CITY OF KANKAKEE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMBER 7, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: I
would like to call the meeting to order and ask Pastor John Tatum
from Building Your Faith Worship Center to come forward and lead us in prayer.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: Carl
Randle’s here.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Mr.
Randle would you lead us in prayer?
Would you like to come forward, please?
Thank you.
CARL RANDLE: Eternal
God, Father, we thank You Lord for Your goodness and for Your
kindness. We thank You God for this so great City. God, we pray for collaboration. We pray, God, for the City, God that You would help us, Lord, become visionaries. Lord, give us ideas, give us solutions. If ever there was a time we need Your help, we need it now and we pray, God, that You would
help our City fathers as well as our City mothers, God, that You would give
them visions and ideas to help this City.
And, we can work for what is best for all that lives in this City. We need Your help as
never before. We don’t want to go
down, we want to come up. And, if we
ever need You, we sure do need You now. Now we pray, God, that You
would deal with the hearts and the minds of all mankind, that You would touch
our hearts and our minds, Lord, that we would make the best decisions for the
City, not selfishly, but God for the City, for mankind. It’s my prayer in Jesus’ name. Amen.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. Alderman Baron, would you lead us
in the Pledge?
ALDERMAN BARON AND ALL: Pledge of Allegiance
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. Before we proceed with the roll
call, I’m sure I speak for the Aldermen as well as myself to extend our
condolences to Alderman Jones on the passing of her husband and to Alderman
Rich Browne on the passing of his brother.
We all send our condolences and our sympathy for your losses at this
time. Roll call, please
CLERK DUMAS:
PRESENT: Brown; Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade; Davidson; Cox (14)
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Department
Heads, please.
CLERK DUMAS:
PRESENT: Kinkade; Young;
Doyle; Spice; Bohlen; Power; Simms; Tyson; Rodriguez;
Gordon; Bertrand (11)
7:04 P.M.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. At this time in the agenda, we will
adjourn to a public hearing on the proposed tax levy for the City of
Kankakee. If you would like to come
forward and speak to this issue, please state your name and we will record that
for our official minutes. PAUSE We will recess the hearing to December 21,
2009, at 6:45 P.M. where we will adopt the tax levy at that time. Thank you.
Minutes of the meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes of
the November 16, 2009, meeting?
7:04 P.M.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: Are
there any changes or corrections? Changes or corrections?
Hearing none, I move they be approved as recorded.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Do
I have a second?
ALDERMAN OSENGA: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Hunter, seconded by Alderman Osenga
to approve the meeting. All those in favor, aye.
Opposed, same sign.
MOTION TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2009
MAYOR EPSTEIN: The
minutes are approved. I have no
Petitions. Are there any Petitions from
the Floor? Moving onto Communications,
ah, I believe most of the items there, A, B and C, are for information
purposes. And, item D, which we will do
at this time is the annual audit for the City of
Kankakee. Mr. Spice, our Comptroller,
will present the audit information.
JAMES SPICE: Your Honor, ladies
and gentlemen of the Council and audience, it is my pleasure tonight
to.........
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: Jim,
could you use the microphone, I’m sorry, so we can record it?
JAMES SPICE: It’s
my pleasure tonight, to represent the City of Kankakee administration to present
a review of the City’s financial information for the fiscal year ended April
30, 2009. The material for this
presentation has been lifted from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
the audit that was distributed to the members of the Council in their recent
packet. I’d also like to mention that
that CAFR, or Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, is posted on the City’s
web site along with the last four or five years. It goes back to 2004, I believe that are
posted there. So, if anybody has an
interest that didn’t get a copy of the report, it’s available in a PDF format
and they can download it there. The
audit is a culmination of putting together all of the financial records for the
City of Kankakee and, ah, having that reviewed by external auditors. And, at this point in time, I think it might
be appropriate to introduce the audit team from Payne, Groskteutz,
Schmidt, Abraham and Eshleman. Gotta’ remember how
that goes. Steve Schmidt and Abe Abraham
and I don’t know if either of you want to say a couple comments now or reserve
it to the end.
STEVE SCHMIDT: Reserve
it to the end.
JAMES SPICE: Okay,
they’re going to wait to the end. So,
the report that I distributed is reported into the following sections. An Introductory, Basic
Financial Statements, Required Supplementary Information, Combined and
Individual Fund Statement and Supplemental Schedules, a Statistical and a
Single Audit Section. The Single Audit
Section covers the federal grants reporting.
Since this financial presentation is designed only as an overview of
certain of the City’s fiscal year activities, resulting changes and currently
known facts, I would refer you to the full report if you do have any questions
or you need additional information. And,
I’d also–well I already mentioned that.
And, the Clerk’s office also has a hard copy of the financial report
as well as my office if anybody wanted to look at an actual hard copy and didn’t
have internet access. The audit provides
a financial summary of all the City’s transactions. The audit provides a financial summary of all
of the City’s transactions for the fiscal year.
And, the audit includes the City’s general fund, capital projects fund,
all of the revenue and debt service funds of the City, the Kankakee Municipal
Utility, the Public Library and the downtown Special Service areas as well as
financial reports for the City’s Police and Fire Pension Funds. In an effort to be succinct, not take all
night and all that, I intend to focus tonight on the City’s general fund
revenues and expenditures, changes in fund balance. And, primarily because that’s
where the City accounts for most of its day-to-day operational activities. What I thought would be helpful to start off
is to get a picture of where the City’s money comes from through the year. And, this kind of indicates that we get a
portion of our money from property taxes, from fines and penalties, the charges
for services that we do, sales tax as you can see is a big factor in our
revenue structure. We have some
grants. Utility taxes are another big
factor and other state taxes, licenses, permits, fees and then we’ve got some
miscellaneous revenue that comes in through the year. This picture, though, is a little bit jaded
because within the sales tax number, there are incentives that go back to the
share.........sales tax sharing partners that we have. And, so I thought it would help to have a
picture.......a better picture of what sales tax is in relationship to the
other revenues by taking that out. That’s
the next slide. And, there we see the
sales tax still represents a little better than 25% net of the City’s revenues,
but now we can see it in a better perspective to the net dollars it brings in
comparison to the other revenues. The
next big revenue source would be property taxes. Another one would be other state taxes and
then we get into the other categories.
Ah, I would like to mention that all of the Aldermen have a copy of the
slide, so I think most of you are following along, but just in case you didn’t,
you do have those. Next table, I thought
I’d mention is the sales tax overall.
Because it’s such a big factor in our budget and in total revenues, I
thought it would help to look at that. Interestingly,
we were down about a little over $2,000,000.00 from last year in gross sales
taxes and another interesting factor though, even though we were down in the
gross, our net actually picked up about, just short of 5%. 4.6 to be
exact. So, sales tax, even though it
didn’t come in where we expected or where we budgeted, it still was.......had a
decent showing for the year. While the
sales tax figures are encouraging, the economic downturn still ended up
providing less revenue than was anticipated when the fiscal 2009 budget was
adopted. It’s been a difficult financial
year, 2009 was, for the City. And,
because the City knew that the economy had been in a slide for almost a year,
ah, we’ve seen that it continued to affect our planning for the 2010 fiscal
year when we started to assemble the budget.
We, I think we all can appreciate the struggles we went through getting
the 2010 budget that was balanced and that we could present. Before we go into the actual results of
operations I want to show
you on the next slide how we spent the money. Again, this slide shows
the various areas Police, Fire, Code, Public Works, those are our major
departments. Then we have the general
City overall and a big factor, again, in our budget is economic development and
actually that represents the sales tax incentives. So, again, those numbers are in the total
gross revenues and they’re in the gross expenditures. So, again, in order to kind of see apples to
apples and kind of figure out what the departments actually spend in
relationship to the budget, I’ve backed out the economic development piece in
the next slide. There we see that
Police, Fire and Code make up almost ¾ of the City’s budget. And, actually,
if you would take the portion of insurance and worker’s comp. there that
belongs to Police, Fire, Code and allocate that to them, you would see that
they do make up 30.........almost 75% of the City’s overall budget. Probably even greater than
that. It’s also interesting to
note as we’ve gone through the budget process that we’ve identified the City’s
cost–85% of our costs are personnel. So, if we make cuts, most of that’s going to have to affect people. It’s going to affect their jobs. It’s going to affect what’s happening to the
employees that we have. So, I thought
that was important to point out. So now
that we’ve seen the graphical presentations of what’s occurred, I thought it
would be helpful to actually see some of the numbers. And, this is coming from page 91, I believe,
of the audit. No, 90.
On page 90, I actually took........ made a copy of the audit so this is where this is coming
from. And, the column presentations the
budget amounts original and final are basically the same numbers. We didn’t make budget adjustments through the
year. We had an actual for 2009 and a
comparison for 2008. What I picked out
there, in particular interest, is that revenues were almost $7,000,000.00 short
of budget. In other words, we had a plan
going into the year not knowing what the economy was going to do and with what
the economy actually ended up doing, we were $7,000,000 short of budget. And, we also actually received $2,000,000.00
less than the prior year. So, we kind of
had both effects. In other words, money
just didn’t come in like it did even the previous year. It was down that much. Now, move to the expenditure side. That summarized the revenues. The expenditure side, I have two pages of
presentations. Focus on the one
side. Basically, the presentation again
is the same. We have the budget for the
year and what the actual expenditures were and compared to the prior year’s
actual expenditures. What I saw when I
looked at this report is that most of the departments came in pretty close to
budget, either on budget or a little under with the exception of..........the
big change was the general City and one of the reasons for that is the Utility
has been picking up the lighting costs for the City, the general lighting costs
and we never budget for that. The
Utility pays for that and then it gets put into our books at the end of the
year so it’s not included in our budget.
That was almost a half million dollars and there were a couple other
little things like that we just did budget adjustments for. While I’m shifting over to the second page, the
audience might indistinguishable the numbers. Overall, even though we had all these issues,
we recognized the issues, we tried to cut the spending
where we could. We cut the spending by
$4,000,000.00. A
little over $4,000,000.00 actually.
And our spending this fiscal year was about $2,000,000.00 less than it
was, or a million and a half, I guess, less than it was the previous fiscal
year. So, we were starting to take the
measures we needed to, but the whole change in the economy just happened a little
faster than it enabled us to respond.
The final page........the final page actually takes the budget out,
takes the comparison to the prior fiscal year out and in a one column
presentation which is called the General Fund there,
it shows what happens in summary in the General Fund. The first area shows the revenues, summarized
fairly to a little higher level. The revenues came out at $38,500,000.000–close to $38,500,000.00 and
then summarizes the expenditures the same way. The expenditures were $40,700,000.00. So, what this report then indicates is that
the City had an operating loss of a little over $2,200,000.00. There are many transfers that occur in the
funds–in an out. Money
to debt service, money coming in from the TIFs, money
coming in from the Utility and some other areas. As you take those transfers into effect that’s
the bottom line of what the City had left against its fund balance. And, we actually had a deficit then, an
overall deficit for the year, of $900,002.
That’s what that indicates. So,
as you can see it was a rough year. Now,
again, I mentioned that the administration realized that we were experiencing
financial difficulties at about the beginning of calendar 2009 and we worked to
adjust the spending where we could. Further,
it took the current economic.........as we took the current economic conditions
into account, we started preparing and prepared the
2010 budget. In response to the economic
times, the City has shifted as much capital spending as it could from the General
Fund into the Capital Projects Fund, so that helped ease the burden on the
General Fund as most of you– I think we have explained that to you in the past–
are aware of. We also.......the City
also increased its fees for solid waste and sewer services and has most
recently issued sewer revenue bonds in an effort to address financial
difficulties. These are some of the
steps that we’ve
taken. I’d like to address solid waste
costs a little further. Solid waste
costs have been subsidized in large part in the General Fund over the
years. And, what happened is we
increased.........as we experienced increased costs that came from the closing
of the local landfill, had to start hauling our waste over to Momence to the
transfer station, had to pay the tipping fees of that landfill, the City just
could no longer afford to subsidize those costs.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: In
addition, I assume there was some energy increases as well, too, in terms of indistinguishable.
JAMES SPICE: Exactly
right. All during that period just as
Alderman Hunter just so rightly stated, we saw the gas prices zoom up to almost
$4.00 a gallon. When we’re having to
transport trash 20 miles I think it is to Momence, whatever miles it is to
Momence, that’s a long way to haul all that stuff have people and everything
else, so we had........we experienced those increased costs there, too. And, it just came to the point where the City
determined that it could no longer afford to subsidize those costs. We were finding other revenues to cover those
for many years and it just became overwhelming.
We couldn’t do that anymore. So,
as all of us probably know by now, if you don’t, I’ll tell you, the solid waste
fees had to be increased to cover the cost of providing that service. And, that fee increase was recently
enacted. As well, the Utility, for a
number of years, owed the General Fund for bond payments that were made on the
Utility’s behalf when Utility revenues were not adequate to allow the Utility fund to pay
debt service on sewer related bonds. The
sewer rates were adjusted to provide revenue so that the Utility could begin to
pay back that money. And, those bonds
just closed as a result of the last Council meeting and they closed, ah, the
beginning of this month on December 1, I believe it was. So, those payments that will be made from the
Utility to the General Fund will be another way that the General Fund will be
helped and made whole. As noted earlier,
the Utility’s financial statements are included in the financial report, but
those financial reports will not be looked at tonight. We’ll just end the presentation here
shortly. The last thing I’d like to discuss, is the economic times and the effect that they’re
having on the City’s pension costs. As
your investments experience the losses that they do, the City has the same
thing with..... the pension funds have money that they’re
investing, putting the money aside for the retirees’ pay at a later date and
those funds experience the same kind of losses.
In the last year, the City was over 100% funded in IMRF pensions. And, if you look at page.......if you could
refer later to page 83 of your audit, you can see that that 100% for 2007, I
believe it was the reporting year. For
2008, we are at 82%. So, just in IMRF,
we were 100% funded.......over 100% funded went down to 82% in that fund. So, that’s the first impact.
ALDERMAN BARON: And,
Jim, why did that happen? Is that
because.........investment.....
JAMES SPICE: Primarily
because of investment losses. That’s the
primary reason there. Then our Police
and Fire Pension Funds, they’ve each experienced similar losses in investment
earnings, but they had.........we had some other things going on in both of
those funds. We had made the decision about
three or four months ago, the Council made the decision to change the actuarial
funding assumption from 8.5% to 8%. So,
that’s going to have an impact and increase the unfunded liability, number one,
and increase the levy also.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Jim.
JAMES SPICE: Yes,
sir.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Other
municipalities of our size, have we did a comparison
to see how they stack up according to where we’re at?
JAMES SPICE: I
have been doing comparisons. I don’t
have a complete comparison or complete analysis, but I know a lot of the other
funds are in the same. They all
experienced the losses. There wasn’t a
fund that didn’t........that escaped the losses. They went over your variable income and it
went over the fixed income. It hit every
category. So, there isn’t a fund that
didn’t have losses.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: If
I could ask Corporation Counsel to explain what our mandate is based on the
consent decree for the Police and Fire Pensions. We’re required to do so by virtue of a
consent decree, is that correct?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: Right. About twelve years ago we were sued by the
Fireman’s Pension Fund because we were severely unfunded.........underfunded in the pension funds and as a result of that,
we entered into a consent decree with both Fire Pension Fund and the Police
Pension Fund whereby we would fund that and make up the unfunded amount over a
period of 35 years. That was
a.........and that would be based upon the study of an actuary mutually
appointed by the Pension Boards–plural–in the City. And, that’s what we’ve been doing since that
time.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: And,
it’s my understanding that, ah, from an historical perspective– ‘cause I was around here then–that under the Ryan and the
Johnson’s administration, they severely underfunded
those pensions. Is that correct?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: That’s
correct. They funded at a flat amount
over the years without adjusting for the liabilities of the current. The other thing that’s happened is more
specifically, in the Fire Pension Fund and the Police Pension Fund, although in
both the state legislature continually–every since I’ve been city attorney–has
expanded benefits under the pension funds.
And, without making up any funds or providing any way for the City or
the municipalities to raise that money.
ALDERMAN BARON: That’s
what was known over the years as unfunded mandates, right?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: I
believe that’s what it’s called, Alderman.
ALDERMAN BARON: We
have to come up with the money and indistinguishable without a source of
doing that.
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: That’s
correct.
JAMES SPICE: So,
the bottom line shows up in the financial statements and again I had pointed
you to page, ah, for IMRF, I’m sorry, I don’t have it in
front of me. I think it was page
83. And, the next few pages, 84 and 85,
show the same kind of figures for the Police and the Fire Pension Funds. And, I can just tell you that the Police
Pension Fund was a little over 40% funded the prior year. This year they’re down to 38.42% and the Fire
Pension Fund is funded at 34.6, a little over 34 ½%. It’s down to 32% as of the audit date. So, just like, you know, that’s where tax
levy numbers come from. That.........it’s
something that we don’t have a lot of choice on. This is something we owe the employees for
service that they’ve already given.
These pension funds are money we owe the employees. Even if we disbanded the departments, this is
money we owe them today for services they’ve already rendered.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: I
think that’s important to address your question during the
speak out. Ah, as we as Aldermen
are sitting here and are having to address this, it’s
not really a choice for us, it’s a mandate.
And, I think that’s very important for you to understand. As citizens, we pay our taxes, too, and we’re
going to be raising our own taxes. So,
it’s not something we want to do. It’s
something that we really have to do.
JAMES SPICE: And,
the best analogy I can give you of how this happened and equate it to something
we can all understand is I own a house and I’m buying my house and some day I
hope to have that 100% paid for. But,
let’s say I have my kids living there with me and I decided I wasn’t going to
pay the mortgage. I’ll let my kids pay
it. That’s kind of what our forefathers
have done to the pension funds. There
was a mortgage to pay, there was a bill to pay and they said, no, we’re not
going to pay it today. They let it ride
to us. Now, we’ve got all the years of interest
and everything else to make up and now it’s our turn to pay and we don’t have a
choice. We have nobody else we can defer
to.
ALDERMAN BARON: We’re
going to consider the Tax Levy Ordinance tonight, the amount of money that we’re
requesting the County Collector to collect for property taxes. And, that’s what I think some of the comments
were addressed to earlier. Is it
accurate to say that, ah, all of the increase in the levy that we’re asking for
this year is Police Pension and Fire Pension and IMRF? All retirement increases. Isn’t that right?
JAMES SPICE: It’s
basically right. I think there’s just a
small, small increase for the library, but that’s a real minor number. So, but basically, that is exact fact.
ALDERMAN BARON: Other
than that...........
JAMES SPICE: Other
than that, all the levies are down.
According to the way that I have to calculate it for truth in taxation,
all the other levies have gone down. Alderman.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Just
say for instance, if we didn’t abide by the mandate, what is the penalty that
would be assessed to the City for that?
JAMES SPICE: I’m
going to defer to legal counsel for that.
That’s a legal question.
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: First
of all, we’d be in contempt of court because there’s a valid court order that
required us to do it. Secondly, they
would enter a judgement which we would then have to
levy as a tax–as an additional tax–on top of what we’re levying. So, there is.......we don’t have a
choice. That’s why you enter an
agreement and court order–consent decrees and court orders, we’re stuck with
it. Now, IMRF is a little bit
different. IMRF lost 35% of their assets
in one year because of the slumping economy.
Hopefully, they’ll get some of it back.
But, that’s really what happened.
And, that’s not locally controlled.
That’s a state board. The local
boards control the Police and Fire Pensions and that’s.....it’s simply been an
ongoing issue because we’ve never been able to catch up.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: So,
basically, we are being hit twice with the economy and with the sins of our
fathers–forefathers.
JAMES SPICE: This is true.
The good news on the IMRF front from what I’m reading, the numbers have
come back a long way. They’re not back
to where they were, but IMRF is making a lot of headway. And, I believe that’s been the report that we’ve
gotten from our pension funds, too, both Police and Fire, that they are
starting to recoup their.......they are starting to see the gains that the
market’s gained. That could
change tomorrow. It’s no guarantee of
the future, but right now things are on the right track and I think we just
need to pray for our country and pray for the economy and hang on for
the ride, I guess. That concludes
my presentation. If,
ah, the auditors would like to make a comment or anything at this point.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Mr.
Spice, thank you so much for that presentation.
I know that it has taken you many, many hours to put together all the
information. Mr. Schmidt and Mr.
Abraham, would you like to make some comments at this time?
STEVE SCHMIDT: I
think Jim did a good job of presenting the situation–the financial situation–
of the City of Kankakee at this point.
What it’s important to realize is that, ah, the sooner you have taken
significant steps indistinguishable this year indistinguishable a
plan of attack so that the financial stability of the City of Kankakee will be
stabilized in the future. The indistinguishable
last year, last year and a half is unprecedented indistinguishable people
our age indistinguishable. The
City indistinguishable as well as they could ‘cause of the revenue
slipping and, ah, they have a plan of attack in place that will indistinguishable
when it comes and goes the way it did the last two years, you have surprises. indistinguishable
pension fund, that’s an obligation that the City has to adhere to. And, there’s no other choice but to fund it indistinguishable
based on the actuarial study that indistinguishable
We’d
like to thank indistinguishable very helpful and supportive and we’d
like indistinguishable
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you, Mr. Schmidt. I appreciate those
comments. Are there any other questions
on the audit? Hearing no other
questions, we will move onto Standing Committees. Alderman Brown, Public Works.
ALDERMAN BROWN: Report
contained in the packet.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. Planning and Code, Alderman
Swanson.
ALDERMAN SWANSON: The
information’s in the packet.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. We will move onto the Report of
Officers. Do I have a motion to approve
the payment of the bills?
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Mayor,
I move to approve the Report of Officers, place the monies into their proper
accounts and pay the bills in the amount of $2,009,474.20.
ALDERMAN CIACCIO: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Williams, seconded by Alderman Ciaccio
to approve the bills. Any
questions? Roll call, please.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Schwade; Davidson; Cox
(13)
ABSTAIN: Jones (1)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS APPROVAL OF BILLS - $2,009,474.20
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. There is no Unfinished Business
on the agenda. I would like to move onto
New Business. Item A, we are asking you
to approve an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Kankakee and the
Kankakee Valley Park District. The City
of Kankakee owns several parking lots within the City. Mr. Dear, the head of our Public Works
Department, whenever we have snow, I’m sure you all understand, has to work
long hours with his department clearing the major roads and the arteries
leading into the City. Therefore, the
parking lots, many times, are the last things to be done. Because people come to work by 7:30 in the
morning and if the lots are not plowed at that time, it causes an issue with
the people who work downtown. So, we
tried to come up with a unique agreement and the Park District has agreed to
plow our lots for us. In exchange, we
are going to purchase a blade for the front of one of their trucks and Mr. Dear
and the Public Works Department will take care of some of the areas for the
Park District for them. I think it’s a
win-win for everyone. The people who work
downtown will have their lots plowed and it’s, I think, the true meaning of
cooperation between departments. Do I
have a motion to approve?
ALDERMAN BROWN: Motion
to approve.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Carl Brown to approve.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Seconded
by Alderman Rich Browne. Any questions?
ALDERMAN BROWN: Just
a comment.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Yes.
ALDERMAN BROWN: I
think it’s very important that we know that the County of Kankakee has somewhat
said that they would plow less this year because of cuts and so that last
couple years, the City of Kankakee has picked up additional mileage with the
addition of Wal-Mart and all of the area out there. So, we don’t have the manpower to plow these
parking lots and it is mandatory that we keep those open. Those throughways to those shopping centers
must be maintained. So, I think this is a way that we can utilize the best use
of manpower hours. And, we’ll keep those
trucks on the road and out by the new Aldi’s
and I think that’s very important that we do that.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you. Any other
comments?
ALDERMAN HUNTER: So
it’s just essentially a swap.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: It’s
a swap. It’s a win-win for both
entities. It was a pleasure. Mr. Dear
and Mr. Romanek certainly came up with a very clever
agreement that, when we spoke in my office, it was a solution to a problem that
really is not going to cost us really much of anything except for a blade for
the front of a truck. So.
ALDERMAN BROWN: You
have that in the Capital?
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Yes,
we do.
ALDERMAN BROWN: Okay.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: How
fast can we get that? Before
Thursday?
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Actually,
it’s already ordered. So do
I.........let’s have a roll call, please.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING SNOW REMOVAL
BETWEEN THE CITY OF KANKAKEE AND THE KANKAKEE VALLEY
PARK DISTRICT
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. The next item on the agenda is
the transfer of property, 302 N. Fifth Avenue, to the City. Mr. Bohlen had to
refresh my memory. This has been going
on for a while. This is the house that
had the lift station on Fifth Avenue.
The house, of course, is no longer there. But, this is the transfer, actually of the
property to the City of Kankakee.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Mayor,
I so move.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: We
need to Suspend the Rules.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Then
I make a motion to Suspend the Rules that would
interfere with the passage of this Ordinance.
ALDERMAN CIACCIO: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Williams, seconded by Alderman Ciaccio
to Suspend the Rules. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. Do I have a motion to put this
Ordinance on its Final Passage and Pass?
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: I
so move.
ALDERMAN CIACCIO: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Williams, seconded by Alderman Ciaccio. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TRANSFER
OF
THE PREMISES COMMONLY KNOWN AS 302 NORTH FIFTH AVENUE,
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. The next item on the agenda is
an Ordinance to establish Handicapped Parking at 1456 S. Sixth Avenue. Do I have a motion?
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: Mayor,
could we also include the Ordinance to rescind Handicapped Parking
at 267 S. Chicago Avenue?
MAYOR EPSTEIN: If
there’s no objection, we will combine Item C and Item K. Do I have a motion to Suspend
the Rules?
ALDERMAN FAFORD: So
moved.
ALDERMAN SWANSON: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Faford, seconded by Alderman Swanson
to Suspend the Rules. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. Do I have a motion to place
this Ordinance–Ordinances–on their Final Passage and Pass?
ALDERMAN FAFORD: So
moved.
ALDERMAN SWANSON: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
by Alderman Faford, seconded by Alderman
Swanson. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 32, SECTION 231
ESTABLISHING A
HANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN AT 1456 SOUTH SIXTH AVENUE
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 32, SECTION 231 ENTITLED “HANDICAPPED
PARKING” OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF KANKAKEE
RESCINDING
HANDICAPPED PARKING ORDINANCE NO. 05-66 AT 267 SOUTH CHICAGO AVENUE
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. The next item on the agenda is
the awarding of a contract in the amount of $380,701.95 to Utility Dynamics
Corporation for ornamental lighting on Schuyler Avenue. Schuyler Avenue is in the TIF that is going
to expire. We are doing projects from
that TIF prior to the expiration. This
is one project that was identified that we would extend the ornamental lighting
down Schuyler. If there are any
questions, I’m sure Mr. Tyson would be happy to answer them. This is a TIF project. A very, very small amount of the project will
also be paid out of Capital.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: I
have one question. Are there any other
projects in that area that need funding, that you would deem more important or
less important?
DAVID TYSON: Not that are really more important. There are more projects that will be indistinguishable
TIF area that will be expending some more funds and some more overlays
and some other work that indistinguishable.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Any
other questions?
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: Yes.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Alderman
Schwade.
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: The
LED lights that will be placed there are, Mr. Tyson said they’re 25–33% more
efficient. More energy
efficient.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: That’s
correct. Any other
questions? Do I have a motion to
accept the bid?
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: I
so move.
ALDERMAN JONES: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Alderman
Schwade, seconded by Alderman Jones. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$380,701.95
TO UTILITY DYNAMICS CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF
KANKAKEE
SCHUYLER AVENUE ORNAMENTAL LIGHTING
PROJECT, TEI JOB NO. E09081
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. The next item on the agenda is
the recommendation to award bids for janitorial services in the City of
Kankakee. You have in your packet of information, we went out for bid on four buildings that the
City owns. And, we are recommending to award the Space Center contract to Touch of Class and the
other three buildings, the Administration, Library, Public Safety to Perfect
Cleaning. By awarding these contracts,
the City expects to save nearly $38,000.00 in expenses. Do I have a motion to approve?
ALDERMAN HUNTER: Before
we do that, Mayor Epstein, I’d like to make some comments if I might. And, I’d remind my 13 other Aldermen that you
are not, were not elected by the people being rubber stamps based upon any
particular recommendation that comes before this Council. You have to be very thoughtful, pragmatic,
ah, and insightful as far as taking a look at these particular matters. I call your attention to some of the comments
that were brought up before. When you
take a look at Kankakee and this SMSA, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area,
that’s a population of 100,000 or more in certain contiguous areas. The........the concern I have is that it
appears that we’re exporting jobs outside of the City of Kankakee. You take a look at the four vendors, the
businesses that bid on these particular projects. Perfect Cleaning is out of Chicago, Unimax is out of, I think,
probably Lake County or Cook County.
Touch of Class–or Touch of Glass rather–is out of Bradley and I think
the present incumbent vendor is Jack’s Cleaning. Is that the City of Kankakee or that
somewhere else? I think it’s the City of
Kankakee.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Yes,
it is.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: And,
what I’m concerned about is that I understand the savings that you indicated we
may realize as the consequence of that, but we’re going to be losing jobs to
Cook County. As was mentioned earlier,
the population or the unemployment level for the Kankakee County SMSA is over
13%. And, I don’t see us creating
jobs. I think we’re going to be losing
jobs to the neighbors up north. Even as
close as Bradley, the others are out of Chicago and Cook County. I’m not in a position to feel affirmative in
terms of voting for this particular matter until I know all the full facts
regarding why these numbers came in the way they did. I think it would be incumbent upon all of you
to take a look at what I’m saying with respect to the various vendors who the
alleged, or tentative bidders, become the successful bidders until we have more
information as to making sure that which was conveyed to us is clear and
accurate. Additionally, there’s some
other ways and means by which to keep those jobs in the City of Kankakee. Ah, we’ve done something similar in extending
the contract for solid waste with garbage and so forth with ABC. We’ve extended the contract as opposed to
having– going out for bids in the past.
And, I’m just saying, there’s ways and means to keep jobs in the City of
Kankakee as opposed to giving Perfect Clean, the other successful bidders
bidding those jobs to those people who are multimillion dollar corporations
having to compete local vendors. And,
based upon my comments, I move that we Table this matter until further
information is provided.
ALDERMAN JONES: Second
it.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: The
motion has been made to Table by Alderman Hunter, seconded by Alderman
Jones. Roll call please.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Linneman;
Jones; Davidson; Cox (11)
NAY:
Baron; Osenga; Schwade (3)
MOTION TO TABLE
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE BIDS FOR JANITORIAL
SERVICES FOR THE
CITY OF KANKAKEE AS FOLLOWS: SPACE CENTER AWARDED TO
TOUCH OF
GLASS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,520.00 PER MONTH;
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AWARDED TO PERFECT CLEANING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,320.00
PER MONTH; KANKAKEE PUBLIC LIBRARY AWARDED TO PERFECT CLEANING IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,190.00 PER MONTH; AND PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER
AWARDED TO PERFECT CLEANING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,260.00 PER MONTH
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries to Table this item.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Mayor.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Yes.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: I
would like to offer a comment. Ah, even
though we’re in, you know, real perilous times, ah, economically, the cost
savings are great, but I’m thinking that on the downside, we’re gonna’ sacrifice efficiency and the dedication that the
cleaning service that we already have is doing.
And, also, there’s a lot of minority representation going on here and I’m
in agreement with Alderman Hunter. Totally.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: I
appreciate your comments, Alderman Williams.
Moving onto the next agenda item. We have the levy Ordinances. We would like to put these on the first
reading and we will do them each individually.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: Why
not en masse?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: Because
they’re all individual levies.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: We
agree then, en masse? Unless you want........
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: It’s
up to you guys.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Would
you like to combine them or would you like to do them individually?
ALDERMAN BARON: Is
there a reason to do one over the other?
I don’t care.
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: No. The only issue is some Aldermen may want to
vote for one levy and not for another.
ALDERMAN BARON: Why
don’t we deal with the Corporate Levy in one motion and then with the Special
Service Area in another motion?
MAYOR EPSTEIN: We
will do Item F first which is the Corporate Levy. Do I have a motion to put this item on its
first reading?
ALDERMAN BARON: I’d
so move.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Baron, seconded by Alderman Browne to put the first Levy
Ordinance on its first reading.
ALDERMAN BARON: But,
I have a question on it. Are we changing
that based on new figures that we have?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: You
should have the numbers that were passed out.
That should be the numbers that you’re using. Correct.
ALDERMAN BARON: So,
the number on the, what was in our book was $6,714,000.00. Is that right? And this is.........
MAYOR EPSTEIN: You
should have the new proposed tax levy that Mr. Spice passed out.
JAMES SPICE: Was
the actuarial results and we are going to take the numbers that are in those
Ordinance that I distributed and replace them with the numbers from the
actuarial that we just got today. So,
that will be replaced. That will all be
done with the next group of documents that indistinguishable
ALDERMAN BARON: We
don’t have the new Ordinance, but we have the $6.714 million is going to be
increased by the amount necessary to bring it up to the Fire and Police Pension
figures that we just got today.
JAMES SPICE: I’ll
refer you to..........I handed out, indistinguishable down the one
column and that’s the amount that will be there is the actuarial
requirement. That’s the number that will
go into the Ordinance. And, there is not
a sheet that compares that to the indistinguishable levy at this time.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: I
think it’s important to understand that because we were able to receive this
information this morning that we are actually able to levy the correct
amount. In the past, this number came to
us too late. And, what happened was we
were not able to levy the correct amount for the pension and the shortfall
always had to be made up by the General Fund.
Had we waited....had these numbers not come in, our shortfall would have
been nearly $900,000.00. So, we are very
fortunate to receive these numbers. We
were adamant to from actuary that we receive these numbers in time and we
apologize. They came this morning and so
we were able to.........that’s why we’re doing a first reading because we are able
actually, for the first time in a long time, to levy the correct amount for
those pension funds. Motion
by Alderman Baron, second by Alderman Browne to put this Ordinance on its First
Reading. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Schwade; Davidson (12)
NAY: Jones; Cox (2)
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE LEVYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR ALL CORPORATE
PURPOSES
FOR THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON MAY 1, 2009 AND ENDING APRIL
30, 2010
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. We will combine the next four.
ALDERMAN BARON: Unless
we have an objection, I would move that we place the Levy Ordinance for Special
Service Area Number One A, Number Two, Number Three and Number Five on first reading.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Do
I have a second?
ALDERMAN HUNTER: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
by Alderman Baron, seconded by Alderman Hunter to put the following four
Ordinances on first reading. Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter (Those are self-imposed taxes?
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Yes, those are self-imposed by the
residents of those residences or businesses by those areas. It’s the downtown, the Historic District, Coachlight Square and the East Side Business.
ALDERMAN
HUNTER: And that way you derive some funds to do various
projects and so forth. As she has indicated, Mayor has indicated it
was a self-imposed tax to be utilized for various projects.); Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Schwade; Davidson (11)
NAY: Jones; Cox (2)
ABSTAIN: Browne, R. (1)
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE FOR THE LEVY AND ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
TAXES IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF KANKAKEE SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
ONE A FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON MAY 1, 2009 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2010
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE FOR THE LEVY AND ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
TAXES IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF KANKAKEE SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
TWO FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON MAY 1, 2009 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2010
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE FOR THE LEVY AND ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
TAXES IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF KANKAKEE SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
THREE “COACHLIGHT SQUARE DISTRICT” FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING ON
MAY 1, 2009 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2010
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE FOR THE LEVY AND ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
TAXES IN AND
FOR THE CITY OF KANKAKEE SPECIAL SERVICE AREA NUMBER
FIVE “EAST SIDE BUSINESS DISTRICT” FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
COMMENCING ON MAY 1, 2009 AND ENDING APRIL 30, 2010
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. We’ve already dealt with Item
K. Under Appointments, there are new
requirements for Freedom of Information for municipalities and governing
bodies. We would like to appoint Kris
Schmitz as our Freedom of Information Officer.
Kris is the Director of our Adjudication Department and is well versed
and capable of handling this position. I
would ask for a motion to approve this appointment.
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: I
so move.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Schwade, seconded by.......
ALDERMAN SWANSON: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Alderman
Swanson. Any
questions? Roll call.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
APPOINTMENT OF KRIS SCHMITZ AS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
OFFICER
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. Under Motions and Resolutions
we have a Resolution honoring Irene Wilken Hassett on her 100th birthday and we are also
establishing City Council dates and Holidays as well as a pending assessment
appeal for Cognis Corporation. We can do a voice vote approving all of these
Resolutions.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: I
so move.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Hunter, seconded by–I didn’t hear.
ALDERMAN BARON: Second
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Alderman
Baron. All those in
favor. Opposed same sign.
RESOLUTION HONORING IRENE WILKEN HASSETT ON HER
ONE-HUNDREDTH BIRTHDAY
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DATES FOR THE
YEAR 2010
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING HOLIDAYS TO BE OBSERVED BY THE
OFFICES
OF THE CITY OF KANKAKEE DURING THE YEAR 2010
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION IN THE PENDING
ASSESSMENT
APPEAL OF COGNIS CORPORATION
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motions
carry. We do have an Executive
Session. Oh, I’m sorry, Dave. You have........one item from the Floor. We have a salt purchase. Mr. Tyson.
DAVID TYSON: Yes,
since we’re coming into the year-end, it looks like we’re going to get some
snow coming in. The only part of the
2010 Maintenance Program I’d like to bring up at this time is to
have.........ask the Council to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the
necessary papers passing necessary Resolutions. We need $45,400 Motor Fuel Tax and that’ll be
for the purchase of 600 tons of rock salt so that what happens is once we get
past December 31, if there’s a big snow storm, Public Works, if they buy salt
and we haven’t passed these papers, we either have to pay for it out of the
General Fund or out of some other way until you get money approved by the State
of Illinois for this. So, by getting
this much done, we can take a good analysis of what future needs we might have
and then amend the program in January.
But, at least this gives us a cushion.
They have, I believe, 400 tons left over from this year. This would give us another 600 tons so that
should last us through January without any problem.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Do
I have a motion to approve?
ALDERMAN BROWN: Motion
to approve.
ALDERMAN JONES: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
by Alderman Brown, seconded by Alderman Jones to approve this purchase. Do I have any other questions? Roll call, please.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
SIGN THE
PAPERS TO USE $45,500.00 MFT FUNDS TO PURCHASE 600
TONS OF ROCK SALT
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. We will need an Executive
Session tonight so I do need a motion..........oh, I’m sorry. Aldermen comments. Alderman Jones.
ALDERMAN JONES: Mayor,
I’d like to thank everybody who gave their sympathy for my husband’s death and
all the donations and everything that came from the City. I do appreciate it and Department of Public
Works for the lovely fruit basket that they sent to the house. Your kindness is heartfelt gratitude from me
and my children. Thank you.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you, Alderman Jones. We were very, very
sorry for your loss.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: Mayor.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Alderman
Browne.
ALDERMAN BROWNE: I,
too, would like to thank the City Council and everybody for their thoughts and
prayers for my family and thank you very much to the Department of Public Works
for the fruit basket as well and for all the condolences people extended. Thank you.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Thank
you, Alderman Browne. Any
other comments? We need a motion
to go into Executive Session to discuss acquisition of real estate?
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: We
need to discuss pending litigation and acquisition of real estate.
ALDERMAN HUNTER: I
so move.
ALDERMAN WILLIAMS: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
by Alderman Hunter, seconded by Alderman Williams.
MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. Please clear the room.
8:14 P.M.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: I
need a motion to approve the acquisition and trade of real estate.
ALDERMAN DAVIDSON: I
make the motion.
ALDERMAN COX: Second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
made by Alderman Davidson, seconded by Alderman Cox to approve the trade of
property from........
ATTORNEY BOHLEN: The
City would acquire 187 N. Chicago and trade to the current owner of 187 N.
Chicago, 391 S. Chicago Avenue.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Do
I have any questions? Roll call, please.
CLERK DUMAS:
AYE: Brown;
Hunter; Browne, R.; Baron; Williams; Ciaccio; Faford; Swanson; Osenga; Linneman; Jones; Schwade;
Davidson; Cox (14)
MOTION TO APPROVE ACQUISITION AND TRADE OF REAL ESTATE
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
carries. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
ALDERMAN BARON: So
moved.
ALDERMAN SCHWADE: I
second.
MAYOR EPSTEIN: Motion
by Alderman Baron, seconded by Alderman Schwade. All those in favor, aye, opposed same sign.
MOTION TO ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MAYOR EPSTEIN: We
are adjourned.
8:14
P.M.