McHenry County transportation committee members approved a slate of transportation resolutions after re-opening a prior vote when staff said declining subsequent federally funded phases could trigger grant repayments.

The committee initially moved to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9 and 5.11 (motion by Mister Sager; second Mister Kaminsky). After separate roll-call votes on two pulled items failed, members debated item 5.11 and related truck upfitting questions. County staff warned that several of the resolutions include federal funding for later phases and that if the board declined those later phases the county could be required to repay federal funds already spent — "in the millions," staff said.

After that warning a member moved to reconsider the prior action; the motion to reconsider carried, and the committee again took the matter up and passed the originally proposed package. The chair announced the motion carried following the second vote.

Discussion before the final votes included whether the county could upfit Ford pickup trucks in-house to reduce costs, timing constraints because winter is the busiest season for crews, and options for disposing of retired vehicles. Members also raised a proposal to donate or transfer older pickup trucks and basic firefighting tanks to officials in Zacatecas, Mexico, and discussed legal and auction channels for surplus vehicle sales. Several members suggested specialty auction services for higher-value vehicles rather than typical state surplus outlets.

Motions and votes recorded in the meeting minutes reflected the committees step-by-step handling of the consent package: the initial motion to approve most items with the listed exceptions; separate motions to consider specific pulled items; a failure on a vote to approve two pulled items (5.5 and 5.9); a motion to approve item 5.11 (moved by Miss Lundbergen, seconded by Mister Gonzales) followed by a motion to reconsider and, after reconsideration, final approval of the package. Where members requested more time or clarification, items were deferred for later review or placed on a future agenda.

The committee also heard clarification from staff that the appropriation components of these resolutions (not merely the board vote) are what encumbers FY25 funds; staff said the projects are budgeted in FY25 but not encumbered until a resolution is passed. Members asked whether delay would simply shift costs into FY26 and were told delaying some projects would require increasing the FY26 budget to cover them.

The committee asked staff to explore whether the county could perform vehicle upfitting in-house in future procurements; staff said they would analyze workload and timing and discuss the idea in future procurements.

Ending: The committee completed its votes, heard the Metro budget presentation and other agenda items, and set a future discussion of the township bridge program for a later meeting after budget work.