In the continuing effort to determine if there is enough money in the general funds to pay last fiscal year's bills, (additional court orders this month from last fiscal year of about $1,000,000), Controller Joe Morales indicated that so far there was. This issue is a major concern since Pres. Stroger and many commissioners want to borrow money in the form of bonds to pay for operating expenses in the next budget. Other commissioners feel this is not appropriate and that the budget should be cut instead.
Commissioner Peraica expressed concern due to the Oak Forest Hospital land, owned by the county, that was never sold over the past three years, yet about a $30,000,000 projected sale had been included in last year's budget. He also stated that too many patient fees were not being collected through the hospitals for many millions of dollars in shortages. This is part of the reason there is such a shortfall in income for the county. Commissioner Quigley pointed out that not selling the land was a missed opportunity, since the land is probably worth much less now. Director Ashcroft said the land was never worth that much and that she had said it could be sold for $10,000,000.
Because of under funded liabilities in local pensions, a resolution was introduced by Commissioner Goslin for the Pension Board to investigate having new Cook County hires increase their contributions for pension and retiree health insurance. The city of Chicago and Park District have already begun this process. Since only the state government can finalize this, all 3 local governments need to be ready to present their ideas and findings. Several commissioners wanted to delay this action by sending it to the finance committee (which is the same people as the board). This is a new direction for the board, since 2-3 years ago when this was recommended, the board was against it. It appears the poor financial situation in Cook County and the economy in general is giving cost-cutting a new priority.
Commissioner Gorman questioned why a vendor who had the lowest bid for a contract was deemed non-responsive (and so lost the contract). It turns out the company did not send a letter of intent. About what, was not clear during the exchange between the compliance administrator and board member. This issue has come up in several board meetings for various contracts. The low bid vendor is not guaranteed the contract due to various minority and female ownership compliance requirements. How this is determined is not clear to the outside observer--me!
