Editor’s note: Following is a letter from Doug Block, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois Unit 6 labor representative, to City of Rockford Legal Director Patrick Hayes regarding the city’s proposal that eight Rockford police officers to be laid off.

The PBPA included 2008 pay raise information for 35 positions that are non-union, exempt or department heads.  The union believes the pay raises should be reviewed for 2006 through 2008 for potential violations of the City Personnel Code, which provides a maximum of 4 percent merit/bonus raise in addition to a “cost of living” raise approved by the City Council.

Response to City and Union Demands to Bargain Impact of Layoffs

Patrick,

In response to the September 17, 2009, City Demand to Bargain as a result of the announced layoff of 8 police officers, and not hiring to replace the 13 vacant police officer positions, the Union proposes to discuss the items identified in this proposal during the contract negotiation session scheduled for this Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 1:00 p.m.

CITY PROPOSALS

1. Transfer 2 Recruiters from recruiting duties and place into the Traffic Division for operational duties.

a. The 2 Recruiters would be allowed to transfer back into the investigator assignments they had prior to being assigned to the Recruiting Office as well as being able to “bump” into an investigator assignment if there are less senior investigators already assigned to that position.

b. The administration shall request volunteers for the Traffic Division.

c. If there are insufficient volunteers the administration shall reassign the most junior investigator(s) determined by the investigators promotional date

d. Any investigators that are displaced as a result of the 2 Recruiters being reassigned shall be able to “bump” into positions held by less senior investigators as determined by the investigators promotional date.

e. The 2 Recruiters currently assigned to the Recruiting Office will be the first offered the positions whenever administration decides to staff the Recruiting Office in the future.

2. Transfer the Patrol Officer position in the Traffic Division back to the Patrol Division.  Patrol and Traffic Division personnel will take the duties.

a. The patrol officer currently assigned to the Traffic Division will be reassigned to the Patrol Division.

b. The Traffic Division personnel will take the duties previously assigned to the patrol officer.

c. If administration decides to assign a patrol officer to resume the duties already being done by the patrol officer currently assigned – the administration shall offer the assignment to that patrol officer first.

3. Eliminate the afternoon and midnight patrol officers at the front desk.  The desk will be staffed by the Civilian Report Writers from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekends.  The Desk will not be staffed from 9p – 7a every day.  The outside entrance (Elm Street) will have an intercom and camera, which the Shift Commander can use to communicate fro any walk-up assistance during 9p – 7a.  The Shift Commander can call an Area Squad to assist if needed.

a. The Union is opposed to this idea.  There have been numerous incidents throughout the years when a victim was being pursued by a suspect and the victim came to the Public Safety Building (PSB) for help and to get away from the person(s) that have, or are attempting, to, harm them.  The administration should be able to review past workers compensation claims for several of these incidents as officers working the Front Desk have been injured when becoming involved in some of these incidents.

b. During the cold months of the year transients stay near the PSB and at times have accosted individuals seeking police assistance at the PSB.

c. During the cold months of the year the PSB has been a cold weather shelter and ill individuals have required medical attention.  Police officers have checked the welfare of such individuals in the past during their stay at the PSB.  If no one staffs the Front Desk at the PSB then an individual may die due to not having been checked on while staying at the PSB.

d. There is no assurance of a quick response time for an Area Squad whenever an urgent incident occurs such as when someone is being chased or attacked.

e. State law designates police stations as “safe havens” under the Abandoned Newborn Infant Protection Act.  The Act grants immunity from criminal prosecution if a parent of an infant safely abandons their infant(s) within 72 hours of birth with personnel at designated “safe havens” which are police stations, fire stations, hospitals and medical emergency facilities.  Although one could argue the parent leaving the baby should not have done so if they simply pushed the buzzer for the Shift Commander and then left without speaking with the Shift Commander thinking the baby would be seen on camera – if something were to happen to the infant the Union feels it would be difficult for the public, as well as fellow police officers, to understand.  The Union does not want any individual, including infants, children, teenagers, adults or the elderly to be injured or receive further harm when they arrive at the PSB seeking help.

In addition to the City proposals listed above the Union is willing to discuss the following ideas on October 1, 2009, as part of the contract negotiations.  The Union believes the proposals are needed to ensure the safety of the public, property and officers based on the administration’s decision to not fill current vacancies and to layoff eight (8) officers.  The Union proposals would also include temporary cost savings to the City.  Additionally, the State has authorized the release of 1,000 inmates in the near future.  In the past the Rockford parole office has received many released inmates that are not from the Rockford area.  It is unknown how many of these inmates will be residing in the immediate Rockford area.

UNION PROPOSALS

NOTE:  Any proposal that involves a stipend or transfer from a special unit back to a patrol shift or the Traffic Unit would be done with the understanding of the parties that all current officers in the special unit and/or receiving a stipend would automatically be reassigned to the special unit, or a similar Unit, when administration determines it is able to sustain that unit or a similar one and would also receive the stipend once again (unless stated otherwise in this proposal).  Any transfer of officers would actually occur during the January 2010 changeover unless otherwise indicated in this proposal.

The Union also requests the City conduct a financial analysis on the savings for the year 2010 that any suspension of a stipend entitlement would save the City if the transfer and stipends were done on the changeover in January 2010 unless a different effective date is indicted

1. M-3 Unit :  Transfer all the officers currently assigned to the M-3 Unit back to the Patrol Division and the officers would be included in the annual shift bidding process for a patrol shift.

2. Community Services Unit :  Transfer all the officers currently assigned to the Community Services Unit back to the Patrol Division and the officers would be included in the annual shift bidding process for a patrol shift.

3. IT Section :  Transfer the Traffic Investigator that is currently assigned to the IT section of the department back to the Traffic Division.

a. The Traffic Investigator was only to be temporarily assigned to the IT Section but has been there for several years.  The Union wishes to point out the Traffic Commander had been told the transfer would only be temporary, when it occurred several years ago, and the investigator’s position was not filled.

b. The administration could consider replacing the Traffic Investigator in the IT Section with a civilian employee that would earn much less salary based on the salaries of the current civilian IT employees.  According to the data the Union has reviewed it would appear the Traffic Investigator assigned to the IT Section has cost the City significantly more than any civilian employees assigned to any of the IT Sections for the City of Rockford and the Rockford Police Department.

c. The Union is aware of several potential retirements in the near future which would create openings for Traffic Investigators.  Thus the department will be in need of replacing one or more Traffic Investigators.

d. The current civilian employees in the IT Section should be able to function without the assistance of the Traffic Investigator as they have been in the unit for several years and should have the knowledge required to work on police related issues.

e. The Traffic Investigator would be transferred back to the Traffic Unit on the first day of the first full pay period in October 2009.

f. The Traffic Investigator would be permitted to bid in the annual shift bidding process for the 2010 shift assignments for the Traffic Unit.  The time the investigator actually worked in the Traffic Unit would be considered for basis of seniority in that unit for the bidding process.  The time assigned to the IT Section will not be included as seniority in the Traffic Unit.  The use of past seniority in the Traffic Unit shall apply only for this one time situation

4. Field Training Officer (FTO) Program:  The Union is willing to discuss the suspension of paying the officers who have been designated as an FTO the stipend they currently receive for being an FTO.  The Union requests the City conduct an analysis on the savings for this year and for 2010 that any suspension of the stipend entitlement would save the City effective the first full pay period in October.  All current officers would automatically be re-designated as an FTO a minimum of 45 calendar days prior to the Department hiring new officers or hiring back any officer that may be laid off.  The timing of the suspension of stipends would be on the first day of a full pay period in the month of October 2009.

5. Accreditation Unit: Transfer the accreditation duties to the Records Division:

a. Both Chief Nielsen and Chief Pugh discussed their plans for accreditation with the Union.  Both had stated accreditation would not be a financial burden to the Department and once the Department was accredited the functions required for maintaining accreditation would be transferred from a sworn officer to a civilian employee under the direction of the Records Division supervisor.

b. The patrol officer currently assigned to the Accreditation Unit would be transferred back to the Patrol Division and the officer would be included in the annual shift bidding process for a patrol shift.

c. The Traffic Investigator assigned to the Accreditation Unit would be permitted to bid in the annual shift bidding process for the 2010 shift assignments for the Traffic Unit.  The time the investigator actually worked in the Traffic Unit would be considered for basis of seniority in that unit for the bidding process.  The time assigned to the Accreditation Unit will not be included as seniority in the Traffic Unit.  The use of past seniority in the Traffic Unit shall apply only for this one time situation.

d. The officers would be transferred back to the Patrol Division and Traffic Unit on the date of changeover in January 2010.

e. The Union requests the City conduct an analysis on the savings for eliminating any stipend entitlement paid to the officers assigned to the Accreditation Unit effective on the changeover date in January 2010.

f. Based on recent events the administration may want to reconsider participating in the accreditation program

6. “All Terrain Vehicle” (ATV) Unit :  The Union is willing to discuss the suspension of paying the officers who have been designated as ATV officers any stipends they currently receive for being designated an ATV officer.

a. The timing of the suspension of stipends would be on the first day of a full pay period in the month of October 2009.

b. The Department would not be able to utilize the ATV’s until such time all current ATV officers begin to receive their stipend and administration determines it can sustain reactivation of the Unit.

c. The current officers assigned to the ATV Unit would automatically be reassigned to the ATV Unit when administration determines it is able to sustain the Unit once again.

7. Internal Affairs :  The City is aware the Union had filed a Demand to Bargain over the assignment of a bargaining member to the Internal Affairs Unit.  Administration agreed to reassign the bargaining member by specific dates but has continually requested extensions which the Union agreed to.  The Union has been told the employee would definitely be reassigned by the end of September 2009.  The Union will be expecting the employee to be reassigned no later than October 5, 2009.

8. Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS) :  The Union believes the Department should discontinue its participation in the ILEAS program.

a. It has come to the attention of the Union the Department may not be honoring its obligations as a member of ILEAS as well as possibly violating the departmental General Orders pertaining to ILEAS.  If this is the case administration should consider withdrawing from the ILEAS program.

b. Although the Union has been told the State of Illinois reimburses the Department all costs incurred for sending an officer to support another agency or training, including payment of any overtime incurred to hire back another officer to fill the ILEAS member’s workdays, the Department has reportedly not been sending sufficient officers to fill the need of the other agencies.

c. The Department supposedly receives funds to purchase equipment and other items for participating in the ILEAS program.  If the Department is not honoring its commitments it most likely should not be accepting funds to purchase equipment, or other items, to be used for other situations by the Department.  The administration should review the expenditures of funds received for participating in the ILEAS program to ensure it was legally spent.

d. In addition to the above, the Union believes it may be in the best interest of the City to discontinue participation in the ILEAS program as the officers assigned would not miss any workdays to train for an ILEAS response or be dispatched to assist another agency.  This would result in less work scheduling challenges for the Department…

9. Mentoring Program :  The Union has been advised the Department may be assigning an officer to the Illinois State Police Academy as a mentor or staff member.

a. As the patrol shifts have been operating with less than the number of officers normally scheduled, and it is difficult for officers to be granted use of their compensatory time, the Union believes it would be in the best interest of the Department to end its participation in such a program.

b. With the announcement by the Mayor that 8 officers are to be laid off on October 2, 2009, and the current 13 vacancies are not to be filled, and at least three senior officers have announced their retirements in the next few months, the Union does not see the value to continue assigning a police officer to the State Police Academy as the Department will not have any recruits to send.

10. Day Cover Shift :  The City has expressed a desire to form a Day Cover Shift to better handle calls for service and has indicated such a shift could possibly reduce overtime for a potential savings to the Department.  The Union proposes:

a. The administration will offer 4 patrol shifts for the annual shift bidding process.  The Day, Afternoon and Night patrol shifts and a Day Cover Shift with a starting time of 9 a.m. and an ending time of 7 p.m.

b. The Day Cover shift would be effective on the changeover date in January 2010.

c. As the Day Cover Shift officers will be working a minimum of 3 hours when the Afternoon Shift is scheduled to work, the Day Cover Shift officers will receive a shift differential of .30 cents per hour added to their hourly rate of pay.

d. The Day Cover Shift would be under the direct supervision of the Day Shift Commander.

e. The officers assigned to the Day Cover Shift would have their requests for all leave time, absences, training, etc., approved by the Day Shift supervisors in accordance to the guidelines for the Day Shift.

f. STAFFING : The parties agree to discuss the guidelines for the number of officers to be assigned to the Day Shift, Afternoon Shift, Night Shift and the Day Cover Shift.  Said guidelines will also include, but are not limited to, the number of officers permitted to be on vacation during the various “prime time” and “non-prime time” periods of the year, and the number of officers that would be permitted off with compensatory use throughout the year.

11. Bike Officers/Use of the Bicycles :  As long as the M-3 and Community Services Units are not staffed the Department cannot order any officer to perform their duties while riding a bicycle.  Officers designated as certified to perform their duties while riding a bicycle would normally be paid a stipend.  As the Union is proposing suspensions of the various stipends normally paid to officers that are certified to ride a bicycle the Department cannot utilize bicycles.

ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS

1. Feasibility Study for a Metro Law Enforcement Agency :  The Union has raised the idea in the past for disbanding the Rockford Police Department in lieu of a county wide law enforcement agency that would provide law enforcement services to the citizens of Rockford as well as the entire county.

a. The Union proposes the City form a joint committee with the County that would include Union representatives to study the feasibility for a Metro Law Enforcement Agency.

b. The committee would review metro agencies that currently exist in the United States as well as which State laws would have to be amended or enacted to form a metro agency.

c. Once the committee has determined it has the proper information and if the committee decides it would be in the best interest of the citizens throughout the county it would seek a referendum to form a metro agency

2. Tax Increment Financing Districts (TIF’s) :  The Union proposes the City stop creating TIF Districts for the following reasons:

a. With each TIF district the City creates there is a decline in revenue for the City as the property taxes collected for the TIF area are frozen with any new taxes going into the TIF District fund.

b. The City sells bonds to finance projects for the TIF Districts with the repayment for the bonds to be paid by any new property taxes received from the TIF District.

c. However, during the budget hearings held at City Hall during either February or March this year the City finance director indicated the City will be obligated to pay for several bond payments for many years as the TIF Districts are not generating enough new tax revenue to make the bond payments.

d. The finance director indicated the TIF District bond payments will have to come from the General Fund and will be several million dollars each year for numerous years.

e. Every dollar spent from the General Fund to make the payments for the TIF District bonds results in less funds for other City needs such as personnel and equipment.

f. The City has a plan to make a large portion of East State Street a TIF District as well as the Broadway area.  Both TIF Districts include hundreds of residential buildings as well as commercial properties.  If allowed to be created, the City will not receive any new property tax revenue for 15-30 years from these areas.  However, the City is still obligated to provide public services to all areas of the City that are, or will be, TIF Districts without those areas having to contribute new property tax revenue to offset the expenses for the services.  The non-TIF District residents will shoulder the burden.

g. There are many recent studies that indicate TIF Districts are no longer the ultimate solution for renewal of decaying or depressed areas of a city.  The administration should explore alternative options that would achieve the goals.

3. Recalculate/adjust pay raises provided to non-union and exempt employees as well as all Department Heads:  The Union believes administration should review the pay raises given to all non-union, exempt and Department Heads for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008.  Once the administration has reviewed the pay raises it should proceed to adjust the raises based the following:

a.  The City Personnel Code indicates non-bargaining employees can receive a

maximum of a 4 percent merit or bonus in addition to the cost of living

increase approved by the City Council.

b. Based on information the Union has received from the City it would appear that in addition to a particular individual, that has since voluntarily terminated their employment with the City, there were several other employees that received pay raises in excess of that authorized by the City Personnel Code in the year 2008.

c. The Union also has documentation from the City that indicates similar violations of the Personnel Code may have occurred in the years 2006 and 2007 as well as 2008.

d. The Union believes any pay increases that are greater than that permitted by the City Personnel Code may be illegal and thus any employee covered by the Personnel Code provision and who received pay raises in excess of that permitted by the Personnel Code should have their pay adjusted to come into compliance with the Personnel Code.  The adjustment would be for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

e. The Personnel Code does provide for exceptions to the 4 percent maximum combined with the cost of living increases approved by the City Council.  The Code allows raises greater than the standard if a study has been done that indicates a larger pay raise is appropriate.  If there is a determination that an employee should receive a larger pay increase then it must be approved by various City Hall administrators including the Mayor.  However, the Union has been told that no such study has been done since the City paid for a study in either 2001 or 2002.

f. Employees that are represented by a union received across the board pay raises of 3.5% in 2006, 3.5% in 2007, and 4% in 2008.  Only the AFSCME bargaining members have received a pay raise for 2009 and that was a 4% across the board.

g. In addition to the across the board pay raises, some bargaining members received pay step increases and possibly a 2% longevity increase during one or more of the years 2006 through 2009.  The pay step increases and longevity are both tied into the employee’s length of service with the City and or department they regularly work for.

h. Although the bargaining members received the across the board pay raises, and some received pay step increases as well as longevity increases, the Union is not aware of any bargaining member receiving a total pay raise in any given year that are similar to the pay raises given to many non-union employees and Department Heads that were at least 10% or better than $6,000 in 2008 who did not have to bargain for such or go through arbitration.

i. The following are examples of non-bargaining employees and Department Heads pay raises that are at least 10% or a minimum of $6,000 in the year 2008 and do not include the costs of their benefits.  It should be noted that many of these individuals’ base salaries were between $70,000 and more than $100,000 prior to their pay raises.

1. CD Neighborhood Development (exempt) $4,784.00 (or 12.54%)

2. Fire Department Admin (exempt) $7,342.40 raise (or 6.11%)

3. Public Works Traffic Admin & Engineer (non-union)

$5,283.20 raise (or 11.90%)

4. Police Patrol Bureau (exempt) $6,281.60 raise (or 6.10%)

5. CD Planning Division (exempt) $8,860.80 raise (or 11.21%)

6. Building Department (exempt) $7,841.60 raise (or 11.41%)

7. Fire 911 Telecommunicator 3 (exempt) $6,094.40 raise (or 6.5%)

8. Human Services CAP 3 (appointed) $7,758.40 raise (or 8.99%)

9. Fire Department Academy (exempt) $7,155.20 raise (or 6.5%)

10. Legal Department (non-union) $4,264.00 (or 15.66%)

11. Police Administration (appointed) $10,753.60 (or 9.16%)

12. Public Works Traffic Admin & Engineer (exempt) $11,960.00 (or 11.61%)

13. Fire Department Admin (exempt) $6,073.60 (or 6.24%)

14. Police Patrol Bureau (exempt) $6,676.80 (or 6.08%)

15. Public Works Admin Services (exempt) $33,384.00 (or 38.11%)

16. Legal Department (appointed) $11,876.80 (or 9.93%)

17. Public Works Engineering Services (exempt) $9,880.00 (or 10.85%)

18. Human Services (appointed) $9,692.80 (or 8.48%)

19. Public Works Water Distribution 3 (non-union) $10,316.80 (or 21.42%)

20. Fire Department Admin (exempt) $7,259.20 (or 6.5%)

21. Public Works Central Garage (exempt) $12,667.20 (or 16.41%)

22. Police Detective Bureau (exempt) $6,947.20 (or 6.08%)

23. Fire Department Admin (exempt) $6,231.68 (or 6.26%)

24. Community Development (appointed) $10,004.80 (or 8.75%)

25. Legal Department (exempt) $6,281.60 (or 6.5%)

26. Police Patrol Bureau (exempt) $6,032.00 (or 5.57%)

27. Public Works Customer Service 3 (exempt) $4,513.60 (or 10.31%)

28. Public Works Water Distribution 3 (non-union) $10,233.60 (or 20.23%)

29. Finance Department (appointed) $10,920.00 (or 8.62%)

30. Community Development (exempt) $6,926.40 (or 14.88%)

31. Fire Prevention Bureau (exempt) $7,342.40 (or 6.11%)

32. Mayor’s Office Staff (appointed) $28,392.00 (or 42.62%)

33. Public Works Street Department (exempt) $9,692.80 (or 18.43%)

34. Fire Department Admin (exempt) $6,348.16 (or 6.37%)

35. Information Technology (appointed) $7,737.60 (or 9.80%)

These are some examples of at least a 10% or more than $6,000 pay raise in 2008 for non-union City employees.

The current administration has been lowering the property tax rates by increasing the costs to the citizens that use the water, sewer, and garbage collection services of the City.

The administration has also increased the tax levies for citizens that have telephone services and increased the fees charged for various permits issued by the City.  In addition to the 1% general sales tax the administration passed by referendum it has also extended the 1% Metro Centre sales tax.  The Union believes the administration should attempt to leave the property tax rate at its current level if not legally obligated to reduce the rate and discontinue raising user fees.

The lowering of the property tax rate has adversely impacted the citizens that earn less income as the administration has raised user fees that impact low income earning more than higher income earners as does the additional 1% general sales tax and the 1% Metro Centre tax.

The rise in fees is not tax deductible as are property taxes.  The Union urges the current administration to consider revising their plans to continually lower the property tax rate by raising user fees.

The Union has noticed the Water Department has been increasing the number of employees that are exempt or non-union as well as permitting numerous pay increases in excess of $6,000 or 10%.  The response the Union leadership has received from certain administrative personnel is the Water Department is self sufficient and thus the pay raises and increase in employees is not a burden to the taxpayers.  The Union is aware the City is scheduling another water rate increase for 2010.  The Union requests the current administration revisit the increasing personnel expenses in the Water Department before voting on a rate increase.

It should be noted the pay increases identified were for only the year 2008.  Many, if not all of the employees identified, received similar pay increases in the years 2006 and 2007.  The global economy began to suffer the effects of a recession well before the current administration authorized the pay raises for those identified in this letter.

The Union is concerned about the increases in user fees and sales taxes as it may be cause for individuals to not relocate to Rockford and may actually cause some to leave Rockford and thus potentially adding to the economic situation for the City.

4. Sale of Seized Guns :  The Union believes the Department has destroyed rifles and handguns that were worth approximately $750,000 in the past year.  Some of the weapons were possibly collectibles and worth more than estimated.  The Union would propose contracting with a licensed gun dealer to sell weapons that become Department property by order of the courts.  The monies raised through the gun sales would then be used by the City as a revenue source.  The Union is aware this would be a controversial issue but also knows there are many gun dealers and the sale of guns will occur with or without inventory provided by the Rockford Police Department.

5. Eliminate the second City Administrator :  The current administration has added a second City Administrator to the Mayor’s staff in recent years.  When the current Mayor ran for office and was first elected he said he would not be attending ribbon cuttings or other similar events because he would be in his office working.  The Union believes the Mayor actually should be attending such events as past mayors have.  However, the previous mayors were able to handle the public events and their duties without a second City Administrator.  The Union does not know if support staff have been added to the Mayor’s Office because of the additional administrator but the budgets appear to provide more staff than the previous administration.  If there are additional support staff for the second City Administrator then elimination of those jobs would be additional savings.

The Union leadership has been tasked with continuing to think of potential ways to reduce the costs to the Police Department to avoid any layoffs as well as increasing and maintaining the proper number of street officers to provide for the safety of the citizens, property, and the police officers themselves.  Thus the Union may have additional items to discuss when the parties meet for contract negotiations this coming Thursday,

October 1, 2009, at 1 p.m.

The Union would appreciate the City providing the cost savings analysis for the proposals indicated in this letter at least one full day prior to the parties meeting to negotiate on Thursday, October 1, 2009, so the leadership has an opportunity to review the report.

Respectfully,

Doug Block, Labor Representative

PBPA Unit 6

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.

By Stuart R. Wahlin

Staff Writer

There was no fanfare, partisan bickering or dissent. Despite historically lengthy battles on the floor when passing its budgets, the Winnebago County Board unanimously adopted its 2010 spending plan Sept. 24, just six days before the end of its 2009 fiscal year.

Finance Committee Chairman Tom Owens (R-1) described the 2010 plan as “probably the longest budget process we’ve ever seen,” but weeks of preparation amid declining revenues led to an arrangement board members could live with.

In the interest of avoiding further layoffs, despite cutting approximately $13 million from the operational budget, the board opted to reduce work weeks to 38 hours for 204 employees of several county departments. Salaried employees will be docked the equivalent of two hours per week. The move is expected to trim nearly $350,000 from personnel costs.

Effective Oct. 2, the offices of the circuit clerk, recorder, state’s attorney and supervisor of assessments will close at 3 p.m., instead of 5 p.m., on Fridays.

Being directly affected by the reduced hours, 17th Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Janet Holmgren announced the Winnebago County court system would also adjourn at 3 p.m., Fridays, affecting 163 court workers.

Combined, the two-hour reductions to the work weeks are expected to save more than $700,000. Additionally, county department heads have been instructed to reduce spending by 11 percent.

The county is operating with 154 fewer workers than a year ago, attributable to early retirement packages, furloughs, layoffs and positions remaining vacant.

The shortened work week is expected to last throughout the new fiscal year, which will end Sept. 30, 2010, but county leaders are hopeful for improvement in the economy.

Meantime, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which represents about 130 county workers, plans to file grievances, claiming some of its members are guaranteed 40 hours per week. Instead, AFSCME has proposed four 10-hour days as a cost-saving measure.

Tax levies:

• General Fund: $12,232,000

• Public Health Fund: $3,219,000

• Detention Home Fund: $1,545,000

• Highway Fund: $3,128,000

• Bridge Fund: $352,000

• Federal Aid Matching Fund: $1,978,000

• Veteran’s Assistance Fund: $158,000

• Tort Judgment & Liability Insurance Fund: $3,688,000

• Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund: $5,011,000

• Social Security and Medicare Fund: $3,366,000

• Historical Museum Fund: $103,000

• County Nursing Home Operations Fund: $3,177,000

• Children’s Advocacy Project Fund: $196,000

Amendments

• Increase: $26,000 Emergency Service Disaster Agency (ESDA) grant to hire a consultant “to develop a county-wide tactical interoperable communications plan.”

• Decrease: $75,000 for data processing equipment related to the circuit clerk’s document storage system.

• Transfer: $33,000 from the Circuit Court to the Jury Commission for salaries “to offset a portion of the personnel reductions required this fiscal year.” The request for the amendment noted the increasing number of jury trials.

• Increase: $600,000 grant from the state as reimbursement for 2008 flood relief, administered through the Salvation Army.

• Increase: $100,000 grant from the City of Rockford for salaries related to the state’s attorney’s elder abuse prosecution and juvenile programs.

• Increase: As the result of an unforeseen extension of a $30,000 Department of Children and Family Services parental rights grant, $78,537 for salaries, health and life insurance was allocated to the state’s attorney’s office. The remaining $48,537 will come from the general fund, $39,302 of which will be generated by increased cable franchise fees.

• Increase: $145,564 from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, to be used by the Sheriff’s Department for the purchase of an “E-ticketing/GPS system” and software.

• Increase: $11,000 traffic safety grant to the Sheriff’s Department for an automated license plate recognition system, “which can recognize and run up to 2,000 license plates per hour.”

• Transfer: $45,000 from “other professional services” to pay the salary of Law Enforcement Aviation Coalition’s (LEAC) chief pilot. Board member Randy Olson (R-1) presently serves as chief pilot.

Wind farm ordinance to be voted on Oct. 8

A text amendment to the Winnebago County Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of regulating commercial wind power generating facilities received a first reading Sept. 24, and was laid over until the Oct. 8 meeting.

A supermajority, or 21 of 28 votes, will be required for approval, unless Seward Township withdraws its legal objection.

Although a number of the township’s concerns were addressed in committee, Seward still opposes proceeding with the ordinance as a permitted use, favoring a special use instead.

A special-use permit would require a public hearing for every application submitted by developers, giving citizens a chance to express concerns regarding specific proposed sites for wind farms. Under a permitted use, however, the application is only reviewed by county staff, and without public input.

A motion to amend the ordinance to a permitted use could be made during the Oct. 8 meeting.

In related news, during a Sept. 23 meeting, the Zoning Committee opted to revert back to original language that had been changed at the previous meeting.

Instead of including barns, machine sheds and livestock buildings in the definition of occupied buildings, which are protected by safety setbacks, new language was added to protect the farm-related structures without being defined as occupied.

Another last-minute change in committee raised the required minimum amount of liability insurance coverage from $1 million to $2 million for wind farm applicants.

Meantime, the Natural Land Institute (NLI) remains uncomfortable with language regarding a Wildlife/Avian Survey and Mitigation Plan.

Sally Hoff, NLI’s board secretary, argued: “The applicant’s [in this case, Minneapolis-based Navitas Energy] wildlife expert is the person who is going to make the assessment, whereas what we had asked is that there be consultation with the IDNR [Illinois Department of Natural Resources] and local natural resource professionals to identify already sensitive wildlife areas and flyways.”

Noting the potential for conflict when an expert is paid by an applicant, Hoff noted, “I’m sure we all wonder how impartial that person can be.”

Hoff said it makes sense for the applicant to pay for an expert, but that the expert should not be supplied by the applicant.

Other language in the text amendment indicates the county “may” hire another wildlife expert to review the assessment, but Hoff argued the language should be changed to “shall.”

“There’s no teeth in ‘may,’” she asserted. “Because of the lack of state standards for protecting wildlife from the impacts of wind power generating facilities, it’s imperative that this ordinance provide clear, enforceable criteria for evaluating the impacts.”

The committee, however, chose not to commit the board to what could be costly reviews of otherwise uncontested applications. As presently written, the decision whether to have the applicant’s assessment reviewed by a third party—which would require a bid process—will be left entirely in the board’s hands.

Instead, the committee decided the assessments would be reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and IDNR.

Frank Gambino explained: “If we have conflicting assessments, and we don’t know how to resolve that, or we need some further identification, then we ‘may,’” hire a third party wildlife expert.

If the language instead stated “shall,” Gambino added, “there may be no conflict at all, but then we’re forced to hire somebody to tell us that.”

Resolutions passed:

• Authorizing an intergovernmental cooperation agreement for the administration of veterans assistance benefits.

• Authorizing a change order for the resurfacing of Linden Road, between Mulford Road and Cherry Valley Township Line.

• Authorizing the execution of a joint funding agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey for the operation of a streamflow-gaging station on the Kishwaukee River at Mulford and Blackhawk roads. The county’s cost is $6,375.

• Authorizing the transfer of property to the county by Robert Kleckner to satisfy a $47,540.47 debt. Kleckner owed the county for the cost of constructing a left-turn lane and other access improvements in front of his business on Spring Creek Road, between Perryville and McFarland roads. The estimated market value of the county’s new property is $154,500, resulting in a net gain of about $107,000. The Village of Roscoe has been keen on the county acquiring the property to accommodate a future right-of-way for the extension of Willowbrook Road, between Belvidere and Swanson roads.

• Awarding bids for the county’s sign replacement program. Vulcan Signs was awarded $87,100.51 for complete signs. Allied Municipal Supply was awarded $64,167.50 for posts and bases, and $1,621.21 for bolts.

• To reject bids for pharmacy benefit services. Effective Sept. 26, a law changed regarding the average selling price, which could impact the county’s cost for benefits. According to the resolution, the proposals received “did not fully explain how the pricing and the audit of those prices will be handled to ensure the county is paying appropriate cost.” The county’s broker, Rockford Consulting and Brokerage, recommended that bids be rejected, and that new bids, including information pertinent to the change in law, be requested.

Public comments

Mike Castronovo, who has been a regular speaker in recent months to oppose a median in front of his business, began, “There’s been some questions as to how many times someone can come up and speak.”

Castronovo has been denied the opportunity to speak in the past. County Board Chairman Scott Christiansen (R) cited Castronovo’s specific reference to Highway Engineer Joe Vanderwerff in his comments as a personnel issue not to be discussed in open session. Additionally, Christiansen noted, the matter of the median had already been decided by the board.

Castronovo referred the board to its own rules regarding public participation:

Sec. 2-65. Limitation of debate.

(a) No member shall speak a total of more than twice on the same question unless permitted to do so by the chair.

(b) No member shall speak longer than three minutes upon recognition, unless permitted to do so by the chair. Any member called to order shall immediately cease speaking, unless permitted to explain.

(c) Nonmembers may address the board if written request is submitted to the county board office by 12 p.m. the day of the board meeting for which recognition is sought. The written request must identify the name of the speaker, specify the subject matter the speaker will address, and indicate the speaker’s interest in the subject. Each person from the public will be limited to three minutes.

(d) A maximum of 20 minutes shall be allowed for nonmembers to speak at each meeting. If a particular item is deemed by the chair to be controversial, the chair shall strive to allow all sides an equal amount of time within which to speak at each meeting, subject to the 20-minute time limit. The chair shall determine the sequential order in which nonmembers will be allowed to address the board.

(Res. No. 96-CR-253, 12-2-96)

“Under parliamentary law, you can do anything you want to do, unless there’s a law prohibiting it,” Castronovo argued. “As I understand it, there is nothing in this ordinance that says how many times a person can speak. There’s nothing in this ordinance that says what subject matter can be talked about. There’s nothing in this ordinance that talks about that I, as a citizen, cannot mention the name if I deem it proper.”

Suffering the same ordinance he was citing, Castronovo was cut off by Christiansen at exactly three minutes.

Proclamation

Sept. 15-Oct. 15 was proclaimed Hispanic Heritage Month.

Absences

Isidro Barrios (D-11), George Anne Duckett (D-12), Bob Kinnison (R-10), Steve Schultz (R-2) and David Tassoni (D-7) were absent.

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.

From press release

Chief Judge Janet Holmgren announced Sept. 24 that the Winnebago County Courts will be ending the majority of court activity by 3 p.m. on Fridays to meet the reductions experienced in the 2010 Winnebago County Budget. As was previously reported, beginning Oct. 1, 2009, the State’s Attorney and Circuit Clerk’s offices will be reducing the number of hours employees work from 40 hours per week to 38 hours per week by closing their offices at 3 p.m. each Friday afternoon. County-funded employees from the Circuit Court, Court Services Department, Jury Commission and the Public Defender’s Office will be doing the same.

Because judges and court reporters are state-funded positions, these personnel will continue to work their regular schedules. The court plans to continue hearing actions that may not require staff from the county offices, as well as to process Orders of Protection and to be available for warrants.

The action of ending most court activity by 3 p.m. on Friday was seen as the most feasible and fair solution to meet the reductions required by the economic crisis while having the least impact upon court operations and case processing.

This change in court hours is intended to be temporary; however, it may last for the entire 2010 fiscal year. Winnebago County will continue to monitor the financial situation, and the intent is to restore court operations to full capacity at the earliest possible date.

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.

From press release

Rockford Public Library is the recipient of a grant from the AMCORE Foundation in the amount of $2,000 to support the library’s 2010 Summer Reading Club.

We are extremely appreciative of the support we have received from AMCORE Foundation,

said Frank Novak, executive director of Rockford Public Library.
This grant will help us fund our largest program of the year at a time when our budget is extremely limited.

The Summer Reading Club is designed to encourage school-age children to maintain their reading, critical thinking and analytical skills over the summer months to avoid
summer setback.

While the focus is on children, Rockford Public Library’s reading club has grown over the years to include specific programs for children, young adults and adults. Last year, 10,800 people joined the Summer Reading Club.

Encouraging kids to read is vital to developing literacy skills,

said Sue Stevens, chair of the Summer Reading Club Committee and manager of the Youth Services Department at Rockford Public Library.
For us, the most rewarding part is making the club fun and helping our participants find titles they want to read for leisurenot as part of an assignment.

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.

• Participants can win $1,000, $500 or $250

From press release

According to a report on the findings from the 2008 national Jump$tart survey of high school seniors, financial literacy of high school students has fallen to its lowest level ever, with a score of just 48.3 percent. College students, however, scored nearly 15 percentage points higher. In fact, if measured on the high school senior base of 48.3 percent, college students actually did nearly 29 percent better. In addition, scores improved for every year of college with seniors averaging 64.8 percent. Although college graduates are close to being financially literate and probably will be so with more life experience, the bad news is that just 25 percent of our young adults are graduating from college, and this number appears to have stabilized. This means that 75 percent of young American adults are likely to lack the skills needed to make beneficial financial decisions. With the economic times in their current state, it’s uncertain if personal funding for higher education will be available, meaning more people requesting government assistance. Throw in the fact that public and private universities’ costs are continually on the rise, and we can assume that the number of graduating high school seniors that may not be able to afford college is also on the rise.

The following is a statement extracted directly from the Jump$tart’s report:
It has been consistently clear that a full semester’s course in money management does not improve financial literacy while playing a stock market game boosts financial literacy significantly.

This is only one of many related statements in the 255-page report that reiterate why holding an investment or stock market challenge at the high school level has been proven to improve financial literacy among young American adults.

Because of these findings coupled with its commitment to reinvesting in youth financial literacy, First American will be holding its 2nd Annual Youth Investment Challenge. The Challenge, open to both individuals and classrooms, provides teens with real-life investment experience in a safe learning environment. Teens between the ages of 14 and 19 are encouraged to sign up by Oct. 16 for their chance to win $1,000, $500 or $250. Once signed up, teens receive $100,000 in fantasy cash to invest in the Stock Market. Throughout the Challenge, participants  will be put into decision-making roles using real-time data. Additional fantasy cash can also be earned by answering financial questions throughout the Challenge. Participants do not need to be a member of the credit union to participate.

I believe this was a good opportunity for us to learn about investing. It was fun looking at the mutual funds and how they were doing,

said one of last year’s winners, a student from Parker High School. For more information about First American’s Youth Investment Challenge and to sign up, log onto www.firstamericancu.com.

First American’s Youth Investment Challenge is being funded in part by the Wisconsin Credit Union Foundation, Inc. in support of its REAL Solutions(R) Initiative.

First American Credit Union is a member-owned financial cooperative serving anyone who lives or works in Winnebago County, Ill.; Walworth County, Wis.; Green County, Wis.; and Rock County, Wis. Founded in 1933, the credit union has more than $160 million in assets and serves more than 18,500 members.

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.

From press release

CHICAGOIf you’re considering buying a main home or a new vehicle, the Internal Revenue Service wants you to know you may qualify for a tax credit or a deduction after the purchase.

Qualifying homebuyers generally can file for the First-Time Homebuyer Credit immediately after they purchase a home,

said IRS spokesperson Sue Hales.
However, the deduction for buying a new vehicle is taken when you file your 2009 tax return next year.

Homebuyers can get a tax credit, while new vehicle buyers can get a tax deduction. A tax credit comes directly off the taxes you owe, while a deduction lowers your taxable income, directly reducing your taxes.

Tax credit for purchase of home

For purposes of the homebuyer credit, you are considered to be a first-time homebuyer if you, and your spouse if you are married, did not own any other main home during the three-year period ending on the date of purchase.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, qualifying taxpayers who purchase a home before Dec. 1, 2009 can receive a tax credit of 10 percent of the purchase price, up to $8,000 ($4,000 for married individuals filing separately). You can claim the credit either on your 2008 tax return or on your 2009 tax return next year.

The credit may not be claimed before the closing date of the purchase. But if the closing occurs after your 2008 return is filed, you can still claim it on your 2008 tax return by filing an amended return, Form 1040X.

The deduction is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is between $75,000 and $95,000 for individual filers and between $150,000 and $170,000 for joint filers.

Tax deduction for purchase of new vehicle

If you buy a brand-new passenger vehicle this year, you may be entitled to deduct state and local sales and excise taxes paid on the purchase on your 2009 tax return next year.

The deduction is limited to the state and local sales and excise taxes paid on up to $49,500 of the purchase price of a qualified new car, light truck, motor home or motorcycle.

The deduction is phased out for taxpayers whose modified adjusted gross income is between $125,000 and $135,000 for individual filers and between $250,000 and $260,000 for joint filers.

The vehicle must be purchased after Feb. 16, 2009, and before Jan. 1, 2010, to qualify for the deduction.

The special deduction is available regardless of whether you itemize deductions on your 2009 return but may not be taken on your 2008 tax return.

To learn more about the tax provisions of the Recovery Act, visit the IRS Web site at www.irs.gov.

From the September 30 – October 6, 2009 issue.