Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Land Bank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Will County Board withdraws amended land‑bank resolution after questions on oversight, timing and ARPA use
Summary
After hours of debate over process, oversight and whether ARPA funds should be used, the Will County Board withdrew an amendment and removed a land‑bank resolution from the July 16 agenda to give members time to review terms and proposed intergovernmental language.
A contentious debate over a proposed Will County land bank ended on July 16 with the board withdrawing an amendment to Resolution 26‑119 and removing the item from the day's agenda.
Speaker Van Dine introduced the resolution as a step toward creating a county land bank and offered an amendment that would authorize the county executive to negotiate intergovernmental agreements with interested municipalities. Supporters said the measure was intended to be nonbinding and would keep discussions alive; opponents called for more transparency, documentation and safeguards.
“I'm not going to vote on something that I have not had time to review,” said Member Berkowitz, who said the resolution contained language asserting a broad problem of vacant and tax-delinquent properties and that members needed more time and clearer descriptions of property lists and proposed uses. Other members raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and the need for a robust IGA spelling out governance, oversight and fiscal detail.
Supporters cited a practical deadline: the ARPA funds the county could use for the land bank must be spent by Oct. 31, 2026, creating urgency to move the concept forward. “The ARPA funds have to be spent by October 31. ... It’s a make-or-break moment,” one member said during debate.
Following extended discussion, Van Dine withdrew the amendment and then moved to remove the land-bank item from the agenda; the board voted to remove it. The chair said the removal would allow staff to refine language and permit a fuller review of proposed IGAs and financial sources before the board considers the measure again.
Members who opposed the timeline said they support the concept of a land bank in principle but want clearer written IGAs, property lists and protections to avoid perceived opportunities for misuse. Supporters said a resolution is a necessary step to keep the option alive while the county seeks partner municipalities.
The withdrawal leaves questions about whether ARPA funds might be reallocated to near‑term county priorities; some members and public commenters suggested using remaining ARPA dollars to accelerate water-infrastructure repairs such as the Preston Heights project.
