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, 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So this is just kind of a record keeping thing
to say that if Wayne's plow business messes up the yard next door, Wayne's business has
to clean it up, or if Michelle's lawn care throws grass out in the street, they've got
to clean it up, and right now we have no record keeping for that, and it happens more than
you know, or they damage curb or sidewalk or something like that in the course of their
business and it falls back on the city to fix and repair.
So that is really the issue here, and so we're just trying to get a record keeping of who's
working where, knowing that we have responsible people working in the community and doing
good work.
Manager Boyer?
Just to add to what Darren said also, you know, you don't think of grass clippings
in the right of way as being dangerous, but if you have grass clippings spread out at
an intersection and a motorcycle comes to a stop, I mean, it can cause somebody to lose
and others.
There's a bike right there in the intersection.
So I just wanted to create or mention that safety concern as well.
Okay, so I get the whole accountability thing, but what I don't understand is, I mean, we
have lots of general contractors that are busy all summer long, but in the wintertime
they want to do snow plowing.
So now we want to hit them again with a different license.
Why can't it just come under the same license as long as they declare it?
Well, there's different requirements and we also currently do it so that, let's say you're
going to be, you're a general contractor.
if you go to do plumbing work, you have to get a separate plumbing license, pay for that,
pass that test, prove that you're doing that work.
If you're going to do electricians, you're going to do electrical work, you have to get
electrical license, pay for that, so that we currently have that in place.
And also, I just also want to add that this ordinance is more restrictive than it's not,
it's just going to be as simple as saying, okay, we're going to declare, there's quite
a bit of staff time proving that there's insurance for all these vehicles, collecting all that
and
John.
And the other thing is, I think,
there's a lot of data. There's extra requirements for this
particular
.
So you're actually wanting more data from someone that's mowing
your grass versus someone that's building your house?
I don't. That's what's being proposed by our Superintendent of
Public Works. Yes.
anyone else that hasn't spoken once yet and so I'll open it up for the second
time Alderman Monroe thank you madam mayor I can tell you in my neighborhood
the folks that do the plowing that do the leaf cleanup the lawn mowing they're
not the ones damaging the property it's the city workers we've actually come to
to the city where copious amounts of salt was thrown on people's yards killing their
grass killing the edges of the road plowing them up and those that are doing
the plowing or the snow blowing or such they're not a problem and I've got two
neighbors that have complained a significant amount over the last few
years and none of the work was done to repair their grass to repair the soil at
and others.
And, you know, this really seems onerous to me that we're going to go out and say, okay,
well, you've got to supply all of this information and your business falls under the same insurance.
You're not going to have insurance for plowing, insurance for snow removal or plowing versus
grass cleanup versus leaf cleanup versus all of those things.
And, you know, I think as long as they have annual insurance, it should be one license
Brown, and the other folks that are doing that type of work.
They are not making the same amount of money as a plumber or
an electrician who charge exorbitant amounts compared to
the lawn guys.
Just speaking here, but we can call it a license, we can call
it a fee, we can call it a tax. It's all the same thing.
We've got to clean this up a little bit and take care of our
businesses because a lot of those folks are just
Cochran.
We are taking care of, my ward especially has a large amount of seniors living there who
get their lawns done, and I'd hate to see their lawn cleanup go up 10-15 bucks a time
based on them having to keep applying for licenses and such.
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Manager Boyer?
Just to comment on that and address, I personally do not have any issue with combining them
and I'm under one license, but I do want to mention that our plow truck drivers are doing
the very best job they can. As a matter of fact, when you have a cul-de-sac, no curbs,
you have situations where you've got a 10-ton truck or a 10-yard truck with a plow on the
front, makes it very challenging. And I believe our snow plow drivers are really fantastic
at what they do. There's always room for improvement, of course, but there is going to be a few
There's still a few times you scalp a yard off but, I'm
I'm quite fine with revisiting this and making it under one license
thank you.
Any further discussion?
Okay we'll move on to item number 18, which is the adoption of resolution 2024%-120%.
Resolution in support of the Bird City Illinois initiative.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor. The Mayor's City staff has been working with the Northern Illinois
Audubon Society on renewing the Bird City Illinois recognition. It was first given to the City
in 2022. The City of Freeport is looking to retain its recognition as Bird City Illinois
community. Thanks to its unique initiatives to highlight and save wildlife in our region,
according to the Northwest Illinois Audubon Society, Freeport fulfills the following,
which are necessary for recognition.
So it provides sufficient bird habitat, promotes pollinator health, is recognized as a Tree
City USA participant, maintains a public demonstration of gardens to be benefited by birds and wildlife
and ecosystems, maintains a public golf course that benefits birds, works to mitigate water
pollution through cleanup events, implements actions to reduce pollution, utilizes integrated
Pest Management and Natural Pest Control, celebrates World Migratory Bird Day and hosts
an annual bird day event, increases awareness of birds and their habitats, educates all
ages on birds and conservation related programs, and works with traditionally underserved communities
to increase access to environmental education, as well as reduces energy use and carbon emissions
and promotes green transportation.
So staff recommends the city adopt the resolution for Bird City USA.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
The motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Shadle, discussion?
Alderman Stacy?
Yes.
So, um, I'm hearing like you're not supposed to, because of the wildlife, like release
and
something or someone? Manager Boyer? I believe 12 balloons is okay. As a matter
of fact we had some concern expressed at one of the events that we're planning
about a balloon release and that there is some something about the numbers so as
long as the numbers stay within a certain range I believe it's they don't
like it per se but they're not against it but they don't like to see those
massive balloon releases so. But yeah this that's not to do with this or with
if there's no other discussion and the clerk please take the roll.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe? No.
Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The resolution is adopted seven to one. Item number 19 is the adoption of resolution 2024-121.
Resolution ratifying emergency backflow preventer repairs to city's wastewater treatment plant dewatering system by Nelson Carlson Mechanical Contractors.
Thank you, Your Honor. Earlier this year, the staff of the wastewater treatment plant pointed to a problem with the backflow preventer. It was a time-critical issue and needed to be replaced, so we moved forward with the repair, and staff is asking council to ratify the payment of $11,309 for the emergency replacement of the sewer, the check valve.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion, Alderman Sanders.
Yes, Manager Boyer, with this backflow, Preventer, does that have anything to do with the river, the Pecatonic River backflowing,
Foo and into the plan itself within the plan itself so
Where these areas that you you're talking about fires repairs to back blow
Anything to do along with the river back flows that within the city itself
As I understand it's in the plant it's where you have the
freshwater line going to an operation inside the plant and
and the backflow preventer fails and if it does then it has a potential cross-condemnation.
Okay, I see where you're at, okay.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
When was the work done?
This repair was done in June.
Why did we wait five months, six months to come back to council?
Darren?
We just got the invoice.
We spent the money in June.
The parts had to be ordered.
It was custom made, so it took some time to get, but we just received the invoice last
week from Nelson.
Let's see if somebody else has a question first.
If not, Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
You know, I get that it takes time to get the parts in, but waiting six months to come
Smith, and I'm going to move forward with the spending of
that money. You had a purchase order in June. We moved forward
with the spending of that money. It was never appropriated for
use. I guess my question is why did we wait six months?
Go ahead. The money for this comes out of the sewer repair
fees, right, that we typically have budgeted for and the reason
because it was an emergency and we usually don't present these until we get the invoice for it.
The sludge presses that we operate five days a week down at the plant cannot run without this backflow device in parallel with them
because it protects the contamination of the water like Rob said.
So it became emergent at the time that we needed to order it.
Nelson Carlson is a custom fabricator.
So they got the parts in, custom fabricated it and installed it.
and I can't explain that Nelson's billing cycles,
but yes, this is way behind a typical bill,
but we definitely needed it.
Like I said, the sludge presses that press
all of our digested sewer will not work
without this backflow preventer,
which would put us in a significant bind.
Alderman Stacey.
When did the parts come in and when was the work completed?
From my best recollection, the parts
were ordered on the PO in June.
I think they took four weeks to get the parts in
because we had to get custom flanges built and added
to this large RPZ.
And we went with stainless because the original one
wasn't stainless, and it needs to be corrosion resistance
because the sludge process of patty caking the sludge
is very acidic.
And the environment that this room contains is very acidic.
And we've had to replace just about every component
within this building over the course of the last 15 years
due to the acidic environment.
So I want to say the parts came in
and probably mid-July, it was probably installed
about the 1st of August and we just got the bill last week.
And you said normally it comes out of what account?
There's an account in the sewer budget for repairs
at the wastewater treatment plant.
So did this come out the sewer budget account?
Yes, the maintenance.
there's no further discussion Alderman Monroe actually I do have a question so
this chrome in that acidic environment I remember studying this back in my days as
a meteorologist atmospheric scientist is there any concern that chromic acid will
Stacey, Stacy, Don, Shadle,
Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons and Parker. The resolution is adopted 8 to 0. Item number 20 is the adoption of resolution 2024 122. Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying emergency HVAC repairs at City Hall by Lesher Heating and Air Conditioning. Manager Boyer. Council, we had a similar situation here at City Hall. The main council chambers
Air Conditioning Units failed I believe toward the end of September to get us through the
rest of the summer.
We approved an emergency repair of the Air Conditioning Units, the total cost being $10,425
and staff asks council to ratify that invoice.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle, discussion?
You said it was how much? I'm sorry.
10,425 dollars.
And this money has come or will come from?
It'll come from building maintenance for City Hall PD.
to combine those under one budget item, so.
Yes, Alderman Monroe.
Are we over budget, under budget in that line item
from last year's budget, approved budget?
Do you know that answer?
Item 101-142-6165, Contracted Equipment Repair and Maintenance, still has 7,000 left in that line item, before this bill is run.
So we will be shy in that line.
Follow-up? Go ahead. So you're saying there will be like $3,000? Sure. Okay. Correct.
Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So basically what you're saying, it doesn't
matter what we approve in a budget, we're just gonna spend the money and then ask
for forgiveness later. Is that how this works? Manager Boyer? As you know,
budget is a planning document and you have to make adjustments as you go along
upon the reality that happens so when this thing failed I believe it failed
within a week of a large council meeting so we had the repair done so that we
could not be sitting in 85-degree weather with 100% humidity in here good
excuse. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy.
Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7 to 1. Item number 21 is the adoption of resolution 2024 123. Could you please read this? Resolution approving agreement with Richard L. Johnson for architectural services at wall number 12. Manager Boyer. Thank you your honor.
the City of Freeport is currently in design process of well number 12 that
would be the last remaining well for us to get off of the old brick street plant
and get us a contaminant free water system the facility design requires an
architect for the building component system Richard L Johnson has been a
strategic partner on design on the design team of well number 12 and also
with our wastewater treatment plan upgrades the City of Freeport they are
We're familiar with the state and the city building codes and standards.
The City of Freeport, with the assistance of Fehr Graham, has received a commitment from
the Illinois EPA and Congressman Eric Swarmson to fund $13.3 million of originally estimated
$14 million of the project.
The project must be bid before March 1st, 2024 to receive the funding.
Richard L. Johnson has presented a building architecture contract for $195,000 to perform
from the Plan Specifications and Plan Coordination with our Lead Engineer for the overall project
design.
To ensure funding, they have committed to being complete and bid ready by the Illinois
EPA's bid deadline.
The City plans to fund this engineering through capital improvement funds until a time which
we are reimbursed from the Illinois EPA.
The architect's fees can be reimbursed when the loan project is funded through the EPA.
So staff recommends the City Council approve the $195,000 contract with Richard L. Johnson
so the project can move forward.
Is there such a motion?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion.
Alderman Shadle.
Manager Boyer, you said that they were, Richard Johnson was involved with Well 12, I believe
you meant Well 11, they drew that building.
Yes, well, Levin and the Wastewater Treatment Plant, new upgrades. Thank you.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Simmons?
Oh, I am so sorry. Parker? Aye. The resolution is adopted six to one.
Hey, item number 22 is the adoption of resolution 2024-124. Could you please read
this? Resolution approving agreement with Berner-Schober for Mechanical
Engineering Services at well number 12. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. The
City Freeport, as mentioned before, is in the design process for well number 12. The
design requires mechanical engineering for HVAC, electrical, supervisory control and
data acquisition systems, and fire protection and advanced systems. Berner-Schober has been
an engineer partner on the design team for well number 11 and wastewater treatment plant
upgrades, and they're familiar with the city codes along with the EPA process standards.
The City has received a commitment from the Illinois EPA and Eric Sorensen, as mentioned
before, for $13.3 million and the project must be bid let by March 1st.
Berner Schober has presented a mechanical engineering contract for $70,000 to perform
mechanical systems design, specification, and plan coordination with our lead engineer,
that's Fehr Graham, as part of the overall project.
So to ensure the funding, they have committed to being complete and bid ready by March 1st,
the E.P.A. Deadline and staff recommendation that City Council move forward with the $70,000
contract with Berner-Schover so the project can move forward immediately.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion.
Alderman.
Yes, I heard Richard L. Johnson and I heard Fehr Graham.
I'm sorry, Bernie, Berners, whoever, Berners, and Fehr Graham.
So who is?
Manager Boyer?
So Fehr Graham is the lead engineer.
Richard L. Johnson is the architect.
And Berners Schober is the mechanicals.
So they will help with design of all the piping,
electrical work, that type of thing.
So you've got the building itself,
and then you've got all the mechanicals inside.
Okay, so the building itself is costing the $70,000?
No, that's incorrect.
The design for the mechanicals within the building
is $70,000.
Attorney Zito?
Right, so this is like, you know, so you got the architect
who's gonna design the building, right?
There's a separate company or consultant
Fowler.
There's a company that then designs all the heating and air conditioning, all the pipes
and ducts and vents, electrical, you know, wiring that goes in there.
There's a separate company that designs that, different than the architect.
And then Fehr Graham is what?
They're the engineer on the project.
So you have multiple consultants.
So we're going to have three different bills.
Yes.
Correct.
Right.
Because they're all different disciplines.
Do you know what those other bills are?
Oh, from the, like from the dollar amounts?
Yeah.
So for the design of the HVAC, the mechanicals, that's the $70,000 to draw it up, then $195,000 was for the architect, the previous resolution you guys adopted, and then I'll defer to Darren as to what the engineering contract is.
our contract was approved I believe sometime in 23 and I think ours was 1.1
million for all the piping all the ancillaries all the coordination it's a
very big project when you're talking about 14 million dollars worth of work
and you said in 2023 it was approved yeah that was when we originally started
Chasen, Money for Well 12 and Wellhouse 12, mm-hmm Alderman Monroe Kudos to you, Miss Stacy, because you're the first person that's asked the right question. Basically, if you do a search of Fehr Graham, Richard L. Johnson,
and Bernard Schober. They work on dozens if not hundreds of projects together. So basically
they're one and the same. Even though they're separate companies, they bid together on multiple
jobs. So the money's going essentially into the same space. And the question we should
be asking is why are we not going out to bid for other entities as well who could also
and others.
We're not getting deep bids, we're not getting a lot of offers.
So we are putting ourselves in a situation that we're no longer getting multiple entities
coming into us with bids.
So the price goes up because they're bidding against themselves.
And these are questions we should ask about all of these bids that come through.
and John. There's more than one company that does architectural services. There's plenty
of mechanical engineering services. And I know that being comfortable with each of these
businesses is great. It's good for the City of Freeport to be able to work with those
that know our business, but that doesn't mean we get the best dollar for our buck. We don't
get the best, you know, who knows? Who knows what we would get if we had other people bidding
and others.
So I think it's important to ask the question because on these adoptions of these resolutions
I've not seen where it's gone out to bid.
And so I'm concerned about that and that's why I voted no on the previous one.
And this one is the same thing.
And it doesn't matter if you go to Green Bay or Polo, Illinois or Aurora or Madison or
where you go, they're all working together.
They're all getting paid the same.
So that's the question I would pose to the City Manager, why are we not putting this
out to bid?
Manager Boyer?
I would say best practices is not a bid.
It's statement of qualification.
What's your payment?
Darren, did you own it?
Well, Aaron can and should weigh in on this, but engineering proposals are not done by
bid basis.
That's not legal in Illinois.
It's done by qualifications basis.
You can't select an engineer off a bid, you can't even ask for a bid price on a project.
That I believe is state statute, if I'm correct.
That's right.
So for engineers, if you're gonna look for a competitive process, it's called a QBS qualification
based system for engineers.
That's just for engineers there.
I believe then though, for professional services like engineers, architects, lawyers and stuff
like that though, there's also provision of the code that says that you don't have to
go out to any sort of a competitive bid or QBS process necessarily if you don't want to.
It's again, it's your guys' choice there if you have a some sort of an established
and so forth.
And so, you know, it's not necessarily some sort of an established relationship or desire
because you've used them before, so you like what they've done before you in the past and
stuff like that.
So, you can, you don't always have to go out to the, a quote or bid process for professional
services.
But again, it's up to you.
If you want to, you can.
Alderman Klemm?
Yes.
Contrary, Mr. Monroe, to what you said, being in the construction trade since 1967 and being
and estimating since 1984, you'll realize that there are different phases to stuff and
different engineers and so forth that are better qualified to do things, okay?
Like you said, they went out in 23 to start working on the money to get this, okay?
There's part of it, okay?
You're turning around here and you're having two people work for you that have done absolutely
excellent on your last two projects with no problems with the design of the building or
anything else in the construction and how it works.
You certainly, you know, like Mr. Zito said, you know, you can go out and do that.
Professional services you don't need to do it on, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do
it on.
I'm going to tell you what, when you've got a couple buildings, and you've got 33, 34 million dollars that Fehr Graham has brought into us in grants, and I was at a meeting this morning, where they're going out for another million dollars for lining of sewers and stuff, and can you tell me one project they've done for us lately that's bad? Can you tell me who else you'd go to for another project? Actually, I can. Get your hand off of me first of all.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry I touch you. You have tonight knocked every department in this city. You finally did the Public Works Department tonight. Two weeks ago or three weeks ago you did the Fire Department.
We can go back on.
Last week you did the Police Department.
Okay, okay.
Why the hell if you aren't going to run again? Why don't you just goddamn resign?
Okay, this is off topic. This is off topic.
So you're going to let this happen?
No.
You just did.
and
John.
I want them removed. A, he touched me. B, he swore at me. And C, I don't have to put up with that.
So what I brought up, and now that he's already put this out there, I'm going to respond. I can get my neighbors on the phone and I can ask them the questions that I brought up tonight.
and
John.
I want to talk about the past.
I've been on this earth and we've put more roads in than you
did in your entire tour as a previous Alderman.
If you want to have a conversation, let's have that
conversation. My point is this.
This is about finance. This is about money.
This is about we keep spending money nonstop and we keep
and
Mr.
Boyer.
I would like to make everyone aware that this is funded with
$13.5 million in grant funding that has to be used up in a very
short period of time for the benefit of the city of Freeport
and its residents.
But that doesn't mean we don't spend it in a manner that's
consistent with being fiscally responsible.
And that should not mean that we as council people do not have a choice or option of sending
this out for bid.
That was not even given to us.
That option was not given to us.
you made the decision on your own because they did well 11 to do well 12, when we should
have had that option, am I correct in saying that?
We did not have an option, we should not have?
Manager Boyer.
Alderwoman Stacy, we don't change horses in the middle of a race.
No, that's not the question.
I am sorry, I have to tell you, we have had nothing but excellent outcomes.
We have had nothing but willingness to correct deficiencies.
We've had responsive service.
We have had everything working in our favor and that is why Well 11 went so smoothly once
we got the well drilled and that is why Well 12 will be similarly smooth.
and we as a council been given the option to send this job out to be it.
It's about qualification.
But that is a yes or no.
No you don't.
It's not.
Not according to what we have.
It's about qualification.
How do we know that they're legit engineers?
How do we know that?
It's the third time we've done large projects with them.
They're very skilled in what they've done.
No, I'm not avoiding your question. You don't go out to bid for engineers. You go out for RFQs, which is qualifications.
That's exactly what he told you, is qualifications.
It said that we had the option to go out for bid. We had a choice.
Not for bid, for qualifications.
I think what we're describing right now is just terminology, okay? As a baseline concept, engineers, you don't use the word bid, okay? That's a very technical thing, but I think for practical purposes, it's a bid, but it's really called qualification-based system, QBS, for engineers, okay?
So, yes, it is a competitive process, but is it technically called a bid? No, it's not, okay? So I don't want to get people hung up. Right, I don't want people to get hung up on that.
but with the QBS process, the main distinction is, when you go through the process and you entertain all these different engineers, right, they can't tell you a dollar amount, okay, because it's not based on price, it's based on who's the most qualified to do the job, you pick the person first based off of who's the most qualified, after you pick them, then you negotiate the price, so that's what's different between what's traditionally thought of as a bid versus QBS, qualification, it just isn't a name, it's based on qualification,
Fowler.
So again, that's a distinction there between the two processes.
That said, I think you were saying what I said, right, engineers go through QBS.
You have the right to go through a QBS if you want to as a council.
You guys have that call.
Staff has presented a name for you guys instead, because you don't have to use the QBS process
also if you don't want to.
So ultimately, it's your guys' call.
If you want to go back and say, hey, thanks for presenting a name, a recommendation, but
We as a council decide we want to go through the QBS process, you guys can do that.
Darren, did you want to add to that?
Yes, just a couple of facts.
So this is the third project that we've done with RLJ and Berners for Freeport.
Well House 11 went very well.
We didn't have in a percentage basis, we barely had any change orders on the job for the end
of the project.
So that means the quality engineering was done otherwise your change orders generally go up and also both companies held their price from 2019 for this job which is unheard of since there's that many years of labor increases and so on and so forth so that's something that we did negotiate with them based on the familiarity with Freeport so the fact is they are saving Freeport money because they're familiar with Freeport, they're familiar with our process,
We're familiar with Public Works, they're familiar with our water quality and what we want to see out of our facilities, so there is a savings to this and I will guarantee you that if you decide to do something different you will pay more than this amount for that engineering because you pay for familiarity with your city and or business. That's just the way it is and you're under a time crunch. We're always under a time crunch.
and
the
city's
sole
responsibility.
Correct.
That move.
Alderman Sanders, did you have something to add?
I had a lot to say, but your interruption and his interruptions and the fact that I couldn't get my point out to get a clear understanding is almost as if you were avoiding me from the
I point out to get a clear understanding.
It's almost as if you're avoiding me from talking.
I had a legitimate question to ask,
but you got my anxiety moving right about now.
And the fact that you're making statements
that only engineers, engineers are not just the sole person
that is brought into the project.
Engineers are something of a secondary or sub person or company that comes in to engineer a project.
My whole thing is, who would be the general contractor for such a project?
and then you can implement.
and
John, and then you can implement whoever you want to decide to
bring in
to engineer, to do the architect, all of those things. But who is
the contractor that is going to oversee this particular project
that will allow the Council to see who are they? Because under
Say, because under the term general contractor comes many, many prospects of picking and
to do bidding.
Take the engineer out of the subject.
We're not talking engineer first.
We're talking contractors, and they are the ones, the general contractors are the ones
who determines who they want to work on the project, not anyone else, and that's for all
general contractors who wants to do a bidding for whatever project that goes before it.
And if we're not allowed to look at other bidders, then that means that we're looking
from one entity that is creating a monopoly within the city ranks itself.
and so we want to scrutinize everything that is being proposed from your position, Manager
Boyer's position, anybody else that is making a comment on this, trying to make this thing
passive, to pass.
So let's just open this thing up and make some serious clarity about who's in charge.
the engineers not in charge so your statement there was very inaccurate mr.
Sanders I'm sorry the contractor would never be in charge of this project
because this has to go out to bid to select a contractor that's what I was
getting to the bid is not done until the engineering is done no wise you have no
project you can't do one okay okay but Darren has floor right now so let him
finish talking the way the process works with the EPA money is you have to have
have an engineer and a design group that designs the project and then it goes to bid for the
low responsible contractor. That is the way these programs work. We don't select the contractor.
The city doesn't select the contractor. The low bid process selects the contractor on
the construction, not on the engineering. That's the way the process works in Illinois.
That is the way every municipality has to operate or you don't get the funds. That is
you, the way it works, QBS process or your familiarity with engineers and then you design
the project, then you go to bid for the low price, the bid, the competitive process is
based on the contractor bidding the project to construct it.
Manager Boyer.
I just also wanted to comment that the design and engineering falls within a certain range,
and
the
City of D.C.
The
overall cost of this project is actually well within that range.
Alderman Shadle, did you have your hand up?
I did. The engineering, as Darren stated, and the architecture is all the prints or
and others.
The project is bid off of those prints.
What we're talking about is a document that's going to be probably in the neighborhood of
70 to 100 pages, 300 pages.
If there's omissions in the engineering, if there's omissions in the drawings, if things
are not figured correctly if they're not drawn correctly. You get halfway into the project
and Darren made mention of the fact that on Well 11 there was virtually no change orders
and those are generated from the mistakes that are made if you hire the wrong engineer
and the wrong architect.
Any of you that have not spoken yet, then we'll move on. Alderman Sanders, you can have your second.
Yeah, thank you for that, Shadle, thank you for that explanation. But yet still, after you get said and done, and done all of the designing and the engineering, you still have to have a contractor to do that job, am I correct?
Is that correct? I'm asking a question. I don't want you to be saying that's it.
Ask your question.
I'm asking. Don't push it. I'm just trying to ask my question. Is that correct?
Once it's complete, you go out to a formal bid process for the contractor selection.
And it's not about who's most qualified, because all contractors who are going to bid on this job
Will want to have their most qualified engineers on this project, am I correct?
That's not always true on the contractors, and that's why there is an evaluation process for the lowest responsive bidder that's qualified to do the work for construction.
That's part of the evaluation process of the full design package, what it's called.
Sorry, who's doing the evaluation?
The evaluation is usually done by the city and the engineer after the bid process is done and we actually formally get bids.
I don't understand the question.
It's not an engineer, Larry, it's a contractor.
Now we back at the General Contractor and these people have to be qualified even with the low bid contractor.
So within the bid package is usually an enormous package, probably more than the 400 pages that he referenced tonight.
Everybody has to give qualifications, they have to give references, they have to give bondability, depending on how big the job is.
and the job is there is a huge packet that goes through that. We evaluate them after the
bid contractor. So if you get three bids, you evaluate three packages. If you get two,
you evaluate two. If you get ten, you evaluate ten. Then there's also things called bond
inquiries where you can go against or go to firms and ask questions about contractors,
whether they've had claims against them, whether they've done bad work for somebody else. That's
and others.
So, it's all through the bidding process, which is an enormous process, and then we
go through all of that in the background after it's bid, and then make a recommendation
to council.
Now, in order not to select the low bid during the process of a contractor, you have to have
a reason.
So, they have had to have done some bad work somewhere, something recorded, it's a process,
a legal process, and if you don't do it correctly, that process, that contractor could come back
and sue the city.
So there is quite a process in evaluating whether someone is qualified or not.
Okay, so let's rein this in a little bit. You've had way more than two times to ask questions, and there are also Aldermen that haven't asked any.
Okay, I respect that.
Those that have not asked any questions, are you wanting to say anything in this moment?
Because the two that are left, they've already spoken twice. If there's not an
objection, I'll let it continue. If there is, then according to our ordinance, this
is, this conversation is ended. Yeah, I respect that.
Are you allowed me to continue? I'm asking the council if, according to the
and
speaking up now if you don't if you want to end the conversation move on to a
vote second move on okay well according to the ordinance it needs to be
unanimous so the the conversation for the alderman that wanted to do extra
discussion is was not approved according to the ordinance yeah this is how we do
business according to the ordinance yeah I understand madam clerk since unless
there's a member of the council that has not spoken you still have an opportunity
Dixon.
Okay. Then, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
So you killed it. Stacy?
No. Shadle?
Aye. Sanders?
No. Sellers?
Aye. Klemm?
Aye. Monroe?
Nope. Simmons?
Ah!
Parker, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is enough to pass. The resolution is adopted 5 to 3.
Move on to item number 23, which is the adoption of resolution 2024-126. Could you please read
this? Resolution approving a final plat of subdivision
for plat number 2 of SHOPCO subdivision of the City of Freeport.
Thank you, Madam Mayor. So this is currently at the True Storage Building, or I'm sorry, it's a CubeSmart. It's old ShopCo. If you're looking for a reference, it's at the intersection of Rosentiel and South Street. So can I give you an idea of where we're at here? And Director Sutman, if you wouldn't mind scrolling down, I can kind of give them, show them
A photo of this subdivision here. So what's happening is the CubeSmart, which sits right here, okay. They, what they currently own is this parcel. They own two outlots, a lot one and a lot two here.
here, and at the moment when this was originally designed and platted, which basically means
it went through the process of a subdivision plat where they divided it into three lots.
These lots here were intended for future development.
We obviously know the end of the story here is that these were never developed.
There was not enough interest to develop these into some sort of McDonald's, etc., some store.
So what happened is when CubeSmart took over they wanted to and their plan is to extend
and build outdoor storage in this area.
Well step one of the process is they need this plat because they need to vacate easements
to lots that they no longer intend to have.
So essentially here you have a new plan of business, a new plan for development.
They no longer see a desire to develop these lots.
Therefore, they no longer need this access easement to these two lots.
They're going to combine it into one large lot.
So in line with the ordinance, which has been also distributed in your agenda packet, this
goes before the Planning Commission to have a preliminary plat review and a final plat
review.
And the preliminary plat was recommended for approval on November 14th.
and it was by a vote of 6 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 abstention and the final plat was recommended
for approval by a vote of 6 yeas, 0 nays, and 1 abstention.
And staff recommends approval of this resolution.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Make a second.
Moving motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion on the resolution?
Alderman Sellers?
I just have a quick question.
I would just like, is that the parking lot then? You know, because they have a very big parking lot.
It's, yes, so this would be the front. This is kind of where you would pull into the cube, this rosentile.
You'd pull in here, and this is actually the front of the store, the front of CubeSmart.
And what, like, you know, you were saying, that's a big parking lot.
now, they, if things would have gone according to plan they would have had two tenant spaces
towards South Street, things didn't go according to plan, they're pivoting and now they're
saying ok we're going to put outdoor storage in that parking lot area.
Alderman Stacy.
So you're speaking behind what was Shapko?
No.
That's South Street right off of it.
Here would be South Street. You know that they have a large parking lot in the front here. I'm saying the front. It's the north side of the parcel.
South Street's up here. It's down the hill. You're looking down the hill.
Downing, across the street from Dairy Queen, and the electric horse, yeah, it's from that, yeah, it's
There's no further discussion
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacey?
Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? No.
Monroe? No. And Simmons? Aye. And Parker? Aye.
the resolution is adopted six to two item number 24 is approval of a bid could
you please read this a bid opening was held on November 7th 2024 for CD 009 2024
for rehabilitation of single home at 748 East Center Street thank you director
doctor thank you madam mayor so the city of Freeport has been awarded the
Community Development Block Grants of which a total of $550,000 of which $64,000 is allocated
to Grant Administration and $486,000 goes to the rehabilitation of homes.
City of Freeport held a bid opening on November 7th of 2024 for the construction of rehabilitation
services of 748 East Center Street.
received one bid in the amount of $54,775 by CMM and Associates.
The scope of work that has been agreed upon by the City of Freeport and the property owner
includes the following construction rehabilitation services.
This is a new roof, new bathroom fixtures, new bathroom floor, and siding repairs.
Staff recommends issuing a contract to CMM and Associates in the amount of $54,775 for
Construction, Rehabilitation Services at 748 East Center Street.
Is there a motion to approve this bid?
So moved.
Second.
The motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion?
Alderman Monroe?
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
What's the square footage on the property?
I don't have that information right in front of me.
I can't get...
The only reason I ask is, you know, for the cost, you know, kind of estimating the cost
of roof.
I'm not sure how much they're putting in in siding repairs.
Is that a significant amount?
I have that in the packet.
I can get that to you.
But it's a significant amount of work.
And I think one of the biggest issues and concerns here
is early on when we had some of the contractors
come in to look at it, a lot of them
end up walking away because you have to be a license led
contractor in order to qualify for this grant.
So you have to do an additional license.
And early on, we had several contractors interested,
and they all walked away from some of the higher requirements.
So I do think that some of the restrictions from the state make it a little more restrictive
on what we're getting.
And then also I think that that's just in particular, but it is a whole new tear off
of the roof.
I know it's an entire tear off and a full new roof installation.
Any other discussion?
Alderman Stacey.
This is part of the Community Development Block Grant?
Correct. That housing rehabilitation grant for the $550,000, yes.
The homes on Adams and along Adams Avenue corridor.
Any further discussion? One more question.
Is the home privately owned or is it owned by?
Every home that's in this grant goes through a highly restrictive, high vetting process
and they have to be owner occupied. So they have to be owner occupied. So there were some
concerns about landlord owned properties. A couple things I want to state there. They
have to be owner occupied and the grant is need based. So there's a scoring system that
they have that the state provides and certain more points are given to the elderly and more
points are given to people with disabilities. So if somebody is owner occupied, disabled
and elderly, their house may look nicer than the one next to them, but the scoring that's
based on the state has to follow those guidelines. So it's not necessarily that's a bad house
that you get the money. It's not, that's not how it's scored.
Okay. Thank you.
Sanders. Yeah, I think I may have asked this question once before, I'm not sure, but I ask again, what makes you what makes you eligible? Again, I know I know you, but what actually makes you eligible? So at the time in 2021, I was not here for this application when these were originally submitted. But at the time, it had to do with the geographic region, which is a census block tract, which is a fancy way of saying that our
federal government divides our of our many maps that overlap each other there's census block
tracks that they do statistics on for our communities and and when this grant application was done you
had to live within the census block tract i say the adams avenue corridor because it's easier
than saying census block track number 75 just people don't think like that so you had to live
within the census block tract which was and it has a certain sense of call statement of qualifications
for Income and Elderly.
and others.
The application was originally submitted to the region 1 planning council.
So you had to be in that geographic area and then you had to submit an application.
This is an ongoing project.
Not right now.
The application's deadline was done.
Region 1 planning council was hired to grade all of the applications based on the factors
that I stated.
So Region 1 was retained as a Planning Council on the suggestion of the state.
They reviewed and scored all of these applications.
So this is not open right now.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Stacy, did you have a second one?
Yes.
know that they truly qualify and that there's no hidden agendas, not that you're hiding
but that they're hiding.
How do we know that financially they are able to even receive this money?
Well I do know for the one, I do know that I have obviously been asked to, and it's on
later on so I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about it, but I was asked about
one property in particular, and I do know that income verification is done at several
points along the way. So, the state has contemplated this being an issue. Do I think somebody could
lie? People lie about everything. So, do I think if somebody was committed to doing it
and could lie and possibly sure it's done everywhere. But my point is the state has
contemplated that this being an issue. So, for example, on income verification, I have
seen social security statements that the people are willing to share with the city and I've
I've seen income tax returns.
So people are trying, and what I'm seeing,
people are trying to be honest,
they're showing their information,
which is not easy for a lot of people to share,
and they're showing they're being honest on their,
from what I'm seeing, they're being honest
on their applications.
Anyone else?
Is it acceptable for a third round for Alderman Stacy?
I thought I only spoke once.
Well, I thought I had written down, but go ahead. I might have made a mistake.
Okay. Item 24 and Item 25 is a factor of my Item 31.
and I would like to make a motion that they are put on the December cowl for further discussion.
Right now, you want to take 24, 25, and 31?
31?
I cannot get to it until we get through everything else, but 31 is a part of 24 and 25.
So am I hearing you correctly?
You want to move 24, 25, and 31 onto December COW?
I want to move 24 and 25 to the COW.
Is there a second to that motion?
I second it.
Okay, so the topic now is moving these items to the December COW for more discussion.
Is there discussion on that particular part?
Madam Clerk, could you?
Oh, just could I ask the question, will it hinder the time where the contractor is going
to do the work. Yes. Because the money is already there and already approved and
already... Yes, at the basic level it's putting a roof on a house. So if you're
put if you delay putting a roof on a house you go to December. I can't read
the tea leaves on the weather. Alderperson Monroe could do a better
job at that, but I can tell you that it's not good that when you want to put a
roof on a house you get colder in a year it doesn't you can't there becomes a
point when it starts getting cold enough you can no longer put roofs on houses so
So this would essentially put this back another until spring. At least, probably April. Okay, so if there's no further discussion on that particular motion, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll to see if it's acceptable for 24 and 25 to move to the December call?
Stacy? Aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? No. Simmons? Aye. And Parker? No.
the motion fails three three to five okay so we're back to the approval of this bid
on 748 East Center Street is there any more discussion on 748 East Center I'd
like to make a motion Madam Mayor I would like to make a motion to suspend
the rules well actually we don't need to we can oh that's right it's enough
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
And Parker?
Aye.
The motion passes 6-2.
And item number 25, could you please read this bid approval?
There was a bid opening on November 7th, 2024 for CD0102024 for rehabilitation of a single
home at 833 South Adams Street.
Director Duckman.
Thank you Madam Mayor.
So at 833 South Adams, this property is also part of the Community Development Block Grant
for Housing Rehabilitation and the City of Freeport held a bid opening on November 7th,
24 for the construction rehabilitation services of 833 South Adams and received one bid in
the amount of $39,075 by CMM and Associates and this scope of work has been agreed upon
by the City of Freeport and the property owner and it includes the following construction
rehabilitation services, 8 new windows, softened fascia repairs, upgraded electric, deck repair,
New, Gutters, and staff recommends moving forward by issuing a contract to CMM and Associates
in the amount of $39,075 for the construction rehabilitation services of 833 South Adams
Avenue.
Is there a motion to approve this bid?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion on this bid.
Alderman Sanders.
Who evaluated this home with the list of items that needs to be improved? How do we generate that cost and where are we shopping for material things to make sure that the cost is not being driven by a particular one company or whatever? How do we get there?
again very specific so on this particular grant we had a what is called it is a
mandatory walkthrough on October 18th mandatory cannot move forward if I do not
if city does not host this walkthrough so we have a consultant MSA is our
consultant and they're our grant administrator through that consultant
was at the house on October 18th we have a sign in for that our building inspector
was present and more importantly part of this grant requires what's known it
requires a housing inspector that's certified through this grant and that we
have that person it's a contracted housing inspector that creates a scope
of work that hands out the scope of work at that particular meeting so they're
saying here's what has been decided upon that need that what you're bidding on so
that's a requirement of this of this grant so that's the evaluation process
If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
And Parker?
Aye.
The motion passes 7-1.
This bid opening was held on November 14th, 2024, CD012-24, demolition of nine residential properties.
Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So, the City of Freeport held a bid opening for the demolition of nine properties.
It was held on November 14th at 9 o'clock in the morning, and the City of Freeport received bids from four contractors.
An analysis was provided in the memorandum to our council, and after reviewing the bids, it was, you know, the city elected to go with the lowest bid per actual individual property, and it's
Per Actual Individual Property, and it's shown in that analysis.
And based on that, staff is recommending that Klechner excavating be granted $21,145 for
the demolition of 622 East Winnipeg and 626 East Winnipeg.
Fisher excavating be awarded $91,495 for the demolition of 217 North Henderson, 425 South
Float, 441 South Benton, 634 North Warren, 706 East Winnipeg, 712 South Pine, and 1208
South Rotsler Avenue.
All the funding from this grant is going to come from the IDA Strong Communities Program
grant, which is commonly known as the grant for $300,000.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
Is there a motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Shadle?
Discussion on the bid?
Alderman Simmons.
Alderman Simmons. Director Duckman, why isn't the house across the street from 626 on Winnipeg? That's all boarded up. Why isn't that on this list, but the two across the street from that that that I mean that they're both in bad condition, but
the one that's been boarded up. Why is that not on this list?
The short answer to that, just going off memory, and I actually drove down, I posted the signs on Winnishek for these because my inspector was out that day
and I went down and asked him the same question and he reminded me that it was a particular owner that fought tooth and nail with the city against any action we had.
So sometimes these take longer because as we move through this process they can file a complaint but I will I'm being honest with you and I tell you I told my inspector I want that one moving forward because I said I don't want to keep going through knocking the ones down around it without missing that particular house but that's that's the answer why is that the some property owners even though when the writing is on the wall they fight the demolition of their properties
Alderman Sanders
Yeah, how many properties are we talking about?
Nine properties, nine properties on this PIDL
on this grant, on this award.
And we all, we all, we do have a demolition contractor to do the job.
Correct, so what you're voting on, what you would be voting on is two of them are for Kleckner and nine of them are for
two of them are for Kleckner, seven of them are for fisher excavating.
Okay
Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Stacy?
Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye.
And Parker? Aye. The motion passes 8 to 0.
Item number 27. Can you please read this discussion ordinance?
Discussion regarding ordinance amending part 6 general offenses chapter 694 weeds and grass
of the codified ordinances by adding a new section 694.08 to be entitled Vegetation and
Managed Natural Landscape and amending chapter 694.01 nuisance declared for the purpose of
allowing planned natural landscaping while prohibiting uncontrolled growth of vegetation.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Honor.
This was up for discussion at the last Committee of the Whole.
The proposed ordinance identifies natural landscape options for homeowners and for property owners.
City staff is requesting to move forward with this.
It provides us some flexibility, allowing for pollinators, allowing us to have various
plant scapes and at the same time giving us the ability to help regulate those.
So staff is requesting moving this on to the December council meeting for first reading.
So move.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle to move this ordinance
on for first reading.
Is there discussion on Alderman Sanders?
Yeah, how soon are we anticipating on moving on this particular ordinance?
Alderman, Alderman, Alderman, Alderman Clem If I could, I was happy that they brought
the pictures tonight of the different places of the different grasses and flowers.
I'll show them next time but I brought a couple slides for Kurt if we needed to look at them.
I think one of the problems is if you remember how beautiful the roundabout was before it was
changed to grass, never mowed, never taken care of, never anything done, my concern is you're
going to see that in people's yards and I brought a picture of a couple of fences but we don't need
and I need to look at it, but I look forward to some discussion either before then or then.
This has been initiated more by Public Works, correct?
This is not a hey, you've got long grasses, right, so I just want to make sure we're not
. . .
No, no, I understand.
Yeah, my department is more than ready to cut some tall grass, so don't worry about
it.
No, no, I understand that 100 percent, but I know what we can come up with, so.
Yes, this ordinance did not say anything about native plants. So, I'm asking for clarity. Is this for native plants, like what we were given? Or is this just sprinkle some seeds out and let them grow?
Manager Boyer?
We can get that for you.
Excuse me?
We can get that for you. What does that mean? We can provide that for you with the
council packet before the next meeting. This isn't a definition of native species.
I understand, but I asked if this ordinance was talking about native plants.
Oh yes, yes. You know, I don't get what's funny. I don't get what's what's tickled
about my question.
If there's no further discussion, you had something?
So I did get an email after this was referred to this discussion, further discussion here
from Randy, who was the one who put this forward here, suggesting that we add a definition
of native plantings are a description of what kind of plants are typical native plantings,
so I would want to make that change, that next, you'll see that list of what native plantings are.
Thank you, I'm glad I made sense to somebody.
Then we will move on to item number 28. Do we need to vote on that, Mayor?
No, we don't need to vote moving forward. Because this just says discussion, I don't want,
because it's specifically on the agenda as discussion only.
I don't want to take a vote because we haven't announced,
we didn't post for that.
We just meant vote on moving forward to the next meeting.
Yeah, I think I'd rather just have it put on the agenda
for first reading and then they can vote
to move it forward from there.
Did you have something else?
The reason Public Works was requesting this change
is because we have issues in the right of way
where people are putting plantings that are growing up
and others that are out beyond visibility standards
or we can't push snow back, things like that.
It's really a maintenance cleanup issue.
We don't have any mechanism right now to enforce it.
And so we're trying to enforce that the right-of-ways
stay cleaned up and mowed well
and also allow for these native plantings within landscapes.
So it's really just a cleanup process.
Because we're getting into a season where we need to be able
we need to be able to control the height of corners
and intersections where plantings are
to make sure that we have visibility.
Okay, so we'll move on to item 28.
Could you please read the next discussion?
Discussion regarding evaluating updates to city ordinances
requiring drug testing for elected officials
and director level employees in the city.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
I think as a city that hires and does drug testing, all new hires, that it's important that we as community leaders set the example and basically provide for an environment that's safe, healthy, well-being of all employees are covered and that drug and alcohol abuse can have significant impacts on decision-making
and I'm all for the same purpose of making as well as, you know, understanding of things in the Council and, you know, a lot of cities have this type of an ordinance already in place and I think it's important that we, you know, set the example as leaders.
of you know a city you know we've had instances
We've had instances where people have tested positive after an event or an accident of some sort and I think it's important that we start to reel that in.
Drug use in the workplace is never a good thing. It's even more so in a city like ours and I think that by setting the example it will be easier to make changes down the road overall as the city goes for all the departments.
Sanders, you know, and I'm ready to kind of kick it off. I don't know if Alderman Sanders
would like to add anything to that. But you know, I think I think it's very, very important
that we, you know, at least start in the direction of testing, you know, so that we can protect
the citizens and the property of the community at large. Mr. Sanders.
Yeah, with something of that significance to have the citizens of Freeport realize that
we're here to serve them, that we want to do it honorably, we don't want to be under
some kind of a hit, I can't say it, I got so many ways to put it, but we don't want
and I want them to feel that we've been hypnotized within our own council to the point where we can't make decisions affirmatively because of the state of mind that we in us.
I feel very confident when I know that the guy that's working in capacity of the city, he's competent.
and so on.
And so I think this is not inundated by drugs, drinking, smoking, whatever the case may be,
that we can assure all of our employees have everything going for them to keep a liability
from factoring in while on the job performing duties and making decisions.
And so I think this, because of the fact this is the norm, it's not something that any
is pulling out of their hat. It is a norm that we get in line putting our employees and staff and elected officials and people of that nature in that same, under that same umbrella. So I think it is something that we should look at. It hasn't been considered all the years that I've been living here in Freeport. It is something we should adopt. It is something that we should move forward with.
Smith, and I think the city should look into it.
We should look very closely about it, look into these kinds of things, because we don't
know.
And that's the reason why these things happen, these kind of drug tests happen, because we
don't know, we don't know you like that, you know, that kind of thing, so until you show
up on a test lab or something like that, then we can understand who you are, you know, so.
Doesn't the employee handbook already address that, where they can be drug tested?
Yes, Madam Mayor, the policy of the City is that all employees are subject to random error analysis.
So it already is in place. So my question, I suppose, to the two of you would be, if this is pointed at an elected official, I mean, drug test me all day long, I don't care, but what's the outcome?
What's the outcome? What do you want to happen as a result? Because you can't have someone
removed from office because they fail a drug test. It doesn't happen. So what are you hoping
to have for, what's the goal? Well, my thing is, my thing is, it's not open
up for discussion with you, Mayor, at this time. We should, we're just putting it out
out there, let the Council think about it, talk about it, bring it to the next reading,
because until we understand how we're going to go through the process of doing this particular
thing, this kind of mechanism needs to be put in place. Why hasn't it not been put in
place is the question. We are not running an honor system that I can detect, which we
Cooney, John, Ken, Avery, Hun, D. Avery, you know, all of the other people, the people who are going to be the judge, we are going to be the judge. You know, I can't tell you how many people are going to be the judges, how many of them are going to be the judges, how many of them are going to be judges. The judges are going to be judges.
and others.
I was headed with this is, you know, we do have, you know, a general drug policy online
in our handbook.
You know, where I was headed with this was as an example, as elected officials and directors
that, you know, we would have an annual drug test and that would be my motion is to move
forward with an annual test in January for all elected officials and anybody taking a
A seat after they've been elected to office, you know, because it is important that we
set the example and we are the leaders of each of these departments, this community.
And it's important that we maintain that transparency and allow our public to understand that, you
know, we are putting our best foot forward.
We are setting the example within the City of Freeport and, you know, I think the cost
and the rest of it is negligible compared to other things that we're doing and you know
from that standpoint it would set the example that not only are we willing to do it but
that you're eligible for it as well as an employee of the City of Freeport so that would
be my motion is that we would have a have it drawn up so that we're automatically tested
every January by the end of the month and move forward from there.
you say everybody who are you implying elected you know all of us sitting in
this room at these tables director level and above alderman and you know mayor and
so forth okay so there's a motion on the floor okay you want to address it your
motion just to clarify though your motion was just to is it to basically
and I have to say that I need to directly direct staff to look into this and draft an ordinance there because, which is fine, right? There to say, hey, let's keep working in looking into this there. The only reason why I asked for the clarification is because I need to look into this for the legality of it. There, you mentioned that there were other communities. If you could share those with me just so I can kind of, you know, reach out to them and kind of see,
They've done their, I'm unaware, again, not that I'm the end all be all there.
I'm unaware of other communities requiring elected officials to be drug tested.
I know that there was a, many years ago there was the General Assembly.
There was a bill proposed to require House representatives and
Senate members to be drug tested as a part of being able to file nomination papers.
that bill was shot down.
It didn't pass there.
My concerns looking with just doing this,
and again, I don't have a problem
if this is what you guys wanna do.
I just wanna make sure that it's legal to do it.
There is that you're changing the qualifications
of office basically or potentially.
You're trying to say that, hey, if you fail the drug test,
is the repercussion that then you can't serve there.
And I just have to see if that's allowed to be done
or if that is something that is left to the General Assembly
to be able to write in that additional qualification.
So again, I don't, policy wise, this is up for you guys.
I just wanna make sure that you guys are allowed,
have the authority to make that policy.
There, and I don't know the answer off the top of my head.
Okay, but his motion was to drug test
every elected official and director here every January.
That was the motion, so.
So I think to Manager Boyer's point, I think the all employees are subject to drug testing. I think you're narrowing, getting a little more specific in saying that, hey, because right now it's kind of random. It's up to to the city decide or the manager decide when when a drug test of department heads might be necessary there. You're saying you're trying to narrow that scope and say, hey, department heads are going to get drug tested along with everybody else.
List, David Lewis, David Perlman, Walgreens,
ents, I know the city does.
The reason we set the example every meal, every
elected official, every January one.
You know, I mean, we, we, as elected leaders and
department heads are using our facilities, we're
using our vehicles, we're, we're doing things.
And the daily activities of our jobs.
And it's important that we, you know, do set the
example and that we, you know, it is for the
overall health of the city.
and many other legalities of it all but you know I think you know kicking somebody out of office probably isn't but you know there are options to get people help I mean you know the language is in yeah you know the employee handbook it doesn't say you're terminated
and so on.
I don't want to say you're terminated upon a positive test, but there are those types
of things.
I think from a standpoint, it does make a lot of sense from the handbook's kind of teeth,
if you will, that if we're all going to abide by the same rules as they are, I don't know
of an Alderperson or an elected official or a department head that's ever been drug tested
in my time as an Alderperson.
So, really what you want is an ordinance to reflect it.
Alderman Parker.
I don't have no problem with the employees when they're out there driving our vehicles,
doing the work in a dangerous situation, being drug tested.
But drug testing the alderman is asinine.
I've been drug tested twice.
Bates, once I went in the military, once I become a cop. Other than that, I never have.
I'm totally against it, and I'm not going to do it. So, thank you.
Okay, so we do have a motion on the floor, would be to, I'm guessing you're tasking
Attorney DeZito to come up with an ordinance, right?
Yeah, I would like that. Yes, please.
Okay, so we have a motion. Is there a second?
A second.
So we have a second made by Alderman Sanders. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk,
Do we take a vote on that?
Yeah, this is just to task me with looking into this more.
Yeah, great.
So Madam Clerk, did you, yeah.
Yeah, what we're trying to do is set a standard that's
supposed to be in place already.
We're not bringing anything in new.
I just want to get that out of everybody's mind.
It is something that just has not been activated or been used.
according to the mayor,
stating that we got something like that in place
and if you wanna object to that, that's on you.
But my thing is we're not setting a new standard
if it's already in place.
If someone has already been asked,
I know that this has happened out in the field
of Construction Workers, making accusation of someone that may have been consumed by drugs by one of our elected officials or directors or whoever have made that statement.
So I know that it has been done.
Dunn. I don't know if we got it in writing or anything like that, but I think it resulted
in someone's termination here at the city. So if that's not correct, then I stand corrected.
But if that conversation happened, then we should look into the fact that this thing
should be taken at face value all the way across the board.
Alderman Shadle, did you have something? I just wanted to say that you are in fact
wrong again. Okay. The added portion of this would be the elected officials. It
doesn't matter. Well, you said you weren't reinventing anything and you know
changing anything. No. And in fact you are. Well, if I am, that's your opinion.
We have a first and second motion and a second.
We pass the bill to draft an ordinance.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the role on this particular discussion?
Stacy?
Aye.
I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand.
So, okay, is it already part of whatever ordinance you think it is?
Employees.
Okay, so, okay, and if you're concerned about older people and elected officials, is there
is there something in the ordinance that says if, you know, somebody, Alderperson A shows
up inebriated, they'll be removed?
No.
Oh.
That's why I was questioning what, what's your end goal?
I don't know.
Director Richter?
I'd just like to clarify a little bit, and if I'm wrong, Attorney Zito, the handbook,
I believe, is due to reasonable suspicion.
,
and
I'm not in a random pool. I just wanted to clarify that.
» Madam Clerk, will you please take the roll?
» Stacy? » Aye.
» Shadle? » No.
» Sanders? » Aye.
» Sellers? » No.
We move on to item number 29, could you please read this discussion?
Discussion regarding investigation into unauthorized disposal of city documents in the Freeport
City Cemetery and purpose of that disposal.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
It's come to my attention as an Alderperson for multiple people now that there was at
at some point in time in the 2010 to 2020 range at least
that there were holes dug in the city's sedimentary
and documents were dumped into those holes.
And we're not talking small amounts of documents,
we're talking very large amounts of documents.
My question is knowing how documents are typically disposed
was, you know, documents are typically disposed of, you know, from being in
classified environments, as well as other environments in the military, and since being in the military, that, you know,
appropriate behavior would be to shred those documents, dispose of them, burn them, whatever it may be.
It's not to dig a hole in the city cemetery and dump a bunch of documents in, and then call it good.
The people that have approached me with this information, I believe,
and I believe it's important that we at least look into if information was dumped and if
that information was dumped, was it done so as a standard practice or if it was done so
to cover something up or if, you know, information that somebody has out there could be gathered
from those documents. Not knowing the details behind it, I felt it was important enough
to come to the city and at least have the conversation so that the public is understanding
of what was, you know, put there. And I think it's, it's, it makes sense to at least take
a look. We don't need to necessarily go digging in the cemetery. There's ways to use ground
penetrating radar and other methods that are easily done without disturbing any of the
and so on. I think it's at least worth a conversation to figure out why it was put there. If the
you know the city would like to maybe share with the older people, you know what what the what the reasoning behind it was.
Um, I felt like it was important enough to kind of come in front of the council, have the conversation. It shouldn't be too difficult
and go from there.
Manager Boyer
Thank you, Ms. Alderman. The
situation the cemetery,
We interviewed the Sexton's for the last 20 years and both of whom said there was never any incident that the
of that kind
Only Clem
Between 10 and 20 that appears to be a good number of years
It be do you have any idea what administration it was or who you could go back to do find out and see I?
Was on all those years. I don't believe I wasn't on from 18 on you were there then
but I find that to be entirely ridiculous thank you yeah three of those years are
under my seat I have no knowledge of any of it so is there so I understand
everybody's reluctance and I understand everybody's position but is it not worth
at least looking into would you well I think that's what manager Boyer did yes
Yes, we looked into it and we interviewed the sextants that were there at the time and they
have both said that there was never anything interred in the cemetery matching the description
that you made being some kind of documents.
Who are the sextants?
I have no idea who they are.
One is Todd Marsh.
He was our sextant for many years and the previous sextant, I don't know him personally,
but he was interviewed also.
What did the sextants do?
I'm confused.
The sextants in charge of the cemetery.
from working with the state archivist burial of documents I know is an acceptable disposal method I
don't I don't know what you're referring to here but I know burial is acceptable when we had wet
records from a flood that the shred people would not take them when they were wet although you're
You're not implying that, you're just saying that's, that would be a normal, correct?
that would be a normal correct that's acceptable it's an acceptable method
yeah whether this happened or not I I don't know but Alderman Sanders yeah I
just wanted to say that we're not in a position to investigate it with the
biases that we might be carrying simply because it's in our agenda but you got to
Remember, the City of Freeport was like a revolving door with elected salary positions, officials, many different administrations, and things of that nature.
So any of the things that are on this agenda could have occurred, but it's not our position to state our opinion on something that we can't validate as Council,
Nor can we say that no one that works for the city has any knowledge about any such things.
But we can't say that and for us to not be scrutinizing the whole proposal that was being made about investigating, looking into these kinds of things.
For whoever might be objecting to it, don't know the full scope of all the details from the time that it was done or whatever, whatever was done.
It has just been brought to our attention. We can't just put a date on it. We just can't do that.
Manager, Where? I would just like to respond to that if you have something you'd like to share with me
I'd be happy to act on it
Only Clem. Yeah, I just wanted to say why don't you
Reveal your sources and we can go talk to them if they know so much. So you can put your hands on them like you did me
I'd go to the police department, but they won't do it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is there any other discussion concerning these?
Yes, ma'am. I'd like to make a motion that we at least look into examining a little further. Once again, very small cost to look and see if we, and I will get a better location so that we have that location, but we will, we'll at least get that together and have the conversation and see if it's worthwhile. I don't know what the cost of ground penetrating radar is, but I've seen it used in the
and
the other.
I think it's a good thing that we have a
lot of people that have been involved in the past and it does
work very, very well. If there was something there, it would
show up, even if it wasn't a state of decay. I don't know the
but it seems pretty odd to me that people would come up and
say this for no reason.
that we look into a further okay you know I don't think there's any harm in that
you know and at least you know validate or invalidate I don't know what we'll
find but I know two people that came forward and said something about it and
they don't want to say anything because they you know they don't want anybody to
come back on them okay so there's a motion on the floor I find it funny you
do we have a second okay so we have a motion made by Alderman Monroe seconded
by Alderman Sanders to look further into examining the validation of the
allocations I don't know so Mike correct on what I just sure if you'd like I'll
come back at a later date with a location and a map and put a red X on it
for people. So it's easier to look, you know. We have a motion. So we have a motion. I mean, this is just basically like a consensus. But given the fact that I don't know how a voice vote is going to play out as far as I got a consensus as to whether or not the council wants to look into this further or not look into this further. I just take off. So do we want to look into this further? That's the that's the question. Madam Clerk,
Would you please take the roll?
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
No.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
No.
Klemm?
No.
Monroe?
Unreal.
Aye. Simmons is absent. Parker? No. Four? Wait a second. One, two, three to four. I always
state that wrong. I'm sorry. The motion fails. Am I wrong, Mayor? One, two, three, four wrong.
At four nos, one, two, three yeas. She's here. Can she vote? Oh, but we've had
I have Klemm, Parker, Shadle, and Sellers as noes, Monroe, Stacy, and Sanders as yes,
7, failing 3 to 4.
Is that?
Okay, we'll move on to item number 30, which is another discussion.
I think we moved this to the calm, Madam Mayor. I'm sorry, yes, I meant to say 31. 31? Okay, my mistake. Discussion regarding concerns related to the Community Development Block Grant Housing Rehabilitation recipient for 1010 South Adams Avenue Rehabilitation Grant. Alderman Stacey.
Through my research, I was able to find that this particular applicant for the 1010 South
Adam, property has a total combined real estate portfolio of $312,690, was, slash, is anyone
from this city aware of this?
Yes.
If you did and they were still approved, then shame on you.
If you didn't know and they were still approved, then shame on you.
I would think a portfolio of that size would deem them over-asset or are assets not a part
of the determined factor for approval.
We don't know.
I went on the city website to download a copy of the CDBG sample application and a listing
of accepted documents, but the information was no longer available.
So to ensure that the CDBG, Adam Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Grant Fund, which are still
Winslow.
I make a motion that all taxpayer dollars are being distributed with fairness and equity, as well as to provide a further safeguard against any potential misconduct.
all CDBG Adams Avenue Housing Rehabilitation projects
until the council have been completely educated
on the application and selection process
and all other participants' requirements.
So, this was on for discussion only, right?
So you actually have like a motion to basically put like a moratorium on the issuance of any
further grants, right, CBGB grants here there.
I think we can put it on an agenda, but four so that you can vote on it there, but because
Because we have this just for discussion on here tonight, I don't think we can vote on
the motion that you made because you're actually looking to take actual action as far as placing
a moratorium on the issuance of any further grants under this program.
Well, I can't help that the word discussion was added.
However, when I called in and said I wanted this, I said why I wanted this.
because this 10-10 property, this family have 10 other properties here in Freeport plus they
have two properties in German Valley and it is no way that they're eligible for this $48,000
and so I don't know who knows who or what is going on but clearly something is going
on.
You've already approved it though, right? You know that.
I do want to add some light to that because I can tell you're upset you and I've talked about this. It's not ten properties. I investigated it again today. I went to the tax records and looked at it. The German Valley House, I believe, was sold somewhere around 2006. And it's not ten properties. I went to the tax records and looked at it. The German Valley House I believe was sold somewhere around 2006. And it's not ten properties.
As of 2023, the person we are talking about has paid taxes on a total of 8 properties.
One of them is a vacant lot and another one of them is their actual residence.
All of their, again, I have to be careful about what I say because some of this information
is off of their tax returns, but I will say that this has all been accounted for and I
and I stand by it, you know, somebody else will come in here and have a different opinion,
a different professional opinion, that's fair, I stand by that, somebody else's professional
opinion, but I do know when I looked at that tax return, all these properties have been
accounted for, the person who's part of this applicant has worked with me greatly and said
anything they can do to put somebody's mind at ease, but owning, you're talking about
the difference between assets versus how much money they make on their income statement,
and their tax returns. You told me that, Director Duckman, you even offered me to come talk
to them, but then you never followed up. I asked you Friday, and you were not here, but
I asked you for a copy of the pre-walkthrough that happened on October 10th and any photos
taken, and that could not even happen. We can do that, absolutely. We can still do that.
I have all that information here, I just have to be extremely careful about what information
is given because at some point if this person says, hey, my tax information, my tax ID got
out or hey, I didn't want, so I consulted at today's department head meeting, I talked
with Attorney Zito and I said, what's our best course of action to put somebody's mind
at ease and when I spoke with the applicant today, they said, I'll comply all day, I just
to have certain information that I do want redacted.
And so there's two sides that have two fair requests.
But as I say, as a professional, I
stand behind anything you'll look at on their records.
And they're willing to work with whomever.
So I brought it up at the department head meeting
to make sure everybody was protected and safe.
And however it is we end up looking at it,
I do know Attorney Zito will be present to make sure
whatever needs to be redacted is redacted.
and I genuinely look forward to putting your mind at ease
or anyone else's, but I do hope that as we move forward,
this grant has taken three years to implement
and that we don't delay people's projects
that are reliant on it, you know,
because there's questions
on this one particular grant application.
When I spoke with you last Monday,
you stated that you had seen the 2020 income tax.
Have you seen the 2023?
yes I saw it today I have it today right I have it right here okay yes I have so
then I would like to set up a meeting with you and Zito and if the homeowners
want to come so be it all I'm saying is right is right and wrong is wrong I
agree anybody that owns 8, 10, 12 properties and they qualify for this type
Kappa, Grant Money, when we got property on these streets that look worse than theirs.
Let me just stop though quick because that's bad information to put out into the public.
I'm not insulting you at all, but putting out bad information is not good for the public
to hear because I did state earlier that if you drive down Adams Avenue and you say why
does that house look bad and this person got their house fixed, on the grant application
and that the state gives, it has a scoring system of points that we, as the director,
I talked to the state and said, I do not want a city employee to be accused of having friends
or favorites, cloak and dagger tactics.
I said, how can we avoid that?
And it says, you can hire a local planning council, region one planning council, to review
objectively on a state identified ranking system all of the applications.
and that is what we did through council that was approved through council so every one of
these properties excuse me was the highest the highest weighted factor I'll just read
all of them owner occupied for 10 years or longer you get 10 points for that owner occupied
for five years or longer you get five points for that if you pay 35 percent or more of
your income on your housing that's 10 points if you are elderly 62 or older you automatically
Fowler.
So that doesn't matter if your house is falling down in the ground or if it's brand new.
If you're elderly in this grant, you get an extra 20 points.
If you're disabled, 20 points.
If you're a single head of household, that's 10 points.
If you have a large family, five or more, that's five points.
And now they have listed incomes.
This does not have anywhere on here about assets, does not say assets.
it talks about your income and verifying your income and based on the what region you're
in these income levels are set by the state it says if you have very low income which
is 50 to 30 percent of the area's median income you receive 15 points if you are extremely
low income which is less than 30 percent of the area's median income which is determined
By the state, and there's a graph here, you get 20 points.
So nowhere in here in this ranking system does it say, well, my house is worse looking
than your house.
So it's very important to state that every one of these applications was not graded on
is your house worse than my house.
Not at all.
So that's wrong for people to believe this.
This is what the state of Illinois is going to look at for every one of these.
So when we look at any application, that is how an independent organization reviewed these
applications.
So I think it's very wrong to tell the public that that's how this grant was administered
because it was not.
When this house was chosen, when it came to council, I asked, why this house?
Why this one first?
And you talked about that point system and they applied, they're on the list, they qualify
Fier, they this, they that.
True, I did say that and I stand by that.
I stand by that if this ever was audited however you want to go by this and however attorney
Zito is determined legally can show this information, this information will be showed.
I've looked at it multiple times.
I've looked at our contractor who reviewed these applications and we went step by step
by step with the state on how to administer this and that's exactly what we did.
So you can't accuse the city of saying, well, Wayne gave ten points here because that's
his favorite.
No, we hired a professional.
I never said that.
But I'm just stating that that is how this grant was.
I'm saying I want to understand the grant and I want to understand your little point
system and I want access to the state government pertaining to this grant.
You could certainly call and ask the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity and
and so on.
So, whatever information they can give you, they will.
I don't control that, you know, the DCEO and what they do.
Okay, we're ready to move on.
Alderman Stacy, you technically made a motion, given the fact that you're going to have a
meeting, do you want to withdraw your motion just to clean that part up?
I really would like to have everything stopped until there's a total understanding on these
and that, that the application wasn't filled wrong.
So if you want to consider that, that stop then because it was written on here as a discussion
at the very next council meeting that can be put on for as a motion to be made and seconded
to have basically impose a moratorium on the issuance of any further grants under this
application, or under this program.
Do we treat that like the last one and take a vote on if it moves forward to the next
council as a...
No, it's going to move forward.
I think, because she can always, any two Aldermen can always ask for something to be put on
the agenda.
So that's basically what I'm suggesting that if Alderman Stacy and another Alderperson want
to have that item put on the agenda, they can have it put on the agenda.
Okay, so that would be for discussion. You're not tasking Attorney Zito to draw up some thing.
Am I correct on that?
What I asked for you saying I can't have.
Not tonight because of the heading on the agenda.
So it can go on to another agenda.
For discussion, how does that change?
George.
For the next agenda, it can be, you know, discussion slash, you know, motion or motion
to, you know, motion for to instruct, you know, attorney to draft moratorium.
That's what I wanted clarity on.
But that's ultimately however, you know, Alderman Stacy wants to phrase it.
or half the moratorium then.
and
the
Mayor.
I would like for you to do just that.
So it will be on the agenda.
And I make a motion right now that it be put on the agenda without the word discussion.
So you're tasking him to write this up?
Yes.
I'm saying that you don't need to make a motion tonight, okay, if you want, because, right, we have the rule that says any two Aldermen can have something placed on the agenda, right, but then what if, what if December, two, three more properties come to move forward with a roof or whatever is needed, and you could vote against, I mean, they were voted right, you voted against, right,
it's going to be five to three or four to four and then the mayor's going to vote and she's going to vote for it.
Wayne, do we have like is it likely between now and December the first meeting of December?
I don't think I have to double check our schedule. I have to double check to see where we're at on the next
because as as stated before before these can move forward we have to schedule the
we have that hired independent contractor and he actually had an accident in his family
So, he was missing some time, so we had to delay some of the inspections, but I'll double
check to see where we're at on those independent inspections.
So I was told Wednesday that there had been a halt put on 1010, so are you telling me
you're moving forward now?
1010, okay, so 1010, the short answer to your question is the contractors not had started
work, and I told them to stop, and they've stopped at 1010.
I've asked them to stop because I said there was an agenda item where, and there was concerns
About the application and I said I needed to talk with our older people and our attorney because when I talked to our
Consultant about it at the staff level our consultant meeting MSA myself we scoured the
Income records I had a meeting with the property owner
And I said I can't find anything that would disclose that would preclude this person from moving forward with the grant they followed all the rules
and I said I can't and our consultant could not find a reason to stop it, but I said
said, and our consultant actually suggested, and I agreed, they said if something is going
to move forward, it's going to have to be legal action, talk to your attorney because
I can't see a reason to stop it.
So I said, yes, please put it on halt until we can figure out what we're doing.
So from the staff level, I did tell the contractor to stop working on the project until this
is figured out.
For 1010 Southat, I've told them to stop.
Until it's figured out.
Okay, so we have a motion, do we, I forgot, did we have a second on that, to halt, to task Attorney Zito to draft, halting all, a moratorium, yeah, right, there, so I guess, right, so this will be similar to like what we did on just a few, yeah, a few other ones as to whether or not the council wants to move forward with basically looking into this more, by having my office put something together for your guys' consideration. Okay, so is there a second on that.
Yeah, I just have a question. So if we were to stop this, that would stop the people that
are getting the roofs, that's getting the windows, that's getting all that stops 10-10
only. No, but you took a vote on it and it didn't pass.
What you just said for a motion, we haven't voted on it yet. Your motion was to ask him
to halt all CBDG projects. Yes. We haven't voted on that yet. But 24 and 25 would stop
all that. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Would we want to stop? Is this a state grant? Okay,
so pardon me? Yes. This is a state grant. Yes. The money is already there, right? Yes.
deadlines by the way yeah and that's why i'm saying what deadlines i originally this um grant had a
deadline of november of this month of this year and so i'd say i think it was back three months
ago i started the process of a grant extension and had a multitude of reasons on why we needed a
grant extension so the state of ill this is one of the most restrictive grants you're going to
to find, I've worked with several different communities in looking, you know, I'm going
back when I started, when I was hired on here, going on three years, one of my biggest dedications
I've done for this community is working on a way to unlock this money for these homeowners
because the state was like, every step of the way I would say, hey, can I move forward
with this?
And they would say, okay, here's 10 more, here's 10 more roadblocks you have to get
through before you can get the people this money.
and others.
There's another 10 roadblocks.
And so I would get to a point and then there would be more roadblocks.
And then, you know, we got to a certain point and then it was like, hey, hire this consultant.
Where can we go?
You know, how can we get the people to aid?
And it really kind of seemed like the state was trying to just put all these bureaucratic
roadblocks in front of us so that we would hit the deadline.
But our consultant was really great and it really helped us put together an extension,
not from November, but they got it done for May.
So my staff has done a tremendous amount of work.
I looked at the binder today and it was probably about 16 inches tall which is paperwork for
this actual grant application. So the answer to your question is the grant is currently,
I believe the extension goes until May of 26. And I will say that, I'm sorry, May of
25. It feels like time flies when you're having fun. So I would state that when in
In working with the DCEO who administers this grant, they said if you continue to show progress,
there's a very good chance you'll get another extension in May to bring all the people this
aid.
So certainly delaying the process and putting a moratorium is going to put more of a strain
on staff to make sure that we can get the rest of the people the aid they need for this
grant.
Alderman Sellers.
Alderman Sellers. Yes. Didn't you guys go out and your staff go out door to door in that whole area and ask each one each how homeowner that qualified in that area? My under sorry that no, I'm just saying I remember I don't know if it was was it.
Kirsten. Yeah, I know it was Kirsten, but I'm saying I don't know if it was people from the NAACP or somebody wanted to help you push and help you promote it and you had enough staff members to go out and you guys went home to home asking people did they want to qualify to be a part of this.
That is to help you clarify what happened there. So I think anytime there's a grant and people think that there's money to be had, I think there's a lot of misinformation that's going out.
So one thing, there's a couple things to remember here. Many of the people who submitted these grants to me, they said, I'll work with you all day. Please don't, I don't necessarily want my neighbor to know how much money I make.
I don't want my neighbor to know where am I getting my money. Those are specific requests as sometimes the information is being handed to me.
So it's a challenging grant from a lot of different aspects and you're working with people also would say that
You know, there's just people would say well don't let don't trust him. Don't trust it. There's money to be had
So there's going to be some mudslinging I think going on but the answer to your question is I had I
Had to when I came in all of the grant applications the process you're talking about had been done. It was closed
and inspired to take a moment and say, if you try this and you're just willing to take a break, then this is what you are going to do.
But as a publicist, what I'm going to do is I'm going to use a channel of information that goes into the public's mind and
what happens is if somebody foyers this information, I will have to give certain parts of it away and they all understood that I would do my best.
And that's what happened with that situation.
to write this up for halting all projects. Madam Clerk, would you please take the
roll? Stacy? Aye. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? Aye.
Simmons?
so you want all projects stopped that's what the motion is first and Stacey
everything he's bringing it to me by the 1st of December the first meeting in
December so my understanding of the motion is that you wanted
My understanding of the motion is that you wanted me, if this motion goes through, it
would be to direct me to place a moratorium on all CBGB projects.
That would even include the ones approved prior.
Yes, all is all.
That's my understanding of the request.
So we get a total understanding on these applicants and how they're really working.
I don't, I agree that questions need to be asked if you feel like something is being done incorrectly.
However, the people who did qualify and are getting work done...
I'm sorry.
No. Parker? No. The motion fails. Three to five. Okay, we'll move on to item number 32, reports from department heads. Finance. Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you. Community Development? Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Public Works?
That's one thing. Today we had a public hearing for a CDBG grant. Great topic for sewer lining here in Freeport.
It's a million dollar grant with no match by the city. We're proposing sewer lining in the fourth, third, fifth, and seventh ward due to income levels.
Lines are yet to be determined. The reason I bring this up tonight is there will be a resolution that has to be passed on the December 2nd meeting
Leading in order to submit for the grant on December 4th. Again, it's a million dollar
grant with no match from the city, something that we've mined up and is a very good opportunity
for Freeport.
Fire?
Nothing this evening.
Police?
No report.
Library?
Nothing tonight.
IT?
City Manager?
I'd just like to compliment the staff on their professionalism.
and I just have a couple of things I just want to thank the city crews for putting installing all the downtown Christmas decorations just in time for Missile to walk which is this Saturday from noon until 8 p.m. Everything from a hot chocolate to s'more station and horse drawn carriage rides and then at 5 o'clock is the lighting of the tree at the courthouse and in line with Christmas decorations mark your calendars and purchase your tickets now for the December 13th at 7 o'clock
Rock, is the Trans-Siberian Orchestra Tribute Show at the Masonic Temple, and the proceeds
from this show will go to purchase Christmas decorations along the Chicago Avenue corridor.
And then also there is still time to drop off items for the 333rd National Guard Care
Package. Sixty-two men and women were deployed out of Freeport, and the items that they are
and
the rest of the community.
We are taking donations through the rest of this month.
We move on to Alderman Stacy and Alderman Shadle.
I would just like to say that some things were said earlier in the direction of Community
Development Director Duckman that I thoroughly disagree with. He has a level
of honesty and integrity that I would put second to none and I feel there is
absolutely no reason to doubt anything that he did with those grants. It is not
totally the way it was specified by the state. Alderman Sanders? Alderman Sellers?
Alderman Klemm? I just want to mention we have a November 26th neighborhood watch
meeting. That's it. Alderman Monroe? Thank you Madam Mayor. I'd like to apologize to
David Hayes, item number five, on not suspending the rules and getting that
I would encourage everybody to stick around for item number 38 as we come out of Executive Session, should be an interesting conversation, as well as, you know, my disappointment overall in not wanting to look into certain items just because, you know, it doesn't feel comfortable.
and I think it's time that we start investigating some of the things that have been said around
the city for many years.
I've been coming to a realization that there are several people in this community who don't
have Freeport's best interest in mind and I've started to speak out against it and as
you saw here tonight, it's not very comfortable at times but sometimes it's important to bring
the uncomfortable up.
So I'd like to thank everybody for tuning in and listening in and more to come.
Alderman Simmons?
Just a reminder of our Third War Community Meeting on this Friday coming up November
22nd at 4 o'clock at the library.
Alderman Parker?
Just to agree with Alderman Shadle reference, Mr. Duckman here, he's done a great job.
and
I'm going to go to number one.
Number 136 is public comment.
Take one at a time.
So back to speak about number six.
I just want you to know that what is on
or what was added to the ordinance is even more of a fine
than you already have in place of $100 per unit.
You currently have a fine of $100 per unit
and others, and I think that's the way it is.
It's not something that you're going to find in your ordinance
that you're not collecting on or that nothing has been collected
on this year. So the request for it to be the way it was when it
was presented to you as the ordinance was something that
people were discussed with and agreed upon knowing that it was
more than what was already in the ordinance as it stands today.
Thank you.
I'm not here to accuse anybody of any wrongdoing. I think that everybody does their best and
I don't think that any one person knows everything. But in my experience, every government program
that's offering financial help always considers assets.
I've never heard of this.
Now I believe that the Community Development Director
probably did hand out the applications
and he looked at him and to the best of his ability
he complied with all the rules.
But what I wanna do, I'm going to research this grant
thoroughly and find out actually are they seriously
not considering a person's assets?
Every program I'm familiar with, health care, housing, every government program, they want
to know what your assets are. These people shouldn't have even been handed an application.
So I would like to know, I'd like to come to the office of the Community Development
Director and find out, you know, bring my notes, exactly what the name of the program
is. If you've got a notebook, I'd like to just borrow it and look at it. I could sit
Thank you Mayor Miller. Nealey Erickson with Illinois Real Tours. So I want to thank Alderman Klemm for bringing up some history about the registration fee because the City Council had removed the registration fee because they realized that it impacted compliant property owners and so the real focus about the registration was to go after the
and John compliant and so that's why the registration fee was removed by that City Council also I want to bring back to your attention the overall rental registration ordinance because it's a larger animal and after the definitions the immediate first implication on your ordinance is required registration property owners landlords in your community cannot rent to tenants unless their properties are registered and so we recognize
that there are no.
We recognize that there are non-compliant individuals, and when we were discussing the fee structure, we designed the fee structure to ensure compliance and protect your contendence exactly from what you said, Alderwoman Sellers,
Sanders, and that we wanted to make sure that they did not take the brunt of the overall
burdensome of that fee, because you have to remember, if the property owner can't pay
the fee, they then cannot register the property, and what is the tenant supposed to do?
And so that is the reason why the fee is designed in order to encourage compliance without extreme
penalization of that individual and the tenant.
and so Ashley and I, Ashley is with the Landlord Association, I am with the Realtor Association
and so when we worked on this proposal back and forth with the City Manager and with the
City, we wanted to make sure that the implications were minimal and that it focused on the problem
property owners in your community and that is what the core goal of this ordinance is
that was in front of you today.
So we hope that you see that in the next couple of weeks that you remember these words, it
and so forth.
We want to make sure that we have the right to the city, not just to focus on problem property owners, but to protect your tenants in your community because they bring value here too.
And we don't think that you don't think that they do, but we always have to remember how it trickles down.
And we also want to make sure it's perfectly clear that throughout this, we have brought ideas to the city outside of the rental registration system.
E. Z. to create another document that says at the signing table, letting that person
know who's purchasing the property, that if you're going to rent this property, there
is a registration system with the City of Freeport and you are obligated to follow it.
And at that point in time, they know also with the water bills, the tenant is responsible
to sign up for the water to ask a simple question, are you a tenant or not?
Necklin, you can update about beef, but wozade.
Wozade is right, Tommy?
Yeah.
My question is, what is the
difference between beef and wozade?
I think the difference is that
the beef is the same as the
beef.
The beef is the same as the
beef.
The beef is the same as the
beef.
The beef is the same as the
beef.
My understanding is that a restaurant is submitting their permits, a good restaurant that you will probably enjoy.
Anyone told Jodi Miller that she gets a good job to meet with people and go Packers?
Go Packers. Are there any other public comments?
I'll make this very very quick. I really enjoyed the debate especially on the
landlord situation and I don't want to pick on this poor man but it's not
totally working properly. When they came in investigated some garages in my
neighborhood that were bad which I kind of pointed to the fact rather than repair
of the Garages, they tore them down.
All of a sudden, my property values are less, not more.
That property value is less, not more.
So we need to think, like the people that just pointed out,
what we do, we are destroying more than we're creating.
We're demolishing more than we're rebuilding.
And I think we've got to get on that track.
We're trying to hold our property taxes down.
I put something in there and I would have liked to kept the level the same,
which would have increased to another $18,000.
I don't care about the $18,000, but if we can get our property taxes
up in my neighborhood, it should reduce the property taxes
in the other areas as well.
So we need to manage our property as well as we can.
Anyway, the job on the budget has been pretty remarkable.
A lot of work went into it.
I know Michelle went through hell.
I went through hell, looked at the numbers.
They come out halfway decent.
There are some things that you shouldn't take notice of.
Most of you got my documentation.
Look forward to solving those few problems,
and I think we'll be in very, very good shape.
The capital budget project that he put together
is a doable thing.
Goodbye.
Are there any other public comments?
Okay, we'll move on to item number 37.
Could you please read this?
Pursuant to 5 ILCS 122C2, collective negotiating matters
between the public body and its employees
or their representatives or deliberations concerning
salary schedules for one or more classes of employees.
Is there a motion to enter into executive session?
So moved.
Do we have a second?
We're waiting on Klemm.
Do we have a second?
Yeah, we're waiting on Klemm.
Okay, so we've got a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker.
Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Motion passes 6 to 2
Can you leave the door open?
Good night!
He directed all of that work. He did all of it. He went out and told the counter counter, go do this, and then he called us and said I told him to do that. It's work for work. I know that man. Adam Holder was one of my best friends.
Oh, is he getting ready?
I asked Scott if he was in there. I asked Scott if he was in there. He was like, I'm leaving. And he just left. I was like, okay.
and many more.
The lights are off upstairs. I hope she didn't go home.
The lights are off upstairs.
Oh here she comes. She went downstairs.
and more.
Smashing, Alderslash, Larry, Chief Manager, R.M.G., from Milwaukee came down here to give $9 million to the program.
They had to hire a person to write it up. They were still paying for it.
It's a good thing. Every time there's a new community, if you think it's going to be changed twice, just get your first person.
I have not heard of any of these. My reputation is that they have no reason not to trust me with what I do.
I don't think they all want the same thing.
The person that's important to me, I don't have to deal with things here.
just ask your questions.
Here's my answer to all of you.
You may know it.
I'm 247 over the world.
I answer every call.
Everybody I call, I answer your question.
Everybody.
There are people who are most comfortable with the phone.
Do you want to do it?
Do it.
Everybody.
I know I do.
Great.
But I'm going to do it.
I just don't want to have to answer your questions
because I don't know how long this is going to take.
and so forth, and so what you're going to get is everybody's going to get a phone call,
Do you know what a simple thing it was?
I think it's something to do with student, because it's all he's supposed to do. And actually, obviously, he had an essay, and our one did, so it was separate parties, so it wasn't for the one who did. They checked the bars, and said, oh, it's better to say it to a student.
8, 12, 10, but that's what I was going to tell you.
I just want to say that's probably how it's happening.
and others.
So that's what it is.
That's what it is.
I mean, their pocket is going into the company's pocket.
I mean, that's exactly what I'm saying.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Well, I hate to say it, but this is going to sound sick,
but you can't blame people for playing the moves that they're good at.
Right?
You can't blame them.
Well, right.
I mean, seriously, they're just playing the game.
If they check the boxes, right?
Right.
Now, the next question is, does it mean they just need to change the rules for that?
The answer is no.
Okay, so the next question is just where we are now.
Is there something we can look into?
The only thing that you can't do is you might have to stop the program.
I'm sure you've heard about some of our guys before.
Hey, we both told them.
Is that part of that?
Yeah.
All right.
I feel like this is going to happen.
and Al, because just to get your company to show up and do it, I don't know.
But everything I can do, I'll do it.
I just want to know that they were...
I don't have an appreciation for being in a sort of game right from the last night.
Yeah, yeah.
So that's...
Oh, yeah.
We're going to go back to your question. Where's the money? Where's the money? That's what I want to know.
Oops, I'm sorry, sister.
You're fine.
Okay. All right. We're recording. It is, it is 1056. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll in returning to open session?
Madam Mayor, Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons.
Sanders, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers.
Item number 38 is adoption of resolution R2024.119.
Could you please read this?
Resolution ratifying collective bargaining agreement with the Illinois Fraternal Order
of Police Labor Council, local number 884.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Just before the Council tonight is the negotiated contract with the Fraternal Order of Police.
It includes a three-year contract with three step increases at eight for 2025, seven for
2026, and seven for 2027.
7. It also includes a Uniform Allowance Increase totaling approximately $11,000 in total impact and a bilingual bonus. It also removes language related to the PEP medical plan, which is valued at about 1.5%. Thank you.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion on the resolution. Alderman Monroe.
City Manager Boyer, what is the total impact on the city for this, if this were to go through this room?
Approximately a million and a half dollars.
Any other discussion?
And we still have yet how many more contracts to discuss?
We don't have any this year.
but what contracts how many contracts do we have coming up? Well we have AFSCME
coming up and then fire following that. Any other discussion? Madam Clerk please
take the role.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't see you, Alderman Klemm, sorry.
I don't think we can afford this either way but I'll say aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye.
Stacey? No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? I don't
I don't think we can afford this, either way, but I'll say aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted, 6-8, 6-2 for a total of 8.
It's late.
Okay, since it is 11 o'clock, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.