Assessor WebSite Ad Hoc Comm

Chairman John Spafford called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. in the County Board Committee Room at the Livingston County Courthouse, Pontiac, Illinois.

Present: Spafford, Circuit Clerk Judy Cremer, Real Estate Appraiser John

Hamilton, ISP District 6 Commander Suzanne Jansky, Assessor Duane Kiesewetter, Sheriff Robert McCarty, County Clerk Judy McGlasson, Louis Lyons on behalf of Broker/Realtor Terry Sullivan

Absent: William Bertram, Rosie Duffy, Jack Kennedy

Other Board

Members Present: Rapp, Fairfield, Rustman

Others Present: Attorney Tom Blakeman, Deputy County Assessor Shelly Bohm

Spafford reported status of review of the committee’s recommendation by the State’s Attorney’s office and called on Blakeman to explain his response.

Blakeman: There is nothing prohibiting use of a password. There is no legal requirement to have a website but, if one is established, it must be free to the public but a fee can be charged for information provided in bulk form. There are no concerns about information crossing state lines. The county board’s vote in June was that anyone be able to opt out, but the committee’s July 1st action called for an opt out provision only on a legal basis. There is no statutory provision that states a legal basis in this type of situation. The county can use its discretion as to what is included on the website. The board might consider adopting a resolution or ordinance establishing an assessor’s website and stating what information would be available free and what would be charged. Stressed that the committee’s action was in opposition to the board’s decision.

Spafford: Called on Kiesewetter to explain new proposal.

Kiesewetter: Asked Blakeman if previous motion needs to be rescinded in order to make another decision.

Blakeman: Ad hoc committee does not need to adhere strictly to Roberts Rules of Order.

Kiesewetter: Had talked to Lawrence Walsh, sponsor of HB 300, who indicated the intent of the legislation was that if records are available free in an office, no fee should be charged for internet access. Reviewed a proposal for public access to limited information by number and address, at no charge, and requirement of a password and fee for more detailed information.

Blakeman: Inquired about cost of the program.

Kiesewetter: Changes will be a one-time cost of about $2000. Annual fee is $5625. Proposed charging $120 per year, estimating 40 users who would be interested. The proposal includes an opt out provision for anyone, which would be done by application in the assessor’s office, with proof of identification. Proposed a clause stating the assessor’s office is not to be held liable in the event an opt out parcel is inadvertently reinstated on the system. Opting out would remove the parcel from both the free search and the detailed one.

Cremer: Requested clarification of legislation with respect to charging a fee and use of a password.

Kiesewetter: Fee can be charged to compile information. Password is separate issue with no bearing on fees.

Lyons: $120 fee is reasonable but concerned about charging for something that is supposed to be free according to the legislation.

Blakeman: The fee would apply for more detailed information that is not available to the general public. First question for the board is whether to have a website, then to determine what basic information will be available to the public at no charge, then the fee to be charged to obtain more detailed information.

Kiesewetter: Believes the new proposal would address concerns about drawings of property being available to the general public and individuals in sensitive professions.

Lyons: Questioned validity of concerns from people who don’t want information on website.

Blakeman: Pointed out board members and members of the committee have been contacted by the public who are very concerned about it, stressed that all information would still be available to the public at the assessor’s office.

There was discussion about feasibility of reinstating the website as is and tracking users for 90 days to determine if there is a problem. It was concluded this would not be possible because the system only tracks the number of hits on the website, not who is accessing it.

There was discussion about validity of people’s fears in having information posted on internet. It was pointed out that if fear is in a person’s mind it is a legitimate concern. Jansky stated that perception is reality to many people, and much of law enforcement is dealing with fear of crime, which becomes a quality of life issue.

Spafford polled members of the committee and others who were present. The consensus was that the proposal is a good compromise that addresses concerns that have been raised about privacy.

Motion by McGlasson, second by McCarty, to recommend that the board adopt an ordinance establishing an assessor’s website and incorporating the provisions of Kiesewetter’s August 6, 2003 proposal.

Kiesewetter expressed concern about possibility of finding that estimated fee is too little or too much to cover expenses.

Blakeman suggested tracking annually to determine if fee is appropriate.

MOTION CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes – Cremer, Hamilton, Jansky, Kiesewetter, McCarty, McGlasson; Nays – none; Pass: Spafford.

Motion to approve the minutes of the July 1, 2003 meeting, as written, by Cremer, second by Jansky. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.

Rapp and Spafford thanked the committee for their work.

The meeting adjourned at 4:52 p.m., on motion of Jansky, second by Hamilton.

MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.

___________________________________

Judith K McGlasson

Livingston County Clerk

LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD

ASSESSOR’S WEBSITE AD HOC COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF JULY 1, 2003 MEETING

Chairman John Spafford called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the County Board Committee Room at the Livingston County Courthouse, Pontiac, Illinois.

Present: Spafford, Chief Deputy Circuit Clerk Sue Neumann on behalf of Judy Cremer, Agricultural Community Leader Rosie Duffy, Real Estate Appraiser John Hamilton, Farmland Appraiser Jack Kennedy, Assessor Duane Kiesewetter, Sheriff Robert McCarty, County Clerk Judy McGlasson, Broker/Realtor Terry Sullivan

Absent: William Bertram, Judy Cremer, Suzanne Jansky

Other Board

Members Present: Knudsen, Kudrick, Woodburn

Others Present: Deputy County Assessor Shelly Bohm

Motion to approve the agenda, as presented by Duffy, second by Sullivan. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.

Motion to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2003 meeting, as written, by Duffy, second by Kennedy. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.

Kiesewetter reviewed a proposed application for obtaining a password. House Bill 300 still has not been signed by the governor. It appears to allow counties to charge up to 110% of actual cost for Internet access to records. However, the bill seems to be contradictory and may need legal interpretation. If allowed to charge a fee, recommended $50 per year for professionals and $10 per year for the general public.

Kiesewetter reviewed a statutory reference with respect to specific professionals who may use an employment address for receiving personal mail. He stated the belief that an opt out provision for anyone who requested it would reduce the reliability and integrity of the system, and that the issue of protecting privacy has been addressed by use of a password.

McCarty: Recently attended a seminar dealing with public privacy. He discussed the issues with Jansky, who was unable to be present for this meeting, and both feel more in-depth legal research is needed by either the State’s Attorney or a U.S. Attorney in Springfield. One of the issues was with information crossing state lines by use of the Internet. McCarty asked for clarification as to whether information maintained in the county is also maintained in Iowa where Vanguard is located.

Bohm: Data is stored at Vanguard but not dispensed from there.

McCarty: Expressed concern that records are maintained at Vanguard, which means they are crossing state lines. He suggested that the committee address issues that can be handled at this meeting but recommended legal research on others.

Spafford: Explained that any recommendation reached tonight would be run first through the State’s Attorney’s office before going to the board.

McCarty: Illinois statute as to professionals was intended to protect people in certain professions but did not anticipate the Internet, which did not exist at the time the statute was written. Personal records are available from the Secretary of State’s office but requires a waiting period between application and receipt of the records, during which the person whose record is requested is notified and allowed to object. Previously an individual could obtain another person’s information at the same time as requested.

Spafford: Expressed the belief that if any one or two groups are allowed to opt out, any citizen should have the same option to be removed from website, with the understanding no one can opt out of assessor’s office records.

Kiesewetter: Expressed concern that people doing appraisals might not have all the information they need, and it might be necessary to determine the county’s liability in that situation.

Kennedy: Pointed out that some counties destroy paper records after thirty days, and they have to be obtained from the state after that.

McCarty: Suggested that even in the best situation information should be verified as there are no guarantees that all information is completely accurate.

Kiesewetter: Integrity of the system needs to be protected so that people will be able to look at other properties to make comparisons.

Sullivan: Believes a general provision to opt out would compromise the integrity of the system. The law should be honored for people who are legally exempt, but no one else should be able to opt out.

Hamilton: Issue is freedom of information, and access should be allowed to get information for betterment of job.

Kennedy: Questioned the $10 fee as being too low.

Sullivan: Asked if a background check would be required with the application and, if so, who will conduct it, and will it delay issuing a password.

Kiesewetter: Attorneys have advised there is no provision under Freedom of Information to deny a password.

Sullivan: If stalkers or child molesters could get a password, why have any?

Kiesewetter: Would provide a means of putting a name to someone who is accessing records. Consideration has been given to using the individual’s e-mail address for their password.

McCarty: House Bill 300 says a county may allow Internet access to records. Since it is not required it would be a service provided as a voluntary issue. Expressed concern about opinions of the public.

Duffy: Objects to use of names and picture of homestead, making information available to people who are just nosey.

Bohm: Suggested the site might be a novelty for people who are curious about others’ information, would probably be temporary and interest would wear off.

Woodburn: Agrees the site is provided as a service and should have some reasonable fee, but the same fee for everyone.

Knudsen: Agrees with one flat fee for everyone. Expressed concern about the opt out provision. Believes having a fee would keep out nosey people.

Spafford: Having to go into the assessor’s office to obtain a password should be a deterrent for some people.

Kudrick: There should be one fee for everyone, and judges and police officers should have protection from the public.

McCarty: Internet didn’t exist when statute was written, intent was to allow use of business address for driver’s license for people involved in specific professions.

Sullivan: No objection to exemption for people if law allows it.

McCarty: Referred to recent telemarketing act that allows removal of phone numbers from calling lists. The website has taken 20,000 hits per second. Apparent people want privacy.

Spafford: If one group can opt out, everyone should be able to.

Kudrick: Heard interview with assessors from the Chicago area, who reported having less complaints since records are on the Internet, and better yet with pictures. The site is a benefit for people doing assessment comparisons. Agrees with a flat fee for everyone but no opting out for general public.

Knudsen: Expressed concern that there is nothing on the application asking purpose of obtaining information.

Spafford: Clarified that the issue of pictures was addressed in the motion at the last meeting, which stated pictures would remain.

McCarty: The fee issue is the main one to address at this time and may depend on whether the bill is signed.

Spafford: Suggested that the password application be decided tonight, and it will be taken to the State’s Attorney’s office for review before presenting to the board.

Motion by Sullivan, second by Kennedy, to set fee of $50 per year, unless the governor signs legislation prohibiting a fee; use an application form similar to the one proposed by the assessor, to obtain a password to be filed in person or by mail at the county assessor’s office; and to allow no one to opt out of the system unless allowed by law.

Bohm: Pointed out that taxpayers have already paid a considerable amount of money for the system and should not have to pay again.

Duffy: Fee and password would be a deterrent for criminal use.

Bohm: There is nothing on the site that makes her afraid to be home alone.

Woodburn: Suggested this would be a fee for a service.

Kudrick: Suggested that an average citizen will not be able to make a determination of fair assessment by comparing properties on Internet and will need services of the assessor’s office.

Spafford: The service would be available for the public’s use but the office would still be available as a resource. The site would be a convenience for business people. Depending on the outcome and interpretation of House Bill 300, fees might have to be reduced.

Sullivan: Having to get a password would keep a lot of people out.

Motion by Kennedy to amend motion to provide definition of who can opt out of the system.

McCarty: County board approved original motion calling for provision to opt out. Expressed concern that private citizens may have legitimate reasons for wanting to opt out.

Sullivan: Concerns that have been expressed pertain to conditions that can be obvious to the public without a website.

McCarty: There are any number of legitimate concerns, all important to the homeowners. If so many people want to opt out that system is compromised, it may be an indication that the public does not want the system.

Kiesewetter: The law allows only one particular segment to opt out, with respect to their mailing address.

Spafford: Expressed understanding for professionals who are included in the law, but also relates to concerns about citizens who feel insecure as a result of the information on the site.

Duffy: Discussed the issue with rural women who have expressed concern about the site.

Kiesewetter: The site does not state who lives alone.

Kudrick: Some people are not comfortable being alone under any circumstances.

Sullivan: Declined to accept amendment to motion.

Duffy: Does not believe it is likely a lot of people will opt out but they should have the opportunity to do so.

Bohm: Asked who would be responsible for keeping track of people who opt out who sell or purchase property.

Amendment died for lack of a second.

McGlasson: Agreed that some people are uncomfortable living alone but believes they should be able to opt out of the system, and that it is not appropriate for the county to provide a program that makes them feel more vulnerable. Suggested changing the application to state reason for applying for a password, as this fits with what is required when filing a Freedom of Information request.

It was the consensus that the change to the application form could be done by the assessor.

Kiesewetter: Asked if fee and password would be required for libraries and other entities.

Bohm: Asked if it would apply to township assessors and other county offices.

It was the consensus that it applies to everyone, including county offices.

MOTION CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE: Ayes – Duffy, Hamilton, Kennedy, Kiesewetter, Sullivan; Nays – McCarty, McGlasson; Present but not voting – Spafford, Neumann.

Spafford stated he would take the motion to the State’s Attorney for review prior to presenting to the board on July 17th and thanked everyone for their participation.

Motion to adjourn by Kennedy, second by Sullivan. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL AYES.

The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

Judith K. McGlasson

Livingston County Clerk

"...serving the people of Livingston County"