Will County Finance Committee met Dec. 9.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 10:03 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 | |
| Jim Moustis | District 2 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | District 9 (D - Joliet) | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Ventura led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - Nov 5, 2019 10:00 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
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED CANNABIS TAX IN WILL COUNTY
Motion to Open the Public Hearing to Discuss Proposed Cannabis Tax in Will County at 10:05 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
Mr. Harris announced the purpose of the public hearing is only to discuss the Will County Cannabis Retailers’ Occupation Tax.
Mr. Paul McLenighan spoke in favor of taxing cannabis sales in Will County.
Mr. Moustis stated I am supportive of the tax. There are costs that go along with the sales of legal marijuana, additional costs to the judicial system and mental health services at the Health Department and we need to offset the costs through the tax. The tax revenue could be used to help Dr. Burke and her initiatives and education.
Mrs. Traynere stated this will be legal in the entire state. If there are increased costs associated with the legalization of cannabis, it is important to collect some taxes.
Mr. Balich stated this is a regressive tax. We don’t need to tax the people of Illinois any more money. The mindset is this will create a windfall of cash, but maybe not. We don’t even need the money at this point. Legalizing marijuana will not stop the black market because it is going to be cheaper.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree black market sales will go up. That has been shown in other states. When you look at a 35% to 40% tax, the black market will be cheaper. I think we should tax, even if we opt out. There are municipalities who will be selling it and we will have costs. The Resolution states the taxes will go into a separate fund the County Cannabis Retailers’ Occupation Tax Fund, I suggest it be amended to say the money will go to the Health Department and Dr. Burke’s department for drug prevention initiatives. Everyone thinks this is going to be a big windfall. The state is anticipating $57 million based on a 25% to 30% tax. We can tax between 3% and 3.75%. At most, we may see $80,000 in revenue, not a giant windfall for the county; it will be for the state. At NACo we heard the states are profiting greatly on it, but the counties are not, they are incurring more costs than they are bringing in. I think the biggest costs will be at the Health Department and I propose the money go to them. The Sheriff’s Department will have to police this, but they can do it in the normal course of their action like they do now. The courts will have some additional cases, but I think the Health Department and Dr. Burke’s initiates will suffer the most. That is where the money should go.
Ms. Ventura stated this is not a regressive tax, it is a user tax. You choose to purchase this item like you do with alcohol and cigarettes. It is not imposed on everyone, just those who use the product. I encourage user taxes. I like that these taxes are being put into their own fund so we can see how much money is being brought it. I would like to see some of this money go to reparations of people wronged in the past. If there is income, it can be included in next year’s budget.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked can you explain what you mean by reparations?
Ms. Ventura replied people affected by imprisonment for marijuana possession or people of color. People who will now be released and need to have their records expunged in order to get jobs and housing. You have to reveal if you had a record and it is very hard for those people to get housing and employment. We want to set up opportunities locally, so people have an opportunity to be on our tax bases and have an equal footing. We want to right the wrongs of what was illegal is now legal.
Mrs. Traynere stated we are separating the money out. We need to look at how much we receive and where it should go. I don’t believe it should go to Dr. Burke. Her primary objective is the opioid crisis. We don’t know if there is a marijuana crisis. No one has presented any data suggesting if someone uses marijuana they will start buying opioids, it is just the opposite.
Ms. Mueller stated I support keeping it in a separate fund. It is important and our responsibility to keep track of this to see how we can use the money to help our residents. Part of the state law has what is called the three R’s and it will help fund reparations. It would be interesting to see how it goes at the state and whether we can supplement it in some way. We need to tax this as much as we can, keep it separate so we are able to be responsible with the money and we can track it.
Ms. Olenek stated I am working on a position paper that will be sent to the County Board office prior to the Executive Committee meeting next week. According to an article in the Journal of American Medical Association, Internal Medicine, September 2018, opioid death rates are accelerating in jurisdictions legalizing marijuana. There is factual information out there and that will be discussed in my position paper later next week.
Mr. Brooks stated I would be interested to see how much money is generated and then have a dialog on where it should go, before we talk about giving the whole pot to one department.
Mrs. Dollinger stated I think we need clarification that the money from this fund will go to offset costs incurred by the sale of cannabis. The Resolution does not say that, it says they are collecting it and it can go anywhere. I think it should say the funds will be used to offset costs we incur from the sale.
Ms. Winfrey stated perhaps the language would say is we it placed into a separate fund and add language it is to offset the impact of cannabis use. It is broad enough to allow us to give money to the Health Department, Sheriff’s Department or where it is needed; with the understanding it goes to the impact.
Ms. Ventura stated my concern is we don’t say all alcohol sales taxes have to go to AA. As this becomes more normalized and ha less of shock value to society we have pigeonholed ourselves into forcing money into areas where it is not needed.
Mrs. Traynere stated that would prohibit us unless we add language to deal with the reparation process. There are costs to the people who have been incarcerated and will need to clear their record.
Mr. Moustis stated earlier I said I would support the tax. I will not support this Resolution. The Resolution should just be the tax. The paragraph should be taken out on how it will be used. You are creating a special fund and can later define the fund. It should be used to mitigate the impact.
A brief discussion took place regarding how the State prison system releases inmates and who is responsible for them when they have no money.
Motion to Close the Public Hearing at 10:28 AM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
2. Adopting a Will County Cannabis Retailers’ Occupation Tax
(Discussion)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [5 TO 3]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Ferry, Ventura
NAYS: Dollinger, Fricilone, Moustis
3. Approval of a Change Request for the ERP Project with HSO
(Mike Shay)
Mr. Shay gave an update on the ERP project, the need for an extended timeline and additional costs.
Mr. Moustis asked do we need to hire a consultant? Could we bring on temporary employees? Time is money, the longer this is delayed the more it costs. Do you need to hire more people?
Mr. Shay responded Will County is very thinly and efficiently staffed. I have one third the staff of my peer counties. When we take on a project like this there are only so many hours people with a full understanding of the topic can devote to the project. We looked at this and it would take so much of our staffs’ time and it is just more efficient to have the people who understand it, do it. It is adding to our timeframe and our expense, but this is something that has to be right.
Mr. Moustis continued there are consultants that have done these implements and they would have an understanding. There is nothing wrong with what you are doing, it will take longer and cost more money. I am not sure the internal assessment no one can do it except staff, is the way I would assess it.
Ms. Ventura asked what are we paying the consultant for?
Mr. Shay gave a breakdown of the D365 product and the configuration needs of the County. They are helping with rebuilding our chart of accounts and the mapping. They are training us to do workflow so when compliance issues come up or changes we will reorganize that.
Mr. Fricilone asked how did we get here? If HSO is our consultant and implementer, when they initially consulted, did they give any expectation of what was needed from our people? Did they tell us they cannot do this project within that amount of time?
Mr. Shay replied yes they did and we agreed to it, but that time is simply not enough. We under estimated how long some of those tasks would take.
Mr. Fricilone asked did we or did they under estimate how long it would take?
Mr. Shay answered both.
Mr. Fricilone asked when does this end? If we spend $500,000 now to extend the timeline, will you come back in six months and say we under estimated and need another $500,000. We based this on the numbers we originally had. Are we going to keep pouring money into this?
Mr. Shay stated in the original budget for this project was not to exceed $2.5 million. We have spent $800,000 and this is a request is for $584,000 more. We believe this timeline is achievable to complete this project. I told them they cannot come back and ask for more time and money. We believe this timeframe and dollar amount will allow us to achieve the necessary outcome.
Mr. Moustis stated you talked about the chart of accounts, it is a huge project. It doesn’t not mean you could not have brought in our outside auditors to help do the chart of accounts, give an opinion and help with that. When I talk about outside help, it is not necessarily IT people. I believe our auditors have enough familiarity with what we do to make recommendations on these accounts and that could have saved time and money.
Mr. Shay stated McHenry County is implementing the exact same system, without payroll. They budgeted for three years for $4.3 million. We budgeted for one year and $800,000. Part of the reason for our contract with HSO is they want to expand into the public sector and they want us to be a reference and an example. They underbid to get our business. We believed and they have demonstrated they have the capacity. The work we need for this project is not data entry, frontline employees or AP staff. It is people like Ms. Hennessy, Ms. Howard or Mrs. Johannsen, people with a high level of internal understanding of the business and what we do.
Mr. Palmer stated Will County has had a successful history of bringing in large projects like this with way lower budgets than other counties. Sometimes we lose track of that. This has been a difficult process. I know Mr. Shay and the other partners have spent lots of time working out a compromise. It would be a good conversation of what was originally budgeted and what the bid price was. We need to go up a little and no one likes that, but we are still below our additional target. That also happened on the real estate system.
Mr. Shay added the real estate system was estimated between $5 and $20 million and it was done for $517,000. Since the executive branch IT Assessment was done, this is the seventeenth implementation we have undertaken and this is the first one that has gone over the original bid budget.
Mr. Moustis stated this delay is costing us more money so perhaps we need to add some additional resources to get it done. If your top line staff is at capacity with their responsibilities, perhaps there is a way to find outside resources.
Mr. Palmer stated I believe if you brought in the budget, finance and Auditor’s staff and the other players would say bringing in a consultant may cost more to bring them up to speed. Where the people using this everyday know the system. We could spend just as much money for a consultant and they may not get it right, where our people doing it every day are delivering a topnotch product for us. This has been a point of debate on how much time people can dedicate to this. They cannot do their job and then spend 40 hours a week on this project. Sometimes the entire Finance Department is working on Saturdays to keep up with things. There was a discussion on whether to bring in someone and the recommendation was to use the people who use it every day. We should all be proud of the fiscal responsibility of the Board is carried out by pinching a little tighter. They thought they could do it with less and found out they could not.
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
4. Appropriating Grant Funds in the Sheriff's FY2020 Budget from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP)
(Deputy Chief Dave Adams/Finance Director Vicki Hayes)
Mr. Fricilone stated on the Executive Committee agenda there is a Resolution to add two additional COs. Where is this money going? Is it going to pay for the two COs we added last year with this money? Last year it was decided this grant would be used to increase the COs because the grant money was related to the Federal prisoner program. Is this money going to continue to pay for them?
Mr. Dave Adams stated the intent of this Resolution is to add two additional Correctional deputies. In February, at the direction of this Committee, we added two full time COs with the SCAAP.
Mr. Fricilone stated their salary did not end. The intention was every year when you get this grant it would be allocated to the two people we hired based on the grant. You cannot keep adding two COs every time you get a grant. How are you going to pay for them next year?
Mr. Adams replied that was not my understanding. Perhaps I misinterpreted the Committee’s intent. What would we do with those two employees if we had not received the grant?
Mr. Fricilone stated they would go away. Last year the Resolution was being used for all kinds of things, tractors and such. We decided this money, since it had to do with federal prisoners we would hire two COs based on us getting the money. We hired the two COs and we have to use the grant to continue to pay their salaries. Now they are adding two more. Every year we get $163,000 are you going to add two more COs?
Ms. Ventura asked where does it say that?
Mr. Fricilone replied it doesn’t say it; that is my concern. At the Executive Committee we are adding two COs. Where is that money coming from? This money should be paying for the two we added last year.
Ms. Ventura pointed out the Resolution says it is going to full time salaries. It does not say anything about new hires.
Mr. Fricilone continued is this money going to be used for two new people or the two existing people?
Mr. Adams stated it will be used for two new people. We are requesting two additional.
Mr. Fricilone reiterated we cannot add two new people every year we get a $163,000 grant, because the following we have to pay $163,000 for the two people.
Ms. Ventura asked how are the salaries for the two people hired in February being paid from the Sheriff’s budget? Were they separated out with this grant money or are they part of the overall budget?
Mrs. Johannsen replied they are not separated out.
Mr. Adams added they would be in the fulltime salaries.
Ms. Ventura stated this grant money is going into the Sheriff’s fulltime salaries to increase his budget for salaries. They already budgeted for those two officers.
Mr. Fricilone stated they budgeted for them because we increased their budget.
Ms. Ventura stated they should have been given $163,000 less in their salary line item for those two other officers and waited.
Mr. Moustis stated when you look at the Sheriff’s budget line items it does not identify the revenue stream. It says you will fund it. This money should have been identified in that revenue stream to fund those two current officers. It goes into the corporate fund and doesn’t segregate. From my perspective, this $163,000 has already been spent to fund the current staff. They are now going to use this $163,000 to hire two additional COs and increase their budget. Now they want to segregate it and hire two more new people.
Ms. Ventura stated this Resolution says to put it into the budget. What you have an issue with is the hiring of two new officers.
Mr. Fricilone stated this Board has always said when we get a grant and hire someone with the grant, when the grant goes away the people go away. Last year when we hired two people based on this grant. If the grant went away those two people would go away, not necessarily would they be let go, but through attrition you would go down two. Those people were hired because we got the grant and as we continue to get the grant it would continue to fund the two people we hired, not an additional two people. This means in the next ten years if we continue to get this $163,000 grant we will be hiring an additional 20 people. That is not what the grant was based on.
Mr. Palmer stated Mr. Fricilone is correct, that has been the policy as grants come and go, the positions go away. Often times, we find a way to fund it in the budget. This issue of staffing levels has been kicked around many times. We have done studies on what the staffing levels should be and how much we pay in overtime. I think we should pull out the study on the staffing levels should be. When you staff appropriately, often time you will have less overtime pay. Sometimes it makes sense to pay the overtime and use the existing staff. I think the misunderstanding is how many people are we supposed to have at the jail. What do we need to be adequately staffed so we can manage the overtime? In the past, this Board has been adamant about how much we budget for overtime. This would have been a great conversation to have during the budgeting process; how much should we put into overtime and how much should we put into staff to reduce the overtime, not two weeks after we pass the budget.
Mr. Fricilone stated our numbers at the ADF were coming down, but we have not seen any updates.
Mr. Palmer stated let’s have the discussion. Some of the people making this argument were the ones who argued about overtime pay. What is the overtime versus the staffing levels based on the studies we paid to have prepared. Unless you disagree with the study, I don’t think we are at the staffing levels suggested.
Mr. Tuminello asked doesn’t the County Board usually vote to set the number of ADF officers.
Mr. Fricilone replied that will be heard at the Executive Committee.
Mr. Tuminello continued at the Executive Committee is the time to make the argument. The money could be used to pay for the two individuals hired last year, should the Board decide not to move forward on adding COs.
Mrs. Traynere stated this Resolution does not talk about the hiring of two additional COs. It talks about moving the money into the Sheriff’s budget. I would like to vote on this Resolution as it is written and I would like the Executive Committee to take up the issue of hiring two additional officers. Today our charge is to move this money. If you don’t want to accept the grant, just say you want to give it back to the feds.
Mr. Fricilone stated at Executive I don’t want people to tell me I’ve already voted for the money for the two new people. When we get to the Executive Committee where are you going to tell me the money will be coming from for the two new people?
Mrs. Traynere stated at Executive Committee you can talk about whether you want to hire two new people and where the money will come from. This money is being appropriated, it is not about hiring anyone.
Mr. Moustis stated we anticipate grants coming in and they are incorporated into the budget. I am going to assume this was not included or anticipated as far as a revenue stream.
Mrs. Johannsen stated this was not presented, because sometimes they do not get the award.
Mr. Moustis stated two days after the budget is approved, the Sheriff’s Office gets this money. When did you know you were getting this money?
Mr. Adams replied in mid-November. It was received too late to get in on a November agenda.
Mr. Moustis stated we anticipated the revenue in the budget.
Ms. Ventura stated that is not true.
Mrs. Johannsen stated if they have grant award and anticipated awards, they are absolutely included in the budget. We do that all the time. They did not get this award until November.
Mr. Moustis stated we should have anticipated we would receive this grant.
Mr. Fricilone asked how many years have we received this grant?
Mr. Adams stated they have been three and four years behind schedule in getting money paid to the states and local jurisdiction. We received this grant in February, 2019 and eight months later we are getting another one because they are catching up. We have no idea when they are coming out.
Mrs. Dollinger stated during the budget talks, several times I have mentioned my concerns of hiring additional people. In the long run it increases the demand on the county financially. I think we need to be careful and when we hire two people, we need to know the financial burden on the county for the lifelong employment of that person. In the future, perhaps we need to rethink about accepting the grant if there not future funding for employment.
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
5. Authorizing Temporary Loan to the County Highway Tax Fund 220 from Motor Fuel Tax Fund 222
(Jeff Ronaldson)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Ventura
6. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program
(Jen Alberico/Julie Shetina)
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
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3670&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up