Meeting Events

Meeting: puwcl2hp8py.stephenson_county_il_public_works_committee_meeting_6-11-26

Meeting date: 2026-06-11

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 meeting minutes from May 14th (Item 3.0) — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve the meeting minutes from last month, May 14th.
  • Evidence: “Moved by Mr. Jogerst, seconded by Mr. Moderow.”
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, all those in favor? I have. You can go this way, Adam. He goes. The meeting minutes are approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:34

• Approval of claims for the month (Item 4.0) — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve the claims for the current month totaling $550,915 and eight cents.
  • Evidence: “Motion to approve. And second.”
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion is approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:56

• Approval of addendum as is

  • Summary: Motion made to approve the addendum as is.
  • Evidence: “I’ll make a motion to approve if we can tweak it as information comes at the full board, but in the interest of getting more eyes on this, I’ll make a motion to approve as is.”
  • Evidence: “I have a motion to approve the addendum as is in a second as well for Mr. Grovers.”
  • Source timestamp: 43:24

• Adoption of first item (addendum) — Approved

  • Summary: The motion was approved.
  • Evidence: “All those in favor of Adopting the first item, motion is approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 43:41

• Approval of MOU for state lines structures — Approved

  • Summary: Motion made by Mr. Jogerst to approve the Memorandum of Understanding.
  • Evidence: “I have a motion for Mr. Jogerst to approve and a second by Mr. Newton.”
  • Evidence: “all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion is approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 45:44

• Signing the only sign (unspecified)

  • Summary: Motion made to sign the only sign.
  • Evidence: “I have a motion to sign. The only sign.”
  • Source timestamp: 45:55

• Approval of joint agreement for McConnell Road/Route 26 intersection — Approved

  • Summary: Motion to approve the joint agreement (HD 469) for the McConnell Road, Route 26 intersection.
  • Evidence: “So we have an 8.4, which is, oh, sorry, 8.5, HD 2611, Township, British, Baptist Mission, we talked about it earlier. I have a motion to approve.”
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Motion is approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 51:05

• Approval of HD 2611 (Township, British, Baptist Mission) — Approved

  • Summary: Motion to approve item 8.5, HD 2611.
  • Evidence: “So we have an 8.4, which is, oh, sorry, 8.5, HD 2611, Township, British, Baptist Mission, we talked about it earlier. I have a motion to approve.”
  • Evidence: “Motion to approve. Mr. Noonan, seconded by Mr. Jogerst.”
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion is approved.”
  • Source timestamp: 51:05

• Committee action approval for Mr. Jogerst

  • Summary: Motion made by an unnamed speaker to approve something related to Mr. Jogerst.
  • Evidence: “I’d like to go to the committee. Make a motion for Mr. Jogerst to approve, and second, I’ll get through this reminder all.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:35

• Motion to adjourn — Passed

  • Summary: The motion to adjourn was passed.
  • Evidence: “Motion to adjourn? So moved. So those guys have been very sacrificial to us today. All those in favor? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:06:17

Procedural Actions

• Agenda item 2.0 approval
  • Summary: Discussion regarding the need for a motion to approve agenda item 2.0.
  • Evidence: “I’d like to know if they need to order item 2.0, the approval of the agenda.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:00

Financial and Contract Events

• Ending balance sheet notes
  • Summary: The speaker noted that the ending balance was put on a separate sheet, and numbers are low due to Memorial Day.
  • Evidence: “All right. I did put the ending balance on this sheet so I didn’t have to at least set a paper for it by itself. May has the holiday in it so numbers are a little low because of the Memorial Day.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:58

Projects

• Joint agreement approval for McConnell Road/Route 26 intersection
  • Summary: The joint agreement (HD 469) for the McConnell Road, Route 26 intersection is funded 100% by local project funding, with $30,000 included as a contingency.
  • Evidence: “So we have 8.4, which is, oh, sorry, 8.5, HD 2611, Township, British, Baptist Mission, we talked about it earlier. I have a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Mr. Noonan, seconded by Mr. Jogerst.”
  • Source timestamp: 51:05

Presentations and Reports

• Department of Reports and Animal Control Report (Item 6.1)

  • Summary: Report detailing cat intake, adoptions, reclaims, current animal counts, and recent activity.
  • Evidence: “All right. So, cat intake for May was 58 total. Out of those 58, 35 were transferred to rescues. Four were adopted. One was reclaimed.”
  • Source timestamp: 05:31

• Rabies tag program options

  • Summary: The speaker received information about a potential program for rabies tags, which may be free or transferable.
  • Evidence: “our leastly our lease quarterly lease for shelter boss, our, our rabies tags. And I did have a lady reach out to me this week about a program that she has for tags. And I’m going to set up a demo with her to see what it’s like, if it’s how much money sounds like it might be free.”
  • Source timestamp: 11:09

• Upcoming pet event planning

  • Summary: Plans are underway for an AutoSmart pet event on August 22nd, which will include demos, face painting, and adoptable dogs.
  • Evidence: “I know I sent it to everybody about AutoSmart wanting to do a pet event for us too. And we’re looking at August 22nd as the date”
  • Source timestamp: 22:00

• Highway department paving and maintenance activities

  • Summary: Last month, paving occurred on McConnell Road between a Fulke and Dakota Road, and three quarters of a mile was paved for Rock Grove townships. Ditch cleaning was done on Warren Road, South Kent Road, shoulder stone on McConnell Road and Bolton Road, and guardrail work is noted.
  • Evidence: “Last month we paved on McConnell Road between a Fulke and Dakota Road. We paved three quarters of a mile for Rock Grove townships. We’ve done some ditch cleaning on Warren Road, South Kent Road, shoulder stone on McConnell Road and Bolton Road, straight in front of probably 3-4c guardrail”
  • Source timestamp: 26:08

• Pavement preservation program details

  • Summary: The county set up a six-year pavement preservation program using seal-coat work or coiled-slate recycling, which involves laying down about four inches of material and oil before a double-field over. The new program is intended to go beyond previous extensions.
  • Evidence: “When I came here, Here we set up a six-year program for pavement preservation. Pavement preservation, the measures we did to preserve it was either seal-cold work or coiled-slate recycling, coiled-slate recycling. You can tell it about four inches of material and oil to it, lay it back down, then we do a double-field over it.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:33

• Pavement preservation funding sources and projects

  • Summary: Special funding for pavement preservation came from general funds, RBI funds, COVID relief funds, and local project funds. This allowed work on Baileyville Road (Montague up to Lamb Road), all of Cedarville (from Galena Road all the way over to Route 26), and McConnell Road (from 26th over to Affolk). Cobra Road or Rock Road roads were carried over due to lack of money.
  • Evidence: “So with that special funding, we were able to take care of Baileyville Road from Montague up to Lamb Road. We did all of Cedarville from, well, we’re going to be finishing up the last section of that. It goes from Galena Road all the way over to Route 26, and then McConnell Road from 26th over to Affolk. We had special funding for those. Didn’t have any money to do the Cobra Road or Rock Road roads, so we carried those over.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:27

• Pavement preservation program financial goals and criteria

  • Summary: The original program was budgeted at $750,000 a year. With increased federal funds, the goal is to spend about one million dollars a year, structured as $800,000 from federal funds with a $200,000 match. Criteria include doing a seal coat every year and coiled-slate recycling every year, plus applying a third seal coat on any area that received CIR the previous year.
  • Evidence: “We have an increase of, when I set up the original program was for $750,000 a year. We’re getting an increase of federal funds so we can do about a million dollars a year. And then federal funds are 80-20. So I’ll say it’s $800,000 a year in federal funds with a $200,000 match. So our criteria was to, we wanted to do a seal coat every year and then excuse me, a cold blade recycling every year. And then any place, anything that we did CIR last year you want to put a third seal coat on top of that to help preserve it.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:09

• Pavement prioritization criteria

  • Summary: Projects are prioritized by the condition of the pavement and the traffic count, with an emphasis on taking care of roads with higher traffic counts first.
  • Evidence: “So we prioritize the projects by the condition of the pavement and the traffic count. Our traffic count, we want to take care of those roads first.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:45

• MineralTruck bid for equipment/services

  • Summary: A presentation detailing a revised bid from MineralTruck under the SourceBull contract, including changes like switching to a load sense pump and adding a tarp.
  • Evidence: “I’ll let Scott or Brian talk about it, it was a bid from MineralTruck under the SourceBull contract. I thought it was pretty much right in line with what I expected. I did add a few things that were not on the last bid.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:46

Metrics

• Animal Intake/Transfer Statistics (May)

  • Summary: Of the 58 cats taken in during May, 35 were transferred to rescues, 4 were adopted, and 1 was reclaimed.
  • Evidence: “cat intake for May was 58 total. Out of those 58, 35 were transferred to rescues. Four were adopted. One was reclaimed.”
  • Source timestamp: 05:31

• Dog Intake/Transfer Statistics

  • Summary: The facility took in 23 dogs; 11 were reclaimed, one went to rescue, and ten are on hold.
  • Evidence: “And we took 23 dogs in. We have 11 of them were reclaimed. One went to rescue. Ten are on hold, which includes a mom and for nine puppies and one was adopted.”
  • Source timestamp: 05:58

• Current Animal Inventory Count

  • Summary: The facility currently has 8 adoptable cats, 13 on hold, 2 in foster, and 1 boarding still. There are 5 adoptable dogs, two on hold, one fostered, and eight at the animal school.
  • Evidence: “Current animals we have are eight cats that are adoptable, 13 are on hold, two are in foster, one is boarding still, 24 total. Dogs, we have five adoptable, two on hold. Well, sorry, we have vomit left too. One fostered and we have eight.”
  • Source timestamp: 06:25

• Animal pick-up statistics

  • Summary: Pick-ups increased due to a big pick-up involving dogs that were repeat offenders, resulting in a $500 payment.
  • Evidence: “Pick-ups went up because we had that big pick-up that the dogs were a repeat offender, so he had to pay a $500.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:15

Discussion

• Court Case Outcomes

  • Summary: In a bench trial, the court found the defendants guilty for two of the running at large tickets and not guilty for the rest.
  • Evidence: “As far as court cases and your crisis case went for a bench trial, they found them guilty for two of the running at large tickets and the rest were not guilty.”
  • Source timestamp: 07:01

• Animal Transfer to Iowa County Community Society

  • Summary: Iowa County Community Society in Dodgeville pulled 22 animals (seven dogs, eight cats, and seven kittens) from the facility on May 22nd.
  • Evidence: “On the 22nd of May, Iowa County Community Society in Dodgeville pulled seven dogs, eight cats, and seven kittens from us, a total of 22 animals.”
  • Source timestamp: 07:17

• Moving computers and cats

  • Summary: The speaker plans to move computers and cats once internet service is established at the current location.
  • Evidence: “As soon as we get internet over there, I will move computers and stuff and I will move the cats over once I’m over there so I can take care of them.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:33

• Kennel shipment tracking

  • Summary: The speaker was waiting for a tracking number for kennels that were supposed to ship on Wednesday of next week.
  • Evidence: “Um kennels he said they are going to be shipped on Wednesday of next week and he will give me a tracking number once that”
  • Source timestamp: 08:52

• Staff training and scheduling

  • Summary: Nia has been working with the speaker for about a month, picking up software well, and can pick up and drop off at Kerr College on Thursdays. She is scheduled to work Mondays and Thursdays initially.
  • Evidence: “Nia has been working with me for about a month now and she’s picking up the software really nice. She’s actually been going to the Kerr College on Thursdays for me. So I don’t have to cut my day and she can go pick up and drop off and that’s nice. She’s going to start working Mondays because she does babysit on Mondays but now school’s out so she can do Mondays and Thursdays and eventually she’ll pick up more hours once we’re in the building.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:24

• Animal incidents and investigation

  • Summary: There was an incident in McConnell involving two loose dogs and cats, and another dog was hit on McConnell Road or Orangeville Road, requiring an investigation. There have been three incidents recently regarding dogs running at large.
  • Evidence: “I did have, I guess there was an incident in McConnell that I just found out today where two dogs were running loose and filled with cats. And then I guess the dog got, one of the dogs got hit on McConnell Road or Orangeville Road. So I have to do an investigation on that and then there’s some issues in ride out with dogs running at large and going after people walking their dogs. So there have been three incidents in the last month.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:31

• Animal control policy concern

  • Summary: The speaker noted concerns about dogs running at large, suggesting they might need to be deemed dangerous if owners cannot follow rules.
  • Evidence: “Two are the same dogs doing it. So we might end up have to deem them dangerous. They can’t follow rules and keep them in their house.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:59

• Lions Club donations and findings

  • Summary: The Cedarville Lions donated; the speaker also mentioned the result of two guilty findings: one year of court supervision and fines/court costs.
  • Evidence: “Lynette, DeMeester, Edelberg, Towing, Tracy Hulberg did a check, Lions Club didn’t, that was in April, but they did, that’s the second Lions, Cedarville Lions that donated. And then I also put the arrow What was the result of those two guilty findings? He got a year of court supervision and fines and court costs.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:12

• City vs County animal intake procedures

  • Summary: The speaker clarified that for city strays, they only do paperwork; physically taking dogs is not done by the county. The process relies on microchip documentation.
  • Evidence: “So the reason the city dogs are on there, we actually don’t, we just do the paperwork. City cats, sorry. Oh, the cats, we really don’t get, the dog wise, we really don’t physically take the dogs in. We just, we’ve been doing the paperwork because they fall through the cracks Jackson.”
  • Source timestamp: 13:44

• Animal hospital licensing change

  • Summary: The animal hospital license will move to Meadows Drive in June, and the department confirmed that once county animals are moved out, the license at the animal hospital will no longer belong to them.
  • Evidence: “In June, the license will be at Meadows Drive and they won’t have a license at the animal hospital. Well, if we’re still there, they will until we move, but I already talked to the department today and he knows once our animals are out there, there’s no, that license is no longer theirs.”
  • Source timestamp: 15:30

• Animal handling and disposal costs for city vs county animals

  • Summary: Discussion regarding who pays when a dog must be put down, noting that Dr. Cotty used to have a company for this service which is no longer available.
  • Evidence: “So right now, if we do take a city dog over and that dog has to be put down, they get the bill. And same way with, if it’s a county dog, we, Dr. Connie, I meant, he basically eats the cost for that.”
  • Source timestamp: 16:55

• Facility readiness deadline

  • Summary: A need to have operations up and running by July 1st because rent has been paid for six months without utilizing the building.
  • Evidence: “I don’t want this to go any longer than July because we’ve been paying rent for six months without utilizing that building. So some way, somehow it needs to be up and going by July 1st.”
  • Source timestamp: 17:56

• Accepting animals before IGA agreement

  • Summary: Concerns were raised about accepting animals before a formal Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is in place because the county budget cannot cover potential expenses.
  • Evidence: “But before I get that IGA, if you accept animals before that IGA, I have no like to stand out when I’m negotiating with them.”
  • Source timestamp: 18:51

• Paperwork for non-expense related animal intake

  • Summary: It was confirmed that paperwork can still be done for dogs as long as there is no associated expense.
  • Evidence: “Am I okay to still do the, like we do the paperwork? Yeah. As long as there’s not an expense that’s involved.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:10

• Financial report discrepancy (Helms’ monthly report)

  • Summary: A review of Helms’ monthly report showed a difference between reported funds and expected amounts, with potential deposits needing clarification.
  • Evidence: “I’ll pay if I don’t, if she doesn’t know where it goes, I’m thinking that’s where it is.”
  • Source timestamp: 20:12

• Revenue tracking discrepancy

  • Summary: A comparison of monthly revenues showed a significant drop in revenue compared to previous months.
  • Evidence: “I see some gas and I see some other things, but doesn’t seem like any answers. Okay.”
  • Source timestamp: 21:08

• Fundraising ideas

  • Summary: Discussion included suggestions like petting zoos (using sheep) and raffles for fundraising efforts.
  • Evidence: “There was a lady that brings her sheep to the Lion, Lena’s Cedarville Lions stuff. I thought, well, that’d be kind of cool to have a little petting zoo if he’s okay with it.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:08

• Animal property claims for approval

  • Summary: The amount claimed for animal property approved tonight by animal control was $2,479.07.
  • Evidence: “Per animal control specifically, just animal. She said $2,479.07.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:44

• Fiber optics installation contract status

  • Summary: The speaker inquired about the firm handle on the installation of the fiber optics and noted that Vaughn signed the contract, placing it in Nate’s hands as of Monday, next week.
  • Evidence: “do you have a firm handle on the installation of the fiber optics? I think Vaughn signed the contract, so it’s in Nate’s hands now. Monday, next week.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:57

• Rock Road paving quantity

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed that approximately three or four miles of road was paved on Rock Road for Rock Road Township.
  • Evidence: “Helms. How much road did you go on Rock Road for? On what? Rock Road. For Rock Road Township? Yeah. About three or four miles.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:02

• Pavement Condition Rating (CR) and Maintenance Strategy

  • Summary: The county uses a condition rating scale from zero (terrible pavement) to 90 (perfect). The worst CR observed was about a four, with McConnell Road dropping to a three one time. Currently, the worst is about a five.
  • Evidence: “So if you see, we went through and looked at what the pavement looked like when the first time around we had nothing worse than about a four, McConnell Road dropped down to a three one time. We see now our roads are, the worst is about is a five.”
  • Source timestamp: 31:27

• Unfunded Full Debt Reclamation Projects

  • Summary: There are about $7 million worth of unfunded full debt reclamation projects.
  • Evidence: “And at the bottom, the yellow, you can see the ones that do require a full debt reclamation and we’ve got about $7 million worth of unfunded full debt reclamation projects.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:01

• Road Projects Requiring Full Debt Reclamation

  • Summary: DeSoto Road and Rock Grover Road are still listed. A new section on McConnell Road was added due to increased truck traffic from burner food, and Galena Road requires a full best reclamation.
  • Evidence: “DeSoto Road is still there. Rock Grover Road is still there. We’ve added a new section, McConnell Road, because it’s getting a lot of truck traffic from burner food. So this is not part of what we’ve done before, but it’s the next section over. And then Galena Road is breaking up so we need to do a full best reclamation for that.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:14

• Project Funding Outlook

  • Summary: The projected funding requirement has decreased from $14 to $16 million before, and now it is cut about in half.
  • Evidence: “So now we’re looking where we had $14 to $16 million before and now we’re cut that about in half.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:37

• IDOT Approval Process

  • Summary: The final plans are with IDOT, and once they approve the final plans, the committee can potentially go to letting by September, possibly into August.
  • Evidence: “The plans are the final plans are in with IDOT. Once they approve the final plans we can go when both parties execute this, let me see, this is June, I would say we can probably go to Lenin by September, possibly into August”
  • Source timestamp: 33:51

• Bridge Payment Received

  • Summary: A deposit of $641,000 was made for the Shippey Road bridge payment.
  • Evidence: “I did, I just do a deposit for the Shippey Road bridge. I got, finally, I got payment to us. So I just deposited $641,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 35:08

• Guardrail Invoice Status

  • Summary: A guardrail invoice is coming in this month and will be due next month.
  • Evidence: “we have the guardrail invoice that’s coming in this month that will be due next month that will be a fairly large”
  • Source timestamp: 35:35

• Summary Judgment Motion Strategy

  • Summary: If summary judgment was awarded, the preference is to file a motion for stellar assets once the opponent misses a deadline, which can then lead to wage garnishing.
  • Evidence: “My preference is if we were awarded the summary judgment, he’s missed a deadline that we do a motion for stellar assets. Once you do that, you can also do a wage garnishing.”
  • Source timestamp: 38:35

• Internet service fee for property owners

  • Summary: The addition of a $160 monthly fee for internet was discussed; the owners are paying for installation costs, and the addendum varies this fee up time-wise to the length of the contract.
  • Evidence: “So we’re adding the $160 monthly fee for the internet. The owners of the property are paying for the installation costs and then we’ll just have the 160 a month.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:34

• Internet service responsibility

  • Summary: The landlords agreed to pay for the delivery of the fiber optic cable, but there was also a reoccurring monthly fee that felt like it was ours to pay.
  • Evidence: “Christian checked with the landlords and they agreed to pay for the delivery of the fiber optic cable. But then there was a reoccurring monthly fee as well that went with this quote and so that felt it was ours to pay.”
  • Source timestamp: 40:14

• Addendum scope regarding internet fees

  • Summary: The addendum adds the recurring monthly fee into the base agreement and varies it up time-wise to the length of the contract, making landlords responsible for this fee in year four and five.
  • Evidence: “So what the addendum does is add that into the base agreement we had and varies it up time-wise to the length of our contract with them. So if we get past three or four years and we’re looking at year four or five, then we could redo the contract, but the landlords will be responsible are responsible for the lease agreement. We started the monthly reoccurring fees. They will be responsible for that at this point for year four and year five is our lease and our obligation to add to the status ratio.”
  • Source timestamp: 40:52

• Termination fee clause review

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding a potential termination fee, and it was suggested that a motion could be made to amend and remove this clause.
  • Evidence: “Do we know what the family termination thing is if we, for some reason, that terminate? … The other thing you can do is make a motion to amend it and remove it.”
  • Source timestamp: 41:35

• Memorandum of Understanding for state lines structures

  • Summary: The MOU requires all parties to sign it for structures on state lines, covering two bridges in Winslow Township (Samson County) and one in Lafayette County (Wisconsin). The county does not impact the agreement as both bridges are Wisconsin’s responsibility.
  • Evidence: “This is for structures that are on state lines. So there’s two bridges that are in Winslow Township in Samson County in the County of Wayne and Lafayette County in Wisconsin.”
  • Source timestamp: 44:34

• MOU maintenance responsibility

  • Summary: The MOU covers more than just inspection; it addresses maintenance responsibility, meaning if a structure needs fixing or renewing, Wisconsin would be responsible.
  • Evidence: “It goes further than just inspection, right? It says maintenance responsibility, so if it had to be fixed or renewed, I would be them.”
  • Source timestamp: 45:22

• Wet Point Township bridge bidding details

  • Summary: A bid was received for a township bridge in Wet Point Township, which is 100% funded by DBP and has no impact on the county.
  • Evidence: “One was for, first one is for Wet Point Township. This is a township bridge. It’s 100% funding from DBP, so it’s no impact to the county at all.”
  • Source timestamp: 46:05

• West Point Township crossing bid details

  • Summary: For a crossing in West Point Township (at north five quarters), the ICC requires the township to build the road up to meet new signals and infrastructure, with an estimated load bid of $83,000 for plans and $118,000 for significant wells.
  • Evidence: “The other thing that we had was for a great crossing in West Point Township. It was at north five quarters. The ICC is requiring the township to build the road up to meet the new crossing. … the load bid, or the engineers asking for $83,000, and load bid for significant wells on $118,000 over that.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:00

• Funding source for West Point Township crossing

  • Summary: The costs for the West Point Township crossing are paid for with great crossing protection funds, meaning there is no cost to the county.
  • Evidence: “I’ve put in a request to the ICC for something about funding for it, and this is all paid for with great crossing protection funds. So once again, there’s no cost to the county.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:42

• Funding and cost analysis for road/bridge work

  • Summary: The speaker noted that funding is covered by great crossing protection funds, resulting in no cost to the county if additional funds are not authorized, and discussed potential overbids due to small project unit prices.
  • Evidence: “I’ve put in a request to the ICC for something about funding for it, and this is all paid for with great crossing protection funds. So once again, there’s no cost to the county. And if there is, if they end up not authorizing additional funds, it’s still in the Township of Nothin’ County. And that’s it.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:42

• Overbid analysis for bridge project

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding overbids, and the speaker attributed potential discrepancies on small projects to unit prices for asphalt and aggregate.
  • Evidence: “Do you have anything that you would chalk up those overbids to? Usually, the engineers are pretty spot on, but. Normally, the consultant did the engineer assessment on the bridge project. I’m seeing the last few lettings that are coming in over. Now this one, the river crossing, it’s a very small project. So the unit price for asphalt and aggregate goes up and you don’t have as much material.”
  • Source timestamp: 48:14

• Precast/pre-stressed concrete cost difference

  • Summary: The speaker noted a $60,000 difference in precast and pre-stressed concrete estimates, explaining that engineers base estimates on historical data while manufacturers provide exact costs for beams.
  • Evidence: “So, yes. And also, if you look at that, it’s about halfway down the list here of items of precast and pre-stressed concrete that very means there’s $60,000 of difference between the We based, as an engineer, you base your estimates on historical, when the contract, particularly for free-stressed beams, they’re getting the bid right from the manufacturer, so they know exactly what the cost will be at that time.”
  • Source timestamp: 48:49

• Cost comparison for truck equipment bid

  • Summary: The speaker noted an increase from an estimated $114,000-$115,000 to $135,000 due to added items and labor rate increases.
  • Evidence: “So total cost, I think our last bid was $114,000, $115,000, somewhere in there. And this one was $135,000, is that right? So it was like $13,500 just in stuff that I added.”
  • Source timestamp: 54:29

• Equipment procurement process issues

  • Summary: The speaker discussed the current problematic bidding sequence where snow and ice equipment is bid before the cabin chassis, which is then received later.
  • Evidence: “I thought the salesman from Monroe said now what he’s starting to see is they’re bidding the snow and ice equipment before they’re actually bidding the cabin chassis down. They’re bidding that out since it’s so far out. And then they, they’re getting the cabin chassis after the fact.”
  • Source timestamp: 56:49

• Payment terms for cabin chassis

  • Summary: Payment for the cabin chassis is due when it is delivered to Monroe or when Freightliner/Truck Hunter releases it.
  • Evidence: “We pay for the cabin chassis when it’s delivered to Monroe when Freightliner releases it or the dealer Truck Hunter releases it, we pay for the cabin chassis.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:00

• Bottleneck in equipment availability

  • Summary: The speaker attributed delays in equipment availability to a backup caused by COVID-19.
  • Evidence: “I think from COVID there was a backup where they were waiting on all these trucks on these chassis and then the chassis started coming in, flooded them and all these builders and they just have never caught up since.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:15

• Bottleneck for equipment/facility deployment

  • Summary: The delay in deploying equipment to various facilities (Julia, Joliet, Vanell’s, Monroe, Dixon) is attributed by one speaker to a backup following COVID-19 related issues with trucks and chassis, and high employee turnover.
  • Evidence: “I think from COVID there was a backup where they were waiting on all these trucks on these chassis and then the chassis started coming in, flooded them and all these builders and they just have never caught up since. And honestly, I think they have the same problem everyone has is the turnover rate is for their help is crazy.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:15

• Safety Act pre-trial procedures regarding vehicle operation

  • Summary: A report detailed an incident where an individual was operating a tandem axle, 28,000 pounds per axle vehicle without a driver’s license, truck license, or insurance while allegedly stealing rock from a quarry in Davis (or Dakota). The speaker noted that the pre-trial part of the Safety Act allowed the individual to drive away despite lacking proper licensing and insurance.
  • Evidence: “So guy tandem axle, 28,000 pounds per axle, no driver’s license, no truck license, no insurance, overweight, while stealing the rock out of the quarry. So he was actually going in there at night, operating backhoe, I’m assuming, loading the trucks up, driving Now, because of, I know I’m going to say this wrong, so please don’t judge me on it, the pre-trial part of the Safety Act, regardless, it was Friday, he wrote him all the tickets and had to release it and release the truck as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:06

• Sheriff/Crime Suppression Unit capabilities

  • Summary: The Sheriff and Crime Suppression Unit has been trained to operate portable scales and successfully conducted its first ticket/arrest. The unit was also noted for operating at a quarry in Davis.
  • Evidence: “I’d like to go to the committee. Make a motion for Mr. Jogerst to approve, and second, I’ll get through this reminder all. Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye, aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:35

Public Comment

• Permitting consideration for trailers
  • Summary: Brian Scott presented information suggesting that the weight difference between five axle and six axle trailers at 105,000 versus 80,000 is not as drastic as perceived, and requested consideration for individual permits rather than a flat $450 daily rate.
  • Evidence: “I talked to some people out there and I just brought some information. What we were trying to do was see if the committee would consider permitting for our trailers to go in there… So I was just hoping that maybe it would be taken into consideration that, I don’t know if it would be something that would be possible to do individual permits as far as trucking companies in general, rather than offer it to everybody.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:28

Follow-ups

• Review of permitting policy change

  • Summary: The committee will put the discussion regarding potential changes to permitting policies on the agenda for the next public meeting.
  • Evidence: “Let me look this over and we’ll put it on the agenda for the next public meeting about what we can do.”
  • Source timestamp: 05:02

• Kennel Shipment Status

  • Summary: The kennels are scheduled to be shipped on Wednesday of next week.
  • Evidence: “Um kennels he said they are going to be shipped on Wednesday of next week and he will give me a tracking number once that is”
  • Source timestamp: 08:52