We're agreed upon. The RFQ and the draft agreement are two different documents. They do not coincide. In fact, there are contradictions between both. There are requirements listed in the RFQ that do not appear in the draft agreement and vice versa. It is essential that the agreement you approve truly reflects what is intended and what is best for Alberta's airport's future, not just what you were told in a memble.


Thank you. Thank you for listening. Ashley Hauman? Ashley Hauman, I'm here tonight to speak on item number nine.


I'm here tonight on behalf of one of my owners and myself. I would first like to note that neither myself nor my owner was notified of a possible change to an ordinance in regarding the short-term rental and noting that I am the rental registered and the Board of Trustees.


I would like to thank you for your attention. I am a short-term rentals agent for the rental registry. Please know that you would have had to go to the planning commissioning agenda to know that there was a public hearing to discuss the changes being presented to you this evening. With that said, when it comes to short-term rentals, often called vacation rentals, everyone seems to become a real estate expert.


O'Keefe, and his wife, Susan, Mary, who are home owners. The first home owners are those who work in the area, their employees, families use them to test neighborhoods before buying, individuals who are displaced from their home due to certain circumstances, traveling employment, such as the traveling nurses that work for FHN. These homes are typically well-maintained because owners depend on good reviews and constant bookings.


In the real estate business, and I have firsthand acknowledged and more. They personally own several and have stayed at numerous short-term rentals.


They provide flexibility for property owners, support local tourism and offer families and employees more housing choices throughout a city.


Many of the issues often raised with these rentals, noise, property maintenance, nuisance activities are already addressed by city ordinance.


The city has tools to address problems with these properties without stripping the rights of responsible owners.


of the current proposed changes and rezoning to only allow in certain districts and removing those rights.


The city could cap the number of vacation rentals permitted in R1 through R4 zoning or require special use permits for all zoning areas.


This would prevent over concentrations, avoid clusters of rentals on the east side of town based on the current proposal change, and create a balanced approach that respects neighborhood character and provides property rights.


Other cities like Galena have successfully started with a cap and extended those permits because they were going well.


The city of Rockford requires special use permits for all areas for short-term rentals no matter the zoning.


The village of Cherry Valley with only 2,300 people has a short-term rental ordinance with no zoning restrictions with many successes.


Many of these areas have asked for support and guidance in the ordinance. Freeport has some opportunity to balance regulation that works for everyone.


To strengthen the ordinance further, the City could add guardrails, tie guest limits to the bedroom countersquare footage, require a local property manager if the owner is not nearby, limit on-site vehicles, or evoke permits.


This approach creates accountability without overreach, ensuring vacation rentals remain residential-friendly while protecting the rights of Freeport homeowners.


Thank you. John Staben. Thank you. John Staben, 1070 North Canyon Drive. I'm here to speak on item 16, the airport manager agreement.


Thank you for this time. I was the fifth person interested in the airport manager position.


I have fought for Alberta's airport for years. When I found out Miss Jensen was going to be removed, I thought I might be able to help.


I looked for a notice that an RFP for the airport position was available. I found none.


On April 30th, I went to the City Hall and requested the RFP, request for a proposal.


I received the RFQ, request for quotation, on August 13th, and was required to respond by September 1st, 18 days to create an LLC, get the bonds and other requirements.


Only possible if you had prior knowledge this was happening. I responded to Mr. Boyer declaring that the RFQ was not biddable.


As you all know, last year in this chamber it became known that arrangements were underway to fill this position with a friend of the city.


They just needed to wait until Mrs. Jensen's contract expired. The draft contract to tonight's agenda was presented as presented on the web.


It's nothing like the contract Mr. Boyer will sign. Please read the final contract before you approve this.


Please remember this is a one year contract with 19 automatic renewals. This runs 20 years.


I must come, I must come out, comment on Mr., I must compliment Mr. Boyer. This hurts. He has bragged for a year privately he was going to throw Angie Johnson off the airport. He has done just that. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't moral. And it certainly wasn't legal. In the next two years, the cost of operations at Albertus Airport will go up considerably due to lost hang rent. I think the taxpayers should know this. Thank you.


Cheryl Altman. Good evening, my name's Cheryl Altman. I'm gonna start with number 13 first for the Solar Savings Program.


I'd like to know, are the taxpayers the one that are paying for all these solar panels going up?


And also, who's getting all the incentives from all these solar's going up? My next one is number five.


Fowler. They're renting to Pete Elber for $2,000. That's $166.66 a month. You tell me where anybody in this town can go rent a space for $166.66 a month, only if you're friends and family with the mayor.


McClure. Madam Clerk, could you please note for the record that Alderman Simmons joined at 622? 622? Correct. Thank you. So we'll move on to item number four which is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature unless there's a member of the council like to have something removed for further discussion. The consent agenda and others.


The process consists of approving to receive and place on file building permit reports, police department reports, and fire department reports all dated August 2025.


The proclamation for National Sea Treks thinks train week September 15th through the 21st. Approval for the 2026 holiday schedule, city council schedule, and the Committee of the Whole schedule.


Payable for the finance bill is payable in total of $3,900,279.24 and payroll ending September 6, 2025 in the total of $668,777.79.


Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Johnson.


Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders. On the consent agenda, do you approve? No. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Parker? Aye.


Stacy and Shadle. The motion passes six to two. Five to two. Thank you. Okay, item number five is the second reading of ordinance 2025-53. Could you please read Ordinance authorizing the city to enter into a fifth renewal to lease agreement with Pete Albert for 103 to 111 South Liberty Avenue.


Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. Pete Albert currently leases the first floor of the Raleigh Metal-clad building.


There are several floors in the building that are also available for rent. If anyone's interested, they're welcome to come to the city and solicit their interest in that.


As for right now, Mr. Elber is leasing it for $2,000 annually, and this is the fifth renewal staff request moving forward with this fifth lease renewal.


Discussion? Alderman Stacey? Alderman, Stacy To my understanding, City Manager Boyer, forgive me, you speak about other floors being able to be rented.


However, how would one know that when it's not put out there? You spoke about $2,000 a year. It's a steal. But what you didn't speak about is how the taxes that's paid on that building is paid by the city because it's in the city's name.


and so it's maybe a little over $100 for the whole year. But that's not accurate, Alderman, Stacy.


As it was discussed in the last meeting, the city is reimbursed for it. Yes, the city is reimbursed, but why get those French benefits in the city's name?


Why isn't? Because he's renting that floor. Why isn't the rental agreement drawn up and the taxes on him and not weeping the benefit of the city?


Because we own it. It's no different than Manager Boyer. I just wanted to add, there's a change to this lease that will allow us to work out We've got a sale price for the building between now and the next time this renews so it would actually do exactly what you're asking for.


So if he was able to purchase the building from the city, which I believe the city is willing to liquidate at some point here soon, that would put the tax burden on.


At what cost? We're not hearing. What are you wanting to sell? We're not quite there yet and we have to renew the lease right now because we have a lease and others.


So, I think that's what we're looking at. I don't know if it's expiring, but in this version, we've made it available so we could open it up and sell the building if that meets Council's approval.


What I don't want is that it be sold for a dollar. Understood. I understand.


So... There's no further discussion. Alderman Sanders? Yeah. There's no further discussion. Alderman Sanders? Yeah. This ordinance that we're looking at is considered an authorized ordinance by the City of Freeport, the City. Who's authorizing this and is it a real ordinance? Is it, because I see here, I see it's doctored up here, an Ordinance 2025-53. Is that a legit ordinance Authorization from the City, and that means from the Council. That means the Council has to authorize that lease before you, Mr. Boyer, even consider, and it needs a revision. That ordinance and the leasing needs a revision for Council to go back to justify whether A lot of questions there. Do you mind if I answer a few of them? Okay. So where did it come from? We've had that we've been renting that building to Pete Elber since 2021. Then the rent at that time was 1000. Then in 2022, the rent was increased to 2000. Who was authorizing? The City Council. City Council. Yes. Okay. So in the City Council is authorized it for


Please stop talking. Please stop talking. Attorney Zito, would you like to answer any of that? You don't want to implement it. Robert rules.


So, to address some of your questions in addition to what Manager Boyer said, the ordinance, this ordinance is before you tonight so that the council can vote on it.


It's not a done deal. It's here tonight for you guys. The reason why we're talking about it is so that the council can vote on whether or not you want to approve the ordinance or not.


Is it a legitimate ordinance is what I'm saying. It's legitimate in the sense that once you if you guys vote to approve it, then it will become a approved ordinance by the city council as of right now it's a it's pending your guys's vote.


So it's not an ordinance. if you vote not to approve it, then it goes away.


Okay. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders. No. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Aye.


Parker. Aye. Stacy. No. Shadle. Aye. I have five to two for the lease of property an ordinance has to pass by three-fourth three-fourths vote of the corporate authority so three-fourths of nine so because the corporate authorities are the council plus the mayor you would need a vote of seven in order to pass so this would not pass thank you attorney we'll move on to item number six which is the second reading of ordinance 2025 57 could you please read this am I in the wrong place I'm on 54. 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, Your Honor. So the City received a petition from a majority of property owners in the Gladewood subdivision requesting the creation of a special service area following Reporting Required Notices and a public meeting held on May 28th.


No valid objections were filed. The ordinance establishes the special service area, dedicates the subdivision roadway to the city, and outlines the 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 create a sustainable mechanism for funding services to the benefit area without burdening existing taxpayers with the full cost of the needed improvements.


The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 per taxable parcel across 16 parcels.


The revenues will offset costs of roadway maintenance and improvements specific to Gladewood ensuring equitable cost recovery.


F. recommends moving forward with the ordinance establishing the Gladewood SSA or Special Service Area.


And then, Manager Boyer, there's also the lined copy, do you want to speak to that?


Just a few comments, this would go for approximately 15 years, I know that was a, or it will go for 15 years, that was a question that came up before, it also identifies the lot numbers and Parcel IDs.


So what you have, Council, would be a motion to add that amendment to clarify, correct, to clarify that there's 15 years put into the agreement.


Right. So from the version that was previously presented to you at the last council, there was inadvertently left out of the ordinance, the timeframe for which the SSA would be effective, which is 15 years.


The petitioners, actually when they petition for the SSA, also agreed that it would be 15 years.


and a reference was left out of the ordinance there. So what you have that was on your desk in the red line, the underlying language is the additional language that would be proposed to be added into this.


So if you guys are agreeable to that added language, just to clarify the fact that it's a 15 year assessment of this SSA tax, a motion in a second to add this underlying language in would be made.


Seconded, if that's approved, then you guys would move the second reading final vote on the ordinance as amended.


So is there a motion to add the 15 years into the document? So moved.


Second. The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm, discussion on the 15 year amended portion.


Alderman Stacy. What do we do after the 15 years? Then it goes away, that assessment goes away.


Alderman, Sanders, yeah who who who is continually to well I wanted to call it the special the special maintenance upkeep and everything is it because the city is gonna take on the responsibilities of this particular site yes just just to kind of hit some of the highlights it was plotted that the road was a private street back in 19 I believe 63 no one really knew that until we did some investigation as to the relation it related to gladewood bridge and it was possible there because it came to our attention then we notified I think there were some arguments one way or the other as far as why it wasn't, why the city wasn't responsible today but it was doing work in the past. This is essentially our negotiated settlement with the property owners in the area so that they're participating in the cost of the road that was never built to city specification and we're offsetting the cost to fix it so that it's not completely borne by the city.


Taxpayers. Did that answer your question? Is that the taxpayers of that particular area? Yeah, well in Gladewood, the lots that are mentioned in the ordinance, each one of them will be assessed $400 per year for 15 years, so there's approximately 16 landowners. Okay. Any other discussion on the amendment? Madam Clerk, would you please take the role on the amendment of adding the language of Sanders, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacey, and Shadle.


The motion passes 7-0. So then now before you counsel would be the passage of the amended version.


If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. I'm sorry. Go ahead.


So I guess my only problem with this is we add them and then they they jump the line like we we start on Claywood when we've had roads that have been part of the city infrastructure and have been waiting to get done and then this area gets to go first because we added them and haven't done it. It's a yes asterisk okay right now the entrance and exit of the area is in really poor degraded shape so in the since that yes we're going to fix approximately 400 feet of that road so that the entry and exit is passable but the rest of Gladewood will have to wait in the normal road program when council brings it to staff's attention that need to move forward so it doesn't this is not a reconstruct of the entire Gladewood Road this is simply the dealing with the issues at the front and the back entry and Alex, Jason, sleeve, Alex.


Go ahead. I guess my problem with that is most of our roadways, the entry and exit areas need to be redone.


So, that's my only thing with that. Like, that's fine. But in time, in your turn, like, we should just, I don't see the ferrety in that. We do it right away just because.


Well, and to answer that, these residents are paying an additional $400 a month for, I'm sorry, $400 a year for 15 years so that we would be able to have the cost offset to make repairs to that area. So there is a give and a take there.


Can I follow up with that? Alderman Sanders? Yeah, is that a collective annual $400 a year for the collective area or individual? Individuals. Individuals, okay, good, all right.


Alderman Stacey. Every home in this Glenwood area will be paying $400 every year. For 15 years.


For 15 years. yes and they're in agreement with this yes that's what took so long the majority yes there's going to be people who may not agree but we we have gone through the process followed the legal procedures and we are able to move forward with a special assessment based upon the participants yes madam clerk please take the roll. This is on final passage with the amendment. Sanders, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, and Shadle. And the ordinance passes seven to zero.


item number seven is a second 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 thank you director duckman thank you madam mayor so the last time this was up we're at second reading right now and at the first reading it was discussed a little more might maybe We wanted a little more detail about the voting and what was discussed.


So as stated in the first reading, the vote was 5-0-0 at our Planning Commission.


And the people that were present were Ryan Walton, Matt Moyer, Andrea Schultz-Winner, Dr. George Walker, and Dustin Wilkinson.


So specifically, that's who was present. I know Director Steekle had also mentioned, had talked about this matter, but he was not present, Bill Green also wasn't present, so just giving a little background here, there was, due to the fact that Mr. Steekle and Mr. Green were not present, they were, as we stated earlier, two members who had strong opinions on this matter, they were not actually at the meeting, truly there was discussion, but it wasn't and I wouldn't call it lengthy and, you know, with all that being said, this matter was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and staff is recommending moving this ordinance forward.


Discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Hold it. Alderman Sanders. Hold it. Last meeting, were you making reference to not moving it forward?


No, the first reading I recommended and it was voted to move it forward for second reading.


Oh, it was? Yes. My thing is, okay, with that, who does all of the infrastructure or the construction of this solar mounting and who benefits from it?


Well, I mean, I would have to agree that really doesn't have anything to do with this ordinance who does what a question on the ordinance about can go in that direction there's not I think another way I think what mayor Miller is saying is that this ordinance has to do with somebody being allowed to to put or install a solar a and Schoenberg.


I know that before I was rudely interrupted, I understand that. But my thing, especially concerning, there's a concern there when I'm reading this about the mounting, the ground mounting.


Is the City of Freeport, or the residents, should be concerned about the mounting of and General.


Lee that ground mounted solar doesn't fit with the character of the neighborhood. And so sorry.


Go ahead. Can you give me the characteristics of this ordinance and kind of defined it for me so I can understand exactly how did this ordinance came to be came into existence.


Director Steagall would you like to address that. I sit on the Planning Commission and it was the direction of the Commission members that they are not We are interested in having ground mount solar. Currently our ordinance provides if you wish to have roof mounted solar that's fully acceptable and you don't need city approval to do that in order to put it on the ground which most of it's built through steel structures on the ground and it becomes a giant lawn ornament, right? That's the contention of the Planning Commission is neighbors generally don't want to see these in their yard if they're not in favor of them because they're very large and obtrusive.


So it has nothing to do with the structure itself as in the way it's structurally built It's in the looks of the property right and these types of panels only benefit the actual user that installs them Nothing goes back to the grid. It's for the house only Okay Currently how many Ground mount solar Do we have so the last I did a little bit of research on that We had, and this is in the past two years, we've had an uptick in the amount of the solar projects and the reason that there's an uptick is there's many of the private sector has truly pushed the installation of solar due to the fact that there's incentives to construct solar, so they're essentially salespeople are, I'm sure everyone in this room has had a salesperson trying to sell them solar, so in the past Last year we've had Park Hills, which was owning a Board of Appeals, they recommended approval 4-0, Planning Commission at that point recommended 5-1, it passed, City Council.


Park Hills has had quite a few people complain after the fact. They don't like the way it looks, and I think, and moving on from there, we had 1405 South Benson, which was a large residential lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval 5 to 0. Planning Commission voted 5 to 0. That ended up passing our City Council. 1161 West Lincoln. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval 5 0 with one abstention. The Planning Commission voted against this and it ultimately failed Council. So you're starting to see midway through this you're starting to see it in the evidence because it let 1161 West Lincoln Planning Commission voted against it, it failed City Council.


Then you look at Harmony Church, that was a highly contested ground-mounted solar project. That went through zoning water repeals five to zero, Planning Commission was zero to six to one.


So at this point you're starting to see our Planning Commission is digging in its heels, not really seeing the connection to our community with ground-mounted solar.


Ultimately, that did pass council, although it took several hearings before it was heard. So the point here is that, to your point, our Planning Commission noticed that it was not well received in our community and they directed staff to draft an ordinance that would eliminate it zoning-wise in residential neighborhoods.


Director Duckman, I think giving all that information about how the zoning department feel is being said to sway the vote. My original question was in the past two years, how many have we approved we've approved three out of four we have approved three out of the four we're not approving any ground monitor tonight we're trying to remove it I understand but It goes back, Madam Mayor, it goes back to us allowing some and now not others.


And how do you say yes to one and no to someone else? I guess you just say it.


So this goes back to realistically the error of City Manager Crowe who decided at that time with the council that we were a solar friendly city and we were experimenting with solar and trying to you know a lot of communities were looking at the facts of what solar was and wasn't and so as with any new process you learn things over time what and the other two are the two projects that we have been working on to see what works and what doesn't work.


And we did allow a handful of these projects to move forward. And we've gotten feedback from community members more than like them. We've had more feedback that people don't like them.


The biggest example is the one that's at Park Hills Church. There's, I don't want to say there's been issues with it throughout, but maintenance has been a problem.


that nobody could see happening until it it started to happen and we're also talking the difference between residential zoning and commercial zoning so this application here is for residential home zoning so it'd be if your next-door neighbor came to the council and said I want to fill my backyard full of an array and you can see it from your house while it's their property is their property well I'm glad you feel that way but a lot of other and other people don't because it becomes their problem and Wayne's exactly right in dealing with a lot of solar companies over the last year.


Many of the solar companies are pushing the ground mount because it's cheaper for them to install than the roof mount and it's less work for them long term, even though it hides it better from the community.


Well, while I do sit on the Planning Commission, and I agree totally with their recommendation to get rid of this, this wasn't pushed by me.


This was a completely unanimous vote by the Planning Commission, and we directed Council, which is Mr. Cox, that sits on that committee, to draft this ordinance so we don't have to keep having these hearings and discussions about GroundMount Solar because we don't think that it fits the residential platform.


We're not talking about panels that are two by two, we're talking about panels that are ten by eight.


Wow. It's a big difference. Yeah, it is. And so the panels, they get primarily mounted on rooftops now, are about a two by two square in bundles that they put on based on your usage.


The ones that they put in backyards are actually a trapeze of steel that they get put on and most of the panels are eight to ten foot tall and probably four foot wide and the average House probably needs four to six of them to gain power so we're talking about you know a mini RV of solar panels sitting in the backyard that everybody's got to steer at in their community. But that's not what Harmony asks for that's not what that is exactly what Harmony asked for that large yes ma'am and you and it was in the back it was it was by their garage near the trees of their property but that is exactly what they asked for and that's what this council approved.


Yes because what was the the danger of it other than we might see it driving down what's the road? Pearl City Road. Yes. The danger of it in my opinion is exactly what we're talking about here. That church is in a residentially zoned area that opens up to more residentially zoned people adding this and so what the Planning Commission is recommending and I'm not speaking for everyone but I think based on the vote I can we're recommending that this is not a path that Freeport should move forward that it will not long-term benefit residential properties and it'll become an eyesore like an old car sitting in a yard over There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Sanders? No. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. And Shadle? Aye. The motion passes five to two.


Item number eight is the first reading of ordinance 2025-57. Could you please read this?


Ordinance revising codified ordinances to create the position of Operations Superintendent. Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The Freeport Public Works team is requesting that City Council create a job description for the department in a restructuring effort.


At this time, we are requesting the creation of a new position, Public Works Operation Superintendent.


This is not an additional position to the department, but a promotional opportunity for a department leader to assume more management duties and responsibilities within the combined department leadership team.


Due to a key employee leaving the City Public Works team, the department is looking to restructure and others.


These are important key roles and responsibilities, allowing better collaboration and uniting the overall team.


Creating an operations superintendent role will enable the department leader to effectively manage the daily activities of the construction crew and be involved in the utility operations division.


This change will facilitate more departmental collaboration. Strategic plan alignment, aligned to a teamwork integration in departments are especially important because they direct impact the efficiency, consistency and overall performance of the and the Division. This position changes an important first step in evaluating overall non-bargaining job duties to ensure a unified approach to the departments. This new job description is budgeted for through the Public Works budget and should not increase the overall payroll of the department.


Is there a motion to move forward? Staff recommends moving forward with this. And there is a request, due to the timeliness of this, there is a request for suspension of the rules.


Is there a motion to move this forward? So I'll move. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.


Discussion on this, Alderman Stacey? Alderman Stacey? Does this have something to do with an open position in Public Works?


It does have something to do with an open position and Public Works in the water utility.


So recently the utility operation or the utility superintendent has moved on and we felt that this was a good opportunity to consolidate the departments overall.


And that's why staff is asking for a new person to oversee the Public Works Department.


Alderman Sanders. Is that a salary-based position? Yes, sir, that would be so. and we're going to replace it as a salary or are we going to incorporate it within the city structure?


So we'll incorporate it. It would basically mean the street superintendent position would remain. It would no longer be filled and the utility superintendent wouldn't be filled.


And then we would fill it with a operations superintendent whose overall responsibility covered both.


and then we will be bringing back an assistant for that individual to help cover weekends and times that they're unable to be there and also have a little bit more background in the operations and regulatory end of the water utility.


Okay, the assistance is not going to be of... Would you like your second time of speaking, Robert Sanders?


Oh, I thought I was in a conversation. I'm sorry. No, or Darren, did you want to have the...


Yeah, I just want to give a point of clarity to Rob's statement there. So this is creating a job position that we currently don't have in the structure. That's what it's doing. It's not adding a role. It's giving it's giving a new role to an old position that we currently don't have. So this will allow us to change the job description of an individual and allow him to manage more areas than currently is aligned in his job duties, his or her job duties. So this provides us Johnson.


This opportunity to somewhat restructure and reorganize the department, which we started again many years under City Manager Crowe, and then we've been doing this little at a time as jobs have turned over.


So we're not adding, asking for an additional position, we're asking for merging a few positions together at this time to have one person oversee more areas.


And we don't currently have this role, and that's why we're asking approval to create this role.


Johnson. So would this be filled by someone inside already here or would this be something we would? We believe we have a, I'm sorry to interrupt, we believe we have a qualified internal candidate for this position. Alderman Stacey? Will this position also be covered covering the position where the gentleman resigned and so on. And so, it's like in a roundabout way, I hear what you're saying and I hear what you're saying. But it's like we're ignoring the fact that a person you put in position has left the department. And so, that is an opening position, or you're telling me it's it's not going to be an opening position because we're going to add those duties to someone else's duty so if we could have done that from the beginning why did we ever hire this gentleman because that's who you chose, that's who you wanted and we hired him.


Well you'll have to ask that individual, however, we're asking for counsel. I'm not going to speculate on the motivations or or the needs of that.


I mean, why did we need that position then if we don't need it now?


Well, as I mentioned, it'll be the superintendent will oversee all of public works and will be asking for an assistant to also come alongside to cover weekends.


And the superintendent did not do that before. Correct. They did. but it was not a clearly defined role.


And the way it's being explained tonight is not clearly defined. Well, the job description is provided, so I could give that to you if you'd like.


No, I have it. OK. OK, there's no further discussion. We'll move on. Oh, actually, it was a request for suspension of the rules if someone wants to make that motion.


So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle for suspension of the rules.


It's not debatable. It's passed by two-thirds majority. Madam Clerk, would you please take the role in the suspension only?


Sanders. No. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. No. Parker. Aye. Stacy. No. And Shadle. Aye.


the motion to suspend fails because it needs two thirds and we only ended up with what four to three American vote because half the council has been uh has uh voted in favor repeat that again don't we need six people attorney zito correct one two three we only have four one two we have four to three oh i'm sorry so so you can you can you can call the mayor's vote but but I don't, depending on how you vote, I don't know if it makes a difference or not.


I object. You can't object, this is an attorney ruling. Wait a minute, it's not an attorney ruling, it's a council ruling, what are you talking about?


This is not a- Please don't interrupt Alderman Sanders. Well you can't be saying things like that.


Will it make any difference? No because right now you have one, two- The best we have is five to three.


All right, so that still wouldn't pass. Okay, so the suspension fails. We'll move this on to the next regularly scheduled meeting.


Come on, Mayor. Item number nine is the first reading of ordinance 2025-58. Could you please read this?


Ordinance amending chapters 810 and 1250 concerning the licensing and zoning of vacation rentals. Director Duckman.


Thank you, Madam Mayor. The Community Economic Development Department has been directed to draft an amended ordinance.


And the idea here is that vacation rentals, which is the RBO, Airbnb, it's getting a little less technical here to kind of give you a better idea of what we're talking about, short-term rental in line with those popular products is essentially what currently happens here is you could own a single-family house and you could put it on Airbnb with proper licensing and have a short-term rental weekend, et cetera.


So it has been brought to our attention and we were directed to draft a new ordinance that essentially is removing vacation rentals from the R1 through R4 residential district.


So, again, to kind of break down what's going on here, R1 through R4, that is where you're allowed to have a single-family home, not a duplex, not a four-unit, that is your true one-family residential neighborhoods, and what has been directed and what staff is proposing tonight is eliminating short-term rentals in single-family housing.


that's the simplest way to kind of boil it down in a little background here and also what would essentially happen is if you have a single-family home we would be we're proposing to eliminate the short-term vacation rentals if you have a two unit duplex three unit four unit etc. it would be a special use permit so that I hope gives a basic understanding of what's being proposed here to go with a little bit of background on August 14th a public hearing was held by our Planning Commission and the outcome of that meeting was that our Planning Commission heard public comment we had one supporter and one objector present and to be clear, the supporter for, or pro vacation rental would be Clerk Anderson. Do you remember being there just to confirm? I was the opposer. I'm sorry, you were opposing the, I'm getting the pros and negatives, but to be fair, you're pro, you were pro, you you are not pro you're against I'm against the ordinance yes yes yes just wanted to make that clear and that Alderperson Klemm was also at the hearing and he was for the ordinance which would outlaw the vacation rentals so I wanted


to make that clear for some background so after that hearing was held by our Planning Commission they wanted to hear take some time and in motion was made to discuss at the next hearing which was September 11th of 2025 and all that being said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this text amendments pertaining to vacation rentals with what I had said earlier eliminating them from the single-family residences and with that in mind staff is recommending moving this ordinance forward.


Is there a motion to move this order? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the ordinance?


Alderman Klemm? Sure. The real crux of this comes from everybody here believes in Airbnb's, everybody believes that it can be a positive thing for the community. There's no doubt about that, but it stems from, mostly stems from two incidents, an incident and where it was at basically.


I believe it was June 6th at one of these Airbnbs that this person first of all go back to the point where I was here when they originally discussed Airbnbs over a year ago and nobody really brought up the thought of what was going to happen in that area what could happen in that area what could develop in that area nobody in that area would know who's going to be in that house when they're going to be in that house and others.


I want to give you a little bit of an overview of the house. When it's rented, when it isn't going to be rented, and who's there.


Also this person that rents this house doesn't have all the capabilities in the world of finding that out, who calls them up and says, I want to rent your house for the evening.


So this house here is in a neighborhood that's probably 250 to $300,000 houses. On a Friday night, all of a sudden a whole bunch of cars started pulling up to the house.


And keep in mind, as this person rents this Airbnb, they have their total family with little kids above this. They rent out just their basement only. They've developed a sidewalk and entrance into that basement. They've created a pool out there and they've created an area where this could be used. Approximately, they got a phone call. I'm not sure what the time was a good firm with the chief, but 10 o'clock is area in there. One of the neighbors called, the owner also called. He had a whole bunch of people downstairs. There were cars out in the street. And come to find out the whole end of this deal was there were probably, I believe, 10 to 15 youths under 20 years old left, and they confiscated, I'm going and others.


I'm not going to say at least a dozen loaded weapons, okay? Now I don't think this is a normal thing that should happen at your house on Friday night, especially if you live in a $200,000, $300,000 neighborhood.


That's my concern. The people have come to me, okay, and said, look, if I buy a house in a residential area and single family homes. I'm expecting it to be a single family home. I'm not expecting a commercial thing to be run out. The night before this happened, there were 10 cars there.


What this person actually did is there's zero security involved in it. They provided no security and instantly the police were called. So we were their security for this whole thing to to try and straighten it out.


And you've got people still that from the DNA, all these weapons are gonna be possibly traced to different people and to be arrest made off the deal.


So that enlightened everybody there to say, hey, this is what we got in our neighborhood and we don't like it.


So that's where my opinion and the opinion of all the people in that neighborhood come from.


Any other discussion, Alderman Johnson? I'm not sure how many of these Airbnbs we have here in Freeport, but they are businesses.


Three. Three is all we have? We have three in single. Okay. And they bring, I mean, they bring people in who spend money here, so that's, you know, part of the city.


The other thing I'm thinking about, you know, you do take a chance when you're a person that owns an Airbnb of who you rent to, but I know any of the vacation rentals that we've ever rented, there's a very long contract that you have to fill out with them that has a lot of stipulations on it, what you can do and what you can't do, how many cars you can park there, and a lot of things that regulate that that I think could be put in place for those that do have Airbnbs.


So I don't know, and you know, plus the fact that when you live in a home, you don't really know if that house beside you goes up for sale.


You don't know who might come in there. You don't know if they might have guns.


You don't know if they might be on drugs and, you know, that sort of thing.


So there's, you know, you take chances every day. So I'm not sure that this would be friendly for the City of Freeport to say we don't want and I were just talking about the number of AirBnBs we have.


We're looking at your AirBnB businesses in our residential areas. There's not very many R5 or R6 areas, I know west of west of west.


There's a lot that are east of west. So I'm not sure how all that plays out for fairness for people that own those homes and maybe are looking to have a business here in Freeport.


We could put a limit maybe on the number of AirBnBs we have. and I'm going to ask you to do a special use permit every year or something like that instead of totally disregarding this altogether. Those are my thoughts.


Alderman Simmons. I'm sorry, but that is laughable. So because it happened in this area and these houses are worth that much, we're going to ban it for single family houses.


But in the areas that happen to be mostly apartments, we're We're going to allow it because these houses are $250,000, $300,000, which was repeated a couple of times.


So it's not okay there, but it's okay in other neighborhoods. And to even feel safe making a statement as such is...


Wow. Wow. Wow. Director Duckman, I have a question. In this, would that be in effect immediately or is there, can you enlighten that there's three businesses that would be affected, how far out, that kind of thing?


So essentially, the ordinance reads that this would, they would have to still, basically the current licenses for the three properties that we're speaking of, they would still have to reapply for the license.


If they let it lapse on their own, they let it lapse on their own.


But if they continued to reapply, it would sunset January 1st, 2029. And after such date, all licenses would cease to be valid.


So a little over three years. Correct. Any other discussion? I have one second. Yeah.


Sure. I would like to agree with Alderperson Johnson. We are trying to be a tourist town.


We are trying to do things to draw people here. We only have two, I'm not sure if the other one's still open, legitimate hotels that you wouldn't mind staying in.


So, and myself, I have a couple of kids, so when we go, we use Airbnbs.


I don't understand why you would want to stop that for the city of Freeport.


I, like, that just doesn't make sense. Anyone else? Yeah. Alderman Sanders? Yeah. Director Duckman, how long has this, do you know, if you know, that this ordinance has been in existence?


Well, the current short-term vacation rental ordinance, I would say, has been what, Clerk Anderson, five years, right around COVID, I think?


We had bed and breakfast on the books for a very long time, because that's an older model.


But we added the Airbnb pre-COVID. I've been here eight years, somewhere between five and eight years.


It's a newer concept, correct? So when we're talking short-term rentals, the idea generally is that short-term rentals, by the way, it is not just in the city of Freeport, it's a hot topic.


it causes quite a bit of conflict you know on one side of the coin people believe that they're good for the community because they are adding tourism and it also allows property owners to make some extra revenue on the other side not just in the city of Freeport but there has been you know complaints with people use them for parties or use them for nefarious activities and it makes neighbors upset so I think there's good discussion here Staff was directed to draft this ordinance. It's through the Planning Commission. It's at two Planning Commission meetings and I anticipate for the next two readings, if it gets that far, there's going to be plenty more heated discussion.


So Alderman Sanders? Yeah, just elaborating on the concerning of neighborhood areas that has got a concern about the vacationing property and the zoning and the licensing, and we have not set up any policies or anything like that, guidelines for the people who does have concerns about the area of vacationing rentals and things like that.


We have not set up guidelines for those kinds of things. What are the policy terms and conditions that helps to guide to let the community know or the citizens know in the community area that these are the guidelines that you have to abide by and what is permitted and what is not permitted. Have we had that discussion or have you had that discussions with those that are already currently living in those areas.


Yes, we had two Planning Commission meetings that we talked about before. I took some notes on that.


We had a meeting on August 14th. And as I stated before, Clerk Anderson and Alderperson Klemm were in attendance there.


Notes I wrote down from that meeting was quite a bit of consideration and discussion.


and based on that from August 14th, the meeting was moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting for more discussion.


So the second meeting would have been September 11th. And again, some of the issues that were one of the notes I wrote was that one supporter, Alderperson Klemm, his concerns were for safety, legal activities, and parking concerns.


and as Clerk Anderson has stated, she's provided that she obviously works in the licensing and can fill you in on all of the requirements for a license.


But she also came in as a member of the public, issuing her support of the matter.


So the reason I'm stating this is to answer your question, has the public been notified?


Well, yes, through two meetings before we've even gotten to this part of it. and we've had members of our... Does this ordinance have protocols to it? Does this ordinance have protocols? Yes. It does have protocols and so that should spill everything out to the residents of those areas. Yes. The easiest thing to explain to somebody is no. Can I, if I have a single family house, what is the protocol for having a vacation rental? That's easy. No. That's what you're voting for. You believe, and I'm not trying to be insulting, but I mean that's literally what this says. You know, you cannot you know I want to have a Airbnb in my single-family house if you vote for this you're saying no you cannot or if you're in favor of it you're saying yes you can do it that's the heart of it you know what I mean there is no I mean once if you vote for this ordinance you're saying we don't think it fits in our community no you can't do it. Alderman Parker, that's you go ahead sorry I'm Yeah, I'm sorry, and I, yes, I was asked to clarify that, okay, so, I'm just, I always, I always try to talk and make things simple, um, my best I can. Single, right now what you would be voting on is single family house, no, you cannot have an Airbnb. If you have a duplex, you would have to go to a hearing and ask for permission Or ask, you'd have to have it voted on by council, which is that special use hearing.


If you have a duplex, you would have to come, it wouldn't be allowed by right.


You would still have to show up to a zoning board hearing, to a planning commission hearing, and to a city council hearing to be allowed to have a Airbnb or VRBO.


And we're not voting on anything tonight. This is first reading. Okay. Alderman Parker. I wasn't going to say anything, but the way I understand this, I own a single family home, I happen to be a snowbird and want to go to Florida for the winter and I have some friends that want to come in and rent my house I can't do it under this ordinance you know my house I didn't ask permission when I bought the thing what's defined short-term less than 30 days what if I go a month short-term less than 30 days okay maybe I want to go visit my family out in California for two weeks or three weeks somebody said needs a place yeah come on in can't do that but I didn't get permission when I bought the Plays, so I'm just against it, so thank you.


All right, then we will move on. I did want to just share, if nobody else, if nobody else mirrored my thoughts.


So I just, I believe the Airbnb craze is really popular. I think it's growing nationwide.


I think it adds a lodging option. Personally, I've stayed in many, in several states, single-family homes, multi-units, I've stayed by myself, I felt very safe.


Currently there are three license holders, but we've had more, and if you go onto an Airbnb website, as many as like maybe even seven will pop up.


It's very difficult to find where these are located and you don't get an address until you make that reservation.


So you don't know, you don't know the location. I have already sent out applications to, you know, I'll find an address, I'll find a homeowner and they will sometimes ignore the application.


Our third one just got licensed this year because it's a new owner. But I knew where it was for years, they just never turned the application back in.


There's probably about three I don't know of. Three I know of that I don't know the address for.


One of my concerns is if this passes, it will be very punitive to the people who have followed the rules.


We have three people who have come in religiously and got licensed. Very easy to work with.


but I I don't see any enforcement or no no gut to go out and find those ones who aren't licensed so we're going to punish the ones who have been licensed by taking their license away that that doesn't make sense to me I attended both planning commissions I I heard you know we don't want it in our neighborhood I think that special use is the tool to solve that because you ask our neighbors you and others.


We do have, we do have ordinances on the books and I'm quite certain the number of cars are and 일я They were limited because I remember that being a big discussion. We might have even limited to one, but no more than two cars are allowed. And I suspect that's maybe why the owners maybe started calling because they knew that was something they could call about was too many cars in the driveway. And I just wanted to address, you know, this was a very unfortunate event, I don't want it to happen again. But this I think this is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater I think we're knee jerking too many and Walsh over one bad incident, and I just wanted to add that there was concern about that in this particular incident, there were children living upstairs. And I feel for that, I understand that. But also this homeowner chose to get that license, knowing he has two children, and I think that should be the homeowner's choice. My two cents.


All right, we will move on to item number 10, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-109. Could you please read this?


Resolution authorizing the payment of an invoice from Green Road Tire Recycling for Citywide Tire Recycling Collection event held on August 23rd. Thank you. Director Bridge. Thank you. Good evening. In August, the City of Freeport conducted a tire recycling event where residents could bring passenger car and semi truck tires to be Winslow, Greene Road Tire Recycling, Refresh Freeport, Electronic Recycling Event, Green Road, 7,029 Passenger Car Tires, 118 Semi Truck Tires, Sanders. Hundreds of residents took advantage of this service and the city received positive feedback from residents and surrounding communities. The full amount of the invoice, which is about $38,000, has been budgeted for and will be paid from the Health and Environment Fund.


Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Discussion on and the Resolution.


Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders is temporarily absent. Klemm? Aye. Johnson?


Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. And Shadle? Aye. The Resolution is adopted 6 to 0.


And we'll move on to Item Number 11, which is the Adoption of Resolution 2025-111.


Could you please read this? One moment. Resolution setting the date and hours for trick-or-treating in the city for 2025.


Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. In the past, trick-or-treating has been observed on Halloween, October 31st.


For the past several years, the hours have been from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.


This year, Halloween falls on a Friday. This year, the city is collaborating with the Freeport School District, second graders, and their civic responsibility unit for social studies.


They will be touring City Hall and the police station and have the opportunity to role play a City Council meeting deliberating on the same resolution.


Staff recommendation is to keep the trick-or-treating on Friday, October 31st from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.


Staff requests the approval of this resolution. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved.


Second. Motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Sanders is absent. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. And Shadle?


Aye. The resolution is adopted, 6-0. And item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025-112.


Could you please read this? Resolution approving application for contract with FLOC Safety for live video cameras, additional license plate reader cameras, and mobile trailer cameras.


Thank you. Chief Shenberger? Thank you. So as I discussed last week, earlier in the year I had some representatives from FLOC that came and did a presentation on the products that they offer and how they could help us as law enforcement officers.


I've applied for several grants and looked for different funding throughout this year. and the President's Office.


I was able to secure some funding through Senator Durbin's office by utilizing lobbyists through sound thinking.


There's a wish list of things that comes with that. However, we realize that if that funding falls through, more than likely, it's not going to happen.


And within the contract for FLOC, there's a contingency. if we don't pass then we're not, or we don't have to pay that amount of money.


So I also secured organized crime retail theft grant from the Attorney General's office for $9,000.


So the plan basically is to leverage that money to start this project one month early that gives us into December and then utilize the appropriations dollars for the year of 2026 and 2027.


Thank you, Chief. Is there a motion to adopt? It's all moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker. Discussion on the resolution?


Madam Clerk, please take the roll. I have... Oh, Alderman Stacy, I'm sorry. So this is, you're asking for a voting to approve this?


Approve the resolution for the Chief to move forward on what he just made a comment on.


Okay, I do have a question, but I don't know, do it come now or later?


This is the one pertaining to the drones you were speaking of? No, this is for license plate reader cameras, some live video bundles with those, a trailer and I'm going to talk about the license plate reader camera that is live video and then a trailer camera that has a license plate reader camera in it and also it's just like a speed wagon with a license plate reader camera in it.


Can you tell me like what does it cost per year to operate this? Right.


So, I mean, this is covered, this would be covered under appropriations, dollars and grant money, but roughly, I know it's in the agreement, but the money that we're utilizing is $200,000 from appropriations, dollars, and grants.


and others, and then we're also using the $9,000 that we're getting from the Organized Crime Retail Theft Grant. So that's what it's going to cost for two years. However, all that money is going to be used to pay for the license plate reader cameras, and then we're also using the $9,000 that we're getting from the Organized Crime Retail Theft Money is not coming out of the city's funds.


That's all money that's being appropriated to us and already given to us through grant.


Okay, any further, Alderman Sanders? Yeah, have you had an opportunity to determine whether this is appropriate for this particular county or this city to determine if it doesn't violate and the rest of the board.


So I think we have to do a search to see if anybody has rights or anything of that nature.


So in order for us to even do a search, we have to have a reason, a law enforcement reason.


So generally, you know, a crime has occurred or if there's a missing person or something like that.


So we have to put a reason in and there are certain things you can't search for. We also have to put a case number in there.


and I have been working on this for a long time and I think it's been a great opportunity for us to even access the cameras.


Now, the live video, that's something that I've talked to people in the community. They feel like, you know, we need more live video out there.


It's very helpful, you know, as long as it's in the right place in the right time and capturing the right thing, you know, it's very helpful for us for certain things.


So we do utilize license plate reader cameras right now. I think it was in 2021. So it's a different platform, but Vigilant doesn't have the trailer cameras and the other two things that we're looking to get to.


FOC is a smoother, easier to use, more modern platform. It's something that wasn't available in 2021. It kind of really became popular about two years ago.


A lot of agencies are going to that. So that's why I chose them. Would you like your second time, Alderman Sanders?


I'll elaborate a little bit longer. I need to use my four minutes. Just to ask your question.


All police vehicles will be designated with a plate reader. No, these are not mobile devices. These would be stationary.


Stationary. Yeah, and they're solar powered. And they're located through Alpha City? They would be, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you.


Alderman, Stacy? You know, I hear you talk about more cameras, more, you know, we tried to get cameras and it was shut down like Fire, burning in the forest. It was not wanted. Now all of a sudden, now we want cameras.


And so, I don't know if this will pass or not, but since we want cameras, we could get with them and it was grants and money out there where we could have had cameras on every telephone pole to help detour some of the crime here in our city and we were denied Not that right. But now, with you bringing it to the council, they're all in. It's sad to me. I don't know what rights were denied. Alderman Johnson?


So did this grant just come out recently or it just came out recently? You can apply for it.


So the, yeah, the Retail Theft Grant, it's an annual grant. It's one that you can reapply for every year.


Okay. And that's for the $9,000. The appropriations, that's something totally different. You know, that's being appropriated to us through Senator Durbin's office.


So I don't, Darren's probably more knowledgeable about that type of money. This is the first time I've ever been able to secure funds that way.


and others. I've been able to get a lot of grants, but it's for two years.


That one's for two years. The Attorney General's $9,000. That's just a one-year thing, but we can reapply for it.


You want your second? Sure. And so just to clarify, this won't go forward unless we get the grant money, and we'll use part the appropriations money for part of these things, but we won't get it all unless we get the grant money.


Is that correct? Right. I mean, let's say the $9,000 is a for sure thing.


I've already been awarded that. The appropriations, I mean, I'm just playing it safe. You know, I asked for a contingency in the contract and there is one in there.


So if the appropriations fail, then we're left with $9,000, which gives us about two to three cameras, so.


Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders. Johnson, Clem, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, and Shadle. The resolution is adopted, 6-0.


7, 7-0. Did you say 6, Madam Clerk? It's 7. Oh, yes, that's because we have everybody back on the floor now. 7-0. Thank you, Attorney Zito. Sorry.


Item number 13 is the adoption of resolution 2025-113. Could you please read this? Resolution Endorsing Community Solar Savings Program through Illinois Shines, which is and Senator, Paul Hagen, Chairman, has been asked if he would like to participate in the Illinois Solar Energy Incentive Program.


Solar developers are often required to offer subscription incentives. The City's largest accounts, 100 KW and under, would be eligible to receive the monetary bill credits from the program incentive.


These incentive programs work on the 20-year subscription timeline, and this program was reviewed by Mr. Mudge, who is here tonight on September 8th, 2025.


This subscription program application will allow Freeport to participate and receive solar incentives from solar array projects that are being installed in the area.


Freeport will not have any financial or... The City utility accounts are appealing to the program due to the large and consistent use of electricity. Many northwestern Illinois cities are joining this program and there is a brochure if someone is interested to see it. But Mike did present at the last Committee Hall. So there are many questions as to that time. So there is no financial requirement except the provider will charge a subscription fee from the credit received. Staff will also incur work time to subscribe and provide detailed account information. Staff is recommending the City Council to approve move forward with the community solar with Illinois Shine to receive solar credit incentives.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the resolution. Alderman Simmons. So if I can persuade any of you even since before my time on council I cannot think of one person that has said I'm glad that the city has done this program and I would like to remind you all that last time we set up we signed up for this the company was not able to honor their contract so So please just keep those things in mind when making your decision.


Manager Boyer? I'd like to make one minor comment related to this. The aggregation contract is what the city's done in the past.


This is something new and this is completely different from the aggregation contract. This would allow the city to receive solar credits for the solar arrays that are already being built by other people.


It is the next item. Yes. Alderman Johnson. From what I understood the gentleman telling us is that the subscriptions that we do are to give money to have more solar farms or plots put up. So if we get electricity, he said that is already used in all these other farms that are around. So this means they are going to be putting more solar farms around and the City of Freeport, right?


Well, we have Mr. Mudge here. Maybe he can be a little more specific. Mr. Mudge, would you want to address that?


Thank you. Thank you for the question. Basically, the state and the governor wants to promote clean power.


And the subscriptions, when you subscribe on, it's going to be for new fields that are being developed right now are being developed in 2026 and they need subscribers. Will it continue on past 26 or 27?


We really don't, we really don't know. It all depends on the incentives and things like that. Where they will be built and where they'll be placed is where it's is going to be economically beneficial to connect into the ComEd grid.


So, I don't know if that's answering your specific question, Linda, Ms. Johnson, but wherever these are going to be built will be in approved locations through the Illinois Shines Program.


and doesn't necessarily mean there's going to be a lot more here in Freeport or not.


Probably nothing in our city, but most likely rural areas where the connection fees to comment are lower.


Does that help? Go ahead. So chances are they would be in agriculture, farming areas, the new solar fields would Possibly because it would be cheaper to put them up in those areas. Is that what you're saying?


For example, a Good solar project is like what's being built right here in the city of Freeport on the old landfill That's a perfect use for land that cannot be really used for anything else but There's more incentives for solar companies to go into like brown areas and and different things like that throughout and build them.


Will it drew up more farmland? That's possible. But that's a farmer's choice or his opportunity.


What we're looking at though for the specific city accounts is take advantage of the program that the states created to promote solar and we can do this now.


Now, everyone, I mentioned last time, everyone in the combat area pays into the solar fund.


So it's up to the council here whether or not you want to get some of that money that's being paid and leaving City Freeport back in for public works, accounts only.


any further discussion Madam Clerk please take the roll. Sanders? No. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? No. Simmons? No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. And Shadle? Aye. I have three in favor, four against, and the resolution fails.


Move on to item number 14, which is the adaption of resolution 2025-114. Could you please read this?


Resolution approving an electrical aggregation agreement with, if we agree on our low bidder, that'll be that person, for the retail supply of electric for residential and small business customers in the city of Freeport.


Manager Boyer? Manager, Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. As we discussed at the Committee of the Whole last week, we received bids.


I believe MC squared was a little better. And we've got it up on the screen here for you.


So with that being said, staff would recommend moving forward with MC squared for the low kilowatt provider at two years.


At what rate are we talking about? At 9.89 cents per kilowatt hour. 9.89? Yes.


Okay. Council, are we picking a one or two year train? Yes. Is that your conclusion? Yes, staff recommends the two year, but obviously it's at council's discretion.


So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on approving MC C-Squared. Alderman, Stacy? As Alderman Simmons stated earlier that last year when we did this, everybody was automatically changed. If you didn't want the change, you had to send in and the paper apting out, and then they couldn't even fulfill the need.


And so why are we back here again? And being that we're back here again, I hope this time, if people choose to take it, that they have a choice and not that they're automatically changed and then now they've got to go and change back. So I don't know how that works, but to change everybody to this MC2, I think it should be optional. If they want MC2, they can call you. But to switch everybody automatically, Grammatically, no, we were clearly shown last year it did not work and now we're all back with comment.


Manager Boyer. Mr. Mudge, I don't know if you can provide some clarity on this, but we've done this For many different times, people have saved thousands of dollars on their overall power bill, but could you explain why last year was different than the past years and why it's different than this year? And just based on those rates, how much do you think we'll end up saving based on ComEd's base rate right now?


Sure. Last year Council did agree and we had a signed agreement with Nordic Energy. However, their cost, not to their fault, but it was a pass-through charge, increased the charges where they could not honor that contract.


However, we decided to give it a rest and have everyone go back to ComEd. At that time we did not know what the ComEd rate was going to be.


Now, we know what the ComEd rate is, and in actuality, this one, I looked at the new ComEd rate tariffs that came out for September through May, and the ComEd rate now is at 10.6 cents.


The MC squared rate, whether you do a one-year or two-year contract, that's what it will be.


Now the bottom line is the state set up the program where it would be an opt-out program.


If you don't want to be in it, that is the customer's choice. But by not passing or adopting a contract, customers do not have a choice at all.


They're just on ComEd or on a supplier of their own and they would have that choice.


So, what difference does the difference between the one or the two year contract make?


If there's a penny difference, and we have 3,000 customers in Freeport, then the average customer uses about 700, 730 kilowatt hours to comment on customers.


So that's saving each customer $7, $7.50. if they want it. If they don't, they can stay on ComEd right now. So ComEd's rate is set.


So by passing this, you're giving the customers a choice back that was really taken away from them when we all agreed we didn't know what the new ComEd rate was back in April or May when we had to replace that original contract.


What's going to stop it from happening again? We can't say that it is or isn't going to happen again. It's out of your hands, too.


The regulated rate that was passed on to Nordic Energy has now set for the next two years. The suppliers know what their costs are. They will hold that rate.


but you told us that last year about when we did this last year we did not know what the federal pastoral costs were going to be and in the past in the past it was known it all has to do with the demand for power going up so so so much but to me I'm just simply saying if you want to give your residents and your Alderman Shadle You said the average homeowner would see a difference of roughly $7.50.


What is the impact taking MC Squared's rate for the city contracts? If we look at 3,000 residents, which is low?


No, the city. Oh, the city? Not the residents, the city. This has nothing to do with the city?


No, on this contract, how much do we save as the city of Freeport? The city does not save any money at all?


No. This is strictly for your residents? No, no, no. Not the city residents. I'm talking the city water department, the city sewer department, our billing, the city of Freeport billings.


Billings. All right. I'll answer that. Our contract, decision to contract right now ends December 2026 for the City Water Accounts as I get the rate of 5.61 cents.


And that's the public word. Attorney Zito can answer. If I'm understanding your question, it'll, electric aggregation, this particular contract is strictly for residential and small, small businesses.


We have a separate contract for the City Accounts like our Wastewater Treatment Plant and etc.


So that's a separate contract that we have each year for the City Accounts. Alderman Parker.


Just a quick question. We approved this tonight. Do the people in the City have to do this or they can ignore it and stay with comment?


People have two choices to opt out. Johnson. They'll get a letter under city letterhead from MC Squared if they were chosen to say here's what your rate will be starting in December.


If you don't want to be part of this program, let us know. Secondly, a ComEd switch letter comes out, what was the state, the same thing in case somebody misses it.


This is state statute how that's supposed to work. ComEd will send out a switch letter.


and again if you do not want to be part of the program you can opt out. Anyone else that would be automatically in the program. One thought that I had I wanted to mention. What's the value of this to the city of Freeport if it's $7 a month times 3,000 residents that's $21,000 a month that stays in the city. Might not seem like a lot but to me every dollar counts.


and Sanders. Yeah, I know exactly what you're doing, sir, with this Nordic thing and not trying to get it proposed to the city of Freeport or the residents of Freeport. The thing that I found out, and it's like you said, they had issues managing how they want to implement their program, what they fail.


and others. They initially failed their program because I was part of that program and they had so much difficulties with it.


In order for you to opt out of it, you have to not only go back to ComEd, but you have to go through another agency so they can enforce it.


They have to enforce it. There's another agency that enforces it that keeps companies like Nordic and ComEd to be to impose upon residents to make, to opt them in when they don't want to be in there.


If they don't, if they don't acknowledge it to, I forgot the name of the company, but there's another agency that they have to acknowledge it with them so they can inform ComEd.


It's almost like another liaison that's working on behalf of these suppliers. and I ended up getting out of that program with Nordic, even though I did have to go through the procedures to get another agency to have come here to recognize that I want to be with another supplier.


Now you're back here again trying to say that it's the state law. If it's the state law, then why am I with another supplier and Nordic was having all these issues?


Black, is Nordic coming back in to the picture? Nordic is not. Nordic is MC2. MC2? Is it MC2?


A different supply. Oh, okay. They just changed the name is what they did, huh? No. Oh, okay.


But anyway, it's not something that I think, like one of the Aldermen says, that if he He doesn't comply or acknowledge to a certain agency, then they automatically back into whatever this is that you're talking about, this MC square.


I don't think that should be something that the citizens of Freeport should be considering.


If they have suppliers already in existence right now that they're using other than ComEd, and others.


They should continue to use their supplier until they get one better and that should be their option and not the other suppliers or the state's enforcement as far as I'm concerned.


But anyway, I know there's another agency in play that all residents have to acknowledge that they do or do not want to be part of this program.


So I'm just saying that's just my observation on these matters and I think we should take these into consideration that what you're proposing, I don't know what really, does it have a clown mask on it or whatever, I don't know.


Alderman Johnson. Customers do have three choices. Three now. There are three choices. One, stay uncommitted.


Two, they could go back, or they could go under the City Program of D Squared and appreciate a better rate and save a few dollars on the rental fee bill.


Three, you can go out like you probably did and choose your own supplier at your own risk.


So that's the three choices that all customers have. and I think that you, I don't say you owe it to it, but you should think about giving your residents all three options so that they can make their choice.


It's their choice. Once it leaves here, it's back to them and their choice. Alderman Johnson.


So the majority of the residents in the city of Freeport are just on ComEd right now and According to this paper. It says that from September 25 to May 26 It's ten point two two nine cents per kilowatt hour now. You're saying it's ten point six right now It's ten point six because the current change there it goes from September through May on the new rate... On the new rate of 10.6. Right. Right. The 10.2, that was like for the four summer months and blended to the winter, but now it's 10.6.


So if we choose this contract, MC2, we choose the two year contract, we would be locked in at 9.89 cents per kilowatt hour for those two years which is less than what we're paying now with ComEd which is the current rate is 10.6 which could change at the end of May or in May 26 it could go up a lot higher than that but if we choose this for two years it would be 9.89 cents per kilowatt hour for those two years, correct?


That is correct. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders? No. Klemm? Aye.


Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. The resolution is adopted 5 to 2.


No, that's not right. 4-3. So, it's because half the council has voted, you would need to call the mayor, the mayor's vote.


Say that again, sir. So when you have half of the council, four, vote in favor of an item, then you can call the mayor's, that's one of the situations where the mayor is entitled to vote.


Oh, I heard you say that. Okay, I'm going to hold you to that. Okay.


Okay, I'm going to hold you right there. This is a nonsense discussion. Mayor, what say you?


I'm talking, I'm asking him a question. You're talking nonsense. The resolution is adopted 5-3.


Item number 15 is the adoption of resolution 2025-115. Could you please read this for the record?


That's the legal move. Resolution authorizing memorandum of understanding with AFSCME for street or forest reform and temporary assignment as Acting Street Superintendent.


Manager, Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The city superintendent has a significant amount of personal time off due to his years of service. Additionally, his management leadership responsibilities require him to be on call a significant amount of the time due to the nature of his current public works role. To ensure our staff is fully supported and has adequate time off and receives appropriate rest and downtime, staff is requesting that a memorandum of of Understanding be approved by the City Council to allow for additional hourly pay for appointed foreman who takes on added responsibilities, thereby covering this time off.


This MOU pay will be for approved and assigned coverage only. The MOU approval will allow our superintendent to take appropriate time off, ensuring that the quality of their time off by knowing that they have some experienced staff who can handle the calls.


was also allowed for scheduling formal coverage with the foreman in advance of their PTO or weekend off. This increase in pay for the foreman will only be for the added responsibility as actual work time assigned during approved time off by the superintendent. This arrangement is similar to the MOU that was proposed for the water main break assignments in the utility.


The MOU will provide $5 an hour increase in the appointed foreman hourly pay as approved only on hours of coverage that are physically worked and logged in the absence of the superintendent during time off and recommendation to move forward with this $5 an hour increase to the foreman to cover for the street superintendent's time off.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the Resolution. Alderman Stacy?


I don't understand how we can continue to move forward with increases when we're still waiting on a contract that's been not in action for three or four months. The ASME union continue to wait for a contract and we continue to want to make increases everywhere but with them.


Manager Boyer. What do you mean by three or four months? you tell me no I don't know I don't know what you meant by that what was their contract up when did their contract in their contract is still in place and we're negotiating yes it's in place now until I believe you said something to the however but when did it in and and you were not prepared to move forward with it but you're prepared you're prepared to move forward with increases where you and I, and I'm going to say that we do want increases. Let's be fair across the board. They deserve a fair contract. Let's make it happen.


This is providing an additional wages to a street superintendent to cover in between time. We've already discussed it with the union. It is acceptable to the unions and I will have our street superintendent time off and make sure that he gets to sign his duties during the time that he has weekend off.


And what about our 9-1-1 people working 12 hour days? This has nothing to do with that.


I know it has nothing to do with it because we don't want to discuss that.


It's a different topic. And it's a topic that will never make the agenda because you're not going to put it on.


Ask me negotiations is not going to be on the council floor. No, it will not but I'm just saying get them a contract Let's stay on task here. Is there any questions? Yep. Let's stay on task Please stop being disruptive Disruptive to me if there's no further discussion Madam Clerk, please take the role. Sanders No, Clem. Aye. Johnson. Aye.


Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. The motion, the adoption, the resolution is adapted five to two. I'm sorry. Item number 16 is the adoption of resolution 2025-116. Could you please read this? Resolution approving an airport management agreement with Freeport Aviation for Albertus Airport. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. The city issued a request for quote or RFP F.Q. for the fixed-base operator airport manager contract for Albertus Airport on August 11th, 2025. Initial meetings were held with four prospective applicants and three applicants submitted applications by the September 2nd deadline. The applications were opened on September 4th at City Hall and reviewed, opening by myself, the Mayor, Alderman Sellers, the Public Works Director, Darren Steekle, City Clerk, Dovie Anderson, and Attorney, Steve Cox were present.


I am pleased to notify that all three applications received were excellent and all of them represented well qualified applicants.


The lowest of the three responsible applicants was Jeff Monica Freeport, Illinois at $157,500 per year.


I am recommending the City Council authorize the negotiation and execution of an operator and John.


I am looking at the contract and it says that the operator, airport operator should keep regular post- order contract in the form set forth in the RFQ with Jeff Modica and according to the terms set forth in his response to the RFQ.


Is there a motion to adopt? Co, John, and David, and I want to start with the question of how do you cover the hours during the business hours?


How do you cover those hours? Thank you. Alderman Stacy? Yes. Who's going to run the airport when this person is at his other job and what terms was this negotiated under? And is the contract for a year or 19 I'll try to answer that. The operator is responsible to cover the hours that were specified in the agreement. So whether it's them sitting there or they have their alternate there.


What does that mean? An alternate? We've never had an alternate before. Could you please allow him to finish the question? I'm just asking what is an alternate?


Would you like me to finish the questions or go back to the alternate? question okay so that I understand would you please remind me of the last question yeah it is automatically renewed each year unless either the operator or the city is interested to open the contract and renegotiate it in which it will be a new request for quote be sent out in a similar fashion as this and Chris.


and at the hour stated by him or an alternate. So what's an alternate? We've never had an alternate before.


That's incorrect. We have someone, it is, if there is an employee of the operator that can carry the office hours.


But the employee of the operator is not who got interviewed for the position. You know, I just think it's sad that This lady that spoke to us tonight, for 28 years, you know this is her life, this is her livelihood, for 28 years she has ran that airport and there is nobody in Miles that can touch her, they're not equipped, they don't know what they're doing because they haven't done it and shame on you to take and not even consider her for this position.


Manager Boyer. I will say that the current operator has been operating the airport for five years.


And this was an open process that accepted three qualified statements or quotes. The quotes were opened with a panel who reviewed them all the lowest quote was the one that was recommended for council to move forward with.


Alderman Sanders? Yeah. This resolution that is being brought into our focus at this time, who is drafting this authorization of this resolution and how do we even come to the decision of establishing whether or not we should move forward with this resolution in terms of who introduced this resolution.


I mean, who gives the authorization to move on an issue of this magnitude when it comes to contracts and things like that?


I thought this was something that the council should be creating this type of resolution.


it's not, it shouldn't be the City Manager who's creating this resolution of hiring and firing someone that's dealing with the contract.


I mean just automatically spell out, had not spelled out the terms and things of this nature far as renewal and there's someone currently working there already and I feel that if council has not intervened in terms of the drafting of this resolution.


I think this thing should be dismissed, thrown in the garbage until we come up with the right protocol on how we're going to conduct contracts with any management organization and system that we should be totally informed about it.


and I feel that that is where we are at right now. We're not in a position to be doing resolution with the improper authorization of this particular resolution. And I feel that everyone here in council should really take a good look at this and see what is causing friction within in the city and eliminating a manager, a superintendent out at the airport, eliminating that job and opening it up for others to come in and look at that job without any scrutiny.


I don't feel we should be conducting this type of thing and I think council has the to let us say so when it comes to the resolution of authorizing any memorandum, and I'm just saying that should be the procedure, unless you show me something else in writing that does not give the council the authorization to dismiss something that we have not even considered to authorize for a contract.


So I think the council, not no administrative heads or city manager, mayor or attorney Zito or anyone like that injecting or imposing anything on this particular resolution matter.


And I think this should come directly from the intelligent minds that sits here in our council to look at the overall picture of what we might be voting for unless we should and others.


So, I think we should be dismissing this and coming back to it at another time so we can make sure that what we're accepting here is properly set, right, or we got the proper provisions to allow such an authorization to go through.


I don't even think we should be even entertaining this matter at this time. So let us re-evaluate ourselves and look at this thing real strong.


Your four minutes has expired, Alderman Sanders. Can I adopt another minute? No. And no one's fired.


Every contract has an end date. Are you making a comment, Mayor? I can. You can?


Would you please stop interrupting? Every contract has an end date. This is just an end date where, Alderman Sanders, please stop.


Attorney Zito. Just for clarification, this contract is being presented to you, the council, to vote on.


You can vote yes or no on it. You guys have the final say on whether or not to approve who the City Manager is recommending.


It's just a recommendation. the Council has the final say on it. And that's what's before you guys tonight.


And if you read the memo, it says that all three were qualified, the chosen with lowest amount.


We're gonna see. Well, unless there's any further discussion. I want my second. You would like your second?


Yeah, I like my second. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, Attorney Zito, you failed to mention the fact that The City Manager has the authority to place items on the agenda.


Well, we didn't see that in the memo. There was no memo drafted on that matter.


Because we have to go through the same protocol. That is an authority that the City Manager has to, I mean, all these other items are are on the agenda that the City Manager put on the agenda.


Is there any other discussion on the resolution? Whether it's the right protocol or not is one of them.


You should probably have a better understanding. Yeah. If there's nothing further, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?


Sanders? No. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No. Parker? No. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. We have three in favor, four against. The resolution is not adopted. It fails.


Please withhold. Such inappropriate tonight. It boggles my mind. Let's try to remain professional. Item number 17 is approval of a bid. Could you please read this?


We had a bid opening on September 10th, 2025. Sewer lining for 2025. Manager, Boyer.


The city of Freeport has nearly 130 miles of sanitary sewer during the annual project evaluation, cure and place lining.


Locations are identified for rehab of the sanitary sewer piping that has cracks and defects, inflow and infiltration, or sags or settlement.


Our IEPA mandatory CMOM, that's the Sewer Capacity Management Plan, of course, specify that the Freeport addresses annual sewer rehabilitations for our collection system, mainline piping for environmental concerns.


Sewer lining is considered an industry accepted method of sewer main pipe rehabilitation and is more economical than open cut excavation methods.


Sewer lining is over 10 times cheaper to install and industry standards estimate over 60 years of Sustainable Useful Life After Installation.


On September 10th, 2025, Fehr Graham and city staff had a public bid for 10,813 linear feet of sanitary sewer lining.


These sewer areas are identified as areas of street replacement. The city has four reputable bidders that specialize in sewer lining and submitted bids.


National Power Rotting was the low bidder at $419,763. Under the Engineering Estimate, I might add. With approval, the installation should be completed by February 2026, and staff has budgeted this in the sewer budget. Staff recommends moving forward with that National Power Riding with the lowest responsive bid.


Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Do we have a second? So moved.


The motion is made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the bid.


Alderman Sanders. Is there anybody else? Alderman Sanders. Oh, okay. Manager Boyer, we had this conversation before, I believe, and we talked on some of the things that would take place to make sure that the residents are aware of the construction work that is going to take place.


Will any of this interfere with their service as these guys begin to do their project lining program and everything?


Will anything disrupt their service in the process of you guys taking care of those linings?


and John. And you guys are doing what we call a video taping of each line before we do an installation that we can make sure that this is the appropriate thing to be doing for this particular area.


I don't know how extensive our televising program is, and so I couldn't, I really can't make an observation to determine what it that is going on in that field, but I suspect you guys would keep us informed about the conditions of these lines and why we're investing into these projects.


Yes, that's correct. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Sanders? Oh, yes.


Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Parker, Stacey, and Shadle. The motion passes 6-7 to 0. Item number 18, would you please read this discussion? Discussion regarding awarding contracts to a dissolved business entity, Alderman Simmons, I'll try to get through this as quickly as possible.


Pursuant to my responsibilities as a duty, duly elected all the person I am formally requesting that the following might be placed on the agenda, which was just read by City Clerk Anderson, considering consideration and discussion regarding the city procurement practices in relation to the awarding of contracts to a business entity that was involuntarily dissolved by the Illinois Secretary of State in June 2025 it has come to my attention that a business whose corporate status was involuntarily dissolved under 805 ILCS 512.40 of the Illinois Business Corporation Act continues to be awarded bids and contracts for city projects and other entities without good corporate standing and discuss whether policy or procedural updates are necessary to ensure future compliance with applicable laws and protection of taxpayer funds.


I respectfully request that this, oh, we don't need to do that, it's already on here.


Thank you though. I would just like to read 805 ILCS 5-1240 of the Illinois Business Corporation Act outlines the procedure for the administrative dissolution of a corporation by the Secretary of State for failing to correct a default, such as failure to maintain a registered office or file required document.


The secretary first sends a notice of delinquency to the corporation. If the default is not corrected within 90 days, For most defaults, 30 days for certain others, the secretary issues a certificate of dissolution, formally dissolving the corporation.


And that's what has happened here with Albert and Son Earthworks LLC. and if you go back in August the 18th meeting they were awarded these demos however I believe it was June the 13th 2025 they were already in an involuntary dissolved situation.


and John. They're not even listed as a company currently. And 90 days before that would have taken it three more months back. So we're probably looking at them not having a license are being affiliated in the state as a company back into March. However, we just gave them jobs totally almost a quarter million and they're not even registered in good standing.


How does that happen? You know, we send out for these bids and we're supposed to trust and the other. We can't trust what you're bringing us. And time and time again, we're finding that we can't trust what you're bringing us. Because this should not be. This should not be coming to us if you're not in good standing.


April, May, June, July, August is when you were granted these and whoever chose this, I know it was the lower bid, but who's looking at the people that's bidding for these jobs and why didn't you know that they were not adequately a business with the state?


All of that is false. Go ahead, Director. No. See, this is what I talk about. You're telling me don't be disrespectful to you, but you, this is the third time. And you are putting out information that is not true. This is the third time you have. You are putting out information that is not true. No, it's not. I have it all right here. Please. Director Duckman, would you like to address those? No, I understand. I think that it's certainly something. I can see that you're upset. I understand. I'm not trying to talk. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I'm I'm just saying, she's telling me I'm rude and I'm interrupted and don't, but then she have fronted me three times tonight.


All right. Go ahead Wayne. I was just going to say, let's start back with what we're talking about here and I'll start with a simple explanation as I can, and then I'll get into more of the details of the contract, etc.


We're talking about here is when you have a company corporation the state of Illinois requires you to file the fee I do it every year I have a company and I believe it's right around seventy two dollars for corporation you file some paperwork it's usually about a page and every year you're required to file as a corporation in the state of Illinois that that's that's a rule so what we're We're talking about here is that Albert & Son, it has to do with when they filed their paperwork, I have been in contact with Albert & Son on this matter, they have, they have filed their paperwork, I've seen the receipts, I have them, I mean, I have no reason to be dishonest about that, they have filed their paperwork, my understanding is they filed their paperwork late, which is probably why is showing up as an involuntary dissolved organization.


So if you file, I believe the deadline is August 1st, again, there's different types of corporations.


When I filed my corporation in the state of Illinois, the deadline was August 1st.


So if you don't file on August 2nd, you're going to be involuntarily dissolved by the state of Illinois.


The state of Illinois will let you file your paperwork late, but until you do file that Thomas.


Obviously, staff does everything they can to understand and to find any misuse of if somebody doesn't follow state or federal law.


They're obviously long, there's many rules, but when we know about it, we will address it, which is why I had been in contact with Albert & Son to figure out what's the issue here.


The remedy is when staff becomes aware of an issue, they have the right to bring it and back to counsel to terminate the contract.


We are now aware of the issue. Alderman's son has filed the paperwork. They've showed me the receipts.


I've seen the receipts. And now the next step would be counsel can either say, there was an issue.