and then we'll be back in a couple of minutes.
Yes, ma'am, you didn't want to throw your shoes on for a bit.
Neither am I, I look in the camera.
Good evening, Justin, could you please give the invocation this evening?
Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council, everyone. Would you please pray with me?
Lord God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is in you that we live and move and have our being.
You have made us and so we are yours, not our own.
Lord, you have provided and set in place whatever powers, governments, managements exist.
and even as you have placed calling upon each one of our lives and gifted us with every
ability that we have to carry out those callings, you encourage us to turn to you for wisdom
and strength.
And you are so kind to hear and answer prayers generously, even liberally.
And so we pray for this council tonight and its work.
We pray for our city workers across each department.
We pray for first responders throughout our city and our county.
Lord move each one to call upon your name for help and safety, for wisdom and strength,
even as we ask those same things for them now here tonight.
And Lord we regularly hear and say ourselves that we live in divided and divisive days.
May we live compassionately and patiently before you and with each other.
and enable us, Lord, to find the grace and forgiveness that you alone grant, that we
might live lives of grace and honor in the days that you have given each one of us. And
help us tonight, I pray, in the name of your only Son. Amen.
Thank you. Now we'll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, could you please
take the roll? Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Monroe? Here. Simmons? Here.
Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers is absent.
Could you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Klemm?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Item number one is the approval of the agenda. Is there such a motion?
So moved. Second.
A motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Shadle. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed? That motion passes. Item number two is approval of the minutes from the meeting
on September 3rd, 2024. Is there a motion to approve?
So moved. Second.
Motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Shadle. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye. Aye.
& Co.
That motion passes.
Public comment?
It looks like it's all non-agenda items, so we'll move on to the consent agenda, which
is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless a member of council
would like to have something removed for further discussion.
None of the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file from August 2024,
the Building Permit Report, the Fire Department Report, Police Department Report, the Housing
Authority Monthly Report, and the Greater Freeport Partnership Monthly Report.
Also is a proclamation for the National Sea Tracks Think Train Week, September 23rd through
the 29th.
Also the adoption of Resolution 2024-102, which is the resolution to request temporary
and
John.
The next item is the approval of the
pre-publishing street closures for the
High School Homecoming Parade dated
October 9, 2024.
The approval of the finance bills in
the total of $2,265,039.97 and the
approval of payroll for pay period
ending September 7, 2024 in the total
Silence.
roll, Klem, Saram, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacey, Shadle and Sanders.
iada Stirrup.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
The motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Any discussion?
All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? That motion passes. Item number six is the
second reading of Ordinance 2024-50. Could you please read this? Ordinance
authorizing a lease with Matthew Van Bergen for Hangar J at Albertus Airport.
Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Again, this is approval for Hangar J
lease for the amount of $800 per month with Matthew Bergen and it will generate
800 a month for the city and staff approves the or recommends the approval
of this Hangar lease. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye.
Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. And Sanders? Aye. The lease is approved, 7-0. Item number 7 is the first reading of Ordinance 2024-51. Could you please read this?
Ordinance approving financing or funding for purchase of a utility vector sewer cleaner for the utility and street departments. Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor. City Council approved the purchase of a utility vector sewer cleaning truck at the meeting held on September 3rd in the amount of $587,670.06.
At that time, Council was informed that financing for the purchase would be presented at the next City Council meeting to be held today.
The City has utilized tax-exempt government leases as a source of financing previously.
The advantage of this type of funding is the lower rate of interest compared to regular market lending rates.
because the Lesser does not pay federal taxes on the lease payment it receives. It can offer lower financing rates to the government agencies with a municipal lease. The intent of the leasee is to purchase and take title to the equipment.
The quarterly payments for this lease will be paid out of the sewer fund and the finance department received proposals from tax exempt lending Corp with a rate of 5.49% for seven years and U.S. Bank Corp government leasing with a rate of 4.63% for seven years.
Staff Request Council to approve a seven-year tax-exempt municipal lease agreement for $587,670.
$1,670.06 with U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Financing at a rate of 4.36% for seven
years. The proposal is good until November. So, staff encourage...
Is there a motion to move this forward? So, move.
Second. Make a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded
by Alderman Shadle. Klemm.
Sorry. Motion to spend the rolls.
do we have a second okay so the the motion before you is the suspension which is
non-debatable must pass by two-thirds majority ma'am clerk could you please take
and Sanders? No. The motion fails for lack of a two-thirds vote.
Okay. So now before you is the motion to move it forward. Is there a discussion?
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah. I'd like to know on this item, did we do a proper bidding for another option? Maybe, I don't know.
If this is the only unit that's available to us that we have the opportunity to look for other alternatives.
Alderman Sanders, this was a demo model. It's a Vactor brand, which is a very good brand.
They brought it out to demonstrate to the crews. It's basically like our old one.
We have a particular case, yes, and this is no different than the ladder truck we purchased last year, I guess it was, maybe two years ago, where we purchased the demo model in lieu of waiting for years for the equipment to be manufactured and delivered.
So what's the as-is policy on making purchases of used equipment?
I think the attorney has some insight on that.
So the purchase of the Vactor truck, that was already approved at the last council meeting. So tonight, what's on the agenda is just how do we pay for it? And what's on the agenda is just to approve the loan with the bank.
So it has been approved?
Yeah, that was on the agenda at the last meeting.
Alright, thank you.
Deren. So the reason that we asked for the suspension of the rules tonight is
because we, as the approval from the last meeting, sent a letter of intent to the
factor manufacturer to purchase it and in that letter of intent we had 30 days to
get our financing in place. So that's why it will no longer be reserved for us
and gonna be sold out from under us if we don't suspend the rules and make a
and I would like to make a motion because our next meeting I believe is not until October 7th.
Alderman Stacy.
So what are our other options for paying for this then?
I would defer to the Finance Director on that.
We talked about that last week, that our cash reserves have the money but we don't want to deplete them
and we can't take this money from CIP because it's not a capital project. We do
have enough to cover in it but the finance director didn't feel
comfortable with some of the sewer repairs and things like that that we have
been having happen within the utility lately to deplete that and usually a
purchase of this size this is how we've been buying them on a lease.
Is this the equipment that they said was the most important piece of equipment for the city, the one that came after both of the vehicles last week?
Yes, the sewer vector equipment is used not only by water and sewer, but it's also been used by the street department.
Will you do a lot of hydrovacking with it?
Most days we have two of these on the street.
Right now we only have one that's functional.
The other one, as I told you last year, is a 2002
and it's fully depleted.
We can't even use it because it leaks sewer
down the streets when we bring it out of the shop.
So it's, there's really not much left of it,
to be honest with you.
It's not road worthy either.
It doesn't, didn't pass the inspections.
Alderman Sanders.
So where are we at this point?
We've already sent a letter of intent to Vactor,
the manufacturer, the sales people that brought it out.
This, as I explained at the last meeting,
the only time that this has been used
was actually in Freeport when we demoed it here.
So we're the only ones that have used it.
We cut the ties off of it to demo it to make sure
it's what we wanted.
And it's been driven to three cities since they've got it.
So we feel confident the warranty is bumper-to-bumper full just like it was brand new and never been used and so what we're
talking about tonight is to reinforce what we're what the last approval was on
this item no manager where it's it's basically to approve the financing that's
all okay which is comes back to the urgency because of the time frame of
So, just to remind Council, we got a rate from the manufacturer sales rep and a rate
to lease it, excuse me, over the seven year period and it was higher than we anticipated,
so the Finance Director shopped around to banks that we normally lease equipment with
and she found better rates, better terms for the payments, that's why we asked for some
time at the last meeting to find the best rate for Freeport.
Alderman, Stacy. So, would it be fair to say that you jumped a gun in sending out this letter without knowing how the Council really felt about this matter?
No, ma'am. We sent it out after the approval at the last meeting, which was the resolution to purchase it based on financing.
But we had not discussed how we were going to purchase it.
That's what we're doing at this meeting. The letter of intent is to hold it until we sign the contract, nothing set in stone. It's so that they would not sell it out from under us for 30 days.
Okay, sounds good.
Okay, so since the vote has failed, where do we go from here?
Attorney Zito would have to tell us that.
So because the motion to suspend the rules failed, so this will go, if nothing else is done on this matter, it will show up on the agenda for the next, at the next council meeting as a second reading on the loan, and if you guys approve it, then you'll have a loan for it, but the problem will be potentially that the vendor may not have held the, held the truck for us anymore, because they gave us a 30-day window
to get our financing in place there so it might be gone and if it is then
obviously by the next meeting then they make no sense obviously to approve the
loan because you don't need it at that point. Okay so could one of the aldermen
that voted no on the suspension changes their mind and bring it back up for
suspension to consider? Motion to reconsider? Motion to reconsider.
We have a question. Sure go ahead read it. So in your minutes from the September 3rd
meeting it breaks all this down. We had this discussion and it says a letter of
intent and purchase order would provide for an early November delivery. I don't
have in here specifically that it was discussed but I believe all of these
these options were discussed and it was Council's direction to finance and that I'm pretty sure
that was all said at the last meeting. With all due respect, I think jumping the gun was
perhaps the motion to suspend as we probably should have had this discussion and then so
Mayor back to bringing it back by one of the party that failed would tie that all together.
Right. So Alderman Monroe, I think you had your hand up next.
I did, Mayor. And the City Clerk hit the nail on the head.
We've got a couple of gentlemen that like to tax and spend and ramrod everything through.
And we want to have some discussion to understand what the best option is for the city.
And, you know, that's what this is about.
And this is why we end up in these positions because nobody wants to have a conversation.
Nobody wants to have a discussion what's best.
Were the financing? Could we?
We're the financing. Could we afford to do it? There were two options here, financing
or funding it. And I think a discussion was warranted to figure out what the right direction
was and to ask questions of the finance director. And my concern is this. We can find a million
dollars in the emergency fund to run a water line out to the west side of town. We can't
for something that we desperately need I guess and that's the question that I've
got and that's what I think really needs to be answered and asked and and I think
we've got to be able to have a conversation about it not just ramrod
things through. Manager Boyer. All I can say is we budgeted for equipment that we
forego the purchase of so we can move forward with this particular item. There
were several generators that we budgeted for we are going to postpone those
Fowler.
This is a critical piece of equipment.
We were planning to purchase a new one next year, and it failed before we had a chance
to get there.
The equipment was 20 years old, had survived at the city for many years, and we did discuss
the financing option coming forward at this meeting.
Director, Director.
I'd like to answer Alderman Monroe.
The CIP funds, the reason why we can do projects, why we can fund a million dollar project is
because by ordinance, CIP money can only be used on projects. I can't buy capital things
with them like a truck. I just can't. I have to use operating money to pay for that. If
the CIP ordinance was changed, I could do that, but I just can't do it that way.
Do you have a follow-up?
I do have a follow-up, and thank you for that, but the point is that we could ask the question
and understand it better and get back to that point, and then we would understand the importance
of getting this through the financing, and you had gone back and done the rates, but
instead there was a motion made immediately after which stopped all conversation, and
that's the problem, and I think we've got to get back to working together and not trying
to block each other on every little project.
You know, it's insane.
And I think I will stand as one of the naysayers
in the first round to make a second to motion
to bring this back up for reconsideration.
And I...
Yes, but I...
Okay, so...
Yeah, and I concur.
So are you making a motion, is that what you're telling me?
Yes, to bring it back.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor
and
the
public.
The
motion to
reconsider.
The failure
of the
suspension, the
motion to
suspend the
rules.
Yes.
You have a lot of layers here.
And now we can have that discussion.
We have to have a vote on that.
Do we vote on the reconsideration?
The motion has been, to reconsider, has been made and seconded.
It is debatable.
And it has to pass by a majority vote.
Just the motion to reconsider.
If that passes, now
to the point of the motion to suspend the rules, which is non-debatable, and two-thirds vote.
Okay. So discussion on the reconsideration portion. Is there discussion on reconsideration?
Yes.
Do you have something you want to say?
Oh, well, yes. We wanted to understand why was it held back from debating or talking about
Knapp.
That's a good question.
So you know that there's a lot of discussion about this new equipment and what it really
means to the citizens of Freeport and why we're making this major investment.
And so I think the council needs to be able to elaborate on why it is a necessity to the
city and give the residents and the people of the city an opportunity to understand its
will.
that wouldn't have allowed us to go into the suspension motion so quick and so soon
without understanding why we're there.
So, this is what I wanted to just make.
Okay. So, this is just about the reconsideration?
Yeah.
You want to talk on the reconsideration?
Well, I just want to say the only reason I brought it up for suspension of the rules
because it says it right here and we've had that since last Friday and I just brought it
Well, the thing about it is, well, the thing about it is, it would be appreciated.
I don't think you have the floor, so.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, when I get into a discussion, I'm back and forth all the time.
But my thing is, it would be a courtesy for the Council to have that opportunity to hear
I'd like to hear what was proposed and what was already approved to go to elaborate on that particular subject or that discussion. That's all I'm saying.
Okay, okay. So you have more on reconsideration?
I'd just like to say we heard all that once two weeks ago.
Does it matter?
Yes, it does.
Alderman, Stacy?
Does it matter?
We're not trying to block nothing.
We're trying to get an understanding of what's happening in our faces.
When the motion was made, I said, discussion, discussion, you did not hear me.
So we're entitled to that as the council.
We do need to look at the situation, openly speak of it, and determine what we can and
cannot do as a whole. We forget we're supposed to be doing what's best for this city. And
so I don't want to hear, oh, you're always trying to block something. That's not true.
Now I have another question pertaining to the pay. However...
that's not what's on the floor so you'll have to wait okay that's what I wanted
yes so we can get back to that but right now it's the are we going to
reconsider the suspension so if there's no more discussion on that and clerk would
you please take the role on the reconsideration Clem all right Monroe I
Simmons I Parker I Stacey I Shadel and Sanders the motion passes seven to zero
So now I believe I need a motion for or do we not for suspending the rules. Still got discussion. Right. I just didn't know what the right order was. Right. So now you're back. The motion to reconsider has been brought back. So basically, now you're at the motion to suspend is on the table, but you have so you don't need another motion in a second, but you just need to discuss and then well, it's a motion to reconsider. So it's non debatable. So it's just that it's the motion to reconsider is just or the motion to suspend.
is on the on the table it doesn't end the discussion it's just has it's an order
it's a process right so if the motion to suspend passes then it's just like we're
at second reading now and there's still discussion then on the second reading so
there still will be discussion how can we how can we make a motion on whether
or not we're gonna suspend when we're still not sure what we want to do
yes that part only speeds it up so that you don't have to do the vote on the
loan in two separate meetings right so if you vote to suspend and that's approved
then you're sitting at second reading and you still have discussion on whether
or not to approve the financing of the loan or not I think we're putting the
Carp before the horse because we're gonna vote on waiving the rules and I mean we
can do it but it's like we're voting on waiving the rules where we haven't even
decided what the rules are what the payment is.
The only way right now is if you wanted to talk about the item without the
and
John, and then there's the suspension of the rules on the
table. If Alderman Klemm, I think who made the motion originally
suspend the rules on Alderman Shadle, seconded the motion to
suspend, if they withdraw that motion, then you can talk about
the funding as if the suspension hadn't even been brought up
yet. It was just a motion made to move it forward, which was
seconded, then discussion. So that's if they were to do that,
allow for discussion on the loan and then if it was after that discussion was took place
then someone can make a motion to suspend if they wanted to.
That's up to Alderman Klemm. It's on the table and Alderman Shadle because they made the motion and seconded the suspend.
Can you repeat what you said?
I made the motion to suspend. Excuse me, to take away the motion.
You withdraw your motion. Alderman Shadle, you withdraw your second of that motion to suspend.
Okay, so now it's just first reading on the table. What would you like to talk about?
I would like to know what are our options of putting money down and not financing all of this, but making a down payment and financing the balance.
What can we do as a city?
Director Richter's, I'm sorry, is there any benefit to that?
That still sounds like a loan to me
by putting money down and then making more payments.
Manager Boyer?
Maybe, I just don't understand, I'm sorry.
I would just say that Director Richter
has done her homework on this.
She's worked very hard to get the best possible situation for the city.
And so there's reasons that she has not suggested that we put an amount down and
then also gone after a loan.
I'm sure that those are contemplative reasons.
But at this point, what we have in front of us is basically two financing options,
one less expensive than the other.
And one using US Bank, which is a local institution.
To help you understand what I was asking, let's say this equipment costs $10,000 and
we put down 5,000 cash. That only leaves 5,000 to finance. What can we put down on this piece
of equipment?
I don't know if you can do a lease that way. I can talk to the U.S. Bank, but of course
we're at a time crunch as well. None of our previous leases have worked that way. We've
done business with U.S. government leasing before for like the camera truck as well.
But have they not worked that way because it's never been asked or suggested?
I can't, I don't know, Alderman, Stacy.
If, if, um, if, um, you can...
The reason why, as Darren explained, um, why I, I wanted to do financing is that the sewer
fund and operating money only has so much money.
We have other money that's sitting in CIP,
but we can't touch that money for this purchase.
I understand that.
And putting half down, you know, $250,000 on the VAC truck
also depletes our cash significantly.
I honestly, I don't know if US Bank would do that,
and I'm hesitant to take such a draw on the cash balance.
And I wasn't even saying half,
I just used that for an example.
It could have been a quarter.
Something down is better than nothing.
I feel, if I'm buying a new vehicle,
if I put something down, that's less I have to finance.
If it's council's will, I can, or what they vote on, I can take any steps with U.S. Bank to try and put something down ourselves and then just finance the rest.
West. I assume that, you know, instead of financing the, what, $580,000, we could put
down $100,000 and then finance $480,000 if the Council would prefer something like that.
Yeah.
But then again, it's pushing back that deadline is what is the concern.
Well, she can find out and we can have a special meeting. We have them anyway.
Or we can just take our department head's word for something that she's worked hard on.
It's not that I'm not taking her word.
It's not that I'm depleting her hard work.
I had a suggestion.
and I don't think what I'm asking is out of order or asking too much.
Well, weren't all these things talked about at the last meeting?
Yes.
Yes, that was my point.
Well, apparently we didn't have the discussion that we needed.
Is there any other discussion concerning the first reading of this purchase?
Are we just going to let this go?
I mean, because that's what's going to happen. Are we going to suspend the rules?
I'm wishing to suspend the rules. If I can do that. I don't know if I can or not.
Do we have a second?
Can I?
Second.
Okay, so we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle to suspend the rules,
which means all the things that we've discussed, we're moving it on so that way it goes as if we're second reading.
We still have more discussion.
So, that portion of it is non-debatable. So, after that vote, what can we have there? It's non-debatable. Okay, so, it's non-debatable. So, Madam Clerk, would you please take the vote on the suspension only, which means it moves to second reading.
Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, and Sanders. Just knowing the rep dealers I'm
sure that we can put a down payment on a vehicle and finance less. I'm certain that
that's an option but I don't think the way the rules are that that's to our discretion so if
that's the will of the council that we want to put something down we need direction on what that
amount is right because I don't think we can just decide randomly what that amount is to put down.
Yeah but I think it's wise to take Director Richter's input on that I mean she knows how
and others.
Do you know how much money would be comfortable and what is not?
Well.
Just a minute.
She is going to answer that.
Sorry, Director.
My initial inclination is not to put anything down and pass it the way I presented it.
Okay.
Further discussion?
Alderman Sanders.
Are we trying to consider just outright purchasing this item?
Is that what we're trying to lean to?
They want to finance it.
Okay, you want to finance it.
And anytime that you want to finance anything, you should be able to have negotiating powers
or negotiating situations where you can talk to whoever the representatives of the finance companies
to work with us as opposed to just not working with us
if we're not making requests or recommendations or suggestions or whatever to look at it from
our perspective as Council and the citizens of Freeport, we should look at this from all
spectrums to see what it is that we can utilize and I don't think we have done that and so
So until we do due diligence ourselves as finance, looking into these kinds of matters
and anybody else that is involved in it as opposed to just the council just voting up
and down or whatever the case may be, I think we should do ourselves due diligence all across
the board to make sure that we're not missing anything that could have been considered.
And if anything could have been considered and we overlooked that opportunity, then it's
it comes back to the Council, why is it that we had not done that, asked these certain questions, because see we're representing the people of the City of Freeport and they expect us to ask questions because they're sitting there pondering questions, why aren't we doing certain things.
We're not the only ones that are sitting here with all the answers and what's best for the citizens of Freeport is for us to indulge in questioning and getting answers all at the same time so they're able to understand why we're asking questions, why we're debating on such a subject and whatever the case is.
on such a subject and whatever the case is.
And we just want to make sure financing is checked into clearly for defining clearly
to the people that they understand why we made such a move or how serious it is or how
drastic it was that we made this move without even considering other options.
Okay, so that's the second time that we've heard this and that's her job and so that's part of the problem here is that the council gets into the day-to-day workings instead of just making a decision based on what the directors are giving the best possible solution so that's the point we can't get in the weeds on all of this stuff we'll never get anything done Alderman Monroe did you have something?
I did, Madam Mayor, and you hit the nail on the head. I agree with you on that.
What I would question is, and this goes back to the conversations we're having on the overall budgeting that we've been doing,
why didn't the Public Works Director in the previous years put this on?
Because this piece of equipment didn't go from functional to non-functional overnight.
The Fire Chief is planning out four years.
You know, these are the kinds of questions that this is why we're starting to ask questions because it wasn't done previously and
these types of issues
Need to be kind of looked at in order. I understand the importance of this
I also understand the importance of staying within a budget and
Adding another hundred thousand dollars in finance charges that go out of our community to a national bank is
concerning to me because we've been
basically
and I are funding everything we're doing now on what's to come, and we're getting to a point where we won't have those options anymore.
I mean, this is seven years, 28 payments, almost $100,000.
I mean, that's two employees for the city per year.
You know, that's where the consternation is.
I am, you know, I support it. I get it. We need it.
but we need to have conversation about it and are the things that are left in the budget right now all
Important as we go through the rest of the year are there places where we could trim and not have to finance this
Those are questions that aren't getting asked
You know we we've bought and how many millions of dollars in fire engines the last couple of years and ambulances
five million at least and
We we don't look at the budget. We just immediately jump to
Fowler.
Well, we can't, we're going to drop the two generators.
I get that.
The generators are what?
30K apiece about?
35?
What were they?
How much?
200 apiece.
That's 400,000.
600.
So we had three of them that were, so it's 600,000.
So we're not getting those, but yet we're still financing this.
And that was in the budget last year.
So put the 600,000 on this.
Where's the money?
I'm missing something.
That's what I'm struggling with.
Dieren?
Okay.
Well, for your first question, we missed the vector by a year. It was in next year's budget, so we missed it.
I don't control the wear and tear on the vehicles. It's old. It's 22 years old.
We have got every nickel out of this piece of equipment, and if we want to park it for the next three months and wait till next year's budget, we can do that.
Just know that next year's model is going to cost over $100,000 more than this demo model that we found, and I'm fine with that if that's the decision of the Council.
Your other questions. The reason that Director Richter thought about financing over paying any cash is because at the last meeting we told you that we had about a million thirty-two, I believe, in sewer funds that could be dedicated towards this, but that leaves us very slim pickings when we have sewer repairs.
We just spent $158,000 on sewer repairs over the last two months of collapsed mains that were happening all over town that we need to address with.
So she didn't feel comfortable with selecting our cash.
Where we have CIP money right now, that's not an eligible expense for CIP.
We investigated that to see if that was an option.
It's not.
The generators that were planned for this year, the reason we didn't order them is because we were concerned about the cash, even though in the budget.
So we were being restrictive till we got to the end of the year here trying to make sure that we met budget and we don't try to go over budget and if if we would have ordered these in anybody that knows anything about electrical you would not have got a generator for probably a good year right because they're one of the supply chain items that just haven't come back so we're trying to make the best decisions I have to lean on what Michelle says if she doesn't think that we can spend that much cash and it's not a wise decision then financing is a wise decision
and others.
So, it's a good decision.
A lot of these leases we could probably pay it off early if we get in a good cash position.
So we don't have to finance it for seven years if we don't want to, but it gives us the option
to spread cash if we need to.
The other fact was her research I think cut the interest rate in just about half of what
we originally got.
So it wasn't that we just picked one option.
We went to three different sources and picked the best option.
So again, we're not telling counsel what we have to do.
this is what we thought was a good recommendation.
If you'd rather park it and we address it in 2025
and we let this one go, we can do that.
But it will cost us probably about 100,000 more
because there's gonna be different emission requirements
on the 2025 models.
And I'm fine with that.
We're trying to do this in a mode
to try to save as much money as possible.
So we've got about, don't quote me,
but I think it was about $55,000 off of this unit
because it had been demoed one time
and it becomes with a full warranty
and it was exactly what the crews were looking for.
Alderman Stacy? Yes.
We never said we was gonna park it.
We never suggested parking it.
So please don't put those thoughts in our heads
before we have another route to go.
However, what loans can you tell me
were paid off sooner than later?
Well, I think we just did it with the John Deere backhoe, correct?
The backhoe we got, it was the end of the lease.
End of the lease.
That was a different kind of lease, though.
That was an operating lease, which was set up a little differently.
You say that, oh, we could pay it off sooner if money allow or opportunity knock.
you say that but then it never happened it goes to full term and then the interest
rate is just stupid crazy. I don't feel that asking for something down is asking
too much that don't mean park it. Alderman Merrill. Thank You Madam Mayor so the
and Stacey. So the question is, is this item the payoff in next year's budget?
We had planned to purchase it in next year's budget. If we buy it now, it won't be in the
budget.
Alderman Stacey.
So why can't we put the payoff in the budget since we were going to budget it for next year anyway?
It's like we keep robbing Peter to pay Paul. Next year we're going to need these three things that you just...
The generators. We budgeted... When you see the public works budget, you'll see the generators and next year's budget.
And that's $600,000 that was budgeted this year for generators.
Correct.
So why can't we use that $600,000 since it was budgeted toward this project?
We can, but it will deplete our cash to a uncomfortable level for the Sewer Department.
So even though we budgeted, if we would have got those three dumps, we would have been in the same position financing.
The three generators?
Yes.
Yes and no. We've had, and let me answer the question, we've had a lot of unexpected expenses in the Sewer Department this year.
You don't say.
One that I just explained, which was $158,000 in sewer repairs just in the last two months that we weren't anticipating in this year's budget.
So those are expenses that come in unexpectedly, and then we have to adjust the budgets by not buying something here or there or reducing what we can.
We still have something to put toward this piece of equipment that they need, the most
important piece of equipment in the street department's lives that they need so bad.
Why is that asking too much?
It was budgeted.
It was budgeted. If that's what council wants to do, then that's the direction.
Your finance director is saying that that makes her uncomfortable with the
way the finances sit in that department currently. That has not been the only
surprise that we've had this year in the sewer department for repairs. So again, I
don't think we're fighting you on whatever you it is you would like to
We're not trying to push forward or move forward. We're just advising you that it might not be the greatest position for the Sewer Department and might put them in trouble long term.
Okay, so back to my original question. Even though we budgeted $600,000 for these dump things.
Ten years.
Yes. We wasn't going to use that budget money, no way. We were going to finance it. Is that what you're telling me?
I don't know the answer to that question.
But if the council said, but we budgeted for it.
We budget for items that we take loans on. We budget for items that we get grants on. Just because it's in the budget doesn't always mean that we have the cash to purchase it throughout that department because a lot of our large equipment is purchased over periods. We don't just spend $500,000 on one piece of equipment.
The items that you're talking about more that are budgeted in one cycle are more like our pickup trucks, our police cars, those type of items that aren't a half a million or a $800,000 purchase.
Some of the big equipment items like the Vector is a very large purchase.
We don't have within the utility, the police department, only the fire department would rein us on this type of pricey equipment.
Right? And so, again, we're not fighting you on how you want to do it, it's just somebody
needs to express what the good decision is for the Sewer Department based on the finances
that are there.
Right.
Director Richter, did you have anything else you want to add to that?
No.
Alderman Stacy?
I am not doubting your ability, your knowledge, nor your input.
I'm merely making a suggestion that we put money down on this big ticket item.
And she's making the suggestion that that's not a good idea.
is there anything else we need to talk about with this seeing none I believe
what that means we're ready for a vote madam clerk would you please take the
role Klemm Monroe aye Simmons aye Parker aye Stacy no Shadle aye Sanders the
motion passes six to one hey item number eight is the first reading of ordinance
Bordnance approving the City to enter into a fourth renewal to lease agreement with Peter
Albert regarding 103 to 111 South Liberty Avenue.
Thank you, Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
The City of Freeport enters into a lease agreement with Peter Albert to lease the first floor
of the former Raleigh Tinclad Building on September 22nd of 2020.
This lease has been extended three times and go over the extensions we've had.
In 2021, we extended the lease at $1,000 paid annually for rent, and that's expired on September
14th of 2022.
Then in 2022, it was also a one-year lease, but we increased the annual rent from $1,000
to $2,000.
and then in 2023 we extended the lease at the same terms at $2,000 paid annually and
that lease extension has expired on September 14th of 2024.
And so staff is here today recommending a fourth extension with an expiration date of
September 14th, 2025 and the terms of this would be $2,000 annually paid in rent.
Stap, that's staff's recommendation to move this forward.
Is there a motion to move forward?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion?
Alderman Stacy?
Yes.
Is this 101 South Liberty, or is this 103 South Liberty?
I'd have to get confirmation of that.
I do know it's the tin-clad building.
so when you're driving towards you know the Raleigh building complex it has that
clad siding you know what I'm is that tracking yet for you and it's that
building it's known as the ironclad building so I don't off the top my head
there's several addresses I believe the 101 is his own personal building okay
that's the one so he has his own personal building and he's also renting
from the city. Correct. He owns the south one. The one on the north side is what he rents.
And he was paying $1,000 and now he's leasing it for $2,000. Correct. Excuse me, that is
Yes, correct. Yes. Why was there an increase? Well, I think at that time when we were negotiating the terms, we looked at it, look at the value of the building and it's basically more advantageous to the city.
I mean, when you're breaking that down, $1,000 annually is not even $100 a month. So I think we want to be fair in what we charge. You know, I've disclosed the lease for everyone, you know, to see.
And, at that time, two years ago, it was thought to be fair and reasonable between the parties to raise it to $2,000.
Okay. In raising it $2,000, though, that also brought down the taxes.
I actually, I can't answer that question right now because I'm not sure, I don't have in front of me what the taxes were in 2022 versus the taxes would be assessed. That information for 2023 would be available, not yet for 2024.
So I don't, I'll be honest with you, I don't know that exact number in the tax assessed value between 2022 and 2023.
Okay, Director Duckman, can you tell me who's paying taxes on this building?
I can go around. It should be City of Freeport. That's a good point. It should be City of Freeport paying. It should be a tax-exempt building anyway, so scratch what I just said.
But the assessed value, go ahead.
Sorry, go ahead. You had shaking your head here.
It would not be tax exempt if we're getting revenue on it and Director Richter, I'm pretty sure the last time I checked with you, he reimburses as the real estate tax, is that correct or am I wrong?
Yes sir, do you want Aaron?
Aaron?
so I don't I don't know the exact numbers but typically city properties are tax exempt however if
a city property is leased or portion of a city property is leased then we lose that portion of
tax exemption so we do pay some we not right we might not get a hundred percent exemption we might
have we might lose five percent ten percent depending on how much is being leased there so
the state determines on how much do we have to pay in taxes then it sounds like michelle you're saying
and Mr. Albert then reimburses us for that tax payment because otherwise if it was a hundred percent city being used by the city we
wouldn't pay that property taxes on it and it's not 100% used I think that
building is it six floors or eight floors and he just uses one he's using
the lease agreement is for him to use one and we had to share that I now I'm
remembering now we had to share that with the tax assessor because they were
quick to note and ask us that wanted to know how much small portion it's one
and
Tom.
So there is some tax. There is some property tax there.
About $87. Yeah, if that's what you know, I appreciate it. Thank
you for telling me.
Okay. Well, then we're moving this on to the next regular scheduled
meeting. Move on to item number nine, which is the adoption of
resolution 2024-101. Could you please read this?
application to IDOT's ITEP program for a pedestrian bicycle facility.
It says presented by Alderman Klemm and Shadle. I don't know if either one of you wanted to
say something first or just let Darren recap.
This is a revision of a proposal that came to us a few weeks ago when the time for it
to come up for a vote, the vote, there weren't enough people there for the vote so it couldn't
be brought up again so we set up a special meeting to bring it up and the attendance
for that meeting wasn't enough to have a quorum so Alderman Shadle and I brought it back to
put it on the floor tonight so we can discuss it.
Aaron, did you want to do a recap?
Aaron did you want to do a recap or just open for questions go ahead so this is a
cooperative project between City of Freeport or a proposed project excuse me
between City of Freeport Highland which is just Highland the college and then
the foundation as one partner and then also the Park District here in Freeport
So it's about 4.7 miles of trails that would be built if we are awarded this grant. Potentially one bridge, maybe two is factored into the cost estimate. After the last meeting, City Manager Boyer and Chris out at Highland asked us to redo the cost estimate because the last time we had done it was in 2022.
So we did that. We also added engineering and construction engineering into the project.
So when the partners were sharing the cost of the project, it would be the, you know, the full price of the anticipated project split three ways.
Doing a little bit more digging. This is an IDOT ITEP grant. So with IDOT, none of the processes go very fast.
So we think that if we were awarded, it would be next year.
it would be a design process of probably close to 18 months and then construction would actually take place probably in 2027.
So what we asked for in memorandum of understanding with Highland and the Park District was a financial commitment of $333,000 per partner,
$100,000 in fiscal year 25, $100,000 in fiscal year 26, and $133,000 in fiscal year 27 if we're awarded.
Now remember that this is just a cost estimate. I think we are high here, but we're also, you know,
two and a half years away from building it. So if the costs are reduced, the partner shares would
also be reduced. The ITEP grant is a maximum $3 million grant, so we're asking for the max.
Hicks, and the ITEP requirements require residential connection to schools, colleges, shopping
of some nature, and then parks.
So we have to hit all those elements within there to have a good application.
So this application that's shown here is just a concept.
It's not the exact spot that it's going to go.
It's the beginning base.
the Park District even asked for a couple
of potential alternates based on what design
would actually do, but we feel comfortable
that it would be no more than a $4 million project.
And we would work to try to eliminate the bridges as well.
Cause the bridges are very expensive.
We just don't know at this point
cause we haven't designed anything
whether that's possible or not.
Alderman Stacey.
Truth be told, there was enough here for a fair vote. We had a quorum, or else we could not have even have sit down to discuss anything, and it was, it did not pass by two-thirds vote, and so how it ended back here, I don't,
Don't understand, however it did, but let's shame the devil and tell the truth.
We had enough people here for a quorum, we voted, the vote did not pass, and I, the opposing
team, did not ask for it to come back.
I was given no choice in the matter.
So let's just make that clear.
Okay, we have a little procedure issue here.
I forgot to get a motion to move this forward.
To adopt.
A motion to adopt.
So moved.
Is there such a motion?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Alderman Simmons?
Yeah.
How is this back?
Because it was voted on and it didn't pass.
And it was enough people here, because y'all was trying to get Alderperson Stacy to bring it back to revote on it. So, how is it back?
Well, he's going to answer that.
So, right, procedurally at that meeting, it was voted on. There were not the requisite number of votes to adopt the resolution. You needed five.
And the vote wasn't there. You didn't get at least five votes in favor of it.
later during that meeting shortly right after that vote there a motion it was
entertained whether or not there would be a motion to reconsider a motion to
reconsider has to be made by someone on the prevailing side the prevailing side
was it failed so that would have had to been Alderman Stacy arguably you could
have made the motion to reconsider to you but but you guys didn't because you
were gonna vote no anyways you said there so the motion to reconsider failed
We also have rules in our code that say that any two Aldermen can ask for an item to be placed on an agenda.
So that's what Alderman Klemm and Alderman Shadle did. They asked to have it put back on an agenda, whether it was at the special meeting or at this meeting.
They can do that there. Just because something doesn't meet the requisite number of votes doesn't mean that it's dead forever.
Miller.
Right?
Something can change.
Circumstances change.
So things can be brought back now.
The difference being is, or the nuance is that everything, anytime anything fails, should
it be brought back, well, if the vote's potentially not going to change, I would say then it's
probably a waste of time.
You know, if the vote's potentially not going to change, I think the difference here potentially
is, you know, the vote could be different because you have different people that, there
and so on.
So there were people that were missing there.
But let's say hypothetically you had everybody there, you know, a different topic where you
had all eight members of the council there and the mayor was present there.
Let's say we were talking about whether or not to do an ice cream social, right?
And the vote goes down, you know, seven to one there, or let's say it goes down six,
it fails, two to six, okay?
Two people want it, six people don't want it, right?
and so on.
So those two people that wanted it, that didn't get it to pass, they could technically still
put it back on the agenda.
But unless you know that someone's going to flip their vote, then it's really kind of
a waste of time to do that.
But there's nothing that prevents an item just because it failed one time from being
brought back there.
So that's how it got back because two aldermen asked for it to be put back on the agenda.
Alderman Sanders?
Yeah, and with that statement you're making, wow, what happened to me?
I feel, or the Council probably feel, the majority anyway that didn't vote on the approval
should be entertained with at least an explanation for why it is brought back.
You know, if it's going to be brought back seeking another approval for it, then there
should be a follow-up explanation of the reason why we're entertaining this again.
That's how I feel, and I think anybody else would feel that way as well.
because two people decide, well, we want to put it back on there.
Well, give us an explanation to why you want that back on there
because there's that can be other arterial motives that
is precipitating this.
And we need to know why it is that someone is requesting
to bring it back for another look at.
So I think people had their minds made up
for the very first time, and if it's brought up again,
it should have some kind of explanation why.
So Alderman Sanders, Attorney Zito explained
the procedure part of it.
So if Alderman Klemm or Alderman Shadle
would like to give more insight into why they wanted
to bring this back, the floor is yours.
Sure, if I could have the floor.
Okay, it's really pretty simple.
you've got a project here that's got three partners in it it takes all three
partners to make it work okay you've got Greater Downtown Freeport that supports
it these trails tie into many different places okay there's 4.7 miles are
basically like we said there's three million dollars worth of work we're
We're paying, if it goes through, we're paying a couple hundred thousand dollars for it.
Very low match on what it is.
You know, we believe, we've heard from the other taxing districts, you know, what the
hell are you guys thinking of?
You know, there's other people involved in this that want to take part in this and it
ties in different areas.
It ties in his ward, it ties in my ward, it ties in your ward, it ties in many places.
brings people opportunity to use 4.7 more miles worth of bike paths. So we felt as
those with it being other partnerships in this, you know, let's take a look at
you know let's take a look at this a second time and say is this do you want
this or don't you want it if you don't want it all you gotta do is vote no
pretty simple and you got to remember it's it's it's committing to the funding
for a possible grant we haven't secured the grant it's just a possible funding
are you gonna put behind it so actually Alderman Stacey was next have we heard
from Highland or the Park District. Are they even willing to do this? Because we had no
manager. Excuse me. I stopped talking so he could take the floor. I had the floor. Actually,
and now you don't, it's actually Manager Boyer's floor.
As I understand, I haven't spoken directly
with Chris Kevister, but I believe our staff has.
And I've spoken with the Park District directly,
and everybody is favorable for this.
It adds real amenities to the community.
I talked to Highland on Friday, and they
asked for the memorandum of understanding
for their meeting tomorrow, if it passes tonight.
And I do want to say, what was presented to the council
was 200,000 for the city, 200,000 for the park district, 200,000 for Highland that have
now turned into 333,000 and let the record show that the people of Freeport pays taxes
on this money, the city portion and the park portion.
We have to pay taxes on this.
and so as far as I'm concerned, call the question.
If that's a motion, then to call the question, there needs to be a second and then a vote
on the calling of the question.
There's a motion made by Alderman Stacey, seconded by Alderman Cronin to call the question.
Cook, and I know that some folks may be disappointed. I would like to see the
Chair and some Clerk take the role on ending discussion and calling the vote.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
and
the other four against and that probably fails.
So all that means is there is continued discussion.
So Alderman Monroe.
So I've got a couple of questions and this is a little bit of
cart before the horse. So if we got this grant and everybody's
agreement that this would move forward, what would be, who
would be doing the
work to do this? Would it go out to bid or would it be city and
and Park District employees, how would that work?
So IDOT requirements, would it have to be contracted out?
Anything with IDOT money has to be bid and will have to be done by contractors on that
project.
That's the, I guess, the skinny of it.
All the participating agencies that are participating in this investment that we're doing, especially
with taxpayers dollars, a lot of the funding for this grant has to be somewhat of a matching
type thing.
Is that what we're talking about?
and then not only that, who's making decisions and surveys to determine the extension or the
expansion of this particular project and who is it serving, is it serving the whole total
residential of the City of Freeport or is it just some and not others?
Am I looking at it from that perspective because I know you were saying that you might have
I have to make it, I'm putting it in my own words, that you, the designated areas that you were making suggestions for is for the grant purpose of being approved, and so you designated certain areas for this grant and I'm not saying you're just holding us to that, binding the city to that, but it's just to get the grant presentation presented
So we can get the grant approved. Is that how I'm looking at it? But it will be extended
and provided for the whole city residential areas of Freeport because they are all taxpayers
and their money has been, their tax dollars are being invested into this particular grant
project. And so I know, I know we, I know you can't name everything to where it's going,
but the most vital areas is what the grant is going to be designed for.
We're just going to leave it and cut it off there just for the sake of getting a grant, is that what we're saying?
No. There's a map and a memo that was provided with this. The map shows the outline of the existing city trail system and the proposal for the expansion.
Most of it is within the west side of Freeport because that's where our existing trail system is, so it's an expansion off of that trail.
Again, like I said, iDOT wise, part of the process, you have to kind of come up with a basic area of the trail and you have to hit the components of schools, shopping, and residential areas to qualify.
They want alternate recreational path opportunity for people from residential areas to get to parks, schools, and shopping that don't include vehicle traffic.
Trapp. I agree with you. All right. This project was already submitted for in 2022 with the same three partners. And it was at that time when we weren't awarded, the three partners said at the time, because ITEP only comes around every two years. And this is a larger amount than what they usually give. They usually are I believe half of this about a million and a half. So everybody that was in the partnership said if this comes open again, we want
Re-Apply. Anybody that knows anything that's going on with grants within the within the grant community, grant timelines have condensed greatly. So you you have a very short and nimble window to get these things together. This one in particular, about 30 days. A city manager, mayor, they all both know that if this does not pass tonight, it's dead because we don't have enough time to have the public meeting that's required with this. Highland and
and the Park District from my conversations, which have been emails, have been very positive
about this project and the outlook of it and sharing the cost of it to expand that biking
network.
And it's really not just a bike network, it's a walking path network.
Well even if the grants, even if the grant was approved and things of that nature, who's
going to be doing the oversight and overseeing?
The city of Freeport will be doing the overseeing, but it is under the memorandum of understanding
and I are working together on this project.
So, I think it will be all three parties working together, because that's what the outline of sharing the cost means.
Okay.
If we submit, if it's a yes and we submit, City of Freeport is the lead agency for this project.
Okay.
And all rules or policies will be administered to the, will be subject to the council's overseeing of these projects?
Okay, so are you telling me that the Park District and Highland have had their meeting that we
were waiting on?
No, their meeting is dependent upon this meeting tonight.
Okay, and when contracted out, when projects like this is contracted out, we the council have no say so when choosing the contractor. Would that be a correct statement?
No, it goes to the low bid procurement process. That's how an ITEP grant, when you go to a bid, when we bid something out, it goes to the low contract bid.
and so whoever's the most responsible bidder with the low price can it should
be recommended for that job that's that's with any project of the municipality so
when is it that we don't have a choice you always have a choice that's why we
there's been jobs they have come on the table so the only time you wouldn't be
able to select a low bid contractor is if there's some disagreement with a
and the contractor that the city has that they hadn't performed in the past, they didn't fulfill a contract, they have a bond.
G companies,
they have a trade deal, they have a contract, they have a bond
issue. Otherwise you're legally obligated to go with the
low bidder. Now it can be overrode, but if it is you
could have to pay the original low bidder their profit on the
project. And Eric can probably expand on that, but that's the
procurement rules with government funding.
So, again, just generally speaking, right, so if a project goes to public bidding, right, you put the bid request out there, contractors submit their proposals, right, you open the bid, typically then you award, as Darren said, to the lowest bidder, right, you want to take the least expensive bid there.
Now that person just as you know on previous agendas right when we open bids the approval
of that the selection the formal selection of that person of that low bidder still comes
before the council there.
So that's the general process I think you're asking though Alderman Stacey though that there
are times where it's just being presented to you as oh hey we're going to go with this
particular person I think that's what you're asking right a lot of times then that's where
Yohear, City Manager, sometimes reference like a source well contract there. A lot of times there, a source well contract is, it's technically already gone out to bid just at a higher level, just not at the city level. It's kind of gone out, they used to call it the state bid, where the state would go through a bid process. And they would award it to a particular car dealership, right at the state bid level, it was bid. And this dealership now has hundreds
of Police Cars, right? So then a municipality who wants to buy from them doesn't have to go through
the bid process itself because it already went through the bid process at the state level and
that's called source well. Now they changed the name of it but it used to be called the statement.
So a lot of times then if something is a source well contract the city will just bring it straight
to you without having to approve a bid because it was approved at the state level. So that's one
reason. Another time that you might not get a choice is there's only one person that does this
or maybe five people in the entire country and only one that does it
anywhere remotely close to the state of Illinois so in that sense then
sometimes that one is just brought straight to you guys because it wouldn't
be economical to hire a contractor out of California
to come do that very specialized job you know but
there's one company in Illinois that does it might be six hours away but still
cheaper than California, Boston, whatever it may be so
those are some of the examples of when you don't get it other times
There may be a situation where you guys and it's come up before where you guys you're asked to waive the formal bid process
You know sometimes if it's an emergency, you know an emergency repair had to be done something broke over the weekend
They had to just go
Pick someone to fix the emergency water leak and then they bring it back before you guys to ratify the emergency repair
Well, yes
I have a choice there because they did it because the pike was you know spewing water over the weekend
So those are just some of the scenarios
Yeah, sure.
Just one other comment that I meant to say earlier, and it's at the bottom of the memo,
but our 2024 to 2026 strategic plan for the City of Freeport that was brought forward,
there's three sections within that plan that talk about expanding the bike and rec path.
So this project does meet that type of strategic plan and I listed those at the bottom and
I went through it prior to the meeting just to make sure that, you know, those were listed
within the, why the project's being brought forward.
Okay, so no further discussion.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll on resolution 2024-101.
Mr. Mayor, just an explanation. This vote here is for a matter of if it goes through or not, if we agree with it. Is that correct?
Say that again.
It's approval of the resolution is what this vote's for, correct?
Correct. It's saying that we're committed to the funding if we are awarded the grant.
Thank you.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
No. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. The motion passes for, wait, one, two, five, two, two.
Okay, we'll move on to item number ten, which is the adoption of resolution 2024-103. Resolution
setting the date and hours for trick-or-treating in the city for 2024. Manager Boyer? Thank you,
Thank you, Your Honor. In the past, trick-or-treating has been observed on Halloween, October 31st.
For the past several years, the hours have been from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. This year, Halloween
falls on a Thursday. Staff is recommending keeping trick-or-treat on Thursday, October
31st, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. And staff recommends moving forward with that resolution, 2024-103.
Is there a motion to adopt?
There is.
Second.
made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Any discussion? Clerk, please take the roll. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. Shadle? Aye. And Sanders? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7-0. Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2024-104. Could you please read this? Resolution approving a proposal from OEC for repairs and upgrades to the city's fuel station
and a proposal from Northwest Environmental for limited Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment
Services at the Public Works Facility on Island Avenue.
Thank you.
Darren?
Yeah.
At the last council meeting, OEC's contract was discussed for the fuel station down on
Island Avenue.
The project was asked to have more respondents during the week.
We have asked two more contractors to get bids for this project and no one responded.
At this time, staff is asking council what's their wish to move forward or not.
The price will substantially go up in 2025, 2026, and 2027 for this project.
we had some issues this week down at the fuel station
and we're fine if this item doesn't move forward,
we can address it next year.
Currently, we think that negotiating this price now
is in the best benefit of the city of Freeport
and then the work would,
we basically lock the price in now,
but do the work and budget for the work in 2025.
is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Any discussion? Alderman Sanders. What's on the line here again? I couldn't quite hear you. Sorry. The fuel station down on Island Street, last meeting we brought forward a quote to rehab the fuel station. The fuel station is having problems. It's at its end of its useful life.
and others.
At the last meeting, you asked me to try to get some more proposals, so we did.
Three different staff members, we tried to get three different companies to bid it.
We got zero responses back of any interest to move forward and bid this.
OEC has been our supplier for 35 years.
They do all of our routine testing, which I believe is monthly down at the station,
and there's other tests that are done quarterly.
They installed the existing station and they're willing to work with us to have city crews
and or other concrete firms do the work that they don't specialize in.
But we don't have any other options at this point in time.
Do not.
Okay.
That's all I wanted to know.
All the questions.
There's no further discussion.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Aye. Shadle? Aye. And Sanders? Aye. The resolution is adopted seven to zero. Item number 12 is the
adoption of resolution 2024-105. Could you please read this? Resolution approving intergovernmental
agreement with Stevenson County for the use of county antenna tower at the county highway department
by the city for enhancement of VHF communications within city and Stevenson County. Thank you.
Thank you. Chief Miller?
Thank you, Your Honor. On July 8th, the ETSB Board, Emergency Telephone System Board, agreed
to fund the entire replacement of our VHF radio network. In that proposal, included
an additional receiver site located at the Stevenson County Highway Department garage
or their building. So we're seeking tonight for you to approve a resolution to enter into
to an intergovernmental agreement with Stevenson County for the installation of radio components
and antennae on their existing radio tower.
We're seeking your approval tonight.
There are a motion to adopt.
Motion to adopt.
So move.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Any further discussion?
Alderman Sanders.
Any further discussion, Alderman Sanders?
Yeah. With this antenna tower, are we leasing it as the city, a free port as opposed to the county?
Are we leasing it, renting it, or is there any transfer of funds happening with the connection with this?
As the Intergovernmental Agreement and the Resolution states, there is no cost involved.
It's just them being held harmless in case our equipment gets struck by lightning or
something of that effect.
Now, if one of their staff members were to tinker with it and create a short or do some
damage to it, they'd be on the hook for that.
But any natural causes, any failures, any maintenance, that would become the responsibility
Cronkite, and
Tracy, speaking of the city of my budget within the fire department. But right now, it's just
them wanting assurances that we're not going to hold them accountable if there's a natural
issue with our equipment.
So we don't have any insurance to...
It will be insured with our city insurance.
It will be insurance, okay, because, like you said, if there's any failure, not due to
We're not held responsible for that.
That's correct.
OK.
All right.
Thank you.
There's no further discussion.
Mr. Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
And Sanders?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted, 7 to 0.
Item number 13, could you please read this discussion?
Discussion regarding compensation
for Elected Officials and Appointed Commissioners under the codified ordinances, Chapter 220
for Council, Chapter 226 for Mayor, Chapter 228 for City Clerk, Chapter 262 for the Board
of Fire and Police Commissioners, and Chapter 260 for the Liquor Commission.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
With the municipal elections scheduled for April 2025, City Council must set the salaries
of those positions by November 19th 2024. The salaries of elected officials may not take effect during the term of any officer holding an elective office. The salaries must be adopted 180 days prior to the term of office commencing. And in the case of the city of Freeport, a new rate for Alderpersons will only be effective for those elected in 2025 and future elections. Below is a detail of the current rates. We pay for the mayor and city clerk Alderpersons,
Board of Fire and Police and Liquor Commission.
We'd like to discuss the rates with council
in order to prepare the ordinance
that will be brought forward on a later date.
Currently, the mayor's history is illustrated
on that table there with a 1% increase in 22, 23, 24, and 25.
Also, we're including a table of potential adjustments
We have a number of adjustments we could make anywhere between what it would impact in terms of 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4%.
In addition, the City Clerk is on the back page there and it shows you the combined history of the City Clerk.
And then also potential options if Council was to see fit to make any changes there.
Alderpersons currently receive $3,800 per year.
And that is divided over 12 months.
and the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.
The Chairman makes $1,200 per year, that's $300 per quarter,
and each member makes $700 per year or $175 per quarter.
On the Liquor Commissioner's current rates,
all members receive $75 per year, that's $18.75 per quarter.
So the staff proposes the following increases,
a 3% increase for each year for the term for Mayor,
3% increase for each year of the term for the clerk and an increase in the clerk's municipal
certification up to from $2,500 to $4,000, which is a professional certification that
is voluntary. And then Alderpersons increase annual amount to $3,915. So total increase in
Staffs recommendation is approximately $31,900. So this is brought to you for
discussion and yeah that's everything I have. Any discussion? Alderman Sanders? Yeah
how was the compensations scale is determined and who makes those
and
That be the council that would be the council so we set the terms of
the scale of
Compensation is that is that what I'm here?
So ultimately I think what you have right now is that staff is
Making a recommendation, but ultimately it's up to the council to approve whatever raises
We're going to move forward with this.
It's going to have to be set in an ordinance, so an ordinance is going to be brought back
to you guys to vote on if that's the desire is to make increases.
So there's only so many days before an election you have to put that in an ordinance?
Right.
For elected officials, you can only raise or decrease the compensation.
You have to do it at least 180 days before the councils take their seat at the next election.
So the next election is this coming April of there.
So 180 days, at least 180 days before that, then you have to decide whether or not you're
going to make any changes to elected officials' compensation there.
So we need to bring this up again within 180 days.
So I think the deadline, the absolute deadline to do this is mid-November IML, Illinois Municipal
League recommends that you adopt it usually around October, sometime in October, if you
guys are going to do it at all.
So in other words, council needs to meet to have this discussion to make this one way
or the other, up or down.
That's what this is for.
and so we need to come to some kind of forum or session
to make this discussion happen.
Yeah, that's what this is.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, we're doing it publicly right now.
You have to.
Right.
You can't do it in executive.
Okay, that's what I didn't know.
I'm learning.
No.
Yep, so the staff recommendation
or I suppose that's right, staff recommendation
is a 3% increase.
that's what the staff is that's what the yeah you have you have the graph before
you what it would mean for one percent two percent three percent yeah I thought
I heard I thought I heard four percent well it's in the graph so you see the
numbers yeah yeah it should be noted also and this is state statute okay so
that the compensation of all of an elected official cannot take place
in the ordinance would be dictated to take place two years after that, you know, because no one's guaranteed, no one knows for certain if they're going to win or not, and that's why it's fair to say for the half that's going to be up for election in April, you guys would vote on it, if you guys are running for election, you may or may not win, but at least you're not voting on your own salary at that point. You might be if you win, but if you don't win, then you didn't, so.
Miller, Attorney, Zito, you said something about if you choose to vote on it. In the case
of the Mayor and I, our wages are only set through this term of 2025. So please vote
and the Mayor's will be zero. Got it. Sorry, I apologize there. So, um, yeah, it looks like Dovie's and the Mayor's there, there was a schedule for them in the existing ordinance that only goes through 2025. So you guys have to do something with them, even if it's just, I'm not suggesting anything, you know, but you need to at least put something back in, in place, but tonight, here's the thing tonight, you're not voting. This is just on for discussion.
yeah yeah so it's just do you want to direct the staff to move forward with a
certain percentage not move forward with anything whatever it is we're just
looking for direction sure in the memo
In the memo, the last four years, so the mayor and I are set by four year chunks.
The last time we would have done this would have been in 2020, no, 2021.
At that time, the mayor and I were given 1% annually.
Over that same course of time, non-bargaining, just general employees were given 2%, 2%, 4%, 4% while I stayed at 1%.
If, and it has to, I mean that's stuck because that's the state statute and I get that.
If I had had the opportunity to get the non-bargaining rate, my salary now would be about $65,000
and you would be considering $65,000 plus an additional 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%.
Because that didn't happen, let me turn that around.
Under the 3% proposed, I wouldn't be making the $65,000. If it was 2%, 2%, 4%, 4%, I'd
be making $65,000 now. Because that didn't happen under the 3% raise, I would not make
that $65,000 until the last year of the term of 2028. So I am respectfully requesting 4%
rather than the 3% suggested.
Alderman Shadle that taking into account I would go along with the 4% for the
City Clerk and a removal of chapter 220 220.06 can you specify what do you what
you're talking about the liquor commissioners is council mayor I'm
sorry I didn't catch them okay so you would look you're you're saying no
No Increase to Council.
Correct.
But he doesn't speak for everybody.
That's why this is a discussion.
Yeah, I know.
Because you're writing and I'm like...
No, I just want to keep track.
Oh, okay.
Madam Mayor.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, ma'am.
The one thing I'll also highlight is that since we've gone to the City Manager form of government,
and I have gone to the City Manager form of government.
The Mayor and the City Manager together make about double
what we were paying previously,
somewhere in the 170 to 180,000 total range.
And I do understand the Mayor's importance
in the role,
but the one thing I've kind of had a problem with,
and I'm not sure how other people feel.
I know the last council felt a little differently.
I have felt that the mayor's position does work more hours
than what's expected per the pay that's on there.
I know it's a part-time position,
but I do believe that you work at least 30 hours a week,
which would fall under the full-time.
I do think we need to at least revisit the idea
that the mayor position does get benefits along with that role.
Whatever the increase in the salary is, is to be debated.
I also agree that the council not get a raise.
And we do look at the Board of Fire and Police and Liquor
and the clerk a little bit differently
than what we're looking at the council.
And it's just my thoughts.
I'm putting them out there kind of as a position.
I know it wasn't necessarily something everybody
had a stomach for because it's a part-time position for benefits.
But I do believe in order to get the best candidates always,
that we need to at least entice them with something
to bring them to the office.
Because it is a position that's not necessarily always
looked upon with the amount of work that goes into it.
And I know you and Rob both do a lot of work,
but it does bother me that we now have two positions
that we're paying double the amount to together.
But that's a whole other conversation,
but just putting it out there.
I'm not sure that your 170, 180 is accurate.
I think it's lower than that.
And I appreciate your thought on the whole package kind of deal,
Because the way it stands right now, according to the ordinance, the mayor doesn't get retirement or insurance or cell phone allowance or car allowance. It is just a straight wage. You do the math on it. It's less than minimum wage.
Attorney Zito.
And this is just broadly, as you guys go through this discussion, that I just something to keep for you guys to keep in mind there, because I think it helps aid the discussion.
there is to think about just the offices don't tie a person to a particular person to it just like would you do this for the office of clerk regardless of who's in it because you're setting it for the future right so it could be and same thing for the older people same thing for the mayor don't think of who's currently holding the position just think about what would you pay whoever fills this position and whether or not that person should be compensated that particular way because I think it takes a lot of
of the potential emotion or thought personal thoughts or whatever out of it because again we had an election coming up in in April, right? We don't know who's gonna win, you know, and stuff like that. So just think about when you talk about salaries and compensation, the suggestion is always to take the people out of it and just think about what you would compensate the office for. Okay.
Alderman, Stacy. How many hours do a part-time mayor work a week? Well, I don't clock in
if that's what you're asking me. I would say if I added the whole thing up, it's going
to be at least 40. I do a lot of things in the evenings, weekends. There's no set time
Frem. But then again, that's by my choice because it's technically a part-time position.
And like any elected official, you can choose to put in as much work as you want to. I mean,
that's obvious. In Alderman seats, you choose to how much you want to work. Alderman Sanders?
Is it the council who helped to regulate or determine what a mayor pay salary should be
or scale or wages should be like and the hours and the, what I want to say and.
This is a wage discussion as far as hours go.
I don't believe by ordinance you can tell an elected official how many hours to work.
Well, I mean, we're using measures here to determine wages. And we're trying to find out who's all involved in making these determinations. Is it the council? Is it the staff of the city? Who regulates that? Who makes that determination? If it's not an ordinance per se, yet, and to, and to increase the protection of the city,
and others. What part of the city agency governs what it is that determines the mayor's salary
and what percentage and the hours and not only that who's keeping stats stats who's keeping
the status of your of what you're what you're working and what you're worth who's keeping
who determines that you know I thought I thought it was by your peers yeah I thought it was
by your peers well the wage is determined by the council that's set by the council set
and others.
That's what I thought.
And coming back to who, the stats, I mean.
The status, keeping up your status.
Like how much I'm working?
Is that what you mean?
Yes, those kinds of things.
Well, that again comes back to, as an elected official, no different than the council.
How much work do you choose to put in?
Yeah, but I didn't know that as council that we can put our own opinions.
We can influence other opinions to go along with no percentage wage increase.
I didn't know Council can sit here and vote on something like that or make that determination
without a full blown dissent.
without a full blown discussion on it.
Well, that's what the discussion is.
So you have to set that by ordinance,
which is what this discussion is,
is to move forward with an ordinance.
And the staff suggested a 3%.
The clerk suggested a 4%.
Alderman Shadle suggested a zero for Alderman increase.
Attorney Zito?
Just to answer Alderman Sanders' question.
and I will say that that's probably typically pretty standard that you don't set well I said I heard an explanation from the council and I'll be all compensation for elected officials is determined by the council okay there are in our current ordinance there's no set hours you know eight to five two to six whatever it is there's no set hours for Alderman or the mayor and what's it and I will say that that's probably typically pretty standard that you don't set well I said I heard an
and others.
I think that's a good question.
The expression of full-time collective time is put in per week or 30 hours per week.
Well, that right there says a lot to me.
When somebody puts that out there like that, that lets me know that something is regulated
to make that increase for the mayor or any elected official, depending on what time that
and I were putting in to serve the people of the city.
I didn't know we were in that position or in that area to regulate each other, to make
that opinion, to determine whether we were at 0%, 1%, 2% or 3% or 4%.
I thought it comes collectively together that we are going to vote on it, but who's the
and General Gileson who's getting on it?
Who's laying the narrative?
Who's narrating whether or not the subject matter should come up?
Who's bringing the subject matter up?
Do we all speak on it as Councils to determine what it is that the Council wages or increase
the shield or should not be?
Do we weigh in on that?
Correct.
That's why we put on the agenda for the Council to have a decision as to hey Council,
Alderman, do we want to give raises to the Clerk, do we want to give raises to the Mayor,
what do we want to do about the Liquor Commission people, what do we want to do about the other
Commission people, this is for you guys to have the discussion, every one of you guys
can chime in and say, well I think we should do this, I think we should do that, and hopefully
there's going to be a consensus at least enough to direct staff to draft an ordinance that
moves at least in the consensus direction there.
Well, that's the whole thing. We don't have a council appointment, chairperson, or someone
to help to direct or shape the narrative of what we should or should not be doing as far
as how we come to our conclusions on anything that we decide to do. There's no set person.
Anderson. In other words, we're all just running wild in the council, not liking your viewpoint,
not liking your viewpoint. These are the viewpoints that I feel, and how we should go about determining
whether or not who has the best solution and explanation for why they're saying what we're
saying, we're saying what we're saying. So that's the reason why I'm asking, you know.
So if you want, so if the concern is that, well, each individual council member might
not know what's, you know, what's out there or what should the rate be there, well, what
you guys have at your disposal is staff.
You can direct as a council staff, can you go get some comparables as to what other communities
our size are paying their elected officials, you know, and then they say, okay, are some
of them quote-unquote part-time, you know, mayors or some of them quote-unquote full-time?
That's a misnomer. I'll be the first one to tell you that how much an elected official
is paid is kind of indicative of maybe what you're intending the hours to be. For example,
just using the mayor position. If you're paying the mayor, let's say $25,000, that is most
likely not a full-time job. So you're most likely not expecting them to put in 40 hours
a week. If they choose to put in 40 hours a week, that's fine. Now other mayors get
Payde, 80, 90, $100,000. At that compensation level, you're probably expecting them to be in the office at least 40 hours a week. I'll give you the absurd example, though, for whether whatever the elected official is, whether it's Alderman, Clerk, Mayor, whatever it is there, you can set all the expectations you want and compensate them there. Every one of you guys could choose to show up or not show up to any meeting for the most part. And
and so on.
The recourse for the most part is at the ballot box.
I'm not suggesting you guys do that.
You're not fulfilling your duties or obligations to your constituents.
But in theory, yeah, if an elected official says, even though you're being compensated
$100,000, if they say, well, I only showed up at 20% of the meetings, it doesn't change
the fact that they still get paid their money to a certain extent.
and I know Freeport has some rules in their ordinances that abrogates that, but for the
most part, you know, if you don't think your elected official is showing up or doing the
job that they're being paid for, the recourse is generally at the ballot box there, so.
Manager Boyer?
I just said I would like to say if it's counsel's will, I can get some comparables together.
Yeah, I agree with that. I'll start in Chicago first.
Mayor, I'm sorry, you said, what's the latest? My recollection is that we have to swear in officials at the second meeting in May.
That's what our ordinance calls for, is swearing in at the second meeting in May.
I think I backed out 180 days from that and it is, I think, mid-November is the absolute deadline.
You never want to put an absolute deadline. That's why I think IML recommends that sometime in October
that most communities, if you're going to do a change in compensation for elected officials, that you do it sometime in October.
So given the fact that we have two meetings generally, you know, to the extent the direction could be given so that you can have the ordinance at the first meeting in October for first reading, second reading at the second meeting in October, you know, and then it's done before that November deadline.
It gives you a little wiggle room if you absolutely need it because you could push it to the first meeting in November and still be okay.
K. So what that basically means is we need to put something forward for the first meeting
in October.
Right.
But in the meantime, excuse me, this should be some kind of formal discussion that we
should not just allow the time to elapse in desperation in order to determine where we
add in our own mindset.
I think that it would be nice for us to talk about this as we go along.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
City Manager, do you think you could pull something together maybe by the, you know, by the cow in October?
Then that looks like we're going to have to suspend the rules in October.
Yes.
That'll put it back to the third meeting, the third week, and it needs to be passed.
Okay. So do you think you'd pull something together?
sorry I'll amend that something together by the first meeting in October. Yes. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
As a discussion item? I think we're still running into the same thing of
ordinances, our two readings. Right and what I think my idea would be is that gives the
City Manager a chance to chat with each one of us, get our thoughts put it together into more of a
and I have a comprehensive along with the results that he gets back from his comparisons, the
comparables and then we can all kind of talk through it because I mean there's going to
be little things that we probably don't totally agree on that we can work out but I think
we can get to a place.
So are you saying that he should have this discussion with each of you and bring it on
as an ordinance for the first meeting in October so that way you can, as the first reading?
I think that would be the goal mainly because if we get to that point we don't have to suspend
the rules and we bring something in and if we don't reach an agreement then we always
have that option of falling back to the cow.
We still have the opportunity to change things, it's just it's getting the process.
And then it has to be quick and I think I understand that but you know at the same time
I mean here we are the 16th you know we don't have another meeting this month so you know
we're in that position where we have to make a make it a little bit quicker but
yet not crush the city manager in the process and his staff. No that's as long
as I'm not hearing any objections with that direction for staff I think that's
fine I think that gives us marching orders.
Okay, now we'll move on to department heads reports. Finance? Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor.
Thank you. Public Works? Yeah, just a few updates. City crews are working on Iroquois,
Chicago and State. We have a contractor in right now grinding the streets. Should be done by Thursday at the latest. Looks like next week we'll be into paving those streets. Please keep your vehicles out of the way if you live on those streets. It greatly enhances the time we'll be able to get the work done when we're not chasing residents to move their cars. Adams Avenue, they started today
doing some final shaping out there on the road.
That should probably take most of this week.
We should see some black binder going down pretty soon.
They should just be doing a little bit of concrete work
and some dirt work out there right now.
Ridge and Westwood, the water main
is being completed right now.
I would say they're probably close to being half done
with water main at this point.
that project should be done by Thanksgiving water treatment plant just an update on that soils the
contaminated soils most of that material has been removed from the site and hauled
off they actually are installing piles that the buildings will go on on the
Decept, and the UV, they've started installing the lower structure, the sump area, and more
concrete to work, so it's getting fairly busy out there with a lot of contractors working.
Also lead service lines, we're about two-thirds done with this package so far.
I tried to get a number on how many we've completed to date, but I wasn't able to get
that before the meeting.
So a lot of good projects, a lot of work being done, and it's going to be a very busy fall.
Thank you.
Fire?
Nothing this evening.
Thank you.
Police?
I have no report.
Thank you.
Library?
I just want to remind everybody that we're taking registration for our pumpkin decorating
contest so you'll have until September 28th to register on our website and then you get
a free pumpkin to decorate like a book character and the voting will happen closer to Halloween.
Thank you.
IT?
Thank you. I don't think communication is in here, is it? Nope. City Manager. I would
just like to invite anyone interested. We're having a ribbon cutting on Oak
Avenue tomorrow at 745. So if you can make it, you are invited. AM. Okay, I have
three events. I want to, I don't know if everyone's aware of them, so I was going
and I'll have you put these on your calendar if it works.
Thursday, the 333rd National Guard is being deployed
and they will be heading to Alaska.
They're going to be deployed out of the Masonic Temple
and Governor Pritzker is expected to be in attendance.
I don't have any details other than just that
so when I find out timeframes I'll let you know.
Also, then next weekend there is a celebration of life.
it's the continuing of the piece within the community so next Friday the 27th if you are available at 10 o'clock in the morning it's going to be cleaning up debris and trash along the Frank Street between Chicago and Carroll and then on Saturday the 28th will be the block party which is music food resource tables meet and greet kind of atmosphere and then on Sunday the 29th there will be at 1130 a.m. in that same
Spot will be Church in the Street. And then also put on your calendars for October 7th,
which is a Monday at 2.30. Congressman Sorensen is scheduled to be here for his nearly $1
million check presentation. So if you want to put that on your calendar as well. So we
will move on to Council Alderman Klemm.
Nothing this evening.
Thank you. Alderman Monroe.
Madam Mayor just a reminder this Thursday at 6 30 p.m. on Farmedale Lane we've got
the country his states neighborhood watch get together almost called it a
party there are cookies there if you like good cookies they have great ones
that'll go until about 8 o'clock and that's all I have thank you Alderman
Simmons thank you Alderman Parker nothing tonight your honor thank you
Alderman, Stacy? Yes, since it wasn't mentioned, I would like to mention, Saturday the 21st,
there will be an air show at the airport, gates open at 10.30, the show starts at 1.30,
There is a $15 general admission, children 10 and under are free.
So let's go out and support our very important airport.
Thank you.
Alderman Shadle?
Nothing tonight.
Thank you.
Alderman Sanders?
Nothing, Mayor.
That leaves us with public comment.
The first that was signed in is Jim French.
if you'd like to go to the podium, and you have three minutes.
Mayor Jodi Miller, City Manager Rob Boyer, City Clerk,
Toby Anderson, Alderman, Don Parker, David Rowe, Tom Klemm,
Cecelia, Stacy, George, Hale, is that right?
I'm here tonight as a new resident of Freeport, Illinois.
My wife and I moved in on April 15th.
We are glad to be here.
We are glad to be in Freeport.
Freeport is known on the website as the jewel of the city.
I don't know if you knew that or not.
It's recommended as a place for people to come and retire.
It's a wholesome city.
The people here are friendly, they're intelligent, they're wise, they're cheerful, and energetic,
and forward-looking.
And we are not strangers to Dakota.
We've been, I mean, Freeport, we've lived in Dakota since 1983, Freeport's been the
center of our activities, our grocery shopping, our doctors, medical things, gas stations.
We've been active in Highland and Winnipeg plays and musicals.
Anderson right here was Wendy and the star of Peter Pan out of Highland some years ago.
I worked with Don Parker. My goodness, the guy is the chief of the police while we're
putting in 9-1-1. I mean, we helped pass it, but the implementation of that took a lot
of work. If you want to see who put the place and got the City of Freeport Council and Center
to be in the Freeport Police Station, you're to Don Parker. And so anytime you want to
give that man a hand say Don we thank you for what you did to the public safety of the city of Freeport. Thank you.
Yeah, you're welcome. You're welcome. And I've had a chance to meet I worked with Mark McElroy the former mayor on a
county government.
Jim Gitts if you'll have me my new Freeport lawyer.
I know Judge Galraith. I've met him a couple times. He's a great guy. And I married Jodi Miller.
Her to her husband.
I was the pastor that officiated their wedding, so I've got a few credits here.
Dr. Quinn-Fridge is my wife, she was a substitute.
A music teacher at Carl Sandberg for a long time, she's the chairman and president of the Freeport Choral Society.
She and her friends started CHOM, the Children's Hands-On Museum, and they worked there all the time.
In my time I've been a substitute teacher at a lot of the Freeport schools.
Schools, I got to teach for a year at Aquin. It's been a pleasure, all the students, I had students in state and local government out of Highland, been an instructor from Columbia College at nighttime, any rate, for us in Dakota, this is a fun city.
I think this is a mega entertainment, good restaurants and a lot of other things. In any case, I hope they be able to talk with Rob Boyer, the manager, and Jodi Miller, the mayor, 15-20 minute discussions, and someone understands, why don't you come and talk to the city council, you can share everything you have on your mind. Well, we've only got a few minutes here. Yes, and your time has exceeded, so we appreciate all your kind words. Yes, if I could, I would like to be able to speak to both of you about some of these things.
you can set up a meeting where our doors are open okay that's all i wanted to say tonight thank you very
much hope you see this is not a one-off i hope to be able to come back and talk again thank you all
right thank you and next on the list is josh atkinson
good evening madam mayor and council joshua atkinson people are here um i apologize because i guess i
I'll be as clear and direct as possible.
Last week one of our neighbors came before this
One of our neighbors came before this council and spoke about the 49 young men who make
up the Highlands baseball team.
These students were recruited from all over Central and South America leaving behind their
families and homes for an education and a shot at going pro.
But they're struggling here.
These young men don't have the basic necessities like winter coats.
Over the past week, has anyone here cared enough to reach out to any of them?
Thank you.
I visited these young men myself after their practice last week and what I saw was unacceptable.
I joined in with the PUSH organization, represented by Frankie back there, which she was there serving food because these kids don't have enough to eat.
I saw four young men crammed into a filthy two-bedroom apartment sleeping on the floor with no table, no chairs, no place to unpack their suitcases, not even an appropriate place to study.
B. The appliances were rusted and the overall conditions were terrible, but despite all
of this, these boys were nothing but respectful and gracious.
It's embarrassing to see how Freeport and Highland are treating these young athletes
who chose to join our community for a shot at a better life.
We should all be ashamed of this.
Now let's bring this full circle, which is why I wanted to speak ahead of time.
The bike path expansion can wait.
I urge you all to get a hold of Highland and let them know that there is a better use for
for their $330,000 input into this plan.
It would be better spent on helping these student athletes
and others under their care succeed.
Rather than another four miles of bike path
only benefiting the west side of town,
we had to hear a lot of talk about how much you all
love the children when it came to possibly spending
$1 million of taxpayer money on a water main extension
to open Bible.
So where is that heartfelt energy
when it comes to these 49 kids.
We cannot continue to neglect our residents,
visitors, and infrastructure and expect our population
to stop declining, businesses to return,
and the drugs and guns to disappear.
If you truly want to represent this community,
now is the time to step up and take real action.
Thank you.
Are there any other, Wendy?
Good evening, Council.
My name is Wendy Pearson, for those of you that don't know, there were a couple of things
that were said that I'd like to put some clarification on.
First of all, when we talk about bids in this town, the question I was going to ask is how
many bids, how often are there three bidders on any contract in this town, and Darren happened
to answer that with a question, with an answer to the fact that they put out for three bidders
and got none.
How often are the bike and walking trails utilized in this town and who's utilizing them?
Some of you know my background is in minority business and contracts and specifications.
So when you talk this, Darren knows I know what you're talking about.
As far as an increase in salaries, I think the City of Freeport citizens have the right
to know what the exact salaries are of the mayor and the city manager because tonight
what was stated that their salaries are somewhere between $170,000 to $180,000 that does not give me directs or anybody else directs as to what those individual salaries are.
Finally, I wish that we saw in our neighborhoods the individual who is supposed to be the eyes, ears, and mouth of us, the people.
I wish I could see persons who supposed to be that in our communities going to meetings,
meeting with our children, going into our churches.
I'm sorry, I don't agree on an increase for the mayor.
I'd like to see our neighborhood and our mayor have an impact on what is happening in this city,
What has been happening in this city for 20 years prior to her even becoming the mayor?
I've not seen that impact.
And this isn't personal.
But I've watched too many people be put in the ground and too many of our children dead.
I have a list of individuals who were shooting, were shot, and now are dead.
This latest shooting shouldn't have been a walk around the block, which is what we did.
It should have been in our neighborhoods.
It should have been with all of you, every one of you city council meetings, walking the streets with us, and I have not seen that from any of you.
It's time to change it. It's time to stop the shootings. It's time for everybody to be involved in what is happening in our community because it's not just happening in the black community. It's happening all over Freeport now.
Black, white, kids, young folks, old folks being
Promatized by gunfire, a chief who has had to go out on the limb to try to keep from killing one of our own and I've had those conversations with him and I'd like to say thank you because that situation is one that I have been thinking was going to happen in this town for a very long time and we've had that conversation and it has happened.
Your three minutes has exceeded.
We need change people and we need you all to help with the change.
not sit on your butts in here get on the streets and just so you know my salary
was posted in the memo so you got to do is read it I'll tell you at the beginning
of the term I made twenty seven nine hundred fifteen and for yet is there any
Any other public comments?
We'll entertain a motion for adjournment.
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Monroe.
All those in favor?