Kankakee Times

The Kankakee County Community Services Committee gathered for a regular meeting on Wednesday, March 23.

Here are the meeting minutes as provided by the Kankakee County Community Services Committee:

Community Services Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 1

Members Present

Mr. Liehr, Mr. Snipes, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Polk, Ms. Webber, Ms. Evans, and Mr. Wheeler

Members Absent

Mr. James, Mr. Sirois, and Mr. Skutt

In Attendance

 Board Members

Mr. Bossert

 Department Heads

Julie Boudreau, Erich Blair, Bruce Clark, and Lori Gadbois

 Media

None

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Committee Chairman, Mr. Liehr, at 9:00 a.m.

Quorum present.

2. Public Comment

3. Approval of Minutes – February 24, 2016

A motion to approve the minutes was made by Ms. Polk, and seconded by Ms. Evans.

Motion carried.

4. Recorder: Lori Gadbois

 Monthly Report

Mr. Wheeler made a motion to accept the report, and Ms. Polk seconded it. Motion

carried with a voice vote.

Ms. Gadbois stated that it’s been a good month again, so the committee will see some good

numbers in next month’s report.

Mr. Liehr asked if when Ms. Gadbois says it’s a good month, that’s compared to last year. He

stated that it’s down from January.

Ms. Gadbois stated that she compares month to month. Commercially is where they are seeing

some positives again.

5. County Clerk – Bruce Clark

 Monthly Report

A motion to accept the Monthly Reports as presented was made by Mr. Johnson, and

seconded by Ms. Evans. Motion carried with a voice vote.

Mr. Clark recognized the employees of the County Clerk’s office, who were present. He stated

that they did an incredible job in implementing a very complex and demanding election. Any

presidential election is always a challenge, and this one was especially so. He discussed with the

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 2

committee some of the statistics regarding the March 15, 2016, primary election. He stated that

the entire process resulted in 471 hours of overtime. It was mandated that they have those

expanded hours prior to the election, and the training classes necessitated additional overtime

hours that were used.

Mr. Clark stated that early voting hit the roof. They had 2,719 early grace votes cast before the

election compared to 967 in 2012, so the early votes tripled. Generally, in the past, those people

voting early takes the pressure off of the polling places on election day. They were mandated to

be open from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. the Sunday before election day, and they had 72 early

votes.

Mr. Clark stated that, in terms of implementation of the e-poll books, the night before the election,

they were going around until 9:00 p.m. to make sure the e-poll books were uploading. They

couldn’t get to about 38 of them that were still not up as of 9:00 p.m., so at 5:00 a.m., in the first

20 minutes, all but 8 came up, and they brought up the additional ones before 6:00 a.m. At 6:00

a.m., when the polls opened, all of the e-poll books were up and running, which exceeded the

expectations of even the experts. In terms of ballots, there were 14 polling places that had

additional ballots delivered to them. No one was turned away. They used touch screens where

they had ballot shortages, and then followed up with the delivery of those ballots to the polling

places. They finished counting the ballots at 9:30 p.m., which was earlier than expected, because

everything ran so smoothly. He believed that the judges embraced the technology, both young

and old. There were 21 high school students and 20 college students that supplemented the

election judges. He stated that this was the largest turnout in a primary election in recorded

history. The only one that comes close was in 1960 with 19,000 people casting ballots. Mr. Clark

stated that they had 1,539 people who did same day registration, or changed their registration at

the polling places, on election day.

Mr. Clark also wanted to thank Dr. Gregg Murphy, Mark Rogers, Brian Gadbois, Erich Blair, Jason

Johnson, and Carol Webber for their assistance.

Mr. Liehr asked Mr. Clark if he would be able to project a possible percent turnout in terms of

same day registration for the November election.

Mr. Clark requested that Mr. Hendrickson answer that question.

Mr. Hendrickson stated that they had 1,539 for the primary election, and to double that would not

be unreasonable, so possibly 3,000.

Mr. Liehr stated that, if people have a pretty good idea of how they want to vote, urging more early

registrations would be valuable to the public.

Mr. Clark stated that they will need to make improvements before the November election due to

so many people coming in to vote on election day. They have identified things that they want to

improve on so that people don’t have to wait an unreasonable amount of time.

Mr. Liehr stated that they may have provided, or may want to review, the script for judges to know

how to address the voter when they first come up in regards to the issue of identification.

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 3

Mr. Clark stated that they put that in writing for the judges on what to process at each station. In

writing, in bold, it says they cannot require identification for voting. The media had that on the

front page, but if you looked at the back page, it talked about only students. There is identification

required when you register to vote. You need two forms of identification, one with your current

address. There is identification required when you register to vote and you don’t provide a

signature. You can’t vote unless you provide that identification. If you don’t have that

identification, you can vote a provisional ballot. They don’t turn anyone away. The one issue in

Bourbonnais #14, on which they received a call at 4:30 p.m., was that they were requiring and

mandating I.D.’s. He went out to that location and what they were doing was telling people

identification wasn’t required, but if they had one, it would speed up the process.

6. Animal Control – Julie Boudreau

 Monthly Report

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the report, and Mr. Snipes seconded it. Motion

carried with a voice vote.

Ms. Boudreau discussed her report with the committee. She stated that the IPTIP total went

down. The 2003 GMC truck, with 238,000 miles on it, has a coolant leak. She will have it

checked out and hope that it’s a simple hose, not a coolant leak, but she will cross that bridge

when she gets there. She will be coming back next month to ask that the truck be declared

surplus.

Ms. Boudreau stated that they get a lot of criticism about their euthanasia rate, and people call all

of the time asking if they are a no kill shelter. Essentially, they meet the guidelines to say that

they are a no kill shelter. They strive to be low kill all of the time. They are at a 25% euthanasia

rate out of their numbers for the month, and 18% for the year.

Mr. Wheeler asked if IPTIP was a separate levy, or is that money collected from fees?

Ms. Boudreau stated that it’s been in savings for a long time. Prior to the economy crashing in

2008, they were getting a lot of interest, but she doesn’t believe she has ever had to take money

out of that fund for anything in her 16 years there.

Mr. Bossert stated that is surplus money that accumulated at one time and was moved over to an

investment account.

 Amendment to Ordinance re: 510 ILCS 5/9 Running at Large (Spay/Neuter)

Ms. Boudreau had put in a request to the State’s Attorney’s office a few months ago asking them

to review and update the ordinance as a whole, with specific attention to those things that have

passed under State law in January. Animal Control laws have always been a little bit ambiguous,

and are always confusing. They are trying to meet the needs of all of the counties in the state,

and the counties all differ very much.

Ms. Boudreau went over the highlighted portions of the ordinance that she handed out to the

committee members.

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 4

From 510 ILCS 5/9 Running at Large (Spay Neuter), Chapter 8, paragraph 359, Ms. Boudreau

quoted, in part: “A dog found running at large contrary to the provisions of this Act a second or

subsequent time must be spayed or neutered within 30 days after being reclaimed unless already

spayed or neutered; failure to comply shall result in impoundment.” She stated that they have

that in the local ordinance, but the problem is that when a person is leaving after the second time,

and you tell that person that they have to have their animal spayed or neutered within 30 days, it

often doesn’t happen. Animal Control could go and impound them, and they have on an occasion

or two. It is not a good use of their time and resources as it makes the situation kind of hostile.

Usually, it’s the third time that they get impounded. She understands that Chicago is very different

from Kankakee County, but the animals get impounded there the first time, and they don’t leave

without being spayed or neutered. Kankakee County requires cats to be vaccinated, registered,

and microchipped, as well as dogs. A lot of times, in the state law, it will refer to “dog”, and

sometimes, it will refer to “cat”, and other times they don’t. She doesn’t believe it is fair that when

a dog is found running at large twice, it’s mandated that this has to be done, but not a cat. She

would like to add cats into our local ordinance, and also, at the end of it, that we could require they

be spayed or neutered prior to being reclaimed the second time. She could use the word “shall”,

but she thought that maybe the word “may” would work better. When some people come in, you

can tell that they are very much in favor of it, and you’re pretty confident that they are going to

move forward and do that. There are other ones on first impoundment that are angry, and say

that there is no way they are going to have their animal spayed or neutered. Animal Control does

give people a paper that they have to read and sign, and she believes they Kankakee is the only

county that does that. That paper lets them know that this is the law, and some positive reasons

that they should do this, and to please take this opportunity to invest in their pet’s health.

Ms. Boudreau is requesting that these amendments are made to the local ordinance, to include

cats, and to give Animal Control the discretion to make the decision when they know they are up

against people who have no desire to spay or neuter.

Mr. Wheeler made a motion to accept these changes as stated, and Mr. Snipes

seconded it.

Discussion:

Mr. Bossert wanted a clarification as to what exactly the committee is modifying.

Ms. Boudreau stated that she is requesting that cat be added, and that the Animal Control Director

may require a dog or cat running at large contrary to the provisions a second time to be spayed or

neutered prior to release.

Mr. Wheeler stated that the other change was changing the word “shall” to “must”.

Ms. Boudreau stated that she had used the word “may”, but if the committee would rather use the

word “shall”, she would have no problem with that. It’s a little heavier handed, and she felt that the

word “may” gives her the opportunity that if someone comes in and is absolutely cooperative, but

finances are a little hard, she would like to allot them that 30 days. For the difficult situations,

where people are adamant that they are not going to do it, then she would have the discretion to

say, “Yes, you are”.

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 5

Ms. Evans stated that if they put the word “shall” in the ordinance, that leaves out the

interpretation. It’s a given if it’s written that they “shall”, and then it’s a done deal.

Original motion carried with a voice vote.

 Amendment to Ordinance re: Public Act 099-0310 Stray Animals

Ms. Boudreau stated that this is one of the laws that went into effect in January. There has been

a lot of confusion over the years, not only in our county, but in other counties, of who has the

authority to pick up a stray animal. The law is rather vague. She asked for an opinion from the

Department of Agriculture on this a few years ago, and what they can say is, in the Animal

Welfare Act, it stated that a humane society has the authority to take in owner-surrender animals.

It didn’t necessarily say they were prohibited from picking up strays. The Animal Control Act

identifies Animal Control as the agency to pick up strays. This is a voluminous Act to put into our

ordinance, so she is asking the State’s Attorney how it could be shortened without having to put

the entire Act into the ordinance. She discussed with the committee changes that would make the

language more consistent and not so vague.

Mr. Wheeler stated that, in Section 2 of 225 ILCS 605, under Definitions, throughout the

document, it states “no animal shelters or veterinary hospital”, but it does not address dog dealer,

kennel operator, cattery operator, and other places where animals can be dropped off. He is

wondering if that would be a way to document what they are taking in, and also the health of the

animal before it gets into the particular cattery or rescue facility within the county. He asked if that

intent to be in there if this document is drawn up.

Ms. Boudreau stated that they could certainly add that, and say that this applies to all of the

entities defined under this Act. She hasn’t seen that as being an issue, but maybe that’s because

it’s not being reported.

Mr. Bossert stated that, because there is a lot of language to be added to the ordinance, this

should probably go to the State’s Attorney first, and then back before this committee before going

to the full board. The committee may need input on the Welfare Act.

Mr. Wheeler made a motion to accept the recommendations, prepare an ordinance

modification that includes the other definitions that he spoke of earlier, and then bring it

back to this committee to be reviewed before it goes to the full board. This motion was

seconded by Mr. Snipes. Motion carried with a voice vote.

Ms. Boudreau spoke about the large packet that the committee members received in relation to an

organization that was misguided. The “no kill” label has caused individuals to become hoarders,

or hoard more, because everyone wants that “no kill”. It has created agencies to become

overwhelmed and overfull. Animal Control did perform an investigation, and had every cause to

file charges. She spoke with the State’s Attorney’s office about it, and it would have been a huge

endeavor having to shut them down and impounding over 200 extremely sick cats. Animal

Control decided, at the time, not to press charges, but to try to work with them and get them to

correct and take responsibility for things that were allowed to become a problem. Animal Control

created a list of things that the organization was supposed to do, and they haven’t really complied.

She has been assured that she will get the information she requested from them. She doesn’t

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 6

believe that the concerned people who sent the packet out weren’t out for a grudge or vendetta,

but thinks that they were really concerned that this organization wasn’t being transparent. She

applauds the Humane Foundation when their animals get sick, and they put that information right

out to the public. I asked that the organization at issue put out a public statement, and they would

have probably gotten more support from the community if they had. She does believe that they

have made improvements.

7. Assessor – Erich Blair

 Monthly Report

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the report, and Mr. Snipes seconded it. Motion

carried with a voice vote.

Mr. Blair stated that he wanted to put a cap on some things that he’s been talking about the last

couple of months, most notably related to the sales ratio study. When he last met with the

committee, he was just days away from being able to submit all of the documentation as far as

reconciling their detail list with the Department of Revenue (DOR) about which sales qualify for the

sales ratio study. Within 48 hours from the last meeting, he was able to do that, and he has

received the official study from the DOR. Along with that, because he now has official numbers,

he was able to provide the townships with their official three year study on March 4, 2016.

Mr. Blair discussed the percentage change that his office is requiring of the townships. The

county total is 1.8% positive. His initial prediction back in January was a 1.77% positive for the

county.

Mr. Snipes stated that, in the townships that have been changed, he noticed that Kankakee is

down. Does that mean that the assessments have been lowered in those areas, or they were

over assessed?

Mr. Blair stated that what that means is the numbers, as they currently sit, need to be reduced

3.87% on the non-farm values before he would have to equalize. If the assessor brings that

largely into compliance within a percent of that, then he wouldn’t need to equalize at all. If the

assessor does not come down the 3.87%, then he will have to equalize and reduce the value

further to get to that level.

Mr. Wheeler stated that he read an article in the newspaper that the farmland value dropped.

Mr. Blair stated that he did not see the article, but the valuation of farmland by the way the PI

values are calculated, he can see from the 2014 final abstract to the 2015 final abstract, and we

went up 10% in our farmland values by themselves. From the 2015 final to the 2016 tentative is

looking like it’s right around 9%, so he’s not sure where the newspaper got their information from,

but he would like to look at that article.

Mr. Bossert stated that the article in the newspaper was referring to fair market value, and what’s

going on in the farm economy in terms of arm’s length sales and that type of thing, which has

nothing to do with assessments. Assessments are calculated independently of fair market value.

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 7

Mr. Blair stated that is true. The farmland values are not calculated at a one-third value of the

estimated fair cash value, so it’s very different.

Mr. Bossert stated that it would be fair to say that the farmland assessments are probably stacked

up for several years of 10% increases.

Mr. Blair stated that he believes that is correct. The calculation that they use is that they take the

median PI level of 110 soil type and add 10% of that to all of the PI, so we are going to see a 9-

10% increase possibly every year. The lower PI’s, which are the lesser productive soils, are going

to get more than a 10% increase. The higher PI’s, which have a higher productivity, are going to

see the lesser increase, but when you balance it all out for the county total, we’re going to see

probably an 8-9% increase at least each year for the next few years.

Mr. Bossert stated there is a 10% limit, and there is probably a 40-50% increase built into the

formula, at least until grain prices in formula catch up to the reality of where we’re at right now.

Mr. Blair informed the committee that his office is continuing to work with the Maintenance

Department to make sure that their space is cleared out for the impending Treasurer’s Department

move to the other side of his department. He is still waiting on the records disposal certificates.

They also have a total of 14 filing cabinets that are going to be moved down into the basement.

They are working on #11 today, so they are close to having all of the files that can be moved to

the basement down there, and he hopes that by the end of next week, they will have all 14 in the

basement. That would leave six in his department, where they would have immediate access to

those files which they have not scanned yet. Those six cabinets are comprised of the Township of

Bourbonnais, which is about 30% of their parcel count, so they are about 2/3 of the way done with

the county as far as archival scanning.

Mr. Blair stated that, before the next meeting, he will be attending an Illinois Association of County

Officials (IACO) conference in Springfield on April 19, 2016. He has asked that few items be put

on the agenda for this meeting so that they can discuss related to the hospital situation. He was

told a couple of weeks ago that the Board of Review in Champaign County has voted to take the

hospitals back off the tax rolls and be a little more conservative about what they are going to do.

This reiterates basically what he previously told the committee, that it’s a little bit of a wait and see

to make sure we’re on solid footing before we put a value on the rolls that very likely will remain

exempt, as it has for decades. He has also put on the IACO agenda to talk about some rule

changes at the Board of Review that he will tell the committee about at a later date.

Mr. Blair stated that, in relation to the PTAB issues, he has done some preliminary analysis, but

he doesn’t have set numbers yet. There are 47 open residential PTAB cases, 18 open

commercial dockets, and 8 industrial dockets, currently unresolved, for a total of 73. At the next

meeting, he will give more context on some value reduction requests, and potentially what

percentage we might be looking at as far as actual reduction.

Mr. Snipes stated that it had been brought up in the past concerning the profit vs. the non-profit

part of hospitals. When he sees them building gymnasiums where they are getting money for

memberships, or renting out doctors’ offices, that part becomes more of a business aspect vs. a

non-profit aspect.

Community Services

Committee Meeting

March 23, 2016

Page 8

Mr. Blair stated that he assumed Mr. Snipes was speaking about the facility in Bourbonnais on

Route 45. That particular facility is not part of the exempt property. That is fully taxable.

Basically, all of the exempt hospital parcels reside in Kankakee Township. Those are the ones

that are currently exempt, and the ones that he expects will remain exempt. With respect to the

leasing portion of Mr. Snipes’ concern, it is the hospital’s responsibility to report to us when

something is leased, and, yes, it would be assessable at that point. If his office becomes aware of

something that is leased, and it’s exempt, they have the authority and the ability to go ahead and

put that on the tax rolls.

Mr. Bossert asked if the PTAB docket was across multiple years.

Mr. Blair stated that yes, it goes from 2010 to 2015.

8. Old Business

9. New Business

10. Adjournment

A motion was made by Mr. Johnson, and seconded by Mr. Wheeler, to adjourn the

meeting at 10:40 a.m. Motion carried.

Steve Liehr, Committee Vice-Chairman

Diane Owens, Executive Coordinator