Meeting Events

Meeting: mkpa7s5pui0.stephenson_county_il_public_works_committee_meeting_4-9-26

Meeting date: 2026-04-09

Meeting type: public_works_committee

This is a deterministic derived artifact, not official meeting minutes. Related records may be grouped for review while complete machine provenance remains in the JSON artifact.

Decisions and Votes

• Approval of items on agenda

  • Summary: Motion made to approve each item on the agenda.
  • Evidence: “First of all, the business is the approval of each of that. New approval.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:00

• Review and approval of minutes from March 12th — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made to review and approve the minutes from March 12th.
  • Evidence: “Next order is a review and approval of the minutes from March 12th. All in ten motion.”
  • Evidence: “Second.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor say aye. Flames.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:07

• Approval of bills

  • Summary: Motion made by William to approve the bills.
  • Evidence: “I move to approve the bills. Because it’s William’s move to approve them.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:04

• West Point Township Bridge (HD2646) Contract Award

  • Summary: Motion to approve awarding the West Point Township Bridge project.
  • Evidence: “So I recommend awarding it. Make a motion to approve.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?”
  • Source timestamp: 31:24

• Approval of Williams motions

  • Summary: A motion was made to approve Williams motions.
  • Evidence: “I have a motion to approve Williams motions.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:53

• Adjournment of meeting

  • Summary: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting.
  • Evidence: “I’ll make a motion for adjournment.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:16

• Seconding of adjournment motion

  • Summary: The motion to adjourn was seconded.
  • Evidence: “I’ll make a second time adjourn.”
  • Review flags: unattached_second
  • Source timestamp: 36:31

• Adjournment of meeting

  • Summary: A vote was taken on the motion to adjourn.
  • Evidence: “All in favor say aye. All in favor say aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:10

Procedural Actions

• Call to order and business approval

  • Summary: The meeting began with the call to order.
  • Evidence: “Call to order.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:00

• Call for questions from committee members

  • Summary: The chair asked if any other committee members had questions.
  • Evidence: “Anybody else on the committee have some questions?”
  • Source timestamp: 35:58

Projects

• West Point Township Bridge (HD2646) Contract Award
  • Summary: Motion to approve awarding the West Point Township Bridge project contract.
  • Evidence: “We’ll move to 8.0, new business, and 8.1 is HD2646 available. Yeah, this is at West Point Township Bridge. It’s a township, it’s a TPP project. And so that’s 80-20 funding and now it’s 100%. Now 100%, yeah, so. Engineering is 80-10-10. What construction is? Construction is 100%, so 655,000 is low bidder.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:34

Presentations and Reports

• Animal Control Report (Cats)

  • Summary: In March, Animal Control took in seven cats; three were surrenders, three were city strays, and one was returned.
  • Evidence: “Um, in March, we took seven cats in. Three were surrenders. Three were city strays. One was returned.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37

• Animal Control Report (Transfers/Intake)

  • Summary: Three cats were transferred to rescues; the dog intake was nine dogs, including seven county strays.
  • Evidence: “Um, five were transferred to rescue, or sorry, three were transferred to rescues, four were, um, are still adoptable. Our dog intake was nine dogs to surrender, seven, uh, county strays.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:57

• Animal Control Report (Inventory)

  • Summary: The current animal inventory includes 14 adoptable cats, two on hold dogs, and 21 adoptable dogs.
  • Evidence: “Our current, um, animal inventory is 14 adoptable cats, two are on hold, on hold. Dogs, we have 21 adaptable, one foster and three on hold.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:18

• Highway maintenance activities

  • Summary: Recent highway maintenance included cleaning curb and gutters, working on shoulders, patching potholes, sweeping intersections, cutting brush with a boom mower, and cleaning up downed trees.
  • Evidence: “And then since then we’ve been cleaning curb and gutters in some of the smaller towns where we maintain them, working on shoulders, patching potholes, started sweeping intersections this week and we did do some cutting brush with the boom mower, cleaned up some downed trees from high winds and started maintenance on, or taking piles off, painting the front of them to get the trucks ready for some work.”
  • Source timestamp: 13:50

• Cedarville and Dakota Road projects status

  • Summary: The speaker is waiting for a letting date for the Cedarville and Dakota Road projects after executing a joint agreement on February 19th.
  • Evidence: “I’m still waiting for a letting date for the Cedarville and Dakota Road projects. We executed a joint agreement on February 19th, it’s down in Springfield, then on our desk, waiting for them to fully execute it so we can let the project”
  • Source timestamp: 14:39

• West Point Bridge and leg spring lending

  • Summary: The West Point Bridge was let earlier this week, and preliminary plans were submitted for another leg spring lending.
  • Evidence: “The West Point Bridge was let earlier this week, and then we got a second one. Uh, the preliminary plans were submitted and we’re going to have another, uh, leg spring, uh, lending for that project.”
  • Source timestamp: 15:24

• West Point Boundstep Bridge Bids

  • Summary: Reported bids for the West Point Boundstep Bridge: low bid was $655,430, which is about 3% over the engineer’s estimate.
  • Evidence: “We had a lighting for the first west point Boundstep bridge. We have one, two, three, five bidders. Low bid was 655,430, which which is about 3% over the engineer’s estimate.”
  • Source timestamp: 26:28

• Orangeville Road Pavement Preservation Material Letting

  • Summary: Reported good bids for the material letting for the pavement preservation project on Orangeville Road, and they are under the engineer’s estimate.
  • Evidence: “And then we had, on the same day, we had our material letting for our pavement preservation project on Orangeville Road. And we had good vids for that and they’re under the engineer’s estimate.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:12

• Rural and Tribal Assistance Grant Funding

  • Summary: The county received a rural and tribal assistance grant of $523,915 for preliminary engineering work for the roundabout at Cedarville Road and Toledo Road.
  • Evidence: “Last thing was the good news for the county. We received a rural and tribal assistance grant for $523,915. That was for preliminary engineering for the roundabout at Cedarville Road and Toledo Road.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:33

• Roundabout Construction Funding Plan

  • Summary: The preliminary engineering work is 100% funded by the grant; construction funding will be pursued via federal safety funds around FY 2028.
  • Evidence: “The grant is only for preliminary engineering work. It was one of 50 projects awarded in the country, and there were two of your favorite ones. Boone County got one for some brick bundling project, and we got ours for a roundabout. And it’s 100% funding, so it’ll cover all of the phase one and phase two for the design of the new roundabout. So then, and this is a federal fund, so that takes about two years. So for FY 2028, we’ll pursue the safety funds for the construction of it.”
  • Source timestamp: 28:03

• Kennels Bids Comparison

  • Summary: Comparison of bids for kennels, noting one company’s quote included shipping while another was without, and that the selected company works with government animal controls.
  • Evidence: “So only got one mid that came in and actually i compared it to the company i was originally looking at and they are actually under that company by the fact that the amount they quoted was with shipping and the amount that i was looking at the other place was 16,000 without shipping.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:12

Discussion

• Court date dog disposition

  • Summary: A court date was held regarding a Great Dane; the owner signed over the Chihuahua.
  • Evidence: “Today we went to court. She is claiming that the Great Dane, the one that we were mainly charging her, was not her dog. There is no way we can prove it was her dog. So I asked if we could just have her at least sign the Chihuahua over. And since she’s not claiming the Great Dane, then we’ve had it for July of 24. Nobody’s reclaimed the dog. So he’s ours then if she’s claiming it’s not hers. So she did sign the Chihuahua over.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:18

• Andrew crisis cases status

  • Summary: Andrew crisis cases received a continuance, believed to be for June.
  • Evidence: “Andrew crisis cases were also today. He did get a continuance on them. I don’t know the date of that. I believe it it was June for an hour bench trial.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:18

• Mary Manke Cocker case status

  • Summary: The Mary Manke Cocker case is back in court 512, related to mental health.
  • Evidence: “Mary Manke, which is the Cocker case. She somehow did not do something. I believe it might been the mental health part of the case. So that’s back in court 512.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:48

• Work van accident and replacement vehicle donation

  • Summary: The speaker was involved in an accident with the work van; Bakker Auto Group donated a 2007 Uplander van.
  • Evidence: “Other things, unfortunately I was in an accident with the work van. We’re still waiting on insurance. However, Bakker Auto Group donated a 2007 uplander van with 94,000 miles on it.”
  • Source timestamp: 04:12

• Donated truck tracking and potential source

  • Summary: A truck came in yesterday with a legit tracking number; research suggests an 80-year-old woman in Pecatonica may be the owner.
  • Evidence: “Otherwise, in the front of your pack, this truck came in yesterday. Um I had Stephanie look into it because of the amount and it’s a legit tracking number and so that went in the bank yesterday we’re gonna give it a 30-day grace to make sure it’s all legit. Where’s it from? I don’t think you’ve got I don’t know if I sent you a copy of it or not yeah so we did some research um there is an 80 year old woman with that name in Pecatonica and I think that’s probably where it came from.”
  • Source timestamp: 04:55

• Donation acknowledgement and future use

  • Summary: The speaker plans to send a thank you letter to the donor of the truck and hopes she will dedicate something, like an isolation room or bench outside, to one of her past animals.
  • Evidence: “I’m going to send her a letter to thank her. Hopefully it’s, I mean, if it’s not her, she’ll obviously say it’s not her, but just because there’s no way else to thank her. And I’d like to thank her for that donation. That was very generous and will 14,890. So a whole bunch of things are going to get made.”
  • Source timestamp: 04:55

• Vehicle maintenance and ticket incident

  • Summary: The speaker received a ticket for failure to reduce speed or avoid an accident due to a coughing fit.
  • Evidence: “I got a ticket. So what was it that you were checking it for? Failure to reduce speed or avoid an accident, something like that. It was my fault. I had a coughing fit and by the time I realized they were stopped ahead of me, there was not enough time to stop.”
  • Source timestamp: 06:51

• Vehicle seats disposal question

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding whether pulled vehicle seats could be disposed of or needed to be kept.
  • Evidence: “We pulled the seats out. Can we dispose of the seats or do we need to keep the seats? We’re never going to use the seats.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:48

• Old van seating arrangement

  • Summary: The speaker noted that the seats were placed in the old van because it is going to be totaled.
  • Evidence: “So what we did right now is we put the seeds in the old vans because that’s going to get totaled and taken away. So why not?”
  • Source timestamp: 09:01

• Disposal of old seats

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether to dispose of or keep pulled seats.
  • Evidence: “Um, this is a question, I guess. Okay. We pulled the seats out. Can we dispose of the seats or do we need to keep the seats? We’re never going to use the seats.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:48

• Animal intake status and capacity

  • Summary: Discussion regarding animal pickups, current numbers (35 animals: 14 cats, 21 dogs), and shelter capacity limitations.
  • Evidence: “So I don’t, people are just in a rough spot that they just can’t afford them anymore. So you’ve got about 35 animals right now, 14 cats, 21 dogs? Yeah, as of this report, it’s gone down.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:09

• Animal intake policy change

  • Summary: The shelter is no longer taking dogs except for county strays.
  • Evidence: “We’re no longer taking dogs right now, other than stray, our strays, our county strays.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:45

• Cat population count discrepancy

  • Summary: A discrepancy was noted regarding the current number of cats on hand.
  • Evidence: “But, um, on the cats we have, we have, I think there’s actually not even 14 cats right now.”
  • Source timestamp: 11:24

• Animal shelter capacity issues

  • Summary: The facility is full, causing difficulty with animal intake.
  • Evidence: “I can’t, what, what am I supposed to do? I’m like, I don’t know. We can’t take any more in.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:03

• Overweight hauler permit issue

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding an overweight hauler transporting raw milk products without a local permit, despite the state requiring permits only on state roads.
  • Evidence: “So I contacted them and his first response was they have basically have a permit for state roads.”
  • Source timestamp: 17:33

• Trucking Permit Requirements and Local Roads

  • Summary: A contractor presented a state permit for trucking that is supposed to be only on the highway or state roads, not local roads.
  • Evidence: “and then he came in earlier and brought in like the permit that they get from the state which is a thousand dollars a year per truck Rock, and it’s supposed to be only on the highway or state roads, not local roads.”
  • Source timestamp: 16:14

• Trucking Permit Scope Clarification

  • Summary: The contractor initially stated the permit was for state roads, but later corrected that the state permit does not include local roads and requires contacting local authorities.
  • Evidence: “So I contacted them and his first response was they have basically have a permit for state roads. And I was like well that’s the state roads that doesn’t include the local roads and he’s like so then he replied to that he’s like after more looking into it you’re I was incorrect so it does it’s not included in the the price because he thought it was if you’re delivering within so far of a state road it’s included on the permit. It’s in full type on the state permit says this does does not include local roads. You have to contact local authorities.”
  • Source timestamp: 17:33

• Local Permit Process Consideration

  • Summary: The committee discussed whether to establish a monthly or yearly permit process for non-local contractors, or if they should mandate that all contractors follow the same procedure.
  • Evidence: “So I guess the question is, do we want it? Do we want to go through trying to set up a monthly or yearly permit process? Or do we just say, he has to follow the same procedure as everybody else?”
  • Source timestamp: 18:14

• Cost vs. Damage Assessment for Trucking Loads

  • Summary: The cost of a load was noted as $300, which is considered insufficient to cover potential road damage.
  • Evidence: “And because we have local contractors that, like Fisher, for example, they do quite a few each year and if we’re, I guess if we’re going to do this for a non-local contractor, do we do it for local contractors and so on and that size of a load is $300 a program and realistically that doesn’t cover the damage that it’s probably doing to the road.”
  • Source timestamp: 18:27

• Trucking Frequency and Load Weight

  • Summary: The contractor was reportedly making multiple trips per day, with loads estimated between 104,000 to 110,000 pounds.
  • Evidence: “So this company is just doing it twice a day, six days a week. What’s that? What was that? Contractor Tifton. No, I don’t. He was not. I think that’s $300, $600 a week. But how did they know how they were being employed? Because the officer spoke with them, like talked to them. Like he pulled them over and just gave them a warning.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:28

• Overweight Load Concerns

  • Summary: The discussion noted that loads of 104,000 to 110,000 pounds are heavy for the roads, which were stated as being severely underfunded.
  • Evidence: “I was sent that they had said it was like 110,000 pounds or whatever, but the officer told me that the guy basically said it was around 104 to 110,000 pounds. So it’s like three truckloads instead of him doing it twice, they need to be like having a truck.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:58

• Enforcement Authority for Overweight Trucks

  • Summary: It was stated that the Sheriff’s Office can write overweight tickets, and both the state police and sheriff can issue them.
  • Evidence: “So you say the sheriff of Miami Stanley can enforce this. So does the sheriff write overweight tickets? Sheriff can write them, the state police can write them. They can write them, but didn’t write this guy wrong.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:36

• Policy Implementation Difficulty

  • Summary: A committee member noted that while a policy exists, it has been used case-by-case, making the current situation unique due to continuous use.
  • Evidence: “Are we already have a policy in place, but it’s been kind of used as needed, point by point, because this would be such a continuous use, that’s what makes the situation unique?”
  • Source timestamp: 23:27

• Recommendation on Policy Maintenance

  • Summary: One member expressed inclination to keep the existing policy but questioned the best course of action.
  • Evidence: “At the end of the day, we don’t want to make money off of this. I’m inclined to keep the policy as it is, but I just wonder, I want to see your feelings on what to do with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:08

• Policy regarding continuous use of permits

  • Summary: Discussion on keeping the existing policy as is, noting that leaving it alone seems easier than creating a new right.
  • Evidence: “I’m inclined to keep the policy as it is, but I just wonder, I want to see your feelings on what to do with that. Leaving it alone, can I just say, is leaving it alone seems to be more of a hardest work to make a new right.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:14

• Enforcement checks for overloaded vehicles

  • Summary: Discussion about talking to public safety regarding currency checks to help enforce rules on trucks.
  • Evidence: “If we can then talk to our public safety about doing a few checks to make, to put some pressure on. That’s not putting any pressure on by making it yearly but we can talk to our other department about doing a few currency checks that might help them to put that other truck in play like you said because they need to be having another loan to try to enforce this or something”
  • Source timestamp: 24:30

• Cooperation of local businesses regarding vehicle weight

  • Summary: Discussion noting that the cheesefactory and Stapleys have been cooperative, checking on overloaded vehicles.
  • Evidence: “from the cheese factory that would do it about 100 percent yep and actually even the Stapleys have been very cooperative ones. If we let them know that somebody’s run or overloaded, they’ll get out there and check it.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:38

• Overloaded vehicle ticket incident report

  • Summary: A trucker received a $30,000 ticket for running 190,000 to 250,000 lbs.
  • Evidence: “I got a phone call from the turkey company the next day asking if there’s anything I can do about his $30,000 ticket because he was running $190,000. I think it was like 250 like was it yeah i think it was like two arcs”
  • Source timestamp: 24:38

• Feasibility of Roundabout at Senior Road Intersection

  • Summary: Roundabouts are considered the most feasible alternative for the intersection due to constraints like wetlands, solar farm, railroad tracks, and power poles.
  • Evidence: “So then, and this is a federal fund, so that takes about two years. So for FY 2028, we’ll pursue the safety funds for the construction of it. HSIP loves, the federal safety funds love roundabouts, so I don’t want to have a good shot at it. The estimate, I think it’s inflated, but the preliminary engineering, the estimate was for the exact amount for construction of the roundabout, 3.4 million. So I think it will come in a little bit less than that, but i’ve got an engineer’s estimate for the construction. So somewhere around 2028, we’ll try to get funds to build it. So everything’s moving pretty good along for that. So I would say I would follow the stage. No, it’s a leader road and a senior road. Senior road, yeah. It’s a kind of a skewed intersection. And we run into wetland. So it looks like roundabout is the most feasible alternative for that because you have to try to stay away from the solar farm, the railroad tracks, the wetlands, the storage place right there. And there’s a tall power pole right there too.”

• Comparison of company quotes for kennels equipment

  • Summary: The speaker compared a received quote to another source, noting the difference was due to shipping costs being included in one quote but not the other. The speaker mentioned three companies were contacted and that one works with government animal controls.
  • Evidence: “So we only got one mid that came in and actually I compared it to the company I was originally looking at and they are actually under that company by the fact that the amount they quoted was with shipping and the amount that I was looking at the other place was 16,000 without shipping.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:12

• Kennel equipment specifications

  • Summary: The speaker detailed features of the kennels being considered, including swivel bowls for feeding and a special anti-fight design.
  • Evidence: “Um they have everything that the other kennels were going to have in it including like the bulls that swivel in that way you don’t have to you can feed without actually going into the kennels um the special anti-fight design so the dogs aren’t fence fighting”
  • Source timestamp: 34:11

• Shipping location clarification for kennel proposal

  • Summary: The speaker noted a discrepancy regarding the shipping destination, stating they will correct it to reflect that the shipment is not going to Lamb Road.
  • Evidence: “The only thing I have to change, they think they’re shipping them to the Lamb Road, which I’ll get that fixed before we’re beginning so they understand they’re not shipping”
  • Source timestamp: 34:53

• Sales tax payment status

  • Summary: The committee discussed whether sales tax is paid on the item in question.
  • Evidence: “They know we don’t pay sales tax, right? I believe so. Please make sure.”
  • Source timestamp: 35:25

• Capacity impact of proposed equipment

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding whether the new equipment would increase capacity or if it would remain the same.
  • Evidence: “And does this increase your capacity, or is it still going to be? No, it will be the same.”
  • Source timestamp: 35:40