Peoria Standard

Peoria County Board - Finance Audit and Legislative Affairs Committee met June 3.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

Attendance

Present:

Members: Member Williams, Member Daley, Member Blair, Member Dillon, Member Duncan, Member Groves Allison, Member Phelan, Member Reneau, Member Rieker, Member Rosenbohm, Member Ruhland, Member Salzer, Member Windish

Staff & Guests:

Scott Sorrel, Jennie Cordis Boswell, Heather McCord, Marcia McCann, Julie Kusturin, Amy McLaren, Scott Mettille, Nicole Bjerke, Branden Martin, Megan Bentley

Absent:

Members: Member Coates and Member Kelch

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.1 Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Williams at 3:01 pm.

A motion to admit Member Reneau to the meeting via teleconference was made by Member Daley and was seconded by Member Groves Allison.

Motion Carried. (12-0)

Abstained: Member Reneau

Absent: Member Coates, Member Kelch

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

2.1 April 22, 2025

A motion to approve the Finance, Audit, and Legislative Affairs Committee meeting minutes from April 22, 2025 was made by Member Daley and was seconded by Member Duncan.

Motion Carried. (13-0)

Teleconference: Member Reneau

Absent: Member Coates, Member Kelch

3. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS / REPORTS / OTHER MINUTES / UPDATES

3.1 Monthly Financial Report as of March 31, 2025

Ms. Kusturin advised countywide we have 19.8% expected revenues and 17.7% expenditures. In the general fund we have received 19.3% of revenues and 20.5% of expenditures. She walked the committee through items in the report showing up in red. The next PPRT distribution is in July. There will also be an updated report from IML in July which will give a good idea of what to expect. PPRT is lower this year as expected, it is still uncertain what the second half of 2025 will look like. Local use tax has been drastically lower due to legislative changes. There is a grant for the Digital Equity Pilot which Finance rolled over appropriations for of $117,000.00. It looks like in County Administration the revenues are below budget, that is primarily due to this grant because there is a high amount of budget. With this being extended through next year, all of that money probably will not be received. The Public Defender also had a grant expected and there are no expenses or revenues recorded for that yet.

She provided an update on revenues and expenses. Ms. Kusturin stood for questions; there were none.

3.2 Long-Term Care Services Fund Report

Ms. McCord advised there is a $2.7 million fund balance. We have earned in total about $90,000.00 in interest in this account between last year and this fiscal year. We are still on track for end of year fund balance of $4.12 million.

Ms. McCord stood for questions; there were none.

3.3 Accounts Payable, Employee Reimbursement, and Purchase Card Activity for April 2025

Ms. McCord directed the committee to the information provided in the packet.

Ms. McCord stood for questions; there were none.

3.4 Peoria County Capital Projects, Funding Sources, and Progress

Ms. McCord advised we are very busy with construction projects. Ms. McCord stood for questions; there were none.

4. RESOLUTIONS

4.1 General Fund Transfer Policy Inactivation

A motion to approve the resolution was made by Member Daley and was seconded by Member Dillon.

Ms. McCord advised this relates to the Long-Term Care Services Fund. She stated the county made a $3.2 million contribution to the fund last year. She stated their recommendation is to essentially inactivate this policy. The Board can decide where the General Fund surplus can go at the end of the year.

Chairperson Williams asked if, in reality, the county may never have to transfer any more money into that fund.

Ms. McCord confirmed. She reminded the committee that Member Phelan had asked last month about including inflationary adjustments for the Long Term Care Services Ombudsman program and stated they had not. She explained they ran the numbers again and it looks like even if there was 3% inflation a year on that contract only using that contract that currentlty exists, there would still be $920,000.00 of a surplus projected which would be about 8 years of additional long-term cre through that program.

Chairperson Williams called for questions from the committee. There were none.

Motion Carried. (13-0)

Teleconference: Member Reneau

Absent: Member Coates, Member Kelch

4.2 Ordinance to Amend Peoria County’s Purchasing Ordinance, Chapter 6.5-34- 36, to require a Community Workforce Agreement in public works project awards exceeding limit set by State Statute 55 ILCS 5/5 1022, currently $30,000.

A motion to approve the resolution as amended was made by Member Salzer and was seconded by Member Ruhland.

Mr. Sorrel advised in the interim period there have been revisions and updates to better explain and clarify what is being recommended based on the feedback we received at last month’s committee meeting. He explained the language in the ordinance, which is being voted on, is new language to Chapter 6.5 of the Peoria County Code of Ordinances, so there is no “redline” version of the ordinance because that language does not exist today. He stated there are two components to what is being recommended; the first is building construction projects and the responsible bidder ordinance and the second deals with road and bridge projects, primarily road projects that deal with the bonding capacity perspective bidders on those projects. He advised there were a lot of questions last week that are best answered by the inclusion a sample of the Community Workforce Agreement in the packet for this meeting.

Chairperson Williams called for questions from the committee.

Member Dillon provided a history of the origin of this amendment.

Chairperson Williams called for additional questions.

Member Ruhland asked if the workforce agreement changes project to project and if it does, how does the language get agreed upon.

Member Dillon advised the document does not change, and this is the document that now is included with Mr. Smith goes out for bid.

Member Ruhland stated it would make him more comfortable if the workforce agreement was part of the ordinance so that it can’t change unless there is another amendment to the ordinance.

Mr. Sorrel advised the sample document is the document that has been used on every major construction project dating back to the museum. He explained this is a static document and all that has been changed is dates. He stated typically the regulation would not have the sample agreement in it. He expressed understanding for what Member Ruhland’s concerns and the value of wanting to codify the actual agreement. He advised that would be a policy decision for the committee.

Ms. Cordis Boswell clarified that the ordinance does not specifically mention this community workforce agreement, it just references that we will enter into a community workforce agreement. The ordinance says we would negotiate that agreement.

Member Ruhland asked if it is feasible to record the current workforce agreement as a document and reference it so that it cannot be changed without the Board’s approval.

Ms. Cordis Boswell stated that she thinks the ordinance could be worded in such a way that requires the use of the county’s established workforce agreement and does not say that it will be negotiated. She further stated then the Board could amend the agreement as needed as a policy decision.

Member Dillon asked would we amend the ordinance and then to codify would we have to vote and say this is the actual document the Board approves.

Mr. Sorrel advised this document could be a part of each bid award’s approval. The workforce agreement would be included in the packet and the Board’s vote would accomplish two things; it would approve the workforce agreement for that project and approve the bid award for that project.

Ms. Cordis Boswell stated they would just want to amend the ordinance to require the county’s community workforce agreement but not to include the agreement as part of the ordinance and remove the back-and-forth negotiation language.

Chairperson Williams asked if that could be done today.

Ms. Cordis Boswell advised it could be done but a little recess would be in order to read through the ordinance and capture all the areas where it would be amended.

Member Rosenbohm asked if the county negotiates with the bidders on this or are we saying they have to abide by our agreement.

Member Dillon advised that it is a legal document stating that they are abiding by the terms that are set on the bid.

Member Rieker commented that he understands what Member Ruhland is trying to get to, but he agrees with the legal side and thinks we need some flexibility and not put this into our ordinance.

Ms. Daley asked if she is understanding correctly that the box that says IDOT pre-qualified would not be checked and that solves the problem. She stated she does not understand why we need this.

Member Dillon advised if we uncheck the box, right now that is a safety factor that we have good contractors that can perform the work, then the reasons we checked the box would be able to bid a project and potentially qualify. The box is checked for the IDOT bonding authority. Member Dillon explained why the ordinance is being amended to include all construction projects.

Member Windish stated his agreement with Member Daley, but this is the best compromise to solve the issue.

Member Rieker stated his support for project labor agreements. He explained how checking the IDOT box is more than bonding authority. He commented that at this point he is still a nay vote.

Member Rosenbohm asked if there is something being added to this document that the IDOT doesn’t cover.

Member Dillon explained to Member Rosenbohm how the process will work.

Member Daley asked if IDOT frowns upon not checking the box when using motor fuel funds.

Ms. McLaren advised they have asked about sealcoating and checking the box or not checking the box, IDOT does not seem to have a preference either way.

She stated they have not asked about other types of work.

Member Dillon advised that IDOT has no problems with community workforce agreements.

Ms. Cordis Boswell advised there is one small amendment in 2a to be made, changing “in good fait negotiate” to “Require use of the County’s”. She explained the Board would still have the option to condition the bid award on the contractor negotiating a community workforce agreement with the labor organizations.

Motion Carried. (11-2)

Nay: Member Daley, Member Rieker

Teleconference: Member Reneau

Absent: Member Coates, Member Kelch

4.3 Amendment to Workforce Agreement Ordinance

A motion to amend section 2(a) of the ordinance to state “Require the use of the County’s” community workforce agreement was made by Member Ruhland and was seconded by Member Salzer.

Chairperson Williams called for questions regarding the amendment. There were none.

Motion Carried. (13-0)

Teleconference: Member Reneau

Absent: Member Coates, Member Kelch

5. DISCUSSION

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

6.1 Public Comment

Chairperson Williams called for public comments. There were none.

7. MISCELLANEOUS

7.1 Miscellaneous

Chairperson Williams called for miscellaneous comments.

Mr. Sorrel advised that he got word this morning from Congressman Sorenson’s office that the most recent version of the federal budget working its way through the appropriations process includes full funding for the agriculture lab in the USDA budget. He stated this also includes an increase in dollars with the proposal to move some of the USDA funded research at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana to the Peoria facility. Mr. Sorrel provided a synopsis of some of the impacts and outcomes from the spring legislative session. Mr. Sorrel stood for questions; there were none.

8. ADJOURNMENT

8.1 Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Member Williams at 4:28 pm.

https://www.peoriacounty.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06242025-1774