County Board questions process on how it was represented in TIF vote

QUINCY — Seventeen of the 21 members of the Adams County Board attended a hastily called special meeting Thursday evening to discuss one topic.

County Board Chairman Kent Snider followed the guidelines of calling a special meeting by public announcing it 48 hours in advance as it was posted Tuesday afternoon.

Seven members of the board asked for the meeting to “discuss the process and procedures under which the County Board approved the proposed TIF South District”. The seven members were Keith Callaway (R-District 1), Barb Fletcher (R-District 2), Marvin Kerkhoff (R-District 3), Mark Dietrich (R-District 3), Steve McQueen (R-District 4), Jon McCoy (R-District 5) and Joe Zanger (R-District 7).

Snider had asked Jason Parrott with the City of Quincy to explain how TIF (Tax Increment Financing) districts work but, as he prepared to speak, Fletcher stopped him.

“We did not request an explanation of the TIF at this meeting,” she said. “I don’t know who changed the wording from our request to the agenda, whether it was the clerk or yourself but what we want to know tonight are two things. What we want to know are who gave Georgene Zimmerman the authority to vote for the TIF on behalf of the Adams County Board in February 2024. And why the process of TIF approval changed from 2019. And we would also like to know why was the TIF approved in February of this year without approval from the county board? We do not ask for an explanation of the TIF tonight. That apparently is on the agenda for May 14.”

Snider told the Board that he had asked Zimmerman to cast the County’s proxy vote in favor of the TIF because the Joint Review Board (JRB) that makes the decision met at the same time as the County Board did in February. The JRB, made up of representatives of the local taxing bodies, voted 5-1 in favor of establishing TIF South, which would be the city’s third TIF zone if the Quincy City Council approves it. The Council has tabled the issue for further research.

Then Fletcher questioned why Snider was the county’s representative to the JRB when the City of Quincy’s Website said it was former County Board Chairman Les Post. Bret Austin (R-District 1) said the City’s Website had outdated information. The County Board chairman has the authority to appoint the County’s representatives to most county and municipal boards where county representation is required.

But the action to formally place Snider on that board was nowhere to be found in past County Board minutes and Snider told Fletcher that he didn’t have an answer as to why that was.

Fletcher said it was not the intent of the members who requested the meeting to imply there was anything illegal done, but they wanted more transparency in the process. Both she and McQueen said they supported the formation of the TIF South District.

Snider said he told Zimmerman to vote for the TIF District because that’s what County Boards had done previously in 2010 and 2019. He asked Assistant State’s Attorney Todd Eyler to amend the County Code to reflect the County Board will meet and vote on TIF Districts in the future.

The Quincy Park Board was the only governing body that actually voted on TIF South and the Park Board voted it down. Their representative, Park District Executive Director Rome Frericks, cast the lone no vote as a reflection of that board’s action.

But none of the other governing bodies held formal votes on TIF South. And they don’t have to. State statute allows for the governing body to merely designate a representative to cast the votes, but in the past many of the local boards have cast votes on TIF designations or extensions, as the Adams County Board did in 2019 regarding a TIF extension for the City of Quincy.

Other County Board members questioned why they didn’t have more information on the County’s role in TIF Districts, with one member, Mark Dietrich (R-District 3) remarking “I don’t like having to find out what’s going on (with county government) in Muddy River News.”

Austin said the members had all been e-mailed information on the packet in October and suggested some members needed to be more proactive in such matters. Ryan Hinkamper (R-District 2) questioned the need for Thursday’s meeting, calling it a waste of taxpayer dollars by any hourly employees who had to work late because of the meeting and that it could have all been handled at the County Board’s May 14 meeting.