Meeting Events

Meeting: _hcy3qlhmyq.city_council_meeting_cow_1-13-25

Meeting date: 2025-01-13

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

• Approval of minutes from Committee of a Whole meeting held on December 9th, 2024 — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve minutes from the Committee of a Whole meeting held on December 9th, 2024.
  • Evidence: “At this time, can I have a motion to approve the So moved. Second.”
  • Evidence: “All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.”
  • Evidence: “So move. Second.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03

• Recommendation to move forward with proposed ordinance changes — Passed

  • Summary: A motion was made to recommend moving forward with the discussed changes.
  • Evidence: “Do we need a recommendation to move that forward? I’ll make a recommendation to move it forward to the next meeting.”
  • Evidence: “It was first by Klemm and then second by Parker. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion passed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:21:52

• Move to first reading on Solution R-2025-01

  • Summary: Motion to move discussion regarding Solution R-2025-01, approving memorandum of agreement between the city and the American Federation and state.
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion on the motion? Make a motion to move it to next council meeting.”
  • Evidence: “Second. Okay, it’s been moved and seconded by Klemm and Shadle.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:39:41

• Move to first reading on Solution R-2025-01 — Passed

  • Summary: The motion passed.
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:39:47

• Move to move for first reading of motion regarding R-2025-4 — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made by Klemm and seconded by Shadle.
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to move this for first reading? So moved. Second. Okay, it was first by Klemm and second by Shadle.”
  • Evidence: “All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:51:11

• Move to move MOU with FOP to first reading — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made regarding the MOU with the FOP.
  • Evidence: “If not, do we have a motion to move this to the first reading? Motion passed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:54:22

• Discussion of electric bill provider fees

  • Summary: Motion made to discuss the electric bill provider, kilowatt hours, distribute fees, and process for residents to switch providers.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “I will take a motion to discuss it at the next meeting. Do I get a second? … Number 16, discussion regarding electric bill provider of kilowatt hours, distribute fees and process for residents to switch to a different provider.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:07:05

• Discussion of ordinance amending chapter 220

  • Summary: Motion made to discuss the ordinance amending chapter 220, council section 220.10, rule of council presentation by Alderman Stacey and Monroe.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “I will take a motion to discuss it at the next meeting. Do I get a second? … Ordinance 15, oh, sorry, okay. Discussion regarding ordinance amending chapter 220, council section 220.10, rule of council presentation by Alderman Stacey and Monroe.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:07:46

• Moving agenda item to later date

  • Summary: Vote on moving the item off the current night’s agenda.
  • Evidence: “Is there a second? Second. It’s been moved and second to have this taken off the agenda for tonight all in favor all right it was Sanders and all in favor all opposed okay”
  • Source timestamp: 03:27:43

• Adjournment of council meeting — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to adjourn.
  • Evidence: “If there’s no more, can I have a motion to adjourn?”
  • Evidence: “It has been moved and second. All in favor? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:40:38

Procedural Actions

• Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

  • Summary: The meeting began with an invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Sellers.
  • Attribution: Evelyn
  • Evidence: “Good evening. Evelyn, could you please give the invocation? Heads. Father God, we thank you for being who you are in all areas of our government. Thank you for leading and guiding this city council meeting tonight. Father, please lead and guide every council member in all the discussions that are discussed tonight. Let there be no division between any council member. Psalm 3312 says, blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. We thank you for the city of Freeport and for the leaders you have put Mayer, Miller, Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Absent, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers. Here. And Alderperson Simmons, are you present? If you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 00:07

• Passing of meeting proceedings

  • Summary: The chair recognized that the floor was open for business after the invocation and pledge.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sellers, the meeting is yours. Thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03

• Bringing the meeting to order

  • Summary: The chair directed that the meeting needed to be brought to order.
  • Evidence: “We have to bring the meeting to order. Okay.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:16:53

• Motion to move item to next meeting

  • Summary: A motion was made regarding moving an item.
  • Evidence: “Oh, oh. We can move it to the.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15:36

• Moving agenda item to later date

  • Summary: A motion was made to move an item off the current night’s agenda.
  • Evidence: “Can I make a motion that we move this to a later date and take it off? I’ll take it. I’ll make a motion since in essence of time to take this offer tonight.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:27:43

• Adjournment confirmation

  • Summary: The meeting was adjourned after a vote.
  • Evidence: “Okay. Three hours. Moved and adjourned.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:40:44

Ordinances and Resolutions

• Ordinance amending chapter 608 and 806 of the liquor code

  • Summary: The presentation covered modifications to keep the liquor ordinance up to date.
  • Evidence: “At this time we’re going to go to question number nine. Discussion regarding ordinance amending chapter 608 and 806 of the liquor code.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:16:53

• Definition of dangerous and unsafe building (Chapter 1456)

  • Summary: A dwelling violating provisions of the chapter, or any structure dangerous to public health due to construction condition.
  • Evidence: “as used in this chapter, dangerous and unsafe building means any dwelling which violates any provisions of this chapter and Shale included, but it’s not limited to any building or structure, whether a dwelling or otherwise, which a, is dangerous to the public health because of its construction condition, which may cause or aid in the spread of disease or cause injury to the health of the occupants of it or of its neighboring structures.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:12:27

Financial and Contract Events

• Total lien amount filed on September 6th, 2024
  • Summary: A lien was filed encompassing due process and judgments totaling $14,451.
  • Evidence: “This lien was filed on September 6th of 2024. It encompasses all of the due process and all of the judgments granted by our hearing officer to the tune of $14,451.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:14:47

Projects

• New Manufacturer Attraction
  • Summary: A new manufacturer was attracted to Freeport to fill an existing space and co-locate with a current manufacturer, which is still under development.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “We attracted a new manufacturer to Freeport to fill an existing space and co-locate with a current manufacturer. This is still under development and in the works.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:50

Presentations and Reports

• Flock License Plate Reader and Video System Presentation

  • Summary: Chief Shenberger introduced the discussion regarding the possible implementation of a Flock License Plate Reader, LPR, and Video System.
  • Evidence: “At this time, we’ll move to discussion seven, discussing regarding possible implementation of a Flock License Plate Reader, LPR, and Video System, presentation by Chief Shenberger.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:06

• Flock Technology Capabilities Overview

  • Summary: Chief Shenberger detailed how the Freeport Police Department uses Vigilant (Motorola) LPR cameras and gunshot detection sensors for investigations.
  • Evidence: “So the Freeport Police Department has utilized Vigilant, which is Motorola, LPR cameras at various locations in the city, and sound thinking gunshot detection sensors. The use of LPR cameras and sound thinking have significantly helped the PD staff with with Shots Fired Investigations.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:27

• Flock Technology Capabilities Overview

  • Summary: Chief Shenberger explained that FLOC offers a three-pronged approach using LPR cameras, live video cameras, and gunshot detection.
  • Evidence: “FLOC offers a three-pronged approach, LPR cameras, live video cameras, and gunshot detection.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:10

• Flock Technology Capabilities Overview

  • Summary: Chief Shenberger noted that the city is currently under contract with SoundThinking and Vigilant until 2027.
  • Evidence: “The city of Freeport is currently under contract with SoundThinking and Vigilant until 2027.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:10

• Flock Technology Capabilities Overview

  • Summary: Chief Shenberger stated that FLOC can offer more alternatives than current systems, which could be explored using future grant funding or reallocated funds.
  • Evidence: “Staff is looking for other alternatives to improve public safety Fields at FLOC can offer more alternatives under one user-friendly program. So there is no funding at this time or any costs. This is just something we’re looking to explore and looking into possibility of maybe being some grant funding out there or in the future of reallocating funds that’s used towards sound thinking and vigilant after the expiration of the contracts.”
  • Source timestamp: 10:23

• Flock Company Overview by Blaine Thomas

  • Summary: Blaine Thomas, a representative from FLOC, explained that Flock is a public safety technology company providing hardware sensors (live video, LPR cameras, gunshot detection, etc.) which feed into a data platform for objective decision-making.
  • Evidence: “To give you all some context, Flock is a public safety technology company. We have a host of hardware sensors, whether that be live video, LPR cameras, gunshot detection, drones, mobile security trailers, a number of different technology assets. We then take all of that data and put it into a public safety platform that allows the police and the police department to make objective, data-driven decisions.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:16

• Flock Company Scale

  • Summary: Blaine Thomas reported that FLOC works with approximately 1,500 law enforcement agencies in cities across the United States and has about 90,000 license plate reading cameras throughout the country.
  • Evidence: “To give you a little bit of an idea of the scale of our company, we work with approximately 1,500 law enforcement agencies in cities across the United States. Have right at about 90,000 license plate reading cameras throughout the country.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:50

• Flock Technology Approach

  • Summary: Blaine Thomas detailed that FLOC’s technology captures data through a three-pronged approach: LPR, gunshot detection, and live video.
  • Evidence: “To kind of go over this one more time, So at the top you’ll see a number of different technologies. What you see from left to right is LPR, gunshot detection, and live video. We also have a few other products, but those are the primary ones that I’ll speak to this evening. We have a three-pronged approach when it comes to the data that our technology captures.”
  • Source timestamp: 16:13

• FLOC Technology Overview for Public Safety

  • Summary: The presentation covered FLOC’s technology approach using LPR, gunshot detection, and live video to multiply police force impact while safeguarding public data.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “We at FLOC, we understand that public safety is a dynamic, creates dynamic challenges and and it’s also a resource constraint business, whether that be manpower or financial resources. We use our technology to try to multiply the impact that a police force and a city can ultimately have while still providing safeguards to ensure that the public’s data is, that the city is a good steward of public data.”
  • Source timestamp: 15:40

• FLOC Data Processing Approach

  • Summary: The technology uses a three-pronged approach: detect, decode, and deliver data. The decoding layer utilizes AIML models over captured technologies like LPR images or live video streams.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “We have a three-pronged approach when it comes to the data that our technology captures. We detect the data, and then we decode it, and then we deliver it. In that decoding layer, we take AIML models and put it over the different technologies that we have, whether that be over the image that a license plate reader captures or a video stream that a live video camera will pick up.”
  • Source timestamp: 16:30

• LPR Camera Functionality and Benefits

  • Summary: FLOC’s LPR cameras connect to a nationwide network, allowing alerts for vehicles associated with felony warrants from out-of-area cities. They also allow police to review historical data.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “What makes our LPR cameras a little bit different is that they are plugged into the nationwide network of flat cameras. What that means is that if say a vehicle that is associated with a felony warrant out of Chicago, Bloomington, insert whatever city, you will if one of those passes a camera in your in your city you’ll get the police department will get alerted to that the idea of that is being able to to prevent crime to to go and to go and investigate you know certain maybe vehicles before before a crime is is committed also the police department has the ability to go back and look at historical data so if an incident happens in a given part of the city. The police department can go back and see what vehicles are in the city during that time.”
  • Source timestamp: 17:15

• Live Video Camera Capabilities

  • Summary: FLOC’s live video cameras can detect people and vehicles, and they also have features like pupil detection.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “What makes our live video cameras a little bit different is that they have the ability to detect people and vehicles. So while it’s not a LPR camera, it can still record characteristics of vehicles that pass it, as well as have features like pupil detection.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:24

• Gunshot Detection Accuracy

  • Summary: The gunshot detection system is stated to be 90% accurate within a 90-foot radius.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “the first one would be 90% accurate to within 90 feet. Gunshot detection is really only as good as it is accurate.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:55

• Public Transparency Portal

  • Summary: A transparency portal is available to show if the city has an LPR policy, how it is used, and which agencies have access to the data.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “There also is a transparency portal, which we provide if the city would like that. This is a public website that anybody in the community or really the country can have access to. What this will do is it will show if the city has an LPR policy, it will show that, as well as how the LPR is used, any agencies in the area that might have access to that data, this will all be public.”
  • Source timestamp: 21:31

• Integrated System Impact Example

  • Summary: Combining LPR, live video, and gunshot detection provides a profound impact; for example, an LPR alert can prompt officers to check nearby live video cameras for situational awareness en route.
  • Evidence: “So if we get a hit on a LPR camera, and you have live video cameras in town as well, you can say, if you get an alert on a LPR, you can then go into the live video cameras around there, and officers can be getting situational awareness to what is going on while they are in route, as opposed to just maybe getting a call for service and showing up to that call. Hall without a lot of context.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:18

• Technology upgrade potential for city cameras

  • Summary: The speaker noted that while existing technology is present, this represents a chance to upgrade and locate cameras in more beneficial spots, assisting manpower.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “Alderman Klemm. Chief Shenberger, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. We have some of this existing technology now, but this is a chance to upgrade it, move it around and locate it in more spots that may be more beneficial. But I appreciate the fact that you’re proactive in taking a look at the different things that we can do. Needless to say, manpower is one thing that’s increasing, but anything that we can do to Help with Assist Man Power is really a great thing for the city. Thanks for bringing it forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:14

• Flock Network Benefits and Scope

  • Summary: The value of joining the Flock network is access to cameras in surrounding cities, allowing alerts for vehicles associated with violent crime even if they leave the city limits. It also allows tracking a suspect vehicle across multiple agencies’ shared feeds.
  • Evidence: “the one of flocks biggest value adds to a community is the broader network of flock I briefly touched on it earlier but when when you join the flock network you not only have access to the cameras that are in your city but also and also the surrounding cities, really the state and beyond. So that means that if a vehicle that was associated with a violent crime in Rockford, Illinois, if they entered into the city, your police department would be alerted to that immediately.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:41

• Greta Freeper Partnership quarterly presentation

  • Summary: Andrea Schwartz Winters presented highlights of the partnership’s work in the fourth quarter, outlining key focused areas including business retention and expansion, visitor attraction, and advocacy and policy.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “Good evening and Happy New Year. Tonight’s presentation we will recover the highlights of our work in the fourth quarter. This information is outlined in more detail in the fourth quarter report that you received in your packets. As As in previous presentations, we’re outlining this in order of our strategic plan key focused areas, which just to remind you all, our business retention and expansion, which involves our workforce development efforts, new business development and attraction.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:31

• Energy Sector Development Opportunity

  • Summary: An existing ag manufacturer publicly announced a partnership to revolutionize ethanol production by capturing and converting CO2, utilizing enterprise zone benefits.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “An existing ag manufacturer publicly announced last quarter that they have established a partnership to revolutionize ethanol production by capturing and converting CO2. Now, this is not my area of expertise by any means, but I think if you see anything in conversations around what’s happening in the energy sector and alternative energy, I think that this is key and this company is on the forefront.”
  • Source timestamp: 41:35

• Visitor Center Sale and Future Use

  • Summary: The former visitor center building was sold, closing on December 31st, and is scheduled to open as a new business later this spring.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “The former visitor center building was sold, closed on December 31st, and will open as a new business later this spring.”
  • Source timestamp: 43:13

• Business Retention and Expansion Activities

  • Summary: Key activities included 18 business retention visits last quarter, connecting businesses to the Illinois Workshare Program, working with 11 entrepreneurs (majority women or minorities), and connecting multiple Stephenson County businesses with an international business forum hosted by Representative Cabello.
  • Evidence: “key activities were 18 business retention visits were conducted last quarter. We connected businesses with the Illinois Workshare Program, which is an alternative to layoffs… We worked with 11 entrepreneurs and assisted them in their business development process, the majority of which were women or minorities. We connected to Stephenson County businesses, we connected multiple Stephenson County businesses with an international business forum that was hosted by Representative Cabello.”
  • Source timestamp: 44:56

• Workforce Development Efforts

  • Summary: Efforts focused on building the local workforce pipeline through coordination of three events: manufacturing day, a career and job fair co-hosted by Highland Community College and Freeport High School, and the Ag Expo.
  • Evidence: “The highlights of our workforce development effort was really around building our local workforce pipeline. We had the honor of working with our educational partners as well as our business community and really trying to bridge that gap in the fourth quarter by playing a key role in these and I have been working on these three events here. Working to coordinate, schedule, promote, help organize manufacturing day, the career and job fair, which was co-hosted by Highland Community College and Freeport High School, and the Ag Expo.”
  • Source timestamp: 45:50

• Yield Program Funding Expansion

  • Summary: Efforts led to a connection between the yield program and goodwill industries, resulting in funding that expanded the yield program training to include education on alternative energy sector and basic electrical construction.
  • Evidence: “Additionally, last quarter we reported that our efforts led to a connection between the yield program and goodwill industries. We’re happy to say that that effort is paying off. This connection led to funding which has expanded the yield program training to include education on alternative energy sector and basic electrical construction.”
  • Source timestamp: 46:58

• Business Attraction Leads Received

  • Summary: In the last quarter, 14 leads were received for business attraction and development: eight from Intersect Illinois (statewide) and six from local businesses or government agencies.
  • Evidence: “Next, in business attraction and development, in the last quarter we received 14 leads. Eight of those originated from a statewide business attraction organization, Intersect Illinois. […] Additionally, there were six leads that originated from local businesses and or government agencies.”
  • Source timestamp: 47:26

• Marketing Region Efforts

  • Summary: A first-time 12-month printed calendar was created using advertising dollars to help residents understand area events, with 800 calendars already distributed. The ‘Shop Local for the Holidays’ campaign highlighted small businesses and reported over 70 percent citing increased pedestrian traffic and sales.
  • Evidence: “We printed, it was a first time project, a 12 month calendar because we continue to try to find new ways to help people understand what’s going on in this area… Shop Local for the Holidays was the campaign started in mid-November, highlighting opportunities and different small businesses. […] A great portion of them, over 70 percent, cited increased in pedestrian traffic and increased sales compared to the local businesses.”
  • Source timestamp: 49:44

• Visitor Attraction Meeting

  • Summary: The annual tourism partner meeting was held on November 14th at Lena Brewing Company for discussing 2025 plans, and grant opportunities were sent out to parties needing attraction funding.
  • Evidence: “As a free s’mores bar for residents. Visitor Attraction, we hosted our annual tourism partner meeting on November 14th at Lena Brewing Company. This is our opportunity to talk to the executive directors of different nonprofits who own attractions or hotels, a lot of other agencies here in town about what went well in 2024, what we’re planning on for 2025, and how we can be involved and also hear their feedback on other ways that we can help their attraction or organization. […] so we continue to send multiple grant opportunities for attraction funding to those parties who can apply.”
  • Source timestamp: 50:47

• 2024/2025 Planning and Funding Opportunities

  • Summary: The speaker outlined opportunities for nonprofits regarding 2024 successes, 2025 plans, involvement, and funding issues, mentioning the Choose Your Adventure campaign’s success and high engagement metrics from Russell City Brew Fest.
  • Attribution: Simmons
  • Evidence: “This is our opportunity to talk to the executive directors of different nonprofits who own attractions or hotels, a lot of other agencies here in town about what went well in 2024, what we’re planning on for 2025, and how we can be involved and also hear their feedback on other ways that we can help their attraction or organization. A lot of them have some issues with funding or increasing programming, so we continue to send multiple grant opportunities for attraction funding to those parties who can apply. The Choose Your Adventure campaign wrapped up in October with engagement that is greater than tourism industry average. And so on. So why I recognize that is when you see the ads pop up, whether you’re on social media or whether you’re on Google, the amount of times that somebody will click on that ad is considered engagement and the industry average for local tourism entities, we actually scored almost double what that industry average is. So that’s a pretty good indicator that we’ve been using. Russell City Brew Fest, which was held September 28th. That is our, one of our largest tourism events where we are really looking to attract people from outside of this area. This year was no different, more than 50% of our attendees because all of our tickets are purchased online. We can tell by zip code that they are all 50% or more were coming from 30 miles away.”

• Membership Status and Retention

  • Summary: Membership was steady in the fourth quarter, hovering around 400 members with an addition of 10 members, maintaining a high retention rate.
  • Evidence: “Good evening. So, membership was pretty steady in the fourth quarter. As you can see, we are still hovering around 400 members. We added 10 members over that course of time, and we continue to retain our members at a very high rate, which we’re proud of and hope to continue to do.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:30

• Fourth Quarter Report availability

  • Summary: The presenter stated that the full fourth quarter report is available, with highlights presented tonight.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “No, I think in the agenda was linked to this report that’s here. This is our full fourth quarter report and we just extrapolated or took out highlights of what’s in here and presented it to you tonight. So more detail is in here and I would be happy or any member of staff would be happy to sit down and we can answer any questions you have at a later time.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:42

• Greater Freeport Partnership website for public information

  • Summary: The presenter directed the public to the greaterfreeport.com website for viewing the full report and reaching out with specific questions.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “And that is why everything that I’ve mentioned tonight as well as a link to this report is on our website at greaterfreeport. Com. Great. People are welcome to view that and reach out to us if they have specific questions.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:43

• Illinois Office of Tourism Grant Opportunities

  • Summary: The presenter clarified that assistance with grant funding involved alerting attractions and events to opportunities provided by the Illinois Office of Tourism, for which they helped write letters of support.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “The Illinois Office of Tourism provided two grant opportunities that closed in December. We provided those via email. I mean, they’re always available through the state, but we were just alerting the attractions and events who we thought fit the criteria to those and then offered our help in writing letters of support, helping to gather data for that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:54

• Career and job fair creation

  • Summary: The career and job fair was created in partnership with Highland and Freeport High School to combine two separate events for employer efficiency.
  • Evidence: “The career and job fair was something that I think we created in partnership with Highland and Freeport High School. Before it had been Highland had their own job fair and about three weeks later Freeport High School did and so this was kind of a brainchild sitting together and saying this would probably be most efficient for the employers especially as both of these events had been put in the fourth quarter and we know how everyone’s fourth quarter is very busy especially if a business is on a calendar fiscal year that if we could combine these events.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:15

• Ag Industry Expo funding

  • Summary: The speaker clarified that they did not create the Ag Industry Expo, as it has been in existence for years.
  • Evidence: “And no, we did not create the Ag Industry Expo, the Highland Community College Ag Industry Expo. Has been in existence for a number of years.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:25

• Yield program funding assistance

  • Summary: The key role regarding the yield program was connecting board members and community members to secure CEJA grant funding because the program lacked sustainable funding.
  • Evidence: “But what our key role, I think, was late last year Huffines. And then last year was, we knew that yield program through, through board members and through other community members that we’ve engaged with was, didn’t have sustainable funding. They didn’t know how they were going to continue. And it’s such a critical and important program, especially getting people, more people into the trades. So I saw an opportunity with the CEJA grant that maybe that would work for funding.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:15:24

• Building Commission review of field structure

  • Summary: A local plumber who sits on the building commission confirmed that the field structure set was reasonable and approved unanimously.
  • Attribution: Darren
  • Evidence: “Yeah, I sat on the building commission and there is a very reputable local plumber that sits on that commission and he agreed that the field structure that was set was reasonable and I believe it was approved unanimously.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:34:09

• Proposed new pay grade for maintenance department

  • Summary: Staff proposed a new pay grade 15, two grades below the current vacant grade 17 position, to focus on routine maintenance tasks as a promotion step toward the vacant role.
  • Evidence: “Staff is proposing a new pay grade 15, so that would be two grades below the grade 17 just mentioned, and this would focus on routine maintenance tasks as a promotion Stepp toward the currently vacant 17 role.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:27

• R-2025-4: approving memorandum of understanding with the Fraternal Order of Police regarding post-employment health plan

  • Summary: The intent is to enter into an MOU with the FOP Labor Council regarding three individuals who either have or will reach retirement years during this next contract period, allowing them sick time payout if they retire within the next three years.
  • Attribution: Chief Shenberger
  • Evidence: “discussion regarding R-2025-4, approving memorandum of understanding with the Fraternal Order of Police regarding post-employment health plan by Chief Shenberger. Thank you. This was presented last week to the Council. The intent of this is to enter in MOU with the Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council regarding three individuals who either have or will reach the years of retirement during this next contract. This was something that was part of the negotiations to get rid of the post-employment health care plan, but yet offer these three individuals an opportunity to have their sick time paid out if they chose to retire during these next three years of this contract.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:51:23

• Status update of street light at Iroquois and State intersection

  • Summary: George Galrapp reported on surveying lights in the Fifth Ward, noting they are all functional. He also reported that ComEd installed a light at Ottawa and State Street, upgrading it from 40 watt to 70 watt (75% brighter), which encompasses part of Shalom Park.
  • Attribution: George Galrapp
  • Evidence: “The next status update of the street light at the intersection of Iroquois and State. Presentation manager Boyer. Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to invite our representative George Galrapp to do this kind of touch base on this. I think he’s pretty well handled this already. Good evening, George Gallerab, President Freeport, employee of ComEd. So as I was asked, I started in the Fifth Ward. I did a survey of Fifth Ward for all the lights there. Looking at them, they’re all functional. They don’t have any foliage in front of them. Of course, here we are in January. Be good to go through this again in the spring when there are trees and things like that. I continued to work with City Manager Rob Boyer and Darren Stekel, Public Works. I went north of the Fifth Ward and the third ward and went to the corner of Ottawa and State Street, ComEd installed a light there today. It went from a 40 watt to a 70 watt, which is 75% brighter and actually encompasses a little bit of Shalom Park, if that’s the correct pronunciation.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:54:30

• Property transfer discussion (431 and 437 South Adams Avenue)

  • Summary: Manager Boyer presented on the possibility of the City taking over a county-owned property located at 431 and 437 South Adams Avenue from Stephenson County.
  • Evidence: “Discussion regarding Resolution Approving the Transfer Property, commonly known as 431 and 437 South Adams Avenue, from Stephenson County to City of Freeport, presented by Manager Boyer. Thank you, Madam Chair.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:59:57

• Reason for ordinance removal from agenda

  • Summary: The presenter explained that the item was laid over at the November COW, and later, proponents withdrew support, leading to its removal from the agenda following past practice.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “So, this ordinance was originally there along with my understanding with some other persons to present this presentation. With some other persons to present this ordinance here. It was scheduled to be placed on the November COW. They’re at that November COW. The mayor was not absent, so I presented the, or the mayor was absent, excuse me, so I presented the ordinance at that meeting. Then this item was laid over. There was a motion a second to lay this over to the following COW for further discussion there. So that would have been the December COW. Prior to the December COW, the mayor contacted me and said, Aaron, the group of aldermen and I, we talked that we’re proponents of this, I put this forward, you know what, we don’t want it, we’re not ready, we think we got to look at this more, so, you know, we want it removed from the agenda, we’re not pushing it forward anymore there. So that’s happened before in the past, when someone who proposes an item, whether it be a property owner who says that, hey, I’m applying for a text amendment to the zoning code or or whatever, and it starts to move its way forward. And then when that applicant says, you know what, change of mind, I don’t wanna move this forward anymore, the item just gets removed.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:09:51

• Strategic Link of Fast-Track Demolition

  • Summary: Fast-track demolitions are tied to the strategic plan goal of ensuring safe and inclusive community by expanding enforcement time for code enforcement team, increasing penalties, and funding blight reduction.
  • Evidence: “So I kind of tied here how fast track demolitions are tied to the strategic plan in the sense Huffines. This is one of our major strategic initiatives here, safe and inclusive community. One of our key strategies here is to ensure that neighborhood buildings are well kept improving safety by expanding enforcement time for code enforcement team, increasing penalties, continue funding and implementation of demolition blight reduction program.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:35:22

• Fast track demolition process and lien filing

  • Summary: The city can file a notice of lien against real estate for the cost of demolition after performing fast-track demolition.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “Well, essentially once that demolition is performed, the city can then put a lien against the property. So our department takes that information and kind of puts it into this flowchart here. And it makes all of that language and legalese, that statute, a little bit easier to understand. So you start with a building that is three stories or less in height. It’s got to be open and vacant. It has to be an immediate and continuing hazard. Then I talk about posting the notice on the building. We have 30 days to do our three notices here, and then in 30 days we talk about, hey, has an objective been filed? If yes, then we stop this fast-track demolition. If no, we demolish the structure, and then in 180 days.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:39:10

• History and condition of 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: A presentation was given detailing the history and condition of the property, including photos from September 3rd, 2024, April 17th, 2024, and October 10th.
  • Evidence: “This is a picture. We time stamp our pictures. This is a picture of the property on September 3rd, 2024. So I’m going to go over, kind of show some pictures and then go over the history of this property. This picture was taken April 17th of 2024.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:53:30

• Structural issues at 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: The presentation showed evidence of roof problems, foundation issues, and back house issues requiring structural analysis and a permit.
  • Evidence: “Yes. Were there problems with the roof? Yes. This is, I just wanted to show some evidence there. Pictures of the outside. Were there issues with the foundation? Yes. This would require a structural analysis and a permit to move forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:54:01

• Permit violations at 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: The speaker noted that one issue was work being done without a permit, specifically regarding drywall covering up necessary exhaust connections.
  • Evidence: “One of the issues in this building is work being done without a permit, and right, so We’re going to get to the three permits that were pulled, but one of the issues here is that in the permit, when I start to talk about the permits, which is later on in my presentation, one of the issues with this drywall here is that had this, this would be eventually pulled or torn off because we would need to see the exhaust in this fireplace or also need to see connections to a fireplace.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:54:44

• Ownership history of 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: The title history showed the property was sold from an initial owner to Freeport Habitat for Humanity in 2016 for $2,000, and then quitclaimed to Raven in 2017.
  • Evidence: “In 2016, the property was sold from this person to the Freeport Habitat for Humanity. Okay. Habitat for Humanity bought this house for $2,000. […] So then, when looking at the title history, in 2017, the Habitat for Humanity quit claims of property to a raven.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:56:31

• Owner statements regarding 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: Akia Sanders advised that she and Raven were the sole owners, purchased the home for $2,000 from Habitat for Humanity, and stated there was no mortgage or insurance.
  • Evidence: “Akia Sanders advised that she and Raven were the sole owners of the property she stated that they purchased the home for $2,000 from Habitat for Humanity there is no mortgage on the property Akia advised that there is not any insurance on the home.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:57:16

• Arson investigation details and property ownership status

  • Summary: Information regarding two arson cases on the property from December 19th of 2021 was provided by City Fire Marshal Hilary Broschus’ interview.
  • Attribution: City Fire Marshal Hilary Broschus
  • Evidence: “Taking some information from a summary report interview that’s conducted by City Fire Marshal Hilary Broschus on December 19th of 2021, this is regarding two arson cases on the property from that year and so this information was taken from that interview”
  • Source timestamp: 02:57:16

• Code enforcement history and arson cases

  • Summary: The property had two arson cases in 2021, which were properly inspected by City Fire Marshal Hilary Broschus. The act causing the fire was a deliberate act.
  • Evidence: “There were two arson cases in 2021 on this property this property was properly inspected by City Fire Marshal Hillary Broschus and This was taken directly from her report which was given on both arson cases the act or omission that brought The ignition source and material first ignited together was a deliberate act of a person or persons”
  • Source timestamp: 03:03:34

• Code enforcement history and arson cases on property

  • Summary: The speaker detailed the code enforcement issues leading to a nuisance designation for a property, citing two arson cases in 2021 investigated by City Fire Marshal Hillary Broschus.
  • Evidence: “There were two arson cases in 2021 on this property this property was properly inspected by City Fire Marshal Hillary Broschus and This was taken directly from her report which was given on both arson cases the act or omission that brought The ignition source and material first ignited together was a deliberate act of a person or persons so when I come in and I say It’s a nuisance and a danger to the community.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:03:34

• Legal standard for proving violations

  • Summary: The speaker explained the legal difference between ‘preponderance of evidence’ (used by the city) and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ (used in criminal cases).
  • Evidence: “I highlighted that the city of Freeport has proven violations by the preponderance of of evidence, I’m talking about preponderance of evidence here because we all watch Dateline, we all watch TV, and a lot of us quite frankly are obsessed with true crime. And the burden of proof, if you’re going to put somebody in prison for the rest of their life is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:06:14

• Code enforcement case findings regarding appearance

  • Summary: The speaker noted that in certain cases, the judge found violations proven by preponderance of evidence even when the property owner did not appear at the hearing.
  • Evidence: “If you notice, the preponderance of evidence statement here doesn’t exist. Well, why doesn’t it exist? The property owner showed up to this case. So the judge is saying, I looked at the city’s case, these violations here, I looked at it, and they proved their case by proponents of evidence.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:07:57

• Accumulated fines for property owner

  • Summary: The speaker stated that accumulated fines reached $2,900 plus an additional amount, totaling approximately $3,200.
  • Evidence: “So now we’re at $1,700 plus $1,200, that’s $2,900. That’s 2,900 Plus 33 35 you’re looking about 3200 $3200 already right now that has been accumulated”
  • Source timestamp: 03:08:58

• Timeline of code enforcement action

  • Summary: The speaker noted that the city worked with the property owner for five years before any code enforcement process was enacted.
  • Evidence: “To all the officials in there when they came here and in April of 2023 except The city worked with this property owner for five years before any code enforcement even was enacted”
  • Source timestamp: 03:09:23

• Hearing officer statement on due process

  • Summary: Nicole Bauer, the hearing officer, stated that the case had been ongoing for a significant period and there was ample time to appear with legal counsel or correct issues prior to the hearing.
  • Attribution: Nicole Bauer
  • Evidence: “This is not Wayne Duckman. This is Nicole Bauer, our hearing officer. This case has been ongoing for a significant period of time. There was ample time to appear on the other cases with legal counsel if the defendant had chosen to do so, plus ample time to correct these issues prior to this hearing. This is due process.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:10:18

• Judgment details from May 16th, 2024 hearing

  • Summary: The case went before the judge on May 16th of 2024.
  • Evidence: “Here it is this case went before the judge on May 16th of 2024”
  • Source timestamp: 03:09:23

• City’s request for ordinance definition regarding dangerous and unsafe conditions

  • Summary: The city sought that the condition be defined in chapter 1456 of the city’s codified ordinances as using remedy conditions that would be considered dangerous and unsafe.
  • Evidence: “the city sought, and this statement was incorporated in herein, so I’m showing where it is. Was requesting that this be defined in chapter 1456 of the city’s codified ordinances to be using remedy conditions that would be considered dangerous and unsafe.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:11:00

• Hearing officer determination on building safety

  • Summary: The hearing officer determined the building was a dangerous and unsafe structure, citing specific criteria from chapter 1456 of the city’s codified ordinances.
  • Evidence: “I brought it before a hearing officer who said this is a dangerous unsafe building. … The property contains a structure which is dangerous and unsafe building as defined in and others. In chapter 1456 of these qualified ordinances…”
  • Source timestamp: 03:12:12

• Criteria for dangerous and unsafe structure (Chapter 1456)

  • Summary: The ordinance defines criteria including faulty construction, age, lack of proper repair, lack of doors or windows, abandoned construction phase, and presence of hazardous materials.
  • Evidence: “because of the faulty construction, age, lack of proper repair of any other cause is especially liable to fire and constitutes or creates a fire hazard. … item D, such a lack of a door or a window is available and to be frequently by male factors or disorderly persons who are not lawful occupants of such structure. … contains garbage, debris or other hazardous, noxious or unhealthy substances or materials so far as to pose a threat to the public health and safety”
  • Source timestamp: 03:13:24

• Director’s presentation completion status

  • Summary: A speaker asked if the Director was finished with their presentation or if they were interrupted.
  • Evidence: “Number one, Director, thank you for that presentation, but are you complete with your presentation or were you just interrupted? If there’s more questions, I can show this. I can show more if there’s.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:18:11

• Demolition timeline and legal process details

  • Summary: The speaker explained the demolition timeline, noting a required 30-day wait from September 3rd and subsequent waiting for any court petitions from the property owner.
  • Evidence: “I think the rest of these slides will answer that for you because I’m going to go into the process. Right now but the answer to the question is you have to wait 30 days from September 3rd and then you have to wait for any court petitions from the property owner which I go into there were there were motions made at the circuit court by the property owners and I go into to those details in this next slide.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:18:55

• Legal history of injunctions related to demolition

  • Summary: The speaker detailed that a petition for injunction was filed on October 17th, 2024, dismissed on December 19th, 2024, and subsequent filings by Ms. Sanders.
  • Evidence: “Akia Sanders petitioned for injunction October 17th of 2024 this injunction was was dismissed on December 19th of 2024.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:19:48

• Property return following demolition process

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed that personal property was returned to the site on December 20th, 2024.
  • Evidence: “And the property was returned to the site on December 20th of 2024.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:21:52

• Second instance of property return and missing items claim

  • Summary: The speaker recounted an interaction where a contractor was instructed to bring back property, which was subsequently brought back, followed by Ms. Sanders claiming additional property was missing.
  • Evidence: “I called Josh Albert and I said, hey, you better go through your site again and you better get the property over here now because we’re not playing around. The property owner is here. They want their property back. Bring it back if you got it… After that, Ms. Sanders claimed that there was additional property missing.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:22:43

• Neighborhood Watch Meeting Date Change

  • Summary: The speaker announced that the Neighborhood Watch meeting scheduled for January 28th will be rescheduled because that date conflicts with a candidate forum at the library.
  • Evidence: “I originally had a We’re going to have a neighborhood watch meeting set up for January 28th, which is my normal date. January 28th is going to be a candidate forum at the library. I don’t want to interfere with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:33:32

• Dance Against Cancer Ball Invitation

  • Summary: The speaker invited the entire city council to attend the upcoming Saturday’s Dance Against Cancer Ball, which is raising money for the Leonard C. Ferguson Cancer Center.
  • Evidence: “On behalf of Flight Radio Studio Production Company, I am the program director and I am inviting the whole city council to this upcoming Saturday’s Dance Against Cancer Ball, okay? As the 70s and 80s Dance Against Cancer Ball, we are raising money for the Leonard C. Ferguson Cancer Center.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:34:53

• National Day of Racial Healing event details

  • Summary: A National Day of Racial Healing will be held on Saturday, January 18th, from 9 to 1 at the Freeport Farm Bureau.
  • Evidence: “Okay. Saturday, January the 18th, there will be a National Day of Racial Healing at the Freeport Farm Bureau from 9 to 1. The purpose is to reflect on our shared values and engage in conversation to heal division and bring our community together.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:39:12

• Dr. King’s celebration date

  • Summary: Monday, January 20th, is Dr. King’s celebration, and there will be no council meeting that day.
  • Evidence: “And let’s not forget Monday, January the 20th, Dr. King’s celebration. So I guess there won’t be council that day.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:39:42

• Mr. James Ryan statement on diversity

  • Summary: Mr. James Ryan hopes this year’s attendance will reflect the diversity of our community as we celebrate one of our greatest heroes.
  • Evidence: “So, Monday at 5.30, and Mr. James Ryan says, I hope that this year’s attendance will reflect the diversity of our community as we celebrate one of our greatest heroes.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:40:01

• Second ward neighborhood watch meeting details

  • Summary: The second ward neighborhood watch meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 16th, at 6:30 PM at the Carson’s house.
  • Evidence: “One last thing. Thursday, January 16th, second ward neighborhood watch meeting at 6.30 at the Carson’s house. Winslow.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:40:22

Metrics

• Business Stability Report

  • Summary: 84% of businesses that responded to the county-wide business survey reported that their company was stable or expanding.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “But the survey was completed last quarter, and 84% of the businesses that responded reported that their company was stable or expanding. We see that as positive news.”
  • Source timestamp: 41:24

• Job Creation from New Service

  • Summary: An existing manufacturer in Freeport added jobs to support a new service that was previously outsourced, resulting in job creation around nine new jobs.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “An existing manufacturer in Freeport added jobs to support a new service that was previously outsourced. With that has come job creation around nine new jobs.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:44

• Business Retention Visits Conducted

  • Summary: Eighteen business retention visits were conducted last quarter.
  • Evidence: “key activities were 18 business retention visits were conducted last quarter.”
  • Source timestamp: 44:09

• Plumbing permits pulled in 2024

  • Summary: There were 39 plumbing permits pulled in 2024.
  • Evidence: “Can you tell me how many permits pulled in 2024? Yes, 39 for plumbing.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:33:57

• Utility rate comparison (ComEd vs Nordic)

  • Summary: The rates were compared: Nordic has a contracted rate for three years, while ComEd’s rate can fluctuate. The discussion noted that 6.399 was the Nordic rate and 6.4 was the ComEd rate.
  • Evidence: “I think we’re within one hundredth. I believe within one hundredth of a penny compared to Nordic. From the rate you said? Yeah, they had 6.399 and then we were 6.4. And you were 6.4.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:27:42

Discussion

• LPR Data Capture Details

  • Summary: An LPR takes a picture of the back of a vehicle to get the license plate, along with unique characteristics like make, model, color, and presence of bumper stickers or roof racks. Facial recognition is not performed.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “An LPR takes a, LPR, sorry, a license plate reader, takes a picture of the back of the vehicle. We are going to get the license plate of that vehicle, as well as some unique characteristics, make, model, color, if there’s a bumper sticker, roof rack, et cetera. What we are not doing with these cameras is there is no facial recognition going on. We are not looking for or at individuals. We are simply just looking at a vehicle.”
  • Source timestamp: 18:49

• Data Ownership and Retention Policy

  • Summary: The city owns all the data; FLOC does not sell it, and the data is only retained for 30 days. The system cannot track an individual’s movements over two years.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “Ultimately, the police department, therefore the city, owns all of its data. We do not sell the data… Also, the data is only retained for 30 days. This is not a technology that can go back and look at the movements of an individual over two years.”
  • Source timestamp: 21:00

• Situational awareness using LPR and video cameras

  • Summary: Using LPR camera alerts combined with live video feeds allows officers to gain situational awareness while en route, which is better than responding only to a call for service.
  • Evidence: “So if we, this is a bank robbery case here, but if we use our imaginations here, if we get a hit on a LPR camera, and you have live video cameras in town as well, you can say, if you get an alert on a LPR, you can then go into the live video cameras around there, and officers can be getting situational awareness to what is going on while they are in route, as opposed to just maybe getting a call for service and showing up to that call. Hall without a lot of context. Same thing works with gunshot detection. If you get an alert that a gunshot was detected, police can then go and look at the cars that were in the vicinity during that time, as well as pull up live video cameras to understand what is going on on the ground while en route.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:18

• Data retention and Fourth Amendment concerns regarding camera data

  • Summary: A lawsuit was filed in October of last year against FLOC concerning storing data for 30 days, raising concerns about tracking individuals who have not committed crimes.
  • Attribution: Fowler
  • Evidence: “I noticed that there was a lawsuit that was filed back in October of last year against FLOC. How, you know, storing this data for 30 days clearly is potentially a way to track somebody who’s not committed any crimes. What is FLOC doing to protect citizens’ rights and the community from that type of intrusive behavior?”
  • Source timestamp: 23:48

• Legal protection regarding camera data retention

  • Summary: The speaker stated they could not speak out of turn on public record but confirmed there were precedents setting that the technology is okay and Illinois law permits it under certain parameters.
  • Evidence: “What I can, because I don’t want to speak out of term on public record, what I can confidently say though is that there have been a number of cases where precedent was set that this technology is okay. And the state of Illinois has said that this technology is okay under certain parameters. Our 30 days data retention is under the, that is less retention than the state law has, but I can provide some greater context as a follow up to you.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:19

• Safeguards against random license plate checks

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed safeguards are in place preventing an officer from running a license plate multiple times for no reason.
  • Attribution: Huffines
  • Evidence: “There are safeguards put in place so that a police officer or some official could not run your license plate multiple times to check on somebody’s status, their information for no reason, just going in for random.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:57

• Audit trail for system usage

  • Summary: Any time the system is used, there is an audit trail that requires a search reason to be logged by the user.
  • Attribution: Thomas
  • Evidence: “Any time that the system is used, there’s an audit trail. So if I, so I cannot go in there and look up, I cannot go in there and look at my wife’s license plate willy-nilly. What I would have to do is I would have to put a search reason as to why and then the system would log that myself, Blaine Thomas, searched XYZ license plate for whatever reason and that’s an audit trail that lives in the system.”
  • Source timestamp: 25:23

• System ownership and access control

  • Summary: The police department manages the system, meaning they ultimately grant access to users; it is not publicly accessible.
  • Evidence: “Yes. Yeah, so the way that it works is yes. The police department ultimately is the, I don’t want to say owner, is the owner of the system. And what I mean by that is a bad word. They manage the system. So the police department ultimately can, they grant access to who they want access granted to. Okay, so this would not be something that the public can access. Yes, correct.”
  • Source timestamp: 26:13

• Camera mapping and location documentation

  • Summary: The speaker stated that city staff do not have a map of where the cameras are located.
  • Evidence: “Only do we have mapping of where these cameras are located? No, we don’t.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:24

• Camera installation history and city purchase status

  • Summary: The speaker stated the fixed camera locations were known, but the city had not purchased any of those cameras yet.
  • Evidence: “Well, I mean, we know where they’re at. They’re fixed. They’re in fixed locations. Okay. So, yeah. I mean, but the installation, I believe, I think we went to it in 2021, but it might not have been rolled out until 2022. So, these cameras that we’re looking at, the city hasn’t purchased any of those yet? Yeah, you’re correct. The city has not purchased any cameras.”
  • Source timestamp: 27:36

• Camera installation and permitting process

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed that they require a permit for every camera installation, whether on city or IDOT property.
  • Evidence: “Okay. And who does the installation of these cameras? We do. You do? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yes correct we we require a permit for it we pull permits for every installation so whether that be on city right away or or IDOT right away so there okay so there’s books and pamphlet installations…”
  • Source timestamp: 28:10

• Budgetary quotes for camera systems

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed the ability to provide budgetary quotes and other documentation regarding camera systems.
  • Evidence: “Are you asking, are there like budgetary quotes and other types of documentation? Yes. Yeah.”
  • Source timestamp: 28:55

• Contract renewal consideration for surveillance systems

  • Summary: The speaker questioned whether proposed upgrades would replace existing spending or be an addition, noting that contracts with Vigilant and Sound Thinking expire in 2027.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “I would like to know are we or would we be replacing what we have already spent money on or is this in addition to what we already have? So I mean eventually the contracts with vigilant and sound thinking they expire in 2027 so So we would have to consider renewing. I’m just exploring options on perhaps getting started with the FLOC system and possibly transitioning to that if the council is on board with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:54

• Cost status of existing surveillance systems

  • Summary: The speaker noted that Vigilant was paid up front, costing nothing currently, and Sound Thinking requires annual payment with two more years remaining.
  • Evidence: “As of now, Vigilant, like I said, that was paid up front, so it doesn’t cost us anything, and so on. I think that eventually it will again. And the sound thinking, you know, we pay annually. There’s two more years left on that as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:39

• Comparison of current and proposed LPR/Video Surveillance Systems

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether a new system would replace existing spending or be an addition, comparing Vigilant, Sound Thinking, and FLOC systems.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “Yes, I would like to know are we or would we be replacing what we have already spent money on or is this in addition to what we already have? So I mean eventually the contracts with vigilant and sound thinking they expire in 2027 so So we would have to consider renewing. I’m just exploring options on perhaps getting started with the FLOC system and possibly transitioning to that if the council is on board with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:54

• Vigilant System Cost Status

  • Summary: The Vigilant system was paid for up front, meaning it currently costs nothing.
  • Attribution: Sellers
  • Evidence: “As of now, Vigilant, like I said, that was paid up front, so it doesn’t cost us anything, and so on.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:39

• Sound Thinking System Cost Status

  • Summary: The Sound Thinking system is paid for annually and has two more years remaining.
  • Evidence: “And the sound thinking, you know, we pay annually. There’s two more years left on that as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:52

• FLOC System Capability Comparison

  • Summary: The FLOC system could potentially replace multiple existing systems (LPR from one company, live video/gunshot detection from another) with a single program offering all three.
  • Evidence: “Well, they offer LPRs, live video, which is something I’ve been talking about and gunshot detection all in one company, one program instead of utilizing different programs. We have a fixed camera that takes one program. We have a portable camera that takes another. So just a good option to have, something that can offer all three with just one program.”
  • Source timestamp: 31:20

• FLOC System Cost Structure

  • Summary: The FLOC system is described as an upgrade and potentially consolidating payments into one bill; the cost is approximately $3,000 per camera, which is all-inclusive.
  • Evidence: “It could be, yeah, I see it as an upgrade and I mean he could talk more about the cost of it. So like, for example, Vigilant, right, we paid for that up front… With FLOC, they would come out and just do it. It’s a per-camera cost, but that includes everything. It’s an all-inclusive, it’s like 3,000 a camera, but it’s all-inclusive. That includes cloud storage, that includes replacing the camera, all that stuff.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:15

• Camera Integration Scope

  • Summary: Clarification on whether cameras must be Flock-owned or can be any camera integrated into the system.
  • Evidence: “I have one more question. So you’re saying, does it only have to be a flock camera, or could it be any camera from any camera that takes pictures? I mean, does it only have to be your company, or could it be any camera?”
  • Source timestamp: 35:00

• Camera Placement and Power Source

  • Summary: The cameras are infrastructure-free and run off solar power; placement on utility poles may incur fees because the pole is not city property.
  • Evidence: “So would these cameras be placed on our comment polls? What polls? Excuse me. Sorry. Utility polls. Oh, utility polls. So the cameras are infrastructure free, so they run off solar power. So, we generally will put a pole in the ground ourselves. Mounting on power company poles can sometimes be costly, or I shouldn’t say costly, but there can be a fee associated with that sometimes, because that’s not our property.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:06

• LPR Technology Crime Statistics

  • Summary: 70% of crimes involve a vehicle at some point, making LPR technology important for narrowing down suspects quickly.
  • Evidence: “One of the stats that he had at another meeting I was at that I was really taken back by was 70% of the crimes use a vehicle at some point within the crime and so that’s why the LPR technology is so important to the situation of finding out who does it”
  • Source timestamp: 37:04

• LPR Technology Information Gathering

  • Summary: The speaker discussed the importance of LPR technology for crime investigation, noting that 70% of crimes involve a vehicle and that the technology can quickly narrow down suspects by sorting out-of-area license plates.
  • Attribution: Chief Shenberger
  • Evidence: “One of the stats that he had at another meeting I was at that I was really taken back by was 70% of the crimes use a vehicle at some point within the crime and so that’s why the LPR technology is so important to the situation of finding out who does it so for instance if if somebody was targeting an area I think you said you could actually sort the vehicles to pick license plates that were from out of the area to that area to narrow the field very quickly and in the presentation that I was at I mean they could narrow the field in minutes which time is of the essence with crimes so it’s kind of was very interesting to learn that.”
  • Source timestamp: 37:04

• Next Steps for LPR Technology Proposal

  • Summary: The speaker stated that the proposal for LPR technology is in its infancy, currently in the planning stage, and they will provide a bid or offer when ready.
  • Attribution: Chief Shenberger
  • Evidence: “This is just this is just something I’ve been working on for a few months you know continue talking with Blaine and his team and we’ll get to the point where I’ll you know get a bid or get an offer and I let the council know and then decide that you guys decide what you want to do but right now it’s just kind of in its infancy you know we’re in the planning stage of it trying to find the best option that we have for the city while utilizing the technology we still have right now so”
  • Source timestamp: 37:04

• Non-profit Membership Fees

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding whether non-profit members pay to be a member, to which the answer confirmed they do at a rate of $165 a year.
  • Evidence: “So do those members pay? But my question is do non-profit members pay to be a member? They do. We have a non-profit rate that’s $165 a year.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:51

• Sale of Business Center

  • Summary: The sale of the business center was facilitated through a connection from an ownership group, who were relocating their business to Stephenson County and discussing the enterprise zone with the partnership.
  • Evidence: “And then, for the sale of the business center, was that to a business that you found and reached out to and convinced to come to Freeport, not you personally, but the partnership? That was through a connection that one of the ownership group had. We worked with them. We met with them when they were going through their due diligence process and we talked about the enterprise zone that’s out there, what their plans for the building were, how our organization could support their business as they moved to Stephenson County. They’re not a business that’s here currently and they would be relocating their business here. Right. So they came, they were coming anyways and you reached out to see how you could help.”
  • Source timestamp: 54:03

• Definition of Retention Visits

  • Summary: Retention visits are meetings where staff discuss the health of a business by asking about employment numbers, growth outlook, market fit, and potential needs. If needs are identified, the organization connects the business with necessary resources.
  • Evidence: “What are retention visits? What does that mean? Retention visits? Sure. Great question. It’s really just a meeting. We go and we meet with the business and we talk about what’s going on in their business. Usually ask them for some information around employment numbers. Is that changed? How do they see their business growing? Do they see their business declining? How do they see their business fitting into the larger market? What can we do to help? … So your question is exactly, that’s what we’re doing is we’re connecting them with the resources that are there. And if there aren’t resources that meet that need, how can we help create a solution to the problem?”
  • Source timestamp: 55:02

• Presentation Structure and Public Input

  • Summary: The speaker expressed concern that presentations lack pauses or gaps for questions from the audience or council, preventing detailed information gathering.
  • Evidence: “All of the slides that have been presented has no pause, no gaps, or has no time to inject a question. And John. While the slides are flowing, the audience or the council has not an opportunity to elaborate on the things that you’re presenting. And my thing is, if you’re presenting these types of slides, then there must be a space where questions can filter in because you’re blowing over these slides, the whole crew is going over these slides. We’re not able to inject the question, to open it up to the public so we can get more collaboration, not collaboration, but detailed information in regards to all of the things that we’ve been hearing.”
  • Source timestamp: 57:23

• Need for Contact Information on Presentations

  • Summary: The speaker noted that presentations lack contact numbers, making it impossible for the council to validate or follow up on programs and activities mentioned.
  • Evidence: “I’m subject to ask, well, I want to ask all this that you laid out in these slides, where Can we find more detailed information so we can follow up? Because there was no, there was no telephone numbers to make contact with during these slides and things of this nature. Uh, the companies that you and the visiting, the visitors programs, whatever programs that are going on objectively throughout the city, uh, we have no way to validate whether or not these things have taken place, there’s just stuff and all of that is thrown together and we’re supposed to assume that it’s relevant to the Council.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:06

• Need for detailed information on city programs and initiatives

  • Summary: A speaker requested more detailed information regarding the programs presented, noting a lack of contact details to validate activities.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “We’re not able to inject the question, to open it up to the public so we can get more collaboration, not collaboration, but detailed information in regards to all of the things that we’ve been hearing. I’m subject to ask, well, I want to ask all this that you laid out in these slides, where Can we find more detailed information so we can follow up? Because there was no, there was no telephone numbers to make contact with during these slides and things of this nature.”
  • Source timestamp: 57:52

• Need for detailed information on city programs and initiatives

  • Summary: The speaker stated that without further details, the council cannot validate or dig deeper into the presented programs.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “If we don’t have further details we just can’t take things top right off the surface and can’t dig deeper into the programs that you’re presenting and the slides that you’re presenting. I think I would like to see more detail construction of what we’re doing or what you’re doing because that is very relevant to us because the public needs to hear more details in the effects that the Greater Freeport is causing, creating within the city.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:52

• Need for detailed information on city programs and initiatives

  • Summary: The speaker expressed difficulty absorbing the presented material due to its speed and lack of opportunity to review details.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “I mean, it’s almost like we didn’t slow this video tape down or this track down. Didn’t get a chance to absorb it mentally because it was just flying by us and so if we want to have a opportunity to come back and ask you about these things because there’s a whole lot of things that took place There’s a whole lot of things that took place in the last quarter, according to you guys. But we have not had an opportunity to evaluate these things and objectively looked at it for our own satisfaction.”
  • Source timestamp: 59:27

• Public access to Greater Freeport Partnership activities

  • Summary: A speaker emphasized the need for the general public to gain access to analytics regarding what the Greater Freeport Partnership is doing.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “Yeah, because I also want to make sure that the general public can get access to these kinds of things. Because we all are querying about what it is that Greater Freeport Partnership is actually doing. And I just don’t want you to come here and just give us these reports without giving us really analytics.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:11

• Grant funding application process

  • Summary: A speaker inquired about who can apply for grant funding mentioned by the presenter.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “Yes. You had said something about grant funding. Who can apply who can apply for grant funding that you have we can well I think I’ll let Nicole elaborate on that is that the grant that we the grant funding that we helped other organizations apply for was not grants that we were administrate administering or there were grants that we operate we were connecting those organizations to a grant opportunity that I believe the I believe I was the one who mentioned that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:54

• Hotel occupancy reporting period discrepancy

  • Summary: A speaker questioned why the fourth quarter report stopped at September.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “I have one more question. Your hotel occupancy this is your fourth quarter report but it stops at September what happened to October November and December”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:24

• Governance of sold real estate assets (Visitor Site)

  • Summary: A speaker asked who governs the real estate that was sold at the visitor site and requested reports on where those assets went.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “Ottoman Sanders. The visitors for site that was sold, who does all of the real estate is governed by, I should say? And who takes care of that? And when was it up for sale again? We didn’t get any reports on that and we like to get a report on where did the asset go that was invested in that property or sold for that property? Where did all of those things go and where did they end up?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:04:07

• Governance of Visitor Center Sale Proceeds

  • Summary: The presenter clarified that the Stephenson County visitor center board, a separate non-profit, owned the building, and any sale proceeds were outside the partnership’s purview.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “The Stephenson County visitor center board, which is a separate organization from the partnership was founded to construct the visitor center. That organization, which was a separate non-profit, owned the visitor center and the partnership leased that building to run visitor center services from that facility. So when it was sold, that was never an asset of the partnership. We were only leasing that space. So it was their business to sell it, authorize the sale, and what they do with that money is up to that board. That’s completely separate from our organization.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:05:18

• Stephenson County visitor center ownership and sale proceeds

  • Summary: The Stephenson County visitor center board was a separate non-profit that owned the building; the partnership only leased it. Therefore, when the building was sold, the money was not an asset of the partnership.
  • Evidence: “That organization, which was a separate non-profit, owned the visitor center and the partnership leased that building to run visitor center services from that facility. So when it was sold, that was never an asset of the partnership. We were only leasing that space. So it was their business to sell it, authorize the sale, and what they do with that money is up to that board. That’s completely separate from our organization.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:05:18

• Funding for visitor center construction

  • Summary: The speaker was not positive on how much city funding was used to build the visitor center, noting it predates the current organization and that the sale proceeds would not return initial city funding.
  • Evidence: “Oh, that I’m not positive. And that was in 2000 and yes, so very much predates this organization, let alone me. So, so would the sale return any of that funding back to the city?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:47

• Future development needs for Freeport

  • Summary: The speaker highlighted that Greenfield site development having shovel ready sites is key for attracting new businesses and expanding existing ones.
  • Evidence: “So one of the key things we know Greenfield site development having shovel ready sites is key Not only for attracting new businesses, but for any existing businesses that would need to expand”
  • Source timestamp: 01:09:53

• Water and sewer infrastructure at Mill Race Crossing

  • Summary: The county itself lost about three places that were going to go in there and were voted down by the county; water and sewer are still needed there.
  • Evidence: “For years we can start out by Mill Race Crossing. The county themselves lost about three places that were going to go in there and were voted down by the county. We still do not have water and sewer there, which is a big entity, which makes it a shovel”
  • Source timestamp: 01:11:19

• Project completion and potential properties

  • Summary: The group needs to work together to complete projects for the city of Freeport, the county of Stephenson, as some estimates fell short.
  • Evidence: “A lot of those costs are laid upon the city of Freeport, the county of Stephenson. If you remember, they went out for an estimate for water and fell far short of the dollars and Cents so the project was not completed. We still all as a group need to work to complete those projects so we can get some of those done.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:18

• Workforce Solutions slide details

  • Summary: The speaker questioned if the career type fairs mentioned on the Workforce Solutions slide were created by GFP or something related to Greer and Sussman.
  • Evidence: “I have one last question for the Workforce Solutions slide with the different events or career type fairs. Were those things thought of and created by GFP or something that once you found out Greer, and Sussman.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:13:17

• Presentation materials availability

  • Summary: The speaker noted that documents presented tonight were received over a week ago and were available in the packet at least on Friday’s meeting.
  • Evidence: “All of these documents that were presented tonight, over a week ago we received the fourth quarter presentation, the packet was the slide before tonight’s meeting. It was in there at least on Friday’s meeting and in the packet.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:16:15

• Landline phone requirement modification (Section 2)

  • Summary: The proposed change modifies Section 608, removing the requirement for all establishments to keep a landline phone as long as cell phone contact is possible.
  • Evidence: “if you look at section two, that’s a modification of section 608, which previously required that everybody keeps a landline phone. Not sure how many of our establishments have a landline phone anymore, but we feel that that’s probably an obsolete requirement. As long as we can get ahold of somebody via cell phone, that’s good enough, and that’s taken care of through our authorized agent process Thomas, and our resident manager.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:17:49

• Serving free alcohol restrictions (Section 3)

  • Summary: The modification to Section 608-18 addresses ILCC guidelines regarding serving free alcohol for promotional purposes; it is not allowed for open public specials.
  • Evidence: “if you are serving free alcohol, for instance, to get people into your store, that’s just not okay. We did put a de minimis of eight or less persons there, so that if it’s just a social gathering, that’s not going to run afoul of the provision, but if you’re running a special or something open to the public, that’s not allowed.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:18:45

• Definitional Section modifications (Section 806.01)

  • Summary: Modifications were added for ‘brewer’ and class BR in Section 806.01.
  • Evidence: “Couple modifications to the Definitional Section in 806.01. Is we added a brewer and then there’s a class BR if you look at section five there as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:06

• Brewer license tracking addition

  • Summary: A new category was added to track licenses that align with ILCC definitions, due to recent upgrades in brewery licensing.
  • Evidence: “This was simply added because we never had somebody that fell under this category before. Recently generations has been upgraded in terms of their brewer license and we just didn’t have anything to track that so we’re adding something that tracks almost exactly with what ILCC has for their definition.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:17

• Modifications to Definitional Section 806.01 regarding brewers and resident managers

  • Summary: The discussion covered adding a class BR for brewers due to changes in ILCC tracking requirements and removing the requirement for a full-time employee status for resident managers.
  • Evidence: “Couple modifications to the Definitional Section in 806.01. Is we added a brewer and then there’s a class BR if you look at section five there as well. This was simply added because we never had somebody that fell under this category before. Recently generations has been upgraded in terms of their brewer license and we just didn’t have anything to track that so we’re adding something that tracks almost exactly with what ILCC has for their definition. So, a resident manager previously required a full-time employee. That’s just not the situation. And the employee, that’s just not the situation, you know, these managers kind of bounce around from store to store and there’s no reason to require a full time, we have specific provisions that say that we have to be able to get a hold of you and we’ve got contact information for each of the establishments there.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:23

• Changes to liquor service requirements in 806.03

  • Summary: The discussion noted changes regarding caterer licenses, specifically mentioning that incidental food service is required due to ILCC legal matters.
  • Evidence: “In 806.03 we’ve got tier three licenses, we’ve got a caterer license, we’d previously and intentionally left out the the incidental part of food service that that is required here. Again this is an ILCC legal thing.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:20:05

• Changes to corporate ownership listing requirements in 806.07

  • Summary: The discussion stated that section six of the ordinance (806.07) was changed to remove the requirement of listing all owners in a publicly held corporation.
  • Evidence: “Dovie is very very connected with the clerk’s network and ILCC has been pushing back on that and saying that if you are a caterer liquor can be provided as part of a package but it has & Oates, Paul, and Don, and a couple more again, just technical changes, 806.07, that’s section six of the ordinance. It took out the requirements of listing all owners in a publicly held corporation, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, that sort of thing.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:20:05

• Liability insurance requirement for liquor licenses

  • Summary: The discussion confirmed that requiring any insurance certificate to list the City of Freeport as a certificate holder remains a requirement.
  • Evidence: “Roof of liability insurance, this just tracks what we’ve already been requiring, that any of the insurance certificates list the City of Freeport as a certificate holder. Again, that’s been a requirement for years, it just didn’t say it in the ordinance.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:21:03

• Festival District boundary extension (806.22)

  • Summary: An addition was made to the Festival District boundaries extending down Chicago Avenue from Spring Street to Jackson, covering an area from Wagner House South to pick up the exchange.
  • Evidence: “At least 806.22, the Festival District, that actually, there’s an addition to that, and That extends down Chicago Avenue from Spring Street to Jackson. That’s from Wagner House South to pick up the exchange, which is a new establishment.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:21:20

• Ordinance 2025-04, Chapter 144.14: Increasing Plumbing Permits Costs

  • Summary: The ordinance proposes increasing the cost for a Water and Sewer Service Install from $50 to $150 due to staff inspection time, and increasing the standard water line installation fee from $30 to $100 to cover increased rates from BNF Code Services.
  • Evidence: “We’ll go to discussion regarding amending ordinance. Ordinance 2025-04, Chapter 144.14, Increasing Plumbing Permits. Director Duckman. Thank you, Alderpersons, Sellers. So at the heart of this proposed ordinance, so we’re discussing it today, is to move costs from a Water and Sewer Service Install from $50 to $150. So basically what that means is you’re getting a new water service, a new sewer service outside your building… The other part of this that’s being discussed is increasing from $30 to $100 for any standard water line that’s going to be installed in a building.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:22:24

• Plumbing Permit Rate Increase Justification

  • Summary: The increase in rates is justified by the plumbing inspector, BNF Code Services, raising their rates from $80 to $100 per hour.
  • Evidence: “The reason for this is our plumbing inspector, which is BNF Code Services out of the Chicago suburbs. They raise their rates from $80 to $100 per hour, and the intent here is to help cover some of these inspections.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:24:02

• Mandatory nature of permit fee increases

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders questioned whether the rate increase was mandatory for all homeowners or if it was a policy decision.
  • Evidence: “How are you doing, Doc? Good. Listening to the reason why the cost is increasing for homeowners, is this subject, is this a mandatory for all homeowners?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:24:45

• Public Works inspection improvements

  • Summary: A staff member noted improved work in the public works department regarding inspecting sewer and water connections.
  • Evidence: “The other part of this is we are doing a better job in our public works department of ensuring that we always have every single sewer connection and every single water connection inspected Jepson, Anthea, Dad, page, we’ve done a better job with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:26:28

• Plumbing inspector rates increase and inspection process improvements

  • Summary: The plumbing inspector’s contracted rate increased from $80 to $100, and the department improved sewer and water connection inspections by focusing on infiltration testing.
  • Attribution: staff
  • Evidence: “But as a member of staff, it’s important to say that, you know, the rates from our plumbing inspector, which is contracted out to BNF code services, they’ve raised their rates from $80 to $100, so we’re trying to capture some of that money back. The other part of this is we are doing a better job in our public works department of ensuring that we always have every single sewer connection and every single water connection inspected Jepson, Anthea, Dad, page, we’ve done a better job with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:26:10

• Sewer infiltration testing procedure

  • Summary: Determining if stormwater or groundwater runoff is entering a sewer system requires specific testing to ensure the inspection is done correctly.
  • Attribution: staff
  • Evidence: “And that’s what you don’t, a Fernco is the Fowler. We’ve done a better job of making sure that, hey, when we’re getting a sewer service, let’s make sure this is done every time. Yeah, and the method that you might use to determine whether or not storm water or any kind of infiltration is getting into a property owner’s sewer line, you would have to do some form of testing to declare whether or not water is getting into this location or this property owner’s property.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:26:57

• Water connection inspection and documentation

  • Summary: The water superintendent or their designee inspects connections, requiring redoing work if incorrect, and photo documentation of the process is maintained.
  • Attribution: staff
  • Evidence: “You are correct in that. We’re gonna have our water superintendent, it’s gonna be either be himself or it’s gonna be someone under his responsible charge to go out and inspect the connection at that time. And if there’s something not done right, that’s when the water superintendent or the person under responsible charge would actually say, hey, you got to redo this, connection isn’t done right. And then once it’s approved, then they can backfill or fill in the excavation. And we do take photos before and after, right? Yes, and that’s the one thing that it’s mentioned too and the memo that that’s what’s being accounted for is the documentation, excuse me, of the work done, which is part of it is photographs.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:28:16

• Proposed plumbing inspection rate adjustment

  • Summary: A discussion occurred regarding a proposed increase in rates from $50 to $150, with suggestions to compromise on the final amount.
  • Attribution: public comment
  • Evidence: “I have a question. Do you think that, I know you said from $50 to $150, correct? That is what’s being proposed. That’s what will be proposed. Do you think that, you know, that’s tripling it. So, do you think that there’s some way that we could start off with maybe trying a hundred and see how that, you know, affects, you know, different plumbers and, you know, so that price won’t be put on to the consumer so much? If we could just, since we do, you know, that, you said the other company raised their price, you know, we have to do something, so do you think that just doing it to 50 instead, I I mean, do- I’m just doing it to 50 instead. I mean doing it to 100 instead of the 150 and see how that helps us out?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:29:13

• Public service pricing philosophy

  • Summary: A discussion point was raised regarding public services not always needing to make a profit, but still needing fiscal responsibility.
  • Attribution: public comment
  • Evidence: “I think it’s a reasonable compromise. This is a public service, correct? So the idea, you know, public services which governments provide, the idea is not always to make sure you’re making a profit or making money. But at the end of the day, too, you also want to be responsible with the public’s money.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:29:49

• Basis for inspection cost setting

  • Summary: A question was raised about why the actual cost of an inspection is not tied to the ordinance rate, and a response detailed the difficulty in finding licensed plumbing inspectors.
  • Attribution: public comment
  • Evidence: “And a question for you really comes back to, you know, why are we not tying the actual cost of the inspection as opposed to setting a rate in the ordinance? It would make sense if they charge $100 an hour and they come out for less than an hour and they’re going to charge it for $100, they would pay $100, not $150. Why would we do that? Well, the thing is, it’s, we do not have one that I’m aware of that has been on the contract to do plumbing inspections. So believe it or not, the state license to do plumbing is highly coveted license.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:31:06

• Utility connection documentation requirements

  • Summary: The city is required to observe and document water and sewer connections as part of its ordinance structure to ensure I&I (Inflow/Infiltration) is cut out and connections are proper to the potable water system.
  • Evidence: “And just, I wanted to point out as part of the utility, we are required as a city to observe and document these connections for water and sewer. It’s part of our ordinance structure and they wanna make sure that we’re cutting I&I out and we wanna make sure the connections are proper to our potable water system as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:34:37

• Plumbing inspection contract status

  • Summary: The city has a contract with BNF services for inspections, and once that contract expires, an RF request for proposal can be put out.
  • Evidence: “I would have to look at our contract with BNF. We entered into a contract and I do not know the deadline there and that’s an easy enough ask which I will get the deadline for BNF. We have a contract with BNF services to do these inspections and so once that contract would expire we can put an RF request for proposal for that”
  • Source timestamp: 01:35:41

• Internal city personnel qualification for plumbing inspections

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding whether city personnel could be qualified to perform plumbing inspections, as all city employees have some form of qualification in the field.
  • Evidence: “Wayne, sir, have we looked within our own entity, within the city ranks itself, because Everyone that works for the city has some form of qualification of doing any kind of plumbing inspections. This is the work that they do.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:36:28

• Grade 15 Position Details

  • Summary: The Grade 15 position requires basic knowledge of water and wastewater process, power and control circuits, and hand power tools with minimum exposure to PLC and SCADA system. Responsibilities include routine maintenance such as lubrication, oil changes, general building repairs, equipment inspections, assistance to maintenance utility workers, and on-call duties for emergencies.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “So on a grade 15, you would have basic knowledge of water and wastewater process, power and control circuits, and hand power tools and minimum exposure to PLC and SCADA system. So Miller. That would be like your motor drivers and controllers and also the software that’s related to those operating those in the system. The responsibilities would be somewhat lower than the grade 17, so that’d be routine maintenance including lubrication, oil changes, general building repairs and equipment inspections, assistance to maintenance utility workers as needed and on-call duties for emergencies.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:00

• Grade 15 Experience Requirement

  • Summary: The Grade 15 position requires two years of industrial, environmental, or wastewater and water systems experience.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “In addition, the experience required would also be less, two years of industrial, environmental, or wastewater and water systems, and that’s the primary focus of the 15.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:37

• Grade 17 Position Details

  • Summary: The Grade 17 position involves troubleshooting, repairs, and comprehensive preventative maintenance of advanced electrical, electronic, and control systems, requiring greater independence and technical decision making. Technical skills include comprehensive knowledge of water and wastewater process, advanced understanding and operational use of PLCs and SCADA system, strong troubleshooting skills for power control circuits and instrumentation, and proficiency in reading electrical schematics and performing electrical installations.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “So from a technical skills perspective, that would include comprehensive knowledge of water and wastewater process, advanced understanding and operational use of PLCs and SCADA system, strong troubleshooting skills for power control circuits and instrumentation, and proficiency in reading electrical schematics and performing electrical installations.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:43:13

• Grade 17 Responsibilities and Experience

  • Summary: The Grade 17 responsibilities include troubleshooting complex systems, performing calibrations, managing subcontractors, ordering parts, scheduling deliveries, processing invoices, handling maintenance records, coordinating with vendors, and independent problem solving in a varied of operational conditions. It requires five years of industrial, environmental, or water wastewater systems experience with at least three years focused on electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and electronics.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “Also, with the grade 17, the responsibilities are higher, including troubleshooting complex systems and performing calibrations, managing subcontractors, ordering parts, scheduling deliveries, and processing invoices, handling maintenance records and coordinating with vendors, and independent problem solving in a varied of operational conditions. So the grade 17 also currently requires five years of industrial, environmental, or water wastewater systems with at least three years focused on electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and electronics.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:43:37

• Proposal to Create Grade 15 Step-Up Position

  • Summary: A staff member requested moving the discussion to the next meeting for eventually approving the grade 15 position as an intermediate step to the grade 17 for water and wastewater.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “So staff would request that we move this on to the next meeting and that eventually approving this grade 15 position as an intermediate step to the grade 17 for the water and wastewater”
  • Source timestamp: 01:44:10

• AFMI Discussion Regarding Job Creation

  • Summary: A discussion occurred regarding whether AFMI entered into a meeting with City Manager Boyer to discuss an agreement on this as a grade 15 classified upgrade for new job creation.
  • Attribution: John
  • Evidence: “I’m looking at you with these query eyes. Because I don’t agree with the, well, let me say this first. AFMI, the American Federation, they entered into a meeting with you to discuss the agreement on this It’s a 15 classified upgrade for new job creation. Is that what took place? Has that taken place? Or are we just talking about it right now, discussing this matter?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:44:35

• Job Description Fit and Qualification Concerns

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding whether the job description listed for a Grade 15 fits the rate being mentioned, questioning if a candidate without specific technical background skills should be hired at that level.
  • Attribution: John
  • Evidence: “Does that fit the job description at the rate that you’re mentioning, at a 15, maybe go into a 17, but does that fit the job description criteria? Does that fit? Because I’m like this here, I don’t want to hire a guy that does not have these kind and the technical background skills at a rate of 15, a guy that’s with all of this listing of description, he has to be qualified, certified somewhere along the line. And I don’t think a grade 15 would be the appropriate one.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:45:24

• Level Differences Summary (Grade 15 vs Grade 17)

  • Summary: The main differences between the levels are technical skills, responsibilities, and experience required. Level two involves more complex systems, PLCs and SCADA, and advanced troubleshooting, while level one focuses on routine maintenance and foundational skills. Level two requires greater autonomy and decision making, whereas level one operates under close supervision. Level two demands more years of experience and specialized knowledge, and includes administrative tasks like processing invoices and managing subcontractors.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “So the main changes are the technical skills and the responsibilities, and then the experience required. Overall summary, the level of complexity, the level two involves more complex systems, PLCs and SCADA, and advanced troubleshooting, while the level one focuses on routine maintenance and foundational skills. And the independence level two requires greater autonomy and decision making, where the level one operates under close supervision. And the experience, the level two demands more years of experience and specialized knowledge, reflecting the advanced nature of the role and then administrative responsibilities, level two includes administrative tasks like processing invoices and managing subcontractors and that’s not included in the level one.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:47:44

• Staffing History and Training Concerns

  • Summary: A concern was raised about a young man who previously held the job, noting that he was not qualified when it became available, and questioned why he is being asked to accept a lower-level position instead of receiving training like others.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “How long have this job when it was filled? How many years have someone been in this position that was not qualified? When this job became available, the person that had it before it became available was not qualified, did not have these qualifications. A young man did it on this job and now things are changing and and he’s being asked to accept a position at a lower level and why not bring him in at the level everybody else came in it and give him the needed training or schooling like we We do everybody else to get him prepared. To get him prepared for the position.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:48:35

• Memorandum of Understanding with the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP)

  • Summary: The PEP plan was negotiated out of the contract by the FOP and only three specific employees qualify for grandfathering under this MOU.
  • Evidence: “So the plan, the PEP plan, was negotiated out of the contract there. So that’s something that is in this current contract. The FOP negotiated it out. Fowler. It wasn’t something that they were willing to give it up as a part of the contract. However, what they negotiated as a part of that, we’ll give it up, but there are three particular employees, they’re the only three that are going to qualify for under the original plan because they’re going to hit their, within these next three years, they would hit the 20 years and they would have the requisite number hour of days that could be cashed in. So they asked, we’ll give up PEP, but could you grandfather just these three people in? So we’ve already approved the agreement and now we’re coming back to memorialize the with this MOU just those three because it wouldn’t be appropriate to write the three of them into the overall contract there so that’s why you would handle this separately as a side MOU just with regards to these three people grandfather these people in again there’s no payment to them if they don’t choose to retire in the next within the term of this and the other members of the board. So if they don’t retire in the next three years or in 27, then this goes away. And then PEP is gone for everybody at that point.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:53:14

• Park illumination and safety concerns

  • Summary: Concerns were raised regarding the insufficient lighting at a park, making it easy to conceal illegal activities like bringing in alcohol, drugs, or weapons.
  • Evidence: “As I looked at the park, I didn’t think it was illuminated enough. No, it’s not. And because anybody that wants to peddle anything in that area can conceal any evidence even though there’s a little lighting there, but it does not cast off enough to eliminate the possibility of someone either bringing illegal alcohol, drugs, weapons, whatever, contraband Bates, or whatever the situation is. I don’t think it’s bright enough to deter individuals that they just can’t just show up at this park and try to conceal their actions and things like that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:56:08

• Funding for increased park lighting

  • Summary: It was stated that improving the lighting would require going to the property owners, who would have to call New Winslow and pay for it, as City Council or administration would not approve using tax dollars.
  • Evidence: “But if you want to do that, it’s private property. So you’re going to have to go to the property owners and they’re going to have to call new Winslow. They’re going to have to pay for it. I don’t believe that City Council or the administration would approve using tax dollars.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:57:15

• Property lighting options

  • Summary: A suggestion was made regarding a small, freestanding property lamp that would be up to the property owner how they want to implement.
  • Evidence: “What about just a lamp, a little property lamp, you know, one that stands up in the yard? That would be up to the property owner how they want to do that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:57:34

• City interest in transferring county property

  • Summary: The speaker expressed favorability toward taking the property because it is close to community facilities and could fit with existing plans for infill housing or commercial development.
  • Evidence: “I am favorable toward that since it is so close to some of the other community facilities and it would fit in close with our existing. We have some lots in that area. We’re doing we’re investigating some infill housing possibilities and I know we’ve worked with GFP a couple of years ago on a concept for this so I think it makes a lot of sense for the city to take over this property from the county and it would be an opportunity for us to also control it and make sure it is maintained in the interim until we we are able to move forward with any residential or for commercial opportunities with it.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:00:36

• Cost of acquiring county property

  • Summary: It was stated that the county was willing to deed the property over to the city at zero or minimal cost, with paperwork costing $1.
  • Evidence: “What would it cost us to take this property off the county’s hands? I believe the county is just willing to deed it over to the city, so at zero or minimal cost. Paperworks says $1.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:01:28

• City plan for acquired property

  • Summary: The city plans to use the property for infill projects along a corridor that was recently redone, and also investigating other commercial activity or potential for development.
  • Evidence: “As I just mentioned we’re looking at a couple of infill projects along this corridor being that we’ve just redone it and we’ve also investigated some other commercial activity or potential for development there so I would say either one of those would fall under the category of what we would be looking at.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:01:57

• Park District ownership history inquiry

  • Summary: A council member questioned the extent and origin of the Freeport Park District’s land holdings within the city, asking how it originated that the Park District was able to cover much land base in the city.
  • Evidence: “Freeport Park District covers a lot of areas in Freeport, and their locations is not being, what I want to say, conveyed or revealed of why they have these jurisdictions under their government, under their jurisdiction. I just like to know where does the city factor in? Why is it that the Freeport Park District has so much territory, land, property here in the city of Freeport? Did they inherit it or did the city give it over to them, park it into their possession to create parks and things of this nature? I’d just like to know how it originated that the Park District was able to cover much land base here in the city of Freeport.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03:21

• Freeport Park District jurisdiction and land ownership

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the extent of Freeport Park District’s territory within the city of Freeport, questioning its origin and relationship with the city.
  • Attribution: Mayor Miller
  • Evidence: “Yeah, Freeport Park District covers a lot of areas in Freeport, and their locations is not being, what I want to say, conveyed or revealed of why they have these jurisdictions under their government, under their jurisdiction. I just like to know where does the city factor in? Why is it that the Freeport Park District has so much territory, land, property here in the city of Freeport? Did they inherit it or did the city give it over to them, park it into their possession to create parks and things of this nature? I’d just like to know how it originated that the Park District was able to cover much land base here in the city of Freeport. We don’t have that because I’m trying to get it all out right now because I may not get another chance. So I like to get more details about it.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03:21

• Meeting scheduling for Park District review

  • Summary: A suggestion was made to create a formal meeting involving the whole council and others to discuss the Park District’s land base, starting with a one-on-one with the park district director.
  • Attribution: Mayor Miller
  • Evidence: “I would like to have a conversation. I would love to have more than just what I want to say. I want to talk about it more with other individuals understanding the whole magnet to all of it and so we like I would like to create a meeting that we can uh some formal way that uh everybody can get involved in uh and talk about it I’m talking about the whole council I’m talking about everybody to talk about the thing and uh see what we come up with I think we can work on that but I I would suggest maybe we start with a one-on-one with the park district director”
  • Source timestamp: 02:04:28

• Corner lot parcel data discrepancy

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding four equal lots and a fifth area crossing over on a drawing, questioning if it creates future issues.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “I just want to ask about the corner at the top of the drawing there. You show four lots that are equal and then you show a fifth one and a thing going over. And I’m just wondering if that creates a headache down the line or what that is.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:04:34

• City ownership of adjacent parcels

  • Summary: A confirmation was given that the city currently owns a couple of parcels from previous demolitions, which could allow for future development like infill housing or recreational use.
  • Attribution: Eric
  • Evidence: “Sure. I may be staying corrected here, but I believe we actually currently own a couple of parcels there as well from previous demolitions, so that would allow us to kind of accumulate that piece and perhaps move forward with with another project there, whether that be infill housing or or recreational related but I think it makes sense and it because we have our we already have an established crew that’s taking care of lots the only maintenance relate related to it besides cleaning it up is mowing it so since we are kind of in a good position in that regard it seems like it’d be a good opportunity to pick that up and be able to control that moving forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:05:55

• Historical park name confirmation

  • Summary: A speaker recalled that the area used to be a park called Tutti Baker Park.
  • Attribution: Mayor Miller
  • Evidence: “I just wanted to know at one time, I know as a little girl I lived in that area, so at one time that used to be a park. It was called Tutti Baker Park and that’s what that was.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:05:55

• Status of previously voted ordinance item

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding an ordinance that was voted on on November 12th but never appeared on the December 16th agenda, questioning who has the power to remove it.
  • Attribution: Mayor Miller
  • Evidence: “On November 12th, there was an ordinance that was brought to the council. Mayor Miller was not present, Attorney Zito presented, and it was voted on and moved to supposedly the December 16th agenda. However, it never showed up. And I want to know who have that power to take something from an agenda when it’s has been voted on. What right and why did it happen? Why was it removed? That’s what I would like to know.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:07:46

• Procedure for questioning agenda removal

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding whether the council should have been included if an item was questioned or decided to be taken off the agenda.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “Once it was asked to be moved forward by myself and seconded by Alderman Simmons. Shouldn’t it have come to us if you were going to question or decide to just take it off? We were the ones. I think the only thing about this Alderman Stacy was the fact that normally, yes, it would be on the agenda, right, for further discussion.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:11:00

• Withdrawal of proposed changes from agenda

  • Summary: The discussion covered the procedural implications when proponents of an ordinance withdraw their support for it before council action.
  • Evidence: “So that’s why I relayed when the mayor contacted me and said, hey, the people that were proponents of this were withdrawing it. So I said, okay, following past practice, I reached out to Dovie and said, hey, the people that wanted this no longer want it. You know, they don’t wanna put these changes forward anymore. So that’s why it was taken off the agenda.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:10:39

• Procedural question regarding item removal from agenda

  • Summary: A speaker questioned whether an item should have come to council if it was being removed or decided upon by others.
  • Evidence: “Once it was asked to be moved forward by myself and seconded by Alderman Simmons. Shouldn’t it have come to us if you were going to question or decide to just take it off? We were the ones.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:11:00

• Reason for difference in agenda handling

  • Summary: A speaker noted that a difference in procedure occurred because the original proponents of an item withdrew their support.
  • Evidence: “The only reason why the difference here was because the people that were pushing it, that wanted it in the first place, that asked for it to be on the agenda basically withdrew it. Why would that matter? It had went past that step. It had went to another level by two different people.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:11:31

• Acknowledgement of vote outcome regarding ordinance

  • Summary: A speaker stated belief that Alderman Monroe was missing an acknowledgment and granting of a previously voted-upon item.
  • Evidence: “I believe that if you would like my opinion and what I asked for and what we all took a vote for, seven to zero, I believe Audemar Monroe was missing that, that it should have been acknowledged and should have been granted.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:11:40

• Agenda placement based on proponent requests

  • Summary: A speaker stated an understanding that if two people request an item be placed on the agenda, it should be respected.
  • Evidence: “And I’ve been told over and over again that as long as two people bring it that anything can be on an agenda. So two people brought it and it should have been respected.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:12:24

• Confirmation of item placement based on requests

  • Summary: A speaker confirmed the item was placed back on the agenda because Alderman Moreau and another person requested it.
  • Evidence: “So that’s why it’s on now because two people have asked to have it on. So that’s why it was put back on because you and Alderman Moreau have asked for it to be put back on.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:12:37

• Ordinance requirement for agenda addition

  • Summary: A speaker confirmed the ordinance states any two persons can add an item to the agenda.
  • Evidence: “And John. That’s an accurate statement that our ordinances say that any two older persons could have an item added to the agenda.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:12:52

• Difference in withdrawal procedure for ordinance

  • Summary: A speaker explained the difference between a single applicant withdrawing an amendment and this instance involving eight proponents withdrawing support.
  • Evidence: “But for the 16th, seven people agreed to bring it. And I think that to have further discussion on it, and the difference being is that at that point though, the proponents of the ordinance in the first place asked to have it withdrawn.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:12:59

• Procedure for withdrawing applications/amendments

  • Summary: A speaker explained that typically when an applicant withdraws an application (e.g., zoning amendment), the item is usually just removed from the agenda without a formal council vote on removal.
  • Evidence: “I give the example that when an applicant, a citizen, says, applies for a text amendment to change the code, right, to change the zoning code, or whatever it is, that can go through Zoning Board of Appeals, it can come to committee, committee can say, we vote to move it forward to first reading, if prior to first reading, or even prior to second reading, the applicant says, guess what, my application, I withdraw my application, typically that item then is is just removed from the agenda without the council saying, you know, okay, we officially allow for it to be removed, you know, your application to be withdrawn. It’s usually just withdrawn.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:14

• Clarification on withdrawal procedure when multiple people are involved

  • Summary: A speaker clarified the difference in procedure when multiple proponents withdraw support versus a single applicant withdrawing.
  • Evidence: “But that involved one person, this involved eight. I suppose, well, it involved, I suppose the proponents of the ordinance originally, there was more than one person there, asked for it to be withdrawn.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:54

• Council procedure for handling withdrawn motions

  • Summary: A speaker sought clarification on whether council must still hear an item if it is subsequently withdrawn by its proponents.
  • Evidence: “I suppose ultimately to clarify, if this is what the council wants to say that, hey, whenever anything is moved forward to council, even if it’s subsequently withdrawn or the person drops it, doesn’t want it anymore, that we’ll still hear the, put it on the agenda and the council can then be informed of the fact that, hey, such and such is withdrawing the motion and then you guys can say, okay, well, if you’re withdrawing the motion, then there’s no, or you’re withdrawing the topic, then there’s no really a need to discuss it anymore unless someone else wants to keep you know if you want to discuss it you can have a place back on right you know cuz that’s that’s the difference here is that the original group that wanted it put forward they said we don’t want it anymore we don’t you know we don’t feel the need to move forward with those proposed changes there now if you want to put forward to say hey well I still want to talk about some changes maybe not those changes I you know maybe I didn’t agree with those changes but I I want some other changes made to this rules of council. Then, just like our ordinance says, two people put it on and you guys can move forward with then, you know, whatever changes that you guys want there, so.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:14:10

• Final procedural guidance on agenda items

  • Summary: A speaker summarized the process: if proponents withdraw support, the item is withdrawn unless new proposals are made by two people.
  • Evidence: “Are there any other questions? Is this something that you want to redo? Do we have to take a vote? Mm-mm. OK, we’ll move.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15:25

• Status of draft ordinance on December 16th

  • Summary: A speaker stated their purpose for bringing up the topic was to gain clarity on why a specific draft item was not on the agenda on December 16th.
  • Evidence: “My purpose for bringing it here tonight was to get clarity on why it was not on the December 16th Huffines. And the response to that is because the original proponents of the ordinance asked to have it withdrawn.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:04

• Status of prior ordinance draft

  • Summary: A discussion occurred regarding a previously proposed draft that was reportedly withdrawn before December.
  • Evidence: “Nobody’s made a motion to move it. Oh, okay. I’m saying. As of right now, the group that wanted this draft here withdrew that prior to the December whatever.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15:36

• Clarity on ordinance scheduling

  • Summary: A speaker sought clarity on why an item was not included in the meeting minutes from December 16th.
  • Evidence: “My purpose for bringing it here tonight was to get clarity on why it was not on the December 16th Huffines.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:04

• Ordinance withdrawal rationale

  • Summary: The reason an item was not included in the December 16th meeting was that the original proponents requested its withdrawal.
  • Evidence: “And the response to that is because the original proponents of the ordinance asked to have it withdrawn. They didn’t want to even, they didn’t want to put forth those suggestions anymore.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:14

• Procedural expectation for changes

  • Summary: A speaker expressed that if an item was formally requested and seconded, it should be communicated to them.
  • Evidence: “And I still feel that once I asked for it and it was seconded, that it was no longer at that level. That if indeed that was was going to happen which is what did happen that it would have been respectful to inform Rachel and I, Alderman Simmons and I, what you were doing instead of just not doing it like we were gonna forget and not remember or not know or.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:23

• Electric bill provider discussion initiation

  • Summary: The council moved on to item number 16 concerning the electric bill provider for kilowatt hours, distribution fees, and resident switching processes.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Rowe, do you have any discussion on it? No, I’m not at this Huffines. We’ll move on to item number 16, discussion regarding electric bill provider of kilowatt hours, distribution fees and the process for residents to switch to a different provider.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:37

• Electric rate proposal details

  • Summary: A gentleman presented some rates, involving Mike Mudge with Rock River Energy concerning generation aggregation contracts.
  • Evidence: “So the gentleman came here and he proposed some rates. Could you help me with his name? Manager Boyer. Or the company. It’s Mike Mudge with Rock River Energy but that’s the generation aggregation contract that’s different than the increased changes recently.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:17:23

• Electric bill rate guarantee concerns

  • Summary: A resident questioned whether a company could guarantee rates presented initially, given subsequent delays.
  • Evidence: “I received this in the mail and you either had to act out using this company or you automatic was switched. And then he came back about, oh, I don’t know, six, eight weeks later and because rates were We’re going up. He could not guarantee us at the original quote.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:17:32

• Generation contract uncertainty

  • Summary: The discussion clarified that concerns related to generation stemmed from an upcoming ICC ruling affecting the aggregation contract.
  • Evidence: “they weren’t sure what was going to happen with the ICC ruling coming down the pike so they were expressing their nervousness about being able to fulfill the aggregation contract that we had bid and accepted that has to do with generation right”
  • Source timestamp: 02:18:54

• Resident desire to switch providers

  • Summary: Residents are concerned about high electric bills and wish to revert to original utility holders.
  • Evidence: “my phone have been blowing up because people feel like their electric bills are higher than ever before and they don’t want to stay with this company, they want to go back to their original holders.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:19:32

• Process for switching from previous provider (ComEd)

  • Summary: Residents who were previously on ComEd can return there; however, ComEd cannot automatically switch them over.
  • Evidence: “So if they were on ComEd previously, they can go back to ComEd and that’s fine. But when they call ComEd, they’re being told that the company you signed with has to release you. ComEd can’t just switch them over.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:17

• Need for public information on switching process

  • Summary: A speaker emphasized the need for available information detailing the correct number constituents must call to cancel service if they wish to switch back to ComEd.
  • Evidence: “But we do need information available to the constituents so that they can have the correct number they need to call so that they can cancel this service if that’s what they want to do.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:46

• Confusion regarding opting out of service

  • Summary: Many people submitted forms stating they were opting out, but are being told they never received the necessary letter and cannot opt out.
  • Evidence: “A lot of people submitted the form saying they were opting out. Now they’re being told they never received the letter. They’re not able to opt out.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21:34

• Personal utility bill discrepancy

  • Summary: One resident noted that their service usage was not reflected in their subsidy or letters, and Nordic was scrambling to provide correct information.
  • Evidence: “I called them directly. And when I was looking at my utility bill, their service, whatever they’re supposed to be providing, was not part of my subsidy or my Letters, Stating that I’m using Nordic, Nordic is, but come in charge me because they did not comply with come in.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21:57

• Distribution fee increase clarification

  • Summary: The council noted that an ICC-approved increase was recently approved for distribution and green energy portions of the bill.
  • Evidence: “So to ensure that we’re actually talking apples to apples here, they may be confused because just recently the ICC approved an increase going forward, which was pretty substantial on their, on the portion of their bill that’s not related to the generation. It’s related to distribution and so on.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:48

• Customer confusion regarding utility bill increases (Distribution vs. Generation)

  • Summary: Concerns were raised about customer confusion due to recent ICC approvals for substantial increases related to distribution costs, separate from generation portions of the bill.
  • Evidence: “they may be confused because just recently the ICC approved an increase going forward, which was pretty substantial on their, on the portion of their bill that’s not related to the generation. It’s related to distribution and so on. So as long as we’re talking about the same thing here, yes.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:48

• Explanation of utility upcharges (Distribution side)

  • Summary: A request was made for Mr. Golrabs to explain the upcharge on the distribution side.
  • Evidence: “Well, Mr. Golrabs here, could he explain that? So we know what’s there, or an estimate of what’s there.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:24:28

• Opting out of energy services and administrative fees

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding whether opting out of energy services at a late date would incur an administrative fee.
  • Evidence: “And when people call to opt out at this late date, they want to make sure that there’s no type of administrative fee attached to it.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:25:06

• ComEd rate increase details and causes

  • Summary: It was stated that ComEd will have a substantial rate increase in June, potentially around $10.50 per month, due to electrification, electric cars, data centers, and the cost of upgrading/maintaining the distribution grid.
  • Evidence: “In June, there will be a substantial rate of probably about $10.50 per month, depending upon the size of your home and what you currently incur. A lot of that is due to electrification. So electric cars, putting in the infrastructure for that, the enormous amount of data centers we have in the area, the increased cost to upgrade and maintain the distribution center or grid itself.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:25:15

• Fast track demolition process overview

  • Summary: A refresher was given on the general process for nuisance and fast track code enforcement, starting with a warning, followed by a one-week period to address violations, then a citation with a hearing date.
  • Evidence: “I talked about in that orientation, kind of the Fowler. We’re going to talk about the four main areas my department works in, code enforcement, planning and zoning, building code enforcement, grant administration, and the upper left is where in our orientation we kind of talked about our general process, our chronic nuisance and fast track and how this all kind of works in our code enforcement. Scrolling down, when I talked about this back in 2023, which it hasn’t changed significantly, We’re talking code enforcement, the first process here would be a warning issued, then a property would have one week, this is all general, but a property then would have one week to address a violation. At that point, a property would issue a citation with an associated hearing date.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:30:14

• Code Enforcement Process Steps

  • Summary: The code enforcement process starts with a warning, followed by one week for the property owner to address the violation; failure leads to a citation with an associated hearing date.
  • Evidence: “We’re talking code enforcement, the first process here would be a warning issued, then a property would have one week, this is all general, but a property then would have one week to address a violation. At that point, a property would issue a citation with an associated hearing date.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:30:32

• Administrative Hearing Process Details

  • Summary: The hearing process is similar to traffic court; failure to appear results in a default judgment, and the owner has a chance to plead their case or continue.
  • Evidence: “And little background there is anybody who receives gets to step three, we have a hearing officer, you’re given a date, I always consider it similar to traffic Fowler. It’s an administrative hearing process. And essentially at this point, this is where you’d have a hearing. And if you don’t show up to the hearing, you get a default judgment, similar to traffic. Also you get a chance to plead your case, your case can be continued. You can have a judgment for or against you at this point.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:30:32

• Chronic Nuisance Declaration Criteria

  • Summary: A property must accumulate three judgments within a six-month period to be declared a chronic nuisance.
  • Evidence: “You really you have to have three judgments in a six-month period to be declared a chronic nuisance”
  • Source timestamp: 02:32:09

• Fast-Track Demolition Process Overview

  • Summary: The fast-track demolition process is the last resort, requiring prior steps including at least three code enforcement cases and a judgment for chronic nuisance.
  • Evidence: “So now we talk about fast track demolition. Again, kind of what I talked about when you saw that ladder there, it is the last resort in the process. It essentially means you’ve gone through At least, you know, three code enforcement cases. You had a judgment for chronic nuisance, and now you’re at a park for fast track demolition.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:34:22

• Fast-Track Demolition Statute Authority

  • Summary: The official designated to enforce the building code determines that a building is an immediate continuing hazard if it is open and vacant.
  • Evidence: “This is a statute that the city enacts. So property has to be three stories or less. The corporate official designated to be in charge of enforcing the municipality’s building code, that’s me, is in charge of enforcing the building code and determines that the Holtzman, Mary T. Bates, Bob, and Nick. So this is the third notice. This is to ensure the building is open and vacant, an immediate continuing hazard to the community in which the building is located.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:36:24

• Demolition Notice Posting Requirements

  • Summary: The official can post a notice of approximately two feet by two feet on the front of the building.
  • Evidence: “Then the official shall be authorized to post a notice more or less than two feet by two feet in size that on the front of a building.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:36:50

• Demolition Timeline and Lien Filing

  • Summary: The city has 120 days from the mailing date to demolish if necessary, and following demolition, the municipality may file a notice of lien for the cost.
  • Evidence: “Under this subsection, within a 120-day period following the date of the mailing of the notice, if the appropriate official determines that the demolition is necessary to remedy an immediate and continuing hazard. So that basically says once the letter is mailed and the 30-day period has lapsed for an injunction, the city has 120 days from that mailing period to demolish the structure. Following and another important part here is following demolition, the municipality May, Chris, Matt, Joakim, Chris, Peter, Jeff, Nel, Sean, determine that he may file a notice of lien against the real estate for the cost of the demolition.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:37:42

• Purpose of Fast-Track Demolition

  • Summary: Fast-track demolition serves as a means to hold problem property owners accountable by allowing the city to place a lien on the property after demolition.
  • Evidence: “Fast track demolition is a means to hold problem property owners accountable. And how is it? Well, essentially once that demolition is performed, the city can then put a lien against the property.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:38:31

• Comparison of fast track demolitions to other appropriation requests

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding why fast-track demolition funding is different from instances where the city manager asks for money to tear down specific houses.
  • Attribution: Chris
  • Evidence: “Many city council meetings that come, you come along with city manager to the council asking for money to be appropriated to tear down specific houses. Okay. So why are these different than those instances? And why not just hold that money back for these fast track demolitions?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:40:08

• Authority for fast-track demolition notices and process

  • Summary: The official designated to enforce the building code determines if a building is an open, vacant, immediate continuing hazard, authorizing posting of notice.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “So when I go to a slide here, and on this, this is directly from the statute. It talks about how the corporate official designated to be in charge of enforcing the municipality’s building code determines that a building is open and vacant and an immediate continuing hazard to the community, which the building is located, then the official Schell, be authorized to post the notice on a two-by-two sign”
  • Source timestamp: 02:41:00

• Permitting requirements for structures undergoing fast track demolition

  • Summary: The city requires structural engineer approval and plans to save a structure if it is deemed dangerous and unsafe, otherwise, the city will not move forward with a permit.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “So when you go back to that person and say, no, you cannot have a permit to correct the issues that are outstanding? Sure. That’s most of the time, and I could show in specific cases, and I think one of our and other people here, I think it was Miss Altman had stated, oftentimes when these buildings are up, the structures are deemed dangerous and unsafe. Oftentimes we get a dangerous and unsafe designation at the chronic nuisance hearing. So when a building is considered dangerous and unsafe, at that point, the city is going to require that you have a structural engineer approve the plans to save this structure. And if they don’t provide that, then the city will not move forward with a permit.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:41:31

• Engineer/Architect requirement for reconstruction plans after demolition

  • Summary: The speaker stated they have never seen a satisfactory architect or engineer provide plans to reconstruct property after dealing with fire damage, age, termite damage, or water damage.
  • Attribution: Miller
  • Evidence: “I’ve yet to see a satisfactory architect or engineer come in and provide plans stating that they have the plans to reconstruct the property. I’ve yet to see one. I’ve definitely seen people say a contractor might write a letter, but ultimately when you’re dealing with fire damage, you’re dealing with age, you’re dealing with termite damage, you’re dealing with immense water damage on these structures I am going to require a full analysis from an architect or structural engineer to protect the safety of the people who live in that building because ultimately there are situations where not only can a city be liable but an actual the head of the apartment can be liable if somebody gets hurt and dies on a on a permit allowing somebody to build something that somebody falls and dies Dyson or collapses and dies”
  • Source timestamp: 02:43:04

• Structural safety and demolition concerns

  • Summary: A speaker emphasized the need for a full analysis from an architect or structural engineer due to fire damage, age, and termite/water damage before allowing building permits, citing potential liability.
  • Evidence: “I’ve definitely seen people say a contractor might write a letter, but ultimately when you’re dealing with fire damage, you’re dealing with age, you’re dealing with termite damage, you’re dealing with immense water damage on these structures I am going to require a full analysis from an architect or structural engineer to protect the safety of the people who live in that building because ultimately there are situations where not only can a city be liable but an actual the head of the apartment can be liable if somebody gets hurt and dies on a on a permit allowing somebody to build something that somebody falls and dies Dyson or collapses and dies”
  • Source timestamp: 02:43:26

• Due process for fast-tracked demolitions

  • Summary: A speaker expressed concern over fast-tracked demolitions, noting they have seen worse conditions elsewhere and advocating for due process.
  • Evidence: “I’ll be honest I’ve gone back and I’ve looked at some of the houses that you fast-track demolitioned and I have seen significantly worse around this town and I am really questioning right now if this is the right rules and I think no well I mean it is the correct rules this is from the statute but I mean we go back to and we’re not following them okay that’s fair I mean if you think that they’re not being followed I mean I will certainly listen I’m listening with all ears and there’s also due there’s also due process and anybody here who has had a fast direct demolition is certainly welcome and I’ve spoken with them and provided resources that says if you feel like you’ve been wronged in any way you know Prairie Street Legal Services is a place that I refer to people often where if they feel and Joe. I want people to feel like they have been mistreated or haven’t received proper due process. I want people to have due process. I genuinely do.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:43:26

• Violations history of a property owner

  • Summary: A speaker noted that Miller has had three violations in six months and was before a judge multiple times.
  • Evidence: “The thing we need to consider is you are emphasizing on what happens after Miller. They’ve had three violations in six months and have been in front of a judge. That happened three times in six months before he can get to that point.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:45:17

• Property permit requirements

  • Summary: A speaker stated that if a permit cannot be obtained, the individual has no argument after multiple meetings with the judge.
  • Evidence: “But if you can’t get the permit. I have the floor, sir. Yeah, you do. And if you haven’t got it in your head after four times coming in here and speaking with the judge, then I don’t know what argument you have.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:45:49

• Comparison of demolition practices

  • Summary: A speaker compared fast-tracked demolitions with visible, worse conditions in other parts of town.
  • Evidence: “I’ve seen significantly worse around this town and I am really questioning right now if this is the right rules”
  • Source timestamp: 02:43:26

• City property maintenance issues in the first ward

  • Summary: A speaker detailed a process where community groups were involved in getting fines for vacant houses that had been overgrown, citing an example of a $5,000 check written against three houses.
  • Evidence: “I’m working through a process in four houses in the first ward. Three of them owned by one woman, one of them owned by another person. All are vacant houses that nobody lives in. The city mows them for them, sends them a bill, tries to lien their property and all that kind of stuff. And the stuff and we finally got them on the hundred dollar a day fine. The woman that had three houses wrote out a check for five We had three houses, wrote out a check for $5,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:49:02

• Status of property at northeast corner

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding a long-standing property at the northeast corner being an eyesore and requiring explanation on its status.
  • Evidence: “So it’s the northeast corner and the reason why I’m asking is because it’s been there so long, there’s no fast track involved that that property is still sitting there and then we need an explanation because it’s a definite nuisance, it’s an eyesore in the community. Have we paid any attention to that particular property and what are we doing about it because I don’t know if this is in the bracket of homes to be demoed.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:50:48

• Demolition of 404 East Shawnee

  • Summary: Discussion regarding demolition of 404 East Shawnee, including personal property missing and reports stolen by the demolition company.
  • Evidence: “The discussion regarding demolition of 404 East Shawnee, including personal property missing and reports stolen by the demolition company presented by Alderman Stacey in Monroe.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:52:23

• Authorization for removal of property during demolition

  • Summary: A question was raised about who authorizes a company to remove property from a location during demolition.
  • Evidence: “I will question, so number one, you know, who authorizes the company that tore the building down to remove property from the location as well then, if it’s unsafe, why were they in there and not just demo it? And who goes through that process?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:52:42

• Property ownership details for the structure

  • Summary: Akia Sanders advised she and Raven were the sole owners of the property, purchased for $2,000 from Habitat for Humanity, with no mortgage or insurance.
  • Attribution: Akia Sanders
  • Evidence: “in that property it says she meaning Akia Sanders advised that she and Raven were the sole owners of the property she stated that they purchased the home for $2,000 from Habitat for Humanity there is no mortgage on the property Akia advised that there is not any insurance on the home”
  • Source timestamp: 02:57:16

• Implications of uninsured and unsafe structures

  • Summary: The lack of insurance on the house was highlighted as a major community danger, especially concerning fire safety.
  • Attribution: Huffines
  • Evidence: “This house has no insurance, which really adds to how scary it is to have these properties in our community okay so still looking on to who owns the property when this thing when this property was eventually going through the fast-track demolition process”
  • Source timestamp: 02:58:15

• Change of property ownership

  • Summary: Raven quickly claimed the property from Tiffany Sanders, which is believed to be Akia Sanders’ sister, on June 7th of 2024.
  • Evidence: “Raven quick claims the property to Tiffany Sanders which I believe from what I understand to be Miss Akia Sanders sister excuse me that happened on June 7th of 2024. So the title to Ms. Sanders was gone in June. So that, you know, I know you had stated it was her property. It’s no longer her property. It’s now her sister’s property.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:58:15

• County tax action on the property

  • Summary: The county will soon take ownership of Ms. Tiffany Sanders’ property for back taxes, as they have not paid insurance or taxes.
  • Evidence: “But moving forward, the county will soon be taking this property for back taxes. So they’ve not, they not only do not, they not only not paid insurance, they’ve not paid their taxes. So in So in 2024, Liz Pendens, which is a fancy way for saying a notice. C. Way for saying a notice, they’re basically saying on December 9th of 2024, in June they’re going to be taking ownership of Ms. Tiffany Sanders’ property for back taxes.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:59:07

• Tax payment history

  • Summary: Taxes have not been paid since 2021, with specific back tax payment amounts being available.
  • Evidence: “Miller. It was since 2021 the taxes have not been paid, and here’s some back tax payment amounts.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:59:50

• City permits issued for the property

  • Summary: The city provided three permits for this property, totaling five years, six months, and 19 days of minimal progress from the property owner.
  • Evidence: “The city provided three permits for this property, which totaled five years, six months, and 19 days of minimal progress from the property owner.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:00:05

• Permit issuance timeline (2018-2019)

  • Summary: A permit was issued in 2018 for one year (May 9th to May 9th, 2019), with a subsequent 180-day extension and a six-month extension granted.
  • Evidence: “In 2018, a permit was issued for one year. The dates are May 9th to May 9th of 2019. The city granted a 180-day extension. So, again, working with our community to try to fix this building. We granted a six-month extension on top of this one-year extension.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:00:51

• Permit issuance timeline (2020)

  • Summary: A two-year permit was issued in 2020, spanning from December 17th to December 17th, 2022.
  • Evidence: “In 2020 a permit was issued for two years probably asking why did we give a two-year permit there was some leniency and terms for permits during the pandemic so there was a two-year permit granted from December 17th to December 17th of 2022”
  • Source timestamp: 03:01:13

• Permit extension timeline (2022)

  • Summary: The city granted a six-month extension for the 2020 permit, which expired on June 17th of 2022.
  • Evidence: “again the city in 2022 granted a six month extension this it expired on June 17th of 2022”
  • Source timestamp: 03:01:13

• Permit work completion (2021)

  • Summary: For the permit issued on January 11th, 2021, only rough electrical work was done and inspected for three rooms.
  • Evidence: “on January 11th of 2021 I’m showing the work that was done in this permit a rough electrical work was Celia, The inspection was approved for three rooms only, and this was the only work that was performed for the entire period”
  • Source timestamp: 03:01:13

• Permit issuance timeline (2022-2023)

  • Summary: A one-year permit was issued from October 21st of 2022 to November 28th, 2023. Work done included footing inspections for a room addition.
  • Evidence: “So in 2022, we issued another permit. This was one year. And this went from October 21st of 2022 to November 28th, 2020, a lot of 20s in there. Pardon me for that. Say that three times fast, 2023. The work that was done there was there was footing inspections for a room addition.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:02:43

• Final inspection and code enforcement action

  • Summary: After the total period of five years, six months, and 19 days, an inspector recommended one final inspection, after which the property was moved to code enforcement due to multiple violations.
  • Evidence: “And at that point, after this 5 years, 6 months, 19 days, he then said, this property is moving forward to code enforcement closing the permit and it’s moving forward to code enforcement because there’s there’s multitude of code violations”
  • Source timestamp: 03:03:34

• Property owner history and code enforcement process

  • Summary: The city worked with the property owner for five years before any code enforcement was enacted.
  • Evidence: “Five years before any of this process and enacted so we have actually been more generous to this property owner Than the typical out-of-town person who never has been here never applied for a permit”
  • Source timestamp: 03:09:23

• Tax lien implications for property liens

  • Summary: The speaker noted that tax liens can wipe out other existing liens.
  • Evidence: “Now, when this property, I’m just assuming they’re not going to pay their property taxes because what a tax lien does and what a tax deed does is that wipes out any of these liens. So all that hard work of my staff is going to be unrecoverable when they continue to not pay their taxes”
  • Source timestamp: 03:15:04

• Council discussion on property maintenance enforcement

  • Summary: A council member stated the process for enforcing codes can lead to mowing grass if taxes are unpaid.
  • Evidence: “and that goes to the county tax assessor and then you, sir, can yell at me for having to have people go and mow the grass because that’s how that works. Huffines. That’s exactly how that works.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:15:17

• Council member questioning building condition (Raleigh Building)

  • Summary: A council member questioned the state of the Raleigh Building, noting busted windows and general poor shape.
  • Evidence: “I pick on the Raleigh Building because everything and I don’t know if there’s been a fire or not. I don’t have the research, but all the windows are busted. Yeah, well, the structure is not in great shape”
  • Source timestamp: 03:16:02

• Alderman Sanders comment on prior location discussion

  • Summary: A speaker mentioned that a previous conversation about a location did not refer to the same building being discussed now.
  • Evidence: “Yeah, when I talked to you earlier about that location, I didn’t know that was the same building we was referring to. So yeah, man.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:16:54

• Condition of Raleigh Building windows and structure

  • Summary: A speaker questioned the condition of the Raleigh Building, noting that all the windows are busted and the structure is not in great shape.
  • Evidence: “I pick on the Raleigh Building because everything and I don’t know if there’s been a fire or not. I don’t have the research, but all the windows are busted. Yeah, well, the structure is not in great shape, but I’m just saying.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:16:02

• Process for addressing property issues

  • Summary: A speaker suggested that future discussions about problem properties should be handled by calling them directly rather than bringing them to the council floor.
  • Evidence: “You can call me and I will talk with you, and if there’s problem properties, please call me instead of a time. You called me today at 3 o’clock and you said, hey, Wayne answered the phone. This doesn’t have to go like this every time. You can call me and we will look at these buildings and we’ll work together.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:17:45

• Timeline for demolition of a property

  • Summary: A speaker questioned why the demolition was scheduled for December instead of September 3rd.
  • Evidence: “Stacy? I just wondered why it wasn’t demolished September 3rd. Why did it come to December?”
  • Source timestamp: 03:18:38

• Recommendation for filing a police report regarding missing property

  • Summary: The speaker advised Ms. Sanders to file a police report concerning any potentially missing property.
  • Evidence: “I told Ms. Sanders, I said, at this point, you need to file a police report to ensure that if there’s any property missing, you need to make sure that you have due process and you get it back because I said, they’re telling me that they returned everything in that building.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:23:24

• Property demolition and targeting accusations

  • Summary: A speaker addressed accusations of targeting Ms. Sanders regarding property demolitions, citing statistics for 2024, 2023, and 2022.
  • Evidence: “Two of the 20 properties demolished in 2024 by fast track were Ms. Sanders. Zero of the 20 properties in 2023 were Ms. Sanders and zero of the five properties in 2022 were Ms. Sanders.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:23:59

• 909 South Oak property demolition details

  • Summary: The speaker detailed the process for the fast-track demolition at 909 South Oak, including expired permits and code enforcement actions.
  • Evidence: “Two building permits issued in 2022 on 909 South Oak. City worked with the property owner. These two permits expired on August 5th, 2023, stating it was dangerous to even enter the building, to stay away, watch the floor joist. It was extremely dangerous property. Code enforcement cases began. This should look very familiar because it follows the exact playbook that I had mentioned in the orientation in 2023. Code enforcement case here, code enforcement case here, code enforcement case here, chronic nuisance judgment, May 18th, 2023, fast track notice on October 11th, property demolished on January 29th.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:24:14

• Condition of property at 909 South Oak

  • Summary: A speaker noted that upon inspection, the property showed new windows and doors, indicating work was being done.
  • Evidence: “So when I went over there, this is what I saw. Not the holes and everything you show in the first pictures. So I saw new windows, I saw new doors, I saw that.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:25:41

• Handling of personal issues in council meetings

  • Summary: A speaker expressed a preference for private matters to be discussed in conference rooms with attorneys rather than bringing up personal information in public.
  • Evidence: “I think it’s a private issue and it should have been discussed more in the conference rooms with attorneys than us, you know, because you bring out people’s personal information and that, you know, to me, I just think it’s a personal issue that should have been handled behind the closed doors to not bring out other people’s information.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:27:01

Public Comment

• Ordinance changes regarding voting and abstention rights

  • Summary: A citizen expressed concern that proposed ordinance changes, specifically section 20 part four regarding forfeiting compensation for not voting when called upon, are unjust because Robert’s Rules of Order already grant a right of abstention (section 45.3) which is not necessarily connected to a conflict of interest.
  • Evidence: “I noticed on the agenda number 15 that it’s coming up again about some of these ordinance changes that one wants to do, I think, to some of the meeting principles that go on here, in particular fines and so forth. One part of that that I especially want to speak against is section 20. I believe it’s 20 part four where it states in this any member present when his or her name is called to vote on any question during a meeting of the city council or any of its committees and who shall refuse or neglect to vote shall forfeit $100 of their compensation for the current month unless he or she has a conflict of interest in subject matter of the question and discloses the nature of the conflict of the city council and city council and others. My majority of vote excuses said member from voting at his or her request prior to the commencement of the roll call on said question. Now it’s my understanding that the council indeed, and I understand every one of you, has a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order. And under Robert’s Rules of Order, it states in section 45.3 that there is a right of abstention and it is not necessarily always connected to having a conflict of interest.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:29

• Allegations regarding property theft and personal disputes

  • Summary: A citizen addressed issues concerning the service of process for their sister, allegations of theft involving belongings, and concerns about statements made by Rob Boyer.
  • Evidence: “Next on the list is Akiah Sanders. How y’all doing? This is my sister. We own 404 together. I just want to state that she was never served at her address. Steve Cox used my address to serve her. My sister lives in Rockford. They asked you where do you want the deed sent? She sent the D to me, but that was not to be used as her primary address. He did that on his own. I was also called Friday by the police to say that they are not going to press any charges on Tony. I don’t know if his last name, Miller, Albert, or whatever his name is, because they would have a hard time proving intent. There was three different occasions he brought my belongings to whoever, but it’s called theft after the fact or something like that, but you mean to tell me three times he didn’t No, he had my stolen property in saying that’s and then on another note as this came out I was told that Rob Boyer was asking or telling people that do you know who this is about this is a Kia Sanders I don’t know what he meant by that but I just want him to know that means more says more about you than it says about me okay next on the list is Cheryl is it Altman thank you good evening I owned a house at 124 Black Hawk and I think that they did the fast track demolition process on me we were not served any notice no registration one day it was there the next day it was gone and we had a whole bunch of stuff in there and matter of fact when they went through my house they broke in to go through the house the house was locked so now I lost not only my house but all my building material that was in this house and that’s”

• Demolition and Property Loss Concerns

  • Summary: A resident stated they lost a house at 124 Black Hawk due to fast-track demolition without notice, and that materials in the locked house were stolen.
  • Evidence: “good evening I owned a house at 124 Black Hawk and I think that they did the fast track demolition process on me we were not served any notice no registration one day it was there the next day it was gone and we had a whole bunch of stuff in there and matter of fact when they went through my house they broke in to go through the house the house was locked so now I lost not only my house but all my building material that was in this house and that’s”
  • Source timestamp: 07:07

• Building Permits and City Oversight Issues

  • Summary: A resident expressed frustration over permit denials for a property at 16 to 422 and a half Prospect Harris, stating the city is also failing to address visible eyesores like the Raleigh Building.
  • Evidence: “And then we have another property that we’re trying to get, we have our contractor’s license. We’re trying to get a permit. We had to have an engineer for 16 to 422 and a half Prospect Harris. We had the engineer come in, gave them the report that it’s a sound building. We got a permit last year, but they refused to give me this year and we were two thirds of the way done with the house. And now they want to try tearing that down too. This is unfair. Neistat. I think the city needs to take a look at some of their buildings, like the Raleigh Building, which has been a very eyesore for years.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:38

• Insufficient illumination in Shalom Park area

  • Summary: A concern was raised that the lighting in the park is not bright enough to deter individuals from concealing contraband like illegal alcohol, drugs, or weapons.
  • Evidence: “Yeah. I did have a question. As I looked at the park, I didn’t think it was illuminated enough. No, it’s not. And because anybody that wants to peddle anything in that area can conceal any evidence even though there’s a little lighting there, but it does not cast off enough to eliminate the possibility of someone either bringing illegal alcohol, drugs, weapons, whatever, contraband Bates, or whatever the situation is. I don’t think it’s bright enough to deter individuals that they just can’t just show up at this park and try to conceal their actions and things like that.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:56:08

• Due process for property owners

  • Summary: A speaker offered resources like Prairie Street Legal Services to those who feel they were mistreated or lacked due process.
  • Evidence: “I want people to feel like they have been mistreated or haven’t received proper due process. I want people to have due process. I genuinely do.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:45:01

• Appalling demolition practices

  • Summary: A speaker stated that tearing down a property with better exterior features while other properties nearby have collapsing roofs are appalling.
  • Evidence: “Fowler. I’m telling you right now, this is appalling to me, appalling that we would go in and tear a property down that’s got a better roof, got better outside exterior, I can pull up the images still on Google Earth, I can walk through it, I can look at it, I’ve seen pictures of it, I’ve seen pictures of it, I’ve seen pictures of it, I’ve seen pictures of it, I’ve seen pictures I can walk through it, I can look at it, I’ve seen pictures on the inside, and I’ve got, and I drive down 26 on West Ave, and I’ve got roofs collapsing, porches collapsing, and those buildings are still there, and we’re fast-tracking this young lady’s house. For what?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:46:55

• Status of long-standing nuisance property

  • Summary: A speaker inquired about the status and potential demolition consideration for a specific property on Shawnee Street that has been sitting there for over 10 years.
  • Evidence: “I just want to ask a question in regards to a home that’s been sitting for over 10 years probably. My recollection is the last time I drove by it was still there boarded up and things of this nature and when I looked at the property 404 East Shawnee I’m just wondering if that’s the same property. Now I’m looking at the property on Shawnee on the north side of the street of Benton which is on the east side of the street of Benton. So it’s the northeast corner and the reason why I’m asking is because it’s been there so long, there’s no fast track involved that that property is still sitting there and then we need an explanation because it’s a definite nuisance, it’s an eyesore in the community.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:50:22

• Fast track demolition procedures at 124 Blackhawk

  • Summary: A public commenter stated that their house, located at 124 Blackhawk, was taken without receiving a certified letter or having an opportunity to appear before the hearing committee.
  • Evidence: “First of all, my house was all enclosed. Doors, new windows in there from Window World. The door was locked. It was kicked in by cities and officials to inspect this house. I was never sent any any certified letter that you were tearing down my house at all. I had building materials, a whole bunch of stuff in there that has just disappeared, gone.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:28:09

• City property maintenance accountability

  • Summary: A public commenter criticized the city for holding landlords accountable while failing to maintain its own properties.
  • Evidence: “You sit here and complain about the landlord’s property, but the city owns a lot of properties They’re in worse shape than what the house you tore down. We’ll get the rally building going again. I have seen people in there I own properties up there. There’s trees growing through in there. The roof is caving in that’s been there for years But the city still has not taken they want to hold the landlord accountable for their actions But the city won’t be accountable for their actions in their property.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:29:37

• Property acquisition and maintenance issues

  • Summary: A public commenter shared concerns about realtors buying properties and failing to maintain them, citing a personal incident involving an antenna falling on their house.
  • Evidence: “I think there’s a correlation with Habitat for Humanity I think is what it’s called in selling these properties like this because in In my case, a realtor got a hold of it and he’s been known, well known, to do this over and over again where he buys properties, doesn’t take care of them. I had a 10 foot antenna, heavy iron fall on my house in the middle of the night.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:30:45

• Housing and property maintenance concerns

  • Summary: The speaker detailed issues with properties bought by realtors that were neglected, citing personal examples of damage (e.g., 10 foot antenna falling on their house) and the need to maintain neighboring properties for years due to absentee owners.
  • Evidence: “And on the housing side what we were talking about with the building and permits and all that kind of stuff I’m coming from the side of I live next to a house like that I think there’s a correlation with Habitat for Humanity I think is what it’s called in selling these properties like this because in In my case, a realtor got a hold of it and he’s been known, well known, to do this over and over again where he buys properties, doesn’t take care of them. I had a 10 foot antenna, heavy iron fall on my house in the middle of the night. I am a single female, have no backup. I had to take care of that myself because the landlord would not respond. Mond. He bought that property, never did a thing to it for years and years. While I kept having people break into it, I had to board it up myself with my own money and tools. I mowed that lawn for probably eight years because he never took care of that, picked up the garbage, had to call the police for drug deals constantly on that house. I had to put up a flood light just to protect my own self. So while I feel for the people putting money into these houses, you have to understand where the homeowners coming from as well, because we’re affected by all that. So that’s the part I want to say on that.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:30:45

• Intersection safety concerns (Adams and side street)

  • Summary: The speaker requested city review of intersections, specifically noting a stop sign issue at Adams Street near the fire station where drivers are confused about which side street it applies to.
  • Evidence: “The other issue that I wanted to talk about is maybe could someone look at from the city the couple intersections, some issues there. I’m not sure the addresses, but one of them is by the fire station on Adams. They newly redid the street, which looks great, and it’s great to drive on. That’s much appreciated. There’s a stop sign, however, that’s turned towards Adams, and people keep thinking that they’re supposed to stop there. I have witnessed, and then had it happen to me today, where I had to slam on my brakes because the person in front of me was confused and didn’t know if they should be stopping at that sign. It’s actually for the side street coming this way, but it’s facing this way on Adams.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:33:06

• Intersection safety concerns (Winnishek and Adams)

  • Summary: The speaker requested follow-up discussion regarding another intersection at Winnishek and Adams.
  • Evidence: “There’s who can I talk to you about the other intersection right there I think it’s I want to say Winnishek and Adams but I’m not sure yeah is there someone we can talk when I can talk to about other another intersection”
  • Source timestamp: 03:33:32

• Theft allegations regarding property demolition

  • Summary: A speaker addressed accusations of theft and misconduct related to a large house (over 5,000 square feet) and stated that they were not implying the other party did not work with them during the permit phase.
  • Evidence: “So if you was listening to me, I didn’t say that they didn’t work with me during my permit phase. I told Dugman. That was for the judge, and to the judge hear it, it wasn’t supposed to be knocked down. He dismisses it. You don’t dismiss the idea of me filing a paper. If you want to see that you talked about me bad in here, if you consider that a win, I never said that you didn’t work with me. It was over a 5,000 square foot house. It took a lot of time. That was a lot of material. Then nobody talks about my stuff being stolen. Three times it took somebody to bring my stuff three different times. How do you overlook bounce houses three times my size? You had did nothing but show that the privilege is Jodi Miller’s brother, he can steal what he want to. I never heard that there was a contract that you guys had, demo houses, but go shopping first. Steal something first, I never heard that.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:36:54

• National Day of Racial Healing Event

  • Summary: A speaker announced an event for National Day of Racial Healing scheduled for Saturday, January the 18th, at the Freeport Farm Bureau.
  • Evidence: “I have something. Okay. Saturday, January the 18th, there will be a National Day of Racial Healing at the Freeport Farm Bureau from 9 to 1. The purpose is to reflect on our shared values and engage in conversation to heal division and bring our community together.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:39:12

Proclamations and Recognitions

• State Conference Awards Received
  • Summary: The partnership was awarded five awards from the state conference at the Illinois Main Street Association.
  • Attribution: Andrea Schwartz Winters
  • Evidence: “We were also awarded five awards from the state conference, at the state conference from the Illinois Main Street Association.”
  • Source timestamp: 43:21

Follow-ups

• Revised Hotel Occupancy Report for Q4

  • Summary: The presenter apologized for the omission of October, November, and December data and committed to sending a revised report.
  • Attribution: Sanders
  • Evidence: “I apologize for that when I had to send it to you guys the last hotel had not submitted theirs I will send out the revised report for that I didn’t want to guess at their occupancy for the fourth quarter and I hadn’t heard back from them so thank you for noticing”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:24

• Reviewing professional service contracts for plumbing inspection

  • Summary: Staff was tasked with checking when the contract with BNF ends and investigating options like an RFP or another company for professional services.
  • Attribution: staff
  • Evidence: “Crockley, or not to say that we couldn’t look into possibly at a next, that’s something you can task staff with, I can double check when our contract ends with BNF, but we could certainly reopen it again and kind of look into that professional service. So that would answer your question, to answer your question is we’d have to go out again and see when our contract with BNF ends and then we could look into entering with another company or going for an RFP to kind of look for those professional services.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:32:35

• Dissemination of electric service information

  • Summary: The council agreed to work with Mike Mudge to create a statement addressing concerns and distributing it via social media.
  • Evidence: “Yes, we will basically get with Mike, address the concerns that you’ve expressed tonight, put together a statement, we can push that out on social media,”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:23

• Nordic Energy customer service contact information

  • Summary: The phone number for Nordic Energy customer service was provided.
  • Evidence: “Let’s start with Nordic Energy. Their phone number for customer service is 877-808-1022.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:24:45

• Status of property at northeast corner

  • Summary: The speaker offered to meet with Sanders to provide updates on the property.
  • Evidence: “I can meet with the other person, Sanders, and get that figured out. We’ll move on to, is there any other questions?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:52:11