Meeting Events

Meeting: cs3apugwl04.committee_of_the_whole_12-9-24

Meeting date: 2024-12-09

Meeting type: city_council

This is a deterministic derived artifact, not official meeting minutes. Related records may be grouped for review while complete machine provenance remains in the JSON artifact.

Decisions and Votes

• Passing of Chair — Passed

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders passed his chair to Alderman Stacy.
  • Evidence: “Thank you for your attention that Alderman Sanders is passing his chair tonight to Alderman Stacy.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15

• Approval of Agenda Reordering

  • Summary: Motion to approve the reordering of the agenda.
  • Evidence: “Do we have a motion for approval? Just to clarify that you’re moving the dot actually up to right after number seven.”
  • Evidence: “all those in favor is fine all those in favor all right aye nay by the same”
  • Source timestamp: 03:14

• Approval of Minutes from Committee of the Whole meeting held on November 12th, 2024 — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve minutes.
  • Attribution: Shadle
  • Evidence: “Okay so next we have the approval for agenda. But before that happens, we want to make note of the dot under number eight will be moving up to number seven. Do we have a motion for approval? Just to clarify that you’re moving the dot actually up to right after number seven. Yes. Okay just to clarify do we have an approval for the agenda so moved second do we need a vote do we need a vote no all those in favor is fine all those in favor all right aye nay by the same I’m so sorry I missed the motion in the second shadow first sellers second Okay, approval of minutes from the Committee of the Whole meeting held on November 12th, 2024. So moved. Second.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Passes.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:49

• Moving item to first reading

  • Summary: Motion to move an item forward for first reading at the next City Council meeting.
  • Attribution: Attorney Zito
  • Evidence: “Attorney Zito. I was just going to ask, Ryan, are you looking for a motion then to have this by the council? Because we’re at Cal, if you want it specifically move forward for first reading?”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 01:35:37

• Ordinance change for Hangar J rent

  • Summary: Motion to bring an ordinance to the next meeting with changes to J. Hangar.
  • Evidence: “Yeah, we’ll bring an ordinance to the next meeting with us changes to J. Hanger. So moved.”
  • Evidence: “Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:38:58

• Moving NICOR franchise agreement to first reading

  • Summary: Motion to move the NICOR franchise agreement forward to first reading at the December 16th council meeting.
  • Evidence: “So city staff has finished this negotiation with Attorney Zito and we are ready to move this forward to first reading at the next council meeting. Second. We have a motion to move this forward at the December 3rd meeting.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? I just want to clarify the moving it forward to which council meeting. It’d be the December 16th, 16th December 16th all in favor opposed”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:55

• Adjournment of meeting — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made to adjourn.
  • Evidence: “If there’s nothing else, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:50:12

Procedural Actions

• Calling meeting to order and roll call

  • Summary: The meeting was called to order following the invocation.
  • Attribution: Mayor Miller
  • Evidence: “Now we’ll officially call this meeting to order. Madam Kirk, would you please take the roll?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58

• Pledge of Allegiance

  • Summary: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Alderman Stacy.
  • Evidence: “So if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Stacy. 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.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:26

• Agenda Item Reordering

  • Summary: A request was made to move item number eight up to number seven.
  • Evidence: “next we have the approval for agenda. But before that happens, we want to make note of the dot under number eight will be moving up to number seven.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:49

• Motion to move forward on December 3rd meeting item

  • Summary: A motion was made regarding moving an item forward to the December 16th council meeting.
  • Evidence: “We have a motion to move this forward at the December 3rd meeting. All in favor? I just want to clarify the moving it forward to which council meeting. It’d be the December 16th, 16th December 16th I’m sorry I just said the third month yeah December 16th all in favor opposed”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:55

• Motion to adjourn meeting

  • Summary: A motion was made to adjourn the meeting.
  • Evidence: “Okay. If there’s nothing else, do we have a motion to adjourn?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:50:12

Presentations and Reports

• Potential redevelopment agreement for 521 west cottonwood street

  • Summary: Joel Freidenberg will present on a potential redevelopment agreement for the property at 521 west cottonwood street.
  • Evidence: “Okay next we will have discussion regarding potential redevelopment agreement for 521 west cottonwood street presented by joel freidenberg”
  • Source timestamp: 09:30

• Region 1 Planning Council and Northern Illinois Land Bank overview

  • Summary: The Region 1 Planning Council works with the City of Freeport on the Northern Illinois Land Bank, which is described as an exciting program.
  • Evidence: “The Region 1 Planning Council works with the City of Freeport on the Northern Illinois Land Bank and so it’s been a while since we’ve done a land bank property in Freeport. It’s a really exciting program”
  • Source timestamp: 10:00

• Land Bank goal

  • Summary: The goal of the Land Bank is to combat community deterioration by returning property to productive use and getting non-tax paying blighted properties back.
  • Evidence: “The goal is to combat community deterioration by returning property to productive use and getting, you know, non-tax paying blighted properties back”
  • Source timestamp: 11:44

• Land Bank success project (Velvedere)

  • Summary: A blighted house in Velvedere was the first thing acquired after the area joined the land bank, sold for $41,000 initially, and later completely rehabbed and sold for $174,000.
  • Evidence: “As soon as Velvedere joined the land bank, other people had this on their list. They said, please, somebody needs to do something with this house. It’s such an eyesore. And so it was the first thing we acquired in Velvedere, sold it for $41,000. And a couple of years later, it was completely rehabbed and sold for $174,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:27

• Land Bank success project (Rockford)

  • Summary: A property in Rockford near East High School, acquired due to delinquent taxes, was initially sold by the land bank for $23,000 and later sold for $140,000 after rehabilitation.
  • Evidence: “This is a recent one in Rockford where right by East High School, really good neighborhood and sometimes the owners just disappear, they die with no heirs. You never really know what happens but you see those two years of delinquent taxes and that’s when you know it’s time to move and so we were able to acquire this one. It was in okay condition but only a couple of people really could see a vision for it So, sold by the land bank for $23,000. Eventually, after being rehabbed in under a year, sold for $140,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:46

• Land Bank success project (Freeport)

  • Summary: The most recent success mentioned in Freeport was 857 East Shawnee, which was sold by the land bank for $15,750 in 2021 and is now listed for rent at $875 a month.
  • Evidence: “Yes. 857 East Shawnee was sold I believe in 2021 by the land bank for $15,750 and looks like it was recently listed again for rent at $875 a month”
  • Source timestamp: 13:35

• Land bank property sale and deed restrictions

  • Summary: A land bank property at 857 East Shawnee was sold in 2021 for $15,750 and is currently listed for rent at $875 a month. Buyers of land bank properties must bring them up to code within nine months.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “857 East Shawnee was sold I believe in 2021 by the land bank for $15,750 and looks like it was recently listed again for rent at $875 a month and you can see there in the pictures a little bit of the transformation that took place on the exterior and you know that’s the same shot of the stairs on the and the inside there below and this is all achieved because we have these strong deed restrictions on these properties where you know if you’re gonna be the buyer of a land bank property you know that at this time it was a year we’ve now typically we bring that down to nine months you have nine months to get everything up to code and it should be completely inhabitable within that time or we’re able to claw it back essentially so The buyers know what they’re getting into, and they know they have to get moving and do a good job.”
  • Source timestamp: 13:35

• Buyer for 521 West Cottonwood property

  • Summary: A buyer was identified for the 521 West Cottonwood property. The buyer previously purchased a property at 418 Tay Street in Rockford, which was in rough shape. The current progress on this property shows it is seven months into its deed restriction and only two months away from being good to go.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “So that brings me to the buyer that has come forward for this 521 West Cottonwood property. This is the reference point that we have for him, is he purchased this one on 418 Tay Street in Rockford that, as you can see, was in very rough shape. Nobody wanted to touch this, and he saw a vision for it, and Wayne and I actually toured this yesterday, and this is what it looks like now. This is seven months on, so he’s still got another two months of his deed restriction, and he is just one final building inspection away from being good to go.”
  • Source timestamp: 14:53

• Applicant for 521 West Cottonwood Street in Freeport

  • Summary: Leo Holmes, Ivan, is the applicant for 521 West Cottonwood Street in Freeport. The City of Freeport was initially preparing for demolition, but after testing market interest via the land bank sales portal, a bid of $8,000 was submitted by Ivan from Leal Homes.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “And so that brings me to, like I said, Leo Holmes, Ivan, is the applicant for 521 West Cottonwood Street in Freeport. So I’ll kind of give you a brief overview of what the situation that we’re doing here with this house is. City of Freeport was initially preparing for a demolition, but Wayne and my colleague Eric kind of took a look at the house and decided, you know, I think there’s something that can We tested the market’s interest in it by taking applications through our land bank sales portal that, you know, like we saw earlier, we’ve successfully sold 41 properties through the land bank through that sales portal over the last couple of years and one thing that we heard from the city was that you really wanted a tight restriction and that’s what we, you know, already have as a default is that that nine-month deed restriction that that gives you the clawback option that that the land and John. We had an open house on 11-8 and Ivan from Leal Homes who has done that 418 Tay Street rehab showed up, drove all the way from Lake Zurich and said he really wanted, you know, he saw a vision for this property, wants to do it. And he submitted a bid for $8,000 and the plan is for a free port to then quit claiming this property to the land bank and we will sell it to Ivan and Leal homes and then it will be the land banks responsibility to continually fall up with them and make sure that progress is being made and you know keep harping on about that nine month deed restriction.”
  • Source timestamp: 16:16

• Deed acquisition at 52 North Bailey in Freeport

  • Summary: The land bank received a deed through a successful abandonment case for 52 North Bailey. The property requires a roof, and the plan is to put out an RFP using grant funds to address this.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “We also just received a deed through a successful abandonment case to 52 North Bailey here in Freeport and Wayne and I I just went through this earlier. It was the first time I had seen it. And this is one that we’ll, like I said, just got the deed. We’ll do an inspection and see what it needs. It definitely needs a roof, and so we are going to put out an RFP to see if we can get somebody to do a roof and use grant funds of our own to do that.”
  • Source timestamp: 17:52

• CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant overview

  • Summary: Tara Walters presented an overview of the Housing Rehab Program administered by DCO, detailing how applications are reviewed and awarded by the state.
  • Attribution: Tara Walters
  • Evidence: “Next, we will have a presentation regarding CDBGHG grant by Tara Walters, Region 1 Planning Council Consultant for CDBG HR Grant. My name is Tara Walters. I work for MSA Professional Services. I am a Community Development Administrator with my company and I am the current Grant Administrator for the City of Freeport’s CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant. So what I’m going to do in this presentation is simply walk through the Housing Rehab Program that’s administered by DCO, which is the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity at the state level as well as some of the national objectives of what the program is meant to do and how the state administers it.”
  • Source timestamp: 31:19

• City of Freeport CDBG Grant timeline and area

  • Summary: The City of Freeport submitted its application in 2021, was awarded the grant in 2022, had two years to complete the project, and has an extended sunset date until May 31st, 2025. The initial project area included South Adams, South Hyde, East Center, Wyandotte, and East Pleasant.
  • Attribution: Tara Walters
  • Evidence: “The city of Freeport’s application was submitted in 2021. Once those applications are reviewed, the state awards the most competitive grant applications. The city of Freeport’s was awarded in 2022. The city then has two years to complete the project. So the original award, this project had a sunset date or a grant sunset date of November 30th, 2024. We did apply for a six month extension. So our new sunset date on these funds is May 31st of 2025. … Within the application, the city assigned a project area. And I don’t have the project area from the application pulled in this presentation, but it was the area of South Adams, South Hyde, East Center, Wyandotte, and East Pleasant, kind of that general area.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:57

• CDBG funds source and objectives

  • Summary: CDBG funds are a federal pass through granted by HUD, requiring the state to meet one of three HUD national objectives: benefiting low to moderate income persons, aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or meeting other community development needs that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community (urgent need).
  • Evidence: “CDBG funds are a federal pass through essentially. So they’re granted by HUD. So in order for the state to administer these CDBG funds, they have to meet one of the three HUD national objectives. The three objectives are one, benefiting low to moderate income persons, two, aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight, or three, meeting other community development needs that pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community, also known as urgent need.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:08

• HUD national objectives for LMI housing activity

  • Summary: An LMI housing activity provides or improves permanent single-family owner-occupied residential structures.
  • Evidence: “Some of the other excerpts from the HUD national objectives, an LMI housing activity is carried out for the purpose of providing or improving permanent single-family owner-occupied residential structures that will be occupied”
  • Source timestamp: 37:04

• HUD eligibility data points

  • Summary: Data required includes: 1) family size and income ranges (30%, 50%, and 80% of the median household income); 2) data on racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of applicants/participants; and 3) CDBG program eligibility under Illinois state law.
  • Evidence: “For each assisted unit, the family size and income and ranges, 30%, 50%, and 80%, which is, and the next slide will explain what that means. The level of income compared to the state’s or the area’s median household income of an occupant household and the amount of CDBG funds spent. And then second, data on racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of persons who are are applicants for participants in or beneficiaries of the CDBG activities. And lastly, the CDBG program under the state of Illinois for a household to be eligible.”
  • Source timestamp: 37:19

• State program objectives for housing rehab eligibility

  • Summary: Eligibility requires: 1) a single-family residential unit that is owner occupied and proven residency; 2) homeowners insurance; 3) income verified via IRS Form 1040.
  • Evidence: “So the eligibility requirements for housing rehab recipients are they must be a single family residential unit, they must be owner occupied and prove that they live there, and they must have homeowners insurance. Secondly, the income must be verified, again, via the IRS tax form 1040,”
  • Source timestamp: 38:50

• Grant administration process overview

  • Summary: The speaker noted that the city could not have advanced without Joel’s work on Region 1, and the grant provided $64,000 in consultant fees to help administer the grant due to the extensive documentation required.
  • Evidence: “I know that the city would not have been able to get this far and offer any funds if it wasn’t for your hard work, if it wasn’t for Joel’s hard work with Region 1 and so on. So this grant provided the city, I think it’s $64,000 in, you know, consultant fees to help administer this grant with the extreme amount of documentation you have to provide.”
  • Source timestamp: 40:49

• CDBG, Adam Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Application Discrepancies

  • Summary: Presentation detailing discrepancies in the CDBG Adams Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Program where grant funding was provided despite disqualifying discrepancies.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “Kirk, this is when I need you. CDBG, Adam Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Application Discrepancies. This presentation aims to make the public aware of the discrepancies that the City of F. Freeport has allowed to occur within the CDBG Adams Avenue Housing Rehabilitation Program. Such discrepancies should have disqualified the applicants, but the city has decided to to provide grant funding to them anyway.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:17:11

• Significance of grant funds integrity

  • Summary: The speaker emphasized that the grant funds are tax dollars and their approval speaks volumes about the integrity of those who approve them.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “Those grant funds that the city has agreed to provide for the rehabilitation of this application home are still your tax dollars. With these funds speak volume about the integrity of the applicants, but even louder about the integrity of the ones who approve them.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:26:18

• Social media policy revision for page administrators

  • Summary: A revised social media policy was created to aid page administrators in allowing comments and fostering a more dynamic environment for social discourse.
  • Evidence: “In order to improve transparency and strengthen the communication pipeline between the city and residents, a revised policy has been created to aid page administrators in allowing comments and fostering a more dynamic environment for social discourse.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:31:42

• Social media policy section three: Comment Policy

  • Summary: The policy lists nine things that are not allowed as comments on city government pages, including those promoting discrimination or threatening any person or organization.
  • Evidence: “And so they list nine things here of which are just to name a few promotes discrimination. We’re getting rid of those comments. Threatening any person or organization, we get rid of those comments.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:33:38

• Social media policy section five: Administrator Usage

  • Summary: The revised policy addresses that while general employee social media use is covered by existing policy, specific guidelines are needed for page administrators who moderate activity.
  • Evidence: “I want to point out that again, the city already has a social media policy for employees in general that applies to their personal use of social media. However, we don’t have anything yet for the page administrators, AKA myself and the administrator of the police and the fire and the library.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:33:56

• Social media policy section six: Community Messaging Guidelines

  • Summary: This section outlines the types of community events that are allowed to be shared versus those that are not allowed.
  • Evidence: “I’ll move on to section six, which I believe is the last one I want to point out, but maybe one of the more important ones. And it’s titled Community Messaging Guidelines. It talks about the types of community events that we’re allowed to share, types of community events that we’re not allowed to share.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:34:40

• Revised hangar lease and hangar rental rates

  • Summary: Huff reviewed all hanger leases, lease amounts, and put forth a new lease format and a suggestion to change ordinance 2021-05, increasing Hangar J’s rent from $575 to $800.
  • Evidence: “Number 10. Discussion regarding revised hangar lease and hangar rental rates presented by City Manager Boyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Huff has reviewed all of the hanger leases, the lease amounts, and has put forth for review the new lease format, as well as a suggestion to make a change to ordinance 2021-05, increasing hanger J’s rent from $575 to $800.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:19

• Hangar Lease Agreement Details

  • Summary: The new lease agreement was developed over months of negotiation with the fixed base operator and is comparable to other local airports.
  • Evidence: “Just a few high points, the new lease agreement was put together we’ve been working on this for a number of months we’ve gone back and forth with Angie the the fixed base operator and she is we’ve kind of worked out some details and everything is looking really good with that as well as she has compiled the competitive or a comparative leases at local or other airports in our region of a similar size one of the outcomes was that we are are looking pretty comparable to all of the other airports. We used Sterling, Dixon, and Rochelle as our comparisons, all of a similar size of traffic.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:41

• Franchise Agreement with NICOR Company

  • Summary: The City enters into a 50-year franchise agreement with utilities, and staff negotiated for the inclusion of the library’s gas service requirement.
  • Evidence: “Discussion regarding ordinance authorizing Northern Illinois Gas Company, DBA, NICOR company to construct, operate and maintain again. Operate and maintain a gas distributing system in and through the City of Freeport. Francis, Agreement View, LOA? City Manager Boyer? Thank you, Chairperson. So each year, or I’m sorry, every 50 years, the City enters into a franchise agreement with our utilities. Various utilities require different durations, but NICOR’s case, that’s our gas company, it’s a 50-year agreement.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:39:43

• NICOR Franchise Agreement Details

  • Summary: Staff negotiated for the inclusion of library gas service due to its status as part of the city and one of the largest gas users.
  • Evidence: “In the past, the City included all, as some of the requirements, the City required gas service for all City installations, which was included in the new version. However, staff pressed back on NICOR to include the library due to the fact that the library is part of the city and also is one of our largest gas users due to the HVAC system that is required to keep the air dry for preservation of the books.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:21

• Negotiation savings for city gas and library

  • Summary: A negotiation resulted in a $20,000 annual savings to the city in gas for the rest of the library.
  • Evidence: “I just wanted to mention that this this negotiation that he was able to strike with that corner is a $20,000 savings to the city annually in gas for and the rest of the library. All right. Thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:55

Metrics

• Land Bank sales statistics (5 years)

  • Summary: In the about five years that they have been around, the Land Bank has done about 1.2 million in sales, sold 41 homes, and generated about $150,000 in new tax revenue.
  • Evidence: “In the about five years that we’ve been around, we’ve done about 1.2 million in sales, 41 homes sold, and that generates about $150,000 in new tax revenue.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:00

• Total property value of landlords in affected area

  • Summary: The total property value owned by the landlords is $290,500.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “They are landlords. They write their own 1040s. That’s their business. Totaling 290,500.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:03

Discussion

• Community Development Block Grant purpose for 1010 Adams Street

  • Summary: A discussion was held regarding the use of grant money to address blight on Adams Street, emphasizing the need for an intended project purpose.
  • Evidence: “Good evening. I’d like to address the grant issue for 1010 Adams as well. We have received about a half a million dollars in grants giving the City Council an opportunity, a big opportunity to decide how the best use of this money could overcome the City’s many challenges with with Blighted Low Income Neighborhoods. … The project would likely be, we’re going to improve the corridor on Adams Street and we’re going to fix up all the houses that are a major eyesore on there so that when you’re driving into Freeport, you don’t have the impression, gee, I wouldn’t want to live here. So we need a purpose and the community development block grant has been established since 1974 to eliminate conditions of blight and correct unsafe and unsanitary conditions to benefit the low to middle income community. The project for these funds is determined by the Freeport Community Development, the city council and public input. Adams Street is the current project.”

• Community Development Block Grant purpose and focus

  • Summary: The community development block grant has been established since 1974 to eliminate conditions of blight and correct unsafe and unsanitary conditions to benefit the low to middle income community.
  • Evidence: “So we need a purpose and the community development block grant has been established since 1974 to eliminate conditions of blight and correct unsafe and unsanitary conditions to benefit the low to middle income community.”
  • Source timestamp: 07:47

• Project determination for CD Block Grant funds

  • Summary: The project for these funds is determined by the Freeport Community Development, the city council and public input.
  • Evidence: “The project for these funds is determined by the Freeport Community Development, the city council and public input.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:02

• HUD Grant Assistance Program guidelines

  • Summary: Best practice guidelines from the HUD Grant Assistance Program suggest prioritizing the greatest needs to ensure community challenges are met, and also emphasize grant oversight and transparency to prevent fraud.
  • Evidence: “And then there are the best practice guidelines put out by the HUD Grant Assistance Program so that when we get a grant, we can figure out how do you use the funds. They’re suggesting that you prioritize the greatest needs to ensure community challenges are met. Then you have grant oversight and transparency to prevent fraud.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:16

• Efficient use of funds for low income community improvement

  • Summary: Reducing administrative costs is necessary to ensure that the money is used efficiently and makes the greatest improvement to benefit the low income community.
  • Evidence: “Huffines. Reducing administrative costs is to ensure that the money is used efficiently and makes the greatest improvement to benefit the low income community.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:39

• Prioritization of blight repair based on need

  • Summary: Improvements must prioritize homes that actually need repairs, and the process should be transparent by submitting photos to city council before requesting funding.
  • Evidence: “My point here is that if we are ever going to expect to make improvements in this community, we have to prioritize the homes that actually need repairs and be transparent and submit photos to city council before asking us to approve funding.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:13

• Land Bank property requirements

  • Summary: Buyers of land bank properties have strong deed restrictions requiring them to get everything up to code within nine months or the property can be clawed back.
  • Evidence: “So that brings me to the buyer that has come forward for this 521 West Cottonwood property. This is the reference point that we have for him, is he purchased this one on 418 Tay Street in Rockford that, as you can see, was in very rough shape.”
  • Source timestamp: 14:45

• Eligibility for rehab program

  • Summary: The land bank specifically deals with abandoned homes, which are vacant. Homes occupied by people, even if dilapidated, are not eligible for this particular program.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “Ottomans, Sanders, also the people that people that are living in in these types of homes dilapidated rundown and everything of that nature are they eligible for this particular program to rehab their homes and and re-stabilize no so the land bank specifically deals with abandoned only abandoned homes and and the purpose of that Y is and the purpose of that, why is that? Why abandoned homes are homes that are vacant? Why is that? That a home that a person lives in is just as shady and shoddy as an abandoned home? You know, why can’t that home be eligible for rehab?”
  • Source timestamp: 19:21

• Awareness of properties for potential buyers

  • Summary: Potential buyers were initially made aware of the Tay Street property through the land bank’s mailing list or word-of-mouth. Awareness of the Cottonwood property followed from the previous transaction.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “Yes, so he was initially made aware of the property in Tay Street either through our mailing list or you know through word-of-mouth and you know I’m not sure how he found out about it initially but you know he did the He was made aware, initially, through the Tay Street property, whether that was through our mailing list or word of mouth, and then made aware of the Cottonwood one, by virtue of having done the previous property in Rockford.”
  • Source timestamp: 20:53

• Buyer awareness of properties

  • Summary: Potential buyers can be made aware of properties through a mailing list or word-of-mouth.
  • Evidence: “So how are potential buyers made aware of these properties so that they can make bids? Like how was this person from Lake Zurich made aware of this property? Yes, so he was initially made aware of the property in Tay Street either through our mailing list or you know through word-of-mouth and you know I’m not sure how he found out about it initially but you know he did the He was made aware, initially, through the Tay Street property, whether that was through our mailing list or word of mouth, and then made aware of the Cottonwood one, by virtue of having done the previous property in Rockford.”
  • Source timestamp: 20:43

• Sales method for properties

  • Summary: All sales are conducted online through an online sales portal, sometimes with live auctions that update in real time.
  • Evidence: “So are they listed on a website or anything, or not? Yeah. So all the sales are done online through an online sales portal. Sometimes we have live auctions, and it updates in real time.”
  • Source timestamp: 21:48

• Goal for West Cottonwood property sale

  • Summary: The goal for the West Cottonwood property was to find a buyer who could fix up the property and put it back into productive use, rather than being concerned about price.
  • Evidence: “For this one specifically, the goal of the West Cottonwood and the property specifically was to make sure we could find the right buyer. Price wasn’t really, you know, something that we were concerned about at all. It was more about getting that person who we know could take this property and fix it up and get it, you know, back in productive use.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:09

• Grant funding for rehabs

  • Summary: The land bank has strong communities funds, which can be used at the land bank’s discretion when acquiring a property through abandonment process to fund rehabilitation efforts.
  • Evidence: “Yes. The land bank has strong communities funds and then when we acquire through abandonment process a property, we’re able to use strong communities funds at our discretion to, like Like I said, do an RFP to put a roof on Bailey or, you know, we had a property on Church Street in Rockford recently that had a broken window. So we replaced the window before we put it on the market.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:06

• Tax delinquency and land bank process

  • Summary: If a property does not pay taxes for three years, the county trustee will petition for a tax deed in the fourth year; utilizing the land bank allows them to take ownership through court processes before it reaches a tax deed.
  • Evidence: “And all the person, Sanders, I want to state that when a property stops paying taxes, like he has 52 North Bailey up here, they stop paying taxes, they have two years of delinquent taxes. If a property does not pay taxes for three years then the county trustee will petition for a tax deed in the fourth year so essentially if a house if we don’t use a land bank a house will go four years abandoned by utilizing the land bank they’ll they use their own attorneys to petition to our courts to take ownership of it before it actually even goes to a tax deed and then they like they took We took ownership through a court process, and that’s through our partnership with them as collaborative government partners, they went through and paid for the funding to get ownership of this through the courts, and I can’t remember how many actual appearances they had, but this process to get 52 Bailey was timely, it took quite a bit,”
  • Source timestamp: 23:37

• Land bank property acquisition methods

  • Summary: The land bank can acquire properties through court processes or by working with the city on abandoned properties, such as Cottonwood.
  • Evidence: “and going back to the, you know, Cottenwood. Um, that’s a, that’s a property that the city owned that had actually been abandoned for four years and that the city had purchased from, uh, the county trustee off of a tax deed. So in our, in this situation, going back to Cottonwood, this is what the city is saying is, you know, we have it, we can demolish it, uh, would probably cost the city between 15 and $20,000 or we can, um, in all my meetings, I’m always take going over my demolition list with the land bank and and if there’s a property that they think could be salvaged, they said, Hey, let’s, let’s show it to some of our developers. Let’s have an open house. Maybe we can find somebody.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:49

• Options for abandoned properties

  • Summary: The options for a property are either moving forward with the land bank to potentially save it using their resources, or demolishing it and turning it into a vacant lot.
  • Evidence: “And really the option is, do we move forward with moving, you know, moving into the land bank, we can potentially save it, utilize their resources, or do we demolish it and turn it into a vacant lot? I mean, it’s really kind of our options with the property.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:49

• Tax sale issues vs. Land Bank intervention

  • Summary: Land Bank through abandonment can interrupt the ‘claiming sale and error’ process that otherwise allows tax buyers to continually accrue interest.
  • Evidence: “And to your point, Wayne, A lot of times with the tax sale, properties end up in this death loop of claiming sale and error and so nothing ever actually happens with them. Land Bank through abandonment is able to kind of interrupt that process and get the public, the property back, whereas, you know, claiming sale and error just allows the tax buyer to continually accrue interest on it.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:49

• Contractor services for land bank

  • Summary: The land bank does not have contractors providing services at little to nothing or at cost; they issue RFPs or RFQs.
  • Evidence: “Can you tell me if you have contractors that give the land bank their services for little to nothing at cost? Do we have contractors that give their services to the land bank? Yes. No. No, we put out RFPs or RFQs and then people apply to do work.”
  • Source timestamp: 26:08

• Strong Communities Funds requirements

  • Summary: When using Strong Community funds related to state of Illinois money, prevailing wage must be used.
  • Evidence: “And also I just actually spoke with because on 52 North Bailey we were discussing there’s gonna be a new roof or they’re looking to put a new roof on and it has to be it’s the state of Illinois when he’s talking about strong community funds that’s Illinois Housing Development Authority state of Illinois anytime we’re talking state of Illinois money it has to be prevailing wage no if answer yeah it has to be prevailing wage so yes you know so we they can’t work”
  • Source timestamp: 26:36

• General contractor scope for rehabs

  • Summary: When using Strong Communities funds, a bid must account for prevailing wages; after purchase, the final state of the house is up to the buyer, often general contractors doing much of the work themselves.
  • Evidence: “No, my point was, like, let’s say for the average person to put in that wood floor would cost $30,000. I just didn’t know if you had contractors that would say, for this type of house, we’ll do it for $20,000. No, so when it comes to using the Strong Communities funds, like Wayne is saying, we would have to, you know, take a bid where someone was going to use a prevailing wage. Once somebody buys the house from us, there is still usually a lot of work to be done. How they get there, as long as it passes, you know, codes and inspections and stuff like that at the end, is up to them. To them, and a lot of times those are general contractors who are doing a lot of the work themselves.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:22

• Profit model for property buyers

  • Summary: Buyers make money by purchasing properties cheaply and investing in them with the risk that they can sell them for a higher amount, such as $140,000.
  • Evidence: “Okay. Yes. So, the way they’re making their money, Cecelia, is they’re buying these properties cheap and then they’re investing, they’re taking a risk on the property to be able to sell it for the $140,000, that’s where they make their money?”
  • Source timestamp: 28:01

• Strong Communities funds usage and property work

  • Summary: The use of Strong Communities funds requires a bid using prevailing wage; subsequent work after purchase is up to the buyer, provided codes and inspections pass.
  • Attribution: Simmons
  • Evidence: “No, so when it comes to using the Strong Communities funds, like Wayne is saying, we would have to, you know, take a bid where someone was going to use a prevailing wage. Once somebody buys the house from us, there is still usually a lot of work to be done. How they get there, as long as it passes, you know, codes and inspections and stuff like that at the end, is up to them. To them, and a lot of times those are general contractors who are doing a lot of the work themselves.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:31

• Property investment model for profit

  • Summary: Cecelia stated that some parties buy properties cheaply and invest, taking a risk to sell them for $140,000.
  • Attribution: Shadle
  • Evidence: “So, the way they’re making their money, Cecelia, is they’re buying these properties cheap and then they’re investing, they’re taking a risk on the property to be able to sell it for the $140,000, that’s where they make their money?”
  • Source timestamp: 28:01

• Agreement for 521 West Cottonwood

  • Summary: The speaker informed the council about an upcoming agreement for 521 West Cottonwood and plans to bring similar agreements in the future.
  • Attribution: Duckman
  • Evidence: “I’m making the council aware that at the next council meeting either December, the next one in December or January, I’m letting everyone know that there’s going to be an agreement for 521 West Cottonwood so we know what this is and hopefully moving forward I can bring more agreements that are similar so if I say I have an agreement for this address in the City of Freeport with the Region 1 Land Bank you are under, hopefully there’ll be less questions because you understand the process and I wanted you to be aware that this is coming soon.”
  • Source timestamp: 28:26

• Restoration scope for 521 Cottonwood property

  • Summary: The restoration work at 521 Cottonwood could involve components not directly within the City of Freeport, and a resident from Lake Zurich is interested in the property.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “yeah is this in house all of this restoration what that’s taking place so it could be restoration with components that are not directly in the city city of Freeport sure so this person that’s interested in 521 cottonwood is from Lake Zurich and They’re going to get a permit with the City of Freeport.”
  • Source timestamp: 28:56

• Contractor requirements for property work

  • Summary: If the contractor working on the property is licensed with the department, there is no requirement that they must hire a contractor within the City of Freeport.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “And if it’s their property, they can, if they’re a licensed contractor with my department, then yes, there’s no requirement that says they have to hire a contractor in the City of Freeport.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:25

• Property transfer process via Land Bank

  • Summary: The property is being given to the land bank so they can send a proposal for the council to vote on at the next meeting, which will include a resolution detailing the contractor’s obligations and timeline.
  • Attribution: Duckman
  • Evidence: “Sure. No, just to be clear, we’re utilizing their resources to put this back into the hands of a responsible contractor, and then there will be a resolution to you stating what this contractor is going to do, what their deed restriction says, they’ll have a timeline to fix the property, and that’s their expertise, and that’s what they would be doing. We are giving the property to the land bank so that they can send us a proposal for you to vote on at the next meeting.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:05

• Region 1 Land Bank website and application process

  • Summary: The website for R1 planning is r1planning.org; users must make an account online, and there are no upfront fees other than a cashier’s check for the full amount at closing.
  • Attribution: Simmons
  • Evidence: “So what’s the website, and what are the requirements for one to be able to be in? Yeah, so, did you say what is the website? Is that your first question? It’s r1planning. Org. Borg. So when you go to the home page right at the top, there’s a link to properties. There’s no fee or anything like that to sign up. You just make an account on our website, sign up, and then you can apply. There’s no sort of transaction ahead of time. It’s just a cashier’s check for the full amount when you close.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:45

• Sunset date for funds

  • Summary: The new sunset date on these funds is May 31st of 2025.
  • Evidence: “So our new sunset date on these funds is May 31st of 2025.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:23

• Environmental review process for grants

  • Summary: After a grant is awarded, the city must go through an environmental review process, starting with a tier one.
  • Evidence: “Once a grant is awarded, the city then has to go through an environmental review process. A tier one is the first step.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:33

• Project area determination for grants

  • Summary: The project area can be determined based on the amount of low income persons, the amount of blight, or which place in the city is a priority.
  • Evidence: “They decide upon this area based on the amount of low income persons, the amount of blight, the place in the city that is a priority.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:58

• Homeowner surveying for grant applications

  • Summary: As part of the process, the application involves surveying homeowners in the designated area for both income and housing needs.
  • Evidence: “And they also, once they decide on an area, part of the application is going out and surveying homeowners in this area for income as well as housing needs.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:08

• Scoring criteria for grant applications

  • Summary: The application was scored based on the amount of low income persons in the area and the needs for housing rehabilitation.
  • Evidence: “So as part, your application was scored on, You know, the amount of low income persons in this area, as well as the needs for housing rehabilitation.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:18

• Environmental review scope at tier one

  • Summary: At the tier one level environmental review, the process covers the entire project area, not individual houses.
  • Evidence: “The environmental review at the tier one level is completed for that entire area. So at this point, we’re not selecting individual houses. We’re just kind of blanketing, oh, I’m so sorry. I talk with my hands. We’re just kind of blanketing that entire project area.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:28

• Progression after tier one approval

  • Summary: Once the tier one is approved by DCEO, the city can begin individual rehabilitation applications.
  • Evidence: “Once your tier one is approved by DCEO, you can then start the individual rehabilitation application.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:43

• Environmental review scope at tier two

  • Summary: The environmental review at the tier two level applies to each individual house that scored the highest.
  • Evidence: “Once those are scored, we then have to do the environmental review tier two level, which is for each individual house that scored the highest.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:48

• Process flow for application and rehabilitation

  • Summary: The process involved Freeport handling the initial application and receiving environmental tier one approval; MSA assisted with the tier one review due to a different CDBG grant involving Wayne; R1 managed the individual home application, scoring, and started tier two; MSA then finished off tier two after the baton was passed back.
  • Evidence: “In terms of who was kind of taking over during this process at the application level, that was the city of Freeport. You guys compiled and submitted your own application. You were awarded environmental tier one, MSA got involved because we were working with Wayne a little bit on a different CDBG grant. So we assisted with that tier one environmental review. The baton was passed to R1 who helps the city with the individual home application process and the scoring and started the tier two. And then that was when the baton was passed back to myself and my colleagues at MSA to finish off the tier two.”
  • Source timestamp: 35:04

• Project commencement after approvals

  • Summary: After receiving tier two approval from DCEO, the project can be bid and construction on individual rehabilitation can start.
  • Evidence: “Once we get tier two approval from DCEO, they said everything looks good. And we can then bid the project and start construction on the individual rehabilitation.”
  • Source timestamp: 35:43

• Program objective under state administration

  • Summary: The state’s program meets the HUD objective of benefiting low to moderate income persons.
  • Evidence: “the state’s program is meeting the HUD objective of low to moderate income persons.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:51

• HUD eligibility verification requirement

  • Summary: The grant team must certify that recipients meet HUD eligibility requirements (low to moderate income) by submitting their IRS Form 1040, which is used to determine annual income.
  • Evidence: “The grant team was certified that the program recipients meet the HUD eligibility requirements, which is low to moderate income, and to do that, they must submit their IRS form 1040. And when using this IRS 1040, we determine an applicant’s annual income.”
  • Source timestamp: 37:58

• Verification frequency for housing applications

  • Summary: When looking at a house before construction, updated forms are always obtained to ensure continued eligibility under state and federal requirements.
  • Evidence: “So any time that we’re looking at a house at the application stage, before the construction stage, we’re always getting these updated forms to ensure that they are still eligible under state and federal requirements.”
  • Source timestamp: 38:19

• State prioritization criteria for housing applicants

  • Summary: The DCO mandates prioritizing very low income, elderly, or handicapped households, which must account for at least 51% of the points in the entire project area.
  • Evidence: “D. C. O. Goes on to state that the prioritization of housing applicants must be given to very low income, elderly or handicapped households, and then 51% of the points in the entire project area must be given to these two criteria.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:03

• HUD income limit reference

  • Summary: To determine if a person falls within low to moderate income status, one must consult the HUD income limits, which are updated annually and per county.
  • Evidence: “I didn’t have the income limits, but you can go to HUD. Anytime we’re looking at where a person falls and whether they’re low to moderate income, we go to the HUD income limits, which are updated annually and they’re updated.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:41

• Income verification process details

  • Summary: The process involves asking the homeowner for their IRS form and supplementary documentation like a Social Security benefit statement to verify against taxes.
  • Evidence: “So whenever a house is next in line, I essentially talk to the homeowner, I ask for their IRS form, I also ask for supplementary documentation such as their social security benefit statement, things like that to verify against their taxes and make sure that their income falls below those income thresholds.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:54

• Income percentage definitions

  • Summary: The 30%, 50%, and 80% figures represent percentages of the median household income for the county; anything under 80% is considered low, 50% moderately low, and 30% very low.
  • Evidence: “The 30%, 50% and 80% is a percentage of the median household income for the county. So anything under 80% is considered low, and then 50% very, you know, moderately low, and then 30% is very low.”
  • Source timestamp: 40:15

• HUD income limits for low to moderate income verification

  • Summary: Income verification uses HUD income limits updated annually and per county; thresholds are 30%, 50%, and 80% of the median household income, where under 80% is considered low.
  • Evidence: “Anytime we’re looking at where a person falls and whether they’re low to moderate income, we go to the HUD income limits, which are updated annually and they’re updated. Annually and they’re updated per county. So whenever a house is next in line, I essentially talk to the homeowner, I ask for their IRS form, I also ask for supplementary documentation such as their social security benefit statement, things like that to verify against their taxes and make sure that their income falls below those income thresholds. The 30%, 50% and 80% is a percentage of the median household income for the county. So anything under 80% is considered low, and then 50% very, you know, moderately low, and then 30% is very low.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:41

• Eligibility requirements for 1010 South Adams

  • Summary: Alderman Sellers asked if the 1010 South Adams met all required criteria.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sellers. So you’re saying that the 1010 South Adams did meet all the requirements to have done what they need be done? Correct.”
  • Source timestamp: 41:46

• Expertise on grant type

  • Summary: Ms. Walters stated she has seven years of DCO training and is knowledgeable about the resources available from the state’s DCEO members.
  • Attribution: Ms. Walters
  • Evidence: “To be Walters. Ms. Walters, do you consider yourself an expert on this type of grant? I’ve gone to seven years worth of DCO trainings. I can say I’m always surprised. Every single year things change, but I know exactly where all of the resources are. I’m talking with the state, not the state representatives, but you know members of DCEO on a daily basis and ask them many many questions anytime I’m stumped and they always assist in every way they can.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:20

• Homeowner insurance requirement after grant completion

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding a mandatory residency period after work is done; the response stated there is no rule per DCO and HUD, but homeowner insurance is recommended to prevent sales.
  • Evidence: “I have a question. Is there a rule that you have to stay in this renovated property for a certain length of time after the work is done? There is not a rule per DCO and HUD requirements. However, in order to be eligible for the Project, the idea behind having homeowner insurance. If we get wind that they’re going to sell, DCO recommends that you contact them to figure out a process. They do not like to see it. However, they cannot stop a homeowner from selling after the grant has completely commenced. But there’s no penalties. No.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:45

• Original application submission details and cutoff date

  • Summary: The speaker noted that the grant application reviewed was from 2021, referencing an original process where 68 surveys were done, and 60 were eligible.
  • Evidence: “Can you tell me when was the first application given and what was the cutoff date? Yeah, I’m not sure on that. So what we’re talking about here is when I looked at the grant application, it’s from 2021. And really, what they discuss in the narrative of the grant was written by the former director here. They talk about how they originally had 68 applications and 60 of those applications were eligible.”
  • Source timestamp: 44:26

• Log of considered applicants for Region 1 review

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed that a log was kept during the process when Region 1 reviewed the 60 applications to ensure transparency, and Joel provided this log.
  • Evidence: “So I know you were provided the log that Joel did for all 60 of these people and I talked with Joel today oh did you not send her the log an email on Friday they had the log there no the application did not submit eight because it states in AUDE. Originally when they state in the narrative, there were 68 and they were only submitting 60 and they attached all 60 of them in this grant application. So they state very clearly 68 surveys were done, 60 were eligible, and of those surveys, they called them income surveys, they said, okay, 60 people are being considered.”
  • Source timestamp: 46:49

• Survey numbers and eligibility for grant application

  • Summary: 68 surveys were done, 60 were eligible, and of those 60 people considered in the grant application.
  • Evidence: “So they state very clearly 68 surveys were done, 60 were eligible, and of those surveys, they called them income surveys, they said, okay, 60 people are being considered. That’s what they say in the grant application.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:27

• Review process for 60 applications

  • Summary: Region 1 was retained to review those 60 applications, and a detailed log was requested to ensure transparency regarding contact with all individuals.
  • Evidence: “I was called in when Region 1 was retained to review those 60 applications. And talking with them, I said part of your services, you’ll provide a detailed log so that everybody can, so that it’s transparent to know that everybody was contacted and given an opportunity to submit all required documentation.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:49

• Documentation of applicant follow-up

  • Summary: It is documented that some people hung up on the caller, but Region 1 ensured a process moving from 60 people in 2021 down to 30 who submitted all required documentation.
  • Evidence: “He said several people actually hung up on him, weren’t interested, but it’s all documented under the work that Region 1 did to ensure how we went from 60 people from 2021, then we went to 30 people that actually submitted all the required documentation, and then those 30 people were graded.”
  • Source timestamp: 48:09

• Documentation of qualified applicants

  • Summary: Out of the 61 (corrected from 60), only 30 provided everything needed.
  • Evidence: “So out of the 61, only 30 gave you everything you needed.”
  • Source timestamp: 48:33

• Communication log requirement for applicants

  • Summary: A communication log is kept to document all attempts to contact applicants (calling at least twice) and sending letters.
  • Evidence: “Through our log, through our communication log, through the communication log. That’s why we keep a communication log so that if somebody says, I didn’t receive it, well, we called you on this date, called you on this date, sent a letter to your address.”
  • Source timestamp: 49:55

• Availability of original 2021 surveys

  • Summary: The speaker stated they have no problem providing the original income surveys from 2021, redacted with necessary information.
  • Evidence: “I’ve no problem getting you these original, from 2021, these surveys, these income surveys. We can certainly provide those to you redacted with all the information that you would need.”
  • Source timestamp: 50:19

• Nature of preliminary income survey

  • Summary: The initial document is a simple one-page community development block grant income survey where applicants state their income range.
  • Evidence: “It’s just, you know, I guess the best way to look at these original 60 is it’s a simple one-page document where they’re told to state where their income falls between how much money they make and then that’s used in the application to move them on to the next step so this is more of a preliminary it’s called a community development block grant income survey.”
  • Source timestamp: 50:58

• Purpose of multiple income surveys for grants

  • Summary: The number of income surveys submitted with an application correlates to a higher score, which helps in securing the grant from the state.
  • Evidence: “As part, if I may, as part of the application, the income surveys are sent out to everyone within that project area. The more income surveys that you have to submit with your application, the higher you score.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:10

• Application requirements for moving forward

  • Summary: The initial survey only required self-certification of income; subsequent applications require submitting actual proof of income like tax returns or pay stubs.
  • Evidence: “It didn’t ask for any income information, it asked them to self-certify on that application. Once you’re awarded, you can then go back to those 60, you know, 60, 68 folks and they do another application and that’s when they’re submitting their income information and certifying their application and it’s moving the steps forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:35

• Comparison between first and second applications

  • Summary: The second application asks for prioritization bullet points and disabled age details, which helps R1 score each application individually beyond just income.
  • Evidence: “The second application asks for those prioritization bullet points, disabled age, things of that sort. So that would help R1 score each application individually versus just income.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:17

• Documentation used by the state for grant award

  • Summary: The documentation from 2021 was what the state reviewed to award $550,000.
  • Evidence: “but this documentation here from 2021, that’s what the state looked at to say, okay, we will give you $550,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:30

• Grant funding documentation review

  • Summary: The state looked at grant income surveys from 2021 to award $550,000.
  • Evidence: “this documentation here from 2021, that’s what the state looked at to say, okay, we will give you $550,000. So they looked at these grant income surveys as part of the grant application and said”
  • Source timestamp: 53:30

• Follow-up requirement for funds

  • Summary: The process requires following up with actual funds, which involved contacting 60 people to show proof of income like tax returns or pay stubs.
  • Evidence: “the other thing I want to say is that we have to follow up with the actual funds. Then they have to follow up. And that’s what Joel did was he contacted these 60 people and said, okay, now you have to show us proof of income. Show us your tax returns. Show us your pay stubs from, you know, your Social Security statements.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:56

• Request for original 60 applications

  • Summary: A request was made to see the original 60 applications.
  • Evidence: “I would like to see them. And I trust that we will be setting up a meeting, setting up a meeting so that we can go over the original 60 applications, which is what I have asked for from the beginning.”
  • Source timestamp: 55:12

• Discrepancy in applicant numbers

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding how the number of approved applicants went from 61 to 30.
  • Evidence: “I still don’t understand how we went from 61 approved applicants to 30.”
  • Source timestamp: 55:31

• Documentation of contact attempts for 60 people

  • Summary: A log exists detailing when and how the 60 people were contacted (e.g., date called, voicemail left, letter sent, door knocked).
  • Evidence: “there’s a log that the 30 all 60 people were contacted and we provided a know that there’s a log there’s an actual every property owner says on this date I called this person and left the voicemail on this date I call the person left the voicemail sent a letter on this date knocked on their door this date”
  • Source timestamp: 56:08

• Second application requirement for applicants

  • Summary: A past instance was cited where community members wanted to help with a second application that was required.
  • Evidence: “I remember when a second application had to be presented, and Third Ward Alderwoman, me Fifth Ward Alderwoman, and some of the community people wanted to and I were offered to help with this and was denied the opportunity to go door-to-door and give them this second application that we were being told they had to fill out.”
  • Source timestamp: 56:34

• Log of communications with 60 applicants

  • Summary: The work was done per the log if it documented communication with 60 applicants.
  • Evidence: “So if we take him for his professional word and he documented in a log that he did this, then I’m telling you the work was done per the log. Okay, I just I want to see the log. I want to see the list of the 61. I want to, I just want to see it.”
  • Source timestamp: 57:50

• Log email distribution

  • Summary: The log was emailed to Attorney Zito on Friday, as the speaker received a response on Thursday.
  • Evidence: “So the log was emailed to you on Friday because that’s what I got it on Thursday or there Miller. I got the response, you and I had a phone call, I had to look at the response from the state there and I was going to send you a summary as a part of that summary that I sent you on Friday there and it included the log of the MSA log of all the times they called people.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:13

• Grant application scope (68 vs 60)

  • Summary: The grant predecessors stated receiving 68 applications, but only asked for the 60 in the current request.
  • Evidence: “But included the log of the 68 or the 31? Let me just state really quickly, in this grant, my predecessors said they received 68, and essentially eight of them did not qualify of the 68. That’s their words, that’s their testimony in the grant application. So what they’re saying is, they received 68, eight of them came back, and they’re saying they made too much money. So they got an income survey, and the person said, I made $100,000. And then they said, well, that doesn’t count. So they submitted 60, but they’re stating they received 68. So the other eight, that’s not part of the grant application. I don’t have those eight, it’s not part of the grant. I’m not asking for the eight, I just ask for the 60.”

• CDBG grant process and target area definition

  • Summary: The CDBG grant process is done on infrastructure, defining a target area using initial applications (e.g., 68 applications defined the Adams corridor).
  • Evidence: “Yeah, so just a side note, we do the CDBG grant process as well, but we do it on infrastructure, not housing. The 68 applications that were done, just defined the target area of the grant. That’s all that did is said, we got 68 applications. That is said, we got 68 applications from this street to this street. Here’s our target area now that where the money can be spent. That’s tier one, right? So that’s the Adams corridor that was selected. That’s all that did.”
  • Source timestamp: 59:24

• Qualification process tiers

  • Summary: Tier two involves driving down to individual homes for qualification, which is separate from the initial 68 applications defining the target area.
  • Evidence: “The second tier is where you drive down into the homes to see who is truly qualified. The first survey is done on an honesty basis that you’re going to tell me that this is your real income and you sign that. Huffines when you go to the second tier, that’s not the case or people didn’t file correctly and they won’t produce the second piece of information which automatically excludes them.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:00

• Minimum income requirement for grant eligibility

  • Summary: For a quarter to qualify for community development block grants, at least 70% of houses must be low to moderate income.
  • Evidence: “every quarter that’s picked for community development block grants has to have, let’s say you have 100 houses, you got to have 70% of them low to moderate income or it doesn’t qualify, the money can’t be spent in that area.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:55

• Community Development Block Grant Qualification Criteria

  • Summary: A grant application must have 70% of its houses being low to moderate income or it does not qualify for the money.
  • Evidence: “So I just wanted to explain to that, the 68 applications, every quarter that’s picked for community development block grants has to have, let’s say you have 100 houses, you got to have 70% of them low to moderate income or it doesn’t qualify, the money can’t be spent in that area. That’s where the income requirements come from.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:55

• Grant Qualification Basis

  • Summary: The basis for qualification is related to the percentage of low to moderate income houses.
  • Evidence: “So if you had 100 houses, you gotta have 70% of them that would qualify for this money to be able to be used anywhere in there.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:25

• Grant Application Process Responsibility

  • Summary: A speaker stated they did not personally visit all 31 houses; the original grant application was done by a predecessor.
  • Evidence: “So Ms. Walters, did you go from neighborhood to neighborhood and look at all 31 of these houses, you personally? No, I did not. Who did? The original grant application was done by my predecessor.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:39

• Grant Consideration Factors

  • Summary: The condition of the house does not matter for this specific grant; only income is considered.
  • Evidence: “Do you understand that condition of house per the state of Illinois does not consider condition of house? So please, can we stop that misinformation? Does not matter to this grant. It’s income.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:02:29

• Point System Prioritization

  • Summary: The point system would have prioritized income, disability, and age.
  • Evidence: “The point system would have prioritized income, disability, and age.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:04

• Reason for Lower Scoring Projects Receiving Funds First

  • Summary: Lower scoring projects might receive funds first because they submitted all required paperwork early, even if a higher-scoring project was known to be funded.
  • Evidence: “Sometimes a person with a lower score submitted all their paperwork in first, so they went ahead and said, okay, well, we’ll process you, even though you had a lower point, we knew that might have been like the number one scoring point. Number one still gonna get theirs once they submit everything because we know that we have enough money for one through 10.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:04:24

• Post-Scoring Requirements for Construction Approval

  • Summary: After scoring, additional hoops must be jumped through, including environmental reviews and submitting more documentation.
  • Evidence: “I think what’re asking is that ultimately once we got the 30 scored and everyone had points, right, then there’s still additional hoops that have to be jumped through there as far as environmentals and this, and adding, you know, submitting additional documentation there.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:35

• Scope of Work Determination Process

  • Summary: An independent state inspector must go through the house before construction approval to determine the scope of work.
  • Evidence: “once you move forward in this process before they can go through and approve the construction an independent state inspector has to go through the house and determine the scope of work, which Ms. Walters is in charge of as part of her grant administration is going to these property owners and saying, okay, we need to schedule your inspection and then ultimately get your scope of work.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:04:52

• Self-Certification of Residency Duration

  • Summary: Applicants self-certify information on their application, such as years of residency.
  • Evidence: “On their application, they are self-certifying that the information is true. That’s what we have to go off of.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:05:53

• Grant Manager Confirmation of Process Adherence

  • Summary: The grant manager stated that the process was above board and done correctly.
  • Evidence: “our grant manager, who I spoke with, has said everything’s and the president and his board has been above board within the process, done correctly.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:06:16

• Purpose of Grant Funding (Blight Prevention)

  • Summary: The purpose of the grant is to aid in the prevention and elimination of slums and blight, which involves home conditions.
  • Evidence: “the purpose of this grant, yes moderate to low income is first, but aiding in the prevention and elimination of slums and blight that does have something to do with conditions of homes.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:24

• Impact of Funding on Blight Reduction

  • Summary: Funding a home without existing blight (e.g., installing a hot water heater) does nothing to reduce neighborhood blight.
  • Evidence: “And if we go in a home that has no blight and put in a hot water heater or a furnace or whatever, that does nothing to reduce the blight in that neighborhood”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:51

• Blight reduction and grant purpose

  • Summary: The speaker argued that improving individual homes does nothing to reduce neighborhood blight, which is the core purpose of the grant.
  • Evidence: “And if we go in a home that has no blight and put in a hot water heater or a furnace or whatever, that does nothing to reduce the blight in that neighborhood and I think that that is what all the person Stacy is getting at when she’s being told the condition of the home doesn’t matter. Yes, it does. That’s one of the purposes of this grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:51

• Grant requirements regarding home condition

  • Summary: The speaker emphasized that the condition of the house is relevant and cited written documentation stating this.
  • Evidence: “So if we go into people’s houses and do insight stuff first before these houses that are contributing a great amount of life to Adams corridor that defeats the purpose. And I believe that is the point that she’s trying to make when she’s being told that the conditions of the House doesn’t matter and please don’t add misinformation. It’s right there in writing that is part of this grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:09

• National objectives for CDBG housing rehabilitation

  • Summary: The speaker clarified that state programs must meet one of three national objectives, and the highlighted objective is what CDBG housing rehabilitation meets.
  • Evidence: “This slide is stating the three national objectives, but the Illinois, any state program must meet just one of these. And the one that’s highlighted is the one that CDBG housing rehabilitation is meeting by the administration of the grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:35

• Federal vs. State guidelines for grant administration

  • Summary: The speaker explained that federal money passes through to the state, and Illinois has chosen to administer funds based on low to moderate income (LMI) persons.
  • Evidence: “I do wanna add here too, this is national objective. And I and you did a really good job saying how this is what’s called a pass-through federal government money passes through to the state so What miss walters is saying and she could correct me if I’m wrong This is what the federal government says if you are going to administer this grant as a state You have to pick one you have to fall into one of these and our state Says we’re going to do low to moderate income persons Collins. The state of Illinois is saying that is how we are going to administer these funds.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:57

• State determination on grant focus

  • Summary: The speaker stated that the state determines the focus, noting that the slide shown pertains to federal guidelines while the state uses LMI.
  • Evidence: “So when I say it doesn’t matter, it’s because the state says we are involved in this factor. This is what the state’s saying. This slide is federal government. The state of Illinois Fowles under LMI, low to moderate income, not these other two.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:09:33

• State level objectives for grant administration

  • Summary: The speaker referenced a separate slide showing objectives from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.
  • Evidence: “And if you go to another slide, that’s actually state level. It states that here’s the objectives from the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity who administers this grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:09:57

• State discretion in selecting national objective

  • Summary: The speaker provided an example where Iowa used a different national objective for one of its programs.
  • Evidence: “If I may add to that, for example, if we go back a slide, the state of Iowa uses the second bullet as their national objective for one of their programs, which is treating slum and blight in the downtown. So the state gets to decide which objective they would like to base their program around, as long as it meets one of them.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:10:19

• City discretion regarding grant objectives

  • Summary: A participant questioned whether the city also has discretion over selecting the national objective.
  • Evidence: “I have a question then. So, but we as a city have that discretion as well, correct?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:10:41

• Goal of blight reduction vs. low income assistance

  • Summary: A participant stated it would benefit the city to meet both low-income criteria and blight reduction goals.
  • Evidence: “And it would it would benefit us more so to hit two birds with that one stone where we meet low income and reduction of blithe versus just helping people with low income who really their home is not a blithe like they don’t need any outside work but that’s what we’re trying to do. That’s our goal.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:10:48

• Goal for grant administration area improvement

  • Summary: A participant expressed the desire for the grant goal to be improving an entranceway into the city.
  • Evidence: “I would hope that’s our goal in administration of this grant is to help reduce and help that area that we just had a whole new street put in which is an entranceway into the city and making that look better.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:10:48

• Scope of work determination for house repairs

  • Summary: The speaker clarified that any work done on houses must be determined by an independent state inspector.
  • Evidence: “Any work done on these houses is an independent state inspector who determines the scope of work. So when we’re talking about it should have the front look like this, it should have a new water heater, the state inspector determines that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:11:39

• Requirement for approved repairs

  • Summary: The speaker stated that if the scope of work is not determined by a state inspector, the work will not be approved.
  • Evidence: “And if the state inspector creates the scope of work, if it’s not done by a state inspector, the work isn’t approved, just it isn’t, it won’t happen.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:07

• State guidance on scoring applicants

  • Summary: The speaker relayed that repeated communication from the state advised focusing on the applicant’s need rather than the home’s condition when scoring.
  • Evidence: “And the state of Illinois that I’ve spoken with repeatedly and when we talked about the scoring with Region 1, we had several meetings. They said, you have to focus on the need of the applicant and not the condition of the home.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:32

• Prioritization of repairs

  • Summary: The speaker listed that repairs are prioritized by code violations, lead remediation, or public health hazards, as well as energy efficiency and accessibility.
  • Evidence: “And if I may add, the repairs are prioritized by code violations, lead remediation, or other public health hazards within or outside the home, as well as energy efficiency and accessibility. Prioritized, not required.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:13:11

• Council’s role vs. day-to-day administration

  • Summary: The speaker advised that the council’s responsibility is to approve or deny items presented, rather than overseeing every detail of daily operations.
  • Evidence: “So the council is responsible to approve or not approve when something comes before you. Your responsibility is when Wayne comes to you and says, I want to apply for this CBD grant, you can say no, you don’t like the grant, you don’t like the guidelines.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:13:44

• Committee role and administrative oversight

  • Summary: The body must remember it is the legislative body and not the day-to-day operational body; trust in professional staff or fire them.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “You have to remember, you are the legislative body. You are not the day-to-day body. So you either trust those that are put into these professional spots or you don’t. If they’re not doing their job, then we should fire them. But obviously they’re doing their job.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:36

• Information withholding on grant applications

  • Summary: Information has been withheld purposely regarding the application process.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “When this was brought to us, and I’m learning, because it should have came with pictures and it didn’t. Information has been withheld purposely.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:15:10

• Constituent representation on misleading information

  • Summary: The speaker stated they will inform constituents if they feel misled by votes cast without correct information.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “I am here on behalf of the people, and I will inform my constituents in every way possible where we have been misled on something but took a vote yeah you told me the other week you voted for this and I did but not having correct information in front of me we get what you all want us to have and that don’t Don’t always totally involve the truth.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:15:53

• Address discrepancy for property at 1010/1012 South Adams

  • Summary: Question raised regarding the change in address from 1012 to 1010 for a specific house.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “And the little house that we’re calling 1010, once upon a time was 1012. And the little house in the back of the. And a little house in the back of the big house, if you would, was 1010. But now you can clearly see that the big house is no longer 1012, but it resides as 1010. Why switch the addresses”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:33

• Incomplete application acceptance by city

  • Summary: Question raised about why the city accepted an incomplete housing rehabilitation application.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “The corresponding document, the application, has the City of Freeport seal on it. It shows that the applicant application was incomplete. Why did the city accept an incomplete application who authorize this uncompleted application.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:20:39

• Equity assessment for property repairs

  • Summary: Question asked if anyone from the city bothered to ask about any equity in the house that could be used for repairs, given the existing debt was left blank.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “And John. Did anyone from the city bother to ask if there was any equity in the house that could be used for any repairs?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:22:14

• Income reporting discrepancy on application

  • Summary: The application asks for rental income based on 2021 tax returns, but applicants and spouse occupants are listed as owning six rental properties and the speaker is hard-pressed that they receive zero income from them.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “Both the applicants and spouse occupants are listed as rental properties. This application owns six, this applicant owns six rental properties and I am hard pressed and others who believe they receive zero income for any of them.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:22:56

• Approval despite missing signatures on application

  • Summary: Question raised how an approval for $48,000 was granted when the applicants failed to date or sign the final verification page of the application.
  • Attribution: Kirk
  • Evidence: “As you can see, the applicants who did not date nor sign this document were still approved. How? $48,000. Brand new hot water heater, brand new furnace, Brand new central air unit, wrapped windows, and it goes on and on and on, deck fixed. This final page, how? How do you approve? How do you say someone qualifies and approves them for $48,000 when they didn’t even sign or complete the application?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:23:46

• Confirmation of signed application copy

  • Summary: A copy of the signed application was found and emailed to Attorney Zito.
  • Attribution: Attorney Zito
  • Evidence: “Wayne did also was able to find a copy of the signed application so I did email that to you so that you have that or that application was signed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:27:39

• Integrity of applicants and approvers regarding funds

  • Summary: The speaker emphasized that the funds speak about the integrity of the applicants but even louder about the integrity of those who approve them.
  • Evidence: “With these funds speak volume about the integrity of the applicants, but even louder about the integrity of the ones who approve them. Thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:26:42

• Discrepancy in original applicant copies provided

  • Summary: The speaker stated that when asked for 68 original applicants on November 26th, only 31 were received, and the application handed over was not signed.
  • Evidence: “Attorney Zito, Director Duckman, I came in here November 26. And I asked for a copy of the 68 original applicants. What I get was the 31, not the 68. I know what I asked for because I knew what I was looking for.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:27:47

• State requirement for income verification vs. asset documentation

  • Summary: The speaker clarified that the state of Illinois requires income verification and does not require assets, stating this is misinformation.
  • Evidence: “And i also want to reiterate that assets are different than income. Very Simple Economics 101, Accounting 101. And the state of Illinois requires income verification. I’ve asked the state of Illinois, they said, we do not consider assets.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:29:17

• IRS tax return documentation for landlords

  • Summary: The speaker explained that if a landlord documents on a 1040, there is a separate form for each piece of property and all income must be listed; the asset of the building itself is irrelevant.
  • Evidence: “If I was a landlord and I documented on a 1040, there’s a separate form for each piece of property, you have to document everything that’s in your portfolio is listed as income plus and minus on a form on your 1040. So it was reported if there was any income that was part of their income, the asset of the building itself is irrelevant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:30:27

• Community Messaging Guidelines for City Social Media Sites

  • Summary: City social media sites will not share community messages that include political, public issue, or prohibited product information.
  • Evidence: “City social media sites will not share community messages that include political, public issue, or prohibited product information. And there’s much more, but I believe that is the gist.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:35:00

• Investigation into political fraudulent financial forensic audit

  • Summary: Discussion regarding suspending the investigation into the political fraudulent financial forensic audit until the next meeting.
  • Evidence: “Potential. Audemar Monroe and Sanders? Do to the resource and the information that is not going to be presented today, Alderman Monroe and myself, we had not been able to collaborate to determine what it is the presentation will present today. And what I’d like to do is suspend this and carry it over to the next meeting and hopefully Do we have all of the contents of everything that we need to bring forward to the next meeting so we want to suspend that for now.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:37

• Flexibility of block grant funding use

  • Summary: A council member stated that as a home rule city, the community can decide project priorities for blighted or unsanitary homes using the grant flexibility.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Simmons, you are absolutely 100% correct. As long as we meet the state requirement, and it is a requirement as I stated, that the applicants have to be low income, but you can add as a community, this grant gives you the flexibility for you to set the priorities of what the greatest We are not going to meet challenges by going in with perfectly good homes and buying them new air conditioners, especially a landlord. This is absolutely absurd and not with the grant intended. So you were right, and this needs to be changed. We are a home rule city, I think, I don’t know if we dropped that, but as long as we meet the state requirement, you as a city, you can decide that the project area will address blighted homes in that area, and you can also decide that it will be safe and unsanitary conditions. You can even decide that you do not want them to fix air conditioners. You can decide this, that this grant gives you the flexibility for communities to decide their own needs. That’s all I have to say.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:46:27

• Stipulation on property use for future development

  • Summary: A request was made to stipulate that any future property brought before the council must either be sold or lived in, rather than rented out.
  • Evidence: “First question that comes to mind is, can we as a community, when that comes forward next week or whenever that’s gonna come back, can we put a stipulation in there that says, it can’t be rented out, it has to be sold or lived in?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:49:44

• Use of grant money for community improvement

  • Summary: Discussion regarding how the council should use available grant money received by Freeport to better the whole community.
  • Evidence: “You know, those are the things that we need to look at when council, when city staff brings this stuff to council to look at that stuff, read the stuff, discuss it, and figure out How do we use all these tools, all this grant money that Freeport’s been getting to better the whole community as a whole?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:49:57

Public Comment

• Grant money for 1010 South Adams and landlord registry status

  • Summary: Joshua Atkinson raised concerns regarding the grant money for 1010 South Adams, specifically questioning if the property owners were registered as landlords.
  • Evidence: “My name is Joshua Atkinson. I just keep this brief here. I wanted to talk about item number eight, the the grant money going to 1010 South Adams. I’ve been talking to a number of people over the past Huffines. And it seems like that the property owners on this one, they own total of eight properties in Freeport, some are houses, some are vacant lots, but they also listed on their application that they were landlords. So then the question got raised of whether or not they were part of the landlord registry. That’s been taking up a lot of conversation over the past couple weeks here, and it has been said that they are not registered.”
  • Source timestamp: 04:22

• Level playing field for local contractors

  • Summary: A request was made to ensure other contractors within the City of Freeport have an opportunity to bid on or apply for venture programs like this one, and to understand how the administration process works.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “I just wanted to see if there was a level playing field here where other contractors here in the City of Freeport can have the opportunity to bid on or to sign up or apply for these types of venture programs. And I, and I just wanted to see how we are administrating the whole thing, you know, with everyone. That’s all I’m asking.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:35

• Block grant status inquiry

  • Summary: A resident inquired about the status of a block grant, mentioning previous applications and inspections.
  • Evidence: “Hello. I just want to make comments about this block grant. Please, your name? Oh, I’m sorry. I am Lucinda, Cindy, however you want to see me, but okay, just regarding the block grant that has been discussed the last couple of months or so. I applied for this grant, I can remember this grant probably started back in 2019 per se. I remember doing an inspection on my home with Ben, then with Amy Bacto, that’s no longer Miller. And then in probably 2021, I probably did an application again with Lorena. And so from time to time, I would ask Lorena about this, you know, the status of the block grant and all of that. So she would say, you know, the state is this and the state is that, it takes long. And I understand that. And when this grant came out, I remember getting the letter. So it was probably one of the first ones that applied for this grant.”

• Home repair needs vs. income-based criteria

  • Summary: A resident stated a need for a $20,000 roof but questioned if city funding based solely on income was sufficient.
  • Evidence: “And so in regards to this 1010 South Adams, of all of these things that they have agreed to putting in furnace what have you. So when Ben came to my house, it was things that needed to be done and it’s still things that need to be done. Okay. I’ve been in my home almost 17 years and well, has been 17 years and I’ve worked for for this city will be 24 years come February. And I’m not, like Autumn and Stacy said, you’re gonna do what you wanna do. But as far as it’s being just based on income, I don’t think that’s legit, but it is what it is. And so I do need a $20,000 roof on my house, but the city does not pay me enough to provide that. So that’s all I have to say, thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:45:31

• Lesson learned regarding grant usage and planning

  • Summary: A speaker advised taking lessons from past council decisions regarding a $550,000 opportunity that was not fully utilized for community benefit.
  • Evidence: “Good evening again, Josh Atkinson. I just want to say that I think we need to step back and take a lesson from this. I honestly don’t think anybody was doing anything wrong necessarily. Mistakes may have happened, but at the end of the day, it’s the council that makes that made that mistake. We didn’t set forth those parameters when it came to council however long ago, back in 2019, 2018, 2019. These conversations should have happened then. We have the opportunity to get $550,000. How do we use this to better our community? That conversation didn’t happen. So the surveys went out. We got $550,000. And then Director and Mr. Duckman had to figure out how to use it and with all faith, I believe he did the right thing and tried to figure out how to use it and they put forth. Now we’re seeing that, oh man, we wish we should have done this. We wish we would have done this and we failed. We failed. You know, we need to take that lesson moving forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:48:09

• Stipulation request for grant-funded property use

  • Summary: A speaker requested consideration of a stipulation preventing properties purchased with grant money from being rented out, requiring sale or occupancy.
  • Evidence: “There was the gentleman Joel presented, you know, the first thing that came, the only thing I saw about that great program, the land planning is there was one slide that that it said that it could be a rental property. You know, one was bought for $15,000. You know, one was bought for $15,000 and turned around and it was renting out for $875. First question that comes to mind is, can we as a community, when that comes forward next week or whenever that’s gonna come back, can we put a stipulation in there that says, it can’t be rented out, it has to be sold or lived in? You know, those are the things that we need to look at when council, when city staff brings this stuff to council to look at that stuff, read the stuff, discuss it, and figure out How do we use all these tools, all this grant money that Freeport’s been getting to better the whole community as a whole? All right. Thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:49:37

Follow-ups

• Follow-up required with actual funds
  • Summary: The group must follow up with the actual funds; Joel contacted the 60 people requiring proof of income such as tax returns or pay stubs.
  • Evidence: “And that’s what Joel did was he contacted these 60 people and said, okay, now you have to show us proof of income. Show us your tax returns. Show us your pay stubs from, you know, your Social Security statements.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:56

Attendance

• Roll Call Attendance
  • Summary: Klemm and Simmons were present; Monroe was absent.
  • Evidence: “Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Monroe is absent. Simmons? Here. Parker? Here. Stacy? Here. Shadle? Here. Sanders? Here.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:04