Not a whole lot was voted on during last night’s Decatur’s city council meeting, mostly annexation requests, but there were two interesting study session topics. The Decatur Celebration, represented by Fred Puglia, presented its “Welcome Home Mr. Lincoln” concept for the Celebration, which is a three day event held in August every year. The Celebration is seeking additional funds to pay for Abraham Lincoln themed events such as: a railsplitting contest, a Lincoln look alike contest, a Lincoln funeral museum, a wood carvers competition with a Lincoln theme, a Civil War museum, and banners. 2009 marks the 200^th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth and Puglia expressed that it would be a good idea to theme this year’s anniversary after Lincoln in celebration of the anniversary. Puglia was hoping to secure another $75,000-$96,000 in an additional funds from the city to help pay for the events. The city already helps subsidize the Celebration each year at around $35,000. No vote was taken but some council members weighed in with their thoughts.

Looking for Lincoln Funds and the 2% Motel Tax

Councilman Edwards asked what the status of the Looking for Lincoln funds were at this time. Last month the council approved using much of the Looking for Lincoln funds to help cover pension costs. $540,000 was taken from the fund to make up for the city’s budget shortfall leaving approximately $34,000 of unallocated money, according to Kim Bauer.

Currently, a 2% motel tax provides money to the Looking for Lincoln funds. The tax is set to expire in August of 2009. (The Herald & Review listed 2010 in its article but I wrote in my notes 2009…) At any rate, city manager Ryan McCrady recommended continuing the tax beyond the sunset date, expressing that it wasn’t a tax on the residents and wasn’t a noticeable deterrent to guest staying at Decatur’s hotels.

Matching Funds

An interesting part of the tax, if I’ve got this right, is that Federal money totaling between $1,000,000 – $1,500,000 is or will be available to a 42 county wide area in the state of Illinois, to those counties that have matching funds. These fund could go towards capital improvement projects, education and training programs. I’m not sure if these funds are only for Abraham Lincoln projects. (I’ll have to email the Convention and Visitors Center and clarify that.) The matching funds are to be available for a 15 year period, so if Decatur wanted to qualify for the 50/50 matching funds from the federal government through the Federal Park System, the tax would need to stay in place.

—

As far as the fund request for the Celebration, no decision was made but both councilmen Leagler and Caulkins believed that the city shouldn’t be responsible for funding such attractions, instead the budget for the Decatur Celebration should pay for it. Puglia responded that there is no additional money in the budget for the attractions. However, Caulkins offered to help with some of the cost personally and encouraged other private individuals and businesses to step up. Another discussion is scheduled in two weeks regarding the request.

Noise Ordinance

A study session also discussed the current noise ordinance. Mr. Wheeler, I don’t want to misspell his first name, came before the council and expressed why he felt the ordinance should be amended. Currently vehicles that are issued citations for playing excessively loud music are impounded. The bond fee to get the vehicle back is $250. There is an additional $250 fine and a court fee of $75 – plus towing fees.

A problem of the ordinance is in such a scenario where the car owner is not the one pulled over for violating the ordinance. The violator is issued a $250 fine, however the car owner is responsible for paying the $250 bond to release the vehicle from impoundment. Plus there are towing fees and court costs. I hope I have all of the numbers right, it was a bit confusing to follow. So in essence the car owner, who wasn’t the actual offender could end up paying more than the violator. There’s also the problem that those who’s cars are impounded are left without a ride. Police officers also have to stay with the vehicle until it is towed. A concerned citizen remarked that police officers had better things to do with their time than wait with a vehicle until it is towed away for a noise ordinance violation. Several other citizens stepped up in favor of continuing the ordinance as is because they felt is had worked in greatly reducing the noise issue.

In the end three council members expressed interest in amended the ordinance in some manner while three others thought it should be left as is. The mayor was the deciding factor and sided with those who thought the ordinance didn’t need to be amended.