I haven't heard that. That's exciting. Be patient, Tom. I will know soon. I forgive you.


No, that's okay. That's fine. I'll tell you if there's a situation in the Senate.


But whatever works out is fine. I will tell you, Tommy. I will find out.


I know they were putting their permits down. Be patient. You will have a sub soon.


Oh, you're shooting me. Oh. I'm blessed. Wait for my diamonds. Shoot what? Wait until you hit it.


Come on, man. Oh, there's one. Good evening. Justin, could you please give the invocation this evening?


Good evening. Just quickly before I pray, I just wanted to say here, towards the end of 2024, it's been about two years, I think, since I've come and prayed monthly and I I know there are highs and lows, frustrations and joys to your discussions here, but just as one person in Freeport, I'm grateful for you guys' work, Directors, Chiefs, Mayor, Mr. Zito, City Planner, I know that it probably doesn't always feel like your work matters or is appreciated, but it is, and just thank you, I'm grateful, grateful for your work, and all of your work for our city.


Would you please allow me to pray for you? Well, Father, we thank you. Lord, I give thanks on behalf of those here tonight for your good gifts that you pour out so freely upon us, your creation, the work of your hands.


Williams. Lord, I thank you for the different gifts and personalities and abilities and callings represented here in this room, the various posts that these men and women occupy, the different people that they represent. Lord, we thank you for this city, for our county.


We thank you for the good work that has been done this year. We know that there is more to do and yet even as we come up on a Thanksgiving holiday in the very near future, Lord we just stop to give thanks and we do say thank you for all that you've strengthened and empowered and given wisdom and gifts to us to accomplish and Father I pray again for tonight's discussions Williams, pray for the work in the weeks ahead, even as winter draws near, as things finish up in the Public Works Department, as far as summer and fall goes, and transition into winter.


Lord, pray that you would help in terms of equipment and personnel. Pray that all involved would have the opportunity to enjoy the upcoming holidays and truly find and the rest and time to rejoice in the works this past year and again pray that you bless the time tonight. Give wisdom. We pray in Jesus name. Amen. Amen.


Thank you, Pastor Justin. And I'd also just like to take a moment to say thank you to Alderman Shadle for carrying out last week's Committee the Whole as I was at the National League of Cities Conference.


and Stacey, and I'm pleased to be here today to share with you the best practices, ideas and solutions with fellow municipal leaders across the country. So with that, we'll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, could you please take the role.


Mayor Miller? Here. Alderperson, Klemm? Here. Monroe? Here. Simmons? Here. Parker? Here. Stacey? Here. Shadle? Here.


Thomas, and if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Stacy.


and the next item is the approval of the agenda. I believe that as per request of Alderman Monroe, he would like to remove item number 30 and place it on the December cow.


With that is there a motion to approve the agenda? Alderman Monroe. I would make a motion to adopt the agenda.


I would like to make a request that we return to live camera feed after the executive session as well, though here in the chamber.


Okay. Kurt, you good? Okay. Yep. Thank you. And is there a second? Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Klemm for the approval of the agenda. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. Item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on November 4th, 2024. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion made by by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. We have quite a few signed up for tonight's public comment.


We'll start with Kevin Lamb. members of council and a mayor city manager I wanted to come before you to talk about the agenda tonight not a particular item this this stack represents 405 pages. My concern is if I got an agenda that was 405 pages long of minutes, contracts, memos, leases, item after item, I know this is a bigger one than usual, but I cannot imagine an Alderman trying to read all of that from Friday until now, not just to read it, but to know it, to understand it, to talk and I have to work with my constituents to be able to figure out, should I be in favor of it, should I not?


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


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


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


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


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


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


Next on the list is Juliet Matarow. Good evening. On the agenda this evening is the resolution for Bird City, Illinois, so I wanted to give a little background.


Bird City, Illinois was established for the state of Illinois in 2021 and Freeport was is one of the first of three cities to earn this designation, alongside Rockford and Waukegan.


Part of the requirements for Bird City is to fulfill a minimum of nine actions, including an annual proclamation for World Migratory Bird Day, which we do every year in May, as well as a passing of a resolution for Bird City, Illinois, every three years.


The requirement is this, to ensure that municipalities consistently think of environmental impacts when making certain decisions, particularly those that affect birds and other wildlife.


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


of the Recognition. On behalf of the Northwest Illinois Audubon Society who led this charge and donated the application fee, I wanted to thank the city, the Freeport Park District, the Freeport Public Library, University of Illinois Extension, Jane Addams Land Park Foundation, Freeport Student Garden, Environmental Study Group, Park Hills Golf Course, and Bluebird Monitoring Volunteers, and the Pretzel Pickers.


In 2021, Freeport met 18 criteria. But this year, thanks to these groups, Freeport met 29 criteria.


I thank the support of the council members who see the benefit of being a bird city of Illinois and help make our Freeport community healthier for birds and people.


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Juliet. Next is Rhonda Scott. Good evening. I'm here to speak on three agenda items and I have a couple of questions that you might want to think about when you are going over some of these items. The first one was item number 14 and that was the one dollar lease of a vehicle from the senior citizens, not senior center, the city would lease it for a dollar.


So I just happened to ask an Alderperson, well, do you know when you lease it for a dollar? Do you know what you are getting into? Do you know the other costs? Because we have had this situation where you lease a parking lot to somebody and Mary, and I'm going to ask you a question.


What are the costs of the vehicle? What are the costs of the vehicle? I'm going to ask you a question.


and others. And then there was a fund called the Downstate Operating Assistant Grant, which provides funding for, I'm assuming, operation of these vehicles.


It really just helps public transportation in cities. So it's great if we have that budget and it will pay for those costs, but I think as Alderpeople, and when I ask a question, do you know how much it's going to cost me as a taxpayer to, you know, are you going to increase my taxes so you can pay for the cost on this $1 leased vehicle, it'd be nice if you understood what was going on and could tell me.


I did review the notes and the notes asked everybody to go ahead and approve it because it'd be a good deal to add that vehicle to our fleet, which I agree with, but when you make a memo to other people what we do here is about allocating funds and it seems like it should be transparent as to where the money is going to come for when you're leasing a vehicle who's going to pay for all those costs and what fund it's coming from as a member of the public I would like to know the other question the other concern I had was there's going to be a discussion on a and I have a grant that was being offered to rehab on a house at 1010 Adams and grants are great. Some of the money is going for rehab, some is going for demolition. This one is going to be rehab. So I went and looked and as we all know a lot of the houses on Adams Street are really suffering because it looks like a lot of them are rentals and the landlords kind of don't care. But this one house looks really good. And so I'm thinking why are we spending $48,000 and I, and I'm going to be the one to get $10,000 to fix up that house when all the other ones look so bad and probably, you know, do we have any criteria? This person who's getting his house fixed up also, I have been told, owns 12 other properties. So maybe you should be selling. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thanks a lot. And then we have Molly Doolittle and Candy Colby.


Good evening everyone. Tonight I would just like to express my support for the ordinance which would allow residents of Freeport to use native plants in the home landscaping.


And I'd just like to outline a few reasons why I think this is a good idea and would be worthy of the Council's approval. So generally speaking, a native plant is one which has has existed within this region before settlement by Europeans.


Native plants include ferns, grasses, perennial and annual wildflowers, woody trees, shrubs and vines. And there are actually many benefits to the use of native plants in the landscape.


First of all, plants native to the Midwest are adapted to our harshest winters. they tolerate drought and they flourish in our local soils.


They do not require fertilizers or pesticides, so they're inherently low maintenance and they can save time and money.


They require less water than lawns and help prevent erosion. And the deep root systems of many native Midwestern plants increase the soil's capacity to store water.


So, native plants can reduce water runoff and consequently flooding, which can sometimes overwhelm our storm sewer systems.


Native plant scapes do not require mowing. They provide shelter and food for birds and pollinators, and as many of you know, a lot of these species are in decline, unfortunately.


Native plants promote biodiversity and stewardship of our natural heritage. Plus, they are beautiful and increase scenic values as I think you can see from the photos we're distributing.


Finally, native plants make healthy places for people. The lawns and the bark mulch landscapes that we commonly see are notorious for requiring profuse amounts of artificial fertilizers and synthetic chemical pesticides and herbicides. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the traditional suburban lawn on average has 10 times more chemical pesticides per acre than farmland. So by choosing native plants for our landscaping, we can help wildlife, yes, but we also create a healthier Place, for ourselves, our families, and our community.


I thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. Next is Ashley Heilman. Hello, everyone. I am here this evening to speak with no opposition for the changes presented this evening for agenda item number six.


I want to first thank Doug with the Community Development for working with me to address the issues that were brought to my attention for the rental registry. Secondly, I'd like to thank the City Manager, Boyer, for reaching out to us for feedback and suggestions to the changes presented this evening. My hope is going forward that the continued open dialogue with this registry will help the City as well as the landlords. With an open line of communication, it can only make things better. The one ask that I have is please make sure that this change is communicated on the newsletter that is going out in the coming months from the city. Thank you again and I have no opposition to the changes presented this evening. Thank you. Neely. Good evening Mayor Miller and thank you for allowing me this moment to speak with the honorable council members. My name is Neely Erickson and I am the Government Affairs Director for Illinois Realtors. I am here today on behalf of the 1,300 and members of the Northwest Illinois Alliance of Realtors.


We appreciate the discussion being held tonight regarding the proposed changes to the Property Rental Registration Program.


We acknowledge the City's efforts to collaborate with stakeholders, including our members, to address concerns and develop a framework aimed at improving compliance with registration requirements and addressing problem properties.


We have no opposition to the ordinance. We recognize that the enhanced penalties for non-compliance are intended to encourage greater participation in the program, which is the ordinance's goal.


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


We stand ready to assist in these efforts and collaborate with the City to ensure the program's effectiveness to minimize the unintended consequences to the housing providers who are complying with the law, which is 33%.


The ordinance employs late fees as a penalty for non-compliance but structures them in a way that encourages timely adherence.


This approach is significant as these fees can, unfortunately, have indirect impact on tenants. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments and to your thoughtful consideration on this matter.


We appreciate the City's work on this issue and look forward to continued collaboration on initiatives that support the broader community.


Thank you. That concludes public comments. We'll move on to consent agenda. The Consent Agenda and the City Council.


The consent agenda is considered routine and nature enacted unless a member of the council would like to have something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda is approving to receive and place on file the boards and commission minutes from the firefighters and the police pension funds from July 30, 2024, as well as the liquor and Parker.


The motion passes 7-1. The motion passes 7-1. The motion passes 7-1. The motion passes 7-1.


Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye.


Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The motion passes seven to one. And item number five is the second reading of ordinance 2024-60. Could you please read this ordinance approving airport hangar m8 lease with David Hayes thank you manager Boyer thank your honor as previously discussed David Hayes is interested in leasing hanger m8 the agreement the the cost of this lease is $165 per month staff recommends approval of this and in addition to that we anticipate having a market survey completed by the first meeting in December, for neighboring communities with airports approximately the same size in case that is a point of concern which was expressed last summer. So staff recommends moving forward with this lease. Any discussion? Alderman Stacey, did you? Yeah. Yes. I just want to make sure and I. We want to make sure that we the council have the understanding that come the first week of December, we will see a new lease, the document itself, so that we can look at it go through it if there's any changes so that by the third week of December it's finalized


so that by January 1st all these hangers will have the proper new lease. That's correct.


You'll have it before that. I'll have a... You'll have a copy of the lease agreement before that.


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


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


So my question is, whose signatures are going to be provided for these clearances for these leases on city's property to give that?


I thought it was something that the aldermen conduct, not the city manager to determine what the rental process of a lease would be.


Now, if I stand corrected if I'm wrong, but if not, I'd like to see how we get to these quote, lease rates and that the aldermen are well informed Well informed on how we got from point A to point B and we should have all of those evaluation documents before us that we can assess everything and see what took place and how we process things because right now I'm having an issue with how we do things here and so if I can't to see it and get clarity, then I have a problem with that, and I don't want to point fingers at anyone who is responsible for making those things happen.


So I'm not putting it all on the City Manager, if it's up to him to make all these determinations then I want to see the reinforcement behind it all to help him, because he's not just He's going to just do this thing solo. It's not what his job responsibility is to do everything solo without discussing it with the Aldermen or the Council. So that's all I have to say.


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


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


Okay. How do we get there? Attorney Zito? So, with these leases, generally speaking, is that staff, whether it be the airport manager in conjunction with the city manager, right, will initially talk to the proposed tenant who wants to, you know, either lease for the first time a hanger or renew their lease.


you'll talk about what the terms and conditions are the price for the each hanger is set by an ordinance that was previously adopted by the City Council a few years ago so that's where the price comes from certainly if this council wants to change it you guys can change the ordinance and adopt new prices you know as you know times pass you know markets change and everything like that that part's fine ultimately though one staff has a draft lease put together that's what comes before you that's just like it comes to council just like what's in your packet right now there's an ordinance then it passes and the ordinance authorizes the city manager then to sign the lease on behalf of the city.


So, that's kind of the general process. All right. Alderman Monroe? Thank you Madam Mayor. I think the the topics that are being danced around here number one are are their lease rates are they are they correct at this time and date because this was set many years ago almost six years ago now if I if I recall and others. I think what Alderman Sanders is trying to point out is that these hangers are being occupied before we agree to the lease. And I think that that's the problem that's presenting itself this evening. If City Manager, for instance, decided to move City Hall to another building, he would do so and then come back and ask for permission and other people.


And then the last thing I want to say is we should be working with the Council, and that's not really the way this should be working. If these are going to come in front of the Council, they should come in front of the Council in a timely manner, and if we need to, we should probably suspend the rules. Those kinds of things should be the order of how things work.


Fischer, and I'm going to be making a motion to approve the lease agreement. I think the process of having contracts two months before we're asked to do it, to agree to it, or a month and a half or whatever many days that might be, is problematic.


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


Any other discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye.


and Parker. The ordinance passes 7 to 1. Item number 6 is the first reading of Ordinance 20-24-62. Could you please read this? Ordinance revising registration deadline and increasing landlord registry penalty. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just wanted to start Start by saying, I apologize, the incorrect memo was attached to the agenda.


So essentially, I'm going to go over here some of the fines that were finally agreed upon.


The actual ordinance that was part of your packet was correct. So in the ordinance, you received the correct fines, correct deadlines, but the memo was incorrect.


So I apologize for that. It was just we attached the wrong, staff had the wrong memo attached.


Do you have a copy, Director Duckman? I do not have a copy of the updated memo, but I do have the, you received the correct ordinance with the right, correct deadlines.


So I'll go over it slowly and just kind of let you know, there wasn't much that changed from that original memo, so apologies for that.


Let me just start by saying what's changed here. So before this proposed ordinance, the deadline for registration was June 31st.


What's being proposed in this ordinance is a deadline to register of January 31st of each calendar year.


So that's what's being proposed. Now for this current year meaning coming 2025, the deadline is going to be April 1st of 2025.


and probably wondering why well this is a new change and we're we're trying to give our landlords some time to understand the change and to adapt to it but starting in 2026 it's going to be January 31st from thereafter so now moving on to the proposed ordinance what are our fines or what is staff proposing for fines so you're going to be required we already talked about the deadlines So if you're 30 days or less, if you register 30 days or less after our deadline, you're going to be charged $100 per unit, and there's going to be a maximum charge of $1,500.


So my memo didn't contemplate or state that there would be a maximum per property owner of $1,500.


Now, if the application is filed 30 days, but less than 90, so 31 to 90, after the due date, you're now going to receive a $250 fine per unit.


The maximum will be $3,000. If you're filed 90 days or more past the due date, you're going to have a $500 fine per unit with a maximum of $6,000.


Now this changes in the past because there was a fee of $100 per unit, and it didn't change with 30 to 90 days, etc.


So this is what is being proposed was what I just spoke of with the days and associated increasing fines.


And then it also states in here that fines which are not promptly paid, and they will have a chance to through administrative review process, which is established in our Chapter 299 of our courtified ordinances, which is essentially our administrative hearing process for anybody who's not paying, they'll have a chance to challenge an administrative hearing process.


And that being said, staff is recommending moving this forward. Is there a motion to move this ordinance forward?


So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Stacy.


Yes. I would like to know how many of these landlords are aware of this and have gone year after year after year choosing not to register?


My guess is, this is our analysis, so staff last year, we retained the services of Ptolemae, which is a software that allows us to analyze properties and to determine what we suspect to be rental properties.


So we've spent the past year looking into that exact question, and what we've determined is roughly 3,000 properties that we suspect are rentals, and of those 1,000 registered, So that's only one third of what we suspect to be rentals registered. So looking at that data, working with, it's pretty, it's a poor performance. We'd like to see more people register and one way to, excuse me, enhance registration is to increase the fines. So the answer to your question is two thirds, points, you know, 67% of what we suspect to be rentals do not register as of right now. And that data goes back from 2020.


2020. Why are there no registration fees attached? Well, take this back. You certainly can propose a registration fee. That's something that can be contemplated tonight. What's been proposed before you, as stated, has been discussed with Landlord's representation, has been talked with our City Manager, staff has looked at it. We've not contemplated saying that there Spence, Kristen, Rachel, Jason, Danni, recommending to you that you all Kumar ああ obviously could be discussed yes I would like to point out that the fines have been increased to the point where we believe or we'd like to have an opportunity to see if the fines in and of themselves are enough to cover expenses related to the Registration Alderman, Monroe So since we purchased and were trained on the new software this year, how many fines have we issued to the community thus far?


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


It truly is challenging to identify okay these properties are identified as rentals we're going to move forward with a fine and part of the reason that staff brought forth the Ptolemae software is to say we know that people aren't registering, we know it's a problem, we want to do a better job verifying who's out there that isn't registering.


So the answer to your question is we spent this past year implementing the software and Moving forward, we want to tighten down on doing a better job with our landlords registering.


Follow-up? We'll need to see if there's anybody else that wants to ask questions first.


For the second time, no one for the first, Alderman Shadle? I just want to comment that if we impose a fee to sign up for this, at least without Seeing if these fines are going to work first, we're giving the landlords a reason not to sign up. And the objective of this is to know where the rental property is. And you do that by getting them to sign up. There's no fee attached. They have no reason not to.


Go along with what Alderman Shadle said. You know, if there's no fee, if you add charge of fee, it gives the landlord a reason to add more money to the renter. And a lot of the renters cannot afford the fee if it's only to sign up. So I think it forces them to sign up and it doesn't hurt the right people.


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


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


Any other for first time? Oh, Alderman Sanders. Oh yeah, Alderman Klemm, what would be, I didn't catch that last comment you made, what would it be?


No, I- It would be a good, it would be a good- It would be a good thing to work together with the Landlord Association because they take and deal with all the good landlords or the people, a lot of the people that have access to numerous properties.


and others to numerous properties, okay? We know that there is more and more in the last few years of people, a lot of people out there that own 10, 15, 20 properties, you know, that they are just out there and they are really trying to take advantage of people and not signing up, not being a part of their association to get what is going on. So I think it is the biggest part from the last, like the last time, to give you an example.


There was a $25 fee put on it. The first thing that happened was certain landlords charged the people $50. That is why when it was brought up about the fee, it was not a matter of that it was not so fair to the landlords, it was not so fair in turn to the people because some of the landlords doubled that fee. So if we can work together, which there was a process before and it kind of went south, but if we can keep working together and try and move it forward, Howard. One of the things we have here that you really have to stop and think about is the number of rental properties and the percentage of rental properties, because all of us know the minute that we have a neighborhood that everybody has lived in for 25 years and they are all happy and there are three new houses, three houses bought up by somebody and we We'll use the term, I'll just use the term of a bad landlord, you know, then you really got trouble. You know, if you go to the, on Wayne's other side that he deals with, if you go to the side where people that don't mow yards, people that don't clean up stuff, people that got stuff all over in their yards and that kind of stuff, there's the other asset that he has to deal with when you get bad landlords and stuff. So, if we can all All work together, it'll just be helpful, I think.


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


I think Alderman Stacy, you had your hand up. Yes. If it's a big word to be two letters long, we have dealt with this for how many years?


With no registration fee. and it doesn't happen. You have a registration fee for everything else for your car.


So, we have to do something to let them know we mean what we say and we say what we mean.


And even this little 100 and this little 250, for the ones that's been here who is aware of this and have continued to choose not to do it, I say forget the 100 and the 250 and give them a flat 500.


But you can't just do that for the old timers that continue to choose not to.


You have to do the same across the board. and once we do that and they know we mean business, if we have to make examples out of them, make examples out of them.


They've had how many years with no registration and it has not made a difference.


They've had how many years with the 100 and the 250? I understand what you're saying. I think what we might be talking about that we're missing a little here is the goal in this is not to make the landlords, the good landlords that are participating in this and working with us to be the one that suffers in the deal and some of those landlords own some, a fairly good number of properties. Also keep in mind in the last year, or I'll say more than that because it's been the COVID thing, there's been a big turnaround in who bought a bunch of properties and who sold a bunch of properties.


There were a lot of people that were getting up in years that said, I'm selling my property and they turned around and sold them to a landlord that didn't go by any rules or anything and others. So if we talk a big fee up front, we're talking about the punishing the people that we're dealing with and all the people that we don't know about, these little guys that got a couple properties here and there, those guys are still going to be on the outside.


Those are the people you want to try and deal with to get registered and to get involved.


But the good landlords are registered. They are not registered. You said regular print, the figure was what, 33%?


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


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


What I will say is the people that are involved with City Manager Boyer, myself, and the association, they are proponents of a Landlord Registry, so they are registering. That's what I can say.


Alderman Sanders Have notifications went out to these landlords, whether they registered or not, to let them know what their responsibilities are and consequences of lack of their responsibility?


Yes, and as I said, what's going to be better about the program now is with this software we've done a better job of identifying who is a suspected, who's out there that should be registered and isn't.


who do we suspect is a rental property that currently isn't registered? So we have every year we send it out, it would be, so if it's June 31st it would be in May we would send a letter out, however now with this new proposal we're going to be sending out the letters in December because we're proposing a different date, right, a different deadline.


So to answer your question is yes, people are notified, staff has been working on making the process better, identifying who these landlords are. It's a complicated question to ask. How do you know who's, is that a landlord? Is that not a landlord? Is it a rental property?


Is it not? You know, and so we've worked diligently and we've gone out and hired an organization to help us resolve that question through data analysis. So the answer to your question is we've done it in the past we think we're gonna do a better job moving forward.


Thank you. Alderman Simmons. So if I'm hearing this correctly, Alderperson, sorry, Stacy, you think that the people who are avoiding signing up for this list and have gotten notices and reminders rather than and will be still given until April April 21st to register should get a $500 fine versus a $150 fine because they haven't done it and they've had the opportunity to do it. I agree with that.


Would you like to make that a motion or how would we do that? So there was a motion and a second just to move this forward to second reading so if you want to make a motion to make an amendment to the draft motion with what your and others.


The proposed amendment is second on the proposed amendment and then a vote by the council whether or not to make that change in the language, which would then, if it passes, then we'll make it for the second reading.


Okay. Okay, but I'm a little confused because according to what Director Duckman said, it was $100 per unit with a max of $1,500 and then after another timeframe, it's $250 per unit with and John.


And then we move up from there. They've had plenty of opportunities to register and have chosen not to.


Yeah, how do you move up from there if your next one is lower? It would be changed to progress and move up versus staying what it is. We would say that we would move up from there.


it would be changed to progress and move up versus staying what it is we would start with the first fine being 500 and move up from there okay so right now it says if there are 30 days or less after the due date right so you're late 30 days right now it says it's $100 per unit fine you're saying change that to and the next period of time then is from day 31 to day 90 there. What would you, and that's currently at $250 per unit.


The same as it is, it goes up per 100 per 30 days just as it moves up and progresses as it is written, it should move up those same amounts, but starting at 500.


So, from $100 it went up to $250, so it went up $150, so you're saying from $500 it should go up to $650, then the next increment where it starts at $300, it should go up to, what was that, a difference of $250 and $300, sorry I don't have my glasses on.


So, keep the incremental increase the same, just start it at 500 and bump it up.


The same increment. I gotcha. Okay. So, that's... With a max or no? Yeah. Okay.


But the original max was 1,500. What would you... What are you proposing for a max?


We would increase the max the same as we increased the 500. And starting at what?


We went from 150 to 500, so you went to about 3 times to 1,500, because we're slapping these landlords on the wrist and barely doing that, and they're not registering because they're not taking care of their properties.


Why would you not register if you are? We're not being firm with landlords that are in our city and not following our rules.


Okay, so my question is, it's 15 times the amount as a max. Do you want 15 times the amount of a max? Is that what you're asking? So 15?


As it is, whatever the, right, to what, as it's written, with the same increases.


I think I understand what she's saying here, because right now it's $100, first step is $100 per unit fine, and St. Louis.


The top one was 12 times, so I don't understand how, but proportionally it would go up the same amount as what she's saying.


So it's 15 at the first level. It should be 15 across the board if you want to make it.


Clerk, do you understand what you have for notes on that? I believe I'm following, but as I read the ordinance currently, it's 100 with a and others.


This is a 1500 max, so if you had a 20 unit apartment building, it would stop at 1500, so there is a logical stopping point because you could have 15 units.


You would stop at 15 units. Director Duckman, I'm not saying that very well. The max, that is per unit so that the larger units don't get like a $10,000 on the first Fowler, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor of what's going on here is they want to start under sub 876 08 section a subsection 1 they want it to be 30 days or later or 30 days or less after due date of what's being proposed is $500 per unit with a $6,000 property max and then they want to go up from there to $650 per unit and then the max would be it looks like maybe $12,000 and then it would be 650 plus I mean it's that there's a mathematical equation they want to go up but they want to use the same increments from but starting at 500 does that make sense I that's what I believe is being so the top one would be 800 with a max of times 30 which is the difference on three so 900 it would be


900 because it goes up it goes up 400 from the first one so sorry about that It would be $500, $650, and $900.


$900? My math was wrong. I'm sorry. Attorney Zito, did I talk you into that?


So then it's $900 times $30. No. It's 12 times. 12. Times 12. OK. So that's $72,000.


I'm terrible at math in my head. Is that $10,800? Or it's $9,000. Sorry. I got a couple of zeros there.


Yeah, somebody with a calculator. Right here. It's 12,000. 10,800. 10,800? Man, that was good math.


So what were the numbers again? So the first tier would be 500 with a cap of 6,000, 31 to 90 days, 650 with a max of 12,000 over 90 days, 900 with a max of 10,800.


That can't be right because it's not going up. It's going up. The middle one needs to go up from 500 to 600.


Because you went from, I think she's using the 100. So what I think is being proposed is they're going up.


They went from 100 to 250. So that's adding 150. So if you go for the second one, you would go from 500.


If you add 150, that would be 650 per unit. Yes, and before it was $250,000 and $3,000, so that's 12 times $650,000.


Yep, 12 times $650,000, $7,800, so it'll be $6,000, $7,800, $10,800. Would you like me to reread that all in one go?


First tier, 500 per unit with a max of 6,031 to 90 days, 650 per unit with a max of 7,800, over 90 days, 900 per unit with a max of 10,800.


Okay, so that's a motion made by Alderman Simmons. I forgot what the order was.


With all, Madam Mayor, with all the commotion and people about to stand up in their chairs, can we, I make a motion, remove this to December cowl so that we can get an understanding on this.


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


Simmons made the motion. I would agree wait okay so we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons seconded by Alderman Sanders now which we were doing so um are we going to continue with it yes Alderman Klemm. I'd just like to ask and others.


That's the question. Understand where you're coming from here, but I think the main goal of this particular ordinance here is to register tenant houses, okay?


The goal is not to find everybody to the hilt like every mom and pop that owns one or two houses that don't have a clue about this, that it's going to come up and you're going and I'm going to find them $1,000 or $2,000. I mean, I think the main goal is to take and get as many people as they can registered first. You can then take and work with fines or work with costs, however you want to do it. But meanwhile, these people here with two people working for them are going to try and figure out, go around and guess how many rental properties you've got in the City of Freeport and they've got software that determines Zett. You can look at me like that. That's fine. I don't care. But I'm going to tell you something. Think about what your goal is and where you're going here. So if you can register 10,000 properties right off the bat with cooperation from an organization and then work on getting more, are you farther ahead doing that and getting everybody on the same page rather than finding a whole bunch of people and have the guy sitting over Over here that owns 400 properties say there's no way in hell I'm going to pay that amount of money.


We're going to go to court because that's what's going to happen. We've been through this once.


Alderman Klemm. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do think that's a bit on the on the stiff side, but I will remind the alderman that he voted to essentially fine people six, seven, eight hundred dollars and tow their vehicle for playing the radio too loud.


So it's got everything to do with this because essentially what you're saying is we're going to take somebody who's got multiple properties in town that we want to register their properties and hold them accountable.


And most of those properties are assessed under fair market value in this city right now, greatly under assessed.


and others. They're getting $1,000 to $1,500 a month for rent in homes that are worth $20,000, $25,000, $30,000. And they've put in upgrades and things like that. So I'm not sure these numbers are too big, I would agree. But we at and the City of Arizona.


I think that it's a responsibility of us to hold those people accountable. I don't care if they live in Arizona, I don't care if they live in California, I don't care where they live.


At the end of the day, we want to maintain the trust and the trust of the people and the people of Arizona.


And I think that it's a responsibility of us to hold those people accountable. and I live in Arizona. I don't care if they live in California. I don't care where they live at the end of the day. We want to maintain our city. We want to maintain safe neighborhoods and we go back to our strategic vision for the city and we've put money toward this to get this done. Still not done. I have questions if we will do it. I'm starting to wonder if staff is capable of doing what we're giving the money to do.


It's a challenge. I get it. But these properties are sold and bought every day. They're registered at the county clerk's office. They're registered in the city. We've got the databases to figure this out and it's a responsibility of us to make sure that this happens so that we can then provide the police department or the fire department or whomever with the information that they need and we are able to then start getting people held accountable.


and others, and it is a conversation that is going to be accountable from the standpoint of maintaining their properties and not falling on deaf ears. So the realistic probably lays somewhere between what was proposed by the community development and what was proposed by Alderman Simmons and Mr. Sanders. So, you know, I think that's the conversation, but at the end of the day, there's got to be some teeth to this because if there's not, what do they care?


, and then the other side. That's a hundred bucks a property. So they'll collect that in a month.


So I don't know. It's just my thoughts. I would probably say, you know, 250, 500, 750 makes a lot more sense to me, but that's just numbers that I kind of came up with here, and we just keep it straight 12 times so we don't have 15, 12, and 10, whatever, but that's my thought.


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


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


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


So each time we decide what we should be doing, we should be drafting to ourselves or having Co., Co., Co., Co., Co., Co., and so on.


I agree with what I'm hearing so far. I hear different expressions from various people.


But there's no clarity once we walk out of here. There's no initiation or initiative to go follow through with anything that we're talking about.


And if we don't do something, we're just talking and it just fans out into the air with no substance to it without coming to a conclusion, then we just wasting time.


We have just wasted our time at council if we don't come up to talk together about the subjects that is before us.


So I think we're doing ourself a disservice if we can't talk to one another, to come up with a resolution, and to be able to move forward because I don't like the fact that we might be doing injustice to tenants or landlords, but what I do want to be able to agree with, with the majority that is giving the best solutions, that's my take.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Just let me remind Council where we've been and I think it was already stated that we We were in a place where we had really no accountability. We had some semblance of a registry. However, it wasn't complete. Staff was tasked to remedy the situation. We went out, we found software packages that suits our needs, that online, that doesn't burden our staff with the various day-to-day information entering needs. Basically, individuals can fill it out themselves. So we got that done.


and John. We've got a lot of people here, a lot of people. We've got a lot of people that are populated with data.


And what we're asking for here is a step in the right direction, but let's take it a step at a time.


I don't want to trip and fall on the way to the finish line here.


We've worked together with the Realtors Association to work to a common consensus here. They represent the landlords in this town that care and that are the good landlords.


and I would like an opportunity for us to go ahead and enact what it is here we've put down because this wasn't just come out of thin blue air, this came out of back and forth with some of our most important property owners.


Okay, I get it, we want to fix it all, we want it all fixed today.


But we all know that that doesn't happen with the roads, that doesn't happen with the water, that doesn't happen with various structures in town, it's a process.


So I would just encourage council, let's work on the process, let's take it a step at a time, let's move forward with what we have here, and if it's not working, let's revisit that and fix it.


But folks, I don't want to trip at the front of the finish line here is getting this done.


There's a lot of staff hours involved in this, there was a lot of consultation with folks in the community.


We will get it done, but we got to take it a step at a time.


So that's all I'd say. I just want to say that I truly appreciate the efforts that staff has put forward on this. I do not agree at all with comments made that you're not capable of dealing with this. I can see obviously you are. It's very well put together. It may not be perfect, But I think if you get too quick with too much of a fine, you're going to get a counterproductive measure.


The object of this is to get people registered. If you get the fine too much, they're going to walk away from properties and now we're We need to get them registered. If it turns out a year from now that there's too many people running too late, that the fines aren't enough, let's deal with it then. Let's get a little data, let's analyze it, we'll take care of it then. Right now, we need to get and I'm registered and the best way to do that is with what's been brought forward.


Manager Boyer, did you want to add to that? I also wanted to make a comment that ideally, you know, it takes about 30 days for an ordinance to go into effect.


So if we were able to get this passed on December 2nd, that would go into effect January 2nd, we would be in good shape.


And so that's kind of the timeline I've been working with and I'd like us to hold onto that timeline if possible.


I have to agree with Alderman Shadle. I think that we should at least give this a chance and see how it is, because a lot of times these landlords are putting some of these fines and raising the rents on their tenants, and that's what I don't want to see happen.


I just had a call from a friend who said her landlord just went up on her daughter's rent.


So I don't want that to happen, and then you have these people staying in these apartments that they can't afford, already they're paying $1,200 for some of these rental properties.


So I think we should at least give them a chance, see how it works, see what we're going up against, and then we come back in and reevaluate.


Alderman Stacey. Mr. Duckman, did you say that in December, letters... Yes, and a typical year the goal would be to send it out in December.


I'm obviously this year there's discussion about the proposal, how it's going to work. For this particular year, when it's agreed upon for the rates, I will be working immediately thereafter to submit a letter saying the deadline if they go with the proposal here would be April 1st of 2025. So for this year, obviously, I'm not going to it doesn't sound like I'm going to get a letter out in some point in December, because it's going to be approved, probably, hopefully in December. But typically, in a year, I would be giving out a letter. So in 2026, I'd be sending out a letter one month prior, which would be December, saying, please register your property or you are subject to a fine as of February 1st.


Okay, and so then no one would have the excuse of saying, I didn't know?


Correct. Yes, they are going to be notified via mail. Your property is suspected as a rental. You have to register your property by this date, which is to be decided upon. And if you do not register upon this date, here is your fine schedule, your fee schedule.


And have these letters gone out before? The letters have gone out before stating you need to register your property or be subject to a fine.


What I have said several times is that staff has a better ability now to identify who should be registering, who has not.


That ability was more difficult in the past because we're trying to identify in our database of properties, which over 10,000 parcels of land, we're trying to determine is that a landlord, is that not a landlord.


has this been sold in the last month to somebody who lived there for 30 years and now is going to be a landlord.


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


The software and platform that we're using now has the ability to do a better job of and John.


So we're still on the topic of that amendment to the amendment. Alderman Simmons, would you like to add something?


Okay. I'll try to make this super quick. You all agree with me that we need to get these landlords registered, but you don't want to do anything to them for not registering. This is for landlords who do not register, have gotten notices Fowler.


It sounds as though those in council that do agree with me think that maybe this might be a little steep, so I would compromise and I would draw my motion.


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


Concur. Okay. So now we're back to the original of- Mayor. Yeah. I don't know if I've heard it exactly.


To be fair, Director Duckman, to say the 67% who are not registered, there's a very good chance that they have never received a letter.


And it's possible that they don't even know this ordinance is on the books. That certainly is possible.


That certainly is possible. We're talking about staff was tasked with the ability to say, we want a better rental registry.


that's what that's what I was the staff was tasked with and so I went into a process and looked at it and what was currently being done was letters were sent out to people that were previously in the database or who had been registered in the past yes that's what we were going on and when somebody comes to staff and says I know there's more landlords that person's a landlord that pet person's a landlord and I said well I see that as an issue how do I fix it how do I go about fixing this issue how do I go about doing it efficiently Winn, Michael, Robert, and James, John, and Chris, and my brother, Steve, and my son, and I have been looking at this for the last couple of years as well.


So, I've been looking at the software to analyze all of these properties effectively, and so I started looking for softwares that could do this and analyze all of our properties and look at it fairly, have logarithms to say what data says that you actually are a and here's the other 20 properties that he owns.


Tracking that down for one person is going to take me hours to do that.


So point that I'm getting at here is, you are correct Dovie, Ms. Anderson, pardon me, that I'm used to calling you that all the time.


But anyways, the point I will say here is I was tasked with making the process better.


And I can tell you that the software I'm using is making the data analysis better and is going to improve who we notify and John.


So I think we should be registering as a rental. I will say that. But you are correct.


So you are really saying give it a chance for the software to work? Sure. Yeah. Thanks. Yes.


Okay. But are you also saying... I think we have to make sure everybody has had a chance to talk. I know you had several in there.


The last thing I recall was Alderman Stacey saying that she wanted to move this to the COW.


She tried to make that motion, but because we had Alderman Simmons' motion on the table that there, so I don't know if Alderman Stacey still wants to make that motion or not.


Right now, it's moving to the next regular city council meeting. That's already out. I just have a question for Director Duckman.


Okay. Alderman Stacey, go ahead. With the ones that you know are landlords, with the ones that you know have received a letter, are they 100% registered?


No, they're not. No, they're not. The ones, when we go off of the previous year registries, we do not get 100% back.


So there are, yes, there are people who are notified and are not registering. Alderman Monroe, did you have another point?


I have a couple, Mayor. First question I'll ask, have we reconciled the list that we have sent out to the water and sewer billing, number one?


That process... I don't want you to say all of your things. That way we don't have these follow-ups.


Well, because if I do that, then he only answers one of them, and I'd like all of my questions Dockman is on 57 water bills, it will go in and say you are renting 57 water bills, you or 56 Properties or to assume that.


That is part of their, part of their, that is part of their logarithm. I will tell you that because we know that there's other, we've been through, I don't want to go down that issue of who gets the water bill, the landlord water bill thing, but that is one of the elements that it analyzes.


But there are other ones, there are other parts of the logarithm that are, I will say, better at gathering, saying, hey, you're a landlord.


that is part of it yes so the follow-up on that was we spent $20,000 in the 2024 budget I believe it was ish and that was approved we got the software we got the training and now we're coming back thinking okay we're gonna raise the fines you know tier one tier two tier three is I'll just call them that for Now, my question really is, how do we get to a point where we're actually going to go out and be more proactive in this approach as opposed to sending, you know, and there's businesses that do this and they fail miserably, sending notice to their current set of and the rest of them are customers, essentially.


So the ones that have registered and the few that we know, how are we going to get past this point?


Because we can put as many fines on here if we don't know that they're renting their property, we have no clue that we should even be collecting these.


And it comes back to this is more than just a small ordinance change, this is a significant ordinance change because we have to have a We have a meaningful way to go and determine that properties are being leased inside the city limits of Freeport and right now it doesn't feel like we do even though I'm told we do and everybody seems to disagree with me but at this point we're at the same place we were a year ago when we approved the budget for this software so how do we get past this is my question well I'll disagree with you completely because before I didn't have a list that would say suspect this list of properties here is suspected as being a um a rental property. I didn't have that ability. I did not have that ability before. So this software and what took so long was you had Long was you had different like for example the county it took a long time working with the county to get their data to integrate with our software that took time for them to say here's the scripts that you need to access this data that just takes time it also took time to work with the different water bill software that just took time but we didn't you know I didn't quit on it I know Director Sutman is tired of hearing me saying when am I going to get this information Mr. Monroe is going to ask me about it again he's going and I. We worked tirelessly to get all of this data to work. The short answer to your question is I could not get that list accurately before. I did not have the ability to do it


as well as I can now and it took time to get that to work.


No, that's perfect because that integration is what's going to draw everything in together and that's what I wasn't understanding to this point. Really, I think that's the important Peece here. You know, look, I still I think most of us agree 1,500, 3,000, 6,000 is not a steep enough amount. And I don't know if the Landlord Association or the Realtor Association would agree or disagree with that. I don't know if we can ask them their thoughts because they've given deep input into this. But you know, if you're if you're talking, you know, somebody that we're maxing it at 12 or 15 properties, if we're going if they've got that many properties, these fines are fairly insignificant.


and so on. So, I'm pretty familiar with the rental properties in town and the rates and that was 10 years ago when it was 800 bucks a month.


So now it's like 1200. So I mean we're literally finding them the equivalent of six months rent on six properties and others.


And they also have a one month rent on the properties, not six months, one month rent on six properties.


So, you know, I think now that you've got that, I would be interested to see how many properties that might be that we would be able to contact, that we've not contacted to this point.


» Well, there's plenty of time to have more discussions with the Real Asset Association if they agree or disagree.


I want to make sure we're all on the same page. It's $100 per unit. So if I owned 10 residential houses and I didn't register, I'd be fined $1,000. If I owned 10 apartment buildings that had 20 units, I would be fined $1,500 on each of those.


That's the property, Max, that's not the landlord, Max. That's per property, correct? No. Correct, per property, that's on Ordinance 3, per property.


That's what I'm, okay, that makes sense. Okay. I wanted her to say something, cause she's about to.


Are you, did you want me? Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, So if I had 10 apartment buildings that had even 20 units, my property max is $1,500.


So my maximum fine would be $15,000 for my 10 properties. Sorry, it's like a math question here.


10 properties at, so you have 10 properties and you're saying that each of them is a duplex?


No, like a, no, like a 12, 20 unit apartment building, but we've maxed it at $1,500.


So each of those apartment buildings are $1,500. That's per property max. Yes, that's how it reads.


It says, I'm looking at it right here, and that's exactly how it reads, $1,500 property max.


And so if I waited more than 90 days, I'd be fined $60,000 for my 10 apartment buildings.


Yes. So to me, that's not insignificant, but I don't own any, so. I think the confusion was is we thought that that was a max for all of the properties instead of the unit. So, okay, that's why we needed a memo. But that's, I think that's kind of a confusing point.


And fair enough. And I understand that. And I just want to say that the reason for the memo going out late was there was a blast. There was one more meeting that went out and it didn't make, I have to get these memos to Clerk Anderson by that Thursday.


and this meeting happened after that Thursday. So you know what, you can't. That's okay, that's okay.


No, I get it. It was a change at the last minute, so. That's where the confusion is though.


Understood. Okay, so look at the time. It's almost 7.30, we're on item number six.


We've got 39 total. Are we ready to move on to second reading for this in December 2nd?


The phones are always, offices are open if you want to talk about detail on more.


We'll move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-63.


Could you please read this? It's because it moves on. Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriation Ordinance.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. So each city fund and department has been presented to the Finance Committee of the Whole at a series of meetings we've had starting September 3rd, 2024 with a public input session.


So we've had public input session dedicated, and we've had public input before each of the budgets were read.


Attached is that fiscal year 2025 in the appropriations ordinance format, the following adjustments have occurred over the past week and are incorporated in the final document.


Slight increase in the city levy in the amount of $140,400 due to receipt of estimated equalized assessed value with the corresponding decrease in the amount of required fund reserve.


Also, the library budget items have been adjusted due to the receipt of the EAV numbers.


The library will be able to increase their property tax revenue by $50,500. Staff recommends City Council move forward with this ordinance to the second reading to December 2nd.


Is there a motion to move forward? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on this ordinance.


Move on to item number eight, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-64. Could you please read this?


Tax levy ordinance. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. So annually the City Council adopts a corporate levy to help finance the city's operation, Operation, that is general fund. We have received the estimated 2024 equalized assessed value or EAV as we just discussed from the county. The EAV for our tax district increased as mentioned before, but $15,102,367 or 5.61% over the last year. Based on this information, the city's levy for 2024 paid in 2025 would be $2,977,400.


an increase of $140,400. A house valued at $100,000 would see no increase in the city's portion of their property tax bill as long as their assessed value has not increased.


During the past five years, the City Council has kept the tax rate the same or slightly lower.


Staff recommend City Council to move forward with this ordinance. Second reading on December 2nd.


Is there a motion to move this forward? second in motion made by Alderman Shadle seconded by Alderman Sellers discussion on this ordinance on to item number nine which is first reading of ordinance 2024 81 could you please read this library tax levy ordinance manager Boyer or director Huffines we've received the estimated 2024 equalized has assessed value from the county. The EAV has increased by $15,102,367 over the last year based on the information the library's levy for 2024 paid in 2025 will be $1,062,000.


The library will see an overall increase of $50,500 in their levy. The library reduced We also increased the request for Medicare, liability, insurance, unemployment, and Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund last year in order to spend down prior reserves in these areas.


At that time, we informed Council that these rates would need to increase when the funds were exhausted.


This year, we need to increase those levels to cover actual expenses for 2025. A house valued at $100,000 will see a slight decrease in the library portion of their tax bill.


Staff request City Council move this ordinance forward for a second and final reading on December 2nd.


Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


Discussion? Move on to item number 10, which is a motion to abate. Madam Clerk, could you read all of those as one motion?


Ordinance 2024 is to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general Obligation Bonds, Series 2013A, Ordinance 2024-66 is to abate the 2020- is to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligations bonds series 2014 b ordinance 2024 67 to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the general obligation bonds series 2015 a ordinance 2024 68 to abate the 2024 real estate tax levy for the repayment of the obligation bonds series 2016 ordinance 2024 69 to abate the 2024 of the General Obligation Bonds Series 2021. Lastly, Ordinance 2024-73 to abate the 2024 Real Estate Tax Levy for the repayment of the General Obligation Bonds Series 2022.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. When the General Obligation Bonds are issued, they are backed by the City's ability to levy and collect property taxes. Therefore, the County automatically levies the required annual debt service from the City of Freeport property owners on their property tax and others.


The city has historically abated or canceled, is another word for it, this amount on the property tax.


By passing an ordinance each year, the property taxes that would otherwise be collected from the residents is abated and the city instead makes the debt service payments from other city revenues.


So as Clerk Anderson has read to the council, the individual bonds issued are in the table We have provided the amounts to be abated and the source of revenue that will be used to make the bond payments.


We have also included the potential increased cost and property tax on a $100,000 on our home if the bonds are not abated.


Ordinance to abate these bonds will be, it is before you now, to move on to the December 2nd meeting.


Staff request we move this on to the December 2nd Council. Is there such a motion?


So moved. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle, discussion. Item number 11 is the first reading of ordinance 2024-74. Could you please read this?


Ordinance, approving airport hangar lease M4 with Ken and Paula Erwin. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. Kenneth and Paula Erwin are interested in leasing Hangar M4 at Albertis Airport. The agreement will generate $165 per month of city revenue and staff recommends the approval of the Hangar lease.


Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm to move Ordinance 20-2474 onto the next regular scheduled meeting.


Is it Alderman Monroe? Manager, Boyer, this is a question for you. Is there is there a need with these to just suspend the rules and get these done? Same meeting, would that make a lot? It makes a lot of sense to me. And actually, I'll just bypass that. I'll just say, I'd like to suspend the rules and move this forward to second reading now. Second.


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


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


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


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


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


Ordinance Approving Airport Hangar Lease E1 with Propwash LLC. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor.


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


There's a plane owned by Propwash LLC. It's scheduled for repairs, which may last three to six months.


Heritage Arrow currently has no space available to store the plane, and Propwash LLC will lease Hangar E1 for a few months while the airplane's undergoing repairs.


Staff recommends approval of the hangar lease at $215 per month. Is there a motion to move this forward?


Aye. Motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Motion to suspend the rules, actually, unless anybody's got questions.


We have a motion for... Okay, you want to wait on that? I'll wait, if somebody's got questions.


Okay, so is there a discussion concerning this ordinance? Motion to suspend the rules mayor. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe seconded by Alderman Sellers for suspension of the rules again suspension of the rules oh it was Stacy I'm sorry yep make that correction seconded by Alderman Stacy suspension of the rules is non debatable madam clerk could you please take the role on the suspension only. Stacy aye Shadle aye Sanders Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons. Thank you for that. Parker? Aye. The motion still passes 7-0. Okay, now before you is the final passage for this ordinance. Any discussion on that? Ma'am Clerk, could you please take the roll? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders?


Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Well, I did it again. Parker? Aye. And the ordinance passes 7 to 1. And item number 13 is the first reading of ordinance 2024. 7 to 0.


7 to 0. Thank you for the correction, 7 to 0. Wait a minute, are you good? No, I'm fine. Okay. Item Number 13 is the first reading of Ordinance 2024-76. Could you please read this? Ordinance approving two airport farm leases with Matt, Phil, and Will Kemple, and a second one with Dan Julius. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor.


Staff's been working very hard on getting the farm leases squared away. we're coming to you tonight with Matt, Phil, and Will Kempel and Dan Julius. Staff recommends moving forward with the two farm leases before you tonight and if so inclined please feel free to suspend the rules on this. Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Alderman Monroe and I didn't catch the second.


Shadle? Okay. Motion to suspend? Second. Can we have some discussion here? Yeah. Well, actually, we have a motion on the table for suspension of the rules, so that's non-debatable. We have that by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Monroe, so that's what's on the table right now. So, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension of the rules? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye.


Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, and Parker. So now before you is the second reading of this ordinance discussion?


Yes. So there appear to be a different visual piece of paper called a contract.


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


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


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


this is a standard lease for land leases in Illinois. Okay, I just asked, is that what we have adopted?


Is that what? That's what's before you right now. We haven't adopted anything yet. That's what your vote is gonna be on.


Okay. Darren. I think her question is, is this is the standard format that we're gonna use, which it is the format that we're planning on using for everyone, yes.


Thank you. There's no further discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. On final passage, Stacy? Aye.


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye.


And that ordinance passes 8-0. Item number 14 is the first reading of Ordinance 2024-77. Could you please read this?


Ordinance of the City of Freeport approving and authorizing a vehicle lease agreement with the Stevenson County Senior Center doing business Winslow, Robert, and Tom.


And now, I would like to introduce our next speaker, Dr. Dr. John Harkin. He's the Director of the Steveson County Senior Center, doing business as Senior Resource Center.


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


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


So now one of these vehicles, bus number 23, is not actively used by SRC.


So what this means is they receive the vehicle for one program and they're not using it.


And the Pretzel City area transit, which is the program that we operate, we are in need of more vehicles.


And to give a little background here, last year I sent a resolution to work with the and I, and it was estimated that that would take two years for the Illinois Department of Transportation to bring a vehicle up here because of the backlog of buses that they have.


And so what this background is essentially informing you of is that our program needs buses and the Senior Resource Center who operates our program.


So it sounds confusing, but the Senior Resource Center puts the Pretzel City Area Transit on the buses and they're the ones who actually hires the drivers as operating this program.


And so this bus that we're talking about, bus number 23, it's just being used for a different program and it's not being utilized in that program and our staff is saying we have a need for vehicles and they said we can lease you that vehicle to meet that need.


So that's essentially what's going on here. and I go a little further in the memorandum and I talk about how we currently have 16 vehicles.


This would bring us to 17. And one of the issues we have is working with older vehicles because we have a shortage of vehicles.


So oftentimes these vehicles are taken out of the fleet and they're being maintained because they're older.


So that being said, staff is recommending moving this forward. As our public had mentioned earlier, this is a dollar lease, and I want to also state that anything that is done with the Pretzel City Area Transit Program, it's all being approved of and directed by the Illinois Department of Transportation.


So this particular lease, how it is structured, is directly from the Illinois Department of Transportation saying, if you want this bus, you need to do it this way for us to approve and Illy, which is just being provided.


And if it's not been approved it because the Downstate Operating Assistance Program and the 5311 funds total $1.2 million in funding for our public transportation.


And that basically tells us, you're going to run your program this way or you're not getting the money.


And they're very strict on how they do it. Do you have what they're requesting or what they're saying is going to have to happen?


That's right in front of you. This lease agreement is exactly that. That's exactly what they have told us.


So we would, we the city would be responsible for the maintenance and the insurance and all that coverage.


It is always, that is how all vehicles are done. All vehicles are done that way and yes it is the City of Freeport funded through the Downstate Operating Assistance Program and the 5311 Program, which are two grants that fund the program.


So it says City of Freeport is responsible, however the money is coming from the state to fund it.


So it's covered 100 percent. That is correct. And we have a driver for this bus, 23?


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


Anyone else? Then we will move on to item number 15, which is the first reading of ordinance 2024-78.


Would you please read this? Ordinance Approving Special Use Permit Application at 1161 West Lincoln Boulevard, submitted by LGCY Installation Services to examine the special use of an R4 one-family residence zoned property to allow for solar energy systems which utilize ground-mounted PV arrays per section 1250.01B20.


B. 20. Thank you. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Staff received a special use permit from legacy installation services for a solar energy system that's using ground mounted PV arrays and the address is 1161 West Lincoln Boulevard.


for some background here when you're in the residential zoning districts you need a special use permit to do ground-mounted solar so you do not need a special use permit if you're putting it on your roof and if you look at the screen here you're gonna see what was what's being proposed here at 1160 at 1161.


And so right here is a 10 foot by 30 foot, 300 square foot solar mounted array.


And it's going to be at a maximum height of 10 feet. So 10 feet by 30 by 10.


And that's what, in order to move forward with the building permit, when you do this in a residential neighborhood, have to go through a special use process.


And so on November 7th of 2024, we had a hearing, our staff had a hearing, and the Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval by a vote of five yeas, zero nays, and one abstention to allow, and they recommended approval of this special use permit.


On November 14th, the Planning Commission did not recommend approval, and they did so by a vote of three yeas, four nays, and zero abstentions.


I want to state a couple of points here. First of all, the hearing who essentially makes the recommendation is the Zoning Board of Appeals.


They recommended approval. It is important to note that our Planning Commission had a strong discussion about this particular special use permit, and it was a good discussion, and really what it came and other members of the public.


and some of the other concerns that were had. At the staff level, when it was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the staff did not take a recommendation for or against it.


And there was quite a bit of staff discussion on this as well and one of the items that was brought up was, you know essentially there is going to be a concern, there's potentially a concern for property values and enjoyment of the neighbor's property.


And I say potentially because this is a fairly large, you can see it takes up quite a bit of area in their backyard so when we had the same presentation to the Planning Commission you know after the Zoning Board of Appeals and that essentially is what came up from our two our two commissions.


And so that being said staff is recommending you know moving this moving this forward.


So you are making a recommendation I'm sorry no it I take that. In terms of, we're recommending moving this forward into our second reading, is what I'm saying.


Because it's a first reading of an ordinance. Right, but I think your notes say you're not making a recommendation.


Correct. So when it was presented, sorry, go ahead. I think Wayne's just making the recommendation right now to move it forward so that the council can then vote on it at the second reading.


Yes. Or they want to vote on it. is there a motion to move it forward? I'd make a motion to deny it. Is there a second to deny? No, I wanted to move it forward. No, so hang on. So we always want to make our motions in the positive there. So if you're against it, then you just won't know. Okay.


I make a motion to move it forward. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Stacy, seconded by Alderman Sanders to move ordnance.


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


Alderman Stacy. Yes. I just feel like if I'm thinking correct, we already have approved this for one person in this city and I'm big on that.


If we do it for one, why can't we do it for the other? What business is it of ours to tell people what they can and cannot do on their property?


Why would we do it for others? And now, this time, there's a problem. I don't know how that balances, why it's okay for this person, but it's not.


I can answer that. So, you have zoning, whether it's residential, commercial, manufacturing, etc. You have uses that are allowed by right, which goes exactly to your point.


In a residential area, if your intended primary use is to build a house, you're allowed to do that by right.


You still have to get a permit, a building permit, but the use itself is allowed by right.


You're not allowed in a residential area to build an automobile shop. You can't fix cars.


D. C. and I'm going to talk about the land use permit because what we're saying, what is being contemplated in the ordinance is this particular land use needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. It's not a I'm in a residential zoning district. I'm allowed by right to have a house. It's not that simple. Per our ordinance, it requires each case requires to be looked at individually. That's exactly what this is directed.


There have been complaints from the neighbors on the 10 foot of being 10 feet high?


One neighbor called, spoke with staff and just wanted information because this was notified by a yard and by mail notice to neighbors and they said, okay, sounds good.


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


There was one call. I sit on the Planning Commission and I'll give you the stances from both views. I was on the nayside as I think four people were at the meeting. The other two people that were approved while I have been on the Planning Commission had much, much larger lots and they weren't intrusive to the neighbors where they set these units and there wasn't, the units and others.


This is a very tight lot in comparison to those and one of the comments that was made in the nays was this will be no different than a large RV that somebody sets out there and lets rust in their yard over the years and it's not going to get moved because it's going to be there for 30 years.


Where a rusted RV, we actually have code compliance that we don't allow that. On the yay sides, one comment that was made and I think it was by Mr. Atkinson that was on the committee too was he didn't feel like we had a right to tell somebody what to do with their property.


But in respect to that, the reason that it's got to come through council is because the forefathers that set these ordinances wanted it to be evaluated case by case.


If they would have chosen to put this on their roof, it would have never made it to council and Stacey.


It's the ground mounting that is the question whether it fits each purpose. Any other discussion?


Can you turn the light back on? Any other first time discussion? Not? Alderman, Stacy?


I just want to say we have allowed this more than once and all the ordinance and all the the rules and all the do's and don'ts was not pulled out because it was something you all were for.


And we do it for one, we do it for the other. If the neighbors had a problem with this, I believe they would have come forth by now.


Would that be a true statement? Yes, I would agree with that. Okay, we'll move on to the next item. Number 16 is the first ring of ordinance 2024-79. Could you please read this?


Ordinance approving special use application at 1373 South Locust Avenue submitted by CINDIO Networks to examine the special use of an R-4 and others.


We are also working with the City of San Diego to provide a public service service to allow for one family resident zone property to allow for a telephone exchange and other similar public service uses per section 1250.01 B8.


Director Duckman. Yes. And Director Subman, would you mind scrolling down just a little bit so they could see the picture?


So, staff has received a special use application from Cindio Networks and is for the installation of a telecommunications distribution cabinet and the address is 1373 South Locust Avenue right across from the high school.


And so, the subject property is in the residential zoning district and the, what's interesting Here is the this is for fiber optics running fiber optics throughout this city and what's interesting here is the utility company or the fiber optic company actually purchased the lot as opposed to doing an easement oftentimes you'll have an easement carved out for these pedestals like you'll see here you'll see them they're usually carving out an easement on somebody else's property but in this situation they own the property and in order when you have a residentially zoned property So, and that is what brought us to this point.


The specifications on this is it is approximately a 2 foot by 3 foot by 4 foot high cabinet as you see there.


Now this went on November 7th to our Zoning Board of Appeals and it was recommended by a vote of 6 yeas, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions.


Now, our Zoning Board of Appeals made a point that, and they made a condition, and the same condition later on was agreed upon by our Planning Commission, was that a landscaping screen had to be approved by staff as part of the special use, and that's allowed in our ordinances is to impose conditions on our special use permits.


So yes, it was recommended for our approval, but with the condition that a landscaping Green, and Plan approved by staff would be part of that approval.


So on November 14th, the Planning Commission also recommended approval by a vote of six yeas, one nay, and zero abstentions.


Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Okay. Any motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker?


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


is an underground vault and you can kind of see that but this is the this is the cabinet here. Any other discussion? Alderman Stacey? Yes. I have received phone calls from my constituents pertaining to this matter and I have been informed that this business was asked or told not to do it and they did it anyway that is I would say that's half true they originally proposed putting up a larger structure that was around 500 square feet an actual physical it looked like and others.


So, they had a much larger footprint that was going to go there. And then we, after discussions with the organization, they scrapped that idea and then showed up and thought that they had the right to just put this up a much smaller footprint.


So, they were told, you can't do that. And if even, you know, they were told after the fact.


So the part that is true is that they did put this up without permission.


They were told no on a much larger scale development, I would call it. They came in with a much bigger footprint.


They wanted, I think, a 10-foot barbed wire fence around it, and it was a much, much more intense project that they were told no.


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


I mean, that's the decision today, right? I mean certainly if the vote was no, and essentially this is important for their telecommunication throughout the city, if the vote is no, then we would be moved forward, we'd work with Attorney Zito on some sort of corrective action to have them remove the cabinet.


But there's no vote tonight, this is first reading. Okay. Can they be fined? Not at this point, no.


They started the process for compliance. They were given a violation notice and they said you have to apply for a special use permit and they did so. So right now they're in the process of following the rules, of following our rules and regulations.


Anyone else? Alderman Monroe? Monroe. So if this is voted down in two weeks essentially at that point they would have to remove, is that correct? You are you are correct and if that was the case then city staff would be working with Attorney Zito on it on the process for how to have them forcibly remove that cabinet. Anyone else? And we will move on to Item Number 17, which is the first reading of Ordinance 2024-80. Could you please read this?


Ordinance amending Chapter 14 of the codified ordinances requiring a contractor license for contractors who perform landscaping or lawn care, seal coating, and snow plowing.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Essentially, staff is bringing this before the Council to look at the possibility of making a license for Landscaper, Snow Removal, and Sealcoat Companies. We have a number of different contractors out there.


They're all doing different things. We really don't have an idea who they are, and we'd like a little bit better visibility on that through the licensing process. So, staff is proposing to Council that we amend the ordinance to add those three categories, like was mentioned before, the and the landscape seal coating and also snow plowers and I will mention in the in the wintertime there's a challenge we have folks all over the city that go and they plow parking lots commercially and otherwise they really don't have an idea what it is our ordinances say they go and push snow out on the right of way they create more work for our staff when some of the commercial customers could just simply they could just push it into the parking Lot and Pile It Up over the course of the year. So there is some need for this. However, it is Council's discretion as to whether to move this forward or not. So.


Is there a motion to move forward? So moved. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion?


Yes, I have one. Alderman Sellers? Yes, I would like to also add haulers, you know, people that do dumping and hauling.


I think that's a really good one that we should add on that list also.


Just as a point of order, we do license them. Oh, okay. However, I don't have any.


The problem is getting them in to get the license, so. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor.


So, so I can understand this better. Is that just one license they would need for if they did all of these or would they need one separate for each?


They're gonna need a license. This is a new license. They're gonna need a different license. They can't do, so right now if they receive a general contractor's license or an electrician's license, Hicks. They're going to need to now do a license for, this is a separate license.


So it does or does not come under the heading of contractor? As I stated, it's new because if you read through this ordinance, there's quite a, this is a much more intense ordinance in terms of what they have to do to register. If you read through it, they have to start naming what their individual trucks are, what their insignias are, they have to provide proof of insurance for individual vehicles, as if if you're a general contractor you have to show general liability insurance and that's essentially your main step if that makes sense so this is a different so if you're a general contractor which we have some that also do snow plowing they're going to have to get this additional license and pay for it and follow the additional requirements Alderman Sanders? Yeah, I just want to ask a simple question. These are two private entities, am I correct? On the snow plowing and seal coatings and things of that nature?


Yes, yes, you are correct. And everyone should have a permit or license to register to do these types of jobs to homeowners or any kind of businesses.


You don't need a license. Not to shovel somewhere off someone's driveway, no. Or mow someone's grass.


Mm-hmm. Up comes the price. OK. Let's see if anybody else has another input before you go on the second.


Is there anyone for the first time? Well then, Alderman, Sanders for your second. I marked the wrong one. My apologies. Alderman, Stacy?


Okay, I'm hearing two different things. So, if the neighbor guy wants to mow my grass, He has to have some type of license or general something to mow grass.


That is my understanding of this ordinance that a lawn, that would fall under a lawn care company and they would have to register.


That's my understanding. Now, I want to, I want to take a step back here and state that what brought this up was not Community & Economic Development, what brought this up was our Public Works Department is having issues with and concerns with contractors parking their lawn care equipment, parking their snow removal trucks, which are basically plow trucks.


These are businesses that are not registering because they do not need a permit to do so.


You pointed this point out. You've made that point correctly that if they're cutting your grass, if they're plowing the snow off your driveway, they do not need a permit for that.


But what's happening is some of these businesses are throwing the snow into the street or Or they're not performing their work correctly, or they're parking their vehicles on curbs damaging it and driving away.


And so I just want to say my department has truly just stepped in here to be saying that, okay, we have a registered contractor database.


Will you help us along with this? And that's kind of where I'm at here.


So I'm answering these questions as they come, but this essentially is an initiative driven by a concern from our Public Works Department.


But you're saying this is for lawn care companies. In part, yes. That's one company that would have to register.


Manager Boyer? I'd like to clarify. I think that if they have a tax ID number, that would qualify them as a company, right?


If they have a what? If they have a tax ID number, if they're, you know, registered as a business.


Attorney Aceto? So under the definition of a lawn care professional or even for a steel coating professional and the snow plowing professional.


It talks about. Professional. It talks about a person who employs one or more individuals for the purpose of providing landscape maintenance or employs one or more individuals for the purpose of providing seal coating services there. So I think as written right now, they're looking at someone who's running this operation as a business, right? They have at least one or more employees that are going to go out and do this. So I think who's exempted from this is if your neighbor just happens by Miller, and I don't think that's what this was meant to apply to there.


So this was a request by the Superintendent of Public Works and Wayne touched on it but it's really due to a lot of Public Works time that is chasing these particular people around.


What ends up happening, snow plowing. We have somebody that goes out for profit to plow snow and then we end up with ancillary damages at the house, two doors down where they push the snow, rip the yard up and then Public Works is asked to go fix those yards where we have no way of monitoring who's plowing where or what.