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.
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.
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.
You can't even fix the roof on your house.
But then somebody can come in and say, oh, I'm going to charge $1,200 for rent.
Bullcrap.
It has to be something put in place that the price of these rental agreements fit the area
and I want to tell every renter out there, get an inspection. You as a renter have rights.
Know your rights. There used to be books out there that said renter rights. I don't know.
Greater Freeport Partnership, do you all have something like that? Who have something like
Cain and others.
So I want to make sure that we can do something about that.
That the renters can go and know what their rights are.
Okay, so again, this presentation about the city's role.
So again, we cannot put on a cap on anyone's rent.
We can't do that.
So what are you proposing?
And that's not what I'm asking you to do.
So what are you proposing?
Because that's...you're trying to blur the lines of what the city's role is.
So if you have something to propose, let's talk about it.
I do.
Alderman, Alderman, Simmons?
Alderman Stacey has yielded.
Alderman Stacey, are you done?
Yes.
All right.
So I propose that we as a city develop and create our own homeless shelter because FACC
is filled to the brim and can't take anymore.
We have no rent cap.
We can't do anything about that.
but what we can do is prepare for the fallout.
What is it you're proposing? I didn't catch that. Homeless shelter. Director Duckman. No, I don't think
that's a bad idea. I think with budget seizing coming up, I think Alderperson Simmons would be
a good idea if you brought together a plan, a staff, what it would cost, maybe, you know,
some developers or maybe an RFP we could put out for that and get some general ideas of the cost
We build your city. How much would you know if you had a budget for construction in your city, because that would cost we would have to look at, you know, the cost for that. But it would definitely have to be something that the city would budget for. Definitely worth an investigation and come up with some numbers and what it would cost.
and others.
I think that's the priority one kind of thing going on with the citizens of Freeport.
And I don't think there's no one wants to see anyone in homeless shelters at all.
But what I'm proposing is that we get together as council, have a planning discussion to
have, to see if we can all be on the same page if there's something that council can
Lookinto, and then consult with the City Council, not with the City Manager, and the developers,
Wayne Duckman.
I think we should have a roundtable of some sort just to talk about this issue.
This is an issue that is not going to go away.
and people will be suffering if nothing happens on our end.
If we could do anything, come up with any kind of a proposal, suggestion, recommendations
and things of this nature, if there's any governmental programs or grants that could
be implemented into whatever we're discussing.
Those things need to be brought out on the table and I feel like this, we're not getting
enough information from our council members talking about these subject
matters it's almost like we went into silent mode but anyway this is what we
need to start doing opening up to the city's the citizens of Freeport and I
would welcome you to have that discussion with City Manager at your
next meeting yeah yeah that sounds good we can make that we can make that happen
Is there any other discussion on the city's role?
Alderman Klemm?
Sure.
Last week, Alderman Stacy and I attended a meeting
that was put together by Josh Atkinson.
It was a meeting that brought up some of the issues that were out there
due to the recent purchase of the Chapman property.
K. City Manager and I and Steve Cox and I and CeCe and I have had some long discussions
on this. One thing we've got to realize is that there's two sides to this whole project.
If we take and one of the things is that Reverend Dye's got her sign up out here that says we
We should extend it to 60 days. You know, that really sounds like a good idea. The flip
side of that, if I'm a landlord, when you move into my house, now I'm not going to ask
you for one month or two months. I'm going to ask you for three or four months because
when you're going to leave in the last couple months, you aren't going to pay your rent
and you're going to be gone. You know, so the landlord's also in this, and I'm not
not defending the landlords 100 percent. I believe what brought up here as Pied Piper
bought this, okay, keep in mind over the last, which Stacy started to mention, over the last
number of months or the last couple years, we've had property bought up by two or three
We have three different outfits, not just one. We used to have a good home-based landlord
tenant situation that was owned by people from town. You know, now we're getting more
from out of town, okay, but we haven't heard from Pied Piper. You know, their intention
may to be to do something to these properties, but when we put the numbers of properties
and others.
They were far different than what came out at the first meeting.
You know, we were talking 300 properties, and then when you boil it down to there were
two, three different kinds of properties that Chapman had that we all got to look at differently,
you know.
So I believe anything that we can do in the long run to help any renters or help with
with the landlords or renters that we can work out some things that we need to change.
and
the
President.
And I think that's the long distance end on this thing. And
costs and everything else are going up. As we talk about the
difference in months, how much deposit and all that goes up, as
have not kept up with the times.
But those are the discussions we need to have
and how we can help anybody involved.
Right on, right on.
That's right on.
Was there other discussion on the city's role?
Alderman Johnson.
If we change some ordinances right now,
like say we change it and say,
okay, you got to give them 60 days notice,
that would not affect what's happening right now,
but would affect the future.
Is that correct?
or am I wrong on that?
It would affect leases entered into
after the effective date of the ordinance.
After the effective date of the ordinance, okay.
And also is it, would it be legal
for the city to put in some kind of ordinance
that said a house or a property could not,
a renter house or property could not be sold
unless it passes an inspection saying that it's up to code.
Would that be something legal that could be done?
I don't know, I'm just asking.
I can tell you, and Alderman Klemm may be able to speak to this a bit as well, that was approached many years ago.
And that was, it was determined not to do that. And that was the political will at the time. It can certainly be explored again.
I'll tell you the pushback, and again, I'm a little bit out of my territory here, this is just again historical knowledge.
the argument would be that well if as soon as a property has to be brought up to current standards to code and not just grandfathered in as existing and I'm sure Wayne can tell you there's a difference between IPMC and then current building codes and that sort of thing.
If it gets beyond a standard maintenance code for the era in which the house was built,
it's prohibitively expensive to upgrade that.
Now there's certainly something to be said for doing that,
in that all housing then eventually will come up to current standards,
but that doesn't come without a price.
So what happens is we greatly increase the cost to sell something,
... something or specifically drive down the price of property if
I am a seller, the buyer is going to pay me less because they
know they are going to need to do a bunch of work.
Alderman Sellers?
Yes.
I think that with the city I think with this situation I can
understand long term...
If you are in a long term lease you will get it until your lease
is over with so you still have time to move, but if you are
if there's a situation where it's month to month, I can't see the 60 day notice thing
because you're doing it month to month.
And then we also have the situation where people were in the program of buying on contract.
Once you buy on contract, that's not anything with the city because if you're buying on
Contract and you're under that, that's on you and you have to deal with that. So I can
understand the 60-day notice on people whose contract is getting ready to end within the
next six months or something like that. I can go along with that. But if you still,
if you signed your lease in May and you've got way till May, it doesn't apply. And I
I think that not having the 60-day be an ordinance for everybody because there are good landlords
out there that are doing what they're supposed to do and handling their business and they're
already having problems with 30 days, you know, trying to get people out.
So I can understand with this situation and under this contract we do the 60-day notice,
but I just can't see it going across the board because that hurts landlords that are out
and Stacey.
We have been asked of the constituents, the renters that's going through this, is that
for less than three years to 60 days, for three years or more, 120 days, and I checked
Surrounding Areas and in Surrounding Areas it's already in place on their ordinance so I know this is something we can do and I understand Attorney Cox what you said did not fly I don't know how many years ago this is a new season this is a new breed of people we have got to do something
For these people and for ourselves I just say I also recommend that anybody who
sees an issue with their apartment to please come in and fill out we have them
sitting on the desk today we always have them at the front desk if there's any
issue with a place that you're renting to please come in we do require that you
You signed permission for us to access the property.
That's for the city's liability to ensure that if the landlord comes in and said that
we were trespassing, we always have a right to enter.
So before we will enter, the city will enter a property.
We do require that you give us the written permission and staff always, we always look
forward to helping in any way we can.
And if there are any issues, we will, once this is filled out, we will certainly go in
and investigate the property and hold that landlord accountable for any violations that
they have. So that's something I just want to echo and hope that our community takes
advantage of that if they feel that there's something in the building that is improper.
So but that is important to know that you do have to you do have to fill this out first.
I would like to make a motion that we as a Council, as the Mayor, as City Manager, and
as Attorney Cox sit down and discuss not what we can't do, but what we can do so that everybody
can have the same knowledge and an understanding.
We don't need a motion for that. If you want to come in and talk about your ideas, you're welcome to.
I want us to get together as a whole, not one-on-one, not you and Boyer and me, you and Boyer and Shadle, you and Boyer, us as a council.
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?
No, not if we make it public and put it out there. We need to talk.
What would that be, a special city council meeting?
Yeah, I think what's being suggested is a special meeting.
We call a special meeting any other time.
We've had special meetings.
Okay so what are you, what exactly is your motion?
That we call a special meeting with you, Boyer, Attorney Cox, and the eight Aldermen.
and of course you Dovie. Is there a second to that? Yeah I second that. We have a
motion on the floor made by Alderman Stacey seconded by Alderman Sanders to
call a special meeting in as stated with those involved. Madam Clerk would you
please take the role on that? Shadle? Okay you want to have a discussion on on the
special meeting? Yeah no well no that's what's on the table right now is the
Special Meeting. Okay. Alderman Shadle, did you want to talk about the special meeting? I just
wondered when we were thinking about doing this to see whether it fits schedules or
how we're gonna coordinate all this. We have two meetings next week. We're in the
season of beginning our financial cows. We'll just call it clerk. Will that Dovie
We just call it.
So Steve?
Well, if I may, that sounds like potentially a setting on the Committee of the Whole.
I mean, that's for a discussion.
So setting aside a segment of time on the agenda in the
and
Thomas.
I'm happy to attend that. We can have that discussion. I think
that if there's a special meeting for that on a different
night, it's just another City Council meeting for discussion.
So if I can throw that out as a suggestion, if it goes on the
cow...
and Stacey could put on for the next cow if she wanted to is what you're saying or a special setting just in terms of scheduling I know that can be difficult so I just thought I would throw that out there it's probably better use of our time in a cow Alderman Johnson I was just wondering if possibly we could each one of us could write down the things that we are thinking possibly that could be included in the ordinance to help you know the tenants as well as the landlords
Lawrence. I mean there's two sides to every story here. To improve the housing in the city of Freeport if we could write down some of those things that we could present them to you ahead of time so we would know whether they were legal things that we could do or not do and then maybe go from there with that. Certainly any question that I can research ahead of time I appreciate. Right. So if anybody ever wants to send any questions my way I'm happy
and I would be happy to take a look at them and I can hopefully be a little better prepared when I'm here.
Okay, so back to what's on the table is a special meeting versus a COW. Alderman, Stacy, do you have a preference on that?
I would like a special meeting.
Do you want to propose a date and a time?
Well, I guess if I have to.
Thirsty the fourth at four o'clock. I'm sorry I would not be able to make that meeting. I already have something. What would work in your schedule? Go ahead. No, what would work in your schedule? And that's not enough time to. Yeah, it has to be at least 48 hours, ma'am.
Let's make it two weeks from now.
Do we know what's on the COW for next week?
Is it full?
There's going to be discussion on the COW.
There's going to be discussion on the COW about this matter, but that's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking for a special meeting.
I don't care if it's Wednesday the 17th, I'm just asking for a special meeting.
Well, yeah, let's convert that council COW meeting into this special meeting.
And so that way...
No.
They're two separate things.
No.
What I'm getting at is the fact that we use all the time that we would normally use in
the COW for this special meeting, and now our attention will be prioritized to this special
meeting as opposed to the COW.
and
the
Council on the
Department of
Health.
We have a special meeting for the
COW meeting, just a COW like thing, but we're
going to convert it into a special meeting.
And then that way, we don't have to bring another
agenda up for the COW just for the primary reason
why we are bringing a special meeting.
Or an additional date or an additional time.
Yeah, 6 o'clock on the COW, 6 o'clock until its
and others.
And then all of the information that we come to will be distributed to the public.
The public can come to the website, see what went on in the discussion, and what we came
up with.
So you want to put an agenda item on the COW to discuss what you're saying?
Yeah, for the primary reason why we're here, but it's not, yeah, there you go, same thing.
is it going to be is the special meeting going to be the COW that's what that's
what he said I know that's what you're saying but what do you say man I don't
think what do you say City Manager Boyer I don't want us to say this is going to
be a special meeting on the COW and then we have 15 other items that needs
discussed we still have agenda items on the COW it can be an additional point
Okay, so I'm confused on what we're having for a motion. Are we putting it on the cow or are we picking a date? Because we're never going to agree on a date.
So as of right now, the motion is just to have a special meeting to discuss this topic.
and
John.
I think, no, her motion was just to have a special meeting to talk about this topic.
Okay. Now part and parcel of that, it probably wouldn't make sense if we're going to have a special meeting to then pick a date so that we know whether or not people can be here or not for it.
and
and Stacey. So I think what's critical right now is ultimately, Alderman Stacey, this is
your motion that's on the floor right now. So it's up to you. Do you want to keep it
as a special meeting? In which case then I would suggest that we need to find a date.
Or are you willing to amend your motion or withdraw your motion and a new motion be made
to just make this an agenda item on an upcoming COW? But it wouldn't be exclusive. It wouldn't
be this topic is the only agenda item on the COW because we have our COW coming up has
and other agenda stuff on it already.
Alderman Stacey.
I withdraw my motion.
Alderman Sanders, will you remove your second?
Yes.
Okay, so now back to,
again, the presentation was about the city's role.
Make your motion, Larry.
and
I'm going to take a moment to ask you a question.
Why am I making a motion?
You wanted it at the COW.
No, no, Cecelia, don't confuse what was being said.
You wanted a special meeting.
If it lands on the COW, we'll just use your special meeting on the COW.
That was the present, that's what I was presenting.
Miller, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor, Mayor.
We're not going to be talking about the state signing. So, it doesn't matter how we use the COW,
as long as your special meeting was implemented or inserted into the COW so we can just talk about that issue only.
and
John.
I'm not sure if you have items on the agenda if we have a COW saying
that your special meeting is not going to be the only thing that's
at the COW. Is that what I'm understanding?
» And I don't want to because it gets confusing when you say
that you have a special meeting during the COW. You can't have a
special meeting during the COW. You're either at a COW meeting
I need a motion for it. I know that, Mayor.
Okay, so are we ready to move on to item number 18?
Madam Mayor. Pardon me?
We still haven't concluded.
Director Duckman?
Yeah, we haven't concluded on what direction we're going to go with this.
So, Stacy, do you want to continue with your special meeting on next Monday?
and
Item number 18, which is discussion about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and
the impact of the community. So I don't know if Alderman Stacy and Klemm, if you want to
speak first or if you want to give an opportunity for Pied Piper to just say a few things. It's
your call.
I'd appreciate it as long as Pied Piper is here, if they would speak of what their plans
are and what are coming up so we really know what we're talking about.
Would you like to have the microphone for a few minutes, sir?
Okay.
Thank you for coming.
and others.
Who is this guy? Piper? Yes. Could you just state your name for
the record, please? Moby Perak.
That isn't what he said.
It's my turn, right? Okay. First and foremost, thank you for
and others. Thank you for having me here. And I would like to take this time to address
the few concerns that are going around town about what the issue has been about rent increases.
The idea here is that you cannot have two lemons in both of your hands and portray what
you have to portray. You have to listen to both sides.
What?
So I basically sent out a notice to all the residents, let them know that I'd be coming
to see them and have a conversation with them about their condition of the property and about
meeting them in person.
But when I went in person, I was able to address the question, let them know about the tenant
benefit package, about what we're doing for them and about how the rent won't increase
until the work has been done to the property.
And there was homeownership offered and there was a lot of communication, a lot of promises
and others were made with the tenants that were not portrayed correctly due to whatever
apparent reasons.
So the purpose I'm here is to address all these issues that are going on currently.
I have not given anybody any 30-day notices.
I have not given anybody eviction notices.
I have not spoken to anybody about kicking them out of their homes.
There are two ways, right?
Either we could have come in right away, their rent will increase.
because of the acquisition of the cost,
blindly increase the rent without knowing the people
living in the property, who's living there,
their pets, their people, whoever that is, right?
And cost increase and you guys will still be here
creating a chaos saying that hey,
how can Pied Pepper come in and increase the rent
without meeting anybody in person,
without knowing the condition of the property,
without knowing the condition we're living in?
But here you go, you guys are talking about inspection.
Please, go ahead, go ahead, order the inspection.
That's why I'm here talking to you in person, understanding
what the condition of the property is, and setting the
condition of your situation of how much you're earning, how
much you're making, if you're even eligible to make the
payment or not.
That's why I was in there, but you guys made a ruckus out of
it, made a social media post out of it, and caused all sort
of rumors that didn't make sense.
So prove to me what was the case for.
Our goal here is to come improve every property that is
here in Freeport, in our portfolio.
Make the condition better, living condition better,
streets better, and make the community better.
That's our whole idea.
We wanna fix this property.
That's why we're here in person talking to you guys.
Otherwise, why would we do that?
That's the whole purpose.
We have to fix all 320 units, all 225 properties.
They all need work.
The people that are living there are on month-to-month leases.
I don't wanna disrupt any landlord rules.
and others.
It shouldn't be the case.
I'm here telling you guys that what we're doing currently right now, if you go to PiedPiperGroup.com
slash free board slash community, you'll be able to know everything about what we're trying
to accomplish.
Nobody at this moment is getting a rental increase until the work is done that is going
to be communicated.
So I'm not sure where the ruckus is coming from, but that is not the case.
If you have heard otherwise, well, that's on you guys.
So are you standing there telling me you did not send out letters to all the month to month renters telling them that their rent was going to increase from $600 to $1,200?
I have not.
They have letters.
I have the letters too. I wrote the letters. I made the letters. I sent the letters. I took the letters in person, spoke to them, showed them the market rent.
and Cain.
The other thing that they have to do is to re-cancel the market rent that is applicable
for the condition that they should be living in, not the condition they're living in right
now, not at all.
Well, why then was, did you start calling all the ones you had put notices on their
doors and telling them now that you recanted it, you pulled it back, and that they're not
going up?
No, not now.
That's where you recanted it.
I am not going to pull anything back that I have not committed to, ma'am. I am not going to pull anything back that I have not committed to. I have not told them anything.
I just told them, here I am, sitting in front of you, looking at the condition you are living in, which is horrendous, but here you are paying the rent that does not reflect the condition of the property.
Freeport here is the one that does not reflect the condition of the property.
Are you assessing renters?
Larry, if you would like to have it, you should let him finish and then I will call on you.
I can take all the questions once I'm done speaking. What I'm here to say is that once all those notices went out, when I went to visit 35 to 40 tenants into their homes, I met people with low income, I met people with good income, I met people with families that were concerned, I made sure I addressed all those concerns to understand the type of demographics that's living in the property. As a property manager, as a property management company, I don't know what
What do you guys expect for them to do? You guys are smart individuals yourself. You become a rental owner. You would want to know who's living in your property, what the condition of the property is, right? And what the situation is so you can address it. It's a property.
So here we are. We have all the situation. We have created a community page. We're going to be addressing all the questions, concerns, updates moving forward over there.
Currently, there are no leases being signed for all the one-to-one tenants.
What we're saying is, hey, if you like what you see, if you guys want to move forward, let's talk.
Let's have a conversation.
Let's address a situation where, if you agree, we will make sure that we accommodate your request,
move you into the property that makes sense so we can fix the property, address the condition,
address the liability as a landlord or as a property manager we have to take.
And we work with them.
If the people that are not able to afford their rents or they don't want to move forward,
We will work with them. You don't need to do 60 days of ordinance here.
You guys are wasting all your time.
We're saying you'll work with them to work three months, four months, five months, six months.
If it takes them, help them. Accommodate them.
Work with them to educate them on sectional authority.
They don't even know about sectionalism with them.
Well, here they are.
So I don't know where anybody got any information from, how the speculation came about,
but you can bring any person that I spoke to in person in front of me and let them tell me what I told them.
That will not be the case.
If that's what the case is, then I'm here to address it.
Alderman Sanders?
Yeah, in addition to what you're saying,
I understand what you're going through.
I just wanted to make sure that the renters or leasers are
hearing you clearly, especially with the economic status,
affordability, things of that nature.
I like the fact that you do look at a tenant's income
to determine whether or not this family can afford
this particular apartment, home, or whatever the case is.
That is a plus, that's the plus thing
that shows that you're doing due diligence
to help any prospective renter or leaser,
leasy I should say, and to help them navigate
through all of the things that they have to go through
to afford one of the places that you have for rental
or for sale, that they're able to be accommodated
by whatever their economic structures is
to afford that particular property.
So yeah, I hear you saying that.
I would agree with you that that is
what should be put in place.
and others.
The people need to know this very clearly beforehand that these are what your requirements are
and things like that.
So I agree with you on how you're going about doing it.
I don't know if you're making any promises or anything like that for sure, but the fact
that a matter is if that information is available to any prospective tenant or renter that he
We would be able to work with you, talk with you, negotiate with you on your terms or any
terms that you guys can agree with.
I love to see that that's going on.
That's what you're conveying to us.
You're conveying the fact that this is your strategy.
This is what you guys are doing.
That is what people need to see from another position.
They need to know that you're doing that.
and I like the fact that you are, you're stipulate, you're saying that this, but like you said,
information can be misled or information can be brought out wrong and everybody has a different
story by the time it trickle down to the next runner, they got a whole different story and
so the whole thing about it is when they come to inquire about a house or an apartment or
whatever the case is, you can just lay it and then find out what their circumstances
Zahr. Can they afford to rent anything from you? And then, like you said, it cuts down
the confusion. There's no misunderstandings and things like that. So I agree with you.
so I agree with you.
Any other questions Alderman Johnson?
So currently you're stating that none of the rents
are going to go up at this point
and the only, the time the rents will go up
is after the homes are fixed.
Correct. Is that what you're saying?
Okay.
The other thing is the places that you are going
to be fixing up, someone lives in them now,
Are they going to be able to stay in there while you fix that home up or that rental property?
No, they will not be able to.
Okay, so where will they go while you fix that rent up?
We will work with them to create an accommodation.
We have 35 to 40 units that are vacant currently that we're working on bringing in a good condition that are promising to our tenants.
and we will work with them to either ship them there, hotel or any other accommodation that caters and mutually agreed on, once they agree that they are okay to move forward, they will come and they will apply as a proper tenant, go through application screening, get their pets, everything identified and while we're doing that process, once they're approved, we'll move them, we'll cater with them, fix their property in seven to 14 days, fast as possible and then cater back to them, bring them back to their property. Now once they do sign the 12 months agreement,
and
Robert.
So, we have a lot of issues with the rent agreement, the lease
agreement, but the market rent that we agree upon after fixing
the property. So, they're living in good condition, better
condition, and less liability condition. And most of these
property, if not all of these properties, are going to be city
court passing, so there will be no issues there. And then after
12 months, if they're interested in buying the home they're
living in, they're more than welcome to. We'll do the
We're right there for them.
So let's say they're paying $600 a month rent or $700 a month rent.
Right now, where they're at, their house needs to be fixed.
Their apartment needs to be fixed.
They move into one of your homes that you've fixed up
or that they can live in while you fix the other one up.
What will they have to be paying for you a month, to you a month,
to stay in that place while their apartment or home or whatever is being fixed?
That is up to us for a discuss, right? When we discuss the options on how that will work out, it most likely will remain the same as it is because we won't take long. We're not going to take months.
And so what they need to understand is after you fix up their apartment, then they have to sign a new lease because the rent will go up, which is understandable because you're fixing up at a cost to fix up an apartment. So people would need to understand that. Okay. Thank you.
Johnson either is a yes or a no right if there's a yes they're agreeing to what
are we gonna do with them how are we gonna work with them and given the
condition that they deserve if they say no that is not the end of the world
right there is no like hard code rule to evict them for a certain amount of time
we understand I have family I have kids right we're not evil people here we're
trying to provide good service to the community here that's what idea and if
They feel like, hey, they need a couple of months.
They need help, they need guidance.
That's what we're here for.
That's what we're going to individually work with each
and every tenant and cater to their needs.
Some met tenant of mine need two months,
some tenant of mine need three months,
some tenant of mine need four months,
and we can help them get a Section 8 approved,
or some sort of housing authority approved,
or whatever we can to work with you guys
to cater to their needs and make sure they're not homeless.
But six months is what we're even going up to.
We've got 60 days.
and like I said, I wouldn't wanna have this conversation
to disturb other landlords, right?
That's not what you wanna hear.
You don't wanna step on anybody's toes.
We're trying to make sure that we can work directly
and that's the case.
Alderman Stacey.
I want you to know that I hear you loud and clear,
but I also want you to know
that I saw the letters that were put on the houses okay so to sit here or stand
there and make out like what I said didn't happen it's bull crap I saw the
and I have a video of the call saying we're not going to raise your rent now.
There was 123, I believe, month-to-month renters that received this notice on their door and
it said $1,200 when they were paying $600.
One said $1,249.
You have the letters.
I'm not telling you nothing you don't already know.
That was not put on the door. That was not provided.
No, but there was a letter put on the door and when they contacted you that's what they were told.
And then last week you pulled back all of what you said and now what you said tonight I guess is what's in place.
Bates, but when those people were here last week with their kids crying thinking they
were going to be homeless, it was based upon a letter they had got from Freeport Portfolio,
LLC and you, your one, telling them that they had to sign a lease and their rent was going
up or move.
they have not come and told me this they must have come and told you this but not me this
and I'm here telling you this the letter that was put to the door did not have any market
rent or any type of rental discussion I had the discussion in person with them to show
them the range of rents that a market is paying right now including section 8, Venebago, Orgelgo,
any other Freeport Housing Authority what they're paying to have them understand what
facebook, twitter, youtube, email, email, facebook, twitter.
For the last few years, the United States has been
making a big difference to the world.
but I'm here I'm here to ensure that we can help them out and I'm being the I'm
telling the truth here I'm here telling you none of the letter on were there
said anything about the market rent so I don't know how you can tell me that I'm
lying here no when they spoke with you this is what they were informed when
they spoke with me what were they inform in person yes and I was there and
sitting some of them have waited for you to come in and do an inspection and you
didn't even show up no I showed up I showed up I saw showing up because of
and so on.
So I hope I've addressed your questions.
Okay.
So let's not debate between the two.
This is, if you want to have a private phone call, you're welcome to do that.
Is there any other discussion that anyone would like to have on item number 18?
Okay.
Do you want to have a private phone call? You're welcome to do that. Is there any other discussion that anyone would like to have on item number 18?
I appreciate that. I just wanted to add thank you to you. I know you contacted my department about registering your rentals. You showed up to any of the recently there was a some code cases. Thank you for showing up.
I wanted to add, because it was brought up by City Manager Boyer, currently the City of Freeport, I want to thank in particular Doug Quinn, Katie Smith, and my entire staff has done a tremendous amount of work ensuring that we prosecute anybody who is not a registered rental and there's currently going to be 480 properties going to have cases in October and that's a total of 332 landlords
that are gonna be receiving fines of $500 per unit.
So I would like to state for the record
that this council has put a tremendous challenge
to my staff and we have delivered
and there will be five cases.
We are scheduling five hearings in October
that are special hearings to prosecute
and put everybody up for $500 per unit fines
who have not registered the rentals.
So the message is clear and is out there
that if you have not registered,
and
the rest of the community.
I think that's a good thing.
I think it's a good thing that you will be fined accordingly.
And thank you for making that a priority.
And thank you to my staff for all the hard work that they put
in to protect our community. So just wanted to make that clear.
» Thank you. And thank you, Moby, for coming.
10 slash 23 A, B, Written and Verbal Public Comments.
Alderman Stacy.
Alderperson, Simmons, do you have this one?
Well, I'm not here as an assessment,
but really, I believe we propose that we allow
public comment in terms of the topic
At the beginning of the meeting, a question of recognition for the honor of the meeting for those people who are there to sit in the room with her or the people who still have to sit in the whole meeting, and that they are there to see.
so are you proposing a motion to have the attorneys draft what you're asking I'm
asking if that's what you're looking for because in order for that to be done
there has to be a vote of counsel that it's the will of the council to have task
the attorneys to do something so I'm asking you is that the direction you
and
James, and then the second amendment that we want is a motion to do that.
Yes.
Is there a second?
Second.
So we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons, seconded by Alderman Stacy in drafting the amendment as stated.
And can I just say something?
Sure.
So, last week, with those families, and then people having to leave for whatever reason,
they got to go to work, it's school tomorrow, we had a four hour plus meeting, or even tonight,
this gentleman wanted to say something as far as thanking somebody for something, but
it was not an agenda item and so he continued to sit here waiting for the end of public
comments and so what this would do would give whomever the right to speak at the beginning
if they're here and move forward and not have to sit and wait.
We've had elderly people here sitting and waiting, and why not just get it done and get it over
with and move forward?
Yeah, that will come under non-agenda, non-agenda.
Did you want to speak?
I'm sorry.
But we're saying for public comments, it doesn't have to be an agenda item.
Exactly.
It can be anything.
The motion is to have the attorneys write that up. If you don't agree, vote no. If you do, or it doesn't matter, it still has to go for a vote once it's done. So the motion is to task the attorneys to do this.
Yes.
So if there's no further discussion on that, Alderman Sellers?
I have a problem with that is because really our meetings are long is because we're coming
unprepared so we're asking question after question after question after question instead
of knowing proper preparation prevents poor performance so my issue is being here four
hours on going over and over and over a bunch of stuff and then we've got you want it at
at the beginning and you want it at the end, that's a lot because the purpose of having
a public forum for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and other items at the end
of it is allow the council to effectively complete its business effectively.
If everyone were allowed to speak freely on any subject at the start, it would prevent
and the Council for Moving Forward with the Material and the Required Formula Action.
A Council meeting is designed to have a meeting to conduct public, not public business, but
Council business in the public.
It's not to have everybody just talking because we cannot, if they get up there and speak,
it's not going to be dialogue.
They're just going to get there and speak and we're just going to look at them.
We are talking about ...
It's not going to be, it's not going to be a dialogue where everybody gets up. If we're
going to have it at the beginning and at the end, that's just way too much.
We are talking about three minutes, but three minutes with ten people is a long time.
My God.
I don't have a problem with people speaking.
Let's just take a vote. We've been here for over three hours. Let's take the vote on if
if you want to task the attorneys to do what was said.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
I'm sorry, say that again.
and not at the end. We work for the people. We work for the people. Madam Clerk. I have
a question. It is written into the ordinance. Attorney Zito, help me out here. There is a
and
John.
So, we have a limit on how many people can speak to the same
topic. Can you refresh how that works and would this apply when
it's, I mean, if it's not related to an agenda item, we
could have seven, eight different topics.
Now, last week as an example, we had one topic. So, if you
could address both multiple topics and one topic, please.
as of right now can have a maximum of six speakers on it.
And if there's people on both sides and they each get,
you potentially get three and three, two and two,
whatever it is, everyone gets their fair up,
up to six speakers on any topic.
So yeah, you could have a lot,
you could have eight different topics.
You could have up to six speakers on each topic,
three minutes a person, it'd be all upfront.
There's not that many people having something to say.
that's just an excuse okay so Alderman Simmons just to be clear your motion is
to task the attorneys to write the the ordinance rewrite the ordinance so it is
public comment on agenda items and non-agenda only at the beginning and is
that your second Alderman Stacy yes madam clerk please take the roll
Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Johnson? No. Simmons? No. Parker? No. And Stacy?
How do you vote? Aye. The motion fails. Of course. Five to three.
Okay, we will move on to reports of Department Heads Finance.
Thank you, Your Honor. I'd just like to echo what Dovie said, that Finance Committee of
the Whole begins next week, and they should be before each Council slash COW meeting until
we pass the budget.
Is there a time?
Would you explain the different format, time format?
I'll try and do that as well as I can. So we did set up the Finance Committee of the
to begin at 530 next week with the COW meeting to begin immediately following.
So we're trying to eliminate the gap that sometimes happened last year between meetings
where we all were kind of sitting around waiting 15 minutes until 6 o'clock to begin the next
meeting.
So we're going to start at 530.
Once the Finance COW is finished, we'll go right into the COW.
Thank you.
The COW.
Thank you.
So, just to clarify, I think that the draft special COW meeting has 545, so most likely
your finance will go at least 15 minutes, so it shouldn't be, from a practical standpoint,
an issue, but heaven forbid that you have a finance COW start at 530, and let's say
it only went five minutes, you still wouldn't be able to start the COW until 545.
If you wanted to, I mean, the reality is you're probably not going to have a Finance COW only go 15 minutes, I would imagine.
Did you look at my draft agenda, Attorney Zito? It said at 545 or as soon as the Finance COW adjourns.
Correct, but...
But it can't be earlier than 545.
Exactly. So that really applies if it's at 550, then you can start right at 550, but you have to set a time for the Special COW to still start.
Director Duckman?
Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor.
Thank you. Darren?
Just a reminder, the Hancock-Vydok, Hancock-Chonney-Vydok will be closed. If it wasn't done today, it will be done tomorrow and it should be probably three and a half months it will be closed for the renovations to lower the street.
Fire?
Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Last Thursday, B-Shift responded to a local gas station on West Avenue for a hydraulic oil spill on the property.
The on-duty shift used 26 bags of oil dried to contain the spill. They are charged the responsibility of hiring a clean-up crew.
We just contain it, keep it from going any further. We are invoking the spill or pay ordinance to the responsible party.
Party, they will be reimbursing the city nearly $1,800 for our response and our materials
used.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Police?
Yeah, I have no report tonight.
IT?
and others.
IT? Airport. Just real quick, just to let everybody know that this year unfortunately we will not be having the air show. The promoter ended up having some health issues so he is not able to continue on. So first and foremost hopefully he gets on the right track and he can end up ramping up for next year. But this year is unfortunately cancelled. Just to let you know. Thank you.
City Manager. Just want to reach out to the staff that's been working on all of
our road resurfacing program this year. I just wanted to say thank you all and got
a busy week and I appreciate all your effort. Thank you. And I have nothing new
to add. Alderman Shadle. Thursday 6 o'clock, Schwartz on Park Boulevard for the
Sixth Ward Neighborhood Bunch. Alderman Sanders? Yeah just want to know are we
almost in completion with our street program for this year? No we're we're
getting we're getting there we still have one that we're gonna do that was an
add-on Hans Harvey. Carroll still has to be surfaced that should be happening in a
couple weeks but we're making significant progress. The West Ward
and Mayor, Water Main Expansion should start in two weeks.
So if I had engaged, we're probably 70% done,
but a lot of good work going on
and the crews are making really good progress
and everybody's working well together, so.
Okay.
Alderman Sellers.
Oh, nothing.
Thank you.
Alderman Klemm.
Nothing here.
Alderman Johnson.
I just like to thank all the people that came out
for the block party on Saturday.
It was, there was a lot of people there
and I think a lot of the residents that were there
did get some resources and information
that they needed to help them.
So I was glad to see that.
Alderman Simmons?
I'm sorry, where was I?
It was the block party.
It was over at the Boys and Girls Club
in the parking lot there.
Thank you.
Alderman Simmons?
Alderman Parker?
Nothing now, Your Honor.
Alderman, Stacy?
Yes, I would like to announce that there's
going to be a fourth annual Terrence Cheeto Haynes
three-on-three classic.
This event will be held Saturday, September the 13th,
starting at 10 o'clock AM.
The age groups for the teams are 10 to 12, 13 to 15,
and 16 to 18.
There's no charge for this event,
but they will be accepting donations
toward the Terrence Cheadle Haynes
Stop the Violence Scholarship Foundation.
This is the young man that was shot on Pleasant,
Angelina a few years ago.
And this is the fourth annual
Evert, in his honor.
Move on to public comments, Rod Holtz.
Thank you for waiting.
I'll make this short since it's been a long meeting.
Starting in January, I took on a project of trying to get my driveway redone.
I ran into some loopholes,
one of which being my wife had ovarian cancer
and sadly she passed away the end of July.
She never got to see our new driveway, but she did.
Everything got completed around the middle of August
and I had one loophole that I was trying to overcome
and that was where the street met my driveway. So I went and I talked to, I called the street
department after a friend of mine suggested that's who I try. I talked to her, the lady
took down my address and she told me that she says within the next week or so when the
The pothole people are out in your area. They'll be gladly to fix the end of your driveway.
I said, great. About a week and a half went by, nothing happened. So I was in the area
of the street department down on Island Avenue, so I decided, well, I'm going to try going
down there, speak to them one on one. I wish I never did. The lady that I encountered down
there was very rude. She acted like my first impression to her. She wanted to get in a
fight with me. All I wanted to do was get some information on when they were going to
fix that or if they were going to fix that. So I walked away kind of sad because I got
another stone I gotta try to overcome so I figured well I'm gonna try calling the
City Hall I did one morning before I went to work I encountered Michelle Nelson
she was very kind considerate listen to my going on with my driveway and she
She referred me. She says, I'll take this down as an email. She took my name and my phone number, and she talked with Darren Steakl.
Within two hours, Darren called me up and wanted to know what was going on, and I told him.
and he informed me that and I didn't know this but that the end of this where the
street and in the driveway meets that would be my contractors doing well I
thought they're concrete people but we were talking a little bit
and I went a little bit further and Darren finally wanted me to take a picture and I sent it to him and sorry but this was around 10 o'clock I went home from work to at lunchtime and I got out of my truck and I parked out on the street and I was walking towards and I just about fell down on the street
I was amazed, totally amazed with the hard work that you guys do during the summer and everything. I get that and all.
But it looked totally professional and I want to give you a thank you for me and if you could give this to Michelle.
are there any other public comments I'd like to clarify some things joy talked
talked about Henny. We've lost Henny, we've lost Tutty, and we've lost Taylor. That's
three areas where our children played and had in the wards that they're talking about.
That's three, okay? History. Now, as far as what he's talking about, he never mentioned
and the seven-day notices that we've all seen.
As far as the city is concerned, what we heard from you guys a week ago was everything you
couldn't do and nothing that you could do.
What we also found was when Joshua had his meeting, we had no Rob Boyer, we had no Jodi
Miller, we had no Alder people other than the two that were there, which tells us how
How much you really care about what is happening to your constituents because you weren't there.
You weren't there to hear them.
You weren't there to listen to them.
You weren't there to answer questions.
And even when you did something on the television, neither of you stood before a television camera
and addressed the constituents in this town.
What you did was is use someone who is an employee of the city that nobody knows to
speak for you.
It's shameful.
and others.
And it's absolutely shameful that you guys won't stand before your constituents and listen
to them.
Tonight's vote on the comment section is absolutely ridiculous that you would allow this to go
on for four to five hours and I don't care what the comments are or what the proposals
are on the floor, that you would allow someone with babies, with children, to be sitting
here for four hours to speak with you guys.
When you can change the ordinance and you can change the direction of this meeting at
your own beck and call whenever you feel like you want to and all we were asking for was the
All we were asking for was the courtesy to allow individuals who had to go to work, some
of whom are working two to three jobs, with children standing beside them, to speak to
you as your constituents, as taxpayers, as working individuals in this town, you refused
to do that.
And tonight, City Council, shame on you, you've refused to do it again.
You can sit here and listen to the monarchy that you are being fed by him, or you can
and more.
This is a community that is so
affected by the fact that you can listen to your constituents
and what you need to do is sit down and have a conversation
with them. Instead of listening to him, listen to the people
that are being affected. This man knows absolutely nothing
about this community nor does he know anything about the people
that are being affected. I'm going to tell you guys
something. If you think for a second that this isn't going to
affect this entire town, and I've said this before and
�� I want to start by saying thank you to, you know, everybody involved positively and
God like up here.
and I want to say congratulations to the people that came last week, stood up and told their
heartfelt stories because they really showed more care and concern about themselves than
our city leaders.
And I also want to say thank you to Josh Atkins.
I don't care if y'all don't like him or not, but we wouldn't sit here and talk about this
if he didn't held that meeting, but he was the only one that took the time out to make
a meeting.
Miller.
Before that situation came to this council board, you've seen this on all social media
because we know you guys watch it, Shadle or not, but you guys chose to ignore it until
it became chaotic.
And as leaders, you should have held a PowerPoint presentation or whatever you did that accounted
to really nothing because we still have not asked for you to control the amount.
We simply asked for the time to be a good timely fashion to give them considering their
Freeport does not have jobs to accommodate anything to be raised.
We do not have a council board that does not raise every tax they can on all of the people
here.
You guys need to think about the future.
We don't have half of the creativity that we need to run a city.
Let's use this as an example.
We paid, what we say, Winter got $78,000 for boarding up the bottom of that building and
and put in a six-foot fence around it.
Where the hell is they shopping at?
OSB at half inch is only $12 to $15.
If we needed 300 sheets of that,
that would only came to $5,000.
Let's say the fence, way out of the ballpark, cost 20.
Where is $78,000 accommodated for?
My suggestion to the council is that you guys try to do
a little bit more detailed finding
on what they actually are doing,
Dickenmuth, do you got an update by the way? Everybody asked me about this.
Thomas, you let them know I'm working real hard.
And then?
We got a question.
Are you going to fix the pothole by Jefferson Street?
Any other public comments?
Go ahead.
Good evening, Council. My name is Joshua. I'll keep this short, and I promise sweet, and I'm going to start with Mr. Duckman over there. Outstanding. With the Ptolema and all that stuff, I'm shocked, but kudos. Fantastic. That's really good to hear. I hope that all works out.
All right, every one of you received an email from me a week ago, exactly a week ago, and what you chose to do with it was nothing, fine, you know, who am I, nobody, right, but then you sat here today and you argued for about 30 minutes it seemed like, and I could be exaggerating, I couldn't see the clock, about when to have the next meeting to talk about all that stuff,
I know it's easy from the outside to look at you guys and say well gosh they should be doing this or you should be doing this or the Mayor should be doing this that is so easy and a luxury we get from out here I understand that but you guys could have taken that 30 minutes had any of you either made a motion or just put it on the agenda and said this is our opportunity to talk about it we can talk about it right now if if Tom Klemm says I I think it should be 120 days and Cecelia says no I think it should be 40 you guys could have
We used that time tonight, however many hours we've been here and talked about it and been over and done with it or you know Alderman Johnson could have said you know what I think we should add this in there that was the time you don't have to schedule another time to do it because I want to believe that this gentleman here is being as honest as possible I talked to not him but his co-worker and I can't remember her name but she was very nice on the phone we invited him to the meeting they chose not to come I want to assume that they are being truthful but if they're not your job in
in this room is to protect the people of this community.
And you could have done that tonight
by just putting in a simple 60-day amendment
to that ordinance.
And that would have taken them to,
he could have went out tomorrow and said,
boom, here's your guys' 16-day notice,
and that would have given them two months,
but they would have 60 days to figure things out.
Now, they have no idea what's gonna happen
because we just showed him, and I'm not picking on you, sir,
that we're not gonna do anything we're gonna talk about it for the next month
that's what we're gonna do and I just wish you guys I don't know if it was
about me if it would have come from miss Yocum maybe you guys would have taken
it a little more seriously but you guys could have done something and that's all
the people are asking for they shouldn't be calling me to do it it's just they
Don't Trust You to take them seriously. Thank you.
Any other public comments?
Wow.
Hi, Sue Cook, Freeport. I just want to thank, I'm glad the 65
Caff was gone. I just have to say, yes, good. That should be gone. If you're fit, ages should not keep anybody from a job, says the 65-year-old woman that's standing here. So, I'm glad it's gone.
The other thing is, do we have a contract with ASFE yet? Has that happened? I'm worried. We just celebrated Labor Day, and we celebrated the unions, and we celebrated workers, and workers' rights, and what they need, and I haven't heard anything about that yet, and I'm very, very worried.
Please God don't let them walk away because I do not want to lose 9-1-1 and I came up here and I said that last week and I said it while I was crying so you may not have heard that but there it is as far as the ruckus that was caused sir ruckus was not caused by just people going out and going I'm gonna cause some chaos people came and were scared and they came to the meeting
that Joshua had, and they were still scared. And they were hoping that somebody, that Gabby
was going to be there, but Gabby didn't come that night. And so people were very, very
scared. And yes, they spoke to the news because they did not have you there, or they did not
have Gabby there to answer the questions they had. So the ruckus really wasn't a ruckus.
and a ruckus. It was a crime. Please help us before we're homeless. Because it's going
to be winter when they end up homeless. And that's not a good time to have babies in the
snow. Okay? You said you had kids. Totally get it. It's not a good time to have babies
in the snow. And I'm not going to start crying again, even though I look like I am. So please
Take the ruckus for what it is.
it is and take it to heart and help them out. Don't throw them out. And the 60 days, that's
a good idea. It gives them two paychecks. 120 days is kind of long. I know that's Chicago
as far as giving 60 days to let them leave. 30 days is kind of short. It's only one paychecks.
60 days is two paychecks. 120 days? Yeah, that's long. So, I'm just asking for leniency.
I know I'm coming up on my three minutes and so mask on. Thank you very much for letting
me speak and thank you.
Before I pray, I just want to say 120 days is really not that long when you've been renting
10, 9, 10, and 12 years, and some of these renters have been there that long.
My God, in the name of Jesus, I come to you as only I know how, seeking your face for
direction and understanding, Father. For this is your city. It carries the title, the name,
Freeport, for a reason. I need you to move, O God, on the behalf of your people. The ones
May we look to the hills from which cometh our help, for our help cometh from you, a
buying of the isms and schisms and the hands of the devil that would think it was going
I want to run a scheme through our city. You take control. You give us what we need to be successful. We trust you in advance. We praise you in advance. We give you all glory, honor, for you alone are worthy.
and we say victory is ours in the name of Jesus. We will not lay down and die. In Jesus' name, amen.
That will conclude public comments. I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Sellers, seconded by Shadle. Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sellers, Seller, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacey, motion passes.