Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council fails to overturn mayor's veto of McKenna Associates termination
Summary
Highland Park's mayor vetoed the council's decision to terminate McKenna Associates'building and planning services; a motion to overturn the veto did not reach the supermajority required and failed. Council members debated the mayor's authority, moratorium effects and how the contractor is paid.
The Highland Park City Council on Aug. 4 did not achieve the supermajority needed to overturn Mayor McDonald's veto of the council's July decision to terminate McKenna Associates'contract for building, planning and code-enforcement services.
The council took up a motion to overturn the veto after discussion about whether the mayor had legal authority to veto the council's action. A motion to overturn the veto was made and supported, then called for a roll call. The deputy clerk concluded, "No to overturn. Motion does not carry. You need a super majority." The council therefore left the mayoral veto in place.
Why it matters: McKenna Associates had been providing planning, permitting and code-enforcement services that staff and some council members said the city lacks internally. Supporters said the firm helps the city collect permit fees and deliver services the city previously paid for but did not provide. Opponents argued the firm was continuing certain enforcement activities during a moratorium and that contract terms and fee splits deserved scrutiny.
Council discussion and public comment: Council members debated whether the mayor had authority under the city charter to veto a council motion versus a resolution. A council member summarized the legal objection during debate: "The charter clearly states she only has the authority to veto resolutions to council makes, not their motions." Another council member said the moratorium that the council had placed on rental enforcement was being misunderstood and emphasized that notices and permit mailings are separate from enforcement actions.
Members also raised questions about how McKenna is compensated. Council discussion referenced a fee-split arrangement under which the contractor executes permitting work and remits a portion of collected fees to the city; speakers said the split was part of the contract but differed from prior contractor arrangements. Several speakers urged that any future decisions be informed by the written contract and by clear legal advice from the city attorney.
Public commenters during the meeting pressed for clarity about whether the moratorium on enforcement had been honored and how the veto would affect ongoing programs that rely on the planning/building services. One caller asked whether the lack of a written resolution meant the moratorium or other actions had not been enforced.
What happened next: With the mayor's veto intact, the council did not immediately re-adopt any alternative action on McKenna Associates during the Aug. 4 meeting. Council members and staff said they would need written documents and legal guidance before the item could be revisited.
Ending: Councilmembers repeatedly asked staff and the mayor's office for clearer written materials and legal analysis before future votes on the contract or related enforcement policy.
