That had to be a better trip.

Yeah.

It wouldn't be better.

I'm going to grab it.

Sorry.

Thank you very much.

Good evening. Pastor Anna, could you please give the invocation this evening?

Good evening. God bless everyone. In Psalm 32a says, I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go. I will guide you with my eye. We're going to pray.

Heavenly Father, the mighty name of Jesus, we exalt and bless your name at this hour.

We thank you for the opportunity to gather together to make important decisions for this community.

I pray for everything turns out well and that you will be done.

May your wisdom, compassion, and mercy be poured out upon us.

May your Holy Spirit help us make the best decision for the well-being of all.

In the name of Jesus we pray.

Amen.

Amen.

And we'll officially call this meeting to order.

Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?

Mayor Miller?

Here.

Alder Persons Clem?

Here.

Johnson?

Here.

Simmons will be marked absent for now.

Parker?

Here.

Stacy?

Here.

Shadle, Sanders, Here, and Sellers, Here, and then I need a motion in order for Alderman Simmons to attend remotely. So move. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Clemm. All those in favor? No. Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clemm? Aye.

Johnson. Aye. Parker. Aye. And Stacy. Aye. The motion passes 7 to 0. She will be marked present at 6.02 p.m. Is she on? Good. Okay. And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Schadel.

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

Item number one is approval of the agenda. However, we will not be having item number 25, which is executive session. Is there a motion to approve?

So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?

Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Plum. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Parker. Aye. Stacy.

Is it fair to ask why we won't be having closed session? There wasn't anything to discuss. Okay, aye.

And Alderperson Simmons, can you hear me? Yes. And how do you vote on the agenda?

They tell me what? Do you approve the agenda? Aye. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item number 2 is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on August 18th, 2025. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Madam Mayor, may I interject? I did receive a message today that people at home are still having difficulty hearing older persons, so if you could lean in. Is that okay if I ask? Please lean into your microphone. Even when you vote, they're not hearing you at home. Shadle. Aye.

Sanders, Aye. Thank you. Sellers, Aye. Clem, Aye. Johnson, Aye. Simmons, Aye. Parker, Aye. And Stacy, Aye. And the motion passes eight to zero. Item number three is recognition of service awards. Chief. We have two officers that he gets his 10 year anniversary of this month. He's providing accomplishments. Dan actually started out as a member of our auxiliary. He's currently a firearm instructor.

He's also a member of our emergency response team, and he's a field training officer. Dan currently is assigned to the Detective Bureau, where he's a general case detective, and he just got his drone license, so he's our first licensed drone pilot, so that's pretty awesome. Dan has also received our highest award, the Award of Valor, on two separate occasions, and he's also been a recipient of many other letters of recognition, so I thank you for your service, and congratulations.

Just real quick too, Officer Eric Diemer, he couldn't be with us tonight, but he hits the 20-year milestone, which is a big one. He was going to be here, but something happened at the last minute, but his father was actually a long-time police officer for the Preport Police Department, so he's a legacy officer. He also started off as a member of the auxiliary. He's also a firearms instructor, spent some time working in the State Line Area Narcotics Team, which is a drug task force that we're in with the the Illinois State Police, he's also a member of our emergency response team, he's a field training officer, and he as well has received throughout his career many letters of recommendation and recognition, so we thank Eric for his 20 years of service. Item number four is public comments, Steve Carroll on item number 19. Okay, I'm, excuse me, I'm Steve Carroll, and this is about the public comments on non-agenda items.

At the last council meeting, there were many citizens that showed up to express their concerns about the outrageous rent increases that they were experiencing. Since that was not on the council agenda, they were told in a very imperious tone they would have to wait until the end of the meeting to express their views. That particular meeting lasted a little over four hours. Not very citizen friendly, now is it?

to compound the outrage, not one elected official at that meeting asked for a suspension of the rules to allow those folks to express their outrage.

You know, the hypothetical vote on that motion would have been very telling, and maybe we'll have a repeat of that.

this okay by changing the council rules to allow public comments on agenda and not agenda items at the beginning and end of council meetings would ensure that what happened at that last council meeting wouldn't happen again it's obvious to many that several of you are frightened of the first amendment perhaps some of you should consider stepping down and you in particular Jodi Step down, find something else to do, go back to flipping burgers Um, there's a Robert Holtz that signed in, but it doesn't say whether you are talking on an agenda item Then you'll have to wait till the end Thank you Pardon me?

I have a special thank you Well, according, according to the attorney, he said you have to wait till the end Because it's not an agenda item Okay Thank you And then Rolanda Allen, same for you Are you on an agenda item?

No Okay No? Okay. Then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is routine in nature and will be voted as one unless there's a member of the council that would like to have something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the board and commission minutes from the foreign fire insurance board dated June 12th, the library board, July 9th, fire and police commission, July 22nd, 2025, Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report, dated August 2025, the adoption of Resolution 2025-106, which is a resolution to request temporary closures of streets for the Freeport High School Homecoming Parade, approval of the finance bills payable in a total of $989,343.30, and the approval of payroll for pay period ending August 23rd, 2025, in the total of $588,244.78, and also the finance reports and the cash and investment reports for July 2025. Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? I pass. Is that an abstain? Yes. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye.

Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No. The motion passes six to one with one abstention. Item number six is the first reading of ordinance 20-25-53. Could you please read this? Ordinance authorizing the city to enter into a fifth renewal to lease agreement with Pete Albert for 103 through 111 South Liberty Avenue. Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The city of Freeport entered into a lease agreement with Pete Albert to lease the first floor of the the former Raleigh metal-clad building on September 2, 2020. The lease has been extended four times with the associated terms listed here in the memo. On 21, it was $1,000, and 22, it was $2,000, same with 23 and 24. The fifth renewal extends the lease for one year, commencing September 15 and ending September 14, 2026. The annual rent remains $2,000 and is consistent with the previous two rentals, renewals, that is.

A new provision we've included this year is potentially the ability to terminate the lease early in case of the current tenant expressing interest in purchasing the building in the future. So the city receives approximately $2,000 annually in rent and staff recommends moving forward renewing the lease with Pete Elber at the Raleigh Metal Clad Building.

So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Parker to move this ordinance on to the next regular scheduled meeting discussion. Alderman Stacy? Yes. Um, who's paying the taxes on this building? Um, they're, the, the city owns it, so. So the city is paying the taxes? I'm sorry, yes, Michelle, do you have any? The city originally placed the property taxes and then we're reimbursed. So we do get the rental fee every year and then we get paid for the property taxes. But is that discounted favor because it's in the city's name? How much is paid for taxes on that building? I'll need a few minutes. Alderman Sanders? Yeah, I understand that the considerations, some considerations have been made in the event if anything changes within the future of this building and the fact that we have not had opportunity to talk about the discovery of why we should at least this

continuously leased this building to a certain individual. And we have not done our homework on it. We have not had enough time to make that distinction yet, whether or not this particular occupant should continue to utilize that building. And I am under the thought that the council has not come to a conclusion or any kind of a resolution for that building and if we are not doing that we don't know what we're selling the building for to even make that kind of a discussion and if we're going to discuss possibilities for future references for the occupancy, that's occupying this building or apartment or whatever it is that we need to look into it, explore it a little bit more in depth to see if it's conducive to the taxpayers here in the city of Freeport and we don't want anybody to have the impression or the appearance, especially council, having the appearance of giving consideration to any individual for whatever. The impropriety of the appearance of it looks very, very suspicious to me at this point in time, and I like to be able to look into it more than just coming to council, looking at it on the agenda, and then rendering a vote for it.

So I think what should happen is we need to do this exploratory observation inspection by counsel, independent counsels, so they can make it an educated or the right type of a decision making that needs to go into this particular option, because this thing, like I'm looking at it to the same occupant for so many years, and if that is the case, who's monitoring that property, who's inspecting that property to determine whether there's potential value should be increased into that property, we're not doing any of those kinds of things, and we need to be able to be on our job to get that kind of information to make sound decisions when it comes to re-evaluating that particular property and it's not considered or been brought up by any other potential buyers or rental options.

So that's my opinion on it. I think that's what we should do as a council To not have the appearance of a given consideration to anybody that's using taxpayers' property.

Alderman Parker?

Make a motion to call.

It's first reading, so we're not quite there yet.

Any other? Alderman Johnson.

I just wondered, what would happen to the building if we do not, it's a three-part question here, what would happen to the building if we do not lease it? Is there others who have expressed interest in renting or buying this building? And has there been any improvement in this area during the last four years during its rental time?

let me try to answer all those for you the building I think is five floors and four floors are unoccupied so if anybody else wanted to rent a floor in it that would definitely be an option as far as and what was the second third one I wondered if anyone else has been interest in renting or buying this building have not received any other interest however we're always open to it any improvements no improvements that I'm aware of it's storage and as far as I know. Okay. Alderman Stacy? Yes. Is advertisement out there informing people that this building can be purchased and what is this new provision grants? If I could just do my best to answer that, we generally have not done a lot of advertising for it. We have a lot of vacant space throughout the downtown so we could do that at some expense to the city if that was Council's desire, and also as far as the purchasing, obviously we would ideally like to not have the city own this building eventually, so this just provides a provision so that if we are able to get an estimate and kind of move an agreement to a value, we could bring that for Council to liquidate this building, hopefully in the future.

Attorney Zito.

Attorney Zito? Just to add on to what the city manager indicated. So that additional provision about purchase, it provides the tenant with an option to purchase. So if that during this one year term of this lease, that the parties happen to reach an agreement, so we would have to have discussions, they would have to come to us and say, hey, I'm interested in buying the property, we would have to come as a city through through council to an agreement on a price and what all the specific terms of the purchase would be.

if we are able to reach an agreement then we would enter into a formal real estate purchase contract and go through that process to ultimately purchase but if we can't reach an agreement then then there's not an agreement there so I'm not talking about I'm not just speaking of the the current guy that's getting it every year for 2000 I'm talking about how would anyone in the city be aware and know what is what what What are you even asking for the building? How do we know if it's not advertised?

Well, there are five floors total. There's one that's occupied, so there's four other floors.

So on public record, if there are other people that are interested in using it for cold storage, please approach the city.

We'd be happy to entertain any offers. But it's been empty for a number of years, except for Mr. Albers, and it is a cost offset to the city to have someone there.

And GFP is aware of any empty building and would be more than willing to tell someone if they had interest in something specific, so My question is not being answered. How do the citizen of Freeport know that purchasing this building is an option if information is not put out there?

I don't care nothing about what Greater Freeport Partnership, no, I don't care about how many floors. My question was, how would anybody know that this building was up to purchase to be considered if it's not advertised and put out there?

I would say the same way any other developer does it. They go on a property search, they find out who owns it, then they call the owner, say, is your building for sale? I'd like to buy it. That's generally how.

Can we own over 200 pieces of property?

Yes.

Director Duckman?

I just did want to say that I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does work with interested parties that come to the city wanting to invest, and I know that I've been on other parts of the Raleigh building and showed it to prospective developers so I know that they're active in shopping the property so when developers come to the city I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does a good job utilizing that as a resource when people are interested. Director Richter, do you have the answer to your first question? Yes. So the amount that's been reimbursed to the city for the tax year of 2024, which was billed in this year was $142.54. Thank you. So that's all the taxes that he's paying yearly, $142.54. Yes, because that's all that the city pays on that property. And typically the city would not pay property taxes at all, but our tax assessor charges the city as any tax assessor would for if the city rents or makes income on a property then it is taxed but otherwise property would not be taxed and the reason it's a lower tax amount is it's only renting one floor so they they're only assessing taxes on the one floor that the city is making income Alderman Sanders did you have your hand up yes I did from what I'm understanding while I listen to what is being said

All of this comes up to a discretionary opinion, not an actual terminology or agreement or any of those kinds of things that binds the city to any particular occupant of a rental part of the city when it comes to taxpayers that is owning the property.

It is a discretion at this point in time for anyone that wants to decide to occupy any city property and then exploit it to get a benefit out of it because that's exactly what happens.

because whenever you talk about a five-story building and then let one occupant within that building come in and pay a certain amount of dollars, who made that discretionary call?

Who set up those parameters of where and how much does an occupant of a building of five-story occupy, whether or not it's five floors or not, whether he rents five floors or not, that whole building is being occupied. Who is carrying the discretionary guidelines or having the opinion, because I'm quite sure the council is not involved in that, which we should be involved in that, because we're the ones who should be calling the shots about how that building is used and how is it benefiting the citizens of Freeport.

If that building is not being overall utilized and marketed for potential rental property to anybody else that wants to exploit that property, then we're not doing our just due about getting this particular building on the market so more tenants can be in that building.

We're not utilizing that service of the service of that building at this time. So what we need to do is change provisions with the structure of how we're going to utilize this building with the taxpayers commenting and have an opinion and have their views and an opinion on this property that we may not that if we don't have all the details, maybe someone else has the details, but we're not exploiting the taxpayers to let them know that this building is out there and anyone that wants to occupy any portions of that building, we have not set up the perimeters nor the provisions of that building, guidelines or anything to allow anyone else to be able to come in and occupy that building.

so we need to take a re-evaluation of how we got that thing set up because right now in document form, paper form, any tangible document agreement or whatever with this particular occupant and the building we need to take an assessment over the whole thing and make sure that we're following proper guidelines that council set what are the we don't have none of these kinds of things that council can refer back to, and there's no ordinance at this current time.

We have not even tried to amend or adopt this particular deal with any occupants that wants to occupy that building.

So my whole thing is that we need to reevaluate.

Your time has expired.

Okay, I got you, sister.

Okay.

If there's no further discussion, we'll move this on to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-54. Could you please read this?

Ordinance establishing the Gladewood Special Service Area and accepting dedication of roadways and levy of taxes to offset the cost of special services.

Thank you. Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. The city received a petition from a majority of the property owners in the Gladewood subdivision requesting the creation of a special service area, or SSA.

Following required notices, the public hearing on May 28th, no valid objections were filed. The ordinance established the SSA dedicates subdivision roadways to the city and outlines a framework for funding ongoing maintenance. The SSA ensures improvements to the subdivision's upper and lower entrances, including roadway base and asphalt upgrades, meeting engineering standards. The city will also accept the internal road system as is into the public street network.

Establishing the SSA creates a sustainable mechanism for funding services to be benefited the area without burdening existing taxpayers with the full cost of needed improvements. The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 and brought up to me also that's for a term of 15 years. So across 16 parcels, the revenues will offset costs of roadway maintenance and improvements specific to the Gladewood area.

ensuring equitable cost recovery. Staff recommends approval of this ordinance and establishing the Gladewood special service area. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded.

made by Alderman Clemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers to move this ordinance forward.

Discussion? Alderman Stacy? Yes. How many homeowners in the Gladewood area has agreed and is okay with this $400 and what does that fee involve as far as fixing the streets and snow removal?

what does this ordinance give the Gladewood people? Well, there's 16 parcels that are involved and benefit from improved access to their area. You mentioned snow removal. And all 16 agreed? No, not all 16, a majority of the 16. So I believe there was nine or 10 that agreed. With that, the snow removal is currently performed by the Park District.

and that is an agreement that predates, I think it was a former Mayor Colwrap signed that agreement.

Did you want your second one? Yes. Go ahead. Have they had an opportunity, all of them, to have an opportunity at that stand and speak on this matter as to why or why not they want to pay that $400 I mean 9 or 10 out of 16 is still. Yeah, well we did provide, we followed the state statute on setting up an SSA and in that it required a meeting and each person was able to have a dialogue and ask questions and go back and forth with the engineers, myself, attorney Cox, so that process was filed. So as far as opportunities to stand here in front of council, obviously it's an agenda item so they could speak now if they wanted to, or they could have spoke at public comments.

I think they had 30 days to pass over.

Alderman Clemm?

Oh.

What was the mumble, the 30 days what?

They also had 30 days to file an objection with me, and I received none.

Alderman Clemm?

Sure.

I just wanted to say, I don't know the exact date, but a hearing was held here in City Hall, and there was conversation back and forth with many of the homeowners that were here.

here. It was laid out as to all the costs and what would be done. It was agreed to. The biggest areas in need are the entrance and the exit coming into it. The others will be fixed so that it isn't full of potholes and stuff, and then we will get it into our process to get the whole thing surfaced. So all of that was discussed, and it It was open to everybody. Yes, there were some people that objected. I'm sure there were. It was one of those things that was never found until work came up on the Gladewood Bridge. When work was studied on the Gladewood Bridge, it came up that this had never been transferred to the city. So it's kind of a bad deal, and this is one of the best ways to rectify it.

and everybody in there will have new roads and have decent roads to drive on. So are you saying that it's now the city? It's under the city? Establishing a special service area is part of it becoming it's required to set that up so we have some cost recovery in exchange the city takes over the street.

Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, I was going to ask where are the numbers coming from and who sets up the guidelines for cost effective of overall, the overall for the city part of the maintenance of that area and how do we determine what the numbers are going to be, what it's going to cost, where the fundings are going to go after receiving any type of provisions, I mean, any revenue, I'll put it like that, any kind of revenue, where does this money end up and how does it benefit the taxpayers of the city and the maintenance overall cost and not only that, how do we come up with the $400? I'm trying to figure out where these numbers are coming from.

Well, the $400 came from, started with an estimate that was calculated, the attorney and myself worked on, you know, what is reasonable, we also looked at engineering estimates for what it would take to take care of the emergent issues on the entrance and exit to Gladewood, and then also just more of a common sense approach as far as, you know, what's realistic here, what is realistic, so although this doesn't completely recover every dime required to do the immediate repairs, this goes along way of cutting down the city's expenses with dealing with the emergent issues on the entrance and exit so what's going to include what's included right now and what we'll be working on for next year is base repair and resurfacing of the entrance and exit if I recall right it was about 200 feet on either side. Okay all of what you're saying is okay do you want to use your second because he was still why are you interjecting because you don't have the floor he does he wasn't I'm still talking. But you weren't. He was talking. No, I was talking first. Please, Alderman Sanders. He had the floor. Manager Boyer, did you have more you wanted to say? I believe I've, did I answer your question, Alderman? Now, would you like your second time of speaking? That's not the protocol. It is the protocol. No, it's not the protocol. That is not how the procedures work. You don't get to guide the council. Would you like your second time of speaking? You don't get to guide the council when he's having a one-on-one conversation to determine whether or not we are in a conversation. We can't even make that distinction right now

because why? I have to continue to use my questions at your discretion, calling out when can I talk to my administrative body when he's sitting right here talking to me. You can talk to him every day if you want to, but he has the floor. That's not the point. That is not the point. I am getting fed up with the fact that we have to go by certain protocols. I'm getting fed up that you're being disruptive.

It's not. Would you like your second time? Otherwise, just move away from the microphone. My point is, is this.

He did not go through the same thing that I went through. He just interjected himself in the conversation that I was having a question about. So you didn't have that call to make that. So, but anyway. So, Alderman Stacy, would you like your time? No, I'm sorry, Alderman Stacy. I want to answer I want to answer the question. I want to ask the second question. Would you like to have the floor, Alderman Sanders? Yes, I would. Okay, that's all you needed. Okay, well, I don't like to, I don't, okay, my point is this. You're having a meeting, you're having a meeting or had a meeting with the Gladewood area, council people committee or whatever the case is that you went through to establish how you come up with numbers and the council don't see those numbers. We don't see how you came about those numbers. It's not saying that what you're saying that it's more like a discretionary thing that is based upon your consideration and your opinion about the numbers. That's what I'm concerned about. And my thing is, that is not the right approach to do that. And council is to be formed before any decisions are being made out in the field when it comes to redirecting things, fundings and all of these kinds of things. The city has to be clued in so we can make an intelligent decision and understand the process of what you're doing. We can't come to council understanding what you did before we had an opportunity to talk about it because it's not in the memo.

I'm not going to talk about the memo. Everything that you talk about is not always in the memo. And so what I'm saying is there's a lot of variations that are going on that we have not talked about when it comes to this particular area. Don't get me wrong. I just want to know how we got here. That's all I'm asking. Because a lot of things that we're doing is not being revealed unto the council. And the council needs to know beforehand so they can make a form and opinion or decision about what is going on out in the field. I have no problem with it unless I can understand the process of how you got here. And if that is not how we're doing things, then we need to restructure some of those things so we can get a clear view on how to go to the next step or how we're going to get to the next step. And then not only that, the council is always informed of how we got there.

Yep. Am I out of time now? No, you still got a minute and 30 seconds. No, I don't want it, no. Okay. Is there any, and I'm sorry, Alderman Stacy, you already spoke twice. Is there any other discussion? Otherwise, we will move this forward to the next city council meeting. Item number eight is the first reading of ordinance 20-25-55.

reading of ordinance 202555. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Clemmen. I don't know if Alderman Stacy really heard what you said or she had a question to ask, I believe. Yeah, she had already spoke twice. Yep. Did you have something further than Alderman Clemmen? Excuse me? Did you have something you wanted to add? No? Okay. Then we'll move on to the first reading of ordinance 202555. Could you please read this? Ordinance amending 240, Police Department, Section 240.04, and Chapter 242, Fire Department, Section 242.05. Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. If you'll look at the memo, a revised memo, there's a mistake in the one that I put forward with the agenda. State law generally sets a mandatory requirement age of 65 for police and firefighters. The city's code currently references those requirements for the chief of police. That's Section 240.04.

and Fire Chief Section 242.05. However, age alone does not determine whether an individual is fit to serve as chief.

Our current fire chief continues to provide exemplary leadership and has earned the trust of his department and community.

It is the city's best interest to allow him to continue to serve as long as he wishes, provided he remains capable and effective.

As a home rule unit, the city of Freeport may establish its own requirements for the position of police and fire chief.

and the ordinance adds new subsections clarifying that the position of chief of police and fire chief will not be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 65. This change ensures leadership decisions are based on performance and ability and not age. From a legal perspective, the federal age discrimination in employment act restricts mandatory retirements except in limited cases. By removing the age cap for chiefs. The city reduces potential exposure to any kind of discrimination issues and aligns with best practices across Illinois municipalities. So staff recommend there is no financial impact and staff recommends moving forward with the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs. Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Second. Also suspension of the rules. We have a motion made by Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on this ordinance? May a motion to suspend the rules? Yes. Second. We have a motion to suspend the rules made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Suspension of the rules is non-debatable. Yeah, I know. That's very clever. That's very clever. Alderman Sanders, please. Yeah, I saw this coming. This is a non-debated issue. I understand that. Okay, so, Madam Clerk, could you please take the role on the suspension? Yeah, I understand that. I saw that coming. Shadle? Wanted to know that.

Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Oh, I said no, sorry. Thank you. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No. Motion passes, six to two. So now before you is the final passage. Alderman Sanders, would you like to have a question on this? Yeah, I just can't understand how one of the constituents' leaders of their ward cannot come to the terms or however you want to put it, come to a conclusion that we should suspend this particular rule and not have a clear understanding and talk about why the ordinance clearly states this and we want to ignore it.

the fact is I'm willing to go along with discussions if it's the proper thing to do but here I got someone in here that's talking about suspended when the ordinance is talking about the cap age. It's talking about establishing that and then not only that you obviously didn't read the fact that there was discretionary and opinions going on in this particular agenda on this particular ordinance in its entirety. Someone is throwing their opinions into this memo without council having a chance to even discuss it, let alone getting it right in the ordinance perspective. We're not doing the just due diligence of the ordinance. Now, if there's any amendments that needs to be made, then let the rest of the Council be able to speak out on that particular, on this particular ordinance so the people, the public can hear what the opinions are, why we should do this, because if the ordinance gives you a cap, why are we trying to change that cap? And we need to know who's bringing that thought into the council.

I understand the city manager is throwing his opinion in there, his discretionary opinion and wanting for us to take the consideration of what he is saying. That's not how this works. There's an ordinance that allows council the opportunity to weigh in on this particular memo that has been presented to us and the public as well.

Now, this is not so based upon one individual's discretionary mindset about how to go about doing it. No, it is all about the council making those discretionary parameters and whether or not we want to consider allowing the cap to be raised or the cap to be removed.

And that's exactly what this is talking about, having the cap to be removed, and then we're supposed to not have a committee to make sure that whether or not this individual is eligible health-wise or whatever the case may be, who's setting up these guidelines?

We can't say we got a fire chief and a police chief in the council or in the administrative body at 99 years old. Where does it stop? And nobody sitting here is qualified to make those discretionary calls. No one. You suspended it, sir, so you don't get an opportunity to voice your opinion on this particular matter.

but my point is there's no committee set up to make that distinction whether or not an individual is going to be effective enough to continue without a cap on it and the ordinance set it there so that could happen. Now if we want to change things as a council that's one thing we can amend it. Thank you Alderman Sanders your time has expired. Alderman Stacy did you have your hand up? What is the advantage for suspending the rules.

Manager Boyer?

I think it's in deference to our current chief.

We'd like.

It's in deference to our current chief so that we make a timely decision and able to move forward and not have this subject come back over and over again if the council is accepting of moving forward with this change.

And so are you saying not suspending the rules is not being fair to.

No, I did not say it's not fair. I just simply said in deference to our current chief, I would request the suspension of the rules.

So what are we looking at as far as time-wise, suspending the rules or not suspending the rules? What are we looking at? A week?

It would be moving to, actually, suspension of the rules is kind of already over with, so it's a non-debatable thing. You either vote yes or no. So to talk about suspension of the rules is kind of pointless. Do you want to talk about the ordinance itself? And if it would have not passed, then it would have been pushed back two weeks.

Okay, so I just wanted to know what was the advantage in suspending the rules, and you're telling me two weeks.

That's the time frame.

Oldman Parker, did you want to add to that?

Yeah, as long as apparently he was talking to me directly.

I'm entitled to my opinion.

I totally believe it.

And if you read the ordinance that he put out, it gives you an option.

If the person turns 65, is not capable of doing the job, he can be removed.

But when you have somebody as quality as we have, it's not an easy thing to change a chief of position.

It's easier just to keep who you have there.

Chair of it, doing a good job. My opinion, he is doing a good job. We're both entitled to our opinions, Larry.

Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, Alderman Johnson.

Just wanted to say that in the ordinance, section 242.32, it talks about periodic physical examinations.

So every member shall take and pass physical examinations whenever directed by the Board of Fire and Police Commission. So if it's someone that's 65 or older and we think there might be some are older and we think there might be some problems with their physical or mental status, maybe not capable of doing the job, then they can order a physical exam to safeguard that, you know, that point that they are physically able and mentally able to do the job.

There's no further discussion?

Yeah.

Alderman Sanders.

Yeah.

Adding, coupling to that observation, whether or not, Board or someone needs to be available committee or someone needs to be able to say that a certain individual needs to take an agility test to be examined to determine whether or not he's fit to do that job. Well, the point is there's no mechanism in place right at this current time to make that discretionary observation monitoring system.

We do not have that to determine whether a person that has been considered beyond retirement, when the ordinance says this is the deadline of the retirement, you must follow the ordinance, but to give consideration for someone to continue after the ordinance has already been put in place, The council has to place an amendment or have one already in place to even call that. No one person makes these kinds of declarations or make any kind of opinion about it unless we have all been informed about the possibilities of these things happening.

I have no problem with the consideration of amending if a person has the agility and the ability to work beyond the retirement age. I have no problem with that. But my problem is we never talked about a cap even after 65. We have not even got to that point yet. And so to have that discussion and have a committee to make that kind of determination to inform counsel that this person is sound mind, capable, effective in all of these. There's nothing in place that gives us that vision, that gives us that understanding. So all of this that we're talking about is mute right now because we need to re-evaluate what we just talked about.

And that's the essence of all of this, so we need to redo all of it, including the suspension that was thrown out there as well.

Chief Miller?

Yes, thank you, Your Honor. So maybe I can help bring this to light or make it clear. I actually brought this forward to Manager Boyer. I wanted to get in front of this. I discovered that there is this Fire and Police Commission statute that's out there.

And obviously looking at the police chief and myself, we all know that this is about me and not him.

So looking at, and Attorney Zito correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but what this came down to is it's a fire and police commission, Illinois compiled statutes, statute that was adopted by the city on behalf of the fire and police commission.

So what this determines is anybody who falls under Fire and Police Commission authority, meaning you're hired, you're tested, you're promoted through Fire and Police Commission, this applies to that 65 years of age mandatory retirement.

What this is talking about before you tonight is the police chief and myself are not under fire and police commission. We're merely appointed by the city manager with council approval. So that is the determination between rank and file fire and police commission and city manager. So what this states is any position that is below the chief level and meaning that they're tested, they're promoted, they come up through the basid, sorry for who are going to be up to this medication block the 19th of be finished with it above board and have transparency and honesty about this.

I'm sorry, Alderman Sanders, you already had your two. Alderman Stacy?

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Chief Miller.

I don't get it.

Thank you for explaining that.

And you know it's nothing against you with me in any way, shape, or form.

I'm just trying to understand what's at hand but before I can even get an understanding the rules are suspended and I just needed to know what the advantage was in suspending the rules and that happens quite often and it is disturbing because no one could even explain it to me the mayor made more sense to city manager Boyer But the way you just broke it down made more sense than anything anybody done said. So for that, I do thank you. And I have no problem if it's no weeks, one week or two weeks. You're more than qualified and capable of carrying on your title.

suspension of the rules doesn't stop discussion it just is in order of procedure so if there's no further discussion on this or you already spoke twice sorry what can I get a third one no you'd have to have council approval Alderman Clem I was I was in this position 16 years ago oh that means I'm an old fart okay so if you do some math into it it's times jobs have really changed. Years ago when these things were set up as being a mandatory 65, you know, people who were 65 years old at that point were pretty well ready for retirement. You take a look at things today with modern technology and medicine, modern medications and everything else, people are living a lot longer, people are living better for a longer period of time. The one thing I think that is a thing to get rid of this is the fact of if it comes to a position and there's a different city manager and a different fire chief, somebody can walk up to the fire chief at 65 and say, you're gone. I don't care what the conversation is or what's going to happen. When you go to replace one of these people, you're instantly talking thousands of dollars for a recruitment fee and a number of months to get a person into that position.

So I believe it helps us to retain a person for a number of years as long as they're capable.

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

Shadle?

Aye.

Sanders?

Sellers?

Aye.

Clem?

Aye.

Johnson?

Aye.

Simmons?

No.

Parker?

Aye.

Stacey?

Aye.

And the ordinance passes seven to one.

item number nine is the first reading of ordinance 2025 56 could you please read this ordinance amending chapters 1248 and 1250 of the zoning code of the city of Freeport concerning ground mounted solar arrays director Duckman thank you madam mayor staff had been directed by the city of Freeport planning commission to move forward with a text amendment to change our zoning code for the ground mounted Solar Arrays. And so a little background here, our planning commission in its last two, its last, we had two solar, ground-mounted solar projects where our planning commission voted on in residential districts, and those two, they voted against, voted it down. And through much discussion, what was brought up was that our planning commission doesn't feel that in residential neighborhoods or in our smaller agricultural zoning lots which roughly we have 15 agricultural zoning lots in the city essentially they are planning commission directed staff to to change our zoning code where we would instead of having a special use permit for ground mounted solar arrays in residential and agricultural zoning districts where they would outlaw and not not allow it at all so staff took this direction and we held a public hearing on August 14th and the planning commission made a recommendation with these changes by a vote of five to zero with zero abstentions.

to zero with zero abstentions. And in line with our planning commission, staff is recommending moving this forward.

Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on this ordinance? Alderman Sanders?

Director Duckman give give me the you said there was a vote of five zero zero yes correct and where who's the five I could get those names for you and by the time we have our second reading okay and what was the opinion of the public about this there was no major public comment here about this and I would say that in general when we talk about the special use when we're talking about these special use permits for solar I would say overwhelmingly the neighbors don't want it essentially what they're saying at these zoning hearings is I live in a residential neighborhood I don't want to wake up looking at solar panels in my backyard I that's what I was listening to yes yes and So the pursuit, or are we trying to push this agenda that the solar system company wants to try to impose upon the general public with this service is basically what we're listening to?

I do well the planning commission is saying that they don't want based on what they've heard in special use permit hearings that they from the community that they don't they no longer want to have it allowed in our residential districts you know some statistics here you would still be able to do it as a rooftop you would still be able to by right put the solar panels on your roof what we're talking about is going into your backyard in a residential residential neighborhood and installing solar panels on the ground. So instead of having, walking out in the backyard and you would see, you know, grass or a shed or a garage, you would see essentially solar panels. Okay. So that won't impose up on those that, well, this is not a blanket slate for no solar panels for any residents. You would still be able to put it on the roof. You can't. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Any other discussion?

Holderman, Stacy?

You know, I've said this before, and it concerns me that we're willing to do it for some but not for all.

We just agreed to have a church, an area at this church.

They wanted it on the ground.

Last year, there was a couple homes in their backyard.

They wanted it on the ground.

and so now we're wanting to take away the ability to have that variance so that it can't be put on the ground however we did it for some is there a question there are you asking me how do you determine why do it for some and not do it for all again that's what a special use permit is so what's what you currently have is anybody who would like to in a residential neighborhood would like to install solar panels in their backyard they have to go through a hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Commission and then ultimately presented to council and that's why currently you are voting with your other fellow council members on whether or not somebody can have it that's what's happening right now this proposed ordinance says everybody is no for there is no longer a council vote on it so when you're talking about same for some and keeping it the same for all voting on this ordinance makes it the same for all yeah it makes it it takes away the discretion right but makes it fair but we've already allowed some correct yes you have and so now to say Sally got it but Jane can't yeah and if we vote yes on this ordinance

Then we're saying, Sally beat the punch.

Jane didn't make it.

Yes, you are correct.

That's exactly what this ordinance is saying, is that our planning commission has reviewed and have been through the past two hearings that they've heard.

They voted against it, and they don't see it in line with our zoning and with our land use because of the complaints, mainly of our public at these hearings.

And then Sanders, would you like your second time?

Yeah.

So there is an ordinance is what you're declaring at this point. There is an ordinance involved in the process for people to make an educated decision or determining of their opinions and things like that. The ordinance should be stipulating exactly what the provisions are in that ordinance and the guidelines for that ordinance.

and I'm just wondering have the people been educated about this ordinance to determine whether or not the decisions that they're making and why we have an ordinance that sounds like it's imposing upon them or whatever the case is, but I understand what you're saying. What you're saying is the planning board has nullified the whole concept and so the next move is for the solar system is to what? Move out of the city of Freeport?

to move on or how does that work? No, so essentially what on August 14th we had a public hearing that was publicly noticed and it was discussed and this text this amendment for an ordinance change was discussed and it was proposed to bring it to council for a vote and that's essentially what happened there. Your solar companies are going to still be able to put solar panels on roofs. They're still are going to be able to do that. There's no change to that. What essentially this is going to do is it's going to take away the, we can give it to this one, we can give it to that one, we can give it to this one, we can give it to that one, because that's going to, if you vote no against this, you are voting to take the control to say, you know, Sally can have it, Mark can't. That's what's going on right now. If this passes, you're essentially saying, Sally and Mark cannot have it, John can't have it, no one can have in a residential neighborhood. And the reason for that is the Planning Commission is charged to make recommendations on how land use effects is in line with our comprehensive plan. And they've, after the past few zoning hearings, they've said, look, we don't think this fits with what we're doing in our community and we want to remove it. Right. And that's what they're proposing to council right now. Okay.

Darren, did you want to add to that? I'm on the planning commission along with many other members and this has been a unanimous decision with everybody on the planning committee that we are not in favor of ground, mound, solar, and residential neighborhoods. It's distracting. It's obtrusive. The current ordinance reads that you can go on the roof. You don't even have to come to the council to do the roof. That's an automatic given if you want to do that.

you only have to come to the council or to the commissions if you want to do ground mount as a variance we've I believe Wayne said two I think it might be three different developments that were have been denied by the planning commission but they still have come here and you guys overruled the recommendation from the people that you're asking to review this stuff it was reviewed in depth and I was not at the last meeting but the meeting before that that we discussed it it was discussed for over 30 minutes and everyone there was unanimous that they didn't want to see ground mounted in residential zoned properties.

Now, again, there's a difference between residential properties and these commercial developments. It's two different ordinances, right? So we're just talking about household properties in town. That's all we're discussing at this. And we're saying as a group, and I agree with it, that we don't want to have that option.

It's cheaper for the solar companies to stick a pole in the ground and put solar panels on it than to put it on the roof That's the option they're going to choose every time if they can get it We don't even want to review those at the Planning Commission anymore. That's why we're asking for this Alderman Sanders, you've already spoke twice Alderman Stacy, would you like your second time?

I didn't ask you to not speak again I did not ask you to let me speak my second time 659 and 704 Wow Darin, last year you came to council. There was a home that wanted these panels on the ground. You talked about how there was no endangerment to anything or anybody, and twice, at least twice last year, we approved and voted for ground panels.

There was a home No, I'm telling you Because you came to council And you spoke about There not being Hired about their not being harmful. I believe you're confusing the landfill solar project with residentials. The residential ones, to my knowledge, have all been turned down. Alderman Sellers. Wait, Duckman was speaking. Go ahead. I gave the floor to Alderman Sellers. Go ahead. No, I think she's talking about when we okayed the property for Ted Otendall, but if you saw his land, it's totally, it's totally different, it's not, it's acres of land, so it's not where he has a house next door and a house next door, it's acres of land.

No, Ted was just one of two or three.

Oh, no, I just remember the one, and it was Ted Otendahl, and then we did the church, but that's out on Pearl City Road, so that And I'm even talking about last year, I'm talking about what was done last year Okay, so, Director, do you have more you want to add?

No, I would just just wanted to say, Director Steakle is probably the most outspoken against residential solar. And I think it goes back to Park Hills Church had a zoning hearing in 2023, might be 2024. It was two years ago, though, I believe. And our planning commission looked at that approved it. And the neighbors have been angry about it ever since. And anytime, I will tell you anytime, you know, moving forward from them, Director Stiekel has been outspoken against how solar, ground mounted solar looks in residential neighborhoods, whether it be a large lot or not. And so he has been consistent in how solar panels fit with our land use. Essentially, he's on the side that thinks it doesn't fit in the community. So I just want to say that to be fair. And I know that for a fact, there was one on Lincoln Boulevard that wanted to put it in their backyard. I know Director Stiegel voted against that. I know he voted against the Harmony Church one. So he's been consistent to not vote for it. That's just all I wanted to just make that point. I wanted you to speak because I thought you were going to answer my question and not take up or feel like you needed to support Darren. I wasn't being harsh with Darren. I'm just speaking.

yeah if there's a question I'll answer I didn't know the question well and let's remember this is first reading so it'll be on in two weeks so if you have more questions you know feel free to call come to your weekly meetings make notes so you can answer ask more questions in the next meeting if there's no further discussion we'll move on to item number 10 which is the adoption of resolution 2025 101 could you please read this resolution approving agreement for the purchase of office 365 thank you director Suttman. Thank you, Mayor. This agreement or procurement is to purchase Office 365 Productivity Suite software for all city staff, including water and sewer and police. Which one is that? Office 365. Police 65? Government. Okay. Version. I won't read the memo pervade them, but generally it is more expensive than we have right now, we're what we call an on-prem shop, is what we call ourselves. We own, the software's run locally, our servers are here, all that stuff. This is going to be a little more expensive, but there are compliance and some security wins and security losses with it. It's kind of the industry trend is going this way. It helps us out with a lot more integrations with future softwares we get for the city.

and that's kind of the meat of it. Financially, it's going to cost just under $21,000 per year which of that the city which includes fire and PD so it's not just city hall staff will pay around $17,000. Water and sewer will pay around $3,700. Any questions? Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second.

motion made by Alderman Clemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution. Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, what happens when you don't adopt? I mean, first and second adoption. We have to chime in on the adoption. Is it mandatory that we conclude with an adoption to accept or do we just accept things and just move on just to have it in our discussion?

I'm just talking off the top of my head because you're not going to mark me down for a question. I'm not asking a question yet. So while I'm not asking a question, my whole thing is this. What made the determination for you guys to want to install a new server? Not only that, what's wrong with the old server?

We don't know, I'm still going because if she stops me, I have to come back again. And if we are looking at the possibility of upgrading a new server, where does the old server go with all that data information on that particular server? Because we don't want a Hillary Clinton kind of situation jumping off in the city. And so what I'm concerned about, who's safeguarding?

I know you got all kind of security mechanisms in place, but who's making those determination and the discretion of servers? How many servers? One or two servers? Where does all this resource information, data information is stored? Does it go on to a new server that we're considering? Or do we dismantle the old service and who covers that and who takes care of that. Those are my concerns because we don't want to have data running around loose throughout the city, you know, where anyone can get their hands on it and use it at their own discretion or theft fraud or whatever the case may be. I just like to know how it's being secured. And I just, I know, I know, I know servers go out bad.

I don't know, you hear me, I'm stating my comment, my, yeah, and I know they go bad, I know that it's time for upgrading with new software and all of these kinds of things to be put in place, but I just want to know how we're going to go about the data security of those servers that we want to replace.

Director Suttman, would you like to answer all those questions?

Yes, thank you.

So this is the next is the server. Should I just answer it now? So when we do do the server, they'll be running parallel for a short time while the data is copied over. And then, yeah, so when that old server is decommissioned, whether it goes on the surplus auction or whatever, the drives will be wiped. And I'm assuming shredded per standard.

Alderman Stacy Last year we spent thousands of dollars for a new system and now here not you personally but here you come again 21,000 what did we not get last year that we need this year So last year, kind of my big IT purchase was a new physical server box, a host server for the police department. They kind of have their own NOC, Network Operations Center. This is for Office 365, and we'll get into there's another network operations center for the city. So what we bought last year, think of that as the processing and the storage. What this agenda I admit is the software.

server. But that was just for the police? Is that what you just said? That was just for the police? Last year that server is only for police to handle what they need. Any other discussion? Yeah. Your second time? Go ahead, Dolderman Sanders. Second time? Yes. Okay. I'm going to make sure you stick to that. Your time's clicking. Okay. So what kind of server are we looking for this time around? Are we talking about just for the city itself, administrative bodies?

or other branches within the city or how we're covering all of this? Because I'm looking at a $27,000 cost here, and I'm like, okay, what are we getting? What kind of a breakdown are we getting for each department? Who's all being served with these whole servers?

Without going to the entire network topology for reasons, security reasons, this will serve, yes, administrative, city hall, basically all staff other than the police, they're on a different domain.

other than deplete they're on a different domain so we keep the actual hardware separate too okay but it runs application servers your basic network controls as well as some storage any other discussion like the water department and all that nothing goes to the cloud right we're not thank you I was hoping you said no and in the different departments um like with uh Darren Water Works Department, all that is connected with this?

Yes.

Anyone else?

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

Shadle?

Aye.

Sanders?

Aye.

Sellers?

Aye.

Clem?

Aye.

Johnson?

Aye.

Simmons?

Aye.

Parker?

Aye.

And Stacy?

No.

The resolution is adopted, 7 to 1.

Item number 11 is the adoption of Resolution 2025-102.

Could you please read this?

resolution approving the purchase of a host server for the city from CDW-G. Thank you, Director Shuttman. Thank you. So this is for the new host server for the city. We covered a lot of it in the questions from the last one, but this is just to refresh the server that was bought in 2017. The reason for replacing it is the hardware is getting older. The incidents of data failure go up and up every year. Knock on wood, we haven't had any with this server. It's treated us very well.

as well. But as any machine you have in your life, it'll wear down over time and start to break. With computer systems, you also have to worry about things like firmware support. And so the security becomes more vulnerabilities over time. That would be the reason for why we want to do this now. Alderman, oh, wait a minute. We need a motion to adopt. So moved. Second.

We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Clemm. Discussion, Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, what kind of servers are they? Are they Mac or PC, Android? No, not Android. I know you won't do an Android.

But what kind of operating systems are we looking at when we're talking about host servers? Where we're working. What operating systems are we using? I never heard of a department area using Mac servers or whatever or anything like that. What kind of we're indulging in? Yeah, what was Spectruous was a Dell server. It'll be a Windows environment. Okay. Pretty standard, basic, small business type stuff, but with the government compliance. Okay. Okay. Okay. Holderman Stacy? Okay. So, um, not counting the 21,000 you just asked for, now you're asking for another 27,000. Um, did you budget any of this? Yes, these are all budgeted. Just to clarify, the last one we just passed, that was for Office 365. It's like when you're at work and you go on your email or a spreadsheet, That's what the last one was, this one's an actual physical box But you budgeted Yes, both are budgeted Any other discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll Shadle Aye Sanders Aye Sellers Aye Plum Aye Johnson Aye Simmons Aye Parker Aye And Stacy No The resolution is adopted, 7 to 1 item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025 104 could you please read this resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher excavating on Warren Avenue thank you manager warrior thank you your honor recently we've had multiple failures on Warren Avenue approximately eight breaks in the last several months this is a six inch cast iron pipe that was installed in 1931 and it's a known issue in terms of its vintage to just age. Staff has been investigating this particular area and is requesting emergency water main replacement on Warren approximately 800 feet. That would also ensure, you know, replacement of water main gate valves, fire hydrants and water service connections to the right of way. The replacement cost is estimated between $230,000 and $250,000 based on unit price bid and staff requests moving forward with Fisher excavating to replace the aging water main on Warren. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Alderman Sanders, did you have your hand up? Yeah. You engineered this project and we have not done a scheduling

replacement of the water main on Warren. I recall that in that area they did have a lot of deficiencies in those water mains down through there, and I'm wondering did you cover all aspect of that area for replacement and whether or not the material that we're going to use to replace it is not going to be the old past material that's existing there now, so we should be making all new connections through that area so we don't have to have these kind of failures if we're spending $250,000 or whatever, however the amount comes out to. But my thing is, we have looked at all of the area of the last time anything was installed in the past to see if it needs to be brought up to date because the new lines and everything can affect old existing line. It's just like you're putting new wine in an old bottle and it doesn't work very well sometimes, you know, and so I'm just wondering are we looking at that aspect of it and moving forward and I would like to move forward with that because I don't want to see nobody out at four in the morning with water main breaks at temperatures 20 below zero and all of these kinds of things because that can

possibly happen if we don't move forward with it. So yeah, I just wanted to hear what you had to say in regards to that whole general thing. Just making sure you finished all your thoughts so that way there's back and forth. You good? All right. Darren, you want to answer those? So sure. The replacement this year will only be 800 feet. So it's from Galena to Cable, which is shown on the map. That's That's all we have money for this year, so we can't afford to do the rest of it. We'll have to program the rest in. The section that we're replacing has had the vast majority of breaks. That's why we're doing that 800 feet. It also affects a couple businesses there on the corner of Galena with the grooming store and the barbershop that are frequently without water. We have had eight breaks on this in the last recent months. We made some pressure changes to try to slow some of the breaks down.

but on the last break that we had we actually took out about a 20-foot section of pipe and it's some of the worst main that I've seen in a very long time so I'm recommending replacement now we have very good prices from Fishers they're working on Harvey right now and if we approve this tonight when they're done at Harvey they will go to Warren you didn't tell me what kind of material that was going to be installed this is 1931 cast iron and and we're going to go out and see if we can find some from 1910 and put that in, just make sure it, you know.

What about the, do we have, is there more efficient?

Alderman Sanders is plastic.

Yeah, oh, okay.

I'm kidding, we're putting our city standard as C909, PVC, pressure rated 2,000.

Thank you, that's what I was waiting for.

Is there any other discussion?

Alderman Stacy.

What is going to be affected from this in our street department that's already been established for this year?

So as it's notated in the financials, it won't affect anything that we're doing. We're suggesting taking this out of reserve funds to get this done because it's been such a problem and we've spent so much money repairing it already this season that we just don't feel like it's practiced.

If you estimated a cost of a water main break at roughly $10,000 a piece, that's the national average, we've already spent about $80,000 repairing it already just this summer, so I'm trying to get the bleeding to stop in this area.

I will tell you that entire area from Warren and Hunt and all those streets have very similar product.

It's odd that we're having this much issue in this one location, but it has been significant. And the last time we were digging it up before we even got the street patched. So it needs to be done. Alderman Johnson. He answered my question. I was wondering how much one repair costs.

how much one repair costs when they have a water main break, and you said around $10,000 a piece, so that's a lot of money spent in one week already repairing, so thank you.

Sorry, Alderman Sanders, you already spoke twice. Anything else? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye.

The resolution is adopted 8-0 Number 13, adoption of resolution 2025-105. Could you please read this?

Resolution approving purchase of 24-foot equipment trailer from Knight Equipment for water and sewer construction equipment Manager Boyer Thank you, Your Honor. City crews use equipment, trucks, and trailers to move equipment around to different projects We have a utility trailer that was purchased in 1988 It's had multiple repairs of the frame and it recently failed staff is requesting move forward with the purchase of a new 18,000 pound equipment trailer the amount of the from night equipment is one $13,995 for 24 foot trailer and staff requests City Council move forward with this is there a motion to adopt so moved second motion made by Alderman Shadle seconded by Alderman Sellers discussion Alderman Sanders Uh, yeah, um, we did, you did go off of bids, am I correct on that one? Uh, did we, we received three, we received three prizes and this was by far the cheapest, uh, we're also going with a 2023 model to save money, still new. And what's the cost? It's in the memo, $13,995. Okay. Alderman Stacy? 18,000 pounds.

Our street can't even handle that Well, I would hope it could, but yes, this is for hauling the skid steer around, which weighs about 12,000 pounds Mm-hmm Our streets are rated for 60 to 80,000 pounds 60 to 80 Mm-hmm, depending on what street you're on And this is in the budget?

Yes Any other discussion?

Madam Clerk, please Oh, Alderman South How long does a trailer like this last?

Quite a long time the last one was from 1988 so I think we've got uh every nickel out of it we probably could uh but but it's unusable at this part it's it's scrap right now the crews are requesting this we're sharing a trailer between water sewer and streets and and with the street work and everything we got on it's it's just a hassle they're losing a lot of time chasing around town trying to get equipment moved around Madam Clerk, please take the roll, Shadle, Aye, Sanders, Aye, Sellers, Aye, Clemm, Aye, Johnson, Aye, Simmons, Aye, Parker, Aye, and Stacy, Aye, the resolution is adopted, 8-0, Item number 14, is adoption of Resolution 20-25-107, could you please read this, Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School Program, Manager Boyer, Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport has several school crossings that are dated and require equipment repair and replacement for the safety of school children crossing the busy streets. The public works staff has identified a STRS, that's Safe Routes to School State Grant Opportunity to fund the replacement of this equipment. The IDOT Department of Transportation has a Safe Routes to School program that has grant opportunities for potential equipment replacement.

replacements of safe school crossing equipment. The new lighting LED systems installed are solar-based replacements with much brighter warning equipment, and this grant, if awarded, would be used for $250,000 of equipment replacement. A formal resolution will be brought to City Council and must be passed as part of the application, and that is what we're asking for today. So as far as the safe routes to school, key points. It's again a $250,000 maximum grant per project. There is no matching fund for the first year and this is a competitive application. Safe routes to school grants can also only be used for construction and safety funding. Engineering fees cannot be included in this grant award and application deadline is October 15th and we are partnering with Freeport School District 145 on application support and staff recommends City Council that we pursue this grant opportunity.

Is there a motion to adopt?

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson, Alderman Sanders.

Yeah, we're venturing into a public entity to help offset or to help them to reconstruct the safety protocols for the school.

And if I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned the fact that they will also help funding, does it help funding the project or are we just relying on a grant to make that distinction?

So my whole thing is when I'm hearing things, it sounds like if we're getting a grant, where does the school get involved in this whole scenario?

and what we should be and how we should be functioning with the city to couple this project together with them.

How who is who's who's is their discounts? Is there fundings other than grants that is going to help offset this this project?

Is that what we're looking at? Well, what we're looking at pursuing a $250,000 grant to upgrade crossing signals in front of the schools that are in the right of way. We're actually just seeking the school district support in the pursuit of this outside funding so that we can improve those crossing guards. Anyone else? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye.

The resolution is adopted, 8-0 Item number 15 is the adoption of resolution 20-25-108. Could you please read this?

Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant Manager Boyer Thank you, Your Honor. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers the Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant, or OSLAD grant program to support local outdoor recreation projects.

The city intends to submit for an OSLAD application for the Pocket Park on West Stevenson, formerly the ABETS Books Location, and place a resolution of authority to satisfy the Illinois Department of Natural Resources application requirements.

OSLAD requires a governing body resolution authorizing application submittal and acknowledging program conditions if funding is awarded.

included. The attached resolution uses the IDNR prescribed language for OSLAD applications and passing the resolution able staff and other partners to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program. The city is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community which allows an application for up to $600,000 in OSLAD funding without any local match. Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant. It will also be used in the funding of this package.

package. An application deadline is September 30th, so staff is targeting council's action on September 2nd today to meet submittal timing. There's no immediate general fund impact for the application resolution as a disadvantaged community applicant in the city may request up to $600,000 with no local match under the OSLAD. The GFP T-Mobile $50,000 grant contribution will further enhance the scope and staff recommends moving forward with allowing staff to pursue this grant. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the grant. I have a question. Alderman Simmons. Is this the park in the area next to Joe's that you're speaking of, or is this another parking park? Yes, you're Correct. It's adjacent to Joe's.

Alderman Stacy?

You know, these little pocket parks does nothing for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward, and we need a park for our kids to play in. I have said that since I've been on the council. Can we Can we turn this into a park? Can we turn that into a park? And now this is the second time these little pocket parks have come up. We need a real park for our kids in third and fifth ward. You do realize that this is in the third ward? It's a pocket park. Okay. Any other discussion? It's not a park. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. There is. There is.

Please take the role. There is. There is. Yes, go ahead, Alderman Simmons. I agree with Alderman.

Stacy, as far as the plan that I saw for this park, it's great for the downtown community, but as far as a small playground area for the kids over in the third, fifth ward area close to the King Center, this does nothing for them.

and there has already been a grant awarded for that pocket park, so I'm not sure why we don't use this grant for another area in a different pocket park.

Oman, Sellers?

I think...

Well, no, no, no, no, I think my question needs an answer.

What was your question?

My question is why aren't we considering any other areas where we can actually put a small playground in, something like Milton Park?

Well, this resolution is about approving this grant. It's not about a discussion on parks.

It is, though, because it's why wasn't this grant, why wasn't the application for a different area, seeing as we already got the T-Mobile grant for this specific park downtown. I'm not against the park downtown, but for this grant, why not apply for a different area?

Anyone want to take a shot at that?

I'll take a shot at it. I know that the pocket park was discussed for probably and has had a plan associated with it for about five, well, I'd say probably five years. I know there were designs for it and it went through several layers of grant applications and I think certainly if there's other areas that council members or anyone from the public would like to get started on a plan, get started on it, you know, bring it, bring it to city manager Boyer's attention and get started on the planning process and what it would take to get a park. But I mean, this particular pocket park I know has been in plans and has been through a subject of applications for grants for at least the four years I've been here. And when I started here, it had already been through other iterations of planning and grant applications. So, I mean, that's the short answer as to why this particular parcel is up for the grant. The other parcels and properties we're talking about certainly could be in the future. I also would like to state that the city of Freeport doesn't own many parks. I believe this might be the only one and that the park district owns many of its parks and owns that planning process. So if there's an existing park where citizens would like to see better facilities, that's certainly something to bring up to the park district. If there's parcels of land that the city owns that council members would like to see maybe possibly investigated for a park.

I think it's a great idea, and I think that's something to talk about with City Manager Boyer in your weekly meetings.

And you're right. Bring the park district to the table if you want to have a playground in a certain area. Alderman Sellers?

Yeah, I guess that's what I was going to say. I know that when the King Center first came there, We had a small group of people that worked when George Gorep was mayor trying to get another park because they took away Henney Park and that was years ago and we were in with the park district and I know about five years ago me and Mr. Jim Ryan we had had discussion with the guy that's running the park district and that's something you have to go through the park district because they have all kinds of rules.

rules and regulations on how you can use the land and what kind of land. So I do agree, because I grew up in a park, and I do agree that the kids need a park in that area, but we need to, like the mayor said, we need to bring the park district to the table or go to the park district when they have their board meetings and talk about getting a park.

Alderman Sanders? Because we do need one. I have to object to what council just said because we have not fully done our homework when it comes to who has jurisdiction of anything that the city is administering to the city, public city, when it comes to any entity, parks or whatever the case may be.

I can't see why it is that we're consulting with the park district because the park district is not ever here.

They're running their own scheme and we're not going to just push everything on the park district when the grant is for the city at large.

and I'm like who's governing this idea to submit anything to the park district to govern over it so they make determinations on how council is trying to submit recommendations and ideas for their district and I don't think pocket parks have anything to do with the Freeport Park District when it comes to district areas. And I think if we're looking at council for consideration on how we should plan this, how we should go to the city manager and talk more about it and things of this nature, and while we're doing that, there is no park district board members or staff in the midst of this conversation. And so I think it's irrelevant for us to even make a suggestion that we implement another organization or another District Department or whatever that has not been involved in any of the city council's decision making. So my thing is I think it's irrelevant for them to do that and I think we should maintain a course where we collaborate with our city manager as council people to make these kinds of provisions for our district. I don't think we should have someone else having jurisdiction over our district.

district on what we want to have in our district and so that's my and you are correct that's nothing of this topic so we kind of got to get out of that little rabbit hole I'm just saying we're we need to be back we're talking about we're not talking about that the park district was brought up did you just shush me no so okay so we need to be back man if I shush you you'll know I shush you I'm not just let's go back to the grant point of order please thank you I'm the this is about adopting the resolution to support this. I agree. But we don't need to talk about park district stuff. Well, it came up. It actually came up. Okay. So I would like to call point of order to bring us back to the topic. And if council would allow me to speak. Yes, we do need to come back to this topic. It's on the resolution to support this grant. And so is there any further discussion? I don't know if you heard me, but I would like to speak. Well, actually, you Alderman Simmons, you've spoken twice already.

Right, that's why I said if Council will allow That's correct, only twice So if there's no further discussion, Alderman Stacy Excuse me, no, I thought According to our rules, if I would like to speak again, Council will call a vote on that Okay, you're correct, so let's take the roll Madam Clerk On the approval of allowing Alderman Simmons another time to speak Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? Clemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Oh, yeah, you can vote. Is that a yes, Simmons? Yes. Parker? No. Stacy? Yes. It passes. Okay, so Alderman Simmons, go ahead. Thank you. That's funny that we would vote no. I don't speak much, and when I speak, I speak quick. However, my question to the grant was, and a statement to what Director Duckman said, I have spoken to county board members about land that we were then awarded and park district members about board members about getting a pocket park in our area.

My question that was not answered is, why is this particular grant for this area downtown when we already got a grant for that area downtown, which only includes cornholes, cornhole games?

like this grant could be used more beneficially for us if we use it in a different area. Why was that not looked at?

Thank you, Alderperson Simmons. I think I understand what you're asking. And I think what I was trying to explain before was that the pocket park that we're speaking of that is the subject of this grant application has been in a planning process for five years.

and that is why in particular there have been multiple applications. I know there was a Commonwealth Edison grant that was applied for in 2020. There's a plan for this park that they are that has been submitted for this grant application and as I said earlier I think that if there's another area in a different time where we have a plan for a parcel or if it's owned Thank you very much.

any preliminary plans, doesn't have a particular parcel where a park would be a good fit, and that would make it difficult to send an application in when we don't have an idea or a general plan for a parcel. I think that the beginning of it is to say the city owns this particular parcel, we have some great ideas in our ward, let's talk about it, and then in the future let's move forward with grants.

I think you have a great idea, it's just there is no current parcel that the city owns where this park is being proposed. So that's the reason. Alderman Stacy. When there was discussion earlier this year, spoke about the property that city manager Boyer wanted to buy in the Liberty area. I said then, could a park be put there? So it's not that we haven't searched this out and haven't tried to. I would also like to know how much does it cost to apply for this as OSLAD grant. I'll be honest and I haven't been a part of this grant application that's why City Manager Boyer I'm answering the question to be fair I haven't been part of this grant application when I am part of a grant application I certainly can't answer that question I'm answering these questions because I've been aware of the pocket pocket park I know the greater free per partnership has done a great job moving it forward I've been part of the planning process for quite some time I just in particular have not put together this grant application so I can't answer that question intelligently. Okay, I need an answer, City Manager Boyer. You talked about a Commonwealth Edison grant. How much did we pay for that one? Now you're talking about an OSLAD grant. How much is it going to cost the city to apply for a grant that we may or may not get for another pocket park?

Actually, Darren is the one that needs to answer this. Darren, you guys are writing the grant.

It's part of the master service agreement. It's $7,500 for the application. And I want to also remind everybody for the OSLAD grant. So I'm just trying to clarify this from what I've been listening to. The city of Freeport is not typically in the park business. That's the park district's responsibility with their own taxing body. So when you're looking at playground type equipment, those type of parks, if you look around town, all the ones that are maintained are maintained by the park district, not the city.

We do, I believe, I'm pretty sure I'm correct, the city does not. The city proper city council does not own any parks within the city. The grant that we're talking about, the pocket park, is what they call an urban park, which is very high on the list of Osland to have parks in downtown communities where there's lots of pavement and structure.

and it's not your traditional type of park. This is a park that brings in games and other things like bags or tabletop games, other items like that that can be utilized in a small space. The space between these two buildings is not enormous to overcome or to put things in. And so if the city were to make a park in this location, it would be a very low maintenance park that doesn't need a lot of work because we don't have additional staff members to take care of parks, right? Parks need a lot of maintenance between trees, lawn care, garbage, upkeep. This would be more of an urban park which is going to have a lot more concrete, very little grass, or maybe even turf, something that doesn't need to be maintained.

Okay, I don't care about all that description. It's going to cost $7,500 just to apply for a grant that we may not even get.

Yes, ma'am, it's a lot of work to apply for these grants Any further, Alderman Sanders There is, there is pocket parks throughout the city, am I correct?

Oh, well, there's I believe they're called neighborhood parks Well, what do you call a pocket park?

Pocket park, what are those?

We're changing the names We don't have a pocket park Well, there's one located right there on Iroquois and State Street, isn't it? I believe that's called the Neighborhood Park by the Park District. So it's by the Park District? Do they take care of that? The one at Iroquois, I believe, actually is owned by the homeowner that lives there. If I'm not correct, we did that research a few months ago. Okay, what about the one that's located on? The owner is dead. We went through that. That doesn't mean the city owns it. Yeah, what about the little small park that sits over on Blackhawk and Broadway. Is that a pocket park? Okay, can we get back on topic? We are. I'm talking about a pocket park. But that's not a pocket park. You're asking questions. I'm asking a question. Is that? It has nothing to do with this grant. So let's stay on topic of this grant. Mayor, I. Do you have a question about the grant? No, Mayor, I resent that remark you just made because that was not proper for you to inject that. Okay, I'm just trying to put it back. I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to find out.

out information what kind of pocket parks description has is it pocket parks or is it neighborhood parks and that's what I'm that's what I'm talking about. A pocket park is typically between two buildings. You know what, mayor, I didn't know you was I didn't know you was working with Darren and his department. You don't know a lot of things. So if you want to talk about the grant, let's talk about the grant. Well, the thing is, I am talking about it because you're not allowing me to finish what I'm trying to talk about.

Do you have a question about the grant? Why are you being specific? Because that's what we have to do to be efficient in our meetings. Stay on topic. We're going to have a dialogue about this. Call me. Anybody else have anything to discuss? If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Clem? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No.

Parker? Aye. Stacey? No. The resolution is adopted 5-3. Item number 16, could you please read this for the record?

Approval of bid, which was opened on August 27, 2025, demolition and asbestos abatement for eight residential properties. Thank you. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. City staff has published in the Journal of Standard a request for proposal for the demolition and asbestos abatement of eight properties and that was published on August 21st in the Journal of Standard and then a bid opening was held August 27th at 9 a.m. City received bids from three contractors and I provided an analysis below which is up on the screen as well and staff and based upon the bids received staff is recommending moving forward with Kleckner excavating in the amount of $103,000 as they are the lowest responsible bidder in their lump sum bid for all eight properties. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Clem, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the bids. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Clem. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Aye. Parker. Aye. And Stacy. Aye. The motion passes eight to zero.

Item number 17 is a presentation regarding the city's role in landlord-tenant relationships. Manager, Boyer.

Thank you, Your Honor. So recently there was a large portfolio that changed hands between Tim Chapman and Pied Piper Realty, LLC.

C. There was a number of different properties here. Preport portfolios purchased approximately 225 properties with about 47 of those being with a current lease. We've got 53 duplexes and we've got several of them that were considered owner-occupied as they were set up that way with Tim Chapman. So approximately 193 total properties. Remainder are unoccupied or unrenovated at this time. A little background, a letter was sent out July 29th to the tenants. There's quite a bit here, but the big picture is the month-to-month renters were notified that their effective lease would be over September 1st.

and their rent will be adjusted at that time. So these are month to month runners. Generally speaking, these month to month is convenient.

month is convenient from a runner standpoint because they don't have to make any long-term commitments. However, it does provide flexibility. Also, the fixed-term tenants, the current leases remain unchanged until expiration, and that was notified in this letter. There is quite a few bits. You can look it up if you want to. I can provide you a copy of this, but the discussion on the new leases, there would would be an inspection schedule, started reaching out to people in person, called August 5th to the month-to-month tenants to kind of start discussing what to do. They wanted engagement with the renters. And then also reaching out for the in-person meeting where you're currently residing would basically be the topic of discussion, whether it is suitable, what need to be repaired, what need to move forward.

Just to give you a quick update on some of the commentary that's been out there. This is HUD's free market analysis and essentially is showing that there's a range of reasonable range within the various units that are available. Obviously, if you look down here at some of these houses, I can't verify this 100%, but I've heard that there's some very low rents for like a three and four bedroom home that HUD actually proposes here should be a little higher than than that amount so the rents while being a little different kind of fall in line overall with HUD's guidelines the city's role so there's as we move forward one of the things we've been working on especially with Chapman properties before the portfolio was sold was that we need needed all landlords to register with the landlord database. That gives us the ability to follow up on complaints and code enforcement actions. It also gives us the ability to know who's in what unit and who owns that unit. So we're working on that. As a matter of fact, Ptolemy, I believe when we get into the discussion session, or section, Wayne will be kind of providing a little bit of an update on that. And then we can also enforce ordinance and codes for the properties.

This works through our code enforcement supervisor and our code enforcement hearings. This has been relatively successful, but it is, you know, we have limited resources, and it is somewhat of a slow process. So we've had a number of folks, I don't know the complete number, the most up-to-date number, but it's been maybe five to ten people have reached out for code enforcement or code inspection. Is that correct, Wayne?

Yes, I believe the number we have since the takeover of these properties, I believe we've had three tenant inspection requests So three, that gives us the authority to go into three of those units So state law, just recapping some of the more pertinent sections So rent control preemption act, you can read that but a unit of local government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial property. And then again in section 10 of the act, a home rule unit may not regulate or control the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial properties.

In addition to that, Illinois Attorney General states that in a week-to-week or month-to-month tenants, landlord can raise your rent by any amount if he or she gives you proper notice and Illinois does not have a rent control law. Therefore, your landlord can raise your rent as much as he or she deems necessary. So what are the next steps? We have Pied Piper Group represented here today as well as Attorney Cox and Director Duckman who can speak to any of the more precise points on the situation as we move forward. I think there's a suggestion that we could increase the number of notice days for a rent increase from 30 to 60 days. That would be fine with someone with a signed lease. However, if people are on a month to month already, that does present some concerns, but certainly not insurmountable. So anyway, as we go through this process tonight, I hope this becomes enlightening. I think we've just hit a quick summary of some of the back and forth commentary that's been online and discussion with individuals and also some of the tenants. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and move to the next item, which is discussion. Okay, so let's try to keep this to this part of the discussion to the city's role. I know there are other things that Alderman Stacy and Clem wanted to discuss, but let's keep this part of it just to the city's role. Attorney Cox, did you want Do you want to add to anything? Alderman Sanders. Are you calling me now? Yes. Oh, okay. On the city's role. Now, my question would be is the state of Illinois attorney office is the ones that are stipulating jurisdiction over this particular matter that we're discussing in our agenda right now.

is what we're saying. What the city's role is, correct. Yeah. And because that is happening, because that has not obscured the fact that we should be able to also make amendments, we have not talked about whether we can amend anything to what the state's attorney had put in the role of how they govern this.

So have we challenged this as a council to see if any amendments can be introduced to make changes? I hate to find out that that is a possibility if we have not done our homework and we're sitting on something that probably can be amended or altered or changed.

How current are we with the update of how old is this memo that we're looking at? How old is it? And if things have changed, who looked into whether or not there has been major changes that will make a difference to those renters when landlords are raising their rent and everything?

have anything come down the pipeline that changes anything? Have we done that? Have we looked into that particular matter? And so I would suggest or whoever's presenting this particular memo to have more answers for us as a counselor, we can look into the matters ourselves, but we're looking at our city manager because he's managing the city. And so my question would be is, can we look into it further to see if there's any other possibilities or amendments that could be implemented into this whole scenario of this memo because the way it sits right now, there's no challenging base going on from council or to the general public within the city. There should be a mechanism for us to at least challenge what we're seeing here so we just don't leave it up to the state's attorney to make the the priority decisions for the city. Okay, so I'm going to ask Attorney Cox to address that, but we legally can't tell a business what they can charge for rent, but we can talk about terminating lease, correct, Attorney Cox?

Well, thank you. Hi, thank you. So the state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality's authority, including a home rule. Can you speak up because we can't hear you? Can you turn him up? Can you turn up his microphone? I'll get closer. Okay. Everybody hear me okay? The state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality, including a home rule municipality, which Freeport happens to be.

It's a limitation of that authority. Any municipality in the state of Illinois derives its authority from the state.

The state, in turn, derives its authority from the federal constitution. However, if the state doesn't give us the authority, or in a home rule situation specifically takes it away, then we can't alter that.

We can, however, make changes or requirements in leases which do not affect rent.

So when we talk about rent control, which is, I believe, the vast majority of the complaints here were rent spikes.

The city cannot regulate that.

That power was taken away from us by Springfield.

And that's that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alderman Stacy?

We don't want to know what the city can't do.

We want to know what the city can do.

There is some things that can be put in.

I think there are things that can be put in this ordinance that will give our constituents some support. And we want to talk about Chapman, but let the record show that there was four or five different people involved in this selling property to Freeport Portfolio LLC. Not just one.

at least five. And then Freeport Portfolio adds the Pied Piper, which we all know about the Pied Piper, and there's nothing good about the Pied Piper to manage their property. But what you may not know is that Freeport Portfolio LLC and Pied Piper are the same people. They're two in one.

and they have came to our city and have played our mayor and our city managers as suckers and they're running amok on our city. And in case you don't know what amok is, it's a scam. And so we have to do something. No one has the right. I feel you should feel, city manager, Boyer, city mayor, I don't care that anybody can come in our city and do this to us. And so my expectations of both of you are great. I don't want to know what we can't do. I want to focus on what we can do for our constituents.

I have a question. Can you tell me what you were accusing the manager and I of doing? Because I kind of didn't understand that.

I didn't accuse you and the manager of anything. I said, you all have allowed people to come into our city and play you like suckers, is what I said.

You do realize that we don't have authority on whether someone can purchase something.

It's not about purchasing.

So with all this discussion, what are you proposing that we do?

You tell me. What can you do?

I mean, you can't take a property and charge $1,200 and $1,500 in a $500, $600 neighborhood.

That's like going to the east side where you ought to have said only 10% or 50, half of what the property over there are worth.

you can't even fix the roof on your house. But then somebody can come in and say, oh, I'm going to charge $1,200 for rent. Bull crap. It has to be something put in place that the price of these rental agreements fit the area where they're located.

And I want to tell every renter out there, get an inspection. You as a renter have rights. Know your rights. There used to be books out there that said renter rights. I don't know. Greater Freeport Partnership, do you all have something like that? Who have something like that? That the renters can go and know what their rights are.

Okay, so again, this presentation about the city's role, so again, we cannot put on a cap on anyone's rent, we can't do that, so what are you proposing?

And that's not what I'm asking you to do.

So what are you proposing? Because that's, you're trying to blur the lines of what the city's role is. So if you have something to propose, let's talk about it.

I do.

Alderman Simmons?

Alderman Stacy has yielded.

Alderman Stacy, are you done?

Yes.

All right.

So I propose that we as a city develop and create our own homeless shelter because FACC is filled to the brim and can't take anymore.

We have no rent caps.

We can't do anything about that.

But what we can do is prepare for the fallout.

What is it you're proposing?

I didn't catch that.

Homeless shelter.

Director, Duckman, I don't think that's a bad idea. I think with budget season coming up, I think Alderperson Simmons would be a good idea if you brought together a plan, staff, what it would cost, maybe, you know, some developers or maybe an RFP we could put out for that and get some general ideas of the cost for that. But it would definitely have to be something that the city would budget for.

Definitely worth an investigation and, you know, come up with some numbers and what it would cost.

Alderman Sanders, your second time.

Yeah, I like what you just said, and to table that with the fact of making a proposal to council, knowing that this is a priority one kind of thing going on with the citizens of Freeport, and I don't think there's no one wants to see anyone in homeless shelters at all.

But what I'm proposing is that we get together as council, have a planning discussion to have to see if we can all be on the same page. If there's something that council can look into and then consult with the city council, not with the city manager, and the developers, Wayne Duckman, I think we should have a round table of some sort just to talk about this issue. This is an issue that is not going to go away and people will be suffering if nothing happens on our end. If we could do anything, come up with any kind of proposals, suggestions, recommendations and things of this nature, if there's any governmental programs or or grants that could be implemented into whatever we're discussing. Those things need to be brought out on the table. And I feel like this, we're not getting enough information from our council members talking about these subject matters. It's almost like we went into silent mode. But anyway, this is what we need to start doing, opening up to the citizens of Freeport.

and I would welcome you to have that discussion with city manager at your next meeting yeah yeah that sounds good we can make that we can make that happen is there any other discussion on the city's role Alderman Clem sure last week Alderman Stacy and I attended a meeting that was put together by Josh Atkinson was a meeting that brought up some the issues that were out there due to the recent purchase of the Chapman property, okay? City Manager and I and Steve Cox and I and CC and I have had some long discussions on this. One thing we got to realize is that there's two sides to this whole project, okay? If we take and one of the things is that Reverend Dye's got her sign up out here that says we should extend it to 60 days. You know, that really sounds like a good idea. The flip side of that, if I'm a landlord, when you move into my house, now I'm not going to ask you for one month or two months, I'm going to ask you for three or four months, because when you're going to leave in the last couple months, you aren't going to pay your rent, and you're going to be gone. You know, So, the landlord's also in this, and I'm not defending the landlord's 100%. I believe what brought up here is Pied Piper bought this, okay, keep in mind over the last, which Stacy started to mention, over the last number of months, or the last couple years, we've had property bought up by two or three different outfits, not just one.

We used to have a good home-based landlord-tenant situation that was owned by people from town.

Now we're getting more from out of town, but we haven't heard from Pied Piper.

Their intention may be to do something to these properties, but when we put the numbers of properties up there, they were far different than what came out at the first meeting.

You know, we were talking 300 properties and then when you boil it down to there were two, three different kind of properties that Chapman had that we all got to look at differently, you know, so I believe anything that we can do in the long run to help any renters or help with the landlords or renters that we can work out some things that we need to change.

I think it's going to change, it's beneficial to all of us, okay? If we take and do something that's going to completely raise everybody's rate, we've done nothing to help anybody, and I think that's the long distance end on this thing, and costs and everything else are going up. As we talk about the difference of months, how much you deposit and all that goes up, as the taxes go up, all that enters into the situation, and all that stuff enters into the rent of it. As far as the rent, I have to tell you this, I had a house of my mother's that we rented out for a number of years. I rented it out in 1990 some for 600 and some bucks and it was a two bedroom, one bath house in a nice neighborhood. So the rents have been there years ago and maybe these have not kept up with the times.

But those are the discussions we need to have and how we can help anybody involved.

Right on, right on. That's right on.

Was there other discussion on the city's role? Alderman Johnson?

If we change some ordinances right now, like say we change it and say, okay, you've got to give them 60 days notice, that would not affect what's happening right now, but would affect the future. Is that correct or am I wrong on that?

It would affect leases entered into after the effective date of the ordinance.

After the effective date of the ordinance.

Okay.

And also, would it be legal for the city to put in some kind of ordinance that said a house or property could not, a renter, house or property could not be sold unless it passes an inspection saying that it's up to code?

Would that be something legal that could be done?

I don't know.

I'm just asking.

I can tell you, and Alderman Clemm may be able to speak to this a bit as well, that was approached many years ago.

Okay.

And that was, it was determined not to do that.

And that was the political will at the time.

It can certainly be explored again.

I'll tell you the pushback, and again, I'm a little bit out of my territory here.

This is just, again, historical knowledge.

The argument would be that, well, if as soon as a property has to be brought up to current standards to code and not just grandfathered in as existing, and I'm sure Wayne can tell you there's a difference between IPMC and then current building codes and that sort of thing.

if it gets beyond a standard maintenance code for the era in which the house was built it's prohibitively expensive to upgrade that now that that's there's certainly something to be said for doing that in that all housing then eventually will come up to current standards but that doesn't come out and come without a price so what happens is we greatly increase the cost to sell something or specifically specifically, drive down the price of property if I'm a seller, the buyer is going to pay me less because they know they're going to need to do a bunch of work.

Alderman Sellers?

Yes, I mean, I think that with the city, I think with this situation, I can understand long-term, well, if you're in a long-term lease, you got until your lease is over with, so you still have time to move.

But if there's a situation where it's month to month, I can't see the 60 day notice thing because you're doing it month to month. And then we also have the situation where people are, we're in the program of buying on contract. Once you buy on contract, that's not anything with the city.

because if you're buying on contract and you're under that that that's on you and you have to deal with that so I can understand the 60 the 60 day notice on people whose contract is getting ready to end within the next six months or something like that I can go along that but if you still if you signed your lease in May and you've got way till May it doesn't apply and I think that not having the 60 day be a ordinance for everybody because there are good landlords out there that are doing what they're supposed to do and handling their business and they're already having problems with 30 days, you know, trying to get people out. So I can understand with this situation and under this contract we do the 60-day notice but I just can't see it going across the board because that hurts landlords that are out there doing what they're supposed to do and trying to handle their business.

So that's what I think we Holderman Stacey What we have been asked of the constituents, the renters that's going through this, is that for less than three years to 60 days, for three years or more, 120 days, and I checked surrounding areas, and in surrounding areas, it's already in place on their ordinance.

So I know this is something we can do. And I understand, Attorney Cox, what you said, did not fly I don't know how many years ago. This is a new season. This is a new breed of people. We have got to do something for these people. And for ourselves.

I just say I also recommend that anybody who sees an issue with their apartment to please come in and fill out we have them sitting on the desk today we always have them at the front desk if there's any issue with a place that you're renting to please come in we do require that you sign you know permission for us to access the property that's for the city's liability to ensure that if the landlord comes in and said that we were trespassing we always have a right to enter so before we will enter the city will enter a property. We do require that you give us the written permission and staff always we always look forward to helping in any way we can and if there are any issues we will once this is filled out we will certainly go in and investigate the property and hold that landlord accountable for any violations that they have. So that's something I just want to echo and hope that our community takes advantage of that if they feel that there is something in the building that is improper.

So, but that is important to know that you do have to, you do have to fill this out first.

I would like to make a motion that we, as a council, as the mayor, as city manager, and as attorney Cox, Sit down and discuss not what we can't do, but what we can do so that everybody can have the same knowledge and an understanding.

We don't need a motion for that. If you want to come in and talk about your ideas, you're welcome to.

I want us to get together as a whole, not one-on-one, not you and Boyer and me, you and Boyer and Shadle, you and Boyer, us as a council.

Wouldn't that be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?

No, not if we make it public and put it out there. We need to talk.

What would that be, a special city council meeting?

Yeah, I think what's being suggested is a special meeting.

We call a special meeting any other time. We've had special meetings.

Okay, so what are you, what exactly is your motion?

That we call a special meeting with you, Boyer, Attorney Cox, and the eight aldermen, and of course you, Dovie.

Is there a second to that?

Yeah, I second that.

We have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Stacy, seconded by Alderman Sanders, to call a special meeting as stated with those involved. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll on that?

Shadle?

Okay, you want to have a discussion on the special meeting?

Yeah, well, no.

That's what's on the table right now, is the special meeting.

Okay.

Alderman Shadle, did you want to talk about the special meeting?

I just wondered when we were thinking about doing this to see whether it fits schedules or how we're going to coordinate all this.

We have two meetings next week. We're in the season of beginning our financial cows.

We'll just call it, we'll let Dovie just call it.

So, Steve.

Well, if I may, that sounds like potentially a setting on the committee of the whole.

I mean that's that's for a discussion so setting aside a segment of time on the agenda in the I don't know if there's a segment of time on the agenda in the committee of the whole. I'm more than happy to attend that. We can have that have that discussion. I think that, I mean, if there's a special meeting for that on a different night, it's just another, it's just another city council meeting for discussion. So if, if I could throw that out as a suggestion, if it goes on the, on the cow. So as a discussion item that, um, Alderman Stacy could put on for the next cow if she wanted to.

is what you're saying. Or a special setting. Just in terms of scheduling, I know that can be difficult. So I just thought I would throw that out there. It's probably better use of our time in a cow. Alderman Johnson? I was just wondering if possibly we could, each one of us could write down the things that we are thinking possibly that could be included in the ordinance to help, you know, the tenants as well as the landlords. I mean, there's two sides to every story here to improve the housing.

in the city of Freeport if we could write down some of those things that we could present them to you ahead of time so we would know whether they were legal things that we could do or not do and then maybe go from there with that.

Certainly any question that I can research ahead of time I appreciate.

Right.

If anybody ever wants to send any questions my way I'm happy to take a look at them and I can hopefully be a little better prepared when I'm here.

Okay, so back to what's on the table, is a special meeting versus a cow, Alderman Stacy, do you have a preference on that?

I would like a special meeting Do you want to propose a date and a time?

Well, I guess if I have to Thursday the 4th at 4 o'clock I'm sorry, I would not be able to make that meeting, I already have something What would work in your schedule?

Go ahead No, what would work in your schedule?

And that's not enough time to put it?

Yeah. It has to be at least 48 hours, ma'am. Let's make it two weeks from now. Let's make it two weeks from now. Do we know what's on the cow for next week? Is it full? There's going to be discussion on the cow. There's going to be discussion on the cow about this matter. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for a special meeting. I don't care if it's Wednesday the 17th. I'm just asking for a special meeting.

Well, yeah, let's convert that council cow meeting into this special meeting.

And so that way.

They're two separate things.

No, what I'm getting at is the fact that we use all the time that we would normally use in the cow for this special meeting.

And now our attention will be primarily prioritized to this special meeting as opposed of the cow.

It's a COW-like thing, but we're going to convert it into a special meeting. And then that way we don't have to bring another agenda for the COW just for the primary reason why we're bringing a special meeting.

Or an additional date or an additional time.

Please, yeah, 6 o'clock on the special, on the cowl, 6 o'clock until its duration, until we have finalized that, and then all of the information that we come to will be distributed to the public. The public can come to the website, see what went on in the discussion, and then, and what we came up with, because I'm and I think it's a very important thing to say.

We want to put an agenda item on the cow.

Mm-hmm.

To discuss what you're saying.

Yeah, for the primary reason.

Right, right.

But it's not, yeah, there you go, the same thing.

Is it going to be, is the special meeting going to be the cow?

That's what he's saying.

That's what he's saying.

I know that's what you're saying, but what do you say, Madam Mayor?

I agree.

I don't think we need to have another time.

What do you say, City Manager Boyer?

We have 15 other items that needs discussed.

Well, we still have agenda items on the cow, but it can be an additional point.

Okay, so I'm confused on what we're having for a motion.

Are we putting it on the cow or are we picking a date?

Because we're never going to agree on a date.

So as of right now, the motion is just to have a special meeting to discuss this topic.

there doing I think no no her her motion was just to have a special meeting to talk about this topic okay now part and parcel of that it probably wouldn't make sense if we're going to have a special meeting to then pick a date so that we know whether or not people can be here or not for it alternatively it's been discussed well rather than call a special meeting do we want to just make this an agenda item on one of the upcoming cows instead but but that's not on the table The only thing that's on the table right now is Alderman Stacy's motion to have a special meeting.

Yeah, they would turn out to be the same. It doesn't change very much if it's a cow or if it's a special meeting is what I've been trying to say.

So I think that what's critical right now is ultimately Alderman Stacy, this is your motion that's on the floor right now.

So it's up to you. Do you want to keep it as a special meeting? In which case then I would suggest that we need to find a date.

or are you willing to amend your motion or withdraw your motion and a new motion be made to just make this an agenda item on an upcoming cow? But it wouldn't be exclusive. It wouldn't be this topic is the only agenda item on the cow because we have our cow coming up has other agenda stuff on it already. Alderman Stacy? I withdraw my motion. Alderman Sanders, will you remove your second? Yes. Okay.

Okay, so, now, back to, again, the presentation was about the city's rule Make your motion, Larry Why am I making a motion?

You wanted it at the cow No, no, Cecelia, don't confuse what was being said You wanted a special meeting If it lands on the cow We'll just use your special meeting on the cowl. That's what I was presenting. So it doesn't matter how we use the cowl as long as your special meeting was implemented or inserted into the cowl so we can just talk about that issue only.

but I'm understanding what Attorney Zito is saying that there will be special things additional things on the agenda additional items on the agenda if we keep if we have a cow saying that your special meeting is not going to be the only thing that's at the cow is that what I'm understanding and and I don't want it because it gets confusing when you say that you have a special meeting during the cow you can't have a special meeting during the cow there.

you're either at a cow meeting or you're having a special meeting or you have a regular council meeting, but you can have an agenda item on what you want to talk about this issue here. You can make that an agenda item on the cow. There would just be other, our normal other agenda items that have already been scheduled for. And you don't need to make a motion for that. You can. Two other people can just add that. We just won't have a cow the next time that we meet. No, next week is a cow. Oh, is that right? Yeah, that's right.

So if you'd like to add it to the agenda for next Monday, you and another alderman are welcome to do that. You don't need a motion for it. I know that, Mayor. Oh. Okay, so are we ready to move on to item number 18? We still haven't concluded. We still haven't concluded. Director Duckman? Yeah, we haven't concluded on what direction we're going to go with this. So, Stacey, do you Do you want to continue with your special meeting on next Monday? I removed it. She removed it, okay. Well, she removed it. Right, and again, you're welcome to put something on if that's what you want to do, but it'll be on the cow to include the other things. It's not one item cow. We've never had a one item cow. Yeah, yeah, you're right. Well, yeah, we just called.

So you can give some thought to it. We'll move on to the item number 18, which is discussion about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and the impact of the community. So I don't know if Alderman Stacy and Clem, if you want to speak first or if you want to give an opportunity for Pied Piper to just say a few things. It's your call.

I'd appreciate it as long as Pied Piper is here if they would speak of what their plans are and what are coming up so we really know what we're talking about.

Would you like to have the microphone for a few minutes, sir?

Okay.

Thank you for coming.

Who is this guy? Piper? Yes. Could you just state your name for the record, please? Moby Parak. That isn't what he said. It's my turn, right? Okay. First and foremost, thank you for having me here. And I would like to take this time to address the few concerns that are going around town about what the issue has been about rent increases.

the idea here is that you cannot have two lemons in both of your hands and portray what you have to portray you have to listen to both sides what so I basically sent out a notice to all the residents let them know that I'll be coming to see them and have a conversation with them about their condition of the property and about meeting them in person but when I went in person I was able to address the question, let them know about the tenant benefit package, about what we're doing for them, and about how the rent won't increase until the work has been done to the property, and there was home ownership offered, and there was a lot of communication, a lot of promises were made with the tenants that were not portrayed correctly due to whatever apparent reasons.

So the purpose I'm here is to address all these issues that are going on currently.

I have not given anybody any 30-day notices. I have not given anybody eviction notices. I have not spoken to anybody about kicking them out of their homes. There are two ways, right? Either we could have come in right away, did a rental increase just because of the acquisition of the cost, blindly increase the rent without knowing the people living in the property, who's living there, their pets, their people, whoever that is, right? And cost increase, and you guys will still be here.

creating a chaos saying that, hey, how can Pied Pepper come in and increase the rent without meeting anybody in person, without knowing the condition of the property, without knowing the condition we're living in, but here you go, you guys are talking about inspection, please go ahead, go ahead, order the inspection, that's why I'm here talking to you in person, understanding what the condition of the property is, understanding the condition of your situation, of how much you're earning, how much you're making, if you're even eligible to make the payment or not, that's why I wasn't there, here, but you guys made a ruckus out of it, you know, social media posts out of it, and caused all sorts of rumors that didn't make sense. So, prove to me what was the case for. Our goal here is to come improve every property that is here in Freeport in our portfolio. Make the condition better, living condition better, streets better, and make the, you know, community better. That's our idea. We want to fix this property. That's why we're here in person talking to you guys.

Otherwise, why would we do that? That's the whole purpose. You have to fix all 320 units, all 225 properties. They all need work. The people that are living there are on month-to-month leases. I don't want to disturb any landlord rules. It shouldn't be the case. I'm here telling you guys that what we're doing currently right now, if you go to piedpipergroup.com slash free board slash community, you'll be able to know everything about what we're trying to accomplish.

Nobody at this moment is getting a rental increase until the work is done that is going to be communicated so I'm not sure where the ruckus is coming from but that is not the case if you have heard otherwise well that's that's on you guys so are you standing there telling me you did not send out letters to all the month-to-month renters telling them that their rent was going to increase from from $600 to $1,200. I have not. They have letters. I have the letters too. I wrote the letters. I meet the letters. I sent the letters. I took the letters in person, spoke to them, showed them the market rent that is applicable for the condition that they should be living in. Not the condition they're living in right now. Not at all. Well, why then was, did you start calling all the ones you had put notices on their door?

Ford, and telling them now that you recanted it, you pulled it back, and that they're not going up. No, not now.

I'm not going to pull anything back that I have not committed to, ma'am. I'm not going to pull anything back that I'm not committed to. I've not told them anything. I just told them, here I am, sitting in front of you, looking at the condition you're living in, which is horrendous, but here you are paying the rent that does not reflect the condition of the property. Freeport here is the one condition of the property.

Are you assessing renters? Larry, if you'd like to have a, you should let him finish and then I'll call on you, okay?

So, I can take all the questions once I'm done speaking. What I'm here to say is that once all those notices went out, when I went to visit 35 to 40 tenants into their homes, I met people with low income, I met people with good income, I met people with families that were concerned, I made sure I addressed all those concerns to understand the type of demographics that's living in the property. As a property manager, as a property management company, I don't know what you guys expect for them to do. You guys are smart individuals yourself. You become a rental owner. You would want to know who's living in your property, what the condition of the property is, right, and what the situation is so you can address it as a property. So here we are.

We have all the situation. We have created a community page. We're going to be addressing all the questions, concerns, updates moving forward over there. Currently, there are no leases being signing for all the month-to-month tenants. What we're saying is, hey, if you like what you see, if you guys want to move forward, let's talk.

Let's have a conversation, and let's address a situation where if you agree, we will make sure that we accommodate your request, move you into the property that makes sense so we can fix the property.

Address the condition. Address the liability as a landlord or as a property manager we have to take. And we work with them.

If the people that are not able to afford their rents or they don't want to move forward, we will work with them.

you don't need to do 60 days ordinance here, you guys are wasting all your time, we're saying you'll work with them to work three months, four months, five months, six months, if it takes them, help them, accommodate them, work with them to educate them on sectional authority, they don't even know about sectionalism with them, but here they are, so I don't know where anybody got any information from, how the speculation came about, but you can bring any person that I spoke to in person in front of me and let them tell me what I told them, that will not be the case.

if that's what the case is, then I'm here to address it. Alderman Sanders? Yeah, in addition to what you're saying, I understand what you're going through. I just wanted to make sure that the renters or leasers are hearing you clearly, especially with the economic status, affordability, and things of that nature.

I like the fact that you do look at a tenant's income to determine whether or not this family can afford this particular apartment, home, or whatever the case is.

That is a plus. That's the plus thing that shows that you're doing due diligence to help any prospective renter or leaser, leasing, I should say, and to help them navigate through all of the things that they have to go through to afford one of the places that you have for rental or for sale that they are able to be accommodated by whatever their economic structures is to afford that particular property.

So, yeah, I hear you saying that. I would agree with you that that is what should be put in place. People need to know this very clearly beforehand that these are what your requirements are and things like that. So I agree with you on how you're going about doing it. I don't know if you're making any promises or anything like that for sure, But the fact of the matter is if that information is available to any prospective tenant or renter that he would be able to work with you, talk with you, negotiate with you on your terms or any terms that you guys can agree with.

I would love to see that that's going on. That's what you're conveying to us. You're conveying the fact that this is your strategy. This is what you guys are doing.

that is that is what people need to see from from another you know position they need to know that you're doing that and and I like the fact that you are you're stipulate you're saying that this but like you saying information can be misled or information can be brought out wrong and everybody has a different story by the time it trickled down to the next runner they got a whole different story and and so the whole thing about it is when they come to inquire about a house or an apartment or whatever the case is. You can just lay it and then find out what their circumstances are. Can they afford to rent anything from you? And then, like you said, it cuts down the confusion. There's no misunderstandings and things like that. Correct. So I agree with you.

so I agree with you. Any other questions? Alderman Johnson. So currently you're stating that none of the rents are going to go up at this point and the time the rents will go up is after the homes are fixed. Correct. Is that what you're saying? Okay. The other thing is the places that you are going to be fixing up, someone lives in them now, are they going to be able to to stay in there while you fix that home up or that rental property?

No, they will not be able to.

Okay. So where will they go while you fix that rent up?

We will work with them to create an accommodation. We have 35 to 40 units that are vacant currently that we're working on bringing in a good condition that we're promising to our tenants. And we will work with them to either ship them there, hotel, any other accommodation that caters and mutually agreed on. Once they agree that they are okay to move forward, they will come and they will apply as a proper tenant, go through application screening, get their pets, everything identified, and while we're doing that process, once they're approved, we'll move them, we'll cater with them, fix their property in 7 to 14 days, fast as possible, and then cater back to them, bring them back to their property.

Now, once they do sign the 12-month agreement, the lease agreement with the market rent that we agree upon after fixing the property, so they're living in good condition, better condition, and less liability condition, and most of these properties, if not all of these properties, are going to be city court passing, so there are no issues there, and then after 12 months, if they're interested in buying the home they're living in, they're more than welcome to.

We'll do the finance agreement with them, 3% down payment option, rent to own agreement, they want to live, they want to own, they want to contribute to the community, we're right there for them.

So let's say they're paying $600 a month rent or $700 a month rent right now where they're at, their house needs to be fixed, their apartment needs to be fixed, they move into one of your homes that you've fixed up or that they can live in while you fix the other one up, what will they have to be paying for you a month?

to you a month to stay in that place while their apartment or home or whatever is being fixed.

That is up to us for discuss, right, when we discuss the options on how that would work out. It most likely will remain the same as it is because we won't take long. We're not going to take months.

And so what they need to understand is after you fix up their apartment, then they have to sign a new lease because the rent will go up, which is understandable because you're fixing up at a cost to fix up an apartment. So the people would need to understand that. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Johnson, either it's a yes or a no, right? If it's a yes, they're agreeing to what are we going to do with them, how are we going to work with them, and given the condition that they deserve. If they say no, that is not the end of the world, right? There is no, like, hard, cold rule to evict them for a certain amount of time. We understand. I have family. I have kids, right? We're not evil people here. We're trying to provide good service.

service to the community here. That's the whole idea. And if they feel like, hey, they need a couple months, they need help, they need guidance, that's what we're here for. That's what we're going to individually work with each and every tenant and cater to their needs. Some tenant might need two months, some tenant might need three months, some tenant might need four months, and we can help them get a Section 8 approved or some sort of housing authority approved or whatever we can to work with you guys to cater to their needs and make sure they're not homeless, right? But six months is what we're even going up to. We're going to have 60 days.

And like I said, I wouldn't want to have this conversation to disturb other landlords, right?

That's not what you want to hear. You don't want to step on anybody's toes. We're trying to make sure that we can work directly. And that's the case.

Honorable Ms. Stacy.

I want you to know that I hear you loud and clear. But I also want you to know that I saw the letters that were put on the houses.

Okay.

Okay, so to sit here or stand there and make out like what I said didn't happen is bullcrap.

I saw the video of the call saying we're not going to raise your rent now.

There was 123, I believe, month-to-month renters that received this notice on their door and it said $1,200 when they were paying $600. One said $1,249. You have the letters. I'm not telling you nothing you don't already know.

That was not put on the door.

That was not provided.

No, but there was a letter put on the door, and when they contacted you, that's what they were told.

And then, last week, you pulled back all of what you said, and now, what you've said tonight, I guess is what's in place.

But when those people were here last week with their kids crying, thinking they were going to be homeless, It was based upon a letter they had got from Freeport Portfolio, LLC, and you, you're one, telling them that they had to sign a lease and their rent was going up or moved.

They have not come and told me this. They must have come and told you this, but not me this.

And I'm here telling you this, the letter that was put to the door did not have any market rent, any type of rental discussion.

I had the discussion in person with them to show them the range of rents that a market is paying right now, including Section 8, Venibago, Ogilago, any other Freeport Housing Authority, what they're paying to have them understand what the situation is and what the market rent should be like on the condition that they deserve.

and I was making sure they comprehend everything that I'm saying. They have not told me on my face, nothing.

They may have told you in the back or been online on Facebook or different social media and be the hypocrites that they are, pardon my French.

But I'm here. I'm here to ensure that we can help them out. And I'm telling the truth here.

I'm here telling you, none of the letter over there said anything about the market rent. So I don't know how you can tell me that I'm lying here.

No, when they spoke with you, this is what they were informed When they spoke with me, what were they informed, in person?

Yes And I was there and sitting in front of them And then some of them have waited for you to come in and do an inspection and you didn't even show up No, I showed up, I showed up, I stopped showing up because of the mess that was created and rumors that was created It didn't serve my time to ensure that they were kind of lobbying against what I was trying to say So I hope I've addressed your questions Okay Okay, so let's not debate between the two This is If you want to have a private phone call You're welcome to do that Is there any other discussion that anyone would like to have on item number 18?

I appreciate that I just wanted to add Thank you to you I know you've contacted my department about registering your rentals You've showed up to any of the Recently there was some code cases Thank you for showing up I wanted to add because it was brought up by city manager Boyer currently the city of Freeport I want to thank in particular Doug Quinn Katie Smith and my entire staff has done a tremendous amount of work ensuring that we prosecute anybody who is not a registered rental and there is currently going to be 480 properties going to have cases in October and that's a total of 332 landlords Edwards that are going to be receiving fines of $500 per unit. So I would like to state for the record that this council has put a tremendous challenge to my staff and we have delivered and there will be five cases. We are scheduling five hearings in October that are special hearings to prosecute and put everybody up for $500 per unit fines who have not registered the rentals. So the message is clear and is out there that if you have not registered you will be fined accordingly and thank you for making that a thank you for making that a priority and thank you to my staff for all the hard work that they put in to protect our community so just wanted to make that clear thank you and thank you movie for coming we will move on to item number 19 which is discussion regarding amending section 220.10 slash 23

A, B, Written and Verbal Public Comments.

Alderman, Stacy.

Alderman, Simmons, do you have this one?

So are you proposing a motion to have the attorneys draft what you're asking?

I'm asking if that's what you're looking for, because in order for that to be done, there has to be a vote of counsel, that it's the will of the counsel to ask the attorneys to do something.

So I'm asking you, is that the direction you want? Is a motion to do that?

Yes.

Yes. Is there a second? Second. So we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons, seconded by Alderman Stacy in drafting the amendment as stated. And can I just say something? Sure. Prime example, last week with those families and then people having to leave for whatever reason, they got to go to work, get school tomorrow we had a four hour plus meeting or even tonight this gentleman wanted to say something as far as thanking somebody for something but it was not an agenda item and so he continued to sit here waiting for the end of public comments and so what this would do would give whomever the right to speak at the beginning if they're here and move forward and not have to sit and wait we've had elderly people here sitting and waiting and why not just get it done and get it over with and move forward yeah that will come under non-agenda non-agenda did you want to speak I'm sorry I'm sorry but we're

It doesn't have to be an agenda item. It can be anything. So the motion is to have the attorneys write that up. If you don't agree, vote no. If you do, then, or it doesn't matter, it still has to go for a vote once it's done. So the motion is to task the attorneys to do this. Yes. So if there's no further discussion on that, Alderman Sellers?

I have a problem with that is because really our meetings are long is because we're coming unprepared so we're asking question after question after question after question instead of knowing proper preparation prevents poor performance so my issue is being here four hours on going over and over and over a bunch of stuff and then we've got you want it at the beginning and you want it at the end that's a lot of because the purpose of having a public forum for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and other items at the end of the, it is allow the council to effectively complete its business effectively. If everyone were allowed to speak freely on any subject at the start, it would prevent the council from moving forward with the material and the required formula action. A council meeting is designed to have a meeting, to conduct public, not public business, but council business in the public.

It's not to have everybody just talking because we cannot, if they get up there and speak, it's not going to be dialogue.

They're just going to get there and speak and we're just going to look at them.

We are talking about.

It's not going to be.

It's not going to be a dialogue where everybody gets up.

If we're going to have it at the beginning and at the end, that's just way too much.

We are talking about three minutes, but three minutes with ten people is a long time.

My God.

I don't have a problem with people speaking.

Let's just take a vote. We've been here for over three hours.

Let's take the vote on if you want to task the attorneys to do what was said. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

I'm sorry, say that again? And not at the end?

Yeah, because it said at the beginning and at the end.

We work for the people.

You don't have to tell me that.

I know who we work for.

We work for the people.

I know who we work for.

Madam Clerk?

I have a question.

It is written into the ordinance.

Attorney Zito, help me out here.

There is a limit on how many people can speak to the same topic.

Can you refresh how that works, and would this apply when it's, I mean, if it's not related to an agenda item, we could have seven, eight different topics.

Now, last week, as an example, we had one topic, so if you could address both multiple topics and one topic, please So, any topic, as of right now, can have a maximum of six speakers on it, and if there's people on both sides, then they each get, you potentially get three and three, two and two, whatever it is, everyone gets their fare up, up to six speakers on any topic so yeah you could have a lot you could have eight different topics you could have up to six speakers on each topic three minutes a person it'd be all up front there's not that many people having something to say that's just an excuse okay so Alderman Simmons just to be clear your motion is to task the attorneys to write the the ordinance rewrite the ordinance so it is public comment on agenda items and non-agenda only at the beginning and is that your second Alderman Stacy yes madam clerk please take the roll Shadle no Sanders yes Sellers no Clem no Johnson no Simmons Parker no and Stacy how do you vote and the motion fails of course five to three okay we will move on to

reports of department heads finance. Thank you, Your Honor. I'd like to echo what Dovie said that finance committee of the whole begins next week and they should be before each council slash cow meeting until we pass the budget. Is there a time? Would you explain the different format, time format? I'll try and do that as well as I can. So we did set up the finance committee of the whole to begin at five.

5.30 next week with the cow meeting to begin immediately following. So we're trying to eliminate the gap that sometimes happened last year between meetings where we all were kind of sitting around waiting 15 minutes until 6 o'clock to begin the next meeting. So we're going to start at 5.30. Once the finance cow is finished, we'll go right into the council or the cow.

The cow. Thank you. Or counsel is the case. Yeah. Attorney. So just to clarify, I think that the draft special cow meeting has 545. So most likely your finance will go at least 15 minutes. So it shouldn't be from a practical standpoint an issue. But heaven forbid that you have a finance cow start at 530 and let's say it only went five minutes, you still wouldn't be able to start the cow until until 545.

are you suggesting earlier if you wanted to i mean i mean the reality is you're probably not going to have a finance call only go 15 minutes i would imagine did you look at my draft agenda attorney zito it said at 545 or as soon as the finance count adjourned correct but but it can't be earlier than five exactly so that really applies if it's at 550 then you can start right at 550 but you have to set a time for the special cow to still start uh director duckman Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Darren? Just a reminder, the Hancock Vidoc, Hancock Shawnee Vidoc will be closed. If it wasn't done today, it'll be done tomorrow, and it should be probably three and three and a half months. It'll be closed for the renovations to lower the street. Fire? Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Last Thursday, B-shift responded to a local gas station on West Avenue for a hydraulic oil spill on the property. The on-duty shift used 26 bags of oil dry to contain the spill.

They are charged the responsibility of hiring a cleanup crew. We just contain it, keep it from going any further. We are invoking the spiller pay ordinance to the responsible party. They will be reimbursing the city nearly $1,800 for our response and our materials used. That's all I have.

Thank you. Police? Yeah, I have no report tonight. I.T.?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

IT? Airport? Just real quick, just to let everybody know that this year, unfortunately, we will not be having the air show. The promoter ended up having some health issues, so he is not able to continue on. So, first, foremost, hopefully he gets on the right track, and he can end up ramping up for next year. So, but this year is unfortunately canceled. Just to let you know. Thank you.

City Manager Just want to reach out to the staff that's been working on all of our road resurfacing program this year. I just wanted to say thank you all and I've got a busy week and I appreciate all your effort. Thank you.

And I have nothing new to add. Alderman Shadle?

Thursday, 6 o'clock, Schwartz on Park Boulevard for the Sixth Ward Neighborhood Watch.

Alderman Sanders?

Yeah, I just want to know, are we almost in completion with our street program for this year?

No, we're getting there. We still have Warren that we're going to do that was an add-on, Hans Harvey. Carol still has to be surfaced. That should be happening in a couple weeks. But we're making significant progress. The westward water main expansion should start in two weeks.

So if I had to gauge, we're probably 70% done, but a lot of good work going on, and the crews are making really good progress, and everybody's working well together, so.

Okay.

Chairman Sellers.

Oh, nothing.

Thank you.

Alderman Clem.

Nothing, Your Honor.

Alderman Johnson.

I'd just like to thank all the people that came out for the block party on Saturday.

it was there was a lot of people there and I think a lot of the residents that were there did get some resources and information that they needed to help them. So I was glad to see that. Alderman Simmons? It was the block party. It was over at the Boys and Girls Club in the parking lot there. Alderman Simmons? Alderman Parker? Alderman Stacy? Yes, I would like to announce that there's going to be A 4th Annual Terrence Cheeto Haynes 3-on-3 Classic This event will be held Saturday, September the 13th, starting at 10 o'clock a.m.

The age groups for the teams are 10 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to 18.

There's no charge for this event, but they will be accepting donations toward the Terrence Cheadle Haynes Stop the Violence Scholarship Foundation.

This is the young man that was shot on Pleasant and Galena a few years ago.

and this is the fourth annual event in his honor. Move on to public comments. Rod Holtz, thank you for waiting.

I'll make this short since it's been a long meeting. Starting in January, I took on a project of trying to get my driveway redone. I ran into some loopholes, one of which being my wife had ovarian cancer and sadly she passed away the end of July. She never got to see our new driveway but she did. Everything got completed around the middle of August and I had one loophole that I was trying to overcome and that was where the street met my driveway so I went and I talked talked to or called the street department after a friend of mine suggested that's who I try.

I talked to her.

The lady took down my address, and she told me that she says within the next week or so, when the pothole people are out in your area, they'll be gladly to fix the end of your driveway.

I said, great.

About a week and a half went by. Nothing happened. So I was in the area of the street department down on Island Avenue. So I decided, well, I'm going to try going down there, speaking to them one on one. I wish I never did. The lady that I encountered down there was very rude. She acted like my first impression to her. She wanted to get in a All I wanted to do was get some information on when they were going to fix that or if they were going to fix that. So I walked away kind of sad because I got another stone I got to try to overcome. So I figured, well, I'm going to try calling the city hall. I did one morning before I went to work.

I encountered Michelle Nelson. She was very kind, considerate, listened to my going on with my driveway, and she referred me. She says, I'll take this down as an email. She took my name and my phone number, and she talked with Darren Stiekel.

within two hours Darren called me up and wanted to know what was going on and I told him and he informed me that and I didn't know this but that the end of the where the street and in the driveway meets that would be my contractors doing well I thought they're kind they're concrete people but We were talking a little bit further and Darren finally wanted me to take a picture and I sent it to him and sorry but this was around 10 o'clock. I went home from work to at lunchtime and I got out of my truck and I parked out on the street and I was walking towards and I just about fell down on the street. I was amazed, totally amazed with the hard work that you guys do during the summer and everything. I get that and all, but it looked totally professional, and I want to give you for me, and if you could give this to Michelle.

Are there any other public comments?

I'd like to clarify some things.

Joy talked about Henny.

We've lost Henny, we've lost Tutty, and we've lost Taylor.

That's three areas where our children played and had in the wards that they're talking about.

That's three, okay, history.

Now, as far as what he's talking about, he never mentioned the seven-day notices that we've all seen. As far as the city is concerned, what we heard from you guys a week ago was everything you couldn't do and nothing that you could do.

What we also found was when Joshua had his meeting, we had no Rob Boyer, we had no Jodi Miller, we had no older people other than the two that were there, which tells us how much you really care about what is happening to your constituents, because you weren't there. You weren't there to hear them. You weren't there to listen to them. You weren't there to answer questions.

and even when you did something on the television, neither of you stood before a television camera and addressed the constituents in this town. What you did was is use someone who is an employee of the city that nobody knows to speak for you. It's shameful. It is absolutely shameful that you guys won't stand before your constituents and listen to them. Tonight's vote on the comment section is absolutely ridiculous that you would allow this to go on for four to five hours and I don't care what the comments are or what the proposals are on the floor, that you would allow someone with babies, with children to be sitting here for four hours to speak with you guys when you can change the ordinance and you can change the direction of this meeting at your own beck and call whenever you feel like you want to.

and all we were asking for was the Thank you.

You can sit here and listen to the menache that you are being fed by him or you can listen to your constituents and what you need to do is sit down and have a conversation with them.

Instead of listening to him, listen to the people that is being affected. This man knows absolutely nothing about this community nor does he know anything about the people that are being affected.

and I'm going to tell you guys something if you think for a second that this isn't going to affect this entire town and I've said this before and everything that I've said has come to fruition and that is when there becomes a problem in this town it's not going to just happen on the east side it's not going to just happen on the west side their properties are all over town. Is there any other public comments this evening? I want to start by saying thank you to you know everybody involved positively and guys I like up here. And I want to say congratulations to the people that came last week, stood up and told their heartfelt stories because they really showed more care and concern about themselves than our city leaders. And I also want to say thank you to Josh Atkins. I don't care if y'all don't like him or not, but we wouldn't sit here and talk about this if he didn't held that meeting. But he was the only one that took the time out to make a meeting. Before that situation came to this council board, You've seen this on all social media because we know you guys watch it, shadow or not, but you guys chose to ignore it until it became chaotic, and as leaders you should have held a PowerPoint presentation or whatever you did that accounted to really nothing because we still have not asked for you to control the amount.

We simply ask for the time to be a good timely fashion to give them considering that Freeport does not have jobs to accommodate anything to be raised. We do not have a council board that does not raise every tax they can on all of the people here. You guys need to think about the future. We don't have half of the creativity that we need to run a city.

let's say let's use this as an example we paid what we say winner got $78,000 for boarding up the bottom of that building and putting a six foot fence around it where the hell is they shopping at OSB at have a half inch is only 12 to 15 dollars if we needed 300 sheets of that that would only came to $5,000 let's say the fence way out of the ballpark costs 20 where is $78,000 a accommodate for my suggestion to the council is that you guys try to do a little bit more detailed finding on what they actually are doing, the cost, the material, the anything that they use, because these are our dollars that are paying for this, or it may be a grant that we could be used. I don't know where that money coming from, to be honest, but I'm sure as thirsty as we sound, we don't have money to be throwing away. We buying all kinds of new stuff. This is the most I've seen a distressed city, spend money on frivolous.

I want to know that every election season come up, I see everybody all over in third war trying to get the approval and the support of the black people over there. I don't know why. I mean, it might not be a decision, but why hasn't Jim Ryan, Tasha, Yancey, Baldy, the part just to be, why haven't they been up here for no reward? Recognize all people, man. They got people, too.

Any other public comments this evening? If not, oh, go ahead, Tommy.

Hello, Dwayne Dickinson, you got an update, everybody asked me about this Tommy, I'm working real hard on that, I promise, you tell, you let them know I'm working real hard And Darren, we got a question, are you going to fix the pothole by Jefferson Street, that Certainly trying, Tommy Any other public comments? Go ahead Good evening, counsel. My name's Joshua. I'll keep this short, and I promise, sweet, and I'm going to start with Mr. Duckman over there. Outstanding. With the Ptolemy and all that stuff, I'm shocked, but kudos. Found it fantastic. That's really good to hear. I hope that all works out.

all right every one of you received an email from me a week ago exactly a week ago and what you chose to do with it was nothing fine you know who am I nobody right but then you sat here today and you argued for about 30 minutes it seemed like and I could be exaggerating I couldn't see the clock about when to have the next meeting to talk about all that stuff I know it's easy from the outside to look at you guys and say, well, gosh, they should be doing this, or you should be doing this, or the mayor should be doing this. That is so easy and a luxury we get from out here. I understand that. But you guys could have taken that 30 minutes, had any of you either made a motion or just put it on the agenda and said, this is our opportunity to talk about it.

We can talk about it right now. If Tom Clemm says, I think it should be 120 days, and Cecelia says, no, I think it should be 40, you guys could have used that time tonight, however many hours we've been here, and talked about it and been over and done with it. Or, you know, Alderman Johnson could have said, you know what, I think we should add this in there. That was the time. You don't have to schedule another time to do it, because I want to believe that this gentleman here is being as honest as possible. I talked to not him, but his co-worker, and I can't remember her name, but she was very nice on the phone.

We invited them to the meeting, they chose not to come. I want to assume that they are being truthful, but if they're not, your job in this room is to protect the people of this community, and you could have done that tonight by just putting in a simple 60-day amendment to that ordinance, and that would have taken them to, he could have went out tomorrow and said, boom, here's your guys' 60-day notice, and that would have given them two months, but they would have 60 days to figure things out.

Now, they have no idea what's going to happen, because we just showed him, and I'm not picking on you, sir, that we're not going to do anything, we're going to talk about it for the next month, that's what we're going to do, and I just wish you guys, I don't know if it was about me, if it would have come from Miss Yoakum, maybe you guys would have taken it a little more seriously, but you guys could have done something, and that's all the people are asking for, they shouldn't be calling me to do it, it's just they don't trust you, to take them seriously. Thank you. Any other public comments? Hi, Sue Cook, Freeport. I just want to thank, I'm glad the 65 calf was gone. I just have to say, yes, good. That should be gone. Age, if you're fit, ages should not keep anybody from a job, says the 65-year-old woman that's standing here.

So, I'm glad it's gone. The other thing is, do we have a contract with ASPE yet? Has that happened? I'm worried. We just celebrated Labor Day and we celebrated the unions and we celebrated workers and workers' rights and what they need and I haven't heard anything about that yet and I'm very, very worried please God don't let them walk away because I do not want to lose 9-1-1 and I came up here and I said that last week and I said it while I was crying so you may not have heard that but there it is as far as the ruckus that was caused sir the ruckus was not caused by just people going out and going I'm gonna cause some chaos people came and were scared and they came to the meeting that Joshua had and they were still scared. And they were hoping that somebody, that Gabby was going to be there. But Gabby didn't come that night. And so people were very, very scared. And yes, they spoke to the news because they did not have you there. Or they did not have Gabby there to answer the questions they had. So the ruckus really wasn't a ruckus. It was a cry. Please help us before we're homeless, because it's going to be winter when they end up homeless, and that's not a good time to have babies in the snow, okay? You said you had kids, totally get it. It's not a good time to have babies in the snow, and I'm not going to start crying again, even though I look like I am. So, please, take the ruckus for what it is, and take

what it is and take it to heart and help them out. Don't throw them out. And the 60 days, that's a good idea. It gives them two paychecks. 120 days is kind of long. I know that's Chicago as far as giving 60 days to let them leave. 30 days is kind of short. It's only one paycheck. 60 days is two paychecks. 120 days, yeah, that's long.

so I'm just asking for leniency I know I'm coming up on my three minutes and so mask on thank you very much for letting me speak and thank you before I pray I just want to say a hundred and twenty days it's really not that long when you've been renting ten nine ten and twelve years and some of these renters have been there that long. Father God, in the name of Jesus, I come to you as only I know how, seeking your face for direction and understanding, Father, for this is your city. It carries the title, the name, Freeport, for a reason. I need you to move, oh God, on the behalf of your people.

the ones that have minds made up without even considering what's really at hand. Speak to the heart, O God.

May we look to the hills from which cometh our help, for our help cometh from you. I bind up the isms and schisms in the hands of the devil that would think it was going to run a scheme through our city.

You take control. You give us what we need to be successful. We trust you in advance. We praise you in advance. We give you all glory, honor, for you alone are worthy, and we say victory is ours in the name of Jesus. We will not lay down and die. In Jesus' name, amen.

That will conclude public comments. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

So moved.

Second.

Motion made by Sellers, seconded by Shadle. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Shadle.

Aye.

Sanders.

Aye.

Sellers.

Aye.

Clemm.

Aye.

Johnson.

Aye.

Simmons.

Parker.

Aye.

Stacey.

Aye.

Motion passes.