Will County Finance Committee met Nov. 9.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Ms. Tyson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Kenneth E. Harris called the meeting to order at 12:20 PM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Kenneth E. Harris | Chair | Present | |
| Margaret Tyson | Vice Chair | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Tyler Marcum | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Frankie Pretzel | Member | Absent | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Present | |
| Rachel Ventura | Member | Present |
Also Present: M. Mueller, N. Palmer and B. Adams.
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion of FY2022 Budget
(Discussion)
Mr. Harris stated there were some budget items we discussed last week and I am going to ask Ms. Howard to speak on the changes. Today we want to concentrate on the budget and what is going forward to the full County Board.
Ms. Howard reviewed the spreadsheet in the agenda packet dated November 4, 2021. Once these changes have been approved, they will be included in the final budget and that will bring our overall budget numbers for the corporate fund to $251,298,807 from the recommended of $242,852,158. The special funds will increase to $541,567,763 from the recommended number of $435,303,188. The new overall combined total is $792.8 million from the previous combined total of $678.1 million.
Mr. Fricilone stated I have some questions and some recommendations. I still do not see that we deducted $1 million from the County Clerk’s Office, since we are saving $1 million in temporary workers and other things due to the new machines we are buying. I would like to see us make that adjustment and see us establish a line item for the 211 system we saw at the Executive Committee. I have been a proponent of that since the CARES Act. I would like us to allocate $350,000 to that from the County Clerk’s savings. I would also like to see us allocate an additional $300,000 for the CAC; bringing their total contribution to $450,000. We will have some additional monies, if we take $1 million out of the County Clerk’s budget, and Mr. Moustis has recommended that we put $300,000 into the Will Ride program, so we can subsidize more of that program. That would get us real close to the $1 million we are saving in the County Clerk’s budget.
Ms. Ventura stated I would second Mr. Fricilone’s motion, if he actually makes a motion.
Mr. Fricilone stated I wanted to first check with Ms. Howard and then I will make the official motion.
Ms. Howard stated I circled back with the County Clerk’s Office to get a little more information and to see if there would actually be a savings since they were implementing the automated vote by mail system. From what the County Clerk explained, there would not be a savings next year because they are implementing the vote by mail equipment; they would still need those individuals. There is a two part correlation in the increase in the temporary salary for the two large elections that will happen next year. They have the primary election in June and a general election in November and that is for the election judges and so forth to operate the equipment. I am not sure if the County Clerk wants to add anything. I understand your initial thought that there would be some savings, but after speaking with her there is not. I think she would like to add more information as to what her operations are and if there would be any savings.
Mr. Pelkie stated what we are talking about, in terms of savings, and what you are talking about in terms of cutting, is money proposed for our Election Day election judges. The savings we are talking about is funding we funded out of CARES Act during the last election. What we are talking about now is funding for election judges who would be in the field on Election Day; that is what you are talking about cutting. As far as the savings for the vote by mail equipment is concerned, the savings would be either we purchase the vote by mail equipment or we continue to hire election judges at a cost of $130,000 plus per election into the foreseeable future. In essence, the fund we are talking about right now is for the election judges who are in the field serving voters on Election Day.
Mr. Fricilone stated I am not talking about election judges. That was not the presentation the Clerk’s Office gave to us. We voted to buy that equipment based on the fact we were going to save $1 million per year, based on the new equipment, which you had the authority to buy. I am assuming you have put the order in, because you told us we had to rush to get that order in. I am talking about that money. Wherever you were getting the $1 million savings you presented that is where I want that money to come from.
Mr. Pelkie stated what we are talking about was the additional funding it would cost to continue to put together a vote by mail program manually; that was the funding. Those are additional costs we would have to incur as a result of doing the vote by mail program manually. The vote by mail equipment is something that will pay for itself, compared against those costs, by the end of 2024. The request was to buy the vote by mail equipment and engage in an automation program. Otherwise, we would continue to put together the vote by mail ballots and process them manually, at a significant cost into the foreseeable future.
Mr. Fricilone stated maybe someone else can pipe in, but that is not what we thought you meant when you said, “if we buy the equipment, we will receive these savings, starting as soon as we put the equipment into effect”. You can’t save money that you have not spent or budgeted; that is not a savings. It would have already been in the budget to do whatever we had to do without the equipment. By authorizing the equipment, it was supposed to show a savings of $1 million in the County Clerk’s budget and that is the money I want to use. However, if after other people discuss this, and we are not saving that money, I still want to go forward with the three things I asked for in the budget, even if we have to take it out of contingency. We need to clarify this. Maybe someone else could speak to what I heard when we got the presentation from the County Clerk’s Office.
Mr. Moustis asked the $1 million in the FY2022 budget is an election cost that will come out of the FY2023 budget, is that correct?
Mr. Pelkie stated when Mr. Fricilone asked us for a return on investment, we calculated the ROI at roughly $500,000 per election, compared to the cost of hiring election judges and incurring the expenses of putting this program together manually.
Mr. Moustis stated that is not what I am asking. I am asking if the $1 million that is in the FY2022 budget, which is the election cost for judges, will not be in the FY2023 budget. There is a one-time election cost, is that correct?
Mr. Pelkie replied no. There are no election judge costs. If you are looking at the temporary line item, which is about $680,000, that is a cost for the election judges we put into the field on Election Day. It is the cost for election judges and field techs over the course of two elections. What we funded for the vote by mail program in FY2020 was done with grants. We have no funding in the budget for vote by mail, other than what the County Board allocated to purchase the vote by mail automation equipment.
Mr. Moustis stated I am going to say one more time, it is not unusual, during election years to put additional money into the County Clerk’s budget for the election. What I am saying is in FY2023 you will not have those same election costs and it will not move forward in the FY2023 budget.
Mr. Pelkie stated the costs will be reduced in FY2023 because there will only be one election in 2023.
Mr. Moustis stated I support the 211, CAC and the Will Ride and agree that funding should put it into the budget. We should still move forward and take it from contingency, which is a pretty healthy contingency at this point. I would rather put that money to work than to have it sitting in contingency.
Ms. Ventura stated I am looking at the budget book and I see on page 136 County Clerk and then on page 139 County Clerk’s Elections. When you are talking about an increase, am I finding that $1 million in the County Clerk’s election section? Can you point to where the investment into the machines is in our budget book?
Ms. Howard replied the County Board allocated the funds for the machines out of the County Board contingency fund or the defederalized funds; that is how the equipment was paid for. When referencing the savings, it would be the County Clerk’s elections, which starts on page 139 of the budget book. The equipment was purchased in FY2021, so it is not included in the FY2022 budget.
Ms. Ventura stated when I am looking at page 136, which is not the election fund, I see an increase of $164,500 in full-time staff and benefits. Although we did not budget for overtime in FY2021, there is almost $18,000 budgeted for FY2022. There is already an increase there for staff. I am assuming that is not for the election judges, because I would anticipate seeing that on page 139, is that correct?
Ms. Howard replied you are correct. The County Clerk has two budgets; her general one and one specifically for elections and for her staff that works on the elections piece.
Ms. Ventura stated I see an increase of $400,000 plus in full-time employees and another $680,000 in temporary employees. Are you telling me we are adding $1 million for election judges?
Ms. Howard replied if you combine the two, yes. If you are just looking at the elections, you will see in even years the temporary salary line increases due to two elections. If you look at 2020 that is almost $870,000 and for next year she is only requesting $680,000. The salary numbers here are for the current staff.
Ms. Ventura stated the temporary line is what we are looking at, not the election judges and election workers.
Ms. Howard stated the temporary line is specifically election judges.
Mr. Pelkie stated it is for election judges and field technicians who service the election judges on Election Day. I believe it also includes the early voting workers, who service voters during the two week period prior to the election.
Ms. Ventura continued I am seeing a $363,228 increase in full-time staff; not election judges. I am also seeing an increase of $164,000, right there is $500,000 in increased salaries. Does this jive with what other departments are receiving? Are these built in as part of the collective bargaining? It seems a little high to me.
Ms. Howard replied that is in line. She has a large number of employees who are collective bargaining.
Mr. Pelkie stated a vast majority of our department is collective bargaining. We have a small number of employees who are exempt.
Ms. Ventura asked can I anticipate seeing these same pay raises in other departments throughout the County? When you look at the percentage, we are talking about more than 1.5 times. I am rounding, but it is $2 million and they you have $500,000 in increases. So we are anticipating 15% to 20% raises for our collective bargaining group?
Mr. Pelkie replied I am not prepared to talk about the salary line items. I apologize, I was not anticipating that as a comment. I can take a look at it and get back to you. I was prepared to discuss the $680,000 for the temporary workers. I thought that was the focus of the conversation today.
Ms. Ventura stated in the meantime I am going to second Mr. Fricilone’s motion. I am all for expanding vote by mail, but it was also my understanding that if we gave you all this money for machines we would save money. I know County Clerk Staley Ferry was given an award for saving money by having a smaller postcard. I applaud all of the efforts you have made, and I want to continue that, but it was shown to us in that presentation that we were going to be saving money. There are other needs happening in the county. You also talked about using the Copperfield Building and now we are being told you can’t store your equipment there and we need to make different arrangements. What I don’t want to continue to see is (inaudible). We voted based on that understanding, but now we are the ones stuck holding the bag. We have to vote on improvements for that building; they want $6 million for changes. We could have built a building for that. We have seen some frustrations, thinking we were going to have one set of costs for the building and savings with the machines, but we ended up getting another set of costs and it feels like our hands are tied. At some point, we have to say we agreed to “x” and we are going to hold true to “x”. Maybe we are not at that line in the sand yet, but we need to be cautious when people come to the County Board with savings and that we hold true to that. When it comes time to work on our budget, we are going to hold people accountable for those savings. I would like to see Will Ride funded. It is super important that we have public transportation. It is obvious the CAC needs some type of funding, whether we rehab the Silver Cross Building or we fund some type of capital plan and build a building for them. There are other counties that fund their CAC at a higher amount than we do. I think we need those types of services for families and children in traumatic situations and we want to be able to provide those services. I agree with Mr. Fricilone, we need to find $1 million, even it comes from contingency, but I want to make sure we are living up to the presentations we were given.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Fricilone, what number did you give for the CAC?
Mr. Fricilone replied $300,000 for CAC; $350,000 for 211 and $300,000 for Will Ride. I have the presentation that we received. The savings estimate was based on 125,000 vote by mail in ballots, per election. We were going to save: mailing costs $183,000; part-time election judges $119,000; overtime and comp time $114,000 and ballot printing $90,000 for a total savings of $507,000 per election. We have two elections next year, which means we will save $1.14 million next year, according to the presentation we received, and it should start as soon as we have our first election with the new equipment. According to this, we are going to save $1 million and that is why I said we should do these three things.
Mr. Pelkie stated if I could clarify the numbers we presented. We are looking at a $507,000 savings, per election, compared to the cost of hiring election judges, incurring additional postage expenses and doing all these things manually. So that is the savings we will see, per election, compared against asking for those additional costs going on into the future.
Mr. Fricilone stated if we did not buy the equipment, that cost should have been in the budget. You did not ask for any additional budget, had we not bought the machines. You said this would save us money, if we bought the machines.
Mr. Pelkie stated it was based on future costs. We were asking for $30,000 in election judge expenses and we have no idea how many ballots we would need to add, plus the overtime and comp time.
Mr. Moustis asked are you going to be using this new equipment in the upcoming elections?
Ms. Mueller stated Mr. Pelkie clarified what I was going to ask, because in the presentation they gave, I understood this was money being saved on our future by not hiring extra folks to come and work elections, if we were still manually handling these ballots. I agree with Mr. Fricilone; I would like to see how we can get the funding done for these organizations, because we definitely need to address those.
Ms. Howard stated just so I am clear on the recommendations; I have $300,000 for the CAC, $350,000 for 211 and $300,000 for Will Ride.
Mr. Fricilone added and the CAC is an additional amount. Right now we just give them $150,000.
Ms. Howard stated this is $300,000 additional for CAC, which will be a total of $450,000.
Mr. Fricilone stated that money will be for their operations.
Mrs. Ogalla stated so like everyone else, I heard the same presentation and it is very concerning to me. There was all this support for vote by mail, but it is a huge cost. What is the return rate of those we send out and those actually voted. That is something we should consider looking into. We have these three issues, which are very important to me; the CAC, Will Ride and the new 211 system. We have funds from our cannabis dollars that are sitting there and we have never had a discussion on what we are going to use them for. You might consider doing this one time, to fund this right now, for one year from the cannabis funds. Could we have a conversation on that? I would be happy to make a motion to use those dollars for that. We have that money and it is just sitting there and it is a definite revenue source. These are three areas we could fund going into the next year from those dollars. That might be something for us to consider, since the County
Clerk’s Office is saying we said we would have a $507,000 savings per election, but in reality we are not having a savings and it is very conflicting.
Mr. Pelkie stated the $507,000 savings, per election, is against the future costs of assembling vote by mail ballots and processing them manually. All of these costs would be added to the budget if we were to move forward with this program manually, and would cost a minimum of $507,000 per election going forward. By purchasing the automated vote by mail equipment, we will being saving those costs. If not, we would be asking for additional funding to cover these additional costs for the manual assembly of the vote by mail ballots.
Mrs. Ogalla asked do you always ask for additional funding in years we have a large primary and general election? Is this a standard process? That is not the interpretation the Board had. You have heard everyone speak about it. We thought this new equipment would help because it would be done by the equipment versus manually. Do you always ask for additional money for every single big election we have or is this something new?
Mr. Pelkie replied it is something new. The increase in vote by mail ballots requests was dramatic and was driven by the pandemic. We went from the high water mark of 30,000 vote by mail requests in 2016 to 125,000 in 2020. In 2020 those were all assembled manually and required the hiring of over 25 election judges to assemble the vote by mail ballots. We had to keep them onboard on a long-term basis, to process those ballots when they were returned. The automation process will allow us to not hire those election judges in the future. This was done in 2020 to meet the unprecedented demand. Again, this was not a cost that was incurred by the County, it was paid for through CARES Act funding, but we won’t have that CARES Act funding in the future. In the future, we would be trying to meet 125,000 vote by mail requests through county funding. That is what the automation equipment is for; to reduce those costs moving forward.
Mr. Fricilone asked why wasn’t that additional money in the budget when you had your budget meeting with Ms. Howard, which started in March of this year?
Mr. Pelkie replied I can’t speak to that. I don’t know. We were in the process of putting together a plan for the vote by mail automation, and would not have to incur these additional expenses. We were in conversations with Blue Crest and Runbeck at that time.
Mr. Harris asked Ms. Howard would you recall their budget numbers?
Mr. Moustis asked what was the 2020 budget? It was a presidential election year, which usually has the highest turnout.
Ms. Howard replied the actual expense for the elections were $4.69 million in 2020.
Mr. Moustis asked what is proposed for the 2022 budget?
Ms. Howard responded $4.1 million.
Mr. Moustis asked will this equipment be used in the 2022 elections? County Clerk Staley Ferry replied yes.
Mr. Moustis continued so that should have reduced the costs. When you talked about future savings in the presentation, the future is now, if you are using it. That savings should be realized in this election, because you are implementing the new equipment.
Ms. Traynere asked Ms. Howard to repeat the numbers. I thought the 2022 number is lower; perhaps I missed something.
Ms. Howard stated $4.6 million was their 2020 actual and the 2022 recommended was $4.1 million.
Ms. Traynere stated that is a half-million dollars in savings. I would figure costs would have gone up in two years, but you are still talking about a half-million dollars in savings. Unless I heard something wrong.
Ms. Howard stated the 2020 total was $5.4 million, so the County Clerk is significantly under the 2020 budget figure with the actual cost of $4.6 million.
Ms. Traynere stated and it is $4.1 million for this budget.
Ms. Howard stated yes. What is being recommended is $4.1 million and that is just for elections.
Ms. Ventura stated I trust Ms. Howard and this Committee can make adjustments in different areas to come up with the dollars. I want to say, I support the 211 initiative. If it is not coming from the County Clerk’s budget, because it sounds like there was some misunderstandings in the presentation that was given, but as Ms. Traynere pointed out, there is $500,000 savings; I hope Ms. Howard can find those dollars. I want to comment on what Mrs. Ogalla suggested. Initially, in this Committee, when we set up a special fund for the cannabis dollars, it was so that it would impact people who were impacted by the war on drugs, especially those in the R-3 area. We could, at some point, vote to move those dollars forward since we have those dollars. I am happy to renew my suggestion of having an advisory committee to help budget those funds. I would like to make sure those dollars are held aside until we have a conversation on those funds.
Mrs. Ogalla stated Ms. Ventura, we put those funds aside so we could make a decision on what we would spend those dollars on. We did not want it going into the general fund, because it would just get lost. That is not quite the recollection I have. We put it in the special fund so we could come up with a plan on how we might use those funds moving forward. We have had conversations in the past, but we have never discussed it in detail. When I said maybe we could come up with a plan, maybe we could take those dollars and use them for three years for one project and look at it again in three years so anything we fund would have a revenue source for at least three years. In this case, we could give funding to the CAC, 211 system and the Will Ride program. We could do that for three years and in three years look to see if it is needed in the future. It was not specific for that. It could have been part of it, but it was not specific to that. There are a lot of people who enjoy recreational marijuana and do not have substance abuse problems. It is not specific to that and we did not make it specific to that. We need to clarify that and we need to have a conversation about that. It may be your recollection and might be your intention, but it was not the intention of the Board.
Mr. Moustis stated that is a discussion for another day. I am going to pick up on Ms. Ventura’s comments, which I thought were excellent, and that is adding full time employees to elections. I would like to hear the justification of why we are buying equipment that will help reduce labor costs, yet we are adding two additional full-time people to elections. I don’t know where the justification is, because election costs fluctuate from budget to budget. I am not in favor of hiring additional full-time people for elections, using temporary employees is the better way. I am not in support of adding full-time people to the elections portion of the County Clerk’s budget. Ms. Ventura stated it came up to $160,000 plus benefits.
Ms. Ventura stated in the full-time elections budget, the difference between what was recommended in 2022 and 2021 was $363,000 for full-time employees. They have $180,000 in election judges and temp workers. I don’t understand why there are full-time employees in the regular budget and in the election budget. Perhaps we need an explanation of the operations.
County Clerk Staley Ferry stated we can do that. We can explain why we have two different budgets and how they are broken up differently. We can give you a rundown on how that works. There are no new full-time staff for elections. We can give you an overview of that at a future meeting.
Mr. Moustis clarified there is no additional new full-time employees for elections. County Clerk Staley Ferry replied no, we do not have any new full-time employees.
Mr. Moustis stated regarding the increase in personnel costs, some are due to the contractual obligations by the County, but most of those raises are around the 2.5% to 3% range. I believe Ms. Ventura stated there was a 20% or 25% increase.
Ms. Ventura stated that was across both departments. There is $2 million in full time in the two departments, an increase from the FY2021 budget of 20%.
Mr. Moustis stated there would not be a 20% increase due to contractual obligations.
County Clerk Staley Ferry stated I have to look at it. It will always be less in the year with one election and more in the year with two. I don’t have my budget book in front of me. I can definitely look at it, but in the two election year, there is going to be larger amount. I think it may be an issue of explaining how my budget works with the two different accounts.
Ms. Ventura asked can you also bring back information on why there was a budget of $1 million for FY2021, for elections and you requested $1 million for FY2022 even though 2021 had $850,000.
County Clerk Staley Ferry asked Ms. Ventura to e-mail her questions so I can get them down and answer them for you. Would that be easier for you? It would be easier for me.
Ms. Ventura stated okay. I am just trying to understand where our tax dollars are going. We have to approve these budgets and I want to understand what are raises versus an election.
Mrs. Traynere stated we are talking about three projects that did not get into the budget, that is my understanding. I can’t seem to find a document showing me we have this amount of money for spending in three areas that has not been allocated. There is nothing I could find that was attached to today’s agenda. Could someone enlighten me a little bit? I would appreciate it.
Mr. Fricilone replied this is the process when you make changes to the budget. This is the reason we have special Finance Committee meetings.
Mrs. Traynere stated I get that Mr. Fricilone; I don’t have a problem with special Finance Committee meetings. I just could not find a document that outlines the funds for the CAC, the Will Ride and the 211.
Mr. Moustis stated it is not in the budget.
Mr. Harris stated there is $150,000 in the current budget for the CAC. The Will Ride is part of the County Executive’s budget.
Ms. Howard stated the Will Ride program is located under transportation, which falls under the County Executive’s purview. You can find that on pages 24 and 25 of the budget book.
Mrs. Traynere stated thank you; that’s a good start. If it is in the budget book, I am not understanding why we don’t have the money for it.
Mr. Fricilone replied it is, it is funded by grants.
Mrs. Traynere stated so you are asking for more money. I would like to know where these other dollars are that we are asking for. Is it written down somewhere?
Mr. Fricilone replied right now, Will Ride is funded by grants. Currently, we give CAC $150,000 to help them with operations and the 211, we received that presentation at the Executive Committee last week. During the CARES Act, we talked about the 211 system they want to start. We will have to fund this to some extent every year, but United Way is willing to go out and solicit funds to help, but they need about $350,000 to get started.
Mrs. Traynere stated that was my question, what is 211? How much do we want for Will Ride? How much more do we want to CAC? There are no attachments.
Mr. Fricilone stated there was no attachment that is why I brought it up. Since we don’t have all the information from the County Clerk and she is going to get back to us, I would like to make a motion.
A motion was made by Mr. Fricilone, seconded by Ms. Ventura, that within the FY2022 budget we would allocate $350,000 to go to the 211 system, through the United Way; an additional $300,000 to CAC for operations and $300,000 for Will Ride so they can continue to subsidize even more riders, with that money to be determined by Ms. Howard either from savings we receive though the County Clerk or using contingency funds, after the Clerk explains where the savings are or are not.
Mr. Harris recapped the numbers in the motion. Before I call for the roll, I had a question; is this just for this fiscal year or will it be on-going for the future?
Mr. Fricilone replied hopefully it will be on-going. We can only do it for one year because we are voting on this year’s budget.
Mr. Moustis stated we have to do it each year.
Ms. Ventura stated I think 211 had a different funding for three years and the information is in the spreadsheet.
Mr. Harris stated it sounds like there is not $1 million in the County Clerk’s budget for this fiscal year, as far as savings, but we have $5.7 million allocated for contingency, so it is pretty healthy.
Mrs. Traynere asked is the $300,000 additional for the CAC?
Mr. Harris replied yes, so it will be a total of $450,000 for this fiscal year. Mrs. Traynere asked does the 211 system work on a cellphone?
Mr. Fricilone stated the whole presentation was sent to you and it had all the information in it. It was pretty extensive.
Mrs. Traynere stated I will try to find it. Again, does 211 work on a cellphone? Mr. Moustis replied yes.
Mr. Fricilone replied yes, based on their presentation.
Mrs. Traynere stated I think it is kind of useless.
Ms. Tyson stated Mrs. Traynere, yes it does, based on the presentation we saw.
Mr. Moustis stated Ms. Mueller suggested the ETSB Board also be part of this discussion.
Ms. Mueller stated I asked Mr. Palmer if he would get together a meeting between the ETSB folks and Mr. Shay, who is the Chair and the gal who met with us to talk about the 211 system. I have not heard back on a date, but it is in the works.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated I would like to say I do support the proposal from Mr. Fricilone and would definitely like to see those dollars added to the budget for CAC, Will Ride and 211. We have been talking about the funding needs for CAC for quite a while and this is a good opportunity to have this done.
Ms. Howard stated the only thing I have to add is, once the recommended changes have been added to the proposed spreadsheet, I will send it to the County Board staff and that document will be the official document that will be attached to the Annual Budget Ordinance on the County Board agenda.
Motion that within the FY2022 budget, we would allocate $350,000 to go to the 211 system, through the United Way; an additional $300,000 to CAC for operations and $300,000 for Will Ride so they can continue to subsidize even more riders, with that money to be determined by Ms. Howard either from savings we receive though the County Clerk or using contingency funds, after the Clerk explains where the savings are or are not.
| RESULT: APPROVED [6 TO 2]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Rachel Ventura, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ventura NAYS: Ogalla, Traynere ABSENT: Pretzel |
VII. NEW BUSINESS
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mrs. Adams announced there were no public comments.
IX. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT / ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Harris stated we had a discussion today that led to other things that we need to discuss further, like the cannabis money. I encourage you guys to work with the Speaker. Where we left off was she was going to add that to an agenda at some point. We have a lot of good ideas on that money. We also have the ARPA funds. The money is still there; the cannabis money is still in the special funds and it is growing. We are on pace to do $100,000 per month. Hopefully, we will have a report from Ms. Hennessy soon.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 1:16 P.M.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rachel Ventura, Member SECONDER: Mike Fricilone, Member AYES: Harris, Tyson, Fricilone, Marcum, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, Ventura ABSENT: Pretzel |
https://willcountyil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=4192&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up