Sangamon Sun

Sangamon County Board met Nov. 9.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

The Sangamon County Board met in Reconvened Adjourned September Session in the County Board Chambers. Chairman Van Meter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In honor of Veterans Day on Thursday, November 11th, Mr. Krell gave the Invocation and Mr. Bunch and the other Veterans on the Board led the County Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ROLL CALL

Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll. There were 27 Present – 1 Absent. Mrs. Ruzic was excused.

APPOINTMENT OF NEW COUNTY BOARD MEMBER

DISTRICT 10

Chairman Van Meter made a motion to nominate and appoint Paul Truax as the representative for County Board District 10. A voice vote was unanimous. County Clerk Gray swore in Paul Truax.

COVID-19 REPORT

GAIL O’NEILL, DIRECTOR OF SANGAMON COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Gail O’Neill addressed the County Board to give a COVID-19 report. She stated they are still dealing with COVID here in the community. Masks are still recommended and required especially when you can’t stay 60 feet apart from another. She stated that Sangamon County is one of fourteen counties that are currently not in the highest status of transmission. The seven-day positivity rate is 2.8% and less than a hundred people per 100,000 are positive.

Mrs. O’Neil gave an update on vaccinations in the County. She stated that 11,274 Sangamon County residents are fully vaccinated which is 57% of the community. There have been 21,285 boosters distributed in Sangamon County. Forty-eight% of the people between the ages of 12 and 17 are fully vaccinated. Almost 67% of people between the ages of 18 to 64 are fully vaccinated, and the vaccination rate for those that are 65 and older is 93.3%. The numbers for 5-11 years old will begin being reported tomorrow. They vaccinated 29 of the five to eleven year old group Saturday. They are still continuing to provide vaccinations and boosters in the drive-thru and inside at Public Health. In the last week, they have done 207 of those per day. They received three hundred doses of vaccine and have put in an order for another 1200 doses. They are doing the children’s vaccines by appointment. Their plan now is to provide vaccines for the youth on Mondays in the evenings, on Wednesday afternoons and on Saturday mornings. As they get more vaccine and see an increased interest, they will increase the appointments. She added that some counties have not received any of the pediatric vaccine yet, so Sangamon County is doing pretty well.

PROCLAMATION

There were no proclamations.

MINUTES

A motion was made by Mrs. Williams, seconded by Mr. Bunch, for approval of the Minutes of October 12, 2021. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTION CARRIED

MINUTES ADOPTED

CORREPONDENCE

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 FY 2022 purchase of a hydraulic excavator.

A motion was made by Mr. Fraase, seconded by Mr. Hall, 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 - 5

2. Resolution approving the FY2022 purchase of a new tandem axle dump truck with plow and snow removal equipment.

A motion was made by Mr. Fraase, seconded by Mrs. Williams, to place Resolution 2 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mr. Smith, to consolidate Resolutions 2 – 5. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to read Resolutions 3 – 5.

3. Resolution approving the FY 2022 procurement of water, electric and sewer services from City Water, Light & Power in the amount of $45,000.

4. Resolution approving the FY 2022 Master Purchase Order for Rush Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $60,000 from the State of Illinois Joint Purchase Program for miscellaneous parts and services.

5. Resolution approving the FY 2022 procurement of diesel and motor fuel in the amount of $150,000.

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 2 – 5, as consolidated. A voice vote carried.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 6

6. 2021-019 – Mesfin & Iyersalem Dollar, 2632 Hilltop Road, Springfield – Granting a Rezoning and Variances. County Board Member – Tom Madonia, Jr., District #9.

A motion was made by Mr. Madonia, seconded by Mr. Stumpf, 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. 2021-037 – S and S Enterprises 2 LLC (Jason Sudeth), 5818 State Route 97, Pleasant Plains – Denying a Rezoning and Granting a Use Variance with Conditions and a Variance. County Board Member – Tom Fraase, Jr., District #1.

A motion was made by Mr. Fraase, seconded by Mr. Stumpf, 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. 2021-038 – Kasellie Futures LLC (Kyle Killebrew), 2605 & 2609 E. North Grand Avenue, Springfield – Granting a Conditional Permitted Use with Conditions and a Variance. County Board Member – Vacant.

A motion was made by Mr. Truax, seconded by Mr. Stumpf, to place Resolution 8 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 8.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 9

9. 2021-039 – Edgar L. VanDorn and Kristie L. VanDorn, 10875 E. State Route 29, Breckenridge – Granting a Rezoning, Conditional Permitted Use with Conditions, and a Variance. County Board Member – David Mendenhall, District #3.

A motion was made by Mr. Mendenhall, seconded by Mr. Stumpf, to place Resolution 9 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 9.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 10

10. 2021-040 – Double Black Diamond Solar Power LLC, Parcels Lying Within the Area Bounded by the Morgan/Sangamon County Line, County Line Road, Gass Road and Ackerman Road – Granting a Conditional Permitted Use. County Board Member – Craig Hall, District #7.

A motion was made by Mr. Hall, seconded by Mr. Stumpf, to place Resolution 10 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle, seconded by Mr. Hall to table Resolution 10. Mr. Preckwinkle asked for a roll call vote. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll. Upon the roll call vote, there were 6 Yeas – 20 Nays – 1 Present. Those voting Yea were: Mr. Fraase, Mrs. Linda Fulgenzi, Mr. Hall, Mr. Krell, Mr. Mendenhall, Mr. Preckwinkle. Those voting Nay were: Mr. Bunch, Mr. Delgiorno, Mrs. Deppe, Mrs. Douglas Williams, Mr. Forsyth, Mrs. Annette Fulgenzi, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Madonia, Mr. McGuire, Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Neill, Mrs. Scaife, Mr. Schackmann, Mrs. Small, Mr. Smith, Mr. Stumpf, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Truax, Mr. Tjelmeland, and Mrs. Williams. Voting Present was: Mr. Snell.

Chairman Van Meter asked the professional staff to give the procedural history of the case.

Trustin Harrison, professional staff, stated that the petitioner is requesting, pursuant to 17.58 and Section 17.37.030(B), a conditional permitted use for a Solar Farm Energy System. The planning commission staff recommended approval of a conditional permitted use for the Solar Farm Energy System. The petitioner is proposing to meet or exceed all the specific setback, screening and other requirements of the Solar Energy System Ordinance. After reviewing the petition and evidence submitted, staff finds that the proposed Solar Farm Energy System will have minimal impact on the character of the surrounding area.

The proponents for the project spoke first. Daniel Sheehan, 2613 Killarney Road, Springfield addressed the board. Mr. Sheehan is the project manager for Swift Current Energy representing the Black Diamond Solar Project. The Solar Project is a 592 megawatt solar farm energy system in rural southwest Sangamon County about a half mile southwest of Lowder. He stated that the project will bring in tax revenue estimated over $71 million over the life of the project to Sangamon County and the project encompasses in excess of $535 million worth of capital expenditures to build the project. He estimates creating 976 new jobs in Sangamon County during construction. The construction phase is estimated to take 12 to 18 months depending on weather conditions. If approved, the project is set to begin in the fourth quarter of 2022 with estimated completion in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Mrs. Linda Fulgenzi asked what the “proposed” life of the project was. Mr. Sheehan responded that it is 35 years.

Mr. Hall inquired if the Mr. Sheehan had ownership of the properties on the acreage. Mr. Sheehan stated that the properties in the project area are leased. He said there are some homes within the project area that they have agreements with the landowners to either purchase or have a long-term agreement with them to be inside the project area. They are also working with the township to acquire two roads to incorporate into the project as well. He added that the project is not contingent on obtaining that right-of-way.

Mr. Hall asked the professional staff if the footprint of the project would change if they do not make an agreement between the purchaser and the seller for the road. Mr. Harrison responded as part of the petition they have agreed to meet all setbacks per the Sangamon County Zoning Ordinance, so if there were some issues they would have to meet additional setbacks from that road. Mr. Sheehan added that the project is content to abide within the confines of the current setbacks with all the existing roads. If they can acquire those roads, it helps the project footprint but it is not contingent on the project being built.

Mr. Hall wanted to know whom they were going to employ and if they have contacted local unions. Mr. Sheehan responded that they have spoken to union representatives from a few local districts and, as much as possible, with the project they will utilize union labor. Mr. Hall asked if they had any agreements on that or if it was just spoken. Mr. Sheehan said they had just spoken with them and had no signed agreements.

Mr. Preckwinkle had a question for professional staff about the size of the project. He questioned whether the size of the mega utility solar project was ever considered when they were making the ordinances and rules for what the committee used when reviewing the project through ZBA or the Zoning Commission.

Molly Berns responded to Mr. Preckwinkle. Her staff was charged by the committee and the County Board to investigate various solar ordinances throughout the state and also in the Midwest. They looked at a lot of different options. At that point in time, they developed zoning ordinance language that was ultimately approved by the committee and the full County Board. Many counties were utilizing a three-prong approach to their solar ordinances. These were personal solar, community solar, which was in the mid-range and then a larger, large-scale project size. What her staff recommended that the board do was a two-prong approach, which would be personal solar and then everything else. The reason they did this was at the time the language was being developed there was a significant solar project being developed in Champaign County. They spoke to counterparts over there, determined that project was 1700 acres, and anticipated that it would be added on to. So they built an ordinance giving the flexibility of not having a top cap on that acreage, so if there were a problem down the road the County Board would not have to grant variances or go in and amend their ordinance at that time. They did not put a number on it. They actually allowed for an unlimited amount of acreage up to the consideration by the board in the language. They made the language flexible on purpose.

Mr. Preckwinkle believed that at the last ZBA meeting, professional staff stated they had not considered a mega project of this size when they created the ordinance rules. He was curious what the difference was from that time and what is being stated now.

Mrs. Berns stated there was no difference. She thinks it may have been a misunderstanding of her intent or what was said. She thinks there was a remaining sentence there as well. They really did not know how large these things would get. They had no way to anticipate that.

Mr. Preckwinkle agreed and said the last ordinance he read was adopted in 2018, which was well before anything of this size was ever considered. So he believes they did not adequately bring those into their ordinance or rulemaking process.

Mr. Stumpf was asked by a constituent if the panels and the materials they are going to use were going to be made in America and if their company can try as hard as it can to buy American-made products. Mr. Sheehan responded by saying they do always try to use American-made products where it is available. They are currently pursuing several bids for the panels they are using and one of them is an American company.

Mr. Hall wanted to know the lifespan of the equipment used in the project. Mr. Sheehan stated that certain components wear out over time. There are different warranty periods for different manufacturers. Currently they are seeing warranties from 20 years to 25 years and some are up to 35 years. More than likely 20 years would be a good benchmark for a warranty period on a panel. Things do break, are damaged, and things wear out and those components can be changed out over the course of the project as the need arises.

Mr. Hall also inquired about planting plants underneath the panels. He wanted to know how this would look. Mr. Sheehan said they are looking to select native grass species and low growing grass species. They have a consultant they have engaged to help them dissect those mixes that are both good for this climate and area and have the height to be able to manage appropriately.

Mr. Krell thought the panels would attract a lot of birds and they drop seeds. He wondered how much maintenance they would be doing. Would it be weekly, monthly or yearly maintenance taking out small trees, bushes, and invasive species. He wanted to know what kind of maintenance would be involved. Mr. Sheehan stated they would have a comprehensive long-term vegetation maintenance plan that their operations and maintenance team will abide by.

Mr. Preckwinkle had a question about the trees that are there now and if they will be clear-cut. Mr. Sheehan stated that it is all currently farmland aside from a couple house sites that have some evergreen type trees on them.

The opponents of the project spoke next. Mrs. Lucy Stafford, 10626 Salisbury Road, Pleasant Plains, addressed the County Board. She is a citizen for responsible solar in Sangamon County. This is a group of citizens that believe true energy does not destroy farmlands, forests, wildlife, families and homes, but is located responsibly. They can have both agriculture and solar. They do not have to be exclusive. The professional staff along with the Sangamon County Farm Bureau developed a solar ordinance using significant research available at the time. They did admit in the ZBA that they never anticipated a project of this magnitude. Despite all efforts, they are taking out 4100 acres of prime farmland of statewide importance for a utility scale solar project. The Sangamon County Farm Bureau has changed their position on solar projects and says zoning needs to be much more thoughtful. This has been distributed and she hopes that they all have read that.

John Hawkins, 6166 Cornland Road, Buffalo Hart Township addressed the board. He is here today representing the Board of Trustees of the Sangamon Conservancy Trust. Their primary goal is using conservation easements for the preservation of prime farmland in Sangamon and surrounding counties. In November of last year, they passed a motion taking a stand on all their easements. They want to preserve farmland and preclude commercial development such as solar and wind development. Their trustees find it disturbing with the siting of solar projects on high productivity farmland in Sangamon County. A zoning variance should be more targeted to less productive land. They would like the County Board to revisit this issue and tweak the siting projects. They are also concerned about collateral damages during the construction phase from adjacent parcels for land operators that have exhibited stewardship.

Mr. Stumpf made a statement about Mrs. Stafford’s comments. He said the Sangamon County Farm Bureau has brought forward a letter to the County Board and stated that for some projects coming up in the future they would like to talk about size and scopes of projects. As for these two projects, they are going to hear tonight, they have no opinion on that from what he understands. They realize they have worked with the board for upwards of eight years to develop the ordinances for these projects.

Mr. Preckwinkle stated he believes the County Board has never voted for these two particular solar farms.

Mr. Stumpf responded saying he is basing his opinion based on conversations with the Farm Bureau, calls to the Sangamon County Farm Bureau president at the time, and to their professional staff. They said, “We have no issue with the projects if they fall within the scope of the ordinances that they have developed with them over all this time.” If it fell outside of the scope, that is when they would have a problem with it. They also said, “They did not want to tell a farmer what he could or could not do with his property.” He is basing this on the conversations between himself, professional staff and the Sangamon County Farm Bureau over several weeks.

Rich Hall, 6 Isabel Drive, Auburn, addressed the County Board. He has farmed with his family, brother Craig, and generations before him since the early 1800’s. He comes back annually to farm. Each year he comes back, he sees the county changing. They are taking 4100 acres plus another 940 between Auburn and Chatham out of farmland production. They are in the breadbasket of America, so why are they going to change it to an industrial solar plan? He agrees with Mr. Sheehan 100% that is all farmland. He attended the ZBA meeting a month ago and left there with nothing but questions. He doesn’t understand how something as significant and large as this can simply be pushed through so quickly without education to the public. He went home after the ZBA meeting, started speaking with his relatives and neighbors, and was shocked at how few people knew anything about this. He wonders why this is not going to be tabled for further discussion so people can be further educated. He asked the County Board to please reject this ordinance and change this zoning requirement to an industrial land use.

Mr. Preckwinkle asked Mr. Hall if he has been reviewing any new information on the projects and mentioned there is a lot more available on these mega solar projects. He asked if there was recent new opposition to these projects. Mr. Hall stated that everywhere you look there is opposition. This is industrial solar being sold to us as agriculture permitted use.

Mrs. Annette Fulgenzi asked Chairman Van Meter and Assistant State’s Attorney Joel Benoit if it would be possible to have the president of the Farm Bureau give their position on the project since not everyone was able to hear that. Chairman Van Meter stated that they spoke with them earlier and they were satisfied with what had been arranged.

Kyle Barry, 2624 Tartan Way, Springfield, an attorney for the petitioner, addressed the board. Most of the questions they have heard tonight pertain to a request to change the existing zoning ordinance relating to the siting of solar projects. That ordinance does not include a cap on the number of acres, and it has standards that are set forth that the zoning staff and the zoning board of appeals, as part of their recommendation, concluded that the petitioner has met all the standards and that is what they are talking about here tonight. The vote is for a conditional permitted use. It is not appropriate to use a hearing or a meeting like this to vote on a resolution to amend the zoning ordinance. Just as a reminder, the recommendation from the ZBA is to approve the petition and they respectfully request that the County Board vote to adopt the ZBA’s recommendation.

Mrs. Stafford addressed the County Board again questioning if the zoning ordinance is so erroneous because it was based on outdated and missing information, tonight is the appropriate time for the Sangamon County Board to do a final check and balance for the protection of its citizens and the rich agricultural farmlands from which the public hold the board accountable. If they are strategic and thoughtful about these issues, stop all projects and revise the ordinance appropriately. They have the opportunity to achieve all the vital interest of both solar and preservation of our rich agricultural land and heritage. They as board members must stand to correct this before precedent is set. They must not allow anyone or any ground to incur permanent damages as posed by the location of these utility scale solar projects. She advised them to please vote no.

Mr. Preckwinkle requested a roll call vote. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll on the question of Granting a Conditional Permitted Use. Upon the roll call vote, there were 21 Yeas – 4 Nays – 1 Present – 1 Abstention. Those voting Yea were: Mr. Bunch, Mr. Delgiorno, Mrs. Deppe, Mrs. Douglas Williams, Mr. Forsyth, Mrs. Annette Fulgenzi, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Madonia, Mr. McGuire, Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Neill, Mrs. Scaife, Mr. Schackmann, Mrs. Small, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snell, Mr. Stumpf, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Truax, Mr. Tjelmeland, Mrs. Williams. Those voting Nay were: Mr. Fraase, Mr. Hall, Mr. Krell and Mr. Mendenhall. Mrs. Linda Fulgenzi voted Present. Mr. Preckwinkle Abstained.

Mr. Hall voted No and explained his vote. The reason he ran for the County Board many years ago was to protect agriculture. Agriculture is very important to the board. He hears it in the voices, in the questions and in the committees. He does not want to say they hurried this along, but he does not know if they saw the car until they were in the middle of the road. This is going to change the character of that area. Is this the character they want? If it is, this is the direction they are going. Ten years ago we talked about where they are going to put the Ameren line. That line at the beginning was supposed to go between Pleasant Plains and New Berlin and cut through Loami. The discussion at that time with the Farm Bureau and the County Board was that if we run the line through that area they are going to stop the growth of that area because of the setbacks due to the power line. They asked them to come up with another solution. The landowners and others did. The power line went through Morgan County and through the bottom of Sangamon County. Driving through that area, there is not a lot of growth. There is the town of Lowder where they had one building permit in the last 10 years. Not a lot of growth. He questioned if this was smart growth. If they allow this down in that area, we are going to change the makeup. Again, he is going to vote no on this, but if they pass this, they have to support it because they vote as a body.

Mr. Krell voted no and explained his vote. He has always heard when it comes to Zoning cases they try to go along with the person in that district. He believes Mr. Hall has made some points tonight. He would like to see this tabled so they can have more discussions. He is not against renewable energy. He is not against solar or wind, but he does believe, like some of the opponents, there are better places for them. Having been born and raised in Sangamon County as a farm boy, he does like the smell of black land dirt. It is in his veins and very sentimental but he knows progress is coming and doesn’t know if it’s progress or regress. He has seen how long they have fought over Lake Two at the city. His family has lost ground for Lake One and Lake Two and rightly so because they needed the water. He is not against energy. He is going to vote with Mr. Hall since it is his district.

Mr. Mendenhall voted no and explained his vote. He is not against solar projects. He is against taking prime agricultural farmland out of production that they cannot replace. In this particular case, maybe it will not affect the seed dealer or chemical dealer or fertilizer dealer or grain elevator, but if they continue to take prime agricultural farmland out of production, it will have an effect. He stated that short-term, if there happens to be a tenant leasing the ground or farming it and it puts him out of business, that would have a negative effect. If you continue to take prime agricultural farmland out of production, it will raise the cash rent prices on the remaining lands and that has a negative effect.

Mr. Preckwinkle abstained and explained his vote. In Morgan County, he is part owner of some farmland and if he were allowed to develop and not have a conflict, he would be voting no.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution 5 – Tabled 09/14/2021

2021-033 – Sangamon Solar LLC, 4890 Polecat Creek Road and 9500-11000 Block of State Route 4, Chatham – Granting a Conditional Permitted Use. County Board Member – Craig Hall, District #7.

A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf, seconded by Mrs. Williams and Mr. Bunch, to bring Resolution 5, which was tabled at the September 14, 2021 meeting, off the table. A voice vote was unanimous.

Chairman VanMeter asked the professional staff to give the procedural history of the case. Trustin Harrison, professional staff, stated that the petitioner is requesting pursuant to 17.58 and Section 17.37.030(B), a conditional permitted use for a Solar Farm Energy System. The planning commission staff recommended approval of a conditional permitted use for the Solar Farm Energy System. The petitioner is proposing to meet or exceed all the specific setback, screening and other requirements of the Solar Energy System Ordinance. After reviewing the petition and evidence submitted, staff finds that the proposed Solar Farm Energy System will have minimal impact on the character of the surrounding area.

Matthew Cate, residing at 831 E. Monroe, Springfield, addressed the County Board. This is a smaller project than the one that was previously discussed here tonight. They have worked with the Sangamon County Board and had this at the table two times ago, at least. It ended up being a good thing because they think they have a better project out of it now. It has more support in the community. The Growth Alliance is in support of them as well. As Mr. Hall pointed out before, they are very hopeful (although there is nothing in writing) they will be able to sell the power to CWLP. If they keep the power in the community, they hope can keep rates down. This is positive for the community.

Mr. Hall asked if there were any homes or property in the footprint they need to purchase before they move forward. Mr. Cate responded that no properties need to be purchased.

Mr. Hall stated that he has never called any board member asking them to vote one way or another. He does not do that. He appreciates their loyalty or their comment of wanting to vote with him because it is his district. He would like them to please listen to the person from that district and please listen to yourself and do your homework. Years ago, when he was newly on this board he would get calls saying that is in my district and I need you to do this for me. That may be the way they do it across the street but not here. He hopes not and not with him.

Mr. Preckwinkle requested a roll call vote. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to call the roll. Upon the roll call vote there were 23 Yays-3 Nays -1 Present. Those voting Yay were: Mr. Bunch, Mr. Delgiorno, Mrs. Deppe, Mrs. Douglas Williams, Mr. Forsyth, Mrs. Annette Fulgenzi, Mr. Hall, Ms. Hayes, Mr. Krell, Mr. Madonia, Mr. McGuire, Mr. Miller, Mr. McGuire, Mrs. Scaife, Mr. Schackmann, Mrs. Small, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snell, Mr. Stumpf, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Truax, Mr. Tjelmeland, Mrs. Williams. Those voting Nay were: Mr. Fraase, Mr. Mendenhall and Mr. Preckwinkle. Mrs. Linda Fulgenzi voted present.

Mr. Mendenhall voted no for the same reasons stated above.

RESOLUTION 11

11. Resolution amending the Sangamon County Code by amending Chapter 15 – Building and Construction.

A motion was made by Mr. Stumpf, seconded by Mr. Tjelmeland, to place Resolution 11 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 11. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTION ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 12

12. Resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement between Sangamon County, the Circuit Clerk, the Village of Pawnee and the Pawnee Police Department for Electronic Citation Services.

A motion was made by Mr. O’Neill, seconded by Mrs. Deppe, 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 - 16

13. Resolution approving amendments to the Fiscal Year 2021 Sangamon County Budget.

A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle, seconded by Mr. Krell, to place Resolution 13 on the floor. A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mr. Smith, to consolidate Resolutions 13 – 16. Chairman Van Meter asked County Clerk Gray to read Resolutions 14 - 16.

14. Resolution approving the Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance for the County of Sangamon, Illinois for the Fiscal Year December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022.

15. Resolution approving the purchase of goods and/or services from Dr. Pan for the purpose of Forensic Examinations for the Public Defender’s Office in the amount of up to $40,000.

16. Resolution to continue the current salary formula for County Board members to be elected. A voice vote was unanimous on the consolidation.

Brian McFadden, Sangamon County Administrator, addressed the County Board regarding the budget. He first thanked the elected officials and department heads who worked hard on this budget. The FY2022 budget is coming in at $127.3 million. That is an increase of about $5.7 million or 4.6%. It is a little larger increase than they have seen in the past. Eighty percent of that increase comes from six different areas. There has been a significant increase in our Capital spending – some related to bonds some related to other funding. Payroll is up $800,000 and grants are up significantly. There is an election coming up in 2022 that will be very expensive. There are additional state mandates for the court system, the Criminal Justice Act and the new Safe-T act that have significant impact. He added that property tax has been the single largest revenue source. It is a little over $1 million increase from last year, which is about a 3% increase. He added that even though there is an increase of about 3% in the revenue, the rate is less than 1%, and they still operating within constraints of tax caps. State tax distribution is up about 12% at $1.69 million. There are no new fines or fees in this budget. Grants are up 4.2%. State reimbursements are up 3.8%.

On the expenditure side, headcount is at 729, which is slightly up with no layoffs. Payroll is up 1.4%, which is $837,000 for a total of $56.9 million. Overtime is at $2.1 million. This includes a 22% increase at $388,000. Pension costs are down 9%, which is $516,000. Health insurance is up 4% at $400,000 for a total of $10.1 million. This includes a 1.4% increase in premiums and a 6% increase in health claims. Worker’s compensation is up 13%, which is $100,000 for a total of $856,000. The County’s outstanding debt is at $8.7 million, which is a 21% decrease at $2.3 million. The FY2022 bond debt services is down 9%, which is $227,000. The County Clerk’s budget is up significantly due to the upcoming Elections in 2022. The Coroner’s office is up 14% due to increased activity their office has seen. Child Advocacy’s budget is also up by $108,000. Information Systems and Court Services budgets are also up 7%. The State’s Attorney and Public Defender budgets are also up 7% with the anticipation of mandates placed upon the county. The Sheriff’s office budget is also going up approximately 1%. Public Health experienced $1.2 million in COVID related costs in 2021. They expect additional costs in FY2022 as well. The County will also be launching $55 million in capital projects. These will include the Iron Bridge Project and improvements to the County Building.

They have a balanced budget and are living within their means. They do continue to operate within the constraints of tax caps.

Chairman Van Meter stated all of the department heads have done a good job at exercising fiscal discipline. The Sheriff’s Office has done an incredible job of maintaining budget discipline and still continue to innovate and respond to the pressures of the office. The project list has two projects listed as 915 East Capitol Building-Phase One and 915 East Capitol Building-Phase Two totaling $2,725,000. Initially, when you presented this list to the County Board it had a different configuration and there are a number of additional projects added to this. Brian McFadden stated the presentation to the County Board before was for $8.3 million to include three separate facilities. They believe they will be able to do all of this for around $7 million including purchasing the new building, so they would be trimming $1.3 million off the total cost. This document shows other funding sources as well including Capital funds, Highway Department funds, and State and Federal funds.

A motion was made by Mr. Preckwinkle that the roll call vote for Resolution 1 stands as the roll call vote for Resolutions 13 - 16, as consolidated. A voice vote was unanimous.

MOTIONS CARRIED

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

RESOLUTION 17

17. Resolution approving the reapportionment of County Board Districts.

A motion was made by Mr. Snell, seconded by Mr. Madonia, to place Resolution 17 on the floor. Mr. DelGiorno thanked the Chairman and Mr. McFadden and Jeff for working with the Democrats on how to move forward with this map and for giving them the time and information to work this out. He thinks they have come to a good solution. A motion was made by Mr. DelGiorno, seconded by Mr. McGuire, to amend Resolution 17. The first amendment is to move a portion of Capital 96 from District 22 to District 23 with a net population change of 74. This has been reviewed with the professional staff. A voice vote was unanimous on the first amendment. A motion was made by Mr. DelGiorno, seconded by Mrs. Hayes, for the second amendment. The second amendment is to adjust the boundary line in a portion of Capital 32 and Capital 34 from District 23 and District 28 to District 18. Adjust the Boundary line in a portion of Capital 27 and Capital 33 from District 18 to District 28. Adjust the boundary line in a portion of Capital 32 from District 28 to District 22, which would result in a 24-person reduction in District 18, a 256-person increase in District 22, a 47% increase in District 23, and a 279-person reduction in District 28. A voice vote was unanimous on the second amendment. He did get the language on this from Jeff. He understands that it still contains the minority majority of the new District 22.

Mr. McFadden spoke and said he appreciated Tony’s kind words. The intent was to alter where two county board members would reside putting them both into different districts which it does accomplish. The two things they look for whenever they make adjustments to the map, is if they keep districts within the deviation. This does accomplish that so there is not a problem with deviation, but their analysis does show this would take proposed District 22, which is a new African-American majority minority district below the 50% voting age population threshold that is necessary for it to be considered a majority-minority district.

Chairman Van Meter commented that he thinks there was a lot of goodwill trying to work something out.

Mr. DelGiorno added that while it still does maintain its majority in terms of population of minorities, they would be slightly below in terms of voting age population. They have looked at various options to make this feasible. His request of everyone on the board is that this would be satisfactory. It satisfies many of the concerns that the sides brought to the table over the last several days and they would ask that the amendments be passed. It would still maintain District 22 as a seat without an incumbent for next year’s election.

A roll call vote was called on the amendment. Upon the roll call vote there were 6 Yeas – 20 Nays – and 1 Present. Those voting Yea were: Mr. Bunch, Mr. DelGiorno, Mrs. Douglas Williams, Ms. Hayes, Mr. McGuire, Mrs. Small. Those voting Nay were: Mrs. Deppe, Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Fraase, Mrs. Annette Fulgenzi, Mrs. Linda Fulgenzi, Mr. Hall, Mr. Krell, Mr. Madonia, Mr. Miller, Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Preckwinkle, Mrs. Scaife, Mr. Schackmann, Mr. Smith, Mr. Snell, Mr. Stumpf, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Truax, Mr. Tjelmeland, Mrs. Williams. Voting Present was Mr. Mendenhall. The amendment was defeated.

Chairman Van Meter called for a vote on the resolution as amended with Mr. DelGiorno’s first amendment. A voice vote was called and the resolution was adopted.

OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS

A. Resolutions

There were no new resolutions.

B. Appointments

Appointment of Tony Smarjesse to the Building Code of Appeals for a term expiring November, 2022.

Appointment of Elizabeth Delheimer to the Springfield Airport Authority for a term expiring November, 2026.

Appointment of Nancy Miles to the Pleasant Plains Fire Protection District for a term expiring May, 2022. Appointment of Paul Truax to County Board District 10.

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 December were also submitted.

C. Procurement/Grant Notifications were submitted

D. Approval of the 2022 County Board Schedule

A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mrs. Williams for approval of the 2022 County Board Meeting Schedule. A voice vote was unanimous.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Maria Oldani addressed the County Board. She is a board member of Wild Canine Rescue. She is here to clear up misinformation. When they went public with their statement, they had received information directly from the staff at Animal Control. She is surprised that Chairman Van Meter considers the recent allegations to be news to him considering the same staff from Animal Control requested and met with Gail O’Neill just weeks before their concerns came to light. They also met with their union representative who was present at that meeting. The Chairman continues to state the three state inspections over the last month and the current ISP investigation are surprises.

She brought these same issues before Public Health and the Chairman via email and in-person at the dismantled Citizens Advisory Board. She spoke about Greg Largent and his mismanagement. They will continue to face denied legitimate FOIA requests, ignore testimony and endure name-calling. They will not stop fighting for these animals care and against the negligence, they face.

Rachel Alderson addressed the County Board. She is a lifelong resident of Sangamon County and the City of Springfield. She started attending the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings on Animal Control in 2018 to hear first-hand what was happening within the facility. She says the problem is not simply the current illness outbreak amongst the cats. The tax funded Animal Control facility is in a state of disarray and has been for a number of years. She feels that every one of these issues lead back to the incompetent management of Greg Largent. Inhumane euthanasia issues have been brought up since as far back as January of 2019. The Illinois Department of Agriculture does not require anesthesia for euthanasia, but they should not be barbaric enough not to provide it. The redemption fees are outrageous forcing families to leave their pets there when they can’t pay these unexpected fees. Free tools and resources to help reunite families with their lost pets are not utilized by the discretion of Greg Largent. The adoption fee for a cat at Sangamon County Animal Control is $150, which is two to three times that of most other counties in the State of Illinois. She stated that for every un-adopted pet that ends up euthanized, the County loses money. There are no written policies and procedures in place. Greg Largent has stated in advisory committee meetings that the policies were mostly spread by word of mouth or memos. The lack of leadership leaves employees with no direction or standards to uphold. She feels Greg is disconnected from what is happening to the animals amongst the staff at the facility and has not made any strides to improve upon these types of chronic issues. She believes it is time for a change and the citizens deserve better, and they think Greg in his current position is irresponsible. The Animal Control staff and volunteers who are there every day have spoken out. Local animal advocates have spoken out. All of these people are caring people and your constituents. She wonders if anyone will speak out against this behavior and if anyone will demand new leadership at Animal Control, or if would they continue to allow silent inaction to render yourselves complicit.

Karli White addressed the County Board. As a Sangamon County citizen, she says she finds the amount of community support for Sangamon County Animal Control amazing. She added there are many animal advocacy programs that are raising money and writing grants that help Animal Control. The number of volunteer hours spent with pets at Animal Control, including walking and taking them to adoptions, must be huge. She stated that without the volunteers there to help a lot of the work would not be done. She added that the pets held at Animal Control are our pets and some are pets that the public cannot take care of. People take them there believing they will get a new home. There are also homeless pets there for our community that need a safe place where they can be adopted. It is disturbing to her that the amount of energy and money the local communities are putting forward to support Animal Control, the expertise offered to help keep the pets safe and mentally and physically healthy, or the offers of assistance to get animals out of Animal Control quickly, is not appreciated. She added that the animal control model they need is an animal control that is well organized, works as a team and has responsive and respected leadership. It would build cooperative respectful partnerships with local organizations, but the unified goal is to provide a place for citizens that confidently allow pets to be cared for safely and humanely, for families to retrieve lost pets, and for families to adopt a new friend.

Mary Coventry addressed the County Board. She stated there is abuse occurring at the Sangamon County Animal Control. The abuse is seen in the way the animals have to exist in illness, isolation, and inhumane ways of euthanasia. They reached out for help and guidance months ago in regards to serious conditions and issues within the facility, just to be ignored by those in authority. Andy Van Meter had a study done on the Citizens Advisory Board meeting, which is the meeting that talks about issues at Animal Control. The study showed there was no need to have that meeting. There is going to be a study done on the fees at Animal Control. There have been two fees done in the past five years that show Sangamon County Animal Control has higher reclaim and rescue pull fees than any facility in Central or Southern Illinois. Ms. Coventry stated that she went to these facilities and spoke to the managers and presented her findings to Brian McFadden and Lisa Hills. Nothing resulted from that.

It was brought to Ms. Coventry’s attention in September that a significant amount of cats and kittens have been brought into Animal Control. She stated that on September 15th she emailed Greg Largent asking to lower the adoption fee from $150 for a cat or kitten to $75 in hopes of getting the cats and kittens adopted and out of the shelter as soon as possible. The final reply was they were trying to assess the financial impact of having reduced fees. She stated apparently it is much more cost effective to let the animals lay out there lingering and suffering and then to euthanize them. She believes the Chairman is bullying people of the community. It goes to show the length of counties will go to stop shelter for reform. She added that everyone in the room needs to ask “why”.

Jane McBride addressed the County Board. She is the president of Illinois Humane. She stated that it would be nice to get all the energy tonight channeled in a constructive and positive direction. They have raised definite issues about leadership problems and she thinks it is something that is very serious. She added that these people could be channeled very constructively. They have an incredible number of resources that can help with the cost of the facility. She would love to see some constructive dialogue set up. The complaint was not lost on her that they purposely withheld care from these animals is not constructive. She has the files if anyone wants to see them. The Department of Agriculture has seen them and it is just not constructive. They would not do something like that. She added that these animals came out of the County very sick. She has raised issues about the County’s medical protocols, and she would like to get into a constructive discussion about that. There is shelter literature out there that explains why they do what they do with these animals, where the groups come in, how the collaboration work, what the meds and medical protocols are and it works. APL went out and did some instruction with Animal Control. She stated that they need someone with leadership to make sure the staff is doing what needs to be done. Everyone needs to do something constructive here. They do not need to exclude volunteers. The cat room volunteers are currently excluded, which is not helpful. Discrediting and excluding has been a pattern and practice when trying to work with the groups. This is going to go on and they are not going to give up. She urged them to get constructive and enter into some dialogue.

REPORTS OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES,

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES, COMMITTEE REPORT ON CLAIMS

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

MOTION CARRIED

REPORTS FILED

RECESS

A motion was made by Mr. Bunch, seconded by Mrs. Williams, to recess the meeting to December 14, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. A voice vote was unanimous.

https://www.sangamoncountyclerk.com/County-Board/documents/November92021_000.pdf