DeKalb County Seal
DeKalb County, Illinois

Minutes of the
Administrative Services Committee


August 5, 2003
               The Administrative Services Committee of the DeKalb County Board met Tuesday, August 5, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at the DeKalb County Government Administration Building’s Conference Room East. Chairperson Leifheit called the meeting to order. Mr. Faivre, Mr. Pritchard, Mr. Sands, Mr. Steimel, Ms. Tobias, Mr. Van Buer, Mr. Wiegand, and Mr. John A. Wilson were present. Also present were Ms. Joan Berkes-Hanson, Mr. Ray Bockman, Mr. Ken Campbell, Mr. Gary Hanson, Mr. Jim Scheffers, Mr. John Dykes, and Ms. Colleen Kissane.

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Wiegand moved, seconded by Ms. Tobias to accept the minutes of June 4, 2003. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mr. Steimel moved, seconded by Mr. Faivre to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.

 

TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM

               Chairman Leifheit called on Mr. Bockman, County Administration to give his recommendation on the tax abatement program. Mr. Bockman had previously sent the committee a copy of a letter sent to Chairman Wilson of the Public Infrastructure and Development Committee (which will be placed on file along with these minutes in the Finance Office.) Mr. Bockman distributed some information dated 1999 entitled, "Comparison of Equalized Assessed Valuations by Class of Property" and the most recent report of the Supervisor of Assessments, "Recent Midwest Real Estate Incentive Programs" which will be placed on file along with a copy of these minutes in the Finance Office. He wanted to answer two questions that he had previously been asked by committee members.

               The first question was "How does our 3.8% total value in industrial property compare to other counties around the state of Illinois?" His comparison showed that DeKalb County’s 3.8% was about half of the value with the rest of the state and the following percentages: Statewide 11.5%, Cook County 16.2%, Collar counties 7.9%, and the rest of the state 7.6%.

               The second question was "Do tax abatement programs really make a difference?" He stated it became apparent with a presentation given by Venture One Real Estate marketers of Park 88. Both they and the Economic Development Corporation had done some post-mortems on deals that got away. He used the Midwest Tax Incentive Program handout to show that Dixon, Joliet, Minooka, New Lennox, and University Park all secured a major industry which Park 88 may have been

               considered but did have a tax incentive program in place. He stated that solely having a tax incentive may not be a lure an industry here but if there was a plan in place it wouldn’t put the county out of the running. The county has steadily sat on this 3.8% over the years continually practicing the same strategies. He recommends that something different needs to be done such as the tax abatement plan to see if the county can get more than the 3.8%. Mr. Bockman then asked for questions or comments and a discussion ensued.

  • Mr. Van Buer asked if counties with universities were effected. Mr. Bockman confirmed that it does play a role because of the tax exempt status with the university.
  • Mr. Sands expressed his concern over a policy giving tax incentives to other competitive industries, as well as the fairness of the policy to established industry. Mr. Sands said that as long as this was an industrial incentive verses retail incentive that it would be a good idea to help bring more industries to benefit the county.
  • Mr. Wiegand asked if 3.8% includes the square footage of manufacturing entities shutting down their operations. Mr. Bockman stated that it should be included as current stock. Mr. Wiegand asked if new construction industrial space competes with invested industrial space that is underutilized. Mr. Bockman stated that it was totally unutilized. Mr. Bockman also added a word of caution that if the policy is put in place to be prepared to set the same type policy in any community in the county.
  • Mr. Van Buer said that he was bothered by the fact that local taxes are way down the list of as to companies wanting to locate. He is concerned giving the winners a bonus after they already may have made their decision to move here. He said that the postmortems really don’t share what the real decision was or if it was based on tax incentives. He stated that the county would have to give up tax revenues to pay for services in the infrastructure and would like an answer to what the private sector’s rate of return will be. Mr. Bockman said the presumption in offering an incentive is because you are afraid they won’t locate here. The rate of return is very good from the county’s perspective because they don’t invest anything and will receive property taxes for as long as the building stands. He restated that it only works if the incentive is what caused them to make their decision which is difficult to predict.
  • Mr. Pritchard stated that the county is willing to consider incentives for anyone that can offer to improve the economic activity of the area including businesses here that may want to expand. He stated, of course, the requirements need to be met and that it is going to add jobs and add to property value. He said that the county will not be the only ones abating but that other governmental units will also be participating.
  • Mr. Sands asked Mr. Bockman if the plan was a 5 year or 10 year plan. Mr. Bockman stated that the recommendation was for a 5 year plan because businesses have become much more transitory these days. Mr. Sands asked for the number of acres at Park 88 and when the abatement would begin on a building with this plan. Mr. Bockman stated that there were 425 acres at Park 88 and that the abatement would begin the year the building is taxable.
  • Mr. Faivre was concerned with allowing the County Board Chairman sole authorization for this plan. Mr. Bockman said there is no rush and time to study this plan is available. He said that if a suggestion to have the authorization be from a committee, commission or sub-commission that it was agreeable or he could offer another suggestion.
  • Mr. Wilson stated that if you do give the tax abatement incentive to Park 88 then the county should be willing to do the same thing for anyone who wants to do the same thing anywhere in the county.
  • Mr. Pritchard stated this plan is not like some tax incentives where governments build infrastructure or use tax dollars to do something to get a development. This is the builder’s money that is not collected in year 1-5 but the county collects all of the money in year 6. He stated that taxpayers wouldn’t have lost anything by giving that kind of incentives. He stated that if you look at the numbers, everyone benefits in year one because you have a fifty dollar an acre piece of farm ground today that we are sharing taxes on and they build anything and it will be six times that amount of money.

    •                Chairman Leifheit concluded that the information was brought to the committee as an informational item and that it would be voted on by the Public Infrastructure and Development Committee and then it will go to the full county board.

     

    GISWEB IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE

                   Joan Berkes-Hanson, Director of Information Management, was asked to give an update on the GISWeb Initiative. She stated that GISWeb was up and running on the County's website July 31, 2003. She explained that IMO has subscribed to the suggestion to use a "crawl, walk, run" approach in making the site available to the public. She mentioned two issues that were a challenge to IMO.

                   First, IMO cannot control Internet-users' computer environments the way they can configure County employees' computers. When enabling access for County employees, IMO visits each user, loads the required plug-ins (free software that enables the display of graphics) and provides one-on-one training. For home and business users accessing GISWeb via the Internet, IMO provided a link to the required free downloads and wrote instructions and on-line help, but some users will need additional help.

                   Second, Ms. Berkes-Hanson explained that interactive sites like GISWeb involve trade-offs between simplicity and ease of use with limited information available - versus complexity of use with a great deal of information available. She explained that GISWeb is a very complex database and that queries of the database involve approximately 34,000 parcels. That presents a challenge in terms of instructions and on-line help for the general public. She stated that the planned software upgrade which will make the site easier to manage is on-target to be completed by the end of October.

                   Berkes-Hanson reported that 164 users visited GISWeb during its first week online. Another challenge is getting out the word that GISWeb is available to the public. Ms. Tobias raised the question that the free plug-in didn’t work for her on her office computer. Ms. Berkes-Hanson stated that she had another user download, but not actually install the plug-in. Ms. Tobias stated that she had completed those steps. Ms. Berkes-Hanson offered to visit her site to resolve the issue. Chairman Leifheit commented that her and her staff have been using GISWeb and found the information very useful. Ms. Berkes-Hanson concluded her update with an invitation to those who have not looked at http://www.dekalbcounty.org/gis/GISWeb.html to check it out.

     

    CAPITALIZATION POLICY FOR FIX ASSETS

                   Mr. Hanson distributed a Fixed Assets Capitalization Policy daft dated 8/5/2003 which included an Attachment A listing descriptions of assets and the number of years/useful life examples and an Attachment B naming definitions and assumptions. (A copy of which will be placed on file along with these minutes in the Finance Office). The purpose of the policy is to provide direction to staff for handling discretionary areas within generally accepted accounting principles for governmental entities as applied to fixed assets, and to inform the public. Mr. Hanson stated that other counties have hired engineers and accounts to help with this task but DeKalb County is taking a low-key approach and still satisfy the accounting requirements. He stated that this committee will ask the board to adopt a policy to confirm the assumptions that are made and the plan that is in use so that people who read the financial statement will know what has been put into it. Mr. Wilson asked how to find the cost of an asset such as the Courthouse. Mr. Hanson reported that the determined value would be listed as the historical cost, not what it is worth today. Mr. Pritchard asked if it was a policy decision to use cost versus replacement. Mr. Hanson said no and added that the cost is a mandate. He said that if a historical cost can’t be determined then estimating a reasonable cost should be used.

                   GASB #34 (The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards) is requiring for the first time counties to inventory things such as roads, bridges, etc. It will be implemented at the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Hanson noted that the Highway Department is making great progress in this enterprise. He concluded his report with a mathematical story-problem to have the committee determine an asset’s value, depreciation, annual depreciation to the budget, accumulated depreciation, net value and the value gain. (A copy of which will be placed on file along with these minutes in the Finance Office .) The answers were arrived at in short work by a combined effort from the members.

     

    CENTRAL PLANT UPDATE

                   Mr. Campbell, Facilities Manager introduced some of this staff who came to the meeting. Mr. Jim Scheffers, Maintenance Supervisor, Mr. John Dykes, maintenance and Ms. Colleen Kissane who works in their print shop and her husband, who also was introduced. Next, Mr. Campbell gave the committee a Power Point media presentation entitled "Central Plant Update." The list of current projects as well as some additional projects complete with beautiful detailed photos were displayed.

     

  • Finish Generator Hook-Up in Legislative Center and Administration Building - COMPLETED
  • Courtroom Construction - COMPLETED
  • Courthouse Fire Alarm Replacement - In Progress
  • Courthouse Painting – Phase I COMPLETED
  • Generator Install @ Health Department - 95% COMPLETED
  • HVAC Controls @ Health Department - 98% COMPLETE
  • Security System Upgrade @ Health Department - COMPLETED
  • Courthouse Tuckpointing, Cleaning and Sealing - 95% COMPLETE
  • Storage Area Refurbish - In Progress
  • Courthouse Steps - In Progress
  • Mechanical Room Refurbish - In Progress
    •

                   He also gave information on additional unexpected projects that are an extension of 911. He listed those and gave detailed information on those projects as well:

  • Run new network cables to dictaphones
  • Workstations that need counter tops that needed to be cut
  • Added a Back-up Air Conditioner Unit at 911
  • Circuit Clerk’s new computers blew the circuits which new boards were added
  • The Legislative Center’s HVAC problems have now been ironed out
  • HVAC added at Health Department’s Server Room
  • Health Department had a large compressor burned out
    •

     

                   Mr. Wilson asked if the installation of the generator was for the entire Health Facility. Mr. Campbell stated that it was for the Health Department and Multi-Purpose Room but not the Rehab and Nursing Center part of the Health Facility as they have their own generator. Mr. Steimel asked if the generator at the Administration Building had been called into use this summer. Mr. Campbell said that when the building lost power, then the generator kicked on as expected. Mr. Sands asked how the HVAC’s system in the Administration Building was working as he received a memo from the County Clerk. Mr. Campbell reported that the unit went out and they got it temporarily working but both the stages went on all night resulting in the temperature not rising above 65<. Mr. Sands asked if it had been ironed out and Mr. Campbell affirmed it had been fixed. Mr. Wilson commented that the flowers around the courthouse looked great which the committee unanimously voiced their praise as well.

    WALKING TOUR OF NEW COURTROOM

                   The board members were given a walking tour of the new courtroom located on the third floor of the DeKalb County Courthouse by Mr. Campbell after the meeting was adjourned (see below). The State’s Attorney’s Office previously occupied that space but they moved to their new location in the Legislative Center. The courtroom should be ready in the next couple of weeks and will be used primarily as a family court room.

    ADJOURNMENT

                   Chairperson Leifheit asked if there were any other concerns that needed to be addressed. She called for the meeting to be adjourned and to meet across the street at the DeKalb County Courthouse for a tour of the new courtroom. (See above).

    Mr. Wiegand moved, seconded by Mr. Van Buer to adjourn at 8:30 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously by a voice vote.

     

    Respectfully submitted,

     

    __________________________
    Sue Leifheit, Chairman

     

    __________________________
    Lisa K. Sanderson
    Secretary

      | Home | Return to top | A-Z Index | Return to minutes |