My husband and I went down to Georgia, didn't we?
That had to be a better trip.
Yeah.
It wouldn't be worth it.
I have to go grab it.
Sorry.
Good evening.
Pastor Anna, could you please give the invocation this evening?
Good evening.
God bless everyone.
In Psalm 32a says, I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go.
I will guide you with my eye.
We're going to pray.
Heavenly Father, in the mighty name of Jesus, we exalt and bless your name at this hour.
We thank Thank you for the opportunity to gather together to make important decisions for this community.
I pray for everything turns out well and that you will be done.
May your wisdom, compassion, and mercy be poured out upon us.
May your Holy Spirit help us make the best decision for the well-being of all.
In the name of Jesus, we pray, amen.
Amen.
And we'll officially call this meeting to order.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?
Mayor Miller?
Here.
Alderpersons, Klemm?
Here.
Johnson?
Here.
Simmons will be marked absent for now.
Parker?
Here.
Stacy?
Here.
Shadle?
Here.
Sanders?
Here.
And Sellers?
A motion in order for Alderman Simmons to attend remotely.
So I'll move.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
All those in favor?
No.
Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
And Stacy?
Aye.
Mays, James, Garrett, Coon, Thomas, Derek, Craig, 6 o' 2 PM Is she on?
Good.
OK.
And if you could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Alderman Shadle.
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.
Item number one is approval of the agenda.
However, we will not be having item number 25, which is Executive Session.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Is it fair to ask why we won't be having a closed session?
There wasn't anything to discuss.
OK, aye.
And Alderperson Simmons.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
And how do you vote on the agenda?
They tell me what?
Do you approve the agenda?
Aye.
Motion passes eight to zero.
Item number two is approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on August 18th, 2025.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Parker.
Madam Clerk, could you please take the role?
Madam, Madam Mayor, may I interject?
I did receive a message today that people at home are still having difficulty hearing older persons, so if you could lean in, is that okay if I ask?
Please lean into your microphone, even when you vote, they're not hearing you at home.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Thank you.
Sellers?
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
And Stacy?
Aye.
And the motion passes 8 to 0.
Item number three is recognition of service awards.
Chief?
And he's a field training officer.
Dan currently is assigned to the Detective Bureau where he's a general case detective and he just got his drone license.
So he's our first licensed drone pilot.
So that's pretty awesome.
Dan has also received our highest award, the award of valor on two separate occasions and he's also been the recipient of many other letters of recognition.
So I thank you for your service and congratulations.
Just real quick too, Officer Eric Deemer, he couldn't be with us tonight, but he hits the 20 year milestone, which is a big one.
He was going to be here, but something happened at the last minute.
His father was actually a long time police officer for the Freeport Police Department, so he's a legacy officer.
He also started off as a member of the Auxiliary.
He's also a firearms instructor.
Spent some time working in the state line area narcotics team, which is a drug task force that we're in with the Illinois State Police.
He's also a member of our emergency response team.
He's a field training officer.
And he as well has received throughout his career many letters of recommendation and recognition.
So we thank Eric for his 20 years of service.
Item number four is public comments.
Steve Carroll on item number 19.
Okay I'm excuse me I'm Steve Carroll and this is about the public comments on non-agenda items at the last council meeting there were many citizens that showed up to express their concerns about the outrageous rent increases that they were experiencing since that was not on the council agenda they were told in a very imperious tone they would have to wait to the end of the meeting to to express their views.
That particular meeting lasted a little over four hours.
Not very citizen friendly, now is it?
To compound the outrage, not one elected official at that meeting asked for suspension of the rules to allow those folks to express their outrage.
You know, the hypothetical vote on that motion would have been very telling, and maybe we'll have a repeat of that.
Okay, by changing the council rules to allow public comments on agenda and not agenda items at the beginning and end of council meetings would ensure that what happened at that last council meeting wouldn't happen again.
It's obvious to many that several of you are frightened of the First Amendment.
Perhaps some of you should consider stepping down.
And you in particular, Jodi, step down, find something else to do, go back to flipping burgers.
There's Robert Holtz that signed in, but doesn't say whether you are talking on an agenda item.
Then you'll have to wait till the end.
Pardon me?
I have a special thank you.
Well, according to the attorney, he said you have to wait till the end because it's not an agenda item.
Okay.
Thank you.
And Rolanda Allen, same for you?
Are you on an agenda item?
No?
Okay.
No?
Okay.
Then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is routine in nature, and will be voted as one unless there's a member of the council that would like to have something removed for further discussion.
Seeing none, the consent agenda consists of approving to receive and place on file the Board and Commission minutes from the Foreign Fire Insurance Board dated June 12th, the Library Board, July 9th, Fire and Police Commission, July 22nd, 2025, Freeport Partnerships Monthly Report dated August 2025, the adoption of resolution 2025-106, which is a resolution to request temporary closures of streets for the Freeport High School Homecoming Parade, approval of the finance bills payable in total of $989,343.30 and the approval of payroll Roll for Pay Period Ending August 23rd, 2025 in the total of $588,244.78 and also the Finance Reports and the Cash and Investment Reports for July 2025.
Is there a motion to approve?
So moved.
Second.
The motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll?
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
I pass.
Is that an abstain?
Yes.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
And Stacy?
No.
The motion passes 6-1 with one abstention.
Item number 6 is the first reading of ordinance 2025-53.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance authorizing the city to enter into a fifth renewal to lease agreement with Pete Albert for 103 through 111 South Liberty Avenue.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The city of Freeport entered into a lease agreement with Pete Albert to lease the first floor of the former Raleigh metal clad building on September 2nd, 2020.
The lease has been extended four times with the associated terms listed here in the memo.
In 21 it was $1,000, in 22 it was $2,000, same with 23 and 24.
The fifth renewal extends the lease for one year, commencing September 15th and ending September 14th, 2026.
The annual rent remains 2,000 and is consistent with the previous two rentals renewals.
That is a new provision we've included this year is potentially the ability to terminate the lease early in case of the current tenant expressing interest in purchasing the building at the Future.
So the city receives approximately $2,000 annually in rent and staff recommends moving forward renewing the lease with Pete Elber at the Raleigh Metal Clad Building.
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Seller, seconded by Alderman Parker to move this ordinance on to the next regular scheduled meeting discussion.
Alderman Stacey?
Who's paying the taxes on this building there the city owns it so so the city is paying the taxes sorry yes Michelle given um the city originally placed the property taxes and then we're reimbursed so we do get the rental fee every year and then we get paid for the property taxes but it's that discounted favor because it's in the city's name.
How much is paid for taxes on that building?
I'll need a few minutes.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, I understand that the considerations, some considerations have been made in the event, if anything changes within the future of this building, and the fact that we have not had opportunity to talk about the discovery of why we should lease this, continuously lease this building to a certain individual and we have not done and our homework on it.
We have not had enough time to make that distinction yet whether or not this particular occupant should continue to utilize that building.
And I am under the thought that the council has not come to a conclusion or any kind of a resolution for that building.
And if we are not doing that, we don't know what we're selling the building for to even make that kind of a discussion.
And if we're gonna discuss possibilities for future references for the occupant that's occupying this building or apartment or whatever it is, that we need to look into it, explore a little bit more in depth to see if it's conducive to the taxpayers here in the city of Freeport, and we don't want anybody to have the impression or the appearance, especially council, having the appearance of giving consideration to any individual for whatever, the impropriety of the appearance Huffines.
So, I think the importance of it looks very, very suspicious to me at this point in time, and I like to be able to look into it more than just coming to council, looking at it on the agenda, and then rendering a vote for it, so I think what should happen is we need to do this exploratory observation inspection by council, independent councils so they can make it an educated or the right type of a decision making that needs to go into this particular option because this thing like I'm looking at it to the same occupant for so many years and if that is the case, who's monitoring that property, who's inspecting that property to determine whether there's potential value should be increased into that property.
We're not doing any of those kinds of things and we need to be able to be on our job to get that kind of information to make sound decisions when it comes to reevaluating that particular property and how and and it's not considered or been brought up by any other potential buyers or rental options so that's that's my opinion on it I think that's what we should do as a council to to not have the appearance of I just wondered what would happen to the building if we do not, it's a three-part question here.
What would happen to the building if we do not lease it?
Is there other others who have expressed interest in renting or buying this building.
And has there been any improvement in this area during the last four years during its rental time?
Let me try to answer all those for you.
The building, I think it's five floors and four floors are unoccupied.
So if anybody else wanted to rent a floor in it that would definitely be an option as far as, and what was the second, third one?
I wondered if anyone else has been interested in renting or buying this building.
Have not received any other interest.
However, we're always open to it.
Any improvements?
No improvements that I'm aware of.
It's storage and as far as I know.
Okay.
Over to Stacey.
Yes.
Is advertisement out there informing people that this building can be purchased?
And what is this new provision grants?
If I could just do my best to answer that.
We generally have not done a lot of advertising for it.
We have a lot of vacant space throughout the downtown.
So we could do that at some expense to the city, if that was council's desire.
And also, as far as the purchasing, obviously, we would ideally like to not have the city own this building eventually.
So this just provides a provision so that if we are able to get an estimate and kind of move in agreement to a value.
We could bring that for counsel to liquidate this building, hopefully in the future.
If, Attorney Zito.
Zito just to add on to what the city manager indicated so that additional provision about purchase it provides the tenant with an option to purchase so if that during this one-year term of this lease that the parties happen to reach an agreement so we would have to have discussions they would have to come to us and say hey I'm interested in buying the property we would have to come as a city through through counsel to an agreement on a price and what all the I'm not talking about, I'm not just speaking of the current guy that's getting it every year for 2000.
I'm talking about how would anyone in the city be aware and know what is what what are you even asking for the building?
How do we know if it's not advertised?
Well, there are five floors total there's one that's occupied so there's four other floors So on public record if there are other people that are interested in using it for cold storage Please approach the city would be happy to entertain any offers, but it's been empty for a number of years except for Mr. Albers and It is is a cost offset to the city to have someone there And GFP is aware of any empty building and would be more than willing to tell someone if they had Interest in something specific.
So my question Is not being answered.
How do the citizen of Freeport know that purchasing?
Is purchasing this building is an option if information is not put out there.
I don't care nothing about what Greater Freeport Partnership, no.
I don't care about how many floors.
My question was, how would anybody know that this building was up to purchase to be considered if it's not advertised, then put out there.
I would say the same way any other developer does it.
They go on a property search, they find out who owns it, then they call the owner.
Say, is your building for sale?
I'd like to buy it.
That's generally how.
Do we own over 200 pieces of property?
Yes.
Director Duckman.
I just did wanna say that I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does work with interested parties that come to the city wanting to invest and I know that I've been on other parts of the Raleigh building and showed it to prospective developers.
So I know that they're active in shopping the property.
So when developers come to the city, I know the Greater Freeport Partnership does a good job utilizing that as a resource when people are interested.
Director Richter, do you have the answer to your first question?
Yes.
So the amount that's been reimbursed to the city Fort, the tax year of 2024, which was billed in this year, was $142.54.
Thank you.
So that's all the taxes that he's paying yearly, $142.54?
Yes, because that's all that the city pays on that property.
And typically, the city would not pay property taxes at all.
But our tax assessor charges the city, and the city of New York.
So the city of New York is a tax assessor and it is taxed as any tax assessor would for if the city rents or makes income on a property, then it is taxed.
But otherwise, property would not be taxed.
And the reason it's a lower tax amount is it's only renting one floor.
So they're only assessing taxes on the one floor that the city is making income.
Huffines.
I want to make it clear to you that this is not an actual discussion.
It is an understanding while I listen to what is being said.
All of this comes up to a discretionary opinion, not an actual terminology or agreement or any of those kinds of things that binds the city to any particular occupant of a who are part of the city when it comes to taxpayers that is owning the property.
It is a discretion at this point in time for anyone that wants to decide to occupy any city property and then exploit it to get a benefit out of it because that's exactly what happens when you, whenever you talk about a five story building and then let one occupant within that building come in and pay a certain amount of dollars, who made that discretionary call?
Who set up those parameters of where and how much does an occupant of a building of five story occupy, whether or not it's five floors or not, whether he rents five floors or not, that whole building is being occupied.
Who is carrying the discretionary guidelines or having the opinion, because I'm quite sure the council is not involved in that, which we should be involved in that because we're the ones who should be calling the shots about how that building is used and how is it benefiting the citizens of Freeport?
If that building is not being overall utilized and marketed for potential rental property to anybody else that wants to exploit that property, then we're not doing our just due about getting this particular building on the market so more tenants can be in that building.
We're not utilizing that service of the service of that building at this time.
So what we need to do is change provisions with the structure of how we're gonna utilize this building with the taxpayers commenting and have an opinion and have their views and an opinion on this property that we may not, that if we don't have all the details, maybe someone else has the details, but we're not exploiting the taxpayers to let them know that this building is out there and anyone that wants to occupy any portions of that building, we have not set up the perimeters nor the provisions of that building, guidelines or anything to allow anyone else to be able to come in and occupy that building.
So we need to take a reevaluation of how we got that thing set up because right now in document form, paper form, any tangible document agreement or whatever with this particular occupant and the building, we need to take an assessment over the whole thing and make sure that we're following proper guidelines that council set.
What are the, we don't have none of these kinds of things that council can refer back to and that there's no ordinance at this current time.
We have not even tried to amend or adopt this particular deal with the any occupants that wants to occupy that building.
So my whole thing is, is that we need to re-evaluate.
Your time has expired.
Okay, I got you, sister.
Okay.
If there's no further discussion, we'll move this on to the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Move on to item number seven, which is the first reading of ordinance 2025-54.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance establishing the Gladewood special service area and accepting dedication of roadways and levy of taxes to offset the cost of special services.
Thank you.
Manager Boyer.
Thank Your Honor.
The city received a petition from a majority of the property owners in the Gladewood subdivision requesting the creation of a special service area or SSA.
Following required notices, the public hearing on May 28th, no valid objections were filed.
The ordinance SSA establish the SSA dedicate subdivision roadways to the city and outlines a framework for funding ongoing maintenance.
The SSA ensures improvements to the subdivision's upper and lower entrances, including roadway base and asphalt upgrades, meeting engineering standards.
The city will also accept the internal road system as is into the public street network.
Establishing the SSA creates a sustainable mechanism for funding services to be benefited Miller.
The ordinance provides for an annual levy of $400 and brought up to me also that's for a term of 15 years.
So across 16 parcels, the revenues will offset costs of roadway maintenance and improvements specific to the Gladewood area, ensuring equitable cost recovery.
Africa men's approval of this ordinance and establishing the Gladewood special service area .
Motion to approve.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Klemm.
Seconded.
Made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers to move this ordinance forward.
Discussion?
Alderman Stacey?
Yes.
How many homeowners in the Gladewood area has agreed and is okay with this $400 and what does that fee involve as far as fixing the streets and snow removal?
But what does this ordinance give the Gladewood people?
Well, there's 16 parcels that are involved and it benefit from improved access to their area.
You mentioned snow removal.
And all 16 agreed?
No, not all 16, a majority of the 16.
So I believe there was nine or 10 that agreed.
With that, the snow removal is currently performed Park District, and that is an agreement that predates, I think it was former Mayor Calrap signed that agreement.
Did you want your second one?
Yes.
Go ahead.
Have they had an opportunity, all of them, to have an opportunity at that stand and speak on this matter as to why or why not they want to pay that $400.
I mean, 9 or 10 out of 16 is still.
Yeah, well we did provide, we followed the state statute on setting up an SSA and in that it required a meeting and each person was able to have a dialogue and ask questions and go back and Forth, with the engineers, myself, Attorney Cox, so that process was filed.
So as far as opportunities to stand here in front of council, obviously it's an agenda item, so they could speak now if they wanted to, or they could have spoken at public comments.
Holderman Klemm?
What was the mumble, the 30 days what?
They also had 30 days to file an objection with me and I received none.
Coleman, Klemm.
Sure.
I just wanted to say I don't know the exact date, but a hearing was held here in City Hall and there was conversation back and forth with many of the homeowners that were here.
It was laid out as to all the costs and what would be done.
It was agreed to the biggest areas in need are the entrance and the exit coming into it.
And others will be fixed so that it isn't full of potholes and stuff and then we will get it into our process to get the whole thing surfaced.
So all of that was discussed and it was open to everybody.
Yes, there were some people that objected, sure there were.
It was one of those things that was never found until work came up on the Gladewood Bridge.
When work was studied on the Gladewood Bridge, it came up that this had never been transferred to the city.
So it's kind of a bad deal, and this is one of the best ways to rectify it.
And everybody in there will have new roads and have decent roads to drive on.
So are you saying that it's now the city's, it's under the city?
Establishing a special service area is part of it becoming, it's required to set that up so we have some cost recovery in exchange the city takes over the street.
Oldham and Sanders?
Yeah, I was going to ask, where are the numbers coming from?
And who sets up the guidelines for cost effective overall, the overall for the city part of the maintenance of that area.
And how do we determine what the numbers are gonna be, what it's gonna cost, where the fundings are gonna go after receiving any type of provisions, of Provisions, I mean any revenue, I'll put it like that, any kind of revenue, where does this money end up and how does it benefit the taxpayers of the city and the maintenance overall cost and not only that, how do we come up with the $400?
I'm trying to figure out where these numbers come in from.
Well, the $400 came from, started with an estimate that was calculated, the attorney and myself worked on you know what was reasonable.
We also looked at engineering estimates for what it would take to take care of the emergent issues on the entrance and exit to Gladewood and then also just more of a common-sense approach as far as you know what's realistic here, what is realistic.
So all those doesn't completely recover every dime required to do the immediate repairs.
This goes a long way of cutting down the city's expenses with dealing with the emergent issues on the entrance and exit.
So what's going to include, what's included right now and what we'll be working on for next year is base repair and resurfacing of the entrance and exit.
If I recall right, it was about 200 feet on either side.
Okay, all what you're saying is a- Okay, do you want to use your second?
Cause he was still- Why are you interjecting?
Because you don't have the floor, he does.
He shouldn't have the floor if I'm still talking.
But you weren't, he was talking.
No, I was talking first.
Please, Alderman Sanders, he had the floor.
Manager Boyer, did you have more you wanted to say?
I believe I've, did I answer your question, Alderman Sanders?
Now, would you like your second time speaking?
That's not the protocol.
It is the protocol.
No, it's not the protocol.
That is not how the procedures work.
You don't get to guide the council.
Would you like your second time speaking?
You don't get to guide the council when he having a one-on-one conversation to determine whether or not we are in a conversation.
We can't even make that distinction right now because why?
I have to continue to use my questions at your discretion, calling out when can I talk to my administrative body when he's sitting right here talking to me.
You can talk to him every day if you want to, but he has the floor.
That's not the point.
That is not the point.
I am getting fed up with the fact and Stacey.
We have to go by certain protocols.
I'm getting fed up that you're being disruptive.
Would you like your second time?
Otherwise just move away from the microphone.
My point is this.
He did not go through the same thing that I went through.
He just interjected himself in the conversation that I was having a question about.
So you didn't have that call to make that.
So Alderman Stacey, would you like your time?
No, I want to answer the question.
I want to ask the second question.
Would you like to have the floor Alderman Sanders?
Yes, I would.
Okay, that's all you needed.
Okay.
Well, I don't like to, I don't, okay, my, my, my point is this.
You're having a meeting, you're having a meeting, um, or had a meeting with the Clay, Claywood, um, area, uh, council people, committee or whatever the case is that you we went through to establish how you come up with numbers and the council don't see those numbers.
We don't see how you came about those numbers.
It's not saying that what you're saying that it's more like a discretionary thing that is based upon your consideration and your opinion about the numbers.
That's what I'm concerned about.
And my thing is that is not the right approach to do that.
And council is to be formed before any decisions are being made out in the field when it comes to redirecting things, fundings and all of these kinds of things.
The city has to be clued in so we can make an intelligent decision and understand the process of what you're doing.
We can't come to council understanding what you did before we had an opportunity to talk about it because it's not in the memo.
Everything that you talk about is not always in the memo.
And so what I'm saying is there's a lot of variations that are going on that we have not talked about when it comes to this particular area.
Don't get me wrong.
I just want to know how we got here.
That's all I'm asking because a lot of things that we're doing is not being revealed unto the council and the council needs to know beforehand so they can make a form and opinion or decision about what is going on out in the field.
I have no problem with it unless I can understand the process of how you got here.
And if that is not how we're doing things, then we need to restructure some of those things so we can get a clear view on how to go to the next step or how we're gonna get to the next step.
And then not only that, the council is always informed of how we got there.
Am I out of time now?
No, you still got a minute and 30 seconds.
No, I don't want it now.
Is there any, and I'm sorry, Alderman Stacey, you already spoke twice.
Is there any other discussion?
Otherwise we will move this forward to the next city council meeting.
Item number eight is the first reading of ordinance 2025-55.
Alderman Klemm.
Second, I don't know if Alderman Stacy really heard what you said or she had a question to ask, I believe.
Yeah, she had already spoke twice, yep.
Did you have something further than Alderman Klemm?
Did you have something you wanted to add?
No?
Okay.
Then we'll move on to the first reading of Ordinance 20-25-55.
Could you please read this?
Thank you.
Manager Boyer?
Thank you, Your Honor.
If you'll look at the memo, a revised memo, there's a mistake in the one that I put forward with the agenda.
State law generally sets a mandatory requirement, age of 65, for police and firefighters.
The city's code currently references those requirements for the Chief of Police, that's Section 240.04 and Fire Chief, Section 242.05, however, age alone does not determine whether an individual is fit to serve as Chief.
Our current Fire Chief continues to provide exemplary leadership and has earned the trust of his department and community.
It is the city's best interest to allow him to continue to serve as long as he wishes, provided he remains capable and effective.
As a home rule unit, the city of Freeport may establish its own requirements for the position of police and fire chief, and the ordinance adds new subsections clarifying that the position of chief of police and fire chief will not be subject to a mandatory retirement age of 65.
This change ensures leadership decisions are based on performance and ability and not age.
From a legal perspective, the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act restricts mandatory retirements except in limited cases.
By removing the age cap for chiefs, the city reduces potential exposure to any kind of discrimination issues and aligns with best practices across Illinois municipalities.
So staff recommend there is no financial impact and staff recommends moving forward with and the amendment removing the maximum age for police and fire chiefs.
Is there a motion to move this forward?
So moved.
Second.
Also suspension of the rules.
Suspension of the rules.
We have a motion made by Alderman Parker, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on this ordinance?
May a motion to suspend the rules?
Yes.
Second.
We have a motion to suspend the rules made by Alderman Parker.
I didn't.
Seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Suspension of the rules is non-debatable.
Yeah, I know.
That's very clever.
That's very clever of you.
All of the standards, please.
Yeah, I saw this coming.
This is a non-debated issue.
I understand that.
Okay, so Madam Clerk, could you please take the roll on the suspension only?
Yeah, I understand that.
I saw that coming.
Shadle?
I wanted you to know that.
Sanders?
No.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Oh, I said no, sorry.
Thank you.
Parker?
Aye.
And Stacy?
No.
Motion passes 6 to 2.
So now before you is the final passage.
Alderman Sanders, would you like to have a question on this?
Yeah, I just can't understand how one of the constituents leaders of their ward cannot come to the to the terms or the or the however you want to put it come to a conclusion that we should and I have a question for you.
I would like to ask you a question about why you want to suspend this particular rule and not have a clear understanding and talk about why the ordinance clearly states this and we want to ignore it.
To go along with discussions if it's the proper thing to do.
But here I got someone in here that's talking about suspended when the ordinance is talking about the cap age.
It's talking about establishing that, and then not only that, you obviously didn't read the fact that there was discretionary and opinions going on in this particular agenda, on this particular ordinance in its entirety.
Someone is throwing their opinions into this memo without council having a chance to even discuss it, let alone getting it right in the ordinance perspective.
We're not doing the just due diligence of the ordinance.
Now, if there's any amendments that needs to be made, then let the rest of the council be able to speak out on this particular ordinance, so the people, the public can hear what the opinions are, why we should do this, because if the ordinance gives you a cap, why are we trying to change that cap?
And we need to know who's bringing that thought into the council, I understand the city manager is throwing his opinion in there, his discretionary opinion and wanting for us to take the consideration of what he is saying, that's not how this works.
There's an ordinance that allows council the opportunity to weigh in on this particular memo that has been presented to us and the public as well.
This is not sold based upon one individual's discretionary Miller.
It is all about the council making those discretionary parameters and whether or not we want to consider allowing the cap to be raised or the cap to be removed.
And that's exactly what this is talking about.
Having the cap to be removed and then we're supposed to not have a committee to make sure We can't say we've got a Fire Chief and a Police Chief in the Council or in the Administrator body at 99 years old.
Where does this stop?
And nobody sitting here is qualified to make those discretionary calls.
We can't say we've got a Fire Chief and a Police Chief in the Council or in the Administrator body at 99 years old.
Fowler.
We have to make those discretionary calls.
No one.
You suspended it, sir, so you don't get an opportunity to voice your opinion on this particular matter.
But my point is, there's no committee set up to make that distinction whether or not an individual is going to be effective enough to continue without a cap on it and the ordinance set it there so that could happen.
Now, if we want to change things as a council, that's one thing.
We can amend it.
Thank you Alderman Sanders.
Your time has expired.
Alderman Stacy, did you have your hand up?
What is the advantage for suspending the rules?
Manager Boyer?
I think it's in deference to our current chief.
What?
It's in deference to our current chief so that we make a timely decision and able to move forward and not have this subject come back over and over again if the council is Accepting of moving forward with this change.
And so are you saying not suspending the rules?
It's not being fair to no I did not say it's not fair.
I just simply said in deference to our current chief I and I would request the suspension of the rules.
So what are we looking at?
As far as time-wise, suspending the rules are not suspending the rules.
What are we looking at?
A week?
It would be moving to actually suspension of the rules is kind of already over with.
So it's a non-debatable thing.
You either vote yes or no.
So to talk about suspension of the rules is kind of pointless.
Do you want to talk about the ordinance itself and if it would have not passed, then it would have been pushed back two weeks.
Okay, so I just wanted to know what was the advantage in suspending the rules?
And you're telling me two weeks.
That's the time frame.
Olin and Parker, did you want to add to that?
Yeah, as long as apparently he was talking to me directly.
I'm entitled to my opinion, I totally believe it and if you read the ordinance that he put out, it gives you an option if the person turns 65, is not capable of doing the job, he can be removed.
But when you have somebody as quality as we have, it's not an easy thing to change the chief of a position.
It's easier just to keep who you have there if you're doing a good job.
My opinion is doing a good job.
So we're both entitled to our opinions, Larry.
Yeah, that's basically what it is.
Any other discussion?
If not, Alderman Johnson.
Just wanted to say that in the ordinance section 242.32, it talks about periodic physical examinations.
So every member shall take and pass physical examinations whenever directed by the Board of Fire and Police Commissions.
So if it's someone that's 65 or older and we think there might be some.
So, if they're older and we think there might be some problems with their physical or mental status, maybe not capable of doing the job, then they can order a physical exam to safeguard that, you know, that point that they are physically able and mentally able to do the job.
There's no further discussion?
Yeah.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah.
And John.
I think that adds coupling to that observation whether or not someone needs to be available committee or if someone needs to be able to say that a certain individual needs to take an agility test to be examined to determine whether or not he's fit to do that job.
Well, the point is there's no mechanism in place right at this current time to make that discretionary observation monitoring system.
We do not have that to determine whether a person that has been considered beyond retirement.
When the ordinance says this is the deadline of the retirement, you must follow this.
Fowler.
I want to give consideration for someone to continue after the ordinance has already been put in place.
The council has to place an amendment or have one already in place to even call that.
No one person makes these kinds of declarations or make any kind of opinion about it unless We have all been informed about the possibilities of these things happening.
I have no problem with the consideration of amending if a person has the agility and the ability to work beyond the retirement age.
I have no problem with that.
But my problem is we never talked about A cap, even after 65, we have not even got to that point yet.
And so to have that discussion and have a committee to make that kind of determination to inform council that this person is sound mind, capable, effective, and all of these, there's nothing in place that gives us that vision, that gives us that understanding.
So all of this that we're talking about is mute right now because we need to reevaluate what we just talked about.
And that's the essence of all of this.
So we need to redo all of it, including the suspension that was thrown out there as well.
Chief Miller.
Yes, thank you, your honor.
So maybe I can help bring this to light or make it clear.
I actually brought this forward to Manager Boyer.
I wanted to get in front of this.
I discovered that there is this fire and police commission statute that's out there.
And obviously looking at the police chief and myself, we all know that this is about me and not him.
So looking at, and attorney Zito correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but what this came down to is it's a fire and police commission Illinois compiled statutes statute that was adopted by the city on behalf of the Fire and Police Commission.
So what this determines is anybody who falls under Fire and Police Commission authority, meaning you're hired, you're tested, you're promoted through Fire and Police Commission, this applies to the 65 years of age mandatory retirement.
What this is talking about before you tonight is the police chief and myself are not under Fire and Police Commission.
We're merely appointed by the city manager with council approval.
So that is the determination between rank and file, fire and police commission and city manager.
So what this states is any position that is below the chief level and meaning that they're tested, they're promoted, they come up through the ranks, this is governed by the 65 year rule.
But for police chiefs, fire chiefs, we aren't part of that fire and police commission statute where the administration, which is appointed position with your approval.
So we're just trying to clear this up and make it more understandable, bring the ordinance to light, have the ability for elected officials to be aware of it and then be finished with it above board and have transparency and honesty about this.
I'm sorry, Alderman Sanders, you already had your two.
Alderman Stacey.
Thank you, Chief Miller for explaining that.
And you know it's nothing against you with me in any way, shape or form.
I'm just trying to understand what's at hand, but before I can even get an understanding, the rules are suspended and I just needed to know what the advantage was in suspending the rules and that happens quite often and it is disturbing because no one could even explain it to me.
The mayor made more sense to city manager Boyer but the way you just broke it down Bates.
Thank you.
And I have no problem if it's no weeks, one week or two weeks, you're more than qualified and capable of carrying on your title.
Suspension of the rules doesn't stop discussion.
It just is an order of procedure.
So if there's no further discussion on this, you already spoke twice, sorry.
I get a third one?
No.
You'd have to have council approval.
Alderman Klemm.
I was I was in this position 16 years ago.
That means I'm an old fart.
Okay.
So if you do some math into it, the times have really changed.
Years ago, when these things were set up, it'd be in a mandatory 65.
You know, people over 65 years old at that point, were pretty well Ready for Retirement.
You take a look at things today with modern technology and medicine, modern medications and everything else.
People are living a lot longer.
People are living better for a longer period of time.
The one thing I think that is a thing to get rid of this is the fact of if it comes to a position and there's a different city manager and there's a different city and a different fire chief, somebody can walk up to the fire chief and Kessler.
I don't care what the conversation is or what's going to happen.
When you go to replace one of these people, you're instantly talking thousands of dollars for a recruitment fee and a number of months to get a person into that position.
So I believe it helps us to retain a person for a number of years as long as they're capable.
Settler, please take the roll.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
And the ordinance passes 7-1.
Item number 9 is the first reading of Ordinance 2025-56.
Could you please read this?
Ordinance amending Chapters 1248 and 1250 of the Zoning Code of the City of Freeport concerning and ground-mounted solar arrays.
Director Duckman.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Staff had been directed by the City of Freeport Planning Commission to move forward with a text amendment to change our zoning code for the ground-mounted solar arrays.
And so a little background here.
Our planning commission in its last two, it's last, We had two ground-mounted solar projects where our Planning Commission voted on in residential districts and those two they voted against, voted it down.
And through much discussion, what was brought up was that our Planning Commission doesn't feel that in residential neighborhoods or in our smaller agricultural zoning lots, which We have 15 agricultural zoning lots in the city.
Essentially, our planning commission directed staff to change our zoning code, where we would, instead of having a special use permit for ground-mounted solar arrays in residential and agricultural zoning districts, where they would outlaw and not allow it at all.
So staff took this direction.
And we held a public hearing on August 14.
And the Planning Commission made a recommendation with these changes by a vote of 5 to 0 with zero abstentions.
To zero with zero abstentions.
And in line with our planning commission, staff is recommending moving this forward.
Is there such a motion?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on this ordinance?
Alderman Sanders.
Director Duckman, give me the, you We said there was a vote of 500.
Is that correct?
And who was the five?
I could get those names for you by the time we have our second reading.
Okay.
And what was the opinion of the public about this?
There was no major public comment here about this.
And I would say that in general when we talk about the special use, Huffines, David, John, John, John, John.
And that's really what we're talking about.
So, when we're talking about special use permits for solar, I would say overwhelmingly the neighbors don't want it.
Essentially what they're saying at these zoning hearings is I live in a residential neighborhood, I don't want to wake up looking at solar panels in my back yard.
» That's what I was listening to.
Push this agenda that the solar system company wants to try to impose up on the general public with this service is basically what we're listening to.
I do well the planning commission is saying that they don't want based on what they've heard in special use permit hearings that they from the community that they don't they no longer want to have it allowed in our residential districts.
You know some statistics here.
You would still be able to do it as a rooftop You would still be able to by right put the solar panels on your roof What we're talking about is going into your backyard in a residential neighborhood and installing solar panels on the ground So instead of having walking out in the backyard and you would see You know grass or a shed or garage you would see essentially solar panels.
Okay, so that won't impose up on those that are Well, this is not a blanket slate for no solar panels for any residents.
You would still be able to put it on the roof.
You can't?
Okay.
Any other discussion?
Parliament, Stacy?
You know, I've said this before and it concerns me that we're willing to do it for some, but not for all.
We just agreed to have a church area at this church.
They wanted it on the ground.
Last year, there was a couple of homes in their backyard.
They wanted it on the ground.
And so now we're wanting to take away the ability to have that variance so that it can't be put on the ground.
Scott, John, Paul, and the others and they have been on the ground.
However, we did it for some.
Is there a question there?
Are you asking me?
How do you determine why do it for some and not do it for all?
Again, that's what a special use permit is.
So what you currently have is anybody who would like to in a residential neighborhood would like to install solar panels in their backyard.
They have to go through a hearing with the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Commission, and then ultimately presented to council.
And that's why currently you are voting with your other fellow council members on whether or not somebody can have it.
That's what's happening right now.
This proposed ordinance says everybody is no.
There is no longer a council vote on it.
So when you're talking about same for some Huffman, John Huffman, John Huffman, Sanders.
This is exactly what this ordinance is saying, is that our planning commission has reviewed and have been through the past two hearings that they've heard.
They voted against it and they don't see it in line with our zoning and with our land use because of the complaints mainly of our public at these hearings and the name.
Sanders, would you like your second time?
Yeah.
So there is an ordinance, is what you're declaring at this point.
Winslow.
There is an ordinance involved in the process for people to make an educated decision or determine their opinions and things like that.
The ordinance should be stipulating exactly what the provisions are in that ordinance and the guidelines for that ordinance.
And I'm just wondering, have the people been educated about this ordinance to determine whether or not the decisions that they're making and why we have an ordinance that sounds Fowler.
I understand what you're saying.
What you're saying is the planning board has nullified the whole concept.
And so the next move is for the solar system is to what?
Move out of the city of Freeport to move on?
Or how does that work?
≫ No.
So essentially what on August 14th we had a public hearing that was publicly noticed.
And it was decided that We can give it to that one.
We can give it to this one.
We can give it to that one because that's going to if you vote no against this, you are voting to take the control to say they, you know, Sally can have it.
Mark can't.
That's what's going on right now.
If this passes, you're essentially saying Sally and Mark cannot have it.
John can't have it.
No one can have it in a residential in a residential neighborhood.
And the reason for that is the Planning Commission is charged to make recommendations on how land use effects is in line with our is a comprehensive plan and they've after the past few zoning hearings they've said look we don't think this fits with what we're doing in our community and we want to remove it.
Right.
And that's what they're proposing to council right now.
Okay.
Darren did you want to add to that.
I'm on the Planning Commission along with many other members and this has been a unanimous decision with everybody on the Planning Committee that we are not in favor of ground-mound solar in and residential neighborhoods.
It's distracting, it's obtrusive.
The current ordinance reads that you can go on the roof, you don't even have to come to the council to do the roof.
That's an automatic given if you wanna do that.
You only have to come to the council or to the commissions if you wanna do ground mount as a variance.
We've, I believe Wayne said two, I think it might be three different developments that have been denied by the planning commission, but they still have come here and you guys overruled the recommendation from the people that you're asking to review this stuff.
It was reviewed in depth.
And I was not at the last meeting but the meeting before that that we discussed it, it was discussed for over 30 minutes and everyone there was unanimous that they didn't want to see ground mounted in residential zoned properties.
Now, again, there's a difference between residential properties and these commercial developments.
It's two different ordinances, right?
So we're just talking about household properties in town.
That's all we're discussing at this.
And we're saying as a group, and I agree with it, that we don't want to have that option.
It's cheaper for the solar companies to stick a pole in the ground and put solar panels on it than to put it on the roof.
That's the option they're gonna choose every time if they can get it.
We don't even wanna review those at the Planning Commission anymore.
That's why we're asking for this.
Alderman Sanders, you've already spoke twice.
I did.
Alderman Stacy, would you like your second time?
I didn't ask you to not speak again.
I did not ask you to let me speak my second time.
659 And 704.
Wow.
Darren, last year you came to council.
There was a home that wanted these panels on the ground.
You talked about how there was no endangerment to anything or anybody.
And twice, at least twice last year, we approved and voted for ground panels.
There was a home.
No, I'm telling you, cause you came to council and you spoke about they're not being high.
Fowl, they're not being harmful and.
Oh, I believe you're confusing the landfill solar project with residential.
The residential ones, to my knowledge, have all been turned down.
Alderman Sellers?
Wait, Duckman was speaking.
Go ahead.
I gave the floor to Alderman Sellers.
Go ahead.
She's talking about when we okayed the property for Ted Oatendall, but if you saw his land, it's totally, it's totally different.
It's not, it's acres of land.
So it's not where he has a house next door and a house next door.
It's acres of land.
No, Ted was just one of two or three.
Oh no, I just remember the one, it was Ted Oatendall, and then we did the church.
But that's out on Pearl City Road.
And I'm even talking about last year.
I'm talking about what was done last year.
Okay, so Director, do you have more you want to add?
No, I just wanted to say Director Steekle is probably the most outspoken against residential solar and I think it goes back to Park Hills Church had a zoning hearing in 2023, might who, essentially, he's on the side that thinks it doesn't fit in the community.
So I just want to say that to be fair and I know that, for a fact, there was one on Lincoln Boulevard that wanted to put it in their backyard.
I know Director Stiegl voted against that.
I know he voted against the Harmony Church one.
So he's been consistent to not vote for it and that's just all I wanted, to make that point.
I wanted you to speak because I thought you were going to answer my question and not take up or feel like you needed to support Darren.
I wasn't being harsh with Darren.
I'm just speaking.
Yeah, if there's a question, I'll answer.
I didn't know the question.
Well, and let's remember this is first reading, so it'll be on in two weeks.
So if you have more questions, you know, feel free to call, come to your weekly meetings, make notes so you can ask more questions in the next meeting.
If there's no further discussion, we'll move on to item number 10, which is the adoption of resolution 2025-101.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving agreement for the purchase of office 365.
Thank you, Director Suttman.
Thank you, Mayor.
This agreement or procurement is to purchase Office 365 productivity suite software for all city staff, including water and sewer and police.
Which one is that?
Office 365.365?
Government version.
I won't read the memo pervatum but generally it is more expensive than we have now.
We're what we call an on-prem shop, what we call ourselves.
We own, the software is run locally, our servers are here, all that stuff.
This is going to be a little more expensive, but there are compliance and some security wins and security losses with it.
With it.
It's kind of the industry trend is going this way.
It helps us out with a lot more integrations with future softwares we get for the city.
And that's kind of the meat of it.
Financially, it's gonna cost just under 21,000 per year, which of that, the city, which includes Fire and PD, so it's not just city hall staff, We'll pay around $17,000.
Water and sewer will pay around $3,700.
Any questions?
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Shadle.
Discussion on the resolution, Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, what happens when you don't adopt?
I mean, first and second adoption, we have to chime in on the adoption.
Is it mandatory that we conclude with an adoption to accept or do we just accept things and just move on just to have it in our discussion?
I'm just talking off the top of my head because you're not gonna mark me down for a question.
I'm not asking a question yet.
So while I'm not asking a question, my whole thing is this, what made the determination for you two, you guys to wanna install a new server not only that, who are we, what's wrong with the old server?
We don't know exactly, I'm still going because if she stops me, I have to come back again.
And if we are looking at the possibility of upgrading a new server, where does the old server go with all that data information on that particular server?
Because we don't want a Hillary Clinton kind of situation and John.
We have a lot of people that are jumping off in the city.
And so what I'm concerned about, who's safeguarding, I know you've got all kind of security mechanisms in place, but who's making those determinations and the discretion of servers, how many servers, one or two servers, where does all this resource information, data information is stored?
Because it goes on to a new server that we're considering or do we dismantle the old service and who occupies and who covers that and who takes care of that?
Those are my concern because we don't want to have data running around loose throughout the city, you know, where anyone can get their hands on it and use it at their own discretion or theft, fraud or whatever the case may be.
I just like to know how it's being secured, and I just, I know, I know, I know servers go out bad, you hear me, I'm stating my comment, my, yeah, and I know they go bad, I know that it's time for upgrading with new software and all of these kinds of things to be put in place, but I just I just want to know how we're going to go about the data security of those servers that we want to replace.
Director Shuttman, would you like to answer all those questions?
Yes, thank you.
So this is the, next is the server.
Should I just answer it now?
So when I do do the server, they'll be running parallel for a short time while the data is copied over.
And then yes when that old server is decommissioned whether it goes on the surplus auction or whatever the drives will be wiped and I'm assuming shredded per standard okay alderman stacy last year we spent thousands of dollars for a new system and now here not you personally but here you come again 21,000.
What did we not get last year that we need this year?
So last year kind of my big IT purchase was a new physical server box, a host server for the police department.
They kind of have their own NOC, Network Operation Center.
This is for Office 365 and we'll get into there's another network operation center for the city.
So what we bought last year, think of that as the processing and the storage.
What this agenda admin is is the software.
But that was just for the police?
Is that what you just said?
That was just for the police?
Last year that service was only for police.
To handle what they need.
Any other discussion?
Yeah.
Your second time?
Go ahead, Dolderman Sanders.
Second time?
Yes.
Okay.
I'm going to make sure you stick to that.
Your time's clicking.
Okay.
So what we're looking, what kind of server are we looking for this time around?
Are we talking about just for the city itself?
Administrator bodies or other branches within the city?
Or how are we covering all of this?
Because I'm looking at a $27,000 cost here.
And I'm like, okay, what are we getting?
What kind of breakdown are we getting for each department?
Who who's all being served with these whole servers.
Without going into the entire like network topology for reasons, security reasons.
This will serve, yes, administrative, city hall, basically all staff other than the police, they're on a different domain.
So we keep the actual hardware separate too.
But it runs application servers, your basic network controls as well as some storage.
Any other discussion?
Like the water department and all that?
Nothing goes to the cloud, right?
We're not, thank you.
I was hoping you said no.
And the different departments like with Daring, Waterworks Department, all that is connected with this?
Yes.
Anyone else?
Seeing none, Madam Clerk, would you please take the roll?
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Item number 11 is the adoption of resolution 2025,102.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving the purchase of a host server for the city from CDW-G. Thank you, Director Shuttman.
Thank you.
So this is for the new host server for the city.
We covered a lot of it in the questions from the last one, but this is just to refresh the server that was bought in 2017.
The reason for We're replacing it as the hardware is getting older, the incidents of data failure go up and up every year.
Knock on wood, we haven't had any with the servers treated us very well.
But as any machine you have in your life, it'll wear down over time and start to break.
With computer systems, you also have to worry about things like firmware support.
And so the security becomes, there's more vulnerabilities over time.
That would be the reason for why we want to do this now.
Oh, wait a minute.
We need a motion to adopt.
So moved.
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Klemm.
Discussion.
Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, what kind of servers are they?
Are they Mac or PC?
Android?
No, not Android.
I know you won't do an Android.
But what kind of operating systems are we looking at when we're talking about host servers?
Where we're working?
And Stacey.
What operating systems are we using?
I never heard of a department area using Mac servers or whatever or anything like that.
What kind of we're indulging in?
Yeah, what was Spectrum was a Dell server.
It'll be a Windows environment.
Pretty standard basic small business type stuff, but with the government compliance.
Okay.
And Stacey.
Okay, so not counting the 21,000 you just asked for, now you're asking for another 27,000.
Did you budget any of this?
Yes, these are all budgeted.
Just to clarify, the last one we just passed, that was for Office 365.
It's like when you're at work and you go on your email or a spreadsheet, that's what the last one was.
This one's Shadle, Sanders, Sellers, Klemm, Johnson, Simmons, Parker, Stacy, The resolution is adopted 7-1.
Item number 12 is the adoption of resolution 2025-104.
Would you please read this?
Resolution authorizing emergency water main repairs by Fisher Excavating on Warren Avenue.
Thank you, Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Recently, we've had multiple failures on Warren Avenue, approximately eight breaks in the last several months.
This is a six inch cast iron pipe that was installed in 1931 and it's a known issue in terms of its vintage age.
Staff has been investigating this particular area and is requesting emergency water main replacement on Warren, approximately 800 feet.
That would also ensure, you know, replacement of water main gate valves, fire hydrants and water service connections to the right of way.
The replacement cost is estimated between 230,000 and 250,000 based on unit price bid and staff requests moving forward with Fisher excavating to replace the aging water main on Warren.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Alderman Sanders, did you have your hand up?
You engineered this project, and we have not done a scheduling replacement of the water Mayne on Warren.
I recall that in that area, they did have a lot of deficiencies in those water mains down through there.
And I'm wondering, did you cover all aspects of that area for replacement?
And whether or not the material that we're going to use to replace it, it's that's not going to be the old past material that's existing there now.
So we should be making all new connections through that area so we don't have to have these kind of failures if we're spending $250,000 or whatever the amount comes out to.
My thing is we have looked at all of the area of the last time anything was installed in the past to see if it needs to be brought up to date because the new lines and everything can affect old existing lines, just like you're putting new wine in an old bottle and it doesn't and so on.
And so I'm just wondering, are we looking at that aspect of it and moving forward?
And I would like to move forward with that because I don't want to see nobody out at four in the morning with water main breaks at temperatures 20 below zero and all of these kinds of things because that can possibly happen if we don't move forward with it.
So yeah, I just wanted to hear what you had to say in regards to that whole general thing.
Just making sure you finished all your thoughts so that way there isn't a back and forth.
Yes, I did.
You good?
All right.
I'm good.
Darren, do you want to answer those?
So, sure.
The replacement this year will only be 800 feet, so it's from Galena to Cable, which is shown on the map.
That's all we have money for this year, so we can't afford to do the rest of it.
We'll have to program the rest in.
The section that we're replacing has had the vast majority of breaks.
Fowler.
That's why we're doing that 800 feet.
It also affects a couple of businesses there on the corner of Galena with the grooming store and the barbershop that are frequently without water.
We have had eight breaks on this in the last recent months.
We made some pressure changes to try to slow some of the breaks down.
But on the last break that we had, we actually took out about a 20 foot section of pipe and it's some of the worst main that I've seen in a very long time.
I'm recommending replacement now.
We have very good prices from Fishers.
They're working on Harvey right now, and if we approve this tonight, when they're done at Harvey, they will go to Warren.
You didn't tell me what kind of material that was going to be installed.
This is 1931 cast iron, and we're going to go out and see if we can find some from 1910 and put that in.
Just make sure.
What about the, do we have, is there, is there more efficient- Alderman Sanders is plastic.
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
I'm kidding.
We're putting- Okay.
Our city standard is C909 PVC- Thank you.
Pressurated- Thank you.
That's what I was waiting for.
Okay.
Is there any other discussion?
Alderman Stacey.
What is going to be affected from this in our street department that's already been established for this year?
So, as it's notated in the financials, it won't affect anything that we're doing.
We're suggesting taking this out of reserve funds to get this done because it's been such a problem and we've spent so much money repairing it already this season that we just don't feel like it's practical.
If you estimated a cost of a water main break at roughly $10,000 a piece, that's the national average we've already spent about $80,000 repairing it already just this summer so I'm trying to get the bleeding to stop in this area it is it's I will tell you that entire area from Warren and Hunt and all those streets have very similar product it's odd that we're having this much issue in this one location but it has been significant and the last time we were digging it up before we even got the street patched so it needs to be done Alderman Johnson.
He answered my question.
I was wondering how much one repair costs.
How much one repair costs when they have a water main break and you set around $10,000 a piece So that's a lot of money spent in one week already repairing.
So thank you Sorry Alderman Sanders.
You already spoke twice anything else Madam clerk, please take the role Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
Aye.
Sellers.
Aye.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted 8-0.
Number 13, adoption of resolution 2025-105.
Could you please read this?
Resolution approving purchase of 24-foot equipment trailer from Knight Equipment for water and sewer construction equipment.
Manager Boyer.
Thank your honor.
City crews use equipment, trucks, and trailers to move equipment around to different Projects.
We have a utility trailer that was purchased in 1988.
It's had multiple repairs of the frame and it recently failed.
Staff is requesting move forward with the purchase of a new 18,000 pound equipment trailer.
The amount of the from night equipment is $13,995 for a 24-foot trailer and staff requests to the Council.
Move forward with this.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
A motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion?
Alderman Sanders?
Oh yeah, we did, you did go off of bids.
Am I correct on that one?
We received three prizes and this was by far the cheapest.
We're also going with a 2023 model to and what's the cost in the memo $13,995 okay 18,000 pounds a street can't even handle that well I would hope it could but yes this is for hauling the skid steer around which weighs about 12,000 pounds mm-hmm our streets are rated for 60 to McEvoy.
60 To 80.
Depending on what street you're on.
And this is in the budget?
Yes.
Any other discussion?
Madam Clerk, please.
Oh, Alderman.
How long does a trailer like this last?
Quite a long time.
The last one was from 1988, so I think we've got every nickel out of it.
We probably could, but it's unusable at this part of it's scrap.
Right now, the crews are requesting this.
For sharing a trailer between water, sewer, and streets.
And with the street work and everything we got on, it's just a hassle.
They're losing a lot of time chasing around town, trying to get equipment moved around.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
Aye.
Sellers.
Aye.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
Aye.
Parker.
Aye.
And Stacy.
Aye.
The resolution is adopted eight to zero.
Item number 14 is adoption of resolution 20, 25107.
Could you please read this?
Resolution authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School program.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The City of Freeport has several school crossings that are dated and require equipment repair and replacement for the safety of school children crossing the busy streets.
The public works staff has identified a STRS that's Safe Routes to School State Grant opportunity to fund and the replacement of this equipment.
The IDOT Department of Transportation has a safe routes to school program that is grant opportunities for potential equipment replacements of safe school crossing equipment.
The new lighting LED systems installed are solar-based replacements with much brighter warning equipment.
And this grant, if awarded, would be used for $250,000 of equipment replacement.
A formal resolution will be brought to city council must be passed as part of the application.
And that is what we're asking for today.
So as far as the Safe Routes to School key points, it's again a $250,000 maximum grant per project.
There is no matching fund for the first year.
And this is a competitive application.
Safe Routes to School grants can also only be used for construction and safety funding.
Engineering fees cannot be included in this grant award.
And application deadline is October 15.
And we are partnering with the Freeport School District 145 on application support and staff recommends City Council that we pursue this grant opportunity.
Is there a motion to adopt?
Second.
We have a motion made by Alderman Sellers, seconded by Alderman Johnson, Alderman Sanders.
Yeah, we're venturing into a public entity to help offset or to and so forth.
And I think that will help them to reconstruct the safety protocols for the school.
And if I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned the fact that they will also help funding.
Does it help funding the project or are we just relying on a grant to make that distinction?
So my whole thing is, when I'm hearing things, it sounds like if we're getting a grant, where does the school get involved in this whole scenario and what we should be, and how we should be functioning with the city to couple this project together with them?
Is there discounts?
Is there fundings other than grants that is going to help offset this project?
Is that what we're looking at?
Well, what we're looking at pursuing a $250,000 grant to upgrade crossing signals in front of the schools that are in the right of way.
We're actually just seeking the school district support in the pursuit of this outside funding so that we can improve those crossing guards.
Right.
Anyone else?
Okay.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
Stacy?
Aye.
The resolution is adopted, 8-0.
Item number 15 is the adoption of resolution 2025108.
Could you please read this?
Authorizing its support to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Open Space Land Acquisition Development Grant.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources administers the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Grant or OSLAD grant program to support local outdoor recreation projects.
The city intends to submit for an OSLAD application for the Pocket Park on West Stephenson, formerly OZLAD requires a governing body resolution authorizing application submittal and acknowledging program conditions if funding is awarded.
The attached resolution uses the IDNR prescribed language for OZLAD applications and passing the resolution enables staff and other partners to finalize and submit the application ahead of the program.
The City is listed by the IDNR as a disadvantaged community, which allows an application for up to $600,000 in OZLAD funding without any local match.
Greater Freeport Partnership received recently an award of $50,000 through the T-Mobile grant.
It will also be used in the funding of this package.
An application deadline is September 30th, so staff is targeting Council's action on September 2nd today to meet submittal timing.
There is no immediate general fund impact for the application resolution.
As a disadvantaged community applicant, the city may request up to $600,000 with no local match under the OSLAD.
The GFP T-Mobile $50,000 grant contribution will further enhance the scope and staff recommends moving forward with allowing staff to pursue this grant.
Is there a motion to adopt?
So moved.
Second.
The motion made by Alderman Shadle, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the grant.
I have a question.
Alderman Simmons.
Is this the park in the area next to Joe's that you're speaking of, or is this another parking park?
Yes, you're correct.
It's adjacent to Joe's.
Alderman Stacy?
You know, these little pocket parks does nothing for our kids in 3rd and 5th Ward and we need a park for our kids to play in.
I have said that since I've been on the council.
Can we turn this into a park?
Can we turn that into a park?
And now this is the second time these little pocket parks have come up.
We need a real park for our kids in third and fifth ward.
You do realize that this is in the third ward?
It's a pocket park.
Okay.
Any other discussion?
It's not a park.
If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
There is.
I agree with Alderman, Stacy, as far as the plan that I saw for this park is great for the downtown community, but as far as a small playground area for the kids over in the 3rd, 5th Ward area close to the King Center, this does nothing for them.
And there has already Banner.
We've been a grant awarded for that pocket part, so I'm not sure why we don't use this grant for another area in a different pocket part.
Oldman-Sellers?
I think.
Well, no, no, no, I think my question needs an answer.
What was your question?
My question is, why aren't we considering any other areas where we can actually put a small playground in, something like Milton Park?
Well, this resolution is about approving this grant.
It's not about a discussion on parks.
It is, though, because it's why wasn't this grant, why wasn't the application for a different area?
Seeing as we already got the T-Mobile grant for this specific park downtown.
I'm not against the park downtown, but for this grant, why not apply for a different area?
You want to take a shot at that?
I'll take a shot at it.
I know that the pocket park was discussed for probably and has had a plan associated with it for about five, well, I'd say probably five years.
I know there were designs for it and it went through several layers of grant applications.
And I think certainly if there's other areas that council members or anyone from the public would like to get started on a plan, get started on it.
Bring it to city manager Boyer's attention and get started on the planning process and what it would take to get a park.
But I mean, this particular pocket park, I know, has been in plans and has been through a subject of applications for grants.
For at least the four years I've been here and when I started here, it had already been through other iterations of planning and grant applications.
So I mean, that's the short answer as to why Huffines.
This particular parcel is up for the grant.
The other parcels and properties we're talking about certainly could be in the future.
Also would like to state that the City of Freeport doesn't own many parks.
I believe this might be the only one and that the Park District owns many of its parks and owns that planning process.
So if there's an existing park where citizens would like to see better facilities, that's certainly something to bring up to the Park District.
If there's parcels of land that the city owns that council members would like to see maybe possibly investigated for a park.
I think it's a great idea.
And I think that's something to talk about with city manager Boyer in your weekly meetings.
And you're right.
Bring the park district to the table if you wanna have a playground in a certain area.
Alderman Sellers.
Yeah, I guess that's what I was gonna say.
I know that when the King Center first came there, we had a small group of people that worked when George Galrap was mayor trying to get another park because they took away Henny Park.
And that was years ago.
And we were in with the park district.
And I know about five years ago, me and Mr. Jim Ryan, we had discussion with the guy that's running the park district and that's something you have to go through the park district because they have all kinds of rules and regulations on how you can use the land and what kind of land.
So I do agree because I grew up in a park and I do agree that the kids need a park in that area but it's, we need to, like the mayor said, we need to bring the park district to the table or go to the park district when they have their board meetings and talk about getting a park because we do need one.
I have to object to what council just said because we have not fully done our homework when it comes to who has jurisdiction of anything that the city is administering to the city, public city, when it comes to any entity, parks and the city parks or whatever the case may be.
I can't see why it is that we're consulting with the park district because the park district is not ever here.
They're running their own scheme and we're not going to just push everything on the park district when the grant is for the city at large.
And I'm like, who's governing this idea to submit anything to the park district to govern over it so they make determinations on how council is trying to submit recommendations and ideas for their district.
And I don't think pocket parks have anything to do with the Freeport Park District when it comes to district areas.
And I think if we're looking at council for consideration on how we should plan this, how we should go to the city manager and talk more about it and things of this nature.
And while we're doing that, there is no park district board members or staff in the midst of this conversation.
And so I think it's irrelevant for us to even make a suggestion that we implement another organization or another district department or whatever that has not been involved and any of the city council's decision making.
So my thing is I think it's irrelevant for them to do that.
And I think we should maintain a course where we collaborate with our city manager as council people to make these kinds of provisions for our district.
I don't think we should have someone else having jurisdiction over our district on what we want to have in our district.
And so that's my.
And you are correct, that's nothing of this topic.
So we kind of got to get out of that little rabbit hole.
I'm just saying we need to be back.
We're talking about parking.
We're not talking about that.
The park district was brought up.
Did you just shush me?
No, I didn't shush you.
We need to be back.
Mayor, if I shush you, you'll know I shush you.
I'm not shushing you.
Let's go back to the grant.
Mr. Collins, point of order, please, thank you.
This is about adopting the resolution to support this grant.
I agree.
But we don't need to talk about Park District stuff.
Well, it came up.
It actually came up.
OK, so I would like to call point of order to bring us back to the topic.
And if council would allow me to speak.
Well, yes, we do need to come back to this topic.
It's on the resolution to support this grant.
And so is there any further discussion?
I don't know if you heard me, but I would like to speak.
Well, actually, Alderman Simmons, you've spoken twice already.
Right.
That's why.
And if council will allow.
That's correct.
Only twice.
So if there's no further discussion, Alderman Stacy?
Excuse me, no, I thought, according to our rules, if I would like to speak again, Council will call a vote on that.
Okay, you're correct.
So let's take the role, Madam Clerk, on the approval of allowing Alderman Simmons another time to speak.
Shadle?
No.
Sanders?
Yes.
Klemm?
Hi.
Johnson?
Hi.
Simmons?
Oh, yeah, you can vote.
Is that a yes, Simmons?
Yes.
Parker?
No.
Stacy?
Yes.
It passes.
Okay, so Alderman Simmons, go ahead.
Thank you.
That's funny that we would vote no.
I don't speak much and when I speak, I speak quick.
However, my question to the grant was, and a statement to what Director Duckman said I have spoken to, and I have been awarded by the county board members about land that we were then awarded and park district members about board members about getting a pocket park in our area.
My question that was not answered is why is this particular grant for this area downtown when we already got a grant for that area downtown which only includes cornholes, cornhole games?
Like this grant could be used more beneficially for us if we use it in a different area.
Why was that not listed?
Thank you all to person Simmons.
I think I understand what you're asking.
And I think what I was trying to explain before was that the pocket park that we're speaking of, that is the subject of this grant application, has been in a planning process for five years.
And that is why, in particular, there have been multiple applications.
I know there was a Commonwealth Edison grant that was applied for in 2020.
There's a plan for this park that has been submitted for this grant application.
And as I said earlier, I think that if there's another area in a different time where we have a plan for a parcel, or if it's own or if it's owned by the city I don't I think I'm sure City Manager Boyer would certainly want to talk about it or it could be brought to council a specific piece of property that the city owns that a park could be proposed I don't think it's I think it's a good idea I just know that there are plans and that this pocket park in particular has been in process for five years it didn't just get dreamt up overnight and that is the reason why it was a subject of this grant right now the city does not have Oh, that's the reason.
Alderman Stacy.
When there was discussion earlier this year, spoke about the property that City Manager Boyer wanted to buy in the Liberty area.
I said then, could a park be put there?
So it's not that we haven't searched this out and haven't tried to.
I would also like to know how much does it cost to apply for this OSLAD grant.
I'll be honest, and I haven't been a part of this grant application.
That's why City Manager Boyer, I'm answering the question.
To be fair, I haven't been part of this grant application.
When I am part of a grant application, I certainly can't answer that question.
I'm answering these questions because I've been aware of the pocket park.
I know the Greater Free Park Partnership has done a great job moving it forward.
I've been part of the planning process for quite some time.
I just, in particular, have not put together for this grant application.
So I can't answer that question intelligently.
Okay, I need an answer, City Manager Boyer.
You talked about a Commonwealth Edison grant.
How much did we pay for that one?
Now you're talking about a OSLAD grant.
How much is it gonna cost the city to apply for a grant that we may or may not get for another pocket park?
Actually, Darren is the one that needs to answer this.
Darren, you guys are writing the grant.
Part of the master service agreement at $7,500 for the application.
And I want to, um, also remind everybody for the Osled grant.
So, uh, just trying to clarify this from what I've been listening to the city of Freeport is not typically in the park business.
That's the park district's responsibility with their own taxing body.
So when you're looking at playground type equipment, those type of parks, if you look around town, all the ones that are maintained are maintained by the park district, not the city.
We do, I believe, uh, I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
The city does not, the city proper city council does not own any parks within the city.
The, the grant that we're talking about the pocket park is what they call an urban park, which is very high on the list of Osled to have parks in downtown communities where there's lots of pavement structure and it's not We have a very traditional type of park.
This is a park that brings in games and other things like bags or tabletop games, other items like that, that can be utilized in a small space.
The space between these two buildings is not enormous to overcome or to put things in.
And so if the city were to make a park in this location, it would be a very low maintenance park that doesn't need a lot of work because we don't have additional staff members to take care of parks, right?
Parks need a lot of maintenance between trees, lawn care, garbage, upkeep.
This would be more of an urban park which is gonna have a lot more concrete, very little grass or maybe even turf, something that doesn't need to be maintained.
Okay, I don't care about all that description.
It's gonna cost $7,500 just to apply for a grant that we may not even get.
Yes, ma'am.
It's a lot of work to apply for these grants.
Any further, Alderman Sanders?
There is pocket parks throughout the city, am I correct?
Oh, well.
I believe they're called neighborhood parks.
Well, what do you call a pocket park?
What are those?
We don't have a pocket park.
Well there's one located right there on Iroquois and State Street, isn't it?
I believe that's called the neighborhood park by the park district.
So it's by the park district?
Do they take care of that?
The one at Iroquois I believe actually is owned by the homeowner that lives there.
If I'm not correct, we did that research a few months ago.
Okay, what about the one that's located on.
The owner's dead.
We went through that.
What about the one.
That doesn't mean the city owns it.
Yeah.
What about the little small park that sits over on Blackhawk and Broadway?
Is that a pocket park?
Okay.
Can we get back on topic?
We are.
I'm talking about a pocket park.
But that's not a pocket park.
You're asking questions- I'm asking a question.
Is that a pocket park?
It has nothing to do with this grant.
So let's stay on topic of this grant.
Mayor, I- Do you have a question about the grant?
Mayor, I resent that remark you just made because that was not proper for you to inject that.
I'm trying to find out I'm trying to find out information what kind of pocket parks description has is it pocket parks or is it neighborhood parks and that's what I'm that's what I'm talking about.
A pocket park is typically between two buildings.
You know what Mayor, I didn't know you was a I didn't and the rest of the board.
So, I'm going to go ahead and ask you to talk about the grant.
Let's talk about the grant.
Well, the thing is, I am talking about it because you're not allowing me to finish what I'm trying to talk about.
Do you have a question about the grant?
Why are you being specific?
No, I'm not talking.
Anybody else have anything to discuss?
The council is going to have this.
If there's no further discussion, Madam Clerk?
Are you ready for the roll man?
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
No.
Sellers.
Aye.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
No.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
No.
The resolution is adopted five to three.
Item number 16.
Could you please read this for the record?
Approval of bid, which was opened on August 27th, 2025.
Huffines.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Mayor.
City staff has published in the Journal of Standard a request for proposal for the demolition and asbestos abatement of eight properties, and that was published on August 21st in the Journal of Standard, and then a bid opening was held August 27th at 9 AM We've already received bids from three contractors and I've provided an analysis below which is up on the screen as well and based upon the bids received, staff is recommending moving forward with Klechner excavating in the amount of $103,000 as they are the lowest responsible bidder in their lump sum bid for all eight properties.
Motion approved.
Second.
Motion made by Alderman Klemm, seconded by Alderman Sellers.
Discussion on the bids.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle?
Aye.
Sanders?
Aye.
Sellers?
Aye.
Klemm?
Aye.
Johnson?
Aye.
Simmons?
Aye.
Parker?
Aye.
And Stacy?
Aye.
The motion passes eight to zero.
Item number 17 is a presentation regarding the city's role in landlord-tenant relationships.
Manager Boyer.
Thank you, Your Honor.
So recently, there was a large portfolio that changed hands between Tim Chapman and Pied Piper Realty LLC.
There was a number of different properties here.
Pre-port portfolios purchased approximately 225 properties, with about 47 of those being with a current lease.
We've got 53 duplexes, and we've got several of them that were considered owner occupied as they were set up that way with Tim Chapman.
So approximately 193 total properties remained or aren't occupied or unrenovated at this time.
A little background, a letter was sent out July 29th to the tenants.
There's quite a bit here, but the big picture is the month of month month renters were notified that their effective lease would be over September 1st and their rent will be adjusted at that time so these are month-to-month renters generally speaking these month-to-month is is convenient from a a runner standpoint because they don't have to make any long-term commitments however it does provide flexibility also the fixed term tenants the current leases remain unchanged until expiration and that was notified in this letter there was quite a few bits you can look it up for your if you want to I can provide you a copy of this but the discussion the new leases there would be an inspection scheduled started reaching out to people in person called August 5th to the month-on-month tenants to kind of start discussing what what to do they wanted engagement with the the renters and then also reaching out for the in-person meeting where you're currently residing would basically be the topic of discussion whether it is suitable what need to be Perry would need to move forward.
Just to give you a quick update on some of the commentary that's been out there.
This is HUD's free market analysis and essentially is showing that there's a range of reasonable range within the various units that are available.
Obviously if you look down here are some of these houses I can't verify this 100% but I've heard that there's some very low rents for like a three and four bedroom home that HUD actually proposes here should be a little higher than than that amount so the rents while being a little different kind of fall in line overall with HUD's guidelines.
The city's Roll.
So there's, as we move forward, one of the things we've been working on, especially with Chapman Properties before the portfolio was sold, was that we needed all landlords to register with the landlord database.
That gives us the ability to follow up on complaints and code enforcement actions.
It also gives us the ability to know who's in what unit and who owns that unit.
So we're working on that.
As a matter of fact, Ptolemy, I believe when we get into the discussion session or section Wayne will be kind of providing a little bit of an update on that and then we can also enforce ordinance and codes for the properties this works through our code enforcement supervisor and our code enforcement hearings this has been relatively successful but it is you know we have limited resources and it is somewhat of a slow process so we've had a number of folks I don't know that the complete number the most up-to-date number but Yes, I believe the number we have since the takeover of these properties, I believe we've had three tenant inspection requests.
So three, that gives us the authority to go into three of those units.
So state law, just recapping some of the more pertinent sections, so Rent Control Preemption Act, you can read that, but a unit of local government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution that would have the effect of controlling the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial property.
And then again in section 10 of the act, a home rule unit may not regulate or control the amount of rent charged for leasing private residential or commercial properties.
In addition to that, Illinois Attorney General states that in a week to week or month to month tenants, landlord can raise your rent by any amount if he or she gives you proper notice and Illinois does not have a rent control law, therefore your landlord can raise your rent as much as he or she deems necessary.
So what are the next steps?
We have Pied Piper Group represented here today as well as Attorney Cox and Director Duckman, who can speak to any of the more precise points on the situation as we move forward.
I think there's a suggestion that we could increase the number of notice days for a rent increase from 30 to 60 days.
That would be fine with someone with a signed lease.
However, if people are on a month a month already, that does present some concerns, but certainly not insurmountable.
So So, anyway, as we go through this process tonight, I hope this becomes enlightening.
I think we've just hit a quick summary of some of the back and forth commentary that's been online and discussion with individuals and also some of the tenants.
So with that, I'd like to go ahead and move to the next item, which is discussion.
Okay, so let's try to keep this to this part of the discussion to the city's role.
I know there are other things that Alderman, Stacy, and Klemm wanted to discuss, but let's keep this part of it just to the city's role.
Attorney Cox, did you want to add to anything?
Alderman Sanders.
Are you calling me now?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
On the city's role.
Now, my question would be is the state of Illinois attorney office is the ones that are stipulating jurisdiction over this particular matter that we're discussing in our agenda right now, is what we're saying.
What the city's role is, correct.
Yeah, and because that is happening, because that has not obscured the fact that we should be able to also make amendments.
We have not talked about whether we can amend anything to what the state's attorney had put in the role of how they govern this.
So have we challenged this as a council to see if any and others.
Any amendments can be introduced to make changes.
I hate to find out that that is a possibility if we have not done our homework and we're sitting on something that probably can be amended or altered or changed.
How current are we with the update of how old is this memo that we're looking at?
How old is it?
And if things have changed, who looked into whether or not there has been major changes that will make a difference to those renters when landlords are raising their rent and everything?
Have anything come down the pipeline that changes anything?
Have we done that?
Have we looked into that particular matter?
And so I would suggest or whoever's presenting this particular memo to have more answers for us.
As a council, we can look into the matters ourself, but we're looking at our city manager because he's managing the city.
And so my question would be is, can we look into it further to see if there's any other possibilities or amendments and I. I think there's a lot of work that could be implemented into this whole scenario of this member because the way it's set right now, there's no challenging base going on from council or to the general public within the city.
There should be a mechanism for us to at least challenge what we're seeing here so we just don't leave it up to the state's attorney to make the priority decisions for the city.
Okay, so I'm going to ask Attorney Cox to address that, but we legally can't tell a business what they can charge for rent, but we can talk about terminating lease, correct, Attorney Cox?
Well, yeah.
Hi, thank you.
So the state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality's authority, including Can you speak up because we can't hear you?
Can you turn him up?
Can you turn up his microphone?
I'll get closer.
Everybody hear me okay?
The state has enacted, as Manager Boyer pointed out, something called the Rent Control Preemption Act, and that is an express limitation of any municipality, including a home rule municipality, which Freeport happens to be.
It's a limitation and John.
So, we have to be very careful about the decision of that authority.
Any municipality in the state of Illinois derives its authority from the state.
State in turn derives its authority from the federal Constitution.
However, if the state doesn't give us the authority or in a home rule situation specifically takes it away, then we can't alter that.
So when we talk about rent control, which is, I believe, the vast majority of the complaints here were rent spikes.
The city cannot regulate that.
That power was taken away from us by Springfield.
And that's that.
Okay.
Thank you.
Alderman Stacey?
We don't want to know what the city can't do.
We want to know what the city can do.
There is some things that can be put in and many other things that can be put in this ordinance that would give our constituents some support.
And we want to talk about Chapman, but let the record show that there was four or five different people involved in this selling property, two port, three port portfolio LLC.
And so on and so forth, but not just one, at least five, and the Freeport Portfolio acts the Pied Piper, which we all know about the Pied Piper, and there's nothing good about the Pied Piper to manage their property, but what you may not know is that Freeport Portfolio, LLLC and Pied Piper are the same people.
They're two in one.
And they have came to our city and have played our mayor and our city managers as suckers.
And they're running a muck on our city.
And in case you don't know what a muck is, it's a scam.
And so we have to do something.
Johnson.
No one has the right.
I feel you should feel, City Manager Boyer, City Mayor, that anybody can come in our city and do this to us.
And so my expectations of both of you are great.
I don't want to know what we can't do.
I want to focus on what we can do for for our constituents.
I have a question.
Can you tell me what you were accusing the manager and I of doing because I kind of didn't understand that.
I didn't accuse you and the manager of anything.
I said you all have allowed people to come into our city and play you like suckers.
It's what I said.
You do realize that we don't have authority on whether someone can purchase something.
It's not about purchasing so so with all this discussion what are you proposing that we do you tell me what can you do I mean you can't take a property and charge twelve and fifteen hundred dollars in a five six hundred dollar neighborhood and I.
I could not have done it without you.
You can't even fix the roof on your house.
That's like going to the Eastside where you ought to have said only 10% or 50% of what the property over there are worth.
You can't even fix the roof on your house.
But then somebody can come in and say, oh, I'm going to charge $1,200 for rent.
Bullcrap.
It has Huffines.
All of these rental agreements fit the area where they're located.
And I want to tell every renter out there, get an inspection.
You as a renter have rights.
Know your rights.
There used to be books out there that said renter rights.
I don't know.
Greater Freeport Partnership, do you all have something like that?
Who have something like that?
That the renters can go and know what their rights are.
Okay, so again, this presentation about the city's role.
So again, we cannot put on a cap on anyone's rent.
We can't do that.
So what are you proposing?
And that's not what I'm asking you to do.
So what are you proposing?
Cause that's, you're trying to blur the lines of what the city's role is.
So if you have something to propose, let's talk about it.
I do.
Alderman Simmons?
Alderman Stacy has yielded.
Alderman Stacy, are you done?
Yes.
Alright.
So I propose that we as a city develop and create our own homeless shelter because FACC is filled to the brim and can't take anymore.
We have no rent cap.
We can't do anything about that.
But what we can do is prepare for the fallout.
What is it you're proposing?
I didn't catch that.
Homeless shelter.
No, I don't think that's a bad idea.
I think with budget seizing coming up, I think Alderperson Simmons would be a good idea if you brought together a plan, a staff, what it would cost, maybe, you know, some developers or maybe an RFP we could put out for that and get some general ideas of the cost for that.
But it would definitely have to be something that the city would budget for.
Definitely worth an investigation and, you know, come and the other.
So I think there's a lot to be said about the process of making a proposal to council.
I think the council should be able to come up with some numbers and what it would cost.
Olin Sanders, your second time.
Yeah, I like what you just said and to table that with the fact of making a proposal to council, knowing that this is a priority one kind of thing going on with the citizens of Freeport.
And I don't think there's no one wants to see Anyone, and homeless shelters at all, but what I'm proposing is that we get together as council, have a planning discussion to have to see if we can all be on the same page.
If there's something that council can look into and then consult with the city council Duckman, I think we should have a roundtable of some sort just to talk about this issue.
This is an issue that is not going to go away and people will be suffering if nothing happens Huffines.
If we could do anything, come up with any kind of a proposal, suggestion, recommendations and things of this nature, if there's any governmental programs or grants that could be implemented into whatever we're discussing.
Those things need to be brought out on the table and I feel like this, we're not getting Huffines.
We're not getting enough information from our council members talking about these subject matters.
It's almost like we went into silent mode.
But anyway, this is what we need to start doing, opening up to the citizens of Freeport.
Yep.
I'm sorry.
And I would welcome you to have that discussion with city manager at your next meeting.
Yeah.
That sounds good.
We can make that happen.
Is there any other discussion on the city's role?
Alderman Klemm?
Sure.
Last week Alderman Stacey and I attended a meeting that was put together by Josh Atkinson.
It was a meeting that brought up some of the issues that were out there due to the recent purchase of the Chapman property, okay.
And I have had some long discussions on this.
One thing we've got to realize is that there's two sides to this whole project, okay?
If we take, and one of the things is that Reverend Dye's got her sign up out here that says we should extend it to 60 days.
You know, that Miller.
The flip side of that, if I'm a landlord, when you move into my house, now I'm not going to ask you for one month or two months, I'm going to ask you for three or four months because when you're going to leave in the last couple months, you're not going to pay your rent and you're going to be gone.
The landlord's also in this, and I'm not defending the landlord's 100%.
I believe what brought up here is Pied Piper bought this, okay.
Keep in mind over the last, which Stacy started to mention, over the last number of months or the last couple years, we've had property bought up by two or three different outfits, not just one.
We used to have a good Good home-based landlord tenant situation that was owned by people from town, you know, now we're getting more from out of town, okay, but we haven't heard from Pied Piper, you know, their intention may to be to do something to these properties, but when we put the numbers of properties up there, they were far different than what came out at the first meeting, you you know, we were talking 300 properties and then when you boil it down to there were two, three different kinds of properties that Chapman had that we all got to look at differently, you know?
So I believe anything that we can do in the long run to help any renters or help with the landlords or renters that we can work out some things that we need to change.
Fowler.
It's beneficial to all of us, okay?
If we take and do something that's going to completely raise everybody's rate, we've done nothing to help anybody, and I think that's the long-distance end on this thing, and costs and everything else are going up.
As we talk about the difference of months, how much deposit and all that goes up, as and the taxes go up, all that enters into the situation and all that stuff enters into the rent of it.
As far as the rent, I have to tell you this, I had a house of my mother's that we rented out for a number of years, I rented it out in 1997 for 600 and some bucks and it was a two bedroom, one bath house in a nice neighborhood.
So the rents have been there years ago and maybe these have not kept up with the times.
But those are the discussions we need to have and how we can help anybody involved.
Right on, right on.
That's right on.
Was there other discussion on the city's role?
Alderman Johnson?
If we change some ordinances right now, like say we change it and say, okay, you got to give them 60 days notice, that would not affect what's happening right now, but would affect the future, is that correct or am I wrong on that?
It would affect leases entered into after the effective date of the ordinance.
After the effective date of the ordinance, okay.
And also is it, would it be legal for the city to put in some kind of ordinance that said a house or a property could not, a renter house or property could not be sold unless it passes an inspection saying that it's up to code.
Would that be something legal that could be done?
I don't know, I'm just asking.
I can tell you and Alderman Klemm may be able to speak to this a bit as well.
That was approached many years ago.
Okay.
And that was, it was determined not to do that.
And that was the political will at the time.
Can certainly be explored again.
I'll tell you the pushback and again, I'm a little bit out of my territory here.
This is just, again, historical knowledge.
The argument would be that, well, if as soon as a property has to be brought up to current standards to code, and not just grandfathered in as existing, and I'm sure Wayne can tell you that there's a difference between IPMC and then current building codes and that sort of thing.
If it gets beyond a standard maintenance code for the era in which the house was built it's prohibitively expensive to upgrade that now that that's there's certainly something to be said for doing that in that all housing then eventually will come up to current standards but that doesn't come out and come without a price so what happens is we greatly increase the cost to sell something or specifically and DePriest.
I think that's a good way to really drive down the price of property.
If I'm a seller, the buyer is going to pay me less because they know they're going to need to do a bunch of work.
Oldham and Sellers?
Yes.
I mean, I think that with the city, I think with this situation, I can understand long-term, well if you're in a long-term lease, you got until your lease is over with.
So you still have time to move.
But if there's a situation where it's month to month, I can't see the 60 day notice thing because you're doing it month to month.
And then we also have the situation where people were in the program of buying on contract.
Once you buy on contract, that's not anything with the city.
Because if you're buying on contract and you're under that, that's on you and you have to deal with that.
So I can understand the 60 day notice on people whose contract is getting ready to end within the next six months or something like that.
I can go along with that, but if you still, if you signed your lease in May and you've got way till May, it doesn't apply.
And I think that not having the 60 day be a ordinance for everybody because there are good landlords out there that are doing what they're supposed to do and handling their business.
And they're already having problems with 30 days, trying to get people out.
So I can understand with this situation and under this contract, we do the 60 day notice, but I just can't see it going across the board because that hurts landlords that are out there doing what they're supposed to do and trying to handle their business.
So that's what I think we.
Oh, Ms. Stacey.
Well, we have been asked of the constituents, the renters that's going through this is that for less than three years to 60 days, for three years or more, 120 days and I checked surrounding areas and in surrounding areas, it's already in place on their ordinance so I know this is something we can do.
And I understand Attorney Cox, what you said, did not fly, I don't know how many years ago.
This is a new season.
This is a new breed of people.
We have got to do something for these people and for ourselves.
I just say I also recommend that anybody who sees an issue with their apartment to please come in and fill out we have them sitting on the desk today we always have them at the front desk if there's any issue with a place that you're renting to please come in we do require that you sign you know permission for us to access the property that's for the city's liability to ensure that if the landlord comes in and said that we were trespassing we always have a right to enter so before we will enter the city will enter a property we do require that you give us the written permission and staff always we always look forward to helping in any way we can and if there are any issues we will once this is filled out we will certainly go in and investigate the property and hold that landlord accountable for any violations that they have so that's something I just want to echo and hope that our community takes advantage of that if they feel that there's something in the building that is improper so but that is important to know that you do have to, you do have to fill this out first.
I would like to make a motion that we as a council, as the mayor, as city manager and as attorney Cox, sit down and discuss not what we can't do but what we can do so that everybody can have Fowler.
The same knowledge and an understanding.
We don't need a motion for that.
If you want to come in and talk about your ideas, you're welcome to.
I want us to get together as a whole, not one-on-one, not you and Boyer and me.
You and Boyer and Shadle.
You and Boyer, us as a council.
Wouldn't that be a violation of the Open Meetings Act?
No, not if we make it public and put it out there.
We need to talk.
What would that be a special city council meeting?
Yeah, I think what's being suggested is a special meeting.
We call a special meeting any other time.
We've had special meetings.
Okay, so what are you, what exactly is your motion?
That we call a special meeting with you, Boyer, Attorney Cox, and the eight aldermen.
And of course you, Dovie.
Is there a second to that?
Yeah, I second that.
We have a motion on the floor made by Alderman Stacey, seconded by Alderman Sanders to call a special meeting as stated with those involved.
Madam Clerk, would you please take the role on that?
Shadle.
Oh, okay, you wanna have a discussion on the special meeting?
Yeah, no, well.
No.
That's what's on the table right now, is the special meeting.
Okay.
Shadle, did you wanna talk about the special meeting?
We just wondered when we were thinking about doing this to see whether it fits schedules or how we're going to coordinate all this.
We have two meetings next week.
We're in the season of beginning our financial cows.
We'll just call it.
We'll let Dovie just call it.
So Steve?
Well, if I may, that sounds like potentially a setting on the committee of the whole.
I mean, that's for a discussion.
So setting aside a segment of time on the agenda in the We can have that discussion.
I think that, I mean, if there's a special meeting for that on a different night, it's just another, it's just another city council meeting for discussion.
So if, if I can throw that out as a suggestion, if it goes on the cow, that- So as a discussion item that Alderman Stacy could put on for the next cow, if she wanted to, is what you're saying?
Johnson.
I was just wondering if possibly we could, each one of us could write down the things that we are thinking possibly that could be included in the ordinance to help, you know, the tenants as well as the landlords, I mean, there's two sides to every story here.
To improve the housing in the city of Freeport if we could write down some of those things that we could present them to you ahead of time so we would know whether they were legal things that we could do or not do and then maybe go from there with that.
Certainly any question that I can research ahead of time, I appreciate.
Right.
If anybody ever wants to send any questions my way, I'm happy to take a look at them and I can hopefully be a little better prepared and Stacey.
Okay, so back to what's on the table.
Is a special meeting versus a COW Alderman Stacy, do you have a preference on that?
I would like a special meeting.
Do you want to propose a date and a time?
Well, I guess if I have to, Thursday the 4th at 4 o'clock.
I'm sorry, I would not be able to make that meeting.
I already have something.
What would work in your schedule?
Go ahead.
No, what would work in your schedule?
And that's not enough time to put in?
Yeah, it has to be at least 48 hours, ma'am.
Let's make it two weeks from now.
Sorry, this is the business.
Yeah, let's make it two weeks from now.
Do we know what's on the COW for next week?
Is it full?
There's going to be discussion on the COW.
There's going to be discussion on the COW about this matter.
But that's not what I'm asking.
I'm asking for a special meeting.
I don't care if it's Wednesday the 17th.
I'm just asking for a special meeting.
Well, yeah, let's convert that Council COW meeting into this special meeting.
And so that way- No, they're two separate things.
No, what I'm getting at is the fact that we use all the time that we would normally use in the COW for this special meeting, and now our attention will be prioritized to this special meeting as opposed of the COW.
It's a COW-like thing, but we're gonna convert it into a special meeting.
And then that way, we don't have to bring another agenda for the COW just for the primary reason why we're bringing a special meeting.
Or an additional date or an additional time.
In this place, yeah.
Six o'clock on the COW, 6 o'clock until its duration until we have finalized that and then all of the information that we come to will be distributed to the public.
The public can come to the website, see what went on in the discussion, and what we came up with.
So you want to put an agenda item on the COW?
To discuss what you're saying.
Is it going to be, is the special meeting going to be the COW?
That's what he's saying.
I know that's what you're saying, but what do you say, Madam Mayor?
I agree.
I don't think we need to have another time.
What do you say, City Manager Boyer?
I don't want us to say this is going to be a special meeting on the COW and then we have 15 other items that needs discussed.
We still have agenda items on the COW, but it can be an additional point.
Okay, so I'm confused on what we're having for a motion.
Are we putting it on the COW or are we picking a date?
Because we're never going to agree on a date.
So as of right now, the motion is just to have a special meeting to discuss this topic.
There, I think, no, no, her motion was just to have a special meeting to talk about this topic.
Okay.
Now, part and parcel of that, it probably wouldn't make sense if we're going to have a special meeting to then pick a date so that we know whether or not people can be here or not for it.
Alternatively, it's been discussed, well, rather than call a special meeting, do we want to just make this an agenda item on one of the upcoming cows instead?
But that's not on the table.
The only thing that's on the table right now is Alderman Stacey's motion to have a special meeting.
Yeah, they would turn out to be the same.
It doesn't change very much if it's a COW or if it's a special meeting is what I've been trying to say.
So I think that what's critical right now is ultimately, Alderman Stacey, this is your motion that's on the floor right now.
So it's up to you.
Do you want to keep it as a special meeting?
In which case then I would suggest that we need to find a date.
Or are you willing to amend your motion or withdraw your motion and a new motion be made to just make this an agenda item on an upcoming COW?
But it wouldn't be exclusive.
It wouldn't be this topic is the only agenda item on the COW because we have our COW coming up has other agenda stuff on it already.
Alderman Stacey?
I withdraw my motion.
Alderman Sanders, will you remove your second?
Yes.
Okay so now back to again the presentation was about the city's rule.
Make your motion Larry.
Why am I making a motion?
You wanted it at the COW.
No, no Cecelia don't confuse what was being said.
You wanted a special meeting.
If it that lands on the COW, we'll just use your special meeting on the COW.
That was the present, that's what I was presenting.
So doesn't matter how we use the COW, long as your special meeting was implemented or inserted into the COW so we can just talk about that issue only.
But I'm understanding what Attorney Zito is saying that there will be special things, on the agenda, additional items on the agenda, if we have a COW saying that your special meeting is not gonna be the only thing that's at the COW.
Is that what I'm understanding?
And I don't want it, because it gets confusing when you say that you have a special meeting during the COW.
You can't have a special meeting during the COW.
You're either at a COW meeting or you're having a special meeting or you have a regular council meeting.
But you can have an agenda item and what you want to talk about, this issue here, you can make that an agenda item on the COW.
There would just be other, our normal other agenda items that have already been scheduled for.
And you don't need to make a motion for that.
You can.
Two other people can just add.
We just won't have a COW the next time that we meet.
No.
Next week it's a COW.
Oh, is that right?
Yeah, that's right.
So if you'd like to add it to the agenda for next Monday, you and another alderman are are welcome to do that, you don't need a motion for it.
I know that Mayor.
Okay, so are we ready to move on to item number 18, which?
Madam Mayor.
We still haven't concluded.
Director Duckman.
Yeah, we haven't concluded on what direction we're gonna go with this.
So, Stacy, do you wanna continue with your special meeting on next Monday?
I removed it.
She removed it, okay.
Well, she removed it.
Right, and again, you're welcome to put something on if that's what you want to do, but it'll be on the COW to include the other things.
It's not one item COW.
We've never had a one item COW.
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
Well, yeah, we just call it.
So you can give some thought to it.
We'll move on to the item number 18, which is discussion about rent increases by the Pied Piper group and the impact of the community.
So I don't know if Alderman Stacy and Klemm, if you want to speak first, or if you want to give an opportunity for Pied Piper to just say a few things.
It's your call.
I'd appreciate it as long as Pied Piper is here, if they would speak of what their plans are and what are coming up, so we really know what we're talking about.
Would you like to have the microphone for a few minutes, sir?
Absolutely.
Okay.
Thank you for coming.
Absolutely.
What?
Who is this guy?
Piper?
Yes.
Who in the heck is Piper?
Could you just state your name for the record, please?
Moby Perack.
That isn't what he said.
Okay, go ahead.
So it's my turn, right?
Okay.
First and foremost, thank you for having me here.
And I would like to take this time to address the few concerns that are going around town about what the issue has been about rent increases.
The idea here is that you cannot have two lemons in both of your hands and portray what you have to portray.
You have to listen to both sides.
What?
So I basically sent out a notice to all the residents to let them know that I'd be coming to see them and have a conversation with them about their condition of the property and about meeting them in person.
But when I went in person, I was able to address the question, let them know about the tenant benefit package, about what we're doing for them and about how the rent won't increase until the work has been done to the property.
And there was home ownership offered and there was a lot of communication, a lot of promises were made with the tenants that were not portrayed correctly due to whatever apparent reasons.
So the purpose I'm here is to address all these issues that are going on currently.
I have not given anybody any 30-day notices.
I have not given anybody eviction notices.
I have not spoken to anybody about kicking them out of their homes.
There are two ways, right?
Either we could have come in right away, their rent will increase just because of the acquisition of the cost.
Blindly increase the rent without knowing the people living in the property, who's living there?
Their pets, their people, whoever that is, right?
And cost increase, and you guys will still be here creating a chaos saying that, hey, how can Pied Pepper come in and increase the rent without meeting anybody in person, without knowing the condition of the property, without knowing the condition we're living in?
But here you go, you guys are talking about inspection.
Please, go ahead, go ahead, order the inspection.
That's why I'm here talking to you in person, We're here understanding what the condition of the property is and understanding the condition of your situation of how much you're earning, how much you're making, if you're even eligible to make the payment or not.
That's why I was in there, but you guys made a ruckus out of it, made a social media post out of it, and caused all sorts of rumors that didn't make sense.
So prove to me what was the case for.
Our goal here is to come improve every property that is here in Freeport, in our portfolio.
Made the condition better, living condition better, streets better, and make the, you know, community better.
That's our whole idea.
We want to fix this property.
That's why we're here in person talking to you guys.
Otherwise, why would we do that?
That's the whole purpose.
You have to fix all 320 units, all 225 properties.
They all need work.
The people that are living there are on month-to-month leases.
I don't want to disrupt any landlord rules.
It shouldn't be the case.
I'm here telling you guys that what we're doing currently right now if you go to Piedpipergroup.
Com slash free board slash community you will be able to know everything about what we're trying to accomplish.
Nobody at this moment is getting a rental increase until the work is done that is gonna be communicated.
So I'm not sure where the ruckus is coming from but that is not the case.
Huffines.
If you have heard otherwise, well, that's on you guys.
So are you standing there telling me you did not send out letters to all the month-to-month renters telling them that their rent was going to increase from $600 to $1200?
I have not.
They have letters.
I have the letters, too.
I wrote the letters.
I made the letters.
I sent the letters, I took the letters in person, spoke to them, showed them the market rent that is applicable for the condition that they should be living in, not the condition they're living in right now, not at all.
Well, why then was, did you start calling all the ones you had put notices on their doors and telling them now that you recanted it, but you pulled it back and that they're not going up.
No, not now, that's where you're at now.
I'm not gonna pull anything back that I have not committed to, ma'am.
I'm not gonna pull anything back that I have not committed to.
I have not told them anything.
I just told them, here I am, sitting in front of you, looking at the condition you're living in, which is horrendous, but here you are paying the rent that does not reflect the condition of the property.
Freeport here does not want the condition of the property.
Are you assessing renters?
Larry, if you'd like to have it, you should let him finish and then I'll call on you, okay?
So I can take all the questions once I'm done speaking.
What I'm here to say is that once all those notices went out, when I went to visit 35 to 40 tenants into their homes, I met people with low income, I met people with good income, I met people with families that were concerned, I made sure I addressed all those concerns to understand the type of demographics that's living in the property.
As a property manager, as a property management company, I don't know what you guys expect for them to do.
You guys are smart individuals yourself.
You become a rental owner.
You would want to know who's living in your property, what the condition of the property is, right, and what the situation is so you can address it.
It's a property.
So here we are.
We have all the situation.
We have created a community page.
We're going to be addressing all the questions, concerns, updates moving forward over there.
Currently, there are no leases being signing for all the one-to-one tenants.
What we're saying is, hey, if you like what you see, If you guys want to move forward, let's talk.
Let's have a conversation, and let's address a situation where if you agree, we will make sure that we accommodate your request, move you into the property that makes sense, so we can fix the property.
Address the condition, address the liability that as a landlord or as a property manager we have to take.
And we work with them.
If the people that are not able to afford their rents or they don't want to move forward, we will work with them.
You don't need to do 60 days governance here.
You guys are wasting all your time.
We're saying we'll work with them to work three months, four months, five months, six months.
Taylor.
So, I don't know where anybody got any information from, how the speculation came about, but you can bring any person that I spoke to in person in front of me and let them tell me what I told them.
That will not be the case.
If that's what the case is, then I'm here to address it.
Alderman Sanders?
Yeah.
In addition to what you're saying, I understand what you're going through.
I just wanted to make sure that the renters or leasers are hearing you clearly, especially with the economic status, affordability, things of that nature.
I like the fact that you do look at attendance income to determine whether or not this family can afford Huffines.
This particular apartment, home, or whatever the case is, that is a plus, that's the plus thing that shows that you're doing due diligence to help any prospective renter or leaser, leasy, I should say, and to help them navigate through all of the things that they have to go through to afford one of the places that you have for rental or for sale that they they're able to be accommodated by whatever their economic structures is to afford that particular property.
So yeah, I hear you saying that, I would agree with you that that is what should be put in place.
People need to know this very clearly beforehand that these are what your requirements are and things like that.
So I agree with you on how you're going about doing it.
I don't know if you're making any promises or anything like that for sure.
But the fact of the matter is that that information is available to any prospective tenant or renter that he will be able to work with you, talk with you, negotiate with you on your terms or any terms that you guys can agree with.
I would love to see that that's going on.
That's what you're conveying to us.
You're conveying the fact that this is your strategy.
This is what you guys are doing.
That is what people need to see from another position.
They need to know that you're doing that.
And I like the fact that you are.
You're saying that this, but like you said, information can be misled or information can be Brought Out Wrong and everybody has a different story.
By the time it trickled down to the next runner, they got a whole different story.
And so the whole thing about it is when they come to inquire about a house or an apartment or whatever the case is, you can just lay up and then find out what their circumstances are.
Can they afford to rent anything from you?
And then like you said, it cuts down the confusion.
There's no misunderstandings and things like that.
All right.
So I agree with you.
Any other questions?
Alderman Johnson.
So currently you're stating that none of the rents are going to go up at this point.
And the only time the rents will go up is after the homes are fixed.
Correct.
Is that what you're saying?
OK.
The other thing is the places that you are going to be fixing up, someone lives in them now.
Are they going to be able to stay in there while you fix that that home up or that?
No, they will not be able to.
OK, so where will they go while you fix that rent up?
We will work with them to create an accommodation.
We have thirty five to forty units that are vacant currently that we're working on, bringing in a good condition that are promising to our tenants.
And we will work with them to either ship them their hotel or any other accommodation that caters and mutually agreed on.
Once they agree that they are okay to move forward, they will come and they will apply as a proper tenant, go through application screening, get their pets, everything identified, and while we're doing that process, once they're approved, we can move them, we'll cater with them, fix their property in seven to 14 days, as fast as possible, and then cater back to them, bring them back to their property.
Now, once they do sign the 12 months agreement, the lease agreement with the market rent that we agree upon after fixing the property, so they're living in good condition, better condition, and less liability condition, and most of these property, if not all of these properties, are gonna be city court passing, so there will be no issues there, and then after 12 months, if they're interested in buying the home they're living in, they're more than welcome to.
We'll do the finance agreement with them, 3% down payment option, rent to one agreement, they wanna live, they wanna own, they wanna contribute to the community, we're right there for them.
So let's say they're paying $600 a month rent or $700 a month rent right now where they're at.
Their house needs to be fixed, their apartment needs to be fixed.
They move into one of your homes that you've fixed up or that they can live in while you fix the other one up.
What will they have to be paying for you a month, to you a month to stay in that place while their apartment or home or whatever is being fixed?
That is up to us for a discuss, right?
When we discuss the options on how that will work out, it most likely will remain the same as it is because we won't take long.
We will not gonna take months.
And so what they need to understand is after you fix up their apartment, then they have to sign a new lease cause the rent will go up, which is understandable cause you're fixing up and it costs to fix up an apartment.
So the people would need to understand that.
Okay.
Right.
Thank you.
Ms. Johnson, either it's a yes or a no, right?
If there's a yes, they're agreeing to what are we going to do with them?
How are we going to work with them?
And given the condition that they deserve?
If they say no, that is not the end of the world, right?
There is no, like, hard code rule to evict them for a certain amount of time.
We understand, I have family, I have kids, right?
We're not evil people here.
We're trying to provide good service to the community here.
That's the whole idea.
And if they feel like, hey, they need a couple of months, they need help, they need guidance, that's what we're here for.
That's what we're going to individually We work with each and every tenant and cater to their needs.
Some may need two months, some may need three months, some may need four months and we can help them get a Section 8 approved or some sort of housing authority approved or whatever we can to work with you guys to cater to their needs and make sure they're not homeless.
But six months is what we're even going up to.
We got 60 days.
And like I said, I wouldn't wanna have this conversation to disturb other landlords.
That's not what you wanna hear.
You don't wanna step on anybody's toes.
I want you to know that I hear you loud and clear, but I also want you to know that I saw the letters that were put on the houses, so to sit here or stand there and make out like what I said didn't happen, it's bull crap.
I saw the video of the call saying, we're not gonna raise your rent now.
There was 123, I believe, month-to-month renters that received this notice on their door and it said $1,200 when they were paying $600.
One said $1,249.
You have the letters.
I'm not telling you nothing you don't already know.
That was not put on the door.
That was not provided to them.
No, but there was a letter put on the door and when they contacted you, that's what they were told.
And then last week you pulled back all of what you said All of what you said and now what you said tonight, I guess is what's in place, but when those people were here last week with their kids crying thinking they were going to be homeless, it was based upon a letter they had got from Freeport Portfolio, LLC, and you, your one, telling them that they had to and Sine and Lease and their rent was going up or move.
They have not come and told me this.
They must have come and told you this, but not me this.
And I'm here telling you this, the letter that was put to the door did not have any market rent, any type of rental discussion.
I had the discussion in person with them to show them the range of rents that our market is paying right now, including section eight, Vannebago or Gilgo, and any other Freeport Housing Authority, what they're paying to have them understand what the situation is and what the market rent should be like on the condition that they deserve.
And I was making sure they comprehend everything that I'm saying.
They have not told me on my face, nothing.
They may have told you in the back or been online on Facebook or different social media and be the hypocrites that they are, pardon my French.
But I'm here.
I'm here to ensure that we can help them out.
And I'm telling the truth here.
I'm here telling you, none of the letter owners there said anything about the market rent.
So I don't know how you can tell me that I'm lying here.
No, when they spoke with you, this is what they were informed.
When they spoke with me, what were they informed?
In person?
Yes.
And I was there and sitting in front of them?
And then some of them have waited for you to come in and do an inspection and you didn't even show up.
No, I showed up.
I showed up.
I stopped showing up because of the mess that was created and rumors that was created.
It didn't serve my time to ensure that that they were kind of lobbying against what I'm trying to say So I hope I've addressed your questions Okay Okay, so let's not debate between the two.
This is If you want to have a private phone call, you're welcome to do that Is there any other discussion and anyone would like to have on item number 18?
I appreciate that.
I just wanted to add Thank you to you.
I know you've contacted my department about registering your rentals.
You've showed up to any of the Recently there was a some code cases.
Thank you for showing up.
I wanted to add because it was brought up by City Manager Boyer Currently the city of Freeport.
I want to thank in particular Doug Quinn Katie Smith and my entire staff has done a tremendous amount of work ensuring that we prosecute anybody who is not a registered rental and there is currently going to be 480 properties going to have cases in October and that's a total of 332 landlords that are going to be receiving fines of $500 per unit.
So I would like to state for the record that this council has put a tremendous challenge to my staff and we have delivered and there will be five We are scheduling five hearings in October that are special hearings to prosecute and put everybody up for $500 per unit fines who have not registered the rentals.
So the message is clear and is out there that if you have not registered, you will be fined accordingly.
And thank you for making that a priority.
And thank you to my staff for all the hard work that they put in to protect our community.
So just wanted to make that clear.
Thank you.
And thank you, Moby, for coming.
We will move on to item number 19, which is discussion regarding amending section 220.10 slash 23 AB written and verbal public comments.
Alderman Stacy.
Alderperson Simmons, do you have this one?
So, are you proposing a motion to have the attorneys draft what you're asking?
I'm asking if that's what you're looking for, because in order for that to be done, there has to be a vote of council that it's the will of the council to task the attorneys to do something.
So, I'm asking you, is that the direction you want, is a motion to do that?
Is there a second?
Second.
So we have a motion made by Alderman Simmons seconded by Alderman Stacy in drafting the amendment as stated.
And can I just say something?
Sure.
Prime example last week with those families and then people having to leave for whatever reason and they got to go to work at school tomorrow.
We had a four hour plus meeting or even tonight.
This gentleman wanted to say something as far as thanking somebody for something, but it was not an agenda item.
And so he continued to sit here waiting for the end of public comments.
And so what this would do would give whomever the right to speak at the beginning if they're here and move forward and not have to sit and wait we've had elderly people here sitting and waiting and why not just get it done and get it over with and move forward yeah that will come Walsh, and I'm on the non-agenda, non-agenda.
Did you want to speak?
I'm sorry.
But we're saying for public comments, it doesn't have to be an agenda item.
Exactly.
It can be anything.
So the motion is to have the attorneys write that up.
Yes.
If you don't agree, vote no.
If you do, then, or it doesn't matter, it still has to go for a vote once it's done.
So it's, the motion is to task the attorneys to do this.
Yes.
If there's no further discussion on that, Alderman Sellers?
I have a problem with that is because really our meetings are long is because we're coming unprepared.
So we're asking question after question instead of knowing proper preparation prevents poor performance.
So my issue is being here four hours on going over and over and over a bunch of stuff and then we've got you want it at the beginning and you want it at the end, that's a lot because the purpose of having a public forum for agenda items at the beginning of the meeting and other items at the end of it is allow the council to effectively complete its business effectively.
If everyone were allowed to speak freely on any subject at the start, it would prevent the council from moving forward with the material and the required formula action.
A council meeting is designed to have a meeting to conduct public, not public business, but council business in the public.
It's not to have everybody just talking because we cannot, if they get up there and speak, It's not going to be dialogue, they're just going to get there and speak and we're just going to look at them.
We are talking about.
It's not going to be, it's not going to be a dialogue where everybody gets up.
If we're going to have it at the beginning and at the end, that's just way too much.
We are talking about three minutes.
But three minutes with ten people is a long time.
My God.
I don't have a problem with people speaking.
Let's just take a vote.
We've been here for over three hours.
Let's take the vote on if you want to task the attorneys to do what was said.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
I'm sorry, say that again?
And not at the end?
Yeah, because they said at the beginning and at the end.
We work for the people.
You don't have to tell me that, I know who we are.
We work for the people.
I know who we work for.
Madam Clerk?
I have a question.
It is written into the ordinance, Attorney Zito, help me out here, there is a limit on and so on.
How many people can speak to the same topic?
Can you refresh how that works and would this apply when it's, I mean, if it's not related to an agenda item, we could have seven, eight different topics.
Now last week, as an example, we had one topic.
So if you could address both multiple topics and one topic, please.
So any topic, as of right now, can have a maximum of six speakers on it, and if there's people on both sides, then they each get, you potentially get three and three, two and two, whatever it is, everyone gets their fair up, up to six speakers on any topic.
So yeah, you could have a lot, you could have eight different topics, you could have up to six speakers on each topic, three minutes a person, it'd be all up front.
It's not that many people having something to say.
That's just an excuse.
Okay.
So Alderman Simmons, just to be clear, your motion is to task the attorneys to write the ordinance, rewrite the ordinance so it is public comment on agenda items and non-agenda only at the beginning.
And is that your second, Alderman Stacy?
Yes.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle.
No.
Sanders?
Yes.
Sellers?
No.
Klemm?
No.
Johnson?
No.
Simmons?
No.
Parker?
No.
And Stacy?
How do you vote?
Aye.
The motion fails.
Of course it fails.
Five to three.
Okay we will move on to reports of department heads finance.
Thank you your honor.
I'd just like to echo what Dovie said that finance committee of the whole begins next week and and they should be before each council slash COW meeting until we pass the budget.
Is there a time?
Would you explain the different format, time format?
I'll try and do that as well as I can.
So we did set up the Finance Committee of the Whole to begin at 5.30 next week with the COW meeting to begin immediately following.
So we're trying to eliminate the gap We have a meeting that sometimes happened last year between meetings where we all were kind of sitting around waiting 15 minutes until 6 o'clock to begin the next meeting, so we're going to start at 5.30.
Once the finance COW is finished, we'll go right into the COW.
Thank you.
The COW.
Thank you.
Attorney.
So just to clarify I think that the draft special COW meeting has 545 so most likely your finance will go at least 15 minutes so it shouldn't be from a practical standpoint an issue but heaven forbid that you have a finance COW start at 530 and let's say it only went five minutes you still wouldn't be able to start the COW until till 545 If you wanted to I mean I mean the reality is you're probably not going to have a finance COW only go 15 minutes, I would imagine.
Did you look at my draft agenda, Attorney Zito?
It's set at 5.45 or as soon as the finance COW adjourns.
Correct, but- But it can't be earlier than 5.45.
Exactly, so that really applies if it's at 5.50, then you can start right at 5.50, but you have to set a time for the special COW to still start.
Director Duckman?
Nothing tonight, Madam Mayor.
Thank you, Darren?
Just a reminder, the Hancock Vidoc will be closed.
If it wasn't done today, it'll be done tomorrow, and it should be probably three and a half months it'll be closed for the renovations to lower the street.
Mayer?
Yes, thank you, your honor.
Last Thursday, B-Shift responded to a local gas station on West Avenue for a hydraulic oil spill on the property.
The on-duty shift used 26 bags of oil dried to contain the spill.
They are charged the responsibility of hiring a cleanup crew.
We just contain it, keep it from going any further.
We are invoking the spill or pay ordinance to the responsible party.
They will be reimbursing the city nearly $1,800 for our response and our materials used.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Police?
Yeah, I have no report tonight.
IT?
I'm sorry.
IT?
Airport?
Just real quick, just to let everybody know that this year, unfortunately, we will not be having the air show.
The promoter ended up having some health issues, so he is not able to continue on.
So first and foremost, hopefully he gets on the right track and he can end up ramping up for next year.
So, but this year is unfortunately cancelled.
Just to let you know.
Thank you.
City Manager.
Just want to reach out to the staff that's been working on all of our road resurfacing program this year.
I just wanted to say thank you all and got a busy week and I appreciate all your effort.
Thank you.
And I have nothing new to add Alderman Shadle.
Thursday 6 o'clock shorts on Park Boulevard for the Sixth Ward, Neighborhood Bunch.
Oldman Sanders?
Yeah, I just want to know, are we almost in completion with our street program for this year?
No, we're getting there.
We still have one that we're going to do that was an add-on, Hans Harvey.
Carroll still has to be surfaced.
That should be happening in a couple weeks, but we're making significant progress.
The westward water main expansion should start in two weeks so if I had engaged we're probably 70% done but a lot of good work going on and the crews are making really good progress and everybody's working well together so okay.
Alderman Sellers?
Oh, nothing.
Thank you.
Alderman Klemm?
Nothing.
Alderman Johnson?
I'd just like to thank all the people that came out for the block party on and Saturday, it was, there was a lot of people there and I think a lot of the residents that were there did get some resources and information that they needed to help them.
So I was glad to see that.
Alderman Simmons?
I'm sorry, where was it?
It was the block party.
It was over at the Boys and Girls Club in the parking lot there.
Thank you.
Alderman Simmons?
Alderman Parker?
Nothing new, Your Honor.
Alderman Stacey?
Yes, I would like to announce that there's going to be a fourth annual Terrence Cheeto Haynes, three on three classic.
This event will be held Saturday, September the 13th, starting at 10 o'clock a. M.
The age groups for the teams are 10 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to 18.
There's no charge for this event, but they will be accepting donations toward the Terrence Cheeto Haynes Stop the Violence Scholarship Foundation.
This is the young man that was shot on Pleasant and Galena a few years ago.
And this is the fourth annual event in his honor.
Move on to public comments.
Rod Holtz, thank you for waiting.
I'll make this short since it's been a long meeting.
Starting in January, I took on a project of trying to get my driveway redone.
I ran into some loopholes, one of which being my wife had ovarian cancer, and sadly she passed away at the end of July.
She never got to see our new driveway, but she did.
Everything got completed around the middle of August and I had one loophole that I was trying to overcome.
And that was where the street met my driveway.
So I went and I talked to our called the street department after a friend of mine suggested that's who I try.
I talked to her, the lady took down my address and she told me that she says within the next week or so when the pothole people are out in your area, they'll be gladly to fix the end of your driveway.
I said great, about a week and a half went by, nothing happened.
Well, I was in the area of the street department down on Island Avenue, so I decided, well, I'm gonna try going down there, speaking to them one-on-one.
I wish I never did.
The lady that I encountered down there was very rude.
She acted like my first impression to her.
She wanted to get in a fight with me.
All I wanted to do was get some information on when they were going to fix that or if they were going to fix that.
So I walked away kind of sad because I got another stone I got to try to overcome.
So I figured, well, I'm going to try calling the city hall.
I did one morning before I went to work.
I encountered Michelle Nelson, she was very kind, considerate, listened to my going on with my driveway and she referred me, she says I'll take this down as an email.
She took my name and my phone number and she talked with Darren Steekle.
In two hours, Darren called me up and wanted to know what was going on and I told him and he informed me that, and I didn't know this, but that the end of the, where the street and then the driveway meets, that would be my contractor's doings.
Well, I thought they're and other concrete people, but we were talking a little bit further and Darren finally wanted me to take a picture and I sent it to him and sorry, but this was around 10 o'clock.
I went home from work at lunchtime and I got out of my truck and I parked out on the street and I was walking towards and I just about fell down on the street I was amazed totally amazed with the hard work that you guys do during the summer and everything I get that no but it looked totally professional and I want to give Are there any other public comments?
I'd like to clarify some things.
Joy talked about Henny.
We've lost Henny, we've lost Tutty, and we've lost Taylor.
That's three areas where our children played and had in the wards that they're talking about.
That's That's three, okay?
History.
Now, as far as what he's talking about, he never mentioned the seven day notices that we've all seen.
As far as the city is concerned, what we heard from you guys a week ago was everything you couldn't do and nothing that you could do.
What we also found was when Joshua had his meeting, we had no Rob Boyer, we had no Jodi Miller, we had no older people other than the two that were there.
Which tells us how much you really care about what is happening to your constituents because you weren't there.
You weren't there to hear them, you weren't there to listen to them, you weren't there to answer questions and even when you did something on the television, neither of you stood before a television camera and addressed the constituents in this town.
What you did was is use someone who is an employee of the city that nobody knows to speak for you.
It's shameful.
It is absolutely shameful that you guys won't stand before your constituents and listen to them.
Tonight's vote on the comment section is absolutely ridiculous that you would allow this to go on for four to five hours and I don't care what the comments or what the proposals are on the floor, that you would allow someone with babies, with children to be sitting here for four hours to speak with you guys.
When you can change the ordinance and you can change the direction of this meeting at your own beck and call whenever you feel like you want to.
And all we were asking for was the.
All we were asking for was the courtesy to allow individuals who had to go to work, some of whom are working two to three jobs with children standing beside them to speak to you as your constituents, as taxpayers, as working individuals in this town, you refuse to do that.
And tonight, city council, shame on you, you refuse to do it again.
You can sit here and listen to the monarchy that you are being fed by him, or you can listen to your constituents and what you need to do is sit down and have a conversation with them.
Instead of listening to him, listen to the people that is being affected.
This man knows absolutely nothing about this community nor does he know anything about the people that are being affected.
And I'm gonna tell you guys something.
If you think for a second that this isn't going to affect this entire town and I've said this before and everything that I've said has come to fortition and that is when there becomes a problem in this town, it's not gonna just happen on the east side.
It's not gonna just happen on the west side.
Their properties are all over town.
Is there any other public comments this evening?
I wanna start by saying thank you to, you know, everybody involved positively and God like up here.
And I wanna say congratulations to the people that came last week stood up and told their heartfelt stories because they really showed more care and concern about themselves than our city leaders.
And I also want to say thank you to Josh Atkins.
I don't care if y'all don't like him or not, but we wouldn't sit here and talk about this if he didn't held that meeting.
But he was the only one that took the time out to make a meeting.
Before that situation came to this council board, you've seen this on all social media because we know you guys watch it, shadow or not, but you guys chose to ignore it until it became chaotic.
And as leaders you should have held a PowerPoint presentation or whatever you did that accounted to really nothing because we still have not asked for you to control the amount.
We simply ask for the time to be a good timely fashion to give them considering that Freeport does not have jobs to accommodate anything to be raised.
We do not have a council board that does not raise every tax they can on all of the people Here.
You guys need to think about the future.
We don't have half of the creativity that we need to run a city.
Let's use this as an example.
We paid what we say, Winter got $78,000 for boarding up the bottom of that building and putting a six-foot fence around it.
Where the hell is they shopping at?
OSB at half-inch is only $12 to $15.
If we needed 300 sheets to that, that would only came to $5,000.
Let's say the fence, way out of the ballpark, cost 20.
Where's $78,000 accommodated for?
My suggestion to the council is that you guys try to do a little bit more detailed finding on what they actually are doing, the cost, the material, the anything that they use, because these are our dollars that are paying for this, or it may be a grant that we could be used.
I don't know where that money coming from, to be honest.
But I'm sure as thirsty as we sound, we don't have money to be thrown away.
We buying all kinds of new stuff.
This is the most I've seen the distressed city spend money on frivolous things.
Trailers, lawn mowers, and all that stuff.
And then I wanna know that every election season come up, I see everybody all over in third war trying to get the approval and the support of the black people over there.
I don't know why, I mean, it might not be an issue but why hasn't Jim, Ryan, Tasha, Yancey, Baldy, Partridge.
Why ain't they been up here for no reward?
Recognize all people, man.
They got people, too.
Any other public comments this evening?
If not, oh, go ahead, Tommy.
Tommy, I'm working real hard on that, I promise.
You tell, you let them know I'm working real hard.
And Dalyan.
We got a question.
Are you going to fix the pothole by Jefferson Suite?
That certainly trying Tommy.
Any other public comments?
Go ahead.
Good evening council.
My name is Joshua.
I'll keep this short and I promise suite and I'm going to start with Mr. Duckman over there.
Outstanding with the toll of May and all that stuff.
It's I'm shocked but I Kudos.
Sounds fantastic.
That's really good to hear.
I hope that all works out.
All right.
Every one of you received an email from me a week ago, exactly a week ago.
And what you chose to do with it was nothing.
Fine.
You know, who am I?
Nobody, right?
But then you sat here today and you argued for about 30 minutes, Huffines.
I know it's easy from the outside to look at you guys and say, well, gosh, they should be doing this, or you should be doing this, or the mayor should be doing this.
That is so easy and a luxury we get from out here.
I understand that.
But you guys could have taken that 30 minutes, had any of you either made a motion or just put it on the agenda and said this is our opportunity to talk about it.
We can talk about it right now if Tom Klemm says I think it should be 120 days and Cecelia says no I think it should be 40.
You guys could have used that time tonight however many hours we've been here and talked about it and been over and done with it or Alderman Johnson could have said I think we should add this in there.
That was the time.
You don't have to schedule another time to do it because I want to believe that this gentleman here is being as honest as possible.
I talked to, not him, but his co-worker, and I can't remember her name, but she was very nice on the phone.
We invited them to the meeting, they chose not to come.
I want to assume that they are being truthful.
But if they're not, your job in this room is to protect the people of this community.
And you could have done that tonight by just putting in a simple 60-day amendment to that ordinance.
And that would have taken them to, he could have went out tomorrow and said, boom, here's and others.
There's your guys' 16-day notice, and that would have given them two months, but they would have 60 days to figure things out.
Now they have no idea what's going to happen, because we just showed him, and I'm not picking on you, sir, that we're not going to do anything.
We're going to talk about it for the next month.
That's what we're going to do.
And I just wish you guys, I don't know if it was about me, if it would have come from Miss Yocum.
Maybe you guys would have taken it a little more seriously, but you guys could have done Johnson.
And that's all the people are asking for.
They shouldn't be calling me to do it.
It's just they don't trust you to take them seriously.
Thank you.
Any other public comments?
Hi.
Sue Cook, Freeport.
I just want to thank, I'm glad the 65 cap was gone.
I just have to say, yes, good.
That should be gone.
If you're fit, ages should not keep anybody from a job, says the 65-year-old woman that's standing here, so I'm glad it's gone.
The other thing is, do we have a contract with Aspen yet?
Has that happened?
I'm worried.
We just celebrated Labor Day and we celebrated the unions and we celebrated workers and workers' rights and what they need and I haven't heard anything about that yet and I'm very, very worried.
Please God don't let them walk away because I do not want to lose 9-1-1 and I came up here and I said that last week and I said it while I was crying so you may not have I've heard that, but there it is.
As far as the ruckus that was caused, sir, the ruckus was not caused by just people going out and going, I'm going to cause some chaos.
People came and were scared and they came to the meeting that Joshua had and they were still scared and they were hoping that somebody, that Gabby was going to be there, but Gabby and I didn't come that night and so people were very, very scared and yes, they spoke to the news because they did not have you there or they did not have Gabby there to answer the questions they had.
So the ruckus really wasn't a ruckus, it was a cry, please help us before we're homeless because it's going to be winter when they end up homeless and that's not a good time to have babies in the snow, okay?
You said you had kids, totally get it.
It's not a good time to have babies in the snow and I'm not gonna start crying again even though I look like I am.
So please, take the ruckus for what it is and take.
And the 60 days, that's a good idea.
It gives them two paychecks.
120 Days is kind of long.
I know that's Chicago as far as giving, you know, 60 days to let them leave.
30 Days is kind of short.
It's only one paycheck.
60 Days is two paychecks.
120 Days, yeah, that's long.
And the 60 days, that's a good idea.
It gives them two So I'm just asking for leniency.
I know I'm coming up on my three minutes and so mask on.
Thank you very much for letting me speak and thank you.
Before I pray, I just wanna say 120 days is really not that long when you've been renting 10, nine, 10 and 12 years.
And some of these renters have been there that long.
Father God, in the name of Jesus, I come to you as only I know how, seeking your face for direction and understanding, Father.
For this is your city.
It carries the title, the name, Free Port, for a reason.
I need you to move, O God, on the behalf of your people.
The ones that have minds made up without even considering what's really at hand Speak to the heart.
Oh God May we look to the hills from with cometh our help For our help cometh from you I Bind up the isms and schisms and the hands of the devil they would think It was going to run a scheme through our city You take control you give us what we need to be successful we trust you in advance we praise you in advance we give you all glory honor for you alone are worthy and we say victory is ours in the name of Jesus we will not lay down and die in Jesus name amen that will conclude public comments I'll entertain a motion for adjournment Sommel.
Second.
Motion made by Sellers, seconded by Shadle.
Madam Clerk, please take the roll.
Shadle.
Aye.
Sanders.
Aye.
Sellers.
Aye.
Klemm.
Aye.
Johnson.
Aye.
Simmons.
Parker.
Aye.
Stacy.
Aye.
Motion passes.