Discussion. Alderman Sanders. Sanders. Public Works Director, Darren, while you're making these plans over there, over the winter, if the survey allows you to, while you're in the process of doing so, is it okay for council members to visit the planning stages of when you guys begin to do the drawing of the of the plan so so we have a little insight um so this is different than a construction plan so there won't be a construction plan this is more of a study and We're going to start with the construction plan. This is more of a study and evaluation. So we'll actually take robotic equipment out and do the measurements on the field, corner by corner.


And so you're welcome to see all that data when it's done because it's going to turn into a giant clip down menu per corner.


I can wait until you condense it. and I think I skipped it in this one but this is going to be a living document for Freeport so once it's created as we do construction work every season we'll have to update it it shouldn't take near as amount of work to do it but the GIS system itself will need to be updated as they're corrected in the dates that they're done what IDOT's looking for is for the city to come up with a 20-year transition plan for all the ramps as I've stated before that's probably not ultimately affordable but we are making great lengths with the amount of street work we've done.


I believe this year alone we did, I think it was like 82 ramps. So, and I think the year before we did 76 just on the ramp project.


So, we've made some great strides in short period of time and we're committed to doing the ramps as we do the streets as long as they're not technically infeasible.


When we run into vaults and things like that, we just can't afford to fix a ramp at a vault area.


They get really expensive fast. there's no further discussion Alderman Monroe yes mr. Steekle as you're going through this are we gonna be looking at various grants that are available you know to help because this is significant last I remember you said about $7,500 per you know rough estimate but we're gonna be looking for grants to help cover that because we have to replace all of them in the city correct yeah so as we do the Street Projects, we're incorporating the ramps into the projects and using a combination of the 1% and MFT money to replace ramps, but this will also give us the ability to do like we did with the CDBG grant and take blocks of areas that are underserved and try to get more ramps done in quadrants with that kind of money.


I believe the grant that we got 76 done on was about a half a million dollars, and we when you say combination of the 1% you tell them about the 1% for our streets yes ma'am that that is part of every street project that we do in Freeport if they have ramps we have to update the ramps as part of the street project that's not something that we have a choice with the only way we can't update them is if we give ourselves a variance on them and we have to prove that it's technically not buildable.


I thought we had discussion on that matter and that it was said that grant money would cover ADA ramps.


I don't remember that piece. We don't have grant money to cover every ramp. We had the grant before that covered 76 of them but this year, the ramps that we did this year were part of the street program.


Okay, so how much is it for the city to do it, the city crew, compared to somewhere else, someone else?


I would say it's definitely cheaper for the city crews to do them if we can.


What do that mean, if we can? If we have enough staff to do them. Currently we do not have enough staff to do the work we're doing and do ADA ramps.


and James. And so, the RDA ramps are very time consuming and out of the construction process right now, that's one of the skills.


Can we do them with help? Yes. Can we do them effectively and efficiently? No.


We just don't have a dedicated concrete crew that can go around and do ramps currently.


If we had the crew, what would it cost the city compared to paying someone else?


I would say right now if I put a number on it probably about 4,000, 4,500 per corner compared to the probably 65 to 7,500 we're paying depends on each corner is a little bit different with how far we have to go back on sidewalks.


Manager, Boyer, Alderperson, Stacy, right now the 1% does not allow us to pay wages from it and that was purposeful as I understand it in addition to that our crews do do ADA ramps from time to time however they did do some on Center Street when we did Center Street so we do do them when we need to but okay the 1% was never and John.


The 1% was meant for our roads. That is why we can't hire more staff to do them less expensively. That is one reason.


Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe. The resolution is adopted 8-0.


Item number 19 is adoption of resolution 2024-115. Could you please read this? Resolution Approving Agreement with Fehr Graham for 2025 Street Design Engineering Services Manager Boyer Thank you, Your Honor.


The City of Freeport is prepping the design plans for Reconstruct for 2025 Street Program.


The City plans to use the combination of funding, including IDOT Motor Fuel Tax, the 1% Street Fund and Congressman Sorensen's Water Main Funds for this year's road program.


and identified streets were brought forward from the 1% layout approved by City Council in 2024.


The 2025 projects include three linear miles of roadway and is estimated at a total cost of approximately $5 million in local work.


Four streets need water main replacement including Carroll Avenue and that's from 1882. Blackhawk Avenue, 1954, a known poorly constructed material and Willow Avenue, 1956 and Harvey, 1925, with all the breaks or water quality history.


So in general, that's what's moving forward for water main replacements. Street planning requires professional design engineering and surveying services.


Fehr Graham's scope of service will include topographical study, street profiling and structure design, ADA ramp intersection design, permitting requirements to the EPA, IDOT, and PROAG standards, along with bidding solicitation and negotiation of all contracts. An allowance for geotechnical services for pavement and ground borings is provided by Fehr Graham to a third-party professional geotech agency as needed for design parameters. It is important and to the design process that Street and 88 topographical and borings are picked up before winter weather to keep the project timelines moving in an early summer project starting 2025. It is also vital to get potential utility relocations identified with NICOR and ComEd franchise partners not to slow the progress during the construction season.


Staff is requesting moving forward with the contract for Graham the amount of three hundred and ninety six thousand two hundred fifty dollars so that the 2025 Street Program can move forward and there's a list of the projects that are identified. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Seller seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons?


Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. The resolution is adopted 8 to 0. Thank you. Item number 20 is ratification of Group Approval of a bid. Could you please read this? This is ratifying a bid opening on May 22nd, 24, Ridge Street and Westwood Avenue.


Manager Boyer? During the project, the Ridge and Westwood Avenue projects, staff received three bids for Ridge Street and Westwood Avenue improvements, Helm Group or Civil. Freeport, Illinois was the lowest responsive bidder in the amount of $983,845.50.


this bid was below engineering estimates the water and street project was planned in the 2024 budget and the project project funding will come from water streets and storm funds to complete the project is staff recommendation to city council move forward with the helm group bid is there a motion to approve some of second motion made by alderman seller seconded by alderman and Shadle. Discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons.


please take the roll. Simmons? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Abstain. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. The motion passes six to one to one abstentia. Item number 21, could you read the This bid opening was on October 16th, 2024 for sewer lining.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport has nearly 130 miles of sanitary sewer in the collection system.


During annual project evaluations, cure and place lining locations are identified to rehabilitate sanitary sewer piping with cracks, defects, inflow and infiltration issues, or sags in settlement.


Our EPA mandatory CMOM Sewer Capacity Management Plan specifies that the Freeport addresses annual sewer rehabilitations or collection system mainline piping for environmental concerns.


Sewer lining is considered an industry-accepted method for sewer main pipe rehabilitation and is more economical than open-cut excavation methods.


The sewer lining is over 10 times cheaper to install, and industry standards estimate over 60 years of sustainable, useful life will basically come from the lined pipe.


In October 2016, Fehr Graham and the city staff had a public bid opening for 9,509 linear feet of sanitary sewer lining.


These sewer areas are identified as Oak, Chicago, Iroquois, as of a section of Dirk and Grove.


The City had three reputable bidders that specialized in sewer lining, cement bids, national power rotting was the lowest responsive bidder at $382,712.24 significantly under the engineers estimates, city staff requests city council to approve the national power rotting estimate as the low responsive bidder and just FYI this is just following up our current road program we're just a little behind on this part Is there a motion to approve?


So moved. Second. Motion made by Sellers, seconded by Shadle. Discussion? Alderman Sanders. Yeah. Manager Boyer, how are we doing our data gathering to determine how much lining that is necessary Coon, and others.


So I can't give you a number. I'm going to go ahead and ask everybody to please stand up and come forward.


Yes, sir. I have one question. I'm going to ask you, then. Well, I think it's important to have a discussion about what you do.


How do you provide information to your subcommittee on how to make sure that there are no issues with this?


I don't know if there's a question about that, Mr. Mayor. Byners to come in. And then on top of that, are these, is this project up for bidding?


Yeah, it says up for bidding. We're looking for bidders to come in and circumvent that.


Okay. And, well, I just wanted to know that because we're doing an investment aligning if we don't get the right bidders who can do a professional, efficient job at doing this kind of work. That's all I had to comment on.


Just see if I can answer that question. As you know, having worked in the utility a long time ago, you know we have really good records on the material type and locations of all our sewer mains.


In general, we have a large percent that's clay. The clay is, we line the clay. If it's concrete, we'll evaluate it. If it's plastic, we don't line it. Does that answer your question?


Yeah, that pretty much did it. Well, can I come back? Are we doing a visual inspection?


Yes, we do a camera inspection of every street that we repave. OK. So well, like on Iroquois this year, we had a, I want to say, a 200-foot cave-in on Iroquois that had to be fixed before we did the roadwork.


We did that. But then we lined it, all of it, so. All right. Thank you.


If there's no further discussion, end of court, please take the roll. Simmons? Aye. Parker?


Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. The motion passes 8-0.


And Madam Clerk, if you could read the item number 22. Discussion and approval to establish an ordinance providing for the submission to the electors of the City of Freeport, Stevenson County, Illinois, a binding referendum question of whether to provide public funding for a 12-foot water main extension to open Bible daycare located at 3800 West Stevenson Street to be placed on the ballot at the April 1st, 2025, consolidated election.


Alderman Stacy, did you want to take this? This has been all over the place with information, truths and untruths, and at this point I feel that it's only fair and just that the people have say so over this project happening or or not.


If we have a million dollars to give a private organization, then I hope we can match that and our street fund. Our taxes went up one percent so that we could get streets fixed.


And are you saying that we have a million dollars somewhere that we can just give for or Project that should not be our responsibility.


I don't know. Do paperwork exist or if it don't exist? I guess that's neither here nor there anymore.


Mayor Goetz said it all when he came and he spoke at the mic and he indicated that nothing never came to the council.


Nothing hit the council floor. Nothing was addressed to the council. So if Open Bible really felt, wanted, expected the city to house this million dollar project, why didn't they come correct?


Why didn't they do right by the council? We didn't have city manager then. We was full-time mayor and council and that never happened and I just don't feel that tax dollars should be taken from our constituents to fund this project and I feel that the people and John, and I'm going to talk about the issues that people of Freeport should have say so in that matter.


» Okay. So there's a few things that I'd like to say on the topics that you just said. I have absolutely no idea what the untruths are. Maybe you could bring those to us so we could address whatever those might be because I don't know any of the untruths. And as far as people having a say so, that's the To hear what your constituents say and as far as giving private and a private organization a million dollars that's not true we're not handing them a million dollars we are obligated to our constituents that live within the city limits doesn't matter which side of town you live on if water is a need for you then we are obligated to say it's not our responsibility I don't believe that that's true and as far as tax dollars being taken we are working daily on trying to find funding so there's no tax dollars being taken this is no different than you know any street project out there you know any street project out there we're going to be spending over a million dollars on Carroll Street next year do you think that that should have to go to a referendum to see if the rest of the people want to do that so it the responsibility lies with the alderman to make the decisions of what's best for the whole the tax 1% tax was taken for our streets so we could do the carols, so we could do the locusts,


so we could do the air course, so we could do the Dewey. We were taxed for that.


This is not a community, this is a business. Actually, it's one business, 11 residents and Highland.


and Highland. However, the residents are not asking for this. You went from, you went from saying Water Main for Open Bible to now West of Steveson Street. No, let's just keep it real plain and simple. It's a Water Main you all want to put in Mann, Four, Open, Bible. Not the community, not the constituents, because they're not asking for nothing, Alderman, Klemm, well that might be a question to attorney Zito.


So, as far as the referendum question goes, one, let me answer the first question. Alderman, Stacy, you had asked what's the deadline for having the council adopt a resolution or ordinance in order to place a referendum question on the April 1st ballot.


The deadline is January 13th, 2025. Ok, so that's the deadline that the City Council, if you guys were to want to put something on the ballot, that's when we would have to adopt the resolution or ordinance by.


With regards to whether or not that referendum should be a binding referendum or an advisory referendum, the research that my office has done leads me to believe that this referendum would not be a binding referendum.


It could be an advisory referendum, but it would not be a binding referendum based off for the research that we've done as to what the case law and the statutes say.


So ultimately, if the council did want to put this to the people, it would just basically be to gauge the temperature of what the people want there, and then you guys would still make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with it or not there.


I know several hands went up. I'll just start over here. Alderman Parker will work right around.


One thing is this is something our city officials 25 years ago agreed to. The city was obligated.


and the City did nothing and now all of a sudden it's come up again and my concern is regardless of what we do here, if we don't commit what we're supposed to do and take care of City and people with their water where we supply the other 20,000 people, they're going to take it to court and we're going to have a judge no matter what we decide or the referendum, a judge is going to order us to do it anyway. So I think this is, it's sad, right, we don't and and 17. And there is a lot of room for daycare. And that's all walks of life. That's all people at Freeport. This is helping families who can't find daycare elsewhere. Daycare is one of the most expensive things out there for a family, a working family, to provide support for. And it's harder and harder every day. And we've got to do the things. Look, I hate this as much as you guys do. I wish it was done. I wish it was taken care of.


but it wasn't and I am disappointed that somebody's feet weren't held to the fire, excuse my connection here, sooner because this is something that should have been done and I asked a question many, many, a couple of years ago, where did all the money go over the last 30 years? And I've never gotten a good answer. Matter of fact, I'd like to see line items of where where the money was spent, but we only go back to about 2017. Before that, we can't even get accurate, clear information of where this money has been spent. And that's a problem.


And now we're going back 25 years, which who knows where documents and emails or whatever may have gone. But we have to look at, you know, this is a nonprofit. Am I right? This is a non-profit, is that? Yeah, right. So, you know, we're not talking about a pro-for-profit business. We've got another one on the west side of town that needs water, but that's a business, that's a profitable, profit business. This one is not, and this one really is geared toward children zero to five years of age, you know, that kindergarten, even up to fifth grade, and, you know, they really want to have more students come out there. I don't Fowler.


Or we really have to make a judgment. And quite honestly, I think if this goes to referendum or if it comes from this floor, the answer is going to be the same from the community.


Let's get this done. Let's figure this out. Let's find a way to make it happen and go from there.


Ms. Sellers? Oh, okay. No, I know that in the beginning I was more just trying to figure out the responsibilities of all the people that were supposed to take care of this 25 years ago and it didn't happen.


But I did go to Amity, I did go to and talk to different people that I knew in the community about the situation and I do agree it is children and it is families that need to have somewhere to take their children, and I do know that there's a lot of children that are on waiting lists to get into daycares.


So my first answer was, you know, what are they going to do to help us?


And I still would like to know, I mean, not Amity, but Open Bible also trying to look for financing to help with the situation, and I know that we already spent the $69,000 on putting the plan together, but I do know that it is something that we do need to have more daycares, and I do know talking with Ashley Harm that they would even like to build more on to Amity because they don't have the room.


So my heart would feel heavy knowing that these children don't have anywhere to go to be protected and have somewhere to be.


And I know a lot of people, that's what they came to me with, is where would the children go?


You know, where would these families have, you know, parents that, you know, you don't have anywhere to send your kids so you can't go to work.


So I do understand that. My big concern is I would also like to just see Open Bible do some type of also grant looking at to try to help us as the city.


So I am in agreement with us trying to help Open Bible and the other people that live on Stevenson Street to have the water so that they can have clean, fresh water like everybody else does.


I do understand the concern, so that's my point of view. Alderman Sanders? I just want to find out when does the city become liable to not-for-profit organizations.


I heard the testimonies and the reasons why, but we're not social workers. We're not the kind of organization or community who's going to put something in place and then Techs, the Tech Spears.


Peters, and put this burden on the taxpayers. And that's what the general conversation is considering without looking at the burden that the taxpayers have to endure when all of these things try to take place.


Now I can understand why the referendum was proposed because there's been a lot of negative understanding about how we should go about something that the taxpayers are not liable for and we're trying to dress it up as if though we don't know about the past 25 somewhat odd years that the city fire marshals have been put on notice to validate this place because they had been in violation. That's the whole purpose of us having this conversation.


If we're going to allow one organization to receive that kind of money for service rendered for a non-for-profit organization, even though I understand it's for the sake of the children and whatever the case may be. But everybody in the city don't have the same opinion as our council members does. And so the thing about it is we're going to exclude the opinions and the thoughts of the people, the constituents of the city, and then put ourself in a religious for all of the ones that are not part of non-for-profit, the ones that are not part of churches, one does not believe in the things that these types of organizations are doing, we're putting them in a situation making them liable to spend their tax dollars on a program that they're not in tune with. So, my thing is, if it's going to happen for one non-for-profit organization and other non-for-profit organizations want you to address their problems and issues in whatever the case is, are we going to be committed


to do that for these particular non-for-profit organization with taxpayers' dollars? And that's where I draw the line at because the city, from what I understood all the time that I've asked for support, I was told the city does not support Not-For-Profit Organization or any organization when it comes to funding for some entity.


Now, this is what I was told, and when I think about this, I'm saying to myself, well, I wanted to make an impact within the city, but the funding does not allow me to do that when I ask for donations from the city itself.


I can't even get a donation from the city to make an impact with all of the taxpayers who want to be a part of an event to make a difference within the city of Freeport.


Well, I was told, no, that cannot happen. Well, here we are again, someone coming to the podium asking for this kind of consideration.


and the first thing I'd like to know is, are we going to talk about all of the violations for years that this one particular organization had been involved in?


We never got around to any of those kinds of things and then for someone to present to the council as if though there's a paper trail that has been involved for I don't know how long, what we have not been introduced to these kinds of things there's no introduction to the paper trail of the liabilities first of all being discussed with the council the council has not discussed this matter fully and there's nothing to document it so my thing is which direction are we going with this because you can't do you can't do for one and can't do for the others and you can't take taxpayer's dollars to take and use it for non-for-profit organizations.


And I was told that you can't do that. And I'm sitting right here today wondering why we even have in this discussion. I would like for somebody to reverberate the fact that I couldn't do it for Mr. Sanders, why am I doing it for the Open Bible School? You know, if that is the case then we need to look at this thing a little bit closer because it bothers me and disturbs me if we decide or everybody is trying to voice their opinion about it and be swayed by the council to push this thing through because we're talking about over a million dollars of taxpayers' dollars and we cannot look our constituents in the and I and asked them, was that okay? Did you, how you feel about that? And that's the reason why the referendum was proposed to give the people the majority to look at the situation here and hear the thing out because everybody in the city does not see the views and the opinions of everybody in the council. That's, that's...


Okay, so I'm going to try to answer what I think you're asking. So we cannot and will will not show favoritism towards one entity. We will treat every single one alike when every constituent, every existing business, however you want to look at that, is responsible for taking the line to the water main and then they are responsible in hooking that up. It is no different. So that is what they would be responsible for. So we are not treating them differently. We are not handing them a million dollars.


and others. Yeah, that's what we're doing. No, we're not. Your argument fails on that point.


No, we're not handing them a million dollars. We are obligated to all constituents to provide water.


Because the taxpayers have not had a say so in the matter. Well, their say so comes to you standing for whatever they have.


And we're arguing, we're having this argument for the constituents of the City of Freeport So they know that we're in correspondence with the laws of this city and how we conduct ourselves when it comes to doing one for one and one for the other, differently for the others.


Yeah, this is what the argument is. And if we're saying that, well, it's okay for us to just chunk out a million dollars to run a...


Well, we're not. So, Darren, you want to say something? It's my turn, yes. Well, I just want to bring this back to what I think is a common grounder clarification.


Two years ago, we replaced all the water main on Laurel Street from Park up to Lincoln Douglas School.


It was bad. And that project was a million dollars. And it was defective water main that was aged.


And so nobody had a problem with that project. That's feeding water within our... We've been doing this for the last 7 years in town.


Next year we're going to replace more water main this defective, Black Hawk Street. We're going to replace Carroll Street.


We're going to replace Willow. We've done some water main on Dewey Street. It's our responsibility as a community to provide the public water service to our constituents.


We are not just supplying a line to Open Bible. They happened to be a result no different than Lincoln Douglas School being able to have the water supply.


If the main wasn't there, they wouldn't have been able to have it either. So, I don't, it doesn't bother me either way.


I'm just throwing facts out there. The facts are that we build mains throughout town within the city limits to provide service in the city limits.


If a business went out next to Open Bible, we would not let them drill a well.


It's against our code. So what will we do at that point? We still have to provide the water main on the street or the sewer main to get to those locations and they are within the city limits.


So while this is a bad pill to swallow, this is the point of doing main replacement all over town.


It's an investment, it's a costly investment and it takes lots of time to get back.


That investment is no different if it's on Carroll Street, if it's on Laurel Street, if it's on Stevenson Street, or any other street in town.


it's the same dollar of investment. We're gonna move on to Alderman Shadle, it's his turn.


Thank you. Shadle. It's his turn. Thank you. I had a question. I've been waiting patiently, Mr. Sanders. I'm going to ask you to just sit back for a minute. That might be true, but I had a follow-up. Okay, Alderman Shadle has the floor. Well, what's going to happen to my follow-up? It's Alderman Shadle's floor. First off, I have talked to one of the homeowners out there that will get and others from this and he was adamant that he would be the first one to hook up.


Looking back 25 years, that church did absolutely everything that the City of Freeport asked them to do to get their building permit.


They were told if they were going to build that church, they had to put in a sprinkler Taylor, Joshua, DeFrancisco, Chip, John, I can't remember the name, but it was in the 20s and 30s when they started to put in the water system, and they wrote the check. Have no idea for a fact what money they spent, but I'm guessing probably 20, $30,000 that they put out. And we can try to put blame on who said what, but at the end of the day, Simple, they not only put it in, they put the run to the right away, it's ready for the city to hook up. They did absolutely everything they were asked to do. Somehow you're thinking that they should have been knocking at our door, maybe they should have. But at the end and others.


At the end of the day, somebody here told them that they were going to get water and they didn't get it and nobody here took care of that.


What it all comes down to is we're sitting here and it's up to us.


It should have been taken care of 25, 20, 15, 10, it should have been taken care of, but it wasn't and here we are and we have a responsibility and I feel we have an obligation and we need to get it done.


Darin, every example you gave was replacement defected water mains. This is not a replacement.


And last week, you made a comment that was unfair. If it was on the other side of town, would we even be having this conversation?


and others. Alderman Parker, not a city official, community development person, not someone that had authority to even say or shake hands, again, why didn't they bring it to the council?


If they were going to do right by the city and expected the city to do right by them, why didn't they come forward and ask the city?


Now all you hear about, what about the kids? What about the kids? What about the kids 25 years ago?


I've worked with kids at the Freeport School District for 20 years, yeah! What about the kids?


Williams. Why are they even still out there? Why haven't they made arrangements with ACWIN or somewhere to get the kids out there and still give them what they need? They're still in danger. There was a letter that was rejecting the This is happening by Blackburn, who came and had his say last week, but he didn't talk about that, he didn't talk about him rejecting it, but he did.


There's a church on Pleasant and Galena and Amity was supposed to move in that church and and open up a daycare. However, all that was denied because the water sprinkler isn't compliant.


So watch what you're saying. What you do for one, are you willing to do for another?


You do know that we aren't responsible to put in a sprinkler, right? Alderman Getz came here and he spoke and he said there is no legal binding contract, nothing that holds the city responsible. Blackburn said, oh, I remember the handshake. Okay, you remember the handshake. A handshake don't make the city responsible. And what is the The fear in giving the constituents the say-so.


This is their tax dollars. I guess I'd like to say I understand, but I think everybody that came tonight was for helping open Bible and we didn't have anyone that came to say no, so I guess that's me.


I guess I look for if the people have something to say, I mean just like we do or the people that are out there now, I think they should have came and said something, you know, that it's not right or we shouldn't do it. But like I said, my second thought after talking with a lot of people, you know, they understood the process. So I don't see anyone here that is out in the audience or came or said anything that are saying no. You know, I guess if I heard some people saying, you know, no to the project, I guess I would have a different take on it, but I don't see anyone that has come to say no. So I guess that's what I would like to, you know, I would like to have some people say that, you know, that think it's wrong or think we shouldn't do it. So I haven't, all the people that I've talked to and made conversation with, as long as they can make the connection and we can make our connection, and I guess I know it's 25 years and I hate it because it probably would have been way cheaper 25 years ago, but hey, this is where we're at now and I just.


Alderman Klemm. that we do or do not okay so is there a second to that okay is that So the agenda item was to discuss and approve to establish an ordinance providing the submission.


So this was really just about giving direction, right? This is actually not to put it on the...


and not to put it on the, to put it on, authorize to put it on the, the, the ballot.


Well, because we don't even have the, the ordinance or resolution drafted. Right? So, this would now, right, so, though I would frame it in the same way that it's on the agenda.


So, I would frame it in the positive, the way that Alderman Stacy had it, so if she She wanted to make the motion to put it to a vote, and then if you were in favor of it, you would vote yes.


If you were not in favor of having it go to refer, then you would vote no.


So it's basically the same thing, just different wording. Correct. You always want to phrase in the positive.


So how do we handle this with the motion that's on the table with the second?


I heard Alderman Klemm make the motion. Yeah, and Alderman Parker seconded it. Oh. So it's basically the same thing.


Just a twist in the wording. I guess Alderman Klemm, would you have any objection to phrasing your motion in the affirmative?


That's the opposite of what he's asking. He wants it to know. Okay. Well, that's fine.


I mean, it's just a best practice to frame in the positive, so you don't, it's not a rule.


right yeah right I get I get what you're where you're going with it so do you want to keep your motion and it's just voted on in an opposite thought I mean there's nothing it's not like it's voting on an ordinance it's just it basically is, are we moving this forward or are we not?


Putting it on an agenda, I mean, we're putting it up for a voter. Not actually against that, I'm just saying it's wrong.


Correct. If she wants to make a motion to move it forward, fine, but let's go ahead and get it over with.


Alderman Stacy, are you willing to make your motion to have this placed on an agenda, to I would like to have a resolution placed on the agenda to put this to the vote of the people.


I would like to make a motion. Alright, so Alderman Klemm, Alderman Stacey is willing to make the motion.


So are you withdrawing your motion then? Okay, Alderman Parker, are you going to withdraw your second?


Alright, so Alderman Stacey, if I understand right, you're making a motion to instruct staff to prepare a resolution or ordinance to have the question of whether or not to extend the water main place on the ballot at the April 1st election, correct? Is there a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right, let's put it to a Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe.


The motion fails 2 to 6. Move on to Item Number 23, which is Reports of Department Heads, Finance.


Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you. Community Development. Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Public Works.


I'd just like to tell you that at the end of the season here, we will have paved 7.5 miles of roads this year.


Hydrant flushing started today, will last about three weeks, and leaf pickup starts on November 1st.


Thank you. Fire. Nothing this evening. Thank you. Nothing from the police madam mayor. Thank you library nothing tonight, and I'm guessing communication. It doesn't have anything IT We move on to city managers report nothing to you nothing tonight your honor, and I have nothing to report so we'll move on to Alderman Simmons Alderman Parker nothing Alderman Stacy? No. Alderman Shadle? Nothing. Alderman Sanders is not at his desk. Alderman Sellers? No. Alderman Klemm? No. Alderman Monroe? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm good.


We'll go on to item number 27, which is public comment. Tommy? Say something positive, Tommy.


I don't know what happened there. I hear there was an issue with some some of their equipment, so hopefully soon.


I think Jodi Dickman knows the update. I know everything Tommy. Is there any other public comments this evening?


and we will move on to adjournment. Is there such a motion? So moved. All those in favor? Simmons? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Is absent. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? He might be absent too. Monroe? Aye. Thank you.