Good evening. In the absence of the Mayor, I'd like to get us moving tonight. Who is here for invocation?


Uh, it's Linda. Excuse me, we're calling a meeting to order. Linda Johnson? Yes. Are you doing the invocation tonight? Okay.


Spour heads, this is on 1 Peter 1, 3 through 5. Celebrate with praises the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has shown us his extravagant mercy.


For his formation of mercy has given us new life. We are reborn to experience a living energetic hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.


from the Dead. We are reborn into a perfect inheritance that can never perish, never be defiled, and never diminish. It is promised and preserved forever in the heavenly realm for you. Through our faith, the mighty power of God constantly guards us until our full salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time. Thank you, Father, for your mercy, for your love over everyone here tonight and all in our city. May your peace abound as all and John.


Philippians 2.4, let all things be done without complaining or disputing. Philippians 2.3, let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit but in humility, let each other esteem others better than himself. Let each one look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others. In Jesus' It is now 6.01. I will call this meeting to order. For roll call, as I mentioned, Mayor Miller is absent, Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons is absent, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.


We do have a quorum, so Alderpersons, Shadle, would you say the Pledge of Allegiance, please?


Alderperson Sellers has offered to chair the meeting tonight could I have a Motion to that effect. So moved. Second. Parker and Shadle. I will call roll on that. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Does Sellers vote on herself? Yes. Yes, please. Oh, yes. Are you willing? Klemm. Aye. Monroe. Aye. And Parker. Aye. And Stacy. Aye. The motion passes seven to zero. Alderperson, Settlers. The chair position is yours. Good evening. Could I have a motion for the approval of the agenda, please? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. I missed the second, please. Who were you counting? Shadle on that? Yes. Okay. And then we had one now.


is there approval, could I have a motion for the approval of the minutes for the regular meeting of April 7th, 2025?


So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Are there any public, we have one public comment on the agenda, it is Rhonda Scott.


Good afternoon. I'm here to speak about the appointment of the Planning Commission people and the removal of one.


I'm bringing this up because I served on the Planning Commission. I feel it's a very important role in our community.


And Joshua Atkinson also served on the Planning Commission. He was voted or recommended by Mayor Miller in April 2024.


and you all voted for him then he ran for mayor because he thought you know boy he could do a lot more if he could run for mayor he didn't win but you know 1800 people from all of our wards had confidence in him then the mayor after the election she chose to to appoint somebody else to the Planning Commission without telling Mr. Atkinson, without asking for his resignation, and then it came as a surprise when the council was recommending a new person and took a vote, come to find out, then she fires Mr. Atkinson at her leisure, you know that's what that's what can be done but the problem is the person that she has chosen to be the replacement has a criminal record and I think you all should be aware that somebody who's got not just a DUI but he has I don't know He's got a violent record of, I can't think of what it's called, shoot, I'm sorry, it's


slipping my mind and I had it all in my head. Anyway, he's got a public record and it has has not been resolved and I don't think this person should be serving on the Planning Commission and I just think that he should be removed and I'm sorry I couldn't remember what my thought was but that I can't I don't know the official charge but it was choking a person.


So you know when you're choking a person and you have a DUI you know that's a serious We shouldn't be having someone like that on our Planning Commission. We need somebody with a little bit higher character than that. Thank you.


Okay, we'll move to the Consent Agenda. All items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted in one motion unless a council member requests the item to be removed.


Hearing none, the Consent Agenda. Yes, ma'am. I would make a motion that rearrange, rearrange the order of things. After item number 16, I would like to follow through with item 23.


Joy. Oh, the attorney, I'm sorry. So we're on item number four now, which is the consent agenda. So that's like approval of the bills and She voted no and I voted no, but I did not realize that that was the time to voice The consent agenda consists of the approval to receive and place on file a Board and Commission and minimum wage of $25,000, a year for a lifetime of $25,000 over the course of the next decade, we have angen was released statement, 72, analyst report. New York City, New York Times, New York Times, Washington Post, National Idioms, New York Times, New York Times, New York Times, New York Times,


$479,364.37 Approval of payroll for pay period ending May 5th, 2025, totaling $675,619.51 Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?


So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Oh, roll call. I'm sorry. Shadle? Aye. Sanders?


Aye. Sellers? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No. The consent agenda is approved five to two. Item number five is the second reading of the ordinance. We read the... Ordinance 2025-17 is amending the Cotter, 17, is amending the codified ordinance regarding residency requirements for certain positions.


Is there a motion to... Oh, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we discussed at the 4-7 council meeting, it was discussed that certain positions should not be brought to the ordinance in terms of residency.


The list is included in your packet. We've discussed that to some extent at this point.


Many communities do no longer have a residency requirement that enables staff to fill vacant positions more easily and get higher qualified candidates.


And so staff is requesting council to move forward with this ordinance. is there any discussion oh yeah there's plenty of discussion I just wanted to know who was gonna throw their hands up first I don't care which are you are you throwing your hands yeah I don't care what council member proceed to voice for their opinion on this particular ordinance, because I think it is pertinent to all council to chime in on this particular ordinance. I mean, it's an ordinance, and I think with and I think with the fact that we're not doing justice with this ordinance, this ordinance seems like it has disappeared from the council because there's no enthusiasm or encouragement about it or which direction the council wants to talk about or discuss about this particular matter.


it's a problem not just a matter but it's a problem and I think we went on this talk or discussion on last week and I think this should not go through for a lot of various reasons and I think we should move we should move on since I'm looking at the council demeanor that it seems like We're just throwing a vote away for no purpose and no reason, but I think what we should do is have another discussion on this particular ordinance so we can really get an understanding of what this ordinance represents and what has occurred since the last time we talked about this particular ordinance, and I think it would do the citizens of Freeport justice to hear from council members about and others.


So, I just want to make sure that we don't forget about their expressions and opinions instead of being silent sitting here and not discussing a matter of why this ordinance is being asked of us to vote on.


And so, I just rendered my first one. I might have a second one coming up.


Is there any other discussion? Monroe. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, this one is tougher than others, but I will, I will bring up the point again. We have for many years now avoided following the rules of this city. Plain and simple. We have a city manager who, in my opinion, has allowed this type of activity to go on. He has done things that have violated other ordinances.


and the city . He doesn't believe in our ordinances unless it fits his narrative. His beliefs. And quite honestly, it's put the city in a really precarious position now with one lawsuit that's been filed against the city. I know of a second one that will be filed shortly and potentially a third one.


This type of dereliction of duty at the highest levels of this city has said to the employees that the rules don't matter.


We will play the rules based on who's our friends, who's not. And we don't want to be like the federal government, whoever's in power basically leverages the and the city manager was on the delivering end of those dismissals.


And now we're coming back to change the rules and we're doing it in the guise of saying, oh, this is making a difference.


And I want to make it clear to you that that's not the case. Hicks, and so on.


So we're saying, oh, this makes recruiting easier. And that's not always the case. We throw in more money at it.


We're changing the rules for it. We bend the rules. We don't follow the rules. And now we're saying, well, let's just change the rules so that way it's okay.


And that's not the way that this should work. We have a curfew in the city.


And if a 17-year-old or a 15-year-old kid is out past and a couple of other things. The first is that we want to keep citizens in my neighborhood recently with people going through cars and doing things illegal. We want them held accountable. The same as we want our citizens that work for this city to be held accountable. It's not a hard thing to figure out. If you make it a place where people want I'm a little embarrassed because you got ladies that they enjoy coming to work you don't need to change all these rules they'll figure it out or they'll come to the Council Council or they'll come to the department or they'll come to you and they'll ask for a waiver or something to say let's let's let that happen we do that all the time with building codes with other things but going about changing this rule just so we can cover and I have been in the city for six years.


It's insane. Because we don't want to hold the people that work for the city to the same rules and standards that we ask our citizens to be held to.


And I think that's the important piece of this on that part. But on the other part, we want the people who want to live here working in our community.


It's no different than the Freeport School District. It's no different than Orangeville School District.


if you want to live outside the city then come up with something that says look we are going to pay you less money if you live somewhere else give up something I have to pay money for my son to go to Orangeville School District I do it and I have my reasons for doing it but the rules are there to be followed not to be cast away by a city manager and a mayor who don't want to follow the rules this is why we got drug problems in this city because we're not holding people and I'm not going to be able to get people accountable.


Plain and simple. I yield. Manager Boyer? Yeah, I'd like to address that. I don't know what you're talking about.


I've hired two directors. Brian has relocated to city limits and Chief was hired by this council knowing he lived in Dakota.


And the reason why this residency doesn't work is because we cannot promote from within because people locate according to our resident our policies when they live outside of city limits but when they get up to a higher level we can't promote our good people because they've already established a life outside the city this doesn't make any sense Alderman I am sorry I'm sorry you do not understand this issue thank you When you say, Manager Boyer, that this was, Chief Shenberger was hired by this council and Mr. Monroe was a part of that vote, knowing that he did not live in the city and you voted for it.


You're a very eloquent speaker, but there's no substance there. whatever occurred even during that voting process I wasn't available I can't recall myself voting for that but nevertheless the ordinance is the ordinance and people got to be held accountable for making decisions on even the hiring practice of this particular ordinance you cannot you cannot do hiring if the ordinance does does not permit you to do so. If you have not the permission to do so, first of all, the ordinance stipulates exactly what it says. You can't go above it and make your own rules Rose, and amend your own rules without and I'm going to start with the Council's decision to overrule an ordinance.


So here we are talking about an ordinance that has been, first of all, does not work with the citizens of the city of Freeport because we have no data information for us as Councilmembers to even determine what the rules are.


Miller, to even determine had anyone been seeking or to apply or was there a promotion put before the public for these particular positions.


And we don't have that data. We're handed a bunch of information that's coming orally out of the mouths of individuals.


Well, I like to see documentation myself. I like to see data. I like to see the fact that this process went through that particular motion.


So without any of that, I just want to make sure that we understand that that ordinance, first of all, should never apply to hire anyone outside of the Residence of Freeport.


that ordinance clearly states that you're not prohibited to hire outside of the City of Freeport, but yet it was violated.


And I think there should be consequences for these types of actions, ordinances that are blatantly ignored, worked around, pushed through, disregarding the citizens of Freeport that has to abide by these ordinances and then we have a few who decide, well we're going to ignore what the citizens of the City of Freeport really wants or what their opinions are or what their objections are or whatever the case is.


So I think we're doing a disservice as council, directors, staff, and anyone else who doesn't and step up and speak up on these particular matters.


You know, you're just as part of the decision making in the council, the people look forward to council to make the right decisions and making good decisions.


This particular ordinance has a clear violation being imposed upon it. and I think this should not go forward.


I don't even think we should be even sitting here discussing it. Resignations should be forthcoming and resignations should be delivered to council for the wrong purpose or the wrong procedure processing of out of state or out of city limits of residencies.


and others. So I just think that that's what should happen and we should appeal to that.


We should make sure that we voice our opinion because I tell you, we keep going down this road, other things are going to happen and the disapproval of the citizens of Freeport.


We got to remember, we don't work for ourselves up here. We work for the citizens of Freeport and what our opinions and decision make matters to the people of Freeport.


It really matters. and so your constituents look for you to be part of a organization or the city government that's making good decisions and we don't need all of this other back door stuff going on.


Manager Boyer? Alderman Sanders, no one has been violating ordinances. Ordinances, we do our utmost to follow all the ordinance to the best of our ability and it is not appreciated by you or anyone else to denigrate myself or the staff for not following the ordinances.


So, yeah. Alderman Parker? Well, I'll tell you, just from working for the city for 30 years and realizing you do want important positions like the Chief, you do want the best person for it.


has done an excellent job and we've been in violation of that this is going to fix that this is now going to fix the mistake or fix the issue and allow him to live where he is and still service as he's been doing thank you I just I would like to say something for a second I know that when we hired Chief we were asked to do whatever the government thing and go on and look to pay $20,000 to go out and try to find somebody and we had him right here and we said here and we voted yes and he's done a dang good job on his job.


He has put bridges back together that was broken down and so he has done his job.


he only lives in Dakota which I can even go along with Stevenson County but I just don't I I mean at this point I would vote yes to for this ordinance to go through okay who I mean was it you okay I just have a question for the attorney a clarification if if a staff member was hired with the knowledge that you know Thank you so everybody's probably wondering at home what and others.


What are these definitions? What does this mean? So basically, it goes through in the ordinances, I'll use the police for one instance, 240.31, residency requirement.


There's a whole bunch of subsections, there's a lot of legal mumble jumble, but here's the key.


and other officers. Residency is required each and every officer unless otherwise exempted by subsection C below who is designated with the following rank and or title shall be a resident as that term is defined in subsection A thereof and shall maintain resident status during his or her period of employment.


and the Chief of Police, and I've got the City Manager sitting here saying we don't violate ordinances, we follow the rules, and I've got a former Chief of Police going, well, this will put us back in line so we're in line with the ordinance. They don't understand the hypocritical clown circus that that sounds like. And the problem is, is that all of us, and the rest of us in this room are held accountable to the same set of rules, and this guy is the first one that will slap a foreclosure, or not a foreclosure, but a condemned, he'll have his guy put a condemned sign on your house the second it's out of, you'll start getting fines, you'll be coming in front of a committee in here, and this is how he runs the city, and he goes, well guess what, I've never broken the ordinances, I've appointed multiple people.


and others. And he also fired somebody when he had somebody file a false report saying that that person violated a rule, a safety rule within the public works department.


And now six months to a year later, I found out that's not true. Also, he could appoint his neighbor because he's following the ordinances.


And I am. But I'm pointing out this man is a liar and he and he doesn't follow the ordinances so essentially the rules are for all of us but not for him not for his buddies and I agree that the chief of police it was voted on we as a council voted on him all of these should come to the council if you're going to go against this who has and I have the authority to hand out essentially an approval to go beyond this to get out of this rule and that's us the council and they've been appointing people to positions and expecting us to then come back and change this ordinance and it's not it doesn't even make sense they had a six month grace period six months and we wonder We can't keep people in the city because we're making it easier and easier and pushing people out of the city. And it's these types of things that do that. Plain and simple. Yeah. No, you can't. Just if I may for a point of clarification, the Deputy for a point of clarification, the Deputy Chief, lieutenants and sergeants do not, they're not required to live within the city.


There's a radius and they're all in compliance with that. Are there any other? Can you clarify that for us?


What's the, I gotta look up the section here, so. 240.31. I don't lie. B1 says each and every officer, unless exempted under Subsection C, should and Michelle live within, shall have a residency and that's the Deputy Chief, Lieutenant, Sergeant, but then the exemptions in C talk about C2, any officer holding a rank and or title listed in subsection B1 above, which is the Deputy Chief, Lieutenant, and Sergeant, prior to the effective date of this ordinance with established residency within 20 mile radius of the police station, can maintain that residency as previously established.


So, if they lived outside of the city prior to this ordinance being adopted, which I think we said last time was in 2017, or they're within 20 miles, then they get to stay there.


Are there any other? Alderman Stacy? I just want to say that I was on this, I had been seated at the table when Chief Shenberger was voted in. I was very, very new, didn't know what all I was doing, but I was a willing Vessel. However, it saddens my spirit to know that I cannot take the word of my leaders, that I cannot trust that what they're doing is the right thing. Though none of us know and I know all these ordinance. And if it's not explained that this time we're going to break the ordinance, that part isn't heard of.


What's brought to the council is to vote Chief Shenberger in, and we did, without knowing rules were being bent and broken.


and that just means we have more work to do from Friday after 5 to Monday because we cannot trust the leaders that's in charge to do the right thing.


I just, I don't know how else to say it. I did not know about this ordinance. I didn't know the stipulations. But somebody did. And that didn't matter at the time. And that's That's why we're where we are today, because it should have mattered.


It should have been forthcoming. And then maybe two years ago, we would have been changing the rules instead of where we're at today.


Alderperson, Sellers, can I ask a clarification from the City Attorney? and or Discharge Slash Termination.


Are there any other discussion? Can you repeat that again? Violation penalty, any officer violating any provision of this section is subject to the discipline of suspension without pay until the officer is in compliance with this section or discharge slash termination.


Alderman Shadle. Thank you. At the time that we were discussing hiring Chief Shenberger, the fact that he lived outside the city was discussed and it was discussed that there was an ordinance saying that he had to live in and that he had said he would not move within the city and we as a council with the understanding that this would come up in the future to change this ordinance, We as a council voted to hire Chief Shenberger. You can hold the minutes if you want to, but it was discussed and it was understood by myself at any rate and we hired the man. And it was with the understanding that this ordinance would be changed and for whatever reason it it hasn't come up till now, but here it is.


Are there any other ones that have not spoken? Do they want to speak? If not, is there a motion?


I do. Oh, okay. I just want to understand you, Alderman Shadle. So do I understand you to be saying it was clearly said that he would not be moving to town and that the ordinance was discussed and we still voted him in knowing that it was all in violation.


He wants to respond to me. Well, he did speak two times. I know, but he's...


So, we gotta follow the rules. Yep, that's fine. Yeah, he spoke twice, because... But then I have no answer.


But Alderman Sanders wanted to speak again, too, and we didn't let him, so I'm trying to...


But it was not an answer to the question. He's trying to answer my question.


I asked the question. Is there... How do we handle that? If under our rules if someone wants to speak a third time the council has to unanimously vote to let them speak a third time. Okay, is there a motion that we let Alderman Shadle speak a third time? I make a motion. I'll second that. Okay, so will you call the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye.


Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, and Stacy. Aye. And it is unanimous. Okay, Shadle. Yes, it was, as I stated, it was discussed, and it was understood, I thought, by everybody present, but we were all there, and the understanding, the way I recall, is that and I think that this ordinance would get changed and for whatever reason it has not come up till now and here we are.


Okay and this is the second reading so we will take a motion. I would like to make a motion that we take a recess and have the the clerk and I. And I think that's what we need to do, to retrieve those meeting minutes, because I don't remember that. I don't remember that we were just going to change this rule, and I quite honestly think that it's ludicrous.


Second. Oh, Alderman Klemm. Just so you know, to take a little pressure off of Chief Shenberger, this isn't the first time it's been done. It's been done for Todd Barclow. Todd Barclow was police chief two times ago. Todd Barclow lived in Forreston. He came up to hire a chief of police and everybody was in agreement at that time to let him live in Forreston for that period of time and to to stay there. He had built a new house there, had no intention to build another house in Freeport. So this is not the first time it happened. So if you think you're not only the four people, it's...


You're not only the four people that sat there and voted somebody in, it's happened before.


It was chosen a week and it was a good choice to choose people within our, within our department rather than to spend $20,000 and go out and try and find somebody else.


That was the decisions at the time. Attorney Zero? Oh, no, the owner Clemson. I just so we have a motion and a second about a recess. So that's what's on the table right now is just to talk about whether or not the council should take a short recess per all the men Monroe's request to allow the clerk to go pull the minutes from that prior meeting, I guess.


Mayor yes without a date it will take quite a while to find open session minutes I have not typed closed session minutes from what around the time he was hired closed session minutes probably should not be disclosed in open session anyway but don't we have a date when he was it was on the on the agenda for him Alderman Monroe's motion is to take a short recess so I'll pause in this meeting so that and others.


So, I think we need to make sure that the clerk can go find that set of minutes.


That was a motion that was made to recess. It's been seconded. If there's no further discussion, then the council needs to vote on whether or not to take the recess.


So, is there, I mean, there was a first and a second, right, to have it, you want to call it a vote?


Okay. Has everybody had a chance to discuss it once? Everybody, yep. Yeah. Can I inject something also while we're on this subject, I just want to make sure if we're going to ask for the minutes in regards to Chief Stenberger, then we need the minutes for all those active applications that hired.


We need those minutes as well, because they have to have the same scrutiny up on the hiring practices that we have done, whether we need to hear the minutes on the processing of how we went about this.


So while you're doing Shenbergers, we need the... Right now I think that's the only thing.


that's what we're that's what we're going that's not the motion we got to stay with what the motion yes yeah okay so do you want to do a roll call on that Shadle no Sanders yes Sellers no Klemm no Monroe I Parker no and Stacy I the motion fails three to four okay let's move on is it with the second reading do we just wait for the adoption then correct I make a motion that remove this to the make how then until we can get this information that we're asking for that felt right now that this be held up a couple more weeks ain't gonna make a McAdiff and since it's been held up for five, six years so that we can get this information and that we could totally understand what have and has not been happening and what needs to happen for everybody to be successful.


So I would like to move this to the May cow. It's been moved and second for the moving this to the to the make how is there a motion that there was a motion that was so miss Stacy and yes I just wanted to note that this has already gone through to to committee of the whole meetings Williams, just pointing that out. Yes, it has. I guess my question is, if it's went through two committee meetings, COW meetings, and we've talked about this for, this is, yeah, but I'm saying, nobody, are you going to pull, are you going to pull it?


Usually when we have a motion and a second. So there's a discussion, right, this is discussion on the motion. Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I'm doing discussion on the Motion. If we went through a COW twice and we've had this on the agenda, this is the second reading, I just want to know what more information or why aren't we calling in or going in and getting the information that we need so we don't have to keep going through the process so we can move on with the whole process and move on to the next and I. I don't know that it's been two cows because this just came up for first reading April the 7th. Then we had the, excuse me? Yes, 310 and 414. Okay, but everything that's been revealed tonight, things that's been asked for tonight, what's not even revealed Horton asked for at 310 and 47. So, we still, we still lay without, no it has not been four times. No, I was reading 47, so I'm reading my minutes. Okay, but I was talking, so when you're saying for something I don't know okay but I can hear you and it's like you're talking over me because you can't but because you can't what did that mean


come on with your with your process what you got to talk about so we can move on to the next my process is that a motion have been made and seconded right so and others. So that's what we're waiting for. Who wants to take the role? Monroe is second. Oh, you got more. Yes. So basically we've asked for multiple times and I've asked the city manager for this. How many people does it affect? Which we've gotten half truths on that. We've got one person living outside the state. We know that. I've done some digging on my own. We've got several people that are outside and others, and I can't see the limits as is in the ordinance.


So the question is, we don't know how many people it affects. Quite honestly, those people could have been suspended for not, from the six month point after accepting the position to now.


And none of that was done. We don't know any of this information. This could affect nobody.


We don't know. It could affect just the chief for all I know. and quite honestly, I think all of us would have been okay.


But the problem is, is we keep asking the same questions over and over again, trying to get answers and those aren't happening.


And your statement that we should call in and ask, I'm still waiting on three things that I've asked for for over two, almost three weeks now.


And one I asked for last week has been delayed because it's much more cumbersome to pull the data.


But plain and simple, it's not unfair to ask for this type of information to put it forward and to find out, you know, really, is there anything to this?


Nobody knows because we keep getting kind of stonewalled, if you will. Yeah, I just don't want it to have the perception of council allowing things to be passive.


The way that I hear people's opinions and their comments and their remarks lead us to believe that we'd rather be passive about an ordinance that's in effect, that can be affecting everyone here in this city.


and to my listening ear, that's exactly what I feel that is what's happening and that shouldn't be something I'm having this thing where we're doing injustice to the citizens of Freeport by being passive or ordinances without any consequences for violating ordinances and we need to get right down to the bottom of it.


How do, what's the process, what's the next move that needs to be made for those that are causing consequences of ordinances and violations of ordinances?


We need- and violations of ordinances. We need that to be spelled out. That's the reason why we're requesting data information and not verbal information.


Everything that we're talking about should be documented, should have printouts where we can go along, follow the narratives of everything that is being talked about even on today or before.


We had come in to talk about this during our agenda time. So my thing is, it's poor service to the council when we're not sitting here with data information and then everyone is assuming we're guessing about what happened this particular day and that day.


HR could have spilled all of that out for us for time dates and all of these kinds of things.


And I made those requests that I have these applications of people that are getting hired.


I wanted them in my files. I wanted to be able to read them to see when the time date of hiring practice took place for non-residencies of Freeport.


And I still have not received those documents nor the recording procedures. And so that is another problem.


We're not, we're not being responsible for getting the additional request information to council and that's why.


We have to stay on topic with the, with the cow being, all this going to the cow. So is there, you want to read the motion?


We have a motion to move to the may cow. Ready for a roll call?


Yes. Shadle. No. Sanders. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? Yes. Parker? No. Stacy? Yes. The motion fails, four to three.


So now you're at the second reading on the underlying motion. And is this a two-thirds vote?


No, just a majority vote. So now we're back at the second reading of the ordinance of 2025-17.


Are you ready for the roll call then? Go ahead. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers?


Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? No. The motion passes for the ordinance passes four to three. Oh motion fails. I need five. One, two, three. I have four yeas and three nays. Correct. You need five votes concurrent to five votes to pass an ordinance. You are right. I'm so sorry. I forgot that one. Okay. So now we move that to it'll go back to. That's it. Okay. That's it. You move on to the next agenda item. Okay. So now item number six.


Second reading of Ordinance 2025-... I think it's 19. Ordinance amending various parts of City of Freeport Code of Ordinances regarding the regulation of wells and septic systems.


That will be presented by Darren Stekel. Yes, thank you. This is the fourth meeting that this item has come to.


it's amending the ordinance for wells and septics within the City of Freeport. At the last meeting Mr. Sanders asked for more data so we put four attachments in here excuse me one was the memo and three attachments and EPA advertisement asking for ordinances relating to well and septic protection within the city and since it's the fourth meeting I will take any questions on this but we've We've reviewed it, AWWA supports it, IEPA supports it, the Illinois Department of Public Health supports it, and so should the City of Freeport, this is for the protection of our water and well water that we drink every day.


Is there a motion to accept? Nope. Or, no, he just wants to comment. This is the second reading, so it's just discussion.


Go ahead, Sanders, go ahead. Well, not a question, but, well, I guess it will roll into a question eventually.


There's variations of things that have been brought to my attention in regards to the project of implementing a well and septic evaluation survey or whatever that you have done to come to the decision or the reason for us introducing a new well and all of these things.


I understand that we have not seeked out the area for contamination. We have not done any other surveys for the proper installment of the well to determine whether or not there has been any research for the installation of a well and the septics that may be possibly around it to determine if there is any contamination with even the installation of those wells.


then I also wanted to learn something about where's this money coming from to do the implementations of these wells and septics and the whole project. I like to know where's the money, where's the money's at, who's funding this project, whether there's grants, whether there's Anything that is in our budget, because I saw in here where something talked about $20 million to do this operation, if I stand corrected. If I'm not, if I read this wrong, then I will read it again. But the thing about it is I'd like to know where this money is coming from.


How did we get to this place, and how did we discuss this matter, where the money come from, and how we come up with this budget to put in a new well, a new project?


I'll try to answer you. So there is no contamination, so I'm not sure what you're speaking of. The Well systems, the water systems in this community are safe.


This is an ordinance only to establish a protection zone in the city limits for our drinking water.


The number referenced in the memo is the amount of money that we have been spending on our well systems.


We designed and built well 11 and we're in the process of bidding well 12 right now.


We've discussed that at the last meetings. for $13 million worth of funding towards that project and the rest of it will be paid by the residents of Freeport for Well 12.


Again, the discussion and the memo referenced protecting our established drinking water within the city for 23,600 residents.


There is no contamination that we're avoiding. There's no funding for this project. This is just an ordinance and it would go into place.


We already have ordinance on the book in separate locations within the city of Freeport that we don't allow wells And we don't allow septics. This is bringing it full circle. So it's easy for anybody to find in the community Illinois EPA is requesting that we do this. Illinois Department of Public Health asking that we do this AWWA is recommending that we do this so our Title 35 actually requires it which is the guidance from EPA J, it requires the setback. I provided all that with the memo. So all of the documentation there, all this is saying is nobody can drill a well or put a septic in that already doesn't have one in the city unless the City of Freeport authorizes that, which we would not if water is available to them or sewer is available to them. That is all that this does.


Okay, I'd like to. Just a second. Yeah, I'd like to. But wait, we gotta let Alderman Stacy. So, Director Stiegel, are you saying that we are in violation? We are not in violation, but the Source Water Protection Plan that is required by Title 35 requests that all communities and it went it's a tiered system based on how many people we have in our community and it's in 2025 we're supposed to establish a well and septic ordinance that is very clear to the state that we're not going to let somebody just come and drill a well without permission from the city and so that is all we are doing here we already have this on the books it's clarifying it for every Fowkes, it's clarifying it for everybody, so it's a living document that we can send to all the state agencies saying we are already doing this, here's our document.


So source water protection is so great, anybody that listens to the news, there's water issues all over the country, there's billions and trillions of dollars being spent on clean source water.


We have had source water issues in Freeport, so we're trying to protect our investments and so we don't end up right where we started from at the beginning of this.


So again, this doesn't really hurt anyone at Freeport. Cecelia, you called me today and you asked me about a particular street.


If water's available on that street and a gentleman or lady has a well, they will not get a permit to renew that well.


They will be asked to connect to city water. And my example is if there's already water on those streets, those people are getting the source water protection of fire, right?


If their house starts on fire, we're gonna use city water to protect their house or the neighbor's houses.


If they don't pay into the system and contribute to the system, they're still gonna get fire protection.


We also already backed this up with ready to serve fees for people that as we place new water in areas, that people have that time free to connect or they have to pay charges in the future.


We've already done lots of ordinances that we're building to the source water protection. You can ask Attorney Zito, I'm sure this is very familiar in every community we're dealing with.


This is just the next step in the process. I provided all the backups from AWWA, the EPA memo requesting that every community provide setback protection.


I also provided the Title 35 documents, which is that's the living guideline for water systems.


You have to meet those conditions in order to serve public water to residents. That is the Bible that all water systems in Illinois run by.


And it depends on your size. There's different rules for different sized communities based on how many people you're serving, right?


So as long as their well is working. They're grandfathered in. They're grandfathered in. But if that well was to stop and they had access to city water.


We would not permit... They would not have a choice but... To connect. To connect. Yes, and that being said, people should know that there are not that many wells that exist within the City of Freeport any longer.


As we've built out the water main systems, people have connected. There's still a few out there. It's also illegal to have well water and city water at the same time. That's called a cross connection.


and EPA does not allow that because if if somebody had contaminants in the well it could be sucked back into the pot of water system so you should just know that as we have done Bradmar in town we've made all those connections to available to people that was an area that it wasn't fully serviced before that is our mission here is to fully serve our community right now we have i'm going to call it two donut holes that we would have trouble servicing with water and one is the westward and others.


We would open Bible expansion that direction. We would have trouble serving that without an extension.


And the other one is the Woodside Drive area. Because of all the trees and networks, we don't have a water system or a sewer system that extends all the way through the woods.


The city's never invested in that. So there's the two areas. Everywhere else in town, I believe we can service.


Okay. Is the old water system on Brick Street still in operation? Correct. We have a reserve capacity for Brick Street, so for instance, if we had a major fire or a major water break, it's ready to serve the residents, but because of the performative compounds, it's only in reserve.


We do not use it daily and I don't believe we used it. Is there a reason why we're not using it?


We can serve it to residents who are choosing not to because plenipotent compounds have been proven to have issues.


So that well system at Brick Street is totally in reserve. If we had a major emergency, it would get pumped to the system and residents would be notified about it.


But we do not use it and have not used it ever since well 11 came up.


and I'm here to talk about that well, that well that you're referring to. You're trying to say it never had any problems and the reason why we have to change our strategy on how we use that well.


Are you saying that there's no problems with that well in our system? And I'm trying to find out what prompt this whole thing about the well that needs to, and others, and I'm honored to be here today.


these or these regulations, right? Correct. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe?


No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. The ordinance passes 5 to 2. Move on to second reading of Ordinance 2025-23.


Ordinance Establishing a Special Service Area, Gladewood Subdivision. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. As we've been discussing for a few meetings, the Gladewood residents, there's a confusion Over, Who Maintained the Street of Gladewood? It came to light that on the plat that there was a document or there was a verbiage on the plat that said essentially until these improvements were made at the time the subdivision was built that the city would not receive that road until those improvements were made. Those improvements haven't made but over a number of years it's been very confusing and I think the residents assumed that it was a city street since they were in the city and once we found this information we discussed it with the residents of Gladewood at this time to move forward and we've talked to that we've received enough petitions to move forward with a special assessment area that would allow the residents to contribute to the improvements of that road in the future but in the meantime there are several emergent issues one is the entryway about 200 feet and the exit at 200 feet very bad full potholes but it's necessary for us to move forward with a special service area so that we can then have them contribute to these repairs and in the future repairs so before you is to adopt the special service area a public hearing must be held to allow for objections and the ordinance before council tonight simply sets that hearing so we are simply setting a hearing date for the discussion of having the special service area


Nothing more. It's going to be an open public session for that. So anyway, if that is the reason for moving forward with this ordinance this second reading. Yes.


Alderman, I think Alderman Stacy had her hand up before you did. City Manager Boyer, you just stated that they were asked to make improvements and that those improvements were made.


No. I did not say that. What improvements were made because, to my understanding, none were made?


I'm sorry if you misheard me or I misspoke, but the improvements on the plat required certain improvements that were never made.


That were never made? Correct. Okay, you said that were made. Okay. and so this hearing would be a hearing to see if the city takes on Gladewood and they become part of our city.


The hearing is required by a state statute for a special service area. So what this would be is it would be a public setting where people can discuss the merits of Becoming a Special Service Area, therefore they would participate in the cost share of future improvements and things to the road.


Okay, so what about the things that were supposed to happen, like the streets and the curbs and all that, that did not happen?


Well, at some time in the future, when that road is reconstructed, not today, We will have to review the potential of doing a rural cross-section to that area to provide drainage and so forth for that road, but at the current time, what we're looking for and what we're looking at doing is just some emergent repairs to the entry and exit of Gladewood to remediate the vast majority of the pavement quality issues.


well isn't it fair to say that those repairs have already happened haven't they already went out and blacktopped the holes in the roads no that's not it now we're talking about about a reconstruction repair of the base and a repaving of the first 200 feet on both ends of bladewood before our city streets in our five-year okay so there'll be 400 feet of repairs a combined total of 400 feet okay So, we're not reconstructing Gladewood, we are simply making repairs to the entry and exit sufficient to get rid of the potholes and the degraded pavement in those areas. It's the worst areas in that neighborhood.


Wood. But I just want to say at this time we're just trying to do a notice of hearing, right, for the special service so it's not where anything is going to get done.


We're having a hearing to see what people have to say about the, is that what you're saying to us?


That's correct. Okay. Well, I'd like to- Let me get Monroe. Oh, okay. Alderman Monroe.


Thank you, Alderman Sellers. So a quick question for the City Manager or the Public Works or whoever has the answer to this.


Have all of the citizens living in that neighborhood been paying taxes up to this point?


The normal taxes? I can't answer that. I don't know. I assume so. You can't assume.


So yeah. So the reason I asked that question, here we're moving forward to potentially take over Fowler.


We've been taking care of as well as the rest of the streets in Freeport to officially take over doing the roadways and now we're potentially adding additional fees onto the residents that live there that potentially could be, could have been paying taxes the entire time so the road was potentially, I don't even know how to say this at this point, we've We've been plowing it, we've been taking care of it, we've been salting it, we've been patching holes here and there, but yet now we've been doing that for X amount of years and now we're saying, well, it really wasn't our road.


So it tells me we don't know which roads are ours and which ones aren't.


And we may tack on an extra fee to them. $400. Per year? Is it $400 a year?


Yes, sir. and so on. So we may do that so that we can fix a road that they've already been paying for out of their property taxes.


If they're paying property taxes. So that, well, try to, I'm not understanding, I guess I'm really confused because if somebody's already paying the full taxes and some legal, nothing different than what we're doing with and the Public Works, Fire, Police, everybody else that is supposed to be following the ordinances.


Well why are we tacking on to $400 to each household and then doing, I guess explain to me, I'm missing something.


Well in the City of Freeport there are a number of private streets. This was one of them that we were not aware of until recent title work was performed related to the Claywood Bridge.


We discovered that we then held off on any pavement operations until we were able to come to a resolution with the residents.


So we do have a tentative resolution with them, but we need to go through the process and the first step of the process is a session, a public hearing.


So what we're asking for tonight is just to move forward with the public hearing.


Alderman, Jett Darren, let me Yeah, isn't there a state regulation that private property or plots, as you might refer to them, has a duty of being annexed into the city?


Because they're not annexed into the city. No, they're not. Show me that in a document file or whatever.


Well, I need to see that before you make that comment. I'm asking the question, are there, I asked that last week, it doesn't matter, that doesn't tell me nothing.


I'm asking no that's not that that does not validate anything but my my point is from the director is there an annex of that private area into the city of Freeport before we start doing maintenance's any kind of special services tax levying any kind of monies that is generated from this from this and Mr.


DeWine. Are they annexed into this so they would be eligible for any future maintenance services and we can't put the cart before the horse, so which one is it? Are we annexed into, is this place annexed?


Yes, Gladewood were annexed into the city, so they are part of the city, but there are, like I mentioned earlier, there's a number of private roads in the city, even though they exist in the city, they are not city streets.


So all we're doing here is asking to move forward with a public hearing to discuss the opportunity to bring in Gladewood as, or receive Gladewood as a city street.


Director. Director, I just want to give you a little bit more background here to support Manager Boyer's information.


So in the plat, which plats are the governing guidelines behind the subdivision, it specifically had a special note on this plat that is a little unusual to plats and it said basically that the subdivision developer would establish curb, drainage, et cetera, within the community for the city to accept the streets.


So in the research of the documents, when Gladewood became an issue, this has been going on I believe for a better part of two years, the negotiations, we dug up the documents.


Everybody in Freeport that comes to the city says every problem within the cities, the Boyer has challenged all the directors to dig into these problems to make sure before we're spending money that they are truly city problems, so we're spending taxpayers' monies effectively.


In our research, this note was discovered, which is unusual on plats, and so therefore we got the attorneys involved and the attorneys agreed that since they didn't make the improvements, and I have been working with the city to make improvements, whether the subdivision was the next in or not, the city never accepted the roadway because the improvements were made to the city standards which were required.


That is the whole argument here, right? If the improvement wasn't made, it doesn't matter what they did or what taxes they paid, the developer never finished for the city to accept it.


Manager Boyer has been working with Attorney Cox on a resolution that would benefit everyone without going to court over this situation.


And again, everybody's been bringing minds and ideas together to fix the situation. The city has installed water and sewer to this subdivision.


I believe the original plaque goes back to the 60s, if I'm not mistaken, 50s, 60s, 63.


So again, it's a long-term, what Darren Stekel terms as a ghost problem in Freeport that started under many, many, many mayors ago that we're trying to get to a final resolution that everybody can agree on so we don't ever have to talk about it again.


And I can't tell you how many of these have happened in my last three years of helping this council move on from issues that have been coming from other leaders of the community that are now saddled and burdened to this administration.


But instead of us just kicking the can down the road and going out there and throwing some patch down and say we're done, we're trying to be wise stewards of taxpayers' money and go by the rules.


And so everybody's upset about us just trying to do the right thing at the right time and not push it down the road.


So instead of everybody being upset, I think maybe look at the other side of the coin that we're trying to be responsible and do the right thing for everyone involved here.


There is no bound agreement that they ever fulfilled for the city to accept the street, right?


And yes, other city managers, other mayors directed staff to maintain it. But just because we did something wrong in the past doesn't make it right now.


And so we're trying to fix those issues. and so we're trying to fix those issues and be fair to everybody so it can be resolved with a positive benefit to the residents who want roads fixed and the city who doesn't want to accept the full burden of something that happened from the 60s.


That's all I have to say. Alderman Monroe. Thank you Alderman Sellers. I don't think we're, you know, up in arms.


We're just trying to understand the problem and you know typically in Illinois when an and Annxation takes place, man, and tell me if I'm wrong, the roadways are annexed in even if they're private, should be at that point in time. But the problem is, a lot of the documents, I can't even get documents from Director Richter before 2017. So we don't know if the city accepted or didn't accept, in some instances, potentially.


I can verify that there is no document that we have found anywhere and we have dig, big Deep Diving, even Dovie has, that says that we have ever accepted the roadway.


So otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do you see why we're asking the questions? It's not to be, it's not to be hard, but it's it's just trying to understand the issue and you're about to tack on $400 a year for 15 years, which comes out to a healthy sum of money on top of taxes, which are already some of the highest in the country.


and not everybody on that street was around in 1963, 65, 70 and so the issue that was kicked down the road, which is so many of the problems here in Freeport, I think we're just trying to understand so that, you know, we protect those citizens. We're responsible for everybody, even if it's not in our ward, to make sure that we do the right thing. So, you know, I think just trying to understand the issue and where and I, and we're going to be doing a lot of research on this.


So, I think that's where it's coming from is really where we're at on this.


And to be fair, we have done a lot of preliminary research on the area and some street evaluations and cost estimates for replacing all of it.


So, you know, there's probably close to a mile worth of roadway if you counted every, you know, do a lot of legwork on this property to to try to be the fair to all parties and that's all we're trying to do. So I know that there's I believe 17 families 17 houses or 17 residents. Did you or did you not say they were paying city taxes?


taxes are handled by the Stevenson County that wouldn't be records we'd hold so no one knows well the Stevenson County clerk would be the one who or treasurer would have that information okay I'll just that's just a little odd to me that we're We're here now, and that simple question can't be answered.


So is there a motion to move this? This is the second reading, so you know.


So if there's not discussion, then you can, then it'd be ready. Is there any other discussion?


We have two from Stacy, two from Monroe. Is there anyone else that has anything to say?


I need to understand something. So we have this hearing and we find out that they are not paying city taxes.


After this hearing, we're adopting them in any way. Is this... Manager Boyer. I think we could ask Attorney Cox, who's standing right here, if you want to talk about the process and Can we ask him questions?


In just in in response to the question about paying the taxes they are absolutely within the city of Freeport's taxing district So I think What you're hearing is clerk Anderson saying well, I can't confirm Specifically that they are paying the taxes because somebody might not be but they're being assessed taxes for the city of Freeport and others.


They're within the City of Freeport. They were annexed in the 1960s. So since then, there have been City of Freeport property taxes levied against that property.


And then as to the process here, what happens with the hearing, the hearing is really a preliminary step.


What you have is actually a petition from a majority of the landowners in Gladewood subdivision.


So they're actually asking the city to set this for hearing because that's the first Stepp in the establishment of a special service area.


So as Darren pointed out, as Director Steekle pointed out, City Manager Boyer and I have engaged in significant discussions with the landowners in terms of, well, this might be something that would be palatable in the form of a recommendation to council.


and on the other hand, also palatable to the property owners. In other words, a compromise resolution here to a situation that's existed since the 60s, sort of in limbo.


So trying to just bring this to a conclusion so we all know where we stand.


So what would happen with the hearing is that's a preliminary step where the plan is laid out in the ordinance, would be introduced, and then anybody would have an opportunity to ask questions and that's anybody within the community and not necessarily just within the Gladewood subdivision and then any objectors within the Gladewood subdivision if they're going to be subject to this tax and they don't want to pay it they would have an opportunity to object and that's really where there's a 60 day waiting period after the hearing where if you're a resident of the Gladewood subdivision you can object and if a majority of the owners object and so on.


So, the residents of Gladewood really do have some direction over their own destiny here.


Assuming because we have the petition of a majority, unless one or more flips their position, we have an assumption that this will come back to council eventually after that 30 days if we don't have a majority of objections.


and then this council will really be considering for the first time whether this is a good idea or not.


That's when the merits really get considered. So you could have a situation where this doesn't come back because it fails because of an objection.


You receive more information because of the public hearing process. You would have the opportunity to attend that and ask any questions at that point.


So this is a very, very preliminary step and in no way binds the council.


It's just a matter of taking the first step in this process to even evaluate if it's a good idea.


Okay, I have a question for you. At the 4-7 meeting, there was some Claywood people in the audience and there was a gentleman Back there, and when the statement was made that they represent, he was like, they don't represent me, I don't, you know, all that.


And so, if this is to their advantage, why would he respond like that? Well, and I saw the same reaction, I was here and I noted that.


What we have is a majority at this point, and when you have a majority, that's not necessarily a unanimous position, so you could have some dissenters.


The way the statute reads is if a majority want this matter to come forward to council, it will.


If a majority don't want it to come forward to council, it just fails. I mean, we don't even have the ability to establish a special service area at that point.


So I would guess that the gentleman who was expressing some dissatisfaction was probably and others.


And that's pertaining to the $400 tax. That I don't presume to know that because it could be the scope of the work agreed to.


It could be any number of things. There's a lot in that ordinance, but I presume if I were forced to guess, I would say it's to the payment of the taxes.


We just looked it up while Attorney Cox was talking, and I looked right on my laptop, they pay city taxes just like everybody else.


Okay, so that's the benefit for that subdivision when the city steps in to do any kind of special service work in that area, is that correct?


is that correct? And they are paying their full extent of their property taxes or taxes to the city of Freeport and the investment that the city makes within that subdivision is a benefit to them and everything should be okay for far as moving forward to allow them to receive the special and Mr.


Miller. And I think that's kind of up to them and then up to this council.


» Well, the thing is why is it left up to the council if they want to petition for it? And who is hosting this hearing?


Who is the people that are hosting it? And to get the something that the city puts on that we operate within that structure of a meeting with the with that subdivision it it it would be hosted or the city the city taxpayers or the citizens of the city of Freeport that can be part of this whole scenario well certainly anybody who wants to attend would be entitled to it's the the meeting is it's deemed a public hearing it's more in the and Posting, or the City Manager, or someone that is making sure that everything is flowing accordingly.


Or you. Someone has to be there to make this establishment happen, and the taxpayers should not have to make an investment to put on a town hall meeting if they have to pay an individual to host this thing.


I don't know how it's governed at this particular time. Well, I would anticipate that that would be staff, you know, probably salaried staff.


That's gonna be Manager Boyer, that's gonna be Director Duckman, probably Director Stiegel. And so that's a, again, it would be, I think hosted is a strong word, moderated.


Moderator, I should say moderator, yeah. Typically we do those here. I mean, City Hall is just set up well for it.


We can do it in council chambers and it's just on an off night when council chambers aren't otherwise being used.


So we would set that up and then invite anybody who wants to attend to be here.


And the majority determines whether or not this moves forward? The majority of the, let me clarify the question, a majority of this council or the majority of the land owners?


Of the town hall. So there's not a vote taken at the town hall. Town hall is just informational.


So that's an opportunity, again, to ask questions and learn more about the project. The residents of Gladewood, those 17 residents, are the only people that really...


Have a vote. Yeah, they would have, more specifically, they have an opportunity to object.


So it's not really a vote-taking process. They would have to file an objection within that 60-day objection period.


So if I live in Gladewood and I don't like it, What would be a purpose of objecting? Why would that particular subdivision object to anything when they're getting free services or I'm not going to say free services, taxpayer services to maintain their roles and the conditions of their property and things of this nature?


and others. So why would anyone be in that area objecting? Is it fearful that they may have an increase in their tax property when that happens?


Well, again, I, Alderman Sanders, I wouldn't presume the answer for anybody that lives there, but I, typically when we see an objection, it's, well, I'm being taxed too much.


Yeah, that's what I, that's what I was leading to. But again, anyone could object for any reason. You know, maybe they don't like the road surface and others. It's being included or whatever. Or just for no reason whatsoever. I mean, if I'm a resident out there, I could just file something saying, well, I object. Period.


And that's good enough. And that's what determines whether this council ever gets this back.


Mike? Dan wanted to say something. With the public hearing process, the city would run that. It's more of a discovery process Rather than, and it's called a hearing, but people can come in and give their input.


That input's recorded and then that'll be brought back to the council. So then if the members of Gladewood or the community of Gladewood decides they want to move forward, then we would bring you that with the discovery with, hey, people were in favor of this or people were not in favor of it.


And then it's up to the council to make the decision whether that moves forward or not.


Do I understand that there was a fundraising of a certain amount of dollars that they had that accumulated for what purpose the dollars was raised for, what was the whole purpose of raising something like $90,000 or something like that if I believe that was the right correct figure.


What would be the reason for them doing that? I can't speak intelligently to that.


I'm not aware that they fundraised anything. Yeah, I only received that information because it showed up here on my agenda, and I'm just asking questions to the reason.


I think he's referring to the special assessment, I believe. So the idea here is if we get the special assessment set up, it would basically equate over 15 years to $90,000.


That's where the $90,000 came from, and it's basically a cost offset to the work we do you out there, right? So it's saying, hey, this is, it's unclear as to, well, it's clear on the plat, but it's unclear how this would make it through court. And this is just a way for us to say, hey, we're going to ask for this much in return for your cooperation moving forward. And it certainly would keep us out of a much more expensive litigation moving forward if for whatever reason there's a legal argument that says, no, city, you and others.


This would save us a lot of time and energy through the legal process in determining that.


So that's kind of the reason why we're moving this direction is to create the SSA so that we can kind of stay away from legal battles back and forth where nobody, you know, ends up doing well.


So we're just saying, hey, do what you can for us and then we'll do what we can for you kind of situation.


Yeah, because what I don't want to see happening is that the appearance of impropriety taking place with the fundings that are being raised and if there's something of we're making a payoff or bribery or some form of activity with the raising of the funds, I'd like to know what the $90,000, I would like to know where it ends up at.


you will end up back in the road but we'll get it $400 a year per property at a time so it will be 15 years before it comes through all the way but that will go back into the road repair to offset whatever cost we deal with.


And I think that this public hearing, a lot of the questions that you want to ask, I guess the people that live there on Gladewood would be at this meeting so you probably would get and a better understanding of what's going on and how they feel and, you know, instead of, you know, asking some questions here that, you know, I resent that observation that you demonstrate.


Well, let me talk as you talk, so let me talk. Yeah, but you're talking.


Let me finish my conversation. Yeah, well, you can't demonstrate that before the Council. Let me finish because you all, well, you keep talking, let somebody else talk.


So right now, so that's what we really want to do is just get a motion of a hearing date set so this can be put into place.


Alderman, Stacy, you have another question? What time of day would this hearing be? Typically they're late afternoon or early evening when we set those dates.


That's what we're trying to set now, a time and an hour. I understand we're trying to set it, but they have their way and their time of doing things.


So I'm just asking a question. What time of day are we looking at for something of this nature?


I think certainly council could set that. You can specify what time. Trying to set a time and a date.


May I, this might be a good time. At the last meeting, we did have a motion and a second to set this 20 to 40 days from the April 7th meeting.


Is that sufficient to fill in that blank in the ordinance? It is. OK. And I think if a specific time wants to be spent.


Yeah, I'm not talking about time as far as this date to this date. I'm talking about is this going to happen at 3 o'clock in the evening?


Or is this something that's going to happen at 1 o'clock in the afternoon? That's what I want to know.


City Manager, Boyer. Thank you Madam Chair. If you have a real strong thought on that, I'm sure we could accommodate it. So if you have a specific time you'd like to see, I'm sure we could work on that.


I just want you to be considered a people working. I don't want ten of these residents show up and the other seven are working and can't make it.


Alderman, Stacy, I think right here it says something about 5 o'clock p.m. in the City Council chambers.


Okay, well he did not say that just now. No, I'm just saying, I just read it right here.


That's probably, that's a plug number that's in the form. Okay. The standard protocol is, you know, typically in the evenings so that we don't, you know, you said something at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, it's hard to get attendance, that sort of thing.


Shadle, Aye Sanders, Aye Sellers, Aye Klemm, Aye Monroe, Aye Parker, Aye Stacy, Aye The ordinance passes seven to zero.


We move on to agenda number eight and is the second reading of ordinance 2025-24.


Ordinance amending the codified ordinances, Chapter 806, Alcoholic Liquor Sales, and deleting Chapter 844, Mechanical and Electronic Games and Devices.


And that will be presented by Attorney Steve Cox. I didn't have to go very far.


So I think we talked about this last time, this is an increase in the fees payable by operators of mechanical game or video gaming terminals within the city and an elimination of the mechanical games section of the ordinance which is frankly underutilized or completely unutilized currently.


So that's just a matter of convenience and fitting regulation to practice. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I can go back over whatever the council would like to hear, but I think we pretty much hashed through that last time.


Are there any questions on this agenda item? If not, do we do you a vote?


Just a vote? Okay. Shadle? Aye. What? I don't usually wait. What do you want me to do? No. Go ahead. Call the roll. Go ahead. Shadle? Shadle? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy?


No. The ordinance passes 5 to 1. We'll move to agenda item number 9. It's the first reading of ordinance 2025-25.


Ordinance approving special use permit application at 1601 to 1645 Southwest Avenue, submitted by Family Dollar, To examine the special use of a B3 commercial and wholesale business district zone property to allow restaurants, taverns, packaged liquor stores, and any other establishment selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on or off the premises according to Chapter 1252.01B11.


Presented by Director Duckman. Thank you, Alderpers and Sellers. Staff received a special use permit application from Family Dollar located at 1601 Southwest Avenue and essentially what's going on here is they want to sell packaged liquor which requires a special use permit prior to their organization applying for a liquor license.


So, this subject property went before our Zoning Board of Appeals on April 3rd and it was recommended for approval by a vote of 7-0 with zero abstentions.


On April 10th, our Planning Commission recommended approval, excuse me, by a vote of 8-0 with zero abstentions.


And staff is recommending moving this forward to a second reading. Is there a motion to move it forward?


Second. Is there any discussion? If not, call the roll. Nope, it's just first read, so all we need is a motion and a second. Okay, so now we'll move on to number 10, is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-26, presented by Manager Boyer.


I'm going to read it in first if I can butt in. Ordinance authorizing the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency public water supply loan program and loan agreement for lead service line replacement phase four.


Thank you, Madam Chair. So the city of Freeport recently had a bid opening for phase four of the lead service replacement program.


The EPA water loan program requires a current city of Freeport authorized debt ordinance for the project.


This is part of every IEPA funding project, regardless of whether the community receives 100% forgiveness or not.


The IEPA project management is required. A new lead service remediation debt ordinance to be passed for the Phase 4 project since the city has to pay the awarded contractor and wait for IEPA reimbursement is required to have this in place to receive the final EPA loan agreement.


Staff is also asking for the suspension of the rules on this item so we can expedite the program and this project is funded through an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency State Revolving Loan Fund.


The project is fully funded with a 100% loan forgiveness of $3,027,000. And staff recommends Council suspend the rules and move forward with the debt ordinance.


Is there a motion to suspend the rules? No, we need a motion. You need a motion to move it forward first.


Oh, move it forward, okay. There it is. Then the rules. We need a motion to move it forward first.


There it is. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. And Klemm, we need the motion first. Klemm and...


And I think, was it you, Monroe? Sure. Oh, okay. Okay, thank you. But I have questions.


Yeah. Before we suspend. Right, so now would be discussion. Okay. Yeah, so if I can just interject, It's very important that this Suspension of the Rules happen tonight for this item because it reserves our $3,027,000 for this project.


If we don't get it reserved, it will go on to another borrower that's waiting in line.


So I just wanted to, I will answer any questions you have, but it's very important that the suspension happens tonight So we can reserve this money before the end of the EPA fiscal year.


Alderman Monroe. Thank you. So I've got multiple questions here. How much of this money is going to Fehr Graham?


About 400,000 with the design and with the inspection. This requires full-time inspection for all the service line replacements.


400,000. Yep. And the rest goes to the contractor that's putting it in? Yes. Okay. It's a unit. This bid is a unit price bid. So they get exactly paid for what units they install. So if it's 100 feet, they get paid for 100 feet. If it's 200 feet, they get paid for 200 feet. It's a unit price bid on every item that's used within the service material. And again, we already had a debt ordinance for $12 million. But this program has been going so long that we had to re-up this to get the final $3 million because I think we're over year five here.


Alderman Klemm, did you? Motion to suspend. Second. We're still in discussion. Yeah, because Stacey had her.


Which way? Alderman Stacey had her. Okay, go ahead. You know, why is this just coming to the council tonight?


Because we just approved the bids at the last meeting. You can't do the data ordinance without having the bid, and we just approved the bid at the last full meeting, so it would be natural that it would come to this meeting.


Okay. Is there a motion to suspend the rule? So moved. Second. Okay. May I give the rhetoric, Chair?


of the Rules requires a two-thirds majority vote and it is non-debatable Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, Parker, and Stacy.


Johnson, Tom, Wayne, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Thomas, Stacy, Thomas, Stacy, Thomas, Stacy, Thomas, Stacy, Aye. The suspension passes six to one. So now before them if there's no further discussion would be the final vote on the ordinance. I have a motion for the final vote for the ordinance. You don't need a motion. If they're ready to Call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The ordinance passes 6 to 1. Okay, we'll move on to first reading of item number 11, reading of ordinance 20, 25, 27.


Ordinance approving hangar leases, C5, Jeff Modica, K9, Mike and Kim Robinson. Manager Boyer? Thank you, Madam Chair. As we've been doing with all airport leases, we brought these two before you for approval.


It is as the clerk had stated, it was C5 with Jeff Modica and K9 with Mike and Kim Robinson, so staff recommends moving forward with the suspension of the rules.


motion to move forward second okay it's been moved in second is any other all in favor nope just discussion oh discussion and then if no discussion then a motion for suspension of the rules okay so there's a so move second second suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds vote and is Non-Debatable. Are you ready for the vote, Chair? Go ahead. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. Suspension is approved, 7 to 0. Is there, now we go ahead and make the motion to... No motion, just, if they're ready to vote, just the final vote. Okay, the final vote for... Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye.


Monroe, Parker, and Stacy. The ordinance is approved 7-0. Okay, we move on to the adoption of Resolution R-2025-44.


Resolution accepting a safety grant from the Illinois Public Risk Fund grant and authorizing the use of the grant funds to purchase automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, from Zoll Medical Corporation for Use by the City. Director, Director. Thank you.


The City of Freeport's Workman's Compensation Carrier is the Illinois Public Risk Fund or IPRF. They offer an annual safety grant to members that are in good standing. There's not an application process to receive these these funds. However, the funds must be used on an item or items from a designated listing of safety items provided by IPRF. The City of Freeport's award amount for this program for 2025 is $14,419, and the City would like to utilize these funds to purchase seven automated external defibrillators for various city buildings.


AEDs are used to help those experiencing sudden cardiac arrest. It is a sophisticated yet easy to use medical device that can analyze the heart's rhythm and if necessary deliver an electric shock or defibrillation to help the heart reestablish an effective rhythm.


The device is designed to be user friendly with clear instructions on how to use it in case of emergency.


It's important for our staff to be aware of what an AED is and how to use it as it can make a difference in saving someone's life.


We've attached a quote from Zoll Medical Corporation to purchase these seven units. And it is the request of the Finance Committee for the City Council to approve the purchase.


And just a little PS, we do have one of these devices. It's over here in this white cabinet.


So you can see about how big it is. A few years ago, all the staff had training on how to use that device.


So once these ones are purchased, we've talked to the fire department about doing that again.


Even though they're easy to use, I think a training would be warranted. So that is the request.


OK. Do you have? We need a motion and a second first. Oh, we need a motion.


So move. Second. Are there any questions? Yes. Discussion? Is there any, how many units did you say? We're requesting to buy seven of them. By seven? For the $14,000. So, so there's designated areas for these seven devices? Yes. Already? Could you tell us where they're located? Well, The proposed areas were on Island Avenue and the office, Construction Shed, Wastewater Treatment Plant Control Room, Burchard Water Plant, and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Maintenance Area.


We've also had requests from the police department for the individual cars for the police officers.


We've also had requests from the Fire Department for additional units in the offices, in the buildings themselves.


So that's way more than seven, so we're going to have to prioritize and since maybe because some places have one closer, we'll have to prioritize where we put them.


So this is standard equipment for the city overall administration location areas, departments I should say.


Well we haven't had this many units before but we also haven't had a grant to pay for them and this grant, it happened to be in their newsletter this month as well, a whole Page on how important AEDs are and the ease of use, so we thought it was a good use of those funds.


Okay. Okay. Thank you. I just have a question. How many do we have right now?


Do we have that one, and where else do we have any? I believe Ashley has two at the library, and there's one at the police department.


Okay. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? If not, then we can go ahead.


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The resolution is adopted seven to zero.


Now we move to Adoption of Resolution R-2025-45 Resolution Approving a Proposal from Tomcat Consultants for Rental of Temporary Portable Hydro Pneumatic Tanks during Burchard Water Tower Painting Project Manager, Boyer Thank you Madam Chair. So we have an annual maintenance contract where we basically pay a company a certain amount of money every year and then at various maintenance intervals they come in and they will perform that maintenance. So it's time to get the Burchard Water Tower painted. It's kind of an extensive process and because we have to take the water out of the tower, we need to put in a hydropneumatic, a temporary hydropneumatic tank that would allow us to paint the interior and paint the exterior. So staff has put forward a resolution for you to move forward with the funding of the pressure vessel and this was budgeted in the utility budget.


Do we do a motion? Yes. Okay. Is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve.


Second. Thank you. Do we do all in favor? Can I ask? All in favor.


This will be roll call. Oh, it'll be roll call. Can I ask you, is this an annual schedule? How often do we do this? Is this scheduled for this type of project on a yearly, annually, or?


About every 10 years. Every 10 years. So how long has that tower been in place?


I don't know, 25, but I think it, go ahead, Dan. It's 12 years. Okay, 12.


So it's scheduled, it should be scheduled. It's scheduled for this July. It was actually scheduled for last July, and we...


We actually scheduled for last July and we pushed it because we were just getting the water plant finished and we didn't want to interfere with that construction and finishing that project.


And so we actually pushed it to this. It was scheduled to start the first week of July and take four weeks, four to six weeks.


Okay. All right, thanks. Yeah, that was my question as far as how often is this painted, because I thought it came to the council last year, but you're saying it did not happen.


Yeah, so the item that you're discussing was the logo changes for that tower as part of the painting projects, and again, we paid the maintenance contract, so it was the City of Freeport's choice to push last year, and I were able to finish last year because I couldn't get these tanks under rental, as well as we were finishing but butchered restorations and all that stuff. So there's very few companies that do this type of water tank, hydro pneumatic tanks. And so as people get booked up, it's very hard to get them placed. So again, the last time we painted this, I believe was 12 years ago, it should have been scheduled for last year, we pushed into this year, which is no problem. It's under the maintenance contract.


You do the exterior about every 10 years and you do a full tank painting about every 20 years and it's very expensive I mean a full tank painting is close to probably $400,000 for this type of tank.


So when we budgeted for it last year, what did we do with that money?


It stayed in the surplus and we re-budgeted it for it this year. And this is to put that?


Yeah, and this is cheaper than what we budgeted for the total rental. this is to put that leaf no we did not approve that it's gonna stay looking just like it is now it's just a re over scarifying and recoding of the entire tank and the painting is part of our annual contract so we pay fee annually that's in the budget for that tower that's the only one that has a maintenance contract. And this funding is coming from what? The utility budget we budget it from. It's budgeted in operations. Yeah, I believe we budgeted sixty thousand for it. Is there any other discussion? If not, is there a roll call?


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? The resolution is adopted, 7-0 Move on to item number 14, approval of bid, bid opening on April 15th, 2025 for Fuel Island concrete pavement.


Manager Boyer, I'll read that one. Thank you Madam Chair. The City of Freeport is currently working on an upgrade to the fuel system that is required by upcoming environmental requirements, so we'll bring it up to specification.


On April 15, 2025, the City had a public bid opening for the concrete portion of the job.


It was a 12-inches full-depth concrete installation for the fuel station. since the field equipment work is done.


The project has three bidder, three bidders have pulled the plans and all three bids.


The lower bidder was the DPI construction in the amount of $77,933.87. This bid was under the engineer's estimate and staff requests City Council approval of this bid.


Motion to approve. Second. Second. Okay. Is there any discussion? Madam Chair, I would like to say on this item we give a lot of credit to the Public Works Department. I believe we budgeted $170,000 for this item this year and with the spring weather we've been having the Public Works team do all the removals and all the aggregate placement to save the city money so we're likely going to end up saving somewhere around $70,000 on this item this year.


did you say 78 or 77 or eight we budgeted a hundred and seventy I I imagine by the time we're all done with this with electrical and things will probably be around right around a hundred so we should have about seventy thousand dollar savings We've got Shadle and Klemm. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Abstain. Parker? Aye. And Stacy?


The motion passes 6-0 with one abstentia. We'll move on to item number 15, the approval of bid opening on April 16, 2025, for 2025 citywide tree removal.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Each year we've been systematically going through town, marking the most large and dangerous and the Forest Trees that are outside of the size that we can safely manage with our Forest Tree Department. This year we had two bidders, one was, let's see here, pardon me for a second as I recall, it was a Homer Tree Service and, oh gosh, our local one there, Ingram, yeah, Crayer Tree. Anyway, the Homer's bid was lowest at $73,167.50, and we budgeted for that in the 2025 budget, and staff recommends moving forward with the Homer Tree Service bid.


Is there a motion? Oh. Oh. I'll second it. Okay, so is Klemm and Monroe, thank you?


Question. Is there any discussion? Okay. Is it? Thank you. Question. Is there any discussion? Okay. Is it... City Manager, did we have Home or Tree Service do the removals last year as well? I believe we did. And how did that go? Very fast. Very complete. Yeah. Okay. They did a good job. Yeah, they removed about 30 trees last year and probably a little less than two weeks. Wow. So I would like to also mention just this contract is a significant savings for the City of Freeport when we don't have to take down emergency trees we would probably get about 10 to 12 trees done instead we're gonna get 31 done for the same for the same price emergency trees cost a lot more money so this program has been very effective in saving long-term money to the city so if we were doing them as emergencies like we've done in the past we would only get about 12 trees probably done for this S. Mount, where in this contract we'll get 31 done instead.


Alderman Sanders, didn't you have? Yeah, I had one, but I'm going to pass, go ahead.


So is there a motion to? We've got Klemm and Monroe. Okay, so now it's, oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see Ann, come on.


The two companies that bid it, there was a $50 difference. Would the other company have been willing to give us the $30, whatever you said?


So by bid rules, it would be illegal for us to ask them to match prices. That's why we do an open bid process.


and our City of Freeport procurement standards that we govern with don't allow us to negotiate with the second bidder.


We have a process here and we have to go with the low bidder if they're responsible to do the work.


Homer performed the work last year without any issues. So we are bound by our bidding rules to accept that low bidder.


And if we don't, it could possibly open us up to litigation. Okay, I wasn't asking to have the other company underbid to match this company.


I'm saying it was just $50 difference. Correct, it was the tightest bid I've ever seen.


Okay, so what I'm asking is would they have given us, what did you say, 32 trees?


Yeah, they have both bid the same, 31 trees. 31 trees. Yep. We actually went out and a map was given exact locations of these trees and they were invited to go out and look at them and measure them themselves. We go out. There's a long story. It's a tree process. We actually go out and we have to measure the inches of the tree at four foot high. It's an high dot rule. And that's what they bid on. That's the basis of bid. So it's a total of so many inches for 31 trees. The largest tree on this is 56 inches around. So it's a very large tree.


We use the other company. Yes, we use Area Tree Service all the time. I'm just a little surprised that we would go to Lockport where we had someone right here. So the city staff had that discussion and we have to live by our procurement standards. That's why we don't have a choice. You always choose the one with the less. That is our procurement standard is to select the lowest responsive bidder unless the city has some justification for not.


some justification for not choosing them say if they hadn't done a good job before or we had litigation with them or we had some track record of They weren't going to perform well on the job and we don't have that in this case to be able to eliminate them Any other question Call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye.


Parker, and Stacy. The motion passes 7 to 0. Now we're at number 16 explanation of removal of Josh Atkins for Planning Commission presented by Alderman Stacy and Monroe. You know I just like to say how convenient for the mayor not to be will be here tonight. You know, April 7th, that first meeting, council was asked to accept someone to the planning committee. And I asked the question, like I always ask, why this this person, thinking that there was an open position on that committee.


Well, that was the furthest thing from the truth, because that happened on Monday, and Tuesday, Joshua Atkinson was fired from his position.


And that's not how it works. Again, another ordinance and rules are not followed. I don't know who all knew that there was not an opening.


The way it was brought to the Council was that of an opening. But now we can't even trust that.


And it states that any member of the Planning Commission may be removed by the Mayor subject to confirmation of such removal by the Council did not happen.


For purpose of this section, missing three consecutive meetings of the Planning Commission shall be deemed to be due cause of removal.


and I. And so my purpose for putting this on the agenda tonight was for Madam Mayor to to explain why she would violate this ordinance and proceed to do what she did unlawfully.


David has got to stop. Violation of ordinance by choice, just because, has got to stop.


We open up every meeting with prayer, say we gonna do the right thing. I wish some of you were in my shoes and then you would know my heart and understand my frustration.


it's right and wrong it's wrong and this is just not right no matter how you look at it yes oh I have to thank you madam chair so I obviously I can't speak for the mayor I'm not gonna try to speak for the mayor as to whatever explanations and I wouldn't I want you to. Thank you. But what I can speak to is just what the rules were and the law is. Okay. So you did cite from a section of the code there that deals with the removal of a Planning Commission member, and you're accurate that if there's a sitting member, like that they're within their term, that if they're going to remove, the mayor can initiate the removal process. And then that removal is subject to confirmation by the City Council. So that that part is accurate for someone who's currently sitting that's in the middle of their term okay my understanding is that mr. Atkinson's term expired I want to say in October of 24 so this wasn't a reappointment situation and so the mayor chose to reappoint someone different so Follow-up, please. You know, I'm sorry that you came with that. So I must read an email


from April 15, 2024. Appointment to the Planning Commission. Effective immediately, I hereby appoint Joshua T. Atkinson to the Planning Commission to fill the seat held by Jane Somebody Futh, which expires October 31st, 2024. Same email. This appointment shall be effective through October 31st, 2024 and automatically be reappointed to fulfill the next four years Seat Term, dated the 15th day of April 2024, respectfully submitted Jodi Miller, Mayor of Freeport.


So she did state that he was filling a seat, but then she turned right around in the same email and says that October the 31st he would fill a four year term, 24, 25, 26, 28, and and then he received a letter of termination, yes, Joy, Attorney Zito, go ahead.


So I'm aware of that letter and I'm aware that even on the agenda when Ms. Rackinson was on the agenda for his appointment initially to fill the remainder of the unexpired term Weis persistence to return the term until October 31st, 2021 that the agenda heading actually also did say, then mention the immediate reappointment for a successor four-year term. That was probably an oversight. I'll be... first to say that, I'll take my, my plane and in my, my, my portion of the blame and not catching it at the time of that appointment. But the appointment can only be per our ordinance can only be for the remainder The mayor, the council didn't have the authority to do the successor part. On the 31st, there should have been, or whenever the closest meeting was next available after the October 31st, there should have been a re-appointment at that point, but that didn't happen. So basically what I'm saying is the automatic successor appointment didn't have legal standing. It probably should have never happened that way. But how many times have it happened? I don't know. Well, that's something we need to find out.


and certainly if it's happened if that successor situation was like kind of done anywhere else the mayor would need to make reappointments or fill those appointments again you know so it would need to be corrected again so again he reset a simple ordinance that you can't even follow and so now I'm gonna need to to know who's on what committee, when and how they were appointed to that committee.


And I'm going to even take it a step further. Sassitz. because it's troubling that this committee where we have a young black gentleman would be removed. Are we going DEI on our committees now? But she's not here to answer that question and you can't answer it for her, I'm just saying, diversity, equity, and what she did, She said a lot, and she did a lot, and it's not, and should not be accepted.


Is there anyone else? Yeah, Attorney Zito, in an event of this nature, how do we make this whole again?


How do we reestablish or reinstate a situation where it could have been a wrong situation that was done, and how do we correct it?


I would expect you to probably be able to give us some consultation on that matter if possible.


Yes. Yes. Joy. So ultimately right now you have someone who's sitting in that spot, Mr. Wilkinson. So he's sitting in that spot right now. So one possible method is that the mayor could initiate removal of Mr. Wilkinson.


that would be subject to advice and consent of the council. That could be one thing that happened.


Not saying that's how it's gonna happen. That could be one way there. And then at that point, there would be a vacancy in the spot.


The mayor could then make another appointment of whoever she wants to appoint to fill the spot.


And that would be subject to advice and consent. Council approves that, then that person sits there.