I haven't heard that. That's exciting.

I will know soon. I forgive me.

No, that's okay. That's fine. That's why you're going to be surprising when you said it, but you know, whatever works out, it's fine.

I will tell you, Tommy, and I will find out. I know they were putting their permit on it, Tommy.

Okay.

Be patient. You will have a sub soon.

Oh, you're shitting me.

Oh, I'm blessed.

Wait, my dominoes.

Did you get it?

Come on, man.

Oh, there's one.

Six.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

good evening Justin could you please give the invocation this evening good evening just quickly before I pray I just wanted to say here 2024, it's been about two years, I think, since I've come and prayed monthly, and I know there are highs and lows, frustrations and joys to your discussions here, but just as one person in Freeport, I'm grateful for you guys' work, directors, chiefs, mayor, Mr. Zito, city planner, I know that it probably doesn't always feel like your work matters or is appreciated, did, but it is, and just thank you. I'm grateful, grateful for your work, all of your work for our city.

Would you please allow me to pray for you? Well, Father, we thank you. Lord, I give thanks on behalf of those here tonight for your good gifts that you pour out so freely upon us, your creation, the work of your hands. Lord, I thank you for the different gifts and personalities and abilities and callings represented here in this room, the various posts that these men and women occupy, the different people that they represent. Lord, we thank you for this city, for our county. Lord, we thank you for the good good work that has been done this year. We know that there is more to do. And yet, even as we come up on a Thanksgiving holiday in the very near future, Lord, we just stop to give thanks. And we do say thank you for all that you've strengthened and empowered and given wisdom and gifts to us to accomplish. And Father, Father, I pray again for tonight's discussions. Pray for the work and the weeks ahead, even as winter draws near as things finish up in the Public Works Department as far as summer and fall goes and transition into winter. Lord, pray that you would help in terms of equipment and personnel. Pray that all involved would have the opportunity to enjoy the upcoming holidays and truly

find some rest and time to rejoice in the works this past year and again pray that you bless the time tonight. Give wisdom we pray in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Thank you Pastor Justin and I'd also just like to take a moment to say thank you to Alderman Shadle for carrying out last week's Committee of the Whole as I was at the National League of Cities Conference. It is truly my honor to serve as a director on that Board, and representing Freeport in sharing best practices, ideas, and solutions with fellow municipal leaders across the country. So with that, we'll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, could you please take the role? Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons-Klemm? Here. Monroe? Here. Simmons? Here. Parker? Here. Stacey? Here. Shadle? Here. Sanders? Here. And Sellers? Here. And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Stacey.

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty Item number one is the approval of the agenda I believe that as per request of Alderman Monroe, he would like to remove item number 30 and place it on the December cow With that, is there a motion to approve the agenda? Alderman Monroe I would make a motion to adopt the agenda. I would like to make a request that we return to live camera feed after the executive session as well, though, here in the chamber. Okay. Kurt, you good? Okay. Yep. Thank you.

And is there a second? Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Clem for the approval of the agenda. 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 November 4th, 2024. Is there a motion to approve?

So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. We have quite a few signed up for tonight's public comment. We'll start with Captain Lamb.

Members of the Council, Madam Mayor, City Manager, I wanted to come before you to talk about the agenda tonight, not a particular item.

This stack represents 405 pages.

My concern is, if I got an agenda that was 405 pages long of minutes, contracts, memos, leases, item after item, I know this is a bigger one than usual, but I cannot imagine an alderman trying to read all of that from Friday until now, not just to read it, but to know it, to understand it, to talk with my constituents, to be able to figure out, should I be in favor of it, should I not?

This is a disservice. This is a disservice to the alderman. This is a disservice to the constituents that they represent.

And again, I would want to return to you will have an opportunity. You, the alderman, can change this.

There's no willingness by the city manager, but you have the power to change this and make it so that you get the agenda early enough for you to be able to study it.

I know there was discussion later, earlier about being prepared, being represented, reading all the stuff.

How in the hell do you think you're going to read all of that stuff before this meeting when you got it Friday?

I haven't the slightest idea. I doubt if anybody here does. And I think that you should change that.

Next on the list is Juliette Madero.

Good evening. On the agenda this evening is the resolution for Bird City, Illinois.

so I wanted to give a little background. Bird City, Illinois was established for the state of Illinois in 2021 and Freeport was one of the first of three cities to earn this designation alongside Rockford and Waukegan. Part of the requirements for Bird City is to fulfill a minimum of nine actions including an annual proclamation for World Migratory Bird Day which we do every year in May as well as a passing of a resolution for Bird City, Illinois every three years. The requirement is this to ensure that municipalities consistently think of environmental impacts when making certain decisions, particularly those that affect birds and other wildlife.

The renewal process also acts as a chance to update and educate current and new council members who may be unaware of the recognition.

of the recognition. On behalf of the Northwest Illinois Audubon Society who led this charge and donated the application fee, I wanted to thank the city, the Freeport Park District, the Freeport Public Library, University of Illinois Extension, Jane Adams Land Park Foundation, Freeport Student Garden, Environmental Study Group, Park Hills Golf Course, and Bluebird Monitoring Volunteers, and the Pretzel Pickers. In 2021, Freeport met 18 criteria, but this year, thanks to these groups, Freeport met 29 criteria.

I thank the support of the council members who see the benefit of being a bird city of Illinois and help make our Freeport community healthier for birds and people. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Juliet. Next is Rhonda Scott. Good evening. I'm here to speak on three agenda items with just bringing up some questions that you might want to think about when you're going over some of these items. The first one was item number 14, and that was the $1 lease of a vehicle from the senior citizens.

Senior Center, the city would lease it for a dollar, so I just happen to ask an older person, well, do you know when you lease it for a dollar, do you know what you're getting into, do you know the other costs, because we've had this situation where you lease a parking lot to somebody for a dollar, and then you don't know what's going to happen, what your expenses are, maybe they don't change, but so I ask, well, what cost are you going to incur, and with a vehicle, naturally, you're going to have maintenance, insurance, and all the costs that come with a vehicle. So my question really is, wouldn't you want to know like what budget it's going to come from and if the resources are already there? I did do a little research and found that Mayor Gitz had reported to the Journal Standard back in October 2016 that the money for a lot of the vehicles came from an IDOT grant, which is super, means the state probably paid for the vehicles.

vehicles, and then there was a fund called the Downstate Operating Assistant Grant, which provides funding for, I'm assuming, operation of these vehicles. It really just helps public transportation in cities. So it's great if we have that budget, and it will pay for those costs, but I think as older people, and when I ask a question, do you know how much it's going to cost me as a taxpayer to, you know, are you going to increase my taxes so you can pay for the cost on this $1 leased vehicle?

It'd be nice if you understood what was going on and could tell me I did review the notes and the notes asked everybody to go ahead and approve it because it'd be a good deal to add that vehicle to our fleet, which I agree with. But when you make a memo to Alder people, what we do here is about allocating funds. And it seems like it should be transparent as to where the money is going to come for when you're leasing a vehicle, who's going to pay for all those costs and what fund it's coming from.

As a member of the public, I would like to know. The other concern I had was there's going to be a discussion on a grant that was being offered to rehab on a house at 1010 Adams, and grants are great. Some of the money's going for rehab, some's going for demolition. This one's going to be rehabbed, so I went and looked, and as we all know, a lot of the houses on Adams Street are really suffering because it looks like a lot of them are rentals, landlords kind of don't care. But this one house looks really good. And so I'm thinking, why are we spending $48,000 to fix up that house when all the other ones look so bad? And probably, you know, do we have any criteria? This person who's getting his house fixed up also, I have been told, owns 12 other properties. So maybe he should be selling. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot. And then we have Molly Doolittle and Candy Colby. Good evening, everyone. Tonight, I would just like to express my support for the ordinance, which would allow residents of Freeport to use native plants in the home landscaping. And I'd just like to outline a few reasons why I think this is a good idea and would be worthy of the council's approval. So generally speaking, a native plant is one which has existed within this region before

before settlement by Europeans. Native plants include ferns, grasses, perennial and annual wildflowers, woody trees, shrubs, and vines. And there are actually many benefits to the use of native plants in the landscape. First of all, plants native to the Midwest are adapted to our harshest winters, they tolerate drought, and they flourish in our local soils. They do not require fertilizers, or pesticides. So they're inherently low maintenance and they can save time and money. They require less water than lawns and help prevent erosion. And the deep root systems of many native Midwestern plants increase the soil's capacity to store water. So native plants can reduce water runoff and consequently flooding, which can sometimes overwhelm our storm sewer systems.

Native plantscapes do not require mowing. They provide shelter and food for birds and pollinators. And as many of you know, a lot of these species are in decline, unfortunately. And native plants promote biodiversity and stewardship of our natural heritage. Plus, they are beautiful and increase scenic values, as I think you can see from the photos we're distributing.

Finally, native plants make healthy places for people. The lawns and the bark mulch landscapes that we commonly see are notorious for requiring profuse amounts of artificial fertilizers and synthetic chemical pesticides and herbicides. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the traditional suburban lawn on average has ten times more chemical pesticides pesticides per acre than farmland. So by choosing native plants for our landscaping, we can help wildlife, yes, but we also create a healthier place for ourselves, our families, and our community. And I thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. Next is Ashley Heilman. Hello, everyone. I am here this evening to speak with no opposition for the changes presented this evening for agenda item number six. I want to first thank Doug with the community development for for working with me to address the issues that were brought to my attention for the rental registry.

Secondly, I'd like to thank the city manager, Boyer, for reaching out to us for feedback and suggestions to the changes presented this evening.

My hope is going forward that the continued open dialogue with this registry will help the city as well as the landlords.

With an open line of communication, it can only make things better.

The one ask that I have is please make sure that this change is communicated on the newsletter that is going out in the coming months from the city.

Thank you again, and I have no oppositions to the changes presented this evening Thank you, Neely Good evening, Mayor Miller, and thank you for allowing me this moment to speak with the honorable council members My name is Neely Erickson, and I am the Government Affairs Director for Illinois Realtors I am here today on behalf of the 1,300 members of the Northwest Illinois Alliance of Realtors We appreciate the discussion being held tonight regarding the proposed changes to the property rental registration program We acknowledge the city's efforts to collaborate with stakeholders, including our members, to address concerns and develop a framework aimed at improving compliance with registration requirements and addressing problem properties. We have no opposition to the ordinance. We recognize that the enhanced penalties for non-compliance are intended to encourage greater participation in the program, which is the ordinance's goal.

The success of the ordinance will rely on the city's commitment to active enforcement. While mailing notifications to suspected rental properties is a step forward, consistent follow-up and enforcement will be essential to bring these properties into compliance.

We stand ready to assist in these efforts and collaborate with the city to ensure the program's effectiveness to minimize the unintended consequences to the housing providers who are complying with the law, which is 33%. The ordinance employs late fees as a penalty for noncompliance, but structures them in a way that encourages timely adherence. This approach is significant as these fees can unfortunately have indirect impact on tenants.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and to your thoughtful consideration on this matter. We appreciate the city's work on this issue and look forward to continued collaboration on initiatives that support the broader community. Thank you.

That concludes public comments. We'll move on to consent agenda. The consent agenda.

agenda. The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless there's a member of the council would like to have something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda is approving to receive and place on file the boards and commission minutes from the firefighters and the police pension funds from July 30th, 2024, as well as the liquor commission from October 10th, 2024. Also our reports for building permit, fire department, and police department dated October 2024, a new checking account required by the DCEO for the Community Development Block Grant, and approval of the finance bills payable in the total of $3,122,664.47, approval of the payroll from pay period ending November 2nd, 2024, in the total of $646,040.92, and reports for finance and cash investments for September 2024.

four. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The motion passes seven to one. And item number five is the second reading of ordinance 20, 24, 60. Could you please read this? Ordinance approving airport hangar M8 lease with David Hayes. Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. As previously discussed, David Hayes is interested in leasing hangar M8. The agreement, the cost of this lease is $165 per month. Staff recommends approval of this, and in addition to that, we anticipate having a market survey completed by the first meeting in December for neighboring communities with airports approximately the same size in case that is a point of concern which was expressed last summer. So staff recommends moving forward with this lease. Any discussion? Alderman Stacy, did you? Yeah. Yes. I just want to make sure that we, the council, have the understanding that come the first week of December,

We will see a new lease, the document itself, so that we can look at it, go through it, if there's any changes, so that by the third week of December, it's finalized, so that by January the 1st, all these hangers will have the proper new lease.

That's correct.

You'll have it before that I'll have a You'll have a copy of the lease agreement before that Okay Alderman Sanders Yeah, and on that subject as well On the leasing agreement, do we have a process that we determine what the assessed value of each Hanger when we're looking at quoting monthly costs to lease these properties. Do we have an analytical analysis on why we decide to have these quote monthly costs and then who are the individuals or whoever they are is making these determinations?

We don't have an understanding because we don't know who is signing the lease to allow any hangers to be in a position where it can be leased at all.

So, my question is, whose signatures are going to be provided for these clearances for these leases on the city's property to give that? I thought it was something that the aldermen conduct, not the city manager, to determine what the rental process of a lease would be.

Now, if I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but if not, I'd like to see how we get to these, quote, lease rates, and that the aldermans are well informed on how we got from point A to point B, and we should have all of those evaluation documents before us that we can assess everything and see what took place and how we process things because right now I'm having an issue with how we do things here and so if I can't see it and get clarity then I have a problem with that and I don't want to point fingers at anyone who is responsible for making those things happen so I'm not putting it all on the city manager if it's If it's up to him to make all these determinations, then I want to see the reinforcement behind it all to help him, because he's not just going to just do this thing solo. It's not what his job responsibility is to do everything solo without discussing it with the aldermen or the council. So that's all I have to say.

Alderman Sanders, are you asking about the amounts that the leases are for? Is that what your question was?

Um, no, I'm asking the question in regards to how we get from A to B when signing off on leases for anything.

How do we get there?

Attorney Zito?

So with these leases, generally speaking, is that staff, whether it be the airport manager in conjunction with the city manager, right, will initially talk to the proposed tenant who wants to, you know, either lease for the first time a hangar or renew their lease. They'll talk about what the terms and conditions are. The price for each hangar is set by an ordinance that was previously adopted by the city council a few years ago. So that's where the price comes from. Certainly, if this council wants to change it, you guys can change the ordinance.

and adopt new prices as times pass, markets change and everything like that. That part's fine.

Ultimately, though, once staff has a draft lease put together, that's what comes before you. It comes to council just like what's in your packet right now. There's an ordinance that attaches that lease, and that's for you guys now to consider and say, hey, I agree with these terms or I don't agree with these terms. We need to go back to the negotiating table or this or that, whatever it is. But that's why it comes before you guys so that you have an opportunity to review it. Assuming that you guys are okay with the lease, you guys move it from first read to second read. Tonight, this particular lease right now is at second read. And then the ordinance authorizes, if you guys approve it, if you vote by a majority, well, three-fourths majority to approve this lease, then it passes. And the ordinance authorizes the city manager then to sign the lease on behalf of the city. So that's kind of the general process.

Alderman Monroe.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I think the topics that are being danced around here, number one, are their lease rates, are they correct at this time and date?

Because this was set many years ago, almost six years ago now, if I recall correctly.

Number two, I think what Alderman Sanders is trying to point out is that these hangars are being occupied before we agree to the lease. And I think that that's the problem that's kind of a that's presenting itself this evening. If city manager, for instance, decided to move city hall to another building, he would do so and then come back and ask for permission later. And that's not really the way this should be working. If these are going to come in front of the council, they should come in front of the council in a timely manner. And if we need to, we should probably suspend the rules.

Those kinds of things should be the order of how things work. I've done a bit of research on this. I do believe the rates are on the low side. I also believe backdating, you know, dating contracts two months before we're asked to do it to agree to it or a month and a half or whatever many days that might be is problematic. So those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed.

There's also a lot of language in this lease agreement that probably isn't germane or valid anymore that I believe needs an external review. I mean, you know, we're crossing out 2009, 2010, so these haven't been done in almost 15 years. So, you know, those are questions that really pop into mind, and I think we just need to do a better job of managing that on the front end in order to clean up the process here. My two cents.

Any other discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?

Stacey? Aye.

Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No.

Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye.

Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye.

The ordinance passes 7-1. Item number 6 is the first reading of Ordinance 20-24-62. Could you please read this?

Ordinance revising registration deadline and increasing landlord registry penalty Director Duckman Thank you, Madam Mayor Just wanted to start by saying, I apologize, the incorrect memo was attached to the agenda So, essentially, I'm going to go over here some of the fines that were finally agreed upon The actual ordinance that was part of your packet was correct So, in the ordinance, you received the correct fines, correct deadlines but the memo was incorrect so I apologize for that it was just we attached the staff had the wrong memo attached do you have a copy I do not have a copy of the updated menu meant memo but I do have the you you receive the correct ordinance with the right correct deadlines so I'll I'll go over it slowly and just kind of let you know what there wasn't much that changed from that original memo so apologies for that Let me just start by saying what's changed here. So before this proposed ordinance, the deadline for registration was June 31st. Okay. What's being proposed in this ordinance is a deadline to register of January 31st of each calendar year. So that's what's being proposed. Now, for this current year, meaning coming 2025, the deadline is going to be April 1st of 2025.

and probably wondering why well this is a new change and we're we're trying to give our landlords some time to understand the change and to adapt to it but starting in 2026 it's going to be January 31st from thereafter so now moving on to the proposed ordinance what are our fine or what is staff proposing for fines so you're going to be required we already talked about the deadlines so if you're 30 days or less if you register 30 days or less after our deadline, you're going to be charged $100 per unit and there's going to be a maximum charge of $1,500. So my memo didn't contemplate or state that there would be a maximum per property owner of $1,500. Now the application is filed 30 days but less than 90, so 31 to 90 after the due date, you're now are going to receive a $250 fine per unit. The maximum will be $3,000. If you're filed 90 days or more past the due date, you're going to have a $500 fine per unit with a maximum of $6,000. Now this changes in the past because there was a fee of $100 per unit and it didn't change with 30 to 90 days, etc. So this is what is being proposed was what I just spoke of with the days and associated increasing fines and then it also states in here that fines which are not promptly paid and they will have a chance to through administrative review process which is established in our chapter 299 of our codified ordinances which is essentially our administrative hearing process for anybody who's not paying they'll have a chance to challenge an administrative hearing process and that being said staff is recommending moving this forward.

Is there a motion to move this ordinance forward? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Stacy? Yes. I would like to know how many of these landlords are aware of this and have gone year after year after year choosing not to register?

my guess is this is our analysis so staff last year we retain the services of Ptolemy which is a software that allows us to analyze properties and to determine what we suspect to be rental properties so we've spent the past year looking into that exact question and what we've determined is there's roughly three thousand properties that we suspect are rentals and of those one of those one thousand registered so that's only one-third of what we suspect to be rentals register so looking at that data working with it's pretty it's a poor performance we'd like to see more people register and one way to excuse me enhance registration is to increase the fines so the answer to your question is two-thirds points you know sixty-seven percent of what we suspect to be rentals do not register as of right now and that that data goes back from 2020.

Why are there no registration fees attached?

Well, staff, well, take this back. You certainly can propose a registration fee. That's something that can be contemplated tonight. What's been proposed before you, as stated, has been discussed with landlords' representation, has been talked with our city manager. Staff has looked at it. We've not contemplated saying that there should be a registration fee, but it's open for discussion if it wants to be added.

if you're saying you want to add $50 a property, certainly it could be discussed.

Manager Ware?

I would like to point out that the fines have been increased to the point where we believe or we'd like to have an opportunity to see if the fines in and of themselves are enough to cover our expenses related to the registration.

Alderman Monroe?

So since we purchased and were trained on the new software this year, how many fines have we issued to the community thus far?

We've not issued any fines yet because it's literally taken up to this point for us to get all the data correct, get the software implemented, and now what we're hoping to do or what we're planning to do is after this is passed is now saying, hey, you have this amount of time.

or you're going to be fined. It truly is challenging to identify, okay, these properties are identified as rentals, we're going to move forward with a fine. And part of the reason that staff brought forth the Ptolemy software is to say, we know that people aren't registering, we know it's a problem, we want to do a better job verifying who's out there that isn't registering. So the answer to your question is, we spent this past year implementing the software and moving forward, we want to tighten down on doing a better job with our landlords registering.

during. Follow-up. We need to see if there's anybody else that wants to ask questions first. For the second time, no one for the first? Alderman Shadle? I just want to comment that if we impose a fee to sign up for this, at least without seeing if these fines are going to work first, we're giving the landlords a reason not to sign up and the objective of this is to know where the rental property is and you do that by getting them to sign up. There's no fee attached. They have no reason not to. Anyone else for Alderman Parker? Go along with what Alderman Shadle said. You know, if there's no fee, if you charge a fee, it gives a landlord a reason to add more money to the renter and a lot of the renters cannot afford the fee.

if it's only to sign up. So I think it forces them to sign up, and it doesn't hurt the writing people.

Alderman Sellers?

I think if the landlords are in agreement with it, and they're not opposing it, and they've sat down, and they've talked with, and they've been a part of the agreement, I think it's, you know, we should at least give it a try and see how that works.

Because they are in favor of it.

Alderman Clem?

I think Alderman Sellers hit it right on the nose there, we've gone through this more than once in our history, and if we're working with the Landlord Association, now we've got to remember that these guys are working with the bulk of the good landlords, it's basically a bunch of landlords out there that are in Chicago, slash Arizona, slash wherever that buys a property that they think is a real good deal and then lets it sit there and rot, Those are the people that really are causing the problem. So I think if we can implement it and everybody can work together on it and agree to it, it would be a good situation at that point.

Any other for first time? Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, Alderman, Clem, what would be, I didn't catch that last comment you made, what would it be?

It would be a good thing to work together with the Landlord Association because they take and deal with all the good landlords or the people, a lot of the people that have access to numerous properties.

to numerous properties, okay, we know that there's more and more in the last few years of people, a lot of people out there that own 10, 15, 20 properties, you know, that they're just out there and they're really trying to take advantage of people and not signing up, not being a part of their association to get what's going on.

So I think the biggest part, like the last time, I'll give you an example, there was a $25 fee put on it.

The first thing that happened was certain landlords charged the people $50.

That's why when it was brought up about the fee, it was not a matter of that it was not so fair to the landlords, it was not so fair in turn to the people because some of the landlords doubled that fee.

so if we can work together which there was a process before and it kind of went south but if we can keep working together and try and move it forward like one of the things we've got here that you that you really got to stop and think about is the number of rental properties and the number the percentage of rental properties because all of us know the minute that we've got a neighborhood that everybody's lived in for 25 years and they're all happy and there's three three houses bought up by somebody, and we'll use the term, I'll just use the term of a bad landlord, you know, then you really got troubles. You know, if you go to the, on Wayne's other side that he deals with, if you go to the side where people that don't mow yards, people that don't clean up stuff, people that got stuff all over in their yards and that kind of stuff, there's the other asset that he has to deal with when you get bad landlords and stuff.

So, if we can all work together, it'll just be helpful, I think.

Alderman Simmons, is there something more you would like to add before I open it up for a second round?

I think, Alderman Stacy, you had your hand up.

Yes.

If it's a big word to be two letters long, we have dealt with this for how many years?

With no registration fee.

And it doesn't happen.

you have a registration fee for everything else for your car so we have to do something to let them know we mean what we say and we say what we mean and even this little 100 and this little 250 for the ones that's been here who is aware of this and have continued to chosen to choose not to do it I say forget the 100 and the 250 and give them a flat 500. But you can't just do that for the old timers that continue to choose not to. You have to do the same across the board. And once we do that, and they know we mean business, if we have to make examples out of them, make examples out of them.

They've had how many years with no registration and it has not made a difference? They've had how many years with the 100 and the 250? 500 and be done.

I understand what you're saying.

I think what we might be talking about that we're missing a little here is the goal in this is not to make the landlords, the good landlords that are participating in this and working with us to be the one that suffers in the deal.

and some of those landlords own some a fairly good number of properties also keep in mind in the last year or I'll say more than that because it's been the COVID thing there's been a big turnaround in who bought a bunch of properties and who sold a bunch of properties there were a lot of people that were getting up in years that sound I'm selling my property and they turned around and sold them to a landlord that didn't go by any rules or anything else so So, if we talk a big fee up front, we're talking about the punishing of the people that we're dealing with, and all the people that we don't know about, these little guys that got a couple properties here and there, those guys are still going to be on the outside. Those are the people you want to try and deal with, to get registered and to get involved.

But the good landlords are registered.

They are not registered. You said right up front, the figure was what, 33%?

Correct. I said, yeah, that's what we're 33% of the people are registering. And of those, I would say there are good landlords on there. Yeah, there's some. Yeah.

But are you saying that there's also in the two thirds that's not registered good landlords mixed with bad landlords?

What I will say is the people that are involved with city manager Boyer, myself and the association, they are proponents of a landlord registry.

so they are registering. That's what I can say. Alderman Sanders. Have notifications went out to these landlords whether they registered or not to let them know what their responsibilities are and consequences of lack of their responsibility? Yes, and as I said what's going to be better about the program now is with this software we've done a better job of identifying who is a suspect who's out there that should be registered and isn't? Who do we suspect is a rental property that currently isn't registered? So we have every year we send it out. It would be, so if it's June 31st, it would be in May, we would send a letter out. However, now with this new proposal, we're going to be sending out the letters in December because we're proposing a different date, right? A different deadline. So to answer your question is, yes, people are notified. Staff has been working on making the process better, identifying who these landlords are. It's a complicated question to ask. How do you know who's, is that a landlord? Is that not a landlord? Is it a rental property? Is it not? And so we've worked diligently and we've gone out and hired an organization to help us resolve that question through data analysis. So the answer to your question is we've done it in the past. We think

we're going to do a better job moving forward. Thank you.

Overwoman Simmons. So if I'm hearing this correctly, all the person, sorry, Stacy, you think that the people who are avoiding signing up for this list and have gotten notices and reminders rather than and will will be still given until April, April 21st to register, should get a $500 fine versus $150 fine because they haven't done it and they've had the opportunity to do it. I agree with that. Would you like to make that a motion or how would we do that? So there was a motion and a second just to move this forward to second reading. So if you want to make a motion to make an amendment to the draft motion with what your proposed amendment is second.

the proposed amendment and then a vote by the council whether or not to make that change in the language which would then if it passes then we'll make it for the second reading okay okay but I'm I'm a little confused because it it according to what director Duckman said it was $100 per unit with a max of 1500 and then after another time frame it's $250 per unit with a max of 3,000 and then 500 per unit with a max of 6,000 you just you you're just talking about one little piece of six things there? No, I'm saying the initial, my motion will be for the initial fine to be for 500 and we move up from there. They've had plenty of opportunities to register and have chosen not to. Yeah, how do you move up from there if your next one is lower? It would be changed to progress and move up versus staying what it is. We would start with the first fine being 500 and move up from there. Okay, so right now it says if they're 30 days or less after the due date, right, so you're late 30 days, right now it says it's $100 per unit fine, you're saying change that to $500 per unit fine, okay, so the next period of time then is from day 31 to day 90 there, what would you, and that's currently at $250 per unit.

the same as it is it goes up 100 per 30 days just as it moves up and progresses as it is written it should move up those same amounts but starting at 500 so from 100 it went up to 250 so it went up 150 dollars so you're saying from 500 it should go up to 650 then the next increment where it starts at three uh 300 it should go up to what was that a difference of 250 and three. Sorry, I don't have my glasses on.

sorry I don't have my glasses on say 800 then per unit there so keep the incremental increase the same just start it at 500 and bump it up the same increment I got you okay so that's with a max or no yeah okay but the the original max was 1500 what would you what are you proposing for a max we would increase the max the same and starting at what we went from 150 to 500 so you would just about three times the $1,500 because we're slapping these landlords on the wrist and barely doing that and they're not registering because they're not taking care of their properties. Why would you not register if you are? We're not being firm with landlords that are in our city and not following our rules. Okay, so my question is it's 15 times the amount as a max. Do you want 15 times the amount of a max, is that what you're asking, so 15, as it is, whatever the, right, to what, as it's written, with the same increases. I think I understand what she's saying here, because right now it's $100, first step is $100 per unit fine, $1,500 max, you're proposing to bump that up to a $500 per unit fine, which we increase by $400 right there, so, and so that was a

15, $1,500, right there, so the first, but the top one was 12 times, so I don't understand how, but proportionally, it would go up the same amount as what she's saying, so it's 15 at the first level, it should be 15 across the board, if you want to make it. If you register, this because there's no concern to you because you've registered.

Mm-hmm.

Clerk, do you understand what you have for notes on that?

I believe I'm following, but as I read the ordinance currently, it's 100 with a 1,500 max, so if you had a 20-unit apartment building, it would stop at 1,500, so there is a logical stopping point because you could have 15 units.

you would stop at 15 units. Director Duckman, I'm not saying that very well. The max that that is per unit, so that the larger units don't get like a $10,000 on the first on the first slap, we'll call it.

Well, let me see if I can read through this here. I think the idea here is that they just didn't want it to be if a large landlord, they didn't want to hit somebody with an unlimited $100 per unit fines.

because if they were notified for the first time or claim they didn't know etc they wanted to cap it at a certain point if somebody may be out of town bought a large number of properties etc for whatever reason they wanted to cap it I for my understanding of what's going on here is they want to start under subs 870 608 section a subsection one they want it to be 30 days or later or 30 days or less after due date of of what's being proposed is $500 per unit with a $6,000 property max and then they want to go up from there to $650 per unit and then the max would be it looks like maybe $12,000 and then it would be $650 plus I mean it's there's a mathematical equation they want to go up but they want to use the same increments from but starting at $500. Does that make sense? That's what I believe is being.

so the top one would be 800 with a max of times 30 which is the difference on three so 900 it would be nine because it goes up it goes up 400 from the first one so sorry about that it would be 500 650 and 900 900 my math was wrong I'm sorry attorney Zito did I talk into that so then it's 900 times 30 no not it's uh 12 times so 12 times 12 okay so that's 72 2,000? I'm terrible at math in my head. Is that 10,800? Sorry, I got a couple zeros there. Yeah, somebody with a calculator. 10,800. 10,800? Man, that was good math. Yeah, so what were the numbers again? So the first tier would be 500 with a cap of 6,000, 31 to 90 days, 650 with a max of 12,000 over 90 days, 900 with a max of 10,800. That can't be right because it's not going up.

It's going up. The middle one needs to go up from 500 to 600. I think she's using the 100. So what I think is being proposed is they're going up. They went from 100 to 250. So that's adding 150.

So if you go for the second one, you would go from 500, if you add 150, that would be 650 per unit Right, I mean Yeah Yes, and before it was 250 and 3,000, so that's 12 times 650 Yep, 12 times 650, 7,800 So it would be 6,000, 7,800, 10,800 Would you like me to reread that all in one?

Yes First tier, 500 per unit with a max of 6,031 to 90 days, 650 per unit with a max of 7,800 over 90 days, 900 per unit with a max of 10,800 Okay, so that's a motion made by Alderman Simmons, or I forgot what the order was With all, Madam Mayor, with all the commotion and people about to stand up in their chairs, can we, I make a motion, we move this to December Cowell, so that we can get an understanding on this.

Okay, well, we have a motion on the floor for an amendment, so we need to deal with that first, but I can't remember who made the motion and who made the second motion.

Simmons made the motion.

I would agree.

I don't think we have a second. I'll second it. Wait. Okay, so we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons, seconded by Alderman Sanders. Now. Now we can have discretion on that. Which we were doing. So are we going to continue with it? Yes, Alderman Clement. I'd just like to ask the question.

understand where you're coming from here but I think the main goal of this particular ordinance here is to register tenant houses okay the goal is not to to to find everybody to the hill like every mom and pop that owns one or two houses that don't have a clue about this so they're all gonna it's gonna come up and you're gonna find them $1,000 or $2,000. I mean I think the main goal is to take and get as many people as they can registered first. You can then take and work with fines or work with costs however you want to do it. But meanwhile, these people here with two people working for them are going to try and figure out, go around and guess how many rental properties you've got in the city of Freeport and they've got software that determines it.

You can look at me like that. That's fine. I don't care. But I'm going to tell you something. Think about what your goal is and where you're going here. So if you can register 10,000 properties right off the bat with cooperation from an organization and then work on getting more, are you farther ahead doing that and getting everybody on the same page rather than finding a whole bunch of people and have the guy sitting over here that owns 400 properties say, there's no way in hell I'm going to pay that amount of money. We're going to go to court because that's what's going to happen. We've been through this once. Alderman Clemm? Alderman Monroe? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do think that's a bit on the stiff side, but I will remind the alderman that he voted to essentially fine people $600, $700, $800 and tow their vehicle for playing the radio too loud.

so it's got everything to do with this because essentially what you're saying is we're going to take somebody who's got multiple properties in town that we want to register their properties and hold them accountable and most of those properties are assessed under fair market value in this city right now greatly under assessed they're getting a thousand to fifty $1,800 a month for rent in homes that are worth $25,000, $30,000, and they've put in upgrades and things like that. So I'm not sure these numbers are too big, I would agree, but we at but we at some point have to start holding landlords accountable and accountability is something that's been missing for a very long time in this and the east side of town for the most part and now the west side of town is going through the same issues together and I think it's a responsibility of us to hold those people accountable and I don't care if they live in Arizona I don't care if they live in California I don't care where they live at the end of the day we want to maintain We want to maintain our city, we want to maintain safe neighborhoods, and we go back to our strategic vision for the city, and we've put money toward this to get this done. Still not done. I have questions if we will do it. I'm starting to wonder if staff is capable of doing what we're giving the money to do. It's a challenge. I get it.

But these properties are sold and bought every day. They're registered at the county clerk's office.

They're registered in the city. We've got the databases to figure this out. And it's a responsibility of us to make sure that this happens so that we can then provide the police department or the fire department or whomever with the information that they need. And we are able to then start getting people held accountable from the standpoint of maintaining their properties and not going falling on deaf ears so the the realistic probably lays somewhere between what was proposed by the community development and what was proposed by Alderman Simmons and Mr. Sanders so you know I I think that's the conversation but at the end of the day there's got to be some teeth to this because if there's not what do they care you fifteen hundred dollars is somebody that owns 20 properties. That's nothing at the end of the day. That's 100 bucks a property. So they'll collect that in a month. So I don't know. It's just my thoughts. I would probably say, you know, 250, 500, 750 makes a lot more sense to me, but that's just numbers that I kind of came up with here. And we just keep it straight I'm going to do it 12 times, so we don't have 15, 12, and 10, whatever, but that's my thoughts.

Alderman Parker.

Just to clarify, we're still talking no registration fee, all these numbers are the penalties if they don't register, right?

Correct.

Okay, and I have an agree with Alderman Monroe on the cost, we need to reduce it so some of these people can afford it.

Thank you.

Alderman Sanders, I believe you had your hand up next.

Yeah, I'm in alignment on the part where it is requested certain assessment on this ordinance and the fact that we should be able to submit amendments to these ordinances where we can actually come to agreement wholeheartedly instead of sitting in council trying to devise a plan when we should be already informed on our progress.

So each time we decide what we should be doing, we should be drafting to ourselves or having conversation with each other on the council to come up with these kinds of determinations amongst councilmen. We should have a legitimate conversation with councilmen so everyone can hear their perspective and their viewpoints and things of this nature. I agree with what I'm hearing so far. I hear different expressions from various people.

but there's no clarity once we walk out of here there's no initiation or initiative to go follow through with anything that we're talking about and if we don't do something we're just talking and it just fans out into the air with no with no substance to it without coming to a conclusion Then we're just wasting time. We have just wasted our time at council if we don't come up to talk together about the subjects that is before us. So I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we can't talk to one another to come up with a resolution and to be able to move forward because I don't like the fact that we might be doing injustice to tenants or landlords, but what I do want to be able to agree with, with the majority that is giving the best solutions, that's my take. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Just let me remind council where we've been, and I think it was already stated that we were in a place where we had really no accountability.

We had some semblance of a registry. However, it wasn't complete. Staff was tasked to to remedy the situation. We went out, we found software packages that suits our needs, that online, that it doesn't burden our staff with the various day-to-day information entering needs. Basically, individuals can fill it out themselves. So we've got that done. It's being populated with data. And what we're asking for here is a step in the right direction, but let's take it a step at a time.

I don't want to trip and fall on the way to the finish line here We've worked together with the Realtors Association to work to a common consensus here They represent the landlords in this town that care and that are the good landlords And I would like an opportunity for us to go ahead and enact what it is here we've put down because this wasn't just come out of thin blue air this came out of back and forth with some of our most important property owners okay I get it we want to fix it all we want it all fixed today but we all know that that doesn't happen with the roads it doesn't happen with the water that doesn't happen with various structures in town it's a process so I would just encourage council let's work on the process let's take it a step at a time let's move forward with what we have here in the if it's not working let's revisit that and fix it but folks I don't want to trip at the front of the finish line here is getting this done there's a lot of staff hours involved in this there's a lot of consultation with folks in the community we will get it done but we got to take it a step out of time so that's all I'd say I just want to say that I truly appreciate the efforts that staff has put forward on this I do not agree at all with comments made that You're not capable of dealing with this. I can see obviously you are. It's very well put together. It may not be perfect, but I think if you get too quick with too much of a fine, you're going to get a counterproductive measure. The object of this is to get people registered. If you get the fine too much,

they're going to walk away from properties and now we're going to be stuck with a $20,000 bill tear and a building down.

We need to get them registered. If it turns out a year from now that there's too many people running too late, that the fines aren't enough, let's deal with it then.

Let's get a little data, let's analyze it, we'll take care of it then. Right now, we need to get them registered and the best way to do that is with what's been brought forward.

Manager, Boyer, did you want to add to that? I also wanted to make a comment that ideally, you know, it takes about 30 days for an ordinance to go into effect. So if we were able to get this passed on December 2nd, that would go into effect January 2nd, we would be in good shape. And so that's kind of the timeline I've been working with, and I'd like us to hold on to that timeline if possible.

Alderman Sellers I have to agree with Alderman Shadle. I think that we should at least give this a chance and see how it is because a lot of times these landlords are putting some of these fines and raising the rents on their tenants and that's what I don't want to see happen. I just had a call from a friend who said her landlord just went up on her daughter's rent so I don't want that to happen and then you have of these people staying in these apartments that they can't afford. Already, they're paying $1,200 for some of these rental properties. So I think we should at least give them a chance, see how it works, see what we're going up against, and then we come back in and reevaluate.

Alderman Stacy.

Director Duckman, did you say that in December, letters Thank you.

this year obviously I'm not going to it doesn't sound like I'm going to get a letter out in some point in December because it's going to be approved probably hopefully in December but typically in a year I would be giving out a letter so in 2026 I'd be sending out a letter one month prior which would be December saying please register your property or you are subject to a fine as of February 1st.

Okay, and so then no one would have the excuse of saying, I didn't know Correct, yes, they're going to be, they are going to be notified via mail Your property is suspected as a rental You have to register your property by this date Which is to be decided upon And if you do not register upon this date Here is your fine schedule, your fee schedule And have these letters gone out before?

The letters have gone out before stating you need to register your property or be subject to a fine. What I have said several times is that staff has a better ability now to identify who should be registering, who has not. That ability was more difficult in the past because we're trying to identify in our database of properties, which over 10,000 parcels of land, we're trying to determine is that a landlord, is that not a landlord, has this has been sold in the last month to somebody who lived there for 30 years and now is going to be a landlord.

That's a difficult process to do when you're using rudimentary databases and you're using multiple databases and trying to figure out, okay, how do we determine if this person's actually a landlord or not?

The software and platform that we're using now has the ability to do a better job of identifying who should be registering as a landlord. Okay. So we're still on the topic of that amendment to Alderman Simmons. Would you like to add something? Okay. I'll try to make this super quick. You all agree with me that we need to get these landlords registered, but you don't want to do anything to them for not registering. This is for landlords who do not register, have gotten notices after notice and still choose not to register. It sounds as though those in council that do agree with me, think that maybe this might be a little steep, so I would compromise, and I withdraw my motion.

If you want to remove your motion, then I need to have the second, which is Sanders.

I concur.

Okay, so now we're back to the original of- Mayor?

Yeah.

I don't know if I've heard it exactly.

Would it be fair, Director Duckman, to say the 67% who are not registered, there's a very good chance that they have never received a letter, and it's possible that they don't even know this ordinance is on the books?

That is certainly, that certainly is possible. That certainly is possible. We're talking about staff was tasked with the ability to say we want a better rental registry. That's what what that's what I was the staff was tasked with. And so I went into a process and looked at it. And what was currently being done was letters were sent out to people that were previously in the database or who had been registered in the past. That's what we were going on. And when somebody comes to staff and says, I know there's more landlords, that person's a landlord, that person's a landlord. And I said, well, I see that as an issue. How do I fix it? How do I go about fixing this issue? How do I go about doing it efficiently, effectively? And so I started looking for softwares that could do this and analyze all of our properties and look at it fairly, have logarithms to say what data suspects says that you actually are a landlord, you don't live there. Because landlords are smart. Many of these, and what one of the things the software does is it says, here's the 10 different LLCs that this person is. So yes, it's Wayne Duckman, but here's the 10 LLCs and here's the other 20 properties that he owns. Tracking that down for one person is going to take me hours to do that.

So point that I'm getting at here is you are correct, Dovie, Miss Anderson, pardon me, that I'm used to calling you that all the time. But anyways, the point I will say here is I was tasked with making the process better. And I can tell you that the software I'm using is making the data analysis better and is going to improve who we notify should be registering as a rental. So I will say that, but you are correct.

So you're really saying give it a chance for the software to work? Sure, yeah, thanks, yes. Okay, but are you also saying? I think maybe we have to make sure everybody's had a chance to talk, I know you've had several in there, so. Okay, so we're back to the original, correct? Or because the motion is off the table? So the amendment is off the table. The last thing I recall was Alderman Stacy saying that she wanted to move this to the cow. She tried to make that motion, but because we had Alderman Simmons' motion on the table. So I don't know if Alderman Stacy still wants to make that motion or not.

Right now, it's moving to the next regular City Council meeting. That's already up.

I just have a question for Director Duckman.

Okay. Alderman Stacy, go ahead.

With the ones that you know are landlords, with the ones that you know have received a letter, Are they 100% registered?

No, they're not.

No, they're not.

The ones, when we go off of the previous year registries, we do not get 100% back.

So there are, yes, there are people who are notified and are not registering.

Alderman Monroe, did you have another point?

I have a couple, Mayor.

there. First question I'll ask, have we reconciled the list that we have sent out to the water and sewer billing, number one? That process? That way we don't have these follow-ups. Well, because if I do that, then he only answers one of them, and I'd like all of my questions answered, if that's possible.

Okay, Director Duckman, are you? He said, one by a time? Part of the process, yes, this software does rectify against our water billing information. It does. It does do that. So if Wayne Duckman is on 57 water bills, it'll go in and say you're renting 57 or 56 properties or assume that.

That is part of their part of their that is part of their logarithm. I will tell you that because we know that there's other we've been through. I don't want to go down that issue of who gets the water bill, the landlord water bill thing. But that is one of the elements that it analyzes. But there are other ones. There are other parts of the logarithm that are, I will say, better at gathering, saying, hey, you're a landlord. But that is part of it. Yes.

So, the follow-up on that was, we spent $20,000 in the 2024 budget, I believe it was, ish, and that was approved, we got the software, we got the training, and now we're coming back thinking, okay, we're going to raise the fines, you know, tier one, tier two, tier three, I'll just call them that for now.

Now, my question really is, how do we get to a point where we're actually going to go out and be more proactive in this approach as opposed to sending, you know, and there's businesses that do this and they fail miserably, sending notice to their current set of customers, essentially.

so the ones that have registered and the few that we know how are we going to get past this point because we can put as many fines on here if we don't know that they're renting their property we have no clue that we should even be collecting these and it comes back to this is more than just a small ordinance change this is a significant ordinance change because we have to have a meaningful way to go and determine that properties are being leased inside the city limits of Freeport and right now it doesn't feel like we do even though I'm told we do and everybody seems to disagree with me but at this point we're at the same place we were a year ago when we approved the budget for this software. So how do we get past this is my question.

Well, I'll disagree with you completely because before I didn't have a list that would say suspect this list of properties here is suspected as being a rental property. I didn't have that ability. I did not have that ability before. So this software and what took so long was you had so long was you had different, like for example, the county, it took a long time working with the county to get their data to integrate with our software. That took time for them to say, here's the scripts that you need to access this data. That just takes time. It also took time to work with the different water bill software. That just took time, but we didn't, you know, I didn't quit on it. I know Director Suttman's tired of hearing me saying, when am I going to get this information? Mr. Monroe is going to ask me about it again. He's going to ask me about it.

I mean, I, we work tirelessly to get all of this data to work. And so the short answer to your question is, I could not get that list accurately before I just couldn't get it. I did not have the ability to do it as well as I can now. And it took time to get that to work.

No, that's, that's perfect, because you're that that integration is what's going to draw everything in together. And that's what I wasn't understanding to this point. And, and really, I think that's the important piece here. You know, look, I still, I think most of us agree $1,500, $3,000, $6,000 is not a steep enough amount and I don't know if the Landlord Association or the Realtor Association would agree or disagree with that. I don't know if we can ask them their thoughts because they've given deep input into this but you know if you're if you're talking you know somebody that we're maxing it at 12 or 15 properties if we're going if they've got that many properties these fines are fairly insignificant really at the end of the day because they're drawing in $800, $1,000 per property in most of these instances. And I rented on Galena. So I'm pretty familiar with the rental properties in town and the rates. And that was 10 years ago when it was $800 a month. So now it's like $1,200. So I mean, we're literally finding them the equivalent of six months rent on six properties or one month's rent on six properties, not six months, one month rent on six properties. So, you know, I think now that you've got that, I would be interested to see how many properties that might be that we would be able to contact that we've not contacted to this point.

Well, there's plenty of time to have more discussions with the Realtors Association if they agree or disagree. This is going to be moving forward. The way it stands right now, this will be moving forward to the December 2nd meeting. Madam Clerk, yeah. Madam Mayor, I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

it's $100 per unit so if I owned 10 residential houses and I didn't register I'd be fined $1,000 if I owned 10 apartment buildings that had 20 units I would be fined $1,500 on each of those that's the property max that's not the landlord max that's per property correct no is it That's what I'm, okay, that makes sense. Okay. I want her to say something, because she's about to.

Are you, did you want me to? Correct me if I'm wrong, so if I had 10 apartment buildings that had even 20 units, my property max is $1,500, so my maximum fine would be $15,000 for my 10 properties.

sorry it's like a math question here 10 properties at so you have 10 properties and you're saying that each of them is a duplex no like a no like a hundred like a 1220 unit apartment building but we've maxed it at 1500 so each of those apartment buildings are 1500 that's per property max yes that's how it reads it says I'm looking at it right here and that's exactly how it reads 1500 $1,500 property max and so So if I didn't, if I waited more than 90 days, I'd be fined $60,000 for my 10 apartment buildings.

Yes.

So to me, that's not insignificant, but I don't own any.

I think the confusion was, is we thought that that was a max for all of the properties instead of the unit.

So per address.

That's why we needed a memo, but that's, I think that's kind of a confusing point.

And fair enough, and I understand that, and I just want to say that the reason for the memo going out late was there was one more meeting that went out, and it didn't make, I have to get these memos to Clerk Anderson by that Thursday, and this meeting happened after that Thursday, so you know what, you can't That's okay, that's okay No, I get it It was a change at the last minute, so That's where the confusion is, though Understood Okay, so our, look at the time, it's almost 7.30, we're on item number six We've got 39 total. Are we ready to move on to second reading for this in December 2nd? The phones are always, offices are open if you want to talk about detail on more. Move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-63. Could you please read this? It's because it moves on.

fiscal year 2025 appropriation ordinance ordinance manager Boyer thank your honor so the each city fund and department has been presented to the committee the finance committee of the whole at a series of meetings we've had starting September 3rd 2024 with public input session so we've had public input session dedicated and we've had public input before each of the budgets were read attached is that fiscal year 2025 in the the appropriations ordinance format. The following adjustments have occurred over the past week and are incorporated in the final document. Slight increase in the city levy in the amount of $140,400 due to receipt of estimated equalized assessed value with the corresponding decrease in the amount of required fund reserve. Also, the library budget items have been adjusted due to the receipt of the EAV numbers. The library will be able to increase their property tax revenue by $50,500.

Staff recommends City Council move forward with this ordinance to the second reading to December 2nd.

Is there a motion to move forward?

So move.

Second.

We have a motion by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.

Discussion on this ordinance.

Move on to item number eight, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-64.

Could you please read this?

Tax levy ordinance.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. So annually, the City Council adopts a corporate levy to help finance the City's operation, that is, general fund. We have received the estimated 2024 equalized assessed value, or EAV, as we just discussed, from the county. The EAV for our tax district increased, as mentioned before, but $15,102,367, or 5.61% over the last year.

Based on this information, the city's levy for 2024, paid in 2025, would be $2,977,400, an increase of $140,400, a house valued at $100,000 would see no increase in the city's portion of their property tax bill as long as their assessed value has not increased.

During the past five years the city council has kept the tax rate the same or slightly lower Staff recommends city council to move forward with this ordinance second reading on December 2nd Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers Discussion on this ordinance? On to item number nine which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-81 Could you please read this? Library tax levy ordinance Manager Boyer or Director Huffines We've received the estimated 2024 equalized assessed value from the county. The EAV has increased by $15,102,367 over the last year. Based on the information, the library's levy for 2024 paid in 2025 will be $1,062,000. The library will see an overall increase of $50,500 in their levy.

the library reduced the request for Medicare liability insurance unemployment and Illinois municipal retirement fund last year in order to spend down prior reserves in these areas at that time we informed council that these rates would need to increase when the funds were exhausted this year we need to increase those levels to cover actual expenses for 2025 a house valued at $100,000 we'll see a slight decrease in the the library portion of their tax bill. Staff request city council move this ordinance forward for second and final reading on December 2nd. Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion? Move on to item number 10, which is a motion to abate.

Madam Clerk, could you read all of those as one motion?

Ordinance 2024 is to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligation bond series 2013-A.

Ordinance 2024-66 is to abate the 2024...

is to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligations bonds, series 2014B, ordinance 2024-67, to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligation bonds, series 2015A, ordinance 2024-68, to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the obligation bonds, series 2016, ordinance 2024-69, to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the obligation bonds, series 2016, ordinance 2024-69, to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the obligation bonds, series 2016, General Reef.

General Obligation Bonds Series 2021. Lastly, Ordinance 2024-73 to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligation bonds series 2022. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. When the general obligation bonds are issued, they're backed by the city's ability to levy and collect property taxes. Therefore, the county automatically levies the required annual debt service from the city of Freeport property owners on their property tax bills.

the city has historically abated or canceled is another word for it this amount on the property tax by passing an ordinance each year the property taxes that would otherwise be collected from the residents is abated and the city instead makes the debt service payments from other city revenues so as clerk Anderson has read to the council the individual bonds issued are in the table provided the amounts to be abated and the source of revenue that will be used to make the bond payments. We have also included the potential increased cost in property tax on a $100,000 home if the bonds are not abated. Ordinance to abate these bonds will be, it is before you now to move on to the December 2nd meeting. Staff requests we move this on to the December 2nd council. Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion?

Item number 11 is the first reading of ordinance 20-24-74. Could you please read this?

Ordinance approving airport hangar lease M4 with Ken and Paula Irwin.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. Kenneth and Paula Irwin are interested in leasing hangar M4 at Alberta's airport.

The agreement will generate $165 per month of city revenue, and staff recommends the approval of the hangar lease.

Is there such a motion?

So moved.

Second.

The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Clem to move ordinance 2024-74 on to the next regular scheduled meeting.

Alderman Monroe. Manager Boyer, this is a question for you. Is there a need with these to just suspend the rules and get these done? Same meeting, would that make a lot? It makes a lot of sense to me.

And actually, I'll just bypass that. I'll just say I'd like to suspend the rules and move this forward to second reading now.

Second. Okay, so we have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Parker for suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules is non-debatable and must pass by two-thirds majority. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension only?

Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. Suspension of the rules passes 8-0.

So now before you, Council, is as if it were the second reading of this ordinance. Discussion on this? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. And the ordinance is adopted, 8-0.

Item number 12 is his first reading of Ordinance 2024-75. Could you please read that?

Ordinance approving airport hangar lease E-1 with Prop Wash, LLC.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor.

If it suits the council, I'd like us to suspend the rules on this one as well.

There's a plane owned by Prop Wash, LLC.

It's scheduled for repairs, which may last three to six months.

Heritage Aero currently has no space available to store the plane, and Prop Wash, LLC will lease hangar E-1 for a few months while the airplane is undergoing repairs.

Staff recommends approval of the hangar lease at $215 per month. Is there a motion to move this forward? Aye. Motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Motion to suspend the rules, actually, unless anybody's got questions, I'll... We have a motion for... I'll wait and if somebody's got questions... Okay, so is there a discussion concerning this ordinance? Motion to suspend the rules, Mayor. Second.

We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers for suspension of the rules, again, suspension of the rules, oh, it was Stacy? I'm sorry. Yep. Make that correction, seconded by Alderman Stacy. Suspension of the rules is non-debatable. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension only? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Absent. Oh, thank you for that.

Parker. Aye. The motion still passes 7-0. Okay, now before you is the final passage for this ordinance. Any discussion on that?

Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Stacy. Aye. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Clem. Aye. Monroe. Aye. Simmons. Well, I did it again. Parker. Aye.

and the ordinance passes 7 to 1. And item number 13 is the first reading of ordinance 2024. 7 to 0. 7 to 0. 7 to 0. Thank you for the correction. 7 to 0.

Do you want me to wait a minute or are you good? No, I'm fine. Okay. Item number 13 is the first reading of ordinance 2024-76. Could you please read this?

Ordinance approving two airport farm leases with Matt, Phil, and Will Kemple and a second one with Dan Julius Manager, Boyer Thank you, Your Honor Staff's been working very hard on getting the farm leases squared away We're coming to you tonight with Matt, Phil, and Will Kemple and Dan Julius Staff recommends moving forward with the two farm leases before you tonight and if so, incline, please feel free to suspend the rules on this. Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Second. Alderman Monroe, and I didn't catch the second. So, Shadle? Okay. Motion to suspend. Second. Can we have some discussion here? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, actually, we have a motion on the table for suspension of rules, so that's non-debatable. We have that by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Monroe.

Carl, so that's what's on the table right now. So, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on this suspension of the rolls?

Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye. And Parker? Aye. Okay, so now before you is the second reading of this ordinance discussion? Yes. Okay. So, there appeared to be a different visual piece of paper.

Cooper called the contract. Is that what they're going to look like? Is that the final draft of the farmland leases?

Manager Boyer.

Alderman Stacy, this farm lease is actually a standard form that is used statewide and is recommended by the University of Illinois and the other ag organizations.

So this is a standard lease that everyone uses and it's accepted because everybody's used to seeing it.

This is a standard lease for land leases in Illinois.

Okay, I just asked, is that what we have adopted?

Is that what?

That's what's before you right now.

We haven't adopted anything yet.

That's what your vote is going to be on.

Okay.

Darren?

I think her question is, is this is the standard format that we're going to use, which it is the format that we're planning on using for everyone. Yes. Thank you. There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. On final passage, Stacy. Aye. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Clem. Aye. Monroe. Aye. Simmons. Aye. And Parker. Aye. And that ordinance passes eight to zero.

item number 14 is the first reading of ordinance 2024 77 could you please read this ordinance of the city of Freeport approving and authorizing a vehicle lease agreement with the Stevenson County Senior Center doing business with the Stevenson County Senior Center doing business as Senior Resource Center.

Director, Doctor.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So staff, the Senior Resource Center currently holds two vehicles for its own that it uses, it received through the 5310 Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program.

So what this essentially means is they have two vehicles that they received and their ownership for that specific program.

Program. So now one of these vehicles, bus number 23, is not actively used by SRC. So what this means is they receive the vehicle for one program and they're not using it. And the Pretzel City Area Transit, which is the program that we operate, we are in need of more vehicles. And to give a little background here, last year I sent a resolution to work with the Illinois Department of Transportation to eventually enter into a lease agreement. And it was estimated that that would take two years for the Illinois Department of Transportation to bring a vehicle up here because of the backlog of buses that they have. And so what this background is essentially informing you of is that our program needs buses and the Senior Resource Center who operates our program. So it sounds confusing, but the Senior Resource Center puts the Pretzel City Area Transit on the buses, and they're the ones who actually hires the drivers is operating this program and so this bus that we're talking about bus number 23 it's just being used for a different program and it's not being utilized in that program and our staff is saying we have a need for vehicles and they said you can we can lease you that vehicle to meet that need so that's essentially what's going on here and I go a little further in the memorandum and I talk about how we currently have 16 vehicles this would bring us to 17 and one of the issues we have is working with older vehicles because we have a shortage of vehicles so oftentimes these vehicles are taken out of the fleet and they're being they're being maintained because they're older so that being said staff is recommend moving this forward the you know as our public had mentioned earlier this is a dollar lease and I want to

also state that anything that is done with the Pretzel City Area Transit Program, it's all being approved of and directed by the Illinois Department of Transportation. So this particular lease, how it is structured is directly from the Illinois Department of Transportation saying, you should do, if you want this bus, you need to do it this way for us to approve it. Because the Downstate Operating Assistance Program and the 5311 funds total $1.2 million in funding for our public transportation and that that basically tells us you're going to do run your program this way or you're not getting the money and they're very strict on how they do it so that's what's before you and staff recommends moving this forward. Is there a motion to move forward? So moved. Second.

motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Clem. Discussion? Alderman Stacy? Do you have what they're requesting or what they're saying is going to have to happen? That's right in front of you. This lease agreement is exactly that. That's exactly what they have told us. So we would, we, the city would be responsible for the maintenance and the insurance and all that coverage?

It is always, that is how all vehicles are done. All vehicles are done that way. And yes, it is the City of Freeport funded through the Downstate Operating Assistance Program and the 5311 program, which are two grants that fund the program. So it says City of Freeport is responsible. However, the money is coming from the state to fund it.

So it's covered 100%.

That is correct.

And we have a driver for this bus, 23?

Yes. Because yes, yes, we have drivers. Yes. As I was saying, the biggest, the driver for this driver, the initiative behind this bus, pardon the pun there, is that we have old vehicles that are out. We have vehicles that go out for maintenance and we need, we need more vehicles for our drivers to operate so we can, we can actually have better service and meet the needs of our people.

anyone else then we will move on to item number 15 which is the first reading of ordinance 2024 78 would you please read this ordinance approving special use permit application at 1161 West Lincoln Boulevard submitted by LGC Y installation services to examine the special use of an R for one family residence zoned property to allow for solar energy systems which utilize ground mounted PV arrays per Section 1250.01B20. Thank you. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Staff received a special use permit from legacy installation services for a solar energy system that's using ground-mounted PV arrays, and the address is 1161 West Lincoln Boulevard. And for some background here, when you're in the residential zoning districts, you need a special use permit to do ground-mounted solar. So you do not need a Special Use Permit if you're putting it on your roof. And if you look at the screen here, you're going to see what was, what's being proposed here at 1161. And so right here is a 10 foot by 30 foot, 300 square foot solar mounted array. And it's going to be at a maximum height of 10 feet. So 10 feet by 30 by 30.

by 30 by 10. And that's what, in order to move forward with the building permit, when you do this in a residential neighborhood, you have to go through a special use process. And so on November 7th of 2024, we had a hearing, or staff had a hearing, and the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval by a vote of five yays, zero nays, and one abstention to allow, and they recommended approval of this special use permit.

permit. On November 14th, the Planning Commission did not recommend approval, and they did so by a vote of three yays, four nays, and zero abstentions. I want to state a couple points here. First of all, the hearing where who essentially makes the recommendation is the Zoning Board of Appeals. They recommended approval.

It is important to note that our Planning Commission had a strong discussion about this particular special use permit and there's a it was a good discussion on and really what it came down to was you know property rights versus the overall strategic plan of our city in terms of you know do we want as a city in the future to move forward with you know keeping a special use permit for allowing ground mounted solar arrays in residential districts overall and it was a strong discussion and I stated that I would move forward and relay those items to council those particular concerns that were had at the staff level we when it was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals staff did not take a recommendation for or against it and there was quite a bit of staff discussion on this as well and one of the things that was one of the items that was brought up was you know essentially there is going to be a concern there's potentially a concern for property values and enjoyment of the neighbor's property and I say potentially because this is a fairly large you can see it takes up quite a bit of area in their backyard so when we we had the same presentation to staff to the Planning Commission you know after the Zoning Board of Appeals and that essentially is what came up from our two our two commissions and so that being said staff is recommending you know moving this moving this forward so you are making a recommendation I'm sorry no it

I take that in terms of we're recommending moving this forward into our second reading is what I'm saying because it's a first reading of an ordinance right but I think your notes say you're not making a recommendation correct so when it was present sorry go ahead I think Wayne's just making the recommendation right now to move it forward so that the council can then vote on it at the second reading yes they want to vote on it so is there a motion to move it forward I'd make a motion to deny it. Is there a second to deny? No, I wanted to move it forward. No, second. So, hang on. So, we always want to make our motions in the positive there. So, if you're against it, then you just vote no. Okay. I make a motion to move it forward. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Stacy, seconded by Alderman Sanders to move ordinance.

Alderman Sanders to move ordinance 2024-78 on to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Is there discussion? Alderman Stacy.

Yes. I just feel like if I'm thinking correct, we already have approved this for one person in this city, and I'm big on that. If we do it for one, why can't we do it for the other?

What business is it of ours to tell people what they can and cannot do on their property? Why would we do it for others? And now, this time, there's a problem. I don't know how that balances why it's okay for this person, but it's not.

I can answer that so you have when you're you have zoning whether it's residential commercial manufacturing etc you have uses that are allowed by right which goes exactly to your point in a residential area if your intended use is to primary uses to build a house you're allowed to do that by right you still have to get a permit a building permit but the use itself is allowed by right you're not allowed in a residential area to build an automobile an automobile shop.

you can't fix cars can't tear down that house and you're not allowed to go to go over there and build a car a car shop now there are what's called land uses that fall in the middle which is what's called a special use permit and the reason for a special use permit is to put it through a hearing process to say it's something that council wants to something that our zoning board of appeals planning commission ultimately council wants to vote on as a land use does is this appropriate.

this could be a residential house that maybe is on a bigger lot and it's put they're putting the panel in an area that might be less intrusive in the opinion of the commission and the council so the point is our ordinance has several special uses where it is the job of ultimately our council members to say is this use appropriate or not because it's that's that's how that that is exactly how the ordinance reads is there's certain land uses that require a special use permit because what we're saying what is being contemplated in the ordinance is this particular land use needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. It's not a I'm in a residential zoning district. I'm allowed by right to have a house. It's not that simple per our ordinance. It requires each case requires to be looked at individually. That's exactly what this is directed. Well, no, we got Alderman Sellers had her hand up for speaking.

So, has there been complaints from the neighbors on the 10 foot of being 10 feet high?

We have not, one neighbor called, spoke with staff and did not, and just wanted information because this was notified by a yard and by mail notice to neighbors, and they said, okay, sounds good.

They were told about the hearing. They said they weren't going to show up. They had no objection. There was one call.

Darren?

I sit on the planning commission and I'll give you the stances from both views I was on the nay side as I think four people were at the the the meeting the other two people that were approved while I have been on the the planning commission had much much larger lots and they weren't intrusive to the neighbors where they set these units and there wasn't the the unit itself wasn't nearly as big as this unit. This is a very tight lot in comparison to those and one of the comments that was made in the nays was this will be no different than a large RV that somebody sets out there and lets rust in their yard over the years and it's not going to get moved because it's going to be there for 30 years. Where a rusted RV, we actually have code compliance that we don't allow that.

On the yay sides, one comment that was made, and I think it was by Mr. Atkinson that was on the committee too, was he didn't feel like we had a right to tell somebody what to do with their property. But in respect to that, the reason that it's got to come through council is because the forefathers that set these ordinances wanted it to be evaluated case by case.

if they would have chosen to put this on their roof it would have never made it to council because they have the right to do that it's the ground mounting that is the the question whether it fits each purpose any other discussion you turn the light back on yeah any other first-time discussion not Alderman Stacy I just want to say we have allowed this more than once and all the ordinance and all the rules and all the do's and don'ts was not pulled out because it was something you all were for and we do it for one, we do it for the other. If the neighbors had a problem with this, I believe they would have come forth by now. Would that be a true statement? Yes, I would agree with that. Okay, we'll move on to the next item. Number 16 is the First Ring of Ordinance 2024-79. Could you please read this?

Ordinance approving special use application at 1373 South Locust Avenue submitted by CINDEO Networks to examine the special use of an R4 one-family residence zone property to allow for a telephone exchange and other similar public service uses per section 1250.01B8.

Director Duckman.

Yes, and Director Suttman, would you mind scrolling down just a little bit so they could see the picture?

Could we clip the lights?

So staff has received a special use application from Sindio Networks and is for the installation of a telecommunications distribution cabinet and the address is 1373 South Locust Avenue right across from the high school. And so the subject property is in the residential zoning district and the what's interesting here is the this is for fiber optics running fiber optics throughout this city. And what's interesting here is the utility company or the fiber optic company actually purchased the lot as opposed to doing an easement oftentimes you'll have an easement carved out for these pedestals like you'll see here you'll see them they're usually carving out an easement on somebody else's property but in this situation they own the property and in order when you have a residentially zoned property if you're going to put up a utility structure utility shed something of that nature it is required to get us go through the special use process and so this one was already constructed and it was since it was already constructed and they thought that they had the right to do so through through an older agreement through discussions with staff we told them they had to go through the special use process and they agreed to do so and that is what brought us to this point the specifications on this is it is approximately it's a two foot by three foot by four foot high

cabinet as you see there. Now this went on November 7th to our Zoning Board of Appeals and it was recommended by a vote of six yays, zero nays, and zero abstentions. Now our Zoning Board of Appeals made a point that and they made a condition and the same condition later on was agreed upon by our Planning Commission was that a landscaping screen had to be approved by staff as part of this special use and that's allowed in our ordinances is to impose conditions on our special use permits. So yes, it was recommended for approval, but with the condition that a landscaping screen and plan approved by staff would be part of that approval. So on November 14th, the Planning Commission also recommended approval by a vote of six yays one nay and zero abstentions.

Is there a motion to move this forward?

So moved.

Second.

A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker.

Discussion on this ordinance?

Alderman Monroe.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

So, Mr. Duckman, is this on the south side of the property, basically right next to, I'm just looking at the streets, and I apologize, not locust, but the one just looks like an old street, dead end. All right, can you, if you look over to the screen on this site plan, this would be locust. Okay. Right here, and then here's the cabinet, and this V is an underground vault.

is an underground vault and you can kind of see that but this is the this is the cabinet here. Any other discussion? Alderman, Stacy? Yes. I have received phone calls from my constituents pertaining to this matter and I have been informed that this business was asked they're told not to do it and they did it anyway. That is, I would say that's half true. They originally proposed putting up a larger structure that was around 500 square feet, an actual physical, it looked like a small house or garage and they also wanted to use a road and they wanted a gate so they had a much larger footprint that was going to go there and then we after discussions with the organization they scrapped that idea and then showed up and thought that they had the right to just put this up a much smaller footprint so they were told you can't do that and if even you know they were told after the fact so the part that is true is that they did put this up without permission they were told no on a much larger scale development, I would call it. They came in with a much bigger footprint. They wanted, I think, a 10-foot barbed wire fence around it, and it was a much, much more intense project that they were told no.

Okay, so what is the reality in this? Do we let them keep it, or do they tear it down?

I mean, that's the decision today, right? I mean, certainly, if the vote was no, and essentially, this is important for their telecommunication throughout the city, if the vote is no then we would be moved forward um we'd work with attorney Zito on some sort of court you know corrective action to you know have them remove the cabinet but there's no vote tonight this is first reading okay right um can they be fined um not at this point no because they've they've gone into they they've they've started the process for compliance they were given a violation notice and they said you have to apply for a special use permit and they did so. So right now they're in the process of following the rules of the following our rules and regulations. Anyone else? So if this is voted down in two weeks, essentially at that point they would have to remove, is that correct? You are correct. And if that was the case, then city staff would be working with Attorney Zito on it on the process for how to have them forcibly remove that cabinet anyone else and we will move on to item number 17 which is the first reading of ordinance 2024 80 could you please read this ordinance amending chapter 14 of the codified ordinances requiring a contractor license for contractors who perform landscaping or lawn care seal colding and snow plowing manager where I think

Your Honor. Essentially, staff is bringing this before the council to look at the possibility of making a license for landscaper, snow removal, and seal coat companies. We have a number of different contractors out there. They're all doing different things. We really don't have an idea of who they are, and we'd like a little bit better visibility on that through the licensing process. So staff is proposing to council that we amend the ordinance to add those three categories like I said like was mentioned before the landscape seal coating and also snow plowers and I will mention in the in the wintertime there's a challenge we have folks all over the city that go and they plow parking lots commercially and otherwise they really don't have an idea what it is our ordinances say they go and push snow out into the right of way they create more work for our staff when some of the commercial customers could just simply they could just push it into the parking lot and pile it up over the course of the year so there there is some need for this however it is council's discretion as to whether to move this forward or not so is there a motion to move forward so move motion made by Alderman Clem seconded by Alderman Shadle discussion yes I have Alderman sellers yes I would like to also add haulers you

know, people that do dumping and hauling. I think that that's a really good one that we should add on that list also.

Just as a point of word, we do license them. Oh, okay. However, I don't have any. The problem is getting them in to get the license. So.

Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, so I can understand this better. Is that just one license they would need for if they did all of these?

or would they need one separate for each or whoever? Wayne, if you want. They're going to need a license. This is a new license. They're going to need a different license. They can't do. So right now, if they receive a general contractor's license or an electrician's license, they're they're going to need to now do a license for this is a separate license. So it does or does not come under the heading of contractor. As I stated, it's new because if you read through this ordinance, there's quite a this is a a much more intense ordinance in terms of what they have to do to register if you read through it they have to start naming where their what their individual trucks are what their insignias are they have to provide proof of insurance for individual vehicles as if you're a general contractor you have to show general liability insurance and that's essentially your main step if that makes sense so this is a different so if you're a general contractor which we have some that also do snow plowing they're going to have to get this additional license and pay for it and follow the additional requirements.

Alderman Sanders?

Yeah, I just want to ask a simple question.

These are to private entities, right?

Am I correct?

On the snow plowing and seal coatings and things of that nature?

Yes, yes, you are correct.

And everyone should have a permit or license to register to do these types of jobs to homeowners or?

No. Any kind of businesses? You don't need a license? Not to shovel some or plow someone's driveway, no. Or mow someone's grass. Mm-hmm. I've got the price. Okay. Let's see if anybody else has another input before you go on a second. Is there anyone for the first time? Isn't this my first time? Sanders for your second? What?

I marked the wrong one. My apologies. Alderman Stacy. Okay. I'm hearing two different things. So if the neighbor guy wants to mow my grass, he has to have some type of license or general something to mow grass.

That is my understanding of this ordinance that a lawn that would fall under a lawn care company and they would have to register. That's my understanding. Now, I want to I want to take a step back here and state that what brought this up was not community and economic development. What brought this up was our public works department is having issues with and concerns with contractors parking their lawn care equipment, parking their snow removal trucks, which are basically plow trucks.

these are businesses that are not registering because they do not need a permit to do so exactly you pointed this point out you've made that point correctly that you know they're cutting your grass if they're plowing the snow off your driveway they do not need a permit for that but what's happening is some of these businesses are throwing the snow into the street or they're not performing their work correctly or they're you know parking their vehicles on curbs damaging it and driving away and so I just want to say my department has truly just stepped in here to be saying that, okay, we have a registered contractor database. Will you help us along with this? And that's kind of where I'm at here. So I'm answering these questions as they come, but this essentially is an initiative driven by a concern from our public works department. But you're saying this is for lawn care companies? In part, yes, that's one company that would have to register. Manager Boyer? I'd like to clarify. I think that if they have a tax ID number that would qualify them as a company, right? If they have a what? If they have a tax ID number, if they're, you know, registered as a business.

Attorney Cito. So under the definition of a lawn care professional or even for a steel coating professional and a snow plowing professional, it talks about.

professional. It talks about a person who employs one or more individuals for the purpose of providing landscape maintenance or employs one or more individuals for the purpose of providing seal coating services there. So I think as written right now, they're looking at someone who's running this operation as a business, right? They have at least one or more employees that are going to go out and do this. So I think who's exempted from this is if your neighbor just happens by himself to say, hey, or the neighborhood kid, 13-year-old kid is just going around saying, hey, can I mow your lawn for $30? And it's just him pushing his, you know, family's lawnmower and going around to the neighbors. I don't think that's who this is meant to apply to there. So. Darren. So this was a request by the superintendent of Public Works, and Wayne touched on it, but it's really due to a lot of Public Works time that is chasing these particular people around. What ends up happening, snow plowing. We have somebody that goes out for profit to plow snow and then we end up with ancillary damages at the house two doors down where they push the snow, rip the yard up, and then Public Works is asked to go fix those yards where we have no way of monitoring who's plowing where or what. So this is just kind of a record keeping thing to say that if Wayne's plow business messes up the yard next door, Wayne's business has to clean it up or if Michelle's lawn care throws grass out in the street, they've got to clean it up. And right now we have no record keeping for that and it happens more than you know or they damage curb or sidewalk or something like that in the course of their business and it falls back on the city to fix and repair. So that is really the issue here and so we're just trying to get a record keeping of who's working where knowing that we have responsible people working in the community

and doing good work.

Manager Boyer?

Just to add to what Darren said also, you know, you don't think of grass clippings in the right-of-way as being dangerous, but if you have grass clippings spread out at an intersection and a motorcycle comes to a stop, I mean, it can cause somebody to lose their bike right there in the intersection.

So I just wanted to create or mention that safety concern as well.

Okay, so I get the whole accountability thing, but what I don't understand is, I mean, we have lots of general contractors that are busy all summer long but in the wintertime they want to do snow plowing so now we want to we want to hit them again with a different license why can't it just come under the same license as long as they declare it's well there's different requirements and we also currently do it so that let's say you're going to be your general contractor if you go to do plumbing work you have to get a separate plumbing license pay for that pass that test prove that you're doing that work if you're going to do a electricians you're going to do electrical work you have to get electrical license pay for that so that we currently have that in place.

and also just I just also want to add that this license this ordinance is more restrictive than it's not it's just going to be as simple as saying okay we're going to declare there's quite a bit of staff time proving that there's insurance for all these vehicles collecting all that data there's extra requirements for this particular so you're actually wanting more data from someone that's mowing your grass versus someone that's building your house I don't that's what's being proposed opposed by our superintendent of public works, yes. Okay. I'm not sure. Let's see. I think Alderman Parker, you haven't had a chance to speak once yet. I appreciate Aaron cleaning it up because I get too dang old to mow my lawn and so my grandkids or their friends come over and mow my lawn. They don't have to have no permit. All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else that hasn't spoken once yet? And so I'll open it up for the second time.

Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I can tell you in my neighborhood, the folks that do the plowing, that do the leaf cleanup, the lawn mowing, they're not the ones damaging the property, it's the city workers. We've actually come to the city where copious amounts of salt was thrown on people's yards, killing their grass, killing the edges of the road, plowing them up, and those that are doing the plowing or the snow blowing or such, they're not a problem.

and I've got two neighbors that have complained a significant amount over the last few years and none of the work was done to repair their grass, to repair the soil at the edge of the road and, you know, this really seems onerous to me that we're going to go out and say, okay, well, you've got to supply all of this information and your business falls under the same insurance.

you're not going to have insurance for plowing insurance for snow for snow removal or plowing versus grass cleanup versus leaf cleanup versus all of those things and you know I think as long as they have annual insurance it should be one license allows them to go through. Certainly most of the folks that are doing that type of work are not making the same amount of money as a plumber or an electrician who charge exorbitant amounts you know compared to the lawn guys.

you know just speaking here but you know we can call it a license we can call it a fee we can call it a tax it's all the same thing you know we've got to clean this up a little bit and and take care of our businesses because a lot of those folks are taking care of my ward especially has a large amount of seniors living there who get their lawns done and I'd hate to see this their their lawn cleanup go up 10 15 bucks a time based on them having to keep applying for licenses and such. It just doesn't make sense to me. Manager Boyer? Just to comment on that and then address, I personally do not have any issue with combining them under one license, but I do want to mention that our plow truck drivers are doing the very best job they can. As a matter of fact, when you have a cul-de-sac, no curbs, you have situations where you've got a 10-ton truck or a 10-yard truck with a plow on the front, it makes it very challenging.

and I believe our snow plow drivers are really fantastic at what they do.

There's always room for improvement, of course, but there is going to be a few times you scalp a yard off, but I'm quite fine with revisiting this and making it under one license.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Okay, then we'll move on to item number 18, which is the adoption of a resolution 2024-120.

Resolution in support of the Bird City, Illinois Initiative.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. The mayor's city staff has been working with the Northern Illinois Audubon Society on renewing the Bird City, Illinois recognition. It was first given to the city in 2022. The city of Freeport is looking to retain its recognition as Bird City, Illinois community. Thanks to its unique initiatives to highlight and save wildlife in a region, according to the Northwest Illinois Audubon Society, Freeport fulfills the following, which are necessary for recognition.

So it provides sufficient bird habitat, promotes pollinator health, is recognized as a Tree City USA participant, maintains a public demonstration of gardens to be benefited by birds and wildlife and ecosystems, maintains a public golf course that benefits birds, works to mitigate water pollution through cleanup events, implements actions to reduce pollution, utilizes integrated pest management and natural pest control, celebrates World Migratory Bird Day, and hosts an annual Bird Day event, increases awareness of birds and their habitats, educates all ages on birds and conservation-related programs, and works with traditionally underserved communities to increase access to environmental education, as well as reduces energy use and carbon emissions, and promotes green transportation. So staff recommends the city adopt the resolution for Bird City, USA. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Stacy? Yes. So, um, I'm hearing, like, you're not supposed to, because of the wildlife, like, release balloons anymore. So, is that, like, pertaining to this? And if...

I don't think this pertains to it at all, but you are accurate. I mean, could I have anything to do with this? Find if I went and let go 12 balloons in honor of something or someone? Manager Boyer? I believe 12 balloons is okay. As a matter of fact, we had some concern expressed at one of the events that we were planning about a balloon release, and there is something about the numbers.

So as long as the numbers stay within a certain range, I believe it's, they don't like it per se, but they're not against it, but they don't like to see those massive balloon releases, so But yeah, this, that's not to do with this or with this resolution Well, I just thought, I didn't know if it was something affected birds or If there's no other discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll Stacy Aye Shadle Aye Sanders Aye Sellers Aye Clem Aye Monroe No Thank you.

pointed to a problem with the backflow preventer. It was a time critical issue and needed to be replaced so we move forward with the repair and staff is asking council to ratify the payment of $11,309 for the emergency replacement of the check valve. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion, Alderman Sanders? Yet.

Manager Boyer, with this backflow preventer, does that have anything to do with the river, the Pecatonica River backflowing, flowing into the plant itself, within the plant itself, so where are these areas that you're talking about as far as repairs to backflow, anything to do along with the river backflow, or is that within the city itself?

As I understand, it's in the plant, it's where you have the freshwater line going to an operation inside the plant, and the backflow preventer fails, and if it does, then it has a potential cross-contamination Okay, I see where you're at, okay Alderman Monroe Thank you, Madam Mayor, when was the work done?

This repair was done in June Why did we wait five months, six months to come back to council?

Darren We just got the invoice We spent the money in June The parts had to be ordered It was custom made So it took some time to get But we just received the invoice last week From Nelson Let's see if anybody else has a question first If not I'll remember now Thank you, Madam Mayor You know, I get that it takes time To get the parts in But waiting six months to come back to council. You had a purchase order in June. We moved forward with the spending of that money. It was never appropriated for use. I guess my question is, why did we wait six months?

Go ahead. The money for this comes out of the sewer repair fees, right, that we typically have budgeted for. And the reason we didn't come back to it is it was an emergency and we usually don't present these until we get the invoice for it. The sludge presses that we operate five days a week down at the plant cannot run without this backflow device in parallel with them because it protects the contamination of the water like Rob said. So it became emergent at the time that we needed to order it. Nelson Carlson is a Custom Fabricator, so they got the parts in, custom fabricated it, and installed it, and I can't explain that, you know, Nelson's billing cycles, but yes, this is way behind a typical bill, but we definitely needed it. Like I said, the sludge presses that press all of our digested sewer will not work without this backflow preventer, which would put us in a significant bind.

Alderman Stacy When did the parts come in? And when was the work completed?

From my best recollection, the parts were ordered on the PO in June. I think they took four weeks to get the parts in because we had to get custom flanges built and added to this large RPZ.

and we went with stainless because the original one wasn't stainless and it needs to be corrosion resistance because the sludge process of patty caking the sludge is very acidic and the environment that this room contains is very acidic and we've had to replace just about every component within this building over the course of the last 15 years due to the acidic environment.

So I want to say the parts came in and probably mid-July, it was probably installed about the 1st of August and we just got the bill last week And you said normally it comes out of what account?

There's an account in the sewer budget for repairs at the wastewater treatment plant So did this come out the sewer budget account?

Yes, the maintenance There's no further discussion?

Alderman Monroe.

Actually, I do have a question.

So this chrome in that acidic environment, I remember studying this back in my days as a meteorologist, atmospheric scientist.

Is there any concern that chromic acid will form in that environment and be released?

No, it's stainless.

The blackfold device that was put in was stainless.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, please take the roll, Stacy, it's done, yeah, you have to approve the bill, the invoice, yes, Shadle, Aye, Sanders, Aye, Sellers, Aye, Plum, Aye, Monroe, Aye, Simmons, Aye, and Parker, Aye, the resolution is adopted, 8-0, item number 20 is the adoption of resolution 2024-122 could you please read this resolution ratifying emergency HVAC repairs at City Hall by lesher heating and air conditioning manager Boyer Council we had a similar situation here at City Hall the main council chambers air conditioning units failed I believe toward the end of September to get us through the rest of the summer we approved an emergency repair of the air conditioning units the total cost being $10,425, and staff asks counsel to ratify that invoice. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? You said it was how much? I'm sorry. Alderman Stacy, it's in your packet. $10,425. And this money?

has come or will come from? It'll come from building maintenance for City Hall PD. We combine those under one budget item.

Alderman Monroe. Are we over budget, under budget in that line item from last year's budget, approved budget?

Do you know that answer? Line item 101, 142, 6165, contracted equipment repair and maintenance. Still has 7,000 left in that line item before this bill is run. So we will be shy in that line.

Follow up. Go ahead.

So you're saying there will be like $3,000?

Sure.

Mayor. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Correct. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So basically what you're saying, it doesn't matter what we approve in a budget, we're just going to spend the money and then ask for forgiveness later. Is that how this works? Manager Boyer. As you know, budget is a planning document and you have to make adjustments as you go along depending upon the reality that happens. So when this thing failed, I believe it failed within a week of large council meeting so we had the repair done so that we could not be sitting in 85 degree weather with 100% humidity in here. Good excuse. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy.

Aye Shadle Aye Sanders Aye Sellers Aye Clem Aye Monroe No Simmons Aye Ann Parker Aye The resolution is adopted 7-1 Item number 21 is the adoption of resolution 2024-123. Could you please read this?

Resolution approving agreement with Richard L. Johnson for architectural services at wall number 12.

Manager Boyer Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport is currently in design process of well number 12. That would be the last remaining well for us to get off of the old Brook Street plant and get us a contaminant-free water system. The facility design requires an architect for the building component system. Richard L. Johnson has been a strategic partner on the design team of well number 12 and also with our wastewater treatment plant upgrades at the City of Freeport.

Freeport. They are familiar with the state and the city building codes and standards. The city of Freeport, with the assistance of Ferrogram, has received a commitment from the Illinois EPA and Congressman Eric Sorensen to fund $13.3 million of originally estimated $14 million of the project. The project must be bid before March 1st, 2024 to receive the funding. Richard L. Johnson has presented a building architecture contract for $195,000 to perform the plan, specifications, and plan coordination with our lead engineer for the overall project design. To ensure funding, they have committed to being complete and bid ready by the Illinois EPA's bid deadline. The city plans to fund this engineering through capital improvement funds until time which we are reimbursed from the Illinois EPA. The architect's fees can be reimbursed when the loan project is funded through the EPA. So staff recommends that city council approve the $195,000 contract with Richard L. Johnson, so the project can move forward. Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Shadle. Manager Boyer, you said that they were, Richard Johnson was involved with Well 12, I believe you meant Well 11, they drew that building? Yes, Well 11 and the wastewater treatment plant, new upgrades. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders?

Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? No. Simmons? Oh, I am so sorry. Parker? Aye. The resolution is adopted 6 to 1.

Hey, item number 22 is the adoption of resolution 2024-124. Could you please read this?

Resolution approving agreement with Berner Schober for mechanical engineering services at well number 12.

Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport, as mentioned before, is in the design process for well number 12. The design requires mechanical engineering for HVAC, electrical, supervisory control and data acquisition systems, and fire protection advanced systems. Bernard Schober has been an engineer partner on the design team for well number 11 and wastewater treatment plant upgrades, and they're familiar with the city codes along with the EPA process standards.

The city has received a commitment from the Illinois EPA and Eric Sorensen, as mentioned before, for $13.3 million, and the project must be bid-led by March 1st.

Berner Schober has presented a mechanical engineering contract for $70,000 to perform mechanical systems design specification and plan coordination with our lead engineer, that's Fergram, as part of the overall project.

so to ensure the funding they have committed to being complete by and been ready by March 1st the EPA deadline and staff recommendation that City Council move forward with the $70,000 contract with a burner show over so the project can move forward immediately. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle seconded by Alderman Sellers discussion. Alderman. Yes.

I heard Richard L. Johnson, and I heard Fehr Graham, I'm sorry, Bernie, Berners, whoever, Berners, and Fehr Graham, so who is?

Manager Boyer?

So Fehr Graham's the lead engineer, Richard L. Johnson is the architect, and Berners Schober is the mechanical, mechanicals, so they will help with design of all the piping, electrical work, that type of thing, so you got the building itself, and then you got all the mechanicals inside. Okay, so the building itself is costing the $70,000?

No, that's incorrect. The design for the mechanicals within the building is $70,000.

Attorney Zito?

Right, so this is like, you know, so you got the architect who's going to design the building, right?

There's a separate company or consultant that then designs all the heating and air conditioning, all the pipes and ducts and vents, electrical, you know, wiring that goes in there. There's a separate company that designs that, different than the architect. And then Fehr Graham is what? They're the engineer on the project, so you have multiple consultants. So we're going to have three different bills? Yes. Correct. Right. Because they're all different disciplines. Do you know what those other bills are? Oh, from the, like, from?

The dollar amounts? Yeah. Well, so for the design of the HVAC, the mechanicals, that's the $70,000 to draw it up, then $195,000 was for the architect, the previous resolution you guys adopted, and then I'll defer to Darren as to what the engineering contract is.

Our contract was approved, I believe, sometime in 23, and I think ours was $1.1 million for all the piping, all the ancillaries, all the coordination. It's a very big project when you're talking about $14 million worth of work.

And you said in 2023 it was approved?

Yeah, that was when we originally started chasing money for Well 12 and Well House 12.

Alderman Monroe?

Aye.

Kudos to you, Ms. Stacy, because you're the first person that's asked the right question.

Basically, if you do a search of Fair Graham, Richard L. Johnson, Berner Schober, they work on dozens, if not hundreds, of projects together.

So basically, they're one and the same.

Even though they're separate companies, they bid together on multiple jobs.

So the money's going essentially into the same space.

And the question we should be asking is why are we not going out to bid for other entities as well who could also do the work? My concern about all of these projects, Adams, others, is we're not getting deep bids. We're not getting a lot of offers. So we are putting ourselves in a situation that we're no longer getting multiple entities coming into us with bids. So the price goes up because they're bidding against themselves.

And these are questions we should ask about all of these bids that come through. There's more than one company that does architectural services. There's plenty of mechanical engineering services. And I know that being comfortable with each of these businesses is great. It's good for the city of Freeport to be able to work with those that know our business, but that doesn't mean we get the best dollar for our buck.

We don't get the best, you know, who knows, who knows what we would get if we had other people bidding on this.

So I think, I think it's important to ask the question, because on these adoptions of these resolutions, I've not seen where it's gone out to bid.

And so I'm concerned about that. And that's why I voted no on the previous one. And this one is the same thing.

and it doesn't matter if you go to Green Bay or Polo, Illinois or Aurora or Madison or where you go, they're all working together. They're all getting paid the same. So that's the question I would pose to the city manager. Why are we not putting this out to bid? Manager Boyer. I would say best practices is not a bid. It's statement of qualification. What's your payment? Darren, did you own it? Well, Aaron can and should weigh in.

on this, but engineering proposals are not done by bid basis. That's not legal in Illinois. It's done by qualifications basis. You can't select an engineer off a bid. You can't even ask for a bid price on a project that I believe is state statute, if I'm correct. That's right. So for engineers, if you're going to look for a competitive process, it's called a QBS qualification-based system for engineers. That's just for engineers there.

I believe then, though, for professional services like engineers, architects, lawyers, and stuff like that, though, there's also provision of the code that says that you don't have to go out to any sort of a competitive bid or QBS process necessarily if you don't want to.

It's, again, it's your guys' choice there if you have some sort of an established some sort of an established relationship or desire because you've used them before, so you like what they've done before you in the past and stuff like that, so you can, you don't always have to go out to a quote or bid process for professional services. But again, it's up to you. If you want to, you can.

Alderman Klemm.

Yes. Contrary, Mr. Monroe, to what you said, being in the construction trade since 1967 and being in estimating since 1984, you'll realize that there are different phases to stuff and different engineers and so forth that are better qualified to do things, okay? Like you said, they went out in 23 to start working on the money to get this, okay? There's part of it, okay? You're turning around here and you're having two people work for you that have done absolutely excellent on your last two projects with no problems with the design of the building or anything else in the construction and how it works. You certainly, you know, like Mr. Zito said, you know, you can go out and do that. Professional services you don't need to do it on and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it on.

But I'm going to tell you what, when you've got a couple buildings, and you've got $33, $34 million that Fehr Graham has brought into us in grants, and I was at a meeting this morning where they're going out for another million dollars for lining of sewers and stuff, and can you tell me one project they've done for us lately that's bad?

Can you tell me who else you'd go to for another project?

Actually, I can.

now that you get your hand off of me first of all sorry I'm sorry I touch you uh you have tonight knocked every department in this city you finally did the the public works department tonight two weeks ago or three weeks ago you did the fire department you can go back on last week you did the police department okay okay okay okay this is off topic this is off topic so let's so you're gonna let this happen oh I You just did. No, I just said it's off topic. I want him removed. A, he touched me. B, he swore at me. And C, I don't have to put up with that.

Call order and he keeps talking. So chill. So what I brought up, and now that he's already put this out there, I'm going to respond. I can get my neighbors on the phone and I can ask them the questions that I brought up tonight. All I'm trying to do is stand up for the people of Freeport, something that he doesn't want to do.

And if you really want to talk about the past, since 1969, I've been on this earth, and we've put more roads in than you did in your entire tour as a previous alderman. So if you really want to have a conversation, let's have that conversation. But my point is this, this is about finance. This is about money. And this is about we keep spending money nonstop. And we keep demanding more of the citizens of Freeport. And we don't hold ourselves accountable. That's what this is about.

Okay, there's, you got to remember, there's a process in phases. Manager Boyer.

I would like to make everyone aware that this is funded with $13.5 million in grant funding that has to be used up in a very short period of time for the benefit of the city of Freeport and its residents.

But that doesn't mean we don't spend it in a manner that's consistent with being fiscally responsible.

Okay, so let's get back to this resolution. Can I? Yes, Alderman Stacy. And that should not mean that we as council people do not have a choice or option of sending this out for bid. That was not even given to us. That option was not given to us. You made the decision on your own because they did well.

11 to do well 12 when we should have had that option. Am I correct in saying that? We did not have an option? We should not have?

Manager Boyer.

Alderwoman Stacy, we don't change horses in the middle of a race.

No, that's not the question.

No. I am sorry. I have to tell you, we have had nothing but excellent outcomes.

We have had nothing but willingness to correct deficiencies. We've had responsive service. We have had everything working in our favor, and that is why Well 11 went so smoothly once we got the well drilled, and that is why Well 12 will be similarly.

Should we, as a council, been given the option to send this job out to be it?

It's about qualification.

But that is a yes or no.

No, you don't. It's not. Not according to what we have. It's about qualification.

How do we know that they're legit engineers?

Darren.

How do we know that? We don't.

It's the third time we've done large projects with them. They're very skilled in what they've done.

You are avoiding my question.

No, I'm not avoiding your question. You don't go out to bid for engineers. You go out for RFQs, which is qualifications.

What's Attorney Zito read?

That's exactly what he told you, his qualifications.

It said that we had the option to go out for bid.

We had a choice.

Not for bid, for qualifications.

I think what we're discriminating right now is just terminology, okay?

As a baseline concept, engineers, you don't use the word bid, okay?

That's a very technical thing, but I think for practical purposes, it's a bid.

But it's really called qualification-based system, QBS, for engineers, okay?

so yes it is a competitive process but is it technically called a bid no it's not okay so I don't want to get people hung up right I don't want people to get hung up on that but with the QBS process the main distinction is as when you go through the process and you entertain all these different engineers right they can't tell you a dollar amount okay because it's not based on price it's based on who's the most qualified to do the job you pick the person first based off of who's the most qualified after you pick them then you negotiate the price So that's what's different between what's traditionally thought of as a bid versus QBS, qualification, just as a name, you know, it's based on qualifications there. So again, that's a distinction there between the two processes. That said, I think where you were saying what I said, right, engineers go through QBS. You have the right to go through a QBS if you want to as a council. You guys have that call. Staff has presented a name for you guys instead.

because you don't have to use the QBS process also if you don't want to. So ultimately, it's your guys' call.

If you want to go back and say, hey, thanks for presenting a name, a recommendation, but we as a council decide we want to go through the QBS process, you guys can do that. Darren, did you want to add to that? Well, yes. Just a couple facts. So this is the third project that we've done with RLJ and Berners for Freeport. Well, House 11 went very well. We didn't have, in a percentage basis, we barely had any change orders on the job for the end of the project. So that means the quality engineering was done. Otherwise, your change orders generally go up. And also, both companies held their price from 2019 for this job, which is unheard of since there's that many years of labor increases and so on and so forth.

Freeport. So that's something that we did negotiate with them based on the familiarity with Freeport. So the fact is they are saving Freeport money because they're familiar with Freeport, they're familiar with our process, they're familiar with public works, they're familiar with our water quality and what we want to see out of our facilities. So there is a savings to this and I will guarantee you that if you decide to do something different you will pay more than this amount for that engineering because you pay for familiarity with your city and or business. That's just the way it is. And you're under a time crunch. We're always under a time crunch. I don't make the rules, Cecelia. The money for $13.3 million is worth meeting the deadline. If we don't meet the deadline, that money will not be transferred to next year. And that $14 million project will now become the city's sole responsibility. Correct.

That move. Alderman Sanders, did you have something to say? I had a lot to say, but your interruption and his interruptions and the fact that I couldn't get my point out to get a clear understanding, it's almost as if you were avoiding me from talking. I had a legitimate question to ask, but you got my anxiety moving right about now.

and the fact that you're making statements that only engineers. Engineers are not just the sole person that is brought into the project. Engineers are something of a secondary or sub person or company that comes in to engineer a project. My whole thing is who would be the general contractor for such a project and then you can implement.

and then you can implement whoever you want to decide to bring in to engineer, to do the architect, all of those things but who is the contractor that's going to oversee this particular project that will allow the council to see who are they because under the term general contractor comes many many prospects of picking and to do bidding. Take the engineer out of the subject. We're not talking engineer first. We're talking contractors. And they are the ones, the general contractors are the ones who determines who they want to work on the project, not anyone else.

and that's for all general contractors who wants to do a bidding for whatever project that goes before it and if we're not allowed to look at other bidders then that means that we're looking from one entity that is creating a monopoly within the city ranks itself and so we want to scrutinize everything that is being proposed from your position Manager Boyer's position, anybody else that is making a comment on this, trying to make this thing passive, to pass.

So let us just open this thing up and make some serious clarity about who's in charge.

The engineer's not in charge.

So your statement there was very inaccurate, Mr. Sanders.

I'm sorry.

The contractor would never be in charge of this project because this has to go out to bid to select a contractor.

Thank you. That's what I was getting to.

The bid is not done until the engineering is done.

No.

Otherwise, you have no project.

You can't do one without the other.

Okay, okay, but Darren has the floor right now, so let him finish talking.

The way the process works with the EPA money is you have to have an engineer and a design group that designs the project and then it goes to bid for the low responsible contractor. That is the way these programs work. We don't select the contractor. The city doesn't select the contractor. The low bid process selects the contractor on the construction, not on the engineering.

That's the way the process works in Illinois. That is the way every municipality has to operate or you don't get the funds. That is the way it works. QBS process or your familiarity with engineers and then you design the project, then you go to bid for the low price. The bid, the competitive process is based on the contractor bidding the project to construct it.

Manager, Boyer I just also wanted to comment that the design and engineering falls within a certain range, acceptable range, you know, anywhere from, you know, anywhere from 9 to 12 percent is typical for the type of project that we're working on, and the overall cost of this project is actually well within that range.

Alderman Shade, did you have your hand up?

I did.

The engineering, as Darren stated, and the architecture is all, the prints are property of the city. That's all drawn for us. The project is bid off of those prints. What we're talking about is a document that's going to be probably in the neighborhood of 70 to 100 pages, 300 pages.

If there's omissions in the engineering, if there's omissions in the drawings, if things are not figured correctly, if they're not drawn correctly, you get halfway into the project and Darren made mention of the fact that on Well 11 there was virtually no change orders and those are generated from the mistakes that are made if you hire Chair, the wrong engineer, and the wrong architect.

Thank you.

Any of you that have not spoken yet?

Then we'll move on.

Alderman Sanders, you can have your second.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Shadle, thank you for that explanation.

But yet still, after you've said and done it, and done all of the designing and the engineering, you still have to have a contractor to do that job. Am I correct? I'm asking a question. Okay. I don't want you to be saying that's it. You know, ask your question. I'm asking, don't, don't push it. I'm just trying to ask my question. Is that correct? And it's not about, it's not about who's most qualified because all contractors who are going to bid on this job will want to have their most qualified engineers on this project. Am I correct?

That's not always true on the contractors, and that's why there is an evaluation process for the lowest responsive bidder that's qualified to do the work for construction.

That's part of the evaluation process of the full design package when it's built.

Sorry, who's doing the evaluation?

The evaluation is usually done by the city and the engineer after the bid process is done and we actually formally get bids.

Okay. And the city has to be qualified to qualify an engineer or designer, am I correct? Whoever it is in the city, within the city?

Well, in order for us to evaluate an engineer whether he's qualified to do the project Okay, contractor, now we're back at the general contractor And these people have to be qualified, even with the low bid contractor So within the bid package, it's usually enormous package Probably more than the 400 pages that he referenced tonight Right. Everybody has to give qualifications, they have to give references, they have to give bondability, depending on how big the job is. There's a huge packet that goes through that. We evaluate them after the bid contractor. So if you get three bids, you evaluate three packages. If you get two, you evaluate two. You get 10, you evaluate 10. Then there's also things called bond inquiries where you can go against or go to firms and ask questions about contractors, whether they've had claims against them, whether they whether they've done bad work for somebody else. That's all through the bidding process, which is an enormous process. And then we go through all of that in the background after it's bid and then make a recommendation to council. Now, in order not to select a low bid during the process of a contractor, you have to have a reason. So they have had to have done some bad work somewhere, something recorded.

It's a process, a legal process, and if you don't do it correctly, that process, that contractor could come back and sue the city. So there is quite a process in evaluating whether someone's qualified or not.

Well, okay, so let's reign this in a little bit. You've had way more than two times to ask questions, and there are also aldermen that haven't asked any.

Okay, I respect that.

Those that have not asked any questions, are you wanting to say anything in this moment? Because the two that are left, they've already spoken twice. If there's not an objection, I'll let it continue. If there is, then according to our ordinance, this conversation has ended.

Yeah, I respect that.

Are you allowed me to continue?

I'm asking the council, according to the ordinance, if that's acceptable.

Oh, you're asking council. Okay.

Because the two aldermen that want to continue discussion have already used up their So I guess the way I would frame it, if council, if there's no objections to this conversation continuing, then it'll continue. If you don't want it to continue and want to just move on to a vote, speak up now if you want to end the conversation. Move on to a vote. Second. Move on. Okay, well, Well, according to the ordinance, it needs to be unanimous, so the conversation for the alderman that wanted to do extra discussion was not approved, according to the ordinance Yeah, this is how we do business According to the ordinance Yeah, I understand So, Madam Clerk, unless there's a member of the council that has not spoken, you still have an opportunity Okay, then, Madam Clerk, please take the roll Okay, so you kill it Stacy?

No Shadle?

Aye Sanders, Sellers, Aye, Clem, Aye, Monroe, Nope, Simmons, Aye. Parker. Aye.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is enough to pass. The resolution is adopted 5 to 3.

Move on to item number 23, which is the adoption of resolution 2024-126. Could you please read this?

Resolution approving a final plat of subdivision for plat number 2 of Shopko subdivision of the city of Freeport.

Director Duckman.

Thank you, Madam Mayor So, this is currently at the True Storage Building Or, I'm sorry, it's a CubeSmart It's an old shop co If you're looking for a reference It's at the intersection of Rosenthal and South Street So, kind of give you an idea of where we're at here And, Director Suttman, if you wouldn't mind Scrolling down, I can kind of give him Show him a photo of this Subdivision here So what's happening is the CubeSmart, which sits right here, okay, what they currently own is this parcel, they own two outlots, a lot one and a lot two here, and at the moment when this was originally designed and platted, which basically means it went through the process of a subdivision plat, where they divided it into three lots. These lots here were intended for future development.

We obviously know the end of the story here is that these were never developed. There was not enough interest to develop these into some sort of McDonald's, et cetera, some store. So what happened is when CubeSmart took over, they wanted to, and their plan is to extend and build some, and build Outdoor Storage in this area. Well, step one of the process is they need this plat because they need to vacate easements to lots that they no longer intend to have. So essentially here you have a new plan of business, a new plan for development. They no longer see a desire to develop these lots, therefore they no longer need this access easement to these two lots. They're going to combine it into one large lot.

So in line with the ordinance which has been also distributed in your agenda packet this goes before the planning commission to have a preliminary plat review and a final plat review and the preliminary plat was recommended for approval on November 14th and it was by a vote of six yays zero nays and one abstention and the final plat was recommended for approval by a vote of six yays zero nays and one abstention and the final plat was recommended for approval by a vote of six yays zero nays.

of six yays, zero nays, and one abstention. And staff recommends approval of this resolution.

Is there a motion to adopt?

So moved.

Make a second.

A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution?

Alderman Sellers?

I just have a quick question. Is that the parking lot then? Because they have a great big parking lot.

It's, yes, so this would be the front, this is kind of where you would pull into the Cube, this Rosenthal, you'd pull in here, and this is actually the front of the store, the front of CubeSmart, and what, like, you know, you were saying, that's a big parking lot, well, they, if things would have gone according to plan, they would have had two tenant spaces towards South Street, things didn't go according to plan, they're pivoting, and now they're saying okay we're going to put outdoor storage in that parking lot area. Alderman Stacy? So you're speaking behind what was Shopko? No. No. The parking lot. That's South Street right off of it. Right here would be South Street. You know that they have a large parking and this is Rosen to you. They have a large parking lot in the front here. I'm saying the front it's the north it's the north side of the parcel.

Road, or South Street's up here, it's down the hill, you're looking down at the street from Dairy Queen and the electric horse. It's from that.

Yeah.

Okay.

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

Stacey?

Aye.

Shadle?

Aye.

Sanders?

Aye.

Sellers?

Aye.

Clem?

No.

Monroe?

No.

And Simmons?

Aye.

and Parker. Aye. The resolution is adopted 6-2. Item number 24 is approval of a bid. Could you please read this?

A bid opening was held on November 7, 2024 for CD-009-2024 for rehabilitation of single home at 748 East Center Street. Thank you, Director Duck. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the City of Freeport has been awarded the Community Development Block Grants of which a total of $550,000 of which $64,000 is allocated to grant administration and $486,000 goes to the rehabilitation of homes. City of Freeport held a bid opening on November 7th of 2024 for the construction of rehabilitation services of 748 East Center Street. It received one bid in the amount of $54,775 by CMM and Associates.

The scope of work that has been agreed upon by the City of Freeport and the property owner includes the following construction rehabilitation services. This is a new roof, new bathroom fixtures, new bathroom floor, and siding repairs. Staff recommends issuing a contract to CMM and Associates in the amount of $54,775 for the construction rehabilitation services at 748 East Center Street.

Is there a motion to approve this bid?

So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Monroe? Thank you, Madam Mayor. What's the square footage on the property? I don't have that information right in front of me. I can't. Yeah, the only reason I ask is, you know, for the cost, you know, kind of estimating the cost of roof, and I'm not sure how much they're putting in in siding repairs. Is that a significant amount? I have that in the packet. I can get that to you, but it's a significant amount of work. And I think one of the biggest issues and concerns here is early on when we had some of the contractors come in to look at it, a lot of them end up walking away because you have to be a licensed led contractor in order to qualify for this grant. So you have to do an additional license. And many, like we had early on, we had several contractors interested and they all walked away from some of the higher requirements. So I do think that some of the restrictions from the state make it a little more restrictive on what we're getting. And then also, I think that that's just in particular, but it is a whole new tear off of the roof. I know it's an entire tear off and a full new roof installation.

Any other discussion? This is part of the Community Development Block Grant?

Correct. That housing rehabilitation grant for the $550,000, yes. The homes on Adams and along Adams Avenue corridor. There's further discussion? One more question. Is the home privately owned or is it owned by?

The every home that's in this grant goes through a highly restrictive high vetting process and they have to be owner occupied. So they have to be owner occupied. So there were some concerns about landlord owned properties. A couple of things I want to state there. They have to be owner occupied and that the grant is need-based so there's a scoring system that they have that the state provides and certain more points are given to the elderly and more points are given to people with disabilities so if somebody is owner-occupied disabled and elderly their house may look nicer than the one next to them but the scoring that's based on the state has to follow those guidelines so it's not necessarily that's a bad house that you get the money it's not that's not how and how it's scored. Okay. Thank you. Alderman Sanders. Yeah. I think I may have asked this question once before. I'm not sure, but I ask again, what makes you eligible? Again, I know you've given a list of questions over there, but what actually makes you eligible? So at the time in 2021, I was not here for this application when these were originally submitted, but at the time it had to do with the geographic region, which is a census Block Tract which is a fancy way of saying that our federal government divides our of our many maps that overlap each other there's census block tracks that they do statistics on for our communities and and when

this grant application was done you had to live within the census block tract I say the Adams Avenue corridor because it's easier than saying census block track number 75 just people don't think like that so So you had to live within the census block track, and it has a certain statement of qualifications for income and elderly.

Elderly, people with disabilities and that was all part of the application that was originally submitted so you had to be in that geographic area and then you had to submit an application. So this is an ongoing project? Not right now at the applications deadline was done. Region one planning council was hired to grade all of the applications based on the factors that I stated. So region one was retained as a planning Council on the suggestion of the state. They reviewed and scored all of these applications. So this is not open right now. Okay. All right. Thank you. Did you have a second one? Yes. How do we know that they truly qualify and that there's no hidden agendas, not that you're hiding, but that they're hiding. How do we know that financially they are able to even receive this money?

Well, I do know for the one, this is, I do know that I have obviously been asked to, and it's on later on, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about it, but I was asked about one particularly property, one property in particular, and I do know that income verification is done at several points along the way. So the state has contemplated this being an issue. Do I think somebody could lie? People lie about everything. So do I think if somebody was committed to doing it and could lie and possibly? Sure, it's done everywhere. But my point is the state has contemplated that this being an issue. So for example, on income verification, I have seen social security statements that the people are willing to share with the city and I've seen tax income tax returns so people are trying in what I'm seeing people are trying to be honest they're showing their information which is not easy for a lot of people to share and they're showing their they're being honest on their from what I'm seeing they're being honest on their applications. Anyone else? Is it acceptable for a third round for Alderman Stacy? I thought I only spoke once.

I thought I had written down, but go ahead. I might have made a mistake. Okay. Item 24 and item 25 is a factor of my item 31. And I would like to make a motion that they are put on the December cow for further discussion.

She's saying 20 Right now, you want to take 24, 25, and 31 31, I cannot get to it until we get through everything else, but 31 is a part of 24 and 25 So am I hearing you correctly, you want to move 24, 25, and 31 onto December cow I want to move 24 and 25 to the cow is there a second to that motion I'll second it okay so the topic now is moving these items to the December cow for more discussion is there discussion on that particular part madam clerk could you just could I ask the question will it hinder the the time where the the contractor is going to do the work yes The money is already there and already approved and already Yes, at the basic level it's putting a roof on a house So if you delay putting a roof on a house, you go to December I can't read the tea leaves on the weather All the person in row could do a better job at that But I can tell you that it's not good When you want to put a roof on a house You get colder in a year

There becomes a point when it starts getting cold enough You can no longer put roofs on houses so this would essentially put this back another till spring. At least, probably April. Okay, so if there's no further discussion on that particular motion, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll to see if it's acceptable for 24 and 25 to move to the December cow.

Stacey? Aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Clem? No. Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? No. The motion fails 3 to 5. Okay, so we're back to the approval of this bid on 748 East Center Street. Is there any more discussion on 748 East Center? I'd like to make a motion, Madam Mayor.

I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules Well, actually, we don't need to Oh, that's right, it's enough Approve it It's approval, never mind Madam Clerk, please take the roll Stacey No Shadle Aye Sanders No Sellers Aye Clem Aye Monroe Aye Simmons Aye And Parker Aye The motion passes, 6 to 2 And item number 25, could you please read this, a bid approval?

approval. There was a bid opening on November 7th, 2024 for CD 010 2024 for rehabilitation of a single home at 833 South Adams Street. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So at 833 South Adams, this property is also part of the community development block grant for housing rehabilitation and the city of Freeport held a bid opening on November 7th of 2024 for the construction and Rehabilitation Services of 833 South Adams and receive one bid in the amount of $39,075 by CMM and Associates and this scope of work has been agreed upon by the City of Freeport and the property owner and it includes the following construction rehabilitation services. Eight new windows, soft and fascia repairs, upgraded electric, deck repair, new gutters. When staff recommends moving forward by issuing a contract to CMM and Associates in the amount of 39,075 for the construction rehabilitation services of 833 South Adams Avenue. Is there a motion to approve this bid? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on this bid? Alderman Sanders. Yeah, who evaluated this home and with the list of items that needs to be improved?

How do we generate that cost and where are we shopping for material things to make sure that the cost is not being driven by a particular one company or whatever? How do we get there?

again very specific so on this particular grant we had a what is called is a mandatory walkthrough on october 18th mandatory cannot move forward if i do not if city does not host this walkthrough so we have a consultant msa is our consultant and uh their our grant administrator through that consultant was at the house on october 18th we have a sign in for that um our building inspector uh was present and more importantly part of this grant requires what's known it requires a housing inspector that's certified through this grant and that we have that person it's a contracted housing inspector that creates a scope of work that hands out the scope of work at that particular meeting so they're saying here's what has been decided upon that need that what you're bidding on so that's a requirement of this of this grant so that's the evaluation process that the state requires for any of this to move forward. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yep. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The motion passes 7 to 1.

Item number 26, another bid approval. Could you please read this? This bid opening was held on November 14, 2024, CD012-22.

24. Demolition of nine residential properties. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So the City of Freeport held a bid opening for the demolition of properties, nine properties. It was held on November 14th at nine o'clock in the morning and the City of Freeport received bids from four contractors. An analysis was provided in the memorandum to our council and after reviewing the bids, it was, you know, the city elected to go with the lowest bid per actual individual property and it's per actual individual property and it's shown in that analysis and based on that staff is recommending that Kleckner Excavating be granted $21,145 for the demolition of 622 East Winnishik and 626 East Winnishik. Fisher Excavating be awarded $91,495 for the demolition of 217 North Henderson, 425 South Float, 441 South Benton, 634 North Warren, 706 East Winnishik, 712 South Pine, and 1208 South Rotsler Avenue. All the funding from this grant is going to come from the Ida Strong Communities Program grant, which is commonly known as the grant for $300,000. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the bid? Alderman Simmons. Director Duckman, why isn't the house across

just this yeah all right can you repeat that I was sorry yes I was asking there's a house right across the street from 626 on Winneshek that's all boarded up why isn't that on this list but the two across the street from that that that I mean that they're both in bad condition but the one that's been boarded up why is that not on this the short answer to that and my memory just going off memory and I actually drove down like I posted the signs on Winneshek for these because my inspector was out that day and I went down and asked him the same question and he reminded me that it was a particular owner that fought tooth and nail with the city against any action we had. So sometimes these take longer because as we move through this process they can file a complaint but I'm being honest with you and I tell you I told my inspector I want that one moving forward because I said I don't want to keep going through knocking the ones down around it without missing that particular house.

but that's that's the answer why is that the some property owners even though when the writing is on the wall they fight the demolition of their properties Alderman Sanders yeah how many how many properties are we talking about nine properties nine properties on this piddle um on this grant on this award and we all we all we do have a a demolition contractor to do the job correct so what you're voting on what you would be voting on is two of them are are for Kleckner and nine of them are for, two of them are for Kleckner, seven of them are for Fisher excavating. Okay. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The motion passes eight to zero. Item number 27, can you please read this discussion ordinance. Discussion regarding ordinance amending part six, general Offenses, Chapter 694, Weeds and Grass, of the codified ordinances, by adding a new section, 694.08, to be entitled, Vegetation and Managed Natural Landscape, and amending Chapter 694.01, Nuisance Declared, for the purpose of allowing planned natural landscaping while prohibiting uncontrolled growth of vegetation.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. This was up for discussion at the last Committee of the Hull. The proposed ordinance identifies natural landscape options for homeowners and for property owners. City staff is requesting to move forward with this. It provides us some flexibility, allowing for pollinators, allowing us to have various plantscapes, and at the same time, giving us the ability to help regulate those.

So staff is requesting moving this on to the December Council meeting for first reading So move Second We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle to move this ordinance on for first reading Is there discussion on Alderman Sanders?

Yeah, how soon are we anticipating on moving on this particular ordinance?

the motion was to move it to the next regularly scheduled yeah okay all right I got you okay no I have no discussion going to do that Alderman Clem yes if I could I was happy that they brought the pictures tonight of the different places of the different grasses and flowers I'll show them next time but I brought a couple slides for Kirk, if we needed to look at him, I think one of the problems is, if you remember how beautiful a roundabout was before it was changed to grass, never mowed, never taken care of, never anything done, my concern is you're going to see that in people's yards, and I brought a picture of a couple of fences, but we don't need to look at it, but I look forward to some discussion either before then or then.

This has been initiated more by Public Works, correct? This is not a, hey, you've got long grasses. Right. So I just want to make sure we're not. No, no, I understand. Yeah, my department's more than ready to cut some tall grass, so don't worry about. No, no, I understand that 100%, but I know what we can come up with, too.

Alderman, Stacy?

Yes, this ordinance did not say anything about native plants, so I'm asking for clarity.

Is this for native plants like what we were given, or is this just sprinkle some seeds out and let them grow?

Manager, where?

We can get that for you.

Excuse me?

We can get that for you.

What does that mean?

we can provide that for you with the council packet before the next meeting a definition of native species I understand but I asked if this ordinance was talking about native plants oh yes yes you know I don't get what's funny I don't get what's what's tickled about my question if there's no further discussion you had something so So, I did get an email after this was referred to this discussion, further discussion here, from Randy, who was one who put this forward here, suggesting that we add a definition of typical native plantings, so I would want to make that change that next.

Thank you. I'm glad I made sense to somebody.

then we will move on to item number do we need a vote on that mayor no we don't need a vote yeah moving forward because this just says discussion I don't want because it's specifically on the agenda is discussion only I don't want to take a vote because we haven't announced we didn't post or for that yeah I think I'd rather just have it put on the agenda for first reading and then they can move it vote to move it forward from there did you have something else The reason Public Works was requesting this change is because we have issues in the right-of-way where people are putting plantings that are growing up beyond visibility standards or we can't push snow back, things like that. It's really a maintenance cleanup issue. We don't have any mechanism right now to enforce it, and so we're trying to enforce that the right-of-ways stay cleaned up and mowed well and also allow for these native plantings within landscapes. So it's really just a cleanup process because we're getting into a season where we need to be able to push snow back and we need to be able to control the height of corners and intersections where plantings are to make sure that we have visibility.

Okay, so we'll move on to item 28. Could you please read the next discussion?

discussion regarding evaluating updates to city ordinances requiring drug testing for elected officials and director level employees in the city. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think as a city that hires and does drug testing on all new hires, that it's important that we as community leaders set the example and basically provide for an environment that's safe, healthy, well-being of all employees are covered, and that drug and alcohol abuse can have significant impacts on decision-making as well as understanding of things in the council, and a lot of cities have this type of an ordinance already in place, and I think it's important that we set the example as leaders.

You know, from the standpoint of, you know, city, you know, we've had instances We've had instances where people have tested positive after an event or an accident of some sort, and I think it's important that we start to reel that in. Drug use in the workplace is never a good thing. It's even more so in a city like ours, and I think that by setting the example, it'll be easier to make changes down the road overall as the city goes for all the departments.

Um, you know, and I'm ready to kind of kick it off. I don't know if Alderman Sanders would like to add anything to that, but, you know, I think, I think it's very, very important that we, um, you know, at least start in the direction of, of testing, you know, so that we can protect the, the citizens and the property of the community at large. Mr. Sanders.

Go ahead.

Yeah, with something of that significance to have the citizens of Freeport realize that we're here to serve them, that we want to do it honorably. We don't want to be under some kind of a hit, I can't say it, I got so many ways to put it, but we don't want them to feel that we've been hypnotized.

within our own council to the point where we can't make decisions affirmatively because of the state of mind that we're in. I feel very confident when I know that the guy that's working in capacity of the city, he's competent, he's not not inundated by drugs, drinking, smoking, or whatever the case may be, that we can assure all of our employees have everything going for them to keep a liability from factoring in while on the job, performing duties, and making decisions.

and so I think this because of the fact this is the norm. It's not something that anyone is pulling out of their head. It is a norm that we get in line putting our employees and staff and elected officials and people of that nature in that same under that same umbrella. So I think it is something that we should look at. It hasn't been considered all the years that I've been living here.

here in Freeport. It is something we should adopt. It is something that we should move forward with, and I think the city should look into it. We should look very closely about it, look into these kinds of things, because we don't know, and that's the reason why these things happen, these kind of drug tests happen, because we don't know you like that, you know, that kind of thing.

so until you show up on a test lab or something like that then we can understand who you are you know so um doesn't the employee handbook already address that where they can be drug tested uh yes madam mayor uh the policy of the city is that all employees are subject to random ear analysis so it so it already is in place so my question I suppose to the two of you would be If this is pointed at an elected official, I mean, drug test me all day long, I don't care, but what's the outcome? What do you want to happen as a result? Because you can't have someone removed from office because they fail a drug test. It doesn't happen. So what are you hoping to have for, what's the goal?

Well, my thing is, my thing is, it's not open up for discussion with you, Mayor, at this time. We should, we're just putting it out there, let the council think about it, talk about it, bring it to the next reading, because until we understand how we're going to go through the process of doing this particular thing, this kind of mechanism needs to be put in place. Why hasn't it not been put in place is the question. We are not running an honor system that I can detect, which we're supposed to be, but I can't detect it half the time. So we'll let the people be the judge of whether or not we should be under that kind of scrutiny. And if we're just going to allow other communities go through the process, then what keeps Freeport from going through the process?

process. If it's already in place, we're not utilizing it, and we're not going through the process with it.

Okay, Alderman Monroe, did you want to? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think where I was headed with this is, you know, we do have, you know, a general drug policy online in our handbook. You know, where I was headed with this was, as an example, as elected officials and directors, that, you know, we would have an annual drug test. And that would be my motion is to move forward with an annual test in January for all elected officials and anybody taking a seat after they've been elected to office. Because it is important that we set the example and we are the leaders of each of these departments, this community. And it's important that we maintain that transparency and allow our public to understand that we are putting our best foot forward. We are setting the example within the city of Freeport and you know I think the cost of it is negligible compared to other things that we're doing and you know from that standpoint it would it would set the example that not only are we willing to do it but that you're eligible for it as well as an employee of the city of Freeport so that would be my motion is that we would have a have it drawn up so that we're automatically tested every January by the at the end of the month and move forward from there. When you say everybody, who are you implying? Elected, you know, all of us sitting in this room at these tables, director level and above, alderman and, you know, mayor and so forth. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor. Okay, you want to address it? Your motion, just to clarify, your motion was just to,

is it to basically direct staff to look into this and draft an ordinance there because which is what's fine right there to say hey that's let's keep working in looking into this there the only reason why I asked for the clarification is because I need to look into this for the legality of it there you mentioned that there were other communities if you could share those with me just so I can kind of you know reach out to them and kind of see, you know, what they've done there. I'm unaware, again, not that I'm the end-all be-all there. I'm unaware of other communities requiring elected officials to be drug tested. I know that there was a, many years ago, there was the General Assembly, you know, there was a bill proposed to require House Representatives and Senate members to be drug tested as a part of being able to file nomination papers. That bill was shot down. It didn't pass there. My concerns looking with just doing this, and again, I don't have a problem if this is what you guys want to do. I just want to make sure that it's legal to do it. There is that you're changing the qualifications of office, basically, or potentially. You're trying to say that, hey, if you fail the drug test, is the repercussion that then you can't serve there. And I just have to see if that's allowed to be done or if that is something that is left to the General Assembly to be able to write in that additional qualification. So again, I don't

policy-wise, this is up for you guys. I just want to make sure that you guys are allowed to have the authority to make that policy there. And I don't know the answer off the top of my head. Okay, but his motion was to drug test every elected official and director here every January. That was the motion.

So I think to Manager Boyer's point, I think all employees are subject to drug testing. I think you're narrowing, getting a little more specific in saying that, hey, because right now it's kind of random. It's up to the city decide or the manager decide when a drug test of department heads might be necessary there. You're saying, you're trying to narrow that scope and say, hey, department heads are going to get drug tested along with every elected official every January 1.

You know, I mean, we as elected leaders and department heads are using our facilities, we're using our vehicles, we're doing things in the daily activities of our jobs, and it's important that we, you know, do set the example and that we, you know, it is for the overall health of the city.

I think it makes a lot of sense to move forward with something like this. I understand the legalities of it all, but I think kicking somebody out of office probably isn't, but there are options to get people help. The language is in the employee handbook. It doesn't say you're terminated.

doesn't say you're terminated upon a positive test, but, you know, there are those types of things. I think, from a standpoint, it does make a lot of sense, you know, from, you know, the handbook's kind of teeth, if you will, that if we're all going to abide by the same rules they are, I don't know of an older person or an elected official or a department head that's ever been drug tested in my time as an older person.

So, really what you want is an ordinance to reflect it?

Alderman Parker.

I don't have no problem with the employees when they're out there driving our vehicles, doing the work in a dangerous situation, being drug tested.

But drug testing the alderman is asinine.

I've been drug tested twice, once when I went in the military, once when I become a cop.

Other than that, I never have.

I'm totally against it, and I'm not going to do it.

so thank you okay so we do have a motion on the floor would be to uh i'm guessing you're you're tasking attorney de zito to come up with an ordinance right yeah i would like that yes please okay so we have a motion is there a second a second so we have a second made by alderman sanders uh if there's no further discussion um madam clerk did we take a vote on that yeah it's this is just to task me with looking into to this more. Yeah. So, Madam Clerk, did you, yeah. Yeah, what we're trying to do, set a new, a standard that's supposed to be in place already. We're not bringing anything in new. I just want to get that out of everybody's mind. It is something that, that just has not been activated or been used. According to, according to the mayor, stating that we got something like that in, in place, and if you want to object to that, that's on you. But my thing is, we're not setting a new standard if it's already in place. If someone has already been asked, I know this has happened out in the field of construction workers making accusation of someone that may have been consumed by Drugs by one of our elected officials or directors or whoever have made that statement. So I know that it has been done. There's nothing, I don't know if we got it in writing or anything like that, but I think it resulted in someone's termination here at the city. So we, um, if that's not correct, then I stand corrected, you know, but if that, if that, if that,

that conversation happened, then we should look into the fact that this thing should be taken at face value all the way across the board.

Alderman Shadle, did you have something?

I just wanted to say that you are, in fact, wrong again.

Okay.

The added portion of this would be the elected officials.

It doesn't matter.

Well, you said you weren't reinventing anything and you weren't changing anything.

No.

And, in fact, you are.

Well, if I am.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second to task Attorney Zito to grab an ordinance. Madam Clerk, would you please take the role on this particular discussion?

Stacy?

Aye.

Sorry, I didn't see your hand.

So, okay, is it already part of whatever ordinance you- Employees.

Okay, so, okay, and if you're concerned about older people and elected officials, is there something in the ordinance?

that says if, you know, somebody, all the person A shows up inebriated, they'll be removed.

No.

Oh.

That's why I was questioning what's your end goal.

I don't know.

Director Richter?

I'd just like to clarify a little bit.

And if I'm wrong, Attorney Zito, the handbook, I believe, is due to reasonable suspicion.

It's not a random pool for like myself.

I'm not in a random pool.

I just wanted to clarify that Okay Madam Clerk, will you please take the roll Stacey Aye Shadle No Sanders Aye Sellers No Clemm No Monroe Aye Simmons No Parker No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 no's to 3 yeas, it fails Okay, we'll move on to item number 29 could you please read this discussion? Discussion regarding investigation into unauthorized disposal of city documents in the Freeport City Cemetery and purpose of that disposal. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's come to my attention as an older person from multiple people now that there was at some point in time in the 2010 to 2020 range at least that there were holes dug in the city and documents were dumped into those holes. And we're not talking small amounts of documents, we're talking very large amounts of documents. My question is, knowing how documents are typically disposed of, you know, from being in classified environments as well as other environments in the military and since being in the military, that, you know, appropriate behavior would be to shred those documents, dispose of them,

Burnham, whatever it may be, it's not to dig a hole in the city cemetery and dump a bunch of documents in and then call it good. The people that have approached me with this information, I believe wholeheartedly, and I believe it's important that we at least look into if information was dumped, and if that information was dumped, was it done so as a standard practice, or if it was done so to cover something up or if you know information that somebody has out there could be gathered from those documents not knowing the details behind it I felt it was important enough to come to the city and at least have the conversation so that the public is understanding of what was you know put there and I think it's it's it makes sense to at least take a look we don't need to necessarily go digging in the cemetery. There's ways to use ground penetrating radar and other methods that are easily done without disturbing any of the vegetation or soil and determine if the documents are there and then from that point then at least have a conversation of what the next steps are. Depending on how long they've been there they may be in various states of decay so it may not be worth going any further but I think it's at least worth the conversation to figure out why it was put there if the city would like to maybe share with the older people you know what what the what the reasoning behind it was I but I felt like it was important enough to kind of come in front of the council have the conversation it shouldn't be too difficult and go from there manager Boyer

Thank you, Ms. Alderman. The situation at the cemetery, we interviewed the Sexton's for the last 20 years, and both of whom said there was never any incident of that kind.

Alderman Clem?

Between 10 and 20, that appears to be a good number of years. Do you have any idea what administration it was, or who you could go back to to find out and see?

I was on all those years I don't believe I wasn't on from 18 on you were there then but I find that to be entirely ridiculous thank you yeah three of those years are under my seat I have no knowledge of any of it so is there so I understand everybody's reluctance and I understand everybody's position but is it not worth at least looking into would you Well, I think that's what Manager Boyer did.

Yes, we looked into it and we interviewed the sextants that were there at the time and they have both said that there was never anything interred in the cemetery matching the description that you made being done, some kind of documents.

Who are the sextants? I have no idea who they are.

One is Todd Marsh. He was our sextant for many years and the previous sextant, I don't know him personally, but he was interviewed also.

What do the sextants do? I'm confused.

the sextants in charge of the cemetery. Okay. Madam Clerk. From working with the state archivists, burial of documents I know is an acceptable disposal method. I don't know what you're referring to here, but I know burial is acceptable. When we had wet records from a flood, the shred people would not take them when they were wet. Although you're not implying that, you're just saying that would be and Normal, correct.

that would be a normal, correct? That's acceptable. It's an acceptable method, yeah. Whether this happened or not, I don't know. Alderman Sanders? Yeah, I just wanted to say that we're not in a position to investigate it with the biases that we might be carrying simply because it's in our agenda, but you've got to remember the city of Freeport was like a revolving door with elected salary positions, officials, many different administrations and things of that nature. So any of the things that is on this agenda could have occurred, but it's not our position to state our opinion on something that we can't validate as council, nor can we say that no one that works for the city has any knowledge.

about any such things, but we can't say that, and for us to not be scrutinizing the whole proposal that was being made about investigating, looking into these kinds of things, for whoever might be objecting to it, don't know the full scope of all the details from the time that it was done, or whatever was done, it has just been brought to our attention. We can't just put a date on it. We just can't do that.

Manager, Boyer.

I would just like to respond to that. If you have something you'd like to share with me, I'd be happy to act on it.

Alderman Clem.

Yeah, I just wanted to say, why don't you reveal your sources and we can go talk to them if they know so much.

So you can put your hands on them like you did me?

I'd go to the police department, but they won't do it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there any other discussion concerning these? Yes, ma'am. I'd like to make a motion that we at least look into examining a little further. Once again, very small cost to look and see if we and I will get a better location so that we have that location, but we will we'll at least get that together and and have and see if it's worthwhile. I don't know what the cost of ground penetrating radar is, but I've seen it used in the past and it does work very, very well. So if there was something there, it would show up, even if it wasn't a state of decay. I don't know that, but it seems pretty odd to me that this, people would come up and say this for no reason.

Darren?

Yeah, we have GPR and we'd be happy to investigate something if you get a location.

motion. Okay, so what actually is your motion? That we look into it further. Okay. You know, I don't think there's any harm in that, you know, and at least, you know, validate or invalidate. I don't know what we'll find, but I know two people that came forward and said something about it, and they don't want to say anything because they, you know, they don't want anybody to come back on them. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor? I find it funny. You find it funny. Do we have a second? A second. Okay, so we have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sanders to look further into examining the validation of the allocations. I don't know. So am I correct on what I just? Sure. If you'd like, I'll come back at a later date with a location and a map and put a red X on it for people so that it's easier to look.

We have a motion So we have a motion I mean this is just basically like a consensus but given the fact that I don't know how a voice vote is going to play out as far as like a consensus as to whether or not the council wants to look into this further or not look into this further. I'd just take a So do we want to look into this further? That's the that's the question. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?

Stacey? Aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Clem? No. Monroe? Unreal. Aye. Simmons is absent. Parker? No. Four? Wait a second. One, two, three to four. I always state that wrong. I'm sorry. The motion fails. Am I wrong, Mayor? One, two, three, four wrong. Four no's. One, two, three, yeas. She's here. Can she vote?

Oh, but we've had this situation before I have Clem, Parker, Shadle, and Sellers as no's Monroe, Stacy, and Sanders as yes Seven Failing three to four Is that Okay, we'll move on to item number 30, which is another discussion Could you please read this I think we moved this to the cow, Madam Mayor pulled off at the beginning prior to approval. I'm sorry. Yes. I meant to say 31. 31. Okay. My mistake. Discussion regarding concerns related to the community development block grant housing rehabilitation recipient for 1010 South Adams Avenue rehabilitation grant. Alderman Stacy. Through my research, I was able to find that this particular applicant for the 1010 Mouth Adam property has a total combined real estate portfolio of $312,690. Was slash is anyone from the city aware of this?

Yes.

If you did and they were still approved, then shame on you. If you didn't know, and they were still approved, then shame on you.

I would think a portfolio of that size would deem them overasset or are assets not a part of the determined factor for approval?

We don't know.

I went on the city website to download a copy of the CDBG sample application and a listing of accepted documents but the information was no longer available so to ensure that the CDBG Adam Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Grant Fund which are still taxpayer dollars are being distributed with fairness and equity as well as to provide a further safeguard against any potential misconduct.

I make a motion to temporary halt all CDBG Adams Avenue housing rehabilitation projects until the council have been completely educated on the application and selection process and all other participants requirements.

Attorney Zito.

So this was on for discussion only, right?

So you actually have like a motion to basically put like a moratorium on the issuance of any further grants, right, CBGB grants here or there.

I think we can put it on an agenda so that you can vote on it there, but because we have this just for discussion on here tonight, I don't think we can vote on the motion that you made because you're actually looking to take actual action as far as placing a moratorium on the issuance of any further grants under this program.

Well, I can't help that the word discussion was added. However, when I called in and said I wanted this, I said why I wanted this.

because this 1010 property, this family have 10 other properties here in Freeport, plus they have two properties in German Valley, and it is no way that they're eligible for this $48,000.

And so I don't know who knows who or what is going on, but clearly something is going on. You've already approved it though, right? You know that.

You approved it though, right? You know that. Yeah, I approved it before I done my homework, before it was given to me so I could do my homework to find out that they have 10 properties right here in town.

Okay. I do want to add some light to that because I can tell you're upset. You and I have talked about this. It's not 10 properties. I investigated it again today. I went to the tax records and looked at it. The German Valley House, I believe, was sold somewhere around 2006.

and as of 2023 they've paid taxes on a total the person we're talking about has paid taxes on a total of eight properties and one of them is a vacant lot and another one of them is their actual residence and all of their again I have to be careful about what I say but because this is all some of this information is off of their tax returns but I will say that this has all been accounted for and I stand by it you know somebody else will come in here and have a different opinion, a different professional opinion.

That's fair. I stand by that, somebody else's professional opinion. But I do know when I looked at that tax return, all these properties have been accounted for. The person who's part of this applicant has worked with me greatly and said anything they can do to put somebody's mind at ease.

But owning, you're talking about the difference between assets versus how much money they make on their income statement, so, um, and their tax returns, so. You told me that, Director Duckman, um, you even offered me to come talk to them, but then you never followed up. I asked you Friday, and you were not here, but I asked you for a copy of the pre-walkthrough that happened on October 10th, and any photos taken, and that could not even happen.

We can do that. Absolutely. We can still do that. I have all that information here. I just have to be extremely careful about what information is given because at some point, if this person says, hey, my tax information, my tax ID got out, or hey, I didn't want to. So I consulted at today's department head meeting. I talked with Attorney Zito and I said, what's our best course of action to put somebody's at ease. And when I spoke with the applicant today, they said, I'll comply all day. I just have certain information that I do want redacted. And so there's two sides that have two fair requests. But as I say, as a professional, I stand behind anything you'll look at on their records and they're willing to work with whomever. So I brought it up at the department head meeting to make sure everybody was protected and safe. And however it is, we end up looking at it. I do know Attorney Zito will be present to make sure whatever needs to be redacted is redacted. And I genuinely look forward to putting your mind at ease or anyone else's. But I do hope that as we move forward, this grant has taken three years to implement and that we don't delay people's projects that are reliant on it, you know, because there's questions on this one particular grant application. When I spoke with you last Monday, you stated that that you had seen the 2020 income tax. Have you seen the 2023? Yes, I saw it today. I have it today, right? I have it right here. Okay. Yes, I have. So then I would like to set up a meeting with you and Zito and if the homeowners want to come, so be it. All I'm saying is right is right and wrong is wrong. I agree. Anybody that owns 8, 10, 12 properties and they

qualify for this type of grant money when we get property on these streets that look worse than theirs.

Let me just stop, though, quick, because that's bad information to put out into the public.

That's, and I'm not insulting you at all, but putting out bad information is not good for the public to hear because I did state earlier that if you drive down Adams Avenue and you say, why does that house look bad and this person got their house fixed? On the grant application that the state gives, It has a scoring system of points that we, as a director, I talked to the state and said, I do not want a city employee to be accused of having friends or favorites, cloak and dagger tactics. I said, how can we avoid that? And it says you can hire a local planning council, region one planning council to review objectively on a state identified ranking system, all the applications. And that is what we did through council that was approved through council.

So every one of these properties, excuse me, was the highest, the highest weighted factor. I'll just read all of them. Owner occupied for 10 years or longer, you get 10 points for that. Owner occupied for five years or longer, you get five points for that. If you pay 35% or more of your income on your housing, that's 10 points. If you are elderly, 62 or older, you automatically go up 20 points.

So that doesn't matter if your house is falling down in the ground or if it's brand new. If you're elderly in this grant, you get an extra 20 points. If you're disabled, 20 points. If you're a single head of household, that's 10 points. If you have a large family, five or more, that's five points. And now they have listed incomes. This does not have anywhere on here about assets. It does not say assets. It talks about your income and verifying your income. And based on what region you're in, these income levels are set by the state. It says if you have very low income, which is 50 to 30 percent of the area's median income, you receive 15 points. If you are extremely low income, which is less than 30 percent of the area's median income, which is determined by the state, and there's a graph here, you get 20 points.

so nowhere in here in this ranking system does it say well my house is worse looking than your house so it's very important to state that every one of these applications was not graded on is your house worse than my house not at all so that's wrong for people to believe this this is what the state of Illinois is going to look at for every one of these so when we look at any application that is how an independent organization reviewed these applications so I I think it's very wrong to tell the public that that's how this grant was administered because it was not.

When this house was chosen, when it came to council, I asked, why this house? Why this one first?

And you talked about that point system and they applied, they're on the list, they qualify, they this, they that.

True. I did say that and I stand by that. I stand by that if this ever was audited, however you want to go by this and however Attorney Zito is determined legally can show this information this information will be showed I've looked at it multiple times I've looked at our contractor who reviewed these applications and I we went step by step by step with the state on how to administer this and that's exactly what we did so you can't accuse the city of saying well Wayne made you know Wayne gave 10 points here because that's his favorite no we hired a professional said that but I'm just stating that that is how this grant was. I'm saying I want to understand the grant and I want to understand your little point system and I want access to the state government pertaining to this grant. You could certainly call and ask the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity and whatever information they can give you, they will. I don't control that, you know, the DCEO and what they do. Okay, we're ready to move on.

All I'm going to say, so you, you technically made a motion, given the fact that you were going to have a meeting, do you want to withdraw your motion just to clean that part up?

I really would like to have everything stopped until there's a total understanding on these funds and how they're being administrated and that, and that the application wasn't filled wrong.

okay so if you want to consider that that stop then because it was written on here as a discussion at the very next council meeting that can be put on for as a motion to be made and seconded to have basically imposed a moratorium on the issuance of any further grants under this application or under this program do we treat that like the last one and take a vote on if it moves forward to the next council as a no it's going to move forward well I think because she can always, any two aldermen can always ask for something to be put on the agenda. So that's basically what I'm suggesting that if alderman Stacy and another alder person want to have that item put on the agenda, they can have it put on the next agenda. Okay, so that would be for discussion. You're not tasking attorney Zito to draw up some thing. Am I correct on that? What I asked for, you're saying I can't have. Not tonight because of the heading on the agenda. But it can go on to another agenda.

for discussion. How does that change? For the next agenda, it can be, you know, discussion slash, you know, motion or motion to, you know, motion for to instruct, you know, attorney to draft moratorium.

That's what I wanted clarity on. But that's ultimately, however, you know, Alderman Stacy wants to to phrase it for after moratorium, then.

for after moratorium, then that's what your motion can be. And you can say. And then we'd vote on that. Yes.

Correct. I would like for you to do just that. So it'll be on the agenda. And I make a motion right now that it be put on the agenda without the word discussion. So you're tasking him to write this up. Yes. So then we need a motion for that. Yeah. If you're going to task me to actually go and do that that part, basically, then. I thought that's what you were telling me I needed to do. I'm saying that you don't need to make a motion tonight, okay, if you want, because, right, we have the rule that says any two older men can have something placed on the agenda, right? But then what if, what if December, two, three more properties come to move forward with a roof or whatever is needed, and. You could vote against, I mean, they were voted, right, you voted against.

Of course. Right. It's going to be five to three or four to four and then the mayor's going to vote and she's going to vote for it.

Wayne, do we have, like, is it likely between now and December, the first meeting of December?

I don't think there's any, I have to double check our schedule. I have to double check to see where we're at on the next, because as stated before, before these can move forward, we have to schedule the, we have that hired independent contractor and he actually had an an accident in his family, so he was missing some time, so we had to delay some of the inspections, but I'll double check to see where we're at on those independent inspections. So I was told Wednesday that there had been a halt put on 1010. There is. So are you telling me you're moving forward now?

1010, okay, so 1010, the short answer to your question is the contractors not had started work and I told them to stop and they've stopped at 1010. I've asked them to stop because I said there was an agenda item where and there was concerns about the application and I said I needed to talk with our older people and our attorney because when I talked to our consultant about it at the staff level our consultant meaning MSA myself we scoured the income records I had a meeting with the property owner and I said I can't find anything that would disclose that would preclude this person from moving forward with the grant they followed all the rules and I said I can't and our consultant could not find a reason to to stop it. But I said, and our consultant actually suggested, and I agreed, I said, if something's going to move forward, it's going to have to be legal action, talk to your attorney, because I can't see a reason to stop it. So I said, yes, please put it on halt until we can figure out what we're doing. So from the staff level, I did tell the contractor to stop working on the project until this is figured out. For 1010 South, I've told them to stop until it's figured out. Okay, so we have a motion. Do we I forgot did we have a second on that to halt to task attorney Zito to draft halting all moratorium yeah right there so I guess right so this will be similar to like what we did on just a few yeah a few other ones as to whether or not the council wants to move forward with basically looking into this more by having my office put something together for your guys it's consideration so is there a second on that I'll second it okay

Yeah, I just have a question. So, if we were to stop this, that would stop the people that are getting the roof, that's getting the windows, that's getting all the same. No, that stops 10-10 only. No, you didn't say that. No, but you took a vote on it and it didn't pass. You didn't take a vote on it. What you just said for a motion, we haven't voted on it yet. Your motion was to task him to halt all CBD.

projects. Yes. We haven't voted on that yet. But 24 and 25 would stop all that. Yeah. That's why I'm saying, would we want to stop? Is this a state grant? Okay, so, pardon me. Yes. This is a state grant. Yes. The money is already there, right? Yes. Yes. With deadlines, by the way. Yeah, and that's why I'm saying. What deadlines? Originally, this grant had a deadline of November of this year and so I'd say I think it was back three months ago I started the process of a grant extension and had a multitude of reasons on why we needed a grant extension so the state of this is one of the most restrictive grants you're going to find I've worked with several different communities in looking you know I'm going back when when I started when I was hired on here going on three years. One of my biggest dedications I've done for this community is working on a way to unlock this money for these homeowners because the state was like every step of the way I would say hey can I move forward with this and they would say okay here's 10 more here's 10 more roadblocks you have to get through before you can get the people this money. Here's another 10 roadblocks and so I would get to a point and then there'd be more roadblocks and then you know we got to a certain point and then it's like hey hire this consultant, where can we go, you know, how can we get the people to aid and it really kind of seemed like the state was trying to just put all these bureaucratic roadblocks in front of us so that we would hit the

deadline but our consultant was really great and it really helped us put together an extension not from November but they got it done for May so my staff has done a tremendous amount of work I looked at the binder today and it was probably about 16 inches tall which is paperwork for this actual grant application. So the answer to your question is the grant is currently I believe the extension goes till May of 26. And I will say that I will say I'm sorry, I'm sorry, May of 25. Feels like time flies when you're having fun. So I would state that when in working with the DCEO who administers the State Department who administers this grant, you know, they said if you continue to show progress, there's there's a very good chance you'll get another extension in May to bring all the people this aid. So certainly delaying the process and put a moratorium is going to put more of a strain on staff to make sure that we can get the rest of the people the aid they need for this grant.

Allman, Sellers Yes, didn't you guys go out and your staff go out door to door in that whole area and ask each one, each homeowner that qualified in that area My understanding, sorry No, I'm just saying, I remember, I don't know if it was, was it Kirsten, James Yeah, I know it was Kirsten, but I'm saying, I don't know if it was people from the NAACP or somebody wanted to help you push and help you promote it and you had enough staff members to go out and you guys went home to home asking people, did they want to qualify to be a part of this?

That is to help you clarify what happened there. So I think anytime there's a grant and people think that there's money to be had, I think there's a lot of misinformation that's going out. So one thing, there's a couple of things to remember here. Many of the people who submitted these grants to me, they said, I'll work with you all day. Please don't, I don't necessarily want my neighbor to know how much money I make. I don't want my neighbor to know where I'm getting my money. Those are specific requests as sometimes the information is being handed to me so it's a challenging grant from a lot of different aspects and you're working with people also would say that you know there's just people would say well don't let don't trust him don't trust it there's money to be had so there's going to be some mudslinging I think going on but the answer to your question is I had I had when I came in all of the grant applications the process you're talking about had been done it was closed the gland applications were closed what had been discussed was there was more information that was needed from the 65 applicants and there was offers from the public and I said look I'm going to do it with staff and with consultants because some of the people here are very protective of their information and have told me they don't want to talk to people they just want to keep their information private and I said I'll do everything I can within the confined of the law to keep your information as private as I can. I go, if somebody FOIAs this information, I will have to give certain parts of it away, and they all understood that I would do my best, and that's what happened with that situation.

But I knew that you had some community help to try to help those people get that grant through.

Yes, yes.

Okay, so there's a motion on the floor to task Attorney Zito to write this up for halting all projects.

Um, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Clem? No. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? So you want all projects stopped? That's what the motion is. The person Stacy. Everything. He's bringing it to me by the 1st of December. The first meeting in December. So my understanding of the motion is that you wanted.

My understanding of the motion is that you wanted me, if this motion goes through, it would be to direct me to place a moratorium on all CBGB projects.

That would even include the ones approved prior?

Yes, all is all.

That's my understanding of the request.

Until we get a total understanding on these applicants and how they're really working.

I don't I agree that questions need to be asked if you feel like something is being done incorrectly. However, the people who did qualify and are getting work done, I'm sorry. No. Parker? No. The motion fails three to five. Okay, we'll move on to item number 32, reports from department heads, finance.

nothing your honor thank you community development nothing tonight madam mayor public works one thing today we had a public hearing for a CDBG grant great topic for sewer lining here in Freeport it's a million dollar grant with no match by the city we're proposing sewer lining in the fourth third fifth and seventh ward due to income levels lines are yet to be determined the reason I bring this up tonight is there will be a resolution that has to be passed on the December 2nd meeting in order to submit for the grant on December 4th. Again, it's a million dollar grant with no match from the city. Something that we've mined up and is a very good opportunity for Freeport. Fire? Nothing this evening. Police? No report. Library? Nothing tonight. IT? Nothing tonight. City Manager. I'd just like to compliment the staff on their professionalism tonight. Thank you.

And I just have a couple of things. I just want to thank the city crews for installing all the downtown Christmas decorations just in time for Mistletoe Walk, which is this Saturday from noon until 8 p.m.

Everything from a hot chocolate to s'more station and horse-drawn carriage rides. And then at five o'clock is the lighting of the tree at the courthouse. And in line with Christmas decorations, mark your calendars and purchase your tickets now for the December 13th at 7 o'clock is the Trans-Siberian Orchestra Tribute Show at the Masonic Temple and the proceeds from this show will go to purchase decorations, Christmas decorations along the Chicago Avenue corridor and then also there is still time to drop off items for the 333rd National Guard care package. 62 men and women were deployed out of Freeport and the items that they are in need of are socks, hand warmers, batteries, toiletry items, and snacks. So we are taking donations through the rest of this month. We'll move on to Alderman Stacy and Alderman Shadle. I would just like to say that some things were said earlier in the direction of Community Development Director Duckman that I thoroughly disagree with. He has a level of honesty and integrity that I would put second to none, and I feel there is absolutely no reason to doubt anything that he did with those grants. It is not totally the way it was specified by the state.

Alderman Sanders, Alderman Sellers, Alderman Clemm, I just want to mention we have a November 26 neighborhood watch meeting, that's it, Alderman Monroe, thank you madam mayor, I'd like to apologize to David Hayes, item number five, I'm not suspending the rules and getting that passed tonight, I would encourage everybody to stick around for item number 38, as we come out of executive session should be an interesting conversation as well as you know my disappointment overall and not wanting to look into certain items just because you know it doesn't feel comfortable. I think it's time that we start investigating some of the things that have been said around the city for many years. I've been coming to a realization that there are several people in this community who don't have Freeport's best interest in mind, and I've started to speak out against it, and as you saw here tonight, it's not very comfortable at times, but sometimes it's important to bring the uncomfortable up, so I'd like to thank everybody for tuning in and listening in, and more to come.

Alderman Simmons Just a reminder of our third war community meeting on this Friday coming up November 22nd at 4 o'clock at the library.

Alderman Parker Just to agree with Alderman Shadle reference Mr. Duckman here.

He's done agreed.

Item 36 is public comment.

Take one at a time.

So back to speak about number six. I just want you to know that what is on or what was added to the ordinance is even more of a fine than you already have in place of $100 per unit. You currently have a fine of $100 per unit in your ordinance that you're not collecting on or that nothing has been collected on this year.

So the request for it to be the way it was when it was presented to you as the ordinance was something that people were discussed with and agreed upon knowing that it was more than what was already in the ordinance as it stands today. Thank you.

Next. I'm not here to accuse anybody of any wrongdoing. I think that everybody does their best and I don't think that any one person knows everything but what in my experience every government program that's offered offering financial help always considers assets I've never heard of this now I believe that that the community development director probably did hand out the applications and he looked at him and to the best of his ability he complied with all the rules but what would I want to do I'm going to research this grant thoroughly and find out, actually, are they seriously not considering a person's assets? Every program I'm familiar with, health care, housing, every government program, they want to know what your assets are. These people shouldn't have even been handed an application. So I would like to know, I'd like to come to the office of the community development director and find out, you know, I'll bring my notes, exactly what I don't know what the name of the program is. If you've got a notebook, I'd like to just borrow it and look at it. I could sit in here and look at it. But I'm trying to be helpful. This just should not be happening to our community. Nobody with a lot of assets should be getting $48,000 when there are 65 other applicants who may or may not be in more need. It just isn't right. I just find this totally incredible. And if this is what's going on,

I'm gonna make some calls and make sure this gets changed because this isn't right. Next. Thank you, Mayor Miller. Nealey Erickson with Illinois Realtors. So I want to thank Alderman Clem for bringing up some history about the registration fee because the city council had removed the registration fee because they realized that it impacted compliant property owners. And so the real focus about the registration was to go after the non-compliant.

and so that's why the registration fee was removed by that city council also I want to bring back to your attention the overall rental registration ordinance because it's a larger animal and after the definitions the immediate first implication on your ordinance is required registration property owners landlords in your community cannot rent to tenants unless their properties are registered and so we recognize that there are Now.

We recognize that there are non-compliant individuals. And when we were discussing the fee structure, we designed the fee structure to ensure compliance and protect your contingents exactly from what you said, Alderwoman Sellers, in that we wanted to make sure that they did not take the brunt of the overall burdensome of that fee. Because you have to remember, if the property owner can't pay the fee, they then can't pay the fee.

and I, Ashley is with the landlord association. I am with the realtor association. And so when we worked on this proposal back and forth with the city manager and with the city, we wanted to make sure that the implications were minimal for the city and the city and the city, we wanted to make sure that the implications were minimal for the city.

and that it focused on the problem property owners in your community. And that is what the core goal of this ordinance is that was in front of you today. So we hope that you see that in the next couple of weeks that you remember these words. It is to focus on problem property owners, but to protect your tenants and your community because they bring value here too. And we don't think that you don't think that they do, but we always have to remember how it trickles down. And we also want to make sure it's perfectly clear that throughout this we have brought ideas to the city outside of the rental registration system and that there is a transfer tax document that is filed with this city and that it is easy to create another document that says at the signing table letting that person know who's purchasing the property that if you're going to rent this property there is a registration system with the city of Freeport and you are obligated to follow it and at that point in time they know. Also with the water The tenant is responsible to sign up for the water. To ask a simple question, are you a tenant or not? Takes no extra city staff time, takes no extra obligation, but that empowers the city with that information. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there any other public comments?

Tony, Nick, you've got an update about beef, but Wosadis, right, Tommy?

Yep.

My understanding is a restaurant is submitting their permits, a good restaurant that you will probably enjoy.

And I want to tell Jodi Miller, she does a good job to mail people and go Packers Go Packers Are there any other public comments?

I'll make this very, very quick I really enjoyed the debate, especially on the landlord situation And I don't want to pick on this poor man But it's not totally working properly When they came in and investigated created some garages in my neighborhood that were bad, which I kind of pointed to the fact. Rather than repair the garages, they tore them down. All of a sudden, my property values are less, not more. That property value is less, not more. So we need to think like the people that just pointed out, what we do, we are destroying more than we're creating.

We're demolishing more than we're rebuilding, and I think we've got to get on that track.

We're trying to hold our property taxes down.

I put something in there, and I would have liked to have kept the level the same, which would have increased to another $18,000.

I don't care about the $18,000, but if we can get our property taxes up in my neighborhood, it should reduce the property taxes in the other areas.

as well. So we need to manage our property as well as we can. Anyway, the job on the budget has been pretty remarkable. A lot of work went into it. I know Michelle went through hell. I went through hell, looked at the numbers. They come out halfway decent. There are some things that you should take notice of. Most of you got my documentation. Look forward to solving those few problems, and I think we'll be in very, very good shape.

the capital budget project that he put together is a doable thing. Goodbye. Are there any other public comments?

Okay, we'll move on to item number 37. Could you please read this? Pursuant to 5 ILCS 122C2 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. Is there a motion to enter into Executive Session. So moved. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Yeah, we're waiting on that. Okay, so we've got a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Stacey? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? I want to say no. No.

as a note. Final answer. Clem. Aye. Monroe. No. Simmons. Parker. Aye. Motion passes. Six to two.

Sure. Can I sit down here? Can you leave the door open?

I just want Oh Thanks, Elf, absolutely I just want to get it 240,000 Well, as you learn, I took a picture I just did Oh, you know I got this Scott, this.

You are long, Rob.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm not going to be very close.

There's nothing I can answer.

You're mine up.

We'll get 11 o'clock at night.

There's nothing to do with me.

There's nothing to do with me.

You can't blame me for kind of coming back.

Yeah, but all those problems over in Peckin' Town were the mayor's fault.

They were all his fault. He directed all that work and then blamed it. He did all of it.

He went out and told the town, go do this, and then he called us and said, hey, I told him to do that.

I just worked for a word. I know that I am. Adam Holder was one of my best friends.

You bet.

Oh, is he getting right?

Yeah.

I did, I asked Scott, I asked Scott, I asked Scott, I asked Scott, I asked Scott, I asked Scott, He was like, I'm leaving, and he just left. I was like, okay.

What does that happen?

Oh, I mean, it's even better if they save here 100.

This is what the grant is given based on service.

But they're trying to get some of the grants.

They have just kind of any time.

Yes, I don't know.

The lights are off to see you.

The lights are off upstairs. I hope she didn't go home. The lights are off upstairs. Oh, here she comes. She went downstairs.

Thank you.

if we've got the opportunity to do that, we're not going to have a long talk about it.

that part of 2018, it's ridiculous, because anything about the community, a few people, back in 2010, this is the same year, the trustee, and the staff, and all the social, and the Irish, and the RNG, from Milwaukee, came down here, and disappeared, $9 million people, they had to hire us, right now, they're still paying, and I'm like, oh, they're moving now.

It's a good one.

Every time you're in a meeting that you think is going to be a cheating place just gives you a poster.

And the television is a poster.

This is a scene of a thing.

It's a person.

It's a person.

Yeah, but I think so.

Do our names for a title of the women.

You've got to trust the recorders to do their jobs.

I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I have all my babies, but for some reason, it isn't, for some reason, it takes longer, it takes longer, it takes longer, it takes longer, it takes longer, Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul.

I'm just saying, I have not heard enough in the Getty List.

They're not sending票.

My reputation is everybody's doing what they do.

Right, they have no reason for not to trust people.

All things that all of the students have been, hey, first of all, I'm just saying.

Hey, first of all, I'm just saying I've had two other things here, and I'm just saying that's what's coming.

What is my answer to all of them? I mean, I'm a 44-7-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.

and I've never said a little bit of that.

And as a matter of fact, I've gone out.

What do they do?

So why?

I don't know.

Capacity.

Can I understand it?

Yes.

They can get it.

I'll just see a document.

I'm not going to get it.

I'm not going to get it right now.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

I know.

and so what you're going to get is everybody's going to get a phone call, because nobody's going to say it, because they didn't change that.

You know, at the same time, you don't know what they are, right, and that's where I am.

Just like you and me.

The last thing I wasn't going to do at this point.

No, but you know, a simple thing was, and he said check the box.

So let's pretend for us to be open.

Pretend for one second let's say they hit a checkbox and he says no.

They can smell the box.

It's true.

Right?

And they can send it to me because it's all he's supposed to be in action.

He had an say and R1 do it.

So when the separate parties, they checked the box, and said, call one, go back into the CO2, understand these are rules, or is it possible for us to change the rules?

And that's a yes or no, probably a no.

Right.

It's safe.

So everyone has to find it.

There, we don't need to stop there.

Heimann's room wants to make that decision.

Right?

Then it goes, then it changes that conversation and not a take.

Well, it is, guys, this is going to have to deal with it.

Oh, no.

Okay, got it.

So, we've got to play with these rules.

That is not a lot.

Right, I don't understand this stuff at all.

Just not a rule.

No.

I don't know.

I know it's hard for her to do, but what she did, that was a bad.

It forces, it forces, it forces, when I say it forces me, hours and hours of work, you know, because I don't know what that's.

Yeah, 8, 12, 10 by, but that's what I was going to tell you, if I can honestly see how this works, and they're going to say, is there a retaliation that they're renting all these offers, I don't know, that's what I'm saying, that's probably how it's happening, and it's income's really rich, that's what it is, because it's a lot, I mean, they're very confident, it's going to be a company, I hate to say that, but this is going to sound sick, but you can't blame people to blame the rules and they're good, right?

I mean, seriously, they're just fighting the game. If they check the boxes, right?

But now the next question is, does we need to see what we can do to change the rules for that? The answer is no. Okay, so the minister is just where we are. Is there something that we can look into?

I feel like it's both.

I feel like it's going to be...

Sir, are we doing any research?

Thank you.

I guess the greater they have on the end, what we need to do.

That's awesome.

Well, I wonder if you said this one can keep an entire issue.

I'm going to try to keep an eye on it.

I don't know if you're trying to keep an eye on it.

Well, not so much office.

It's a pretty dangerous situation.

One of the key elements left.

Yeah.

and we just don't know.

So we just had the new position over here that's had a lot of vaccines that have been on last year.

I've never heard of them.

I've never heard of them.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

I was told.

That's also the main thing.

I think he's the HRC group that's, you know, about a 10-year-old, maybe a little bit, or something like that.

So, these things are the same.

So, a lot of social media, they're really tracking them.

That's what I would think.

In 10 years age, well, I used to do this.

I used to do this.

I used to do this.

I used to do this.

I used to do this.

right who anch bonus that I appreciate for sharing and putting my presence down there in 2020.

Oh!

How do you think is the last of that?

Oh.

Yeah.

Because just to get your company to show up and do it in cambio.

So that's, there's everything I can run into it all.

None of them appreciate you for renewing us.

Yeah.

Yeah, we still have, or he has to be a student-wise, we transfer on one clients.

There's a new one, there's a new one.

I'm just going to introduce you to the service.

I didn't know the service on the service.

Yep.

We would have to use that for funding to say we can do some resources.

and I said they won't dig into the front line of the prices, but I just didn't get to the right now, so here's what I'm saying, I can't even get down, I don't know, there's a couple of dollars in the court, just like, yes, so now that you are, we're all going to pay whatever it was, because the way those procurement contracts work is, so let's just say, the Trump plan, you're right in the chat, today it's about $500,000, or whatever it's cost, Ross, I want that company.

You've got to pay the bills.

OK.

Yeah.

A.

I'm glad I can play.

I was gonna show you that.

I'm talking training because this feels .

When you know it's a budget, it's a learning process.

and I would watch one if he has to be appropriate.

The budget is working on it.

And then I'll watch his research.

Who needs to be here?

You can take from aid if you were wrong because it's just a bucket.

It's appropriating when you refuse to spend it there.

You're managing your job and you're appreciating your job.

You know, it's...

where's the money where's the money that's what I want to know Oops, I'm sorry, you're fine Okay Alright, we're recording It is 1056 Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll in returning to open session Madam Mayor Here Alderpersons, Clemm Aye Monroe Aye Simmons Oh, I am so sorry, I'm not watching Parker Here Stacy Here Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers, we do have a quorum. Okay, item number 38 is the adoption of resolution R 2024-119. Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying collective bargaining agreement with the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, local number 884. Thank you.

Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Just before the council tonight is the negotiated contract contract with the Fraternal Order of Police. It includes a three-year contract with three step increases at eight for 2025, seven for 2026, and seven for 2027. It also includes a uniform allowance increase totaling approximately $11,000 in total impact and a bilingual bonus. It also removes language related to the PEP Medical Plan, which is valued at about one and a half percent. So thank you. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution. Alderman Monroe. City Manager Boyer, what is the total impact on the city for this if this were to go through this room? Approximately a million and a half dollars. Any other discussion? And we still have yet how many more?

contracts to discuss? We don't have any this year. But what contracts, how many contracts do we have coming up?

Well, we have AFSCME coming up and then fire following that. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. Alderman Clem. I'm sorry. Rachel's not here. She's coming.

Pray for the bull ride.

All right, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?

I'm sorry, Mayor, you said go ahead.

Yes, please.

Stacy?

No.

Shadle?

Aye.

Sanders?

No.

Sellers?

Aye.

Clem?

Aye.

Monroe?

I don't think we can afford this either way, but I'll say aye.

Simmons?

Aye.

Parker?

Aye.

The resolution is adopted 6-8, 6-2 for a total of 8, it's late Okay, since it is 11 o'clock, I'll entertain a motion adjourned I'll move Second Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Schädel All those in favor, signify by saying aye Aye