PROCEEDINGS OF THE
STATE OF
) SS
Proceedings of the regular meeting of the Knox County Board, held at the
Knox County Courthouse,
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Janet Occhi and upon roll call the following members reported present:
District 1 Caroline Porter
District 2 Gayle Keiser
District 3 Janet Occhi
District 4 George Knapp
District 5 Gerald Link
District 1 Allen Pickrel
District 4 Wayne Saline
District 5 Ricardo Sandoval
District 1 Linda Roberts
District 2 Dana Shallenberger
District 3 Dale Parsons
District 4
District 5 Stephen Johnson
And those absent: District 2 Greg Bacon
District 3 Paul Hevland
Also present was Scott Erickson,
Chairman Occhi led the members in the pledge to the flag and David Siems
of
Chairman Occhi asked if there were any additions to the agenda. There were no additions.
Chairman Occhi asked for public comment. There were none.
Chairman Occhi presented the following consent agenda items for approval: 1) minutes of the Board meeting and closed Board sessions held April 27, 2005; 2) claims against Knox County, Illinois, for the period of April 28, 2005-May 11, 2005 (ordering that invoices be accepted and approved and that the County Clerk and County Treasurer be authorized and directed to issue County Warrants in payment of the bills); and 3) claims by Members for per diem and mileage for the meeting of May 11, 2005. Member Pickrel moved that consent agenda item 2 be removed and voted on separately. Motion was made by Member Parsons and seconded by Member Pickrel to approve consent agenda items 1 and 3 with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried. Motion was made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Mannhardt to approve consent agenda item 2 with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Saline, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(11); Noes—(0). Pass—Pickrel, Bacon, and Sandoval—(3). Motion carried.
Since the Orpheum representative was not present, Chairman Occhi introduced the Orpheum financial update. She stated that the report is in the Member packet.
Motion was made by Member Link and seconded by Member Parsons to approve the appointment of Paul Way to the Knox County Housing Authority Board with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.
Motion was made by Member Parsons and seconded by Member Porter to approve the appointment of Henry Hamann to the Knox County Board of Review with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(13); Noes—(0). Pass—Knapp (1). Motion carried.
Motion was made by Member Porter and seconded by Member Mannhardt to approve the appointment of Member Parsons to the Tourism Council with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.
Treasurer Davis stated that at the IACO Conference, she met
representatives from OnPoint LLC. They have saved other counties significant
amounts of money. She then introduced Jeff Monroe from OnPoint LLC to make his
presentation. He stated that he had been with the company for 15 years.
Basically, our company goes after phone companies to look at the bills and
franchise agreements. Then we bring recommendations back to the Board on ways of
saving money. If the Board takes those recommendations then we take a percentage
of the savings, which is usually one half of the savings for the first year. We
also teach your account managers the things that we are looking at. Some of the
counties that we are currently working with are: Cook, St. Claire, Warren, and
Hancock. In
Chairman Occhi introduced the resolution to update the number of deputies for the Sheriff department, referring to a list given to them from the Sheriff. The top part adds up to a total of 21. Motion was made by Member Porter and seconded by Member Shallenberger to approve this resolution. Member Pickrel questioned the number of investigators as he thought that were two investigators. Sheriff Thompson responded that currently there are two investigators. The number of 21 is correct as far as people who serve in a patrol function. Voice vote as follows—Ayes (14): Noes—(0). Motion carried. Member Pickrel questioned what all of this is about. Chairman Occhi responded that the State statute requires that we set it.
Sheriff Jim Thompson told the Board Members that there was not time to include a copy of the bids in the Member packets for the new vehicle. He then distributed the bid sheets to the Board Members. He said that the bids are self-explanatory. We got local bids and a State bid on the same type of vehicle. Essentially, this is a vehicle for our DARE officer who also serves as a canine officer and a patrol officer. He has driven his van for a number of years and it is a high mileage vehicle. Because of the nature of this deputy’s duties, we feel that he needs a vehicle along the lines of an Explorer type vehicle that our other canine officers have. The bottom of the bid sheet shows the cost comparison of these vehicles. The lowest bid is the State bid, for a 20005 Ford Explorer in the amount of $20,745. However, we are recommending that we accept at local bid that is $567 higher, from Lakis Ford for the same vehicle. DARE funds will contribute $8,000 toward the purchase price of this vehicle. DUI and drug seizure monies will contribute $1,800. We have a vehicle replacement line item in the budget of $45,000 per year. The remaining amount of $11,512.55 goes to that line item. Member Saline asked if he had looked at a trade-in. Sheriff Thompson replied that we didn’t look at trading it out as we can use this vehicle for other purposes. We are investigating an alternative work program that would use this vehicle. Member Bacon asked if he had used money that was budgeted last year for vehicles. Thompson replied that he had not spent any of that money. Treasurer Davis confirmed that $45,000 had been budgeted. Thompson stated that two sheriffs ago, $60,000 was budgeted for vehicle replacement. This is our first vehicle replacement this year. Member Mannhardt asked about the percentage of the difference in the cost of the bids. Thompson responded that the difference was $567 and he was unsure of the percentage. Member Bacon said that would be between 2 and 5%. Thompson said that it totally at the Board’s pleasure. We do feel that it would be better to go local. Member Link asked if the specifications are the same. Member Bacon inquired about the number of vehicles that are to be replaced this year. Thompson answered approximately three. Member Bacon asked if we would still stay under the $45,000. Thompson replied yes we would.
Member Keiser inquired about the four wheel drive specification. Thompson answered that this vehicle is also used as a canine unit. This dog is trained as a search dog as well as a drug detection dog. Some of the areas that we search are little difficult to get back into. Thus, a four wheel drive vehicle would help us. Member Keiser asked how many four wheel drive vehicles we currently possess. Thompson answered that this would make our fifth four wheel drive vehicle. Member Link stated that even though it isn’t yet available locally, he likes the fact that it is E-85 compatible. Thompson said that with the extra cost of gas, E-85 is a good savings. We are hoping to purchase as many vehicles as we can that use E-85 because it will be more cost efficient. Member Saline stated that he is against purchasing any more four wheel drive vehicles. Thompson replied that three of the five, four wheel drive vehicles currently in use are canine units and the other is a snow plow. We prefer four wheel drive for the canine units. Member Saline responded that he can understand that but we do need more fuel efficient vehicles.
Member Johnson told the Board that he was asked by a constituent in his district to be put on the agenda to make a presentation. He then introduced Chris Kanthak who then addressed the Board. Mr. Kanthak said that he was there with Kimberly Norton. We are two of the alternate Public Defenders. This is not Member Johnson’s proposal, rather this is our proposal. The problem is that Ms. Norton and I were approached by the Judges after they reviewed the proposal that was given to you at the last meeting. Some of the judges had some concerns about that proposal and how it was to be carried out. We were asked to look at the numbers and present a possible alternative. After looking at the numbers that were provided by the Treasurer’s office, we have sent out to all of you a breakdown of those numbers. Look at not only the budgeted items for the Public Defender’s office but also the indirect costs such as IMRF, Social Security, postage, utilities and telephone. We have another proposal. Instead of opening up three individual offices, we suggest that you expand that to five independent Public Defenders. There would be one Public Defender and four alternates. Each of those individuals would be independent offices. They would each receive $70,000 which would total $350,000. This would be a set, solid number for the budget. Everything would be included, very similar to what we do right now. This would allow us to get rid of the County share of the Social Security and IMRF. Those five attorneys would on an alternating round-robin basis take over the adult felony cases, misdemeanors and traffic. In addition, we would also do the juvenile cases, the abuse and neglect. The courts would then be able to go to the five individual attorneys. The only reason that you would have a conflict is when you had six individuals involved in one event. Right now, we only have four with the Public Defender and the three alternates. We would also include the abuse and neglect cases which are not included under the other proposal. I think that there are positives and substantial savings in our proposal. In the alternate contract, the Public Defender’s budget actually increases from $251,000 to $324,000, which is an increase of $73,000. That takes into consideration attorneys’ fees, staff salaries, overhead, and expenses. It also includes the other budgeted line items that are not directly divided up into the Public Defender’s Office. These include health insurance (which is about $4,000 per employee, IMRF (which is about 7.8%), and Social Security (which is about 6.5%). In our proposal, I have included the approximate 22% salary increases for the attorneys that are proposed under the budget, and the approximate 3% salary increase for the staff members who would be involved.
One of our concerns of the other proposal is that it has not yet been approved by the judges. I don’t think that this other plan is totally feasible as you need to find two attorneys who will do all of the abuse and neglect work for $30,000 each. It will be very difficult to do that. The attorneys that do that will have to commit two entire days every week to juvenile work to the exclusion of anything else. As you look at our proposal, by getting rid of the alternate Public Defender—as you now have it budgeted at $51,000—and getting rid of the conflict attorneys you will find in actuality a savings of $50,000 to $100,000 a year. You get those numbers by getting rid of the alternate Public Defender, because now there will be five individual attorneys who will be handling all of those conflicts. You will get rid of the abuse and neglect cases because you will have five individual attorneys handling those conflicts. You will get rid of all of those direct expenses as well as the indirect expenses. You will free up space in the court house. You would have a solid figure for the budget of $350,000. As you ask the judges about our proposal, they would say that there are a lot of positives with this plan. It would also allow individuals who are now working in the Public Defender’s Office—the four alternate attorneys and the Public Defender to handle those positions. Member Mannhardt asked how Mr. Kanthak could be contacted to answer questions. Mr. Kanthak responded that he could be contacted by phoning his office. He explained that the numbers presented in this alternate proposal came from the Treasurer’s office. Member Bacon asked Mr. Kanthak who would handle juvenile appeals determination under this proposal and how are they currently handled. Mr. Kanthak replied right now they are done on an independent basis. Under each of these new proposals, juvenile appeals will be handled individually, as well as post conviction relief, and civic cases. In your proposed budget, there is a $60,000 figure and then a $10,000 contingency or reserve figure. Under the other proposal, that $10,000 figure is much too low. There will still be more conflicts. As I looked at the other proposal, I suggest that the three attorneys will have the felony, misdemeanor and traffic, while leaving the alternate counsel for the juvenile court. That would require you to find the alternate two attorneys who are willing to work for $30,000. If these attorneys are not found, then they will be appointed as they are now on an hourly rate. Member Pickrel asked about the proposal saying that we are only adding one secretary. Since secretaries are under union contract, they will not be receiving raises. Even with the raises with the Public Defender and two assistants, we are only looking at a $25,000 raise.
Member Pickrel questioned the secretary raises. Mr. Kanthak responded that he took the numbers that he had and tried to project what might be reasonable. I picked a figure out of the air for a 3% raise for secretaries. If you don’t give that raise, then zero out those numbers. It would be $824 and $605 for the raises. There is $15,000 worth of direct office expenses. I only increased it by 50%. Right now you are budgeting only one office. However, when you go to three independent offices, three sets of statutes, three sets of everything, costs increase proportionately. We create Chinese walls between these offices so there is no conflict in the representation of the parties. Member Bacon inquired about the $350,000 figure for the first year, asking if it would include a 2% raise for the next year. Maybe next year, you will come back to the Board and ask for $450,000. Mr. Kanthak responded we have discussed with the judges increasing the alternate Public Defender’s contract. We agree and promise that we will accept whatever increase you give the other County union employees. Member Saline commented that Mr. Kanthak should not assume; the part-time line item has been increased and that is a bad idea as last year we had two people sick at the same time. Your figures just don’t match on that. Your total cost is coming out of the general fund. That is what we are trying to alleviate. That is where our savings will be; we will be able to save in the general fund. Mr. Kanthank asked where the money comes from for the Public Defender now. Member Saline responded that all of it doesn’t come from the general funds as IMRF and Social Security come from different funds. Because of the nature of this restructuring of these offices it will not be possible to swap a secretary from one office to another.
Motion was made by Member Saline
and seconded by Member Bacon to approve the reorganization of the Public
Defender’s Office as outlined in the last meeting of the
Member Johnson questioned what if
a year down the road, with the disparity between your salary and the two
assistants what is to prevent them from also asking for $93,000, since they will
be handling the same number of cases and are equal attorneys. Mr. Harrell stated
that the
Member Porter commented that Mr.
Harrell has been Public Defender for 16 years. I can’t imagine anybody better
qualified to decide how the Public Defender’s Office should be organized. I
think that he should be the responsible for organizing this office. I think that
this Board should be grateful that he has been here as long as he has, making
1/3 or 1/2 what he could earn in the private sector. He is here because he likes
the job. I don’t presume to know how to organize the Public Defender’s
Office. I would like us to give the go ahead to Mr. Harrell to try this plan,
which has worked very well in other counties. Member Saline stated that this
isn’t a proposal that we came up with it the last 15 minutes. For the last two
years in finance committee meetings, we have talked about a proposal to save
money on this. The people on the other end of this weren’t willing to come and
talk to us. Now that we have this proposal they want to come to present their
proposal. This seems strange that there were no negotiations before and now they
want to come with their proposal. In 1998, out of 69 surveyed counties, 13% were
already doing this. During the last six years, I am sure that the number has
increased. Member Johnson stated that he agrees. However, I think that we are
getting the cart ahead of the horse. The proposal in its entirety needs to be in
writing. That is what the judges want. Mr. Harrell previously commented that if
we pass this, then we will sit down and decide how we will set up these
modifications. The plan should be on paper and taken to the judges for their
approval. Then we can vote as a
Member Pickrel stated that what he
understood that the judges wanted was this passed forward to them and the dollar
amount involved. From what I understand, the judges want this passed so that we
can move forward. Mr. Harrell stated that he hadn’t heard differently then
when we discussed this with them a month ago, that if this goes through, we sit
down with them and work through the details. Member Johnson said that in the
last memo from Judge Mathers, the last paragraph states, “when the specifics
of what is truly is intended, make their way to paper, I will share the same
with the judges of
Member Pickrel questioned if Member Johnson would be allowed to vote on this issue, since he has a direct or indirect relationship with these attorneys. Some of the material that I have read suggests that a person should consider abstaining when there is either a direct or indirect financial interest involved. State’s Attorney Paul Mangieri said that Member Johnson does not have a conflict. Member Parsons addressed the problem of conflict of interest and stated that as is stands right now, there is no conflict of interest. Mr. Harrell stated in recent conversations with the Judge Mathers, he understands that in juvenile cases, counsel will be appointed as it is now. We told him as soon as this goes to the Board, Member Saline and I would get back to him and go through it. He indicated that is fine, just let him know. I don’t think that the judge wants it written down what each of us will be doing and how we plan to get it done. That is something that the judge will tell these three attorneys and we will discuss it. We have three attorneys who can handle any case that there is. Member Saline stated that another reason to move forward now is that we need to get the details hammered out. We need to get this done now, so that we can know where we are at and start writing the budget in another month or two. Member Johnson stated that he agrees. However, my question is still that we should get the details worked out and then let us vote on it. Member Porter motioned to call for the vote on the question with the roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt,—(12); Noes—Keiser, Johnson (2). Motion carried. The vote on the motion for reorganization of the Public Defender’s Office as discussed at the last Board meeting with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt,—(12); Noes—Keiser, Johnson (2). Motion carried.
Since Rod Cleair was ill, Administrator Allen Hallberg presented the Mary
Davis Home business report. The report is in the Member packets. As of last
week, there were 34 clients at the home and 3 are from
Administrator Allen Hallberg presented the assessor/zoning report,
reminding Members that the report is in the Member packets. There were 38
permits issued which equals a total of $1.8 million in building activity. Out of
that amount about $6,000 in fees were collected. There were three complaints,
which are included in the Member packets. Member Porter asked about the
procedure when the City wants to annex those acres of prime farm land for a
shopping center on
Larry Larson presented the
landfill business report. We are continuing to compact dirt on the new cell. We
are approximately 20% done. We have ordered the hydraulic equipment for the
cover which should be arriving in about ten days. We have received notice that
Murphy Container Service, from Kewanee has been granted a discharge of their
debt that they owe us. They had filed bankruptcy about five months ago. That
will leave us holding the bill of about $39,000 that we will not get reimbursed
for. BEHR from
Motion was made by Member Keiser and seconded by Member Roberts to approve the memorandum of understanding between the landfill and health department for secretarial services. Member Saline asked if this cost comes out of the landfill fund. Chairman Occhi responded that yes it is in the budget. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Shallenberger, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(13); Noes—Bacon (1). Motion carried.
Duane Raterman presented the highway business report. He told the Board
that today the new end loader had arrived and he passed out some pictures. We
approved that purchase three months ago and it is a $140,000 piece of equipment.
We traded in the old end loader. So the net cost was $65,000. Member Bacon
questioned the age of the old unit. Mr. Raterman responded that it was five
years old. He shared some pictures of the County bridge project on County
Highway 1. The pictures show the structure removal as well as pouring the
footings for the new structure that will be built there. We are expecting to set
the spindles on May 23. We still have to work out some issues with the power
company as there are some very large electrical transmission lines overhead. The
power company has agreed to shut the power off so that we can set those spans.
The other construction project is an extension of
Administrator Hallberg presented the Nursing Home business report. He
told the Board that it is National Nursing Home week. The County Nursing Home
Association awards five nursing scholarships each year. Lacy Clayes from the
Nursing Home is one of the recipients of this scholarship. One requirement of
this scholarship is that after completing their nursing education, the recipient
must work at the Nursing Home for one year. Regarding the current census of the
Nursing Home, we have 142 with 3 pending admissions. The remodeling is going
well. The ceilings are done and the electrical outlets and the lights are
installed. The painting is done. They are waiting on the wallpaper, carpet and
the wardrobes. They anticipate no problems meeting the June deadline. With the
census so low, perhaps it would be a good idea to keep a wing closed to allow us
to remodel and upgrade another wing, and continue through the other wings.
Regarding the cooling tower, it is a mystery how the old unit cooled at all. It
had so many holes in it. While I was there I visited with Scott Maus from
Regarding finances, we have not
had to borrow from the referendum fund. The bookkeeper has been working hard at
getting the books updated. They have collected some delinquent money. Ms. Wiesen
is looking at setting up a committee to oversee the memorial fund. Bills Butts
will be helping to set up a 501 (c)(3) non-profit status for this fund. She has
talked to various community leaders about their willingness to serve on this
committee. Additionally, she would like a
Chairman Occhi introduced for discussion only the possible sale of the
Nursing Home farm land. Administrator Hallberg stated the he is seeking
direction from the Board and reminded the Board Members of the May 2000 memo
from State’s Attorney. In that memo Mangieri stated that the
Member Saline asked if this is a
one time option. Mangieri suggested that the focus should be delineating that
property which is essential to the operation of the Nursing Home. Then the rest
of the property would be excess property that could be sold. I also suggest that
it be surveyed to reference what is an integral part of operation and
maintenance for the operation of the Nursing Home. After that the rest could be
sold as you choose. Member Pickrel said that in the next month’s packet, he
would like to see a dividing line. Obviously, it wouldn’t be surveyed yet, but
we could get an idea. Member Bacon questioned the location of tract one where
the hay field is, isn’t that the location of the Nursing Home, and it goes to
the Interstate and back down. Hallberg responded affirmatively. Member Bacon
added that is the one tract we want to keep. It is already cut into parcels.
Member Johnson stated that if we have that surveyed, there on the west side,
there is no reason why we can’t incorporate that line of trees within the
buffer zone of the Nursing Home. Member Pickrel stated that if the tress were
removed, the Home would lose its whole look. Hallberg said that the parcel line
divides the trees. Member Johnson suggested that we should incorporate all the
trees with the Nursing Home. Member Link suggested that the line could be moved
a little on the west. Member Knapp stated that I think for future use that we
should keep a strip of land on the south side immediately north of the IDOT
facility to run an access road across to the Nursing Home from
Administrator Hallberg introduced for first reading the resolution on prevailing wage for 2005. He told the Board that this is a house-keeping matter that is done every year. Information is in the Member packets and it will be up for approval at the next Board meeting.
Motion was made by Member Porter and seconded by Member Parsons to
approve the proposed Ameren/IP electrical easement. Administrator Hallberg
reminded the Board that this has to do with the lights out by Hardee’s in
Administrator Hallberg presented the County business report. Regarding
the cable franchise, the memo from Paul Mangieri is in the Member packets about
the franchise agreement that Rio Cable has with
STATEMENTS OF GENERAL CONCERN
Member Porter, Member Keiser, Member Occhi, and Member Knapp had no comments at this time.
Member Link asked how the vote came out for the County flag. County Clerk Scott Erickson replied that not all of the Board Members had voted; we should have it for the next Board meeting. Member Link continued that I was glad to see in Hallberg’s packet that the City has switched to ethanol. I wonder if it is time to discuss re-opening this contract with the City.
Member Pickrel, Member Bacon, Member Saline, Member Sandoval, and Member Roberts had no comments at this time.
Member Shallenberger expressed her thanks to everybody for their concern for the recent loss of her son.
Member Parsons and Member Mannhardt had no comments at this time.
Member Johnson stated that there are certain Members of this
Chairman Occhi announced that the next regular meeting of the Board will
be held on
Motion was made by Member Parsons and seconded by Member Roberts to
adjourn. Voice vote and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at