Will County Finance Committee met Sept. 7.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Marcum led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 1:20 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Chair | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present |
Also Present M. Mueller, M. Johannsen and N. Palmer.
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Finance Committee - Regular Meeting - Jul 6, 2021 11:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
1. Monthly Summary - Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Collections
(Karen Hennessy)
Mr. Fricilone asked based on the budget and the actuals, are we on track to hit or exceed the budgeted number? I am looking against last year’s number, which was not a normal year. Do you think we are on target to hit our budgeted number?
Ms. Hennessy displayed the information in the agenda packet and stated the first chart compares the FY21 budget to what we have received. At this point, 75% of our fiscal year has passed and almost every one of these is in excess of the budgeted amount. The only one with a small timing difference is MFT. The difference to where we are, at this point in FY2021 compared to where we were in the same point of FY2020, is $400,000. Since FY2020 was not a normal year, it is hard to determine exactly what has caused that. I don’t think it is anything, at this point, we need to be concerned about. We will see what happens in the next month or two.
Mr. Fricilone stated we are probably not in a normal year when it comes to fuel and that might have something to do with it as well. As long as we are on track with the other stuff, that’s good.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorizing Expanded and Enhanced Training Program for the UKG Payroll System
(Bruce Tidwell)
Mr. Fricilone asked where is the money coming from? Is this something we are budgeting for next year? Where are we putting it into the FY2022 budget?
Mr. Shay replied Ms. Howard said it could be from corporate or contingency in the FY2022 budget.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Discussion)
Mr. Fricilone asked on the first page of the 2022 requested and the current levy, where do you get those numbers from?
Ms. Howard replied that is the previous year’s numbers.
Mr. Fricilone asked do you just put in the same number?
Ms. Howard relied yes, it is the same number. I am waiting on the figures from the Supervisor of Assessments to do the levy calculation.
Mr. Harris stated those numbers came out today.
Mrs. Traynere stated this budget book seems to be double the size of last year’s budget book. I thought the new program would make things more streamlined and possibly smaller. Can you elaborate on that? Is there a reason it is still big?
Ms. Howard replied the new system helped streamline a lot of the information. The budget book is large because I wanted to make sure all the information was visible and readable for you. There is a lot of information and data in the front of the budget book; including our budget planning process, financial structure and a revenue and expense rollup. There is a lot of detailed information in the budget book and that is the reason it is thicker than last year.
Mr. Moustis added the print is also larger.
Ms. Howard reviewed the spreadsheet in the agenda packet.
Mr. Harris asked when is the delinquent tax sale? There is no number in the year to date column.
Ms. Howard replied the delinquent tax sale is normally held toward the end of the year. We should see a year to date number before the budget is finalized.
Mr. Harris asked do you estimate $3 million for next year? Even with the property tax relief, are people still delinquent?
Mr. Brophy stated the tax sale for the current collection will not be until January of 2022. Then it will go back to November in 2022. We may have two tax sales in one budget year, causing an anomaly for this budget.
Ms. Ventura stated we talked about the changes the State made to court fees and tickets. Is that in one of these sections? We did not know the full extent of the program or how it would affect us until it was in place for a full year. We have had the full year; is that in this section?
Ms. Howard replied it is coming up.
Mrs. Traynere stated I am looking at my budget book, but I am not seeing the same thing you are showing. I don’t have the variance percentages at the end.
Ms. Howard replied that is not in the budget book; it is in the agenda packet. The variance amount was prepared just for this meeting.
Ms. Howard continued with a review of the spreadsheet.
Ms. Ventura stated last year the State allowed them to delay their licensing and I don’t know if people were paying in 2021 or not. Is that reflected? Did you take that into account when you did those numbers?
Ms. Howard stated I took that into account. Because we do our budget so far in advance, it is difficult to project for 2022, but we look at the actual historical numbers. We also look at where we are year to date versus the same time period the previous year, to see if we are below budget or exceeding the budget. That was factored in as well.
Ms. Ventura stated I just wanted to make sure we were not inflating the dollars.
Mr. Moustis stated the nursing home is a real concern of mine. We can hope that things will get better at the nursing home. Hopefully, allowing out of county residents into the nursing will help. But until this COVID crisis is truly over or people feel more comfortable with it, people will be reluctant to put their loved ones in these types of facilities; they will avoid it, if they can. I believe we are looking at more of the same for next year. What concerns me is the revenue goes down, the census goes down, but the cost of the operations never seem to go down; even though there are fewer people there. I have said this in the past, we would be better off giving people money and letting them go somewhere else. We are spending $120,000 plus, per resident, per year. I realize a lot of it is paid for by the resident or by the State or Medicaid, but it seems the County Board is going to be asked to use more general tax revenues to support the operation. This may not be the only one. I am concerned about those other areas that generate revenue and are seeing their revenue dropping. You can apply the same comments to the judicial system; the revenues are going down considerably, but I don’t see any costs going down. Can you comment on this and how we are trying to address this on the operational cost side? Are we going to be able to make any headway there? At Sunny Hill, for the last 30 years, even though the census goes down, because we have mandatory this and mandatory that, we can never seem to decrease the cost of the operation.
Ms. Ventura stated I will make a blanket comment; we can try to make sure that the cost of services provided, especially when they are revenue generated, equal out, at the end of the day, government is not a business. We can’t justify services based on our return on investment. We offer valuable services and if they have to come out of the general fund, i.e. taxes, then that is what we have to do. Obviously, we don’t want to do that. To Mr. Moustis’ point, if there are areas where we need to be more in line; Sunny Hill or the judicial services, we should look at that. However, we provide very important services to seniors, some without retirement benefits or homes to live in. This is an amazing service we provide and not every county provides this. One of the gold standards I look at is how Sunny Hill made out during COVID. They won an award recently because they kept their residency. That is a service many of us value. That is my blanket statement about us not being a business and if our tax dollars have to go toward services, we should continue to do that. It is the job of government. To echo Mr. Moustis; maybe it is better to drop the recommended FY2022 revenue amount down to be more in line with what we anticipate we will get this year. We won’t get the $11 million that is in the budget for Sunny Hill. In 2021 we were only up $3.5 million. I think we should be a little more conservative. It seems like $8.5 million is still a hefty lift. That might be an area we need to drop down. Maybe If you look at the housing of prisoners. In 2019 it was $3,000; in 2020 and what we got this time was a couple of hundred. Why are we projecting $4,000? I recognize it is such a little number in reference to how big our budget is, but are we expecting to bring more prisoners in that will cost a bunch of money between now and the end of the year? Why did we budget for FY2022 at a higher amount?
Ms. Howard replied to answer your question about Sunny Hill; this projection came directly from Sunny Hill Nursing Home. It is based on their previous year’s projections and they dropped that down based on what they anticipated to receive for reimbursements, based on their current census. As for the housing of prisoners; 2020 was an unprecedented year and there may not have been movement. As you can see, there has been very little movement in 2021. That projection was dropped a little, because when they resume their normal schedule, that revenue line could increase.
Ms. Ventura asked if we wanted to amend any of these numbers that might affect other departments, do we need to have those departments come in and justify their numbers? Does this Committee have the ability to say, I appreciate the fact that Sunny Hill came in at $8.5 million, but we would like to see more conservative numbers in our budget and we want to drop that down to $5 million? What is the process? What is our right and what is not our right?
Ms. Howard replied we are having the discussion. This is the first draft of the projections. It would be prudent to have the departments come in and speak first hand of the revenues, if they are aware the revenue streams could be decreasing significantly. Some revenue projections come directly from the departments, such as Sunny Hill, the Circuit Clerk and the Sheriff’s Office. However, these numbers can change. That is what we are doing throughout this process and the reason we are having these discussions now.
Ms. Ventura asked what is the process if we wanted to have someone come before us? Would we just ask it at this Committee or do we need to do something more formal to have them come to the Committee.
Mr. Harris stated tell us what you would like to see. Keep in mind, they have already gone through this process during the budget meetings.
Ms. Ventura stated I am not that concerned about the $4,000, because if we are off on that, there is contingency to cover that. But if we are off by $3.5 million at Sunny Hill, that is a lot of money to have to move around. Something like that would be more concerning.
Ms. Howard continued the review.
Ms. Ventura asked are we treating the ARPA and CARES differently? There were some grants for contact tracing. Is that in the book?
Ms. Howard replied some of the grants received in 2020 for that have either been expended or ended for FY2022. That is reflected in some of the federal grants.
Ms. Ventura continued for the contact tracing, that was only for one year and it does not continue into future years.
Ms. Howard stated for some of the grants under the CARES Act, the funds were received in FY2020 and if they did not expend all of those funds and they carried them over, it would have been in the FY2021 budget. We do not anticipate those funds would continue for FY2022.
Mr. Moustis asked were the ARPA funds received in 2021?
Ms. Howard replied that is correct.
Mr. Moustis continued was that revenue reflected in the FY2021 budget?
Ms. Howard replied that money was in the FY2021 budget, but that money has not been expended yet, so it does carry over to the FY2022 budget. It is a special fund and it is accounted for in the special funds.
Mr. Moustis asked is there $67 million in the budget?
Ms. Howard answered yes, the $67 million has been budgeted for in the FY2022 budget.
Mr. Moustis clarified since we have not expended it, the $67 million is reflected in the revenue, but it is not reflected in the budget for expenditures, is that correct?
Ms. Howard replied that is correct.
Mr. Moustis stated the budget could theoretically be another $67 million, if we budgeted it all.
Ms. Howard responded yes; you are talking about the FY2022 budget, is that correct?
Mr. Moustis replied yes.
Ms. Ventura asked are we expecting to get more ARPA money in 2022? Ms. Howard replied yes, there will be another allocation in 2022. Ms. Ventura asked is that in the special funds?
Ms. Howard responded that is not. The allocation for 2021 has been carried over and budgeted for in 2022. The allocation we will receive in 2022 is $67 million and is not included yet.
Ms. Ventura asked is that because it will be for 2023?
Ms. Howard replied yes. I know this gets a little confusing because we are in 2021 and we are taking about 2022.
Mr. Harris asked Ms. Ventura if she had her budget book; the information is on page 498. Just so we are clear, it is reflected in the budget as revenue under the special funds, but the expenditure has not been reflected. As Mr. Moustis stated, it is possible we have an extra $67 million in our budget.
Mr. Moustis asked if we know we are going to receive the second installment of $67 million in FY2022, why would we not reflect it? I realize it would not get budgeted until 2023, but why would we not recognize the grant in the 2022 budget in the special fund? When we anticipate grants, we put the grants in the budget, even though we have not received the money, but it is anticipated we will get the money. Why would we not do the same here?
Ms. Howard replied we can do that, we can add an anticipated line and anticipate the $67 million we will receive in 2022.
Mr. Moustis stated I think that is a good practice, just to reflect it in the budget year where the activity actually took place.
Ms. Howard stated we can add the anticipated so we are anticipating the other half of the ARPA funds and once that is received it will go into the special funds and then we would budget to expend that in FY2023.
Mr. Harris asked where would the emergency rental assistance fall into this? Ms. Howard replied it was a special fund; it would not be in the corporate fund. Ms. Howard continued with the review of the spreadsheet.
Ms. Ventura asked are these the fees they thought would change, but they really didn’t change that much?
Ms. Howard replied correct. These are charges for services. The Sheriff’s area is another area where there is a decline. This is due in part to the court system and fees for services that were impacted by COVID. The judicial system resumed normal operations this summer, so we anticipate there will be some stabilization of the revenue. We believe we will see an uptick in some of these fees in FY2022.
Ms. Ventura asked what happened to the Treasurer’s fees in 2020 and the Supervisor’s fees? We have nothing going forward.
Ms. Howard responded the Supervisor of Assessments Office was providing services to one of the townships and they will no longer be providing that service in 2022; that is why there is no projection here.
Ms. Ventura asked why were there no fees in the Treasurer’s Office for 2020? Was that a CARES related thing? There was nothing budgeted in 2020, but for 2022 we have $84,000 for the publication, did we not publish any delinquency notice in 2020?
Ms. Howard replied I think you are looking at the incorrect columns. If you look at the 2020 actuals, there is an amount there. The total amount collected for fees in the Treasurer’s Office was $445,000.
Ms. Ventura stated the printed version is not like that. My 2019 is $88,965 and in 2020 the entire column is zero.
Ms. Howard stated those numbers have been updated that is why the numbers are different.
Mr. Moustis stated I really want to focus on the lost revenue calculation. It is a calculation and they give you the formula, so we should know the calculation. Why is that not reflected in the budget? I am bringing that up because it is loss revenue and they are allowing us to take some ARPA funds to reflect it. That is what could boost up the nursing home and others, if we need to. We should know the calculation. We have already given them the calculation. We can’t be off that much, because they gave us the formula and said plug in your numbers. That should be reflected and appropriated into the budget as it is adopted.
Ms. Howard stated that is the next item on the agenda. Ms. Hennessy will go over the calculation for the lost revenue and the number that was provided for the reporting.
Mr. Moustis stated we should reflect that we are appropriating some of those dollars, whether it is in the nursing home, where we know there is lost revenue, or some other areas needing additional support. That is why they gave us the ability to take lost revenue. We should reflect that in the budget to show as one of the funding sources for the nursing home.
Ms. Ventura stated I agree with Mr. Moustis. I would feel more comfortable budgeting for less, especially for Sunny Hill, then marking those dollars as lost revenue and marking in the budget where those dollars will go to when they come in. One of the other programs I am looking at is the Sheriff’s foreclosures. We took in less money this year, with the moratorium, as well as in 2020. I assume Governor Pritzker is going to lift that soon; the federal government has lifted theirs. What happens if for some reason it continues on? Then we have almost $200,000 budgeted for it. I guess we should leave that for now, but before we finalize the budget, if anything is happening, that might be another area we put in some lost revenue. We need to highlight or flag that item as potentially lost revenue for those funds as well.
Ms. Howard indicated she would make note of that.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree. We need to put that as a revenue replacement line in the revenue and bring it in. Otherwise, we are going to keep getting these phony budgets, with numbers that are $60 million lower than the budget. We are not really $60 million down; that is misleading. We had the CARES money that came through that changed all the numbers. If we took that and we are not putting in this revenue or we are not putting in the ARPA money, then those numbers don’t mean anything, except a good photo op in the newspaper that we are down $60 million, when in actuality we are not; we are up. We need to put that money in the budget.
Mr. Moustis asked can we put a lost revenue line item in the budget? Ms. Howard replied I am not sure, but I can look into it.
Ms. Ventura stated I don’t know if we want to redo this, but if we used CARES dollars in the corporate revenue that might be an area (inaudible). For example we got $189 in foreclosures then you have a line item under it that says CARES or ARPA dollars, then revenues would be listed. I don’t know if we want to break it down like that, but maybe going forward with the ARPA money, it makes sense because that money has not been spent yet and as we spend it we could have those line items in there. While they look like revenue, they were special funds that were allocated into our corporate needs.
Ms. Howard reviewed the fines and forfeitures in the spreadsheet. After the draft was finalized I received an updated number from the Circuit Clerk’s Office for traffic fines and the decrease is not as significant as shown here. The number will change and be updated, but we are still down. I have jotted down the suggestions made today on the use of lost revenue and that could fill in some of the gaps where we have seen a decrease in some of the revenue categories.
Ms. Ventura asked what is the $20 million in anticipated new revenue?
Ms. Howard replied we have spent down part of the anticipated line, I don’t want to use the word contingency. This is basically the remaining and any other anticipated new revenue we may receive; it is just a placeholder.
Ms. Venture asked where do we normally anticipate new revenues coming in from? If we did not have CARES or ARPA, where would we normally get new revenue from?
Ms. Howard replied normally it would be grants and any contingency we are anticipating.
Mr. Harris stated I am trying to understand the $67 million of ARPA money. Are you suggesting we put it in the corporate side now? I understand the way it was presented, but it is already in the special funds. We have not had any discussions on the use of the ARPA funds.
Ms. Ventura asked are you talking about the replacement dollars? We had a formula where we could apply for that replacement revenue. As an example, we could use those dollars to replace Sunny Hill’s fees that were down. It was just identifying them in here because they were used for what would have been in the corporate revenue already. We are not talking about special projects coming forward with the ARPA dollars.
Mr. Harris asked are you talking about taking part of the $67 million and listing it as lost revenue?
Ms. Ventura asked are the calculated loss of revenue dollars different?
Ms. Howard replied I don’t want to confuse the two, because I don’t know what the guidelines say about lost revenue. We should have further discussions before we get into what can be taken from the $67 million.
Mr. Fricilone stated we got the explanation at NACo and basically the formula that Ms. Hennessy used, was the formula you use to show what your revenue loss was anticipated for this year, next year and the following year. You get to take this revenue loss for three years. Even though Ms. Hennessy’s number is still an estimate, we are looking at about $5 million. If we are able to take $5 million of the $67 million we received this year as revenue replacement, it should be in the anticipated new revenues, just like the CARES Act was. We are anticipating we will be able to move that money over once we get the ARPA money rolling. We could then show our revenue grand total is not $16 million down, it is only $10 million down, which is a little more realistic than what it shows right now.
Mr. Harris asked what is the total revenues anticipated in the corporate budget?
Ms. Howard replied $142.9 million.
4. American Rescue Plan (ARP) Revenue Loss Calculation - Attachment Added (Karen Hennessy)
Ms. Hennessy stated this formula was provided by the U.S. Treasury and it mirrors what NACo suggested. This is only for the general fund. The guidelines require us to use a calendar year, not our fiscal year. At the top of the screen you will see the County’s FY 2020 total revenue, which we are still in our audit process. We removed December 2019 and added December 2020 to come up with a calendar year. One of the other steps in the calculation process is you compare your own three year history, which is at the bottom. The guidelines allow a 4% growth. Our three history, based on fiscal year, is at 4.16%. While 4% seems high, that is our average growth for the fiscal years 2016 through 2019.
Ms. Hennessy reviewed the document in the agenda packet.
Ms. Hennessy stated Ms. Howard and I will work together to figure out the best presentation in the budget. My impression is it would be similar to the other safety reimbursement and it would be a reduction to the expenditures. I will review the guidelines and Ms. Howard and I will review the best way to present that and we will explain where it is in the budget. We received $67 million and that is revenue for us. I can’t now record $5.7 million more of revenue because we are using that $67 million; this is a use of the $67 million, just like we used CARES money to reimburse us for the public safety salaries. I don’t know anyone who has taken the estimated revenue loss yet. I will also reach out to the other counties to see what their presentation method is in their financial statements.
Ms. Ventura stated a point about calculating for each year; are we anticipating that the amount will increase or decrease? Our growth average may change. It looks like we had a pretty strong year in 2017. Next year, when we take the last three years, that will drop off and we are going to be closer to 3% or it might increase. Are we including the CARES and ARPA dollars in the calculation?
Ms. Hennessy replied this is only for the corporate fund. We cannot use any special revenue funds. Special funds are set up because they have a dedicated revenue source, they are not part of this calculation.
Ms. Ventura asked even if we later move them over?
Ms. Hennessy replied if we move it over, it would only be for the estimated revenue loss. Otherwise, we would reduce expenditures. To go back to the beginning of your question, when you pick the method, if you are going to use the growth factor that is allowed, you stick with that. You can’t change the method if it is more beneficial. If our average goes from 4.16% to 4.75% we don't get to change the method. Once you make the determination, you stick with it.
Ms. Ventura asked how do you know what the method is, to use the last three years for an average?
Ms. Hennessy replied that is the comparison; you can do one or the other. You can't go back and forth. The growth factor that is allowable through the Treasury is 4.15%. They suggest you do a three year projection of your own to see what your rate is. Our rate is the same. Once we elect to use the growth factor, we can't go back and change it to a different method.
Ms. Ventura continued so the 4.1% is their growth and we are fine with that. In the future, it is going to be whatever they set it at; probably about 4.1%.
Ms. Hennessy replied that is my understanding. We will do the calculation every year to determine what the estimated revenue loss is, but I don't believe the growth factor is going to change. What will change is our revenue numbers.
Mr. Moustis stated I understand what you are saying; the $5.7 million is part of the revenue that is already shown in the ARPA money. But what we were talking about was appropriating the $5.7 million into the budget now; which would reduce what is sitting there for ARPA money, which is currently unappropriated for specific needs in the budget. You are not saying we should not budget the $5.7 million.
Ms. Hennessy replied we need to figure out the most appropriate method of reflecting it in the budget. We have shown that $67 million came in and we have a $67 million contingency line item for that fund. Once the Board determines the programs using the ARPA money, we would move it from the contingency fund into other professional services or awards. Just like we did with the CARES money, we will move it into the expense line item it belongs in. The $5.7 million will be a step in that process.
Mr. Moustis stated there are very liberal uses of the ARPA money. The point is the $5.7 million will not have any restrictions; we can use that money for anything we choose.
Ms. Hennessy stated one of the questions in the interim report was what did you decide to do with the money. Since we have not used it I was able to put in N/A. I don’t think there are restrictions on what you do with it, but I will confirm that.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think there are restrictions on the revenue loss side, but they wanted to ask. It is even more important for us to decide, so we can say we used the money for our nursing home, for lost revenue, due to the impacts of COVID. We should decide on the $5.7 million and we will look for your guidance on how to do that. It is even more important, now that we have to say how the money was used.
Mr. Fricilone stated I understand what you are saying about not putting it in the budget, but the budget is already skewed. Everybody is reporting the budget is down $16 million. It really isn’t. Now we are going to show it again and then you are going to dump it again and next year it is going to look like the budget came down again. Realistically, we know we are going to get a portion of that money. If it is $5.7 million, we know it is anticipated new revenue. Why are we not showing it as anticipated new revenue? I understand where you have it now, but it is anticipated new revenue. We are going to take it now and probably for the next two years. It just skews the actual numbers when we don’t put it where it is supposed to go. From what I understand, we can use this money for whatever we want.
Ms. Hennessy stated I am not suggesting we don’t put it in the budget, but we received this money in FY2021. If we take any action to take this lost revenue money, it has to be recorded and it is not anticipated at that point; it is real revenue or a real reduction to expenses. That is what we need to figure out. I understood your question to be; do we want to anticipate for FY2022 another $5.7 million in lost revenue. I think this is going to be addressed before the budget is adopted. The Board should be working toward what we are going to do with the ARPA money and this would be a step in that.
Mr. Fricilone stated so we need to anticipate that next year’s money will be in the budget that will come in. We need to figure out what our third year is going to be even though we are only going to get money twice. We want to make sure we are able to capture that money and not use it on something else, if we still have that third year of revenue loss, which I anticipate we will.
Ms. Tyson asked you said this money would be reported as real revenue in 2021 in the corporate fund, is that correct?
Ms. Hennessy replied that is what I need to figure out; if we record it as revenue or a reduction to expenses. I need to clarify. We received the ARPA money in June. Before the budget is adopted in November, the Board would make a decision that we are going to take this revenue money and record it in FY2021. Then we would amend the FY2022 budget for what we anticipate the loss to be for FY2021. We always have to be a year behind.
5. Appropriating Restore, Reinvest, and Renew (R3) Planning Grant (Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
Ms. Ventura ask Ms. Hennessy for an explanation on why we don't pay taxes on these?
Ms. Hennessy replied when the County issues debt, we issue it as a general obligation debt of the County and we identify an alternative revenue source to cover the debt service. The general obligation is an insurance for the investors. If we don't identify or don't set aside the funds to pay debt service, it gets added to the property taxes. What we are doing for each of our bond issuances is saying we already deposited the money in the debt service payment fund for next year. Then when you set the levy, these debt service numbers would not be included. This is built into the budget and we do this annually. We are not setting aside $57.4 million; we are setting aside debt service on this outstanding principal amount. It is a smaller amount of this.
Ms. Ventura continued otherwise the $57.4 million is included in the budgeted amount and we will levy taxes to meet that budgeted amount and that would inflate how much property taxes people are paying. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Hennessy stated it would not be the $57.4 million, it would be the debt service that is owed in FY2022 on the outstanding principal. The series 2010 bonds are road bonds and the debt service is roughly $8 million. If we did not abate the taxes, the $8 million would be added to the property taxes.
Ms. Ventura stated because it says $57 million and the next one is $4 million, when you add up all of our bond debt, it is only $8 million.
Ms. Hennessy stated the information on the agenda is the outstanding principal, not the debt service. We already have the money sitting in the debt service fund to pay the principal and interest that is due next year, not the whole $57 million.
Ms. Ventura stated in the future, when the Resolutions are written, perhaps they could put in parenthesis the exact amount we are talking about or write it to actually reflect those dollars.
Ms. Hennessy stated the actual amount is listed as debt service in the back of the budget book; showing what is due for each of these. I have the budget here and if you want me to add it, I can provide the information, if necessary.
Ms. Ventura stated it seemed like a lot of money, but now I understand what you are saying. The amount is the amount we owe on the principal and debt we pay on those principal amounts are not reflected on the agenda.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Judy Ogalla, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Jakaitis announced there were no public comments.
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 2:52 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Alerts Sign-up