• Kankakee• County Auditors Office S Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 960 - Rural Transportation Grant #2 From 317/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Arnoun
007926 SHOWBUS (ADVERTISING AGREEMENT 2003) NATIONAL CITY 2,000.00 SHOWBUS (PROJ #RPT-03-0I I, FED GRANT #IL-18-X019) (OCT I... 29,014.14
Total 007926 31,014.14
Total 960- Rural 31,014.14 Transportation Grant #2
Report Total 4,806,396.16
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 76 Kankakee County Auditors Office • Check/Voucher. Register Claims Committee Report . 950 Grant- -KAMEG From 3/7/2003- Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007692 K.A.M.E.G. (AGREE 402005)(7/1-9/30/02) EXPAND MULTI-JURIS ... 50,000.00
Total 007692 50,000.00
Total 950 - Grant 50,000.00 -KAMEG
Dale: 413/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 75 n Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
920 - Highway Payroll Clearing From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amouu
630101 CO HIGHWAY PAYROLL 941 CO HWY P/R-03/07/03 17,288.84
Total 630101 17,288.84
770093 COUNTY HIGHWAY FUND 941 CO HWY P/R 3/21/03 16,907.18
Total 770093 16,907.18
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CO HWY PAYROLL DISBURSEMENTS CK #21127-21... 6,413.23
Total 030703 6,413.23
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS F/R CLAIMS CK #21132-21173 53,144.70
Total 032103 53,144.70
Total 920 - Highway 93,753.95 Payroll Clearing
Dale: 48/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 74 L Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
900 - Payroll Clearing From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS READY CHECKS 163,297.21 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IL ER SUI 1,754.72 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IL EE STATE 11,247.54
Total 032103 176,299.47
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IL ER SUI 2,404.53
Total 030703 2,404.53
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS DIRECT DEPOSITS 127,604.14
Total 032103 127,604.14
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 48,996.93
Total 030703 48,996.93
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING 46,505.16
Total 032103 46,505.16
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FICA 67,38303
Total 030703 67,383.03
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FICA 63,963.59
Total 032103 63,963.59
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FOP 1,993.00
Total 030703 1,993.00
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS FOP 1,97900
Total 032103 1,979.00
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IL EE STATE 11,822.91
Total 030703
Total 900- Payroll 970,117.59 Clearing
Date: 413103 03:33:52 pi Page: 73 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
900 - Payroll Clearing From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amouii
007604 BOWMAN, HEINTZ, BOSCIA &VI... (3/7/03) WAGE GARN (OIM 1-135583 VINKE) 211.14
Total 007604 211.14
007675 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (3/11/03) WAGE LEVY (324-32-8154 WASHINGTON) 65.00
Total 007675 65.00
007645 JAMES R GEEKIE (3/11/03) WAGE LEVY (00-92058 ODENEAL) 230.00
Total 007645 230.00
007686 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... (3/11/03) COUNTY FEE WAGE GARN 24.00
Total 007686 24.00
007687 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... IMRF LIFE INS DED EMPLOYEE (2/21/03) 454.50
Total 007687 454.50
007688 KANK.AKEE COUNTY TREASUR... IM RF LIFE INS DED EMPLOYEE (3/7/03) 502.50
Total 007688 502.50
007957 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... IMRF LIFE INS EMPLOYEE DED 3-21-03 PAYROLL 472.50
Total 007957 472.50
007790 US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATI... (3/11/03) WAGE GARN (349-60-6492, SPENCENA)
Total 007790
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AGENCY CHECKS 45,304.31
Total 030703 45,304.31
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AGENCY CHECKS 44,725.35
Total 032103 44,725.35
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CHILD SUPPORT GARNISHMENTS 2,539.41
Total 030703 2,539.41
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CHILD SUPPORT GARNISHMENTS 2,539.41
Total 032103 2,539.41
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS DEFERRED COMP 8,306.21
Total 030703 8,306.21
032103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS DEFERRED COMP 8,186.21
Total 032103 8,186.21
030703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS DIRECT DEPOSITS 133,612.94 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS READY CHECKS 173.797.47
Total 030703 307,410.41
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 72 S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 880 - Condemnation (Treasurers) From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
1628 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO CONDEMNATION 10,000.00
Total 1628 10,000.00
Total 880- 10,000.00 Condemnation (Treasurers)
Date: 43/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 71 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 870 - Inheritance Tax From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Ainoun
002843 JUDY BAAR TOPINKA MARCH, 2003 ESTATE TAX 2,030.67
Total 002843 2,030.67
Total 870 - Inheritance 2,030.67 Tax
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 70 S S S Kankakee County Auditors 0111cc Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 860 - Cafeteria Plan From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
003660 KAREN HAENIG 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 275.00
Total 003660 275.00
003664 KARIN PALLADINO 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 31.28
Total 003664 31.28
003655 LINDA CLARK-BAKER 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 101.48
Total 003655 101.48
003674 MARILYN J BOMA MAR 2003 MEDICAL FLEX
Total 003674
003666 MARK ROGERS 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 100.00
Total 003666 100.00
003658 MARLA COXEY 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 83.54
Total 003658 83.54
003653 MARY ELLEN ARRINGTON 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 3.90
Total 003653 3.90
003689 MICHAEL VANM ILL MAR 2003 MEDICAL
Total 003689
003662 SHERRY KENISON 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 347.00
Total 003662 347.00
003654 STEPHEN BLANCHETTE 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 576.79
Total 003654 576.79
003668 SUSAN STEVENSON 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 104.60
Total 003668
Total 860 - Cafeteria Plan
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 69 75:? S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
860 - Cafeteria Plan From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
003669 ALAN SWINFORD 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 115.44
Total 003669 115.44
003663 ALISSA MCCORMICK 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 120.00
Total 003663 120.00
003670 BARBARA A WHEELER 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 487.09
Total 003670 487.09
003672 BRENDA ADAMS MAR 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 120.00
Total 003672 120.00
003656 BRENDA CLUNEY 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 240.00
Total 003656 240.00
003657 CAROL LCOSTELLO 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 416.00
Total 003657 416.00
003659 CAROLE FRANKE 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 1,055.00
Total 003659 1,055.00
003688 CHRISTINE RICHARDSON MAR 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 120.00
Total 003688 120.00
003665 DALE PFEIFFER 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 121.00
Total 003665 121.00
003661 DANIEL L HENDRICKSON 2003 DEPENDANT FLEX 110.00
Total 003661 110.00
003677 DANIEL L HENDRICKSON MAR 2003 DEPENDANT FLEX 110.00
Total 003677 110.00
003680 DAWN LLANDWEHR MAR 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 779.01
Total 003680 779.01
003667 JANE SCHWARK 2002 MEDICAL FLEX 49.00
Total 003667 49.00
003675 JULIE BOUDREAU MAR 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 72.00
Total 003675 . 72.00
003676 KAREN HAENIG MAR 2003 MEDICAL FLEX 275.00
Total 003676 275.00
Dale: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 68 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 833 - Union #2 Drainage District From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
001039 EARL SCHOEFFNER RPL FW CK #1004 (EASTERN IL CLAY CO) (2/19/98) 49.09
Total 001039 49.09
Total 833 - Union #2 49.09 Drainage District
Dale: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 67 . S Kankakee County Auditors 0111cc Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 830 - Snake Creek Drainage District From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
001679 ELLIOT& MCCLURE, PC (LEGAL SERVICES (SNAKE CREEK DD) (YR 2002) 303.10
Total 001679 303.10
001650 HSA CONSTRUCTION (2/7/03) DITCHING (ZELHART/LANGMAN'S PROPER... 2.20000
Total 001650 2,200.00
Total 830 - Snake Creek 2,503.10 Drainage District
Dare: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 66 S . 0 Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 827 - Minnie Creek Drainage District From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name - Transaction Description Check Arnoun
001696 CHARLES E RUCH JR LEGAL FEES - QUICK v MINNIE CREEK DD (17.5) HRS 2,45000
Total 001696 2,450.00
1631 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO MINNIE CREEK 2,000.00
Total 1631 2,000.00
Total 827 - Minnie Creek 4,450.00 Drainage District
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 I'M Page: 65 S S Kanknkee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 730 - Township Motor Fuel Tax From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
1153 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO CHECKING 25,000.00
Total 1153 25,000.00
03202003 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS TWP MOTO DISBURSEMENT CK# 1557-1558 20,465.57
Total 03202003 20,465.57
Total 730 - Township 45,465.57 Motor Fuel Tax
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM .. Page: 64 -79 O 0 . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
710 - CDAP/Revolving Loan From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
005864 FEDEX A#2432-6131-7/MAILING ON KENNETH KIRBY-RLF 17.16
Total 005864 17.16
005866 GIFFIN, WINNING, COHEN &BO... (KANKCO-00030 1) (FEB 14- 27/03) KIRBY, K, RLF FO... 345.00
Total 005866 345.00
Total 7lO- 362.16 CDAP/Rcvolving Loan
Dale: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 63 /73 . .. S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 680 - Animal Control From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Arnoun
Total 005867 56.00
005846 MINUTEMAN PRESS ADOPTION APPLICATIONS & AGREEMENTS 75.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS IMPOUNDMENT.BILLING INVOICES & ENVELOPES 462.46 MINUTEMAN PRESS WARNING TICKETS & OFFICAL TICKETS 276.90
Total 005846 814.36
005847 NICOR A#6-16-37-1500 3/ 1/24 THRU 2/24/03 386.53
Total 005847 386.53
005849 ROTO-ROOTER UNPLUG DRAINS 85.00
Total 005849 85.00
005869 SBC (A# 815 Z95-0 180 908 1) (1/29 - 2/28/03) YELLOW PAG... 42.00
Total 005869 42.00
005850 SCHERING-PLOUGH ANIMAL H... CUST#BW7272759/ GLOVES & VACCINES 455.56
Total 005850 455.56
005870 SELLS FEED COMPANY (6) BAGS PUPPY CHOW (6) BAGS HI-PRO) 177.90
Total 005870 177.90
005848 STANLEY PARKE (REGISTRATION REFUND) OVER-PAID (2) 3 YR TAGS 60.00
Total 005848 60.00
005839 THE DAILY JOURNAL AD4069900056/AUCTION AD 2 HORSES 30.00
Total 005839 30.00
005862 THE DAILY JOURNAL (3/9/03) (AD# 069900057) (X3) ADOPTION FAIR AD 36.33 THE DAILY JOURNAL (3/11/03) (AD# 069900058) (X 1) AUCTION SORREL ST... 30.00
Total 005862 66.33
005851 WALMART COMMUNITY HOSE NOZZLES,BRUSH HANDLE,HI LIGHTERS,DOG... 38.13
Total 005851 38.13
Total 680- Animal 18,144.69 Control
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 62
7 S . L Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 680 - Animal Control From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 005840 60.00
005861 DENISE COX CO 3-8 ADOPTION REFUND (HEARTWORM)
Total 005861 95.00
005863 DR JO'S PET CLINIC (3/3/03) (HORNER) CAT SPAY 30.00
Total 005863 30.00
01312003 FEDERATED BANK FEES FOR CREDIT CARD CHARGES 74.51
Total Ol3l2003 74.51
005841 FEDEX A#2296-3507-7/SENT HEADS TO LAB 43.42
Total 005841 43.42
005864 FEDEX (3/6/03) (A# 2296-3507-7) (HEAD TO LAB, IDPH)(2/24/... 45.24
Total 005864 45.24
005865 FOTO QUICK (3/24/03) (2) FILM PROCESS (DBLS) 20.21 FOTO QUICK (12/18/02) (I) FILM PROCESS 4.06
Total 005865 24.27
005842 HUBLY'S TOWING AND REPAIR ... 96 TRUCK-MAINTENANCE 27.51 HUBLY'S TOWING AND REPAIR ... 98 VAN-REPLACE TOGGLE SWITCHES/ANTIFREEZE 84.78
Total 005842 112.29
005845 KANKAKEE ANIMAL HOSPITAL OTI I - 19-POWERS/DOG NEUTER 6000
Total 005845 60.00
005844 KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD JAN 2003 PHONE BILL 107.79
Total 005844 107.79
005868 KANKAKEE COUNTY RDF (A# 319-0000097-2319-8) (BODY DISPOSAL) 23.00 KANKAKEE COUNTY RDF (All 319-0000097-2319-8) BODY DISPOSAL 23.00
Total 005868 46.00
005843 KANKAKEE COUNTY SHIP & REC FEB 2003 POSTAGE DUE 53042
Total 005843 530.42
005872 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... ANIMAL CONTROL FUND SALARIES 04-04-03 6,443.34
Total 005872 6,443.34
005853 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... ANIMAL CONTROL, FUND SALARIES 03-21-03 6,417.68
Total 005853 . 6,417.68
005867 KANKAKEE SANITARY/A&J DIS... (CU# 12-632 I) (FEBRUARY 2003) GARBAGE P/U 5600
Date: 46103 03:33:52 PM Page: 61
71 . - . . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 680 - Animal Control From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
005836 ADCRAFT PRINTERS INC OFFICIAL RABIES REMINDER POSTCARDS 153.80
Total 005836 153.80
005854 ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS (A# 33837) (7) HEARTWORM TESTS 21.00
Total 005854 21.00
005855 BARK AVENUE PET CLINIC (2/18/03) (CO23-8, JOHNSON) CAT SPAY 30.00
Total 005855 30.00
005857 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (2/25/03) (K3 3-I) (RAYUAN) DOG NEUTER 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/13/03)(AP 1-8) (SMITH) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/13/03) (BURTON) CAT SPAY 30.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/18/03)(K3 25-18) (SWEENEY) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/18/03) (MIS I4)(STEURY) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/18/03) (OTI 1-6) (POTTER) DOG NEUTER 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL.. (3/18/03) (OTI 1-6) (POTTER) DOG RV VAX 5.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/20/03) (CO 4-18) (CHILCUTT) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/4/03)(BO I-7)(HEPPE) DOG NEUTER 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/4/03) (CO 1-9) (DOUGLAS) DOG NEUTER 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/4/03) (K3 I-Il) (WALKER) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/6/03) (CO 26-24) (VANMILL) DOG SPAY 60.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL.. (3/6/03) (MIS 1-14)(STEURY) DOG RV VAX 5.00 BOURBONNAIS FAMILY PET CL... (3/8/03)(K3 25-18) (SWEENEY) DOG RV VAX 5.00
Total 005857 645.00
005858 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (2/21/03) (WOOD) CAT SPAY 30.00 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (2/18/03) (BR 4-25B) (DAUPHIN) CAT SPAY 30.00 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (1/17/03) (BR 4-22A) CAST (STOLI) CAT NEUTER 30.00 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (1/17/03) (BR 4-22B) (CAST) (RITA) CAT SPAY 30.00 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (2/11/03) (CO 27-5) (KRINCEK) CAT NEUTER 30.00 BRADLEY ANIMAL HOSPITAL (2/13/03) (MOORE) DOG RV VAX 5.00
Total 005858 155.00
005859 COM ED (A# 0942234004) (2/15 - 3/14/03) 219.84
Total 005859 219.84
005837 COM ED A#09422340041 1-17 TO 2-15-03 221.27
Total 005837 221.27
005838 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#60009132-0I/ 1-13 THRU 2-7-03 97.53 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#80095228-01/12/31 THRU 1/31/03 93.63
Total 005838 191.16
005860 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 61119132-01) (2/7 - 3/11/03) 112.22 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095228-01) (1/31 - 2/28/03) 93.63
Total 005860 . 205.85
005840 DARIEN ANIMAL CLINIC K3 1-17/GIBBONS! DOG SPAY 60.00
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 60 Kankakee• County Auditors Office . Check/Voucher Register Claims Committee Report 600- 911 System- Fee Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007955 SBC (A# 708 Z99-2729 972 0) (JAN 17- 2/16/03) 164.54
Total 007955 164.54
007922 SBC (A# 815 422-0298 409 I) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) 15.77 SBC (A# 815 422-0298 409 1) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) (15.77)
Total 007922 0.00
007955 SBC (A# 815 422-0298 409 I) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) 15.77
Total 007955
007922 SBC (A# 815 465-2010 433 3) (FEB 2- 3/1/03) LESS LATE P... 15.38 SBC (A# 815 465-2010 4333) (FEB 2- 3/1/03) LESS LATE P... (15.38) Total 007922 - 0.00 007955 SBC (A#815465-2010433 3)(FEB2-3/1/03) LESS LATE P... 15.38
Total 007955 15.38
007759 SBC (A# 815 802-0304 364 3) (JAN 20- 2/19/03) 15.97 SBC (A# 815 928-8466 585 3) (JAN 17-2/16/03) 264.48
Total 007759
007922 SBC (A# 815 933-3325 500 4) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) 890.01
Total 007922 890.01
007923 SBC PAGING (A# 0800002133704) (MARCH 8- 6/7/03) 53.59
Total 007923 53.59
007934 SPRINT (A# 490810490) (FEB 13- 3/12/03) 33.25
Total 007934 33.25
007773 SPRINT (CU# 490810490) (JAN 13-2/12/03)
Total 007773 j'/.iJU
007791 VERIZON NORTH (A# 127980 2758151448 02) (FEB 19-3/19/03)
Total 007791
Total 600-911 System zq,)s I/I Fee Fund
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 59 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 600 - 911 System Fee Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007724 NICOR (A# 6-25-28-2110 9)(DEC 6/02 - FEB 6/03) LESS CRED... 16.69
Total 007724 16.69
007902 NICOR GAS (A# 6-25-38-2110 9) (FEB 6- 3/10/03) 152.09
Total 007902 152.09
007903 NORDMEYER GRAPHICS 3 HOUSE NUMBER SIGNS 24.00
Total 007903 24.00
007905 OTTOSEN TREVARTHEN BRITZ ... PROFESSIONAL SERV/LABOR NEGOTIATIONS 2,035.88
Total 007905 2,035.88
007756 RUDER COMMUNICATIONS JOB# RCO259/ MATERIAL & LABOR 2,656.28
Total 007756 2,656.28
001051 RUDER COMMUNICATIONS (JOB RC03I0)(INSTALLALARM SYSTEM ON MICR... 1,831.45
Total OOlO5l 1,831.45
007920 RUDER COMMUNICATIONS (JOB RC039I I) (APRIL THRU JUNE 2003) 2ND QTR ... 9,825.00
Total 007920 9,825.00
007922 SBC (A# 815 933-3325 500 4) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) (890.01)
Total 007922 (890.01)
007955 SBC (A# 815 933-3325 500 4) (JAN 26- 2/25/03) 890.01
Total 007955 890.01
007759 SBC (A# 815 935-3360 360 4)(JAN 11-2/10/03) 190.90 SBC (A#8l5Z99-07006874)(JAN 17-2/16/03) 43.14
Total 007759 234.04
007922 SBC (A4 708 239-7665 344 5) (FEB 14 - 3/13/03) 482.57 SBC (A# 708 239-7665 344 5) (FEB 14 - 3/13/03) (482.57)
Total 007922 0.00
007955 SBC (A# 708 239-7665 344 5) (FEB 14- 3/13/03) 482.57
Total 007955 482.57
007759 SBC (A# 708 239-7665 344 5) (JAN 14- 2/13/03) 473.16
Total 007759 473.16
007922 SBC (A# 708 Z99-2729 972 0) (JAN 17 - 2/16/03) 164.54 SBC (A# 708 Z99-2729 972 0) (JAN 17- 2/16/03) (164.54)
Total 007922 0.00
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 58 • Kankakee. County Auditors Office . Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 600-911 System Fee Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007806 AT&T (A# 016 273-9623 001) (TO 3/12/03) UD CHARGES 0.49 AT&T (A# 052 378-6085 001) (FEB 7 - 3/6/03) LID CHARGES 183.63 Total 007806 184.12
007587 AMERICAN CUSTODIAL SERVIC... CUSTODIAL SERVICES/2-17-03 THRU 3-2-03 450.00
Total 007587 450.00
007803 AMERICAN CUSTODIAL SERVIC... SERVICE 3/3 TO 3/16/03 450.00
Total 007803 450.00
007814 CINGULAR WIRELESS (A# 273659024) (JAN 27- 2/26/03) 118.87
Total 007814 118.87
007819 COM ED (A# 2169123006) (FEB 3-3/1/03) BRADLEY TOWER 44.37 COM ED (A# 3776003003) (JAN 30 - 3/01/03) SALINA TOWER 170.31 COM ED (A# 2043078022) (FEB 8 - 3/12/03) YELLOWHEAD TO... 155.58 Total 007819 370.26
007611 COM ED A#6919013028-ST ANNE TOWERJI -21 TO 2-19-03 139.64
Total 007611 139.64
007827 DEUSCHLE/GILMORE INS AGEN... GIEOO4O7/GEN LIAB/ADD DISPACTERS 1,301.00
Total 007827 1,301.00
007835 EILEAA MEMBERSHIP DUES 50.00
Total 007835 50.00
007952 FIRST USA BANK NA A#4246 31190460 2155 399.52
Total 007952 399.52
007863 KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD (ETSB) JANUARY 2003 LONG DISTANCE CHARGES 7.86
Total 007863 7.86 007689 KANKAKEE COUNTY SHIP & REC FEB 2003 POSTAGE DUE 27.50 Total 007689 27.50
007893 METEORLOGIX (A# 0388550) (APRIL 8- 7/7/03) SUBS FEE 291.00
Total 007893 291.00
007714 MIDWEST TOWER LEASING MAR2003 RENT FOR BOURBONNAIS TOWER 390.00
Total 007714 390.00 007896 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... (A# 4772) (MARCH I - 4/1/03) VRM MAINT 435.00 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... (A# 4772) LBR TO CHECK CONSOLE 4 INSTANT REC... 30.00 Total 007896 . 465.00 Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 57
/7 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 500 - Geographical Information Syste From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Ainoun
001666 BRUCE HARRIS & ASSOCIATES FEB 2003 GIS CONTRACT PAYMENT 13,16700
Total 001666 13,167.00
001667 ESRI INC (CU# 18557) (#88933) (ORD# 839102) (2/10/03 - 2/9/04)... 400.00 ESRI INC (CU# 235439) (#93096) (ORD# 839055) (2/10/03-2/9/04) ... 1,000.00
Total 001667 1,400.00
001668 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE... (KKKASS) (10) DATA CARTRIDGES FOR GIS SERVER 750.00
Total 001668 750.00
Total 500 - Geographical 15,317.00 Information Syste
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 56
S S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 440 - County Bridge From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Cheek Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amouti
032003A VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CO BRIDGE FUND DISBURSEMENTS CK#2272-2273 466,241.97
Total 032003A 466,241.97
2266 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS STOP PAYMENT CK#2266 10/17/02-LOST IN MAIL _L4.6 ,626 97
Total 2266 (465,626.97)
Total 440 - County Bridge 615.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 55 . . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 430 - Matching Tax From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
031103 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS MATCHING TAX DISBURSEMENTS CK#332 19,801.75
Total O3IIO3 19,801.75
Total 430- Matching Tax 19,801.75
Dale: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 54
7
. S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 420 - County Motor Fuel Tax From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
770096 CO MOTOR FUEL FUND TRANS TO P/R 03/21/03 5,901.36
Total 770096 5,90 1.36
1164 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO CHECKING 50,000.00
Total 1164 50,000.00
032003 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CO MET DISBURSM ENTS CK #1677-1678 32,776.97
Total 032003 32,776.97
Total 420 - County Motor 88,678.33 Fuel Tax
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 53 . . El Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 4 10 - County Highway From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
54 COUNTY HIGHWAY FUND TRANS TO P/R 03/21/03 56,884.20
Total 54 56,884.20
031703 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS VOID CK# 16529 (533.95)
Total 031703 (533.95)
031103A VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CO HWY DISBURSEMENTS CK416524-16566 31,564.41
Total 031103A 31,564.41
032003B VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS CO HWY DISBURSEMENTS CK#16567-16573 4,224.51
Total 032003B 4,224.51
Total 4 10 - County 92,139.17 Highway
Daie: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 52 . . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 380 - VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 001649 100.00
001685 VIVIAN JEFFRIES MAR 2003 SHELTERIWILBUR SIMPSON 200.00
Total 001685 200.00
Total 380 - VAC 41,636.89
Date: 43/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 51
c1 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
380 - VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 001662 100.00
001693 NICOR GAS (A# 6-3840-1031 7) (1/27 - 2/26/03) OCONNOR, TERR... 87.93
Total 001693 87.93
001662 NICOR GAS (A# 6-3840-1031 7) (11/25/02 - 12/27/02) OCONNOR, T... 94.64
NICOR GAS (A# 6-13-39-2524 5)(l/20 - 2/19/03) FRANCOEUR, LUV... 100.00
Total 001662 194.64
001693 NICOR GAS (A# 6-13-39-1581 6)(l/20 - 2/19/03) CONN, E.J. 100.00
Total 001693 100.00
001662 NICOR GAS (A# 6-13-39-1581 6) (12/18/02 - 1/20/03) CONN, E. J. 100.00
NICOR GAS (A# 6-3840-1031 7) (12/27/02 - 1/27/03) OCONNOR, TE... 100.00
Total 001662 200.00
001691 OWEDA RUTH NICKENS MAR 2003 SHELTER/JACK HULL 200.00
Total 001691 200.00
001641 RICHARD A CAMPBELL PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 164.57 RICHARD A CAMPBELL FEB2003MLG 186.12
Total 001641 350.69
001695 ROSENBOOM REALTY MAR 2003 SHELTERJTERRANCE O'CONNOR 200.00
Total 001695 200.00
001677 SANDRA EDWARDS MAR 2003 SHELTERJSONJA BENN ETT/PRO- RATED 51.60
Total 001677 51.60
001664 SBC (A#815935-0895031 l)(12/ll/02-l/lO/03) COOK, Ml... 17.00
Total OOl664 17.00
001665 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN (A# 7972 3100 0021 0353) OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.47
Total 001665 6.47
001703 TACANDIA SMITH MAR 2003 SHELTER FOR JOHN KENT 250.00
Total 001703 250.00
001697 THERESA STEVENS MARCH 2003 SHELTER FOR MARION JACKSON 250.00
Total 001697 250.00
001681 TOM HATTING MAR 03 SHELTERJTHOMAS RICHARDSON 200.00
Total 001681 200.00
001649 TOM HATTING SHELTER - 2/21 THRU 2/28/03 - THOMAS RICHARDS... 100.00
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 50 S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 380 - VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 001687 400.00
001680 MARIE HARRIS MAR 2003 SHELTERJJOHNNIE REDMOND
Total 001680 100.00
001702 MARJORIE MESSERLE (MARCH 2003) MESSERLE, CAREY (SHELTER) 100.00
Total 001702 100.00
001682 MARY HOOVER MAR 2003 SHELTER/KENNETH HOOVER 250.00
Total 001682 250.00
001701 MICHAEL A JOHNSON MAR 2003 SHELTER FOR MICHAEL COOK
Total 001701 200.00
001658 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9546/JOHNNIE REDMOND/GAS & OIL 20.00 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9489/WILBUR SIMPSON/GAS 10.00 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9497/KENNETH HOOVER/GAS 16.17 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9498/AJ TREADWELLJ2-5 THRU 2-11-03 130.00 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9511/JOHN KENT/GAS 20.00 MIKE'S CORNER SHELL 9528/CHARLES TALLEY/GAS
Total 001658 216.17
001660 MODEL MOTEL 9535/S.BENNETT/2-17 THRU 2-23-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9540/AJ TREADWELU2- 19 THRU 2-25-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9542/S.BENNETT/2-24 THRU 3/2/03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 95I2/T.RICHARDSON/2-7 THRU 2-14-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 951 9/S.BENNETT/2- 10 THRU 2-16-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9524/AJ TREADWELU2-12 THRU 2-18-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9527/T.RICHARDSON(2-14 THRU 2-20-03) 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9493/S.BENNE1T/2-3 THRU 2-9-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9484/T.RICHARDSON/I-31 THRU 2-6-03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9480/AJ TREADWELU 1-29 THRU2-5-03
Total 001660 1,300.00
001690 MODEL MOTEL 2/5/03 THRU 2/11/03 SHELTER/A.J.TREADWELL 130.00
Total 001690 130.00
001660 MODEL MOTEL 9543/AJ TREADWELU2-26 THRU 3/4/03 130.00 MODEL MOTEL 9550/R.CHILDS/2-27 THRU 3-5-03
Total 001660 260.00
001692 NICOR (A# 6-19-34-26662) (1/27 - 2/27/03) HULL, JACK
Total 001692 94.36
001661 NICOR (A# 6-19-37-03227) (1/29 - 2/27/03) 33.28
Total 001661 33.28
001662 NICOR GAS (A# 6-22-35-74770) (1/3 - 2/5/03) HOOVER, JENNIFER 100.00
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 49
. . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 380 - VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description
FESTIVAL FOODS (2/11/03) REDMOND, JOHNNIE (NON-FOOD) 35.00 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/18/03) HENDRON, ROBERT (NON-FOOD) 34.83
Total 001647 413.47
001684 ILLIANA FINANCIAL CREDIT UN... MAR 2003 PART MORTG PYMT-LUVERNE FRANCO.
Total 001684 200.00
001651 JAFFE DRUG STORES INC (2/27/03) (6) INMATE RX'S (SIMINGTON, ZACKARY) 71.99
Total 001651 71.99
001653 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/3/03) (GOOCH, NEVERETFE) NON-FOOD 34.63 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/18/03) WALKER, MICHAEL (NON-FOOD) 35.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/20/03) MARTIN, TERRY (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 125.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/18/03) NICKENS, GREGORY C (NON-FOOD) 32.50 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/14/03) O'CONNOR, TERRANCE (NON-FOOD) 33.80 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/14/03) TALLEY, CHARLES (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 85.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/14/03) (TENSLEY, WILLIAM (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 84.74 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/4/03) HOOVER, KENNETH (NON-FOOD) 45.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/5/03) JACKSON, MARION (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 124.97 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/5/03) JOHNSON, CLYDE R (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 84.17 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/3/03) SIMPSON. WILBUR (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 85.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/3/03) TREADWELL, A.J. (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 85.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/6/03) HULL, JACK A (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 35.00 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/6/03) KENT, JOHN (NON-FOOD) 43.75 JEWEL FOOD STORE (2/7/03) NEMITZ, TOM (NON-FOOD)
Total 001653 968.56
001656 KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD (JANUARY 2003) VAC PHONE EXPENSES 47.01
Total 001656 47.01
001655 KANKAKEE COUNTY SHIP & REC FEB 2003 POSTAGE DUE 37.53
Total 001655 37.53
1629 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANS TO VAC 26,000.00
Total 1629 26,000.00
001670 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... VAC SALARIES 03-21-03 2,129.96
Total 001670 2,129.96
001706 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... VAC SALARIES 04-04-03 2,129.96
Total 001706 2,129.96
001654 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... (MARCH 2003) VAC RENT 1,000.00
Total 001654 1,000,00
001687 KOHL APARTMENTS MAR 2003 SHELTERINAVEREYE GOOCH 200.00 KOHL APARTMENTS MAR 2003 SHELTERJZACKARY SIMINGTON
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 48
3 r . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 380- VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
001644 COM ED (A# 0616525001) (1/2 - 2/3/03) TREADWELL AL 74.69 COM ED (A# 0927354014) (1/2 - 2/3/03) (CONN, ELTON)
Total 00 1644 121 .8-5
001674 COM ED A#2376532000/ 2/1 I TO 3/14/03
Total 001674 I 12)1
001644 COMED A41723465111/1-24 TO 2-22-03/JACK HULL 19.78
Total 001644 19.78
001675 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 61132813-04) (1/21 - 2/18/03) OCONNOR, TERRAN.
Total 001675 19.23
001645 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A#61132813-04)(II/18/02- 12/I6/02)OCONNOR,TE... 13.07 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 61132813-04) (12/16/02 - 1/21/03) OCONNOR. TER.. 18.75 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 62005084-02)(l/13 - 2/10/03) CONN, E.J. JR 2') 13 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 62028130-01)(I/13 - 2/10/03) FRANCOEUR, LAVE..
Total 001645 /4./i
001675 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 62028130-0l)(2/I0 - 3/11/03) FRANCOUER, LAVE... 15.61 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 80095082-01 - 1/31 TO 2/28/03 (VAC) 17.32 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO #61052666-02/ 2/7 TO 3/10/03
Total 001675 u.i /
001672 DAVID CAMPBELL MAR 2003 SHELTERJROBERTJ HENDRON
Total 001672 IUU.UIJ
001683 DELORES HOWARD MAR 2003 SHELTER/CHARLES TALLEY 200.00
Total 001683 200.00
001678 EGIX, INC INTERNET SERVICE-4/1 TO 4/30/03 16.95
Total 001678 16.95
001699 ERNESTINE WILLIAMS FEB 2003 SHELTER/LOUIS JOHNSON 200.00
Total 001699 200.00
001694 ESMERALDA L PHILLIPS MAR 03 SHELTER FOR SAMUEL D PHILLLIPS
Total 001694 2,U.OU
001647 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/7/03) PHILLIPS, SAMUEL (FOOD/NON-FOOD) 109.13 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/5/03) LUNDQUIST, WAYNE (NON-FOOD) 35.00 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/6/03) FRANCOEUR. LUVERNE (NON-FOOD) 34.54 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/3/03) BAKER, MICHAEL (NON-FOOD) 26.35 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/3/03) ROSS, RICKEY (NON-FOOD) 33.92 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/4/03) BENNETT, SONJA (NON-FOOD) 34.70 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/10/03) COOK, MIKE (NON-FOOD) 35.00 FESTIVAL FOODS (2/11/03) CONN, ELTON J (NON-FOOD) 35.00
Date: 4(3/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 47 '-(-7 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 380 - VAC From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
001648 BRANT FRED FEB 2003 SHELTER/WILLIAM TATRO
Total 001648
001700 BRANT FRED MAR 2003 SHELTER FOR WILLIAM TATRO
Total 001700
001686 CAROLYN S JONES (MARCH 2003) WALKER, MICHAEL (SHELTER)
Total 001686
001698 CAROLYN STEWART MAR 2003 SHELTER/TERRY L. MARTIN 250.00
Total 001698 • 250.00
001688 CHARLES L MARTIN MAR 2003 SHELTER/WAYNE LUNDQUIST 200.00
Total 001688 200.00
001704 CHRISTINE VERRE1T (MARCH 2003) VERRE1T, DENNIS A (SHELTER)
Total 001704
001673 CINGULAR WIRELESS (A# 262798530) (FEB 6- 3/5/03) 36.18
Total 001673 36.18
001642 CITY OF KANKAKEE POLICE DE... ALPHA REPORT (A. J. TREADWELL) 2.00
Total 001642 2.00
001671 CLIFFORD CALHOUN MAR 2003 SHELTER/CRAIG CALHOUN
Total 001671
001643 CNA SURETY (POL # 0601 68850585) (4/22/03 - 4/22/04) CAMPBELL,... 50.00
Total 001643 50.00
001644 COMED (A# 2469547020) (1/16 - 2/18/03) KENT, CLYDE 37.69 COM ED (A# 1298801047) (12/18/02 - 1/22/03) OCONNOR, TER... 21.69 COM ED (A# 2371729030) (12/6/02 - 1/9/03) COOK, MICHAEL 100.00
Total 001644 159.38
001674 [IJII (A# 0927354014) (2/3 - 3/3/03) CONN, ELTON 90.85
Total 001674 90.85
001644 COM ED (A# 0927415003) (1/2 - 2/3/03) (FRANCOEUR, LUVER... 9.88
Total 001644 9.88
001674 COM ED (A# 0927415003) (2/3 - 3/3/03) (FRANCOEUR, LUVERNE 24.68 COM ED (A# 1298801047) (1/22 - 2/21/03) OCONNOR, TERRAN... 58.10
Total 001674 82.78
Dale: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 46 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 370 - Garbage Tipping Fee Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Arnoun
002814 ABC DISPOSAL A#4858/FEB 2003 RECYCLING PROGRAM 500.00
Total 002814 500.00
002816 COURT STREET DELI (3/6/03) (VULCAN MATERIAL LUNCH) (7)BRN BAGS... 68.60
Total 002816 68.60
002817 GIL & ASSOCIATES SOLID WASTE COORDINATOR FOR FEB 2003 2,946.64
Total 002817 2,946.64
002819 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON MATTER#820959-PROF SERVICES- 1/3 TO 1/31/03 959.76 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON MATTER#822602/PROF SERVICES/I -14 TO 1-31-03 308.97 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON MATTER#8 13333/PROF SERVICES- 1/3 TO 1/31/03 2,416.75 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON MATTER48 15142/PROF SERVICES-I/9 TO 1/31/03 8,389.28
Total 002819 12,074.76
002831 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... GARBAGE TIP SALARIES 03-21-03 1,429.10
Total 002831 1,429.10
002842 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... GARBAGE TIP SALARIES 04-04-03 1,429.10
Total 002842 1,429.10
002835 UNITED DISPOSAL A#68 I/FEB 2003 SERVICE 2,500.00
Total 002835 2,500.00
Total 370 - Garbage 20,948.20 Tipping Fee Fund
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 45 S S e Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 340 - Driver Improvement From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description
002830 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DRIVER IMPROVEMENT SALARIES 03-21-03 1,342.88
Total 002830 1,342.88
002841 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DRIVER IMPROVEMENT SALARIES 04-04-02 1,375.46
Total 002841 1,375.46
Total 340 - Driver 2,718.34 Improvement
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 44 O I . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
330 - Court Automation Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
005852 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT AUTOMATION SALARY 03-21-03 937.30
Total 005852 937.30
005871 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT AUTOMATION SALARY 04-04-03 937.30
Total 005871 937.30
Total 330 - Court 1,874.60 Automation Fund
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 43 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 300 - Forfeited Funds (SAO) From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
002833 FOTO QUICK ENLARGEMENT & NEGS ON 02 CF 502 (JONES)
Total 002833 18.00
002821 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DEPOSIT TO II 0-530-55700(FORF FNDS SHARE OF L.. 118.74
Total 002821 118.74
002836 VERIZON WIRELESS (A# 8159532630005) (1/28 - 2/27/03) LESS LATE FEE &... 3165
Total 002836 31.65
Total 300- Forfeited 168.39 Funds (SAO)
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 42 S , . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
300 - Forfeited Funds (SAO) From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Cheek Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 280- Law Library 5,519.04 Fund
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page; 41
37 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 280 - Law Library Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
003673 ASPEN PUBLISHERS, INC (A# 1000862621) (I) HANDBK IL EVIDENCE 2003 SUPP 129.41 ASPEN PUBLISHERS, INC (A# I000899821)(I) HANDBK IL EVIDENCE 2003 SUPP 129.41
Total 003673 258.82
003679 IL FAMILY LAW REPORT (A# 2259) (APRIL 2003- MARCH 2004) SUBS & BINDER 155.00
Total 003679 155.00
003678 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU 10289) (S/0) (1) ILL CIVIL DISCOVERY PRAC 2003 118.57 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU# 10289) (S/0) (I) ATTORNEYS' LEGAL LIABILIT... 118.57 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU# 10289) (S/O) (I) BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL LIT... 42.07 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU# 10289) (S/O) (I) COMMERCIAL LANDLORD TE... 118.57 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU# 10289)(S/O)(I)IL CIVIL PRACTICE 2003 ED 288.57 IL INST FOR CONTINUING LEG ED (CU# 10289) (S/O) (I) SECURITIES LAW 2 VOL 2003 E... 203.57
Total 003678 889.92
003671 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... LAW LIBRARYS SALARY 03-21-03 92.31
Total 003671 92.31
003691 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... LAW LIBRARYS SALARY 04-04-03 92.31
Total 003691 92.31
003686 LEXIS NEXIS/MA1THEW BENDER (A# 151454500 1) US SUPREME CT RPT LED21) V 149 64.80
Total 003686 64.80
003682 LEXIS NEXIS/MATFHEW BENDER (A# 1100068868) (CONT# 58859829) (5/03 - 4/04) FED ... 249.22
Total 003682 249.22
003683 LEXIS NEXIS/MATTHEW BENDER (A# 1100068868) (CONT# 58859829) (5/03 -4/04) US 5... 190.67
Total 003683 190.67
003687 LEXIS NEXIS/MATTHEW BENDER (A# 1100068868) (FEB/03 - JAN/04) BANKRUPTCY CI... 689.50
Total 003687 689.50
003685 LEXIS NEXIS/MATTHEW BENDER (A# 1514545001) IL EVID FOUNDTNS 2002 SUPP 12/02 49.83
Total 003685 49.83
003681 LEXIS NEXIS/MAITHEW BENDER (A# 151454500 1) LATE PAYMENT CHARGE 1.01
Total 003681 1.01
003684 LEXIS NEXIS/MATTHEW BENDER (A# 151454500 1) US SUPREME CT RPT LED CASE TB... 86.65
Total 003684 86.65
003690 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (Ai 1000578516) (UNTIL 1/31/03 - UNTIL 12/31/03) IL ... 2,456.00 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000578516) IL PRAX OF FANI ILY LAW 243.00
Total 003690 . 2,699.00
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 40 O S . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
270 - Court Document Storage Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
002829 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT DCC STORAGE SALARIES 03-21-03 892.45
Total 002829 892.45
002840 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT DCC STORAGE SALARIES 04-04-03 958.09
Total 002840 958.09
Total 270 - Court 1,850.54 Document Storage Fund
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 39 . . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Cheek/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 260 - Court Security Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
002832 ADT SECURITY SERVICES C#013 113036108/MONITORING SERVICE/3/8 TO 6/30... 218.47 ADT SECURITY SERVICES C001300 113036108/MONITORING SERVICE/4-0I TO 49.98
Total 002832 268.45
002815 ADT SECURITY SERVICES C#013000 145605 135/MONITORING SERVICE
Total 002815 79.98
002820 IL DEPART OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (2003) REGISTRATION FEE (# 9250069) 110.00
Total 002820 110.00
002828 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT SECURITY SALARIES 03-21-03 5,493.71
Total 002828 5,493.71
002839 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... COURT SECURITY SALARIES 04-04-03 5,493.71
Total 002839 5,493.71
Total 260 - Court 11,445.85 Security Fund
Date; 4/3/03 03:33;52 PM Page: 38 S . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 250 - Treasurers Interest Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
002818 GLOBE TAX SERVICE INTEREST DUE (SALE IN ERROR) (01-TX-I 2) CERT #...
Total 002818 642.89
002826 TAX LIEN INVESTMENTS INTEREST ON SALE IN ERROR (0I-TX-73) 85.85
Total 002826 85.85
Total 250 - Treasurers 728.74 Interest Fund
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 37 S . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 230 - Co. Clerk Vital Records Automa From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
002824 MSCl/LASON INC (5984) 390 MARRIAGE LICENSE MICRO FILM JACKE... 195.00 MSCl/LASON INC (5984) MICRO FILM 2,316 DEATH CERTIFICATES 600.55 MSCl/LASON INC (5984) MICRO FILM 3,819 MARRIAGE LICENSES 937.10 MSCl/LASON INC (5984) MICRO FILM 3,900 BIRTH CERTIFICATES 1,114.70 MSCl/LASON INC (5984) RETRIEVAL TIME AND FAXED PAGES
Total 002824 2.852.31
Total 230 - Co. Clerk 2,852.31 Vital Records Automa
Dale: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 36
-1146 . . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 220 - Recorder Computer Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
001646 DATA CABLE CO REWIRED/RE-ROUTED COMP CABLES, RE-ROUTED... 173.00
Total 001646 173.00
001676 DENNIS BCOY REIM B (3/25/03) RESET STATE STAMP MTR MW 72.00 DENNIS B COY REIMB (3/20/03) VIEW DECATUR RECORDERS SOF 90.00
Total 001676 162.00
001705 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... RECORDER COMP FUND 04-04-03 1,468.00
Total 001705 1,468.00
001669 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... RECORDER COMP FUND 03-21-03 1,468.00
Total 001669 1,468.00
001657 MARTEN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1639013) (2) TONERS FOR LASER JET PRINTER 249.96
Total 001657 249.96
001689 MICROGRAPHICS EQUIPMENTS ... (20) ROLLS FILM W/PROCESSING & UPS CHARGES
Total 001689 .323.14
001663 REGEL ASSOCIATES (CU ID# KCROOI)(4) SURGE PROTECTOR BATTERIES 152.00
Total 001663 152.00
001659 WILLIAM H MILLER REPAIR 2 MICROFILM CAMERAS/MLG
Total 001659
Total 220 - Recorder 4, L 29. I.1 Computer Fund
Date: 4/303 03:33:52 PM Page: 35 LI S . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 2 10 - Pension Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
031303 ILL MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT F... IMRF FEB 2003 148,785.24
Total 031303 148,785.24
002837 ILL MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT F... TPDP DEDUCTIONS 04-04-03 840.14
Total 002837 840.14
002823 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB FICA EXPENSE 2,221.80 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB IMRF EXPENSE 1,379.55 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (MARCH 2003) ETSB FICA EXPENSE 2,221.80 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (MARCH 2003) ETSB IMRF EXPENSE 1,379.55
Total 002823 7,202.70
002834 KANKAKEE COUNTY HEALTH ... CO SHARE FICA-CO HEALTH 1,697.77 KANKAKEE COUNTY HEALTH ... CO SHARE FICA-CO HEALTH/P-R 1,341.15
Total 002834 3,038.92
002822 KANKAKEE COUNTY HEALTH ... (2/16 - 2128/03) P/R (CO SHARE FICA - CO HEALTH) 1,719.02
Total 002822 1,719.02
770094 KANKAKEE COUNTY HIGHWAY... FICA CO HIGH P/R 03/21/03 4,560.07
Total 770094 4,560.07
002827 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... FICA EMPLOYER 03-21-03 31,981.75
Total 002827 31,981.75
002838 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... FICA EMPLOYER 04-04-03 32,993.39
Total 002838 32,993.39
1630 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANS TO PENSION 250,000.00
Total 1630 250,000.00
1627 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO PENSION 50,000.00
Total 1627 50,000.00
002825 RIVER VALLEY DETENTION CE... EXPENSES JANUARY 2003 10,644.08
Total 002825 10,644.08
Total 2l0 - Pension Fund 541.76531
Dare: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 34 r
. . S Kankakee County Auditors Office ChecklVouchcr Register - Claims Committee Report 200 - Tort Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Cheek Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Cheek Amoun
007828 DEUSCHLE/GILMORE INS AGEN... CSP 3 836 905 QRTLY INSTALL PKG POLICY/CO FEE 17,15 2.25
DEUSCHLE/GILMORE INS AGEN... CSP 3 836 905 QRTLY INSTALL PKG POLICY/CO FEE (17,152.25)
Total 007828 0.00
007620 DEUSCHLE/GILMORE INS AGEN... NOTARY BOND (BECKY POWELL) 30.00
Total 007620 30.00
007621 DEUSCHLE/GILMORE INS AGEN... NOTARY BOND (JACKIE BRADBURY) 30.00
Total 007621 30.00
007829 DEUSCHLEIGILMORE INS AGEN... P#CSP3957 174 3RD INSTALLMENT/CO FEE 795.25
Total 007829 795.25
007826 DEUSCHLE/GILMORE ENS AGEN... P#ORTI-EL NEW NOTARY BOND(E ORTIZ) SAO 30.00
Total 007826 30.00
007858 ILLINOIS PUBLIC RISK FUND A#13-237 POLICY PREMIUM MARCH 2003 47,257.00
Total 007858 47,257.00
007691 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON (MARCH 2003) ETSB SUI EXPENSE 58.58 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON (MARCH 2003) ETSB WC EXPENSE 83.56 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB SUI EXPENSE 58.58 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB WC EXPENSE 83.56
Total 007691 284.28
1632 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO TORT 100,000.00
Total 1632 100,000.00
007754 RIVER VALLEY DETENTION CE... EXPENSES JANUARY 2003 2,721.88
Total 007754 2,721,88
Total 200 - Tort Fund 151,148.41
Date: 413103 03:33:52 p1 , Page: 33 9y . S . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007906 VINCENT PAULAUSKIS (JAN 7-2/21/03) ATTORNEY FEES/FED EX CH/WITh... 27,335.21
Total 007906 27,335.21
007948 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000796817) JANUARY 2003 WESTLAW CHARGES 145.00 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000796817) NOVEMBER 2002 WESTLAW CHAR... 145.00 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000202863) (NOV 5- 12/4/02) 555.00
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000578516) (FEB 5 - 3/4/03) 706.50 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000578516) (JAN 5-2/4/03) 90.25 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1000796817) DECEMBER 2002 WESTLAW CHAR... 145.00 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER (A# 1003119160) (JANUARY 2003) WESTLAW CHARG... .262.62
Total 007948 2,049.37
007602 WILLIAM K BELCHER (3/5/03) (FULK, DAVID) (#03-045) 125.00 WILLIAM K BELCHER (3/4/03) BARNETT, DONALD (#03-044) AUTOPSY ASS... 125.00
Total 007602 250.00
007809 WILLIAM K BELCHER #0346/ASSIST. FEE/JOAN MC NANARA 125.00
Total 007809 125.00
007602 WILLIAM K BEICHER (2/26/03) GURNEY, SYLVESTER (#03-040) 125.00
Total 007602 125.00
007809 WILLIAM K BELC HER 0348/ASSIST/JOHN RUDELL 125.00 WILLIAM K BELCHER 03-5I PENDERGAST/03-52 WILLIAMS/03-53 MORRIS 375.00 WILLIAM K SELCHER 03-55 ASSIST/ALEXIS TOWNSEND 125.00
Total 007809 625.00
Total I lO - General Fund 2,544,474.04
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 32 . 0 Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007661 THE HOMESTEAD (10/11/02) (10) CHICKEN DINNERS 85.00
Total 007661 85.00
007942 THOMS PROESTLER CO C# 15610/ CEREAL,JUICE 2,100.72 THOMS PROESTLER CO C# 1561 0/BAGELS,CEREAL JUICE 2,322.72 THOMS PROESTLER CO CEREAL & JUICE 1,878.64
Total 007942 6,302.08
007607 TIM BUKOWSKI (REIMB) (1/24 -28/03) IL SHERIFF ASSOC MEALS 74.56
Total 007607 74.56
007944 TRANS UNION LLC C#0600V0000337 - EMPLOYMENT SCREENING 9555
Total 007944 95.55
007784 TREASURER - STATE OF ILLINOIS FEDERAL BAL ON AGREEMENT #20101 8(OVERPAY... 1,289.82
Total 007784 1,289.82
007787 TYSON ENGINEERING, INC (A#AROMAPK-V)(lO/2002 MPO MTG) JOB #E96066 187.50
Total 007787 187.50
007946 UNICARE 001 - 911 4,792.58 UNICARE 007 - GENERAL 184,969.01 UNICARE 003 - SCHOOLS 8,839.01 UNICARE 005 - HEALTH 21,56037
Total 007946 220,160.97
007788 UNICARE MARCH PREMIUMS 203,743.84
Total 007788 203,743.84
007789 UNISHIPPERS C#LL2006/ONE AIRBILL 17.60
Total 007789 17.60
032503 US POSTAL SERVICE WIRE TRANSFER-POSTAGE METER 20,000.00
Total 032503 20,000.00
007930 VALERIE M SMITH MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007930 300.00
03/20/03 VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS JURORS CKS #30186430261 4,716.60
Total 03/20/03 1 4,716.60
007947 VERIZON WIRELESS A#8155923059004--218 TO 3/7/02 711.19 VERIZON WIRELESS (A# 8159532630005)(l/28 - 2/27/03) LESS LATE FEE &... 89.78 VERIZON WIRELESS (A# 8152630471003) (FEB 12- 3/11/03) LESS LATE CH... 47.90
VERIZON WIRELESS (A# 8155922948007) (1/28 - 2/28/03) LESS LATE FEE &... 47.75
Total 007947 896.62
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 31 S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007774 69.85
007936 STATES ATTY APPELLATE PRO... (ATTORNEYS LODGING) (JAN 9, 17 & 24/03) (97CF75... 482.79
Total 007936 -482.79
007938 STENOGRAPH LLC A# 16144/ OFFICE SUPPLIES 88.10
Total 007938 88.10
007939 STERICYCLE INC (CU# 0043234) MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL (2/14/03) 188.37 STERICYCLE INC (CU# 0043234) MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL (2/24/03) 101.90
Total 007939 290.27
007777 SUN TRUST (CU# 444000050 1) (PAYMNT #6) (APRIL - OCT 2003) 38,392.47
Total 007777 38,392.47
007940 SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL (FILE# 0198-001) (2/I - 28/03) WMI LANDFILL SITING ... 3,709.33
Total 007940 3,709.33
007778 SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL (FILE#0l98-OOl)(JAN 2-31/03) PROF SERVICE/DISBU... 19,466.23
Total 007778 19,466.23
007680 TKJOHNS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007680 100.00
007823 THE DAILY JOURNAL 061420006/ 0452 WORK RELEASE PROGRAM 507.50 THE DAILY JOURNAL (K02600) (FEB 2003) COURT ORDERED PUBLICATIO... 350.00
Total 007823 857.50
007616 THE DAILY JOURNAL A#K02800/TEST AUTO PUBLICATION FOR PRIMARY... 30.00 THE DAILY JOURNAL A#K03980/TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC MTG NOTICE 42.50
Total 007616 72.50
007823 THE DAILY JOURNAL AD#2 12530006/STAFF ACCOUNTANT AD 112.08 THE DAILY JOURNAL (AD# 040750086) (031336, JONES) (X3) 2/7/03 282.50 THE DAILY JOURNAL #K04 100/VICTIM/WITNESS COORD/ (DISC) 115.14
Total 007823 509.72
007616 THE DAILY JOURNAL (2/23/03) (AD# 058670030) (X I) PRINTER & PRESS OP... 60.99
Total 007616 60.99
007651 THE GREASE SPOT (2/21/03) (A# 339) (99F1 3) GOF, CAR WASH 19.98 THE GREASE SPOT (2/18/03)(A# 339) (02F3) GOF 19.98 THE GREASE SPOT (2/28/03) (A# 339) (03F2) GOF, CAR WASH 19.98 THE GREASE SPOT (2/28/03) (A# 339) (02F9) GOF 19.98 THE GREASE SPOT (2/6/03)(A# 339) (021715) GOF, CAR WASH 19.98 THE GREASE SPOT (2/7/03)(A# 339) (99F3) GOF, CAR WASH 19.98
Total 007651 119.88
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 30
LI . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007895 30.00
007715 SHARON K MILONE CSR (FEBRUARY 2003) OFFICE/TRAVEL EXPENSES
Total 007715 116.67
007830 SHEILA K DONAHOE REIMB (3/23 - 25/03) [PAl WORKSHOP MLG & MEALS 121.99
Total 007830 121.99
007625 SHEILA K DONAHOE REIMB (2/27/03) SALES RATIO HEARING (MEALS/M
Total 007625 122.99
007924 SHELL FLEET PLUS A4079-010-112/ FEB 2003 FUEL 287.28
Total 007924 287.28
007925 SHERIFF OF FORD COUNTY FEB 2003 INMATE HOUSING 11,328.00
Total 007925 11,328.00
007763 SHERIFF OF SANGAMON COUN... FEB 2003 INMATE HOUSING (30) 25,000.00
Total 007763 25,000.00
007637 SHIRLEY FITZSIMONS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007637 100.00
007662 SHIRLEY HOOD 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY & PICK UP 106.00
Total 007662 106.00
007765 SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT LABORA.. Ci00-006090 I/FINGER PRINT SUPPLIES
Total 007765 92.41
007928 SKIMERHORN INVESTIGATIONS (JAN 7 -31/03) (97CF750, PIPER, A) FEES & EXPENSES 1,809.75
Total 007928 1,809.75
007931 SMITH, KOELLING, DYKSTRA & ... PROF SERV 2002 AUDIT THRU 3/15/03 8,500.00
Total 007931 8,500.00
007770 SOLUTION SPECIALTIES, INC (CU# ILKA)(I/21 - 2/20/03) COMPUTER UPDATES 167.90
Total 007770 167.90
007934 SPRINT C#472954730/FEB 2003 LONG DISTANCE 78.52 SPRINT A#842491291/SERVICE 1/28 THRU 2/27/03 1,530.75
Total 007934 1,609.27
007935 STANARD & ASSOCIATES, INC DEVELOP WRITTEN PROMOTIONAL EXAM (CORP/S... 7,790.00
Total 007935 7,790.00
007774 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN (A# 7972 3100 0027 4995) LASER PRINTER INK & OFF... 69.85
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PNI Page: 29 L . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Atnoun
007864 RUTH KAHL REIMB (3/4/03 VOCA TRAINING CONF) MW, PARKI... 28.00
Total 007864 28.00
007733 RUTHANN PINNOW 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 50.00
Total 007733 50.00
007921 RUTLEDGE YOUTH FOUNDATIO... (FEB I - 28/03) (00J1389, OLSEN, JOSEPH) JUV PL 4,810.12
Total 007921 4,810.12
007642 SARAH FRITZ 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007642 100.00
007758 SAV-MOR PHARMACY (FEBRUARY 2003) (SCHOLL, JAMES) INMATE RXS 168.42
Total 007758 168.42
007922 SBC A#0800002017465/ PAGER (LOST) 115.00 SBC A#0800002017465/ PAGER (LOST) (115.00)
Total 007922 0.00
007759 SBC (A#815 937-00245369) (JAN 2O-2/19/03) 549.71 SBC (A# 815 937-3914 225 6) (JAN 20- 2/19/03) 7,085.48 SBC (AN 815Z17-01067684)(JAN 17-2/16/03) 45.54 SBC (A# 815 Z17-5046 798 3) (JAN Ii - 2/16/03) 116.13 SBC (A# 815 Z17-5306 731 9) (JAN/17 - 2/16/03) 45.54
Total 007759 7,842.40
007760 SBC PAGING A#0800002087272/ SERVICE 2/19/03 THRU 2/18/04 1,315.11
Total 007760 1,315.11
007956 SBC PAGING A#0800002017465 -LOST PAGER 115.00
Total 007956 115.00
007761 SCHLEICHER & SCHUELL BIOS... (CU# 133388)(l) PACK DNA CARDS 39.05
Total 007761 39.05
007929 SHARON D SMITH MLG REIMB FOR 2/3 THRU 2/21/03 55.44
Total 007929 . 5544
007895 SHARON K MILONE CSR (3/11/03) ZBA HRG RE: 2/30 & 31 & 3/3 & 5/03) ATTN ... 236.00
Total 007895 236.00
007715 SHARON K MILONE CSR (2/26/03) ZBA HRG (RE: 03-01 & 03-02) AlT & TRANS 438.00 SHARON K MILONE CSR (2/20/03) ZBA HRG (RE: 02-24 & 02-26) AU & TRANS 392.00
Total 007715 830.00
007895 SHARON K MILONE CSR (12/10/02 & 02/11/03) ZBA HRG CONDENSEIT TRANS... 30.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 28 • S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Cheek/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007646 ROBERT GESSNER REIM B (FEB 10-24/03) CORONER M LG 157.68
Total 007646 157.68
007717 ROBERT L MORRICAL (2/26/03) ZBA HRG MLG 10.08
Total 007717 10.08
007897 ROBERT L MORRICAL (3/I I/03)ZBA HRG MLG & SITE VISIT 20.08
Total 007897 20.08
007710 ROBERT MCKENNA 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007710 100.00
007755 ROBERT ROACH (FEB 3 - 28/03) PLANNING MW 447.12 ROBERT ROACH (REIMB) (2/26/03) SSBOA CARPENTERS SEMINAR 35.00
Total 007755 482.12
007919 ROGERS SUPPLY CO INC COIL CLEANER,PLASTIC HEADS & THERMOMETERS 186.75
Total 007919 186.75
007846 RONALD J GERTS MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007846 300.00
007748 RONALD RENK 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007748 100.00
007879 RONDA R LUCAS, CSR RPR CT ORD TRANSCRIPTS/OIJA27-97JA 15 (HARMS) 43.70 RONDA R LUCAS, CSR RPR TRANSCRIPTS ON WHITAKER(OOCFI4-00CF265-OOC... 30.60 RONDA R LUCAS, CSR RPR TRANCRIPT ON FRITZ (02 DT 362) 34.20
Total 007879 108.50
007746 ROSE REGNIER 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 5000
Total 007746 50.00
007597 ROSIE BAYER 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007597 100.00
007786 ROXANNE TURNER 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 108.00
Total 007786 108.00
007920 RUDER COMMUNICATIONS CABELING,FIBERS,REROUTE PHONE LINES ETC 2,914.86
Total 007920 2,914.86
007756 RUDER COMMUNICATIONS w041237-CHANGE AUTO ATTENDANT/NEW PHONE... 67.78
Total 007756 . 67.78
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 27
J7 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007654 REYNA HAMM ERLUND (2/24/03) (1/2 HR) (02TR23808, GARCIA, JOSE) 25.00 REYNA HAMMERLUND (2125/03)(l/2 HR)(02JA13, MEDINA) 25.00 REYNA HAMMERLIJND (2/20/03)(I/2 HR) (02CF528, TFNOCO, ROSA) 25.00 REYNA HAMMERLUND (2/19/03)(l HR)(MEDINA, SERGIO/PEDRO, SERRAN... 50.00
Total 007654 125.00
007850 REYNA HAMMERLUND (1/30/03) (2 HRS)(02CF19, DIAZ, JUAN) JAILTRIP 100.00
Total 007850 100.00
007915 RGB ARCHITECTURAL GROUP I... (PRJ #2306) (JAN 27 - 2/28/03) WRK REL PROG DORM... 6,930.72
Total 007915 6,930.72
007749 RGB ARCHITECTURAL GROUP I... (PROJ #2306) (FEB I - 28/03) (ARCHITECT SERVICES) 3,840.00
Total 007749 3,840.00
007663 RICHARD HOWELL 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY &PICK UP 113.00 RICHARD J HOWELL (2/26/03) ZBA HRG MLG 4.68
Total 007663 117.68
007854 RICHARD J HOWELL (3/11/03) ZBA HRG MLG & SITE VISIT 14.68
Total 007854 14.68
007750 RITZ CAMERA CENTERS (CU# 896092) (3) PASSPORT PHOTO FILM PAKS 77.97
Total 007750 77.97 007916 RITZ CAMERA CENTERS C#896092 -4 PKS PASSPORT PHOTO FILM 103.96
Total 007916 103.96 007754 RIVER VALLEY DETENTION CE... EXPENSES JANUARY 2003 30,569.04
Total 007754 30,569.04 007918 RIVERSIDE HEALTH EQUIPMENT C#K000 190/REPAIR WHEELCHAIR 35.00
Total 007918 35.00
007751 RIVERSIDE MEDICAL CENTER (2/22/03) (A# 003103589, MCKENZIE, ISAAC) #03-39
Total 00775 83.50
007917 RIVERSIDE REFERENCE LABOR... 436/FEB 2003 JUVENILE DRUG TESTING
Total 007917 516.25 007753 RIVERSIDE REFERENCE LABOR... FEB 2003 ADULT CLIENT DRUG TESTING 96.25
Total 007753 96.25
007752 RIVERVIEW MOTORS (2/19/03) WAX & SPOT SHAMPOO SHERIFF'S CAR (B.. 65.00
Total 007752 65.00
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 26
j.b O . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007740 PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING CO... ARSON SCENE SEARCH (TRAINING) 225.00
Total 007740 225.00
007741 QUILL A#0021 1430/OFFICE SUPPLIES 130.35
Total 007741 130.35
007910 QUILL (A# 02285368) OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.96 QUILL (A# 03271805) OFFICE SUPPLIES 171.55 QUILL (A# 03600732) OFFICE SUPPLIES 45.33
Total 007910 . 320.84
007741 QUILL HP PRINT CARTRIDGE 64.99
Total 007741 64.99
007742 RAINBOWS END (FEB I -28/03)JUV PROBATION EARLY INTERVENT... 1,248.75
Total 007742 1,248.75
007785 RALPH TRIBBEY 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 108.00
Total 007785 108.00
007945 RALPH TRIBBEY (3/11/03) ZBA HRG SITE VISIT 10.00
Total 007945 10.00
007912 RAY O'HERRON COMPANY INC C#60901SH/28 LASER AIR CARTRIDGES 753.11
Total 007912 753.11
007745 RAY OHERRON COMPANY INC (CU# 60901 SH) (I) BULLET-PROOF VEST & ACCESS... 78.51
Total 007745 78.51
007933 REBECCA SOULIGNE MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007933 300.00
007911 REBEKAH RAYMENT 99CF737-REIMB TRAVEL EXP/WITNESS 440.00
Total 007911 440.00
007747 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES CUST#0130463 I/OFFICE SUPPLIES 649.16 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES CUST#0 1304631/ CREDIT MEMO (319.75)
Total 007747 329.41
007914 REPORTERS PAPER AND MFG CO (A# 043726) COURT REPORTER PAPER 446.06
Total 007914 446.06
007850 REYNA HAMMERLUND (3/11/03) (I HR) (02CF77, 00DT278, 03CM 114, 02TR 10... 50.00
Total 007850 . 50.00
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 25 S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007655 100.00
007795 PHYLLIS WRIGHT 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007795 100.00
007732 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1003) (2/27/03) REGULAR SERVICE (TREASURER) 25.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1004) (2/27/03) BIRD WORK (ADMINISTRATION) 75.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1005) (2/6/03) REGULAR SERVICE (COURT HOUS. 55.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1006) (2/6/03) BIRD WORK (COURT HOUSE) 75.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1008) (2/20/03) REGULAR SERVICE (ANNEX) 35.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1009) (2/06/03) REGULAR SERVICE (DETENTION. 65.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1009) (2/20/03) REGULAR SERVICE (DETENTION. 65.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1001) (2/27/03) REGULAR SERVICE (ADM) 55.00 PIED PIPER PEST PATROL (A# 1002) (2/27/03) REGULAR SERVICE (VAC) 25.00
Total 007732 475.00
007734 PITNEY BOWES INC (A# 1529-1376-88-5) POSTAGE SUPPLIES 271.31
Total 007734 271.31
007739 PROVENA SERVICE CORPORATI... (10/17/02) (NA0000087326, AKINS, DARYL)
Total 007739 87.10
007738 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (1/30/03) (HS 1520990, BIRDSONG, PHILIP) 517.66 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (2/12/03) (HS1524464, TUCKER, TRADELL) 92.76
PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (12/19/02) (HS 1506946, SPRAGGINS, FELIPE)(l2/16 - 812.00 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (1/23/03) (HS I5 18766, 011', JAMES) XR 29.50
Total 007738 1,451.92
007909 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (1/10/03) (KCMAIN) (HS 1515564, COLBERT, D) EMPL 35.90 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (2/20/03) (I-IS 1526503, RILEY, CLARENCE) 75.27 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (2/24/03) (HS 1527392, OWEN, RICHARD) 95.59 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (2/28/03) (HS 1528593, COLE, KENNTH) 81.24 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (2/27/03) (HS 1528212, COLE, KENNETH) 158.35
Total 007909 446.35
007738 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (9/17/02) (HS 1483731, GAETANO, CHARLES) 364.73
Total 007738 364.73
007909 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL l0/l/02-HS 1487576-ERIC LEE/MED TREATMENT
Total 007909 69.38
007738 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR) (1/18/03) (HS 1517602, SCHAFF, CORRINE). 87.81 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR)(l/27/03)(HS 1520211, HElM, ARTHUR) (ft. 87.81 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR) (1/28/03) (HS 1520208, BARTEN. CONNIE) 87.81 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR)(l/6/03)(HSI5 1453, WALTHER. AMANDA) 87.81 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR)(I/I0/03)(HSI5 15907, RILEY, MAY)(# 03-.. 87.81 PROVENA ST MARYS HOSPITAL (KKKCOR) (1/15/03) (HS 1517046, BENJAMIN, ALICIA) 87.81
Total 007738 526.86
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 24 . . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110-General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Arnouri
Total 040103 21,308.72
007900 NATL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POL... 36 MOS MEMBERSHIP DUES (BUKOWSKI)
Total 007900 185.00
007901 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS A#3I0651515/CELLPHONE EXP (DOWNEY) 132.98
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (A# 922065023) (2/19 - 3/18/03) 183.17 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (A# 501602511) (FEB 9-3/8/03) CELLPHONE EXPENS... 281.22
Total 007901 597.37
007722 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (A# 310651515) (JAN 9-2/8/03) CELL PHONE EXP 137.05
Total 007722 137.05
007724 II[S]1 (A# 6-21-32-47809) (FEB 4-3/4/03) 33.30
Total 007724 33.30
007723 NICOR GAS BILL PAYMENT CE.. 06-20-39-9560-7/ 2-1 TO 3/1/03 415.50 NICOR GAS BILL PAYMENT CE.. 6-19-37-9522-3/ 2-1 TO 3-1-03 470.57 NICOR GAS BILL PAYMENT CE.. 6-23-95114/ 2/1 TO 3/1/03 560.19 NICOR GAS BILL PAYMENT CE.. 6-19-37-95314/ 2-1 TO 3-1-03 90.99 NICOR GAS BILL PAYMENT CE.. 6-23-39-9500-7/ 2-1 TO 3-1-03 234.08
Total 007723 1,771.33
007725 NORTHERN IL SHERIFF'S ASSOC NISA MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR 2003
Total 007725 100.00
007904 ONARGA ACADEMY 00JD26/JUV PLACE/EDUCATION & MEDICAL EXP 5,558.00 ONARGA ACADEMY 02 JD 314 & 01 JD 213/PSYCHOSEXUAL ASSESSMENT 1,178.75
Total 007904 6,736.75
007726 ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC OF KANK... (1/30/03) (PT A# 103556, BIRDSONG, PHILIP) 320.40
Total 007726 320.40
007837 PAMELA EN DRESS CSR (3/11/03) (99CF358, RAEF, JAMES) (3/11/03) HRG 3.50 PAMELA ENDRESS CSR TRANSCRIPTS ON 0 JD 9 & 99 CF 358 22.60
Total 007837 26.10
007727 PAXTON CLINIC (2/5/03) (PT A/4 J89672, SCHOLL, JAMES)
Total 007727 29.10
007907 PAXTON CLINIC (2/17/03) (PT A# J8967 I) (OCONNELL, TIMOTHY)
Total 007907 24.90
007728 PAYCHEX MAJOR MARKET SER... (3/7/03) PAYROLL & HR 742.20
Total 007728 742.20
007655 PHYLLIS HENGL 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 23 . . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007712 335.00
007894 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. COMPUTER,DIGITAL PROJECTOR (SHERIFF) 4,099.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. (A# KKKIT)(I) ENVELOPE FEEDER 377.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. #AKKKIT/E-MAIL SOFTWARE 5,081.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. A#KKKIT/SERVER ATTACHMENT 297.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. A#KKKIT/SERVER UPS 538.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. BATTERY FOR COMPUTER 54.00
Total 007894 10,446.00
007712 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE. (KKKPLA) (I) APC UPS 250 BATTERY (2) INTERNET ... 180.00
Total 007712 180.00
007896 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... A#91/BATTERY FOR TK360/SERIAL# 90706237 58.00 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... #150/ 6 RADIOS 594.00
Total 007896 652.00
007716 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... (A# 150) REMOVE LAPTOP, INSTALL MDT, RPR WIG... 60.00 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... MONTHLY RADIO MAINT AGREEMENT 607.00
Total 007716 667.00
007896 MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO... RADAR,RADIO EQUIP IN SHERIFF'S NEW VEHICLE 1,466.13
Total 007896 1,466.13
007898 MOTOROLA (CU# 1000203472 0003) (I) RADIO 800M HZ & ACCES... 1,825.25
Total 007898 1,825.25
007720 NACO DUES FOR 1/1/03 TO 12/31/03 1,894.00
Total 007720 1,894.00
007721 NAPLETON AUTO WERKS (103934) (02F3) RPL FR & REAR PADS & MACHINE R... 741.68
Total 007721 741.68
007899 NAPLETON AUTO WERKS 98 FORD CRO.VIC./REPLACE CYLINDER 484.26
Total 007899 484.26
00772! NAPLETON AUTO WERKS 02 F5/GOF,REAR DIFFERENTIAL SERVICE
Total 007721 110.40
007899 NAPLETON AUTO WERKS 02 F5/REPLACE DRIVE SHAFT
Total 007899 402.46
007721 NAPLETON AUTO WERKS 02 F 2/ GOF 22.20
Total 007721 22.20
040103 NATIONAL CITY OF MICHIGAN/I... APRIL ENERGY MGT PAYMENT 21,308.72
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 22 • Kankakee. County Auditors Office . Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I639006IYELLOW ZEROX PAPER 4.98
Total 007886 4.98
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#1639009/OFFICE SUPPLIES 12.80 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A41639009/REPLACEMENT PADS 9.60
Total 007708 22.40
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... CREDIT FOR BINDER (3.58)
Total 007886 (3.58)
007709 MARTINO PAPER COMPANY (CU# KAN 10 1) PAPER 736.25
Total 007709 736.25
007888 MCINNES COUNSELING SERV, 1... FEB 2003 EARLY ENTERV-JUVENILE PROBATION 355.00
Total 007888 355.00
007889 MEADOWVIEW CURRENCY EX ... 95Ml LICENSE RENEWAL 82.75 MEADOWVIEW CURRENCY EX.... 95C1L'LICENSE RENEWAL 87.00
Total 007889 169.75
007890 MEDCENTRE LABORATORIES (2/25/03) (LM0730920. SCHROTH, ERIC) MCLKSDIN 40.95 MEDCENTRE LABORATORIES (2/5/03) (LM0726223, MCKAY, ALTON) MCLKSDIN 243.85 MEDCENTRE LABORATORIES (2/5/03) (MCLKCO) (LM0726424, FISHER, QUYLA) 02... 25.00 MEDCENTRE LABORATORIES (2/5/03) (MCLKCO) (LM072647 I, MARTIN, MOSES) 65.00
Total 007890 374.80 007892 MENARDS TANK SPRAYER & ASSESSORIES 58.48 Total 007392 58.48 007893 METEORLOGIX (A# 0286013) (APRIL 8 - 7/7/03) SATELLITE SUBS FEE 291.00 Total 007893 291.00
007711 METLIFE MARCH 2003 PREMIUMS 11,504.97 METLIFE FEBRUARY 2003 PREMIUMS 11,187.09 METLIFE JAN 2003 PREMIUMS 1,900.57 Total 007711 . 24,592.63 007861 MICHAEL T JENEARY MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007861 300.00
007713 MICROGRAPHICS EQUIPMENTS... RETURNES UPS CHARGES 10.86
Total 007713 10.86
007712 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE... REPLACEMENT BATTERY BF280 42.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE... TEAC FLOPPY DRIVE 60.00 MICROLOGIC BUSINESS SYSTE... COMPUTER SOFTWARE (OFFICE XP) 233.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 21 . . . Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
IlO - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 163900) OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.00 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1639000) OFFICE SUPPLIES 195.04 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (Mt 1639006) (2)4 POCKET LEGAL FOLDERS 14.54 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1651050) OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.45 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1639006) OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.62 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1639010) (2) INKJET CARTRIDGES 59.98
Total 007708 387.63
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 16390 10) OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.92
Total 007886 17.92
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# I640055)(I)SHREDDER 349.30 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1640055) CREDIT (INV C415572-0) OFFICE SUPPL... (16.56) MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1640055) CREDIT (INV C416848-0) (I) SHREDDER (419.00) MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1640055) OFFICE SUPPLIES 809.02
Total 007708 722.76
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (A# 1640055) OFFICE SUPPLIES 46.02
MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... (2/I5 - 3/15/03) COPIER CHARGES 2,422.48 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #1651050/OFFICE SUPPLIES 55.50 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #1659050/ SCIENTIFIC CALCULATORS 28.34 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #1639002/ OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.01
Total 007886 2,561.35
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #I639007/OFFICE SUPPLIES 148.50 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #1639010/MAIN AGREEMENT-CANON IMAGE RUNN... 960.00 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... #1639010/OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.25 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... 4I639010/STAPLERS,STAPLES 30.86 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#0l6390I0/ I CANON COPIER 7,350.00 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#16390I0/I CANON COPIER INSTALLATION 220.00 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I6390I0/OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.04 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... Ail I6390 12/017FICE SUPPLIES 78.96
Total 007708 8,815.61
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A# I 640050/MAINT. AGREE ON FAX/3-17-03 TO 3-17-04 260.00 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I640050/OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.74 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I640050/PRINTER RIBBON FOR TRAFFIC 74.70 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I640050/RIBBONS FOR TRAFFIC FAX/PENS 110.32
Total 007886 470.76
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#I640050/STORAGE SHELVING 562.78
Total 007708 562.78
007886 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#1639000/ OFFICE SUPPLIES 1.45 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#l639000/OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.94
Total 007886 13.39
007708 MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE SOLU... A#1639006/OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.07
Total 007708 41.07
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 20
'2:0 • . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110-General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007878 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT INSPECT FIRE EXTINGUISHER 14.95
Total 007878 14.95
007701 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT VALVE & GAUGE ASSY (CT HOUSE) 120.35 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT VALVE ASSY (ANNEX) 27.80 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT VALVE, CHEMICAL NEW EXTINGUISHER (ADM) 200.95 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT VALVES, CHEMICAL, VALVE (JAIL) 401.45
Total 007701 750.55
007775 LINDA STEINKE 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007775 100.00
007631 LINDA V FABER 2/25/03 ELECTION PICKUP 11.00
Total 007631 11.00
007839 LINDA V FABER REIMBURSEMENT FOR UCCI EXPENSES 95.20
Total 007839 95.20
007702 MAB PAINT STORE #805 2 -5 GAL CLASSIC WHITE PAINT 155.00
Total 007702 155.00
007766 MAGGIE SFfl]G 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 108.00
Total 007766 108.00
007880 MAGNATAG 8 LAMINATED MAGNETS 16823
Total 007880 168.23
007703 MAINTENANCE PRODUTS INC A#4362000/DRILL&NUT ASSORTMENT 407.08
Total 007703 407.08
007881 MANAGER'S EDGE I YR SUBSCRIPTION 97.00
Total 007881 97.00
007667 MARJORIE HULT 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 50.00
Total 007667 50.00
007648 MARK GLASSFORD 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 1220
Total 007648 122.50
007706 MARQUIE & LAMBERT 02 F6/MOUNT 2 TIRES,ALIGN & BALANCE 39.40
Total 007706 39.40
007884 MARQUIE & LAMBERT BALANCE 4 TIRES 38.80 MARQUIE & LAMBERT (38700/01) (98F9) MOUNT, ALIGN, BAL (4) TIRES 133.75
Total 007884 172.55
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 19 . . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 -General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007853 KRAIG HORSTMANN MLG - NATL HGWY SAFETY CONF 51.48
Total 007853 51.48
007871 KRANZ INC (44351) DRAIN CLEANER 109.84
Total 007871 109.84
007588 KRISTIN M ANDERSON TRANS (00JA44, DELRICO, RICHARD) (2/4/03) 19.80
Total 007588 19.80
007700 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC C#205 16/REPAIR PRO-LASER II RADAR 127.31
Total 007700 127.31
007877 L&GMARINE JET BOAT REPAIR 1.547.30
Total 007877 1,547.30
007873 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES A#902-0506366/ FEB 2003 SERVICE 710.65 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES A4902-0506366/JAN 2003 SERVICE
Total 007873 1,131.65
007584 LAURA ADAMS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY
Total 007584 100.00
007831 LAURA DORE (12) HRS (NOV 2002) ELECTION - PUBLIC TEST/INST..
Total 007831 540.00
007610 LEANN R CLODI, CSR TRANS (STAMPLEY) (7/22/02) (00CF195, MUZZAREL. 98.80
Total 007610 98.80
007950 LEO G WHI1TEN REIMB FOR UCCI EXP CONF/LODGING/3-12-13-03 90.20
Total 007950 90.20
007887 LEONARD MARTIN REIMBURSEMENT FOR UCCI EXPENSES
Total 007887 227.09
007876 LEXIS NEXIS (A# I I8DVX) (FEBRUARY 2003) ONLINE CHARGES 236.00
Total 007876 236.00
007875 LEXIS NEXIS (A# I I8DVX) (JANUARY 2003) ONLINE CHARGES 236.00
Total 007875 236.00
007874 LEXIS NEXIS (A# I I8DVX) DECEMBER 2002 ONLINE CHARGES 236.00
Total 007874 236.00
007701 LIBERTY FIRE EQUIPMENT REBUILT VALVE 31.70
Total 007701 31.70
Dates 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM . Page 18 S • Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register Claims Committee Report 110-General- Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Cheek Amoun
007862 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... (DEPOSIT TO 370-180-50315-999) .5 ,L043.)U
Total 007862 3,264.00
007868 KANKAKEE GLASS COMPANY NEW DOROMATIC FOR TREASURER 571.00 KANKAKEE GLASS COMPANY REPAIR TURNSTYLE DOOR (CT HSE) 1,549.50
Total 007868 2,120.50
007869 KANKAKEE RAILROAD MUSEUM 5/30-31/2003 -VOTER REG BOOTH RENTAL
Total 007869 au.uu
007695 KANKAKEE SANITARY/A&J DIS... (CU# 12-6165) (FEBRUARY 2003 MONTHLY CHARGE 168.00 KANKAKEE SANITARY/A&J DIS... (CUll 12-616 5) 20 YD RETRIEVE (TKT 61895) (2/18/03) 320.00 KANKAKEE SAN ITARY/A&J DIS... (CUll 12-623 0) FEBRUARY 2003 MONTHLY CHARGE 450.00
Total 007695 938.00
007693 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO 5CS DISH SOAP, 5CS TEASPOONS 173.90 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO 7 CS LAUNDRY SOAP 196.00
Total 007693 369.90
007865 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO 8 CS LAUNDRY SOAP 224.00 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO 8CS TSPS, ICS PLATES, ICS BOWLS,2CS CUPS 159.32 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO I CS POLY GLOVES 75.30 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO LAUNDRY SOAP/8CS 22400 KANKAKEE VALLEY SUPPLY CO TEASPOONS,DISH SOAP,CAPS CUPS
Total 007865 964.4,
007841 KARREN S FARMER MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007841 300.00
007779 KATHRYN K THOMAS REIMB (2/27/03) ZONE MTG MLG 66.24
Total 007779 66.24
007697 KER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC (KANKAI 10) (9) CS LINERS 124.92 KER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC (KANKAI 10)(14)CS TOILET PAPER 429 66 KER SUPPLY COMPANY, INC 66-TOILET PAPER (JAIL)
Total 007697 1,321.z5_5
007870 KEY PRINTING (830) (4,000) #10 ENVELOPES W/RETURN ADDRESS 212.50 KEY PRINTING (548) (32,000) BALLOT VERIFICATION STUBS 356.95
Total 007870 569.45
007776 KIMBERLY STREHLOW REIMB (FEB II & 13/03) PROBATION MLG 6.05
Total 007776 6.05
007937 KIRSTEN E STEEVES MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES
Total 007937 -juu.IJu
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 17 S S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007866 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACHIN... (I) PRINTWHEEL RPL FOR TYPEWRITER 29.00 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACHIN... 3 LASER TONER CARTRIDGES/I ADLER PRINTWHE... 416.96
Total 007866 445.96
007694 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACHIN... I LASER TONER CARTRIDG-H/P 128.99 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACHIN... FAX MACI-IINE,CARTRIDGE FOR FAX 528.98
Total 007694 657.97
007866 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACI-fIN... SERVICE ON FAX MACHINE 65.00
Total 007866 65.00
007694 KANKAKEE BUSINESS MACHIN... TONER, INK JET CARTRIDGES, 3-RING BINDERS 205.40
Total 007694 205.40
007690 KANKAKEE COUNTY HIGHWAY... (FEBRUARY 2003) SHERIFF, CORRECTIONS & ESDA... 6,166.90 KANKAKEE COUNTY HIGHWAY... 219.10 GALS/UNLEADED FUEL 248.02 KANKAKEE COUNTY HIGHWAY... 64.70 GAL UNLEADED FUEL 73.24
Total 007690 6,488.16
007696 KANKAKEE COUNTY SOIL & W... PER AGREEMENT- (DEC '02/JAN '03/FEB '03) 750.00
Total 007696 750.00
007684 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DEPOSIT TO 210-999-50500-999 1ST QTR GRANT ADJ 7,6 19.47
Total 007684 7,619.47
007683 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DEPOSIT TO 200-999-50750-999 1ST QTR GRANT ADJ 504.51
Total 007683 504.51
007682 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DEPOSIT TO 200-999-51500-999 1ST QTR GRANT ADJ 1,434.46
Total 007682 1,434.46
007685 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... DEPOSIT TO 210-999-50400-999 1ST QTR GRANT ADJ 8,955.29
Total 007685 8,955.29
1234 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANS TO GENL FUND 400,000.00
Total 1234 400,000.00
1236 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO GENL FUND 400,000.00
Total 1236 400,000.00
1237 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO GENL FUND 315,000.00
Total 1237 315,000.00
1235 KANKAKEE COUNTY TREASUR... TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND 300,000.00
Total 1235 300,000.00
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 16 O .• 0 Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007943 129.20
007657 JOHN HESS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007657 100.00
007811 JOHN J BOYD MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007811 300.00
007679 JOHNSON CONTROLS SERVICE FOR FIRE ALARM TROUBLE (JAIL) 652.34
Total 007679 652.34
007681 JOLIET JUNIOR COLLEGE PRE-EMPLOYMENT TESTING 200.00
Total 007681 200.00
007614 JONATHAN COUSIN (FEB 18- 26/03) PLANNING MW 106.92
Total 007614 106.92
007719 JOY MULLADY 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007719 100.00
007782 JUDY BAAR TOPINKA (FEBRUARY 2003) SPINAL CORD FEE 216.45
Total 007782 216.45
007783 JUDY BAARTOPINKA (FEBRUARY 2003) SURCHARGE 18,513.40
Total 007783 18,513.40
007781 JUDY BAARTOPINKA (FEBRUARY 2003) TRAUMA CENTER FUND 12,797.36
Total 007781 12,797.36
007626 JULIE DOTSON FEB 2003 EARLY INTERVENTION 360.00
Total 007626 360.00
007699 K'S MERCHANDISE C#4400 16/OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.37
Total 007699 6.37
007691 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB DISPATCH DEPARTMENT E... 37,500.00 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (FEBRUARY 2003) ETSB HEALTH INSURANCE EXPE... 3,621.98 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (MARCH 2003) ETSB DISPATCH DEPARTMENT EXP... 37,500.00 K3CO EMERGENCY TELEPHON... (MARCH 2003) ETSB HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSE 3,621.98
Total 007691 82,243.96
007867 KANKAKEE ACE HARDWARE INC A#5139/TRAP 11.69 KANKAKEE ACE HARDWARE INC (A# 5139) AUGER, DOWEL 16.57 KANKAKEE ACE HARDWARE INC (A# 5139) FASTENERS, CAPS, PLUGS 31.22
Total 007867 59.48
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 15 S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Cheek Amoun
Total 007676 425.00
007736 IRMA POWELL 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 106.00
Total 007736 106.00
007832 J IMANI DREW MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007832 300.00
007677 JAFFE DRUG STORES INC (FEBRUARY 2003) INMATE RX'S 4,735.01
Total 007677 4,735.01
007860 JAMES AND ASSOCIATES (JAN 22 & 23/03) (97CF750, PIPER, A) PROF FEES & A... 1,506.00
Total 007860 1,506.00
007851 JAMES B HANDSON (JAN I - 30/03) (97CF750, PIPER, A) FEES & EXPENSES 2,322.00
Total 007851 2,322.00
007632 JAMES FAFORD 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 166.00
Total 007632 166.00
007652 JAMES GREENSTREET FEB 2003 MLG 88.92
Total 007652 88.92
007764 JAMES SIMONE PSY DAND ASS... J.HAWKINSOIJD2I7/DOB-I0/28/02- DOS -2/6-2/23/03 700.00
Total 007764 700.00
007927 JAMES SIMONE PSY D AND ASS... 01 CF 676/ERIC SCHROTHIEVALUATION 850.00 JAMES SIMONE PSY D AND ASS... 02 JD 213 & 02 JD 270/SCHADELA/EVALUATION 700.00
Total 007927 1,550.00
007812 JAMES T BURNS MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 400.00
Total 007812 400.00
007678 JEWEL FOOD STORE FOOD SUPPLIES FOR JURORS 22.93
Total 007678 22.93
007718 JO LYNN MULCAFIY CAB FARE/DOM VIOLENCE TRAINING/2 DAYS 40.00
Total 007718 40.00
007780 JODI TODD (2/18 - 21/03)(30.75 HRS) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CO-.. 496.62 JODI TODD (2/25 - 3/I/03)(15 HRS) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CO-OR... 242.25
Total 007780 738.87
007943 JODI TODD MAR 2003 CONTRACTURAL SERVICES (3 HRS) 48.45 JODI TODD CONTRACTURAL SERVICES(DAIN) 3/4-10/03-5 HRS 80.75
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 14 O .• S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report ItO - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007953 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... RADIO, SIRENS, STROBES, LITES 1,249.00 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... SHIRT, TIE (STALF, JIM) 44.25
Total 007953 1,293.25
007856 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... SHIRT, TIE (STALF, JIM) 44.25 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... SHIRT, TIE (STALF, JIM) (44.25) ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... RADIO, SIRENS, STROBES, LITES 1,249.00
Total 007856 1,249.00
007671 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... HANDCUFFS & LEG, IRONS 310.00 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... FECHHEIMER PANTS/MARK GLASSFORD 42.00
Total 007671 352.00
007856 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... CAPTAIN BARS (HOFFNER, MIKE) (5.00)
Total 007856 (5.00)
007953 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... CAPTAIN BARS (HOFFNER, MIKE) 5.00 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... DEPT UNIFORM (L.GARRET1') 256.50
Total 007953 261.50
007671 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... DEPT UNIFORM (ANDREW CARNAHAN) 227.00
Total 007671 227.00
007856 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... DEPT UNIFORM (L.GARRETT) 256.50 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... DEPT UNIFORM (L.GARRETT) (256.50) ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... WINTER CONF REGISTRATION FEES 250.00 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... WINTER CONF REGISTRATION FEES (250,00)
Total 007856 0.00
007671 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... UNIFORM ASSESSORIES 23.50 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... UNIFORM/RANDY WALLING 234.50
Total 007671 258.00
007954 ILLINOIS SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION WINTER CONF REGIS 250.00
Total 007954 250.00
007673 INDIANAPOLIS RUBBER STAMP ... (CU ID# 8299 1) ELECTRIC SEAL RPR 128.00
Total 007673 128.00
007674 INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES RJE CONSULTATION SERVICE/JOB# KBOR 010769 237.50
Total 007674 237.50
007859 INTEGRATIVE COUNSELING SE... (3/7/03) EARLY INTERVENTION - JUV PROBATION 280.00
Total 007859 280.00
007676 IPAI RESIDENTIAL MODELING CONCEPTS 425.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM . Page: 13 aZ9 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report ItO - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
4,569.00
007659 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON MA1TER98 13053/PROF SERVICES/I -2 TO 1-31-03 4,315.16
Total 007659 4,315.16
007698 HOPE KING REIMB (2/26/03) TOLLS (CLIENT PLACEMENT) 1.00 HOPE KING REIMB (3/4/03) MEALS (P/U CLIENT FR ARROWHEAD) 5.44 HOPE KING (JAN 20, 23, 25/03) PROBATION MLG 14.40
Total 007698 20.84
007666 HUFFMAN'S CREATIVE CATERI... (FEBRUARY 2003) (9,25 1) INMATE MEALS 27,290.45
Total 007666 27,290.45
007855 ICE MOUNTAIN (A# 8106138293) (FEB 5 - 28/03) (5) 5-GAL DRINK & R... 44.50
Total 007855 44.50
007668 ICE MOUNTAIN (A# 8106138293) JANUARY 2003 (DELIVERY/RET/RE... 37.25
Total 007668 37.25
007669 IL-ATSA (2003) IL-ATSA MEMBERSHIP DUES (GOYTIA, STEVE) 15.00
Total 007669 15.00
007670 ILGISA (REGIS) (4/8,9/03) GIS CONF(SKIMERHORN, DELBE... 155.00
Total 007670 155.00
007857 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REV... (3/24/03) RESET STATE STAMP MTR BY IL DEPT RE... 20,000.00
Total 007857 20,000.00
007672 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REV... (3/6/03) RESET STATE STAMP MTR (LESS OLD MTR ... 19,058.46
Total 007672 19,058.46
007856 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... (I) RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHT 68.50 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... (I) RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHT
Total 007856 0.00
007953 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... (I) RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHT 68.50
Total 007953 68.50
007671 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... (l) SHIRT (2) DEPT PATCHES (ALLEN, SCOTT) 54.50 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... (I) SHIRT (2) DEPT PATCHES (RAYMOND, MIKE) 44.00
Total 007671 98.50
007856 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... CAPTAIN BARS (HOFFNER, MIKE) 5.00 ILLINOIS FIRE & POLICE EQUIP... RADIO, SIRENS. STROBES, LITES (1,249.00)
Total 007856 (1,244.00)
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 12 O S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007656 15.84
007848 GORDON FOOD SERVICE CREDIT MEMO (ORG INV# 484078) _PJ
Total 007848 (430.10)
007649 GORDON FOOD SERVICE 060440011/2% MILK 467.50
Total 007649 467.50
007848 GORDON FOOD SERVICE C#66044001 I/IOU CS 4-I GAL MILK 935.00 GORDON FOOD SERVICE C#660440011/45 CS MILK 427.50 GORDON FOOD SERVICE C#660440011/45 CS 4 -IGAL MILK 427.50 GORDON FOOD SERVICE C#660440011/45 CS MILK 427.50 GORDON FOOD SERVICE C#66044001 I/POP TARTS,CRACKERS,JELLY 92.56
Total 007848 2,310.06
007849 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... 5000 OFFICIAL BALLOT CARD ENVELOPES 390.53 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... 75 PRECINCT KITS 6,750.00 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... 10,000 SHEETS VITAL RECORDS SECURITY PAPER 2,836.45 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... (KANKAKEECOUN)(I00) BALLOT CARD TRANSFER... 179.09
Total 007849 10,156.07
007650 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... (KANKAKEECOUN) FINAL INV-(2/25/03) PRIMARY E... 205.13
Total 007650 205.13
007849 GOVERNMENTAL BUSINESS SY... KANKACOUN(I00) ELJUDGETRN MAN-(3/18/03)(2)... 1,200.00
Total 007849 1,200.00
007932 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/17/03) (I HR) (0213T396, GUZMAN, JOSE) 50.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/12/03) (02CF2 195, TORRES, ROBERTO) 25.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/14/03)(I/2 HR) (01CF691, ACOSTA, FRANCISCO) 25.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/3/03)(I/2 HR)(02DT529. MARTINEZ, HECTOR) 25.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/3/03) (2 HRS) (02CF733, VAZQUEZ & 98CF454, GA... 100.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/5/03)(I/2 HR)(02TR22919, VARELA, CESAR) 25.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/6/03) (1/2 HR) (03CF03, AVALOS) 25.00 GUADALUPE SORICH (3/6/03) (2 1/2 HRS)(03CF8 & 9) 125.00
Total 007932 400.00
007913 GUS R REGAS MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007913 300.00
007664 HAROLD HUBER 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007664 100.00
007794 HELEN WOTRING 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 50.00
Total 007794 50.00
007658 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY C#G06228/4 WORKSTATIONS (ASSESSOR) 3,636.00 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY C#06228/I SERVER RACK (SHERIFF) 933.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: I I S S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report I 10- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
FAI-IROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE... (2/5/03) (02F195, JONES, JEFF) 8.00 FAI-IROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE... (2/28/03) (981340, ANTHONY, M) 8.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE... (2/8/03) (03Fl9, WIATROLIK, MI) 34.00
Total 007633 265.00
007634 FEDEX (A# 2048-6325-3) P/U (1/23, 2/3 & 2/18/03) TO MICROG... 37.29
Total 007634 37.29
007635 FISHER-SWALE EYE CENTER #40546/MED TREATMENT (ALTON MCKAY) 74.00
Total 007635 74.00
007842 FLAGS OVER AMERICA 123/5 CUSTOM SILKSCREENED FLAGS 732.00
Total 007842 732.00
007640 FLORANCE FRANCOIS MSW/LC... FEB 2003 EARLY INTER V.JUV PROBATION 600.00
Total 007640 600.00
007843 FOCUS 02 CM I 732/EDUARDO FORMANSKI(3-1 0-Il - 12-03) 630.00
Total 007843 630.00
007639 FOCUS 2/24/03-OlCM2017 ANTWAN BERRY-FITNESS 400.00
Total 007639 400.00
007844 FORD-IROQUOIS PUBLIC HEALTH (2/25/03) (SCHOLL JAMES) SICK CALL 13.00 FORD-IROQUOIS PUBLIC HEALTH (2/18/03) (COLLINS, BRUCE) SICK CALL 13.00
Total 007844 26.00
007845 FOTO QUICK REPRINT 9.66 FOTO QUICK FILM DEVELOPMENT 43.34 FOTO QUICK FILM PROCESSED 42.35
Total 007845 95.35
007644 GABRIELLE GARRETr 2/26/03- 2 M EALS/PLACEMENT VISIT 19.43
Total 007644 19.43
007762 GEORGE SEARLS 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 122.50
Total 007762 122.50
007647 GIBSON AREA HOSPITAL & HEA... A#587468/M ED TREATMENT/JAM ES SCHOLL 386.50
Total 007647 386.50
007852 GLEN HENNING (3/11/03) ZBA HRG MLG 15.84
Total 007852 15.84
007656 GLEN HENNING ZBA 2/26/03 HRG/MLG 15.84
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 10 S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007627 EDWARDS MEDICAL SUPPLY INC #KA5 I OA-INMATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES 197.90 EDWARDS MEDICAL SUPPLY INC #KA5 IOAIINMATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES 238.36
Total 007627 436.26
007891 EDWIN W MEENTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR UCCI EXPENSES 411.50
Total 007891 411.50
007629 EGIX, INC #0007016210/INTERNET SERVICE 16.95
Total 007629 16.95
007835 EILEAA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR FOUR 200.00
Total 007835 200.00
007630 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES A45472 1110 2300 0469 (MULCAHY)
Total 007630 215.39
007836 EMERGENCY CARE HEALTH ORG (2/12/03) (PTA# 13878280G, TUCKER, TRADELL)
Total 007836 122.10
007813 EMILE A CAPR 10111 MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007813 300.00
007660 EMILIE HINTON 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP
Total 007660 108.00
007757 ERIC L SADLER (FEBRUARY 2003) PLANNING MLG 76.32 ERIC L SADLER REIMB (2/27/03) U OF I PLANNING CONF MEAL & P
Total 007757 85.98
007838 EUNICE SACHS AND ASSOCIATES (1/9/03) ZBA HRG CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT 20.00
Total 007838 20.00
007653 EVAN GREGG 2/28/03- MEAL - PLACEMENT VISIT 5.74 EVAN GREGG JUV PROB PLACEMENT STAFFING/MEALS & TOLLS 7.74
Total 007653 13.48
007840 FABER FLORAL CO EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 107.50
Total 007840 107.50
007633 FAHROV PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (1/31/03) (03FI4, FELIX, AN) 22.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (1/31/03) (03F15, FELIX, AN) 22.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/2/03) (0317I2, SADLER, B) 29.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/24/03) (03F26, WILLIAMS, ANT) 22.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/24/03) (03F28, CHANDLER, L) 22.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/23/03) (03F13, COTE, D) 38.00 FAI-IROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/23/03) (03F7, NICHOLS, W) 38.00 FAHROW PRIVATE PROCESS SE.. (2/4/03) (03F9, SEVORWELL) 22.00
Date: 43103 03:33:52 PM Page: 9 S S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007624 DISPLAY SALES (CU# 033606) (6) 3X5 ILLINOIS FLAGS 169.50
Total 007624 169.50
007729 DIXIE PAYNE 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 118.00
Total 007729 118.00
007744 DON RARDIN 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 122.50
Total 007744 122.50
007793 DONNA WOOLARD 2/28/03 MLG TO RANTOUL 66.00 DONNA WOOLARD MEAL - CONF IN SPRINGFIELD 9.74
Total 007793 75.74
007595 DOUGLAS J BARWEGEN (REIMB) (MAR 4 & 6/03) JUVENILE OFFICE TRNFNG ... 9.70
Total 007595 9.70
007596 DR ERWIN J BAUKUS MARCH 2003- PSYCHOLOGICAL RETAINER 1,150.00
Total 007596 1,150.00
007730 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (1/31/03) (SM0036, SMITH, LARRY) 47.00 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (1/28/03) (M00035, MOORE. TERRY) 83.40 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (2/12/03) (SCO030, SCHOLL, JAMES) 191.00 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (2/6/03) (GR0025, GRAY, MARIO) 125.60 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (2/4/03) (M00036, MOFFETT, MELVIN) 47.00 DR JOHN T PETERSON DDS (2/19/03) (CA009 I, CANNON, RANDY) 47.00
Total 007730 541.00
007638 DWAYNE A FLEXSER REIMB (FEB I - 25/03) CORONER MLG 148.32
Total 007638 148.32
007641 ED FRITZ 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 118.00
Total 007641 118.00
007585 EDNA ALLAIN 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 118.00
Total 007585 118.00
007847 EDWARD S GLAZAR JR MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 400.00
Total 007847 400.00
007767 EDWARD SMITH (REIMB) (3/16 - 20/03) PROS HOMICIDE CASES SEMI... 226.50
Total 007767 226.50
007834 EDWARDS MEDICAL SUPPLY INC A#KA5 10/INMATE MED SUPPLIES 439.69 EDWARDS MEDICAL SUPPLY INC #KA510/INMATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES 455.37
Total 007834 895.06
Dale: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 8 S S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007822 300.00
007825 D & D POWER EQUIPMENT RPR ROPER TRACTOR 45.97
Total 007825 45.97
007622 DAN DEVALK FEB2003 MLG 130.32
Total 007622
007731 DARLENE PETROLLI 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY
Total 007731
007768 DARREL SMITH (REIMB) (3/4/03) CPS RECERTIFICATION TRAINING 20.00
Total 007768 20.00
007872 DAWN L LAN DWEHR MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Total 007872
007617 DEISY DAVILA 2/18/03-02CF343 GONZALEZ/02CF344 MORENO/ 1.5 ... 75.00 DEISY DAVILA 2/21/03-02DTI83 CINTORA/02DT605 RAM IREZ1I HR 50.00 DEISY DAVILA 2/25/03-02CF343 GONZALEZ-02CF344 MORENO/.5 HR 25.00
Total 007617 150.00
007824 DEISY DAVILA (2/28/03) (I HR) (00DT278, TREJO, ALEJANDRO 50.00 DEISY DAVILA (3/17/03) (1 1/2 HRS) (00CF237, 02CM2344, 03CM238) 75.00
Total 007824 125.00
007615 DENNIS B COY (3/6/03) RESET STATE STAMP MTR MW 72.00
Total 007615 72.00
007619 DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY (11/5/02) (DAU, EDWARD) TTS# 20024093 125.00 DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY (10/11/02) (FORTINBERRY, JESSE) TTS# 2002-3747 125.00 DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY (10/28/02) (KRUMWIEDE, JOE) TTS# 2002-3966 125.00
Total 007619 375.00
007704 DEQUWALLA MALONE DEC 4, 2002 & FEB 4,2003 MLG 19.08
Total 007704 I 19.08
007705 DEREK J MARATEA, INC (FEB 3-25/03) EARLY INTERVENTION 800.00
Total 007705 800.00
007883 DEREK J MARATEA, INC (FEB 11/02 - 2/4/03) (00J13244, FORBES, A) UNDER-BI... 1,164.00
Total 007883 1,164.00
007623 DEVNET INC PROP TAX SOFTWARE SERV/4-2003 TO 6-2003 12,000.00
Total 007623 12,000.00
Date: 40/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 7
(1 - S S S Kankakee County Auditors Office
Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report
110 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007821 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 61077421-01) (2/13 - 3/17/03) 1,583.53
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 6I077448-0l)(2/13 - 3/17/03) 152.76
Total 007821 1,736.29
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80094701-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 73.24
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80094701-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 8009470I-0I)(12/3I/02 - 1/31/03) 73.24
Total 007796 73.24
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80094825-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 17.32
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80094825-0l)(12/3I/02 - 1/31/03) _____(JI)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80094825-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 17.32
Total 007796 17.32
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095058-0I)(12/3I/02 - 1/31/03) 37.13
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095058-01)(12/31/02 - 1/31/03) _____(3l)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095058-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 37.13
Total 007796 37.13
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095082-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 17.32
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095082-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03)
Total 007613 . 0.00
007821 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A#61052658-02) (1/9-2/9/03) 222.80
Total 007821 222.80
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A#61052666-02)(I/19/03-2/7/03) 17.24 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A480094728-01 (12/31/02-1/31/03) 2,681.68 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A#80094728-01) (12/3102-1/31/03) 130.33
CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO (A# 80095082-01) (12/31/02 - 1/31/03) 17.32
Total 007796 2,846.57
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO #61077448-01-- I/Il THRU 2/13/03 152.76 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO #61077448-01-- 1/17 THRU 2/13/03 (152.76)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO #61077448-01-- 1/17 THRU 2/13/03 152.76
Total 007796 152.76
007822 CYNTHIA V COOPER MAR 2003 OFFICE EXPENSES 300.00
Date: 4/3103 03:33:52 PM Page: 6
4 • Kankakee. County Auditors Office . Check/Voucher Register Claims Committee Report 110- General- Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007817 153.75
007818 CLOSETS BY DESIGN DISPLAY CASES (SHERIFF) 2,150.00
Total 007818 2,150.00
007611 COM ED AN 1047067006/ 1-23-03 THRU 2-21-03 387.65 COM ED (A# I79410905I)(I/23-2/21/03) 3,490.14 COM ED (A# 1807344002) (1/24 - 2/22/03) 92.78 Total 007611 3,970.57
007820 COMPUSERVE INC A#7577360/FEB 03 ONLINE SERVICE FEE 9.95
Total 007820 9.95
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A461077448-0I DOS 1/17-2/13/03 152.76
Total 007796 152.76
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#6I077448-01 DOS 1/I7-2/I3/03 152.76 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#6I077448-0I DOS I/I7-2/13/03 (152.76) CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#LI052666-02 DOS I/9-2/7/03 17.24 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#LI052666-02 DOS 1/9-2/7/03 (17.24) CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#61052666-02/SERVICE 1-9 TO 2-7-03 130.33 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO A#61052666-02/SERVICE 1-9 TO 2-7-03 (130.33)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077456-OI/ 1-17 THRU 2-13-03 104.63
Total 007796 104.63
007821 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 80094701-01 1/31 TO 2/28/03 (ADM) 73.24 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 80094728-0I - 1/31 TO 2/28/03 (CT HSE) 130.33 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 80094825-01 - 1/31 TO 2/28/03 17.32 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 80095058-01 - 1/31 TO 2/28/03 (ANNEX) 37.13 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 51052658-02/- 2/6 TO 3/7/03 2,905.61 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61042569-02- 2/6103/7/03 35.64
Total 007821 3,199.27
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61052658-02/SERVICE 1-9 TO 2-9-03 2,681.68 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61052658-02/SERVICE 1-9 TO 2-9-03 (2,681.68) CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077421-01/ 1017 THRU 2-13-03 978.05 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077421-Oi/ 1017 THRU 2-13-03 (978.05)
Total 007613 0.00
007796 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077421-Oi/ 10I7 TI-IRU 2-13-03 978.05 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077448-01/ I-17 THRU 2-13-03 (152.76)
Total 007796 825.29
007613 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 6 I 077456-01/I -17 THRU 2-13-03 104.63 CONSUMER ILLINOIS WATER CO 61077456-0l/ I-li THRU 2-I3-03 (104.63)
Total 007613 0.00
Date: 413103 03:33:52 PM Page: 5 S S 0 Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report I 1 - General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
Total 007882 45.00
007833 BRIAN A DUNCAN PTI TRAINING MLG (1/12 -19-26-03/2-2 & 9-03 574.40
Total 007833 574.40
007810 BRIAN BILLINGSLEY JAN/FEB/MAR 2003 MLG
Total 007810
007792 CARA L WHEELER CSR TRANS (97JA IS & 0 IJA27, HARMS) (12/19/02) 234.60
Total 007792 234.60
007949 CARA L WHEELER CSR TRANSCRIPT ON FRITZ (02 DT 362) 12.60 CARA L WHEELER CSR 01 D 429 TRANSC RIPT/C RENSHAW 9.00
Total 007949 21.60
007792 CARA L WHEELER CSR (2/28/03) TRANS (02CF563, DABNEY) ORD BY MCEL.. 203.40
Total 007792 203.40
007612 CARLGENECONROY FEB 2003 MLG
Total 007612
007618 CARYN DAVIS JUV PROB PLACEMENT STAFFING/MEAL 5.13
Total 007618 5.13
007608 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MARKE... C#KANI0020/1764 GALS NATURAL GAS 8,289.66
Total 007608 8,289.66
007628 CHINYEREJ EDWARDS 2/28/03-MEAL-PLACEMENT VISIT GATEWAY 6.44 CHINYERE J EDWARDS MEALS/12/28/03- PLACEMENT VISIT GATEWAY 9.54
Total 007628 15.98
007609 CINTAS CORPORATION #319 (A# 03523) UNIFORM SERVICE (4) BLDGS 252.14
Total 007609 252.14
007815 CINTAS CORPORATION #319 (A# 03523) UNIFORM SERVICE (4) BLDGS CINTAS CORPORATION #319 (CU# 03523) UNIFORM SERVICE (4) BLDGS
Total 007815
007816 CITY OF KANKAKEE CALL #655/AMBULANCE/DOS 3/l/03/D.EGG LESTON
Total 007816
007769 CLAUDE SNODGRASS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007769 100.00
007817 CLINICAL SYSTEMS INC 00JD89/EARLY INTERV-JUVENILE 153.75
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 4 S . S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
BEAUPRES INC (1/29/03) (99F1) GOF 26.02 BEAUPRES INC (1/30/03) (02F1) TIRE CHANGE 30.00 BEAUPRES INC (2/10/03) (99F3) JUMP START, VAT TEST 150.45 BEAUPRES INC (2/13/03) (92C9) GOF - CK FUEL PUMP & RPR CONNE... 116.29 BEAUPRES INC (2/13/03) (98F7) WIPER BLADES 37.46 BEAUPRES INC (2/13/03) (99F4) GOF, MOUNT CAGE 159.90 BEAUPRES INC (2/14/03) (02F14) RPR SPOTLITE, RJR HANDLE 79.00 BEAUPRES INC (2/14/03) (98F6) CK OUT VAT - TEST & REWIRE NEW... 96.39 BEAUPRES INC (2/15/03) (02F3) WIPERS 25.46 BEAUPRES INC (1/27/03) (94C I) VAT TEST & GOF - RPL BATTERY 219.39 BEAUPRES INC (2/28/03) (02CI)(GOF) 21.94 BEAUPRES INC (2/26/03) (98F6) CK ENGINE LITE, CLEAN IAC MOTOR 88.23 BEAUPRES INC (2/28/03) (93F [)TIRE RPR 18.36 BEAUPRES INC (2/3/03) (01F2) GOF, RJR ALT 372.06 BEAUPRES INC (2/3/03) (98F3) SERVICE CK ENGINE LIGHT, RIR FUE... 90.22 BEAUPRES INC (2/4/03) (03F3) GOF 25.26 BEAUPRES INC (2/5/03) (98F7) JUMP START 30.00 BEAUPRES INC (2/5/03) (99F2) GOF, AIR FILTER 62.09 BEAUPRES INC (2/7/03) (02F14) GOF 24.49 BEAUPRES INC (2/7/03) (99F1 I) GOF & CK BRAKES 247.29 BEAUPRES INC (2/15/03) (02F6) TIRE CHANGE 66.00 BEAUPRES INC (2/17/03) (02F6) GOF 24.49 BEAUPRES INC (2/18/03) (0213 I) GOF & TRANS SERVICE 169.15 BEAUPRES INC (2/19/03) (99F1) RPL FR PADS, TURN ROTORS, CL & ... 290.93 BEAUPRES INC (2/21/03) (93C 1) RPL FRONT PADS & ROTORS 202.96 BEAUPRES INC (2/24/03) (02F1 I) GOF, CK AIR SUSPENSION 26.02 BEAUPRES INC (2/24/03) (92C9) JUMP START 30.00 BEAUPRES INC (2/25/03) (OIFI)(GOF, VAT TEST) 150.66
Total 007601 3,005.51
007603 BERNARDIN-LOCHM UELLER & ... BLA PROJ ECT 4 401 -0008-OFS/JAN 2003 3,180.45
Total 007603 3,180.45
007772 BETTY SPRAKER 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 106.00
Total 007772 106.00
007636 BILL FITZSIMONS 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007636 100.00
007594 BONNIE BARON 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 50.00
Total 007594 50.00
007605 BP FUEL 143.63
Total 007605 143.63
007606 BRADLEY PLACE COMMUNITY ... POLLING PLACE RENTAL 75.00
Total 007606 75.00
007882 BRENDA J MANNING TRANSCRIPT ON 00CF49 &02CF144 45.00
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 3 12
S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007643 ANNA GALLOWAY 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY
Total 007643 100.00
007586 ANNEUE ALLEN 2/25/03 ELECTION PAY & PICK UP 108.00
Total 007586 108.00
007804 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI) (FEB 2003 -28 DAYS) (01JD296, PITTS, TA... 2,424.80 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI) (FE B 2003-28 DAYS) (01JD305, 02JD139, ... 2,424.80 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI)(FEB 2003-28 DAYS) (01J1354, SMITH, JO... 2,424.80 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANK.AI)(FEB 2003-28 DAYS) (01J1376, MURRY, K... 2,424.80 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI)(FEB 2003-28 DAYS) (02J139, KENT, CLY... 2,424.80 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI)(FEB 2003 -9 DAYS) (OIJDI 14, 212) (ASTO... 779.40
Total 007804 12,903.40
007951 ARROWHEAD RANCH (KANKAI) (FEB 2003 - 28 DAYS) (02J D230, 271, CPA... 2,424.80
Total 00795 2,424.80
007805 ASSOC PSYCHIATRISTS OF KAN... (A# 40828) (0ICFI02, WARD, ENDE) MED MGT 75.00
Total 007805 75.00
007591 AUTOPSY PATHOLOGY CONSU... (1/27/03) HElM, ARTHUR (#03-21) 650.00
Total 007591 650.00
007592 AWARENESS INC (FEB 1-28/03) EARLY INTERVENTION (JUV PROBATI... 1,390.00
Total 007592 1,390.00
007808 B & B PUBLISHING (A# 880) APRIL 1, 2003 ELECTION NOTICE 880.00
Total 007808 880.00
007598 B & B PUBLISHING (A# K1458) AD FOR PRINTER & PRESS OPERATOR (2... 33.00
Total 007598 33.00
007807 BADE APPLIANCE CLEAN UNIT DRYER 192.63 BADE APPLIANCE CLEAN VENT DRYER 50.00
Total 007807 242.63
007771 BARB SPENCER 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007771 100.00
007593 BARON HUOT OIL COMPANY (FEB 2003) (STN II) 34 CAR WASHES 85.00 BARON HUOT OIL COMPANY (FEB 2003) (ST# 14)30 CAR WASHES 75.00 BARON HUOT OIL COMPANY (FEB 2003) (ST# 9)108 CAR WASHES 270.00 BARON HUOT OIL COMPANY 3 CAR WASHES (PROBATION) 7.50
Total 007593 437.50
007601 BEAUPRES INC (313103) (03F2) TOW FR HERSCHER TO NAPLETONS 75.00 BEAUPRES INC (1/28/03) (02F6) WRECKER SERV-WINCH FR DITCH 50.00
Date: 4/3/03 03:33:52 PM Page: 2 . S S Kankakee County Auditors Office Check/Voucher Register - Claims Committee Report 110- General Fund From 3/7/2003 Through 4/3/2003
Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Amoun
007590 AT&T A4052 372 4743 001/SERVICE 1/16 THRU 2/15/03 22.29
Total 007590 22.29
007735 A# 5588463000225374 A45588463000225374 KANKAKEE COUNTY GOVERN... 7,947.03
Total 007735 7,947.03
007797 A-I LOCKSMITH SERVICE 5 KEYS & 4 CODING
Total 007797
007583 AAIM (I) VIDEOTAPE (THE VICTIM/THE OFFENDER) 195.00
Total 007583 195.00
007798 AC FORMS ENEVELOPES & HOTELJMOTEL USE 1,188.00
Total 007798 1,188.00
007799 ADCRAF1' PRINTERS INC (750) APPEARANCE & WAIVER FORMS 94.50
ADCRAFT PRINTERS INC 5000 410 WINDOW ENVELOPES/1000 WARRANT OF ... 372.10
Total 007799 466.60
007800 ADT SECURITY SERVICES C#01300 I 13036109/MONITOR SERVICE(4/1 TO 6/30/03 49.98
Total 007800 49.98
007801 AFLAC A#0G953/ MARCH 2003 PREMIUMS 1,565.10
Total 007801 1,565.10
007743 ALAN RAMSEY REIMB (3/6 & 7/03) ARSON SCENE EVIDENCE MEALS 23.99
Total 007743 23.99
007941 ALAN SWINFORD CONTRACTURAL SERVICES 71.04
Total 007941 71.04
007802 ALPHA CARD SYSTEMS S04176/RIBBONS/SHERIFF 245.00
Total 007802 245.00
007665 AMBER HUBLER 2/25/03 ELECTION JUDGE PAY 100.00
Total 007665
007589 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI... CUST#277-77ITRANSPORTATION/LAND USE BOOK 26.00
Total 007589 26.00
007908 ANDREW PRISTACH (3/1103) ZBA HRG MW 12.52
Total 007908 12.52
007737 ANDREW PRISTACH (2/26/03) ZBA HRG MLG 11.52
Total 007737 11.52
Date: 413/03 03:33:52 PM Page: I
. S S
STATE OF ILLINOIS KANKAKEE COUNTY
April 4, 2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of the County Board:
Your committee on County Claims would beg leave to report that they have examined the following claims presented and recommend payment and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue orders to the several claimants, payable out of the funds as follows:
AMOUNT GENERAL FUND $ 2,544,474.04 ALL OTHER FUNDS $2,261,922.12 TOTAL FOR THE MONTH OF: March, 037 $4,806,396.16
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
/61 -- -- ---..------..-----
FM
't1 3 R (._J e-•-._.____
VAR PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION 11\ 192003j S P.O. Box 8 Kankakee, Illinois 60901
MR. KARL KRUSE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN 189 EAST COURT STREET KANKAKEE, IL 60901
III),lII,J,JsIIJ,JI,!I?J,,IJ,JI),,J,jJIIJIJJIJI,J,iJ,I,l,J S PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION UUj P.O. Box 8 Kankakee, Illinois 60901
MEMORANDUM
TO: KANKAKEE COUNTY PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSIONERS AND MR. KARL KRUSE, KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN
FROM: MR. RICHARD SIMMS FOR TYSON ENGINEERING
RE: GMP PRESENTATION AND KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD BRIEFING ON APRIL 8, 2003 BY THE FACILITY GROUP
DATE: MARCH 17, 2003
As agreed upon during the March 12, 2003 meeting of the Kankakee County Public Building Commission, Mr: Bill Echols of the Facility Group will be in Kankakee on Tuesday, April 8, 2003.
Mr. Echols is anticipating making a very brief project stitus report to the County Board at their regular meeting. Mr. Bill Gilmore and myself will also be present to answer questions. Mr. Gilmore has advised me that he may request some other Public Building Commissioners to attend.
Mr. Echols will then be anticipating meeting with the Public Building Commission at noon on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, which will be the regular rescheduled meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners will be asked to approve the change order agreeing to the details of the GMP document. This information will be submitted to me shortly and will be reviewed with Mr. Dennis Marek, Mr. Chris Bohlen and Mr. Gilmore. A summary of the pertinent details and the action requested to be taken will be sent to the Public Building Commissioners prior to the meeting for review.
Any changes to this schedule will be forwarded to the Public Building Commission and Mr. Kruse as soon as known. cc: Mr. Dennis Marek Mr. William Echols Mr. David Tyson . S S STATE OF ILLINOIS Page No. 2 Kankakee County ROLL CALL AND VOTES
In County Board April 8, Session, A.D. 2003
Questions Roll On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion Call Members Special Sub- Counccl Committee Mr. Martin Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay x x X Mr. Tripp
X Mr. Graves
X Mr. Washington
X Mr. LaGesse
X Mr. Meents
X Mrs. Lee
X Mr. Stauffenberg
X Mr. Bertrand
X Mr. Whitten
X Mrs. Bernard
X Ms. Jackson
AB Mr. Hoffman
X Rev. Wilson
X Mr. Marcotte
X Mrs. Faber
AB Mr. James
X Mr. McLaren
X Mr. Vickery
AB Mrs. Barber
X Mr. Gibbs X Pre Sent
X Ms. Herberger
X Mr. Nicholas
X Mr. Olthoff
X Mr. Romein
X Ms. Waskosky
X Mr. Llehr
X Mr. Kruse
Total Ayes 20 14
Total Nays 0 5
Total Abstain 0 0
Total Present 0
Total Absent 8 8 S S . STATE OF ILLINOIS Page No. 1 Kankakee County ROLL CALL AND VOTES
In Cot intv Board And 8. Session. A . D. 2003
Questions Roll On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion On Motion Call Members Claims Award of On Motion Suspend FY2002-03 PSAP Amendment Contracts Solid Waste Rules Budget Harris & Assoc.
Mr. Martin Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay Aye Nay x x x x x X X X X Mr. Tripp
X Mr. Graves
X Mr. Washington
X Mr. LaGesse
X Mr. Meents
X Mrs. Lee
X Mr. Stauffenberg
X Mr. Bertrand X X X X Pie sent X Mr. Whitten
X Mrs. Bernard
X Ms. Jackson
AB Mr. Hoffman
Rev. Wilson
X Mr. Marcotte
Mrs. Faber x x x x x x x - AS Mr. James
Mr. McLaren x x x - x x x x Mr. Vickery x x x 7 x x x - AS Mrs. Barber
Y Mr. Gibbs x x x x x x x - Ms. Herberger x x x x x x - Mr. Nicholas x x x x x x x - Mr. Olthoff x x x x x x x - Mr. Romein x x x x 7 x x - Ms. Waskosky x > x x x -
Mr. Llehr
Mr. Kruse I - Total Ayes 24 25 25 18 24 24 25
Total Nays 0 7 0 0 0
Total Abstain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Present 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total Absent 4 3 3 3 4 3 3
7 al Justice Committee S A resolution was read for promulgation of uniform protocol for the investigation of homicide and questionable deaths occurring within Kankakee County. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. LaGesse and seconded by Mr. Romein. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read for approval of the National Center for State Courts Study. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mrs. Lee and seconded by Mr. McLaren. Motion carried by a voice vote.
Administration-VAC-Leoislative Committee
A resolution was read for Kankakee County Government Week. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mrs. Lee and seconded by Mr. Marcotte. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read supporting the United States Troops. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Meents and seconded by Mr. Olthoff. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read approving an Illinois Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement for Coroner's office. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Marcotte and seconded by Mr. Vickery. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read for the re-appointment of Robert Glade to the Kankakee Valley Airport Authority. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Tripp and seconded by Ms. Waskosky. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read for the re-appointment of Jess Gathing to the Kankakee County Community Services, Inc. Board. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. McLaren and seconded by Mr. Marcotte. Motion carried by a voice vote.
New Business
Two openings to the Kankakee County Board of Review One opening on the Zoning Board of Appeals. One opening on the Bourbonnais Fire Protection District One opening on the Essex Township Fire Protection District One opening on the Grant Park Fire Protection District One opening on the Greater Momence Fire Protection District One opening on the Kankakee Township Fire Protection District One opening on the Limestone Fire Protection District One opening on the Manteno Community Fire Protection District One opening on the Otto Township Fire Protection District One opening on the Rcddick Community Fire Protection District Two openings on the Pilot Township Fire Protection District
Old Business
None
A motion was made by Mr. Washington to enter into executive session at 11:20 a. m. Ms. Jackson seconded the motion. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Mr. Meents to exit executive session at 12:30 p.m. Mrs. Faber seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Whitten made the motion to waive the reading of the resolution for retention of special counsel. Mr. Washington seconded the motion. Motion carried by a voice vote. Mr. Olthoff made the motion to accept the resolution. Mr. Whitten seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 20 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried.
Mr. Nicholas made a motion to accept the resolution for an exploratory sub-committee. Mr. Vickery seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 14 ayes to 5 nays and 1 present. Motion carried.
A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Olthoff and seconded by Mr. Marcotte at 12:37 p.m. Motion carried
Respectfully submitted. Ac, c4z~ Bruce Clark Kankakee County Clerk ppp-
•nci-Zopino-Apriculture Committee
ZBA case #02-17 A resolution was read for variance to section 7.02.A (mobile type manufactured home in an A2 district). A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Washington and seconded by Mr. Stauffenberg. Motion carried by a voice vote.
ZBA case #02-18 A resolution was read for variance to section 7.02.a (mobile type manufactured home in an A2 district). A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Stauffenberg and seconded by Mr. Washington. Motion carried by a voice vote.
ZBA case #02-24 A resolution was read for special use permit #6.03.G (church and youth center). A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Tripp and seconded by Mr. Martin. Motion carried by a voice vote.
ZBA case #02-26 A resolution was read requesting rezoning from Cl-Restricted Commercial District to C2-General Commercial District. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Washington and seconded by Ms. Jackson. Motion carried by a voice vote.
ZBA case #03-01 A resolution was read for rezoning to reclassify property from Al-Agriculture District to RE-Rural Estates District and lot width variance. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Olthoff and seconded by Mr. Bertrand. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read authorizing the Chairman to sign an application with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) division of public transportation for funding for a feasibility study for the extension of METRA service from University Park to Kankakee. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Vickery and seconded by Mr. Meents. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read authorizing application for public transportation financial assistance under section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act of 1991. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Vickery and seconded by Mr. Olthoff. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read for Solid Waste enforcement program for July 2003-June 2004. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Washington and seconded by Mr. Olthoff. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 25 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried.
A resolution was read authorizing the Chairman to sign an agreement with Meadows Mennonite retirement community D.B.A. Showbus. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. LaGesse and seconded by Mrs. Lee. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read authorizing application for and execution of a public transportation capital assistance grant under the Illinois Department of Transportation's General Authority to make such grants. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mrs. Faber and seconded by Mr. Olthoff. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read authorizing the Chairman to sign a letter to the Illinois Department of Transportation requesting that the High-Speed rail alternative alignment that passes through Kankakee County remain an active alignment in the analysis. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Washington and seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Motion carried by a voice vote.
Mr. LaGesse made the motion to suspend the rules and move to executive session for the resolution on the establishment of an exploratory sub-committee and on the retention of Special Council. Mr. Romein seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 18 ayes to 7 nays. Motion carried.
Finance-Purchase-Audit Committee
A resolution was read for removal of the building account from the animal control fund. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Vickery and seconded by Mr. Martin. Motion carried by a voice vote.
A resolution was read for the amendment to the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget for the recorder computer fund. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Whitten and seconded by Mr. LaGesse. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 24 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried.
Assessment-County Clerk- Recorder-Treasurer Committee
A resolution was read authorizing application for and execution of a PSAP equipment and technology grant through the public safety foundation of America. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. McLaren and seconded by Ms. Jackson. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 24 ayes to 0 nays and 1 present. Motion carried.
A resolution was read regarding a contract with Bruce Harris & Associates, Inc. for aerial photographic services. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Whitten and seconded by Mr. Washington. Motion carried by a voice vote. Mr. Whitten made a motion to amend the resolution to add Harris & Associates. Mr. Washington seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 25 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried. —
.Kankakee County a Board Meeting April 8, 2003
The meeting of the Kankakee County Board, Kankakee, Illinois, held April 8, 2003 pursuant to the adjourned meeting of September 10, 2002 was called to order at 9:05 am, by the Chairman of the Board Karl Kruse with the following members present:
Mr. Martin, Mr. Tripp, Mr. Graves, Mr. Washington, Mr. LaGesse, Mr. Meents, Mrs. Lee, Mr. Stauffenberg, Mr. Bertrand, Mr. Whitten, Mrs. Bernard, Ms. Jackson, Rev. Wilson, Mr. Marcotte, Mrs. Faber, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Vickery, Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Hertzberger, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Olthoff, Mr. Romein, Ms. Waskosky, Mr. Liehr, Mr. Kruse
Members Absent:
Mr. Hoffman, Mr. James, Mrs. Barber
Quorum Present:
Invocation was given by Bonnie Wright, from Coldwell Banker Realty.
The County Board members and the audience rose for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Public Commentary
None
Communications
Mr. Bill Echols gave a presentation on the new jail.
Vacancy Appointments
None
Certificates of Recognition
15 years: Carol Curwick Sheriff's Department Dwayne Flexser Coroner's Office
20 years: Gary Honzik Highway Department
25 years: Barry Thomas Sheriffs Department
Minutes of Last Meeting: March 11, 2003
The minutes of the March 11, 2003 county board meeting were submitted to the board. The reading of the minutes was waived. Mr. Tripp made the motion to accept the minutes with a second by Mr. Nicholas. Motion carried by a voice vote.
Claims Committee Report for February, 2003
The monthly claims for February 2003 were submitted and on a motion by Mr. Marcotte and with a second by Ms. Jackson were approved by a roll call vote 24 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried.
Department Reports
The department reports for February, 2003 were read and accepted on the motion of Mrs. Faber and seconded by Mr. Olthoff. Motion carried by a voice vote.
1. County Collector's Monthly Report for February, 2003 2. County Treasurer's Monthly Report for February, 2003 3. Coroner's Monthly Report for February, 2003 4. Coroner's Receipt of Money for February, 2003 5. Recorder of Deeds Monthly Report for February, 2003 6. County Clerk's Monthly Report for February, 2003 7. Circuit Clerk's Monthly Reports for February, 2003 8. Building and Zoning Monthly Report for March, 2003 9. Animal Control Monthly Report for February, 2003
Committee Presentations and Resolutions
Highway and Bridge Committee
A resolution was read for the award of contracts. A motion to accept the resolution was made by Mr. Vickery and seconded by Mr. Washington. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing 25 ayes to 0 nays. Motion carried. Kan1e County Board Meeting April 8, 2003 9:00 a.m.
• One opening on the Grant Park Fire Protection District • One opening on the Greater Momence Fire Protection District • One opening on the Kankakee Township Fire Protection District • One opening on the Limestone Fire Protection District • One opening on the Manteno Community Fire Protection District • One opening on the Otto Township Fire Protection District • One opening on the Reddick Community Fire Protection District • Two openings on the Pilot Township Fire Protection District
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ADJOURNMENT A motion to audit the per diem and adjourn this adjourned meeting of September 10, 2002 to 4th May 13, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. at 189 East Court Street on the floor conference room, Kankakee, Illinois.
Page 3 pppp-
KanSe County Board Meeting April 8, 2003 9:00 a.m.
D. ZBA Case #02-26; request for a rezoning from Cl-Restricted Commercial District to C2-General Commercial District E. ZBA Case #03-01; request for a rezoning from Al-Agriculture District to RE-Rural Estate District F. Resolution authorizing the County Board Chairman to sign a grant application for METRA G. Resolution authorizing the County Board Chairman to execute and file the application and enter into a grant agreement with IDOT for the Section 5311 Non- Metro Public Transportation Operating Assistance Grant H. Resolution for the FY 2004 Solid Waste Enforcement Grant I. Resolution authorizing the County Board Chairman to sign a contract agreement with SHOW BUS J. Resolution authorizing the County Board Chairman to execute and file the application and enter into a grant agreement with IDOT for the 2003 Consolidated Vehicle Procurement Capital Assistance Grant K. Resolution in support of the High Speed Rail L. Establishment of an exploratory sub-committee M. Retention of Special Counsel
3. Finance-Purchase-Audit Committee A. Removal of the Building Fund Account from the Animal Control Fund B. Amendment to the FY 2002-2003 budget for the Recorder Computer Fund
4. Assessment-County Clerk-Recorder-Treasurer Committee A. Resolution authorizing application for and execution of a PSAP Equipment and Technology Grant through the Public Safety Foundation of America B. Contract with Bruce Harris & Associates, Inc. for aerial photographic services
5. Criminal Justice Committee A. Promulgation of uniform protocol for the investigation of homicide and questionable deaths occurring within Kankakee County B. Approval of the National Center for State Courts study
6. AdministrationNAC/Leqislative Committee A. Kankakee County Government Week April 6th_121h B. Resolution supporting the United States Troops C. Resolution approving an Illinois Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Agreement for the Coroner's Office D. Re-appointment of Robert Glade to the Kankakee Valley Airport Authority E. Re-appointment of Jess Gathing to the Kankakee CCSI Board
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS • Two openings on the Kankakee County Board of Review • One opening on the Zoning Board of Appeals • One opening on the Bourbonnais Fire Protection District • One opening on the Essex Township Fire Protection District
Page 2 KanSe County I S Board Meeting April 8, 2003 9:00 a.m. AGENDA
INVOCATION: Ms. Karen Hertzberger, County Board Member
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: Bruce-Clark
PUBLIC COMMENTARY:
COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Facilities Group Presentation - Mr. Bill Echols
VACANCY APPOINTMENT:
CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION: Carol Curwick Sheriff 15 Dwayne Flexser Coroner 15 Gary Honzik Highway 20 Barry Thomas Sheriff 25
MINUTES OF LAST MEETING: March 11, 2003
CLAIMS COMMITTEE REPORT: March 2003
DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 1. County Collector's Monthly Report for February, 2003 2. County Treasurer's Monthly Report for February, 2003 3. Coroner's Monthly Report for February, 2003 4. Coroner's Receipt of Money for February, 2003 5. Recorder of Deeds Monthly Report for February, 2003 6. County Clerk's Monthly Report for February, 2003 7. Circuit Court's Monthly Report for February, 2003 8. Building and Zoning Monthly Report for March, 2003 9. Animal Control Monthly Report for February, 2003
COMMITTEE PRESENTATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS:
Highway and Bridge Committee A. Award of contracts for public highway improvements
2. Planning-Zoning-Agriculture Committee A. ZBA Case #02-17; request for a variance regarding section 7.02A of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance B. ZBA Case #02-18; request for a variance regarding section 7.02A of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance C. ZBA Case #02-24; request for a Special Use #6.03.G in an Al-Agriculture District
Page 1 . .
STATE OF ILLINOIS KANKAKEE COUNTY
April 4, A.D.2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of the County Board:
Your committee on County Claims would beg leave to report that they have examined the following claims presented and recommend payment and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue orders to the several claimants, payable out of the funds as follows:
AMOUNT
HIGHWAY FUND $ 42165.94
ALL OTHER FUNDS $610273.03
f0TALFORT1-1EM0T1 f 0E-March,0 1497 1
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
97 Apr8,2003 COUNIY i-H(ii-IWAY t-uIui 1:11 pm Checeister Check • Net Number Date Vendor Name Discounts Amount
16574 04/08/03 ABETTER A BETTER ANSWER 0.00 162.95 16575 04/08/03 ADCRAFT ADCRAFT PRINTERS, INC. 0.00 566.75 16576 04/08/03 ARTBA AMERICAN ROAD & TRANS- 0.00 350.00 16577 04/08/03 AUTOFIN AUTOMOTIVE FINISHES, INC 0.00 94.65 16578 04/08/03 BARON BARON-HUOT OIL COMPANY 0.00 9350.98 16579 04/08/03 BEAUPRE BEAUPRE'S TOWING 0.00 253.50 16580 04/08/03 BSI BSI 0.00 862.85 16581 04/08/03 BUMPER RT#50 BUMPER TO BUMPER! 0.00 939.46 16582 04/08/03 CITYKKK CITY OF KANKAKEE 0.00 20.00 16583 04/08/03 COMIvIED COMMONWEALTH EDISON 0.00 4215.80 16584 04/08/03 COURT COURT STREET FORD, INC. 0.00 71.52 16585 04/08/03 D&D D&D POWER EQUIPMENT, INC. 0.00 276.02 16586 04/08/03 DICKEYJOHN DICKEYJOHN 0.00 70.57 16587 04/08/03 DOMESTIC DOMESTIC GARMENT & 0.00 388.60 16588 04/08/03 FARM FARM & FLEET 0.00 30.99 16589 04/08/03 FASTENAL FASTENAL COMPANY 0.00 7.86 16590 04/08/03 FLEET FLEET COMPUTING INT. 0.00 3329.11 16591 04/08/03 GOODYEAR GOODYEAR AUTO 0.00 1020.00 16592 04/08/03 JESTON JESTON - THE CLEANING CO 0.00 448.00 16593 04/08/03 JMJ J. MERLE JONES & SONS 0.00 288.74 16594 04/08/03 KKKCOTR KANKAKEE CO. TREASURER 0.00 96.75 16595 04/08/03 KKKSPRING KANKAKEE SPRING & ALIGNMENT CORP. 0.00 426.62 16596 04/08/03 LACAL LACAL EQUIPMENT INC.-1 14 0.00 839.63 16597 04/08/03 MARTINWHAL MARTIN WHALEN OFFICE 0.00 195.56 16598 04/08/03 MEIEROIL MEIER OIL SERVICE, INC. 0.00 10501.11 16599 04/08/03 MELSWHL MEL'S WHEEL ALIGNMENT 0.00 115.18 16600 04/08/03 MENARDS MENARDS 0.00 31.20 16601 04/08/03 MERCON MERCON SUPPLY 0.00 2124.57 16602 04/08/03 MIDWAY MIDWAY TRUCK PARTS 0.00 16.99 16603 04/08/03 MILLER MILLER HYDRAULIC SERVICE 0.00 695.60 16604 04/08/03 MOBILE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 0.00 684.43 16605 04/08/03 MONROE MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT 0.00 1503.10 16606 04/08/03 NORTHTOOL NORTHERN TOOL & 0.00 518.44 16607 04/08/03 PATTEN PATTEN INDUSTRIES, INC. 0.00 13.53 16608 04/08/03 POSTAGE U. S. POSTAL SERVICE 0.00 200.00 16609 04/08/03 SBC SBC 0.00 45.58 16610 04/08/03 SEYFARTH SEYFARTH SHAW ATTORNEYS 0.00 1323.50 16611 04/08/03 STAPLES STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 0.00 85.80
Report Total 0.00 42165.94 STATE OFØOIS . . County Board 1-Mar-02 55. COUNTY OF KANKAKEE) Term
Mr. Chairman and Members of the County Board:
Your Committee on County Claims would beg leave to report that they have examined the following claims presented, and recommend payment and the clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue orders to the several claimants, payable out of the fund as follows:
Name of Claimant For What EunI Amount IL DEPT OF REVENUE ST WH TAX HWY PR ACCT $ 1,364.33 INT REV SERVICE FED TAX HWY PR ACCT $ 13,463.70 HPCA PAYROLL CO MF TAX $ 5,549.64 HPCA PAYROLL CO HWY $ 46,944.30 K3 CO TREASURER MP DEF COMP DE HWY PR ACCT $ 756.19 CREDIT UNION EMP PAY DEDUCT HWY PR ACCT $ 2,063.63 FLEX-0 FLEX SPEND HWY PR ACCT $ 316.53 K3 CO TREASURER EMP INS PREMS HWY PR ACCT $ 3,108.03 STATE DISB WAGE DEDUCT HWY PR ACCT $ 193.85 ENERGYAB INVOICE CO HWY $ 116.00 GASAWAY INVOICE CO HWY $ 660.00 VERIZON INVOICE CO HWY $ 208.90 IROQUOIS INVOICE TWP MF TAX $ 3,354.98 PEMBROKETWP INVOICE TWP MF TAX $ 17,110.59 CARGILL INVOICE CO MF TAX $ 20,596.97 FLEXOLITE INVOICE CO MF TAX $ 12,180.00 GROFF INVOICE COJNTBRIDGE $ 615.00 ST. TREASURER INVOICE CO JNT BRIDGE $ 465,626.97 CALSER INVOICE CO HWY $ 533.95 CIW INVOICE CO HWY $ 169.78 lACE INVOICE CO HWY $ 30.00 MCLEODUSA INVOICE CO HWY $ 305.61 NICOR INVOICE CO HWY $ 3,030.93 SEARS INVOICE CO HWY $ 16.97 VISA INVOICE CO HWY $ 137.27 K3 CO TREASURER MP DEF COMP DE HWY PR ACCT $ 756.19 CREDIT UNION EMP PAY DEDUCT HWY PR ACCT $ 2,038.63 FLEX-0 FLEX SPEND HWY PR ACCT $ 316.53 K3 CO TREASURER EMP IMRF CONT HWY PR ACCT $ 5,405.68 K3 CO TREASURER EMP INS PREMS HWY PR ACCT $ 3,108.03 STATE DISB WAGE DEDUCT HWY PR ACCT $ 193.85 IL DEPT OF REVENUE ST WH TAX HWY PR ACCT $ 1,657.31 HPCA PAYROLL CO HWY $ 56,884.20 INT REV SERVICE FED TAX HWY PR ACCT $ 16,907.18 HPCA PAYROLL CO MF TAX $ 5,901.36
ALL OF WHICH ARE RESPECTFULLY SUBMI TOTAL $610,273.03
CFP
. .
COMMITTEE REPORT
TO THE HONORABLE COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the MATTER OF cCOUNTYCOLLECTQR'-SMONTHLY--REPORT-
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
WE HAVE EXAMINED THE 7EB1dARY1-2003ID MONTHLY REPORT OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND EX- OFFICIO COUNTY COLLECTOR AND TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE FIND IT TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.
COUNTY CLERK, TREASURER, RECORDER & ASSESSOR'S CO MMITTEE,
All of which is respectfully submitted.
- ~ "-7 M
COMMITEE
9':, .10 S S
MONTHLY REPORT - COUNTY COLLECTOR
MONTH ENDING: January 31,2003
RECAPITULATION OF COLLECTOR'S ACCOUNTS
Back Tax Account: $49,749.30 Back Tax Investment: $0.00 $49,749.30
Current Tax Account: $109,987.24 Current Tax Investment: $0.00 $109,987.24
Tax Refund Account: $2,268.47
(TYiA[iCASHIN BANKS ANDIINVESTMENT 1117 $1 62,005:01 -
Collector's Remarks:
I, Mark J. Frechette, County Treasurer, Kankakee County, State of Illinois do solemnly swear that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the above is a true statement of all funds and accounts in my custody, I have received neither directly nor indirectly for my own use, nor for the benefit of others, any other monies than herein specified for the period ending January 31,2003
MZZA J. ;12~7-7-AA Mark J. Frechetth' County Collector
•. S S
MONTHLY REPORT - COUNTY COLLECTOR MONTH ENDING - February 28,2003
Back Tax Account
Balance: January 31,2003 $35,195.68 Receipts: $14,743.92 Total: $49,939.60 Disbursements: $190.30 Balance in Bank: February 28,2003 $49,749.30 Investments in Certificate of Deposits: $0.00 Total Cash and Investments: $49,749.30
Current Tax Balance: January 31,2003 $101,612.85 Receipts: $21,927.51 Total: $123,540.36 Disbursements: $13,553.12 Balance in Bank: February 28,2003 $109,987.24 Investments in Certificates of Deposit: $0.00 Total Cash and Investments: $109,987.24 Tax Refund Account Balance: January 31,2003 $2,265.92 Receipts: $2.55 Total: $2,268.47 Disbursements: $0.00 Balance in Bank: February 28,2003 $2,268.47 . I . 1 0 . S
1ST. AMERICAN $109,441.24 Commonweath C.L $25.00 KANKAKEE FED. $1.00 Maternity BVM $20.00 Municipal $500.00
Total $109,987.24
. 0 .
COMMITTEE REPORT
TO THE HONORABLE COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the MATTER OF
cCOUNT-Y--TREASURERIS -MONTHLY - REPORT -j7
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
WE HAVE EXAMINED THE (FEBURY,20037i7 MONTHLY REPORT OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND EX- OFFICIO COUNTY COLLECTOR AND TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE FIND IT TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.
COUNTY CLERK, TREASURER, RECORDER & ASSESSOR'S COMMITTEE,
All of which is respectfully submitted.
dZ-VQA , 1 02L
COMMITEE
r41 . S
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Total General Fund Tort Fund
Checking Accounts/Cash Nail City-General Fund 151,872.78 151,872.78 0.00 Nail City Vac/Drainage 40,919.01 0.00 0.00 Nail City Non-Interest 0.00 0.00 0.00 1st Amer- Payroll 0.00 0.00 0.00 1St Amer-Juror Account 17,597.10 17,597.10 0.00 1st Amer-Special Funds 838,394.83 279,129.51 30,531.65 1st Amer-County Hwy 425,319.39 0.00 0.00 1st Amer-County Bridge 58,905.79 0.00 0.00 1St Amer-Twp Bridge 64,746.36 0.00 0.00 1st Amer-Hwy Payroll 4,959.39 0.00 0.00 Homestar-Special Funds 169,442.97 0.00 0.00 Homestar-Matching Tax 143,930.10 0.00 0.00 First Trust-Special Funds 162,881.94 0.00 0.00 Municipal Trust-Special Funds 6,360.32 0.00 0.00 National Bank of St Anne-SF 2,415.11 0.00 0.00 Bank of Bourbonnais-SF 25,005.30 0.00 0.00 Watseka 1st Nail Bank-SF 0.00 0.00 0.00 Federated Bank-Special Funds 52,580.76 0.00 0.00 Peoples Bank-#911 122,974.37 0.00 0.00 Manteno-CO MFT 59,133.03 0.00 0.00 Manteno-Twp MET 22,689.61 0.00 0.00 Cash 5,397,555.54 0.00 0.00 Petty Cash 6,275.00 0.00 0.00 Total Checking Accounts/Cash 7,773,958.70 448,599.39 30,531.65
Type of Investment Investments 235,305.00 0.00 0.00 Capstone-Var.Rt.Ckg-1 16025 1,223,827.07 4,625.38 0.00 Capstone-Var.Rt.Ckg. 115711 234,208.55 0.00 0.00 First Trust-CD-8023708 100,081.77 0.00 0.00 Homestar-CD- 130627 436,220.04 0.00 329,799.26 Homestar-CD- 120672 149,676.50 0.00 0.00 Homestar-CD-I 12602 38,904.07 38,904.07 0.00 Homestar-CD- 123961 1,207,439.38 0.00 0.00 Peoples Bank CD4 60031177 505,104.46 0.00 505,104.46 Peoples Bank CD# 60031100 1,010,208.92 0.00 0.00 St. Bnk of Herscher-CD-14566 109,757.72 0.00 109,75 7.72 St. Bnk of Herscher-CD-l4574 110,239.99 0.00 0.00 Peoples Bank-CD-31032 0.00 0.00 0.00 ILL. Funds-SupTax-7139132166 681,429.11 681,429.11 0.00 IL. Funds-CoMFT-7 139132331 1,429,235.49 0.00 0.00 IL.Funds-TwpMFT-7 139132497 1,544,321.37 0.00 0.00 IL. Funds -MtchgTax-713915 3493 2,531,367.74 0.00 0.00 IL.Funds-JntBridge-7 139153501 2,102,995.05 0.00 0.00 lL.Funds-CoI-Iwy-7139153519 976,439.76 0.00 0.00 IL.Funds-Var.Accts-7 139153766 7,445,656.66 35,805.25 1,169,606.99 Total Type of Investment 22,072,418.65 760,763.81 2,114,268.43 Total Cash & Investments 29,846,377.35 1,209,363.20 2,144,800.08
Date: 3113/03 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:1 S S S
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Recorder Computer Co. Clerk Vital Treasurers Computer Treasurers Interest Pension Fund Fund Records Automa Fund Fund Court Security Fund
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,205.24 0.00 2,257.31 4,200.93 9,055.68 6,631.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,559.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,205.24 100,559.08 2,257.31 4,200.93 9,055.68 6,631.05
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,665.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 106,420.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,207,439.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,010,208.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,664,669.53 17,998.40 40,078.19 36,036.38 41,329.13 135,881.83 3,882,317.83 58,664.33 40,078.19 36,036.38 41,329.13 242,302.61 3,909,523.07 159,223.41 42,335.50 40,237.31 50,384.81 248,933.66
Date: 3113103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:2
. .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Court Document Probation Service Forfeited Funds Storage Fund Law Library Fund Fees Fund (SAO) Gang Violence Funds
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,275.81 0.00 10,733.95 4,796.95 10,380.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,918.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,275.81 9,918.61 10,733.95 4,796.95 10,380.26
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 345,368.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 344,602.05 36,327.14 92,562.19 26,650.44 50,339.32 689,970.54 36,327.14 92,562.19 26,650.44 50,339.32 706,246.35 46,245.75 103,296.14 31,447.39 60,719.58
Dale: 3113/03 09:57:36 AM inve1me71t Balances Page: 1:3 S S S
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Dispute Resolution Court Automation Arrestce Medical Garbage Tipping Fee Fund Fund Driver Improvement Cost Fund Health Department Fund
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,616.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,165.51 4,274.99 0.00 5,496.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,145.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,616.44 6,145.85 2,165.51 4,274.99 0.00 5,496.73
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95,030.57 21,749.68 0.00 0.00 140,335.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 149,676.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 533,169.90 621.36 0.01 678,964.96 0.00 0.00 628,200.47 22,371.04 0.01 828,641.46 140,335.76 4,616.44 634,346.32 24,536.55 4,275.00 828,641.46 145,832.49
Date: 3/13103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:4
179 . 0 .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Forfeited Funds County Motor Fuel VAC (Sheriff) DARE Fund County Highway Tax
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,130.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425,319.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,788.53 180.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (4,184.91) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59,133.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 8,145.10 3,788.53 180.83 425,394.39 59,133.03
0.00 0.00 0.00 20,305.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,081.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,429,235.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 976,439.76 0.00 499,399.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 599,481.14 0.00 0.00 996,744.76 1,429,235.49 607,626.24 3,788.53 180.83 1,422,139.15 1,488,368.52
Date: 3113/03 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:5 S . .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Geographical Juvenile Detention Matching Tax County Bridge Township Bridge Information Syste Juror Account Debt Serv.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58,905.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,746.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,755.55 143,930.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,482.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143,930.10 58,905.79 64,746.36 24,482.82 0.00 21,755.55
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,531,367.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,102,995.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,195.47 0.00 35,138.44 2,531.367.74 2,102,995.05 0.00 100,195.47 0.00 35,138.44 2,675,297.84 2,161,900.84 64,746.36 124,678.29 0.00 56,893.99
Date: 3113103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:6
. . .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Bond Proceeds Acct 911 System Fee Fund ETSB-Illinois First 2001 911 Revenue 2001 Animal Control
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 515,227.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37,544.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,611.27 122,974.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,777.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 675,746.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 14,388.81
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 234,208.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110,239.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 865,011.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 88,229.04 1,209,459.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 88,229.04 1,885,206.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 102,617.85
Date: 3/13103 09:57:36 AM Invesimetti Balances Page: 1:7 S .. L
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
CDAP/Revolving PTAB/Contract Township Motor Riverside Country Internal Service Fund Loan Appraisal Fuel Tax Back Tax Estates S.A.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 808.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,925.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,322.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,279.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,689.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 189,858.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 0.00 20,322.36 4,279.35 4,925.93 22,689.61 195,858.95 808.84
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 215,000.00 0.00 0.00 510,350.46 45,125.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,544,321.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 503,347.69 8,081.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,013,698.15 53,206.75 1,544,321.37 215,000.00 0.00 20,322.36 1,017,977.50 58,132.68 1,567,010.98 410,858.95 808.84
Date: 3/13/03 09:57:36 AM investment Balances Page: 1:8 . . .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Baker Creek Exline Drainage Gar Creek Drainage Grinnell Drainage Arrowhead Hills S.A. Drainage District District District District
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (4,951.66) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,977.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,843.03 4,768.15 10,000.00 3,091.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,977.80 3,843.03 4,768.15 5,048.34 3,091.41
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,146.85 15,103.10 50,635.73 41,468.54 0.00 15,146.85 15,103.10 50,635.73 41,468.54 2,977.80 18,989.88 19,871.25 55,684.07 44,559.95
Date: 3(13103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:9 • S . Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Manteiio #3 McGillviray Minnie Creek Momence-Pembroke Momence-Yellowhe... Snake Creek Drainage District Drainage District Drainage District Drainage Dist Dr. Dist. Drainage District
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,356.21 1,568.75 0.00 6,264.25 3,414.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,707.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,553.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,707.92 4,356.21 1,568.75 4,553.15 6,264.25 3,414.46
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35,357.26 30,293.71 8,033.53 35,764.82 0.00 0.00 35,357.26 30,293.71 8,033.53 35,764.82 0.00 0.00 42,065.18 34,649.92 9,602.28 40,317.97 6,264.25 3,414.46
Date: 3(1 3103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances I Page: 1:10
JOY
S . .
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Spring Creek Union #1 Drainage Union 42 Drainage Union #6 Drainage Joe Benes Drainage Drainage District District District District District
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,780.74 3,706.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,541.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,807.17 0.00 0.00 110.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 110.89 5,541.15 1,807.17 5,780.74 3,706.43
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,674.98 0.00 40,420.80 25,230.17 0.00 60,674.98 0.00 40,420.80 25,230.17 110.89 66.21613 1,807.17 46,201.54 28,936.60
Dale: 3113/03 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:11
/eJ-5
. . S
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Little Beaver Raymond Drainage Manteno 49 Manteno#l0 I Drainage Dislric_ - District Drainage District Drainage District Collector Sheriff Civil Process
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,033.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,442.92 5,008.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,304.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,194,565.33 1,194.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,304.22 4,033.38 7,442.92 5,008.79 5,194,565.33 1,194.29
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,019.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,019.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12,323.77 4,033.38 7,442.92 5,008.79 5,194,565.33 1,194.29
Date: 3113/03 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:12
1410 Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Condemnation Cafeteria Plan Inheritance Tax (Treasurers) Tax Refund Account Payroll Clearing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,719.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,616.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,413.00 0.00 2,007.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,159.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,413.00 10,616.94 2,007.95 2,159.43 9,719.42
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,009.78 0.00 42,111.80 0.00 0.00 5,009.78 0.00 42,111.80 0.00 0.00 13,422.78 10,616.94 44,119.75 2,159.43 9,719.42
Dale: 3/13/03 09:57:36 AM Invimetu Balances Page: 1:13
/6'7 . S
Kankakee County Auditors Office Balance Sheet As of 2/28/2003
Highway Payroll Legacies Clearing
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,959.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,665.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,665.74 4,959.39
0.00 0.00 20,575.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26,340.10 0.00 46,915.80 0.00 51,581.54 4,959.39
Date: 3113103 09:57:36 AM Investment Balances Page: 1:14 - 'YEAR cKANKA1Q COUNTY SEPORT CORONERS"
CASES IJAN [FEB MAR JAPR IMAY IJUN IJULIAIJGISEPT JOCT INOV IDEC ITOTAL CORONER 24 171 1 41 MEDICAL 77 59 136 AUTOPSY 5 2j L__ TOXICOL 7 3 1 10 INQUEST 5 2 7 INQUIRIES 191 15 34
NATURAL 17 14 31 Heart 9 91 1 1 18 Cva 1 SIDS Alzheimer COPD 1 _1 2 CA 1 3 3 L_ 6 Pneumonia Other 1 31 1 4
HOMICIDES, Firearm Stabbing Blunt Strangulate Other
SUICIDE 1 Firearm Hanging Drowning —T CO PED/TRAIN
Other OD
AthDENT 31 ) Fire Drowning Airplane Vehicle 2 1 13 -- - Seat Belts i n/a 0 OD - _- - _ Choking Hypothemria Fell Ii Other _
UNDET) 1 GSW 3 OD Other lUndet 111!.I3l_ -- ,i;jgr I I 3 • DATE I NAME/CASE JORDERS MONTHLY TOTAL 1/16/2003 FUNERAL HMS ICREMATIONS $270.00 02-475 Cor.Report,Trans $60.00 FUNERAL HMS ICREMATIONS $140.00 Jan. 2003 Totals $470.00
2/28/2003 FUNERAL HMS ICREMATIONS $210.00 01-244 Cor.Report $15.00 02-495 I COMPLETE FILE $65.00 02-459 COMPLETE FILE $209.00 IEEB.2003TotaIs - $499.00
44J
Ile 0 cKkkecLorfOf Dd7 S
To the Chairman and Kankakee County Board
Report of Dennis Coy, Recorder of Deeds,
Bank Balance,2/1/03
Receipts GIS Fees $21,440.00 Recording Fees $32,002.00 Photostat Fees $1,341.75 State Stamps $19,722.50 County Stamps $9,861.25 UCC's $60.00 Computer Fees $7,272.00 Late Fees $0.00 $91,699.50
Total Cash Available $91,699.50 Disbursements EspaidtoCountyTrer ($91L699.50 _7
Bank Balance2/28/98 $0.00 Less Cash in Box $300.00 Cash in Safe and Bank $300.00 ** * * * * * * * * ** State of Illinois County of Kankakee I, Dennis B. Coy, Kankakee County Recorder, do solemnly swear that the foregoing account is, in all respects just and true, according to my best knowledge and belief, and that I neither received, directly or indirectly nor directly or indirectly agree to receive or be paid, for my own or another's benefit, and other monies, articles of consideration than therein stated, nor am I entitled to any fee, or emolument for the period therein mentioned other than herein specified. / ZY "OFFICIAL SEAL" MARY WHITE Kankakee County Recorder/ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ILLINOIS is V /IA Notry'ub1ic by Recorder's Committee:
'I, February
Kankakee County Recorder of Deeds February, 2003
Beginning Balanc Date GIS Fees Recorder Fees Photostat State Stamps County Stamps UCC Fees Computer Fee Late Fees Total Deposits Deposit Type Disbursement 2/l/03 $0.00 161 $0.00
213/ $1,770.00 $2,717.00 $40.25 $1,624.00 $812.00 $531.00 $7,494.25 $5,130.00 gis fees
2/4/03 $870.00 $1,199.00 $15.00 $745.50 $372.75 $261.00 $3,463.25 $570.00 gis fees rec 2/5/03 $1,040.00 $1,464.00 $6.75 $935.00 $467.50 $312.00 $4,225.25 $1,710.00 corn fees 2/6/03 $850.00 $1,194.00 $61.00 $628.50 $314.25 $255.00 $3,302.75 $4,121.00 st stamps
217/ $1,170.00 $1,664.00 $307.25 $188.00 $94.00 $351.00 $3,774.25 $10,728.75 excess fees $22,259.75 2/8/03 $0.00
2/9/03 $0.00 2/10/03 $1,140.00 $1,676.00 $37.25 $727.50 $363.75 $342.00 $4,286.50
2/11/03 $1,230.00 $1,880.00 $40.75 $1,058.00 $529.00 $704.00 $5,441.75 2112/03 $0.00 2113/ $1,270.00 $1,842.00 $28.50 $1,051.50 $525.75 $20.00 $381.00 $5,118.75 2114/ $1,520.00 $2,303.00 $61.75 $794.50 $397.25 $456.00 $5,532.50 $5,679.00 gin fees
2115/ . $0.00 $631.00 gin fees rec
2116/03 $0.00 $2,228.00 corn fees
2/17/03 $0.00 $5,565.00 st stamps 2/18/03 $1,150.00 $1,729.00 $130.50 $1,933.50 $966.75 $345.00 $6,254.75 $12,531.25 excess fees $26,634.25 2/19/03 $1,290.00 $1,947.00 $276.25 $1,484.00 $742.00 $387.00 $6,126.25
2/201 $940.00 $1,338.00 $32.75 $1,027.50 $513.75 $40.00 $282.00 $4,174.00 2/21/03 $880.00 $1,358.00 $133.50 $308.00 $154.00 $274.00 $3,107.50 2122/03 $0.00 2/23/03 $0.00 2124/03 $1,550.00 $2,402.00 $64.50 $1,287.50 $643.75 $465.00 $6,412.75 $8,487.00 gis fees 2125/03 $1,300.00 $1,904.00 $10.25 $910.50 $455.25 $400.00 $4,980.00 $943.00 gis fees rec 2126/03 $990.00 $1,507.00 $22.25 $1,607.50 $803.75 $297.00 $5,227.50 $3,334.00 corn fees 2127/03 $1,330.00 $2,135.00 $17.75 $907.00 $453.50 $884.00 $5,727.25 $10,036.50 st stamps 2/28/03 $1,150.00 $1,743.00 $55.50 $2,504.50 $1,252.25 $345.00 $7,050.25 $20,005.00 excess fees $42,805.50
$21,440.00 $32,002.00 $1,341.75 $19,722.50 $9,861.25 $60.00 $7,272.00 $0.00 $91,699.50 $91,699.50 $91,699.50 Beginning Bank Balance $0.00 Total cash $0.00 Beginning Bank Balance and Receipts $91,699.50 Cash less drawer $300.00
Page 1 Monthly Consolidation
Kankakee County Recorder of Deeds 2003 Monthl Consolidation
Beginning Ba I...e Month GIS Fees Recorder Fees Photostat State Stamps County Stamps UCC Fees Computer Fee Late Fees Total Deposits Deposit Type Disbursement 2002 December $24,845.00 $36,817.00 $1,059.75 $22,372.50 $11,186.25 $80.00 $8,764.00 $426.00 $105,550.50 $105,550.50 $0.00 $105,550.50 . January $22,143.00 $32,879.00 $1,226.00 $20,057.50 $10,028.75 $120.00 $8,001.00 $68.00 $94,523.25 $94,523.25 $0.00 $94,523.25 j February $21,440.00 $32,002.00 $1,341.75 $19,722.50 $9,861.25 $60.00 $7,272.00 $0.00 $91,699.50 I $91,699.50 $0.00 $91,699.50 March $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 April $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 May $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 June $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 July $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 August $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 September $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 October $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 November $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $68,428.00 $101,698.00 $3,627.50 $62,152.50 $31,076.25 $260.00 $24,037.00 $494.00 $291,773.25 $291,773.25 $0.00 $291,773.25
-S
.
Page 1 -
cCOUNtY!ER K'S IoFEICEIi1
STATEMENT OF FUNDS RECEIVED AND DISBURSED
- iII2003 To February282flIIJ OFFICE FUND BALANCE OF:February 1, 2003 $ 200.00 RECEIPTS: FEES
MARRIAGE LICENSES ISSUED $915.00
ISSUE MISC. CERTIFICATES $ 7,165.00
REDEMPTION FEES $ 541.00
MISC. PUBLIC SERVICES $ 7,301 .75
AUTOMATION FUND $ 1.956.00 $ 22.387.51
POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT/DEATH/Refund $2,058,16/$2J48.00 SURCHARGE INTEREST EARNED $ 302.60
TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE $ 22,587.51
DISBURSEMENTS:
EXCESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY & ILLINOIS DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH
COUNTY CLERK'S FEES $ 15,922.75
AUTOMATION FUND $ 1,956.00
DEATH SURCHARGE/Refund s2,136.00/$12.00
POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT $ 2,058.16
INTEREST $ 302.60
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS: $ 22,387.51
BALANCE OF February _28.2003 $200.00
FEESOF OTHERS:
BALANCE OF February 1, 2003 $ 393,983.74
MONTHLY RECEIPTS $ 267,593.92
CASH AVAILABLE $ 661,577.66
MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS $ 196,141.52
BALANCE OF February 28, 2003 $ 465,436.14 $465,436.14
BALANCE COUNTY CLERK'S ACCOUNT $465,436.14
CASH ON HAND $ 200.00
DEPOSIT IN TRANSIT $ -0- TOTAL: s465,636.14 $465,636.14
I , y
• - KANKAKEE COY CLERK TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD
BALANCE OF February 28, 2003 LESS $200.00 CASH ON HAND -0- •RECErPTS:
MARRIAGE LICENSES ISSUED $ 9.15.00 ISSUE MISC. CERTIFICATES $. __7,165.00 REDEMPTION FEES $ 541.00 MISC. PUBLIC SERVICES $7,301.75
AUTOMATION FUND $ _• 1,956.00 •$ 22,387.51 POSTAGE REllURSEIvmN/DTH GE ,058. 16/$2, 136.00 •. $12.00 INTEREST EARNED $ .. 302.60 TOTAL: $ 22,387.51
DISBURSEMENTS:
EXCESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY $15,922.75 EXCESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY $ 1,956.00
EXCESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY $ 1 2,058.16
EXCESS FEES TRANSFERRED TO IL DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH / $2136.00/$12.00 Refund INTEREST $ 302.60 :*Iffi.1
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) COUNTY OF KANKAKEE )
I, BRUCE CLARK, KANKAKEE COUNTY CLERK, do solemnly swear that the foregoing account is, in all respects, just and true according to the best of my knowledge and belief; and that I have neither received or agreed to receive or be paid directly or indirectly, for my own or another's benefit, any other monies, articles or consideration than herein stated, nor am I entitled to any fee or emolument for the period therein mentioned than herein specified.
BRUCE CLARK, COUNTY CLERK
SIGNED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS / / DAY OF 2003.
NOTARY PUBLIC
OFFICIAL SEAL Estor Fox Notary Public, Stto of Illinois My Commission Expiros 07-31-05
APPROVED BY COUNTY CLERK'S COMMITTEE
Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3, 2303 1:07 pn REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Pace CO BOARD
Title of Officer XCR - COUNTY TREASURER REPORT KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK - KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - All Courts (County) Governmental Unit Collections for Period 02/01/33 to 02/23/03
Descriotion I Fund to be Credited I Collections this Period Prior YT0 Collections I Y-T-D Collections I - C------I ------I ------ ------I IRCUI CLERK I 5 , .- ( ----71.56 1211499.20 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I MISC/OVER/UNDER/BANK CHARGES I 110-500-30340- 0 99 I 271.10 I 2!5.0 I 555.14Z - 1 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I STOP PAYMENT FEE/OUSTANDING CKI 110-503-30340-999 I 73.00 0.00 I 78.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I------I 10% 3OND OFFICE RETAiNER I 110-500-30341-999 I 12,938.06 1 21,776.90 I 34,714.96 I ------I ------I ------I ------I CITATION TO DISCOVER ASSETS I 110-500-30342-999 I 330.00 560.00 I 890.00 I -1 I ------I ------I ------I c WAGE DEDUCTION AFFIDAVIT I 110-500-30343-°° I 680.00 I 722.00 I 1,202.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I CERTIFIED MAIL FEE I 110-500-33346-999 1 156.25 372.75 I 529.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I JURY DEMAND FEE I 110-520-30345-999 I 399.75 I 1,923.25 I 2,8?3.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ILL STATE POLICE K3 COTRAFFICI 11050030346999 27,032.00 I 35,987.30 I 63,019.30 I I ------I ------I ------II K3 CO FINE -CRIM S CIVIL CASES I 110-500-30362-99 0 14,329.84 I 11,423.15 26,257.99 I . ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I SOS POLICE-TRAFFIC KKK CO 110-500-30353-999 I 1,473.00 I 2,515.00 I 3,933.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ; SHERIFF FINE I 11070030364-99 I 28,896.60 I 30,211.54 5,106.14 I '.0 ------I ------I ------I ------I DUE PREVENT EQUIP/SHERIFF I 110-700-30373-999 315.00 I 1232.00 I 1,567.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I COUNTY ORDINANCE VIOLATION I 110-500-30345-999 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I ICC TICKET--KANKAKEE CO I 110-500-30349-9°9 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------SHERIFF FEE- TRAFFIC/CRIM 113-700-30350-999 I 3,559.69 I 6,121.75 I 9,681.44 I ------I ------I ------I ------I SHERIFF FEE-CIVIL I 113-700-30351-99° 197.00 I 235.75 1 432.75 I I------I_------I I I KANKAXEE RIVER 2ATPOL I 110-703-30464-99° I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.30 I I ------I ------I ------• PUB DEFENDER ATTORNEY FEE I 113-540-30359-999 1 1,757.10 I 3,170.59 1 4,927.69 I I ------I ------I ------I ------I STATE'S ATTORNEY I 110-530-30353-999 I 3,065.36 I 4,274.00 I 7,339.36 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------COUNTY BOND FORFEITURE I 110-500-30354-999 61336.16 13,753.52 I 19,799.66 • ------I ------I ------I I ------. COURT FEE 110-510-30355-999 14,591.34 I 22,709.11 37,300.45 i ------
• AØ
Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3, 2003 1:07 om REPORT OF C'DLLECTICNS Ver. 6.03 Paqe CO HOARD
- Title of Officer xcp - COUNTY TREASURER REPORT KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - All Courts ------__ (County) Governmental Unit Collections for Period 02/01/03 to 02/28/03
Descritjon I Fund = to = be Credited I Collections this Period I Prior Y-T0 Collections I Y-T-D Collections I I ------I ------I I - SURCHARGE (C0.RETAENS 2%) I 110-530-30356-999 I 1,891.22 I 26,596.R6 I ------I ------I ------I I ------BLOOD TEST/SUPPORT I 110-503-30358-2Q9 I 0.00 I 300.00 I 300.001 ------I ------I ------I ------ROOM & BOARD --SHERIFF I 113-713-30376-999 I 3,740.15 I 1,415.00 I 5,155.15 ------I ------I ------I ------I Puolisners Fee I 110-500-30361-999 I 75.00 232.30 I 307.00 - i ------INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS I 110-530-3010-999 I 1,631.62 I 4,317.48 I 5,999.10 ------I I ------I ------I INTERPRETER FEE I 110-510-30352-99 0 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------COLLEGE DR\JG EDUCATION CLASS I 0.00 0.00. 0.00 -7F--T ------I ------I ------I ------I ------SEURTY FUND I 260-700-30510-999 I 16,494.66 I 23225.77 I 44,720.43 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------• ANIMAL CONTROL I 680-99 0 -30454 I 0.00 I 100.00 I 100.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------DOCUMENT STORAGE FEE I 270-503-33513-9 0 9 10,769.36 I 17,741.00 1 28,510.3.5 I ------i ------LAW LIBRARY 260-51C-30510-999 I 4,211.25 I 9,164.00 I 13,375.25 I I ------S------I ------I ------I ------I ------PROBATION FEE I 290-50-30510-999 I 7,401.00 I 6,008.80 I 13P409.30 -- 1 i ------GANG VIOLENCE VICT/WITNESS FNOI 310-533-30520-990 I 1,107.00 I 1,702.00 I 2,809.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND I 320-510-30520-999 I 339.00 I 778.00 I 1,117.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------COURT AUTOMATION FUND I 330-59C-30510-999 I 1O,77.31 I 17,959.39 I 23,734.20 I - -- - ------I ------I ------I ------I ------DR I -M -P ,3 OVEM E NT FU NCR-D -L -E K F E -E I 340-530-30434-999 1,406.00 I 2,416.00 I 3.822.00 I ------I ------DRIVING SCHOOL FUND I 340-500-30436-999 I 5,145.00 I 8,430.00 I 13,575.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------ARRESTEE MEDICAL COST FUND 350-710-30510-999 I 1,551.25 1,Q31.37 I 3,432.62 I • ------I ------I ------I ------I ------Parental Reimbursement I 110-563-30466-999 I 3.00 I 200.00 I 200.00 1 ------I ------I ------I -- SPINAL CORD FEE CO.GETS 2.5X)I 110-500-30365- 0 99 222.00 336.00 558.00 I ------I ------TRAUMA FUND (CO. GETS 2.5%) 110-500-30357-999 13,125.50 19,702.00 32,827.50 I . -I ------I ------I ------I AmountCo Tota l I 5UE 330,935.50 I 639,113.29 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I • Kankakee County Illinois • Mar 3, 2003 1:08 on REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 °age CO BOARD
Title of Officer XST --DISS-STATE TREASURER KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts (County) Governmental Unit • Collections for ?erjoo 02/01/03 to 32/28/03 Descriotion Fund to be Credited I Collections this Period Prior Y-T-D Collections I Y-T-O Collections I ------I I ------I ------I I DRIVER ED FUND I I 16,711.00 I 22,498.50 I 3 9 ,209.501 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I VICTIM FUND VIOLENT CRIME I I 15,509.40 I 19,976.31 I 35,485.71 I ------I ------I ------I ------I------I SEXUAL ASSAULT FINE I I 0.00 I 200.00 I 200.00 -- 1
-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —------I I ------I ------I ------CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FUND<510,000I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I - - • I ------I ------I ------I ------DOMESTIC BATTERY FUND I 117.00 I 198.00 I 315.00 I ------I ------I------I ------I------I DRUG ASSESSMENT-TREATMENT FUNDI 7,691.24 I 6,78.53 I 14,569.77 I ------IC--- - I ------I ------I ------I ------DOM E ST-- VIOLEN CE FINE I I 1,637.00 I 2,336.56 I 3,973.56 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I LEADS FUND I I 6,508.00 I 6,137.50 I 10,445.50 I — -- — — -- — ------— ------D M E ST I C I OL E CE ABUSER FUND 36.00 I 90.00 I ------ — — ------I------I STATE BOND FORF EIU RE 1,214.66 I 1,1Q6.14 2,410.80 I ------I ------I I ------. TRNS SAFETY HWY NIRE-dACK FUrJDI 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I I ------I ------I ------I ------I I Total Amount ColLected I DISBSTATE TREASURER I 47,442.30 I 59'457•54 I 106,599.84 I ------I ------I ------I ------that the foreaoinqI is a true and correct reoort of I hereby Certiy collections due the above namea governmental unit for the oerioa shown.
Date this - day of ------20 NOTE I This is not to be used as a recei ot for collections .1 IThe official to whom the reoort is made must issue I (Signature) - Ian official recelot for the collections remitted Kanakee County ILLinois Mar 3o 2003 1:09 om REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Page Co BOARD
Title of Officer XFN - FINE REPORT KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLEPK KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts ( County ) Governmental Unit Collections for Period 02/01/03 to 02/23/03
Descriotion Fund to be Credited Collections this Period I Prior YTD Collections I YT-D ColLections ------I ------I ------I ------I ------CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT I I 967.05 I 1,60.00 I 2,'27.O5 ------I ------I ------I ------I CONSERVATION I I 44.00 I 951.00 I 995.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I AROMA PARK I I 954.00 I 1,860.00 I 2,814.00 I ------I ------I ------3ONFIELD I I 0.00 I 000 0.00
------I ------I I I ------I 8UCKINGHAN I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I I ------I ------I------I BOURBCNNAIS I I 16,305.00 I 15,983.23 I 30,789.23 ------I ------I ------I ------I------I BRA--DLEY I I 13O21.40 17,418.21 I 30,439.61 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I CASERY I 3.00 0.00 0.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I------I CHES.4NSE I 402.00 I 300.00 I 702.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I ESSEX I I 30.00 I 63.00 I 93.00 I ------I GRANT 2,336.00 ,E94.00 7,230.00 ------KPA------ ------I ------I ------S- HERSCHER ______I i 407.00 I 666.00 1,073.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------HOPKINS P4K I ------• I I 713.00 I 11185.00 I 1,878.00 I ------I ------I ------I------ -- I CITY O KANKAKEE 30,0 7 4.19- 31,827.62 ------ 6-1-,-90--1-.-5-1 ----I MANTENO I I 4,742.00 I 7,642.00 I 12,384.00 I I I ------ -I ------I ------I ?I OMEN CE I I 5284.00 I 5.157.0O I 10,471.00 ------I - I ------I ------I I STA T E OVER WE IGH T I 129.20 I 7,22.20 --- I 7,751.43 I ------ST. ANNE I I 2648.00 I 2,179.00 I 4827.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I SUNPIVER TERRACE I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------ILL STATE POLICE K3 - I ------CO TRAFFICI 110-503-30346-999 I 27,032.00 35,987.33 I 63,019.30 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I FINE-CPIM K3 CO 8 CIVIL CASES I 110-500-30362-999 I 14,329.84 I 11,42R.15 I 26,257.99 I ------I ------SHERIFF-FINE I 110-700-30364-999 1 23,394.80 t 30,211.54 I 59,106.14 I S------I I ------I ------I ------I ------I ankakee County Illinois mar 3f 2003 1:09 om REPORT OF CLLECTI0NS ver. 6.03 Paqe Co 305.RD
Title of Officer XFN - FINE REPORT KANK4KEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK
KEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts (County) -Governmental. ------ - Unit Collections for Period 02/01/03 to 02/23/03
Descrjotjon Fund to be Credited Collections this Period I Prior Y-T - 0 Collections I V-T-D Collections I I ------I ------I ------I ------SOS POLICE -TRAFFIC KKK CO I 1107300-30363-999 I 1,473.00 I 2,315.00 I 3,988.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I------I COUNTY ORDINANCE VIOLATION I 110-500-30348-99° I 0.00 0.00 0.30 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------ICC TICKET--KANKAKEE CO I 110-500-30349-Q99 I 3.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I
I ------I I ------I ------I ------KANKAKEE RIVER PATROL I 110-730-30464-999 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I
------I ------I ------I ------I ------Total Amount Collectec I FINE REPORT I 148,587.28 I 179,580.25 I 328,167.53 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I I hereby Certify that the foregoing is a true and correct reoort of collections due the above named aoverninental unit for the oeriod shown. Date this Cay of 2)
I NOTE I I S is not to be used as a recei ot for coLlections. fficial to whom the reoort is made must issue I (Siqnature) ficiaL receiot for the collections remitted. I
0 Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3, 2033 1:10 osr REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Paqe Co BOARD
Title of Officer XMS - DISB-MISCELLANEOUS CHECKS KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALU Courts (County) Governmental Unit ColLections for Period 02/01/03 to 02/23/03
Descriotion I Fund to be Credited I Collections this Period I Prior Y-T-D Collections I Y-T-D Collections I ------I ------I ------I I ------MARRIAGE FUND NATIONAL CITY G.O.53-3 I 223.00 I 280.00 I 500.00 I ------I I ------I I ------CRIME STOPPERS/KANKAKEE COUNTYI CRIME ADM. ORDER 0 3-2 I 967.00 I 1,539.00 I 2,506.00 I ------I ------I ------I I LAE FEE-STATE CRIME LAB I IL ST. POLICE I 1,336.50 I 1,453.50 I 2,788.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I DEPT OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONI DCI (ST. VALUE FINE) I 244.00 I 433.00 I 677.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I KAMEG f KAMEG (ST. VALUE FINE) 0.00 155.00 I 155.00 I ------I I ------I I ------I 0.00 100.00 100.00 - ( KMG LAB FEE I I I I ... ------I ------I ------I I ------I YOUTH DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION I IONS (ST. VALUE FINE) I 152.56 I 60.46 I 213.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION FINEI TL STATE POLICE I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I I ------I DNA ANALYSIS FEE I IL STATE POLICE I 2,791.00 I 1,104.00 I 3,895.00 I
I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------ANNUAL FEE ACCOUNT -SUPPORT I 110-505-30360-99 I 334.00 I 876.16 I 1,210.16 I I ------I ------SUPPORT PAYMENTS I CT.ORDEPED RECIPIENTS I 200100.39 I 455,894.24 I 655,995.13 I I I ------I ------I ------I ------S Total Amount Collected I DISBMISCELLANEOUS CHEC I 206143.95 461,895.34 I 668,039.29 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I I hereby Certify that the foregoing is a true and correct reoort of colLe:tions due the above named covern,iental unit for the meriod shown. Date this ------day of - 20
NOTE I IThis is not to be used as a receiot for collections. • The official to whom the reoort is made must issue I (Signature) Ian official receiot for the collections remitted. I
40 Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3p 2003 1:11 om REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Page CO 90.ARO
Tit Le of Officer XSO DI-39-SCHOOL DISTRICT SURCHARGE KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts (County) GovernmentaL Unit Collections for Period 02 1 01 1 03 to 02/28/03 S Descriotion I Fund to Creditco I Collections this Drjod I Prior Y-T-D Collections I Y-T-I) Collections I ------I I ------I I ------I 8RADLEY SCHOOL 01ST 61 SURCNPGI I 0.30 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I MOMENCE SCHOOL 01ST dl I I 50.00 I 224.00 I 274.00 I ------1 ------I ------I ------HERSCHER SCHOOL 01ST 92 I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I I ------I I MANTENO SCHOOL 01ST d5 I I 0.00 I 50.00 I 50.00 I - ------ ------: ------: 0.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I ' 2OUR SCHOOL 01ST 953 SURCHARGEI I 25.00 I 25.00 I 50.00 I
------I ------KANKAKEE SCHOOL 01ST #111 I I 603.00 I 762.00 1,162.00 I ------I ------I ------I ST ANNE ELEM 01ST v256 SURCHGEI I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I --- I ------I I ST GEORGE SCHOOL 01ST 258 I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I I------I ------I ------I P EM3ROKE 013T 59 I 0.00 I 0 . 00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------I ST ANNE HS DIST d302 I I -0.000.00 0 .00 I 0.00 I ------2------I . I1 ------• EdCHS 01ST 3O7 I 25.00 25.00 I 50.00 I ---- - - -ou------l-e- --- I ------I ------I-- -- I ------I ------T ot- a l -Am nt Col c-ted I 01S3-SCHOOL DISTRICT SU I 500.00 I 1,086.00 I 1,586.00 I I ------I ------I I hereby Certify that the foregoing is a true and correct reoort of collections due the above named governmental unit for the • oeriod shown. Date this day of 20
NOTE I This is not to be used as a recei Ct for cot lecti ons. I The ofticiaL to whom the reoort is made must issue I (Signature) tan official receiot for the collections remitted. I
0 Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3, 2003 1:11 om REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Page CO BOARD
Title of Officer XDU - DIST-DUI PREVENT EQUIP FUND KANKAKE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANKAEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts (County) Governmental Unit • Collections for Perioc 02/01/03 to 02/28/03
Description I Fund to he Credited I Collections this Period I °rior Y-T-D Collections I Y-T-D Collections I - I ------I ------I ------I ------DUI PREVENT EQUIP/AROMA PARK 0 .00 I 0.30 I 0.00 ------I ------I ------I ------I PREVENT DUE EDUIP/RONFIELD I I 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.00 ------I I ------I ------I ------I DUI PREVENT EQUIP/BUCKINGHAM I I 0.30 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------PREVENT - I DUI EQUIP/8OURBONN.41S I I 395.00 I 524.00 I 1,419.00 ------( ------i ------DUI PREVENT EQUIP/DRADLEY I I 200.03 I 478.00 I 678.00 :-i ------I ------DUI PREVENT EQUIP/CABERY I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I I ------I - I I DUI PREVENT EQUIP/CHESANSE I I 3.0C I 5.00 I 5.00 I I ------I ------I ------DUE PREVENT EGUIP/CONSERVATIONI I 3.00 I 106.00 t 100.00 I ------I ------I ------I I ------I PREVENT DUI EQUIP/ESSEX I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I I ------I ------I ------I DUI PREVENT EQUIP/GRANT PK I I 32.00 268.00 I 300.00 I
DUI PREVENT EQUIP/ ~47_RSCHSR 0.1)0 .&------
• DUE PREVENT EQUIP/HOPKINS PK 0.00 I - 0.00 I 0.00 • I ------I I I ------_____ ------I DUE EQUIP FUND/IL STA T E POLICEI I 1,654.00 I 21116.00 I 3,770.00 ------I I ------I I ------I DUI PREVENT EOUIP-K3 CITY I I 969.00 I 2,073.00 I 3042.00 I • ------I ------I I I I DUE PREVENT EQUIP/MANTENO I 315.30 I 200.00 I 515.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------I DUE PREVENT EQUI°/MOMEPJCE I I 600.00 I 0.00 I 600.00 ...... PREVENT EQUIP/SHERIFF DU! I 110-700-30378-999 I 315.00 I 1,232.00 I 1,547.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I DUI PREVENT -QUIP/SUN RVP TEPRI I 6.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I I ------I - I DUI EQUIP FUNO/SEC'Y OF STATE I I 343.00 I 535.00 I 875.00 ------I ------DUE °PEVENT EQUIP/ST ANNE 187.00 0.30 I 137.00 ------I I ------I I ------I Total Amount Collected I DIST-DUI PREVENT EQUIP I 5,507.00 I 7,531.00 I 1303. 00 I
------I ------. I ------I ------I ------I 1 hereby Certify that the foregoing is a true and correct reoort of collections due the above named governmental unit for the oeriod sho.n. Date tni s day of ?0
I NOTE I I This is not to be used as a recei ot for collections. I ITRe official to whom the reort is made must issue I (Sionature) Ian official receipt for the collections remitted. I
Kankakee County Illinois Mar 3' 2003 1:12 om REPORT OF COLLECTIONS Ver. 6.03 Page CO ROARO S Title of Officer XTN - DISB-TOWNSHIPS KANK.AKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK KANKAKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT - ALL Courts (County) Governmental Unit . Collections for Periom 02101/03 to 02/23103
Description Funi be Credited I Collections this Period I °rior YT-D Collections I Y-T-D Collections I ------I ------I ------I ------AROMA TWP-ROAD/3RIDGE FUND I 3.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------I 80 TOJNSHIP-RO/9RIDGE FUND I 0.00 I 30.00 I 30.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I EX TOWNSHIP-ROAD/BRIDGE FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------GANEER TWP-ROADIERIDGE FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I
------I ------I ------I ------I K3 TOWNSHIP-ROAO/BiRIDGE FUND I 0.00 I 0.03 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------( ------I I LIMESTONE TWPPOAD/3RIDGE FUNDI I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I I ------I MA TOWNSHIP-ROAD/BRIDGE FUND I I 36.00 I 0.00 1 3é.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I MO TONSHIP-R3AD/RID0E FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 ------I ------I ------NORTON TWP-ROAD/BRIDGF. FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 1 I ------I ------I ------I ------I . OTTO TWP-R0AD/RIOGE FUND I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I • ------PEMBROKE TWP-ROAD/B RIDGE FUND I 3.00 I 3.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------I PILOT TUP-POAD/BRIDGE FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I ROCKVILLE TWP-ROA.D/BRIDGE FUNDI 0.00 I 0.03 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I SALIrIA TWP-ROAD/BRIOGE FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I I ------I ------I ------I ------ST ANNE TWP-ROAD/ERIDGE FUND I I 3.00 I 33.00 I 38.00 I I I------I ------I ----- S UMNER TWP-ROAD/3RIOGE FUND I I 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I YELLOUHEAD TWP-ROAD/3RIDGE FNDI I 0.30 I 34.00 I 34.00 I ------I ------I I ------I______Total Amount Collected DISE-T04NSHIS 36.00 I 102.00 I 13E.00 I ------I ------I ------I ------I ------I I hereby Certify that the foregoinp is a true and correct reoort of collections cue the abode named qovernmerital unit for the oeriod shown. Date this ---- day of - --- 20
I NOTE I . 1 This is not to be used as a recei ot for collections. IThe official to whom the reoort is made oust issue I (Signature) Ian officiaL receiot for the collections remitted. I . S 0 K1&kAKEE- -COUNTY ç9NTHLYBUILDING PERMIT REPORT 12 1Mrch 2003'
TYPE NUMBER ISSUED VALUATION New Homes 16 $2,753,255 Mobile Homes 4 $112,500 Garages 2 $28,521 Residential Repairs 40 $420,858 Agricultural Bldgs 3 $69,000 Commercial 2 $70,000 Swimming Pools 0 $0 Fences 2 $2,225 Demo 0 $0 Taxing Body 2 $60,825 TOTALS 71 $3,517,184 OTHER FEES Smoke Detectors 13 $520
TOTALS 13 $520 NO CHARGE PERMITS TYPE NUMBER ISSUED FEE WAIVED Misc. 0 $0 Farm 9 $3,306 Taxing Body 2 $709 rTOTALS 11 $4,015 CODE ENFORCEMENT FINES $500 BUILDING PERMIT FEES $24,066 (TOTAL-FEESCOLLECTED $ 247566111)
Daniel DeValk Building & Zoning Division Manager I S
Kankakee County Animal Control Department 1270 Stanford Drive Kankakee, Illinois 60901
çRepb for te onthôf FEBRUARY:, 20031
FUNDS SUBMITTED TO COUNTY TREASURER
This month Last year Total - This year Total - Last year lcnpoundment 280 280 690 890 Board 210 670 1890 1950 Service fees 275 250 600 1250 Fines 675 700 1425 1875 Euth. & Disposal 40 165 250 480 Adoptions (Gross) 2570 2220 8570 7180 Adoptions (Net) 320 630 2450 2380 Microchip 700 530 2100 1650 Tnp Pickup 0 50 320 100 Owner Turn In 378 260 1090 730 sceHeouseesrevved 1026 39.5 1127.75 93.75 Dzwfions 100 191 752 708 Trap Rental 0 0 20 10 Total for month 6254 53S5.5 18834.75 16916.75 Registration 9,630 11,470 26,665 34,365 Visage revenue 500 3,590 7205 4880 (TOTAL 2 L16384) 20415.5 52704.75 56161.75 iPTIP (Buildfund) 81.681 99.831 88229.04 67003.17 ANIMAL BITES a. bitesrepoTted 12 12 33 29 b. in house bites impoundedf 5 3 10 6 c. bites impournrted honie 3 3 15 5 d. out of Coly, 2 2 4 4 e. specimens for lab exam 21 2 3 6 f. animals tested positive 01 01 0 0 STRAY ANIMAL CONTROL a. Animals euthanized 49 42 118 133 Dogs 21 24 76 81 Cats 28 18 41 51 Wildlife 0 2 0 3 Other 0 0 1 1 b. Owner reclaimed aninis 24 23 54 78 c. Animals adopted 84 57 200 158 Dogs/R-.34 .A-27 61 36 147 110 Cats/R-6 ,A-16 22 21 52 47 Wildlife 0 0 0 1 Other 1 0 1 0 Still Here 0 0 0 0 DOA 5 0 5 0
Total - animals handled! C163 122 372 369 Investigate and examine farm animals destroyed by dogs 0 0 0 o f
ADDrOVed by General Health/Schools/Animal Control Committee at meetinG held . 2003
Vehicle Mileage Respectfully submitted, 98 GMC VAN - 113,500
96 CHEVY - 145,345 e Boudreau, Director Jima1 Control Department
10 . .', • •
Resolution of the County Board Of Kankakee County, IlTinois
Ordinance # j; Resolution # c( - £7-I 152
WHEREAS, on MARCH 20, 2003, bids were received and opened and the committee on Public Highways and Bridges of the Kankakee County Board met to consider the bids for the public highway improvements now coming under the jurisdiction of the Kankakee County Board,
WHEREAS, the said Committee determined that the following qualified bidders
submitted the low bids as listed below for the work herein described and did award the
bids subject to the confirmation of this County Board.
WHEREAS, the said Committee recommends that the confirmation of the award
of the contracts be as follows:
BIDDER AMOUNT
GROSSO CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-00000-00-GM Supp 2 $1719482.60 4594 B WEST RTE 17 COUNTY KANKAKEE, IL 60901
RODAWOLD FARMS SEC. 03-00000-01-GM NonMFT $30,656.00 17292 W. BALLOU RD. COUNTY WILMINGTON, IL 60481
WILKING TRUCKING SEC. 03-04000-00-GM $27,953.64 P.O. BOX 542 GANEER CHEBANSE, IL 60922
WILKING TRUCKING SEC. 03-08000-00-GM Supp 2 $33,322.42 P.O. BOX 542 MOMNCE CHEBANSE, IL 60922
TOBEY'S CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-09000-00-GM Supp 1 $58,566.70 & CARTAGE NORTON P.O. BOX 588 HERSCHER, IL 60941
WILKING TRUCKING SEC. 03-10000-00-GM Supp 1 $82,178.15 P.O. BOX 542 OTTO CHEBANSE, IL 60922 TOBEY'S CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-13000-00-GM $16,624.80 & CARTAGE ROCKVILLE P.O. BOX 588 HERSCHER, IL 60941
I 7 .• 0 ' i I " .....
GROSSO CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-13000-00-GM Supp 1 $369571.32 4594 B WEST RTE 17 ROCKVILLE KANKAKEE, IL 60901
GROSSO CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-14000-00-GM $45,657.20 4594 B WEST RTE 17 SALINA KANKAKEE, IL 60901
GROSSO CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-15000-00-GM $349005.90 4594 B WEST RTE 17 ST. ANNE KANKAKEE, IL 60901
GROSSO CONSTRUCTION SEC. 03-17000-00-GM $43,496.05 4594 B WEST RTE 17 YELLOWHEAD KANKAKEE, IL 60901
WILKING TRUCKING SEC. 03-17000-00-GM Supp 1 $67,640.60 P.O. BOX 542 YELLOWHEAD CHEBANSE, IL 60922
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board of Kankakee County confirm the award of the foregoing contracts heretofore awarded by the Committee on Public Highways and Bridges subject to the confirmation hereby enacted.
ADOPTED AND PASSED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2003.
KARL KRUSE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN ATTEST:
BRUCE CLARK, COUNTY CLERK (SEAL)
/ !R d' . S S
Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present
Abstain
Re: Act ô-ç Qon-kao4 - S 9,
9daAe6 011
RE: ZBA CASE #02-17; VARIANCE TO SECTION 7.02.A (MOBILE TYPE MANUFACTURED HOME IN AN A2 DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, an application pursuant to the terms of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, has been filed by Cheryl Goerner, property owner and applicant, in the Office of the County Clerk of Kankakee County for a variance to Section 7.02.A, to permit an mobile type manufactured home in an A2-Agriculture Estate District, of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, on a parcel legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, all matters required by law of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of Kankakee County to be done, have been done; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has caused a public hearing after due notice to be held on said application and has made findings as described in Exhibit A, a copy of which attached herein and made a part hereof, and recommendation that said request be denied; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee has reviewed said findings and recommendation and concurs with the denial of the request as submitted; and,
WHEREAS, the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and economic and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of the County of Kankakee and State of Illinois that a variance to Section 7.02.A to permit an mobile type manufactured home in an A2-Agriculture Estate District, of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, be denied on a parcel legally described in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached herein and made a part hereof.
8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003. Jj Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST: rsz"t' cz'lt~--- Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-753
ho 00 ZONING BOARDOFAPP EØITA S OF KANKAKEE COUNTY 0
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD. KANKAKEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KANKAKEE, IL
RE: ZBA Case No. 02-17 Variance: Mobile Type Manufactured Home in an A2 District Cheryl Goerner, Property Owner and Applicant
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Kankakee County Zoning Board of Appeals transmits its findings of fact and recommendation on ZBA Case No. 02-17, a request for variance (Section 7.02.A) allowing 'a mobile-type manufactured home to be placed in the A2-Agriculture Estate District. The subject site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 15, Sumner Township.
Ms. Cheryl Goerner is the Applicant. Melissa Williams of the John Marshall Law School represented her.
The property under consideration is located on north side of 9000 North Road, approximately 500-feet west of its intersection with 9000 East Road. The site contains 2.00-acres of land and was rezoned to A2 in 1999.
The land uses of the general area are agriculture and residential. There are four single-family dwellings to the north and two farmsteads to the south. The zoning of the general area is Al -Agriculture. The County's Comprehensive Plan designates the site for agricultural use. The Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, Grant Park Fire Protection District, and the Grant Park School District serve the site. The property is in County Board District #2 (Mr. Vickory). There is no floodplain or wetlands located on the site.
Ms. Goerner requests a variance to allow her to place a mobile-type manufactured home on the site. Mobile manufactured homes are prohibited in the A2 District. Ms. Goerner, according to her application, requests a mobile-type manufactured home to accommodate her brother. Her mother, Ms. Joyce Conroy, testified that the mobile-type home will be placed on a permanent foundation.
Professor Susan Connor of the John Marshall Law School testified on behalf of the Applicant. Professor Connor has been a planner for over 30-years and currently provides consulting services and teaches at the John Marshall Law School. Professor Connor testified on how the federal Fair Housing Act protects persons from discrimination by requiring local government to provide reasonable accommodations. According to Professor Connor, the Fair Housing Act requires local government to not look at the land in this type of variance case, but rather look at the situation of the person with a disability who needs the variance in order to have the same opportunity to enjoy housing as if the person were not disabled.
Five (5) individuals objected to this variance request:
I) Mr. Gene Rider, owns property near the subject site. 2) Mr. Ron Zimmerman, owns property near the subject site. 3) Mr. Gary Dupuis, a property owner and resident near the subject site. 4) Ms. Mary Beth Riechers, a property owner and resident "kitty corner" from the subject site. 5) Ms. Karen Pickens, who owns property adjacent to the subject site.
Ii' The i cti c re based on fears of reduced ny values if a mobile-type manufactur e is place ear the roperty and a restrictive covena at prohibits mobile-type manufactured Ii .ies from being placed on the subject property.
Mr. Gary Dupuis and Mr. Gene Rider filed a motion to enter the hearing as formal Objectors to this variance. Attorney Bill Smith represented the Objectors.
The following is the Zoning Board of Appeal's finding of fact for rezoning for a variance to permit a mobile manufactured home in the A2-District (Section 7.02.A):
A. DOES A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP EXIST IF THE LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS WERE TO BE CARRIED OUT?
The Board finds that the hardship in this case is self-induced. Mr Howell stated that he did not hear any testimony from Ms. Goerner that would satisfy the fact that she has a particular hardship that meets the scope of our regulations. Mr. Pristach finds that there are no topographical limitations that prevent the Petitioner from building the required housing on the site. Chairman Sawyer finds that the Petitioner can find suitable locations in Kankakee County for the placement of a mobile manufactured home, the parcel has covenant restrictions that do not allow the placement of mobile homes, and no evidence was submitted that implied the Planning Department supplied incorrect information to the Petitioner at the time of rezoning.
B. ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR THIS REQUEST UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY THAT WOULD NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTY WIll-I TI-IE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that there are no unique conditions on the property under consideration.
C. WOULD THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board finds that this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjoining properties.
D. WOULD THE VARIANCE IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LIGHT OR AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION ON PUBLIC STREETS, ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board finds that the variance will not impact public safety, traffic, light, and air. The Board's finding is mixed as it relates to the effect this variance will have on property values in the general area. The Board generally agrees that this variance will impact property values, but cannot determine the extent of the impact because the Petitioner and Objectors did not provide any testimony.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted seven (7) ayes to zero (0) nays to recommend the denial of this variance to permit a mobile-type manufactured home in the A2 District ('Section 7. 02.A).
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - aye Mr. Andrew Pristach - aye Mr. Don St. Germaine - aye Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - aye Mr. Glenn Henning - aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye
AYA 0 0 Exhibit B —A Case #02-17 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE 3RD P.M. IN KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 89°29'30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 15 A DISTANCE OF 520.0 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT TO BE KNOWN AS THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89°29'30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 15 A DISTANCE OF 330.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00043 12" WEST A DISTANCE OF 264.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89°29'30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 330.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00°43'12" EAST A DISTANCE OF 264.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.00 ACRES, SUBJECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR ROADS, DRAINAGE, AND EASEMENTS APPARENT OR OF RECORD, AND SUBJECT TO SURVEY.
'33
90 S .
Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present
NJ
Abstain
Re: Y 1A C )- 1 -7 - kj
/ -"I oa Eoad ?
9, 9raie oa kwi.
RE: ZBA CASE #02-18; VARIANCE TO SECTION 7.02.A (MOBILE TYPE MANUFACTURED HOME IN AN A2 DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, an application pursuant to the terms of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, has been filed by Joyce Conroy, property owner and applicant, in the Office of the County Clerk of Kankakee County for a variance to Section 7.02.A, to permit a mobile type manufactured home in an A2-Agriculture Estate District, of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, on a parcel legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, all matters required by law of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of Kankakee County to be done, have been done; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has caused a public hearing after due notice to be held on said application and has made findings as described in Exhibit A, a copy of which attached herein and made a part hereof, and recommendation that said request be denied; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee has reviewed said findings and recommendation and concurs with the denial of the request as submitted; and,
WHEREAS, the variance will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and economic and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of the County of Kankakee and State of Illinois that a variance to Section 7.02.A to permit an mobile type manufactured home in an A2-Agriculture Estate District, of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, be denied on a parcel legally described in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached herein and made a part hereof.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
/4,& /_ _,== Karl A. Kruse, chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-754
12-3- I ZONING BOARDOFAPP EITA.1S OF KANKAKEE COUNTY 0
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD. KANKAKEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KANKAKEE, IL
RE: ZBA Case No. 02-18 Variance: Mobile Type Manufactured Home in an A2 District Joyce Conroy, Property Owner and Applicant
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Kankakee County Zoning Board of Appeals transmits its findings of fact and recommendation on ZBA Case No. 02-18, a request for variance (Section 7.02.A) to allow a mobile-type manufactured home to be placed in the A2-Agriculture Estate District. The subject site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 15, Sumner Township.
Ms. Joyce Conroy is the Applicant. Melissa Williams, of the John Marshall Law School, represented her.
The subject property is a corner lot located on the north side of 9000 North Road and the west side of 9000 East Road. The site contains 5.80-acres of land and was rezoned to A2 in 1999.
The land uses of the general area are agriculture and residential. There are four single-family homes to the north and two farmsteads to the south. The zoning of the area is Al -Agriculture. The County's Comprehensive Plan designates the site for agricultural use. The Kankakee County Sheriffs Department, Grant Park Fire Protection District, and the Grant Park School District serve the site. The property is in County Board District #2 (Mr. Vickory). There is no floodplain or wetlands located on the site.
Ms. Conroy requests a variance to allow her to place a mobile-type manufactured home on the site. Mobile-type manufactured housing is prohibited in the A2 District. Ms. Conroy requests a mobile-type manufactured home because she claims it is the only affordable means of housing that suits her disabled son. She testified that the mobile home will be placed on a permanent foundation.
Professor Susan Connor testified on behalf of the Applicant. Professor Connor has been a planner for over 30-years and currently provides consulting services and teaches land use law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. Professor Connor testified on how the federal Fair Housing Act protects persons from discrimination by requiring local government to provide reasonable accommodations. According to Professor Connor, the Fair Housing Act requires local government to not look at the land in this type of variance case, but look at the situation of the person with a disability who needs the variance in order to have the same opportunity to enjoy housing as if the person were not disabled. Professor Connor's testimony also outlined how Ms. Conroy's request meets the County's findings of fact for this variance.
Five (5) individuals objected to the variance request:
I) Mr. Gene Rider, owns property near the subject site. 2) Mr. Ron Zimmerman, owns property near the subject site. 3) Mr. Gary Dupuis, a property owner and resident near the subject site. 4) Ms. Mary Beth Riechers, a property owner and resident "kitty-corner" from the subject site. 5) Ms. Karen Pickens, who owns property adjacent to the subject site.
Their objections were based on fears of reduced property values if a mobile home is placed near their property and a restrictive covenant that prohibits mobile-type manufactured homes from being placed on the subject property. Mr. Gary Dupuis and Mr. Gene Rider filed a motion to enter the hearing as formal Objectors to this variance. Attorney William Smith represented the Objectors.
J •. S . The following is the Zoning Board of Appeal's finding of fact for rezoning for a variance to permit a mobile manufactured home in the A2-District (Section 7.02.A):
A. DOES A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP EXIST IF THE LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS WERE TO BE CARRIED OUT?
The Board finds that the hardship in this case is self-induced. Modular-type manufacturer and stick built housing are already available on this tract. Mr. Howell finds that there is nothing with the property's current use, the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions that prevent the Petitioner from building the required housing on the site. Chairman Sawyer finds that the Petitioner can readily find suitable accommodations for a mobile-type manufactured home in Kankakee County and other communities according to a survey of communities offering sites that permit manufactured mobile homes.
B. ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR THIS REQUEST UNIQUE TO TI-ItS PROPERTY THAT WOULD NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTY WITH THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board's finding is mixed. A majority of the Board agrees that there are no unique conditions for this request. Chairman Sawyer finds that the conditions for this request are not unique as a result of Ms. Conroy decision to purchase property that can not accommodate the type of housing that she desires to build. Mr. Howell, oil the other hand, finds that the conditions for this request are unique in that the person requesting this variance has a soil with a disability and that the Fair Housing Act requires local government to view the situation of the person with the disability rather than view the situation of tile property being considered.
C. WOULD THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board's finding is mixed. A majority of the Board finds that this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjoining properties. Mr. St. Germaine and Mr. Tribbey find that this variance could be injurious to adjoining properties in that tills variance would promote a lack of housing uniformity in the area. Chairman Sawyer finds that this variance could detract values of the nearby homes and enhance value to tile mobile home.
D. WOULD THE VARIANCE IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF LIGHT OR AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION ON PUBLIC STREETS, ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board finds that the variance will not impact public safety, traffic, light, and air. The Board generally agrees that this variance will impact property values, but does not believe tile impact will be substantial.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) ayes to two (2) nays to recommend the denial of this variance to permit a mobile manufactured home in the A2 District (Section 7.02.A).
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - aye Mr. Andrew Pristach - nay Mr. Don St. Germaine - aye Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - nay Mr. Glenn Henning—aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye
187 1010., Exhibit B Case 402-18 0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 13 EAST OF THE 3RD P.M. IN KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SAID POINT TO BE KNOWN AS THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89029'30" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 520.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00°43'12" WEST A DISTANCE OF 264.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89°29'30" WEST A DISTANCE OF 330.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00°43'12" WEST A DISTANCE OF 136.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 89°29'30" EAST A DISTANCE OF 849.88 FEET TO THE POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00044'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 5.80 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SUBJECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR ROADS, DRAINAGE, AND EASEMENTS APPARENT OR OF RECORD, AND SUBJECT TO SURVEY.
134 •. S Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present
Abstain
I1;
/Y7 • 9,
ran ka dll4 âna/4
RE: ZBA CASE #02-24: SPECIAL USE PERMIT #6.03.G (CHURCH AND YOUTH CENTER)
WHEREAS, an application pursuant to the terms of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, has been filed by College Church of the Nazarene, property owner and applicant in the Office of the County Clerk of Kankakee County for Special Use Permit #6.03.G (Church and Youth Center) on a parcel legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, all matters required by law of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of Kankakee County to be done, have been done; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has caused a public hearing after due notice to be held on said application and has made findings as described in Exhibit A, a copy of which attached herein and made a part hereof, and a recommendation that said request be approved; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee has reviewed said findings and recommendation and concurs with the approval with condition of the request as submitted; and,
WHEREAS, the special use permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and economic and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the County Board of the County of Kankakee and State of Illinois that a Special Use Permit in accordance to Section 6.03.G (Church and Youth Center) of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, be approved with conditions on a parcel legally described in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached herein and made a part hereof.
SECTION 1
NOW, THEREFORE FURTHER, be it resolved the following conditions are placed upon the special use: 1. The property owner and/or applicant agree that the following conditions shall be completed before Kankakee County issues an occupancy permit:
Sixty-nine (69) feet of right-of-way along 6000 North Road and fifty-five (55) feet of right-of-way along 1000 West Road shall be dedicated on said property containing special use. All costs shall be borne by the property owner and/or applicant. An illuminated identification sign shall be installed near each vehicular ingress/egress. The Planning Department shall approve specifications for the sign(s), including but not limited to the size, location, aesthetics, and content of the sign. Sanitary sewer and municipal water service shall be installed to the facility. All costs of installation on the premises shall be borne by the property owner and/or applicant.
141 4 • The parking lot shall bep with a 3-inch asphalt overlay and co 365 parking spaces. The parki paces shall be stripped. The Plannin Department shall approve a lighting plan for the parking lot and installation of lights must occur prior to occupancy.
2. The property owner and/or applicant agree to forward $15,000 to the Manteno Township Highway Commissioner to subsidize the cost of improving 6000 North Road with a 20-foot wide bituminous concrete surface. Said payment covers the expenses incurred for the northern half of the road. Manteno Township agrees to cover the expenses of the southern half of the road. The property owner and/or applicant shall make said payment to Manteno Township by April 1, 2004.
3. The special use shall be null and void, following a public hearing on this matter, if the property owner and/or applicant do not comply with any of the above-stated conditions. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003.
Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
k't't-' 6~~ Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-755
EXHII3IT A Case #02-24 S ZONING BOARD OF APP OF KANKAKEE COUNTY
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD. KANKAKEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KANKAKEE, IL
RE: ZBA Case No. 02-24 Special Use: Church and Youth Center College Church of the Nazarene, Property Owner and Applicant
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Kankakee County Zoning Board of Appeals transmits its findings of fact and recommendation on ZBA Case No. 02-24, a request for a special use permit regarding a church and youth center on property commonly situated in the southwest quarter of Section 31, Manteno Township.
College Church of the Nazarene is the Applicant and property owner. Attorney Scott Swaim represented the church.
The subject property is corner lot located on the north side of 6000 North Road and east side of Career Center Road. The site is a 40-acre farm that currently used for agriculture and contains no structures.
The land uses of the general area are agriculture and institutional. The baseball complex owned by Greater Midwest Sports Management is located north of the site. A proposed mosque and boarding school will be built west of the site. The zoning of the general area is Al-Agriculture. The County's Comprehensive Plan designates the site for agricultural use. The Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, Manteno Fire Protection District, and the Manteno School District serve the site. The property is in County Board District #25 (Mr. Olthoff). There are no floodplain or wetlands on the site.
The church is requesting a special use permit to construct a new church and youth center on the site. The church, as testified to by Reverend Dan Boone, currently operates out of a facility located on the Olivet Nazarene University campus. Rev. Boone stated that the church's enrollment has increased from approximately 850 to 1200 people ten years ago to 1600 to 3000 people at the present time. The increased enrollment has placed a strain on the current's church's capacity and therefore the church wants to build a larger facility that can handle the needs of today and the future. Rev. Boone also testified that the proposed facility would host wedding receptions, service-club meetings, and recreational activities. Rev. Boone also testified that the current church facility on the Olivet campus would remain open.
Mr. David Tyson of Tyson Engineering provided testimony on how the proposed church meets the findings of fact. He stated that the proposed church would have a seating capacity of 1400. The church will provide 365 paved parking spaces and be hooked up to Village of Bourbonnais sewer and Consumer's Illinois water service.
Mr. Tyson also testified that the church reached a financial agreement with the Manteno Township Road Commissioner on providing an sum of approximately $15,000 for paving the church's half of 6000 North Road fronting the church property. The church agrees to dedicate 69-feet of right-of-way on 6000 North Road and 55-feet of right-of-way on Career Center Road. During his presentation, Mr. Tyson presented several exhibits that supported the findings of fact for this special use.
Mr. Ron Meyer, Manteno Township Road Commissioner, spoke during the public hearing. He stated his support for the special use but requests that 6000 North Road be widened to 20-feet and improved with an asphalt overlay.
The following is the Zoning Board of Appeal's finding of fact for a special use for a church and youth center in the Al -District (Section 6.03G): A. STHE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE, AERATION OF THE SPECIAL USE BE DETRI•AL TO OR ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS, AND GENERAL WELFARE?
The Board finds that the special use will not endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. The proposed special use is for the construction of a Church and Youth Center for the College Church of Nazarene. The request for this use will be consistent with other establishments along Career Center Road. It will work in harmony with Championship Sports Academy to the north as well as Cornerstone Church to the south. College church exists to help people become faithfully devoted followers of Jesus Christ. This establishment will enforce morals of all. They will have a positive influence in the neighborhood. The building will be aesthetically pleasing for the surrounding area and will not cause any safety issues on the property with the proposed use. Public health will not be an issue since water is already available and sanitary sewer will be at the site within one year according to the Village of Bourbonnais. The Board recommends that this special use hook- up to a sewer service as a condition of approval.
B. WILL THE SPECIAL USE BE INJURIOUS TO THE ENJOYMENT OF OTHER PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY FOR THE PURPOSES ALREADY PERMITTED, OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board finds that the special use will not be injurious to other property in the area and will not substantially diminish property values in the neighborhood. The establishment of a church and youth center will exist in harmony with the special use permit granted to the west (mosque) and Championship Sports Academy to the north. The development along Career Center Road has been recreational, ministerial, and residential. The development of a church is consistent with this trend.
C. WILL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL USE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPEDE THE NORMAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY FOR USES PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT?
The Board finds that the establishment of a church and youth center will not have a substantial effect on development in general area or the permitted uses in the Al-Agriculture District. The development that has already occurred around this proposed special use permit has been recreational and ministerial. This is the same type of use being proposed by the applicant. It is consistent with the development being proposed in this area and with the type of development being sought by the Village of Bourbonnais. It is also consistent with the County of Kankakee Comprehensive Plan.
D. HAVE ADEQUATE MEASURES BEEN TAKEN OR WILL BE PROVIDED FOR UTLITIES, ACCESS ROADS, AND DRAINAGE?
The Board finds that adequate measures have been taken and/or will be provided for utilities, access roads, and drainage. Utilities to service this size of facility already exist. Sanitary sewer is under contract and will be available within one year. Career Center Road was overlaid in 2001 and brought up to Village of Bourbonnais, County of Kankakee, and Bourbonnais Township standards. 6000 North Road is a hard surface road and is also being studied as a possible East-West corridor. Storm water drainage will be handled by surface drainage primarily to the east where existing drainage swales exist. Proper detention will be provided not only to properly discharge storm water but also to control sedimentation.
D. WILL ADEQUATE MEASURES BE TAKEN OR WILL BE TAKEN TO PROVIDE INGRESS AND EGRESS SO DESIGNED AS TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS?
The Board finds that the special use has taken adequate measures to ensure proper ingress and egress to the site. The special use is a church and youth center that may, at times, attract high volumes of traffic. The proposed site plan has a driveway proposed on Career Center Road and the other on 6000 North Road. Both driveways will be situated far enough from the intersections to allow safe ingress and egress to and from the site. The heaviest traffic will be on Sunday morning and Sunday evening, Df which are low volume periods for oth of the existing roads. The an1outraffic g rated by this facility will not overload or e any design changes on either road.
E. WILL THE SPECIAL USE, IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED, EXCEPT AS SUCH REGULATIONS MAY, IN EACH INSTANCE, BE MODIFIED?
The special use will conform to all Village of Bourbonnais and County of Kankakee regulations that are applicable for this type of development. The Board recommends that the facility hook-up to sanitary sewer and potable water service.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings offact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously (six-6 ayes) to recommend the approval of this special use for a church and youth center (Section 603.G).
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - absent Mr. Andrew Pristach - aye Mr. Don St. Germaine - aye Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - aye Mr. Glenn Henning - aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye S S .
EXHIBIT B - ZBA #02-24 LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST 40 ACRES OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A BRASS DISK AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE NORTH 01°08'40" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1,324.77 FEET TO A PK NAIL AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE NORTH 89°2 1'50" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 A DISTANCE OF 1,315.02 FEET TO AN IRON ROD; THENCE SOUTH 0 1 008 '40" EAST A DISTANCE OF 1,325.33 FEET TO A PK NAIL ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31 A DISTANCE OF 1,325.33 FEET TO A PK NAIL ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE SOUTH 89'23'15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 1,315.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 40.00 ACRES, SUBJECT TO RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR ROADS, DRAINAGE AND EASEMENTS APPARENT OR OF RECORD.
/ /3 . S is
Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present
Abstain ?Eoad .
r aee 0114
RE: ZBA CASE #02-26; REZONING TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY FROM Cl TO C2
WHEREAS, an application pursuant to the terms of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, has been filed by Municipal Trust and Savings, #1 564, property owners and Kladis Partnership, applicant, in the Office of the County Clerk of Kankakee County to rezone property from Cl- Restricted Commercial District to C2-General Commercial District, on a parcel legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, all matters required by law of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of Kankakee County to be done, have been done; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has caused a public hearing after due notice to be held on said application and has made findings as described in Exhibit A, a copy of which attached herein and made a part hereof, and recommendation that said request be approved; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee has reviewed said findings and recommendation and concurs with the approval of the request as submitted; and,
WHEREAS, the rezoning will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and economic and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the County Board of the County of Kankakee and State of Illinois that a rezoning from C1 -Restricted Commercial District to C2-General Commercial District, be approved on a parcel legally described in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached herein and made a part hereof.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
Karl A. Kruse, C airman
ATTEST:
&'~' cd"4~__ Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-756
1 117 E . • A 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF KANKAKEE COUNTY
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD. KANKAKEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KANKAKEE, IL
RE: ZBA Case No. 02-26 Rezoning: C -C2 Municipal Trust and Savings, #1564, Property Owners Kiadis Partnership, Applicants
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Kankakee County Zoning Board of Appeals transmits its findings of fact and recommendation on ZBA Case No. 02-26, a rezoning from Cl -Restricted Commercial to C2-General Commercial on property commonly situated in the northwest quarter of Section 5, Manteno Township. Municipal Savings and Trust, Trust #1564 owns the subject property. The bank trust beneficaries, known as the Kladis Partnership, are the applicants for this case. The Kiadis Partnership is made up of Mr. Gregory Clark, Mr. John Antonounpolus, Mr. John Kladis, and Mr. Sotiris Lalatzig.
Attorney Dana Meyer represents the Applicants.
The property is located on the east side of US 45/52, approximately one-quarter mile south of 12000 North Road (Will County Line). The subject site contains several structures, including a Victorian style home, frame buildings, and a barn.
The land use of the general area is agriculture. The zoning of the general area is Al -Agriculture and the County's Comprehensive Plan designates the area for agricultural use. The Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, Manteno Fire Protection District, and the Manteno School District serve the site. The property is in County Board District #7 (Mr. Stauffenberg). The property does not contain any floodplain or wetlands.
Mr. Gregory Clark of the Kladis Group testified for the applicants. Mr. Clark testified that the Kladis Partnership purchased the property in 2001 and leased the site to an individual that is no longer associated with his group. The facility was formerly known as "Club Victoria", but closed in March 2002. He testified that his partners wish to rezone the property so that live entertainment can be provided on the site. His partnership will lease the site to Mr. Dan Swanson if this rezoning is successful.
Mr. Dan Swanson, the lessee of the property, testified that he will be in charge of running the facility. He testified that the main middle building will be used as a tavern and the Victorian home will be used as a restaurant. Mr. Swanson testified that he plans on providing various forms of live entertainment, such as karoke, comedians, and live music. Mr. Swanson also testified that he has no plans to offer adult entertainment on the facility.
The subject site contains 5-acres of land and has 537-feet of road frontage on US 45/52. Access to the site is utilized through a driveway located near the center of the property. The subject site was rezoned to Cl -Restricted Commercial in 2001. Restaurants and taverns are permitted uses in the C district, but live entertainment is only permitted in the C2-General Commercial district. The site has a Class A liquor license and entertainment license with Kankakee County. The structures are hooked up to a septic system and well. The site has eight (8) paved parking spaces in the front yard and a large gravel parking area in the rear yard. Light poles are erected throughout the complex.
There were no objectors present at the hearing. However, several concerned neighbors and property owners attended the hearing. Their names and comments can be seen below: • *arlene Bedell - Owns land northeast anuth of the subject site. She questions theØicants if they were involved with running Club Victoria. The applicants stated that a prior tenant ran the old club but has since been removed from the lease. She wants to know what kind of recouse she has if the owners run adult uses on the site. • Mr. Don Bedell- Ms. Bedell's husband. Complained about the property owner's assurance that no adult uses would occur on the site in 2001 when the subject site was rezoned to Cl. • Mr. George Salzman - Owns property west of the subject site. Complained about the late night traffic coming from the tavern. He wants to see a deceleration lane installed in US 45/52 for traffic entering the facility. He is in favor of a restaurant, but not a tavern with entertainment. • Patricia Manker, a nearby property owner from Springfield, wrote a letter to the ZBA that was read into the record. She opposes the rezoning because the site would attract larger crowds and contribute to inebriated driving on rural roads. She would prefer to see this use in an urban setting.
The following is the Zoning Board of Appeal's finding of fact for this rezoning from Cl-Restricted Commercial to C2-General Commercial:
A. How is THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE?
The Board finds that this rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently zoned commercial, and this request enables the Petitioner to provide live entertainment at the location. This is a ideal location for live entertainment because of its rural setting away from residentially zoned areas.
B. How is THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The Board finds that this rezoning is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
C. EXPLAIN HOW AND IF ALL REQUIRED UTILITIES, SUCH AS WATER AND SANITARY FACILITIES, DRAINAGE, ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE PROVIDED, AND POSSESS OR WILL POSSESS ADEQUATE CAPACITY OF MANPOWER TO ACCOMMODATE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION REQUESTED.
The Board finds that all required utilities, drainage, and access to a public road have been or will be provided. The utilities are already present on the subject property and have a history of use when the facility previously operated as a tavern/restaurant. There will be no effect on educational and recreational facilities and no greater affect upon public safety facilities than currently exists at the location.
D. EXPLAIN HOW THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES OF PROPERTY AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
The Board finds that this rezoning is compatible with existing uses of property and the zoning classification of property in the general area. The proposed rezoning would not change the existing area.
E. EXPLAIN HOW THE PERMITTED USES IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION BEING REQUESTED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE LEVEL OF CONGESTION ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
The Board finds that this rezoning will not substantially increase congestion on public rights-of-way.
F. Is THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR THE PERMITTED USES UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION? . . The Board finds that this property, a tavern and restaurant, is suitable for the permitted uses under the existing zoning classification, but the proposed use, live entertainment, requires a rezoning to a higher zoning classification.
G. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR THE PERMITTED USES UNDER THE PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that this property is suitable for the permitted uses under the proposed zoning classification. The Petitioner is requesting a rezoning to C2-General Commercial for the purpose of running a tavern/restaurant featuring live entertainment.
H. WHAT IS THE TREND OF DEVELOPMENT, IF ANY, IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, INCLUDING CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE DAY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIONS WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that there is no discernable trend of development in the general area of the property in question.
I. Is THE PROPOSED REZONING WITHIN ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES OF A MUNICIPALITY?
The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is not within one and one-half miles of any municipality. The site is 2 1/2-miles northwest of Manteno.
J. DOES THE LESA REPORT REFLECT THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUESTED AND USES ALLOWED THEREIN?
The Board finds that the LESA report is not applicable in this type of case.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted six (6) ayes and zero ('O) nays to recommend the approval of this rezoning from Cl- Restricted Commercial to C2-General Commercial.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Andrew Pristach, Acting Chairman - aye Mr. Don St. Germaine - aye Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - aye Mr. Glenn Henning - aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - absent . . .
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT I: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN KAKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1425.78 FEET TO A 12 INCH SPIKE BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS LAND DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 405.00 FEET TO A HALF INCH IRON ROD; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 396.40 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 130.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 108.48 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 275.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 287.92 FEET OT THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 3.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
TRACT 2: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 32 NORTH, RANGE 12 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1713.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THIS LAND DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 275.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 108.48 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 130.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 141.52 FEET TO AN IRON ROD; THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 405.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 250.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2.00 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
I'S-., . . S COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
3n C OC (Issue) • ilIO 9, oad I 9,
9aAee Oil
RE: ZBA CASE #03-01; REZONING TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY FROM Al TO RE AND LOT WIDTH VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application pursuant to the terms of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, has been filed by Sherman and Sharon LaCost, property owners and applicants, in the Office of the County Clerk of Kankakee County to rezone property from Al-Agriculture District to RE- Rural Estate District, and a variance to Section 6.05 (lot width) in an Al District of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, on a parcel legally described herein; and,
WHEREAS, all matters required by law of the State of Illinois and the Zoning Ordinance of Kankakee County to be done, have been done; and,
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has caused a public hearing after due notice to be held on said application and has made findings as described in Exhibit A, a copy of which attached herein and made a part hereof, and recommendation that said requests be approved; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning; Zoning, and Agriculture Committee has reviewed said findings and recommendation and concurs with the approval of the request as submitted; and,
WHEREAS, the rezoning and variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and economic and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the County Board of the County of Kankakee and State of Illinois that a rezoning from Al-Agriculture District to RE-Rural Estate District, and a variance to Section 6.05 (lot width) in an Al District of the Kankakee County Zoning Ordinance, be approved on a parcel legally described in Exhibit B, a copy of which is attached herein and made a part hereof. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003
Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-757 E•ITA . 0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF KANKAKEE COUNTY
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD. KANKAKEE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KANKAKEE, IL
RE: ZBA Case No. 03-01 Rezoning: Al -RE, Lot Width Variance Sherman and Sharon LaCost, Property Owners and Applicants
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Kankakee County Zoning Board of Appeals transmits its findings of fact and recommendation on ZBA Case No. 03-01, a rezoning from Al-Agriculture to RE-Rural Estate and a lot width variance on property commonly situated in the southwest quarter of Section 36, Salina Township. The property owners and applicants for this case are Sherman and Sharon LaCost.
Attorney David Jaffe represents the Applicants.
The property is located on the north side of Illinois Route 17, approximately one-half mile west of 7000 West Road (Warner Bridge Road). The subject site contains three (3) single-family dwellings that are located on three odd-shaped parcels of land (20, 37, and 2 acres).
The land uses of the general area are agriculture and residential. The zoning of the general area is Al - Agriculture and the County's Comprehensive Plan designates the area for agricultural use. The Kankakee County Sheriff's Department, Bonfield Fire Protection District, and the l-Ierscher School District serve the site. The property is in County Board District #12 (Mr. Hoffman). The property does not contain any floodplain or wetlands.
At the opening of the hearing, Attorney David Jaffe requested to amend his client's petition that originally asked to rezone four (4)-tracts of land, but this proposal would have landlocked the farm property located behind the subject site. Mr. Jaffe requested that his client wanted to eliminate one tract of land from the rezoning and submit a request for a lot width variance on the farm property because this piece of land was too narrow to meet the minimum lot width requirement. The Board accepted Mr. Jaffe's amendment.
The amended application proposes three (3)-tracts of land to be rezoned to RE-Rural Estate, each tract contains a single-family dwelling and a ingress/egress to Illinois Route 17. According to the plat of survey submitted with the application, Tract #1 has 2.39-acres of land area and 297-feet of lot width; Tract #2 has 2.13-acres of land area and 265-feet of lot width; and, Tract #3 has 2.09-acres of land area and 260-feet of lot width.
If the rezoning is successful, Mr. LaCost plans on merging the farmland behind the dwellings into one parcel of land. However, the farm property lacks sufficient width along Illinois Route 17. The Petitioners have 176-feet of lot width on the proposed farm tract; the minimum lot width in the Al-District is 330- feet. A variance of 154-feet is required.
Mr. Sherman LaCost testified that lie and his wife currently reside in Florida and they own the dwellings and farmland. He explained that lie does not want to be an absentee landlord, which is why they want to sell the dwellings. The LaCost's will retain possession of the farmland and lease it to a farmhand.
A minor subdivision plat will have to be approved by the County Board before these proposed tracts can be sold.
There were no objectors present at the hearing.
I to Thevirig is the Zoning Board of APPeaI'sng of fact for this rezoning from A1_Alture RE-*a] Estate:
A. How is THE PROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE?
The Board finds that this rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Said property is on existing residentially developed sites. Said sites are not agricultural sites and in an area where large lot development exists.
B. HOW IS THE IROPOSED REZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN?
The Board finds that this rezoning is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan. It will preserve areas of natural beauty and open spaces, utilize existing residential sites and encourage pride in single-family ownership, while not taking any land out of current agriculture use.
C. EXPLAIN HOW AND IF ALL REQUIRED UTILITIES, SUCH AS WATER AND SANITARY FACILITIES, DRAINAGE, ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE PROVIDED, AND POSSESS OR WILL POSSESS ADEQUATE CAPACITY OF MANPOWER TO ACCOMMODATE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION REQUESTED.
The Board finds that all required utilities, drainage, and access to a public road have been or will be provided. There will be no increased need for utilities, all utilities are already available to and servicing the premises or available thereto by wells and septic systems as approved by the County; the sites adjoin a State highway with existing and separate culverts.
D. EXPLAIN HOW THE PROPOSED REZONING WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING USES OF PROPERTY AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF TI-IE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
The Board finds that this rezoning is compatible with existing uses of property and the zoning classification of property in the general area. There are 24-single-family residences within 1.2 miles of the subject site.
E. EXPLAIN HOW THE PERMUTED USES IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION BEING REQUESTED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE LEVEL OF CONGESTION ON PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
The Board finds that this rezoning will not substantially increase congestion on public rights-of-way since there will be no change in the existing use of the property.
F. Is THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR THE PERMITTED USES UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that this property is not suitable for the permitted uses under the existing zoning classification. The property is currently zoned Al-Agriculture. The property has already been improved with single-family residences for many years.
G. IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUITABLE FOR THE PERMITTED USES UNDER TI-IE PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that this property is suitable for the permitted uses under the proposed zoning classification. The Petitioner is requesting rezoning to RE- Rural Estate. The property is entirely suitable for single-family residential use under RE-Rural Estate classification. H. PAT IS THE TREND OF DEVELOPMENT, 411-ONY, IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE I)RTY IN QUESTION, INCLUDING CHANGES, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE THE DAY THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIONS WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that there is no discernable trend of development in the general area of the property in question.
I. Is THE PROPOSED REZONING WITHIN ONE AND ONE-HALF MILES OF A MUNICIPALITY?
The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is not within one and one-half miles of any municipality. The site is 2-miles southeast of the Village of Bonfield.
J. DOES THE LESA REPORT REFLECT THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE FOR THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUESTED AND USES ALLOWED THEREIN?
The Board finds that the LESA report is not applicable since the existing use of the subject site is residential.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) ayes and zero (0) nays to recommend the approval of this rezoning fro,n Al- Agriculture to RE-Rural Estate.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Andrew Pristach, Acting Chairman - aye Mr. Don St. Germaine - abstain Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - aye Mr. Glenn Henning - aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - absent
The following is the Zoning Board of Appeal's finding of fact for a lot width variance on a parcel of land zoned Al -Agriculture (Section 6.05):
A. WOULD A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER RESULT, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE, IF THE LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS WERE TO BE CARRIED OUT?
The Board finds that a hardship to the owner exists in that it would be impossible to rezone the three proposed tracts of land because the remaining farmland west of the rezoning site is too narrow. The residences subject to rezoning were built before zoning laws were enacted and the current and previous owners had no way of telling that lie had to preserve 330-feet of lot width needed to be preserved when these dwellings were built.
B. HOW ARE THE CONDITIONS TO THIS REQUEST UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION THAT WOULD NOT APPLY, GENERALLY, TO OTHER IROPERTY WITH THE SAME ZONING CLASSIFICATION?
The Board finds that this variance is unique in that there are no known or similar situations where a farm tract will result in having substandard frontage by reason of rezoning adjoining lots.
C. WILL THE GRANTING OF TI-IE VARIANCE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR BE INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED?
The Board finds that this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor will it be injurious to adjoining properties.
/,5-/- . S D. WILL THE VARIANCE IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT OR AIR TO ADJACENT PROPERTY, SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION OF THE IUBLIC STREETS, INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE, ENDANGER THE PUBLIC SAFETY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR PROPERTY VALUES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
The Board finds that this variance will have no affect thereon.
Based upon the testimony given, the evidence submitted, and the findings of fact, the Zoning Board of Appeals voted five (5) ayes and zero (0) nays to recommend the approval of a 154-foot lot ividth variance on afarmmm parcel in the A 1-Agriculture District.
Respectfully submitted,
Mr. Andrew Pristach, Acting Chairman - aye Mr. Don St. Germaine - abstain Mr. Ralph Tribbey - aye Mr. Rich Howell - aye Mr. Glenn Henning - aye Mr. Bob Morrical - aye Mr. Bill Sawyer, Chairman - absent
/.57 EXIT B - ZBA Case #03-01
LE!DESCRIPTION: S Tract 1: A part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 31 North, Range 10 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Kankakee County, Illinois bound and described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, which point is 822 feet West from the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter, and running, thence North, parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter, 66.82 feet to the point of beginning on the North right of way line, of Illinois Route 17; thence North, parallel with said East line, 350 feet; thence West, parallel with said North right of way line, 176.23 feet to the West line of the East half of the West half of the East half of said Southwest Quarter; thence South, along said West line, 350 feet to a point on said North right of line, which point is 66.28 feet North from said South line; and thence East along said North right of way line, 176.24 feet to the point of beginning, containing 1.42 acres, more or less, unimproved. Tract 2: A part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 31 North, Range 10 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Kankakee County, Illinois, commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, which point is 525 feet West from the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter, and running; thence North, parallel with the East line of said Southwest Quarter, 67.73 feet to the point of beginning on the North right of way of Illinois Route 17; Thence North, parallel with said East Line, 350 feet; thence West, parallel with said North right of way line, 297 feet; thence South, parallel with said East line, 350 feet to a point on said North right of way line, which point is 66.82 feet North from said South line; and thence East along said North right of way line, 297 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.39 acres, more or less, improved with single family residence (and trailer to be removed). Tract 3: A part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 31 North, Range 10 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Kankakee County, Illinois, commencing at a point on the South line of said Southwest Quarter, which point is 260 feet West from the-Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter, and running; thence North, parallel with the East line of said Southwest quarter, 68.54 feet to the point of beginning on the North right of way of Illinois Route 17; thence North, parallel with said East line, 350 feet; thence west, parallel with said North right of way line, 265 feet; thence South, parallel with said East line, 350 feet to a point on said North right of way line, which point is 67.73 feet North from said South line; and thence East along said North right of way line, 265 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.13 acres, more or less, improved with single family residence. Tract 4: A part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 31 North, Range 10 East of the Third Principal Meridian, Kankakee County, Illinois bounded and described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Southwest quarter, and running; thence North, along the East line of said Southwest quarter, 69.33 feet to the point of beginning on the North right of way of Illinois Route 17; thence North, along said East line, 350 feet; thence West parallel with said North right of way line, 260 feet; thence South, parallel with said East line 260 feet to a point on said North right of way line, which point is 68.54 feet North from the South line of said Southwest quarter; and thence East, along said North right of way line, 260 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.09 acres, more or less, improved with single family residence.
isr . . .
COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
Eft (tFL Ci (Issue)
/ 6' O Poanoai
9rk6 011 ifl
RE: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN APPLICATION WITH THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (IDOT) DIVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF METRA SERVICE FROM UNIVERSITY PARK TO KANKAKEE
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2003, the Policy Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), made up of the Mayors of the Villages of Aroma Park, Bourbonnais, and Bradley, the Mayor of the City of Kankakee, the Chairman of the Kankakee County Board, and the District Engineer for the Illinois Department of Transportation, unanimously approved an application for funding for a Feasibility Study from the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public Transportation; and,
WHEREAS, Kankakee County was notified on April 1, 2003 that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) could not apply for the funding, but that a unit of local government must apply; and,
WHEREAS, the total amount of the grant request is $150,000, of which 50% must come from local sources, and that other member agencies of the MPO had expressed their willingness to participate in assisting to fund the local share; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee at its April 2, 2003 meeting voted to authorize the Chairman of the Kankakee County Board to sign the application to the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public Transportation for a Feasibility Study for the Extension of METRA Service from University Park to Kankakee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee, Illinois, that the Chairman of said County Board is hereby authorized to:
1) sign, execute, and file an application for funding under Section 5313(b) Technical Studies Program for a Feasibility Study for the Extension of METRA Service from University Park to Kankakee.
2) furnish such additional information, assurances, certifications, and amendments as the Illinois Department of Transportation or Federal Transit Administration may require in connection with the application or the project.
3) execute and deliver grant agreements and all subsequent amendments thereto between the County of Kankakee and the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Chairman of the Kankakee County Board is authorized and directed on behalf of Kankakee County to attest said agreements and all subsequent amendments hereto.
4) take such action as is necessary or appropriate to implement, execute, administer, and enforce said agreements and all subsequent amendments thereto on behalf of Kankakee County.
166 Thiolution shall be in full force and effe3n its passage in accordance with la
8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003.
Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST: A~~= 6~~ Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-758
lb I . .. .
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
APPLICATION FOR TECHNICAL STUDIES GRANT
Applicant Name: Kankakee Area Transportation Study (MPO for Kankakee 14bUopolitm Mailing Address: Kankakee Qiinty P1inning Departrent, 189 East Court Street, Kankakee, IL Zip Code: 60901 Contact Person: Mike '-'' -y Phone #: 815-937-2940
The applicant hereby applies to the Illinois Department of Transportation Division of Public Transportation for a Technical Studies Grant.
Required resolutions, documents, schedules and exhibits in support of the grant request are attached and included as part of the application.
Project Title: 7WA Extension of Service from Uniwristy Park to Kankakee, T1 irois
Project Description (briefly describe the proposed project):
This project will produce a feasibility study for the extension of WThA service from its curreet tenninaticn at Univezity Park to chi.'ntcwn Kankakee. illinois.
PROJECT FUNDING SHARE
Net Project Cost: $ 150,000 Federal Share: $ State Share: $ Local Share $ 75.000
In support of this application, I offer the above data and supporting documents as required. I certify that the statements herein and in the supporting documents are correct and complete.
Name of Authorized Officer: Karl Kruse Signature of Authorized Officer: 21, I Title of Authorized Officer: Otnin, KanJcakee County Board
Date of this
/;
. S 0 COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
r / . _
Present
Abstain
1(fl cf1 T,2A C: ry (Issue)
' I • oaoad ? 9, DrwvWeee ou? L5W14
RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTION 5311 OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ACT OF 1991
WHEREAS, the provision of public transit service is essential to the transportation of persons in the non-urbanized area; and,
WHEREAS, Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act of 1991, makes fund available to help offset certain operating deficits of a system providing public transit service in non-urbanized areas; and,
WHEREAS, grants for said funds will impose certain obligations upon the recipient, including the provision by it of the local share of funds necessary to cover costs not covered by funds provided under Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY:
SECTION 1: That an application be made to the Division of Public Transportation, Department of Transportation, State of Illinois, for a financial assistance grant under Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act of 1991, for the purpose of off-setting a portion of the Public Transportation Program operating deficits of Kankakee County.
SECTION 2: That while participating in said operating assistance program Kankakee County will provide all required local matching funds.
SECTION 3: That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file on behalf of Kankakee County such application.
SECTION 4: That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is authorized to furnish such additional information as may be required by the Division of Public Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration in connection with the aforesaid application for said grant.
SECTION 5: That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file on behalf of Kankakee County all required Grant Agreements with the Illinois Department of Transportation. 1h PASSED and adopted this 8 day of April 2003. /,A J4 L .&==== Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: M~~~Mzm_ Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-759 . I COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
0)1 6311 OAInh ckM1 (Issue)
1615-5- • . 9, oa 42w -a
RE: SOLID WASTE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM FOR JULY 2003 - JUNE 2004
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee finds it to be in the best Interest of Kankakee County to apply for a grant through the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the purpose of funding the Solid Waste Enforcement Program; and,
WHEREAS, such grant, if approved will begin July 1, 2003 and end June 30, 2004 with partial funding from the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; and,
WHEREAS the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois will commit $22,710.00 to the Solid Waste Enforcement if said grant is approved.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that $22,710.00 is allocated for said program out of the County Tipping Fee Fund if said grant is awarded. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003. ,iL- Karl£'j4 A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST: 6 Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-760 . 0 COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
2 NY, '12 Present V '1'
Abstain
a ft-v (Issue) ME 10 9,
2taAe6 OiL f142W14
RE: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH MEADOWS MENNONITE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, D.B.A. SHOWBUS
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee deems it to be in the best interest of Kankakee County to enter into an Agreement with SHOWBUS as the service provider for the purpose of providing rural public transportation in Kankakee County, a copy attached hereto, and referred to as Exhibit A; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois, that the Chairman of said County Board is hereby authorized to sign a contract agreement as referred to above, a copy of which is attached hereto, incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
This resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage in accordance with law.
8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003.
Lia 2 - Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-761 . EXHIBIT A
PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENT
FOR THE RURAL GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION under the SECTION 5311 OPERATING & ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
between
THE COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
and
MEADOWS MENNONITE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY d/b/a SHOW BUS
Contract Number
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2004 S. . .
PURCHASE OF SERVICE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made by and between the COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS, (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee") and the MEADOWS MENNONITE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY (MMRC), doing business as SHOW BUS (hereinafter referred to as the "Provider" which term shall include its successors and assigns.
WHEREAS, the Grantee proposes to provide pubic transportation services in a non-urbanized area of Illinois (herein referred to as the "Project");
WHEREAS, the Grantee has applied under Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended (49USCApp 1614), to the Illinois Department of Transportation (hereinafter"IDOT") for operating and administrative assistance for this Project;
WHEREAS, the Grantee's application has been approved by IDOT;
WHEREAS, the Grantee has made application under the provisions of the Illinois Combined Statutes 20 ILCS 2705/49, el seq. and 30 ILCS 415/2 et seq. (1992 State Bar Addition), herein referred to as the "Acts";
WHEREAS the Provider has been selected by the Grantee to provide public transportation services
WHEREAS such application has been approved by IDOT; and
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Agreement is made to provide for the provision of service, to set forth the terms and conditions upon which the financial assistance will be made available, and to set forth the Agreement of the Parties as to the manner to which the Project will be undertaken, completed and used.
ITEM 1- DEFINITIONS
As used in the Agreement:
1. "Grantee" means the County of Kankakee, Illinois.
2. "IDOT" means the State of Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public Transportation.
3. "FTA" means the Federal Transit Administration of the United States Department of Transportation.
4. "Government" means the government of the United State's of America.
5. "Provider" means a provider of transit service participating in the Section 5311 program and supplying transportation services for the Project under the contract to the Grantee.
6. "Project Costs" means the sum of eligible costs incurred by the Provider and/or its Operator(s) in performing the Project.
7. "USDOT" means the United State's Department of Transportation.
ITEM 2- PROJECT SCOPE
The Provider agrees to provide the public transportation services described in the Grantee's Final Approved Application and Service Plan on file at the [DOT offices. Provider's Service Plan will be incorporated into this Agreement as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof. Provider shall not reduce, terminate, or substantially change such public transportation without the prior written approval of the Grantee.
1719 S • .
ITEM 3- AMOUNT OF CONTRACT
Under the Section 5311 program administered by IDOT, the Grantee may make payments for up to 50% of the Providets eligible operating deficit and up to 80% of the eligible administrative expenses incurred by the Provider during the fiscal year in the provision of the public transportation services approved by the Grantee. In no event shall the Providets payment under this Agreement exceed the total funding available for the Project costs. Total funding for the Project Costs is ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR THOUSAND, TWO-HUNDRED AND SIXTY-TWO AND 00/100 ($134,262.00) DOLLARS.
The Provider agrees that it will assist efforts to provide, from sources other than funds provided under Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, sufficient funds to meet the non-IDOT portion of the operating deficit and administrative costs.
ITEM 4- DOCUMENTS FORMING THIS AGREEMENT
The Parties agree that this constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto, that there are no agreements or understandings, implied or expressed, except as specifically set forth in the Agreement and that all prior arrangements and understandings in the connection are merged into and contained in this Agreement.
The Parties hereto further agree that this Agreement consists of this Part entitled "Purchase of Service Agreement for Rural General Public Transportation", together with Exhibit A, entitled "Provider's Application," Exhibit B, entitled Approved Project Budget," and Exhibit C, entitled "State of Illinois Drug Free Workplace Certification," all of which are by this reference specifically incorporated herein.
ITEM 5-ILLINOIS GRANT FUNDS RECOVERY ACT
This Agreement is subject to the Illinois Grant Funds Recovery Act, 20 ILCS 705/1,et seq. This Agreement is valid until June 30, 2001 and grant funds are available to Provider and may be expended by Provider until said date unless the Grantee, at its discretion, grants an extension of time. Any funds which are not expended or legally obligated by the Provider at the end of the Agreement or by the expiration of the period of time funds are available to expenditure or obligation, whichever is earlier, shall be returned to the Grantee within 45 days. Projectclose-out shall be in accordance with ITEM 14 of this Agreement.
This ITEM is subject to further revision at the sole determination and discretion of the Grantee.
ITEM 6- ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE PROJECT
1. General Requirements - The Provider shall commence, carry on, and complete the Project with all practicable dispatch, in a sound economical, and efficient manner, and in accordance with the provisions hereof, the Service Plan, and all applicable laws and Grantee guidelines.
2. Pursuant to Federal, State, and Local Law - In performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the Provider and its contractors shall comply with all applicable provisions of Federal, State and local law. All limits and standards set forth in this Agreement to be observed in the performance of the Project are minimum requirements and shall not affect the application of more restrictive local standards to the performance of the Project.
3. The Provider agrees that the most recent of such Federal and State requirements will govern the administration of this Agreement at any particular time, except if there is sufficient evidence in the Agreement of a contrary
-3-
/ ,,/ 0 . .
intent. Such contrary intent might be evidenced by a letter signed either by IDOT or FTA, the language of which modifies or otherwise conditions the text of a particular provision of this Agreement. Likewise, new Federal and State laws, regulations, policies and administrative practices may be established after the date the Agreement has been executed and may apply to this Agreement. To achieve compliance with changing Federal and State requirements, the Provider agrees to include in all third party contracts financed with Government (FTA and/or [)OT) assistance, specific notice that Federal and State requirements may change and the changed requirement will apply to the project as required.
4. Project Funds - The Provider shall initiate and prosecute to completion all proceedings necessary to enable the Provider to provide its share of the Project costs at or prior to the time that such funds are needed to meet Project costs.
Changed Conditions Affecting Performance - The Provider shall immediately notify the Grantee of any change in conditions of local law, or of any other event which may significantly affect its ability to perform the Project in accordance with the provisions of this contract.
6. No Government Obligations to Third Parties - The Grantee shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities by contractors of the Provider or their subcontractors or any other person not a party to this contract in connection with the performance of this Project pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement without its specific written consent and notwithstanding its concurrence in or approval of the award of any contract or subcontract or solicitation thereof.
ITEM 7- CONTINUANCE OF SERVICE
The Provider agrees to use its best efforts to continue to provide, either directly or by contract, as the case may be, the service described in the Provider's Final Approved Service Plan. All contracts, except the Public Aid contract which is attached hereto and made a part hereof which has already been entered into by the Provider, must be approved by the Grantee before they are entered into by the Provider. No reductions or termination of such service shall be made without compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. At least 30 days prior to (a) any reduction or termination of such service or (b) the filing of a request for such reduction or termination with the appropriate regulatory agency, whichever comes first, the provider shall give written notice of the proposed action to the Grantee and all units of local government within the Provider's service area.
ITEM 8- USE OF FACILITIES
The Provider agrees that the Project facilities will be used for the provision of transportation service within the Granteds service area substantially as described in the Provider's Final Approved Service Plan. Such facilities shall be used in the provision of said service during the effective period of this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, [DOT, FTA, and Grantee guidelines. If, during such period, such facilities are not used for transportation service at the initiative of the Provider, the Provider shall immediately notify the Grantee.
The Provider shall keep satisfactory records with regard to the use of the facilities and submit to the Grantee upon request such information as is required in order to assure compliance with this Section and shall immediately notify the Grantee in all cases where Project facilities are used in a manner substantially different from that described in the Final Approved Service Plan. The Provider shall maintain in amount and form satisfactory to the Grantee such insurance or self- insurance as will be adequate to Project facilities through the period of required use. The provider shall also submit at the request of the Grantee, upon the forms provided by [DOT, a certification that the Project facilities are being used in accordance with the terms of this ITEM.
/ 7_Q S • .
Encumbrance of Private Properly. Unless expressly authorized in writing by IDOT, the Provider agrees to refrain from:
(a) Executing any transfer of title, lease, lien, pledge, mortgage, encumbrance, contract, grant anticipation note, alienation, or other obligation that in any way would affect the Grantee interest in any Project real property or equipment; or
(b) Obligation itsIf in any manner to any third party with respect to Project real property or equipment.
The Provider agrees to refrain from taking any action or acting in a manner that would adversely affect the Grantee interest or impair the Provider's continuing control over the use of the Project real property of equipment.
ITEM 9- ETHICS
The Provider shall maintain a written code or standard ofconduct which shall govern the performance of its employees, officers, board members or agents engaged in the award and administration of contracts supported by federal or state funds. Such code shall provide that no employee, officer, board member or agent of the Provider may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by federal or state funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict wouldarise when any of the parties set forth below has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award:
(a) The employee, officer, board member, or agent;
(b) Any member of his or her immediate family;
(c) His or her partner; or
(d) An organization that employs, or is about to employ, any of the above.
The conflict of interest requirement for former employees, officers, board members and agents shall apply for one (1) year.
The code shall also provide that the Provider's employees, officers board members or agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties to sub-agreements.
2. Interest of Members of or Delegated to Congress. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part of this Project or derive any benefit therefrom.
Bonus or Commission. The Provider acknowledges that if it is makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification to Grantee in connection with this Project, the Grantee reserves the right to impose on the Provider the penalties of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001,31 U.S.C. Sections 3801,et seq., and 49 U.S.C. app. Section 1607a(h), as IDOT or the Grantee deems appropriate.. The terms of the U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R. Part 31, apply to this Project.
-5-
I S . S
ITEM 10- THE PROJECT BUDGET
Project Budget shall be prepared by the Provider and approved by the Grantee. The Project Budget shall be maintained by the Provider and shall provide the Grantee with a copy. The Provider shall carry out the Project and shall incur obligations against and make disbursements of project fundsonly in conformity with the latest Approved Project Budget. The Project Budget may be revised from time to time, but no Budget or revision thereof shall be effective unless and until the Grantee shall have approved the same.
ITEM 11- ACCOUNTING RECORDS
Project Accounts - The Provider shall establish and maintain as a separate set of accounts, or as an integral part of its current accounting scheme, accounts for the Project in conformity with requirements established by the Grantee.
Funds Received or Made Available for the Project - Provider shall appropriately record in the Project Account, and deposit in a bank or trust company which is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, all Contract payments received by it from the Grantee pursuant to this Contract and all other funds provided for, accruing to, or otherwise received on account of the Project, which Grantee payments and other funds are herein collectively referred to as"Project Funds."
The Provider shall require the depositories of Project Funds to secure continuously and fully all Project Funds in excess of the amounts insured under Federal plans, or under State plans which have been approved for the deposit of the Project Funds by the Grantee, by the deposit or setting aside of collateral of the types and in the manner as described by State law for the security of public funds or as approved by FTA.
The Provider agrees to report to the Grantee quarterly by the thirtieth (30th) day of the month following the reported quarter, and at such other times as the Grantee may prescribe, the amounts recorded in the Project Account.
Eligible Costs - Expenditures made by the Provider shall be reimbursable as eligible costs to the extent they meet all of the requirements set forth below. They must:
(a) be made in conformance with the Final Approved Service Plan and the Approved Project Budget and all other provisions of this contract;
(b) be necessary in order to accomplish the Project;
(c) be reasonable in amount for the goods and services purchased;
(d) be actual net costs to the provider (i.e., the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, orother items of value received by the Provider that have the effect of reducing the cost actually incurred) except as otherwise authorized by the Grantor in writing.
(e) be incurred (and be for work performed) after the date of this Contract, unlessspecflc authorization from the Grantee to the contrary is received;
(f) be in conformance with the standards foraltowability of costs established by the Grantee, IDOl, and FTA, unless specific authorization to the contrary is received from the Grantee, IDOT, and/or the FTA;
(g) be satisfactorily documented; and
S
. . S
(h) be treated uniformly and consistently under accounting principles and procedures approved or prescribed by the Grantee.
However, in the event that it may be impractical to determine exact costs of indirect or service functions, eligible costs will include such allowances for these costs as may be approved by [DOT.
4. Documentation of Project Costs - All costs charged to the Project, including any approved services contributed by the Provider or others, shall be supported by property executed payrolls, time records, invoices, allocation plans, contracts and/or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature and property of the charges.
5. Checks, Orders and Vouchers - Any check or order drawn by the Provider with respect to any item which is or will be chargeable against the Project Account will be drawn only in accordance with a properly signed voucher then on file in the office of the Provider stating in proper detail the purpose of which such check or order is drawn. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, vouchers, orders, allocation plans or other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the Project shall be clearly identified, readily accessible, and to the extent feasible, kept separate and apart from all other such documents.
6. Audit and Inspection Records - The Provider (and its subcontractors) certify that it shall remain, for a minimum of seven (7) years after the completion of the Agreement, adequate books, records, and supporting documents to verify the amounts, recipients, and uses of all disbursements of funds passing in conjunction with the Agreement; the Agreement and all books, records and supporting documents related to the Agreement shall be available for review and audit by the Auditor General, the Grantee and its agents, or the Federal Transit Administration (hereinafter "Auditing Parties"); and the Provider agrees to cooperate fully with any audit conducted by the Auditing Parties and to provide full access to all relevant materials. Failure to maintain the books, records, records and supporting documents required by this section shall establish a presumption in favor of the State and against the Provider for the recovery of any funds paid by the State under the Agreement for which adequate books, records, and supporting documentation are not available to support their purported disbursement.
General Audit and Inspection - The Provider shall permit, and shall require its contractors to permit, the Grantee or any other State or Federal agency authorized to perform such audit or inspection, to inspect all work, materials, payrolls, and other data and records, with regard to the Project. The Provider shall furnish at close- out, or any time prior to close-out as may be requested by the Grantee, audit reports prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles. The Provider agrees to comply promptly with recommendations contained in the Grantee's final audit report. The Grantee shall have final selection and/or approval of an independent auditor for these purposes.
ITEM 12- REQUISITIONS AND PAYMENTS
Requests for Payment by the Provider. The Provider may make requests for payment of eligible costs, and the Grantee shall honor such requests in the manner set forth in this ITEM. On order to receive payments, the Provider must:
(a) completely execute and submit to the Grantee requisition forms supplied by IDOT to the Grantee in accordance with the instructions contained therein;
(b) submit to the Grantee an explanation of the purposes for which costs have been incurred to date or are reasonable expected to be incurred within the requisition period (not more than 30 days after the date of submission); and vouchers, invoices or other documentation to substantiate these costs;
-7-
/ 75 S • S
(c) where local funds are required, demonstrate or certify that it has supplied local funds adequate, when combined with the State payments, to cover all costs to be incurred to the end of the requisition period; and
(d) have submitted all financial and progress reports currently required by the Grantee or ]DOT.
2. Payment by the Grantee - Upon receipt of the requisition form and the accompanying information in satisfactory form, the Grantee shall process the requisition. If the Provider is complying with its obligations pursuant to the contract, has satisfied the Grantee of its need for the funds requested during the requisition period, and is making adequate progress toward timely completion of the project; and if al of these circumstances are found to exist, the Grantee shall reimburse apparent allowable costs incurred (or to be incurred during the requisition period) by the Provider up to the maximum amount payable. However, reimbursement of any cost pursuant to this ITEM shall not constitute a final determination by the Grantee of theallowability of such cost and shall not constitute a waiver of any violation of the terms of this contract committed by the Provider. The Grantee will make a final determination as toallowability only after a final audit of the project has been conducted.
In the event that the Grantee determines that the Provider is not currently eligible to receive any or all of the funds requested, it shall promptly notify the Provider stating the reasons for such determination. If the Provider disagrees with the determination of the Grantee, it may make a written request to the Grantee, within ten (10) days of notice that the requested requisition has been deemed ineligible for reimbursement, to forward the requisition to IDOT for its determination. If afterreview ,IDOT deems that the requisition is an eligible expense and so notifies the Grantee in writing of its decision within 14 days, the requisition shall be reimbursed by Grant funds.
3. Disallowed Costs - In determining the amount payable, the Grantee will exclude costs incurred by the Provider which are not provided for in the latest Approved Project Budget for the Project; and costs attributable to goods or services received under a contract or other arrangement which has not been concurred in or approved in writing by the Grantee.
ITEM 13- RIGHT OF DEPARTMENT TO TERMINATE
Upon written notice to the Provider, the Grantee reserves the right to suspend or terminate all or part of the financial assistance herein provided for when the provider is, or has been in violation of the terms of this contract or when the state determines that the purpose of the Acts would not be adequately served by the continuation of State financial assistance to the project. Any failure to make progress which significantly endangers substantial performance of the Project within a reasonable time shall be deemed to be a violation of the terms of this contract. Termination of any part of the grant will not invalidate obligations properly incurred by the Provider and concurred in by the Grantee prior to the date of termination, to the extent that they are non-cancellable. The acceptance of a remittance of any or all Project payments previously received by the Provider or the closing out of State financial participation in the Project shall not constitute a waiver of any claim which the State may otherwise have arising out of this Contract.
ITEM 14- PROJECT AUDIT
Upon receipt of notice of successful completion of the project or upon termination of the Grantee, the Grantee shall perform a final audit of the Project to determine theallowability of costs incurred, and shall make settlement of the State grant described in this contract. If the Grantee has made payment to the Provider in excess of the total amount of such State grant, the Provider shall promptly remit such excess to the State. The Project close-out occurs when the Grantee notifies the Provider and forwards the final grant payment or when an appropriate refund of State Grant funds has been received from the Provider and acknowledged by the Grantee. Close-out shall be subject to any continuing obligations imposed on the Provider by this contract or contained in the final notification or acknowledgment from the Grantee.
I . . S
ITEM 15- PROJECT SETTLEMENT AND CLOSE-OUT
Provider agrees to initiate and consummate all actions necessary to enable it to enter into this Agreement. Provider warrants that there is no provision of its charter, by-laws or any rules, regulations, or legislation whichprohibits , voids, or otherwise renders unenforceable against Provider any provision or clause of this Agreement. Provider warrants further that it has paid all Federal, State and local taxes levied or imposed and will continue to do so, excepting only those which may be contested in good faith, that Provider has or will obtain all licenses, permits or other authorizations required to meet the obligations assumed hereunder and that Provider will comply with all lawful statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations as may apply to the obligations assumed hereunder.
ITEM 16- CONTRACT OF THE PROVIDER
Except as otherwise provided in the Grantee guidelines or as specifically approved by the Grantee, the Provider shall not execute any contract or obligate itself in any other manner with any third party with respect to the Project. The Provider has made the Grantee aware of a pre-existing contract with the Illinois Department of Public Aid, a copy of which is attached hereto.
ITEM 17- COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Provider agrees to give full opportunity for free, open and competitive bidding for each contract to be let by the Provider calling for construction or furnishing of any materials, supplies, or equipment to be paid for with Project Funds and Provider shall give such publicity in its advertisements or calls for bids for each Contract as will provide adequate competition.
The award of each such Contract shall be made by Provider as soon as practical to the lowest responsible bidder except as otherwise provided in Grantee, IDOT and FTA guidelines.
ITEM 18- THIRD PARTY CONTRACT CHANGES
No change or modification of the scope or cost shall be made to any contract and no work shall commence and no costs or obligations incurred in consequence of such change or modification except as otherwise approved by the Grantee, and where required, until the Approved Project Budget has been amended by the Grantee as may be necessary to provide for such change or modification.
ITEM 19- PRE-BID REVIEW
Except as otherwise provided in Grantee guidelines or as otherwise specifically approved by the Grantee, the Provider agrees that, prior to advertising for any bids for any work to be performed under ITEM 17 - COMPETITIVE BIDDING, the Provider shall submit one copy of each of the proposed contract, plans, specifications, proposed advertisement for bids, and all related bidding documents, to the grantee for approval. The bid invitation or advertisement shall include a statement that the contract to be let is subject to this contract between the Provider and the Grantee.
ITEM 20- ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
The Provider agrees that no contract for construction work or professional or consulting services of any kind in connection with the Project shall be assigned, transferred, conveyed, sublet or otherwise disposed of without the prior written consent of the Grantee.
S
/70 . . .
The Provider agrees that this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred, conveyed, sublet or otherwise disposed of without the prior written consent of the Grantee.
ITEM 21- INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
The Provider agrees to save armless and indemnify the Grantee from any and all losses, expenses, damages (including loss of use), demands and claims and shall defend any suit or action, whether at law or inequity, brought against it based on any such alleged injury (including death) or damage and shall pay all damages judgments, costs, and expenses, including attorney's fees, in connection with said demands and claims resulting therefrom.
The Provider agrees that it will maintain or cause to be maintained, for the duration of the Project, such self-insurance or policies of insurance with limits and upon terms satisfactory to the Grantee as will protect the Provider from any other claims for damages to property or for bodily injury including death, which may arise from or in connection with the operations hereunder by the Provider, or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by or associated with it, and the Provider shall furnish the Grantee with certificate(s) evidencing all such required insurance.
ITEM 22- NON-WAIVER
The Provider agrees that in no event shall any action, including the making by the Grantee of any payment under this Agreement, constitute or be construed as a waiver by the Grantee of any breach of covenant or default on the part of the Provider which may then exist; and any action, including the making of such payment by the Grantee, while any such breach or default shall exist, shall in no way prejudice or impair any right or remedy available to the Grantee in respect to such breach or default. The remedies available to the Grantee under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive. The waiver or exercise of any remedy hereunder or under general principles of law or equity.
ITEM 23- NON-COLLUSION
The Provider warrants that it has not paid and agrees not to pay any bonus, commission, fee, or gratuity for the purpose of obtaining any approval of its application for any grant pursuant to this Agreement. No State officer or employee, or member of the State General Assembly or of any unity of localgovernment which contributes to the Project Funds shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefits arising therefrom.
ITEM 24- INDEPENDENCE OF GRANTEE
In no event shall the Provider or any of its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors be considered agents or employees of either the Grantee or the State. Furthermore, the Provider agrees that none of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors will hold themselves out as, or claim to be, agents, officers, or employees of the Grantee or the State, and will not by reason of any relationship with the Contract make any claim, demand, or application to or for any right or privilege applicable to an agent, officer, or employee of the Grantee or State including but not limited to, rights and privileges concerning workmerls compensation and occupational diseases coverage, unemployment compensation benefits, Social Security coverage or retirement membership or credit.
ITEM 25- LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE
The Provider agrees to comply with the Labor Law Compliance provisions of the Federal Capital Grant Contract pertaining to the Project, if any, and all applicable State and federal laws and regulations including, but no limited to, the following: laws and regulations relating to minimum wages to be paid to employees, limitations upon the employment
- 10-
I 7g S • S of minors, and health and safety of employees.
The Provider also agrees to require any contractor doing construction work or performing professional or consulting service in connections with the project to agree to such compliance.
ITEM 26- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
In addition to compliance with the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity provisions outlined in 49 CFR 23 and 49 CFR 21 and the applicable federal disability requirements, the Provider shall comply with the"Equal Employment Opportunity Clause" required by the Illinois Human Rights Commission. It is understood that the term"Contractor" as used in this clause shall also mean "Provider".
"EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CLAUSE" required by the Illinois Human Rights Commission's Rules and Regulations as a material term of all public contracts (Section 6.1):
In the event of the Contractor's non-compliance with any provisions of this Equal Employment Opportunity Clause, the Illinois Human Rights Act Rules and regulations of the Illinois Department of Human Rights ('Department'), the contractor may be declared ineligible for future contracts or subcontracts with the Grantee, the State of Illinois or any of its political subdivisions or municipal corporations, and the contract may be canceled or voided in whole or in part, and such other sanctions or penalties may be imposed or remedies invoked as provided by statute or regulation. During the performance of this contract, the Provider agrees as follows: -
That it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of races, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap unrelated to ability, or an unfavorable discharge from military service; and further that it will examine all job classifications to determine if minority persons or women are under-utilized and will take appropriate affirmative action to rectify any such under-utilization.
That, if it hires additional employees in order to perform this contract or any portion thereof, it will determine the availability (in accordance with the Departments Rules and Regulations) of minorities and women in the area(s) from which it may reasonably recruit and it will hire for each job classification for which employees are hired in such a way that minorities and women are not under- utilized.
3. That, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by it or on its behalf, it will state that all applicants will be afforded equal opportunity without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, physical or mental handicap unrelated to ability, or an unfavorable discharge from military service.
That it will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which it has or is bound by a collective bargaining or other agreement or understanding, a notice advising such labor organizations or representative of the contractor's obligations under the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Department's Rules and Regulations. If any such labor organization or representative fails or refuses to cooperate with the contractor in its efforts to comply with such Act and Rules and Regulations, the contractor will promptly notify the Department and the contracting agency will recruit employees from other sources when necessary to fulfill its obligations thereunder.
5. That it will submit reports as required by the Departmenfs Rules and Regulations, furnish all relevant information as may from time to time be requested by the Department or the contracting agency, and in all respects comply with the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Departments rules and regulations.
'7? . S I
That it will permit access to all relevant books, records, accounts, and work sites by personnel of the contracting agency and the Department for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Departments rules and regulations.
That it will include verbatim or by reference the provisions of this clause in every subcontract it awards under which any portion of the contract obligations are undertaken or assumed, so that such provisions will be binding upon such subcontractor. In the same manner as with other provisions of this contract, the contractor will be liable for compliance with applicable provisions of this clause by such subcontractors; and further it will promptly notify the contracting agency and the Department in the event any subcontractor fails or refuses to comply therewith. In addition, the contractor will not be ineligible for contracts or subcontracts with the State of Illinois or any of its political subdivisions or municipal corporations.
As of July 1, 1993, the Provider shall have written sexual harassment policies that shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
(a) The illegality of sexual harassment;
(b) The definition of sexual harassment;
(c) A description of sexual harassment, utilizing examples;
(d) The Provider's internal complaint process including penalties;
(e) The legal recourse, investigative, and complaint process available through the Department of Human Rights and the Human Rights Commission;
(f) Directions on how to contact the Department and Commission; and
(g) Protection against retaliation as provided by Section 6-101 of the Illinois Human Rights Act. A copy of the policies shall be provided to the Department upon request.
With respect to the two types of subcontracts referred under paragraph 7 of the Equal Employment Opportunity clause above, following is an excerpt of Section 1.1 of the Illinois Human Rights Commissions rules and regulations for Public Contracts:
Section 1.1(17): the term "Subcontrace' means any agreement, arrangement or understanding, written or otherwise between a contractor and any person (in which the parties do not stand in the relationship of any employer and an employee):
(a) For the furnishing of supplies or services or for the use of real or personal property, including lease arrangements, which, in whole or in part, is utilized in the performance or any one or more contracts; or,
(b) Under which any portion of the contractoi's obligation under any one or more contracts is performed, undertaken, or assumed.
- 12 -
/&
. . .
ITEM 27— PAYMENT \VITHOLDING, DELAY, TERMINATION, AND RECALL
Upon the occurrence of any condition or conditions listed in this ITEM, the parties agree that the Grantee, by written notice to the Provider, may in elect to withhold or delay payment as provided in the Approved Project Budget, or any portion thereof; or, if payment or payments have already been made pursuant hereto, to recall such payment or payments or any portion thereof. The Provider agrees that upon receipt of such notice of recall the Provider shall immediately return such Contract payment or payments, or any portion thereof, which the Provider has received pursuant hereto.
The forgoing remedies shall become available to the Grantee if:
There is any misrepresentation of a material nature in the Providei's Application, or amendment thereof, or in respect to this Agreement or any document or data furnished pursuant hereto, or any other submission of the Provider required by the Grantee in connection with the Agreement;
2. There is pending litigation which, in the opinion of the Grantee, mayjeopordize the Grant of this Agreement;
There has been, in connection with the Contract, any violation of State or Federal regulations, ordinances or statutes applicable to the Provider, its officersor employees which, in the opinion of the Grantee, affects this Agreement;
4. Any contributions provided by the State pursuant to the Agreement are used for an ineligible purpose;
The Provider is unable to substantiate the proper use of Project funds, facilities, and equipment provided pursuant to the Agreement; or
6. The Provider shall be in default with any of the provisions of this Agreement.
ITEM 28— SEVERABILITY
The parties agree that if any provision of this Agreement is held invalid for any reason whatsoever, the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby if such remainder would then continue to conform to the purposes, terms and requirements of applicable law.
ITEM 29— PATENT RIGHTS
Any patentable results arising out of this Agreement, as well as all information, design, specifications, know-how data, and findings shall be made available to the United States of America and to the State for public use, unless the Parties shall determine, in a specific case where it is legally permissible, that it is in the public interest that it not be so made available.
ITEM 30— AMENDMENT
The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any Exhibits or Attachments hereto, shall be of any force or effect unless the amendment is dated, reduced to writing, executed by both parties, and attached to and made part of this Agreement. No work shall be commenced and no costs or obligations incurred in consequence of any amendment to this Agreement or any attachments hereto unless and until such amendment has been executed and made a part of this Agreement and the Approved Project Budget has been amended to confirm thereto.
- 13-
1191 S . .
ITEM 31—TITLES
The parties agree that the titles of the items of this Agreement, hereinabove set forth, are inserted for convenience of identification only and shall not be considered for any other purpose.
ITEM 32— SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS
Provider agrees not to engage in school bus operations exclusively for the transportation of students and school personnel in competition with private school bus operators where such private school bus operators are able to provide adequate transportation at reasonable rates, in conformance with applicable safety standards, provided that this requirement shall not apply to a grantee which operates a school system in the area to be served and operates a separate and exclusive school bus program for the school system (see Section 49.19(13), Civil Admin. Code of IL.).
ITEM 33- NON-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Pursuant to Department of Labor regulations, "Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contracts Covering Federally Financed and Assisted Construction (also Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Non-Construction Contracts Subject to the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act), "29 CFR Part 5, the following provisions shall be incorporated in all non-construction contracts of $2,500 let by the Provider for the Project:
Non-Construction Contracts - The requirements of the clauses contained in 29 CFR Sec. 5.5(b) are applicable to any contract subject to the Overtime Provisions of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and not to any of the other statutes cited in 29 CFR Section 5.1. The Provider's contractor or subcontractor shall maintain basic payroll records during the course of the work and shall preserve them for a period of three (3) years from the completion of the contract for all laborers and mechanics, including guards and watchmen, working on the contract. Such records shall contain the name and address of each such employee, social security number, correct classification, hourly rates of wages paid, daily and weekly number of hours worked, deductions made, and actual wages paid. The records to be maintained under this clause shall be made available by the contractor or subcontractor for inspection, copying, or transcription by authorized representatives of IDOT, FTA, U.S. DOT, or the Department of Labor, and the contractor or subcontractor will permit such representatives to interview employees during working hours on the job.
The provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, apply to State and local government employees participating in the FTA assisted project with the Provider.
ITEM 34— SUBSTANCE ABUSE
The Provider agrees to comply with the Illinois (30 ILCS 580/1 and U.S. DOT Drug Free Workplace Acts, and U.S. DOT regulations, "Drug Free Worplace Requirements (Grants)", 49 C.F.R. Part 29, Sub-Part F, and other U.S. DOT and FTA regulations and guidance pertaining to substance abuse (drugs and alcohol) that may be promulgated, and has signed the Drug Free Workplace Certification attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C.
ITEM 35— PREFERENCE FOR RECYCLED PRODUCTS
The Provider agrees to give preference to the purchase of recycled products for use in this Project pursuant to the various Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines contained to 40 C.F.R Parts 247-254.
- 14-
/
. . .
ITEM 36— DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
The Provider agrees to obtain certifications on debarment and suspension from its third party contractors and sub- recipients and otherwise comply with governmental regulations.
ITEM 37— ENVIRONMENTAL, RESOURCE CONSERVATLONS, AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
The Provider recognizes that many Federal and State statutes imposing environmental, resourceconservation, and energy requirements may apply to the Project. Accordingly, the Provider agrees to adhere to, and impose on its sub-recipients, any such Federal and State requirements, as the government may now or in the future promulgate. The Provider expressly understands that this list does not constitute the Provide?s entire obligation to meet Federal requirements.
Environmental Protection - To the extent applicable, the Provider agrees to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 432 1çg.; Section 1610; the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et seq.; and the joining FHWAIFTA regulations, "Environmental Impact and Related Procedure', at 23 C.F.R. Part 771.
2. Air Quality - The Provider agrees to comply with applicable requirements of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, "Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act, "40 GFR Part 51, Sub-Part 1; and Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State and Federal Implementation Plans: 40 GFR Part 93. To support the requisite air quality conformity finding for the project, the Provider agrees to implement each air quality mitigation and control measure incorporated in the project. The Provider agrees that any project identified in an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) as a Transportation Control Measure, will be wholly consistent with the description of the design and scope of the project set forth in the SIP.
EPA also imposes requirements pertaining to the Clean Air Act, as amended, that may apply to transit operators, particularly operators of large transit fleet buses, thus, the Provider should be aware that the following EPA regulations, among others, may apply to its project: "Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines," 40 CFR Part 85; "Control of Air Pollution from New and [n-Use Motor Vehicles and New and In-Use Motor Vehicles Engines: Certification and Test Procedures;' 40 CFR Part 86, and "Fuel Economy of Motor Vehicles," 40 CFR Part 600.
Use of Public Lands - No publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or water fowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, or any land from an historical site of national, State, or local significance may be used for the project unless specific findings required by 49 U.S.0 Section 303 are made by the U.S. DOT.
4. Historic Preservation - The Provider agrees to assist the Government to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.0 Section 470 (f).
5. Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Effects - Should the proposed project cause adverse environmental effects, the Provider agrees to take all reasonable steps to minimize such effects pursuant to 49 U.S.0 app. Section 1610, all other applicable statutes and procedures set forth in 23 C.F.R. Part 771 and 49 C.F.R Part 622.
ITEM 38- CHARTER SERVICE OPERATIONS
The provider may not engage in charter service operations except as provided under Section 3(f) of the Federal Transit Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. app Section 1602(1), and FTA regulations "Charter Service," 49 C.F.R. Part 604. Any charter service agreement entered into under these regulations is incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
- 15-
/ . 0 .
ITEM 39- PRIVACY
Should the Provider, or any of its subcontractors, or their employees, administer any system of records on behalf of the Federal Government, the privacy Act of 1974 (The Act), 5 U.S.C., Section 552a, imposes information restrictions on the party managing the system of records.
ITEM 40- MATCHING FUNDS
It is expressly agreed by the Provider that it will assist in fund-raising efforts to raise matching funds required of the Grantee in the Grantee's "Non-Urbanized Area Transportation Project Agreement for Operating Assistance' entered into with the State of Illinois.
ITEM 41- FUNDING DELAY
It is expressly agreed between the parties that if any delay occurs in providing Federal or State funding to the Provider, there is absolutely no obligation on the part of the Grantee to fund the Providei's program hereunder. If the "Non- Urbanized Area Transportation Project Agreement for Operating Assistance' entered into by and between the Grantees and the State of Illinois is terminated, then this Agreement is immediately null and void. Further, if there is any delay in funding from the aforesaid Agreement, the Grantee may suspend services contemplated hereunder.
ITEM 42- MARKETING PLAN
The Provider shall provide a written, annual marketing plan to the Grantee for approval. The Provider shall be responsible for implementation of the approved marketing plan and the Grantee may assist in the marketing efforts.
ITEM 43- REPORTS
Vehicle Reports - At the onset of the Project, the Provider shall provide to the County a report on the conditions of the vehicles to be used for the Project. The Provider shall keep maintenance logs for all of the vehicles, and maintain said reports for the life of each vehicle. The Provider shall make the logs available for inspection and review by the Grantee and/or IDOT. The Provider shall make recommendations to the Grantee when the Provider deems that a vehicle should be replaced. The Provider may complete a capital grant application, if Grantee gives express permission for the Provider to do so, and all such grant applications must be approved by the Grantee prior to submission.
2. Riders/up Reports - The Provider shall also provide quarterly ridership reports to the Grantee. Ridership reports shall include the number of one way passenger trips, points of pick-up and destination.
Allocation Plans and Reports - The Provider shall maintain a time and cost allocation plans for goods, services, personal which are not used or funded solely for or by Project funds. These plans shall be subject to audit and inspection pursuant to criteria enumerated in ITEM 11 herein.
ITEM 44-OFFICE, BASE OF OPERATIONS
The Provider agrees to maintain an office, its base of operations, and vehicle storage for this Project within the County of Kankakee, Illinois
- 16-
In,', . . .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have cause this Agreement, effective July 1, 2003 and expires June 30, 2004, to be made effective and executed as of the day of April, 2003, by their respective duly authorized officials.
Provider's Name and Address Grantee's Name and Address
Meadows Mennonite Retirement Community Kankakee County Board cl/b/a SHOWBUS Kankakee County Administration Building R.R. #1, Box 310 189 E. Court Street, Suite 502 Chenoa, IL 61726 Kankakee, IL 60901
By: ,, ROBERT 0. BERTSCHE, C.E.O KARLZn KRUSE,z Z. Chairman
Attest: Attest:
By:______By: 64,-r-, ccz,- Secretary BRUCE CLARK, County Clerk
- 17-
/- . 01 S COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
' sLc\J( toyffac+ - (Issue)
/, • 9,
aAe O4
RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR AND EXECUTION OF A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL ASSISTANCE GRANT UNDER THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S GENERAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE SUCH GRANTS
WHEREAS, the provision of specialized paratransit service is essential to the transportation of elderly, disabled and other transportation disadvantaged persons; and,
WHEREAS, the Illinois Department of Transportation's general authority to make such Grants, makes funds available to offset certain capital costs of a private non-profit or a IDOT Certified Public Provider transportation system providing specialized paratransit service; and,
WHEREAS, grants for said funds will impose certain obligations upon the recipient.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY:
SECTION 1. That an application be made to the Division of Public Transportation, Department of Transportation, State of Illinois, for a financial assistance grant under the Illinois Department of Transportation's general authority to make such Grants, for the purpose of off-setting certain Elderly and Disabled Transportation Program capital costs of Kankakee County.
SECTION 2. That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file such application on behalf of Kankakee County.
SECTION 3. That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is authorized to furnish such additional information as may be required by the Division of Public Transportation in connection with the aforesaid application for said grant.
SECTION 4. That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file on behalf of Kankakee County any grant agreement pursuant to said application.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003. ,j4z- ,L Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-762
Ic,,, S S S COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
(Issue) 'J'0 Yri'
/ I'
Ri/WJitiYJi
RE: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A LETTER TO THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTING THAT THE HIGH SPEED RAIL ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT THAT PASSES THROUGH KANKAKEE COUNTY REMAIN AN ACTIVE ALIGNMENT IN THE ANALYSIS
WHEREAS, the Illinois Department of Transportation has been engaged in the study of alternative alignments for the provision of High-Speed Rail service from St. Louis to Chicago since the early 1990's; and,
WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Study for the High Speed rail study shows major infrastructure improvement between St. Louis and Dwight, Illinois, along the existing Amtrak service route; and,
WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Study shows three alternative alignments for High Speed Rail service between Dwight and Chicago, one of which uses the Norfolk Southern tracks from the western Kankakee County border to downtown Kankakee, and the Canadian National tracks from downtown Kankakee to the northern Kankakee County border; and,
WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Study shows no recommendations among the three alternative alignments north of Dwight; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning and Agriculture Committee at its April 2, 2003 meeting voted to authorize the Chairman of the Kankakee County Board to send a letter to the Illinois Department of Transportation to request that the Kankakee County alignment remain an active alignment in the continued Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee, Illinois, that the Chairman of said County Board is hereby authorized to:
Sign a letter to the Illinois Department of Transportation requesting that the Kankakee County Alternative alignment for High Speed Rail still be considered an active alternative.
This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage in accordance with law.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-763 /?q K*KAKEE COUNTY BARD
189 East Court Street, Suite 502 Kankakee, Illinois 60901 Telephone: (815) 937-3642 • Fax: (815)937-3918
April 8, 2003
Mr. Frank Harti High Speed Rail Manager Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Railroads 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764
Dear Mr. Hart!:
Thank you for making the presentation on High Speed Rail to the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee of the Kankakee County Board on April 2, 2003. We appreciated your information and insight.
We further appreciate your extending the time for public comment on the Environmental Impact Statement for the High Speed Rail study to April 15, 2003 for comments from Kankakee County.
The County Board members authorized a letter be sent expressing the desire that the High Speed Rail alternative that uses the Norfolk Southern and Canadian National railroad tracks through Kankakee County remain as an active alternative of your study.
Please consider this letter an expression of the desire of the Kankakee County Board that the Kankakee alternative, using the Norfolk Southern and Canadian National railroad alignments, be continued as an active alternative of the High Speed Rail Study.
Thank you once again for your presentation.
Sincerely,
1!
Karl Kruse County Board Chairman
196 S 0 S COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
ch is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
2C (:( 2 I (Issue)
Jcjj • A Ioad S
DrwvWeee 0114 LfI42W(A
RE: APPOINTMENT OF A SUB-COMMITTEE TO EXPLORE RESOLUTION OF LANDFILL ISSUES WITH THE CITY OF KANKAKEE
WHEREAS, the City of Kankakee initiated and requested a meeting with County officers to explore the possibility of mutual resolution of landfill issues affecting the respective jurisdictions.
WHEREAS, a motion before the Planning-Zoning-Agriculture Committee to form a sub- committee to explore the possibility of resolution of landfill issues affecting the jurisdictions is sent to the County Board without recommendation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a sub-committee be and is hereby formed to explore resolution of landfill issues with City of Kankakee officials, with the understanding that any final resolution must first be approved by the Kankakee County Board.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board Chairman shall appoint the sub-committee members. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003.
_'Z jz'l Z:a Karl A. ruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-764
/- -' S 0 S COMMITTEE REPORT,
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Present
Abstain
(Issue) • o4i& A (a 1Eoad S 9,
DrWV666e (aouq, fl4
RE: AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION RETAINING AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR SPECIAL COUNSEL
WHEREAS, the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois adopted Resolution Number 01-11-28-418 authorizing the retention of attorney Charles Heiston, of Hinshaw and Culbertson for the following limited purposes:
1. To negotiate, on behalf of the County Board, an "Amended and Restated Host Community Agreement, for Kankakee county with Waste Management; and 2. To provide legal assistance, consultation and legal support to the County Board on questions and issues incidental to the negotiation and completion of this contract governing the lateral expansion of the landfill.
WHEREAS, further, by said Resolution the County Board funds from the Garbage Tipping Fee Fund for payment of legal fees incurred, and that said appointment as Special Counsel was to terminate at noon, December 28, 2001.
WHEREAS, by further resolution adopted January 8, 2002, extended the employment of Charles Helston, of the law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, as special counsel for the county.
WHEREAS, the Planning Zoning and Agriculture Committee recognizes the need for legal expertise on behalf of the County in landfill matters pending, including litigation pending before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Pollution Control Board and the recently filed Second Town & County Siting Application with the City of Kankakee, Illinois and the defense of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan.
WHEREAS, it is recommended that Charles Helston's appointment as Special Counsel be extended to represent the County in all landfill related matters, including but not limited to the defense of the County's Solid Waste Management Plan and further to authorize attorney Charles Helston and Hinshaw & Culbertson to do all things as in its discretion it deems necessary, including the hiring of engineers and other experts.
WHEREAS, it is recommended that the legal fees for services provided by Mr. Helston, Hinshaw and Culbertson, be paid for from the Garbage Tipping Fee Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that: 1. Attorney Charles Heiston's appointment as Special Counsel be and is hereby extended for the following purposes:
a. to provide legal defense, assistance, consultation and legal support to the County Board on questions and issues incidental to the solid waste ordinance, and to represent the County in all landfill related matters including those now pending before the Illinois Appellate Court, the Illinois Pollution Control Board, and the City of Kankakee;
/577 . S S b. To represent Kankakee County throughout the siting hearing process during the Town & Country Siting hearing before the Kankakee City Counsel and to provide legal assistance, consultation, and legal support to the County Board on questions and issues incidental to the siting of a landfill in Kankakee County; and
c. To authorize attorney Charles Helston and Hinshaw & Culbertson to do all things as in its discretion it deems necessary, including the hiring of engineers and other experts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that legal fees payable to Charles Heiston, Hinshaw and Culbertson, Attorneys at Law, for services performed shall be paid from the Garbage Tipping Fee Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER that the appointment of Charles Helston as special counsel shall terminate as determined by the State's Attorney of Kankakee County.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
/Z- J/-,/- /- - - . - Karl A. Kruse,- Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-765
/ 55- COMMITTEE REPORT
Planning-Zoning-Agriculture
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
(Issue) O JO4dbV 9/0 Eoad S
r aaAee cOII4 W4W
RE: REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING FUND ACCOUNT FROM THE ANIMAL CONTROL FUND
WHEREAS, the Animal Control Department has an equity balance sheet account titled "Building Fund" that shows a credit balance in the amount of $150,000.
WHEREAS, the credit balance in the amount of $150,000 is a reserved equity entry that has no relationship to cash on hand.
WHEREAS, inasmuch as said Building Fund account has no cash value, the County Auditor recommends that the County Board remove, the credit balance from the Building Fund Account (680-29000) from the Animal Control FY 2002-2003 balance sheet and any subsequent years.
WHEREAS, at its March 25, 2003 meeting, the Finance-Purchase-Audit Committee voted to concur with the recommendation of the Auditor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois that the Building Fund existing credit balance for the Animal Control Fund be removed for FY 2002-2003 and any subsequent years and that the County Officers be and are hereby directed to implement said change.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
)/,"t-- Jel, Z- — —, Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-766 Kankakee County Auditors Office Normal Trial Balance 680 - Animal Control From 12/1/2001 Through 2/21/2003
Account Code Account Title Debit Balance Credit Balance
10142 Federated Bank-Special Funds 11,679.88 10150 Cash 9,777.54 10860 [L.Funds-Var.Accts-71391 53766 88,147.36 14200 Fixed Assets 95,984.46 15160 AccDepreciation-Infrastructure 47,706.93 20100 Accounts Payable 6,361.94 20400 Accrued Vac/Comp Time 607:32 27000 Fund Balance 9,772.71 29000 Building Fund 150,000.00 30382 Village Contract Fee 36,727.50 30454 Animal Control Fee 74,573.50 30456 AC Registration Fee 162,875.00 30458 AC Micro Chip Fee 9,565.00 30472 Donations 3,455.00 30600 Interest Income-Checking 248.90
30610 Interest Income - Investments 1,472.10 30640 Miscellaneous Income 3,026.50 50105 Appointed Official 34,139.48 50110 Chiefs/Management 122,788.53 50120 Office Personel 19,678.40 50195 Veterinary Staff 13,184.00 50215 OverTime 11,254.70
52600 Water & Sewer 2,939.91 52650 Heat 2,656.26 52700 Electricity 4,489.87 52750 Telephone 2,280.74
52800 Mobile Telephone / Pagers 1,099.88 53100 Misc. Claims 340.00 53300 Office Bonds 200.00 53400 Bank Charges 585.00
54550 Uniforms / Service 226.46 55520 Travel Mileage 190.80 55530 Conferences 650.82 55650 Postage and Freight 6,161.37
• 55700 Publications 1,645.41 55800 Printing 950.15
• 55850 Training 145.00 55950 Membership Dues 40.00 56200 Maintenance Contracts 256.48 56800 Office Supplies 1,182.61 56850 Misc. Supplies 1,867.52
• 58860 Food 505.74 59200 Pound Operations 7,884.01
59210 Voucher - SpayingfNeutering 19,533.50 59220 Dog Tag/Forms 10,761.31 59230 Veterinarian 5,795.13 81300 Vehicle/Fuel 3,084.22
81400 Auto - Preventitive Maintenanc 2,582.07 86000 Computer Software/Equipment 2,158.37
Report Total 496,619.69 496,619.69
Report Difference 0.00 S S ~- I COMMITTEE REPORT
Finance-Purchase-Audit
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Ayes Nays /) Q L , 1
( Present
Abstain
/97 O oapEoad S
alcee Ofl54 LtW
RE: AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR THE RECORDER COMPUTER FUND
WHEREAS, the Recorder of Deeds has requested a budget amendment for $100,000 additional in the Recorder Computer Fund for procurement of software and hardware.
WHEREAS, inasmuch as said funds are not accounted for in the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget as adopted by the County Board, the County Auditor recommends that the County Board amend the budget.
WHEREAS, the County Auditor recommends that the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget be amended as follows:
Recorder Computer Fund Department 220 be amended as follows Travel Mileage 220-150-55520 $3,000 Conferences 220-150-55530 $3,000 Maintenance Contracts 220-150-56200 $3,000 Misc. Services 220-150-56400 $3,000 Office Supplies 220-150-56800 $3,000 Computer Software/Equip 220-150-86000 $85,000
WHEREAS, at its March 25, 2003 meeting, the Finance-Purchase-Audit Committee voted to concur with the recommendation of the Auditor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois that the FY 2002-2003 Budget for the Recorder of Deeds office shall be amended as provided above and that the County Officers be and are hereby directed to implement said budget amendment.
PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003.
Karl A. Kruse, C airman
ATTEST: IA's, cd-t'/' Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-767
. . S COMMITTEE REPORT
Finance-Purchase-Audit
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted:
Nays
Present
Abstain
p Q L(fl,L( (Issue) 9, gankaAee oa ffLiwi.
RE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR AND EXECUTION OF A PSAP EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY GRANT THROUGH THE PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION OF AMERICA
WHEREAS, the Kankakee County GIS Task Force, the Kankakee County 911 Board and the Assessment-County Clerk-Recorder-Treasurer committee believes it is in the best interest of Kankakee County to apply for a grant from the Public Safety Foundation of America for $300,000.
WHEREAS, said grant would allow the Kankakee County 911 to more accurately identify and locate a specific address using the address points, as well as to locate a Phase II wireless call by using the coordinates of the points that will be located at every intersection in the county.
WHEREAS, said grant requires a ten percent local match and the 911 Board has agreed to pay five percent which amounts to $15,000 and the Assessment-County Clerk- Recorder-Treasurer committee recommends that the County Board approve the remaining five percent match for $15,000.
WHEREAS, the County Board match of $15,000 will be paid for out of the GIS Fund
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That an application be made to the Public Safety Foundation of America for the purpose of more accurately identifying and locating a specific address using the address points. 2. That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County, Karl A. Kruse, is authorized to furnish such additional information as may be required by the Public Safety Foundation of America in connection with the previously mentioned application for said grant. 3. That the Board Chairman of Kankakee County, Karl A. Kruse, is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file on behalf of Kankakee County any grant agreement pursuant to said application. 4. Local County match up to $15,000 may be expended from GIS Funds. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003.
,~ J /' - /,— —e Karl A. Kruse, airman
ATTEST: A,t— c4z Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-768 . S S
Public Safety Foundation of America
Pre-application Questionnaire
A Pre-application Questionnaire will be required prior to submitting an application to verify applicant's project/program is within the Foundation funding priorities. This will assure that the applicant does not expend resources completing an application with minimal likelihood of approval. Any additional information that makes the project unique or enhances its importance should also be included. A copy of the Pre-application Questionnaire can also be obtained by contacting the PSFA Grants & Programs office at (386) 322-2500. After the Pre-application process, you will be assigned a Grant Application Number and provided a formal Grant Application package. Please refer to the Grant Application Number whenever corresponding with the Foundation.
Please complete the information in the spaces provided and email this form to PSFA(APC091 1 org or mail the form to Public Safety Foundation of America, Program Officer, 351 North Williamson Blvd. Daytona Beach, FL 32114. PH: 386-322-2500 Fax: 386-994-2730. (The box size in the discussion areas will expand to allow you to enter additional text as required)
Agency Name: Kankakee County 911; Tammy Peterson, Coordinator Address: 189 E. Court St.
City Kankakee State IL Zip Code 60901 Phone: 815-937-3915 Email tpeterson(äk3county.net
Project Name: Kankakee County 911 Addressing
Description of the Project: (Include a justification why additional funding is necessary.) . 0 .
Create two Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers, that would include an address point for every addressable structure inside of Kankakee County, Illinois (approximately 40,000 points) and a point at ever intersection that would be attributed with the coordinates that would be used to respond to Phase II wireless calls, as well as GIS related software that would allow the Kankakee County 911 personnel to use the data. At present time the Kankakee County 911 is using a system that queries a street centerline data layer, which will give you the proportion down a certain segment that an address 'should' be. The problem being that the proportion and the actual location of the address is not always the same, which could send an emergency response team to the wrong location. The proposed system, which would include the creation of address points, would allow the Kankakee County 911 system to query for an exact address. This address would be identified in the database, and then located on the map, which would include being displayed on aerial photography, parcel ownership boundaries, and the existing street centerline data. When a Phase II wireless call comes in the data would be queried to locate the closest point in the system to the coordinates of the incoming Phase H wireless call. This would give the emergency response team a clear and accurate picture of the location of the response. Currently Kankakee County 911 does not have the funding to allow for this project for several years. With funding from PSFA this project could be completed in within 6-9 months of implementation. Funding Request— Amount Requested: (Including any past appropriations and the total cost to complete the project. Please identify other sources of funding like private contributions and/or state and local assistance. Include telephone surcharges.) Kankakee County 911 is requesting a total of $300,000 for this project. That would include $240,000 for the address point creation, $30,000 for the intersection data creation that would contain coordinate information, and $30,000 for the acquisition of software. At this point the Kankakee County GIS has contributed the development of updated aerial photography at a cost of $105,825 as well as the parcel ownership lines, which as still being developed at a cost of over $400,000. The current 911 surcharge is $1.00 per network connection for landlines, and .48 cents per cell phone for all bills delivered in Kankakee County. Please list all counties or jurisdictions to be included in your project application: Kankakee County, Illinois Specifically identify how the project fits within the funding criteria: The development of GIS data, and the acquisition of GIS software would fit into the PSFA funding criteria outlined in PSAP Equipment and Technology. This is an advanced technology that would allow the Kankakee County 911 to more accurately identify and locate a specific address using the address points, as well as to locate a Phase II wireless call by using the coordinates of the points that will be located at every intersection in the county.
2 . 0
Public Safety Foundation of America Grant Application
Application Number: IL-103-0079
Section One ORGANIZATION DATA (Please type or print to complete this form)
Applicant Organization (Legal Name): Kankakee County 911 Street Address: 2380 W Station Street City: Kankakee State: IL Zip: 60901 County: Kankakee E-mail: [email protected] Web site: None Phone: 815 937 3915 Fax: (815 ) 935-3370 Tax ExemDt ID number (EIN: E9995986003 Agency Director: Tammy Peterson Direct Phone: (815) 937-3915 Organization's Budgeted Expenses for Current Year: $2,081,845 Oraanization's Maior Fundina Sources: 9-1-1 Surcharae and Communications Service Fees
Request Data Program/Project Title: Kankakee County 911 Addressing Total Budget for this Program/Project: $300,000 Amount of this request: $270,000 Proposal contact person information: Tammy Peterson Title: 911 Coordinator Phone: (815)937-3915 Fax: (815) 935-3370 E-mail: [email protected]
Community/Counties served by this Program/Project: Kankakee County, Illinois
Brief demographic description of population served by this Program/Project: Kankakee County, Illinois covers approximately 677 square miles of land. The 2000 Census put the population of Kankakee County at 108,833 which is a 7.9% increase from the 1990 Census
Type of request, as defined on page 3 of the Grant Guidelines (check the ONE most appropriate) • Planning and Coordination © PSAP Equipment and Technology • Strategic Deployment Initiatives © Education
Agency Director: Signature (date)
S 0 . Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present D C) a€J (7
Abstain
Re: 9, SaAee #/4w/..
RE: CONTRACT WITH BRUCE HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Kankakee County GIS Task Force met on March 18, 2003 to consider contracting for aerial photography.
WHEREAS, proposals were received and reviewed by the GIS Task Force committee.
WHEREAS, it was determined by the GIS Task Force and the Chief County Assessment Official's County Board Committee that Bruce Harris & Associates, Inc., 21 North River Street, Batavia, Illinois 60510, be awarded the aerial photographic services contract.
WHEREAS, Bruce Harris & Associates will be sub-contracting with Ayres Associates to conduct photographic services for an amount not to exceed $36,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois, that Bruce Harris & Associates be and they are hereby awarded the GIS aerial photographic services contract effective this day pursuant to the terms of the contract in an amount not to exceed $36,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois that the Chairman of the Board be and he is hereby authorized to sign the contract hereby attached and marked Exhibit A. 81h PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003
/-4 - -14 L - , Karl A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-769
2O 7 ~~ B~I 114W. .. Bruce Harris & Associates, Inc. Complete Mapping Services
March 26, 2003
Ms. Sheila Donahoe Supervisor of Assessments Kankakee County 189 East Court Street Kankakee, IL 60901
Dear Sheila:
Bruce Hams & Associates is pleased to submit our contract to provide high flight digital orthophotography for Kankakee County. The new aerial imagery will be used in conjunction with the Kankakee County GIS project. This photography will be produced, and the proper ground control established, to assure a seamless orthophoto base map covering the entire County.
Our fee outlined in the contract is a not to exceed dollar amount. Upon approval by the Kankakee County Board, please sign and return both copies to us. We will countersign and return a fully executed copy to you for your files.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service and look forward to the continuing progress of the Kankakee County GIS project. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Bruce Harris President
BHIjp Enc.
21 North River Street • Batavia. IL 60510 • 630.761.0951 • FAX 630.761.0952 I 03/20/2 U 12:03 FAX 608 2492806 AYRES ASSOCIATES or Am AMM ASSOCIATES FAX MEMORANDU &O
Tw. Jerry Johnson From: Tim Barnett
COTTpafly Bruce Hams & Associates Date: March 20, 2003
Department Proje No.: 00-0000.00
Fax Numbel: 530-761-0952 Re-, Kankakee County 2003 Aerial
Number o PasTm1smMod: 3.. Photography and Dig Orthophoto Proj.
.lerry
I've completed the attached project specification form as you requested. As you will note rye made some changes in some of the data fields to reflect our proposed project. In summary:
• Obtain V=2640' scale black/while aerial photography during the spring of 2003'(7 llnesJ150 exposures) • Target S existing control points. We will collect the additional control we need for the project from the high-resolution digital orthophotography we previously prepared for the county. Airborne GPS is not needed for this project. (We did not include in our quote the cost of targeting the S control points. We hope that the county could perform this task—they targeted the control for the original project.) • Scan the aerial photography at 15 microns, which will result In an 184nch pixel resolution. • Prepare an analytical aerotriangulation solution for the entire block of aerial photography. • Rectify the aerial photography to the ground control, analytical aerotriangulation solution, the existing DIM of themunlclpalities, and the statewide OEM.. • Deliver to the County 18-inch resolution black and white digital orthophotography tiled to USPLSS quarter townships. The'quarter townships will be delivered in CeoTtFF image format and MrSlO compression format (15:1 compression). • Note regarding the digital othophotography. Unlike some other photogrammetric firms in our region, Ayres Associates does not cut corners In preparing digital orthophotography and generally assumes that the client expects a tone matched, seamless product that is free of scratches (within reason). We have never taken advantage of a clients tack of knowledge of the photoginirnetric process, always direct the client to make Informed decisions, and perform our services in an ethical manner consistent with ASPRS. The county can expect the Imagery to be tone matched across the project area and beseamiess. The digital orthophotography will meet or exceed horizontal National Map Accuracy Standards for 1=40D' (1:4800) scale mapping. The digital orthophotography, which we prepared.for the municipalities, meets or exceeds horizontal National Map Accuracy Standards for ?10O' scale mapping.
The last point I would like to make is that Kankakee County will own and be assigned the copyright (at the end of the project) to the digital orthophotography and any other project related products. (This has been a standard operating procedure for Ayres Associates' Photogrammatry Operation since 1953.)
Please call me if you have any questions or comments.
xeI-proaontradkankalwe 20031estimate fax.doc Eng near PhotogrammetristwScienxistslSu.veyos 00-0000.00 2445 flwwin Road, Madison, WI 53704-3185. (608) 249-0471, FAX (608) 249-2806 Page 1 of I S S •
CONTRACT FOR
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC MAPPING SERVICES
BETWEEN
KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
AND
BRUCE HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 21 N. River Street Batavia, IL 60510
lald . . S
CONTRACT
41 THIS AGREEMENT entered into this - day of 4Qn 2003, between Bruce Harris & Associates, Inc., hereinafter called— "Contractor", party of the first part, and Kankakee County, Illinois, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Kankakee County", party of the second part, WITNESSETH:
THAT WHEREAS, the Contractor is in the business of preparing and providing photogrammetric services, computerized property mapping and parcel numbering programs for various governmental agencies in the United States, and
WHEREAS, Kankakee County is desirous of having the Contractor prepare and provide aerial photographic services covering Kankakee County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions of the Contract, IT IS AGREED between the parties as follows:
© 2003 Bruce Harris & Associates - Contract for Photograrnnetric Services for Kankakee county P. I
ciii O G
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Project Extent
The aerial photography will cover the 680 square miles of Kankakee County. This photography will provide a seamless, intensity- balanced.photo image, that will be utilized for creating digital orthophoto image mapping at 18- inch pixel resolution.
Photogrammetric Services
The following services shall be provided by the Contractor to Kankakee County:
Control Six ground control targets shall be installed on existing control points as delineated on the attached project area map.
Photography Aerial photography shall be obtained during the spring of 2003. The photography will be taken during leaf off conditions, clear atmospheric conditions, and with no snow or ice on the ground or lakes.
Scale 1 "=2,620' scale black and white aerial photography of Kankakee County will be captured to be used as the base for the l"=400' scale mapping.
Analytical Aerotriangulation An analytical aerotriangulation solution shall be prepared for the entire block of aerial photography, which will be used to support preparation of digital orthophtography.
Orthophoto Base Maps Black and white, 18-inch pixel resolution digital orthophotography will be prepared of the entire County. The digital orthophotography will be tone matched across the imagery coverage area and be tiled to the USPLSS quarter townships (9 square mile tiles). The imagery will meet or exceed horizontal National map Accuracy Standards for 1"=400' scale mapping.
Orthophotograpliy Files The orthophotography files will be created in GeoTIFF and MrSID compression (15:1 target compression) format. The imagery shall be delivered to the County on DVD or CDROM.
© 2003 Bruce Harris & Associates - Contract for Photogran metric Services for Kankakee County P. 2 S . Li
Disposition and Storage ofAerial Film The aerial film can be delivered upon completion of the project, or it can be stored by the Contractor at no cost. The Contractor will not make or sell photographic reproductions of the film without approval from the County. All film will be stored in plastic roll film canisters not to exceed 10" in diameter and containing no more than 500' of film per roll.
Items and Services to be Delivered o Digital orthophoto files for the entire County at 18-inch pixel resolution. The digital orthophoto files will be delivered in MrSID format compatible with AutoCAD and ESRI software on CDROM or DVI).
0 2003 Bruce Harris & Associates - Contra ci for Photograrninetric Services for Kankakee County P. 3 • 0
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
It is agreed between Bruce Harris & Associates, hereinafter called "Contractor" and Kankakee County, hereinafter called "Kankakee County" that the Contractor will begin work immediately upon execution of this contract by Kankakee County and will continue diligently thereafter until all the work, services and materials as covered under this contract are completed. The overall completion date for this project is 150 days from the date of photography. The photography is scheduled for the spring 2003 flying season, weather permitting. In the event the weather conditions do not permit spring 2003 photography, this Contract will become null and void.
2. Kankakee County shall pay the Contractor the sum of $36,000 (Thirty Six Thousand Dollars) as compensation for the work, services, and materials as provided under this Contract.
3. It is agreed the Contractor will submit monthly invoices detailing the work that has been completed and delivered to Kankakee County. Kankakee County agrees to pay all reasonable invoices within 30 days of receipt and acceptance.
TERM OF CONTRACT
This contract shall be in force from the date of execution of this contract and may be revised periodically subject to renegotiation concerning the services provided and the amount of the services, should the services differ from those outlined in the contract.
This Contract, as heretofore described, made and entered on this day of ,2003.
BRUCE HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. COUNTY OF KANKAKEE Contractor Kankakee, Illinois
By: M. Z~1& Bruce C. Harris Chairman President County Board of Commissioners
Bruce Harris personally appeared before me Attest: as an officer and agent of said corporation
this day of 9 2003. By: Cd1_1, County Clerk Notary Public
COUNTY SEAL
© 2003 Bruce Harris & Associates - Con ti-act for Phozograininetric Services for Kankakee County P. 4
0 9 0 Committee Report
To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County:
Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of:
beg to submit the following report on the matter before them:
The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Ayes Nays
Present
Abstain
Re: awd Phi, rw L1f
-116 • 11oaI
c 3 Lf/kW14
RE: PROMULGATION OF UNIFORM PROTOCOL FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF HOMICIDE AND QUESTIONABLE DEATHS OCCURING WITHIN KANKAKEE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Illinois hasenacted 55 ILCS 5/5-1085.5, which requires each non-Home Rule County to establish its own written protocol to deal with homicides and questionable deaths, to be promulgated through cooperation by the State's Attorney, Coroner, Sheriff, all Fire Departments and Fire Protection Districts located in the County, and all Police Departments located in the County.
WHEREAS, the said statute provides that such protocol include the following: a) The types of deaths that fall under the scope of the protocol; b) The agencies concerned with the death; c) The area of responsibility for each agency regarding the death; and d) Uniform procedures concerning investigation of homicides and questionable death.
WHEREAS, the said agencies, to-wit: State's Attorney, Coroner, Sheriff, all Fire Departments and Fire Protection Districts located in the County, and all Police Departments located in the County have consulted among one another, have developed such a written protocol, and have recommended that the County Board approve and ratify the attached protocol.
WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice standing committee of the County Board has met and considered the said matter and has concurred therein and recommends the.adoption of said protocol.
WHEREAS, the County Board has now by this Resolution determined that it would be in the best interest, safety and welfare of its citizens that the attached uniform Kankakee County Homicide & Questionable Death Protocol, or procedure, be adopted and promulgated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Kankakee County Homicide & Questionable Death Protocol be and is hereby approved, confirmed, adopted and promulgated.
ADOPTED and passed this 8th day of April 2003.
K rI A. Kruse, Chairman
ATTEST:
Bruce Clark, County Clerk
Resolution #2003-04-08-770
2 /7 0 .
KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE & QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
WHEREAS, the Illinois State Legislature has enacted 55 ILCS 5/5-1085.5, which requires each non- Home Rule County to establish its own written protocol to deal with homicides and questionable deaths, to be promulgated through cooperation bythe coroner, Sheriff, State's Attorney, all Fire Departments and Fire Protection Districts located in the County, and all Police Departments located in the County; and
WHEREAS, the said statute requires that such protocol must include at least the following:
(a) The types of deaths that fall under the scope of the protocol; (b) The agencies concerned with the death; (c) The area of responsibility for each agency regarding the death; and (d) Uniform procedures concerning homicides and questionable deaths.
Now, therefore, after consultation between the various agencies and officers, there is hereby promulgated this "Kankakee County Homicide & Questionable Death Protocol." This protocol is a broad guideline designed to assist those participants in a homicide or suspected homicide death articulating their respective responsibilities, avoid duplication of effort, promote cooperation and predictability of response, and minimize one agency or its personnel from interfering with the rightful duties and activities of another. However, it is recognized that this protocol cannot envision every conceivable situation (e.g., mass disaster, act of terrorism, etc.), and as such it is therefore also recognized that this protocol is flexible, and great discretion is retained by the various agencies and personnel involved.
I. General Purpose and Preamble
The purpose of this procedural outline shall be as follows:
A. To establish areas of responsibility for various agencies normally involved in a homicide and questionable death investigations.
B. To establish procedures for each agency to follow in pursuing its part in the investigation so that a common predictable procedure will be used throughout Kankakee County.
C. To establish areas of cooperation where the various agencies can assist each other. S 0 .
D. To comply with the requirements of 55 ILCS 5/5-1085.5, and the preamble to this document, both in spirit and practice.
II. General Scope of the Homicide & Questionable Death Protocol
A. This procedural outline is intended to cover all investigations into homicides and questionable deaths which occur or which are discovered in Kankakee County.
The basis for death investigation requirements is set forth in large part in Illinois Compiled Statutes, 55 ILCS 5/3-3013, which reads in part, "Preliminary Investigation: Every Coroner must go to the place where the body is found, take charge of that body, and make a preliminary investigation into the circumstances of the death whenever, as soon as he knows or is informed that the dead body of any person is found, or lying within this county, or death is suspected of being:
(1) A sudden or violent death, whether apparently suicidal, homicidal, or accidental, including but not limited to deaths apparently caused or contributed to by thermal, traumatic, chemical, electrical or radiational injury, or a complication of any of them, or by drowning or suffocation, or as a result of domestic violence;
(2) A maternal or fetal death due to abortion, or any death due to a sex crime or a crime against nature;
(3) A death where the circumstances are suspicious, obscure, mysterious, or otherwise unexplained or where, in the written opinion of the attending physician, the cause of death is not determined;
(4) A death where addiction to alcohol or to any drug may have been a contributory cause; or
(5) A death where a decedent was not attended by a licensed physician; shall go to the place where the dead body is and take charge of same and shall make a preliminary investigation into the circumstances of the death.
Additionally, the Coroner has a statutory duty to investigate a sudden death of an infant under the age of two years under 55 ILCS 5/3-3016, and any maternal or fetal death due to an abortion is also to be determined by the Coroner, regardless of whether a physician was attending.
In Kankakee County, in cases of apparent suicide, homicide, or an accidental death, or deaths where the circumstances are mysterious or obscure in means, the Coroner shall, and in other cases at his discretion, may conduct an inquest.
B. When a person dies as a result of circumstances specified in Subsections I through 5 of Part 11(A), above, or it found dead and the cause of death is unknown, the death shall be reported immediately to the Coroner and the Coroner shall take legal custody of the body. The body of such person shall not be removed from the place of death except upon the authority of the Coroner and consultation with the local law enforcement agency, and the State's Attorney, nor shall any article on or immediately surrounding such body be
2 S 0 I
disturbed until authorized by the Coroner and consultation with the law enforcement agency and the State's Attorney. 55 ILCS 5/3-3019.
The ultimate objective of a criminal investigation is a finding of fact, and if a crime is found. to have been committed, the successful prosecution of the offender in a court of law. Because the result of a trial is a reflection of the investigating law enforcement agency, the Coroner and the State's Attorney's Office, each has a valid interest in assuring the success of the investigation and prosecution.
The Coroner and the law enforcement agency must conduct a thorough investigation that establishes the identity of the victim and the offender, as well as providing a base of competent evidence upon which to proceed with prosecution.
The Coroner must make all necessary inquiry to establish the cause and manner of death of any person in his jurisdiction who may have been the victim of criminal activity.
The State's Attorney's Office shall provide timely advice as to legal consequences of evidence gathering. This insures consistency of investigative procedures and sound evidence in cases presented within the jurisdiction.
C. The Kankakee County Coroner's Office, the Kankakee County Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Kankakee County State's Attorney mutually recognize that in all situations covered within the scope of this policy where a mortal trauma occurs in Kankakee County, each will make every reasonable effort to ensure that a proper postmortem investigation and/or autopsy, when necessary, is provided.
Ill. Definitions:
A. Law Enforcement Agencies
Henceforth, all municipal police agencies within Kankakee County, the Kankakee County Sheriffs Office, and the Illinois State Police will be referred to collectively as "Law Enforcement Agencies."
B. Homicide
The act of a human being taking the life of another human being, whether criminal, justifiable, or otherwise.
C. Jurisdiction
All areas that are within the boundaries of Kankakee County, State of Illinois.
3 0 .
IV. Agencies concerned and general areas of responsibility
A. Law Enforcement Agencies
Under this protocol, one of the primary general functions of law enforcement agencies will be to collect, catalog, and preserve all relevant and reasonably relevant evidence from the death scene and from other sources which bear on the issues of a criminal investigation.
B. Coroner
Under this protocol, one of the primary functions of the Coroner will be to make all necessary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death, so as to establish a cause and manner of death, together with time of death, of the deceased person. Specific responsibilities of the coroner shall include:
(1) Taking custody of the body or parts thereof;
(2) Identification of the deceased through various forensic evidentiary procedures such as medical and dental records, or by other means, as the circumstances warrant;
(3) Inventory and seizure of the personal effects of the deceased.
(4) Assuring proper and timely notification of the deceased's next of kin.
C. Fire Department/Paramedic Rescue
Under this protocol, one of the primary functions of the fire department will be to respond to the scene in an effort to preserve the life of the victim. In fire-related deaths, the function of the fire department is to extinguish the fire, arrest its spread, and determine the cause and origin of the fire in cooperation with the law enforcement agency.
D. State's Attorney
Under this protocol, one of the primary functions of the State's Attorney's is to act as an advisor on the legal consequences of evidence gathering and its bearing upon the proof required to gain a conviction, and as a monitor, to ensure the consistency of investigations conducted with the jurisdiction. The State's Attorney, on request, will assist the evidence collection activities with legal advice, and when search and/or arrest warrants are requested.
V. Notification and Custody of the Scene
A. Law Enforcement Agencies
(1) Normally, the law enforcement agencies have the primary responsibility of conducting the investigation at a homicide or questionable death scene within their respective jurisdictions, fire and arson excepted. They must be notified immediately
El •H.
0 .
by whatever agency first arrives on the scene, and a member of the law enforcement agency will physically go to the scene of the death upon notification.
(2) The Coroner must be notified by the law enforcement agency when its personnel arrive on the scene. The law enforcement agency shall have custody of the scene upon its arrival, and all other agencies shall follow its instructions concerning processing the scene. However, the body shall not be moved or disturbed in any way, except as is essential for the preservation of life, or immediate collection of evidence and identification.
B. Coroner
(1) When the Coroner arrives at the scene, he should, without disturbance, examine the body, pronounce death, and immediately notify the appropriate law enforcement agency. He should then preserve the scene until the arrival of that law enforcement agency. Nothing, including the body, should be disturbed until the law enforcement agency personnel have arrived and completed their processing of the scene.
(2) The Coroner must view the body at the scene prior to its being moved. At the scene, the body will not be disturbed in any manner other than by the Coroner's personnel.
(3) When extraordinary circumstances seem advisable, it will be the discretion of the Coroner if the pathologist is to respond to the scene and consult the investigation. This is solely the responsibility of the Coroner.
(4) The next of kin of the deceased will not be notified by the Coroner's Office until consultation is made with the law enforcement agency. Such notification will be made by the Coroner or the law enforcement agency and will be dependent on the circumstances of the particular case. When the deceased is a police officer, the law enforcement agency will notify the next of kin with the Coroner, according to departmental policy. When the deceased is a firefighter, the fire department will notify the next of kin with the Coroner, according to departmental policy.
C. Fire, Paramedic, EMS, and Ambulance Units
(1) Unless death is obvious, appropriate EMS units shall be notified by the first agency on the scene.
(2) If the EMS unit is the first agency on the scene where death is obvious, it shall immediately notify the appropriate law enforcement agency and preserve the integrity of the scene until the arrival of the agency. Law enforcement personnel will take custody of the scene immediately upon their arrival.
(3) Immediate notification shall be made to the Coroner by either fire department personnel, paramedics, or any other personnel of the ambulance units, or law
5 S 0 S
enforcement personnel, in accordance with the Illinois Compiled Statutes, 55 ILCS 5/3-3020.
(4) In fire- and arson-related death scenes, the fire investigator shall enjoy equal status with the police investigators, and in cases of conflict, the fire investigator's decision to take custody of evidence related to fire-origin, accelerants, fire-spread, and combustible chemicals or substances shall take precedent. When the Coroner has completed his own investigation and released the body, the law enforcement officer's decision shall take precedent in all other matters not related to fire and arson, and his decision relating to the body and its fluids, clothing, and all other objects shall prevail.
3-3020. "Coroner to be Notified." "Every law enforcement official, funeral director, ambulance attendant, hospital director or administrator, or person having custody of the body of the deceased person, where the death is one subject to investigation under Section 3-3013, and any physician in attendance upon such a decedent at the time of his death, shall notify the Coroner promptly. Any such person failing to notify the Coroner promptly shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor, unless such person has reasonable cause to believe the Coroner had already been so notified.
3-3019. "Removal of Bodies." No dead body which may be subject to the terms of this Division or the personal property of such a deceased person, shall be handled, moved, disturbed, embalmed, or removed from the place of death by any person, except with the permission of the Coroner, unless same shall be necessary to protect such body or property from damage or destruction, or unless necessary to protect life, safety, or health. Any person knowingly violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
D. In cases of homicide, probable homicide, or questionable death, and in law enforcement situations that present a substantial risk of imminent homicide, (i.e., barricaded subjects, hostage situations, riots, etc.), if the law enforcement investigator in charge of the incident, in his discretion, determines there is a need for legal advice, he shall contact the on-call State's Attorney or his Assistant. The State's Attorney's representative will determine whether it is appropriate to personally respond to the scene, and shall advise the officer concerning the legal issues presented to him.
VI. Uniform Homicide and Questionable Death Procedures
A. Unless death is obvious at the time the first agency arrives at the scene, all appropriate aid shall be given. Nothing in this procedure outline shall be interpreted to preclude any action necessary to save the life of the victim. However, consistent with the foregoing, the following procedure shall be observed by all law enforcement agencies, fire, paramedics, or ambulance personnel who render aid to a victim.
. 0 S
(1) Only those personnel who are actively aiding the victim should be in the immediate area. All others will remain away, thus avoiding unnecessary disturbance of the scene.
(2) This victim will not be moved unnecessarily.
(3) Nothing in the area shall be touched or disturbed in any way unless required in giving aid to the victim. If the items must be moved, a report of this will be given to the law enforcement officer in charge of the scene.
(4) After death has been established, all personnel will withdraw from the scene and follow the instructions of the law enforcement officer in charge of the crime scene and the Coroner in charge of the body.
(5) Law enforcement agencies and fire departments shall, upon arrival at the scene, designate an officer in charge who shall enforce these procedures.
(6) A complete list of all persons who enter the area will be compiled by the law enforcement agency in control of the scene.
(7) An officer in charge of the fire department or EMS personnel will document, in writing, the identity and activity of each of his/her personnel on the scene and said report will be turned over to the law enforcement investigator in charge upon the latter's arrival on the scene.
(8) To preserve evidence which may exist at the scene of a questionable death:
(a) Approach the scene with caution;
(b) Enter and leave the scene by the same route. Do not walk through bloodstains or disturb other evidence. Before leaving the scene, check shoes to see if any objects (such as bullets or debris) have been picked up on the shoes or soles;
(c) Allow only one person to initially approach the scene. When possible, wait for police assistance before approaching the scene;
(d) If possible, wear rubber gloves to minimize scene contamination;
(e) When probably dead, assess the victim with minimal amount of physical contact and movement. Check for a carotid pulse and listen for heart, breath sound. When obvious signs of death are present, such as lividity, rigor mortis, or putrefaction, do not attach the cardiac monitor or touch the victim;
(f) Notify the Coroner of where the victim was touched;
7
a'Z 9 0 S
(g) If it is necessary to move the victim, note the exact position and location of the victim prior to movement;
(h) Do not touch or move any item at the scene unless absolutely necessary to render care to the patient. Document if items were touched or moved;
(i) When possible, do not cut through blood stains or bullet holes in clothing;
(j) Circle puncture sites that you may have made on the victim, if necessary;
(9) The law enforcement agencies, Coroner, and State's Attorney have a contributing responsibility to coordinate policies and procedures and to provide training to the various fire and rescue services of their jurisdictions to facilitate compliance with the provisions herein.
B. The first law enforcement officer on the scene shall have custody of the scene until relieved by the investigator in charge. This does not preclude the Coroner from the initial contact of the deceased or the scene.
C. If the victim is determined to be dead, the officer will secure the scene and allow no activity which might disturb the evidence until time the Coroner has been notified and has arrived at the scene to pronounce death.
D. The body shall not be moved until the Coroner has arrived on the scene. At that time, the Coroner shall take charge of the body and the body will not be disturbed at any point unless done so at the Coroner's discretion or by his personnel.
E. The removal of the body shall be directed by the Coroner and/or his representative and shall be done in a manner as prescribed by the Coroner's Office procedures, which include, but are not limited to, the removal of the body placed on either a plastic or a white cloth sheet and to be sealed in a body bag. This does not preclude the law enforcement agency to examine and photograph all evidence which is disclosed by movement of the body, however, it will not allow for any evidence to be removed from the body until such time at the morgue, unless approved by the Coroner.
(1) Bodies covered by this procedure shall be placed in a new vinyl body bag and sealed by the Coroner in the presence of the law enforcement investigator. The sealing process will then be photographed by the law enforcement investigator at the crime scene or evidence technicians. To preserve the integrity of the body in the chain of custody of any possible evidentiary items present on or within the body, the seal will not be broken and the body will not be removed from the body bag except by the Coroner after the photographs have been taken by the law enforcement investigator, crime scene technician, or evidence technician.
(2) The body bag shall be offered to the law enforcement agency as evidence. It will be their discretion if they feel it is of evidentiary value.
E] .
F. The Coroner shall take custody of the body "as is." All items found on the person of the deceased shall be inventoried by the Coroner. Then the law enforcement agency personnel shall take custody of all such items if deemed to be of evidential value, otherwise, the Coroner is responsible for such custody. No other agency shall remove or even handle items of evidence other than the property at the scene. The body and all property on or about the body is the direct responsibility of the Coroner's Office as outlined in previous sections mentioned earlier.
VII. Post Mortem Examination
A. A postmortem examination will be performed by a forensic pathologist at the direction of the Coroner in all cases where the suspected manner of death is a homicide or questionable. Exceptions to this procedure shall be allowed by mutual agreement between the Coroner and the State's Attorney's Office, with input from the law enforcement agency.
B. The Coroner will give the appropriate law enforcement agency sufficient notice of time and place of an autopsy to be performed, so that if warranted, they may have two (2) representatives there to collect evidence and observe.
C. Any verbal preliminary status reports, not involving opinions that are given or delivered by the pathologist to the Coroner at the autopsy should be considered that of purely speculative information. The final written autopsy report will not be available until such time the inquest date has been established or as such time that the report is released to the State's Attorney or the appropriate law enforcement agency by the Coroner's Office.
D. The preliminary verbal report of the scene investigation will be made to the Coroner by the investigator in charge or his designee. A written report of the scene investigation shall be delivered to the Coroner by the investigator in charge when such a report is requested by the Coroner and prior to the inquest.
E. At the time the autopsy is being performed, the law enforcement agency shall provide the Coroner and pathologist with all information obtained from the scene that is deemed necessary for the proper performance of an autopsy or the evaluation of autopsy findings.
F. The pathologist and the Coroner will examine the body and items on the body and collect items of physical evidence of all evidentiary value. The release of all evidentiary items on or in the body will be returned or relinquished to that of the law enforcement agency or crime laboratory. Any body fluids, tissue, or other samples will be retained and properly examined for evidentiary value by the Coroner's Office, unless otherwise so relinquished by the Coroner.
VIII. Organ Transplants
The Coroner, the State's Attorney, and the law enforcement agencies of Kankakee County agree that victims who have died of possible criminal trauma occurring in Kankakee County are eligible as prospective donors for organ transplants, unless organ transplant would impair or impede the criminal investigation.
cz Q4 . 0
IX. Information Release
The appropriate law enforcement agency shall have the sole responsibility and authority to regulate release of information, including investigative keys, pertaining to the case under investigation that are covered by this policy. Any and all inquiries regarding the victim or the deceased (i.e., injuries, cause of death, and manner of death), or any contact reference Coroner's procedures shall be directed to the Coroner's Office for release that includes identification. The press and the media shall be directed to the law enforcement agency public relations officer unless such questions refer to that of the specific nature of the body. All information concerning the body involved in the incident shall be released directly from the Coroner's Office. The Coroner's Office shall not give a direct cause of death until such time of the inquest, or such time as necessary for the prosecution of the case.
It is suggested in major cases, that the defined responsibility of each agency involved release only information which concerns the agencies "definition of office." Law enforcement agencies should concern themselves with the release of information concerning the investigation underway. The Coroner should concern himself with the investigation as to the manner and the cause of death and identity of the individual only. The State's Attorney's Office should concern themselves with the investigation and the prosecutorial duties of that particular office. The recommended way to handle a major case is to have a joint press conference so each of the agencies involved in an investigation release information in a cooperative spirit and mode where each can address their own specific requirements or duties in the investigation. This should be done only after prior conference of all three agencies (Law Enforcement Agencies, Coroner, and State's Attorney).
The participants to this protocol are aware that on March 16, 2000, two new. Illinois Supreme Court Rules, binding on all Illinois lawyers, went into effect. Both of these new Rules relate to pre- trial and trial publicity. Under the new Supreme Court Rule 3.8, entitled Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, a public prosecutor involved in criminal litigation ... shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the public prosecutor or other government lawyer would be forbidden from making under rule 3.6. Rule 3.6 prohibits statements that would "post a serious and imminent threat to the fairness of an adjudicative proceeding".
XII. Within this document, the use of the pronoun "he" and possessive "his" refer to both male and female gender.
10 0 .0 . STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
450 EAST COURT STREET • KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS 60901-3992 (815) 937-2930 • FAX (815) 937-3932 EDWARD D. SMITH State's Attorney January 10, 2003
TO: ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, / Ms.,
For the past several weeks an appointed committee has met on several occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statute mandate. After the meticulous effort of the committee members, a final draft has been completed for the approval of all relevant agencies in Kankakee County. After review and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Board for adoption by State's Attorney, Ed Smith. After review of the proposed protocol, please complete this letter and return to ASA Fred P. Falindrich. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Lt. Commander Larry Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department, or ASA Fred P. Fandrich. Please return this letter as soon as possible. Sincerely,
Fred P. Fahndrich Assistant State's Attorney
0 y RCrowTIO) ,4Jofl y 1ZE Y7E)Ct 1wN0i.t LAW NFÔCfb1 A%ilvt1NSTP2A7O$ Aj7dClATIdN MLCIA'iL kldX& PS of Name ce4de&ny E4/dI&,
do approve and accept the Kankakee County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol. xl Signature Date
Aloe .
Kankakee County Sheriffs Police Timothy F. Bukowski Sheriff
•I Chief Ken McCabe of-the Kankakee County Sheriffs Department -do approve and-accept the Kankakee County
•Homicide and. questionable Death Protocol as presented.
~ I - 0 3 C-LI _~' gcc~le__ - - D'~ Ken 'McCabe Chief Investigator Kankakee County Sheriffs Department
470 East Merchant Street • Kankakee, Illinois 60901 911 • Emergency
(815) 937-8250 - Adminstration TTD 815-937-8466 Fax (815) 937-3923 HTTP://www.kankakeecountysheriff.com J1N-2A-2003 09:58 FROM:CITY INVESTIGATIONS 815-9330525 10:99373936 P:2'2 is 0
STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKZE
450 P.A.cT COURT STAM • XANXAE1 ILUNOIS 0901-3992 (815) 9374930 S I4.X (81) 937.3932 EDWARD D. SMITH State's Attorney January 10 2003
TO: ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT A(WNC1ESI FIRE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EMROENCY MBt)ICAL SERVICES, BY TiIE[R RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, / Ms,
For the past several weeks an appointed c inrnittcc has met on several occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statutø maridte. After the meticulous effort of the committee members, a final draft has been completed for theapprov1 of all relevant agencies in Kankakee County. After revcw and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Board for adoption by State's Attorney, Ed Smith. After review of the pmposcd protocol, please complete this letter and return to ASA Fred P. Faluadrich. If you have any qucstions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Lt. Commander L&iy Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department, or ASAFTeCt P. Fandxich. Please return this letter as soon as possible. Sincerely,
Fred P. Fahndirich Assistant State's Attomngy
i Ji'iec /L4 btLl &' of Name Agency
do approve and accept the Kankakee County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol.
/ •— c5 3 Signatuic Date
L(•) /?J r • C' TitkiPositicnt /
z oo A2MiOLLV BIV1S C6C LC6 ST9 XVI 2j'80 DIA eO//Tc
- 32' Jan 24 03 l2:O4p P. 1 . 0 0
STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
450 EAST COURT STREET • KANKA.KiE, fl.LIN0JS 60902-3992 (815) 931.2930 • PAX (85) 937-3932 EDWARD D. SMITH States Attorney January 10, 200:3
TO: ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, I Ms.,
For the past several weeks an appointed committee has met on several occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statute mandat. After the meticulous cifort of the committee members, a final draft has been completed tar the approval of all relevant agencies in Kankakee County. After review and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Board for adoption by State's Attorney, Ed Smith. After review of the proposed protocol, please complete this letter and return to ASA Fred P. Fahndiich. If you have -.-.ny questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Lt. Commander Larry Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department, or ASA Fred P. Fandrich. Please return this letter as soon as possible. Sincerely,
Fred P. Faltndrich Assistant State's Attorney
of Name Agency
do approve and accept the Kaz3lcakee County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol. /3 ______ Si ture Date . f ~ 1F Title/Position
oo A3'JUOLLY S31V.LS C6C LC8 519 XVd VS : T1 183 CO//t0
23j -Jan 24 03 12: 01p Manteno Police Dept. . 8.15 468-2402 p.2
JPN-2-20032 FPOM:CIT' 1NUESTIGTIONS s15-9:5 TD;9468202
STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
4o EAST COURT STREET • EANXAXgR, 1LLINOS 60901-3'P92 A(sjs)957-;93a EDWARD D. SM1Tt Stip ' itfor,y January 10, 2003
TO: ALL POUCE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. Fflth DEPARTMENTS. FIRE }'ROTECTJON DISTRJCTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, BY THTR RESPED1VE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE.- KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, / Ms.,
For the past several weeks an appointod. committee has met on saveral. occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statute mandate. After the meticulous effort of the committce members, a final draft has been completed for the approved of all rnlc'vimt agencies in Kaukakee County. After review and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Elowd for adoption by State's Atmey, Ed Smith. After review of the proposed .pIUtOCOI. please complete this latter.and return to ASA Fred P. ,Fahndric. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Li. Cominder Larry Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department., or ASA Fred P. Fandlich Please return this lcttr as soon as possible. Sincerely,
<: Fred P. Falnjdicb Asaistant State's Attorney
L t'4 i2E. of (Yit'70 e01 Name Agency
do approve and accept the Karikakov County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol. III! 3
AaNuos.Lv sa.L'/.Ls C6C LCB 919 TVi 060 t83 VO/t,TO •:. •• . Ii. S :ffElanteno (ttommunitp fire protection 331suict 13 South Walnut St. Manteno, IL 60950 Emergency Dial 911 Business: (815) 468-6619 vw.manteno.com Fax: (815) 468-7743
TO: Edward Smith
From: Maurice T. O'Keefe, Fire Chief
Date: January 15th, 2003
Subject: Kankakee County Homicide Questionable Death Protocol
Ed,
By the way of this letter I am informing you that the Fire Chiefs have approved the questionable death protocol that was issued January 10th, 2003.
You should be aware that a contaminated body would have to be handled differently in some cases, which could include decontamination of the body, area, and scene.
All the fire chiefs, in Kankakee County, have been advised of this procedure and this letter serves notice of that.
Respectfully
Maurice T. O'Kee , President Kankakee Valley Fire Chief Association
1J Im C_.
N) I .] In
IC Maurice T. O'Keefe Fire Chief 0 I I,I1 STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
Ak!A 450 EAST COURT STREET • KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS 60901-3992 (815) 937-2930 • FAX (815) 937-3932 EDWARD D. SMITH State's Attorney January 10, 2003
TO: ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, / Ms.,
For the past several weeks an appointed committee has met on several occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statute mandate. After the meticulous effort of the committee members, a final draft has been completed for the approval of all relevant agencies in Kankakee County After review and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Board for adoption by State's Attorney, Ed Smith. After review of the proposed protocol, please complete this letter and return to ASA Fred P. Fahndrich. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Lt. Commander Larry Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department, or ASA Fred P. Fandrich. Please return this letter as soon as possible. Sincerely, A I-V40 : Fred P. Fahndrich Assistant State's Attorney
i 4 r ' CE of Ve ia Name Agency
do approve accept the Kankakee County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol.
IA Signature Date
Title/Position
.234 AS 0 - 0 Bradley Police Department / OLtC. 147 South Michigan • Bradley, Illinois 60915 • Ph. 815- 933-3315 Fax 815-933-6355 Donald W. Kutner Chief of Police
December 19, 2002
Mr. Edward Smith State's Attorney Kankakee County 450 East Court Kankakee, II 60901
Dear Mr. Smith,
I have reviewed the final draft of the Kankakee County Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol with my staff and at this time we feel that the draft is acceptable as printed. The Bradley Police Department is ready to implement the protocol as soon as all of the entities are in agreement.
Thank you for your diligence in this endeavor and for taking the lead in drafting the protocol.
Sincerely,
:~~D W. Chief of Police . S
STATES ATTORNEY KANKAKEE, IL DEC 2 0 2002 RECEIVED 0
STATE'S ATTORNEY COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
450 EAST COURT STREET • KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS 60901-3992 (815) 937-2930 • FAX (815) 937-3932 EDWARD D. SMITH State's Attorney January 10, 2003
TO: ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FIRE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, BY THEIR RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT CHIEFS
RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY HOMICIDE QUESTIONABLE DEATH PROTOCOL
Dear Sir, / Ms.,
For the past several weeks an appointed committee has met on several occasions to complete Kankakee County's Homicide and Questionable Death Protocol pursuant to state statute mandate. After the meticulous effort of the committee members, a final draft
has been completed for the approval of all relevant agencies in Kankakee County . After review and approval, the protocol will be presented to the County Board for adoption by State's Attorney, Ed Smith. After review of the proposed protocol, please complete this letter and return to ASA Fred P. Fahndrich. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to call Lt. Commander Larry Osenga, Kankakee City Police Department, or ASA Fred P. Fandrich. Please return this letter as soon as possible. Sincerely,
Fred P. Fahndrich Assistant State's Attorney
I /27ic1q. P. kk-'It of / 01 - /5-Z002- Lp ?. L. V-,~2 Signature Date Title/Position S 0 SERV ILLINOIS STATE POLICE Ralph P. McClellan Division of Operations District 21 Commander December 18, 2002 Honorable Edward Smith Kankakee County State Attorney 450 E. Court Street Kankakee, Illinois 60901 Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is to inform you that the Illinois State Police District 21 has received and reviewed the Kankakee County Homicide & Questionable Death Protocol. Illinois State Police District 21 agrees with the contents of the document, and will adhere to the guidelines set forth in it. Respectfully, Commander Ralph McClellan District 21 cc: Captain Dan Roach Lieutenant Larry Brouk Master Sergeant Scott Koerner P. 0. Box 147 *Ashkum IL. 60911 (815) 698-2415 (Voice) (815) 698-2403 (Fax) 0 .T STATES ATTORNEY KANKAKEE, IL DEC I9200Z RECEIVED Minutes of the January 15, 2003 Meeting Members present: Ralph McClellan (ISP) Brad O'Keefe (KCSO) Donald Kufner (Bradley) Brett Burkhalter (Herscher) Neil Sherman (ISP) Larry Regnier (Kankakee City) Scott Fitts (Grant Park) Joe Beard (Bourbonnais) Greg Kunce (Bourbonnais) Hank Roso (Bradley) Scott Koerner (ISP) Mike Kinkade (Kankakee City) Dennis Buhrmester (Bradley) Bob Gessner (Coroner's Office) John Gerard (Kankakee City) Jim Grace (Tn-River) Larry Osenga (Kankakee City) Dan Roach (ISP) Bill Cantrell (Kankakee City) Ken McCabe (KCSO) Steven Coy (Bradley) Ray Fairfield (KCSO) Tim Leader (KANCOM) Bob Bodemer (ISP) Bill Keil (Tn-River) Vice-President Kinkade called the meeting to order at 12:20 P.M. A motion was made by John Gerard to approve the minutes from the last meeting, which was held on December 18, 2002 seconded by Bob Gessner with all in favor, no apposed. Treasurers Report Treasurer Joe Beard presented the Treasurer's report as follows. Beginning balance from December 18, 2002 was $2.034.58. There were no expenditures and no additional income. The ending balance as of January 15, 2003 is $2,034.58. A motion was made to approve by Larry Osenga and seconded by Larry Regnier with all in favor. No Opposed. Old Business Chief Kufner advised that there is approximately $16,000 currently in the account at Municipal Bank of Bourbonnais for the Police Memorial. There are many pledges; however the money is not available. The paperwork has been submitted to the IRS with a $500 payment to achieve charitable status. The memorial will not be ready by May 15th• Kankakee City will be hosting the memorial service this year and there will be an additional service when the monument is ready. Bob Bodemer advised that the room rates for the training seminar June 4-6 at Eagle Creek would be $60 for a single and $70 for a double. A contract needs to be signed to hold the dates. Motion was made by Bob Gessner and seconded by Steven Coy to allow the contract to be signed. r S . Larry Osenga advised that there were some minor changes made to the Questionable Death Protocol and asked that all chiefs sign off on the policy. A motion was made by Scott Fitts and seconded by Dennis Buhrmester to draft one letter to Ed Smith and have all of the chiefs sign off. Motion carried. New Business Jim Grace from Tn-River Training advised that there are still some openings for a drug course being taught at Bourbonnais PD April 9th Bill Keil also advised that there would be a New Police Chief course in April. Scott Koerner distributed intelligence information to the members concerning recent burglaries which are occurring south of this area. The ETSB has reorganized the KANCOM oversight committee to include 3 representatives from the police and 3 from fire with one ETSB representative Guest Speaker None scheduled, however Tim Leader, director of KANCOM advised the group that they are losing some dispatchers and may be short in the future. He further stated that if there are any concerns regarding dispatch, he should be contacted. A survey completed recently showed that there have been no busy signals received on the system. This would be equivalent to 23 straight hours of talk time. Adjournment Bob Gessner made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Ken McCabe seconded it with all'\ favor. Meeting adjourned at 12:50 P.M. Next meeting is February 19,2003 Respectfully Submitted, 44 Donald W. Kufner ' (1 Secretary STATES ATTORNEY KANKAKEE, IL 2.QQ3 RECEIVED L1 f 0 0 Committee Report To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of: beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted. Ayes Nays Present h4~4'vc 'In j -v Abstain Re: ftA .2 ',' lR7 RE: APPROVAL OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS STUDY WHEREAS, on or about May of 2001, the Circuit Court of Kankakee County, together with the County of Kankakee, saw the need for and commissioned a comprehensive professional study to be conducted on the entire Court system serving Kankakee County. WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of Kankakee County did in fact contract with the Court Services Division (CSD) of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a review of its operations with specific emphasis on areas of case flow and calendar management, the capacity and utility of the current case management information system, and the adequacy and redesign of court facilities. WHEREAS, a final report of the said study conducted by the said National Center for State Courts was concluded and submitted on or around March of 2002, consisting of 77 pages, exhibits, and appendices, a copy of which is attached hereto. WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice Committee, at its meeting of March 18, 2003, reviewed and approved the findings and recommendations therein contained, and recommended that the Board also so concur, and that the matter now be referred to the Capital Development and Planning Committee for investigation, hearings, findings, recommendation and action necessary to carry out the recommendations set forth in the said study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. That the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Committee from its meeting of March 18, 2003 be approved 2. That the County Board concurs with the findings and recommendations as set forth in the said Courts Study, attached hereto and made a part of this resolution 3. That this matter now be referred to the Capital Development and Planning Committee. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003. jjz"' -,*- Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: Bruce Clark County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-771 ge I of Juanita Baker 4 From: Ed Smith [[email protected] ] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:23 AM To: jbakerk3county.net Subject: Fw: Approval of the Court Study- now on to Capital Improvements Comittee Original Message From: Ed Smith To: Brenda Gorski Cc: Pamela Lee; Karl Kruse; Kendall Wenzelman Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:21 AM Subject: Approval of the Court Study- now on to Capital Improvements Comittee 02-18-03 To: Brenda Gorski From: Ed Smith Ref: Court Study Brenda, We will need prepared a formal draft Resolution, approving the Criminal Justice Committees recommendation at its meeting of February 18th, 2003, that the findings and recommendations set forth in the study of May of 2001 ,commissioned by the Circuit Court of Kankakee County, and conducted by the Court Services Division of the National Center for State Courts, investigating the caseflow and operational review of our entire court system, be approved, and that the matter now be referred to the newly formed Capital Improvements Committee (Meents, Chairman). I think a copy of the study should be appended to the Resolution, so that both are spread of record, and accessible to the public. Judge Wenzelman may have additional copies. Some of the paragraphs of the Resolution might read like this: AND WHEREAS, on or about May of 2001, the Circuit Court of Kankakee County, together with the County of Kankakee, saw the need for and commissioned a comprehensive professional study to be conducted on the entire Court system serving Kankakee County; AND WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of Kankakee County did in fact contract with the Court Services Division (CSD) of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a review of its operations with specific emphasis on areas of caseflow and calendar management, the capacity and utility of the current case management information system, and the adequacy and redesign of court facilities; AND WHEREAS, a Final Report of the said study conducted by the said National Center for State Courts was concluded and submitted on or around March of 2002, consisting of 77 pages and exhibits and appendices, a copy of which is attached hereto; AND WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice Committee, at its meeting of February 18th, 2003, reviewed and approved the findings and recommendations therein contained, and recommended that the board also so concur, and that the matter now be referred to the Capital Improvements Committee for investigation, hearings, findings, recmmendation and action necessary to carry out the recommendations set forth in the said study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: I. That the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Committee from its meeting of February 18th, 2003, be approved; 2/20/2003 ge 2 of 2 . . 46 II. That the County Board concurs with the findings and recommendations as set forth in the said Courts Study, attached hereto made made a part of this Resolution; and Ill. That this matter now be referred to the Capital Improvements Committee. So Resolved this day of _, 2003 Thanks for your help. Ed 2/20/2003 S S S NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS CIRCUIT COURT OF KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS CASEFLOW AND OPERATIONAL REVIEW FINAL REPORT March 2002 Project Consultants Mary Durkin David Steelman Nial Raaen Chang-Ming Yeh. Daniel J. Hall Vice President COURT CONSULTING SERVICES 1331 Seventeenth Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 293-3063 S .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 II. BACKGROUND ...... 3 A. Court Context ...... 3 B. Caseload Volume and Composition ...... 4 C. Court Environment...... 5 III. CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT...... 7 A. Information for Monitoring and Case Management...... 7 B. Standards and Goals...... 8 C. Scheduling and Calendaring...... 8 D. Continuance and Attorney Conflict Policies...... 10 E. Case Inventory ...... 11 F. Clearance Rates ...... 12 G. Time to Disposition...... 13 H. Specific Issues in Criminal Case Management...... 14 I. Issues in Civil and Domestic Relations Case Management ...... 16 Recommendations...... 17 IV. COLLECTIONS ...... 20 Recommendations...... 20 V. BUSINESS PRACTICES...... 23 A. Case File Preparation and Maintenance...... 23 B. Case Tracking and Scheduling...... 23 C. Generation of Forms and Reports ...... 24 D. Court Minutes and Registry Entries ...... 24 E. Data Redundancy...... 25 E. Financial Recordkeeping...... 25 Recommendations...... 26 VI. TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 28 Recommendations...... 29 VII. CASE MANAGEMENT. SYSTEM ...... 32 A. Existing System Enhancement...... 33 B. Local System Development ...... 33 C. Purchase and Installation of New System...... 34 9s S S S VIII. COURT FACILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 37 A. Building Image and Space Adequacy...... 37 1. General...... 37 2. Courtrooms ...... 38 3. Courtroom Ancillary Areas...... 39 4. Judges' Chambers/Judicial Support Space ...... 39 5. Court and Court-Related Offices ...... 40 B Adjacency and Circulation...... 41 1. General...... 41 2. Courtrooms and Courtroom Ancillary Areas...... 41 3. Judges' Chambers/Judicial Support Space ...... 42 C. Accessibility for Disabled Individuals...... 43 D. Security...... 44 E. Summary of Major Prioritized Problems with Existing Facility...... 45 F. Future Court Facility Planning goals...... 46 Recommendations...... 46 IX. CASEFLOW AND CALENDAR MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP...... 52 TABLES Table 1: Time to Disposition and Number of Court Appearances in CaseSamples...... 9 Table 2: Clearance Rate: 1999, 2000 and First Six Months 2001 ...... 12 Table 3: Dispositions by Year of Filing: January-June, 2001 ...... 13 APPENDICES Appendix A: Number and Age of Pending Cases CY 2000 Appendix B: Civil Case Processing System Functional Standards Appendix C: Court Technology Model Request for Proposals Appendix D: Workshop Agenda and Exercises Appendix E: Workshop Evaluations 11 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois I. INTRODUCTION In May 2001, the Circuit Court of Kankakee County, Illinois contracted with the Court Services Division (CSD) of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a review of its operations with specific emphasis on the areas of caseflow and calendar management, the capacity and utility of the current case management information system, and the adequacy and possible redesign of court facilities. The project was to include a one-day educational workshop for representatives from all components of the justice system as well as related agencies that would focus on identifying issues and developing strategies to improve the caseflow management process for specific case types. Staff from the NCSC conducted a one-week site visit in June 2001 for the purpose of interviewing the judges, the clerk of court and staff members, the state's attorney and staff, the public defender, the director of probation services, representatives from the sheriffs department, and the information services manager. The interviews focused on caseload, workload and caseflow processes and attempted to identify areas of concern and issues in staffing levels, calendaring practices, case backlogs, high volume cases and case activities, availability of management information, use of technology, communication, and records and space management. In August 2001, staff returned to review a limited sample of recently disposed cases and gather data on the scheduling and timeliness of case events. At that time, a court technology specialist, engaged by NCSC as a consultant to the project, also reviewed the use of the current case management information system, the Manatron Gavel System. This review considered the adequacy of current hardware and software; the ability and propensity of employees to use the functions that exist; the extent to which the current information system meets the data and report needs of all justice system participants; the ease of sharing information across office, division and agency lines; and, the links between the state of technology and information system development and the factors that affect caseflow and calendar management. In a separate site visit during the same month, NCSC's court facility consultant toured the courthouse, the annex and jail, observed current utilization patterns, assessed National Center for State Courts Page / Court of Kankakee County, Illinois especially problematic shortages of space, and met with representatives of the court and the county to discuss the options for redesign and renovation of current facilities. Based on the information gathered from the on-site interviews and observations, case data collection activities, and other written sources of information, NCSC developed an agenda for a one-day workshop on caseflow and calendar management, which was conducted on November 5, 2001 in Kankakee County. The format of the workshop was team-based and included a mixture of plenary and small group sessions. The multi- disciplinary teams were formed around specific case types and were charged with developing an action plan to improve caseflow management in their specific area. This report presents the findings and recommendations of NCSC's review of operations in the Circuit Court of Kankakee County and a recap of the workshop. It is organized as follows: Part I outlines project activities. Part II presents background information on the court, its caseload, andthe issues that prompted the review. Part III discusses the issues surrounding caseflow management in the court and provides recommendations to improve those processes. Part IV reviews the process for enforcing the collection of fines and fees in the court and recommends policies and procedures to enhance operations in that specific area. Part V focuses on business processes in the court that affect its ability to manage cases efficiently and makes recommendations to address problematic areas. Part VI assesses the technical environment of the court and offers recommendations as to future activities and planning. Part VII discusses the options in regard to enhancing or replacing the current management information system. Part VIII evaluates the potential of the current courthouse and other facilities to accommodate the current operational and space needs of the court and court- related offices. Part IX presents an overview of the November 5, 2001 workshop on caseflow and calendar management. National Center for Stale Courts Page 2 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois II. BACKGROUND A. Court Context The Circuit Courts of Kankakee and Iroquois Counties form the Twenty-first Judicial Circuit of Illinois, one of twenty-two circuits in the state. In 1999, the Twenty- first Circuit ranked ninth among all circuits in the state in case filings per 1000 population and eleventh in filings per judge. Kankakee is the larger of the two counties, with approximately 77 percent of the total population of the circuit and 75 percent of the total caseload. In 2000, the population of Kankakee County was 103,883, an 8 percent increase over 1990 Census figures and a reversal of the population decline experienced through the 1980s. Illinois has a one-tier trial -court system, and the Circuit Court has jurisdiction over all civil matters, including administrative agency appeals and small claims cases, criminal cases including preliminary hearings, traffic and ordinance violations, juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect cases, probate, mental health, and allother miscellaneous matters. The Kankakee County Circuit Court has six circuit judges and three associate judges. Circuit judges are elected for six-year terms and can hear any type of case. Associate judges are appointed by circuit judges, under rules of the Supreme Court, to four-year terms. The associate judges in Kankakee County have been granted approval from the Supreme Court to hear felony cases, so they also can hear all matters coming before the court.' In addition to its traditional dockets, the court manages a drug treatment court and a specialized domestic violence docket. The Circuit Court operates on an individual calendar system. At the time of the review, cases were assigned as follows: • All felony cases and misdemeanor jury trial cases are heard by two circuit judges, one who also manages the drug treatment court and the other who presides over the domestic violence docket. • One circuit judge hears all the law cases over $50,000 and the jury trial law cases under $50,000. • Divorce cases are divided by letters of the alphabet and heard by two circuit judges who also hear all other family law matters, including paternity cases. 'Generally, an associate judge can hear any case except criminal cases punishable by a prison term of one year or more, unless the associate judge has received approval from the Supreme Court to hear other criminal cases. National Center for State Courts Page 3 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Fi • All delinquency, child abuse and neglect, and other juvenile cases are heard by a circuit judge. • One associate judge handles small claims cases and law cases under $50,000. • One associate judge handles misdemeanor cases and collection activity. • One associate judge handles traffic cases. B. Caseload Volume and Composition A total of 9,072 cases, other than traffic and other ordinance violations, were filed in the Circuit Court of Kankakee County in 2000. This is an 11 percent decrease compared to 1999 case filings, but relatively consistent with totals over the past five years. Felony and misdemeanor cases account for 7 percent and 30 percent, respectively, of the total filings. Law cases involving claims of $50,000 or more are 2 percent of the caseload, while law cases under $50,000 and small claims cases are 11 percent and 22 percent, respectively, of the total filings. Divorces and other family law cases, including adoptions and domestic violence protective orders, constitute 14 percent of the caseload. Juvenile cases, including delinquency and abuse and neglect petitions, are 4 percent of the caseload. The remaining 10 percent of the non-traffic caseload is composed of mental health, contempt, chancery, and miscellaneous remedy proceedings. Of the additional 22,386 traffic and ordinance cases filed in 2000, 2 percent were DUI cases and 3 percent ordinance and conservation violations; the remaining 95 percent were traffic infractions. The caseload can be characterized as fluctuating, but generally stable over the ten- year period from 1991 to 2000. There are no clear or significant patterns of growth or decline evident among specific case types, except for a recent gradual decline in the number of felony and law over $50,000 cases and a slow but steady increase in the number of misdemeanor and traffic cases. While there have been isolated spikes in case filings, for instance, a 34 percent increase in the traffic caseload in 1997-1998, these surges are generally followed by a return to previous patterns of activity. As is the case with trial courts nationwide, however, the Kankakee County Circuit Court must grapple with changes in the mix of its caseload, increased complexity in certain areas of law, and National Center for State Courts Page 4 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois more rigorous case processing requirements imposed by statutory and rule changes and, in some instances, federal mandates. 2 C. Court Environment There are a number of aspects of the Kankakee County court system that are noteworthy and provide a solid foundation for undertaking reforms of the system. First among these assets are the hardworking and committed judges and staff of the court. Many individuals within the court system were already examining traditional ways of conducting business and testing new procedures prior to this review. There is a clear and sincere interest in making more effective use of judicial and other system resources. The court's readiness to undergo a process of self-examination indicates that it is open to suggestions for change and wants to think broadly and systematically about operations and programs. The court also recognizes that achieving efficient and effective justice system processes requires the coordination of efforts of a number of institutions and agencies, and that all stakeholders must be involved in the analysis and resolution of issues and problems. The court faces several challenges to improving its operations and case flow processes. First, the current automated management information system does not adequately support court functions, and there is substantial reliance on manual methods of record keeping and communication. Second, the amount and arrangement of physical space available for court and clerk's office operations pose problems of public access and negatively impacts the working environment of judges and staff. Third, the resources to address these problems are limited and unlikely to increase in the near future. Finally, even with adequate resources, automation and facility problems can seldom be resolved immediately. It requires detailed assessment of needs and planning. Given these circumstances, the court's real challenge is to avoid focusing on the deficiencies of the information system and/or facilities as overriding obstacles to improvement, critical though they may be, and, rather, develop strategies that deploy the resources that are available in the most effective and efficient manner possible. The 2 For instance, an analysis provided to NCSC by the State's Attorney Office suggests that a disproportionate number of felony murder cases were filed in Kankakee County in 2000 as compared to other counties of greater size. While Kankakee County had 11 murder cases filed in 2000, DuPage County, with a population of 892,574, had no murder cases filed, and Winnebago County, with a population of 268,128, had 13 murder cases filed. National Center for State Courts Page 5 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois court's interest in a review of its processes in conjunction with an examination of its technical environment and facilities recognizes this need. Developing a successful long- term plan to procure and more effectively use technology is dependent on having confidence that the processes to be automated and supported are as effective as they can be. National Center for State Courts Page 6 Court of Kankakee County. Illinois Ill. CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT A. Information for Monitoring and Case Management Effective monitoring and information procedures are critical to developing and maintaining a caseflow management system that is timely, accessible, and fair. Aggregate statistics on caseload volume, inventory, and clearance are useful in assessing past performance and highlighting areas in need of attention but are of minimal value in helping the court manage and monitor individual cases. Case-specific information is needed for this purpose. It is vital to have manual or, ideally, automated systems that provide information on case status and upcoming proceedings, track case progress along established time lines, and signal when hearings or other scheduled activities are past due. Currently, no automated or manual case monitoring process is initiated upon the filing of a case in the court and there are no tickler systems, exception reports, or other routine methods that judges use to track the progress of individual cases. As with other aspects of the current management information system, it is not clear whether this is a result of a lack of functionality in the system or the absence of a strong demand or interest in such reports on the part of the court. It is likely that the pervasive lack of confidence in the accuracy and consistency of the aggregate statistics that are generated for the State Administrative Office and the general dissatisfaction with the capacities of the Gavel system contributes to a sense of futility about pursuing new applications or requesting specialized reports. Monitoring case progress need not consume substantial judicial time. Staff can be trained to track cases, advise judges of problems, and gather and present the information needed by judges to manage the cases to resolution. Interviews and observations suggest that the staff in Kankakee County is more than able to assist with this function if given the tools.3 For instance, the judge presiding over law cases with claims over $50,000 and the deputy clerk assigned to that division periodically review lists of pending cases to ascertain their status and move them toward disposition as appropriate. National Center for State Courts Page 7 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois B. Standards and Goals Meaningful operational goals—standards or benchmarks that provide guidance for judges and other court system participants—are integral to effective caseflow management and the process of making scheduling decisions in individual cases. With the exception of statutory time lines imposed on certain cases or case events; for instance, those that govern incarcerated defendants, the exchange of discovery, or the review of child abuse and neglect cases, no overall guidelines or operational goals have been established by the court in areas such as case processing times, the reliability of court case scheduling, or the accuracy and completeness of information on case processing. Courts are often reluctant to adopt time standards or other guidelines, fearing that they will become a rigid "scorecard" and sacrifice justice for speed and other efficiencies; however, guidelines can be fashioned that are "advisory" in nature, flexible, and tailored to the unique characteristics of the jurisdiction, its culture and caseload characteristics. In the absence of such guidelines or goals, it is impossible to measure changes in performance over time or establish expectations about what events will occur in a case and when. In addition, one reason the aggregate statistics that are available have so little utility, even if accurate, is that they are not summarized/organized in a meaningful management format that would highlight successes and reveal problem areas. Standards can provide that framework. C. Scheduling and Calendaring The court relies heavily on status hearings to set future court dates and check on the preparation and readiness of parties. With some variations in frequency, this practice is common across case types and courts and results in large calendar calls. The limited review of case files conducted for this study suggests that a case may be set for a status conference as often as every three to four weeks. It was also not uncommon to see status conferences continued for a period of days because of the absence or lack of preparation of one or more parties. Table 1 shows the median (M) and average (A) time to disposition in months and the median (M) and average (A) number of court appearances in the cases sampled for this study. National Center for State Courts Page 8 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois TABLE! Time to Disposition and Number of Court Appearances in Case Samples Case Type Time in Range Number of Number of Months Lo Hi Appearances Cases Sampled Felony M=7.5 1.3 36.0 M=5 A=5.7 25 A= 10.2 Range = ito 17 Law >$50k M=25.2 3.3 43.5 M= 11 A=13.0 22 A= 24.9 Range= 1 to 28 Divorce M= 5.5 .5 17.5 M= 3 A= 3.6 27 A=6.1 Range= ltolO Small Claims M=2.2 1.0 11.5 M= 1 A= 1.5 21 A=3.3 Range lto4 Child Abuse M= 21.0 1.5 57.2 M10 A=12.2 A = 22.1 Range= 1 to 33 Delinquency M= 5.8 1.5 13.5 M= 4 A= 5.1 20 A= 6.7 Range= ito 12 Traffic M= 4.4 3.8 19.5 Not collected 17 A=7.3 DUI M= 10.8 7.7 12.2 M= 8 A= 7.2 10 A= 11.8 Range= 3 to 10 M = the median, the value that falls at the mid-point of the range and divides the number of cases in half A = the mathematical average, the sum of all values divided by the number of cases Although the sample of cases is small, the data suggests that the overall pace of case resolution is not unduly slow. For most case types, the average and/or median time to disposition is within acceptable bounds. 4 The primary purpose of the table, however, is to allow comparison of the average length of time cases were pending with the average number of court appearances. As shown, the number of appearances in felony, law, delinquency, and DUI cases is relatively high given their time in the system. The number of appearances is also somewhat high in divorce cases given their average time to disposition. The question is whether all of these appearances are meaningful events that move the cases toward disposition and not simply opportunities to reschedule. The practice of utilizing court appearances to monitor case progress has several negative implications for the court: Ideally, time to disposition is measured in terms of the percentage of cases that achieve disposition within an accepted time frame; for instance, 90 percent of felony cases are disposed within six months of filing. Averages can yield a distorted picture if there are unusually high or low values and should be viewed in conjunction with the range. National Center for State Courts Page 9 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Court hearings are extremely resource-intensive events. If the proceeding is not meaningful; that is, if it does not move a case toward final resolution, these resources are wasted. . The staff of the clerk's office is especially impacted by the frequency of court appearances because of its substantial reliance on manual methods of record keeping. If cases are repeatedly brought to court, staff becomes caught in a continuing cycle of pulling, toting, updating and returning files. Other agencies and offices that regularly interact with and appear in the court are similarly affected. Everything from prisoner transports to witness notifications and appearances can be needlessly multiplied in this process. . The size and frequency of the calendar calls also exacerbates the strain of limited courtroom and courthouse space. The high level of activity heightens a sense of churning and increases frustration over resource limitations. It is increasingly difficult not to focus solely on the daily docket and, as a result, overlook opportunities to make the workload more manageable within current constraints. D. Continuance and Attorney Conflict Policies While there has been an effort to develop a continuance policy for the court that handles juvenile cases and a "for-good-cause only" policy instituted for felony cases, there are no court-wide written policies that regulate continuances or establish guidelines for attorney conflicts. While data on the average number of continuances per case was not available for this review, information derived from the interviews conducted on-site and the review of case files suggests that, while continuances are not granted automatically, they are still fairly routine. Judges recognize that continuances need to be controlled and understand their "ripple" effect on all system participants, but also realize that changing the culture of the court in this regard will be difficult. Liberal granting of continuances when combined with scheduling practices that involve frequent court appearances unduly increases the court's workload and the strain on already limited resources. A uniform continuance policy would encourage attorney preparation and readiness and justify sanctions for repeated late and/or unjustified requests. National Center for State Courts Page 10 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois E. Case Inventory A court's "backlog" consists of the cases in its pending inventory that are older than the age considered "acceptable" as defined by locally adopted time standards or other more informal norms. Statistics reported to the Administrative Office of the Courts by the court on the number and age of pending cases are difficult to interpret definitively due to the distinctive pattern of the data for certain case types and its inconsistency with the picture painted by other aggregate measures. Appendix A includes tables that show, the number and age of pending cases at the end of calendar year 2000 for the major case types. These statistics indicate that the number of pending cases in certain case categories is alarmingly high. For instance, more than 4,000 misdemeanor cases, 1,100 DUI cases, 1,600 small claims cases, 1,100 law under $50,000 cases, 1,200 divorce cases, and 22,000 traffic violations were awaiting disposition at the end of 2000. However, when the age of these pending cases is graphed, a "u-shaped" pattern emerges As expected, a high percentage of these cases had been pending for less than a year, but also a surprisingly high percentage were five or more years old. This pattern raises some questions about the validity of the number of cases reported as being over five years old. It should be noted that in the statistical reports, pending case numbers are calculated based on filings and dispositions, and the numbers are routinely carried over from reporting period to reporting period, and from year to year. If the base number for these calculations, a number which may have been established when the reporting system was originally implemented, is never examined, a court may have a distorted view of its inventory. Pending numbers may also be artificially inflated due to misunderstandings about the point at which cases are to be reported as disposed. Information on current times to disposition and clearance rates in the court would suggest that the court is more current than some of the pending case age numbers indicate. However, whether accurate or not, the pending case numbers are cause for concern not only because effective case management requires accurate and timely knowledge of what cases are pending but also because of the picture they may convey to outside constituencies of the way the court handles its business. The court should focus on how to make the statistics more accurate and meaningful and develop a plan for National Center for State Courts Page II Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Report identifying the oldest cases, reviewing their status and placing them on a schedule for prompt resolution.5 The process of review will itself likely reduce the number of pending cases as it uncovers cases that are actually settled, no longer being pursued, or are otherwise ripe for disposition. F. Clearance Rates A court must regularly monitor whether it is keeping up with its incoming caseload. A key indicator of performance in this area is the disposition or clearance rate; that is, the number of cases that are disposed in a given year divided by the number of cases filed in the same period. If the court is keeping pace with its caseload, the clearance rates will be close to 100 percent. Values well below 100 percent indicate that a backlog is developing or that an'existing backlog is increasing. Percentages substantially greater than 100 percent may indicate that a court has been engaged in a systematic effort to dispose of older cases or purge inactive files. Table 2 displays the clearance rates for selected case types in Kankakee County for the past several years. TABLE 2 Clearance Rates: 1999, 2000 and First Six Months 2001 Case Type 1999 2000 1/1 - 6/30 2001 Law >$50,000 149% 132% 121% Law <$50,000 104% 71% 88% Small Claims 105% 94% 96% Divorce 86% 86% 92% Family 58% 35% 321% Abuse & Neglect 64% 80% 84% Delinquency 49% 67% 83% Felony 87% 101% 113% Misdemeanor 94% 71% 85% Traffic 102% 82% 99% DUI 35% 62% 62% The court has clearly improved its clearance rates in a number of areas, and the recent upward trends for felony and misdemeanor cases, law under $50,000 cases, It should be noted that, at the time of the review, the State's Attorney Office had instituted a quarterly review of the number of pending cases under the purview of specific divisions of the office. National Center for State Courts Page 12 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois juvenile matters, divorces, and traffic cases are especially encouraging, even though some of the percentages are still below optimal levels. A consistently high disposition ratio was maintained in small claims cases during the period, and it appears that systematic efforts to dispose of pending civil matters involving claims of $50,000 or more have been diligently pursued. On the other hand, the patterns among some other case types are less encouraging, most notably the low clearance of DUI cases and the erratic pattern for family law cases other than divorce. G. Time to Disposition Aggregate information on time to disposition is not readily available for all case types, however, data on the year of filing for cases disposed within the first six months of 2001, though imprecise, indicates'that case processing times are generally not protracted as shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 Dispositions by Year of Filing: January-June, 2001 CASE The disposition data for law cases corresponds to the age of the pending cases in this category. Approximately half of the recent dispositions are in cases that are two or more years old, perhaps reflecting the efforts to resolve older cases suggested by the clearance measures. The sample of these cases analyzed for this review (see Table 1) showed an average time to disposition of approximately two years. If these numbers are indicative of current practice, it would mark a substantial improvement over the average National Center for State Courts Page 13 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois F time to disposition of 48.4 months reported for these cases in 1999.6 Still, only 28 percent of the cases disposed during the period were filed in the previous 18 months, the time period recommended for civil jury trial cases in the ABA time standards. Recent dispositions of small claims cases appear to be extremely timely, with 76 percent of the cases disposed in the first six months of 2001 having been filed within the same period. Approximately one-third of the divorce case dispositions were cases filed within the same six month period and fully 88 percent were filed within the preceding 18 months. The large percentage of dispositions of more recent filings again raises questions about the high number of cases pending more than 5 years in these case categories—whether they exist and whether the court is making any attempts to resolve them or otherwise remove them form the docket. A similar pattern occurs with misdemeanors—if there are 1,300 pending cases over five years of age, why do cases of that age make up less than 1 percent of the dispositions? The age of felony case dispositions is less clustered and more closely reflects the range of pending cases in this category. A similar pattern occurs in delinquency and child abuse and neglect cases, although the statistics for the latter are not directly comparable due to the different criteria for when a case is counted as disposed. While little can be definitively concluded from the inexact measures of time to disposition available for this review, the value of more detailed data on disposition times, though historical in nature, should not be underestimated. It is especially important to have such data at the start of a caseflow management program to serve as a baseline for measuring improvements over time and facilitating planning for specific efforts. H. Specific Issues in Criminal Case Management While the issues surrounding scheduling, continuances, information for system and individual case monitoring, and goals and standards are more or less common to all divisions of the court, there are issues that surfaced in interviews and observations regarding impediments to efficient case processing that are specific to certain case types. In criminal cases, an overarching concern is jail overcrowding. A facility that was designed to house 106 prisoners routinely holds more than 200 inmates. It was 6 Annual Report of the Illinois Courts: Statistical Summary 1999, Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts, Springfield, Illinois. National Center for State Courts Page 14 Court of Kankakee County. Illinois estimated that as much as 90 percent of the jail population is in pre-trial status, not serving a sentence or awaiting transport to a state institution. While the overcrowding is attributable, in part, to growth in the number of serious offenses committed in the county, there are also detainees facing misdemeanor, civil contempt, and routine drug-related charges. While in-custody cases are given priority by statute and by the court, the factors that have influenced the jail population over time have not been analyzed and there has been no formal collaborative effort across agencies to address the issues in this area. While the county anticipates that a new jail facility will be built in the near future, without an understanding of how the practices and policies of each component of the criminal justice system influence the jail population, capacity and usage issues will remain a concern. The recent addition of pre-trial services staff in the probation department is a positive and promising development for both the jail situation and criminal case management. A related issue that impacts both the jail and the court is the suspension of arraignments and other criminal proceedings via video since the decision of the Third District Appellate Court's in 2000 which reversed and remanded all cases in which a defendant was sentenced following a televised plea of guilty.' The return of these cases to the court had an immediate impact on workload, but the long-term implications for the frequency of prisoner transport, courtroom security, and facility crowding are also significant. Early resolution of criminal cases is not common in Kankakee County; it was estimated that only 1 percent of pleas occur at arraignment. The reasons cited by respondents for this vary by case and are multiple and interrelated. Since it is governed by rules, the process of discovery in criminal cases was characterized as generally timely, although there is often delay in obtaining drug test results and audio-taped/video-taped statements. Delay also occurs if the defendant requests a competency exam, appointment of an expert, or moves to suppress evidence. While the appointment of the public defender is timely, there is often delay in getting the defendant to the office to meet with their attorney. The overall impact of these discrete causes of delay is to impair the ability of the prosecution and defense to evaluate their cases and determine how to proceed. ' People v. Guttendorf (2000, P Dist) 723 N.D.2d 838. National Center for Slate Courts Page 15 c?S) Court of Kankakee County, Illinois The greatest obstacle to early resolution appears to be obtaining the "best offer" in plea negotiations, now seen as only occurring close to trial. While this may be due to a lack of adequate information in some cases, staffing issues, including high turnover and lack of sufficient personnel, also make it difficult for the two sides to get together literally and figuratively. The part-time status of public defenders and specialization of attorneys in the prosecutor's office add to this problem. Court appearances are often the only opportunities for communication, but the scheduling of court time is also difficult due to the same factors cited above. Plea negotiations must include notice to the victim in appropriate cases, which can also further slow and complicate the process. Failure to achieve earlier pleas in cases means that there are more scheduled events and time involved in cases than is needed, and more cases are set for trial than is realistic. 8 Both result in more judicial, staff, and other agency resources being devoted to cases than may be necessary. I. Issues in Civil and Domestic Relations Case Management Generally, those involved in civil and domestic relations case processing cited the systemic problems outlined above, such as lack of adequate automated support, redundancy in information management, and insufficient physical space. Some noted the existence of a court culture where attorneys control the pace of litigation and that certain practices, such as large docket calls for purposes of scheduling/status check, were institutionalized and would be difficult to alter. The curt does not appear to be experiencing the increased volume and rising expectations of self-represented litigants, especially in domestic relations cases, that has challenged other jurisdictions in recent years. No one noted any particular problems or concerns with these cases. The court has forms and instructions available for litigants in divorce cases who are proceeding without an attorney, but there is no perceived need to offer additional assistance to these litigants or develop special procedures. Clerk's office staff assist those seeking domestic violence protective orders to the extent they are 8 National data consistently shows that approximately 95 percent of all criminal cases are disposed by plea. In Kankakee County in 1999, 592 out of 598 total felony convictions (98 percent) were the result of a plea. National Center for State Courts Page 16 Court of Kankakee County. Illinois authorized without providing legal advice. Petitioners are encouraged to contact the local domestic violence advocacy center if additional assistance is required. 9 Forms are also available for litigants in small claims cases. Although the volume of these cases is high, the judge and clerk's staff appear to have developed procedures and routines that work well for them and move cases toward expeditious resolution. Recommendations on Caseflow Management Recommendation III. 1: To improve overall caseflow management: • Develop systems to monitor case progress from initiation even if, in the short term, these are manual processes. • Consider using scheduling orders as an alternative to the frequent status/scheduling hearings now being held. • Consider implementing differentiated case management systems for selected case types. ° • Set case events on a strategic schedule—long enough to allow for preparation, short enough to encourage preparation. • Schedule trials only when it is clear that the possibilities for non- trial resolution have been exhausted. • Monitor and control post-disposition events. Recommendation III. 2: To reduce court appearances and their impact on judicial and staff resources: • Automate, to the extent possible, case status and progress monitoring functions. • Explore possible uses of the ad hoc reporting capability of Gavel to produce exception reports on procedural steps such as service of process, filing of a responsive pleading, or expiration dates of orders as a preliminary step. Establishing simple manual procedures for monitoring case progress, while not ideal, is a viable option and may serve as a valuable precursor to defining what is desired in an enhanced automated system. While petitioners do not have to complete forms at the main counter in the clerk's office, the physical space allotted for this function, although providing somewhat more privacy, is still less than ideal for the circumstances. See Part IX on facilities. 10 The mechanics of differentiated case management were discussed at the workshop. NCSC will provide additional information and models of this technique if there is interest in developing a program. National Center for State Courts Page 17 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation 111.3: To make management reports more meaningful, motivate staff and judicial officers, and promote timeliness and expedition: • Establish case specific time standards and/or other case management goals in consultation with other justice system stakeholders. • Consider adopting informal, transitional standards while caseflow management programs and strategies developed at the workshop are being implemented, evaluated, and fine-tuned. Recommendation III. 4: To enable the court to measure its performance over time, identify trouble spots, and communicate the work of the court to its various constituencies: • Define and distribute regular management reports, such as concise summaries of clearance, case inventory, and time-to-disposition should be defined and distributed. As appropriate, display the data in a longitudinal and comparative framework. • Include information for evaluation and monitoring as a key component of caseflow management plans. Recommendation III. 5: To ensure that the court has a realistic picture of its inventory of cases and the resources needed to process them: Verify the current counts of pending cases; purge cases as appropriate; and conclude any remaining backlogged cases. concluded. The court should have a specific strategy for addressing these cases and determine whether resources can be temporarily reallocated or augmented to address the pending caseload inventory. Recommendation III. 6: To restore confidence in the caseload statistics: • Consider in-house training on case reporting rules and possible audits of case counts on a periodic basis. Recommendation III. 7: To reduce court appearances and better ensure scheduling certainty: Develop, in consultation with the bar, a court-wide continuance policy and apply it uniformly and consistently across courts. An effective continuance policy should be in writing; consistent with statutes and rules; require that requests for continuances be in writing and only for good cause; allow trial day continuances only for emergencies; and, disallow any automatic continuances, even if both parties stipulate. National Center for State Courts Page 18 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation III. 8: To reduce uncertainty in the court calendar: Develop, in consultation with the bar, a written policy on attorney conflicts that establishes priorities for appearances. Recommendation III. 9: To ensure that defendants meet with their assigned public defenders in a timely manner: • Consider including a requirement to do so in initial release/bond orders. • Arrange for a representative of the public defender's office to be present at the bond hearing to initiate the process of determining eligibility for representation at public expense and have a public defender available that day to meet at or immediately after the initial appearance calendar. Recommendation III. 10: To encourage earlier pleas in criminal cases and avoid unnecessarily setting cases for trial: • Explore methods, including those suggested in Recommendation 111.9, to ensure early defense attorney contact with the defendant. • Reinforce the importance of the prosecution's early delivery of a discovery package to defense counsel. • Convene discussions between the state attorney's and public defender offices regarding the obstacles to obtaining reasonable offers earlier in the process and the most effective mechanism for ensuring that attorneys assigned to a case can meet for meaningful discussions in advance of court appearances. • Consider establishing plea cut-off dates as an alternative. Recommendation III. 11: To facilitate communication about current jail overcrowding issues and prepare for the new facility: • Consider establishing a committee or "working group" on jail issues composed of representatives of the court, state's attorney office, public defender office, probation department, sheriff's department, and other affected agencies and offices. Initially, the committee may simply be a forum for exchange of information and perspectives on the jail situation, but the agenda could eventually be expanded to other issues that require collaboration and collective decision-making. Recommendation III. 12: To ensure the availability of public defender services: • Assess the cost and benefits over the long term of retaining part- time, contract attorneys versus a full-time staff in that office. National Center for State Courts Page 19 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois IV. COLLECTIONS The clerk's office and the circuit court bench are to be commended for taking a proactive role in the enforcement of outstanding financial obligations. The establishment of a collection office with staff dedicated to this effort represents a substantial commitment to collections enforcement. This effort is enhanced by the existence of a specialized collections docket, which focuses judicial and staff resources to address collections issues. Despite the limitations of the court's information system, collections office staff are able to determine the aggregate amount due for each defendant and issue a single enforcement order for the total amount. This is an important feature of the collection process, as a large number of defendants have multiple payment obligations. The specialized docket, or call, is -not only an enforcement mechanism, but encourages offenders to seek employment and allows community service alternatives for indigent. offenders. It is estimated that the increased efforts in this area has increased collections by approximately $94,000. Despite these accomplishments, interviews and observations conducted for this review also highlighted some areas in the collections process that could be improved. Among the issues identified by staff of the clerk's office, the state's attorney office, and the judge presiding over the collections docket were: • Routine granting of time to pay • Failure of late notices to prompt payment • Inability to set up payment plans in the case management system • Use of court appearances to monitor payments • Limited capacity for collections enforcement • Delay in sending cases to collections • Failure to send all cases to collections • Manual processes that limit capacity for enforcement • Lack of management information to evaluate collections activities Collections Process Recommendations Recommendation IV. 1: To increase compliance rates: • Encourage payment at time of sentencing or assessment, advise clients in advance of this expectation, and grant extensions only on the basis of need. • Reexamine the effectiveness of late notices in prompting payment by conducting a systematic study of the return from a notice versus the cost in staff time and postage. National Center for State Courts Page 20 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation IV. 2: To reduce the cost of monitoring and enforcing payment plans: • Collect small financial obligations at time of assessment and establish a minimum amount, such as $100, that will be collected at assessment or in a single deferred payment. Recommendation IV. 3: To decrease deferred payments and establish consistent criteria for deferrals: • Require defendants to provide financial information to support the need for deferred payment when requesting time to pay. Recommendation IV. 4: To facilitate payment and increase compliance: • Provide defendants with information on the amount due, the date due, the consequences of default, and other conditions, in the form of a payment contract, before they leave court at the time of assessment. Collect a portion of the payment at the time of assessment, if possible. Recommendation IV. 5: Recognizing that the likelihood of payment default increases with the number and length of installments: • Make payment schedules as short as possible, limit the number of payment dates, and set payment due dates at regular intervals. Recommendation IV. 6: To increase compliance: Notify defendants on the record and/or in writing, as part of the payment contract, of the consequences of nonpayment and advise them of what they must do if a payment schedule cannot be met for a compelling reason. Recommendation IV. 7: To enhance collection efforts: • Coordinate the enforcement of payment orders with the probation department and enforce payment orders as a condition of probation. The probation department should take appropriate action to preserve the court's ability to enforce unsatisfied financial obligations on the case prior to discharge. Recommendation IV. 8: To facilitate communication and ensure consistency and uniformity in collections practices: • Prepare and follow written collections policies that address: - the role of the state's attorney and the probation department; - the criteria for referral to enforcement; - payment amounts and installment periods; - the use of wage assignments; and - forms and notification. National Center for State Courts Page 21 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation IV. 9: To reduce the reliance on manual methods of calculating balances and production of payment contracts: • Determine whether, and at what cost, the Gavel system could be upgraded to better support collections, including proper updating of the payment amount upon receipt of payment and establishing payment plans. National Center for State Courts Page 22 2F Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Adh V. BUSINESS PRACTICES A. Case File Preparation and Maintenance Cases are initiated through the filing of a hard-copy document (citation, complaint, civil complaint) and entered into the Gavel system. Case numbers are manually assigned and are affixed to the file folders and labeled by hand. A docket card is prepared by typewriter and placed in the file folder. This becomes the primary register of actions for the case. All pleadings and filings are noted on the docket card. Entries are made via rubber stamps, preprinted labels, and hand notations. Some of this information is also entered into the case management system register through user-defined history codes. This typically includes court dates, issuance and return of warrants, attorney information, and dispositions. These codes correspond to pre-determined text and may be embellished with free form text. For minor traffic citations the clerk's office prints a small folder using the document generation function. The ticket entry screen follows the format of the general citation and automatically checks the calculation of the Illinois driver's license. Case files may be in any one of several locations, depending on what activity is being performed. For instance, the file may be in a judge's office, pulled for the calendar, pulled for filing of documents or register entries, or in the main filing cabinet. Due to the heavy reliance on the paper file for information, file movement is common and locating files is often difficult despite the use of an in/out card system for tracking. B. Case Tracking and Scheduling As noted under Part III on caseflow management, there is little evidence of case milestone or event monitoring through the case management system, and, generally, cases are scheduled for court appearances to ensure progress. Scheduled events are not retained on Gavel after they have passed and are overwritten with the next date. This makes it difficult to monitor case progress with the system. The, only monitoring feature noted during the review was the warrant flag that is displayed by Gavel when a warrant has been issued. On-line calendars are also not available in Gavel, although there is the ability to print calendars in several different formats, and they are routinely produced. However, the clerk's office still finds it necessary to make copies of each judge's manual calendar National Center for State Courts .' Page 23 .2 e' Court of Kankakee County, Illinois to compare against the computer generated calendar to ensure that all files required for scheduled proceedings are pulled and available. C. Generation of Forms and Reports The creation and production of forms through Gavel is considered relatively easy by staff and a variety of forms can be created and automatically populated with case data. The primary problem with forms generation at the time of the review was the shortage of printers given the number of forms generated. The collections staff, for instance,had to go upstairs to the clerk's main office to retrieve documents. The purchase of additional printers is planned, and when they are installed, consideration should be given to running some high volume printing in batches. Many of the forms generated include traffic non- compliance documents, which are good candidates for electronic submission. Gavel includes functionality for user-defined reports, although this feature is not used as much as it might be. For instance, the clerk's office relies on manual counts to maintain caseload statistics and report caseload statistics to the state Administrative Office. The reasons for this are multiple but difficult to pinpoint. Mainly, it stems from a general lack of confidence in case and disposition counting by the system. One of the problems noted was the tendency of the system to skip numbers in the traffic system. However, there are other less well-defined problems that seemingly render the system- generated reports useless. D. Court Minutes and Register Entries There is a great deal of redundancy in the entry of court minutes and register entries. The use of history, or register of actions, codes is limited, preventing the court from using the computer register of actions as the primary source of case history - information. Ideally, the register would be complete and the court would print the register as needed, rather than maintaining a manual register. Instead the clerk must print a large number of pre-formatted labels with boilerplate minute text. Some of these entries have blanks where variable information may be written, such as dates or party names. The labels are then affixed to the case file register of actions. Many of these entries are then entered into the Gavel register of actions. Because of the time and effort required to maintain case progress information, data entry falls behind. In the traffic court, as an example, the courtroom clerk makes shorthand entries of some minutes. National Center for State Courts Page 24 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Upon the conclusion of the court proceedings, staff enter these notes on the file and then make entries of some minutes in Gavel. The functionality of existing history codes warrants further investigation. While the system appears to limit code text to two lines, it may be possible to append more text to the codes to enhance their versatility. E. Data Redundancy The redundancy evident in the entry of court minutes and register actions is perhaps the most notable example of duplication of effort, but not the only one. Basic case data is independently entered by the state's attorney office, probation department, and sheriffs office on a number of cases. Child support payment information is currently entered in both the Gavel system as well as the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) system, although efforts are underway to rectify this situation. While Gavel has a sentencing detail screen available, due to a lack of training, this function is not used. Instead, sentencing information must be entered free-form in the register of actions and, therefore, cannot be automatically captured for extract to forms and reports. Disposition information must also be re-entered into the special forms mandated for criminal history reporting to the state police. E. Financial Recordkeeping There is general satisfaction with the ability of Gavel to track fee types and provide accurate information for daily reconciliation and monthly transmittal of funds. Gavel also prints checks for the transmittal of funds, as well as the disbursement of bonds and restitution. The system allows the flexibility to control application of various fees and make adjustments as needed. The court can view amounts owed by a defendant for all cases. The main shortcomings of Gavel in the area of financial recordkeeping lie in the ability to track payments. The system does not provide for the establishment of payment plans with multiple payment dates and tracking of time payments. This is a critical part of the collections process (see Part IV). While a payment date can be set on the system, it must be removed when payment is made. National Center for State Courts Page 25 c? ')j Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Business Process Recommendations Recommendation V. 1: To save staff time and reduce inconvenience: • Increase printing capacity by continuing with plans to add high- speed printers to the main office, collections office, and traffic division. • Consider conducting a pilot test of a courtroom printer to test the viability of printing certain documents immediately in the courtroom. Recommendation V. 2: To increase the utility of the computer register of actions: • Investigate the feasibility of expanding the use of history codes for minute entries by appending more text. Recommendation V. 3: To save time in file preparation: • Utilize document generation to create file labels. Recommendation V. 4: To save time and effort in docket card preparation: • Utilize document generation to create the heading and first entry of the docket card rather than typing this information on a blank card. Recommendation V. 5: To facilitate locating and maintaining case files: Examine the possibility of purchasing and installing a file tracking system to manage the movement of case files. A bar code system could also be integrated with the case management system for rapid entry of minutes and case notes. Recommendation V. 6: TO improve courtroom information access: Initiate a pilot project in one of the courtrooms to test the feasibility of expanded computer use during court proceedings, including the capability to view as well as enter information directly into the case management system during proceedings. Recommendation V. 7: To reduce the burden of manual reporting procedures: • Clearly identify the reasons why the statistics produced by Gavel are not valid/reliable and determine if these problems can be corrected, short of major system redesign, for at least some case types. National Center for State Courts Page 26 Court of Kankakee County. Illinois AdIlk Recommendation V. 8: To improve case management and reduce court appearances: Investigate the feasibility and utility of different methods for tracking case progress and events; for instance, identifying or creating history codes that would serve as markers for the generation of customized reports or linking history codes with case status flags to monitor case progress. Recommendation V. 9: To facilitate the transfer of responsibility for evidence tracking from the court reporters to the clerk: • Prepare a plan that addresses the storage, release and disposal of evidence. Such a plan should consider: 1. Creating a record of the receipt of evidence including information on the delivering party, a description of the evidence, its status, related case(s), and storage location. 2. Generating an evidence label with number and case information. 3. Tracking the release and return of evidence, its location, and the responsible party and generating a receipt for release and return. 4. Indexing evidence information by case, party, agency, and evidence number. 5. Linking court orders pertaining to evidence. 6. Recording return, final release or destruction of evidence. National Center for State Courts Page 27 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois VI. TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT Selection of software applications is left to the discretion of each individual elected official in Kankakee County and each official has.their own applications specialist. The county provides support for the information backbone and connections, but there is no county-wide strategic plan for automation or system development. The court has some important decisions to make regarding its future use of automation. These decisions should be made in collaboration with key personnel in the court and representatives of other affected offices and agencies, such as prosecution, defender services, probation, law enforcement, and child protective services. As noted, the clerk's office currently uses the Manatron Gavel case management system. This application runs on a proprietary version of Unix and a Unisys server. The office relies primarily on aging dedicated (dumb) terminals for access to the Gavel system. Used replacements were obtained from another court to replace failing units. Additional replacements are needed as terminals continue to fail due to old agç. Several PC's are available in the office with office automation software. Additional PC's are on order, however there are an estimated 50-80 dumb terminals still in use. The sheriffs department uses the HTE-Jalan product for jail management and the city of Kankakee police system for law enforcement automation, including records, civil process, and citations. The state's attorney's office is using a Manatron application. Child support payments are now primarily handled through the centralized State Disbursement Unit (SDU). The clerk's office has a terminal with access to the SDU system and is responsible for entering payment information into the system, but also makes the same entry into Gavel. Although finding is available from the state to develop an automated link between the two systems, the cost of the enhancement may be prohibitive if the court anticipates adapting a different case management system in the - near future (see Part VII). Integration with outside agencies occurs in several ways: Export Data Exchange - data is transferred from the court to another entity, for reporting or statistical purposes, such as traffic disposition or criminal history data. National Center for State Courts Page 28 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Import Data Exchange - transfer originates from an external organization sending data elements to court, such as ticket information. Obtain Data Access - access to another automated application which would provide court with data, such as access to the jail system. Provide Data Access - remote access to application, such as prosecutor access to the case management system. There is currently very little integration between local criminal justice agencies and the court. Both the probation department and the state attorney's office have inquiry access to the court's system, however, there is no information exchange between the departments. Staff have identified the need for access to the jail system to look up custody information. The court also does not have access to the state criminal history system (LEEDS), NCIC information, or the department of motor vehicle system. Lack of integration increases the reliance on paper reports and manual methods of information exchange. This can contribute to delay, multiplies opportunities for errors, and consumes valuable staff and judicial time. Short Term Technical Environment Recommendations Recommendation VI. 1: To address functional needs within the context of the existing system: • Prioritize and prepare a formal service request to the vendor for system enhancements. Although inquiries have been made to the vendor regarding several of the items noted above, the following are among those which would most benefit the current operations of the court and eliminate redundancies: Criminal History Reporting - Activation and customization (if needed) of the criminal disposition screen and development of functionality to report criminal dispositions to the state repository. Traffic Disposition and Non-compliance Reporting - Development of functionality to allow the court to report traffic dispositions, non-compliance information, and license reinstatement data to the Illinois Motor Vehicle Department. Transfer of Information to the SDU System - Development of functionality to allow automatic transfer of information to the State Disbursement System. National Center for State Courts Page 29 .2 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Enhance Collections Functionality - Determine whether and at what cost the current system could be upgraded to better support collections (see Part IV). Recommendation VI. 2: To ensure that the use of limited funds yields maximum benefit in the shortest period of time: • Develop a plan for terminal replacement with emphasis on those work stations that would benefit most from office automation. Lone Term Technical Environment Recommendations Recommendation VI. 3: To increase efficiency, reduce reliance on paper reports, and facilitate information exchange: • Continue and promote more focused discussions with state/local criminal justice agencies regarding integration and identification of technical requirements for linkages with state information repositories, in particular the DMV and criminal history records. The potential for significant efficiency gains exists through the electronic transfer of information between the court and outside agencies. In terms of volume of data, the electronic transfer of. ticket information to the court and reporting of traffic dispositions and non-compliance information has the greatest potential return in efficiency. Identify and include specific information exchange needs in any system specifications that the court develops for a new or enhanced case management system. Recommendation VI. 4: To ensure that all of the important short and long term interests of the court are considered as opportunities for the introduction and enhancement of technology become available: • Convene an internal automation committee for the purpose of evaluating needs, developing a strategic plan, and monitoring implementation. This should be a policy-making body and include individuals with technical expertise as well as policymakers, managers and current and potential users. Representatives from other offices and agencies may be invited to participate in discussions and decisions when issues involving their operations are considered. • Consider enlisting the assistance of a facilitator/planner in the formative stage of the automation committee to ensure that the committee develops a clear direction and purpose and that its initial meetings are focused and productive. National Center for State Courts . Page 30 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation VI. 5: To ensure that automation proceeds in a coordinated direction, is cognizant of funding realities, and is governed by short and long -term objectives: Develop a written strategic plan for judicial system automation. Make the strategic plan the centerpiece of the automation committee's work and include specific objectives, activities, and timelines. The strategic plan should: 1. Be based on an accurate assessment of need. 2. Reflect a current understanding of relevant technological opportunities, including Internet applications. 3. Seek to reduce duplicative effort and expense through coordination of common objectives across organizational boundaries. 4. Include input from a broad range of constituencies. 5. Provide for availability of court services in the event of a emergency or disaster. 6. Realistically acknowledge funding constraints. Recommendation VI. 6: Recognizing that county resources for technical support are limited and that the clerk's office has to provide its own applications specialist: • Identify a specific person responsible for technical support. • Improve that person's technical knowledge and skills through training and education. This individual can then take a central role in helping to develop the technology strategic plan. National Center for State Courts Page 31 77 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois VII. CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Deficiencies and strengths of the current case management information system have been noted in previous sections of this report. Recommendations regarding system enhancements and training that might improve its operation have also been made where appropriate. NCSC recognizes, however, that there is general dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the current system and a pervasive sense that there is "no future in it" among many staff and judicial officers in Kankakee County. Clearly, one of the most mission-critical needs for the court is to improve the functionality of the case management system. Unfortunately, there is no standard response or "quick fix" to this challenge if the court is to avoid facing the same set of circumstances in the future. While the court needs to fashion its own priorities and objectives for a fully- functional management information system, NCSC offers the following as some achievable goals in this area based on its review: 1. Install a fully integrated system that supports case processing and maintenance for all case types under jurisdiction of the circuit court. 2. Improve data entry by reducing redundancies and providing the functionality to accept data in electronic form. 3. Reduce reliance on manual case file through a fully-functional minute/register entry system and alternative records management such as imaging. 4. Improve availability of case information to judges and clerk's staff. 5. Improve ease of access to up-to-date case information. 6. Automate case disposition and non-compliance reporting to increase speed and reduce errors. 7. Improve flexibility of reporting and statistical generation. 8. Improve inter-agency data collection and exchange among local criminal justice agencies. 9. Capture all necessary disposition information and detail 10. Integrate financial and cash management. 11. Integrate calendar and scheduling functions. 12. Ensure fully reliable statistical and management reporting capabilities, including ad hoc reporting. 13. Establish case event and milestone tracking and reporting. National Center for State Courts Page 32 , 7ff' Court of Kankakee County, Illinois There are basically three alternatives to maintaining the status quo with the current case management system: A. Enhance the existing application B. Develop a new application locally C. Purchase and install private vendor software Each of these options offers varying potential for improvements to the functional and technical limitations that currently exist. A. Existing System Enhancement Discussions have occurred between the clerk's office and the system vendor concerning the need for various upgrades. Some of the most critical needs are identified in this report based on their potential return in savings of staff time and data reliability. In order to fully evaluate the potential for this option, the court should identify and prioritize the necessary improvements and obtain pricing and timelines for implementation from the vendor. The vendor's response should also include an honest appraisal of enhancements that cannot be made. The court should determine if these activities would be performed as special modifications to existing code or would be included in a new product release. Also of concern to the court should be the proprietary nature of the current operating system and whether an operating system that meets open systems standards would be available as part of a new release. B. Local System Development In some jurisdictions the courts choose to develop case management systems locally, either by contracting for technical services or utilizing existing technical staff and resources of the funding unit. These projects typically involve a great deal of effort to identify business needs, write and test code, and implement. The cost and probable timeline of such a project, given local needs and resources, are in NCSC's view, prohibitive. A variation to this approach could involve purchasing the source code for the existing system and contracting for modifications. The outcome of taking this approach would be difficult to predict, however, and would likely not provide the court with a state-of-the-art solution. National Center for State Courts Page 33 ,277 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Ank C. Purchase and Installation of New System The most aggressive solution involves the migration of current data to a completely new case management application. This process will involve considerable effort on the part of court staff to identify needs and design a process for selecting the most desirable solution. It also offers the potential for making significant improvements to existing work processes and information flows. The process for acquiring a new case management system generally consists of the following steps: 1. As previously recommended (see Part VI), continue interagency integration discussions in order to define needs and identify limitations and capabilities for information exchange. 2. Form an internal "users group" to identify overall system goals and major goals for technology within the court. Participants would include line workers from different representing the different case types and functions within the court. 3. Construct an "as is" business model; that is, document current work processes and identify where and how these processes could be improved. 4. Working with the users group, develop a "preferred" business model; that is, complete a requirements analysis for the new system. This effort can be National Center for State Courts Page 34 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois guided by the functional standards developed by the National Consortium for Court Functional an ar These standards are designed to be used in the system definition stage to help court managers identify and prioritize the functions of new or enhanced systems; that is, what the system should perform. A copy of the standards for civil case processing are included in Appendix B. Although the document is intimidating at first glance, it can readily serve as a point of departure or even preliminary check-off list for defining desired features of a new or updated system (see tables of subfunctions in text). 5. Evaluate options in light of the results of the completed requirements analysis—enhance current system or bid new system? 6. Develop a Request for Information (RFI). This is an optional step that solicits information from vendors to identify who is qualified to provide the necessary hardware and software. Responses are not binding and are generally used to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP). 7. Develop an RFP for vendor response. While the preparation of an RFP is time consuming, its advantage is that it forces vendors to respond specifically and factually to the identified requirements and alerts them that it is a competitive process. Much of the work necessary for the functional requirements piece of the RFP will be accomplished in step 4. Other The standards are the result of a three-year effort to assist state courts in automating their case processing systems. Each volume describes the functional standards for a specific case type and tracks how these cases move through the court system, along with their accompanying documents and reports. The standards for each case processing system have been broken down into the following functional groups which chronologically track how a case moves through the court system: • Case initiation and indexing • Docketing and related recordkeeping • Scheduling • Document generation and processing • Calendaring • Hearings • Disposition • Execution • Case close • Accounting (including front counter, cashier, back office and general ledger functions) • Security • Management and statistical reports Final standards are available for civil cases; standards for family law cases and criminal cases are available in draft form only, but would still be useful for discussion purposes. National Center for State Courts Page 35 Court of Kankakee County. Illinois provisions to consider are user training, system documentation, interfaces with other systems, and on-going system and database maintenance and upgrades. A model RFP, as well as information on managing and setting goals for the RFP process, is included in Appendix C as are several examples of RFPs) 2 8. Evaluate proposals submitted in response to the RFP and compile a "short- list" of vendors that will be asked to demonstrate their products for the users group and, perhaps, representatives from the wider Court Technology Committee. Prepare scenarios for use in the demonstrations so there is a constant basis for comparison. Evaluate finalists based on pre-established criteria. 9. Negotiate final contract with vendor. 10. Install, test system, and convert existing data. 12 The model RFP is project of a subcommittee of the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management with funding from a Bureau of Justice Assistance grant to SEARCH and staff assistance from NCSC. National Center for State Courts Page 36 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois VIII. COURT FACILITY ASSESSMENT The NCSC project team evaluated the Kankakee County Courthouse for its potential to accommodate the current operational and space needs of the court and court- related offices. Of particular concern are the difficulties in providing adequate operating space for the court and various court-related office functions; appropriate security arrangements including separate circulation and zoning for judges, court employees, prisoners, and the public; accessibility for individuals with disabilities; and the building structural layout necessary to meet modern courthouse design standards. The identified facility deficiencies and user needs are meant to be constructive and helpful for planning of the future court facility. The following evaluation criteria are used in this assessment of the Kankakee County Courthouse: • Building Image and Space Adequacy • Adjacency and Circulation • Accessibility for Disabled Individuals • Security A. Building Image and Space Adequacy This assessment category relates to the appropriateness of the environment created within the existing court facility and the adequacy of the space provided for the court and individual court-related offices within the facility. Space adequacy covers the amount of space needed to accommodate daily activities and operations and the requirements for circulation, equipment, and storage. 1. General The existing courthouse space and floor layout do not meet the court's needs. The available space in the courthouse has been fully utilized and is inadequate for the current level of occupancy. • Court functional space, such as courtrooms, judges' chambers, clerk's offices, prosecutor's offices, are overly crowded and cramped into isolated locations in the building. No flexibility in the arrangement of courtrooms, office space, and hallways exists to accommodate growth of the court system. National Center for State Courts Page 37 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Fin jIvorz . The interior design, furnishings, and decor of the court and court- related offices are inadequate for their designated purposes. . The space allocated for public use, such as public waiting areas, public restrooms, public counters, clerk's offices, attorney/client meeting rooms, and outside courtrooms are inadequate. The law library in the basement is filled with book stacks and does not provide an appropriate environment to allow reading and research. The jury assembly room in the basement is spacious but lacks appropriate accommodations for jurors. There are no designated smoking areas, particularly for jurors. No training and conference facilities are provided in the courthouse for court employees and judges. . Little public queuing space is available at the courthouse entrance for security screening. 2. Courtrooms . Courtrooms vary in size and shape and some are inadequate for the types of trials and proceedings conducted within. The structural configuration of the building and the layout of the - courtrooms fail to provide efficient and adequate space for the levels of court activities conducted within. Courtrooms on the first floor are petite size courtrooms, by today's courtroom design standards. There is a lack of adequate audience seating, proper segregation between court participants, and evidence/exhibit display areas in those small courtrooms. The small litigation wells fail to provide the proper sight line relationship and non-encroachment distance among court participants. It may be intimidating to some litigants, especially in family proceedings but in other situations as well. . The structural configuration of the criminal courtroom on the third floor presents difficulties for public observing court proceedings. Large columns standing in the middle of the courtroom obstruct the judge's and the courtroom security officer's visual coverage on National Center for State Courts Page 38 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois activities/movements in the courtroom spectator area. The inability of effective surveillance and/or response by the judge and the security officer from the litigation area presents a security risk in the case of a violent confrontation. 3. Courtroom Ancillary Areas No attorney/client conference space near the courtrooms is available for attorneys to meet privately with their clients and/or witnesses before, during, or after court hearings. Currently, attorneys must confer with their clients or with each other in the public hallways. No separate, private victim/witness waiting rooms are provided near the courtrooms. . There is not a holding cell next to the courtrooms in the building. Prisoners are moved to courtrooms from the jail across the street and placed directly in courtrooms waiting for their scheduled courtroom appearances. . Jury deliberation facilities are small and do not comfortably accommodate jurors for extended periods of time. Male and female jurors have to share, and compete for, a toilet with the judges during trial recess/break. 4. Judges' Chambers/Judicial Support Space • Judges' chambers are small and judges can't conduct conferences- and/or informal hearings with attorneys and litigants in their offices. No dedicated visitor/guest waiting area is provided in the judges' chambers. The two judicial assistants provide administrative support to all the circuit judges. Their workstations are scattered around the building and located away from most of the judges, which hinders effective administrative support and communication. . Private toilets are not provided in the judges' chambers. National Center for State Courts Page 39 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois F 5. Court and Court-Related Offices . The office of the clerk of court is crowded with workstations, boxes, and file cabinets. The office lacks sufficient space for the number of employees and the high volume of court records. . The clerk's office is located in three separate locations, which is difficult for office management and confusing to the public. . There is inadequate public counter space, writing surface space, and file review space for the public in the clerk's office. • No conference room for staff meetings and/or training is provided in the clerk's office. • The employee break facility is inadequate. There are only two small tables in the basement for all the workers in the courthouse to take breaks. . Excessive amount of records and files are kept in the courthouse. Overflowing record storage cabinets stand in the public hallway outside offices, which may be in violation of local life safety building codes. The prosecutor's office space is inadequate. Currently, some of the staff is located in two other buildings, because there is not enough space in the courthouse. Multiple office locations cause difficulties in office management and prohibit office resource sharing. The prosecutor's office lacks storage space. The only conference room in the office is filled with office equipment and bookcases. The storage cage assigned to the office is filled with records and there is no more room in the courthouse to meets its storage needs. The probation department has outgrown its present office space on the first floor of the Annex building. Some of the probation officers share an office with a colleague. It is difficult for the probation officer to conduct interviews with persons placed on probation in the shared work environment. National Center for State Courts Page 40 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois B. Adjacency and Circulation Adjacency refers to the association of court or court-related office space with specific functions or operations for the most efficient transaction of business on a daily basis. For example, are the high-volume activities located on the first floor near the courthouse entrance? Are the jury deliberation rooms conveniently located near the courtrooms? Circulation refers to the orderly and efficient movement of people from one space to another in the facility. 1. General There are no separate, distinct circulation systems for various court facility users. Court participants (including judges, attorneys, litigants, jurors, criminal defendants, witnesses, and victims) mingle with each other while waiting in the hallways or coming to the courtrooms. Different courthouse users mingling in the same areas results in unwanted contacts and affects the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of facility users. • Judges do not have private, separate access to courtrooms, court-related offices, or building entrances/exits. Judges are required to travel through the public hallways to move through the building or to and from courtrooms and chambers. • The prisoner circulation system is not separated from the public circulation in the courthouse. In-custody defendants are transported to and from courtrooms on the public elevator and are led through the public hallways. • The scattered locations of the courtrooms, court-related offices, and other court functional space in the building do not provide the required adjacency relationships for efficient operations. • The public elevator is slow and inefficient at transporting the public to and from the courthouse floors, especially during peak hours. Most of the courthouse users use the staircase. 2. Courtrooms and Courtroom Ancillary Areas • Entrances to the courtrooms do not reflect multiple circulation systems for various court participants: judges, clerks, jurors, attorneys, National Center for Stale Courts Page 41 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois witnesses, prisoners, and public spectators should have their respective entrances into courtroom. The majority of the courtrooms in the building have only two entrances in each courtroom. Courtroom #110 has only one public entrance. The judge has to enter the courtroom through the public entrance, passing by relatives and friends of litigants. Judges need convenient and secure access to the courtrooms from their private offices. The lack of properly located courtroom ancillary facilities, such as attorney/client conference rooms, victim/witness waiting rooms, prisoner holding areas, and public waiting space adversely impacts the operational efficiency of the court. For example, jurors cannot retire for deliberation without having to walk through the hallways and other public places to get to the deliberation rooms. Jurors may be influenced, or intimidated, by what they hear or see as they are moved between the courtroom and deliberation room. It impacts the integrity of the judicial proceedings. 3. Judges' Chambers/Judicial Support Space • Judges do not have a private, secure circulation system to move from the chambers areas to the courtrooms, court-related offices, the judicial conference room, and building entrances/exits without been approached by the public and litigants. • Judges' offices are separated from the administrative support staff work area. Most judges' private offices are adjacent to the public hallway. The public may directly approach the judges' private offices without being screened by the chamber support staff. • There is not a secured private circulation system connecting courtrooms, judges' chambers, and clerk's office. Employees must pass through the public hallways to move records and evidence to courtrooms or judges' chambers. National Center for State Courts Page 42 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Fl C. Accessibility for Disabled Individuals Court facilities with no physical barriers to prohibit persons who are impaired from getting to, entering, or using the services provided are essential for free and open access to justice. Citizens and staff who are mobility impaired, physically weak, or who have a sight, hearing, manipulation, or other disability must be able to navigate freely into the court facility. . Because the courthouse was constructed before the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) became a requirement under the law, some physical access barriers to individuals with disabilities exist in the courtrooms and related office space. . There is a handicapped entrance and a wheelchair ramp at the basement level. The handicapped entrance is equipped with a security keypad, a remote controlled door, and a surveillance camera. The building signage system does not meet ADA requirements. The public elevator is not equipped with an accessible control panel. The public restrooms are not equipped with appropriate features for disabled individuals. . Most of the courtrooms are not equipped with many of the accessibility features as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and access barriers exist. In general, some courtroom components, such as witness stands, jury boxes, and judges' benches do not meet ADA accessibility - requirements. . The courtrooms are not equipped with sound amplification equipment or similar technology for the hearing impaired. . Some access barriers exist injury deliberation rooms, and wheelchair access to and from the jury boxes in the jury trial courtrooms is difficult, if not impossible. . There are no wheelchair accessible routes between the judges' offices and courtroom benches. . Public counters in court offices are not in compliance with accessibility requirements; low counters are not provided for individuals in wheelchairs. National Center for State Courts Page 43 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois D. Security Courthouse security encompasses a number of different functions and each has certain unique requirements. The general facility/architectural element of courthouse security relates to the threat of theft or vandalism to the physical property. The circulation/segregation element minimizes unintended or inadvertent contact outside the courtrooms among judges, jurors, litigants, in-custody defendants, and others. Finally, there is the personal safety element, which is actually two distinct security issues-- minimizing the threat or potential for incidents of violence and appropriately responding to specific threats or actual incidents of violence. • The courthouse has been retrofitted with a security screening station at the public entrance. The public is directed to enter the courthouse through the designated public entrance. Two deputy sheriffs are assigned to the security screening station. • There is no security monitoring system in the rotunda/atrium/public hallways on the courthouse floors. The existing facility layout restricts the sheriffs court security staff from adequately responding to security incidents in a timely manner. • Judges must be able to move about the facility freely without being disturbed or disrupted by unwanted contact with the public, attorneys, litigants, or prisoners. Judges and court employees wading through the public corridor to enter their chambers before and after court presents a high personal safety concern. • The scenes to which they have been exposed may intimidate jurors moving between courtrooms and the jury deliberation rooms through the public area. Their decisions on cases could be influenced and the integrity of the justice system may be jeopardized. • There are no monitored access controls to various offices and courtroom ancillary areas, such as jury deliberation rooms. Judges' offices and court offices are located adjacent to public hallways. Access to judges' chambers from the public hallways is not monitored by security cameras or controlled National Center for State Courts Page 44 .2 94 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois F by remote-controlled locks. The public may approach and enter private offices directly from the hallway without being admitted first. There are not panic buttons in each of the judges' chambers. Personal security for court staff is inadequate. Current parking arrangements for judges and court employees pose potential security problems. There is no secure parking for judges and designated court employees. Prisoner transportation through the public hallways and public elevator creates a high risk for prisoner escape and violent incidents in the public hallways outside courtrooms. There is not a prisoner holding cell in the courthouse. . There are no designated workstations in the courtrooms for the sheriff's court security officers. There is no security monitoring equipment in the courtrooms. . Secure attorney/prisoner meeting space is not provided. . The lack of separate victim/witness waiting space poses potential security risks. For example, during protection from abuse (PFA) cases, the victim, who is attempting to get away from the alleged violence of a family member, may be subjected to sitting alone outside the courtroom in the hallway with the accused family member before, and sometimes after, court proceedings. . Access controls to the record areas of the court clerks' offices are inadequate. Doorways to the clerk's office are locked. There are few, if any, security provisions to prevent the public from wandering freely into many court- related office work areas. . Panic/duress alarms are not located in all offices and judges' chambers. Proper zoning and segregation for staff of court-related offices is not available. . The law library does not have a security system to protect against the theft of books. E. Summary of Major Prioritized Problems with Existing Facility . Lack of court administrative office space, court clerical support space, office space for the prosecutor, and adult/juvenile probation. Office space is over National Center for State Courts Page 45 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois crowded and there is a lack of room for required office operations and record storage. . Lack of the required separate circulations, space zoning, building access control, and security for court operational environment. . Lack of adequate facilities for prisoner holding and transportation. Lack of functional space required for the sheriffs operations. . Lack of accessibility for disabled individuals in courtrooms, offices, and public areas. . Lack of adequate secured parking for judges and sheriffs security operations. F. Future Court Facility Planning Goals In consideration of the present needs and the future changes in court operations, the future court facility plan should be planned to address the following goals: I. Convey an image of dignity and solemnity and a sense that the facility is one in which justice is done. 13 2. Serve as a focal point for appropriate civic activities and events as well as a venue for county judicial functions. 3. Maintain flexibility to accommodate both short- and long-term space needs and contribute to the effective administration of justice. 4. Offer an environment that is easily accessible to the public and user-friendly. 5. Offer an efficient and secure environment for all citizens who utilize the facility as well as for the judges and court employees who work within the facility. 6. Equip all courtrooms, offices, and other functional space with advanced technologies to facilitate the efficient administration of justice and improve the quality of.service to the public. Recommendations on Facility Improvement Alternatives The current court facilities in Kankakee, Illinois do not meet present court facility standards. Particular concerns are the lack of adequate functional space; the difficulty in providing separate circulation and court space zoning for court employees, prisoners, and 13 See American Bar Association, Judicial Administration Division, Standards Relating to Trial Courts § 2.46 (1990). National Center for State Courts Page 46 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois the public; poor accessibility for individuals with disabilities; and, the inability to provide reliable/effective security in the court. In recognition of the physical difficulties and deficiencies experienced in the Kankakee Court's current operational environment and the likely future increase in service demands, it is necessary to develop a long-term facility strategic plan for the Circuit Court of Kankakee County. This strategic plan should be prepared with a set of clearly defined goals and planning concepts that address the solutions to the facility issues and the county fiscal restraints for court facility improvement. To prepare the strategic plan is beyond the scope of this study. However, with the absence of quantifiable data specifying the actual present and future space requirements, the NCSC project team is offering the following planning considerations, based on the information gathered from discussions with the officials during on-site meetings and the conclusion of NCSC's qualitative assessment on the existing court facility. Recommendation VIII. 1: The circuit court of Kankakee County should develop a court facility master plan with a definite planning strategy for the solution of its current and long-term facility needs. The development of the planning strategy should be based on a clearly defined set of criteria, which address planning requirements of functionality, physicality, strategy, and economics. The planning criteria pertinent to future Kankakee court facility plans can be defined as following: 1. Functional Criteria • Provide locations for all functions that facilitate the efficient administration ofjudicial/administrative and staff resources. • Facilitate coordination of individual offices and court operations. • Provide for convenient movement of staff and materials between functional areas. • Provide for proper security, including separate building circulation for judicial staff, public, and in-custody defendants. • Maximize convenience to those involved in the judicial process including the public, local law enforcement, bench, and bar. 2. Physical Criteria • Maximize functionally appropriate, long-term use of the existing court and county facilities. • Provide proper functional space to meet projected court and agencies departmental requirements through, at the least, the next 20 to 30 years. National Center for State Courts Page 47 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois • Provide expansion potential to accommodate future requirements beyond the planning horizon. • Accommodate interdepartmental proximity requirements in a manner that facilitates public service. 3. Strategic Criteria • Provide a building strategy that permits modifications and adjustments to accommodate future evolvement and growth of the judicial system. • Provide an implementation option that minimizes unnecessary relocation of functions, disruption to the regular court service delivery, and redundant renovation. 4. Economic Criteria • Minimize capital costs. • Minimize operational costs. Recommendation VIII. 2: The existing courthouse does not meet the present space needs, in terms of building square footage, floor configuration, circulation, adjacency relationship between functional space, security, and accessibility for the disabled, in its current occupancy plan. The existing level of building occupancy should be rearranged and some of the offices/court functions may need to be relocated to a new addition to allow for the needed facility improvement in the county courthouse. The courthouse was not designed to meet today's court operational needs. The central rotunda with courtroom/chambers/offices located around the open atrium floor plan presents practical difficulty in any building renovation attempts to provide the needed physical work environment that one would expect in a new courthouse. Given the physical restraints of the existing courthouse, historical building preservation requirements, future growth of the judicial system, and county fiscal concerns, a modest renovation plan to extend the use of the existing Kankakee County courthouse should be planned. The goal of the renovation is to provide adequate functional space and improve functional adjacency relations among court functional units in the courthouse with reasonable costs. A new construction/addition should be planned to accommodate court activities/proceedings that has more stringent building requirements that are not available or are hard to come by in the historical county courthouse. These include security, circulation, access control, and new technology. National Center for Slate Courts Page 48 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Recommendation VIII. 3: The county should consider development of a court facility master plan for renovating the existing courthouse for the low volume and low risk civil court, and constructing a new criminal court annex/addition tor the high volume and high security criminal court activities. The existing county courthouse can be renovated to accommodate court proceedings/activities, such as civil matters, family matters, judicial administration, law library, and clerk of court functions. Criminal court-related facilities, such as criminal and traffic courtrooms, jury deliberation rooms, judges' chamber, a traffic fine and fee collection cashier station, and prosecutor's office could be grouped and relocated to a new criminal wing/annex/addition. The scope of the renovation is mainly to rearrange the court functions/offices allocation scheme and doesn't require extensive alteration to the existing building structure. The vacated space can be renovated to provide room for the consolidated clerk's of court's office operation, redesigned judges' chambers, new circulation hallways, record storage, and the needed courtroom ancillary facilities, such as attorney/client conference rooms and witness waiting facilities, and the possible future expansion of the mediationlADR program. The separated clerk of court offices, including traffic, small claims, and the main office, should be consolidated in one contiguous space at either first or the second floor close to the building entrance. A remote cashier station at the criminal court facility can be electronically supported from the main office with the use of a more advanced imaging system and modern record/information management system. Planning for the jury assembly facility, in terms of its location at the criminal court or the existing courthouse, should be determined with consideration of the available space in the renovated county courthouse, availability of funding for the new construction, the frequency and needs for jurors by criminal or civil cases, and juror movement between the assembly facility and courtrooms. The law library in the basement can be located to an upper floor for a more pleasant library environment. The vacated library space could be used for record storage. A new construction/addition/annex could be built either on-site, or across the street at the vacated jail site, to accommodate activities/court proceedings that have more stringent building requirements for security, circulation, access control, and new National Center for State Courts Page 49 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois technology. It is relatively more cost efficient to provide a modem court environment in a new construction than that in a historic building renovation project. The new addition/annex should be used to accommodate criminal court proceedings, criminal court judges' chambers, jury assembly and deliberation facilities, prosecutor's office, and the required prisoner holding facilities. It should be designed with all the modem courthouse features, such a prisoner transportation sally port, centralized prisoner holding facility, separate circulation systems for public/prisoners/court employees, and high tech courtrooms with adequate ancillary support facilities. The separate offices of the prosecutor should be consolidated and located at the new criminal annex/addition to improve office management and facilitate convenient access to court. Recommendation VIII. 4: The stand-alone Annex building may serve as a future county legal service center with extended service hours for the public. It could be designated for use by the probation department and the public defender office. The probation department may expand into vacated prosecutor's office space in the Annex building. Besides adding more office space for employees, the department should consider providing separate accesses and waiting facilities for adult and juvenile probation in the future expansion plan. Recommendation VIII. 5: Renovating the existing county jail for court use may not be cost effective and poses a high level of project complexity. It is necessary to conduct a thorough engineering study to assess feasibility of the plan before such a decision is made. Kankakee County is considering a new county jail facility to replace the existing county jail across the street from the courthouse. There were speculations about the feasibility of renovating the existing county jail for future court expansion, after the new jail is complete. It is the NCSC's experience that converting a jail structure into a courthouse presents itself with insurmountable difficulties and is not cost effective. Concerns of jail renovation for court use can largely be attributed to the structure incomparability, high demolishing cost for a hardened construction, little salvage value of the existing building environmental systems and architectural elements, incompatible occupancy and code compliance requirements, and possible high cost of hazardous materials removal. A courthouse is categorized as a public assembly building type and is subject to a different set of building life safety code requirements than what is applied to National Center for State Courts Page 50 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois a jail building. Building emergency egress systems requirements, such as the placement of staircases, building exits, and hallways in a courthouse are different from that in a jail. Space requirements for a courtroom facility, featuring wide structure bay (approximately 36 feet by 36 feet), tall ceiling height (12 feet to 14 feet), and multiple circulation systems, can't be met in the existing low floor height office/cell block secured jail structure. Higher costs will incur in the demolishing of steel reinforced interior walls for large open space and retrofitting windowless pre-cast concrete exterior walls for the needed fenestration. Building mechanical systems, electrical systems, and plumbing systems must be overhauled to satisfy the higher occupancy loads. The renovation will require a complete gutting of the existing jail structure and little salvage value can be recovered. In the meantime, many of the courthouse space requirements may still need to be compromised in the low floor height jail structure. There are more building uncertainties, in terms of constructability, construction cost, and implementation schedule, that need to be dealt with in a renovation project than one normally expects in a new construction. National Center for State Courts Page 51 Court of Kankakee County, Illinois Fi IX. CASEFLOW AND CALENDAR MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP The Caseflow and Calendar Management Workshop was held on Monday, November 5, 2001 in Kankakee County after being postponed from its original date of September 13. The workshop was team-based, with teams formed around specific case categories, including felony, law cases and small claims, divorces and other domestic relations cases, misdemeanor and collections, juvenile delinquency and abuse and neglect, and traffic. Each team was facilitated by the judge(s) who presided over those cases in the court. The agenda for the workshop and the exercises for the teams are included in Appendix D. The objectives of the workshop were to introduce basic concepts and techniques of caseflow management, review preliminary findings from NCSC's review of caseflow in the circuit court, and provide a structured opportunity for the teams to develop concrete action plans to improve the caseflow process for their particular case types. This is an agenda that could have easily consumed a two or three-day session. It was a challenge to determine how to distill the key caseflow management components and issues for presentation and balance the information-giving portions of the program with the more participatory small group sessions. All teams completed an action plan and presented it in a plenary session at the end of the workshop. In some ways, the ultimate success of the workshop hinges on the progress achieved toward the objectives defined by each team during the session. It was the diligence of the teams in preparing the pre-workshop assignment and their dedication to the process during the one-day session that were critical to the program. Participants completed evaluations of the workshop at its conclusion. A summary of these evaluations and comments has been provided to the Chief Judge. National Center for State Courts Page 52 1V 5W9_ . * S 11 APPENDIX A . . . AGE OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES As of 12/29100 [end of CV 20001 Felony <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (696) 425 152 74 45 - - (61%) (22%) (11 0/0) (6176) Misdemeanor <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (4369) 1404 642 294 303 426 1300 (32%) (15%) (7%) (7%) (10%) (30%) AGE OF PENDING TRAFFIC CASES As of 12/29/00 [end of CY 20001 Conservation I Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (113) 101 - 5 1 1 5 (89%) (4%) (1%) (1%) (4%) DUI <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (1120) 419 367 194 79 61 - (37%) (33%) (17%) (7%) (5%) Ordinance Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (264) 170 - 21 35 8 30 (64%) (8%) (13%) (3%) (11%) Traffic Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (22,691) 12,500 2338 1716 1031 692 4414 (55%) (10%) (8%) (5%) (3%) (19%) 3 c . . is AGE OF PENDING LAW CASES As of 12129/00 [end of CY 20001 Law <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 34 years 4-5 years => 5 years Over $50,000 Jury 78 63 41 14 17 17 (230) (34%) (27%) (18%) (6%) (7%) (7%) Non-Jury 44 38 12 3 0 5 (102) (43%) (37%) (12%) 1 (3%) 1 (5%) Law <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 34 years 4-5 years => 5 years $5,000 - $50,000 Jury 14 17 43 16 2 16 (108) (13%) (16%) (40%) (15%) (2%) (15%) Non-Jury 255 39 36 34 '59 610 (1033) (25%) (4%) (3%) (3%) (6%) (59%) AGE OF SELECTED PENDING CIVIL CASES As of 12129/00 [end of CY 2000] <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 34 years 4-5 years => 5 years Dissolution 302 132 66 83 98 592 (1273) (24%) (10%) (5%) (6%) (8%) (47%) Family 168 106 88 80 68 1079 (1589) (11%) (7%) (6%) (5%) (4%) (68%) Miscellaneous 105 87 82 70 79 679 Remedy (10%) (8%) (7%) (6%) (7%) (62%) (1102) Orders of 75 26 57 49 - - Protection (36%) (13%) (28%) (24%) (207) Probate 366 261 241 203 237 3507 (4815) (8%) (5%) (5%) (4%) (5%) (73%) Small Claims 467 55 60 49 21 1022 (1674) (28%) (3C7) (4%) (3%) (1%) (61%) I ut1 t ii 2 I ]2 74 64 iv I 3,247 31411 . 0 . AGE OF PENDING JUVENILE CASES As of 12129/00 [end of CY 20001 <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years Juvenile 25 25 22 11 - 241 (324) (8%) (8%) (7%) (3%) (74%) Abuse! 48 38 27 29 23 - Neglect (29%) (23%) (16%) (18%) (14%) (165) ______Delinquency 245 165 78 32 36 - (556) (44%) (30%) (14%) (6%) (6%) . 0 S AGE OF PENDING CRIMINAL CASES As of 12/29/00 [end of CY 20001 Felony <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (696) 425 152 74 45 - - (61%) (22%) (11%) (6%) Misdemeanor <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 34 years 4-5 years => 5 years (4369) 1404 642 294 303 426 1300 (32%) (15%) (7%) (7%) (10%) (30%) AGE OF PENDING TRAFFIC CASES As of 12129/00 [end of CY 20001 Conservation Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (113) 101 - 5 1 1 5 (89%) (4%) (1%) (1%) (4%) T DUI <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years I 4-5 years => 5 years (1120) 419 367 194 79 61 - (37%) (33%) (17%) (7%) (5%) Ordinance I Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (264) 170 - 21 35 8 30 (64%) (8%) 1 (13%) 1 (3%) (11%) Traffic Violation <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years (22,691) 12,500 2338 1716 1031 692 4414 (55%) (10%) (8%) (5%) (3%) (19%) Q1O . S • AGE OF PENDING LAW CASES As of 12129/00 [end of CY 20001 Law <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 34 years 4-5 years => 5 years Over $50,000 Jury 78 63 41 14 17 17 (230) (34%) (27%) (18%) (6%) (7%) (7%) Non-Jury 44 38. 12 3 0 5 (102) (43%) (37%) (12%) (3%) (-) (5%) Law <1 year 1-2 years 273 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years $5,000 - $50,000 Jury 14 17 43 16 2 16 (108) (13%) (16%) (40%) (15%) (2%) (15%) Non-Jury 255 39 36 34 59 610 (1033) (25%) (4%) (3%) (3%) 1 (6%) (59%) AGE OF SELECTED PENDING CIVIL CASES As of 12/29/00 [end of CY 2000] <1 year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years => 5 years Dissolution 302 132 66 83 98 592 (1273) (24%) (10%) (5%) (6%) (8%) (47%) Family 168 106 88 80 68 1079 (1589) (11%) (7%) (6%) (5%) (4%) (68%) Miscellaneous 105 87 82 70 79 679 Remedy (10%) (8%) (7%) (6%) (7%) (62%) (1102) Orders of 75 26 57 49 - - Protection (36%) (13%) (28%) (24%) (207) Probate 366 261 241 203 237 3507 (4815) (8%) (5%) (5%) (4%) (5%) (73%) Small Claims 467 55 60 49 21 1022 (1674) — (28%) (3%) (4%) (3%) (1%) (61%) I 'i al & ivil 21 72 71 4 (I3.247 (7t.,) 304' . . S F.IVIJUMM"Ill .. 0 . Volume 1 - Civil Case Processing System Functional Standards About this Volume This volume addresses the functions performed by civil case processing systems, where civil includes the general and limited jurisdiction case categories such as tort (e.g., automobile, malpractice, contract, and product liability), contracts, real property rights, and small claims. This volume excludes appeals filed with civil trial courts from lower courts (except for de novo appeals which are included). The functional standards comprise the main part of this volume; Appendix A summarizes other factors that should be investigated when developing and enhancing systems. These factors include inquiry and report generation, integration of court applications with various computer and communications technologies, and system design considerations. This summary is intended only as a checklist of items to consider when developing and enhancing systems. Appendix B discusses electronic filing and the Legal XML Electronic Filing concept model and its components. The civil case processing system and user together perform all case processing in the court. The system performs its, part automatically, and the user performs his or her part manually. System or user inputs activate these functions, many of which require additional parameters from the system or user to perform their tasks. As used in this volume, an automatic or automated function is invoked and performed with limited or no user intervention; a manual function is invoked and performed primarily by the user without significant assistance from the system. This volume contains unavoidable generalities - in some places (see list given below) because of the necessity for local customization. Some individual standards in this volume may be directly transferable to systems development documentation and RFPs; however, the standards cannot be transferred in their entirety without customization. Some functions in the standards inherently need amplification because they have been expressed in general terms for these national standards. Each court, therefore, must thoroughly review each of the standards, relate each standard to the court's situation, identify functions that require customization and more detail, customize the descriptions of those functions, and use the standards augmented with their own customized descriptions to produce system development documentation and RFPs. The same is true for the Related Technical Considerations for which, even though they are not standards, the list of technologies must be thoroughly reviewed and individual items incorporated into the development documentation and RFPs according to each court's functional needs, technical expertise, and available funds. Certain terms used in these national functional standards are deliberately ambiguous and must be further defined before application software vendors can design their products. These terms include "locally defined," "locally used," "as appropriate," "other functions," "any data," "all transactions," "appropriate action," and "other units" that appear in this volume to allow for local customization. Each court (or group of courts within a state or region) must eliminate such terms by defining in detail what these ambiguous and vague terms mean to that court. March 1, 2001 Page 2 . . S Some instances of the numerous places in the subfunction tables throughout this volume (see the beginning of Standards for Individual Functions for the definition of subfunction tables, which define the standards for each function) that use ambiguous or vague terms to accommodate local customization are: Subfunction Number Situation 1.1.1 locally defined case number formats 1.1.2 locally defined case title or style 1.1.4 locally used case acceptance tests 1.1.5 local procedures for identifying newly filed cases 1.1.6 locally used court identifiers 1.2.1 locally defined case index content 2.2.7, 14.2.3 state and local recordkeeping policies and procedures 2.4.6 electronic input documents and, as necessary, cover sheets 3.2.6 judge assignment by predefined rules and specific conditions 3.3.1 upcoming or overdue events for which users should be tickled 5.1.3 viewing of judges' notes according to local rules and statutes 6.6 minute order procedures according to local rules 6.7 record updates working with docketing, ... , other functions 9.2 cross references between docketing, ... .other functions 10.1 compliance with generally accepted accounting principles 10.2 appropriate security and authorization for accounting functions 10.3 user overrides to data automatically supplied by system 11.2.3 locally defined receipt number formats 11.3.4 cashier identifier on all transactions 12.1.1 maintenance of financial parts of case files'. 12.1.5 prompts to take appropriate action on arrearages 12.2.2 financial information sharing with state agencies 12.2.5, 12.2.6, 12.2.7 funds distribution procedures 15.1 edit and data validation checks 15.3 supervisor notification for electronic record modification 16.2.16 locally defined milestone events for case tracking Functional Standards Approach Civil case processing systems track the progress of cases through a court and produce supporting documents and reports. The basic unit of information these systems use covers the persons involved in the case—plaintiffs, defendants, judges, other judicial officers, attorneys, and courtroom personnel. These persons submit documents to the court, participate in court events precipitated by those documents, and receive documents produced by the court as the case moves to disposition. Most events occur in accordance with schedules established by the court. As events are completed, information is maintained on them. In addition to persons, therefore, basic units of information address events scheduled in the future and events that have already taken place. Each case has a financial element; civil cases involve fees, judgments, and charges for court services. While the allocation of financial functions between civil case processing systems March 1, 2001 Page 3 -Jo 7 0 S S and financial systems varies, most civil case processing systems maintain at least some financial information. Finally, these systems produce management information and statistics about the case processing and financial activities. At the most basic level, these are the types of functions performed by civil case processing systems and the types of information required to support these functions. This leads to the question—whether to orient the standards around the systems' functions or around their information? Since the functions that most civil case processing systems perform are determined by the information that users need from a system, the ideal precursor for functional standards would be output data standards. The Consortium investigated this approach, found that it would lead to an unwieldy list of data elements, and concluded that the more effective approach would be to set forth the functions that civil case processing systems should perform. This volume, therefore, addresses the functions in detail, summarizes the content of the data types into which the civil data elements would be grouped, and relates the data types to the standards for each function. Functional Groups Current and Past Events These functions address the entry and storage of information on events as they happen and maintenance of this information as a record of completed case activities. • Case initiation and indexing - initially entering and indexing newly filed, transferred, reopened or remanded, counter- or cross-claimed, de novo appealed, and other new cases and the ongoing indexing activity. • Docketing and related record keeping - initiating and maintaining the docket or register of actions of activities that are part of the official court record and maintaining the relationships between and accessibility to docket-related information for a given case and cases that relate to it. Hearings - recording the results of hearings and notifying parties of court decisions. Disposition - disposing a case. • Execution - executing a judgment. • Case close - closing a case because all provisions of the court order have been satisfied. Future Events These functions address scheduled and calendared events that will happen at a future time. These events include the scheduling of administrative activities, which are not part of the official court record, and the calendaring of activities, which together with the results of these activities become part of the official court record. • Scheduling - scheduling upcoming events, maintaining and displaying information on scheduled events, and monitoring adherence to schedules. March 1, 2001 Page 4 H . I . • Calendaring - generating and distributing court calendars. Financial These functions address accounting activities which include general, front office and cashiering, back office, and general ledger functions. Document and Report Generation These functions address the generation of official court documents, such as notices, and reports, which summarize case activities. • Document generation and processing - notifying parties of events and producing other official court documents. • Management and statistical reports - generating caseload, caseflow, workload, and other reports. System and Utility These functions perform a variety of activities ancillary to case processing such as file and property management and security. File and property management - creating, managing, tracking, archiving, and disposing case records and receiving, tracking, and returning or destroying exhibits and other property. • Security - ensuring security, privacy, and integrity of civil case processing systems and their data. Data Groups Most civil case processing systems are either case or person oriented, which means that the basic processing unit is either the case or the litigants in the case. Regardless of the orientation, cross references must exist to connect each case and its litigants. Most civil case processing systems are case oriented. The basic data groups contain information about each case and the persons involved in those cases. Other data groups contain information about events, financial activities, documents and reports produced by the system, and systems and utility functions. Each data group consists of one or more data types, and for each data type, enough data elements are given to illustrate its purpose and content. The data elements given here are not intended to be a complete list of the data elements that would constitute the data type. Detailed data standards and a data dictionary should be developed locally for each court application during the system definition and design phases. Case This group consists of a single data type—the case data type, which includes various case categories (e.g., tort, contracts, real property rights, small claims) within the civil case type. March 1, 2001 Page 5 .j757 . .. S Information maintained on each case includes data such as case number, type, status, and style; court; initial filing information; and cross references to party, judge, attorney, and other data. Person This group consists of data types that contain information on litigants, judges, attorneys, and other individual and organizational participants in a case. • Party - data on each party (i.e., individual or organization with standing to bring an action before a court such as a plaintiff, defendant, third party) in a court proceeding including identifier; name; type of party; address(es); personal information; status; aliases; and cross references to case, attorney, financial, and other information. • Participant - data on each individual or organization who is a participant (e.g., court officer, witness, credit agency) in a court proceeding including name; type of participant; address(es); status; and cross references to case, attorney, financial, company, and other information. • Judge - data on each judge including identifier, name, assignment, assignment history, status, and other information with cross references to other data such as cases (for ease of discussion, the term "judge" includes judges and other judicial officers such as ADR providers [e.g., mediators, arbitrators]). • Attorney - data on each attorney including identifier, name, firm name, location(s), e-mail address, voice and facsimile telephone numbers, bar association linkages, and status and other information with cross references to other data such as cases. • Non-court agencies - data on agencies external to the courts (e.g., process service, collection) that may participate in a case including name and location with cross references to case number, party, and-other information. Event This group consists of data types that contain information on past and future events in a case. • Filings - data on each pleading and other documents (e.g., complaint, petition) filed with the court including document type; filing date; filing party; method of filing; and follow- up actions with cross references to case, financial, document generation, and other information. • Disposition - data on each disposed civil case (i.e., case for which a judgment, which is any type of disposition resulting from a court decision, has been rendered) including party; nature of disposition; date of disposition; judgment and payment details if applicable; other information in minutes; and cross references to case, party, hearing, financial, judge, minute, and other information. • Post trial - data on any type of post-disposition activity (e.g., execution of judgment) including date of activity; judge; and cross references to case, disposition, financial, and other information. March 1, 2001 Page 6 S • . . • Other events and entities - appropriate information on each event and entity (e.g., parcels in real property rights cases) not covered by other data types. Scheduled events - data on each scheduled event (e.g., hearing dates, deadlines for submission of documents such as answers or responses and affidavits) including identification of the event; date, time, and location of the event; participants in the event (e.g., parties, witnesses, interpreters); security requirements; activities initiated by the event (e.g., forms and subsequent events); periods associated, with the event (e.g., deadlines for form issuance or initiation of next event); and cross references to case, hearing, and other information. Hearing - data on each calendared event (i.e., proceedings in which arguments, witnesses, or evidence are heard by a judge or administrative body including court events, such as trials and motion hearings; calendar calls; conferences aimed at pre.-trial settlement; and quasi-judicial events involving alternate dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation and arbitration) including type; scheduled and actual dates and times; judge; location (e.g., courtroom type and its location); attorneys; results; and cross references to case, party, and other information. Financial This group consists of a single, all-inclusive data type—the financial data type. It contains information on financial activities in a case such as payments, financial obligations, and accounting activities including single (e.g., fees, judgments) and installment payments (e.g., reclaimed fee waivers); payment schedules and plans, payment collection methods (e.g., garnishments); payment satisfaction (e.g., certificates of satisfaction of judgment); general ledger accounting; trust fund accounting; and fund distribution with cross references to case, party, disposition, and other activities. Document and Report Generation This group consists of data types that contain information on official court documents such as summons, notices, and reports that summarize case activities. • Summons and other served processes - data on each served process (i.e., documents served by a law enforcement officer or other authorized process server with return of service such as civil warrants and summons) including type of process; recipient; method of service; date of service; return of service; other status data; and cross references to case, party, and other information. • Forms and other documents issued by court - data on each such document (i.e., documents given to a person or sent by mail with proof or certificate of service such as notices) including type of document; recipient; proof or certificate of service; information on scheduled event; status and status date; and cross references to case, party, and other information. • Management and statistical information - detail (e.g., case-by-case) and summary (e.g., overall for all cases in a given category) information with cross references to all of the above data types. March 1, 2001 Page 7 -i S . S System and Utility This group consists of data types that contain information on a variety of functions ancillary to case processing such as file and property management and security. • Exhibits - data on exhibits and other property submitted to the court for use in court proceedings including case cross reference, source, and Status (e.g., date received, returned, or destroyed). • File management - data to assist in managing and tracking the location of active, inactive, and archived case files. • Document management - data to assist in storing, retrieving, and manipulating documents. Organization of Functional Standards To the maximum extent possible, the standards present the civil case processing functions described above in the chronological order a civil case would flow through a court This results in the following functions: • Case initiation and indexing, • Docketing and related recordkeeping, • Scheduling, • Document generation and processing, • Calendaring, • Hearings, • Disposition, • Execution, • Case dose, • Accounting functions çc1uding front counter and cashiering, back office, and general ledger), • File, document, and property management, • Security, and • Management and statistical reports. The next section, Standards for Individual Functions, describes the standards for the functions listed above. Standards for Individual Functions This section describes the standards for each of the civil case processing functions listed in the previous section. These functions further divide into subfuncuons. Each subfunction is designated as automated (requiring limited or no manual intervention), mandatory• (universally applicable), or optional (applicable only in certain situations) for civil case processing systems in large and small courts. Those functions with numerous subfunctions are grouped into several categories of subfunctions. March 1, 2001 Page 8 3/ ' S S 0 For each function, the section begins with an overall description of the function and a list of the data types that would support the function. Then the subfunctions are described— either within their respective groups or for the entire function if there are insufficient subfunctions to divide them into groups—in a textual summary and in a table with the following columns: • Subfunction - each subfunction is characterized by a short phrase that describes the task(s) it performs and is numbered for ease of referencing during development of in- house systems and requests for proposals (RFPs) for vendor-supplied systems. • Auto - in this column, "yes" indicates functions that should be automated as described above; otherwise, the column is blank. Mandatory - some subfunctions represent mandatory capabilities that would be performed in any civil case processing system (denoted by "all" in this column); some represent capabilities that would be mandatory only in large courts (denoted by "large" in this column); some represent capabilities that would be mandatory only in small courts (denoted by "small" in this column); and some represent capabilities that would seldom or never be mandatory but would be optional (denoted by a blank in this column and an entry in the optional column described below). • Optional - notations in this column are analogous to those in the mandatory column described above. While the case processing system performs all subfunctions covered in this volume, some subfunctions must be preceded or followed by manual procedures. (Note that an automatic or automated function is invoked and performed with limited or no user intervention, and a - manual function is invoked and performed primarily by the user without significant assistance from the system.) When the description calls a subfunction automatic, it means that the subfunction is invoked and performed with limited or no user intervention. Other subfunctions—those not called automatic—normally are performed entirely or mostly automatically, but are invoked manually. The table below illustrates the rules for table entries. For example, subfunction I is not necessarily automated and is a mandatory standard for civil case processing systems in large and small courts; therefore it is optional in none of these types of courts. Subfunction 2 is automated and, because of the nature of the subfunction and the fact that is automated, is mandatory only in large courts; it is an optional standard in small courts. Subfunction 3 is automated and, like subfunction 1, is a mandatory standard in large and small courts. Subfunction 4 is not necessarily automated and is an optional standard in large and small courts; it is a mandatory standard in neither of these types of courts. Table 1 - Rules for Table Entries March 1, 2001 Page 9 3/i S S The discussion of functional standards concludes with a list and general definitions of possible code translation tables containing user-supplied codes and their translations (e.g., case type, case category tort, contracts, real property rights, small claims within the civil case type], party type, and attorney). A code translation table must be customized for local use by the individual state court. Because of the specific nature of a code translation table, these standards refer to general categories of data that would have relevance to all courts. The relationship of code translation tables, data groups, and data types is illustrated in the following chart. See the Data Groups and the List of Code Translation Tables sections for further details. Multifunction Capabilities and Integration Some standards represent capabilities that apply to multiple functions or call for integration between several functions. Multifunction Capabilities. Some capabilities given as standards in this volume (such as electronic information exchange and document management) occur throughout the life of a case and should be integrated into several functions of the civil case processing system. Information should be exchanged electronically within court systems, and between courts and (1) other governmental units at the federal, state, and local levels (e.g., garnishments and court orders to sheriff, statistics to court administrative office); (2) private organizations (e.g., judgment information to credit reporting companies and collection agencies); and (3) other users (e.g., attorneys, litigants, researchers). In order to facilitate electronic information exchange, courts must establish exchange procedures (e.g., for communications and networks; interchange computer or "mailbox"; user directories; file or document transfer, e-mail, or both; and message content and naming conventions), and the civil case processing system must be compatible with these procedures. Other than general information exchange, the standards in this volume contain specific types of electronic information exchange, including electronic filing, document distribution, fee payment, and funds transfer. The standards for each function also contain specific applications of electronic information exchange and indicate whether each application is mandatory or optional. The rudimentary standards envisioned here could be enhanced as described in the External Interfaces sections of Related Technical Considerations (Appendix A). Electronic filing - Submission of official court documents such as pleadings and other filings in electronic, rather than paper, form to the clerk's office from remote locations (e.g., attorneys' offices) (see Appendix B). Users in the remote locations prepare electronic input documents according to the court's requirements, and they transmit the documents to the court using the Internet and other communications media. The court confirms receipt of the document; records pertinent information (e.g., sender identifier, time and date of filing); maintains the document in a secure environment, in a verifiable format, and in a manner that allows rapid access; and transfers data from the document into the case processing system. The data transferred into the case processing system as a result of electronic filing comes either directly from the electronic input documents or, more typically, from electronic cover sheets that accompany the input documents (see Appendix B for a discussion of electronic filing). The document (i.e., electronic document or cover sheet) that is the source of the data transferred into the case processing system must provide a March 1, 2001 Page 10 3/V . 0 0 means of identifying the data to be transferred (e.g., through tags in XML or word processing documents) (Appendix B provides additional information about XML). Remote users (e.g., attorneys) complete these filing documents on-line by supplying information to blank input templates or forms (e.g., that represent the cover sheets) supplied by either the case processing system or the electronic filing interface to the case processing system. The electronic filing capability may help users complete the forms through techniques such as drop-down menus of standard document names, automatic default entries of basic data already in the system, and "smart forms" (e.g., that automatically edit entered data, provide instructions for completing forms, assign temporary case number, or complete notice associated with filing). The court must establish procedures to accomplish the functional equivalents of the following tasks for electronic document submission and processing (1) allow users to "sign" the documents; (2) transmit the documents between filers and the court (e.g., by the Internet); (3)"stamp" the documents as received and acknowledge their receipt to the senders; (4) index and store the documents; (5) with proper security, allow internal and external users to access the documents; (6) describe document structure and content (e.g., with an Internet markup method for text and data group tagging such as XML or a word processing application); and (7) transfer data from the documents to the case processing system (e.g., by user-defined tags for specific data in XML documents). Electronic filing also is addressed in the Case Initiation, Docketing and Related Recordkeeping, and Document Generation and Processing functions; the security aspect of electronic filing is covered in the Security Function; and electronic filing may intersect with document management, described below, to send electronic input documents (as opposed to the electronic court documents described in the next paragraph on electronic document distribution) to judges and court staff. Electronic document distribution - Distribution of electronic court documents (e.g., orders, judgment forms, electronic acceptance notices following electronic pleadings, other types of notices), docket summaries, calendars, and detailed and summary reports using dial-up lines, the Internet or intranet, facsimile transmissions, e-mail, and other technologies (using "push" as well as "pull" technology - note that "push" technology refers to data that is pushed to another location such as a dumb computer terminal; "pull" technology refers to data that is pulled down from another location such as the Internet). The court may need advanced capabilities to distribute electronic documents that can be acted on by recipients (e.g., by extracting tagged parts of calendars for use in individual schedules). The court must establish procedures for electronic document distribution analogous to those noted above in electronic filing. In addition to distribution outside the court, some of these documents (e.g., orders, notices, judgment forms) would be sent to the clerk's office to be filed as described above. Electronic document distribution also is addressed in the Document Generation and Processing, Calendaring, and Disposition functions. Electronic fee payment and funds transfer - Various methods of electronic fee payment and funds transfer between courts and other entities. Types of fee payments (e.g., by attorneys) could include funds transfer between the attorney's and the court's bank accounts, debiting accounts established by attorneys to cover court expenses, debiting attorney credit card accounts, and on-line check writing. In addition, funds transfers could occur between courts (e.g., appellate court for appealed cases), between courts and other governmental units (e.g., according to fee distribution formula), and between March 1, 2001 Page 11 /- . 0 . courts and banks (e.g., for deposits into court accounts). All transfers must conform to federal and local standards for security (see Security Function), formatting, and communications. Electronic fee payment and funds transfer (i.e., generic terms covering all types of electronic financial transactions involving debits and credits, to accounts or movement of funds) also are described in the Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering and the Accounting - Back Office functions. General electronic information exchange Civil case processing systems must exchange other types of information with the systems of various entities. The interfaces associated with statistical reporting and judgments (i.e., the general term for any disposition that results from a court decision) exemplify this information exchange and are described in the Hearings, Disposition, and Management and Statistical Reports functions. Document management encompasses the input and output, indexing, storage, search and retrieval, manipulation, maintenance, protection, and purging of electronic and imaged documents. Some document management systems may provide advanced capabilities in the above functions, as well as additional features such as document version control and workflow for document routing to specific workstations. Sources of documents include electronic filing, the Internet, local or remote scanners or facsimile machines, and transfer from other systems (e.g., case processing, word processing) by diskette or electronically. With electronic filing and document distribution, at least rudimentary document management capabilities must exist in either the civil case processing system or a separate document management system that can interface with the civil case processing system. The Document Generation and Processing; File, Document, and Property Management; and Security functions describe these rudimentary document management standards. The System Capabilities section of Related Technical Considerations (Appendix A) notes advanced capabilities. Integration. System functions should be integrated to permit them to operate together and exchange data so users can avoid performing the same function several times and entering the same data into several functions. Each function covered in this volume, therefore, should interact with other functions in a completely integrated fashion with minimal or preferably no manual intervention except when the user executes an override. When the functions are performed by separate systems (e.g., separate case processing and financial systems), the level of integration should be such that the existence of separate systems is transparent—or at least not an inhibiting operational factor—to the user. While integration would extend to all functions throughout the system, examples of some functions that would be integrated are: • Case initiation function interacts with front counter and cashiering function to initiate the case and record filing fees in single procedure; • Docketing function supplies basic case information to document generation, calendaring, and other functions that produce documents (e.g., notices, calendars, orders) that contain this information; • Docketing function interacts with other functions in handling cases assigned special status; March 1, 2001 Page 12 316 [11 S S • Scheduling function operates in conjunction with docketing, document generation, calendaring, and other functions; • Scheduling and calendaring functions transfer easily and quickly to and from other parts of system when creating calendars; • Appropriate functions display judges' caseloads during docketing, scheduling, and other functions; and • Hearings function handles adjournments, continuances, and cancellations in conjunction with docketing, scheduling, calendaring, notice generation, and other functions; • Hearings function operates in conjunction with docketing, document generation, and other functions to record hearing results and notify appropriate parties; • Hearings function handles consolidations and bifurcations in conjunction with case initiation, docketing, and other functions; • Disposition function operates in conjunction with docketing, case close, and other functions; • Execution function operates in conjunction with docketing, case close, accounting, document generation, scheduling, and other functions; • Case close function operates in conjunction with docketing, case dose, accounting, document generation, scheduling, and other functions (e.g., to establish cross references between consolidated cases for docketing, scheduling, and notice generation; to permit cases to be dosed at cash register); • Accounting function supplies fee, payment, account, and other information to case initiation, docketing, and other functions; and • File, document, and property management function interacts with docketing, scheduling, and other functions to ensure data validation checks satisfied (e.g., events occur in proper sequence). In many situations, several functions would be performed contiguously; that is, they would appear to be a single function. For example, case initiation, docketing, scheduling, noticing, and calendaring are accomplished at the same time in small claims and many other limited jurisdiction civil cases; and disposition and case close often are the same function in many jurisdictions. This volume covets the functions separately to accommodate those situations in which they are distinct case processing steps. Case processing system functions should be automated to the maximum extent possible; however, the system should never be allowed to perform functions or enter data that would be contrary to the interests of the court (e.g., automatically send a civil warrant that already has been cleared and, therefore, whose reason for issuance no longer exists). A manual override should exist to allow the user to override values supplied by the system or to initiate an action manually, such as generation of a form. March 1, 2001 Page 13 J17 . 0 . The System Capabilities section of Related Technical Considerations (Appendix A) describes fully functional, event-driven systems that schedule events based on completion of prior events (e.g., deadline for answer or response due 30 days after service to defendant, hearing scheduled) and produce documents (e.g., notices, calendars) associated with the scheduled events. The standards in the remainder of this volume prescribe a few functions of these event-driven systems that, unless overridden by the user, automatically perform specific tasks within individual functions based on the completion or scheduling of certain events. Examples of this partial functionality are (1) updates to case indices, dockets, and case and financial records; (2) scheduling future events; (3) generating notices; and (4) computing fees. These functions are described in Case Initiation and Indexing Function, Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, Scheduling Function, Document Generation and Processing Function, Hearings Function, Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Function, and Accounting - Back Office Function. The civil case processing functions can interact with the functions of other types of case processing systems (e.g., criminal, probate) in the same court (e.g., to transfer information on parties) with minimal manual intervention or rekeying of data unless the user wishes to intervene. Functions 1. Case Initiation and Indexing Function Description. The activities that initiate a case and maintain its index including acceptance and processing of the initial filing, associated recordkeeping and reporting, and creation and maintenance of an index for the case. Data Types Used. The data types required by the function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • Case, • Filings, • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, • judge, • Scheduled events, and • Other events and entries. Subfunctions. Within the Case Initiation and Indexing Function, the subfunctions are grouped into case initiation and indexing. 1.1 Case Initiation New cases are entered into the court computer system so that information and filings (e.g., complaints, petitions) regarding the case can be recorded, retained, retrieved, used to generate forms and other documents, and combined with information from other cases to develop reports on court activity. These entries conform to locally used conventions (e.g., in case numbers, case style or title, local jurisdiction identifiers, basic case information). March 1, 2001 Page 14 . S Other than indexing, the most basic case initiation activities are to give the case an identifier, a description, and a case file. Table 1.1 - Case Initiation Subfunctions 1fl1t!lT1i'i Auto Opt. 1.1.1 generate and assign case number using locally yes all defined format 1.1.2 generate locally defined case title or style (i.e., short yes all phrase that identifies case and includes plaintiff and defendant names) from party names and other information 1.1.3 generate and assign separate party identifier (e.g., yes all party number) for each plaintiff and defendant 1.1.4 conduct locally used review processes to ensure yes all case should be accepted by court and display results (e.g., attorney not suspended for failure to pay) 1.1.5 enter reason for initiation (e.g., new filing, all transferred from another jurisdiction, reopened or remanded case, counter or cross claims, de novo appeal according to local procedures) 1.1.6 enter locally used court identifiers (e.g., district all court) and court location identifiers (e.g., county number) 1.1.7 enter other identifiers (e.g., parcels in real property all rights cases) and establish relationships with parties 1.1.8 enter in docket or register of actions case initiation all information including information on initial filing noted above and basic case information (e.g., case type, case category, case status, case title or style, parties, attorneys, and docket-related events) (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 1.1.9 enter in docket or register of actions information all for parties and participants as individuals (e.g., Ann Smith) or organizations (e.g., Acme Asbestos Company) with primary contact person if organization (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 1.1.10 support electronic filing (e.g., directly from yes large small attorneys' offices) and move designated data (e.g., tagged basic case information) from electronic document to civil case processing system (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and Security Function regarding verification of electronically entered data) March 1, 2001 Page 15 . 0 . Table 1.1 - Case Initiation Subfunctions (continued) - rnt!lTi.i. Auto n Opt. 1.1.11 generate receipt for or notify appropriate parties yes all that case filing received and accepted, and give them assigned case number (notice, including electronic acknowledgment, would apply primarily when case transferred from another jurisdiction or filed electronically) (see also Document Generation and Processing Function) 1.1.12 record if time-sensitive filing that requires rapid all action (e.g., restraining order, stay request, ex-parte filing, bankruptcy filings) (see also Scheduling Function) 1.1.13 support differential case management (i.e., different large small categories of cases are processed differently such as in time-sensitive filings, cases processed under different rules or time standards, specific judicial assignment for specific types of cases) and other case management methods (users enter local differential case management parameters and time standards into code translation tables; see List of Code Translation Tables). PLEASE NOTE: differential case management may entail highly complex computer programming because it may permit the user to define complete case processing profiles (e.g., containing processing rules and schedules for each event) for each case type and case category) 1.1.14 create groups of related cases (e.g., several tort cases large small filed against same defendant by different plaintiffs, multiple-plaintiff asbestos cases, other class action cases) from single or multiple filings such that initial and subsequent entries can be applied to each case in group (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 1.1.15 establish relationships between cases and case all categories and court types (e.g., small claims), locations, and departments (e.g., for large courts with multiple locations) (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 1.1.16 prompt user when parties already exist that relate to yes all new case, followed by user-initiated search for duplicate parties and attorneys that user can transfer into current case if appropriate to avoid unnecessary data entry (e.g., using party names, addresses, and other identifiers noted above) March 1, 2001 Page 16 7.2 Indexing The index is created at case initiation and maintained throughout the life of a case. The index allows users to make rapid inquiries of the database by searching selected items (or key fields). A user can make increasingly specific inquiries of the database based on the information provided during a preliminary index search. The overall purpose of an index is to allow users to look up cases or parties and view index information such as each party's name, role in the case, and whether the party has an attorney; case type; case number; date filed; and a cross reference to other parties in the case (e.g., the parties named in the case title or style). Users who know some specific piece of information about a case—but do not know the case number—may access the index to look up the case number or whether the court database contains information on a specific case or party. lithe system returns multiple matches, the index helps users find the specific case or party they are seeking and then retrieves basic information from the index on that case or party. The index should allow users easy interfaces with (1) other parts of the system such as docketing, scheduling, calendaring, and accounting for potentially all information (including financial information) on that case and related cases and (2) the inquiry and report generation capabilities (see Appendix A) for more varied displays and reports. System designers must decide how the index will exist within their computer system. For instance, the index can be a "physical" entity in which all of the index information resides in a single place in the database, or it can be a "logical" entity that gathers the index information from several places. Regardless of whether the index is a physical or logical entity, the indexing system must make information easily accessible (i.e., in a manner that requires no additional user actions to correlate and manipulate index data from several places) for a specified case or party. Table 1.2—Indexing Subfunctions 1.21 create and maintain locally defined index that all (1) contains basic index information (e.g., each party name, role in case, and whether party has an attorney; case type; case number; date filed; and cross reference to other parties in case [e.g., other party named in case title or style]), (2) permits database look-up by a choice of key fields (e.g., party name, party role, case filed date range) and, if record found, (3) permits retrieval and display of index information, and (4) permits easy interfaces with other parts of civil case processing system as noted below March 1, 2001 Page 17 . . . Table 1.2–Indexing Subfunctions (continued) Subfunction Auto Man d. 1.2.2 handle look-up and retrieval subfunctions by all identifying a specific party name, party role, case filed date range—if necessary, after eliminating other cases or parties that satisfy original look-up-- and then obtaining index information by selecting from list of matching cases or parties or by using key fields noted above (e.g., user requests list of parties named Smith, system returns list of Smiths, user selects desired Smith from list by clicking on proper line or entering proper key fields, system returns index information on cases involving that Smith) 1.2.3 allow users easy interface with other parts of the all system such as docketing, scheduling, calendaring, and accounting for potentially all related case and financial information (le., on specific case, its parties, its participants, its attorneys and on cases related to specific case and to its parties, participants, and attorneys) and with the inquiry and report generation capabilities for more varied displays and reports (see also Inquiry and Report Generation sections _[Appendix _A]) 1.2.4 permit name search on various combinations of a all person's or party's name (e.g., full name, last name only, part of first or last name, other options noted in_Inquiry Section _[Appendix A]) 1.2.5 if attorneys included in index, allow multiple names all and bar _identifiers 1.2.6 include index information in index record as noted all above or make this information easily accessible (e.g., in a manner that requires no additional user actions) 1.2.7 permit updating of index based on occurrence of yes all specific case events (e.g., motions filed, dispositions decided) 1.2.8 extract, print, or otherwise produce (e.g., all microfiche) with appropriate security restrictions index information arranged according to various components of index (e.g., party, case number, case status) _(see _also _Security _Function) 1.2.9 retrieve basic index information on all cases large small associated with _specific _participant 1.210 accommodate aliases in conjunction with indexing all and processing of partynames asappropriate I____ March 1, 2001 Page 18 . . . case. The computer produces this information as if it were in a physical docket book. The Information Relationships section addresses this situation and gives examples. Additionally, when the system inputs or outputs docket information, it assists the user by providing prompts, selected printouts or displays of docket contents, an audit trail of who updated the docket, and other utility services. The Input/Output Management section addresses this capability. Data Types Used. The data types required by the Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types section for basic contents of each data type): • Case, • Filings, - • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, • Judge, • Financial, • Exhibits, • Summons and other served processes, • Forms and other documents issued by court, • Hearing, and • Disposition. Subfunctions. Within the Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, the subfunctions are grouped into case information, event information, information relationships, and input/output management. 2.1 Case Header When the system creates the docket using entries made during case initiation and supplemented by subsequent user entries, the docket receives information on the initial filing and basic case information such as case type, case category, case status, case title or style, parties, attorneys, and docket-related events. As the case progresses, this information is maintained and additional information is recorded—primarily on events in the flow of the case as described in the Event Information below. Table 2.1 - Case Header Subfunctions Subfunction Auto Ani. Opt. 2.1.1 maintain case information originally entered during all case initiation in docket or register of actions including information on initial filing and basic case information (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function) March 1, 2001 Page 20 .. . S Table 2.1 - Case Header Subfunctions (continued) Subfunction Auto Man d. 21.2 maintain information originally entered during case all initiation for parties and participants as individuals (e.g., Ann Smith) or organizations (e.g., Acme Asbestos Company) with primary contact person if organization (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function) 2.2 Event Information As the case progresses and events are completed, summary information about each event (e.g., filings, hearing results, requests for execution, dispositions) is entered into the docket. While some events may trigger an update to the case information in the docket (e.g., party name change, attorney change), event entries generally are not updated unless they have been entered incorrectly; subsequent events are entered separately. Table 2.2 - Event Information Subfunctions Subfunction Auto IFTU Opt. 2.2.1 enter and maintain information (e.g., document title, all filing party, fees received, real property parcels) and dates on filings and other completed events not previously in system (e.g., party added or deleted, motion filed, answer or response filed, or hearing date set) 2.2.2 create docket entry and update case information yes all based on occurrence of specific events that can be completely or partially transferred from another function such as hearing scheduled (e.g., motion granted or denied; see also Calendaring Function), hearing results (e.g., summary judgment; see also Hearings Function), dispositions (e.g., disposition date, type of disposition, information on judgment; see also Disposition Function and Accounting - Back Office Function), and requests for enforcement of judgment (see also Execution Function) 2.2.3 create docket entry based on electronic documents yes large small distributed by other functions (e.g., notices, warrants, orders) (see also Document Generation and Processing Function, Hearings Function, and Disposition Function) March 1, 2001 Page 21 S S S Table 2.2 - Event Information Subfunctions (continued) 'cntrlyIth Auto Man d. 2.2.4 permit user to identify and retrieve electronic yes large small documents by identifying them on each detailed list of docket events (e.g., with icon adjacent to event such as motion for dismissal filed indicating that motion filed electronically) and easy display or printout of electronic document (e.g., motion that was filed) 2.2.5 allow single event to create multiple docket entries yes all (e.g., event is hearing docket entries are attorney withdrawal and hearing results) 2.2.6 enter, maintain, and display or print information on large small special case processing requirements or orders (e.g., sealed case or document) (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function and Security Function) 2.2.7 maintain case information as official court record in all accordance with state and local statutes or rules 2.3 Information Relationships For single and multiple cases and persons, the system should maintain relationships between different kinds of information contained in the docket and inform users of cases, activities, parties, and other entities that would affect or be affected by the information at hand. The capability to establish and apply such relationships greatly assists users in entering and synchronizing data throughout the system. Table 2.3 - Information Relationships Subfunctions , Tl1tTlTUr,] I Auto nTr Opt. 2.3.1 maintain information on multiple parties, all participants, and attorneys in a case such as personal information, status including dismissals, current addresses, address histories, voice and facsimile telephone numbers, e-mail addresses (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 2.3.2 maintain multiple current and historical addresses, all with beginning and ending dates, for each party, participant, and attorney 2.3.3 enter, change, or withdraw attorneys for specific all cases (or groups of cases) or parties (or groups of parties) with dates when active and inactive 2.3.4 maintain information on law firms and associate all attorneys and firms (e.g., to permit mail to be sent to each attorney in a firm, to list all cases being handled by a specific firm or attorney) March 1, 2001 Page 22 3_ .s- S 0 S Table 2.3 - Information Relationships Subfunctions (continued) S. 2.3.5 maintain, or be able to construct in a manner that yes all requires minimal user action, information and relationships on multiple cases, judges, attorneys, and parties (e.g., designate lead attorney, transfer group of cases or parties from one judge or hearing date to another in single transaction) (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function) 2.3.6 permit, with proper authorization (e.g., supervisor yes all approval), deletion of specific docket entries and all related data (e.g., deletion of pleading and fee information causes related docket and accounting information to be deleted) 2.3.7 apply a specific change to multiple dockets, parts of yes all dockets, or groups of cases as if they were a single docket or case (e.g., correction of fee entry causes fee distribution amounts to be modified, change of Judge Smith's courtroom causes all records containing old courtroom numbçr to be changed to new courtroom number, transfer group of cases to new judge when former judge retires or conflict arises, _transfer _group _of cases to another division) 2.3.8 link and display information on docket entries for all events related to current docket entry (e.g., when defendant files motion that opposes previously filed motion of plaintiff, defendant's motion would be linked to original plaintiff's motion filed, and new motion filed would be linked to all pending motions in case with information displayed on who flied motions, _factors _involved, and _pending decisions) 2.4 Input/Output Management A group of utility-type subfunctions support input to and output from docketing and other functions. These subfunctions support code translation tables, user prompts, workstation usage records, docket displays, and input templates of standard court documents. Table 2.4— Input/Output Management Subfunctions Subfunction Auto riTU 2.4.1 maintain and properly use code translation tables all defined by user (see also Ust of Code Translation Tables) 2.4.2 provide prompts to help users (e.g., list of codes yes all and translations that apply to data entry situation that currently confronts user, updates required in cases related to case _being _updated) March 1, 2001 Page 23 S I . Table 2.4 - Input/Output Management Subfunctions (continued) Auto Opt. 2.4.3 create, maintain, and produce (according to user- all specified criteria such as selected workstation[s] or selected case[s]) audit trail identifying persons who made docket and other entries and when they made entries (highlighting when filing occurred if filing and entry dates are different) (see also Security Function and Accounting - Back Office Function) 2.4.4 print or display all, part, or summaries of docket(s) all (e.g., events in register of actions, all parties, summaries of judgment information, case age) for specific case or group of cases and for life of case or specific date range in chronological or reverse chronological order (see also Management and Statistical Reports Function) 2.4.5 support electronic filing (e.g., directly from yes large small attorneys' offices) of pleadings and other documents (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and Case Initiation and Indexing Function) 2.4.6 maintain file of input templates available to users to yes large small create input documents and, as necessary, associated cover sheets (for use when pleadings are filed electronically) and relate each template to court event(s) (e.g., to correlate templates with events and to allow details of specific electronically filed complaint to be inserted into "boilerplate" text of complaint form for hard copy printout) (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and - Document Generation and Processing Function) 2.4.7 maintain and print or display history of changes in large small judge assignment including those by challenges (e.g., preemptory challenge) and showing present and former judges and reasons for change ______4.8 maintain and print or display history of attorney all P. changes for specific case or party 3. Scheduling Function Description. The activities associated with scheduling upcoming events, maintaining and displaying information on scheduled events, and monitoring adherence to schedules. Scheduling contrasts with docketing in that scheduling addresses events that are not calendared (i.e., placed on a calendar for judicial hearing or other review) and have not yet happened, while docketing addresses completed activities. March 1, 2001 Page 24 J2 7 . 0 . Courts schedule the following two basic types of events: In many civil courts, deadlines are set for specific events (e.g., answer or response) when a case is [lied and assigned a case number (signifying that the court has accepted the case). Other deadlines are established for submission of documents (e.g., affidavits) and completion of other actions (e.g., submission of exhibits) as the case progresses. These deadlines often conform to time intervals based on the case's differential case management category, case type, or case category (see also List of Code Translation Tables). Deadlines define the schedule within which the case moves to disposition, which may be by trial or before the trial, for example, by default, dismissal, withdrawal, or conference. • Courts also schedule trials and other judicial proceedings (e.g., motion hearings, conferences aimed at pre-trial settlement) and quasi-judicial events çi.e., ADR such as mediation, arbitration). While most courts regard scheduled events as administrative activities and not part of the official court record, these events may initiate an action that is part of the official court record. For example, an event that violates time standards because it does not occur by its scheduled date may initiate a hearing to determine why the case is out of compliance; the hearing would be scheduled, placed on a court calendar, and become part of the official court record. - The Scheduling Function includes the scheduling of judicial and ADR events; the Calendaring Function covers the calendaring of matters placed on a judge's calendar for hearing or other review. The distinction between scheduled and calendared events takes on greater significance as access to court records—particularly electronic access—increases. While courts permit access to official court records such as calendars and hearing results, internal work such as schedules should have more protection. Access to an amalgamation of schedules and calendars, moreover, could confuse outside persons unfamiliar with court procedures and terminology. For example, a tickler reminding a clerk to pull a file and determine whether a hearing can be scheduled may cause the outside person to believe the hearing actually has been calendared. Finally, from a technical perspective, there is an intrinsic difference between internal, administrative items such as schedules and calendars, hearing results, and other items in official court records—access to schedules, when granted, is a "pull" operation, and access to calendars is a "push" operation. Analogous to scheduling and calendaring, docketing relates closely to scheduling. Whereas docketing, as described in the Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, records completed actions, scheduling is anticipatory because it always establishes a future target date that may be rules-based or algorithmically determined for specific case types or categories (e.g., disposition time standards for small claims, unlawful detainer, or general civil complaints for damages). Data Types Used. The data types required by the Scheduling Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • Scheduled events, • Case, • Party, • Participant, March 1, 2001 Page 25 S . S Attorney, Judge, and Noncourt agencies. Subfunctions. Within the Scheduling Function, the subfunctions are grouped into schedule creation, person and resource assignment, ticklers and other user alerts and prompts, and schedule and case management 3.1 Schedule Creation Before considering the people and other resources that will serve as the foundation for schedules, guidelines must be established for determining what to schedule, what conditions trigger scheduling, and how to schedule multiple entities (e.g., events, parties, cases) that relate to each other. Table 3.1 - Schedule Creation Subfunctions Subfunction Auto ULFTTI Opt. 3.1.1 schedule events and groups of events (e.g., after case all filed, set deadlines for service of summons, return of service, filing of answer or response) 3.1.2 initiate schedule of future events based on user input yes all or occurrence of prior events (e.g., after small claims case filed, schedule hearing and deadline for sending notices to parties and participants) 3.1.3 allow multiple cases and events to have same all scheduled date and time (e.g., multiple complaints regarding same problem to be heard together) 3.1.4 schedule maximum number of cases for specific time yes large small interval by event (e.g., hearing) type 3.1.5 schedule group of related cases as if group was a yes all single case 3.1.6 provide manual override to automatic scheduling to all allow user to substitute deadlines for specific situations 3.1.7 apply specific change (e.g., reschedule all cases to be yes all heard by judge who is unavailable due to illness) to multiple schedules for group of cases as if group was a single case 3.1.8 identify and display scheduling conflicts as noted in yes all next group of subfunctions (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 3.1.9 when multiple schedules change, modify records of large small all related parties, participants, calendars, docket entries, and other data and functions including displaying scheduling conflicts, suggesting resolutions, allowing user overrides, and rescheduling only with user approval (see also List of Code Translation Tables) March 1, 2001 Page 26 jq . 0 . 3.2 Person and Resource Assignment This section covers standards for assignment of the proper people (e.g., judges, attorneys, parties, participants) and resources (e.g., court or meeting room) to create reliable schedules. Most of these standards specify fully automated functions, particularly inlarge courts with many people and resources to schedule. Short of full automation, the computer could assist the user in manual assignment by displaying the requisite information—a process that may be appropriate for small courts. Table 3.2 - Person and Resource Assignment Subfunctions S ubfu nctio n Auto Man d. 3.2.1 maintain waiting list of cases to be scheduled for yes large small specific date, date range, judge, courtroom, and other entities 3.2.2 when creating schedules, consider (1) availability of yes all judges, attorneys, parties, participants, and court facilities; (2) weekends, holidays, and other days generally unavailable for court activities (e.g., training, retreats, judicial conferences) and days when specific individuals are unavailable; (3) scheduling conflicts to extent information is in system (e.g., all law officer and witness schedules will not be in system), but allow manual scheduling at user discretion in spite of conflicts (e.g., conflicts due to judicial absences, attorney vacations, law officer schedules) (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 3.2.3 maintain availability information on judges, attorneys, all parties, participants (e.g., interpreters, out-of-state witnesses), court facilities, and other scheduling factors noted in this section 3.2.4 relate individual judges and groups of judges to yes large small courtrooms, locations, departments, department staff (e.g., reporter, bailiff; judge also may be considered staff), and case management tracts over permissible assignment time frames (e.g., in court with rotating judge assignments, a specific judge hears small claims cases in a particular courtroom during a given month) (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 3.2.5 assign specific case categories (e.g., tort, contracts, yes large small real property rights, small claims within civil case type) to specific departments according to user- defined case/department relationships (e.g., business cases assigned to business courts) March 1, 2001 Page 27 S S C Table 3.2 - Person and Resource Assignment Subfunctions (continued) Subfunction Auto L!2 3.2.6 assign and reassign individual and groups of judges yes all using one or more of the following methods: randomly, according to predefined rules (e.g., by case category, by case status, by hearing type, by judge rotation policies, by judge caseload balancing policies), according to existence of specific conditions (e.g., conflict of interest), according to dates and times specific judges available to hear specific matters (e.g., motions on Wednesday afternoon) 3.2.7 assign related cases, as designated by user, to same large small judge and group together on schedule (e.g., multiple complaints regarding same problem or person) (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function and Docketing _and _Related Recordkeepirig Function) 3.2.8 reassign individual or group of cases from one judge yes all or calendar to another as if group was a single case (e.g.,_ judge _retires or moves to_ appellate _court) 3.3 Ticklers and Other User Alerts and Prompts The computer should generate ticklers, other alerts, and prompts to inform users (including individual users and workgroups) of impending or expired schedule deadlines, of completed schedule events, and of required scheduling actions that relate to the current activity. Table 3.3 - Ticklers and Other User Alerts and Prompts Subfunctions Subfunction Auto Mand. Opt. 3.3.1 provide tickler capability- identify events coming due yes all or overdue, periods about to expire or expired (e.g., answer or response due), events of which user should be aware based on locally defined needs (e.g., approaching maximum number of continuances); prompt or notify users; and initiate proper functions (e.g., generate notice regarding potential default) (see also Accounting - Back Office Function) 3.3.2 provide user-activated or -deactivated visual yes all reinforcement (e.g., flashing text, colors on screen, or computer icon) to ensure user sees tickler message 3.3.3 identify completed events and prompt users (e.g., yes all summons _served, _awaiting _answer or response) 3.3.4 generate report or display that lists all events due on yes all specific date or date range sorted by date, event, or other criteria March 1, 2001 Page 28 . 0 S Table 3.3 - Ticklers and Other User Alerts and Prompts Subfunctions (continued) - -1T1mTk.] - L!T 3.3.5 prompt user to schedule predefined related cases yes large small (e.g., other complaints regarding same problem) (see also Case Initiation and Indexing Function and Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function where relationships are defined to system—some automatically and some manually) 3.3.6 generate alert when approaching maximum number yes large small of events normally permitted on schedule (e.g., based on differential case management category, case type, case category) (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 3.3.7 generate alert when displaying cases that are not yes all public record (e.g., confidential cases) (see also Security Function) 3.3.8 generate alert when judges, attorneys, parties, yes all participants, court facilities, and other scheduling factors unavailable 3.4 Schedule and Case Management The civil case processing system must provide highly flexible, user-defined printouts and displays of scheduling information by various groups (e.g., by day, judge, or courtroom). The system also must accommodate various case management (e.g., fast track for time- sensitive filings, specific judicial assignment for specific types of cases, use of mediators and arbitrators) methods and provide other support functions. Table 3.4— Schedule and Case Management Subfunctions -- 1T1TfTflTIsi, Auto i 3.4.1 maintain and display information on scheduled all events (e.g., next scheduled event, all scheduled events, interface with docket to view past events) 3.4.2 print each schedule upon user request (e.g., judge's all calendar by day) 3.4.3 create, maintain, and display or print administrative all or clerk's calendar that shows all cases with action pending within specific date range (e.g., show upcoming events to help clerk with intraoffice work prioritization and management), and update calendar when pending actions completed 3.4.4 enter completed events noted on administrative or yes all clerk's calendar into docket as noted in Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function March 1, 2001 Page 29 . . S Table 3.4— Schedule and Case Management Subfunctions (continued) .Subfunction Auto Mand. Opt. 3.4.5 print or display attorneys who have cases with future yes all court dates sorted by various criteria (e.g., law firm, attorney) 3.4.6 print or display schedules for various persons (e.g., yes all judges, attorneys); and facilities (e.g., courtrooms) within _specific _period 3.4.7 generate docket entry based on scheduled and yes all completed events (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 3.4.8 track conformance to time standards (e.g., answer or yes large small response due 30 days after service to defendant) including modifications (e.g., move from one case management track to another), overrides (e.g., override requirement that answer or response due in 30 days and manually enter 60 days), and suspension (e.g., suspend mental health classification) of time counting under certain conditions (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 3.4.9 support differential case management, ADR (e.g., large small mediation, arbitration), and other case management methods (e.g., schedule events within various sets of differential case management rules, schedule ADR events) _(see _also _List of Code Translation Tables) 3.4.10 include case age with any display of case status or yes all adherence to schedules (e.g., tracking conformance to time standards) 4. Document Generation and Processing Function Description. The activities associated with generating, distributing, and tracking documents that notify persons of past and upcoming events and other court actions. The categories of documents in this section are (1) those that typically require service by a law enforcement officer or other authorized process server with a return of service such as civil warrants, summons, and complaints; (2) those that are given or sent by mail to litigants with a proof or certificate of service such as notices and letters; and (3) those that are sent with no proof of service or used internally such as forms, letters, and brief reports (as opposed to more lengthy and complex documents described in the Management and Statistical Reports Function or produced by word processing). Many of these documents contain court seals and standard text into which the text and data that pertain to a specific. case are inserted and signatures affixed. To help produce these frequently used documents, the civil case processing system allows users to create, store, and maintain forms—or output templates—that contain "boilerplate" text and may be imaged to permit court seals and signatures. When users need to complete one of these forms, the system accesses the appropriate output template and the user inserts the text and data for a given case. The text and data may be newly entered or received from sources such as March 1, 2001 Page 30 . S electronic filing, the Internet, local or remote scanners or facsimile machines, and case processing and word processing systems (see document management coverage in Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and File, Document, and Property Management Function; see also Appendix B for a discussion of electronic filing). The documents may be generated automatically following a specific event (e.g., notices to specific parties and participants when hearings are scheduled) or result from a user entry (e.g., civil bench warrants), and they may be either printed and distributed manually or distributed electronically (see Multifunction Capabilities and Integration). Users must track served documents from the time they are sent out until the person who has been served appears at the prescribed time and place. This section excludes documents that record hearing results such as court orders and minutes, which are covered later in the Hearings Function; materials used in file tracking (e.g., case file labels, exhibit and property destruction notices), which are covered later in the File, Document, and Property Management Function; and financial documents (e.g., judgment forms), which are covered later in the Disposition Function and the accounting functions. Data Types Used. The data types required by the Document Generation and Processing Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types section for basic contents of each data type): • Summons and other served processes, • Forms and other documents issued by court, • Scheduled events, • Hearing, • Financial, • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, and • Noncourt agencies. Subfunctions. Within the Document Generation and Processing Function, the subfunctions are grouped into document generation and document utilities. 4.7 Document Generation This category consists of all documents generated by the system including those that typically are served by a process server, such as a law enforcement officer, and those that are simply mailed or given to a party, attorney, or participant. March 1, 2001 Page 31 9 . . S Table 4.1 - Document Generation Subfuñctions i11tflTTh.h Auto iflTi 4.1.1 generate notices or electronic acknowledgments and yes large small notify appropriate parties that filings, pleadings, and other documents received and accepted, particularly when a document is filed electronically (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and Case Initiation _and _Indexing _Function) 4.1.2 generate documents (e.g., summons, civil warrants, yes all notices) triggered by a specific event (e.g., hearing scheduled) 4.1.3 generate miscellaneous documents (e.g., for re- all scheduled and canceled events, plaintiff claims forms, _other _types _of forms) 4.1.4 generate special notices (e.g., judge assignment, all courtroom change, attorney change, schedule change, _other _courtesy notices) _when _requested 4.1.5 in cases with multiple active parties, generate single all notice for attorney who _represents _multiple _parties 4.1.6 in cases with multiple active parties, show names and all primary (e.g., as designated by party or attorney) addresses of all other active parties and attorneys on notice to specific active party and show names and primary addresses of all active parties on file copy of notice 4.1.7 print documents individually or in batches in local all courts or central location 4.1.8 distribute documents electronically (e.g., documents yes large small to be served to process server; notices and other documents to litigants and attorneys; notices, warrants, and other documents to be entered in docket) (see also Multi function Capabilities and Integration and Docketing and Related Recordkeeping_Function) 4.1.9 track document service, return of service, proof or all certificate of service, reservice if necessary, and any other events 4.1.10 perform document generation, printout, and yes all distribution subfuncnons for group of cases as if group was a single case 4.2 Document Utilities This category includes various utility functions that support document generation such as output templates (i.e., forms that may be imaged to permit court seals and signatures into which text can be inserted), standard text (e.g., "boilerplate" text used in many documents), and recipients for specific documents. March 1, 2001 Page 32 . . . Table 4.2 - Document Utilities Subfunctions ry: iei 4.2.1 in conjunction with Docketing and Related all Recordkeeping Function, allow users to create and maintain files of output templates and standard text, including entire paragraphs, and use files to (1) create official court documents by inserting text into templates (e.g., civil warrants with text and images of court seals and signatures) and (2) create other documents consisting of only text (e.g., some types of notices) (see also External Interfaces [Appendix A]) 4.2.2 relate each output template and text noted above to all document(s) and court event(s) for which they are used 4.2.3 maintain only files of standard text and use to create all entire documents or to insert text into "boilerplate" court forms; relate each group of text to document(s) and court event(s) for which they are used 4.2.4 provide capability to retrieve addresses of attorneys, all parties, and participants who should receive specific documents from various locations in system and database (e.g., attorney, party, participant records or tables) (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 4.2.5 produce electronic forms and other documents large small noted above; distribute documents and receive responses (e.g., return of service) electronically (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration) 5. Calendaring Function Description. The activities associated with the creation of calendared matters including the generation, maintenance, and, in some instances (e.g., electronic), distribution of court calendars for each type of hearing (e.g., jury trial, nonjury trial, motion hearing) or settlement conference. While not customarily part of calendaring, within this volume calendaring includes ADR events, such as mediation and arbitration. Calendaring encompasses all proceedings at which arguments, witnesses, or evidence are considered by a judge or administrative body in court events such as trials and motion hearings; conferences aimed at pre-trial settlement; and ADR events such as mediation and arbitration. (Recall from the data type definitions that the term "judge" includes judges and other judicial officers such as ADR providers [e.g., mediators, arbitrators].) Calendaring is the deliberate act of placing a matter on a judge's calendar for a hearing, trial, or ADR event on a particular date. The calendared activity, which may be immediate or at a future date, refers to court business conducted by a judge, usually with counsel and litigants present and resulting in a decision by the judge. The action, ruling, order, or judgment from the event causes production of a document that, with the calendar itself, is part of the March 1, 2001 Page 33 3210 I S official court record. The clerk dockets the result through an entry reflecting the action taken (e.g., a minute order or other document issued by the court); these activities are described in Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function and Hearings Function. Calendaring has two connotations. First, it refers to the placement of a matter within a single case—or a group of cases treated as a single case—on a judge's calendar. Such a calendar may contain only one matter but often includes several matters (e.g., law and motion, settlement conference). Second, the calendar refers to a complete list of what will be heard or considered by the court because either the court or counsel placed the matter on the calendar for hearing or review. From another perspective, the calendar can be characterized by a particular case type or category (e.g., law, motion), all matters set for a particular courtroom on a given clay or range of days, or all matters set for all judges of a trial court on a given day or range of days. In the given courtroom, the judges may function individually or as members of teams or panels. Data Types Used. The data types required by the Calendaring Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types section for basic contents of each data type): • Case, • Scheduled events, • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, • Judge,and • Noncourt agencies. Subfunctions. Within the Calendaring Function, the subfunctions are grouped into calendar creation and calendar management. 5.7 Calendar Creation Hearing schedules (see Scheduling Function) provide the source information for court calendars. The Calendaring Function creates calendars by accepting schedule information, combining it with information from other functions (e.g., basic case information from the Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, judges' notes), and arranging the information into the calendar format. As the hearing date approaches, users maintain calendars by entering changes (e.g., add witnesses, change attorneys, return to scheduling because case continued) and generate calendars (usually by printout) for distribution. March 1, 2001 Page 34 O • 0 Table 5.1 - Calendar Creation Subfunctions - —flfl'Tk.i Auto Tifl'V. •, 5.1.1 create, generate, and maintain calendars based on yes all scheduling information (see also Scheduling Function) for each type of hearing (e.g., jury trial, nonjury trial, motion, conference, dismissal) or mixed hearings (e.g., motions and settlements) for specific periods (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) and according to various criteria (e.g., judge, date, time, case type, case category, other elements of calendar profiles) 5.1.2 transfer easily and quickly between scheduling, all calendaring, and other parts of the system when creating calendars (e.g., to view information on other cases, parties, participants) 5.1.3 create and maintain judges' notes (i.e., judges' notes all and comments for use with calendar) for judges' viewing only in accordance with local rules and statutes (see also Security Function) 5.2 Calendar Management Between the time the calendar is created and the, hearing date, users perform various calendaring functions such as finalizing the calendar at a prescribed cutoff point, printing the calendar, distributing it to judges and strategic courthouse locations for posting, and producing summary reports. Table 5.2 - Calendar Management Subfunctions JcnrnTI[.h Auto 5.2.1 create and print calendars individually (e.g., for a all judge or courtroom) or batch (e.g., for posting throughout courthouse) according to various criteria including date, judge, or courtroom 5.2.2 distribute calendars electronically (e.g., jury manager, yes large small court reporters, sheriff) (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration) 5.2.3 generate and display or print summary of upcoming all hearings for a judge or in a courtroom over a specific period (e.g., a week) 5.2.4 display or print summary calendar information (e.g., all for use in courtroom and could contain case number, hearing type, case title or style, hearing date and time, and other essential information from calendar) and provide interface to other parts of system to access other types of information (e.g., on parties) (see also Management and Statistical Reports Function) March 1, 2001 Page 35 I I 6. Hearings Function Description. The activities associated with recording the results of calendared events and notifying parties of court decisions. In the context of this volume, calendared events include all proceedings in which arguments, witnesses, or evidence are heard by a judge or administrative body. This encompasses court events such as trials and motion hearings; conferences aimed at pre-trial settlement; and ADR events such as mediation and arbitration. Even though most cases reach an important intermediate milestone (e.g., in a motion hearing) or culminate when they are adjudicated in a trial or some type of ADR event, the Hearings Function imposes only the two functions noted above—recording results and notifying parties—on civil case processing systems. Minute entries (normally annotated on the calendar or on separate forms) and court orders record hearing results and document for the parties the findings resulting from judicial or quasi-judicial events. In performing these tasks, the Hearings Function relates closely to the Calendaring Function, Disposition Function, and Case Close Function. As the hearing progresses, the judge may request a warrant, some type of form, or some other document which would be generated and printed as described in the Document Generation and Processing Function. The Hearings Function uses the term "judgment" in two contexts—first, as the general term for any disposition that results from a court decision; second, to connote the information contained in a judgment such as the judgment amount, debtor information and amount, creditor information and amount, and payment provisions. This function relates closely to the Disposition Function, which discusses judgments in these contexts and covers judgment forms that document the terms of the judgment. Data Types Used. The data types required by the Hearings Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types section for basic contents of each data type): • Hearing, • Scheduled events, • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, • Judge, • Noncourt agencies, and • Exhibits. Subfunctions. The hearings subfunctions, which should accommodate various types of hearings and ADR events (e.g., jury trial, nonjury trial, motion hearing, mediation, arbitration), are given in the following table: Table 6— Hearings Subfunctions 6.1 provide for minute entry using one of the methods all noted below March 1, 2001 Page 36 7 S O . Table 6— Hearings Subfunctions (continued) Auto k'ArTT Subfunction - L!J 6.2 generate worksheet, calendar, or some other yes large small document suitable for on-line, rapid, in-court minute entry (see also Calendaring Function) 6.3 generate and display or print worksheet, calendar, or yes all some other document suitable for manually recording minutes (see also Document Generation and Processing Function and Calendaring Function) 6.4 enter, store, and display or print minutes recorded on all calendar or worksheet 6.5 provide edits and prompts with on-line minute entry yes large small capability (see also Security Function) 6.6 enter, store, and document minute orders, including all informal minute orders when there is no corresponding calendared event (e.g., ex parte matters), according to local court rules (see also List of CodeTranslation Tables) 6.7 use events captured in minutes to update records yes all throughout system (e.g., information on judgments working with Disposition Function and accounting functions; attorney withdrawals working with Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function; adjournments, continuances, and cancellations working with Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function (for docket updates), Scheduling Function (for rescheduling of hearing), Document Generation and Processing Function (for notice generation), Calendaring Function (to place on future calendar when scheduled), and other functions; and rulings taken under advisement on submitted matters) (see also _Integration _Between _Functions) 6.8 create and print court orders resulting from hearings all and other judicial and ADR events 6.9 distribute court orders resulting from hearings and yes large small other judicial and ADR events electronically to outside parties and internally to be entered in docket (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration, Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, and Disposition Function) 6.10 enter information in court orders and judgments all resulting from hearings and other judicial and ADR events as events in docket (if not entered automatically through previous subfunction) (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function and _Disposition_Function) 6.11 distribute court orders resulting from beatings and all other judicial and ADR events based upon party's preference (e.g., mail, facsimile, e-mail) if multiple distribution methods are available March 1, 2001 Page 37 jfa . S . 7. Disposition Function Description. The activities associated with disposing all or part of a case or individual parties in a case due to a judgment, which is any type of disposition resulting from a court decision after a trial; ADR (e.g., mediation, arbitration), default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, transfer out to another jurisdiction, or consolidation. This function supports the user in accomplishing the actions called for in court orders. The Disposition Function relates closely to the Hearings Function, in which judgments are determined, but not documented. The Disposition Function receives information from the Hearings Function on cases disposed by trial, ADR, and any other types of disposed cases. It also receives information on disposed cases from other functions, primarily the Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function. It interacts with the Execution Function in processing judgments and often functions contiguously with the Case Close Function in disposing and closing cases. The term "judgment" refers to the general term for any disposition that results from a court decision as noted above, as well as information contained in a judgment such as the judgment amount, debtor information and amount, creditor information and amount, and payment provisions. The Disposition Function also encompasses the creation of a judgment form at case disposition to document the judgment information. During the post-judgment period, unless follow-up action is required (e.g., request for execution as described in the Execution Function), courts normally track judgment payments reactively—not proactively in an explicit effort to track satisfactions of judgment—as information becomes available to them (e.g., in memoranda of credit or garnishment of return). With this proviso, exchange of judgment information occurs within court system functions such as the Hearings Function, which supplies information from subsequent hearings that relate to the judgment; the General Accounting Function and Accounting - Back Office Function, which provide information on amounts paid, due, overdue, and disbursed; and the Execution Function, which provides information on any judgment executions that may be needed: Exchange of judgment information may occur with (1) other governmental units at the federal, state, and local levels (e.g., sheriff for garnishments and court orders); (2) private organizations (e.g., credit reporting companies and collection agencies); and (3) other users (e.g., attorneys, litigants, researchers). Data Types Used. The data types required by the Disposition Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • Disposition, • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Scheduled events, • Financial, and • Other events and entities (i.e., parcels). Subfunctions. The disposition subfunctions could apply to entire cases, individual parties (e.g., if some, but not all, parties in multiple-party case settle), individual parcels (i.e., in real property rights cases), or individual causes of action (e.g., when each claim in a multiple- March 1, 2001 Page 38 . 6 S Table 7— Disposition Subfunctions (continued) Su bfu nction m k1y 7.8 allow for multiple judgments in cases involving all multiple parties 7.9 update each case in group of disposed (e.g., yes all dismissed) cases as if group were single case (see also Docketing _and _Related Recordkeeping_Function) S. Execution Function Description. The activities associated with execution of a judgment. These situations normally arise when the court is requested to assist with collection of the monetary judgment specified in a court order by obtaining information on the status of judgment payments and balance due by issuing documents such as memoranda of credit and garnishments of return. The Execution Function interacts with the Hearings Function and Disposition Function in these tasks. Data Types Used. The data types required by the Execution Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • Disposition, • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Financial, and • Noncourt agencies. Subfunctions. The following table gives the execution subfunctions. Table 8— Execution Subfunctions Subfunction Auto Man1Td. Opt. 8.1 process requests for execution of judgments and all establish cross references for each execution subfunction given below to judgment index and judgment _screen _(see _also _Disposition _Function) 8.2 process objections to execution all 8.3 record fully, partially, and nonsatisfied executions all (e.g., all obligations satisfied; see also Case Close Function) 8.4 update each case in group of cases for which yes all execution requested as if group was a single case (e.g., same judgment terms and execution requirements for each case in group) March 1, 2001 Page 40 . . S 9. Case Close Function Description. The activities associated with final closure of a case (i.e., case status becomes "closed"). These activities normally are part of case disposition, but this volume addresses the Case Close Function separately from the Disposition Function to accommodate the rare instances when the two functions are separate (e.g., due to court policy or because cases may be considered disposed upon receipt of judgment forms prepared by attorneys, but not officially dosed until final orders are received). Case closure normally occurs when the case is disposed, which usually means the court has issued a final order disposing all parties and all issues and has statistically closed the case. Case closure, however, seldom causes a case to be removed from the civil case processing system and placed in an archive file. Cases are archived according to state and local records management policies, and at this point the case becomes operationally closed. From the perspective of a civil case processing system, the Case Close Function and subiunctions address statistical closure (i.e., the closure that relates to disposition), and the File, Document, and Property Management Function addresses operational closure (i.e., the closure that relates to archiving). Data Types Used. The data types required by the Case Close Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types section for basic contents of each data type): • Disposition, • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Financial, • Other events—transfer/consolidate out, • File management, and • Noncourt agencies. Subfunctions. As noted above, the case dose subfunctions would either be performed separately in the Case Close Function or in a continuum consisting of the Disposition Function and the Case Close Function. These subfunctions are: Table 9— Case Close Subfunctions Subfunction i Auto IrITU 9.1 receive information from Disposition Function and all record reason for closure (e.g., case disposed after trial, ADR such as mediation or arbitration, default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, transfer out to another jurisdiction, or consolidation) (see also Multifunction _Capabilities _and _Integration) 9.2 establish cross references between consolidated cases yes large small for docketing, scheduling, notice generation, and other functions March 1, 2001 Page 41 S S S Table 9—Case Close Subfunctions (continued) . Sub fu nct ion !TE LYAflT: Opt. 9.3 close case (e.g., update docket; generate required yes large small forms, notices, reports for that case) (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function, Document Generation and Processing Function, Management _and Statistical _Reports _Function) 9.4 generate overall case closure reports (e.g., cases all dosed over specific period with reason closed and other information such as uncollectable obligation balance; see also Management and Statistical Reports Function) 10. General Accounting Function Description. The activities associated with satisfying the court's fiduciary responsibilities including receipt of funds, posting case-related funds to a case fee record, posting noncase- related funds to other types of records, maintaining account records, disbursing funds, generating checks, billing, producing payment agreements, producing notices required for collection activities, reconciling bank accounts, and producing documents required to satisfy county, state, and federal auditing agencies. In this volume accounting activities differ from civil case processing system functions covered previously because many accounting functions are performed by different personnel and may be supported by a different computer system. The accounting functions usually are divided between the clerk's case processing staff and a finance unit that may be in the clerk's office, an executive branch unit (e.g., county finance), or a court administrative office. The civil case processing system typically performs the functions described earlier in this volume, and it may support some or all of the accounting functions. Accounting support, however, could be provided by a financial system that performs functions such as budgeting, payroll, accounts payable, accounts receivable, fixed assets, journaling and general ledger, and trust fund management. Because of the ambiguities in the division of functions between case processing and accounting, the financial system functions are divided into three groups: • "case processing" functions that apply directly to civil case processing systems. These functions receive fees and other payments; generate receipts; maintain a limited number of bank accounts to hold received funds until they are sent to the proper person, agency, or account; and prepare reports on these activities. • "financial functions" that support case processing. Functions in this group handle a wide range of interest-bearing and noninterest-bearing accounts, process accounts receivable, distribute funds, adjust fund balances, maintain journals and general ledgers, and produce end-of-period reconciliations and other summaries and reports. • other functions—such as budgeting, payroll, and fixed assets—that relate only tangentially to case processing. March 1, 2001 Page 42 . S . The following accounting sections cover functions in the first and second groups—case processing and financial--because that is where they normally reside in systems and organizations. In these accounting sections, each group of subfunctions are categorized according to whether they typically are case processing or financial. Functions that can occur either in case processing, financial, or both are categorized as "case processing or financial." The case processing subfunctions are mandatory or optional for civil case processing systems as noted for each subfunction. The financial subfunctions designated as mandatory should be present in some system(s)—either a civil case processing system, a financial system, or an integrated system—but not necessarily in the categories shown below. This also applies to the financial subfunctions designated as optional. The case processing and financial functions relate closely to each other, to other case processing and financial functions, and to accounting equipment. For example, many accounting functions cause a docket entry; judgment processing involves the Docketing, Hearings, Disposition, and Execution functions as well as accounting functions; many accounting reports relate to the other management and statistical reports; and the system may be required to interface with court cash register systems for funds collection and receipting. Because of these and many other interfaces, if the civil case processing and financial systems are separate, the interface between them must be such that they operate as if they were a single system from the users' perspective. The accounting sections in this volume note only the most significant interfaces between the case processing and financial functions. The Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Functions and Accounting - Back Office Function sections below cover the case processing and financial functions relative to each of the two office locations. The final accounting section covers general ledger functions. This section addresses common general accounting functions. Data Types Used. The data types required by the General Accounting Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • Case, • Party, • Participant, • Attorney, • Disposition, and • Financial. Subfunctions. The general accounting subfunctions—all of which may be either case processing or financial—that are either common to one or more of the subsequent accounting sections or cannot be categorized into one of those sections are: March 1, 2001 Page 43 S S Table 10— General Accounting Subfunctions 1flT1Tk.]. Auto Mand. Opt. Either case processing,financial, or both 10.1 comply with generally accepted accounting principles Al] (GAAPs) for governmental entities (which implies courts or state must define applicable GAAPs) 10.2 provide appropriate security and authorization for all All accounting functions (see also Security Function) 10.3 allow user to override any data supplied automatically All by system (e.g., funds distributed according to predetermined formula) 10.4 generate accounting notices (e.g., for payment) at yes all front counter or in back office (see also Document Generation and Processing Function) 10.5 transfer funds from one case to another case or all between accounts in a given case (e.g., to rectify error if jury fees posted in court reporter fund) (see also Accounting - Back Office Function) 10.6 support trust fund (i.e., moneys held in trust that all may be disbursed upon court order or for services rendered) accounting (e.g., post trust funds transactions to case; track receipts, disbursements, account status; credit interest; process refunds and forfeitures) (see also Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Function and Accounting - Back Office Function) 11. Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Function Description. The activities associated with the cashiering station of the front counter in the clerk's office where litigants and their representatives submit payments requited by the court. Data Types Used. See data types in General Accounting Function section. Subfunctions. Within the Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Function, the subfunctions are grouped into funds collection, receipt generation, and bookkeeping. 11.1 Funds Collection This group of subfunctions applies to all case processing and addresses the activities associated with calculating the amounts due and accepting payments from litigants and their representatives. March 1, 2001 Page 44 . . S Table 11.1 - Funds Collections Subfunctions -Subfu nction Auto LflT ']I =case 11.1.1 permit payment to be accepted for cases filed but not all docketed completely (e.g., all data, such as party names, not entered into system) and recorded by entering minimal amount of data (e. g., case number, case type, case category, case style or title, name of party submitting payment, date of payment, nature of payment) as precursor to full docket entry 711.1.2 accept payments by various methods (e.g., cash, all check, _credit _card, _fee _waiver) 11.1.3 accept payments by electronic funds transfer (see yes large small also Multifunction Capabilities_and_Integration) 11.1.4 accept payments from attorneys by electronic funds yes large small transfer from attorney bank accounts, debiting accounts established by attorneys to cover court expenses, debiting attorney credit card accounts, and on-line check writing (see also Multifunction Capabilities _and _Integration) 11.1.5 compute fees based on occurrence of specific event yes all (e.g.,_ initial _filing, _motion _filing) 11.1.6 identify existence of fee waivers or deferrals, display yes all message (e.g., indigent, governmental waiver), process appropriately (e.g., case filed but waiver deferred _pending _judicial _review) 11.1.7 allocate fees associated with nonparties (e.g., from all couriers, media) that may or may not be case related (e.g., for forms, document copies, certified copies) and process appropriately (e.g., not docketed if not related to_ specific _case) 11.1.8 record fees, other moneys collected, and related yes all information _(case _related and noncase_related) 11.1.9 accept multiple types of payments in single all transaction _(e.g.,_ cash, _check) 11.1.10 accept multiple payments for single case with all capability to process as either single payment or separate _payments _(e.g.,_ voiding, _receipting) 11.1.11 accept single payment for multiple cases with all capability to process separately for each case (e.g., voiding,_receipting) 11.1.12 permit payments to be voided and re-entered before all daily balancing with proper security provisions (see also _Security _Function) March 1, 2001 Page 45 . S S 71.2 Receipt Generation This group of subfunctions applies to all case processing and addresses the activities associated with generating and printing receipts for payments from litigants and their representatives. Table 11.2— Receipt Generation Subfunctions Subfunction— Ps] All case processing 11.2.1 generate and print receipts with proper identifiers all (e.g., fee code, court location and address) based on collections with user option to receive single or multiple copies 11.2.2 generate and distribute electronic receipts for yes large small electronic payments (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration) 11.2.3 generate and print receipts with unique, locally yes all defined, sequential receipt numbers 11.2.4 generate and print multiple receipts from one all financial transaction covering multiple payments for multiple cases or purposes (e.g., attorney files and pays fees for several cases in one trip to courthouse) 11.2.5 generate and print either a single receipt or multiple all receipts from one financial transaction covering multiple payments for single case (e.g., attorney files and pays fees for pleading, forms, and copies for given case in one trip to courthouse) 11.2.6 permit receipts to be reprinted (e.g., if printer all malfunctions during printout) with same receipt numbers 11.3 Bookkeeping This group of subfunctions applies to all case processing and addresses the activities associated with front counter recordkeeping, primarily involving payments from litigants and their representatives and receipts generated in return for these payments. Table 11.3— Bookkeeping Subfunctions •11 mTk.h All case processing 11.3.1 establish individual (e.g., for case or party) and all combined (e.g., funds held short term by clerk) bank accounts when initial fees received for new case for subsequent use in back office (see also Accounting - Back _Office _Function) March 1, 2001 Page 46 . S . Table 11.3— Bookkeeping Subfunctioris (continued) Subfunction - Auto Mand. 11.3.2 record and maintain front-counter bookkeeping all information on receipts and disbursements (e.g., payer, payee, receipt number, case number, purpose of payment or disbursement) 11.3.3 provide secure passwords for each cashier (see also all Security Function) 11.3.4 identify cashier with all transactions (e.g., receipts, all reports) 11.3.5 compute totals, list transactions, and balance for each all cash drawer, register, cashier, and fee type 11.3.6 list contents of each drawer (e.g., cash, checks, credit all card receipts, fee waivers, money orders)' 11.3.7 print summary for each cashier including totals for all each type of payment (e.g., cash, checks, credit card receipts, fee waivers, money orders) (see also Accounting - Back _Office _Function) 11.3.8 list any discrepancies among payments, receipts, and all cases over specific periods for each cashier for whom above summary shows imbalance for any type of payment (see also Accounting - Back Office Function) 11.3.9 permit individual cashiers to open and close at least all daily (e.g., when several cashiers work different shifts at_ same _register _during _same _day) 11.3.10 allow supervisor to correct payment type (e.g., cash, all checks, credit card receipts, fee waivers, money orders) with proper security provisions (see also Security _Function) 11.3.11 suspend cashier operations multiple times during day all (e.g., close without balancing to permit lunch and other breaks) 11.3.12 permit transactions that arrive after cashier closeout all to be entered as transaction for next day 11.3.13 print systemwide daily cash receipts journal (see also all Accounting - Back Office Function) 12. Accounting - Back Office Function Description. The activities associated with back office financial recordkeeping and related functions such as maintaining account records; conducting funds transfer and other financial transactions; and producing reconciliations, statements, reports, and other documents. Data Types Used. See data types in General Accounting Function section. March 1, 2001 Page 47 S S ID Subfunctions. Within the Accounting - Back Office Function, the subfunctions are grouped into account management; funds transfer, distribution, and disbursement; updates to accounts and other records; and summaries. 12.1 Account Management This group of subfunctions addresses the activities associated with maintaining accounts, identifying and alerting users to abnormal conditions and producing supporting documentation, maintaining cross references to records external to the system, and maintaining code translation tables that pertain to accounting. As shown below, these subfunctions apply to case processing, financial, or both. Table 12.1 - Account Management Subfunctions j1trnTk,il ifI(.1TS1 Case processing 12.1.1 maintain financial parts of case files and docket (e.g., yes all payments received, liabilities with linkage to accounts receivable in finance) (see also Docketing and Related _Recordkeeping_Function) 12.1.2 debit accounts established by attorneys to cover yes large small court expenses, and credit attorney accounts based on electronic funds transfers from attorney bank accounts, debiting attorney credit card accounts, and writing on-line checks (see also Multifunction Capabilities _and _Integration) 12.1.3 maintain standard tables for court costs and fees (see all list of Code Translation Tables) Case processing or financial 12.1.4 maintain and track various types of individual (e.g., yes all case or party) and combined (e.g., funds held short term by clerk) bank accounts (e.g., interest bearing, noninterest bearing, installment, pay-through) and balances by case, due date, and party (a few accounts, such as attorney accounts and funds held short term by clerk, are case processing; most accounts, such as trusts and most escrow _accounts, _are _financial) 12.1.5 identify and record arrearages, generate alerts when yes all scheduled payments not made (e.g., for fee waivers or deferrals now due), and take or prompt user to take appropriate action (see also Scheduling Function) Financial 12.1.6 track status of accounts referred to other agencies or all organizations (e.g., state tax intercept to recover previously waived fees) for collection 12.1.7 produce correspondence such as payment notices all and dunning letters (see also Scheduling Function and Document Generation and Processing Function) March 1, 2001 Page 48 . S . 12.2 Funds Transfer, Distribution, and Disbursement This group of subfunctions addresses the activities associated with distributing fees to other governmental units (e.g., law enforcement, state and local treasurers), sharing financial information with other governmental and private entities (e.g., banks, collection agencies), and processing disbursements. As shown below, these subfunctions apply to case processing, financial, or both. Table 12.2 - Funds Transfer, Distribution, and Disbursement Subfunctions -- rn1myIr.h___ Auto Mand. Opt. Case processing ______12.2.1 record funds received from other local, state, and large small private units (e.g., court-ordered payments such as state tax intercepts to recover previously waived fees) Case processing or financial 12.2.2 share information with state agencies to coordinate large small collection of court-ordered payments (e.g., to recover _previously _waived _fees) 12.2.3 place hold on disbursements - all 12.2.4 provide information for disbursement of all undistributed or unclaimed moneys (e.g., jury fees posted for settled cases, unreturned checks for moneys paid by court), update ledgers, and produce reports Financial 12.2.5 electronically authorize and transfer collected fees to yes large small other units (e.g., appellate court for appealed cases) (See _also_ Multifunction _Capabilities _and _Integration) 122.6 compute parts of fees to be distributed to other local yes all and state units according to predefined formula (e.g., portion of fees for county parks, county library, other purposes) and permit distribution formula override _by_appropriate authority 12.2.7 compute parts of fees to be distributed to other local yes large small and state units according to predefined formula and distribute these moneys electronically (e.g., portion of fees for county parks, county library, other purposes) (see also Multifunction Capabilities and Integration) 12.2.8 produce report showing distribution formula, all moneys distributed to other local and state units over specific period, and how formula was used to compute distributions (see also Management and Statistical _Reports _Function) 12.2.9 initiate, print, and disburse sequentially numbered all checks, stop issuance on checks, void checks, identify and process outstanding checks, report on checks that have cleared, and record checks on check register March 1, 2001 Page 49 S . S Table 12.2 - Funds Transfer, Distribution, and Disbursement Subfunctions (continued) -- . , Subfunction Auto Mand. 12.2.10 initiate, print, and disburse refund checks individually all or cumulatively over specific periods (e.g., for filing fees collected in error); record checks on check register 12.3 Updates to Accounts and Other Records This group of subfunctions addresses the activities associated with processing financial transactions, calculating charges and producing bills for amounts owed the court, and processing bank deposits. As shown below, these subfunctions apply to case processing, financial, or both. Table 12.3— Updates to Accounts and Other Records Subfunctions 11rnTk.i Case processing 12.3.1 Post case-related receipts to accounting records and yes all docket or register of actions; associate receipts with - proper case, account, or case activity (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 12.3.2 post case-related disbursements to accounting yes all records and docket or register of actions; associate disbursements with proper case, account, or case activity (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 12.3.3 display or print lists of transactions (e.g., receipts, all disbursements, interest accruals listed by fee type or chronologically) for specific cases and accounts over specific periods (e.g., monthly for life of case) (see also General Accounting Function and Management and Statistical Reports Function) 12.3.4 record changes to accounting records that result all from court orders (e.g., order for refund of jury fees) and modify appropriate records 12.3.5 post (as noted above), process (i.e., tasks noted all throughout these accounting sections), and track (e.g., principal, interest, costs, attorney fees) garnishments and partial payments (e.g., through memorandum of credit) from litigants subsequent to judgments (see also General Accounting Function, Disposition Function, and Execution Function) Case processing or financial 12.3.6 post interest accruals to accounting records (e.g., yes all interest accrued daily to overall account, such as for all trust accounts, and post to individual trust accounts at end of month); associate accruals with proper account March 1, 2001 Page 50 S S S Table 12.3— Updates to Accounts and Other Records Subfunctions (continued) .iTI1TIT1r,i1 Auto Mand. Op t. 12.3.7 generate and print invoices for and document all collection of all moneys (e.g., fees for reservice of process) 12.3.8 apply corrections without changing or deleting all transactions, record and store adjusted financial entries (e.g., bank adjustments for errors or bad checks), and modify amounts due with proper authorization Financial 12.3.9 post noncase-related receipts to accounting records yes all and associate receipts with proper account 12.3.10 post noncase-related disbursements to accounting yes all records and associate disbursements with proper account 12.3.11 accrue charges to case based on occurrence of yes all specific events (e.g., motion filed), periodically apply debits and costs to accounts (e.g., attorney and media accounts), and produce account statements 12.3.12 create payment schedule, apply payments received to all scheduled amount due, and produce reports on overdue amounts _(e.g.,_ for _previously waived fees) 12.3.13 calculate and record bank deposits all 12.4 Summaries This group of subfunctions addresses the activities associated with generating the various listings and reports that document financial activities (e.g., transactions, reconciliations, audit trails) over specific periods (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually). As shown below, these subfunctions apply to case processing or financial. Table 12.4— Summaries Subfunctions 1fltTtTU[']i Auto Mand. Opt. Case processing or financial 12.4.1 for specific periods produce separate reports all showing (1) cases for which fees received, no fees received, fees waived, no fees due; (2) all adjustments to accounts; (3) accounts receivable or payable for each case Financial 12.4.2 list bank deposits in various groupings (e.g., totals for all cash, check, credit card) showing account in which funds _to_be_deposited 12.4.3 print bank deposit slips for specific banks and all periods March 1, 2001 Page 51 . . Table 12.4— Summaries Subfunctions (continued) -- VAuto Mand.1T 12.4.4 for specific periods, compare court record of checks all with bank record of checks; produce list of discrepancies, outstanding checks, and current court and bank balances; reconcile bank accounts; produce report giving discrepancies for all reconciliations 12.4.5 produce list of items that remain open for accounts all that carry balance forward from one period to next period 12.4.6 produce trial balance (e.g., at end of month before all posting to general ledger) and balance reports for each account over _specific period 12.4.7 produce precheck register (e.g., to view checks prior all to printing register) and check register over specific period 12.4.8 total and reconcile receipts over specific period for all multiple cashiers to calculate bank deposits (see also Accounting - Front Counter and Cashiering Function) 12.4.9 produce summary reports for each cash drawer, cash all register, and cashier (see also Accounting - Front Counter and _Cashiering _Function) 12.4.10 produce report containing information on fees all waived and associated payments 12.4.11 produce report showing financial status and history all (e.g., information on transactions, account balances, discrepancies) for each account (see also Management and _Statistical Reports _Function) 12.4.12 generate other periodic financial reports based on all various criteria including at least account aging, audit trail, and journal reports (see also General Accounting Function and Management and Statistical _Reports _Function) 12.4.13 produce lists arranged according to user-selected all criteria for any type of financial transaction (e.g., fees received by date, fee type, or party, receipts by reason for payment or by party) (see also Accounting - Front Counter and _Cashiering Function) 13. Accounting - General Ledger Function Description. The activities associated with general and subsidiary ledger functions. Data Types Used. See data types in General Accounting Function Section. Subfunctions. The general ledger subfunctions are all financial. March 1, 2001 Page 52 . S Table 13— Accounting - General Ledger Subfunctions Subfunction All financial 13.1 create and maintain system-defined and user- all customized chart of accounts 13.2 maintain journal and, if appropriate, subsidiary ledger all for each account by posting debits, credits, and adjusting entries 13.3 populate subsidiary ledger automatically using data yes large small from other parts of system (e.g., Disposition Function, Execution Function, other accounting functions) 13.4 reconcile and balance all accounts all 13.5 create general ledger by posting journal entries, all subsidiary ledger totals, and other information to each account in chart of accounts 14. File, Document, and Property Management Function Description. The activities associated with (1) creating, storing, managing, tracking, archiving, and disposing of manual, electronic, and imaged case files; (2) managing electronic and imaged documents; and (3) receiving, tracking, and returning or destroying exhibits and other property gathered by the court relative to its cases (but not fixed assets and similar property of the court). Within the context of this volume, file management refers to case flies stored either manually or on a computer medium (e.g., magnetic or optical disk). Case files must be tracked from the time the case is initiated until the files are destroyed. For manual files, this means tracking their physical location during their entire life cycle as active, inactive, archived, and destroyed files. Since multiple users can access electronic files concurrently with no movement of physical files, tracking the physical location of electronic files is relevant only when their storage medium (e.g., magnetic or optical disk) has been moved to an off-line facility (e.g., separate storage location for disks containing archived records). These standards generally apply to imaged files without delving into the specifics of an imaging operation (e.g., scanning, retrieval, storage), but they do not assume an imaging capability because that is related technology and not a case processing function (see External Interfaces in Related Technical Considerations [Appendix A]). Document management embraces the input and output, indexing, storage, search and retrieval, manipulation, maintenance, protection, and purging of electronic and imaged documents. Some document management systems may provide advanced capabilities in the above functions, as well as additional features such as document version control and workflow for document routing to specific workstations. At least rudimentary document management capabilities must exist either in the civil case processing system or in a separate document management system that can interface with the civil case processing system. In addition to this section, the Document Generation and Processing Function and Security Function describe these rudimentary document management standards. The System Capabilities section part of Related Technical Considerations (Appendix A) discusses advanced capabilities. March 1, 2001 Page 53 S Exhibits and other property consist of items submitted to substantiate a litigant's case or to provide needed information to the court. Data Types Used. The data types required by the File, Document, and Property Management Function include the following (see Definition of Data Types for basic contents of each data type): • File management, • Case; • Party, and • Exhibits. Subfunctions. Within the File, Document, and Property Management Function, the subfunctions are grouped into file tracking, file archival and destruction, reporting and utility, document management, and exhibit management. 14.1 File Tracking In accordance with local and state rules governing record retention, case records must be identified when they are created at case initiation; stored as active, inactive, and archived files as they progress through their life cycle; and tracked until they are destroyed. Therefore, the record custodian must know the location of case files at all times. The file tracking subfunctions differ depending on whether the files are manual or electronic. As noted above, the physical location of manual files must be tracked during their entire life cycle. Conversely, as long as electronic files reside on the system's primary storage medium (presumably on-line storage), their location need not be tracked. Usually:. this situation prevails when the files are active and sometimes when they are inactive (e.g., depending on the reason they are inactive). Archived electronic files usually are moved to off-line storage. The subfunctions given below cover file tracking through the life cycle of case files—when they are active, inactive, archived, and destroyed—to the extent local and state rules allow for these life-cycle stages. Table 14.1 - File Tracking Subfunctions Sub function Man d. 14.1.1 generate labels for manual case files (see also Case yes all Initiation and Indexing Function) 14.1.2 generate indicators (e.g., color coded labels) with all information on checked-out manual flies to replace those files in cabinet 14.1.3 track manual case files from time checked out of all clerk's office through each borrower until returned to clerk's office relative to location, borrower, date removed, reason file needed, date returned or transferred, and other data March 1, 2001 Page 54 S . S Table 14.1 - File Tracking Subfunctions (continued) Subfunction Auto Mand. Opt. 14.1.4 maintain location (e.g. storage facility, location in all facility, reel number, and location on reel) for manual and electronic archived files 14.1.5 maintain last location of manual and electronic all destroyed files 14.1.6 maintain audit trail of each case file location with yes all information similar to that noted above for file tracking (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping_Function) 14.2 File Archival and Destruction In accordance with local and state rules for record retention as noted above, both manual and electronic case files pass from active to inactive status, and eventually they are archived and ultimately destroyed (or totally purged if an electronic file). At some point in its life cycle, the file is moved from on-line storage to off-line storage and eventually sent to an off- site storage facility. While the file resides in off-line computer storage, many courts retain summary information on the case in active storage to help access the archived file. Table 14.2 - File Archival and Destruction Subfunctions pt. 14.2.1 identify cases to be archived and later destroyed (see all also Case Close Function) 14.2.2 identify cases to be retained permanently all 14.2.3 process files according to local and state rules for yes all becoming archived, destroyed, or transferred to storage facility (see also List of Code Translation Tables) 14.2.4 identify summary information (e.g., indices) to be all retained in active or semiactive files 14.2.5 generate and print reports showing archived and all destroyed or transferred cases 14.3 Reporting and Utility Case processing systems often perform various reporting and, utility functions as part of file management. March 1, 2001 Page 55 . . S Table 14.3 - Reporting and Utility Subfunctions -- Subfunction TU I1y! 14.3.1 generate reports on file management activities (e.g., all inactive files and purged reports) 14.3.2 perform utility functions (e.g., copy information such all as docket entries and parties) from one case to another 14.4 Document Management Document management addresses the rudimentary document management capabilities for electronic and imaged documents (with the proviso that these standards do not assume an imaging capability) received from sources such as electronic filing, the Internet, local or remote scanners or facsimile machines, and case processing and word processing systems (see Appendix B for a discussion of electronic filing). The documents include the internally generated forms, letters, and brief reports described in the Document Generation and Processing Function. Document management capabilities must exist either in the civil case processing system or in a separate document management system that can interface with the civil case processing system. The capabilities shown in the table below are in addition to those noted in the File Tracking and the File Archival and Destruction section of this function and in Document Generation and Processing Function and Security Function. Table 14.4— Document Management Subfunctions -. Subfunction U1( IFT Opt. 14.4.1 support input, output, storage (including indexing or large small an equivalent capability), and search and retrieval of electronic and imaged documents 14.4.2 provide capability to toggle between views of several all different documents 14.4.3 provide capability to interface with document all management system that is separate from case processing if civil case processing system excludes document _management _capabilities 14.4.4 provide capability to use same document all management system for imaging if imaging is included in overall case processing 14.4.5 support manipulation and maintenance of electronic all or imaged documents (e.g., to produce documents that include parts of several electronic or imaged documents; see Document Generation and Processing Function) 14.5 Exhibit Management Exhibits and other property must be identified when received and tracked in an analogous manner to files. March 1, 2001 Page 56 . S S Table 14.5– Exhibit Management Subfunctions Subfunction Auto ITU 14.5.1 record receipt of exhibits and other property all (including party submitting, exhibit or property description, exhibit or property status such as submitted into evidence), generate tag for exhibits and other property, relate to specific case, generate receipts 14.5.2 generate exhibit and property numbers or other yes all identifiers 14.5.3 track location and status of exhibits and other all property 14.5.4 record return or destruction of exhibits and other all property 14.5.5 generate notices (1) to reclaim exhibit or property all when court's usage completed and (2) to inform owner that exhibit or property destroyed (see also Document Generation and Processing Function) 14.5.6 print or display lists of exhibits and other property all according to case, party, and other parameters 15. Security Function Description. The activities associated with ensuring the integrity of the civil case processing system, its data, and its documents during normal operations and after a system failure or outage. This is accomplished through a combination of features in the case processing application software, the normal computer hardware and system software, and special-purpose hardware and software. Depending on the type of user, the system and its data and documents must be protected at three basic levels: • Level I - For court users (e.g., clerk's office staff)—who individually have different privileges on the system but collectively can enter data and documents, access most data and documents, and change some data and documents—the system, data, and documents must be protected from unauthorized access and erroneous entry. • Level 2 - For official users outside the court who frequently submit filings and need information from the system (e.g., attorneys of record), there must be protection from access to unauthorized parts of the system, from submission of erroneous data and documents, and from direct entry of data and documents (i.e., only Level I users would be permitted to enter data and documents directly into the system). • Level 3 - For unofficial users (e.g., the public), there must be protection from any access that goes beyond viewing limited parts of the system's data and documents. March 1, 2001 Page 57 • . S The security standards are incremental in the sense that those applicable to Level I also apply to Levels 2 and 3, and those that apply to Levels I and 2 also apply to Level 3. Unless otherwise indicated, standards covered in this description apply to all three levels. The application software should contain carefully designed input edits to improve data quality and integrity by checking data entered into the system. Normal features provided by computer and software vendors protect the system and database from unauthorized access. Local and remote log-on and password protection restricts access to the civil case processing system, and database security at the file and record levels prevents all but selected groups of users from viewing specific files, modifying specific files, or deleting specific files. (As used in this section, "files" mean all types of files including those used to store data, documents, and programs.) The increased security risk of Level 2 users over Level I users arises during electronic data exchange—particularly electronic filing. While the risk of direct data or document entry is minimal, the possibility exists that the data and documents originally sent differ from those ultimately received because, for example, they became corrupted during transmission. The court should devise a method to ensure the integrity of these data and documents normally through civil case processing system edits or, more reliably, through special- purpose security hardware or software with features such as user authentication (verify who sent data), data integrity (verify same data sent and received), and nonrepudiation (sender cannot later deny sending information). Access to the system and database by the public and other outside unofficial persons• (i.e., Level 3 users) lead to additional security requirements. For example, as noted in the External Interfaces section of Related Technical Considerations (Appendix A), the public could be given access over the Internet or allowed to access the system directly from specified locations (e.g., kiosks). Either of these alternatives presents potential problems because unknown users who do not have individually assigned passwords and other identifiers would have access. While minimal security for these users would be the restriction that they view but not modify or delete data and documents, more restrictive measures probably would be needed as noted below in the subfunction table. Data Types Used. The Security Function requires the use of potentially all data types. Subfunctions. Security subfunctions are: Table 15— Security Subfunctions 15.1 perform user-defined edit and data validation checks yes all such as content of each individual data field (e.g., proper format for a date) and relationship of data field to other data (e.g., date of answer or response after date filed) March 1, 2001 Page 58 360 . . Table 15 - Security Subfunctions (continued) 1wTrnT.i, I rAuto r'lrT;T; 15.2 ensure each document and its contents sent by user yes large small (e.g., attorney) matches with that same document and its contents received by court for electronically filed cases and other information received electronically to ensure that court is referencing and retrieving correct information 15.3 ensure electronic records cannot be modified without yes large small supervisor notification 15.4 allow access and similar privileges based on all authorizations defined, maintained, and controlled by users (e.g., access authorization tables; see also List of Code Translation Tables) 15.5 restrict local and remote access and permissible yes all operations (i.e., view; add; change; delete; combinations of view, add, change, delete; and output) on case types, case categories, files, parts of flies, and system functions from other system functions, device (e.g., terminals, personal computers [PCs]) locations, users, and groups of users 15.6 restrict local and remote access to certain cases and all classifications of cases (e.g., sealed cases, mental health cases) from specific system functions, device (e.g., terminals, PCs) locations, users, and groups of users in accordance with rules, statutes, or court orders 15.7 provide adequate security if public access allowed all (e.g., view but not modify or delete data and documents, separate subset of database established and maintained specifically for public access [which raises issue of how often to refresh or update - subset]; security at lower levels than file or record level such as at field level; "firewalls" that restrict access to only some of system and database and secure other parts) 15.8 provide audit trails that show which users and all workstation locations logged on to system during specified period 15.9 provide secure passwords for user all 15.10 allow authorized user correction of individual or all groups of cases when data entry error occurs (e.g., renumber group of cases if error occurs when entering group of new cases numbered sequentially and error in first case entered causes numbers of subsequently entered cases to be changed) March 1, 2001 Page 59 . S . Table 15—Security Subfunctions (continued) ---11T1!JYUi.i - ~ Auto 'iflT 15.11 maintain and display audit trail of file additions, yes all modifications, and deletions (e.g., filings entered into docket) including who made entry, when entry made, whether date entered and date filed differ (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 15.12 provide for disaster recovery (e.g., reconstruct status all of system and its case processing and financial functions and data such as permitting access authorization tables and cash register totals to be reconstructed) 16. Management and Statistical Reports Function Description. The activities associated with reporting caseload, caseflow, and workload statistics and other court financial, operations, and staff management information. While the standard method of presenting this information would be printed reports, at least summaries of the information should be available through other types of presentations (e.g., graphs, charts) when requested by the user. Data Types Used. The Management and Statistical Reports Function requires the use of all data types. Subfunctiohs. Within the Management and Statistical Reports Function, the subfunctions are grouped into statistics and management information. 16.1 Statistics As a by product of day-to-day case processing, the system produces statistics for local use that satisfy the reporting requirements of the judicial branch and state agencies. These statistics appear in reports that are either produced locally by the civil case processing system or at the state level by a system located there after being sent from the local courts. The statistical reports generally fall into three categories: caseload, caseflow, and workload. Caseload reports present statistics for each case type and, in many instances, case category (e.g., tort, contracts, real property tights, small claims within the civil case type) for a specific time period on the number of cases pending at the beginning of the period, the number of cases filed or reopened during the period, the number of cases disposed or stayed (i.e., delayed or otherwise removed from the court's control) during the period, and the number of cases pending at the end of the period. The reports also may provide details on these basic pending, filed, and disposed statistics (e.g., percent of total caseload filed, disposed cases as percent of filings, manner of disposition). Caseflow reports present statistics for each case type and, in many instances, case category for specific time intervals based on the age of pending cases (e.g., how many have been pending for 30, 60, or 90 days), case age at disposition (e.g., disposed within 60, 120, or 180 days), number of pending cases at each proceeding stage (e.g., number of pending awaiting March 1, 2001 Page 60 . . . answer or response, awaiting mediation, awaiting trial), and average time intervals between proceeding stages (e.g., between initial filing and answer or response). Workload analysis presents statistics for each case type and, in many instances, case category based on trends (e.g., changes in numbers and percentages of filings to dispositions, percentage changes in filings in successive reporting periods and successive years, percentage changes in manner of disposition). To produce statistics beyond the local civil case processing system, statistical reporting must occur from the local system to the local, state, and possibly national levels. To satisfy this requirement, electronic interfaces should exist between local systems and systems of at least the local and state court administrators. Also, there must be a means of consolidating data from local systems to produce uniform state-level statistics (such as could be accomplished through data warehousing). Table 16.1 - Statistics Subfunctions I 1!lTtr1Tk.ii Auto Mand. Op t. 16.1.1 satisfy reporting requirements of judicial branch and all state agencies as noted in remainder of this table 16.1.2 verify data sent to judicial branch and state agencies all using techniques such as aggregate totals 16.1.3 transfer statistical and case data to judicial branch yes all and state agencies electronically (see also Multifunction Capabilities _and _Integration) 16.1.4 produce caseload, caseflow, and workload reports, all either by overall count or by list of cases (e.g., pending cases arranged according to various criteria such as by case type, case category, nature of action, event status, or judge; active cases not scheduled for hearing arranged according to various criteria such as by case type, or reason not scheduled; disposed cases arranged according to various criteria such as by case type, case category, disposition type, nature of action, or judge; cases pending specific action such as pending annual review or recommendation for transfer; cases with specific status such as by reason adjourned; judicial workloads; and weighted caseload summaries) 16.1.5 produce statistical reports associated with financial all activities _(see _also _accounting _functions) 16.1.6 incorporate data from diverse courts throughout yes all state (e.g., large and small courts) into uniform statewide statistics (examples of situations that must be reconciled in statewide statistics—.some events may occur in all courts statewide but have subevents that occur only in large courts; statistics in large and small courts may be recorded based on different case management methods) March 1, 2001 Page 61 . 16.2 Management Information While management reporting is a mandatory capability for every civil case processing system, the specific management reports needed by a given court depend on highly personalized management styles. There are, however, some reports that any court needs, and these reports are designated as mandatory in the sublunction table below. The reports designated as optional are only a few examples of the many reports that civil case processing systems could produce. Some management reports, presumably the mandatory reports and selected other reports (e.g., the optional reports listed below), are preprogrammed into the civil case processing system, and some are generated on an ad hoc basis (see also Inquiry and Report Generation sections of Related Technical Considerations Appendix Al). The judges and other managers in each court must decide which reports they need on a continuing basis, and these reports would be preprogrammed. Invariably a court will need additional reports as conditions, personnel, and preferences change, and those additional reports can either be programmed or created on an ad hoc basis and saved. As used in this section, the term "reports" refers to outputs to display devices and to file extractions for transfer to other systems, Internet posting, or the standard printed output. The detailed content and format of these outputs, even though preprogrammed (e.g., by a software vendor), would be determined by the local court users Table 16.2 - Management Information Subfunctions 1fl1TTTTh.ji Wi1T1I iinTN Opt. 16.2.1 produce reports listed below as printed reports, all displays, or extracted files suitable for transfer to other systems or Internet posting 16.2.2 produce report that permits monitoring all conformance with time and other performance standards relative to various guidelines (e.g., ABA Time to Disposition Standards) and tracking criteria (e.g., case age, case status, judge, exceptional cases such as complex litigation) 16.2.3 track ADR provider (e.g., arbitrator, mediator) all assignments, decisions, and performance criteria (e.g., settlement rates) 16.2.4 produce various detail and summary reports giving all docket contents for specific cases and groups of cases by case and party (e.g., chronological list of all or some events such as filings, summaries of related cases for specific party, case summary sheets; see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function) 16.2.5 produce various detail and summary reports giving all docket contents for specific persons (i.e., party, participant, attorney) and groups of persons by case and party (e.g., person who is both plaintiff's attorney and defendant in malpractice suit; see also Docketing _and _Related _Recordkeeping_Function) March 1, 2001 Page 62 q . S S Table 16.2— Management Information Subfunctions (continued) Subfunction Auto Mand. 16.2.6 produce report that summarizes calendars sorted all according to various criteria (e.g., by case type, case category, judge or other judicial officer, attorney, defendant, date) (see also Calendaring Function) 16.2.7 produce report similar to calendar summary all described above that shows whether specific cases have been disposed with cross references to calendars in which they were disposed (see also Calendaring_Function) 16.2.8 produce report identifying amounts owed and waived all for each person or organization (e.g., fee waivers for specific parties, balance due on attorney accounts, amounts due as result of attorney sanctions) 16.2.9 list cases (all, active, inactive) for specific attorney all and _provide _related information _(e.g.,_ case _status) 16.2.10 provide audit trail reports that show (1) which users all and workstation locations logged onto system during specified period and (2) file additions, modifications, and deletions (e.g., filings entered into docket) including who made entry, when entry made, whether date entered and date filed differ (see also Docketing and Related Recordkeeping Function and Security Function) 16.2.11 list and give supporting information (e.g., party such all as debtor or creditor, date of judgment, amount of judgment)_on all cases with _open _judgments 16.2.12 list and give supporting information (e.g., case all number, party name, dates warrant issued and served) on all cases with open warrants 16.2.13 list all cases that have been continued over specific . all period according to various criteria (e.g., judge, party) and give supporting overall information (e.g., number per case, per judge, per attorney, per requester, and where granted) 16.2.14 capture and track duration of trials by user-specified all criteria such as courtroom, judge or other judicial officer, whether jury or nonjury, and how estimated duration of trial compares with actual duration 16.2.15 produce report showing status of motions and all related petitions and requests including motions waiting for hearing or under advisement March 1, 2001 Page 63 . S is Table 16.2 - Management Information Subfunctions (continued) 1fl1llTITTh.]. Auto IVAFT;T: LfI1 16.2.16 capture and track locally defined milestone events large small (e.g., initial filing, answer or response, settlement conference) for specific cases or groups of cases (e.g., case classification such as medical malpractice, judge, court division), giving more flexible caseflow information (e.g., elapsed time between user- specified events) than is available in standard statistical reports described in previous section 16.2.17 maintain and report on current and past judge all assignment (including specific cases, case types, case categories), recusal, challenges, hearing results, reassignment, disqualification with reasons where appropriate (see also Scheduling Function) 16.2.18 produce index of executions and garnishments all sorted according to various criteria (e.g., by execution number, requester name, date issued, date returned) List of Code Translation Tables Most modern systems save storage space and expedite data entry by using various types of codes instead of their corresponding—and generally more lengthy—translations (e.g., county code instead of county name). Such systems must have a method of associating each code with its corresponding translation. One method of accomplishing this is for the system to maintain tables that match each group of codes with their translations (e.g., county code with the appropriate county name). When the system is implemented and subsequently when changes arise, users define the code translation tables and supply them with codes, translations, and other information that may be contained in each table (e.g., attorney addresses in attorney code translation table). Properly defined and maintained code translation tables are an efficient method of entering and storing data. As noted earlier, these standards identify what functions civil case processing systems are supposed to perform and not how they are to perform those functions. Notwithstanding this fact, the widespread use of code translation tables suggests that these tables be used to illustrate the standard of associating codes and translations—or more basically of achieving the efficiency of code usage. The remainder of the section lists some typical tables and, for each table, gives examples of the categories of data for which codes and corresponding translations would be supplied. Code translation tables relate closely to the data types (e.g., files in the database) covered earlier in this volume in that the tables provide the interface between the translations, which are meaningful to users, and the codes, which are stored in the database and used internally within the system. Even though, for clarity in this volume, the contents of the data types section and this section may be redundant in places, the tables and data files would complement each other with minimal redundancies in an actual system. March 1, 2001 Page 64 . S . Data Type Examples account type such as interest bearing, noninterest bearing, installment, pay-through alternate dispute such as names, identifiers, addresses, case types and case resolution (ADR) categories they can handle, availability (e.g., only on providers (e.g., mediators, Tuesdays and Thursdays), and other information on arbitrators) persons (e.g., attorneys) appointed by the court to impartially settle civil cases attorneys such as names, identifiers, firm, status (e.g., attorney sanction such as disbarment, suspension, reprimand), and other information on attorneys licensed to practice in the state (e.g., using the state attorney registration list) or local jurisdiction (see also Definition of Data Types for additional attorney information) bank/company identifier such as names, identifiers, and other information for organizations that supply services to the court (e.g., banking, payment collection, bonding) or are litigants (e.g., plaintiff, defendant, third party) (see also Definition of Data Types for additional party and participant information) calendared event type such as motion hearing, trial, conference with maximum number of events that can be scheduled in a given situation (e.g., combination of judge, case type, case category, courtroom, time period) (see also Definition of Data Types for additional information on hearings and other calendared events) case close type such as following trial, ADR (e.g., mediation, arbitration), default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, transfer to another jurisdiction (usually same as disposition type) case status such as awaiting filing of answer or response, awaiting completion of discovery, awaiting motion hearing, awaiting trial case category such as auto tort, medical malpractice, product liability, contracts, real property rights (see also Definition of Data Types for additional case information) case type such as probate, family, criminal, traffic city/county such as each county, city, town, and other municipality March 1, 2001 Page 65 3',? S S . Data Type Examples court identifiers such as general jurisdiction court, limited jurisdiction court, small claims court courtroom identifier such as Courtroom 5 in a particular city or county as identified in the city/county table courtroom staff such as judge, court clerk, reporter, bailiff for a specific courtroom courtroom type such as courtroom, hearing room, conference room for each courtroom in the courtroom identifier table department identifier such as the court department that handles general jurisdiction civil cases in a particular city or county as identified in the city/county table differential case such as detailed case processing rules, parameters, and management schedules for each event in each case type and case category in courts where case types and categories are processed differently (e.g., as in time-sensitive filings) (see also event-driven systems covered in Related Technical Considerations [Appendix A]) disbursement type such as disbursements from accounts (e.g., for fee distribution according to state, county, city formula; for undistributed or unclaimed funds) disposition type such as by trial, by ADR (e.g., mediation, arbitration), by transfer out to another jurisdiction, or by some other process (e.g., default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, consolidation) (see also Definition of Data Types for additional disposition information) document template type such as each type of blank document into which users enter information including input documents (e.g., complaint forms) used primarily in electronic filing and output documents (e.g., notices) that are printed and sent to or distributed electronically to litigants document type such as civil warrants, summons, notices, and other documents produced by court event type such as complaint filed, answer or response filed, motion hearing scheduled, trial scheduled, trial held, case disposed (see also Definition of Data Types for additional event information) exhibit such as type, status, location, test results (see also Definition of Data Types for additional exhibit information) March 1, 2001 Page 66 . S S Data Type Examples exhibit retention such as elapsed times for each type of exhibit to be retained after last activity on case before being returned to owner or destroyed facility such as type (e.g., off-site records storage, mental health facility), identifier fee and service type such as to file complaint or pleading, for services (e.g., photocopying) fee type amount such as preset fee amount associated with each type of document filed or issued with effective date of fee type file access authorization such as relationships between specific internal and external users (they may have different log-on procedures), system functions (e.g., normal case processing functions such as docketing or calendaring cannot change or delete access authorizations), and device (e.g., terminals, PCs) locations and their authorizations to view, add, change, or delete files and file contents file retention such as elapsed times for files to remain active after last activity on case, to remain inactive without further activity on case, to remain archived before destruction filing/pleading type such as initial complaint, answer or response, petition for dismissal (see also Definition of Data Types for additional filing information) finding type such as any type of judgment resulting from a court decision pursuant to trial, ADR (e.g., mediation, arbitration), default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, transfer out to another jurisdiction, or consolidation hearing status such as vacated, held, continued holidays such as weekends and the other locally observed holidays judge such as names, identifiers, availability (e.g., reviews cases in chambers each Wednesday afternoon), and other information on each judge (see Definition of Data Types for additional judge information) judgment type such as a court decision pursuant to a trial, ADR (e.g., mediation, arbitration), default, dismissal, withdrawal, settlement, transfer out to another jurisdiction, or consolidation March 1, 2001 Page 67 3 9 S S 1 S Data Type Examples ledger type such as general, subsidiary minute codes such as events captured in minutes (e.g., information on judgments; attorney withdrawals; adjournments, continuances, and cancellations; rulings taken under advisement on submitted matters) minute orders such as minute order types and formats motion type such as demurrer, dismissal participant type such as witness (see also Definition of Data Types for additional participant information) party status such as active, dismissed, bankruptcy party type such as plaintiff, defendant (see also Definition of Data Types for additional party information) payment plan type such as installment payment type such as principal, interest, arrearage, garnishment schedule conflicts such as judge, attorneys, witnesses, courtroom scheduled event types such as deadlines for submission of documents (e.g., answers or responses, affidavits) (see also Definition of Data Types for additional scheduled event information) special status such as sealed cases, mental health cases time sensitive events such as events that relate to restraining order, stay request, ex-parte filings, and bankruptcy filings time standards such as maximum time periods between events for each event, case type, and case category to which time standards apply (e.g., answer or response due 30 days after service to defendant for regular civil cases) (see also event-driven systems covered in Related Technical Considerations [Appendix A)); transaction type such as financial transactions (e.g., receipts, disbursements), case processing transactions (e.g., judge or attorney change for individual or groups of cases, new complaint filing) zip codes such as intrastate ZIP codes and related locations March 1, 2001 Page 68 37', . . . Appendix A: Related Technical Considerations While the functional capabilities of the civil case processing system are of paramount importance, numerous other capabilities should be considered during the system definition phase, with the proviso that many of them are sophisticated and may be difficult and costly to implement and maintain. A few of these capabilities may represent emerging and unproven technologies and should simply be monitored for future inclusion in the system. This monitoring should include knowledge of any standards (e.g., for individual schedulers, Internet markup or tagging, electronic signatures) applicable to these technologies. Even though these other capabilities are not part of the functional standards, they are summarized in this section to serve as a checklist during the system definition phase. Given the pace of technological change and the continuing evolution of court computer applications, items in this section could become part of the case processing standards in the future and could be supplanted on the checklist by other, more recent technologies. External Interfaces In addition to the basic terminal input and printer output and the other input and output methods set forth in the functional standards, civil case processing systems may communicate with other technologies and systems. The other technologies may be internal to the court but external to the civil case processing system, or they may involve systems and users outside the court. Other Technologies Internal to Court The civil case processing system may communicate with some of the following input and output technologies within the court but be external to the system: • Case processing among multiple court locations (e.g., filings at one branch; hearings at another branch), transfer of individual cases between locations, and transfer of multiple cases between locations in a single transaction (see also System Capabilities); • Integration of civil case processing system with modern courtroom technologies that assist in judicial decision making by gathering and displaying information from other courts, justice agencies, social service agencies, schools, and treatment facilities such as: - displays that judges can read easily and quickly (e.g., bar or pie charts, thermometer- or speedometer-type displays), - consolidation of multisystem or multidatabase information on one display for easy assimilation, - computer-searchable records of proceedings (e.g., court record, judge's notes); • Integration of civil case processing system with modern courtroom technologies that permit more efficient operations such as electronic court reporting (e.g., digital audio and video recordings; correlation of video recordings with court records and )udges' notes; and single recordation of proceedings with multiple uses in court records, judges' notes, orders, and other documents); March 1, 2001 Page 69 . S S • Integration of civil case processing system with legal research (e.g., capability to transfer text for court orders and other documents from legal research system to civil case processing system and then to edit text); • Data capture and file and property management using bar code, optical character recognition (OCR), and other technologies; • Document capture, storage, and retrieval using imaging-, • Information capture and conversion to data and word processing formats using OCR; • Integration of civil case processing system with word processing and spreadsheet software to permit easy transport of system data into and out of word processing documents and spreadsheets; • Generation of official output documents (for transmission or printout) by supplying data including data transferred from word processing documents to imaged documents with official text, seals, and signatures; • Integration with other technologies and systems such as individual schedulers (e.g., automatic updates to judges' schedules, extracts of tagged parts from Internet- based court calendars to update law firm schedules), e-mail (see also System Capabilities in this appendix and Multifunction Capabilities and Integration in: Standards for Individual Functions), and jury management systems; and • Document printouts on special-purpose paper and forms (e.g., multipart forms and mailers). Input and Output External to Court Systems and users that are external to the court and, therefore, external to the civil case processing system may combine basic input and output methods with new technologies or substitute new technologies for the basic methods. The input and output technologies support users such as other types of local courts, other courts statewide, the state judicial branch, litigants, the public, attorneys, state agencies, and other individuals and organizations. The technologies include: • Electronic access to dockets, documents, and other court records by attorneys of record, credit agencies, and other official users employing dial-up lines, Internet or intranet enablement, and other technologies; Electronic access to selected court records (e.g., calendars and other event schedules, payment schedules, payment status, account status, land records, liens), blank forms, and instructions (e.g., document submission procedures) for on-line use by attorneys' offices, title companies, academic researchers, self-represented litigants, and the general public employing voice response technology, kiosks available to the public, Internet enablement, e-mail, and other technologies; March 1, 2001 Page 70 . . S • Distribution of blank court forms (e.g., to attorneys' offices for use in submission of bard copy pleadings) using Internet or intranet enablement, facsimile (fax) transmissions, e-mail, and other technologies to avoid preprinted forms; • Integration of civil case processing system with input and output needs of handicapped persons (e.g., through voice and other technologies that do not require keyboard and mouse entries); • Integration of civil case processing system with input and output needs of non-English speaking persons (e.g., through multilingual system capabilities); • Integration of civil case processing system with handheld and other mobile computers using wireless communications (e.g., for remote input, remote output, limited remote computing); • Compatibility with local, state, and federal standards (e.g., with respect to attorney identifiers and reporting requirements); Accounting interfaces in accordance with local and state standards: - payments by the public using voice-response technology, kiosks available to the public, Internet enablement, and other technologies, - enhanced and expanded use of electronic funds transfer over standards described in Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and accounting functions (this could include payments from litigants, attorneys, banks, collection agencies, and others and transfers to state and local agencies, attorneys, vendors, banks, collection agencies, and others), - electronic interface for records access and comparisons (e.g., between courts and banks, credit agencies, and other financial institutions), - electronic check processing (e.g., endorse back of checks and money orders in addition to recording and listing transactions and printing receipts); and Use of more sophisticated modern technology for functions that already are standards described in the functional standards. For example, electronic information exchange could be enhanced so it occurs more seamlessly, uses more refined "push" and "pull" technology, uses the Internet or an intranet instead of dial-up lines or facsimile transmissions, and employs enhanced security. This could include upgrades to electronic filing; electronic document distribution; electronic input documents (for on- line form completion and submission in electronic filings); procedures for "stamping" electronic documents as received or sent and for "signing" electronic documents; and security features such as user authentication (verify who sent data), data integrity (verify same data sent and received), and nonrepudiation (sender cannot later deny sending information). The Multifunction Capabilities and Integration and the Security Function sections discuss these capabilities. March 1, 2001 Page 71 . . . Inquiry System users need the capability to create queries and retrieve information from the database using on-line inquiry software with the following capabilities: Easy-to-use queries created by users with minimal training; • Inquiry as stand-alone function or subfunction of civil case processing system data entry, • Varied and flexible inquiry keys (e.g., case number, case type, party, attorney, event) and other search criteria as noted below; • Variety of user-defined searches including phonetic, Boolean logic, substituting "wildcards" for a limited number of unknown characters, date range, and progressively more detailed queries; • Inquiry and retrieval of individual database items or groups of database items (e.g., individual or multiple judges, attorneys, parties, cases, dockets, calendars, hearings, other events and their results, tickler information); • Retrieval of information on related events (e.g., all docket entries pertaining to particular hearing type for specific case, all pending motions in case for which new motion filed); • Retrieval of information on related cases; • Scroll backward or forward through information retrieved through inquiry; • Retrieved information presented in variety of user-defined formats and groupings (e.g., by date range or party); • User option to print any display; and • Modification of displayed information and sorting options on some display screens with proper user authorization. Report Generation. Typically, printed reports are standard (i.e., preprogrammed) and ad hoc (created for one- time or limited use). While standard reports generally cause no problem (assuming they do not proliferate and IT staff members are available), the same cannot be said of their ad hoc counterparts. Users often need printed reports on a one-time basis to respond to questions from legislators, the press, and judicial managers. They must be able to obtain these reports in a timely manner, which usually precludes the lengthy turnaround time required to write customized programs. The solution is report generation software that, like the inquiry software noted above, allows users to create their own reports. While this approach is appealing to users who want reports with no IT intervention, it often leads to problems for IT—the volume of reports created and run by users inundates the computer and causes March 1, 2001 Page 72 37q • . . processing deadlines to be missed. Possible solutions are for IT staff members to use the software to create and run reports for the users or to utilize query optimization software that minimizes response time (see also next section on System Capabilities). The tradeoffs of the various report generation approaches must be considered as part of any evaluation of standard and ad hoc report generation software, which would have the following capabilities: • Detail and summary ad hoc reports capable of being created rapidly by user (or IT staff members) with minimal training; • Formatting and content flexibility in ad hoc reports; • Detail and summary standard reports that satisfy local, state, and federal requirements imposed by judicial, executive, and legislative branches (see also Management and Statistical Reports Function); • Ad hoc and standard reports produced locally or exported to other offices and jurisdictions for printing; • User ability to save ad hoc report formats they create for future use; and • User option to display whatever is to be printed either as a normal display or as a print - preview. System Capabilities Technical systems functions and capabilities comprise the final group of related technical considerations which, once again, are not functional standards. While the functional standards address case processing functions (e.g., docketing and calendaring) and their subfunctions (e.g., recording and maintaining case header and event information within docketing), technical systems functions and capabilities address hardware, system software, and design issues. As with the other related technical considerations, the admonition to consider the implementation and maintenance impact is extremely relevant here. The items in this group include: Need for scaleable systems that can efficiently support small, medium, and large courts. For example, large court systems may need to support multiple court divisions and locations, extensive use of alternate dispute resolution (ADR) providers such as mediators and arbitrators, multiple clerks' office locations, user interfaces (e.g., system screens) that accommodate compartmentalized clerk's office operations, and other capabilities attendant to high-volume operations. Conversely, small court systems may need to support user interfaces and processing geared to only a few court divisions (e.g., civil, criminal, traffic), limited or no use of ADR providers, one clerk's office location, and a few clerical personnel in a single office handling the recordkeeping for a case. In either situation, the appropriate tradeoffs between manual and automated functions must be achieved. • Need for table-driven and modularly designed systems. March 1, 2001 Page 73 3 S S . 0 Need for assistance from the system in automatically scheduling events based on completion of prior events (e.g., deadline for answer or response due 30 days after service to defendant) and producing documents (e.g., notices, calendars) associated with the scheduled events. Fully functional event-driven systems prpvide this capability—primarily in some large courts—by permitting the user to define case processing profiles (e.g., containing processing rules and schedules for each event) for each case type and case category (e.g., tort, contracts, real property rights, small claims) within the civil case type (see also List of Code Translation Tables). Ideally, the case processing profiles define all steps, but given the complexity and variability of caseflow, user overrides and the capability to add steps to the defined caseflow must be available. Such systems usually involve highly complex programming and can be extremely difficult and costly to develop, implement, and maintain. The standards in this volume call for capabilities that address a few functions of these event-driven systems within individual functions based on the completion or scheduling of specific events. This partial functionality generally applies to courts of all sizes. Examples are (1) updating case indices, dockets, and case and financial records; (2) scheduling future events; (3) generating notices; and (4) computing fees. These are covered in the standards for the Case Initiation and Indexing, Docketing and Related Recordkeeping, Scheduling, Document Generation and Processing, Hearings, and accounting functions. • Items that the user should be permitted to define either when the system is implemented or on an ongoing basis such as code structure, code translation table content (i.e., what will be represented by codes such as events, results of events, attorneys, party type), and notice and receipt formats. • What the system defaults to initially or when there is no entry of specific data. • Requirements to navigate for specific data among screens by using point-and-click, function keys, drop-down menus, and other capabilities. • Need to display related data entry screens, information, and prompts triggered by specific event or entered data. • Complete help screen capabilities that contain information on a comprehensive array of topics, permit easy searches for and indices of topics, and provide easy-to-understand instructions for using each part of the system. The instructions should be available in display or printed form and should be easily updated to reflect system changes. • Use of specific software packages for functions such as improved report writing (for easier creation of standard and ad hoc reports; see earlier Report Generation section and Management and Statistical Reports Function). • Use of enhanced document management functionality that interfaces with or is part of the case management system. This would provide additional functionality, such as workflow and document version control, and improvements in existing document and text indexing, storage, search and retrieval, manipulation, maintenance, and input and output (e.g., through electronic filing, Internet enablement, imaging, and conversion from imaged characters to data or word processing formats using OCR). The Multifunction Capabilities and Integration section and File, Document, and Property Management Function discuss document management standards. March 1, 2001 Page 74 3 1 O S Use of distributed processing (with the same civil case processing system or different systems) as a means of accommodating multiple court locations (see External Interfaces). This assumes the highly complex tasks of allocating processing functions, allocating data, and defining the network and its usage have been done properly and can be maintained. • Use of relational database, object-oriented design, advanced programming, data warehousing (see also Management and Statistical Reports Function), and other recent system development and database technologies. • Database design and data element definitions that permit easy inquiry and data access. Query optimization software that minimizes response time. • Customized and easy-to-understand views of relational data for various users (e.g., judges, clerks). • Need for e-mail integrated with case processing to permit easy distribution of schedules, court minutes, drafts of documents sent out for review, and other documents and information. For this capability to be effective, a comprehensive and maintainable directory must be available to permit communication among users of different e-mail platforms (see External Interfaces section). March 1, 2001 Page 75 2 2 S S S Appendix B: Electronic Filing Current electronic filing efforts are based on a model developed in the Legal XML community. Legal XML is a non-profit organization comprised of volunteers from private industry, non-profit organizations, government, and academia whose efforts are to develop open, non-proprietary technical standards for legal documents. Because components of this XML concept can change, the reader should review www.legalXMLcom before starting a new design or a modification of an existing design. The Legal XML Electronic Filing concept model is depicted in this diagram. I VUI ElødrO1iC Fftg B&ftft Fding caft Pth1aner $rce Provider Manegar Managomer4 Pro Pera (Organ)zeticn) System (Ap The components of this model are: • Filers. Attorneys, law firms, litigants, state and county agencies, or anyone who has cause to file documents with a court. EFSP (Electronic Filing Service Providers). These are business entities that provide electronic filing services and support to their customers (filers). They provide a means for filers to submit documents to courts, electronically forward those filings to courts, and direct responses from courts back to the respective filers. Given the advent of open standards and a level playing field with universal electronic access to courts, it is assumed that many providers will develop applications for electronic filing. They will offer a range of services and products designed to attract specific segments of the market, ranging from large to small law firms, solo practitioners, or anyone who wishes to file court documents. EFM (Electronic Filing Manager). This is a software application that accepts XML from an EFSP, analyzes it, passes data to the CMS, saves documents if the CMS is not itself equipped to do so, and returns XML-formatted CMS-generated data to the EFSP. To the extent that the XML is standardized statewide, any EFSP should be able to interact with any EFM, and therefore with any court CMS interfaced to an EFM application. • CMS (Case Management Systems). These are the applications courts use to track and manage caseloads (a heterogeneous CMS environment is assumed). So that EFMs can be readily connected to CMSs, case management systems will need to support an API March 1, 2001 Page 76 S . . (Application Program Interface) designed to talk with EFM applications. Developing an API is a job for CMS vendors or court software developers or their contractors. it is also possible that, over time, various vendors will embed the EFM function in their CMS products. Many electronic filing applications allow fliers to communicate directly with an EFM as well as through an EFSP. This technical approach to court filings establishes the basis for a competitive, market-oriented environment ultimately enabling any filer or EFSP to exchange filings with any court In time, the EFM module of an electronic filing system will become an integral feature of the case management information system. System designers should include this CMS module in their long-range development plans. In the short term, a case management information system must provide an application program interface to an external EFM module. Any CMS must be capable of interacting through such an API with any EFM system. The CMS should also include a "delayed docket queue" capability which (1) serves as a cache of electronically filed documents and associated cover sheet information received by the court but not yet entered on the docket or register of actions, (2) gives a court clerk the ability to review the submitted document together with the submitted cover sheet information to determine their acceptability for entering on the docket or register of actions, and (3) allows the clerk automatically to accept, reject, or modify the proposed docket entry or new case information supplied on the cover sheet and accept, reject, or hold the document submitted for filing. This delayed docket queue is an essential quality control component of an electronic filing system but should be a component of the case management information system rather than the electronic filing application. A portion of this material is reproduced with permission of the California AOC. March 1, 2001 Page 77 y7 . . . APPENDIX C Model 9rocess Introduction •Pae I of 2 Model RFP Process Introduction Acquisition Methods Types of RFP Court Technology Model Request for Proposals Court administrators have been interested in assistance with technology acquisition for many years. Although written materials and educational programs on this subject have been developed in the past, none have provided comprehensive instructions and examples covering the full range of procurement management for technology products and services. In 2000, the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management appointed a subcommittee to develop a model RFP. With funding from a Bureau of Justice Assistance grant to SEARCH and staff assistance from the National Center for State Courts, this model RFP document has been prepared to assist court administrators and court technologists with technology acquisition. It has been developed with World Wide Web technology to allow expansion and improvement as new and better examples are provided. This document consists of three layers, the topmost of which is the table of contents. By selecting any link in this table, a reader can find a specific topic quickly. The second layer consists of a detailed explanation of RFP issues that was developed by James R. Maher. This material appears (in slightly different form) in two publications of the National Center for State Courts: Planning, Acquiring, and Implementing Court Automation (1993); and Automating Court Systems (1996). This information can be read sequentially for an excellent overview of technology purchasing in the court environment. The third layer currently consists of two sample RFPs that illustrate concepts in the explanatory materials. These documents also can be read sequentially, but can be used equally effectively as examples of the second-level materials. Hypertext links connect explanation with example, providing a drill-down capability to readers. It is hoped that readers of the model RFP will provide their own samples from their acquisition experiences, enabling this document to become even more useful to other courts in the future. Acquisition Methods Government Schedules or Contracts - Many levels of government, federal to municipal, have negotiated contracts with vendors for many products and services. Buying off established government schedules or contracts is a very viable option for many IT projects, both equipment and services. The RFP should be a last resort; courts should always first look to existing contracts negotiated by federal, state or local governments which may adequately address the project needs. Request for Information (RF1) - The RFI is a solicitation used by government agencies to obtain information from suppliers relating to a specific procurement. Neither the agency nor the supplier is bound by the response to the RFI. The RFI serves as a guide to determine if there are one or more suppliers that can perform the specific task, or if there are alternate methods for performing the task. When an RFI is issued, the court requests suppliers to respond to any questions and to provide \, I \intrr' 1tm 1 1/1Z/fl1 Models Process Introduction Page 2 of 2 additional pertinent information. Upon receipt of the responses by a predetermined deadline, the court evaluates each supplier's response according to its potential for implementation. Information from the RFI then may be used to prepare an RFP. Request for Proposal (RFP) - The RFP is a solicitation used by government agencies to obtain proposals from suppliers relating to a specific procurement. Upon receipt of the responses by a predetermined deadline, the court evaluates each supplier's response according to its potential for implementation. The court may then select the best proposal to implement the project. Request for Bid (RFB) - The RFB is used to procure highly specialized services and equipment that are either virtually fungible (i.e., all suppliers are capable of meeting all of the technical and functional specifications) or in point supply (i.e., only one supplier can meet the technical and functional specifications). In either instance, the selection of the product is determined almost exclusively on the basis of cost, and because the court is less concerned with alternatives and more concerned with competition, the contractual terms and conditions play a more prominent role and are less likely to be modified. Types of RFP This section describes the different types of goods and services courts seek through RFPs. Equipment Acquisition; includes acquisitions such as workstations, servers, routers, telephone/PBX system, etc. Software Acquisition - not off thesheif; includes projects such as automated case management system development, integrated justice information system development, etc. Professional Services - not software development; includes projects such as training, strategic planning, business operations/process assessment, caseflow review, needs assessment, RFP or specifications development, facilities planning, jury management, management review, etc. Services; includes acquisitions such as ISP, communications, equipment/wiring installation, equipment maintenance and support, Application Service Provider services, help desk, interpreter, court reporting, outsourced facilities management, etc. Facilities Acquisition; includes acquisitions such as structure construction, facility remodeling, physical filing/storage systems, office furnishings, etc. Next - Overview 3 ? A D \, Model *rocess Overview Page 1 of 1 Overview This document discusses the acquisition methodology for technology and related professional services. It begins with an introductory description of goals courts should adopt when procuring automation or professional services. This introductory section includes a discussion of objectives the acquisition methodology should pursue and the development of an acquisition philosophy. The description of the acquisition goals is followed by a detailed discussion of the Request for Proposal (RFP) mechanism courts should employ to locate and purchase technology or professional services. Suggested formats and uses of these mechanisms are described in some detail. This acquisition methodology section concludes with a discussion of management activities that ensure that the overall acquisition goals can be achieved. This document is supplemented by several sample RFPs. The wide variety of acquisitions- such as hardware only, off-the-shelf software, contract programming, systems integration, feasibility studies, specification design, and support-may necessitate significant adaptation of these materials to each purchasing transaction. Previous - Introduction Next - Project Management Index 3á' 1/1 -2 ff1 Model orocess Acquisition Goals Page 1 of 2 Acquisition Goals The main goal of the acquisition strategy is to obtain a predetermined and acceptable level of quality for computer and professional services at the lowest possible price. Technology acquisitions include an additional goal of addressing the information technology system life cycle. Obtaining Predetermined Quality at Best Value After project objectives have been identified clearly, the court should explore alternatives to reaching them. The court's goal is to identify at least two alternate solutions to the problem, thereby increasing the likelihood that the court is not required to sole source its selection to one vendor. (The significance of having two or more options is felt most clearly during contract negotiations when the court may need some bargaining leverage with a selected vendor.) It is possible, however, that only one solution to a court automation problem can be found. This is especially true for upgrades to preexisting computer equipment and software. If the court is limited to only one solution (and it knows this from the outset), the RFP should be structured accordingly. Procedures and language that are required for the more traditional multi source acquisitions may be omitted, and the overall process can be streamlined considerably. In the sole-source situation, however, the court should take special care to ensure that the vendor's standard contract does not control the acquisition. It is important to remember that the lowest bid isn't always the best deal. Sometimes vendors deliberately propose inadequate equipment for the project, knowing that they will realize additional revenue from upgrades that will become necessary long after the contract is signed. By insisting that the successful bidder pays for any upgrades needed for the system to meet performance specifications and by conducting "best value" rather than "lowest cost" purchasing, a court will avoid these difficulties. When courts seek to procure information technology goods and services the cost specified in the proposal should not be the single driving consideration. The project cost should be considered in conjunction with other criteria. The other criteria that a court should consider are items such as product quality, total cost of ownership , proposed methodology, and vendor performance history. Technology Systems Life Cycle With most information technology system acquisitions the acquisition is not limited to obtaining the goods or services, the entire life cycle must be addressed, such as continuing maintenance and the replacement cycle. Information technology systems require much more specialized continuing maintenance than other acquisitions. Provision for continuing maintenance should be included in the RFP as a vendor requirement and in the evaluation of responses. Due to the rapid pace of technology advances the replacement cycle for information technology systems is very short. The information technology system replacement cycle must be addressed when developing an information technology system RFP. The specifications for the information technology systems must be sufficiently forward looking to maximize the anticipated life cycle. Previous - Project Next - Organizing the Management Acquisition 't r'TT._sr)rr)TT'vTfT\,, 1 11/11/ni Model Rrocess Organizing the Acquisitions Page 1 of 2 0 Organizing the Acquisition 2 The court, during the acquisition process, must specify project objectives clearly. All of the important interests of the court that may be affected by the procurement must be identified. To ensure that as many interests as possible are represented during the procurement, the court should locate managers who can articulate specific areas of concern and incorporate them into the acquisition committee or team. If, for example, a proposed court system were dedicated to in-house criminal case processing. Selection of a proprietary, closed software solution incapable of exchanging data with the prosecutor's office could result in serious data duplication, error-prone activities, and severely limited system growth. Someone representing the prosecutor's office, even informally, during the definition of a criminal court's system objectives may eliminate many potential long-term implementation problems. The acquisition team, in all likelihood, will be composed of individuals who hold key positions on either a policy committee or a user group. For example, the project manager's many roles with a policy committee and a user group make this person a valuable, if not indispensable, member of the acquisition team. Including certain individuals from policy and user committees on the acquisition team does not preclude them from continuing their work with these groups. As far as possible, individuals selected for these assignments should have the authority to make commitments for the organization. Once the acquisition team is created, important areas of responsibility should be assigned to appropriate team members. A team leader, probably the project manager, should be appointed. The team leader will meet with senior court management and members of the policy committee to report the progress of the project and will ensure that team assignments are completed on time and that required decisions are made. The vendor liaison is a particularly critical appointment. This individual represents the court during contract negotiations and should have final decision-making authority. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of public-sector marketing for vendors is determining who has final authority. In the interest of projecting fairness and unity, the court should define clearly the vendor liaison role to all interested parties as early as possible in the procurement process. The court also should, at the beginning of the process, indicate any additional levels of approval that will be necessary before a final decision is made. This will relieve some of the stress that often accompanies vendor selection and contract negotiation. Davis et al. identifies at least four types of individuals, representing specific areas of concern, who should be represented on any procurement team.3 • A purchasing agent who knows the purchasing procedures employed by the court or government department where the project will occur. This person seeks to eliminate or overcome the bottlenecks that often accompany public-sector purchases. • An information technology department representative either an in-house IT technician who is familiar with the court's processing needs or an outside consultant. The IT department representative prepares. detailed technical specifications for the purchase and translates the vendor's response for the team's non-technical members. • A lawyer, who represents the legal component in the contracting process. Too often, lawyers are called in after the transaction is completed, when pressure exists to approve the transaction, notwithstanding its contractual shortcomings. A lawyer should be involved at the beginning of the acquisition process to maximize the court's bargaining leverage and to negotiate favorable contractual clauses. • Selected system participants, such as the clerk of courts, the court administrator, or the presiding judge. Although these participants may not be deeply involved in all phases of the 5- \nihtm 11/13b1 Model *rocess Organizing the Acquisition 0 Page 2of2 acquisition process, they know what they want from the project, and they must live with it. Next - Request for Proposal Previous - Acquisition Goals (RFP) Index 4'.- /1fl•\flti\Prr CJ-flmocleIRFP\HTMT \v 1 3\oa.htm 11/13/01 Model 0Process Request for Proposal (RF• 0 Page 1 of 19 Request for Proposal (RFP) Disclaimer Many of the administrative requirements for a RFP are specified by local rules. Courts should consult with the local purchasing department to learn what local administrative requirements govern issuing a RFP. This document is provided as a general guide for the procurment process, but in no way is this guide definative. Managing the RFP Process RFP Format An RFP is among the best methods for enhancing negotiating leverage with vendors. Although the RFP purchase mechanism is time-consuming, an RFP's many advantages outweigh any disadvantages and delays caused by its preparation. An RFP:4 • Informs vendors that an official contract is pending and encourages them to make their best effort. More rapid and responsive vendor responses result. • Requires the court to specify what it proposes to purchase. If the requirements analysis has been prepared rigorously, it can be incorporated quite easily into the RFP. • Alerts vendors that the selection process is competitive. The vendors will be solicitous of the court's needs and positions regarding legal issues and project requirements. • Forces vendors to respond factually to the identified requirements. Vendors know that if selected, they are contractually bound by their previous representations. (It is not uncommon for a vendor to hedge about capabilities of hardware during the contract negotiation. The hedging can be eliminated quickly and effectively when the vendor is reminded about previous representations in the RFP response.) Concerns have been raised in recent years that perhaps the RFP process is not the best method for acquiring technology.5 For example, the full and open competition objective that typifies RFP procurements may discourage more-innovative vendors from making their trade secret solutions known to their competition via a publicly disclosed RFP response if no protections are in place. The RFP process also considerably expands the time required to complete the procurement cycle. By the time the system is ultimately installed, it is no longer state of the art. Kelman argues that the longer procurement cycle is a result of the RFP's over- specified, rule-based procedures. He observes that rules change more slowly than the environment they are meant to control. When government procurements were directed at reasonably fungible items such as paper, pencils, typewriters, and even automobiles, the price of the items and the quality of goods delivered were fairly easy to determine. The implied RFP goals of process integrity, equity, and economy could coexist with complex procurement rules. Purchasing technology and related professional services, Kelman suggests, requires a different set of rules directed at a different set of RFP goals. In this procurement arena, the court is buying complex, high-risk products and services. The court's procurement rules should be directed not only at achieving the more familiar goals of equity, integrity, and economy but also at achieving excellence in the goods and services it delivers to its constituents. A procurement format that encourages an equilibrium between conflicting competitive goals and excellence in service goals may be one that greatly increases the purchase discretion given to court managers. Increasing purchase discretion heightens the manager's accountability for results. No matter how the RFP is constructed, there should be some sensitivity to developing results-based evaluations. One way to pursue this goal is to •• •-• %.T. 1% LIT A rIT 1DCDLJI'?t,(T Model FS)rocess Request for Proposal (RFP• P age 2ofl9 request information about vendors' experience with similar projects. The information should include experience with the court issuing the RFP and others. Courts should not sacrifice value for cost when procuring information technology goods or services. A balance between value and cost must be reached that meets the court's needs but does not break the bank. See National Association of State Purchasing Officials, Buying Smart: Blueprint for Action. Kelman also has noted that government officials are so straitjacketed by mandates for fairness that they can't make smart decisions, let alone fair ones. He points out that excessive regulations that promote competition prohibit procurement managers from considering pertinent information or exercising common sense in awarding contracts. Even an agency's past experiences with a vendor- good or bad-have been excluded as decision-making criteria.6 When courts seek to procure information technology goods and services the cost specified in the proposal should not be the single driving consideration. The project cost should be considered in conjunction with other criteria. The other criteria that a court should consider are items such as product quality, total cost of ownership?, proposed methodology, and vendor performance history. Despite these many problems, the RFP remains the required procurement tool for technology purchases in most state and local courts. It is important for court and technology project managers to understand the process thoroughly to take advantage of its benefits and to avoid the pitfalls that often accompany large and expensive technology initiatives. Managing the RFP Process • Using the Internet in the Procurment Process • Cost vs. Quality An RFP is a highly structured document that specifies minimally acceptable functional, technical, and contractual requirements, as well as the evaluation criteria that will govern the contract award. Potential vendors are supplied with copies of the RFP and are requested to submit proposals by a specified date. Usually, proposals that do not conform to the RFP's format are rejected. After a vendor has submitted a proposal, the response cannot be altered or modified before the proposals are opened. As a generalization, a contract is awarded for the lowest-priced proposal that is responsive to the requirements of the RFP. The RFP should be communicated to as many prospective respondents as practical, several methods are available such as mail, e-mail, or web site. Courts should develop bidder lists for all their technical services. Courts are encouraged to check with their purchasing divisions for a complete list of vendors and to incorporate those vendors into mailing lists. They should inquire whether the State or county register or website where all RFPs are officially published is available for public-at-large notification. They also should contact the National Center for State Courts for its data on court technology vendors, NCSC Court Technology Vendors List. The pending purchase should be advertised in both local and regional newspapers and, if the purchase is large enough, in some national publications, like Commerce Business Daily, Computerworld, the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, etc. Using the Internet in the Procurment Process The Internet has significantly changed how many businesses conduct business and the courts should be no exception. Using the Internet courts can reduce some of the costs associated with issuing an RFP, such as postage and printing. Additionally, using the Internet can reduce the delay in communications, such as vendor questions and court answers. Courts should use the Internet as a tool for all stages of the RFP process, from announcing the RFP to announcing the selected vendor. Courts can use the Internet to announce/publicize and publish RFPs. There are several approaches courts can use to issue/publicize an RFP, such as using an outside purchasing clearinghouse web site 3g8. fjIe:/ID:\Data\Proiects\National\SEARCH\mOdelRFP\HTML\V 1 3\rfp.htm 11/13/01 Model Rrocess Request for Proposal (RFP)• 4Vage 3 of 19 (such as SEARCH IT Acquisition Database, BidNet, or fedmarket.com ), a local jurisdiction, such as state, province, territory, county, parish, or city, procurement web site (such as State of North Carolina Interactive Purchasing System, British Columbia Purchasing Commission, or Maricopa County, AZ), or develop a web page in house (such as Circuit and Superior Courts of Marion Count N. Following announcement and issuance of the RFP the court will need to manage vendor questions, clarifications of the RFP language, and other issues. It is a good idea for the court to have, at minimum, a basic web page at their web site dedicated to providing information about the RFP as the process progresses. The court's web page should include appropriate contact information and downloadable documents of the RFP, vendor questions and court answers, and clarifications and modifications to the RFP. Using the Internet courts can realize many advantages in the RFP process. Receiving and accounting for each RFP response is usually managed by the local purchasing agency. Each response must be time stamped when received and secured in an orderly fashion. Response tabulation forms should be prepared listing the item bid and bidder name. Any response received after the deadline should not be opened. Response openings should be done in public and begin precisely at the time designated in the RFP. The RFP should contain the evaluation and selection criteria that will be used in the procurement. The criteria should be written in sufficient detail to preclude any misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Any specific criterion that will influence the selection must appear in the RFP. See Selection Procedure. The RFP should specify the composition of the evaluation committee such as MIS staff or court administration. Cost calculations should be included for such items as equipment, software, communications, utilities, site preparation, program conversion file conversion, training, and continued operation of the system during its anticipated life span. All questions from bidders should be answered in writing and made available to all bidders. Oral answers to questions should be avoided. All questions should be received in enough time before the submission of responses to permit answers to be formulated and printed. Bidders should direct, in writing, any questions concerning specifications and conditions to the court no later than twenty working days before the responses are opened, courts should consider extending this time frame for more complex procurements. This is usually done in a public meeting to which all bidders are invited. However, courts can use e-mail, fax, or a form on the court's RFP web page to receive vendor questions. Courts will want to answer any questions as quickly and completely as possible. In the RFP courts should specify when answers will be provided, such as 5 working days after vendor questions are due. The answers to vendor questions should be provided to all vendors. There are many ways this notification can be accomplished. The simplest is to post all vendor questions and the corresponding answers on the court's RFP web page. Other ways the court can communicate this information include mail, fax, and e-mail. See Questions and Clarifications. Generally, awards should be made to the vendor who is most compliant with all of the RFP's specifications, terms, and conditions. Tom Little points out that the vendor response must be reviewed carefully and thoroughly. A firm that honestly responds by qualifying a response should not be punished for so doing when another company simply answers yes whenever the imagination can be stretched far enough. For example, an RFP requires a specific report and one vendor replies with a qualified yes, stating that a report writer is required to do the job. The second vendor may simply indicate yes, without mentioning that their product also requires the report writer.8 This is one of the reasons for having a highly qualified, diverse team of experts to review RFP responses. Cost vs. Quality Cost may or may not be the single most important criterion for final vendor selection. Purchase price never should be considered alone; comparisons should consider things such as product quality, vendor performance record, vendor financial condition, and total costs over the life cycle of the hardware and software. An excellent matrix of technical and price scoring of proposals has been offered by Gilbert Held.9 - A D( A.ID\L-TT1.ñi , 1 \rfr htm 11/1 Vfll Model *Process Request for Proposal (RFP• is Page 4 of 19 RFF Format • Introduction • AdministrativeRequirements • Technical Requirements • Business Requirements • Legal and Insurance Requirements RFF Format The following RFP format establishes a reasonably fair balance between the possibly conflicting goals of purchasing the very best system and ensuring that fairness is achieved. Kelman points out how creating the fairest system can prevent an organization from getting the best system. This is because pertinent information is sometimes excluded from consideration, such as past experience with a vendor. RFP Introduction The Introduction of the RFP should include: • a discussion of the court environment, including a discussion of historical problem areas • a clear definition of the project's purpose;1O such as "to provide hardware, operating systems, networks, and applications software to support an integrated and comprehensive criminal-case- processing system that provides on-line inquiry, event recording, etc." • a list of court departments that will participate in the project or use-an automated system • a brief overview of the applications and functions the project must address The introduction also should contain unequivocal language that the court reserves the right to reject any and all proposals for any reason and can cancel any ensuing contract at any time ifanticipated project fluids become unavailable. RFP Administrative Requirements • Oral Presentations • Questions and Clarifications • !visions • Vendor Conference • Selection Procedure • Procurement Timetable • Proposal Format • Prime Contractor • Mandatory Versus Desirable • Contract Integration • Vendor Pronosal Revisions • Evaluation • ejection or rroposais • Debriefing • Appeal_Process • of Res onse /Ifl.\1 fPr tQ\)Jfi(fl2I\cP AR CH\mndt'lPFP\HTMJ .\v 1 3\rfn.htm 11/13/01 Model 4rocess Request for Proposal (RFP)• •ae 5 of 19 • Use ofpi • Disclosure of Proposal Contents • Return of Proposals and Cost of Response • Duration of Contract RFP Administrative Requirements This section of the RFP describes the proposed acquisition procedures, states the due date for responses, outlines the formats for submitted proposals, and gives the names of contacts for further information. Many of the administrative requirements for a RFP are specified by local rules. Courts should consult with the local purchasing department to learn what local administrative requirements govern issuing a RFP. This section of the RFP includes the following information. Oral Presentations-Depending on the size and complexity of the procurement, oral presentations may or may not be required. See CMS Oral Presentation Example. Questions and Clarifications-The court should require any request for clarification or additional information deemed necessary by any vendor to present a proper proposal, be submitted in writing, such as letter, fax, or e-mail, to the RFP contact or Purchasing Office referencing the RFP before a specified date, typically at or prior to the Vendor Conference. Any request after that deadline should not be considered. Requests received prior to the stated deadline should be responded to in writing from the court in the form of an addendum addressed to all prospective respondents by a specified date, typically two weeks prior to the response deadline. Alternatively, responses could be posted to the procurement web site as they are developed to reduce the response time and reduce the number of duplicate questions submitted. The RFP should specify how answers will be disseminated, such as mail, fax, web site, or e-mail. See CMS Questions and Clarifications Example. The name and address of the court's vendor contact should be provided in the RFP. See CMS Vendor Contact Example. Revisions-In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of the RFP, addenda should be provided to all vendors who received the basic RFP and have registered their intent to respond with the court. See CMS Revisions Exa mple. Vendor Conference-The vendors' conference may or may not be mandatory. Vendor conferences are encouraged because the ensuing dialogues will target any shortcomings in the RFP and give the court time to correct them before the RFP becomes final and perhaps unworkable. The vendors' conference identifies competitors in the process and reinforces the idea that there are bargaining alternatives available to the court. During the conference, the court will discover whether vendors are serious about forthcoming contractual arrangements. It is not uncommon for some vendors to state, at this stage, that they will only do business on the basis of their own standard contract. Any vendor who responds fully to the RFP in the specified format should be considered, even if there are problems with the submission. It is unlikely that a vendor would go through the RFP process if it did not believe that its product was acceptable for the purchase at hand. To increase vendor participation, courts should consider holding vendor conferences by conference call or videoconference rather than requiring vendors travel to the court's location. See CMS Vendor Meeting Example. Selection Procedure-The selection procedure should be discussed in the RFP. Two elements of the selection procedure should be specified for the vendors. The two elements are the selection criteria used to evaluate the proposal and the makeup of the group evaluating the proposals. The selection criteria should be specified in the RFP to give vendors notice of how the selection will be made. See Business Process Evaluation categories Example, B usiness Process Cr iteri a Compliance Example, and CMS Evaluation Process and Selection_Crit qExanple. Additionally, any functional requirements criteria that the court will use should be included in the RFP. See CMS Requirements J9J -. . T .. % Model lrocess Request for Proposal (RFP• Wage 6 of 19 çhecklistExampje. The evaluation group composition should be specified to provide the vendor with an understanding of the technical level required in the proposal. See CMS Evaluation Team Example. Procurement Timetable-The procurement timetable should include not only the major milestone dates, such as when the responses are due, but also the deadlines for site-visit inquiries, possible vendor system demonstrations, and technical inquiries. See CMS Procurement Timetable Example and Business Process Project Schedule Example. Proposal Format-Courts should specify the format of the vendor response. The vendors will have a more detailed insight to the court's needs (and their relative importance to the court), and the court can compare the individual responses more easily. See CMS Proposal Format Example and Business Process Proposal Format Example. A very helpful tool the court can include in the RFP is a response checklist that vendors can use to verify a complete response. The response checklist include deadlines,, response sections, and required forms. See Response Checklist Example. The vendors should be informed that each proposal should be sealed and submitted in an envelope to provide confidentiality of the information prior to the submission date and time. Additionally, the envelopes should have a reference to the RFP to prevent unintentional opening of any submission. The court should pursue a bifurcated bidding process. That is, it should request two separate and independent vendor responses, a technical and business proposal that contains no cost information and a cost proposal that contains no technical information. The technical proposals should be evaluated and ranked first, followed by the cost proposals. To simplify cost comparisons courts should specify the cost proposal format or include a cost form. See Bid Response Cost Summary Example. The court should tell vendors that the proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise but complete and detailed description of the vendor's abilities to meet the requirements of the RFP. Fancy bindings, colored displays and promotional materials should be discouraged. Emphasis will be on completeness of content. See Business Process Simple Proposal Example and CMS Simple Proposal Example. Prime Contractor-Joint venture and other multiple vendor responses should be discouraged. Too often it becomes difficult to determine which vendor is responsible for curing system defects. A hardware vendor, for example, will say that a system problem is caused by the application software; the software vendor will be emphatic that the problem lies in the hardware. These defect discussions are particularly difficult to resolve when the system problem involves slow response time, which can be the result of inefficient programming logic or insufficient system memory. By insisting that one vendor assume prime contractor status, the court identifies who is responsible to resolve system defects. Frequently, vendors require either services, hardware or software supplied by another vendor. In these instances, prime contractors that wish to use subcontractors should supply the subcontractors' names as part of their response. The court should insist on the right to approve or disapprove subcontracts entered into by prime contractors. The court also should insist that all subcontractors be obtained with adequate attention to the principles of competition and reasonableness of costs. See Business Process Example specifying subcontracting requirements. Mandatory Versus Desirable System Requirements-As an aid to vendors to inform them which system features are most important to the court, the court should prefix each system specification by either the term mandatory or desirable. All vendors should strive to meet the mandatory requirements. A vendor may, however, determine that it cannot meet the mandatory requirements, but can offer an equivalent performance by other means. In this case, the vendor should identify the mandatory specification to which it cannot respond state an alternative, and describe how the alternative achieves equivalent performance. See CMS Mandatory System Requirements Example. L9 ' -' V.. \T1'T'7IAT. I 11/li/Al Model Oprocess Request for Proposal (RFP• 0 Page 7 of 19 Contract Integration-Any contract entered into as a result of the RFP process should be a specifically drawn document between the court and the vendor (in no event should it be the vendor's standard contract). Its features should include a combination of terms, conditions, and specifications contained in the RFP; the winning offer, containing the vendor's technical and cost proposals; and any agreements, letters, memoranda, written clarifications, modifications, and any other changes made. See Business Process Contract Integration Example. The final contract should specify the controlling documents for the definition of terms and obligations. An example is where the court issues an addendum to the RFP, the information in the addendum should supercede inconsistent information in the RFP. Vendor Proposal Revisions-All information required by the Request for Proposal must be submitted to constitute a proper proposal. Respondents should not alter the proposal documents except upon instruction by receipt of addendum. Respondents must furnish information required by the Request for Proposals in the form requested. The Court should reserve the right to reject proposals with incomplete information or which are presented in a different form. Evaluation of Responses-Proposals that are not responsive to the requirements of the RFP may be disqualified without evaluation. See CMS Proposal Responsiveness Requirement Example. The court may, at its discretion, determine that the noncompliance is insubstantial and can be corrected or that an alternative proposed by the vendor is acceptable. In such cases, the court may seek clarification, allow the vendor to make minor corrections, apply appropriate adjustments in the evaluation, or use a combination of all three remedies. See Business Process Proposal Responsiveness Requirement Example. Responses that are submitted on or before the proposal due date and meet the mandatory technical and business specifications of the court's RFP should be evaluated in accordance with the criteria summarized below: See Business Process Evaluation Categories Example and CMS Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria Example. • Technical specifications: The court should evaluate responses based on the vendor's ability to meet all the RFP's mandatory technical specifications. Responses should then be evaluated based on the desirable specifications. • Business specifications: The court should evaluate responses based on the vendor's ability to meet all the mandatory and desirable business specifications. • Cost: The court should evaluate responses using costs contained in the vendor's separate cost submission. This includes all the costs such as purchase, shipping, preparation, conversion, implementation, operation, and maintenance. • Vendor demonstrations: The court also may evaluate responses based on the vendor's live demonstration of its ability to meet all of the mandatory and desirable specifications. • Technical and business point assignment: In its evaluation, the court should assign points to each technical and cost response. (If any technical and cost response does not receive a minimum of 50 percent of the maximum combined technical and business points, the court probably will be justified in disqualifying the vendor's response from further consideration.) Disqualification-The court may safely disqualify the selected vendor and initiate contract negotiations with the next ranked vendor if the selected vendor has not signed the contract within a specified time frame (usually within fourteen calendar days of the vendor's receipt of the contract). Rejection of Proposals-A court should reserve the right to reject any or all proposals received in response to its RFP. See Business Process Example providing that the court is not bound to enter any contract. A vendor's response may be rejected at the discretion of the court if the vendor: • fails to adhere to one or more of the provisions established in the RFP, See CMS Non- Conforming Proposal Example. • fails to submit its response in the format specified or to supply the minimum information .3 9 1 l\rfn htn, 11/11/01 Modes Process Request for Proposal (RF• 0 Page 8 of 19 requested, including financial and business information fails to meet unconditionally all of the mandatory technical and business specifications of the RFP, See CMS Non-Responsive Proposal Example. • fails to state in writing its acceptance of the mandatory terms and conditions in the R.FP • fails to submit its response before or on the deadline date established by the RFP • misrepresents its products or provides demonstrably false information in its proposal or fails to provide material information • fails to submit a costs response • refuses to provide clarifications requested by the court Debriefing-It is wise for the court to allow individual vendors to have a debriefing after they receive notice that they have not been selected under the RFP. The court should conduct the debriefing, which should discuss the court's evaluation of that proposal only. Competing vendor proposals should not be discussed. Requests for debriefing should be managed by the court's vendor liaison. Appeal Process-Although not necessarily required, but in the interest of establishing good long-term vendor relations, it may be wise for the court to establish an appeal process. A rejected vendor may be given the opportunity to request, in writing, an opportunity to present its reason for either a review or a reevaluation. Such written requests should include the basis for the appeal. Ownership of Response Information-Vendors frequently include trade secrets in their responses to RFPs. Unless notified at the time of bid, all nonproprietary material submitted by vendors should become the property of the court. Care should be taken, therefore, that vendors are cautioned in the RFP to identify clearly any items of a proprietary nature; i.e., operating software, copyrights, patents, or any confidential items protected by trade secrets. They should be placed where they can be removed easily from the nonproprietary part of the response. See Business Process Ownership of Response Information Example and CMS Ownership of Response Information Example. Use of Proposals-One of the principal reasons for using RFPs is to obtain information about how best to implement a project. The court should reserve the right to use any or all nonproprietary ideas, concepts, or configurations presented in vendors' responses. See Business Process Ownership of Response Information Example and CMS Ownership of Response Information Example. Disclosure of Proposal Contents-At the conclusion of the evaluation and selection process, the contents of the proposals should be placed in the public domain and open to inspection by interested parties. Trade secrets or proprietary information that are recognized as such by law and clearly identified should be withheld. Return of Proposals and Cost of Vendor's Response-The court should ensure that there is no obligation to return any proposals or materials submitted by vendors in response to the RFP and that no vendor costs or expenses will be charged to the court. See Business Process Cost of Proposal Example and CMS Cost of Proposal Example. Duration of Contract-The court should specify the anticipated duration of the contract. The court also should ensure that the contract may be extended at the same terms and conditions. See Business Process Project Schedule Example. RFP Technical Requirements • Description of Court's Operating Environment • Description of Current Processes • Required Project Goals and Deliverables • Description of Existing Hardware and Software • Equipment/Hardware Acquisition • Software Acquisition/Development/Modification 399 -- IC'r A TWIT fl... )flL'flLJ1'J,rT .. I 1-.t.., 11 /VZIflI Model Rrocess Request for Proposal (RFP)• *age 9 of 19 • System/Process Analysis S tudies • Feasibilit • Specifications Development • Service Level Agreements RFP Technical Requirements This section of the RFP describes as completely and as accurately as possible all the functional and operational aspects of the proposed purchase and details the minimum performance standards. This section also includes a description of all the applicable acceptance tests as well as any existing hardware and software interface requirements. Although this portion will reflect the unique characteristics of the proposed procurement and, as a result, will be highly customized to each characteristic, there are some general items that should be incorporated into this section of all RFPs. Description of Court's Operating Environment -This should include information about the court staff size, caseload and makeup, and other entities to be involved in the project, such as prosecutor's office. A description of the court's operating environment should be included in every RFP. Depending on the type of RFP this section will require varying levels of technical specificity. A business process RFP requires a different level of specificity than a RFP for an integrated justice information system. See Business Process Court Background Example. Description of Current Processes-Description of court processes that will be reviewed in the project or supported by automation. This should include information about non-court entities that will be involved with the project, such as the prosecutor's office or law enforcement. Required Project Goals or Deliverables-The court must specify what is expected from professional services projects. See Business Process Project Deliverables Example. Description of Existing Hardware and Software -For the vendors to provide a response that adequately addresses the court's needs, the RFP should describe the hardware, software, and communications network currently in place. The description of the local hardware, software, and interfaces should include as much information as possible. Any enhancements to systems currently in process should be documented as well. Equipment/Hardware Acquisition -There are some technical requirements that are particular to equipment acquisition RFPs. These technical requirements include Hardware Specifications and Support and Training. Hardware Specifications-The specific technical requirements of the system's hardware should be identified, including specifications for: • hardware performance requirements • system downtime and recovery • interfaces with other systems • operations, including response time, on-line data entry, batch entries, automatic logging, background printing, record locking, on-demand reporting, and security • general technical specifications for central processing units, including expandability memory storage and speed, disaster recovery, terminals, and printers Support and Training-The court will want to specify expected support and training for equipment provided in the acquisition. Software AcquisitionlDevelopmentIModification-There are There are several technical * . . - .1cir A flLT\ 1DCD\LFT'T,.nT ., I 1t,,, 1111 /fl1 Model 4rocess Request for Proposal (RFP) 0 Oge10 of 19 requirements that are particular to equipment acquisition RFPs. These technical requirements include Required Overall System Functionality, Operating System Software, Applications Software, and Support and Training. See CMS Software Functionality Example. Required Overall System Functionality-The RFP should describe the primary functions of the proposed system. Overview descriptions of workflow, desired menu navigations, and overall user friendliness should be addressed. See CMS Mandatory Requirements Example and CMS General System Features Example. This section also includes a description of: • integration of software from the standpoint of accessibility, security, and functionality (such as integrating civil and criminal case processing) • required hardware platforms, programming languages, processing environments, or development tools • user-accessible code tables • database management systems • database purging Operating System Software-The RFP should specify an operating system that is highly flexible and capable of controlling, scheduling, and executing (in a multi-user, multitasking mode) a variety of processes. The operating software should: • support interactive processing and respond to all requests in accordance with job priority • provide system security • provide file management • control print and job queues • provide system monitoring, including status of on-line users, the status of peripherals, and allocation of memory • account for disk storage and CPU usage • provide operator functions, such as backups to tape and disk and unattended backups Applications Software-The RFP should describe a variety of attributes of applications software that are unique to the procurement in question. As a result, it is impossible to describe any specific requirements here. The court should spend considerable time defining the functions that the system must provide (such as indexing, docketing, noticing), along with the required validations and controls that the applications software must employ. Aside from helping the court understand its own specific requirements, defining the necessary application functions will help the court evaluate short-listed systems during demonstrations and benchmark testing. See CMS Requirements Checklist Example. An additional resource courts should consult for help in defining system requirements is the Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project. See The Consortium for National Case Management Automation Functional Standards Project. Support and Training-The court will want to specify expected support and training. See CMS Maintenance Procram Example and CMS Company Information Example. System/Process Analysis Studies-These studies often involve elements of Feasibility Studies and Specifications Development. See Business Process Scope of Project Example. Feasibility Studies-These often address recommendations developed in System/Process Analysis Studies prior to expending effort on developing detailed specifications or requirements. Specifications Development-These studies often result in RFPs for equipment and/or software based on the specifications or requirements developed. Service Level Agreements-These include services such as Maintenance/Support and Application Service Provider services. -J I 1\4h+., 11/12/fl Model *rocess Request for Proposal (RFP) 0 0 ge II of 19 REP Business Requirements • Delivery • Facility Requirements • Vendor Project Personnel • Financial Strength • References • Acceptance • Payments • Project Management • Delivery and Installation • Site Preparation • Training • Vendor Support Personnel • Documentation • System Maintenance • Acceptance Testing RFP Business Requirements This section of the RFP provides appropriate delivery schedules, specifies the type of contract anticipated (such as time and materials, fixed cost), requests company background and financial information, and gives the requirements regarding price protection. Several topics should be included in the RFP. Some topics are applicable to all RFPs and others are specific to equipment or software acquisitions. The following topics are applicable to all RFPs. Delivery-The court should specify the time of delivery (such as 20 days from receipt of order). All equipment should be delivered to the exact requesting agency address (i.e., street address, building, floor, and office) specified by the court. Customized software should be delivered in accordance with the project plan, as developed by the court and the winning vendor. Reports and other project deliverables should be delivered in accordance with the project plan, as developed by the court and the winning vendor. See Business Process Deliverables Example. The court should specify that all equipment deliveries are F.O.B. (free-on-board, meaning the seller is responsible for any costs, toss, or damage before delivery) to the court's location. This ensures that the vendor bears the risk of loss up to the point of arrival at the court. Facility Requirements-Vendors should be requested to specify any facility requirements, such as meeting space, office space, phone line access. See Business Process Facility Requirements Example. Vendor Project Personnel-The court should require that the vendor must not reassign any or all tasks from any specific individual. Additionally, the court should require the vendor to ensure that key staff participants are not reassigned to other projects the vendor may be involved in, without approval from the court. See Business Process Key Personnel Example and Business Process Assignment of Professional Staff Example. Financial Strength-Vendors should be required to state their number of years in the business. Ideally, vendors should have a minimum of two years experience with court systems. Vendors also should he required to state their annual sales (for the previous two fiscal years), total number of employees. They should also provide an annual report. See Business Process Financial Information Example and CMS Financial Information Example. References-The court should request three customer references and contact information. The 8 \', 1 'i\rfnhtm II/IM) Models Process Request for Proposal (RF Wage 12 of 19 references should have had experience performing tasks similar in size and application to those described in the RFP. See Business Process References Example and CMS Client References Example. Acceptance-The court should specify the acceptance process for all vendor-supplied deliverables. Payments-It is suggested that payments for the project be tied to acceptance of project deliverables. For custom software systems payments for the system should be tied to acceptance testing. As each module is accepted, a certain percentage (such as 70 percent) of the cost for the module could be paid. The remaining balance due could be paid when all of the modules are installed and the system passes the final acceptance test as an integrated system. For continuing professional service projects, such as a help desk, payments should be made periodically and tied to service quality for the preceding period. The cost proposal should contain a statement to the effect that the vendor accepts the following assumptions, criteria, and limitations: • The agreement should be subject to termination for lack of appropriation, as provided in the RFP section described above under lack offlinding. See Business Process Availability of Funds Example. • The court should not insure any item of equipment, whether leasçd or purchased, before acceptance. If the vendor requires that any such item be insured, the vendor should obtain insurance coverage for itself and the court as their respective interests dictate. The premium cost must be either absorbed by the vendor or added to the prices quoted in the cost proposal. • To the extent that maintenance charges or any other rights and obligations of the parties are affected by the degree of use, vendors are to assume unlimited (24 hours per day, 365 days per year) access to their service. • Any item needed for the successful functioning of the proposed project for which no cost is stated in the cost proposal should be included in the stated costs. • In preparing its cost proposal, the vendor should have taken into account any costs or constraints arising out of compliance with the RFP's contract terms. • All quoted prices are guaranteed for a fixed time frame (such as 180 days). See Business Process Time for Acceptance Example and CMS Time for Acceptance Example. Project Management-As part of their response to the RFP, vendors should be required to describe how they propose to organize their resources to complete the project. See Business Process Methodology Example. The description should include: • The vendor's organizational structure and resources to be used in the project, including major staff responsibilities and functions. • The availability of the vendor to provide on-site project management. The management portion of the RFP also should specify how the court proposes to manage its portion of the project. In particular, the RFP should alert vendors to the frequency of progress meetings and the need for written reports with respect to the project's status, accomplishments to date, problems, and areas where the court should provide greater assistance. It is suggested that payment procedures be tied to successful acceptance testing and satisfactory completion of tasks as outlined during the progress meetings. The following topics apply to equipment or software acquisitions and should be considered for inclusion in these types of RFPs. Delivery and Installation-The court should request that if a vendor is selected and signs a contract, the vendor will deliver, install, and make the proposed system operational within a specified time period following the contract award (sixty days, for example). It is highly recommended that the \, 1 \r& htm 1 ill IMI Model Orocess Request for Proposal (RFP• Oge 13 of 19 vendor submit an installation plan for software and hardware. For installation to be complete, the system should be fully operational. Peripherals must be attached, the software successfully loaded, and all current on-line systems must be executing properly. All installation and site preparation costs should be identified in the appropriate Cost responses. Site Preparation-The court should provide the initial installation site work for each agency CPU location. Vendors should provide in their RFP response a detailed environmental plan that, at a minimum, addresses: • air conditioning • electrical and cabling requirements • floor plan • any other physical requirements for installing the CPU and peripheral equipment Training-Vendors should be requested to provide on-site training for all court users. Recently, some courts have requested that vendors create videotape training sessions. See CMS Training Example. Vendors should be requested to provide training for system operation as part of the standard installation procedure. The specialized training could include such topics as: • introduction to hardware • introduction to operating system software • introduction to systems administration • introduction to applications software • advanced applications software administration • introduction to network communications • advanced topics in computer network design Vendors also should be requested to provide technical training on the system hardware and software and to include on-line training and help and a help telephone line. If possible, the court should request that vendors coordinate the technical training plan with the hardware and software installation plan. Vendor Support Personnel-The court should request that vendors provide sufficient technical support to implement and maintain the proposed system. Vendors should be asked to supply a list of technical staff who will be assigned to implementation and support and their resumes. The list of support staff should pair names with responsibilities. See CMS Implementation Support Example and CMS Continuing Support Requirements Example. Documentation-Upon selection, the vendor should provide at least four copies of every technical and operational manual of the proposed hardware, operations software, and software. The court should inquire whether user manuals are available in an electronic format. See CMS System Documentation Example. System Maintenance-In consideration of a monthly maintenance service contract, the vendor should agree to provide such preventive and remedial maintenance as is necessary to keep the equipment in good operating order and in compliance with warranties. A copy of a preventive maintenance program should accompany every vendor's proposal. Maintenance programs should commence at the end of the warranty period. See CMS Maintenance Program Example. At a minimum, the vendor's maintenance personnel should agree to keep a performance record for each machine (including peripherals) documenting the nature of malfunctions and time of repair. Signed copies of all records should be provided to the court. All maintenance should be performed by qualified maintenance engineers who are familiar with the equipment. Ideally, the vendor should have a qualified technician working on a problem within four hours of the report. The court should 3c' Models Process Request for Proposal (RF• Page 14 of 19 consider if it is desirable to have a two-hour maintenance response time between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, court's local time. The court also should determine whether twenty-four hour maintenance service will be required and whether maintenance will be needed on weekends. The court should request that the vendor have backup maintenance resources. The vendor should describe in its proposal the various levels of the escalation procedure and the events that trigger escalation of a problem to each next-higher level. lI The court should request that a vendor propose remote diagnostic capabilities, including a twenty- four-hour hot-line service with a toll-free telephone number. Finally, the court should insist that an adequate inventory of spare parts be available locally to ensure that systems do not remain down for extended periods of time. Acceptance Testing-The court should make appropriate arrangements for acceptance testing (sometimes called benchmark testing) of all vendor-supplied deliverables. The tests should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate the.proposed acquisition's capability to meet key criteria of the RFP. At a minimum, the acceptance testing should focus on two important areas: Functional demonstrations consisting of a series of independent problems. The selected vendor should demonstrate the capabilities of the solution with respect to the functions and features described in the technical portion of the RFP. Performance demonstrations consisting of a timed problem. This demonstration tests the ability of the vendor's equipment to perform the workload throughput requirements of the court. All problems should be completed satisfactorily within the allotted time frame. Failure to demonstrate adequately any of the mandatory requirements in either the functional or the performance demonstration would disqualify a prospective vendor during the pre-selection phase. If the vendor had already been selected by the acquisition team, new contract language regarding cure of defects and vendor default would be mandated. Particular care should be taken during acceptance testing for modular systems that will be installed incrementally over a pre-established time frame. A single module may meet all the requirements of acceptance testing when it is working alone. When it is connected to other system modules, however, the overall performance of the modules may decline significantly. It is suggested, therefore, that acceptance testing be performed independently for each module and then again for the completely integrated system. Care also should be taken when acceptance testing large systems that employ multiple platforms and a large number of workstations. During pre-acceptance testing, the system generally will have low volumes of traffic, small amounts of data on disk, and few transactions. As a result, the tested response time may be adequate. As large numbers of cases are added to the system after implementation, the system traffic will increase dramatically-along with a correspondingly larger user demand and rapidly growing data files. Response time may degrade significantly. It is important that acceptance testers work closely with vendors to determine if 1) the system has a sufficient amount of memory, 2) it has adequate disk I/O throughput (i.e.. can move information to and from the disk quickly enough), and 3) it has the required processing speeds to operate the entire system with the anticipated number of transactions and volume of data. Legal and Insurance Requirements • Restrictions on Contact with Court Personnel • Inclusion of Vendor Contract and Forms • Security of Information • Bidder Obligation to Understand RFP ---I% c'r A T)('T1 Iflt'fl1VT'1i.fY Model *rocess Request for Proposal (RFP)• Oge 15 of 19 • Contingencies and Change s • Prohibition on Gratuities • Local Laws and Regulations • Required Forms • Statutes and Rules That App ly • Immunity from Liabi lity • Federal, State and Local Taxes • Conflicts Between Terms • Equal Employment Opportunities • Patent, Copyright, Trademark, Trade Secret • Proposal Guarantee • Warranties • Warranty Service Locations • Imperfections in Design • Software Acceptance • Termination • Ownership of Software • Ownership of Court Information RFP Legal and Insurance Requirements The RFP concludes with a section regarding the legal and insurance requirements of the proposed purchase. Typically, this section includes a version of the forthcoming contract prepared by the court with staff from the funding agency's law department. The section also should identify the chief negotiator, have clauses relating to confidentiality of all information, and specify various insurance requirements. This section of the RFP is where the court should set out the terms and conditions of the project. See Terms and Conditions Example. Additionally, the court should provide a method for vendors to object to specific terms or conditions. See Vendor Exceptions Form Example also see CMS Contract Terms and Conditions, alternatively see Business Process Exceptions Example. Many legal and insurance requirements for a RFP are specified by local rules. The requirements covered here are a recommended minimum and do not necessarily reflect the precise RFP requirements for any court. Courts should consult with the local purchasing department to learn what local legal requirements exist for RFPs. At a minimum, the following items should be incorporated into the RFP's legal and insurance requirements: Restrictions on Contact with Court Personnel-From the date of release of the RFP and until a determination is made regarding the selection of a contractor, and for the selected vendor until a contract is signed, all contacts with personnel employed by the court should be limited to the vendor liaison. During this period, no prospective vendor should approach personnel employed by or contracted to the court concerning possible employment, nor should the prospective vendor offer court personnel gratuities of any kind to obtain information relating to the proposed procurement. Violations of these conditions will be considered sufficient cause by the court to reject a vendor's proposal, irrespective of any other consideration. In addition, vendors should be advised that only the acquisition team can answer questions, clarify issues, or render any opinion regarding the UP. No individual team member, aside from the vendor liaison, should be empowered to make binding statements regarding the RFP. Inclusion of Suggested Vendor Contract and Other Forms-Vendors should include sample contracts and forms for the sale or lease of equipment and the provision of services that contain their recommended maintenance agreements, warranties, provisions for training, and such other ,ft\.r +D APPT4\mrrL1PPP\1-1T?ifT \'ir 1 \rfn htm 11/1 /11 Model *rocess Request for Proposal (RFP• 0ge 16 of 19 documentation that may be applicable to the RFP. This will aid the acquisition team as it begins contract negotiations. The court should provide a method for vendors to object to specific terms or conditions. See Vendor Exceptions Form Example. Security of Information-Many court data files and documents are highly confidential. The vendor's employees should be allowed access to this information only as needed when responding completely to the specifications given in the RFP. The vendors should have positive policies and procedures for safeguarding the confidentiality of this data and should be cautioned that they may be liable under privacy legislation for negligent release or misuse of the information. Vendors should be encouraged to sign nondisclosure agreements included in the REP materials. Bidder Obligation to Understand RFP Specifications-When the bids are opened it should be understood via appropriate contract language that the vendor has read and understood all of the requirements and specifications of the RFP. In other words, after the responses are opened, any questions with respect to the REP, including local operations, equipment configurations, and operating systems, should be presumed to have been already answered to the vendors' satisfaction. Each proposal should be accompanied by an Intent to Bid letter signed by an authorized representative of the respondent stating the vendor's understanding of this obligation. Contingencies and Changes-The court should request that responses be firm and not made contingent upon uncertain events or on engineering that will not be performed until after the contract is awarded. Responses should be based upon prices in effect at the time the proposal is submitted. Changes to responses should be set down on an amendment page or pages. Prohibition on Gratuities-If it is not already a criminal offense under current jurisdiction statutes, the REP should make it clear that offering, promising, or giving anything of value or benefit to a person serving in the court's capacity with the intent to influence that person's exercise of discretion with respect to the proposed acquisition is grounds for unqualified rejection of the proposal. Local Laws and Regulations-The court should specify any special business or professional licenses vendor's are required to posses to work in the state or locality. Required Forms-The court should provide in the RFP any court or funding entity purchasing forms vendors will be required to complete as part of the proposal process, such as EEO affidavits. The REP should include either copies of all forms the vendors are required to submit or information on obtaining the forms. The standard forms in the REP should include a sample anti-collusion affidavit and a conflict of interest affidavit. Even if no formal form exists the court should require vendors to submit affidavits addressing these two issues. See Business Process Anti-Collusion and Business Process Conflicts of Interest (4.1. 1.5) Example. Courts should require vendors comply with all federal, state, and local employment requirements, such as EEO and ADA. Statutes and Local Rules that Apply-The REP should identify the state (or other jurisdiction) whose laws will control the interpretation of contract terms. The REP also should alert vendors that wherever differences exist between federal and state statutes or regulations affecting the procurement, contract interpretation will be in the direction of that which is most beneficial to the interests of the court. See Business Process Applicable Laws Example. Immunity from Liability-The RFP should alert vendors that every court person or agency will be immune from liability for the vendor's activities that may arise from any procurement contract involving third parties. Additionally, the court should specify that the vendors must carry workers' compensation insurance coverage in amounts required by local law. The court must specify that neither the vendor, its employees, assignees or subcontractors shall be deemed employees of the court while performing services during the project. See Business Process Indemnity Example. Federal, State, and Local Taxes-The RFP should inform vendors of the court's tax status and the tax burdens that the vendors will assume as a result of the forthcoming procurement contract. For example, the court should be exempt from federal excise taxes, and no payment will be made for any 1 11I1/fl1 Model Rfrocess Request for Proposal (RFP) We 17 of 19 taxes levied on the wages of the successful vendor's employees. The court also should be exempt from sales and use taxes on the equipment and services supplied by the vendor. Therefore, vendors should not in corporate sales or use taxes into any bid. See Business Process Applicable Taxes Example. If a vendor includes any refundable state or federal tax in a price, the vendor should be required to furnish proof showing that the court will be able to obtain a refund or credit. If an item is to be sold to the court free of federal or state tax, the vendor should not include the tax in the offered price and should furnish proof that the tax will not be imposed upon the court. Conflicts Between Terms-The court should reserve the right to accept or reject any exception taken by vendors to the terms and conditions of the RFP. The court also should allow itself to negotiate a resolution of any exception. Equal Employment Opportunities-Any selected vendor must comply with the provisions of federal, state, and its own EEO regulations to ensure that no employee or applicant for employment is discriminated against because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, or handicap. The court also should request that the selected vendor create an affirmative action plan and provide the appropriate state or federal agencies with reports to ensure compliance with equal employment legislation and regulations, if requested. See Business Process Equal Employment Requirements Example. Patent, Copyright Protection, Trademark, Trade Secret, or Proprietary Information Protection-The court should require vendors to defend at their expense any suit that may be brought against the court based on a claim that the systems, services, or products furnished infringe on a United States patent, copyright, trademark, trade secrecy or other proprietary information. The court also should ensure that the vendor pays the costs and damages finally awarded against the court in any such suit. The court should give the vendor prompt written notice of the infringement claim and the full right and opportunity to conduct the defense with full information and all reasonable cooperation. Other Delays-If the delays are caused by the default of a subcontractor, and the default arises out of causes beyond the control of the parties, the court should agree not to hold the vendor liable for damages, unless the supplies or services to be furnished by the subcontractor are obtainable from other sources in sufficient time to permit the court or the vendor to meet the required performance schedule. The following topics apply to equipment or software acquisitions and should be considered for inclusion in these types of RFPs. Proposal Guarantee-Depending on the size of the acquisition, the court should request that vendors include a bid proposal guarantee consisting of a bond, certified check, or similar instrument drawn on a solvent bank, or a bond issued by a surety company authorized to do business in the court's state. The bid proposal guarantee (perhaps 5 percent of the contract price for the first year) acts as a guarantee of good faith and a firm bid from the proposal-opening date to the execution of the contract. If the successful vendor fails to enter into a subsequent contract, the parties should agree that the bid guarantee will be forfeited up to an amount that is the difference between the bid selected by the court and the bid that is finally accepted from another vendor. The successful vendor should submit a certified check or performance bond for 10 percent of the contract price for the first year. The certified check, cashier's check, or performance bond should be renewed annually in an amount equal to 10 percent of the contract for each succeeding year. Upon receipt of the proper certified check or performance bond, the court should return the bid file:/ID:\Data\Projects\National\SEARCFI\modelRFP\FITML\v_l _3\rfp.htm 11/13/01 ModP Process Request for Proposal (RF 18 of 19 guarantee; all other bid guarantees will be reI d to the vendors upon execution of a ntract with the selected vendor. Warranties-One of the most important legal issues in commercial contracts is the warranty. Ordinarily a vendor will make informal warranties either through brochures, published specifications, oral representations, or demonstrations. In addition, it is usually assumed that the vendor has made a warranty of title to any software it markets. Vendor standard contracts, however, generally disclaim all of these implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for purpose in favor of specific repair or replace warranties that give little or no recourse to the court. The problem, therefore, is to either reinstate the implied warranties or avoid the vendor's implied warranty disclaimers by devising a format that exchanges vendor disclaimers for specific express warranties. At a minimum, the court should ensure that the vendor's warranty incorporates the following: • Implied Requirements - Although it is unlikely that the vendor will surrender its disclaimer, the court should at least attempt to get the implied warranty into the final procurement contract. 12 The court should inform the vendor that it is a material breach of contract, with the vendor assuming liability to the court, if the vendor-supplied hardware, software, and services needed to implement the complete system described in the RFP are not merchantable andfit for the purpose as described in the introduction and technical specifications. The vendor also should agree that any products and services not specifically listed in the RFP, but required to provide the functional capabilities described by the vendor to meet the court's requirements, are included in the total dollar amount of the bid. • Operation in Accordance with Manufacturer's Specifications - The court should ask the vendor to warrant that the supplied applications software will operate in accordance with the manufacturer's commercial specifications. • Repair or Replace Remedies - The court should require that if any software defects occur within the warranty period, the vendor will repair or replace the software at no detriment of service or cost to the court. The court also should inform the vendor that nothing will be construed as limiting the rights or remedies otherwise available to the court by law or in equity. • One-Year Warranty Prior to Contractor Maintenance - The court should require the vendor to warrant all workmanship and the successful operation of all hardware and software for a period of one year from date of final acceptance of the whole work unless indicated for a longer period of time. If any defect or malfunction occurs within one calendar year after the date of acceptance, the vendor should repair or replace the defective software at its sole cost and expense and at no cost to the court for labor or any other charge. Vendor-supplied maintenance should commence at the end of the one-year warranty period. • Exceptions, Force Majeure - Except with respect to defaults, the court and the vendor should agree that neither is liable for payment or implementation delays that arise Out of causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the court or the vendor. Such causes may include acts of God or the public enemy, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, or freight embargoes. In every case, the delays must be beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the court or the vendor. Warranty Service Locations-The vendor should agree to maintain at least one warranty service location within the state. This is more an issue for hardware where parts and on site service may be needed where as software can be maintained, modified or updated, remotely. See CMS Example of service requirements. Imperfections in Design-The vendor should guarantee that the supplied software is free from imperfections in design or construction that would create either operating difficulties or failure to meet specified performance quality. Software Acceptance-The hardware, operating system, and applications software system should not be accepted for operational use, and payment should not be authorized, until the RFP's standard of performance, as negotiated and tested, is achieved. LJ, file:/ID:\Data\Projects\National\SEARCI-I\modelRFP\HTML\v_ 1 _3\rIp.htm 11/13/01 Request for Proposal (RFP• ge19 of 19 Model Process Is 0 Termination if Standard of Performance Is Not Met-In the event that the module undergoing tests has not achieved the negotiated standard of performance, the court should terminate the test and, at its option, initiate one of the following corrective actions: Terminate the Contract with the Vendor and invoke Manufacturer's Guarantee-The court may terminate the contract with the vendor in its entirety without recourse. At this point, the manufacturer's guarantee and any other contractual and legal remedies may be invoked, including bond forfeitures. Continue the Test-Notwithstanding the option to terminate, the court should have the option of continuing the test until the test period is completed successfully. Require Replacement Equipment-The court may require the vendor to repair or replace each purchased item that has failed to achieve the required standard of performance, at no cost to the court. Notification and Testing of Replacements-If the court chooses repairs or replacements instead of contract termination, a new acceptance test should commence upon notification that the vendor has replaced all defective equipment. The notification should contain the name and revision number of any installed software cross-referenced to that of the replacing software. Ownership of Contractor-produced Software -All applications software developed and installed by the vendor for the court should become the exclusive property of the court unless the vendor specifically states otherwise. This RFP clause raises the important issue of source code ownership. A clause outlining the court and vendor's rights in software is important because, in many instances, the software represents the principal advantage the vendor has over its competitors, and the vendor will be reluctant to relinquish it or place it in the public domain. Three problems that arise when the vendor keeps the source code and delivers only the object code to the court: • the court may need the source code to avoid relying on the software vendor for support and maintenance should the system not perform • the vendor may go out of business • auditors may need access to the source code to perform required audits To solve these problems, a source code escrow account can be created whereby a trustee, typically a bank, has control over a copy of the vendor's source code. In the event the vendor goes bankrupt, the trustee is authorized to distribute the software to all of the vendor's existing customers. If the software is protected by trade secret or intellectual property law, then a confidential information clause should be included in the contract to specify who among the court employees will have access to the source code. Reports from the trustee should be required to ensure that the latest versions of program source code are held. Ownership of Court Information -The court should clearly define ownership and use of court data. The court should retain ownership of court data and condition how vendors use the data, such as data access and a proscription against the sale of court data. This is particularly an issue in data conversion and application service provider situations. Court data is an important resource for the court and is valuable to outside organizations, particularly in electronic form. Previous - Organizing the Acquisition Index file://D:\Data\Projects\National\SEARCFI\modelRFP\HTML\vl _3\rf.htm 11/13/01 . . . APPENDIX D S 0 S CASEFLOW AND CALENDAR MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP CIRCUIT COURT OF KANKAKEE COUNTY Kankakee, Illinois November 5, 2001 AGENDA 8:00 - 8:30 Coffee Time 8:30 - 8:45 Welcome and Workshop Overview 8:45 - 9:45 Essentials and Importance of Caseflow Management 9:45 - 10:15 Findings and Observations from the NCSC Study 10:15 - 10:30 Break 10:30 - 11:15 Team Exercise #1: Charting the Caseflow Process 11:15 - 11:30 Report Back 11:30. - 12:00 Casef low Management Methods and Techniques 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 1:30 Casef low Management Methods and Techniques (continued) 1:30 - 2:15 Team Exercise #2: Matching Solutions to Problems 2:15 - 2:30 Report Back 2:30 - 2:45 Break 2:45 - 3:00 Elements of Successful Plans and Planning Processes 3:00 - 3:45 Team Exercise #3: Developing an Action Plan 3:45 - 4:15 Report Back 4:15 - 4:30 . Wrap-Up 7 CasefS low and Calendar Management Workshop0 . Circuit Court of Kankakee County November 5, 2001 TEAM EXERCISE #1: FLOW CHART OF THE CASE PROCESSING SYSTEM Purpose: To begin the process of analyzing and evaluating the existing organization and pace of caseflow for a specific case type. By creating a detailed flow chart of key events/activities and the critical players in the progress of a case, your team will be better prepared to assess the opportunities for enhancement of the process. Process: Prepare a detailed flow diagram for the case type that your team has chosen to focus on at the workshop. Include all steps and activities, whether conducted by the court or other involved agencies. Steps: • Draw a straight tine on a piece of paper. Starting with the first event in your court, list all the events that occur in processing a typical case of the selected type from filing to disposition. List the events in time order along the line, from left to right or top to bottom. • Remember to include activities for both the court and other agencies and also show preparation of dockets, notices, etc. by the clerk's office. • Indicate who must be present for the event or activity to occur, and who is responsible for assuring this activity occurs as scheduled. • Indicate decision points in the flow, such as when disposition may occur, or when a case may be referred or diverted out of the system. • Estimate in days the usual or typical amount of time that elapses between each consecutive pair of events. • Estimate the percentage of cases (if any) usually disposed of at each step in the process. If the team finishes the flow chart, address these additional questions: What are the strengths of the current process? What are the challenges in the current process? What opportunities exist to improve the current process for litigants, the bar, court staff, and judges? Casef• low and Calendar Management WorkshOp Circuit Court of Kankakee County November 5, 2001 TEAM EXERCISE #2: MATCHING SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS Purpose: To discuss the methods and techniques of casef low management presented in the previous session, identify the ones that might be effective in achieving just dispositions sooner and more efficiently in the case type(s) your team is addressing, and begin consideration of what would be required to implement them. Process: Each team member should identify one or two techniques or procedures that seem to be the most relevant, most promising for improving processing, and most "doable" within the context of the casetype your team is addressing. At this point, avoid thinking of all the obstacles that might arise during implementation. Just identify which practices are worthy of further consideration and/or development. These should be listed on the flip chart as they are identified. Note on the flip chart if more than one team member identifies the same practice. • Identify three practices you want to discuss in more detail, based on the number of team members who noted it or an informal vote of the members: • For each of the three practices chosen, the team should discuss the following questions: - What other information do we need about the practice or its implementation in order to evaluate its possible use in our court? - What are the likely the obstacles and risks associated with attempting to implement a change in this area? - Do the potential benefits outweigh any risks? • Prepare a 3-minute report to the larger group on your team's assessment of the top three practices S Committee Report To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your Committee, to whom was referred the matter of: beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted. Ayes Nays Present NJ Abstain Re: I Drafi",ee O224 Awoa- RE: KANKAKEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK WHEREAS, National County Government Week was first celebrated in 1990 for the purpose of raising public awareness about counties. WHEREAS, National County Government Week helps citizens better understand how counties respond to the needs and, by extension, how counties across America serve the nation. WHEREAS, the theme for this year's National County Government Week celebration, April 6-12, is Counties Care for Kids. WHEREAS, Kankakee County will sponsor a Counties Care for Kids coloring contest for elementary school students. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Kankakee County, Illinois hereby proclaims April 6-12, 2003 National County Government Week. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003 .% ./ Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: lks" cd-,e,0107 Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-772 '-11/ . . S COMMITTEE REPORT Ad min istration-VAC-Leqislative To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of: Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted: Ayes Nays Present 1070- rA I VIA &-iv,I ~ Abstain íMk (kkOJL (Issue) I 9raAe Oil flJw/A RE: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE UNITED STATES TROOPS WHEREAS, the President of the United States has ordered military action against the government of Iraq, in an effort to address the threat that the government of Iraq poses to the peace and stability of Iraq, the region and the world; and WHEREAS, hundreds of Illinois men and women in the armed forces, reserves, and National Guard have been or will be called to active duty, and deployed to the Middle East region and other parts of the world, and WHEREAS, the families of these men and women play an important role in providing support to them; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Kankakee County Board: 1. That the members of the Kankakee County Board strongly support the men and women of our armed forces who are carrying out their missions with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery; and 2. That the members of the Kankakee County Board commend the families of these men and women for their strength and service to our country during this time of conflict; and 3. That the members of the Kankakee County Board wish every success for the men and women of our armed forces, and hope for their speedy return to their families and country. 8th ADOPTED and passed this day of April 2003. £ Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: A't' ~ c4z. Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-773 S S . COMMITTEE REPORT Administration-VAC-Legislative To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of: Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted: Ayes Nays Present p Abstain / (Issue) '1/9 O a, "d 0 9, 4aAee RE: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR CORONER'S OFFICE WHEREAS, the law enforcement agencies throughout the State of Illinois recognize that their manpower and resources may not be sufficient to meet some emergency situations in their area. WHEREAS, the needs of homeland security require that law enforcement agencies be prepared for meeting the threats and occurrences of domestic terrorism. WHEREAS, intergovernmental cooperation among law enforcement agencies is an efficient way of preparing for extreme emergencies or domestic terrorism. WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies, working alone, may not have the manpower and resources to meet all emergencies. WHEREAS, in the event of a dire emergenc9 or domestic terrorism, the Kankakee County Coroner's Office, as well as other law enforcement agencies in this State may not have the resources at hand to meet such a crisis. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10, of the Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1 et. seq., permit local government agencies to enter into cooperative intergovernmental agreements. WHEREAS, various law enforcement agencies would enter into the Mutual Aid Agreement. WHEREAS, participation in any emergency would be voluntary and further each party could terminate the agreement on ninety (90) days notice. WHEREAS, the Administration-VAC-Legislative Committee, at its April 1, 2003 meeting, approved participation of the Coroner's Office in a mutual aid agreement. WHEREAS, the Mutual Aid Agreement authorizes a stricken law enforcement agency to request assistance from an aiding law enforcement agency, which request may be refused if necessary to protect its own jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Coroner is authorized to execute a Mutual Aid Agreement substantially in the form attached hereto. 8th PASSED and adopted this day of April 2003. Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: /9717,-C9,Z-. Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-774 ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT ALARM SYSTEM Mutual Aid Agreement The undersigned law enforcement agencies agree pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Illinois (ill. Const. Art. VII, sec. 10), the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 IILCS 220/1 et seq.), the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/7-10' et seq.) and the Illinois Municipal Code (65 11_CS 5/11-1-2.1), as follows: Section 1 Purpose of Agreement This Agreement is made in recognition of the fact that natural or man-made occurrences may result in emergencies that exceed the resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel of a law enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency who signs a copy of this Agreement has and does express its intent to aid and assist the other participating law enforcement agencies during an emergency by assigning some of their resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel to the affected law enforcement agency as circumstances permit and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The specific intent of this Agreement is to safeguard the lives, persons and property of citizens during an emergency by enabling other law enforcement agencies to provide additional resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel as needed. Section 2 Definitions For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as follows: Aiding law enforcement agency: A participating law enforcement agency that provides resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel to a stricken law enforcement agency during an emergency. Disaster: An occurrence or threat of widespread or severe damage, injury or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or technological cause, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthquake, wind, storm, hazardous materials spill or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger or damage, epidemic, air contamination, blight, extended periods of severe and inclement weather, drought infestation, critical shortages of essential fuels and energy, explosion, riot, hostile military or paramilitary action, or acts of domestic terrorism. Emergency: A natural or man-made situation that threatens or causes loss of life and property and exceeds the physical and organizational capabilities of a unit of local, state or federal government. Law enforcement personnel: An employee of a participating law enforcement agency who is a peace officer (as defined by state law and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards February 7, 2003 Board or federal law) and by virtue of his office or public employment, is vested by the state or federal law with the primary duty of maintaining public order and making arrests for violations of state or federal law. Mutual aid: A definite and prearranged written agreement and plan whereby regular response and assistance is provided in the event of a natural or man-made emergency. Participating law enforcement agencies: A law enforcement agency that commits itself to this mutual aid agreement by having an authorized representative sign this Agreement. State: The term state refers exclusively to the State of Illinois. Stricken law enforcement agency: A participating law enforcement agency who has primary jurisdiction over the site of the emergency but due to insufficient resources, equipment and/or law, enforcement personnel is unable to provide an adequate response to an emergency without the assistance of others. Section 3 Agreement to Effectuate the Mutual Aid Plan Each undersigned party agrees that in the event of an emergency, they will respond to requests for assistance by a stricken law enforcement agency with such law enforcement personnel, equipment, facilities, or services as is, in the opinion of the aiding law enforcement agency, available. Provided, however, that each party reserves the right to refuse to render assistance or to recall any or all rendered assistance, whenever it believes that such refusal or recall is necessary to ensure adequate protection of its own jurisdiction or personnel. It is expected that requests for mutual aid under this Agreement will be initiated only when the needs of the stricken agency exceed its resources. Aiding agencies will be released and returned to their own jurisdictions as soon as the situation is restored to the point where the stricken agency is able to satisfactorily handle the situation with its own resources or when an aiding agency decides to recall its assistance. Whenever an emergency is of such magnitude and consequence that it is deemed advisable by the senior officer present, of the stricken law enforcement agency, to request assistance from an aiding law enforcement agency, he is hereby authorized to do so, under the terms of this mutual aid agreement. The senior officer present of the aiding law enforcement agency is authorized to and shall forthwith take the following actions: - Immediately determine what type of assistance is being requested. - Immediately determine if the requested resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel can be committed to the stricken law enforcement agency. - Immediately dispatch the resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel that are available to the stricken law enforcement agency. 2 February 7, 2003 At the emergency site, the most senior officer of the stricken law enforcement agency who is present shall assume full responsibility and command for operations at the scene. Law enforcement personnel from the aiding agencies shall report to and shall work under the direction and supervision of the stricken agency. Provided, however, that at all times, the personnel of the aiding agencies shall remain employees of their own agency and shall adhere to the policies and procedures of their own employer. While working under the direction of the aiding agency, law enforcement personnel shall only be required to respond to lawful orders. All services performed under this Agreement shall be rendered without reimbursement, regardless of the possibility of reimbursement from the requesting agency or other sources. Each participating law enforcement agency shall assume sole responsibility for indemnifying their own employees, as provided by state or federal law and/or local ordinance, and for providing personnel benefits, including benefits that arise due to injury or death, to their own employees as required by state or federal law. Each participating agency shall also be responsible, regardless of fault, for repairing or replacing any damage to their own vehicles or equipment that occurs while providing assistance under this Agreement. The participating agencies agree that this Agreement shall not give rise to any liability or responsibility for the failure to respond to any request for assistance made pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an Agreement foç the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right of action whatsoever hereunder for any cause whatsoever. The participating agencies further agree that each agency will be responsible for defending their own respective entity in any action or dispute that arises in connection with or as the result of this Agreement and that each agency will be responsible for bearing their own costs, damages, losses, expenses, and attorney fees. The chief law enforcement officers of the participating agencies will maintain a governing board and establish an operational plan for giving and receiving aid under this Agreement. Said plan will be reviewed, updated and tested at regular intervals. Section 4 Adoption This mutual aid agreement shall be in full force and an in effect when approved and executed by a representative of a participating law enforcement agency who has the legal authority to sign and enter into this Agreement on behalf of his law enforcement agency. Section 5 Termination Any participating law enforcement agency may withdraw from this Agreement upon giving ninety (90) days written notice addressed to each of the other participating agencies. 3 February 7, 2003 Section 6 Signatory Page This signatory certifies that this mutual aid agreement, for the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS) has been adopted and approved by ordinance, resolution, memorandum of understanding. or other manner approved by law, a copy of which document is attached hereto. 1?x)cud Political Entity or Agency nforcementce; ze 5: ~ —, 1-4 z — President, Mayor, Chairman or other Chief Title Executive Officer (if applicable) Apcd 3 2OS Date Date Attest: 1, -Title /'s_I oô3 Date October 23, 2002 11 February 7, 2003 . ~ . 17_ Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS) Illinois Terrorism Task Force (ITTF) (Region Three) Counties Boone, DeKaIb, Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, LaSalle, Mc Henry and Will Officers February 10, 2003 Co-Chairman Donald E. Bennett Dear Law Enforcement Executive: Chief Plainfield P.D. The Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (ILEAS) Region Three Board of 815-436-6544 the Illinois Terrorism Task Force (ITTF) requests your immediate attention DbennettQoplainfieldcOm of a Statewide Intergovernmental Mutual Aid Agreement. The basis of this agreement is so that, as law enforcement agencies, we can provide immediate emergency response by member law enforcement organizations Co-Chairman to a requesting agency should they suffer a natural or manmade disaster in Roger Scott their area. Day to day emergency responses are covered in the agreement Sheriff as well. Dekaib County 815-756-8679 While your participation is voluntary - we urge you to join this vital effort. In rscottdekalbcounty.orq the event your governmental entity does not join in this agreement, your law enforcement agency will not be able to take advantage of local and statewide resources or homeland security funding. The attached mutual aid Secretary agreement can not be modified, and MUST be accepted in its present form. Dan Ryan Additionally, all necessary documents can be downloaded from the Illinois Lieutenant Association of Chiefs of Police web-site at www.ilchiefs.org . Illinois State Police District Five When signed, please send the original copy of the Mutual Aid Agreement 815-726-6377 and the Membership Application to Lieutenant Dan Ryan of the Illinois State rya ndanisp. state. il us Police at District Five, 16648 South Broadway, Lockport, Illinois 60441-9546. The board asks that these documents be completed and returned no later than April 30, 2003. Treasurer Bill Feithen Additionally, the board requests consideration from Region Three law Chief enforcement agencies for the assignment of law enforcement personnel to City of Dekaib P.D. establish Weapons of Mass Destruction Special Containment Teams. 815-748-8410 These teams will include officers trained in SWAT/ERT from the member bfeithen(cityofdekalb.com agencies within counties listed in Region Three. Should you have any questions please contact any of the officers listed on Sergeant at Arms this document. These members have been recently elected by their fellow Randy Walters law enforcement executives in the Region. Chief Huntley P.D. Rwaltersäiciia.ora 847-669-2141 . . 0 ILLINOIS LAW ENFORCEMENT ALARM SYSTEM Mutual Aid Agreement The undersigned law enforcement agencies agree pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Illinois (Ill. Const. Art. VII, sec. 10), the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/1 et seq.), the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ti_CS 10/7-10: et seq.) and the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-1-2.1), as follows: Section 1 Purpose ofAgreement This Agreement is made in recognition of the fact that natural or man-made occurrences may result in emergencies that exceed the resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel of a law enforcement agency. Each law enforcement agency who signs a copy of this Agreement has and does express its intent to aid and assist the other participating law enforcement agencies during an emergency by assigning some of their resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel to the affected law enforcement agency as circumstances permit and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The specific intent of this Agreement is to safeguard the lives, persons and property of citizens during an emergency by enabling other law enforcement agencies to provide additional resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel as needed. Section 2 Definitions For the purpose of this Agreement, the following terms are defined as follows: Aiding law enforcement agency: A participating law enforcement agency that provides resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel to a stricken law enforcement agency during an emergency. Disaster: An occurrence or threat of widespread or severe damage, injury or loss of life or property resulting from any natural or technological cause, including but not limited to fire, flood, earthqualce, wind, storm, hazardous materials spill or other water contamination requiring emergency action to avert danger or damage, epidemic, air contamination, blight, extended periods of severe and inclement weather, drought infestation, critical shortages of essential fuels and energy, explosion, riot, hostile military or paramilitary action, or acts of domestic terrorism Emergency: A natural or man-made situation that threatens or causes loss of life and property and exceeds the physical and organizational capabilities of a unit of local, state or federal government. Law enforcement personnel: An employee of a participating law enforcement agency who is a peace officer (as defined by state law and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards February 7, 2003 21 17 S . . Board or federal law) and by virtue of his office or public employment, is vested by the state or federal law with the primary duty of maintaining public order and making arrests for violations of state or federal law. Mutual aid: A definite and prearranged written agreement and plan whereby regular response and assistance is provided in the event of a natural or man-made emergency. Participating law enforcement agencies: A law enforcement agency that commits itself to this mutual aid agreement by having an authorized representative sign this Agreement. State: The term state refers exclusively to the State of Illinois. Stricken law enforcement agency: A participating law enforcement agency who has primary jurisdiction over the site of the emergency but due to insufficient resources, equipment and/or law, enforcement personnel is unable to provide an adequate response to an emergency without the assistance of others. Section 3 Agreement to Effectuate the Mutual Aid Plan Each undersigned party agrees that in the event of an emergency, they will respond to requests for assistance by a stricken'law enforcement agency with such law enforcement personnel, equipment, facilities, or services as is, in the opinion of the aiding law enforcement agency, available. Provided, however, that each party reserves the right to refuse to render assistance or to recall any or all rendered assistance, whenever it believes that such refusal or recall is necessary to ensure adequate protection of its own jurisdiction or personnel. It is expected that requests for mutual aid under this Agreement will be initiated only when the needs of the stricken agency exceed its resources. Aiding agencies will be released and returned to their own jurisdictions as soon as the situation is restored to the point where the stricken agency is able to satisfactorily handle the situation with its own resources or when an aiding agency decides to recall its assistance. Whenever an emergency is of such magnitude and consequence that it is deemed advisable'bythe senior officer present, of the stricken law enforcement agency, to request assistance from an - aiding law enfcrcement agency, he is hereby authorized to do so, under the terms of this mutual aid agreement. The senior officer present of the aiding law enforcement agency is authorized to and shall forthwith take the following actions: - Immediately determine what type of assistance is being requested. - Immediately determine if the requested resources, equipment and/or law enforcement, personnel can be committed to the stricken law enforcement agency. - Immediately dispatch the resources, equipment and/or law enforcement personnel that are available to the stricken law enforcement agency. 2 February 7, 2003 . . . At the emergency site, the most senior officer of the stricken law enforcement agency who is present shall assume full responsibility and command for operations at the scene. Law enforcement personnel from the aiding agencies shall report to and shall work under the direction and supervision of the stricken agency. Provided, however, that at all times, the personnel of the aiding agencies shall remain employees of their own agency and shall adhere to the policies and procedures of their own employer. While working under the direction of the aiding agency, law enforcement personnel shall only be required to respond to lawful orders. All services performed under this Agreement shall be rendered without reimbursement, regardless of the possibility of reimbursement from the requesting agency or other sources. Each participating law enforcement agency shall assume sole responsibility for indemnifying their own employees, as provided by state or federal law and/or local ordinance, and for providing personnel benefits, including benefits that arise due to injury or death, to their own employees as required by state or federal law. Each participating agency shall also be responsible, regardless of fault, for repairing or replacing any damage to their own vehicles or equipment that occurs while providing assistance under this Agreement. The participating agencies agree that this Agreement shall not give rise to any liability or responsibility for the failure to respond to any request for assistance made pursuant to this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be construed as or deemed to be an Agreement for the benefit of any third party or parties, and no third party or parties shall have any right of action whatsoever hereunder for any cause whatsoever. The participating agencies further agree that each agency will be responsible for defending their own respective entity in any action or dispute that arises in connection with or as the result of this Agreement and that each agency will be responsible for bearing their own costs, damages, losses, expenses, and attorney fees The chief law enforcement officers of the participating agencies will maintain a governing board and establish an operational plan for giving and receiving aid under this Agreement. Said plan will be reviewed, updated and tested at regular intervals. Section 4 Adoption This mutual aid agreement shall be in full force and an in effect when approved and executed by a representative of a participating law enforcement agency who has the legal authority to sign and enter into this Agreement on behalf of his law enforcement agency. Section 5 Termination Any participating law enforcement agency may withdraw from this Agreement upon giving ninety (90) days written notice addressed to each of the other participating agencies. February 7, 2003 S . . Section 6 Signatory Page' This signatory certifies that this mutual aid agreement, for the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System (U..EAS), has been adopted and approved by ordinance, resolution, memorandum of understanding. or other manner approved by law, a copy of which document is attached hereto. Political Entity or Agency Chief Law Enforcement Officer President, Mayor, Chairman or other Chief Title Executive Officer (if applicable) Date ' Date Attest: Title Date October 23, 2002 4 February 7, 2003 . 0 S . MEMBERSHIP: ai [aA'l i.i Agefxy AtIress Chef .aw BiforcaTent ctfic Calw Peai #Sorn #Olian # SAcm I Pwd # As( i Pes. L - - kVyim Pwt a bL ci. Wthn3OMnutes Wthn 1 I-b.ir Wtfn2F4xus GTWer Uai 3 Hairs Persxr1 WU, izTrrr? Yes No It y% dwba Other Mit2I Ad Cm= PgeeTB1? Yes No If ye tunarueof at Fire CerUr1 I Active Mt Ad Box Aarm System (MA? Yes Nb Bity Saws Dsaster Pty (EMN CrOI Defense ? Yes No speiaj I-bith? Yes No If yes, deqmba # Vef-ides: FII jLhrajod Piiscra Va-is Mtatdes Bjses 1MbIe Cumj ii Fkts aaJiz rit? Yes Nb If yes. c February 7, 2003 1 . S . COMMITTEE REPORT Administration-VAC-Legislative To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of: Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted: Ayes Nays Present Abstain CIA. (Issue) / (1 I RE: RE-APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT GLADE TO THE KANKAKEE VALLEY AIRPORT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, there has been created by the Kankakee County Board a committee known as the Kankakee Valley Airport Authority, appointed by the Administration Committee of the County Board. WHEREAS, the Chairman of the County Board shall appoint said Kankakee Valley Airport Authority members for a five-year term with approval of the County Board. WHEREAS, a vacancy was announced and published and after consideration, the Administration-VAC-Legislative Committee at its April 1, 2003 meeting, recommends the re-appointment of: Robert Glade 2697 Heritage Lane Kankakee, Illinois 60901 WHEREAS, Robert Glade will fulfill a five-year term with said term to expire April 1, 2008 or until his successor is duly appointed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois that Robert Glade, 2697 Heritage Lane, Kankakee, Illinois is here re-appointed to the Kankakee Valley Airport Authority for a term of five years expiring on April 1, 2008, or until his successor is duly appointed. PASSED and adopted this 8th day of April 2003. /v Karl A. Kruse, Chairman ATTEST: 6az Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-775 IEC S D PM 6w[E MAR 192003 GLAIJE PLUMBING AND HEATING CO. 211 WEST WATER STREET • KANKAKEE, IL 60901 • PHONE 815-933-1796 FAX 815-933-1999 March 17, 2003 Mr. Karl Kruse Chairman, Kankakee County Board 189 B. Court St., Suite 502 Kankakee, IL 60901 Dear Chairman Kruse: I respectfully request favorable consideration from the Kankakee County Board of Supervisors for reappointment tothe Kankakee Valley Airport Authority. - My term of service is due to expire in April, 2003. . We are currently at a critical stage of airport development. As you know, we have sold a portion of property, at the Northwest corner of the airport, to the county for the development of the new jail facility. As a part of that agreement, sewer and water service will be made available to the airport. We are currently redrafting our master plan to accommodate future growth and development. I sincerely appreciate your continued support. I would be glad to answer any questions you or your fellow board members might have. Personal Regards, GDE PLUMB G & HEATING COMPANY / 2 RobertrGlade . . 0 COMMITTEE REPORT Ad min istration-VAC-Leqislative To the Honorable County Board of Kankakee County: Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of: Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted: Ayes Nays Present Abstain (Issue) • oEoad I raA€ RE: RE-APPOINTMENT OF JESS GATHING TO THE KANKAKEE COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. BOARD WHEREAS, the Kankakee County Board has designated the Kankakee County Community Services, Incorporated as a community action agency pursuant to 47 Illinois Administrative Code, Chapter 1, part 120. WHEREAS, the Statutes require the County Board to appoint one-third of the members of the Agency's Board. WHEREAS, the Kankakee County Community Services, Inc., have established that the Board shall consist of fifteen members. WHEREAS, the Statutes require the County Board appointments to be current elected officials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Jess Gathing is re-appointed to the Kankakee County Community Services, Inc. Board. ADOPTED and passed this 8th day of April 2003. Z~, ~ / ), 1 _/~ - Karl A. ruse, hairman ATTEST: Bruce Clark, County Clerk Resolution #2003-04-08-776 S March 3, 2003 Ms. Christine Richardson Kankakee County Board Administration 189 East Court Street Suite 502 Kankakee, Illinois 60901 Dear Ms. Richardson: I am responding to your telephone call on Friday, February 28, 2003. Please use this letter as official notification that I Jess C. Gathing, Jr. is interested in retaining my position on the Kankakee County Community Services, Inc. Board. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (815) 935-0683. Sincerely, tS C. Gathing, Jr. JCG/jeg 1d ej:oj 20 €0 jew 7 ., COMMITTEE REPORT Administration-VAC-Legislative To the Honorable County Board of Kan'kakee County: Your committee, to whom was referred the matter of: Beg to submit the following report on the matter before them: The committee recommends the adoption of said resolution herewith submitted. All of which is respectfully submitted: Nays Present Abstain (Issue)