HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE
January 31, 2000 – 8:30 a.m. @ County Board Office
MEMBERS PRESENT: David Williams, Chairman; Bob Baietto, Vice Chairman; Michael Mason; Cheryl
Budzinski; Carol Trumpe
OTHERS PRESENT: James Daken, County Administrator; Lyn Schmidt, Assistant State’s Attorney; Earl Van
Dusen, Interim Administrator, Bel-Wood; Denise Hopwood, Bel-Wood; Donna Schwab,
Budget Director; Tom Smith, Carol Janszen, Terry Wisecarver, Care & Treatment; Scott
Sorrel, Kelly McIntyre, Planning & Zoning; Merle Widmer, Citizen; Richard Alford,
Citizen; Jennifer Davis, Journal Star; Media
The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chairman Williams. Minutes of January 3, 2000 were approved on a motion
by Mr. Baietto and a second by Ms. Trumpe. The motion carried.
Resolution: Bids for Adult Liners for Bel-Wood
Mr. Van Dusen recommended Vonachen’s low bid for adult liners for incontinent residents. Mr. Williams asked if the liners
from other bidders were comparable, and Mr. Van Dusen replied in the affirmative. He said that each of the bidders’ products
were tested (Vonachen’s, Seneca and Medline), and although Vonachen’s was not the best quality, their bid was chosen
because of the drastic price difference. He also stated that the bids were based on at least 300 cases delivered with a 10-14
day lead-time. Mr. Baietto asked if this bid would have been selected if the County were not under budget constraints. Mr.
Van Dusen said that it probably would not have been. Mr. Baietto stressed that this choice will not affect the residents’
quality of care. Ms. Budzinski made a motion to accept the low bid from Vonachen and Mr. Baietto seconded. The motion
Resolution: Approval of Swimming Pool Variance
Ms. McIntyre stated that this request is for a variance from a section of the swimming pool ordinance requiring a swimming
pool be 10’ from any structure. She stated that the petitioner’s in-ground swimming pool was constructed 7’8” from an
existing home (a variance of 2’4”). She said that when the petitioner submitted the application for a building permit, the site
plan showed the pool as being 15’ from the home, but the contractor who installed the pool constructed it 7’8” from the
home. Ms. McIntyre stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval with the concurrence of Planning and
Zoning. Ms. Trumpe made a motion to approve the variance and Ms. Budzinski seconded. The motion carried.
Discussion: Report on Motorized Swimming Pool Covers
Ms. McIntyre reported on additional information she received regarding motorized swimming pool covers and noted that
several states have adopted statewide regulations requiring fencing around pools. She also received information from the
Automatic Swimming Pool Industry stating there have been no drownings due to situations where there was an automatic
pool cover. She added that, in most cases, the areas also required fencing. She pointed out that Tazewell County, which
allows automatic swimming pool covers, has issued 3 permits (out of 29) in the last 2 years.
She stated that she spoke with several dealers regarding the electricity issue and discovered that the cover can be closed
manually with a wheel. (Mr. Mason enters the meeting.) She remarked that based on this information, the current ordinance
has proven to be safe and effective and the recommendation is to maintain the current requirements for fencing. Ms.
Trumpe commented that a petitioner would have the option of installing the cover as well as the fence. Ms. Schmidt advised
that there is a resolution on a variance pending in front of the County Board. Ms. McIntyre stated that the original report
recommended changing the ordinance, and the revised agenda briefing recommended no change. After some discussion, a
decision was made to make a motion for a recommendation. Ms. Budzinski made a motion to maintain the existing
ordinance on swimming pool fencing and Ms. Trumpe seconded. Mr. Williams commented that an electronic cover can be
built in addition to the fencing, but the fencing is mandatory. The motion carried.
Discussion: Allied Agencies Update
Mr. Smith covered three items in his update on Allied Agencies. He spoke about the outcomes of purchases of services for
1999, followed by a status report and projection update, the FY99 ending balance, and a review of a pro forma statement on
the capital fund drive. He apologized for not getting the last two items into the committee’s hands in time for the Board
packet. He said they encountered major computer problems with the County system last week and were not able to access
Ms. Wisecarver informed the Committee about recipients of services, including the PARC and Community Workshop
populations, and explained how the building is currently being utilized by such entities as: the Genetics Clinic through the U
of I College of Medicine, Early Intervention Services, the Small Wonders Learning Center, OSF Clinics including Pediatric
Administration, Ambulatory Internal Medicine, Pediatric Ambulatory Clinic, Community Clinic, Pediatric Subspecialty, and
OBGYN services. She said the building houses scheduled and informal meetings, and linkage and support services are
offered. Mr. Baietto complimented all those involved in the process of helping the disabled retain dignity. Ms. Trumpe said
she appreciated the information received showing revenue and expenses (such as from the Community Workshop).
Health Services Committee 2 January 31, 2000
Mr. Smith then presented information about revised year-end projections. He said they still represent a negative fund
balance in the operating fund and are based on a worst case scenario on the revenue side. He said that real estate property
taxes coming in at 97% are a concern. He added that regarding all the building operations and staffing patterns, there will
be a difference in the early intervention programs initiated by the State July 1, and that this will be factored in 2000. He
further noted that the ability to use the contingency for additional purchases does not appear to be good, but it is too early to
determine. He said the target continues to be a zero balance by the end of FY2000 as far as the operating fund is
concerned. Mr. Williams asked about the status of the work orders and what is left to be done. Ms. Budzinski asked if the
$37,000 has be made up within the calendar year. Ms. Schwab said it does and that they had anticipated going in with a
negative fund balance to be cleared out by the end of 2000. She said that is one of the reasons for doing the contingency on
the purchase for services because of all the unknowns on the revenue and expenditure sides. She said it would give a
cushion if revenue came in lower or expenditures came in higher and help clear up the deficit by the end of the year. Mr.
Mason questioned the numbers going from $191,000 to $168,000. Mr. Smith said that is still not a firm number. He
explained that the revenue side depends on what percentage comes from real estate taxes. He added that personal
property replacement tax came in better than anticipated and there were several expenses on the expense side of the
ledger. Mr. Mason questioned the difference between the 97% and 99% ($24,000?) and wanted an explanation. He also
questioned changing amounts and rules in midstream.
Ms. Schwab explained that it would be $80,000 in the general fund and that historically 99% of the property taxes that are
extended are collected. She noted that the tax sale is normally done in December (taxes are auctioned off). She explained
that whoever does not buy the taxes is normally picked up by the delinquent tax agent (who has another market for those).
She admitted that she was caught off guard as well by the 97% because the budget process was done with the 99%. She
said that Mr. Smith mentioned that the Treasurer’s office told them to expect as low as 97%. She said that in 1998 some
taxes were extended and paid that should not have been and distribution was made to Peoria County and the schools etc.
She added that this was not caught in 1998 in terms of backing out that distribution to those taxing bodies. She said this had
to be done during 1999 absent the realization that this would affect the 99 tax collection. She also noted that in working out
the numbers in the new real estate system, the number could be better than 97%. Mr. Mason asked if the other departments
will see this across the board, and Ms. Schwab replied that all funds will see this. She further noted that the $80,000
difference is between 97% and 99% and if we have 97% and nothing else changes, there will be lower ending ‘99 fund
balances. She said accommodations will be made during the 2000 budget and additional revenue from another source is
needed to offset that loss. Mr. Mason observed that someone should have seen this coming, and Ms. Schwab responded
that it may have been a communication breakdown among offices.
Mr. Smith then spoke about the capital fund drive and the pro forma statement. He said that in October there was a
prediction of $400,000 fund balance, which still appears to be valid. He said that incorporated into the pro forma statement
is everything that relates to the construction of the entire facility, except for the 2100 square feet (that will represent the
change order of $92,145 for which OSF would be responsible). He added that the lease draft was approved by the Care and
Treatment Board and is now in the hands of the OSF attorney. Ms. Budzinksi said next month she would like to see the
statement from the contractor. Mr. Williams asked if everything is done except for the OSF space, and Mr. Smith replied in
the affirmative. Ms. Budzinski asked if the County has a copy of the general contract, and Mr. Smith said the State’s
Attorney should have a copy. Ms. Schwab said that the base contract started out at a certain amount and does not think the
County has copies of all the added change orders. Mr. Williams asked if there is a finalization from the contractor (with the
change orders). Mr. Smith said that would have to come through PSA. Mr. Mason asked if there were two line items that
constitute the $400,000, and Mr. Smith said just the shortfall. Mr. Williams said that the $400,000 was assumed, leaving
$62,875.99 that has not been allocated. He said that does not have to be spent. Mr. Smith said that money could be used
to acquire the additional piece of real estate. Ms. Budzinski said the bottom number shows a $20,000 difference from the
number she last remembered ($139,000). Ms. Wisecarver said that all the change orders and outstanding work orders were
added. Mr. Smith pointed out that this is a pro forma statement.
Mr. Smith said after all identified revenues come in, $159,000 is the bottom line number and with the last remaining 2200
square feet that will be an in and an out. Mr. Williams questioned how that will be paid for with OSF paying on a
reimbursement basis if there is only $62,000 left. He asked about the origin of the funds, and Mr. Smith replied that the
$400,000 would come from fund balances of the County. Mr. Mason assumed that is the shortfall. Ms. Janszen said that
$178,000 is spread over a number of years. Mr. Smith asked that this not be acted upon until the project is closed out. Ms.
Schwab asked what would happen if the property is not purchased and if other options exist. Mr. Smith stated that they are
obligated by contract (executed October 12, 1995) to purchase the remaining house on the block and demolish it. Ms.
Schwab advised that this should be added to the list as an expense. Mr. Williams questioned the status of the $92,000 with
OSF if this is added to the list and if all $400,000 is gone. Mr. Smith said that will show as expense and reflect back as
income to be taken out of fund balance. Ms. Schwab said it is kind of a pass through. Mr. Smith said it is a lump sum
(typically within 14 days after the contractor is billed). Mr. Smith explained to Mr. Mason that the maximum shortfall number
is $400,000 and that the $159,000 is in that number. He added that he is forecasting revenue out to 2004.
He also pointed out that the draft contract on the Illinois First Grant from DCCA, in the amount of $150,000, has been
received and it is now in legal hands. Mr. Baietto asked about the timetable for the project wrap up. Mr. Smith replied that
once the executed lease is in hand, the contractors can finish the project (perhaps in April). Mr. Smith said he hopes to have
some recommendations put together by the end of the 2 quarter. (Mr. Smith leaves the meeting). Mr. Williams requested
Health Services Committee 3 January 31, 2000
that for future meetings, Mr. Mason and Ms. Budzinski provide liason reports from Care & Treatment and from the Board of
Discussion: Bel-Wood Status Report
Mr. Van Dusen reported that the fundraiser held for two Bel-Wood employees raised over $500, which was divided between
the two staff members and their families. He thanked everyone who participated and/or contributed. He stated that if
anyone would still like to contribute, donations can be sent to him at Bel-Wood.
Discussion: Bel-Wood Matters
Mr. Budzinski asked Mr. Van Dusen why County Board Members were not receiving information on Bel-Wood numbers prior
to the County Board Meeting. She asked if the postings are on a system that interfaces with the County’s current system,
and Mr. Van Dusen replied that they are not. Ms. Budzinski stated that it was indicated that the software purchased for Bel-
Wood in 1998 would eventually interface, and questioned why there were still problems. Mr. Van Dusen said because it is
third-party software, Data Processing would have to merge that program with the County’s. He stated that because of
ongoing issues they have with their current software, and the fact that they have budgeted to purchase a new software
package in 2000, it seems unnecessary to merge the programs at this time. Mr. Baietto asked why the current software is
inadequate. Mr. Van Dusen responded that the software is adequate, but for the size of the facility and amount of work
done, he feels there are better options. Mr. Daken said the intent is to acquire a software program that will conform to the Bi-
Tech system so that a software conversion would not be necessary. Ms. Schwab pointed out that Bel-Wood will be replacing
the entire software system, not just the financial side, but also the nursing and dietary components.
Ms. Budzinski about the manner and frequency in which the numbers are reconciled. Ms. Hopwood responded that Bel-
Wood deposits are compared with the Treasurer’s receipts. She also stated she discovered many discrepancies, which she
must locate in order to post monthly revenues. Ms. Budzinski stated that although this is time consuming, the process is
necessary. Mr. Baietto commented that interfacing problems should have been addressed when the software was
purchased. Ms. Budzinski asked Mr. Van Dusen if the financial positions were fully staffed. Mr. Van Dusen replied that the
Accounts Receivable Clerk and Management Assistant positions are open. Mr. Mason asked about the timeline for
purchasing a new computer system. Mr. Van Dusen stated it is within the first 6 months of the year. Mr. Williams asked Mr.
Van Dusen to include an update on this matter in his monthly summary report. Ms. Budzinski asked about the status of the
Medicare billing from 1998-99. Mr. Van Dusen said billing is up to date and that for the next meeting, he will provide a break-
out of the 1999 and 2000 monies for revenues.
Health Department Update
Ms. Budzinski noted that the Health Department’s quarterly report on communicable diseases showed a decrease in disease
incidence. She also reported that a former employee of Illinois Power in Decatur has accepted the position of Personnel
Director at the Health Department.
Mr. Daken asked if the Health Department was ready to progress with the Hay system. Ms. Budzinski said they will be
moving forward on that following the implementation of Hay at Bel-Wood.
Ms. Budzinski explained that HBAC will be dropping the “A” in the acronym. She also explained that the information on the
City of Peoria’s plan was included because HBAC wants to study that plan and perhaps come up with something similar for
the County. She said that HBAC members will be present at the February 1 Management Services meeting. She said she
feels that the HBAC made recommendations in the past (with the concurrence of Management Services), but then the
County Board would not agree to those recommendations. Mr. Williams said he is not convinced the County needs to be like
the City and does not want employees to dictate their plan to the Board. Ms. Budzinski suggested that Mr. Willams serve on
the HBAC. She noted that the City has a cooperative effort with management, board, and union, and that all changes
require a unanimous vote. Mr. Williams felt that the 30% increase has caused a knee jerk reaction. Mr. Baietto said that
the HBAC needs to find the best process, manage it correctly, and then bring it to the Board for study.
Advocate for Bel-Wood
Mr. Mason suggested, since Bel-Wood is in his district, that he and future County Board members from his district have a
permanent seat on the Health Services Committee in order to provide Bel-Wood residents with a consistent and ongoing
advocate to the County Board. Mr. Williams said he would contact Board Chairman Lynn Pearson to discuss scheduling a
Rules Committee meeting to address that matter. Mr. Daken asked if Bel-Wood is a polling place and Mr. Williams
responded in the affirmative.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. on a motion by Mr. Baietto and a second by Ms. Budzinski.
The next meeting was scheduled for Monday, March 6 at 8:30 a.m. in the County Board Office.
Recording & Transcribing Secretaries: Jan Kleffman & Susan McIntyre-Steiner
Health Services Committee 4 January 31, 2000