County Board Updates

This post covers the last regular County Board meeting in April and the May Committee of the Whole meeting yesterday. The full April meeting isn't yet available on the County Clerk's YouTube channel, but the Clerk recently said videos will be available again soon. The News-Gazette's coverage of the April regular County Board meeting focused mainly on the 5 year financial outlook presentation:

Ogden's report detailed financial pressures the county is under:

— The state's cut to county income-tax revenues has cost Champaign County $422,000 year-to-date, with Gov. J.B. Pritzker proposing the continuation of this cut.

— Less revenue is being distributed from the Personal Property Replacement Tax on corporations and partnerships due to the state's diversion of those funds...

— A 10-year capital facilities plan, which does not include the sheriff's office and downtown jail, calls for addressing deferred maintenance "to keep its buildings from declining." That plan calls for spending $1 million on infrastructure in 2020.

— The county is considering developing a strategic technology plan to update or improve software for everything from tax-cycle work to jail management, law enforcement and animal control...

— A ruling in the Carle property-tax exemption case could leave the county liable for as much as $2.65 million, not including possible interest.

Ogden's report forecasts expenses to outpace revenues in the general fund to the tune of $400,544 in 2020, $629,436 in 2021, $955,783 in 2022 and $999,970 in 2023.

Full article with more information here. The full Five Year Financial Forecast is available here and includes many of the challenges the County faces from critical building maintenance to dire technology problems on top of budgets already operating with tight belts and skeleton crews. From the "final thoughts" summary:

The Forecast has been prepared based on conservative revenue assumptions, including modest property and sales tax growth and the extension of income tax cuts. Forecasted expenditures assume consistent growth in personnel costs and modest increases in commodities and services costs. Deviations from these assumptions will have a subsequent impact on forecasted revenues and expenditures, particularly in the later fiscal years.

The Forecast does not included funding to replace the County’s financial system although this is an urgent need that can no longer be deferred and must be managed with currently available revenues. Upon issuance of an RFP, and receipt of responses, the County will have a better idea of the system cost. It is expected there will be limited Public Safety Sales Tax funds available beginning in FY2020 to partially fund the system. Unfortunately, there is a projected structural deficit within the General Fund. Unless new revenue sources are secured, it is essential the County restrict expenditure growth to the maximum extent possible within these funds in order to ensure it has adequate financial resources for its financial system and facility needs...

In May, a resolution establishing the FY2020 budget process will be presented to the Finance Committee. The County Executive will provide budget instructions to Department Heads and Elected Officials in June, followed by meetings in July to begin developing the FY2020 budget. By this time, more data will be available to better analyze revenue and expenditure performance in the current fiscal year and fine tune projections for the upcoming fiscal year.

Full report here. Yesterday's Committee of the Whole touched on the Five Year Forecast topics repeatedly and also had a few presentations of its own. The meeting ran over three hours, adjourning at just about a quarter to 10 o'clock. Here are links to the presentation materials for now: the Champaign County Economic Development Corporation presentation, the Circuit Clerk's presentation for the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act, and the Champaign County Reentry Council's Third Quarter Report (page 27 of Agenda Packet, page 30 of PDF file). I'll be highlighting these presentations more later when board videos become available again.

Outside of the presentations, the meeting was fairly contentious on budget challenges facing the board and more Democrats concerned about the County Executive's exclusive appointment process. Member McGuire began the budget discussion by proposing a measure to help balance the budget. He offered an amendment to Resolution Adopting Champaign County Financial Policies on the agenda (page 13 of the packet, page 16 of the PDF) that would require a supermajority of 15 votes for budget increases over 2% without matching cuts or added revenue to cover the costs.

McGuire pointed to the financial forecast and argued that the county simply can't spend more money it doesn't have. A handful of Democrats questioned the mechanics of the amendment with County Departments, while members McGuire and Goss reiterated the necessity due to the County's financial situation in the aftermath of the Nursing Home sale. The amendment voice vote was close enough that it fell to a hand vote which failed to pass closely along party lines. The originally worded policy resolution then passed.

The next debate was about amending the County Executive's proposed budget process (agenda page 20, page 23 of the PDF) with priorities for technological upgrades, including those related to the Capital Asset Replacement Fund and election equipment upgrades. The debate fell mostly along party lines again with Republicans standing by the original language. Members Goss and McGuire argued that the process described already allows for all departments to make their case for funding to the County Executive who is tasked with creating the budget. Attempts to prioritize departments over others was painted as unfair and unnecessary.

The debate also covered previous equipment issues raised by the prior Republican County Clerk and accusations both directions about hypocrisy of a long standing issue that the board made the previous clerk make do with. Several Democratic members argued the security and technology concerns with elections has only grown with the equipment becoming more outdated and unsecure. Member Goss emphasized the importance of qualified people over software and made a dig at the recent property tax bill delays and new Democratic office holders.

The County Executive weighed in towards the end noting the changes with the new County Executive form of government. She said the language had been removed as a compromise with member Goss (as the Finance Committee vice chair). She explained how she intended to outline the process and why. She said she'll listen to department heads and she will listen to the board in the process. A suggestion to split the vote between the Capital Asset Replacement Fund language and the election technology priorities was accepted and voted on separately. Both passed by roll call vote, with heavier Republican opposition on the second half. The final process was approved as amended by roll call vote with heavy Republican opposition again.

There was some information presented about the General Corporate Fund Budget Projection that mentioned a call with Moody's on Friday in which the administrative staff hoped to retain their bond rating.

The Finance Chair report was delivered by a visibly irritated member Goss. He criticized the "highly paid" County officeholders for failing to attend County Board meetings again, specifically targeting the Treasurer and calling her incompetent outright. He criticized the County Clerk for being too busy lobbying to get the taxes right and complained that if the shoe was on the other foot they'd be screaming at the previous Republican office holders and not blaming old software. He reiterated concerns about the debt and pointed to mail in ballots as a sensible alternative to some of the election needs.

The final argument of the evening also involved the County Executive and Republicans appearing to defend the new process under the County Executive form of government with the majority Democrats arguing to ensure the board is included in that process. Fortado and other Democrats argued that they had an advise and consent role in the appointment process. They argued that without more transparency into the application process they weren't able to give informed advise and some were willing to start voting against consent under those circumstances. Republicans argued that the process was reasonable and that the complaints were ridiculous. They pointed out that its hard enough to get applicants to do these important appointed jobs and people might say it's not worth it if it gets tainted with political maneuvers.

The debate escalated to a crescendo, quite literally, as member Rector loudly criticized the Democrats for angry partisan politics. It's a criticism he's leveled in the past, but the Democrats were able to point to the appointee specifically being debated over at the moment being a Democrat himself. The Democrats laughed a bit at Rector's expense, but the Republicans may have gotten the last laugh. The Democrats merely pointed out that at a public and recorded meeting they were having open disagreements between Democratic board members and the Democratic County Executive to the point they were seriously trying to undermine a Democratic appointee that the Republicans were happy to vote for.

The appointment passed 12-9 on a roll call vote. The remaining appointments passed easily by voice vote, though a couple votes had some audible nays. The meeting rushed to an adjournment at approximately 9:45pm.