17. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to read Resolutions 14 – 17.

14. Resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Illinois, Criminal Justice Information Authority and the Sangamon County Circuit Court for Adult Redeploy Illinois.

15. Resolution approving a purchase order request from Court Services for Integrated Trauma Treatment from SIU School of Medicine in the amount of $50,000.

16. Resolution approving the Land of Lincoln Workforce Alliance grant application for the WIOA Formula Grant in the amount of $2,279,092.

17. Resolution approving the Animal Control Adoption Policy for the Department of Public Health.

A voice vote was unanimous on the consolidation. A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle

that the roll call vote for Resolution 1 stands as the roll call vote for Resolutions 13 – 17, as consolidated. A voice carried. Mrs. Williams abstained from voting on Resolutions 14 & 15. Annette Fulgenzi abstained from voting on Resolution 16.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

OLD BUSINESS

There was no Old Business.

NEW BUSINESS

A. Public Comment

Al Klunick, residing at 5707 Old Salem Lane in Springfield, addressed the County Board.

He is an ex basketball coach and coached at Lanphier, Griffin, and in other towns. Looking through YouTube he seen a documentary about the Springfield Race Riots. He’s a northender and has lived here all his life and did not know the history of the race riots in Springfield. They have a very colorful past. It seems they talk all the time about being diverse, whether it’s in business, play, or recreation. An idea he had a couple years ago was to bring the different races together in a competitive fun atmosphere. So they started this year, for the first time, a community unit basketball tournament for 10 year olds up to 100 year olds. The older ones will just be in a hotshot contest. He has handed out brochures to everyone. It is the last weekend of the month on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. If you cannot be there then they would love for you to pass this off. The object is for you to have your teammate be of a different race than you are, and to raise money for two charities. The charities are Compass for Kids and St. Martin DePorres. On Friday night they will have a funfest for everybody. They will have hot dogs and hamburgers, and it will all be free. The games will be on Saturday and Sunday. They would love for you to participate in any way you can. If you can come out and show your support or if you know of players then you can get the registration form to them. The idea is to get someone of a different race that you can partner with, have a good time and enjoy yourself. Chairman Van Meter stated it is a very good idea.

B. Resolutions

There were no new resolutions.

C. Appointments

Appointment of Chip Smith to the Sangamon County Board of Review for a term expiring August, 2021.

Appointment of Ryan Melchin to the Sangamon County Workplace Safety Board for a term expiring July, 2022.

Appointment of Terry Nydegger as the Sangamon County Rescue Squad Chief.

A motion was made by Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Bunch, for approval of the appointments. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED

APPOINTMENTS ADOPTED

The nominations for appointment in August were also submitted.

D. Procurement/Grant Notifications There were no notifications.

REPORTS OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES, REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES, COMMITTEE REPORT ON CLAIMS

A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mrs. Williams, to place the Committee Report on Claims on file with the County Clerk. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED REPORTS FILED

Chairman Van Meter reminded everyone of the Farm Bureau event on Sunday July 28, 2019.

RECESS

A motion was made by Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Bunch, to recess the meeting to August 13, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED

MEETING RECESSED

https://www.sangamoncountyclerk.com/County-Board/documents/July92019_000.pdf

Want to get notified whenever we write about Sangamon County Board ?

Sign-up Next time we write about Sangamon County Board, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

Sangamon County Board

More News