This year? Okay, I think we're ready to go. Madam Clerk, are you ready? He kind of did now.


He was number one when it expired. He was thinking about retiring in June. He didn't go, but now he's kind of ready.


Okay, is everybody ready to take their seat? Brady, could you please give the invocation?


Thank you, Madam Mayor. Father in heaven, we give you thanks tonight that your presence is with us to help and lead and guide this council according to your will and purpose.


We ask for the flourishing of the businesses and the people of this city. We pray for peace, justice, hope, and access to resources.


we pray for the leaders of this council to govern with wisdom and integrity we pray for your kingdom to come and your will be done tonight in this meeting in Jesus name amen thank you now we'll officially call this meeting to order madam clerk would you please take the role mayor Miller here alder persons Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Epson at the moment, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.


And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Klemm.


So, to start this evening, I would like to read the email that I sent to all of the Aldermen last Friday, just in case someone did not have the opportunity to read that email.


The email was, at our last few meetings, members of the Council have been advised to comply and others.


I have had numerous comments from members of the public expressing concern at the lack of decorum at our meetings.


This lessens all of us in the eyes of the public and negatively impacts the credibility of this Council.


And most importantly, failing to observe established rules of procedure leads to disruption of the effective and orderly conduct of the business of the City.


For all of these reasons, we have clearly established rules of Council which govern the conduct of business by the City and to which all of you have access.


I am putting everyone on notice that I intend to strictly enforce those rules until we get some decorum introduced back into our proceedings.


I am saying this now so that no one will be surprised or be able to claim that they somehow were unaware of these standing rules.


Specifically, but not without limitation, the following conduct constitutes a violation of the rule of order one speaking out of turn or when otherwise not recognized by the chair is a violation of the rule of order two exceeding established time limited on the floor for an issue or failing to yield the floor once the time has expired and three interrupting or disrupting someone while addressing the public assembly during public comments is also a violation of the rule of order.


I should not need to make these statements as these are all rules which should be followed simply out of respect for fellow elected officers and the important role that each of you plays in running our city.


Unfortunately, events at the last few meetings indicate that we need to rely on stronger measures than mutual respect.


All members of the council are hereby reminded that pursuant to City Ordinance 220, 10, 24, and 25, if you are declared out of order, you are subject to a fine of up to $250.


If you are declared out of order twice at the same meeting, you will be removed.


I am putting you all on notice that I will be enforcing these rules strictly moving forward and I sincerely hope that all of you will take your responsibility to this city seriously enough to avoid being sanctioned or removed for the sake of grandstanding.


So with that, we'll start with item number one, which is the approval of the agenda.


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


All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on September 15th, 2025.


Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. Do you have a question?


I did not see when Alderperson Simmons came in. Did you know the time when you came in?


610. Thank you. Item number three is recognition of service awards. Manager Boyer? I'd like to have the Fire Chief acknowledge the two firemen.


Yes, thank you. It's my pleasure to recognize Amos Langlois and Dylan Oberle for their careers within the Fire Department.


Amos just completed his 10 years of service and Dylan has completed five years of service.


Davis, I can personally say both are great people, very good at their jobs, they're firefighter paramedics.


Amos is actually on vacation this evening and Dylan is presently on an ambulance call serving the public so he couldn't be here tonight and I will be recognizing both of them at the fire station on their shift, they're both on the same shift.


Thank you. Davis, Deputy Davis, would you please go ahead? Yes, I would recognize Officer Ny'Kil, who has been with the Freeport Police Department for five years.


She's an outstanding officer and works diligently to protect the citizens every day. Thank you.


With that we move on to public comment. We have three. We'll start with an email that was sent to the clerk.


This was received today from Ashley Heilman. I am sorry to not be there in person this evening.


I am, however, in Lombard for a realtor conference. I would like to speak against item number seven on the agenda for short-term rentals.


I am here on behalf of one of my owners who has a short-term rental and myself as her manager.


When it comes to short-term rentals, often called vacation rentals, everyone Cronenberg. This seems to become a real estate expert quick to say they destabilize neighborhoods or create problems.


And as we are aware, there has been one instance at one property that has caused this potential change to come forward.


However, in reality, vacation rentals often serve important needs. Corporations use them to house employees.


Families use them to test neighborhoods before buying. Contract workers use them for housing when traveling to fill vacant positions at places F.H.N. and large vacationing families use them to stay altogether than having multiple hotel rooms. These homes are typically well maintained because owners depend on good reviews and consistent bookings to make these rentals work. I've been in real estate for eight years and have seen firsthand how vacation rentals complement housing markets rather than harm them as I own several and try to stay at them when I travel. They provide flexibility for For property owners support local tourism and offer families and employees more housing choices.


Many of the issues often raised, noise, property maintenance, nuisance activity, are already addressed by city ordinances and the current short-term rental ordinance.


The city has tools to address problem properties without stripping rights from responsible owners and other owners in the future.


Property rights are not an a la carte menu. and the right to rent is heavily restricted.


One-third of a property owner's economic rights are lost. Instead of rezoning and removing these rights, the City could cap the number of vacation rental permits in R1 to R4 zones instead of removing them completely.


This would prevent over-concentration, avoid clustering rentals only on the east side of town and create a balanced approach that respects neighborhood character and private property rights.


or what about making this a special use permit instead if you feel changes need to be made.


Other cities like Galena have found success starting with a cap and expanding permits as things go well. Freeport has that same opportunity, balanced regulations that work for everyone. To strengthen the ordinance further, the city could add guardrails, tie guest room limits to bedroom count and square footage, require a local property manager Miller, if the owner is not nearby, limit on-site vehicles, revoke permits after repeat violations.


This approach creates accountability without overre- and others. This creates accountability without overreaching, ensuring vacation rentals remain residential friendly while protecting the rights of Freeport owners.


Thank you for your time. Ashley Heilman, Welcome Home, Northwest Illinois. Thank you. Julie Whiting.


I'm in agreement with everything Ashley says, but city council members, thank you for allowing me to speak.


Our city's proposed ban on single-family homes being used as Airbnbs is presented as a solution to depleting our owner-occupied housing stock, but in our case it's simply not supported by the facts.


Of the six Airbnbs in our town of 22,600 roughly, three are owner-occupied homes where residents rent out a portion, such as a spare room or a suite, while living in their own home.


These are not investor-owned properties being removed from the market. In reality, these homeowners are enhancing the housing stock by sharing their space, not reducing it.


Across the country, responsible regulations already recognize this distinction. For example, Chicago and other major cities require that AirBnBs and short-term rentals in single-family homes be the host primary residents for most of the year.


The intent behind these rules is clear. Prevent the conversion of full homes into permanent short-term rentals by investors, while still allowing homeowners to host and share space in their principal residence. These laws protect neighborhoods from losing housing, yet make room for flexibility and diverse housing options. Our local reality mirrors these cities, not the tourist hot spots facing housing shortages due to mass investor purchases. Let's be clear, banning owner-occupied Airbnb's won't Expand our housing market. These homes are not available for sale or for long-term rent because their owners live there. Prohibiting them has no impact on home ownership or affordability in our town. Instead, it risks punishing responsible residents, taking away supplemental income that helps cover mortgages and meeting rising costs. And with just six listings citywide, three of them part owner-occupied, the policy does not address the real threat to our housing Stock. Please consider a balanced approach. Exempt primary residence AirBnBs from any ban. Focus instead on policies that target non-resident investors or large-scale operators.


Not everyday homeowners responsibly sharing their own homes. This honors both the spirit of the community and the facts on the ground. Thanks for considering an equitable and evidence-based solution.


and last would be the LaFever's. Good evening City Council Members and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you regarding short-term rentals.


We're Frank and Monique LaFever at 1650 West Apache Trail in Freeport. We were the very first short-term rental operation in Freeport and we voluntarily approached the City in 2019 to ensure that we were operating legally and transparency even before ordinances We are owner-occupied hosts living full-time in our single home, renting out our lower-level apartment. With the current proposed zoning changes, it feels like responsible hosts like us who have followed every rule are being penalized. The memo suggests that STRs strain the availability of housing, but owner-occupied homes don't contribute to this strain. Our home is not on the inventory. It's off the market as we live in it.


and others. I would like to further add that our STRs provide a value to the community not only to support visitors but support local families. After a storm damage, one local family's home, they stayed with us for five and a half months and Wiley were other guests who were bored with a short-term rental.


One guest was a gentleman who moved into the van. Another guest specifically chose a short-term rental with off-street parking such as ours because their work van had thousands of dollars of equipment on the back of their van to do road integrity surveying.


and our home offered them a driveway to park to alleviate their worries. Many guests have in fact told us that they are grateful to find us as all hotels have been currently filled, which is a problem in Freeport.


Mr. Boyer himself has stayed with us for a summer during his relocation to Freeport to take a job here at the City.


We appreciated the conveniences and traditional hotels cannot offer such as a full kitchen and a laundry room.


We have personally had no safety issues or complaints. I vet every booking for verified state IDs, photos on profiles, and guest reviews.


If I'm uncomfortable, I have no problem canceling that guest. I require registration forms to be filled out like hotels. We've even had neighbors refer their own family and friends to stay at our property. In closing, please consider Southering, and a compliant owner-occupied STR like ours beyond January 2029 where there is a proven track record of safety and community benefit.


We are not absentee landlords. We are residents, neighbors, and responsible hosts, and we care deeply about our community.


Thank you. That concludes public comment. Next we'll move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion, unless the member of council would like to have something removed for further discussion.


The consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file board and commission minutes from the Police Pension Board May 7, 2025, and the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners August 12, 2025, the Greater Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report September 2025.


Well, the finance bill is payable in the total of $4,189,115.71 and payroll for pay period ending September 20th, 2025 in the total of $676,474.02.


Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. If a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the consent agenda. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Aye. Parker. Aye. Stacy. Aye. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. And Sellers. Aye. The motion passes 8-0.


Item number 6 is the second reading of Ordinance 2025-57. Could you please read this?


Please read this. Ordinance revising codified ordinances to create the position of Operations Superintendent. Thank you.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. We've discussed this at the last council meeting. This is creating a new position for the city that would allow one individual to oversee both the utility and the street department and deal mainly with the field crews, however responsibility would extend to all operations within public works.


and staff recommends moving forward with this job description approval. Thank you. Any questions? Alderman Stacey?


It just seems like every time we change the original title and went to a supervisor position and that gentleman end up quitting. And it's like here we go again with wanting to now add duties to another title. Did you consider going back to the original director title and hiring someone under that?


Is that all your question? I just didn't want your clock to time out a few.


Yeah. Manager, Boyer? You know, we currently have a Public Works Director, and that is Darren Steakles, our Contract Public Works Director. The Operations Superintendent is more of a hands-on leader in the field and with day-to-day operations in mind, so it's a different job.


Would you like your second? Shoot. Sure. Go ahead. No. Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, the ordinance is passed 6-2.


Item number 7 is the second reading of Ordinance 2025-58. Could you please read this?


Semending Chapters 810 and 1250 concerning the licensing and zoning of vacation rentals. Thank you, Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So we read this last, at the last meeting, this ordinance was read. I would say nothing has changed except for the public comments that we've heard tonight.


Just to give you a brief overview of this, staff was tasked to write this Ordinance in order to in order to eliminate short-term vacation rentals from the R1 through R4 Zoning Districts, which essentially removes the short-term rentals from single-family housing, which is the intent here.


So after staff was directed to draft this ordinance, it was brought to a Planning Commission Meeting on August 14th, and at that time, the Planning Commission put it forward to the next scheduled meeting, which was on September 11th.


At that meeting, there was a supporter, Tom Klemm, Alderperson Klemm, was there as somebody supporting this ordinance, and then City Clerk Anderson was there as a resident and was basically in favor of short-term rentals, which would be opposed to this ordinance.


And the results of that meeting was support of this ordinance by a vote of 5-0.


All that being said, as of tonight, there's obviously been people, the public comment has been against this ordinance.


And staff has put forward information for a vote. So leave it at that. Thank you.


I do have to agree with what Ashley Heilman presented tonight, and I do agree with the other ones.


I stay at Airbnbs all the time, and I think they're awesome. I know we had one bad incident, but I don't think we should take one incident and kind to get away from all of it because you do look at a town like Galeno or other different places that have been small towns and it is an asset to the community and like they also said, we really don't have hotel space, you know, and that was another thing.


So I will, you know, be against putting this through because I do think it's something that we need. We talk about tourism and people coming in, but they also have to have somewhere to stay. So I do think that they are a good thing for the community.


Any other discussion? I just have a question about the ordinance. Is that appropriate? So currently the ordinance says that the owner of the property is the only one that can own this license?


Director Duckman, can you answer? Yes, so correct. The owner of the property, you own a property, you would have to get a license to do a short-term vacation rental, yes.


Okay, so what if you're renting to own, you know, or what if you're, if you're renting to Own, or if you're leasing property for a business purpose, why would you not be allowed to obtain, why or why not would one not be allowed to obtain a license?


Director Duckman? Yes, so it's 30 days, basically what's going on here is in order for this ordinance to take and others. The rental property ordinance just states you have to be an owner. So that's part of our rules. When I process those applications, I need to check that the owner matches the insurance. The owners, the applicants have to put up a certificate of insurance. That would be an owner's responsibility. A leaseholder would only have, you know, like content insurance.


Duckman, I don't know when it's when it's rent to own or lease to own you know if they're in the process of buying I understand sorry no I don't think it's I think there's some some complication here and I think the ordinance protects the title owner title owner is deed owner fee simple owner that owner is protected and essentially if you had a rent to own situation you would the city would just ask that the property owner sign an affidavit or just sign the paperwork that they would be doing the vacation rental.


And we do that in any of our zoning applications, any permit applications. If there's a rent to own agreement or something like that, we would, we always make sure that there's the actual title owner of the property is aware of any permitting going on.


Alderman Stacey, did you want to? What if the person renting to own have the insurance and things in their name?


They would have to ask the person that they would be buying it from, the title owner would have to give them, would still have to sign off on it.


So when you're in a rent to own situation, there's a title, there's a fee, the person and the property .


The person that owns the property would still have to give that permission and be named on that vacation permit.


But you said that the person that owns the property would have to cover the insurance. But if the person that's renting to own is covering the insurance, isn't that different?


and John. I'll try to pull together all of your questions instead of the back and forth. That would be helpful.


I'll just answer the question. I think anytime somebody, we have, I believe, how many of these now? Four or six?


We have three and one in process. Okay. We have three and one in process. Every single permit that gets submitted is reviewed.


We have to verify insurance. We have to verify a rent-to-own situation. Our staff is going to review it and is going to work with the person.


I think we're looking at an outlying situation here to try to base our judgment on it.


I don't think the intent here is to eliminate rent-to-own situations from having the ability to obtain a vacation rental license.


Alderman Johnson, did you have something? Yeah, I just wanted to say I did some checking to ask like how many times a month are these Airbnb's rentals or vacation rentals and The person I checked with said sometimes four to five times a month So when I think of that and how ever long they've been running them and we've only had one incident I think that maybe we need to not proceed with this but Well, Madam Clerk, Alderman Klemm, did you want to?


Sure. Since I brought this up, I'll take the hit on it. Hey, I really appreciate everybody that came and spoke.


There are two sides to this. There's no S&Ns or buts about it. The intention was not to completely take away Air B&Bs as we started out and talked about this.


and others. The other thing was to take it away in single-family dwelling areas. I currently am the alderman in the area where this happened.


Keep in mind this wasn't just a little incident. There were about 12 pistols, automatic weapons, illegal weapons, and 15 to 20 people that walked out of the place, and it's still under investigation.


Is that correct, Deputy Chief? Yes, it's still under investigation. Okay, so I bring it up because that, I don't put that as a minor issue. If, you know, God bless if it doesn't go through and it isn't gonna go through, it does make a bit of difference.


Life's gonna go on. But I think we ought to also ought to take a look at some of the safety things and some of the places where it's at. If you bought a house, and I got laughed at for saying this last time, so I'll say it again. If you got a house in a very expensive of Neighborhood. You'd think that you could live in that house without not knowing who lives next door to you and have a whole bunch of people with cars there and so on and so forth. And we can't say that didn't happen because the night before this happened, there was 10 cars at this place. Okay? And that came from a neighbor. It wasn't the owner that called the police. It was the neighbor that called the police. So that's the reason I'm bringing up. You can sit there and shake your head. I'm sorry. I said that I told you Selders.


I do, I'm not taking it as a light situation, my nephew, he works for Airbnb and I called to ask him some questions about.


and others. I asked him to ask him some questions about all of this and he said that even happens in hotels that they come in there with that type of ammunition and all that kind of stuff.


It happens. But the thing if, if, if, will you really want maybe some more clarification or rules on how, on Airbnbs in your community?


You can call them and they will have a consultation with you and help you come up with ideas on and the other people who are involved in the Air BnBs.


I've stayed at Air BnBs in places that were probably million dollar homes. But it's all about how we perceive this and take it on and look at the one mistake that happened.


How are we going to prevent it from happening again? But I do think it would be something really good in our in our community because of you know the hotel situation and this is another way people make a hustle you know this is how they make extra income to take care of their families or you know just to have to take care of their homes but I do agree I'm not saying that it wasn't bad because it scared me when I heard it but I'm just thinking that it shouldn't be something that we just do away with it because we have one bad incident and I'm you know thankful Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, the ordinance fails 6-2-6.


Section number 8 is the adoption of resolution 2025-113. Could you please read this? Reconsideration of resolution regarding community solar with Illinois Shines, which is a state-administered incentive program to support the development of new solar projects.


Okay. So before we can have this, Manager Boyer, we need a motion to reconsider.


So moved. Second. I do not have that, well it would be in the minutes, attorney.


So sorry when all eyes are on me. Shadle made a motion. Klemm seconded to adopt. Motion failed by roll call vote. Ayes were Klemm, Parker, Shadle, Nays were Johnson, Simmons, The motion to reconsider would be made by Johnson, Sanders, Simmons, and Stacy.


So do you understand what's being asked of you? Question. Alderman, Sanders? Who's asking for this reconsideration?


Who's asking for that? Manager Boyer, myself. and I don't think there was a very good explanation and it kind of tied together with Mike Mudge's two presentations and I don't think that everybody really understood. So it is just to be able to have a little better discussion on this one piece.


Before we vote on that, can we reconsider the person that is and the person that was given the explanation to this particular program, we can't reconsider to bring him back to give us another understanding?


Well, that's why we, go ahead. We would need a motion to reconsider the topic first, because if you guys choose to reconsider the topic, then once that topic is back on the table, then you could talk about, hey, We're talking about it again. We want to bring Mr. Mudge back in to talk about it at that point. But if you guys don't want to reconsider the topic, then there's no point to having Mr. Mudge here.


I don't think we should be voting on something that has not been clearly understood.


Right. Well, we're not. Do you want to talk more about it? Yes. So are you making a motion to reconsider Alderman Sanders?


On the premises of the fact that he would come and give us a better understanding of the process.


Okay. Well, it would be something that maybe Manager Boyer or Mr. Segal could give a better understanding on it's really free money to the community. So if you are making a motion to bring the topic back up, I would need a second.


Johnson, and I'm second to bring it back up. Okay. So we have a motion.


Do we have a motion to bring it back? Alderman, Stacy, that's kind of out of order.


So he did make the motion. Alderman Johnson seconded it. So now that gives us the ability to talk about it.


So what we'll do next is allow Manager Boyer. You've got to vote on it. You have to vote on the motion to reconsider.


Clark. So on the reconsidering itself, Madam Clerk, could you take the role on the reconsidering?


Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No. Parker? No. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. And Sellers?


Aye. One, two, three, four. It is currently tied. Mayor? Aye. The motion to reconsider passes five to four.


So now before you then is City Manager's being able to read the memo. Sure.


Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport was asked at the September 8th Cal Mike Mudge presented on the Community Solar Bill credits with the Illinois Shines Program.


So anyway, if we were to participate in the Illinois Solar Energy Incentive Program, solar Schrodinger.


The city's largest electrical accounts are 100 kilowatts and under and will be eligible to receive the monetary bill credits from the program incentive.


These incentive programs work on a 20-year subscription timeline and the subscription program application will allow Freeport to participate and receive solar incentives from solar array projects that are being installed in the area.


Report will not have any financial or liability participation in installing or paying for any solar build project.


The City utility accounts are appealing the program due to the large inconsistent use of electricity.


Many Northwest Illinois cities are joining this program. So there's a brochure included, but essentially these are credits the City would get back based on the amount of solar activity, solar projects that are being built. I don't want to quote incorrectly, but I believe Mr. Mutch said we'd be the only community that did not approve this in the area. So I just request that Council give it some more thought and consider moving forward with the Illinois Shines Program.


Director Segal, would you like to add to that? Yes, I would. So I just want to give the basic blue-collar discussion to this quickly.


This is every large solar array that's done gets credits that they have to give back to the community and it's dollars that they have to return back to that community and it's based on usage.


This is not available for let's say our City Hall account because we don't pay electric for our City Hall account because we we have a deal with ComEd on this. This is for the utility accounts like our Wells and our bigger accounts that use a lot of electricity and basically is what they're saying is here's free money every year for the next 20 years because we have to give this money back to communities. I cover a lot of communities in Northern Illinois, this would be the first town that didn't take this money. They can't tell you exactly what it is because we can't negotiate with them until we have an approval with the accounts that Michelle would put together that we actually pay for monthly. Not that this would be massive money, but this could be ten to twenty thousand dollars a year of free money coming back to the utility with no commitment from us, right? We don't have to sign up for more solar We don't have to add more solar work. We don't have to do some special program. We don't have to add more solar fields. We're just accepting their credits because we have high volume accounts. So it's essentially free money back. There is no subscription fee to the city, but the subscriber, which is this Illinois Shine, they take a portion of the rebate as their fee for processing this deal that is part of what they do. We can't do it.


they do all the processing so and what has been offered to Freeport which has been greater than other communities is I believe they upped the rebate percentage from 10 to 15 but I don't know how that works but I don't know how that works financially for us other than it's a larger incentive that other communities get. There will be other opportunities for us besides Illinois Shine as well that's just one program that's out there there's other fields being being brought around the area and they go to the bigger municipalities so I appreciate you at least having this discussion. It is truly free money to the community that we desperately need more funding so I don't know why we would and all of the folks that are here.


We need to pass this opportunity up when there's no commitment based on us spending any financial money whatsoever.


And if the incentives or the rebates get low enough, for instance, like our accounts, we don't use enough or they don't produce enough solar.


We just don't get the rebate for that month. Attorney Zito. Just a point of question, Darren.


and many other residents of Freeport. My understanding is that we're talking just about the city electric bills that we utilize at our buildings, not all our buildings, not like City Hall, like you said, but our utility buildings.


So this is about our, a rebate for us and what we have to pay.


This program has nothing to do with the general public. That is absolutely correct. Okay, thank you.


So for an instance, one of our larger bills right now that we have monthly is our city Lighting Bill for all the street lights around town, that account would qualify for this.


It's steady usage, it's annual usage that we have to pay for, so that rebate would come from one of those accounts.


Alderman Sanders? Well, who's monitoring these incentives and these rebates and how do we make decisions whether or not we want to go forward with any of this program because we don't have a measuring stick with it.


there is no measuring stick, there's no monitoring, there's no oversight committees, there's no nothing to make sure that everything is above board. In other words, we're taking a risk as something that we don't fully understand at this point in time. And just them throwing out brochures and incentives and possible quick pro quos are probably hanging out there and the Balance that we don't know about.


We got to make sure that we have a lockdown on everything about the understanding of how we are going to receive any kind of receivables, dividends, or whatever the case may be.


We have not put that in place yet. This, what we're talking about, has not been orchestrated by council yet.


We have not had a full discussion. and others. We need to be able to have this kind of discussion to get the details of how is it benefiting the community of Freeport, who's going to be served with these types of incentive to join in, to be part of that whole process, and how the rebates are distributed.


I don't think the rebates, you narrow it down to the electric here and the facilities of our own, water and sewer and everything like that, but we don't have a monitoring system to determine that.


Council don't have it. We don't have what they say, alert status about rebates that are coming into the city on behalf of the Solar Shine or whatever who they are.


We don't have that, we don't have indicators that let council know how this is being presented and being brought back each year or whenever rebates are being submitted to the city.


We don't know that. It's just like that, I'm gonna give an example. Just like the rebates that happens out in Menards, you have to sign up for rebates.


Rebates may not ever come. and who knows who's using the system, the monitoring system as far as solar and everything of that nature in order to reap the benefits. Those incentives are just out there. I just don't see how it benefits anybody at this time.


Manager Boyer, would you like to respond? Yeah, I just wanted to comment. Alderman Sanders, you know, Mike Mudgekeem, September 8th, and none of those questions were brought up to him at the time so he didn't have an opportunity to answer your questions because you didn't ask them so I will say the opportunity existed it just for whatever reason it didn't happen. Director Steakley? Yeah I can answer a handful of those questions if you want. Sure. So the the rebate money would come directly to our Director of Finance, because that's how that works. And until we have an approval from Council, we can't sign up for a contract, but there will be no money touching any departments other than directly to her as a rebate off the bills. That's the way it works. And then it's all accounted for on our balance sheets, just like every other dollar that comes in for permanent fees or anything else. It's very transparent and it's very easily seen on what comes in. So again, if you guys choose not to go that's your take on it but we are constantly here asking for more money and here's an opportunity to capture some extra dollars isn't going to you know make us rich but over a 10-year period it might be a another hundred or two hundred thousand dollars of input to the utility funds or or to the general fund whatever wherever it comes in it gets expended but it's money that we Alderman, Stacy, would you? Yes, Mayor. What you did was not right, Mayor Miller. You tricked


Alderman Sanders into reconsidering. He never said, I make a motion. He said, yes, he would and others.


So, I think we should consider under the assumption that the guy could come back and express it greater.


Now, Darren has been allowed to speak everything that he know on this matter because he knows it all.


and giving his input is just to promote why we should do this, do something that we have already voted down and I watched the little faces in the little talks, you know, and City Manager Boyer, you're sitting there cracking up till you're red laughing because now he We got all these questions and he's wanting information and he's saying this and he's saying that.


He never physically said, I make a motion that we reconsider. You promoted that Mayor Miller.


You promoted that because that's what you want and that's what you said. He never made the motion.


So we just voted on a motion that really was not made and was not legal.


And that is not right, pushing your values and what you want and tricking him to move forward because this is something that you want.


It's just not right. And it's not funny. Well, first of all, I don't think it's funny.


And secondly, it was a motion to reconsider. and if the Council chooses to bring Mr. Mudge back another time, that's totally acceptable, but we have two men sitting here that can easily answer a question and maybe that's enough. I just wanted to bring more clarity to the subject. That's it.


He still never made a motion. He made a motion. No, he did not. You made the motion.


Please. So we have before us the discussion. Is there any more discussion on this? Alderman Sellers.


I would just like to know why would we want not want to get free money can you say it again I hear how how would we not want to take on free money and it's 20 years I just want to know why would we say no to free money Alderman Johnson I've always been told you never get anything free right so I'd like to know how can they give us something free without us not giving them something back or what is it that's promised or what's you know what's the bottom line on this is this something that I mean from what I understood Mr. Mudge to say that there was a subscription you had to do and that subscription would build more solar farms more solar places because there's not enough right now what he said there isn't enough right now around here to give us the whatever we need to get the energy that they're going to give us. So I want to know what is it that they're looking for in return because you never get anything free. Attorney Zito. And Manager Boyer and Darren, correct me if I misspeak to your guys' understanding of this program as well there. But my understanding of how the program works, what they're asking, what they want in return from the city is 20 from the city is 20 years worth of us paying electric bills to them so they're willing to


say if you're willing to commit and subscribe to us and lock in for 20 years and you're going to pay those month after month after month ever bills that you guys are going to pay i'm willing to incentivize you to lock in for that period of time by giving you this 10 to 15 discount because i locked in the otherwise all of that revenue that you're going to pay month after month that we so we would have paid month after month anyways there and they take that revenue stream that committed revenue stream that company will say if I know I got the city of Freeport and I know I have this other let's say large manufacturer that has you know a large electric bill let's say it's an industrial user right and I sign up 15 to 20 of those types of companies those sorts of users that's enough for me to justify building then my grid or my plant my solar field there So that's what they're looking, in exchange, is they're looking for a long-term commitment from the City of Freeport and say in exchange for that, I'm willing to give you a discount on your bill.


Did you want your second? Would this lead to eventually everyone in this city having to go solar?


Director Segal? I'm just curious. No. is what they're trying to do is build solar to feed the grid because we have a larger power room requirement than what Comet can feed.


So they're supplementing the grid with this type of power and the reason we're advantageous is because accounts that are already in aggregation are not eligible to be used for this type of project.


Alderman Sanders, did you have your hand up? Go ahead. When you say aggregation is not fitted for this particular project, is that what you just said?


I'm asking, I thought that's what I heard, but if I didn't, if I heard you wrong, I apologize.


Accounts that are already in aggregation programs are not eligible for this type of incentive.


So what's defying that for me, are you talking about residents or people that's already pre-existing?


right now this is just on the City of Freeport utility accounts only this has nothing to do with our right and who's governing this who's governing over this project to to make sure that the but the citizens of Freeport are not being taken advantage of this has nothing to do with our residents later this is just for the For the City of Freeport proper accounts. It has nothing to do with, does not drill down to the homes.


It does, okay. I see. Now I get the picture. Right. It has nothing to do with everyone's individual electric bill. It has only to do with the utility accounts that are done by Public Works and or Okay.


Ms. Richter during our monthly bill cycles. Okay. , and so on. Okay. Okay. So Alderman, Alderman, Stacy, did you have another one? Yes. And so for 20 years, how much are we paying them for this little, what, 10 or 15% discount? How much is it costing us month after month after month for 20 years?


Fowler. There's a subscription fee based on what you save every month, and I don't know that number because until we enter into something with them, that number won't be disclosed.


What they're saying is there's a 15% savings on the electrical bills that will qualify for this program, but they do get a subscription fee for the process.


So we don't even know what the subscription fee is costing us. We don't know what we're putting into this and we're committing to 20 years and we will not until we sign up.


That's something fishy with that. And then we have all these, the solar panels and areas we have right here in town.


They don't even take care of them like they're supposed to. They're not mowed and maintained.


I have a question. and others. And to her point, it's not like we're paying them. They're just deducting it from what they owe us.


That is the correct statement. They're deducting it. At what rate? Well, that's what he said. It's kind of out there.


But we get the payment minus the fee. So we still come out in the positive. But we don't know that.


Well, it's in the brochure. Because if there's no savings for Okay, Alderman, Simmons, Mr., oh, I'm sorry, Director, the percentage for the city's savings or the percentage of that fee, the percent, the fee and the savings, like, so I can only We go off of what the brochure was and the brochure, I believe it's a percentage of the savings per month and our rebate though would be locked in on a percentage of the bill because our electrical bills aren't the same amount every month. They go up and down based on seasonality.


So we're not locked in? Is that what you said? The percentage was 15%. It doesn't go up or go down. You're saying that percentage though stays the same.


and Dr. Hicks. That's what Mr. Mudge told us. And again, if we decide to move forward, before we would sign anything with them, we would get it all in writing.


But again, it comes back to the point, it's money that we can have as revenue that doesn't cost our taxpayers, our citizens, anything.


If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Yes. Simmons, Parker, yes, Stacy, no, Shadle, Sanders is currently absent, Sellers, the resolution is adopted four to three, oh I'm sorry it has to have five positive mayor. Right so you have half of the council voting in favor already so that triggers the situation where the mayor is allowed to vote. Okay I forgot mayor.


Mayor? Aye. And that will make it five to three that we need the five. Item number nine is the adoption of resolution 2025 118. Could you please read this? Resolution ratifying emergency storm sewer system repairs at Greenfield and Santa Fe by Fisher excavating. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Yeah, thank you your honor. The city of Freeport had an emergency repair to the storm system. The repair was much more Fischer, Fischer, Fischer, Fischer, Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the resolution? Alderman Sellers?


Yeah. I know I had talked with Rob earlier about this and I do think that, I know that sometimes you get busy and I know they're a big organization, but I do think that we as a city and in our finances, we need to look at something like this a little more Fosser to not let something like this get this far behind in paying our debts.


I know that they should have given us the invoice, but we also need to look at maybe the end of the year or something to see what still we have out there outstanding to make sure that it's paid in a timely fashion so that we don't have to come back this many Hunter, e-mail, email, email, email, email, email, email.


So that's how we can have better records for us. We did storm work in this location for a storm collapse and we did pay them during the appropriate period for the storm work. However, it led into a lot of concrete and we had a couple other jobs going with them at the same time and it was our error. We thought we had collected it but or not collected it. We thought that they had billed us for it. They thought we We've actually been going back and forth for quite a bit of time thinking it was played and I were thinking it was played but I really drilled down into this and it was unduly fair not to pay them for the work that was done and I did go back through all the invoicing and I also had the Public Works admin help me and we proved that we never paid them for this emergency work so you know it's unfortunate that they didn't bill us sooner but we have been negotiating on it trying to figure out whether we did or didn't and that took a little bit of time and like I said we had three or four open jobs with the at the time, so again, we'll try to do a better job trapping that, but I will take this one as my fault.


Thank you. Any further discussion? Alderman, Stacy? Yes, I would like to know, so when was this emergency work done and was this emergency work bided out or was it given to them to do and if it was bided out, did they bid $19,540?


Yes, so no, this was emergency work. The storms that were at Santa Fe and Greenfield collapsed last fall, and they did the pipe work.


When? Last fall. Okay, I understand that, but are we talking August, September, October? I'm going to say August. I don't know the month off the top of my head, Cecelia.


but um and we had the pipe work done but then when we did the pipe work we had to rip out significantly more curb and significant two ADA ramps that totally had to be redone at that intersection anyone can drive out there and see the work that was done so this is actually a really good price when you account for us having to do probably over 100 feet of curb and two ADA Rampstead encompassed at this repair because it went completely across the intersection actually without their contractor markup that they're entitled to this is a really good price for for the work so and Sanders the ADA ramp it affected the storm is what we're is what we're talking about that there was two ADA ramps that was over over top of the storm when we fixed the pipe we had to and take them out and put them back in.


And replacing the, well, the ADA ramp is already paid for and the storm sewer material was not paid for.


The opposite. We didn't get the, oh, the opposite, okay. We didn't get the invoice for the storm sewer repair and we couldn't put an ADA ramp until we got that storm sewer repair, right?


Am I correct? Yeah, we had to, before you can put the ADA ramp in, the storm sewer had to be repaired.


Is that correct? That's what, that's what I'm asking you. The ADA ramps could not be installed until the new piping was under- That's what I just said.


That's exactly what I just said. So we don't have, we as a council, when that came up and you declared it as an emergency kind of deal, what was the emergency?


It's just time and material. When you're talking time and material, we need to know the cost, we need to know what kind of material we're going to replace it with, how much we're going to pay for material, and what was the scope and the measurement of that project that brought us to a price that I feel that was an estimated cost until we understand that we need to know how much Farrell.


The other thing I'd like to do is make sure that we do get all the information that we can in-house, get all the material, and work our time and material that went into that project to make sure that it was an emergency kind of deal.


Because I don't recall us having any major storms, developing, and any wash-outs, or anything like that could have prevented you from continuing with the project of the ADA ramps.


B. Ford. It was not an ADA project. It was it was a storm pipe collapse under an intersection that had to be repaired. And resultingly, the two ADA ramps had to be ripped out in order to fix the pipe.


Okay, got you. Okay. So So did we get a time? Did we get a time? No, it was an emergency repair that was ratified by this council. And we went through with time and material.


Okay, so I got to say, I appreciate that you're inquiring on these questions, but the back and forth conversation, it's what's a violation. So if you can pull together your thoughts and then ask something, but then, one minute, one minute. And so then when I give the floor to the director, then it becomes his. So then if you want to speak again, then you have to ask. So it's just that procedure. So I appreciate the questions, but once someone else finishes speaking, then you have to be recognized in order to continue.


So would you like to continue with- I'm going to have a litigation meeting with this attorney, with the attorney here, the city's attorney, because as far as I'm concerned, we are in contempt.


We are in contempt right now at this moment, and you're- Okay, so let me just- Well, I'm just saying, Mayor- Okay, I'm going to give you a warning.


I want to talk to you- Alderman Sanders, I'm going to give you a warning.


you'd like to speak you you are you have to be acknowledged okay so let's try to keep it at that all right so let's let's not go past the warning Alderman Stacy yes so when this emergency event happened what's it brought to council and we voted and agreed on this but they did the work but they were not paid and so So now we realize they have not been paid and they're a year later is coming for what is due for the service they've rendered.


Correct. We only paid them for the piping portion. We never, because we had to get a, we, there was a delay to get the concrete work done so we paid them for the piping portion and the restoration, the ADA ramps were delayed so they didn't get paid right away.


is correct adage of exactly the way it happened okay madam clerk has I just looked at the invoice a little bit closer it says Stenstrom concrete work so so Darren what when you say no contract that the the markup for the contractor fees so Fisher has been billed by Stenstrom for this concrete work if we don't pay Payette, Fisher is stuck with Stenstrom's bill. They've given us the courtesy of not giving their what, 10 or 15 percent markup and they're only charging us for 19,000 plus that was done over a year ago.


That's right. Okay. Isn't that what I just said? Okay, so if there's no, would you like your second, Alderman Sanders?


Yes. I'm glad you brought that out simply because here we go again. I'm going to speak this time and I don't want to question and answer, I just want to speak on this issue, that the fact that it was something that had been repaired a year ago and we still didn't get an invoice at that time to determine what the time and material cost that justify the hourly wages and the material that was replaced in it.


We had not received that, and a year has already gone by. This is nothing but an estimation.


These are estimated, yeah, because you have not demonstrated to us the invoice. The invoice has not been looked at at this current time. We have not seen that. And so we're depending on what you're saying according to the invoice. With a non-invoice, it was estimated. These These are estimated costs and I don't need this. I just know what it turned out to be.


The invoice might be saying what you're charging, but you're not telling us why it's an estimation.


You don't want to say that it's an estimation because that's what time and material boils and others.


That's what it boils down to. That's what it boils down to, Darren. That's, well, if I'm not, who's standing there monitoring the amount of time that it takes to repair a storm sewer and what material that was used?


There's no one there, and if that had been the case, then we should have received that report long before now, and we're estimating this over, well, you can keep shaking your Pueson, Larry.


And before that, the law and the bullet is never ahead that it's not, but the fact of the matter isUNP leaving thank you for having me, never.


Until we get more understanding how we got these escalated charges that you know we don't know how much material was used, how All of the material is accounted for on the invoice by the square foot, so it's easily measurable by anybody that would go out there, and it was included in the packet.


This is not acceptable. Okay, so unless there's any other discussion, and Alderman Sanders, you were warned, now you're out of order, so please don't do it again, because if it happens again, you're going to be escorted out.


and I just refrained from talking about this. and John. I would like to ask the attorney to refrain from talking out of order.


You can talk to the attorney afterwards but please refrain from talking out of order.


Is there any more discussion on Alderman Shadle? » I would like Clerk Anderson to know that her work of attaching these memos doesn't go wasted on all eyes.


» If there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers.


The resolution is adopted 7 to 1. Item number 10 is the adoption of resolution 2025-119.


Could you please read this? Resolution approving a software renewal from Ferguson Waterworks for AMI Neptune 360.


Utility Software. Thank you. Director Sutman. Thanks, Mayor. Council, this is the annual agreement for our Neptune 360 software platform.


That software is kind of the interface for the water meter collectors. The reading is taken at your meter, goes to MIU on your house, goes to the collector, and from there it goes to 360, Neptune 360 for processing.


This agreement and proposal includes the licensing support, cloud storage, and other pertinences. The total cost is $37,138.58 and has been budgeted in the fiscal year 25 water and sewer budget.


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


on the resolution. Alderman Johnson. Yeah, I asked how much it would cost if we were doing all this by hand and people were going out and reading the meters and so forth. And it would cost anywhere between $130,000 and $155,000 instead of $37,000. So it sounds like a pretty good investment to me. Thank you. Any other discussion? Alderman Sanders? Yeah. How do Do we get to this cost? What drove this? Is this by percentage? Did we get this by percentage?


Okay, before you answer that, Alderman Sanders, make sure that you finish whatever thought you have so it doesn't go back and forth. Are you good with that question? Alderman Sanders, are you good with that question?


I'm done, Mayor. It's kind of a per user or a population size account or amount is where it gets the price and again figured in there is cloud storage, the support they give us for both the software and the hardware and then for the product itself, the software.


Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye.


Parker? Aye. Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. The resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025-120. Could you please read this? Resolution approving an agreement with Fehr Graham to provide additional civil, environmental, engineering, project management, and other professional services for the 2025 Public Works Master Services contract. Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor.


The City of Freeport has various annual engineering needs. These include topographic study, infrastructure, system mapping, geotechnical, construction, survey and staking, elevation records, ADA issues, multiple grants and loan assistance, water, sewer, storm, and utility design, structural assessment, street infrastructure, airport engineering support, right-of-way permitting, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency requirements, Illinois Department of Transportation and Necessities, Quality Assurance, Quality Control Inspections, Observations, Soil Boarings, and Analysis, and all emergency needs for professional engineering requirements.


This consultant work is performed outside of specific project contracts brought to the Council and required by specific funding sources.


Freeport requires an engineering firm that provides support with staff and technical professionals including licensed engineers who specialize in various areas of city operations.


City of Freeport annually approves various engineering contracts to meet the City's engineering needs. This support is for all City staff departments on an as-needed basis, time and material.


This contract allows general engineering requirements not related to contracted projects to be performed on a day-to-day basis for the City departments.


It also enables the City staff to be reactive to our daily needs and requirements as infrastructure and emergencies arise.


This year has been extremely busy due to the large amount of engineering work, grant submittal, extensive permitting requirements, etc.


The original contract funds have been expunged through nine months and staff requires additional funds to complete 2025.


The estimated cost is about $100,000 on a time and material basis and used as needed.


The funding for these additional services was included in the 2025 engineering budget and staff recommends moving forward with the additional services contract with Fehr Graham. And I will mention that we have had a tremendous amount of work this year. We put together a partial list and it is quite extensive. I do also want to point out that some of the fees that we are paying relate back to contract review and construction permitting and we do receive revenue back on the items through fee Structure for anybody requesting construction permits. We've had quite a few of those this year as we have NICOR, we have Surf Internet building out the fiber optic network, and we have a lot of different projects going on throughout the city that aren't city-led. So staff requests moving forward with this.


Is there a motion to adopt? Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on the Resolution. Alderman Sanders. Did I hear somebody else? I called on you. Okay. Yeah. Well, the question I have, there's an existing contractor already on board before Fehr and Graham gets is involved with this particular contractor to supplement or to engineer or to support it. Is that what we're talking about? If we're talking about that kind of occasion, then why do we need Fehr and Graham services when we have not even talked about the master services contract and what's all entailed with it? Why haven't we made a discussion and evaluated what it is that the master services even provided for even Fehr and Graham to get involved to help the supporting of this engineering.


I don't see how we can engage with Fehr and Graham with a contractor collaborating together to get the support that they need in order to fulfill their duties.


I don't see how we can establish that when we don't know how much is going to everything is estimated like I said before things get to be estimated and cost can go out the roof without a measuring stick if you don't have something to gauge it with estimation is don't have no borders that's that's the problem with that and so my whole thing is I don't I don't think Council should be involving themselves with secondary subcontractors like Fehr and Graham with a contractor called Master Service.


I don't even know what all entails with Master Service until we know that. I'm going to suggest that we get more information from whoever's submitting this or suggesting or recommending it.


and I see that your name is there Mr. Steekle. I think we should, I think before we indulge ourself in spending more money because it seems like to me we're spending millions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars just on this project or whatever this construction work is and I'm surprised that we're not asking questions as Council.


How did we get to this point and who's making, and the fact that who's making the recommendation, I don't know how we got here.


I don't like for counsel to just lie down and just let this thing go through or talk about it because there's nothing but a resolution.


It's a resolution, I understand that, but the fact of the matter is for us to adopt it so they can continue on doing what they're doing by allowing Fehr Graham to impose themselves into a contract that we don't even know and what the qualifications of the Master Service abilities are when we don't have no scope of that and so we need to reevaluate all of that and I think this is like a dead horse or dead dog heading down the wrong road and I don't think this should be happening.


and I don't think this should be happening until we reveal who in the heck is our master service and finding out what kind of work that they're doing for the City of Freeport, then we can have another discussion about it. That's my whole thing.


Thank you. Manager Boyer, would you like to respond? Yeah, I would. So let me start out Alderman Sanders. We can have these discussions anytime. We've had many of these meetings scheduled that we did not get together for, so I can answer these questions in a timely way that doesn't take up a lot of the public or the rest of Council's time. But with that being said, let me start with the list here. We've had survey calculations and Staking at the fire station improvements and there are many projects throughout the city that we've used the master services degree Program to get done that came up to about 29,000. We had utility permit reviews So that would be for all the construction going in the right-of-way that came to about 45,000 But we are getting repaid for that through our right-of-way permit process I-DOT has a multi-year program that has to be updated. That's about $5,000. Hancock Bridge preliminary design review is about $24,000, but that's a major priority. We want to get the Hancock Bridge fixed, so we got to figure out what we're doing and then be able to apply for the I-DOT funds to make that happen. That happens through a lot of diligent and careful work that goes on at Fehr Graham. Also, we required assistance with setup for the cleaning and lining contracts for all the and Tom.


So we've done a lot of sewer projects that we've done, and that's about 30,000, but we spent I think around close to a half a million dollars in sewer lining.


And that just keeps all the water out of the sewer, so we don't end up at the wastewater plant, flooding out the wastewater plant.


I'm sure you're familiar with it though. We've also got process optimization, so that's Tom Glendening working with us at the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant, getting processes in place and making sure things are running efficiently there site development so we're talking about the city develop projects we had about 6,300 there we had crack sealing bidding and construction oversight about 2,000 there tree removal we had about $8,000 in bidding and inspections and ensuring that our that our contractors are doing appropriate work out there and getting good quality for us for the city get high value for our dollars public works fuel pump paving system we spend about flour, and a total of $23,000 with the updated tanks and pumps and everything that goes on.


And just to give a little bit more context, Alderman Sanders, the original Master Service Contract, that was approved by the City Council probably near the beginning of the year, and It's with Fehr Graham, they're asking basically to add more money to that contract.


That's the simple aspect of it, because of all the work that Manager Boyer just said, we've used up the contract thus far, so now we need additional work done just for the rest of the year, to cover the rest of the year, that's all.


Alderman Sellers, did you have your hand up? No. Alderman Stacy? In the Scope of Services section of the original Public Works Master Service Contract, it states Fehr Graham will provide various civil, environment and engineering service, project management and other related professional services as requested or directed by City Manager representing and the City of Freeport Public Works Department.


Let's look at the phrase, the phrase, other related professional services as requested or directed by the City Manager.


What does that mean? What does that include? All the duties, please don't stop me, all the duties that the City Manager Boyer described in the background of his memo were considered consultant work performed outside of spec contracts.


However, these tags actually fall within the scope of public works. There were no limits or stipulations on the services rendered in the master service contract, and John.


Nor did it allow for additional invoice for service considered outside the scope. We have already paid Fehr Graham $100,000. Now, nine months in, you're asking for another What is the purpose of this again, I ask?


The situation reflects either Fairgrounds fell to properly price their service or the inability to produce and present a solid contract.


Regardless, it is not the city's obligation to provide more funding due, and it's funny to you, I see you're laughing, more funding due to accompany professional shortcomings.


I believe this issue should be addressed if and when council decides to renew this contract, this $100,000 contract with Fehr Graham.


At that time, we can consider whether to increase funding or not. We have a contract in place, and we have honored that contract.


Our end of the agreement by paying the $100,000 that the contract asks for. Okay, so you've said a lot there.


McFarland. Madam Clerk, did you say something about a contract that you wanted to? Yes.


Did you reference the Public Works contract? Is that what you said? Public Works contract?


This is a different contract. The scope of service section of the Public Works master service contract.


This is in addition to the general master services, correct? Yes. This is a different contract.


I'll clarify this. Yeah. This is the General Master Service Agreement for City Engineering, which is a totally different contract than the one you're referencing.


The one you're referencing is the Public Works Director Master Contract, which we're not asking for any more money to that, and we are just fine on the budget of that, so whatever you stated there about those implications is not true.


This is the General Engineering Contract for the City of Freeport. The original amount was $350,000 and with all the phases that we have done, we have expended that and it was a time and materials contract, which all of them are.


So if we don't extend it, which originally it was supposed to be $450,000 for this year, but we decided to go with $350,000 to start to see where that landed us for the year.


So if you choose not to extend it, the services will stop because it's a master service agreement that's time and material for city engineering.


There is a lot of day-to-day engineering that has to go on. When other people do work in the right-of-way, the city has to respond to that work with surveying or engineering, which you don't have a department for those.


So all of these items are phased tasked, they're identified, they're billed by the phase, and they're all ordered by the City of Work.


We don't decide just to use them. The Public Works Assistance that I give to Public Works is the contract you're talking about there, and we don't need extra money on that.


We're just fine. We're right on budget for the year. Boyer. Did you add to that? I think that satisfies. Thank you. Alderman, Stacy, would you like your second? Yes. Okay, so why wasn't this brought to us when you start getting close to running out of money? Is that all? So we don't have a back and forth? Yeah. Okay, Director Segal? It is being brought to you because we're getting close to running out of money.


We're still providing the services even though we're beyond our contract. We haven't stopped because we work in good faith.


We have had a lot of big work going on in the last three months with all of the construction going on around town and so as work's being done, money is being accounted for towards these contracts and these phases and when you have five or six, seven people working around town doing projects, it accumulates quickly.


and so we're at a point, we're not stopping service. We continue to provide the service every day.


We are at a point that we need more fee, which we could have signed up and maybe we should have done originally at a larger amount, but the city asked me to go at 350 to start with even though we projected it would be 450 and we would see how long that takes.


It's been a very- We'll see how long that takes. It's been a very large season. We have many contractors working in Freeport, surf internet, frontier issues, and I will say that there's over $100,000 that I have saved the City of Freeport just on fees and enforcement of right-of-way permits.


Well over that. I had one claim that was over $30,000 that came back to the City General Fund.


And Michelle can verify that. Our contracts pay for themselves daily here. And the accusations that they don't really bother me with all the hard work that we put on for the City of Freeport every day.


The facts are that these contracts work and we save the taxpayers money because we don't have to have a staff of 10 people running around here getting benefits and pay.


Pay, and our fees are all inclusive for everything we perform for the city. And we seldomly come back and ask for more money, but we will on time and material contracts because we don't have a risk amount in those contracts.


And I will also mention while we're at it that many of our lump sum contracts we have cut short with the city and we don't bill out the full amount if the projects get done ahead of time because that's the right thing to do for our clients and that's what we've lived to with the city.


I just don't come back here and brag about it every time it happens. Thank you.


Alderman Sanders, did you want your second? Yes. Yes. Yeah, I've heard your explanation, Darren, I heard your explanation, but when I find and I have been working in conjunction with each other because it says it's working with each other, existing master service is already existing, Fehr and Graham is jumping on board or they was to be integrated in order to support master service.


and then all of a sudden, we come up with this estimation. Who are we estimating for?


Fehr and Graham or are we estimating for Master Service? Which one is it? The fact of the matter is until we get an itemized list of everything that Master Service have been doing, What is contracted? We need a list of all of the services that are provided and finding out all of the things that Fehr and Graham is supporting them with to justify this cost.


If counsel is not going to take responsibility, someone should look into that matter to find and I have to find out who's dictating who. Is it Fehr and Graham to Master Service or is it Master Service to Fehr and Graham? There's a collusion going on and so we need to get the scope of it and understanding. And then right now I just don't feel comfortable and I don't think the people of the City of Freeport should feel comfortable with opening up the and the Gates of an estimated cost between Fehr and Graham and Master Service. That whole thing should not even be entertained until we get right down to the bottom of the crust of everything.


That should not even, we should not be even entertaining this. I don't even know how he got on the agenda without council discussing these matters in the first place.


Okay, so let me just bring a little bit of clarity for you. Master Services is not a business, it's not a person, it's a title of the contract that we have with Fehr Graham. It's not something separate, it's not a different business.


Alderman Sellers? That's what I was going to say. Is there any other discussion before we go to vote?


Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7-1.


Item number 12 is the Adoption of Resolution 2025-121. Could you please read this? Resolution of Final Report of Expenditure FROE from IDOT for Sullivan Greenfield Navajo MFT Project 23-00169-00-RS.


Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. As part of IDOT's process, when we complete a MFT project, we need to have a final resolution that we then submit so that we have our records all in order.


So all we're asking for is that move forward with iDOTS resolution, final report for 23-00169-00-RS.


That is the 2023 MFT projects. Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt? Motion to approve.


Shadle and Klemm. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.


Discussion on the resolution? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm. Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. And Sellers? Aye. The resolution is adopted, 7 to 1. Item number 13 is the adoption of resolution 2025-122. Could you please read this? Resolution approving the purchase of a brush mulcher attachment from Helm Truck and Equipment. Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Your Honor. Many activities within the Public Works Department require Fire, Brush, Elimination, Mowing, that type of thing. Staff has requested that we bring this to Council for approval. This is a new brush mulcher that would attach to a skid steer machine. The cost is $17,878 from Helm Truck, which is a source well dealer. This would be a vital piece of equipment for maintaining the catch basins and some of the areas that We get overgrown with woods and weeds and that type of thing and right now Sioux Basin is a project that's coming up that will be cleaning up and fixing and this is a vital piece of equipment for that.


This will be coming out of the utility budget and the amount for this brush mulcher was not specifically enumerated in the budget, however, due to the fact that we saved about $30,000 on our aeration equipment for the wastewater treatment plant, Staff is requesting using these funds the remainder of that budget for the purchase of this piece of equipment Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second.


A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson. Discussion on the resolution? Is this brand new? Yes.


Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. The resolution is adopted 6-2. Item number 14 is the adoption of Resolution 2025-123. Could you please read this? Resolution approving construction observation engineering agreement with Fehr Graham for lift station projects. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. So the city has two sanitary lift stations rehabilitation projects that were in the capital plan for this year. One is at Galena and and the other ones at Laurel, and this also includes a new backup generator for the Carroll Tank.


If anyone is familiar with well number eight, there is no backup power there, and that was one of the items that we had identified as needing to include in this 2025 construction year.


So staff is asking for approval of the construction engineering contract with Fehr Graham for the amount of $146,750 to move forward and get these projects completed.


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


Discussion on the resolution? Madam Clerk, please take, Alderman Sanders. Manager Boyer. We're talking about an interior, interior, what do I want to say, updating improvement when we're talking about the electrical and things like that that's going on within the lift station.


Are we talking about enhancing whatever this is talk, this engineering? Exactly what Fehr and Graham is going to be demonstrating to help the engineering process of this, of these lift station when it comes to planning the upgrades and the enhancement of the lift station.


What exactly? of the lift station. What exactly they're going to do and what does it cost in the city for these type of enhancements?


Sure. We're going to get to that bid here a little further on. The total cost of the project is about $2 million. It's going to include new pumps, motors, drivers and controllers, backup systems, starters, electrical work and that. So the two lift stations and then of course, well eight is going to have a whole new backup generator that's sufficiently sized to cover the entire electrical needs for well number eight.


Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye.


The resolution is adapted 5 to 3. And item number 15 is the approval of bids.


Could you please read this? A bid opening was held on September 30th for that last contract, Galena lift station renovations, Laurel lift station renovations, and well number 8 generator.


Manager Boyer? As we previously just discussed regarding the construction engineering observation estimate, But we also have the actual work.


So this was bid, let's see here, June, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, September 3, I think UW.


So we had a bid opening, Helm Group was the low bidder and the lowest, the amount was 2,036,116, that was the base bid.


And Helm frequently works with the City of Freeport on all kinds of infrastructure projects, So, staff's recommending moving forward with the low bid from Helm Group.


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


Any discussion on the bid? Madam Clerk, please take Alderman Sanders. Wow. I'm in amazement right now.


are approving this bid for the renovation with any contractor, as far as I'm concerned.


When it comes to understanding the existing generators that we already have, have it been a deficiency in those generators where, I'm just talking right now, is there a deficiency We're seeing the generators that we already have in our sheds right now or on our property where we know that they are mobile, we know that these generators are mobile, the existing ones.


We only have one now. That's all we've ever had. That's all we ever had?


Yeah. Does this show that the purpose of an extended one or a second one, do we open up more lift stations to justify why we need another generator?


Are you done? Yes. Okay, Manager Boyer, would you like to take that? I'll try to answer, so if you're referring to a portable generator, every time you have one portable generator, that means you got one guy driving around in the middle of an emergency, because when do you lose power? When you have an emergency, it's usually during an ice storm. So the idea here is all of our remote sites at some point are going to end up with their own dedicated backup generators. Okay, so Well 11 has a backup generator already. Well, Well 11 has a backup generator as part of its construction.


and the new Well 12 will have its own. Well 8 does not and Well 9 does not. We need one or the other of those always functioning. As far as the lift stations, well you know what happens when you run out of electricity on a lift station, right? It's not good. So what we got currently is one guy driving around in the middle of a storm trying to plug it in and start things up and I don't think that's safe and so and because it has to be sized for everything in the system, it's enormous. And so some things only need a little bit of power, some things need a lot of power, but you don't want to be hauling around the biggest piece of equipment you have in the middle of an emergency, even if it's just for a small reason. So this is just a build out over time as we, you know, continue to improve the utility, we're going to be putting in stationary backup generators at all critical points, so that our crew don't have to drive around the middle of the night with a big heavy generator. Yeah.


I'm sorry. Okay. Just one second. Generator equipment isn't a part of this discussion. It's not?


No. This is about approving the bid for Helm Group. So if you have something you want to talk about, approving a bid for Helm Group, then we just need to get back on track.


Okay. Would you like your second then? Yeah. Okay. On the Helm Group, did they give us a cost or I don't want to say estimate it.


but I don't like estimations anymore. Do we have a cost in mind? Would it cost the city to have the Helm Group to follow up with us? Yes. $2,036,116. Is there any further discussion on approving this bid? Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. The bid is approved eight to zero. And item number 16 is another approval for a bid. Could you please read this? There was a bid opening on October 3rd for the demolition of of five residential properties.


Thank you, Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. City staff published a notice for a bid opening in the Journal Standard on September 28.


And the bid opening was held on October 3 at 9 o'clock in the morning.


And staff received bids from five contractors. And based on those submitted bids, Staff is recommending the following submitted bids to do the work for demolition as best as abatement of five properties.


So Kleckner excavating in the amount of $31,500 and that would be for the demolition of 623 and 625 East Oran as well as 32 South Hooker.


Albert & Son Earthworks $15,840 for the demolition of 227 North Henderson and Fisher Excavating $33,150 for the demolition of 612 East Oran and 640 East Oran Thank you. Is there a motion to adopt the bids as stated?


Second We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the bids?


Alderman Stacy? I trust that the homework has been done and that all three of these companies are in good standing with federal and state laws.


I appreciate the trust, yes. Anything else? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Excuse me.


Alderman Sanders. Sorry about that. Director Duckman, these abandoned homes, are they still occupied and owned by any owners at this time?


We won't have a problem with somebody complaining about the demolition of a property without their consent.


We won't discover anything. Well, I can never promise that people don't complain in the city of Freeport over demolitions.


So I won't make that promise. But I can promise you that we won't demolish a house with somebody living in it.


If there's no further discussion. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye.


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. and Sellers. And that bid is approved 8 to 0. Move on to reports of Department Heads, Finance.


Nothing to see. Thank you. Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Public Works. I'd like to let everybody know that 18th Avenue reconstruction will start next week.


A huge win for the City of Freeport. It'd be an inconvenience for the people that live out there for, you know, probably a month, but they should get that going and have it paved before the end of the season.


The utility is going to continue on replacing water services on Warren and should have that ready to pave sometime next week and we're hopeful that, excuse me, the week after next and we're hopeful sometime later next week we might be able to pave hands as well and and I'd like to thank.


and I'd like to thank all of our contractors that have worked diligently this year to get us to a point to finish this season here in October and also our Public Works crews who have done a fantastic job paving streets this year, appreciate all their hard work.


Thank you. Fire? Yes, thank you, Your Honor. October is Fire Prevention Month, so that means we'll be starting our school visits for all public and private grade schools.


be consisting of the next three weeks will be delivering fire safety lessons to an estimated 2,500 children this month. Thank you. Police? Nothing from the police department tonight. Thank you. IT? Manager Boyer? Yes, I have one thing. I want to congratulate Police Chief Chris Shenberger on 27 years of outstanding Service to the City of Freeport. He has announced his retirement, taking effect October 24th. We will have a, we will be having a reception here at City Hall. You can contact Michelle for that details, but he's been an outstanding public servant to the City of Freeport, and we all wish him very well on his future endeavors, and we look forward to seeing his future successes. So thank you. Thank Thank you. And just to remind Council that next Monday, the 13th, the City Hall is closed in observation of Columbus Day. So our next City Council meeting, which is the Committee of the Whole, will be on Tuesday, the 14th, starting at 5.30 with the Finance Cal. Alderman Klemm?


A big thank you to Chief Shenberger. You've done a great job with working with the department.


We have an excellent group there and hope we can continue on that. Nothing other than that.


Alderman Johnson? Nothing tonight, Mayor. Alderman Simmons? Nothing tonight. Alderman Parker? Nothing yet. Alderman Stacy?


Nothing tonight. Alderman Shadle? Nothing tonight. Alderman Sanders? Sanders. Yes, I just want to bring up the first thing that came to council tonight in regards to admonishment, admonishing council and the fact that the person that is admonishing Council has no authoritative jurisdiction to be admonishing council. We got this cart or this horse flipped the wrong way. It is not supposed to be the mayor admonishing council.


It is the Council that admonishes the Mayor and anybody else in this, in this government establishment until we recognize the fact that we have not done our homework when it comes to governing, legislating, and anything else that pertains to the legitimacy of Council until council wakes up because I tell you at the beginning of my first tenure, my first year, we were duped by whoever orchestrated our orientation. Our orientation when we first got here was a lie because a lot of things was not disclosed or disclosed to council Potential Members and Council Themselves, because we're still not owning up to responsibilities for our actions here.


And so my point of measure is there's no policy. If you don't demonstrate policies, terms to Council, when someone steps out of line to make admonishment to Council, then you must be held in contempt of Council for even acknowledging and I will say that you are exerting your authority over counsel. You cannot do that until then. You have to show everything that was said in writing. Then counsel will stand by that. But you got to remember, it is counsel that established the legislation of this body. It is counsel that runs the authorizations and duties of this counsel.


We get this thing in order, this is what's going to happen. I am going to have Attorney Zito to bring forth the actual order and the duties of counsel. Counsel is just not doing the homework enough to make sure that we are all in proper order. That's the reason why and I get up screaming all the time because the order of council is out of order and then anyone that impedes upon it is in contempt of council.


So until someone wants to argue that fact, show me the paperwork and show me the policies and the fact that the council don't have jurisdiction over the whole government body of this, of these proceedings.


I'm done. Okay, so I'll just challenge you to look up the city ordinance to 2010, 24, and 25 because that's all written out. Alderman Sellers, would you have anything to add?


Yes, I would just like to say that I was down here earlier today and it was just so sweet to see the elementary children down here learning about city government and then going over to the police station, learning about rules and regulations.


I thought that was really nice so I just want to say that was really it was kind of nice to see the kids. I agree and thank you Clerk Anderson for working on that. We will move on to public comments. Is there any public comments this evening?


Go ahead. Good evening I'm Kelvin McElwain, 515 West Mosley Street. I just want to say that what was discussed here on the floor tonight definitely reinforces the perception that the city and probably the majority of this community only care about one side of the city and not the other half of the city that incident that occurred where there was a big gun sale party happening within months this This city council is discussing an ordinance to prevent something like that from ever happening again in that neighborhood.


And the ordinance that was presented was pretty radical. Basically it was to just get rid of all Airbnbs in Freeport.


Now it was voted down, but I'm pretty sure that ordinance will probably come back again, just adjust it to something that's a little more reasonable.


But the fact remains though is that there was an immediate conversation on the council floor about how to use city ordinances to control the problem.


There are rental properties on the other side of town that are even more problematic.


There have been murders, major neighborhood disruptions, drug houses, and rental properties. That's way more significant than what looked like a possible gun sale.


People on that side of town, homeowners on that side of town, are just as concerned about what's next door to them.


They're just as concerned about wild parties going on next to them. They're just as concerned about drug houses next door to them.


They're just as concerned about their property values dropping because of unkept rental housing on their street.


But where are the ordinance discussions regarding helping those homeowners out? Now church and the street is awesome.


Resource fairs are awesome. Community meetings are awesome. All the community action that's happening is awesome and is needed.


and until this city council starts having conversations about ordinances to correct and help reduce crime in Freeport, because there are certain levers that only the city can pull, just like you tried to do tonight to get rid of all R&Bs and residential properties.


Only the city can pull that lever. And there was discussion on this council floor to talk about that.


Until there are conversations on this council floor to talk about the levers the city can Paul on the other side of town that perception is going to continue and from what I saw tonight it might not be perception it actually this might be the hard reality if something happens on one side of town action is taken to wipe it out immediately on the other side of town oh well thank you is there any other public comments this evening not okay Hello, my name is Marcus Signer. Sorry I missed the meeting earlier but I made sure I put in two hours for PTR to make it here tonight.


I just had one question for you. Is there someone in mind for the new chief now since he's retiring?


Well, well I... We don't have back and forth. There's a process of it. Well, I came here today to please, and I'm asking, not let him, I remember him searching me falsely.


I remember him searching me falsely, walking as a kid, 13, 14, plenty of times, this guy.


I didn't see him in the black police detective car before he was riding in his Ford truck, making faces, you know, being really immature for what he does for a living.


That's all I had to say. Father God, in the name of Jesus. Your word in Proverbs 16 and 11 says the Lord demands fairness in every business deal.


He established this principle. So Father God we continue to look to you to take control of this city.


Father God you know what's been said, you know what continues to be done. Make it right God.


From A through Z, make it right. This is your city. I'm just living here right now. And without your help, without you doing it, it won't be done. Continue to search the hearts of the People, continue to search the hearts of the people on this council, the leaders of our city, Father God.


Help us to do what's right, in spite of, for our constituents, for this city, so that we don't crumble to nothing.


In Jesus' name, amen. That concludes public comment, we'll move on to item number 22, Madam Clerk, could you Do you please read Executive Session?


Pursuant to 5 ILCS, 122C2, Collective Negotiating Matters Between the Public Body and its Employees or the Representatives or Deliberations Concerning Salary Schedules for One or More Classes of Employees.


Thank you. Is there a motion to enter into Executive? Second. A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.


Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that? Klemm? Aye. Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. Passes 8 to 0.


you're ready. To return to open session, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll? Mayor Miller? Here. Are these on? Okay. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Johnson?


Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. That leaves us with item number 23, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-123. Madam Clerk, could you please read this? Resolution to ratify 2025 to 2028 collective bargaining agreement with Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees or AFSCME Local 3367 AFL-CIO. Thank you. Manager, Boyer. Thank your honor. The city has reached a tentative agreement with our local AFSCME Union and staff request council approval of this agreement. Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm.


discussion on the resolution. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Stang. Shadle? Aye.


Sanders? Aye. And Sellers? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7 to 0 with one abstentia. I will entertain a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Shadle seconded by Alderman Sellers all those in favor signify by saying aye aye have a good night