Good evening. In the absence of the mayor, I'd like to get us moving tonight. Who is here for invocation?

Excuse me, we're calling the meeting to order.

Linda Johnson?

Are you doing the invocation tonight? Okay.

As bow our heads, this is on 1st Peter 1, 3 through 5.

Celebrate with praises the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has shown us his extravagant mercy.

For His formation of mercy has given us new life. We are reborn to experience a living energetic hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We are reborn into a perfect inheritance that can never perish, never be defiled, and never diminish. It is promised and preserved forever in the heavenly realm for you. Through our faith, the mighty power of God constantly guards us until our full salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time. Thank you, Father, for your mercy.

for your love over everyone here tonight and all in our city. May your peace abound as all things are discussed concerning the welfare of this city. Philippians 2.4, let all things be done without complaining or disputing. Philippians 2.3, let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit but in humility. Let each other esteem others better than himself.

Let each one look not only to his own interests but also to the interests of others. In Jesus it is now 6.01 I will call this meeting to order for roll call as I mentioned Mayor Miller is absent Alderpersons, Klemm, Monroe, Simmons is absent Parker, Stacy, Shadle, Sanders, and Sellers. We do have a quorum so Alderperson, Shadle, would you say the Pledge of Allegiance please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alderperson, Sellers has offered to chair the meeting tonight. Could I have a motion to that effect?

So move. Second.

Parker, and Shadle. I will call roll on that. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Does Sellers vote on herself?

Yes. Yes, please. Oh, yes. Are you willing? Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. And Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye.

The motion passes 7-0. Alderperson Sellers, the chair position is yours.

Miller.

Good evening.

Could I have a motion for the approval of the agenda, please?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

I missed the second, please.

Who were you counting?

Shadle on that?

Yes.

Okay.

And then we had one, no.

Okay.

Is there approval?

Could I have a motion for the approval of the minutes for the regular meeting of April 7th, 2025?

25. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Are there any public? We have one public comment on the agenda. It is Rhonda Scott. Good afternoon. I'm here to speak about the appointment of the Planning Commission people and the removal of one. I'm bringing this up because I served on the Miller.

I feel it's a very important role in our community.

And Joshua Atkinson also served on the Planning Commission.

He was voted or recommended by Mayor Miller in April 2024, and you all voted for him.

Then he ran for mayor because he thought, you know, boy, he could do a lot more if he could run for mayor.

He didn't win, but, you know, 1,800 people from all of our wards had confidence in him.

Then the mayor, after the election, she chose to appoint somebody else to the Planning Commission without telling Mr. Atkinson, without asking for his resignation.

and then it came as a surprise when the council was recommending a new person and took a vote, come to find out, then she fires Mr. Atkinson at her leisure, you know, that's what can be done. But the problem is the person that she has chosen to be the replacement has a Kessler, and I think you all should be aware that somebody who's got not just a DUI, but he has, I don't know how to say it, it's embarrassing, he's got a violent record of, I can't think of what it's called, shoot, I'm sorry, it's slipping my mind and I had it all in my head.

Anyway, he's got a public record and he hasn't it has not been resolved and I don't think this person should be Serving on the Planning Commission and I just think that he should be removed and I'm sorry. I couldn't remember what my thought was but That I can't I don't know the official charge but it was Choking a person So, you know when you're choking a person and you have a DUI You know, that's a serious offense. We shouldn't be having someone like that on our Planning Commission. We need somebody with a little bit higher character than that. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to the Consent Agenda.

All items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted in one motion unless a council member requests the item to be removed.

Hearing none, the Consent Agenda. Yes, ma'am.

I would make a motion that rearrange, rearrange the order of things. After item number 16, I would like to follow through with item 23.

Joy.

Oh, the attorney, I'm sorry.

So we're on item number four now, which is the consent agenda.

So that's like approval of the bills and... I apologize.

That's a first. Stacy?

So we've already done the approval of the agenda.

Uh-huh. She voted no. And I voted no, but I did not realize that that was the time to voice...

It's too late. So it's just, I'm just, SOL.

Yep, SOL. I guess we have to follow the agenda with the consent agenda.

The consent agenda consists of the approval to receive and place on file a Board and Commission of Minutes from Building Commission, May 15, and Whore Historic Preservation Commission, April 16, 2024, for both of those, Library Board, October 9, November 19, December 11, of 2024 and January 8th, February 19th and March 12th of 2020-2025. Fire pension board, October 30th, 2024. Police pension board, October 30th, 2024. Foreign fire insurance board, February 13th, 2025.

Liquor commission, March 13th, 2025. We have an Arbor Day proclamation dated April 25th, 2025, and police and fire department reports both dated March of 2025. Approval of finance bills payable in the amount of $2,479,364.37. Approval of payroll for pay period ending May 5th, 2025, totaling $675,619.51.

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Second. All in favor? Aye. Oh, roll call. I'm sorry. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? No. The consent agenda is approved five to two. Item number five is the second reading of the ordinance.

Finance 2025-17 is amending the CTAF is amending the codified ordinance regarding residency requirements for certain positions. Is there a motion to? Thank you, Madam Chair. As we discussed at the 4-7 council meeting, it was discussed that certain positions should not be brought to the ordinance in terms of residency. The list is included in Packett. We've discussed that to some extent at this point. Many communities do no longer have a residency requirement that enables staff to fill vacant positions more easily and get higher qualified candidates and so staff is requesting counsel to move forward with this ordinance. Is there any discussion?

Oh yeah, there's plenty of discussion. I just wanted to know who's gonna throw and John.

I don't care what council member proceed to voice their opinion on this particular ordinance because I think it is pertinent to all council to chime in on this particular ordinance.

I mean, it's an ordinance and I think with the fact that we're not doing justice with this ordinance, this ordinance seems like it has disappeared from the council because because there's no enthusiasm or encouragement about it or which direction the council wants to talk about or discuss about this particular matter. It is a matter. It's a problem, not just a matter, but it's a problem. And I think we went on this talk or discussion on last and I think this should not go through for a lot of various reasons and I think we should move we should move on since I'm looking at the council demeanor that it seems like we're just throwing a vote away for no purpose and no reason but I think what we should do is have another discussion on this particular ordinance so we can really get an understanding of what this ordinance represents and what has occurred since the last time we talked about this particular ordinance.

And I think it would do the citizens of Freeport justice to hear from council members about and Michael.

I want to talk about their expressions and opinions instead of being silent sitting here and not discussing a matter of why this ordinance is being asked of us to vote on.

And so I just render my first one. I might have a second one coming up.

you know this one is tougher than others but I will I will bring up the point again we have for many years now avoided following the rules of this city plain and simple we have a city manager who in my opinion has allowed this type of activity to go on he has done things that have violated other ordinances he doesn't believe in our ordinances Huffines.

I know of a second one that will be filed shortly, and potentially a third one.

This type of dereliction of duty at the highest levels of this city has said to the employers and employers of this city that they are not going to be able to do anything about it, and Fowler.

I want to say that the highest levels of this city has said to the employees that the rules don't matter.

We will play the rules based on who's our friends, who's not.

And we don't want to be like the federal government, whoever's in power basically leverages the power against their competitor.

Huffines.

We have had plain and simple, we have had a couple of employees fired for less than this.

And this city manager was on the delivering end of those dismissals.

And now we're coming back to change the rules and we're doing it in the guise of saying, oh, this makes recruiting easier.

And that's not always the case.

We've thrown more money at it, we're changing the rules for it, we bend the rules, we don't follow the rules.

And now we're saying, well, let's just change the rules so that way it's okay.

And that's not the way that this should work.

We have a curfew in the city, and if a 17-year-old or a 15-year-old kid is out past curfew, as has been the case in my neighborhood recently, with people going through cars and doing things Fowler.

We want them held accountable.

The same as we want our citizens that work for this city to be held accountable.

It's not a hard thing to figure out.

If you make it a place where people want to come to work and you make that work environment a matter in a manner that they enjoy coming to work, you don't need to change all these rules.

and John, and they'll come to the council or they'll come to the department or they'll come to you and they'll ask for a waiver or something to say, let's let that happen. We do that all the time with building codes, with other things. But going about changing this rule just so we can cover up what's been happening for the last four to six years is insane. Because we We don't want to hold the people that work for the city to the same rules and standards that we ask our citizens to be held to.

And I think that's the important piece of this on that part.

But on the other part, we want the people who want to live here working in our community.

It's no different than the Freeport School District.

It's no different than Orangeville School District.

If you want to live outside the city, then come up with something that says, look, we We are going to pay you less money if you live somewhere else.

Give up something.

I have to pay money for my son to go to Orangeville School District.

I do it.

And I have my reasons for doing it.

But the rules are there to be followed.

Not to be cast away by a city manager and a mayor who don't want to follow the rules.

This is why we got drug problems in this city.

Because we're not holding people accountable.

Simple. I yield. Manager Boyer? Yeah I'd like to address that I don't know what you're talking about. I've hired two directors. Bryan has relocated to city limits and chief was hired by this council knowing he lived in Dakota and the reason why this residency doesn't work is because we cannot promote from within because people locate according to our resident our policies when they live outside of city limits but when they get up to a higher level we can't promote our good people because they've already established a life outside the city. This doesn't make any sense, Alderman Roe. I am sorry. I'm sorry. You do not understand this issue. Thank you.

Alderman Sanders. Go ahead. Let him go. No, I get a person. Oh, I didn't see you. I'm sorry.

I saw you. Okay, go ahead. When you say, Manager Boyer, that this was, Chief Shenberger was hired by this council and Mr. Monroe was a part of that vote, knowing that he did not live in the city and you voted for it.

You're a very eloquent speaker, but there's no substance there.

Okay, Sanders.

Whatever occurred even during that voting process, I wasn't available.

I can't recall myself voting for that.

and nevertheless, the ordinance is the ordinance and people gotta be held accountable for making decisions on even the hiring practice of this particular ordinance.

You cannot do hiring if the ordinance does not permit you to do so.

If you have not the permission to do so, first of all, the ordinance stipulates exactly what it says.

because you can't go above it and make your own rules and amend your own rules without and the law order.

I have been talking about an ordinance.

That first of all, does not work with the citizens of the city of Freeport because we have no data information for us as council Miller.

Had anyone been seeking or to apply or was there a promotion put before the public for these particular positions?

And we don't have that data.

We're handed a bunch of information that's coming orally out of the mouths of individuals.

Well, I like to see documentation myself.

I like to see data.

I like to see the fact that this process went through that particular motion, so without any of that, I just want to make sure that we understand that that ordinance, first of all, should never apply to hire anyone outside of the Residence of Freeport.

that ordinance clearly states that you're not prohibited to hire outside of the city of Freeport but yet it was violated and I think there should be consequences for these types of actions, ordinances that are blatantly ignored, worked around, pushed through, disregarding and the citizens of Freeport that has to abide by these ordinances, and then we have a few who decide, well, we're going to ignore what the citizens of the city of Freeport really wants or what their opinions are or what their objections are or whatever the case is.

So I think we're doing a disservice as council, directors, staff, and anyone else who doesn't and step up and speak up on these particular matters.

You know, you're just as part of the decision making in the council, the people look forward to council to make the right decisions and making good decisions.

This particular ordinance has a clear violation being imposed upon it.

and I think this should not go forward.

I don't even think we should be even sitting here discussing it.

Resignations should be forthcoming and resignations should be delivered to council for the wrong purpose or the wrong procedure processing of out of state or out of city limits of residencies.

Huffines.

So I just think that that's what should happen and we should appeal to that.

We should make sure that we voice our opinion because I tell you, we keep going down this road, other things are going to happen and the disapproval of the citizens of Freeport, we got to remember, we don't work for ourselves up here.

We work for the citizens of Freeport and what our opinions and decision make matters to the people of Freeport.

It really matters.

and so your constituents look for you to be part of a organization or the city government that's making good decisions and we don't need all of this other backdoor stuff going on.

So.

Manager Boyer.

Alderman Sanders, no one has been violating ordinances.

We do our utmost to follow all the ordinance to the best of our ability.

and it is not appreciated by you or anyone else to denigrate myself or the staff for not following the ordinances.

So yeah.

Well, I'll tell you, just from working for the city for 30 years and realizing you do want important positions like the chief, you do want the best person for it.

He has done an excellent job and we've been in violation of that.

This is going to fix that.

is now going to fix the mistake or fix the issue and allow him to live where he is and still service as he's been doing.

Thank you.

Okay.

I just, I would like to say something for a second.

I know that when we hired chief, we were asked to do the, whatever, the gov, governor, government and so on.

He's done everything and go on and look to pay $20,000 to go out and try to find somebody.

And we had, we had him right here and we sat here and we voted yes.

And he's done a dang good job on his job.

He has put bridges back together that was broken down.

And so he has done his job and he only lives in Dakota, which I can even go along with Stevenson County. But I just don't. Me, at this point, I would vote yes for this ordinance to go through. Okay. I mean, was it you? Okay.

I just have a question for the attorney of clarification. If a staff member was hired with the knowledge that, you know, they weren't going to take the position unless people know Know that they are living outside of the city of Freeport, but yet they're approved then.

That's an approval made by council, just like a variation, correct?

In a particular situation, the council did approve the hire result.

Thank you.

So everybody's probably wondering at home, what are these definitions?

What does this mean?

So basically it goes through in the ordinances, I'll use the police for one instance, 240.31, residency requirement.

There's a whole bunch of subsections, there's a lot of legal mumble-jumble, but here's the key.

Residency is required each and every officer unless otherwise exempted by subsection C and his wife.

And the chief of police is the deputy chief, the deputy chief of the police department, the deputy chief of the police department, the deputy chief below who is designated with the following rank and or title shall be a resident as that term is defined in subsection A thereof and shall maintain resident status during his or her period of employment.

That's the deputy chief, that's the lieutenants of the police department, that's the sergeants of the police department, We follow the rules, and I've got a former chief of police going, well this will put us back in line so we're in line with the ordinance.

They don't understand the hypocritical clown circus that that sounds like.

And the problem is, is that all of us in this room are held accountable to the same set of rules.

And this guy is the first one that will slap a foreclosure, or not a foreclosure, but a condemned, He'll have his guy put a condemn sign on your house the second it's out of you'll start getting fines you'll you you'll be coming in front of a committee in here and This is how he runs the city and He goes well guess what I've never broken the ordinances. I've appointed multiple people He's also fired somebody when he had somebody file a false report saying that that person violated a rule a safety rule within the Public Works Department and and now six months to a year later I found out that's not true. Also he could appoint his neighbor because he's following the ordinances and I am but I'm pointing out this man is a liar and he doesn't follow the ordinances.

So, essentially, the rules are for all of us, but not for him, not for his buddies.

And I agree that the Chief of Police, it was voted on. We as a council voted on him.

All of these should come to the council. If you're going to go against this, who has the authority to hand out, and I have been appointed by the council to change this ordinance.

We have now essentially an approval to go beyond this to get out of this rule and that's us, the council.

And they've been appointing people to positions and expecting us to then come back and change this ordinance.

And it doesn't even make sense.

They had a six-month grace period, six months.

and John.

We are making it easier and easier and pushing people out of the city.

And it is these types of things that do that.

Plain and simple.

Yeah.

≫ If I may for a point of clarification, the There's a, there's a radius and they're all in compliance with that.

Are there any other?

Can you clarify that for us?

What's the, I got to look up the section here, so.

240.31.

I don't lie.

Attorney Zero, are you looking?

Yeah.

Okay.

And there's a corresponding one for each of the departments.

Right.

So.

Oops, sorry.

so B1 says each and every officer unless exempted under subsection C shall live within shall have a residency and that's the deputy chief lieutenant sergeants but then the exemptions in C talk about C2 any officer holding a rank and or title listed in subsection B1 above which is the deputy chief lieutenants and sergeants prior to the effective date of this ordinance with established residency within 20 mile radius of the police station can maintain that residency Dicey, Dicey, Dicey, Dicey, Dicey, Dicey, knew, didn't know what all I was doing, but I was a willing vessel. However, it

saddens my spirit to know that I cannot take the word of my leaders, that I cannot and John.

We cannot trust that what they're doing is the right thing.

Though none of us know all these ordinance.

And if it's not explained that this time we're going to break the ordinance, that part isn't heard of.

What's brought to the council is to vote Chief Shenberger in.

And we did.

Without knowing rules were being bent and broken.

That just means we have more work to do from Friday after five till Monday because we cannot trust the leaders that's in charge to do the right thing.

I don't know how else to say it.

I did not know about this ordinance.

I didn't know the stipulations.

Settlers, and then maybe two years ago we would have been changing the rules instead of where we're at today.

All depressive sellers, can I ask a clarification from the city attorney? What's the penalty for the violation of the ordinance?

Let me take a quick look to see if it's even stated. E, violation pending, any officer violating the provision of this section is subject to the discipline of suspension without paying to the officers in compliance with the section or discharge slash termination.

Are there any other discussion?

Can you repeat that again?

Penalty, any officer violating any provision of this section is subject to the discipline of suspension without pay until the officer is in compliance with this section or discharge slash termination.

Alderman Shadle.

Thank you.

At the time that we were discussing hiring Chief Shenberger, the fact that he lived outside the city was discussed and it was discussed that there was an ordinance saying that he he had to live in and that he had said he would not move within the city.

And we as a council, with the understanding that this would come up in the future to change this ordinance, we as a council voted to hire Chief Shenberger.

You can hold the minutes if you want to, but it was discussed and it was understood by By myself at any rate and we hired the man and it was with the understanding that this ordinance would be changed and for whatever reason it hasn't come up till now but here it is.

Are there any other ones that have not spoken?

Do they want to speak?

If not is there a motion?

I do.

Oh okay.

I just want to understand you Alderman Shadle. So do I understand you to be saying it was clearly said that he would not be moving to town and that the ordinance was discussed and we still voted him in knowing that it was all in violation.

Yes, go ahead.

He wants to respond to me.

Well, he did speak two times.

I know, but he's...

So we got to follow the rules.

Yep.

That's fine.

Yeah.

He spoke twice because...

But then I have no answer.

Right, but Alderman Sanders wanted to speak again, too, and we didn't let him, so...

but it was not an answer to the question.

He's trying to answer my question.

I asked the question.

Is there, how do we handle that?

If, under our rules, if someone wants to speak a third time, the council has to unanimously vote to let them speak a third time.

Okay, is there a motion that we let Alderman Shadle speak a third time?

I make a motion.

I'll second that.

Okay.

So will you call the roll?

Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Simmons? Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. And it is unanimous. Okay, Shadle. Thank you.

Miller.

Yes, it was, as I stated, it was discussed and it was understood, I thought, by everybody present, but we were all there and the understanding, the way I recall, is that this ordinance would get changed and for whatever reason, it has not come up till now and here we are.

okay and this is the second reading so we will take a motion I I would like to make a motion that we take a recess and have the the clerk retrieve those meeting minutes because I don't remember that I don't remember that we were just gonna and John.

And then in the next couple of weeks, we're going to change this rule, and I quite honestly think that it's ludicrous.

Second.

Oh, Audamin Clam.

Just so you know, to take a little pressure off of Chief Shenberger, this isn't the first time it's been done.

It's been done for Todd Barclow.

Todd Barclow was police chief two times ago.

Todd Barkelo lived in Forreston.

It came up to hire a chief of police and everybody was in agreement at that time to let him live in Forreston for that period of time.

And to stay there, he had built a new house there, had no intention to build another house in Freeport.

So this is not the first time it happened.

So if you think you're not only the four people, it's- you're not only the four people that sat there and voted somebody in it's happened before it was chosen a week and it was a good choice to choose people within our within our department rather than to spend $20,000 and go out and try and find somebody else that was the decisions at the time.

Clemson.

Atty.

Zero.

So we have a motion and a second about a recess.

So that's what's on the table right now is just to talk about whether or not the council should take a short recess per all the Monroe's requests to allow the clerk to go pull the minutes from that prior meeting, I guess.

May I?

Yes.

Without a date, it will take quite a while to find open session minutes.

I have not typed closed session minutes from around the time he was hired.

Closed session minutes probably should not be disclosed in open session anyway.

But don't we have a date when he was on the agenda for him to be hired?

I don't know when that was.

State, Chief Shenberger, and June? June of what year? 23. That wouldn't take too terribly long. So we're saying that we'd like to just turn this over to another council meeting?

No. What? No. Alderman Monroe's motion is to take a short recess, so a pause in this Huffines.

So, I think we need to have a recess meeting so that the clerk can go find that set of minutes that's been, that was a motion that was made to recess.

It's been seconded.

If there's no further discussion, then the council needs to vote on whether or not to take the recess.

So is there, I mean, there was a first and a second, right?

To have it.

To vote?

Okay.

Has everybody had a chance to discuss that once too?

Everybody.

Yep.

Yeah.

and I.

We have a motion to recess.

Can I inject something while we are on this subject?

No, no, we have to stay right here.

I'm not leaving.

I want to make sure if we are going to ask for the minutes in regards to Chief Bates, and John, and I think we have to have the same applications that hired.

We need those minutes as well because they have to have the same scrutiny upon the hiring practices that we have done, whether we need to hear the minutes on the processing of how we went about this.

While you're doing Shenberger's, we need the...

That's what we're, that's what we're going, that's not the motion. We got to stay with what the motion is.

Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, um, do you want to do a roll call on that? Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? Aye.

Parker? No. And Stacy? Aye. Uh, the motion fails three to four. Okay, let's move on. Is it with the second reading, do we just wait for the adoption then?

I make a motion that we move this to the make how then until we can get this information that we're asking for that felt right now that this be held up a couple more weeks and gonna make a difference since it's been held up for for five, six years so that we can get this information and that we could totally understand what have and has not been happening and what needs to happen for everybody to be successful.

So I would like to move this to the May cow.

Seconded.

God bless.

Thomas. It's been moved and second for the moving this to the to the May-Cow. Is there a motion? There was a motion. That was so. May I speak? Yes. I just wanted to note that this has already gone through to two committee of the whole meetings. Just just pointing that out. Yes, it has. I guess my question is, if it's went through two committee meeting Kowell meetings, and we've talked about this for, this is, yeah, but I'm saying, nobody, are you going to pull, are you going to pull it?

Usually when we have a motion and a second.

So there's a discussion, right, this is discussion on the motion.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I'm doing discussion on the motion.

If we went through the, a Kowell twice, and we've had this on the agenda, this is the second reading.

I just want to know what more information or why aren't we calling in or going in and getting the information that we need so we don't have to keep going through the process so we can move on with the whole process and move on to the next thing.

Yes.

I don't know that it's been two cows because this just came up for first reading April the 7th.

and John.

And then we had the, excuse me?

Yes, 310 and 414. Okay.

But everything that's been revealed tonight, things that's been asked for tonight, what's not even revealed and asked for at 310 and 417.

So we still, we still lay without, no, it has not been Huffines.

I was talking, so when you're saying for something, I don't know.

Okay.

But I can hear you.

And it's like you're talking over me.

No, I'm not.

I'm not.

Because you can't.

But...

Because you can't?

What did that mean?

Come on with your process, what you got to talk about so we can move on to the next one.

My process is that a motion have been made and seconded.

Right.

Miller.

So we're waiting for who wants to take the role.

So Monroe is, oh, you got more, yes.

So basically we've asked for multiple times and, and I've asked the city manager for this.

How many people does it affect?

Which we've gotten half truths on that.

We've got one person living outside the state.

We know that I've done some digging on my own.

We've got several people that are outside the limits as is in the ordinance.

So the question is, we don't know how many people it affects.

Quite honestly, those people could have been suspended for not from the six month point after accepting the position to now.

And none of that was done.

We don't know any of this information.

This could affect nobody.

We don't know.

We can affect just the chief, for all I know, and quite honestly, I think all of us would have been okay.

But the problem is, is we keep asking the same questions over and over again, trying to get answers, and those aren't happening.

And your statement that we should call in and ask, I'm still waiting on three things that I've asked for, for over two, almost three weeks now, and one I asked for last week has been delayed, because it's much more cumbersome to pull the data.

Fowler.

But plain and simple, it's not unfair to ask for this type of information to put it forward and to find out, you know, really, is there anything to this?

Nobody knows because we keep getting kind of stonewalled, if you will.

Yeah, I just don't want it to have the perception of council allowing things to be passive.

The way that I hear people's opinions and their comments and their remarks lead us to to believe that we'd rather be passive about an ordinance that's in effect, that can be affecting everyone here in this city.

And to my listening ear, that's exactly what I feel that is what's happening and that shouldn't be something I'm having this thing where we're doing injustice to the citizens of Freeport by being passive of ordinances without any consequences for violating ordinances.

And we need to get right down to the bottom of it.

What's the process, what's the next move that needs to be made for those that are causing consequences of ordinances and violations of ordinances?

We need- We need that to be spelled out.

That's the reason why we're requesting data information and not verbal information.

Everything that we're talking about should be documented, should have printouts where we can go along, follow the narratives of everything that is being talked about even on today or before.

We had come in to talk about this during our agenda time.

So my thing is, it's poor service to the council when we're not sitting here with data information and then everyone is assuming we're guessing about what happened this particular day and that day.

HR could have spilled all of that out for us for time dates and all of these kinds of things.

and I made those requests that I have these applications of people that are getting hired, I wanted them in my files, I wanted to be able to read them to see when the time date of hiring practice took place for non-residencies of Freeport.

And I still have not received those documents nor the recording procedures.

And so that is another problem.

we're not we're not being responsible for getting the additional request information to council and we have to stay on topic with the well with the cow being all this going to the cow so is there you want to read the motion we have a motion to move to the may cow ready for a roll call Shadle? No. Sanders? Yes. Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? Yes. Parker? No. Stacy? Yes. The motion fails four to three. So now you're at the second reading on the underlying motion. And is this a two-thirds vote? No. Just a majority vote.

So now we're we're back at the second reading of the ordinance. Correct.

Are you ready for the roll call then? Go ahead. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? No. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? Aye. And Stacey? No. The motion passes for the ordinance passes four to three. Oh, motion fails. I have four yeas and three nays.

and John.

You are right. I'm so sorry. I forgot that one.

Okay. So now we move that to . It will go back to . That's it. You move on to the next agenda item.

Item number 6, second reading of ordinance 2025- Huffines.

Thank you.

The next item is the ordinance amending various parts of City of Freeport Code of Ordinances regarding the regulation of wells and septic systems.

That will be presented by Darren Steckel.

Yes.

Thank you.

This is the fourth meeting that this item has come to.

It's amending the ordinance for wells and septics within the City of Freeport.

At the last meeting, Mr. Sanders asked for more data, so we put four attachments in here.

One was the memo and three attachments, an EPA advertisement asking for ordinances relating to well and septic protection within the city.

And since it's the fourth meeting, I will take any questions on this, but we've reviewed it.

WWA supports it, IEPA supports it, the Illinois Department of Public Health supports it, and so should the City of Freeport.

This is for the protection of our water and well water that we drink every day.

Is there a motion to accept?

Nope.

No, he just wants to comment.

This is the second reading, so it's just discussion.

Sanders, go ahead.

question well not a question but well I guess it will roll into a question eventually this there's various there's variations of things that have been brought to my attention in regards to the project of implementing a well and Ceptic Evaluation Survey or whatever that you have done to come to the decision or the reason for us introducing the new well and all of these things.

I understand that we have not seeked out the area for contamination.

We have not done any of surveys for the proper installment of the well to determine whether or not there have been any research for the installation of a well and the septics that may be possibly around it to determine if there's any contamination with even the installation of those wells.

and then I also wanted to learn something about where's this money coming from to do the implementations of these wells and septics and the whole project. I like to know where's the money, where's the money's at, who's funding this project, whether there's grants, whether there's anything that is in our budget that cause I saw in here where something talked about 20 million dollars to do this operation that is that if I stand corrected if I'm not if I if I read this wrong then you know I will read it again but the thing about it is I'd like to know where this money coming from how did we get to to and so on.

So I'm wondering how this place and how do we discuss this matter, where the money come from and how we come up with this budget to put in a new well, a new project.

I'll try to answer you.

So there is no contamination, so I'm not sure what you're speaking of.

The well systems, the water systems in this community are safe.

is an ordinance only to establish a protection zone in the city limits for our drinking water.

The number referenced in the memo is the amount of money that we have been spending on our well systems.

We designed and built well 11 and we're in the process of bidding well 12 right now.

We've discussed that at the last meetings.

There's $13 million worth of funding towards that project and the rest of it will be paid Boyer by the residents of Freeport for Well 12. Again, the discussion and the memo referenced protecting our established drinking water within the city for 23,600 residents.

There is no contamination that we're avoiding. There's no funding for this project. This is just an ordinance and it would go into place. We already have ordinance on the book in separate We have to get this to work.

We have to get this to work.

We have to get this to work.

We need to get this to work.

We need to get this to work.

So we need to go to different locations within the City of Freeport that we don't allow wells and we don't allow septics.

This is bringing it full circle so it's easy for anybody to find in the community.

Illinois EPA is requesting that we do this.

Illinois Department of Public Health is asking that we do this.

Fowler.

I provided all that with the memo.

So all of the documentation there, all this is saying is nobody can drill a well or put a septic in that already doesn't have one in the city unless the city of Freeport authorizes that, which we would not if water is available to them or sewer is available to them.

That is all that this does.

Okay, I'd like to- Just a second.

Yeah, I'd like to- But wait, we gotta let Alderman Stacey- Are you saying that we are in violation?

We are not in violation, but the source water protection plan that is required by Title 35 requests that all communities, and it went, it's a tiered system based on how many people we have in our community, and it's in 2025, we're supposed to establish a well and septic Well, that is all we are doing here. We already have this on the books. It's clarifying it for everybody.

It's clarifying it for everybody so it's a living document that we can send to all the state agencies saying we are already doing this, here's our document.

So source water protection is so great.

Anybody that listens to the news, there's water issues all over the country.

There's billions and trillions of dollars being spent on clean source water.

We have had source water issues in Freeport, so we're trying to protect our investments So we don't end up right where we started from at the beginning of this.

So again, this this doesn't really hurt anyone at Freeport.

We Cecelia, you called me today and you asked me about a particular street.

If water is available on that street and a gentleman or lady has a well, they will not get a permit to renew that well.

They will be asked to connect to city water.

And my example is if there's already water on those streets, We're going to use city water to protect their house or the neighbors houses.

If they don't pay into the system and contribute to the system, they're still going to get fire protection.

We also already backed this up with ready to serve fees for people that as we place new water in areas that people have that time free to connect or they have to pay charges in the future.

We've already done lots of ordinances that are going to be paid to the neighbors houses.

or they have to pay charges in the future.

We've already done lots of ordinances that we're building to the source water protection.

You can ask Attorney Zito, I'm sure this is very familiar in every community we're dealing with.

This is just the next step in the process.

I provided all the backups from AWWA, the EPA memo requesting that every community provide setback protection.

I also provided the Title 35 documents, which is, that's the living guideline for water systems.

You have to meet those conditions in order to serve public water to residents.

That is the Bible that all water systems in Illinois run by.

And it depends on your size.

There's different rules for different size communities based on how many people you're serving, right?

So as long as their well is working.

Their grandfathered in.

Their grandfathered in.

But if that well was to stop and they had access to city water we would not permit they would not have a choice but to connect to connect yes and that being said people should know that there are not that many wells that exist within the city of Freeport any longer as we've built out the water main systems people have connected there's We're still a few out there.

It's also illegal to have well water and city water at the same time.

That's called a cross connection.

And EPA does not allow that because if somebody had contaminants in the well, it could be sucked back into the potter water system.

So you should just know that as we have done Bradmar in town, we've made all those connections to available to people.

That was an area that it wasn't fully serviced before.

That is our mission here is to fully serve our community.

Right now we have, I'm going to call it two donut holes that we would have trouble servicing with water and one is the westward open Bible expansion that direction.

We would have trouble serving that without an extension and the other one is the woodside drive area because of all the trees and networks.

We don't have a water system or a sewer system that extends all the way through the woods.

The city's never invested in that.

So there's two areas.

Everywhere else in town I believe we can service.

okay is the old water system on Brick Street still in operation correct it is but it is not it is functional but we do not what you mean what you mean by so it is right now we have wells I think I don't remember the numbers but Brick Street we have in a reserve capacity so for instance if we had a major fire or a major water break it's ready to serve the residents but because of the We do not use it daily and I don't believe we've used it.

Is there a reason why we're not using it?

Because it has performative compounds and it trace amounts which are being regulated by MCL.

We can serve it to residents we're choosing not to because performative compounds have been proven to have issues.

So that well system at Brick Street is totally in reserve.

if we had a major emergency it would get pumped to the system and residents would be notified about it, but we do not use it and have not used it ever since well 11 came up.

Now that well, that well that you were referring to, you're trying to say it never had any problems and the reason why we have to change our strategy on how we use that well, are you saying that there's no problems with that well in our system?

I'm trying to find out what prompt this whole thing about the well that needs to a new well that needs to be installed that the old well is used for emergency needs and why is that are you are you know I'm saying that we're getting off topic on we're just supposed to vote on these ordinances right here okay and that's what I'm okay so is there a we don't have to do a motion we just do a vote correct to accept these or these regulations right correct okay Shadle aye Sanders no Sellers aye Clem Monroe no Parker aye Stacy the ordinance passes We move on to second reading of ordinance 2025-23.

Ordinance Establishing a Special Service Area, Gladewood Subdivision.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

As we've been discussing for a few meetings, the Gladewood residents, there's a confusion over who maintained the street of Gladewood.

it came to light that on the plat that there was a document or there was a verbiage on the plat that said essentially until these improvements were made at the time the subdivision was built that the city would not receive that road until those improvements were made those improvements haven't made but over a number of years it's been very confusing and I think the residents assumed that it was a city street since they were in the city and once we found we discussed it with the residents of Gladewood at this time to move forward and we've talked to that we've received enough petitions to move forward with a special assessment area that would allow the residents to contribute to the improvements of that road in the future but in the meantime there are several emergent issues one is the entryway about 200 feet and the exit at 200 feet very bad full potholes but it's necessary for us to move forward with a special service area so that we We can then have them contribute to these repairs and the future repairs.

So before you is to adopt the special service area, a public hearing must be held to allow for objections and the ordinance before council tonight simply sets that hearing.

So we are simply setting a hearing date for the discussion of having the special service area.

Nothing more.

It's going to be an open public session for that.

So, anyway, that is the reason for moving forward with this ordinance, this second reading.

Yes?

No, yeah.

Alderman, I think Alderman Stacy had her hand up before you did.

City Manager Boyer, you just stated that they were asked to make improvements and that those and I.

I'm sorry if you misheard me or I misspoke, but the improvements on the plat required certain improvements that were never made.

That were never made?

Correct.

Okay.

You said that were made.

and so this hearing would be a hearing to see if the city takes on Gladewood and they become part of our city.

The hearing is required by state statute for a special service area.

So what this would be is it would be a public setting where people can discuss the merits of Becoming a Special Service Area. Therefore, they would participate in the cost share of future improvements and things to the road.

Okay, so what about the things that were supposed to happen, like the streets and the curbs and all that, that did not happen?

Well at that at some time in the future when that road is reconstructed not to We will have to review the potential of doing a rural cross-section to that area to provide drainage and so forth for that road, but at the current time what we're looking for and what we're looking at doing is just some emergent repairs to the entry and exit of gladewood to remediate the vast majority of the pavement quality issues and John.

I'm going to ask you a question.

If those repairs have already happened, haven't they already went out and blacktopped the holes in the roads?

≫ No, that's not it.

We're talking about a reconstruction and repair of the base and repaving of the first 200 feet on both ends of Gladewood. ≫ Before our city streets?

Huffines.

We are simply making repairs to the entry and exit sufficient to get rid of the potholes and the degraded pavement in those areas.

It's the worst areas in that neighborhood.

I just want to say at this time we're just trying to do a notice of hearing for the special service.

So it's not where anything is going to get done.

We're having a hearing to see what people have to say about the, is that what you're saying to us?

That's correct.

Let me get Monroe. Alderman Monroe. Thank you, Alderman Sellers. So quick question for the city manager or the public works or whoever has the answer to this. Have all of the citizens living in that neighborhood been paying taxes up to this point? The normal taxes? I can't answer that. I don't know. I assume so.

so yeah so the reason I asked that question here we're moving forward to potentially take over the road which we've been taking care of as well as the rest of the streets in Freeport to officially take over doing the roadways and now we're potentially adding additional fees under the residents that live there that potentially could be of could have been paying taxes the entire Fowler.

So, the road was potentially, I don't even know how to say this at this point, we've been plowing it, we've been taking care of it, we've been salting it, we've been patching holes here and there, but yet now we've been doing that for X amount of years and now we're saying, well, it really wasn't our road.

So it tells me we don't know which roads are ours and which ones aren't.

We may tack on an extra fee to them $400 per year. Is it $400 a year?

Yes, sir. So we may do that so that we could fix a road that they've already been paying for out of their property taxes. If they're paying property taxes.

So that it will try to I'm not understanding I guess I'm really confused because if somebody's already paying the full taxes and and some some legal nothing different than what we're doing with the Public Works, Fire, Police, everybody else that is supposed to be following the ordinances.

Well, why are we why are we tacking on a $400 to each household and and then doing I guess explain to me I'm missing something. Well, in in a city report there are a number of private streets. This was one of them that we were not aware of until recent title work was performed related to the Claywood bridge.

Once we discovered that we then held off on any pavement operations until we were able to come to a resolution with the residents. So we do have a tentative resolution with them but we need to go through the process and the first step of the process is a session a you know public hearing. So what we're asking for tonight is just to move forward with the public hearing.

All right, Darren, let me, yeah, isn't there a state regulation that private property or plots, as you might refer to them, has a duty of being annexed into the city, because they're not annexed into the city.

No, they're not.

Fowler, and I'm asking the question, I asked that last week. It doesn't matter. That doesn't tell me nothing. No, that does not validate anything. But my point is, from the director, is there an annex of that private area into the City of Freeport before we start doing maintenance, any kind of special services, tax levying, any kind of monies that is generated from this process, are they annexed into this so they would be eligible for any future maintenance and I.

We have a lot of these services, and we can't put the cart before the horse, so which one is it?

Are we annexed into, annexed, is this place annexed, yeah?

Yes.

If I could just answer that.

Yes.

That sure.

Yes.

The residents of Gladewood were annexed into the city, so they are part of the city.

But there are, like I mentioned earlier, there's a number of private roads in the city, even though they exist in the city, they are not city streets.

So all we're doing here is asking to move forward with a public hearing to discuss the opportunity to bring in Gladewood as, receive Gladewood as a city street.

Director?

Yeah.

I just want to give you a little bit more background here to support Manager Boyer's information.

So in the PLAT, which PLATs are the governing guidelines behind the subdivision, it specifically had a special note on this PLAT that is a little unusual to PLATs, and it said basically that the subdivision developer would establish curb, drainage, et cetera, within the community for the city to accept the streets.

So, in the research of the documents, when Gladewood became an issue, this has been going on I believe for a better part of two years, the negotiations, we dug up the documents.

Everybody in Freeport that comes to the city says, every problem within the cities, the city's problem, whether it is or not.

And so Manager Boyer has challenged all the directors to dig into these problems to make Schultz.

We want to make sure before we're spending money that they are truly city problems.

So we're spending taxpayers' monies effectively.

In our research, this note was discovered, which is unusual on Platts, and so therefore we got the attorneys involved and the attorneys agreed that since they didn't make the improvements, whether the subdivision was the next in or not, the city never accepted the roadway because Boyer has been working with Attorney Cox on a resolution that would benefit everyone without going to court over this situation.

and again, everybody's been bringing minds and ideas together to fix the situation.

The city has installed water and sewer to this subdivision.

I believe the original plaque goes back to the 60s, if I'm not mistaken, 50s, 60s, 63.

So, so again, it's a long term what Darren Stekel terms as a ghost problem in Freeport that started under many, many, many mayors ago that we're trying to get to a final resolution that everybody can agree on so we don't ever have to talk about it again.

And I can't tell you how many of these have happened in my last three years of helping this council move on from issues that have been coming from other leaders of the community that are now saddled and burdened to this administration.

But instead of us just kicking the can down the road and going out there and throwing and some patch down and say we're done, we're trying to be wise stewards of taxpayers money and go by the rules.

And so everybody's upset about us just trying to do the right thing at the right time and not push it down the road.

So instead of everybody being upset, I think maybe look at the other side of the coin that we're trying to be responsible and do the right thing for everyone involved here.

There is no bound agreement that they ever fulfilled for the city to accept the street, right?

And yes, other city managers, other mayors directed staff to maintain it.

But just because we did something wrong in the past doesn't make it right now.

And so we're trying to fix those issues.

and so we're trying to fix those issues and be fair to everybody so it can be resolved with a positive benefit to the residents who want roads fixed and the city who doesn't want to accept the full burden of something that happened from the 60s.

That's all I have to say.

Alderman Monroe.

Thank you, Alderman Sellers.

I don't think we're, you know, up in arms.

We're just trying to understand the problem and, you know, typically in Illinois when and a lot of the documents, I can't even get documents from Director Richter before 2017.

So we don't know if the city accepted or didn't accept, in some instances.

I can verify that there is no document that we have found anywhere and we have dig big deep diving even Dovie has that says that we have ever accepted the roadway.

So otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You see why we're we're asking the questions. It's not to be it's not to be hard, but it's it's just trying to understand the issue and you're about to tack on $400 a year for 15 years.

and others.

I think we're just trying to understand so that, you know, we protect those citizens.

We're responsible for everybody, even if it's not in our ward, to make sure that we do the right thing.

So I think just trying to understand the issue and where it's coming from is really where we're at on this.

To be fair, we have done a lot of preliminary research on the area and some street evaluations and cost estimates for replacing all of it.

So there's probably close to a mile worth of roadway if you counted every stitch or road throughout that segment.

So city manager has had us do a lot of legwork on this property to try to be fair to all parties.

And that's all we're trying to do.

So I know that there's, I believe 17 families, 17 houses or 17 residents Did you or did you not say they were paying city taxes?

Taxes are handled by the Stevenson County.

That wouldn't be records we'd hold.

Is that fair?

So no one knows?

Well, the Stevenson County clerk would be the one who, or treasurer, would have that information.

Okay.

I'll just that's just a little odd to me that we're here now and that simple question can't be answered so is there a motion to move this this is this is we have the motion this is second reading so you know okay all right so if there's not discussion then you can then it'd be there any other discussion we have two from Stacy two from Monroe is there anyone else that has anything to say I I need to understand something. So we have this hearing, and we find out that they are not paying city taxes. After this hearing, we're adopting them in anyway. Is this what ...

Manager Boyer.

I think we could ask Attorney Cox, who's standing right here, if he wants to talk about the process.

Can we ask him questions?

Well, just in response to the question about paying the taxes, they are absolutely within the City of Freeport's taxing district.

So I think what you're hearing is Clerk Anderson saying, well, I can't confirm specifically that they are paying the taxes because somebody might not be, but they're being assessed taxes for the City of Freeport.

They're within the City of Freeport.

They were annexed in the 1960s.

So since then, there have been City of Freeport property taxes levied against that property.

and then as to the as to the process here what what happens with the hearing um the hearing is really a preliminary step what you have is actually a petition from a majority of the landowners in Gladewood subdivision so they're actually asking the city to set this for hearing because that's the first step in the establishment of a special service area So, as Darren pointed out, as Director Steekle pointed out, City Manager Boyer and I have engaged in significant discussions with the landowners in terms of, well, this might be something that would be palatable in the form of a recommendation to Council, and on the and the other hand, also palatable to the property owners.

In other words, a compromise resolution here to a situation that's existed since the 60s, sort of in limbo.

So trying to just bring this to a conclusion so we all know where we stand.

So what would happen with the hearing is that's a preliminary step where the plan is laid out in the ordinance, would be introduced.

Anybody would have an opportunity to ask questions and that's anybody within the community, and not necessarily just within the Gladewood Subdivision.

And then any objectors within the Gladewood Subdivision, if they're gonna be subject to this tax and they don't wanna pay it, they would have an opportunity to object.

And that's really where there's a 60 day waiting period after the hearing, where if you're a resident of the Gladewood Subdivision, you can object.

And if a majority of the owners object, then it never even comes back to council, it just fails.

and we wouldn't have the authority to pass that.

So the residents of Gladewood really do have some direction over their own destiny here.

Assuming because we have the petition of a majority, unless one or more flips their position, we have an assumption that this will come back to council eventually after that 30 days if we don't have a majority of objections.

And then this council will really be considering for the first time whether this is a good idea or not.

That's when the merits really get considered.

So you could have a situation where this doesn't come back because it fails because of an objection.

You receive more information because of the public hearing process, you would have the opportunity to attend that and ask any questions at that point.

So this is a very, very preliminary step and in no way binds the council.

it's just a matter of taking the first step in this process to even evaluate if it's a good idea.

Okay, I have a question for you.

At the 4-7 meeting, there was some Claywood people in the audience and there was a gentleman back there and when the statement was made that they represent, he was like, they don't and I represent me, I, I, you know, all that, and so if this is to their advantage, why would he respond like that?

Well, I saw the same reaction, I was here and I noted that.

What we have is a majority at this point, and when you have a majority, that's not necessarily a unanimous position, so you could have some dissenters.

The way the statute reads is if a majority want this matter to come forward to council, it will.

If a majority don't want it to come forward to council, it just fails.

I mean, we don't even have the ability to establish a special service area at that point.

So I would guess that the gentleman who was expressing some dissatisfaction was probably on the side of the dissenters.

And that's pertaining to the $400 tax?

That I don't presume to know that.

because it could be the scope of the work agreed to, it could be any number of things.

There's a lot in that ordinance, but I presume, if I were forced to guess, I would say it's to the payment of the taxes.

Have taxes been levied for the subdivision over there?

As you say, they have been paying taxes is what has been said.

So we just looked it up while Attorney Cox was talking, sorry, I talked to you too much.

And they, I looked right on my laptop, they pay city taxes just like everybody else.

Okay, so that's the benefit for that subdivision when the city steps in to do any kind of special service work in that area, is that correct?

there.

is that correct? And they are paying their full extent of their property taxes or taxes to the city of Freeport and the investment that the city makes within that subdivision is a benefit to them and everything should be okay for far as moving forward to allow them to receive the special and the rest of the city.

I think there's a lot of service in that area.

Is that what we're saying?

Well, in terms of everything, okay.

I think that's kind of up to them and then up to this council.

Well, the thing is why is it left up to the council if they want to petition for and who's hosting this hearing, who's the people that are hosting it?

and I.

Are we, what is this, just something that the city puts on, that we operate within that structure of a meeting with that subdivision?

It would be hosted.

Or the city taxpayers or the citizens of the city of Freeport that can be part of this whole scenario.

Well, certainly anybody who wants to attend would be entitled to.

The meeting is deemed a public hearing, it's more in the nature of a town hall where anybody can show up and ask questions about the plan and again the idea is that anybody who is interested in the outcome of the special service area has the opportunity to attend and ask questions and then again the residents of Gladewood would then have the opportunity to object.

and others.

Who's hosting?

It would be somebody from the council hosting or the city manager or someone that is making sure that everything is flowing accordingly.

Someone has to be there to make this establishment happen and the taxpayers should not have to Make an investment to put on a town hall meeting if they have to pay an individual to host this thing.

I don't know how it's governed at this particular time.

I would anticipate that that would be staff, probably salaried staff.

That's going to be Manager Boyer.

That's going to be Director Duckman, probably Director Steagall.

so that's a again it would be I think hosted is a strong word moderated moderator I should say moderator yeah typically we do those here I mean City Hall is just set up well for it we can do it in council chambers and it's just on an off-night when council chambers aren't otherwise being used so we would set that up and then invite anybody who wants to attend the to be here and the Majority determines whether or not this moves forward.

The majority of the, let me clarify the question, a majority of this council or the majority of the landowners?

Of the town hall.

So there's not a vote taken at the town hall.

Town hall is just informational, okay?

So that's an opportunity again to ask questions and learn more about the project.

The residents of Gladewood, those 17 residents, are the only people that really have a vote.

Yeah. They would have, more specifically, they have an opportunity to object. So it's not really a vote-taking process. They would have to file an objection within that 60-day objection period.

So if I live in Gladewood and I don't like it, I have to file. What would be a purpose of objecting?

Why would that particular subdivision object to anything when they're getting free services or I'm not going to say free services, taxpayer services to maintain their roles and the conditions of their property and things of this nature?

Why would anyone be in that area objecting?

Is it fearful that they may have an increase in their tax property when that happens?

Well, again, Alderman Sanders, I wouldn't presume the answer for anybody that lives there, but typically when we see an objection, it's, well, I'm being taxed too much.

Yeah, that's what I was leading to.

But again, anyone could object for any reason, you know, maybe they don't like the road surface it's being included, or whatever, or just for no reason whatsoever.

I mean, if I'm a resident out there, I could just file something saying, well, I object, period.

and that's good enough and that's what determines whether this council ever gets this back. Mike? With the public hearing process the city would run that it's more of a discovery process rather than it's called a hearing but people can come in and give their input that inputs recorded and then that'll be brought back to the council so then if the members of Gladewood or the and the community of Gladewood decides they want to move forward, then we would bring you that with the discovery with, hey, people were in favor of this or people were not in favor of it.

And then it's up to the council to make the decision whether that moves forward or not.

Do I understand that there was a fundraising of a certain amount of dollars that they had accumulated for what purpose the dollars was raised for?

Miller.

What was the whole purpose of raising something like $90,000 or something like that, if I believe that was the right, correct figure?

What would be the reason for them doing that?

I can't speak intelligently to that.

I'm not aware that they fundraised anything.

Yeah, I only received that information because it showed up here on my agenda, and I'm just asking questions to the reason.

I think he's referring to the special assessment, I believe.

Boyer. So the idea here is if we get the special assessment set up, it would basically equate over 15 years to $90,000. That's where the $90,000 came from. And it's basically a cost offset to the work we do out there, right? So it's saying, hey, this is a, it's unclear as to, well, it's clear on the plat, but it's unclear how this would make it through court.

and this is just a way for us to say, hey, we're going to ask for this much in return for your cooperation moving forward and it certainly would keep us out of a much more expensive litigation moving forward if for whatever reason there's a legal argument that says no city, you have to take this. This would save us a lot of time and energy through the legal process in determining that. So that's kind of the reason why we're moving and his direction is to create the SSA so that we can kind of stay away from legal battles back and forth where nobody ends up doing well. So we're just saying, hey, do what you can for us and then we'll do what we can for you kind of situation.

Yeah, because what I don't want to see happening is that the appearance of impropriety taking place with the fundings that are being raised and if there's something of we're making and a payoff or bribery or some form of activity with the raising of the funds, I'd like to know what the $90,000, I would like to know where it ends up at.

It will end up back in the road, but we'll get it $400 a year per property at a time, so it'll be 15 years before it comes through all the way, but that'll go back into the road repair to offset whatever cost we deal with.

Okay.

and I think that this this public hearing a lot of the questions that you you want to ask I guess the the the people that live there on Gladewood would be at this meeting so you probably would get a better understanding of what's going on and how they feel and and you know instead of you know asking some questions here that you know I you know I resent that observation that you and Stacey. What time of day would this hearing be? Typically, there are late afternoon or Huffines.

I think that's what we're trying to set now, a time and a date.

No, I understand we're trying to set it, but they have their way and their time of doing these.

So I'm just asking a question.

What time of day are we looking at for something of this nature?

I think certainly council could set that.

You could specify what time.

Is that what you're trying to set, a time and a date?

May I?

This might be a good time.

We did have a motion and a second to set this 20 to 40 days from the April 7th meeting.

Is that sufficient to fill in that blank in the ordinance?

It is.

Okay.

Okay.

And I think if a specific time wants to be...

Yeah, I'm not talking about time as far as this date to this date.

I'm talking about is this going to happen at 3 o'clock in the evening or is this something that's going to happen at 1 o'clock in the afternoon?

That's what I want to know.

City Manager Boyer. Thank you Madam Chair. If you have a real strong thought on that, I'm sure we could accommodate it. So if you have a specific time you'd like to see, I'm sure we could work on that.

I just want you to be considered a people working. I don't want 10 of these residents show up and the other seven are working and can't make it.

Alderman Stacey, I think right here it says something about 5 o'clock p.m. in the City Council chambers. Okay well he did not say that just now. No I'm just saying I just read it right here. That's probably that's a that's a plug number that's okay okay I didn't know okay the standard protocol is you know typically in the evening so that you know you said something at 1 o'clock in the afternoon it's hard to get attendance at that sort of thing so try to stay away from you know working hours and holidays. Thank you. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The ordinance passes seven to zero. We move on to agenda number eight and is the second reading of ordinance 2025-25.

O'Farr. Ordinance, amending the codified ordinances, Chapter 806, Alcoholic Liquor Sales, and deleting Chapter 844, Mechanical and Electronic Games and Devices. And that will be presented by Attorney Steve Cox. I didn't have to go very far. So I think we talked about this last time, this is an increase in the fees payable by operators and mechanical game or video gaming terminals and the City, and an elimination of the mechanical games section of the ordinance, which is frankly underutilized or completely unutilized currently.

So that's just a matter of convenience and fitting regulation to practice.

So I'm happy to answer any questions.

I can go back over whatever the council would like to hear, but I think we pretty much hashed through that last time.

Are there any questions on this agenda item? If not, do we do a vote?

Just a vote. Shadle?

Aye.

What?

I don't usually wait. What do you want me to do?

Go ahead. Call the roll. Go ahead. Shadle?

Shadle? Aye.

Sellers? Aye.

Klemm? Aye.

Monroe? Aye.

Parker? Aye.

and Stacy. No. The ordinance passes five to one. We'll move to agenda item number nine. It's the first reading of ordinance 2025-25.

Ordinance approving special use permit application at 1601 to 1645 Southwest Avenue, submitted by Family Dollar to examine the special use of a B3 commercial and wholesale business district zone property to allow restaurants, taverns, packaged liquor stores and Any other establishment selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on or off the premises, according to Chapter 1252.01B11.

Presented by Director Duckman.

Thank you all the person sellers. Staff received a special use permit application from Family Dollar, located at 1601 Southwest Avenue.

and essentially what's going on here is they want to sell packaged liquor which requires a special use permit prior to their organization applying for a liquor license. So this subject property went before our Zoning Board of Appeals on April 3rd and it was recommended for approval by a vote of 7 to 0 with zero abstentions on April 10th. Our Planning Commission recommended approval, excuse is there a motion to move it forward? Second. Is there any discussion? If not, call the roll.

Nope, it's just first read, so all we need is a motion and a second. Okay, so now we'll move on to number 10, is the first reading of ordinance 2025-26 presented by Manager Boyer. I'm going to read it in first if I can butt in. Ordinance authorizing the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency public water supply loan program and loan agreement for lead service line replacement phase four. Thank you madam chair. So the city of Freeport recently had a bid opening for phase four of the lead service replacement program. The EPA water loan program requires a current City of Freeport authorized debt ordinance for the project. This is part of every IEP funding project regardless of whether the community receives a hundred percent forgiveness or not. The IEP project management is required a new lead service remediation debt ordinance to be passed for the phase four project since the city has to pay the awarded contractor and wait for IEP reimbursement is required to have this in place to receive the final EPA loan agreement.

Staff is also asking for the suspension of the rules on this item so we can expedite the program and this project is funded through an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency state revolving loan fund. The project is fully funded with a hundred percent loan forgiveness of three million twenty seven thousand dollars and staff recommends council suspend the rules and move forward with the debt ordinance. Is there a motion to suspend the rules? No, we need a motion. We need a motion to move it forward first. We need a motion to move it forward first. There it is. Oh, I'm sorry. Klemm, we need the motion first. Klemm and...

And I think, was it you, Monroe? Sure. Okay, thank you. But I have questions.

Bates, and the rest of the board.

So, I think we should be able to get the item out of the way before we suspend.

Right.

So now would be discussion.

Okay.

So if I can just interject, it's very important that this suspension of the rules happen tonight for this item because it reserves our $3 million, $27,000 for this project.

If we don't get it reserved, to we'll answer any questions you have but it's very important that the suspension happens tonight so we can reserve this money before the end of the EPA fiscal year.

Thank you. So I've got multiple questions here. How much of this money is going to Fehr Graham?

About 400,000 with the design and with the inspection. This requires full-time inspection for all the service line replacements.

Huffines.

So $400,000.

Yep.

And the rest goes to the contractor that's putting it in?

Yes.

Okay.

It's a unit.

This bid is a unit price bid.

So they get exactly paid for what units they install.

So if it's 100 feet, they get paid for 100 feet.

If it's 200 feet, they get paid for 200 feet.

It's a unit price bid on every item that's used within the service material.

and again, we already had a debt ordinance for $12 million, but this program's been going so long that we had to re-up this to get the final $3 million because I think we're over year five here.

Alderman Klemm, did you?

Motion to suspend.

Oh, okay.

Well then, just one second.

Second.

We're still in discussion.

Yeah, because Stacey had her.

That's right.

Alderman Stacey had her.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Alderman, Stacey Hetter. Okay go ahead. You know why is this just coming to the council tonight? Because we just approved the bids at the last meeting. You can't you can't do the debt ordinance without having the bid and we just approved the bid at the last full meeting so it would be natural that it would come to this Speedy. Okay, is there a motion to suspend the roll? So moved. Check them. Okay, may I give the rhetoric, Chair? Suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds majority vote and it is non-debatable. Okay, call the roll.

Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No. Parker? Aye. And Stacy?

Stacy, the suspension passes six to one. So now before them, if there's no further discussion, would be the final vote on the ordinance.

Okay. Do you have a motion for the final vote for the ordinance? No, you don't need a motion. Oh, okay. Just the vote? Okay.

If they're ready to vote, then they can vote. Call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? No.

Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The ordinance passes six to one. Okay we'll move on to first reading of item number 11. Reading of ordinance 20, 25, 27. Ordinance approving hangar leases C5, Jeff Matica, K9, Mike and Kim Robinson. Manager Boyer?

thank you madam chair as we've been doing with all airport leases we brought these two before you for approval it is as the clerk had stated it was c5 with Jeff Monica and canine with Mike and Kim Robinson so staff recommends moving forward with the suspension of the rules motion to move forward second it's been moved in second is any other all in favor nope just discussion or discussion and then if no discussion then a motion for suspension of the rules okay so there's such a so move second second suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds vote and is non debatable are you ready for the vote chair go ahead Shadel hi Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, Parker, and Stacy. Suspension is approved 7 to 0.

Is there, now we go ahead and make the motion to... No motion, just if they're ready to vote, just the final vote. Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Monroe, Parker, and Stacy.

Aye. The ordinance is approved seven to zero. Okay we move on to the adoption of resolution R-2025-44. Resolution accepting a safety grant from the Illinois Public Risk Fund grant and authorizing the use of the grant funds to purchase automated external defibrillators or or AEDs from Zoll Medical Corporation for Use by the City.

Director Richter.

Thank you.

The City of Freeport's Workman's Compensation Carrier is the Illinois Public Risk Fund or IPRF.

They offer an annual safety grant to members that are in good standing.

There's not an application process to receive these funds.

However, the funds must be used on an item or items from a designated listing of safety items provided by IPRF.

The city of Freeport's award amount for this program for 2025 is $14,419.

And the city would like to utilize these funds to purchase seven automated external defibrillators for various city buildings.

AEDs are used to help those experiencing A sudden cardiac arrest.

It is a sophisticated yet easy to use medical device that can analyze the heart's rhythm and if necessary deliver an electric shock or defibrillation to help the heart reestablish an effective rhythm.

The device is designed to be user-friendly with clear instructions on how to use it in case of emergency.

It's important for our staff to be aware of what an AED is and how to use it as it can make a difference in saving someone's life.

We've attached a quote from Zoll Medical Corporation to purchase these seven units, and it is the request of the finance committee for the city council to approve the purchase.

And just a little PS, we do have one of these devices.

It's over here in this white cabinet, so you can see about how big it is.

A few years ago, all the staff had training on how to use that device.

So once these ones are purchased, we've talked to the fire department about doing that again.

Even though they're easy to use, I think a training would be warranted.

So that is the request.

Okay.

Do you have?

We need a motion and a second first.

Oh, we need a motion.

So move.

Second.

Okay.

Parker and Shadle.

Parker and Shadle?

Are there any questions?

Yes.

Discussion?

yes uh is there any uh how many units did you say um that we're requesting to buy seven of them by seven for the fourteen thousand dollars so so there's designated areas for these seven devices yes already could you tell us where they're located well the proposed areas were on island avenue and the office um construction shed wastewater treatment plant control room uh birchard Howard Water Plant and the Wastewater Treatment Plant Maintenance Area.

We've also had requests from the police department for the individual cars for the police officers.

We've also had requests from the fire department for additional units in the offices in the buildings themselves.

So that's way more than seven.

so we're going to have to prioritize and you know since you know maybe because some places have one closer you know we'll have to prioritize where we put them. So this is standard equipment for the city, the city overall administration, location areas, departments I should say. Well we haven't had this many units before but we also haven't had a grant to pay for them.

Miller.

And this grant, it happened to be in their newsletter this month as well, a whole page on how important AEDs are and the ease of use, so we thought it was a good use of those funds.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just have a question.

How many do we have right now?

Do we have that one, and where else do we have any?

I believe Ashley has two at the library, and there's one at the police department.

Shadle, Aye. Sanders, Aye. Sellers, Aye. Klemm, Aye. Monroe, Aye. Parker, Aye. Stacy, Aye. The resolution is adopted 7-0.

Adoption of Resolution R-2025-45 Resolution approving a proposal from Tomcat Consultants for rental of temporary portable hydro-pneumatic tanks during Burchard Water Tower painting project.

Thank you Madam Chair. So we have a annual maintenance contract where we basically pay a company several or certain amount of money every year and then at various maintenance intervals they come in and they will perform that maintenance. So it's time to get the Burchard water tower painted. It's kind of an extensive process and because we have to take the water out of the tower Miller. We need to put in a hydropneumatic, a temporary hydropneumatic tank that would allow us to paint the interior and paint the exterior. So, staff has put forward a resolution for you to move forward with the funding of the pressure vessel. And we did, this was budgeted in the utility budget, so.

Do we do a motion?

Yes.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you.

Can I?

Can I ask, this will be roll call? Oh, it'll be roll call. Discussion? Yeah. Okay. Can I ask you, is this an annual schedule? How often do we do this? Is this scheduled for this type of project on a yearly, annually, or? About every 10 years. Every 10 years? Yeah. So how long has that tower been in place? I don't know, 25 but I think it uh, go ahead Dan. It's 12 years. Okay. 12. So it's scheduled. It should be scheduled.

It's scheduled for this July. It was actually scheduled for last July and we...

We actually scheduled for last July and we pushed it because we were just getting the the water plant finished and we didn't want to interfere with that construction and finishing that project.

And so we actually pushed it to this. It was scheduled to start the first week of July and take four weeks.

Okay. Four to six weeks. Okay. All right. Thanks.

Thanks. Yeah, that was my question as far as how often is this painted? Because I thought it came to the council last year, but you're saying it did not happen.

Yeah, so the the item that you're discussing was the logo changes for that tower as part of the painting projects. And again, we pay the maintenance contract. So it was the city of Freeport's choice to push last year, because I couldn't get these tanks under rental as well as we were Finishing, Butchard Restorations and all that stuff.

So there's very few companies that do this type of water tank, hydro-pneumatic tanks.

And so as people get booked up, it's very hard to get them placed.

So again, the last time we painted this, I believe was 12 years ago.

It should have been scheduled for last year.

We pushed it to this year, which is no problem.

It's under the maintenance contract.

You do the exterior about every 10 years and you do a full tank painting about every 20 years.

And it's very expensive.

I mean, a full tank painting is close to probably $400,000 for this type of tank.

So when we budgeted for it last year, what did we do with that money?

It stayed in the surplus, and we re-budgeted it for it this year.

And this is to put that.

Yeah, and this is cheaper than what we budgeted for the total rental.

This is to put that leaf.

No, we did not approve that.

and it's gonna stay looking just like it is now.

It's just a re over scarifying and recoding of the entire tank.

And the painting is part of our annual contract.

So we pay a fee annually that's in the budget for that tower that's the only one that has a maintenance contract.

And this funding is coming from what?

The utility budget we budgeted from.

It's budgeted in operations.

Yeah, I believe we budgeted 60,000 for it.

Is there any other discussion? If not is there a roll call? Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Aye. Parker? Aye. And Stacey? Aye. The resolution is adopted 7-0 Move on to item number 14 approval of bid. Bid opening on April 15th 2025 for Fuel Island concrete pavement.

Manager Boyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. The City of Freeport is currently working on an upgrade to the fuel system that is required by upcoming environmental requirements. So we'll bring it up to specification. On April 15 2025, the city had a public bid opening for the concrete portion of the job. It was a 12 inches full depth concrete installation for the fuel station. Once the fuel equipment work is done the project has three bidder, three bidders have pulled the plans and all three bids. The lower bidder was the DPI construction in the amount of $77,933.87. This bid was under the engineers estimate and staff requests City Council approval of is there any discussion? Madam Chair I would like to say on this item we give a lot of credit to the Public Works Department I believe we budgeted $170,000 for this item this year and with the spring weather we've been having the Public Works team do all the removals and all the aggregate placement to save We budgeted $170,000. I imagine by the time we're all done with this with electrical and things, we'll probably be around right around $100,000. So we should have about $70,000 savings.

Good deal, thank you. Is there a motion? So move. We've got Shadle and Klemm. Okay. Call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye. Monroe? Abstain. Parker? Aye. And Stacy? Aye. The motion passes six to zero with one absentia. We'll move on to item number 15.

The approval of bid opening on April 16, 2025 for 2025 city-wide tree removal.

Manager Boyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Each year we've been systematically going through town, marking the most large and dangerous trees that are outside of the size that we can safely manage with our forestry department. This year we had two bidders. One was, let's see here, it was Pardon me for a second as I recall, it was a Homer Tree Service and oh gosh our local one there, Ingram. Yeah, Area Tree. Anyway, the Homer's bid was lowest at $73,167.50 and we budgeted for that in the 2025 budget and staff recommends moving forward with the Homer Tree Service bid.

Is there a motion? Oh, I'll second it. Okay, so is Klemm and Monroe, thank you. Question. Is there any discussion? Okay. See, manager, did we have Homer Tree Service do the removals last year as well? I believe we did. And how did that go? Very fast, very complete, yeah. Okay. They did a good job. Yeah, they removed about 30 trees last year and and I would like to also mention just this contract is a significant savings for the city of Freeport when we don't have to take down emergency trees we would probably get about 10 to 12 trees done instead we're going to get 31 done for the same for the same price emergency trees cost a lot more money so this program has been very effective in saving Long-term money to the the city so if we were doing them as emergencies like we've done in the past we would only get about 12 trees probably done for this amount or we're in this contract we'll get 31 done instead Ottoman Sanders didn't you have yeah I have one but I'm gonna pass go ahead so Huffines.

Is there a motion to...

We've got Klemm.

Okay, so now it's...

More discussion.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't see Ann.

Come on.

The two companies that did it, there was a $50 difference.

Would the other company had been willing to give us the 30, whatever you said?

So by bid rules, it would be illegal for us to ask them to match prices.

That's why we do an open bid process.

In our city of Freeport, procurement standards that we govern with don't allow us to negotiate with the second bidder.

We have a process here and we have to go with the low bidder if they're responsible to do the work.

Homer performed the work last year without any issues.

So we are bound by our bidding rules to accept that low bidder and if we don't it could possibly open us up to litigation.

Okay, I wasn't asking to have the other company underbid to match this company.

I'm saying it was just $50 difference.

Correct.

It was the tightest bid I've ever seen.

Okay, so what I'm asking is, would they have given us, what did you say, 32 trees?

Yeah, they have both been the same, 31 trees.

31 trees.

Yep, we actually went out and a map was given, exact locations of these trees, and they were invited to go out and look at them and measure them themselves.

We go out, there's a long story, it's a tree process, we actually go out and we have to measure the inches of the tree at four foot high, it's an IDOT rule, and that's what they Huffines.

That's the basis of BID, so it's a total of so many inches for 31 trees.

The largest tree on this is 56 inches around, so it's a very large tree.

Have we ever used the other company?

Yes, we use Area Tree Service all the time.

I'm just a little surprised that we would go to Lockport where we had someone right here.

So the city staff had that discussion and we have to live by our procurement standards.

That's why we don't have a choice.

You always choose the one with the less.

That is our procurement standard is just to select the lowest responsive bidder unless West, the city has some justification for not.

some justification for not choosing them say if they hadn't done a good job before or we had litigation with them or we had some track record of they weren't going to perform well on the job and we don't have that in this case to be able to eliminate them.

Any other question?

Call the roll. Shadle? Aye. Sanders? Aye. Sellers? Aye. Klemm? Aye.

Monroe, Parker, and Stacy. The motion passes 7 to 0. Now we're at number 16 explanation of removal of Josh Atkins for Planning Commission presented by Alderman Stacy and Monroe. You know I just like to say how convenient for the and Mayor not to be here tonight.

You know, April 7th, that first meeting, Council was asked to accept someone to the Planning Committee.

And I asked the question, like I always ask, why this person?

that there was an open position on that committee well that was the furthest thing from the truth because that happened on Monday and Tuesday Joshua but Atkinson was fired from his position.

And that's not how it works.

Again, another ordinance and rules are not followed.

I don't know who all knew that there was not an opening.

The way it was brought to the council was that of an opening but now we can't even trust that.

And it states that any member of the Planning Commission may be removed by the mayor subject to confirmation of such removal by the council.

Did not happen.

For purpose of this section, missing three consecutive meetings of the Planning Commission shall be deemed to be due cause of removal.

Did not happen.

In his time served on this committee, he may have missed one meeting.

And so my purpose for putting this on the agenda tonight was for Madam Mayor to explain why she would violate this ordinance and proceed to do what she did unlawfully.

It has got to stop.

Violation of ordinance by choice just because has got to stop.

Stop. We open up every meeting with prayer. Say we gonna do the right thing. I wish some of you were in my shoes and then you would know my heart and understand my frustration.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. And this is just not right, no matter how you look Bates, and the other members of the public.

I'm not going to speak for the mayor. I'm not going to try to speak for the mayor as to whatever explanations.

And I wouldn't want you to.

Thank you. But what I can speak to is just what the rules were and the law is, okay?

So you did cite from a section of the code there that deals with the removal of a Planning Commission member.

from a section of the code there that deals with the removal of a Planning Commission member, and you're accurate that if there's a sitting member, like that they're within their term, that if they're going to remove, the mayor can initiate the removal process, and then that removal is subject to confirmation by the City Council. So that part is accurate for someone who's currently sitting that's in the middle of their term, okay? My understanding is that Mr. Atkinson's term expired, I want to say in October of 2020.

24. So this was in a reappointment situation and so the mayor chose to reappoint someone different.

Follow-up, please. You know, I'm sorry that you came with that. So I must read an email from April 14-15, 2024. Appointment to the Planning Commission. Effective immediately, I hereby appoint Joshua T. Atkinson to the Planning Commission to fill the seat held by Jane Somebody, Ruth, which expires October 31st, 2024. Same email. This appointment shall be effective through October 31st, 2024 and automatically be reappointed to fulfill the next four years seat term dated the 15th day of April 2024 respectfully submitted Jodi Miller, Mayor of Freeport.

So she did state that he was filling a seat, but then she turned right around in the same email and says that October 31st he would fill a four year term, 24, 25, 28, and then He received a letter of termination.

Yes.

Joy.

Attorney Zito.

Oh, go ahead, attorney.

So I'm aware of that letter, and I'm aware that even on the agenda, when Mr. Atkinson was on the agenda for his appointment initially, to fill the remainder of the unexpired term until October 31st, 2021, that the agenda heading actually also did say then, mentioned the immediate reappointment for a successor four-year term.

That was probably an oversight.

I'll be first to say that I'll take my portion of the blame in not catching it at the time of that appointment, but the appointment can only be, per our ordinance, can only be for the remainder of the expired term.

The mayor, the council didn't have the authority to do the successor part.

On the 31st, there should have been, and the other members of the public.

And, I think, you know, the next meeting, or whenever the closest meeting was next available after the October 31st, there should have been a reappointment at that point, but that didn't happen.

So, basically what I'm saying is the automatic successor appointment didn't have legal standing.

It probably should have never happened that way.

But how many times have it happened?

I don't know. Well, that's something we need to find out. And, certainly, if it's happened, the Mayor would need to make re-appointments or fill those appointments again, you know, so it would need to be corrected again, so.

Again, here we set a simple ordinance that you can't even follow and so now I'm going to need to know who's on what committee, when and how they were appointed to that committee and I'm going to even take it a step further because it's because it's troubling that this committee where we have a young black gentleman would be removed.

Are we going DEI on our committees now?

But she's not here to answer that question and you can't answer it for her.

I'm just saying, diversity, equity, in what she did, she said a lot, and she did a lot, and it's not, and should not be accepted.

Is there anyone else?

Yeah, Attorney Zito, in an event of this nature, how do we make this whole again?

How do we reestablish or reinstate a situation where it could have been a wrong situation that was done and how do we correct it?

I would expect you to probably be able to give us some consultation on that matter if possible.

Yes.

Yes.

Joy.

So ultimately right now you have someone who's sitting in that spot, Mr. Wilkinson.

So he's sitting in that spot right now.

So one possible method is that the mayor could initiate removal of Mr. Wilkinson that would be subject to advice and consent of the council.

That could be one thing that happened.

Not saying that's how it's going to happen, that could be one way there.

then at that point there would be a vacancy in the spot.

The mayor could then make another appointment of whoever she wants to appoint to fill the spot and that would be subject to advice and consent.

If the council approves that, then that person sits there.

So that's one possible scenario.

Another possible scenario, again, I used the word possible is what you have on later on in the agenda at the request of Alderman Stacy, there is a motion to rescind the advice and consent that you previously gave, that this council previously gave to Mr. Wilkinson there.

And so that's coming up on the later in the agenda there.

So I won't jump ahead to that, but that'd be another potential route to go.

And when that comes up, I'll discuss the potential pitfalls with that.

I would like to recommend that added to this ordinance Someone that is interested in committees should have to come to the council and present and explain why they would like to be a part of that committee because clearly we cannot respect the judgment of the city mayor anymore.

so I would like to see that change and see that added into the ordinance so there's not an ordinance right now that's before you tonight right right so if you wanted to go through that process to request the change to the to the ordinances you can you know either talk to Rob about having that drafted so he can direct me to draft something or whatever so but that'd be a conversation I will be contacting you for that draft if nothing else let's move on to department head reports finance nothing tonight okay public public works just one thing just wanted to make residents aware starting either late tonight or tomorrow you'll be receiving a text an email or possibly a letter from the city Freeport. We are required to send an email out about the PFAS detection that we had in 2017 on the Brick Street Wells. This is a move by EPA without all communities within Illinois. We have been notifying the citizens of Freeport since 2017, so we're way ahead of the curve. This is just a requirement. We will be doing it through the electronic communication to save the city money.

We could send mailers out but the mailers would cost a significant amount of money to mail them. So we're going to do a brief notice. Nothing to panic about. And then in your next water bill, you'll get the full notices sent out. But again, the city's water is safe to drink. We have no issues. It's an EPA requirement based on the new PFAS rules that were put down that we have to notify all of our customers even though we've been addressing this for over five years and are really leading the charge to remove those wells from the system.

Also, if you have any questions, please contact our Environmental Compliance Officer, Randy Kohlbauer.

Her name and number will be on the city's website.

If you have questions, she'll be the best resource to answer anything for you.

Thank you.

Okay, Fire.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to share with council that recently the fire department acquired a new aerial drone device that has latest technology and also has thermal imaging capabilities. We were able to acquire this device due to a generous donation from the Marvin Stecco family estate. The fire department would like to thank the families of Deputy Chief Scott Stecco and his brother Darren for their generous Donation, and Support of our Operations and Equipment. So thank you. Thank you.

Police. Thank you Madam Chair. Just an announcement, we are holding our spring drug take-back event this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the police department. So if you have prescription drugs that you want to dispose of, you can do that at that time. It's also important to note that we do have a Huffines.

We have a receptacle in the lobby, well, the vestibule of the police department, so it can be done at any time of the year, but this is a big one that we do for people to drop off any unused prescription drugs.

Library?

No report.

We have manage...

IT.

Huh?

IT.

Oh, I was going to say communications, but our IT, do we do communications?

I don't think he's done.

Is he?

Oh, okay.

Airport.

So now we have city manager.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just would like to thank the council's support for all the things we were able to move forward tonight.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll go with Alderman Shadle.

Thank you.

I've been noticing a lot of the public comments in the last few meetings where there's things being said that aren't necessarily true and they are not necessarily informed comments.

A little disheartening when I have the neighborhood watch meetings and I get three to five people show up when there's people there to answer questions and to inform people. That being that being said Thursday May 1st at Schwartz on Park Boulevard 6 p.m. will be a neighborhood watch meeting for the sixth floor. Thank you.

Ottoman Sanders. Oh yeah, public service announcements. I want to invite everyone went out May 24th to meet in the park day.

It's where we demonstrate events and food fun for the entire city of Freeport that wants to come out and share this event in the third ward at Taylor Park.

I'd like to see the cooperation of the city being part of it, and it's going to have music fun and games and all kinds of entertainment that can be provided.

So I just wanted to let the public know that they are invited to come out and be a part of this demonstration that we're gonna do for May 24th, starting at 12 noon.

I'm just really guessing right now, but I'm gonna say 12 noon.

and I hope to see everybody out there.

I would just like to let everybody.

I would just like to let everybody know that the tulips at the Boys and Girls Club are coming out and ride by and see how beautiful they are.

And also we did have some daffodils and tulips by fire station number two. So check them out and just see how pretty they are.

Alderman Klemm?

Nothing.

Alderman Monroe?

Nothing tonight.

Alderman Parker?

Just our neighborhood watch meetings next Monday night.

Shadle, Mr. Shadle, I want to make sure this is very truthful and informed for you.

All the mayor had to do was call me and say, hey, do you mind residing because this was a rough campaign and I would have said absolutely I understand and that would have been the end of it because that's the kind of person I am.

Instead, she showed the city of Freeport the kind of person that she is.

Now with that appointment, yes, attorney, I understand you're in a weird position there.

You know, October 31st, 2024 was the end of that appointment.

For her appointment, the one that you guys voted on, unanimously by the way, it was supposed to go for another four years.

I get what Attorney Zito was saying.

Here's the issue.

Nobody cared about that for the past six months while I was going to those meetings, though, did you?

Okay?

I don't want the job back, but I want you to put somebody in there that the city of Freeport doesn't have to be concerned about.

Okay?

Residency.

No offense to Chief.

You know, I respect you.

You know, I love what you do.

Here is my take on this because you guys are about to make the same mistake again for the next four years because you've done it for the past eight.

You spent eight years blaming the previous mayors.

You blamed the previous councils on things that happened.

We just keep kicking the can down the road.

We said that a couple of times tonight.

All that's going to happen is come May 13th, this will be right back on the agenda, right?

It failed tonight.

So now we have a residency requirement.

Come May 13th or shortly thereafter this will be right back on the agenda and they will have the votes to do what they want.

Understand that.

Learn this.

I've been watching here every, well, three Mondays a month for the past year.

I know how this works.

Trust me on this.

And I'm not saying that's wrong.

But here's what you just told the people of Freeport tonight.

That we are violating an ordinance.

We've been violating an ordinance for the past eight years.

One day, I didn't shovel my sidewalk this past winter, and boom, I got a warning letter real quick.

Luckily, it had already melted by the time I got the letter.

How many people out here have gotten in trouble by the city?

Well, now we have our entire senior staff, high ranking police department and high ranking fire department, now eligible to live wherever they want.

Oh, no, I'm sorry.

They're not eligible.

Fowler.

They're allowed to but they can because we're going to ignore the ordinance.

What I hope happens is that you folks go into executive session and you grant the man a waiver or I think there's five people, I don't know who those five people are, grant them a waiver so that you're not talking about this again.

Give them a waiver, let it go through, they're grandfathered in to whatever, yes we've broken the rule, shame on us.

But now moving forward, anybody that's hired follows this ordinance unless you guys change the ordinance because you know what's going to happen.

You may think that we, you know, you won, that, you know, they're going to start following the rules, but they're not.

But immediately they're going to go out there and they're going to start ticketing this summer for people growing their grass too high.

Probably out of time, yeah?

Is that what we're checking on?

I know you want me to sit down.

All right.

I don't have the time.

You guys, fix it.

Use some common sense here.

You know it's coming down the road.

Fix it once and for all.

All right?

Thank you, Chief.

Rhonda Scott, I got a little flustered when I spoke at first about the planning commission Wilkinson. I take this position seriously about making decisions for the community and the future of our community, and I think we can do better than somebody who has an arrest record for domestic violence for restricting the blood and airflow of another human being and a DUI on the same night on June 9th, 2024. This is not ancient history. This is something Huffines.

I don't want a person like this making decisions on our future for Freeport and we can do better.

My next concern, though, has to do with these EV chargers that we talked about recently and the comment was made that this is going to be something that's going to benefit the downtown because people driving from Chicago to Galena will stop here and shop downtown.

When I mentioned that to my husband, he said, what store is somebody from Chicago going and a shop at downtown.

And I counted, we have seven stores and two jewelry stores.

They're almost always closed on Sunday.

So we would be paying to have people, well, people from Chicago aren't even gonna come.

And I have an electric vehicle, I charge it in my driveway.

This is a huge waste of money.

And we are spending $90,000 for an engineering study to look at this.

When I can already tell you it's a waste of money.

And so we have to ask ourselves, Why are we paying this fee of $90,000 when we used to pay a city engineer $98,000 for the entire year for the city to make engineering decisions?

And this same engineer could have done this study and he could do a lot more and he did a lot more.

I cannot understand why we got rid of this city engineer and went to a contractor who now has somebody Miller.

We're sitting over here pretending to be our public works person and taking contracts for the business that he works for.

It's a major conflict of interest and we need to do something about it.

This has got to stop.

Good evening.

My name is Cheryl Altman.

I want to touch on the ordinances.

Rob Boyer, you were saying that you guys don't violate your own ordinances.

Please check yourself at the door.

Doe.

You will fast track anybody in here whose property you think is no good, because you have Wayne Doe it, then he has his little flunkies Doe it, but you won't hold yourself accountable for your own property, like the Raleigh Building.

I will bring that sucker up every time.

Plus, when I had, a couple years ago, my one property, the house, it's a vacant house that you guys were doing work on in Chicago, it flooded my basement completely.

I called and made a complaint with you and you accused me of going outside, turning the freaking water on at the curb.

Now please tell me and then you say that you're not responsible?

Give me a break because I know because my son was working and he was taking care of it.

You know and the mayor's probably not here tonight because she was out eating Mexican food with the guy she just was trying to hire to replace Joshua.

So maybe she got food poisoning.

My name is Akia Sanders.

I would spend my three minutes just completely laughing about this whole council almost except for a few.

I mean, it goes all the way back to first grade or kindergarten.

I mean, pay attention in class.

You guys don't even take this thing seriously at all.

I mean, nobody's watching, nobody's concerned except for the couple people that care.

And I can point them out, James Monroe, Stacy, Larry, Sellers, I don't know how I feel to be somebody that, you know, we thought you was coming for us and I don't mean us as black I mean us as a community. I tried genuinely to come in here with an open mind and say okay maybe I'll you know inbox her, see what she do, inbox you, no response. I got about four or five people that did the same thing.

I don't care about your magazines. You don't affect me. I'm not a public figure. I didn't go to sit in that seat.

It's kind of a hot seat right now. The whole community think this is a laughing matter. The council is a laughing matter.

Carter. Because nobody is actually owning up to anything, answering any questions. James check y'all every time he come up in here. Y'all act like y'all seen a ghost. Y'all can read. Then y'all tell Larry, read it. Then y'all say, do the homework. Now then, Rob, I hope since you put your Superman vest on and said you abide by all ordinances, no against the police or anything I hope you you know got some letters ready to suspend a few people because that's what you to do to me that's what you do to me everything I violate everything I do is always under a magnifying glass you offered me a job I respectfully declined this is a clown posse that I do not want to be a part of hopefully you get it together one day thank you is there and anyone else.

Pagker first I'd like to remind you all that this is a free for now what did you say your name was a page Kerr page yeah first I'd like to remind you all that this is a free port City Council this is not a Lena City Council nor is it a Forreston City Council the City Council is created by the people for the people it's only asked it's only fair to ask that those in positions of power reside and John.

I would like to challenge the council on their activism and marketing to include the youth and working class in getting involved with open positions. There is an importance in educating and setting up our citizens for success rather than robbing them of an opportunity. Also, I support bringing documentation to the council to show if our water is contaminated or not. The public should be regularly notified. As a citizen I received a letter from my electric, but never about the Lastly, I would like to take a stance on my disinterest in Jodi Miller's involvement with the Greater Freeport Partnership.

It's a scam on the lives of the citizens.

The involvement directly brings the power of political contributions and public grants together.

There's a power circle within the board and the Greater Freeport Partnership.

It encourages biased opinions and rewards those involved.

We see it on display often here.

To add to that, the events hosted by the Greater Freeport Partnership directly pulls money back from the taxpayers into that same power circle.

It's a double whammy on the citizens.

There should be no relationship between the city mayor and this organization.

It's a clear conflict of interest, and I would imagine fraud as well.

As a citizen, I ask for you to follow the money.

I ask for you to hold them accountable.

I ask for you to honor this city's history.

and I ask you to remember that this city council was created by the people for the people.

Thank you. My name is Micaiah Stacy.

Speaking of saying things incorrectly, I do want to apologize.

I spoke to the chief and I would be a hypocrite if I don't say I didn't understand why he didn't live in the city.

He gave me his reasoning. It's not my business to put out there.

About the ordinances, when we are raised and I was raised in church, I was told that Jesus loves me and that the truth is very important because lies will send you to hell. Not that exactly.

But every time I walk in this building and I watch on my phone so I don't get off work until seven, it's constant lies or yeah this ordinance exists and I'm going to read it out.

Alderman Stacey reads out an ordinance and it's well we didn't do this right.

What the hell are we doing? What are we up here for? Are we going to do our jobs correctly or or we're gonna do our jobs for our friends.

Like Ms. Page just said, you are here for the city.

I don't care what party you're voting for, where you live, if you're not voting for the interest of this city, then get out.

If you don't wanna be in this seat, if you don't wanna hear me talk, get out.

If you don't wanna listen to this city, get out.

I don't know how many times we have to say it.

This is a very respectful position.

I'm gonna need you guys to have some respect for yourselves.

Thank you.

is there anyone else? James Monroe, Santa Fe Drive. I've been in this council room for four years now and I've uncovered things are very, very disheartening for the city of Freeport.

The corruption behind the scenes is unreal. Clown newspaper article writers like Dan Stevens sitting Over here, literally basically project lies upon members of the community, members of this council, they spread half-truths, and they attack people, all for political gain, for certain political gain.

I've uncovered in the last six months close to $2.5 million a year in property tax decreases that were given out to certain members of this community.

2.5 million. All of our property taxes are going up. Theirs is going down. There's a building downtown that pays less property tax than some of the homeowners in my ward.

You're stepping in defending the lady that sits up there and it's disappointing because you represent yourself as a godly woman and I will tell you that that person sitting up Fowler.

I have contacted everybody and anybody who will listen and take action.

There will be people held accountable in this room.

I will not stop fighting.

I will not give in.

I have uncovered where the money's been going, how the GFP plays in, and these people are starting to help out.

They're diving in.

The people of the City of Freeport are waking up.

You can't burn a house down or tear a house down based on the fact you don't like somebody.

That's not how this community works.

That's not what we're about.

I may not like the choices that Kia makes in life.

I don't care.

But what I care about is when somebody's done wrong and this man in the suit up front decides to sit there and enforce only the ordinances that he feels need to be enforced.

in violation of his oath of office, in violation of his contract, and we will deal with that.

And I have one choice, and one choice only, and that is now to ask that the legal system gets involved and claw back the pay of everybody who doesn't live within the legal guidelines of the ordinance.

Not something that's going to be fun, not something that's going to be cheap, but we We are going to get to the bottom of all of the issues in this community and we're going to start with the people in this room and unfortunately for some of you, the people that are supporting me, they have a lot more money and a lot more power than I do.

So enjoy your time in office because it won't last much longer.

Cecelia, Stacy, you know, I have put off doing something that I know I was charged to do because what is people gonna think?

What is my fellow older people gonna say?

And so I go home knowing that I was charged to do something that I didn't do.

So tonight, I'm gonna do it.

Just like we open up every meeting and prayer, it's not where you start, it's where you end.

Father God, in the name of Jesus, I come to you tonight, Lord Jesus, asking for your guidance, oh God.

Father God, you know what this city was created to be.

You know what this city needs to be, oh God.

It was not called free port for no reason at all.

So Lord Jesus, I pray and I ask you to take control of this your city and help us become what we are supposed to be, that of a free city.

In Jesus' name I pray.

Is there anyone else? We've been requested for two executive sessions tonight pursuant to 5 ILCS 122 C1, the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity.

and the public office as defined in this act including a vacancy in a public office when the public body is given power to appoint under law or ordinance or the discipline, performance or removal of the occupant of a public office when the public body is given power to remove the occupant under law or ordinance.

Is there a motion to go into executive session?

So moved.

I ask that we vote on them separately.

Two separate motions, executive session for I have a motion to go into executive session for just the first item under 2C1.

Do I need to read it again or just refer to the exemption one personnel exemption?

Yes.

Okay.

What about Klemm's motion?

Right, so is there a second then to go into executive session for 2C1?

Is there a chance for that to number one?

Yep.

So we need a second to go in for personnel.

So this is the one.

Second.

This is the city, thank you.

This is the topic that would be the city manager review.

So do you take the roll call?

Yes.

Well, hold it.

What was that last comment you just made?

So we'd be going into executive session for personnel reasons to give an update on city manager review.

That's the topic.

And then we will be coming back out for item 23?

Well, no, we're going to...

It's executive.

after this motion then there'd be another if there's another motion because you wanted to take them separately about whether or not to go in for uh under um the appointment to fill a public office correct and if that passes then we would have that conversation while we were in there if it doesn't then we won't have that conversation while we're in there to talk about the city manager part so we're not coming in and out of the room is what i guess my point So are you saying we can just serve 23 out here? No. We'd have to see if there's a motion made to go in. If we have a motion to go in, then we would go in, and then we would do 23 afterwards, but if there's not a motion to go in, then we wouldn't. Then we would just go to 23. We'd go in to do 2C1 first, and then we'd come back out and do 23. Then we have to go back in? No.

no so so right now we're just talking about 2C1 and there was a motion and a second to go in for the city manager review update. Shadle? No. Sanders? Aye.

Sellers? No. Klemm? No. Monroe? Aye. Parker? No. And Stacy? Aye. One, two, three, four, the motion Fails, three to four. So we're not going to go into executive session then to discuss 2C1. So now then there would need to be a motion to go into executive session under 2C3, which is to discuss the appointment to fill a vacancy, which is related to item number 23 on the agenda about the appointment to the ruber has two terms or under section two.

I have a second.

I am a clerk in the planning commission.

So is there a motion?

Is that what you're looking for?

Yes.

Make a motion.

Maybe second.

So he just made a motion to go into executive session for 2C3.

And if we don't go into executive concession, it will be discussed here.

You got it.

So is there a second to go in the executive session?

and that motion dies for a lack of a second so we're not going into executive session at all.

Go to the last item on the agenda, second to last, sorry.

Motion to rescind advice and consent of council to the appointment of Dustin Wilkinson to Planning Commission presented by Stacy and Monroe.

You know, I hate the wording on this.

I guess we have to be Robert's rule compliance but to rescind advice and consent of council I feel that it should say that we're rescinding the mayor's choice for various reasons and I am asking for the rescinding of the position that Dustin Wilkinson on the Planning Committee Commission be removed, voided, revoked, rescinded.

That's a motion to rescind the appointment, or I'm sorry, a motion to rescind the advice Hittman, Andså No淨, and they were in the ball. And then Dadey and the news that we're going to talk about. So that was the application of a policy, which The scope of the application was to be an appointment of the Council on the appointment of dust and Wilkinson to the Planning Commission. So that's most of this been made by all the mistakes, that we need a second. I'll second it. So voting to remove him. putting to rescind their advising consent. Remember appoint and once we get to discussion, I'll go through the legal components from the commission, the planning commission.

So they basically you want to, you want the council to, you guys gave a blessing originally.

Okay, I'm going to use that term, Lucy.

You gave your advice and consent.

Because we didn't know what we were giving to.

That's fine.

So you're looking to rescind that advice and consent.

Yes.

So that's what they're asking for, clerk.

But that does not revoke the mayor's appointment, correct?

Correct.

The appointment is still.

as you understand that. So he's still in this position. He would not have, if this rescission goes through, he wouldn't have the advice and consent of the council at that point there. So the appointment's made, then there are rules that would follow then what happens when an appointment's made but it doesn't receive the advice and consent of the council. But James, you gave a second, right yeah okay so we're in discussion and can I thank thank you all right so I just want to give some procedural background here okay so that everyone understands what's before you guys all right number one appointments are made by the mayor okay I don't care what the appointment like the appointment is like to what if it's the Planning Commission, Zoning Commission, Liquor Commission those appointments belong to the mayor the appointment does all that means is that The mayor gets to pick the name, okay?

The mayor gets to put forth a name, okay?

The council then has the right and the authority to give their advice and consent, okay?

That's what the council has the right to do.

The mayor puts forward the name, council gets to then say, we approve of the name or we don't approve of the name, okay?

So in the case of Mr. Wilkinson, the mayor put forth his name, the Council then gave their advice and consent, okay?

That happened at a previous meeting, okay?

What Alderman Stacy now has brought, just like with any decision that's approved by the Council, you guys can rescind that advice and consent that you guys previously gave, okay, there.

And so that's what's been put on the agenda and that's what's before you guys is this motion to rescind the council's advice and consent.

Meaning you guys are rescinding your blessing of his appointment, okay?

The consent that you guys previously gave, okay?

So, hang on one second, just a little bit more.

So, as you guys may recall then from when Nancy Sylvester came and gave the Robert's Rules discussion, I'm just bringing this out for you guys so that you guys take it into consideration just so you have a full understanding of all the rules that might be in play.

Well, yes, there is such a thing as a motion to rescind.

There are times when a motion to rescind can't be done or has no practical effect or shouldn't have any practical effect.

And the example that Nancy Sylvester gives is you can't rescind something if it's already then taken place.

And I'll give you a quick example.

Let's say there was a motion to approve an ice cream social on Monday.

Council votes and it says we approve the ice cream social on Monday. Monday comes along the ice cream social happens. On Wednesday, the following Wednesday, the council can't say motion to rescind the ice cream social we don't think we should do the ice cream social. Well it's already happened so you can't rescind something that's already happened or that's already happened or has already started to move in process okay so the deviation in that scenario is motion to approve the ice cream social and hire the ice cream company to make all the ice cream okay for Monday ice cream company starts making all the ice cream and reliance of that that that approval later Bader, Motion to Resend, we don't want to do the ice cream social anymore.

Well that creates a problem if you try to rescind it now because that ice cream company reasonably relied on the fact that you previously approved the ice cream social and them making all the ice cream.

So that's another scenario where rescission arguably is not appropriate because someone, the ice cream company already started down the path based off of the first approval.

Okay?

So having you guys keep all that in mind.

In this particular case, you have Mr. Wilkinson, who's already been seated, attended a Planning Commission meeting, voted on items.

So it complicates things.

So I'm letting you guys know that so that you guys have this information that arguably a motion to rescind right now might not be appropriate there.

Again, vote as you will on it.

So that's the background.

Settlers.

It's kind of the lay of the land on this.

Oh, go ahead.

Question Zito, you said the robber rules gives her the authority or the consideration to appoint someone on a committee or something like that, is that, how is it that she is is able to appoint anyone to anything before council could give consent consulting or whatever the case is.

Explain that part too.

Sure.

Yeah.

So that's per state statute and that's also per our city ordinances that provides that specifically planning commission is appointed the person to fill the positions on the planning Commission are appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. That's what our city ordinance says and that also mirrors what state statute says. Okay, so what about this appointment should have ended October 31st, 2024, but it continued November, December, January, February, March, April, six months, he attended meetings, he cast the vote, Joy, yes, Attorney.

So, upon the expiration of a term, so our ordinance says that appointments can be to fill only the unexpired term, right, and so we had this conversation earlier about the fact that arguably the, trying to do the automatic appointment for the successor four-year terms was probably out of order, was probably improper there, okay.

So what happens when an appointment doesn't happen?

and I. And I say come October 31st, the term ended. And you're supposed to do a reappointment at that time. If that doesn't happen for various reasons, and it happens more than you think in many communities, that person that sits in that spot at that time is what's called a holdover. So they hold over until such time as a replacement, a new appointment is made. So it's fine that Mr. Atkinson sat there and continued to go to meetings.

was a holdover and then at such time as the mayor makes a new appointment and the City Council approves that with advice and consent then that new person takes over so this is a holdover situation but we did not know we had no ideal that a person of his nature would be presented to the and the Council as someone fitting for this committee.

And I can't speak to that part as far as like, I can tell you guys what the law is, whether or not, you know, a person's qualifications or anything, I can't speak to that.

That's for you guys as a council to decide whether or not to give your advice and consent to somebody.

Well, several times I've wanted to speak and have tried speaking with Nancy, the lady you We spoke about. So if you have her information, can you give that to me? Because no one else seems to be able to. We still have a motion and a second to take a vote.

Right. So this would be a motion. The motion that's before you guys, just so everyone's clear is to rescind the advice and consent that was previously given to Mr. Wilkinson who's there. So if you vote yes, you want to rescind the advice and consent. If you We won't know, you don't want to rescind your prior decision.

On what grounds?

Yeah, I'm serious, because you think he's not qualified.

Do you think I would be qualified for the Planning Commission if I had a severe DUI and if I choked someone out to the airflow and their blood stopped, but I can come on a city council committee and make decisions for this city and that's what's not even a year old, it's about six, seven months old.

And the record is as long as my arm it goes deeper, I'm not trying to go there.

So please don't make me, I'm not trying to put his history out there, it's all public information, look it up.

I just can't believe someone of his nature was even brought to the council to even consider.

And this is what I talk about when we're blindsided.

And I ask the question, why him?

Oh, well, he's lived here 38 years.

He's a part of this community.

He wants this and he wants that.

But he has a felon.

You can choke someone until their airflow stops and their blood, and that's okay.

And that's the type of person we want on our committees.

Help me understand.

I just call for the vote.

Shadle?

No.

Sanders?

Yes.

Sellers?

No.

Klemm?

No.

Monroe?

I can't even speak right now. Come on. Monroe? Yes. Simmons? No. Parker? No. And Stacy? Yes. I can't believe this. There you have it. The motion fails. Oh wait, wait, wait. You see. You see. You see. Motion to adjourn. Second. See what we got for the next four years. All in favor? No matter how hard we try.

You see