Good evening, Pastor Justin, could you please give the invocation?
Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council. Thank you for your work, for your planning, and your hard work for all of us here in the city.
Would you please allow me to pray for you tonight?
Lord, you alone are the source of all wisdom. As you are the only wise God, it is your purpose that prevails.
You have given us the capacity for knowledge and understanding and for wisdom as you've created us and so it is the glory of these men and women who serve in these places of authority and leadership to seek out wisdom, to seek your wisdom and indeed we confess that we have no wisdom except from your hand.
So, Lord, as these leaders have desires for themselves and plans for this city and for all of us as citizens, help them make wise plans, just plans.
May they not be plans that bring harm or that waste the resources that you give us.
Help each one to do their part, to carry out good plans with care and persistence, even when it's difficult,
even when they are frustrated and weary even when they meet opposition help them
to do their work and manage their lives with integrity and honor with humility
and love and as they do all this may they find joy in their work that you've
given them to do and Lord you have made us for joy and for wisdom may we seek it
and you alone. We pray in the name of Christ your son. Amen. Thank you. Now Madam Clerk we'll call this meeting to order. Could you please call the roll? Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Johnson? Here. Simmons is absent and Parker is absent. Stacy? Here. Shadle? Here. Sanders? Here. And Sellers? Here. I would entertain a motion to allow Alderman Parker to attend
Smootley. So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on that?
Stacy? Yes. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? On remote attendance by Don Parker? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. So I have five in favor and one not. The motion does pass though. If you could all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman
oh wait do you need to call roll again for Alderman Parker are you good call roll
attorneys for Zito or just oh yes Alderperson Parker can you hear us
Alderman Parker, could you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance please?
Yes, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation, under God, with legions of flag, with liberty in the United States of America.
Item number one is the approval of the agenda. However, we're going to add one right after the Certificate of Recognition and Public Comment
and
to be a recognition from John Cabello
for the Illinois State Division
of American Water Works Association Gold Level.
If that would be approved,
is there such a motion to approve the agenda?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle,
seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?
Parker.
Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, and Johnson. The motion passes seven to zero. Item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on June 16th, 2025 and July 7th, 2025. Is there a motion to approve?
Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, Motion passes 5 to 2.
I'm the first one they call tonight.
And then item number three is Certificate of Recognition,
Chief Shenberger.
I'm the first one they call tonight.
And item number three is Certificate of Recognition,
Shenberger.
Thanks, everybody, for being here tonight.
So at the beginning of the year, the Illinois Association
of Chiefs of Police requested any submission
for awards. They have a variety of awards. I submitted awards for three different officers.
One of them got an honorable mention. However, Detective Holden, he received, he just received the nomination for a Certificate of Recognition.
And it's for his efforts for combating gun violence in the city report. And that was for the year of 2024.
Last year, he was up here, we recognized him for seizing his 100th illegally possessed gun, but this was an award that was given to him just to recognize his efforts for the 2020 award.
So, I'll just summarize what I wrote, which led him to seizing this award, which is a really prestigious award, not too many have given out, but it's throughout the entire state.
Detective Justice Holden has been a police officer with the Precourt Police Department for seven years.
In 2021, Detective Holden served in a gang unit where he displayed a passion for utilizing technological resources and confidential sources of information to develop cases involving illegally possessed firearms and narcotics.
Detective Holden has a vast knowledge of local hybrid gangs and other individuals who plague our city with incidents of gun violence.
In 2023, Detective Holden became the department's first-again detective, and his main role was to proactively target those who engaged in crimes related to gun violence.
In 2024, Detective Holden was responsible for receiving a total of 26 firearms during criminal investigations.
The list of firearms included four shotguns, three rifles, and 19 handguns.
Detective Holden was recognized in 2024 for receiving 100 illegally possessed firearms.
Detective Bolton has a great working relationship with the State's Attorney's Office that has addressed and ended successful prosecution of the defendants.
Detective Bolton sincerely cares about the community he serves and plays a major role in fulfilling the Department's mission to provide a safe living and working environment to the citizens of this report.
So just a few weeks ago I was notified that he won this award and it's very fitting for him. As you can see the way he's dressed today.
This is day off, but I remember he came in, had some information, and took care of some business out there today, so I sincerely appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. Madam Clerk, could you please make note that 608 Alderman Simmons is now present?
and then the next item would be just wanted to acknowledge John Cabello with his letter
that he sent to the city today and read that for into the record.
Dear City of Freeport officials, I'm extending my heartfelt congratulations to the City of
Freeport.
I'm being recognized by the Illinois Section American Water Works Association as a gold
level water ambassador community.
This achievement is a testament to your commitment to sustainability, efficiency and the well-being
of our community, providing safe, clean, and reliable care to all of our residents.
and the dedication of each member of the City of Freeport's team.
May this achievement inspire continued success, innovation and excellence in the vital work
that you do.
Once again, congratulations on this remarkable accomplishment.
Best regards, John M. Cabello, Assistant Minority Leader, State Representative of the 90th District.
Next will be public comment.
and we just have one signed in, David Artman.
Thank you.
I don't know how I follow that police officer.
That's awesome.
That's very cool.
I just wanted to be a face for you guys tonight.
Item number 11 tonight that you'll be voting on
has to do with a sign for my business on my garage.
I've had my business for seven years.
I love my business.
I love this city.
The sign is what helps people be able to find
which garage in a residential neighborhood
they need to bring their dog to.
So I just hope that you guys can help me
make sure that we're in compliance.
We came with an agreement at the meeting last Thursday
of what size we could make it just a little bit bigger
to be able to see from the street.
So thank you guys all so much for everything you do.
Thank you.
and
the
City Council.
Okay. Item number five is the Consent Agenda. The Consent Agenda is
considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless a member of
Council would like to have something removed. The Consent Agenda consists of
approving to receive and place on file the Board and Commission minutes from the
Library Board of Trustees April 9th, May 14th and June 11th, the Liquor
and others.
The financial and cash and investment reports for May 2025, the semiannual report from
the Liquor Commission to the City Manager January to June 2025, the finance bills payable
in the total of $4,356,129.25, and the approval of payroll for pay period ending July 12,
and Thomas, and the total of $678,388.40. Is there a motion to approve?
So moved. Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker? Aye.
Stacy? Aye.
Shadle? Aye.
Sanders, Sellers, Aye, Klemm, Aye, Johnson, Aye, and Simmons.
The motion passes seven to one.
Item number six is the second reading of ordinance twenty twenty five forty two.
Could you please read this ordinance authorizing the city manager
to execute Alberta's airport airplane hangar leases administratively?
Alderman Clem and Shadle.
What does that look like?
I just want to reiterate that we spoke about last meeting at the first reading that we have
gone through and drafted a new lease that's a standard for all the hangers and we have
an ordinance in place for the amount that the leases are to be rented for so I feel
Do you feel like there's really no reason to bring them to us when there's standards set
for City Manager to follow as far as price and written lease that this would be a lot
more efficient if he would just sign the leases on behalf of the City and we could not clutter
and
Public Works, it goes through the Airport Manager and it goes through the City Manager.
So I don't believe there's any reason to come to us and when I was on the Council before
for 18 years, we never did it, so.
Any discussion?
Alderman Stacey.
I just want to incinerate that I want to make sure I understand that if at any time changes
are made to the agreed contract, whether it be wording, locks, doors, roof, floors, water,
Etc. All changes will be first brought back to the Council for approval before any changes
to the approved contract can be made.
Are you asking me?
Yes.
Yes, the answer is yes.
Any other discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Parker?
I'll come back to him. Stacy? Yes. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye.
and one last time Alderperson Parker how do you vote I can't hear I am so sorry
thank you it passes eight to zero second reading of ordinance 2025 43 could you
please read this ordinance amending part eight business regulation and tax code
Title for taxation to add chapter 897 for the purpose of implementing a 1%
municipal grocery retailers occupation tax and a municipal grocery service
occupation tax. Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. As previously
discussed, the state has decided to forego collecting or distributing the
grocery tax, however has provided for opportunities for communities to
reinstate that under their own municipal authority. Currently we receive between
between $750,000 and $800,000 per year.
And following up on a previous request,
how many communities in Illinois have already
passed this local grocery tax?
And that would be 371 communities in Illinois
have already passed it.
So staff recommends moving forward
with the 1% grocery tax.
Thank you.
Discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Absolutely not. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No.
The Ordinance passes, 5 to 3.
Item number 8 is the first reading of Ordinance 20-25-44.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Chapter 460, Section 460.16, Written Permits Required for Overweight Vehicles
of the City of Freeport's Code of Ordinances.
Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The issue of overweight and oversized permitting was discussed. Staff is requesting some changes to Section 460.11. That section title is Overweight and Oversized Vehicles. We want to create the Overweight and Oversized City of Freeport Permit Form permitting required inside city limits no matter what roads are being used.
Also adding 625 ILCS 5-15301 for reference, and that's to create an oversized and overweight fee schedule, including $150 for individual one-time permits, $1,200 for annual permits, and a $500 penalty for non-compliance with the permits, and staff recommends moving forward with ordinance changes for 460.11
for 460.11. Sir, motion to move this forward. So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Stacey. I would like to know that this will affect all involved and not some and that everybody will be treated
and
Darren
Yes, everybody the trucks within the city limits will be treated the same.
There are exemptions which are stated in the section 625.
So buses are exempt, garbage trucks are exempt, towing within the city limits would be exempt.
But you know, like excavator contractors, those type things, trucking would be exempt
if they're underweight.
So this is for trucks that are severely overweight, over 80,000 lbs.
So regular trucking companies that are running legal loads within the cities this would not
pertain to.
Alderman, Sanders.
Yeah, I'd like to see us insert some kind of guardrails for this type of procedures
and others.
I'm just making sure that the ordinances are followed up and monitored and the proceeds
that are recouped or established from this and what department head is going to be covering
these areas and monitoring everything to make sure that, like you guys are just talking
about being fair and at some exempt because of and the fairness of the waiting, the waits
and who gets, you know, a pathway to come through the city and whatever case that might
be.
Yeah, I'll answer that.
It's all within the ordinance and it's all outlined in that state statute, Illinois 625,
so it's fair to all people.
I did research with other communities.
The way our permit process will work is
permits will be reviewed.
The Public Works Administrator will issue invoices,
collect those fees, and our permit fees
always go back to the general fund.
That's where all those fees are returned to.
It does not come back to any department in general.
Our right-of-way permits are the same way.
So who's gonna be monitoring the whole process?
So there's three people involved in the process.
the person that issues the permit,
the person that issues the invoice,
and then in the finance department,
I think Caitlin cross-references to make sure
that all the invoices that are sent out are paid
and with overweight, oversized permits,
they can't move the load without it.
Okay, thank you.
Stacy.
Who will be like stopping these trucks?
So it'll be Public Works and or the police.
So as I explained at the last meeting that we discussed this, I believe it was the COW,
the reason we found out some of this was happening is there was an accident with an overload and
overweight permittee.
So we were called in to help by the police and then we asked them for their paperwork
and realized that they were severely overweight and found out the state was actually sending
them on city roads.
and now those permits tell these people that they have to get local permits in order to run them but they didn't and so we we've kind of been monitoring that traffic so we get I mean we I wouldn't say this is going to apply a ton to trucks that come through but if anybody ever sees we get a lot of generators through here a lot of windmill companies and we're going to send a notice out to them that we now have a an overweight and oversized permit fee most of these companies will be doing it annually in a
and the memo, the permits are made per vehicle license plate.
So you only get, you know, for the 1200 bucks,
you'll only get one truck that you can move
for the annual fee.
So if you have two trucks, you'll have to get two.
So each company will have to make a decision based
on how much they're moving through Freeport.
Very good, very good.
Oh, I should say too, because I see this question coming.
Farmers are exempt as well.
there's no further discussion move on to item number nine which is the first
well hold it what you I noticed you said farmers are exempt but we know farmers
carry large capacities so an overweighted problem right there for the
Illinois State statute mm-hmm 625 farmers are exempt during field seasons oh okay
First reading of Ordinance 2025-45. Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending the zoning classification of property commonly known as 226 East Stephenson Street from B12, General Retail Business, to B21, Limited Service Business.
Thank you, Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So I'll start off with just a picture here.
Everybody probably recognizes this is the Smith building.
And essentially what we have going on here, I put an arrow right here.
This is where the proposed yoga studio is going to be.
I'm sorry, it's a Pilates and Bar studio, not yoga.
It's Pilates and Bar.
and Bar. But essentially there's a ploddy studio that's going to go into this
location here and this is the Smith's Smith building and the actual physical
address here is two to six East Stevenson and so in order to do so in
this space they have to are the way our ordinances are currently written they
have to go from a B1 zoning district to a B2 zoning district and that's why
and the St. Louis Dormitory.
This was brought to staff, and we brought it to the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 10th, and it was recommended for approval by a vote of 4-0, with no abstentions, zero abstentions.
And on July 10th, it also was recommended by our planning commission by a vote of 7-0 with zero abstentions.
Staff is recommending a suspension of the rules on this and also moving it forward.
Is there a motion to move this forward?
So moved. Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion on the ordinance.
On the ordinance, I just want to know why would they, why do they want a suspension of the rules?
They want to get their business started and get going and I mean certainly if you didn't think it prudent they could do that but I think that's their main thought there and I would just say that there's no comment from the public otherwise there's no complaints or negative comments either.
How many?
Are they meeting the standards?
Yes, they met the standards for a special use and for what they're asking for here, yes.
Okay, so I was on, I'm curious about the suspension as well.
Sure.
And if there's anything that is trying to be omitted from the policy and the practice,
I just wanted to see if that was giving us clarity.
Understood, understood.
Manager Boyer.
Your Honor, I think with this one and the other ones tonight, this is all about trying to be business friendly, so trying to be responsive to businesses instead of taking as much time as possible to pass it. These are pretty small and narrow, and I think we could probably make an informed decision pretty easily, but I just wanted to point out that it's basically so we could be business friendly. Yeah, well, that's what the Council want, business friendly, and we, and far as you're making that remark or that comment, we don't have to be
and I, and I'm here to say that we're committed to see what is going on. We can see what's happening and we can surprise what you're coming with and what you're talking about.
And so we know how valuable that businesses are to come to the City of Freeport. We know that. And so we're not trying to impede upon it.
We're just trying to understand and making sure everything is above board and there's clarity with it. That's all it is.
Alderman, Alderman, Celaway, Municipality Assistant, также non roughly Association, Tourist & Community, Tortor,
St., already operating. There's another one that's operating today and that's, they're
going to do another special use. So there's at least, at least three in that area. This
would be the third in that area. And to be honest with you, I think that everybody here
would want more if we know that public health is a big concern, not just for our area, the
region, and our country. So I think the more health studios, the more that people see a
need in our community and that they can support it, I think it's a good thing. It's a positive
F. Thank you. If there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules.
Motion to suspend the rules. So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by
Alderman Shadle for suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules is
non-debatable and must pass by two-thirds majority. Madam Clerk, could you please
take the role in the suspension? Parker.
Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons. The suspension passes
eight to zero. So then before you now is the for the final passage of this
ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the
Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons. The ordinance passes 7 to 1.
Johnson, Item Number 10 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-46.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending the zoning classification of property commonly known as 105 through
107 West Main Street from B12 General Retail Business to B21 Limited Business.
Thank you, Director Duckman.
Thank you Madam Mayor and Director Subban if you wouldn't mind scrolling or I might be able to scroll a little bit here at least to the map give people an idea of where we're at here okay okay similar situation here this is a request for a zoning map
Duff, from B1 to B2. And again, this is a, I had referenced this earlier. This is for
a dojo for a martial arts studio. The only difference here is what has brought us to this
point is this studio is already operating and the community had contacted us and said,
it asked the person starting this business if they had gotten their proper permits from
and the City. They came to us and we informed them that they would need to be go through this zoning process. So right now, yes, they currently are in violation and we are council has the ultimate decision on whether to let them continue to run their business or ultimately not. So full disclosure there. That's why we are at this point. This is Main Street here. This is the hotel here gives you an idea. And earlier I had
and I have a nice picture if we scroll up you can kind of see the storefront for the actual building that it would be going into.
So, this is official address is 105107 West Main Street. This is a situation where other petitioners requesting to go from a B1 to B2 business district.
and on July 10th, we had a Zoning Board of Appeals and they recommended approval by a vote of 4-0 with zero abstentions.
Again, on July 10th, there was a Planning Commission meeting that was recommended by a vote of 7-0 with zero abstentions.
Staff is recommending, in line with our Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission, we're recommending approval of this zoning map amendments and also suspensions of the rules with the understanding that they are already operating.
Is there a motion to move this ordinance forward?
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on this ordinance, Alderman Sellers?
Yes, I'd like to know because that building was a yoga studio at one time, so why is it, they have to go through all this now?
My guess is they probably, my guess is they probably got, I mean, for lack of a better word, they got away with it.
I think that their neighbors told the current person you need to get permitting. So the person running the
Dojo or the, you know, martial arts studio had came to us and said, you know, hey, before I open,
I probably should come here and get the proper certificate of occupancy zoning regulations. So
So, that for lack of a better understand, you know, lack of a better word, they kind of got away with it. They were running it when they shouldn't have.
Now we caught them.
Alderman Sanders?
Yeah, so, wow, I'm listening to you say that, man. It's like, how many other occupants around here, staging businesses that we're not aware of, and whether or not are we, are you guys, your staff, considering to let this advance, to let this go through with the process?
Например, Just Papers,га warned us to have proper paperwork certifications and permits I mean that's that's why we're here we knew the business was operating started
before it should it's been I believe operating since probably May It's been a couple months they admitted they were you know they ask for forgiveness instead of
and you know this is part of the process. They have to be approved for their zoning in order
to operate here. So we're holding them to what they're responsible for. Very good, very
good. Appreciate that. Alderman Stacy? Is there a fee for them being in violation? Yes, their
fee is $200. It's $200 for a special use permit or for the zoning map amendment. I'm double
I mean for them being in violation because they would have to pay the $200 zoning difference anyway, correct?
We can instill, you know, I could certainly investigate adding another violation.
Typically in these situations we give somebody a warning and if they, you know, we contact them and we say, hey, you're in violation.
and then if they they usually have a timeline I think we gave Mr. Garvin's
who runs this studio I believe he gave him 30 days you know when he came to us
he said hey you've got to get this moving you've got to show some progress
or else we'll move on with the actual violation ultimately the city wants
compliance we're not trying to and this goes for anybody operating a business
it's usually the same process we issue a violation and say you've got 30 days to
come into compliance and if they you know kind of that 30 days lapses then we
would follow up with fines so I don't think it's prudent but I think the
property owner came to us worked with us knew they were in violation and I think
then they paid the the fees to get to do this map amendment so they're working
with us to get into compliance I don't see a reason to add additional fines in
of course they're gonna work with you because they want their business there I wish but the citizens worked with me more is or as much as you think they do many of them and I know other people and the staff will tell you they just not not as many as you think will respond to you when you tell them to turn in paperwork issue you don't do an application many of them will just wait until the fines come what's gonna stop the next person
for doing the same thing, and then ask for forgiveness.
Well, then it would be the same process.
30-day notice to come to us, do your proper paperwork,
and then after those 30 days would lapse,
then we would issue a violation.
They would come to an admin hearing,
and the hearing officer wouldn't ultimately make a decision.
Because they exceeded their 30 days.
This person has been working with us the entire time.
I would say I think anybody wants somebody to work faster.
But they've been cooperating with the city.
This person has been cooperating with the city.
Alderman Sellers.
I think I really think that they thought,
because that was a yoga studio at one time,
I think they thought that it was just proper
and they could just go in and do it until the neighbors said
something.
I think that's what their problem was. I think they just didn't know, have the knowledge of knowing that they couldn't just go in and do that type of business there.
I agree that they were probably confused and the staff is trying to, you know, this is evidence that we're trying to work with them, they're working with us and we're trying to move towards a positive outcome here.
Madam Mayor. Alderman Klemm. Motion to suspend the rules. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle for suspension of the rules. Again, suspension of the rules is non-debatable. It must pass by two-thirds majority. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll on the suspension?
Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Plum, Johnson, Simmons
The motion passes for suspension 7-1
So then, Before You Council is the final passage of Ordinance 2025-46.
Any further discussion?
Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? No. And Simmons? No. The ordinance passes 6-2 And item number 11 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-47. Could you please read this?
Ordinance granting a variance from the requirements of Section 1240.0668 regarding signs associated with home occupations to exceed one square foot in area and residential districts for 1625 South Locust Avenue.
Thank you, Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So as promised in public comment, we are now at the request of a variation and what you have before you here, this is a home occupation business where somebody lives in their home and they're allowed to run what is known as a home occupation business when they live in the residence.
This is a dog grooming business and this is the size of the sign that they have on their garage.
The reason they're in for a variation is that they're allowed a one square foot sign and this sign is larger this sign is going to be 12 it would be a set it would be a six foot by two foot sign so that would be a 12 square foot so that's what you can see there on this garage and as such we that this sign was brought this
was brought to our attention and staff had talked with the property owner we had
one call about this which has initiated this process for the request for a
variation when the property owner was notified of the situation we spoke to
them and told them that if they wanted to keep the sign they would need to
receive a variation to do so otherwise if this does not pass today the person
Operating this Home Occupation Business would have to remove this sign. So that's essentially in a nutshell what we are talking about today.
And so this, to get to it, on July 10th, the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend approval by a vote of four to zero with zero abstentions and also on
July 10th our Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of seven
to zero was zero abstentions at the hearing we did not receive any comment
positive or negative no one made comment about it in the neighborhood so we did
not receive any public comment on it the only public comment we had was the was
one phone call regarding this matter so that being said staff is recommending
approval of this variation the it has also been requested to suspend the rules
to allow them to continue to keep their sign up. Is there a motion to move this
forward? So move. Second. Motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman
Shadle. Discussion on the ordinance? Madam Mayor. Alderman Klemm. Motion to
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle for suspension of the rules. Again, two-thirds majority and non-debatable. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll on the suspension?
Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons.
the suspension passes seven to zero so then before you is before the final
passage of this ordinance if there's no further discussion Madam Clerk please
take the role
Stacy aye Shadle Sanders Sellers aye Klemm aye Johnson aye and Simmons also
Alderperson Parker are you prepared to vote
We have plenty. The motion passes seven to zero. Item number 12 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-48. Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Chapter 1252 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport Concerning Physical Culture Centers.
Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So what's a little background here,
obviously there has been an uptick in the number of what are known as physical
culture centers which is essentially a gym, a yoga studio, pilates studio, martial
arts studio. We've seen an uptick as evidenced today in our prior items.
Business owners are wanting to open up basic what are known as physical culture
B-1 to B-2. Staff worked together to kind of basically come up with a plan to allow the land use of a someone operating a gym and essentially in a B-1 district, as opposed to, you know, just limiting it to the B-2, which causes staff to have to bring in the land use of the B-1 to the B-2. So that was the plan.
which causes staff to have to bring in zoning changes, zoning map amendments, every time somebody would want to open a gym in the B-1 zoning district.
A couple notes here, even when you change zoning, it doesn't change the fact that the business is subject to an inspection for certificate of occupancy to make sure they have the proper bathrooms, proper access, the buildings up to code.
Essentially what this is allowing, it's staff making observations that our B1
zoning district is limiting a use that fits in the B1 zoning district and is
popular. You know not every gym is going to have a hundred exercise bicycles and
you know free weights etc. It's not always going to be an LA gym or something
along those lines. Some gyms are going to be simply a Pilate studio where five
people show up or it might just be a dojo with ten people. And if it sets your mind
at ease, anytime you have a business, whether it be a gym, a restaurant, any
business, our inspector and fire marshal look at it and set occupancy limits
regardless of the zoning. So this matter was brought to the Planning Commission
on July 10th and it was unanimous and you passed unanimously with a vote of seven to zero and With that being the case, staff is recommending moving this forward.
Is there a motion to move this forward?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, Mr. Duckman, did they explain to you what kind of facility that this was going to be doing, and what is the nature of it, and not only the nature of it, I know you're calling it a gym, why is it being redefined to some other terminology or some other language,
and is it something that's available to the direct public at large?
Yes, so I think maybe I was a little confused, maybe I just should have been a little more
clear and I apologize for that.
So this is, staff is saying in general we have the B1 Zoning District and then we have
the B2 Zoning District and then if you're in the B1 you're going to have less intense
uses than the B2 Zoning District.
and what staff got together and were talking about was that currently the way it's structured
in our rules is that if you're going to run a gym, exercise facility as a business owner,
you need to be in the B2 zoning district. And we've just had two other businesses come
in and try to open businesses in the B1 that fit nicely in the community and they unfortunately
had to ask for zoning changes and when that happens staff gets together and says
mate you know it might be prudent for us to change our rules to better fit our
community and the needs of our community.
and
We're changing our rules to allow a gym to be opened up by right in the B1 zoning district
as opposed to the B2.
Okay, so what's the difference, the B1 and the B2, is it more space, is it about more
spacing?
It's not, okay.
So typically, yes, and also typically you're going to look, when a community is looking
at zoning, they have their zoning map every year and there's different areas where they're
and all sorts of other things.
So that's the idea.
And so what we're doing is we're trying to make sure that
those businesses are going to have different intensities of
zoning.
And the idea is that you do not want a factory to be in your
residential zoning district.
You don't want maybe a body shop with a lot of equipment in
your, you know, I would say your small main street downtown.
You know, you want certain businesses that fit into the
community.
And the idea is that land uses fit certain places, certain
geographic regions.
I think essentially, if I had to sum this up, our B1 zoning district is common throughout the city.
We have several pockets of B1 zoning districts and what staff is saying is, especially in our downtown, which has B1 zoning in many places,
it would make sense to see that a gym could come in and not have to get a zoning change every time they wanted to open a dojo or a small gym or a small workout facility.
Okay
Thanks Alderman Sellers. Yeah, just want to know with the with the wording of physical culture centers. Does that culture? Does that mean?
I think sometimes
Zoning well, I would say probably all the time zoning is too academic for its own good
They can't just say Jim they have to come up with a fancy word for it
So it's a physical, you know, I'm going to the physical culture center today
Oh, you know, I have to get my swole on I guess or something
Alderman Stacy. So they're wanting to remain a B1. There is no specific person. Staff was trying to be
proactive in not requiring every gym to come in and ask for a zoning change. So but
How do we pick and choose? So now this yoga one that started in May that didn't
whether ask for forgiveness now they're being forced to go to a B2 and pay the
$200 but what if they come back and say well why couldn't we just remain a B1
like they are? I get it and we we actually contacted our legal counsel on
We have to go with what happens at the time of their application, so the rule at the time is that they have to re-change their zoning.
I think staff is looking at that and saying, we could see that coming up in the future, and we don't think it's prudent for every yoga studio or martial arts studio to change their zoning.
I think staff is looking at that and saying, we could see that coming up in the future and we don't think it's prudent for every yoga studio or martial arts studio that would have to pay for a zoning change.
We're trying to fix, staff's trying to fix what we see as an issue.
This is what I speak about when I say treating everybody the same.
Understood.
That's an issue. How some can remain and how some cannot.
Understood.
Alderman Johnson.
Does this only apply to physical culture centers or it doesn't apply to anything else just to that specific entity?
Specifically physical culture centers. We're trying to add that into B1.
to save people in the future from having to pay the 200 to rezone every time. We think that staff believes and we, you know, in Planning Commission, we talked about, we believe that you could run a small athletics facility in a B1, especially since our building and fire code could limit the amount of people or what you could actually do in there.
and Stacey.
Yeah, that's what I wanted to hear.
Oh, and Stacy?
You just said what I wanted to hear.
But the one that we just spoke about prior to this,
they were running their business.
So they could have operated at a B1 level.
You're correct.
And I brought that to, sorry, go ahead.
I'll just say quickly.
I brought it to that matter to counsel, our legal counsel,
and they said, we can make the change,
but anybody who started in the process
is going to have to go through this before we have.
If staff is making the change to help people in the future,
just because I make the change, it
doesn't help the people that are already started in the process.
We're making it difficult, harder than what it is.
That's why it has to be the same across the board.
So then the ones that had to go to B-2, they can stop paying that $200 and remain B-1 or the one that you're saying is a B-1 and don't necessarily have to be a B-2 to run a small gym.
Well, like you said, we have to follow the ordinance where it is today and these ones that are before you that were just passed are according to the ordinance as it stands.
Sands, but he wants to make a better change for in the future.
So that's what this is about, a change for in the future to make it better for business.
It's not aimed at anyone.
It's just trying to be better business friendly.
Okay.
So this one that we're speaking of, the Physical Culture Center, according to the ordinance,
it has to be a B2 right now.
Am I correct?
so why are we even attorney Zito so currently you're right as it's written
right now the code says to be a physical cultural center you have to be in a b2
right and so what staff is noticing is that that's causing a lot of businesses
that are in a b1 to say hey I got to come in for a zoning map amendment every
single time right and that's happened twice just on this agenda it may have
who had to get the zoning map amendment change then or a year ago or two years
ago that did it it doesn't help them that was the rule in the past and it
wasn't perceived to be an issue until you start to get a volume of it and that
causes you to say a community to say hey maybe it doesn't make sense to only
allow gyms in a B2 maybe we should consider allowing them in a B1 also and
that's what this ordinance now this text amendment ordinance is trying to
and
the
Attorney's
Office.
I'm going to ask you to
rectify that situation there.
Okay, Attorney Zito, so if something is changed or written up to say some can be at B1 and
some can be at B2, what's going to determine the difference? The size of the facility,
the number of exercise, the pounds, footage, what?
So zoning is determined by our map.
So you're asking what determines B2 or B1?
It depends on the location?
Yes.
So we have a zoning map that we pass an ordinance for every year.
And when you buy, it should be disclosed to you.
When you're buying property, your agent or whoever you're buying from
should say, or it's public knowledge, too.
You can call the city and ask, what is the zoning on my property?
And there's a map, and it'll show you what the zoning is.
so it doesn't you could have a one acre 500 acre half acre lot it's not really
the size it's determined by the location on a map what is the address of this
number 12 this item doesn't have an address okay see that's the thing this
item doesn't have an address yeah go ahead right so this is a text amendment
this is saying we're gonna change what the standard is that will now apply
by Citywide there.
So again, this isn't about a particular applicant.
This is not about a particular property.
This is saying we as a council are deciding whether or not
in a B1 zoning district,
is it appropriate to allow for gyms there?
We allow them in the B2.
Now we're just saying across the board,
should gyms be allowed in a B1 also?
Not any particular person,
not any particular location or anything.
We're just saying, should gyms be allowed in B1 also?
Okay. Item number 13 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-49. Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Chapter 1252 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport concerning service of alcoholic liquors.
Davis.
Thank you.
of Alcoholic Liquors.
Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So again, staff was working on reviewing
some of our ordinances.
And we came upon the fact that when you're operating a bring
your own liquor, we call it a BYOB liquor license.
The way that our ordinance is currently written
is it says that you are required to get
Special Use when you sell alcohol, not serve alcohol. So what staff worked with
council to say is to make everything fair and equal and when it comes to liquor
licenses is that any establishment that serves not not necessarily serves and
sells but any any location that determines they're going to serve
alcohol which would include your BYOB liquor license they're going to have to
do a special use permit so that is essentially what that is why we brought
this to the Planning Commission to vote on and this was went to our Planning
Commission on July 10th and it was recommended for approval by a vote of
seven to zero was zero abstentions and with that being the case staff is
recommending recommends moving this forward is there a motion to move this
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Johnson to move this ordinance forward. Is there any discussion?
Alderman Stacy?
If I'm not mistaken, we went through this last year.
and there was a person who had a BYOB liquor license and would have these gatherings but
but then she was being treated differently and something extra was being added to her
license.
I'm not aware of that, but I am aware of that there was a change to the incoming, the price
of a liquor license was going up, I believe, for new BYOB licenses, correct, Ms. Clerk
Anderson?
I don't, and then I believe that if somebody was already existing that the price was not
going up for that, the renewal?
We did change the fee structure, the issuance fee was raised which would not have applied
to an existing BYOB and we went more to a tiered level based on the number of events
in the previous year. That's what so last year I know that that to Clerk Anderson's
point we were talking about the licensing fees which is separate than the zoning
ordinance our zoning ordinance essentially would be if somebody wants
to even if you buy let's say if I had a package liquor store and I sold it to I
I sold it to Darren. Darren would have to go get a special use permit, even if it was one day in transaction. It was still open. One day it was Mr. Duckman's, one day it was Mr. Stiegel's.
It's required to get a special use permit for that, as well as a license. So there's two processes there.
what this ordinance is what this text amendment is looking to do is to say well
if I have a BYOB establishment and then Mr. Steekle wants to start a new BYOB
establishment he is also going to have to go through a special use permit and a
licensing liquor licensing application the same way that a same way that a
and a restaurant would.
If you vote no on this, so let's say you're saying this is too restrictive, I don't think
the public should have a chance to weigh in on a establishment allowing people to bring
their own alcohol, that's essentially what a special use permit does is it allows the
public to come in and say, okay, Mr. Duckman's moving in, buying this building and he needs
a special use permit to have alcohol to bring it.
and others.
I would just have to get a liquor license.
The way that this is proposing is to say in addition to or prior to that liquor license
being approved, I would have to go up and ask for a petition for a special use permit.
So that's what we're voting on today.
Okay.
So I have a question.
The ones that currently just have the BYOB, would they then be required?
No, I don't as well, I guess Ms. Anderson wants to check, yeah.
I believe they all went through the process.
We thought we had it buttoned up in the liquor codes and the meeting hall codes and they refer
to each other, but I believe it's just, it's just 12.
It's just one of those zoning areas that it's mostly halls are allowed as a permitted use, and it wasn't clear, it said, as you mentioned before, it said, you serve alcohol, we pointed, we pointed out sell alcohol. And this is really just a pretty simple addition to say serve. And it's not going to change anybody that had or in the future will have a BYOB. It just really clarifies it in zoning.
what we were trying to accomplish through liquor code.
Attorney Zito?
I was just going to ask, because I
think this is where Alderman Stacy was going,
is that procedurally right now, we
require BYOB to go through zoning,
as well as to get a liquor license, right?
From a practical standpoint.
Yes, and they have.
And they have been.
Just this little hole.
The language, right, the language in the code
was written though only said they had to do the the liquor license part so this is
just housekeeping cleaning up the language to match what in practice they've
had to do both processes in real practice get zoning and get their liquor
license but the code the written language only said you got to get the
liquor license so this is just catching up the code to match what's happening in
practice you got to get both zoning and liquor license there's no further
Ordinance Approving Special Use Permit Application at 2600 West Pearl City Road Submitted by Harmony UMC to Examine the Special Use of an R3 One-Family Residence Zone Property to Allow for Solar Energy Systems which Utilize Ground-Mounted PV Arrays per Section 1250.01B20
and
Director Duckman sure and I appreciate that Alderperson Shadle so I guess we'll
just get back since this never hit the floor originally it's good to kind of
just give a refresher for what's actually happening at this location so you see
the church here and this is already installed this is actually their
outbuilding shed essentially and you can see what's highlighted in yellow here is
is the existing panels that they are allowed to install by right because it's on a structure.
So one simple way to remember this is in our residential zoning districts, you're allowed
to build by right, which means you do not need to come to council and ask permission.
You're allowed by right to put solar panels on structures like a roof of a shed or a house
or a church.
brings to council is the fact that the person is asking in a residential zoning
district to put the panels in their back and they're actually it's called ground
mounted which is saying you're going to see like in a solar field or solar farm
like you're used to seeing they're just mounted on poles and you can kind of
just instead instead of being mounted on a roof so they're saying here they're
We're going to do 120 feet from the property line.
They're going to have this set of solar panels
here, which would be screened from their neighbors
by these existing trees.
This side of the road would be screened from the public.
And really, most of it would be screened from people driving
down this direction.
There was a plan where they actually
wanted to put solar panels all in this area.
they wanted to put solar panels in this these areas they essentially wanted to
cover pretty much much of their much of their grass they wanted
I believe that they received, I think the neighbors kind of told them that that that was not going to be liked or appreciated and then they came up with this plan where they still want to add a small section here.
A little more background on this, since this did not go to Council, you know, this never made it to Council before, this was heard on the May 1st, on May 1st by our Zoning Board of Appeals, and it was recommended by a vote of five to zero with zero abstentions. There was, Director Steekle did, was one of the negative comments, one of the people to speak, and therefore as a Planning Commission member did abstain from the voting.
and then also on May 8th the Planning Commission did not recommend approval by a vote of 0 to 6 with one abstention.
It's worth noting that the actual hearing portion comes from the Zoning Board of Appeals, not the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission looks at this type of petition and makes a recommendation,
but the true hearing portion comes from our Zoning Board of Appeals.
So that being said, the Zoning Board of Appeals did recommend approval, the Planning Commission did not, by a vote of 0 to 6, and then, as stated earlier, Director Stiegel abstained.
We also had, at our Planning Commission, we had another member of the public speak out against it.
I would say, probably par for the course or in line, that oftentimes when we have residential,
We have ground mounted solar and residential.
It tends to be a polarizing decision.
Solar is polarizing in this community, I would say,
in general.
So I'm doing my best to give both sides of the story here.
I think that an argument certainly
could be made that the scope of their work is small
and that in this situation, you can
see what they're asking for this small area.
I think it makes sense in this situation to allow them to do it with with the
restriction that they follow the plan as attached so move the motion made by
and Stacey.
I don't know why it's here.
I thought you said by law they don't have to come to us for where they're wanting to
put it now.
I'll make, I'll restate that and try to be a little more clear.
See this, see this white outline here?
and there's a shot see the shadow yes that is a shed or an outbuilding see
that it's casting a shadow because there's an actual building existing if
you if you have your an existing structure if they wanted to cover their
entire roof with solar panels they could yes that's allowed this there's no zoning
special use for that once you decide that you would like to put on the ground
In residential zoning districts, if you want to put solar panels on the ground, not on your roof, not on your shed, you want to put them on the ground, you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, and council has to approve your plan of where you want to put the solar panels on the ground. You're not deciding on these existing panels, you're making a decision on this small area of panels right in here.
Alderman Johnson, so would harm come to anyone by putting those panels there
would it harm anyone I think that that's an object I think that's an opinion I
think that two people specifically said that they feel like it would harm them
that's their opinion they're right I think the harm was mostly I think when
I think when in this particular situation and also generally when I hear people, there are pretty much every time solar comes to residential like this, I can almost guarantee there's going to be complaints and they usually, they're usually not always, but there's a correlation to people do not like the aesthetics, they do not like to drive by and see a yard or they don't like the way solar looks.
This is pretty well hidden.
I think that, yes, in my opinion I see, in my opinion it's 383, 383 feet from the road, it's 120 feet from the property line and there's trees, so yes, in my opinion it's fairly well, it's fairly well disguised and it's pretty small, it creates a small footprint on a very large lot.
Thank you.
Yes.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, what kind of environmental effect would this cause, more UV rays or any other kind
of radiation coming into those local area to power up solar, because it's depended
and others.
Do you think that the concern of those people in the community of that area is concerned
about anything of that nature?
I think that the people who belong to this church are hoping to get as much sun as they
can because then their electricity bill goes down.
I mean the reason they want these solar panels there is so that they can cut their electricity
bill.
They certainly have the ability to pass the permitting process.
We're not reinventing the wheel in terms of construction, right?
We've all driven and seen solar panels built. This is more of a, making a decision on is
this fit for the community? Is this going to be, is the community going to be affected
every time they drive by there and go, gosh, look at that. You know, it was a beautiful
church and now I've got to drive by and look at these solar panels. Essentially, that's
part of it. In terms of physical health, I don't, I'm not aware of physical health concerns
of a solar panel being 383 feet from a road.
I don't see it.
OK.
Darren?
If it's OK, I'd like to clarify my abstention and my comments
at the Planning Commission.
So I'm not opposed to this site having solar or any other site.
I'm personally opposed to any ground-mounted solar
whether it would be here or anywhere else in town
because of obvious things that I've stated before. So it has nothing to do with Harmony
Church or this particular location. It's just I don't think the expansion of these types
of facilities in Freeport are generally good for properties, especially ones that are zoned
residential, which this one is. So my objection is kind of blanketed for Freeport, not at
this project.
I find it a little strange that the Planning Commission did not recommend this.
I've seen that before too, Alderperson, Stacy.
As I said before, it truly is polarizing.
Anytime we're talking about bringing solar into a residential community, a residential
Stiegel, Stiegel
I've seen that before where the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends it and then the Planning Commission does not.
To my knowledge, we have allowed this twice. In a yard, in a backyard.
That sounds correct. I can think of two situations where we allowed it. I can think of two. And one of them was a church as well.
the other one was a church as well and so now how can we say yes yes and now no
well it's that's actually a pretty easy explanation so this is what's called a
special use permit okay so when you have a special use permit you're looking at
land uses what can I do with my property you have what you can do by right what
you can't do and then you have special use and the reason you what you have
what you can do by right so if you're in a residential zoning district by right
you can build a house
By right, you can build a house. That is, you do not have to come to council in a residential zoning district to say, I want to build a house.
If you want to build a factory in a residential zoning district, my job is really easy. My favorite word to say, no. Then it's over.
I don't have to deal with anything else then. You want to build a factory next to your neighbor who has a house? No. It's never going to happen.
and but in this situation there's the there's the areas where there's uses
where our zoning code contemplates having a hearing to determine if that use fits
for a specific parcel and a special use by its very definition design allows the
Zoning Board of Appeals allows Planning Commission and allows City Council to
look at specific properties and say on this property it works on that property
that I voted on last week it didn't work and that's a hundred percent that's what
you're tasked with you are tasked to look at each in a special use permit
you are tasked with making that decision of does this use fit and this specific
Property. If they don't get the backyard, are they willing to go on the roof? I'm
I don't want to speak for them. They'd have to make that decision on their own. I
would guess they would definitely look at that on their own if they want to put
it on the roof, but I'm not sure if they would do it or not. I don't know.
Alderman, Sellers. Yes I think the reason why we kind of passed it last time was
because the 474 feet they kind of wanted it right there and that was like in
everybody's view and the neighbors and with us just doing Pearl City Road it was
gonna look bad so I think that was some of the decline of the last vote that's
That's why they made it smaller and moved it back to the back to try to hide.
Yes, I can see that.
Yes, I would agree with that.
Okay, we'll move on to item number 15, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-76.
Could you please read this?
Resolution ratifying emergency construction debris hauling by Fisher excavating.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thanks, Your Honor. The City of Freeport does generate a certain amount of construction debris during all water, sewer, and storm and street repairs. The waste is co-mingled with gravel, concrete, asphalt, and dirt, and is stockpiled due to the emergency nature of most of that work. The utility construction crew essentially ran out of room at their disposal area by the Brick Street Construction Shed, and city staff
Requested a time of material agreement to move the co-milled construction debris from
Brick Street construction garage, including any specialized disposal.
Currently the city has had over 18 months of stored construction material, waste construction
material, and construction crews are out of room as emergencies arise for more debris
storage.
So, Fisher Excavating hauled over 2,700 cubic yards.
That's 230 loads of waste debris.
A few dump locations will accept commingled waste for fill without full separation of solid material
and this is very costly to perform. City staff moved forward with a tiny material agreement with Fisher for the debris removal
as staff was out of any holding area for any more solid construction waste.
Without the recent construction, water main breaks, action was required.
So this resulted in about $21,000 worth of hauling needed to be done
and staff is asking for ratification of this resolution.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion on the resolution.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Kurt, do we have Alderperson Parker?
Parker?
Miller, Parker, Hi, Stacy, Hi, Shadle, Hi, Sanders, Hi, what kind of drugs is he on?
we're on Sanders. Can I open it up for discussion? I just wondered. I didn't ask you though, but
I'm just wondering. I'm answering it. So we're on a vote. So it's a yea or nay? I can say,
Sellers, aye, Klemm, aye, Johnson, aye, and Simmons.
It passes 6 to 1 to 1.
And item number 16 is the adoption of resolution 2025-77.
Could you please read this?
Resolution ratifying emergency water main repairs by Fisher excavating on Galena Avenue near
the Lincoln Mall entrance.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
If you'll recall, last year we had a water main break that was discovered on Galena Avenue.
Fennel, it was very cold and we were doing all our best to just keep it melted but this
was near the McDonald's entrance in the I-DOT roadway in Galena.
The break was significant, it was running into the storm inlet underground and then
started surfacing out on the road pavement.
Fisher was called in to assist city staff due to the difficult location in concrete under
the base of the road.
Fisher's crew assisted in completing the Galena water main repairs due to the area's
Constraints and the Need to Maintain Water Service to the Local Businesses While Navigating
the Busy Roadway.
It was a very difficult dig to find the leak, utility crews and street crews assisted much
as possible.
They're handling a traffic control and staff is requesting ratifications agreement to pay
fishers $11,330 for the emergency water main repair.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the resolution.
Alderman Sanders?
Yes, Manager Boyer. I guess Darren as well. He was on that job as well. Did we clean up
the after effects, the aftermath? We cleaned it up. We did the, we checked the storms in
the sewer to make sure no debris filtered out in into those areas. Yes. Okay, thank
you. Alderman Stacy. Is this the one you and I spoke about last week? I don't think so.
With the that affected the Barbara and the dog? No, that's Warren. Oh. This was the one
that was in the center of Galena by McDonald's over the winter months. Our
Your city crew is not equipped to do this?
So to give you an explanation, Galena Avenue is full concrete under the asphalt which means
full depth so you actually have to have equipment that's capable of cutting over a foot of concrete
which we don't have it needs to be hired out and with the location and the busyness of
Galena Avenue this was a very difficult spot to fix and we actually tried and attempted
and alderman Sanders.
So they were, our city crew was on the job as well?
Yeah, per the memo they did all the traffic control and they did some of the hauling and we just used fishers for the specialized cutting and removal of the concrete.
Yeah, I recall us having to contract something of that nature for water leak.
Yeah, we've invested, I would say, with City Manager direction, we've invested probably $20,000, $25,000 in traffic control over the last couple of years, so we're trying to do all of that work possible to save those dollars.
Alright. Okay. Thank you.
If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye.
And Simmons is absent at the moment. The resolution is adopted 7-0.
Monroe, Item Number 17 is Adoption of Resolution 2025-78, could you please read this?
Resolution Ratifying Emergency Dispatch Center Air Conditioning System Repairs by Nelson Carlson Mechanical Contractors
Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport's Police Department 911 Dispatch Center has experienced reoccurring issues with the mini-split system.
So, similar to what we have here in the conference rooms and in City Hall, I can attest they are somewhat problematic.
The unit's been leaking down the wall for months with numerous electrical devices in the room.
Room, the 911 centers in the middle of the building and requires this unit to run 24-7
due to the large amount of computer equipment operated in the area.
The existing unit was 12 years old and parts were obsolete.
The police leadership team called the public works consultant and informed him of the issue
with the unit.
We had service calls to evaluate the issue.
Parts were no longer available through multiple efforts and the city had Nelson Carlson replace
C. Unit with a new carrier model that has parts in full serviceability. Many of the
many split models today are throwaway units which are undesirable for the
city due to their heavy utilization and the ETSB leadership team informed the
police department that they would approve paying for the unit based on the
estimate. So the staff is requesting approval through the City Council on
on this emergency repair. It will be paid for through ETSB funds.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the resolution.
Alderman Sanders.
Would there be advisory for options at this junction when it comes to whether to repair
or to purchase or rental or whatever the case may be.
I don't know how that works, but.
As I understand it, in this particular case,
there's really not a lot of options
for having enough cooling capacity
into the 911 dispatch center.
So that's why the mini split is an attractive option.
This one was fairly old, and like many of them
around City Hall now, we're starting
to have problems with them.
So I think we're probably going to have a few of these coming
but because it's submission critical to keep the 9-1-1 Dispatch Center up and operating properly, it was necessary to move forward with this.
Did you also say the city also?
Yes, I mean many of the many splits in the city are similar make and model.
Is that right?
Yes.
Alderman Sellers?
I was wondering, this wasn't the one where ComEd was?
We'll get to that one.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, we're getting to that one.
Okay.
Alderman Stacy?
Okay, that's what I was just thinking. Two weeks ago didn't we discuss all this money being put into and Bank Spagatina overloading? Is this the same thing?
No, this is separate.
Chief, did you want to answer that?
Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, it seems like the mini split went out around the same time as the AC.
and then just to clarify so we get ETSB funding every year from the 911 ETSB that
covers some salaries in the Dispatch Center but also repairs like this so this
isn't coming out of the general fund at all this is just from the money we get
from the ETSB to spend on equipment in the Dispatch Center. Any other discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Parker.
Aye. Stacy. Aye. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. And
and Simmons. The resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 18 is the adoption of resolution 2025-79.
Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying emergency taxiway light repairs at the Alberta's
airport by William Charles Electric. Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The taxiway
lighting system at Alberta's recently failed. It was having problems last year and they were in
in the process of repairing it and then locating parts.
And it took quite a while to get it back up and running
appropriately.
So this created safety hazards and required emergency repair
to ensure the safe nighttime operations
and regulatory compliance.
The current system is aging and scheduled
for future replacement, but immediate action
was necessary.
The airport operator coordinated emergency repairs
with William Charles Electric.
The attached invoice outlines costs incurred,
including labor, service vehicle use and materials.
Repairs were delayed due to the need
for custom manufactured parts as the components
for our existing system are being phased out
in favor of LED technology.
While a full lighting upgrade is part
of our long-term capital plan,
deferring this repair was not feasible
to maintain safety during the outage.
Remaining lights were operated overnight
that they were on 24-7 increasing our utility bill out there.
The total invoice amount is $15,523.31.
And this will be paid from the airport operating budget.
And a budget adjustment may be necessary,
meaning we'll now have to move some funds within the airport
budget to cover the difference.
So staff requests ratifying the payment of William Charles
for $15,523.31 for the emergency lighting repairs.
Is there a motion to adopt?
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle,
seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the adoption.
Alderman Stacy.
OK, so you said that there may be some funds that
would have to be moved.
Within the airport budget, yes.
Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Parker? I'll speak for him. I. Stacy? I. Shadle? I.
Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons. The resolution is adopted 8 to 0. Item number 19 is the adoption of resolution 2025-81. Could you please read this? Resolution approving redevelopment agreement with Garrett and Siobhan Miller at 310 East Jackson Street.
Director Duckman up thank you madam mayor and I have the wrong thing up on
the screen this is the Pilate studio but while that is brought up okay here it is
so bear with me okay so this is a map here we have Liberty Avenue and we have
Jackson Street, and NICOR is over here. This building, so a little background here,
Merrick Crane Rentals is what the company that has purchased this property and are
looking to redevelop it and expand it and to essentially improve the area, but also
also expand their business bringing here into Freeport. So the highlights of this
expansion are the dark black box here is a 3,200 square foot storage facility for
their heavy equipment. Now what they're also planning to do is this area here is
a parking area that is in poor condition. So in addition to this 3,200
Squarefoot Storage Facility that would be it's more of an addition because it
attaches to the existing building they're also talking about increasing or
improving repaving this parking area with a value of $50,000 also improving
some of the drainage in the area as well so that would be $50,000 in
improvements the storage facility would be $100,000 in improvements so they're
talking they're they're proposing to build $150,000 in improvements on the
site.
They came to us with this proposal.
And if we scroll up, we can kind of
show what the building would look like.
If you go back one, that's essentially,
this building here is the existing building.
And then this area here is all the expansion
that they're looking to do.
So it's somewhat, while it's sort of a smaller project,
it's still fairly large and somewhat
and Harbour, was a great experience and it was really exciting for the area to have some new business and new life brought to the area.
So they contacted the city with their plans and they talked about working in their TIF district and what they would be eligible for
in terms of financing and city staff reviewed their proposal and what city staff looked at
Since the developer builds this addition, which is $100,000, staff is proposing that they be paid a 3% of that upfront, or not upfront, after completion.
not upfront, after completion, which is $3,500.
Then additionally, once they create,
once they finish their paving, as I talked about earlier,
once they fix the parking lot, which is $50,000,
again, they would receive $1,500, which is another 3%
of that project.
Now, in addition to these smaller payments,
They are also, they would also be eligible for tax increment that would come from this project and to kind of talk about that, it's anticipated that once this building is constructed, their tax assessment is going to increase and with that tax, when that tax assessment increases the amount of taxes that they pay is also going to increase and so this is in line with
Any and all redevelopment agreements that have come here in my time and the ones that I've reviewed in the past and it's pretty much a textbook redevelopment agreement where any of the increment above their tax base value and especially resulting from this development here, they would receive back on an annual basis of 75% of that increase
Dix that tax increment or increased tax revenue would go back to that developer and that would
go for the lifetime of this TIF district.
This TIF district ends in 2029 so they would essentially receive four years of payments.
It's also important to note that what's being proposed by staff is that this would cap total
compensation for this development to the developer would not exceed $50,000.
I don't foresee that happening.
I don't foresee them getting close to that in four years
because they're spending $150,000.
And remember, they would have to have
hit a significant amount of tax increase
to hit that in four years back.
However, in line with prior agreements,
we limit the amount of compensation
in our TIF districts.
In line with others, this is one third of the total value
that they're proposing to put into this development.
So the redevelopment agreement here for Merrick Crane Rental
is supported in our budget, where
we have a total of this annually.
We have $50,000 earmarked for new redevelopment agreements
in the year of 2025.
So, we've budgeted for situations like this where we can work with developers on projects and with that, bearing that in mind, staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution?
I have a question.
Alderman Simmons.
Mr. Duckman, I hear the improvements. Question is, what jobs will they be providing? Because it sounds like they're just going to be storing stuff there? Or like, how is that going to work?
I don't have the exact number of jobs, but I do know that he said he's going to have staff members bringing the equipment in and out quite frequently.
So, I don't anticipate this bringing more than three jobs, to be honest. But I would have to consult with him to get an exact number.
but to your point, I don't anticipate this being a more than three to five job creation.
Alderman Stacey.
Yes. The area you were talking about, the parking lot, them black topping it.
Okay, yes.
You spoke about, what was the word you used?
Stormwater improvements?
Drain or something?
yes drainage yes storm storm water drainage is the same and so that falls
on the city no but not on their own private property okay so I think sorry
and I guess when you have a parking lot in poor condition we always think about
potholes like messes up our tires but also you know when you look at a parking
lot in the rain if it's bad you see all the little duck ponds in there and that
you know this is a this this parking lot's in pretty bad shape so the idea is
that they would increase they would be fixing their parking lot to increase the
site drainage okay so if the TIF district is extended will their cutoff
still be 2029 their cutoff will still be fifty thousand dollars that will not
Winslow, Michael, John, and more.
So, I'm going to go back to the
question.
I'm going to go back to the question.
So, if they were to make $10,000 in payments, if it gets
extended another 12 years, which is per ordinance, per statute,
what you can extend a TIF district is 12 years, if this
For that then they could receive more years of payments. However, they would still be capped at the $50,000 no matter what
Okay, so I just want to remind the council that when you have the floor and you ask your question
Try to pull those thoughts together because then when the floor goes over to whether it's
Director Duckman or Segal or manager or whoever then they have the floor
So technically you don't just get it back. So that would be a second
So instead of, you know, speaking twice on a, wait a minute, instead of speaking twice,
instead of speaking twice to a subject, you know, you've actually been, had the floor
like four or five times. I just want to remind you of how that works. So if you can compile
your thoughts, it's helpful to the process.
Okay, I understand that.
So Alderman Shadle, I believe you had your hand up next.
Thank you. I just want to go back a little bit more on the possible job creations. This
This is an existing building that was started 20-some years ago by Brooke Wagner, and he's
since retired, sold the business to Mr. Miller, and Mr. Miller wants to grow the business.
He's already purchased one exceptionally large crane over and above the one that Mr. Wagner
or used to run a loan. They're a union shop. They're substantial wages paid to these crane
operators. His, I don't know his full vision for the future, but it was more than just the
one crane that he's already added. He was talking one to two more. So at least there's
There's going to be two to three jobs there, but they're significant jobs.
And I appreciate that Alderperson Shadle for you saying, and I think it's difficult in
a contracting business too to estimate, but I would imagine two to three, I mean he's
told me he's extraordinarily busy, business is good for him, I think it's nice to bring
his business here I mean if you've if you've driven by the site it could use a
facelift you know it's it's gonna be nice for the area and I think into your
point I mean two to three jobs is my estimate I that's two or three jobs we
didn't have and a site that's you know kind of an average condition closer to
poor condition it to have it read to have the property tax dollars increased
I think it's a win for many people.
Alderman Sanders?
Yes, I have a possible 2 or 3 questions I want to refer to.
I understand that you talked about a drainage system,
altering its property development and creating drainage systems.
Williams, that does affect the water process and are we going to increase their water bill
or are they receiving water at this time?
We're not going to increase their water bill.
No, I'm just saying because if you're going to redevelop that parking lot or that area
for runoff drainage for the parking lot, then that does come into play.
that allows a flow to come back into the city drainage system
and with the changing of the development of that property.
And not only that, the frontal place of that
to beautify and to upgrade, to bring better structure
to that area, then I don't know if we have a plan
We have a plan for road conditions, sidewalk conditions, any of those kinds of things that's going to be part of the plan when it comes to changing the structure of that area, when it comes to that business.
I just wanted to know that because
I just wanted to know that because we're talking whether or not the taxpayer is going to be affected, you know, is that placed earmarked or does it have a benchmark for redevelopment in front of this property when it comes to road condition?
I don't know if we put roads in there yet, new roads in there.
So if we're talking about all of these kinds of things, we have to have the monies to even
work with that because that's not part of the plan.
If it's not in the plan, then I'd like to know that as well.
How much the taxpayers got to have or what the kind of increase that needs to be done
for this property when it comes to drainage?
Well, a couple things here. Rest assured that state law requires that whatever runoff was going off the site as of today, whatever site improvements you make, it has to be equal to that post-improvement.
So and the way you assure that is the civil and civil engineering industry almost exists entirely on that principle on that sense say entirely but they spend 8, 10, 12 hours a day reviewing projects to make sure that the water that was running off the site before does not equal or is equal to lesser than the equal to the runoff post development so that will be reviewed when they have their parking lot design
It is illegal to change, to just dump water right into your neighbors. You can't, you know, you can't just do that.
Exactly.
Maybe I could just also fill in a little detail. Essentially you have sheet flow coming off the parking lot there now.
And all we'll do is be tying it in to that corner of Jackson and Liberty so that it'll flow straight into the large box culvert that runs to, yeah.
and that right there would change the increase of their portion of water bill, wouldn't it?
No, it's actually the same amount of water. It'd still be going into that box cover.
Now, as far as drinking water is concerned, they'll probably use about the same amount.
We don't charge for the drain off at property?
Not by the gallon. We charge every month. It's a flat rate every month, yeah.
You do charge something, don't you?
A flat rate across the board every month.
That's for everyone?
Everyone, yeah.
Everybody?
Yep.
OK.
OK, let's remember those rules, the Roberts rules.
So if he has the floor, you don't just automatically get it back.
I understand, but I'm talking to him.
Well, that's not the correct procedure.
So you need to be acknowledged, Alderman Sanders.
Is there anyone else that would like to have
a discussion on this resolution?
What you just said.
Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker.
Martin? Yes. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye.
Simmons 1 2 3 4 the the resolution is adopted 5 to 2 to 1 item number 20 is
adoption of resolution 2025 82 could you please read this resolution ratifying
emergency purchase of pot portable air conditioner for well houses from Granger
Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport's water and sewer facilities have large electrical
rooms that require cooling during the summer months due to numerous electrical items running
concurrently inside which generate heat. This is specifically related to variable frequency
drives and having to keep the computers and all the circuitry cool. It's essential not
to allow this equipment to overheat with the excessive temperatures for extended periods
of the Summer. The utility has had an existing AC unit running continuously at full capacity.
So that's one of these units to keep the room cool. It's been running solid. Recently we
had an AC unit breakdown and parts had to be ordered. As a result, the staff had a variable
frequency drive equipment issues without being able to obtain a portable cooling unit. The
Wellhouse and Wastewater Facility VFDs are approximately $250,000 to replace and if they overheat we don't want to risk losing them. So the City Utility Department purchased an Emergency Portable Air Conditioning Unit capable of fully cooling the wellhouse and wastewater electrical room facilities during unit breakdown. The unit can be deployed quickly to any utility facility in the city and has the ability to keep water and sewer facilities in operation.
This unit was sized to be able to operate in all facilities including the future well 12 and
So this was actually purchased because we had a problem with our normal air conditioning and we've got that repaired now
But we needed this in the interim. So this was a the city basically
Purchased an eleven thousand one hundred twenty six dollar and thirty four cents portable AC unit will be keeping that
for future repairs if necessary and so staff would request
Request a ratification of that emergency.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion on the resolution.
Alderman Sanders.
Yes.
So because it's portable, and there's an emergency throughout the city, is what we're saying.
that this particular item would be able to utilize for any area throughout the city at
any given time at the purchase price of what, what are we talking about?
Well the actual cost is $11,000 but this portable unit's an industrial air conditioner that
you would put in under emergency circumstances.
So if we had an issue with the bath blowers, we've got a lot of variable frequency drives
Zare. If we had anything go down we would actually have some way of dealing with the
situation right away and we learned dealing with the police department that
renting units gets very expensive very quick and so by having our own on hand
that's going to save us money long-term in emergencies when it's related to heat.
Okay. Any other discussion? Alderman Sellers? Yeah, I'd just like to know what is the
I believe it's a 12 month warranty but it's an industrial unit and most units like this
only have a 12 month warranty. Now it'll only get used in emergencies and we'll keep it
but it can be portable to any of the units by a trailer so it'll be kept in one of the
buildings that is clean.
Alderman, Stacy, did you have a hand up?
What is this 50-50 split?
That's to basically split it between the water
and the sewer budgets.
The other, Alderman, Stacy?
There's no insurance that we could fall back on?
Not in this case.
The repair of the air conditioner was repaired under, I think, in this particular case, warranty,
but there's no way for us to preserve the variable frequency drives in that electrical
room without some auxiliary cooling, and that's not paid for through warranty work.
Any other discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons.
Resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 21 is the adaption of resolution 2025-83. Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying emergency rental of portable air conditioning units for police department from Geostar Mechanical. Manager Boyer. Thank you, your honor. So this is similar. The situation we had at the police department due to the issue with their dirty, the power coming in and causing our compressor to burn up, we for a period of time had a portable air
and the Fire and Air Conditioning Unit that was brought in to keep the Police Department cool.
The City essentially we rented it through Geostar as part of our repair and we'll be seeking reimbursement for this through ComEd due to the power issue.
So staff is requesting us move forward with this ratifying this emergency rental.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So move.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm, discussion on the adoption.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker
Parker, Aye, Stacy, Shadle, Aye, Sanders, Aye, Sellers, Aye, Klemm, Aye, Johnson, Aye, and Simmons, Aye, the resolution is adopted 8-0.
Item number 22 is the adoption of resolution 2025-84. Could you please read this?
Resolution Approving Purchase of Two Pickup Trucks from J. H. Barco & Sons for Street Department.
Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City Street Department and the Utility need two new
pickup trucks. We did budget for them in the 2025 budget under Item 331-304-7005 and 880-000-1800.
Wood. That was in the 25 budget. This was a planned purchase for replacing existing equipment.
The first one, and I'm going to hand this to Darren because I want to make sure we got
the most up-to-date information from Rick Barco as a recent Sourcewell dealer.
Correct. I received notice today that Barco is currently a Sourcewell dealer. Also, I don't
O'Donnell, who looked through the memo. We did get three quotes just to see where we
were at. Barcos was the cheapest for both trucks combined. We put the price out for
both trucks combined. And after the bid closed, we got information back from Carl's Auto
and they were approximately just over $5,000 more than Barcos for the same two vehicles.
It was too late because we had already turned the memo in to include those. So staff is
is recommending the two budgeted purchase vehicles
from Barco Chevy.
They have them both in stock and we can take delivery
as soon as the plows come in.
Is there a motion to adopt?
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Johnson,
seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the resolution?
Madam Clerk, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, I just wanted to know,
I know we're getting two new vehicles.
Are there gonna be, how many more new vehicles
where we probably need in the next two or three years.
Are we gonna be purchasing vehicles every year or?
Yeah, the idea is to try to turn our inventory
of vehicles every couple of years.
It's really budget dependent.
It really depends a lot on how the budget works out
and if we think we can get by with what we have
for a little while, we do,
but we do need to start rotating some of this out.
And just on that note, one of the things we are planning
for and will need to continue to plan for is large,
Large dump trucks. So those are coming through and I think we actually have a line item for dump trucks for this year
At least in the utility right for one was that Street Department? Yeah
So we'll be coming back with one of those the reason it's taken us so long here is because they've been on backorder because of COVID
Years, so we didn't really feel like there's a reason a budget for them in the past years when you couldn't even get them for years
So we'll be bringing that up in the 26 budget as we move forward
Alderman Stacey
Yes. What budget will they be coming out of and what are these trucks going to be used for?
So, City Manager Boyer referenced the two budget items. One is coming out of water capital funds and one of them is coming out of sewer capital funds.
The 2500 single cab is going to be used for our meter department.
I don't know if anybody recalls, but we've added people to the meter department and we've also added staff that we we had an old vehicle that was in really bad shape that we're going to be replacing and then the 3500 is a replacement for the sewer division with the service body boards, flaps and undercoating. We're adding some of those after fits to make them last longer. We've learned learned our lesson over time, but the bodies are just rusted apart.
Foward at this point. We use our vehicles quite heavily and these two replacements are set
up to last for, I would bet we'll get 10 plus years out of both of these vehicles.
Alderman Sanders? Yeah. Did I hear you mention plows for these
vehicles, the two pickups? Yep. When we get in the winter months, we
We need to have more vehicles outside of our big heavy-duty trucks that have plows on them.
It's very difficult to use the big plows downtown at some of the water and sewer facilities.
There's just not enough room to use one of our big trucks, so we outfit the bigger one-ton
trucks with plows and some of the superintendents to be able to assist in the smaller areas
and it reduces our time in plowing.
Alderman, Sanders, would you like the floor again?
Is there any other
comments, discussion? Would you like?
Well, let me know when you're done updating.
Yeah, I'm done for now. Any other
Parker, Parker, Parker, Parker, Parker,
Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, and Simmons. The resolution is adopted seven to one. Item number
23 is approval of the bid. Could you please read this? Bid opening on July 15th, 2025 for
demolition of 17 through 19 West Main Street. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. As everybody
knows we've been working on this for years. 1719 West Main is former sanitary cleaners.
We recently had a bid opening. We received four bids for the project from Fowler Enterprises,
Green Demolition Contractors, Northern Illinois Service Company, and Fishers Excavating. After
the bid was opened, Fowler Enterprises and Green Demolition informed the city that they
had made a critical error and they were withdrawing their bids, their bid specification requirements
were incorrect.
So neither party has staff attended to the non-mandatory bid informational meeting and
neither party understood the detailed scope of the work that was required.
So Fishers Excavating is the lowest responsible bidder and staff requests moving forward with
Fisher bid for $1,145,456 for the demolition of 17 and 19 Main Street.
Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded
by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the bid. Alderman Sanders. City Manager, what was
those numbers again? The winning bid was $1,145,456. How much was the square acres on that building?
I don't have the square acreage. All I can tell you is that it's two contaminated brownfield
sites in downtown Freeport that's adjacent to another building that needs to be supported
and protected and these all drive the cost very high and by the way this is all this is grant funded.
Okay okay that's good all right. Any other discussion? I have a question so Alderman Simmons.
Thank you has already been approved. Yeah we've had it for years we just have taken forever to
get it deployed due to the complexity at the site. Alderman Stacey. When do you anticipate it being down?
the building should be down by the beginning of December and restoration
will probably you know perk into May and June of next year of the property just
wanted to remind everybody this is a Brownfields grant that we've received we
have not received the money but we have the commitment of 1.7 million dollars so
with the bid of one point on just under 1.2 which was the engineering estimate
and all of that.
With the engineering and everything we will not expend all the money on this grant and
likely give some of it back, which we never really took the money, right.
It's on hold for about four years to complete the project.
We reminded everybody at the last meeting, I believe, that the difficulty in getting
this to bid is the conjoined buildings that are downtown and protecting them, and one
of the building owners was less than thrilled about the project, and so it took a lot of
of Time and Structural Analysis to make sure we can get these buildings down and one of
the reasons it's so expensive is one of them is three story, one of them is like two and
a half stories and those sections are going to have to be basically taken down foot by
foot in order to safely not damage the other buildings. So a lot of extras involved in
these projects. I will tell you if you divided them up by building, these prices are very
Very close to the last two buildings that we built.
Very close to the last two buildings that we took downtown together.
Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
Aye.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
Aye.
Sellers.
Aye.
and Simmons the motion passes 8 to 0 and item number 24 an additional bid could
you please read bid opening on July 15th for concrete concrete work for driveway
at fire station on Park Boulevard thank your honor some of you may or may not
be aware that the Park Boulevard fire station has a differential and grade
between the road and the driveway approach that creates a problem with
standing water it also creates a problem with ice formation and we have another
air issue in the in the vicinity which is the cast-iron sewer line that comes
out of the fire department there the fire station that is routinely clogs up
due to the fact that it has a tubrification forming inside the pipe so
with that being said we looked at just replacing the drive approach and then we
talked about well if we're gonna do the sewer what do we want to do there the
concrete is rather old needs to be replaced and it would also offer us some
opportunity for later on be able to install some conduit so that if we ever
decided to put a crossing crossing lights in that vicinity we'd be able to
do that so for Graham design and bid the driveway concrete driveway and sanitary
sewer improvements for the park station at the request of the fire department
Public bid was held on Tuesday, July 15th at 11 a.m. at City Hall. City staff
received five bids for this project from DPI Construction out of Pecatonica,
O'Brien Civil Work, Sostrom's & Son, NYCAM Construction & Home. DPI
Construction was the lowest bidder at $120,000. I'm
120,751.24. DPI has recently completed other concrete work for the City of Freeport with positive results and staff requests council approval to move forward with this reconstruction of the driveway approach, the parking pad and the sewer line.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And that motion passes eight to zero.
Reports from department heads, finance? None. Thank you. Community Development?
Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Public Works? Yep, just a few project
updates. Cleveland is being paved. The west side, about three-quarters of it was
is done Friday, the other remaining intersections and the other piece should be done sometime
this week if weather allows.
Next week you should see the west side of Cleveland being paved, they're just about
done with the base repairs there.
Black Hawk is in process, we just got all the water main passed bacterial tests today
and they're working, I'm sorry, last week and they're working on water services.
So probably the following week they'll be doing core out and the street should be done
Probably the first week of August.
Carroll Avenue's in full swing.
They are installing water services right now
and they've flipped sides and they're heading from Galena
to Adams right now installing water mains.
So a lot of good progress within the city.
Also, we received notice from the solar company
that is building out on 18th Avenue.
they give us permission to go out to bid for that project.
So my team is going through the plans
and making up the specials and provisions
for the city of Freeport so we can get that out to bid
in the next couple of weeks.
Anticipation will be that we will try to bid it
to have it done yet this year.
The solar project has everything done out there
but the driveway.
And so just as a reminder, the agreement that Wayne and I
were able to actually, Wayne mostly was able to agree
with the solar panel company
is we will be getting $400,000 towards that project, free to the city to repay 18th Avenue.
So a big win for the city and they'd like to see us have it done by, honestly, we need
to move on it because it'll have to be done by about the second week of November.
Fire.
Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
Last Wednesday evening, the fire department responded to a residential structure fire
on West Clark Street.
as companies were arriving on the scene forcing entry to the front door that were met by one
dog that had facial burns and he self-rescued out of the building on his own and as the
firefighters were deploying hand lines to extinguish the fire they located a second
dog that was barely breathing.
So while extinguishment was taking place other personnel administered oxygen to the second
Dove, through pet masks that we received as a donation from the pet mask company.
So animal control quickly responded to the scene and transported both of the dogs to
the animal hospital here in town.
So the house sustained heavy fire and smoke damage and good news is the dogs were sent
home the next day.
I talk about this is I have to preface this by stating the fires under
investigation we have a strong indication that the fire was originated by the dogs
there was a crockpot on top of the stove the family had left for an event with the
family that evening we believe the dogs jumped up with their paw turned the
and Banner on and that's what created the fire.
We've seen this before, so that's why we're speaking
about it now.
This is pending the review of their insurance carrier,
but again, all indications look to be that the fire
was caused by the dogs being curious, jumping up
and seeing what was in the crockpot on the stove top.
So word to the public, if you're not gonna be home,
don't have anything stored on the top of your stove
with Burners that can be adjusted by air by animals and pets.
So again, we've seen that before.
So this is not something new.
And it was worthy of, you know, telling the story.
So perhaps it's avoided in the future.
Police.
Thank you. I have no report tonight.
Thanks. Library.
No report tonight.
Airport.
IT.
Nothing tonight.
City Manager.
I'd just like to say thank you to the staff. We've got quite a bit going and I
appreciate all the work that goes into what we're doing every day. Thank you.
I have nothing new to report. Alderman Parker, do you have anything?
No. Alderman Stacey? No.
Alderman Shadle. Nothing. Alderman Sanders. Nothing. Alderman Sellers. Nothing. Alderman Klemm. Neighborhood Watch on 729. Please come with your friends and questions.
Alderman Johnson. Just invite everybody to come out to the fair and enjoy the fair this week. Alderman Simmons. No, thank you.
and that leaves us with public comment.
Hi there, Sue Cook, Winchester Drive. I have a question about or a suggestion
and possibly on number 12 when you guys are going back and forth about these people are
getting their gyms today but going forward they're not going to have to worry about
that $250. Could there be a discretionary so that if these people are coming, the ones
that just got in today before the vote in the council.
Could there be a discretionary
on the Planning Committee or Community Development,
Public Works that would say, you know what?
We're gonna give this to you.
Could there possibly be that so that you're able
to allow them, since they're so close to the wire,
literally right before the vote
to maybe give them a little break.
And that way it would kind of go with what.
any other public comment father God in the name of Jesus we praise you we thank you
for this day for this is the day that you have made and hopefully we have
rejoiced and been glad in it we thank you for this council meeting tonight oh God
for the agenda was full as you know lead us and guide us and direct us father God
your will be done in this city not our will but your will be done in Jesus name
we pray. Amen. Any other public comments? Seeing none, I'll take a motion for
adjournment. So move. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman
Sellers, please call the roll. Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm,
Johnson, Aye, and Simmons.