Will County Finance Committee met May 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
In Accordance With Executive Order 2020-18 Issued By Governor Pritzker, This Meeting Will Be Held Via Videoconference/Telephonically Through The Webex Events Platform. Will County Board Members Will Be Attending The Meeting Remotely And The General Public Is Strongly Encouraged To Do The Same.
The Public Is Invited To Comment Or Pose A Question By Email At publiccomment@willcountyillinois.com. At The Public Comments Portion Of The Meeting, The Emails Will Be Read Into The Record. Please Go To www.willcountyboard.com/Meetings For A Link To Attend The Meeting Via Webex.
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 | |
| Jim Moustis | District 2 (R - Frankfort) | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | District 5 (D - Aurora) | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | District 9 (D - Joliet) | Present |
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Mueller led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - Feb 4, 2020 10:00 AM
Will County, Illinois Posted: 7/2/2020 Page 1
Minutes Will County Finance Committee May 5, 2020
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mark Ferry, District 13 (D - Plainfield)
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller,
Ventura
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V. NEW BUSINESS
1. Disc Re: Property Tax Late Fee Waiver - Attachment Added
(Discussion)
Mr. Harris stated our discussion today will be regarding the penalties and interest on property taxes. Based on projections for penalties and fees we are looking at a budget shortfall of $600,000 versus last year. We are not here to debate tax reform, increase, decreases or adjusting taxes. We do not have the authority to do any of that, it all goes through the Legislative branch of our State government.
Mrs. Tatroe explained the Ordinance attached to the agenda. There is one part of the statute we are very comfortable with; that basically allows you to implement four due dates. The statute states the County Board may adopt an Ordinance under which 50% of each installment of taxes, shall not become delinquent until 60 days after each installment would otherwise become delinquent. Essentially, you would be setting four due dates for the property taxes. One quarter would be due June 1st; one quarter would be due at the beginning of August; one quarter due at the beginning of September and one quarter would be due at the beginning of November. It is clear you have the authority to do that. It appears from Ordinances we received from other counties they are relying on the next section in the statute which was written to respond to declarations of disasters. However, it is clear the statute anticipated there would be damage to the property. In fact it requires people who are applying for relief from the delinquency date must show that their property was substantially damaged or adversely affected. That has to be reviewed by a designated County Official who will then make the determination as to whether or not it is true. It does not fit with the situation we are dealing with now. I don’t think the Legislature ever anticipated a pandemic which affects property values like a flood or tornado. Those are the two options you have to work with.
Mr. Moustis stated we should take the advice of our State’s Attorney if we are going to take any action. Keep in mind this is not the county’s money, a majority of this money goes to the school districts. We need to be cautious and make sure this would not put our school districts and other taxing bodies in some type of peril where they would have to go to tax anticipation warrants. In the case of schools, they could be put on the state financial watchlist. I would like to take a little time and get that information. Perhaps Dr. Walsh could give us an idea of the impact this would have on some of the school districts. Before we take any action, we should look at what the impact will be. The impact could be more severe than giving people a small break, especially the big, commercial taxpayers. My guess is they will not pay until they have to. The biggest breaks go to the biggest taxpayers which are the big commercial properties.
Mr. Harris stated any action taken by this Committee will go to the full Board meeting on May 21st.
Mrs. Traynere asked can we do this only for residential homeowners who prove some type of financial hardship? I have senior citizens in my district, on a fixed income based on an annuity or other financial instrument that sends a monthly check. For those relying on an investment, those investments have taken a huge loss, which means they have to take less money if they want their investment to last as long as they hope to live. It is really hard for those individuals. I would be okay with doing this, but I would like them have to prove a financial hardship, even if it is just an affidavit and I would like to keep it to residential if at all possible.
Ms. Ventura asked we have budgeted for $4 million in penalties. How much of that budget is tied to discretionary spending? How much is tied to operational spending? No matter what we do, there is a chance we could bring in the same amount of penalties, if not more, even by moving the date. If we had to cut $600,000 where is it coming from? I am concerned if we are using penalty fees to budget non-discretionary spending.
Mr. Harris replied the penalties and interest are part of our corporate budget. Ms. Ventura stated that did not answer my question. There are a lot of things that go into the corporate budget. The department heads use that money to determine where they want to spend it. If they are spending penalty fees on staples and paper then I don’t have an issue cutting $600,000. On the other hand, if the $600,000 is used to hire people and pay salaries; it is very concerning that it would be budgeted that way. Do we have any idea how these penalty and interest fees are spent?
Ms. Howard stated the penalty and interest is part of our overall corporate fund revenue. We have other streams of revenue and this is a portion of that. We have our property tax revenue, inter-governmental revenue, charges for services, fines and forfeitures, the delinquent tax fees and interest is a part of that pool. The departments budget their expenses based on the overall pool. There is no specific line item or expense that the penalty or interest would potentially go to.
Ms. Ventura asked are department heads cautioned on what happens if the revenue does not come. All the taxpayers could pay their bills on time one year and we would not have any fees. What would happen in that case?
Ms. Howard replied each year as we go through the budget planning process, we estimate revenues for the following fiscal year. We look at that and budget accordingly; whether we need to reduce based on our revenues. Our revenues and expenses have to be in line. Just like in this case, if we anticipate a shortfall we inform the Board and you provide the direction as to what we need to do to communicate that to the department heads.
Ms. Ventura asked have you and Mr. Brophy looked at where the $600,000 could come from if we indeed we had that big of a shortfall.
Ms. Howard responded we have not.
Ms. Ventura stated I think that would be important.
Mr. Harris added Ms. Hennessy put together a spreadsheet of areas of concern for the budget this year. That information is later on the agenda.
Ms. Ventura stated I agree with Mrs. Traynere this should be residential only. DuPage and Kane Counties recently passed these Ordinances. The DuPage County Ordinance did state they had to show a hardship. I am not sure what the exact qualifications are. We can set our own and discuss that. To Mr. Moustis’ point giving large companies who probably have their income ready to come in I am not sure there is a need. I don’t believe that is where all the penalty money comes from. I don’t think it applies here. The idea of pushing back the penalty date fee is so people have the chance to get the money they need to pay their property taxes. In earlier meeting it has been said, our fines are not just to penalize people but to encourage them to comply. We know people will have a hard time complying. It is not because they don’t want to, it is because they can’t. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to push this back until September when the second installment is due and have people pay the full amount at that time. If they cannot pay the full amount at that time or get onto a payment plan with the Treasurer’s Office then penalties can be assessed. That will give people several months to get all of their payment in and then the only money we would be missing is the penalties. We should not be charging fees to hurt people; we should be charging fees to make people comply. If people are willing to comply but need a little help this is where the penalties would come in. If people pay by September then the rest of our tax money should be coming in and the schools would still get their money and I don’t see that being a hindrance on the schools. However, their budgets may be changing in a way we don’t understand either, including decreasing or increasing. Perhaps Dr. Walsh could give his perspective. I don’t think the schools know where their budgets will be and we need to act according to the residents who live here now and what we can do for them as opposed to having so many what ifs. The State’s Attorney mentioned the legislation. I think because these are unprecedented times, we need some bold action to make sure the people are taken care of. I believe we should write to our legislators as a whole, what we decide. Then ask them to edit that particular section to add a pandemic or other language to make sure we are following the law. Perhaps Mrs. Traynere could help bring it to the Legislative Committee. No matter what we decided, I think this is an important letter to send to our legislators to make sure they understand that we need language that gives us more flexibility. I hope others would agree that giving people the date of September to pay their taxes might be the best way to go before assessing any fees.
Ms. Mueller stated I looked up the information over the weekend so I knew what the other counties were doing. My school district will be greatly affected by this because they need to make payroll, which is a very basic need so our teachers can continue to teach. I would like to see us do some of what the surrounding counties are doing. I like the criteria DuPage County set forth because it helps residents and it helps small business owners affected by this as well. I am interested to hear more about the possibility of doing four payments and what that would look like. It sounds like our State’s Attorney feels that is a preferable choice. I am curious why that versus the other options that might be on the table?
Mrs. Tatroe stated as I said there are two statutory provisions that deal with this. The first one squarely falls within your power; that is the four different due dates. The second one, which would allow you to move the delinquency date all the way back to the time the judge orders the tax sale in November or early December; anticipates a disaster such as a flood or tornado. The only justification allowed is to show your property was substantially damaged. If you were to follow the statute by the letter, there may be instances where some small businesses could show because they closed, their property value went down and arguably that is damage to their property they would be able to show. Most residential people are hurt personally because they are not able to work and their income is not coming in, but they are not able to show that property damage. That is the flaw under the second provision. I read the DuPage County Resolution as well. I believe they used this provision in the statute and they just decided they are not going to follow the letter of the law and allow people to show they are unemployed. All I have to say for that is you can try and do the same thing; if there was a challenge, certainly we will do our best to defend it and we will use those arguments with regard to this is an unprecedented time. The danger could be that the courts may say Will County has to make up whatever the school districts did not have. I don’t know what their decision will be. By the time this is litigated the damage will have been done to the other local taxing bodies. I cannot guarantee what the courts would do.
Mr. Harris asked if go to four payments we would have to reissue and mail out another set of tax bills.
Mrs. Tatroe stated you would. There was discussion that it would be difficult for IT to program that. I would leave that to Mr. Shay to address.
Ms. Mueller stated I wanted to point out Kendall County is also doing something similar to DuPage Counties and their State’s Attorney’s are reviewing this. I understand and appreciate what Mrs. Tatroe is saying. My school district will be greatly affected. There is a letter from them Mr. Harris will be having read into the record. I am open to hearing more about what we can do, because we have to do something.
Mr. Fricilone stated someone asked about segregating commercial from residential. Mrs. Tatroe has already told us you cannot segregate per the law. I am all about following the law. I don’t care what DuPage and Kane County State’s Attorney’s are doing, I trust our State’s Attorney, they are the best and they know what they are talking about. We cannot take someone else’s opinion when they do not work for us. Ms. Ventura you mentioned where does this money go; it goes into a pot. It is no different than when you put your money in your checking account, it is all in one checking account and you use it to pay all your bills. That is what we do; we budget based on the revenue we have. What everyone is forgetting is we are the collector of the tax. Forget about the money we keep for the county. The bulk of the taxes we collect is not for us, it is for 273 taxing bodies. If we are going to make some blanket decision, we are not going to collect their money in the timely fashion we do now, somebody needs to let all 273 districts know and ask them if it is okay with them. As Ms. Mueller stated one of her school districts will be affected. I know there are some Joliet school districts that will be affected. What happens if they have to go out for tax anticipation warrants to pay their bills, they will end up on the watch list which could be three or more years of having the State of Illinois watch their finances and being in their books. No school wants to go on the watch list. We could be throwing taxing districts into a worse situation than we are helping. Mrs. Traynere your statement about a person whose portfolio went down, that is very unfortunately. There are a lot of things that could happen in the world, just like the 2008 recession when portfolios went down. If we are going to make that the standard barrier, then every time the portfolios go down, are we going to say people get a tax-free month because they lost money in the market? If so, then maybe you should play it safe in CDs. We cannot take care of everyone’s unfortunate scenario that does not relate to how we have to collect taxes to provide services. We are going to talk about the monies later, but we are going to have to do massive cuts next year as will everyone else’s budget. Everyone is worried about paying their bills and that goes for the 273 taxing bodies, they have to figure out how to pay bills if you guys don’t give me my money on time. They are just like the people at home, except they have a lot bigger bills and a lot more things that can happen; teachers may not get paid or they have to borrow money which causes them to go on a watch list. We have not even talked about the fire districts and library districts and the situations they will incur if they don’t get their money in a timely fashion. I am all for helping any way we can. A four-payment plan that seems to be legal under the statute certainly could help, but it will hurt a lot of districts and us as well. If that is what everyone wants to go forward on. I think we need to let the 273 taxing bodies know our group at the county has decided that they will not get their money in a timely fashion so figure it out, we are throwing it on your budget.
Mrs. Dollinger stated I appreciate everyone’s input. A lot of good things are being considered. This has not been something they asked to happen and part of it has been the government’s choices that caused this. I do feel we need to show we can be compassionate and give some type of relief. With a four-payment plan, by August or September they will have paid three-fourths of the money. You may be short some but it will not be a quarter of the taxes because some residents will pay on time on the regular basis. There will be some that will choose to not pay on the June and September dates. Can we just waive the delinquent fees without changing the dates and keep June and September our dates? I was curious on that or do we have to have billing dates. Because if we chose to not have delinquent fees then that is more of an impact on the county and not necessarily the other taxing bodies.
Mrs. Tatroe stated my concern is if you waive the delinquent fee interest people won’t pay. There is no incentive to pay on time if you are not facing a delinquency. You will have the same situation if you put in the four different dates or if you delay the delinquent fee under option B to the time of the tax sale, there will be people who will wait until the very last day to pay; and those will be your massive corporations who will make a tremendous amount of money.
Ms. Ventura stated even if we changed the first amount to zero, legally there is nothing in the statute that would stop us. I understand what you are saying financially.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the statute allows you to move the delinquency dates as I said.
Ms. Ventura stated not to move the date just to change the first fee to zero. If people don’t make the first payment the fee is zero.
Mrs. Tatroe stated that is what this is. The statute I described is talking about the delinquency. You are talking about eliminating the delinquency fee entirely.
Ms. Ventura stated no, I am talking about lowering the amount to zero for the first date; not changing anything other than the rate the penalty is assessed. I am asking from a legal perspective is there anything that violates the statute?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I have not researched that so I don’t know, but I will look at it. The delinquency amounts are set by statute. I have not looked to see if there is provision allowing the county to just waive them.
Mr. Harris stated when you look at the penalty and interest there is history that people will pay late regardless of what we do at this committee. I would like to offer relief, but what are we relieving them of? Are we going to increase the number who will pay late and get away with it? I think that should be taken into consideration should we decide to move forward with any action.
Mrs. Traynere stated I don’t believe that just because we waive the late fee everyone is going to pay their taxes late. My suggestion initially was that this only be applied to homeowners, if they file an affidavit stating they are in a hardship situation. I was not interested in them not paying fees I wanted to do the four quarterly payments we discussed. My taxes are paid through a mortgage company. I don’t believe my mortgage company will claim a hardship and pay my taxes late. They are going to pay them on time like they normally do. I don’t feel this is going to have as big of an impact to the schools as if we allowed the corporations to pay their taxes late. That will hurt them because that is where a majority of the tax dollars come from. All I am suggesting is to allow the homeowners with a financial hardship that file an affidavit to pay in four payments instead of two payments.
Mrs. Tatroe you cannot choose between residential, commercial and industrial. If you want to do the four installments it is for all taxpayers.
Mrs. Traynere stated we do need to do something legislatively because that seems unfair. We should be able to decide who we will accept a late payment from.
Ms. Ventura stated I am okay if we apply it to everyone as long as they must show a hardship. This is unprecedented that we do take bold action. That is the job of the County Board to make policy and if needed, work with the legislative branch of the State to fix the statute where necessary. This is something we need to be doing now to help people. Mr. Fricilone, I don’t budget windfalls and unsecured funds, that is what I would use for discretionary spending. I only budget my bills based on money that is secure. I would like us to consider the same thing. I believe Ms. Howard does a good job of making sure people understand that. Shame on us if we are using $4 million in fees and penalties to pay bills that are necessary as opposed to discretionary. Every department has discretionary spending. I agree with Mrs. Dollinger, we need to show some compassion to our residents, but we need to have flexibility in our government as well as other local governments and I think everyone is being flexible whether it is the School Board or not. The future what ifs and fear tactics do not help us make good government. I understand looking at the consequences is smart, but using them as fear tactics to make it sound like we are not going to be getting any money and our schools will be shutting down is just not responsible. We are still bringing in the tax money we are just not bringing in the penalties. We need to be very clear when we are having this discussion that is where our focus is. This is $600,000 that could be lost. Not all of these other fears factors that are happening and they are not facts. I agree with Mrs. Traynere, not everyone will pay late. There will be lots of people who will pay. I think legislatively we need to drop the fees to zero for the first date and that seems to be the most reasonable thing until we can get the state to revise what they have to say. To Mr. Harris’ question who do we relieve? Those who are not working right now and those who were not working last month are the people we are helping. They have been unemployed but they may not be unemployed once the state opens up. In the compassion of what is happening right now it is prudent we make wise decisions in allowing people the relieve of paying in September. They will still pay their full amount they are just not being fined for the June payment.
Mr. Moustis asked how do you determine what a hardship is? That in itself could take us beyond June 1st. If you don’t think large corporations have hardships, think again. Our top paying taxpayers are corporations in the energy section. They are under stress and losing billions of dollars. I don’t know how you define hardship. I don’t know how you would get the tax bills out? How would you split it into four payments? A majority of the people pay things when they are due. If you make it due in June, they will pay in June. If you make it due in August, they will pay in August. It is not a matter of people welshing, they just pay things when they are due. How many of you pay your bills a month or two before it’s due? I don’t. I still think you need to look at the impact of this. I don’t know how you would set up hardships. Someone who has lost their job and now they are collecting unemployment, getting the federal unemployment and the stimulus check they are being kept whole for a few months. Are they in a hardship because they lost their job? What would the criteria be? Mrs. Tatroe how would we do that and make it legal and make people eligible?
Mr. Ferry stated is this considered an emergency? We have a $50 million emergency fund; couldn’t that to help with the $600,000 loss we will be experiencing?
Mr. Fricilone stated everyone has seen our top ten payers and the dollar amounts. I think about $73 million of revenue comes from the top ten. The top eight are ExxonMobil and Citgo. They are going to claim hardship and hang on to that money for whatever time we make it. That is the way corporations work. Ms. Ventura when you say we are fear mongering about school districts you don’t understand when we get the tax dollars, we immediately give it to the school districts and the other taxing bodies; that is when they get their money. If we let everyone go until September, those taxing bodies will not get a nickel until September from us. We don’t pay them and then wait to collect the taxes. When the tax is collected, they get their money and that is when they pay their bills, just like when someone gets a check at home; they pay their bills after they get the income. They would not have any money and would have to go out and do tax anticipation warrants so they have money to pay bills. It is not fear mongering. If the school districts are on tax anticipation warrants right now, it could push them right into the watch list of the State of Illinois. Maybe you should look at what the watch list is. It is when the State comes in and oversees the finances of that school district for a three-year period. They don’t just say oh you have money now and everything is fine. When you go on that list it is for an automatic three-year period. We are talking about putting some of the taxing bodies into dire straights. It is not about the $600,000 that we would not get in tax fees and penalties; it is about the potential $70 to $80 million we would not collect and not payout to those taxing bodies so they can exist.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I have also talked regularly with my fire districts. They had a meeting this morning and they mentioned this exact thing. They heard that different counties are doing this and they figured Will County would also consider this. Right now, their ambulance billing is down due to the calls being down. There are less calls because less people are working and less people are driving. They do their budget based on the number of expected calls they get and the payments they get from insurance companies. Because of the current situation, they are considering layoffs. You would think if the calls are down you could have less fire people, which may be true, but if you have a major incident in your area you need all your guys on deck. It is a significant thing that impacts all the taxing bodies and it makes it difficult for us because we want to show compassion to our residents but at the same time, we are the collector. The Will County portion is small compared to the others and the other taxing bodies are counting on getting that money. If we are going to delay payment you would have to have input from these taxing bodies. Today is May 5th and it would take a significant amount of time to get tax bills done and out in time to do that. IT would probably have a difficult time doing that in such a short period of time with testing to make sure the coding was correct. I know it is a difficult time and I would like to see compassion as well. We are also going to have lower tax because we are losing the sales taxes we count on. We will be looking at lower revenue than what we had budgeted for. This is a very difficult conversation. It is difficult for everyone in every aspect. I think we need to consider the fact we are the collectors and this does impact everybody.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked what is our reserve and can that reserve get us through a month or two?
Mr. Brophy replied Ms. Hennessy put out a document, which will be discussed later in the meeting, showing the cash reserves of about $18.4 million. That is what you should use when you consider decisions. Anything that goes into an analysis of a payer’s ability is going to be labor intensive and probably not possible to do. I think DuPage County is asking for an affidavit from the taxpayer, but I don’t think they are doing any underwriting of the situation with the requests they get. That would be an extraordinary challenge labor wise to perform.
Mr. Moustis asked what would be the cost to resent the tax bills? Do the penalties for the delinquent taxes include the tax sale? Because those taxes have been delinquent for a couple of years before they go to tax sale.
Mr. Brophy stated the three-month penalties last year totaled $568,000. The total penalties and interest collected last year was a little over $3.5 million. We must have other things in that line item.
Mr. Tuminello asked the $568,000 was the impact to Will County. When we collect late fees, do we pass them on, on a prorated basis to the taxing bodies?
Mr. Brophy stated the interest and penalties are kept by the county.
Ms. Howard stated the tax sale in December goes into that pool as well.
Mr. Tuminello stated at previous Finance meetings we were told that when someone pays a late fee it goes into a pool and it does get divvied up throughout the taxing bodies. Is that correct or do those fees stay at the county?
Mr. Brophy stated we retain 100% of the penalties.
Ms. Howard stated that is my understanding, any penalties and interest we collect all stays with the County.
Mr. Tuminello asked can we confirm that? If that is the case, there will be a much greater impact to these taxing bodies not getting their money on time if they are not getting the late fee money. They will go out and get the tax anticipation warrants, borrow money and they are not going to get any late fee money to pay interest on those warrants. I would like to see if someone can find out that information.
Mr. Shay stated there is an issue putting out four new bills. I have talked to staff about that. It will take a couple of months to rewrite and validate that all the changes were correct and that all the extension amounts were properly divided and reissued. That is a lot of risk to take on because the two-bill system has been in place for so long and so imbedded in the legislation. Each mailing costs about $50,000. The other thing that worries me is the bill is already on the street. If you issue four new bills you might be creating a substantial amount of confusion in the public. It would be brutal to do it this year.
Mrs. Traynere asked is there a reason we would have to issue four bills? Couldn’t we just accept four payments?
Mr. Shay replied you would have to determine what those payments would be. Then the Treasurer would have to track all of those individually, unless you set it as a specific dollar amount. I am not sure how you would do that across all the bills. Ms. Dunn asked isn’t it specified in the statute the quarterly payments.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the statute does allow for quarterly payments. In order for you to impose a delinquency you would have to let the taxpayer know how much is due on each date.
Ms. Dunn stated Ms. Ventura would like to know how much additional labor would it take for temporary or permanent employees and whether employees can be shifted around to accommodate something like that in a quick fashion.
Mr. Brophy answered you are talking about an unknown. It is hard to answer something we have never experienced before. The process would just be paper heavy if you required us to validate the need of a taxpayer. We would have to request tax returns, a letter from the employer that they were let go, unemployment insurance proof. Remember a lot of those unemployed will receive state and federal unemployment benefits. Mr. Tuminello, I wanted to mention that 21% of our receipts last year came from escrow accounts. You should expect to get a decent amount no matter what relief you provide.
Mr. Harris stated we have had a long discussion, but I have not heard what we would like to move forward to the Board.
Mrs. Traynere asked is there any reason a person could not just walk in and pay half of their first payment. I don’t see the need to reissue bills. When I cannot make payments to the hospital in full, I either call them or send in a partial payment. I don’t request a new bill divided up into quarters or months, I just pay it late.
Mr. Brophy stated they can pay part of their bill. You can provide relieve it is just that the system is set up presently such that penalties and interest start to accrue if the entire first payment is not received by June 3rd. If you instruct us to provide such relief then IT and the Treasurer’s Office will go to work on what is the will of the County Board.
Mrs. Traynere asked after the fact could you waive the penalty and interest from their account? If I paid one-quarter instead of one-half of my taxes; could that be waived after I make my fourth payment?
Mr. Brophy replied yes, it can.
Mr. Fricilone stated can you speak to the cost?
Mr. Brophy answered I can’t speak for Mr. Shay, but in my office it is labor. Currently, there are only six of us in here.
Mr. Fricilone stated while I want to do what we can legally; any costs we incur, extra IT work, extra people, extra overtime, that will be covered by COVID money from the CARES Act. I read the new legislation while we were on the NACo call yesterday. NACo was saying if it applies in dealing with issues from COVID we should be able to use that money.
Ms. Hennessy stated the delinquent taxes are in the corporate fund budget, it does not get distributed to any taxing body; it is the county’s money to keep. When the property taxes are collected it is not run through the county finance system, it is a separate collection and distribution system. All you see in our accounting records is the county’s share. We get 100% of the penalties and the tax sale.
Ms. Ventura stated I would like to have a future meeting with Mr. Brophy as to whether if the $600,000 was cut where would it need to be cut from and what employees he might need to make things happens. The motion I would like to make is to leave the dates as is, but to drop the first due date penalty to zero, if they can show a hardship and leave the second penalty due date and amount as is.
Mrs. Traynere seconded the motion. I especially feel this is important based on Mr. Fricilone’s comment that this will come from COVID-19 money. If that money is out there then this should be a no-brainer.
Mr. Harris asked what money are you talking about, covering what costs?
Mrs. Traynere stated the COVID money to cover the costs it would take for us to do the IT changes.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked if people were to come in, ask to have four installments and pay according to that schedule; is it necessary to reissue a corrected bill? Could we just make the adjustment in our IT system that would work and it would give us the opportunity to give the relief without having the expense?
Mrs. Tatroe answered I am not 100% sure. It might be possible and I will look into it today and get an answer back to you. I am just not sure that in order to charge interest you would not have to give them notice of what is due when. That is my concern, but maybe a Resolution is enough, I just need to research that a little more.
Mr. Moustis asked on the motion do we have the authority to make changes because the penalties and interest are there by statute? Do we have the ability to eliminate it and make it zero? The other part is you need to define hardship. It would have to be COVID related. You would have to make a determination what a hardship is. Then someone would have to make the decision whether it was a valid hardship. You have to put a mechanism in place. To move this motion forward without defining a hardship is problematic.
Mrs. Tatroe replied I described the two options you have with regard to penalties. One option is to do the four and the other, which I question whether you have the legal authority for is to delay it until the tax sale which is based on the hardship. You can do the four and there is not a hardship penalty or you can do these and hope a court will uphold it.
Ms. Ventura stated I think hardship can be defined the same way that DuPage County has defined theirs by being unemployed. I think we need to decide if it is needed by passing this motion. Then I think we should follow up and write something to the State Legislator from the Will County Board, through the Legislative Committee asking them to make a change to the state statute that would help all counties, not just the collar counties.
Mrs. Jakaitis read into the record five e-mails received and attached to these minutes.
Mr. Moustis stated my question on the motion is defining the hardship. Ms. Ventura mentioned she would do the same one as DuPage County. I have no idea what DuPage County did. I have no idea what they consider a hardship. What is a hardship in DuPage County may not be a hardship in Will County. Certainly, people have become unemployed and lost their jobs. But most of them, I would think are going to get unemployment both state and federal which makes most people whole at least for four months. I need to see what a hardship is. What is it; that you lost your money and you no longer qualify for unemployment? I still don’t understand how you would define a hardship.
Mrs. Tatroe stated it does not sound like you are following the statutes I don’t know. It sounds like you are just making up your process. If you do that obviously, we will defend you the best we can.
Ms. Ventura asked Ms. Dunn to read what DuPage County defined as a hardship.
Ms. Dunn replied specific to DuPage County, in order to receive relief the property owner must meet one of the following criteria. 1- The property owner was laid off or terminated from employment after March 9th, if the applicant had been employed for at least 90 days prior to termination. 2- The taxpayer has seen a reduction of income of 20% or greater. 3- A property owner has been unable to collect at least 80% of the collectable rent from March 1, 2020 to May 30, 2020; and 4- A business operated by a property owner located on that property was shut down after being classified as a non-essential and the applicant has not applied for and received the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) of the Coronavirus, Aid Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES). Mrs. Tatroe when you say we are not following the statute I am sure it is concerning for everyone. Could you expound on that because I don’t believe anyone wants to do anything that is not lawful.
Ms. Tatroe stated I have gone over the two options already. One of which I have indicated we do not fall squarely into. Clearly, that is what DuPage County has followed as have other counties. The option that is clearly legal is the four installments; which is problematic for the County from a logistical process at this point. I would say if you are moving forward with this motion, defining what hardship is is an essential term of the Resolution. It is hard to ask people to vote on this motion when people do not know what hardship is.
Ms. Ventura stated I will clarify the hardship I would like to use is the same four definitions or criteria from DuPage County.
Mrs. Traynere stated I agree and second the motion.
Ms. Dunn stated to be clear this would be to move this to the full Board for a vote.
Mr. Moustis suggested this be sent to the Committee of the Whole.
Ms. Dunn stated the Committee of the Whole on Thursday is not about taxes. It is for purposes of updates from various departments on any COVID-19 related changes. So, the Board is informed prior to the County Board meeting.
Mrs. Adams indicated there was less than 48 hours before the Committee of the Whole and the agenda could not be amended. Normally, something like this would go to the full Board and this can be discussed at the Executive Committee on May 14th when you set the County Board agenda, and it would be with a recommendation from Finance either up or down, with a vote of whatever. It would be moving to the full Board so the full Board has the chance to vote on it. That is how we have done things in the past.
Mrs. Jakaitis stated the motion is to leave the dates as they are drop the fees and penalties to zero with the hardship affidavit for the first payment.
Mrs. Adams added with the four hardships as defined by Ms. Dunn.
Mrs. Tatroe stated for clarification there would never be a penalty for the first installment.
Ms. Ventura stated the motion is to leave the dates as is and to drop the first due date penalty to zero if they can show a hardship. The second due date and penalty will remain as is.
Mr. Brophy asked are we confirming this hardship or are we accepting the affidavit?
Mr. Harris asked to have the motion restated.
Mrs. Adams stated to leave the dates as is and to drop the fees to zero for the first payment with the hardship affidavit with those four definitions of hardship and leave the second payment as is.
Ms. Ventura asked could Mr. Brophy tell us whether he would prefer an affidavit or if he needs a temp worker to help go through the application.
Mr. Brophy replied the affidavit would be simpler to underwrite and verify all of the information from the application would depend on the volume. I don’t know whether it would be a temp worker, it may be a dozen that would be need to do the work.
Mr. Harris stated no matter what we approve we have to tell the Treasurer’s Office so they can figure it out.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I want clarification with regard to the zero penalty, if the penalty is zero is that just until the tax sale? Because if the taxes are sold there needs to be a clear understanding of what penalties will accrue after the tax sale. Will it remain that there will be no penalties even after the tax sale on the first installment?
Mr. Brophy stated I think the intention of the Board Member and I can be corrected; is that the penalty and interest will be waived from the first installment until the second, but the entire tax bill would be due and payable on September 3rd. If not paid on September 3rd retroactively the interest and penalties would be assessed. That is my recommendation.
Mrs. Tatroe stated so the penalties would be assessed back to June 3rd if they are not paid on September 3rd?
Mr. Brophy replied that would be my recommendation.
Mrs. Traynere stated I seconded the motion and that is my understanding of what I was seconding.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I was not clear so thank you very much.
Ms. Dunn asked to have the motion read once again.
Mrs. Adams stated the motion is to leave the dates as is and to drop the fees on the first payment to zero with a hardship affidavit as defined by the four definition for the first payment only.
Ms. Dunn stated I think it should specify not just fees, but late fees. Would that be appropriate?
Mr. Brophy answered yes, penalties and interest.
Ms. Dunn stated you would be authorizing the Will County Treasurer to waive late fees and interest on property tax payments for taxpayers who can demonstrate financial hardship due to the COVID-19 crisis. Will that cover it?
Mr. Moustis stated we should add what Mr. Brophy just mentioned that if by the September pay the taxes are not paid, then the penalty and interest are applied going back to June 3, 2020. I think it is important to have that in there and defined in there.
Mrs. Traynere indicated she was in agreement with that.
Mr. Moustis stated I would amend the motion to reflect that.
Mrs. Adams stated then it will read if not paid by September payment all late fees and interest back to the first payment in June would be due or would be assessed.
Mr. Brophy agreed with the motion as read by Mrs. Adams.
Mrs. Traynere seconded the amendment to the motion made by Mr. Moustis.
Mr. Harris stated we have an original motion and a second. We also have an amendment to the original motion which has been seconded.
Ms. Ventura stated she was agreeable to amending her motion to that of Mr. Moustis without a vote.
Mr. Harris stated we are voting on the amendment first.
Mr. Fricilone asked to have the full motion read for clarification.
Mrs. Adams stated the motion is to leave the dates as is, dropping the late fees and interest to zero for the first payment for those who provide a hardship affidavit for the four defined hardships and if not paid by the September payment date all late fees and fines would be assessed back to June 3rd.
Mr. Fricilone asked is this for commercial and residential?
Mrs. Adams replied I don’t know if we need to specify that since Mrs. Tatroe said we cannot separate them so this will cover everything.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the hardship as defined did include businesses.
Mr. Fricilone stated you are saying this is illegal.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I don’t know that there is legal authority; that would be up to a court to determine. We would defend it the best we could. The statute does not clearly authorize it.
Mr. Fricilone stated if this is illegal, why not just include residential only. If we are not legal by the statute, what difference does it make if we cut out the commercial as well?
Ms. Ventura stated we are making this policy for everyone. If the corporations and business can show they have a hardship then they apply also. I don’t understand why you are frustrated with that.
Mr. Fricilone stated because I have a funny feeling Exxon and Citgo are not going to pay their taxes. They are having a hardship.
Mrs. Traynere asked did they get CARES money or PPP money; if they did, they are out.
Ms. Ventura reviewed the four hardships from DuPage County. If a company can show any of these, we should include them. I think this is not going to apply to those companies.
Mr. Fricilone stated you are saying anyone who receives PPP money; all the money the unemployment department is paying, if they receive that they don’t qualify if they received the extra $600.00.
Ms. Ventura asked Ms. Dunn to read the last line which included a loan in the write up.
Ms. Dunn stated for the DuPage County Ordinance you only have to meet one of the four criteria. Ms. Dunn read the four criteria for everyone to be clear.
Mrs. Traynere stated I don’t believe ExxonMobil was shut down or declared non- essential.
Ms. Ventura asked could we add a line, regardless of the other four, the company has not received CARES, PPE money or loans. I happy to entertain that amendment to this motion.
Mr. Brophy read from ILCS 200/21-27; waiver of interest penalty (attached). The statutes do mention waiver of interest penalties. Do all taxpayers quality under all four of these conditions; probably not. I don’t think you are doing something illegal; I think you are interpreting this statute.
Mr. Moustis stated Mr. Brophy just read us something from the statutes and it does seem like something we are able to pursue and be within the law. Mrs. Tatroe are you familiar with what he just read?
Mrs. Tatroe replied I am not familiar with it. I knew there was something out there where the Treasurer could waive on an individual basis. I don’t have the statute in front of me, but it sounds like it is on recommendation after a person has asked for it in writing. I know there were other things. It sounds to me like this is for individual people and it would be brought to the County Board when the individual taxpayer requests the waiver.
Mr. Moustis stated we are already requiring the hardship affidavit with the criteria attached. Why couldn’t we give the authority to the Treasurer or to the County Executive or a Committee to approve the applications? They are going to have to apply anyway through the affidavit for a hardship. I am trying to align this closer to the statute Mr. Brophy read.
Mrs. Tatroe agreed. I think this is a different way to do it. It certainly makes it more defensible.
Mr. Moustis stated we should cite the statute in the Resolution.
Mr. Brophy stated the statute does have limitations; it does not give us a full green light. It does at least speak to the possibility for waivers.
Mr. Moustis stated since everyone would have to be approved anyway, I think it is a way of doing it. It seems to be more within the state statute. It is just a matter of giving the authority to someone so it does not have to come to the full County Board, we could give someone the authority to execute the waivers along with the Treasurer. I would prefer that, because it puts it more in line with the statute. It makes me more comfortable to know there is a statute I can hang my hat on that seems to give us that authority.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I am reading this and it is for people determined eligible for a grant for senior citizens and people with a disability property tax relief act.
Mr. Brophy stated it gives us some authority to waive, it is not perfect for this situation.
Mr. Moustis stated I think it is a better statute to work off of since we are basically waiving the penalties and interest.
Mrs. Tatroe stated the last I heard it was on the motion as amended.
Mr. Moustis stated I believe in the motion Ms. Ventura made the penalty would be zero. Can we use the word waive instead of zero?
Ms. Ventura stated I only put it at zero because of the concern of the previous statute we were talking about. If you all fee that using the word waive, I am fine with that. I was trying to interpret it so it was not illegal or outside of our purview. If the word waive is better, I am fine with that and I can make that amendment to my motion.
Mr. Moustis stated I prefer waive only because we can refer back the statute even though it is not perfect, the statute Mr. Brophy cited, to me more compatible with the language saying waived rather than saying we reduced it to zero. The statute makes it sound like we have the ability to waive something but we may not have the authority to change it to zero.
Mrs. Adams stated that does make more sense, especially if it still is a possibility of collecting it based on what happens in September. The motion is to waive the late fees and penalties for the first installment with a hardship affidavit as defined by the four definitions, if it is paid by the second installment date.
Mr. Moustis stated I will amend my motion to use the waive rather than zero.
Mrs. Adams stated this will move to the full Board. There can be more discussion on Thursday, May 14th when you set the County Board agenda.
Motion to leave the dates as is and to drop the fees on the first payment to zero with a hardship affidavit as defined by the four definition for the first payment only if not paid by September payment all late fees and interest back to the first payment in June would be due or would be assessed
RESULT: APPROVED [8 TO 1]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
NAYS: Fricilone
Motion to Amend Motion and use the work waive not zero.
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
Motion to Approve as Amended
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Vice Chair
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
2. Presentation: Will County Treasurer's Investment Policy 2020 (Tim Brophy)
Mr. Brophy reviewed the Will County Treasurer's investment Policy 2020. The changes included a new date and where it referred to the Chief Investment Officer I included the Treasurer and any assigned staff. Instead of limiting the powers within the policy to one person who may be the Chief Investment Officer; it allows the Treasurer, the Chief Investment Officer if we have one, or a staff member appointed by the Treasurer to perform those functions.
Motion to Accept the Will County Treasurer's Investment Policy 2020
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, District 2 (R - Frankfort)
SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
3. Appropriating Grant Funds in Coroner's FY 2020 Budget (Pat O'Neil / Mary Baudino)
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, Mueller, Ventura
4. Authorizing County Executive to Accept Additional Funds Granted by the Department of Human Services/SUPR to the Will County FY20 Illinois Prevent Prescription Drug/Opioid Overdose-Related Deaths (IPDO) (Kathleen Burke)
RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora)
SECONDER: Herbert Brooks Jr., District 8 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
5. Disc Re: Revenue Projections (Karen Hennessy)
Ms. Hennessy stated the precautions put in place for the COVID pandemic are going to have a substantial impact on sales tax dollars. Based on our projections, the County is expected to experience a loss of sales tax revenue between $9 million and $26 million. The greatest impact on the loss of revenue will be in the corporate fund; however, it will also affect the RTA sales tax and MFT fund. Other county revenues could also be affected; court fees, fines, interest, but the main impact will be sales taxes. I want to clarify the term cash reserves. We probably use the term incorrectly. We do not have a pot of money sitting untouched. What we call a cash reserve is a measurement at the end of each fiscal year. Our policy is that we will have 25% of the upcoming budget year on hand at the start of the new fiscal year. That money does not sit untouched and it is there to get us through to the tax collection in June. I want to make a statement about property taxes; they are more than one-third of the corporate fund budget. Anything you delay will have some impact. I looked look at the revenue projections from several different perspectives. The revenue projected for the FY2020 budget was $212 million. We don’t expect to meet that and my handout shows five different snap shots.
Ms. Hennessy reviewed the handout in the agenda packet. Once I came up with the revised budget it gave me the projected loss of revenue. Based on our 2009 actual experience we could see a loss of revenue as much as $21 million. The others are a nice starting point, but I think our experience as we move forward with our actual sale tax collections we will be able to adjust this. The second part of what I did was I took the revised revenue and reduced it for the revenue we have already collected through April 30th to come up with what I project to be additional revenue for the remainder of FY2020. Subtracting the expenses and I made no assumptions about adjustment to expenditures to project fund balance or cash at the end of the year. Using our 2009 history it appears to me, we would end the year with $26 or $27 million in reserves and that does not meet our cash reserves threshold. All the columns are the impacts to revenue and how they would affect us at the end of the year. I did not take into consideration any adjustments to property taxes. That is something that we will have to consider as we update this. Our intent is to present this every month at Finance. We will not know the impact to the sales tax until June, that is when we will get the March sales tax dollars. For expenses we are currently paying staff. There is some expectation that we would get some reimbursement from the CARES money. We are still working through the guidelines and I think we need to be careful about our expectations. I will have more information on that as we move forward. Because our cash reserves at the end of the year will be so low, and we don’t know when the sales tax dollars will move up, it will impact the FY2021 and possibly FY2022 budgets.
Ms. Ventura asked are you giving this information to each department head so they are able to cut? When it comes to the comes to the County directly will we be given a priority list of what is easiest to cut versus what would be more detrimental as the numbers decrease?
Ms. Hennessy replied we can certainly share this with department heads. We can make some recommendations, but they know their own operations and where they could possibly cut and save money. I think the easiest or more prudent thing to do would be give them a direction for the FY2021 budget that it will be cut by a certain percent and have them start thinking about that now. We are almost half way through our fiscal year. Most of the corporate fund expenditures are salaries. That would entail layoffs or reductions and that is not something I could make a decision on. We can certainly let department know that we are looking for them to scale back. That direction comes from the Board, not from the Finance Director.
Ms. Ventura stated when I said recommendations, I meant to us for what we can control, but a heads up to the department based on these numbers. I agree, giving them a future percentage would be very helpful. We have recently lobbied the federal government on more local dollars and you said you are going through the CARES act. As stuff comes in perhaps you needed to give us more direction on what we should specifically be asking for. You were talking about payroll; if we need to be asking the federal government for more dollars for that could you please share that with us or the Legislative Committee so we can make sure our asks are appropriate would be helpful.
Ms. Hennessy stated the biggest problem for all governments with the COVID pandemic is the loss of revenue. The CARES funding, as generous as it is, prohibits it from being used to replace revenue. Mr. Palmer is aware of that and I believe they have been lobbying and pushing for that. the new guidance that came out still does not allow it to be used for loss of revenue. I think it is more difficult to get to individual expense types because everything does not apply across the board. Loss of revenue is a real problem for everyone, easily explainable and easy to grab and calculate. When you whittle it down to a type of expense it gets more difficult. I will certainly let the Board know as we move forward. We would like to make the best use of the money as we can.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I wanted to make a few comments regarding the revenues. It would be wise for department heads to seriously look at their budget and their staffing and determine if there is any way they can do what they need to with an employee or two less. No one wants to talk about that, but in the private sector they let people go for various reasons including less revenues coming in, being shut down by the government, which is no fault of their own. Our employees are public sector employees and they have not been impacted. We are going to be hearing some fussing about that. I know our employees don’t want to hear me saying this and I don’t blame them, but when I worked at a private company and we were in a recession we were all hit, there were layoffs, pay cuts and all kinds of things that had to be considered. I don’t know if any type of early retirement package would work to help reduce that. I understand with early retirement packages there is a payout, but I think we should look at all avenues. We have no idea where this is going to take us in the future. It is very likely it could last longer than any of us want, I am hoping the virus goes away or we have enough herd immunity. I think we need to do this. Every department head and elected official need to seriously look at what they have, what staffing they really need and where cuts might be able to be made as well as if early retirement packages could help. I think this is something we need to seriously consider moving forward because we will be experiencing this loss of revenue.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree with Mrs. Ogalla, this is going to be a people count. I think there is no time like the present to begin analyzing and looking at it. On the revenue side, I don’t know where this money will come from, but they are already talking about CARE package 2 where they would help with local and state government revenues. I believe the money the government has given out is way too much. The $120 million we got, if you don’t spend it all, it goes back. I have a feeling there will be a lot of excess that may then shift over to loss revenues. Not that we can plan for that. We have to plan for the worst-case scenario and that is why we need to start looking at people count right away. You cannot cut enough paper and pencils to make up what these revenues will look like.
Ms. Hennessy stated I have been communicating with my counter parts in the other counties. An approach many of them are using is having levels to address this. Level one is what can they do currently to reduce expenditures. Their using the same process of going through their committees then to the Board to direct departments to make the reductions they can. Some of them are amending their budgets, reducing what is in departments if they are considering things that can be put off. I don’t know if we can do that, but certainly asking departments to make whatever adjustments they can. Again, for the FY21 and FY22 budgets being very clear up front if there is going to be a 5% reduction or something of that size, the departments will have time for that. The budget process is starting soon. Government moves slow and there are a lot of rules and regulations for a reason. It is hard to stop and react to something right now, but we certainly can plan for next year. If you wanted to direct departments if they have $10,000 left in their budget for this year, if they could reduce it by a small percentage. Mr. Fricilone is correct, pencils and paper will not get us through this. At least it sets the tone we are doing what we can to live within our means.
6. Monthly Corporate Fund Budget to Actual Report for November 30, 2019 (ReShawn Howard)
Ms. Howard stated the budget guidelines for FY2021 have gone out. In those guidelines I did communicate that we would see an impact to some of the revenue streams for FY2020 and I directed department heads and elected officials to budget what was absolutely necessary for FY2021. Due to the impact of the COVID to our FY2020 revenues we could see a reduction in the FY2021. The guidelines are out there to give the department heads and elected officials framework to formulate their FY2021 budgets. As we get into the budget planning process, which will be beginning in a few weeks, budget conferences begin on June 1st we can talk more about whether there is a percentage they need to think about. If there is a percentage they need to think about at that time. We have many months that goes into planning the next year’s budget so we have plenty of opportunities to continue the discussion as far as reductions.
Ms. Howard reviewed the handout in the agenda packet.
Mr. Harris asked on the charges for services, the interest and penalties line item, is that the penalties and interest for the last payments of property taxes?
Ms. Howard responded in the affirmative. You will see we budgeted $3 million for FY2019 and we brought in $3.5 million.
Mr. Fricilone stated when we look at salaries at 52% and fringes at 26% those fringes are not directly attributable to salaries are they? Don’t we have fringes we could be paying after a person has left?
Ms. Howard replied yes, keep in mind what is also included in there is the accelerated IMRF payment we pay.
Mr. Fricilone asked is there a way you can break that pie and have fringes directly attributable to salaried employees.
Ms. Howard responded if you back out the accelerated IMRF payment then it would be a little lower.
Mr. Fricilone stated then it really gives us the true number of what the employees are costing us. I think it was 68% of the budget, so everyone know that is the big piece of the pie; but we don’t want to include the fringes that are outside of the employee.
Ms. Howard indicated that could be done.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked the department that went over, is it possible for us to see how that occurred? Where they went over and perhaps that would provide some information. Was it because we did not budget enough or perhaps there is something that we do to trim the budget?
Ms. Howard replied we do provide that. As was stated most of that comes from salaries. It could be from some overtime or we did not budget enough. In order to balance the budget we did reduce some of the departments. Each year there are contractual increases that occur. Some department could go over there. We have to pay people.
7. Assignment of Tax Sale Certificates (Julie Shetina)
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] TO: Will County Board
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
SECONDER: Meta Mueller, District 5 (D - Aurora)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
8. Authorizing County Executive to Execute Necessary Documents for Delinquent Tax Program (Julie Shetina)
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, Mueller, Ventura
VI. OTHER NEW BUSINESS
VII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Ventura stated I had a constituent contact me about wanting to know which grants were available, specifically for nonprofits, churches and social clubs. Ms. Dunn sent me a number of links. I did not know if it was possible for Ms. Dunn to report here for the whole committee because other districts might be interested in this. I went through the links and did not see anything specific to those entities unless it was related to food or housing. Is there anything specifically you could add?
Mr. Harris asked to have the information sent to all County Board Members.
Ms. Dunn stated if there is an organization interested in grants, any one of them can use those links to look up their own organization or to do their own research to determine whether they are eligible for grants. It is a very complicated process and I would be hesitant to tell someone whether or not they are eligible for grants and I would caution the Board Members.
Ms. Ventura stated the reason this came up is the newspapers are reporting on COVID and CARES money coming to the County. People are asking does this apply to us? Specifically, it would be because of the new funding coming down that many of us are not prepared to answer questions on. I know the County is continuing to go through the CARES act to see what relates to us. If we are finding that information, are we are putting the information out to the community as a whole that there may be dollars available to people in our area and how they would go about applying.
VIII. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION
X. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:31 PM
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, District 7 (R - Homer Glen)
SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, District 9 (D - Joliet)
AYES: Harris, Traynere, Brooks Jr., Dollinger, Ferry, Fricilone, Moustis, Mueller, Ventura
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=3757&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up