PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNTY BOARD

KNOX COUNTY , ILLINOIS

June 8, 2005

STATE OF ILLINOIS )

                                    )           SS

COUNTY OF KNOX )

            Proceedings of the regular meeting of the Knox County Board, held at the Knox County Courthouse, Galesburg , Illinois on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.

            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 2         Greg Bacon

District 3         Paul Hevland

District 4         Wayne Saline

District 5         Ricardo Sandoval

District 1         Linda Roberts

District 3         Dale Parsons

District 4         Lowell Mannhardt

District 5         Stephen Johnson

And those absent:                 District 2         Dana Shallenberger

Also present was Scott Erickson, County Clerk .

            Chairman Occhi led the Members in the pledge to the flag. Since no one was present to give the invocation, Chairman Occhi asked those present to bow their heads for a moment of silence. Member Johnson asked that the Board Members remember Board Member Dana Shallenberger as she is to have surgery.

            Chairman Occhi asked if there were any additions to the agenda. In order to accommodate the needs of others, she had been asked to move agenda items number 10 and 14 up, to be before item number 4.

            Chairman Occhi asked for public comments and there were none.

            Chairman Occhi presented the following consent agenda items for approval: 1) minutes of the Board meeting held May 25, 2005; 2) claims against Knox County, Illinois for the period of May 26, 2005-June 8, 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 June 8, 2005. Member Pickrel asked 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, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            Motion was made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Hevland to approve consent agenda item number 2 with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(12); Noes—(0). Pass—Pickrel, Bacon (2). Motion carried.

            Chairman Occhi introduced the presentation of the update on pending litigation. State’s Attorney Paul Mangieri gave a summary of the particular situation now facing the County. From time to time when individuals fail to pay their property taxes, we become the owner of different parcels of property throughout Knox County . There is a particular parcel of property in the village of Victoria which has fallen into a great state of disrepair. This dilapidated structure is located at 308 W. Main Street in Victoria . In this particular case the city fathers of Victoria have made the determination that because it is vermin and rat infested, as well as being unsightly, they want it taken down. By State statute, the Village has the right to go to court to ask for a court order to demolish that structure and pass the demolition costs plus the court costs, along to the property owner. Normally, it is a long and complicated process. We are trying to expedite this situation. This building is beyond repair. The repair costs would far exceed the cost of demolition. We are not asking for formal action tonight but rather to bring this to your attention. At the next County Board meeting, we will supply you with additional information. The proposal before us tonight from the village of Victoria and through their attorney, Mr. Butts, would be to split the demolition cost 50-50 with the County. They have also asked the County to wave the landfill charges associated with this demolition. If this were to go to court, I feel confident that the court would rule that this property is a nuisance and the building needs to be taken down. So what we are talking about is the cost to demolish this property. This proposal is more than fair. Mr. Butts and I are willing to answer any questions. Member Mannhardt questioned why the owner on record is not involved is this.

            Bill Butts responded that this lady was elderly and borderline mentally incompetent and in the Nursing Home for a long period of time. Sometimes these things are not even practical to open the estate on. The Village has been trying to deal with this for years. It is an eyesore on the main road on the highway. We think that this is an extremely fair proposal for all concerned. We are not looking for attorney fees or anything; we want this taken down and are willing to split the costs and asking you to wave the landfill fees. This would allow us to remedy this situation at minimal cost to you. It is in the best interest of everyone to get this matter resolved. The County Board also has the authority, on their own, to order a property demolished. This could come back to your hands. Member Knapp questioned the underground tanks. Mr. Butts stated that we are only dealing with what is above the ground. Member Parsons asked about the cost for our half of the demolition. Mr. Butts answered that they are estimating about $5,000. Member Johnson asked about the type of building. Mr. Butts stated that previously it was a service station. Member Saline asked if when the demolition is complete the County will still own this property. Mr. Butts responded affirmatively.

            Member Bacon questioned what would be the normal landfill fees for something like this. Larry Larson responded that the normal fee is $24.50 per ton. If the metal is scrapped out there is probably 1 to 1 ½ truck loads. The fee would probably be less than $500.

            Member Parsons asked if the County Board can deed it back to Victoria . Mr. Mangieri responded that they might not want it. Since we own the property, we could in theory transfer ownership to another governmental entity. However, there are some other issues involved.

            Mr. Butts stated that our main concern is to take care of what is on the surface. Member Mannhardt stated that we should go after the property owner before the County is involved. There are a lot of other old gas stations in this County that might go the same route in the future. I think that this is an important decision that we have to make. Member Pickrel stated that we should split the costs and go ahead with this. We have no choice. When the day comes and we decide to sell it, then the EPA would have to conduct tests. Mr. Mangieri stated that he agrees. Member Johnson asked if the rules could be suspended to vote on this matter at this meeting. Mr. Mangieri stated that relative to the open meetings act, since this was not put on the agenda for final action, it would be premature to do so tonight. It is up for discussion and not for action. I do agree with Member Johnson. It would be best to take action on this matter in two weeks. Member Johnson asked if this would have to go to court, if we do this. Mangieri responded that no, I anticipate that we do not have to file an answer to the claim until June 27. We will have sufficient time to draft an agreed order, as described in this proposal.

            Chairman Occhi introduced the presentation and discussion of a new mail machine. Treasurer Robin Davis distributed information to the Board Members from Pitney Bowes and company representative Chris Slack. She stated that this is coming up because the United States Postal Service is doing away with some of the meters that they have. Our meter is set to be retired in December 2006. This proposal is being presented now because Pitney Bowes has a financing plan that expires at the end of this month. This plan allows for two options. One is for a 48 month plan at 0% interest and the other for a 60 month plan at 1.9% interest. This particular machine will offer a lot of savings functions. For one thing the return receipts will allow us to save $1.75 per return receipt. We average 60 and 100 return receipts per month. Also we do not need maintenance agreements while we are financing this. There is a spreadsheet that I passed out to you which shows the different maintenance agreements that we have right now and what we pay on an annual basis. Since we just paid them in April, they are going to reimburse us eight months worth. For this year, the cost would be much less than it would be in the future. I recommend option 2 which is 60 months because it is only going to cost us $400 for the 1.9% interest. It would save quite a bit as we wouldn’t be doing the maintenance agreement.

            Mr. Slack stated that the maintenance adds up to about 7% to 8% per year. We are the only company that manufactures and distributes our product in the United States . As regards the postal update, they are going to go from a pressed system to a more secure system of keeping track of the postage. They are going to be using an ink-jet spray. Pitney Bowes has come out with different programs to encourage customers to make this change before the actual deadline. That is why we are offering incentive programs. Over the life of the lease, you are looking at saving $5,000. Member Mannhardt asked how we pay for postage. Mr. Slack responded that right now Treasurer Davis is sending in a lump sum check and all we are doing is drawing down off of that check to pay for the postage. Under the new updated arrangement, we will be going digital through a phone line in back of the meter. This will free up cash as you will be paying for the postage as you use it. Member Johnson questioned if the 0% interest is on the 60 month term. Mr. Slack responded that the 0% is for the 48% month term. It is 1.9% on the 60 month term. Since maintenance costs can average $800-900 per year, it would be advantageous to go with the 60 month plan. Treasurer Davis stated that currently we are paying $2,100 to $2,200 per year for maintenance costs. Member Bacon asked about the life expectancy of this system. Mr. Slack stated that it should be as far into the future as we can foresee. Member Bacon asked about the trade-in value of our present equipment. Mr. Slack responded that it has no value because that system is going to be replaced. Member Johnson asked if we presently own or lease our present equipment. Treasurer Davis responded that we purchased it.

            Chairman Occhi introduced the appointment of a Board representative to the Knox County Board of Health. I would like to appoint Linda Roberts to this position. Motion was made by Member Saline and seconded by Member Bacon with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            Chairman Occhi appointed the following Board Members to the Ad Hoc Committee: Member Saline, Chairman; Member Johnson, Member Sandoval, Member Bacon, and Member Porter. Motion was made by Member Parsons and seconded by Member Knapp with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(12); Noes—(0). Pass—Saline, Sandoval—(2). Motion carried.

            Chairman Occhi introduced and displayed the Knox County Flag winning design. Administrator Hallberg told the Board that the winning design was submitted by the NSDAR of Knoxville and created by Rosealee Burgess. There are 20 stars representing the 20 townships of Knox County arranged on a blue field with the words “ Knox County ” in the center. Chairman Occhi said that we plan to have the winner at the next Board Meeting. Again we thank Member Link and Member Bacon for contributing the $100 prize money.

            Chairman Occhi introduced for approval the emergency zoning variance for CB105. Administrator Hallberg passed around photos pertinent to this variance to the Board Members. This involves a property located at 201 North Burst Street in Yates City . There was a fire at the residence and the insurance company provided them with a trailer to live in while the repairs are being done to the house. There have been some repairs done to the property. Last Thursday, I was contacted by the company that provided the trailer for the insurance company. They had been informed by the Sheriff’s office that they were going to come and make them move the trailer because it is violation of the zoning codes. It is against the zoning codes to have a trailer on a property in Yates City . The only option that would allow the trailer to remain on that property is if the County Board would declare a hardship case and specify conditional use.

            Today I received a letter from Jack Ball who is the attorney for Yates City . This letter was passed out this evening. It is his position that the hardship be denied as it would adversely affect the public welfare and the other properties in the area. There is also a concern about the above ground holding tank for sewage excrement.

            The Health Department was asked to inspect the septic system. They ruled that they would not mandate that it be hooked up to the city sewer as long as certain conditions were met. All of those conditions are being met. So we are looking at some direction from the County Board to declare a hardship or address it with a conditional use and put some stipulations on the length of time. The other possibility is to rule that it is not a hardship.

            Deb Canier, from the Knox County Zoning Office addressed the Board regarding the zoning ordinances. A hardship is defined as a difficult circumstance or extreme discomfort. If the trailer home is allowed to stay on the property, there are certain conditions that would have to be met.

            Board Members conducted a lengthy discussion regarding several issues relating to this proposed variance. Member Johnson asked if the property owner was doing his own work or if the work is being done by an outside contractor. Ms. Canier responded that she really didn’t know. In order to allow discussion to proceed, motion was made by Member Saline and seconded by Member Hevland to approve this emergency hardship zoning variance for CB105 for a period of four months. Member Johnson stated that the insurance company had obviously provided the trailer, but why does it have to be a trailer and why must it be located there? Mr. Hallberg stated that it was his understanding that it was at the owners’ request as there are no hotels in Yates City and they wanted to remain on the property. Member Bacon stated that they could take the trailer to a campground where it would be perfectly legal to rent a lot for the trailer. Ms. Canier stated that it was her understanding that the property owner wanted to remain on the property and monitor the construction work on the house. Member Porter questioned the time until repairs were completed. Mr. Hallberg stated that repairs would probably be completed by the first of October.

            Member Bacon stated that he would like to see them appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals first. Member Link agreed. Member Mannhardt stated that he could support the four months time frame. Member Porter reminded that Board that the letter from Jack Ball stated that Yates City does not want this hardship to be granted. Member Saline questioned State’s Attorney Paul Mangieri that even if we approve this we apparently have no weight in this matter as Yates City does not want it. Mr. Mangieri stated that there are concurrent jurisdictions, as there are two different municipalities. This Board is free to act unencumbered with what the other unit is going to do. Member Link would like the property owner to follow proper procedure and go through the Board of Appeals. Ms. Canier stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot allow a conditional use permit. Trailers are not allowed in Yates City . Member Johnson stated that he does not see this as a hardship, since he is not doing the work himself.

            Member Parsons questioned how many people are involved and if the family did come to the County Board or the City of Yates City, and try to work with them. Have they tried to communicate with anyone? The Victoria Village President stated that there had been no correspondence with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Mangieri reminded the Board of the procedures involved. The trailer is there and the violation is occurring. If you do not grant the variance, then it will be your responsibility to seek enforcement if there is not voluntary removal. While there has not been direct communication with the Zoning Board of Appeals, the homeowner recognizes that they are out of compliance and is asking for a variance. That is why this was put on tonight’s agenda. Member Porter asked Mr. Mangieri if the Board should act without regard to what Yates City might do. Mr. Mangieri responded they could. Member Saline questioned that if we vote to allow this, and Yates City says that they don’t care, whose job is it to enforce it? Mr. Mangieri stated that they have to decide whether to grant a hardship or to not enforce their own ordinance. Member Saline stated that the we could spare ourselves some headaches by voting yes on this and allowing Yates City to do whatever they want to do, whether it is the right thing to do or not. Member Porter stated that this could be a dangerous thing to do. Then we would be responsible for enforcing or not enforcing. Roll call vote to allow the variance for four months as follows: Ayes—Porter, Occhi, Knapp, Hevland, Roberts, Mannhardt—(6); Noes—Keiser, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Saline, Sandoval, Parsons, Johnson—(8). Motion failed.

            Chairman Occhi introduced for discussion the Knox County Scenic Drive funding request. Member Knapp stated that the representatives from this organization had contacted him asking for an answer. They had made their presentation and request some months ago and I think that we at least owe them a response. Member Pickrel stated that we should discuss their request. They were looking for any help that we could give them. There are lots of things to think about; it would be good if we could help them. Member Bacon stated that we are trying to hold the line on the budget. Member Mannhardt stated that years ago they used to take a percentage off the stands to pay for their advertising. Some communities designate a percentage of the hotel/motel tax for certain purposes. There is an alternate source of revenue. Member Porter shared her opinion that she doesn’t think that we should start contributing to events like this. Member Johnson said that he agrees. Last year we didn’t have the funds to donate to the Knox County Fair and I don’t think it would be advantageous to donate to the Scenic Drive . Chairman Occhi asked if this was the consensus of the Board Members. Various Members agreed. Member Parsons suggested that Administrator Hallberg draft a letter to the Scenic Drive Committee informing them that funds are not available to contribute to these events.

            Chairman Occhi presented for approval the resolution on deed of conveyance for parcel #1018233006. Motion was made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Link to approval this resolution. County Clerk Scott Erickson informed the Board Members of the information in the Member packets. The County received this property on a tax deed July 14, 2003 . Although it was put up for auction, nobody wanted it. The property was offered up for contract and a few people were interested. However, one stipulation of the contract was to put down earnest money. Two interested parties failed that requirement. They do now have an interested person. This would allow the County to issue a tax deed to this buyer and would put it back on the tax rolls. Member Porter suggested that we need to delete references to the finance committee on this resolution. Clerk Erickson stated that it could be changed. Motion was made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Link to approve this resolution with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            Chairman Occhi introduced for approval the resolution establishing uniform real estate transfer tax. Recorder Nancy McCune stated this will allow us to collect revenue stamps on leased ground.  It covers up a loophole in the original legislation.  Motion was made by Member Link and seconded Member Parsons with voice vote as follows:—Ayes (14). Noes—(0) Motion carried.

            7:00 p.m. Motion was made by Member Parsons and seconded by Member Roberts to move to closed session to discuss labor negotiations with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            7:23 p.m. Returned to open session.

            Chairman Occhi introduced for approval the bid for a new vehicle for the Sheriff’s department. Sheriff Thompson reminded the Board Members of the information in the Member packets and told them that this is the same information that was handed out a couple of meetings ago. Motion was made by Member Johnson and seconded by Member Knapp to accept the Louis Lakis bid of $21,312.55. Member Keiser questioned the annual cost to drive a four wheel drive. Sheriff Thompson responded there is not much difference in the cost as this is a six cylinder vehicle. There is a difference of about 2 mpg. Member Keiser stated that she would vote against purchasing additional four wheel drive vehicles. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(11); Noes—Keiser, (1). Pass—Sandoval, Roberts—(2). Motion carried.       

            Administrator Hallberg presented the animal control business report. As mentioned in the previous meeting, we are continuing to watch pending legislation in Springfield .

            Rod Cleair presented the Mary Davis Home business report. Things are going well. Currently, we have 37 kids with 10 of those from Knox County . We have received all of the equipment for the grant that we received for the kitchen. We have not been paid from the State. Member Bacon asked if we get paid from the Counties regularly. Mr. Cleair responded affirmatively. Of course, it depends when their county board meeting is scheduled. We have been averaging $15,000 to $20,000 a month over what we had anticipated. We billed nearly $99,000 last month. This is nearly $30,000 over what we had anticipated. Right now the State owes the Mary Davis Home about $300,000.

            Joyce Skinner presented the assessor/zoning report. She passed out information regarding commercial property tax appeals. A few months ago, the Board of Review asked me to draft a letter to all of the taxing bodies to solicit financial help to pay for professional appraisals. I only heard back from a few. The Turnberry apartments are located out by Hy-Vee on East Main . On the handouts you will see the highlighted total assessment from the Board of Review as well as the assessment from the appellant, concerning both the Turnberry apartments and Briggs in Abingdon. Tax rate appeals are obviously very important as it represents a lot of potential revenue. The appraisers from the County are master appraisers. Since we do not have the confirmed support from other taxing bodies, I need some direction from this Board on what to do.

            Member Parsons stated that we should go after Turnberry as there is less revenue coming in all the time. Mrs. Skinner stated that these are low income Section 42 apartments. All we are really asking is that the taxing bodies contribute a percentage of the tax rate to defray the costs to fight for our appraisals. Really the schools wind up collecting the majority of the tax revenue. Member Saline stated that they should be willing to participate as it will benefit them as much as it will benefit us. Member Porter asked how much money is left for appraisals. Mrs. Skinner responded that there is nothing left in that line item. Member Mannhardt stated that the possible benefits would outweigh the costs of the appraisals. Chairman Occhi said that the City of Abingdon had stated that they were confused by the letter and tabled it. Member Saline asked what would be needed. Mrs. Skinner stated that she needed $2500 to 2700. Member Porter stated that if it is comes down to a specific appraisal for a specific amount of money that it would be a good to approach the taxing bodies involved. The benefits could be considerable. Member Pickrel said that Abingdon Schools should know the possible benefits involved in this Briggs assessment as well as the possible costs to the school district. Member Bacon asked if they could have a breakdown of the figures showing the actual cost and the benefits. Mrs. Skinner questioned what we should do if we don’t here from them. Should be still go ahead? Member Porter stated that we need to go ahead and take the risk and make the arrangements to pursue this, and then work on getting the money. Member Saline stated that it is worth fighting for. Then we should send out some exact notices to every taxing body, so they know what they are going to spend and what the benefits would be. Mrs. Skinner questioned what we are to do if we miss the deadline, there are time constraints. Member Saline stressed that the other taxing bodies need to understand that they need to participate in this also. Member Mannhardt questioned how much money would the Abingdon School District lose on this Briggs situation. Mrs. Skinner responded that she didn’t know the exact amount. Member Link said that we need to go ahead with this and the other taxing bodies need to help us with the expense. Mrs. Skinner stated that is only going to mushroom. Other taxing bodies should help us.

            Member Porter suggested that it wouldn’t hurt to get on the agendas of some of these board meetings, such as the school board. Give them an opportunity to ask questions. Send them a letter but get on the agenda as well. Mrs. Skinner responded that she was willing to do that. Member Link stated that he would phone the Abingdon School Board. Member Johnson asked if this would be on the next meeting’s agenda for a vote. Mrs. Skinner stated that she needed direction from the Board. I will have to act on the Briggs situation. Member Saline stated that we cannot approve this tonight. Member Parsons reminded the Members of the time frame involved. Member Johnson stated that we could take a consensus. Mrs. Skinner questioned if the consensus is to go ahead. Chairman Occhi asked for a consensus from the Board Members. Various Board Members agreed.

            Larry Larson presented the landfill business report. We are proceeding with cell number 10. In two or three weeks, the earth work will be completed. We are still talking winter before we get any waste on it. Also, we are getting some contaminated dirt in from Kewanee. I just heard today that one of our trucks was picked up for being over-weight. Member Saline asked if the truck was hauling fluff. Mr. Larson stated that this driver had a large trailer. Member Bacon asked how the tarp machine was progressing. Mr. Larson responded that we have all the materials to finish building, but the project is on hold until we get the cell done. Member Johnson asked Administrator Hallberg if he had been out to look at the building. Mr. Hallberg responded that he had discussed it with Mr. Larson but had not been out there. Member Johnson stated we are talking about the building for the trailers, maintenance, and possibly an office out there. Mr. Larson stated that we would need direction from the Board if we want to go ahead and do that. If we have an office out there, we would need a secretary, and that would be another person to employ. As far as erecting a building, I can budget that, but I think that it would be a mistake to build that for the trailers, until we know that the fluff contract will be extended. Right now that contract is scheduled to expire in December 2006. Member Johnson stated that the building is not to park the trailers in; it is for pulling tractors and equipment into the building to work on them. Mr. Larson responded that we do have a building for that. Member Johnson stated that everything that he had been told said that this building is not adequate. Mr. Larson stated we cannot get the whole tractor and trailer in but you can get part of it in, to work on either the front or the back. We don’t do major work on any of that equipment. If it involves major work, it gets contracted out.

            Duane Raterman presented the highway business report. The County Highway 40, the seal coat has been applied and it has been re-opened. We will apply another seal coat later this summer and then it should be good for several years into the future. County Highway 1, this morning the power company shut the power off at about 9:30 this morning and we began setting 12 spans which make up the entire drainage structure. This was completed this afternoon. Tomorrow they will set the wing walls. We are still looking at three to four weeks before that structure is re-opened. County Highway 31, the south side curb and gutter has been poured. The north side curb should be poured tomorrow. Some time next week we will start laying black top. We anticipate that it should be done the first of July.

            The recycler demonstration out on County Highway 9 was last Wednesday. The seal coat has been applied to that road. We will probably put a hot mix over the top of it next spring. Member Bacon asked how that machine worked. Mr. Raterman responded that it did a fine job. It was more machine than our machine is. This machine was going 25 feet a minute. Ours goes at 4 to 6 feet a minute. The week of June 20, we are going to demo a Bo-Mac recycler up on County Highway 2. At that point we will decide which one we like and decide which direction we want to go. Right now our recycler is in Henry County . They have scheduled work through July 25. Member Pickrel asked the reason for the curbs and gutters out by Lake Storey . Mr. Raterman responded that it has always been a maintenance issue. This makes it easier for us to widen and improve the road within the existing right of way limits if we install curbs and gutters. Also because of the number of residents in that area, it seemed like the smart thing to do. Member Link stated that this project goes back almost two years. Member Pickrel went on to say that some residents had asked why some areas got curbs and gutters and other areas did not.

            Duane Raterman presented for first reading an agreement of understanding for maintenance and construction with IDOT. Essentially we have been operating under this understanding since 1995. For any motor fuel tax projects, truck access route projects, any state funding except federal funded projects, we would create the plans in house. These plans would not have to be reviewed by IDOT. I would oversee the design and seal it. The only thing that IDOT asks is that we maintain an adequate staff. There is no money involved. It doesn’t change the way that we do business; it just takes their review out of the process. Member Bacon questioned if things moved faster. Mr. Raterman responded affirmatively. We are probably cutting a month out of the process. Member Saline asked if IDOT is comfortable with this. Mr. Raterman stated yes, the State is actually promoting it. Member Johnson asked if we would need to increase our staff for this agreement. Mr. Raterman responded we are adequately staffed.

            County Administrator Allen Hallberg presented the Nursing Home business report. Nursing Home Administrator Marianne Wiesen is attending a meeting in Bloomington . For the census report, there are 143 residents. The remodeling is going well. One half of wing two is completed. The other part should be done is a week or so. We will make the deadline. The elevator work is going to start June 13. Ms. Wiesen would like to invite the County Board out to the Nursing Home June 23, between 2-6 p.m. She wants you to see the remodeling work before they start moving residents back to that wing. She is working on some other ideas on how to utilize the referendum money. As far as finances, we have not had to borrow from the referendum fund. The bookkeeper is still working on cleaning up the books. They are still bringing in some old money. In the coming budget, she would like to budget for a census of 150 for the whole facility, feeling that is more realistic. The revenue estimate for this year was $7.3 million. The future budget is looking more like $6 million. Project Lifesaver raised $500 during the loft party.

            Administrator Allen Hallberg asked that the bid to conduct a survey on the Nursing Home farmland be removed from the table. Motion was made by Member Porter and seconded by Member Link to remove that business item from the table with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried. Administrator Hallberg reminded the Board Members of the information concerning survey estimates in the Member packets. I am recommending hiring Bruner, Cooper and Zuck to conduct this survey for $2,250 and an additional fee of $250 for a preliminary engineering study for the purposed road. Schrader’s estimate was $3,250 not to exceed $4,500. Both of these include about a three week time table to complete this project. After this comes back, I will bring a resolution to you. This will include a clear definition of which land needs to stay with the Nursing Home and which does not. Motion was made by Member Link and seconded by Member Knapp to approve the survey bid from Bruner, Cooper, and Zuck for a total cost of $2,500 with roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            Chairman Occhi introduced for approval the re-opening of the budget to increase the expenditure line item for the farm account. Motion was made by Member Pickrel and seconded by Member Parsons to do so. Treasurer Robin Davis stated that we need to increase the contingency by the $2,500 for the cost of the survey. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes—Porter, Keiser, Occhi, Knapp, Link, Pickrel, Bacon, Hevland, Saline, Sandoval, Roberts, Parsons, Mannhardt, Johnson—(14); Noes—(0). Motion carried.

            Administrator Allen Hallberg presented the business report. Illinois Power phoned and said that they would have the lights removed from the Hardee’s parking lot by the end of August. Regarding cable franchises, I am to meet with an Insight official on June 13. With Rio Cable there is a question concerning their current agreement with Lake Bracken . Mr. Mangieri and other attorneys are working on that. Oneida Telephone contacted me and said that their franchise will begin to offer cable service through their phone lines. Sidwell will be coming June 21 and 22 to provide two day training for myself, the assessor’s office, highway department, and health department. Also for the next meeting, you will see some information in the Member packets concerning a proposal to hire a GIS analyst to manage the system for us. I have been collecting salary information and creating a job description. At the Annex the three electrical meters were combined the 26^th and there were no problems. The bill from MSI is for $432. A new hard plastic sign is being made to put on the front of the Annex building. This sign will reflect the changes in the offices. I did have the County Seal put on the front door of the Annex.

            As regards the Rural Development Task Force, I am now a member of that committee. Regarding City gas purchases, I have met with Mr. Goddard. He has provided me with some information. Member Mannhardt asked if he was considering put the gas tanks at the jail downtown. Mr. Hallberg responded that in preliminary discussions we had talked about putting them at the Mary Davis Home. Member Mannhardt stated that he has concerns about the distance and the time involved and feels that it would be better if the fuel tanks were located downtown. Mr. Hallberg stated that it would be up to the Board to decide where to put these tanks. It seems that the plan with the City would be best. Member Link shared his opinion that it best to work with them first.

STATEMENTS OF GENERAL CONCERN

            Member Porter, Member Keiser, Member Occhi, Member Knapp, Member Link, Member Pickrel, Member Bacon, Member Hevland, Member Saline, Member Sandoval, and Member Roberts had no comments at this time.

            Member Parsons commented about the recent death of former Board Member Robert Morris who was buried this afternoon. Member Parsons asked for a moment of silence in his memory.

            Member Mannhardt had no comment at this time.

            Member Johnson commented that he would like to call on the Sheriff at the next Board meeting to give this Board a full report on his department, like we used to get. This report should include how many inmates that we have, how many federal prisoners that we have, where we are on the budget, etc. We haven’t heard that information in quite some time. I heard a rumor that other day that we only have one federal prisoner. I think that it would be nice if the Sheriff made that report in the next meeting.

            Chairman Occhi announced that the next regular meeting of the Board will be held on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 at 6 p.m. , at the Knox County Courthouse, Galesburg , Illinois .

            Motion was made by Member Sandoval and seconded by Member Parsons to adjourn. Voice vote and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.