Do you have it? It was 10.30. My husband and I went down to Georgia.


That had to be a better trip. It wouldn't be for us. I'll go grab it, sorry.


Good evening. Pastor Anna, could you please give the invocation this evening? Good evening. God bless everyone. In Psalm 32a says, I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go. I will guide you with my eye. We're going to pray. Heavenly Father, in the mighty name of Jesus, we exalt and bless your name at this hour. We thank Thank you for the opportunity to gather together to make important decisions for this community.


I pray for everything turns out well and that you will be done. May your wisdom, compassion, and mercy be poured out upon us.


May your Holy Spirit help us make the best decision for the well-being of all.


In the name of Jesus we pray, Amen. And we'll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll. Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Johnson? Here. Simmons will be marked absent for now. Parker? Here. Stacy? Here. Shadle? Here. Sanders? Here. And Sellers? Here. Then I need a motion in order for Alderman Simmons to attend remotely. So moved.


Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm. All those in favor?


No. Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers?


Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Parker? Aye. P.M. Is she on? Good. Okay. And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Shadle. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item number one is approval of the agenda. However, we will not be having item number 25, which is executive session. Is there a motion to approve? Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Madam Clerk, would you please take the role?


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Parker, aye, Stacy, is it fair to ask why we won't be having closed session, there wasn't anything to discuss, okay, aye, and Alderperson Simmons, can you hear me, yes, and how do Do you vote on the agenda?


Do you approve the agenda? Motion passes 8-0. Item number 2 is the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on August 18th, 2025.


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


Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Madam, Madam Mayor, may I interject? I did receive a message today that people at home are still having difficulty hearing Alderpersons, so if you could lean in, is that okay if I ask? Please lean into your microphone, even when you vote, they're not hearing you at home.


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Thank you. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye.


And Stacy? Aye. Aye. And the motion passes 8 to 0. Item number 3 is recognition of service awards. Chief?


Well, we have two officers that hit some milestones this month. One of them, Dan Moore. He gets his 10 year anniversary this month, which is quite an accomplishment.


Dan actually started off as a member of our auxiliary. He's currently a firearm instructor. He's also a member of our emergency response team and he's a field training officer.


Dan currently is assigned to the detective bureau where he's a general case detective and he just got his drone license so he's our first licensed drone pilot.


Dan has also received our highest award, the Award of Valor, on two separate occasions and he's also been with us at the end of many other letters of recognition.


So I thank you for your service and congratulations on 10 years. Just real quick too, Officer Eric Diemer, he couldn't be with us tonight, but he hit the 20-year milestone, which is a big one. He was going to be here, but something happened at the last minute, but his father was actually a long-time police officer for the Pre-Port Police Department, so he's a legacy officer.


who is a Legacy Officer. He also started off as a member of the Auxiliary. He's also a Firearms Instructor.


He spent some time working in the State Line Area Narcotics Team, which is a drug task force that we're in with the Illinois State Police.


He's also a member of our Emergency Response Team. He's a Field Training Officer. And he as well has received throughout his career many letters of accommodation and recognition.


So we thank Eric for his 20 years of service. and a number four is public comments Steve Carol on item number 19.


Okay, excuse me, I'm Steve Carol and this is about the public comments on non-agenda items.


At the last council meeting, there were many citizens that showed up to express their concerns about the outrageous rent increases that they were experiencing.


Since that was not on the council agenda, they were told in a very imperious tone, they would have to wait until the end of the meeting to express their views.


That particular meeting lasted a little over four hours. Not very citizen friendly, now is it?


To compound the outrage, not one elected official at that meeting asked for a suspension of the rules to allow those folks to express their outrage.


You know, the hypothetical vote on that motion would have been very telling, and maybe we'll have a repeat of that.


and others. By changing the Council rules to allow public comments on agenda and not agenda items at the beginning and end of Council meetings would ensure that what happened at that last Council meeting wouldn't happen again.


It's obvious to many that several of you are frightened of the First Amendment. Perhaps some of you should consider stepping down.


and you in particular Jodi, step down, find something else to do, go back to flipping burgers.


There's Robert Holtz that signed in but doesn't say whether you are talking on an agenda item.


Then you'll have to wait till the end. Pardon me? I have a special thank you.


Well, according to the attorney, he said you have to wait to the end, because it's not an agenda item.


Okay. Thank you. And then Rolanda Allen, same for you. Are you on an agenda item?


No? Okay. No? Okay. Then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is routine in nature and will be voted as one unless there's a member of the council that would like to have something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the Board and Commission minutes from the Foreign Fire Insurance Board dated June 12th, the Library Board July 9th, Fire and Police Commission July 22nd, 2025. Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report dated August 2025. The adoption of Resolution 2025-106 which is a resolution to request temporary closures of streets for the Freeport High School Homecoming Parade. Approval of the finance bills payable in total of $989,343.30 and the approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending August 23rd, 2025 in the total of $588,244.78 and also the finance reports and the cash and investment reports for July 2025. Is there a motion to approve?


So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Is that an abstain? Yes. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye.


And Stacy? No. The motion passes 6 to 1 with one abstention. Item number 6 is the first reading of ordinance 2025-53. Could you please read this? Ordinance Authorizing the City to Enter into a Fifth Renewal to Lease Agreement with Pete Albert for 103-111 South Liberty Avenue.


Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport entered into a lease agreement with Pete Albert to lease the first floor of the former Raleigh metal-clad building on September 2, 2020.


The lease has been extended four times with the associated terms listed here in the memo.


On 21 it was $1,000 and 22 was $2,000, same with 23 and 24. The fifth renewal extends the lease for one year, commencing September 15th and ending September 14th, 2026.


The annual rent remains $2,000 and is consistent with the previous two rentals renewals. That is a new provision we've included this year is potentially the ability to terminate the lease early in case of the current tenant expressing interest in purchasing the building at the Future. So the city receives approximately $2,000 annually in rent and staff recommends moving forward renewing the lease with Pete Elber at the Raleigh Metal Clad Building.


So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Parker to move this ordinance on to the next regular scheduled meeting discussion. Alderman Stacey?


Yes. Um, who's paying the taxes on this building? Um, the city owns it, so.


So the city is paying the taxes? I'm sorry, yes, Michelle? Um, the city originally placed the property taxes and then were reimbursed.


So we do get the rental fee every year and then we get paid for the property taxes.


But is that discounted favor because it's in the city's name? How much is paid for taxes on that building?


I'll need a few minutes. Alderman Sanders? I understand that the considerations some considerations have been made in the event if anything changes within the future of this building and the fact that we have not had opportunity to talk and others.


And I want to talk about the discovery of why we should lease this, continuously lease this building to a certain individual.


And we have not done our homework on it. We have not had enough time to make that distinction yet whether or not this particular occupant should continue to utilize that building.


and I am, I am under the thought that the council has not come to a conclusion or any kind of a resolution for that building and if we are not doing that, we don't know what we're selling the building to, selling the building for to even make that kind of a discussion and if we're going to discuss possibilities for future references for the occupant that's occupying this building or apartment or whatever it is that we need to look into it, explore a little bit more in depth to see if it's conducive to the taxpayers here in the City of Freeport and we don't want anybody to have the impression or the appearance, especially council, having the appearance of giving and I have been in consideration to any individual for whatever, the impropriety of, the appearance of it looks very, very suspicious to me at this point in time.


And I like to be able to look into it more than just coming to council, looking at it on the agenda and then rendering a vote for it.


I think what should happen is we need to do this exploratory observation, inspection by council, independent councils so they can make it an educated or the right type of decision making that needs to go into this particular area.


and others. We're not doing any of those kinds of things, and we need to be able to be on our job to to get that kind of information to make sound decisions when it comes to reevaluating that particular property and it's not considered or been brought up by any other potential buyers or rental options.


So that's my opinion on it. I think that's what we should do as a council to not have the appearance of a given consideration to anybody that's using taxpayer's property so Alderman Parker make a motion to call it's first reading so we're not quite there yet any other just Alderman Johnson I just wondered what would happen to the building if we do not it's a three-part question here what would happen to the building if we We do not lease it. Is there others who have expressed interest in renting or buying this building and has there been any improvement in this area during the last four years during its rental time?


Let me try to answer all those for you. The building, I think, is five floors and four floors are unoccupied. So if anybody else wanted to rent a floor in it, that would definitely be an option as far as, and what was the second, third one?


I've wondered if anyone else has been interested in renting or buying this building. Have not received any other interest, however, we're always open to it.


Any improvements? No improvements that I'm aware of, it's storage as far as I know.


Alderman Stacey? Yes. Is advertisement out there informing people that this building can be purchased and what is this new provision grants?


If I could just do my best to answer that. We generally have not done a lot of advertising for it. We have a lot of vacant space throughout the downtown. So we could do that at some expense to the city if that was council's desire and also as far as the purchasing obviously we we would ideally like to not have the city own this building eventually so this just provides a provision so that if we were able to get an estimate and a kind of move an agreement to a value we could bring that and for counsel to liquidate this building hopefully in the future.


If Attorney Zito. Zito. Just to add on to what the City Manager indicated, so that additional provision about purchase, it provides the tenant with an option to purchase.


So if that during this one-year term of this lease, that the parties happen to reach an agreement.


So we would have to have discussions, they would have to come to us and say, hey, I'm interested in buying the property, we would have to come as a city through council to Do you want to talk about how we can reach an agreement on a price and what all the specific terms of the purchase would be if we are able to reach an agreement then we would enter into a formal real estate purchase contract and go through that process to ultimately purchase but if we can't reach an agreement then then there's not an agreement there so I'm not talking about I'm not just speaking of the the current guy that's getting it every year for 2000 I'm talking about how would anyone in the city Be aware and know. What are you even asking for the building? How do we know if it's not advertised?


Well, there are five floors total. There's one that's occupied, so there's four other floors.


So on public record, if there are other people that are interested in using it for cold storage, please approach the city. We'd be happy to entertain any offers. But it's been empty for for a number of years except for Mr. Albers.


And it is a cost offset to the city to have someone there. And GFP is aware of any empty building and would be more than willing to tell someone if they had interest in something specific.


So my question is not being answered. How do the citizen of Freeport know that purchasing This building is an option if information is not put out there.


I don't care nothing about what Greater Freeport Partnership know. I don't care about how many floors.


My question was, how would anybody know that this building was up to purchase to be considered if it's not advertised, then put out there.


I would say the same way any other developer does it. They go on a property search.


They find out who owns it. Then they call the owner, say, is your building for sale?


I'd like to buy it. That's generally how. Do we own over 200 businesses? Yes.


Director Duckman. I just did want to say that I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does work with interested parties that come to the city wanting to invest.


and I know that I've been on other parts of the Raleigh building and, you know, showed it to prospective developers.


So I know that they're active in shopping the property. So when developers come to the city, I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does a good job utilizing that as a resource when people are interested.


Director Richter, do you have the answer to your first question? Yes. So the amount that's been reimbursed to the city for the tax year of 2024, which was billed in this year, was $142.54.


Thank you. So that's all the taxes that he's paying yearly, $142.54? Yes, because that's all that the city pays on that property, and typically the city would not paid property taxes at all but our tax assessor charges the city as any tax assessor would for if the city rents or makes income on a property then it is taxed but otherwise property would not be taxed and the reason it's a lower tax amount is it's only renting one floor so they they're only assessing taxes on the one floor that the city is making income Alderman Sanders did you have your hand Yes, I did. From what I'm understanding while I listen to what is being said, all of this comes up to a discretionary opinion, not an actual terminology or agreement or any of those kinds of things that binds the city to Wendell, or Lance, or Erick, or John, or anyone in the room.


So this is a very important area for us to think about when it comes to the property of an individual.


When it comes to a particular individual or an individual or to any particular occupant of a rental part of the city when it comes to taxpayers that is owning the property.


It is a discretion at this point in time for anyone that wants to decide to occupy any city property what happens when you whenever you talk about a five-story building and then let one occupant within that building come in and pay a certain amount of dollars who made that discretion every call who set up those parameters of where and how much does an occupant of a building a five-story occupy whether or not it's Bunny, John, Robert, and Mary, and I know for a long time, I've been a member of the White House and I've been a member of the House of Representatives and I've been a member of the House of Representatives for the last four years and I've been a member Johnson should be calling the shots about how that building is used and how is it benefiting the citizens of Freeport. If that building is not being overall utilized and marketed for potential rental property to anybody else that wants to exploit that property, then we're not doing our just due about getting this particular building on the market so and more tenants can be in that building. We're not utilizing that service or the service of that building at this time. So what we need to do is change provisions with the structure of how we're going to utilize this building with the taxpayers commenting and having an opinion and have their views and an opinion on this property that we may not that if we don't have all the details maybe someone


and others. We are not exploiting the taxpayers to let them know that this building is out there and anyone that wants to occupy any portions of that building, we have not set up the perimeters nor the provisions of that building, guidelines or anything to allow anyone else to be able to come in and occupy that building.


So we need to take a re-evaluation of how we got that thing set up because right now in document form, paper form, any tangible document agreement or whatever, with this particular occupant and the building, we need to take an assessment over the whole thing and make sure that we're following proper guidelines that council set.


We don't have none of these kinds of things that council can refer back to and that there's no ordinance at this current time.


We have not even tried to amend or adopt this particular deal with any occupants that wants to occupy that building.


So my whole thing is that we need to re-evaluate. Your time has expired, Alderman Sanders.


If there's no further discussion, we'll move this on to the next regularly scheduled meeting.


Move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of ordinance 2025-54. Could you please read this?


Ordinance Establishing the Gladewood Special Service Area and Accepting Dedication of Roadways and Levy of Taxes to Offset the Cost of Special Services.


Thank you. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City received a petition from a majority of the property owners in the Gladewood subdivision requesting the creation of a special service area or SSA. Following required notices, the public hearing on May 28th, no valid objections were filed. The ordinance established the SSA dedicate subdivision roadways to the city and outlines a framework for funding ongoing maintenance. The SSA ensures improvements to the subdivisions upper and lower entrances, including roadway base and asphalt upgrades, meeting engineering standards. The city will also accept the internal and the public street network.


Establishing the SSA creates a sustainable mechanism for funding services to be benefited without the area without burdening existing taxpayers with the full cost of needed improvements.


The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 and brought up to me also that's for a term of 15 years.


So across 16 parcels, the revenues will offset costs of roadway maintenance and improve the and others.


We are also working with the City of Washington to improve improvements specific to the Gladewood area, ensuring equitable cost recovery.


Staff recommends approval of this ordinance in establishing the Gladewood Special Service Area. Motion to approve.


Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm. Seconded. May by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers to move this ordinance forward. Discussion?


Alderman Stacy? Yes. How many homeowners in the Gladewood area has agreed and is okay with this $400 and what does that fee involve as far as fixing the streets and snow removal?


what does this ordinance give the Gladewood people well there's 16 parcels that are involved and it benefit from improved access to their area you mentioned snow removal and all 16 agreed no not all 16 a majority of the 16 I believe there is nine or ten that agreed with that the snow removal is is currently performed by the Park District, and that is an agreement that predates, I think it was former Mayor Galrapp signed that agreement.


Did you want your second one? Yes. Go ahead. Have they had an opportunity, all of them, to have an opportunity at that stand and speak on this matter as to why or why not they wanna pay that $400.


I mean, nine or 10 out of 16 is still. Yeah, well, we did provide, we followed the state statute on setting up an SSA and in that it required a meeting and each person was able to have a dialogue and ask questions and go back and forth with the engineers, myself, Attorney Cox.


so that process was filed so as far as opportunities to stand here in front of council obviously it's an agenda item so they could speak now if they wanted to or they could have spoke at public comments.


Alderman Klemm? What was the mumble the 30 days what? They also had 30 days to file an objection with me and I received none. Alderman Klemm? Sure I just wanted to say I I don't know the exact date but a hearing was held here in City Hall and there was conversation back and forth with many of the homeowners that were here it was laid out as to the all the costs and what would be done it was agreed to the biggest areas in need are the the entrance and the exit coming into it the others will be fixed so that it isn't full of potholes and stuff and then we will get it into our process to get the whole thing surfaced. So all of that was discussed and it was open to everybody. Yes, there were some people that objected.


Sure there were. It was one of those things that wasn't, was never found until work came up on the Gladewood Bridge. When work was studied on the Gladewood Bridger came up that the this has never been transferred to the city so it's kind of a bad deal and this is one of the best ways to rectify it and everybody in there will have new roads and have decent roads to drive on. So are you saying that it's now the city is under the city? Establishing a special service is part of it becoming it's it's required to set that up so we have some cost recovery in exchange the city takes over the street. Alderman Sanders, yeah I was going to ask where where are the numbers coming from and who set the pyramid who sets up the guidelines for cost effective of overall the overall for this and others.


So, I'm going to ask you a question about how do we determine the cost for the city part of the maintenance of that area and how do we determine what the numbers are going to be, what it's going to cost, where the fundings are going to go after receiving any type of provisions, I mean, any revenue, I'll put it like that, any kind of revenue, where does this money end up and how does it benefit the taxpayers of the City, and the maintenance overall cost, and not only that, how do we come up with the $400?


I'm trying to figure out where these numbers come in from. Well, the $400 came from, started with an estimate that was calculated, the attorney and myself worked on, you know, what is reasonable.


We also looked at engineering estimates for what it would take to take care of the emerging issues on the entrance and exit to Gladewood, and then also just more of a common sense and I have been working on the entrance and exit approach as far as, you know, what's realistic here? What is realistic? So although this doesn't completely recover every dime required to do the immediate repairs, this goes a long way of cutting down the city's expenses with dealing with the emergent issues on the entrance and exit. So what's going to include, what's included right now and what we'll be working on for next year is base repair and resurfacing of the entrance and exit. If I recall right, it was about 200 feet on that is not how the procedures work.


You don't get to guide the council. You don't get to guide the council when he having a one-on-one conversation to determine whether or not we are in a conversation.


We can't even make that distinction right now because why? I have to continue to use my questions at your discretion, calling out when can I talk to my administrative body when he's sitting right here talking to me.


You can talk to him every day if you want to, but he hits the floor. That's not the point.


That is not the point. I am getting fed up with the fact that we have to go by certain protocols. I'm getting fed up that you're being disruptive.


It's not, well. Would you like your second time? Otherwise, just move away from the microphone.


My point is this. He did not go through the same thing that I went through.


He just interjected himself in the conversation and Stacey, and I was having a question about. So you didn't have that call to make that.


So, but anyway. So, Alderman Stacey, would you like your time, I'm sorry, Alderman Stacey.


No, I want to ask, I want to answer the question. I want to ask the second question because...


Would you like to have the floor, Alderman Sanders? Yes, I would. Okay, that's all you needed.


Okay. Well, I don't like to, I don't, okay, my point is this. You're having a meeting, You had a meeting with the Claywood area council people committee or whatever the case is that you went through to establish how you come up with numbers and the council don't see those numbers.


We don't see how you came about those numbers. It's not saying that what you're saying that it's more like a discretionary thing that is based upon your consideration and your opinion about the numbers.


That's what I'm concerned about. And my thing is that is not the right approach to do that.


And council is to be formed before any decisions are being made out in the field when it comes to redirecting things, fundings, and all of these kinds of things.


and the City has to be clued in so we can make an intelligent decision and understand the process of what you're doing.


We can't come to council understanding what you did before we had an opportunity to talk about it because it's not in the memo.


Everything that you talk about is not always in the memo. And so what I'm saying is there's a lot of variations that are going on that we have and I talked about when it comes to this particular area.


Don't get me wrong. I just want to know how we got here. That's all I'm asking.


Because a lot of things that we're doing is not being revealed unto the council.


And the council needs to know beforehand so they can make a form and opinion or decision about what is going on out in the field.


I have no problem with it unless I can understand and the process of how you got here.


And if that is not how we're doing things, then we need to restructure some of those things so we can get a clear view on how to go to the next step or how we're gonna get to the next step.


And then not only that, the council is always informed of how we got there.


Am I out of time now? No, you still got a minute and 30 seconds.


No, I don't want it now. Is there any, and I'm sorry, Alderman, Stacy, you already spoke twice.


Is there any other discussion? Otherwise, we will move this forward to the next City Council meeting.


Item number 8 is the first reading of ordinance 2025-55. I don't know if Alderman Stacy really heard what you said or she had a question to ask, I believe.


Yes, she had already spoke twice. Yep. Did you have something further than Alderman Klemm?


Did you have something you wanted to add? No? Okay. Then we'll move on to the first reading of Ordinance 20-25-55. Could you please read this?


Maintenance, Amending Part 2, Administration Code, Titles 6, Administration, Chapter 240, Police Department, Section 240.04 and Chapter 242, Fire Department, Section 242.05.


Thank you. Manager Boyer? Thank you, your honor. If you'll look at the memo, a revised memo.


There's a mistake in the one that I put forward with the agenda. State law generally sets a mandatory requirement, age of 65, for police and firefighters.


The City's Code currently references those requirements for the Chief of Police, that's Section 240.04, and Fire Chief, Section 242.05.


However, age alone does not determine whether an individual is fit to serve as Chief.


Our current Fire Chief continues to provide exemplary leadership and has earned the trust of his department and community.


It is the City's best interest to allow him to continue to serve as long as he wishes is provided he remains capable and effective.


As a home rule unit, the city of Freeport may establish its own requirements for the position of police and fire chief.


And the ordinance adds new subsections clarifying that the position of chief of police and fire chief will not be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 65.


This change ensures leadership decisions are based on performance and ability and not age. From a legal perspective, the Federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act restricts mandatory retirements except in limited cases by removing the age cap for chiefs the city reduces potential exposure to any kind of discrimination issues and aligns with best practices across Illinois municipalities so staff recommend there is no financial impact and staff recommends moving forward with the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs. Is there a motion to move this forward?


Somo. Second. Also suspension of the rules. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on this ordinance? We have a motion to suspend the rules.


Second. We have a motion to suspend the rules made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


Suspension of the rules is non-debatable. Yeah, I know. That's very clever. That's very clever.


Sanders, please. Yeah, I saw this coming. This is a non-debated issue. I understand that. Okay, so Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on this? I understand that. I saw that coming. Shadle? I wanted to know that.


Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Oh, I said no. Sorry. Thank you. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No.


and the motion passes 6 to 2. So now before you is the final passage.


Alderman Sanders, would you like to have a question on this? Yeah, I just can't understand how one of the constituents, leaders of their ward cannot come to the to the terms or the, however you want to put it, and I have come to a conclusion that we should suspend this particular rule and not have a clear understanding and talk about why the ordinance clearly states this and we want to ignore it.


The fact is, I'm willing to go along with discussions if it's the proper thing to do.


and I, and I'm here, I've got someone in here that's talking about suspended when the ordinance is talking about the cap age. It's talking about establishing that and then not only that, you obviously didn't read the fact that there was discretionary and opinions going on in this particular agenda, on this particular ordinance in its entirety. Someone is throwing their opinions into this memo without council having a chance to and even discuss it, let alone getting it right in the ordinance perspective, we're not doing the just due diligence of the ordinance.


Now, if there's any amendments that needs to be made, then let the rest of the council be able to speak out on that particular, on this particular ordinance so the people, the and others.


We need to understand the public and hear what the opinions are, why we should do this, because if the ordinance gives you a cap, why are we trying to change that cap, and we need to know who's bringing that thought into the council thought.


I understand the City Manager is throwing his opinion in there, his discretionary opinion and wanting for us to take the consideration of what he is saying.


That's not how this works. There's an ordinance that allows counsel the opportunity to weigh in on this particular memo that has been presented to us and the public as well.


This is not so based upon one individual's discretionary mindset about how to go about doing it.


No, it is all about the council making those discretionary parameters and whether or not we want to consider allowing the cap to be raised or the cap to be removed.


And that's exactly what this is talking about, having the cap to be removed and then we're supposed to not have a committee to make sure that whether or not this individual is eligible health-wise or whatever the case may be, who's setting up these guidelines? We can't say we got a Fire Chief and a Police Chief in the Council or in the Administrator body at 99 years old. Where does this stop?


and so on. And nobody sitting here is qualified to make those discretionary calls. No one.


You suspended it, sir, so you don't get an opportunity to voice your opinion on this particular matter.


But my point is, there's no committee set up to make that distinction whether or not an individual is going to be effective enough to continue without a cap on it and the ordinance set it there so that could happen.


Now, if we want to change things as a council, that's one thing. We can amend it.


Thank you Alderman Sanders. Your time has expired. Alderman Stacy, did you have your hand up?


What is the advantage for suspending the rules? Manager Boyer? I think it's in deference to our current Chief.


What? It's in deference to our current chief so that we make a timely decision and able to move forward and not have this subject come back over and over again if the council is Accepting of moving forward with this change. And so are you saying not suspending the rules? It's not being fair to no I did not say it's not fair. I just simply said in deference to our current chief I Would request the suspension of the rules Fowler.


So what are we looking at as far as time-wise, suspending the rules or not suspending the rules?


What are we looking at? A week? It would be moving to, actually, suspension of the rules is kind of already over with.


So it's a non-debatable thing. You either vote yes or no. So to talk about suspension of the rules is kind of pointless.


Do you want to talk about the ordinance itself? and if it would have not passed, then it would have been pushed back two weeks.


Okay, so I just wanted to know what was the advantage in suspending the rules and you're telling me two weeks.


That's the time frame. Alderman Parker, did you want to add to that? Yeah, as long as apparently he was talking to me directly.


I'm entitled to my opinion. I totally believe it and if you read the ordinance that he put out, it gives you an option if and Miller. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, Alderman Johnson.


Just wanted to say that in the ordinance section 242.32, it talks about periodic physical examinations.


So every member shall take and pass physical examinations whenever directed by the Board of Fire and Police Commission. So if it's someone that's 65 or older and we think there There might be some We're older and we think there might be some problems with their physical or mental status, maybe not capable of doing the job.


Then they can order a physical exam to safeguard that, you know, that point that they are physically able and mentally able to do the job.


There's no further discussion? Yeah. Alderman Sanders. Yeah. Addy coupling to that observation whether or not someone need or board or someone needs to be available committee or if someone needs to be able to say that a certain individual needs to take an agility test to be examined to determine whether or not he's fit to do that job well the point is there's no mechanism in place right at this current and others.


We do not have time to make that discretionary observation, monitoring system. We do not have that to determine whether a person that has been considered beyond retirement, when the ordinance says, this is the deadline of the retirement, you must follow the ordinance.


and others, but to give consideration for someone to continue after the ordinance has already been put in place, the council has to place an amendment or have one already in place to even call that.


No one person makes these kinds of declarations or make any kind of opinion about it unless we have all been informed about the possibilities of these things happening.


I have no problem with the consideration of amending if a person has the agility and the ability to work beyond the retirement age.


I have no problem with that. But my problem is we never talked about a cap even after 65.


We have not even got to that point yet. and so to have that discussion and have a committee to make that that kind of determination to inform counsel that this person is sound mind, capable, effective and all of these there's no there's nothing in place that gives us that that vision that gives us that understanding so all of this that we're We're talking about is is mute right now because we need to reevaluate what we just talked about and that's that's that's the essence of all of this so we need to redo all of it including the suspension that was thrown out there as well.


Chief Miller. Yes thank you your honor. So maybe I can help bring this to light or make it clear I actually brought this forward Boyer, I wanted to get in front of this. I discovered that there is this Fire and Police Commission statute that's out there. And obviously, looking at the Police Chief and myself, we all know that this is about me and not him. So looking at, and Attorney Zito will correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but what this came down to is it's a Fire and Police Commission and the City of Illinois.


and myself are not under Fire and Police Commission. We're merely appointed by the City Manager with Council approval. So that is the determination between rank and file Fire and Police Commission and City Manager. So what this states is any position that is below the Chief level and meaning that they're tested, they're promoted, they come up through the ranks, this is governed by the 65-year rule. But for police chiefs, fire chiefs, we aren't part of that Fire and Police Commission statute. We're the administration, which is appointed position with your approval.


So we're just trying to clear this up and make it more understandable, bring the ordinance to light, have the ability for elected officials to be aware of it, and then be finished with and I. I'm going to stay with it above board and have transparency and honesty about this.


I'm sorry, Alderman Sanders, you already had your two. Alderman Stacy? Thank you, Chief Miller, for explaining that. And you know it's nothing against you with with me in any way, shape or form. I'm just trying to understand what's at hand, but before I can even get an understanding, the rules are suspended, and I just needed to know what the advantage was in suspending the rules. And that happens quite often, and it is disturbing because no one could even explain it to me.


The mayor made more sense than City Manager Boyer, but the way you just broke it down made more sense than anything anybody done said.


So for that, I do thank you. And I have no problem if it's no weeks, one week or two weeks, you're more than qualified and capable of carrying on your title.


Suspension of the rules doesn't stop discussion. It just is an order of procedure. So if there's no further discussion on this, you already spoke twice, sorry.


Can I get a third one? No, you'd have to have council approval. Alderman Klemm.


I was in this position 16 years ago. That means I'm an old fart, okay?


So if you do some math into it, The times have really changed. Years ago, when these things were set up as being a mandatory 65, you know, people over 65 years old at that point were pretty well ready for retirement.


You take a look at things today with modern technology and medicine, modern medications and everything else, people are living a lot longer, people are living better for a longer and the rest of the city.


and a number of months to get a person into that position. So I believe it helps us to retain a person for a number of years as long as they're capable.


There's no further discussion. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers.


Aye. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye. And the ordinance passes 7-1. Item number 9 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-56. Could you please read this? Ordinance amending chapters 1248 and 1250 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport concerning ground-mounted solar arrays.


Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Staff had been directed by the City of Freeport Planning Commission to move forward with a text amendment to change our zoning code for the ground-mounted solar arrays.


And so, a little background here. our Planning Commission in its last two it's last we had two solar ground mounted solar projects where our Planning Commission voted on in residential districts and those two they voted against voted it down and through much discussion what was brought up was that our Planning Commission doesn't feel that in residential neighborhoods or in our smaller and others.


August 14th and the Planning Commission made a recommendation with these changes by a vote of 5 to 0 with zero abstentions.


to zero with zero abstentions. And in line with our Planning Commission, staff is recommending moving this forward.


Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. There will be a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers. Discussion on this ordinance?


Alderman Sanders? Director Duckman, give me the, you said there was a vote of 5-0-0.


Yes. Correct. And who was the five? I could get those names for you by the time we have our second reading.


Okay. And what was the opinion of the public about this? there was no major public comment here about this and I would say that in general when we talk about the special use when we're talking about these special use permits for solar I would say overwhelmingly the neighbors don't want it essentially what they're saying at these zoning hearings is I live in a residential neighborhood I don't want to wake up looking at solar panels in my and I. I, I, I, I, that's what I was listening to. Yes, yes. And so, uh, the, the pursuit or are we trying to push this agenda that the solar system wants, uh, company wants to try to impose upon the general public with this service is basically what we're listening to. I do. Well, the Planning Commission is saying that they don't want, based on what what they've heard in special use permit hearings that they from the community that they don't they no longer want to have it allowed in our residential districts you know some statistics here you would still be able to do it as a rooftop you would still be able to by right put the solar panels on your roof what we're talking about is going into your backyard in a residential neighborhood and installing solar panels on the ground so instead of having You know, folks that walk out of their backyard and see grass or a shed or garage you would see essentially solar panels.


Okay, so that won't impose upon those that... well, this is not a blanket slate for no solar panels for any residents.


You would still be able to put it on the roof. You can't? Okay. Any other discussion?


Alderman Stacey? You know, I've said this before, and it concerns me that we're willing to do it for some but not for all.


We just agreed to have a church, an area at this church, they wanted it on the ground.


Last year there was a couple homes in their backyard, they wanted it on the ground.


and so now we're wanting to take away the ability to have that variance so that it can't be put on the ground, however, we did it for some.


Is there a question there? Are you asking me? Yeah, how do you determine why do it for some and not do it for all?


Again that's what a special use permit is. So what you currently have is anybody who would like to in a residential neighborhood would like to install solar panels in their backyard.


They have to go through a hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission and then ultimately presented to council and that's why currently you are voting with your other fellow council members on whether or not somebody can have it.


That's what's happening right now. This proposed ordinance says everybody is no. There is no longer a council vote on it. So when you're talking about same for some and keeping it the same for all, voting on this ordinance makes it the same for all. It takes away the discretion. It makes it fair.


But we've already allowed some. Correct. Yes, you have. and so now to say Sally got it but Jane can't and if we vote yes on this ordinance then we're saying Sally beat the punch, Jane didn't make it.


Yes, you are correct. That's exactly what this ordinance is saying is that our Planning Commission has reviewed an event through the past two, the past two hearings that they've heard.


and others, and they voted against it and they don't see it in line with our zoning and with our land use because of the complaints mainly of our public at these hearings and the neighbors.


Alderman Sanders, would you like your second time? Yeah. So, there is an ordinance is what you're declaring at this point.


There is an ordinance involved in the process for people to make an educated decision or determining their opinions and things like that.


and others. The ordinance should be stipulating exactly what the provisions are in that ordinance and the guidelines for that ordinance. And I'm just wondering, have the people been educated about this ordinance to determine whether or not the decisions that they're making and why we have an ordinance that sounds like it's imposing upon them or whatever the case and others.


I'm not sure what your case is, but I understand what you're saying. What you're saying is the Planning Board has nullified the whole concept.


And so the next move is for the solar system is to what, move out of the City of Freeport to move on or how does that work?


No. So essentially what, on August 14th we had a public hearing that was publicly noticed and it was discussed and this amendment for an ordinance change was discussed and it was proposed to bring it to council for a vote and that's essentially what happened there.


Your solar companies are going to still be able to put solar panels on roofs.


They're still going to be able to do that. There's no change to that. What essentially this is going to do is it's going to take away the, we can give it to this one, we can give it to that one.


we can give it to this one we can give it to that one because that's going to if you vote no against this you are voting to take the control to say they you know Sally can have it Mark can't that's what's going on right now if this passes you're essentially saying Sally and Mark cannot have it John can't have it no one can have it in a residential in a residential neighborhood and the reason for that is the Planning Commission is charged to make recommendations on how land use effects is in line with our comprehensive plan and they've after the past few zoning hearings they've said look we don't think this fits with what we're doing in our community and we want to remove it right and that's what they're proposing to council right now okay Darren did you want to add to that I'm on the Planning Commission along with many other members and this has been a unanimous decision with everybody on the Planning Committee that we are not in favor of ground-mountain solar in residential Moore, return home.


Get to know the council, the council neighborhoods, it's distracting, it's obtrusive, the current ordinance reads that you can go on the rooftop, you don't have to come to the council.


You only have to come to the council if you want to do who have been denied by the Planning Commission but they still have come here and you guys overruled the recommendation from the people that you're asking to review this stuff.


It was reviewed in depth and I was not at the last meeting but the meeting before that that we discussed it, it was discussed for over 30 minutes and everyone there was unanimous that they didn't want to see ground mounted in residential zoned properties.


Now, again, there's a difference between residential properties and these commercial developments. It's two different ordinances, right?


So we're just talking about household properties in town. That's all we're discussing at this.


And we're saying as a group, and I agree with it, that we don't want to have that option.


It's cheaper for the solar companies to stick a pole in the ground and put solar panels on it than to put it on the roof.


That's the option they're going to choose every time if they can get it. We don't even want to review those at the Planning Commission anymore. That's why we're asking for this.


Alderman Sanders, you've already spoke twice. Alderman Stacy, would you like your second time? I didn't ask you to not speak again. I did not ask you to let me speak my second time.


659 and 704. Wow. Darren, last year you came to council. There was a home that wanted these panels on the ground.


You talked about how there was no endangerment to anything or anybody and twice, at least twice last year we approved and voted for ground panels.


there was a home no I'm telling you because you came to council and you spoke about they're not being high Fowl, they're not being harmful and- No, I believe you're confusing the landfill solar project with residential. The residential ones, to my knowledge, have all been turned down. Alderman Sellers.


Wait, Duckman was speaking. Go ahead. I gave the floor to Alderman Sellers. Go ahead.


So I think she's talking about when we okayed the property for Ted Oatendall. But if you saw his land, it's totally, it's totally different.


It's not, it's acres of land. So it's not where he has a house next door and a house next door.


It's acres of land. No, Ted was just one of two or three. Oh no, I just remember the one and it was Ted Oatendall.


and then we did the church, but that's out on Pearl City Road. And I'm even talking about last year.


I'm talking about what was done last year. Okay, so Director, do you have more you want to add?


No, I just wanted to say Director Steekle is probably the most outspoken against residential solar.


I think it goes back to Park Hills Church had a zoning hearing in 2023, might be 2024, it was two years ago though I believe, and our Planning Commission looked at that, approved it, and the neighbors have been angry about it ever since.


and anytime, I will tell you, anytime, you know, moving forward from them, Director Steekle has been outspoken against how solar, ground mounted solar looks in residential neighborhoods, whether it be a large lot or not.


And so he has been consistent in how solar panels fit with our land use.


Essentially, he's on the side that thinks it doesn't fit in the community. So, I just want to say that to be fair, and I know that for a fact, there was one on Lincoln Boulevard that wanted to put it in their backyard. I know Director Steekle voted against that. I know he voted against the Harmony Church one.


So, he's been consistent to not vote for it. That's just all I wanted to just make that point.


I wanted you to speak because I thought you were going to answer my question and not take up or feel like you needed to support Darren. I wasn't being harsh with Darren. I'm just speaking.


Yeah, if there's a question, I'll answer. I didn't know the question. Well, and let's remember this is first reading, so it'll be on in two weeks, so if you have more questions, you know, feel free to call, come to your weekly meetings, make notes so you can ask more questions in the next meeting.


If there's no further discussion, we'll move on to item number 10, which is the adoption of Resolution 2025-101. Could you please read this?


Resolution approving agreement for the purchase of Office 365. 35. Thank you. Director Sutman. Thank you, Mayor. This agreement or procurement is to purchase Office 365 Productivity Suite software for all city staff, including water and sewer and police. Which one is that? Office 365. 365? Government version. Okay.


I won't read the memo, pervatum, but generally it is more expensive than we have now. We're what we call an on-prem shop, is what we call ourselves.


We own, the software is run locally, our servers are here, all that stuff. This is going to be a little more expensive, but there are compliance and some security wins and security losses with it.


it's kind of the industry trend is going this way it helps us out with a lot more integrations with future software so we get for the city and that's kind of the meat of it financially it's going to cost just under 21,000 per year which of that the city which includes fire and PD so it's not just City Hall staff will pay and other people.


We pay around $17,000. Watering is the world pay around $3,700. Any questions? Is there a motion to adopt?


So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Discussion on the resolution.


Alderman Sanders? Yeah, what happens when you don't adopt? I mean, first and second adoption.


We have to chime in on the adoption. Is it mandatory that we conclude with an adoption to accept or do we just accept things and just move on just to have it in our discussion?


I'm just talking off the top of my head because you're not going to mark me down for a question.


I'm not asking a question yet. So while I'm not asking a question, my whole thing is this.


What made the determination for you two, you guys, to want to install a new server? Not only that, who are we? What's wrong with the old server? We don't know exactly. I'm still going because if she stops me, I have to come back again. And if we are looking at the possibility and the city of upgrading a new server.


Where does the old server go with all that data information on that particular server?


Because we don't want a Hillary Clinton kind of situation jumping off in the city.


And so what I'm concerned about, who's safeguarding? I know you got all kind of security mechanisms in place, but who's making those determinations of servers, how many servers, one or two servers, where does all this resource information, data information is stored, does it go onto a new server that we're considering or do we dismantle the old service and who covers that and who takes care of that, those are and others.


So, I just want to let you know that I'm not going to go into details of my concern because we don't want to have data running around loose throughout the city, you know, where anyone can get their hands on it and use it at their own discretion or theft, fraud or whatever the case may be.


I just like to know how it's being secured and I just, I know, I know, I know service go out bad.


I'm stating my comment my yeah and and I know they go bad I know that it's time for upgrading with new software and all of these kinds of things to be put in place but I just want to know how we're gonna go about the data security of those servers that we want to replace. Director Sutman would you like to answer answer all those questions yes thank you so this is the off next is the server should I just answer it now so when I do do the server they'll be running parallel for a short time while the data is copied over and then yes when that old server is decommissioned whether it goes on the surplus auction or whatever the drives will be wiped and I'm assuming shredded per standard okay alderman Stacey. Last year we spent thousands of dollars for a new system and now here not you personally but here you come again twenty one thousand. What did we not get last year that we need this year. So last year kind of my big IT purchase was a new physical server box, a host server for the police department. They kind of have their own NOC, Network Operation


Center. This is for Office 325 and we'll get into there's another network operation center for the city. So what we bought last year, think of that as the processing and the storage.


and many more. I think that's what we're trying to do. I think that's what we're trying to do.


I think that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to do it for the administrative bodies or other branches within the city or how we're covering all of this because I'm looking at a $27,000 cost here and I'm like, okay, what are we getting?


What kind of a breakdown are we getting for each department? Who's all being served with these whole servers?


Without going into the entire network topology for security reasons, this will serve, yes, administrative, city hall, basically all staff, other than the police, they're on a different domain.


We're on a different domain, so we keep the hardware separate, too. But it runs application servers, your basic network controls, as well as some storage.


Any other discussion? Like the water department and all that? Nothing goes to the cloud, right?


We're not, thank you. I was hoping you said, no. and the different departments like with Daring, Water Works Department, all that is connected with this?


Yes. Anyone else? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye.


Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy. No. The resolution is adopted seven to one. Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025-102. Could you please read this? Resolution approving the purchase of a host server for the city from CDW-G. Thank you, Director Shetman. Thank you. So this is for the new host server for the city. We covered a lot of it in the questions from and the last one, but this is just to refresh the server that was bought in 2017.


The reason for replacing it is the hardware is getting older, the incidents of data failure go up and up every year.


Knock on wood, we haven't had any with this server, it's treated us very well.


But as any machine you have in your life, it'll wear down over time and start to break.


With computer systems, you also have to worry about things like firmware support, and so and others.


We need a motion to adopt. So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.


Discussion. Alderman Sanders. Yeah. What kind of servers are they? Are they Mac or PC, Android?


No, not Android. I know you want to do an Android. but what kind of operating systems are we looking at when we're talking about host servers?


Where we're working, what operating systems are we using? I never heard of a department area using Mac servers or whatever or anything like that.


What kind of we're indulging in? Yeah, it's what was spec to us was a Dell server.


It'll be a Windows environment. Okay. Pretty standard, basic, small business type stuff, but with the government compliance.


Okay. Okay. Alderman Stacey. Okay. So, not counting the 21,000 you just asked for, now you're asking for another 27,000.


Did you budget any of this? Yes. Just to clarify, the last one we just passed, that was for Office 365. It's like when you're at work and you go on your email or a spreadsheet, that's what the last one was. This one's an actual physical box.


But you budgeted? Yes, both are budgeted. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.


Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Simmons, Parker, and Stacy. No. The resolution is adopted, 7 to 1.


Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025104. Could you please read this? Resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue.


Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Recently, we've had multiple failures on Warren Avenue, approximately eight breaks in the last several months.


This is a six inch cast iron pipe that was installed in 1931 and it's a known issue in terms of its vintage age.


Staff has been investigating this particular area and is requesting emergency water main replacement on Warren, approximately 800 feet.


That would also ensure replacement of water main gate valves, fire hydrants and water service connections for the right-of-way.


The replacement cost is estimated between $230,000 and $250,000 based on unit price bid and staff requests moving forward with Fisher excavating to replace the aging water main on Warren.


Is there a motion to adopt? Second. Any motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers?


Alderman Sanders, did you have your hand up? You engineered this project, and we have not done a scheduling replacement of the water main on Warren.


I recall that in that area, they did have a lot of deficiencies in those water mains down through there and I'm wondering did you cover all aspect of that area for replacement and whether or not the material that we're going to use to replace it, it's not going to be the old past material that's existing there now.


So we should be making all new connections through that area so we don't have to have and I have had these kind of failures.


We're spending $250,000 or whatever the amount comes out to. But my thing is we have looked at all of the area of the last time anything was installed in the past to see if it needs to be brought up to date because the new lines and everything can affect old existing line.


and so on. And so I'm just wondering how we're looking at that aspect of it and moving forward and I would like to move forward with that because I don't want to see nobody out at four in the morning with water main breaks at temperatures 20 below zero and all of these kinds of things and John.


We're going to have to do more things because that can possibly happen if we don't move forward with it.


So yeah, I just wanted to hear what you had to say in regards to that whole general thing.


Just making sure you finished all your thoughts so that way there is no back and forth.


Yes, I did. You good? All right. I'm good. Darren, you want to answer those?


So sure. The replacement this year will only be 800 feet, so it's from Gleena De Cable, which is shown on the map.


That's all we have money for this year, so we can't afford to do the rest of it.


We'll have to program the rest in the section that we're replacing has had the vast majority of breaks. That's why we're doing that 800 feet. It also affects a couple of businesses there on the corner of Galena, the grooming store, the barbershop that are frequently without water. We have had eight breaks on this in the last recent months. We made some pressure changes to try to slow some of the breaks down. But on the last break that we had, we actually took out about a 20 foot section and some of the worst Maine that I've seen in a very long time so I'm recommending replacement now we have very good prices from Fishers they're working on Harvey right now and if we approve this tonight when they're done at Harvey they will go to Warren. Alderman Sanders you didn't tell me what kind of material that was going to be installed this is 1931 cast iron and we're gonna We're gonna go out and see if we can find some from 1910 and put that in, just to make sure, you know.


What about the, do we have, is there, is there more efficient? Alderman Sanders is plastic.


Yeah, oh, okay. I'm kidding, we're putting in, our city standard is C909, PVC, pressure rated, 2000.


Thank you, that's what I was waiting for. Is there any other discussion? Alderman Stacey.


What is going to be affected from this in our street department that's already been established for this year?


So as it's notated in the financials, it won't affect anything that we're doing. We're suggesting taking this out of reserve funds to get this done because it's been such a problem and we've spent so much money repairing it already this season that we just don't feel like it's practical.


Significant and the last time we were digging it up before we even got the street patched. So it needs to be done. Alderman Johnson. He answered my question. I was wondering how much one repair Costs.


Plumb, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacey, The resolution is adopted. Number 13, adoption of Resolution 2025-105. Could you please read this?


Resolution approving purchase of 24-foot equipment trailer from Knight Equipment for water and sewer construction equipment.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. City crews use equipment, trucks, and trailers to move equipment around to different projects.


We have a utility trailer that was purchased in 1988. It's had multiple repairs of the frame and it recently failed Staff is requesting move forward with the purchase of a new 18,000 pound equipment trailer the amount of the from night equipment is $13,995 for a 24 foot trailer and staff requests City Council move forward with this Is there a motion to adopt? So moved second a motion made by Alderman Shadle seconded by Alderman Sellers discussion Alderman Sanders oh yeah we did you did go up a bit so am I correct on that one that we we received three we received three prices and this was by far the cheapest we're also going with a 20-23 model to save money still new and what's and Stacey.


What's the cost? It's in the memo, $13,995. Okay. Alderman Stacey? £18,000. Our street can't even handle that.


Well, I would hope it could, but yes. This is for hauling the skid steer around, which weighs about £12,000.


Our streets are rated for £60,000 to £80,000. 60 to 80. And this is in the budget? Yes. Any other discussion? How long does a trailer like this last? Quite a long time. The last one was from 1988, so I think we've got every nickel out of it. We probably could, but it's unusable at this part. It's scrap. Right now, the crews are requesting this. We're sharing a trailer between water, sewer, and streets.


and with the street work and everything we got on, it's just a hassle. They're losing a lot of time chasing around town, trying to get equipment moved around.


Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye.


Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The resolution is adopted 8-0. Item number 14 is adoption of resolution 2025-107. Could you please read this?


Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School program.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport has several school crossings that are dated and require equipment repair and replacement for the safety of school children crossing the busy streets.


The Public Works staff has identified a STRS, that's Safe Routes to School State Grant opportunity to fund the replacement of this equipment.


and the IDOT Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program that is grant opportunities for potential equipment replacements of safe school crossing equipment.


The new lighting LED systems installed are solar based replacements with much brighter warning equipment and this grant if awarded would be used for $250,000 of equipment replacement.


A formal resolution will be brought to City Council and must be passed as part of the and the application. And that is what we're asking for today. So as far as the Safe Routes to School key points, it's again a $250,000 maximum grant per project. There is no matching fund for the first year. And this is a competitive application. Safe Routes to School grants can also only be used for construction and safety funding. Engineering fees cannot be included in this grant award. And application deadline is October 15. And we are partnering with Freeport School District 145 on application support and staff recommends City Council that we pursue this grant opportunity.


Is there a motion to adopt? Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson, Alderman Sanders.


Yeah, we're venturing into a public entity to help offset or to help them to reconstruct the safety protocols for the school and if I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned the fact and others.


So, I'm hoping that the school will be able to do something to help the students, to help the students get involved in the project, that they will also help funding. Is it help funding the project? Or are we just relying on a grant to make that distinction? So, my whole thing is when I'm hearing things, it sounds like if we're getting a grant, where and I. We're going to be functioning with the city to couple this project together with them. Who is, is there discounts, is there fundings other than grants that is going to help offset this project? Is that what we're looking at?


Well, what we're looking at pursuing a $250,000 grant to upgrade crossing signals in front One of the schools that are in the right of way, we're actually just seeking the school district support in the pursuit of this outside funding so that we can improve those crossing guards.


Right. All right. Anyone else? Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye.


Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. Item number 15 is the Adoption of Resolution 2025-108. Could you please read this?


Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant.


Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Grant, or OSLAD, Oslad, grant program to support local outdoor recreation projects.


The City intends to submit for an Oslad application for the Pocket Park on West Stevenson, formerly the ABETS Books location, and place resolution of authority to satisfy the Illinois Department of Natural Resources application requirements.


Oslad requires a governing body resolution authorizing application submittal and acknowledging program conditions. funding is awarded. The attached resolution uses the IDNR prescribed language for Auslan applications, and passing the resolution enables staff and other partners to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program. The city is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community which allows an application for up to $600,000 in Auslan funding without any local match. Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant. It will also be used in the funding of this package an application deadline September 30th so staff is targeting Council's action on September 2nd today to meet submittal timing. There's no immediate general fund impact for the application resolution as a disadvantaged community applicant the city may request up to 600,000 with no local match under the OZLAD. The GFP T-Mobile $50,000 grant contribution will further Miller, Enhance the Scope, and staff recommends moving forward with allowing staff to pursue this grant.


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


Discussion on the grant. I have a question. Alderman Simmons. Is this the park in the area next to Joe's that you're speaking of, or is this another parking park?


Yes, you're correct. It's Jason to Joe's. Alderman Stacy? You know, these little pocket parks does nothing for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward.


And we need a park for our kids to play in. I have said that since I've been on the council. Can we turn this into a park? Can we turn that into a park?


And now this is the second time these little pocket parks have come up. We need a real park for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward.


You do realize that this is in 3rd Ward? It's a pocket park. Any other discussion? It's not a park. If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll. There is. There is.


I agree with Alderman. Stacy, as far as the plan that I saw for this park, it's great for the downtown community, but as far as a small playground area for the kids over in the 3rd, 5th Ward area close to the King Center, this does nothing for them.


and there has already been a grant awarded for that pocket part so I'm not sure why we don't use this grant for another area in a different pocket part.


Alderman Sellers? I think what no no no I think my question needs an answer. What was your question? My question is why aren't we considering any other areas where we can actually put a small playground in something like Milton Park. Well, this resolution is about approving this grant. It's not about a discussion on parks. It is though, because it's why wasn't this grant, why wasn't the application for a different area, seeing as we already got the T-Mobile grant for this specific park downtown. I'm not against the park downtown, but for this grant, why not apply for a different area?


Do you want to take a shot at that? I'll take a shot at it.


I know that the pocket park was discussed for probably and has had a plan associated with it for about five, well, I'd say probably five years.


I know there were designs for it. And it went through several layers of grant applications.


And I think certainly if there's other areas that council members or anyone from the public would like to get started on a plan get started on it you know bring it bring it to City Manager Boyer's attention and get started on the planning process and what it would take to get a park but I mean this particular pocket park I know has been in plans it has been through subject of applications for grants for at least the four years I've been here and when I started here it had already been through other iterations of planning and grant applications so I So I mean that's the short answer as to why this particular parcel is up for the grant.


The other parcels and properties we're talking about certainly could be in the future. Also would like to state that the City of Freeport doesn't own many parks.


I believe this might be the only one and that the Park District owns many of its parks and owns that planning process.


So if there's an existing park where citizens would like to see better facilities, that's Certainly something to bring up to the Park District if there's parcels of land that the city owns that Council members would like to see maybe possibly investigated for Park I think it's a great idea and I think that's something to talk about with City Manager Boyer in your weekly meetings And you're right. It it's there bring the Park District to the table if you want to have a playground for in a certain area Alderman Sellers. Yeah, I guess that's what I was gonna say. I know that when the King Center first came there we had a small group of people that worked when George Galrap was mayor trying to get another park because they took away Henney Park and that was years ago and we were in with the Park District and I know about five years ago me and Mr. Jim Ryan we had had discussion with the guy and I have to go through the district because they have all kinds of rules and regulations on how you can use the land and what kind of land.


So I do agree because I grew up in a park and I do agree that the kids need a park in that area but it's – like the Mayor said, we need to bring the park district to the Yeah, we have to go to the table or go to the Park District when they have their board meetings and talk about getting a park.


Alderman Sanders? Because we do need one. I have to object to what Council just said because we have not fully done our homework when it comes to who has jurisdiction of anything that the city is administering to the public city when it comes to any entity, parks or whatever the case may be.


I can't see why it is that we're consulting with the Park District because the Park District is not ever here.


They're running their own scheme and we're not going to just push everything on the Park District when the grant is for the city at large.


And I'm like, who's governing this idea to submit anything to the Park District to govern over it so they make determinations on how council is trying to submit recommendations and ideas for their district.


And I don't think pocket parks have anything to do with the Freeport Park District when it comes to district areas.


and I think if we're looking at council for consideration on how we should plan this, how we should go to the city manager and talk more about it and things of this nature and while we're doing that, there is no park district board members or staff in the midst of this conversation and so I think it's irrelevant for us to even make a suggestion that we implement and another organization or another district department or whatever that has not been involved in any of the city council's decision making.


So my thing is I think it's irrelevant for them to do that and I think we should maintain a course where we collaborate with our city manager as council people to make these kinds of provisions for our district.


I don't think we should have someone else having jurisdiction over our district on what we want to have in our district and so that's mine.


And you are correct that it's nothing of this topic so we kind of got to get out of that little rabbit hole and we need to be back on it.


We're talking about Park. Correct. We're not talking about that. The Park district was brought up.


Did you just shush me? No. Okay. So, okay. I don't shush you. We need to be back.


Let's go back to the grant. This is adopting the resolution to support this grant. We don't need to talk about Park District stuff.


It came up. It actually came up. I would like to call point of order to bring us back to the topic.


We do need to come back to this topic. It's on the resolution to support this grant, and so is there any further discussion?


I don't know if you heard me, but I would like to speak. Well, actually, Alderman Simmons, you've spoken twice already.


Right. That's why, and if council will allow. That's correct, only twice. So if there's no further discussion, Alderman Stacy?


Excuse me. No, I thought, according to our rules, if I would like to speak again, council will call a vote on that if they agree.


You're correct. So let's take the roll. Madam Clerk, on the approval of allowing Alderman Simmons another time to speak.


Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Oh, yeah, you can vote.


Is that a yes, Simmons? Parker? No. Stacy? Yes. It passes. Okay, so Alderman Simmons, go ahead.


Thank you. That's funny that we don't know. I don't speak much and when I speak, I speak quick. However, my question to the grant was, and I have spoken to county board members about land that we were then awarded and park district members about board members about getting a pocket park in our area.


My question that was not answered is why is this particular grant for this area downtown when we already got a grant for that area downtown which only includes cornholes, cornhole Gaines. This grant could be used more beneficially for us if we use it in a different area. Why was that not listed?


Thank you, Alderperson, Simmons. I think I understand what you're asking. I think what I was trying to explain before was that the pocket park that we're speaking of that is is the subject of this grant application, has been in a planning process for five years.


And that is why in particular there have been multiple applications. I know there was a Commonwealth Edison grant that was applied for in 2020.


There's a plan for this park that has been submitted for this grant application. And as I said earlier, I think that if there's another area in a different time where we We have a plan for a parcel or if its own or if it's owned by the City, I'm sure City Manager Boyer would certainly want to talk about it or it could be brought to Council a specific piece of property that the City owns that a park could be proposed.


I don't think it's, I think it's a good idea. I just know that there are plans and that this pocket park in particular has been in process for five years.


It didn't just get dreamt up overnight and that is the reason why it was the subject of this grant.


Right now the city does not have any preliminary plans, doesn't have a particular parcel where a park would be a good fit and that would make it difficult to send an application in when we don't have an idea or a general plan for a parcel.


I think that the beginning of it is to say the city owns this particular parcel, we have some great ideas in our ward, let's talk about it and then in the future let's move forward with grants.


I think you have a great idea, it's just, there is no current parcel that the city owns where this park is being proposed, so that's the reason.


Alderman Stacy? When there was discussion earlier this year, spoke about the property that City Manager Boyer wanted to buy in the Liberty area, I said then, could a park be put there?


So it's not that we haven't searched this out and haven't tried to. I would also like to know how much does it cost to apply for this OSLAD grant?


I'll be honest, and I haven't been a part of this grant application. That's why, City Manager Boyer, I'm answering the question, to be fair, I haven't been part of this grant application.


When I am part of a grant application, I certainly can't answer that question. I'm answering these questions because I've been aware of the pocket park, I know the Greater Freeport Partnership has done a great job moving it forward, I've been part of the planning process for quite some time, I just in particular have not put together this grant application so I can't answer that question intelligently.


Okay, I need an answer, City Manager Boyer, you talked about a Commonwealth Edison grant, how much did we pay for that one? Now you're talking about an OSLAD grant, how much is it going to cost the city to apply for a grant that we may or may not get for another pocket park? Actually, Darren is the one that needs to answer this, Darren, you guys are writing it's part of the master service agreement at $7,500 for the application and I want to also remind everybody for the OSLAD grant so I'm just trying to clarify this from what I've been listening to the city of Freeport is not typically in the park business that's the park district's responsibility with their own taxing So when you're looking at playground type equipment, those type of parks, if you look around town, all the ones that are maintained are maintained by the park district, not the city.


We do, I believe, I'm pretty sure I'm correct, the city does not, the city proper city council does not own any parks within the city.


the the grant that we're talking about the pocket park is what they call an urban park which is very high on the list of Osled to have parks in downtown communities where there's lots of pavement structure and it's not your traditional type of park this is a park that brings in games and other things like bags or tabletop games other items like that that can be utilized in a and a small space.


The space between these two buildings is not enormous to overcome or to put things in.


And so if the city were to make a park in this location, it would be a very low maintenance park that doesn't need a lot of work because we don't have additional staff members to take care of parks, right?


Parks need a lot of maintenance between trees, lawn care, garbage, upkeep. This would be more of an urban park it's going to have a lot more concrete, very little grass, or maybe even turf, something that doesn't need to be maintained.


Okay, I don't care about all that description. It's going to cost $7,500 just to apply for a grant that we may not even get.


Yes ma'am, it's a lot of work to apply for these grants. Any further, Alderman Sanders?


There is, there is pocket parks throughout the city. Am I correct? Oh, well, uh, there's I believe they're called neighborhood parks. Well, what do you call a pocket, a pocket park, pocket park? What are, what are those? We're changing the names to We don't have a pocket park. Well, there's one located right there on Iroquois and State Street, isn't it? I believe that's called the neighborhood park and Broadway.


Is that a pocket park? Is that a- Okay. Get back on topic. We are.


I'm talking about a pocket park. But that's not a pocket park. You're asking questions- I'm asking a question.


Is that a pocket park? It has nothing to do with this grant. So let's stay on topic of this grant.


Mayor, I- Do you have a question about the grant? Oh, Mayor, I resent that remark you just made because that was not proper for you to object that.


Okay. I'm trying to find out information what kind of pocket parks description has is it pocket parks or is it neighborhood parks and that's what I'm that's what I'm talking about a pocket park is typically between two buildings you know what man so I didn't know you was I didn't know you was working with Darren and his department you don't know a lot of things so if you want yeah you're right I don't know let's talk about the grant well the thing is I am talking about it because you're not allowing me to finish what I'm I'm trying to talk about.


Do you have a question about the grant? Why are you being specific? Because that's what we have to do to be efficient in our meetings.


Stay on topic. We're going to have a dialogue about this after this. Call me.


No, I'm not talking about this. Anybody else have anything to discuss? Council is going to have this.


If there's no further discussion. Are you ready for the roll, ma'am? Shadle? Aye. Sanders?


No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? No. Parker? No. Stacy? No. The resolution is adopted 5-3. Item number 16, could you please read this for the record? Approval of bid, which was opened on August 27, 2025. Demolition and asbestos abatement for 8 residential properties. Thank you, Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor, City staff has published in the journal standard a request for proposal for the demolition and asbestos abatement of eight properties and that was published on August 21st in the journal standard and then a bid opening was held August 27th at 9 a.m.


City received bids from three contractors and I provided an analysis below which is up on the screen as well.


And based upon the bids received, staff is recommending moving forward with Kleckner excavating in the amount of $103,000 as they are the lowest responsible bidder in their lump sum bid for all eight properties.


Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.


Discussion on the bids. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, and Stacy.


The motion passes 8-0. Item number 17 is a presentation regarding the City's role in Landlord-Tenant Relationships.


and Mr. Boyer. Thank you, your honor. So recently there was a large portfolio that changed hands between Tim Chapman and Pied Piper Realty LLC.


There was a number of different properties here. Preport portfolios purchased approximately 225 properties with about 47 of those being with a current lease. We've got 53 duplexes and we've got several of them that were considered owner-occupied as they were set up that way with Tim Chapman. So approximately 193 total properties remained or are unoccupied or unrenovated at this time. A little background, a letter was sent out July 29th to the tenants.


There's quite a bit here, but the big picture is the month-to-month renters were notified that their effective lease would be over September 1st, and their rent will be adjusted at that time.


So these are month-to-month renters. Generally speaking, these month-to-month is Community, is convenient from a a runner standpoint because they don't have to make any long-term commitments however it does provide flexibility also the fixed term tenants the current leases remain unchanged until expiration and that was notified in this letter there is quite a few bits you can look it up for your if you want to I can provide you a copy of this but the discussion the new leases there would be an inspection scheduled started reaching out to people in person called August 5th to the month-on-month tenants to kind of start discussing what what to do they wanted to engagement with the the renters and then also Reaching out for the in-person meeting where You're currently residing would basically be the topic of discussion whether it is suitable what need to be repaired what need to move forward. Just to give you a quick update on some of the commentary that's been out there. This is HUD's free market analysis and essentially is showing that there's a range of reasonable range within the various units that are available. Obviously if you look down here are some of these houses. I can't


I can't verify this 100%, but I've heard that there's some very low rents for like a three and four bedroom home that HUD actually proposes here should be a little higher than than that amount, so the rents, while being a little different kind of fall in line overall with HUD's guidelines.


the city's role so there's as we move forward one of the things we've been working on especially with Chapman properties before the portfolio was sold was that we needed all landlords to register with the landlord database that gives us the ability to follow up on complaints and code enforcement actions it also gives us the ability to know who's in what unit and who owns that unit so we're working on that as matter of fact Ptolemy I believe when we get in the discussion section, Wayne will be kind of providing a little bit of an update on that.


And then we can also enforce ordinance and codes for the properties. This works through our code enforcement supervisor and our code enforcement hearings.


This has been relatively successful, but it is, you know, we have limited resources and it is somewhat of a slow process.


So we've had a number of folks, I don't know the complete number, the most up-to-date number, Yes, I believe the number we have since the takeover of these properties, I believe we've had three tenant inspection requests.


So three, that gives us the authority to go into three of those units. So a state law just recapping some of the more pertinent sections so rent control preemption acts you can read that but a unit of local government shall not enact maintain or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial property and then again in section 10 of the act a home rule unit may not regulate or control the amount of rent charged for leasing private D. Ellis, and all of those of you who are living on residential or commercial properties.


In addition to that, Illinois Attorney General states that, in a week-to-week or month-to-month tenant, landlord can raise your rent by any amount if he or she gives you proper notice and Illinois does not have a rent control law.


Therefore, your landlord can raise your rent as much as he or she deems necessary.


So what are the next steps? Well, we have Pied Piper Group represented here today, as well as Attorney Cox and Director Duckman, who can speak to any of the more precise points on the situation as we move forward. I think there's a suggestion that we could increase the number of notice days for a rent increase from 30 to 60 days. That would be fine with someone with a signed lease. However, if people are on a month-to-month already, that does present some concerns, but certainly not insurmountable. So and others. So anyway, as we go through this process tonight, I hope this becomes enlightening.


I think we've just hit a quick summary of some of the back and forth commentary that's been online and discussion with individuals and also some of the tenants. So with that, I'd like to go ahead and move to the next item, which is discussion.


Okay. So let's try to keep this part of the discussion to the city's role. I know there There are other things that Alderman, Stacy, and Klemm wanted to discuss, but let's keep this part of it just to the city's role.


Attorney Cox, did you want to add to anything? I'm just here to answer questions.


Alderman Sanders. Are you calling me now? Yes. Oh, okay. On the city's role. Now, my question would be is the state of Illinois attorney office is the ones that are stipulating jurisdiction over this particular matter that we're discussing in our agenda right now is what we're saying.


What the city's role is, correct. Yeah. and because that is happening, because that has not obscured the fact that we should be able to also make amendments, we have not talked about whether we can amend anything to what the state's attorney had put in the role of how they govern this.


So have we challenged this as a council to see if any amendments can be introduced to make changes?


I hate to find out that that is a possibility if we have not done our homework and we're sitting on something that probably can be amended or altered or changed.


How current are we with the update of how old is this memo that we're looking at?


How old is it? And if things have changed, who looked into whether or not there has been major changes that will make a difference to those renters when landlords are raising their rent and everything?


Have anything come down the pipeline that changes anything? Have we done that? Have we looked into that particular matter? And so, I would suggest or whoever's presenting this particular memo to have more answers for us as a council.


We can look into the matters ourselves, but we're looking at our city manager because he's managing the city. And so, my question would be is, can we look into it further to to see if there's any other possibilities or amendments that could be implemented into this whole scenario of this amendment because the way it sits right now, there's no challenging base going on from council or to the general public within the city.


There should be a mechanism for us to at least challenge what we're seeing here so we just Don't leave it up to the state's attorney to make the priority decisions for the city.


I'm going to ask Attorney Cox to address that, but we legally can't tell a business what they can charge for rent, but we can talk about terminating lease, correct, Attorney Cox?


Well, yeah. Hi, thank you. So the state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality's authority, including a home rule.


Can you speak up because we can't hear you? Can you turn him up? Can you turn up his microphone?


I'll get closer. Everybody hear me okay? The state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality, including a home rule municipality, which Freeport happens to be, it's a limitation of that authority.


Any municipality in the state of Illinois derives its authority from the state. State in turn derives its authority from the federal constitution.


However, if the state doesn't give us the authority, or in a home rule situation specifically We can't alter that. We can, however, make changes or requirements in leases which do not affect rent. So when we talk about rent control, which is, I believe, the vast majority of the complaints here were rent spikes. The city cannot regulate that. That power was taken away from us by Springfield. And that's that.


Okay. Thank you. We don't want to know what the city can't do. We want to know what the city can do. There is some things that can be put in and others, and we have a lot of things that can be put in this ordinance that would give our constituents some support.


And we want to talk about Chapman, but let the record show that there was four or five different people involved in this selling property, two-port, three-port portfolio LLC.


and others, at least five. And then Freeport Portfolio acts the Pied Piper, which we all know about the Pied Piper, and there's nothing good about the Pied Piper to manage their property, but what you may not know is that Freeport Portfolio, LLC and Pied Piper are the same Fowler. They're two in one. And they have came to our city and have played our mayor and our city managers as suckers. And they're running a muck on our city. And in case you don't know what a muck is, it's a scam. And so we have to do something. No one has the right. I feel you should feel, City Boyer, City Mayor, that anybody can come in our city and do this to us.


And so my expectations of both of you are great. I don't want to know what we can't do.


I want to focus on what we can do for our constituents. I have a question.


Can you tell me what you were accusing the manager and I of doing because I kind of didn't understand that.


I didn't accuse you and the manager of anything. I said you all have allowed people to come into our city and play you like suckers. It's what I said.


You do realize that we don't have authority on whether someone can purchase something. It's not about purchasing.


So with all this discussion, what are you proposing that we do? You tell me, what can you do? I mean, you can't take a property and charge $1,200 and $1,500 in a $500, $600 neighborhood. That's like going to the Eastside where you ought to said Only 10% or 50, half of what the property over there are worth.