League of Women Voters of Cook County
  • Home
  • About
    • LWVCC Interest Groups >
      • Cook County & MWRD Group
      • Criminal Justice
      • Cook County Health
      • Forest Preserve Interest Group
    • LWVCC Positions
    • LWVCC Action and Testimony
    • LWVCC Activities
    • Archived Newsletters
  • Observer Reports
    • Cook County Board Observer Reports
    • MWRD Board Observer Reports
    • CCH Board Observer Reports
    • Forest Preserve Board Observer Reports
  • Voter Info
  • Cook County Gov. Contacts
    • Cook County Board
    • Forest Preserve Board
    • Cook County Elected Officials
    • MWRD Board
    • Cook County Health Board

Cook County Board Approves $4.4B Amended FY17 Budget on Party Lines after a Sometimes Heated Meeting

11/17/2016

0 Comments

 
Cook County Board of Commissioners - Finance Committee and Board Meeting
November 15, 2016

Approving the budget (11):  Arroyo, Boykin, Butler, Daley, Fritchey, Gainer, Garcia, Moore, Sims, Suffredin, and Tobolski.
Voting no were the 4 Republicans:  Goslin, Morrison (stated reason was because he was against the sweetened beverage tax), Schneider (noted the budget was $3 billion in 2010 and believes more cost-cutting and efficiencies could have been realized for this budget), and Silvestri.
Absent:  Moody (in the hospital) and Steele (recovering). 

Twenty-seven amendments were filed and then posted the day before for consideration by the Finance Committee.  Commissioner Morrison complained a number of times that this did not provide him sufficient time to properly consider the merits and issues with each.  The League in the past has urged that there be more time provided for review of amendments by both the Commissioners and the public.  Probably because of the insufficient review time, there were 9 substitute amendments that were written during the meeting.  Most of these were not posted in time for this observer to see them during the discussion and vote by the Board.  

Several amendments were “technical” in nature, meaning that they had the approval of the appropriate departments and the Budget Department and simply moved money and positions from one area to another within that department.

The amendments generating the most discussion included:
  • Amendment 9-S to require any contract for outside services for the Medical Examiner’s lab services to be approved by the Board, even if under the $150,000 threshold that normally does not require prior Board approval.  The issue here is the proposal to outsource the services provided by the Toxicology Lab, whose employees have received notices of termination by March 1.  The Medical Examiner again reiterated that outsourcing should both save $1 million and result in much faster results for both normal and comprehensive lab tests from an outside lab.  Commissioner Suffredin sponsored this Amendment in order to keep the Board involved in the process of obtaining the new contract with an outside lab, which he fears may not be in place by March 1.  Other Commissioners did not want to deviate from current procurement practices and Board approval requirements.  Failed.
  • Amendment 10-S which drains the remaining amount in the Children’s Waiting Room Special Purpose Fund in order to fund the new and existing waiting rooms, which will now be at all 7 courthouses.  Commissioner Suffredin stressed that some additional funding mechanism will be needed beyond 2017.  Passed.
  • Amendment 13-S-1:  Increases the Turnover Adjustment to be able to fund 4 interpreters for the Public Defender’s office.  Passed (after 2 substitutes needed for this to be correct).
  • Amendment 14 which would have restored 7 of 9 cut investigators in the Public Defender’s Office and added an investigator to the Independent Inspector General’s office.  Failed because the money was coming from the Clerk of the Court’s office, to which she objected and argued the Board did not have the authority to do as it would mean that the Clerk could not carry out her duties.  There was a long discussion back and forth between the Commissioners and the representative from the Clerk of the Court and an Assistant State’s Attorney over the power of the Board.  Commissioner Boykin stated that Commissioners were going after the Clerk and race was involved.  This led Commissioner Fritchey to take offense and heated words were exchanged.  Ultimately, it appeared that this Amendment failed because there was not sufficient time to consider the ramifications if this passed.
  • Amendment 17-S which would have set up a line item for income from any court order directing up to 90% of bail deposit money to be paid to the County for the work of the Public Defender.  Under existing Illinois law this can be done on motion by the State’s Attorney or Judge (and is regularly done for private attorneys), but the County doesn’t have a line item for this income so does not factor it in in the budget.  The Public Defender, who opposed this Amendment not wanting any money to be directed from the refundable bail, even to help fund her office, said that this year she estimates $70,000 will be collected.  Public speakers had also objected to this.  Failed.
  • Amendments 4-S and 5-S which give each of the 16 Commissioners the same pot of money ($399,999, plus $50,000 more for the Finance Chair) which they are to identify how to allocate.  Commissioner Sims stated that she thinks that the longevity of the staff should be considered which would rightly result in some Commissioners (such as her) getting more money to pay higher salaries reflecting the longer service of the employees.  Nevertheless, this Passed.
  • Amendments 19-S and 20-S which adds 5 positions to the Board of Review plus $150,000 for appraisals in order to better defend appeals of its decisions to the Illinois Board of Appeals.  When the Board of Review loses those appeals (generally involving well-funded commercial and high-rise residential properties), the County and all the other property taxing bodies (schools, villages, libraries, etc.) have to refund taxes.  So the concept is that by spending $500,000, the County might save up to $13 million, and the other taxing bodies much more.  Currently, the County has $34 million in potential liability and the other taxing bodies $500 million as a result of pending appeals. Passed.

​Observer - Priscilla Mims
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Individual authors are credited at the end of each post.

    Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    August 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015

    Categories

    All
    Assessor
    Ballot Referendum
    Board Of Review
    CCHHS
    Chief Judge
    Contracts
    Cook County Board
    Cook County Budget
    Cook County Health (CCH)
    Cook County Sheriff
    County Clerk
    Covid 19
    Criminal Justice
    Departmental Budget Hearings
    Economic Development
    Election Administration
    Environmental Control
    Ethics Ordinance
    Gun Violence
    Healthcare
    Independent Inspector General
    Paid Sick Leave
    Pensions
    Performance Based Management
    Police Matters
    Public Defender
    Recorder Of Deeds
    Shakman
    Soda Tax
    State's Attorney Office
    Taxes
    Tax Incentives
    Technology
    Transportation Plan

    RSS Feed

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF COOK COUNTY
332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 634
Chicago, IL 60604

312/939-5935 x 127
info@lwvcookcounty.org
Terms and Conditions of Use
© Copyright League of Women Voters of Cook County, Illinois. All rights reserved.
Membership Information
CONTACT US
  • Home
  • About
    • LWVCC Interest Groups >
      • Cook County & MWRD Group
      • Criminal Justice
      • Cook County Health
      • Forest Preserve Interest Group
    • LWVCC Positions
    • LWVCC Action and Testimony
    • LWVCC Activities
    • Archived Newsletters
  • Observer Reports
    • Cook County Board Observer Reports
    • MWRD Board Observer Reports
    • CCH Board Observer Reports
    • Forest Preserve Board Observer Reports
  • Voter Info
  • Cook County Gov. Contacts
    • Cook County Board
    • Forest Preserve Board
    • Cook County Elected Officials
    • MWRD Board
    • Cook County Health Board