It is 8 31 on Thursday, April 30th.

I call to order the Financial and Administrative Committee.

Can we please rise?

Member Volitic, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The United States of America.

And to the Republic, or which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Member Clark.

Chair Frank.

Here.

Member Hewitt.

Here.

Member Maine.

Voice Chair Park.

Here.

Member Peterson and Member Volitzik.

I did forget to read the item about remote participation.

Yeah.

No, we can't.

Yeah.

I saw them.

I don't know if they're up here.

Yeah.

There we go.

There's um per county board rules and open meetings act.

Attendance via remote means is permitted for qualifying reasons as long as the majority of the committee members are physically present.

We've been notified in advance by members Parak and Hewitt that they request to participate electronically.

Uh Vice Chair Parak due to work.

Health, family emergency.

Yes.

I don't look at it.

Member Hewick, it was for health reasons, is that correct?

Medical, yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Hewitt.

Um we do have a quorum present.

So those members will be marked as present and eligible to vote on matters before the committee today, unless there's an objection to their request.

Seeing none, they are present.

Do we have any public comment or items we don't add to the agenda?

We do not.

Okay.

I have no chairs marked for us today.

We have no unfinished business.

No.

Our new business are our consent agenda items 8.1 through 8.3.

Motion on these items by member Clark.

Second by member Volitzik.

Any comments or questions on these three items?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Those items are approved.

8.4 is a resolution authorizing a two-year agreement with renewal options with Al Tor for Power Systems of Addison, Illinois for generator maintenance services.

Various lay county locations and the estimated amount of 32,338.

Motion on this item by member Peterson, second by member Clark.

Good morning.

Morning, Carl Carrar, Director of Facilities and Construction Services.

This is our annual maintenance contract to provide routine inspections and prevent and maintenance service of our emergency generators.

So Altifer, I know, as a mouthful.

And we have them at the admin tower here, Courts Complex, uh Lake County Jail, the Court Tower, and Central Permit Facility.

We do have other generators.

And the Debke building has a Rolls-Royce generator.

So those will have different service contracts to them because there's a different brand.

But uh this one uh in particular is just for these primary generators that we have.

So this is a five-year contract, and uh and the services uh for that $32,000 to service those.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

So just to make sure I understand.

So essentially, if if we buy a certain type of generator, we're kind of locked in to who's going to service it and have a separate contract.

Uh using the OEM is is essentially best practice for Yeah.

Yeah, no, I get it.

So when we buy a piece of equipment, do we then look at what a service contract is going to be with an outside company and look at in the aggregate, which is the most responsible thing to do?

Because maybe one's cheaper, but the service contract is higher.

Uh, we do try to take that into consideration when we're looking at new equipment, yes.

Okay.

Our HVAC equipment train or some other thing.

Yes.

So we do look at that in total.

Thank you.

Member Clark.

Thanks.

Good morning.

I think I'm just tired this morning.

So just can you remind me of the cooperative purchasing agreements?

Does this mean that um does this mean that like other government agencies have gone out to bid on them?

And then we also do it, or is it like somebody else has a contract and we're allowed to go on?

Can you just remind me?

I know I'm sorry, it's just uh you hit it exactly right.

So this was a competitively bid contract by another government agency.

And once it's it's done, because it was competitively bid that we can, as another government agency tap on to that agreement.

So that's what this is what this is.

So that the actual uh source well that the cooperative agreement contract expires in uh November of 27, so next year.

So that contract will expire and then we'll renew it.

So you'll actually see us next year as well when that is renewed uh on under source well.

But we don't have to do a bid again because we've got a five year thing.

And is the bid is the other governmental agency or whatever, is it like somebody local?

Like I'm I'm trying to like picture how this happens.

Is it like you know, Joaquin bids this, or is this something that's just purchasing, they figure this out?

I believe it's national, but I would defer to purchasing for that.

And I don't there she is.

I don't want to unbutton.

Thank you.

But I believe it's a national, it's as long as it's a government agency, whether federal or international or local.

Thank you for answering my question.

And I'm sorry, like how do you know about these contracts?

I'm just curious, like, yeah.

Um, we generally use these contracts, they are nationally bid by other either county, city or government agencies.

Um we just we go out and we search for them.

We have a resource called pavilion that aggregates all of the cooperative contracts.

So for this example, we could put in Altafor and it would show us all the cooperative contracts that are available, and then we could pick the best one that's the best fit for the county.

That's so interesting.

Do we ever put like our contracts out there for like a cooperative bids?

Like if we if you did a kind, I'm just out of curiosity.

If you did a contract, would you then sometimes put yours out also for other people to bid with?

We have not done that yet, but we have talked about that in the past.

That's really that would be very interesting.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What would be the advantage to doing that if we're loading our contracts in there so that others could take advantage of?

Does that does that advantage us on terms of bid price or anything?

It could if we get, you know, the more you spend the the the greater volume discounts that we could get.

Um so it could you know benefit us in that way.

Can you introduce yourself real quick?

What's that?

Could you introduce yourself real quick?

Oh, Yvette Albert, purchasing manager.

Thank you, Vet.

Vice Chair Park.

Yeah, hi, just a couple uh member Clark made me just kind of interested more in this topic.

Um so when we looked at, for example, these three companies in the within this bid.

So all essentially we're doing is looking at this bid that contained three bids.

Um, and then we looked at it and said, okay, this looks good to us, we'll use the same company.

Um, two questions.

One is how do we know that we would have chosen these three companies?

Um anyway for this bid.

Is it or do we look at bids with different companies that we may put in consideration and see when there was an overlap?

Like, so how do how do we know that?

And then second, um, obviously when companies see their bids and they didn't win, that they would then potentially look to become more competitive in the future.

So, what is the length of time on these that are looked at?

So we're making sure we're not looking at a contract from a year and a half ago or two years ago that maybe now there's even more competitiveness to the market.

Is that let me know if those need to be clarified?

So uh just to just to clarify source well.

So this there weren't individual bids as part of this contract.

We searched for that service and Altifer as the service provider, uh, because they are the OEM contractor and our in a service provider in our area, and they have a contract with another governmental agency, and that's why it's in source well.

So that we didn't go out for bidding on this.

We searched for and grab them out of that.

Uh to your point, uh, that contract does expire as at a certain amount of time.

I don't it depends on the the government agency uh how when they bid that out and how long of a duration that is.

And as I mentioned earlier, it was uh November of next year, 2027, that that actual source well contract for this service expires, and that will be either there'll be another contract following that that'll source they'll source out, or we will pursue something uh as an alternative for for those services when that contract expires.

So it there is a timeline to that that it does expire that it has to be renewed.

Okay.

And we always we the county, and I'm sorry, I'm speaking for you that we always have the option of maintaining this one year contract with Altafor or to go a different route.

Uh we're not locked into five years.

We can choose our own path if we so choose.

And then can I ask just one more question?

When do you decide to do this versus bidding on our own?

Uh um for for this particular one, because the um we're looking for the OEM manufacturer to service those generators, we would source out a specific contract um to to meet those needs.

Um for this particular one, because the um we're looking for the OEM manufacturer to service those generators, we would source out a specific contract um to meet those needs.

It might not make sense for us to bid it ourselves when there's already a publicly bid contract.

We do vet all of the cooperative contracts.

We make sure it meets all of the county requirements in the purchasing ordinance to ensure compliance.

Thank you.

So just to elaborate on that, as part of that decision point, like hey, we did a search and we saw that there's existing contracts out there that meet our needs before you decide like whether or not we're gonna create our own bid process or not.

That is correct.

So that informs the decision.

Yes.

Okay.

Got it.

Helpful.

Any other questions, comments?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.4 is approved.

8.5 is a resolution authorizing a two-year agreement with renewal options with Johnson Controls of Milwaukee, Wisconsin for fire protection equipment and related services for various lake county facilities, and the estimated amount of 193,141 dollars.

Motion to approve this item by member Clark, second by member Volitzik.

So the base contract is similar to the one we just discussed, except for this is annual service and maintenance contracts for fire alarm systems and our sprinkler systems.

Uh so what Johnson Controls, uh, they are the OEM provider and they had certified technicians for all its equipment.

They are also the uh subject matter expert on running these tests.

So they do have we have an annual requirement per fire code that you have to inspect, test, and certify all of our fire systems of all of our buildings, and that's what this contract provides.

So it's a much more labor intensive contract, which is why the prices is higher.

But again, this is a another five year agreement that we have.

Does this cover all the sprinkler systems in all of our facilities?

Is it comprehensive or is it limited to some?

It does.

Okay.

Member Volitzik.

Does it cover all the fire protection safety um requirements annually?

Like I know sometimes you you need like the um fire extinguishers, make sure that they're not expire.

That type of thing does it cover all of that, or is there any other contract we need for fire protection?

It is a fire alarm panels, a fire alarm system uh detection, smoke alarms.

It's all the I guess more the technical aspect of it, the fire extinguishers is a separate uh agreement, separate contract.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Do you happen to know what the testing interval is?

Like how often a sprinkler system has to be checked and tested.

Annually.

It's once a year.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And so this covers all of our sprinklers.

Yes, sir.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

8.5 is approved.

8.6 is a discussion of budget-related finance policies in advance of preparation for the fiscal year 2027 budget.

Good morning, Administrator Sutton.

Good morning, CFO TUSAC.

All right.

Good morning, Chair Frank and members of the committee, Regina Tuzak, Chief Financial Officer.

Uh, we are here today to present and discuss the budget policies uh for our upcoming budget season.

Um, and just to kind of review the status.

Okay.

So we uh presented the policies with some uh changes on April 2nd to the finance and administrative committee.

Uh we then took the policies based on the feedback from that committee meeting to our uh policy coordinator uh team review, and we had a comment period that was um available to all the members of that um team for their input and recommendations, and that uh comment period is closed.

And what we are here to do is um provide these comments to the finance and administrative committee and seek guidance from you on the uh changes that have been recommended.

We will be meeting with the policy coordinator team to review their changes and justification for not making any uh requested requested uh recommendations that they have.

Uh what we would like to do after we receive your feedback today is bring uh the revised policies to the committee next at the next meeting, and then potentially uh bring it to the uh county board for consideration on May 12th.

And just a reminder that uh three-point policy 3.5, the budget development policy uh does state that we shall present um these policies uh to you no later than June meeting of each year.

So that's just kind of a status of our.

I may just interject right here.

Um I think that it's an important change, the interplay between your departments and the feedback process with the um other directors to you know help guide our policy development.

And I think it's a it's an important change.

I just want to recognize and appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So moving on to the comments that we received, uh the first item that we want to discuss is within policy 3.5, the budget development policy.

There was a request from the health department to budget $75,000 and revenue and expenses for small dollar grant budget amendments, uh, which would have the goal for for them to eliminate the need to present to um HCS and FNA committee for small dollar amendments.

So what this would mean is that if their budget has a grant in it and somewhere along the way they receive a small dollar amendment to that grant, uh they would forego the process of presenting to HCS and FA.

And instead, there would be a submission to the finance department uh to update the uh the budget for these small amounts.

So some alternatives if the FA committee wanted to consider this recommendation would that would be that we could um do this uh not just for the health department, but also for the entire county and allow a budget of 125,000 for all departments.

Again, this would be individual grant amendments that are just um changes to existing grants, and this would be there be a threshold that the amount has to be less than $20,000.

Um and so that that is the uh recommendation that was brought by the health department bringing it to you for your consideration.

Oh, and I would note that these another option would be to put these small dollar um amendments just on a consent agenda.

So I wanted to present that uh to you for your consideration.

So I think it might be helpful if we sort of uh pause on each one of the items and collect feedback as we go through instead of running through the whole deck.

Perfect, that makes sense, ever made.

I think I think streamlining streamlining it in some way makes sense.

I mean, sometimes literally it's a thousand dollar difference, you know, they've found a little bit money.

So whether you know the committees feel, hey, we want to see what it is and just put it on a consent agenda or this other way, either way is fine with me.

I think it's a good idea.

I'd like clarity on the staff alternate proposals.

So it says due for entire for the entire county total of 125,000.

That means up to 125,000 dollars in grants for the entire county, whereas the the board of health wanted 75,000 for them.

So you're saying, hey, we like this idea, but we're gonna make it this much, but that covers everybody.

Is that what that's saying?

Correct.

That that we would allow all departments that have grants the option, um, this option and the budgeted amount would be 125 for the entire year.

And so once we got to the 125, once that was exhausted, then any department that had this situation would go through the traditional process that we've been doing thus far.

Yeah.

So I just because you still didn't say quite the way I think it is, that that 125, it doesn't matter.

That's a cumulative, whether it's board of health, whether it's DOT, whether it's somebody else, that all of that in aggregate for the county is going to be 125.

Correct.

And so like how did you arrive at that number?

Well, we did take a look at um agendas from last year to try to determine you know what are we talking here?

And based on the review that was done, there's uh I think 21 uh grant amendments that were presented last year that were under 20,000.

Yeah.

Um, and so we were uh just trying to think about what would be reasonable, but also providing appropriate um transparency in the in the event that we had a higher volume than in the past.

Okay.

Thank you.

Member of Litzick.

Thank you.

Um I think this makes sense.

Can you clarify for me the the um grant amendments um that if we're budgeting for both revenues slash expense?

I can imagine part of the expenses might be if they're an amendment is a matching dollar situation, or are there other can you explain some of the expenses to these small budget grant amendments?

Sure.

No, that's a good question.

So in the event that we have an existing grant and we get some type of um additional money.

So let's say it's a $50,000 grant and the grant goes to 53,500.

Um, I think the anticipation would be that there would be a spend of that additional 3,500.

Maybe it's in supplies or some other type of service that we might contract for so that we could avail ourselves to that full amount.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Member Clark.

Thank you.

And um thank you for the explanation about the 125.

I think I had the same question.

Um, so I think it makes sense.

I think doing it for the whole county, we could see how it goes this year.

I I don't think we need to put it on the consent agenda because just because I know that does take up time, and that is staff time and money to make sure all these little grants are getting on the consent agenda.

You know, I think that especially because it's limited to this amount, and I know finance, the finance department's gonna be looking at them.

And so I would favor just doing it for the entire county and then not having to like spend all the time making sure they get on consent agendas, um, but with these limits.

So I think I think it's a good idea.

Thank you.

Well, I'm I'm hearing support for the countywide approach.

I think it makes sense if we're going to make up uh a change on this for one department that it would improve operations for others.

Just to clarify, this is only for grant amendments, grants that have already been applied for, approved, vetted through our normal process and received and awarded.

It's just when the actual grant dollar amounts are there's a slight variance.

This is what we're approving.

This is not uh modifying anything in terms of um, you know, budget amendment process or uh emergency appropriation process.

This is strictly related to grants that have already been approved.

Uh correct.

Thank you for that clarification.

And even if there's been a grant that's that's been approved, but the nature of it changes, it would have to go through the traditional process.

Okay, great.

So um I I see Director Hoff and your team are here.

I just want to say thank you for uh, you know, the suggestion.

I think it's a great partnership between county administration and the health department to recognize that there's an opportunity to improve operations uh as it relates to fiscal management that you know we work together on these things and partnership is the key here.

So thank you for that.

Member Maine.

Yeah, I just wanted to add as a member of HCS, we see a lot of these small grants coming up from the health department.

And that also means that usually staff from the health department is coming here.

So also a better use of people's time than to be here.

Does anyone have a question about a thousand dollars from the Ryan White Foundation change?

You know, so that's that's that's valuable too.

Shall I proceed onward?

I think so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh the next item for consideration, very straightforward.

It just speaks uh it requests that we move um item 5.9.8 regarding the elimination of positions that are vacant for for more than 12 months um up within the policy to right below 5.9.2, which indicates that each department is to review each vacant position and request funding for essential positions only.

So it kind of puts these two clauses together within the uh budget development policy.

Okay.

So I guess before Patrice Sutton County administrator, before we move on, I do want to um acknowledge that many of the departments still have a lot of anxiety over this budget policy about um positions automatically being eliminated once they're um vacant for 12 months.

Um we did already actually amend 598, and that was there before we came to you last month or this month earlier.

Um clarifying collective bargaining units because that had been some significant anxiety.

Obviously, we can't eliminate positions under those agreements without negotiation.

So we wanted to clarify that.

Um we did hear from departments that there still is a lot of anxiety about this blanket um elimination of those uh positions.

Um I I do want to just reiterate that it does say that you know, we will present to you the the department's justification for keeping those vacant positions that have been vacant for more than 12 months, and that is how it is written.

But um, I just wanted to be very straightforward with you uh in case you wanted to reconsider that policy provision um because it it has caused anxiety on the part of departments.

Can you just explain what the anxiety is?

Like, is it because they think, well, if we're not able to fill this position, then I have to come back and it's and it counts as a head count ad instead of just refilling uh a position that you know we already had.

Yeah, it it relates to the fact that new program requests are always competitive and there's never enough money for all of them.

So it is very difficult to get a position back.

But also I think another um concern is that there have been times when you go through a recruitment process that takes as long as six months, and then it just doesn't work out with you know the finalist candidate, and you're going through that same process again.

And um, frankly, there are times when the departments feel like they are actively recruiting for the position throughout the 12 months and it just hasn't worked out.

That being said, I believe that we could present that to you as a justification and you could take that into consideration prior to elimination of the position.

Okay.

Members, uh Litzik, then Maine.

Thanks.

I I understand um that anxiety and I I you know have always hesitate anytime we're sort of legislating based on the worst case scenario, which is you know, holding on to vacant positions forever to sort of keep your budget uh, you know, where you'd like it, and maybe not filling those positions, but um so I so I understand so I understanding that in the past, I wouldn't I I do understand the um why we impose that, but also why it might not make sense as a blanket policy.

So, with that said, in your discussions um and understanding how very long it can take to fill positions.

Is it is there a time limit extension that has been discussed in terms of what is more comfortable, like 18 months.

There is another section in the policy under um that basically says that every vacant position has to be justified in our budget process.

So let me just be clear.

This is the policy that the FA committee and eventually the county board puts forward for us.

And then the finance committee, the the finance department, the budget team puts together budget instructions that go into a tremendously amount more detailed amount of information that are prepared provided to the departments.

So you will note as I continue through this presentation that there were times when that wasn't clear for the departments, and so they made some recommendations that are actually within the authority of the county administrator to put into those instructions.

That being said, I think um there is another clause in these policies that states that as we're going through those budget instructions, the county administrator is looking for justification for every single position that is vacant.

Um and the departments have asked for a lot more clarity there because that could just be a point in time, and it may have only been vacant for one week.

And so they really did specify there that they would prefer to only have to justify positions that have been vacant for more than six months.

And honestly, I I actually think that is a very valid request, and that is something that we will institute in those instructions.

Um the departments did not actually give us a time frame or a recommended um amount of time for the automatic um elimination of positions.

So I think something like that is worth considering based on I know it's very hard based on the position, all the departments are different, but I I can understand why a year feels very tight.

So member Maine.

Yeah, I thought of um what member blitzic said.

And I wonder why since it is competitive, if you're saying, well, here's here's the out we're gonna give you if you've been actively recruiting, why don't we just have that in written in the policy?

Why don't we say if there has been an ongoing search um or a failed search, then let them keep that position instead of making everybody jump through hoops, go through that compete and and go back again.

And we're saying we're gonna give them a really strong reason to just write it in the policy and don't make everyone jump through hoops.

Thank you.

Um I remember when um uh first I'd say I really like the policy where if something has been vacant for a year, you have to be able to say, hey, we still need this position.

Because people might recall those of us who've been on the board for longer, when there were many vacant positions that were just being held, we budgeted them.

So I'm I'm a little adverse to going sort of backwards, if you will, on that.

And I I actually think our board is quite understanding.

If somebody comes to us and says, hey, look, we've had a lot of difficulty filling these positions.

Um and we would really like to keep this vacancy.

I can't imagine our board saying, yeah, too bad.

And we did talk about uh member Maine about um, hey, I we as we were kind of looking through this presentation.

Do we want to put in there, you know, those numbers?

And what I heard from Patrice and and maybe Gina also was, well, we do that operationally.

This is sort of that that policy thing.

So I'm I'm actually I like how it is written, and I totally agree.

Why justify something that's been open for a week or whatever, maybe even six months, maybe it should be nine months or whatever.

Um, so that's my thought.

And then, and I I hear uh member Volitzik on um a year might feel tight, but I I just wouldn't understand how we would do 18 months in terms of uh budgeting.

That feels like that would be more difficult to me.

To be perfectly honest with you, this is a difficult process, regardless because of our limited system right now, it will be much easier to do just a systematic search in the future.

Right now, this is a manual process, so we pick a date and then we analyze every single position using the tools that we can through Excel.

But it is extremely arduous um because we do just pick a date.

So 18 months would be the same process right now.

It will be even easier in the new system.

Um if I may just go back to a different comment just to provide the opposite perspective, just to remind us all why we put this in in the first place.

Um we have, you know, the assumption is that they've been operating effectively, or at least um they've been able to manage without the position for 12 months.

And so we just really want our department heads to make sure that whatever alternative solution they had come up with to be able to continue to operate, um, isn't you know, maybe the alternate solution that they continue with going forward.

So that was really the logic behind putting this in place, because you know, 12 months of doing without a position, um, you you can't really just set it aside and not do it.

You must have figured out a way to get the work done.

And so that was why we were really asking them to reflect at that time.

So just really wanted to just um put the explanation out there for why we put this in the first place.

Yeah, I fully understand there's legitimate reasons why uh recruitments aren't successful, which is to me, 12 months feels like a very long time.

It's one of the reasons I was very supportive of this change initially.

A member of Clark, then member Maine.

Yeah, and so two things.

So one is just to clarify then, right under the current policy, if it hasn't been filled for 12 months, then it is eliminated unless they can explain to you why it shouldn't be.

Right.

If the department objects, then um they provide a justification memo.

It is an arduous process, and that's really what they're trying to eliminate.

I think um member Maine's suggestion of if there's an act of recruitment, um you know, I think they they would appreciate that.

I um that could be a loophole, frankly.

But um I feel like active recruitment can be, oh, look, we just sent the job existence yesterday.

Yeah, it's now active.

So I think we'd have to define active, you know, and not just have it be, oh, by the way, we sent the job description to HR yesterday.

But um, but yeah, I I think that is the anxiety.

Well, and it sounds like okay, and this is why I would clarify.

So if there was an active recruitment and someone's like, you know, this position, if this fell through, and they so they can justify it to you, and then you can as county administrators say, okay, then you can keep the position.

As long as there's a way to do that, I agree.

12 months, I mean, I understand about recruiting and things, but 12 months is a long time.

And as long as there's a way to for people to explain that why, and then they can keep the position, I think I'm fine with it.

And and how many positions are we talking about?

Do you think?

Like, is this a lot of positions every year that are like your right?

So um, in the sheriff's department alone, you've heard um there's at least 60 vacant positions at any given time.

Um similarly, you know, our larger departments are gonna have more vacant positions just because of the nature, the health department isn't is another one just because of the fluid nature of their grants and you know, their large head counts, they also have a fair amount.

Um, as an aside though, they are exempt from this process because they have independent authority as it cut relates to head count and personnel.

Um so we actually don't do this process with the board of health or with the health department.

Um so we're really talking just a handful of uh positions that have been vacant more than twelve months.

Yeah, because more that's I mean it's different from vacant positions, because I also agree, I'm very supportive of changing it to at least six months or whatever, you know, because I agree, like just because you somebody left a week ago that shouldn't be counted.

So I'm I'm very yeah, so very supportive of making it six months, but um, yeah, to be vacant for 12 months.

I I do think people should have to justify it.

So I would support keeping it the same, but changing it to six months or twelve or nine months on um how long it's been vacant.

Let me just interject.

I mean, that the the reason, the motivation behind it from the county's perspective from our committee's perspective is just budgetary accuracy, right?

So that we're not over budgeting the positions that are going to be vacant in front of the 12 months.

Exactly.

Sure.

Member main, then member of the Thanks.

And I can appreciate that that accuracy and you know how it looks in the budget with you know unfunded positions.

Um I'm I'm a little confused then.

So is that process to say, hey, we're gonna keep it?

Is that a new program request or is that outside of a new program request?

So if the position is eliminated, um it would be a new program request in a future year because it would be a service or an expansion of their head counts in the future.

But but is the request the justification process that year?

No.

That is a separate non-new program request process.

Okay.

So that seems a little better.

I I do want to disagree with you though on the hey, they've been doing without it for a year.

That could mean that other people have been unfairly burdened.

So just because you've gone without it, I mean, we have so many great staff and people are willing to step up and take care of something for a while, but not necessarily forever.

So the that last argument doesn't sway.

They may have gotten a third party to do it, and that is effective and equal, you know, more lives other ways.

But you know, it I totally agree with you that may be the case, and it's causing wear and tear on our employees and overburdening them, and and for sure that could be a justification.

But on the alternative, if they've found a different way to do the work, you know, we want to okay, work through that.

But as I was going to say, related to that before, is that if that's something we're looking at, then it seems like is there um the process for not annual, that's too much, but like every three years, does a department need to look at their reorg and and do those sorts of things that way?

And that's the way to take care of those things, right?

I mean, I know vacancies can offer opportunities for reorganization.

Um, but if you're saying, hey, they can find other ways to do it.

Do we have a play uh a system in process um in which departments need to every two or three years say, hey, we've looked at our process, and this is where we're going in the future.

Because that seems like do we have that process?

Yep.

Okay, great.

Only we do ask them to do it every year.

Okay.

So you may still have some thoughts when we get to that one.

Okay.

Okay.

Did you have another comment?

Just quickly, I just want to um have it straight in my own brain.

I mean, I'm of course support the purpose of this policy.

Um, I support the review and reflection at 12 months or or whatever it is.

I support the six months, you know, extension um to justify vacant positions.

But I just want to make sure I'm here, because I'm hearing you say that it is an arduous process and that some sort of maybe automatic um, I forget the phrasing that uh member main use, but that if it is um it is vacant, but there is, and I understand a loophole, there is a um, you know, an active recruitment process.

Um is there a piece that you can see that would make it easier on your time and staff time to still make sense with what the goal of this is.

Yep.

Um I think what we need to add to our our budget team's process is uh check in with the HR department to see how long the position's been posted and what the recruitment status is, and then it wouldn't even go on the list.

Okay.

And is that something that we is that an internal or do we need to I feel like we do need to I I would feel more comfortable, and I think our departments would feel more comfortable if we added in the proposed language that member Maine suggested, or some such language that we will bring forward next week that stipulates that if there's an act of recruitment in process, then they would be exempt from this automatic elimination.

And understanding if it's even possible to tighten whatever loophole there might be to be almost non-existent.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think I think I would support that language.

And that that budget development, I forgot what the term you used was the rules or the guidance that instructions, yeah.

The instructions, right?

That would have to be specified in there, I think.

So that you had confidence that this is legitimate effort to recruit and fill that position and that resources are being dedicated to that effort.

It's not just a placeholder.

I'm putting my thumb down on the button to keep the screen on.

Yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving on.

Um the way we're talking about 5910, which is just a couple clauses down from that section.

Um the way that that is currently worded, which is a change from last year.

Um, last year we actually came to you in October and we put a specific percentage in there of 1.75%.

Um, but when we presented this to you in the April meeting earlier this month, we had already changed it back to being what it used to be before we made that specific change for fiscal year 26.

So that it does state that the grade tables will move by CPI, which is the um inflationary index that we utilize for property tax growth or the non-union wage increase approved by the county board, whichever is less.

So that is not what it said last year.

So the example that I'm showing you in 2026 was that CPI was 2.9, our non-union wage increase was 3%, and our grade tables only moved by 1.75%.

I will say that that was consistent with what our consultant had, as you may recall, we did do a compensation study in 2024.

I specifically asked about how grade tables should move, and they recommended that they not move at the exact same pace as our merit increase.

So the way we are doing it is consistent with what um you know the consultants suggested.

Um our departments actually are suggesting that we not only have a just one percentage of three percent, they are asking that we have a colo and a merit amount so that um there is more sufficient funding there to really recruit and maintain a high quality workforce.

So I'm just sharing it with you, and I'm certainly willing to um discuss this because you know, compensation is something that we struggle with all the time.

And so uh we are gonna work really, really hard to figure out a way to balance this budget while um adequately rewarding our non-union employees.

Um, but it's our personal um opinion that we should leave the the policy as it was stated, because that was consistent with the compensation study and and the advice that we got from our consultant.

So can I just ask you to dig into the advice from the consultant a little bit differently?

So if we adjusted the tables by um this requested amount, the consultant saying that we would be escalating the tables beyond CPI and our and our overall wage structure would be out of pace.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I mean, uh, you know, quite frankly, the goal is to have a number that's much higher than three percent, so that it really truly is CPI plus a merit component.

Uh the problem with the last several years is that um, you know, our our collective bargaining agreements have a colo and a step, and then our non-union employees usually just get that one three percent.

Now, of course, our department heads have the discretion to do some sort of range around that, but you really, you know, you can't do much with a 3%, even if you're trying to spread it around your high performers.

So you if you do give your high performers more, you're having to give your, you know, those that are meeting expectations less than what the county board approved.

So it's it really puts our department heads in a very difficult situation.

So we honestly are one of my goals personally is to really give uh employees, non-union employees a bigger amount and to add an adequate merit adjustment to recognize the hard work that they do here for the county.

That being said, if we are able to do that, and if we get to that point, we could be moving these grade tables by as much as 5% when CPI might only be it's 2.7 for next year.

So the recommendation from the consultant is assuming we're gonna get to the point where we're not at a 3% non-union wage increase.

Right now, where we're at, it's not that different.

So it does seem difficult to understand their advice.

But if we can get to a point where we're adequately compensating for merit, we want to make sure that those grade tables represent the accurate pay for that position and are not advanced by um merit increases.

Helpful.

Thank you, Member Bain.

Thanks.

And um, you know, I support what your your goal is there.

I one would think, and I would have hoped that I would be better at at these grade tables and how that impacts everything.

Uh if we're gonna see something next week for my mind of under like if it's up there, I kind of understand it.

But like if somebody earns a hundred dollars, right?

What do these different scenarios mean that they get the next year?

That that's what I have a hard time figuring out of where that's going of you're a hundred dollars, you're in this grade, you get this, you get the three percent, you know, if if you got the max.

That that's what I'd like to be able, I don't know if anybody else, but that's what I'd like to be able to understand a little bit better.

And then also based on non-union salaries this year in aggregate, what would these different things mean in terms of an overall increase if there's an increase in in the grade tables and things like that.

So may I address member main's first thing?

Okay.

So on the grade tables, it matters the most on the bottom and the top.

Yeah.

If you're in the middle, it's irrelevant to you.

But let's just say that you're a fairly new employee and you're near the bottom of the grade.

If we if if you're doing fine, but you don't get the full merit increase, and perhaps your increase is only 4% and and the county board approved amount was 5%, but we move the grade table by 5%, you're gonna have to get 5%, whether you earned that through your merit increase or not.

So that's the uh the concern on the bottom end of the grade.

And then on the top end, um you have people that are gonna be maxed out.

And so the way we handle that currently is that you max out to the top of the grade, and then the remainder of what you would have gotten for your annual increase is paid out to you in a lump sum.

Right.

Right.

So that's where those grade tables matter the most.

Um as for showing it to you in a way that makes more sense, point taken.

Oh, more sense for me.

Yeah, it's hard because the the change amounts are small and over time you would say that.

Right.

It's the that it's this amount on this, and yeah.

And if let me just add one example that you shared with me, is like overall, you want the workforce to be growing and advancing over time.

And if the tables are escalating in such a way, you're literally gonna be holding someone at the same position instead of having them advance over.

The fear is that we'll be overpaying for the work for that position because it's grown, you know, too much.

So the grade tables, you know, the compensation study, just believe it or not, spent, you know, inordinate amounts of time trying to get those to accurately reflect the duties of each of the positions that are in those grade tables.

And so if you inflate these grade tables too much, they're not gonna continue to reflect the work that's being done for those positions.

Thank you.

Member Clark.

Me in on getting this, uh having this explain to me better to go.

So I I know, and I'm like, I should get this too.

And I'm looking at this.

So I think I get it.

So for the grade table.

So I have two questions.

One is so it says, so who so the request is from like department heads?

Is that who's requesting to move it?

And why are they requesting it?

Do they feel like that doing it this way is not reflecting better?

Because what I don't want us to run into is what happened before we did the compensation study, where everything was not keeping up with CPI and people's, so is it who is requesting this and why?

I guess it's or uh or are they say have they shared why they feel like this is not working?

Do you want me to state the specific department?

No, no, no, okay.

I just didn't know if it's not.

I mean, it doesn't, I think for that specific department that asked for this, you know, it is the top of the grade.

They do have a number of just a few, a handful of people that are at the top of the grade who would prefer to have um it not go into a lump sum situation because you do get taxed at a higher rate if you move into a higher tax table.

That being said, it all comes out in the wash at the end of the year when you do your taxes, but you know, you're not getting that in every single paycheck, you're getting a lump sum.

So I think that was the concern, and that's why it's brought up.

But that being said, that same department feels strongly that non-union wage increases of 3% are not adequate to maintain the high quality workforce that is stated in these budget policies.

Yeah, which I agree.

So it's good to know this.

This isn't like across the tables.

But also, I that's what I I'm concerned to.

Would having more pay for merit raises help with this?

That is I I'm not prepared to come to you with that right now because we have to figure out whether we can fit it in financially, but that is what we are trying to do is to try to go with a cola and then a separate merit amount.

That's what we're hoping that we will be able to present to you in a balanced budget.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Vice Chair Part.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

So I I just admittedly I'm also being getting a little lost on how all of the math ends up working for us.

So I just have a general question for Gene and Patrice.

If we as a county are tending our wages and merits and just our compensation is increasing by more than CPI every year, and the goods and services that we buy are exceeding CPI every year, then ultimately we would then need to tax more than the CPI every year.

Is that fair to say?

And I guess my question ultimately is that I'm just looking at this from an overall level to say that um I want to be mindful of how much we're raising beyond CPI from our residents because ultimately we're all paying for it then.

Does that make sense?

That's my question.

It does make sense to me.

I understand the point.

Um but you know, that's that's an annual, that's part of our budget annually is what we're looking at where where the raises are, what what the budget permits and what the marketplace is driving us to do to retain the workforce, right?

Absolutely.

I guess the only other answer I could add to that is that we look at compensation packages in full, because to be perfectly honest with you, you're gonna see a very large health insurance increase this year, and that is gonna be much higher than CPI.

I'm I'm just being honest with you.

And so, you know, what we're gonna hear from our employees is that if we just give them a CPI increase, it's not gonna cover the increase in their health insurance.

So we I perfectly understand what you're saying, but we look at it from a package perspective.

Um and you know, really want to ensure that uh we're paying a competitive wage so that we can keep our high quality employees.

And and I and I I don't disagree.

I guess the the question then is that ultimately we we gotta balance all out in some capacity.

So we just need to be then thinking about the goods and services that we purchase, and either we have to be even more competitive, more efficient, or buy less.

And I would argue that being really analytical at looking at your open positions when those positions open up and ensuring that you really do need to refill them would be an absolutely critical piece of this, which is why I was hoping to leave that language in.

Because you can pay your other people more if they've managed to do the work of that position that has been opened.

But if we leave that position on the books, then we're carrying that as you know, a funded position instead of paying it to the people that are actually doing the work.

I feel pretty passionately about this.

I apologize.

So can I ask what just one more question then?

So if we keep that position open, then that impacts the available dollars available for those that are actually in the role.

So okay, that even makes more reason why we wouldn't want to do that.

It actually helps the current employees be more fully compensated.

Um the reason to to reconsider what we're doing there.

Thank you.

I mean, that you, you know, you could have 2% of your uh, you know, human resources budget for positions that are vacant that could be used to pay the people who are doing the work.

Or something like that.

Yeah.

Sure.

Just as an aside, don't ever apologize to this board for being passionate about something.

You have spent many years looking at this, and I know from my years of working with you that you know, we've talked so many times about hey, it's really important to reward our employees and to really have a differential in there for those high performing employees.

So I I really appreciate also you bringing it back and tying those two very important pieces together for us.

Hey, when we when we're looking carefully at these vacancies, let's not forget that this money can go just as you said, to our employees today, and that Paris reiterated on, you know, to make sure we're compensating them and rewarding them for the great work they do.

So just want to say thanks.

I I know we all appreciate your passion.

So thank you.

Okay, I see another hands up on this one.

Okay.

I can't remember what the next slide is.

Great.

Um so consensus on this one.

Um staff recommendation is to leave it as is for right now with the understanding that we're looking at this with you know an open mind and are likely to come back.

Um our budget policies do state that we have to let you know exactly what that percentage is that we are putting into the budget.

And so last year that is why we came back to you and amended these at the last minute after we had prepared the budget so that it could state what that was.

So that is our intention this year, but for now, it would be staff's recommendation to leave it the way it's written.

Are we in agreement?

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Um the next section is what we've already discussed.

So hopefully you can move quickly through this.

Section 5.1.4 is to is the recommendation to only have to justify positions open for more than six months rather than all vacant positions.

I do I appreciate what the concept is there, and I would not be opposed to that change.

I think member of Litzek has already provided support for that.

I'm gonna take I'm gonna take that as I guess to elaborate for us.

What does this look like like uh for us come October in terms of budget discussions?

This particular one actually does not change anything at the board level because historically what the the policy clause states all vacant positions will be reviewed and must be justified using a systematic process during budget development and preparation.

The systematic process is defined in the instructions.

And the instructions will be updated to state that you you only have to go through this justification process to the county administrator for positions that have been open more than six months.

Okay.

It actually won't change anything that we present to you.

It's just again, because of that passion that I just shared with you.

I do like to have these conversations with department heads to ensure that they really are having, you know, doing these analytical um thought processes to really ensure that we're catching during the process the budget process how best to organize their departments.

Okay, section 5.16.

It was pointed out by one of the departments that this only refers to new program requests, but it really should talk about program expansions as well.

It's just a nomenclature thing that I would agree that we probably need to fix.

Is there a good point?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

And then one of our departments proposed that we should add additional funding for new program requests.

Just to provide a little background.

Um, I know that you've been through this many times, but new program requests are considered after we've already budgeted.

So we do budget all of the same um services and um offerings as what we've provided in the prior year, and then we see how much is left over, and then that determines the pot that we have available for the new program requests.

Um this department was recommending that we actually create a little bit more of a strategic intentional process to fund new program requests.

I guess the only um point that I would like to make is that um, you know, it's absolutely critical that these other fine-tuning methods that we've been talking about are actually in play as well because um it's difficult to expand or add new services when our revenues are increasing at a finite, you know, amount.

So my concern with this is that like we we kind of budget, we balance first, and then we we see what we can handle in terms of new program requests and doing something that's more proactive like this.

Um will just make balancing that much harder.

So you have a point of order.

Yes.

Budget planning policy 516.

Unless this is language that during the budget, the during the policy review process, one of the departments brought forward.

I said that I would share it with this committee and get your thoughts.

Um and see if if you want us to put it in there, but it's not there right now.

Okay, because this is the red line version, right?

But it's just this.

I think this is something that was brought forward by a department part of eBay.

So I'm gonna share my thoughts.

Um appreciate you sharing it with us.

Um I've learned a lot about government agencies and their general functionality academically and in reality.

And if you put a pool of funds together and say it's for this purpose to be determined, it will get spent.

Absolutely.

It will 100% automatically get spent, regardless of the merit of the programs and requests.

And I'm it's not a criticism, it's just it's it's a scientific fact.

And I think that the process that we've instituted here doesn't pit departments against each other.

I think it involves them in the process in the evaluation process.

I think there's a lot of merit to it.

And I think what what you've done there is bringing them into the process, it adds value.

And so I'm supportive of leaving the process as is and involving them in the process.

Um, and it and it helps the recommendations that come to us, it helps us know that they have been vetted by all the departments, and it's not just the ask of one.

So I'm not supportive of adding this language in any other comments.

Member Maine.

Yeah, I I agree with member Frank, Chair Frank.

So if they go in to their department X goes into their budget, and they had this much, and they say, you know what?

We could reorg, we could do this.

Our budget could be this, but we'd like to do something new.

Is that something new still a new program request?

It is, but if they have an offsetting expenditure reduction or an offsetting revenue that makes it more cost neutral, yeah, it highs much, it scores much higher in the process.

Because I think that's what we want to incentivize.

And it goes to the other things that you said is that it shouldn't just be we add, we add, we add to member Perek's point, like there's there's finite dollars, right?

And yes, we are a small small-ish percent of somebody's overall tax bill, but we always say, hey, we want to be leaders.

We we want to lead and show by example.

And the bills just came out, and I'm sure many of us saw our own and have heard from many people.

Um, and it does become or feel more and more unsustainable to people that they're like, I can't afford this.

What young family is gonna come in and buy my house at this.

So I think if there's a way to further incentivize a department, because it's kind of uh a little bit of a, and we had this with science grants all the time.

It was use it or lose it, right?

And that made you use up all these supplies, it'd be the last month, and the guy would say, do 10 experiments now.

I only let you do one because I wanted to make sure we had enough money till to the end of the year.

So that's what I would like to say to say, you know what?

If you come up with some different ways of doing things, um good for you, you're doing what we want you to do, and you haven't lost what you had before.

That's that's what I'd like to see with new program requests, like not score higher, but like, yeah, you've shown us so some targets or or some ways to reward people who are going in and looking at that, whether it's with a reorg of personnel or looking at other projects, because I I think perhaps Chair Frank, not to put words in your mouth, but I will.

Like not score higher, but like, yeah, you've shown us so some targets or or some ways to reward people who are going in and looking at that, whether it's with a re-org of personnel or looking at other projects, because uh I think perhaps Chair Frank not to put words in your mouth, but I will.

Um, is that sometimes people have things going on that they're really not worthwhile anymore, but they've been hanging around.

And so that project or that thing, it's it's a zombie project.

It's not really doing what it wants, but no one has got the energy to get rid of it, or there's not an incentive to get rid of it.

So let's incentivize people to change up and get rid of things and go, good job for you.

Now you can go do this instead of maybe.

I put too many words in your mouth.

Nope.

Not too many.

Okay.

And like, so just to clarify for me, so there, so it already is, is it incentivized already?

Because if people do have an offset, it helps them get the MP.

Absolutely.

So it's already happening.

Yes.

And so I know when we look at the NPRs, because we see them obviously in the budget hearings, and that's when we all get to see them.

So, you know, I do see the frustration here.

You know, we've seen some really important and could be great programs that come as new program requests.

And it is very frustrating that we can't, you know, that they aren't being funded.

But also, there is no magic money, one of those things I like to tell my students.

So that's one of the things to live by.

But I do see the frustration in that um, you know, there sometimes you know.

So my question for you is is there a way, I mean, and I guess for all of us, I mean, if someone has, we see the new program requests.

So, as board members during the budget hearings, if there's, I mean, in the past too, if there are programs that were like, hey, as board members, we really think this should move ahead.

There is a way we could do that in the as part of the budget process.

So it isn't just down to this.

And and I'm like, I like, I mean, all the metrics that go into it, those are all things we've asked for, and I think works really well.

So, you know, um, so even though we don't maybe budget for it, because I agree, like if there's I mean, yeah, I think, but but we there is still a way people can departments can ask for new program credits and get them funded.

Um, but I guess it would be during the budget hearings, sort of.

If we're the ones that weren't yeah, the county administrator decides, you know, goes through a process and puts the new program requests in that um can be included in the balanced budget.

And then obviously, as you've seen over the last several years, we can certainly add others in at your request.

So that's absolutely possible.

I do want to point out also that there's some recommendations here about rolling discussions of NPRs.

And so we will be incorporating those into the instructions too.

If you do have something that you recognize that this is a great idea, like into eternity, you can actually state, okay, even if you can't get this in this year, I want it to be considered next year.

So we'll we'll actually take this suggestion and incorporate some of the pieces into it to just again, this isn't meant to be onerous, it's meant to be thoughtful and deliberative.

Yeah.

So I would want to just keep, I think the current process the same.

All right, thank you.

Um section 5.19.

Um we received a specific request from MSMC.

I've actually not been using the department um names in the other ones, but this one is very specific to stormwater-related improvements.

Um the stormwater management commission is requesting that there be a dedicated allocation of a minimum of 10% of whatever we dedicate to capital um to stormwater related improvements.

So I just want to be extremely clear.

Um, you know, we do have a lot of dedicated special revenue funds for transportation.

We have an enterprise fund where user charges and um hookup fees pay for our enterprise, the public works, our water and sewer systems.

Um, but the rest of our um departments are all funded by the capital improvement process and funds that we have out of um that results right now.

The only primary uh revenue stream for that is the capital reallocation at the end of the year that we just discussed at our last meeting.

So the way that is usually allocated out is based on the projects that you are presented, and then you fully fund projects.

So this would be a very different methodology where you're not actually seeing the projects that are proposed, but rather just dedicating uh a dollar amount that is a percentage of the overall amount.

So I wanted to share this with you for your consideration.

Thank you.

And so while I'm not I'm not supportive of this specific request, I definitely understand the department's needs for an understanding that some of their capital requests are going to get funded.

Correct.

And I understand that that they want to know they're not going to get zero for any specific year.

Um, you know, we've been very lucky.

SMC has been very lucky to benefit from a generational investment from the state from our legislators the past several years to really change the landscape and uh improve um stormwater management across the county.

And my assumption is that this request comes, you know, anticipating that that 120 million dollars is going to get spent and they're looking at the future.

My recollection is that prior to that investment from the state, you know, we were budgeting for SMC capital on an annual basis.

I think we increased it one year up to a million dollars.

I don't remember it being, you know, anywhere in that range.

Um I I don't have a specific number in mind.

I'm not sure what it needs to be, but I just think if we're doing uh a capital CIP program that ranks and evaluates and prioritizes the limited funds available based on priority as as a county as a whole, we should consider all the priorities all together.

And and SMC should be a part of that process, I think.

Members member volatility.

Can you someone remind me um again prior to to all these straight state grants was SMC?

I know that we funded it.

I I know all that that, but are they specifically um considered in terms of a capitalist?

Yes.

So um in another section, it does state that we have to present to you a consolidated capital improvement plan.

Um that is in policy 3.5 section 5102 for um they'll be presented together as a comprehensive capital plan to facilitate transparency and long-term planning.

So again, the methodology has always been that if you have a three million dollar project that would be ideal to do in either the next year or maybe year two, rather than having to save up maybe $500,000 annually and maybe push it off when it should be a high priority for next year.

The methodology that we've historically been using is that you tell us about the need and we'll slate it as soon as we possibly can after we're evaluating all of the priorities.

So, yes, um, they are invited to you know prepare and present a multi-year capital improvement plan.

Okay, and it's part of what we consider along with the other ones.

I just, yeah, I mean it as long as that's the understanding and uh I mean uh, you know, stormwater infrastructure should be, and I believe this board believes that, but um, in our policies, it should be reflected is as important as road infrastructure all the other sewer infrastructure.

So it is just as important, and as long as that is reflected in our budget policy and our capital planning policies, then um then I'm comfortable with it as it is.

It's already in 519.

Um, and it's referred to in the bundle of non-transportation capital improvements, including facilities technology and stormwater improvements.

Which which one are you in?

I'm in the um 3.5 fiscal year 27 policy.

Okay.

And then I'm looking at section 519.

Yep.

Okay, I see.

All right, thank you.

And um, and I agree with what everyone said, but so for this 10%, is this they're looking for this is for operating money, or this is this is for capital money for building projects.

Is this like are they looking for matches?

I mean, I know they're like, I mean, I know there's a lot of grant funding of projects.

So is this this capital funding that they're looking for?

Because I understand, you know, maybe wanting to know each year, but but you mostly need to know each year if it's like for operating money versus capital, like spending.

So is it because they know they need matching?

Do you know if or if it's for building just its own project or I'm assuming this is coming from some reason, Dina?

Or is it there's is so if it is just for capital, then and it's not for like upgrading or matching funds, then um, yeah, I could see that they should just be part of their general capital program.

That um specificity was not made known.

It was really presented in this manner.

That being said, tomorrow we are gathering all of the departments that have um capital improvement plans and putting getting them all together and giving them plenty notice that we're looking to consolidate this and present it in a standardized streamlined way all together.

So I'll have more clarity after we have that meeting.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Park.

Yeah, I don't want to be labor um because I agree with pretty much what everyone has said.

And I I just want to say I applaud Kurt for thinking long-term because we will be running out of these monies, but 10% seems a bit arbitrary, I guess, in some ways.

And I would say that we need to we have many priorities, so we need to make sure that we evaluate it against everything we do.

And frankly, after the hundred some million we get, maybe we will have achieved some of the things and 10% may not be necessary, or maybe it'll be more.

And so I find it a little strange to lock us into a specific percentage.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Again, I can't remember the next slide.

I apologize.

Okay.

So as part of the policy um procedure that we've instituted this year, we have to be up front with you about the recommendations that were received through this policy review process that we did not um come forward and recommend.

A lot of this has to do with the fact that the departments have never been asked to weigh in on these policies before.

And um, many of their recommendations had to do with the um instructions and the more detailed um budget process that the policies don't address.

So an example of that is the HSA contributions were distributed that there was a policy change this year where we distributed the those HSA contributions for people in the um consumer-driven health plan.

Um, it used to be a lump sum amount amount up front, and it was changed to be each paycheck that did catch a number of employees off guard this year and has caused a hardship.

So we will we always look at this every single year as part of our benefit package because we really cannot look at these things individually.

So we are considering that um as part of a part of our analysis of the budget package, and of course, that will be brought to you separately at a later time.

Um there was a request to have departmental input into the budget targets, but again, the way targets work is you start with an estimated amount of revenue, and you have to fit those targets into the estimated amount of revenue.

So I'm open to consideration of how departments can assist us with setting those targets, but um I'm just fearful that we won't be able to stay within the limits if we allow the departments to set their own targets.

Um, that being said, we'll have those considerations because again, that is at the instruction or administrative level.

Uh clarification on reclassifications and reorganizations.

Um member Maine's comments earlier, we do encourage them to really think through the next year and and try to come up with their recommendations now so that we can budget for them.

Um so often you're hearing us come during the middle of the year, and it's just so much more difficult to figure out how to pay for those when we're trying to do it mid-year.

So we will definitely clarify that and work with the departments to come up with a better process.

Um clarification of expansions and requests for a low less onerous process for expansions.

Um certainly we'll consider that, but again, that's lower than the policy level.

Within that fiscal year 27 budget planning policy, there is a concern about the fact that we are adding in that clause that kind of um mandates uh electric or hybrid uh replacement of any vehicles that are up for replacement.

And um, there were several departments that weighed in on the fact that the county has to ensure that we're putting the proper infrastructure in place so that employees are not having to drive all over the county to try and get their cars um charged.

So very valid point and something that we will take into account, but not something that needs to be put into the policy.

And then um I think the fact that we were talking about the capital reallocation, kind of at the same time as we were talking about these budget policies, we did get a lot of comments on the use of surplus for personnel rather than putting it towards um capital reallocation.

Um, but those comments will be solicited when we do the fund balance policy.

And as is an aside, um we are really trying to be extremely thoughtful and um intentional and and very careful on that fund balance policy.

And so that probably will take us until the July meeting to come back to you on that one.

So just giving you a heads up on that.

But um that's why we weren't uh bringing forward anything on those suggestions.

And then finally, these are not things that the departments brought forward.

But you know, just given our comments about the capital improvement planning that we just uh had about how it works and and how it can be beneficial to departments to be part of the entire process rather than having to um rely on like unpredictable amounts that come in.

I just wanted to open up the possibility of discussing the 5.10.8 Medicaid Medicaid match clause to see if there's a willingness or a desire to address, you know, making that to be uh in aligned with the rest of our capital improvement planning.

Yeah, thank you for putting these two items on here.

Um I've asked a lot of questions about this policy and these funds, and I've had conversations with the health department and with our folks about it.

Essentially, you know, sort of like we we talked about with the SMC capital requests on the last item.

I think it's important that we think about a way to prioritize and think about all of our capital investments and the uniform process and that the health department capital should be should be folded into that.

And essentially the other inconsistency that I see here that we want to consider that the Medicaid match funds, which they have historically used for capital according to our policy, are basically operational funds in nature.

They're that those dollars are from the state, it's revenue to the health department, but it's calculated based on the operational expenditures.

And so they're not exactly capital funds.

It's just a convenient revenue source that we have dedicated to that.

So I I'm interested in us having a conversation about do we want to do we want to revisit that?

Um and I'm I'm certainly open to realigning the the health department's capital needs and investment program with with our overall approach to capital investments.

And then the second bullet, if I can just jump ahead, Ms.

Fair Sutton.

Please.

Um I think we're already seeing even on this agenda today, the need to uh support operations and investments in critical human services with that contingency fund that we created earlier.

And I think we want to think about even if we're not putting a dollar amount on it, if we want to think about just generally speaking, um, do we want the 27 budget to recognize a potential increase in that contingency account for unplanned needs uh or investments?

I I'm supportive of it.

I definitely would like members to weigh in on that.

I I think that it's it probably we're gonna want to think about doing more than then than 2 million for 27.

So I'll stop there, see if members have comments on these two items.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

Um I have a couple thoughts, but I'd like to have a better understanding of what you envision that 5108 in terms of address alignment with multi-year capital improvement planning.

So how would that play out?

Let's say the health department had a capital project.

And so explain how what the new process would be as you envision it.

Yeah, as the policy states, they are to follow the same capital um you know, planning process as the rest of the departments.

And so they are to put together that five-year plan.

And um those projects that are put forward in that five-year plan would be prioritized with all the rest of the projects and funded.

So the health department pro their plan would come forward and then be in the mix with all the other capital projects.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

So I don't quite understand that because this Medicaid match, Chair, you said that that was state money.

I believe it's federal money.

That's correct.

That's correct.

It's it's it's run through the state.

But it's it's federal, it's federal monies.

Well, let me let me just I'm just gonna share my understanding and I invite the health department uh director to to correct me if I'm wrong.

But it's um it's called a um certified public investment, essentially, but it's based on it is federal match, but it's based on the county's investment and operations.

It's how much the county covers the cost of Medicaid expenses at the health department.

So, you know, we we support some of their operations with shared services and other operating dollars.

And so that that goes into that calculation.

And so whatever is spent on Medicaid enrollees, the state says, okay, that qualifies for Medicaid match, and that's going to be generated.

So they count that as state Medicaid spend and they get the federal dollars for it.

So yes, that's correct that it is some that's generated by the federal partnership with the state on Medicaid, but it's based on Lake County spending.

It's an operational expense.

Yeah.

And and the health department does through referendum from many years ago, have its own levy that they that they don't max out.

That's never been maxed out.

Correct.

And just to make sure everybody understands that that there is a separate levy item for, am I correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

I just want to sure everybody understands that the health department voted by the voters of Lake County many years ago established that and put in its own levy for the health department.

Now that gets rolled in, and stop me when I'm wrong.

That gets rolled in with the overall county, what we levy.

Is that correct so far?

Okay.

It's all part, it's all subject to the same cap.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Exactly.

And the health department levy has never gone up to it, it's not maxed out as to what it is, correct?

There's state statute that um puts limits on each individual levy, and it's not anywhere near that cap.

That's right.

So it's just clear that if this board decided it could levy more dollars for the health department, but the health with the effectiveness of getting grants and other things that they fund many of their own programs.

So yes, the county put some in, but the county is getting that.

I think maybe not, because of the levy that the health department has.

So it's not, is that correct?

It's not like general funds from the taxes that the that the county is giving the health department.

The health department has their own levy.

Is that right?

If I may, to your point.

And I'm not 100% certain if if that's accurate or not either.

And I'm not 100% certain in what I've stated already, but for me, the point is that we should have some policy consistency on capital, on how capital is funded, regardless of of the the tax levy source of some of these funds.

It's still operating.

And I think that I would like to see us aligning capital investment and prioritization, just as we talked about with SMC a few minutes ago, um, across all of our needs.

I think it's I think it's it's an important thing for us to consider that capital is evaluated in the same process.

So I'm concerned because when the department, when our department of transportation comes up with their five-year plan, we're not micromanaging which road they should do.

We haven't had public input in terms of their five-year plan of new projects for about 20 years ago when there was the sales tax and we had a lot of money and we bonded it for four major projects, right?

So we're relying on our department of transportation with their studies, with their numbers, with their engineers to put together a plan to say, this is what we should do this year, this is what we should do the next year.

This is our five-year plan.

And as far as I can tell, we accept that.

We don't go in and micromanage and say, you know, that project that you want to do in 2027, you should do it in 2025.

And what I'm hearing, this is just what I'm hearing, is that that's what we want to do with the health department, that the health department that has incredible, I'm just talking about the board.

The health department has its own board, which I would put up, take myself, I'm not including, but I would put our health department board up against any board.

And I don't think many people have had the chance to go or see it, or maybe look at the expertise in health care that is on that board.

It would blow you away.

And so now we're saying, hey, you guys have all this understanding, you have all this knowledge of what is needed in health care.

But we're gonna put you in another plan in disregard all of this knowledge.

We don't do that to DOT.

I I don't, and there's other ones.

I'll I'll stop.

I'm very concerned.

Member Clark, Char.

Well, I mean, I think the difference for me, the difference is um that we're not telling the health, like the health department how to run the health department.

But if they want to build a building, that is something statutorially we have oversight of.

And if the DOT wants to build more on the DOT building, that's part of our capital.

So to me, it seems that if it's part of capital, because we're not talking about running the operations or deciding what projects or anything, everyone has to come to us for capital because we oversee capital.

And so for me, it's we're not talking about you know how to run the health department or their grants.

We're just talking about the buildings that are owned by the county.

That's our purview.

And so I think it makes sense to have a discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I do appreciate this conversation.

I'm just looking in the rest of 5.10.8.

It does say um they already, if there's if projects approved by Lake County Board of Health will be sent to HCS Committee and Finance Committee for the appropriation of funds.

So that already occurs.

And I might suggest that that five-year capital plan, we do pretty much go over that.

I recall there was considerable conversation about a particular road.

The board decided to keep it in there, but there was an argument to take something out.

So I do think I don't want to say that our board micromanages.

I do think we have questions, and I see the same thing happening, if I if I may, on the forest preserve side, we have all of these uh projects that lay out some things we might need to get shifted.

So I um I I don't see that significant of a change.

And and look, I don't know very much about I don't know anything about Medicaid match dollars, except for what I have learned.

And this is even when Mark Pfister was still here.

The that is a reimbursement of expenses.

And so I I appreciate this conversation, which we do have in other departments if we will.

Hey, if there's um, I think we just talked about it in a recent meeting, or maybe it's coming up here.

Where is that where is that money expensed?

Where will it go back to?

So this makes sense to me that it would be this is a uh an operational expense and should be viewed like that and not having the Board of Health being treated, excuse me, the health department is sort of working differently than other um departments, especially when you think in light of what SMC has just asked for, right?

It it'd be very simple, I think, for another department to say, well, you do it this way for the health department.

Why can't you do it this way for us?

So anyway, I I I think um chairs uh chair Frank's thoughts on this make sense to me.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Other comments.

I'll just suggest it.

Um I don't know if we have alignment on on this just yet.

Um, but maybe we'll want to give ourselves time to revisit and see where we land on this.

Okay.

Any other comments on these two?

Okay.

Thank you.

May I just a point of order, and I'm sorry, I'm just looking for it because we're not voting on these today, correct?

We come back next week.

So we're gonna contemplate it, or you guys will contemplate it and then come back next week for a vote.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

That's it.

That's all that's all I had.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your guidance.

Thank you.

Moving on.

8.7.

We have a human resources annual update.

Okay, good morning.

Darcy Edka, HR director.

Caitlin Everett, David, deputy HR director, excuse me.

So um today we will be sharing our uh department's update with you.

The uh majority of our time in 25 and 26 for that matter is spent with the ERP project.

We are beyond excited about this project and the opportunities that workday will provide for the human resources department and frankly for all of the employees across the county.

The efficiencies gained will be priceless.

The efficiencies will drive opportunities, improvements, and resources for employees countywide.

The HR department has been busy at work building several of these modules over the last two years.

Um, some examples are HCM, payroll, scheduling, talent, people experience, recruitment, compensation, time tracking, and absence, just to name a few.

Um we're also heavily involved in work streams such as integrations, reporting, and change management.

The collaboration with the subject matter experts from across county departments has been informational, helpful, and just frankly, very critical.

Some examples of the day-to-day tasks that will be changing and we're really excited about are the elimination of the paper personnel action forms or PAFs.

If you know, you know that one's got to go.

The elimination of paper time cards and implementation of countless self-service options.

With a database of information as robust and accessible as workday, the reporting capabilities will allow us significant visibility into trends and different metrics.

The data will be much more accessible and will be a game changer to aid in our strategic initiatives across the county.

Some examples would be hiring trends, performance measures, retention efforts, and compensation.

So while workday has been our main priority, we do have many other exciting initiatives occurring now too.

First, in partnership with the health department, we are preparing for a wonderful event on May 30th.

Today is the last day to sign up if you if you'd like to do so.

It is at Independence Grove in Libertyville.

This is the 5K.

Benefit funders will be there to answer questions, and there will be no shortage of giveaways.

So it should be a good day.

Hope for hope for sun.

We're also busy bargaining with several of our union groups within the sheriff's office and the coroner's office, and some new groups within the treasurer's office and the health department.

Our payroll team has been busy with some new legal requirements from federal and state perspectives.

Some examples are the one big beautiful act, which is regarding overtime compliance, and another from a state requirement is the final pay stub form, and that is specific to Illinois requirements and laws.

This is to aid managers and supervisors leading their teams.

And some department, some developmental tips for employees as well to help them in their day-to-day jobs and to grow into future opportunities that they that they hope for for themselves.

We'll be rolling out a little, a little library in HR, and this is a leadership version.

So we're excited about that.

That will be coming soon.

Also, um we have implemented a standardized exit survey that will aid in collecting very, very necessary data that we are using until we can use the robust features within workday.

Our benefits team is always busy administering all of our offerings and constantly seeking areas for improvement.

We are now working with the IPBC to develop a plan for the 2027 plan year.

The benefits market is rapidly changing, and we're committed to finding a solution that supports our employees and their families and both their health and financial wellness.

We're also in the last leg of the empower biometric screenings.

Those have been a huge success.

We've been doing a roadshow across the county, allowing opportunities for employees to take part in that.

The risk team is working on a safe driving program to seek opportunities to improve safety and reduce costs.

This program is about safe drivers, clear expectations, reliable records, and processes that support both safety as well as efficiencies.

These help, these efforts from them help us move from individual processes to consistent systems that support safety across the entire organization.

Moving on to some ongoing initiatives.

So in terms of labor contracts, Darcy mentioned that we are very, very busy with bargaining.

In addition to the contracts that are currently expired and the brand new ones, we also have several groups that are going to be expiring at the end of this year.

So that would be all four groups with local 150, public works, DOT, county facilities, and health department facilities.

We've got law enforcement deputies, court security, correctional officers, and lieutenants.

So all together within that group, there's 485 employees that are going to be affected by the negotiations this year, just from these groups.

And with those other groups, Darcy mentioned, we're quickly approaching a unionized workforce of about half, like 46% of our workforce.

So a lot of numbers.

So that's been a really helpful meeting.

And then in terms of organizational development, uh our org development manager has been hard at work developing an employee data dashboard, which is very cool to see.

It helps us gather metrics in terms of where we're getting our best recruitment sourcing.

Are they coming from indeed?

Are they coming from LinkedIn?

Where did they find our ads?

Um, it's been helping with being able to do really quick analysis of union membership.

If we're as an example, turnover data, all of that kind of stuff, which again, as Darcy mentioned, we can then leverage to help drive strategic initiatives.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, thank you so much.

So payroll, this is a dumb question.

We do the counted as payroll for all of the different units, right?

Whether it's the 19th Judicial Circuit or the Sheriff's Office or the Health Department, whatever, we do all the payroll.

Okay, and that would, I assume continue with the new implementation.

Yes.

And then the OD piece, can you remind me?

Did we just approve that opinion?

Um, excuse me, that position.

I I recall us approving an OD position for the health department last year.

You guys might not know the answer to that, but or maybe you do.

It's actually an NPR that I'm gonna go over in just a couple slides.

But yes, um, we hired that position January of 25.

January of 25 for the county and the health department.

Yep.

Is it like a shared position?

So it's actually a countywide position.

So that position sits in HR and supports the entire county.

I see, including the health department.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

But they also added one in the same year.

Oh, so the health department has their own OD person.

And then we have an OD person that goes across the entire county, including the health department.

Yes, our OD um employee partners with the health department and all departments on initiatives.

Um, and we try to align where we can.

Yeah, just trying to determine resources.

It's interesting that the health department has their own.

I remember the conversation.

And then, but but ours can also go over the health department.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Can I also just interject here with a quick question on the contracts?

Yes.

Do you anticipate that these contracts will get renewed and extended before they expire?

Tricky to say.

Um we have received a demand to bargain from at least one of these.

So I anticipate that come the summer, we're probably going to be very, very busy with meetings.

Um, it really depends on the group and sort of what's on the table from both sides.

But okay.

Don't we own part of that conversation?

Can't we initiate?

Yeah.

So um, so you know, groups like the correctional officers and frankly 150, both are very complex and they they take they take a ton of time.

So we are supposed to be starting bargaining with both groups, but to say that will be wrapped up by the end of this year is not likely.

Just because of meeting times with both groups and attorneys on both sides and you know, the employee members that need to join, and just frankly finding time and schedules is just difficult.

So, and that's a lot of groups.

Wherever possible, that is the goal.

Yes.

Um, we've already sort of started conversations with some of these groups to be able to say, you know, here's kind of what our time frame is looking like and um working internally to sort of identify what types of issues might be on the table in those conversations.

Okay, I fully understand that they're complicated and they take time, but we also know, right?

We have this on the calendar, so we could plan for it.

My my point is I think we've done a lot of work in catching up so that we were current.

You know, I can remember a time when we were approving labor contracts that were three years in a rear.

And it it costs us a lot to play catch up.

And so I think our board would be interested in seeing us stay on time if possible.

Right.

Absolutely.

We move as fast as we possibly can.

Yep.

And we continue, and we intend to continue to do so.

Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So continuing with ongoing initiatives, um, benefits.

Darcy touched on a lot of that in terms of day-to-day work.

Um, we have contracted with a new retirement consulting group.

Um, they're called creative planning.

So we've been working with them.

They help our 457 committee sort of evaluate um our investments, make sure that we're making the best use of those funds.

Um, in addition, they are really excited to partner with us on some additional employee education pieces.

Um, they have a lot of different mediums for releasing that education.

So they've got YouTube videos, they've got podcasts, they'll have webinars.

Um, and they're actually one of the vendors that's going to be present at the 5K at the end of May.

So feel free to come out and meet them.

There are um our new consultants for the 457 plan.

In terms of risk and safety, so there's workers' compensation and liability.

Erica and Brian have been hard at work improving the claim entry process, working with partners in each department to make sure that they're entering claims in an efficient way that allows us to capture as much information as we need to facilitate that process.

They've also been working on training.

And then I'm sure many of you have had the opportunity to participate in some of our more recent drills.

So as you may recall, over the winter, we did some fire drills.

Unfortunately, we had some snow on a couple of those days.

So it's a little chilly.

And then more recently, we had that tornado drill.

So our risk and safety team has been hard at work to sort of work with our safety champions, make sure everybody knows what they need to do when they need to do it.

And so then, so then jumping into the NPRs recently approved in the last couple of years, the first one being the ADA transition plan.

Um, this has been a significant undertaking by both county administration and the risk division.

There's still some work to do, um, but so much has been accomplished.

There's been numerous assessments completed, public meetings held to collect feedback and a ton of knowledge gained.

Um AED replacements, um, new AEDs have been distributed throughout all of the county.

CPR training has also been established.

Our entrusted safety champions that I previously referenced are in the process of voluntary voluntarily signing up now for the first session, which is going to be um in May.

So that's really exciting.

And the safety champions are really pumped about it too.

Do you happen to know like what the what the guidance is on ratio or how many AEDs is it one per floor, one per 50 employees?

Like what what's how's that work?

If I may, if I I just like to introduce uh Brian Udani, he's our new loss control specialist.

He may have that answer.

I don't know if you do.

I have to put you on the spot.

There's actually not uh there's nothing.

Uh Brian, you didn't need a loss control specialist for Lake County.

Uh there isn't specific guidance in terms of AEDs per person or per location.

It's all based on um uh the building infrastructure, uh, the number of in terms of uh of how things are laid out, but there aren't any specific guidelines that you have to have X amount of AEDs per square footage.

Okay.

So it's under your department.

You make those decisions in consultation with facilities, right?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Brian.

Uh phone a friend.

Okay.

And then um the last one um being that um OD manager that Chair Hart was referencing.

Um, this position was filled in January of 25.

Her contributions to areas such as learning, training, recruitment, employee engagement, retention, compensation, uh, performance management, professional uh development, the list goes on.

Um it's nothing short of impressive.

Um, that dedicated and intentional support in these areas has been really also missed.

Um, and the opportunities for continued improvement in these areas are just endless.

So it's been really neat too, watching her work within coordination with the ERP project because um that's been instrumental to some of those decisions as well, making sure that we're building uh a system um that is gonna serve us for the future and our employees more importantly.

So some additional highlights can be seen here, such as our increased communications and our HR newsletter, um, our communication for events such as open enrollment, our presence on LinkedIn is continuously increasing to promote our open positions and trying to attract new talent to our county.

Um the previously uh mentioned employer health screenings and that popular years of service breakfast.

Um, but lastly, and definitely um most importantly is the biggest highlight of all is our team.

Um hardworking, dedicated, innovative, supportive, brilliant individuals that could not make us more proud.

Um, disclaimer that is not an entirely updated picture.

So if you're missing from that screen and you're watching, um, we'll get an updated picture soon.

Um, but we couldn't do anything without them and just so so appreciative of all of their hard work.

Brian is one of our newest members of our team, so I just wanted to take the opportunity um for him to say hello and introduce himself, which he got a chance to do at the podium.

So um, that was all we had for you today.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Member Clark.

It's not really my question, but I want to thank you.

And also really thank you for the safety team thing.

I remember sitting here in this this, I think at this committee a couple of years ago and being like, I don't even know what we do if there was a tornado or where there are AEDs.

And I look over and now there are.

There's like the signs by the doors, everything's like marked, having these drills, making sure people are getting the right training they need.

I mean, it really can make all the difference.

And so I want to thank you and your team, and then everyone that's participating in this too.

Because I know it's a lot of people being willing to take the leadership on this and take the training and take it seriously.

But I think it's it's it's amazing.

So thank you and everyone who's working on this so much.

Thank you.

Thank you for the comment.

Uh yes, seriously, a lot of significant progress.

And I think we see it related to that.

Uh, does your office engage in sort of proactive like risk management reviews of the way that the different departments are organizing themselves, not putting people at risk for injury unnecessarily or things like that.

Yeah, so um bandwidth hasn't necessarily allowed for a ton of proactive engagement, as much as we would have hoped.

I'm gonna shout out my friend again over here.

Um, Brian, he is that's on his list.

If you wanted to talk about it for two seconds, sure.

Okay.

Being able to be proactive with uh the departments across the county has been one of my main objectives.

And in my first couple of months here, I started in January.

Um, one of the things that I've been doing is getting around to all of our locations and having conversations with the department heads and the managers and the team members to find out what their needs are and how they feel about safety in their individual locations.

And my philosophy has always been there's never going to be a perfect scenario.

There isn't a one, two, three when it comes to response or reaction in case of an emergency.

It's all based on your individual circumstance, where you're located, how many people you work with.

So the conversations revolve around what do you think is best for your location.

And we have those meetings and we talk about where's your where are your safety zones?

Let's go walk through and show me where you would take people if there were an emergency, if there were a tornado warning.

And we actually go to those locations and we take the paths that they would take to go from their offices to those locations.

So that's the philosophy I use.

Um, it's always going to be a little bit different depending on where you are in the county, but it's all about building those uh relationships and trust and having those conversations because we are so spread out that it's not going to work the same for everybody.

And I think that seems to have been pretty well received in my initial meetings with with all of the different groups.

Great.

Thank you for that and welcome aboard.

Thank you, Chair Hart.

Thank you.

I just want to give a shout out to Jennifer, who I think you really were talking a lot about that.

Like, hey, what do we do?

Where do we go?

So I appreciate you bringing that up.

And then just a thought, and this is like anecdotal.

I have a friend who has a business.

He trained his employees on uh CPR, and no kidding, like a month later, um, he falls flat on the ground with uh, you know, a heart situation, and he was saved by his employee who had just received that training, which was kind of blew me away.

I do remember many, many years ago.

Um, gosh, 10 or 12 or something, that there was CPR training for the board, and maybe you guys do it all the time for employees.

So I guess I just wanted to know is that something that that we offer and is that the appropriate place where that would stem from?

Sort of making sure people know CPR.

Yep.

So that's actually what are there, three sessions in May?

We've got three portions.

Sorry, okay.

Um, getting a new vendor in place was the first step, and we were able to do that.

Um, we now have three scheduled classes in May.

Uh, one of them is full.

We have two that we're still getting signups for, and then we have one in June.

And this is for the safety champions and the department heads initially.

And once we get through this first set of classes, we're gonna look at opening it up to um board members and employees uh in general.

Um it all it obviously all depends on a little bit on budget and some other factors.

Um, but we wanted to get the safety champions uh in place first.

So we're excited.

Um, we're really it's just it's been a little bit since we've been able to have these classes, and now that we have the vendor in place and they're very flexible in terms of where they're they can do classes, they can do it at our Libertyville campus.

They can come up here, we can go there.

So we have a lot of opportunity to get a lot of our staff trained moving forward.

Thank you very much.

There was a pause for a while, it seemed, but we're bringing it back and we're like it.

Thanks, Brian.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yeah, Brian and um risk manager Eric Ozinski have been um it just been they're just so impressive in their and their dedication to safety um to the county.

So really thankful for both of them.

Great.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

8.5 is a resolution authorizing an emergency appropriation of $3,807 in fees associated with the filing of a commercial property assessed clean energy program.

CPACE financing agreement for Millbrook two offices at 475 Half Day Road in Lincolnshire.

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by member of Olytick.

Good morning.

Morning, Rath Ann Hall, Assistant County Administrator.

I have Robin Hallgram here to provide some information on this item.

Uh, you might have recalled that we had our first um C-Paced applicants successfully go through the program.

And with that came fees, and we want to be able to appropriate those fees for sustainability uses.

So go ahead, Raven.

Good morning, Robin Hallgrim, Sustainability Programs Manager.

So yeah, as Ruthanne was saying, on December 12th, 25, Millbrook offices entered into our very first CPACE financing agreement.

They were able to install a new energy efficient HVAC and building controls system on the different buildings on their property.

And as part of the program, there are two different fees that are delivered to the county.

The first one is a county treasurer fee of $400.

And this is delivered straight to the county treasurer's office annually to fund their work, collecting and processing the pace assessments from their real estate tax bills.

And they'll continue to get this $400 every year for the life of the agreement.

And then there's a second fee that is a one-time county fee that's based off of a percentage of the amount that's being financed through the project.

And for this project, that was the $3,807.

And it was sent by the program manager and deposited into the county's general fund.

So what we're seeking is an appropriation of the funds into the sustainability account.

And those would be used for outreach materials for our awardees through the green business program.

It would be used for implementation of employee Earth Month events, regional presentations on sustainability initiatives and other sustainability outreach needs.

Yeah, thank you for bringing it forward.

I think the you know initial thinking on creating the CPACE program was to incentivize the commercial owners to look at energy efficiency.

It was never designed to be a revenue generator for the county.

And I think it makes sense to appropriate these funds back to sustainability.

Other comments or questions?

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

8.8 is approved.

8.9 is a resolution approving an intergovernmental agreement to install a public Wi-Fi project and provide service through December 2026 by and between Lake County and the City of North Chicago.

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by member of Litzik.

Good morning.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

Kay Crandall, Digital Equity Manager, and I'm here with Betsy Brandon from County Administrator's Office.

And she is passing out a copy of this slide for you all to have so that you can view the map in more detail.

So what we are bringing to you today is our second intergovernmental agreement for a public Wi-Fi network in the county.

And this is with the City of North Chicago.

And so we have been working with the staff at the City of North Chicago to develop this project plan in partnership with the vendor that we have contracted to do these public Wi-Fi projects.

And so the City of North Chicago has signed off on the intergovernmental agreement here.

And we are seeking to also have the county board sign off on this intergovernmental agreement so that we can get started with the implementation of this public Wi-Fi project.

This is very similar to the Waukegan one that was provided to this maybe two months ago, um, I think, which is off and running.

Uh, this is the county using ARPA funds to install the network in the city of North Chicago.

And once it's installed by the end of this year, it will then be maintained and um by the and and owned then by the city of North Chicago.

So the county will therefore be audited at that.

Uh this is an exciting partnership.

I just want to uh congratulate and thank member Clark for uh your leadership and the committee and uh to the initiative as a whole.

Uh the team's done great work.

It's another important piece of it.

I'm just curious, how was the how were the boundaries for this area selected?

Is that pretty much what North Chicago was focused on?

Did we develop it in collaboration?

What how's that?

How did that come up?

Yes, the boundaries were developed in collaboration.

So if you reference back to the um county's broadband and digital equity action plan, there were certain areas in the county that were identified through census track data as the priority areas that we could potentially do this type of project.

And so we reach out to all of those municipalities that were identified in the plan.

And as we were able to move forward with North Chicago, uh, we had identified a couple of different areas where we could do the project.

And this was identified as the most plausible area to start and to implement this initial project.

So it does include the Metro station and um the North Sheridan Road uh corridor there, which is a priority area that they're hoping to build up and revitalize.

So this is in conjunction with some other plans that the city has for the future.

Great.

And will the vendor provide like utilization data?

So when it comes when this agreement expires and we're talking about hey, do we want to extend or or find a way to extend it?

Would we have those metrics?

Would we know like, hey, it was important, it was heavily used?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

We'll be measuring on a quarterly basis.

And there will be an ongoing um network dashboard available to us through the end of 2026 and available to the city for the length and duration of the contract.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair Hart.

Member Clark.

I'm very excited here today.

I I don't know, I get a little teary.

I just think about when we all sat here with the ARPA committee and thought about things we could do to try to make our Lake County residents to improve their lives and support them.

And I think today more than ever, um, you know, affordable internet is so important.

I know our current administration has taken away affordability as a target.

So I think these projects are more important.

And this really provides a way of areas that we know are underserved or not served of having free or you know, access to the internet, to high speed internet.

So I want to thank you, Kay, Betsy, Deputy County Minister, Matt Myers, you know, the whole ARPA committee and this board for really looking at what we could do strategically.

This will help people for years and years to come.

And I also want to thank the city of North Chicago.

I believe they are going to have the contract.

We are paying for the equipment, and then they are going to run it past the deadline.

So I really want to thank them for partnering with us.

Um, because you know, they also really want to make sure they can provide this to our residents.

So it's a very exciting day today.

I don't know if there's a able to have a ribbon cutting for Wi-Fi turning on, but if we could do that, I think that would be amazing.

So I I request that.

But thank thanks to really everyone in this board.

A virtual ribbon.

Right.

Yeah, we could go there and just cut a ribbon when they turn it on.

Yeah.

Uh thank you.

Member Clark uh spoke to my point about them taking over that agreement.

But you know what?

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing a ribbon cutting that is really for the public.

And it is, you know, we can't see it, but certainly um it is something that can be transformational for people in that community.

So if there's a way to make that happen.

It's it's something we will bring up.

I'll say it's we're also looking at planning something with the city of Waukegan for something very similar to with their network.

So thank you.

Okay.

Something to celebrate.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Item 8.9 is approved.

Thank you.10 is a resolution setting the compensation for specified countywide elected office holders, county board members, and the county board chair.

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by member Velitzang.

Good morning, Matt Myers, Deputy County Administrator.

So I will start um from the beginning, which we established two years ago.

The county board approved in a policy setting.

Uh the process that we're going to use to set the compensation of elected officials.

It was attached to the item, and I have it up here on the screen.

I'll I highlighted just some quick points here.

Close that.

Um compensation for each elected official.

Um we're going to set it at the time in which compensation should be established for the particular elected official will be increased by the same percentage as the county board approved percentage for non-union for this most recently approved fiscal year budget.

We're gonna compare county board members to county board members, and we're going to treat the county clerk recorder deeds, regional superintendent of schools, treasurer clerk of the circuit court in the corner as similar types of countywide elected officials to maintain parity.

The sheriffs is based on the state's attorney, which is provided by the state of Illinois.

So I can't see the window.

So the ones that were considered uh for this cycle, uh every two years, as the members know we have to do this for the upcoming terms.

I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Um the board chair is the first one.

The three percent increase, as it was even mentioned earlier today, was what was um the county board approved for this fiscal year for non-union employees.

So three percent was the value that was used in the calculation of these salaries.

The board chair's salary was increased by three percent uh for 27 and 28.

Uh board members, the groups that we had to um uh set for this year were groups one and two based on the pending terms.

There is a four-year term for group one, so those were set at a three percent increase in alignment with group three.

Group three was one that we had set two years ago, and that was a a jump to 44,739.

So groups one and two for those two years were set at exactly that same value at 44,739.

And as there's now an opportunity to provide an increase in 29 and 30, that was now increased by 3%, which is this year.

So um there are all board members for 27 and 28 will be the set salary that was actually set in uh 24 at 44,739.

And then in 2029, there will be an increase of 46 to 46,081.

And in two years when we have to set those salaries, those salaries will be set at the 46,081 for parity.

Um and then we look at the other one separately.

As we had stated, the state's attorney is set by the state.

So we use some estimated values there.

The orange ones are ones that um do have a state component.

So the sheriff, we left alone.

Um it's estimated at this point.

And then uh the regional superintendent of schools does have a state component as well.

And so we have we we set the clerks and the treasurers at a three percent increase for the next four years.

The previous was 134,348 dollars.

Now it's gone to 138,378 for parity.

We set the treasurer at the same when we do the circuit clerks and the coroner in two years, that will go to that value.

So there's parity.

And then um the state regional superintendent of schools has a state component, so we set it at that minimum of 138, 378, but that could fluctuate based on what the state provides.

Matt, could you just scroll back up because sure table?

Yeah.

Thanks for the great work on this.

So as members were looking at group one, uh, we're going to be enacting the scheduled future change for FY29 and 30 for that group.

And then uh come fiscal year 28, the additional groups that the salaries will be set for at that time will be um pegged at the same amount, isn't it?

Correct, which is what we've are doing actually this year.

Okay, got it.

Okay.

So this is in accordance with the policy that we enacted um to impose the three percent uh increase, but also to ensure that board members serving together are compensated the same.

So that's why we have the staggering.

Okay, appreciate it.

Great work.

Chair Hart.

Can you scroll down to the ROE, please?

Thank you.

Can you help me understand?

So in 20, what would that be?

Is that what is the year for the 134, 340?

Okay, 2024.

And then 2026, the state provided these dollars, and there was no county component to that.

I see.

You know what?

It was that was my mistake.

Thank you.

I made I flipped it.

Yeah, and I think because I might suggest uh when you're showing this to be consistent and put the county salary at the top, then the state salary.

And I understand why you shifted it because the money is you know, it's the opposite, but I might suggest that um we'll flip that for the board actually.

Okay, thank you.

Consistent.

Other comments or questions.

So I'm glad to see this.

I mean, I was last time, you know, I've been very outspoken about um making sure we're compensating our employees, all of our employees.

Um, well, you know, I know I'm glad to see this on the board since I've been on the board.

I've had zero percent, you know, salary during a time where inflation's gone up 28% over those years.

So that's a 28% decrease in the buying power of our salary, and many people have to, you know, we use this to pay our bills.

So I'm glad to see a one-time um well what this three percent increase, and then another.

Um, so I'm glad to see that for the county board ones, but for the ones that are the clerk and the treasurer, I mean the people who are on four-year cycles, we're only doing increasing it once.

You I know you said like four years three percent, but it's only three percent once.

And so I'm just the only person's gonna throw out there the idea, and I if we don't want to do it, because I know we have this policy, but you know, it's three percent once, um, which is better than not three percent, but all the other employees go up three percent, almost three percent a year.

So I just want to ask why.

So you're asking, should we consider uh a staggered increase for those countywides, right?

So that like, hey, we're setting some of the countywides now if we factor in an increase for two years and then another for two.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Moving them up similar how we how we like every two years.

Is that something we had looked at?

So what I'm saying is that we're setting like the county clerk, so that's for four years, but it doesn't increase at all over the four years.

It's it's a one increase and then it's flat for all four.

Yes, but if we did it kind of like how you said, like with the two years, so that way in two years it would go up and then it would match like every two years, kind of like we're doing it, or every year, whatever.

Uh it would we're doing it like for the county board.

I I think it's something we should definitely consider.

Four years is a long time.

So the three we were primarily talking about our clerk treasurer and clerk of the court.

Exactly.

Those are the only three, I believe.

I I I recollect and I would like some help from uh Patrice if she remembers the discussion two years ago, but I feel like that was discussed by the committee, and I think that the challenge that the committee had at the time was that well, there's some years in which um staff don't receive increases and some just some challenging times, so why do we want to commit ourselves to doing that for the elected officials?

Unless there was another something else, Patricia, you can open member Clark.

I mean, I I just because I know during COVID we couldn't raise the the the salary, but I mean if we looked at the average over all the years in Lake County, I would say most years there is some kind of increase, and to just then not give these three people any increase for four years because there could be a year.

I mean, the worst things that happened is that they get a three percent two or three people get an a three percent pay increase in a year that everyone else doesn't.

So I mean, even if it was halfway through, so it doesn't have to be for me, even if it's just once during the four years after the third year, there's also a three percent increase.

They're still getting literally zero percent the other years.

So I would still think we should look at doing it, uh doing it at least a one other time.

So I would I here's my proposal.

So we also do theirs three percent after two years.

So in their third term, it would also go up three percent.

Okay, we'll discuss it for a minute.

We might need a motion because this is an action item.

Okay, and then I just wanted to ask what is the deadline for us to enact the salary resolution?

Is it the June board meeting or is it has to be before the June board meeting?

It's six months before.

So we've historically always done it in May.

Just to be safe because the June meeting will be after the people take office.

I think if we're gonna make this change as well, the the board should be amending the policy at the same time.

Because the policy was set by the board to do it the way.

So if we're gonna do that, we probably need to go back and change the policy.

Thank you for the suggestion.

Member Maine.

Thank you.

Um, and I appreciate what member Clark is saying.

However, I think if it were to be an amendment, I would not support it.

And the reason is partly for what uh deputy county administrator said um in the future.

The other thing I would say is that when somebody is elected to this position, they now have a guaranteed job for four years.

And our employees don't have a guaranteed job for four years, or other people out in the world don't have a guaranteed job with their salary for four years.

So there are some trade-offs there, right?

So they're not getting the increase, but they also know that they're not going to be riffed or something, or that their company is going to be sold and that they're out of a job.

So it's tricky, but that's what I would think about.

You have a four-year job security with a defined salary and with health the ability to have health care and other things like that.

Vice Chair.

Yeah, I'm I'd support um member Clark's amendment.

And um, you know, I I frankly, when we brought this before, I didn't love the fact that um the three countywide positions wouldn't see any increase over four years.

I I hadn't really thought about member main's comments, but I I still I don't look at these salaries given their roles and responsibilities in any way exorbitant.

Um, and to end up being up to 12% lower salary income or real real real power, yeah, real spending power.

I I just don't I I think these are these are minor things that we're doing to just provide some equity to people.

And so it's not like we're there's no way in any sense that this is going to impact ultimately our budget.

Um, but it does impact the real people in those positions, and so I would favor it.

So uh member Clark, I want to say I'm supportive of the suggestion.

And um, like what Vice Chair Park said, I think it makes sense that we look at sort of uh staggering um because not all those offices start their positions at the same time.

So you still want to provide uh some equity amongst those three, but also if you could address it more than once every four years, it does it does address the cost of living issue that we're we're looking at to try and recognize.

So I'm supportive of looking at a way to do the increase.

I'm really just torn bes between if we want to um do an amendment with direction at this point in time, or we want to just pass this as is and prepare amendments for the next meeting, uh, which would be uh what is this we have county board wait?

Are we meeting next week?

Yeah, we're meeting next week.

We're meeting next week, so we can prepare amendments and and hold on this item till next week.

Yeah, um my suggestion a potential option is the postpone this item till next week, and the county administrator can bring back the policy at the same time with the changes to that as well.

Okay.

Well, can I make permission to postpone?

Okay.

Member Peterson.

I personally, and I'm just gonna throw this out.

I just I think the salary for the county board members is very sufficient.

It's a part-time job.

And um you get benefits.

I I just don't think we should be.

I mean, I'll go along with the three percent, but if you came to me with any more than that, I would not support it.

I think like I again, I think the salary is more than sufficient for a part-time job.

And we've got board members that don't even come to meetings, and for meeting to vote to give them a raise, I'm here to tell you really bothers me.

But I am in favor of um member Maine's wanted to clarify that I was not supporting.

If if if I may just clarify, I I fully agree with what you said, Member Peterson, but we're not talking about an additional percentage for board members.

We're actually talking about leaving board members the same.

The only thing we're really considering right now.

Not doing the three percent with the we are doing three the three percent, which has staggered over time.

So which is what we've done since 2022.

No, but I just throw I'm just throwing out there, if it was more than that, I would not support it.

So yeah.

The the only increase we're talking about is changing the time frame for the three countywide offices instead of adjusting them once every four years, we're talking about building in a three percent every two years.

Gotcha.

Right.

Thank you.

Right?

Yes, okay.

I'm sorry, I saw another hand up.

Member of Litzik.

Thanks.

Um, I have I've long been supportive of you know, fair or well-paying salaries for elected officials.

I think otherwise we just get, you know, wealthy people running for office or um retired people running for office.

And so I think you should be able to run for office and serve and be able to support yourself.

Um I I am I am undecided on this, though.

This I just I feel like for the countywides, um, they're already making you know, three times what we are.

I I understand we can't everyone puts a different amount of effort into their elected position.

So trying to balance that understanding that some get a lot, I mean, this is well above the average lake county income.

And some, you know, like I said, trying to balance that understanding with the understanding that some people put a lot of great effort into their job and some people don't, and finding what that middle ground is to fairly compensate those who work for it and while understanding that it is elected, they're they do have a guaranteed job for um sometimes um four years, and how to balance that with making sure that that those who you know have four years of guaranteed income aren't overly compensated.

It's not a science.

I get that.

I'm just I think that's why I'm in the middle on this.

Um I'm not sure that I could easily support it, you know, today, for instance, but I will think about it next week.

Thank you, Chair Hart.

Thank you.

Um and uh did I just want to understand if um any of the countywides has come forward formally, informally to make a request uh for higher compensation, I guess, to any of the I mean, no, I I I guess I shouldn't ask that question in that way.

I think um it's important to contemplate that.

Um, you know, if if what we're hearing is, oh, nobody wants this job because it doesn't pay enough.

I I'm always a broken record on that.

But I think people continue to run for these offices.

Um a little bit like what member Maine was saying, you know, based upon the salary that they see there.

So um I just haven't heard me personally from anybody saying, oh my gosh, you know, I can't I won't run for this, it's just not enough.

So anyway, thank you.

Sorry.

I exactly heard that from so many people that this is not enough.

I mean, if you look at the jobs, in fact, if you look at the state's attorney job, which is countywide, which is set by the state, it's it's over 200,000 because it's a really hard job that would take a lot of effort.

The sheriff also.

Then you look at 133, what is it, 134,000?

The average the average salary in Lake County start is 110,000.

Now, these are jobs that are running our voting, they're jobs that the coroner's office.

They're jobs that the coroner's office.

I mean, these are professional jobs that are running it.

And I can tell you, I know from my students, you know, average starting salaries now around 70.

I mean, you can look it up, around 70, 80,000.

Uh to ask someone, and I've talked to people for like the treasurer's office, other offices, and they're like, my student, the people in finance are like, I don't want to run this entire county, which could be like a CPA level job.

CPA is 130 something thousand dollars to run an entire county.

I've heard from many, many people is very low.

And I think when we look at these other countywide offices that have the higher state salaries, you can see that our salaries are low.

So I think giving people and and and also to attract people to run, you know, unless, you know, I know from my just me personally, it does.

I mean, I do have to work to pay my bills.

And so I've talked to so many people that can't run for the county board either, because it doesn't pay enough.

And if we do, I mean, it is if you're retired, if you're wealthy enough to live on this, but if you look at the cost of living in Lake County, if we look at housing alone to make 133,000, I think it's very difficult to pay for housing.

And it's something we looked at.

So for these jobs, I I believe that to increase it 3%.

So they don't even get with CPI increase every year.

But they, I mean, once every four years, um, it could really open up these jobs to more people being able to run for them, but also for the people who work these jobs that maybe they don't have to work two jobs.

I would love to, you know, maybe and these are full-time jobs.

And if we look at this average salaries here to run departments, this is running a department.

How much do we pay people that run departments in the county?

These are similar jobs.

So I get that you know, you're elected, but it's hard to run for office, but it's also hard to do these jobs properly, and I think they should be properly compensated.

So I think that we should, I think just one more time raising their going up with CPI during four terms, I think is very reasonable, and I hope we do it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm gonna come back to you on what your suggestion is.

Vice Chair Park.

Yeah, I I mean, I just agree with with uh I have a couple of issues with just the conversation.

I mean, ultimately what we're saying is that every that we think these jobs are less and less valuable over time.

That's what we're saying by not providing any increase.

So what we're saying is that 138,000 is actually in four years going to be worth about 115, 120,000.

So these are we're overcompensating these people for these roles.

And I just I just don't understand the logic of that personally.

Um member Clark brings up a great point.

We pay our department heads considerably more than them in in the in, I would believe in similar roles.

Um, and I want to attract the best, and I want them to be fairly compensated.

I want them to live in Lake County.

And so to do all of that, I think we just need to maintain some level of of we're not even talking about pay increases.

We're we're saying we want you to be able to maintain your salary, and we're not even because we're only doing it every two years.

So the question is is we are lowering the value of these jobs more slowly by providing an increase in their pay every couple years.

They're ultimately, we are still continuing to say these jobs are increasingly less valuable than they are today.

And that that to me just I think it's crazy.

But I'm asking for some relief for these roles.

Thank you.

And I appreciate that.

That's an that is a um that's an interesting perspective that I had not had not had.

Um just a thought to throw out there.

I think state statute says there are certain jobs that cannot have uh another role.

I think it is the um state's attorney, he cannot, he or she cannot be a practicing attorney or even have another job.

Uh the treasurer, I believe is the same.

And I'm pretty sure uh the sheriff cannot have another job.

However, the other positions, I think I'm correct, and maybe we could look at it if this is coming back next week.

So clerk of the circuit court can have another job, coroner can have another job.

I don't know, maybe Lake County clerk can't have another job.

I'd be interested in that.

But I I do think as we as we think about part-time jobs, full-time jobs, county board members can have another job.

Um, because maybe maybe the state viewed it as saying, hey, that's a part-time role.

Some of us may treat it as a full-time role.

Um, but anyway, I just think thinking through like sort of that uh whether it needs to be full-time or not, I I think would be interesting to know if if if staff doesn't mind providing that, that'd be great.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify the suggestion that we're discussing.

So there's there's been no request to make any changes to the county board or county chair.

So we're only talking about the the the three or four countywides that we're setting uh, you know, that we said to four years at a time.

And the suggestion is that you would make a motion to postpone to next week with direction to staff to prepare an amendment for consideration that would amend the count or the four three or four countywides so that there's a staggered uh a three percent raise so that they are equal amongst the three, the the three or four that are equal right now, but it's just a more frequent bump instead of once every four years, it's every two years.

Is that what you're suggesting?

Exactly.

Okay, great.

And so that's the suggestion for an amendment to be drafted for us to consider and as well as I believe uh something you pointed out that we would need to modify the policy, the companion policy as well.

Okay.

Do you want to make that motion?

I'd like to make that motion.

Okay, great.

Second on that motion by Vice Chair Parek.

Any other comments or questions on the motion postpone?

Member Maine.

Thanks.

Uh and I just want to clarify with member Clark.

I I thought I heard you say that the average salary in Lake County is 110,000.

That was the median summary.

It's actually median household income, which is very different than the median salary.

So let's let's just keep that in mind that it is not a hundred and ten is for a household.

So in many cases, there's gonna be a couple a couple people working, and you can agree or disagree if two people should be working, but um, for many reasons, not all economic, many people work, both people in a household, both adults in a household work.

And um member Park brought up some very interesting points.

I appreciated those points.

Uh I would say also related to this, is that um take jobs for different, they take jobs for different reasons.

Obviously, salary is one, but many studies have also shown that there is a a psychic value, and that is the phrase that they use that people get out of a job.

So people do not just do a job it if they're allowed to for only the salary.

Okay, okay.

So we have a motion to postpone to next week um with uh direction to prepare an amendment for us to consider uh on the motion to postpone all in favor.

Please say aye.

Aye, any opposed.

Motion is approved.

Any cue for the discussion.

811 is a resolution authorizing the conveyance of property owned by Lake County, located at the southeast corner of Illinois Route 60 and Illinois Route 176 in Mundaline to IDOT for it.

It's Illinois Route 6083 improvement project.

Motion to approve by member Clark, second by member Maine.

Uh good morning.

Again, this is a small little property.

It's actually a uh county of lake trustee property that is controlled by the clerk's office.

So it's a cult property that they acquired, and IDOT reached out and has a need for some um component of the parcel.

And I'm trying to bring it up.

I apologize.

Comments or questions.

It is kind.

And it's not even the entire property, it is a small component up by 176 and a very small component down by Route 60 that they need for their 6083 project.

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed 8.11 is approved.

8.12 is a resolution authorizing the county administrator to execute agreements for the use of federal contingency funds to support Lake County continuum of care sub-recipients.

Motion to approve by member Volitzik, second by member Clark.

Good morning.

We apologize, but uh we left out one administrative detail when we were before you before.

Um for this particular for the first use of these continue uh contingency funds, it will require entering into contracts with subrecipients through community development.

We did not authorize my ability to sign them, but it is going to be necessary to be able to do this fairly quickly once they've agreed to those subrecipient agreements, and therefore the waiting for the board process would be contrary to the ability to make sure that we're um providing these funds in a timely manner.

So we're seeking your authority for me to enter into these contracts in compliance with how you've already approved for us to run this fund.

Okay.

And would that would that process continue in the future for additional grantees if there's a subrecipient that needs authorization?

Like it would still have to come to finance for approval.

Or are you recommending a policy change that would give additional authorization to the administrator?

This is just for specific to this particular circumstance.

Okay.

Got it.

Any other questions?

Member Maine.

Yeah.

So I don't have a problem with that.

I just have a clarity on the half million dollars here.

Right?

So didn't we authorize $2 million?

Is that what we had talked about?

That was the total.

Right.

This particular use is a half million.

Yes.

Okay.

So that would use up 20% of it.

Yeah.

Okay.

$2 million.

Exactly.

Now I'm I just want, I just want clarity that we're talking big sums.

We're not talking here's $60,000, here's that.

That um it is utilization up to because we're not positive all of those sub-recipients will agree, but um you are authorizing the use of a quarter of it.

Yes.

Okay.

And that $2 million is that to expire with this budget.

Yeah.

Okay.

It does not meet the requirement the definition of a carryover.

Yeah.

So it will lapse at the end of the fiscal year.

All right.

Thank you.

Good.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Sorry, member of Litik.

Can you just clarify that I know it's a potential loss of head funds?

What the situation is, if there's a brief explanation.

So this is the situation that Dominic Streso um explained to you at the last meeting.

Um there are people that provide permanent supporting supportive housing that have agreements that are renewable under the agreements that they entered into.

It was supposed to be a multi-year agreement.

Um there's been a holdup or a delay, and this is tied up in the courts.

And so some of the um partners are hesitant to enter into rental agreements because of the uncertainty.

So what these subrecipient agreement agreements are going to do is allow them as those um rental agreements are coming up for renewal, they'll have at least a portion of their funds available to um enter into those agreements.

Okay, thank you.

Now see no other comments or questions.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, 8.12 is approved via the county administrators report price.

No report.

We have no executive session.

Any member remarks or requests.

We are adjourned.

We'll be back here next week.

Thank you, everyone.