MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
TUESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2013
5:00 P.M.
The Committee of the Whole of the Macomb City Council met on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 5:00
p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall at 232 East Jackson Street, Macomb, IL.
Mayor Mike Inman called the meeting to order.
Roll call was taken and the following were present: Ryan Hansen, Louis Gilbert, Dave Dorsett, Clay
Hinderliter, Tom Koch, Donald Wynn and Dennis Moon.
Others present: City Clerk Melanie Falk, City Administrator Dean Torreson, City Attorney Kristen Petrie
and CDC Ed Basch. Alderman Steve Wailand and City Treasurer Ronald Ward were absent.
The first item of discussion was on the 2014 meeting schedules for the Macomb City Council and
Committee of the Whole. Copies of the schedule were attached for review by Council members. There
was no discussion. Mayor Inman stated it would be placed on agenda for approval and final action at
Monday night meeting.
The second item of discussion was on canceling the Committee of the Whole meetings scheduled for
Monday, December 23 and Monday, 30, 2013. Alderman Dorsett stated he felt it best to continue with
the December 23 Committee meeting, but traditionally they don’t bother with the 30 th. Alderman Dorsett
moved, seconded by Alderman Moon to cancel the COW meeting scheduled for the 30 th, all Aldermen
voting “Aye” by voice, Mayor Inman declared the motion carried and stated it would be placed on the
agenda for final action at Monday night meeting.
The third item of discussion was on the purchasing of Chamber Gift Certificates for city employees for
Christmas. There was no discussion. Alderman Koch stated this was a practice from years back and did
not see any reason to change it now. Mayor Inman stated that it would be placed on agenda for final
action at Monday night meeting.
The fourth item of discussion was on the agreement with Dr. David L. Miller dba Medical Group of
Macomb, LLC for city employee physicals. There was a copy of the agreement for review by the Council
members. CA Torreson explained that Dr. Miller has been the city’s physician for the last four years and
the price would remain the same as last year with the urine drug testing added back onto the agreement.
Mayor Inman stated it would be placed on agenda for final action at Monday night meeting.
The fifth item of discussion was on the Downtown Façade Grant program. CA Torreson explained that it
had been brought up prior; that there was a separate fund created to hold façade monies that were drawn
from the downtown fund, but upon further investigation he discovered there was not one. He stated that
he felt there should be one in order to keep closer track because of the sometimes long process of
completion of the projects as well as budget timing.
CDC Basch gave council an overview of the memo sent out. He explained the purpose of the program
from its beginning. TIF Redevelopment, all of the primary goals remain the same. He stated property
owners have been paying into the TIF fund for 26 years.
He stated that the TIF revenues have declined in looking at the audit from years past. He stated when
the change was made in 2009 a portion of the district was deleted, leaving a deficit of $47,000. There
was an agreement made with the taxing bodies in order to receive an extension.
He stated there was a decrease of $6,000 from last fiscal year in property tax receipts. He stated that
with the façade grants adding to the value of properties, hopefully it would bring an increase. He stated
the downtown TIF pot was decreasing because of using it more. He stated how long the Council wished
to maintain the program could be based on a year to year determination and the needs.
He then talked of the cost overrun issues. He stated he did not know an entirely wrong or right answer to
the topic. He stated that the issue of overruns was compared to change orders and no one likes them.
He stated possibly change orders could have a cut off at a certain percentage.
Committee of the Whole
November 12, 2013
Page 2
He stated a contingency could be added up front. He stated in both scenarios reasons could then be
found to take advantage. He stated the cleanest way would be to write into the policy that what you are
approved for in the original scope of work is what they get. If there were a change in the scope of work,
then it would have to go back to committee.
He stated then in looking at the bids they should look at all angles of the bids received and consider the
scope of work included in the bids, which sometimes may mean going with the higher bid.
Alderman Koch stated once again his dislike for change orders that drive costs up. He stated he did not
know how to control it but something needed done.
Alderman Dorsett asked legal counsel; were we required to take the lowest responsible bid. City Attorney
stated yes, correct.
Alderman Hinderliter stated the situation may have been avoided by having more than two bids.
Alderman Moon questioned the low bid process.
Alderman Wynn suggested a flat rate.
Mayor Inman stated the consensus seemed to be in favor of CDC Basch’s recommended policy changes
and it would be placed on the agenda for final action at Monday night meeting.
The sixth item of discussion was on entering into a lease agreement with Enterprise Car Rental to lease
space at the Macomb Depot. CA Torreson stated that Enterprise would be leasing approximately 300
square feet office space with four dedicated parking places in the depot lot. If more space is needed it
would have to be on the north side of the long term parking lot. Monthly rent would be $200.00, 90 day
termination notice with renewal each year.
Alderman Moon asked if the tenant understood car detailing would not be permitted.
CA Torreson stated the contract was silent on that issue. He stated they were due to meet with him on
Wednesday and he would make it clear to them.
Mayor Inman stated it would be placed on the agenda for final action at Monday night meeting.
The seventh item of discussion was on approving an Election Reform Referendum for City of Macomb
elections. City Attorney gave a timeline on how things came to be. She stated it would help explain how
the system was created. In 1975 by Ordinance #1632 adopted State of Illinois Election Code in its
entirety. In 1982 there was desire to create a non-partisan system. There was nothing in the code to
allow for the system. A referendum was posed to the electorate of the City of Macomb in 1982 and they
said yes. In 1985 an opinion given by the Attorney General stated the City could choose a non partisan
general election format; via the State of Illinois Constitution. Based on that opinion the City discussed in
1986 how to move forward to implement a non partisan election.
The City Attorney and Aldermanic Committee discussed advice given by the Municipal League of the
State of Illinois which directed them to look to the Election Code Article 21 Optional; and to look at the
City of Chicago formatting to create something that would give ability to have a non partisan election.
This was then done only as a template; the City did not have authority to use the exact format.
Based on the discussion of the Legislative Committee and the information received from the Municipal
League, a draft was created, Ordinance #2264 in 1986. This enabling a continuing adoption of the
Election Code, but stated “inserting in lieu the following”, it created the exception later amended in 2001
with the language we now have, keeping the code but with this “exception”, formatting off of the template
from Chicago. This was done under the authority of the Constitution of the State, which gave the
authority to Municipalities to create a different form of Government if they chose.
Committee of the Whole
November 12, 2013
Page 3
City Attorney Petrie stated when this was first brought up whether or not there would be a change to the
system which we now call the “exception” it was stated there would be a need to change by referendum
even though initially the change was done by ordinance. This was significant by omitting an exception;
which changes the election structure by omitting the February Primary. This was how we got here where
we’re at. She stated language was to be determined and a resolution would need to be done by
December of 2013 encapsulating that question to be posed to voters.
She stated this was the timeline that had come to pass to where they were now. The system was an
“exception” that was written and created in 1986 whereby the State Board of Elections did not have
authority or advice on our elections, because we were not under Election Code in its entirety. If the City
were adopting the Election Code as is written now; which does provide for non partisan elections without
need of an “exception”, it would be adapting back to 1975 where we were. We would adopt the Election
Code in its entirety as written and amended without the “exception”.
She stated there was miss information in her memo. It was actually 4 or under would be un-contested,
greater than 4 or meaning 5 candidates in a field would then evoke the contested definition, which
triggers the February primary election under the election code. She stated there was a copy of the
Municipal League with the same language.
Chuck Wrenn of 524 E. Pierce St. Macomb was present to speak of several reasons for abolishing the
February primary election which he was in favor.
Alderman Koch stated based on the fact that in the past it has always been the candidate winning the
primary that has gone on to win the general election, he felt the primary was a waste of money.
Alderman Dorsett stated he was unclear about the whole 3,4,5 issue. If we have 4 that file, we would go
ahead to April election with a potential winner at 26% of votes.
Attorney Petrie stated the person with the highest number of votes, yes.
Alderman Dorsett stated he did not see the need for change.
Attorney Petrie read from the actual statute to help clarify. She stated the uncontested portion was how
they determined what evokes the primary. Uncontested was defined by the not more than 4; meaning
literally four persons would not evoke the primary.
Alderman Hinderliter then clarified his understanding stating; filing times would be the same.
Attorney Petrie, correct.
Alderman Hinderliter, if we get 4 or less applying for one office, no February election.
Attorney Petrie, correct.
Alderman Hinderliter, if we get 5 there will be a February election.
Attorney Petrie, correct.
Alderman Hinderliter, the top two would move forward to the general election in April.
Attorney Petrie, correct.
Alderman Hinderliter, if we get 5 candidates in one ward we only have to open up polling places to
service that one ward.
Attorney Petrie, correct.
Committee of the Whole
November 12, 2013
Page 4
Alderman Hinderliter, if we get 5 candidates that run for an office, Mayor, Clerk or Alderman at Large that
would trigger a primary.
Attorney Petrie, correct. She stated we would be fully under the election code at that point; State Board
of Elections would be able to give direction if there were any questions.
Alderman Hinderliter stated this would save somewhere between 7 and 15 thousand dollars.
Alderman Hansen asked Counsel if the limit had to be 5 or could it be determined by the City.
Attorney Petrie stated that was set by the election code. The City does not have the choice to determine
the limit or threshold. If the City adopts the election code in its entirety, then you abide by the election
code which states exactly that when the field is more than four.
Alderman Hansen asked again if there were any way to set that amount whether the election code were
adopted or not. Can we have a special circumstance where we don’t adopt the code.
Attorney Petrie stated we were already under a special circumstance outside of the election code.
Alderman Hansen, is the answer to my question yes then. Could we set the limit at 3 or 4 if we wanted
to, outside of the election code.
Attorney Petrie stated you are asking if you could change the amount of your field that would evoke a
primary. Not if you adopt the election code. The election code sets that number.
Alderman Hansen stated we don’t adopt the election code. What does the referendum question ask
putting forward to the voters.
Attorney Petrie stated again the exact language has not been determined. It would sound much like
asking the voters of Macomb to repeal its “exception” to the election code of the State of Illinois and adopt
the State of Illinois’ election code as written and amended.
Alderman Dorsett then spoke of the sales tax that was passed in a February election following a prior
defeat in November. He believes having the option was better.
Alderman Moon stated along the same line, maintaining the February election showed the participation of
the people and gave a true reflection about the citizen’s of Macomb and what they want.
Alderman Hinderliter stated the City ought to be forward looking and smart enough to plan ahead for
issues to go before the citizen’s.
Mayor Inman stated if the subject needed to be held over to another Committee of the Whole for
discussion it could be done.
There was no other new business.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Alderman Dorsett moved, seconded by
Alderman Koch to adjourn the meeting, all Aldermen voted “Aye” and no “Nay” votes, Mayor Inman
declared the motion carried and they adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
____________________________________
City Clerk, Melanie Falk