Will County Board Finance Committee met Oct. 5.
Here are the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Mr. Pretzel led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 12:46 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 - Sep 7, 2021 11:00 AM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Frankie Pretzel, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Frankie Pretzel, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
1. Discussion of FY2022 Budget - Expenses
(Discussion)
Ms. Howard stated as a follow up to our last budget discussion on expenses, there was a request that I provide a detailed breakdown of the professional services line item totaling $2,069,435. A memo detailing that information is included in the agenda packet, as well as a detailed expense report from the finance system, broken out by department, for that category. If you have specific questions or would like further detail, I encourage you to pose those questions now, so that department can be on the next Committee meeting to answer those questions.
2. Discussion of FY2022 Budget - Other Professional Services
(ReShawn Howard)
Discussion of this item was part of the discussion of Item #1.
3. Discussion of FY2022 Budget - Outstanding Debt
(Karen Hennessy)
Mr. Harris stated the information on the outstanding debt is near the end of the budget book.
4. Monthly Summary - Sales Tax and Cannabis Tax Collections - Attachment Added (Karen Hennessy)
Mr. Harris stated the monthly report on sales and cannabis tax collections are attached to the agenda.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorizing the Sheriff's Department's Purchase of In-Car Camera from their FY2021 Budget
(Sheriff's Department)
This item was discussed after Item #2 of New Business.
Undersheriff Conser stated we have some money set aside for vehicles and we want to move that money to purchase these Axon cameras.
Undersheriff Conser reviewed the PowerPoint presentation attached to the minutes. We can’t purchase vehicles at this time, because of the chip shortage; they won’t be here until next year, so next year’s budget will be available for the vehicles we order now. I am asking to use the money to purchase these cameras.
Mrs. Traynere stated you mentioned when the squad turns on its lights the cameras automatically go on; what happens when the squad turns off its lights?
Undersheriff Conser replied the individual has to deactivate, or turn off their cameras; it is a backup. The other beauty of these cameras is you don’t have a mic. Your body camera is your mic so nobody forgets to turn their microphone on when they are going up to a vehicle. You have to manually turn the cameras off.
Mrs. Traynere asked the button you push to manually turn them off, how easily is that accidentally engaged?
Undersheriff Conser replied there is a light so you know if it is engaged. It is not accidently turned on or off; you know when your cameras are on.
Mr. Harris asked why are we using Axon?
Undersheriff Conser replied they are the company we have the body cams through. They gave us a break if we go with their in-squad cameras. Their technology is so much more advanced and it works in sync with what we have with the body cams.
Mr. Fricilone stated Undersheriff Conser reviewed the whole plan with me. I never want to get off of our car buying plan, because the way it was laid out, we would replace them in intervals and never have a situation where we would have to buy 60 or 70 cars at a time; like we did the first year we put this plan in place. There are two things in play: we can’t get cars right now, even if we ordered them; and I asked the Undersheriff to do all of those savings scenarios for us. They may even need one less person in the Sheriff’s Department Administration Department to process all the stuff that they currently have to process with their cameras. There will be a savings from having these cameras. This is not something we have to vote on, but I suggest they go ahead and order their contingent of cars, because they are not going to get them until sometime next year and at least they will be in cue for the new cars. That will be in next year’s budget, so we might as well as get those on order, because it can take six to eight months before we get the cars. I am in favor of what he is going to do with the money. We don’t have a choice to use it for cars. I think we will show additional savings; these cameras will work much better and make it much easier for the information to be transferred to the State’s Attorney’s Office. I am in favor of making this move.
Mr. Harris asked is the cost for these cameras $1.2 million?
Undersheriff Conser replied yes, that is over four years. It is all paid up front; but it is $300,000 per year and we have it budgeted for the cars. Once that is up is when it becomes half of the cost of what we are currently paying for cameras in 2026 through 2030.
Mr. Harris asked when you order the cars, could you have some documentation to say don’t deliver them for at least six months?
Undersheriff Conser replied when we went to order them, they told us they were not built yet; they can’t get the chips to build them.
Mr. Harris stated I just want to make sure they don’t send them to us and we have to pay this year.
Ms. Tyson asked have the cars been ordered and are they considered on back order?
Undersheriff Conser replied we could order them, but they said they are not even built. There is no money changing hands. We just asked to reserve a certain number of vehicles when they start building them again.
A motion was made by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Tyson, to use the money for the cars to buy these cameras.
| 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 |
(Mitch Schaben / Tim Mack)
This item was discussed before Item #1 of New Business.
Mr. DuBois stated Mr. Tim Mack is prepared to address the financial standpoint. Then Ms. Christina Snitko and Mr. Dave Hartke are prepared to answer questions; many of which were addressed at the Capital Committee meeting.
Mr. Mack stated there is a presentation in the agenda packet to provide you with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the financials of this project. We want to show you where we are currently and what we need to do to successfully complete the project. This is a different type of capital project, in that it is an investment for the County, both financially and in terms of providing renewable energy. We have worked with our design and engineering consultant, Eco Engineers, to provide pro formas for what the expected results can be, in terms of revenue to Will County, once this project is completed. For the first ten years, our conservative estimates, with natural gas rates at an all-time low, are that the County would net between $48 and $85 million over the next ten years; about $4.8 to $8.5 million per year, for the next ten years. That is the net revenue after operating expenses and paying off debt service for the bonds that were issued for this project. After the bonds are retired in 12 years, the annual revenue should become $13 million. Over the course of a 30 year lifespan for this facility, the County can expect to net between $200 and $300 million; not to mention the saving of the CO2 and other emissions. After doing our evaluation of everything we know of and anticipating some potential unknowns, the subtotal for the construction will be tied to the bond purchases, including the change orders and other anticipated things, we are looking at a total of $49.3 million. We added a 10% contingency on top of that. This is a very complex project and there are things that simply cannot be anticipated. Our goal is to not touch any of the contingency, but we added that into the total, just in case. We have expended the overwhelming majority of what that project was to provide from the RR&E fund. A bulk of that comes from the $2.5 million in the debt service that was taken from the solid waste fund. The total for the professional services is approximately $3.19 million. We added the contingency, just in case. We don’t anticipate having to touch that money. Between the bond proceeds and the RR&E fund, with the 10% contingency added on top, we expect the project to go to no more than $57.9 million. If we don’t touch the contingency, we expect the costs to be closer to $52.9 million, between the two funds. The worst case scenario would be, but we don’t expect this to really happen, but we are planning for it; if the contractor were to run into bedrock and there would be a lot of digging in different portions of the pipeline. It is a very low possibility, but we wanted to add that to the spreadsheet, just in case. At a cost of $57.9 million, from the proceeds that will be generated from the plant, the County can expect an annual return of 8% for the first 12 years, while the bonds are being retired. Then it jumps up to between 14% and 16% for the remaining life of the project. To date, we have paid out of the bonds proceeds $14.6 million, which represents about 30.5% of the bond proceeds. From the RR&E fund we have spent about $2.8 million. There are still some remaining bills to pay for professional services for the project. I would be happy to entertain any questions and will address them to the best of my ability.
Ms. Ventura stated in the Capital Improvements Committee they talked about an opportunity to speed up the timeline, which tells me we are paying overtime. Have we projected that into the costs? If we don’t speed up the timeline, are we working with our off-taker to make sure that we can get our maximum contract? If we lose that and they don’t renegotiate with us, if we miss the deadline and lose those REN percentages, is that indicated in your projections; or because your projections are long-term, does it not factor in? If there is a huge amount we are going to be losing, we should look at overtime or bringing in another construction crew to make sure we can speed that up; if it financially makes sense. Have you run any of those projections and if so, are they reflected?
Mr. Mack replied in terms of the potential to bring the timelines in, Ms. Snitko and Mr. Hartke have been working with the contractors, but I don’t know that there are any specifics. We don’t know that it will necessarily create any overtime, as there are other activities they can run parallel. They would probably be in a better position to address that issue. If there are overtime costs; that is one of the reasons we factored in a 10% contingency factor. From the construction standpoint, we built in just under $5 million for items like that. As we get more information as to what would be required, we would share that information with the Committee. I would assume if it is going to be above and beyond what is in the contracted amounts, contingency would be required.
Ms. Ventura asked has anyone done a cost analysis of if we lose 1% of our RENS, what that would look like?
Mr. Mack replied very preliminary discussions of timelines and potential changes that could be made to accommodate that without any penalties are on-going with our off-taker. They have been receptive, because they realize the long-term benefits not only to us, but to them.
Ms. Ventura continued I am asking for the worst case scenario. We should be aware of what that looks like. I want us to be negotiating, because they get a benefit and we get a benefit. In full transparency, what I don’t want to happen is five or ten years from now we hear “you guys promised us we were going to make this much money and we didn’t”. I just want to make sure it is in the record that we did our full analysis, worst case scenario and this is what we stand to lose if we don’t hit our timeline. The best case scenario is that we would not spend any of our contingency funds and we come in under $59 million. If we lose time we may have to pay additional costs and dip into the contingency. What I am asking for is the worst case scenario, from a financial standpoint.
Mr. Mack replied we can work up those numbers. We are anticipating using some of the contingency that has been budgeted. We feel like our worst case scenario would be in the $57 million range, if we had to spend all of the contingency. That would include any penalties and additional costs for construction.
Mr. Fricilone stated what everybody needs to understand is this is not like the projects we have done in the past, where the Capital Improvements Committee was the Owner’s Rep. When a contingency expenditure was necessary, it was brought to the Capital Improvements Committee and they decided if it was worth going forward. With this project, if you vote for this $59 million budget, that is what the Executive’s Office can spend, without coming back to us. There will no longer be a need to come back to the County Board. We have no say on how the contingency is expended. I would not be in favor of voting for this number. I would like to see the contingency at $1 million for the entire project. If additional funds are needed, then you can come back to the Board and ask for additional money. By saying that we are giving $5.2 million in contingency, then that money is done; we have no control over it whatsoever. I would like for the County Board to have some type of control on where our expenses are going. If everyone understands, this is a little different process than we did before, where we were in total control of how the contingency was spent. Once you approve this budget, we have no control over how the contingency is spent. They will not need any additional approvals from us to spend any of the $5.2 million. I am suggesting $1 million as contingency for the entire project, construction and design. At the appropriate time, I will make that motion.
Mr. Moustis stated I was going to say something very similar to Mr. Fricilone. That contingency is way too high. The County Board has to be able to control these budgets, since the County Executive’s Office is not required to come back and let us know what change orders occur. In the past, change orders would come back to us. With this project, they don’t have to come back to us with the change orders. The only oversight the County Board has is in the budget. I agree with Mr. Fricilone and I would set the contingency at $1 million. If they need additional dollars, they can come back. The $1 million will cover any emergency that comes up and it would not slow them down. If they needed additional funds, they can come back to the County Board and fully explain to the Board why they are using the contingency funds beyond $1 million. I will be supporting Mr. Fricilone’s motion, when he makes it.
Mrs. Ogalla asked how many RNG plants are currently operating in the United States?
Ms. Snitko replied I don’t know the precise number, but it is a couple of hundred. This would be the second plant in the State of Illinois.
Mrs. Ogalla asked how many have you worked on?
Ms. Snitko replied this is my first.
Mrs. Ogalla asked how long is the project expected to take, from beginning to end?
Ms. Snitko responded we hope to finish in June, 2022.
Mrs. Ogalla stated my final comment is along the lines of what Mr. Fricilone and Mr. Moustis said; the contingency is too large, especially since you said a cushion has been built into the budget, as well as contingency. When I created budgets, I built a little cushion in here and there. So that means there is extra contingency or money stuck in the different projects tasks. I will support what Mr. Fricilone and
Mr. Moustis have proposed.
Mr. Harris asked is a 10% contingency standard on construction? What are we basing that on?
Mr. Mack replied yes, for fairly large construction projects, especially when you have the changes for material costs, labor etc. What the Board is asking for is very reasonable.
Ms. Ventura stated I can support Mr. Fricilone’s motion. If we need to accelerate this to bring in more money long-term, we need to know what those costs look like at that point. If they use the contingency and we recognize that bringing in millions of dollars in the future, it might be worth spending some extra money. However, when making that decision, it is important to see all of the numbers laid out at that time. I am okay with the smaller contingency. I also want to make a comment about the staff; Ms. Snitko and everyone who has helped us with the off-taker presentations, has been really fantastic. Mr. Fricilone, Mr. Moustis and I sat on the Ad-Hoc Committee where we went through this process. It is fairly new technology and I want to pat everyone on the back, our staff, Board Members and the County Executive, both the previous and current, that this is moving us into the future. Doing something new is leading the pack and it has not been easy. Everyone has been great in answering questions and giving us more information than we need and really trying to make thoughtful decisions, forward thinking decisions and it has not been easy. For everyone who has been part of this process, thank you very much, I really appreciate it.
Mr. Harris stated it seems the consensus on the Finance Committee is to reduce the contingency. To clarify when Mr. Fricilone makes his motion it will be to set the budget for this project.
Mr. Fricilone stated to set a budget, I don’t include potential costs.
A motion was made by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Ventura, to set the budget for the RNG facility at $53,631,580, which is the total cost and includes $1 million of contingency.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Ms. Olenek stated this is not an appropriation, it is a transfer of funds, these funds are already in our budget. We made a request to our Board of Health, and it goes to the County Board to take those funds from the personnel side and put them in the non-personnel side. We are not appropriating money, we are transferring already appropriated money from the personnel side to the non-personnel side in the amount of $250,000.
Mrs. Traynere asked did you not need the personnel you thought you would need? What are you going to use the money on now?
Ms. Olenek replied it is not a matter of not needing personnel. We have had issues with recruiting and hiring people. Some positions have been vacant for quite some time and you accrue money. On the non-personnel side, we have had to keep additional temp people and people here to support COVID and the mass vaccination grant. They are paid from the non-personnel side so we switched the money to non-personnel to keep them on a little longer.
Mrs. Ogalla asked what are the issues with recruiting? How many vacant position are you short in filling?
Ms. Olenek replied as far as the number of positions, I don’t have that number off the top of my head. Seven weeks ago we had about 40 vacant positions. Our HR Department and managers have done a tremendous job in trying to decrease that number. We have hired a number of people over the last three or four weeks, but we still have some vacant positions. I will have to count them and get back to you. I know it is over 15, but I don’t know the exact number. If you drive around anywhere you see “now hiring” signs everywhere. We could put the same kind of sign outside of our building. I don’t know what it is, I don’t know if people are not wanting to get into public health or not wanting to get into healthcare. There are a lot of things going on there. Within the last couple of months we have had six or eight long-term employees retire. I am talking about employees who were here 20 plus years; one was here 32 years; another was here 34 years. It is a mixture of things, and we are working hard to fill those positions, because we do need them.
Mrs. Ogalla asked is there one particular area with openings or are they just scattered positions throughout?
Ms. Olenek responded there are positions throughout, but the two areas that we are having the most problems with are at the Community Health Center and our Behavioral Health Division; those are the most challenged.
Ms. Ventura stated we can discuss this tomorrow or next month at Public Health, but it is appropriate to discuss it here, in case we have to bring it back. Are there things you feel might incite people to those jobs, i.e. better pay, different benefits or making some part-time employees full-time? Each individual is unique, some people might need certificates. Could you identify what feedback you have gotten from hiring those positions? Is there something we can do? It is not unique to healthcare. We are seeing a bigger loss in healthcare as people are under more and more stress as COVID continues to impact people’s mental health, as well as other things that are happening. We have lost almost 700,000 people in this country. It is not just in healthcare we are losing; there is going to have to be a shift in things as we have lost people in all industries. We will probably see businesses being acquired by other businesses, either from the lack of resources or the lack of labor being available. There will definitely be growing pains or shrinking pains as it may be, as we adapt and shift around over the next years. What we need to do is anticipate some of those things ourselves and see how we can bring on those most needed positions now. What do we need to do to be competitive in those hiring practices, especially if they are important to the continued services we provide? I am happy to discuss that tomorrow at the Public Health meeting, if you would like, or you can just bring forward some numbers, we can do that at this committee also.
Mr. Harris asked will the $250,000 help you finish out 2021, because you may not be using the money?
Ms. Olenek replied we are using it. We are taking it from the personnel side and transferring it to the non-personnel side, because that is where the contractual workers are being paid from.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Karen Hennessy)
Mrs. Traynere asked how long have we been with the current audit company? Mr. Palmer replied I don’t know.
Mr. Moustis stated we have used this company for about five years. Ms. Ventura stated this is an annual contract we approve.
Mrs. Traynere stated I understand, but in the past Mr. Moustis stated we should switch companies every ten years.
Mr. Moustis stated it is a good practice to change the auditors. We have followed that practice over the years. I don’t think we have gone as far as ten years; maybe six to eight years. Then your current auditing firm is disqualified from giving a proposal.
Mrs. Traynere continued I just couldn’t remember how long we had been with this firm. You think it is about five years.
Mr. Moustis stated I think it has been about five years. Mr. Harris, I suggest that you put it back on the agenda to go out for an RFQ for auditing services sometime real soon. It is a lengthy process to select a new auditor. Now is the time to start those discussions.
Mr. Harris stated we will start the process of an RFQ.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Margaret Tyson, Vice Chair AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Ms. Howard reviewed the information in the agenda packet.
Ms. Ventura stated I hate to open this can of worms, but I want to understand this better; last year there was a lot of discussion about taking the full CPI and new property. On here you have those numbers broken down in the limiting rate calculation. Can you explain the pros and cons and what it means to take the full CPI and what it means to take the tax on the new property? Can you explain from a procedural standpoint and what that actually means?
Ms. Howard replied the CPI is basically an inflationary increase, which by State Statute, allows the taxing district to spread the tax base across all taxpayers. The new construction is any new property or any new construction that was not included in the previous tax levy that would be included in the current tax levy.
Ms. Ventura asked why would we not include that in the tax levy?
Ms. Howard replied the way the formula works, it should all be included together and should not be separated. It would be to the advantage to include the CPI and the new property. If you do not include new property, that tax burden is on the existing property.
Ms. Ventura stated it makes sense to me to include new property. If they are living in a house, they should also pay the taxes like the rest of us. The inflation is the dollars that is being shared and split up, whether it is a company or a residence, we all have to pay that cost. To me it makes sense. I am trying to understand for any future arguments that might proceed among the Board Members.
Ms. Howard stated trying to understand how this all works it gets a little complicated. I hope I was able to explain that as I understand it.
Mrs. Ogalla stated thank you for answering those questions and trying to clear it up for the rest of us that are unsure why we would take the full CPI and new construction. The new construction is when we ask them to pay their taxes. Sometimes, they were delayed a year. They were allowed to wait to pay and the money was not collected until the next year. Taking the CPI is paying the cost of inflation. We have already paid the cost of inflation, due to everything else that has inflated during the current year. On top of paying the cost of inflation, the cost we have incurred personally, now we are asking our constituents to pay again, the cost of inflation, so we can raise our levy by that particular amount. I would not support taking both the CPI and new construction, as we have for the last several years. I don’t support that, because when we do that, it increases our levy and that increases our budget and what we will spend. If government is ever going to control taxes in Illinois, there has to be a resounding effort across all taxing bodies to say we are going to hold the line on raising the levy year after year, after year, after year for the full CPI and new construction. The fire departments do it every year. The school districts do it every year. It gets to the point where people are no longer able to pay the property tax that is taxed. Thank you for the explanation. I will not support the full CPI and new construction and putting that additional cost onto our taxpayers, which has been happening for a while now. Regardless of the fact, we continue to say we are lowing the rate. That is a nice way to cover it up. The fact remains we are increasing the levy.
Mr. Moustis asked Ms. Howard can you send us your presentation? I think it explains things very easily, so I might use this when people ask me questions. Regarding new construction, new construction is outside the cap. Even though we have not experienced that, we may experience that next year. In other words, you are going to get a 5% inflation rate. You can do 5% plus new construction. I have always supported taking the new construction. I have not always supported taking the full CPI, understanding there are inflationary pressures that come to the County also. I probably will not be supporting the levy. I don’t support taking the full CPI, but I have always supported the new construction. There have been times that I supported taking portions of the CPI.
Ms. Mueller stated I appreciate everyone sharing their experiences on this topic. Is the presentation you shared the memo in the packet addressed to Mr. Harris?
Ms. Howard replied yes.
Ms. Mueller continued I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right thing. I want to share my experience with not taking CPI. In the area I live in, some of our taxing bodies chose to do that for about three years. The result was it sent our school district with about 18,000 children, into a massive crisis and created quite a mess. I want to caution folks that as much as I appreciate wanting to save money for the taxpayers and stuff, running County government seems to be costing more and more each year. As much as we try to keep the costs down, we really like the services the county provides and there has to be a balance.
Mr. Harris stated if we do not take the full CPI, we will be unable to make that up in our budget. We are at a time when we have increased public safety and building expenses.
Ms. Mueller stated it would take a hit on our Sheriff’s Department as well. We want to make sure we are funding our Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Harris stated we also have the personnel and maintenance costs; that is what we are faced with.
Mrs. Traynere stated I agree with Mrs. Ogalla, I would love to see our property taxes go down. One way for that to happen would be for the State of Illinois to start paying more toward the cost of funding our schools. We are just taxpayer elected representatives who are stuck in the middle. We are expected to provide security and safety for our residents. Everyone wants quick and speedy trials and our same residents want the very best schools. I don’t see how us not raising our taxes by a few bucks here or there is going to lighten the load for my neighbors that complain about their property taxes. The issues are the schools; they need more funding and they need it from the State or they are going to get it from the taxpayers. We are not on the State Legislature. I just don’t see any way for us to make any changes at the State level. I am absolutely in support of the direction we are going. Even though I would love to cut taxes, I don’t see how.
Ms. Ventura stated Ms. Mueller and Mrs. Traynere those are great comments. Maybe this is something the Legislative Committee could take up and push from a County stand point, since we all feel that burden. My understanding is that we set this levy later on, but we estimate it now. Are we estimating for it to be lower, based on these numbers here?
Ms. Howard replied it should be attached. There should be a word document attached.
Ms. Ventura stated there is a Resolution and memo you reviewed.
Ms. Howard continued the Resolution print out is the document that you will vote on today. That Resolution will also go forward to the full County Board at the October Board meeting.
Ms. Ventura asked is the rate of 0.5728% what we are voting on? Ms. Howard replied yes. The normal process is that in October the Finance Committee sets the estimate of the annual tax levy and it is fvoted on by the full Board at the October Board meeting.
Ms. Ventura stated looking at the Resolution, the final levy from last year was $133 million and this year’s levy is at $137 million. Is that because of the inflation or did our costs go up from other increases? If we are trying to keep our budget similar to last years, could we lower that rate anymore?
Ms. Howard replied that is the calculation that was included in the budget. I received final numbers from our Supervisor of Assessment’s Office, so that went up about $200,000. We normally receive, before the October meeting, any final numbers that may have come in from the time we presented the budget until now.
Ms. Ventura stated so if we wanted to lower our tax rate significantly and still take the CPI and new construction, what we need to do is lower the budget, as a whole. Is that an accurate statement?
Ms. Howard asked what do you mean by that?
Ms. Ventura continued the rate right now is bringing in $137 million, if we go with this tax rate?
Ms. Howard replied yes, that is the total.
Ms. Ventura stated and that is how we set our budget. We now have $137 million to spend.
Ms. Howard replied no. The $137 million was presented in the budget and this was included in the budget. In the corporate fund $90 million has been included. Then you have the breakout for the other funds, which are special funds. Your question is, if we reduced the $137 million we would have to make changes in the budget?
Ms. Ventura replied yes. If we cut the entire corporate fund of $90 million, we could substantially decrease the rate of our levy. Of course, the $90 million pays for a lot of services, our pay checks and a lot of other things. From an understanding standpoint, in order to decrease that levy even more, we would have to find areas in the budget to decrease. If there are areas people feel we need to decrease, we should have those conversations with those departments and the County Executive. We have not had these conversations, so this is an appropriate number, for the budget we have been looking at so far.
Ms. Howard stated that would be an accurate statement.
Mrs. Ogalla stated we are looking at the budget that was given to us by the County Executive to start with. There has been no conversation from the majority party to lower the budget by any percentage. In the past, when we got the budget from County Executive Larry Walsh, they would pass it on to us and then the majority party at that time, we would change the budget and make some cuts to the budget. A budget is simply something that is not exact; it is what we ask for. There are hidden cushions in the budget, as mentioned in the last presentation we had. We continue to hire more employees, we continue to add more services, because we think we need to add services and by doing all of that, it increases the cost of government. The EAV is based on your home’s value in Will County. The money that we receive is what we get after everybody’s deductions are taken out from their tax bills. Everybody should have this conversation, everywhere a budget is being presented. Those of you in the majority party should contact Springfield and ask for that. You are the ones who have the power in Springfield to say how about we make some changes in the way we fund schools. Nobody wants to touch that animal. Nobody wants to touch any of these things, which is why so many people leave and go to other states for lower property taxes and other taxes. We don’t ever get serious about the cost of government. Maybe we need to make a couple of cuts here and there and not have government grow every single year, again and again and again. Eventually, you are going to grow yourself out of the budget. This is not free money we are looking at here. This is the money hard earned on the backs of our residents; some of whom are going to be losing their jobs because they made the choice they do not want to take the vaccine that is being mandated for them to take. They are losing their jobs because they made that choice, as an American citizen. Now, how do they pay their taxes? We need to get serious and think about how we are moving forward. It is nice to try and create a utopia, but everything comes with a cost, but we never want to sit down and get serious about the cost. I brought up HB3653 earlier and talked about the unfunded mandates in that. Now Mr. Conser and the State’s Attorney’s Office have brought forward to us the additional costs that were in that bill that we are having to pay for. Instead of having a conversation about what was in the bill; everyone said no, we are going to go ahead and do it; that is what the powers that be in Springfield want and we are going to support that. We need to stop. We need to stop and ask is that the right thing to do? Can we continue to do this with our constituents? I agree, this should be a Legislative issue. We should, as elected officials, use the influence we have with the State Legislature to say listen these changes need to come and they need to come from you and we need to stand behind that and make sure that they do those changes. That is a great idea and I would love to see that happen. We have never done anything against Springfield. We have never taken a position against them, very rarely, unless they want to cut something that would fund County government. That is the only time we have done that. We need to be serious and we are not being serious. Because of that, I will be a no vote on the levy.
Mr. Moustis stated quite a few years ago, when we were getting some tax objections, one of the issues was how you have to approve a levy before you do the budget. In other words, the budget does not dictate the levy, the levy dictates funds available for the budget. In a lot of this conversation, you are flipping that around. You want the levy to set the proposed budget, when that is not the way you should be looking at it. I was told this many years ago, this is not really how you move forward with the levy and the budget. That is why the estimated levy has to be done before you approve the budget. The levy will then determine the appropriations in the budget. When you talk about we have to set a budget, there is no approved budget and the proposed budget should not dictate what the levy should be. We should keep that in mind. We have not suggested any cuts to this proposed levy or this proposed budget. If the levy is less, we absolutely are going to have to make cuts to the proposed budget that was presented to us. The levy comes before the budget and the levy determines the funding in the budget.
Ms. Ventura asked why do we approve the levy much later than we approve the budget?
Mr. Moustis stated one of the things is we have a proposed levy. Someone from the State’s Attorney’s Office explained this to me many years ago, and perhaps the State’s Attorney’s Office can weigh in, but they make it clear that you should not be making statements that look like you are setting a levy, based on a proposed budget. The levy determines the budget. As long as I have been around, it still gets a little confusing for me. I am just mentioning that it is the levy that determines the budget, plus any other funds that are available from past budgets. Some of that has to do with the final numbers. You don’t really get final, final numbers on assessments until later. As we do the levy, the tax objections go on. You could see changes, especially if they are large commercial tax objections. That is why we try to settle with Exxon Mobil, ComEd, the nuclear plants and the refineries and try to get a five year assessment so we know and they know and it does not create fluctuations, if we lost a tax objection. Some of those negotiations are extremely important. I don’t think the final numbers get done until after the first of the year; that is part of the reason.
Ms. Mueller asked if Mrs. Tatroe is here, can she elaborate on what Mr. Moustis stated about the legality? With all due respect, I want to hear that from the State’s Attorney’s Office.
Mrs. Tatroe replied I am going to have to do some case law research on tax objections. It is something Mr. Phil Mock covered, so I will have to refresh my memory.
Mr. Moustis stated many years ago, at the Forest Preserve District, a tax objector brought this issue up. It was because the Forest Preserve District passed the budget before they passed the levy. The tax objector said you can’t do the budget and then pass the levy to fit that budget. Then we changed the procedure. I believe the County always passed the levy prior to the budget, but the Forest Preserve District did not.
Mrs. Tatroe indicated she would look into that.
A motion was made by Ms. Ventura, seconded by Mrs. Traynere, to approve the levy.
Mrs. Jakaitis began the roll call with Tyson and stated Ms. Tyson has stepped out of the room. I will come back to her.
On a roll call vote: Members Marcum, Traynere, Ventura and Harris voted yes. Members Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla and Pretzel voted no. There were four affirmative and four negative.
Mr. Harris asked where is Ms. Tyson?
Mrs. Jakaitis replied Ms. Tyson stepped out of the room. Can we come back to this? I am not sure what the procedure would be.
Mr. Harris asked Mrs. Tatroe to respond.
Mrs. Tatroe stated I don’t think you can leave the vote. Can someone call her and see if she can get back on and vote.
Ms. Mueller stated she is in the building.
Mr. Fricilone stated let’s give her a minute.
Ms. Ventura stated if this fails, as a tie would, then it would have to come back anyway.
Mrs. Tatroe stated it would go forward to County Board with no recommendation from the Finance Committee. You can do that, if no one is there.
Ms. Ventura asked do you think she is still in the building?
Mr. Moustis stated point of order; when someone leaves the room, they leave the room. Since Ms. Tyson has not come back into the room, I am going to talk to give her a little more time. We have never, in a case of someone walking out of the room, said let’s wait, can we come back? I have never seen that. I am just pointing that out.
Ms. Ventura agreed.
Mr. Pretzel stated you are setting a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Moustis continued sometimes people walk out of the room purposely, by the way. I think we just move on. It is not a big deal. This moves forward with no recommendation from Committee. The County Board Members are quite capable of making a decision, without a recommendation from the Finance Committee.
Mrs. Ogalla and Ms. Mueller agreed.
Mrs. Jakaitis stated just to clarify, the Resolution will move forward to the full County Board, but there will be a notation that there was no recommendation. Is that correct?
Mr. Fricilone stated the motion failed.
Mrs. Tatroe stated it would reflect the vote as a tie.
Mr. Harris stated we have four ayes and four no’s so it is moving forward to the full County Board with no recommendation.
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [4 TO 4]
TO: Will County Board AYES: Harris, Marcum, Traynere, Ventura NAYS: Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel AWAY: Tyson |
(ReShawn Howard)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [8 TO 0]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Judy Ogalla, Member SECONDER: Jim Moustis, Member AYES: Harris, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura AWAY: Tyson |
(Jen Alberico/Julie Shetina)
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
(Jen Alberico/Julie Shetina)
| RESULT: MOVED FORWARD [UNANIMOUS]
TO: Will County Board MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Tyler Marcum, 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
Mr. Harris thanked everyone who weighed in at the public hearing last night. It was refreshing to see the public getting involved.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 2:27 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Frankie Pretzel, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Pretzel, Traynere, Ventura |
Alerts Sign-up