Okay, I think we're ready to go.
Madam Clerk, are you ready?
He kind of did now.
He was number one when he expired.
He was thinking about retiring in June.
He didn't go, but now he's kind of ready.
Okay, is everybody ready to take their seat?
Brady, could you please give the invocation?
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Father in heaven, we give you thanks tonight that your presence is with us to help and lead and guide this council according to your will and purpose.
We ask for the flourishing of the businesses and the people of this city.
We pray for peace, justice, hope, and access to resources.
We pray for the leaders of this council to govern with wisdom and integrity.
We pray for your kingdom to come and your will be done tonight in this meeting in Jesus name amen thank you now we'll officially call this meeting to order madam clerk would you please take the role mayor Miller here alder persons Klemm Johnson here Simmons is absent at the moment Parker here Stacy here Shadle?
Here.
Sanders?
Here.
And Sellers?
Here.
And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Klemm.
So to start this evening, I would like to read the email that I sent to all of the Aldermen last Friday just in case someone did not have the opportunity to read and John.
The email was, At our last few meetings, members of the council have been advised to comply with standards of rules of conduct and decorum, and have repeatedly refused to do so.
This is a disservice to other council members who abide by these rules.
It is also a disservice to members of the public, who expect their elected officials to act in a professional manner when conducting business on behalf of their constituents.
I have had numerous comments from members of the public expressing concern at the lack of decorum at our meetings.
This lessens all of us in the eyes of the public and negatively impacts the credibility of this council.
And most importantly, failing to observe established rules of procedure leads to disruption of the effective and orderly conduct of the business of the city.
For all of these reasons, we have clearly established rules of council which govern and others.
I am putting everyone on notice that I intend to strictly enforce those rules until we get some decorum introduced back into our proceedings.
I am saying this now so that no one will be surprised or be able to claim that they somehow were unaware of these standing rules.
Specifically, but not without limitation, the following conduct constitutes a violation of the rule of order.
One, speaking out of turn or when otherwise not recognized by the chair is a violation of the rule of order.
Two, exceeding established time limited on the floor for an issue or failing to yield the floor once the time has expired.
And three, interrupting or disrupting someone while addressing the public assembly during public comments is also a violation of the rule of order.
I should not need to make these statements as these are all rules which should be followed simply out of respect for fellow elected officers and the important role that each of you plays in running our city.
Unfortunately, events at the last few meetings indicate that we need to rely on stronger measures than mutual respect.
All members of the council are hereby reminded that pursuant to City Ordinance 220, 10, 24, and 25, if you are declared out of order, you are subject to a fine of up to $250.
If you are declared out of order twice at the same meeting, you will be removed.
I am putting you all on notice that I will be enforcing these rules strictly moving forward, and I sincerely hope that all of you will take your responsibility to this city seriously enough to avoid being sanctioned or removed for the sake of grandstanding.
So with that, we'll start with item number one, which is the approval of the agenda.
Is there such a motion?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion passes.
Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on September 15th, 2025.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion passes.
Do you have a question?
I did not see when Alderperson Simmons came in.
Did you know the time when you came in?
6, 10.
Thank you.
Item number three is recognition of service awards.
Manager Boyer.
I'd like to have the chief, the fire chief, to acknowledge the two firemen.
Yes, thank you.
It's my pleasure to recognize Amos Langlois and Dylan Oberle for their careers within the fire department.
Amos has just completed his 10 years of service and Dylan has completed five years of service.
I can personally say both are great people, very, very good at their jobs.
They're firefighter paramedics.
Amis is actually on vacation this evening and Dylan is presently on an ambulance call serving the public, so he couldn't be here tonight.
And I will be recognizing both of them at the fire station on their shift.
They're both on the same shift.
Thank you.
Deputy Davis, we have, would you please, go ahead.
Yes, I would recognize Officer Nikeel who has been with the Freeport Police Department for five years.
She's an outstanding officer and works diligently to protect the citizens every day.
Thank you.
With that, we move on to public comment.
We have three.
We'll start with an email that was sent to the clerk.
This was received today from Ashley Heilman.
I am sorry to not be there in person this evening.
I am, however, in Lombard for a realtor conference.
I would like to speak against item number seven on the agenda for short-term rentals.
I am here on behalf of one of my owners who has a short-term rental and myself as her manager.
When it comes to short-term rentals, often called vacation rentals, everyone seems to become a real estate expert, quick to say they destabilize neighborhoods or create problems.
And as we are aware, there has been one instance at one property that has caused this potential change to come forward.
However, in reality, vacation rentals Huffines.
These homes often serve important needs.
Corporations use them to house employees.
Families use them to test neighborhoods before buying.
Contract workers use them for housing when traveling to fill vacant positions at places like FHN.
And large vacationing families use them to stay all together, then having multiple hotel rooms.
These homes are typically well maintained because owners depend on good reviews and consistent bookings to make these rentals work.
I've been in real estate for eight years and have seen firsthand how vacation rentals complement housing markets rather than harm them, as I own several and try to stay at them when I travel.
They provide flexibility for property owners, support local tourism, and offer families and employees more housing choices.
Many of the issues often raised, noise, property maintenance, nuisance activity, are already addressed by city ordinances and the current short-term rental ordinance.
The city has tools to address problem properties without stripping rights from responsible owners and other owners in the future.
Property rights are not an a la carte menu.
When the right to rent is heavily restricted, one-third of a property owner's economic rights are lost.
Instead of rezoning and removing these rights, the city could cap the number of vacation rental permits in R1 to R4 zones instead of removing them completely.
This would prevent over-concentration, avoid clustering rentals only on the east side of town, and create a balanced approach that respects neighborhood character and private property rights.
Or what about making this a special use permit instead if you feel changes need to be made?
Other cities like Galena have found success starting with a cap and expanding permits as things go well.
Freeport has that same opportunity, balanced regulations that work for everyone.
To strengthen the ordinance further, the City could add guardrails, tie guestroom limits to bedroom count and square footage, require a local property manager if the owner is not nearby, limit on-site vehicles, revoke permits after repeat violations.
This approach creates accountability without overreaction.
Creates accountability without overreaching, ensuring vacation rentals remain residential friendly while protecting the rights of Freeport owners.
Thank you for your time.
Ashley Heilman, Welcome Home, Northwest Illinois.
Thank you.
Julie Whiting.
I'm in agreement with everything Ashley says, but city council members, thank you for allowing me to speak.
Our city's proposed ban on single-family homes being used as Airbnb's is presented as a solution to depleting our owner-occupied housing stock, but in our case, it's simply not supported by the facts.
Of the six Airbnbs in our town of 22,600 roughly, three are owner-occupied homes where residents rent out a portion, such as a spare room or a suite, while living in their own home.
These are not investor-owned properties being removed from the market.
In reality, these homeowners are enhancing the housing stock by sharing their space, not reducing it.
For example, Chicago and other major cities require that AirBnBs and short-term rentals in single-family homes be the host primary residence for most of the year.
The intent behind these rules is clear.
Prevent the conversion of full homes into permanent short-term rentals by investors while still allowing homeowners to host and share space in their principal residence.
These laws protect neighborhoods from losing housing, yet make room for flexibility and diverse housing options.
Our local reality mirrors these cities, not the tourist hotspots facing housing shortages due to mass investor purchases.
Let's be clear, banning owner-occupied Airbnbs won't expand our housing market.
These homes are not available for sale or for long-term rent because their owners live there.
Prohibiting them has no impact on home ownership or affordability in our town.
Instead, it risks punishing responsible residents, taking away supplemental income that helps cover mortgages and meeting rising costs.
And with just six listings citywide, three of them part owner occupied, the policy does not address the real threat to our housing stock.
Please consider a balanced approach, exempt primary residents, Airbnb's from any ban, focus instead on policies that target non-resident investors or large-scale operators, not everyday homeowners responsibly sharing their own homes.
This honors both the spirit of the community and the facts on the ground.
Thanks for considering an equitable and evidence-based solution.
And last would be the LaFever's.
Good evening, City Council members, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you regarding short-term rentals.
For Frank and Monique LaFever at 1650 West Apache Trail in Freeport.
We were the very first short-term rental operation in Freeport, and we voluntarily approached the city in 2019 to ensure that we were operating legally and transparency even before ordinances were in place.
We are owner-occupied hosts living full-time in our single home, renting out our lower level apartment.
With the current proposed zoning changes, it feels like responsible hosts like us who who have followed every rule are being penalized.
The memo suggests that STRs strain the availability of housing, but owner-occupied homes don't contribute to this strain.
Our home is not on the inventory, it's off the market as we live in it.
We asked the council to make a clear distinction in the ordinance between entire home STRs where the owner does not reside on the premises or owner-occupied STRs where the host reside full-time or at minimum grandfather in well-established and other residents of the community.
I would like to further add that our STRs provide a value to the community not only to support visitors, but support local families.
After a storm damage, one local family's home, they stayed with us for five and a half months, avoiding the stress of a long-term lease, renting or buying furnishings while their home was being repaired.
Another guest specifically chose a short-term rental with off-street parking such as ours because their work van had thousands of dollars of equipment on the back of their van to do road integrity surveying and they were concerned about somebody accidentally backing up into their van in a crowded hotel lot.
The damage could have been costly and disruptive to their work and our home offered them a driveway to park to alleviate their worries.
Many guests have in fact told us that Boyer has stayed with us for a summer during his relocation to Freeport to take a job here at the city.
He appreciated the conveniences and traditional hotels cannot offer such as a full kitchen and a laundry room.
Since opening in 2019, we have personally had no safety issues or complaints.
I vet every booking for verified state IDs, photos on profiles, and guest reviews.
If I'm uncomfortable, I'll let you know.
I'm comfortable.
I have no problem canceling that guest.
I require registration forms to be filled out like hotels.
We've even had neighbors refer their own family and friends to stay at our property.
In closing, please consider grandfathering a compliant homeowner, owner-occupied STR like ours, beyond January 2029, where there is a proven track record of safety and community benefit.
We are not absentee landlords.
We are residents, neighbors, and responsible hosts, and we care deeply about our community.
Thank you.
That concludes public comment.
Next, we'll move on to the consent agenda.
The consent agenda is considered to be routine in nature and acted as one motion unless the member of council would like to have something removed for further discussion.
The consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file board and commission minutes from the police pension board, May 7th, and the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, August 12th, 2025.
The Greater Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report, September 2025.
Approval of the finance bills payable in the total of $4,189,115.71 and payroll for pay May period ending September 20th, 2025 in the total of $676,474.02.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the consent agenda.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Sanders, and Sellers.
The motion passes 8 to 0.
Item number 6 is the second reading of ordinance 2025-57.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance revising codified ordinances to create the position of operations superintendent.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, your honor.
We've discussed this at the last council meeting.
This is creating a new position for the city that would allow one individual to oversee both the utility and the street department and deal mainly with the field crews.
However, responsibility would extend to all operations within Public Works and staff recommends moving forward with this job description approval.
Thank you.
Any questions?
Alderman Stacy?
It just seems like every time we change the original title and I. I went back to the original title and went to a supervisor position and that gentleman ended up quitting.
And it's like here we go again with wanting to now add duties to another Huffines.
Do you consider going back to the original director title and hiring someone under that?
Is that all your question?
I just didn't want your clock to time out a few.
Yeah.
Manager Boyer?
You know, we currently have a public works director, and that is Darren Steakles, our contract public works director.
The operations superintendent is more of a hands-on leader in the field and with day-to-day operations in mind.
So it's a different job.
Would you like your second?
Sure.
Go ahead.
No, that's okay.
Okay, any other discussion?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
Aye.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
No.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders, Sellers, the ordinance is passed six to two.
Item number seven is the second reading of ordinance 2025-58.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending chapters 810 and 1250 concerning the licensing and zoning of vacation rentals.
Thank you, Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
So we read this last at the last meeting we this ordinance was read.
I would say nothing has changed except for the public comments that we've heard tonight.
Just to give you a brief overview of this, staff was tasked to write this ordinance in order to eliminate the planning commission ordinance in order to eliminate short-term vacation rentals from the R1 through R4 zoning districts, which essentially removes the short-term rentals from single family housing, which is the intent here.
So after staff was directed to draft this ordinance, it was Heim, the Planning Commission put it forward to the next scheduled meeting, which was on September 11th.
At that meeting, there was a supporter, Tom Klemm, Alderperson Klemm, was there as somebody supporting this ordinance, and then City Clerk Anderson was there as a resident and was basically in favor of short-term rentals, which would be opposed to this ordinance.
And the results of that meeting was support of this ordinance by a vote of five to zero.
All that being said, as of tonight, there's obviously been people, the public comment has been against this ordinance and staff has put forward information for a vote, so leave it at that.
Thank you.
Discussion?
Yes.
Alderman Sellers?
I do have to agree with what Ashley Heilman presented tonight and I do agree with the other ones.
I stay at Airbnbs all the time and I think they're awesome.
I know we had one bad incident, but I don't think we should take one incident and kind of get away from all of it you do look at a town like Galeno or other different places that have been small towns and it is an asset to the community and like they also said we really don't have hotel space you know and that that was another thing so I will you know be against putting this through because I do think it's something that we need we talk about tourism and people coming in but they and Stacey.
They also have to have somewhere to stay.
So I do think that they are a good thing for the community.
Any other discussion?
I just have a question about the ordinance.
Is that appropriate or?
So currently the ordinance says that the owner of the property is the only one that can own this license.
Director, Duckman, can you answer?
Yes, so correct.
The owner of the property, you own a property, you would have to get a license to do a short-term vacation rental, yes.
Okay, so what if you're renting to own, you know, or what if you're, if you're renting to own, or if you're leasing property for a business purpose, purpose, why would you not be allowed to obtain, why or why not would one not be allowed to obtain a license?
Director Duckman?
Yes.
So it's 30 days.
Basically, what's going on here is in order for this ordinance to take effect as currently written, your term of your lease would have to be 30 days or less.
So oftentimes rent to own is not going to be 30 days.
So that's why, if you're in a rent to own agreement, you're not going to fall under this ordinance.
Because this ordinance, as it's currently written and is being proposed, it's 30 days or less.
You have to have an agreement that you're going to rent somebody's property for less than 30 days.
Any other?
I have additional information.
The rental property ordinance just states Do you have to be an owner?
So that's part of our rules.
When I process those applications, I need to check that the owner matches the insurance.
The owners, the applicants have to put up a certificate of insurance.
That would be an owner's responsibility.
A leaseholder would only have, you know, like content insurance.
Director Duckman, I don't know when it's rent to own or lease to own, you know, if they're in the process I understand.
Sorry.
No, I don't think it's, I think there's some some complication here.
And I think the ordinance protects the title owner.
Title owner is deed owner, fee simple owner.
That owner is protected.
And essentially, if you had a rent to own situation, you would, the city would just ask that the property owner sign an affidavit or just sign the paperwork that they would be doing the vacation rental.
And we do that in any of our zoning applications, any permit applications.
If there's a rent to own agreement or something like that, we always make sure that there's the actual title owner of the property is aware of any permitting going on.
Oldham and Stacy, did you want to?
What if the person renting to own have the insurance and things in their name?
They would have to ask the person that they would be buying it from, the title owner would have to give them, would still have to sign off on it.
That makes sense.
The person, so when you're in a rent to own situation, there's a title, there's a fee, the person that owns the property.
The actual, not the person renting to own, the person that owns the property would still have to give that permission and be named on that vacation permit.
But you said that the person that owns the property would have to cover the insurance.
But if the person that's renting to own is covering the insurance, isn't that different?
I think we're really getting in, yes, no, it's fine.
Just one second.
If you can try to pull together all of your questions instead of the back and forth, that would be helpful.
I'll just answer the question here.
Sure.
I think anytime somebody we have I believe how many of these now four or six?
We have three and one in process.
Okay we have three and one in process.
Every single permit that gets submitted is reviewed by my department, by Clark Anderson's department, and if there is any situation where we're talking about well we have to verify insurance, we have to verify a rent-to-own situation, the staff, our staff is gonna review it and is going to work with the person.
I I think we are looking at an outlying situation here to try to base our judgment on it.
I don't think the intent here is to eliminate rent to own situations from having the ability to obtain a vacation rental license.
Alderman Johnson, did you have something?
Yeah, I just wanted to say I did some checking to ask like how many times a month are these Airbnbs rentals or vacation rentals.
And John, and the person I checked with said sometimes four to five times a month.
So when I think of that and how ever long they've been running them and we've only had one incident, I think that maybe we need to not proceed with this.
But.
»» Well, Madam Clerk, Alderman Klemm, did you want to?
»» Sure.
»» Since I brought this up, I'll take the hit on it.
Hey, I really appreciate everybody that There are two sides to this.
There's no answer buts about it.
The intention was not to completely take away Air B&Bs as we started out and talked about this.
The thing was to take it away in single-family dwelling areas.
I currently am the alderman in the area where this happened.
Keep in mind this wasn't just a little incident.
For about 12 pistols, automatic weapons, illegal weapons, and 15 to 20 people that walked out of the place.
And it's still under investigation.
Is that correct, Deputy Chief?
Yes, it's still under investigation.
Okay, so I bring it up because I don't put that as a minor issue.
If, you know, God bless, if it doesn't go through and it isn't going to go through, it doesn't make a big difference.
Life's going to go on.
But I think we also ought to take a look at some of the safety things and some of the places where it's at.
If you bought a house and I got laughed at for saying this last time so I'll say it again, if you got a house in a very expensive neighborhood you'd think that you could live in that house without not knowing who lives next door to you and have a whole bunch of people with cars there and and so on and so forth.
And we can't say that didn't happen because the night before this happened, there was 10 cars at this place, okay?
And that came from a neighbor.
It wasn't the owner that called the police, it was the neighbor that called the police.
So that's the reason I'm bringing on.
You can sit there and shake your head, I'm sorry.
I said that, I told you that I thought what you said is right, I agree with a lot of it, okay?
But someplace in life, we gotta take a look at the fact Selders.
Somebody could have unloaded with how many weapons and killed how many people, and we'd all been sitting there saying, oh, shucks.
So that's fine.
That's all I got to say.
Oldham and Sellers?
I'm not taking it as a light situation.
My nephew, he works for Airbnb, and I called him to ask him some questions about.
And I asked him to ask him some questions about all of this and he said that even happens in hotels, that they come in there with that type of ammunition and all that kind of stuff.
It happens, but the thing, if you really want maybe some more clarification or some rules on how, on Airbnbs in your community, you can call them and they will have a consultation with you and help you come up with ideas on what you can do in your community to make it safer having the Airbnbs.
But I've stayed at Airbnbs in places that were probably million-dollar homes, but it's all about how we perceive this and take it on and look at the one mistake that happened, how are we going to prevent it from happening again?
But I do think it would be something really good in our community because of the hotel situation.
And this is another way people make a hustle.
This is how they make extra income to take care of their families or just to have to take care of their homes.
But I do agree.
I'm not saying that it wasn't bad because it scared me when I heard it, but I'm just thinking that it shouldn't be something that we just do away with it because we had one bad incident.
And I'm thankful that nothing did happen.
Appreciate your input, thank you.
Any other discussion before we vote?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
No.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
No.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
No.
The ordinance fails two to six.
Item number eight is the adoption of resolution 2025-113.
Could you please read this reconsideration of resolution regarding community solar with Illinois shines which is a state administered incentive program to support the development of new solar projects okay so before we can have this manager where we need a motion to reconsider so move well it needs the I do not have that.
Well, it'd be in the minutes, attorney.
Okay.
So sorry when all eyes are on me.
Shadle made a motion.
Klemm seconded to adopt.
Motion failed by roll call vote.
Ayes were Klemm, Parker, Shadle, Nays were Johnson, Simmons, Stacy, and Sanders.
The motion to reconsider would be made by Johnson, Sanders, Simmons, and Stacy.
So do you understand what's being asked of you?
Alderman Sanders.
Who's asking for this reconsideration?
Who's asking for that?
Manager Boyer, myself.
You're asking for it and who?
And yourself?
Yeah, so it's I I don't, the reason being Alderman Sanders is I don't think there was a very good explanation and it kind of tied together with Mike Mudge's two presentations and I don't think that everybody really understood.
Yes.
So it's just, it's just to be able to have a little better discussion on this one piece.
Before we vote on that, can we reconsider the person that was given the explanation and John.
So, we would need a motion to reconsider the topic first.
Because if you guys choose to reconsider the topic, then once that topic is back on the table, then you could talk about, hey, since we're talking about it again, we want to bring Mr. Mudge back in to talk about it at that point.
But if you guys don't want to reconsider the topic, then there's no way to reconsider the topic.
Fowler.
Thank you.
Settler.
Do you want to talk more about it?
Yes.
So are you making a motion to reconsider Alderman Sanders?
On the premises of the fact that he would come and give us a better understanding of the process.
Okay.
So it would be something that maybe Manager Boyer or Mr. Siegel could give a better understanding and Linn, Dean, John, Don, John, D. J., John, Tony, and John, D. J. I want to make a motion to bring the topic back up.
It's really free money to the community.
No.
So if you are making a motion to bring the topic back up, I would need a second.
I'll second to bring it back up.
Okay.
So we have a motion made by.
Do we make a motion to bring it back?
Alderman Stacy, that's kind of out of order.
So he did make the motion.
Alderman Johnson seconded it.
So now that gives us the ability to talk about it.
So what we'll do next is allow.
You gotta vote on it.
You have to vote on the motion to reconsider.
I forgot that part.
So on the reconsidering itself, Madam Clerk, could you take the role on the reconsidering?
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
No.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
And Sellers?
Aye.
One, two, three, four, it is currently tied.
Mayor?
Aye.
The motion to reconsider passes five to four so now before you then is city managers being able to read the memo sure thank you your honor the city of Freeport was asked at the September 8th Cal Mike Mudge presented on the community solar bill credits with Illinois shines program so anyway if were to participate in the Illinois Solar Energy Incentive Program.
Solar developers are often required to offer subscription incentives.
The city's largest electrical counts are 100 kilowatts and under, and will be eligible to receive the monetary bill credits from the program incentive.
These incentive programs work on a 20-year subscription timeline, and the subscription program application will allow Freeport to participate and receive solar incentives from Soler Array projects that are being installed in the area.
Freeport will not have any financial or liability participation in installing or paying for any solar build project.
The city utility accounts are appealing the program due to the large inconsistent use of electricity.
Many Northwest Illinois cities are joining this program.
So there's a brochure included, but essentially These are credits the city would get back based on the amount of solar activity that solar projects that are being built and I don't want to quote incorrectly but I believe Mr. Mudd said we'd be the only community that did not approve this in the area so I just requested council give it some more thought and consider moving forward with the Illinois SHINES program Director Segal, would you like to add to that?
Yes, I would.
So I just want to give the basic blue collar discussion to this quickly.
Every large solar array that's done gets credits that they have to give back to the community.
And it's dollars that they have to return back to that community.
And it's based on usage.
This is not available for, let's say, our City Hall account, because we don't pay electric for our City Hall account because we have a deal with ComEd on this.
This is for the utility accounts like our Wells and our bigger accounts that use a lot of electricity.
And basically is what they're saying is here's free money every year for the next 20 years because we have to give this money back to communities.
I cover a lot of communities in Northern Illinois.
This would be the first town that didn't take this money.
They can't tell you exactly what it is because we can't negotiate with them until we have an approval with the accounts that Michelle would put together that we actually pay for monthly.
Not that this would be massive money, but this could be 10 to $20,000 a year of free money coming back to the utility with no commitment from us.
Right?
We don't have to sign up for more solar work.
We don't have to do some special program.
We don't have to add more solar fields.
We're just accepting their credits because we have high volume accounts.
So it's essentially free money back.
There is no subscription fee to the city, but the subscriber, which is this Illinois Shine, they take a portion of the rebate as their fee for processing this deal that is part of what they do.
We can't do it.
Illinois Shine has an agreement with them that they do all the processing.
So, and what has been offered to Freeport, which has been greater than other communities, is I believe they upped the rebate percentage from 10 to 15, but I don't know how that works.
But I don't know how that works financially for us other than it's a larger incentive that other communities get.
There will be other opportunities for us besides Illinois Shine as well.
That's just one program that's out there.
There's other fields being brought around the area and they go to the bigger municipalities.
So I appreciate you at least having this discussion.
It is truly free money to the community that we desperately need more funding.
So I don't know why we would pass this opportunity up when there's no commitment based on us spending any financial money whatsoever.
And if the incentives or the rebates get low enough, for instance, like our accounts, we don't use enough or they don't produce enough solar, we just don't get the rebate for that month.
Attorney Zito.
Just a point of clarification, Darren.
This particular program, this has nothing to do with the actual residents of Freeport.
My understanding is that we're talking just about and the city electric bills that we utilize at our buildings, not all our buildings, not like City Hall, like you said, but our utility building.
So this is about our, a rebate for us and what we have to pay.
This program has nothing to do with the general public.
That is absolutely correct.
Correct, okay, thank you.
So for an instance, one of our larger bills right now that we have monthly is our city lighting bill for all the street lights around town.
That account would qualify for this.
It's steady usage, it's annual usage that we have to pay for.
So that rebate would come from one of those accounts.
Oldham and Sanders.
Well, who's monitoring these incentives and these rebates and how do we make decisions whether or not we wanna go forward with any of this program because we don't have a measuring stick with it.
There is no measuring stick, there's no monitoring, there's no oversight committees, there's no nothing to make sure that everything is above board.
In other words, we're taking a risk as something that we don't fully understand at this point in time.
And just them throwing out brochures and incentives and possible quick pro quals, probably hanging out there in the balance that we don't know about.
We gotta make sure that we have a lockdown on everything about the understanding of how we are going to receive any kind of receivables, dividends, or whatever the case may be.
We have not put that in place yet.
This, what we're talking about, has not been orchestrated by council yet.
We have not had a full discussion, not just because we're having one now here in this assembly, but we need to be able to have this kind of discussion to get the details of how is it benefiting the community of Freeport, who's gonna be served with these types of incentive to join in, to be part of that whole process and how the rebates are distributed.
I don't think that the rebates, you narrow it down to the electric here and the facilities of our own water and sewer and everything like that.
But we don't have a monitoring system to determine that.
Council don't have it.
We don't have what they say, alert status about rebates that are coming into the city on behalf of the solar shine or whatever who they are.
We don't have that.
We don't have indicators that let council know how this is being presented and being brought back each year or whenever the rebates are being submitted to the city.
We don't know that.
It's just like that.
I'm gonna give an example.
Just like the rebates that happens out in Menards, you have to sign up for rebates.
Rebates may not ever come.
And who knows who's using the system, the monitoring system, far as solar and everything of that nature, in order to reap the benefits.
Those incentives are just out there.
I just don't see how it benefits anybody at this time.
Manager Boyer, would you like to respond?
Yeah, I just wanted to comment Alderman Sanders.
You know, Mike Mudge came September 8th and none of those questions were brought up to him at the time.
So he didn't have an opportunity to answer your questions because you didn't ask them.
So I will say the opportunity existed.
Bubbling, and a bunch of other people that really do know the history of the state.
That is in a way what has happened through the years.
But it just, for whatever reason, didn't happen.
» I can answer a handful of those questions.
If you want.
So the rebate money would come directly to our director of finance.
Because that is how that works.
Fowler.
So again, if you guys choose not to go forward, that's your take on it.
But we are constantly here asking for more money and here's an opportunity to capture some extra dollars isn't going to, you know, make us rich, but over a 10-year period, it It might be another $100,000 or $200,000 of input to the utility funds or to the general fund, wherever it comes in it gets expended, but it's money that we currently don't have and they want to lock it in for 20 years.
20 Years.
Alderman Stacey, would you like to add?
Yes, Mayor.
What you did was not right, Mayor Miller.
Who tricked Alderman Sanders into reconsidering.
He never said, I make a motion.
He said, yes, he would consider under the assumption that the guy could come back and express it greater.
Now, Darren has been allowed to speak everything that he knows on this matter because he knows it all.
And giving his input is just to promote why we should do this, do something that we have and I have already voted down and I watched the little faces and the little talks, you know, and City Manager Boyer, you're sitting there cracking up till you're red, laughing because now he got all these questions and he's wanting information and he's saying this and he's saying that.
He never physically said, I make a motion that we reconsider.
You promoted that, Mayor Miller.
You promoted that because that's what you want and that's what you said.
He never made the motion.
So we just voted on a motion that really was not made and was not legal.
And that is not right, pushing your values and what you want and tricking him to move forward because this is something that you want.
It's just not right and it's not funny.
Well, first of all, I don't think it's funny.
And secondly, it was a motion to reconsider.
And if the council chooses to bring Mr. Mudge back another time, that's totally acceptable.
But we have two men sitting here that can easily answer a question and maybe that's enough.
I just wanted to bring more clarity to the subject.
That's it.
He still never made a motion.
He made a motion.
No, you do not.
You make the motion.
Please.
So, we have before us the discussion.
Is there any more discussion on this?
Alderman Sellers?
No, blow me off.
I would just like to know, why would we not want to get free money?
Can you say it again?
I hear you.
How would we not want to take on free money?
And it's 20 years.
I just want to know, why would we say no to free money?
Alderman Johnson?
I've always been told you never get anything free right so I'd like to know what how can they give us something free without not us not giving them something back or what is it that's promised or what's you know what's the bottom line on this is this something that I mean from what I understood Mr. Mudge to say that there was a subscription you had to do and that subscription would build more solar farms more solar places because there's Huffines.
There's not enough right now.
Well, he said there isn't enough right now around here to give us the whatever we need to get the energy that they're going to give us.
So I want to know what is it that they're looking for in return because you never get anything free.
Attorney Zito.
And Manager Boyer and Darren, correct me if I misspeak to your guys' understanding of this program as well there.
But my understanding of how the program works, what they're asking, what they want in return Warren from the city is 20 years old.
From the city is 20 years worth of us paying electric bills to them.
So they're willing to say if you're willing to commit and subscribe to us and lock in for 20 years and you're going to pay those month after month after month ever bills that you guys are going to pay, I'm willing to incentivize you to lock in for that period of time by giving you this 10 to 15 percent discount because I locked in the otherwise all of that revenue that you're going to pay month after month and so on.
That we would have paid month after month anyways there.
And they take that revenue stream, that committed revenue stream, that company will say, if I know I got the city of Freeport and I know I have this other, let's say, large manufacturer that has, you know, a larger electric bill, let's say it's an industrial user, right, and I sign up 15 to 20 of those types of companies, those sorts of users, that's enough for me to justify building then my grid or my plant, my solar field there.
So that's what they're looking to in exchange is they're looking for a long term commitment from the city of Freeport and say in exchange for that, I'm willing to to give you a discount on your bill.
Did you want your second?
Yeah.
Would this lead to eventually everyone in the city having to go solar?
Director Segal?
I'm just curious.
No, no, is what they're trying to do is build solar to feed the grid because we have a larger power requirement than what Comet can feed so they're supplementing the grid with this this type of power and the reason we're advantageous is because accounts that are already in aggregation are not eligible to be used for this type of and John.
I am not aware of any of the people that are eligible for this type of project.
≫ When you say aggregation is not fitted for this particular project, is that what you just said?
I thought that's what I heard.
But if I didn't, if I heard you wrong, I apologize.
≫ Accounts that are already in aggregation programs are not eligible for this type of incentive.
On the City of Freeport utility accounts only.
This has nothing to do with our right now.
And who's governing this?
Who's governing over this project to make sure that the citizens of Freeport are not being taken advantage of?
This has nothing to do with our residence layer.
This is just for the City of Freeport property accounts.
OK.
It has nothing to do with it.
It does not drill down to the homes.
OK, I see.
Now I get the picture.
Right, it has nothing to do with everyone's individual electric bill, it has only to do with the utility accounts that are done by Public Works and or Okay.
Ms. Richter during our monthly bill cycles.
Okay.
Okay, so Alderman.
Sorry, I'm sorry.
Alderman Stacy, did you have another one?
Yes, and so for 20 years, how much are we paying them for this little, what, 10 or 15% discount.
How much is it costing us month after month after month for 20 years?
The, I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
There's a subscription fee based on what you save every month.
And I don't know that number because until we enter into something with them, that number won't be disclosed.
What they're saying is there's a 15% savings on the electrical bills that will qualify for this program but they do get a subscription fee for the process.
So we don't even know what the subscription fee is costing us, we don't know what we're putting into this and we're committing to 20 years.
And we will not until we sign up.
That's something fishy with that.
And then we have all these, the solar panels and areas We have right here in town.
They don't even take care of them like they're supposed to.
They're not mowed and maintained.
I have a question.
To her point, it's not like we're paying them.
They're just deducting it from what they owe us.
That is the correct statement.
They're deducting.
At what rate?
Well, that's what he said.
It's kind of out there, but it's we get the payment minus the fee.
So we still come out in the positive.
Small communities are getting- But we don't know that.
Well, that's part of the program.
It's in the brochure because if there's no savings for the month then there's no fee.
Okay.
Alderman Simmons.
So does the percentage change go up or decrease per year based on what they get?
Mr.
At all?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Director.
The percentage for the city's savings or the percentage of that fee?
And the percentage, the fee and the savings like.
So I can only go off of what the brochure was and the brochure, I believe it's a percentage of the savings per month.
And our rebate though would be locked in on a percentage of the bill because our electrical bills aren't the same amount every month, they go up and down based on seasonality.
So we're not locked in?
Is that what you said?
The percentage was 15%.
It doesn't go up or go down.
You're saying that percentage though stays the same, that's what Mr. Mudge told us and again if we decide to move forward before we would sign anything with them we would get it all in writing but again it comes back to the point it's money that we can have this revenue that doesn't cost our taxpayers our citizens anything if there's no further discussion madam clerk please take the roll.
Klemm?
Yes.
Johnson?
No.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
Yes.
Stacy?
No.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders is currently absent.
Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted four to three.
Oh I'm sorry it has to have five positive.
Right so you have half of the council voting in favor already so that triggers the situation where the mayor is allowed to vote.
Okay, I forgot, Mayor?
Aye.
And that will make it five to three, that we need the five.
Item number nine is the adoption of resolution 2025-118.
Could you please read this?
Resolution ratifying emergency storm sewer system repairs at Greenfield and Santa Fe by Fisher Excavating.
Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Yeah, thank you, your honor.
The city of Freeport had an emergency repair to the storm system.
The repair was much more significant in scope included sidewalk EDA ramps and curb replacement.
City staff did not receive an invoice for the concrete work until recently and Fisher Excavating informed us that the concrete pay item had not been invoiced during the busy end of the 2024 season.
Staff has confirmed through our own system that Fisher was never paid for the required restoration work and has verified that the work was done in line with required city compliance and standards.
Due to the error, Fisher is only requesting the invoice be paid without the allowed contract Markups, and wanted to be made whole for the subcontract work.
Fisher Excavating is a valuable partner of the city of Freeport and performs many emergency work scenarios for the utility.
Staff recommends payment of the $19,540 to Fisher Excavating for the repairs at Greenfield and Santa Fe.
Thank you.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the resolution.
Aldrin Sellers?
Yeah.
I know I had talked with Rob earlier about this and I do think that, I know that sometimes you get busy and I know they're a big organization, but I do think that we as a city and in our finances, we need to look at something like this a little more closer to not let something like this get this far behind in paying our debts.
I know that they should have given us the invoice, but we also need to look at maybe the end of the year or something to see what still we have out there outstanding to make sure that it's paid in a timely fashion so that we don't have to come back this many months later and pay for something like that.
So I do think that we need to also look at making sure that if we have a bill out there or invoice out there, we need to make sure that it's in so that we can have better records too for us.
Sure.
Director Segal.
Yeah, I appreciate your comments.
I'll take the blame on this one.
We did storm work in this location for a storm collapse and we did pay them during the appropriate period for the storm work.
However, it led into a lot of concrete and we had a couple of other jobs going with them at the same time.
And it was our area, we thought we had collected it, but, or not collected it, we thought that they had billed us for it.
They thought we, we've actually been going back and forth for quite a bit of time, thinking it was placed.
And I were thinking it was played but I really drilled down into this and it was unduly fair not to pay them for the work that was done and I did go back through all the invoicing and I also had the public works admin help me and we proved that we never paid them for this emergency work so you know it's unfortunate that they didn't bill us sooner but we have been negotiating on it trying to figure out whether we did or didn't and that took a little bit of time and like I said we had three or four open jobs with the at the time, so again, we'll try to do a better job trapping that, but I will take this one as my fault.
Thank you.
Any further discussion?
Alderman Stacy?
Yes, I would like to know, so when was this emergency work done and was this emergency work bided out or was it given to them to do and if it was bided out, did they bid $19,540?
Yes, so no, this was emergency work.
The storms that were at Santa Fe and Greenfield collapsed last fall, and they did the pipe work.
When?
Last fall.
Okay, I understand that, but are we talking August, September, October?
I'm going to say August.
I don't know the month off the top of my head, Cecelia.
But and we had the pipe work done but then when we did the pipe work we had to rip out significantly more curb and significant two ADA ramps that totally had to be redone at that intersection.
Anyone can drive out there and see the work that was done.
So this is actually a really good price when you account for us having to do probably over 100 feet of curb and two ADA ramps that Sanders.
The ADA ramp.
It affected the storm is what we're talking about.
There was two ADA ramps that was over top of the storm and when we fixed the pipe we had to take them out and put them back in.
And replacing the eight, well, the two ramps that were over top of the storm and when we fixed the pipe we had to take them out and put them back in.
And we fixed the pipe, we had to take them out and put them back in.
And replacing the, well, the ADA ramp is already paid for and the storm sewer material was not paid for.
The opposite.
We didn't get the, oh, the opposite, okay.
We didn't get the invoice for the storm sewer repair and we couldn't put an ADA ramp until we got that storm sewer repair, right, am I correct?
Miller.
Yeah, we had to, before you can put the ADA ramp in, the storm sewer had to be repaired.
Is that correct?
That's what, that's what I'm asking you.
The ADA ramps could not be installed until the new piping was under ramped.
That's what I just said.
That's exactly what I just said.
So we don't have, we as a council, when that came up and you declared it as an emergency kind of deal, what was the emergency?
It's just time and material.
You're talking time and material we need to know the cost of we need to know what kind of material we're going to replace it with how much we're going to pay for material and what was the scope and the measurement of that project that brought us to a price that we that I feel that was an estimated cost until we We understand that we need to know how much material and work our time and material that went into that project to make sure that it was an emergency kind of deal because I don't recall us having any major storms developing and any washouts or anything like that could have prevented you from continuing with the project of the ADA ramps.
I'm just looking at this from a position where what came before?
It was not an ADA project.
It was a storm pipe collapse under an intersection that had to be repaired.
And resultingly, the two ADA ramps had to be ripped out in order to fix the pipe.
OK, got you.
OK, so did we get a time?
Did we get a time in material?
No, it was an emergency repair that was ratified by this council, and we went through with it.
Time and material.
OK, so I got to say, I appreciate that you're inquiring on these questions.
But the back and forth conversation, it's what's a violation.
So if you can pull together your thoughts and then ask something, but then just one minute.
Can I say something here?
One minute.
And so then when I give the floor to the director, then it becomes his.
So then if you want to speak again, then you have to ask.
So it's just that procedure.
So I appreciate the questions.
But once someone else finishes speaking, then you have to be recognized in order to continue.
So would you like to continue with- I'm going to have a litigation meeting with this attorney, with the attorney here, the city's attorney, because as far as I'm concerned, we are in contempt.
We are in contempt right now at this moment, and you're- Okay, so let me just- Well, I'm just saying, Mayor, I want to talk to this attorney, I want to talk to this attorney.
Alderman Sanders, I'm going to give you a warning.
And you'd like to speak, you have to be acknowledged, okay?
So let's try to keep it at that.
So let's not go past the warning.
Alderman Stacey.
Yes, so when this emergency event happened, was it brought to council?
And we voted and agreed on this, but they did the work, but they were not paid.
And so now we realize they have not been paid and there a year later is coming for what is due for the service they've rendered.
Correct.
We only paid them for the piping portion.
We never because we had to get a we there was a delay to get the concrete work done so we paid them for the piping portion and the restoration the ADA ramps were delayed so they didn't get Payde right away.
That is correct adage of exactly the way it happened.
Okay.
Madam Clerk has some input on this.
I just looked at the invoice a little bit closer.
It says Stenstrom Concrete Works.
So, Darren, when you say no contract, the markup for the contractor fees, so Fisher has been billed by Stenstrom Fischer is stuck with Stenstrom's bill.
They've given us the courtesy of not giving their what, 10 or 15 percent markup and they're only charging us for 19,000 plus that was done over a year ago.
That's right.
Okay.
That's right.
Isn't that what I just said?
Okay, so if there's no, would you like your second Alderman Sanders?
Sanders.
Yes.
I'm glad you brought that out simply because here we go again.
I'm going to speak this time and I don't want to question and answer.
I just want to speak on this issue that the fact that it was something that had been repaired a year ago and we still didn't get an invoice at that time to and John.
We have to determine what the time and material costs that justify the hourly wages and the material that was replaced in it.
We had not received that.
And a year has already gone by.
This is nothing but an estimation.
These are estimated, yeah, because you have not demonstrated to us the invoice.
The invoice has not been looked at at this current time.
We have not seen that.
And so we're depending on what you're saying according to the invoice.
With a non-invoice, it was estimated.
These are estimated costs and I don't need this.
I just know what it turned out to be.
The invoice.
Yeah.
The invoice might be saying what you're charging, but you're not telling us why it's Huffines.
That is an estimation.
You don't want to say that is an estimation because that's what time and material boils down to.
That's what it boils down to, Darren.
Well, who's standing there monitoring the amount of time that it takes to repair a storm sewer and what material that was used?
There's no one there, and if that had been the case, then we should have received that Fowler.
And we're estimating this over, well, you can keep shaking your head that it's not, but the fact of the matter is that's what it boils down to.
Until we get more understanding how we got these escalated charges and you had not demonstrated time and material, we don't know how much material was used, how much were we spending, and how long did this job take.
We don't have that before us and so we need to know all of that before.
All of the material is accounted for on the invoice by the square foot so it's easily measurable by anybody that would go out there and it was included in the packet.
This is not acceptable.
Okay, so unless there's any other discussion and Baldwin Sanders you were warned now you're out of order so please don't do it again because if it happens again you're going to be escorted out.
Refrain from asked to refrain from talking out of order.
You can talk to the attorney afterwards, but please refrain from talking out of order.
Is there any more discussion on Alderman Shadle?
I just would like Clerk Anderson to know that her work of attaching these memos doesn't go wasted on all eyes.
If there is no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the role.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted 7 to 1.
Item number 10 is the adoption of resolution 2025-119.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving a software renewal from Ferguson Waterworks for AMI Neptune 360 utility software.
Thank you, Director Shuttman.
Thanks, Mayor.
Council, this is the annual agreement for our are Neptune 360 software platform.
That software is kind of the interface for the water meter collectors.
The reading is taken at your meter, goes to MIU on your house, goes to the collector, and from there it goes to 360, Neptune 360 for processing.
This agreement and proposal includes the licensing support, cloud storage, and other pertinences.
The total cost is $37,138.58.
Has been budgeted in the fiscal year 25 water and sewer budget.
Any questions?
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the resolution?
Alderman Johnson?
Yeah, I asked how much it would cost if we were doing all this by hand and people were going out and reading the meters and so forth.
And it would cost anywhere between $130,000 and $155,000 Huffines.
Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Alderman Sanders?
Yeah.
How did we get to this cost?
What drove this?
Are we getting, is it been, is this by percentage?
Did we get this by percentage?
Okay.
Before you answer that, Alderman Sanders, make sure that you finish whatever thought you have so it doesn't go back and forth.
Are you good with that question?
Yes.
Thank you.
Sanders, John, John, John, John, John, John Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.
The resolution is adopted 8-0.
Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025-120.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving an agreement with Fehr Graham to provide additional civil, environmental, engineering, project management, and other professional services for the 2025 Public Works Master Services contract.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
The City of Freeport has various annual engineering needs.
These include topographic study, infrastructure, system mapping, geotechnical, construction, survey and staking, elevation records, ADA issues, multiple grants and loan assistance, water, sewer, storm, and utility design, structural assessment, street infrastructure, airport engineering support, right-of-way permitting, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency requirements, Illinois Department of Transportation and Necessities, quality assurance, quality control inspections, observations, soil borings, and analysis, and all emergency needs for professional engineering requirements.
This consultant work is performed outside of specific project contracts brought to the council and required by specific funding sources.
Freeport requires an engineering firm that provides support with a staff and and technical professionals, including licensed engineers who specialize in various areas of city operations.
City of Freeport annually approves various engineering contracts to meet the city's engineering needs.
This support is for all city staff departments on an as-needed basis, time and material.
This contract allows general engineering requirements not related to contracted projects to be performed on a day-to-day basis for the city departments.
It also enables the City's staff to be reactive to our daily needs and requirements as infrastructure and emergencies arise.
This year has been extremely busy due to the large amount of engineering work, grant submittal, extensive permitting requirements, etc.
The original contract funds have been expunged through nine months and staff requires additional funds to complete 2025.
The estimated cost is about $100,000 on a time and material basis and used as needed.
The funding for these additional services was included in the 2025 engineering budget and staff recommends moving forward with the additional services contract with Fehr Graham.
And I will mention that we have had a tremendous amount of work this year.
We put together a partial list and it is quite extensive.
I do also want to point out that some of the fees that we are paying relate back to contract review and construction permitting and we do receive revenue back on the items through fee structure for anybody requesting construction permits.
We've had quite a few of those this year as we have NICOR, we have surf internet building out the fiber optic network and we have a lot of different projects going on throughout the city that aren't city-led.
So staff request moving forward Settler.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the resolution?
Alderman Sanders?
Did I hear somebody else?
I called on you.
Okay.
Yeah.
Well, the question I have, there's an existing contractor already on board before Fehr and Farrin Graham gets involved with this particular contractor to supplement or to engineer or to support it.
Is that what we're talking about?
If we're talking about that kind of occasion, then why do we need Farrin Graham services when we have not even talked about the master services contract and what's all entailed with it?
Why haven't we made a discussion and evaluated what it is that the master service is even provided for even Fehr and Graham to get involved to help the supporting of this engineering.
I don't see how we can engage with Fehr and Graham with a contractor collaborating together to get the support that they need in order to fulfill their duties.
I don't see how we can establish that when we don't know how much it's gonna, everything is estimated, like I said before.
Things get to be estimated and costs can go out the roof without a measuring stick.
If you don't have something to gauge it with, estimation is don't have no borders.
That's the problem with that.
And so my whole thing is, I don't think councils should be involving themselves with secondary subcontractors like Fehr and Graham with a contractor called Master Service.
I don't even know what all entails with Master Service until we know that.
I'm going to suggest that we get more information from whoever's submitting this or suggesting or recommending that I see that your name is there, Mr. Steekle.
I think we should, I think before we indulge ourself in spending more money, because it seems like to me we're spending millions of dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars just on this project or whatever this construction work is, and I'm surprised that we're not asking questions as council.
How did we get to this point and the fact that who's making the recommendation?
I don't know how we got here.
I don't like for counsel to just lie down and just let this thing go through or talk about it because there's nothing but a resolution.
It's a resolution.
I understand that, but the fact of the matter is for us to adopt it so they can continue and so on, doing what they're doing by allowing Fehr Graham to impose themselves into a contract that we don't even know what the qualifications of the master service abilities are when we don't have no scope of that.
And so we need to reevaluate all of that.
And I think this is like a dead horse or dead dog heading down the wrong road and I don't think this should be happening.
And I don't think this should be happening until we reveal who in the heck is a master service and finding out what kind of work that they're doing for the City of Freeport, then we can have another discussion about it.
That's my whole thing.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer, would you like to respond?
Wood.
So let me start out Alderman Sanders.
We can have these discussions anytime.
We've had many of these meetings scheduled that we did not get together for, so I can answer these questions in a timely way that doesn't take up a lot of the public or the rest of council's time.
But with that being said, let me start with the list here.
We've had survey calculations and staking at the Fire Station improvements and there are many projects throughout the city that we've used the master services degree program to get done.
That came up to about $29,000.
We had utility permit reviews so that would be for all the construction going in the right of way.
That came to about $45,000 but we are getting repaid for that through our right of way permit process.
IDOT has a multi-year program that has to be updated that's about $5,000.
Hancock Bridge, preliminary design review is about 24,000, but that's a major priority.
We want to get the Hancock Bridge fixed, so we got to figure out what we're doing and then be able to apply for the IDOT funds to make that happen.
That happens through a lot of diligent and careful work that goes on at Fehr Graham.
Also, we required assistance with setup for the cleaning and lining contracts for all the sewer projects that we've done, and it's about 30,000, but we spent I think around close to a half a million dollars in sewer lining and that just keeps all the water out of the sewer so we don't end up at the wastewater plant, flooding out the wastewater plant.
I'm sure you're familiar with it though.
We've also got process optimization.
So that's Tom Glenn Denning working with us at the water treatment plant and the wastewater treatment plant, getting processes in place and making sure things are running efficiently there.
Site development so we're talking about the city developed projects we had about 6,300 there we had a crack ceiling bidding and construction oversight about 2,000 there tree removal we had about $8,000 in bidding and inspections and ensuring that our that our contractors are doing appropriate work out there and getting good quality for us for the city get high value for our dollars public works fuel pump paving system we spent about $23,000 with the updated tank Hicks, and Pumps, and everything that goes on.
By the way, Council, please feel free to stop me if you've heard quite enough, but I can keep going and that's fine.
Okay.
You can stop.
Okay.
Actually, yeah, I, Attorney Zeta would like to respond.
Yeah.
And just to give a little bit more context, Holderman Sanders, the Master, the original Master Service Contract, that's with Fehr Graham.
So, the Master Service Contract, that was approved by the City Council probably near the beginning of the year, and it's with Fehr Graham.
They're asking basically to add more money to that contract.
That's that's the simple aspect of it because of all the work that manager Boyer just said.
We've used up the contract thus far so now we need additional work done just for the rest of the year to cover the rest of the year.
That's all.
Oldham and Sellers did you have your hand up?
No.
Oldham and Stacy?
In the scope of services section of the the original Public Works Master Service Contract.
It states, Fehr Graham will provide various civil, environment, and engineering service, project management, and other related professional services as requested or directed by city manager representing the City of Freeport Public Works Department.
Let's look at the phase, the phrase of the related professional services as requested or directed by the city manager.
Hmm, what does that mean?
What does that include?
All the duties, please don't stop me, all the duties that the city manager, Boyer, described in the background of his memo were considered consultant work performed outside of spec contracts.
However, these tags actually fall within the scope of public works.
There were no limits or stipulations on the services rendered in the master service contract, nor did it allow for additional invoice for service considered outside the scope.
We have already paid Fehr Graham $100,000.
Now, nine months in, you're asking for another $100,000 and what is the purpose of this again, I ask.
And others.
The situation reflects either Fairground fell to properly price their service or the inability to produce and present a solid contract.
Regardless, it is not the city's obligation to provide more and John.
I believe this is, this issue should be addressed if and when council decides to renew this contract, this $100,000 contract with Fehr Graham.
At that time, we can consider whether to increase funding or not.
We have a contract in place, and we have honored that contract.
Our end of the agreement by paying the $100,000 that the contract asks for.
Okay.
So you've said a lot there.
Madam Clerk, did you say something about a contract that you wanted to?
Yes.
Did you reference the Public Works contract?
Is that is that what you said public works contract that this is a different kind of scope of service this is the section of the public works master this service contract this is in addition to the general yeah master services correct so this is a different like to clarify this yeah so there's the general master service agreement for city engineering which is a totally different contract than the one you're referencing the one you're referencing is is the public works director master contract, which we're not asking for any more money to that.
And we are just fine on the budget of that.
So whatever you stated there about those implications is not true.
This is the general engineering contract for the city of Freeport.
The original amount was $350,000.
And with all the phases that we have done, we have expended that, and it was a time and materials contract, which all of them are.
So if we don't extend it, which originally it was supposed to be $450,000 for this year, but we decided to go with $350,000 to start to see where that landed us for the year.
So if you choose not to extend it, the services will stop because it's a master service agreement that's time and material for city engineering.
There is a lot of day-to-day engineering that has to go on.
When other people do work in the right of way, the city has to respond to that work with surveying or engineering, which you don't have a department for those.
So all of these items are phased tasked, they're identified, they're billed by the phase, and they're all ordered by the city of work.
We don't decide just to use them.
The public works assistance that I give to public works is the contract you're talking about there, and we don't need extra money on that.
We're just fine.
We're right on budget for the year.
Manager Boyer, did you want to add to that?
I think that satisfies.
Thank you.
Alderman Stacy, would you like your second?
Yes.
Okay, so why wasn't this brought to us when you start getting close to running out of money?
Is that all?
So we don't have a back and forth?
Yeah.
Okay, Director Siegel?
It is being brought to you because we're getting close to running out of money.
We're We're still providing the services, even though we're beyond our contract.
We haven't stopped because we work in good faith.
We have had a lot of big work going on in the last three months with all of the construction going on around town.
And so as work's being done, money is being accounted for towards these contracts and these phases.
And when you have five or six, seven people working around town doing projects, it accumulates quickly.
And so we're at a point, we're not stopping service.
We continue to provide the service every day.
We are at a point that we need more fee, which we could have signed up and maybe we should have done originally at a larger amount, but the city asked me to go at 350 to start with even though we projected it would be 450 and we would see how long that takes.
It's been a very- It's been a very large season.
We have many contractors working in Freeport, surf internet, frontier issues.
And I will say that there's over $100,000 that I have saved the city of Freeport just on fees and enforcement of right away permits.
Well over that, I had one claim that was over $30,000 that came back to the city general fund.
And Michelle can verify that.
Our contracts pay for themselves daily here.
And the accusations that they don't really bother me with all the hard work that we put on for the city of Freeport every day.
The facts are that these contracts work and we save the taxpayers money because we don't have to have a staff of 10 people running around here getting benefits and pay.
And our fees are all inclusive for everything we perform for the city.
And we seldomly come back and ask for more money, but we will on time and material contracts because we don't have a risk amount in those contracts.
And I will also mention while we're at it that many of our lump sum contracts, we have cut short with the city and we don't bill out the full amount if the projects get done ahead of time because that's the right thing to do for our clients and that's what we've lived to with the city.
I just don't come back here and brag about it every time it happens.
Thank you Alderman Sanders did you want your second yes yes yeah I've heard your explanation Darren I heard your explanation but when when I find out that there's been a collusion with two contracting companies that's Fehr and Farrin Graham and Master Service working in conjunction with each other because it says it's working with each other.
Existing Master Service is already existing, Farrin Graham is jumping on board or they was to be integrated in order to support Master Service.
And then all of a sudden we come up with this estimation, who are we estimating for?
Huffines.
Are we estimating for Fehr and Graham or are we estimating for Master Service?
Which one is it?
The fact of the matter is until we get an itemized list of everything that Master Service have been doing, what the scope of their contract, what is contracted, we need a list of all All of the services that are provided and finding out all of the things that Fehr and Graham is supporting them with to justify this cost.
If council is not going to take responsibility, someone should look into that matter to find out who's dictating who.
Is it Fehr and Graham to master service or is it master service to Fehr and Graham?
Huffines.
There's a collusion going on, and so we need to get the scope of an understanding.
And right now, I just don't feel comfortable, and I don't think the people of the City of Freeport should feel comfortable with opening up the gates of an estimated cost between Fehr and Graham and master service.
That whole thing should not even be entertained until we get right down to the bottom of St. Louis, and Kray.
We can't spend the time on the conversation, but it's important to make sure that we're all on the cusp of everything.
We should not be even entertaining this.
I don't even know how he got on the agenda without Council discussing these matters in the first place.
So let me bring clarity.
Master services is not a business, not a that's what I was going to say.
Is there any other discussion before we go to vote?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted seven to one.
Item number 12 is the The adoption of Resolution 2025-121.
Could you please read this?
Resolution of Final Report of Expenditure, FROE, from IDOT for Sullivan, Greenfield, Navajo, MFT Project 23-00169-00-RS Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
As part of IDOT's process, when we complete MFT projects, we need to have a final resolution that we then submit so that we have our records all in order.
So all we're asking for is to move forward with IDOT's resolution, final report for 23-00169-00-RS.
That is the 2023 MFT projects.
Thank you.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Shadle and Klemm.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion on the resolution?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
And Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted.
7-1.
Item number 13 is the adoption of Resolution 2025-122.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving the purchase of a brush mulcher attachment from Helm Truck and Equipment.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
Many activities within the Public Works Department require brush elimination, mowing, that type of thing.
Staff has requested that we bring this to Council for approval.
This is the new brush mulcher that would attach to a skid steer skid steer machine.
The cost is $17,878 from Helm Truck, which is a source well dealer.
This would be a vital piece of equipment for maintaining the catch basins and some of the areas that get overgrown with woods and weeds and that type of thing.
And right now Sioux Basin is is a project that's coming up that we'll be cleaning up and fixing.
And this is a vital piece of equipment for that.
This will be coming out of the utility budget.
And the amount for this brush mulcher was not specifically enumerated in the budget.
However, due to the fact that we saved about $30,000 on our aeration equipment for the wastewater treatment plant, staff is requesting using these funds the remainder of that budget for the purchase of this piece of equipment.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson.
Discussion on the resolution?
I just have one.
Alderman Johnson.
I'm sorry, Alderman Sellers.
Is this brand new?
Yes.
OK.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
No.
And Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adapted 6-2.
Item number 14 is the adoption of resolution 2025-123.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving construction observation engineering agreement with Fehr Graham for lift station projects.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, your honor.
So the city has two sanitary lift stations, rehabilitation projects that were in the capital plan for this year.
Is at Galena and the other one's at Laurel.
And this also includes a new backup generator for the Carroll tank.
If anyone is familiar with well number eight, there is no backup power there.
And that was one of the items that we had identified as needing to include in this 2025 construction year.
So staff is asking for approval of the construction engineering Contract with Fehr Graham for the amount of $146,750 to move forward and get these projects completed.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Parker.
Discussion on the resolution.
Madam Clerk, please take.
Alderman Sanders.
Manager Boyer.
Yes sir.
We're talking about an interior, what I want to say, updating improvement when we're talking about the electrical and things like that that's going on within the lift station.
We're talking about enhancing whatever this is talking, this engineering.
And the rest of the board.
That is really what Fehr and Graham is going to be demonstrating to help the engineering process of these lift station when it comes to planning the upgrades and the enhancement of the lift station.
What exactly is the lift station?
Of the lift station.
What exactly they're going to do and what does it cost in the city for these type of enhancements?
Sure.
We're going to get to that bid here a little further on.
The total cost of the project is about $2 million.
It's going to include new pumps, motors, drivers and controllers, backup systems, starters, electrical work and that.
So the two lift stations and then of course well eight is going to have a whole new backup generator that's sufficiently sized to cover the entire electrical needs for well number eight so any other discussion madam clerk please take the role.
Klemm, aye, Johnson, aye, Simmons, no, Parker, aye, Stacy, no, Shadle, aye, Sanders, no, Sellers, aye, the resolution is has adapted five to three.
And item number 15 is the approval of bids.
Could you please read this?
A bid opening was held on September 30th for that last contract, Galena lift station renovations, Laurel lift station renovations, and well number eight generator.
Manager Boyer?
As we previously just discussed regarding the construction engineering observation estimate, we also have the actual work.
So this was bid, let's see here, June, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, September 3.
Thank you, Dovie.
So we had a bid opening.
Helm Group was the low bidder.
And the lowest, the amount was $2,036,116.
That was the base bid.
And Helm frequently works with the City of Freeport on all kinds of infrastructure projects.
So staff's recommending moving forward with the low bid from Helm Group.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Any discussion on the bid?
Madam Clerk, please take Alderman Sanders.
Wow.
Amazement right now.
But approving this bid for the renovation with any contractor as far as I'm concerned.
When it comes to understanding the existing generators that we already have, have there been a deficiency in those generators where, I'm just talking right now, is there a deficiency in the generators that we already have in our in our sheds right now or on our property where we know that they are mobile we know that these generators are more the existing ones we only have one now that's all we've that's all we ever had okay does this show that uh does it show that uh the purpose of an of an extended one or an a second one does do Did we open up more lift stations to justify why we need another generator?
Are you done?
Yes.
Okay.
Manager Boyer, would you like to take that?
I'll try to answer.
So if you're referring to a portable generator, every time you have one portable generator, that means you've got one guy driving around in the middle of an emergency.
Because when do you lose power?
When you have an emergency, it's usually during an ice storm.
So the idea here is all of our remote sites at some point are gonna end up with their own dedicated backup generators.
Okay, so well 11 has backup generator already.
Well 11 has a backup generator as part of its construction.
The new well 12 will have its own.
Well eight does not, and well nine does not.
We need one or the other of those always functioning.
As far as the lift stations well you know what happens when you run out of electricity on a lift station right it's not good so what we got currently is one guy driving around the middle of a storm trying to plug it in and start things up and I don't think that's safe and so and because it has to be sized for everything in the system it's enormous and so some things only need a little bit of power some things need a lot of power but you don't be hauling around a and John.
We're going to be putting in stationary backup generators at all critical points so that our crew don't have to drive around the middle of the night with a big heavy generator.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
Just one second.
Generator equipment isn't a part of this discussion.
Johnson.
It's not?
No.
This is about approving the bid for Helm Group.
So if you have something you want to talk about, approving a bid for Helm Group, then we just need to get back on track.
Okay.
Would you like your second then?
Yeah.
Okay.
On the Helm Group, did they give us a cost or I don't want to say estimate it.
I don't like estimations anymore.
We have a cost in mind what it would cost the city to have the helm group to to follow up with us yes two million thirty six thousand one hundred sixteen dollars this is that's the baby further discussion on approving this bid madam clerk please take the role plumb all right Johnson I Simmons Parker I Stacy I Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.
The bid is approved 8 to 0.
And item number 16 is another approval for a bid.
Could you please read this?
There was a bid opening on October 3rd for the demolition of five residential properties.
Thank you, Director.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
City staff published a notice for a bid opening in the Journal Standard on September 28th and the bid opening was held on October 3rd at 9 o'clock in the morning, and staff received bids from five contractors, and based on those submitted bids, staff is recommending the following submitted bids to do the work for demolition asbestos abatement of five properties.
So Klechner excavating in the amount of $31,500, and that would be for the demolition of 623 and 625 East Oran, as well as 32 South Hooker.
Albert and Son Earthworks, $15,840 for the demolition of 227 North Henderson, and Fisher excavating $33,150 for the demolition of 612 East Oran and 640 East Oran.
Thank you.
Is there a motion to adopt the bids as stated?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion on the bids?
Alderman Stacy?
I trust that the homework has been done and that all three of these companies are in good standing with federal and state laws.
I appreciate the trust, yes.
Anything else?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm.
Excuse me.
Alderman Sanders.
Sorry about that.
Director Duckman, these abandoned homes, are they still occupied and owned by any owners at this time?
At this time, we won't have a problem with somebody complaining about the demolition of a property without their consent.
We won't discover anything.
I can never promise that people don't complain in the City of Freeport over demolitions, so I won't make that promise.
But I can promise you that we won't demolish a house with somebody living in it.
If there's no further discussion.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
Aye.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
Aye.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
Aye.
And Sellers.
Aye.
And that bid is approved 8 to 0.
Move on to reports of department heads finance.
Thank you.
Nothing tonight Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Public Works.
I'd like to let everybody know that 18th Avenue reconstruction will start next week.
A huge win for the city of Freeport.
Be an inconvenience for the people that live out there for, you know, probably a month, but they should get that going and have it paved before the end of the season.
The utility is going to continue on replacing water services on Warren and should be have that ready to pave sometime next week and we're hopeful that excuse me the week after next and we're hopeful sometime later next week we might be able to pave hands as well and I'd like to thank and Joe.
And I'd like to thank all of our contractors that have worked diligently this year to get us to a point to finish this season here in October.
And also our public works crews who have done a fantastic job paving streets this year, appreciate all their hard work.
Thank you.
Fire?
Yes.
Thank you, your honor.
October is fire prevention month.
So that means we'll be starting our school visits for all public and private grade schools.
They'll be consisting of the the next three weeks will be delivering fire safety lessons to an estimated 2,500 children this month.
Thank you.
Police?
Nothing from the police department tonight?
Thank you.
IT?
No, thanks.
Manager Boyer?
Yes, I have one thing.
I want to congratulate Police Chief Chris Shenberger on 27 years of outstanding service to the city of Freeport.
He has announced his retirement taking effect October 24th.
We will have a, we will be having a reception here at City Hall.
You can contact Michelle for that details, but he's been an outstanding public servant to the city of Freeport and we all wish him very well on his future endeavors and we look forward to seeing his future successes, so thank you.
Thank you and just remind council that next Monday, the 13th city hall is closed and observation of Columbus Day.
So our next city council meeting, which is the committee of the whole will be on Tuesday, the 14th, starting at 5.30 with the finance cow.
Alderman Klemm.
A big thank you to Chief Shenberger.
Done a great job with working with the department.
We have an excellent group there and hope we can continue on that.
Nothing other than that.
Ullman, Johnson, nothing tonight Mayor.
Alderman Simmons, Alderman Parker, nothing, Alderman Stacy, Alderman Shadle, nothing tonight.
Alderman Sanders, yes I just want to bring up the first thing that came to counsel tonight in regards to admonishment, admonishing counsel, and and the fact that the person that is admonishing council has no authoritative jurisdiction to be admonishing council.
We got this cart or this horse flipped the wrong way.
It is not supposed to be the mayor admonishing council.
It is the council that admonishes the mayor and anybody else in this government establishment until we recognize the fact that we have not done our homework when it comes to governing, legislating and anything else that pertains to the legitimacy of council until council wakes up because I tell you at the beginning of my first tenure, my first year, we were duped by whoever orchestrated our orientation.
Our orientation when we first got here was a lie because a lot of things was not disclosed or disclosed to council, potential members, and council themselves because we're still not owning up and Gertrude.
I think we should be able to have those two responsibilities for our actions here.
And so my point of measure is there's no policy.
If you don't demonstrate policies, terms to counsel, when someone steps out of line to make admonishment to counsel, then you must be held in contempt of counsel for even acknowledging your, exerting your authority over counsel.
You cannot do that until then.
You have to show everything that was said in writing.
Then council will stand by that.
But you got to remember it is council that established the legislation of this body.
It is council that runs the authorizations and duties of this council.
People don't understand that yet until we get this thing in order.
This is what's going to happen.
I am going to have Attorney Zito to bring forth the actual order and the duties of counsel.
Counsel is just not doing the homework enough to make sure that we are all in proper order.
That's the reason why I get up screaming all the and the other people.
We are not going to be able to do that all the time because the order of council is out of order.
And then anyone that impeds up on it is in contempt of council.
So until someone wants to argue that fact, show me the paperwork and show me the policies and the fact that the council don't have jurisdiction over the whole government body of these proceedings.
I'm done.
I would just like to say that I was down here earlier today, and it was just so sweet to see the elementary children down here learning about city government and then going over to the police station, learning about rules and regulations.
I thought that was really nice, so I just wanted to say that that was really nice.
That was really, it was kind of nice to see the kids.
I agree and thank you, Clerk Anderson for working on that.
We will move on to public comments.
Is there any public comments this evening?
Go ahead.
Good evening, I'm Kelvin McElwain, 515 West Moseley Street.
I just want to say that what was discussed here on the floor tonight definitely reinforces the perception that the city and probably the majority of this community only care about one side of the city and not the other half of the city.
That incident that occurred where there was a big gun sale, party happening, within months this city council is discussing an ordinance to prevent something like that from ever happening again in that neighborhood.
Wood.
And the ordinance that was presented was pretty radical, basically it was to just get rid of all Airbnbs in Freeport.
Now it was voted down, but I'm pretty sure that ordinance will probably come back again, just adjust it to something that's a little more reasonable.
But the fact remains though, is that there was an immediate conversation on the council floor about how to use city ordinances to control the problem.
There are rental properties on the other side of town that are even more problematic.
There have been murders, major neighborhood disruptions, drug houses, and rental properties.
That's way more significant than what looked like a possible gun sale.
People on that side of town, homeowners on that side of town, are just as concerned about what's next door to them.
They're just as concerned about wild parties going on next to them.
They're just as concerned about drug houses next door to them.
They're just as concerned about their property values dropping because of unkept rental housing on their street.
But where are the ordinance discussions regarding helping those homeowners out?
Now church in the street is awesome.
Resource fairs are awesome.
Community meetings are awesome.
Fowler.
All of the community action that's happening is awesome and is needed.
But until this city council starts having conversations about ordinances to correct and help reduce crime in Freeport, because there are certain levers that only the city can pull, just like you tried to do tonight to get rid of all air and bees and residential properties.
Only the city can pull that lever.
And there was discussion on this council floor to talk about that.
There are conversations on this council floor to talk about the levers the city can pull on the other side of town that perception is going to continue and from what I saw tonight it might not be perception it actually this might be the hard reality if something happens on one side of town action is taken to wipe it out immediately on the other side of town oh well thank you is there any other other public comments this evening not okay sorry I missed the meeting earlier but I made sure I put in two hours for PTO to make it here tonight I just had one question for you is there someone in mind for the new chief now since he's retiring there's a process of I came here today to please and I'm asking not let I remember him searching me falsely.
I remember him searching me falsely, walking as a kid, 13, 14, plenty of times, this guy.
I'd seen him in the black police detective car before he was riding in his Ford truck, making faces, you know, being really immature for what he does for a living.
That's all I had to say.
Any other public comments this evening?
Father God, in the name of Jesus.
The word in Proverbs 16-11 says the Lord demands fairness in every business deal.
He established this principle.
So Father God, we continue to look to you to take control of this city.
Father God, you know what's been said.
You know what continues to be done.
Make it right, God.
From A through Z, make it right.
This is your city.
I'm just living here right now.
And without your help, without you doing it, it won't be done.
Continue to search the hearts of the people.
Continue to search the hearts of the people on this This Council, the leaders of our city, Father God, help us to do what's right, in spite of, for our constituents, for this city, so that we don't crumble to nothing.
In Jesus' name, amen.
That concludes public comment.
We'll move on to item number 22, Madam Clerk, could you please read Executive Session?
Pursuant to five ILCS, 122C2, 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.
Thank you.
Is there a motion to enter into executive?
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that?
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers.
Passes 8 to 0.
Kurt, let me know when you're ready to return to open session.
Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?
Mayor Miller?
Here.
Are these on?
Okay, Alderpersons, Klemm?
Here.
Johnson?
Here.
Simmons?
Here.
Parker?
Here.
Stacy?
Here.
Shadle?
Here.
Sanders?
Here.
And Sellers?
Yeah.
That leaves us with item number 23, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-123.
Madam Clerk, could you please read this?
Resolution to ratify 2025 to 2028 collective bargaining agreement with council 31 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees or AFSCME local 3367 AFL-CIO.
Thank you manager Boyer.
Thank your honor the city has reached a tentative agreement with our local AFSCME union and staff We have to request council approval of this agreement.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion.
Second.
Made by Ullerman Sellers, seconded by Ullerman Klemm.
Discussion on the resolution?
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
And Sellers?
Aye.
The resolution is adapted, seven to zero with one abstentia.
I will entertain a motion for adjournment.
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Have a good night.