Dear Heavenly Father, I come before you with love and adorns or dominions or principalities or powers.

All things were created through you and for you, and you are before all things, and in all things they consist, and all things consist through you.

And in Psalm 33 11, your word says, your plan stands firm forever, and your thoughts stand firm in every generation.

Therefore, this city and all who are seated here tonight have been created by you and are here by your design.

may they fulfill every purpose for which they were created and as they make decisions tonight may those decisions correlate with your plans for this city may they bring this city into prosperity peace hope and joy and shift this city into all it is intended to be a great place to live work raise a family and have enjoyment in Jesus name amen amen. Thank you Linda now we'll officially call this meeting to order madam clerk would you please take the roll mayor Miller here.

Alderpersons, Clemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.

If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Monroe.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

item number one is approval m seconded by Alderman Shadle all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed that motion passes item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on September 16th 2024 is there a motion to approve so moved second we have a motion made by Alderman Monroe seconded by Alderman Shadle all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed that motion passes public comments there was none signed up up. Item number four is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless there's a member of the council like something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda is approving to receive in place on file the minutes of the boards and commissions from the liquor commission dated August 8th and the 30th, 2024. Library Board of Trustees, August 14th, 2024. Board of Fire and Police, August 20th, September 10th, 2024. The police department report for September and a new check-in account to cover eventual closure of a compost site on Walnut Avenue used for bulky tree waste and leaf storage as required by the IPA. Approval of the finance bills payable in a total of $5,581,448.30 and payroll per pay period ending September 21st, 2024 in the total of $631,666.64.

since. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Monroe. Aye. Simmons. Aye. Parker. Aye. Stacy. Aye. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. And Clemm. Aye. The motion passes. Eight to zero. Thank you. Item number five is the Award of Valor presented by Chief Schenberger.

by Lieutenant Weichel that he felt Patronan Dan Moore displayed bravery above and beyond the call of humans during an arm stand at the Mary Hasenberg Apartments on September 4, 2024.

The following is a summary of Patronan Moore's actions taken.

On September 4, 2024, at about 10.38 a.m., Patronan Moore responded to a call for service at the Mary Hasenberg Apartments regarding a female who was possibly being held against the road.

Patronin Moore was initially the only officer on scene and made contact with the suspect male who expressed to Patronin Moore that he was experiencing a mental health crisis.

Patronin Moore remained calm while speaking with the male and was able to convince the male to open the door so he could check on the welfare of the female who was inside of the apartment.

Patronin Moore had sensed the male was clearly agitated as he repeatedly told Patronin Moore that he was afraid of the police.

Patroman Moore remained persistent and calm during the encounter with the man. Once the door was slightly open, he was able to pull the female from the apartment. The victim female's son, who was also up on the floor at the time, accompanied Patroman Moore and Patroman Moore valiantly prevented his son from engaging in physical altercation with the male, which could have escalated into the worst situation. Outside of the apartment, the female, who was clearly distraught, pulled Patroman Moore, the male with armed or firearms, before she fled to the stairwell. Patrolman Moore stayed on scene, covering the apartment door until other officers were able to respond to the scene. Patrolman Moore showed uncontested bravery by being able to remove the female from the apartment and then utilized his training experience to send something was arrived with the male who was inside the apartment. When more officers arrived on scene, the male began then threatening officers by saying he had passages inside the apartment and he would shoot officers at the attempt began entry. This was at the beginning of a lengthy standoff of the police, which eventually ended 12 hours at the initial call when the mill surrendered without further incident. During the subsequent search of the apartment, we recovered two high-powered rifles, a cache of ammunition, a 100-round drum magazine, and multiple high-passing magazines. Upon review of Patron and Moore's actions taken that day, I would no doubt recognize for the award of value as he displayed bravery that went beyond the quality. And two, this is the second award of value, which is the highest award of value that Patron Moorer has received. Back in June of 2023, he receives the award of value for intervening in a domestic violence situation where a female is being literally choked to death. I'm a firm believer that certain people are placed in certain situations, and I kind of

and I believe that night from June of 2020 and at the Hasbro incident that Petrola Moore was destined to be there that day to handle things the way that we expect our officers to handle it.

I don't know if that's your name going on.

Not David Daniel.

All right.

Nice.

We'll move on to item number six, which is an appointment.

Madam Clerk, could you please read this?

Tina Canova to the Arts and Culture Commission, effective through October 31st, 2025.

Is there a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

You have a motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Sellers.

Discussion?

Yes.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I was looking up the very thing that you was mentioning.

You had to excuse my voice, too.

So, um, what title do she preserve, I mean, would be, would receive, what is the title?

A title, it is a commissioner for the arts and culture.

Oh, okay, okay, just it.

Like, there are nine arts and culture commissioners, she would be one of them.

There's no further discussion, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye Opposed?

That motion passes.

We'll move on to item number seven, which is the second reading of ordinance 2024-52.

Could you please read this?

Ordinance approving the city to enter into a fourth renewal to lease agreement with Peter Alba regarding 103 to 111 South Liberty Avenue.

Director Duckman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Okay, so upon the first reading of this ordinance, it was requested, there was two requests there, we wanted to see a map of the location, which dim the lights here, you can see the structure that we're talking about that was subject to this lease agreement. There is also a question on the property taxes. So the property tax bill for 2023 payable in 2024 is $113.30.

So that's the property taxes for that and if there's any questions here you can see we also have the street well this is the you can see the red box around it is the structure itself of which the first floor is subject to the lease is what the subject of the proposed lease and it's called the iron plat clad building or metal clad building because it is clad in metal as you can see here.

That's the building that we're talking about today. So in terms of the, since it's the second reading, nothing has changed in the terms of this lease. Our staff is proposing a one-year lease, paid $2,000, paid annually, and it would expire on September 14th, 2025.

Any discussion?

Alderman Sanders Yes What is that building again Wayne What is that Sure It's called the metal clad building And what is this purpose for now Well it's being leased It's storage for Albert towing Albert properties Sorry Albert towing they're basically storing equipment Peter Albert sorry I was a bit distracted so I apologize actually can I yep sorry go ahead it has nothing to do with Albert towing it is your proto cutter proto cutters who owns the building just south of there okay so it's storage proto cutter owns the building south of that yes metal building right they own the building that's on the other on this on the other that's the Raleigh building Parker, Matt. Well, that's what we refer to it as, but it's not our building. But who owns the Raleigh Building? Well, there are four different buildings. Oh, okay. So one is private. You want to answer that? Yes, sorry. So that, and I apologize. I was distracted there earlier. I had some names mixed up. But anyways, we're here now. And yes, there's several properties that are called the Raleigh Building or the Raleigh Property. So the answer here, and Mayor Miller did a good job explaining the business.

that's actually in the first floor of this building but do you see this building right here that we're pointing out here it's tan yeah that's the building that Mayor Miller was speaking to that that is where the business is located that is also where that's the first floor that's being rented that is also subject to this lease okay you see you see what I'm speaking to correct this yes that is just the first floor of this this building here yeah and it's this building is leased by one leasy? Sorry, one what now? One leasy. Correct. It's only occupied by that individual. That is, yes, that is the subject of this lease right here, correct. And what is the, is it a monthly or annual? What is being proposed is they, this is going to be the fourth renewal of this lease, goes back to 2021.

I can, I can, I can understand that. Right, so, right, so. I understand the practice of the lease, but the lease is coming up for renewal? Yes, yes. It's coming up for renewal. Correct. Have we done an evaluation? We did. There has been some interest in possibly purchasing the property. We have, the property has been appraised because of the interest in possibly purchasing the property from the city. The city went through and had an appraisal.

the property appraised at $60,000 so we're speaking about a property that has a total value of $60,000 and someone is taking interest yes the city yes anytime there's an interested purchase the city is going to have an appraiser give their professional opinion as to the value of the property that is not materialized so at this moment we have a lease on the property that's coming to expire and this is the proposed we're proposed proposing to renew that lease.

Do the city do any inspections on buildings of this nature?

If it has to, yes. In this situation, there's no reason to.

Why would you say that?

Well, I mean, it's just, it's a property like any other. If they had come to me and said, well, now we're going to put a restaurant in. Well, of course, I would go in there and inspect it because it's a change in use. If something along those lines, I would certainly inspect it. But at this point, they're operating the same business.

it's a lease renewal there's no reason to inspect this building at this point because you're saying that there's no change I'm sorry I wasn't done I didn't know that you didn't ask to speak go ahead yeah what you're indicating is that uh because you are you assuming that there's no change or have you went to inspect it to determine there has not been any change so and when it comes to businesses in excuse And when it comes to businesses in the city of Freeport, we are not going to go into every business and inspect it.

But the city owns that building.

Correct.

Okay, then.

Correct.

Then that practice shouldn't be practiced from that perspective.

We should be looking at anything that the city owns before we lease it.

We just can't assume that we're going to lease the property, and we have not had an opportunity to look at this property to see if it meet our policy standards terms and whatever the case may be. Well, I did as I initiated and had an appraisal done on the property because somebody was is still interested in possibly purchasing the property and that is going to give you the most fair it's going to be an objective opinion as to the value of the property. So, you know, that's a strong move on the part of staff is to say to be fair to this potential buyer or any other potential buyer we've had an appraisal done on it so why there's if there's a question as to having to have our building inspector or a fire inspector look at it I could certainly contact my building inspector and have them look at it I have no issue in that well my thing is we're not looking at the fact that that building should be put put in a position to be auctioned off as opposed to having one person, individual interested, we might have higher bidders for that property, and if that is the case, then we should just at least put it open to the public first before we just lock it in with an individual simply because he wants to renew the lease.

you know the lease is coming up and there's no there's no reason for the city not to do its due diligence when it comes to bidding or auctioning off that building so I I think I think some of those kinds of things needs to be well I think auctioning this building I think that the city of Freeport is certainly open to any ideas of what could be used in this property if somebody if there was a developer that wanted to approach us with some ideas certainly would be open to that. I don't think necessarily just having an open auction for the sale of the property is the best idea in this situation, but I would say that I would also state that, you know, it's up for vote today, but I strongly suggest there's been no interest from anybody else to lease this property. You have not publicized it yet. You don't know that. You also have somebody currently in this property.

That doesn't dispute the facts.

You're welcome to propose a different set of terms for this, but otherwise they'd be operating in there without a lease at this point.

Yeah, it's an open property for those types of options that we can consider putting it out there for the general public to know that this thing is available and possible bidding options and things of this nature.

We haven't exhausted those areas yet Right, so we would have to You would have to vote to terminate a lease agreement With Albert first I'm sorry, with Peter The name on this is with Peter Albert You would have to vote The vote would be to not renew this lease Yeah, but I'm talking about purchase I'm not talking about leasing We've got to get back on track Because we're not talking about auctioning or selling We're talking about renewing a lease I understand that So let's stick on the point Sorry, the renewal time, it's an open, it's open, that renewal gap is an opening for the general public to either have a say-so in the matter or make an offer or whatever.

And since this is the second reading, you're making it sound like it's a done deal. It's the second reading, so that means it's been before you, before.

before you before. Yes, I'm just talking about the timing and the gap in the renewal that we have not presented it to the general public. The leasing can always continue to lease, don't get me wrong, but I'm talking about the ownership of the property. Has not changed. It has not changed, but still the opening for purchase, because I think that's what we were entertaining earlier, No, there is never, the question was asked about, is this for sale, could this potentially be for sale, and there's also a question Yeah, that's what I'm talking about, that's what I'm talking about, the possibility that the building could be for sale But there was never a discussion about putting this up for auction, and I would agree that with Mayor Miller That's the reason why I brought this out, simply because we have not had a discussion on the possibilities and going for higher bidding and whatever the case is, you implied that the building went for $60,000 or something like that?

There is an appraisal done, yes, on this property.

And that means that it's open for things that we can evaluate to determine whether or not we're getting a fair value.

Even if you've got an appraiser, I don't care what the appraiser is saying, it is what the council think that that property is worth the appraiser can come in with one number the council can come in with another number we have we have opportunities to exploit those types of things but we're not getting that simply because it's just sitting there waiting for someone to renew it and possibly purchase it that's what I'm looking at that's how I look at it understood yeah Alderman Stacy. This is the lease of $2,000 for the year. Yes, that is what is being proposed, yes.

And last year it was $1,000. No, it, right, so in 2021 when it started it was $1,000 paid annually. Then in 2022 the annual rent was raised from that $1,000 to $2,000 and then last, excuse me, last year 2023 it was approved at $2,000. So what's being proposed to you now is $2,000 staying in line with the same rate from 2022 and 2023. That's what's being proposed.

Okay. What made it go up? Follow up. I'm sorry. From $1,000 to $2,000.

Yep. Well, I'll answer that. So I had started this in 2022. I had started my position here in 2022. So I'll be honest with you. I wasn't directly involved with that.

exact negotiation and go from $1,000 to $2,000, but my understanding is that Billy C and they had an agreement and it went before council to raise that rent.

Okay. So, okay, the red square you had up there.

Sure.

That's what he's leasing because wasn't there some property that was purchased for $100?

dollars but this is not that property. I had said earlier that there was property taxes in the amount of I'm trying to understand what was purchased for a hundred dollars. I don't remember saying something was purchased for a hundred. Some some of the building of the Raleigh building some other areas apparently. I'll be honest with you I'm not aware of anything being purchased for a hundred dollars in the Raleigh building.

I'm not aware of that. Madam Mayor? Actually, I think Darren had his hand up first, but I'll come back to you then. So the white structure that you see there next to the red, to that, I believe Mr. Albert currently owns and bought that piece of the Raleigh building from the city. I don't remember what the amount was, but he bought it. I think it was back in Gull Rap administration. Yeah, he's had it for a while and he remodels it. And it should be known that that's a conjoined building. Okay, so the red building and the white building are conjoined. A question of clarity I had for Wayne is this lease is for one floor of the red building, not the entire building. Correct. Yes. And if I recall right, the white-roofed building that he owns was basically defunct and he remodeled and fixed that building it was borderline going to be torn down and there's two more pieces of the Raleigh building to that side over here one of them is the old office building that Fair Graham used to be in I believe Winters owns that building and then the other big structure that has always been talked about doing something the city owns that structure as well so what is the city doing with that structure it's this one here yes are you speaking of this one here we've showed it to potential developers when potential developers come in and have interest in these properties. We do show them. But it should be known

that when the city owns properties such as these, and this is in general in the region, it can sometimes take 15, 20 plus years before you find the right developer. Because somebody coming in and wanting to redevelop this, in the Barber Coleman building in Rockford, I believe was purchased by the city of Rockford in either 2003 or 2006 and you are just now starting to see construction done on it so when a city owns property such as these finding that right redevelopment partner is difficult and takes time as it is which is illustrated by Rockford now the other option is with properties such as these if you can't lease out a floor or you cannot find the correct developer eventually you're going toward demolition obviously the city would like to entertain developers that have the means and the plan to not just take this and let it sit further, which we have enough of that in this city. We were looking for the right partner with the right funding to do something positive with something like this, so we're waiting for that right developer. Okay, so something that you're telling me is valued at $60,000. We're just leasing for $2,000. That's what I'm stating, yes.

How many floors is in there? Six. Are the other five floors being occupied? No, and you have to remember that this is a, have you ever been in there? It's just, it's just cement, and when he took over the occupying of that first floor, there was no electricity, there was no, there was no piping of any kind, no heat, no air, no nothing. Everything that's been put in there for him to be able to keep his equipment in there has been on his expense. So the other floors don't have anything. You'd have to go up in there with a flashlight. Alderman, Clem, did you have more to add?

yeah I guess I do we're talking a couple different periods of time and a couple different sets of rules here if you go back to that building that was sold to Pete Elbury I was sold for the vicinity of $100 it was sold under the mayoral form of government which the mayor or the consul could sell it at any price they wanted to sell it at the building was completely vacant for years and hadn't been inhabited. Pete Elber spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the building, brought his business in from out of town, created taxes in town, created jobs in town, so it was an asset for the city to do that. I go back a little while in construction to 1967, and that particular building, there's a good reason it's got a metal clad on it, because it's a piece of crap under it.

was put on by Garmin Construction years ago and it was done just to cover it up when micro used it for nothing more than the warehouse. So like the mayor said, basically he's renting out the space and supplying anything that he needs to function in whatever he's doing there. So he on his own and with agreement to the city doubled the rents once. I mean we can look at this and say If I owned a radio station and I had it on the first floor there and my contract was up, does that mean we should go out and look for somebody to rent it to somebody else higher? I mean, that's what's kind of being insinuated here. The building, it can be sold at any point in time. If it's sold at any point in time, then Pete Elber has got a lease for 11 months and he's out of there.

Pete Elber wants to buy the building Pete Elber can buy the building very simple you know so all we're asking for in this document is to take and extend the lease for one more year at the same price it was last year Darren yeah I remember the conversation I believe it was a year ago when the price was raised and it was the council didn't feel like it was enough that's why we went from a thousand to two thousand or maybe that was two years ago excuse me and and since that time we announced at that time that anybody that had interest could rent any other floors in that building and we've had no interest to my knowledge of anybody that's approached the city wanting to develop that or put anything in that building because those other five floors are for rent.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

I just want to say I do remember that conversation.

We were the ones that raised it from the 1,000 to the 2,000.

That goes all right.

Well, if there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. The ordinance passes 8-0. Item number 9 is the first reading of Ordinance 20-24-54. Could you please read this?

Ordinance amending Part 6, General Offenses, Chapter 694, Weeds and Grass of the Codified Ordinances, by adding Oh, oh, oh We skipped that one Sorry about that Ordinance amending Chapter 220, Council, Section 220-06, Compensation Section and Chapter 226-03, Mayor Compensation And Section 228-03, City Clerk Compensation Thank you Manager, Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. For the purposes of discussion, I'd like to break this up into three. We brought it up at the cow at the last meeting. We do need to like move forward with a decision, whatever that may be. So I'd like to start with the alter person's compensation. So with the municipal election scheduled for April 2025, the city council must set the salaries of these positions by November 19th. The salaries of elected officials may not take effect during the term of any official holding an elective office.

In addition, the salaries must be adopted 180 days prior to the term of the office commencing.

In the case of the city of Freeport, a new rate for alderpersons will only be effective for those elected in 2025 and future elections.

The current rate for alderpersons is $3,800 per year. A 3% increase would bring the rate to $3,915.

Those alderpersons up for election in 2025 would receive the new rate going forward.

Once the remaining alderpersons are up for the election, their rate will be increased at that time once seated.

So per your direction, we've provided some comparables. If you'll look at the table, we've got Batavia annual salary for alderpersons is $7,200 per year.

Belvedere is $7,100 per year, Carbondale is $6,000 per year, and as requested, Chicago is $111,308 per year, Decatur is $4,000, Dixon is $9,500, Galesburg is $5,000, Moline is $8,000, Sterling is $2,400, and Woodstock is $6,000.

So staff request council to approve the 3% increase unless otherwise directed to the amount of $3,915 annually.

Do you see this as each thing separate? Or are we just going to talk each one?

I thought we'd look at each one separately, but I mean, To move forward separately?

I'd like to get council's thought on council pay at this time.

Okay, so do we need a motion for that first then?

to well Rob did you want to give your report for all of it and then discuss I can do that sure so moving on with mayor compensation similar situation obviously at city council meeting held on September 16th council was provided with potential salaries increases for mayor as listed below the prepared ordinance details a three percent increase so if there was a three percent increase currently hang on one second So that would move the, let's see, Batavia was $31,000 for their annual salary for the mayor, Carbondale is $9,000 to $20,000, Chicago is $221,000, Decatur's $8,000, Dixon's $19,500, Galesburg is $12,000, Rock Island is $15,000, Sterling is $6,000, and Woodstock is $12,000.

So, as I mentioned before, in terms of City of Freeport, if we did a 3% increase, we'd be looking at $28,700 for $25,000 to $26,000, and $26,000 to $27,000, it would be $30,820,000, and $27,000, $28,000, it would be $31,000, so with that.

quick question mayor I I I just want to add clarification on are these comparables city manager form of government or are they not most are except Chicago Chicago is not and let's see here Carbondale is but they're currently moving their they're increasing the wages for the for the mayor and Carbondale okay with that I'd like to move on to city clerk Again, we need to improve the increase if it was going to be made effective for the next election. So in the case of Dovie, we talked about a 4% increase for Dovie. That would increase her to $57,500 for $25,26, $62,000 for $26,27, $64,000 for the next election.

for years 27 and 28 and 67,500 for years 28 and 29. Again, her salary is somewhat at the bottom of the pack. If you look at Belvedere and Sterling, they're already currently making that much, although I would like to mention that Dovie does receive a certification bonus that will be going to, will be proposed a $4,000 certification.

So you have to factor that in as you make your decision. Madam Mayor. So I first needed a motion to move this forward. So moved. As stated. Okay. Alderman Shadle, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Alderman Parker. Alderman Clem. I believe that as we move this forward, I would appreciate if we could take and split it up into the three different sections rather than voting for it all at once.

once. I believe there's I have reasons for that, but I believe it would be more advantageous and possibly make it to where it would go through easier. I would second that. So you would. So right now there was a motion and a second to move it forward as presented. I hear now a motion to a motion and a second to break to break it up into three separate ordinances, which is fine, and then, you know, so, but you got a motion right now to break it up into three separate ordinances.

Okay, so, do we just take a roll on that, or do we talk about the breaking it up?

Talk about the breaking it up.

Okay, so if you have a comment about breaking it into three different pieces?

No, I have a comment before that even, that comment even happened, because we have not had a discussion.

Well, we haven't, we aren't talking about the actual salary increases or however you want to word it. It's just what's on the floor right now is should we break it into three pieces? Without a discussion? We'll come back to that. No, we'll come back to it. It's just do we want to break it into three pieces? And then talk about all three separately. Then discuss it in three separate chunks instead of one big ordinance. I have a, excuse me. Yeah. Excuse me. Um, Where is this coming from? Where, where are we drawing this out of and how are we coming to this conclusion of three sections to do you want to? Yeah. Yeah. Help me understand. Sure. I happen to agree with one or two of the sections, but will not vote for the same thing for all, all sections of it. There's three sections. In other words, I may agree on the alderman pay. I may agree on the city clerk pay, but I may may not agree on the mayor's pick. Oh, okay. So we're talking three separate that way. Okay, that's what you're referring to. Yeah, that's all I'm referring to. Yeah, because I didn't realize that he was grouping all of the... That's the way it is in your packet as a group. Yeah, I know that's in the packet, but the thing that we were talking about was the things of Dovie and how we like to... And then the next thing I hear is breaking it up in sections. Okay, so do you understand what the motion is right now? Yeah, I understand what the motion is. Okay.

motion is now, but I didn't at the initial start. So is there any discussion on the motion that's on the floor about breaking it into three.

that's on the floor about breaking it into three different pieces. Dovie? The first and second were? Clem and? Monroe. Monroe, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, Madam Clerk, could you take the roll on that? Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. Motion passes. Eight to zero. Which one do you want to start with? Madam Mayor, if I may, I'll start with one. Since I've been an alderman the longest, as far as time frame goes, on the time I've been on council, there's never been a vote for a raise for an alderman as long as going back to 2005. It's been discussed one time or another, but it's never been increased. I'm not saying it shouldn't be increased, okay?

today, but there has never been discussion of an increase before. I believe when we went to city manager form of government, it was naturally split up then with the mayor being a part-time mayor because you're going from a full-time mayor to a part-time mayor. So a figure was, if I'm correct, James, you can maybe tell me if I'm wrong, the mayor's salary was set at 20x number $1,000 and then I believe at one time it was raised like one or two percent possibly I have to tell you I don't I don't really ever recall a conversation on the city clerks you know if it has been it's been a long time ago you know that's just some of I'm not sure about that. Do you have figures, Michelle? Because if I recall, I believe when I was on council in 2015, the salary was $3,300, and today it's $38,000.

Okay. That's fine. God bless you. God bless us. Is it right? I don't know. I need a second while you're talking. I can look. Okay. So to get back to your point, are you saying that the 3% increase that's proposed, are you in agreement with?

I would be in agreement with it, it doesn't affect me, you know, and I'm saying that, the people that will affect first are the people that are up for vote in the second ward, the fourth ward, and the sixth ward.

Correct.

The other people will not get an increase until 2025 or 2028 or whatever.

Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

Yeah.

I'm for increasing without a doubt.

I'm for increasing the city clerk's position.

The city clerk's position has changed considerably over the years to have more responsibility.

I have absolutely nothing against the city mayor, but I have to say to you at the time we set the salary for the city mayor, it was considered high by a considerable number of people. I'm not saying that the mayor doesn't deserve a raise, or I'm not saying where we need to be, but the mayor and I have had this discussion, and it has nothing to do with, and we should all take like like somebody mentioned before, and don't think about the person that's in the position at the moment.

Right.

You know, that's got nothing to do with it because somebody else is in turn going to replace them at some time.

So let's stick on the one piece that we have right now.

Let's stick with the aldermen and talk about what we want to move forward there.

Alderman discussion.

I've been, I had my hand up.

Alderman Sanders.

For the longest.

Yeah, we're talking about increases.

but increases without evaluations or changes in the job descriptions or the or the personnel staffs and things of this nature we have not but I know we're just talking about aldermans we need to know how aldermans are defined why are we aldermans and why do we deserve 1% 2% or 3% these are the evaluations We're not having or discussing. So what we're doing is we're prematurely talking about these things, but there's no action behind it. There's nothing going on behind it to make these determinations for these increases. And so that's what I'm getting at. We're just throwing this out here, and we have not addressed it properly. That's my opinion, and I don't think we have addressed it properly. And I think we need to reevaluate, we need to evaluate what it is that the change is for if there is a change. City manager, did you have your hand up? Yes, I just wanted to pass along to Alderman Sanders that it's essentially just a cost of living increase. So that that's the what's behind that. Okay. And you have to remember, you don't personally evaluate the person in the seat. It's about the seat. It's not. That's not. It's a job.

I think it's a job title. It's a job, and every one of us sitting here has to have a job, just our purpose and our description of what it is that we do and what it is that we do on a regular basis. The people need to know whether or not how to define our job position, even as councils, even as mayor, even as attorneys and whoever else. People need to know how their dollars are I think it's important to understand how we are spent and how we come to the conclusions that we do and so without us be able to address the general public or ourselves then we're doing a disservice not only just to ourselves but to the general public at the same time and I feel that we need to not be so hasty to make these types of votes without taking the consideration and allow us to be able to address the general public at the same time and I feel that we need to not be so hasty to make these types of votes without taking the We're calling us as council people and elected officials to look at the whole thing without just jumping increases here and there. And we need to know why it is that we're doing what we're doing, Manager Boyer says, because of cost of living. That is one word. Cost of living, two words, rather. Three. But nevertheless, that's as far as we're getting.

as far as these increases is concerned based on what he is saying. We have not even made a comparison with the cost of living in our wage increase or any increase, period. So we have not factored all of those things into our presence. So we need to be able to stop and pace ourselves. I don't know if it's something that we need to expedite.

tonight. Something that we need to do in a hurry to get this determined. But if that is the case, then we needed to bring that to the floor long before now. Well, we've had it on the floor before, and it was made known to the council that they have to move something forward tonight by law in order to pass it in so many days before the next election. Alderman, I'm sorry, Manager Boyer, did you want to add to that?

Alderman Sanders, it's just my recommendation that 3%, you can make it whatever you want. I mean, just, it's, it's entirely up to the council.

Alderman Monroe.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You know, I, I think when you come back to the conversation, it's more than just a cost of living.

What you're asked to do is take phone calls day in, day out for, for the position that we hold.

We want to get people who want to participate, study what we're going over that evening, bring in people of high quality, high value to help our city to continue to grow and, and move in the right direction.

those with financial minds I will tell you it's it's a hard sell at the price that it's set at right now you have three meetings a month on Monday nights you miss family time you miss sporting events you miss a lot of stuff notwithstanding then you've got those times a year we're in the fall you're also coming in for those finance meetings and it's important that we do the research and understand each line item it's not easy to sit in the seat and to tell a department head who thinks that you're attacking their department that, no, you shouldn't get that much money, but you have to balance it with the needs of the city. It's a service that you're providing, and in order to get people who really want to dive into this role, you need people to be able to, who are going to feel like they're being financially compensated for the position and the work that they're doing. I mean, because if you break it down. Are we getting the $15 an hour that's mandated by the state? I don't know. But I think out of all of us that are sitting here, I'm the only one that's not running in the next.

I'm the only one that's not running in the next election. So I think it's pretty easy to say, looking forward, we need to raise that value, to raise the amount of money to draw people in that want to do this. And to give you kind of an idea, you get about $1,500 to be an assistant football coach. So that's for three months, $1,500. And we're paying a little over double that for an entire year of putting up with everything that goes on. We all know that we have our neighborhood watch meetings. We have other meetings that we come to. So we participate in a lot of stuff. We talk to a lot of people. We do a lot of research with the department heads as well. And it's important that we take care of the duty that we are putting here. And I think financially, it makes a lot of sense to give that raise, not just for cost of living, but to bring it in line with what people are being asked to do.

and I think it's kind of obvious that these positions elected officials are really about labor of love because pay isn't good no you want your your motive is you want to move the city forward you want to you want to what's best for the community Alderman Sellers you've had your hand up yes I just wanted some clarification on the the the way it was going to be set up so so we we do the three percent tonight and how does it affect older people? I guess I missed what all that was. After the April election, anyone who is elected will receive that raise at that point. Okay, so the previous ones, we still would get the, oh, that don't make sense to me. I would say no, because if I'm sitting here and I'm doing the same exact thing you're doing, I want to get that. By law, you can't. By law, though, it can't change when it's set.

Oh, it's set for four years. Wow. Can I ask one clarifying? What's the dollar amount difference between the 3% and what's being paid right now? $115. So $115 divided by 12, we're talking. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're not even talking Culver's. Alderman Stacy. With coupons.

You know, I'm hearing what everyone is saying, and something that has not happened that has got to happen, and it can't just happen over this mic at a council meeting openly on the floor.

We as the council need to come together and discuss, I don't care if it's 3%, if it's 5%, if it's 10%, but we need to be able, the eight of us, to come together, weigh out what needs weighing out.

and determine what we want, not what's being presented to us.

Then say it. What do you want? Because this is the forum that happens. It doesn't happen behind closed doors.

I'm not saying behind closed doors. We all can't meet behind closed doors.

Right. So this is your moment. So if you want to add something personal in that, then say it. This is your moment.

Like Alderman Monroe said, we have got to get these positions at a place where people are going to want to take them over.

They're going to want to do whatever is required, the necessary whatever that is to make the best decisions for the city.

this little penny ante, this and that, it's not going to work. We're not going to better the city like that.

Alderman Sanders.

I have a thought on whether, and I don't know if it's in order or not, whether or not the general public or the people in the, Assembly here might have an opinion, might need to be, might want to shed some light on this because there's a lot of people know about how this thing works and those that are new to the whole system may not have a full understanding and I would appeal to the general public if they have any insight or understanding that they should be able to feel, be able to come to the to the podium and express those kinds of thoughts. Because obviously, me, myself, personally, I don't think we're approaching this right with all of the information that is needed behind these types of things that we're pursuing. I just want to get a feel for what some folk in the general public might be feeling, give us some kind of input or their expression, you know, something of of that nature. Give us something other than the fact that we've got council members sitting here trying to determine whether it's good or bad, whether we should move forward or not. That's my whole thing. I don't know if I'm out of order to do that or to say that, but that's the thing that I feel at this moment.

Alderman Klemm. I just have a question to ask, Madam Mayor. You and I discussed when I went back on the council, you discussed that you had talked to numerous people before you talked to me. Recently, there's been some positions talked about, and you're probably the person that's called up more people than anybody. Have any one of those people ever asked you how much it paid?

No, in fact, I had one say, it gets paid. It's what public service is. I'm just bringing up a point, you know. Right. That's all. Manager, Boyer. Just submitting for counsel, if you look at the table that's provided, it's very clear that all the persons in Freeport are among the lowest paid with the comparables that we've supplied. Sure. So with that in mind, You know, I would venture to say that it is not a stretch to do something to keep pace with the surrounding communities. I think that's probably smart. However, a 3% increase is what we generally are doing for the rest of City Hall and the rest of our workers. Therefore, that's why that's suggested. But it's up to the council what it is. You think you, you know, where you think your value is compared to these other communities.

you know you might want to consider that. Alderman Parker? I'm just saying that when evaluate the public I go to the neighborhood watch meetings every month with my activity in this town I have at least a hundred people talk to me every month about this position you know you want it you don't want it they can't believe how much you do how many complaints I get about the roads and stuff I probably spend I put 50 bucks worth of gas in my vehicle running around this town looking and stuff that people call me about. So I don't have a problem. If they don't want me there, they can gladly tell me that. But I've had at least that many people insist that I run again. I wasn't going to, but they want me to do it, and it makes me feel good when they give me a pat on the back. So I think this 3% is pennies. It doesn't matter, but it's at least something.

Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, I sympathize with you on that part, Brother Parker.

People are trying to engage aldermen to get more insight and information on their district areas and things of this nature, and we become a value to them to be able to talk with them and then bring it to the council or city manager.

and express what the citizens are talking about. That is an absolute truth to it, fact to it, because I've been exposed to it, and I think that we should consider all of those things and not put the public expressions behind us and don't look at it.

If they have expressions, we should take that into consideration, and I feel that that's what councilmen are for.

Can we call the question then?

No, there's nothing to do. This was only for first reading, so there was only a motion and second to move it forward, and then there was a motion that was approved to break it up into three separate ordinances. That being said, you know, at this point, each topic is individually still 3% raised, 3% raised, 4% raised for the clerk's position, I believe, there.

So unless there's another motion or motions for each category saying, oh, well, we think it should be this for Alderman and not three, but this, or there should be this for mayor or this for the clerk, then it would just be drafted as three separate ordinances for second read, but at the same dollar amounts that that's presented right now.

So, so that would, oh, sorry, I'm sorry.

I just have a question clarification so if nothing's done with this then everything stays status quo for how long four years four years four years you and I will not be paid mayor if we don't get this resolved our wages are only good through may have right so it has to be it would have to be set for whatever whatever's current yeah same as alderman it'd have to be set for what's current No, they're different Right, so per the way that our ordinance is written, for the clerk's position and the mayor's position, it was set out for their four-year terms what their amounts are So if you don't set what the clerk's position is going to be, then whoever fills that position, there is no salary for them And same thing for the mayor, so it was set up where, for whatever reason back then, every four years, you've got to figure out what the clerk and the mayor are going to be paid. So my understanding is we need to act on this tonight. We have to move something forward tonight. Yeah. It won't be voted on. It just moves forward.

Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. So right now before you is the suggested for alderman on the next election cycle, a 3% increase, which amounts to $115. That's what's before you. Yeah. That's a hell of a lot. Alderman Stacy.

can what whatever is moved forward tonight can that be changed anything can have an amendment did you hear me I'm being sarcastic that's all that's all right so at this point as far as the amendments if you want to make an amendment let's say for because again we already voted to break it up into three separate ordinances so if you wanted to say okay further Mayor, staff, you know, I, you know, I move that we raise the alderman from 3% to 4%. If that gets seconded and you guys vote to approve that, then I would draft the ordinance for second read at 4% instead of 3%. If someone, I mean, this is your opportunity to have that discussion. Same thing then for the clerk's position. Same thing then for the mayor's position.

Norman Sanders Yeah, entertaining this whole thought process is it the limit point of percentage that has a cap to it the percentage that we're talking about 3%, 4%, is that a cap?

It's up to whatever you guys want So there's not a cap to this?

Nope. You can say you want a 20% increase, but it would look really bad. Yeah, no, but what I was going to say is in comparison to the things that Manager Boyer presented to us, in comparison, are we in a position to bring our cost of living or our comparison balance to some other community, even though they're doing much better than we are?

here in Freeport. Can we find out what the percentages are and then determine whether or not we should bring our increased percentage to those kinds of balances or levels? I'm just curious. I don't want to say that we're capping ourselves off and there's no hit room, but we do need to be able to see where we are in line with other communities in other counties. So I think what Manager Boyer has presented to you is some comparables as to what other communities are currently paying the position of other person there. Now, the thing about it is you can't necessarily go to these same communities and say, oh, well, what percentage increase are you doing this year or this election cycle? Because just as in Freeport, these compensation amounts aren't changing every four years.

Sometimes they've sat for 8, 12, 15, 16 years, so it's hard to get a percentage increase because it's not like every, you know, people's, you know, everyday, you know, wages, you know, if you're an employee somewhere, you owe, every year you get a cost of living adjustment, 3%, 2%, whatever, this is different, it's up to each community, but what you do have is, well, you know that aldermen here are getting paid roughly $3,800, and then you have the chart that shows, well, what are older people in similar or Lee sized communities getting paid. And so you can see that. Yeah. Do we base our cost of living in the city based on what math, what measures that we use to determine what is the cost of living of Freeport that applies to everyone here in the city of Freeport when it comes to cost of living? And then I wanted to find out, I also want to make it in comparison, is it population, or what is it that causes an inflation to change?

So I'm not, so there's a standard, you know, put up with the Department of Labor on what the cost of living adjustment is. I think that is broken up into regions, but I'm not positive there. But, you know, generally speaking, you can Google what's the cost of living, you know, increase this year, and, you know, it'll come up that there's a, you know, the Department of Labor usually issues that number.

Darren, did you have a statistic there? Yeah, I was looking it up, so the statistics, I'll just go back to 2020, the consumer price index was 1.2% in 2020, 4.7% in 2021, 8% in 2022, and 4.1% in 2023.

Alderman Klemm? What was that for, Darren, again? That's the consumer price index multiplier for cost of bills.

I'll make a motion, but I'll wait until everybody's here. We aren't going to get one of these six vote deals again.

That's okay.

Actually, we're not, we aren't voting anything.

Okay, well, I was going to make a motion that had to be voted on.

I'm just saying somebody's asking.

Right, right, to set the amount, right, because right now it's moving forward, it would be moving forward at the, just the suggested rates.

If you guys want to change the rates, then a motion needs to be made, seconded, voted on.

That will give me direction on how to bring the ordinance back for second read for you guys to actually take the final vote on.

I'll go ahead and do it. It doesn't make any difference. I'll make a motion to raise the alderman's salary, and this can all be changed.

It's not cast in gold. It's just nobody wants to talk about anything.

I make a motion that we raise the alderman's salary to $4,500, raise their city clerks wages by 5% and keep the mayor the same.

Why don't we, well, okay, so I hear that, Tom, but let's take them all separately because that's what we talked about doing.

So you laid it out for us so we know where you're going.

I would go along with, I would kind of go along with what he's suggesting.

Justice for the clerk. Is that where we're at? Again, let's just do it aldermen one at a time, please.

Okay. So I'll say move the aldermen's wages to $4,500. Yeah, I concur. What's that percentage increase?

18%. I don't know. I think. I don't know. Raise it, raise it. I'm just curious. What's the percentage from 3,800 to 45, yeah, I'm just, oh gosh, sounds about right, yeah, because someone can go 50, 18.4, pardon me, 18.4%, oh, good night, why, why, why, why are you, why are you grunting, Mayor, guess I'm stuck in your throat, I do, do you, okay, Yeah, it's a cough drop. Oh, okay. Okay, so on the floor is a motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Sanders to raise the Alderman pay by 18.4 percent.

Alderman pay by 18.4% to be $4,500. Yeah, you can go up a depth. You can vote it in, vote it out. Now, you've got to remember, that's for three Alderman seats, not eight. Right. A couple years will be great. If you don't think it's right, all you've got to do is say something. Somebody, for Christ's sake, say something. Yeah. We've been here 15 minutes on a topic we couldn't talk about. I agree. I agree. But I don't want to see.

So the discussion is on the 18.4%, which amounts to $4,500. Alderman, Sellers.

I really don't think we should go 18% right now, but that's just me. I think that's a little high.

I just think it's a little high to jump into on 18%. I can say five.

Yes, Alderman Simmons.

I'm sorry. We have spent millions of dollars in the snap of a finger, and we have been debating not even a total of $35,000 a year and raises for almost 30 minutes. Can we please vote? Can we do something? Can we move it forward? Please? It's not even $100 a month. Okay, so if the discussion is, is there more discussion. No. Remember, you can change it next week. So move. You can change it tonight. Okay. So there's the change that was suggested at a 3%. It's now been changed. So that's what we need to vote on. If that's what's moving forward to second reading. Any questions on that? Michelle.

Can we round it? I mean, there's some a long percentage, 18.4 dot, whatever, can we round it?

To simply say 4,500?

Yeah, can we do that instead of a percentage?

I think that that's actually what Alderman Clem said, it was 45.

Thank you.

45.

Okay, if there's no further discussion, can I call this or do we have to wait for the bathroom break over?

No, we're good.

I'll go.

Go.

Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Monroe.

yes Simmons aye Parker aye Stacy aye Shadle no Sanders is absent Sellers no Clem the motion passes five to two so that's not official gone through their second reading that that's what's going forward on second reading in two weeks 18% so now let's talk about clerk Make a motion. Will you raise the clerk's salary 5%? I'll second that. We have a motion on the floor. May by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Simmons to raise the clerk's position 5%. Discussion on the clerk's position. Madam Mayor? Yes. What is 5% increase? Michelle? Quick question with that, too. So as we calculated, it was 4% year over year, so 4%, and then the next year, Chair, 4% on top and then 4% on top. So it's not a flat for each year. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. And so if we're going to five, we're going five plus five plus five. Each year. Each year. Correct. So, yeah, yes. That's the way that. So what does that amount to from what the salary is right now at the end of this term?

Oops, wait, that's you.

and Robin to Aaron's got it 10,200 per year total total in four years that's good any further discussion madam clerk please take the roll Monroe aye Simmons aye Parker aye Stacy this is his joke or nay.

His first three is first three.

Aye.

Shadle?

Aye.

Sellers?

Aye.

Plum?

Aye.

Alderperson Sanders, do you want to vote on this, or is that an aye?

I have to say aye.

Pass is eight to zero.

Okay.

This is like.

Okay, so that's what's moving forward to the second reading.

Next item is the mayor's salary.

Mayor's salary to remain the same.

That's a motion made by Alderman Clem.

Is there a second?

I will make a motion to...

He doesn't have a second.

Oh, I second it.

Don't let it die.

We'll second it.

Y'all can vote no.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Simms to increase the mayor's salary by 0%.

Any discussion?

Madam Clerk, would you please take...

Oh, I have one question. Is that because of the, you don't think the cost of living thing, I mean, even just the 3% is not that much, but I just wanted to know.

I have absolutely nothing against the job that's being done. The people that have been in it have been, have more than put in their time, without a doubt.

Jodi's, you know, been there, is really heavily involved in stuff. I'm basing it upon the fact that years ago when it was put in place, if you take a look at it, based at other places of part-time mirrors, it's high.

It's high.

It's high. That's all I'm basing it on. You know, like you say, next week we can do anything in the world, and that's what I based it on, because I can remember at the period of time that it was set, you know, I was one of the people that said it. Everybody said, why are we paying X amount for a part-time mayor when Rochelle is paying X amount for a part-time mayor that was half the cost?

And, you know, it's not totally inclusive. I mean, call McChesney Park. McChesney Park is almost identical in population, and their part-time mayor gets 51,000.

Is how much?

51,000.

Have we got that on our list?

No. But you can call and verify it if you want.

Okay.

No, no, I appreciate that. Michelle? There were some communities I just couldn't find online. Right. So, I mean, I tried my darndest. Thank you. Alderman Stacy. If we go cheap, you gonna get cheap. You get what you pay for. Alderman Clem. Just a point, and it's not an argument whatsoever.

How many times have you heard everybody say since we hired a city manager, we're paying $150,000? I'm throwing out figures. They aren't actually accurate, okay? $150,000 here and $28,000 here, you know, that's $175,000 and we used to do it for how much money? So that's the only thing I'm basing it on.

Well, maybe we're paying our city manager too much Well, his salary is not for discussion right now, so Uh-oh I mean Well, I'm just saying I'm sorry It's not, it's not, Larry I'm finna have an argument It's not, Larry Maybe it's not debatable now It's not, it will be It's gotta be a, oh, okay It will be, it's not now Okay, okay So, what's on the floor right now, with a first and a second, is a zero percent increase If you don't like it, then vote no If you do, say yes. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe. No. Simmons. No. Parker. No. Stacey. No. Shadle. No. Sanders. No. Sellers. No. And Clem. All right. I feel like the motion fails. Seven to one. Okay. Something has to be decided, though. So I will make a motion I was going to make earlier that we do this. We do the same as what we did for the city clerk.

and it will be a 5 percent. Okay. And so is that a motion, Alderman Monroe? Yes, ma'am. It's a motion. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe to raise the mayor's salary 5 percent. Is there a second? I second it. Yeah, you heard me right. Is that 5 percent every year? That's how the clerk and the mayor's positions are set. Yeah. So seconded by Alderman Sanders. Right? Okay. Are you asking me again?

I couldn't understand you. You weren't at the microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right. Yes. I'm sorry. Okay. So we have a motion and a second discussion on the five percent.

a second. Discussion on the 5%. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe? Yes. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? You know me too well. Aye. That's not a strong one. Aye. She said aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Clem? No. One, two, three. We do have five in favor, three opposed, the motion passes. Okay, so again, this is what moving on to second reading. Okay. Okay, we're going to move on to item number 10, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024, and I have no idea what the double X is. That means the clerk forgot to put a number on there, and it should be 106. Ordinance approving revised lease with Illinois Central Railroad for Brick Street water treatment plant. Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The city owns the water Water Treatment Plant on Brick Street. It was built before 1900 on CN's property by the rail spur there.

The proximity of the rail was for coal to be delivered to the water plant. When the water company first began in Freeport, it was burning coal and running coal-burning pumps.

CN requires a lease agreement for the water plant located on this property. CN presented the city with an updated five-year lease.

This lease has normal requirements including nuisance and protection of the rail, I'm sorry, insurance and protection for the railroad in the event of an emergency. The lease was reviewed by the city attorney prior to being presented and the lease in 1962 was $75 annually. That changed to basically $1,000 in 2023 and they've raised it to $2,000 in the next five years.

So the cost is considered very reasonable with the majority of the 1900 water plant being located on CN's property adjacent to the rail line.

It is anticipated with the proposed well and well house 12 being brought on line with the distribution system that it can be decommissioned eventually within the next several years.

This lease can be canceled at that time if building demolition happens before the five years lapses.

City will need to find funding for the facility decommissioning demolition so that's not a guarantee right at the moment we haven't we're not moving in that budget right now but it is anticipated the cost will vary be somewhat expensive being that it's so close to the rail yard so staff recommends that City Council move forward with the CN lease is there a motion to move this forward so moved second Shadle. Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion, Darren?

Yeah, I just wanted to say that up on your screen, up there is the Breck Street Water Plant. It's the white building, and also the tanks that are there to the right, so you can see the proximity to the line.

These lines aren't perfect, because they're downloaded off of WindGIS, but it's very close, so we do have quite a bit of real estate that is on top of the CN rail so the lease is considered very reasonable they know that our eventual idea is to decommission this plant and remove it the reason it's so close is years ago those the white box that's clearly close to the trail was where coal was delivered many many years ago they are requiring insurance upgrades but based on any accident that would happen there, the insurance that they're asking for is extremely reasonable.

Alderman Sander.

Yeah. Whenever we are looking at things through the projector as far as maps, pictures, or whatever the case is, we need to do better with the surveys of displaying what is actually on the ground as opposed of something that's coming out of orbit.

We're not getting a full view. As great as technology is, and cell phones with pictures and movies, we should be able to display those types of images on our screen so we can see what actual location, what that building is for.

We're not getting enough information is what I'm getting at. And I think we can do better. We should be able to do better because the options are there. The data is there. The pictures and everything can be available to that projector or whatever. But I think we should do better than what we're getting because I'm in here looking around at this map, but I'm not I don't know what the buildings are, and I don't know what the adjacent of the railroad is to those buildings or the well itself.

Well, first of all, if you want to do better, read the memo.

No, no, that has nothing to do with it.

Darren, go ahead.

See, there you go again.

That has nothing to do with it.

I want a better image.

Better images are available.

That's what I'm getting at.

Let me clarify. There would be not a better image than this to show where things are because the entire tree line around the water plant and the rail is wooded. So if I even went and took pictures of it, you'd see nothing but trees. So this is the best angle. This is the 1900 Brick Street water plant. This is where 75% of our water used to go to. The well fields are out here next to the river. And this is the water storage tank. We have water mains that run under the rail adjacently.

and this is the old coal chute and this box right here is all railroad property. Yeah, well the first look is is that is what you're trying to display or indicate to us but if we wanted to revisit those photos or that map again and look at more detail we should be able to have that detail to be more vivid than what it is and so just you just are trying to explain to us what is what from this map, it's not good enough, it's not efficient enough, and I know that it could be done better, so if we're going to be watching these kinds of things, let us get better photos and better understanding of what we're looking at, because right now, everybody is not on the same page as you are. This is our first look.

Well, I would like to say, frankly, I think this is a very easy discussion. Our facility is located on CN's property. They're requiring us to sign a lease and insure it. I don't think we really have a choice in the matter. It's a very reasonable amount. And so I really feel like this is a really simple discussion. We can't remove the facility because it's still active. It's been there for the better part of 100 years.

And so I think it's a very simple concept that $2,000 is pretty cheap.

I didn't want you to, I didn't miss that point that you're making, but what I'm saying is, for visual purposes, what you're pointing to right now, half of everyone in here does not understand that one thing that you were demonstrating and what facilities and buildings that you're indicating.

So we're not getting the efficiency from the viewpoint that we need to be looking at so we can have a better look at what buildings we're talking about. If we decide to want to visit that site, then we'll know what building that we're visiting. Right now?

It's a secured site. Nobody can visit it.

Well, the point is, whether it's secured or not, if we wanted to visit it, we still don't know what we're looking at. That's all I'm saying. So the photos or pictures or videos or whatever is not available to us. Only this image here. That's all we're getting. And I think we can do better than that. Let's move up to the 21st century and get better vivid pictures.

Alderman Shadle. I think the photos and the display is just fine and I appreciate your efforts, Darren. Thank you. Thank you. Let's move on. If there's no further discussion, we're moving that forward to the next City Council meeting. Thank you. Move on to item number 11, which is the adoption of Resolution 2024-106. Could you please read this? Resolution approving Fairgram Construction Engineering Agreement for Shawnee and Hancock Viaduct Improvements. Thank you. Manager Warrior.

Thank you, Your Honor. The city had a public bid opening on September 10th for the Shawnee-Hancock Viaduct Improvement Project. Again, can we put that one up on the screen? Okay. So the viaduct project requires replacing the water main, the storm sewer, and lowering the road by two and a half feet to allow semi-truck traffic and safety equipment to enter the arcade area from the viaduct location permanently.

Alternate solutions to this roadway issue were studied and are not cost effective due to CN not allowing new track crossings.

Crossings. The city project requires full-time construction engineering efforts for this technical project in approximately of the CN Railway. The viaduct project has been the city's long-term project list for over 10 years and it is a permanent solution to access to the east side of the viaduct. The project will be split between a fiscal year 24 and 25 budget. The project funding will come from the water sewer Storm and Street funds to complete and there are resident engineering requirements with the west abutment to allow the lowering of the roadway. The project is expected to be completed in May of 2025 with final paving and city staff recommends city council approve the Ferrogram professional services agreement to lower the Shawnee Viaduct roadway. So as you're looking there, this is required so that trucks can get underneath there, also moving vans, school buses, anything like that, it would be necessary to lower this two and a half feet for that to happen.

This is also part and parcel to getting the Hancock Bridge deck replaced and the guardrails, so without this additional avenue, we would not be able to work on the Hancock Bridge.

right now we're looking at about a two million two and a half million dollar upgrade to the Hancock Bridge and there really isn't any other choice except for going with a full reconstruct on the bridge and I think estimates came in over 14 million dollars for that so this is really an important project we need to move forward on so that we can have alternate access to the arcade. Is there a motion to adopt?

So moved. Second. Okay. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Clem. Discussion, Alderman Stacy? And how much did you say this was going to cost? This agreement is, Darren, would you go ahead and give me that? Yeah, it's item 14 on tonight's agenda. You're talking about the construction, correct? I'm talking about lowering the street. Okay.

The low bid was $1,292,388.25, so almost $1.3 million.

But that's for the later.

That is for item 14.

Yeah.

That is for the construction.

That's the approval of the bid.

This contract is for $138,600.

I don't know what you just gave me.

So you asked for the total construction cost.

$138,600.

That's the price of the construction engineering, $138,600.

Item 14 that's on the agenda tonight.

Okay, no, I'm not on, I'm on 11.

11 is $138,600.

And that's to lower the street.

No, that's for the engineering required to be in the field while they lower the segment.

What is the cost of the project in lowering the street and everything? That's item number 14. That's on the bid tonight, item 14 on your agenda, and it's roughly $1.3 million. So is there any further discussion on the engineering portion number 11? And we have the permission from the train? Yes, we do. We have a permit from CN to move forward with the project.

One quick question. What's the risk of something going wrong? Because, I mean, that's been there quite a while.

Yeah, so we had structural engineers, and specifically we had HDR involved as our subcontractor. They're the lead engineer for CN Rail. They've studied the abutments. The east abutment, which in this picture would be the right-hand one, has actually been totally replaced. Sorry, the west, east abutment would be the left-hand side, excuse me, with the sidewalk.

Buck. That abutment was totally replaced a handful of years ago. CN came out and evaluated and said while the surface area on it's cracked, it's structurally sound, and so they've investigated two or three different structural ways to fix it. They're basically asked us to put shoring in to make sure the abutment doesn't move, and then there's also some anchor bolts that are fairly long that will be drilled in to make sure it holds in place.

so the risk is really to the contractor which CN requires special railroad insurance to do this and flagging is also required the entire time that you work within 25 feet of the rail those costs are all included in the bid so Helm Group is our low bidder they'll have to require those two items every time they're within 25 feet of the rail okay Alderman Stacy and what was the reason why we couldn't use the space to the right of the west side?

Yeah, in this picture that would be to the inertia side, which would be to the right side, there is a single pass that goes back behind inertia and goes to their back. It's a private entrance that the rail owns and them, but it's only single lane, so only single lane trucks could get through there, and there is no road to get back through there. That road only goes through inertia.

Inertia has an agreement with the city right now until we can get this repaired to use that as emergency access in case we have flooding, in case something ever happens with this particular access point because we really, the bridge is in horrendous shape at the moment and, you know, getting worse every day and if something were to happen this, the arcade people and businesses would be trapped back there.

where there is no other pass. I also want to tell you guys that I explained this when we designed this, but we looked for alternate modes of transportation. We looked for a bridge passing, something else to get around here, maybe coming off Singer by the jail. Nothing else was affordable. A bridge over the end of Singer, I think, was around $4 million. CN will not permit another crossing across the rail itself. They're trying to eliminate crossings because it's a huge lie.

liability risk for them. I would say working with them, they've been gracious enough to try to help Freeport find the cheapest and most economical way to undertake this project so it's affordable and the entire Hancock Bridge project that is coming next summer is all contingent upon this work being done. The Hancock Bridge will be taken down for at least seven to nine months to rehab it in place.

And in order to do that, we have to have access, permanent semi-access, through this bidoc here.

Just so everybody can see, that sign says 11 foot 5.

We will be reducing the bridge, or increasing the bridge to 14 foot 6, which is lowering the pavement approximately 3 feet.

Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, is there any other alternative temporary roads that we can install?

in that, in the arcade area so that we can have traffic continuously moving? So the rail goes eastbound here and continues all the way, you know, out by Highway 20. There is no passing across there to get back into the arcade. There is that emergency pass we just talked about. There's a dirt two-track path that runs back behind, oh, I can't think of the business name.

the old train depot. I can't remember the name of their business. Ultrasonic, excuse me. It runs through their property, so we physically don't have any access to that. In an emergency, I'm sure that they would let people through, but it floods back there quite often as well, so it's not a regular pass.

And then there is no other access across the tracks except for at Stevenson Street. So this is pretty vital to the well-being of the people that live back in the arcade. I would also tell you right now, I believe the chief would be able to back me up on this, but if we had a very emergent situation and something happened to the bridge right now, no other fire rescue team other than the city of Freeport themselves would be able to respond because they wouldn't be able to get under this viaduct.

We have special equipment that would allow them to get through there. Our rural partners do not have that.

Okay.

Alderman Monroe, I think we're here.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So it's a lot going on, and I do believe we talked about with the chief before that our equipment's all that can get back there.

But is the Arcade Ave coming up to that point, is it going to be sufficient to support the type of traffic that's going to be going through there, or are we going to have to look at redoing that after this? No, actually not that it doesn't need to be redone but Arcade Avenue, I'm not talking about going down Shawnee, that would not be a truck route but Arcade itself is a truck route and Hancock is built as a truck route too so while they need resurfacing.

too. So while they need resurfacing, they're actually built for semi-traffic. And that makes a logical termini to the new Adams Street that, you know, we're finishing up. So it does make sense ultimately for that traffic. Perfect. Thank you. Alderman Sanders. Yeah, the southeast areas of that arcade where the residents live, there's no pathway to make that as an alternative so people can at least make a detour and put detours through, that's not an option.

No, we looked, I believe it's off of 13th Avenue. There's a spot that could have probably been maybe a logical crossing into one of the factory parking lots that's over there.

CN won't permit it because they don't want any more track crossing across. If you go farther to the east, the rail actually embeds, you know, pretty much underground.

in both directions. So that would require a bridge going over, which would be way more expensive than what this would be. That'd be over by the Singer location. So we did a lot of investigation. There just really is not a good path to get through other than these two access points, this one and the bridge. Everything else is private access.

Oh, okay.

If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Monroe?

Aye.

Simmons, Aye, Parker, Aye, Stacy, Shadle, Aye, Sanders, Aye, Sellers, Aye, and Clem, Aye. The resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2024-107. Could you please read this? Resolution authorizing execution and amendment of downstate operating assistance program or the DOPE grant agreement for fiscal year 2025. Thank you. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. The city of Freeport operates the Pretzel City Area Transit Program, which is essentially our bus program for not only the city of Freeport, but also Stevenson County. And this program is funded largely in part to the Downstate Operating Assistance Program, totaling nearly $1.3 million. And what is presented in this resolution is to accept these grant funds, and staff is recommending approval of this resolution.

Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. The resolution is adopted, 8-0.

item number 13 is the adoption of resolution 2024-108. Could you please read this? Resolution approving a grant agreement with the Illinois law enforcement alarm system regarding less lethal alternatives for law enforcement for a less lethal device grant. Thank you. Chief Shenberger. Thank you, Mayor. In the summer of 2024, staff applied for the fiscal year 25 less lethal alternatives for law enforcement grant offered by the state of Illinois.

The grant would allow departments throughout the state of Illinois to upgrade their conducted energy device programs with the Taser 7 or Taser 10 devices Freeport Police Department requires officers to carry a CED as a less lethal use of force option The current devices used by the Freeport Police Department are the Axon X26P, which came out in 2013, and the Axon X2, which came out in 2011 in service for more than 10 years. Axon has indicated the company will be discontinuing the use of both models in the near future, thus requiring agencies to upgrade to the Taser 7 or Taser 10.

The United States Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Police Executive Research Forum, has found that CEDs, when used appropriately and with a full understanding of their risks, are a useful device that can effectively help to resolve serious situations.

CEDs can reduce the need for other force options and can enable officers to subdue actively resisting or aggressive subjects while lowering the rates of injury to law enforcement officers and subjects.

The Freeport Police Department has the most current and acceptable lexical policy outlining the use of CEDs.

Freeport Police Department also has two certified CED instructors on staff and require annual recertification that involves scenario-based training curriculum that is certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board.

On October 1st, staff was informed that the Freeport Police Department has been awarded five Taser 10 packages, totaling just over $15,000, $15,686.

There were 404 departments who applied for this grant throughout the state of Illinois, and 223 were awarded this grant. This award will significantly upgrade the Freeport Police Department CED program and offset future costs of updating the program. There is no funding for this because we essentially purchased these packages and then are reimbursed by the state of Illinois.

Thank you, Chief. Is there a motion to adopt? Some move. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. The resolution is adopted 8-0.

Bids were opened on September 10th, 2024 for the Shawnee and Hancock Viaduct improvements.

Thank you.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor.

The city held a public bid opening on September 10th, as previously discussed, for the Shawnee-Hancock Viaduct improvements.

There was one bidder, city staff, engineers, and two local bids from Helm Group and Civil Freeport was the lowest responsive bidder at $1,292,388.25. The bid was just over the engineering estimate for the project. City engineers received and obtained CN permission to do the construction at Hancock and Shawnee. The project will be split between fiscal year 24 and 25 and staff recommendation to move forward with the Helm Group bid. Is there a motion to approve the bid as stated? So moved. Second.

motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the bid. Alderman Sanders.

I understand we got, I'm sorry, I understand the Helms Group and Civil, they're the same, right?

Yes.

That's anonymous. But what I don't see is any other bidders. Have we considered any other bidders?

Yeah, there's two bidders on the job that was in the packet, Helm Group, which is civil, and the second was Fisher's Excavating. Both bidders were off Freeport. They were bid very close together. As a matter of fact, they were a 1.4% difference in cost or $19,000, so it's a very tight bid for something this large.

It's in your packet. Both of them were in your packet.

They're both in the package for consideration?

No.

No, it's the city's moving forward with one, but both of them.

One of them, right?

Is that just one?

We're only moving forward.

We're asking to move forward with the lowest responsive bidder, which was Helm Group.

So you're going to hold another bidding, even in the package, because you've got to have one or the other.

Are they working together?

Are they jointly working together?

They both had independent bids.

Helm Group had one bid.

Fishers had another bid.

Helm was the lowest responsive bidder, so they will be the final awarded if you approve it.

Okay, that's what I was getting at. Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

Alderman Monroe.

So this comes up occasionally. Can you explain how the bids are, how they're placed, you know?

Sure. So all the city bids that Fehr Graham or the city staff's a part of, if you run them through Fehr Graham, we have a bid site, it's called quest.cbn, and it is a professional bidding site. Many contractors in the Midwest pay to be part of this service, and then anytime a project comes out, for instance, this one would check water main, storm, road, Railway, they automatically get notifications if they assign for those notifications. So it's instant. As soon as we post it, they get a notification. City of Freeport has a bid, blah, blah, blah. If you're interested, you can download the package, right? We also do a local paper ad that's required by city ordinance. So we file a paper ad. It runs in an addition. Anybody locally can contact us for the bid packets if they wish to.

when you're talking about a project of this.

When you're talking about a project of this nature, it's very specialized. There's only a handful of people around that could even handle something like this with CN. That's why you see very reduced bidders. Plus, the market's been pretty flush with work this year, and we're leading into the end of the season where everybody's struggling to get the work done they have on the books so far. So it's not surprising to me that we only got two bidders.

and you should remember, I don't remember what the exact number is, but Helm Group is one of the largest contractors in the Midwest and physically do a lot of structure work type like this.

Follow up.

Thank you, ma'am.

So when the bids are delivered, are they delivered in person or are they mailed in or how does that work?

They can do both. Any city bid can be mailed in or delivered on the day. They have to be checked in to the clerk.

Dovie has to check them in with a time and a date stamp, and then they're open publicly at the meeting room that anybody can come to, and they're open in the order that they received. Thank you. Yep.

Okay, so if there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe. Aye.

Simmons, Aye, Parker, Aye, Stacey, Aye, Shadle, Abstain, Sanders, Aye, Sellers, Aye, and Clem, Aye, the motion passes seven to zero with one abstention and item number 15 if you could read this approval another bid was opened on September 12 2024 for CD 007-2024 for rehabilitation of a single home at 740 9, East Center Street.

Director Duckman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

The City of Freeport was awarded the Community Development Block Grants Housing Rehabilitation in the amount of $550,000.

And in this particular grant, $64,000 is allocated to grant administration and a total of $486,000 goes to the rehabilitation of homes.

and working with our state agency that's the Department of Commerce Economic Opportunity the DCEO currently we are awarded to have $60,000 in rehabilitation of homes so a little detail here many people locally know this as the Adams Avenue corridor rehabilitation grant this was started in 2021 and since I've been here we have been working tirelessly with two different different consultants through that period. And we are now at that finish line where we are bringing, excuse me, bringing aid to our first property owner. So what is being presented to you is a, we had a bid opening for this. We had one bidder. It was properly noticed in similar fashion as Mr. Stiekel just explained.

and so when the bid was opened we received a lowest responsible bid of $52,925 which some of the highlights that was included in the scope of work is the installation of 16 new windows, a new electrical system, exterior siding repairs, stair replacement and you know interior drywall patching among other things that were attached in the scope of work and staff is recommending approval of this resolution, and that would be entering into an agreement for a total amount of $52,000 and $52,925 for CMM and Associates to perform the work, rehabilitation services at 749 East Center Street. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion, Alderman Sanders. Yes.

what's the eligibility requirement for it's it's lengthy and that that process closed in 2021 so that's it's closed the eligibility requirements closed three years ago this was but essentially what was done in 2021 was staff at that time went out and canvassed the area it was a census block track I can't remember the exact census block track number but in the application process for the grant. They would have gone to each houses in the neighborhood, and they had to fill out a survey, two parts. It was several parts, but mainly it was their income, also any disabilities they may have had, and there was also the analysis of the condition of their property, and this was compiled into a grant application.

Okay. Who, you have a list of homes that met the, that meets the eligibility for this program.

That was done approximately a year ago. We had our consultant, we had 64 properties that applied for this grant, and then the consultant, which is region one planning council, it's a metropolitan planning commission, and it's in Rockford, Illinois.

they were retained to look at that data and do an objective analysis on which properties of the 64 they prioritize the properties that would be available for this this type of assistance okay is that agency located here in Freeport or Rockford it's Rockford Illinois Rockford and and how do the people here in Freeport sign up for that type of program no longer available or it's no longer available 2021 was when that was done. So this is an effect as we speak today? Correct. The properties, there were 64 applicants that were analyzed by a separate entity independent of the city of Freeport that have, that's essentially one of their, in their scope of work, that's what they would do. They performed that analysis for us. They provided, they prioritized, according to the 64 properties, the top need based.

and this particular property was the top need based on their analysis and in working with our grant manager at the state we worked down from that list and we provided you know we went through the process and had a bid opening and that's where we're at right now so what's the percentage of work that has been done here in the free port regarding to this but I am so happy and proud to say that in the three years I've beat my head against the table to get the state to allow me to give some aid to some of these people this is the first first one, and I am ecstatic that it's the first one. It has been one of the hardest grants I've worked through, so I am thrilled that I can actually give people some aid. Okay, thank you.

Yes, so will there be another house after this one and another? Yes, yes, I have before or until the money runs out? Until the money runs out, we estimate it'll probably be between eight to ten properties that We'll end up getting the aid. I have a bid opening. Part of this process is I have to do a walkthrough with registered, which happened already six months ago. Certain contractors had to register, and there was a process that the state made us go through. And of these contractors that are interested in bidding, there's going to be a walkthrough on two more properties on October 10th, and there's going to be another bid opening on October 24th for two more houses on this list.

so based on that information in November I should be presenting two more resolutions of this nature to council so there would be a total of three homes and there's a fourth home that is has a walkthrough on October 18th so essentially I could have four homes by November. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you all the person Stacey. There's no further discussion. Madam clerk please take the roll. Monroe. Aye. Simmons. Aye.

Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. The motion passes 8-0. Item number 16 is the department head. Department head reports. It's a long night. Finance? Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you. Community development? Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Public Works? Yep. We've got a handful of things. First, I would like to announce that Hydrant flushing will be taking place in the city of Freeport the week of October 21st. It's going to take probably two to three weeks to get through the town to flush hydrants. During this period you may get some rusty water. Just make sure that you run tub faucets and flush it out. Look for cleaning your aerators in your home. It's a typical process that we do every year in the fall. Happy to say that the City Streets program, we have two streets left for this year, Greenfield out by Business 20 and Salem Court. We hope to get those done later this week or possibly next week. Today we started hot patching with crews. We put put down about 16 tons today. The west side water main expansion is out to EPA permit. Next week, you're going to see at the committee that hold the ADA transition plan coming forth. That's something that we need to do for IDOT.

to do for IDOT. We're required to do that to keep receiving our MFT money. We've talked about that a handful of times and we've delayed it to this point, but we tried to get grant funds for it and we've been unavailable to get those grant funds. What was that called? It's called the IDOT ADA Transition Plan. ADA. ADA, so those are the handicap accessible ramps that we find at our intersections. We're also working on 2025 streets program, so you're going to see a work order coming forward for that soon, and we're also working on the 2025 EV chargers grant that we were awarded to place eight EV chargers in downtown Freeport. I'm working with Mr. Duckman on that, and our biggest project, well number 12, that Eric Sorensen was here today to to award Freeport some money. We're working on getting that moving to design in a final location picked.

I think that's it. Thank you. Chief? Nothing this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Chief? Yeah, we're currently taking applications for our fall session of the Civilian Police Academy. We're taking applications through October 17th and we'd like to have our first session on October 24th.

It lasts eight weeks. It goes from about 6 p.m. to roughly 8 p.m. or maybe earlier. It also offers applicants an opportunity to do a ride-along with the police department. So if anyone's interested, they can contact the police department or I believe that there's also on our Facebook page, there's a QR code that takes them right to the application so they can complete that and get it in before it closes.

Thank you. Library? Nothing tonight. Thank you. IT? Then we'll leave this with the city manager's report. Nothing tonight, your honor. I just wanted to remind council that next Monday is a holiday. It's Columbus Day. So the committee of the whole is on Tuesday. So don't come on Monday. It's Tuesday. And just to piggyback on what Darren said, we were honored today to have Congressman Sorensen come to city hall.

He presented us with the check for nearly $1 million to go towards well number 12. So very fortunate for that. Had also the pleasure of having our almost all of our public works department here for that photo op. And it was actually one of the highlights that Congressman Sorensen said that was a big deal to him to be able to have the people that actually do the work standing with him. So thank you to him. Council announcement, Alderman Monroe.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. For those of you, there's, you know, we've had a very tragic situation down in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina. There are several area churches that are collecting dry goods, food, clothing, other things for the relief efforts down there. And keep your prayers out also for the folks in Florida.

and since we've been in this room Hurricane Milton is now a category 580 mile an hour winds up to 220 mile per hour gusts and it's headed directly for Tampa and Orlando so it will be a very very rough day on Wednesday there a lot of us have friends and family who have retired down that way so keep them in your prayers but you know hey great work on all the city streets that we've seen we've been getting a lot of comments about that I think we're finally turning the tide of the roads here in the city of Freeport and the infrastructure so it's a very positive time. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Simmons. I don't have anything. Thank you. Alderman Parker. I just want to echo what he said about the roads. I'm getting a lot of good comments about our roads and the work going on. Just hopefully the weather holds off and they can keep doing it. Thank you. Alderman Stacy. Nothing. Alderman Shadle. Nothing tonight. Alderman Sellers. I just want to say I I also have gotten a lot of comments on how nice the streets look. So, thank you.

Alderman Clem?

Nothing, Your Honor.

Okay. Larry, I'm guessing since you're over in the corner, you must not have anything to say?

No.

Okay. Then leaves us with item number 20 of public comments. Tommy, did you? Go ahead. Three minutes.

Madam Mayor, council, city staff. Thank you, Joshua.

That was rough. I want to go back to the Alderman pay, the Mayor pay, City Clerk pay discussion. You guys get the agendas just like all of us get the agendas out here. The difference is a lot of us look at them and it seems like you guys continue to not look at them. When you guys talk about the Alderman pay, I want to stick to that here.

Alderman Sanders asked a question, what do the aldermen do? How long have you guys all been aldermen? You guys should know what the job description is. If you don't, we have a bigger problem in Freeport, or probably we can pinpoint why we are where we are. How much is this position worth? You're not answering the question of how much you are worth or how much your brother or sister on this council are worth. You're asking, what is that position worth? Sitting out here, we just want We need to know how much is it going to cost for our elected officials to do their jobs. Come to the meetings prepared, do the jobs, discuss outside of council, whether it be via the email or telephone, but come here knowing what you're talking about and what you're voting on. That is frustrating. That is what is driving people to leave town. That is a problem. We need you guys to step up and do the job or get out of the way.

You guys are Alderman 365 days a year City Clerk is a City Clerk 365 days a year Madam Mayor, you are our Representative 365 days a year By my calculations City Alderman, you get paid less than $10 a day To represent your ward To speak for me, Larry Sanders, Alderman Sanders You speak for me, you represent me If I have a problem, I should be able to call you You should answer the phone You should email and I'm directing it to you because you're my alderman. This goes for all of you. Tonight, the four hours, over four hours now, we, the city of Freeport, pay to our alderman, each one of you, $1.50 to sit through this. I'm willing to pay a lot more to get good government in here. Let us know what that number is. Madam Mayor, we paid the mayor about $13 to sit through this tonight.

We pay our mayor right now about $80 a day. I get it's a part-time position. She is my mayor right now every single day of the year for the past seven and a half years. What is that position is worth? So I challenge you, and I know I'm going to run out of time here. Take this week like you should have taken the past two weeks. Think of something. You asked our city manager to go pull numbers. He did that. He did his job. How come our eight aldermen didn't do their jobs?

Go figure out what your plan is, what your proposal is, and come to some kind of agreement so we can move forward. We need better people wanting these positions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Tommy? I've got the assignment. It's going to be a special Olympics banquet for the wards and dinner Wednesday, the 16th of 530. And where's it at, Tommy? It's going to be at neither church.

yeah neither chose something at 626 West Pearl City Road all right thank you for sharing your information any other public comments okay then that leaves us with item number 21 which is executive session madam clerk could you please read that three items pursuant to 5 ILCS 122 C1 the appointment employment compensation discipline performance or dismissal of specific employees or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity.

Two, pursuant to 5 ILCS 120 2C2, collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees.

Pursuant to 5ILCS 1202C21, Discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by section 2.06.

Is there a motion to enter into an executive session?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion made by Alderman Schadl, seconded by Alderman Clem.

Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Clem? Aye. The motion passed.