Will County Finance Committee met Nov. 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Chair | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | District 8 (D - Joliet) | Present | |
| Gloria Dollinger | District 10 (R - Joliet) | Present | |
| Mark Ferry | District 13 (D - Plainfield) | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | District 7 (R - Homer Glen) | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | District 10 (D - Joliet) | Absent | |
| Jim Moustis | District 2 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | District 9 (D - Joliet) | Late |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mrs. Dollinger led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - Oct 1, 2019 10:00 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis
ABSENT: Marcum, Ventura
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Transferring Funds within the Sheriff's FY2019 Budget
(Deputy Chief Jeremy Viduna / Finance Director Vicki Hayes)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis
ABSENT: Marcum, Ventura
2. Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance of the County of Will, State of Illinois, for the Fiscal Period Beginning December 1, 2019 and Ending November 30, 2020 - Attachment Updated
(ReShawn Howard)
Mr. Fricilone asked why is the State’s Attorney’s salary budget decreasing by $100,000?
Ms. Howard stated at the October 1, 2019 Finance meeting there was a motion to fund the CAC in the amount of $250,000. In order to do that we are reducing various line items in the corporate budget. The reductions include funding for some new hires to offset the CAC funding; the State’s Attorney’s office was one of those. The funding is still there for those new hires, but instead of hiring on December 1, 2019 they may delay them until later in the fiscal year.
Ms. Ventura arrived at this juncture.
Mr. Fricilone stated this gives the impression we are funding the CAC out of the State’s Attorney’s office and that does not make any sense. They could have done that.
Ms. Howard stated they were only one of the areas that was reduced.
Mr. Fricilone stated it was the biggest area reduced. We are getting $167,000 more in the corporate fund and took $100,000 from the State’s Attorney’s office and that is basically it.
Mr. Harris stated we cut across the board, not everybody but we had to get this to work. We only have so much money and we asked other departments. When I say ask; we told them this is what we are going to do.
Mr. Fricilone asked where; I don’t see cuts anywhere else.
Ms. Howard replied it is where you see reduced new employee funding; those were the reductions for a total of $200,000.
Mr. Fricilone asked is the $200,000 plus the Sheriff or besides the Sheriff? We left the increases at the Sheriff’s Department intact, except for $50,000.
Ms. Howard replied correct.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I want to clarify something Ms. Howard said; the reduction to the State’s Attorney’s budget was not new employees. That is from our salary line, because we did not get new employees.
Ms. Howard replied correct. For clarification, I am not saying the State’s Attorney was new employees. The other departments was new employee funding, those that received funding for new employees were reduced.
Mr. Fricilone asked so we reduced the salaries?
Ms. Howard answered yes, full time salaries was reduced.
Mr. Fricilone asked does that mean we are going to lay people off?
Mrs. Johannsen responded no; this is for the new people. There was a total of nine new employees in the FY2020 budget in various departments.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am talking about the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Mrs. Johannsen stated in order to fund the CAC at the rate of $250,000 it had to come from somewhere. All the new employees will be there, just hired later in the year.
Mr. Moustis stated no, you cut the salaries in the State’s Attorney’s Office. The only department where salaries were actually cut, was the State’s Attorney’s office, you took away raises. Here is how it looks to me; someone gave direction to take this out of the State’s Attorney’s office to punish him for the CAC. You did not cut employees, you cut the salaries you originally agreed to give them, including all raises in the State’s Attorney’s office. I don’t know who gave that direction and who said the only place we can take this is from the State’s Attorney’s office, but, it looks like it is punitive to me.
Ms. Ventura stated when we talk about cutting salaries; are people making less money or they are not getting raises?
Ms. Howard stated some departments have a lot of vacancies. If you reduce their salary line item, it does not mean you are actually laying off people or not giving increases.
Ms. Ventura asked did anyone’s salary decrease? Ms. Howard replied not to my knowledge.
Mrs. Johannsen stated we do not have that ability.
Ms. Ventura stated if they needed $200,000 for salaries last year, do they have at least $200,000 for salaries this year at the State’s Attorney’s office? Are any individuals making less money?
Ms. Dunn stated once a department gets money they can distribute it as they wish. They cannot go over budget, but they can move money into different line items.
Ms. Ventura stated if they got $200,000 last year, did they get at least $200,000 this year or did we cut them to less than last year?
Mrs. Tatroe replied the proposed FY2020 budget for full time salaries will be $30,000 less than our FY2019 budget. That is after County Board authorized three additional ASA and we were told to give the ASAs the raises the PDs received. I don’t know how we do that without laying off people.
Mrs. Traynere stated frequently money has been given to a department and bonuses and extra pay raises are given within their allotted amount. I don’t know if that is the case in the State’s Attorney’s office.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that is not the case. We were told we could give the raises the PDs got. The raises the ASA have not had, but the PD have had for three years. We waited and we left positions open last year in an effort to come in under budget. That was very hard on my civil division. We put in a ton of extra hours because we were short people to come in on budget. We followed the directions, we followed the rules and we are the ones being penalized.
Mr. Moustis stated I am not a spokesman for the State’s Attorney’s office, but this as a matter of fairness. The Sheriff’s Department came in and we gave them $4 million more because they have the new courthouse. Don’t you think the State’s Attorney has the same pressure at the courthouse? Not only was their budget cut from last year in the tentative budget, the budget they expected going forward, has now been cut even further; more than the $30,000 after they were told to go ahead and give raises. We gave raises to the PD’s office. You gave raises to everybody that you could give a raise to, with the exception of some of the exempt people. You are increasing payroll by almost $4 million. The State’s Attorney’s office has more demand on it because it is one of the units of government that grows with the population, the more population the more cases go to court. Everybody gets an increase except them and it doesn’t happen until after they have asked for funding for the CAC. You don’t think that looks a little odd? Are you going to punish them because they want to help children? That is how it appears to me.
Ms. Ventura asked if there is $33,000 less in the salaries; could we propose modifying the reduction to be $50,000 and then take $50,000 out of contingency fund. That way no one is losing salaries and no one will be laid off?
Mrs. Tatroe stated we are losing $30,000, and nothing was added for the three additional assistants or raises. When you add those costs, taxes, FICA and IMRF it is close to $500,000.
Ms. Ventura asked even if this reduction was not there you still will not have enough money?
Mrs. Tatroe replied correct.
Ms. Howard reviewed the 2018, 2019 and 2020 salary lines for the State’s Attorney’s office.
Mrs. Tatroe clarified $9,706,000 is what we had for 2019; $9,147,000 and you are proposing taking a $103,000 from that. That takes us down to $9,044,000 and that is $32,000 less than FY2019. What is on the sheet is to remove $103,000 from the total.
Ms. Howard stated in FY2018 the budgeted amount was $8.840 and you came in at $8.7. The shortage would be the $30,000 if you compare it to the FY2019 budget amount.
Mr. Fricilone made a motion to restore the $103,000 back into the State’s Attorney’s budget.
Mr. Brooks stated there is a lot of discussion around the State’s Attorney’ office. They are asking for $250,000 for the CAC and we need to find the money. There are eight departments that have to carry the load to make that happen. The biggest reduction is the State’s Attorney’s office. The other departments, have smaller budgets, but are being reduced a smaller amount as well. To get the $250,000 we have to make cuts somewhere. The motion on the floor is to restore the $103,000 into the State’s Attorney’s office. If we do that, how can we put $250,000 in the budget for the CAC?
Ms. Howard stated if you restore the $103,000 we would have to find that somewhere else.
Mrs. Dollinger stated these decreases within the proposed budget had increases in it from the previous fiscal year. Are any of the decreases putting them below what they had in FY2019? This is what is happening with the State’s Attorney and I don’t think it is appropriate. We are hiring a lot of new people which in the long run puts a larger burden on the budget, when they have health insurance and other benefits. We already have employees we need to maintain and take care of before we start hiring new employees. We need to look at the departments who have new hires. How are those departments being affected; before we take away from a department with the employees they have.
Mr. Harris stated that was done when we looked at the departments. We told the Coroner’s office, they are not going to get the staff they were waiting on. They have a backlog of 40 cases per week and they are accumulating overtime and comp time, but we asked them to not to hire now. We have looked at these numbers. I take offense to the comment we are penalizing anyone with a budget that I am responsible for. I am never going to penalize myself. We worked with each other and tried to find the $250,000 and we did. A lot of departments don’t like this, but it was the best we could do with what we have. There is only so much money and this is what we came up with. We can restore the $103,000, but where is the money going to come from? There is no magic pot of money it has to come from somebody and somewhere. I am not hearing the discussion of where the money is coming from.
Mr. Palmer stated we are not penalizing, we are adding $250,000 to operations line of CAC. It has been a request for many years and this Board chose not to fund operations. This is the first year, in a long time, we are funding operations for the CAC. We all agree, is a good thing and it is helping the kids. We are putting money in. We also went to the State to get money, which is in the pipeline, to build a building. There is only so much money. For many years this Board has said you have to live within your budget, there is only so much money. Per the direction, we cut other departments to make this work. Those departments are not happy either, they are being penalized. We have been talking about these new hires for months. Nobody was objecting to those new hires because they are all important. We have to cut somewhere else. Are you penalizing those departments? We fund the budget every year with union increases. Mr. Moustis you have said for years, we are not funding the increases, departments have to live within the budget. That is what all departments are forced to do and many of them have done it and reduced staff. The Land Use Department has shrunk in half over the last 15 years, much due to technology; but not all departments can do that. I think it is disingenuous to say we are penalizing, because we are putting more money into this. Mr. Fricilone said we are penalizing children; we put $250,000 into the budget to specifically help kids through the CAC and cut other departments. Those other departments are not happy they have to delay their hires, but they are going to do it, because we are telling them it is going to help the CAC. This is probably not going to be a one-time request. They will come back next year and ask for more money for CAC. They have to raise all that money every year because we don’t fund them. We have been giving them free rent for a number of years as an in kind donation, and there were objections as some wanted us to charge them.
Ms. Dunn added the rent and utilities are worth approximately $140,000 per year.
The State’s Attorney will be in the hole by over $300,000 this year.
Mrs. Tatroe stated we hired the three people we were authorized to hire and gave raises. That was not in our budget, so we will be over budget this year. The Sheriff’s office in the proposed FY2020 budget is scheduled to receive $8.1 million more.
Mr. Fricilone stated you asked where are we going to take this money from; last month I suggested the Sheriff’s Department. The only reduction in the Sheriff’s budget is $50,000 out of the additional $8 million. It is the same for the court security officers, which we will not even hired until next October or November.
Ms. Dunn stated for the last year the Sheriff’s Department and Chief Judge’s office have been diligently meeting with Mr. Harris, Ms. Howard, Mrs. Johannsen and leadership regarding the ten story building, which has to be secure on September 15, 2020. This is not a number pulled out of the air. Mr. Adams, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Santerelli did not get everything they wanted because there is not enough money to go around. Difficult choices were made because we have a nine story building we need to make sure is safe and secure. We will have more metal detectors. Currently, 13 full time deputies work at the courthouse; that would be less than 1.2 per floor if we did nothing.
Mr. Fricilone asked how many will we have now?
Mr. Jeremy Viduna stated we did the courthouse security plan along with Mr. Glasgow. Mr. Glasgow wants a court security officer in each courtroom as security for his employees as well as other court employees. This was not just done by the Sheriff’s Office; Mr. Glasgow also wants the personnel we are asking for at the new courthouse.
Mr. Grey stated that is correct. Mr. Glasgow has supported that. We need strong security.
Mr. Brooks asked Mr. Fricilone are you saying the Sheriff should reduce their budget another $50,000?
Mr. Fricilone stated no, they only took a $50,000 reduction. My motion is to restore $103,290 to the State’s Attorney’s budget. You have to find $103,000. The motion does not say where it will come from.
Ms. Ventura stated if that is the only motion, I am voting no. You are putting us back in the position we were in last month. Last month I tried to talk specifically about where that money would be coming from, but everyone wanted to talk about how much the CAC needed the money. We were all in agreement, but we did not talk about where the money should come from. You put it on staff to run the numbers and find something fair. I don’t like the implication that our employees are going to be losing money or being cut. If that was the case, last month I would have voted no for the CAC. I feel this has been a dog and pony show. You came to the last meeting and wanted $500,000 for the CAC. We know they are building a building because of the capital bill. Is this money going to fund operations or is this money going to build a building. Now you are coming in and saying we have to cut the Sheriff’s Department $100,000 more when they are already being cut $50,000, specifically for Mr. Glasgow’s budget.
Mrs. Tatroe clarified it is not for the State’s Attorney’s budget, it is for the CAC.
Ms. Ventura continued you need $103,000; is that correct? You want us to take it out of the Sheriff’s budget instead, when $50,000 was already taken out of there. They are also hiring new employees. I understand your plight. I am upset as well, because that is not how this was explained to me and how it was arranged. I would rather see $75,000 taken from both, so everyone’s salary is covered. It is not fun to not get a raise; but the last thing we need to do is cut someone’s salary. Mr. Fricilone you came in here and lambasted us on how we don’t care about children. That is not what this is about and everybody on this Board knows that is not what it is about; it is about building a new building.
Mrs. Johannsen stated had the request come in during the budget process and gone through the process like everyone else, perhaps we would have had more time to do planning. The request for $250,000 for the CAC did not come at the time departments were meeting with Ms. Howard, Mr. Harris and I. It came in on October 1st. A motion was made and seconded to fund the CAC. We went back, made these corrections and the CAC is funded. The State’s Attorney’s office said it was their number one priority to fund the CAC. With that new employees were cut, the Sheriff and State’s Attorney’s offices were cut in the corporate fund. A special fund was created for CAC. We are not saying it is not an important endeavor, but there are many special funds involving children that are not funded from corporate. I want to go on record as saying it is not that we are not for children, it is just these type of 501-3(c) corporations are not normally funded out of corporate. In my opinion, once you open this door what makes that program any better than another program. There will be a line outside the door saying you funded that program from corporate, why don’t you fund mine.
Mrs. Tatroe stated you are not funding the 501-3(c) you are funding the office of the county, the Children’s Advocacy Center.
Mrs. Johannsen stated the CAC is a special fund.
Mrs. Tatroe stated this is no different than funding Sunny Hill and not Friends of Sunny Hill. This is the CAC, not the Friends of CAC.
Mrs. Johannsen asked have we funded the CAC out of corporate before? No, we have never done that before because corporate cannot sustain that. We were instructed to fund the CAC in the amount of $250,000, based upon a vote at the October 1, 2019 Finance Committee meeting. Corporate cannot sustain that especially when in 2021 and 2022 we will have to fund the real operations of the courthouse, which we don’t know what that will be. This was a crystal ball endeavor we encountered because we are going online the last quarter of 2020. The real hardships will come then. I want to go on record and stated, if we start funding special funds, such as the CAC out of corporate at $250,000 a pop you won’t be able to fund operations at the new courthouse.
Mrs. Tatroe stated you will not be able to fund the Sheriff’s investigation if you move those investigations. This is not pie in the sky, it is investigation of crimes against children. If you move that to the Sheriff’s office it will cost more than the CAC does.
Mr. Moustis stated I agree, this came very late and perhaps we should have said it is too late for this year, bring it up for next year. That may have been the more appropriate road to take. The Committee voted to fund the CAC. Perhaps there should have been a counter to say we can only fund the CAC to $125,000 or $150,000. There could have been other discussions. As Mr. Palmer said, we have always lived within our means. That also means we have to do a lot of prioritization of what is the most important and what serves the public best. I think the CAC is worth funding at some level because of the good it does for the children and the amount of convictions they get when the children are properly prepared and you get predatory people off the streets. There is a return on investment to the law enforcement, court system and to Will County in general. The CAC has been funded on a volunteer basis. As Mr. Palmer pointed out, we don’t charge them rent or utilities; so the County has done its part. The State’s Attorney came and said we can’t raise enough money to operate this properly; you have to look at it. Many other counties do fund it. Maybe the timing was good. I would have been alright saying it is too late, we will look at it next year. I would also be okay with saying give the $100,000 back to the State’s Attorney’s office and cut it from the CAC. Instead of giving the CAC $250,000 make it $150,000. We will get the State’s Attorney’s budget restored to what they were planning on for the upcoming year and we give a start to the CAC by funding it. Next year the CAC can make the case for a larger appropriation.
Mr. Fricilone stated the $103,000 is what they cut out of the proposed budget, not what they asked for and told they were going to get to pay for the three people and the raises.
Mr. Moustis stated my point is to restore the State’s Attorney’s budget and leave the other appropriations where they are.
Mr. Fricilone asked restore it to what?
Mr. Moustis replied the $103,000 and take $100,000 from the CAC; instead of $250,000 it will be $150,000.
Mr. Brooks stated the State’s Attorney’s asked us to fund CAC. We voted and agreed to give them $250,000. Mr. Moustis you are right, we should have had more discussion. However, we did it and it passed. Now we are penalizing the State’s Attorney for asking for the amount for the CAC. He was asking for $250,000 and he is getting the biggest pounding in his budget. If we put the $103,000 back into the State’s Attorney’s budget, where will it come from?
Mr. Moustis stated I think it is a continued discussion because we are seeing the effects of it.
Ms. Ventura stated I think it is a fair compromise. Initially, they came in and asked for $500,000. We don’t have the money. If we try to push this to force the $250,000 we penalize people. I am not comfortable with that. I will vote no on a budget that does that. I think this year they get $150,000; that is $150,000 more than they got last year. They should go through the appropriate budget procedures next year, so we can look at the numbers. Hopefully, we will have a better idea of the courthouse budget. I suggested having a third party look at the efficiencies at the Sheriff’s Department or they give the presentation themselves. The City of Joliet has looked at bringing down their 9-1-1 costs by lowering overtime and how to do that. We should do that and see where the money is going into their programs. Forcing $250,000 for CAC and penalizing others is not okay. I think the correct compromise is to give the CAC $150,000.
Motion to Restore $103,000 Back into the State's Attorney's Office Budget by Reducing Funding for the CAC from $250,000 to $150,0000
RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 3]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Brooks Jr., Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
NAYS: Harris, Traynere, Dollinger
ABSENT: Marcum
Motion to Move Annual Budget & Appropriation Ordinance Forward as Amended
RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 2]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Moustis, Ventura
NAYS: Harris, Fricilone
ABSENT: Marcum
3. Corporate Fund Levy (Fund 101)
(ReShawn Howard)
Mr. Moustis stated the renewals for the liability and tort insurance are on the Executive Committee agenda. I have not gone through the entire document, but from what I have reviewed, it appears there will be a significant increases in our liability costs due to some large claims last year. We are probably lucky to get an underwriter because of our claims experience. Are we levying a sufficient amount to cover what we think the upcoming year will be?
Ms. Howard replied regarding the tort and worker’s comp funds; the cash reserve balances in those funds are significant enough to cover what we are currently levying. We built up the cash reserve balance in both. In tort we have approximately $8.1 million in cash reserves and in worker’s comp we have $15 million. What we have been levying for the two funds is sufficient.
Mr. Moustis stated when we levy for tort and liability there is also a reserve, because we reserve for what is potentially there. Our levy never covers the year. Unless we run into a deficit, then we have no choice. In your opinion is the levy for liability, tort and worker’s comp sufficient for the upcoming year?
Ms. Howard replied yes.
Mrs. Traynere asked where does the money come from if we are short?
Ms. Howard replied from our cash reserves. We had two large claims last year and we had sufficient funds to cover them. I don’t foresee we would ever have a deficit.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
4. FICA Levy (Fund 201)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
5. IMRF Levy (Fund 202)
(ReShawn Howard)
Mrs. Traynere asked does this include the IMRF increases?
Ms. Howard replied yes, each year we receive the rates from IMRF.
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
6. Tax Levy for the Tort Immunity Fund (Fund 204)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
7. Tax Levy for the Worker's Comp. Reserve Fund (Fund 205)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
8. Tax Levy for the TB Sanitarium Fund (Fund 206)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
9. Tax Levy for the Health Department Fund (Fund 207)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
10. Tax Levy for the County Highway Fund (Fund 220)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
SECONDER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
11. Tax Levy for the County Bridge Fund (Fund 224)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
12. Tax Levy for the Federal Aid Matching (Fund 225)
(ReShawn Howard)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
13. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program
(Jen Alberico / Julie Shetina)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
VI. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT
VIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Harris thanked the Committee, staff, department heads and elected officials for their
work on the budget.
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION
X. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 10:50 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
ABSENT: Marcum
NEXT MEETING - DECEMBER 3, 2019
http://willcountyil.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=3644&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up