Macon Reporter

Moultrie County Board met Oct. 12.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

The Moultrie County Board met on Thursday, October 12,2023, in the County Board Room, Second Floor, Moultrie County Courthouse. Vice-Chair, Marsha Kirby called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

The opening prayer was given by board member Aaron Wilhelm, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance recited by all in attendance.

Roll Call was taken, with the following members present Marsha Kirby, Tyler Graven, John Vander Burgh, Travis Phelps, Scott Buxton, Aaron Wilhelm, and Josh Roe. Absent were Billy Voyles and Kenny Graven

Qualls.

There were 13 people in attendance plus seven board members, and County Clerk

Mission Statement - Read by Marsha Kirby.

Correspondence: None.

Minutes: Ms. Kirby asked if there is a motion to approve the September 14, 2023, board minutes. Mr. Wilhelm moved to approve said minutes. Mr. Buxton seconded the motion. With no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Guest Speaker: None

Unfinished Business: None

Appointments by Chair:

Ms. Kirby moved to reappoint Justin Florey to the 708 Board with the term to begin December 1, 2023, and end November 30, 2026. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. There being no discussion, roll call was taken, the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Ms. Kirby gave the first reading for the appointment of JOHN MOWRY as Trustee for the WINDSOR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, to serve the remaining three-year term vacated by James Hooten as Trustee. The appointment is to commence December 14, 2023, and terminate December 14, 2026.

NEW BUSINESS

STANDING COMMITTEES

BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (Chair: Vander Burgh)

Meeting: October 10, 2023, 2023.

Mr. Vander Burgh moved to approve the September 2023 Treasurer's report. Mr. Wilhelm seconded the motion. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh moved to approve all claims as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roe. There being no discussion, roll call was taken, the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh stated we have been working on our audit and we have our Auditor here. [Mr. Dennis Koch] of Dennis Koch and Associates, LLC, explained there are some things the auditor is required to discuss with the board such as, the auditor's communication with those charged with governments. One is the financial statement audit, which was all laid out in the Engagement Letter dated March 14, 2023. Koch & Associates responsibilities and professional standards included auditing financial statements in accordance with the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards also the Government Auditing Standards, and, because of the amount of Federal money the County expended, the Federal Guidelines called the Uniform Guidance.

Mr. Koch stated there was a change in accounting principles, in the past, the County's Financial Statements were presented in what the prior auditor called Modified Cash Basis of Accounting. This type of accounting doesn't really exist anymore. Most ** Federal Agencies now require the Accrual Basis of Accounting. What this amounts to is

the Government-wide financial/fund statements are reported on an accrual basis.

The prior auditor made modifications and recorded the capital assets under depreciation and everything else was cash basis. What this does is recognizes revenues when you actually receive them and expenditures when you actually pay them out. On the accrual basis of accounting, you recognize revenues when they're earned and the expenditures when you actually incurred the liabilities. This makes a difference in the federal programs, especially with the ARPA money which the County received up front, you have until 2024 to spend that money. In the past, that meant you were recording that money as revenue when you received it even though you hadn't really earned it. There is a possibility that if you don't spend that money, you will have to send it back. On the accrual basis, that money sits as deferred revenue until the County actually spends it.

There are a lot of expenditures for which the County gets reimbursed after the money is spent, in many cases the money comes in the next fiscal year. So, in order to match the revenues and expenditures, we record those receivables from the various agencies that owe the County money. This required an adjustment to beginning net assets.

Mr. Koch stated they didn't really have any difficulties with the audit, this is their first audit engagement with the County, and it was just a matter of picking up where the prior auditor left off.

Financial Statements - one of the required components of financial statements is called Management's Discussion and Analysis. This is management's opportunity to, in more plain language, talk about what the financial statements say and what's going on in the County. That particular section was not included in last year's audit but was added this year.

The financial statements are the responsibility of the County. Koch's responsibility is to audit those financial statements and issue the various opinions. There are three opinion letters in the audit. The first on the Financial Statements; the second on the Internal Controls and Compliance with Laws and Regulations; and the third one is only required when you have allotted Federal Programs and that is Internal Control Over Compliance Required by the Uniform Guidance and regulations that apply to the various Federal Programs.

The report on the Financial Statements themselves is an unmodified (or clean) opinion. The letter states what the basis is of the opinion; that we audited the financial statements under the Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Federal Auditing Standards. It talks about management and who is responsible for the financial statements and what the auditor's responsibilities are as far as the financial statements go. It talks about required supplemental information for additional analysis information of funds.

The second report is on compliance and internal control. This is required by governmental auditing standards anytime you have any federal money whatsoever. It's basically the internal control of financial reporting and compliance with the laws and regulations.

The third report is the report on compliance and internal control over compliance required by the uniform guidance. This does have an opinion on major programs, the auditor did not have any issues with the major programs themselves. There is one finding that is not major but should be considered by the board. It is a clean opinion.

Mr. Koch went through each section of the audit making short comments and encouraged the board to review each section, stating the County is in very good shape.

Findings (in part, copied from the Auditors report to summarize Mr. Koch's speech. See Auditor's Report for full report on findings.)

First Finding - this is a repeat finding from the prior auditor. The accounting records of the County do not include all funds and accounts for which the County is responsible.

Recommendation it is recommended that the County establish a centralized and comprehensive system of accounts that encompasses all funds and accounts, as required by the applicable state statutes.

Second finding the County has more than 50 funds and nearly as many bank accounts. They currently reconcile each account on a monthly basis. This reconciliation process does not compare the balances of the accounts to the general ledger control accounts. Recommendation - that the County implement a control process to reconcile the accounts with the general ledger control accounts on a regular basis.

Third finding - the County does not prepare budgets for each fund and expended funds in excess of budgeted amount in funds in which a budget was adopted. Recommendation the County review the specific provisions of 55 ILCS 5/6-1002 to understand the County's obligations for budget preparation and the process for amending the budget and develop an action plan to assist in taking the necessary steps to achieve compliance with the statute.

Fourth finding the County maintains a decentralized system of internal control over federal awards. Recommendation - implement a centralized oversight mechanism; develop a comprehensive compliance framework; enhance training and communication; strengthen internal coordination; and ensure transparency and accountability.

NOTE: The audit contains the responses to the findings written by the Treasurer.

Mr. Vander Burgh moved to approve the audit as well as the corrective action plan for fiscal year end 2022. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. With no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh moved to approve the publication of the fiscal year 2024 budget and levies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roe. Mr. Vander Burgh summarized the work the committee has been doing stating our levy will be similar in most all respects .. except for last year, we decreased our levy by about half a million dollars and this year, we are increasing it by about that same amount. The increase is predominately due to an opportunity to levy for Capital Improvements. Most all work needing to be done on the courthouse is six figures and we need to prepare for the future, and administratively we need to have something in place. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 6 yes, 1 no by Mr. Wilhelm.

Mr. Vander Burgh made a recommendation on Public Defender Agreement. Due to funds received from the State of Illinois Supreme Court Public Defender Funding Agreement, Mr. Vander Burgh moved to establish two new public defender contractual positions for $32,180.75 each per year and to increase the current contractual public defender contract by $15,000.00 per year. Contractual positions to exclude first-degree murder representation. New contractual public defender positions to continue to exist each year as long as State funding continues to exist. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roe. Mr. Wilhelm asked if this is increasing the existing public defender's salary by $15,000.00. Mr. Vander Burgh explained this is funded by the State and a part of the Agreement for $79,000.00 the board saw. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh moved to accept the $85,840.00 bid from D&M Electric for the courthouse generator. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. Mr. Graven stated he has the other bid numbers; the next closest bid was $99,579.00 and the next one was $105,649.00 with roughly the same general work being done. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh gave a recommendation for the County Board Chair to execute the Resolution for PIN 11-11-26-225-007, accepting the sealed bid of $826.00 to dispose of the property and return it to the tax rolls. Mr. Vander Burgh makes said motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilhelm. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh gave a recommendation for the County Board Chair to execute the Resolution for PIN 02-02-27-340-006, accepting the sealed bid of $5,100.00 to dispose of the property and return it to the tax rolls. Mr. Vander Burgh makes said motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Vander Burgh made the recommendation to the County Board to create a committee to evaluate the vision and direction of County Facilities. At the Budget & Finance Committee meeting held October 10, 2023, it was discussed that a lot of things we do are very expensive, and we need to have some planning in terms of how far out we have what type of expenses. The committee felt it was something that needed to be brought up that a committee should be established to evaluate that.

Next, Mr. Vander Burgh repeated that he does believe the County will have to have a truth in taxation hearing, explaining that anytime our levy goes up more than 5%, we need to have a hearing and his year, it will go up more than the 5%. It will be published appropriately.

BUILDING AND PROPERTY (Chair: T. Graven)

Meeting: October 4, 2023.

Mr. Tyler Graven moved to approve putting out for bid the painting/coating of the jail exterior. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilhelm. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Graven shared that the work on the exterior of the courthouse has begun.

ROAD AND BRIDGE (Chair: Voyles)

Meeting: October 3, 2023.

On behalf of Mr. Voyles, Ms. Kirby moved to approve C-Hill Contractors for 04- 06129-00-BR. The motion was seconded by Mr. Buxton. Mr. Graven and County Engineer Seibring shared this is for a bridge in Marrowbone Township. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Ms. Kirby moved to approve Sullivan Road District Petition for county aid funding for construction of 21-071369-00-DR. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roe. Mr. Seibring stated this job was letted a couple of weeks ago which came in a little over budget by 50% of the estimate. So, Sullivan Township petitioned us for assistance because of the increase in the project. Mr. Wilhelm asked if this is normal practice in this area. Mr. Seibring shared that they usually help out with a lot of the local projects. Mr. Vander Burgh asked for the percentage again, Mr. Seibring stated actually 53%, but did not know when the estimate was done; it may have been prepared two years ago and did not catch the price increase. When asked about the amount of the project the County is aiding with on this, Mr. Seibring stated out of about $330,000.00, the County will be contributing about $50,000.00.

Mr. Vander Burgh asked, if once bids are received for projects, is the County Engineer reviewing the bids. What Mr. Vander Burgh is wanting to make sure is not happening is that four construction companies get together to discuss over-bidding. Mr. Seibring stated that yes, he does review the bids and consults with the engineers to see what was missed and how that happened. However, on this particular project, there were three-line items that were cast items and those items have skyrocketed with covid, the shortage of manpower, and shortage of steel. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Ms. Kirby moved to approve C-Hill Contractors, Inc. for 21-07139-00-DR. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

PLANNING, ZONING and LAND USE (Chair: Phelps)

Meeting: October 6, 2023

Mr. Phelps moved to approve the Moultrie County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilhelm. Mr. Kelly Lockhart from the Coles County Regional Planning said that FEMA requires the County redo this plan every five years to keep it up to date. This plan was originally set to be passed at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan, but since then we have been going back and forth with FEMA and we finally got everything in the plan the way they want it. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Phelps moved to approve the Special Use Permit request by Terry Warren and Derek Alms for a Private Air Strip on PIN 08-08-15-000-209 and 08-08-10-000-403, farm ground located at 1000N and 1200E, Sullivan, IL. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roe. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Mr. Phelps stated we have discussion and possible action to approve moving forward with nuisance violations for 635 S. County St, Lovington, IL. Mr. Phelps stated this is the property in Lovington at the T intersection, they have been dealing with the property for the past year and a half, and the house falls in the County, but the outbuildings fall in the Village of Lovington. We will talk about how the County will prepare to move forward with that. If we get a judgment, there could be expenses to remove the house, or can we sell the house, but we will have to take on some responsibilities if we do that.

Planning and Zoning Director Kristi Hart spoke that all nuisance violations are complaint-based. On January 3 [,2023], she received two complaints about the property. It [the house was hit by a car] on June 26, 2022. Ms. Hart said she sent an initial certified letter on the 6th [of January], received an email from the owner on the 7th saying he was struggling with insurance and was hiring an attorney. (Ms. Hart has all the paperwork if anyone wants to see it.) Ms. Hart asked the owner that she be kept in the loop. She heard nothing again until January 24, with contractor information. In February, she received information that the owner had talked to engineers. In the end of March Ms. Hart, accompanied by a Sheriff's Deputy, went to the property to take pictures. On March 30, she sent a notice to the owner who had 15 days to put up a fence up or shore up the house and give a date for the repairs to begin or it could go to the State's Attorney. A temporary fence was put up in April with a six-month contract. The fence will be coming down next week.

The owner has been contacted by people wanting to buy the property, to which he has said no. The taxes have been paid. There had been complaints about the grass, so Ms. Hart sent someone to mow and sent the invoices for the mowing to the owner which he paid. Ms. Hart said she has never spoken to the owner, all communication has been through email, with the last email from him being in April. No further communication has been received except for the check in June for the mowing.

Mr. Phelps and Ms. Hart met with (State's Attorney) Tracy [Weaver] and (Assistant State's Attorney) Elizabeth [Dobson], about the house. Ms. Hart had pictures of the property which she passed to the board members to review. Ms. Hart stated she needs to know what the board is willing to do to go forward with this nuisance violation because it is now a public safety thing. The house could fall down, possibly on someone, and there have been reports of kids being in the house.

Ms. Dobson then took the floor concerning the nuisance violation. She stated, the issue is, just how far is the County Board willing to go in terms of approving us for demolition of this? Going through the folder of the owner's violations, the ultimate remedy that we request in a situation like this is for the authority to have the property be made safe. And, in a case like this, that is to demolish the residence. If demolition costs are between $20,000.00 and $30,000.00, is this something the board is willing to support? I don't want to take this before a Judge to have the violation found and the Order approved for demolition, then come back to the board and be told, no this is too expensive. I would like to go into it with Judge Richey with the feeling that if this is ordered, we are going to follow through on some level. There is also the idea that it could be used for practice for the local fire departments for a controlled burn, so we won't have to pay for the large demolition costs. However, I am not saying that we couldn't recoup the money from the owner, who is responsible for this, but we would have to pay an upfront cost to make the area safe. Kristi has been fielding calls about the residence, and so has the State's Attorney's office, with people expressing very big safety concerns. Not only is the house going to fall over, but it is attracting vermin, attracting children and people messing around with the nuisance area. There are concerns that someone is going to get hurt, get sick, something bad is going to happen, which is why I am bringing it to you. As I said, we need to be able to have an idea of the financial backing for upfront costs the board will agree on, to move forward.

Mr. Wilhelm asked if we move forward on this to tear down the house, will the County get ownership of the entire property or, are we just fronting the costs and the owner gets to keep everything? Ms. Dobson stated it is both. The number one goal with the nuisance, is to demolish the residence. There are ways to recoup the costs and we can seize the property in connection with the costs, that's an option.

Mr. Vander Burgh asked if there is anyone that has expressed interest in fixing it up or is it beyond that? Ms. Hart stated she has been approached several times by the same person expressing interest in buying and fixing up the property. This person has reached out to the owner too.

Mr. Vander Burgh asked if it is realistic that we could obtain possession of the property and sell it for virtually nothing with the condition that they either make it safe or demolish it at their own cost? With discussion amongst a few people, it was stated and agreed about giving a time limit to render the property safe. Ms. Dobson said that is a possibility if we, the County get possession of the home and the premises, yes.

Mr. Phelps brought up that if there is asbestos involved, the price of demolition increases. Ms. Hart agreed the cost could double the demolition cost. Ms. Hart has spoken to one contractor who advised that if a citizen were to have the house torn down, they would tear the house down. But, if the County took ownership and asked to have the house torn down, the contractor would have to check for asbestos, and it's double the cost.

Mr. Wilhelm asked if the County has an ordinance that would fine him and tack on every day until he does something? To which Ms. Dobson stated, yes. Mr. Wilhelm asked if we have started doing that? Ms. Dobson said, the County does have an ordinance, but we have to prove the ordinance violation first, then that can be a certain amount of money per day until it's fixed. Mr. Wilhelm pointed out that he is paying the bills and just not doing anything with the house. Additional discussion about the court aspect of this was had.

Mr. Vander Burgh pointed out that this case will set a precedent for the County. Other people may feel they don't want to pay to tear down a building, so I'll let the County take it and they can pay for it. Additional discussion on the topic was had.

Ms. Hart asked, since she is complaint-based, how much does the County want her to "chase this"? She can nag until the cows come home, but really has no legal authority until she takes it to the State's Attorney to take over. In the meantime, she will nag people if that is what the board wants her to do. But, do we want to set a precedent, so people see that the County really is going to do something? She is looking for guidance.

Ms. Dobson stated that we don't want to be in a situation where the demolition is done on our dime and the people get to keep the property. That is in her opinion what this person wants.

The discussion then went back to the fine and about how that works. Ms. Dobson said the fine would be through court order. It is just a fine, not a lien on the property and the fines can go on indefinitely. Then the person who is being fined cannot then go back on the property to do something without a court order. Ms. Dobson said this may be the best thing is to not be looking at this as a demolition but look at forcing them to demolish through fining. Then, if that doesn't work, the State's Attorney's office comes back to the board to say this isn't working so now we need to look at demolition.

Ms. Kirby stated she likes the "fining avenue", give it a time limit, and if nothing is done in that time frame, we move forward in another direction.

Mr. Vander Burgh brought up his concern with the County's liability for this property since it has now been brought before the board and how do we minimize it. Ms. Dobson said she thinks the way to minimize the liability is to file the ordinance violation and get this into court. She doesn't think it will take very long to at least get it started, then legal counsel is involved, and it takes this off the taxpayer and the board's plate and deal with what happens in court. She feels we should do this, but she doesn't want anyone to think we walk away with fine money and ultimately some big cost because we just might.

Mr. Vander Burgh stated he would like us to explore the idea if someone wants to buy it. We don't need to make a penny on it, but for someone else is willing to assume the risk of tearing it down or fixing it, our concern is the liability, the danger to the public. If someone is willing to mitigate that for us, let them do it.

When asked if we needed a motion to proceed with the ordinance violation, Ms. Dobson said she didn't think so; she just didn't want it to come as a surprise in four months if it looks like if we really want to take care of the problem, it's going to cost $30,000.00.

Additional discussion was held about getting this into court. Everyone is in agreement.

PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE (Chair: Phelps)

Meeting: September 6, 2023

Mr. Phelps stated they did have a meeting and had discussion about the same piece of property addressing it from every angle to obtain as much information as they could. But they have no motions at this time.

AS NEEDED COMMITTEES

INSURANCE COMMITTEE (Chair: Roe)

No meeting.

Mr. Roe stated they had no meeting, but he does have a motion.

Mr. Roe moved to approve Moultrie County's Prescription Plan Amendment to add to the formulary: 1) Continuous Glucose Monitors and all associated components as set forth in the attached letter by Cindi Reed dated August 9, 2023; 2) Insulin Delivery Devices as set forth in the attached letter by Cindi Reed dated August 9, 2023. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. Mr. Roe read the list of products as cited in the amendment. (Copy attached.) Mr. Roe included the component of the Continuous Glucose Monitors should be $20.00 per 30-day supply and the Insulin Delivery Devices should be $20.00 per 30-day supply. Mr. Wilhelm asked if this is just being added to the plan. Mr. Roe confirmed and went on to say that they talked about it a couple of months ago, and it was to be on the agenda last month, but he didn't get it to Linda on time. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

PERSONNEL COMMITTEE (Chair: Kirby)

Meeting: 09/21/2023.

Ms. Kirby moved to approve an ordinance to establish the salary and stipend of the Supervisor of Assessment. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. Ms. Barringer, Supervisor of Assessment, stated that in order for the State to reimburse one- half of her salary, the minutes have to reflect what her salary will be, the State requires a copy of the minutes, they don't care about the ordinance. When asked what that salary will be, she stated $62,000.00. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Personnel Committee Continued - Meeting: 10/02/2023

Ms. Kirby moved to approve one-half of the Chief Deputy of Assessments salary to be paid out of line-item 001-005-50511. The motion was seconded by Mr. Buxton. There being no discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 7 yes, 0 no.

Ms. Kirby moved to approve salary line-item requests from Appointed Department Heads. The motion was seconded by Mr. Buxton. Ms. Kirby explained the committee met with each department head to discuss the salaries necessary. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken, the motion carried 6 yes, 0 no, and Mr. Buxton abstaining.

Ms. Kirby moved to approve the salary of Wendy Buxton. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. Mr. Wilhelm asked if this is an increase in her salary or what is the reason for the motion. Ms. Barringer stated it is because she is married to a County board member, so Her's has to be separate so the spouse can't vote. There being no further discussion, roll call was taken; the motion carried 6 yes, 0 no, and Mr. Buxton abstaining.

Ms. Kirby stated they will be discussing longevity pay in the upcoming month.

AD HOC COMMITTEES

There were no Ad Hoc committee meetings.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Wilhelm shared the Childcare Initiative met on October 10, 2023, and the program is still chugging along. One of the larger daycares has completed the program and two other providers are working on the process. There is still money left, if you know anyone interested, please have them contact Aaron.

EXECUTIVE SESSION 5 ILCS 120/2

No executive session.

COMMENTS

BOARD - no comments were made.

ELECTED OFFICIALS - no comments.

DEPARTMENT HEADS

Ms. Barringer announced that equalization valuation should be done tomorrow, 10/13/2023. The work the township assessors and her have done shows about a $21,000,000.00 increase in EAVS (equalized assessed values).

Tax information meetings with Linda, Stephanie and Lori start next week on Tuesday, 17, 2023.

Assessment notices go out November 1, 2023, people have 30 days to file a complaint/appeal to the board of appeals. The traffic in the Assessor's office may be heavy during the month of November.

Ms. Hart reminded the board that Billy [Voyles] asked if the new monotower going up on the West side of town will be 120 feet from the roadway. Jef [Liddiard] and she went out to measure and the tower will be 120 feet from the road.

Number two, Ms. Hart thanked the board for letting them go forward [with the Lovington property nuisance violation] and to SA Tracy Weaver and ASA Elizabeth Dobson for their help.

Ms. Dobson thanked Kristi Hart for all her work and told her she has done a terrific job building a case for them and to Mr. Phelps for being a participant in helping them get this thing going.

PUBLIC

None.

ADJOURN: Ms. Kirby asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Roe moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. T. Graven. Via voice vote, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

https://cms9files.revize.com/moultrie//Bd%20Minutes%2010.12.23.pdf