Final Report on Cook County Budget Meetings

Budget Passes 16-1 after Finance Committee Deals with 64 Proposed Amendments; A Number of Jobs Saved

Following the final meeting of the Board’s Finance Committee dealing with the 2012 budget, the Cook County Board convened and voted 16 to 1 to pass the budget, as amended.  Comm. Beavers was the lone dissenter.  This vote took place around 4:30 pm.

Thus, for the first time in many years, the County Board completed its work during business hours and prior to the start of the fiscal year, which begins December 1.  The Cook County web site touts that this is the earliest a budget has been passed since 1995.

Prior to the Board taking its vote, the Finance Committee met to consider some additional revenue proposals and 64 proposed amendments that had been submitted prior to the deadline on Wednesday, Nov. 16.

Amendments Save Positions

As a result of these amendments, a number of jobs originally slated to be eliminated by the proposed budget, were reinstated by cutting money from non-personnel budget categories, such as training and use of outside contractors.  One of the more controversial ways to provide additional money to retain jobs was the use of what is called a “turnover adjustment.”  This is a credit to a department's budget to reflect the fact that not all the positions that have been budgeted will actually have people employed in them throughout the entire year. For example, if an employee leaves, it might be a month or more before that position is filled. So, if the annual salary for that position was listed in the budget for $60,000 and if there was an assumption that the position would be unfilled for one month, then the turnover adjustment for that position would be $5,000, or 1/12 of the annual salary.

Comm. Schneider expressed concern about the liberal use of turnover adjustments in a number of amendments, recalling that several years ago when he and then Comm. Claypool proposed saving positions by using a turnover adjustment, they were told that that was not a sound or prudent practice. Budget Director Andrea Gibson said that utilization of a turnover adjustment was reasonable, as long as the amount was not too great. In one instance, the Budget Department stated it was opposed to a proposed amendment because the turnover adjustment was 50% of the total yearly amount of the positions to be retained.  And in that case, the Finance Committee voted down the proposed amendment.  Where the Budget Department approved the use of turnover adjustments, the amendments were approved.

Among the positions saved were those in the offices of the State’s Attorney and Public Defender, as well as positions under Facilities Management as a result of utilizing an assumption that more revenues than originally assumed in the proposed budget would be realized in the Unknown Heir Legal Settlement fund.  The County Clerk’s budget resulted in there being an excess of $400,000 in the Election Fund, which was then used to add positions to the Board of Review.  During the department meeting with the Board of Review, the 3 Commissioners stated that if they could get additional funds to restore these positions, they would be able to get out the 2^nd installment tax bill on time (for the first time in 34 years!).  However, the statements were not nearly as strong at today’s meeting: simply that the restored positions would help in getting the bills out on time.

In order to save jobs, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Dorothy Brown, obtained an agreement from the non-union personnel in her departments to take 10 furlough days in 2012.  These are the only furlough days to be taken by any personnel in 2012. 

Because none of the unions had agreed with the President’s proposal that some of the holidays be unpaid, a number of amendments that would have reinstated additional positions were withdrawn.   

IT Shared Services Department Created

Amendment 36 revisited a controversial concept from the 2011 budget discussions, except this time the Finance Committee voted to create an IT (Information Technology) Shared Services Department under the Bureau of Technology, which reports to the President.  It is supposed to be a shared services center to help the offices of all elected officials and departments throughout the County, with the notable exception of the Health & Hospitals System, which for now, has been left out of the consolidation. This amendment is still controversial, however, and there was discussion that some elected officials were against this, while others were supportive.  During the debate, it was stressed that this is a small start and it would be reviewed and revised after 90 days.  The goal is to reduce IT costs and create computer systems that are more efficient and compatible with other County systems.

Increased Wheel Tax

In addition to the other revenue proposals that were approved at the Nov. 14 meeting (see the report from that day in this Observer Blog), the Finance Committee also approved the doubling of the wheel tax (i.e., the cost of vehicle stickers) for those who live in unincorporated Cook County.  For example, the annual fee for small passenger vehicles went from $40 to $80. This revenue proposal had been deferred at the Nov. 14 meeting.

The Process

There was a concerted effort by Commissioners to assist those in the audience (as well as their fellow Commissioners) by summarizing the nature of the amendments being considered.  Unlike past years, “floor amendments” (that is, amendments introduced for the first time during the meeting) were not allowed.  However, there were a number of “substitute” amendments which were passed out to the Commissioners and which the public did not have access to.  While from the discussion it appeared that these substitutes contained only corrections generally, it is unfortunate that there was no way for the public to be sure of this.  The League has been urging that the Board room have screens and projection equipment permanently installed to assist the Commissioners, as well as the public, in knowing what is being voted on.  Comm. Gainer complained that the 64 amendments were not available to the Commissioners (and the public) until after 10 pm the night before.  This presumably was due to the fact that the Budget Department first vetted all proposed amendments to check for problems, but this raises the issue as to whether there should be more time allowed between the deadline for submitting amendments and the meeting to vote on them.

-- reported by Karin Hribar and Priscilla Mims

Cook County Finance Committee Budget Review, October 27, 2011

Cook County Finance Committee Begins Review of the Proposed 2012 Budget; Concerns Raised over Some Proposed Fees and Taxes; Impact of Recent League Initiatives Seen

Department of Finance; Department of Administrative Hearings; Department of Technology; Offices under the President; and Bureau of Administration

All of the areas and departments appearing this day are under the President.  The Finance Department began by presenting an overview of the proposed Operating Budget of $2.943 billion (down from $3.055 billion in 2011).  There is also a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan for 2012 which proposes $180 million to be spent in 2012, all from funds from bonds issued in 2009 and 10; and $143 million for Capital Projects. 

Proposed Fees and Taxes

During the course of the day, Commissioners expressed concerns about several of the taxes and fees that were proposed by the President in order to balance the budget.  The proposal to have unincorporated areas either be annexed, contract for police services, or pay an additional amount for police services provided by the County Sheriff through a “special service area” tax appears to be among the most controversial.  Andrea Gibson, the Budget Director, explained that her department had worked with the Sheriff to identify that the incremental costs for the Sheriff to provide policing service for the unincorporated areas is $5 million.  Comm. Silvestri noted that areas can opt out of a “special service area” with a 51% vote of the residents.  Some of the questions asked:  Why wouldn’t the residents all vote to opt out?  Would the Sheriff really not provide service there?  The Sheriff is currently providing policing service for Ford Heights which eliminated its police force several years ago because it couldn’t afford to pay for its own.  So how will the County distinguish between Ford Heights and the unincorporated areas?

Expect much more on this topic when the Sheriff appears to discuss his proposed budget.

Several Commissioners, including Collins, Suffredin, and Schneider, expressed concern over the proposed increase in the county’s alcohol tax.  The Finance Department was asked to provide information on the current and proposed total tax on alcohol (including federal, state, and local, as well as county portions) and compare that total to the totals in other major urban areas, as well as adjoining counties.  They don’t want to vote to approve and then find out that the County would then have the highest liquor tax in the U.S., as happened several years ago when they voted to increase the sales tax by a penny.

Comm. Schneider expressed concern over the proposed new auto amusement device tax on machines that require payment to be used by the general public, such as jukeboxes and slot and video poker machines.  Comm. Schneider said that many bars will have 5 or more of these machines, and if the tax on alcohol is also raised, these small businesses will really be hurting.

Comm. Suffredin criticized the President for not mentioning that the budget contains a proposal to align Cook County and the City of Chicago’s parking tiers for charging the county’s parking tax on public garages for daily, weekly and monthly parkers, which results in an increase in the parking tax.  He said this will also affect suburban garages, which won’t necessarily be in alignment, and may hurt suburban downtown shopping districts.

Several Commissioners also wanted to know if there was any consideration given for exempting jurors, state’s attorneys, and public defenders from the proposal to institute parking fees at county parking facilities.  Comm. Gainer asked that information be provides as to whether the proposed fee was set above a threshold that would result in the County having to pay Chicago’s parking tax.

Furlough Days

This controversy was touched upon since also on this day the Interim Comptroller issued a revised and corrected report on who had not been taking these unpaid days off.  Apparently, about half the county’s employees have been deemed “essential” by their departments and thus have not taken any. While it was expected that a number of employees of the Sheriff and the Health & Hospitals System would be exempt from taking all the furlough days since some of their services are offered 24/7, there is concern that other departments are not taking the days.  The Committee will be getting further information by department, and Chairman Daley said that the Finance Committee should ask the departments about the status of furlough days when the departments appear during this budget review.  The Committee may want to amend the departments budgets for 2012 if they can’t justify not having the furlough days taken in 2011.  All employees under the President are taking the furlough days.

Note there is no proposal for furlough days in the 2012 budget.  There is a proposal to have one unpaid county-wide “shut down” day (the day after Thanksgiving in 2012).  In addition, the Administration has offered to cut the number of proposed layoffs (about 1,000) in half (to about 500) if the unions will accept 8 of the existing holidays as being unpaid.  Thus far, the unions have not agreed to this.

League Impact on Special Purpose Funds and Transparency

In September, the League provided the Commissioners its Final Report on its Study of the County’s Special Purpose Funds, along with an updated chart detailing each of the funds.  Representatives of the County League and local Leagues also met with a number of the Commissioners to discuss the concerns as to whether the Commissioners were paying sufficient attention to these funds, including whether they were still needed.  It was clear on this first day of hearings that the League has had an impact.

The Budget Director noted that one special purpose fund for the Homeland Security Department had been eliminated.  Comm. Silvestri questioned several people as to whether the county needed all 36 of the remaining funds.  The one for Animal Control was highlighted because it has a significant fund balance.  The department head explained that she hopes to utilize this fund balance at some point to build a facility to provide a number of services.

With regard to transparency, in the meetings with the Commissioners, the League noted that there appears to be more and more information being provided to Commissioners outside the public meetings.  Chairman Daley stated that, in response to the League’s concerns, for the first time the Commissioners’ questions to departments and the written responses that are provided outside of the budget hearings will be posted on the county’s web site for the public to see.

Technology

During the budget process for fiscal year 2011 (that took place in Feb.), Comm. Fritchey noted that he had offered an amendment that would require all the technology personnel under the different elected officials to work together under the direction of the County’s Technology Chief (currently Greg Wass).  This amendment did not pass because of the opposition from the other elected officials.  Comm. Fritchey stated that he intended to offer this amendment again, and asked whether Mr. Wass still supports such a consolidation.  Mr. Wass said that he supported such a move with regard to infrastructure (i.e., hardware) and enterprise functions (e.g., e-mail).  However, Mr. Wass indicated that applications for particular areas would not be ready for consolidation, noting that the Technology Collaboration Group, which was set up in lieu of the consolidation proposal, and which brings together representatives from different technology personnel throughout the county to share information about what they are doing and planning to do, may be sufficient at this time.

Overall Impression

Despite all the questions and concerns expressed by Commissioners, it was clear that the Commissioners are pleased with a number of the initiatives being taken by the Administration and all of these departments that are under the President in order to improve service, create efficiencies, and increase collaboration among different departments and between the County and City and the County and suburbs in order to reduce costs and improve services. 

-- reported by Priscilla Mims