Dear Heavenly Father, I come before you with love and admonishments or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through you and for you, and you are before all things, and in all things they consist, and all things consist through you.
And in Psalm 33, 11, your word says, your plan stands firm forever, and your thoughts stand firm in every generation.
Therefore, this city and all who are seated here tonight have been created by you and are here by your design.
May they fulfill every purpose for which they were created and as they make decisions tonight may those decisions correlate with your plans for this city may they bring this city into prosperity peace hope and joy and shift this city into all it is intended to be a great place to live work raise a family and have enjoyment in Jesus name amen amen thank you Linda now we'll officially call this meeting to order madam clerk would you please take the role mayor Miller Miller, Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.
Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Monroe.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for Wichitaens, One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
Item number one is approval M, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion passes.
Item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on September 16th, 2024.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion passes.
Public comments.
There was none signed up.
Item number four is the consent agenda.
The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless there's a member of the council like something removed for further discussion.
Seeing none, the consent agenda is approving to receive and place on file the minutes of the boards and commissions from the Liquor Commission dated August 8th and the 30th, 2024.
Board of Trustees, August 14th, 2024, Board of Fire and Police, August 20th, September 10th, 2024, the police department report for September and a new checking account to cover eventual closure of a compost site on Walnut Avenue used for bulky tree waste and leaf storage as required by the IPA, approval of the finance bills payable in the total of $5,581,448.30 and payroll for pay period ending September 21, 2024 in the total of $631,666.64.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Monroe, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Parker, Stacey, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm.
The motion passes 8 to 0.
Thank you.
Item number five is the award of valor presented by Chief Shenberger Moore.
Patrolman Moore was initially the only officer on scene and made contact with the suspect male who expressed to Patrolman Moore that he was experiencing a mental health crisis.
Patrolman Moore remained calm while speaking with the male.
He was able to convince the male to open the door so he could check on the welfare of the female who was inside of the apartment.
Patrolman Moore could sense the male was clearly educated as he repeatedly told Patrolman Moore that he was afraid of the police.
Patrolman Moore remained persistent and Paul during the encounter.
Once the door was slightly open, he was able to pull the female from the apartment.
The victim female's son was also up on the floor at the time.
The company patrolled the morgue and patrolled the morgue valiantly, preventing the son from making a physical altercation with the male, which could have escalated into the worst situation.
Outside of the apartment, the female was clearly distraught, pulled the morgue, the male was armed with firearms and others to be forced to be fled to the stairwell.
Patrolman Moore stayed on scene, covering the apartment door until the officers were able to respond to the scene.
Patrolman Moore showed some contested bravery by being able to remove the female from the apartment and then utilized his training experience to sense something was arriving with the male who was inside the apartment.
When more officers arrived on scene, the male began threatening officers by saying he had hostages inside the apartment and he would shoot officers if they attempted to gain entry.
This was in the beginning of a lengthy standoff with police, which eventually ended 12 hours at the initial call when the males surrendered without further incident.
During the subsequent search of the apartment, we recovered two high-powered rifles, a cache of ammunition, a hundred-round drum magazine, and multiple high-capacity magazines.
Upon review of Patrolman Moore's actions taken that day, I would no doubt recommend him for the Award of Valor, as he was first displayed bravely that went beyond equality.
And two, this is the second Award of Valor, which is the highest Award of Valor that Patrolman Moore has received.
Back in June of 2023, he received the Award of Valor for intervening in a domestic violence situation where a female was being literally choked to death.
Thank you.
I'm a firm believer that certain people are placed in certain situations, and I kind of believe that night, from June 20th to the end of the Hasbro incident, that Patrol Memorial was destined to be there that day to handle things the way we expect our officers to handle them.
I don't know if that's the name of it or not.
Not the name of it?
I don't know.
All right.
Nice.
Move on to item number six, which is an appointment.
Madam Clerk, could you please read this?
Tina Konova to the Arts and Culture Commission, effective through October 31st, 2025.
Is there a motion to approve?
Second.
You have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, yeah.
I was looking up the very thing that you was mentioning.
Huffines.
I have to excuse my voice, too.
What title does she preserve, I mean, receive, what is the title?
A title, it is a commissioner for the arts and culture.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
Just do it.
Like there are nine arts and culture commissioners, she would be one of them.
She would be one of them.
There's no further discussion all those in favor aye opposed that motion passes we'll move on to item number seven which is the second reading of ordinance 2024 52 could you please read this ordinance approving the city to enter into a fourth renewal to lease agreement with Peter Albert regarding 103 to 111 South Liberty Avenue thank you madam mayor Okay, so upon the first reading of this ordinance, it was requested, there was two requests.
We wanted to see a map of the location, which in the lights here you can see the structure that we're talking about that was subject to this lease agreement.
There is also a question on the property taxes.
So the property tax bill for 2023 payable in 2024 is $113.30.
So that's the property taxes for that.
And if there's any questions here, you can see.
We also have the street.
Well, you can see the red box around it is the structure itself, of which the first floor is subject to the lease, is the subject of the proposed lease.
And it's called the iron-clad building or metal-clad building because it is clad in metal, as you can see here.
That's the building that we're talking about today.
So in terms of the, since it's the second reading, nothing has changed in the terms of this lease where our staff is proposing a one year lease paid $2,000 paid annually, and it would expire on September 14th, 2025.
Any discussion?
Alderman Sanders Yes.
What is that building again?
Wayne?
What is that?
Sure.
It's called the metal clad building.
It's a and what and what is this purpose for now?
Well, it's being leased.
It's mostly it's For Albert towing Sorry Albert towing They're basically storing equipment Peter Albert Sorry I was a bit distracted so I apologize Actually can I yep?
Sorry go ahead.
It has nothing to do with Albert towing it is your proto cutter Proto cutters who owns the building just south of their okay?
So it's storage Proto cutter owns the building south of that Yes.
They own the building that's on the other corner.
That's the Raleigh Building I'm talking about, correct?
Well, that's what we refer to it as, but it's not our building.
But who owns the Raleigh Building?
Well, there are four different buildings.
Oh, okay.
So, one is private.
You want to answer that?
Yes, sorry.
And I apologize, I was distracted there earlier.
I had some names mixed up.
But anyways I we're here now and yes there's several properties that are called the Raleigh building or the Raleigh property so the answer here and Mayor Miller did a good job explaining the business that's actually in the first floor of this building but do you see this building right here that we're pointing out here it's tan yeah that's the building that Mayor Miller was speaking to that that is where the business is located that is also where that's the first floor that's being rented that is also subject to this lease okay you see you see what I'm speaking to correct this yes that is just the first floor of this this building here yeah and it's this building is Lease by one leasy is only occupied by that individual and what is the is it a monthly or annual what is being proposed is this is going to be the fourth renewal of this lease goes back to 2021 I can understand Right so right so I understand the practice of the lease, but the lease is coming up for renewal.
Yes.
Yes, all that's coming up for renewal.
Correct.
Have we done an evaluation?
We did.
There has been some interest in possibly purchasing the property.
We have the property has been appraised because of the interest in possibly purchasing the property from the city.
The city went through and had an appraisal.
The property appraised at $60,000.
So we're speaking about a property that has a total value Fisher.
If it has to, yes.
In this situation, there's no reason to.
Why would you say that?
Well, I mean, it's just it's a property like any other.
If they had come to me and said, well, now we're going to put a restaurant in.
Well, of course, I would go in there and inspect it because it's a change in use.
If something along those lines, I would certainly inspect it.
But at this point, they're operating the same business.
It's a lease renewal.
There's no reason to inspect this building at this point because you're saying that there's no change I'm sorry I wasn't done I didn't know that you didn't ask to speak go ahead yeah what you're indicating is that because you are you assuming that there's no change or have you went to inspect it to determine there has not been any change so and when it comes to businesses in excuse me and when it and correct then that that practice shouldn't be practice from that perspective we should be looking at anything that the city owns before we lease it we just can't assume that we're going to lease the property and we have not had an opportunity to and Knapp.
I'm going to ask you to look at this property to see if it meet our policy standards, terms and whatever the case may be.
Well, I did.
I initiated and had an appraisal done on the property because somebody is still interested in possibly purchasing the property and that is going to give you the most fair, it's going to be an objective opinion as to the value and the other people that are in the building.
I think the job of staff is to say to be fair to this potential buyer or any other potential buyer, we've had an appraisal done on it.
So if there's a question as to having to have our building inspector or a fire inspector look at it, I could certainly contact my building inspector and have him look at it.
I have no issue in that.
Huffines.
We're going to have to get the auction off, as opposed to having one person individual interested.
We might have higher bidders for that property.
And if that is the case, then we should just at least put it open to the public first before we just lock it in with an individual, simply because he wants to renew the lease.
You know this lease is coming up and there's no there's no reason for the city not to do its due diligence when it comes to bidding or auctioning off that building.
So I think I think some of those kinds of things needs to be well I think auctioning this building I think that the city of Freeport is certainly open to any ideas of what could be used in this property.
If somebody if there was a developer that wanted to approach us with some ideas certainly would be open to that.
I don't think necessarily just having an open auction for the sale of the property is the best idea in this situation.
But I would say that I would also state that, you know, it's up for vote today.
But I strongly suggest there's been no interest from anybody else to lease this property.
You have not publicized it yet.
You don't know that.
You also have somebody currently in this property that's that that doesn't so dispute the facts about you're welcome to propose a different set of terms for this but otherwise they'd be operating in there without a lease at this point yeah it's an open it's open property for those types of options that we can consider putting it putting it out there for the general public to know that this this thing is available and possible bidding options and things of this nature.
We haven't exhaust those areas yet.
Right.
So we would have to you would have to vote to terminate a lease agreement with Albert first or I'm sorry with Peter.
So the name on this is with Peter Albert, you would have to vote.
The vote would be to not.
Yeah, but I'm talking about purchase.
I'm not talking about leasing.
We got to get back on track because we're not talking about auctioning or selling.
We're talking about renewing a lease.
I understand that, but the renewal time, it's open, that renewal gap is an opening for the general public to either have a say-so in the matter or make an offer or whatever.
And since this is the second reading.
You're making it sound like it's a done deal.
It's the second reading, so that means it's been before you, before.
Before you before I'm just talking about the timing and the gap in the in the renewal that we have not general we have not presented it to the general public the leasee can always continue to lease don't get me wrong but I'm talking about the ownership of the property which has not changed that has not changed but the still the opening for purchase because I think that's what we were Miller, Sam, Larry, and Max.
You know, I've done a lot of work for the community for the building to become more entertaining earlier. » No, there's never a question was asked about, is this for sale?
Could this potentially be for sale?
» Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.
That's what I'm talking about.
The possibility that the building could be for sale. » But there's never a discussion about putting this up for auction, and I would agree that with Mayor Miller that we should.
And going for higher bidding and whatever the case is, you implied that the building went for $60,000 or something like that?
There is an appraisal done, yes, on this property.
And that means that it's open for things that we can evaluate to determine whether or not we're getting a fair value.
Even if you've got an appraiser, I don't care what the appraiser is saying, it is what the council think that that property is worth.
The appraiser can come in with one number, the council can come in with another number.
We have opportunities to exploit those types of things.
We're not getting that simply because it's just sitting there waiting for someone to renew it and possibly purchase it.
That's what I'm looking at.
That's how I look at it.
Alderman, Stacy This is the lease of $2,000 for the year.
Yes, that is what is being proposed, yes.
And last year it was $1,000.
No it, right, so in 2021 when it started it was $1,000 paid annually.
Then in 2022 the annual rent was raised from that $1,000 to $2,000 and then last, excuse and now with the $2,000 staying in line with the same rate from 2022 and 2023.
That is what is being proposed.
» What made it go up from 1,000 to 2,000?
» I will answer that.
I started this in 2022.
I started my position here in 2022.
I'll be honest with you, I wasn't directly involved with that exact negotiation to go from $1,000 to $2,000, but my understanding is that Billy C.
And they had an agreement, and it went before council to raise that rent.
Okay.
So, okay, the red square you had up there.
Sure.
That's what he's leasing, because wasn't there some property that was purchased for $100?
But this is not that property.
I had said earlier that there was property taxes in the amount of, I'm trying to understand what was purchased for $100.
I don't remember saying something was purchased for $100.
Some of the building of the Raleigh building, some other areas, apparently.
I'll be honest with you.
I'm not aware of anything being purchased for a hundred dollars in the Raleigh building.
I'm not aware of that.
Madam Mayor.
Actually, I think Darren had his hand up first, but I'll come back to you then.
So the white structure that you see there, next to the red, that I believe Mr. Elbert currently owns and bought that piece of the Raleigh building from the city.
I don't remember what the amount was but he.
I think it was back in Gullwrap administration.
Yeah he's had it for a while and he remodels it and it should be known that that's a conjoined building.
Okay so the red building and the white building are conjoined.
A question of clarity I had for Wayne is this lease is for one floor of the red building not the entire building.
Correct.
Yes and if I recall right the white roofed building that he owns was basically defunct and he remodeled and fixed that building it was borderline going to be torn down and there's two more pieces of the rally building to that side over here one of them is the old office building that Fehr Graham used to be in I believe winters owns that building and then the other big structure uh that has always been talked about doing something the city owns that structure as well.
So what is the city doing with that structure?
Is this one here?
Yes.
Are you speaking of this one here?
We've showed it to potential developers.
When potential developers come in and have interest in these properties, we do show them.
But it should be known that when the city owns properties such as these, and this is in general in the region, it can sometimes take 15, 20 plus years before you find the right developer.
Because somebody coming in and wanting to redevelop this in the Barbara Coleman building in Rockford, I believe was purchased by the city of Rockford in either 2003 or 2006 and you are just now starting to see construction done on it.
So when a city owns property such as these, finding that right redevelopment partner is difficult and takes time, which is illustrated by Rockford.
Now the other option is with properties such as these, if you can't lease out a floor or or you cannot find the correct developer, eventually you're going toward demolition.
Obviously the city would like to entertain developers that have the means and the plan to not just take this and let it sit further, which we have enough of that in this city.
We were looking for the right partner with the right funding to do something positive with something like this.
So we're waiting for that right developer.
Okay so um something that you're telling me is valued at 60,000 we're just leasing for 2000 that's what I'm stating yes how many floors is in there six six are the other five floors being occupied no and you have to remember that this is uh have you ever been in in there it's just it's just cement and when he took over the occupying of that first floor there was no electricity there was no there was no piping of any kind no heat no air no nothing everything that's been put in there for him to be able to keep his equipment in there has been on his expense so the other floors don't have anything you'd have to go up in there with the Miller.
We're talking a couple different periods of time and a couple different sets of rules here.
If you go back to that building that was sold to Pete Elber, yeah, it was sold for the vicinity of $100.
It was sold under the mayorial form of government, which the mayor or the council could sell Piedelberg spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the building.
Brought his business in from out of town, created taxes in town, created jobs in town.
So it was an asset for the city to do that.
I go back a little while in construction to 1967, and that particular building, there's a good reason to go back and sell it at any price they wanted to sell it at.
Huffines.
It's got a metal clad on it because it's a piece of crap under it.
It was put on by Garmin Construction years ago and it was done just to cover it up when Micro used it for nothing more than a warehouse.
So like the mayor said, basically he's renting out the space and supplying anything that he needs to function and whatever he's doing there.
So he on his own and with agreement with the city doubled the rents once.
I mean, we can look at this and say if I owned a radio station and I had it on the first floor there and my contract was up, does that mean we should go out and look for somebody to rent it to somebody else higher?
I mean, that's what's kind of being insinuated here.
The building, it can be sold at any point in time.
If it's sold at any point in time, then Pete Elber has got a lease for 11 months and he's out of there.
Pete Elber wants to buy the building, Pete Elber can buy the building.
Very simple.
So all we're asking for in this document is to take and extend the lease for one more year at the same price it was last year.
Deren.
Yeah, I remember the conversation.
I believe it was a year ago when the price was raised and it was the council didn't feel like it was enough.
That's why we went from 1000 to 2000 or maybe that was two years ago.
Excuse me.
And and since that time we announced at that time that anybody that had interest could rent any other floors in that building and we've had no interest to my knowledge of anybody that's approached the city wanting to develop that or put anything in that building because those other five floors are for rent yeah I just want to say I do remember that conversation we were the ones that raised from the thousand to the two thousand.
Well if there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
And Klemm?
Aye.
The ordinance passes 8 to 0.
Item number 9 is the first reading of ordinance 202454.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Part Six, General Offenses, Chapter 694, Weeds and Grass of the Codified Ordinances, by adding, oh, oh, oh.
We skipped that one.
Sorry about that.
Ordinance amending Chapter 220, Council, Section 220.06, Compensation.
Section and Chapter 226.03, Mayor Compensation, and Section 228.03, City Clerk, Compensation.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
For the purposes of discussion, I'd like to break this up into three.
We brought it up at the COW at the last meeting.
We do need to like move forward with a decision, whatever that may be.
So I'd like to start with the alder person's compensation.
So with the municipal elections scheduled for April 2025, the City Council must set the salaries of these positions by November 19th.
The salaries of elected officials may not take effect during the term of any official holding an elective office.
In addition, the salaries must be adopted 180 days prior to the term of the office commencing.
In the case of the City of Freeport, a new rate for alder persons will only be effective for those elected in 2025 and future elections.
The current rate for alder persons is $3,800 per year.
A 3% increase would bring the rate to $3,915.
Those alder persons up for election in 2025 would receive the new rate going forward.
So, per your direction, we've provided some comparables.
If you'll look at the table, we've got Batavia annual salary for older persons is $7,200 per year.
Belvedere is $7,100 year, Carbondale is $6,000 per year, and as requested, Chicago is $111,308 per year, Decatur is $4,000, Dixon is $9,500, Galesburg is $5,000, Moline is $8,000, Sterling is $2,400, and Woodstock is $6,000.
So staff request council to approve the 3% increase unless otherwise directed.
To the amount of $3,915 annually.
Do you see this as each thing separate, or are we just going to talk each one separately?
I thought we'd look at each one separately, but I mean then.
To move forward separately?
I'd like to get council's thought on council pay at this time.
OK, so do we need a motion for that first then?
To, well, Rob, did you want to give your report for all of it and then discuss?
I can do that, sure.
So moving on with mayor compensation, similar situation obviously, at the city council meeting held on September 16th, council was provided with potential salaries increases for mayor as listed below.
The prepared ordinance details a 3% increase.
So if there was a 3% increase currently, let me hang on one second.
So that would move the, let's see, Batavia was, 31,000 for their annual salary for the mayor.
Carbondale is 9,000 to 20,000.
Chicago is 221,000.
Decatur is 8,000.
Dixon's 19,500.
Galesburg is 12,000.
Rock Island is 15,000.
Sterling is 6,000.
And Woodstock is 12,000.
So as I mentioned 24 in terms of City Freeport.
If we did a 3% increase, we'd be looking at $28,700 for 25 to 26.
In 26 to 27, it would be $30,820.
And in 27, 28, it'd be $31,000.
So with that.
Good question mayor.
I just want to add clarification on are these comparables city manager form of government or are they not?
Most are except Chicago.
Chicago is not and let's see here.
Carbondale is but they're currently moving their they're increasing the wages for the for the mayor in Carbondale.
Okay with that I'd like to move on to city clerk.
Again we need to improve the increase if it was going to be made effective for the next election so in the case of Dovie we talked about a 4% increase for Dovie that would increase her to fifty seven thousand five hundred for twenty five twenty six sixty two thousand for twenty six twenty seven sixty four for years 27 and 28 and 67,500 for years 28 and 29.
Again, her salary is someone at the bottom of the pack.
If you'll look at Belvedere and Sterling, they're already currently making that much, although I would like to mention that Dovie does receive a certification bonus that will be proposed, a $4,000 certification.
So you have to factor that in as you make your decision.
Madam Mayor.
So I've proceeded a motion to move this forward.
So moved.
As stated, okay.
Alderman Shadle, is there a second?
Second.
Seconded by Alderman Parker.
Alderman Klemm.
I believe that as we move this forward, I would appreciate if we could take and split it up into the three different sections Higgins.
I believe there's, I have reasons for that, but I believe it would be more advantageous and possibly make it to where it would go through easier.
I would second that.
So you would, so right now there was a motion and a second to move it forward as presented.
I hear now a motion to, a motion in a second to break it up into three separate ordinance, which is fine.
And then, you know, so, but you got a motion right now to, to break it up into three separate ordinances.
Okay.
So, Excuse me.
Do, do we just take a roll on it or do we talk about the breaking it up?
Talk about the breaking it up.
Okay.
So if you have a comment about breaking it into three different pieces.
No, I have a comment before that comment even happened because we have not had a discussion.
Well, we aren't talking about the actual salary increases or however you want to word it.
It's just what's on the floor right now is should we break it into three pieces?
Without a discussion?
We'll come back to that.
No, we'll come back to it.
It's just do we want to break it into three pieces?
And then talk about all three separately, then discuss it in three separate chunks instead of one big ordinance.
I have a, excuse me, where is this coming from?
Where are we drawing this out of and how are we coming to this conclusion of three sections?
Help me understand.
Sure.
I happen to agree with one or two of the sections, but will not vote for the same Huffines.
That's the same thing for all sections of it.
There's three sections.
In other words, I may agree on the alderman pay, I may agree on the city clerk pay, but I may not agree on the mayor's pay.
Oh, okay.
So we're talking three separate that way.
Okay, that's what you're referring to.
Yeah, that's all I'm referring to.
Yeah, because I didn't realize that he was grouping all of the.
That's the way it is in your packet as a group.
Yeah, I know that's in the packet, but the thing that we were talking about was the things Williams of Dovie and how we like to, then the next thing I hear is breaking it up in sections.
Okay.
So do you understand what the motion is right now?
Yeah, I understand what the motion is now, but I didn't at the initial start.
So is there any discussion on the motion that's on the floor about breaking it into three that's on the floor about breaking it into three different pieces, Dovie.
The first and second were Klemm and Monroe.
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, could you take the roll on that?
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
And Klemm?
Aye.
Motion passes 8 to 0.
Which one you want to start with?
Madam Mayor, if I may, I'll start with one since I've been an alderman the longest as far as time frame goes.
On the time I've been on council there has never been a vote for a raise for an alderman as long as going back to 2005.
It's been discussed one time or another but it's and Mr. Mayor, I believe that the number of members of the city has never been increased.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be increased, okay?
But there has never been discussion of an increase before.
I believe when we went to city manager form of government, it was naturally split up then with the mayoral being a part-time If I'm correct, James, you can maybe tell me if I'm wrong, the mayor's salary was set at 20X number thousand dollars and then I believe at one time it was raised like one or two percent possibly.
I have to tell you, I don't, I don't really ever recall a conversation on the city clerks, you know, if it has been, it's been a long time ago, you know, that's just some of the history of it and that's kind of where I come from.
I'm not sure about that.
Do you have figures, Michelle?
Because if I recall I believe when I was on council in 2015 the salary was 3,300 and today it's 38.
Is it right?
I don't know.
I need a second while you're talking I can look.
Okay.
So so to get back to your point is that are you saying that the three percent increase that's proposed is are you in agreement with?
I would be in agreement with it.
It doesn't affect me, you know and I'm saying that, the people that will affect first are the people that are up for vote in the second ward, the fourth ward and the sixth ward.
Correct.
The other people will not get an increase until 2025 or 2028 or whatever.
I'm for increasing the city clerk's position.
The city clerk's position has changed considerably over the years to have more responsibility, you know.
I have absolutely nothing against the city mayor.
Miller.
But I have to say to you, at the time we set the salary for the city mayor, it was considered high by a considerable number of people.
I'm not saying that the mayor doesn't deserve a raise or I'm not saying where we need to be, but the mayor and I have had this discussion and it has nothing to do with, and we should all take like somebody mentioned before and don't think about the person that's in the position at the moment.
You know, that's got nothing to do with it because somebody else is in turn going to replace them at some time.
So let's stick on the one piece that we have right now.
Let's stick with Alderman and talk about what we want to move forward there.
Alderman discussion.
I had my hand up for the longest.
Yeah, we're talking about increases, but increases without evaluations or We need to know how aldermen are defined, why are we aldermen, and why do we deserve 1%, 2%, or 3% These are the evaluations that we're not having or discussing.
So what we're doing is we're prematurely talking about these things but there's no action behind it there's nothing going on behind it to make these determinations for these increases and so that's what I'm getting at uh we're just throwing this out here and uh and and we have not addressed it properly that's my opinion and I don't think we have addressed it properly and I think we need to to reevaluate, we need to evaluate what it is that the change is for if there is a change.
City Manager, did you have your hand up?
Yes, I just wanted to pass along to Alderman Sanders that it's essentially just a cost of living increase.
So that's the, what's behind that.
Okay.
And you have to remember you don't personally evaluate the person in the seat.
It's about the seat.
It's a job title.
It's a job.
And every one of us sitting here has to have a job, just our purpose and our description of what it is that we do and what it is that we do on a regular basis.
The people need to know whether or not how to define our job position, even as councils, even as mayor, even as attorneys and whoever else.
People need to know how their dollars are spent and how we come to the conclusions that we do.
And so without us being able to address the general public or ourselves, then we're doing a disservice not only just to ourselves but to the general public at the same time.
And I feel that we need to not be so hasty to make these types of votes without taking the consideration and allowing us as council people and elected officials to look at the whole thing without just jumping increases here and there.
And we need to know why it is that we're doing what we're doing, Manager Boyer says, because of cost of living.
That is one word, cost of living, two words rather, three.
But nevertheless, that as far as we are getting, far as these increases is concerned, based on what he is saying, we have not even made a comparison with cost of living in our wage increase or any increase, period.
So we have not factored all of those things Huffines.
So we need to be able to stop and pace ourselves.
I don't know if it's something that we need to expedite, something that we need to do in a hurry to get this determined, but if that is the case, then we needed to bring that to the floor long before now.
Well, we've had it on the floor before, and it was made known to the council that they Miller.
We have to move something forward tonight by law in order to pass it in so many days before the next election.
Alderman, I'm sorry, Manager Boyer, did you want to add to that?
Alderman Sanders, it's just my recommendation that 3 percent, you can make it whatever you want.
I mean, just, it's entirely up to the council.
Alderman Monroe.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
You know, I think when you come back to the conversation, it's more than just the cost of living.
What you're asked to do is take phone calls day in, day out for the position that we hold.
We want to get people who want to participate, study what we're going over that evening, bring in people of high quality, high value to help our city to continue to grow and move in the right direction.
Those with financial minds, I will tell you, it's a hard sell at the price that it's set out right now.
You have three meetings a month on Monday nights.
You miss family time, you miss sporting events, you miss a lot of stuff.
Notwithstanding, then you've got those times a year, we're in the fall, you're also coming in for those finance meetings.
And it's important that we do the research and understand each line item.
It's not easy to sit in the seat and to tell a department head who thinks that you're attacking their department that no, you shouldn't get that much money, but you have to balance it with the needs of the city.
It's a service that you're providing.
And in order to get people who really wanna to dive into this role, you need people to be able to, who are gonna feel like they're being financially compensated for the position and the work that they're doing.
I mean, because if you break it down, are we getting the $15 an hour that's mandated by the state?
I don't know, but I think out of all of us that are sitting here, I'm the only one that's not running and the next.
I'm the only one that's not running in the next election.
So I think it's pretty easy to say, looking forward, we need to raise that value to raise the amount of money to draw people in that want to do this.
And to give you kind of an idea, you get about $1,500 to be an assistant football coach.
So that's for three months, $1,500.
And we're paying a little over double that and I have been doing that for an entire year of putting up with everything that goes on.
We all know that we have our neighborhood watch meetings, we have other meetings that we come to, so we participate in a lot of stuff, we talk to a lot of people, we do a lot of research with the department heads as well and it's important that we take care of the duty that we are putting here and I think financially it makes a lot of sense to give that raise not just for cost of living but to bring it in line with what people are being asked to do.
I think it's kind of obvious that these positions, elected officials, are really about labor of love because the pay isn't good.
Your motive is you want to move the city forward.
You want to, what's best for the community.
Alderman Sellers, you've had your hand up.
Yes, I just wanted some clarification on the way it was going to be set up.
So we do the 3% tonight, and how does it affect older people?
I guess I've missed all that one.
After the April election, anyone who is elected will receive that raise at that point.
OK, so the previous ones, we still would get the, oh, that don't make sense to me.
I would say no, because if I'm sitting here and I'm doing the same exact thing you're doing, and Stacey.
By law though, Alderman Stacey, it can't change when it's set, it's set for four years.
Can I ask one clarifying, what's the dollar amount difference between the 3% and what's being paid right now?
$115.
So, $115 divided by 12, we're talking.
Okay.
We're not even talking Culver's.
And Stacy with coupons you know I'm hearing what's everyone is saying and something that has not happened that has got to happen and it can't just happen over this mic at a council meeting openly on the floor.
We as the council need to come together and discuss, I don't care if it's 3%, if it's 5%, if it's 10%, but we need to be able, the eight of us, to come together, weigh out what needs weighing out and determine what we want, not what's being presented to us.
Then say it.
What do you want?
Because this is the forum that happens.
It doesn't happen behind closed doors.
I'm not saying behind closed doors.
We all can't meet behind closed doors.
Right.
So this is your moment.
So if you want to add something personal in that, then say it.
This is your moment.
Like Alderman Monroe said, we have got to get these positions at a place where people are going to want to take them over.
They're going to want to do whatever is required, the necessary, whatever that is, to make the best decisions for the city.
This little penny, Annie, this and that, it's not gonna work.
We're not gonna better the city like that.
Alderman Sanders.
I have a thought on whether and I don't know if it's in order or not, whether or not the general public or the people in the assembly here might have an opinion, might want to shed some light on this because there's a lot of people who know about how this thing works and I would appeal to the general public if they have any insight or understanding that they should be able to feel, be able to come to the podium and express those kinds of thoughts because obviously we, me myself personally, I don't think we're approaching this right with all due respect to the general public.
Huffines.
Thank you.
I just want to address those kinds of thoughts because obviously we, I mean myself personally, I don't think we're approaching this right with all of the, with all of the information that is needed behind these types of things that we're pursuing.
I just want to get a feel for what some folk in the general public might be feeling, give Give us some kind of input or their expression, you know, something of that nature.
Give us something other than the fact that we got council members sitting here trying to determine whether it's good or bad, whether we should move forward or not.
That's my whole thing.
I don't know if I'm out of order to do that or to say that, but that's the thing that I feel at this moment.
Holder, McClemm.
I just have a question to ask, Madam Mayor.
You and I discussed when I went back on the council, you discussed that you had talked to numerous people before you talked to me.
Recently there's been some positions talked about and you're probably the person that's called up more people than anybody.
Have any one of those people ever asked you how much it paid?
No, in fact, I had one say, it gets paid.
It's what public service is.
I'm just bringing up a point, you know.
Right.
That's all.
Manager Boyer.
Just submitting for counsel, if you look at the table that's provided, it's very clear that all the persons in Freeport are among the lowest paid with the comparables that we've supplied.
Sure.
So, with that in mind, I would venture to say that it is not a stretch to do something to keep pace with the surrounding communities.
I think that's probably smart.
However, a 3% increase is what we generally are doing for the rest of City Hall and the rest of our workers.
Therefore, that's why that's suggested.
But it's up to the council what it is.
I'm just saying that when evaluate the public I go to the neighborhood watch meetings every month with my activity in this town I have at least a hundred people talk to me every month about this position you know you want it you don't want it they can't believe how much you do how many complaints I get about the roads and stuff I probably spend I put Fowler.
I've had 50 bucks worth of gas in my vehicle running around this town looking at stuff that people call me about.
So I don't have a problem.
If they don't want me there, they can gladly tell me that.
But I've had at least that many people insist that I run again.
I wasn't going to, but they want me to do it and it makes me feel good when they give me a pat in the back.
So I think this 3% is pennies, doesn't matter, but at least something.
Holderman, Sanders.
Yeah, I sympathize with you on that part, Brother Parker.
People are trying to engage aldermen to get more insight and information on their district areas and things of this nature.
And we become a value to them to be able to talk with them and then bring it to the council or city manager and express what the citizens are talking about.
That is an absolute truth to it, fact to it because I've been exposed to it.
And I think that we should consider all of those things and not put the public expressions behind us and don't look at it.
If they have expressions, we should take that into considerations and I feel that that's what councilmen are for.
Can we call the question in?
There's nothing to do this this was only for first reading so there was only a motion and second to move it forward and then there was a motion that was approved to break it up into three separate ordinances that being said you know at this point it's a you know each topic is individually still 3% raise Three-Percent Raise, four percent raise for the clerk's position, I believe, there, unless there's another motion or motions for each category saying oh well we think it should be this for Alderman and not three but this or this should be this for mayor or this for the clerk, then it would just be drafted as three separate ordinances for Second Read, but at the same dollar amounts.
That's presented.
I just have a question clarification so if nothing's done with this then everything stays status quo for how long?
Four years.
I disagree.
You and I will not be paid mayor if we don't get this resolved.
Our wages are only good through May of.
Right so it has to be it would have to be set for whatever's current yeah same as Alderman it'd have to be set for what's current right so the per the way that our ordinance is written for the clerk's position and the mayor's position it was set out for their four-year terms what their amounts are so if you don't set what the clerk's position is going to be then whoever fills that position there is no salary for them so and same thing for the mayor.
So it was set up where, for whatever reason back then, every four years you got to figure out what the clerk and the mayor are going to be paid.
So my understanding is we need to act on this tonight.
We have to move something forward tonight.
It won't be voted on, it just moves forward.
Okay, gotcha.
So right now, before you, is the suggested, for Alderman, on the next election cycle, A 3% increase, which amounts to $115.
That's what's before you.
Yeah.
That's a hell of a lot.
Alderman Stacy.
Can what, whatever is moved forward tonight, can that be changed?
Anything can have an amendment.
Did you hear me?
I'm being sarcastic.
That's all.
Right.
So at this point, as far as the amendments, if you want to make an amendment, let's say for, because again we already voted to break it up into three separate ordinances so if you wanted to say okay further staff you know I know I move that we raise the aldermen from 3% to 4% if that gets seconded and you guys vote to approve that then I would draft the ordinance for second read at 4% instead of 3% if someone I mean this is your opportunity to have that discussion same Sanders.
I think that's a good point.
Same thing, then, for the clerk's position.
Same thing, then, for the mayor's position.
Norman Sanders.
Yeah.
Entertaining this whole thought process, is it the limit point of percentage that has a cap to it?
The percentage that we're talking about, three percent, four percent, is that a cap?
It's up to whatever you guys want.
Winslow.
There's not a cap to this.
Nope.
You can say you want a 20 percent increase, but it would look really bad to the city.
Yeah, I know, but what I was going to say is in comparison to the things that Manager Boyer presented to us, in comparison, are we in a position to bring our cost of living or our comparison balance to some other community, even though they're doing much better than we are here in Freeport, can we find out what the percentages are and then determine whether or not we should bring our increased percentage to those kinds of balances or levels?
I'm just curious.
I don't want to say that we're capping ourselves off and there's no headroom, but we do need to be able to see where we are in line with other communities and other counties.
So I think what Manager Boyer has presented to you is some comparables as to what other communities are currently paying the position of older person there.
Now, the thing about it is you can't necessarily go to these same communities and say, oh, well, what percentage increase are you doing this year or this election cycle?
Because just as in Freeport, these compensation amounts aren't changing every four years.
Sometimes they've sat for eight, 12, 15, 16 years, so it's hard to get a percentage increase because it's not like people's everyday wages.
If you're an employee somewhere, you owe, every year you get a cost of living adjustment, 3%, 2%, whatever, this is different.
It's up to each community.
But what you do have is, well, you know that all the men here are getting paid roughly $3,800.
And then you have the chart that shows, well, what are older people in similarly sized communities getting paid?
And so you can see that.
Yeah, do we, based on our cost of living in this city, based on what measures that we use to determine what is the cost of living of Freeport that applies to everyone here in the city of Freeport when it comes to cost of living.
And then I wanted to find out, I also want to make it in comparisons, is it population or what is it that causes an inflation to change?
So there's a standard put out by the Department of Labor what the cost of living adjustment is.
I think that is broken up into regions, but I'm not positive there.
But generally speaking, you can Google, what's the cost of living increase this year?
And it'll come up that the Department of Labor usually issues that number.
Gary, did you have a statistic there?
Yeah, I was looking it up.
So the statistics, I'll just go back to 2020.
The consumer price index was 1.2% in 2020, 4.7 in 2021, 8% in 2022, and 4.1% in 2023.
Alderman Klemm?
What was that for, Darren, again?
That's the consumer price index multiplier for cost of goods.
I'll make a motion, but I'll wait till everybody's here.
We aren't going to get one of these six vote deals again.
Actually, we aren't voting anything.
OK, well, I was going to make a motion that had to be voted on.
I'm just saying somebody's asking.
Right, right, to set the amount.
Because right now, it's moving forward.
It would be moving forward at just the suggested rates.
If you guys want to change the rates, then a motion needs to be made, seconded, voted on.
That will give me direction that how to bring the ordinance back for second read for you guys to actually take the final vote on.
I'll go ahead and do it, doesn't make any difference.
I'll make a motion to raise the alderman salary and this can all be changed.
It's not cast in gold, it's just nobody wants to talk about anything.
I make a motion that we raise the alderman salary to $4,500, raise the and the city clerks wages by 5% and keep the mayor the same.
Why don't we, well, okay, so I hear that, Tom, but let's take them all separately, because that's what we talked about doing.
So you laid it out for us so we know where you're going.
No, I'm fine, I'm fine.
Yeah, I would go along with the- We're doing the older person first, right?
I would kind of go along with what he suggested or for the clerk, is that where we're at?
Again, let's just do it, aldermen one at a time, please.
Okay.
So, I'll say move the aldermen's wages to $4,500.
Yeah, I concur, anyone else?
What's that percentage increase?
18%, I don't think.
18%?
I don't know.
I think, I don't know.
I'll calculate.
Raise it, raise it, if you're actually raising it.
I'm just curious, what's the percentage from 3,800 to 45, yeah, I'm just, oh, gosh.
Yes, sounds about right.
Yeah, cause someone could go 50.18.
18.18.
4.
Pardon me?
18.4%.
Oh, good night.
Why are you grunting, Mayor?
Got something stuck in your throat?
I do.
It's cough drop okay okay so on the floor is a motion made by Alderman Klemm seconded by Alderman Sanders to raise the alderman pay by 18.4 percent and I agree.
I agree.
So the discussion is on the 18.4% which amounts to $4,500.
Alderman Sellers.
I really don't think we should go 18% right now, but that's just me.
I think that's a little high.
What?
I just think it's a little high to jump into on 18%.
I can say five.
Mayor?
Yes, Alderman Simmons.
I'm sorry, we have spent millions of dollars in the snap of a finger and we have been debating not even a total of $35,000 a year and raises for almost 30 minutes.
Can we please vote?
Can we do something?
Can we move it forward?
Please.
It's not even a hundred bucks a month.
We have questions on that.
Can we round it?
I mean there's some a long percentage, 18.4 dot whatever.
Can we round it?
To simply say 4500?
Yeah, can we do that instead of a percentage?
I think that's actually what Alderman Klemm said.
It was 45.45?
Okay, if there's no further discussion Can I call this or do we have to wait for the bathroom break?
No, we're good.
I'll go.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Yes.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
No.
Sanders is absent, Sellers?
No.
Klemm?
Aye.
The motion passes five to two.
So that's not official gone through.
There's second reading that that's what's going forward on second reading in two weeks.
18%, 14%.
So now let's talk about clerk.
Make a motion, will you raise the clerk's salary 5%?
I'll second that.
We have a motion on the floor, maybe Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Simmons to raise clerk position 5%.
Discussion on the clerk's position.
Madam Mayor.
Yes.
What is 5% increase?
Michelle.
Quick question with that too, is it, So as we calculated them, it was 4% year over year.
So 4% and then the next year, 4% on top and then 4% on top.
So it's not a flat for each year.
So I just wanted to make sure that was clear.
And so if we're going to five, we're going five plus five.
Each year.
Correct.
So yeah, yes.
That's the way that- So what does that amount to?
From what the salary is right now at the end of this term?
10,200 Per year total total in four years any further discussion madam clerk please Do you want to vote on this or is that an aye?
Passes 8 to 0.
Okay so that's what's moving forward to the second reading.
Next item is the mayor's salary.
Mayor's salary to remain the same.
That's a motion made by Alderman Klemm.
Is there a I second.
I will make a motion to, he don't have a second.
Oh, I'll second it.
Don't let it die.
I'll second it.
Yeah, I can vote no.
Okay, so we have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Simmons, to increase the mayor's salary by 0%.
Any discussion?
Madam Clerk, would you please take.
Oh, I have one question.
Is that, is that because of, of the, you don't think the, the cost of living thing?
I mean, even just the 3% is not that much, but I just wanted to know.
I have, I have absolutely nothing against the job being, that's being done.
The, the people that have been in it have been, have more than put in their time, without a doubt.
Jodi's you know been there is really heavily involved in stuff I'm basing it upon the fact that years ago when it was put in place if you take a look at it based at other places of part-time mirrors it's hot it's all it's high that's all that's all I'm basing it on you know like you say next week we can do anything in the world and that's what I based it on because I can remember at at the period of time that it was set, you know, and I was one of the people that set it.
Everybody said, why are we paying X amount for a part-time mayor when Rochelle is paying X amount for a part-time mayor that was half the cost?
Yeah.
And you know, it's not totally inclusive.
I mean, call McChesney Park.
McChesney Park is almost identical in population and their part-time mayor gets 51,000.
Is how much?
51,000.
Have we got that on our list?
No.
But you can call and verify it if you want.
Okay.
No, no, I appreciate that.
Yeah.
Michelle.
There were some communities I just couldn't find online.
Right.
So, I mean, I tried my darndest.
Thank you.
Alderman Stacey.
If we go cheap, you gon' get cheap.
You get what you pay for.
Alderman Klemm.
Just a point and it's not an argument whatsoever.
How many times have you heard everybody say since we hired a city manager, we're paying 150, I'm throwing out figures, they aren't actually accurate.
$150,000 Here and $28,000 here, that's $175,000 and we used to do it for how much money?
So that's the only thing I'm basing it on.
Huffines.
Thank you.
Well, maybe we're paying our city manager too much.
Well, his salary is not for discussion right now, so.
Uh-oh.
Let's.
I mean.
Well, I'm just saying.
I'm sorry.
It's not.
Larry.
I'm finna have an argument.
It's not, Larry.
Maybe it's not debatable now.
It's not.
It will be.
There's gotta be a.
Oh, okay.
It will be.
It's not now.
Okay.
So what's on the floor right now with the first and the second is a 0% increase.
If you don't like it, then vote no.
If you do, say yes.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
No.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
No.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
No.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
No.
And Klemm?
Aye.
I feel like I'm just.
The motion fails, seven to one.
Okay, something has to be decided though.
So I will make a motion that I was gonna make earlier that we do the same as what we did for the City Clerk.
And Okay And so is that a motion Alderman Monroe?
Yes, ma'am.
It's a motion.
We have a motion made by Alderman Monroe to raise mayor's salary 5% is there a second?
Yeah, you heard me right.
Is that 5% every year?
That's how the clerk and the mayor's positions are set.
Yeah, so all seconded by Alderman Sanders Right?
Okay.
Are you asking me again?
I couldn't understand you.
You weren't at the microphone.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
All right.
I'm sorry.
OK, so we have a we have a motion and a second discussion on the five percent.
In a second, discussion on the 5%.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Yes.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
You know me too well.
Aye.
That's not a strong one.
Aye.
She said aye.
Shadle?
No.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
No.
Klemm?
No. 1, 2, 3.
We do have five in favor, three opposed.
The motion passes.
Okay, so again, this is what moving on to the second reading.
Okay.
Okay, correct.
We're gonna move on to item number 10, which is the first reading of ordinance 20, 24.
And I have no idea what the double X is.
That means the clerk forgot to put a number on there and it should be 106.
Ordinance approving revised lease with Illinois Central Railroad for Brick Street Water Treatment Plant.
Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The city owns the water treatment plant on Brick Street.
It was built before 1900 on CN's property by the rail spur there.
The proximity of the rail was for coal to be delivered to the water plant.
When the water company first began in Freeport, it was burning coal and running coal burning pumps.
CN requires a lease agreement for the water plant located on this property.
CN presented the city with an updated five year lease.
This lease has normal requirements including nuisance and protection of the rail, I'm sorry, insurance and protection for the railroad in the event of an emergency.
The lease was reviewed by the city attorney prior to being presented.
And the lease in 1962 was $75 annually.
That changed to basically $1,000 in 2023 and they've raised it to $2,000 in the next five years.
So the cost is considered very reasonable with the majority of the 1900 water plant being located on CN's property adjacent to the rail line.
It is anticipated with the proposed well and well house 12 being brought online with the distribution system that it can be decommissioned eventually within the next several years.
This lease can be canceled at that time if building demolition happens before the five years lapses.
City will need to find funding for the facility decommissioning demolition so that's not a guarantee right at the moment we haven't we're not moving in that budget right now but it is anticipated the cost will vary be somewhat expensive being that it's so close to the rail yard so staff recommends that City Council move forward with the CN lease.
Is there a motion to move this forward?
So moved.
Second.
Okay, we have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion?
Darren?
Yeah, I just wanted to say that up on your screen up there is the Brick Street water plant.
It's the white building and also the tanks that are there to the right so you can see the proximity to the line.
These lines aren't perfect because they're downloaded off Jass, but it's very close, so we do have quite a bit of real estate that is on top of the CN rail, so the lease is considered very reasonable.
They know that our eventual idea is to decommission this plant and remove it.
The reason it's so close is years ago, the white box that's clearly close to the trail was where coal was delivered Fowler.
They are requiring insurance upgrades, but based on any accident that would happen there, the insurance that they're asking for is extremely reasonable.
Yeah.
Whenever we are looking at things through the projector as far as maps, pictures or We need to do better with the surveys of displaying what is actually on the ground as opposed to something that's coming out of orbit.
We're not getting a full view as great as technology is in cell phones with pictures and movies.
We should be able to display those types of images on our screen so we can see what actual location, what that building is for.
We're not getting enough information is what I'm getting at.
And I think we can do better.
We should be able to do better.
Because the options are there, the data is there, the pictures and everything can be available to that projector or whatever, but I think we should do better than what we're getting because I'm in here looking around at this map, but I don't know what the buildings are and I don't know what the adjacent of the railroad is to those buildings or the will itself.
Well, first of all, if you want to do better, yeah, read the memo.
No, no, that has nothing to do with Darren.
Go ahead.
There you go again.
This box nothing to do with it.
I want a better image.
OK.
Better images are available.
So I'm getting that.
Let me clarify.
There would be not a better image than this to show where things are, because the entire tree line around the water plant and the rail is wooded.
So if I even went and took pictures of it, you'd see nothing but trees.
So this is the best angle.
This is the 1900 Brick Street water plant.
This is where 75% of our water used to go to.
The well fields are out here next to the river.
And this is the water storage tank.
We have water mains that run under the rail adjacently.
And this is the old coal chute.
And this box right here is all railroad property.
Yeah, well the first look is that is what you're trying to display or indicate to us, but if we wanted to revisit those photos, that map again and look at more detail, we should be able to have that detailed to be more vivid than what it is, and so just you just are trying to explain to us what is what from this map, it's not good enough, it's not efficient enough and I know Fowler.
So, if we're going to be watching these kinds of things, let us get better photos and better understanding of what we're looking at.
Because right now, everybody is not on the same page as you are.
This is our first look.
Well, I would like to say, frankly, I think this is a very easy discussion.
Our facility is located on CN's property.
We're requiring us to sign a lease and insure it.
I don't think we really have a choice in the matter.
It's a very reasonable amount.
And so I really feel like this is a really simple discussion.
We can't remove the facility because it's still active.
It's been there for the better part of 100 years.
And so I think it's a very simple concept that $2,000 is pretty cheap.
I didn't miss that point that you're making, but what I'm saying is for visual purposes, What you're pointing to right now, half of everyone in here does not understand that.
One thing that you were demonstrating and what facilities and buildings that you're indicating.
So we're not getting the efficiency from the viewpoint that we need to be looking at.
So we can have a better look at what buildings we're talking about, that if we decide to there's a lot of things that we can do to help people get to that point, but if we wanted to visit that site, then we'll know what building that we're visiting.
Right now?
It's a secured site, nobody can visit it.
The point is, whether it's secured or not, if we wanted to visit it, we still don't know what we're looking at.
That's all I'm saying.
So the photos or pictures or videos or whatever is not available to us.
I think the photos and the display is just fine and I appreciate your efforts, Darren.
Thank you.
If there's no further discussion, we're moving that forward to the next city council meeting.
Move on to item number 11, which is the adoption of resolution 2024-106.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving Fehr Graham construction engineering agreement for Shawnee and Hancock viaduct improvements.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, your honor.
The city had a public bid opening on September 10th for the Shawnee-Hancock viaduct improvement project.
Again, can we put that one up on the screen?
Okay.
So the viaduct project requires replacing the water main, the storm sewer, and lowering the road by two and a half feet to allow semi-truck traffic and safety equipment to enter the arcade area from the viaduct location permanently.
Alternate solutions to this roadway issue were studied and are not cost-effective due to CN not allowing new track crossings.
Crossings.
The city project requires full-time construction engineering efforts for this technical project in the proximity of the CN Railway.
The viaduct project has been the city's long-term project list for over 10 years, and it is a permanent solution to access to the east side of the viaduct.
The project will be split between a fiscal year 24 and 25 budget.
The project funding will come from the water, sewer, storm, and street funds to complete and there are resident engineering requirements with the west abutment to allow the lowering of the roadway.
The project is expected to be completed in May of 2025 with final paving and city staff recommends city council approve the Fehr Graham professional services agreement to lower the Shawnee viaduct roadway.
So as you're looking there, this is required so that trucks can get underneath there.
Also moving vans, school buses, anything like that.
It would be necessary to lower this two and a half feet for that to happen.
This is also part and parcel to getting the Hancock Bridge deck replaced and the guard rails.
So without this additional avenue, we would not be able to work on the Hancock Bridge.
Right now we're looking at about a $2 million, $2.5 million upgrade to the Hancock Bridge and there really isn't any other choice except for going with a full reconstruct on the bridge and I think estimates came in over $14 million for that.
So this is really an important project we need to move forward on so that we can have alternate access to the arcade.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Okay, motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion, Alderman Stacy.
And how much did you say this was going to cost?
This agreement is, Darren, would you go ahead and give me that?
Yeah, it's item 14 on tonight's agenda.
You're talking about the construction, correct?
I'm talking about lowering the street.
The low bid was $1,292,388.25, so almost $1.3 million.
But that's for the later.
That is for item 14, that is for the construction, that's the approval of the bid.
This contract is for $138,600.
I don't know what you just gave me.
So you asked for the total construction cost.
138,600.
That's the price of the construction engineering, 138,600.
Item 14 that's on the agenda tonight.
OK, no, I'm not on, I'm on 11.11 is 138,600.
And that's to lower the street.
No, that's for the engineering required to be in the field while they lower the segment.
What is the cost of the project in lowering the street and everything?
That's item number 14.
That's on the bid tonight.
Item 14 on your agenda and it's roughly 1.3 million dollars.
So is there any further discussion on the engineering portion number 11?
And we have the permission from the train?
Yes, we do.
Yeah, we have a permit from CN to move and I'll move forward with the project.
Alderman Monroe.
One quick question.
What's the risk of something going wrong?
Cause I mean, that's been there quite a while.
Yeah.
So we had structural engineers and specifically we had HDR involved as our subcontractor.
They're the lead engineer for CN rail.
They've studied the abutments.
The east abutment, which in this picture would be the right-hand one has actually been totally replaced.
Sorry, the east abutment would be the left-hand side, Excuse me with the sidewalk.
That embutment was totally replaced a handful of years ago.
CN came out and evaluated and said while the surface area on it's cracked, it's structurally sound.
And so they've investigated two or three different structural ways to fix it.
They're basically asked us to put shoring in to make sure the abutment doesn't move.
And then there's also some anchor bolts that are fairly long that will be drilled in to make sure it holds in place.
So the risk is really to the contractor, which CN requires special railroad insurance to do this.
And flagging is also required the entire time that you work within 25 feet of the rail.
Those costs are all included in the bid.
So Helm Group is our low bidder.
They'll have to require those two items every time they're within 25 feet of the rail.
Okay.
Alderman Stacey.
And what was the reason why we couldn't use the space to the right of the west side?
Yeah, in this picture that would be to the inertia side, which would be to the right side, there is a single pass that goes back behind inertia and goes to their back.
It's a private entrance that the rail owns in them, but it's only single lane.
So only single lane trucks could get through there and there is no road to get back through there.
And that road only goes through inertia.
Inertia has an agreement with the city right now till we can get this repaired to use that as emergency access in case we have flooding, in case something ever happens with this particular access point.
Cause we really, the bridge is in horrendous shape at the moment and you know, getting worse every day.
And if something were to happen this, the arcade people and businesses would be trapped back there.
There is no other pass.
I also wanna tell you guys that I explained this when we designed this, but we looked for alternate modes of transportation.
We looked for a bridge passing, something else to get around here, maybe coming off Singer by the jail.
Nothing else was affordable.
Bridge over the end of Singer, I think was around $4 million.
CN will not permit another crossing across the rail itself.
They're trying to eliminate crossings because it's a huge liability risk for them.
I would say working with them, they've been gracious enough to try to help Freeport find the cheapest and most economical way to undertake this project so it's affordable and the entire Hancock bridge project that is coming next summer is all contingent upon this work being done the Hancock bridge will be taken down for at least seven to nine months to rehab it in place and in order to do that that we have to have access, permanent semi-access through this by docked here.
Just so everybody can see that sign says 11 foot five, we will be reducing the bridge or increasing the bridge to 14 foot six, which is lowering the pavement approximately three feet.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, is there any other alternative temporary rules that we can install in the arcade area so that we can have traffic continuously moving.
So the rail goes eastbound here and continues all the way out by Highway 20.
There is no passing across there to get back into the arcade.
There is that emergency pass we just talked about.
There's a dirt two track path that runs back behind, I can't think of the business name the old train depot I can't remember the name of their business ultrasonic excuse me it runs through their property so we physically don't have any access to that in an emergency I'm sure that they would let people through but it floods back there quite often as well so it's not a regular pass and then there is no other access across the tracks except for at Stephenson Street so this is pretty vital to the well-being of of the people that live back in the arcade I would also tell you right now I believe the chief would be able to back me up on this but if we had a very emergent situation and something happened to the bridge right now no other fire rescue team other than the city of Freeport themselves would be able to respond because they wouldn't be Miller.
We have special equipment that would allow them to get through there.
Our rural partners do not have that.
Okay.
Alderman Menor.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So it's a lot going on and I do believe we talked about with the Chief before that our equipment is all that can get back there.
But is the Arcade Ave coming up to that point, is it going to be sufficient to support the the type of traffic that's going to be going through there, or are we going to have to look at redoing that after this?
No, actually, not that it doesn't need to be redone, but Arcade Avenue, I'm not talking about going down Shawnee, that would not be a truck route, but Arcade itself is a truck route and Hancock is built as a truck route too.
So while they need resurfacing.
Too, so while they need resurfacing, they're actually built for semi-traffic and that makes a logical termini to the new Adams Street that, you know, we're finishing up.
So it does make sense ultimately for that traffic.
Perfect.
Thank you.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, the south east areas of that arcade where the residents live, there's no pathway to make that as an alternative so people can at least make a detour, put detours through.
That's not an option.
No, we looked, I believe it's off of 13th Avenue.
There's a spot that could have probably been maybe a logical crossing into one of the factory parking lots that's over there.
CN won't permit it because they don't want any more track crossing across.
If you go farther to the east, the rail actually embeds pretty much underground in both directions, so that would require a bridge going over, which would be way more expensive than what this would be.
That would be over by the Singer location.
So we did a lot of investigation.
There just really is not a good path to get through other than these two access points, this one and the bridge.
Everything else is private access.
The resolution is adopted 8-0.
Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2024-107, could you please read this?
Authorizing Execution and Amendment of Downstate Operating Assistance Program or the DOPE Grant Agreement for Fiscal Year 2025.
Thank you.
Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
The City of Freeport operates the Pretzel City Area Transit Program, which is essentially our bus program for not only the City of Freeport, but also Stephenson County, and this program is funded largely in part to the Downstate Operating Assistance Program, totaling nearly Parker, Parker, Stacy, Suttman, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Suttman, Monroe, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm.
The resolution is adapted 8-0.
Item number 13 is the adoption of resolution 2024-108.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving a grant agreement with the Illinois Law Enforcement Alarm System regarding less lethal alternatives for law enforcement for a less lethal device grant.
Thank you.
Chief Shenberger?
Thank you, Mayor.
In the summer of 2024, staff applied for the fiscal year 25 less lethal alternatives for law enforcement grant offered by the state of Illinois.
The grant would allow departments throughout the state of Illinois to upgrade their conducted energy device programs with the TASER 7 or TASER 10 devices.
Freeport Police Department requires officers to carry a CED as a less lethal use of force option.
The current devices used by the Freeport Police and others.
These are the devices that have been in service for more than 10 years.
Axon has indicated that the company will be discontinuing the use of both models in the near future, thus requiring agencies to upgrade to the TASER 7 or TASER 10.
United States Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Police Executive Research Forum, has found that CEDs when used appropriately and with a full understanding of their risks are a useful device that can effectively help to resolve serious situations.
CEDs can reduce the need for other force options and can enable officers to subdue actively resisting or aggressive subjects while lowering the rates of injury to law enforcement officers and subjects.
The Freeport Police Department has the most current and acceptable lexical policy outlining the use of CEDs.
Freeport Police Department also has two certified CED instructors on staff and require annual recertification that involves scenario-based training curriculum that is certified by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board.
On October 1st, staff was informed that the Freeport Police Department has been awarded We have a total of 405 Taser 10 packages totaling just over $15,000, $15,686.
There were 404 departments who applied for this grant throughout the state of Illinois and 223 were awarded this grant.
This award will significantly upgrade the Freeport Police Department CED program and offset future costs of updating the program.
There is no funding for this because we essentially purchased these packages and then are reimbursed by the state of Illinois.
Thank you, Chief.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Mitchell, Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm.
The resolution is adopted 8-0.
Bids were opened on September 10th, 2024 for the Shawnee and Hancock viaduct improvements.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The city held a public bid opening on September 10th as previously discussed for the Shawnee Hancock viaduct improvements.
There is one bidder, city staff, our engineers in two local bids from, I'm sorry, from Helm Group and Civil Freeport was the lowest responsive bidder at $1,292,388.25.
The bid was just over the engineering estimate for the project.
City engineers received and obtained CN permission to do the construction at Hancock and Shawnee.
The project will be split between fiscal year 24 and 25 and staff recommendation to move forward with the Helm Group bid.
Is there a motion to approve the bid as stated?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the bid.
Alderman Sanders.
I understand we got, I'm sorry, I understand the Helms Group and Civil, they're the same, right?
Yes.
That's anonymous.
But what I don't see is any other bidders.
Have we considered any other bidders?
Yeah, there's two bidders on the job that was in the packet.
Helm Group, which is Civil, and the and the second was Fischer's Excavating, both bidders were off Freeport, they were bid very close together, a matter of fact they were 1.4% difference in cost or $19,000 so it was a very tight bid for something this large.
It's in your packet, both of them were in your packet.
They're both in the package for consideration?
No, the city's moving forward with one but both of them.
Of them.
Right?
Is that just one?
We're moving forward.
We're asking to move forward with the lowest responsive bidder, which was Helm Group.
So you're going to hold another bidding even in the package because you got to have one or the other.
Are they working together?
Are they jointly working together?
They both had independent bids.
Helm Group had one bid.
Fishers had another bid.
Helm was the lowest responsive bidder.
So they will be the final awarded if you approve it.
Okay.
That's what I was getting at.
Yeah, that's what I was So this comes up occasionally, can you explain how the bids are, how they're placed, you know?
Sure.
So all the city bids that Fehr Graham or the city staff is a part of, if you run them through Fehr Graham, we have a bid site, it's called quest.
Cbn, and it is a professional bidding site.
Many contractors in the Midwest pay to be part of this service, and then anytime a project comes out, for instance, this one would check Watermain, Storm, Road, Railway, they automatically get notifications if they assign for those notifications.
So it's instant.
As soon as we post it, they get a notification.
City Freeport has a bid, blah, blah, blah.
If you're interested, you can download the package, right?
We also do a local paper ad that's required by city ordinance.
So we file a paper ad.
It runs in an edition.
Anybody locally can contact us for the bid packets if they wish to.
When you're talking about a project of the.
When you're talking about a project of this nature it's very specialized there's only a handful of people around that could even handle something like this with CN that's why you see very reduced bidders plus the market's been pretty flush with work this year and we're leading into the end of the season where everybody's struggling to get the work done they have on the books so far so it's not surprising to me that we only got two bidders and you should remember I don't remember Miller.
I don't remember what the exact number is, but Helm Group is one of the largest contractors in the Midwest and physically do a lot of structure work type like this.
Follow-up.
Thank you, ma'am.
So when the bids are delivered, are they delivered in person or are they mailed in or how does that work?
They can do both.
Any city bid can be mailed in or delivered on the day.
They have to be checked in to the clerk, Dovie has to check them in with a time and a date stamp and then they're open publicly at the meeting room that anybody can come to and they're open in the order that they're received.
Thank you.
Yep.
Okay, so if there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Sanders, Sellers, and Klemm.
The motion passes seven to zero with one abstention.
And item number 15 if you could read this approval.
Another bid was opened on September 12, 2024 for CD 007-2024 for rehabilitation of a single home at 749 East Center Street.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
The City of Freeport was awarded the Community Development Block Grants Housing Rehabilitation in the amount of $550,000.
In this particular grant, $64,000 is allocated to grant administration and a total of $486,000 goes to the rehabilitation of homes.
Working with our state agency, that's the Department of Commerce Economic Opportunity, the DCEO.
Currently, we are awarded to have $60,000 in rehabilitation of homes.
So a little detail here.
Many people locally know this as the Adams Avenue Corridor Rehabilitation Grant.
This was started in 2021.
And since I've been here, we have been working tirelessly with two different consultants through that period.
And we are now at that finish line where we are bringing aid to our first property owner.
So what is being presented to you is a, we had a bid opening for this.
We had one bidder.
It was properly noticed in similar fashion as Mr. Steekle just explained.
And so when the bid was opened, we We received a lowest responsible bid of $52,925, which some of the highlights that was included in the scope of work is the installation of 16 new windows, a new electrical system, exterior siding repairs, stair replacement, and interior drywall patching, among other things that were attached in the scope of work.
And staff is recommending approval of this resolution.
And that would be entering into an agreement to for in a total amount of $52,000 and $52,925 for CMM and Associates to perform the work rehabilitation services at 749 East Center Street.
Is there a motion to approve?
So move.
Second.
We have a motion made by Aldermen Sellers, seconded by Aldermen Shadle.
Discussion Aldermen Sanders. Huffines.
What's the eligibility requirement for?
It's lengthy and that process closed in 2021.
So it's closed.
The eligibility requirements closed three years ago.
But essentially what was done in 2021 was staff at that time went out and canvassed the area.
It was a census block track.
I can't remember the exact census block track number.
But in the application process for the grants, they would have gone to each houses in the neighborhood and they had to fill out a survey, two parts.
It was several parts, but mainly it was their income, also any disabilities they may have had, also there was also the analysis of the condition of their property and this was compiled into a grant application.
Okay.
You have a list of homes that meets the eligibility for this program.
That was done approximately a year ago.
We had our consultant, we had 64 properties that applied for this grant.
And then the consultant, which is Region One Planning Council, it's It's a Metropolitan Planning Commission and it's in Rockford, Illinois.
They were retained to look at that data and do an objective analysis on which properties of the 64 they prioritize the properties that would be available for this type of assistance.
Okay.
Is that agency located here in Freeport or Rockford?
It's Rockford, Illinois.
It's Rockford.
How do the people here in Freeport sign up for that type of program?
It's no longer available.
Oh, it's no longer available?
In 2021 was when that was done.
So this is an effect as we speak today.
Correct.
The properties, there were 64 applicants that were analyzed by a separate entity independent of the city of Freeport that have, that's essentially one of their, in their scope of work, that's what they would do.
They perform that analysis for us.
They prioritized, according to the 64 properties, the top need based.
And this particular property was the top need based on their analysis.
And in working with our grant manager at the state, we worked down from that list and we provided, we went through the process and had a bid opening and that's where we're at right now.
So what's the percentage of work that has been done here in the Freeport regarding to this?
I am so happy and proud to say that in the three years I've beat my head against the table to get the state to allow me to give some aid to some of these people.
This is the first one.
And I am ecstatic that it's the first one.
It has been one of the hardest grants I've worked through.
So I am thrilled that I can actually give people some aid.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, so will there be another house after this one and another?
Yes.
All six before or until the money runs out?
Until the money runs out.
We estimate it will probably be between eight to ten properties that will end up getting the aid.
I have a bid opening.
Part of this process is I have to do a walkthrough with registered, which happened already six months ago.
Certain contractors had to register and there was a process that the State made us go through.
And all these these contractors that are interested in bidding, there's going to be a walk through on two more properties on October 10th and there's going to be another bid opening on October 24th for two more houses on this list.
So based on that information, in November I should be presenting two more resolutions of this nature to council.
So there would be a total of three homes.
And there's a fourth home that has a walk through on October 18th.
So So essentially I could have four homes by November.
Thank you for your hard work.
Thank you all.
The first is Stacy.
There's no further discussion.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
And Klemm?
Aye.
The motion passes 8-0.
It's a long night.
Finance?
Nothing, your honor.
Thank you.
Community development?
Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor.
Thank you.
Public Works?
Yep.
We've got a handful of things.
First, I would like to announce that hydrant flushing will be taking place in the city of Freeport the week of October 21st.
It's gonna take probably two to three weeks to get through the town to flush Hydrance.
During this period you may get some rusty water.
Just make sure that you run tub faucets and flush it out.
Look for cleaning your aerators in your home.
It's a typical process that we do every year in the fall.
Happy to say that the City Streets program, we have two streets left for this year, Greenfield out by Business 20 and Salem Court.
We hope to get those done later this this week or possibly next week.
Today we started hot patching with crews.
We put down about 16 tons today.
The west side water main expansion is out to EPA permit.
Next week you're going to see at the Committee of the Whole the ADA transition plan coming forth.
Something that we need to do for iDOT.
We've talked about that a handful of times and we've delayed it to this point, but we tried to get grant funds for it and we've been unavailable to get those grant funds.
What was that called?
It's called the IDOT ADA transition plan.
ADA.
ADA, so those are the handicap accessible ramps that we find at our intersections.
We're also working on 2025 streets program, so you're going to see a work order coming forward for that soon, and we're also working on the 2025 EV Chargers grant that we were awarded to place eight EV Chargers in downtown Freeport, I'm working with Mr. Duckman on that, and our biggest project, well number 12 that Eric Sorensen was here today to award Freeport some money, we're working on getting that moving to design and We're currently taking applications for our fall session of the Civilian Police Academy.
We're taking applications through October 17th, and we'd like to have our first session on October 24th.
The last eight weeks goes from about 6 PM to roughly 8 PM, or maybe earlier, but also offers applicants an opportunity to do a ride along with the police department.
So if anyone's interested, they can contact the police department, or I believe that there's also on our Facebook page, there's a QR code that take them right to the application so they can complete that and get it in before it closes.
Thank you.
Library?
Nothing tonight.
Thank you.
IT?
Then we'll leave this with the city manager's report.
Nothing tonight, your honor.
I just wanted to remind council that next Monday is a holiday, it's Columbus Day, so the committee of the whole is on Tuesday, so don't come on Monday, it's Tuesday.
And just to piggyback on what Darren said, we were honored today to have Congressman Sorensen come to City Hall.
He presented us with the check for nearly one million dollars to go towards well number 12.
So very fortunate for that.
Had also the pleasure of having our almost all of our public works department here for that photo op.
And it was actually one of the highlights that Congressman Sorensen said that was a big deal to him to be able to have the people that actually do the work standing with him.
So thank you to him.
Council announcement, Alderman Monroe.
Thank you madam mayor for those of you there's you know we've had you know very tragic situation down in north carolina tennessee georgia south carolina there are several area churches that are collecting dry goods food clothing other things for the relief efforts down there and keep your prayers out also for the folks in florida I don't since we've been in this room Hurrican Milton is now a category 580 mile an hour winds up to 220 mile per hour gusts and it's headed directly for Tampa and Orlando so it will be a very very rough day on Wednesday there.
A lot of us have friends and family who've retired down that way so keep them in your prayers but you know hey great work on all the city streets that we've seen we've been getting a lot of comments about that I think we're finally turning the tide the roads here in the city of Freeport and the infrastructure so it's a it's a very positive time thank you thank you Alderman Simmons I don't have anything thank you alderman Parker just want to echo what he said about the roads I'm getting a lot of good comments about our roads and the work going on just hopefully the weather holds off and they keep doing it thank you Alderman Stacy nothing Holderman Shadle?
Nothing tonight.
Holderman Sellers?
Just want to say I also have gotten a lot of comments on how nice the streets look so thank you.
Holderman Klemm?
Nothing your honor.
Okay Larry I'm guessing since you're over in the corner you must not have anything to say?
Okay then leaves us with item number 20 of public comments Tommy did you go ahead three minutes council city staff thank you Joshua hmm that was rough I want to go back to the alderman pay the mayor pay city clerk pay discussion you guys get the agendas just like all of us get the agendas out here differences is a lot of us look at them and it seems like you guys continue to not look at them.
When you guys talk about the Alderman pay, I wanna stick to that here, okay?
Alderman Sanders asked a question, what do the Alderman do?
How long have you guys all been Alderman?
You guys should know what the job description is, okay?
If you don't, we have a bigger problem in Freeport or probably we can pinpoint why we are where we are.
How much is this position worth?
You're not answering the question of how much you are worth or how much your brother or sister on this council are worth, you're asking what is that position worth?
Sitting out here, we just want to know how much is it going to cost for our elected officials to do their jobs?
Come to the meetings prepared, do the jobs, discuss outside of council, whether it be via the email or telephone, but come here knowing what you're talking about and what you're voting on.
That is frustrating.
That is what is driving people to leave town.
That is a problem.
We need you guys to step up and do the job or get out of the way.
You guys are Alderman 365 days a year.
City clerk is a city clerk 365 days a year.
Madam Mayor, you are our representative 365 days a year.
By my calculations, City Alderman, you get paid less than $10 a day to represent your ward.
To speak for me, Larry Sanders, Alderman Sanders.
You speak for me, you represent me.
If I have a problem, I should be able to call you.
You should answer the phone, you should email, and I'm directing it to you because you're my alderman.
This goes for all of you.
Tonight, the four hours, over four hours now, we, the city of Freeport, paid our aldermen, each one of you, $1.50 to sit through this.
I'm willing to pay a lot more to get good government in here.
Let us know what that number is.
Madam Mayor, we paid the mayor about $13 to sit through this tonight.
We pay our mayor right now about $80 a day.
I get it's a part-time position.
She is my mayor right now every single day of the year for the past seven and a half years.
What is that position is worth?
So I challenge you and I know I'm gonna run out of time here take this week like you should have taken the past two weeks think of something you asked our city manager to go pull numbers he did that he did his job how come our eight aldermen didn't do their jobs go figure out what your plan is what your proposal is and come to some kind of agreement so we can move forward we need better people wanting these positions thank you mayor thank you Tommy Osment is going to be a Special Olympics banquet for the awards and dinner Wednesday the 16th at 530.
And where's it at Tommy?
It's going to be at Nyla Church, yeah, Nyla Church something, at 626 West Pearl City Road.
All right, thank Thank you for sharing your information.
Any other public comments?
Okay, then that leaves us with item number 21, which is executive session.
Madam Clerk, could you please read that?
Three items.
Pursuant to 5 ILCS 122C1, the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific employees or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee or against legal counsel for the public body to determine its validity.
To 5ILCS 120 2C 2, collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees.
Pursuant to 5 ILCS 122C21, discussion of minutes of meetings lawfully closed under this act, whether for purposes of approval by the body of the minutes or semi-annual review of the minutes as mandated by section 2.06.
Is there a motion to enter into an executive session?
So moved.
Is there a second?
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?
Monroe?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Sellers?
And Klemm?
Aye.
The motion passed.