Quincy Reporter

Adams County Board met May 2.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

The County Board of Adams County, Illinois met at the Courthouse, Quincy, Illinois, on Tuesday, May 2, 2024 at 5:00 P.M., pursuant to a specially called meeting.

PRESENT: R. Kent Snider, Chairman

Ryan A. Niekamp, County Clerk

Chairman Snider called the meeting to order.

Mr. Tim Finlay gave the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America.

The County Clerk called the roll and the following members were present: Jon McCoy, Tim Finlay, Robert Reich, Brad Poulter, David McCleary, Theresa Bockhold, Joe Zanger, Brent Fischer, Bret Austin, Keith Callaway, Barbara Fletcher, Ryan Hinkamper, Marvin Kerkhoff, Mark Dietrich, Steve McQueen, Travis Cooley, and R. Kent Snider

Total Present: 17 Absent: 4

Absent were Les Post, Todd Duesterhaus, Mark Sorensen, Dave Bellis

Chairman Snider declared a quorum present and excused Mr. Post, Mr. Sorensen, and Mr. Bellis.

Officeholders, department heads, and/or their representatives also present were: Tony Grootens – Sheriff’s Office, Georgene Zimmerman – Supervisor of Assessments, Todd Eyler – State’s Attorney’s Office

New Business

Chairman Snider invited Jason Parrot with the Quincy Planning and Development District to provide information and details on how the TIF operates and to answer questions.

Mrs. Fletcher stated that the special meeting was called to discuss the process and procedures under which the County Board approved the proposed TIF District and further stated that the wording on the agenda did not properly reflect this request. Mrs. Fletcher stated that she and others wanted to know two things: 1) Who gave Georgene Zimmerman the approval to vote for the TIF on behalf of the Adams County, IL Board in February of 2024; and 2) Why did the TIF approval process change from the 2019 until today; and, 3) Why was the TIF approved in February of 2024 without the approval of the Adams County Board. Mrs. Fletcher further stated that she does not ask for an explanation of the TIF tonight as it will be on the agenda for May 14th.

Chairman Snider asked if there were any questions. Chairman Snider then proceeded to answer the questions asked by Mrs. Fletcher. Chairman Snider stated that he is the designee on the Joint Review Board (JRB) committee and when the JRB met, it was during a County Board meeting, so he asked Georgene Zimmerman to go in his place as the city assessor is on the committee as well. Chairman Snider stated that prior to the meeting, Georgene Zimmerman asked himself how he would vote for the TIF and he stated he replied back that it was approved in 2010, 2019 and unless there was some reason not to, he would vote in favor of the TIF – this was before any taxing bodies voted on it. Mrs. Fletcher stated that per the County Code, the Chairman shall appoint a member of the County Board to the JRB every other May, and after doing research, they could not find where such an appointment has been made. Chairman Snider stated he did not have an answer to her question but it could be placed on the May agenda.

Mrs. Fletcher stated that the process of how the TIF came about has caused a lot of people to become upset within the community and the need for more transparency. Mrs. Fletcher noted that nothing illegal happened but asked why precedent was not followed as there was a roll call vote in 2010 as well as in 2019 for TIF district questions. Mrs. Fletcher further states that the confusion is to know when the roll call vote is to take place so she requested that legal take a look at putting language in the County Code that states before the JRB’s county appointee takes any votes on a TIF question that the county board has the opportunity to have the question explained and make a roll call vote on the question. Mr. Todd Eyler stated he could do that.

Mrs. Fletcher also stated that another issue is about transparency to boards such as the JRB – there has been a lot of confusion on the JRB and who is on it. Mrs. Fletcher stated that Mr. Snider mentioned he could not answer the basic question of when the JRB appointment happened. Mrs. Fletcher mentioned that if you looked at the JRB’s website and its appointee, one would see that Mr. Post is the representative. Mrs. Fletcher stated that she believes she was told that at one time, Mr. Austin was Mr. Snider’s appointee to the JRB. Chairman Snider corrected the statement stating that in his (Snider’s) absence Mr. Austin is his designee; however, since there was a county board meeting he and Mr. Austin were at the County Board meeting so he asked Georgene Zimmerman to attend. Mrs. Fletcher stated that due to the confusion on who represented the county on this board (JRB) and other similar boards, it is requested that going forward, all appointments are brought before the county board for a roll call vote. Mr. Austin asked to make two quick points. Mr. Austin stated that there are enough errors on the city’s website that one could not count them all – in some areas, it states that Mr. Austin is a member of different committees, which is not accurate – the city is aware of a lot of them, and is working on correcting them. Mr. Austin stated that in the name of transparency, he stated that he does own properties in the TIF district and is not ashamed to state that, and he only went to JRB when nothing was voted on in the formation or the change of any TIF and in fact, he has specifically asked Chairman Snider to not send him as the designee to any JRB meetings once the TIF South started to be discussed. Chairman Snider stated that was correct. Mrs. Fletcher stated that it was also correct and gave Mr. Austin kudos and she has the minutes of the JRB and Mr. Austin did attend and agreed that Mr. Austin did not take part in the conversation; however, what is being requested is the transparency of the appointments of boards such as the JRB as it affects the taxes of the citizens of Adams County and asks legal to take a look at the request and draft appropriate language into the county code. Chairman Snider stated that he asked Chuck B. with the City who is currently on the JRB and as this time, Chairman Snider is the county’s designee and it is on their record as such – even though the website is not up-to-date, just like the county’s. Mrs. Fletcher stated that no offense to whomever wrote the minutes for the JRB, they are poorly written as they do not list who was absent from the committee so it makes it difficult to tell who was not present. Mr. McQueen stated that if the county board has an appointee to the board, there would not be the vote by proxy. Mr. Hinkamper stated that there is an appointment to that committee and since the county board was meeting that evening, Snider sent a proxy in his place. Mr. McQueen stated he understood. Mr. Hinkamper stated that it was either the proxy, or we had no presentation. Mr. McQueen stated that the county does not want that either. Chairman Snider stated that he understands the issue is not really how he voted, it is how the appointment was done. Chairman Snider stated that once the JRB votes, the issue is resolved. Mr. McQueen asked to clarify that the entire meeting is about the process – not the TIF – everyone knows how they feel about the TIF. Chairman Snider stated that at the TIF South public hearing, seventeen people spoke in favor of the TIF and no one against the project. Mr. McQueen also stated that he is very aware that the county board has no say in the final vote; however, he suggests the board should be engaged in the process so who ever has to vote on behalf of the county board knows where the board stands and can vote accordingly. Chairman Snider stated that he would ask Todd Eyler to look at this and draft an ordinance to the effect of what Mr. McQueen just stated regarding the process. After the ordinance is drafted, it will be sent to the Legislative Committee for review and approval and then to the full board for final action. Mrs. Fletcher stated that would be wonderful, and that’s all they are really asking for. Another item Mrs. Fletcher noted was that back in October of 2022, when the TIF committee offered all the taxing agencies to have the committee come to all the various boards, according to Chuck B. with the city, none of the agencies requested that to happen to help explain the TIF south discussion. If that had happened, Mrs. Fletcher stated, the county would be right on the ball. Mr. Hinkamper asked if there was a public meeting that everything was presented and anyone in the room could have attended as they were notified about the opportunity and did not know how anyone within this area was blind to the TIF South discussion. Mr. McQueen asked Mr. Hinkamper if he went to the meeting. Mr. Hinkamper stated he did not; however, he is well versed on what was happening – he did not need further information from that meeting. Mrs. Fletcher agreed with Mr. Hinkamper; however, she conducted a survey of at least nine members of the body of the Adams county board and many did not know that they had an effect on the TIF nor that there was a representative on the JRB and perhaps that could be because there are so many new county board members and further stated that she did know the county had an effect on the TIF until someone asked her how she voted on it. Mr. Hinkamper rebutted that no one spoon-fed the information to him; he asked the question to learn about it. Something else that Mr. Hinkamper wanted to ask why there was such urgency for the meeting tonight as the county is paying hourly employees overtime for the meeting tonight when there was no urgency as it could have all been discussed at the next board meeting and then stated he wanted it on the record. Mr. McQueen stated that the meeting was not an emergency meeting but a special meeting that was requested by the exact procedures that are being talked about. Mr. McQueen continues that if this issue had been handled properly through transparency and professionalism, they would have had a vote on the topic, and the issue would be over. Mr. Hinkamper stated that there was no reason for a special board meeting just to have a meeting when all of this could have been discussed then. Mr. McQueen asked if that was already on the agenda and being put out. Mr. Hinkamper stated that you have up to two days before the meeting to put something on the agenda, and here you have 12 or 13 days to put something on the agenda. Mr. McQueen said that they followed the procedure for tonight’s meeting and suggested that he might want to read it as it’s very clear English in the county code – they requested a special meeting, and he followed the process, and he is sorry if it irritates him. Mr. Hinkamper stated that he had every right to do that – it costs taxpayers money – to sit here for political theater. Mr. Eyler asked to clarify a few terms that were used: special meeting and emergency meeting. Mr. Eyler stated that he is not picking a side but his opinion is that this meeting is a special meeting based upon the notice that went out as it does not meet the definition of an emergency meeting pursuant to the county code. Another point that Mr. Eyler wished to make regarding if the county has a vote that affects the TIF and pursuant to the statute, the county has a representative on the JRB and he understands that there are issues and discussions with that appointment and/or that process, but the county has a representative to that board and that board (JRB) makes a recommendation that goes to the City. The county does not have to vote prior to the JRB vote but does have the ability to vote to give their representative knowledge of how the board is leaning – just as the Park District just did – the Park District at one time had a vote on their standing of the TIF and their representative on the JRB voted in opposition to the TIF district while everyone else voted in favor of the TIF South district. Mr. Eyler further states that despite the fact that the JRB can make a recommendation, and did make a recommendation, if there are enough votes from that board to not make the recommendation, or approve this, the county through its official can have an impact there is still a process that allows the city to go beyond that vote and try to pass the TIF through a 3/5ths process through the statute and reiterated that the county does have a vote and a way to impact it but wants to be clear that the county does not have to vote prior to the vote. Mr. Eyler does not want to confuse anyone, but coming up very soon is a question about the enterprise zone, and pursuant to the Enterprise Zone Act, a public vote by this board must be made, which is different than that TIF.

Mr. Dietrich asked if Georgene’s appointment was documented anywhere. Chairman Snider stated that he has documentation that states the county’s member – which is Mr. Snider – or his designee in their absence. Mr. Dietrich clarified that it was not documented anywhere. Chairman Snider stated no. Mr. Eyler wanted to clarify that this was not an appointment of Georgene but was sent as a proxy on Mr. Snider’s behalf. Mr. Austin stated that because the JRB met on the county board meeting day, Mr. Snider would have gone but because it was on a county board meeting night he could not go.

Mr. McQueen wished to clarify that the board would work on the two amendments to the county code as discussed. Chairman Snider stated that the board could not take any action tonight, but would discuss with Mr. Eyler on drafting something and would put it on the agenda for action in two weeks. Mr. Eyler stated that he has already pulled multiple sections of the code and he has heard everyone’s concerns and he will draft an ordinance pursuant to everyone’s concerns and address the county code changes as long as it behooves the board.

Mr. Austin stated that he had one last item to speak about to Mr. Hinkamper’s point about the TIF informational meeting and then asked the question to the board of who was at the informational meeting – only Mr. Austin raised his hand. Mr. Austin provided information that there was only one county board member present and two city council members and one park board member. Mr. Austin stated that if you want to be engaged, be engaged and be there and if you can’t be there, ask questions. Mr. Austin stated that there are people who believe he has conflicts in the discussion, and that is fine, but he has removed himself from the discussion. Mr. Austin stated that the discussion has been going on for a while and that the consultant's discussion happened over a year ago, and the actual publication of the redevelopment plan was dated in October of 2023. Mr. Austin is not angry about this at all, but let this be a teaching moment for everyone and we should be engaged and look for some of these things yourselves and when only one county board member shows up to these types of meetings it makes it seem like no one cares and they only care when they feel some levels of impropriety and to Mrs. Fletcher’s point we could have received information or presentation on the topic and been in a position to take an early vote which Mr. Austin stated he fully supports. Mr. Austin stated that he agrees with the both of them but wanted to make a point that engagement is self starting and asked them to come to these meetings. Mr. McQueen asked that if they had had a representative from the JRB taking a vote, the board does not need to go to these meetings. Mr. Finlay asked what the financial impact would be for TIF south. Mr. Austin stated at the beginning, zero. Mr. Finlay asked that the county would lose no tax revenue over the timeline of the TIF? Mr. Austin provided the answer answered no, that is the base of that and explains that the TIF is when the EAV is put in a time capsule – the base EAV can fluctuate a bit. If the county raises its tax rate the base EAV goes up as done the increment part of the EAV. At the beginning of the TIF there is zero dollars that are given up and all we would be saying is, we are deferring the potential of the tax dollars that may or may not come over the term of the TIF. Mr. McQueen stated that throughout the life of the TIF there is financial impact to the county in terms of tax revenue. Mr. Austin stated only if the properties are improved. Mr. McQueen stated that he understood, but it still has an impact on the county tax revenue over the term of the TIF. Mr. Austin stated that it’s the whole chicken and the egg situation – you see money collected now, but when the TIF was started none of that money exists so you gave up nothing at the start, you gave up the potential for what might increase if people improve their properties and if you have a TIF for 23 years and no one improves their properties, then you gave up nothing, so it’s the deferment of the improvements of the parts and the argument that we gave up something is only valid if you can only make the argument that the properties would have been improved regardless of the TIF which is called the “but for test” is what the consultants use – but for the creation of a TIF properties would not have increased in value so you are deferring potential tax dollars but that would not affect any pool of money that you have. If the TIF started tomorrow the EAV that we have is still the same that it is today and if the EAV goes up then what did we give up other than the future – there are two things that Mr. Austin wanted to say about that: if one is making the assumption that one would improve the property regardless of the TIF, the whole point of the TIF starting, is how the consultant state it, that area is not performing the same – we just had an over 7% increase in our EAV across the county and inside this area it was zero or negative and that is the litmus test of the TIF. The second point Mr. Austin made was the money is being reallocated from the city where they would have had to expense from the general fund so in terms of their bucket, they are getting more water in the bucket, and we are not losing any water from our bucket and to make the point that this has no effect, the county has had a flat, or lower tax rate over the past five years, the park district has largest cash reserve that they ever have had, the school district has raised their tax rate less, John Wood’s tax rate is flat, and the city just cut their tax rate and they are talking about another tax cut. Mr. Austin stated that if the TIF had ended last year, the city would have received about a $96,000 payout, the county would have received about $80,000 and this is only a one-time payment because the money is all gone after that. Still, the city has cut their rate by more than $96,000 so they would not have even enjoyed the money that came from the TIF because they would have wiped all the money out that was coming to them. There would have been no gain, or no future of that and they would not be collecting any money and asked that everyone thinks about it as deferring the potential and that the money is going into a bucket that we would all be paying taxes on anyways. Mr. McQueen noted that was an excellent explanation and the reason why the meeting was not called to discuss the TIF – what is being talked about is transparency, making the votes, and making it make sense and the process – maybe if we had the conversation months ago we would be here tonight but this honestly showed Mr. McQueen some things that he did not know existed and none of this is about the TIF. Mr. Callaway stated that basically, everyone is for the TIF because, essentially, it’s going into the red areas and trying to rehab them to bring something back to our community. Mr. McQueen apologized to the gentleman who came to speak about the TIF and did not want to waste anyone’s time. Mr. Austin stated that, for the record, he agreed with him, and it could have been handled better by a more direct representative vote to codify or support what the representative would do at the meeting. Mr. McQueen stated that there are four other boards here that could make lives very hard so if the board at least has a plan, then these types of conversations are not needed; however, the process is everything, it is what separates us from the animal kingdom and if we do not have a process then we are in trouble. Chairman Snider stated that the school district and John Wood voted on the issue by sending a letter to the city and they did not even have a board meeting on it. Mr. Finlay thanked Mr. Austin for his thorough explanation of the TIF and then stated that Mr. Austin said the EAV in this area went up zero during the last EAV whereas the rest of the county went up over 7% and since the county would not really be giving up any financial revenue, in the short term. Mr. McQueen stated in the short term, however, there could be events that could happen – not saying anything will – and that he does, in fact, support the TIF – this discussion was really about process. Mr. Dietrich stated that there were discussions about the members going to the public meeting but asked if it would have been easier for the JRB representative to come to the board and advise the board of what was going on instead of shooting in the dark. Mr. Austin answered that he believed Chuck B., from the City came to a meeting and talked about the proposed TIF at some point. Mr. McQueen stated that he did not. Mr. Dietrich stated that a lot could be avoided and if a representative could have came and advised it would have helped and stated that it is hell when you must learn about this stuff through the Muddy River News. Mr. Austin agreed with that statement. Mr. Dietrich stated that the board is responsible for the taxpayers’ money and it felt that the board was cut out. Mr. Austin agreed and to that point, Mr. Austin advised that he is one of the members to the enterprise zone board which will be coming up very quickly for a vote. Mr. Dietrich asked that we go about that properly. Mr. Austin stated that there will be a full board vote on that topic as well.

Chairman Snider started to bring the meeting to a close, citing that what needed to be accomplished was accomplished and stated he properly appoints thirty members to various committees, so when someone is appointed to a committee, that becomes part of their job as a Board member – it is why members put their names on the ballots. Chairman Snider noted that the member needs to do the job and go to the meetings. Chairman Snider stated that he lives down at the Courthouse. Mr. Austin lives at the Courthouse. Mr. Bellis lives at the courthouse between the mold, and the A/C. Chairman Snider reiterated that if a board member is appointed to a board they need to go to the meeting and not to blame him for sending Georgene to a meeting in his place when he had another commitment because he took care of his meeting – even though not everyone agrees with the procedures of how it worked, he made sure that there was a county representative present at the meeting. Chairman Snider thanked everyone and complimented how the meeting was organized and well-mannered.

Executive Session

a. There was no execution session.

Chairman Snider entertained a motion to adjourn at 6:40pm. The motion was made by Mr. Callaway and seconded by Mrs. Fletcher. The meeting adjourned.

The May 2, 2024 meeting was recessed until Tuesday, May 14, 2024.

https://www.adamscountyil.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/9603/638518880535106007