|
DeKalb County, Illinois |
Minutes of the
|
The Administrative Services Committee of the DeKalb County Board met Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at the DeKalb County Government Administrative Building’s Conference Room East. Chairman Steimel called the meeting to order. Ms. Conway, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Hutcheson, Ms. Leifheit, Mr. Morreale, Mr. Pritchard, Ms. Tobias, and Mr. Wilson were present. Also present were Ms. Joan Berkes-Hanson, Mr. Ray Bockman, Mr. Ken Campbell, Mr. John Dlabal, Mr. Gary Hanson, Mr. Ken Johnson, Mr. Ron Matekaitis, Mr. Greg Millburg, and Sheriff Roger Scott.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Steimel, notified the Committee he wanted to change the order of the agenda to move the public hearing for the FY2002 property tax levy and the proposed FY2002 budget before the regular committee meeting. Chairman Steimel invited citizens who had questions or statements addressing those two items to speak.
Kathy Stelford, of Sycamore, referred to the Notice of Proposed Property Tax Increase published in DeKalb County newspapers (a copy of which will be placed on file along with these minutes in the Finance Office). She asked to go over the three items listed and asked what they amounted to. Chairman Steimel referred the question to Mr. Hanson, Deputy County Administrator. He reported, for publication purposes that essentially the levy was divided the into three areas. Section II is for the general operation of the County representing a 6.8% increase. Section III refers to Public Building Commission Leases indicating the debt service for the bonds issued representing a 12.7% increase. He explained the percentage was higher because they did not abate as much money so that the County could establish a Renewal and Replacement Fund for the Health Facility’s Health Department. Section IV combines Sections II and III for the total overall levy of 7.6%. Mr. Hanson stated the County published a higher number because the new property estimate is just an estimate and if the new property would go higher, the only way to capture all those tax dollars is to publish the higher number. He thinks that overall the actual number would be a 7.1% increase instead of the 7.6%. Mr. Hanson stated that all of the money in that increment is designated to the tort fund for future claims against the County to protect the assets of the County.
Ms. Stelford asked if the bonds that were issued were mostly for the new Administration building. Mr. Hanson clarified that the bonds were for the Health Facility. Ms. Stelford asked Mr. Hanson for the bottom line which he referred to the publication’s bottom line of 7.6%. Ms. Stelford asked for an explanation of where it fell in line with the tax cap and questioned whether it should lead to a referendum. Mr. Hanson
distributed a handout entitled Historical Perspective: "Tax Cap" Summary and a second page Consumer Price Index for September 2001 (which are attached to these minutes and are referred to as Appendage 1 pages 1 and 2) . Mr. Hanson used the handout to show the breakdown of the three components of the tax cap. He explained the first one had two parts. He stated the Consumer Price Index is established by using the Consumer Price Index or 5% whichever is lower. Mr. Hanson explained the Consumer Price index, defined by law, is established by the United States Department of Labor and is based on all items by urban consumers as for the calendar year period. Based on that report, they went back through December of 2000 and used the number 3.4% as the first component of the tax cap. The second component is new property and they are estimating that at 3.4% as well. Any voter approved referendums is the third component however, there were none. There was no tax cap in the 1997 tax year but a Senior Services Levy was passed. It would have been the type of thing that would have been in addition to the first part of the tax cap and thus figures the cap at 6.8% However, another component considered is that bonds and Public Building Commission leases are exempt from the cap which increases the percentage from 6.8% to 7.1%.Ms. Stelford asked if the taxes would be raised 7.1% to 7.6% and Mr. Hanson agreed. Mr. Bockman added that it would be raised 7.1% of the 13% that the County represents of the tax bill. The 3.4% would not be part of a current homeowner’s bill because that is for property that was just constructed this past year. Chairman Steimel closed that Public Hearing to a close at 7:10 p.m. and moved into the regular meeting of the Administrative Services Committee.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Wilson moved, seconded by Mr. Hutcheson to accept the minutes of the October 3, 2001. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Leifheit moved, seconded by Ms. Tobias to approve the amended agenda with an addition of a report by Mr. Hanson. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
UPDATE ON HEALTH INSURANCE BID
Mr. Hanson announced that it was still a work in progress. The County has received the bids, but the companies are putting asterisks on the bids asking for more current claim information. Initially, when the bid was offered, the claims were through August, then updated with September and last week the County had October claims that they will want to include. We had several companies who declined to bid such as Blue Cross, Mutual of Omaha, and Trust Mart due to difficulty getting into the market that offers discounted incentive programs. The County is trying to work through it and trying to get the best price for the County Employees. The Special Re-insurance policy may be changed from $75,000 deductible to $100,000 deductible to save overall premium costs.
FINALIZATION OF FY2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Hanson directed the Committee to his handout. He stated that one question that has come up involves changes that have surfaced since the budget was put together and that the cost of living has changed. He asked the Committee to note the boxes around figures for comparison on how figures can vary from year-to-year. He stated that it would make sense to go with the County’s revenue stream when using cost of living for things. Mr. Hanson also directed the Committee to the second page of the handout which is the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Mr. Bockman stated that there are a lot of indexes that are published that don’t use the entire market basket but said CPI-U is the most comprehensive. Chairman Steimel asked Mr. Hanson what effect could be foreseen on the budget since the declaration of war announcement. Mr. Hanson stated the budget’s strength lies in the deliberate conservative estimate on revenues and aggressiveness on the expenditure side so County can weather serious situations when they arise. He stated that the unknown is the demand on services such as Sheriff Scott and Health Administrator Karen Grush. Mr. Pritchard stated as a caveat, we are entering this budget with some uncertainty as to what the future might mean. He went on saying that this is perhaps an environment where we are going to have to be a little bit more cognizant of what is going on and be prepared to take some consideration of adjustment during the year if something happens. If there is some kind of episode that increases the flow of services in this county, then that would be a point that the Committee would have to consider the option of cutting everything else to make up that increase or look at some kind of increase.
Mr. Hoffman moved, seconded by Mr. Hutcheson to approve the FY2002 Budget as presented and recommend it be passed along to the full County Board. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
EXTENSION OF IMRF RETROACTIVE SERVICE CREDIT
Mr. Hanson distributed a copy of a Special Memorandum clarification of Public Act 92-0424 which will be placed on file along with these minutes in the Finance Office. The old law states that individuals elected to a qualifying elected office had the option of purchasing up to 50 months of qualifying retroactive elected official service once they decided to join IMRF. The new law allows for more than 50 months of qualifying retroactive elected official service if the County Board passes the resolution before the end of December 2001. Mr. Hanson stated there is no cost to the County because if the department head would have been part of it all along the County would pay the same amount and when the department head would buy back in, they have to pay their share. Ms. Leifheit asked if people join the IMRF when they get elected and then leave office do they get their money back. Mr. Hanson stated that they would get their portion back without interest.
Ms. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Morreale to adopt a resolution to extend IMRF retroactive service credit. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
CENTRAL PLANT UPDATE
Mr. Campbell, Facilities Manager, spoke to the Committee informing them of Central Plants operations. He stated they were "winterizing" County Buildings, sealing cracks in asphalt in parking lots, repairing roofs around the flashing, and calking leaks. He notified the Committee the County Auction profited $1,200.00. He stated that he has had meetings to go over mail handling policies and instituted some new procedures in light of the anthrax scare. The new Legislative Building is still an ongoing processes. He stated that it has passed the half way point. Dry walling has begun on the first floor, the parking lot will have asphalt applied and striped next week, and the electric meter has been installed. Chairman Steimel asked what the status was on the tuck pointing at the Courthouse. Mr. Campbell reported the first phase had been completed.
SPECIAL MEETING FOR FY2001 YEAR-END BUDGET TRANSFER
It was suggested and approved that the special meeting would be held at 7:00 p.m. November 21, 2001 before the County Board meeting on the 2nd floor Courtroom.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Morreale to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Roger Steimel, Chairman
_____________________
Lisa K. Sanderson
Secretary
| Home | Return
to top | A-Z Index | Return
to minutes |