Members Present Mr. James, Ms. Bernard, Mr. Enz, Mr. Mulcahy, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Polk, Mr. Snipes, Mr. Lagesse, Ms. Dionne, and Mr.

Transcription

1 Members Present Mr. James, Ms. Bernard, Mr. Enz, Mr. Mulcahy, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Polk, Mr. Snipes, Mr. Lagesse, Ms. Dionne, and Mr. Skutt Members Absent Mr. Arseneau In Attendance Board Members Mr. Bossert and Mr. Pagast Department Heads Roger Diercks, John Shoopman, and Bruce Clark Media 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. James, at 9:00 a.m. Quorum present. 2. Public Comment None. 3. Approval of minutes March 22, 2011 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Mr. McConnell and seconded by Mr. Enz. Motion carried. 4. County Clerk: Bruce Clark Monthly Report The Committee reviewed the Monthly Report. A motion to accept the Monthly Report as presented was made by Mr. Snipes and seconded by Ms. Dionne. Motion carried. Mr. Mulcahy asked Mr. Clark to give an update on where they are at in the tax cycle. Mr. Clark stated that they had put together an Ad Hoc Tax Committee and had set a target date of April 27 of this month for turning over the tax rates to the Treasurer and they will hit that target date. They still have about 12 taxing bodies that have not responded to their request for signing off on the tax rates. They will go ahead and extend the rates and turn them over to the Treasurer on April 27. They are right where they planned to be. He thinks the Treasurer had planned to send the bills out the middle of May. Page 1

2 Establishing Fees for Civil Unions in K3 County Mr. Snipes asked what the difference was between civil unions and marriage. Mr. Clark stated that in January Governor Quinn signed a law (Public Act ) to allow for civil unions in Illinois which will be in effect June 1 of this year. We will need to establish the processes to process any individuals, two persons of either the same sex or opposite sex, to enter into a civil union. The county board should establish fees for this. The act does not give a dollar amount. Mr. LaGesse asked why we would consider any fee other than what a marriage license is. Mr. Clark stated that it did not provide for a fee but he would suggest that a fee should be established by the county board of $20.00 which would be the same as a marriage license. Normally, a dollar amount is given but there was not one given in this act. He would think that we would charge the same as a marriage license. Mr. Snipes asked what a civil union means. Mr. Clark stated that by the Act a civil union is a legal relationship that is recognized in Illinois between persons of either the same sex or opposite sex that are established by Public Act Mr. James asked what kind of verification is needed to sustain this. Mr. Clark stated the Department of Public Health Division of Vital Records has established an application for a civil union and in the civil union they sign an affidavit and do provide identification. Civil unions cannot occur between people that are under the age of 18, people who are in another marriage or civil union, or between an aunt and an uncle and a niece or a nephew. They can occur between first cousins and between an ancestor and a descendent between siblings where the relationship is half or whole blood or by adoption. If a divorce occurs within a year, evidence of dissolution of the relationship is required. Ms. Bernard asked what the stipulations of a marriage are. Mr. Clark stated that if a person is 17 they have to have consent of the parent. There cannot be a marriage between first cousins unless it is after the age of 55. Mr. Enz stated that he can see where this could be a problem in the future with insurance coverage, etc. Are there any safeguards in the act to prohibit that? Mr. Clark stated that that is why they did it. Mr. LaGesse stated that he doesn t think we are here to argue the law it has passed. We are here to name the fee. Page 2

3 Mr. LaGesse made a motion to set the fee at $20.00 which is the same as a marriage license and Mr. McConnell seconded it. Mr. Snipes stated that generally he is not opposed to fees; however, he is in opposition to any law that is against his biblical belief. With that being said, he will have to vote in opposition of this. Mr. James asked if a normal practice has been established yet as to how these fees are being handled. Is there an exception whereby the fee could be more because of more paperwork? Mr. Clark stated that the Marriage Act says that fees for marriage licenses shall be $15.00 plus $5.00 to go to the domestic shelter fund. If we want to raise those fees, the county board has to do a cost study and based on the cost of doing that the fee can be raised. Iroquois County charges $33.00, Livingston County charges $30.00, Grundy County charges $30.00, and Will County charges $28.00 so we are low in our marriage fee. Because this act does not specify a dollar amount, some counties feel like they don t have any authority to charge anything except the $4.00 for issuing. There is a bill, House Bill 465, which addresses civil union fees. It went before the House; the initial bill failed 46 to 54 that would allow for counties to charge up to $75.00 without a cost study for the marriage and civil union fee but it is being reintroduced. There are a lot of costs involved in this. They are required by law to issue brochures about aids and other communicable diseases. The State stopped publishing those so where is the money going to come to do that which is required. The pamphlets for a year cost $ A new law was passed last year that requires them to give out information about fetal death syndrome due to alcohol but they didn t provide the brochure to do that. There are costs in publishing that where is it going to come from? They do not have it in the County Clerk s supply line item. There has to be a separate recording system for the civil registration fees. They will figure out a way to do that but there are additional fees. Mr. LaGesse asked if it would be proper to go ahead and make the fee $20.00 and then proceed with a study that could be brought back to the committee and see if it needs to be raised. Mr. Clark stated that he thinks that could be done. Hopefully before that, House Bill 465 will pass as it is being reintroduced. He does believe keeping fees low is a competitive thing but if there are big differences between jurisdictions then you lose that business. Ms. Bernard stated that she thinks it is important to keep the fees consistent for both licenses. Is there a way that the brochures could be put online? Mr. Clark stated that they can but they are required to issue that brochure when people apply for the license which is a good thing because you do want to advise people about the things to watch out for in a marriage. Page 3

4 Mr. McConnell asked if it would be appropriate to add on to the motion that those fees would be examined and we would come back to do that. Mr. Bossert stated that the thinks the motion should stay as it is. The study can still be done and it can be brought back to the committee. The original motion carried with a voice vote. Mr. Snipes opposed. Death Certificate Surcharge Fund Mr. Clark stated that back in 2001 the State passed a law to fund and provide for them to charge $2.00 for every death certificate that they issue. It would go to the Death Certificate Surcharge Fund and when the money would go down to Springfield then they would redistribute that money which was the purpose of that bill. 25% would go to the Coroner s Necropsy Fund, 25% to the Coroner s Examiner s Fund, 25% to the Death Surcharge Fund, and 25% would go to the County Clerk. He thinks it has been distributed a couple of times since Since 2003, in Kankakee County they have collected $153,532. He has been advised that the Death Certificate Surcharge Fund has been swept away by the State and probably won t come back. In the last three years, the fund has lost over $2.5 million dollars. They did indicate that they are going to borrow that fund but he doubts that they will see any funds coming back from that. The statewide balance after March 21, 2011 was $200,000 and the Electronic Death Registration System will probably use all of that. Mr. James asked if there was anything that the committee could do to make a difference. Mr. Clark stated to just be aware of it and if through the different county associations there is any contact with any legislators they could be made aware of this. He thinks there is going to be an association meeting in May where he and Bob Gessner will raise the issue and concerns. Precinct Changes Mr. Clark stated that time for precinct changes occurs in June or July. He would like to suggest some changes in the coming months. Ten years ago they tried to gear precinct lines towards 600 registered voters, but a lot of things have happened since that time. They have to split precincts if there is over 800 voters but with electronic voting, no excuse mail-in voting, early voting, and with the decline in turn-out those precincts can be a lot bigger. Their range in precinct size is from up to He would like to suggest some changes that would make the precincts bigger. When that is done, money is saved. If that can be coordinated with the redistricting so that those precincts are not split, that would make a big difference in cost savings, as well. The availability of polling locations is very important to keep in mind. Mr. James asked if the precinct size could be coordinated with the size of districts. How many precincts would be allowed in each district? Page 4

5 Mr. Clark stated that there are 65,000 registered voters. If those are divided by 800, that comes out to 81 precincts. We now have 90 now. Some precincts could be dropped which would save some money. Mr. Skutt asked if the precincts are determined by voter population and is this part of the redistricting process. Mr. Clark stated that they are determined by registered voters. The election code requires them to be passed at the June or July county board meeting. He would suggest that it be passed at the July one. Mr. Bossert stated that at the Redistricting Committee meeting they have talked about timeline and the sequence of events and are thinking that the county board map would be established with an eye towards precinct boundaries and possible realignment. The precinct lines wouldn t be adopted until just after the county board map is adopted. He hopes the state legislative map is done about the same time so that can be coordinated with our precincts, perhaps even the city wards, as well. Trying to get coordination between all three layers and not have precincts that are split between multiple county board districts and multiple wards in the city is our goal but is easier said than done. It is just leaning towards more and more confusion at the precinct level. Mr. Snipes asked if there is a projected draft from Mr. Clark s department that can add some guidance to the way the map is being drawn. To basically make sure that the cost effectiveness of his office is incorporated into the map drawing so it is not costing the tax payers additional dollars. Mr. Clark stated that he thinks that is important and it does really make a difference how those precinct lines are drawn in terms of how the election runs and in terms of confusion to voters. Ms. Bernard asked what the average cost per precinct was. Mr. Clark stated that at the precinct level it is $1800. Mr. Bossert stated that Mr. Clark has reminded us in the past that the precinct cost is going to get higher because of the cost of printing ballots. We are probably going to have to move to bilingual ballots. We are faced with trying to economize where we can. Mr. Clark had mentioned the possibility of perhaps consolidating some precincts. A number of them are on the small side. Mr. Clark stated that they can handle the larger precincts and he is going to encourage precincts to be raised to make for larger precincts. Mr. Bossert stated that there a number of precincts that are at registered voters. Are they having problems handling an election in those precincts or is that a realistic number? Page 5

6 Mr. Clark stated that they are not having problems. 5. GIS: Roger Diercks GIS Census Website Mr. Diercks stated that he wanted to take a few minutes and show the census website that the GIS department developed in response to a number of questions from elected officials and the public. He demonstrated the website on the flat screens for the committee to see. He is in conversations with the Redistricting Committee and Mr. Bossert about ways that GIS can assist in that process. Mr. Bossert stated that Mr. Diercks has come up with several good tools to help in the redistricting process. 6. Assessor: John Mac Shoopman Monthly Report The Committee reviewed the Monthly Report. A motion to accept the Monthly Report as presented was made by Mr. McConnell and seconded by Mr. Skutt. Motion carried. Mr. Shoopman stated that his office is monitoring the 2011 changes that are coming in from the townships at this point in the tax cycle. In this stage of tax cycle, they will be anticipating a sales ratio study from the Illinois Department of Revenue to compare with their preliminary ratio studies that they run in-house. They are also anticipating a farmland assessment. They will meet with the Farmland Review Committee sometime in June. They also have been meeting with the Ad Hoc Tax Committee on the change in the public act where manufactured homes come into the County now would be treated as real estate. They are looking at how that registration process could be streamlined. There are so many different regulating bodies involved in the process that it is difficult for the manufactured home and the mobile home park operators to know what is expected of them. The county has about 2793 manufactured homes at this time. Ms. Bernard asked if tied down homes will now be assessed as stick built home under the new law. Mr. Shoopman stated that if they have a manufactured tag on them and they are outside of the park, they are assessed as real estate. Units that are in parks are assessed as privileged. Approximately 246 units are out of those parks and are in the county and they are grandfathered in and are still privileged until such time that they are relocated. If you own some land and wanted to move your mobile unit on to that piece of land then you would be assessed as real estate. Ms. Bernard stated that she thinks one of the issues that come up time and time again is that we are looking at 2500 units at mobile home parks and the people who live there end of paying as much or more than people who have a stick built home. Page 6

7 The problem is the way these parks are assessed. They are assessed on improvements there so the amount of revenue that is collected to fund schools, police, infrastructure, etc. is no where near what it should be compared to what people pay in stick built homes. She knows there is an option where the mobile home park owners are assessed on the amount of income that they are taking in. That at least brings a little bit of fairness into helping to fund the infrastructure. She thinks we need to examine the feasibility of this. Mr. Bossert asked if we are getting any more clarity on the issue of how we use the less than arm s length sales in an area. Have we come up with a definition of what s an area as to whether those get used in his ratio studies? Mr. Shoopman stated that the Compulsory Transaction Act seems to define short sales and real estate owned which would be property that had been foreclosed upon now that the lending institutions own that property. When they sell that then they track that sale price right along with the short sales. The RETD form, the disclosure form that Illinois uses, now identifies those so starting January 1 they started tabulating those. They look at those and see how many they have in terms of a jurisdiction and they plot those sales against their assessed values which creates a ratio. Mr. Diercks is going to plot those on the GIS for us so we can see where they are dispersed. Typically, they do their local equalization effort through multi-township efforts so they will probably be looking at that first to see if that is the most logical way to define the impact of those compulsory transactions. The law says that they have to look at a threshold of 25% so we look at our arm s length and we have 25% or more compulsory transactions then they will blend those in with the arm s length which will obviously cause reduction in the increase in the EAV and a reduction in terms of how we equalize those on a county-wide basis. They are collecting that data and tabulating it. They will know when they get part-way through the year how that is forming up. 7. Recorder: Lori Gadbois Ms. Gadbois was not able to attend the meeting. Monthly Report The Committee reviewed the Monthly Report. Mr. LaGesse stated that on the report the cash available number and the amount paid to the Treasurer are not the same. He was wondering if that was a typo. Mr. James stated that he will address the conflicting numbers with Ms. Gadbois. A motion to accept the Monthly Report was made by Mr. LaGesse and seconded by Mr. Snipes. Motion carried. 8. Animal Control: Julie Boudreau Ms. Boudreau was not able to attend the meeting. Page 7

8 Monthly Report The Committee reviewed the Monthly Report. A motion to accept the Monthly Report as presented was made by Mr. Mulcahy and seconded by Mr. Skutt. Motion carried. 9. Old Business None 10. New Business Mr. Snipes asked if there is anything in place to make sure that when foreclosed properties go back to the lenders that they have a duty to maintain the properties. If the county has to do it, there should be a charge. Mr. James stated that he worked with foreclosures for about 30 years. Once a foreclosure gets in the process, it is somewhat in limbo as to who has the authority to do what. The laws are in such a way that they got their hands tied. If the foreclosing lender goes in and starts making improvements there is no way he can put a lien on it to protect his interests,cpuld so many do not do it. This is a zoning issue and even the zoning department has limited authority as to what they can do in a foreclosed situation. The thing that makes the difference is how many foreclosures a neighborhood has. Right now the city of Chicago has 70,000 foreclosures. The legal system is overloaded with them. Where it use to 90 days maximum it is now taking 18 months. Mr. Dionne stated that the way the foreclosure process goes today is that once the property starts to go into foreclosure it is assigned to a realtor then the realtor goes and talks to the person who is living in the home. At that point, they contract the Sheriff s office and serve them with papers. They will offer the person living in the home some money to move on or clean up the property and vacate on good terms. If the property has been trashed, the bank contacts the realtor and they contact the third party to take care of the property. Ms. Bernard stated that several months ago Karen Schmidt had brought in an ordinance from Memphis that we look at to tighten our ordinance. She talked to someone in PZA and there are problems with properties in the county. Even though there is a bank on record, they do not do anything. There are governments that have put laws in place that once the property gets in the hands of a lender, they have to register with the county, give contact information, and show who the local maintenance agent is. They also have to pay a registration fee. Mr. James stated the another thing that complicates the situation is that there are mortgage brokers that are no longer in business and a lot of the ownerships are floating around and nobody knows who owns them or who is responsible for them. Mr. Bossert stated that is the comment he has gotten from the city. We don t need to go to Memphis for an example. He has an ordinance that the city has adopted for abandoned and foreclosed property. The mayor s comment is that they are having a Page 8

9 heck of a time tracking down who is responsible. Often times in a foreclosure there is no deed filed for quite some time. They are having that discussion in Criminal Justice Committee meeting. He believes that he saw some legislation introduced that would allow local government to step in and perform maintenance and the bill for that would be attached to the property tax. There s a better chance that you will collect on a tax bill than just a lien on a property that may be negotiated away. Mr. James stated that we need to keep in mind that if we had the right to do this then we have to also come up with the funding. Right now the average cost to tear down a building is right around $18, Adjournment A motion was made by Mr. LaGesse and seconded by Mr. McConnell to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 a.m. Motion carried. Stan James, Chairman Joanne Langlois, Executive Coordinator Page 9