Why would that matter? It had went past that step. It had went to another level by two different people. So why would that have mattered?


I just felt disrespected. I felt like my opinion and what I asked for and what we all took a vote for, 7-0, I believe Alderman Monroe was missing that, that it should have been acknowledged and should have been granted. Because regardless of who puts on or who takes off, just like and I. And I said no, I want it on January's COW. And I've been told over and over again that as long as two people bring it, that anything can be on an agenda. So two people brought it. And it should have been respected.


Well, and that's why it's on now, because two people have asked to have it on, so that's why it was put back on, because you and Alderman Monroe have asked for it to be put back on, and that's fine, you can always do that there, and that's an accurate statement, that our ordinances say that any two Alderpersons can have an item added to the agenda.


But for the 16th, seven people, seven people agreed to bring it. and I think that to have further discussion on it and the difference being is that at that point though, the proponents of the ordinance in the first place asked to have it withdrawn.


So the that's that's the difference here. You know, so I give the example that when an applicant, a citizen says applies for a text amendment to change the code, right, to change the zoning code or whatever it is that can go through Zoning Board of Appeals.


it can come to committee. Committee can say we vote to move it forward to first reading.


If prior to first reading or even prior to second reading, the applicant says, guess what?


My application, I withdraw my application. Typically that item then is just removed from the agenda without the council saying, you know, okay, we officially allow for it to be removed, you know, your application to be withdrawn.


It's usually just withdrawn. But that involved one person, this involved eight. I suppose, well, it involved, I suppose the proponents of the ordinance originally, there was more than one person there, asked for it to be withdrawn.


I suppose ultimately, to clarify, if you know, if this is what the council wants to say that hey, whenever anything is moved forward to council, even if it's subsequently withdrawn or the person, you know, drops it, you know, doesn't want it anymore, that will still hear the, you know, put it on the agenda and the council can then be informed of the fact that, hey, such and such is withdrawing the motion and then you guys can say, okay, well, if you're withdrawing the motion, then there's no, you know, or you're withdrawing the topic, then there's no really a need to discuss it anymore unless someone else wants to keep, you know, if you want to discuss it, you can have it placed back on, right? You know, because that's the difference here is that the original group, that wanted it put forward they said we don't want it anymore we don't you know we don't feel the need to move forward with those proposed changes there now if you want to put forward to say hey well I still want to talk about some changes maybe not those changes I you know maybe I didn't agree with those changes but I want some other changes made to this this rules of council then just like our one it says two people put it on and you guys can move forward with then you know and so on.


So, whatever changes that you guys want, they are sold. Are there any other questions?


Is this something that you want to read in, you want to take a note?


I don't know. Okay. We'll move. Oh. Oh. We can move it to the... Nobody's made a motion to move it.


Oh, okay. Right. I'm saying it. Now, the group that wanted this draft here withdrew that prior to the December whatever.


Now if Alderman, Stacy, and whoever else, if you guys have other changes, like your own changes that you want to make to that section, we can put, we can do that.


My purpose for bringing it here tonight was to get clarity on why it was not on the December 16th agenda when it was voted on and passed to be.


and the response to that is because the proponents of the original proponents of the ordinance asked to have it withdrawn.


They didn't want to even, they didn't want to put forth those suggestions anymore. And I still feel that once, once I asked for it and it was seconded that it was no longer at that level and that if indeed that was, was going to happen, which is what did happen, It would have been respectful to inform Rachel and I, Alderman Simmons and I, what you were doing instead of just not doing it like we were going to forget and not remember or not know.


Alderman Rowe? Yeah. Whatever. Discussion on it? No. Moving on. Not at this time. Okay.


Yeah. Okay. We'll move on to item number 16. Discussion regarding electric bill provider of kilowatt hours, distribution fees, and the process for residents to switch to a different provider.


Alderman Stacy Monroe again. Yes. So, gentleman came here and he proposed some rates. Could you help me with his name, Manager Boyer, or the company?


Company. It's Mike Mudge with Rock River Energy, but that's the Generation Aggregation Contract that's different than the increase changes recently, just for him.


Okay. So he came here and he presented some numbers to us, we all received this in the mail and you either had to act out using this company or you automatic was switched and then he came back about oh I don't know six to eight weeks later and because rates were going up he could not guarantee us at the original quote am I correct it is however we have there's not oh no the rate is not going up I'm sorry no no no he he questioned if they would be able to meet what they had told us the first time and we discussed I because rates were going up not their rates they didn't know. Well this is about generation and on the generation side they weren't sure what was going to happen with the ICC ruling coming down the pike so they were expressing their nervousness about being able to fulfill the aggregation contract that we had bid and accepted and that has to do with generation. We could not we could not


not canceled the contract, they would have to drop us. We couldn't drop them. Yeah, offhand since I didn't realize the direction of this conversation and I guess I don't have everything I need to adequately.


He gave us three different options. Yes, he did. Long story short, my phone have been blowing up because people feel like their electric bills are higher than ever before and they don't want to stay with this company.


they want to go back to their original holders. If they were on an original aggregation contract with the previous AEP, that contract lapsed and then we re-bid it with, so if they were on ComEd previously, they can go back to ComEd and that's fine.


when they call ComEd they're being told that the company you signed with has to release you.


ComEd can't just switch them over. So they should just call Mike Mudd, they should call Rock River Energy to get that moving forward.


No. He doesn't want them calling him, I've already been told that. I'm sorry, Nordic, thank you Dovie.


But we do need information available to the constituents so that they can have the correct and Dr.


Jodi. And that's what the purpose of this was for here tonight. To inform the people of the number they need to call if they want to switch back to comment so that they're not being tossed to and fro and getting nowhere.


Where? What was in your contract? It was in your contract when you made that decision on if you wanted to stay or if you wanted to go. Alderman Sellers. Yeah, go ahead. So, so one of the things and I think this is where the concern and the fusions coming from. A lot of people submitted the form saying they were opting out. Now they're being told they never received the letter. They're not able to opt out. So they're stuck in this no man's land between Nordic and ComEd. Thank you. And they're and others, and I'm looking to us to assist them or figure out a way to get out of this agreement with Nordic.


Yeah. I feel the same sentiments that you guys are feeling because I called them.


I called them directly. And when I was looking at my utility bill, their service, Davis, whatever they're supposed to be providing was not part of my subsidy or my letter stating that I'm using Nordic, Nordic is, but Kamea charged me because they did not comply with Kamea.


Kamea had no idea that that should have been implemented to my electric bill, so I called Nordic, and they're scrambling trying to get the right information to me and telling me that they're going to take care of it. Well, I'm going to look at my bill of this year, this month, and see if their name is on there, see if there's any adjustments being made because they gave me sure numbers that would benefit me, and I have not seen that yet.


So, yeah, there's something nefarious going on there and I'd like to know what it is myself.


We can follow up on that. So how can we get the people this information?


Is it something that can go on the city's website? Yes, we will basically get with Mike, address the concerns that you've expressed tonight, put together a statement, we can push that out on social media, then we can get with Smith, also to ensure some of the customers aren't confused because there was an increase on their distribution and green energy portion of their bill. So to ensure that we're actually talking apples to apples here, they may be confused because just recently the ICC approved an increase going forward, which was pretty substantial on the portion of their bill that's not related to the generation. It's related to distribution and so on. So as long as we're We're talking about the same thing here? Yes.


Are there any other questions? If we could, I'm just trying to confuse things more here. Not actually, but as you mentioned, there's an upcharge on the distribution side and that kind of stuff. Well, Mr. Galrabs here, could he explain that so we know what's there, or an estimate of what's there, so So we know there's issues on that side. When you get done with dealing with one part of it, you know what the other charge is.


Let's start with Nordic Energy. Their phone number for customer service is 877-808-1022. So and when people call to opt out at this late date they want to make sure that there's no type of administrative fee attached to it. Some of these companies do have it. It should have been on the contract whether or not they had it. I checked with City Manager on that. As far as ComEd's concerned, you'll see a rate increase for because we're the suppliers or we're the distribution side, we're the wires and the poles. We take the energy and bring it to your so you have Nordic who supplies your energy and ComEd who delivers it to your home.


Has ComEd fees went up since September? I believe January 1st they went up slightly, but the main increase will be June 1st of 2025.


Can I get that information to you? Fees, yep. Okay. It's been a two-year process with the ICC that we've had a multi-year grid plan in place to make sure that the grid is sustainable we are the number one company electric company in the nation right right now so some of the state senators and in represented this question why we want to continue to put money into our system and we want to stay number one we want to make sure that you have your power we see a lot more people working and others.


We're working in their homes, a lot more electricity being used, and we want to make sure we maintain the system itself.


Nobody likes an increase, even myself, even though I work for ComEd, but if you want to maintain things and have good reliable service, we have to continue to take care of our grid, which we do.


Thank you. Okay? I have a question. Debbie? Oh, Debbie. Switching from Nordic to ComEd will not necessarily lower their electric bill significantly.


I looked up the rates. Nordic is... Do you have them? Yeah, I think Nordic is at 6.399.


0.08315? Yeah, that's a little bit different than I have. So, I think we're within one hundredth of a penny.


What is ComEd right now? I believe within one hundredth of a penny compared to Nordic.


Of what? A penny. From the rate you said? yeah they had three nine six point three nine nine and then we were six point four and you were six point four yeah and that that is lower than Nordic but Nordic will stay at that contracted rate for three years and ComEd can fluctuate right up and down correct correct and the electrical supply is not the largest part of the bill no I don't believe so it just depends on who you use yeah so So that's the apples and apples that Manager Boyer was talking about.


But you would really like to have Mike Mudge come here and talk to your, talk to the Council again.


I think that would be, he's been a proven person as far as getting great rates since I was Mayor.


We were the first administration to have an aggregation. Saved everybody about $300 a year.


So it just depends on where your supplier is. So, it's tough right now, though. It's difficult right now with electrification and how much energy is being used.


Okay. All right. Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Any other discussion? If not, we'll move to 17.


The discussion and explanation of a fast track demo process presented by Stacy and Monroe, are you doing the presentation?


No. No. No, we're going to we're going to start off with trying to understand, you know, kind of the process for a fast track demolition.


There's not a lot of information online that we have. If you have. Awesome. Awesome. So, who's doing the presentation? Oh. Okay, thank you Alderperson Monroe, Alderperson Stacy. Starting off here just going back this was in April 28th of 2023. I'm pulling this from we had an orientation so it's just kind of a little background and when I kind of talked about this in the past it's kind of a little bit of a refresher. So I talked about in that orientation kind of the four main areas my department works in code enforcement planning and zoning building code this is all general but a property then would have one week to address a violation at that point a property with issue to citation with an


associated hearing date and a little background there is anybody who receives gets to step three we have a hearing officer you're given a date I always consider it similar to traffic court but it's not it's it's an administrative hearing process and essentially at this point this is At that point, when you're at one of these hearings, a fine would be issued.


The next two steps are how you eventually get to fast track demolition here. Chronic nuisance is the big step here before you get to fast track demolition.


Chronic nuisance means you get three of these violations in a six month period. So you have to have three judgments in a six month period to be declared a chronic nuisance.


All of the fast track demolitions that I have processed have gone through this chronic nuisance process first.


And then finally, we get to this fast track demolition process. When I was speaking back in 2023, one of the process, one of the points I mentioned was that my department, one of the goals when I took over the apartment in 2022 was to increase code enforcement.


So, as you can see, these are the years here, and this is kind of cumulatively how many code enforcement cases, inspections, hearings we've had, and I was really proud of the team, as you can see here in 2022, and it's carried on into 2023 as well, we really increased the number of inspections, which that leads to, ultimately at that time when I was talking about it, is it leads to higher chronic nuisance cases, and then eventually and more fast-track demolitions, which ultimately gets you to more blight remediation, which is in line with our strategic plan.


I mean, I'll get there later, but kind of go forward here. So won't get on too much about chronic nuisance, but want to kind of talk about it a little bit here.


Three violations in a six-month period. It requires a judgment from a hearing officer. So again, these cases go due process is important.


A hearing officer has to declare a property a chronic nuisance. City can be granted authority to take action, remove garbage and debris, demolish a structure, could also, big one here is this $100 a day.


So when you get to this point, that judge is going to give you $100 a day.


and that tends to lead properties into high liens, etc. And then what I talk about is that in 2023 we had 20 fast track demolitions.


So this is kind of what I talked about when I was going through our orientation for that year.


So now we talk about fast track demolition. Again, kind of what I talked about when you saw that ladder there, it is the last resort in the process.


and John. It essentially means you've gone through at least, you know, three code enforcement cases, you had a judgment for chronic nuisance, and now you're at a part for fast-track demolition.


So why did I come here? I created this slide here to kind of say, okay, I see the numbers, we see the statistics, we've seen the process, but why do fast-track demolition?


Why have it? I thought it was a good point. I think when we came up with a strategic plan, I really did appreciate Alderperson Monroe says, well, I don't want to pay for a strategic plan that is just simply put on a memo and nobody does anything with it, right?


Why just have a strategic plan if you're not going to run departments behind a strategic plan?


So I kind of tied here how fast-track demolitions are tied to the strategic plan in the sense Smith, and John, and I'm going to start with a couple of things.


One of our major goals, one of our major strategic initiatives here, safe and inclusive community. One of our key strategies here is to ensure that neighborhood buildings are well kept improving safety by expanding enforcement time for code enforcement team, increasing penalties, continue funding, and implementation of demolition blight reduction My department is essentially judged by making sure that I keep our neighborhoods safe by remediating blights. So while we're getting into the technicalities of how this works, why do it? Well, this is why we're doing it. And all of our council members put into this plan and agreed upon this plan. All right, so now this is where it gets to be, I would say, a little bit and I have a little bit more in depth granular, but I've highlighted some important parts.


This is a statute that the city enacts. So property has to be three stories or less.


The corporate official designated to be in charge of enforcing the Municipalities Building Code, that's me, is in charge of enforcing the Building Code and determines that the and others.


The building is open and vacant, an immediate continuing hazard to the community in which the building is located.


Then the officials shall be authorized to post a notice no less than two feet by two feet in size on the front of a building.


Practically speaking, this is what you'll see as an orange sign put on the building.


Next step would be you have to do three types of notices in addition to the building.


Do, the Posted Notice, Certified Mail, Newspaper Published, and then you have to record a notice at your Recorder's Office.


So looking up here, I'm just highlighting in other parts as a municipality may proceed to demolish, and I'm just reading the highlighted parts here for a fact here of what we're essentially talking about.


Under this subsection, within a 120-day period following the date of the mailing of the notice, if the appropriate official determines that the demolition is necessary to remedy an immediate and continuing hazard.


So that basically says once the letter is mailed and the 30-day period has lapsed for an injunction, the city has 120 days from that mailing period to demolish the structure.


Following and another important part here is following demolition, the municipality may May, File a Notice of Lean Against the Real Estate for the Cost of the Demolition.


So oftentimes, another part that's been tasked with my department is being stronger on property owners.


We're talking about, you know, why aren't we holding people accountable? Why aren't we holding people accountable?


Fast-track demolition is a means to hold problem property owners accountable. And how is it?


Well, essentially, once that demolition is performed, the city can then put a lien against and the property.


So our department takes that information and kind of puts it into this flow chart here.


And it makes all of that language and legalese a little bit, that statute a little bit easier to understand.


So you start with a building that is three stories or less in height. It's got to be open and vague and it has to be an immediate and continuing hazard.


and I talk about posting the notice on the building. We have 30 days to do our three notices here.


And then in 30 days, we talk about, hey, has an objective been filed? If yes, then we stop this fast track demolition.


If no, we demolish the structure. And then in 180 days, Miller, and then in 180 days, we record a lien or have the ability to record a lien.


And so that concludes the process. Is there other, I mean, maybe we'll put the slideshow back on in case they have some questions? Are there any questions or do you guys want to take this to a private? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Who? Oh, no, I do have questions. I do.


so I've actually got several questions so as we've seen in in many City Council meetings I just want to keep that on case you had a question on that yeah many City Council meetings that come you come along with City Manager to the council asking for money to be appropriated to tear down specific houses okay so why Why are these different than those instances and why not just hold that money back for these fast-track demolitions?


Well, there's a couple different reasons there. I mean, there is a time period on fast-track demolitions of 120 days.


But I'm also trying to understand, I'm genuinely trying to understand your question here. So we're talking about the fast-track process.


So I'm really genuinely just trying to understand your question so I can answer it appropriately.


Well, my question is, is why don't you come to council for these types of demolitions?


That makes sense. So when I go to a slide here, and on this, this is directly from the statute.


It talks about how the corporate official designated to be in charge of enforcing the municipality's building code determines that a building is open and vacant and an immediate Hazzard to the community which the building is located then the official shall be authorized to post the notice and you know on a two-by-two sign and then it goes on to the duties. Gotcha. So that's... So I'm gonna come back at you to different ones. So why on a house that you fast-track demolition you've put these notices up you then go back to that person and say no you cannot have a permit to correct the issues that are outstanding? Sure. That's you most of the Time, and I could show in specific cases, and I think one of our people here, I think was Miss Altman had stated, oftentimes when these buildings are up, the structures are deemed dangerous and unsafe. Oftentimes we get a dangerous and unsafe designation at the chronic nuisance hearing.


So when a building is considered dangerous and unsafe, at that point, the city is going to So, the goal is that the State Department to get out of a structure and also the City Department to require that you have a structural engineer approve the plans to save this structure.


And if they don't provide that, the City will not move forward with a permit.


That is not going to happen. to move forward with a permit and that happens. It's stated in our code that the department rule require that and it's also common practice in many municipalities.


So once you get that engineering letter saying that it's safe and that it should be remedied and you continue forward with the demolition, is that a normal practice?


Well I've yet to I'll be honest with you I've yet to see an actual engine when I've been in these processes and I've been in this faster I've done a process several of them here I've yet to seen us I've yet to see a satisfactory architect or engineer come in and provide plans stating that demolition you know or stating that they have the plans to reconstruct the property I've yet to see one I've definitely seen people say a contractors you know might Right, right, a letter, but ultimately when you're dealing with fire damage, you're dealing with age, you're dealing with termite damage, you're dealing with immense water damage on these structures, I am going to require a full analysis from an architect or structural engineer to protect the safety of the people who live in that building, because ultimately there are situations where not only can a city be liable, but the actual head of the apartment can be liable if somebody gets hurt and dies on a permit, allowing somebody to build something that somebody falls and dies in or collapses and dies.


I'll be honest. I've gone back and I've looked at some of the houses that you fast-track demolitioned and I have seen significantly worse around this town and I'm really questioning right now if this is the right rules.


and I think no well I mean it is the correct rules this is from the statute but I mean we go back to and we're not following them okay that's fair I mean if you think that they're not being followed I mean I will certainly listen I'm listening with all ears and there's also do there's also due process and anybody here who has had a fast track demolition is certainly welcome and I've spoken with them and provided resources that says if you feel Scott, Alderman would, I wish I could believe you, I understand, I understand the lack of trust.


Aldermen Jadle? Yes, thank you. The thing we need to consider is you're emphasizing on what happens after they've had three violations in six months and have been in front of a judge.


That happened three times in six months before he can get to that point. It's three judgments plus an additional judgment for the chronic nuisance.


So they've been aware of this. But if you can't get the permit. I think I have the floor, sir.


Yeah, you do. And if you haven't got it in your head after four times coming in here and speaking with with a judge, then I don't know what argument you have.


Thank you. So we'll go down this road, and I can show images of the property in concern.


I can show text messages from city employees to an individual sitting in this audience tonight whose house and property were taken and torn down.


and the problem is that people like you don't have a heart and care about the citizens of this city and it's based on the color of that person's skin and I know I have the floor I don't care I will show you the house I don't care if you like what I say or not what I'm saying is the fact and the truth no no no no no no don't correct my speech and I'm not hollering. I got hollered out. I've got the floor. I'm telling you right now. This is appalling to me.


Appalling. That we would go in and tear a property down that's got a better roof, got better outside exterior.


I can pull up the images still on Google Earth. I can walk through it. I can look at it.


I've seen pictures on the inside. And I've got, and I drive down Brown, 26th, on West Ave, and I've got roofs collapsing, porches collapsing, and those buildings are still there, and we're fast-tracking this young lady's house.


For what? Well, I can answer some of that. Number one, if there's any properties, and I've sat down with many community groups, community leaders, if there's properties that are a concern, I will listen, I will take them, and I will work them through due process.


So that's number one. if there's properties with concern, we will address it. I can assure you of that.


I will work it through due process. But I'm sure you're talking about the next agenda item, which is discussion regarding demolition of 404 East Shawnee.


If that's what we're talking about, we can move on to that agenda item whenever you're ready.


We can go right into that. But I believe Mr. Alderperson Klemm had a question, but whenever you're ready, fully prepared to talk about that property as well.


Well, then let's move on and let let's let Alderman Klemm. Yeah, I just I just like to say sorry.


What do you have to say? Nothing, nothing now. But yes, I'm sorry. I can't I can't see well that way.


I flagged you three times. I'm not a flagger. But anyway, do you have something you need?


No. Yeah, OK. OK, well, then we'll move on to Alderman Klemm, because I just like getting We're working up that this is not the only place in the town, whether it be 404 or whether it be whatever, I'm working through a process of four houses in the first ward, three of them owned by one woman, one of them owned by another person, all are vacant houses that nobody lives in, the city mows them for them, sends them a bill, tries to lien their property and all that kind of stuff, and we finally got them on the $100 a day fine.


that had three houses, wrote out a check for five. and others, and we have a number of our three houses that are still in violation at $100 a day.


And when we got a van moved out of one of the houses, the guy next door, the house sits in between a business and his house.


It's so overgrown, you can hardly see the house. The business sent me a text and said, thank you for getting that van moved, it's only taken me ten years to do it.


So that gives you an idea how long these properties have been not mowed, gone before a hearing judge, and to go into this whole fast track deal.


It isn't just one house here. There's plenty of them around. Thank you. Do you have anything you want to say?


I just want to ask a question in regards to a home that's been sitting for over ten years probably.


and my recollection is the last time I drove by it was still there boarded up and things of this nature and when I looked at the property of 404 East Shawnee I'm just wondering if that's the same property now I'm looking at the property on Shawnee on the north side of the street of Benton which is on the east side of the street of Benton so it's the northeast corner and I'm just, the reason why I'm asking is because it's been there so long, there's no fast track involved that that property is still sitting there and then we need an explanation because it's a definite nuisance, it's an eyesore in the community, have we paid any attention to that particular property and what are we doing about it because I don't know if it's in the bracket of homelessness This one needs to be demoed. It's a great question to ask. And off the top of my head, I don't have my system here. Right. To know what the status is of that actual property. However, many of the other people here have worked with me, and I would say probably all of them have called me and or I will return their calls and they'll say Okay, here's the property, what can you tell me? And where are we at? And I will do that for y'all the person Sanders we can sit down and talk about that property and I can provide updates.


in a very bad area, I'm not going to say neighborhood, but in a very bad area, and it's been sitting there for over 10 years, boarded up, and I'm quite sure we have those two foot signs, whatever, but I don't see a two foot demo sign for that property. I'm just wondering why is that, why is that possible?


I can sit, I can meet with the Alderperson Sanders and get that figured out.


We'll move on to, is there any other questions? If not, we'll move on to 18, the discussion regarding demolition of 404 East Shawnee, including personal property missing and reports stolen by the demolition company presented by Alderman Stacy and Monroe.


So I'll start with this. You know, I understand now kind of who you know, the authority and why it was done. But I will I will question. So number one, you know, who authorizes the company that tore the building down to remove property from the location, as well, then if it's unsafe, why were they in there, not just demo it? And, and who goes through that process?


Sure. I presented a little process here for preparing something for a show. I knew this was a question to be asked.


Lots of questions about this property and its demolition. You know, in the future, I saw that this was put on I think on a Friday.


Today you called me, I was able to get some information for you. I'm always here to go over this in person.


So, if you ever want to talk about something like this again, just call me up.


Call me up. I've met with Alderperson Stacy plenty of times. I can always talk in person for more detail, but I really wanted to make sure that I met, you know, you had questions on this property, so I kind of wanted to go through it here. This is a picture, we timestamp our pictures. This is a picture of the property on September 3rd, 2024. So I'm going to go over, kind of show some pictures, and then go over the history of this property. This picture was taken April 17th of 2024. Obviously, I put this on here because there was questions about whether there are holes in the building, yes.


Were there problems with the roof, yes. This is, I just wanted to show some evidence there.


Pictures of the outside, were there issues with the foundation, yes. This would require a structural analysis and a permit to move forward.


A couple more pictures here, more of the back of the house, issues with the back of the house here.


Again, time stamps, our inspectors time stamp all pictures. Moving on to the inside of the house.


As you can see in this picture, it might be a little difficult. But you can see here, this was taken October 10th.


And it gives the address here. And it kind of shows what's being taken picture here, drywall.


And it says here, fireplace. One of the issues in this building is work being done without a permit.


And so we're going to get to the three permits that were pulled. but one of the issues here is that in the permit, when I start to talk about the permits, which is later on in my presentation, one of the issues with this drywall here is that had this, this would be eventually pulled or torn off because we would need to see the exhaust in this fireplace or also need to see connections to a fireplace.


So if you cover up, that's anybody in the city of Freeport or any municipality for that matter in Illinois, when you start drywalling before you move forward and the proper steps in an inspection, you do have to take that off so that you can make sure that the exhaust and everything coming out of natural gas connections are done correctly.


So I wanted to show time stamped, time date material to put people's minds at ease that hey, this happened, these pictures took place, due process happened.


So I'm going to keep moving forward. Another picture here, this is another picture here of some of the drywall that was installed.


and the rest of us here again October 10th drywall living room again showing pictures you can't see great in here but you could see going looking at the outside of the building you could see holes or protrusions where people are entering the city has received multitude of complaints which I will get into about people breaking and entering into this into this property vacant property So, one of the questions that has been brought up by several people is, kind of, who owns this property? Who owns it, right? Who actually owns this property?


So, this is what's known, I'm doing a little title history here, of like, who owns, of who owns a property.


So, this information here comes from our tax assessor. In 2016, the property was sold from this person to the Freeport Habitat for Humanity.


Okay. Habitat for Humanity bought this house for $2,000. It was my understanding that when Habitat for Humanity bought it, the property had been sitting in a poor condition, I believe since 2010 circa. It was long standing when Habitat for Humanity had bought it for $2,000. So then, When looking at the title history, in 2017, the Habitat for Humanity quit claims of property to Raven.


So then the question becomes, well, what's the connection between Raven and IKEA? Taking some information from a summary report interview that's conducted by City Fire Marshal Hilary Broschus on December 19th of 2021. This is regarding two arson cases on the property from from that year and so this information was taken from that interview and in that property it says she, meaning Akia Sanders, advised that she and Raven were the sole owners of the property.


She stated that they purchased the home for $2,000 from Habitat for Humanity. There is no mortgage on the property.


Akia advised that there is not any insurance on the home. She commented that she did not think she could get insurance on the home due to the current state of it.


This is important, very important information to have because when we're considering dangerous Davis, and Unsafe Structures not having insurance is a death sentence for our community.


What happens when kids go in there and they hurt themselves? Where are they going to get there?


What's going to happen? What happens when people fight a fire and they burn? This house has no insurance, which really adds to how scary it is to have these properties in our community.


Okay. So, still looking on to who owns the property. When this thing, when this property was eventually going through the fast-track demolition process, Raven quick claims the property to Tiffany Sanders, which I believe, from what I understand to be, um, Ms. Akia Sanders, um, sister, and that, excuse me, that happened on June 7th of 2024.


So the title to Ms. Sanders was gone in June. So that, you know, I know you had stated it was her property. It's no longer her property. It's now her sister's property.


But moving forward, the county will soon be taking this property for back taxes. So they've not, they not only do not, they not only not paid insurance, they've not paid their taxes.


Taxes. So in 2024, Liz Pendens, which is a fancy way for saying a notice.


C. Way for saying a notice, they're basically saying on December 9th of 2024, in June they're going to be taking ownership of Ms. Tiffany Sanders' property for back taxes.


So if the taxes aren't paid, the property, this will soon be the county's property.


And then I kind of go into here a little bit showing all the years that the taxes weren't paid.


It was since 2021 the taxes have not been paid and here's some back tax payment amounts Okay building permit history we wanted to talk about why are we not providing permits to people it's a very good question to ask The city provided three permits for this property Which totaled five years six months and 19 days of minimal progress So I'm going to go over the actual permits now, what was pulled. In 2018, a permit was issued for one year. The dates are May 9th to May 9th of 2019.


The city granted a 180-day extension. So, again, working with our community to try to fix this building. We granted a six-month extension on top of this one-year extension.


and during this time period. No work was performed during this, and there were no subsequent inspections because when you get a permit, you do work. You call the inspector and say I've done the electric I've done electrical work, I've done plumbing work, I'm ready for my inspection before I move on to the next step, that never happened on this permit in 2020.


A permit was issued for two years, probably asking, why did we give it two year permit. There was some leniency and terms for permits during the pandemic.


So there was a two-year permit granted from December 17th to December 17th of 2022.


Again, the city in 2022 granted a six-month extension. This had expired on June 17th of 2022.


So again, this narrative of the city not working with the property owner is very unfair because they're coming to us with a permit and we're saying, where's the progress? It's not there.


and Mayor. On January 11th of 2021, I'm showing the work that was done in this permit.


A rough electrical work was completed and this is from the inspection on January 11th of 2021.


The inspection was approved for three rooms only and this was the only work that was performed for the entire period and approved by our inspector was during this two-year period.


So now you're looking at 2018 to 2022, four years, and you had rough electrical work done in three rooms.


That was what was done. That was the work done. So in 2022, we issued another permit.


This was one year. And this went from October 21st of 2022 to November 28th of 2020, a lot of 20s in there.


Pardon me for that. and others. I'm going to read it a few times fast.


2023. The work that was done there was there was footing inspections for a room addition.


It was approved with notes. As I kind of showed before, there were some issues with some of the footings and the foundation on that property.


So that's why it was approved with notes. Now at the end of this, our inspector went in and he's coming in at the end of this three So now we're going to talk about our code enforcement history on this property.


What were some of the code enforcement issues that ultimately led to it being a nuisance to this community?


There were two arson cases in 2021 on this property. This property was properly inspected by City Fire Marshal Hillary Broschus and this was taken directly from her report, which was given on both arson cases.


and the Act or omission that brought the ignition source and material first ignited together was a deliberate act of a person or persons.


So when I come in and I say it's a nuisance and a danger to the community, it happens.


People are burning these vacant buildings. I'm asking you to please understand the facts. I'm not making this up.


People burn these buildings to the ground and people die and the owners don't have insurance.


I don't know what else I can do to prove that this is a nuisance to the community and a danger.


Please tell me what danger is if that is not. Here, this is from the report.


Two reports in one night. First fire happened here. Second fire happened here. Here's a picture of the fire that happened.


Here's one of the evidence pictures of the arson that happened on that property. So, moving forward, we're going to go on to the code enforcement cases that happened after the five and a half years of permits.


So, I highlighted an important part of the findings of this case. A couple important parts to remember here is that Nicole Bauer is our hearing officer.


So when my team provides data and information on these buildings, Nicole Bauer looks at it and makes a judgment.


Here's her signature, here's the date, and you can see it matches up. It was after the city gave time and permits to fix the building.


it came afterwards and I want to talk about something very important and this is very it's a very good point to bring up I highlighted that the city of Freeport has proven violations by the preponderance of evidence I'm talking about preponderance of evidence here because we all watch Dateline we all watch TV and a lot of us quite frankly are obsessed with true crime and the burden of proof if you're going to put somebody in prison for the rest of their life is beyond a reason and John, and I'm going to talk about the reasonable doubt. So a lot of us look at cases, we look at the city and we go, aha, I found a mistake, there's reasonable doubt that Mr. Duckman did his job wrong, throw everything out the window. I'm highlighting preponderance of evidence because it's a different burden of proof, it's a different level and I have some legal training and multitude of my degrees in to me is that you have two scales. Here's the defendant scales and here's the city, their evidence, and then here's the evidence that will be provided by the defendant, the owner of the property. And then the judge is going to look at it and say, okay, does the evidence tip slightly towards the city or slightly towards the defendant? So it's different than, aha, the city made a mistake, there's reasonable doubt. That's a different burden of proof. So oftentimes we're looking at the city, they made a typo here, they did did something wrong here, often times a hearing officer or if it goes to a civil case, they're


going to look at it by the preponderance of evidence versus what we're all used to, right?


We're all used to beyond a reasonable doubt. So I highlighted that there so that we can start to understand how some of these cases are looked at.


So we have our next case here. And if you notice, the preponderance of evidence statement here doesn't exist.


Well, why doesn't it exist? The property owner showed up to this case. So the judge is saying, I looked at the city's case, these violations here, I looked at it, and they proved their case by preponderance of evidence.


The second case, appearance. They didn't show up. So they did not show up on this case.


they didn't show up to testify and that goes back to was notice given. Our hearing officer looks and checks this box saying yes, the City of Freeport notified properly.


And then any box check below the statement constitutes as a final order, default, defendant failed to appear and the hearing will be held before me this day.


It goes back to that similar with parking tickets, etc. And then that's why you see here she signs off.


This is case number 2, case number 3, similar to case number 2, there was no appearance, despite the fact that they showed up at the first case, notice was given, default judgment.


So now we're at $1,700 plus $1,200, that's $2,900. Miller, that's 2,900 plus 33, 35, you're looking at about $3,200 already right now that has been accumulated.


So now we talk about, and you should all see this falls right in line with the process I laid out to all the officials when they came here in April of 2023, except the city worked with this property owner for five years before any code enforcement even was enacted.


Five years before any of this processing enacted. So we have actually been more generous to this property owner than the typical out of town person who never has been here and never applied for a permit.


So here it is. This case went before the judge on May 16th of 2024.


And then this is kind of what the judgment says. And I want to bring this up here.


Here's the $100 per day. Here is also Nicole Bauer writing a statement. This is not Wayne Duckman.


This is Nicole Bauer, our hearing officer. This case has been ongoing for a significant period of time.


There was ample time to appear on the other cases with legal counsel if the defendant had chose to do so, plus ample time to correct these issues prior to this hearing.


This is due process. This is time. This is not my words. This is the words of an independent hearing officer.


So in addition to this $100 per day, the city says, and it's a little hard to read here, but the city sought, and it was, this statement was incorporated in herein, so I'm showing where it is, the city was requesting that this be defined in Chapter 1456 of the city's codified ordinances to be using remedy conditions that would be considered dangerous and unsafe.


So on top of my statutory duties given to determine that a property is dangerous and unsafe, I brought it before a hearing officer who said this is a dangerous unsafe building.


was brought before a hearing officer and they made that judgment in conjunction to the sign I put on the sign was put on the building.


Questions are going to be had. Declaration of Chronic Nuisance. The property contains a structure.


This comes from above. So this here comes from above here and then I highlighted this.


The property contains a structure which is dangerous and unsafe building as defined in Chapter 1456 of these Qualified Ordinances and or within the meaning of the statute.


The structure is defined as C attached and incorporated herein. And that's where we went to here.


And then when you scroll down, I decide this is from our ordinances what was being defined and it states, as used in this chapter, dangerous and unsafe building means any dwelling which which violates any provisions of this chapter and shall include but is not limited to any building or structure whether a dwelling or otherwise which a. is dangerous to the public health because of its construction condition which may cause or aid in the spread of disease or cause injury to the health of the occupants of it or of its neighboring structures I think well beyond preponderance of evidence that has been proven it's not just my opinion it's our hearing officer's opinion Clear as day, and then I'll just go on. Because of the faulty construction, age, lack of proper repair of any other cause is especially liable to fire and constitutes or creates a fire hazard.


I believe that one's checked. Reasons of faulty construction, age, lack of proper repair is liable to cause injury or damage by collapsing or by collapse or fall of any part of such a structure.


showed a picture of its foundation and by the way it doesn't have to be all of these but I'm showing examples of how they're all can be checked because of its condition item D such a lack of a door or window is available and to be frequently by male factors or disorderly persons who are not lawful occupants of such structure I showed a hole on the side of the wall I showed places where I showed that with time-dated pictures This has not been substantially completed, whose construction phase has been abandoned and which is unoccupied by persons legally in possession. Check, check, and check.


Fowler. Contains garbage, debris, or other hazardous, noxious, or unhealthy substances or materials so far as to pose a threat to the public health and safety.


Yep, I think that one was considered as well and check. So my department has been staffed with holding problem property owners accountable.


That's what a lien does. This lien was filed on September 6th of 2024 and encompasses all of the due process and all of the judgments granted by our hearing officer to the tune of $14,451.


Now when this property, I'm just assuming they're not going to pay their property taxes because what a tax lien does and what a tax deed does is that wipes out any of these liens.


So, all that hard work of my staff is going to be unrecoverable when they continue to not pay their taxes and that goes to the county tax assessor and then you, sir, can yell at me for having to have people go and mow the grass because that's how that works. That's exactly how that works.


I'm glad you're mad because now do the Raleigh building now do other buildings and I'll point them out to you and I'll drive around this town let's meet let's do it I'll do it I'm here okay okay let's call the meeting back to order could you could you turn the light could you turn the light on for me because I can't see yep yeah are you are you done I can still no I've still got more to talk oh and I will make an apology here in front of the room. I was misled. But at the same time, I will say, I question a lot of what's around the city that's not been done the same thing to. And that is where we sit right now. And quite honestly, I think the same could be true. And I pick on the Raleigh building, because I think the same could be true.


and John. I don't know if there's been a fire or not. I don't have the research. But all the windows are busted.


Well, the structure is not in great shape. But I'm just saying. Okay. Okay. Wait a minute. We're going to have Alderman Sanders say something, then we'll move on.


and the President. I appreciate all that you just mentioned. For the preponderance of evidence, it's been there for almost a decade or more.


It was just an absolute eye sore, but after listening to all the detailed information that you guys are going through, and I have gone through, your staff and everyone.


I say I take my hat off to everything that went forward because it was exactly how you described it.


I want to say thank you, sir, and I want you to know it doesn't always have to come to this floor.


You can call me and I will talk with you and if there's problem properties, please call me instead of a time.


You called me today at 3 o'clock and you said, hey, Wayne answered the phone.


This doesn't have to go like this every time. you can call me and we will look at these buildings and we'll work together I want to I want to work to get this done. Alderman, Stacy, Alder, I mean Manager, Boyer, Boyer, number one director thank you for that presentation but are you complete with your presentation or were you just interrupted there's more questions I can show this I could show more ifness okay okay we can we can go into that please finish the presentation without being interrupted thank you I just wondered why it wasn't demolished September 3rd, why did it come to December?


I genuinely will answer that question. I think the rest of these slides will answer that for you because I'm going to go into the process right now but the answer the question is you have to wait 30 days from September 3rd and then you have to wait for any court petitions from the property owner which I go into there were there were motions made at the circuit court by the property owners and I go into those details in this next slide so from the day White, so from the date of September 3rd, the city has 120 days, we have 120 days demolished from this date, but you might as well knock off 30 days because you can't, the property owner has 30 days to properly file at the Circuit Court an injunction.


So here is the time stamp date of September 3rd, 2024. You can see the sign.


Here's the notices, remember I talked about you got to have letter, this is the letter, this is the recorded notice, and this is the receipt that it was put in the paper on September 10th, 11th, and 12th.


Those are the notices. Now I talk about, you said, well hey, why did you not demolish it sooner?


Akiya Sanders petitioned for injunction on October 17th of 2024. This injunction was dismissed on December 19th of 2024.


And this right here has the date, December 19th, and it says plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.


And there's the plaintiff, Akiya Sanders and Tiffany Sanders, it was dismissed. So now we go through this process.


was dismissed, Albert & Son commenced demolition after this dismissal, Akia filed and Ms. Sanders have filed a new petition on December 19, 2024, so she filed another petition which had to be answered.


When that was filed, Albert & Son by myself was told to stop the demolition work because of the injunction, and if you remember the process, if somebody files an injunction or A petition of some sort, you stop, the work stopped, you need to get that stopped.


So Albert and Son, when this work was done, they would then return the personal property to the site on December 20th of 20th, excuse me, I keep getting too many 20s in here.


So when they, my understanding of this is that they took the property off site, instead of the Street, they put it in their shop and then I was on site to make sure that construction had stopped per the new petition that was filed and Ms. Sanders and I talked and she said hey there's property of mine that's missing and I said let me call the contractor and have it returned and that's where I'm talking about here.


The property was returned to the site on December 20th of 2024. I have pictures of that as well. I don't have it here, but I confirm that the property was returned.


Again, a key is filed. This is now, this is again, Ms. Sanders filed a new petition on December 19th that we're talking about.


This petition was dismissed on December 27th of 2024. Defendant's motion to dismiss the City of Freeport is the defendant.


and the Motion to Dismiss is granted. Reading through my notes here. Petition was dismissed on December 27th, 2024.


Albernso began demolition immediately following this dismissal. Ms. Sanders was allowed to enter the premises to remove personal property.


Ms. Sanders notified me at that time that there was personal property missing. I contacted Albert & Son and they returned the additional property to the site so that's the second time they brought property to the site and the conversation went like this I called Josh Albert and I said hey you better go through your site again and you better get the property over here now because we're not playing around the property owner is here they want their property back bring it back if you got it and he goes well I thought we did it all I said no don't take another check and look so that's exactly what happened and they immediately bought the property Back to the site.


After that, Ms. Sanders claimed that there was additional property missing. I told Ms. Sanders, I said, at this point, you need to file a police report to ensure that if there's any property missing, you need to make sure that you have due process and you get it back, because I said, they're telling me that they returned everything in that building.


And I said, you need to file a police report. to my knowledge that they did. Now there's been an accusation last week that I've been targeting Ms. Sanders for these properties and I just want to go over some statistics. Two of the 20 properties demolished in 2024 by Fast Track were Ms. Sanders. Zero of the 20 properties in 2023 were Ms. Sanders and zero of the five properties in 2022 were Ms. Sanders. The two properties that went through the Fashtrack Demolition Process, 402, 404 Shawnee, which was demolished on December 27th of 2024, and the other one was 909 South Oak.


And this is the property that was Fashtrack demolished on 909 South Oak. It's not targeting.


It's going after blight remediation. This is the property that I've been accused of targeting the person on.


This is it. Two building permits issued in 2022 on 909 South Oak. City worked with the property owner.


These two permits expired on August 5th, 2023, stating it was dangerous to even enter the building, to stay away, watch the floor joist.


It was extremely dangerous property. Code enforcement cases began. This should look very familiar because it follows the exact playbook that I had mentioned in the orientation in 2023.


Code enforcement case here. Code enforcement case here. enforcement case here, chronic nuisance judgment, May 18th, 2023, fast track notice on October 11th, property demolished on January 29th.


And that's the rest of it. So that is why it took longer for this property to be demolished.


Can you come back forward? Right, back. Keep going up. Okay. Back. I wanted the one that had the doors and the window.


Okay, so when I went over there, this is what I saw. Not the holes and everything you show in the first picture.


So I saw new windows, I saw new doors, I saw that. So I knew work was being put into it.


So, what you had showed in the beginning was not the final, this is more of the final of what it looked like when it was demolished.


Well, let's see here. I mean, let's talk about that a little bit here. you know it is what it is but right you know even when they put the sign up it looked a whole heck of a lot better the work went into it that's all i'm gonna say i would i saw the doors i saw the new windows i saw the work being put into right all right is that is that yes yes you're done okay I guess my thought on this is that I agree with you. I hate that we had to bring all this. I think it's a private issue, and it should have been discussed more in the conference rooms with attorneys than us, you know, because you bring out people's personal information that, you know, to me, I just think it's a personal issue that should have been handled behind the closed doors to not bring out and other people's information but does anybody else have anybody else have James are you done with what you want to talk about you're done okay okay I guess we move on to 20 to our public comments oh my goodness I'm moving on I'm willing


can I make a motion that we move this to a later date and take it off okay I'll take it I'll make a motion since in the essence of time to take this offer to okay is there a second I don't have a date at this point mm-hmm is there a second second it's been moved in second to have this taken off the agenda for tonight. All in favor? Aye. It was Sanders. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Okay now we'll move on to public comments. Are there any public comments? Okay. Would you state your name okay now you see in this fast track you give three types of warnings the posting certified letter and the orange sticker on the on their houses first of all my house was all enclosed doors new windows in there from window world the door was locked it was kicked in by cities and officials to inspect this House, I was never sent any certified letter that you were tearing down my house at all.


I had building materials, a whole bunch of stuff in there that has just disappeared, gone.


and I don't feel and I don't feel that it was right for you guys just to come and take that property without a certified letter. I hadn't even come into this hearing administrative for that property at 124 Black Hawk. Never once did I appear in front of the hearing committee to get this taken care of. Not once did I have an opportunity. But you still took that house. That's wrong. You sit here and and I have been complaining about the landlord's property, but the city owns a lot of properties that are in worse shape than what the house you tore down.


We'll get the Raleigh Building going again. I have seen people in there. I own properties up there.


There's trees growing through in there. The roof is caving in. That's been there for years, but the city still has not taken, they wanna hold the landlord accountable for their actions, but the city won't be accountable for their actions in their property.


This building has been there for years like that. So it's wrong for you to come on the landlords when you don't want to take care of your own properties.


Okay, did you want to say something ma'am? In the green, you had your hand up?


Okay, come on up. My name is Miss Garris and this is kind of a wild ride tonight.


This is the first meeting that I've been to ever here. and I feel for everybody here and on the housing side what we were talking about with the building and permits and all that kind of stuff I'm coming from the side of I live next to a house like that I think there's a correlation with Habitat for Humanity I think is what it's called in selling these properties like this because in my case a realtor got a hold of it and he's been known well known to do this over and over again where he buys properties doesn't take care of them I had a 10-foot antenna heavy iron fall on my house in the middle of the night I am a single female have no backup I had to take care of I bought that property, never did a thing to it for years and years, while I kept having people break into it, I had to board it up myself with my own money and tools, I mowed that lawn for probably 8 years because he never took care of that, Picked up the garbage, had to call the police for drug deals constantly on that house.


I had to put up a flood light just to protect my own self. So, while I feel for the people putting money into these houses, you know, you have to understand where the homeowners coming from as well, because we're affected by all that.


So, that's the part I want to say on that. The other issue that I wanted to talk about is maybe could someone look at, from the city, the couple intersections, some issues there.


I'm not sure the addresses, but one of them is by the fire station on Adams.


They newly redid the street, which looks great, and it's great to drive on. That's much appreciated.


There's a stop sign, however, that's turned towards Adams, and people keep thinking that they're supposed to stop there. I have witnessed, and then had it happen to me today, where I had to slam on my brakes because the person in front of me was confused and didn't know if they should be stopping at that sign.


It's actually for the side street coming this way, but it's facing this way on Adams.


Your time has expired. OK. OK, thank you. Who can I talk to about the other intersection?


Right there. I think it's, I want to say Winnishek and Adams, but I'm not sure.


Yeah. Is there someone we can talk to, or I can talk to about another intersection?


I guess Alderman Klemm had a... I just wanted to announce, I originally had a neighborhood watch meeting set up for January 28th, which is my normal date. January 28th is going to be a candidate forum at the library. I don't want to interfere with that. I think it's it's more important for people to go meet the candidates and listen to what they have to say.


So I've sent a notice out. I will send other notices out, but I will rearrange a date.


Maybe I can get together and do it at the same time as Greg's. Thank you.


Is there any other, Mike? Uh-oh. Well, I came up here to say, Everybody can start smiling now, OK?


We can get the tension out. On behalf of Flight Radio Studio Production Company, I am the program director.


And I am inviting the whole city council to this upcoming Saturday's Dance Against Cancer Ball, OK?


It's a 70s and 80s Dance Against Cancer Ball. We are raising money for the Leonard C. Ferguson Cancer Center.


and what we're doing is, is trying to improve the city with through Flight Radio 105.7 FM.


So I'm inviting all council members, please attend this Saturday. Mike, could you say your name?


Say your name. Oh, Michael Johnson, I'm sorry. All right. Okay, thank you. Okay, the event is being held at the Eagles Club this Saturday at seven o'clock until 11.


The Real Deal Band will be performing, and yeah, we're coming out to have a good time.


And we're doing some community support, okay? Okay. Let's stop being mean. Everybody, let's get some smiles on our face.


Thank you. That's right. Yep. Just a second. We'll get Kia and then you, okay?


So if you was listening to me, I didn't say that they didn't work with me during my permit phase.


and others. So, when somebody files a paper, it stops, so why didn't you stop when you and Steve Cox Cox got served that paper. That was not a, let's make a decision, Steve Cox and Wayne Duckman. That was for the judge. And to the judge hear it, it wasn't supposed to be knocked down. He dismisses it. You don't dismiss the idea of me filing a paper. You, I mean, if you want to see that you talked about me bad in here, if you consider that a win, I never said that you didn't work with me. It was over a 5,000 square foot house. It took a and others.


That was a lot of time. That was a lot of material. And then nobody talks about my stuff being stolen.


Three times it took somebody to bring my stuff three different times. How do you overlook bounce houses three times my size?


You had did nothing but show that the privilege is Jodi Miller's brother. He can steal what he want to.


I never heard that there was a contract that you guys had, demo houses, but go shopping first.


Steal something first. I never heard that. So somebody should answer, there's theft after the fact, and I'm just going to tell you, like if you know me, you know this ain't the end of it, this is only a council meeting, I got laws to make sure that stick to me, and I never meant to mislead anybody, not you at all, this is truly what happened to me, and I'm going to see fit that something happens to him and whoever else is against me.


And if you know me, that's not my brother. and Tom. Okay, we're going to have, we're going to have, Akeia, Akeia, Akeia, Akeia, let's not, let's not do this.


Right, yes, right, but both, both, we're just going to have more, right, right, we're going to have.


You truly show who you for, truly. Yes, I don't care. Okay, I got no minutes, but you need to, you need to hear.


I don't care what you say. We're just, we're leading a council meeting. Okay, you need to stop or you're going to be removed.


Tommy, would you come up and say what you've got to say? Yes, yes, bye-bye.


Right, bye-bye. Motion for adjournment. Wait, we've got to listen to Tommy. Tommy wants to say something.


Who? Wait a minute. Tommy, that's what it's about. and Jodi. you have something you want to say okay Saturday January the 18th there would be a national day of racial healing at the Freeport Farm Bureau from nine to one the purpose is to reflect on our shared values and engage in conversation to heal division and bring our community together that's Saturday from nine to one the 18th at the Farm Bureau and let's not forget Monday January the 20th Dr. King's celebration so I guess there won't be counsel that day no Monday at 530 and Mr. James Ryan says I hope that that this year's attendance will reflect the diversity of our community as we celebrate one of our greatest heroes.


One last thing. Thursday, January 16th, 2nd Ward Neighborhood Watch meeting at 630 at the Carson's House.


Same place as always, no snow. You said January 16th? Thursday, January 16th. Thank you. If there's no more, can I have a motion to adjourn? Second. Second. It has been moved and second. All in favor?