8.
RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES
A. Public Health Facility Update (M. Isaacson)
Kane County Public Health Exec. Dir. Michael Isaacson, walked through a Powerpoint
about the missions and goals of the health department, reviewed a few key slides
discussing how grants work and how staff is affected by various grants, essential health
services, and the need for the health building over the long-term. He reiterated there
has been no tax increase in 14 years and his department works within his budget. He
shared some of the collaboration his department has been doing with public health and
how the facility will address future needs.
Board dialog included questions about expansion and grant funding of employees for
the new building. Currently, there was no room to expand services at the current
location.
Roger Fahnestock introduced Ernst & Young representatives Gary Burke and Will
Miller to address questions from the risk assessment report. (Surges steps away, 2:07
pm) Mr. Burke shared a brief history of its involvement with the county as it relates to
ARPA. (Surges returns 2:09 pm) He explained how the risks were identified and
classified for the county, shared that if procurement was not followed or if the federal
funds were not used, the funds would have to be returned. Furthermore, if federal
funds were used, the federal government would be considered a co-owner of the
county's building. but should the county change how to utilize the funds or dispose of
the building in the future, it would trigger "disposition" where the federal government
could ask for its share of the building's then fair market value. Further details followed
on how risks could be mitigated.
Board questions followed on how many buildings received ARPA funds in the United
States: 1,977 and of those buildings, nine opportunities were utilized, which amounted
to less than half of one percent. Mr. Burke also expanded upon the notion that there
needed to be a link between how many people are affected and what the project would
apply to that affected class. Other clarification followed regarding risks and mitigation
measures the county should follow, thereby creating a proactive record for the
Treasury. Other clarification of risk, as determined by the county, were explained by
Mr. Burke.
B.
Public Health Facility Building Options (R. Fahnestock)
Buidings Mgment/I.T. Exec. Dir. Fahnestock walked through his presentation recapping
the identified conditions and issues that reinforced the need to discuss a new health
building as well as the possible need to go into closed session to discuss some
options. In reviewing and drafting the Facilities Master Plan, the health department
building was identified as being a priority. A review of four scenarios his office
considered were shared on the overhead. The three resolutions on the agenda were
for a new building.
Board discussion followed on the timeline of construction, not completing the building
within its required timeline, and the county having to still pay the invoices. Dialog
ensued.