Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debate over incentive for Greentop Grocery ends with ordinance ruled not passed
Summary
Councillors debated renewing an economic incentive for Greentop Grocery Cooperative, with concerns about subsidizing one business and the fiscal context; legal counsel later said the ordinance did not pass because it lacked the five votes required for ordinances under Illinois law.
The Bloomington City Council spent substantial time debating the first amendment to an economic incentive agreement with Greentop Grocery Cooperative before a final legal review found the ordinance did not pass because it lacked the five votes required for ordinances under Illinois law.
The item returned to the agenda as consent item 6(p). After public comments and council discussion about the appropriateness of subsidizing a single downtown grocer, Council member Montney moved to "decline" or not approve the item. Montney later noted the city's fiscal constraints and voiced concern about augmenting one business for a decade. Council members questioned the dollar amounts and the net fiscal effect to the city; multiple speakers referred to a $15,000 annual rebate figure. One council member summed the objection: "I mean, that is, again, $15,000 a year that we would be giving to a business when no other business is in that situation." (Council member, transcript.)
After the decline motion failed, another motion to approve the amendment was made and initial ballots indicated approval. However, later in the meeting corporation counsel Chris Banos advised the council that he had erred in his earlier procedural remarks. "Under the Illinois municipal code, all ordinances require a minimum of 5 votes to pass," counsel said, and concluded "I was incorrect. We did not get the minimum to pass the Greentop grocery ordinance, so, therefore, the motion failed." He apologized to council for the mistake.
Members who discussed the item weighed the potential revenue the store generates against the value of an ongoing rebate, and several council members said they supported finding ways to assist small businesses broadly while questioning a single‑business rebate during a time of tight city finances. Council members who had a conflict recused themselves earlier in the meeting from item 6(p).
The net procedural outcome was that the ordinance did not take effect due to the statutory vote threshold for ordinances. Council did not adopt another ordinance at the meeting to create a different subsidy or program for the grocery.
