Will County Executive Committee met Sept. 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Mimi Cowan called the meeting to order at 10:17 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Mimi Cowan | Chair | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Herbert Brooks Jr. | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Annette Parker | Member | Late | |
| Margaret Tyson | Member | Present | |
| Joe VanDuyne | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. American Rescue Plan
(Mimi Cowan)
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Palmer and I went back and forth about this, because we are sticklers about getting stuff on the agenda ahead of time. The survey closed last night and we wanted to present this information to you. Since we are not voting on anything today, this will give you time to think about some of the things.
Mr. Palmer reviewed the attached PowerPoint presentation.
Speaker Cowan stated by the end of next week we will distribute to Board Members a list of all the County government requests for ARPA funding. Leadership will meet to hash this over first. We will send that out by the end of next week so everyone has a long time to look at that list. I encourage you to go through it and mark the things you are absolutely, let’s do that. Mark the things where you are maybe, but I need more information and then mark anything you are definitely opposed to. If you categorize things that way, we can have a productive conversation at the beginning of October. Hopefully, we can prepare Resolutions to direct allocations to some of the County funding things. One reason we want to do the County and government related funding issues as soon as possible is so it can be taken into account during the budget planning process. We might be able to bring forward ideas about local governments, and whether or not people want to give some funds to local governments. The municipalities received their own allocations, so they don’t need us, but there are other levels of local government we can consider. The schedule would be next week you will get the full list. You will get time to think about it, rank it, get your questions together and at the first Executive Committee meeting, we will start making decisions about the County expenditures. We have more to say about ARPA stuff, but does anyone have questions for Mr. Palmer about the survey?
Mr. Moustis stated the survey was a great thing to do, but we should keep in mind that the survey information might have some self-interest by folks. One of the things we did with CARES was the broad based silos. In the case of CARES, it was so much for municipalities, so much for schools and so forth. I still think that is a good approach; do very broad based silos. We could put so much in for local governments and so on. I don’t know exactly what those silos would be, but we should talk about silos of money and then break it into smaller subsets within those silos. I think that would be a good approach and easier for us to handle. As in CARES, we can always adjust them. I think breaking it down into silos is important. There are some things that are not going to show up, they are not necessarily a populist type initiative. As an example, I am a supporter of some form of public transportation. We have it here, through Will Ride. You may not see that popup, because it may not be a broad based service, but it is an important service to the people who use it. Usually it is used by disabled folks, seniors and people who generally don’t have access to an automobile or other transportation. It becomes important for some job seekers to be able to get to work. Those things are not necessarily going to show up in that survey. I think it is easier to manage if we put it into silos and then get into what is included within the silos going forward.
Speaker Cowan stated you make a really good point about the survey. Mr. Palmer and I talked about that last night. This is one data point; it is not unbiased nor a scientific study. That is the reason we worked hard to reach out to organizations and community members. There may be things, when people are taking an off the cuff survey, they are not thinking about, but they may be integral to the success of our County and supporting our County.
Mr. Moustis asked what are our goals? There should be a purpose. What is our purpose? How do we want to affect the community? That could also help guide us so we don’t just hand out money. We should have a mission statement. What is our mission here?
Speaker Cowan stated to your point about silos, we introduced the idea of pillars. Hopefully, by the first Executive Committee meeting in October, we will be able to give you an idea of what some of the outside requests have been. I agree, having a structure in place to guide these conversations might be helpful. Looking at the County expenses may be part of determining what we move forward with right away, what we wait on and what we are limiting, because we want to make sure there is enough to hit all of our priorities.
Ms. Parker arrived at this juncture.
Ms. Ventura stated I second what Mr. Moustis said about the silos; I have had some concerns about that. When we did the RFQ with Bronner to include everybody, we limited ourselves to their expertise on how to get this money out. I think some of these silos yes, but we need a broader area, with a person who will help walk us through how we are going to split the money and cut the checks. There may be specific projects where we need a second RFQ or a different company to handle it. We need to first break it into larger buckets and say what we are looking at. We did the four pillars and now we need to whittle those down to see what is the best. Mr. Moustis was talking about public transportation, but I would include all public services, including public arts, public broadband and public transportation. Those are areas where you would want someone who has done this before, who has the expertise, to lead us through those projects. Some of them, like public transportation, we might be able to do in-house, because we have done public transportation, but other things, maybe not. Some of the feedback we received about Bronner was, because they had not worked with a lot of nonprofits organizations in the past, they did not understand the timeline for nonprofits to get all of their ducks in a row, which is a lot longer than government. We put the money out for government first, like we are doing here. The nonprofits were last on the list and it hampered their ability to get things in order. The things we should take into consideration moving forward is, if we are going to have different silos that we have someone lead us through those who are more in line with the interest. Regarding a mission statement; many of us have vocalized that we want these dollars to be invested into some long term solutions or new initiatives. Those long term solutions may be things we have already identified and we may have had plans for, but we never had the money. I am not saying we have to start everything from scratch, but many of us want to make sure that we are addressing the existing problems we have, and not putting the money out there for Band-Aid fixes or short term fixes.
Mr. Fricilone asked when it comes to the resident responses, do we have any demographics, like age? I am wondering if the older population did not respond because they are not as comfortable responding to internet surveys.
Mr. Palmer replied no, we did not put demographics or age on this survey.
Mr. Fricilone asked do we have a way to respond to those people? Do we have information?
Mr. Palmer responded at the end of the survey we asked people if they were interested in receiving information from the County and if so, they could provide an e-mail. We collected quite a few e-mails and we can respond to those folks. In the same way we put out the survey, we can communicate to people and say here are the next steps.
Mr. Fricilone stated I was not just thinking about the ARPA portion. If a resident is talking about rental assistance; could we get their information to someone dealing with rental assistance and have them contact them, if we have their e-mail? When we mention self-interest, maybe they are talking about themselves. Maybe they don’t know where to go for that stuff or they have not figured it out yet. It would be good if we had a way to go back and give them information on rental assistance, or give it to someone to contact them, so maybe we can handle some of their needs now.
Mr. Palmer stated we may want to have the County Executive’s Office speak specifically to rental assistance. There is a considerable amount of money being spent on marketing that program. It is on social media as purchased ads. If you are on Facebook or some of the other platforms, you can see them; they are out there. You can’t ever do too much, because some people are still going to miss it.
Mr. Fricilone stated if we have their contact information and we know they are asking about that or food or something else, maybe there is information we can get back to them now.
Mr. Palmer stated that is why the last question was, would you like to stay informed. We kept the survey short, so people would make it to the bottom. I figured if we got their attention, let’s try to keep the lines of communication open. As noted, there may be people who are not on-line or did not get it. That is why we are trying to cover it with additional outreach to the Chambers, other social services agencies and governments. It is hard to get to people, because they are bombarded with a lot of information. We need to keep doing that and we have a starting point with the e-mails we collected.
Mr. Fricilone continued we did a damn good job with the CARES Act funds. This is not a plus or a minus for Bronner, we followed the guidelines set up by the federal government, at the time, about what silos we could establish and where the money could go. When people say we excluded someone or we should have done some other things; that program had a lot more guidelines we had to follow. ARPA is a whole different animal; it gives us a lot more leeway. I think everyone who was involved, including the whole County Board, did a damn good job with the CARES Act and we helped a lot of people with what we did with the money.
Speaker Cowan stated your idea of remaining in contact with the people who sent an e-mail address, is a good one. Because of the number who included e-mails, we probably can’t do personalized information to them, but we could look at the big things people were concerned about and construct a newsletter and send it to all of those e-mails with specific information. I think that is a good idea.
Ms. Mueller stated I like what Mr. Fricilone suggested, about keeping in touch with those people and trying to help them with any services we are able to provide right now. I wondered how these survey results would turn out, because like Mr. Moustis said earlier, they might lean toward self-interest. I am glad we did it. What I am really interested in and notice with these results is what the priorities are; those are basic needs that people need in our community. If people are responding and telling us those really basic needs are out there, I start to get shy about saying it is self-interest, because people’s basic needs need to be met. I found it interesting to see those were the priorities that seemed to hash out of this survey. I agree with Mr. Moustis also about transportation. I would love to see Will Ride expanded. I hope we see things like that in the requests that came through from the County departments. I am excited to look at those and see them all hashed out and explained. I would really like to see us serve those folks better too. I am hoping we see those things.
Mrs. Ogalla asked how many people took the survey?
Speaker Cowan replied 770.
Mrs. Ogalla stated aside from helping agencies that might need additional help right now or businesses that needed additional help during COVID, we should focus on what is sustainable. Something that is able to move forward without additional funding, beyond the three years we have this money. I don’t want to find us in a situation where we create a program and can’t pay for it afterwards; that would not be a positive thing. I spoke with people in my area about an internship. Residents could apply for an internship with the businesses and half of their salary would be paid by the company and half by the County, through a grant program. Ms. Mueller mentioned, the priorities were for basic needs, like health, mental and wellness. Those programs are out there. I am wondering if the marketing is not as good as it should be. There are lots of agencies out there who can help. I have a friend who needed help with her son and she got bounced around and had a really hard time finding help for him. Maybe that is where the need is. We need something so the general public is aware they exist. Sometime when you go into a public bathroom, you see a sticker on the back of the door that says “if you need help, call this number” for domestic abuse and human trafficking; maybe we need to develop some sort of marketing that says “if you live if Will County and you need help, please call this hotline”. I don’t know if the Health Department could be the contact for that, but that was something I thought about after Ms. Mueller mentioned the priorities seem to be the basic needs.
Ms. Winfrey stated a suggestion on the continued contact; maybe we automatically include any churches, community or neighborhood organizations that responded. Those could be automatic and a point of outreach. When Bronner was doing outreach, those areas seemed to be better in terms of getting information out. It could automatically be sent to them and whoever else might be helpful.
Mr. Harris asked at the Finance Committee we got into a discussion about setting aside some of that money to replace lost revenues. If we are going to do that, we may need to act a little sooner.
Speaker Cowan stated that is why we want to make some of these decisions about County related expenditures at the beginning of October.
Mrs. Traynere stated I agree with Ms. Ventura and Mrs. Ogalla, we should have started with the nonprofits. There are many nonprofits that were not contacted by Bronner, so they did not know everybody and everything. Reaching into the community, whether it is through the churches or our own records of not-for profits, I would like to see that happen earlier, rather than later.
Speaker Cowan stated keep an eye on your e-mails at the end of next week for more details. We will all have some homework to do in the two weeks we have off this month. I expect everyone to be looking at that and coming up with questions and plans so we can move some things along at the beginning of October.
Mrs. Ogalla asked will that be in a format that we could print and write notes on, rather than looking at it on-line?
Speaker Cowan replied yes. We will provide it to you as a PDF and an Excel document, so depending on your comfort level, you can play around with it. It would be a great idea to print it and make your notes.
Mrs. Ogalla stated you mentioned the villages and cities were getting their own money. Could they use that money, as we did, to help not-for-profit organizations? Will they be doing anything like that? If so, we should ask them if they are receiving funds from elsewhere in this process.
Speaker Cowan replied I have heard from one municipality and they indicated they are planning to keep it all for their budget. We have not done a broad based survey of the municipalities and their programs. Mr. Palmer and I have been trying to talk with organizations to see what we could partner on. I think that goes along the same lines. We want to make sure we are not piling all the money into one place and not reaching other places. Working with municipalities and other organizations, makes a lot of sense.
2. Consultant for ARP Work
(Discussion)
Speaker Cowan stated at the Executive Committee meeting last week, the Executive’s Office presented us with notes on an RFQ for a consultant for the ARPA work. We did not receive any specific comments. Mr. Schaben do you have anything you would like to add? Anything you would like to go over? Do any Board Members have any questions or comments?
Mr. Schaben stated I don’t have a lot of additional comments to make. There have been no changes to the document provided in the Executive Committee agenda packet last week. We gave a week to see if there were any additional comments or requested changes. Our goal, assuming the Board has no changes today, will be to get the RFQ in its final version. We will send a copy to County Board Members before it goes public. Then we will follow the same selection process as we have for prior RFQs. A selection committee will be created, including Board Members, selected by the Speaker. We will conduct interviews and a recommendation from the selection committee will be presented to the Board.
Speaker Cowan stated I would request when we set up the interview times, since most of our Board Members are not here full time, if we could collaborate before the interview times are set. That would be really helpful for us.
Mr. Schaben replied we took the feedback from the prior RFQ process and our intention is to pick several dates and times and get a consensus on what will work the best for everyone on the selection committee.
Ms. Ventura asked how many County Board Members will be on the selection committee?
Mr. Schaben replied there will be three County Board Members.
Speaker Cowan stated attached to your agenda is the ARPA report that was submitted to the Federal Government last week. You can take a look and see what is on there. It does include the draft revenue loss estimate. That was discussed at the Finance Committee and there is an on-going process of refinement and work on all sides.
3. Closing Out of CARES Act Fund #2711
(Karen Hennessy)
Mr. Moustis stated we did this at the Finance Committee meeting and Ms. Hennessy reported that we have done everything we can do, at this point. There are still some agencies that have not been able to spend the funds yet. A lot of it has to do with problems with the supply chain in accomplishing what they need to for the grant. What came out of the Finance Committee meeting was to tell them that November 30, 2021 was the drop dead date. They have to submit whatever they have by November 30th and that is what they will get. It was an incentive for them to move forward and expend the CARES fund grant.
Mr. Palmer stated there was an attachment where Ms. Hennessy had given a couple of options. The one thing we all agree on is, we want to close the CARES funds, so we can close the books, file all of the final reports and move on to the ARPA funds. Doing that would take some of the burden off the Finance Department staff. It is just, how you get there. Mr. Fricilone suggested getting a pro forma document that says they are going to spend the dollars we allotted and then give them the money; that gets it out of our bank account and into theirs. They still have to report to us, because we have to make sure the money is spent appropriately, but it allows us to close the account. Keeping the CARES fund open for two agencies seems silly. We have not fully vetted whether we can do that. It seems that is something that should be done. We want to get this done because we don’t want to get to the end of the year and have money left that we have to send it back; that is the goal.
Mr. Fricilone stated we gave them two options, either a pro forma invoice or prepay for what you are buying. Mr. Brooks is on one of the Boards and he was going to talk with them. If they are buying refrigeration units for food, prepay it, send us the invoice and then we are done. That would make it easier; we just need clarification from the State’s Attorney’s Office or Bronner, if they feel that is good, so we can clear that up. They know what they want to buy, they may not be able to get it yet, but that does not mean that they can’t pay for it or put a 100% deposit on it or whatever to get it done.
Speaker Cowan stated the information attached to this item, has two options; give them a cutoff date of November 30th or reimburse this from ARPA funds.
Mr. Palmer stated maybe we move this item forward or save a space on next week’s agenda. Then the Executive’s Office, County Board and State’s Attorney’s Offices could meet to clarify it. What we are talking about is doable and we can do a Resolution to that effect. Otherwise, we could wait until next month to pass the Resolution. I hate waiting, but it has been the desire of many people to get this to the finish line and close it out. These agencies were awarded the money and they are trying their best to meet the expectations and spend the money. Most Board Members don’t want to pull it back, if they can spend it for their original request.
Mr. Moustis asked what would the Resolution be?
Mr. Palmer replied maybe it does not require a Resolution. I don’t know if a pro forma invoice, is just paying an invoice.
Speaker Cowan stated giving clear direction about what we want the cutoff date to be is worth it.
Ms. Ventura stated the money should be spent on what Bronner had awarded to the organizations that do great work. I am concerned and I want to make sure they have a seat at the table when we are having these discussions. I spoke to a Board Member at Stepping Stones and it is more than just hiccups. While it seems like a simple solution to Board Members, I want to caution our moving forward with what we think is a very logical solution, if there are things in the way for these organizations. I have no problem moving something forward, but I am cautious of saying this is the end date, period. If there is a solution of moving these dollars aside or writing the check and having them report back, I think that is a solution many of us would be comfortable with. If those organizations could explain to the Board what is happening, I think that would make us feel better. I feel like we are in the dark on some of this. We are making recommendations on what we would do if we were in this situation. The reality is, we don’t have all the facts. We all want to close the account, but we want to make sure the organizations in our community are getting their needs met too; just like everyone else who got CARES money. Let’s make sure they are telling us what their issues are and being a part of the solutions, instead of us making the determination for them; especially if it winds up not working for them.
Speaker Cowan stated no one is arguing that they don’t get the money. This is about the close out of the CARES fund. It is not about giving the money or not giving the money to these organizations. We are going to find a way to honor the commitments to these organizations. As individual Board Members we might not be fully aware of every detail, but the Executive’s Office has been in contact with these organizations and talking about what works and what does not work. That is why the Executive’s Office has provided us these two recommendations. It is the responsibility of the Executive’s Office to handle the execution of getting this money to them. Based on the County Executive’s conversations with these organizations, they have recommended to the Board these two options. Either a cutoff date of November 30th and/or reimburse the organizations from ARPA funds. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive.
Mr. Schaben stated we are trying to get clarity on a close out date, which would help us work with a timeframe with these organizations. We have extended the deadline throughout this process and unfortunately, we are nearing a deadline we can’t change. It is the deadline we have to submit this information to the Treasury Department for our reporting purposes and the actual close out of this program. We are trying to establish a hard date and a Resolution would help clarify what that date actually is. We have provided a backup option. If they are unable to get to the point where we can do a reimbursement for these expenditures, we have a backup option to get a commitment and provide them for the identified expenditures.
Mr. Moustis stated we have no choice, we have to close it out. November 30th seems like a good date because it gives us a month to do our filings with the U.S. Treasury. Can Bronner give us some direction about prepaying? They were the consultants, they know the guidelines and whether that would fit within those guidelines.
Speaker Cowan stated Bronner is gone.
Mr. Moustis continued that does not mean you can’t ask them. The State’s Attorney’s Office was not that involved and I think Bronner could answer those questions. They got plenty of money, they can throw us a little something. Mr. Schaben, do you still talk with anyone from Bronner to ask them a question? Certainly, this is something we could do. I am surprised we did not keep Bronner until the close out. I thought they were committed to closing out the fund; I guess they were not. It should be understood, we have no choice. November 30th is absolutely it. Since that money is still in the CARES fund, can it be defederalized or repurposed quickly? What do we do with the money that is left, if they don’t fully expend their grants?
Mr. Palmer replied it is my understand we can still defederalize it. There have been lots of suggestions on how to spend that money. The money we don’t have a firm grasp on is what is left in the defederalized money.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t think you can tell one organization we are cutting you off on November 30th, but we are going to give it to someone else who will spend it beyond November 30th.
Speaker Cowan stated we could use it for some of the County related ARPA related expenses.
Mr. Palmer stated we could use it for public safety expenses, like we did last year. If all else fails, we can book some of our eligible expense from the County.
Mr. Moustis stated if not, ask the Health Department if they could use the money.
Mr. Palmer stated I am very confident that someone at the County will find a way to spend the money by the end of the year.
Speaker Cowan stated the list of requests we have from the County, for the ARPA money, is well over this amount. As a Board, we need to be prepared to take action in December.
Mr. Schaben stated I wanted to clarify; the issue we have is we cannot give them the money with the intention they will only use it for that purposes. We have to have actual invoices attached. Not that they would do this, but if they said they were going to spend “x” number of dollars on purchasing furniture and they don’t use it for that, after we have provided information to the feds that they intend to use it for furniture, if they came back with an audit, then we could have things that don’t match. I don’t think we can prepay them; we have to have actual invoices attached to it. That is what is creating this issue right now. We need physical documentation of what we are reimbursing them for. The County would have reimbursable expenses, if we defederalized the funds. Our thought is, if we closed this off at the end of November, we would have the month of December to identify potential internal County expenditures and we could defederalize the money for those purposes. We would have the month of December to take that action.
Ms. Ventura asked if we went that route and took the money for our own needs, if they finally get all of their things done in January, would we take that from our contingency funds, ARPA dollars or from where? I am not comfortable with taking it from ARPA. Where are we going to pull the money from? Are you saying we are not giving them money at that point? If we are, where will that money come from?
Mr. Palmer stated I think it is a bad idea to take it from the ARPA money, because you are blurring one federal pot of money and all those requirements with another. What I am hearing Board Members say is, we want to get this done before November 30th and if we can’t do it by November 30th, we will have to use those funds for something else. Then the question becomes; if that can’t happen, do we try to fund that obligation through other means or do we just say we can’t do it.
Ms. Ventura stated if that is the route we go, we need to know the consequences. I understand we have obligations and if we come up against the wall, we are at that date and they have not given us any receipts, we have the $180,000 they are supposed to have and the County is going to spend it. Then, are we saying they don’t get the money; is that what we are voting on? Are we saying they are going to get the money and we will pull it from contingency or from the budget? Are we pulling the money from the budget for next year?
Speaker Cowan replied we can make a decision, when we are allocating ARPA funds, to fund nonprofit organizations. That can be part of our consideration. Setting a hard date is not about, you used the phrase playing hardball with them last week; it is not playing hardball with them. If we don’t use the money, if we don’t allocate the money, it disappears. We have to come up with a plan for it.
Ms. Ventura asked what are the options for the plan? I don’t want to use ARPA dollars for this, so if we have $180,000 for our own expenses we can use it for, i.e. the Health Department and Sheriff’s Office, then are we going to tell them you did not use the money and you don’t get it? Are we going to say yes, you are getting your money and we pull it from those two departments we gave the money to? I want to know what their options are, because that will affect every Board Member’s vote, based on the consequences of having that date.
Mr. Palmer stated my recommendation is, if the Board wants to set the deadline as November 30th, which is what Mr. Schaben is asking for, we can do that. Between now and then we need a meeting offline with these two agencies, the County Executive’s Office, County Board Office and the State’s Attorney’s Office to know what can be done.
Ms. Hennessy stated to clarify by November 30th, they would have to expend the funds and we would reimburse them for whatever they have done. Any work they do has to be done before the CARES deadline of December 31st. Even if we prepay, if things are not installed that voids our promise for paying them. If we can’t use the CARES fund, we don’t have another mechanism to pay them. In prior conversations with the State’s Attorney’s Office, the County does not have the ability to just decide to pay them. We could use CARES dollars or we can use ARPA dollars, but we can’t just give them money. It needs to come from one of these federal programs. That is why the cutoff date is important. We have County expenses that qualify as COVID related and we can use the CARES money. Everyone wants these organizations to be able to use the money, but they have a deadline they have to meet. Our hands are tied with that.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Winfrey, to make the deadline November 30th, since that is the recommendation coming from the County Executive’s Office.
Ms. Olenek stated I had a questions about the close out of the CARES funds. We were provided a $3 million loan from the CARES Act fund for the Health Department’s pandemic response. Is that the money you are speaking of or is this something different? Of the $3 million loan that we were afforded, so far we have requested about $2.8 million, but we have only spent about $1 million of it. We have about $500,000 pending that we received approval for and we are going through the procurement process, but we have not expended; we don’t have receipts and it has not been finalized. I believe the end date with Bronner is September 30th to have all of this wrapped up for FEMA requests, certainly a good portion of our expenses will not be included in that. How will that be paid? Much of the expenses are eligible for ARPA funding, but I understand that might not be an option. I just want you to know that of the $3 million loan, we have spent about $1 million, but we have much more to spend. As you know, the pandemic continues and our expenses continue and we will continue, through the end of the calendar year, for the expenses we planned. I wanted to make you aware of that. I don’t know how that all works out with your planning.
Mr. Schaben replied this does not impact the funding that was provided to the Health Department. The Health Department funding is out of a separate funding line.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [12 TO 1]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Winfrey NAYS: Ventura |
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Schaben, we wanted to get an update on where this stands and allow folks to ask questions, if necessary.
Mr. Schaben stated as of today, all of the information about the agricultural area application process is on our website. I will send a link to everyone after this meeting. The website provides information on what an agricultural area is, how you apply for it and it includes the application to establish an agricultural area and the application to modify the agricultural area. As far as the agricultural committee, we are still taking applications from residents who are interested in serving on the Committee. If you know of residents who are interested or if you want to send something out, our website has the application to notify our office that you have an interest in serving, not only on the agricultural committee but any Will County Board or Commission.
Mrs. Ogalla stated this is great. I spoke with different farmers in my area and asked the Farm Bureau to send it to farmers in other areas, asking them to serve on this Committee. I hope we can get a nice group of people to serve for us.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Overview of County Board Reapportionment Plan 13-2 Version 1 with 2020 Census (Overview)
Speaker Cowan stated on your agenda we have the 13 District 2 Member map and if you look at Item #2, we are going to have a presentation by the County Executive on her proposed redistricting map at the County Board Meeting. After her presentation, it will trigger a public hearing situation. We don't need action on the 13 District map because we are waiting for the County Board Meeting.
Mr. Moustis stated we would not take any action today. What came out of the Reapportionment Committee is that we were going to move forward with a 13 District map. I hope the County Board moves forward with a 13 District map. I understand the County Executive is going to present an 11 District map and there will be a public hearing on that map, as we are required to do by legislative action. That does not mean the County Board should not move forward with the map they have worked on for many months, which is a 13 District map. I understand there will be additional discussion on the maps. At this point, the recommendation of the Reapportionment Committee is to move forward with a 13 District map. I just want to make that clear. Now, the County Executive wants to propose something contrary to what came out of the County Board Committee. There were different district maps presented to the Reapportionment Committee, but the 13 District map is what they recommended move forward. There is nothing that prevents us from talking about a 13 District map today, if we chose to. It should be clear, the 13 District map is the County Board map to this point, and the 11 District map is the County Executive's map.
Mr. Van Duyne stated Mr. Moustis, your point is well taken, but I would like to remind everybody that not every County Board Member got to participate in the process at the Reappointment Committee.
Mr. Moustis stated I would like to point out that no County Board Member got to participate in the 11 District map.
Ms. Ventura stated my comments are along the line of Mr. Van Duyne. I attended all of those Committee meetings. I put in multiple comments and suggestions and some of them were ignored. Many maps were cut off from any conversation or moving forward in that Committee. To say we had an opportunity to say our piece, that is a big, giant no. I want it put in the record that some Board Members felt our entire districts were not represented in that process. If this is a vote to move this forward, I will be voting a no. If there is support for this map, and it moves forward, I plan to vote no. It does not represent the will of most County Board Members.
Speaker Cowan stated as I stated at the beginning, we are holding this until the County Executive presents her map. We are not voting to move anything forward today.
Mrs. Ogalla stated we are all on different committees, because we need different people to serve on different committees; everyone can't serve on all the committees. That makes sure we have input from different people from different areas of the County. Although you are not on a committee, you can always attend the committee meetings and have input. If you are unable to attend a committee because of work, you could submit your comments via public comment or an e mail. As far as people making comments and suggestions, Mr. Gould took into consideration many of the suggestions brought up by people, including Ms. Ventura. He included the changes in there. Mr. Gould was the Vice-Chair; the Chair of the Committee was Mr. Marcum. I am assuming Mr. Marcum was in agreement with Mr. Gould, since he never made any comment otherwise throughout the suggested period of time allowed to make any suggestions. We need to be serious when we look at this map and determine the amount of work that is required in the unincorporated areas versus those who serve in an area that is completely in a municipality. Your unincorporated area is minimal compared to the large rural areas. The large rural areas constitute a lot of Will County. In addition, those areas put millions of dollars into the Will County economic stream every year, and we cannot ignore them. We can't look at them and say there are only so many people who live there and just give them one representative. We need to really be considerate of that. At every committee, such as Diversity & Inclusion and CARES, those Committees make decisions and those decisions come to the full Board based on the decision that was made in the Committees. We need to be fair in this discussion; there were a lot of people on the Reapportionment Committee. If you want to talk about the maps we didn't talk a lot about, or you say we did not talk about, those maps all ended up being inappropriate due to the fact that in order to go from multiple member representation to single member representation, you had to go to referendum. We did not do that. It was not known it needed to be done, otherwise I assume we would have gone to referendum. Because of that, we were not able to look at the single district maps. Whether they were looked at or not, they became moot points afterwards, because we can't do that because no referendum was done. We need to be fair in the comments being made here. Everyone had a lot of input, whether they were on the Committee or not. If you did not attend any meetings or did not make any comments, then that is on you. If I am unable to attend a meeting, I request the recording from Mrs. Adams. You have the opportunity to listen to the full recording of the meeting. I love that we record the meetings, so if you are unable to attend, you can hear what went on and make comments at the next meeting. I don't think anyone was cut out of the process, if you were not on the Committee, you simply were not selected to be on the Committee.
Mr. Gould stated Mr. Marcum may want to address some of these comments. The 13 District plan that emerged from the Committee, if you compare it to the original GIS plan, this is probably 90% of what GIS originally proposed. The Committee implemented suggestions, specifically made by Ms. Ventura, Mrs. Parker, Mrs. Traynere and Ms. Winfrey. Perhaps not all of the suggestions were implemented, because we were constrained by the fact you have to have 53,000 people in each district, and we meet within 1% of that parameter. Those suggested were implemented. I don't want to go through the streets and the neighborhoods, but I can, if you want to. To say that the Committee did not do that is incorrect. Mr. Marcum not only addressed the members of the Committee, but Mr. Marcum addressed all the County Board Members, who chose to participate. In his job as Chairman, Mr. Marcum gave everyone an opportunity to speak. I will let Mr. Marcum address this, but it is a fact.
Speaker Cowan stated I wanted to point out that the County Executive shared her version of the map with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.
Mr. Moustis stated Chair Mr. Marcum let everyone speak. I don't recall him ever not allowing someone to speak; however, he may not have allowed certain people to filibuster at the Committee. In the case of Ms. Ventura, she actually presented her own map. When she misrepresents what actually happened and suggests she was denied the ability to speak at a meeting, that is not what happened.
Ms. Ventura stated that is not what I said, please don't take my words out of context.
Mr. Moustis stated then I misunderstood you, because that is how I understood it. Ms. Ventura stated you are definitely misunderstanding what I said.
Mr. Moustis continued Mr. Marcum gave everybody ample time to speak and was extremely patient with everyone.
2. Place Presentation by County Executive on Proposed Redistricting Map on County Board Agenda (County Executive)
Discussion of this item took place along with discussion of Item #1.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Mr. Fricilone asked what are we approving? There is nothing attached to the agenda. I don’t understand; we are establishing an estimate, but we don’t have the estimate here. How do we do that?
Speaker Cowan replied we can handle this two ways; we can get the documents for the full Board meeting or we can wait until October.
Mr. Fricilone stated I think it is too quick. If we don’t have the document yet, we have seven days until the County Board meeting and there is a lot to look at. I would like for every County Board Member to have a chance to see what is happening with this. If we are going to do this in seven days and we don’t have the document yet, when are we getting it?
A motion was made by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Ventura, to move this to the Finance Committee to establish the budget.
Mr. Moustis stated I don’t disagree. We had a report at the Finance Committee and it was $45.6 million, which was rounded up to $46 million and they said that was the all in number. But evidently it was not all in, because then there is another $5 million for the pipeline, which brings it up to $51 million. Regardless of what I hear going forward; I absolutely don’t think this project should go over $51 million and would not support anything over $51 million. This started out as a $38 million project; what are we going to do, wind up with a $60 million project? We need to send a message and put some type of parameters in place now. What happens if it is $60 million?
Speaker Cowan replied the purpose of this is they will provide us with an all in number that we will have a Resolution for. If in that vote, the number is not acceptable, you can vote no. At that point, that will be our all in number. We have a motion and a second to send this to the Finance Committee next month.
Ms. Ventura stated $51 million is high, considering we have the pipeline costs of another $5 million, which is the next item on the agenda. I am okay with taking this to Finance so we can discuss that. But this was brought as a $38 million project. We are talking millions, not thousands and a couple million is a lot, let along $11, 12 or $13 million more. I am happy to look at this at Finance to see more details and bring it forward. If you price yourself out of the market, you will potentially price yourself out of the project.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS] Next: 10/5/2021 11:00 AM
TO: Will County Executive Committee MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Herbert Brooks Jr., Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, VanDuyne, Ventura, Winfrey |
Speaker Cowan stated we have a discussion item today about setting the minimum pay for Will County employees at $15 per hour. This has come up in conversations with a number of Board Members. If you have been following the news, this is going to happen anyway as the $15 minimum wage will be in place soon. Mr. Tidwell is here today. He estimates the cost of this to be $130,000 plus a percentage of benefits. County Board Leadership will be meeting with the County Executive and the labor attorney next week to discuss the parameters for collective bargaining, which will in a sense have some overlaps on this topic. We would like to have a discussion today and possibly bring a Resolution forward in October. We will not vote on this today. The thought is, we would be giving the lowest paid County employees a boost and from there we would discuss and negotiate salaries for higher earners.
Ms. Winfrey asked is this for the non-union employees? Because everything is paid per contract.
Speaker Cowan replied it applies to anyone. The minimum salary, for our employees would be $15 per hour.
Ms. Winfrey continued that is regardless of the contractual guidelines.
Mr. Moustis stated in the past, when I had the opportunity to be at the negotiating table, I was always most concerned about the people that were paid the least. Very often it was a struggle with the unions to bring up that bottom, because they were usually focused on the people who were in the pay grades beyond them. In a very short period of time, this is going to be the minimum wage. Can we not do better than minimum wage? Why $15 per hour; why not $16.50 or $17? I believe we have to have the discussion of why $15, which they say is a livable wage. I heard that social security recipients will receive a 5% to 6% increase. I guess that is the good news. The bad news is you are getting a 5% or 6% increase next year because it is based on inflation. I don’t want to go forward with $15. I want to have a discussion, does this County want to be basically at the minimum wage? Are we going to start here and escalate it automatically in the next couple of year? There should be further discussions of why $15. Our County can afford a little bit more for the lower wage earners, even if that comes off the top wage earners. I think we should have the discussion of why $15. I think it should be higher.
Speaker Cowan asked Mr. Moustis if he would like to throw out a number.
Mr. Moustis replied I would like to hear from other Board Members on what they think is a more livable wage, looking forward. Folks are already in that inflationary period, although they say it is going to be temporary. If you are going to adjust a minimum starting wage for the County, now is the time to discuss it.
Ms. Mueller stated Mr. Moustis, I love your idea. I don’t think $15 is enough; it is not a living wage. I have been really glad to get some incremental changes in the minimum wage laws. I would definitely be open to talking about more. As for putting a dollar amount on it, I would need to do some more looking around on that. I am definitely interested to hear what the other Board Members have for input on that. Mr. Tidwell, how many employees in the County make less than $15 per hour? How many employees do we have total?
Mr. Tidwell replied there are 88 employees who earn less than $15 per hour. In this list we have several seasonal and part-time employees. I ran the numbers as if everyone was a full-time employee. We have approximately 2,300 employees.
Mr. Fricilone asked of those 88 people, how many are under contract?
Mr. Tidwell replied I don’t have an exact number, I just sorted the list by the hourly rate. I would have to resort it.
Mr. Fricilone asked what do you think?
Mr. Tidwell replied I would guess about 40, or half are under contract.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree with Mr. Moustis. We have a labor shortage and it is going to get harder to hire people. I have been telling everybody this statistic, because everybody thinks it is the extra $300 of unemployment payments keeping people out of the workforce. In 2019, 1.2 million people retired and in 2020, 2.4 million retired. The labor force has shrunk by an additional 3.6 million. This is creating more competition to get people. We see this at the nursing home with people moving in and out, because there are better jobs and we have to be aware of that. We should look at a number of $16 or $17 per hour. We have to be cognizant that we cannot continue to give raises at the top. Also, when we talk about this number, too often people want to look at this number and say look this person is making $18 and that person is only making $16. We have to look at the person making $16 and ask what is their package. If the person making $16 is paying $150 a month for insurance and the person making $18 is paying $2,000 per month for insurance, they are not really making $18 per hour. When we talk about the number, we have to look at the cost impact of benefits. Mr. Tidwell, is your number of $200,000 based on just the increase to $15 or does it include what the benefits cost us for pensions and all of that? Many private companies don’t have to deal with those additional benefit costs; there is no pension. We need to look at what this is going to cost us at $16 or $17, before everyone says I would like to see it at $16 or $17 per hour. We need data on that. What is the full package for the person making $17 per hour? Somebody making $16 per hour with a great package may be doing better than someone making $60,000 with a crappy package. There is a lot of that out there, especially with medical costs going up. We need to do a little more analysis, but I am in favor of moving to more than $15 per hour.
Ms. Ventura stated yes, we need to pay more than $15 per hour. There have been presentation at our Committees; Housing was one of them, showing people are housing burdened in our area and that you need to make $24 per hour or more to not be housing burdened; meaning 30% or less of your income goes for housing. I would like us to be data driven, not politically driven. I would like us to look at how we can set a competitive minimum wage here at the County. There was a conversation at Forest Preserve about paying $15. If they are paying $15 per hour for entry level work, that needs no skill set, and we are paying $14.90 for our CNAs at Sunny Hill, we have a problem. That was talked about at one of the Public Health & Safety Committee meetings. This has to be data driven. We are talking about skilled workers. I understand part of this is bargained with the union, but if we set the lower skill level $16, $17 or $18 that means the union will collectively bargain for higher amounts and we need to see what that looks like. I agree, it does not mean that everybody at the top gets more money. We have to start closing the wage gap in America, in the State and in this County, because it does not help our economy. The highest wages get socked away into bank accounts and savings and very specific projects; the money does not go back into the economy. I think we can all agree that when we support our small businesses and Mom and Pop shops, we support working families; making sure they have the ability to buy the things they need. If all of my income is going to the necessities, rent, water, electric and phone bills, that means zero dollars to spend at restaurants, salons, for someone to mow my lawn, etc. If we truly want to grow our economy, we can be a part of that by saying we are going to make sure we are paying something closer to a living wage. In this area we are going to find it is a lot higher than $15 per hour. Part of that is the lack of housing, which raises the amount of money we have to pay for housing. There are plenty of other entities in this area that demand a higher increase. Because we are so close to Chicago, we are going to see some of that. I would like this to be data driven. I would like us to look at several packages. I would suggest looking at $18 per hour. I am okay if you want to look at $16 or $17, but that is going to put a little more work on Mr. Tidwell. This is not just a dollar and here are the employees that have to be raised to that. What do we anticipate the steps to be on some of the collective bargaining? What do we anticipate the packages to be? When we talk about the raises, we need a full understanding. If we want to continue to attract good candidates for our jobs, people who with high loans, people starting families, people who want to work and live in the County, then we have to offer competitive wages to fill those jobs. I hope everyone will come together and agree this is the direction the County needs to go for a long term investment.
Mrs. Ogalla asked what is the current minimum we are paying any employee? Mr. Tidwell replied $11 per hour.
Mrs. Ogalla asked is that seasonal, unskilled employees?
Mr. Tidwell replied yes it would be a seasonal or temp employee. It goes from $11 per hour to $14.92 per hour.
Mrs. Ogalla asked what is the current minimum wage in Illinois?
Mr. Tidwell replied the minimum wage increased to $11 and that is what we are paying. It is incrementally going up every year on January 1st. In 2022 it will go to $12 per hour and then $13 and tops out at $15 in 2025.
Mrs. Ogalla stated the minimum wage is currently $11 and we are paying $11 for the lowest employees. How many of the 88 people are seasonal or temp? Mr. Tidwell replied it is about 50%.
Mrs. Ogalla continued and the remaining 50% are part-time employees, but employed all year long, is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell replied there are some part-time and some full-time. Mostly at Sunny Hill which are dietary aides and housekeeping and laundry.
Mrs. Ogalla stated when I worked in the private sector, at the end of every year we got something called “your total paycheck” and that needs to be looked at. I don’t know, but I am assuming that when you work part-time at Dunkin Donuts or places like this, you are not getting any benefits. It would be good to know what the total benefit package is for someone working at Sunny Hill, like the dietary aides, etc. The CNAs are making $14.91 per hour, starting, but that is not their total package. Their total package includes their benefits. The total amount they are paid, is their total salary. If they don’t have to pay for health insurance because they are in the lower bracket, they are getting a really good deal. We need to look at all of that. As far as this being data driven, we need to look at every single data point to make a comparison on all of these different things. What percentage are union members?
Mr. Tidwell replied about 50%.
Mrs. Ogalla continued so that goes into the contract negotiations, if you bump up that lower grouping. I have had conversations with some of the CNAs at Sunny Hill and they were not happy when we were closing the gap and tried to reduce the steps. Someone who had been working there for five years did not like the fact that a new person coming in was making the same amount of money they were making and their amount of money did not go up. If we increase the money, it is going to impact everyone and the total cost will be higher than what we are anticipating at the $200,000 amount. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell replied your line of thinking is correct.
Mrs. Ogalla stated as far as keeping the top wage earners down, you can do that by setting a maximum amount for a particular job. You can say the benefit of that particular job and skill is set at a certain amount. Different jobs have different skill requirements. To do a broad sweep is an unusual thing. You are going to paying somebody who is not doing the same skill as a CNA or a dietary aide. I am not sure it is the same for every single employment opportunity we have here to say everyone is just going to make this much per hour. CNAs do a very critical job. They are doing a very taxing job, granted it is not constant, because they come and go and they get a break with the residents. But, they are doing an important job. They are doing the day-to-day handling of our Sunny Hill residents. So to compare what they do at a minimum wage as compared to what someone else might be doing such as housekeeping or laundry, is a different skill set. We need to keep that in mind. I find it interesting we are talking about going from $11 an hour. We are jumping ahead several years to start at $15. When the State’s minimum is $15, we will be well above $15 per hour. We need to wrap our minds around this; all money is relevant. A business would compensate by raising the cost of their products, because you have to make a profit in order to make improvements for the future. In government, our money comes directly from our residents. A lot of our residents don’t have the good benefits that are offered to County employees. We need to put all of that into perspective and understand that some people choose to work at the County because they get a great insurance package. They are not the breadwinner of the family. Their spouse, male or female, is the breadwinner and they are taking this job because they can get great insurance and not paying as much as it might cost in the private sector. We need to think about all of that, because all of that is relevant. The cost of living is based upon the EAV of the house, the taxes and the taxing bodies and what they are levying. The person who owns a house and rents it out has to get a certain amount of rent to pay the taxes and the upkeep of the house. All of this is relevant. It is easy to sit back and say everybody should be making more money. I am not saying certain groups should not be making more money, certain groups should be making more money. We need to keep that in perspective as we move forward with this. We need to look at the total dollar. What does the County pay for the employee benefits? On top of their salary, do you know what the benefit is? Maybe you don’t know per hour, but what is it at the end of the year?
Mr. Tidwell replied I don’t have that number.
Mrs. Ogalla continued I know you know the number, because we have had it in the past. That is what we need to look at, what is the total salary? That total salary is something they may not be getting at McDonalds or Wal-Mart or these other places. We need to look at that and compare us to that. We always hear conversations that people pay too much in taxes in Illinois and I agree. The property taxes are much higher in Illinois than they are in many other states, especially the surrounding states, which is why a lot of people are moving out of Illinois for a different job or to retire. We have to be cognizant of what we do and what we levy impacts the property tax bill. I understand we want to do this or that, but we are not a business. We don’t make money, we get our money from the taxpayers.
Ms. Tyson asked after we pass a minimum living wage at the County, what month will it be implemented?
Speaker Cowan replied it would be part of the budget and go into effect in the next budget year.
Ms. Tyson asked since our fiscal year ends in November, would it be the beginning of the new fiscal year?
Mr. Fricilone replied it would begin on December 1st.
Ms. Ventura stated when I said I wanted to have data driven information, I would like to include the comments Mrs. Ogalla made about inflation. There is nowhere in the United States that it has been proven that when they increase the minimum wage it creates inflation. It has not been proven in any city, any counties or any state. The conversation is the messaging that is out there, but if you actually look at that happening, it does not. I want to preference it (inaudible) but when you are talking about an entire system increasing its rates, then it is not (inaudible) it is quite the opposite. Seattle is the perfect example and there is lots of information out there about it. What happened was families and working people across the city had more disposable income and they spent more of that income in businesses. The businesses had higher sales and they did not have to increase prices because they had more quantity over the dollar amount. The inflation argument or fear does not actually exist in reality. If you can find a data point or city that has happened in, then please present that. Otherwise, people are fearful that businesses are going out of business because they cannot afford it. If a business cannot afford to pay a living wage to their people, they have slave labor, period. When the entire system increases, businesses do better, not worse and that has been shown time and time again. If we need to provide those data points, I am happy to work with Mr. Tidwell to do that. The other thing when we talk about benefits, I want to see those numbers and know exactly what they will do for our budget. We have to know that number before we vote because we are responsible for the budget. But a living wage is a living wage. If you work 40 hours a week, you should be making a living wage. That is why they implemented a minimum wage years ago; that is what it was for, so people would not be on welfare; so people would not be homeless or on government assistance or in the streets. There is inflation, but our minimum wage has not increased to that same level. There is lots information out there about this. When we talk about the unskilled, the unskilled labor has to be at minimum wage and that is where the minimum should be set. The reason I suggested we start at $15 is because in two years that is where the state will be. We will be forced to do it at that time, so why not just do it now so when it becomes a requirement, we will not have to worry about it. By all means, skilled labor should be at $18 per hour or more. I feel a living wage should be $18 because that is what it is mandated in our area based on the cost of housing and food, etc. When you look at some of those numbers, we need to bring in experts to explain to us some of that stuff. This is the best thing for main street and working families.
Mrs. Ogalla stated you made the comment if we raised the minimum wage, it would go in the budget and that would happen next year. Is that accurate as to what would happen with all of our union contracts? Many of the employees at Sunny Hill Nursing Home are union employees. I don’t know when the contracts are due; how would we get the contract changed? Mr. Tidwell can you answer how that works? If we look at everything today, COVID and all the things that have happened, if you go to the grocery store, if you go to McDonalds, if you buy a candy bar maybe the costs have not gone up but the quantity has shrunk. In essence, you are getting less for your money. In other cases, the quantity has stayed the same, but you are paying more for a Happy Meal or any kind of meal at McDonalds. So to say it doesn’t happen, it happens, it happens in this realm. If we go back and look at wages 10 or 20 years ago, the wages go up and everything else goes up. Just in our conversations here, people have mentioned we should set the minimum wage for the County at $15 per hour. We have been hearing $15 is a living wage. The minimum wage in the State of Illinois is currently $11. Now we are jumping not to $15, which is $4 higher than the minimum wage at the State, we are now jumping to whatever the end result is going to be. We are jumping much more. That is going to impact other employees at other levels within the step program the unions have set up. I believe the total cost will be higher than you anticipate.
Mr. Tidwell stated with regards to the union and setting the minimum at $15 or whatever the rate is, we would be required to bargain that with the union. The contracts expire on November 30, 2021 and we are already prepping to begin negotiations with the union. If we were to take action outside of that, at bargaining we would still have to bargain increasing the starting pay. As you mentioned, there is a domino effect and it could affect other lower wage earners that are now making the same, so you will have to make adjustments there. It will cost more. I read an article that if minimum wage kept pace with inflation over the past 30 years, the minimum wage would be $26 an hour.
Mr. Moustis stated anything with the union has to be negotiated through the union contract. The way we have always brought up lower wage earners is we don’t give them a raise, we just knock off the steps. If we set the minimum at $17 per hour, we would knock off the steps that are below the $17 per hour. It is not a percentage increase, you just change the pay grades.
Mr. Tidwell stated that is correct. You would cut off the bottom steps to reach whatever minimum wage the County and the union agree to. Anyone making less than that would automatically be placed on that step.
Mr. Moustis stated just so everyone has some understanding of how you accomplish some of those initiatives for lower wage earners, they would have to wait until their contract is renegotiated. Would we go forward with those who are in a union position, but are not a member of the union?
Mr. Tidwell stated from the County’s perspective, it does not matter if they are a member of the union. If they are in a union covered position, they are in the collective bargaining unit and they get the same thing as everybody else.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked of the 88 positions, how many of those are full-time and part-time?
Mr. Tidwell replied I ran the report this morning and I have not had the opportunity to break that number out. It is pretty much across the board, but it is about 50%, just looking at the two pages of the printout.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked do the part-time positions get the paid County days off? Do they get paid sick time, vacation time and holidays? What kind of benefits do the part-time positions get?
Mr. Tidwell replied if they are scheduled to work on a day that the holiday falls on, they traditionally would only get that holiday pay. If it does not fall on their scheduled day, they would not get it.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked what type of positions are these? I know there is a broad range from Sunny Hill employees, County administrative employees; how many different positions do these 88 employees encompass?
Mr. Tidwell responded a lot of these 88 employees are temps for the County Clerk’s Office, Health Department, Bailiffs, housekeeping, laundry, dietary aids, switchboard operators, and a secretary.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked have we ever looked at these particular positions and compared what the wages are in the private sector?
Mr. Tidwell replied no, because a lot of these jobs only apply to the public sector. We have not compared these jobs to the other collar counties.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked what do you mean they only pertain to the public sector? Administrative duties are performed in the private sector as well.
Mr. Tidwell stated I am talking about the bailiffs.
Mrs. Berkowicz continued so some of the positions it is not possible to compare them to the private sector. I would like to request that you provide the County Board Members a written report of this. It would be great to see the breakdown of the positions of these 88 employees; whether they are part-time or full-time and what their benefits are? Do they get 401K? Do they get paid time off? Do they get insurance? I am under the impression everyone gets paid time off if their schedule falls on a holiday. I understand Sunny Hills has to work 7 days a week, but at the County Board Administrative Office the staff gets holiday time. Are there any part-time employees who are paid for those holidays?
Mr. Tidwell replied yes, if they are scheduled to work and it falls on the same day, they would get holiday pay.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated at the County Building, no one works on Christmas or no one works on Thanksgiving, so you have no temporary employees who are scheduled to work those days.
Mr. Tidwell replied no.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked is it possible for you to provide us with a report with that information? If the position is in the private sector, if would be helpful to see how our wages compare. I think that is a very important thing to consider when we are looking at what numbers we need to consider.
Mr. Tidwell stated that is certainly a report I can work on. There are all kinds of studies for getting comparable data outside the County. You can go on Salary.com and type in the title.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated many people have quoted the cost of living. Use the data that everyone is using that shows we are not paying our employees enough. A lot of County Board Members have expressed that fact. What data have they used; so whatever that data is, it is already available.
Speaker Cowan stated if Board Members want to see specific information about who we pay and how much we pay them, get those requests to Mr. Palmer and he can work with Mr. Tidwell to create and provide to the Board a spreadsheet of some sort that will have that information.
Mrs. Traynere stated everybody has made a lot of good points. You can talk about the benefits package and that does make a difference in the pay, but we are going to have more and more difficulties filling those lower wage jobs. In my community they are advertising $17 per hour to work in an ice cream store, with no benefits. They cannot get anyone. Clearly, we are not going to get the best employees and that means we are not providing the best service to our customers, which are the taxpayers. Since the State is going to $15 per hour, it makes sense to begin planning for that and pass a minimum wage here at the County. I am definitely in support. Mr. Moustis I am right with you; I think the people at the bottom need a boost. As Ms. Ventura said, all of that money goes right back into the economy. I don’t think that necessarily means we don’t give the higher paid employees a raise, but I definitely want to see the people at the bottom get a hand up on the ladder.
Speaker Cowan stated Ms. Portlock is on the line and the Workforce Services does a lot of investigating and data polling about salary and wage numbers. Perhaps we can work with Ms. Portlock to get some comparison data for the Board Members.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am sure the numbers in your data include the people who work part-time for the Elections. We need to have a conversation with the Clerk about eliminating those since we are spending $1 million on a machine that is going to eliminate a lot of those part-time workers, as she told us; so those should be out of your calculations. You might want to identify those and take them out.
Mrs. Ogalla asked what is the unemployment rate right now? I am aware of quite a few people that are sitting on unemployment. They are not going to work for whatever reason. I believe that is part of the reason people cannot get people to work for them, aside from any type of pay package or benefit package.
Speaker Cowan replied it was about 7%, as of August.
Mrs. Ogalla asked maybe we can find out what it is in Will County. Things change. We are talking about making decisions based on what is going on right now. I am thinking things will not be this way as we move out of COVID.
Speaker Cowan added that is something else Ms. Portlock could help us with.
Mr. Pretzel stated Mrs. Ogalla did a great job covering most of the points I wanted to make. We are taking about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour for 88 employees, but I have also heard several people say we should go $16, $17, $18 or higher. We need to consider there will be a lot of employees who already make $15, $16, $17 or $18 an hour. There are many employees who have already gotten two or three pay raises based on their steps and they will also be expecting more money. We can’t make everybody earn the same amount of money. Some of those employees have done a really great job for multiple years and earned those pay raises. We need to be very careful here and really consider how much this is going to cost us and where we are going to get that money before we decide how much the minimum wage should be.
Mr. Balich asked why don’t we make it fair to everybody by taking the total amount of dollars spent on payroll and divide it by the total number of employees? Then everyone will get an equal amount of money and they won’t have anything bad to say about another person because we are all equal. I think we should think very hard about that, because there would not be any arguments about that then.
Speaker Cowan stated I appreciate the conversation. I think Mr. Tidwell has some direction. Mr. Palmer if you could coordinate with Mr. Tidwell and Ms. Portlock. Board Members if you have other questions or want certain data you can’t seem to Google for yourself, then let Mr. Palmer know and our specialists here, who make more than $15 per hour can help us get that information.
Mr. Van Duyne left at this juncture.
7. Adopting Revised Will County County-Wide Hazard Mitigation Plan (Harold Damron)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Speaker Cowan stated for Items #8 and #9, we need to set direction on whether this funding is coming from contingency or capital.
Mr. Fricilone stated it should come from the capital fund. The contingency fund is not an endless pot. This was all part of the Capital Program we did, so it should stay in the same lane. Hopefully, this is it for this project.
Mr. Moustis stated I agree. There was a thorough presentation at the Ad-Hoc IT Committee. If there is just a question of where this is going to come from, we still have a week before County Board and perhaps there could be some discussion with the budget folks and Mr. Harris.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Winfrey, to approve these items and by County Board day know which pot of money it will be funded from.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Finance Committee MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Bruce Tidwell)
Speaker Cowan stated to clarify, we want the final Resolution to indicate where the funding is coming from.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Finance Committee MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Speaker Cowan stated we need to move this item forward, because the contract is expiring.
Mr. Fricilone asked why are there two Resolutions? One is for terminals and one is for equipment, but it is the same company. We are not doing one without the other. Why can’t we do one Resolution?
Mrs. Adams replied we received two invoices; one is listed as the monitoring of the terminals and the second one is the preventative maintenance, cleaning and inspection. Item #10 is for the monitoring of the parking terminals and #11 is for the service and maintenance.
Ms. Winfrey asked what is the term of these contracts?
Mrs. Adams replied September 15, 2021 until September, 2022.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Dave Tkac)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Kevin Lynn, Jeff Ronaldson)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Bruce Tidwell)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Meta Mueller, Vice Chair SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Bruce Tidwell)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
(Bruce Tidwell)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Mrs. Adams reviewed the Proclamations.
19. Appointment(s) by the County Executive
1. September 2021 Appointments
(Mitch Schaben)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Ms. Ventura asked could we get an update on the courthouse demolition? I recently had an inquiry from Post 1080 about what we are going to do with the monuments, specifically the eternal flame. At one point we talked about about turning it into a park. In the Capital Improvements Committee there was a discussion about whether or not to continue with the Copperfield purchase. We talked about having a relook at the goals. Could we get some type of encompassing update of what is happening with the old courthouse, the monuments and any potential plans going forward, so we can have an understanding? I would like to be able to give them a firm answer of what is happening with the eternal flame and I don't have that for them.
Speaker Cowan stated I believe we would send that to Capital Improvements.
Mr. Moustis stated that is part of the courthouse, so the Judiciary has some say on those monuments. You might want to have that discussion between the Chief Judge or Mr. Holland. It would be nice to find where we are going to relocate those items.
Speaker Cowan thanked Ms. Ventura and stated we will see if we can get that on an agenda and we will reach out to the Chief Judge about the monuments.
IX. REQUEST FOR STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OPINION
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Land Use & Development
Motion to Save Space on the County Board Agenda for One Zoning Case and Three Resolutions.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Tyler Marcum, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Mr. Harris stated next Tuesday we will have a Special Finance Committee meeting to discuss expenses.
3. Public Works & Transportation
Mrs. Adams stated we need to remove Item #4, the Feasibility Study with the City of Crest Hill; that will come back at a later time as an IGA with them for the study.
Mrs. Adams continued we need to add an IGA with the City of Wilmington for the license plate cameras.
Motion to Remove Feasibility Study from the Public Works Portion of the County Board Agenda.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
5. Public Health & Safety
6. Legislative & Judicial
7. Capital Improvements
Mr. Brooks stated regarding the comments about the old courthouse, a Resolution was voted on and I refer to staff to pull that and send it to the Board. We voted on the building, but we did not vote on the monuments.
8. Executive
XI. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Jakaitis read the following comments in the WebEx Q&A section from Sherry Williams:
Why are there any County employees making $15 per hour or less?!
A living wage is a living wage no matter what job is being done. Shouldn't everyone be earning enough money to live on?
When has it ever been said that $15 an hour is a living wage?
XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Speaker Cowan stated the presentation of the County Executive's map will trigger us setting up the Public Hearing on the maps. We will have that schedule out to you soon. There was some conversation about doing multiple Public Hearings throughout the County. We think the logistics of that are a bit difficult. We will have one Public Hearing, but it will be broadcast over WebEx and that makes is easier for folks to participate, if they like. Friday, September 10th is the official ribbon cutting of the Will County Health Department. They have obviously been hard at work for the last year. If you can come celebrate with us that will be at 11:00 a.m. and I hope to see everyone there.
XIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XIV. APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY BOARD AGENDA
1. Approval of County Board Agenda
(Approval)
| RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
1. Motion to Adjourn at 12:44 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Cowan, Mueller, Brooks Jr., Fricilone, Harris, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Parker, Tyson, Ventura, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: VanDuyne |
Alerts Sign-up