Will County Approves $800,000 ARPA Interest Transfer After Transparency Clash

Will County Board | September 17, 2026

Article Summary: The Will County Board on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, approved its fiscal year 2026 budget transfers with 21 votes in the affirmative, including the movement of $800,000 in interest earned on the county’s expiring American Rescue Plan Act funds into the capital improvement fund, after an extended and at times hostile argument over how much written detail the board is given before it votes.

FY26 Budget Transfers Key Points:

• Resolution 26-284 / 26-5402 was pulled from the Finance Committee’s consent agenda at a member’s request and voted separately; the clerk announced 21 in the affirmative.
• The transfer schedule attached to the Finance Committee’s Sept. 2 agenda authorizes $7,620,182.28 in special fund transfers and $7,000 in corporate fund transfers. The special fund total includes the $800,000 of ARPA interest moved to the Capital Improvement Fund (3001) from the American Rescue Plan fund (2713), plus $6,820,182.28 moved into the Series 2025AB debt service fund from the Series 2015A fund ($1,717,199.17) and the Series 2016 fund ($5,102,983.11).
• County staff said the money will sit in the capital improvement fund until budgeted and can support capital items already approved in fiscal 2026 or approved in fiscal 2027, naming the sheriff’s facility, the radio department and a facilities needs assessment.
• Members Destinee Ortiz and Julie Berkowicz demanded written detail; the exchange produced an open dispute over decorum involving the county executive and county staff.

WILL COUNTY — The Will County Board on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, approved its fiscal year 2026 budget transfers after a roughly 25-minute debate that had less to do with the dollars than with how much the board is told before it votes.

Resolution 26-284 / 26-5402 was listed as letter E on the Finance Committee’s consent agenda and removed at a member’s request. Finance Committee Chair Sherry Newquist then moved it separately; Member Denise Winfrey seconded.

Republican Leader Jim Richmond opened by asking staff to explain the item. “So this was a question that was brought up by a number of colleagues, and if we could just get an understanding of what it is, that would be greatly appreciated,” he said.

Rashan Howard came to the podium and said the resolution contains two pieces: a routine transfer within the corporate fund for the sheriff’s office, “just moving money between their funds,” and the $800,000.

“The $800,000 is basically moving the interest that’s in the American Rescue Plan, the ARPA fund, into the capital improvement fund,” Howard said. “There is interest that is earned, which is the county’s dollars. That program is closing out at the end of this year. So we’re just moving those dollars now into the capital improvement fund, which is also a special fund.”

The sheriff’s piece, per the transfer schedule, moves $7,000 out of Other Professional Services (1010-541090-190-73010-20) into Article 36 Vehicle Seizure (1010-592050-190-73010-20).

Where the Money Can Go

Asked whether anything is earmarked, Howard said the money is “just parked in that fund” until budgeted. Pressed by Berkowicz on why the capital improvement fund specifically, Howard said the county has capital projects already budgeted for this fiscal year, that the fund’s dollars “are being depleted currently,” and that the county has previously moved ARPA interest to the same fund. Howard identified capital items for the sheriff’s facility, the radio department and the county’s facilities needs assessment.

Berkowicz asked whether the needs assessment was about $1 million; Howard answered in the affirmative. Ogalla asked whether all three items were in the current year’s budget; Howard said they were, and that the expectation is the money will be spent in next year’s budget. Berkowicz asked for the sheriff’s portion in writing and confirmed that money landing in the capital improvement fund must be spent as a capital expense — “a roof,” she said, rather than equipment such as body cameras.

Member Herbert Brooks Jr. asked who decides how the money is allocated once it lands there. Howard said the funds sit in the fund until they are budgeted — by the board. “By us,” Brooks said.

Richmond restated the mechanics at the end of the debate and Howard confirmed his account: “We have $800,000 in an interest-bearing account that needs to be closed out. So we move the money over to capital. It can only be used for the dedicated things that are in the 2026 approved budget and/or things that may come up in the 2027 budget. There won’t be any spend outside of those detailed items.” The capital fund rolls over year to year, Howard said, and the dollars cannot be moved into the general fund.

Members Demand Detail in Writing

Ortiz said the explanation was not good enough.

“I’m tired of seeing upwards to a million dollars of budget transfers with absolutely no details,” she said. “I want to see this on paper, too. This has to be documented. When you guys ask us to approve budgets, we need to know exactly where those line items are going.” She continued: “When you come to me in September asking for an $800,000 transfer, and I’m hearing that it’s not earmarked, but then I’m also hearing that it’s going to be used to pay off remaining projects — what is it? Which project specifically?”

Bertino-Tarrant responded that the resolution followed the county’s standard format. “This is routine. This is nothing different. This is the same format,” she said. “The details is listed here in the notes.”

“But the routine lacks transparency in details,” Ortiz said. “The details doesn’t tell me what this is going to pay for. It tells me where it’s coming from and it tells me that it’s interest, but it doesn’t tell me exactly what this 800 is going to be used to pay for.”

The exchange escalated into overlapping objections over tone, with both the executive and Ortiz telling the other to be respectful and the executive invoking the board’s rule of decorum. “This has been the attitude of this board, is to be disrespectful to our staff members,” Bertino-Tarrant said at one point. She later said she had no objection to listing items more specifically: “I’m not disagreeing that if we need to list things out more specifically, I have no issue with that at all.”

Howard addressed the room directly. “I know I’m staff, but I’m respectful to everyone here, and I also expect the same level of respect in return.”

Ortiz rejected the characterization. “I’m not going to be told that I’m being disrespectful because I’m calling out lack of transparency,” she said, adding that she would vote no and encourage others to do the same on any future transfer presented without detail. “If you come to this board with no details, I’m going to be voting no. Why should I have to ask more than once?”

Committee Attendance Becomes the Argument

Traynere, a Finance Committee member, said the transfer drew no scrutiny when the committee considered it at the beginning of the month.

“I was present, as well as the chair and the vice chair of the finance committee, of which I am a member. Not one question was asked in committee about this transfer. Not one. They breezed through like there was no issue,” Traynere said. “So either the members of the committee didn’t open their agenda and didn’t look at the items, or they didn’t have any questions. And now I’m just kind of perplexed as to why we have a question now.”

She called the move prudent. “This is money left over at the end of the year. Interest funds. We could not have known at the beginning of the year how much it was going to be. And the prudent thing, since we don’t have it budgeted, is to move it into the capital. We have to move it somewhere at some point.”

Howard confirmed the item was presented at the Finance Committee at the beginning of the month and that no discussion of alternative destinations took place there.

Berkowicz rejected that standard at length. “Have you ever reviewed a document, especially legal documents? You review it, you go back a second or third time, you have additional questions,” she said. “To hear from the county executive and staff that you didn’t ask a question in committee, and fellow board members, you didn’t ask a question in committee, that was your chance — that’s unreasonable and that’s completely irresponsible.”

She went on: “I believe that every question matters. There is no stupid question. We are the keeper of the purse. We take tax dollars. We ought to know what’s going on and we ought to be able to ask questions without being attacked or being criticized.” She noted that committee meetings rarely draw more than a handful of members while the full board has all of them in the room, and suggested other uses for the interest, naming the county’s tuberculosis clinic and public works.

Newquist said the funds “had to be removed from the ARPA account because it is being closed out and they had to be put somewhere,” and that capital is what the county has typically done with other closed-out funds.

Butler said he had found nothing improper. “I have been scouring that budget, and I’m going to tell you it’s not easy. One thing I can tell you is it’s all there. It’s all there. So I understand that nothing illegal or whatever is happening,” he said. “But anyone who tries to go through a 470-page document even three months before you vote on it, it’s a lot. There’s no wrongdoing here. There’s just a matter of getting everybody on the same page.”

A Dispute Over the Trend Line

Member Vince Logan challenged the word “routine.” “In my former job, law enforcement, routine was a horrible word. We hated it,” he said. He told the board the county budget had grown from $482 million in 2016 to $836 million — a 73% increase over 10 years — while the population grew 4%. “Routine spending is hurting us,” he said.

Bertino-Tarrant disputed the comparison, asked Logan to share his source, and said any comparison must account for what the county places in operating budgets versus capital and other entities such as the Veterans Assistance Commission and the health department. “I know you like to throw out numbers,” she said, adding, “Got to do a little more than AI.” Ogalla criticized that remark later during member comments, saying jabs at members over the use of AI are inappropriate.

Traynere separately asked whether a motion would come next month moving any remaining ARPA dollars from agencies that have not spent them, saying her understanding is that the money must be spent by the close of October. Bertino-Tarrant said the county is “working very hard” with the agencies to spend down their awards within the program’s established pillars, that a follow-up report is coming, and that the information is posted online.

The clerk announced 21 votes in the affirmative. The board also placed the monthly finance reports on file. The next Finance Committee meeting is scheduled for Oct. 6, 2026.