The Will County executive committee held a wide-ranging discussion about a proposal to move the county’s nonstatutory public hearings on land-use matters to the Land Use and Development Committee, with several members saying the change would improve efficiency and others saying it would reduce direct public access to the full county board.

Under state law the county must hold at least one statutorily required public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Committee (PCC). The proposal discussed at the executive committee would make the Land Use and Development Committee — which members said already functions like a public hearing — the primary place for public testimony before related items proceed to the full county board. Committee members emphasized the change would not remove the statutory hearing at PCC.

Proponents, including members Newquist and Pretzel, said consolidating hearings would reduce repetitive appearances by applicants and residents and would make full board meetings more efficient. Pretzel said Land Use “gives them that platform to present all their evidence” and argued the change would spare applicants and staff from appearing multiple times.

Opponents, including Member Sherry Newquist, Member Jackie O'Gala and Member Butler, said some residents who cannot attend committee meetings in advance rely on the full board meeting to be heard in person and to have their testimony form part of the official hearing record. Member O'Gala said moving the hearing could “decrease the exposure we give to the public” and would remove the opportunity for board members at the full meeting to ask follow-up questions during a formal hearing.

County legal staff and the state's attorney’s office told the committee that the county board’s draft agenda language does not require a public hearing at the full board and that the speaker has discretion about where to place the additional (nonstatutory) hearing. The committee’s discussion was recorded as "for discussion only;" the speaker said he planned to present the issue to the full board next month.

Committee members suggested a trial period and said the board could reverse the change if residents or members felt it reduced public access.