Meeting Events

Meeting: zm004bqo_m0.city_council_meeting_9_2_2025

Meeting date: 2025-09-02

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

• Alderman Simmons Remote Attendance — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made for Alderman Simmons to attend remotely.
  • Evidence: “And Sellers? A motion in order for Alderman Simmons to attend remotely.”
  • Evidence: “All those in favor? No. Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:40

• Approval of Agenda Item 25 (Executive Session) — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to waive item number 25, Executive Session.
  • Evidence: “Item number one is approval of the agenda. However, we will not be having item number 25, which is Executive Session. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.”
  • Evidence: “A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Parker? Aye. Stacy?”
  • Source timestamp: 03:44

• Approval of Agenda Item 1 (Agenda)

  • Summary: Motion to approve the agenda.
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to approve? So moved.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:50

• Approval of Minutes from August 18th, 2025 — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting on August 18th, 2025.
  • Evidence: “Item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on August 18th, 2025. Is there a motion to approve? So moved.”
  • Evidence: “A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker.”
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, could you please take the role? … Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Thank you. Sellers? Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 04:22

• Approval of consent agenda items — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve the consent agenda package, including minutes from multiple boards, resolution 2025-106, and financial approvals.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.”
  • Evidence: “The motion passes 6-1 with one abstention.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:58

• Consent Agenda Approval — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to approve consent agenda items.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second.”
  • Evidence: “The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle. Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? I pass. Is that an abstain? Yes. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No. The motion passes 6-1 with one abstention.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:58

• Ordinance 2025-53 Lease Renewal

  • Summary: Motion to move ordinance 2025-53 on to the next regular scheduled meeting discussion.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Parker to move this ordinance on to the next regular scheduled meeting discussion.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:53

• Approval of Gladewood special service area ordinance

  • Summary: Motion made to approve the ordinance establishing the Gladewood special service area.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “Africa men’s approval of this ordinance and establishing the Gladewood special service area . Motion to approve.”
  • Evidence: “We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm. Seconded. Made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers to move this ordinance forward.”
  • Evidence: “Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm. Seconded. Made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers to move this ordinance forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:44

• Moving forward with amendment removing maximum age for police and fire chiefs

  • Summary: A motion was made to move forward with the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “staff recommends moving forward with and the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs. Is there a motion to move this forward?”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 41:57

• Suspension of the rules

  • Summary: A motion was made to suspend the rules.
  • Attribution: Alderman Parker
  • Evidence: “Also suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Evidence: “Second. We have a motion to suspend the rules made by Alderman Parker. I didn’t. Seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:08

• Moving forward with amendment removing age cap for police and fire chiefs

  • Summary: Motion to move forward with the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs.
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to move this forward? So moved. Second.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:08

• Suspension of the rules — Passed

  • Summary: Motion to suspend the rules.
  • Evidence: “Also suspension of the rules. Suspension of the rules. We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Evidence: “So Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension only? … Motion passes 6 to 2.”
  • Source timestamp: 42:08

• Ordinance Passage (7-1) — Passed

  • Summary: An ordinance passed with a vote of 7-1.
  • Evidence: “And the ordinance passes 7-1.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:03

• Motion to Move Forward with Solar Array Zoning Code Amendment

  • Summary: A motion was made regarding the zoning code amendment for ground-mounted solar arrays.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “Is there such a motion? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 59:56

• Adoption of Resolution 2025-101 (Office 365)

  • Summary: Motion to adopt the resolution approving agreement for purchase of Office 365.
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second.”
  • Evidence: “Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:10

• Adoption of resolution

  • Summary: Motion to adopt the measure was made by Alderman Klemm and seconded by Alderman Shadle.
  • Evidence: “So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:17

• Motion to adopt resolution 2025,102

  • Summary: A motion was required to adopt Resolution 2025,102.
  • Evidence: “Oh, wait a minute. We need a motion to adopt.”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 01:21:40

• Adoption of server replacement plan

  • Summary: Motion made by Alderman Shadle and seconded by Alderman Klemm regarding the adoption of a server replacement plan.
  • Attribution: Alderman Shadle
  • Evidence: “So moved. Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.”

• Adoption of resolution 2025-104 (Water main repairs) — Adopted

  • Summary: The resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue was adopted with a vote tally of 7-1.
  • Attribution: City Council
  • Evidence: “This one’s Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, The resolution is adopted 7-1. Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025-104. Would you please read this? Resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:22:36

• Adoption of resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue

  • Summary: Motion made by Alderman Shadle and seconded by Alderman Sellers regarding the water main repair resolution.
  • Attribution: Alderman Shadle
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to adopt? So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:24:41

• Adoption of purchase of equipment trailer

  • Summary: Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers, to move forward with purchasing the new 18,000 pound equipment trailer.
  • Attribution: Alderman Shadle
  • Evidence: “So moved. Second. A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:24:41

• Adoption of Resolution for Safe Routes to School Grant Pursuit — Passed

  • Summary: Motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson, and supported by Alderman Sanders regarding pursuing the grant opportunity.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers, Clerk
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to adopt? Second. We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson, Alderman Sanders.”
  • Evidence: “The resolution is adopted, 8-0.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:33:46

• Adoption of resolution for OZLAD funding

  • Summary: Motion made to adopt the resolution regarding the OZLAD application.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Is there a motion to adopt? So moved.”
  • Evidence: “The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:38:18

• Approval of speaking time for Alderman Simmons — Passed

  • Summary: A vote was taken on whether to allow Alderman Simmons to speak again.
  • Evidence: “Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Klemm? Hi. Johnson? Hi. Simmons? Oh, yeah, you can vote. Is that a yes, Simmons? Yes. Parker? No. Stacy? Yes. It passes.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:47:36

• Approval of bid for demolition and asbestos abatement — Approved

  • Summary: Motion to approve moving forward with Klechner excavating.
  • Evidence: “Motion approved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.”
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:57:41

• Council discussion on path forward for housing issues

  • Summary: A motion was made for the council, mayor, city manager, and attorney Cox to meet privately to discuss potential actions.
  • Evidence: “I would like to make a motion that we as a council, as the mayor, as city manager and as attorney Cox, sit down and discuss not what we can’t do but what we can do so that everybody can have Fowler. The same knowledge and an understanding.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:26:56

• Meeting format for discussion on housing issues

  • Summary: The speaker stated the group does not need a motion to meet as long as it is made public.
  • Evidence: “We don’t need a motion for that. If you want to come in and talk about your ideas, you’re welcome to. I want us to get together as a whole, not one-on-one, not you and Boyer and me. You and Boyer and Shadle. You and Boyer, us as a council.”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 02:27:22

• Call for Special Meeting with Specific Attendees

  • Summary: A motion was made to call a special meeting involving the council, City Manager Boyer, Attorney Cox, and Dovie.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacey
  • Evidence: “That we call a special meeting with you, Boyer, Attorney Cox, and the eight aldermen. And of course you, Dovie.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:28:11

• Special meeting to discuss topic

  • Summary: Alderman Stacy moved to hold a special meeting regarding the current topic.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “The only thing that’s on the table right now is Alderman Stacey’s motion to have a special meeting.”
  • Evidence: “Alderman Stacey? I withdraw my motion.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:34:52

• Seconding withdrawal of motion

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders seconded the withdrawal of Alderman Stacy’s motion.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sanders, will you remove your second? Yes.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:35:55

• Procedure for adding items to COW agenda

  • Summary: Discussion confirming that adding an item to the next COW agenda does not require a motion if two other people are present.
  • Evidence: “So if you’d like to add it to the agenda for next Monday, you and another alderman are are welcome to do that, you don’t need a motion for it.”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 02:37:48

• Drafting amendment for public comments procedure

  • Summary: Motion to task the attorneys with drafting the amendment regarding public comments.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons, Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “So we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons seconded by Alderman Stacy in drafting the amendment as stated.”
  • Evidence: “So it’s, the motion is to task the attorneys to do this. Yes. If there’s no further discussion on that, Alderman Sellers? I have a problem with that is because really our meetings are long is because we’re coming unprepared. So we’re asking question after question instead of knowing proper preparation prevents poor performance. […] We are talking about three minutes. But three minutes with ten people is a long time. My God. I don’t have a problem with people speaking. Let’s just take a vote. We’ve been here for over three hours. Let’s take the vote on if you want to task the attorneys to do what was said.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:59:57

• Tasking attorneys to rewrite the ordinance for public comment — Failed

  • Summary: Motion is to task the attorneys to write/rewrite the ordinance so that public comment on agenda items and non-agenda items can occur only at the beginning.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “So Alderman Simmons, just to be clear, your motion is to task the attorneys to write the ordinance, rewrite the ordinance so it is public comment on agenda items and non-agenda only at the beginning.”
  • Evidence: “Shadle. No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Johnson? No. Simmons? No. Parker? No. And Stacy? How do you vote? Aye. The motion fails. Of course it fails. Five to three.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:05:28

• Adjournment motion

  • Summary: A motion was made for adjournment.
  • Evidence: “I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment”
  • Review flags: unattached_motion_request
  • Source timestamp: 03:30:55

• Motion to adjourn — Passed

  • Summary: The motion to adjourn passed by roll call vote.
  • Evidence: “Motion made by Sellers, seconded by Shadle. Madam Clerk, please take the roll. … Motion passes.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:30:55

Procedural Actions

• Call to Order

  • Summary: The meeting was officially called to order.
  • Evidence: “And we’ll officially call this meeting to order.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15

• Public comment eligibility for individuals

  • Summary: The chair questioned Jodi and Rolanda Allen regarding whether their comments related to an agenda item.
  • Evidence: “And you in particular, Jodi, step down, find something else to do, go back to flipping burgers. There’s Robert Holtz that signed in, but doesn’t say whether you are talking on an agenda item. Then you’ll have to wait till the end. Pardon me? I have a special thank you. Well, according to the attorney, he said you have to wait till the end because it’s not an agenda item. Okay. Thank you. And Rolanda Allen, same for you? Are you on an agenda item? No? Okay. No? Okay.”

• Consent Agenda approval

  • Summary: The council moved to approve the consent agenda items, which were routine in nature.
  • Evidence: “Then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is routine in nature, and will be voted as one unless there’s a member of the council that would like to have something removed for further discussion. Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the Board and Commission minutes from the Foreign Fire Insurance Board dated June 12th, the Library Board, July 9th, Fire and Police Commission, July 22nd, 2025, Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report dated August 2025, the adoption of resolution 2025-106, which is a resolution to request temporary closures of streets for the Freeport High School Homecoming Parade, approval of the finance bills payable in total of $989,343.30 and the approval of payroll Roll for Pay Period Ending August 23rd, 2025 in the total of $588,244.78 and also the Finance Reports and the Cash and Investment Reports for July 2025.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:58

• Consent Agenda Items

  • Summary: The consent agenda includes approving minutes from the Foreign Fire Insurance Board (June 12th), Library Board (July 9th), Fire and Police Commission (July 22nd, 2025), Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report (August 2025), resolution 2025-106 (request for temporary street closures for Homecoming Parade), approval of finance bills ($989,343.30 total), payroll Roll for Pay Period Ending August 23rd, 2025 ($588,244.78 total), and Finance/Cash and Investment Reports for July 2025.
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the Board and Commission minutes from the Foreign Fire Insurance Board dated June 12th, the Library Board, July 9th, Fire and Police Commission, July 22nd, 2025, Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report dated August 2025, the adoption of resolution 2025-106, which is a resolution to request temporary closures of streets for the Freeport High School Homecoming Parade, approval of the finance bills payable in total of $989,343.30 and the approval of payroll Roll for Pay Period Ending August 23rd, 2025 in the total of $588,244.78 and also the Finance Reports and the Cash and Investment Reports for July 2025.”
  • Source timestamp: 09:58

• Ordinance 2025-53 First Reading

  • Summary: First reading of ordinance authorizing the city to enter into a fifth renewal to lease agreement with Pete Albert for 103 through 111 South Liberty Avenue.
  • Evidence: “Item number 6 is the first reading of ordinance 2025-53. Could you please read this? Ordinance authorizing the city to enter into a fifth renewal to lease agreement with Pete Albert for 103 through 111 South Liberty Avenue.”
  • Source timestamp: 11:30

• Moving to next agenda item

  • Summary: The meeting moved on to the next regularly scheduled meeting item.
  • Evidence: “Your time has expired. Okay, I got you, sister. Okay. If there’s no further discussion, we’ll move this on to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of ordinance 2025-54.”
  • Source timestamp: 28:10

• Discussion on whether further discussion is needed before moving forward

  • Summary: The chair asked if there was any other discussion, otherwise they would move to the next item.
  • Attribution: Chair
  • Evidence: “Is there any, and I’m sorry, Alderman Stacey, you already spoke twice. Is there any other discussion? Otherwise we will move this forward to the next city council meeting.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:37

• First reading of ordinance 2025-55

  • Summary: The first reading of Ordinance 2025-55 was scheduled to be addressed next.
  • Evidence: “Item number eight is the first reading of ordinance 2025-55. Alderman Klemm.”
  • Source timestamp: 39:50

• Next agenda item after discussion

  • Summary: The next item on the agenda is item number 10: adoption of resolution 2025-101.
  • Evidence: “If there’s no further discussion, we’ll move on to item number 10, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-101.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:39

• Roll call for adoption of resolution 2025-105

  • Summary: A roll call was taken following the discussion on Resolution approving purchase of equipment trailer.
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, please take the role Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Aye. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye.”

• Roll call for adoption of resolution 2025-107

  • Summary: A roll call was taken following the discussion on Resolution authorizing support to IDOT’s Safe Routes to School program.
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, please take the roll. Shadle. Aye. Sanders. Aye. Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. Aye. Parker. Aye. And Stacy. Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:32:35

• Returning discussion to the grant resolution

  • Summary: A council member called for a point of order to bring the discussion back to the resolution supporting the grant, stating that further discussion was needed.
  • Evidence: “Mr. Collins, point of order, please, thank you. This is about adopting the resolution to support this grant. I agree. But we don’t need to talk about Park District stuff. Well, it came up. It actually came up. OK, so I would like to call point of order to bring us back to the topic. And if council would allow me to speak.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:46:33

• Request for speaking time on grant resolution

  • Summary: A council member requested permission to speak again regarding the resolution supporting the grant.
  • Evidence: “Well, yes, we do need to come back to this topic. It’s on the resolution to support this grant. And so is there any further discussion? I don’t know if you heard me, but I would like to speak.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:46:39

• Request for speaking time (Alderman Simmons)

  • Summary: The chair noted that Alderman Simmons had spoken twice already when granting permission to speak again.
  • Evidence: “Well, actually, Alderman Simmons, you’ve spoken twice already. Right.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:46:39

• Motion to allow further speaking time for Alderman Simmons

  • Summary: A motion was made regarding allowing Alderman Simmons another turn to speak.
  • Evidence: “So let’s take the role, Madam Clerk, on the approval of allowing Alderman Simmons another time to speak.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:47:24

• Roll call for council vote

  • Summary: Council members were called to vote on a resolution.
  • Evidence: “Are you ready for the roll man? Shadle. Aye. Sanders. No. Sellers. Aye. Klemm. Aye. Johnson. Aye. Simmons. No. Parker. Aye. Stacy. No.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:56:12

• Type of special meeting requested

  • Summary: The discussion concluded with the suggestion that a special city council meeting might be appropriate.
  • Evidence: “Yeah, I think what’s being suggested is a special meeting.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:27:53

• Clerk’s Role on Motion

  • Summary: The Clerk was asked to take the role on the motion.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, would you please take the role on that?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:28:36

• Discussion regarding amending section 220.10 slash 23 AB written and verbal public comments

  • Summary: A motion was made to have the attorneys draft an amendment concerning public comments.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “So are you proposing a motion to have the attorneys draft what you’re asking? I’m asking if that’s what you’re looking for, because in order for that to be done, there has to be a vote of council that it’s the will of the council to task the attorneys to do something. So I’m asking you, is that the direction you want, is a motion to do that? Is there a second?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:58:48

• Vote on drafting amendment for public comments procedure

  • Summary: The council proceeded to take a vote on the motion to task attorneys with drafting the amendment.
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, please take the roll. I’m sorry, say that again? And not at the end? Yeah, because they said at the beginning and at the end.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:03:44

Ordinances and Resolutions

• Ordinance establishing Gladewood special service area and accepting dedication of roadways and levy of taxes to offset the cost of special services

  • Summary: The ordinance establishes the SSA, dedicates subdivision roadways to the city, outlines funding for ongoing maintenance, ensures improvements to upper and lower entrances (including roadway base and asphalt upgrades), accepts internal roads into the public street network, and creates a mechanism for funding services.
  • Evidence: “Ordinance establishing the Gladewood special service area and accepting dedication of roadways and levy of taxes to offset the cost of special services. The city received a petition from a majority of the property owners in the Gladewood subdivision requesting the creation of a special service area or SSA. Following required notices, the public hearing on May 28th, no valid objections were filed. The ordinance SSA establish the SSA dedicate subdivision roadways to the city and outlines a framework for funding ongoing maintenance. The SSA ensures improvements to the subdivision’s upper and lower entrances, including roadway base and asphalt upgrades, meeting engineering standards. The city will also accept the internal road system as is into the public street network. Establishing the SSA creates a sustainable mechanism for funding services to be benefited”
  • Source timestamp: 28:31

• Ordinance amending Zoning Code for Solar Arrays

  • Summary: First reading of Ordinance 2025-56, which amends Chapters 1248 and 1250 of the Zoning Code concerning ground-mounted solar arrays.
  • Evidence: “Item number 9 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-56. Could you please read this? Ordinance amending Chapters 1248 and 1250 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport concerning and ground-mounted solar arrays.”
  • Source timestamp: 58:03

• Adoption of agreement for purchase of Office 365

  • Summary: Resolution approving an agreement for the purchase of Office 365 productivity suite software for all city staff.
  • Evidence: “Could you please read this? Resolution approving agreement for the purchase of office 365.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:44

• Adoption of resolution 2025-105: Purchase of equipment trailer — Adopted

  • Summary: Resolution approving purchase of 24-foot equipment trailer from Knight Equipment for water and sewer construction equipment.
  • Evidence: “The resolution is adopted 8-0. Number 13, adoption of resolution 2025-105. Could you please read this? Resolution approving purchase of 24-foot equipment trailer from Knight Equipment for water and sewer construction equipment.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:30:06

• Adoption of resolution 2025-107: Support for Safe Routes to School program

  • Summary: Resolution authorizing support to the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Safe Routes to School program.
  • Evidence: “Item number 14 is adoption of resolution 20, 25107. Could you please read this? Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Safe Routes to School program.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:32:50

• Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Support for IDNR Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant

  • Summary: Item number 15 is the adoption of resolution 2025108, authorizing support to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant.
  • Attribution: Clerk
  • Evidence: “Item number 15 is the adoption of resolution 2025108. Could you please read this? Authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:36:30

• Adoption of resolution on Item number 16 — Adopted

  • Summary: The resolution was adopted by a vote count.
  • Evidence: “The resolution is adopted five to three.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:56:12

• Rent Control Preemption Act (State Law)

  • Summary: The Rent Control Preemption Act states that a unit of local government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial property.
  • Evidence: “So state law, just recapping some of the more pertinent sections, so Rent Control Preemption Act, you can read that, but a unit of local government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial property.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:02:40

• Home Rule Unit Rent Regulation (State Law)

  • Summary: Section 10 of the act specifies that a home rule unit may not regulate or control the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial properties.
  • Evidence: “And then again in section 10 of the act, a home rule unit may not regulate or control the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial properties.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03:04

Financial and Contract Events

• Annual levy for Gladewood special service area

  • Summary: The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 for a term of 15 years across 16 parcels to offset roadway maintenance and improvements.
  • Evidence: “The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 and brought up to me also that’s for a term of 15 years. So across 16 parcels, the revenues will offset costs of roadway maintenance and improvements specific to the Gladewood area, ensuring equitable cost recovery.”
  • Source timestamp: 29:13

• Office 365 Software Procurement

  • Summary: The procurement is to purchase Office 365 productivity suite software for all city staff, including water and sewer and police.
  • Evidence: “This agreement or procurement is to purchase Office 365 productivity suite software for all city staff, including water and sewer and police.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:12:56

• Annual cost of Office 365 software

  • Summary: The total annual cost for the software is projected to be just under $21,000.
  • Evidence: “Financially, it’s gonna cost just under 21,000 per year, which of that, the city, which includes Fire and PD, so it’s not just city hall staff, We’ll pay around $17,000. Water and sewer will pay around $3,700.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:13:53

• Funding Sources for Pocket Park Project

  • Summary: The Greater Freeport Partnership received a recent award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant, which will also be used in the funding of this package.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant. It will also be used in the funding of this package.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:38

Presentations and Reports

• Lease Renewal Details (Pete Albert)

  • Summary: The city entered into a lease agreement with Pete Albert for the first floor of the former Raleigh metal clad building on September 2nd, 2020. The lease has been extended four times; rent was $1,000 in ‘21, $2,000 in ‘22, $2,000 in ‘23, and $2,000 in ‘24. The fifth renewal extends the lease for one year, commencing September 15th and ending September 14th, 2026, with annual rent remaining at $2,000. A new provision allows early termination if the tenant expresses interest in purchasing the building.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The city of Freeport entered into a lease agreement with Pete Albert to lease the first floor of the former Raleigh metal clad building on September 2nd, 2020. The lease has been extended four times with the associated terms listed here in the memo. In 21 it was $1,000, in 22 it was $2,000, same with 23 and 24. The fifth renewal extends the lease for one year, commencing September 15th and ending September 14th, 2026. The annual rent remains 2,000 and is consistent with the previous two rentals renewals. That is a new provision we’ve included this year is potentially the ability to terminate the lease early in case of the current tenant expressing interest in purchasing the building at the Future. So the city receives approximately $2,000 annually in rent and staff recommends moving forward renewing the lease with Pete Elber at the Raleigh Metal Clad Building.”
  • Source timestamp: 12:12

• Building occupancy and potential leasing options

  • Summary: The building is five floors, with four floors unoccupied, which could be an option for others to rent.
  • Evidence: “The building, I think it’s five floors and four floors are unoccupied. So if anybody else wanted to rent a floor in it that would definitely be an option as far as,”
  • Source timestamp: 18:26

• Interest in renting or buying the building

  • Summary: No other interest in renting or buying the building has been received, but the city remains open to it.
  • Evidence: “Have not received any other interest. However, we’re always open to it.”
  • Source timestamp: 18:40

• Area improvements status

  • Summary: There are no known improvements in the area.
  • Evidence: “Any improvements? No improvements that I’m aware of.”
  • Source timestamp: 18:47

• Advertising for vacant city space

  • Summary: The city could advertise its vacant downtown space at the expense of the city if council desired.
  • Evidence: “We generally have not done a lot of advertising for it. We have a lot of vacant space throughout the downtown. So we could do that at some expense to the city, if that was council’s desire.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:18

• Provision for future building liquidation

  • Summary: The provision allows the city to bring the building before counsel to liquidate it in the future if an estimate and move-in agreement on a value can be obtained.
  • Evidence: “And also, as far as the purchasing, obviously, we would ideally like to not have the city own this building eventually. So this just provides a provision so that if we are able to get an estimate and kind of move in agreement to a value. We could bring that for counsel to liquidate this building, hopefully in the future.”
  • Source timestamp: 19:31

• Option to purchase via lease term

  • Summary: The additional provision allows the tenant an option to purchase if the parties reach an agreement during the one-year term of the lease.
  • Evidence: “so that additional provision about purchase it provides the tenant with an option to purchase so if that during this one-year term of this lease that the parties happen to reach an agreement so we would have to have discussions they would have to come to us and say hey I’m interested in buying the property”
  • Source timestamp: 19:56

• Greater Freeport Partnership activity with developers

  • Summary: Director Duckman stated that the Greater Freeport Partnership works with interested parties and has shown other parts of the Raleigh building to prospective developers.
  • Evidence: “I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does work with interested parties that come to the city wanting to invest and I know that I’ve been on other parts of the Raleigh building and showed it to prospective developers. So I know that they’re active in shopping the property.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:33

• Tax reimbursement for 2024

  • Summary: The amount reimbursed to the city for the tax year of 2024, billed in this year, was $142.54.
  • Evidence: “So the amount that’s been reimbursed to the city Fort, the tax year of 2024, which was billed in this year, was $142.54.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:04

• Property tax assessment basis

  • Summary: The city is only assessed taxes on the one floor that it is making income from; otherwise, property would not be taxed.
  • Evidence: “And typically, the city would not pay property taxes at all. But our tax assessor charges the city, and the city of New York. So the city of New York is a tax assessor and it is taxed as any tax assessor would for if the city rents or makes income on a property, then it is taxed. But otherwise, property would not be taxed. And the reason it’s a lower tax amount is it’s only renting one floor. So they’re only assessing taxes on the one floor that the city is making income.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:36

• Ordinance amendment regarding mandatory retirement age for police and fire chiefs

  • Summary: The revised memo states that state law generally sets a mandatory requirement age of 65 for police and firefighters, but the city’s code references this for Chief of Police (Section 240.04) and Fire Chief (Section 242.05). The ordinance adds subsections clarifying that these positions will not be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 65, ensuring decisions are based on performance and ability.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “If you’ll look at the memo, a revised memo, there’s a mistake in the one that I put forward with the agenda. State law generally sets a mandatory requirement, age of 65, for police and firefighters. The city’s code currently references those requirements for the Chief of Police, that’s Section 240.04 and Fire Chief, Section 242.05, however, age alone does not determine whether an individual is fit to serve as Chief. Our current Fire Chief continues to provide exemplary leadership and has earned the trust of his department and community. It is the city’s best interest to allow him to continue to serve as long as he wishes, provided he remains capable and effective. As a home rule unit, the city of Freeport may establish its own requirements for the position of police and fire chief, and the ordinance adds new subsections clarifying that the position of chief of police and fire chief will not be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 65. This change ensures leadership decisions are based on performance and ability and not age.”

• Fire and Police Commission authority regarding retirement age

  • Summary: The Fire and Police Commission statute determines mandatory retirement at 65 for those under its authority; however, the police chief and speaker are merely appointed by the city manager with council approval, not under this commission’s authority.
  • Attribution: Chief Miller
  • Evidence: “I discovered that there is this fire and police commission statute that’s out there. And obviously looking at the police chief and myself, we all know that this is about me and not him. So looking at, and attorney Zito correct me if I’m misinterpreting, but what this came down to is it’s a fire and police commission Illinois compiled statutes statute that was adopted by the city on behalf of the Fire and Police Commission. So what this determines is anybody who falls under Fire and Police Commission authority, meaning you’re hired, you’re tested, you’re promoted through Fire and Police Commission, this applies to the 65 years of age mandatory retirement. What this is talking about before you tonight is the police chief and myself are not under Fire and Police Commission. We’re merely appointed by the city manager with council approval.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:53

• Zoning Code Amendment for Solar Arrays

  • Summary: Staff presented background on the need to amend zoning code regarding ground-mounted solar arrays, noting that the Planning Commission directed staff to change the code to outlaw such arrays in residential and agricultural zoning districts.
  • Attribution: Director Duckman
  • Evidence: “Director Duckman. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Staff had been directed by the City of Freeport Planning Commission to move forward with a text amendment to change our zoning code for the ground-mounted solar arrays. … Essentially, our planning commission directed staff to change our zoning code, where we would, instead of having a special use permit for ground-mounted solar arrays in residential and agricultural zoning districts, where they would outlaw and not allow it at all.”

• Planning Commission stance on ground-mounted solar

  • Summary: The Planning Commission unanimously stated they are not in favor of ground-mounted solar in residential neighborhoods because it is distracting and obtrusive.
  • Evidence: “I’m on the Planning Commission along with many other members and this has been a unanimous decision with everybody on the Planning Committee that we are not in favor of ground-mound solar in and residential neighborhoods. It’s distracting, it’s obtrusive.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:10

• Server decommissioning plan

  • Summary: Director Shuttman stated that new and old servers will run in parallel for a short time while data is copied over, and decommissioned drives will be wiped and assumed shredded.
  • Attribution: Director Shuttman
  • Evidence: “So when I do do the server, they’ll be running parallel for a short time while the data is copied over. And then yes when that old server is decommissioned whether it goes on the surplus auction or whatever the drives will be wiped and I’m assuming shredded per standard”
  • Source timestamp: 01:17:14

• Resolution 2025,102 details

  • Summary: Director Shuttman presented Resolution approving the purchase of a host server for the city from CDW-G, noting that it replaces hardware getting older and citing increased data failure incidents and firmware support vulnerabilities.
  • Attribution: Director Shuttman
  • Evidence: “Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025,102. Could you please read this? Resolution approving the purchase of a host server for the city from CDW-G. Thank you. So this is for the new host server for the city. We covered a lot of it in the questions from the last one, but this is just to refresh the server that was bought in 2017. The reason for We’re replacing it as the hardware is getting older, the incidents of data failure go up and up every year.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:20:29

• Resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue

  • Summary: Staff presented the need for emergency water main replacement on Warren Avenue due to multiple failures, estimating costs between $230,000 and $250,000.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025-104. Would you please read this? Resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue. Thank you, Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. Recently, we’ve had multiple failures on Warren Avenue, approximately eight breaks in the last several months. This is a six inch cast iron pipe that was installed in 1931 and it’s a known issue in terms of its vintage age. Staff has been investigating this particular area and is requesting emergency water main replacement on Warren, approximately 800 feet. That would also ensure, you know, replacement of water main gate valves, fire hydrants and water service connections to the right of way. The replacement cost is estimated between 230,000 and 250,000 based on unit price bid and staff requests moving forward with Fisher excavating to replace the aging water main on Warren.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:23:38

• New utility trailer purchase request

  • Summary: Manager Boyer presented the need to purchase a new 18,000 pound equipment trailer because the existing one purchased in 1988 has had multiple frame repairs and recently failed. The cost from Knight Equipment is $13,995 for a 24-foot trailer.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Manager Boyer. Thank your honor. City crews use equipment, trucks, and trailers to move equipment around to different Projects. We have a utility trailer that was purchased in 1988. It’s had multiple repairs of the frame and it recently failed. Staff is requesting move forward with the purchase of a new 18,000 pound equipment trailer. The amount of the from night equipment is $13,995 for a 24-foot trailer and staff requests to the Council. Move forward with this.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:30:06

• Safe Routes to School grant opportunity

  • Summary: Manager Boyer presented that the City has several dated school crossings needing repair, and a potential State Grant opportunity exists through IDOT’s Safe Routes to School program for equipment replacement, which could fund $250,000 of equipment replacement.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The City of Freeport has several school crossings that are dated and require equipment repair and replacement for the safety of school children crossing the busy streets. The public works staff has identified a STRS that’s Safe Routes to School State Grant opportunity to fund and the replacement of this equipment. The IDOT Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program that is grant opportunities for potential equipment replacements of safe school crossing equipment. The new lighting LED systems installed are solar-based replacements with much brighter warning equipment. And this grant, if awarded, would be used for $250,000 of equipment replacement. A formal resolution will be brought to city council must be passed as part of the application.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:32:50

• Safe Routes to School Grant Opportunity Details

  • Summary: The IDOT Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program grant opportunity for potential equipment replacements; the grant amount is up to $250,000 per project, requires a formal resolution from city council, and cannot include engineering fees.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “The IDOT Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program that is grant opportunities for potential equipment replacements of safe school crossing equipment. The new lighting LED systems installed are solar-based replacements with much brighter warning equipment. And this grant, if awarded, would be used for $250,000 of equipment replacement. A formal resolution will be brought to city council must be passed as part of the application. And that is what we’re asking for today. So as far as the Safe Routes to School key points, it’s again a $250,000 maximum grant per project. There is no matching fund for the first year. And this is a competitive application. Safe Routes to School grants can also only be used for construction and safety funding. Engineering fees cannot be included in this grant award. And application deadline is October 15.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:33:24

• IDNR OSLAD Grant Program for Pocket Park

  • Summary: The IDNR administers the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Grant (OSLAD) program to support local outdoor recreation projects; a resolution is required for application submittal, and the city is listed as a disadvantaged community allowing up to $600,000 funding without local match.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Grant or OSLAD grant program to support local outdoor recreation projects. The city intends to submit for an OSLAD application for the Pocket Park on West Stephenson, formerly OZLAD requires a governing body resolution authorizing application submittal and acknowledging program conditions if funding is awarded. The attached resolution uses the IDNR prescribed language for OZLAD applications and passing the resolution enables staff and other partners to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program. The City is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community, which allows an application for up to $600,000 in OZLAD funding without any local match.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:36:40

• OZLAD funding application details

  • Summary: The resolution uses IDNR prescribed language for OZLAD applications and passing it enables staff to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program. The City is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community, allowing an application for up to $600,000 in OZLAD funding without any local match.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “The attached resolution uses the IDNR prescribed language for OZLAD applications and passing the resolution enables staff and other partners to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program. The City is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community, which allows an application for up to $600,000 in OZLAD funding without any local match.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:17

• T-Mobile grant contribution

  • Summary: Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant. It will also be used in the funding of this package.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant. It will also be used in the funding of this package.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:38

• OZLAD funding details

  • Summary: As a disadvantaged community applicant, the city may request up to $600,000 with no local match under the OSLAD. The GFP T-Mobile $50,000 grant contribution will further enhance the scope and staff recommends moving forward with allowing staff to pursue this grant.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “As a disadvantaged community applicant, the city may request up to $600,000 with no local match under the OSLAD. The GFP T-Mobile $50,000 grant contribution will further enhance the scope and staff recommends moving forward with allowing staff to pursue this grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:55

• Approval of bid for demolition and asbestos abatement

  • Summary: City staff presented information regarding the approval of bids opened on August 27th, 2025, for demolition and asbestos abatement.
  • Evidence: “Item number 16. Could you please read this for the record? Approval of bid, which was opened on August 27th, 2025. … City staff has published in the Journal of Standard a request for proposal for the demolition and asbestos abatement of eight properties, and that was published on August 21st in the Journal of Standard, and then a bid opening was held August 27th at 9 AM We’ve already received bids from three contractors and I’ve provided an analysis below which is up on the screen as well and based upon the bids received, staff is recommending moving forward with Klechner excavating in the amount of $103,000 as they are the lowest responsible bidder in their lump sum bid for all eight properties.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:56:12

• City’s role in landlord-tenant relationships

  • Summary: Manager Boyer presented information regarding a large portfolio change hands between Tim Chapman and Pied Piper Realty LLC.
  • Evidence: “Item number 17 is a presentation regarding the city’s role in landlord-tenant relationships. Manager Boyer. Thank you, Your Honor. So recently, there was a large portfolio that changed hands between Tim Chapman and Pied Piper Realty LLC.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:57:59

• Portfolio properties details

  • Summary: The portfolio purchased approximately 225 properties, with about 47 having current leases, including 53 duplexes.
  • Evidence: “Pre-port portfolios purchased approximately 225 properties, with about 47 of those being with a current lease. We’ve got 53 duplexes, and we’ve got several of them that were considered owner occupied as they were set up that way with Tim Chapman. So approximately 193 total properties remained or aren’t occupied or unrenovated at this time.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58:37

• Tenant notification regarding leases

  • Summary: Month-to-month renters were notified that their effective lease would be over September 1st and their rent will be adjusted at that time. Fixed term tenants’ current leases remain unchanged until expiration.
  • Evidence: “A little background, a letter was sent out July 29th to the tenants. There’s quite a bit here, but the big picture is the month of month month renters were notified that their effective lease would be over September 1st and their rent will be adjusted at that time so these are month-to-month renters generally speaking these month-to-month is is convenient from a a runner standpoint because they don’t have to make any long-term commitments however it does provide flexibility also the fixed term tenants the current leases remain unchanged until expiration and that was notified in this letter”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58:58

• Tenant engagement process

  • Summary: An inspection was scheduled starting August 5th to reach out to month-to-month tenants to discuss next steps, including an in-person meeting regarding suitability and necessary moves.
  • Evidence: “the new leases there would be an inspection scheduled started reaching out to people in person called August 5th to the month-on-month tenants to kind of start discussing what what to do they wanted engagement with the the renters and then also reaching out for the in-person meeting where you’re currently residing would basically be the topic of discussion whether it is suitable what need to be Perry would need to move forward.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:59:16

• HUD free market analysis findings

  • Summary: The HUD free market analysis shows a range of reasonable rents for available units, with some houses having very low proposed rents compared to what HUD suggests should be higher.
  • Evidence: “Obviously if you look down here are some of these houses I can’t verify this 100% but I’ve heard that there’s some very low rents for like a three and four bedroom home that HUD actually proposes here should be a little higher than than that amount so the rents while being a little different kind of fall in line overall with HUD’s guidelines.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:00:53

• Landlord registration requirement

  • Summary: A key focus has been getting all landlords to register with the landlord database to allow follow-up on complaints and code enforcement actions, and to know who owns what unit.
  • Evidence: “So there’s, as we move forward, one of the things we’ve been working on, especially with Chapman Properties before the portfolio was sold, was that we needed all landlords to register with the landlord database. That gives us the ability to follow up on complaints and code enforcement actions. It also gives us the ability to know who’s in what unit and who owns that unit.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:00:53

• Code enforcement status

  • Summary: The city has had three tenant inspection requests since taking over the properties, giving authority to inspect those three units.
  • Evidence: “I believe we’ve had three tenant inspection requests. So three, that gives us the authority to go into three of those units.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:01:48

• Month-to-month rent increases (State Law)

  • Summary: Illinois Attorney General states that for month-to-month tenants, a landlord can raise rent by any amount if proper notice is given, as Illinois does not have a rent control law.
  • Evidence: “In addition to that, Illinois Attorney General states that in a week to week or month to month tenants, landlord can raise your rent by any amount if he or she gives you proper notice and Illinois does not have a rent control law, therefore your landlord can raise your rent as much as he or she deems necessary.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03:14

• State authority on rent control

  • Summary: Attorney Cox stated that the state enacted the Rent Control Preemption Act, which is an express limitation of any municipality’s authority.
  • Evidence: “The state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality’s authority, including Can you speak up because we can’t hear you? Can you turn him up? Can you turn up his microphone? I’ll get closer. Everybody hear me okay? The state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality, including a home rule municipality, which Freeport happens to be.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:07:52

• Renter notice requirements in surrounding areas

  • Summary: The speaker noted that surrounding areas already have ordinances regarding notice periods for renters based on tenure (less than three years: 60 days; three years or more: 120 days).
  • Evidence: “Well, we have been asked of the constituents, the renters that’s going through this is that for less than three years to 60 days, for three years or more, 120 days and I checked surrounding areas and in surrounding areas, it’s already in place on their ordinance so I know this is something we can do.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:24:44

• Procedure for reporting property issues to the city

  • Summary: The speaker advised constituents to fill out a form available at the front desk if they have any issue with a rented property. The city requires written permission to enter and will investigate violations.
  • Evidence: “I also recommend that anybody who sees an issue with their apartment to please come in and fill out we have them sitting on the desk today we always have them at the front desk if there’s any issue with a place that you’re renting to please come in we do require that you sign you know permission for us to access the property that’s for the city’s liability to ensure that if the landlord comes in and said that we were trespassing we always have a right to enter so before we will enter the city will enter a property we do require that you give us the written permission”
  • Source timestamp: 02:25:51

• Rent increases by Pied Piper group and community impact

  • Summary: Opportunity for the Pied Piper group to speak about their plans regarding rent increases.
  • Evidence: “So we move on to item number 18, which is discussion about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and the impact of the community. So I don’t know if Alderman Stacy and Klemm, if you want to speak first, or if you want to give an opportunity for Pied Piper to just say a few things.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:38:49

• Pied Piper group plans regarding rent increases

  • Summary: A representative from the Pied Piper group addressed concerns about rent increases, stating they have not issued any 30-day or eviction notices and that no rent increase will occur until work is done on the property.
  • Attribution: Pied Piper representative
  • Evidence: “So I’m here to address all these issues that are going on currently. I have not given anybody any 30-day notices. I have not given anybody eviction notices. I have not spoken to anybody about kicking them out of their homes… Nobody at this moment is getting a rental increase until the work is done that is gonna be communicated.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:40:57

• Property management approach and tenant understanding

  • Summary: A speaker stated that after visiting 35 to 40 tenants’ homes, they addressed concerns with people of various incomes and demographics.
  • Attribution: Larry
  • Evidence: “What I’m here to say is that once all those notices went out, when I went to visit 35 to 40 tenants into their homes, I met people with low income, I met people with good income, I met people with families that were concerned, I made sure I addressed all those concerns to understand the type of demographics that’s living in the property.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:44:37

• Rental registration enforcement and fines

  • Summary: The city will prosecute unregistered rentals, with 480 properties expected to have cases in October, resulting in 332 landlords receiving $500 per unit fines.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Currently the city of Freeport. I want to thank in particular Doug Quinn Katie Smith and my entire staff has done a tremendous amount of work ensuring that we prosecute anybody who is not a registered rental and there is currently going to be 480 properties going to have cases in October and that’s a total of 332 landlords that are going to be receiving fines of $500 per unit.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:57:06

• Finance Committee of the Whole schedule

  • Summary: The Finance Committee of the Whole is set to begin at 5:30 next week, with the Council/COW meeting immediately following.
  • Evidence: “So we did set up the Finance Committee of the Whole to begin at 5.30 next week with the COW meeting to begin immediately following. So we’re trying to eliminate the gap We have a meeting that sometimes happened last year between meetings where we all were kind of sitting around waiting 15 minutes until 6 o’clock to begin the next meeting, so we’re going to start at 5.30.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:06:48

• Hancock Vidoc closure for renovations

  • Summary: The Hancock Vidoc will be closed for renovations and is expected to be closed for approximately three and a half months.
  • Evidence: “Just a reminder, the Hancock Vidoc will be closed. If it wasn’t done today, it’ll be done tomorrow, and it should be probably three and a half months it’ll be closed for the renovations to lower the street.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:08:17

• Block party attendance and resources

  • Summary: The speaker thanked attendees at the block party for coming out, noting that many residents received necessary resources and information.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Johnson? I’d just like to thank all the people that came out for the block party on and Saturday, it was, there was a lot of people there and I think a lot of the residents that were there did get some resources and information that they needed to help them.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:10:43

Metrics

• Application deadline and timing

  • Summary: The application deadline is September 30th, so staff is targeting Council’s action on September 2nd today to meet submittal timing. There is no immediate general fund impact for the application resolution.
  • Attribution: City Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “An application deadline is September 30th, so staff is targeting Council’s action on September 2nd today to meet submittal timing. There is no immediate general fund impact for the application resolution.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:37:46

• Properties purchased by pre-port portfolios

  • Summary: The portfolio purchased approximately 225 properties.
  • Evidence: “Pre-port portfolios purchased approximately 225 properties, with about 47 of those being with a current lease.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58:37

• Duplexes in the portfolio

  • Summary: There are 53 duplexes within the portfolio.
  • Evidence: “We’ve got 53 duplexes, and we’ve got several of them that were considered owner occupied as they were set up that way with Tim Chapman.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58:49

• Unoccupied or unrenovated properties remaining

  • Summary: Approximately 193 total properties remained or aren’t occupied or unrenovated at this time.
  • Evidence: “So approximately 193 total properties remained or aren’t occupied or unrenovated at this time.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:58:58

Discussion

• Lease Renewal Concerns (Taxes and Future Use)

  • Summary: Discussion regarding tax payments, the city owning the property, reimbursement for taxes, and concerns about continuously leasing the building to a single individual without sufficient review of its best use or potential sale value.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Stacey? Who’s paying the taxes on this building there the city owns it so so the city is paying the taxes sorry yes Michelle given um the city originally placed the property taxes and then we’re reimbursed so we do get the rental fee every year and then we get paid for the property taxes but it’s that discounted favor because it’s in the city’s name. How much is paid for taxes on that building? I’ll need a few minutes. Alderman Sanders. Yeah, I understand that the considerations, some considerations have been made in the event, if anything changes within the future of this building, and the fact that we have not had opportunity to talk about the discovery of why we should lease this, continuously lease this building to a certain individual and we have not done and our homework on it. We have not had enough time to make that distinction yet whether or not this particular occupant should continue to utilize that building. And I am under the thought that the council has not come to a conclusion or any kind of a resolution for that building. And if we are not doing that, we don’t know what we’re selling the building for to even make that kind of a discussion. And if we’re gonna discuss possibilities for future references for the occupant that’s occupying this building or apartment or whatever it is, that we need to look into it, explore a little bit more in depth to see if it’s conducive to the taxpayers here in the city of Freeport, and we don’t want anybody to have the impression or the appearance, especially council, having the appearance of giving consideration to any individual for whatever, the impropriety of the appearance Huffines. So, I think the importance of it looks very, very suspicious to me at this point in time, and I like to be able to look into it more than just coming to council, looking at it on the agenda, and then rendering a vote for it, so I think what should happen is we need to do this exploratory observation inspection by council, independent councils so they can make it an educated or the right type of a decision making that needs to go into this particular option because this thing like I’m looking at it to the same occupant for so many years and if that is the case, who’s monitoring that property, who’s inspecting that property to determine whether there’s potential value should be increased into that property.”
  • Source timestamp: 15:05

• Property inspection and reevaluation process for a building

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding the need for independent council observation and inspection to make educated decisions about a property’s potential value, especially since it has been occupied by the same occupant for many years.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “So, I think the importance of it looks very, very suspicious to me at this point in time, and I like to be able to look into it more than just coming to council, looking at it on the agenda, and then rendering a vote for it, so I think what should happen is we need to do this exploratory observation inspection by council, independent councils so they can make it an educated or the right type of a decision making that needs to go into this particular option because this thing like I’m looking at it to the same occupant for so many years and if that is the case, who’s monitoring that property, who’s inspecting that property to determine whether there’s potential value should be increased into that property. We’re not doing any of those kinds of things and we need to be able to be on our job to get that kind of information to make sound decisions when it comes to reevaluating that particular property and how”
  • Source timestamp: 15:58

• Building leasing, interest, and improvements status

  • Summary: Questions were posed regarding whether other parties had expressed interest in renting or buying the building, and if there had been any improvements to the area during its rental time.
  • Attribution: Don
  • Evidence: “What would happen to the building if we do not, it’s a three-part question here. What would happen to the building if we do not lease it? Is there other others who have expressed interest in renting or buying this building. And has there been any improvement in this area during the last four years during its rental time?”
  • Source timestamp: 17:36

• Advertising for building purchase and new provision grants

  • Summary: A question was raised about whether advertisements were placed informing people that the building could be purchased, and what the ’new provision grants’ entailed.
  • Evidence: “Yes. Is advertisement out there informing people that this building can be purchased? And what is this new provision grants?”
  • Source timestamp: 19:00

• Public awareness of building sale option

  • Summary: A citizen questioned how any member of the public could know that purchasing the building was an option if it was not advertised.
  • Evidence: “My question Is not being answered. How do the citizen of Freeport know that purchasing? Is purchasing this building is an option if information is not put out there. I don’t care nothing about what Greater Freeport Partnership, no. I don’t care about how many floors. My question was, how would anybody know that this building was up to purchase to be considered if it’s not advertised, then put out there.”
  • Source timestamp: 21:00

• Developer inquiry method

  • Summary: A developer typically finds property ownership through a property search and calls the owner directly.
  • Evidence: “I would say the same way any other developer does it. They go on a property search, they find out who owns it, then they call the owner. Say, is your building for sale? I’d like to buy it. That’s generally how.”
  • Source timestamp: 22:18

• Nature of occupant agreement

  • Summary: A clarification was made that the discussion regarding the occupant is a discretionary opinion and does not constitute an actual terminology or agreement binding the city.
  • Evidence: “I want to make it clear to you that this is not an actual discussion. It is an understanding while I listen to what is being said. All of this comes up to a discretionary opinion, not an actual terminology or agreement or any of those kinds of things that binds the city to any particular occupant of a who are part of the city when it comes to taxpayers that is owning the property.”
  • Source timestamp: 24:12

• Tax assessment for city-owned property

  • Summary: The discussion addressed that the city is taxed as any tax assessor would if it rents or makes income on a property, but otherwise, it would not be taxed. The lower tax amount was attributed to only renting one floor.
  • Evidence: “So the city of New York is a tax assessor and it is taxed as any tax assessor would for if the city rents or makes income on a property, then it is taxed. But otherwise, property would not be taxed. And the reason it’s a lower tax amount is it’s only renting one floor.”
  • Source timestamp: 23:49

• Discretionary guidelines for city property occupancy

  • Summary: A speaker emphasized that the discussion regarding property use and taxation is a discretionary opinion, not an agreement binding the city. The speaker questioned who set the parameters for how much an occupant can occupy in a multi-story building.
  • Evidence: “Huffines. I want to make it clear to you that this is not an actual discussion. It is an understanding while I listen to what is being said. All of this comes up to a discretionary opinion, not an actual terminology or agreement or any of those kinds of things that binds the city to any particular occupant of a who are part of the city when it comes to taxpayers that is owning the property. It is a discretion at this point in time for anyone that wants to decide to occupy any city property and then exploit it to get a benefit out of it because that’s exactly what happens when you, whenever you talk about a five story building and then let one occupant within that building come in and pay a certain amount of dollars, who made that discretionary call? Who set up those parameters of where and how much does an occupant of a building of five story occupy, whether or not it’s five floors or not, whether he rents five floors or not, that whole building is being occupied. Who is carrying the discretionary guidelines or having the opinion, because I’m quite sure the council is not involved in that, which we should be involved in that because we’re the ones who should be calling the shots about how that building is used and how is it benefiting the citizens of Freeport?”
  • Source timestamp: 24:17

• Need to reevaluate city property utilization provisions

  • Summary: The speaker stated that if a building is not overall utilized and marketed for potential rental property, the council needs to change provisions regarding its structure and utilize taxpayer input. They noted there are no current ordinances or agreements governing occupancy.
  • Evidence: “If that building is not being overall utilized and marketed for potential rental property to anybody else that wants to exploit that property, then we’re not doing our just due about getting this particular building on the market so more tenants can be in that building. We’re not utilizing that service of the service of that building at this time. So what we need to do is change provisions with the structure of how we’re gonna utilize this building with the taxpayers commenting and have an opinion and have their views and an opinion on this property that we may not, that if we don’t have all the details, maybe someone else has the details, but we’re not exploiting the taxpayers to let them know that this building is out there and anyone that wants to occupy any portions of that building, we have not set up the perimeters nor the provisions of that building, guidelines or anything to allow anyone else to be able to come in and occupy that building. So we need to take a reevaluation of how we got that thing set up because right now in document form, paper form, any tangible document agreement or whatever with this particular occupant and the building, we need to take an assessment over the whole thing and make sure that we’re following proper guidelines that council set. What are, we don’t have none of these kinds of things that council can refer back to and that there’s no ordinance at this current time. We have not even tried to amend or adopt this particular deal with the any occupants that wants to occupy that building. So my whole thing is, is that we need to re-evaluate.”
  • Source timestamp: 26:03

• Inquiry regarding Gladewood special service fee details

  • Summary: A question was raised asking how many homeowners agreed to the $400 fee and what specific services it covers, such as fixing streets and snow removal.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Stacey? Yes. How many homeowners in the Gladewood area has agreed and is okay with this $400 and what does that fee involve as far as fixing the streets and snow removal?”
  • Source timestamp: 30:01

• Gladewood special service area cost and benefit

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the $400 fee, benefits to 16 parcels in Gladewood, snow removal responsibility, and process adherence.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “How many homeowners in the Gladewood area has agreed and is okay with this $400 and what does that fee involve as far as fixing the streets and snow removal? But what does this ordinance give the Gladewood people? Well, there’s 16 parcels that are involved and it benefit from improved access to their area. You mentioned snow removal. And all 16 agreed? No, not all 16, a majority of the 16. So I believe there was nine or 10 that agreed.”
  • Source timestamp: 30:01

• Gladewood special service area process and objections

  • Summary: Discussion confirming state statute compliance for SSA setup, objection filing period, and scope of work (entrance/exit repair).
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “Well, we did provide, we followed the state statute on setting up an SSA and in that it required a meeting and each person was able to have a dialogue and ask questions and go back and Forth, with the engineers, myself, Attorney Cox, so that process was filed. … They also had 30 days to file an objection with me and I received none.”
  • Source timestamp: 31:28

• Gladewood special service area funding source and cost determination

  • Summary: Discussion questioning the origin of cost numbers ($400) and how revenue will benefit general city taxpayers.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “And who sets up the guidelines for cost effective overall, the overall for the city part of the maintenance of that area. And how do we determine what the numbers are gonna be, what it’s gonna cost, where the fundings are gonna go after receiving any type of provisions, of Provisions, I mean any revenue, I’ll put it like that, any kind of revenue, where does this money end up and how does it benefit the taxpayers of the city and the maintenance overall cost and not only that, how do we come up with the $400?”
  • Source timestamp: 33:53

• Gladewood special service area repair scope and funding mechanism

  • Summary: Explanation that the $400 estimate was based on attorney/engineer estimates for emergent issues at entrance/exit, which will cut city expenses.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Well, the $400 came from, started with an estimate that was calculated, the attorney and myself worked on you know what was reasonable. We also looked at engineering estimates for what it would take to take care of the emergent issues on the entrance and exit to Gladewood and then also just more of a common-sense approach as far as you know what’s realistic here, what is realistic. So all those doesn’t completely recover every dime required to do the immediate repairs. This goes a long way of cutting down the city’s expenses with dealing with the emergent issues on the entrance and exit.”
  • Source timestamp: 34:38

• Gladewood special service area transfer status

  • Summary: Statement that the Gladewood Bridge was found to never have been transferred to the city, making this SSA a way to rectify it.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “It was one of those things that was never found until work came up on the Gladewood Bridge. When work was studied on the Gladewood Bridge, it came up that this had never been transferred to the city. So it’s kind of a bad deal, and this is one of the best ways to rectify it.”
  • Source timestamp: 32:59

• Special Service Area establishment requirement

  • Summary: Confirmation that establishing an SSA is required for cost recovery when the city takes over the street.
  • Attribution: Alderman Klemm
  • Evidence: “Establishing a special service area is part of it becoming, it’s required to set that up so we have some cost recovery in exchange the city takes over the street.”
  • Source timestamp: 33:29

• Concerns regarding process for establishing funding numbers

  • Summary: Concern was raised that the council is not seeing how certain numbers are derived, suggesting decisions might be based on discretionary consideration and opinion rather than transparent processes.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “My point is this. He did not go through the same thing that I went through. He just interjected himself in the conversation that I was having a question about. So you didn’t have that call to make that. So Alderman Stacey, would you like your time? No, I want to answer the question. I want to ask the second question. Would you like to have the floor Alderman Sanders? Yes, I would. Okay, that’s all you needed. Okay. Well, I don’t like to, I don’t, okay, my, my, my point is this. You’re having a meeting, you’re having a meeting, um, or had a meeting with the Clay, Claywood, um, area, uh, council people, committee or whatever the case is that you we went through to establish how you come up with numbers and the council don’t see those numbers. We don’t see how you came about those numbers.”
  • Source timestamp: 36:59

• Council need for pre-decision information

  • Summary: The speaker stated that the city must be clued in before decisions are made regarding redirecting funds, and that everything discussed is not always included in the memo.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “It’s not saying that what you’re saying that it’s more like a discretionary thing that is based upon your consideration and your opinion about the numbers. That’s what I’m concerned about. And my thing is that is not the right approach to do that. And council is to be formed before any decisions are being made out in the field when it comes to redirecting things, fundings and all of these kinds of things. The city has to be clued in so we can make an intelligent decision and understand the process of what you’re doing. We can’t come to council understanding what you did before we had an opportunity to talk about it because it’s not in the memo. Everything that you talk about is not always in the memo.”
  • Source timestamp: 37:44

• Removing age cap for police and fire chiefs

  • Summary: Staff recommends moving forward with the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs because it reduces potential exposure to discrimination issues and aligns with best practices across Illinois municipalities, noting no financial impact.
  • Evidence: “By removing the age cap for chiefs, the city reduces potential exposure to any kind of discrimination issues and aligns with best practices across Illinois municipalities. So staff recommend there is no financial impact and staff recommends moving forward with and the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs.”
  • Source timestamp: 41:46

• Question regarding suspending rules for ordinance discussion

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders questioned why the council should suspend rules when an ordinance clearly states parameters and if the process allows for full discussion.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sanders, would you like to have a question on this? Yeah, I just can’t understand how one of the constituents leaders of their ward cannot come to the to the terms or the or the however you want to put it come to a conclusion that we should and I have a question for you. I would like to ask you a question about why you want to suspend this particular rule and not have a clear understanding and talk about why the ordinance clearly states this and we want to ignore it.”
  • Source timestamp: 43:06

• Committee review process for personnel changes beyond retirement age

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the lack of a mechanism to monitor or determine if an individual is fit to work beyond mandatory retirement age.
  • Evidence: “Well, the point is there’s no mechanism in place right at this current time to make that discretionary observation monitoring system. We do not have that to determine whether a person that has been considered beyond retirement. When the ordinance says this is the deadline of the retirement, you must follow this.”
  • Source timestamp: 50:37

• Need for amendment regarding post-retirement employment consideration

  • Summary: The council needs to place an amendment or have one already in place to consider someone continuing after the ordinance has been put in place, as no single person can make such declarations.
  • Evidence: “I want to give consideration for someone to continue after the ordinance has already been put in place. The council has to place an amendment or have one already in place to even call that. No one person makes these kinds of declarations or make any kind of opinion about it unless We have all been informed about the possibilities of these things happening.”
  • Source timestamp: 51:07

• Need for reevaluation of current procedures

  • Summary: The entire discussion requires a reevaluation, including the suspension of rules that was previously discussed.
  • Evidence: “So all of this that we’re talking about is mute right now because we need to reevaluate what we just talked about. And that’s the essence of all of this. So we need to redo all of it, including the suspension that was thrown out there as well.”
  • Source timestamp: 52:21

• Fire and Police Commission Authority vs. City Manager Appointment

  • Summary: The speaker explained that positions under Fire and Police Commission authority are subject to the 65 years of age mandatory retirement rule, but police chiefs and fire chiefs are appointed by the city manager with council approval and are not governed by that statute.
  • Evidence: “So what this determines is anybody who falls under Fire and Police Commission authority, meaning you’re hired, you’re tested, you’re promoted through Fire and Police Commission, this applies to the 65 years of age mandatory retirement. What this is talking about before you tonight is the police chief and myself are not under Fire and Police Commission. We’re merely appointed by the city manager with council approval.”
  • Source timestamp: 53:23

• Suspension of Rules Procedure

  • Summary: A speaker questioned the advantage of suspending rules, noting that suspension is an order of procedure and does not stop discussion.
  • Evidence: “I just needed to know what the advantage was in suspending the rules and that happens quite often and it is disturbing because no one could even explain it to me. … Suspension of the rules doesn’t stop discussion. It just is an order of procedure.”
  • Source timestamp: 55:06

• Public Opinion on Solar Array Zoning Change

  • Summary: A council member questioned the Planning Commission’s vote count and asked about public opinion regarding the solar array zoning change.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sanders. Director Duckman, give me the, you We said there was a vote of 500. Is that correct? And who was the five? I could get those names for you by the time we have our second reading. Okay. And what was the opinion of the public about this? There was no major public comment here about this.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:04

• Public Opposition to Solar Arrays in Residential Areas

  • Summary: A speaker stated that neighbors overwhelmingly do not want solar panels in their backyards, viewing the proposal as an imposition by a solar system company.
  • Evidence: “And I would say that in general when we talk about special use permits for solar, I would say overwhelmingly the neighbors don’t want it. Essentially what they’re saying at these zoning hearings is I live in a residential neighborhood, I don’t want to wake up looking at solar panels in my back yard. » That’s what I was listening to. Push this agenda that the solar system company wants to try to impose up on the general public with this service is basically what we’re listening to.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:52

• Special use permits for solar panels

  • Summary: The general sentiment from neighbors regarding ground-mounted solar panels in residential areas is negative.
  • Evidence: “And I would say that in general when we talk about the special use, Huffines, David, John, John, John, John. And that’s really what we’re talking about. So, when we’re talking about special use permits for solar, I would say overwhelmingly the neighbors don’t want it. Essentially what they’re saying at these zoning hearings is I live in a residential neighborhood, I don’t want to wake up looking at solar panels in my back yard.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:00:33

• Solar panel installation location restrictions

  • Summary: The discussion clarified the difference between rooftop solar installations and ground-mounted backyard solar installations.
  • Evidence: “You would still be able to do it as a rooftop You would still be able to by right put the solar panels on your roof What we’re talking about is going into your backyard in a residential neighborhood and installing solar panels on the ground”
  • Source timestamp: 01:01:43

• Variance process for solar installations

  • Summary: The current process requires anybody wanting to install solar panels in their backyard to go through hearings with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, and then ultimately be presented to council.
  • Evidence: “So what you currently have is anybody who would like to in a residential neighborhood would like to install solar panels in their backyard. They have to go through a hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, and then ultimately presented to council.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:17

• Impact of proposed ordinance on solar panel variance process

  • Summary: The proposed ordinance changes the process by removing the need for a council vote on individual variances.
  • Evidence: “This proposed ordinance says everybody is no. There is no longer a council vote on it.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:46

• Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding solar panels

  • Summary: The Planning Commission has reviewed past hearings and voted against ground-mounted solar in residential districts, stating it does not align with zoning or land use.
  • Evidence: “This is exactly what this ordinance is saying, is that our planning commission has reviewed and have been through the past two hearings that they’ve heard. They voted against it and they don’t see it in line with our zoning and with our land use because of the complaints mainly of our public at these hearings”
  • Source timestamp: 01:03:58

• Ordinance clarity regarding decision-making

  • Summary: A speaker questioned whether the public has been educated about the ordinance provisions to make an informed decision.
  • Evidence: “The ordinance should be stipulating exactly what the provisions are in that ordinance and the guidelines for that ordinance. And I’m just wondering, have the people been educated about this ordinance to determine whether or not the decisions that they’re making”
  • Source timestamp: 01:05:09

• Consequence of passing the proposed ordinance

  • Summary: Passing the ordinance would prevent any individual from having ground-mounted solar in a residential neighborhood.
  • Evidence: “If this passes, you’re essentially saying Sally and Mark cannot have it. John can’t have it. No one can have it in a residential in a residential neighborhood.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:05:48

• Roof vs. Ground Mount Solar Installation Rules

  • Summary: The current ordinance allows for rooftop solar installations without requiring a council vote.
  • Evidence: “The current ordinance reads that you can go on the roof, you don’t even have to come to the council to do the roof. That’s an automatic given if you wanna do that. You only have to come to the council or to the commissions if you wanna do ground mount as a variance.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:26

• Ground mount solar panels in residential zones

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the ordinance for ground-mounted solar panels versus roof installations, noting that ground mounts require council or commission variance while roof mounts do not.
  • Evidence: “It’s distracting, it’s obtrusive. The current ordinance reads that you can go on the roof, you don’t even have to come to the council to do the roof. That’s an automatic given if you wanna do that. You only have to come to the council or to the commissions if you wanna do ground mount as a variance.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:26

• Ground mount solar panels in residential zones

  • Summary: A statement asserting that previous discussions indicated consensus against ground-mounted systems in residential zoned properties.
  • Evidence: “I think it might be three different developments that have been denied by the planning commission, but they still have come here and you guys overruled the recommendation from the people that you’re asking to review this stuff. It was reviewed in depth. And I was not at the last meeting but the meeting before that that we discussed it, it was discussed for over 30 minutes and everyone there was unanimous that they didn’t want to see ground mounted in residential zoned properties.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:07:46

• Solar panel installation preference

  • Summary: A statement arguing that solar companies will choose pole-mounted systems over roof installations if permitted.
  • Evidence: “It’s cheaper for the solar companies to stick a pole in the ground and put solar panels on it than to put it on the roof. That’s the option they’re gonna choose every time if they can get it.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:38

• Solar panel review process

  • Summary: A statement indicating that the group does not want to review ground-mounted solar options at the Planning Commission anymore.
  • Evidence: “We don’t even wanna review those at the Planning Commission anymore. That’s why we’re asking for this.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:44

• Solar panel installation location comparison

  • Summary: A clarification distinguishing between residential properties and commercial developments regarding ordinances.
  • Evidence: “Now, again, there’s a difference between residential properties and these commercial developments. It’s two different ordinances, right? So we’re just talking about household properties in town. That’s all we’re discussing at this.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:08:17

• Ted Oatendall property status

  • Summary: A discussion clarifying that the property for Ted Oatendall was on acres of land, different from a residential setting.
  • Evidence: “She’s talking about when we okayed the property for Ted Oatendall, but if you saw his land, it’s totally, it’s totally different. It’s not, it’s acres of land. So it’s not where he has a house next door and a house next door.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:10:04

• Director Steekle’s stance on solar energy

  • Summary: A statement noting that Director Steekle is outspoken against residential solar, citing consistency in voting against it.
  • Evidence: “No, I just wanted to say that to be fair and I know that, for a fact, there was one on Lincoln Boulevard that wanted to put it in their backyard. I know Director Stiegl voted against that. I know he voted against the Harmony Church one. So he’s been consistent to not vote for it and that’s just all I wanted, to make that point.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:11:42

• Adoption procedure clarification

  • Summary: A discussion occurred regarding whether concluding with an adoption is mandatory or if the body can simply accept items and move on.
  • Evidence: “Discussion on the resolution, Alderman Sanders. Yeah, what happens when you don’t adopt? I mean, first and second adoption, we have to chime in on the adoption. Is it mandatory that we conclude with an adoption to accept or do we just accept things and just move on just to have it in our discussion?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:14:17

• Server replacement data security concerns

  • Summary: Concerns were raised regarding the determination for installing a new server, the status of the old server’s data, and who is safeguarding the information during potential upgrades or dismantling.
  • Evidence: “my whole thing is this, what made the determination for you two, you guys to wanna install a new server not only that, who are we, what’s wrong with the old server? … And so what I’m concerned about, who’s safeguarding, I know you’ve got all kind of security mechanisms in place, but who’s making those determinations and the discretion of servers, how many servers, one or two servers, where does all this resource information, data information is stored?”

• Comparison of current vs. previous year’s IT spending

  • Summary: A council member questioned the need for a new expenditure, comparing it to last year’s purchase of a physical server box for the police department.
  • Evidence: “alderman stacy last year we spent thousands of dollars for a new system and now here not you personally but here you come again 21,000. What did we not get last year that we need this year?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:17:24

• Scope of current server proposal

  • Summary: A council member questioned the scope of the proposed $27,000 cost, asking for a breakdown of what is being served by the new servers across different departments.
  • Evidence: “So what we’re looking, what kind of server are we looking for this time around? Are we talking about just for the city itself? Administrator bodies or other branches within the city? Or how are we covering all of this? Because I’m looking at a $27,000 cost here. And I’m like, okay, what are we getting? What kind of breakdown are we getting for each department?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:18:52

• Data storage scope confirmation

  • Summary: It was confirmed that the proposed system will serve administrative city hall staff, excluding police who are on a different domain.
  • Evidence: “This will serve, yes, administrative, city hall, basically all staff other than the police, they’re on a different domain. So we keep the actual hardware separate too.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:19:30

• Server replacement details

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the type of servers (Mac or PC, OS) for replacement.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sanders. Yeah, what kind of servers are they? Are they Mac or PC? Android? No, not Android. I know you won’t do an Android. But what kind of operating systems are we looking at when we’re talking about host servers? Where we’re working? And Stacey. What operating systems are we using? I never heard of a department area using Mac servers or whatever or anything like that. What kind of we’re indulging in? Yeah, what was Spectrum was a Dell server. It’ll be a Windows environment. Pretty standard basic small business type stuff, but with the government compliance.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:21:40

• Budgeting for new technology

  • Summary: Discussion regarding additional requested funds ($27,000) and confirmation that all costs are budgeted.
  • Attribution: Alderman Johnson
  • Evidence: “And Stacey. Okay, so not counting the 21,000 you just asked for, now you’re asking for another 27,000. Did you budget any of this? Yes, these are all budgeted. Just to clarify, the last one we just passed, that was for Office 365. It’s like when you’re at work and you go on your email or a spreadsheet, that’s what the last one was.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:22:36

• Scope of water main replacement on Warren Avenue

  • Summary: Discussion questioning if the proposed repair covers all necessary aspects and whether new materials will be used for connections.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sanders, did you have your hand up? You engineered this project, and we have not done a scheduling replacement of the water Mayne on Warren. I recall that in that area, they did have a lot of deficiencies in those water mains down through there. And I’m wondering, did you cover all aspects of that area for replacement? And whether or not the material that we’re going to use to replace it, it’s that’s not going to be the old past material that’s existing there now. So we should be making all new connections through that area so we don’t have to have these kind of failures if we’re spending $250,000 or whatever the amount comes out to.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:24:50

• Water main replacement scope and material standards

  • Summary: Staff confirmed that the current proposal is limited to 800 feet (Galena to Cable) due to funding, but stated the city standard for new lines will be C909 PVC.
  • Attribution: Staff
  • Evidence: “The replacement this year will only be 800 feet, so it’s from Galena to Cable, which is shown on the map. That’s all we have money for this year, so we can’t afford to do the rest of it. The section that we’re replacing has had the vast majority of breaks… Alderman Sanders is plastic. Yeah. Oh, okay. I’m kidding. We’re putting- Okay. Our city standard is C909 PVC- Thank you.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:27:02

• Impact on street department operations

  • Summary: Alderman Stacey inquired about the impact of the water main repair on existing street department work for the year.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacey
  • Evidence: “Alderman Stacey. What is going to be affected from this in our street department that’s already been established for this year? So, as it’s notated in the financials, it won’t affect anything that we’re doing. We’re suggesting taking this out of reserve funds to get this done because it’s been such a problem and we’ve spent so much money repairing it already this season that we just don’t feel like it’s practical.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:28:30

• Cost justification for water main repairs

  • Summary: Staff noted that the city has already spent about $80,000 repairing the water main this summer alone, compared to an estimated cost of a single break at $10,000.
  • Attribution: Staff
  • Evidence: “If you estimated a cost of a water main break at roughly $10,000 a piece, that’s the national average we’ve already spent about $80,000 repairing it already just this summer so I’m trying to get the bleeding to stop in this area it is it’s”
  • Source timestamp: 01:29:03

• Water main repair costs and necessity

  • Summary: A discussion regarding the high cost of water main repairs, noting that $80,000 has already been spent repairing it this summer, with an estimated national average cost of a single break being $10,000.
  • Evidence: “We’re suggesting taking this out of reserve funds to get this done because it’s been such a problem and we’ve spent so much money repairing it already this season that we just don’t feel like it’s practical. If you estimated a cost of a water main break at roughly $10,000 a piece, that’s the national average we’ve already spent about $80,000 repairing it already just this summer so I’m trying to get the bleeding to stop in this area”
  • Source timestamp: 01:28:43

• Cost of water main repair

  • Summary: Alderman Johnson asked how much one water main repair costs, and a response stated that it is around $10,000.
  • Evidence: “Alderman Johnson. He answered my question. I was wondering how much one repair costs. How much one repair costs when they have a water main break and you set around $10,000 a piece”
  • Source timestamp: 01:29:03

• Equipment trailer specifications and use

  • Summary: Discussion confirmed that the new trailer is for hauling a skid steer around which weighs about 12,000 pounds, and noted that local streets are rated for 60 to 80.
  • Evidence: “We received three prizes and this was by far the cheapest. We’re also going with a 2023 model to and what’s the cost in the memo $13,995 okay 18,000 pounds a street can’t even handle that well I would hope it could but yes this is for hauling the skid steer around which weighs about 12,000 pounds mm-hmm our streets are rated for 60 to McEvoy. 60 To 80. Depending on what street you’re on.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:30:06

• Equipment trailer lifespan and necessity

  • Summary: Discussion noted the last trailer was from 1988, suggesting it is unusable, and that the new trailer would be shared between water, sewer, and streets to save time.
  • Evidence: “Oh, Alderman. How long does a trailer like this last? Quite a long time. The last one was from 1988, so I think we’ve got every nickel out of it. We probably could, but it’s unusable at this part of it’s scrap. Right now, the crews are requesting this. For sharing a trailer between water, sewer, and streets. And with the street work and everything we got on, it’s just a hassle. They’re losing a lot of time chasing around town, trying to get equipment moved around.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:32:11

• Funding Source Clarification for School Safety Project

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether the project relies solely on a grant or if other funding sources, such as school district involvement or discounts, will offset costs.
  • Attribution: Alderman Johnson
  • Evidence: “And I think that will help them to reconstruct the safety protocols for the school. And if I’m not mistaken, you also mentioned the fact that they will also help funding. Does it help funding the project or are we just relying on a grant to make that distinction? So my whole thing is, when I’m hearing things, it sounds like if we’re getting a grant, where does the school get involved in this whole scenario and what we should be, and how we should be functioning with the city to couple this project together with them? Is there discounts? Is there fundings other than grants that is going to help offset this project? Is that what we’re looking at?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:35:06

• Purpose of Grant Funding for Crossing Signals

  • Summary: Clarification that the goal is pursuing a $250,000 grant to upgrade crossing signals in front of schools and seeking school district support for outside funding.
  • Attribution: Manager Boyer
  • Evidence: “Well, what we’re looking at pursuing a $250,000 grant to upgrade crossing signals in front of the schools that are in the right of way. We’re actually just seeking the school district support in the pursuit of this outside funding so that we can improve those crossing guards.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:35:39

• Park location for playground funding

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether the grant should fund a park adjacent to Joe’s or another area in the 3rd and 5th Ward.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “Alderman Simmons. Is this the park in the area next to Joe’s that you’re speaking of, or is this another parking park? Yes, you’re correct. It’s adjacent to Joe’s. Alderman Stacy? You know, these little pocket parks does nothing for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward and we need a park for our kids to play in.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:38:27

• Need for playground facilities in 3rd and 5th Ward

  • Summary: A council member stated that pocket parks do nothing for the kids in the 3rd and 5th Ward and requested a real park.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “Alderman Stacy? You know, these little pocket parks does nothing for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward and we need a park for our kids to play in. I have said that since I’ve been on the council. Can we turn this into a park? Can we turn that into a park?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:38:37

• Alternative use of grant funds for playground

  • Summary: A council member questioned why the grant was not applied to a different area in the 3rd and 5th Ward, given that T-Mobile funding is already secured for the downtown park.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sellers? I think. Well, no, no, no, I think my question needs an answer. What was your question? My question is, why aren’t we considering any other areas where we can actually put a small playground in, something like Milton Park?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:40:15

• Justification for current park grant application

  • Summary: A council member explained that the specific pocket park has been under planning and through multiple layers of grant applications for several years, which is why it is up for this particular grant.
  • Attribution: Huffines
  • Evidence: “I know that the pocket park was discussed for probably and has had a plan associated with it for about five, well, I’d say probably five years. I know there were designs for it and it went through several layers of grant applications… So I mean, that’s the short answer as to why Huffines. This particular parcel is up for the grant.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:41:04

• Park ownership and future planning advice

  • Summary: A council member advised that if citizens want better facilities in an existing park, they should bring it to the Park District; for city-owned land parcels, those can be investigated.
  • Attribution: Huffines
  • Evidence: “Also would like to state that the City of Freeport doesn’t own many parks. I believe this might be the only one and that the Park District owns many of its parks and owns that planning process. So if there’s an existing park where citizens would like to see better facilities, that’s certainly something to bring up to the Park District. If there’s parcels of land that the city owns that council members would like to see maybe possibly investigated for a park.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:14

• Park jurisdiction and planning process for city parks

  • Summary: The speaker advised that the Park District owns many of its parks and handles the planning process; suggestions for improving existing parks should go to the Park District. For city-owned parcels, they suggested talking with City Manager Boyer.
  • Evidence: “Also would like to state that the City of Freeport doesn’t own many parks. I believe this might be the only one and that the Park District owns many of its parks and owns that planning process. So if there’s an existing park where citizens would like to see better facilities, that’s certainly something to bring up to the Park District. If there’s parcels of land that the city owns that council members would like to see maybe possibly investigated for a park. I think it’s a great idea. And I think that’s something to talk about with city manager Boyer in your weekly meetings.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:14

• Park District involvement in local park development

  • Summary: The speaker reiterated the need to involve the Park District when seeking a playground or new park, noting that they have rules and regulations governing land use.
  • Evidence: “And you’re right. Bring the park district to the table if you wanna have a playground in a certain area. Alderman Sellers. Yeah, I guess that’s what I was gonna say. I know that when the King Center first came there, we had a small group of people that worked when George Galrap was mayor trying to get another park because they took away Henny Park. And that was years ago. And we were in with the park district. And I know about five years ago, me and Mr. Jim Ryan, we had discussion with the guy that’s running the park district and that’s something you have to go through the park district because they have all kinds of rules and regulations on how you can use the land and what kind of land.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:42:42

• Jurisdiction over city parks

  • Summary: A council member objected that the discussion was not fully investigating who has jurisdiction over city-administered parks, arguing the Park District is running its own scheme and that the grant applies to the city at large.
  • Evidence: “I have to object to what council just said because we have not fully done our homework when it comes to who has jurisdiction of anything that the city is administering to the city, public city, when it comes to any entity, parks and the city parks or whatever the case may be. I can’t see why it is that we’re consulting with the park district because the park district is not ever here. They’re running their own scheme and we’re not going to just push everything on the park district when the grant is for the city at large.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:43:53

• City council planning approach vs. Park District jurisdiction

  • Summary: The speaker argued that it was irrelevant for the Park District to make determinations on how council submits recommendations, and suggested maintaining a course of collaboration with the city manager.
  • Evidence: “And I don’t think pocket parks have anything to do with the Freeport Park District when it comes to district areas. And I think if we’re looking at council for consideration on how we should plan this, how we should go to the city manager and talk more about it and things of this nature. And while we’re doing that, there is no park district board members or staff in the midst of this conversation. And so I think it’s irrelevant for us to even make a suggestion that we implement another organization or another district department or whatever that has not been involved and any of the city council’s decision making. So my thing is I think it’s irrelevant for them to do that. And I think we should maintain a course where we collaborate with our city manager as council people to make these kinds of provisions for our district. I don’t think we should have someone else having jurisdiction over our district on what we want to have in our district.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:45:30

• Question regarding the grant funding area

  • Summary: Alderman Simmons questioned why this specific grant was for the downtown area when another grant for that same downtown area already exists and only includes cornholes.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “However, my question to the grant was, and a statement to what Director Duckman said I have spoken to, and I have been awarded by the county board members about land that we were then awarded and park district members about board members about getting a pocket park in our area. My question that was not answered is why is this particular grant for this area downtown when we already got a grant for that area downtown which only includes cornholes, cornhole games?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:47:36

• Grant funding comparison and suitability for downtown area park

  • Summary: A question was raised regarding why a specific grant was targeted for the downtown area when another grant already covered that area with only cornholes.
  • Evidence: “My question to the grant was, and a statement to what Director Duckman said I have spoken to, and I have been awarded by the county board members about land that we were then awarded and park district members about board members about getting a pocket park in our area. My question that was not answered is why is this particular grant for this area downtown when we already got a grant for that area downtown which only includes cornholes, cornhole games? Like this grant could be used more beneficially for us if we use it in a different area. Why was that not listed?”
  • Source timestamp: 01:47:36

• Pocket park planning history and rationale

  • Summary: The pocket park subject of the grant application has been in a planning process for five years, which is why there have been multiple applications.
  • Evidence: “And I think what I was trying to explain before was that the pocket park that we’re speaking of, that is the subject of this grant application, has been in a planning process for five years. And that is why, in particular, there have been multiple applications. I know there was a Commonwealth Edison grant that was applied for in 2020.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:49:02

• Alternative park locations and city ownership

  • Summary: The speaker stated that if the city had another parcel with a plan, or one owned by the city, City Manager Boyer would likely want to discuss it.
  • Evidence: “And as I said earlier, I think that if there’s another area in a different time where we have a plan for a parcel, or if it’s own or if it’s owned by the city I don’t I think I’m sure City Manager Boyer would certainly want to talk about it or it could be brought to council a specific piece of property that the city owns that a park could be proposed”
  • Source timestamp: 01:49:24

• Cost and process for applying for OSLAD grant

  • Summary: A question was raised about the cost to apply for the OSLAD grant, as the speaker had not been part of the application.
  • Evidence: “I would also like to know how much does it cost to apply for this OSLAD grant. I’ll be honest, and I haven’t been a part of this grant application.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:51:02

• Cost of grant applications (OSLAD)

  • Summary: The cost to apply for the grant is $7,500 as per the master service agreement.
  • Evidence: “Part of the master service agreement at $7,500 for the application.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:52:06

• Park maintenance responsibility (City vs. Park District)

  • Summary: The city is not typically in the park business; maintaining parks is the responsibility of the park district.
  • Evidence: “So just trying to clarify this from what I’ve been listening to the city of Freeport is not typically in the park business. That’s the park district’s responsibility with their own taxing body.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:52:18

• City ownership of parks

  • Summary: The city proper council does not own any parks within the city.
  • Evidence: “I do, I believe, uh, I’m pretty sure I’m correct. The city does not, the city proper city council does not own any parks within the city.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:52:40

• Nature of the proposed pocket park

  • Summary: The pocket park is described as an urban park that would be low maintenance, utilizing concrete and little grass.
  • Evidence: “This is a park that brings in games and other things like bags or tabletop games, other items like that, that can be utilized in a small space. The space between these two buildings is not enormous to overcome or to put things in. And so if the city were to make a park in this location, it would be a very low maintenance park that doesn’t need a lot of work because we don’t have additional staff members to take care of parks, right? This would be more of an urban park which is gonna have a lot more concrete, very little grass or maybe even turf, something that doesn’t need to be maintained.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:53:05

• Park maintenance and park types

  • Summary: Discussion regarding the maintenance needs of parks, contrasting urban parks with pocket parks.
  • Evidence: “Parks need a lot of maintenance between trees, lawn care, garbage, upkeep. This would be more of an urban park which is gonna have a lot more concrete, very little grass or maybe even turf, something that doesn’t need to be maintained. Okay, I don’t care about all that description. It’s gonna cost $7,500 just to apply for a grant that we may not even get.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:53:36

• Neighborhood park location and ownership

  • Summary: Discussion concerning the ownership of a specific park located on Iroquois and State Street.
  • Evidence: “Well there’s one located right there on Iroquois and State Street, isn’t it? I believe that’s called the neighborhood park by the park district. So it’s by the park district? Do they take care of that? The one at Iroquois I believe actually is owned by the homeowner that lives there.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:54:32

• Pocket park definition and status

  • Summary: Discussion attempting to clarify whether a specific small park on Blackhawk and Broadway qualifies as a pocket park.
  • Evidence: “What about the little small park that sits over on Blackhawk and Broadway? Is that a pocket park? … I’m trying to find out information what kind of pocket parks description has is it pocket parks or is it neighborhood parks and that’s what I’m that’s what I’m talking about.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:55:20

• Suggestion to increase notice days for rent increase

  • Summary: A suggestion was made to increase the number of notice days for a rent increase from 30 to 60 days, which would be fine with signed leases but presents concerns for month-to-month tenants.
  • Evidence: “I think there’s a suggestion that we could increase the number of notice days for a rent increase from 30 to 60 days. That would be fine with someone with a signed lease. However, if people are on a month a month already, that does present some concerns, but certainly not insurmountable.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:03:32

• Scope of city’s role in rent regulation

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders questioned whether the state attorney office is stipulating jurisdiction over the matter and if the council has considered amending anything to alter the state’s governance regarding this issue.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “Now, my question would be is the state of Illinois attorney office is the ones that are stipulating jurisdiction over this particular matter that we’re discussing in our agenda right now, is what we’re saying. What the city’s role is, correct. Yeah, and because that is happening, because that has not obscured the fact that we should be able to also make amendments. We have not talked about whether we can amend anything to what the state’s attorney had put in the role of how they govern this. So have we challenged this as a council to see if any and others. Any amendments can be introduced to make changes.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:04:51

• City’s authority regarding rent control and amendments

  • Summary: Discussion centered on whether the city can amend regulations despite state attorney stipulations regarding jurisdiction over a matter.
  • Evidence: “Now, my question would be is the state of Illinois attorney office is the ones that are stipulating jurisdiction over this particular matter that we’re discussing in our agenda right now, is what we’re saying. What the city’s role is, correct. Yeah, and because that is happening, because that has not obscured the fact that we should be able to also make amendments. We have not talked about whether we can amend anything to what the state’s attorney had put in the role of how they govern this.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:04:51

• Need for updated information on current regulations

  • Summary: A concern was raised regarding the age of a memo and the need to know if major changes have occurred affecting renters when landlords raise rent.
  • Evidence: “How current are we with the update of how old is this memo that we’re looking at? How old is it? And if things have changed, who looked into whether or not there has been major changes that will make a difference to those renters when landlords are raising their rent and everything?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:06:10

• Council challenge mechanism for city governance

  • Summary: A member suggested the council needs a mechanism to challenge decisions, rather than leaving it solely to the state’s attorney.
  • Evidence: “There should be a mechanism for us to at least challenge what we’re seeing here so we just don’t leave it up to the state’s attorney to make the priority decisions for the city.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:07:24

• City’s inability to regulate rent prices

  • Summary: It was stated that the city cannot regulate rent because that power was taken away by the state.
  • Evidence: “So when we talk about rent control, which is, I believe, the vast majority of the complaints here were rent spikes. The city cannot regulate that. That power was taken away from us by Springfield. And that’s that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:09:08

• Focus on what the city can do for constituents

  • Summary: A member urged focusing discussion on actionable items the city can implement rather than limitations.
  • Evidence: “We don’t want to know what the city can’t do. We want to know what the city can do.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:09:22

• Allegations against city officials regarding property management

  • Summary: A member accused Freeport Portfolio, LLLC and Pied Piper of scamming the city.
  • Evidence: “Freeport Portfolio, LLLC and Pied Piper are the same people. They’re two in one. And they have came to our city and have played our mayor and our city managers as suckers.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:10:02

• Request for actionable proposals from city leadership

  • Summary: A member demanded that City Manager Boyer and the Mayor state what specific actions they are proposing.
  • Evidence: “so with all this discussion what are you proposing that we do you tell me what can you do I mean you can’t take a property and charge twelve and fifteen hundred dollars in a five six hundred dollar neighborhood and I could not have done it without you.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:11:52

• Renter rights information availability

  • Summary: A member asked if the Greater Freeport Partnership has documentation detailing renter rights.
  • Evidence: “Greater Freeport Partnership, do you all have something like that? Who have something like that? That the renters can go and know what their rights are.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:11

• Need for concrete proposals from city leadership

  • Summary: A member reiterated the need for a specific proposal rather than just discussing the scope of the city’s role.
  • Evidence: “So if you have something to propose, let’s talk about it.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:36

• Renter rights information availability

  • Summary: A speaker asked the Greater Freeport Partnership if they had resources detailing renter rights.
  • Evidence: “And I want to tell every renter out there, get an inspection. You as a renter have rights. Know your rights. There used to be books out there that said renter rights. I don’t know. Greater Freeport Partnership, do you all have something like that? Who have something like that? That the renters can go and know what their rights are.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:12:47

• City role regarding rent caps

  • Summary: A speaker stated that the city cannot put a cap on anyone’s rent.
  • Evidence: “So again, we cannot put on a cap on anyone’s rent. We can’t do that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:26

• Proposal for city action

  • Summary: A speaker questioned what was being proposed to clarify the city’s role.
  • Evidence: “So what are you proposing? And that’s not what I’m asking you to do. So what are you proposing? Cause that’s, you’re trying to blur the lines of what the city’s role is.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:32

• Alderman Stacy’s proposal for homeless shelter

  • Summary: Alderman Stacy proposed that the city develop and create its own homeless shelter because FACC was full.
  • Evidence: “So I propose that we as a city develop and create our own homeless shelter because FACC is filled to the brim and can’t take anymore. We have no rent cap. We can’t do anything about that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:13:45

• Response to homeless shelter proposal

  • Summary: A speaker suggested that Alderperson Simmons would be good if they brought together a plan, staff cost estimates, or an RFP for the homeless shelter idea.
  • Evidence: “No, I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I think with budget seizing coming up, I think Alderperson Simmons would be a good idea if you brought together a plan, a staff, what it would cost, maybe, you know, some developers or maybe an RFP we could put out for that and get some general ideas of the cost for that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:14:13

• Process for making council proposals

  • Summary: A speaker stated that the council should be able to come up with numbers regarding proposal costs.
  • Evidence: “So I think there’s a lot to be said about the process of making a proposal to council. I think the council should be able to come up with some numbers and what it would cost.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:14:47

• Council planning discussion on homeless shelters

  • Summary: A speaker proposed that the council get together for a planning discussion to see if they could agree on an investigation into homelessness.
  • Evidence: “And I don’t think there’s no one wants to see Anyone, and homeless shelters at all, but what I’m proposing is that we get together as council, have a planning discussion to have to see if we can all be on the same page.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15:12

• Roundtable discussion recommendation

  • Summary: A speaker suggested having a roundtable discussion about the issue.
  • Evidence: “Duckman, I think we should have a roundtable of some sort just to talk about this issue. This is an issue that is not going to go away and people will be suffering if nothing happens”
  • Source timestamp: 02:15:32

• Need for governmental program information

  • Summary: A speaker emphasized the need to bring out any governmental programs or grants related to housing discussions.
  • Evidence: “If we could do anything, come up with any kind of a proposal, suggestion, recommendations and things of this nature, if there’s any governmental programs or grants that could be implemented into whatever we’re discussing.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:06

• Opening dialogue with citizens

  • Summary: A speaker noted the need for council members to open up discussions regarding subject matters.
  • Evidence: “It’s almost like we went into silent mode. But anyway, this is what we need to start doing, opening up to the citizens of Freeport.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:16:30

• Alderman Klemm discussion on property purchases and tenancy

  • Summary: Alderman Klemm discussed issues related to recent property purchases and the shift from local landlords to out-of-town ownership.
  • Evidence: “One thing we’ve got to realize is that there’s two sides to this whole project, okay? If take, and one of the things is that Reverend Dye’s got her sign up out here that says we should extend it to 60 days. You know, that Miller. The flip side of that, if I’m a landlord, when you move into my house, now I’m not going to ask you for one month or two months, I’m going to ask you for three or four months because when you’re going to leave in the last couple months, you’re not going to pay your rent and you’re going to be gone.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:17:24

• Property ownership changes and landlord-tenant situation

  • Summary: Alderman Klemm noted that properties were bought by multiple outfits over recent years, changing the local landlord-tenant dynamic.
  • Evidence: “I believe what brought up here is Pied Piper bought this, okay. Keep in mind over the last, which Stacy started to mention, over the last number of months or the last couple years, we’ve had property bought up by two or three different outfits, not just one.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:18:10

• Impact of rising costs on rent

  • Summary: A speaker noted that increases in taxes and deposits contribute to overall rent increases.
  • Evidence: “If we take and do something that’s going to completely raise everybody’s rate, we’ve done nothing to help anybody, and I think that’s the long-distance end on this thing, and costs and everything else are going up. As we talk about the difference of months, how much deposit and all that goes up, as and the taxes go up, all that enters into the situation and all that stuff enters into the rent of it.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:19:32

• Alderman Johnson on ordinance changes notice period

  • Summary: Alderman Johnson asked if changing ordinances to require 60 days’ notice would only affect the future.
  • Evidence: “If we change some ordinances right now, like say we change it and say, okay, you got to give them 60 days notice, that would not affect what’s happening right now, but would affect the future, is that correct or am I wrong on that?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:39

• Historical rent rates and housing discussions

  • Summary: A discussion regarding historical rental rates for a two-bedroom, one-bath house in 1997 was mentioned.
  • Evidence: “As far as the rent, I have to tell you this, I had a house of my mother’s that we rented out for a number of years, I rented it out in 1997 for 600 and some bucks and it was a two bedroom, one bath house in a nice neighborhood.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:05

• Ordinance changes regarding notice periods

  • Summary: A question was raised about the effect of changing ordinances to require 60 days’ notice for tenancy termination.
  • Evidence: “Was there other discussion on the city’s role? Alderman Johnson? If we change some ordinances right now, like say we change it and say, okay, you got to give them 60 days notice, that would not affect what’s happening right now, but would affect the future, is that correct or am I wrong on that?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:34

• Effect of ordinance changes on leases

  • Summary: The effect of changing ordinances requiring 60 days’ notice would apply to leases entered into after the effective date of the ordinance.
  • Evidence: “It would affect leases entered into after the effective date of the ordinance. After the effective date of the ordinance, okay.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:20:58

• Legality of property sale inspection ordinances

  • Summary: A question was posed regarding the legality of an ordinance requiring a house or property to pass an inspection to be sold.
  • Evidence: “And also is it, would it be legal for the city to put in some kind of ordinance that said a house or a property could not, a renter house or property could not be sold unless it passes an inspection saying that it’s up to code. Would that be something legal that could be done?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21:04

• Historical attempt at sale inspection ordinance

  • Summary: A previous effort to implement a property sale inspection ordinance was determined not to proceed due to political will.
  • Evidence: “That was approached many years ago. Okay. And that was, it was determined not to do that. And that was the political will at the time.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21:32

• Impact of mandatory code upgrades on property sales

  • Summary: The argument against mandatory code upgrades for sale is that it could make properties prohibitively expensive to upgrade if they exceed standard maintenance codes for the era in which they were built.
  • Evidence: “The argument would be that, well, if as soon as a property has to be brought up to current standards to code, and not just grandfathered in as existing, and I’m sure Wayne can tell you that there’s a difference between IPMC and then current building codes and that sort of thing. If it gets beyond a standard maintenance code for the era in which the house was built it’s prohibitively expensive to upgrade that now”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21:53

• Impact of mandatory code upgrades on property sales (continued)

  • Summary: Mandatory upgrades could greatly increase the cost to sell a property.
  • Evidence: “that’s certainly something to be said for doing that in that all housing then eventually will come up to current standards but that doesn’t come out and come without a price so what happens is we greatly increase the cost to sell something or specifically”
  • Source timestamp: 02:22:20

• Impact of mandatory code upgrades on property sales (continued)

  • Summary: The effect could be driving down the price of property.
  • Evidence: “and DePriest. I think that’s a good way to really drive down the price of property. If I’m a seller, the buyer is going to pay me less because they know they’re going to need to do a bunch of work.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:22:51

• Notice period applicability for month-to-month tenancies

  • Summary: The 60-day notice requirement may not apply when a tenancy is on a month-to-month basis.
  • Evidence: “But if there’s a situation where it’s month to month, I can’t see the 60 day notice thing because you’re doing it month to month.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:13

• Notice period applicability for buy-on-contract agreements

  • Summary: The rules for buying on contract are separate from city ordinances and depend on the agreement terms.
  • Evidence: “And then we also have the situation where people were in the program of buying on contract. Once you buy on contract, that’s not anything with the city. Because if you’re buying on contract and you’re under that, that’s on you and you have to deal with that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:27

• Recommendation for 60-day notice application

  • Summary: The speaker supports a 60-day notice requirement specifically for people whose contract is ending within the next six months or something like that.
  • Evidence: “So I can understand the 60 day notice on people whose contract is getting ready to end within the next six months or something like that. I can go along with that, but if you still, if you signed your lease in May and you’ve got way till May, it doesn’t apply.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:23:52

• Opposition to universal 60-day notice ordinance

  • Summary: The speaker opposes making the 60-day notice a blanket ordinance because it negatively affects landlords who are complying with their duties and already struggle with 30-day notices.
  • Evidence: “And I think that not having the 60 day be an ordinance for everybody because there are good landlords out there that are doing what they’re supposed to do and handling their business. And they’re already having problems with 30 days, trying to get people out. So I can understand with this situation and under this contract, we do the 60 day notice, but I just can’t see it going across the board because that hurts landlords that are out there doing what they’re supposed to do and trying to handle their business.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:24:12

• Discussion on Special Meeting vs. COW Agenda Item

  • Summary: The discussion centered on whether to hold a special meeting or place the topic on the regular Council of the Week (COW) agenda.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “So if, if I can throw that out as a suggestion, if it goes on the cow, that- So as a discussion item that Alderman Stacy could put on for the next cow, if she wanted to, is what you’re saying?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:29:24

• Special Meeting Logistics and Timing

  • Summary: A discussion occurred regarding setting a date and time for a special meeting.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “Do you want to propose a date and a time? Well, I guess if I have to, Thursday the 4th at 4 o’clock. I’m sorry, I would not be able to make that meeting. What would work in your schedule?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:31:04

• Special Meeting vs. COW Discussion

  • Summary: Discussion continued regarding whether a special meeting or placing the item on the COW was preferable.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacy
  • Evidence: “I don’t think we need to have another time. What do you say, City Manager Boyer?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:33:55

• Agenda Item Placement for Discussion

  • Summary: A suggestion was made that the discussion could be set aside as a segment of time on the agenda during the COW meeting.
  • Attribution: Johnson
  • Evidence: “Well, if I may, that sounds like potentially a setting on the committee of the whole. I mean, that’s for a discussion. So setting aside a segment of time on the agenda in the We can have that discussion.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:29:11

• Special meeting vs. agenda item placement for discussion topic

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether to hold a special meeting or place the topic on an upcoming Council of Ways (COW) agenda item.
  • Evidence: “Okay, so I’m confused on what we’re having for a motion. Are we putting it on the COW or are we picking a date? Because we’re never going to agree on a date. So as of right now, the motion is just to have a special meeting to discuss this topic.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:34:16

• Special meeting vs. agenda item placement for discussion topic

  • Summary: Discussion that calling a special meeting might not make sense if the goal is simply to address an issue that could be covered on a regular COW.
  • Evidence: “Alternatively, it’s been discussed, well, rather than call a special meeting, do we want to just make this an agenda item on one of the upcoming cows instead?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:34:52

• Special meeting vs. agenda item placement for discussion topic

  • Summary: Confirmation that Alderman Stacy’s motion was specifically for a special meeting.
  • Evidence: “The only thing that’s on the table right now is Alderman Stacey’s motion to have a special meeting.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:34:52

• Special meeting vs. agenda item placement for discussion topic

  • Summary: Discussion clarifying that calling a special meeting during a COW is contradictory; one must choose between the two formats.
  • Evidence: “You can’t have a special meeting during the COW. You’re either at a COW meeting or you’re having a special meeting or you have a regular council meeting.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:37:20

• Next steps on discussion topic

  • Summary: Discussion confirming that Alderman Stacy removed her special meeting request, and the item can be added to the COW agenda.
  • Evidence: “So, Stacy, do you wanna continue with your special meeting on next Monday? I removed it. She removed it, okay.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:38:24

• Discussion regarding rent increases and community impact for item 18

  • Summary: The discussion covered concerns about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and the overall impact on the community.
  • Attribution: Council
  • Evidence: “We’ll move on to the item number 18, which is discussion about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and the impact of the community. So I don’t know if Alderman Stacy and Klemm, if you want to speak first, or if you want to give an opportunity for Pied Piper to just say a few things.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:38:49

• Dispute over rent notice issuance and increases

  • Summary: A dispute arose regarding whether notices were sent out to all month-to-month renters about a specific rent increase from $600 to $1200.
  • Attribution: Huffines
  • Evidence: “So are you standing there telling me you did not send out letters to all the month-to-month renters telling them that their rent was going to increase from $600 to $1200? I have not. They have letters. I have the letters, too. I wrote the letters. I made the letters. I sent the letters…”
  • Source timestamp: 02:43:10

• Property condition and tenant management strategy

  • Summary: The speaker detailed their process of visiting 35 to 40 tenants, addressing concerns, creating a community page for updates, and outlining the leasing process which involves conversation and accommodation agreements before signing leases.
  • Attribution: Alderman Johnson
  • Evidence: “What I’m here to say is that once all those notices went out, when I went to visit 35 to 40 tenants into their homes, I met people with low income, I met people with good income, I met people with families that were concerned, I made sure I addressed all those concerns to understand the type of demographics that’s living in the property. As a property manager, as a property management company, I don’t know what you guys expect for them to do. You guys are smart individuals yourself. You become a rental owner. You would want to know who’s living in your property, what the condition of the property is, right, and what the situation is so you can address it. It’s a property. So here we are. We have all the situation. We have created a community page. We’re going to be addressing all the questions, concerns, updates moving forward over there. Currently, there are no leases being signing for all the one-to-one tenants. What we’re saying is, hey, if you like what you see, If you guys want to move forward, let’s talk. Let’s have a conversation, and let’s address a situation where if you agree, we will make sure that we accommodate your request, move you into the property that makes sense, so we can fix the property. Address the condition, address the liability that as a landlord or as a property manager we have to take. And we work with them. If the people that are not able to afford their rents or they don’t want to move forward, we will work with them. You don’t need to do 60 days governance here. You guys are wasting all your time. We’re saying we’ll work with them to work three months, four months, five months, six months.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:44:37

• Due diligence for prospective renters/tenants

  • Summary: Alderman Sanders praised the practice of looking at attendance income to determine affordability for prospective renters or leasers, noting it shows due diligence.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sanders
  • Evidence: “I like the fact that you do look at attendance income to determine whether or not this family can afford Huffines. This particular apartment, home, or whatever the case is, that is a plus, that’s the plus thing that shows that you’re doing due diligence to help any prospective renter or leaser, leasy, I should say, and to help them navigate through all of the things that they have to go through to afford one of the places that you have for rental or for sale that they they’re able to be accommodated by whatever their economic structures is to afford that particular property.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:46:30

• Tenant screening and affordability requirements

  • Summary: The speaker agreed with the need for prospective tenants to know the requirements beforehand, suggesting an inquiry process where circumstances are determined before commitment.
  • Evidence: “So I agree with you on how you’re going about doing it. I don’t know if you’re making any promises or anything like that for sure. But the fact of the matter is that that information is available to any prospective tenant or renter that he will be able to work with you, talk with you, negotiate with you on your terms or any terms that you guys can agree with.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:47:59

• Rental rent increase timing and housing plan

  • Summary: The speaker confirmed that rents will not go up until after the homes are fixed, and detailed a process where current residents in units being fixed can be accommodated via hotel or other mutually agreed accommodation while they apply as proper tenants for the renovated unit.
  • Attribution: Alderman Johnson
  • Evidence: “So currently you’re stating that none of the rents are going to go up at this point. And the only time the rents will go up is after the homes are fixed. Correct. Is that what you’re saying? OK. The other thing is the places that you are going to be fixing up, someone lives in them now. Are they going to be able to stay in there while you fix that that home up or that? No, they will not be able to. OK, so where will they go while you fix that rent up? We will work with them to create an accommodation. We have thirty five to forty units that are vacant currently that we’re working on, bringing in a good condition that are promising to our tenants. And we will work with them to either ship them their hotel or any other accommodation that caters and mutually agreed on. Once they agree that they are okay to move forward, they will come and they will apply as a proper tenant, go through application screening, get their pets, everything identified, and while we’re doing that process, once they’re approved, we can move them, we’ll cater with them, fix their property in seven to 14 days, as fast as possible, and then cater back to them, bring them back to their property. Now, once they do sign the 12 months agreement, the lease agreement with the market rent that we agree upon after fixing the property, so they’re living in good condition, better condition, and less liability condition, and most of these property, if not all of these properties, are gonna be city court passing, so there will be no issues there, and then after 12 months, if they’re interested in buying the home they’re living in, they’re more than welcome to. We’ll do the finance agreement with them, 3% down payment option, rent to one agreement, they wanna live, they wanna own, they wanna contribute to the community, we’re right there for them.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:50:25

• Lease agreement terms and property condition improvements

  • Summary: After signing a 12-month agreement with market rent, if properties are fixed up to good/better/less liability condition, the process may involve a finance agreement option (3% down payment) or an initial rent-to-own arrangement. The new lease rent will increase after fixes.
  • Evidence: “Now, once they do sign the 12 months agreement, the lease agreement with the market rent that we agree upon after fixing the property, so they’re living in good condition, better condition, and less liability condition, and most of these property, if not all of these properties, are gonna be city court passing, so there will be no issues there, and then after 12 months, if they’re interested in buying the home they’re living in, they’re more than welcome to. We’ll do the finance agreement with them, 3% down payment option, rent to one agreement, they wanna live, they wanna own, they wanna contribute to the community, we’re right there for them. So let’s say they’re paying $600 a month rent or $700 a month rent right now where they’re at. Their house needs to be fixed, their apartment needs to be fixed. They move into one of your homes that you’ve fixed up or that they can live in while you fix the other one up. What will they have to be paying for you a month, to you a month to stay in that place while their apartment or home or whatever is being fixed? That is up to us for a discuss, right? When we discuss the options on how that will work out, it most likely will remain the same as it is because we won’t take long. We will not gonna take months. And so what they need to understand is after you fix up their apartment, then they have to sign a new lease cause the rent will go up, which is understandable cause you’re fixing up and it costs to fix up an apartment. So the people would need to understand that.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:50:44

• Agreement confirmation for tenants

  • Summary: A request for a definitive yes or no answer regarding agreements with tenants, noting that saying ’no’ is not an end of the world and there are no hard code rules to evict them.
  • Evidence: “Ms. Johnson, either it’s a yes or a no, right? If there’s a yes, they’re agreeing to what are we going to do with them? How are we going to work with them? And given the condition that they deserve? If they say no, that is not the end of the world, right? There is no, like, hard code rule to evict them for a certain amount of time. We understand, I have family, I have kids, right? We’re not evil people here. We’re trying to provide good service to the community here. That’s the whole idea.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:52:08

• Assistance for tenants needing time/guidance

  • Summary: The council representative stated that assistance can be provided for tenants needing a couple of months, up to six months (60 days), including help with Section 8 or housing authority approval.
  • Evidence: “And if they feel like, hey, they need a couple of months, they need help, they need guidance, that’s what we’re here for. That’s what we’re going to individually We work with each and every tenant and cater to their needs. Some may need two months, some may need three months, some may need four months and we can help them get a Section 8 approved or some sort of housing authority approved or whatever we can to work with you guys to cater to their needs and make sure they’re not homeless. But six months is what we’re even going up to. We got 60 days.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:52:15

• Dispute over rent increase notices

  • Summary: A dispute arose regarding letters placed on doors showing increased rent (e.g., $1,200 from $600), which the speaker claimed were not provided by Freeport Portfolio, LLC, and that discussions about market rent occurred in person.
  • Evidence: “I saw the video of the call saying, we’re not gonna raise your rent now. There was 123, I believe, month-to-month renters that received this notice on their door and it said $1,200 when they were paying $600. One said $1,249. You have the letters. I’m not telling you nothing you don’t already know. That was not put on the door. That was not provided to them. No, but there was a letter put on the door and when they contacted you, that’s what they were told.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:54:03

• Market rent discussion details

  • Summary: The speaker stated they discussed the range of market rents, including Section 8, Vannebago, or Gilgo rates, in person with tenants to ensure comprehension of the current market situation.
  • Evidence: “I had the discussion in person with them to show them the range of rents that our market is paying right now, including section eight, Vannebago or Gilgo, and any other Freeport Housing Authority, what they’re paying to have them understand what the situation is and what the market rent should be like on the condition that they deserve. And I was making sure they comprehend everything that I’m saying.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:55:32

• Inspection attendance

  • Summary: The speaker stated they attended inspections but stopped due to created mess and rumors.
  • Evidence: “And then some of them have waited for you to come in and do an inspection and you didn’t even show up. No, I showed up. I showed up. I stopped showing up because of the mess that was created and rumors that was created.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:56:28

• Public comment procedure scope

  • Summary: Discussion regarding whether public comments must be on an agenda item or can cover any topic.
  • Attribution: Alderman Simmons
  • Evidence: “And so what this would do would give whomever the right to speak at the beginning if they’re here and move forward and not have to sit and wait we’ve had elderly people here sitting and waiting and why not just get it done and get it over with and move forward yeah that will come Walsh, and I’m on the non-agenda, non-agenda. Did you want to speak? I’m sorry. But we’re saying for public comments, it doesn’t have to be an agenda item. Exactly. It can be anything.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:00:48

• Public comment procedure scope

  • Summary: Concerns raised that allowing free speech at the beginning and end of meetings would prevent the council from effectively conducting its business.
  • Attribution: Alderman Sellers
  • Evidence: “Alderman Sellers? I have a problem with that is because really our meetings are long is because we’re coming unprepared. So we’re asking question after question instead of knowing proper preparation prevents poor performance. So my issue is being here four hours on going over and over and over a bunch of stuff and then we’ve got you want it at the beginning and you want it at the end, that’s a lot because the purpose of having a public forum for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and other items at the end of it is allow the council to effectively complete its business effectively. If everyone were allowed to speak freely on any subject at the start, it would prevent the council from moving forward with the material and the required formula action.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:02:05

• Speaking limits for topics

  • Summary: Any topic can have a maximum of six speakers, with potential splits like three and three or two and two; up to eight different topics are possible.
  • Evidence: “So any topic, as of right now, can have a maximum of six speakers on it, and if there’s people on both sides, then they each get, you potentially get three and three, two and two, whatever it is, everyone gets their fair up, up to six speakers on any topic. So yeah, you could have a lot, you could have eight different topics, you could have up to six speakers on each topic, three minutes a person, it’d be all up front.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:05:00

• Special COW meeting time conflict

  • Summary: The draft special COW meeting is set for 5:45, but the Finance Committee of the Whole starting at 5:30 could potentially cause a delay.
  • Evidence: “Attorney. So just to clarify I think that the draft special COW meeting has 545 so most likely your finance will go at least 15 minutes so it shouldn’t be from a practical standpoint an issue but heaven forbid that you have a finance COW start at 530 and let’s say it only went five minutes you still wouldn’t be able to start the COW until till 545 If you wanted to I mean I mean the reality is you’re probably not going to have a finance COW only go 15 minutes, I would imagine. Did you look at my draft agenda, Attorney Zito? It’s set at 5.45 or as soon as the finance COW adjourns. Correct, but- But it can’t be earlier than 5.45.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:07:18

• Westward water main expansion progress

  • Summary: The westward water main expansion is expected to start in two weeks and is reported to be 70% complete with good progress being made.
  • Evidence: “That should be happening in a couple weeks, but we’re making significant progress. The westward water main expansion should start in two weeks so if I had engaged we’re probably 70% done but a lot of good work going on and the crews are making really good progress and everybody’s working well together so okay.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:10:37

Public Comment

• Concerns about rent increases and public comment process

  • Summary: Citizens expressed concern regarding outrageous rent increases, noting that at a previous meeting, they were told they had to wait until the end of the meeting to express views on non-agenda items.
  • Attribution: Steve Carroll
  • Evidence: “Steve Carroll on item number 19. Okay I’m excuse me I’m Steve Carroll and this is about the public comments on non-agenda items at the last council meeting there were many citizens that showed up to express their concerns about the outrageous rent increases that they were experiencing since that was not on the council agenda they were told in a very imperious tone they would have to wait to the end of the meeting to to express their views.”
  • Source timestamp: 07:42

• Proposed change to public comment rules

  • Summary: A proposal was made to change council rules to allow public comments on both agenda and non-agenda items at the beginning and end of council meetings.
  • Attribution: Steve Carroll
  • Evidence: “Okay, by changing the council rules to allow public comments on agenda and not agenda items at the beginning and end of council meetings would ensure that what happened at that last council meeting wouldn’t happen again. It’s obvious to many that several of you are frightened of the First Amendment. Perhaps some of you should consider stepping down.”
  • Source timestamp: 08:51

• Driveway repair and city department interaction

  • Summary: A resident detailed difficulties in getting a driveway repaired, involving initial contact with the street department, subsequent negative experience, and eventual resolution after contacting Michelle Nelson at City Hall who connected him with Darren Steekle.
  • Attribution: Rod Holtz
  • Evidence: “Starting in January, I took on a project of trying to get my driveway redone. I ran into some loopholes, one of which being my wife had ovarian cancer, and sadly she passed away at the end of July. She never got to see our new driveway, but she did. Everything got completed around the middle of August and I had one loophole that I was trying to overcome. And that was where the street met my driveway. So I went and I talked to our called the street department after a friend of mine suggested that’s who I try. I talked to her, the lady took down my address and she told me that she says within the next week or so when the pothole people are out in your area, they’ll be gladly to fix the end of your driveway. I said great, about a week and a half went by, nothing happened. Well, I was in the area of the street department down on Island Avenue, so I decided, well, I’m gonna try going down there, speaking to them one-on-one. I wish I never did. The lady that I encountered down there was very rude. She acted like my first impression to her. She wanted to get in a fight with me. All I wanted to do was get some information on when they were going to fix that or if they were going to fix that. So I walked away kind of sad because I got another stone I got to try to overcome. So I figured, well, I’m going to try calling the city hall. I did one morning before I went to work. I encountered Michelle Nelson, she was very kind, considerate, listened to my going on with my driveway and she referred me, she says I’ll take this down as an email. She took my name and my phone number and she talked with Darren Steekle. In two hours, Darren called me up and wanted to know what was going on and I told him and he informed me that, and I didn’t know this, but that the end of the, where the street and then the driveway meets, that would be my contractor’s doings.”

• Loss of local children’s play areas

  • Summary: A commenter noted the loss of three areas where children played in the wards: Henny, Tutty, and Taylor.
  • Evidence: “Joy talked about Henny. We’ve lost Henny, we’ve lost Tutty, and we’ve lost Taylor. That’s three areas where our children played and had in the wards that they’re talking about. That’s That’s three, okay?”
  • Source timestamp: 03:16:20

• Council conduct regarding constituents

  • Summary: A commenter criticized council members for not being present to hear from constituents and for using city employees to speak on their behalf.
  • Evidence: “What we also found was when Joshua had his meeting, we had no Rob Boyer, we had no Jodi Miller, we had no older people other than the two that were there. Which tells us how much you really care about what is happening to your constituents because you weren’t there. You weren’t there to hear them, you weren’t there to listen to them, you weren’t there to answer questions and even when you did something on the television, neither of you stood before a television camera and addressed the constituents in this town. What you did was is use someone who is an employee of the city that nobody knows to speak for you. It’s shameful. It is absolutely shameful that you guys won’t stand before your constituents and listen to them.”

• Meeting procedure and constituent access

  • Summary: A commenter expressed frustration over the length of the meeting and the difficulty for working individuals with children to speak, demanding courtesy from the council.
  • Evidence: “Tonight’s vote on the comment section is absolutely ridiculous that you would allow this to go on for four to five hours and I don’t care what the comments or what the proposals are on the floor, that you would allow someone with babies, with children to be sitting here for four hours to speak with you guys. When you can change the ordinance and you can change the direction of this meeting at your own beck and call whenever you feel like you want to. And all we were asking for was the. All we were asking for was the courtesy to allow individuals who had to go to work, some of whom are working two to three jobs with children standing beside them to speak to you as your constituents, as taxpayers, as working individuals in this town, you refuse to do that. And tonight, city council, shame on you, you refuse to do it again.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:18:53

• Constituent concerns regarding city council actions and representation

  • Summary: A constituent expressed frustration that the council refuses to allow working constituents to speak, criticizing the council for listening to external influences rather than local residents.
  • Evidence: “And all we were asking for was the. All we were asking for was the courtesy to allow individuals who had to go to work, some of whom are working two to three jobs with children standing beside them to speak to you as your constituents, as taxpayers, as working individuals in this town, you refuse to do that.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:19:19

• Scope of impact from proposed changes

  • Summary: The speaker warned that any problem arising will affect the entire town, not just one side.
  • Evidence: “If you think for a second that this isn’t going to affect this entire town and I’ve said this before and everything that I’ve said has come to fortition and that is when there becomes a problem in this town, it’s not gonna just happen on the east side. It’s not gonna just happen on the west side.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:20:04

• Critique of city spending practices

  • Summary: The speaker questioned the high cost of materials and services, citing an example where $78,000 was spent for boarding up a building when similar materials could be acquired for much less.
  • Evidence: “Let’s use this as an example. We paid what we say, Winter got $78,000 for boarding up the bottom of that building and putting a six-foot fence around it. Where the hell is they shopping at? OSB at half-inch is only $12 to $15. If we needed 300 sheets to that, that would only came to $5,000.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:21:45

• Request for detailed spending review

  • Summary: The speaker suggested the council conduct a more detailed finding on expenditures, including cost and materials used.
  • Evidence: “My suggestion to the council is that you guys try to do a little bit more detailed finding on what they actually are doing, the cost, the material, the anything that they use, because these are our dollars that are paying for this, or it may be a grant that we could be used.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:22:30

• Concerns about frivolous city spending

  • Summary: The speaker criticized the council for spending money on items deemed frivolous.
  • Evidence: “This is the most I’ve seen the distressed city spend money on frivolous things. Trailers, lawn mowers, and all that stuff.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:22:54

• Call for recognition of community members

  • Summary: The speaker called out specific individuals who had not been recognized by the council.
  • Evidence: “And then I wanna know that every election season come up, I see everybody all over in third war trying to get the approval and the support of the black people over there. I don’t know why, I mean, it might not be an issue but why hasn’t Jim, Ryan, Tasha, Yancey, Baldy, Partridge.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:23:00

• Public comment regarding a pothole repair

  • Summary: A constituent asked if the council would fix a specific pothole.
  • Evidence: “Are you going to fix the pothole by Jefferson Suite?”
  • Source timestamp: 03:23:45

• Constituent praise for previous efforts

  • Summary: A public commenter praised another individual’s actions regarding a toll and related matters.
  • Evidence: “Good evening council. My name is Joshua. I’ll keep this short and I promise suite and I’m going to start with Mr. Duckman over there. Outstanding with the toll of May and all that stuff.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:23:45

• Critique of council process regarding ordinance changes

  • Summary: A commenter criticized the council for not using available time slots to amend an ordinance, suggesting a 60-day amendment.
  • Evidence: “You guys could have used that time tonight however many hours we’ve been here and talked about it and been over and done with it or Alderman Johnson could have said I think we should add this in there. That was the time.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:25:24

• Specific amendment suggestion for ordinance

  • Summary: The commenter suggested a simple 60-day amendment to an ordinance.
  • Evidence: “And you could have done that tonight by just putting in a simple 60-day amendment to that ordinance.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:25:59

• Community concern regarding ordinance amendment and notice period

  • Summary: A speaker discussed the need for a simple 60-day amendment to an ordinance to give people two months to figure things out, contrasting it with 120 days being too long and 30 days being too short.
  • Evidence: “And you could have done that tonight by just putting in a simple 60-day amendment to that ordinance. And that would have taken them to, he could have went out tomorrow and said, boom, here’s and others. There’s your guys’ 16-day notice, and that would have given them two months, but they would have 60 days to figure things out.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:25:59

• Support for removal of age cap in employment

  • Summary: A speaker expressed support for the removal of a ‘65 cap’ stating that age should not keep anybody from a job.
  • Evidence: “I just want to thank, I’m glad the 65 cap was gone. I just have to say, yes, good. That should be gone. If you’re fit, ages should not keep anybody from a job, says the 65-year-old woman that’s standing here, so I’m glad it’s gone.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:26:51

• Concern over contract status with Aspen and 9-1-1 services

  • Summary: A speaker expressed worry about the status of a contract with Aspen and the potential loss of 9-1-1 services.
  • Evidence: “The other thing is, do we have a contract with Aspen yet? Has that happened? I’m worried. We just celebrated Labor Day and we celebrated the unions and we celebrated workers and workers’ rights and what they need and I haven’t heard anything about that yet and I’m very, very worried. Please God don’t let them walk away because I do not want to lose 9-1-1”
  • Source timestamp: 03:27:27

• Interpretation of ‘ruckus’ at meeting

  • Summary: A speaker clarified that the incident described as a ‘ruckus’ was actually people expressing fear and asking for help.
  • Evidence: “So the ruckus really wasn’t a ruckus, it was a cry, please help us before we’re homeless because it’s going to be winter when they end up homeless”
  • Source timestamp: 03:27:56

• Support for 60-day notice period length

  • Summary: A speaker advocated for a 60-day notice period as providing two paychecks, while noting 120 days is too long and 30 days is too short.
  • Evidence: “And the 60 days, that’s a good idea. It gives them two paychecks. 120 Days is kind of long. I know that’s Chicago as far as giving, you know, 60 days to let them leave. 30 Days is kind of short. It’s only one paycheck. 60 Days is two paychecks.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:29:14

• Support for 120-day notice period length (contrasting previous advice)

  • Summary: A speaker argued that 120 days is not that long when considering years of renting.
  • Evidence: “Before I pray, I just wanna say 120 days is really not that long when you’ve been renting 10, nine, 10 and 12 years. And some of these renters have been there that long.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:30:10

Proclamations and Recognitions

• Service Awards Recognition

  • Summary: Recognition of Chief for being a field training officer and Dan for obtaining his drone license.
  • Evidence: “Item number three is recognition of service awards. Chief? And he’s a field training officer. Dan currently is assigned to the Detective Bureau where he’s a general case detective and he just got his drone license. So he’s our first licensed drone pilot. So that’s pretty awesome.”
  • Source timestamp: 05:19

• Dan’s service and achievements

  • Summary: Dan is the first licensed drone pilot for the department and has received the award of valor on two separate occasions.
  • Evidence: “So that’s pretty awesome. Dan has also received our highest award, the award of valor on two separate occasions and he’s also been the recipient of many other letters of recognition. So I thank you for your service and congratulations.”
  • Source timestamp: 06:14

• Officer Eric Deemer’s 20-year service milestone

  • Summary: Officer Eric Deemer is celebrating a 20 year milestone, has a legacy connection through his father who was a Freeport Police Department officer, and is involved in multiple roles including firearms instructor, state line area narcotics team member, and emergency response team member.
  • Evidence: “Just real quick too, Officer Eric Deemer, he couldn’t be with us tonight, but he hits the 20 year milestone, which is a big one. He was going to be here, but something happened at the last minute. His father was actually a long time police officer for the Freeport Police Department, so he’s a legacy officer. He also started off as a member of the Auxiliary. He’s also a firearms instructor. Spent some time working in the state line area narcotics team, which is a drug task force that we’re in with the Illinois State Police. He’s also a member of our emergency response team. He’s a field training officer. And he as well has received throughout his career many letters of recommendation and recognition. So we thank Eric for his 20 years of service.”
  • Source timestamp: 06:28

• Thanking staff for rental registration enforcement

  • Summary: The speaker thanked Doug Quinn, Katie Smith, and staff for work ensuring prosecution of unregistered rentals. It was stated that 480 properties will have cases in October, resulting in fines of $500 per unit for 332 landlords.
  • Evidence: “I wanted to add because it was brought up by City Manager Boyer Currently the city of Freeport. I want to thank in particular Doug Quinn Katie Smith and my entire staff has done a tremendous amount of work ensuring that we prosecute anybody who is not a registered rental and there is currently going to be 480 properties going to have cases in October and that’s a total of 332 landlords that are going to be receiving fines of $500 per unit.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:57:06

• Terrence Cheeto Haynes fourth annual event

  • Summary: Announcement of the fourth annual Terrence Cheeto Haynes three on three classic event scheduled for Saturday, September 13th, starting at 10 o’clock a. M., with age groups 10 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to 18. Donations are accepted toward the Terrence Cheeto Haynes Stop the Violence Scholarship Foundation.
  • Attribution: Alderman Stacey
  • Evidence: “Yes, I would like to announce that there’s going to be a fourth annual Terrence Cheeto Haynes, three on three classic. This event will be held Saturday, September the 13th, starting at 10 o’clock a. M. The age groups for the teams are 10 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to 18. There’s no charge for this event, but they will be accepting donations toward the Terrence Cheeto Haynes Stop the Violence Scholarship Foundation.”
  • Source timestamp: 03:11:32

Follow-ups

• Gathering Input for Ordinance Drafting
  • Summary: A suggestion was made for council members to write down ideas regarding ordinances to help both tenants and landlords before presenting them.
  • Evidence: “I was just wondering if possibly we could, each one of us could write down the things that we are thinking possibly that could be included in the ordinance to help, you know, the tenants as well as the landlords, I mean, there’s two sides to every story here.”
  • Source timestamp: 02:30:00

Attendance

• Roll Call for Meeting Attendance

  • Summary: Mayor Miller, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers were called for roll.
  • Evidence: “Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Mayor Miller? Here. Alderpersons, Klemm? Here. Johnson? Here. Simmons will be marked absent for now. Parker? Here. Stacy? Here. Shadle? Here. Sanders? Here. And Sellers?”
  • Source timestamp: 02:21

• Roll Call for Council Members

  • Summary: The roll call recorded attendance from several council members.
  • Evidence: “Settler, please take the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? No. Parker? Aye. Stacy? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 57:37

• Roll call for Item number 11 adoption

  • Summary: The following individuals were present at the roll call: Shadle (Aye), Sanders (Aye), Sellers (Aye), Klemm (Aye), Johnson (Aye), Simmons (Aye), Parker (Aye).
  • Evidence: “Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Johnson? Aye. Simmons? Aye. Parker? Aye.”
  • Source timestamp: 01:20:18