February 25, 2011 Cook County Board Meeting & Finance Committee Meeting

2011 Budget Passed, along with Rollback of ¼ Cent Sales Tax in 2012 and ¼ Cent in 2013

Board Meeting

President Preckwinkle called the special meeting of the Cook County Board meeting to order. Two proposed ordinances were voted upon and approved. The first one reduces the County portion of the sales tax by ¼ cent effective Jan. 1, 2012, and the second one reduces the tax again by ¼ cent effective Jan. 1, 2013. With these ordinances, along with the one passed by the Board that reduced the sales tax by ½ cent on July 1, 2010, the 1 cent increase to the sales tax passed several years ago will be totally rescinded. Each of these ¼ cent reductions are expected to reduce revenues to the County by approximately $60 million. President Preckwinkle expects that this lost revenue will be made up by an improving economy that will produce more revenues from the remaining County sales tax and more revenues generated by fees such as those from an increase in home sales, along with further cost reductions resulting from structural changes to County government that the President anticipates occurring. Commissioners Beavers, Collins, Murphy, Sims, and Steele voted against both ordinances. Commissioner Steele was concerned about voting now so early in this fiscal year, while the others expressed concern that the loss of sales tax revenues would mean a loss of services for people in their districts.

The Board Meeting was then recessed so the Finance Committee could continue its consideration of the proposed 2011 Budget. Following the conclusion of the Finance Committee's proceedings, the Board meeting resumed in the early hours on Saturday and the Board approved the Budget, as amended.

Finance Committee Meeting

While this observer was present, the Committee voted on 26 proposed amendments to the proposed Budget. All of these Proposed
Amendments are posted at http://legacy.cookcountygov.com/secretary/ , along with the additional 33 Floor Amendments that were debated and voted on in the afternoon and late into the night after this observer left. The posting of all these proposed amendments is a positive sign of increased transparency.

The following of the original 26 amendments were approved: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 23, 24, and 26. The others either failed to pass or were withdrawn. Some of the amendments were corrections to what had been presented in the proposed budget; and some were revisions due to further negotiations, such as changes to the budgets of the State's Attorney and Public Defender.

William Batts, Chair of the Health and Hospitals System (HHS) Board expressed his concern over the number of proposed amendments affecting the HHS budget, which the HHS Board had approved and submitted to the Cook County Board as part of the County's overall budget. He stated that the HHS Board felt it was not appropriate for the County Board to amend the HHS budget if the County Board truly intends for the HHS Board to be independent. Commissioner Sims expressed her desire that the HHS Board become fully independent by having the power to tax and raise the money it needs, as opposed to needing to rely on the County's revenues. Chairman Daley stated that the County Board had continuously showed its support for the independence of the HHS Board, but that it was clearly appropriate for Commissioners to question the HHS budget and spending priorities. Several of the amendments that were approved regarding the HHS budget were actually corrections that the HHS Board wanted. Several other amendments which the HHS Board opposed were withdrawn or failed, including one proposed by Commissioner Beavers (#14) which would have reduced the salary of the Director of Multicultural Affairs by $60,000 in order to increase the budget of the Public Defender's office. The amendment failed with 8 yes votes (Beavers, Gainer, Gorman, Murphy, Reyes, Sims, Steele, and Fritchey) 8 no votes, and 1 absence (Silvestri).

One of the longest debates took place regarding Amendment 25 sponsored by Commissioner Fritchey, which would have placed all the information technology (IT) personnel who are scattered in different departments under different elected officials in a new department that would be under the direction of the County Chief Informational Officer, Greg Wass (who reports to President Preckwinkle). Mr. Wass stated that he was not opposed to this proposal, and that he felt it would save the County money in the future to house the IT function in a single place so IT resources and expertise could be shared for the benefit of all the workings of the County. There has been much discussion in the past among Commissioners as to the need to do such a consolidation. However, Treasurer Pappas sought an opinion from the State's Attorney's office as to the legality of doing this without the approval of the applicable elected officials. As a result of the opinion, which expressed serious legal concerns, and the statement by the Treasurer that she would file suit if the Board approved this amendment, several Commissioners who support consolidation in principle, voted no, and the Amendment failed on an 8 (Fritchey, Garcia, Gorman, Goslin, Schneider, Sims, Suffredin, & Beavers) to 9 vote. Expect this issue to come up again in the future.

Amendment 26, which was adopted after considerable discussion, provides for each Commissioner to have the same budget of $350,000 (which, per reports in other news sources, was increased to $360,000 by subsequently approved Floor Amendment 18). As originally requested by the Commissioners, the budgets would have ranged from $286,000 to $464,542; and the range in the President's proposed budget (which had recommended the lesser of 16% below each Commissioner's 2010 budget or the Commissioner's request) had ranged from $270,000 to $386,615 (not including Daley's budget which is higher due to his duties as chair of the Finance Committee). Commissioners Collins, Murphy, Sims, and Steele opposed the amendment because they wanted a higher allocation than $350,000. This is the first time in many years that there is parity among the Commissioners' budgets.

-- submitted by Priscilla Mims

March 1 Cook County Board Meeting

Like many Cook County Board meetings lately, this one was short and agreeable. Comparatively few questions were asked by commissioners and the votes were not contentious. Done before 11:30!

Homeland Security--Project Shield Update

This large grant-funded project is complete through phase 3. Further work has been halted due to Federal investigations into the use of the grant money. The head of Project Shield stated that "What is now in place is working." Not all Cook County municipalities have chosen to get on board with this project. Delays in the past were due to lots of new technology, legality issues regarding cameras, etc. It was not clearly stated when this project would be complete; it began in about 2003. Comm. Sims suggested a commissioner field trip to "sit in" the new police vehicles that contain the new system.

Risk Management--New Insurance Policies

Lisa Wallick, director of Risk Management, presented information on the county's new Comprehensive Insurance Program. Among changes are that property insurance was added, some coverage was doubled but saved money, expenses were reduced, all policies will be reviewed each year. Since the county is self-insured, the county would spend $40,000,000 in claims before the insurance kicks in. Several commissioners commended Lisa Wallick on the process used to obtain this insurance and that it came in under budget.

Resolution to the Illinois General Assembly

This resolution asked the General Assembly to change the recently passed law that required all seniors to apply for senior discounts on property taxes every year. The request is to return to a one-time application with the county tracking deaths, sales of homes, etc.

It was again difficult to follow parts of the meeting because many last-minute amendments/changes were passed out to the commissioners, but not the audience. Also the finance agenda was not available so the audience had no knowledge of the topics voted on during that meeting.