Dear Heavenly Father, I come before you with love and admonishments and dominions, or principalities or powers.
All things were created through you and for you, and you are before all things, and in all things they consist, and all things consist through you.
And in Psalm 33, 11, your word says, Your plan stands firm forever, and your thoughts stand firm in every generation.
Therefore, this city and all who are seated here tonight have been created by you and are here by your design.
May they fulfill every purpose for which they were created, and as they make decisions tonight,
may those decisions correlate with your plans for this city.
May they bring this city into prosperity, peace, hope, and joy, and shift this city
into all it is intended to be, a great place to live, work, raise a family, and have enjoyment.
In Jesus' name, amen.
Amen.
Thank you, Linda.
Now we'll officially call this meeting to order.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?
Mayor Miller?
Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers here.
Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Monroe.
and
item number one is approval M seconded by Alderman Shadle all those in favor signify
by saying aye opposed that motion passes item number two is approval of the
minutes from the regular meeting on September 16 2024 is our motion to
approve so moved second we have a motion made by Alderman Monroe seconded by
Alderman Shadle all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed that
motion passes public comments there was none signed up item number four is the
consent agenda the consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and
acted as one motion unless there's a member of the council like something
removed for further discussion seeing none the consent agenda is approving to
swear to receive and place on file the minutes of the boards and commissions from the liquor commission dated August 8 and the 30th 2024 library board of trustees August 14 2024, bought a fire and police.
August 20 September 10 2024. The police department report for September and we check in account to cover eventual closure of compost site on one avenue use for bulky tree waste and leaf storage as required by the IPA,
Finance, bills payable in the total of $5,581,448.30 and payroll for pay period ending September
21st, 2024 in the total of $631,666.64. Is there a motion to approve?
So moved. Second.
Motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, could you please
take the roll? Monroe?
Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Klemm? Aye. The motion passes 8 to 0.
Thank you. Item number 5 is the Award of Valor presented by Chief Shenberger.
This is a letter, a memo actually gave on November 13th, 2024 published by I.G. Shenberger, who was informed by Lieutenant Whitehall, that he felt that Coleman Danemore displayed bravery above and beyond the colleges during Armageddon, at the very high of the apartments on September 4th, 2024.
Following the summary of the Patrol Memorial's action statement, on September 4, 2024, at about 10.30 a.m., the Patrol Memorial responded to a call to service at the Mary Hadamard Apartments regarding females who were asked to be held in the service.
The Trollman Morgue was additionally the only officer on our team, and made contact with the suspect male, who expressed to the Trollman Morgue that he was experiencing a mental health crisis.
The Trollman Morgue remained calm while speaking with the male, and was able to convince the male to open the door so he could check on the welfare of the female who was inside of the apartment.
The Trollman Morgue had sensed the male was clearly educated and very true to the Trollman Morgue and he was afraid of being beaten.
The phone was ringing consistent and calm during the encounter. Once the door was slightly open, he was able to pull the female from the apartment.
The victim's female son was also up on the floor at the time. Accompanied the phone more and the phone more valiantly prevented the son from being in physical altercation with the male which could have been a pestilence in the worst case.
Outside of the apartment, the females clearly need to drop, close the front door if a male with an arm or a firearm is being forced to be fled into the street.
The front door is being unseen. Covering the apartment door, a lot of officers are able to respond immediately.
The front door shows that something has been tested very briefly by being able to remove this male from the apartment and then utilize it as training and experience to assess something of variety with the male who is inside the apartment.
When more officers arrive on the scene, the meal will begin with threatening officers that say to get out of the building beside the apartment.
We will shoot officers as they attempt to get in there.
This was in the beginning of a lengthy standoff between which eventually ended 12 hours after the initial call when the military runners, without further ado,
During the subsequent search of the apartment, we recovered two high-powered rifles attached to the main mission.
A hundred ground row magazines and multiple high capacity magazines.
Upon review of a little more of the actions we've taken that day, I would no doubt recommend
that you put more value to the pieces displayed bravely than left behind on the following day.
I just want to add too, this is the second award of valor, which is the highest award of valor that a woman has ever received, back in June of 2023, she received the award of valor for intervening in a domestic violence situation, where a female was being raped.
I'm a firm believer that certain people are placed in certain situations, and I kind of doubtfully believe that night from the end of the hibernation that the total mortals were destined to be there that day to handle things the way we expect our officers to be.
and other people.
Thank you.
and
Tom.
All right.
Nice.
Move on to item number six, which is the, which is an appointment.
Madam Clerk, could you please read this?
Konova to the Arts and Culture Commission effective through October 31st, 2025.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
Yes. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was looking up the very thing that you was mentioning.
You have to excuse my voice too. What title does she preserve, I mean, receive? What is the title?
a title it is a commissioner for the arts and culture like the there there are
nine arts and culture missioners she would be one of them there's no further
discussion all those in favor aye opposed that motion passes we'll move on
item number seven which is the second reading of ordinance 2024 52 could you
please read this. Ordinance approving the city to enter into a fourth renewal to
lease agreement with Peter Albor regarding 103 to 111 South Liberty Avenue.
Director Duckman. Thank you Madam Mayor.
Okay, so upon the first reading of this ordinance, it was requested, there was two requests.
We wanted to see a map of the location, which in the lights here you can see the structure
that we're talking about that was subject to this lease agreement.
There is also a question on the property taxes.
So the property tax bill for 2023 payable in 2024 is $113.30.
So that's the property taxes for that.
And if there's any questions here, you can see.
We also have the street.
Well, you can see the red box around it
is the structure itself of which the first floor is
subject to the lease, is the subject of the proposed lease.
And it's called the iron-clad building or metal-clad building because it is clad in metal, as you can see here.
That's the building that we're talking about today.
So in terms of the, since it's the second reading, nothing has changed in the terms of this lease where our staff is proposing a one-year lease paid $2,000 paid annually.
and it would expire on September 14th, 2025.
Any discussion?
Alderman Sanders.
Yes.
What is that building again, Wayne?
What is that?
Miller, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor
Taylor.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
So it is storage.
Protocolor owns the building south of that, that metal building?
Yes.
Right.
They own the building that is on the other corner.
That is the Raleigh Building.
That is what you are talking about, right?
Well, that is what we refer to it as, but it is not our building.
But who owns the Raleigh Building?
Well, there are four different buildings.
Oh, okay.
So one is private.
You want to answer that?
Yes.
Sorry.
And I apologize.
I was distracted there earlier.
and some names mixed up, but anyways, we're here now and yes, there's several properties
that are called the Raleigh Building or the Raleigh Property.
So the answer here and Mayor Miller did a good job explaining the business.
That's actually in the first floor of this building, but do you see this building right
here that we're pointing out here?
It's Tan.
Yeah.
That's the building that Mayor Miller was speaking to, that that is where the business
is located that is also where um that's the first floor that's being rented that is also
subject to this lease okay you see you see what i'm speaking to correct this yes that
is just the first floor of this this building here yeah and it's this building is um leased
by uh one sorry one what now one leasy correct it's it's only occupied by that individual
We did. There has been some interest in possibly purchasing the property. We have, the property has been appraised because of the interest in possibly purchasing the property from the city. The city went through and had an appraisal. The property appraised at $60,000. So we're speaking about a property that has a total value of $60,000.
and someone is taking interest yes the city yes anytime there's an interested
purchase the city is going to have an appraiser give their estimate
professional opinion as to the value of the property that is not materialized so
at this moment we have a lease on the property that's coming to expire and this
is the proposed America we're proposing to renew that lease do the city do any
Do you expect to get any inspections on buildings of this nature?
If it has to, yes.
In this situation, there's no reason to.
Why would you say that?
Well, I mean, it's a property like any other.
If they had come to me and said, well, now we're going to put a restaurant in.
Well, of course I would go in there and inspect it because it's a change in use.
If something along those lines, I would certainly inspect it.
But at this point, they're operating the same business.
It's a lease renewal.
There is no reason to inspect this building at this point.
Because you are saying that there is no change.
I am sorry.
I wasn't done.
I didn't know that.
You didn't ask to speak.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
What you are indicating is that because you are assuming that there is no change or have
you went to inspect it to determine there has not been any change.
So when it comes to businesses in the City of Freeport, we are not going to go into every
business and inspect it.
But the City owns that building.
Correct.
Okay then.
Correct.
Then that practice shouldn't be practiced from that perspective.
We should be looking at anything that the City owns before we lease it.
We just can't assume that we're going to lease the property and we have not had an opportunity
to look at this property to see if it meet our policy standards terms and whatever the
case may be.
Well, I did as I initiated and had an appraisal done on the property because somebody was
is still interested in possibly purchasing the property and that is going to give you
the most fair.
It's going to be an objective opinion as to the value of the property.
So you know that's a strong move on the part of staff is to say to be fair to this potential
buyer or any other potential buyer we've had an appraisal done on it so if there's a question
as to having to have our building inspector or a fire inspector look at it I could certainly
contact my building inspector and have them look at it I have no issue in that.
Well, my thing is, we're not looking at the fact that that building should be put in a
position to be auctioned off, as opposed to having one person, individual interested.
We might have higher bidders for that property, and if that is the case, then we should at
least put it open to the public first before we just lock it in with an individual, simply
Fowler, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor
to approach us with some ideas certainly would be open to that.
I don't think necessarily just having an open auction
for the sale of the property is the best idea in this situation.
But I would say that I would also state that it's up for vote
today, but I strongly suggest there's
been no interest from anybody else to lease this property.
You have not publicized it yet.
You don't know that.
you also have somebody currently in this property that doesn't dispute the facts
you're welcome to propose a different set of terms for this but otherwise
they'd be operating in there without a lease at this point
yeah it's an open it's open property for those types of options that we can
consider putting it putting it out there for the general public to know that this
is available and possible bidding options and things of this nature. We haven't
exhaust those areas yet. Right so we would have to you would have to vote to
terminate a lease agreement with Albert first or I'm sorry with Peter so the
name on this is with Peter Albert you would have to vote the vote would be to
not yeah but I'm talking about purchase I'm not talking about leasing. We got to
get back on track because we're not talking about auctioning or selling
We're talking about renewing a lease that I understand that but the renewal, sorry, of the lease, the renewal time, it's an open, it's open that renewal gap is an opening for the general public to either have a say so in the matter, or make up an offer or whatever.
And since this is the second reading, making it sound like it's a done deal.
It's the second reading, so that means it's been before you, before.
I'm just talking about the timing and the gap in the renewal that we have not presented
it to the general public. The leasee can always continue to lease, don't get me wrong, but
I'm talking about the ownership of the property.
Has not changed.
It has not changed, but there's still the opening for purchase, because I think that's
Miller, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor
and whatever the case is, you implied that the building went for $60,000 or something like that?
There is an appraisal done, yes, on this property.
And that means that it's open for things that we can evaluate to determine whether or not we're getting a fair value.
Even if you've got an appraiser, I don't care what the appraiser is saying, it is what the council thinks that that property is worth.
The appraiser can come in with one number, the council can come in with another number.
We have opportunities to exploit those types of things, but we're not getting that simply because
it's just sitting there waiting for someone to renew it and possibly purchase it.
That's what I'm looking at. That's how I look at it.
Understood.
Yeah.
Alderman Stacey.
This is the lease of $2,000 for the year.
Yes, that is what is being proposed, yes.
And last year it was $1,000.
No, right, so in 2021 when it started it was $1,000 paid annually.
Then in 2022 the annual rent was raised from that $1,000 to $2,000
and then last year, 2023, it was approved at $2,000.
H Stay it goes up follow up I'm sorry from 1000 to 2000.
Yep, I mean, well, I'll answer that. So I had started this into 2022. I started my position
in 2022, so I'll be honest with you, I wasn't, I wasn't directly involved with that exact
negotiation to go from $1,000 to $2,000, but my understanding is that Billy C. and they
had an agreement and it went before council to raise that rent.
Okay, so, okay, the red square you had up there, that's what he's leasing, because
because wasn't there some property that was purchased for $100 but this is not that property?
I had said earlier that there was property taxes in the amount of, I'm trying to understand
what was purchased for $100. I don't remember saying something was purchased for $100.
of the Building of the Raleigh Building, some other areas, apparently.
I'll be honest with you, I'm not aware of anything being purchased for $100 in the Raleigh
Building.
I'm not aware of that.
Madam Mayor.
Actually, I think Darren had his hand up first, but I'll come back to you then.
The white structure that you see there, next to the red, that I believe Mr. Elbert currently
owns and bought that piece of the Raleigh building from the city.
I don't remember what the amount was, but he...
I think it was back in Gullwrap administration.
Yeah, he's had it for a while and he remodels it.
It should be known that that's a conjoined building.
Okay, so the red building and the white building are conjoined.
A question of clarity I had for Wayne is this lease is for one floor of the red building, not the entire building.
Correct.
Yes.
And if I recall right, the white roofed building that he owns was basically defunct and he remodeled and fixed that building.
It was borderline going to be torn down.
And there's two more pieces of the Rowley building to that side over here.
Here, one of them is the old office building that Fehr Graham used to be in. I believe
Winters owns that building. And then the other big structure that has always been talked
about doing something, the city owns that structure as well.
So what is the city doing with that structure?
Is this one here?
Yes.
Are you speaking of this one here? We've showed it to potential developers. When potential
developers come in and have interest in these properties, we do show them. But it should
be known that when the city owns properties such as these and this is in
general in the region it can sometimes take 15 20 plus years before you find
the right developer because somebody coming in and wanting to redevelop this
in the Barbara Coleman building in Rockford I believe was
purchased by the city of Rockford in either 2003 or 2006 and you are just now
starting to see construction done on it so when a city owns property such as
and others.
and
John.
We're waiting for the right developer.
Okay.
So something that you're telling me is valued at 60,000.
We're just leasing for 2,000.
That's what I'm stating, yes.
is, is, is in there. Six. Six. Are the other five floors being occupied? No, and you have
to remember that this is a, have you ever been in there? It's just, it's just cement
and when he took over the occupying of that first floor, there was no electricity, there
was no, there was no piping of any kind, no heat, no air, no nothing. Everything that's
been put in there for him to be able to keep his equipment in there has been on his expense.
So the other floors don't have anything. You'd have to go out in there with a flashlight.
Alderman Klemm, did you have more to add?
Yeah, I guess I do. We're talking a couple different periods of time and a couple different
sets of rules here. If you go back to that building that was sold to Pete Elber, yeah,
it was sold for the vicinity of $100. It was sold under the mayoral form of government.
which the mayor or the council could sell it at any price they wanted to sell it at.
The building was completely vacant for years and hadn't been inhabited.
Pete Elber spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the building, brought his business
in from out of town, created taxes in town, created jobs in town.
So it was an asset for the city to do that.
I go back a little while in construction to 1967 and that particular building, there's
a good reason it's got a metal clad on it because it's a piece of crap under it.
It was put on by Garmin Construction years ago and it was done just to cover it up when
Micro used it for nothing more than a warehouse. So like the Mayor said, basically he's renting
The building, it can be sold at any point in time. If it's sold at any point in time, then Pete Elber has got a lease for 11 months and he's out of there.
Pete Elber wants to buy the building, Pete Elber can buy the building. Very simple.
You know, so all we're asking for in this document is to take and extend the lease for one more year at the same price it was last year.
I remember the conversation, I believe it was a year ago when the price was raised and it was the council didn't feel like it was enough, that's why we went from a thousand to two thousand, or maybe that was two years ago, excuse me.
and since that time we announced at that time that anybody that had interest could rent any
other floors in that building and we've had no interest to my knowledge of anybody that's
approached the city wanting to develop that or put anything in that building because those
other five floors are for rent.
Yeah.
I just want to say I do remember that conversation, we were the ones that raised it from the thousand
and Klemm. The ordinance passes 8-0. Item number 9 is the first reading of Ordinance 2024-15.
54, could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Part 6, General Offenses, Chapter 694, Weeds and Grass of the Codified
Ordinances, by adding, oh, oh, oh.
We skipped that one.
Sorry about that.
Ordinance amending Chapter 220, Council, Section 220.06, Compensation.
Section and Chapter 226.03, Mayor Compensation, and Section 228.03, City Clerk, Compensation.
Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. For the purposes of discussion, I'd like to break this up into three. We brought it up at the COW at the last meeting. We do need to like move forward with a decision, whatever that may be. So I'd like to start with the Alderpersons compensation. So with the municipal elections scheduled for April 2025, the City Council must set the salaries of these positions by November 19th. The salaries of elected officials may not take effect during the term of any official holding in
and Elizabeth.
In addition, the salaries must be adopted 180 days prior to the term of the office commencing.
In the case of the City of Freeport, a new rate for Alderpersons will only be effective
for those elected in 2025 and future elections.
The current rate for Alderpersons is $3,800 per year.
A 3% increase would bring the rate to $3,915.
Those Alderpersons up for election in 2025 would receive the new rate going forward.
So, per your direction, we've provided some comparables. If you'll look at the table, we've got Batavia, annual salary for Alderpersons is $7,200 per year, Belvedere is $7,100 per year, Carbondale is $6,000 per year, and as requested, Chicago is $100 per year,
Stirling is $2,411,308 per year, Decatur is $4,000, Dixon is $9,500, Galesburg is $5,000,
Moline is $8,000, Stirling is $2,400, and Woodstock is $6,000.
So staff request council to approve the 3% increase unless otherwise directed to the amount
of $3915 annually.
Do you see this as each thing separate, or are we just going to talk each one separately?
I thought we'd look at each one separately, but I mean...
To move forward separately?
I'd like to get Council's thought on Council pay at this time.
Okay, so do we need a motion for that first then?
To...well, Rob, did you want to give your report for all of it and then discuss?
I can do that, sure.
So moving on with mayor compensation, similar situation obviously, at City Council meeting
held on September 16th, council was provided with potential salaries increases for mayor
as listed below.
The prepared ordinance details a 3% increase.
So if there was a 3% increase currently, hang on a second, so that would move the, let's
Batavia was $31,000 for their annual salary for the mayor. Carbondale is $9,000 to $20,000.
Chicago is $221,000. Decatur is $8,000. Dixon's $19,500. Galesburg is $12,000.
Rock Island is $15,000. Sterling is $6,000. And Woodstock is $12,000. So as I mentioned before,
Moore, in terms of City Freeport. If we did a 3% increase, we'd be looking at $28,700
for 25 to 26. In 26 to 27, it would be $30,820. And in 27, 28, it'd be $31,000. So with that...
question there I just want to add clarification on are these comparables
city manager form of government or are they not most are except Chicago Chicago
is not and see here Carbondale is but they're currently moving there they're
for increasing the wages for the for the mayor in Carbondale okay with that I'd
like to move on to City Clerk again we need to improve the increase if it was
going to be made effective for the next election so in the case of Dovie we
talked about a four percent increase for Dovie that would increase her to fifty
27,500 for 25-26, 62,000 for 26-27, 64,000 for years 27 and 28, and 67,500 for years
28 and 29. Again, her salary is somewhat at the bottom of the pack. If you look at Belvedere
and Sterling. They're already currently making that much, although I would like to mention
that Dovie does receive a certification bonus that will be proposed, a $4,000 certification.
So you have to factor that in as you make your decision.
Madam Mayor. So, I've proceeded a motion to move this forward. So moved. As stated. Okay. Alderman Shadle, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Alderman Parker. Alderman Klemm. I believe that as we move this forward, I would appreciate if we could take and split it up into the three different sections rather than voting for it all.
I believe there's I have reasons for that but I believe it would be more advantageous and possibly make it to where it would go through easier I would second that so you would so right now there's a there was a motion in the second to move it forward as presented
as presented I hear now a motion to, a motion in a second to break it up into three separate
ordinance which is fine and then you know so but you got a motion right now to to break it up into
three separate ordinances. Okay so do do we just take a roll on it or do we talk about the breaking
it up? Talk about the breaking it up. Okay so if you have a comment about breaking it into three
flashlight.
I have.
Excuse me.
Where is this coming from?
Where are we drawing this out of and how we come into this conclusion of three sections
to.
Yeah.
You don't help me understand sure I happened to agree with one or two, the sections, but
We're talking we're talking three separate that way okay that's what you're
referring to yeah that's all I mean yeah because I didn't realize that he was
grouping all of the that's the way it is in your packet as a yeah I know that's
and the rest of the package but the thing that we were talking about was the things of Dovie
and how we like to, then the next thing I hear is breaking it up in sections.
Okay, so do you understand what the motion is right now?
Yeah, I understand what the motion is now but I didn't at the initial start.
So is there any discussion on the motion that's on the floor about breaking it into three
that's on the floor about breaking it into three different pieces, Dovie. The first and
second were Klemm and Monroe. Monroe, yeah. Thank you. Yeah, Madam Clerk, could you take
the roll on that? Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders?
Aye. Sellers? Aye. And Klemm? Aye. Motion passes 8 to 0. Which one do you want to start with?
Madam Mayor, if I may, I'll start with one since I've been an alderman the longest
as far as time frame goes. On the time I've been on council there's never been
and a vote for a raise for an Alderman as long as going back to 2005. It's been discussed
one time or another, but it's never been increased. I'm not saying it shouldn't be increased,
okay, but there has never been discussion of an increase before.
I believe when we went to City Manager form of government, it was naturally split up then
and with the mayoral being a part-time mayor
because you're going from a full-time mayor
to a part-time mayor.
So a figure was, if I'm correct, James,
you can maybe tell me if I'm wrong,
the mayor's salary was set at 20 X number thousand dollars
and then I believe at one time it was raised
like one or 2% possibly.
I have to tell you, I don't really ever recall
I'm not sure about that. Do you have figures, Michelle? Because if I recall, I believe when
I was on council in 2015, the salary was $3,300 and today it's $38.
Bates.
Is it right?
I don't know.
I need a second while you're talking.
Okay.
So, so to get back to your point, is that, are you saying that the 3% increase that's
proposed is, are you in agreement with?
I would be in agreement with it.
It doesn't affect me.
You know, I'm saying that.
and I'm saying that, the people that will affect first are the people that are up for vote in the second ward, the fourth ward and the sixth ward.
Correct.
The other people will not get an increase until 2025 or 2028 or whatever.
Twenty-seven.
I'm for increasing the City Clerk's position. The City Clerk's position has changed considerably over the years to have more responsibility.
I have absolutely nothing against the City Mayor but I have to say to you at the time we set the salary for the City Mayor
it was considered high by a considerable number of people.
I'm not saying that the mayor doesn't deserve a raise
or I'm not saying where we need to be,
but the mayor and I have had this discussion
and it has nothing to do with,
and we should all take like somebody mentioned before
and don't think about the person
that's in the position at the moment.
You know, that's got nothing to do with it
because somebody else is in turn
gonna replace them at some time.
So let's stick on the one piece that we have right now.
Let's stick with the Alderman and talk about what we want to move forward there.
Alderman discussion.
I had my hand up for the longest.
Yeah, we're talking about increases.
But increases without evaluations or changes in the job descriptions or the personnel,
staffs, and things of this nature.
We have not, but I know we're just talking about Aldermen. We need to know how Aldermen are defined, why are we Aldermen and why do we deserve 1%, 2%, or 3%. These are the evaluations that we're not having or discussing.
So what we're doing is we're prematurely talking about these things but there's no action behind it.
There's nothing going on behind it to make these determinations for these increases.
And so that's what I'm getting at. We're just throwing this out here and we have not addressed it properly.
That's my opinion and I don't think we have addressed it properly.
and I think we need to reevaluate, we need to evaluate what it is that the change is for if there is a change.
City Manager, did you have your hand up?
Yes, I just wanted to pass along to Alderman Sanders that it's essentially just a cost of living increase.
So that's what's behind that.
And you have to remember you don't personally evaluate the person in the seat. It's about the seat. It's not that's not it's a job title. It's a job. And every one of us sitting here has to have a job. Just our purpose in our description of what it is that we do and what it is that we do on a regular basis. The people need to know whether or not how how to define our job position, even as councils, even as mayor, even
even as attorneys and whoever else.
People need to know how their dollars are spent
and how we come to the conclusions that we do.
And so without us be able to address the general public
or ourselves, then we're doing a disservice,
not only just to ourselves,
but to the general public at the same time.
and I feel that we need to not be so hasty to make these types of votes without taking
the consideration and allowing us as council people and elected officials to look at the
whole thing without just jumping increases here and there.
And we need to know why it is that we're doing what we're doing.
Boyer says, because of cost of living. That is one word. Cost of living, two words rather, three. But nevertheless, that is as far as we are getting, as far as these increases is concerned, based on what he is saying. We have not even made a comparison with cost of living in our wage increase, or any increase, period. So we have not factored all of those
Alarg, Bill, P. R. McMurphy, redirected you to the floor.
And I don't know if we possible will be able to talk about those things in the into our
presence.
So we need to be able to stop and pace ourselves.
I don't know if it's I don't know if this is something that we need that we need to
expedite, something that we need to do in a hurry to get this determined.
But if that is the case, then we needed to bring that to the floor long before now.
and I have to move something forward tonight by law in order to pass it in so many days before the next election.
Alderman, I'm sorry, Manager Boyer, did you want to add to that?
Alderman Sanders, it's just my recommendation that 3 percent, you can make it whatever you want.
I mean, just, it's entirely up to the council.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
You know, I think when you come back to the conversation, it's more than just the cost of living.
What you're asked to do is take phone calls day in, day out for the position that we hold.
We want to get people who want to participate, study what we're going over that evening, bring
in people of high quality, high value to help our city to continue to grow and move in the right
direction. Those with financial minds. I will tell you, it's a hard sell at the price that it's set
out right now. You have three meetings a month on Monday nights, you miss family time, you miss
Fowler.
You miss a lot of stuff.
Notwithstanding, then you've got those times a year where in the fall, you're also coming
in for those finance meetings.
And it's important that we do the research and understand each line item.
It's not easy to sit in the seat and to tell a department head who thinks that you're attacking
their department that, no, you shouldn't get that much money.
But you have to balance it with the needs of the city.
It's a service that you're providing.
and in order to get people who really want to dive into this role, you need people to
be able to, who are going to feel like they're being financially compensated for the position
and the work that they're doing.
I mean, because if you break it down, are we getting the $15 an hour that's mandated
by the state?
I don't know.
But I think out of all of us that are sitting here, I'm the only one that's not running
and the next.
I'm the only one that's not running in the next election so I think it's pretty
easy to say looking forward we need to raise that that that value to raise the
amount of money to draw people in that want to do this and to give you kind of
an idea you get about $1,500 to be an assistant football coach so that's
that's for three months 1,500 bucks and we're paying a little over double that
and I have been doing that for an entire year of putting up with everything that goes on.
You know, we all know that we have our neighborhood watch meetings, we have other meetings that we come to, we other, other.
So we participate in a lot of stuff, we talk to a lot of people, we do a lot of research with the department heads as well,
and it's important that we take care of the duty that we are putting here.
And I think financially it makes a lot of sense to give that raise, not just for cost of living,
but to bring it in line with what people are being asked to do.
And I think it's kind of obvious that these positions, elected officials, are really about labor of love because pay isn't good.
Your motive is you want to move the city forward. You want to what's best for the community.
Alderman Sellers, you've had your hand up.
Yes, I just wanted some clarification on the way it was going to be set up.
So, we do the 3% tonight, and how does it affect Alder people? I guess I missed what all that was.
After the April election, anyone who is elected will receive that raise at that point.
Okay, so the previous ones, we still would get the, oh, that don't make sense to me. I would say no.
Fertig, George, and the other members of the House.
So, I would say no because if I'm sitting here and I'm doing
the same exact thing you're doing, I want to get the money.
» By law, it can't change when it's set. It's set for four
years. » Wow.
» Can I ask one clarifying, what's the dollar amount
difference between the 3% and what's being paid right now?
» $115. » So $115 divided by 12.
You know, I'm hearing what everyone is saying, and something that has not happened that has
and I, and it's got to happen and it can't just happen over this mic at a council meeting
openly on the floor.
We as the council need to come together and discuss, I don't care if it's 3%, if it's
and Stacey.
We need to be able, the eight of us, to come together, weigh out what needs weighing out.
That's what this is, Stacy.
And determine what we want, not what's being presented to us.
Then say it.
What do you want?
Because this is the forum that happens.
It doesn't happen behind closed doors.
That happens. It doesn't happen behind closed doors. I'm not saying behind closed doors. We all can't meet behind closed doors. Right. So this is your moment. So if you want to add something personal in that, then say it. This is your moment.
and others, like Alderman Monroe said, we have got to get these positions at a place where
people are going to want to take them over.
They're going to want to do whatever is required, the necessary whatever that is, to make the
best decisions for the city.
This little penny-anny, this and that, it's not going to work, we're not going to better
the City, like that.
Alderman Sanders.
Um, I have
a thought on whether
and I don't know if I don't know if it's in order or not,
whether or not the general public or the people in in in the assembly here
might have an opinion, might need to be, might want to share some light on this
because there's a lot of people know about how this thing works and and those
that are new to the whole system may not have a full understanding and I
would I would appeal to the general public if they have any insight or
understanding that they should be able to feel be able to come to the podium
and
the
President.
I want to
give a
little bit of a
podium and express those kinds of thoughts.
Because obviously, we, me, myself personally, I don't think we're approaching this right with all of the
information that is needed behind these types of things that we're pursuing.
ос, his aunt Pat, his aunt Debra, Debra's aunt, and their
aunt, and their brother's aunt, and their
brother's aunt, and their sister's aunt, and their
sister's aunt, and their sister's aunt, and their
sister's aunt, and their ex.
give us something other than the fact that we
know something other than the fact that we have
council members sitting here trying to determine
whether it's good or bad, whether we should move
forward or not. That's my whole thing. I don't
know if I'm out of order to do that or to say
West. When I went back on the Council, you discussed that you had talked to numerous people
before you had talked to me. Recently, there's been some positions talked about, and you're
probably the person that's called up more people than anybody. Have any one of those
people ever asked you how much it paid?
No. In fact, I had one say, it gets paid. It's what public service is.
And I'm just bringing up a point, you know.
Right.
That's all.
Manager Boyer.
Just submitting for counsel, if you look at the table that's
provided, it's very clear that all the persons in Freeport
are among the lowest paid with the comparables
that we've supplied.
Sure.
So with that in mind, you know, I
I would venture to say that it is not a stretch to do something to keep pace with the surrounding communities.
I think that's probably smart.
However, a 3% increase is what we generally are doing for the rest of City Hall and the rest of our workers.
Therefore, that's why that's suggested.
But it's up to the council what it is.
you think you you know where you think your value is compared to these other
communities you know you might want to consider that. Alderman Parker? I'm just
saying that when evaluate the public I go to the neighborhood watch meetings
every month with my activity in this town I have at least a hundred people
talk to me every month about this position you know you want it you don't
want it they can't believe how much you do how many complaints I get about the
Sanders. Yeah, I sympathize with you on that part of Brother Parker. People are
trying to engage Aldermen to get more insight and information on their
district areas and things of this nature and we become a value to them to be able
to talk with them and then bring it to the council or city manager and
and express what the citizens are talking about.
That is an absolute truth to it, fact to it,
because I've been exposed to it.
And I think that we should consider all of those things
and not put the public expressions behind us
and don't look at it.
If they have expressions, we should take that into consideration and I feel that that's what Councilmen's are for.
Can we call the question then?
This was only for first reading, so there was only a motion and second to move it forward.
And then there was a motion that was approved to break it up into three separate ordinances.
That being said, you know, at this point, it's a, you know, each topic is individually
Still 3% raise, 3% raise, 4% raise for the clerk's position, I believe, there unless there's another motion or motions for each category saying, Oh, well, we think it should be this for Alderman and not three, but this or this should be this for mayor or this for the clerk.
Then it would just be drafted as three separate ordinances for second read, but at the same dollar amounts that that's presented.
I just have a question clarification so if nothing's done with this then
everything stays status quo for how long four years four years you and I will not
be paid mayor if we don't get this resolved our wages are only good through
May of right so it has to be it would have to be set for whatever whatever is
and
John.
So, the current, yeah. Same as Alderman. They have to be set for
what's current.
No, they're different.
Right. So, per the way that our ordinance is written, for the
clerk's position and the mayor's position, it was set out for
their four-year terms what their amounts are. So, if you don't
and whoever fills that position, there is no salary for them and same thing for the mayor.
So it was set up where for whatever reason back then every four years you got to figure
out what the clerk and the mayor are going to be paid.
So my understanding is we need to act on this tonight.
We have to move something forward tonight.
It won't be voted on, it just moves forward.
Okay, gotcha.
So right now before you is the suggested for Alderman on the next election cycle a 3% increase
which amounts to $115.
That's what's before you.
Yeah.
That's a hell of a lot.
Alderman Stacy.
Can what, whatever is moved forward tonight, can that be changed?
Anything can have an amendment.
Did you hear me?
I'm being sarcastic.
That's all.
Right.
Right. So at this point, as far as the amendments, if you want to make an amendment, let's say for, because again, we already voted to break it up into three separate ordinances. So if you wanted to say, okay, further staff, you know, I, you know, I move that we raise the Alderman from 3% to 4%. If that gets seconded and you guys vote to approve that, then I would draft the ordinance for second read at 4% instead of 3%. If someone, I mean, this is your,
to your opportunity to have that discussion.
Same thing then for the clerk's position,
same thing then for the mayor's position.
Norman Sanders.
Yeah, entertaining this whole thought process.
Is it the limit point of a percentage
that has a cap to it?
and the percentage that we're talking about, 3%, 4%, is that a cap?
It's up to whatever you guys want.
So there's not a cap to this?
Nope.
You can say you want a 20% increase, but it would look really bad to the city.
Yeah, no, but what I was going to say is in comparison to the things that Manager Boyer
How do you get to see the conversation about how we're bringing in revenue back to the community, to the resources that are presented to us in comparison?
Are we in a position to bring our costs of living or our comparison balance to some other community even though they're doing much better than we are here in Freeport?
Can we find out what the percentages are and then determine whether or not we should bring our increase percentage to those communities?
We should bring our increased percentage to those kinds of balances or levels. I'm just curious. I don't want to say that we capping ourselves off and there's no headroom, but we do need to be able to see where we are in line with other communities and other counties.
So, I think what Manager Boyer has presented to you is some comparables as to what other
communities are currently paying the position of Alderperson there.
Now, the thing about it is you can't necessarily go to these same communities and say, oh,
well, what percentage increase are you doing this year or this election cycle?
Because just as in Freeport, these compensation amounts aren't changing every single, every
four years.
and others.
So, it's hard to get a percentage increase because it's not like, you know, people's
everyday wages.
You know, if you're an employee somewhere, you owe, every year you get a cost of living
adjustment, 3%, 2%, whatever, this is different.
It's up to each community.
But what you do have is, well, you know that Aldermen here are getting paid roughly $3,800
and then you have the chart that shows, well, what are Alderpeople?
and similarly sized communities getting paid.
And so you can see that.
Yeah.
Do we, do we, based on our cost of living in the city, based on what math, what measures
that we use to determine what is the cost of living of Freeport that applies to everyone
here in the city of Freeport when it comes to cost of living?
and then I wanted to find out, I also want to make it in comparisons. Is it population or what is it that causes inflation to change?
So there's a standard put out by the Department of Labor on what the cost of living adjustment is. I think that is broken up into regions, but I'm not positive there.
You know, generally speaking, you can Google what's the cost of living, you know, increase
this year and, you know, it'll come up that there's a, you know, the Department of Labor
usually issues that number.
Did you have a statistic there?
Yeah, I was looking it up.
So the statistics, I'll just go back to 2020.
The consumer price index was 1.2% in 2020, 4.7 in 2021, 8% in 2022, and 4.1% in 2020.
and
right right to set the amount right because right now it's moving forward it
would be moving forward at the just the suggested rates if you guys want to
change the rates then a motion needs to be made second it voted on that will
give me direction that how to bring the ordinance back for second read for you
guys to actually take the final vote on
I'll go ahead and do it. It doesn't make any difference. I'll make a motion to raise the Alderman salary and this can all be changed. It's not cast in gold, it's just nobody wants to talk about anything. I make a motion that we raise the Alderman salary to $4,500, raise the City Clerk's wages by 5% and keep the mayor the same.
Winslow.
Why don't we, okay, so I hear that Tom, but let's take them all separately, because that's
what we talked about doing, so you laid it out for us so we know where you're going.
No, I'm fine, I'm fine.
I would go along with-
We're doing the Alderperson first, right?
I would kind of go along with what he suggested for the clerk, is that where we're at?
let's just let's just do it Alderman one at a time please I'm just curious what
What's the percentage from 3,800 to 45, yeah, I'm just . . .
Oh, gosh.
See, this is why I don't . . .
Sounds about right.
Yeah, because someone could go 50 . . .
18.4.
Pardon me?
18.4 percent.
Oh, good night.
Why are you grunting, Mayor?
You got something stuck in your throat?
I do.
Do you?
Why are you grunting Mayor? Got something stuck in your throat? I do. Do you? It's a cough drop. Okay.
Okay, so on the floor is a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sanders
to raise the Alderman pay by 18.4 percent.
Alderman pay by 18.4% to be $4,500.
Yeah, you can go up or down, you can vote it in,
vote it out, or.
Now you gotta remember, that's for three Aldermen seat,
not eight.
Right.
Couple years will be great.
If you don't think it's right,
all you gotta do is say something.
Somebody, for Christ's sake, say something.
Yeah.
We've been here 15 minutes.
In minutes.
On a topic we couldn't have done before.
I agree, I agree, but I don't want to see it.
So the discussion is on the 18.4% which amounts to $4,500.
Alderman Sellers.
I really don't think we should go 18% right now,
but that's just me.
I think that's a little high.
What?
I just think it's a little high to jump into on 18%.
I can say five or five.
Yes, Alderman Simmons.
I'm sorry, we have spent millions of dollars
in the snap of a finger and we have been debating
not even a total of $35,000 a year
and raises for almost 30 minutes.
Can we please vote?
Can we do something?
Can we move it forward?
Please.
It's not even a hundred bucks a month.
Powell.
Okay. So is there more discussion?
Okay.
So there's the change that was suggested at a 3%. It's now
been changed, so that's what we need to vote on. If that's
Fowler.
If that's what's moving forward to second reading.
Any questions on that?
Michelle?
Can we round it?
I mean, there's some, a long percentage, 18.4 dot whatever, can we round it?
To simply say 4500?
Yeah.
Can we do that instead of a percentage?
I think that that's actually what Alderman Klemm said it was 45.
45.
Okay.
If there's no further discussion, can I call this or do we have to wait for the bathroom
Breakover. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe? Yes. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? No.
Sanders is absent Sellers no Clem the motion passes five to two so that's not
official gone through there's second reading that that's what's going forward
on second reading in two weeks 18% so now let's talk about clerk salary five
I'll second that.
We have a motion on the floor, may be Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Simmons to raise
the clerk position, five percent.
Discussion on the clerk's position.
Madam Mayor.
Yes.
What is five percent increase?
Michelle?
Quick question with that too, is it, so as we calculated, it was four percent year over
year, so four percent and then the next year four percent on top and then four percent
on top.
so it's not a flat for each year so I just wanted to make sure that was clear
and so if we're going to five we're going five plus five each year each year
so yeah yes that's the way that what is what does that amount to from what the
salary is right now at the end of this term
10,200 per year, total, total in four years.
Any further discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
This is a joke.
Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Alderperson, Sanders, do you want to vote on this or? Is that an aye? Passes 8 to 0.
Okay, so that's what's moving forward to the second reading. Next item is the mayor's salary.
Mayor's salary to remain the same.
That's that's a motion made by Alderman Klemm. Is there a second?
I will make a motion to...
He don't have a second.
I'll second it. Don't let it die.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Simmons,
to increase the mayor's salary by 0 percent. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, would you please
take over?
Oh, I have one question. Is that, is that because of, of the, you don't think the, the
and Jodi.
I have absolutely nothing against the job that is being done.
The people that have been in it have more than put in their time, without a doubt Jodi
has been there, has been really heavily involved in stuff.
I am basing it upon the fact that years ago when it was put in place, if you take a look
and you know it's not totally inclusive I mean call Michesney Park. Michesney Park
is almost identical in population and their part-time mayor gets fifty one
thousand fifty one thousand no but you can call and verify it if you want okay
no no I appreciate that Michelle there were some communities I just couldn't
and Stacey, if we go cheap, you're going to get cheap.
You get what you pay for.
Alderman Klemm Just a point, and it's not an argument whatsoever.
How many times have you heard everybody say since we hired a city manager, we're paying
150,000, I'm throwing out figures, they aren't actually accurate, okay, $150,000 here and
a hundred and, or $28,000 here, you know, that's $175,000 and we used to do it for
for how much money?
Mm-hmm.
So that's the only thing I'm basing it on.
Well, maybe we're paying our city manager too much.
Well, his salary is not for discussion right now, so.
Uh-oh.
Let's, I mean.
Well, I'm just saying.
I'm sorry.
It's not, it's not, Larry.
I'm finna have an argument.
It's not, Larry.
Maybe it's not debatable now.
It's not, it will be.
It's gotta be a, oh, okay.
It will be, it's not now.
Okay. Okay. So what's on the floor right now with the first and the second is a 0% increase. If you don't like it, then vote no. If you do, say yes. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe? No. Simmons? No. Parker? No. Stacy? No. Shadle? No. Sanders? No. Sellers? No. And Klemm? Aye. I feel like I'm... The motion fails 7 to 1.
Okay something has to be decided though. So I will make a motion that I was going to make earlier
that we do this we we do the same as what we did for the City Clerk and it will be a five percent.
Okay. And so is that a motion Alderman Monroe? Yes ma'am it's a motion. We have a motion made
about Alderman Monroe to raise the mayor salary five percent. Is there a second? Yeah you heard
Is that 5% every year? That's how the clerk and the mayor's positions are set.
Yeah. So, seconded by Alderman Sanders. Right? Okay. Are you asking me again? I
couldn't understand you. You weren't at the microphone. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, so we
have a motion and a second. Discussion on the 5%.
and I am here to speak on the 5% and the discussion on the 5%.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe.
Yes.
Simmons.
Aye.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
Aye.
That's not a strong one.
Aye.
Shadle.
No.
Sanders.
Aye.
Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. One, two, three, we do have five in favor, three opposed, the motion passes.
Okay, so again, this is what moving on to the second reading. Okay. We're going to move on to item number 10, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024, and I have no idea what the double X is.
That means the clerk forgot to put a number on there and it should be 106.
Ordinance approving revised lease with Illinois Central Railroad for Brick Street Water Treatment Plant.
Thank you. Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor. The city owns the water treatment plant on Brick Street.
It was built before 1900 on CN's property by the rail spur there.
The proximity of the rail was for coal to be delivered to the water plant. When the water company first began in Freeport it was burning coal and running coal burning pumps.
CN requires a lease agreement for the water plant located on this property. CN presented the city with an updated five-year lease.
This lease has normal requirements including nuisance and protection of the rail, I'm sorry, insurance and protection for the railroad in the event of an emergency.
and the city attorney prior to being presented and the lease in 1962 was $75 annually. That changed to basically $1,000 in 2023 and they've raised it to $2,000 in the next five years. So the cost is considered very reasonable with the majority of the 1900 water plant being located on CN's property adjacent to the rail line. It is anticipated with the proposed
and Wellhouse 12 being brought online with the distribution system that it can be decommissioned eventually within the next several years. This lease can be canceled at that time if building demolition happens before the five years lapses. City will need to find funding for the facility decommissioning demolition, so that's not a guarantee right at the moment. We haven't, we're not moving in that budget right now, but it is anticipated the cost will vary, be somewhat
Expensive, being that it's so close to the rail yard. So staff recommends that City Council move forward with the CN lease.
Is there a motion to move this forward?
So moved.
Second.
Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion.
Darin? Yeah, I just wanted to say that up on your screen, up there is the Brick Street
Water Plant. It's the white building and also the tanks that are there to the right. So
you can see the proximity to the line. These lines aren't perfect because they're downloaded
off of WindJS, but it's very close. So we do have quite a bit of real estate that is
is on top of the CN rail, so the lease is considered very reasonable.
They know that our eventual idea is to decommission this plant and remove it.
The reason it's so close is years ago, the white box that's clearly close to the trail
was where coal was delivered many, many years ago.
They are requiring insurance upgrades, but based on any accident that would happen there,
and
the insurance that they're asking for is extremely reasonable.
Alderman Sandler.
Yeah, whenever we are looking at things through the projectors,
as far as maps, pictures or whatever the case is,
we need to do better with the surveys
of displaying what is actually on the ground as opposed to
We're not getting a full view, as great as technology is, and cell phones with pictures
and movies, we should be able to display those types of images on our screen so we can see
what actual location, what that building is for.
We're not getting enough information is what I'm getting at, and I think we can do better.
We should be able to do better because the options are there, the data is there, the
pictures and everything can be available to that projector or whatever, but I think we
should do better than what we're getting because I'm in here looking around at this map, but
I don't know what the buildings are, and I don't know what the adjacent of the railroad is to those buildings or the will itself.
Well, first of all, if you want to do better, read the memo.
No, no, that has nothing to do with it. See, there you go again.
That has nothing to do with it. I want a better image.
Better images are available. That's what I'm getting at.
Let me clarify. There would be not a better image than this to show where things are because
The entire tree line around the water plant and the rail is wooded.
So if I even went and took pictures of it, you'd see nothing but trees.
So this is the best angle.
This is the 1900 Brick Street Water Plant.
This is where 75% of our water used to go to.
The well fields are out here next to the river.
And this is the the water storage tank.
We have water mains that run under the rail adjacently.
And this is the old coal chute.
and this box right here is all railroad property.
Yeah. Well, the first look is that it's what you're trying to display or indicate to us.
But if we wanted to revisit those photos, that map again and look at more detail,
we should be able to have that detail to be more vivid than what it is.
And so just you just are trying to explain to us what is what from this map.
it's not good enough, it's not efficient enough and I know that it could be done
better so if we're gonna be if we're gonna be watching these kinds of things
let us let us get better photos and better understanding of what we're
looking at because right now everybody is not on the same page as you are this is
the this is our first look well I would like to say frankly I think this is a
is a very easy discussion.
Our facility is located on CN's property.
They're requiring us to sign a lease and insure it.
I don't think we really have a choice in the matter.
It's a very reasonable amount.
And so I really feel like this is a really simple discussion.
We can't remove the facility because it's still active.
It's been there for the better part of 100 years.
And so I think it's a very simple concept that $2,000 is pretty cheap.
I didn't want you to, I didn't miss that point that you're making, but what I'm saying is for visual purposes, what you're pointing to right now, half of everyone in here does not understand that one thing that you were demonstrating and what facilities and buildings that you're indicating, so we're not getting the efficiency from the viewpoint that we need to be looking at so we can have a better look at what buildings
We're talking about that if we decide to want to visit that site, then we'll know what building
that we're visiting.
Right now?
Right now.
It's a secured site.
Nobody can visit it.
Well, the point is, whether it's secured or not, if we wanted to visit it, we still don't
know what we're looking at.
That's all I'm saying.
So the photos or pictures or videos or whatever is not available to us.
Only this image here.
That's all we're getting and I think we can do better than that.
Let's move up to the 21st century and get better vivid picture details.
I think the photos and the display is just fine and I appreciate your efforts, Darren.
Thank you.
If there's no further discussion, we're moving that forward to the next City Council
meeting.
Thank you.
Move on to item number 11, which is the adoption of resolution 2024-106.
would you please read this? Resolution approving Fehr Graham construction
engineering agreement for Shawnee and Hancock viaduct improvements. Thank you.
Manager Boyer. Thank you your honor. The city had a public bid opening on
September 10th for the Shawnee Hancock viaduct improvement project. Again, can we
put that one up on the screen? Okay. So the viaduct project requires replacing
the water main, the storm sewer, and lowering the road by two and a half feet
to allow semi-truck traffic and safety equipment to enter the Arcade area from the viaduct location
permanently. Alternate solutions to this roadway issue were studied and are not cost-effective due
to CN not allowing new track crossings.
Crossings.
The city project requires full-time construction engineering efforts for this technical project
in the proximity of the CN Railway.
The viaduct project has been the city's long-term project list for over 10 years, and it is
a permanent solution to access to the east side of the viaduct.
The project will be split between a fiscal year 24 and 25 budget.
The project funding will come from the water, sewer, storm, and street funds to complete
and there are resident engineering requirements with the west abutment to allow the lowering
of the roadway.
The project is expected to be completed in May of 2025 with final paving and city staff
recommends city council approve the Fehr Graham professional services agreement to lower the
Shawnee viaduct roadway.
So as you're looking there, this is required so that trucks can get underneath there.
Also moving vans, school buses, anything like that.
It would be necessary to lower this two and a half feet for that to happen.
This is also part and parcel to getting the Hancock Bridge deck replaced and the guard
rails.
So without this additional avenue, we would not be able to work on the Hancock Bridge.
Right now we're looking at about a two million, two and a half million dollar upgrade to the
Hancock Bridge and there really isn't any other choice except for going with a full reconstruct
on the bridge and I think estimates came in over fourteen million dollars for that.
So this is really an important project we need to move forward on so that we can have
alternate access to the arcade.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Okay, motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion, Alderman Stacy?
And how much did you say this was going to cost?
This agreement is, I'll pull that right back up here. Darren, would you go ahead and give me that?
Yeah, it's item 14 on tonight's agenda. You're talking about the construction, correct?
I'm talking about lowering the street.
Okay.
The low bid was $1,292,388.25. So almost $1.3 million.
But that's for the later...
That is for Item 14. That is for the construction. That's the approval of the bid. This contract is for $138,600.
I don't know what you just gave me.
So you asked for the total construction cost.
$138,600?
That's the price of the construction engineering $138,600. Item 14 that's on the agenda tonight.
Okay, no, I'm not on, I'm on 11. 11 is $138,600. And that's to lower the street? No, that's
for the engineering required to be in the field while they lower the segment. What is
Winslow.
That is the cost of the project in lowering the street and everything.
That is item number 14.
That is on the bid tonight.
Item 14 on your agenda and it is roughly $1.3 million.
So is there any further discussion on the engineering portion number 11?
And we have the permission from the train?
Yes, we do. Yeah, we have a permit from CN to move forward with the project.
Alderman Monroe. One quick question. What's the risk of something going wrong?
Because, I mean, that's been there quite a while. Yeah, so we had structural engineers,
and specifically we had HDR involved as our subcontractor. They're the lead engineer for CN Rail.
They've studied the abutments. The east abutment, which in this picture would be the right hand one,
C.N. came out and evaluated and said while the surface area on it's cracked, it's structurally sound, and so they've investigated two or three different structural ways to fix it. They're basically asked us to put shoring in to make sure the abutment doesn't move, and then there's also some anchoring that we can do to make sure that the abutment doesn't move, and then there's also some anchoring that we can do to make sure that the abutment doesn't move.
C.E.
and Stacey.
And what was the reason why we couldn't use the space to the right of the west side?
In this picture that would be to the inertia side, which would be to the right side, there
is a single pass that goes back behind inertia and goes to their back.
It's a private entrance that the rail owns in them, but it's only single lane, so only
single lane trucks could get through there and there is no road to get back through there.
That road only goes through inertia.
Inertia has an agreement with the city right now until we can get this repaired to use
and others.
We use that as emergency access in case we have flooding, in case something ever happens
with this particular access point, because we really, the bridge is in horrendous shape
at the moment and, you know, getting worse every day, and if something were to happen
this, the arcade people and businesses would be trapped back there.
There is no other pass.
I also want to tell you guys that I explained this when we designed this, but we looked
for alternate modes of transportation.
We looked for a bridge passing, something else to get around here, maybe coming off Singer
by the jail.
Nothing else was affordable.
A bridge over the end of Singer I think was around $4 million.
CN will not permit another crossing across the rail itself.
They're trying to eliminate crossings because it's a huge liability risk for them.
I would say working with them, they've been gracious enough to try to help Freeport find
and the cheapest and most economical way to undertake this project so it's affordable.
And the entire Hancock Bridge project that is coming next summer is all contingent upon
this work being done.
The Hancock Bridge will be taken down for at least seven to nine months to rehab it
in place.
and in order to do that we have to have access, permanent semi-access through this BIDOC here.
Just so everybody can see that sign says 11 foot 5.
We will be reducing the bridge or increasing the bridge to 14 foot 6, which is lowering
the pavement approximately 3 feet.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, is there any other alternative temporary roads that we can install in that in the arcade
area so that we can have traffic continuously moving?
So the rail goes eastbound here and continues all the way, you know, out by Highway 20.
There is no passing across there to get back into the arcade.
There is that emergency pass we just talked about.
There's a dirt two-track path that runs back behind, I can't think of the business name,
the old train depot, I can't remember the name of their business, Ultrasonic, excuse
me.
It runs through their property, so we physically don't have any access to that.
In an emergency, I'm sure that they would let people through, but it floods back there
and others are quite often as well so it's not a regular pass and then there is no other
access across the tracks except for at Stevenson Street so this is pretty vital to the well-being
of the people that live back in the arcade.
I would also tell you right now I believe the Chief would be able to back me up on this
but if we had a very emergent situation and something happened to the bridge right now
No other fire rescue team other than the City of Freeport themselves would be able to respond
because they wouldn't be able to get under this viaduct.
We have special equipment that would allow them to get through there.
Our rural partners do not have that.
Alderman Minoruika, we're here.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
So it's a lot going on and I do believe we talked about with the Chief before that our
equipment is all that can get back there.
but is the Arcade Ave coming up to that point, is it going to be sufficient to support the
type of traffic that's going to be going through there or are we going to have to look at redoing
that after this?
No, actually not that it doesn't need to be redone but Arcade Avenue, I'm not talking
about going down Shawnee, that would not be a truck route but Arcade itself is a truck
route and Hancock is built as a truck route too so while they need resurfacing
Doe, so while they need resurfacing, they're actually built for semi-traffic and that makes
a logical termini to the new Adams Street that, you know, we're finishing up.
So it does make sense ultimately for that traffic.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, the southeast areas of that arcade where the residents live, there's no pathway to
to make that as an alternative so people can at least
make a detour, put detours through, that's not an option.
No, we looked, I believe it's off of 13th Avenue,
there's a spot that could have probably been
maybe a logical crossing into one of the factory
parking lots that's over there, CN won't permit it
because they don't want any more track crossing across.
If you go farther to the east, the rail actually embeds
pretty much underground in both directions.
So that would require a bridge going over,
which would be way more expensive than what this would be.
That'd be over by the Singer location.
So we did a lot of investigation.
There just really is not a good path to get through
other than these two access points, this one and the bridge.
Everything else is private access.
There's no further discussion.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye.
And Klemm? Aye. The resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution
2024-107. Could you please read this? Resolution authorizing execution and amendment of downstate
Operating Assistance Program or the DOPE Grant Agreement for Fiscal Year 2025.
Thank you.
Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
The City of Freeport operates the Pretzel City Area Transit Program, which is essentially
our bus program for not only the City of Freeport, but also Stevenson County.
And this program is funded largely in part to the Downstate Operating Assistance Program,
Sterling, nearly 1.3 million dollars and what is presented in this resolution is to accept
these grant funds and staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion?
Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Tracy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm.
The resolution is adapted 8-0.
Item number 13 is the adoption of resolution 2024-108.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving a grant agreement with the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System
regarding less lethal alternatives for law enforcement for a less lethal device grant.
Thank you.
Chief Shenberger?
Thank you, Mayor.
In the summer of 2024, staff applied for the fiscal year 25 less lethal alternatives for
law enforcement grant offered by the State of Illinois. The grant would allow departments
throughout the State of Illinois to upgrade their conducted energy device programs with
the Taser 7 or Taser 10 devices. Freeport Police Department requires officers to carry
a CED as a less lethal use of force option. The current devices used by the Freeport Police
Police Department are the Axon X26P, which came out in 2013, and the Axon X2, which came
out in 2011.
Both of these devices have been in service for more than 10 years.
Axon has indicated the company will be discontinuing the use of both models in the near future,
thus requiring agencies to upgrade to the Taser 7 or Taser 10.
United States Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Police Executive Research Forum,
has found that CEDs when used appropriately
and with a full understanding of their risks
are a useful device that can effectively help
to resolve serious situations.
CEDs can reduce the need for other force options
and can enable officers to subdue actively resisting
or aggressive subjects while lowering the rates of injury
to law enforcement officers and subjects.
The Freeport Police Department has the most current
and acceptable lexical policy outlining the use of CEDs.
Freeport Police Department also has
two certified CED instructors on staff
and require annual recertification
that involves scenario-based training curriculum
that is certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training
and Standards Board.
On October 1st, staff was informed
that the Freeport Police Department
has been awarded five Taser 10 packages,
and more.
This award will significantly upgrade the Freeport Police Department CED program and
offset future costs of updating the program.
There is no funding for this because we essentially purchased these packages and then reimbursed
by the State of Illinois. Thank you, Chief. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye.
Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm. The resolution is adopted 8 to 0. Bids were
opened on September 10th 2024 for the Shawnee and Hancock viaduct improvements.
Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you your honor. The city held a public bid opening
on September 10th as previously discussed for the Shawnee Hancock
Park, Viaduct Improvements. There was one bidder, City Staff, our engineers, in two
local bids from, I'm sorry, from Helm Group and Civil Freeport, was the lowest responsive
bidder at $1,292,388.25. The bid was just over the engineering estimate for the project.
City engineers received and obtained CN permission to do the construction at Hancock and Shawnee.
The project will be split between fiscal year 2024 and 2025, and staff recommendation to move forward with the Helm Group bid.
Is there a motion to approve the bid as stated?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the bid?
Alderman Sanders.
I understand we got, I'm sorry, I understand the Helms Group and Civil, they're the same, right?
Yes.
But what I don't see is any other bidders. Have we considered any other bidders?
Yeah, there's two bidders on the job that was in the packet. Helm Group, which is Civil,
and the second was Fishers Excavating. Both bidders were off report. They were bid very close together.
A matter of fact, they were 1.4% difference in cost or $19,000. So it's a very tight bid for something this large.
It's in your packet. Both of them were in your packet.
They're both in the package for consideration?
No.
The city is moving forward with one, but both are in your packet.
We're moving forward. We're asking to move forward with the lowest
responsive bidder which was Helm Group. So you're gonna hold another bidding even
in the package because you gotta have one or the other. Are they working
together? Are they jointly working together? They both had independent bids.
Helm Group had one bid. Fishers had another bid. Helm was the lowest
responsive bidder so they will be the final awarded if you approve it. Okay
Okay, that's what I was getting at. Yeah, that's what I was getting at.
Alderman Monroe. So this comes up occasionally. Can you explain how the bids are, how they're placed, you know?
Sure. So all the city bids that Fehr Graham or the city staff's a part of, if you run them through Fehr Graham,
We have a bid site, it's called quest.cbn, and it is a professional bidding site.
Many contractors in the Midwest pay to be part of this service, and then anytime a project
comes out, for instance, this one would check Watermain, Storm, Road, Railway, they automatically
get notifications if they assign for those notifications.
So it's instant, as soon as we post it, they get a notification, City Freeport has a bid,
Blah, blah, blah. If you're interested, you can download the package, right?
We also do a local paper ad that's required by city ordinance.
So we file a paper ad. It runs in an edition.
Anybody locally can contact us for the bid packets if they wish to.
When you're talking about a project of this
when you're talking about a project of this nature it's very specialized there's only a handful of people around that could even handle something like this with CN that's why you see very reduced bidders plus the market's been pretty flush with work this year and we're leading into the end of the season where everybody's struggling to get the work done they have on the books so far so it's not surprising to me that we only got two bidders and you should remember I don't remember what the exact number is
Group is one of the largest contractors in the Midwest, and physically do a lot of structure work type like this.
Follow up.
Thank you, man. So when the bids are delivered, are they delivered in person or are they mailed in or how does that work?
They can do both. Any city bid can be mailed in or delivered on the day, they have to be checked in to the clerk. Dovie has to
to check them in with a time and a date stamp, and then they're open publicly at the meeting room that anybody can come to, and they're open in the order that they're received.
Thank you. Yep.
Okay, so if there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe? Aye.
Simmons? Aye.
Parker? Aye.
Stacy? Aye.
Shadle? Abstain.
Sanders? Aye.
Sellers? Aye.
and Clem. The motion passes 7-0 with one abstention. And item number 15 if you
could read this approval. Another bid was opened on September 12, 2024 for CD007-2024
for rehabilitation of a single home at 749 East Center Street. Thank you Madam
Mayor. The City of Freeport was awarded the Community Development Block Grants
Hicks, Housing Rehabilitation, in the amount of $550,000.
And in this particular grant, $64,000 is allocated to grant administration and a total of $486,000
goes to the rehabilitation of homes.
And working with our state agency, that's the Department of Commerce Economic Opportunity,
the DCEO, currently we are awarded to have $60,000 in rehabilitation of homes.
So a little detail here, many people locally know this as the Adams Avenue Corridor Rehabilitation
Grant.
This was started in 2021 and since I've been here we have been working tirelessly with
two different consultants through that period and we are now at that finish line where we
We are bringing, excuse me, bringing aid to our first property owner.
So what is being presented to you is a, we had a bid opening for this.
We had one bidder.
It was properly noticed in similar fashion as Mr. Steekle just explained.
And so when the bid was opened, we received a lowest responsible bid of $52,925, which
some of the highlights that was included in the scope of work is the installation of 16
new windows, a new electrical system, exterior siding repairs, stair replacement, and interior
drywall patching, among other things that were attached in the scope of work.
and staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
And that would be entering into an agreement to for in a total amount of $52,000 and $52,925
for CMM and Associates to perform the work rehabilitation services at 749 East Center
Street.
Is there a motion to approve?
So move.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion Alderman Sanders.
Hicks. What's the eligibility requirement for? It's lengthy and that process closed in 2021.
So that's, it's closed. The eligibility requirements closed three years ago. This was, but essentially
what was done in 2021 was staff at that time went out and canvassed the area. It was a
and John.
Hild into a grant application. Okay. You have a list of homes that meets the eligibility for this program. That was done approximately a year ago. We had our consultant, we had 64 properties that applied for this grant. And then the consultant, which is Region 1 Planning Council, it's a Metropolitan Planning Commission, and it's in
Rockford, Illinois. They were retained to look at that data and do an objective analysis on which properties of the 64, they prioritize the properties that would be available for this type of assistance.
Okay. Is that agency located here in Freeport or Rockford?
It's Rockford, Illinois.
It's Rockford and how do the people here in Freeport sign up for that type of program?
It's no longer available.
Neid based and this particular property was the top need based on their analysis and in working with
our grant manager at the state we worked down from that list and we provided you know we went through
the process and had a bid opening and that's where we're at right now. So what's the percentage of
work that has been done here in the Freeport regarding to this? I am so happy and proud to
say that in the three years I've beat my head against the table to get the state to allow me
Winslow, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor
So, based on that information, in November, I should be presenting two more resolutions of this nature to Council.
So there would be a total of three homes.
And there's a fourth home that has a walkthrough on October 18th.
So essentially, I could have four homes by November.
Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you, Alderperson, Stacy.
There's no further discussion.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye.
And Klemm? Aye. The motion passes 8 to 0. Item number 16 is the department head.
Department head reports. It's a long night. Finance? Nothing, your honor. Thank you.
Community Development? Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Public Works? Yep. We've got a
a handful of things. First I would like to announce that hydrant flushing will be taking place in the City of Freeport the week of October 21st. It's going to take probably two to three weeks to get through the town to flush hydrants. During this period you may get some rusty water. Just make sure that you run tub faucets and flush it out. Look for cleaning your aerators in your home. It's a typical process that we do every year in the fall.
Happy to say that the City Streets program, we have two streets left for this year, Greenfield, out by Business 20, and Salem Court, we hope to get those done later this week or possibly next week.
Today we started hot patching with crews, we put down about 16 tons today.
the west side water main expansion is out to EPA permit next week you're going to
see at the committee the whole the ADA transition plan coming forth that's
something that we need to do for IDOT
Dean to do for IDOT. We're required to do that to keep receiving our MFT money. We've
talked about that a handful of times and we've delayed it to this point, but we tried to
get grant funds for it and we've been unavailable to get those grant funds.
What was that called? It's called the IDOT ADA transition plan.
ADA. ADA, so those are the handicap accessible
We're also working on 2025 Streets program. So you're going to see a work order coming forward for that soon. And we're also working on the 2025 EV Chargers grant that we were awarded to place eight EV Chargers in downtown Freeport. I'm working with Mr. Duckman on that. And our biggest project well number 12 that Eric Sorensen was here today to award Freeport some money we're we're working on getting the EV Chargers in downtown Freeport.
and I are getting that moving to design in a final location picked.
I think that's it.
Thank you. Chief? Nothing this evening. Thank you.
Thank you. Chief? Yeah, we're currently taking applications for our
fall session of the Civilian Police Academy. We're taking applications through
October 17th and would like to have our first
session on October 24th. It lasts 8 weeks.
goes from about 6 p.m. to roughly 8 p.m. or maybe earlier.
It also offers applicants an opportunity
to do a ride along with the police department.
So if anyone's interested,
they can contact the police department
or I believe that there's also on our Facebook page
there's a QR code that take them right to the application
so they can complete that and get it in before it closes.
Thank you, Library?
Nothing tonight.
Thank you.
IT?
Then we'll leave this with the City Manager's report.
Nothing tonight, Your Honor.
I just wanted to remind Council that next Monday
is a holiday, it's Columbus Day,
so the Committee of the Whole is on Tuesday,
so don't come on Monday, it's Tuesday.
And just to piggyback on what Darren said,
we were honored today to have Congressman Sorensen
come to City Hall.
He presented us with the check for nearly $1 million
to go towards well number 12 so very fortunate for that had also the pleasure
of having our almost all of our public works department here for that photo op
and it was actually one of the highlights that congressman Sorensen
said that was a big deal to him to be able to have the people that actually do
the work standing with him so thank you to him. Council announcement, Alderman
Monroe. Thank you Madam Mayor. For those of you, there's, you know, we've had a very tragic situation down in North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina. There are several area churches that are collecting dry goods, food, clothing, other things for the relief efforts down there. And keep your prayers out also for the folks in Florida. Since we've been in this room, Hurricane Milton is now a category
Jate, George, and
Judge, Todd.
So it will be a very, very rough day on Wednesday there.
A lot of us have friends and family who've retired down that way.
So keep them in your prayers.
But, you know, hey, great work on all the city streets that we've seen.
We've been getting a lot of comments about that.
I think we're finally turning the tide of the roads here in the city of Freeport and
the infrastructure.
So it's a very, very rough day.
It's a very rough day, but we're going to do our best to make sure that we're able to
Alderman, Stacy, Nothing, Alderman, Shadle, Nothing, Alderman, Sellers, I just want to
I also have gotten a lot of comments on how nice the streets look, so thank you.
Alderman Klemm?
Nothing, Your Honor.
Okay. Larry, I'm guessing since you're over in the corner, you must not have anything to say?
No, I didn't.
Okay. Then leaves us with item number 20 of public comments. Tommy, did you? Go ahead. Three minutes.
Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council, City Staff, thank you, Joshua.
That was rough. I want to go back to the Alderman pay, the Mayor pay, City Clerk pay discussion.
You guys get the agendas just like all of us get the agendas out here.
The difference is a lot of us look at them and it seems like you guys continue to not look at them.
When you guys talk about the Alderman pay, I want to stick to that here.
Alderman Sanders asked a question.
What do the Alderman do? How long have you guys all been Alderman?
You guys should know what the job description is.
If you don't, we have a bigger problem in Freeport, or probably we can pinpoint why we are where we are.
How much is this position worth?
You're not answering the question of how much you are worth, or how much your brother or sister on this council are worth.
is that position worth sitting on this council or worth you're asking what is
that position worth sitting out here.
We just want to know how much is it going to cost for our elected officials to
do their jobs come to the meetings prepared, do the jobs, discuss outside
of council, whether it be via the email or telephone but come here knowing what
you're talking about, what you're voting on that is frustrating.
and many more.
That is a problem.
We need you guys to step up and do the job or get out of the way.
You guys are Alderman 365 days a year.
City Clerk is a City Clerk 365 days a year.
Madam Mayor, you are our representative 365 days a year.
By my calculations, City Alderman, you get paid less than $10 a day to represent your
Ward, to speak for me, Larry Sanders, Alderman Sanders, you speak for me, you represent me,
if I have a problem I should be able to call you, you should answer the phone, you should
email and I'm directing it to you because you're my Alderman.
This goes for all of you.
Tonight, the four hours, over four hours now, we, the City of Freeport, pay to our Aldermen,
each one of you $1.50 to sit through this.
I'm willing to pay a lot more to get good government in here.
Let us know what that number is.
Madam Mayor, we paid the mayor about $13 to sit through this tonight.
We pay our mayor right now about $80 a day.
I get it's a part-time position.
She is my mayor right now every single day of the year for the past seven and a half years.
What is that position is worth?
So I challenge you and I know I'm gonna run out of time here.
Take this week like you should have taken the past two weeks.
Think of something.
You asked our City Manager to go pull numbers.
He did that.
He did his job.
How come our eight Aldermen didn't do their jobs?
Go figure out what your plan is, what your proposal is,
and come to some kind of agreement so we can move forward.
We need better people wanting these positions.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you.
Tommy?
Osmond is going to be a Special Olympics banquet for the wards and dinner, Wednesday the 16th
at 5.30.
And where's it at, Tommy?
It's going to be at Nidah Church, yeah, Nidah Church something.
at 626 West Po City Road.
All right.
Thank you for sharing your information.
Any other public comments?
OK, then that leaves us with item number 21,
which is executive session.
Madam Clerk, could you please read that?
Three items.
Pursuant to 5 ILCS 122C1, the appointment, employment,
compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal
have specific employees or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony
on a complaint lodged against an employee or against legal counsel for the public body
to determine its validity.
Two, pursuant to 5 ILCS 120 2C 2, collective negotiating matters between the public body
and its employees or their representatives or deliberations concerning salary schedules
for one or more classes of employees.
to 5ILCS122C21, discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this Act, whether for
purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated
by Section 2.06.
Is there a motion to enter into an executive session?
So moved.
Is there a second?
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Clerk, could you please take the roll? Monroe? Simmons? Parker? Stacy? Shadle? Sanders? Sellers?
And Klemm? The motion passed.