City Council - Regular Meeting

was the approval

like to call to order the Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 meeting of the Danville City Council. Madame Clerk, roll call to establish a quorum, please. Mayor Ricky Williams, Jr., present. Vice Mayor E. Ledwick, present. Alderman Ed Butler, present. Carolyn DeToy, present. James Pashard, present. Tom High Totower present. Barry Johnson present. Mike Ocaine here. Mike Poor present. Rick Streing here. Sherry Pickering here. Trisha Teague present. Jalle Jones here. Doug Arn here. John Cooper here. 14 present.

14 present. We do have a quorum this time. We'll have the invocation by executive pastor Doug Knack from Hope Unlimited Church followed by the pledge of allegiance led by Alderwoman Teague. Please rise. Let's pray.

I was going to pray the agenda there. I apologize. [laughter] But before I say anything, it's an honor always to be with you and thank you for all that you do. Father, we thank you. Your word says if any of us lack wisdom that we are to ask you who gives to all of us liberally and without reproach and it shall be given unto us. So father tonight we pray for God's divine wisdom to fill the hearts and minds of every city official.

We pray for clarity in making decisions that align with God's plan for our city. We ask for discernment in distinguishing between right and wrong and guide the steps of each one and lead them in the path of righteousness. And we pray tonight for divine insights to be able to handle some of the complex issues in our city effectively. We pray for divine strategies for economic growth and development. We ask God to bless the city of Danville with abundance and prosperity. Yes, Lord. We pray for innovative ideas and sustainable solutions for our city's economic challenges.

And we ask you, Father, to guide our leaders in making wise economic decisions. Yes, Lord. You also say, Father, that in Proverbs that 11, the integrity of the upright guides us, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their deceit. So, Father, we pray that our mayor, his team, uh the the alderman and those who work for our city will uphold the highest levels of integrity. We ask, Father, that you would expose any form of corruption or dishonesty. We pray for transparent systems and processes in every part of this city. Yes, Lord. And we ask to instill a heart of sincerity

in every city worker. And we pray that the city of Danville will be known for its honesty and its truthfulness. Yes, Lord. We also pray as we finish, you said in your word, behold, look, how good and pleasant it is when people dwell in unity. So, Father, I pray for peaceful relationships among our city officials. M I ask you to break down walls of division and strife. And I pray for a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect among our leaders. And I come against any divisive plans or schemes of the enemy.

And finally, Father, we ask our leaders to unify their hearts toward the common vision of our city. Yes, Lord. We pray that now in Jesus name. In Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Pastor Doug. Alderman Teague, Pastor Doug, is there anything you'd like to share about anything you have coming up at the church or that you guys have recently

We just like staying involved in the community. We're trying to help in every way we can. We're going to have a we're going to help facilitate a a dinner, a Christmas dinner in in um other opt other things going on in uh for our foster parents in our in Verain County. We're going to be having that here in early December. We're actually going to help facilitate we're going to be your staging area now for uh for you for the parade at our church. So, uh, so we're going to actually with this year we're going to have the doors open and we're going to have the ability for people to come in. We're going to have some refreshments and some cookies while you're waiting because in the past it gets a little chilly or a little wet. So, we're gonna we're going to open that up for those couple of hours that you might be there. So, that's we just love doing that, being a part of everything. So, thank you. Thank you again for the opportunity.

Thanks, Pastor Doug. We appreciate y'all. You have before you the minutes of the November 4th meeting. Is there a motion to approve those? So move. Second. It's been moved and second. Is there any discussion or debate? All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

Any any opposed? [snorts] Same sign. You also have before you an an agenda this evening. However, there is one change. Uh we need to remove item seven, the public hearing on the 2025 proposed tax levy. uh we provided that information to the newspaper and unfortunately they only printed the budget and not the levy. So we will have to delay uh that hearing uh so that we can be in in uh in alignment with the state law. So is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? So move second. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion or debate? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Any oppose? Same sign. Thank you very much. Are there uh I do not have any proclamations. Are there any board there also no board committee or personnel appointments? Are there any reports of boards, agencies or commissions?

I just want to uh seeing none, I have a couple of items of information for you. Uh number one, I just want to congratulate uh public works and our city and also our partners uh through Farmsworth uh and uh through um our the construction company Deuce Construction um as well as Shamberg and Shamberg uh who helped us complete the Garfield Park and uh pool project. um you already knew that we were going to be that we were named the project of the year in our category which was5 million to $25 million which we were very excited and honored to to receive. But then once we were at the meeting when it came time to announce the project of the year we were actually named the project of the year for the entire state too. So uh that was such an honor. Uh we haven't had an honor from the APWA in almost a decade. So we were really uh excited about that. Also, I want to thank all of you who were able to join us for our tour of all the uh some of the park improvements that we had recently. That was a great day. I especially enjoyed hearing from Mrs. Owen Nelson and some of the neighbors in Elmwood about um how proud they were of the project that we were able to make come to life. Um we've had a number of folks in our community uh pass away recently um who have done so much for this community and we honor and salute all of them. But I want to give an a special acknowledgement to former director of public safety Larry Thomasson. Um even after his retirement, he was someone that I could call and talk to and get advice from. And sometimes he would call me with a little unsolicit advice, but it was always to help me in the city. So, uh I I still called them chief. And I just want to say, chief, we'll miss you. Your heart your family is in our heart and prayers, and we'll still be there for Miss K and everyone should they need us. Uh that concludes my report at this time. Uh we at this time I would like to

open the public hearing on the 2026 2027 proposed budget. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on the the budget? Ask a second time. Seeing none, I will close the hearing on the 2020. Yes, Miss Payne.

Please come forward and state your name. Good evening. I am Alice Payne and I serve on the library board and I'm here today to respectfully ask for you to reconsider cutting the library budget while keeping the levy unchanged this year. We have recently hired a new director and it is important to allow him and his staff the opportunity to thoroughly review the budget and identify where adjustments can be made. It started on November 3rd. Looking ahead to next year, we already anticipated anticipate increased costs in group health insurance, higher employee contributions to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, and we hope to provide our employees with a cost of living increase. For these reasons, I urge you not to limit our new director's ability to step into his role and carefully assess what is truly needed to serve our community. Thank you,

Miss Payne. For clarification, are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the entire board? I'm speaking on behalf as a library board member. Very good. With the uh uh permission of all the board members. Thank you. Anyone else? At this time, I will close our hearing. Madame Clerk, at this time, do we have any petitions, communications, or audience comments? We do. When I call your name, you'll have three minutes to speak. Please come to the podium. I have Jacob Daisy regarding the David S. Palmer Arena.

How are you? Um, I'm Jacob Daisy. I'm uh on the board of directors of the David S. Paul Marina. Um we have a comedy Mr. Daisy, could you please raise? Thank you. Thank you.

We have a uh comedy show coming up uh this Saturday. Um it's probably one of the first events that David S. Palmer Arena has had in some years. Uh I just wanted to come up here and let you know that the board is working hard. Um if you've been at the Festival of Trees, you've seen the bathrooms that we've redone. [cough and laughter] Um the team there has worked really hard in updating the facility and making it look great. Um we are at a little over 400 tickets sold um with zero comp tickets at at this event. So we are pushing forward um and making strides into bettering that facility. Thank

Thank you. For those of you who aren't aware, nurse, the premier comedian is actually Nurse Tank. His real name is Carson White. I believe he's a local boy from Bismar. And um he has a national following such that he was actually able to resign his work as an awesome nurse from what I hear at the at the hospital. So um excited to have him and I believe that uh our own Chris High Tower is going to be MCing the event as well. So it should be a good time. Um, Alice Payne of Danville for the Danville Public Library. She's a she going to speak again? No. No. Okay. PJ Bourne of Danville. Change of culac.

Yes. My name is PJ Bourne and I'm probably a regular here, but for a good reason. I'm here again because um after hearing from uh Ottoman this morning and I responded to her, I'd like to share that with you as well. So I do want the street changed, but what I'm asking is since it is not really a street, it's a codac. And with that bid in mind, I'd like for you all to consider the fact that it is a codac that I'm asking to be changed. And if indeed you want to honor um Dr. or Mr. heron whom Hardin whom I never [clears throat] met. I think that you should put him as an honorary and allow me the privilege of putting the street as the name that I've chosen. Uh it would not be my name as it was with Mr. Dr. Harding. It would be a name that I've chosen. And because it is a cot, I would ask that you would amend or make the audience where anyone who lives on a cotex such as I and only have one house there have the same privilege as I do. And so therefore, it is not really a street. It is a cod that I'm requesting be changed and allow the honor to be for Mr. Harding or Dr. Harding.

Thank you, Mrs. White.

Brad Zur regarding the lounge and possibly the firing range. Hi, I'm Brad Zerman and um I just I want to um let everyone know that we completed like whatever work we were doing on the lounge. Uh it's called smoke lab. It's at 7point. Um I I know there's going to be a vote on that tonight. And I just I want to extend like a warm welcome to the city and the mayor and the council and and really anyone here that could get a hold of me if you want to just come by and check it out. I sent pictures so you guys could see it. Um you know, we could we could show you around and tell you all the fun we're going to have in there. But just so you know, like the there's going to be nightly events in there. So like for example, Sunday would be like movie night. We have a big screen in there. Um, and then the rest of the um, events are music related. So like every Monday is music trivia, every Tuesday music bingo, and then there's um, like you could bring your record in, we'll play it on Wednesday night, and then Thursday is open mic night. Friday karaoke, and Saturday some form of live music. So we built a stage. Um the stage has a couple microphones, speakers, stage lights, so it'll be pretty fun for anyone who's on stage. And um we we um so we got our temporary occupancy permit. And then the only thing that's pending to get the full occupancy permit is because the stage it's like a real stage, it's a foot high. Um we have to get uh either a ramp or electronic lift for uh ADA purposes. if someone wants to do karaoke is in a wheelchair. So, we ordered this lift and in like eight weeks we're going to have it. So, like that's the only

thing pending on our on our certificate occupancy. But I really just want to welcome anyone to contact me, text me, email me because, you know, we want to just show you around before it opens and and especially Chief Yates. Can we, you know, maybe meet up there this week? [clears throat] Next week. Sure. Anytime you're ready. Anytime you're ready. Um, that's it. I just wanted to let everyone know that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zerman. That's all I have. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council this evening? Seeing none, uh we do not have any zoning petitions. However, you do have before you the payrolls of November 7th and 14th, 2025. Is there a motion to approve those? So move them. Second.

Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion or debate? Seeing none, roll call vote, please. Alderman Butler, yes. PTOY, yes. Pashard, yes. High Tower, yes. Johnson, yes. Okaane, yes. Core, yes. Streing, yes. Pickering, yes. Teague, yes. Ledwig, yes. Jones, yes. Lawrence, yes. Cooper, yes. 14. Yes. 14. Yes. The motion carries. You also have before you the vouchers payable of November 12th and 18th, 2025. Is there a motion to approve those? So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion or debate? Roll call vote, please. Alderman DeToy, yes.

Pashard, yes. High Tower, yes. Johnson, yes. Okaane, yes. Core, yes. Streing, yes. Pickering, yes. Teague, yes. Lewig, yes. Jones, yes. Barnes, yes. Cooper, yes. Butler, yes. 14, yes. 14, yes. The motion carries. At this time, I'll receive our public works committee report. Chairman Gore. Thank you, Mayor. 13A is an ordinance to adopt the city of Daml honorary street naming policy and procedure. Move to spent three and ask your approval. Need a second. Secondman Cooper. Just a few questions. Uh first of all, why 10 years?

Uh that is based off of the lifespan or typical lifespan of a street sign. So time to renew it possibly uh and review it as well. Second one would be explain or justify the 450.

Yeah. So um it was based off of about a dozen other um policies. I looked in the region and a couple were across state lines. Um pulled pulled a number that for a lack of better uh words that had some teeth to it. um make it make it a serious request. Um strictly up for conversation, but it it was pulled from a from a other municipalities um policy. But don't we on a zoning issue or zoning permit is it's a $200 fee, right?

Yeah. Correct. And there is a little bit of basis to why it's higher. Um verifying ward addresses for residency. Um maybe it's a spot check. There's possibly or probably going to be a little bit more administration work that goes into this which would justify the increase from a zoning petition. We still have administrative work in a zoning petition too. I mean correct. I I would I would say not nearly as much as what this policy would require.

Well, okay. Um, just from my personal standpoint or I think the $450 is too high and so I'm going to make a motion to reduce it down to $200 since this is a non-refundable and I I don't understand the non-refundable part either, but I'll go along with it. But I'm going to make a motion to make that fee a $200 fee instead of the $450. [snorts] Okay. Is there a second? I'll second that.

Okay. So, there's a motion and second on the floor to change the 450 to 200. Still non-refundable. Correct. Um, need a roll call on the motion. Okay. Alderman Pashard. Uh, no. High Tower. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Okay. Yes. Core. No. Streing. No. Pickering. No. Teague. Yes. Lewig. No. Jones. Yes. Orange. Yes. Cooper.

Yes. Butler. Yes. Detoy. No. Eight. Yes. Eight. Yes. Just cry. Um, so any other question on the So the motion is now I mean the ordinance now is for 200 rather than 450. That's what was just passed. Any more discussion on the amended motion or not on the amended motion but I just have questions in general. It's already passed.

Okay. Um, so I listened to last week's meeting to make sure that before I came and asked questions that they might not may have might have been answered already. Um, so it wasn't clear to me from last week's meeting and I also admit that I listened to it at two times speed. um whether or not there are plans to create some process for a permanent name change request such as the one the ones that came previously this summer by both Tissrup and by uh Mrs. Bourne.

So I guess that that would be a direction from the city council or the mayor. Um from all of the research I did I didn't expect to do but I did. um it doesn't mean one doesn't exist, but I could not find another municipality that actually had an ordinance in place for renaming. So that thus is why I brought forth an honorary street naming just to follow the precedents that I could find. Um it it was quite extensive. Okay. Um so yeah.

Okay. And then the other question I had which actually does come from last week's meeting is I heard that there was conversation about or something that was mentioned like well if someone owns the street they could potentially do what they want. Okay. So in the instance of and this is an example that was brought up and I was thinking it before it got brought up when I heard it be brought up in the meeting. So in the instance of I believe it's Washington and commercial streets which were both vacated portions not the entire streets right portions of which were recently vacated to the untouchables motorcycle club if they wanted to change their the name of their portion of the street because now they own the street. Is that a possibility? Well, it's [clears throat] not it's not public right away anymore at that point at all. I mean, it's just it's just part of their property. [clears throat]

Understand? But their property also has a street address and based on all the other things that came up in the conversation last week as it relates to emergency vehicles um and and various other things, right? Um if it just it it was one of the things that came to mind as that discussion was happening. Well, if somebody owns a owns a street cuz we vacated it and we're saying actually two things came to mind and we're saying well they could do what they want cuz they own the street then technically in that type of situation if we vacated to them and therefore yes they have all responsibility for maintenance they could name it what they want.

Yeah. Now the other thing is though I recall from the tissup explanation that occurred this summer that the reason why we were renaming the street at the time that we were renaming it because the request was the the the explanation was that things had to follow specific sequence and that we had to rename the street before we vacated the street to them. So those two answers don't seem they seem to be in conflict with each other. So I'm just hoping for some clarity as it relates to that.

I would I would agree. Um it would be somewhat backwards at this point with the example you use for u the motorcycle club. the renaming of the street would would be indeed backwards because technically they would just be asking the city of Dambo for an address change with the post office at that point since the street is already in their ownership. Right. So whenever I spoke about it in terms of tiss whenever they requested the formal way to do it because the city of Danville has the authority over that right of way would be to request for the name change and then vacate it into their so so you have the actual ordinance in place of the renaming and then you can get your address name changed if that makes sense. And so let's say because I'm assuming it has since it hasn't come back yet, the tisser interested in going through us to change the name. I'm assuming that they still want the street vacated to them and therefore couldn't they just go ahead and do it later?

Yeah. Uh in that example, they actually wanted to do the name change and not really the uh ownership of the roadway. I think that's what backed them away from that. Um we pitched the idea of if you want to rename it, we'd like for you to own it. Um same. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Um that that helps me to understand better. And then, oh, the other thing, um, my concern about this as it is written is that it seems very, very hard to actually get something passed because we require twothirds vote of elected members. There are things that have much more significant impact to our citizens that only require eight votes. So, to me, twothirds seems to be very, very excessive. So, I'm I'm not exactly sure um the rationale behind the two vote, but to me that seems excessive as compared to everything else that we do. So, um I would love for that to be changed, but if not, then I would vote no for this just because um it seems to be ex we already prov. We already require that anybody who wants to have a tempor I mean I'm sorry not temporary honorary name change go through a process that requires them to do a lot of leg work and to pay money for it and to me requiring twothirds vote could make it political and uh and to me that's problematic anything Oh, no. That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Couple of couple of things. Uh just moving through the uh the policy. Uh item C, ineligible requests. What's the definition of temporary public figures? Who who is that? Yeah. Is that us? Uh it's a great point. [laughter] I think the the intent behind that language is to try to cover every possible outcome in the next however many years. I agree with it. I was just curious in the definition. [laughter] Good point.

Uh the next one uh I I personally like the twothirds request of the council to vote simply because these things should be a clear decision by the community and I think the twothirds vote reflects that. Uh the thing that I thought perhaps might be more challenging is getting 50 supporting petition signatures from each ward. I thought that was more less reasonable than than the twothirds vote

and I'm not sure if that was brought out of other policies or what, but I I would remove that in my opinion. Uh there should be a petition or some type of community support for that, but I'm assuming that's going to be part of the application process and them showing. So if you want to require Was there I don't recall if there was a minimum number of signatures on a petition for the application, but perhaps that's a better way to go than 50 from each ward. Could it go on something like you do when you run for an alderman where it's set by this many this few up to this many depend on what ward it's in maybe match the number that we have to have on our petitions. This is all

it it that could get confusing and adjust year to year. I would just suggest a flat number. 250, 500, whatever the the number is. If you want something, walking for 250 signatures is not a piece of cake anymore. No. [laughter] What are you doing here? So, uh, the the next item I had was also the the 450. I I probably would have been better at 250, but if Alderman Cooper and everybody's comfortable with two, I'm good with that. I agree. It should be nonrefundable. Yeah. Alderman Arn, do you um I apologize just for clarification. Did you want to make a motion regarding

I did not make a motion. I thought if others commented and supported okay make a motion do that. U the uh once again the twothirds I'm I'm sticking with the 50. If people want that I I can support it. uh under the review process. Number one, community development mission shall review applications for uh I would add in accuracy,

completeness and eligibility. Um sometimes people get a little generous in their uh praise. Uh and we would want to make sure that the events or the situations that are being proposed actually occurred um and there weren't downsides. Uh and then um [clears throat] they would then provide that data and any background research they did to the council prior to the council voting on it.

And then the other uh the only other thing was uh is the city reserving the right to relocate for public safety infrastructure? I think we should also have the right to terminate it. If something occurs that is not in positive light, the city council should be able to rescend that designation. Um, and then as far as the cost of the sign, I we got a good sign shop and it should be a it should be a template. So, we shouldn't be having separate designs for everybody's different signs. I like being able to attach a logo or something unique to it, but the rest of the sign should look consistent and I don't mind if the city pays for those or who, but it shouldn't be a design contest with the the proposal committee. That should be our staff saying this is what the sign will look like.

Doug, would number four under section five address that concern at all? Well, as long as it right to remove the city Oh. Council discussion. Okay. We need stronger language down in number five. You're talking about section five. Number four. Yes. Will that would that address that? What would to terminate city reserves the right to remove or relay code signs public safety thresh or or at the council's discretion? It doesn't describe what brings it back to the council, but that's where it should be.

But that's I agree that's where it should be. And if that's what that's intended to mean, then just some clarity on that. But and I think that's all I had. But but I can otherwise support where it's at. Vice Mayor L.

Oh, I I just want to say that I I support what um Alderman Arn is discussing here and I don't know if we should make um a proposed amendment or what we're going to do with this. Um, I just I was hoping that um, Logan could please just discuss some of the reasoning and procedures and why some of it is strict and a little bit more of it is loose and just go through some of this because I think there was a lot of confusion at the public works meeting last week as to what this is and and why this was brought before the council.

Yeah. Um, so I believe this all began um, basically whenever Tissen came for the the renaming um, and Miss Bourne as well. Um and the research began and as I stated uh I was looking for renaming of roadway ordinances and I could not find one. Um so that steered me in the direction that you see tonight is the honorary road uh way name request. [sighs] Um through the the policies come came in all shapes and forms. Um I didn't receive very much guidance upfront. So to be quite frank with you, I I tried to bring the house right and and and do what what has occurred tonight um try to filter it through. um more of the policies than not had very strict um requirements and I believe that's due to what is common is they're trying to make it a serious request for serious um community representatives or donors. Um just look at the examples that we've seen in the past for what the city is already um designated as honorary which is Vicky Hogan Way Mvvis Drive Martin Luther King Boulevard. That was the intent and the thought process of to putting so much strictness into this is is to making it that serious. So that's that's where this came from. [snorts] Alvin Le. Anything else? Alvin Le.

Um, I just was hoping you could also discuss who exactly would be honored by this honorary naming system. Oh, the type of the type of individuals. Oh, yeah. Well, it it's it's covered under the eligibility criteria. Um I hope clearly anybody that's demonstrated leadership, public service, philanthropy or cultural or historical impact. Um that's going to be subjective, right? Um whenever they put in the application, the city council will will make that review and that determination at that time. Can a living person be honored? Oh

no. They must be deceased for at least one year.

Thank you. Uh yes, I still have an issue as I stated last week about the uh the eligibility and the criteria of the the nominee that I truly believe that if like I said if uh the person uh you know like uh you know Miss Bourne's situation there anybody else that would like to uh instead of have a a street ch name change that they would be a part of this uh criteria especially if uh that parent, grandparent or whatever has contributed to uh the city and state as a whole that if I feel that I had a loved one that I would like to to be a honorarium uh you know to have a sign uh you know presented in the name of my loved one and uh because I've done contribute to this city and state that they would be a part of this as well and then maybe that might deter uh people from uh you know from want to have a street name change unlessing uh you know Miss Borne's hers is unique she said it's a codack I mean, say she the only address, you know, on that street. And so the way this is written, I mean, you know, it'd be hard there for me to go for. Um, I just wonder uh, Alderman Ars,

I'm sorry, if you would agree like on number uh, sub section three submission a uh, on the number four. What would what about 25 out of each ward? That would be half and that's 175. I guess my thought is is it's just difficult dealing with the wards when people aren't running for office. You know, where are the ward lines? Are [snorts] they in? Are they out? And and if you can't get to 25 in a ward, does that kill your petition? That's the only thing I was trying to stay away from is, you know, I've not tried to do citywide petitions in quite some time, but I can tell you it's it's hours of work. uh as you all know and uh I just think that in in my mind rather than trying to do it by ward to me either the community supports it or it doesn't it shouldn't be because they reached a certain number in every ward. I' I'd like to have a I'd like to have that stipulation on a few other votes. [laughter]

So I guess my question no one nowhere in here does it say a petition with a certain amount of number. Correct. Correct. So, is that another route? I I mean, I don't know. Well, that's I guess I'd just go ahead and propose a uh amendment

uh mayor and and chairman uh to uh remove item four and replace it with 250 registered voters. And then uh the refundable fee has already been changed to 200. Um and I'll leave the the sign issue alone. Uh, and then under item B, the review process number one would include the term accuracy. What was that? I'm sorry.

Uh, the three section 3B2, I'm sorry, 3B1. Community de shall review for accuracy to make sure that everything represented in the petition application is indeed accurate since we're dealing with past events people may not be familiar with. is is and that was in the form of a motion. Second,

I have a comment on the motion. I have a concern that it's registered voters and not residents because a person who's petitioning for or collecting signatures for a name change is not running for office. They will have no way of knowing whether or not the people that they're getting signatures from are registered voters unless they went to the election commission and then actually pay to pull a list. And that then adds an additional hurdle that wasn't originally here. I do agree that the number should be changed, but changing it from residents to registered voters I think uh creates an additional barrier. I I if I may,

I could be comfortable with property owners, but residents are too transient and they don't have the same investment uh in my opinion. But good point. That's fair. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Yes. And I amend my motion amended to include that. [clears throat] If I need to restate, you entertain a friendly amendment. That's Yes, sir. So, are we we're going to eliminate the 50 signatures go with a flat 250 of residents, property owners,

property owners. We're going to go still we're going to go with keep the 2/3 the same, drop the 450 down to 200 and add language into um for accuracy into B1. Correct. There was something else to you had said earlier. No, that's enough. Okay. Regard is there any questions on the amendment to the amended motion? [laughter] Yes. I don't think we can do property owners. Twothirds of this town are rental people, don't own property. That would be another hardship. [sighs]

The only way to verify then would be would be for them to be u registered voters because how else are you going to verify addresses? You can reg you can verify addresses on the GIS website. No, you can you can look up an address on the GIS website and it will show you who owns it, but you can't tell who lives there from a GIS website. You can, but when you get the signature, they if their signature if the name of the person who you got a signature from says this is my address and you look it up, you can verify it right there when you grab their signature. Not if you're at a game or

you can. Yes, you you can if they if their ID has their address on it and you have access on your phone to the GIS website, you can still look it up anywhere. You could be in Chicago with a Danville person and still look that information up. And and just to clarify, the reason I said property owners is because we have property owners that can get the 250 petition signatures with their own tenants, and I'm not interested in that. We need 250 people that have an investment in this town to have a community decision. Right. Right.

Okay. Anybody? Anyone else? Madame clerk, can you do you have all this down? I'm not clear on what we decided on the wording on the last item. Are we going with registered voters or are we going with property owners? Property owners. sustained property owners. Property owners. Okay. I'd love to get all that change in [clears throat] the language. Alderman, do you mean separate property owners or individ? Because I might own 250 properties

as I I think I mentioned, but it should be individual people separate. And thank you for that clarification. Okay. say no more amendments to amendments. I think our constitution said you can't restrict things to property owners. We don't follow that. [laughter] Yeah, we have a whole section of ordinances that relate to only property owners. I understand how things are, but uh I in my end of town, you can't just restrict it to property owners or you won't you'll have a hard time getting 50 signatures in some areas. Maybe that's an indication.

Well, it could be, but we're talking about this ordinance and I don't think I don't think it's legal for one, but number two, I don't like it. Okay. Having heard comments and things, let's do a roll call on the that second amendment. The amendment to the amendment. We're having a roll call vote on. So, this is only on the amendment and amendment to the amendment. Yes, that's correct. So, Alderman Arn's addition. Okay. Alderman Butler, can I say one thing before we do roll?

Yes. What if we were to have them come sign the petition at the city? Can't do that. Might violate some law somewhere, the hatch act or something. I don't know. I mean, then we would see them. We would know it's 250 property. You would whoever got the signatures would see them regardless when they're going around. Just like when we have to go around with our petitions, I would see the person who I'm getting to sign for me to say yes. All right. Yeah. We already had to. Let's let's move on with the amendment vote. All right.

Amendment. Amendment vote. Could not be redundant, but could we go step by step once more what we are voting on to make sure we all have it clear? We're not voting on the amendment as such. We're voting on anyway. Yeah, please. So, Alderman Ars, would you like to restate [laughter] what yours was as far as Yes.

The the first amendment was to change the amount from 450 to 200. This is to further amend that to remove item the language in item section 3A number four from 50 supporting signatures from each ward to 250 signatures of property owners within the city of Danville to um include the word accuracy under section 3B1. one in addition to the other items and to

I think that's it. Yeah, cuz the two/3 you didn't we didn't change that. Okay. Roll call, please. Uh no, we're going to do the roll call on these first. These amend on the amendment, then we'll go back into discussion. I have a question that you know that's where I was kind of confused on that 250 and 50 and my question was uh if you if you can't get 250 on that street or in that ward this is a citywide city oh it's city wide citywide not restriction to just that word gotcha okay citywide okay I I thought do you not heard him say ward you know but citywide okay Okay, one more time. Alderman Butler,

yes. Detoy, yes. Pashard, yes. High [clears throat] Tower, no. Johnson, yes. Okaane, no. Core, yes. Streing, no. Pickering, yes. Teague, no. Lewig, yes. Jones, no. Lawrence, yes. Cooper, yes. Nine. Yes.

Nine. Yes. Motion carries. Now we will vote on [laughter] on the ordinance as amended. Roll call, please. Alderman Butler. This is on the amendment. No. No. This is on the ordinance. The ordinance now. Oh, no. The toy. Yes. Bashard,

I'm still a little bit confused on what's going on here. I think a lot of this is just uh unnecessary. This may not be the time to talk, but we've got a lot of important issues in the city of Danville. And nothing against Mrs. Bourne. I realize that she lost a loved one, but we're just opening up can of worms and we're just kicking stuff all over the place. So, I don't honestly know how to vote on on the amendments and all this kind of stuff. I mean, the difference between motorcycles road and Mrs. Bourne's uh petition here is they own the road, they maintain it. If she gets a pothole, is she going to call the city?

Now, I'm might have should have been said before all this other stuff's been said, but that's just where I'm at. So, I I don't know. I don't know how to vote. So we abstaining alderman abstaining. Okay. High Tower. No. Johnson. Yes. Okain. No. Core. Yes. Streing. No. Pickering. Yes. Teague. No. Lewig. Yes. Jones. No. Horns. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Seven. Yes. Oh boy. Seven yes.

I will cast the affirming vote. Eighth vote. Yes. Okay. Ordinance passes. Okay. 13B. An ordinance amending Dam City Code Chapter 155 pertaining to the commercial solar projects. Move Spencer Reed. Ask for your approval. Need a second. Second. Albert Cooper. Just one question. Logan, what what what are we accomplishing with this? Are we trying to stop what's going across from Quaker?

No. Um, so this is um simply a oversight on what state allow municipalities to do with the building code within or outside of the municipal or corporation limits. The initial um code amendment intent was to uh regulate the building on how they're built, not just the zoning outside of the city limits, but within the mile and a half zoning jurisdiction. That is what we thought we were able to do. Um it was brought to our attention that there is indeed a state statute that does not allow a municipality to govern the building code standards outside of the municipal limits. We can still regulate zoning, special use permits, screening, fencing, etc., etc., but how you put the footers in the ground and hook up the electrical per state statute, we cannot do that outside the municipal limits. So, that's what this amendment reflects

for for solar panels. For solar panels, commercial solar sites, but can we stop any I'm going with the one across from Quaker. Okay. How'd that get through the city anyway? Yeah, I mean that's upon the start of the project it was zon it's zoned I1 industrial and at that time the zoning code allowed for commercial uh solar facilities to be constructed. They have had a building permit for that long for that site with or without our permission. uh it was already zoned so they could

zoned and the table of use is allowed for it at that time. Do we have any more of those in the city that could be developed that way or uh not not that I'm aware of? Okay. G is the state statute that is bringing about this change to the ordinance cited in the ordinance because there is a citation but I haven't read it so I don't know um if that's the No no no the state statute is not listed that would have been a very nice thing to have um but no there I cleared it with corporation counsel um there is indeed a very clear state statute that says we just can't do it. No, that's understood.

Yeah. My my thought process though is what happens if and or when state statute changes and we didn't actually cite the state statute that brought this about. Yeah. So then you become a situation where now eventually it's possible because law changes that we could become in conflict with the state statute even though we're following it now. Right? So it seems to me that the languages say something about in accordance with whatever the state statute is. So then that way if the state statute does change then we therefore can make sure that we're either remaining in compliance or we just make a decision of on our own accord outside of the state statute.

Yeah.

So I would like to make a motion that the wording be changed so that we can cite the state statute whatever the state statute is. Uh, Alderman, before before doing so, just so I'm clear, I think it might be backwards because what we're doing is removing it and then if the there there would not be a state statute that tells the city of Danville to mandate it outside of the corporation limits. It would be the other way around. But I would imagine that our um standards that we're mandating to are higher. So we are we have we're removing an enforcement around building code and we're removing an enforcement around foundations.

Well, yeah. For all building code, electrical, me, whatever it is. Yeah. And it has been stated previously about other things that that is around building code and whatnot that our standard is typically higher than other cities. Am I not right? Our standard higher our standards are typically up to par with C code. Yes. Correct. And outside of the city that might not actually be being followed. Doesn't exist.

Exactly. So if state statute were to allow us to expand it to the 1 and 1/2 mile radius outside of city limits, we would actually enforce this except we took it out and we took it out because of state statute. So if we actually wanted it back and we're not monitoring the state statute and you know we're 15 years from now and nobody remembers what happened because I'll just remind everybody about MFT. um then we might actually want to cite the state statute.

Do you want to make that in form of an amendment? Yeah. I Yeah, I made a motion that we amend it so that the the we make it in accordance with the whatever the state statute is. I don't know the number. Um so that the stat statute is cited in the ordinance for where um we are making these changes. That simple. Yeah. Okay. I can second that. Second. Okay. Discussion. Okay. Roll call on the amended please. Alderman High Tower. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Okaane. Yes. Poor. Yes. Streing. Yes. Pickering. Yes. Teague, yes. Lewig, yes. Jones, yes. Arns,

yes. Cooper, yes. Butler, yes. The Toy. Yes. Bashard, yes. 14. Yes. 14. Yes. Thank you. Now, we'll have a roll call on the original or the amended motion, please. Alderman Johnson. I'm confused. What are we What are we voting on? The vote was to have the state statute cited in the original. Right. That was the amendment. Now we're voting on the ordinance with that amendment in it. The entirety. The in its entirety. Yes. Okaane. Yes. Core. Yes. Streing. Yes. Pickering. Yes. Teague. Yes. Ledwig. Yes. Jones. Yes. Arn. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Butler. Yes. Stoy. Yes. Pashard. Yes. High Tower. Yes.

14. Yes. 14. Yes. Motion passes. Um 13 C is a resolution amending the fiscal year 2526 fund 122 budget the downtown TF tiff district move and ask for approval. Need a second.

Second questions. um to make sure that I understand. So we are taking from reserves and adding to the TIF budget for a project that was for a TIF project that was previously approved at a lower rate because the the original price was lower and we are um giving more to that project because the price has be has become significantly higher. I don't remember. I remember dollar remember you saying dollar amounts. I don't know like what percentage wise that it increased or anything like that.

Yeah. But that is that accurate that is accurate. And uh good news to add to that is the reason there is money available um for amendment is uh we receded in the final installment of property taxes and the projected tiff revenue for downtown Danville was 105,000. It doubled. Oh wow. Uh it's it's over $200,000 that we're receiving on an annual basis, which is why we're able to do this. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Roll call, please. Alderman Okaane, yes. Streing, yes. Pickering, yes. Teague, yes. Lewig, yes. Jones, yes. Lawrence, yes. Cooper, yes. Butler, yes. Doy,

yes. Pashard, yes. High Tower, yes. Johnson, yes. Poor, yes. 14, yes. 14 yes motion passes. Uh 13D is a resolution approving the 2026 fee schedule for Harrison Park Golf Course. Uh moves three and ask for approval. Need a second. Second arms with question. Are these the same as last year? Yes, sir. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no questions. Roll call. Alderman Strebing. Yes. Hickory. Yes. Teague. Yes. Ledwick. Yes. Jones. Yes. Arns. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Butler. Yes. The Toy. Yes. Bashard. Yes. High Tower. Yes. Johnson. Yes.

Okain. Yes. Poor. Yes. 14. Yes. 14. Yes. Uh resolution passes. Uh 13E is a resolution authorizing a budget amendment to the fiscal year 2526 community reinvestment 310 budget. Move. Spence read and ask your approval. Need a second. Second. All arms. the uh resolution uh reflects it's to come from revenues. Does that mean the revenues have exceeded what we projected? Yep. Thank you. So it's not reserves, it's actual Yeah. actual revenue. Any other questions? Roll call, please. Question.

Where do community reinvestment revenues come from? They come from home rule sales tax. Okay. So we have is that state law that home rule sales tax revenues go to community reinvestment or that's just our designation of where they go? There's an ordinance that says how the home rule sales tax has to be split out. Okay. Thank you. Last week I asked about what the demolition was citywide. I think it's Did I ask is it commercial or residential or what is it aimed at?

Th this just goes into the the uh community reinvestment or the community investment line item which is 54177. So that's not a specified for a specific thing. I can tell you that I mean our intent is to just get more houses on the ground uh that are needing to come down on the list, but um it's not spe that line. It's just going into that line item and it's not specified for a specific commercial or residential. You you didn't come up with items to to tear down before you picked the price or the number.

We're pulling as much as uh our comproller felt comfortable with her uh with her conservative um estimates. Okay. D.

Well, since we're talking about demolitions, what what would it take for us to get um a view of what is currently on the list to be demolished, at least at minimum, what's scheduled to be demolished. Cuz I think that one of the things, the concerns that, and I I know I think we brought this up before, I have it in my notes that we talked about it previously. I can't remember when cuz I got a lot of notes. Um, but you know, people wanting to know about specific house houses when they're going to be torn down. I drove out a house earlier today that I meant to look up to see who owns it and if we own it and if it might be on the list. And that's a common occurrence. And I hear about houses all the time from people whether I'm at church, I'm walking around in a grocery store, or somebody coming to my office asking me about specific properties. And so, um, just being able to say, "Oh, yeah, this is next on the list," would be helpful without having to go through the process of calling public works every single time somebody calls me. And I know that you guys welcome that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's efficient

for us.

Uh yeah, so [clears throat] we've had internal discussions on that. Um and don't believe it's the wisest thing to put the whole list out, but what we are intending to do um is you guys should be uh starting to receive some upcoming demolitions, like short-term upcoming demolitions. I think we were talking about two weeks out just to ensure accuracy uh of those items, knowing when they're coming down. Think schedules change rather often when it comes to equipment breakdowns, that types of thing. So, uh doing it in a little bit of a shorter term window and sending those out uh to you all. So, that's something that will be coming forthcoming uh from us. But as far as the entirety of the list, uh I think that there's uh from what I recall from our conversations, um it it seems that there may be some issues with putting out that list.

Okay,

I need to follow up on that a little bit because that's been talked about for about 30 years now. the alderman have to have some way of being able to guide accountability in terms of implementation of the budget and things of that nature. So somehow we need to come up with a way uh we discussed a couple of different alternatives uh back when to where the council can have the information that is needed uh to know what is planned and what's expected versus necessarily a specific property address. But I would suggest that if there is a way for legal to determine that we can have that information uh because I'm assuming it's a foyable information uh if it's a work product and and it's being utilized for that purpose that the council know that. I I'm I'm still after what is the number and how many do we add each year and what have you because I'm really trying to gauge where are we at? Are we 50% there? Are we 20% there? Are we 70% there? We need to have some way to measure this and and to know that was one of the things I was hoping for in the budget process is we're going to tear down X number of residential properties and X number of commercial properties and this is the total that we think it will cost because we're still sitting on all the money that was left over from the Bris demo and that $4 million. And I just not seeing some of the other big ones going down here right away. I'm I'm not understanding if if you're waiting on us for something or if things are not legally in place yet, but we've got some big structures on Main Street and some more downtown that I know the mayor is planning to to get down. Is when

the RFP will be coming out for those I believe in January. Yeah. For those what? for the for the large structures that are in downtown. Oh, the the the three that are adjacent to each other as well as the old Studio 25. Um, and we've already got down the uh the laundromat dry cleaner as well included into that bid. Studio 21 and there's another one next to it. But one of Well, I think we should vote on this and I'll get into the other. Right. Very very discussion. Yeah. Okay. Um

well I got a question. Okay. It might I'm going to ask it anyway. Well, what is the criteria for determining? What is identified? What is going down? What is going to be det demolished? Where is that criteria? And is it set in stone somewhere? It is. Yeah. Uh I tell you what I will do. I can send you an email just with a full synopsis that I've that I've uh provided to Alderman Teague. I'll forward that over to you as well just so you have it. Um will you forward just go ahead and forward that to the entire council. Okay. Can do and then you got to add the fire.

Well, yeah. And that's why and that's why the demolition changes. one structure that wasn't dangerous before might may have become dangerous like we had on Factory Street where it was spilling out into the road. So, okay, roll call, please. Alderman Pickering, yes. T, yes. Lewig, yes. Jones, yes. Arn, yes. Cooper, yes. Butler, yes. Doy, yes. Pashard High Tower, yes. Johnson, yes. Okain, yes. Four. Yes. Streing. Yes. 13. Yes. 13. Yes. Thank you. Items of information.

Okay. Mayor, that concludes our report. Thank you, Chairman. For at this at this time, we will receive our public services committee report. Chairman Street. Okay. 14A is the city clerk's report. Do you have anything for us? Just the approval of license. Oh, 14 uh A1 is approval of license. Help my glasses on. Yeah. Approval of the license. I'll need a motion to second to approve the license. So move. Second. Is there any questions on the approval of the license? If not, all those in favor signify by saying I. I.

Opposed. The eyes have it. [clears throat] Okay. Uh items of information. We will meet here next Tuesday 6 pm. Date is 11:25 25. And that concludes our report. Thank you, chairman. You'll be glad to know that we do not have need of close session. Uh however, it's now time for item 16, review of 2025 tax levy and 2026 budget. Uh there's some information uh that we we had discussed previously. Alderman Arns and others had requested about uh property value, property payment of property taxes and such. So, I'm going to hand that out first.

I apologize. I should have had this at your table. Thank you. Thank you. There is another packet of information that I'm going to provide for you as well. Alderman T. are some of these I'm looking at the EAV. I think they I think it's this.

Yes. Yeah. Are some of these commas in the wrong place? Should No, I'll I'm sorry. I'll explain I'll explain these to you. Well, if it's our I mean Ward one has 24 comma 5230 comma 0 through8. So should that really be 245 or should it be 24.5? W 2 has 35.6 but should it really be 356? I apologize that there was these are non-s single family residential parcels.

She's talking about this. I'm talking about the the the placement of the commas where it says estimated EAV by ward and it has 24 comma 5230. There's four digits after the comma. I apologize. I'm not sure what happened. I'll have to check with Adam on that. I did not review. He made some updates and I did not review today and I did not review those

because what it looks like now because I'm it says W four has 70 million which is would be the highest except that the commas may be misplaced or there's an errant number. So, if the commas aren't misplaced, then Ward 4 has the highest EAV, which seems very odd to me since and to Alderman Okane as well since we were once living in Ward 4. And I have driven every street of Ward 4. And I'm like, really? We're sitting on a road single family though. It says

industrial. Those are industrial. Ah, so that's okay. So that's the the commercial and not single family. That makes sense then. But but unless war one and war two might actually also have non-commercial that would be at 245 and 356 and not which is significantly more than 70. So it's really a question of is it a misplaced comma or is there extra digit? I will clarify that. Okay. What I've passed out to you are two different things and I apologize. I meant to to give you the second one first. So if you look at the second

I'm sorry I don't have a single family packet. Oh, I just put it right there by Mrs. Should be right. Three pages. Okay. I said it right to the chair where I So then does she have one? Do you have one? Yes. Okay. Yep. Thank you.

So, there was discussion about the residential the property value of both residential and non-residential property in the city of Danville. So, if you would please take a look at the second packet which has single family residential values and the top page is equalized assessed value of single family residential parcels. So, as you can see, the estimated EAV by award is listed there on the right hand side. Total EAV just as I'm uh EAV stands for equalize assessed value. It's one-third of what of the the total property value that your uh your property is assessed at. So, in Ward one, uh single family residential parcels, 17.2 million. Ward two, $20.3 million. Ward three, $19.5 million. Ward four, $14.2 million. Ward five, $65 million. Ward six, $38 million, just shy of 39. And W 7 uh $78 million. You can see there also it was requested that we provide um which parcels pay no taxes. So those parcels are blacked out in in the illustration. Yes, Alderman T.

There's no colors on W four. Pardon? Or there's no colorization at all in war four for single residential. That's Oh, so so so wait a minute. So where there's white that means that it's commercial as opposed to resial. where where where there's white, it's non-s single family. Whereas non-s single family, so it's either commercial or multifamily. So then the difference between white and black is the black is it's there's no taxes whatsoever. That's correct.

So is that like what? City uh government owned property. Uh some of it is governmental property. Some places a senior has an exemption. So their exemption exceeds uh their property tax assessment. So they don't pay any value. Um, there could be nonprofits such as churches where they're not paying any taxes, alderman. So, it's a a variety of different reasons why individuals would not be paying tax.

Okay. If you look at the next one, you can see just the the next one which says Danville city taxes collected of single family residential parcels. You can see um the collection by Ward uh in Ward One. It's just a little shy of $1.5 million. And ward two, a little shy of $1.8 million. And Ward three, a little shy of $1.7 million. In Ward 4, a little shy of 1.2 a little more than $1.2 million. In W five, $5.6 million. In Ward 6, 3 just shy of $3.4 million. And in W seven, just shy of $6.8 million. Now, those are the taxes for the city of Danville only. And again, wherever you see any um any anything black, there are no taxes. The white represents uh non-s single family residential parcels.

Yes, Alderman Arms. Uh Mayor, this is uh some of the information that that is related to, but I I guess what I was after was the actual taxes paid. And so that is a that's the next uh slide that you have there. No, actual taxes paid is different than EAV. Yes, actual taxes paid um can include um some of those entities that are paying taxes that um so are you saying all the landlords, all the residential that includes multi-unit is included this because it says single family.

These are all single family residential parcels. the multif family are included in the in the other in in the in the other map. So then so so I I just want to be clear the first page is EAV only. The second page is the taxes that the city of that were paid to the city of Danville property taxes by single family homes. Are just clarification it says estimated. Is that estimated based upon the EAV and our tax rate versus what they actually paid?

My understanding is this is what was actually collected. If you look at the bottom, it says um to the contributions to taxing bodies um and this was provided by the supervisor of assessments. Okay, I can follow up with that. Yes, sir. Alderman T. So then the one that has the nons single family residential which was intimated that it's commercial but it can't be commercial if it's residential. So so it's not commercial

as as I said it's all nons single family property so it's multif multif family residential and commercial but if we could as I uh we'll go back to this if we could and the last page that you have is total taxes paid by ward um so that's not just to the city of Danville that is to all taxing bodies for residentials so the third page that you see total taxes collected of single family residential parcels in the city of Danville for 2024. And again, um, black out is folks that don't pay taxes. White out is either multif family or commercial property.

Is is there a reason why the multifamilies were not included in the residential? Because that was what the request was was all residential. I I apologize. I'm not sure why Adam segregated it out that way. I can follow up. Thank you. I'm sorry, but isn't that what non-s single family residential is? Yes, but it the numbers are all mixed together, so you can't see how much that that component is multi-units residential.

I would love a definition if there is one available. And I recognize that we might not necessarily be in control over how things are designated of what constitutes non-s single family residential because I'm surprised at the number of non-s single family residential parcels that are on East Gate. This includes commercial and multifamily properties. But why would it then be residential? You you just said it was a commercial. I think No, I didn't say it wasn't commercial. Alderman,

I think the word single family residential parcels is all one thing. So, this is non single family residential parcels. So it's excluding not single residential single family residential parcels as one grouping. So this is the antithesis of this. Yes. So this is commercial. It is commercial and multi-family residential properties and industrial. I'm assuming

it's all other properties. This is all nons single family properties. But you can see uh the EAV there. I will I apologize. I'm not sure what happened on those first two numbers. Alderman Tigga, I will get that clarification and get it to you all. But you can see as you would expect essentially properties that are valued at a higher rate are paying higher taxes. Outside of the clarification on those numbers, um does anyone have any any questions? Okay, at this time I would open the floor for discussion on the budget and tax levy. I have some um concerns about the budget. Um I'm looking through my notes. One is just some are concerns and some are just things to I think point out. One, I am concerned about the cuts to the library. Um, and I do uh believe that the the new uh director should have the opportunity to be strategic and surgical um as it relates to what he may want to do as it relates to cuts. Um I also have

to address that point. He will have five and a half months

because this doesn't take effect until May. I'm not sure that that's long enough to actually get a lay of the land, but that's neither here nor there. Um, I also have noticed that we are at we added I can't remember if it was an addition. My note is not in detail enough. I know where it's at in the budget though. um that we have added significant dollars to animal control as well. I think it might be it might actually exceed I'm not sure if it does. I don't remember if it's a total or if it's an additional 325,000. Um so I believe that it exceeds what we took away from the library. Um, I also noticed that we also have removed any fund all funding to DDI. Um, which is a a concern especially considering how much focus we put on people going downtown, activities towards downtown and all of the things towards downtown. And um, they have been cut entirely from the budget. Um, and there may or may not be additional items. I had sent a long list of questions to our controller last night, which I saw she emailed me back and I don't know cuz I didn't see the email till I sat down here. Um, were your responses in line or because I didn't see anything below? And that could be because I'm on my phone. So, that's why I'm asking.

Yeah, I put the answers to each question down by the question. Okay. Okay. That way they kept it in order.

I'll look when I get to a desk cuz I can't see them from here. Thank you. [snorts] Um, so I may or may not have additional um items to bring up after um I see some of the answers to my questions. So, but those those things both the library cut and the DDI cut are concerning to me. not as concerned as it relates to animal control, but I do think it needs to be pointed out um if any, you know, for people to be able to see as they look through um cuz obviously it's 171page document. So, there's a lot of detail to to go through. Um the fact that we are we have significantly increased our animal control. The reason why I'm saying I'm not as concerned because we know that we have an animal control problem in the city of Danville. Um so it does uh certainly need to be addressed. I think one of the questions that I will have is how did we come to the amount that we came to for that increase?

Alderman. So um in now that there is a new director at animal control uh they've been reviewing their budget. Chairman Miller of the county board is asking to review their budget. Essentially what's happened is they have been under billing us for a long time. So, let's say for example, they were supposed to bill us $25 a month per animal per board. They've been charging us one time instead of for each animal that we were to be boarding. So, that's one one area of change. When you say one time, you mean once a month. They just charge us for one animal.

They they were charging for one kennel for one day basically because it was per animal per day in the contract. Um what you'll actually be seeing next week, we'll be bringing uh some changes to the current contract, the active contract in order to get us up to snuff. And in that discussion next week, uh there will be a presentation that will break down uh how the new rates are being come up with. Uh and that'll be put in place, we're proposing for six months while they collect more data uh that they currently don't have so that then we can go into negotiating a new contract with them. But at this time, we're just going to adjust and we're utilizing their budget [clears throat] that they're proposing to come up with the new rates and using the average percentages of Danville's usage of their staff and building and everything else. So that's where that'll be coming from, but we there will be a presentation next week that'll bring a lot of clarity to that specific increase.

Okay. Thank you. As far as DDI funding, we did give them a one-time because we purchased the um the Old National Bank building. So they lost a portion of tax revenue from that. We still do have to pay taxes on the portion that Old National Bank uses. So we gave them a one-time um funding this past year, funding increase. Um, essentially DDI, what they do now are give out grants, the same thing that we do through the TIFF district. Um, they they levy a specific tax to do so. Uh, I think it's a comproller. Is it at 40 or 45 that they're asking? I think they're asking like 41, something along those lines.

So, they're asking for 41 whereas they only asked for 30 last year. So al since they are also asking for an increase uh from our downtown business owners, we thought that we should not be giving them additional money beyond that. You you're saying that their the tax that they're asking for is additional money. Yes.

But their board are the ones that are those downtown businesses. They are a small portion of the downtown businesses. There are I believe 50 some odd b it's not just the business uh the actual businesses. It's actually the building owners that pay the tax. And so most of the DDI boards, some of them are actual building owners. Some of them are business owners. So maybe they rent or lease property, but they are levying an additional 10 or 11,000 on themselves and all of the business, all the building owners down in the downtown district.

So we're we're cutting any funding from them that came from the city general fund because they're increasing what they're asking for from the businesses. So, we're saying, are we saying then that it's that it's a net zero effect on their total dollars?

They will still be ahead, I think, of maybe $1,000 or so more than they were last year. And also, DDI, um, I appreciate that what they do do, but, essentially what they do is provide grants to businesses uh, for facades and things like that. Um, our our tiff district has been doing that substantially and heavily. Uh, and so we believe that that's something that can be covered by the TIFF district rather than taking money from the general fund, which could go to other other things that that that we need here in the city of Danville. Okay, those are the only things I have for right now. Thank you, Alderman. [cough] Anyone else? Alderman Arn.

Okay. Uh, a couple thing or several things. Uh first regarding the uh property tax levy, I too will be either making or supporting a motion to restore the library funding to a level at least $2.1 million. Uh it's currently proposed at $1,920. Uh I certainly have some ideas on where the additional funds can be transferred from the general fund uh to supplement that so that there is no increase in property taxes from what is already proposed. Um and uh we'll be happy to do that at at whatever time is appropriate. Uh and with that, the comments that have been shared prior uh by Miss Payne as well as Alderman Teague is we've got a new director coming in. And I think that's a heck of a welcome to say we're going to cut your budget before you've even had a chance to look at it. And the reason I say that is because the library board has been very good stewards. They've been maintaining a budget close to $2.1 million for five years now. And the city's not anywhere near that. And we've heard about studies that suggest the number of personnel. And I would suggest we not read too much into that because studies before suggested the city should have certain personnel numbers in certain divisions and we are well beyond what those numbers are. And so I think you have to be careful when you reference studies is were they a study on the Danville library or if it's a based on an average uh that was a lot of discussion back in the days regarding the firefighters is how many per thousand should it be and we're we're above the numbers that were discussed at that time. Uh my particular uh belief is is that the the city's personnel costs alone have risen over $6 million since the fiscal year 2023 24 budget was

completed. The 2324 budget and I'm taking these numbers out of the budgets is was 18,798198 and the proposed for 2627 is 24 million 97352. That's a $6 million increase in personnel costs in three years, $2 million a year. And that's where I go back to and continue to go back to, that is not a sustainable trend. Our revenues have never grown two and a half to $3 million a year. And so if that's the increment that is needed to grow every year to sustain those staffing levels, we can't sustain them. And now is when we need to figure that out before we've spent all the money on other things. And when it's going to personnel cost, it can't be used for other opportunity costs. It can't accelerate demolitions. It can't improve or import uh business retention or incentives for them. Uh and I go back to that was the the desire of the community benefiting from the casino funds. And so, while I had hoped that we'd be able to split the budget out and we would have a much longer period of time to get into this, next meeting, next full city council meeting, I'll be presenting an alternative budget that reflects the best interest of the community going forward and not so focused on maintaining staffing levels of the city. Uh, as I've stated based upon my preliminary analysis, we've added more than two dozen positions in the city government since 2017. And I know the mayor is working on some numbers for that. So, I'll be interested to to see what those are. But we have to recognize we're a shrinking community. We don't have the same number of people. We can't afford to pay what we're paying. I would suggest the the money was not there to give those raises at that time. had a spreadsheet gone out

five or 10 years, it would show it was not a sustainable. So it in a in a push to move this budget forward, what we're pushing forward is a budget that says this is what we're going to do next this year, but it probably won't work for next year because we're not likely to grow another $2 million. We had seen three successive years of declining revenues. We're seeing huge increases in sales tax right now. And obviously inflation has partially had an effect on that. And so if fl inflation ever gets under control and prices drop, so are our revenues. And we rely on them too heavily to have it all stretched that thin. And so, as I stated uh last year, to have our casino funds be a significant contribution to our pension payments, by my estimation more than what is suggested because the mayor and controller indicate some of those funds go elsewhere. We need to find out where that elsewhere is. Uh but the reality is is this can be done. All the pensions need to be paid and would be paid and that will be shown in the budget and the budget will show significantly more dollars available for things that benefit the citizens of this community and provide us better hope moving forward that we can create a sustainable city. We need an infra in infrastructure reduction program. It wouldn't take anybody 10 seconds to say we're nowhere close to the funding levels we need for our infrastructure. I'm not going to argue that point. The point is is we can't get to that point with 27,000 people. And so we need to start eliminating infrastructure and consolidating our city to the core so that we can afford to maintain it in the future. I don't know that it still exists, but at one point there was a GIS uh application that was made to show all the annexations into the city. And so

you can literally sit there and watch the city grow through decades. If you were to go back and find what the city looked like the last time we had 27,000 residents, [snorts] look at that map. I don't know what it looks like. I don't I've seen them all, but I don't remember. I guarantee you we didn't have all these lane miles of roadways. We didn't have all these miles of sewers running to East Gate and South Gate and some of those kinds of things. And so this is not a plan for the future. This is a what I see this budget as as a plan to protect the status quo. and that's to keep all the employees that are here employed and to not do anything that might result in a loss of employees that could improve other opportunities for businesses or the community. And I say that because there's been some focus on the library that they're doing this through attrition and somehow that's different. Well, I would applaud them that that's good stewardship and and good management. It's good to hold positions open until you see whether they're needed or not or what your financial condition is. The city's not holding positions open.

That's not That's not accurate. That that it appears. We had a uh completely inaccurate. We Well, I was I'm If I can finish, mayor,

uh we had the assistant in the community relations department position open up. It's filled today. Is that the best use of those funds without considering some of these other impacts? So, like I said, I'm not going to belabor the point tonight. I'll present a budget next uh uh meet full council meeting and there's been some other council members beside myself that are new that would like to have more of a discussion and so I would suggest uh December the morning of December 6th it's a Saturday morning that those who are interested in discussing the budget andor any other alternatives have a meeting that morning a study session

so that we can get through some more of this and I would hope by that time the the administration could tell us how many houses are we going to tear down this We can already tell you now. It's not a matter of speculation. Okay. And what is that number? Uh we've been averaging about 70. And how many are left? That I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.

And that's the critical number to know our progress. So um you know, like I said, the the budget is not sustainable as it's presented based upon the history of our revenues. And so if somebody thinks the economy is going to take off and stay strong, well, that's that's good. But we need to plan for that. Couple of things in the budget. The municipal pool fund. Uh I had requested to see if there is a statute that prohibits using general fund monies for uh enterprise funds. There is not. There is none. So then theoretically we could use sales tax and general fund [clears throat] revenues to support the sanitary sewer fund or the storm sewer fund if it was necessary. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. because it was told to the council that they could not and that's important. That's important when decisions are being made that they have accurate information.

Alderman Arn, if I may speak to that, I actually am the one who said that because under the previous administration, it was my understanding from instruction from both you and alderman and uh Mayor Eisenhower that infrastructure that uh that the enterprise funds were to be self-funded. That was what we were always told repeatedly by you, by alderman, by by Mayor Eisenhower is that they were to be self-funded. So, honestly, I was going off of what I was taught by you and Mayor Eisenhower, and I misspoke. I'm more than happy to honor or acknowledge when I make a mistake. And since then, the comproller has done research and found out otherwise. Well, I would I would tend to disagree with that by the very fact that we proposed using those fees for that purpose.

So, I I don't think we ever stated that that can't be the case. I think what we stated was is the council has to make that decision. But certainly that opens up a different change. That money was moved out of that fund. the expenses were all left in that fund and the increase was made significantly. Regardless of that, I don't believe we should be transferring any more money into the pool fund out of the general fund than what is absolutely necessary to cover the shortage. It the general fund should not be creating a capital fund for the pool. That's what we do.

We don't have an adequate program for other facilities. The pool should not be different from that. And if the pool cannot get attendance up, you know, other councils in the future are going to have some difficult decisions to make. The attendance numbers that were seen this year were less than half of the numbers of attendance that we used to see back when the pool had an annual loss of 30 to $40,000 a year. And we've spent $15 million on something that is attracting less than half of the people it used to. 11.5 million, but sure.

And and also we had a lot of weather days this year as well. Uh and we did not do any pool rentals the last co this last year. Uh we will be doing that uh starting this year heavily. So we have had loss revenue that that you did realize in the past. the uh but back to the point is we shouldn't be losing extra money out of a general fund. If we have to cover a loss, I'm for trying to figure out how we're going to reduce that loss. If one more year is being requested to try to do an additional marketing or better better communications or something, then so be it. But uh right now we've got 275 being transferred out into the pool fund. I think their net loss at least as of the last budget was report was around 190ish 180 to 190. I was just comparing expenses to to actual revenues. So whatever that number could be that that's what it would be included. Um the other uh the other items then will be clarified in in that other uh budget suggestion or proposal. Um

the uh fire stations transfer of the 450,000. [clears throat] Is that for a specific purpose or just to try to keep things moving along? That's we know at what at some point we're either going to have to build new fire stations or substantially repair our existing ones. So that's setting aside some funds for that time because that's candidate number one for the library funds for me is to reduce that by that amount. The uh the other uh thing is the municipal building relocation. I know we've got funds in reserve in that fund. Are there plans to try to do any movement or construction in the coming year or what's the timelines on that?

We are we are sending them back a redesign so that they can get us cost estimates um and then we should have those hopefully by year's end or at the beginning of next year. And the hope alderman would be that next year that we start construction and are able to move over by the end of the year or if not in 2027. And uh just out a question uh the mowing of lots where where is that coming out of? Uh right now it comes out of 310. Okay.

And that was as you some of you may recall that was another recommendation. that will be included in that is to to to utilize the solid waste personnel for housing the individuals associated with uh building demolition so that we can increase the amount of building demolitions we do on an annual basis. You know, and and while I'm on it, you know, the enterprise funds have a lot of shared costs and people allocated to the enterprise funds that don't necessarily work on that every day. But as both the mayor and the controller are aware, I'm I'm skeptical of those numbers. And an example of that is is with with the construction model not in place in public works anymore. Really, a third of your solid waste and your sewer personnel are mainly here to provide support for streets in the wintertime. You know, if you think about it, you're not picking up yard waste. You're not doing some of those programs. You can't run vac in freezing weather and what have you. I'm not proposing we eliminate personnel from that, but I am proposing and suggesting that when we're when we keep adding more cost into the enterprise funds for personnel that are partially allocated, that should be balanced. And if those sewer and solid waste personnel should be getting paid out of the general fund because they're really here for streets, which is part of the general fund, that should reflect the same.

All I would say is I do believe that that was an adjustment that was made under your administration. So if it needs to change, you and I have discussed this many times that that we both changed some opinions from the past. So maybe that's a learning moment, but I know that that reallocation occurred under the previous administration. So um that we've continued with that reallocation.

And I would just repeat again is just because it occurred did not mean I agreed with it. [laughter] There was a mayor that made those decisions at that time as well. So the the reality is is those enterprise funds are covering covering a lot of expenses from the general fund. And and one example I used is I think we've got $12,000 allocated to a legal secretary. But when you go to look at the revenues that are collected through those activities, the revenue doesn't support it. And so I don't know if the revenue is being put into the legal budget instead of the enterprise funds, but I don't understand why we're paying for legal through enterprise funds if there if there's no revenue being collected as a result. So that's just something to check into. I certainly am for the enterprise funds paying their fair share, but I do believe it should be equitable and on an allocation method. So, I'm glad that you that you believe that and agree with that because that's exactly how it's done. It's based on the time of of of work that is committed to those funds from those individuals. Well,

and we've actually adjusted them quite quite substantially. Some have gone up, some have gone down to accurately affect to accurately reflect the amount of work that those individuals are doing for those various funds. Alderman

and and and that is good, but I I would say that a a perhaps more accurate way would be to base it on criteria that is not subjective to the employee. So, example, an HR person, they're charged out by the number of employees, not how much time they may spend with a particular division's personnel or another. If someone is doing payables, it's divided out and allocated by the number of payables that are coming out of the divisions. when you're dealing with federal grants, that's often times the allocation methods that we were required to uh adhere to in one of my prior organizations. So once again, if there's a basis for it, fine. If it's just give me your thoughts on how much time you spent, that's harder to do.

It's absolutely not that. I would like to say that while I agree that maybe the legal secretary isn't doing collections and generating revenue in that department, it doesn't mean that they're not putting the effort into that. So sometimes, you know, if somebody looks at mine, I don't produce any revenue directly. So it could be said that nobody should have to pay for me because I'm not creating any revenue, but I am do giving benefit to the city and as does my entire team. So to say that we're not generating revenue means that we shouldn't be paid out of the funds is not really relevant because not everybody at the city is generating revenue but we are making lives better. We're making the city more compliant. We're doing the things that need to be done to be a good community. So I don't know that generating revenue is the criteria that we use for a person's value. I [snorts] I also would state, you know, it's been discussed, you know, there are more than two thou two dozen positions than we had in 2017. I happen to know because we've discussed it at length that you are a big supporter of our police department and all the great work that they do. Well, when we took over uh we only when I took over, we only had 54 police officers. Now we have 70. Um we also have hired an intel analyst which has helped us solve tons of our murders and other crimes that we have. uh we also have a a proper evidence manager so that we can also solve these crimes. So when you're talking about additional positions, alderman, at least n I would at least uh 18 of those positions alone are in the police department.

Yes. And I would not propose any of those change, but that leaves remaining others that can and in my opinion should. So and I'm not sure that we disagree on some of those. Uh the other thing that I would just say that's very important to me is in terms of a position of fairness. You know in 2015 there was a wage study that was done. Uh it was implemented in 2016 with lots of promises about pe to people about where their salaries would go.

And it seemed like some folks were very well taken care of while others were left behind. And particularly all of our union personnel were not included as a part of that. So you fast forward to 21 and 22, we did an updated study which included the unions and all of our personnels and we found that some things we pay people appropriately and well others we absolutely did not. So yes, there was a one-time major increase in salaries because some people had never been paid appropriately. While there are some positions that their position had gone up by 55%, their salary had increased by 55% some by 60%. Others had barely gotten 10 to 12% in that same amount of time. So in my mind, if we want to keep if we want to keep quality employees, those who are providing and doing the work and providing the quality of life to our citizens and making sure life is better, we have to make sure that we pay everyone well, not just those at the top. And I don't think that we're paying anyone outrageously. If you look at most of their salaries, they're fair. And in fact, there are a lot of people that make way less than they should. And I thank God that they have committed themselves to making this community better because without them, we would all be in trouble.

And in response to that, mayor, I I don't disagree. We should compensate people well for their productivity and the work they do. Uh which is why we had some merit-based contracts and things like that. So everybody didn't get the same amount of money. People that worked harder got paid more. Those things have gone away now and every those things were not in place when I was an alderman. They they were in place and I've got the contracts to show that. I mean, they're in writing, so that that doesn't change. And we we never voted we never during my time as mayor. I mean, as alderman, maybe I'm wrong. I I don't remember everything, but I don't I don't recall voting on merit-based wages for union personnel. Well, it's in the contract.

Maybe maybe we did. I'll go back and take a look. Read it. It's in the contract that you removed with director. I didn't remove anything. [laughter]

There's no point in getting into that. The the other thing is but I go back to mayor is okay fine. So everybody's at their right salaries. It's still unsustainable and so it means that there need to be fewer of them or we need to figure out a way to control the costs. paid leave time is a great example and other things that have not been addressed while we were giving out those historically unprecedented wage increases. We did not get back some of the things that drive up our cost such as paid leave time. So I go back to does everybody here think that we can grow revenue two to3 million a year to keep up with this cycle? We [clears throat] don't have to we don't have to grow revenue by that much. So you said that our payroll is 25 million right now, right? 25 million alderman times an average salary of 3% increase is only $750,000 or not $2 million or $3 million a year. The reason why you've seen such a huge jump over a short period of time is because we had major increases to make sure that all employees were comp compensated fairly. And we want to talk about historic raises. There were some people who received historic raises here previously while everyone else got uh while everyone else was not considered or uh or taken care of. So, it's interesting to me when people take care of certain individuals and and themselves but not everyone else. That's a that's an error that we have worked hard to rectify.

That's also an opinion. The uh the thing that's not being calculated into that is the increases in utility costs and the other things that are in the budget. I mean, if you look on page 14 of the budget, it provides all of that for you. And we don't have the budget up, but

it's it's in your Dropbox. you know, you're looking at significant dollars that are going to have to grow. And if if at any point revenues don't continue at the growth trend that the controller has projected, it's an immediate problem. [snorts] There's lots of speculations and ifs, but what I can tell you is we have seven years of proving time and time again because we have conservative revenue estimates that we bring in more money than we've budgeted. And and when one of our funds was reduced, we made the reductions that we needed to make to make sure that we didn't. And you talk about reducing personnel, but guess what? The personnel are the ones who do the work for our people. They're the ones who fix the roads. They're the ones who make our parks nicer. They're the ones who get called out when there's sewage going into someone's yard at three o'clock in the morning. So, in my opinion, I think that the public probably agrees that we need to make sure that we take care of them.

To be determined. Thank you. [snorts] Anything else? Items of information for the good of the cause. having satisfied the good about the night of light parades. Oh yeah, thank you. Thank you all. My goodness. Night of lights the first the first Friday uh we will have our night of lights parade. That kicks off at six o'clock.

Yes, we do our best to kick off at 6. Um we are actually closed for registration. We have the most amount of floats signed up that we have in a long time. So, we are working really hard with Hope Unlimited and really thankful for them um being willing to partner with us. It really helps doing it at the church in the parking lot because it keeps our roads open for longer. So, Yep. kicks off at 6. Uh and the Fiser Theater will be serving free hot chocolate, so you'll be able to try to keep warm a little bit. Well, I just want Yeah. I just want to let everybody know the Vermillion County Conservation District Foundation is providing the horse and buggy rides again this year from 1:00. 1:00 at 1:00 until 5.

Yep. And that will be located at the corner of the Fiser right there. So, you'll be able to stop by anytime downtown and catch a carriage ride. Thank you. We appreciate you all very much. Alderman Butler.

Oh, yes. Uh on December the 6, uh uh Sleep uh Heavenly Peace is going to uh build 80 beds uh on that day from 8:00 until we get finished. and it's going to be at the uh the work source uh on the uh December the 6. Uh I have a couple of more questions as well uh dealing with uh alleys. I was approached today that are we still do we own the alleys or are we maintaining the alleys or are we supposed to be maintaining alleys or is uh the homeowner supposed to be maintaining alley since we don't go through them anymore? We maintain those by request.

Oh by Oh by request. Yep. You can uh get online on the uh report it app and uh report your alley or you can also call public works at 4312288. Oh, okay. Great. Okay. I can share share that with him. Uh and for the cameras in all all of our parks, do they still work like to 24 hours? Yes, sir.

And the the you know the one that uh said we have them all set up at Garfield as well. Yes, sir. They're they're in they're in every one of our park parks, alderman, and they um they go so if there is activity in the parks after they're closed, it automatically notifies the police officer, so they're able to respond immediately. I I think um Chief Yates mentioned this, but we had a couple of young folks who tried to set some stuff on fire. Police were there within minutes. We had someone who unfortunately had a little too much to drink who drove through the gate at one of our parks and we were able to be there also within moments. So, uh we are notified. It does not let us know when the squirrels get to dancing, but the rest of it, you know, actual activity from folks. Yes, sir. It lets us know.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And the one at the pool as well that I know they took the canvas off on the end. I didn't know if somebody tore it off or we just took it off. Uh is cameras in that area as well. I know it had a tour on it on that uh the southwest fence. I'll have I'll have to check into that. You say it the one that's missing is a southwest fence. Yes. Area. Okay. I'll I'll make a note and we'll have to go check that tomorrow.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. There. So, so otherwise then you know if somebody took it off the camera, pick them up. There's a camera sitting there. Okay. Uh the other question I had is uh uh how long and uh you know does a person has you know when they get borrowed from the city buildings or any building how long does that last? What do they have to do to make a right to come back and who reg who regulates that?

It it depends on on the behavior. Uh that's a decision that's made by me as the administrator and um that's something that will be reviewed and it's something that we we intend to review at the end of the year uh to hopefully make some adjustments. Oh, so so it's it's yearly when you re review that person. It's it's not there isn't a set there is not a set process in place. Okay. Yeah. But you're the only one that make that decision. That's correct. Yes, Alderman Pickering.

Um, I just like to thank anyone that was involved in last Saturday night. It was gorgeous downtown. The lighting was just absolutely gorgeous. The families that were down there, the people that were down were just did my heart good to see everybody down there. So, thank you. You're welcome. Speaking of things that have changed, Alderman, that's one of them. You'll remember I voted against Christmas lights regularly, but it's because we didn't have the money at that time. Come on. We have the money, then you can do those things. So, exactly. Yeah, cuz it really looks good, man. I mean, coming up through there, man. Look like one of those uh Hallmark movies there, you know. That one tree is missing its upper half. Oh, yes. It's only lit up about four feet.

There there are a few things where we've had a few shortages that that our team is working on that they'll have have done soon. So, but thank you all. Seeing the seeing the kids and they was great, man. If you could have seen that the kids just in Kresky in Temple Plaza out in the new in the breezy lot, they just had a blast. It was great to see. It did my heart good. Having satisfied the Oh, yes. All also my friend that owns Obsidian and Coffee. Yes. He sold out by noon Saturday because of the crowds and the volume of people downtown. That's a good thing to sell out. Absolutely. And he had to actually reorder and restock before he could open up the rest of this week. That's a good thing. That's the kind of thing we love to hear.

All right, having satisfied the agenda, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. Any opposed? We are German.