Are you doing good? You're working at home. You do a good job in that.


Oh, yeah? Yeah. Oh, okay. Thank you. Because we want to keep you there. Yeah? Maybe some of you, not all.


No, I like you there. and others. So, I think going on. Somebody told me to give this to you.


Okay, it's six o'clock. Pastor Justin, could you please give the invocation this evening? Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council, and everybody with us tonight. Would you please pray with me?


Lord God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is in you that we live and move and have our existence, the very breath of life, as well as the unique gifts and abilities that characterize each one of us.


You have made us and so we are yours, not our own, in life and in death, in body and soul.


So Lord you have provided and set in place whatever powers and governments exist, you've placed a calling on each one of us sitting here tonight and gifted us with the ability that we have to carry out those callings and so you encourage us to turn to you for wisdom and strength and you are kind to hear and answer our prayers generously and so I pray for this council tonight for its work but also We ask that you move the city to the side of the street and move outside of these doors for our city workers across each department, especially with the cold weathers and the difficulty that brings and for first responders throughout our city and our county and Lord we ask that you move each one to call upon your name for help and safety and wisdom for strength.


and Karros, even in these council chambers, as we might have differences of opinion, even strong differences, but we pray that you'd help us to have respect in regard for each other.


So we seek your grace and your forgiveness that you alone can grant and that that would pour out of us towards one another.


So we pray that you would help us tonight. We ask in the name of your son.


Amen. Amen, amen. Thank you. So now we'll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?


Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Monroe? Here. Simmons? Here. Parker? Here. Stacy will be marked absent for the moment. Shadle is absent. Sanders? Here. And Sellers? Yes. We have a quorum.


I'll entertain a motion to allow Alderman Stacy to attend remotely. Is there such a motion?


Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Simmons. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Shadle is absent. Sanders? Here. Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Even though everybody voted against me coming in, I'll vote aye.


Monroe? Aye. The motion passes 6 to 0. So then at 6.03 Alderman Stacy is attending remotely. So if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Simmons.


Nation, Underground, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item number one is approval of the agenda, however, we will not be having executive session tonight.


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


Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. And Monroe? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero. Item number two is the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on February 3rd, 2025. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, could you please take Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe. The motion passes 7 to 0.


Item number 3 is public comments. We have one signed up for item number 5, Steve Carroll.


I'm Steve Carroll. This is about street lights. So apparently we're still talking about it and I would like us to stop talking and act on it. At the last council meeting I talked about the poor lighting and the multiple reports of shots fired over the years on Oak where I've lived for the last 47 years. Last month there was gunfire 15 feet from the north side of my house, and this was about 930 in the evening.


Prior to that, there's been shots fired on the 1200 and 1400 block of oak. Sandwiched in between the 1400 and 1200 block of oak is the quarter of Empire and Oak, which is very busy during school hours and after school events. There are school buses going through that intersection, and Stopping on multiple locations on Oak.


There are children walking to and from school during school hours and during school events.


That area is very dangerous, but I have every confidence in the Freeport Police Department to do their part to keep that area safe.


I wish I could say the same thing about the Freeport School District. They've been made aware of the situation, but I frankly doubt their ability to do much of anything.


At the last council meeting, I listened to Joy Sellers who lives up the street from me, tell us how safe it is where she lives and how adequate the lighting is.


I have no idea why she would say that when over the years there's been multiple reports of shots fired and two homicides near where she lives.


The last one was 13 months ago, just three houses from her residence. Disingenuous is the kind euphemistic word I will use here.


Apparently, I'm the only one on Oak drawing gunfire. It's obvious that Joy Sellers has turned her back at our neighborhoods, and maybe our neighborhoods should turn their collective backs on her.


and that concludes public comment. We will move on to item number four which is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion. Unless there's a member of the council that would like to have something removed for further discussion.


Cushing. Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the boards and commission minutes from the Foreign Fire Board of Trustees dated December 12, 2024, Liquor Commission January 9, 2025, Building Permit Reports of January, as well as the Fire Department reports, the schedule of regular meetings for the City of Freeport for 2025, the CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant Report, dated December 12th, 2024, and February 14th, 2025.


Approval of the finance bills in the total of $1,318,015.77, the approval of payroll for pay period ending February 8th, in the total of $669,111.


$669,159.49 and also the Cash and Investment Report and the Finance Department Report for December 2024 and the Adoption of Resolution 2025-21, which is corrected renewal of agreement invoice with Locality Media first due for the Fire Department Record Management Software and Modules.


Is there a motion to approve? So move. Second. A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm.


Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Sanders?


Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. And Monroe? Aye. The motion passes 7-0. discussion regarding upgrading streetlights. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Just to kind of update Council on where we stand with this and specifically in relation to observations and requests by Alderman Stacy, the discussion around streetlight improvements has been going on for some time. 2021, the streetlight improvement project provided brighter lights with lower operational costs through a grant from ComEd that was for the downtown lighting.


Grant eligibility and recent success includes, essentially we've been looking for a similar grant and applying for anything available through ComEd for additional lighting in the city.


So city staff has been working since 2022 to qualify for another grant. Recently the city was awarded a new ComEd grant to fund community lighting projects. That's the Select Communities Grant.


Grant. In addition to that, some of the large trees in the parkways tend to shade out light from street lights inhibiting their effectiveness. So in the previous years, but especially last year, forestry was trimming trees along major street and corridors where we were doing street renovations. So that includes Adams, Oak, Iroquois, and Ridge just as an example, but that improved the street light visibility to some extent.


forward, we're looking to deploy our new plan, which is deploy brighter lights in law enforcement advised areas that require additional illumination. So these were areas that were identified by law enforcement as trouble areas that would certainly benefit by increasing the lumen output. Those include the 700 block of South Kenwood, 700 block of South Float, 300 block Black of East Pleasant, 500 Block of South Carroll, 400 Block of South State, Broadway at Locust and Walnut, 500 Block of South Chicago, the All-in-One Convenience Store in Locust, South Chicago Avenue in Frank, 1200 Block of South High, and 1130 South Galena.


In addition, as Mr. Carroll just noted, Oak Street as well, we're working toward getting that taken care of.


So recently we had a Public Works meeting to review and discuss the street illumination improvements and address immediate needs while continuing to work with ComEd on the newly awarded Select Communities Grant Plan.


So our first steps are to replace lower lumen lights with brighter lights currently available at the Public Works Inventory.


These were lights that were recycled during the Chicago Avenue streetscape project and we have some on hand that we can deploy right away so we'll be moving forward on that.


also replaced street lights on Police Shenberger's concern areas and that would be I think we've got about 22 in inventory and we need about 84 so we're going to be looking for and those fixtures are fairly expensive so the total cost is going to be including oak is going to include something like about $40,000 total for the fixtures and installation costs.


So we've got ownership and collaboration, street lights are owned by ComEd requiring Stegick and Co. we are having direct coordination and public works Directorunes have initiated discussions with George Galrap and moving forward with the meeting later this week to nail down plans there, mieć be scheduling a meeting shortly.


Funding and grants so the higher wattage fixtures do not qualify for the standard grants we have received already so there will be a cost impact to the city.


if funding is delayed we will do what we can with the lights that we currently have We're looking at the new fixtures. We did not include it in last year's budget, so we are going to need to make a decision on what we're going to do in terms of funding. However, I'll bring that proposal to you when we get closer to that point.


Miller. Anyway, in addition, so we've got, we can add those brighter fixtures to some areas. However, it may also draw attention from other areas of the community that feel that they need brighter lights as well. So that's a consideration we're working with right now. And then, of course, what that financial impact is, whether that is just the cost of the fixtures and the additional electricity costs, where that'll come from and when if that will be moved on through the ComEd bill. So our current estimated cost for what we've just discussed, which is the areas that are identified by Police Chief Shenberger and also Oak is above $45,000. These are essentially the electricity is also going to go up to some degree. And right now we have about 10,000 allocated in the street light repair budget. So we're going to need to figure out where those funds are coming from.


So we may require the use of emergency funds to make that happen. Ongoing electrical expenses and things will have to be budgeted for the future.


And we're not completely sure what those costs would be, but it'll depend on the number of lights we deploy.


So that's kind of my update on where we stand with the street light update.


I have a question. Alderman Sellers? She can go. Okay. Alderman Stacy? Yes. Is this a grant or is this discount?


Alderman Stacy, could you repeat that? Yes, is this a grant or is this discount?


So right now we're working with Comet on the grant. We haven't fleshed that information out completely.


What I'm suggesting tonight is that we've got about 22 lights in inventory to go ahead and deploy those as soon as possible and then work through the grant process to get the remaining of those, I guess that would be about 60 replaced.


Okay, will we be using the 20,000 that's in alight funding escrow and the 23 that was from the other job that Darren Steagall saved $2,300.


I'm not positive of what you're saying there. Could you repeat that, Alderman, Stacy? The funding.


Will we be using the $20,000 in the LIGHT funding that we already have? We have 10,000 budgeted in this year's budget for light repairs.


And Alderman Stacy, that's for light repairs, not light replacement. We could, I mean, that's what it's in the budget for, so it's a matter of where the council wants to take it from.


Okay, but the 20 went down to 10, is that what I'm understanding? The budget was approved in December with 10,000 in this specific line item, so we'll be We'll be having to look at other line items, or looking at current fund reserve to pay for this.


Okay. Alderman Sellers, did you have- Yes, I know that you had said a little bit about other neighborhoods would probably want lighting and stuff, are we going to try to and I. And we did that like a program like we did with the streets and broadened it out and Darren came up with a plan on how we can get lights for everybody all over. Or how are we going to, have we looked into that yet or no?


Right now we're addressing the emergent request. I'm not sure where we're going but I do know there's lots of parts of town that don't have really any lights to speak of, more of rural Cross-Sections, so certain wards don't even have poles every 1,500 feet or so.


They have like one in a corner and there's not very much lighting in certain neighborhoods, so that could get very expensive because of the fact that the poles don't exist, but just to answer your question, we're doing what we need to do right now to deal with the issue at hand.


Darren, did you want to add to that? Wait a minute. I'll clarify the money portion of it. So the 23,000 that we saved at the last meeting in that bid, that's water and sewer, CIP money, so by ordinance, it can't be changed.


CIP money so by ordinance it can't be moved to the lighting program. The $10,000 that's budgeted for light repairs, if we spend it on this program we won't be able to replace or repair any of the light ballasts that we currently do. So that would, I guess my suggestion is if we move forward with this it's going to have to come from emergency funds just like if we had another emergency that wasn't budgeted. That's where this funding will end Alderman, Alderman, Alderman, Alderman, Alderman Whatever the initiatives are right now when we start talking about the lighting program and things like that.


Are we scheduling and estimating time and date when we start these processes, when we start these procedures of getting these lighting started?


and I have been working on it. Whatever we have, that we can get in place and start the program, get it started. I don't want to hear that we're still working on it. This guy came up here twice already making a complaint about Oak Street. And so I have not heard any feedback in regards to when we're going to get started. We have looked into it.


and we have done a survey to actively be, to expedite anything of that kind of concern because I want to see us doing something, talking about it, because that is a priority.


And where is it on the priority list? And I wanted to know, since we're getting this and I are going to be talking about this thing together. Are we prioritizing anything? That's the whole thing, to get this thing started. So I'm just looking for the active part of the progress that we are stepping into and we have an estimated time and date. We're not going to prolong this for a year or two years. We want to give the citizens an absolute and others.


We are going to have an absolute kind of estimated time that we can get started and start this process.


Alderman Klemm? I think we ought to stop and back up a second here. We don't even know what we're going to do yet or when we're going to do it and if the lights we've got to work to do it.


And when it was mentioned about other places in town that need electricity or need places, yes, there are some.


Do we need to go where we're specifically having problems? The answer to that is 100% correct. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.


But you've got a process that you've got to go through to figure out what you're going to put lights where, where they will fit to the ones that we have.


Wait a minute. No, I don't need you to do that. Alderman Sanders, he has the floor.


Don't say a damn thing. It's time you sit back and listen. No, I'm not going to sit back and listen.


and George is incorrect. Alderman, Sanders, you do not have the floor. I know. Alderman, Klemm, do you have something more you would like to say? No, I would just like to say first you have to have a plan before you do something. Last time you jumped it and you put a light in some place, the alderman that said you put the light in it said it wasn't bright enough after it was done. So tell me what you are going to do to solve the problem before you do it. Everybody is for doing it, but you have to figure out what you need to Alderman, Monroe, Manager, Boyer, I would imagine we'd get started on it probably by the first April there about Darren, so the one thing that everyone has to keep in mind at the council level is the city of Freeport doesn't own the poles or the lights on these streets.


Commonwealth Edison does so we can't do anything without their direct permission so we can talk about this and we can move it forward and we need their assistance to actually install them or give us at least permission to do them because they're live lights so we can't send our crews out to just change these lights out so it's a process and it's not going to happen tomorrow it's not going to We were able to get the one light changed at Iroquois at that intersection as a favor from Mr. Gullwrap. We pushed that forward and I'm not saying that we can't get this done because we have 22 of the 25 lights in place for Oak Street. We actually have them. We're not sure that they all work, but we have them in the warehouse. But again, we will not and cannot move forward without their Weeks, and Retired Mayor, Jerry R. Ransol.


We can't be out here on a public meeting without the direct permission because they own the poles and the lights.


We only pay for the electricity. Alderman Monroe? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think time is something that's passed by, four years worth.


Since I've been on the council, we've been talking about this. We've been asking for more lights.


We've been asking for better. and others. So time is of the essence now. We've been dragging our feet from the previous Public Works Director, who's now the City Manager, to the new Public Works Director, and we're asking for movement.


We're asking for something to happen. And while I agree with you, the lights belong and the poles belong and the power belongs to Commonwealth Edison, there are other options available to improve the lighting in some and others.


So, I think, as a council, what we're all asking for is a place where we can put in some of these areas, especially where there's no polls existing, where we could put in polls that have 24-hour guaranteed uptime, 365 days with solar power.


They're out there. Are they expensive? I have no clue. It's not my job to look it up.


But I did get two calls after we talked about this in the last week from companies that want to pitch these services.


Fowler, and I think it's a plan that's put to paper much like you did with the roads, which was exactly what we needed and what we wanted.


And it allowed us to then start attacking the problem in a systematic way. We knew the cost, we knew the timelines, you know, we could come up with a plan.


And I think that's where we're kind of sitting right now, is we need that plan to kind of move forward so that we can say, okay, well, maybe we need to kill this in the budget because and others.


This is a higher priority. This is that need versus want conversation that we'd never want to have here.


We just want to buy, you know, $1.5 million pieces of equipment and not have real conversations about what the community needs.


And there is, without a question, he comes here all the time talking about gunshots in his neighborhood.


We've got the same streets, it's the same areas. We've got to give the police department a fighting chance.


We've got to give the community a chance and we've got to come together and come up with a solution and it may not be what we want, but it's what we need and I think we've got to bring that together.


I think it's simple to just work together, come up with a plan and you'll get seven or eight yeses to come up that will back you on this, but we've got, we can't do that.


That's not our task. We don't know how much each one of these costs. We don't know how much time.


We don't know how long it takes ComEd. We need your help. And that's what I think we keep asking for and why this keeps coming up.


Darren. So I agree with most of what you said. With the one exception, we have had no vote or unanimous or direction from council to put that plan together because it's not budgeted.


So if we make that plan and council addresses us to do that, like they did with the street plan, we will absolutely do that.


I am afraid, to be honest with you, I agree with most of what you said.


The city of Freeport right now, while I agree the safety areas are a priority, we cannot afford to replace every light in this town.


And I think the taxpayers would be pretty upset with what that ultimate cost would be.


I did a little bit of research and so we'll give some facts here the lights were approved by City Manager Crow to be replaced and I believe it was 2018 and most of that project was done somewhere between the end of 2018 and 2019 those lights have only been installed for five years ComEd doesn't do any light replacement within five years Fowler.


Any light replacement within five years. That's their minimum. You can't get any light changes out for five years at a minimum because I think that's probably the lifespan of their fixture or the payoff of their fixture.


If we want to replace every light in town with increased wattage, that will be at 100% cost to the city of Freeport because they only give the discounts or whatever you want to call them, grants discounts or anything like that, for people that are reducing wattage and saving energy consumption.


I did do the math, and I've said it up here two or three times at council. A new pole and a new light are about $13,000 a piece to install mid-block, wherever we want to put them. Again, we don't have those types of things in the budget right now, but if we get direction that that's what we want to do, we will put those plans together. I'm trying to put a stopgap to the safety stuff and move this safety priority ahead as quickly as possible, but not every one of our partners work as fast as we try to do and, you know, when we're dealing with larger companies like this, we have to give them time to be able to react.


Alderman Sellers? Yeah, I wanted to say I do agree with, you know, a lot of the things that you said because we have to give our, you know, police department a chance, we have to give us a chance to get and DeRionne's.


They're all police chiefs. They're all police chiefs. We're all police chiefs. They're all police chiefs.


They're all police chiefs. We're all police chiefs. We're all police chiefs. We're all police chiefs.


So I'm sorry to say that, but I do think that, um, when the police department do their jobs and get these people, we also have to realize there's another component.


There's the judicial system. They have to not just slap their hands. They have to do what they have to do to help us.


I'm sorry. And if we don't do that, they're back. So we're going to have repeated problems.


So we all have to work together. and others. So I do agree with, Chief, I'm glad you guys are out there doing what you do.


And it's not that I said that I feel safe because I don't live in fear.


So I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings feeling that I didn't feel that I didn't feel compassion because that's where I live.


So I have the passion. But I'm saying I feel safe and have peace because if I see something, I'm going to say something.


I have lights around my house, security lights. We also have to chip in on that also as residents.


You know, we can look for the city lights and that's perfect and I know we need them.


But we also have to get spotlights around our house, a security camera around our doors.


We have to also tell what's going on in our neighborhoods and be a part of it also.


So, that's my take on that. Thank you. Alderman Sanders. Yeah, I was, I'm listening to everything collectively and I'm listening to a lot of good things and it sounds like a lot of good detail information is coming forward.


My question is, and I like the fact that putting a plan in motion, and we have to be able to have the Council to begin to talk about implementing these plans that are being brought up.


And then we need someone in place to get these plans in motion. and so we're talking about it great, great, great concepts, great ideas, great understanding of how to proceed and things of that nature but we also need that one startup and who is the person that leads us in those areas to give us We need that individual and I'm looking for those people who are the people we have we as council have to look to to understand is there a strategic plan in place about these lightings? Is there a plan? I'm wondering if we're working on one. We should be talking about it constantly because just coming back to council is not going to be enough. We need to have a strategic plan.


and so each week bringing this thing up again we're back at square one all over again talking about the same subject so we need to be able to make moves get things started let's not be talking about it let's get it let's be about it and so I'm just one of those kind of guys who's going to say talk is enough we we we know what we need to do as a council we need to we know what we need to do as city manager public works Whatever the case is, we're not collaborating together to get this resolution started and to get it resolved.


And so my thing is, where does the starting point start, who's in charge, and how do we begin to proceed?


Alderman Simmons, did you have something? Thank you. So before I do what I want to do, I would like to note that when we were all gung-ho about getting in on the grant to have a walkway put behind Highland that was going to cost us about $300,000, nobody mentioned cost, nobody talked about other neighborhoods needing sidewalks, it was never an issue.


So I would like to make a motion to direct staff to draw up a plan on what they plan to do with those 22 lights and additional, after we run out of those lights, what areas do you plan to hit by the March Cowl?


You want that plan before the March Cowl? By the March Cowl. I'll give them time.


I'll second that. So we have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Simmons, seconded by Alderman Monroe as stated.


Madam Clerk, do you need that reset? I have it, thank you. Manager Boyer, did you have some input on that?


Darren? Yeah, I'll ask or answer Alderman Sanders' questions. The memo that was in the packet for tonight outlined who's in charge, what the plan is, and how we're moving forward.


and I are in charge. We're moving forward already. We started last Thursday with his direction. And after this motion tonight, we'll have it all together for you. I can't tell you how soon it will happen. And we're going under the emergency authority to fund the lights. You guys will just have to figure out how to pay for them.


Yeah, thank you on that. That's part of our job. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. So we have the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion itself about the plan for the 22 lights, et cetera?


Could we just restate the motion so they can hear it well? Sure. Madam Clerk, can you restate that?


The motion is to direct staff to study the best use of the 22 lights, come up with a plan even beyond the 22 lights.


and Stacey. I believe Ms. Stacy had a question as well. I'm sorry, Alderman Stacy, did you have something?


I did have a question pertaining to if Darren was saying we needed to make a motion to get it moving forward with the emergency clause, but now that Alderman Rachel has already made the motion, I guess I'm just ready for a vote.


yeah that's what we're that's our next step okay if there's no further discussion madam clerk would you please take the role Simmons Parker hi Stacy I Sanders sellers I Clem Monroe I the motion passes seven to zero item number six is the First Reading of Ordinance 2025-10, could you please read this?


Ordinance Approving Zoning Map Amendment at 18 South Chicago Avenue, submitted by Mitch Britto to examine the proposed zoning map change from a B-1-2 general retail business to a B-2 limited service business district.


Thank you. Director Duckman? Thank you, Madam Mayor. So staff received a request for a zoning, a petition for a zoning map amendment at 18 South, Chicago Avenue, and essentially what is going on here is the lieutenant started, I have a picture of the location up here on the map in case anybody was interested to see that, the lieutenant here started a dojo and essentially before checking with our zoning ordinance and came to us and said, you know, hey, I'm opening, I have this dojo, I need to get my certificate of occupancy, and I don't have the zoning and so staff worked with the property owner to figure out a solution for this situation and the solution here was a zoning map amendment so currently it's zone B1 and it would need to be zone B2 in order to allow for this dojo that the tenant currently is operating.


Tenant currently is operating. So this went to our Zoning Board of Appeals on February 6, and it was recommended for approval of 5 to 0 with zero abstentions. And on February 13, it went to our Planning Commission with a vote of 6 to 0 with zero abstentions. And in looking at the zoning map amendment to go from B1 to B2, in line with our Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Commission staffs recommending approval or moving this ordinance to the next, for a second reading.


Thank you. Is there a motion to move this forward? Second. Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Monroe.


Is there a discussion on this ordinance? Alderman Stacy? Yes, what is a dojo? It's a, it's karate or it can be jujitsu karate.


It's essentially a martial arts studio. Alderman Simmons? You're going to have to speak into your microphone.


She said, or sorry, go ahead. Just the difference between B1 and B2, I really could have asked him off to the side.


It's slightly more intense of a business use. it essentially would allow for when this ordinance came out and was created the writers of the ordinance thought that martial arts studios were more of an intense use than per se a retail store so you would have to get higher zoning less restrictive zoning to have a martial arts studio that's essentially and others.


So there are a few uses that are more intense. Alderman Sanders? This is not on topic.


I just wanted to ask you something in regards to zoning. I just wanted to make sure that I identify what areas that are supposed to get zonings and, and recognize whether or not residential can also be considered as commercial zoning when you, when, if, if it comes from a residential location, there's a, is there a difference when a person wants to start a business in a residential area or, or whatever and is is that considered where he needs a permit or need to be in the proper zoning locations?


I'm just asking that question in general because that question came up to me. Sure. I think you can always do a home occupied business which essentially would be a small accounting firm, person working for themself, maybe you're an architect, you're working for yourself, you're working out of your house, Miller, Law Firm, essentially that's what you would call a home occupation business.


That's allowed, usually what happens is by the time you start having more than one client at your house at one time, that's when you would fall, you would become more of an intense land use and you would be required to, you know, get into, start your business in a business, a business zone property, commercial zone property.


So the answer to your question is, our ordinance allows people to have smaller businesses ran out of their house.


And if somebody were to call me, my advice to them is always, once you start having multiple clients in your house, multiple times per day, that's when you really want to think about transitioning to an office space or more intense.


Right. Well, that was... I'm sorry. Okay, so actually, I appreciate you wanting to have a better understanding, but you are and Mr.


Miller. I'm sure he'll pick up his phone anytime you want to discuss it. Yeah, that's what I would do.


Totally. So is there any further discussion concerning this Alderman, Monroe? No, I'm good right now.


No, not discussion. All right. Can I make a motion, though? We have a motion on the floor to move it forward.


Never mind. Oh, never mind. Or actually, can I make a motion on this to suspend the rules?


You can do it as you want. Sure, I'll do that then. Is there a second to motion for the suspension of the rules?


Alderman Parker, so suspension of the rules is non-debatable and must pass by two-thirds majority.


And so, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension only? Simmons?


Parker? Parker, aye, Stacy, aye, Sanders, aye, Sellers, aye, Klemm, aye, and Monroe, aye. The suspension of the rules passes seven to zero.


So then council before you is the final reading of this ordinance. So if there's no further discussion on this, Madam Clerk, please take the roll on the passage of ordinance 2025-10.


Simmons, aye, Parker, aye, Stacy, aye, Simmons, aye, Parker, aye, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, and the ordinance passes seven to zero.


Thank you. Item number seven is the first reading of ordinance 2025-11. Could you please read this? Ordinance approving hanger leases for A1, Dennis Miller, H1, Alexander Glockler, J, Matt Van Bergen, L1, Ron Jansen, L2, Heritage Aviation, L3, Lee, Tango34, LLC, L5, Paul Oda, L7, Pam Mannes, M1, John Eink, M3, Greg Manuel, M4, Ken and Paula Irwin, M8, David Hayes, and N10, John Staben.


Motion approved. Second. Is there a second? Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


Any discussion on this ordinance? Alderman Sanders? Yeah. I had to look at this carefully. There's not enough detailed information for the reason why we're bringing this ordinance to the Council at this particular moment.


It's all attached. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's let him give his presentation, then we'll...Manager Board, did you have one?


It's going to be fairly concise. Last year, Council asked that we get these leases squared away. We had a new lease format. Council approved the new lease format. We've been systematically getting as many. I don't, I don't, hold it, let me cut you off since you cut me off while I was right into, right in the middle of mid-sentence. Yes, I was cut off right in the middle of mid-sentence. I've I never got a chance to complete my thoughts.


Okay, but he's just trying to help you. No, no, I didn't ask for that kind of help.


I know what I want to actually say. I don't need no support bracket or whatever.


Okay, then say it. You have the floor. Don't do that, Mayor. Don't do that.


Well, actually, we were slightly out of order and the attorney reminded me of... No, I was talking.


I was in the midst of talking and trying to get my thought out when I was interrupted.


That's what I'm trying to say to you. you're not listening that's all but what I'm saying is I had an opportunity to look at this this particular ordinance 2025-11 and I saw I was I was looking at the disparities that was within those leases when I'm looking through them when I'm looking through those leases the comparisons with those leases does not and others.


We have not conformed with the whole process and who's signing off on these leases and who's coming up with the detailed information about what's going to these leases.


We have not had an opportunity to revise any of that, any of the leases that are being presented to us today.


And I'm like, this should not even be on the agenda to even talk about it until we have and I have covered all of those areas of those leases and have the detailed information that we need about it because the lease does not sound like a read to me adds up.


It does not add up to me. And so when I come in here and I need to have questions on it, I don't want to vote on something that is half vague, half been presented, and the leases are not fully looked at to be talking about these leases.


I understand they're there, but the comparisons from one hanger to the next one, it does not justify why certain lease amounts are being charged to certain hangers and not the other ones and we need to understand why that is and so that's the reason why I brought this up because I'm not getting full understanding of why we're talking about the leases when we have not been able to explain each, every item and the reason why we're having disparaging amounts that are being produced within these leases.


That's all I need to know. That's all. Boyer, would you like to give your presentation?


would you like to give your presentation absolutely so the lease amounts are in ordinance set by council those amounts were reviewed by council with the airport manager who came to council and discussed that they were in line with the region in terms of what they what the lease rates are and then we have and I have been updating all the hanger leases with existing tenants who are already there and already had signed leases.


All we're doing here is updating the lease form to more modern wording that has been brought to Council and approved already.


Does that answer your question? Not fully. I want more. I want more detail. Okay.


I have a question. This is kind of a formality. these leases already exist and we're putting them on a new format at the same rate we have currently because that's been deemed to be the correct amount and we're just asking for approval on these leases, that's all. These people are already here.


Alderman Parker, your hand was up. Yeah, it makes sense to me and I want to make a motion. We call the question and also to suspend the rules.


I just said I have a question. Alderman Stacy did, she informed us that she had a question, but Alderman Parker, you got the floor and you made a motion to call the question there, but you need a second on that and a vote.


So we have a motion on the floor to call the question. Is there a second to that?


I second. So my question means nothing at this point. That's a good point, Dovie.


That's a good point because we only have a motion in a second to move this forward right now.


So actually, thank you. Yeah, so your motion's not ready yet. But he did say suspending the rule.


So is that what you want to? Yes. OK, so you're- So my question, I don't have a question.


We're in the middle of a discussion with the previous Alderman. We know you're there, Alderman Stacy. So we have a motion to suspend the rules. Do we have a second to that?


So we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Klemm, to suspend the rules. Suspension of the rules is non-debatable and must pass by two-thirds majority.


So with that alone, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? And Alderman Stacy, we'll come back to you.


Simmons, Parker, Stacey, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, that fails, 1, 2, 3, 4 to 3.


So Alderman Stacey, you had a question. Yes, I have a question. L2 and L3. Now I thought L2 and L3 was both heritage. Am I wrong?


Manager Boyer, do you know? Let me refer to the leases. We worked from the spreadsheet that we have on file that the airport manager reviewed.


I don't have the records in front of me. Anytime we've spoken of heritage, we spoke of two.


Heritage Arrow is in 0, 1, 2, and 3. Okay, well this says L-2 Heritage. That's Heritage Aviation. That does not say Heritage Arrow. I believe it's a different entity. Okay, so I'm being told that L-2 and L-3 is the same.


Well, in parentheses, it says it's a different hanger. Can you see that? Tango 34 LLC just went So, you're saying Rob, whoever is in L3?


B. Aherstich Aviation is not in L2 and L3. That is not my understanding. So, the ones with names, are they individual names or is some businesses but their name is listed? If If there is a business, it is listed. If there is no business, it is not listed.


Winslow. Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Why did we omit or black out the information of the lessee?


It's home addresses. You know that you can find that information by the tail number, correct?


You can if you want. I am going to black out personal addresses. Okay. Alderman Sanders?


Yeah, observing some of those leases when I kept saying that things didn't look right to me within those leases and my one question would be is why there's stenciling, writing with a marker pen or whatever the case is within the lease.


and others. I don't know if it's the last moment or when that was cited, but I don't know the date, when was that written into that lease, the lease has some kind of signature going on, but there's no date to it, when that was put into a lease.


And I looked at that and I'm like, wait a minute, we can't follow this because the fact I can even see where it is where the city does not have dates on the leasing that I can see.


This lease agreement was approved by council and drafted by legal council, Attorney Zito. So the signature contract, you don't have to date your signature.


No I'm reading it. and Getting of the lease it says that the lease is effective March 1 that because Both and the the date is March 1 because that's put up at the top there now You didn't have this lease goes into effect March 1 We didn't say that at the top and we typically then you date the signatures Then it's the effective date is the the date that the second person to sign it and so on.


So that's kind of format versus anything substantive. Any further discussion? Do I understand what Attorney Zito just said is that all these leases listed on the agenda tonight will go in effect March 1st?


They're proposed. So they're drafted. So again, these are just draft leases that you guys need to approve there. But yes, as proposed, they would go into effect March 1, which is why on the agenda, they were being proposed to be presented to you guys for first read with a request to suspend the rules so that you guys could go to second read. And then if it was approved, ultimately, all that happened today, then we're obviously in February right now.


also then them starting March 1 would make sense but obviously if there's been a vote to not suspend the rules these would have to go to the next council meeting so we would have to just update the all these lease forms to change the start date and others.


So, I just want to change the start date. So, is that your preference, Council, to change all these formats of...


If it's not approved until the third part... If it's not approved by the Council, then yeah.


So... Alderman Sellers. So, would this stop them from working in those, what are these called, hangars?


I mean, would it stop these people's businesses or these people would have to move their airplanes or whatever?


From a practical standpoint, no, because we're talking about March 1 versus March 3. I think that anyone would kick anyone out for for two days mostly says you would just be a holdover in that situation for a couple of days there so. So is it appropriate to ask again for suspension of the rules or can you not do that a second time? If someone from the prevailing side because we're at the same session so this would be like a motion to reconsider but we have To my knowledge, these people are already in these hangars. Am I correct?


That is correct. Okay, so we're not denying, delaying anything. They're already in them. Correct. You're just adding to the clerk's work is what you're doing.


And the cost of postage. Postage, if you don't do the suspension of the rules, these already have the dates of the first, and the next council meeting isn't until the 3rd of March, which then means that she's going to have to change all of these dates.


Okay, so it's just like a scratch out on the first and put the third, correct?


And then that has to be initialed by the party who has already signed. This will add a lot of work.


and I understand what you're saying, Ms. Dovie. However, we've done it like this all alone.


They always have already been in there, existing, and it's something that we had to do. A vote Well, that's where the motion stands right now to move it to the next council meeting.


My question was, do you want to reconsider the suspension of the rules so that way we don't add unnecessary work to the clerk?


That was my only question. Mayor specimen, also if that's the case if there's if someone wants to make that motion we'll move in that direction, Mayor,azaq Mayor We'll also add postage I'll have to get initials from the other party. This is this isn't a tiny thing.


These cost like $1.50 to mail each one. I still don't have an understanding on my question for L3.


Well, look what it says in the packet. Okay, Mayor, I'm looking at it. So don't discredit my ability to see.


I'm not discrediting anything. It says who L2 is and it says who L3 is. They're not the same.


When I spoke with City Manager, I was informed that L2 and L3 are the same people.


Manager Boyer, do you have a response? Alderman, Alderperson, I'm not aware of what you're referring to.


Alderman Klemm, did you have your hand up? I was going to bring up for 50 years we never saw these and never had a problem and never had hours of discussion and all you got to do is hold two people accountable for it.


Why did we change this whole thing? This is asinine to sit here and go through these and we care less who is in them. I mean, all anybody is worrying about is X number of dollars rental.


Are they full? Are they taken care of? You have got a person who already manages the and the airport. You don't have the commission anymore, but you've got a city manager that oversees it. This is just a complete slow-up of everything, and we're sitting here now going back to redo what we've already done. Don't get me wrong, I may be alone, but I can't see where it makes absolutely any sense for us to go over these. We spent hours, not and Robert.


Thank you very much. I would like to thank the board of trustees for the opportunity to speak with you today.


We have just this time on every lease has come around. Okay, so. Well, it is, it is my desire that every lease don't even have to come to the council and that they could be signed out by the manager of the airport.


Taylor, and until we get stable to a place where that can happen, it is what it is.


Okay. So, is it the desire of the council to just move this to the March Council, or is it the desire of the council to ask for another suspension?


Please indicate. Manage, or I'm sorry, Alderman Sanders. Yes. it was before you made that statement or that comment are we in the business of just making general commentary about a particular item on the agenda that someone can just go off and start having commentary of his concept and what he believes in without bringing any kind of solutions. If you're referring to me I just I'm not talking to you, but I'm asking a question. You make sure you're all clear. It's not about making commentary on the subject of topics on the agenda. It's not your business to do that to us, preach to us. We're just as equal as you are, or maybe more, but the point I'm making is can you officially make commentaries like that during council without Adding a question to it or why you're stating what you're stating?


Attorney Zito Alderman Klemm was regarding the agenda topic about the airport leases. So from that standpoint, he was on point He didn't have a question. He didn't want if he was just making a comment that was on point on the agenda topic there So that said mayor you asked me where we at Right now where we stand is there's a in a sec or Ward to the next council meeting.


The motion to suspend the rules, if there wants to be a motion to reconsider the suspension of the rules, it has to be made by someone on the prevailing side, which was anyone who voted no on the suspension of the rules.


If no one makes that motion from the prevailing side, then we move on to the next topic, because this goes on to the next council meeting.


I'll make a motion that we move it on just to move it on. Sorry.


That's already agreed on. Oh, OK. Okay, sorry, Clerk. Item number 8 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-12. Could you please read this?


Ordinance amending chapters 1248 and 1252 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport concerning storage facilities and business and agricultural districts.


Thank you. Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I put up the zoning map for the city so everyone can kind of see here and get a better idea of what this text amendment is proposing.


So our industrial, what's in purple here are our manufacturing districts, and what's in red is our business districts.


And then what's in yellow, I know Alderperson Sanders had a question earlier about residential zoning districts.


Fowler, Storage, self service storage facilities, only to the areas in purple, which would be your industrial, your manufacturing zoning districts. Currently, if you're in a B3 zoning district, which many of these red areas are, not all of them, but many of the red areas are going to be in your B3 zoning district.


What we've had is a variety of areas. Let me describe what we've had here, and as we Zoning District. What we've had in the last year here is we've had an influx of self-storage facilities.


First one would be the old Moose Lodge on South Street across from La Petrona.


That got turned into an indoor storage facility, large area on a commercial corridor. And then also most recently, also off of South Street along that same corridor on Eym Boulevard.


Sorry, take that back. That's Rosentiel, off of Locust. You have our CubeSmart there recently coming to town, and they're in the process of doing another large expansion.


And so with that coming in, staff has worked with our planning commission and has really investigated this influx into our business corridors of these self-storage facilities that take up large geographic areas, don't offer much employment, and certainly not a fit with many of our residential slash shopping type areas, especially along these corridors here.


So with that being said, staff brought this text amendment to the Planning Commission, which was held on February 13th and it was recommended for approval by a vote of six to zero.


So in line with our Planning Commission, staff is recommending approval or this is an ordinance recommending moving this ordinance forward to the next meeting.


Thank you, Director Duckman. Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Parker to move Ordinance 2025-12 onto the next meeting.


Any discussion? Move on to item number nine. Approving Retainer with Napoli and Skolnick for potential litigation of PFAs at Albertus Airport.


Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. So as we've talked about in the past, the forever chemicals that are in the ground in certain areas in Freeport, we've worked very diligently to get source water that is completely free of these forever chemicals, and we've been very successful with that.


and the Polish iconic is our legal representation related to the class action lawsuit against all the manufacturers of these forever chemicals.


And they've approached the city about representing us related to airports. So this is a little different than what we did in the past, which was essentially source water for the city.


This relates back to these firefighting phones and things in the past have been used on airport Ferts, because they're very helpful in terms of extinguishing fires, fuel fires, that type of thing.


At this time, staff does not believe there's actually any use of these at the airport.


However, it really doesn't hurt anything to be a part of this suit, especially if we, as part of this suit, we end up doing some core samples and maybe there was something there that no one knew about.


However, I think this just provides an opportunity and if there is a settlement, there's no guarantee D., that it would exclude the City Freeport. So, staff's request is to move forward with the agreement with the Police Shacklonek for the airport.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion?


Darren? I just wanted to point out that I emailed everybody the question at the last meeting was if we had had a test out there recently and we've had one within the last two months with no detect.


Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons. Parker. Aye. Stacy. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. Monroe. Aye. The resolution is adopted 7 to 0.


Item number 10 is the adoption of resolution 2025-16. Could you please read this? Resolution ESRI, Municipal, and County Enterprise Agreement for GIS, 3 years.


Hello Council, this is the 3 year agreement for the GIS software that we discussed last week at the COW.


We believe this will greatly improve the record keeping, drafting, and field reference of Field Staff, as well as make for a valuable project planning tool, and we recommend moving forward this agreement. Any questions?


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. Yes. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Monroe. Discussion? Alderman Sanders.


He asked a question. Yeah, but he... I was on it. He needed to have...that wasn't the right protocol, so...


Second front. Oh, okay. The right protocol. So did you have something? Yes. Alderman Sanders. Yes. Let me have my thought before I spill my beans. Do you have a big enough staff to incorporate this GIS County, or GIS program. Do you have a big enough staff that can do an effective job of running that particular program? Do you have the quality people or the people that has the proper training to run that particular software program and how to make sure that and others.


So, I think that data is not tainted in any way, shape or form. Do we have people like that?


Are we working on it or do we have people on staff that is looking into it or to increase the staffing that is going to be required to do this complete study of all that data information?


Yeah, so I think the IT department has the ability on the back end, like between me and We have something like 30 years of experience in GIS and then the IT systems.


Most of the training will have to be done for like the field staff and other office people who are using the software.


As far as ensuring the data, since it's a, think of it as a map of the database behind it, we can set data integrity rules on it to where maybe a person in the field types in the information, a date when an inlet was cleaned or something.


We can monitor that and check it in. So there's like a secondary check on that data before it enters the live system.


Oh, okay. Okay, thanks. Yep. Darren? So the beauty of the data that Kurt's talking about here, so we already have a program, this would expand it greatly.


Right now we're overusing the program that we currently have, the GIS, the IT department, and the utility chairs.


We use this data every day for Julie locates, for design plans for NICOR, ComEd.


We supply the information in the area they're working to make sure that they're not damaging our utilities.


It also goes hands in hand with our projects that Fehr Graham does for the city because we use GIS to locate everything and we can update that data to Kurt with the expansion of the system and it can be automatically updated in their system after he approves it.


So it'd be a lot more valuable data for the city. We've already invested a ton of money in GIS systems over the years.


That's how Kurt actually got his start with the city was a grant program to build GIS and he expanded it.


So we, for a town our size, we have a very good GIS system but again, it was meant for one user when we got it.


We currently have probably eight plus people on it. and so we're overusing the system that we have now and what he's proposing will have a lot more data for us.


Alderman Sanders. Yeah, very good, Darren. I didn't see that coming, but it's good to know that that's out there, that we have those type of people in place, that we can continue to do surveys and studies that will improve our data consumption and strategy, how we're gonna be planning.


One of my thing was is what you brought out to us, whether or not anything else that that GIS will do for the city.


I know you can't explain the whole program, but I'm talking about the significant parts and what you brought to my understanding that that is part of the equation doing these real high quality studies of whatever project programs that you're doing for the city and that we have the proper staffing to make sure that we're providing proficiency throughout the city. I appreciate that. Thank you.


If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons, Parker, Stacey, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, and Monroe. The resolution is adopted 7 to 0.


Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025-17. Could you please read this? Resolution adopting the Northwest Illinois City Council.


We have a resolution adopting the Northwest Illinois Safety Action Plan as a part of participating in Stevenson County's application to the U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration Safe Streets for All or SS4A grant.


Thank you, Darren. So we discussed this at the COW last week. This is simply a resolution stating that if the county moves forward, when they move forward with the project that's already underway, if there's any implementation money, Freeport would be part of the planning to use that implementation on the project.


We have a handful of draft projects. It's all in draft mode at this time that could or could not be included in the program.


So again, this resolution is just uniting fronts to show that we're part of the program and we want to be part of the program.


We've already put a lot of time and effort into that program to make sure that when implementation comes that we would get it.


So this is just the council approval to be part of that. There is no financial for this.


It's just a resolution approval. is there a motion to adopt? Second. The motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the resolution? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. I have a question. Okay, Alderman Stacy.


Yes, is this what the guy spoke about, Matt, I believe, what's his name? No, it is not. This is a separate program that the city is a small part of with six other counties. The program that Matt talked about is very similar to this, but that one is only focused on the City of Freeport, only no other partners in it.


Okay, so can you tell me like who are the partners in this one? Sure. I might not get them all, but it's Stevenson County, City of Freeport, Lee County, Joe Davies County, Ogle County, and I believe there's one more, Carroll.


And Whiteside. And Whiteside. So those are all the partners in there. They're going after, you know, it's a giant traffic study. We started our project with the county, they asked, With the county they asked us to be part of it and then we realized the potential for Freeport could be a lot bigger that's why we went and started our own plan to see if we couldn't get more implementation money for the City of Freeport.


Okay, so I understand that there's no cost up front. But in the long run, if this was something that the city chose to be a part of, what are we looking at?


there was no cost for this study which is what what this program was we had no involvement in any cost or fee for it they just asked us to be part of the process in the county and if there's implementation money we'll have to see what those rules are at the time it may be 80-20 for a project it might be 90-10 it might be a hundred percent based on disadvantaged community status but we We won't know that until there's an offer, and with the current President, some of those rules may be changing along the way.


Okay. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye.


Stacy? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. The resolution is adapted 7-0.


Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025-18. Could you please read this? Resolution approving audit engagement letter with Lauterbach and Amon to provide auditing services to the city.


Thank you. Director Richter? Thank you, Your Honor. In January of 2023, the Finance Department issued a request for a proposal for auditing services for the fiscal years of 2022 and through 2026.


On February 6th of 2023, City Council approved the bid from Lauterbach & Ehman. Past practice has been to obtain multi-year proposals during the RFP process.


However, individual engagement letters are signed for each of the fiscal years to be audited.


Lauterbach & Ehman's fees for the City's 2024 audit year are $44,100. Sanders, this is a 3% increase from 2023.


At the time of the RFP, the communities of Rockford, Rock Island, and East Moline all gave positive responses in favor of Lauterbach and Neyman's performance.


In addition, the City of Freeport's 2023 audit was prepared accurately, on time, and all interactions were professional.


Their team is very experienced in the area of municipal government. The purpose of an engagement letter is to define the scope of the audit, specify the timeline of the audit and related deliverables, define the fee arrangement, and outline the auditors and management's responsibilities.


The strategic plan alignment here is responsive and efficient government and staff request approval of the fiscal year 2024 engagement letter from Lauterbach and Eamon.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the resolution. Alderman Sanders.


Yeah. We're, we're, we're, okay, approving an audit and engagement letter with this particular agency.


How long have the city been involved with this particular agency? We have been involved with them on this agreement since 2022, so the audit for 22 and 23 were done by LNA, Lauterbach and Neyman.


We also did work with them previously before our past auditors. Our past auditors were Whitley and Lauterbach and Neyman were here 2016, 2017.


I'm sorry to have to look up the dates, but they had been here before.


Yeah, well do we make a practice of using the same auditors every time an auditing session takes place? And do we? And I understand this last one that you were referring to do a full scope of the whole auditing process. I just wanted to find out how involved are these Auditors, into the whole lucrative of the city, and the whole business of the city, and who is pointing directions to auditors, who is giving them their guidance to where to look and do the auditing surveys and things of this nature, who is the individuals that do that to help them through the process.


So kind of two things here, the GFOA, which is my professional organization, one of their best practices is to be with a certain auditor at least five years.


You don't have to be, it's just a guideline, but it's a best practice. As far as who directs them, they have their own guidelines and requirements when they're We're doing an audit. Now, as far as, I mean, I give them what they ask for, me and my staff.


They come to me and want to see accounts payable, they want to see payroll, any of that, we give it to them. But they are, they have their own standards and guidelines that they need to do in order to perform the audit. That's not dictated by me.


Yeah, could you submit that to Council of what their tasks, what their tasks are, that we can do some observations ourselves in terms of how they're doing their practices, as far as auditing is concerned. I'd like to see us be able to indulge, engage our auditors who are auditing the City of Freeport, especially in this administration. I'd like for us and others.


We have to be able to be more detailed in what they're doing and how they're going about doing their task.


I just want us to be more informed is what I'm getting at. Some council people are not okay with just auditors showing up and we don't understand the whole process of it.


and some council might be fine with whatever they do or say, you know, all of us are not the same.


And so I'm just asking for a demonstration of a soft task of what they're doing so we get the logistics of what they're presenting to us.


Can we do that? I'll get you something. Okay. Thank you. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll on the resolution.


I'm sorry, First Mayor, who made the motion? Parker, Klemm. Okay, and on roll call, Simmons?


Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. The resolution is adopted six to one.


item number 13 is the adaption of resolution 2025 19 could you please read this resolution approving the purchase of a street painting machine from Sherwin Williams thank you manager Boyer thank your honor our current paint machine that stripes the lanes on the streets I think it's like 25 years old it's very old it's worn out and it's time to be replaced we plan for the purchase in the We're bringing this to you for approval. The price of the new striping equipment is $11,706.50. This is a source well dealer, so that is state approved there. Staff request, Council approval of this resolution.


Is there such a motion? Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the resolution?


Alderman Monroe? I have a question. Alderman Monroe? Alderman Stacy? Yes. I'm just curious, why something of this nature approaches to Sharon Williams?


That didn't come through very clear. Can you say it again? Yes. Why is it purchased through Sherwin-Williams?


Manager Boyer? The answer is they're a dealer for Graco and I believe they're local.


And being a source well dealer, they offer the state pricing on this equipment. So you are going with the Sherwin-Williams local?


Yes. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. City Manager, can you just briefly describe what being a source well state appropriated or whatever you know what I mean? Sure. Thank you. Source well dealers are qualified by the state to provide lowest pricing for municipalities. So when you have that certification, it's no longer necessary to provide Pursue Other Bids on a Piece of Equipment. That is the state approved price. Thank you.


Darren. Just because I wanted to know, we don't buy a lot of paint machines, we did actually get three prices on this just to back it up that the source well price was the cheapest price.


If there's no further discussion. Yeah. Alderman Sanders. I like to see this machine. I want to see this machine. I like to see whether or not it provides the adequate environment protection and safety with this equipment, because the one that you referred to 25 years ago and is still running, it is not all that adequate for this time and age.


You know with the traffic that we got going on and these guys are out there trying to do do their task But I'm wondering if we're doing it in a safe Manner whether or not this equipment puts them in that kind of Safety zone for the purchase of that type of equipment Darren our City Manager Yeah, that's great concern safety is really important. We have a trace vehicle flaggers and stuff that go along with the operator of the machine.


Good. That answers my question. So we'll just pause for a moment, waiting for the clerk to come back to take the role.


When you're ready, you can go ahead and take the roll for the adoption of Resolution 2025-19.


Simmons? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. And Monroe? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7-0.


Item number 14 is the adoption of resolution 2025-20. Could you please read this? Resolution approving the transfer of property commonly known as 431 and 437 South Adams Avenue from Stevenson County to the City of Freeport. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor.


discussed the January cow we we went over this these two parcels the county would like the city to take those over for a dollar and the city would like to keep them and for future development potential so staff recommends moving forward with the agreement the resolution for the transfer of property is there a motion to adopt some move second motion made by Alderman sellers Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm. Discussion on the resolution? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


I have a question. Alderman Stacy? Yes. Would the city consider using that area for a park? What are your plans with that merchandise?


There's a couple of options. Obviously, public spaces is one. However, we're also looking at Infill Housing as another potential purpose of it.


OK. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons. Aye. Parker. Aye. Stacy. Aye. Sanders. Aye.


Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. And Monroe. Aye. The resolution is adopted, 7 to 0. Item number 15 is the adoption of Resolution 2025-22. Could you please read this?


Resolution ratifying emergency snowplow purchase from Monroe Truck Equipment. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. This year during snow removal operations we had one of our older plows that's fully depreciated fail in a way that is not repairable.


Staff, due to the fact that we have to maintain snow removal operations, Staff went to Monroe Truck and replaced that plow and staff is requesting ratification of that purchase at $11,598.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


Alderman Sanders. Would this be new or used? Oh, it's new. Be new? Yeah. I have a question. Alderman, Stacy? Yes. If I'm not mistaken, we budgeted for this last year, but it didn't happen. I don't recall Alderperson, Stacy. You don't recall? No. Okay.


So, you know, we're approaching the end of the winter season. Would it be a difference in cost if we did this in July compared to now?


I don't believe there would be any change in cost. The situation with plows are essentially they manufacture them for the chassis. They cost the same whether you buy it in the summer or you buy it, they're not sitting on a shelf somewhere.


So in season compared to out of season means nothing. Darren. So Monroe Trucks is source well price.


So the 2025 price would have been the same price for all of 25, it's a locked in state source well price.


We did price this plow last year, and it was I believe $300 more than it was in 2024 when we priced it.


So we did budget in 2024, but we didn't. If I'm not mistaken, we actually did buy a plow last year, but we couldn't afford to buy multiple plows.


I think we actually did buy one under emergency authority again last season. And this one we tried to repair, but the mechanics sent me an email that they could not repair it any further.


Thank you. There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons. I have a question.


So this isn't coming out of the budget. This is coming out of emergency funds?


No. This item will have to be bought through the budget. We'll just have to move some priorities around to be able to pay for it, because we really didn't have a choice with the season that's upon us with a truck being drowned like you had text me, we can't get all the routes.


You had text me, we can't get all the routes done in a reasonable time. We don't have extra snow equipment. We only have enough for the trucks that we have.


This will be coming out of streets. Thank you, Parker. Stacy? Aye. Sanders is currently absent. Sellers?


Aye. Klemm? Aye. And Monroe? Aye. The resolution is adopted, six to zero. Item number 16 is the adoption of Resolution 2025-23. Could you please read this?


Resolution approving an agreement with Fehr Graham to provide bridge inspection services for the city bridges located on Hancock Avenue and on Van Buren Avenue. Manager Boyer.


Thank you, Your Honor. The city's got two bridges that we have to inspect every year. One is Hancock and the other one is the Van Buren Walk-Ride Bridge that goes north of town. We used to have 3, the Park Court Bridge, which was removed a couple years ago because of its degraded structure and so unsafe condition.


Fehr Graham is the city bridge inspector and they have a team of certified and licensed personnel for this work.


All inspections must be completed and finalized and reported to the state before June 30th and staff recommends the city move forward to approve the agreement.


Is there a motion to adopt? Second. Any motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Klemm?


Discussion on the resolution. I have just a question. Alderman Sellers? It's also about, I know you mentioned a couple different, the two bridges.


Is it the city's responsibility to check the bridge that is over by Tuddy Crossing or does that bridge, that park?


is ours but it Darren did you want to comment on that yeah those structures are a little bit different because they're they're connected to parks so parks parks has their own contracts that have bridges inspected like the Crate Park bridge and the other crossing bridge down there and they're actually on a different schedule so because they connect to the trail those are inspected as part of the trail projects.


OK. And then just one more. How about the bridge that's Stevenson? Is that checked?


Do we ever check that? That's an IDOT bridge. They own Route 75, so they have their own inspectors of that one.


OK. Thank you. Alderman Stacy, did you have a question? No, I'm good. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Simmons? I'm sorry, I do have a question. So, the inspection, is that different than what you did before we approved the program moving forward to our parent hand-to-hand bridge?


and some other folks that have been working on the project for years ago. Hancock Bridge is actually one that has to be done right now every year because of the poor condition until we have it replaced which that's on the replacement schedule.


We're working with IDOT to try to get that bid yet this year. But it still requires an inspection because they're due at a certain deadline date, no matter, once it's under construction, there won't be another one until it's finalized from construction Parker, Stacey, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, The resolution is adopted, 7-0.


Thank you. Item number 17 is the adoption of resolution 2025-24. Could you please read this?


Ratifying Emergency Salt Spreader Purchase from Monroe Truck Equipment. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor.


This season, we had, during snow removal operations, there was damage to one of our salt spreaders.


I believe it was a one ton chassis spreader. So staff received a quote for $10,223 to purchase a new one.


and staff recommends Council Emergency Ratification of this resolution. Is there a motion to adopt?


So moved. Second. Okay, motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Monroe. Discussion on the ordinance or the resolution, Alderman Sanders.


Yeah, just wanted to ask you, you quoted $10,000 to have it repaired or have it replaced?


Needs to be replaced, so it's a plastic poly box with a large stainless steel impeller situation and auger set up in the back, and it was damaged during salt, or during a plow.


It's unrepairable. Correct. And not repaired. Okay. All right. No further discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Hi. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Monroe. It's all good. City Manager and Public Works Director, the question I have is we seem to be applying and I'm going to go back to the second ward, and I'm going to talk about having salt at a varying, I don't even know how to explain it.


It's like we salt for a second, we stop salt and then we salt again, especially on some of the hilly sections of the northwest side of town.


Is there, you know, will this help us spread the salt better so it's more consistent or that we can maintain, because to We have a second ward where it's very hilly, people park on the street, and it really creates a significant hazard driving on that side of the town, just looking for some...


Yeah, so the specific item that we're talking about on the agenda, it's a water and sewer salt spreader, so it's used for all of our water and sewer facilities, because they do all the plowing, this isn't a street unit.


because of the amount of streets that we have. We have segregation of duties. So the water and sewer guys actually plow their own properties.


That's what this spreader. OK, gotcha. But I will talk to the street department. I have noticed, you know, we do have some new people plowing this year, so I don't know what wars they're on.


But we have been with the events that were coming. We were trying to pre salt and get salt out there that gets kicked around by cars to make sure that we can buy some more time at night.


So you probably saw in the last events, Pat Ingram had all the crews out pre-salting the day before, trying to get, you know, as much down as possible to keep the streets clear.


Okay. Thank you. Alderman Sanders. What type of vehicle are we using to apply the salt spreading? Is it one of our?


For this project here, this is actually a one ton vehicle that has a salt spreader box that sets right in.


That's what I thought, that's what I thought. the old combination unit was a salt spreader that we used the bed of the truck and then this was an attachment that was on the back during water and sewer construction it because continuously getting beat up because we use it for main repairs as well so the new unit that we've got was a complete box that can be set in set out so it doesn't get damaged during construction so that's just one vehicle yes sir one vehicle and and have we done an assessment with all of the vehicles to determine whether or not they need to be upgraded as well. We are, yes, we continuously evaluate the fleet to see if there's anything we can do to update them and actually this style of box is part of that upgrade. Okay. These are corrosion resistant other than the some of the moving parts that are made of plastic. Okay, good. There's no further Mr. Discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. The resolution is adopted, 7 to 0. Thank you. Item number 18 is the adoption of resolution 20, 25, 25. Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying emergency demolition of the structure located at 402 to 404 East Shawnee Street by Albert and Sun Earthworks. Director Duckman. Thank you Madam Mayor. 402 404 E Shawnee was declared a chronic


nuisance on May 16th of 2024 as well as a dangerous and unsafe structure. The city posted its notice for statutory fast track demolition on September 3rd of 2024 and due to the immediate health and safety concern bids were solicited on December 11th 2024 from three contractors. I attached those 3 solicitations as part of the memo.


And then in accordance with our ordinances, I selected Albert and Son Earthworks who submitted the lowest responsible bid of $19,700.


The other bids that were brought back were Northern Illinois Service Company provided Bid of $29,837 and Fisher Excavating did not respond to our request for bid.


The City moved forward with Albertson Earthworks as the lowest responsible bidder to perform the emergency demolition work which was subsequently completed on December 27th of 2024 and this as property was demolished with Miller, and this property was demolished within the 120 days of the original posting in accordance with Illinois statute. Staff recommends approval to remit payment to Elver and Son Earthworks for the emergency demolition of 402-404-E Shawnee.


Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion, Alderman Sanders.


Yeah, how much did that demolition cost and whether or not it cost the city to have that demolished?


It's $19,700. Okay, that was the lowest bid that you come up with? Yes, yes.


and all of the bidders or the people that apply, they had a, well what I wanted to say is, did we get the property regulated like it should as far as all utilities, possible damage structures and things of this nature to the primary grounds itself and in adjunction to the city's utilities.


Everything was properly inspected during this demolition. There was also an asbestos inspection performed. So all of the requirements in that aspect were met.


Thank you. There's no further discussion? I have a question. Alderman, Stacy? Director Duckman, when you did your presentation, why wasn't these totals presented at that time? Well, to approve this resolution, I would need the actual invoice for approval, so that's what you're approving today is the invoice for payment. So at that time, the focus of the conversation I believe was the status of 402-404-E Shawnee, which I went into.


At that time, I certainly could have provided this process and in the memo I provided the emails that were sent to the contractors, I provided the bids that came back. So it was really just a matter and John.


I'm not sure if I was asked to present that information, but certainly I could have presented it at that time.


≫ Okay. To my knowledge and understanding, there was a lot of things done that were not approved to be done.


I've not spoken with Tiffany Sanders on this who's the property owner so Tiffany Sanders hasn't brought anything to my attention there was a motion or a petition filed on October 27th which was dismissed and there was another on December 19th and on December 19th there was a motion which was dismissed on on December 27th, which is when the demolition occurred, and there was another petition filed on December 27th, which has a status hearing on March 28th at the Circuit Court.


So the city was not given her judge request or halt? No, the sit no, yeah, sorry, I apologize, go ahead.


I had the understanding that a judge had put a stop symbol on this property and it was taken down anyway.


19th, then on December 19th another petition was filed which was dismissed on December 27th.


Alderman, Klemm, Director, Duckman, how long has this house been on the list for chronic nuisance and how long have the penalties been going on?


It became a chronic nuisance in May on May 16th of 2024 when it was also deemed dangerous and unsafe and then it was it's it's been well over a year where it's received several code violations and right now it has a lien on it for over $14,000 for the code violations.


Thank you very much. There's no, Alderman Simmons? I'm sorry, what did you say about March 28th? Something about, you got another hearing or March 28th?


So, there is another, so there's another petition filed after the demolition. There's another petition filed which is going to have a status hearing at the Stevenson County Circuit Clerk on March 28th.


Alderman Monroe? So Director Duckman are you saying you weren't served that paperwork at the courthouse in the 27th of December? That is correct. Okay if If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Simmons? No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? I abstain.


We are tied 3 to 3. Does this just need simple majority? Yes. Mayor? No.


Okay, you understand this work has already been done and we have an invoice to pay. This is going to give us, the City, a bad reputation that we are not paying for the work that we've done. Is this really where we're standing? Alderman, Duckman?


I think the alternative would just be that the contractor could just file suit and we would just settle it in a closed session.


So it's really, however, if the council wants to send the message that we're going to have our staff direct them, solicit bids, and then have them do the work, and then the council's not going to pay them.


I mean, honestly, if the issue's with me directing the work, have the issue with me, I mean, You can talk to City Manager Rob Boyer and ask for me to be disciplined, terminated, and I can live with that because I stand behind my decision and what I did to hire this contractor, punishing this contractor and making them sue the city to be paid.


I mean, if the issues with me understood, I mean, I could take, you know, any punishment that comes my way up to termination, but I don't believe a contractor who was solicited a bid, did the work, bid on the project, I don't think they should be punished because was all from my direction and I'll take any you know criticism discipline from you know my direct or from City Manager Boyer I can live with that but I just don't think counsel and I don't think it's fair to punish a contractor taking direction from a city employee It's a 3 to 3 tie, so you can call for the Mayor's vote.


Okay, Mayor, what say you? Aye. But that's 4 to 3, that's still not a majority on a resolution because we need 5, so it still fails.


So you're saying we need a majority of those seated, not those present? Correct. Oh.


I see. I got a comment. Darren. I think just to back Wayne up because we do contract work all the time this will just cost the city more money because we will be paying attorney fees and their attorney fees and the other two are the attorney fees and their attorney fees for the demo that happened. This was a bid project. This wasn't a handshake agreement. He has a signed contract to move forward.


So this is a bill that we will pay regardless of our feelings on it.


» So those that voted no, is there any reconsideration? Okay. Item number 19, could you please read this discussion?


Discussion regarding resolution approving engineering agreement with Fehr Graham to apply for surface transportation program.


That's the urban program STU funding for 2026 street program. Manager Boyer. Thank you, your honor.


Being that we've accrued a certain amount of federal funding in our MFT accounts, We would like to deploy those funds as rapidly as possible. We are hoping to get that done yet this year. However, due to environmental requirements, that will not be possible yet this year. However, we can set ourselves up for 2026, so the public work staff has had adequate time to assemble a full proposal. We don't have it completely for you tonight, but just an abbreviated version. We're looking at Lincoln Boulevard from Locust to West.


Stevenson Street from Locust to Sunset Adams Avenue that would be the west half so the part that was not completed in the Adams Avenue project get that finished up from Exchange to Float and then Walnut Avenue from Empire to South so staff is asking this to be moved forward to the March 3rd agenda. Is there a motion to move this forward to the March 3rd agenda? Second. The motion made Seconded by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on this?


Yes, I have a question. Alderman Stacy? Maybe it's not a question, maybe it's a statement.


I have nothing against this federal money and the street program. However, I think it's deployed to take our eyes off of what we really need to be looking at.


And this is what we mean when we talk about prioritizing. There's so much, for example, lighting, for example, crime, crime prevention plans that we need to be given our focus to and directing and finding funds to deal with what needs to be prioritized for our students by creating another avenue to go down that is not a priority.


Darren, you want to? Yeah. So this is the program that we talked about at the COW meeting.


This is the surface transportation program. This money can't be used for anything other than roads.


This was the $2.5 million that we talked about that we need to do the design on.


Not to be disrespectful, the streets are in our 24 to 26 strategic plan, so I tried to find a creative way to get more money to do, I believe this totals a little over 2.5 miles Williams of Roadway. It was moved forward to this meeting. I just didn't have time to assemble the proposal, so I asked for until the March meeting to assemble the proposal.


But again, at the COW it was stated that if we want to move forward with the surface transportation funds for these streets of $2.5 million, the city needs to do the design for that to get and the funding allocated to these streets.


So I just want to make sure nobody thought this was a different program. Alderman, you're saying?


This is the program with the Mac guys. No, it is not. This is the surface transportation funds that we talked about at the COW last week.


This is strictly milling overlays and ADA ramps on the streets that were listed in the agenda memo.


So, I thought that we were up on our ADA ramps 100% for our city.


No, that's incorrect. We have, I couldn't give you an exact number, but it's over 10,000 ramps that are not compliant within the city limits, more probably closer to 15,000.


Excuse me, 1,500. Sorry, 1,500. I understand that better. Oh, one too many zeros. Next, Rockford.


Okay, so if there's no further discussion, this will be moved to the next. Oh, Alderman Sanders. I didn't know you had your hand up.


I was waving the white flag. You didn't see me waving the white flag? I did not.


Alderman Sanders, would you like to say something? Yeah, I just want to ask, is there planning to apply this particular grant and what does Urban STU stand for, funding, what is that all about?


So the memo has the four streets that we've aligned which, let me pull it up, again it's Lincoln Boulevard from Locust to West which is about 1500 linear feet, Stevenson Street from Locust to Sunset excluding West Street, we won't do IDOT corridors, Adams Street which would be from Float to Exchange so it's the portion that we weren't able to finish We wanted to finish that project, and then Walnut Avenue, which would be the south leg from Empire to South Street, and the reason the north side is not on here is the north side of Empire needs a full reconstruct and we don't have that many dollars to do it.


The south end is in a repair that we think we can mill and overlay it and do some base and a lot of money.


I'm a very concerned about the state and the state and the state and the state and the state and the state and the state Manning, is presented to do, any access will be utilized in other areas reallocated for other areas.


I don't understand what you mean by access. Or excess? Yeah. The access funding. No.


That money can only be used on the targeted projects that we submit. So if it...


If there's any... This is just a high level estimate. Yeah. If it's 2.3 million, that's all we'll use.


it's 2.7 we have that much reserved so the estimate said 2.5 so that's what I'm going with until we do some more yeah there's any overlay what with the cost if there's any X X any additional fundings that are left over I'll put it in layman's term if it's left over it has to go back into the SDU account it has to go back okay that's what I wanted to find out thank you Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Darren, why are we stopping at Sunset and not trying to figure out that last little block? Sure, because Park intersection is on this year and we're planning on extending that to Sunset.


Yep, thank you. We have to do the 8a ramps anyway so I just was going to extend that project up to Sunset and then pick it up there. Gotcha, thank you. Okay, so there's There's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the motion to move this to the next council meeting?


Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. The motion passes 7-0.


And item number 20, could you please read the next discussion? regarding the fundraising money collected for downtown decorations.


Alderman Stacy Orr-Munroe. On October 17, 2024, the City of Freeport Communications Department shared a post originally posted by Greater Freeport Partnership Facebook account. The original Our post included a flyer promoting the Christmas Resort.


Christmas Wizard Event being held December 13, 2024. On the bottom of the flyer, it's stated the following, Christmas Wizard is a fundraising concert for Freeport Holiday Decoration.


Tickets for the concert were sold for $25 to $50 each, including on the flyer was the City of Freeport logo along with GFP logo. My first two concerns slash questions to City Manager Boyer. Did the City of Freeport partner with GFP on this event?


I'm not aware of anything the City of Freeport did on this event. Okay. Can you explain why a logo would have been on that flyer?


I really don't have an explanation why it is. I haven't seen the flyer. Okay.


Do you remember the flyer? No, I have never seen... You remember the event I'm speaking of? I didn't attend the event and I know nothing about the event. I imagine that, okay. Is there a signed contract between the City of Freeport and Greater Freeport Partnership for this this christian wizard event can anybody tell me? Mayor? Mayor? There is not. Anybody? There is not. There is not. No, the purpose of having the city's logo on that flyer was simply because the intent was that the whatever would be purchased from the fundraising would be turned over as ownership of the City. That was the only reason that the City was on there.


Okay. Well, I have asked the question at the last time GFP spoke and gave their report and they were not prepared to give me an answer at that time because things hadn't been totaled or something of that nature.


Well, it wasn't because they weren't, they didn't have all the invoices in at the time, so they didn't have anything accurate to give you that was on their fourth quarter report.


So I'm sure on their first quarter report, I'm sure they'll have that finished up. I don't know, it was there, it was GFP Financial.


Okay, but wasn't money turned over to the city since it was for the city?


This was this was not a city event? I know it was not a city event but it was an event held for the city. Can you say it again? I know that it was not a city event, per your statement and for Rob Boyer's statement, but it was an event for the city.


No, it was an event that the City would have been a recipient of when it was done.


It was not, this was not an event of any means on behalf of the City of Freeport.


It was not for the City of Freeport. No, it was a GFP event. Okay. Mayor Miller, why was the council not made aware of your personal business? 3 Point Festival, Inc. partnered with TFP for this Christmas wizard event. Why weren't we made aware of that?


Not only was it not disclosed to the council, it was not disclosed to the public and some other event donors as well. Why was that kept secretive?


and Mayor. I'm not sitting here as a citizen. I'm not sitting here as the President of the Freeport Festivals. However, I will take a moment to speak as the President of the Freeport Festivals.


So let me clarify that this event was fully funded and operated independently of the city.


There was no taxpayer money involved. The Council does not oversee private organizations and John.


So while I appreciate all the enthusiasm concerning community events, this discussion really does not belong on the City Council floor. So if there is really a genuine interest in supporting the Freeport Festivals and having an understanding of that, I would be happy to provide any information outside of this meeting as you know that my phone is always on or is on.


or better yet you can call the Greater Freeport Partnership as all of the financials as I stated before were under their leadership, which you already know because these were questions that you asked during the fourth quarter report.


So if that is suffice, I will conclude my remarks as the President of the Freeport Festivals and resume my role as the Mayor of Freeport and let's continue with city business.


This is not city business. Okay, so maybe it would have been more appropriate to have your business logo on with Greater Seaport Partnership and not the Seaport logo.


Thank you. Well, that's your opinion. Thank you. We'll move on to item number 21, which is an update from the McGuire Woods Manager, Boyer.


Thank you, Your Honor. For several months now, we've been working with McGuire Woods, looking for grant and grant to opportunities through state and other areas.


To date, we have an update. We've looked at RISE grants for infrastructure through the US Department of Transportation, also the PROTECT program for resiliency projects, the Illinois Housing Development Authority.


We've coordinated discussions with the city and IHDA regarding housing matters. We've also discussed US Environmental Protection Agency Grants, including the Justice Grant, Urban Forestry Grant.


We've also looked at research funding for water main replacements or installations and alternative fundings that may be available through state and federal appropriations.


We've also talked about and worked on National Endowment for the Arts to identify possible funding sources for our programs potentially impacting the downtown area.


Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, we've discussed body camera grants and so forth.


In addition, we've done federal and state updates, providing ongoing updates. They've provided us updates every several weeks on developments going out the state and federal level that impact funding and then federal and state appropriations.


So assisting the city in refining projects, funding requests into a one page formats for legislators, communicating with the Illinois General Assembly, and other budget staff regarding fiscal year 2026 funding, including water main projects flagged by city staff.