City Council - Regular Meeting

Microphones are live.

Hello.

No, I'm not. Okay, Chairman.

Having the appointed time of 5.30 arrive, I would like to call the Tuesday, June 30th, 2026 Committee of the Whole to order. Would you please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? Mr. Clerk, would you please take the roll?

Alderman Cox. Here. Alderman Gregory. Here. Alderman Williams. Here. Alderman Rockford. Here. Alderman Purchase.

Here.

Alderman Nathrano.

Here.

Alderman Carlson. Here. Alderman Conley.

Present.

Alderman Donlan. Here. Alderman Hanauer. Here. Chairman, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to accept a motion for the approval of June 9, 2026, Committee Means. So moved. As we move forward, all those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Madam Treasurer, would you please present your Treasurer's Report?

There's no Treasurer's Report tonight, Madam.

Sorry. We have no presentations tonight. Now we will move forward with the ordinances for committee consideration. Mr. Clerk?

CWLP. 2026-294, an ordinance approving renewal of a telecommunications contract service agreement with the University of Illinois Board of Trustees on behalf of the University of Illinois Springfield for the Office of Public Utilities. Move for consent.

Second.

With the acts of request from CWLP, can we please hold 2026-294 in committee?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The ayes have it.

2026 to 95 is an ordinance accepting multiple vendors for the performance of a transmission system study service in the amount not to exceed 20, $250,000 to the office of public works. I don't know why that's there, but it is. It's for public works.

Did we have a second? Second. Any discussion? All those in favor, all those oppose the ice habit.

Madam chair, if I can, I think the clerk might've caught it, but it was for public works, but it's not, it's free.

Great. We read 20, 26 to 96 as of North's accepting and authorizing the contract. UW 27 Oh four F Y 20 27 water service line pothole project for with Petersburg plumbing, excavating, an amount not to exceed $856,213 for the Office of Public Utilities. Move to consent. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026-297 is an ordinance of proven payment to Troxell and Company in the amount not to exceed $3,800,000 for property insurance for the 40 city of Springfield properties for the one-year term for the Office of Public Utilities. Move to consent.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026-298 is an ordinance accepting low bid and authorizing the execution of contract number UE27-04-20 with Indris and Hauser Inc. to purchase a continuous particulate monitoring system for the Unit 4 for the amount not to exceed $111,892 for the Office of Public Utilities. Move to consent. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026-299 is an ordinance authorizing contract with Engineered Pump Services, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $98,405 for repair of Unit 4's circulating water pump, A, for the Office of Public Utilities. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026 300 is an ordinance authorizing execution of a municipal lease agreement with the Illinois municipal league, the Illinois Melissa oil utilities association, emergency equipment shared program for a four year term for the office of public utilities of consent.

Any discussion? All those in favor. All those opposed. The eyes have it.

2026 301 is an order submitting chapter 95 of the 1988 city code of ordinances as amended pertaining to groundwater use.

Move to consent.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? The ayes have it.

Public Works 2026302 is an ordinance accepting lowest responsible bid and authorizing execution of a contract number PW2704-22 with Truman Flat and Sons Company, Inc. to furnish construction of stockyard to marketplace connector for the amount not to exceed $801,165.84 for the Office of Public Works. Move to consent. Second.

And we do have discussion. Alderman Donilon.

Just a question for Public Works, and if they could get this to us between the meetings. I'd just like to know when it's going to be completed. That's all. Thank you.

No problem. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026.303 is an ordinance authorizing the disposal of the excess right of ways in Edwards and Mathers. addition and exchange of real estate between the city of Springfield and the people of the state of Illinois through its Department of Central Management in the amount not to exceed $0 for the Office of Public Works.

Move to consent.

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

General City Business 2026304 is an ordinance approving the hiring of Tina Latham as the office coordinator for the city of Springfield.

Do you have discussion?

Yes, I just, um, I welcome Ms. Latham. Um, she's already hit the ground running in multiple, multiple ways. And I would just ask that all of us be co-sponsors on this cause please.

Okay. Thank you.

Welcome aboard. All those in favor. All those opposed. The eyes have it.

2026 305 is in order to decrease the number of class D liquor licenses by one due to the closure of business by golden hour bake house. LSO DBA golden hour bake house located at 11 West old state Capitol Plaza.

Any discussion? All those in favor, all those opposed. The eyes have it.

2026 306 is in order to increase the number of class D liquor licenses by one for the Levity Bar and Grill LLC, DBA Levity Bar and Grill, located at 4127 West Wabash Avenue.

Move to consent. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026307 is an ordinance authorizing payment to James Cadigan, a City of Springfield Police Works engineer technician, for settlement of workers' compensation claim number 25-WC-012515 in the amount not to exceed $32,760. Move to consent. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026308 is an ordinance authorizing payment to James Cadigan, a city of Springfield, Public works engineer technician for the settlement of workers compensation claim number 25 dash WC dash 0 0 8 7 5 6 and the amount not to exceed $61,711 and 48 cents. Move to consent.

Any discussion? All those in favor, all those opposed the ice habit.

20 26 3 0 9 is an ordinance authorizing the office of planning and economic development to enter into a sub reciprocal agreement with number 25 SR dash 0 1 1 2 with the Springfield center for independent living for the installation of ADA ramps and the repairs of modifications to make homes more ADA accessible, utilizing community development block grant funds in the amount not to exceed $50,000.

Any discussion? All those in favor, all those opposed the ice habit.

2026 three 10 is an ordinance authorizing the execution of a three year intergovernmental agreement with the state of Illinois department of agriculture, for fire protection services at the Illinois State Fairgrounds through June 30th, 2029. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? The ayes have it.

2026-311 is an ordinance authorizing acceptance and execution of an agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to accept an award number B-24-CP-IL-0866 of the Community Project Funding Grant to add a a new youth and adult and children's services space and authorizing the supplemental appropriation in the amount not to exceed $1 million for Lincoln Library.

Any discussion?

Alderwoman Conley. Can we have the director come up and just kind of explain a little bit? This is a pretty exciting addition you've got going on here. We've talked about it during budget season. You've mentioned this, but I'll give you a chance to kind of just explain to everybody what this occasion is.

Good evening, everybody. We are so excited about this youth services grant. It's going to give us the opportunity to totally renovate our youth services department, and it includes great changes for our teen population. As a matter of fact, they're going to get a lot of good spaces to be teenagers. That's going to be for them. Um, they can't be intruded upon. Of course, a librarian to be there and we'll be able to see what's going on. Um, we're also going to get, um, office spaces for my, uh, um, uh, team, my youth services, um, librarians. Um, we're also going to have another space for our security department. Um, that's going to be part of these plans. And there's going to be other changes as well. But there's going to be programming space, dedicated programming space for our young people. There's going to be space for, oh, there's going to be reading nooks. I'm really, really excited about that. Places set aside where the kids can get comfortable with their parents or by themselves or with a little fuzzy animal and have reading time by themselves. I'm looking forward to it. Any other questions?

I just was, I know we hear, you know, we want more activities for teens in that mid group. And I love that the library is building up and making this space open and inviting for other kids. So thank you very much for this. These changes will help facilitate that.

And we're looking forward to it. Very excited.

And just want to be clear so everyone understands, the library will still be open during all of this.

The library will be open. We will have to close the Youth Services Department because it's safer that way. Right. But none of the services will go amiss. We'll be having story time and other programs as well.

Wonderful.

It's all taken care of.

It'll be a big juggling act for you, but we're looking forward to it.

It will be. But we can get it done. Yes, you can. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair. Alderwoman Notriano. Thank you, Chair.

I was just wondering if this also includes revamping of the smaller children's play area?

Oh, yes.

Okay, great.

All of that's going to be revamped. Great. It's going to be. it's going to be a destination place. That's what I'm looking forward to.

Well, I know there are going to be a lot of residents who are thrilled about this. Yes. Thank you so much.

It's going to be nice. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. 2026 312 is an ordinance authorized.

Oh, I'm sorry. All those in favor. All those I know are not opposed. The eyes have it.

2026 three 12 is the Norton's authorized and execution of a tentative three year agreement between the city of Springfield office of public works and IBEW local nine 16 on behalf of the engineering technicians from the July one, 2026 through June 30th, 2029.

Any discussion? Alderman Gregory.

Thank you. Just for clarification, um, corporation council Murdoch in the, in the header, it says I, IBW local 916 and in the description that says Teamsters.

It's Teamsters.

What do you call it again? Scrivener's error. Scrivener's error. Sorry, I think that if you get into the content, it totals out their brotherhood in a different format.

I thought the same thing.

So it's not...

Okay.

I just would like to... Thank you.

it's a teamster. So we'll, we'll get that clarified. Do we need to put on debate so it can, no, just go ahead and go. No, we'll get that cleaned up.

All those in favor. All those opposed. The eyes have it.

20, 26, three 13 is an ordinance authorizing the purchase of one Pierce a sentence. One, the one Oh seven tandem, uh, input aerial ladder truck from McQueen. equipment LLC in the mountain of $2,039,185 for the Springfield fire department paid over a period of five years.

Move for consent.

Second.

Any discussion? Alderman Gregory?

No. I was just from last time.

All those in favor. All those opposed. The eyes have it.

2026, three, is an ordinance amending the city's exterior rehabilitation program for the exterior rehabilitation purposes of areas of the city outside the TIF districts and Canvas Grants districts.

I first have a motion for approval of an Amendment 1 to this ordinance. Second. Can I get a second? You should all have a copy. Thank you very much. If I just real quickly can explain what this is doing. This is a program that I brought forward. It's been about four years now for parts of the community that don't have other incentive programs. Ward 8 has no incentive programs at all. We're not the only ward like that. This is targeting low-income homeowners. One of the things that we're doing over the course of having learned from this program, Alderman Gregory is seeing some of the success of the changes that we've made to other programs. Um, this expands the scope of the program. So it's interior and exterior. Um, the amendment, um, will include just to make sure it doesn't include tree removal too.

Yes, it does.

Okay. So, um, ADA modifications, one of the things, and actually that's part of the reason this is coming as an amendment, um, to the, to this, um, was just all the questions I got about down trees and branches, and those can be very expensive. when you've got a whole tree sitting on your private property. So, um, want to expand this program to include those kinds of repairs. It very explicitly calls out the lead pipe replacement. Um, since we're, the city is making the match on, on the east side of the community. This, this gives again, lots of older homes with lead pipe connections. This program will allow us to extend the support to residents, um, to be able to pay for their portion of that lead pipe renew, um, replacement. Um, I've also kind of gone back and forth over this in my head, but, uh, realistically, I think that given the cost of living, the cost of equipment and repairs, uh, this, this amendment, which goes with the rest of the program, um, proposes to increase the program eligibility criteria. to individuals making 175% of the HUD criteria for poverty. It's not a lot of money, and we know that the cost of living, the cost of everything, food, repairs, utilities, everything has been going up for people. I think it's really very critical that we expand this program and the eligibility criteria for people. Um, I would ask first that we pass the amendment and then also, and then I'll go to the ordinance.

So thank you. Um, Alderman Donnelly.

I'm prepared to speak on the ordinance. Madam chair. Okay. Thank you for recognizing.

No problem. Alderman Williams. Are you speaking to this or to actually, okay.

Well, I don't, you know, it's down. So, Removal of downed trees you're talking about from a storm or something. Right. Because I want clarity that we're not talking about paying for removal of trees.

Well, so if someone has a tree that's threatening their home and they're looking at an unexpected $3,000 to $10,000 removal and that's an expense that is a lot for them, I think that this would be allowed to use it. Again, the whole purpose of this program is to keep people in their homes. So, I mean I've seen them I I will say I was very grateful this summer or this spring that I we put a fair amount of money into branch removal last year, but this is more about trees like if the tree is threatening the Safety of your home. Yes.

I think that should be an eligible expense for people You know, I just want the council to understand that the B size is full of them and full of trees threatening homes and about ready to fall. It's the older side of town, it's the oldest trees and the big winds and we're still full of branches today. So I just want to, we got to get some clarity on this. I'm worried about this because in our TIFs, what we're saying is TIF dollars can be used to remove trees.

Well, and I think, actually, Alderman, I think that might be, you know, an ordinance that we bring forward for other programs, just kind of recognizing. We start to see these unexpected expenses that come up that residents have to deal with. I think, you know, that might be a conversation that we have around other programs, too, you know, with the cannabis program. I mean, once we start calculating these unexpected expenses that people are dealing with, As we have flexibility, I think we should make allowances and try to include some flexibility in the programs.

Well, you know, we've always had them. You know, these situations have always existed. We just haven't been as generous as it seems like we're being right now. And again, removal of trees or removal of downed trees. You're saying to me, as one of the sponsors, removal of trees. The tree doesn't have to already be downed because the storm took it down. It can be looking like it's getting ready to fall and we can use funds to thank you.

Um, I'm going to do Sean and then go to you.

Alderman Gregory. Sure. Thank you. Thank you madam. Sure. Um, and Murdoch, um, we can look this over and talk about this, but I do believe there is a provision in, in the TIF and the state law TIF that allows removal of trees. Um, if it's a part of the redevelopment purpose. But I don't, you know, Audubon Williams, definitely we can add those things in plain language to make them go. But I do believe state law, TIF-wise, does allow for that for redevelopment purposes. But we can look into that and make the proper changes. If no changes or no ordinance needs to be made to the TIF portion, then we don't need to bring it. It's just more interpretation. But on the cannabis side, I guess we can add that line to the circle.

Alderman Donnelly.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to say a few things. I'm not going to be repetitive. I don't want to do that in this chamber. It's probably not advantageous to anybody. But a couple things I wanted to point out. I wanted to thank the co-sponsors for sitting down with Corporation Council, myself, and working through this. The part that didn't get mentioned so far is we had a conversation a few months ago about recapture agreements. And a part of this on the last page is the recapture agreement. The changes for recapture agreements bring some logic into the situation. In other words, the smaller agreements, there would be no recapture process, and it's outlined by the thresholds listed there. And so the Corporation Council and his staff and others at the city aren't chasing their tails for little or no money. This brings some logic into the situation. And I wanted to be clear that it also is prospective, The intent here is very clear that it's from here forward, doesn't impact agreements in place. I know there's some concern about that from a legal standpoint, but this would be prospective. And I just appreciate, again, you two working with myself and Corporation Council on this. It just shows that when we put our minds together, we can come up with some things that make sense and are good for the community. I think this program initially was good. It's been a positive thing, but I think it can only get better because, let's face it, no matter what areas of the city, Are all our neighborhoods need help and and this is one of the tools that we have in place.

So thank you very much So we have a motion and a second on the amendment all those in favor All those opposed the ayes have it and now can we have a motion second any discussion Any discussion you all are still signed up to speak again or no. Okay.

Just real quick. I, cause I did want to speak briefly to, um, two other components just to, to highlight them that we're changing. And again, Alderman Gregory kind of following along the path that we went with the cannabis program. This does increase the match from a basic 50, 50 to a 60, 40, and that 60 would be on the city side. Um, and again, with that low, low income criteria, which the amendment increased to one 75 of the HUD, um, levels, um, those residents will be eligible for a 90, 10 match. So again, um, seeing how this works in with, with some of our other programs, spreading that out to the citywide program, which I believed, um, director raising said is the most used, um, interior X or exterior rehab program that the city has. It's a great tool. Um, and I encourage votes. Let's put this on, on, on consent and adopt.

Thank you. Alderwoman Nutriano.

Thank you, chair. I just have a clear for clarification question, um, for corporation council. Um, so I seem to remember the, uh, old ordinance containing reference to specifically to the HUD 80%. Um, low-income guideline, and I just don't see where that had been redlined.

We took out the very low-income threshold under available assistance, the very low-income threshold, if that's the language you're thinking of.

Yeah, that wasn't it, no, because the very low income is 50%.

And it was... I can take a look at the, at the language just would have been pulled from that. So I tried to red line everything that we changed. Um, but I'll look at that and I can get you an answer to that.

Yeah. And I just asked because, um, I, I of course am in support of having it 175% of HUD's criteria for poverty, but just in, in translation to the, um, charts that HUD puts out, like I want it to be very,

transparent and straightforward for people to understand what that number is um so that was my only thing thank you alderwoman and um i raised my hand too so for the final wrap-up before we um ask for consent is there a threshold i know alderwoman conley even with some of the trees that have come down and I have one on 4th street that's sitting in the middle of a house right now and it's on the street line splitting the house is there a cap and if it is what would the cap be because some people charge 10 grand 13 grand 15 grand when they have to remove those really big historical trees and then if it is that high shouldn't we come back and they have to go through approval just to make sure it's okay. So you're not seeing some, there's just 2000 and some that's 15,000 some that's 25,000.

Well, so it does go up to 20. We've increased the limit on repairs from 15 to 25,000. So if something comes in and someone has a $20,000, um, you know, quote for that, that, that would still be eligible. The city pays that portion of it. Um, I think, I mean, I think really just that'll be staff will be kind of evaluating, you know, reasonableness of, of quotes. Certainly I, I know that they, you know, the, the, the staff work with people on, on how do you find a contract or getting good contractor, um, input, you know, making sure you're working with someone reliable.

I would just add to, would you be okay with making sure you get three bids? Because sometimes people may feel overcharged, but if you have three consistent bids, that's within that same price range, but it can also go to the lowest bidder as well.

Sure. Is that something, um, I don't know, give corporation council a minute, a requirement to have three bids. Does that need to be spelled out in the ordinance or is that more of a administrative standard?

Um, I apologize. I was out of context. I was, uh, for, for which program for the citywide program? Uh, we, that, that's an administrative, uh, that's administrative requirements.

So we already have that. So we do have that already in place. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. Alderman Gregory.

No, I was, I was just going to recommend that, that, We keep in mind that often it is hard to get multiple bids from people because they're busy or what the case may be. Oftentimes those bids are very, very for a short period. And from my experience, you know, I think the 90-10 is fine, but you are going to run into some people who are going to have an issue and a problem even paying that 10%. So that's something to think about in the program as it goes forward, but you'll see that here, there.

I just, and if I thank you, chair, if you mind, um, one thing I think that we need to be doing more, um, make more outreach to our local community banks to see about, you know, some very low interest loan options, um, and, and paths for homeowners. So, yeah, I agree.

Alderman Alderwoman Nutriano.

Thank you. And I just want to add to Alderman Gregory and your, about the bids. I've been working with someone, and sometimes bids cost money, and that's not great if we're targeting people who are having money problems. So I actually would not like to put that in code. I would like us to be able to be flexible with how many bids are required. I can't support that.

Okay. Alderman Williams. Yes.

So, you know, I think when we, um, talk about bids and talk about, uh, people wanting to, uh, to do things, they are, they can get a little expensive. Um, and the timing of them comes to mind for me for a few of the, my constituents. So we required them give a bid at what point in this process, Because if they get the bid, they pay the money, and then they don't qualify, or they don't get selected, or whatever term that OPED uses to say, oh, you're not getting the grant now. So when are you requiring them to have a bid or these bids? This stuff has to be thought out because we can end up costing the person in need. I've got situations where people have gotten bids, but now they're not approved. So what do you make me get the bid for?

So I want to point out the requirement to get a bid is not contained in the ordinance. That's not part of the ordinance language. That's an administrative function.

So I would say the director, I'm going to ask her the same question, but we can't just ignore what I'm asking.

Director Amy.

So my question is timing on when we would require the person to have a bid, would they already be approved? and now they've got to get a bid or they have to have a bid before you guys finish.

I think one of the key administrative processes that we've always used is securing bids so that we know how much the grant is going to be for. We all have ideas of what we want for our homes or what we need, and unless you're doing it day-to-day, you're not going to know what that cost is going to be. So even though while we put a cap in this case of up to $25,000, how are we going to write? a contract or do anything else to that effect. It also helps to hold our funds that we have in any of these programs, BM state, federal, or our local, um, city funds in, in this case of citywide funds, because we do have contractors, unfortunately, that will take advantage. I'll say up to $25,000. Well, my bid is 25, you know, it's going to be $25,000 to do that.

You're saying not to get bids. That's not what anyone is saying.

No. You're saying at what point, Alderwoman? Yeah, the timing. Right. Maybe that's something we need to look at. Administratively, we've always required it, but how do we write the grant agreement and how do we know how much it's for? In the case of the neighborhood TIF programs, for instance, our neighborhood development programs, when you wrote that ordinance and encode it says you're going to do it for X amount of time up to X amount of money, okay? So that helps us look at, you know, how we're spending that money, how much is being awarded. In the case of Citywide, I don't hear a cap on it and where are those funds, how much of those funds do we have? So we are going to want to know ahead of time what people are applying for because we only have X amount of money to use. Does that make sense? I do understand and relate very much that, you know, there are contractors out there that say, well, it's going to cost you X amount for me to come to your home, do a bid, do an estimate, and then I'll apply it to, the work that's done. There are those folks out there, but I often tell you day in day out, we have folks that don't charge those things too. Um, you know, we've made adaptations to many of the administrative, um, things and some of them, things have certainly gone through city council too, where we're able to pay contractors directly. We're able to pay a portion of a down payment to a contractor. And that's been very helpful in our administration of these things. But getting bids is part of the process and us to determine how much the award can possibly be.

Yeah. Yeah.

And I also, I also like to, within our TIF agreements, you all have someone that comes out to inspect. So it's that quality control. We do know that they, you know, and that's held a few account.

That's held a few contractors accountable lately because they've said, you know, Oh yeah, it's going to be 25,000 because the homeowner, I mean, it hasn't been intentional, but the homeowner or somebody said, Oh yeah, I've been awarded 25,000 from the city. So the next thing we know we're getting a bid for, $24,999 and it's like wait a minute you have another bid for You know a different amount so we try to do our best administrate Administering these is always one of those things like which comes first, but in order for us to qualify How much the project's gonna be we kind of have to have a bit at the beginning?

So if I'm poor and I'm the person in need and I'm coming to you for And I understand you got to have a bid, but the reason why I said don't I need to be approved first and then get a bid, because if not, then as a poor person, you're costing me for coming and I'm just helping and may not have to use the bids that I got. I mean, we can't put the onus always on the constituent. Sometimes we got to set the program up to make sense of common sense. You know, same thing sometimes with insurance. I get guys that say, hey, I went and I was going to do this with the city. I had to show proof of insurance and I still didn't get the job or the contract or whatever, but they made me get insurance first. That kind of stuff has to be looked at. Now, I know that's over in the food department, not so much you.

Insurance, you mean?

Well, a grass cutter, for example.

He's hired to cut lots.

and they have to show that they have insurance. They show they got insurance, but along in that process, oh, you're not going to get contracts this year for whatever reason, you know, because all of them are different. But I deal with these guys and they say, but you just cost me to, you know, to buy this insurance for the, however, so I got this insurance for this many months thinking I was going to do all these city lots and now I'm not doing them. Now I'm digressing because we're not talking about the grass contracts. We're talking about individuals in this program. We're considering contracts. timeline on when they should get a bid especially if it's going to cost them they're only coming from any of these things because they need help sure not to be charged you know I'm already dealing with Filing anything at Salmon County is a fee. Oh, you need $150 to file this. And these are landlord things and things that ain't got nothing to do with what we're talking about. But poor people are stuck all the time. It's a cost to speak up for yourself almost. So that's all I want to do is consider the bids. Oh, I hear what you're saying.

I mean, you know, bids need to be a part of the process. You know, we can look at, you know, all the other qualifications. You know, they have proof of homeownership, proof of all of those kinds of things, proof of insurance. You mentioned insurance. I'm going to say our programs do require the approval of insurance on their own, those kinds of things. I mean, you know, we typically, in many cases, these home improvement are approved. Very rarely are some not approved. Mainly it's because of things like insurance or coverage, things like that. It's the other grants, and I know it's all confusing because we have a lot of programs in OPED that, you know, when they're Competitive when they're applying for community block grant funds or some other funds those definitely Have a process where some not not everyone that applies is approved Most of our home repair type programs do get approved It's just a timing issue sometimes because we don't have the funds available Or there's a waiting list for that work to be done as well and director Amy that brings me into a question with

Um, I, I hear concern about bids. I know when I was at the Illinois department of transportation, we had a program called the Illinois UCP program, unified certification program, and there was a list of contractors. So you didn't have to worry. And excuse me, if I don't know this, do you all already have a list of contractors that can do this work that people can just go to that, that list and call the way that the program was passed to me and administered, um, is that we don't make recommendations about contractors.

the for like a Funding program such as citywide our programs that are funded by HUD our federal programs. We actually the city actually Works with the contractors and we do the walkthrough through a competitive bid process. Okay, well there's a difference between those two and

We should maybe take a look at that because it's not us influencing anybody but you can have 50 different groups and it's making it easier for someone who may not have access to internet as easily or may not know how to look up some of the people and you're just identifying that these are the options available too that you can use but you also can go on your own and look for somebody too.

And we certainly if somebody says you know have you you know are there multiple roofers we'll say well we've had constituents that have used some of these but we certainly cannot make recommendations because it's between them and the contractor as You can imagine because otherwise they'll come back and say the cities and we've had this in numerous cases We've had somebody have work done at their home They sign off on it We sign off on it and then they'll come back and want to have the city take care of a dispute with that contractor in some case which it was really them and with the contractor.

Just heard the concern that people said it's a lot to find a bid.

There's never, I mean, I wish there was a perfect way to make this all work and to say, well, this list of contractors is going to come out. They're not going to charge a fee, things like that. We never do that at the state.

You just have the list at the state and you call on your own. We don't say, we don't get no guarantee with the state of Illinois. Alderman Hanauer.

Thank you. I do like the idea of having preferred vendors where we hand out lists for certain things. If the purchasing could do something like that, that would benefit. But in the end, we should have to where bids are required on all of our stuff because our job is to watch out after the taxpayer's money. And You get some guy, you have people come in and say, well, I need this money. And the money we give, you know, we have a certain amount, let's say $100,000 that we got that year. Somebody comes in and gets the biggest amount. Other people that could use it too isn't going to get it. It's just there's a certain thing. I really believe we've got to have it. If it's not in our code somewhere, we've got to have that things should be bid. And if they don't have, first of all, anybody that charges for a bid, they should be disqualified anyway. And I'm sorry. I've gotten bids on a lot of things. I've never had somebody charge me for a bid. As soon as they said we'll charge you, I'll go to the next guy. Because there's plenty of people looking for work. But, you know, this is about saving taxpayers' money and watching out after taxpayers' money. This isn't, I mean, we're trying to help people by giving them free money. There's got to be some due diligence on their part, too. So that's just my take on this.

Thank you. And the only reason I brought it up, I just put in two AC units and I got second bids. One was $3,600, then one was $6,000, and then one was $8,000. I asked you to break it down. Tell me how much the actual unit costs. What's the labor cost? I'm going to need you to break that a little bit down since I'm seeing differences in bids. So that was the only reason I brought it up. And the only other thing that is alarming me too is this Alderwoman Conley for tenants as well. So you know some people are renters, but the tree can fall on the the landlord's house. So can the tenants call to put in for this or they'll have to call a landlord and a landlord has to go into it.

This is for owner occupied homes. So it wouldn't be available for renters.

Just want to be clear. So everybody know. Thank you. Alderman Conley.

Thank you. Uh, and just real quick, um, Amy just, or sorry, director raising follow up on some of these conferences, comments. Um, we know that one of the biggest areas of fraud and abuse that we see this in better business bureau, attorney general's office, or contractors that are less than scrupulous with their work. Can you just kind of talk about, does your office do outreach around how to hire a contractor, what questions to ask? Do you have information like that?

It's interesting you talk about that. We've actually been working with our HUD consultant and our HUD direct grants manager quite a bit in the last few months under this program. And so we've been getting lots of ideas from other cities, from other municipalities, just like you guys talk about sometimes, what are other people doing to minister? And we've really been focused on looking at education, education of homeowners as well, education of that homeowner that gets a new furnace put in. Do they know about changing their furnace filter? Do they know about maintaining that? There's warranties on those furnaces that come back in when the project is completed, especially those programs that we're doing through HUD, the warranty and the bill comes into us because we pay that directly. And then Our home inspectors have been going back out and talking to that homeowner about what this means, that there is a warranty on this furnace, that there is a need to change your furnace filter. And we're doing more and more of that, and we want to do more public outreach like that too, not just for the ones that we're meeting with. So we've been talking about that.

I will tell you, just so you know, I know that it's an older document, but FEMA has, I mean, in my day job, I use these documents. I can certainly get you one, but questions to ask a contractor, things to look for, how to research a contractor, because I think, really, those are concerns that if you've not been through that process, and it's something you're concerned about, having some guidance around what what sort of questions can you and should you ask a contractor? I'd welcome you to send that to me as well.

Cause again, we've been collecting information and then running through our HUD consultant too, to make sure that we are, and this is not a HUD program. I don't, I want to clarify, but at the same time, a lot of these, as we've been talking about, some of these programs have good, good, bad and ugly parts, but why not combine the good parts and combine the parts that we've learned from? One of the things that we always look at too is when a bid does come in and we start that project and it's approved, the, The award has gone through the agreement assigned if that contractor, and this is a good accountability thing. I just saw one today. If that contractor gets in and they're tearing off that roof and they find everything below, it is far worse than what they anticipate. We've all been in home improvement projects where you're, you know, or my husband always says I started in one thing and then they find 14 more things that are wrong. Right. Myself, not the contractor, but that being said, We found, you know, we make them, you know, again, submit a change order, submit this. I mean, there's a whole process to that, so they can't just pad their bill. I mean, it has to be, you know, the project needs to be brought to the attention of our home inspectors, our home rehab folks. They're not the inspectors from the city. The home rehab team on the OPED staff has to be brought to us, you know, what is this change order for? What would that look like? How much is it? You know, and again, that work doesn't, halt and they walk away, but we make sure that that change order is accurate if there are going to be any adjustments to that original pricing because we want to make sure, again, that stays within the range. Hopefully it doesn't go above that cap of what's allowable in the grant because occasionally we have that too. So then we do go as an advocate to that homeowner and saying, you know, they're going to have to pay for this out of pocket now or whatever, whatever we can do or whatever materials could be used, maybe differently or, you know, what else can we do? So, we do have some systems in place. I think we can always improve. This, again, is offering us some different administration that we're going to have to do, some different accounting processes when we look at what their income levels, when you've got a couple different income levels with the recapture. This is certainly looking and adding to our administration of it. Our team will be small and mighty that we are. We'll do our best to administer. Anything as this is approved, if it is approved, and we'll do our best. But I hear what you're saying. And I think perhaps I'll talk with Corporation Council as well and purchasing regarding putting together not a list of recommendations, but rather just like the old phone book type thing where here's your list. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce has things like that. There's other small business groups, something like 1908. Others have small business lists. There's a black owned business list. putting some of those lists maybe in a handout that could go out to people might be a suggestion we could use. But again, I'll run that through everybody and see what we can do. Thank you. Alderwoman nutriana.

Thank you chair. Um, so I just wanted to reiterate, that I was not suggesting that we not get bids for these projects. My day job is public procurement. And so we're not the first people to undertake a public works project. And typically, how these projects are managed and rolled out the agency needing the work done needs to have an estimate on that work first. And so whenever you get an application for somebody coming in and wanting a roof, you send out Matt and other folks, right? To take a look. And I don't know if they do estimates now or how that works, but they should be.

They do an estimation of the scope of work.

Yes. So they should be able to put together an expected price, and that should be able to get us over the finish line of telling residents You're approved We we support the work and we just want to let you know The the maximum you can get on this change orders and all is 25 K And we expect the work to be around this much amount or we could keep that private whatever the estimate is but when those bids come back to us we should be able to help the owner homeowner and say I Hey, we were expecting it to be 15,000 and it came back 35. Maybe there's some more that we need to figure, maybe this project is not gonna be feasible for you. Yeah, so there's definitely a process in place. This is where I, I get frustrated with the city because we have no way as legislators to create rules for your agencies for how you should put these policies into practice. And so, yeah, I would just like us to follow what I'm sure is CWLP and Public Works project processes when they're putting out stuff for a bid, and that is to lead with the estimate first and be able to tell people that they're approved, and then knowing later you gotta get however many bids and if those bids cost you, it can come out of your award, so on and so forth. so yep. And, and regarding contractors, uh, we absolutely should have a list of qualified contractors to do whatever work, um, where we're financing at the city. So qualified roofers and plumbers and down the whole line. Um, I know that takes a little bit of legwork for your staff to put together. Um, But they're going to have to figure out in the end whether or not you're going to allow this tradesperson to work on the project, whether they have the correct licenses and so on and so forth. So we should start at the beginning, head that off when we're getting bids before it goes down the path of, you have somebody who's unqualified. So yeah, that is it for me on this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So we're going to circle back around and we have a motion and a second on the... Consent. Consent ordinance. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it.

Clerk? 2026.315 is an ordinance authorizing payment to Flock Group, Inc., DBA flock safeties in the total amount of $508,000 for the city's Falcon automatic license plate readers from March 1, 2026 through February 28, 2028 for the Springfield Police Department.

Second. Move the date.

Second. Discussion. Alderman Gregory.

Yes. Can somebody from the department come talk to us? Oh, yeah. Who is it? Chief. Chief, how are you? Good, sir. You been on vacation, Big Bill?

No, just playing baseball.

All right. So, you know, first, you know, you haven't been here for a while, but instead of saying this in old business or anything, you know, a few weeks ago I had a wonderful time with our officers, you know, in the park. um, towards the end of it. And, and, you know, it was good. And, you know, I want to be a man and say that, um, you know, before I started in on this and, and I appreciated them, you know, we had a good conversation about that and I appreciate it. So I, I just wanted to let you know that, um, for sure on that. Um, it was a good time and I look, I look forward to continuing that. Um, you know, I know a few weeks ago, um, there was a meeting with, um, about the young man and stuff and you had some people in your office, um, and whatever they kicked out. But I want to compliment both of you, both you and the young lady, because I remember a time that we said we'd never be with each other and all of those things. And through time, that happened. While it was cut short, it happened again, and it'll be longer. I think that's how relationships grow. I think that's how our communities get better. We'll continue... conversations, even tough ones. I appreciate that and I encourage those conversations to continue on because they will get better. On this particular item, Chief, I see the sponsors and I have much, much love and respect for all of you, but I'm a little concerned because I know most of these license plate readers, I would Reckon are around our area. Am I correct?

The most, the most of the lights plate readers are the highest number of lights plate readers are actually a beat 600, which is a, I'm sorry, beat 500, which is, you know, South central, if you will.

Okay. So, you know, this is, this is one thing with all of these gadgets that, that we continue to invest in. Right. We've had this conversation before when, when the shot spotter first came, there was some, you know, some angst about it and we talk with Flock and we talk with that company themselves about our investment and the return on it. You know, how does that look for us? Because, you know, me anyway, I see, you know, I'm not looking down the road 10, 20 years and feeling like we're going to continue to need these devices, right? At one point in time, we were using that data to address the areas of high crime, high violence, and whether that was addressing the lighting, whether that was addressing the trees, bad housing, the things of that nature. In your opinion, are we using that data still to do those things?

Yeah, so speaking with our staff that use this on a regular basis, on a daily basis, including our real-time information center tactical analysts, 70% of the calls for service that we answer, 70% of the crimes that we investigate, FLOC is used to investigate that to some extent. It's a very impactful tool, one of the most impactful tools that we have. As you may or may not know, a lot of our gun crime activity that we have in the city is vehicle-borne, well over half of that. FLOC is a very impactful tool when it comes to addressing gun crime activities. If you look at our gun crime right now, right now we've had since the latest events that happened over the weekend, we have had six shootings this year. Um, last year we had 48, so we're halfway through this and I'm going to knock on wood here, uh, halfway through this year. Um, and we're at six right now. Um, you know, looking at homicides, they're way down to, I don't want to speak to the numbers necessarily because something bad will happen. Um, but we are way, way, way down. So a huge decrease in our crime. Um, I think that is a multitude of things. I think it's the proactive police work that our officers are doing. each and every day. And I think it has a lot to do with the technologies that this council has supported over the years.

I, you know, I, I'm okay with technology because we're, you know, we're going that way. But I, I, I really, really feel like that without investment into those communities, then we're going to keep, you know, needing more and more and more and more technology. And, you know, we don't want to become a surveillance city, right? We, we, we, you know, because this affects everyone, right? Everybody's life's play, yours, mine, whatever. And, you know, some people are like, well, I ain't doing nothing. But we know that everything's never perfect for anybody, right? We have people that abuse systems. And it's important that we have that data and we have those controls over these type of systems. So, you know, in my thought, you know, do we have a formal policy for how we use this that the council has adopted?

Yes, we have a formal policy. I don't know that the council's reviewed it. Um, it's policies aren't necessarily drafted within this room. Uh, when that policy was drafted in 2022, uh, we did that in concert with the ACLU. Um, with that being all the majority of these, if not all these lights plate readers face the rear camera or they're, I'm sorry, the rear plates and capture the rear plate. There is no facial recognition on any of the cameras or anything like that. And you talk about investment, uh, into, um, you know, underserved communities. Uh, we did some, uh, number crunching and since 2023, Up to this date, the Springfield Police Department has sought, been awarded, and pushed out $3.9 million in grant funding to those underserved communities. So we do our best to make impact, not only in public safety, but to try to give back as much as we possibly can.

And that's what I'm saying. It's not – I don't want you to – the investment that I'm speaking on is not really particularly from policing, but it's from, from us as a city and what we need to do. We can't, you know, keep having these issues in these communities and not doing what we need to do. So what I'm going to go back to is we were using that data before when we, when we did our first similar to the bill program that the mayor continues now, across from Fightson's Middle School, our elementary school. We got out that whole week, they cleaned the area up, they cut trees, they addressed housing, they addressed lights, and joined us that weekend, and those type of things helped that community grow a little bit. We since went away from that, and we're consistently investing in these tools, and however you like it, good or bad. But the investment has to be there, right? Some of our communities, and we talk about them sometimes, have had a barrage of shootings. I know one of my colleagues who went on a ride along, the first thing they said to me is like, man, Sean, it's dark. It's dark over there. It's dark. I know. And so I'm not comfortable investing in these tools. you know, if we're not gonna work together, not only your department, Public Works, the mayor's office, our offices, to make sure that we are doing more than just policing the areas, right? We don't want these tools, we don't, you know, We can't afford to always have them for the rest of our lives and stuff. We want to reduce this to the point where we don't have mice and plate readers or the need for shot spotters and stuff. That's the community that I envision. I think we can get there by working together with these devices and investment into our communities. So what I'm looking at, and I'll close. And I'll stop, but, you know, so what I'm looking at, you know, is really some data that comes back to this council, some policy that regulates the use of this thing, some checks and balances with it, because you won't be chief forever. I won't be here forever. All of us won't be here forever. Things do change, and people use systems for bad things, and we want to make sure that we prevent that along with people's rights as well.

Speak to that. Ops 8 is our general order that covers that. They cannot be accessed or used for anything other than investigating whatever criminal activity that might be, which each one of those inquiries that we do, each officer has an audit trail that follows it forever. It never is deleted. So we know exactly who's accessing what and when. And also they have to put a file number or case number next to that audit. So I can't just jump on there and look at whatever I want and not put a case file number next to it and then, you know, be looking at, I don't know, whatever you might want to look at for your own personal gain.

Okay. I appreciate you. After this, can you send Tim Griffin the ACLU recommendations, and I'll place a call to Mr. Page.

I don't know if I have his recommendations from four or five years ago when they drafted the policy, but I can definitely send you the policy. Okay. All right. I appreciate you, sir. Thank you.

Alderman Conley. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chief. We've had a number of conversations about these devices. I think I've kind of shared with you some of my concerns around it. Similar to Alderman Gregory, the concept around the data capture and use. I will say I do appreciate the level of scrutiny that we have at the City of Springfield. I was just sent an article today about a police officer in another community who was tracking and harassing people for personal purposes. Clearly they didn't have these kinds of checks and balances for that to be found. So I really appreciate at our local level where you're going with that and how you're keeping a tight lid on things. The concerns that have been raised to me and that really bother me a little bit more are the interaction with flock itself. what kind of limits are there and checks are there on flock accessing our data? Um, a couple of questions for you. What, what kind of limits are there on them as an outside entity accessing license plate information within the city of Springfield? Um, are we notified and we'll be able to go with that at first.

So they don't have access to our data from my, my understanding. Um, they are not authorized to do that and they're not authorized to sell to a third party either.

So they have no ability to view our data.

I would confirm that through whatever policies they might have. But yes, from my understanding, there is no access to the data and they cannot share with anybody or sell it to anybody or anything like that.

Because that concern comes around, that's been brought to me largely, and largely it's around women seeking reproductive health care coming from out of state into Illinois. And certainly there are other states that have different policies around that topic. And I want to make sure, because we've seen it in other areas in the country, where these kind of surveillance cameras and these license plates, that data is shared. And I certainly want to make, if we could maybe get a little more clarification on that going back, because it is critically important, especially in that regard, where women who are coming from out of state to access health care options should not be afraid of a tool that we use. And as you've said, a tool that has been very helpful and successful for us in pursuing crimes, But those are, I want to make sure that that's not being applied any other way. So if we could just get a little more information, if you could look that up for us.

Yeah, if they have access, I'm not aware of it. But what I will say is, is built within our policy, and this was in concert with the ACLU, is nobody can access that, no matter law enforcement agency or not, to use that. for people coming in for reproductive purposes.

And I know we've had that. And again, I appreciate you've talked about this, but just want to make sure that there's that extra check on an outside entity accessing this data. And then to that, just kind of a follow-up with that, can you just clarify how long is this data retained in our system before it's discarded, or how long is it retained if it's part of a criminal investigation?

So the audit is a lifetime. The actual data of what the license plates are in red is 30 days. If it's a criminal investigation that pertains to whatever particular crime it might be, it could be shorter, it could be longer, it could be forever depending on what it might be.

But for someone, for just kind of the standard what it's picking up, it's retained for no more than 30 days?

Correct.

Unless there's a case it's been assigned to.

Correct. And then that data would be pulled out of FLOC. and saved in our evidence.com platform, which holds all of our electronic data.

And our evidence.com is not accessible to anyone either. Correct.

Correct. And that's all ICG compliant along with flock as ICG compliant as well, as far as accesses are concerned.

Okay. Wonderful. And, and then just real quickly, the flock cameras, those are images only, or do they also capture audio?

Correct. No, they're images only. And there's no, there is an option for people to have video on there, but we do not have that option.

No video, no audio, no video, no audio. Okay. Thank you very much, chief.

Thank you, chair. Thank you. Alderman Williams.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Chief, for standing to answer. Yes, sir. Some of our questions, most of them have been hit on between Alderman and Alderman. But let me ask you a question. So do you just share locally or do you just share all the way up to the federal government with this data?

No, we do not share with the federal government. Actually, the federal government cannot access any data within the state of Illinois for local or state agencies, whoever might have that flock platform. We do share with other local municipalities and, you know, sheriff's offices, and that's been extremely helpful to us. Go back to just a couple days ago where it was extremely helpful for us to locate a victim, I'm sorry, a subject who was wanted in a shooting. Many, many...

So it's local, not statewide or federal and all these things. Yeah, we do not share outside of the state or within the federal. These are the kind of inquiries that we get. You know, we get these, I got the abortion thing, you know, about the tracking of the woman. Illinois is a state where they can, so they come here. But then this flock thing, you know, is helping. The anti-abortion people really harass them and follow them and all this. So I just needed to ask you, is that possible? And who do you share with actually? Like ICE, can ICE come into Springfield and say, I need to see the data from your file?

That would be a violation of the Trust Act for one, but also FLOC does not let access to federal agencies for a state or local agency. Plus, we don't share with any federal agencies. We don't share with anybody outside of the state of Illinois.

Well, I'm glad to hear that because we're living in times right now where people are a little weary because of the type of world we're living in right now and who's in charge of our country right now. So I can understand all the different concerns, whether it's abortion, whether it's immigration, no matter what it is. but people tend to want their privacy and not like being tracked and things like that. So whenever these kind of tools that our police say they need or want to use, I always look at cost and I always look at why and how often and can it be manipulated. But you're saying it isn't being manipulated and that you keep it local. I appreciate you for answering those questions, and we'll see where it goes. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Um, Alderman Han out.

Thank you. Um, number one, I think that, uh, it, it's important to understand that, that this has, you said it's, it's used in 70% of our investigations to solve, solve the crimes that we have. So I think that's a good thing. Um, because what it does is if you're a criminal, go somewhere else, you know, I, that's the way I look at, but I think it also, we got to look at it for, for what, for a good reason. Um, We have situations where people that are dealing with memory issues will get behind a car and they end up driving and they're lost. They get lost. And I know we work with state police, isn't that correct? Correct. I know a few situations, I won't say many, but a few situations where we've had to license plate of the car that they were driving, and we were able to track them down, some of them many, you know, 50, 75 miles away, right?

Correct, yeah. One specific incident actually kind of touches on a few things. We had a subject with a person with some mental health challenges, and that person left and was suicidal. So we're trying to find this person. We put their license plate of the vehicle that they left in, into flock. Um, because we do share with jurisdictions around us, um, the jurisdiction neighboring jurisdiction next to us was able to see the, see the car coming into their area, get the car stopped. Um, and we could take this person, this suicidal person, um, back to the hospital and get treatment before something bad happened to them. And that's just one example. And we could go down a long list of examples like that for community caretaking, uh, events that this has been very impactful for us, not only just with public safety, but just taking care of community members.

So it's good that it's working with crime. We want to make sure. I know I've read where we caught someone from Decatur over here that committed a crime, and they've done the same. I think the tool's beneficial, and I will support it 100%. There are some neighborhoods I'd like to get them in the entryways of some neighborhoods, and maybe we can stop the people getting in the cars at night. Anyway, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Rockford.

Chief, how many, so we're getting, this is 83 additional?

No, it's just a renewal. Okay. It's just 83 cameras.

So what's the, for 83 automatic license, this is in this ordinance, it says, to your agreement with flock group for 83 automatic license plates.

Correct. Yes, it's 80.

So is that the total amount we have in the city? Correct, sir. Yes, sir. 83? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

Alderman Donnelly.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Chief. Thanks for answering the questions. I really appreciate the conversation about the sensitivity of the data and the privacy of the data. That is extremely important. I want to thank you and the Mayor for offering to demonstrate some of the things that the Police Department is doing to us. I really learned a lot and got a chance to ask those questions in person. It's good to see the answers were consistent, by the way. I did want to point out one thing, and I am absolutely in support of this ordinance, but We had a bank robbery in Ward 9 a few years ago, and the individual was absolutely captured in a different city because of the system and the way it's set up, and I don't believe we would ever, ever have caught them without the technology. Correct.

Yep, and that ended up being a federal crime. They got charged by the FBI and then been prosecuted and sentenced, and I believe they're doing federal time for that.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, everyone.

Alderman Cox.

Thank you, Chair. Chief, I'm not going to go through the whole litany that's already been discussed by my colleagues. Obviously, there's benefits. There's some concerns, which I appreciate you explaining those concerns as far as data sharing and things go. It's very good. But what I do want to ask you about, and I think I know the answers, but when I've had these discussions about this system with constituents, they say, well, I don't want a speeding ticket from a camera. I don't want a red light ticket from a camera. And I think it's just good to hear from you. That's not what these cameras do, correct?

Correct, yeah. We cannot detect any speed or red lights or anything of that nature. There is no face recognition on there or anything of the sort.

And it's my understanding that we don't have any red light cameras or speed limit cameras in the city, do we? It's against Illinois law, I believe. Yeah, that's what I thought it was now, right? There's some cities I know up north that I actually got dinged, I'll admit it, in a municipality up north for rolling through a red light on a right turn on red. But, okay, so I appreciate that. I think that will help put some people at ease. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. that everybody thinks they're going to get, um, tickets in the mail and then they won't be able to fight them, et cetera. So thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair.

No problem. Alder woman, new Triano.

Thank you, chair. Um, thank you, chief. I, uh, appreciate your explanations today and clarifications, and I appreciate the opportunity to see the facility. Um, And you know my concerns. I just wanted to bring up again what I talked to you about. So I know our municipalities, our local municipalities that are within the total bounds of Springfield, I'm just thinking of ways that perhaps we could recoup some of this cost by doing like a cost sharing agreement with your Jerome or your other places that may rely on our cameras and not have any of their own, but like rely heavily on ours because like if someone's leaving their vicinity to commit a crime, we're gonna have them, right?

Well, they have to have their own flock system in order to access ours. So they have to have their own camera, whether that's one or a thousand. It just depends on their jurisdiction.

Sure, but they call and ask us, hey, can you help us with such and such case?

Sure, yeah. Sometimes they'll call and ask if it's a jurisdiction where we've actually shared that data or flock access to, then they can just look at it themselves. And again, that's all part of the audit. Even if it's an outside jurisdiction looking at our cameras, all that is part of the audit as well.

Sure, definitely. Thank you for that, and yeah, I think that's it for me. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. No problem. We do have one speaker signed up. Clerk?

Ken Pasha.

Mr. Pasha, please direct your comments to me, and please stay in your five minutes.

Try.

Okay.

Well, it's been a couple weeks. I've been thinking about flock cameras, and I think the problem is the chief assures us that ACLU did that in 2022. Well, flock has made quite a few developments since then. Some of you may be well aware that Alexi Giannoulis is currently in the middle of a state-run audit against Flock for allowing access to groups like Texas and other states for ICE data as well as anti-abortion data. So that's factual. That's not a question. That's documented by our own Secretary of State. Additionally, that data is accessible beyond the police department. They do not control where Flock allows access to and whether or not that's logged. I think we all understand law enforcement is smart enough to not list anti-abortion activist research on their search reasons. It's a nationwide database. It's absolutely data that gets sold to data brokers far beyond the SPD's control. And there's over 25 locales in Illinois that have canceled flock contracts because of that. I mean, you guys can look this stuff up. This isn't anything I'm making up. The ACLU has a very strong opinion about these cameras, and it's not that they're good for things because that license plate data where we have one story about finding somebody, well, it's also used quite often to racially profile people, use that data to find quote-unquote hot cars that tend to be in frequent places because it does allow it to develop a pattern of your behavior, everyone's behavior, every single person that drives by that camera. That's the thing, this is a wide surveillance system. While they may not be utilizing it, I'm not accusing of SPD itself doing that, but if somebody else wants to type it in, that's there to be accessed. I don't think officers, again, are dumb enough to put a criminal reason like I wanna stalk my ex-girlfriend for looking into that data, but absolutely officers around the country have been guilty of doing that, some of them into the hundreds of times. Because the reality is, is while some people feel safer with cameras everywhere, I don't really understand why mass surveillance has become so comfortable for people. I understand that we gave up a lot of that back during the Patriot Act times and The FBI collecting and reading our private emails and maybe some of you guys have accepted that as a kind of government or private overreach that we should absolutely just accept for our own safety, but I don't genuinely believe that. I really don't think that adding or paying another half a million dollars for a citywide surveillance network that SPD itself does not broadly control past its own limitations. Absolutely, Flock has broken its own rules, allowed agencies to access data, and when they sell it to data brokers, under the auspices of creating a larger database to groups like Palantir and others, they are creating a private citizen database, not of criminals, not of anyone convicted, every single person that gets into the range of those cameras. And they have more than that. And I'm sure at some point SPD might ask for those too because they have AI facial recognition cameras. They have the ability to create an entire database about you as a specific individual. And if you don't think that's been abused against protesters, labor activists, or anyone that happens to upset the ruling authorities, you're fooling yourself. It's dangerous stuff. It absolutely is. And in the wrong hands, which it has fallen into time and time and time and time again, including here in Illinois, to the point that, again, our Secretary of State is absolutely trying to audit it, along with how many locales around the country. Over 25 states have had cities that have dropped contracts, again, including cities here like Evanston, Oak Park, and others, because they know when you talk to FLOC, FLOC will tell you the real truth. We control your data, and we'll do what we want with it. And even though we won't give it to ICE, We can absolutely sell it to a data broker, which the US government has been shown to buy that data from those brokers and do a little walk around. It's not that hard to skirt the laws. We know that. So, I mean, I really want you guys to consider that at the very least. Even if you're like, Ken, we can't just cancel the contract. The technology's already here. Write in safeguards for the money. Write in requirements that you can cancel the contract with Flockett City's Leisure and when we find out that they again break the rules, which they do and have done with regularity as a private company more than once. So I'm just asking you to really think about giving that kind of power to a private company outside of the city's grasp outside of SPDs who will absolutely give away private citizens data at their leisure. That is a dangerous precedent and we should strongly try and control that if we're not going to be willing to remove it from our city. I do want to note before I go, cause I got 15 seconds. It is mind-boggling to see what's happening over there on the Carpenter Street with the young man and his tiny house from a city that refuses to engage in a landlord registry. Absolutely, there are properties that need better regulation than that young man's who's simply trying to find a place to live. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one more speaker to this ordinance, clerk.

Danielle Webster.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I am in ward four under Mr. Rockford and as an army veteran, my oath to the constitution never expired. I have concerns for good. I have concerns regarding public safety decisions. You and other officials tonight are in the impacts they have in our community. Springfield is a home rule community meeting that you guys make and have made. regulations, financial decisions, and enforcement policies without consulting the Springfield community. I've seen people in leadership positions in this room actively ignore their constituents. You have a responsibility to listen and respect us as a people you serve. Given recent incidents where BIPOC residents in Springfield experienced civil rights violations with specific safeguards, will be implemented to justify spending over half a million dollars on this technology? Can we ensure that it will not cause disproportionate harm to vulnerable members of our community? And will you commit to releasing data publicly? I'm just curious. I'd like to get some commitment regarding public transparency and accountability. And as a citizen, I feel it's my right to come up here and ask that of our elected officials. I'm not asking much. We should trust impacted voices in our community. We need to listen to them. We need to understand the struggles that they go through. I myself live in an unhoused shelter environment right now, housed through the VA. I've been unhoused for roughly the last six years, yeah, roundabouts, between Peoria and Springfield with my son. This technology is dangerous. It impacts residents, just as Ken mentioned, the unhoused individual. It impacts us in different ways, sure, But that doesn't mean it's not going to. In some way, harm calls harm. I would like to have more trust in my elected officials, but I also know the obligations that many of you have. I'm one person. It's not much. But if I can use my voice to at least speak up and ask for accountability and transparency, I'll come up here and talk. At the end of the day, I've seen how warrantless surveillance impacts citizens, not just for my service, but my study over at UIS was on specifically warrantless surveillance. The Fourth Amendment is being eroded in real time. SCOTUS decisions aren't exactly helping. They're giving us safeguards temporarily, sure. But that doesn't mean it's going to last forever. And on the local level, we deserve to know that you guys are in roles of power and are going to keep protecting us, going to vote for us. That's why you've been elected to the positions and roles that you have. I was hoping Ms. Misty would be here so I could direct some of this at her, particularly because she's in support of FLEC. I'm not exactly the best public speaker, but I'm trying. So you guys get my voice, my concerns. And I would hope you would share some of that respect back. Asking you to just please be transparent with this information, this data and ensure it's released. We deserve that bare minimum transparency from our elected officials, accountability and a trust impacted voices of the community. That's all I had to say this evening. Thank you.

Unfinished business.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, first, Alderman Williams, do you have your hand up? Oh, I'm sorry. There is a motion and a second. We had discussion. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Now, unfinished business.

What?

What are y'all trying to give me? Alderman Williams.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Corporate counsel, you know, we're in committee and not counsel, so I guess maybe you can answer this. So where are we at with animal control? Are we still in negotiation or arbitration or whatever you're calling it?

With the new pricing?

With the animal control and their new contract.

I would need to defer to...

Can the mayor answer or chief? Chief Stack. Okay.

We're waiting on numbers.

Can you use the mic, Billy?

Come on up. Tim has one.

We are waiting on numbers from the most recent year from animal control and then the conversations that we had together regarding animal control would be for future plans.

Does that make sense? When did the contract expire? Let me ask that.

February 28th. Of this year? Last fiscal year, yeah, yeah.

So my problem is we don't know if we have a contract or don't. We don't, right? We do not have a contract right now as we sit here. That's a question. Or corporate counselors, do we have a contract?

Right now, I believe we have pricing in place, but we're waiting on the invoice numbers so we can pay them.

So what I'm tired of is us not knowing. Just these conversations right now lets me know nobody really knows for sure. And I'm going to tell you why I'm upset. Because an 83-year-old woman, her grandson put down two traps. They caught a raccoon that was scaring her. Raccoon has six babies. So now in the trap is the raccoon and six babies. They trapped a possum, I think, or a ground, I don't know what they are. Trapped something else that's in another cage. Call me, I'm like, I'm not touching that. So we went through that. We called animal control. I said, put him on speaker. He explains the situation. They spend more time saying, oh, who told you you could trap? You got to get a permit from IDNR and all that. And so I'm like, OK, well. So they need to pay for a permit. I know it's $200. That was a great get to that. But my whole point is, why do we have animal control? Is they answer the phone, and they blame somebody else, and switch the topic. I said, get them back on what your problem is. So the grandson finally says, OK, I will. But the babies and the mom is in one cage, and the opossum's in the other cage. Can you have somebody come and get them? She told him to open the cage, defeating the whole purpose of finding the traps. Open the cage and just let them out. And he said, well, what about the infants, the little babies? Well, let's hope she takes them out. Don't try to touch them. She did tell him that. But let's hope the mother takes them out. But the whole call was just useless. We don't have animal control service. Or can I see a contract to see maybe they don't deal with wildlife? Was that yesterday, Alderman? That was, yeah. Well, the call was today.

Okay.

But when the call and me listening and all that happened today, I'm upset because we're not being serious about animal control because it's more than cats and dogs. We should have been and settled that contract by now or did something. And we sit up here and let all these months go by. I haven't talked about this for months. But we still don't have where we voted on. And they now have a contract with us. But they'll come for their money. Oh, well, Alderman, this is past due. They already did the work. You need to just vote for it so they can get paid. When do we require them to be on the contract, corporate counsel? I mean, is there an end to this?

We're acting under the terms of the previous contract right now.

You're acting right now under the terms of the previous contract?

I'm happy to answer your questions. I would need to confer with staff that's in charge of putting out...

I thought that happened the first time I brought up animal control when we had to vote for something to pay them. I was told back then... that we're almost ready to have this new contract. And we have not done our due diligence in trying to make this thing be over with. We keep just living with it. I realize you have disagreements, and we try to talk them down. I can remember talking to the mayor. The mayor said, that's too expensive. We got to get them down. I understand, and I appreciate that. But for how long? How many more months or years got to go by before we just do the decent thing so that our citizens can have services? Because right now, I couldn't really jump the lady for one. She's not under the city. She's under the county. Because y'all think the county is so great, but I'm giving you yet another example where People paying taxes living in the city of Springfield are not getting any kind of services, but somebody answering the phone, putting it on somebody else. And if you call, that's how it's going to be down there. Now, this ain't about no taking care of the cats, taking care of the dogs, and we don't kill shelters and all that. This is about a service. And if we don't have service for wildlife, just say it. But right now, there's raccoons, there's possums, there's groundhogs. Big, big things just running all around. I'm serious. Huge. They're huge, you know. And I'm like, what are they eating? But my whole point is, my whole point is, I know I'm laughing, but I'm mad, Joe, so don't make me laugh. We have to just at least know if we got animal control for those kind of situations. So now I got an 83-year-old woman who, well, the boy obeyed. I mean, he opened the, I hadn't got home yet to see if they, came out of the cage but it defeats the whole purpose of her trying to help somebody had to put in their head well you got to trap them and then they'll come and get them and let them go at the lake So I don't know if they really do that, but that's what my neighborhoods think. They take them out to the lake and let them go because they don't, you know. So I just really wish this administration, mayor, corporate council, whoever's in charge of the contracting first, Let's get that straight and let's have from this time to this time, this is the active contract and we have services or we don't. This goes back to the last administration. We can't do this. You guys ain't new no more. Well, let me figure it out. Let me see what's on the books. All that's over. What is this, the third year? We have to do something. And I'm not just blaming the mayor and this administration. I'm blaming the whole city council. Because we sit up here, live knowing that they may show up, they may not show up. I ask questions. Well, they're going to get new vans or they're going to do this. We need to make a decision. We just can't keep ignoring this situation because this is what's happening out there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. Alderman Gregory.

I do agree. We got a serious groundhog problem, though. Out of all the other ones, the groundhogs, and I'm saying that from a, home structural that's what the people are I mean it's even arrived over in my ward to the extent where we're seeing them a lot and people are worried about their homes and their foundations so I just wanted to put that out there I don't know what process we're going to come up with for those little creatures but they definitely are increasing in our city but moving right along so we passed some things for lead pipes and removals and things like that Do we have a minority contract report? Where's my guy from purchasing? Murdoch or Tim? Tim ain't here either. Can we get a minority report on our contractors and our work and where we're at? Yes. I do ride by, I see a lot of work. I don't see a lot of diversity, but I see a lot of work, and I just want to make sure that we're keeping with that. Auto Woman Purchase, I agree with you on a list. Competitively, I don't know if we can put together a list, but I would like to go ahead and introduce our, and we can send it to Murdoch after conversation with the caucus, our MBE program and getting that going. I think that's important to get going. and finally I was going to ask our purchasing director, there's a building, the UCP building, Corporation Council, in the circle, that building in front of it, I think it's the Illinois Women Against Sexual Assault building. They want to buy it. They sent me several, several emails, and they want to take it over, and that's improving our community, and we have not. to my knowledge, giving them a response on if they can buy it or not. So I've sent that along. I've tried to reach out to him on that. And, you know, I hope that we can get that squared away soon for the community so they can grow. My boy Dave, this grass process and our branches. So I know we had a storm. Um, and, and I feel like the area, you know, war two has, has been missed out some on some areas. I know you, you told me to, um, send some things and I know it's going to be our normal branch pickup, but I don't want that. Um, cause what happened is, well, you know, some areas in my ward, um, wasn't picked up during the storm and then we'll have to wait for our turn in the, in the, um, branch pickup. Um, some of these, you know, piles that I'm talking about, I cut myself. Ken's right there. He can attest to it. It was from storm damage, and we put them out there, and they're still there. And I will send you them, but I can't lie to you and say I don't get frustrated that I had to send those to you when I thought we was going through our neighborhood picking up storm damage.

Yes, sir. As you know, we've had several very severe Storm episodes beginning on the 10th and the 11th of June and a week later on the 16th. We had extensive winds and a lot of water. Since then, we've also had a lot of rain, which has slowed everything down. We immediately started working overtime to pick up branches. Originally, the first round was in the neighborhoods in and around the north end. We started picking them up on that Wednesday night. We had the storm the next day on Thursday, and so we commenced picking branches up all over the city, and we have been doing that consistently since. I'm not going to stand here and tell you that we have picked up every branch and every pile. Talking to some of my foremen, they found that they've been working in some neighborhoods, and they've spent the better part of a morning cleaning everything up. They pack everything up and get ready to go to the next neighborhood, and they see folks dragging more branches out of the back of their house. that have come down since. So it's a running gun battle, if you will. We have been working on branch pickup till today. Tomorrow and Thursday we are going to pull some of the guys out and we're going to start picking up on fly dumping and some of the solid waste tickets. And then on Monday, the 6th, we will start our regular July branch pickup. Okay. And we will follow our usual procedure there.

And that was an important point that you just brought up. That was a very, very important point, and I think this is some of the problem. You've got to pull guys to have them go do fly dumping from tree work, right?

Well, it's all hands picking up the trees, and since we've made considerable progress – And we're behind on fly dumping and the solid waste tickets. We're going to work on that tomorrow.

Okay. We'll continue our conversations, but okay. Let's, let's go to my favorite topic, the grass process, the grass process. Here's my problem with it. We cut it's on Moffitt. It's on Moffitt street. Just a lot. It's high through the email communications. It says, well, we cut it once. Yeah, we cut it once. So in my mind, I'm thinking that we have these lots that are either city-owned lots or lots that we know that we have to cut year in and year out, that we just send them out every three weeks or something like that. But it seems like, and it's adding to my frustration and my community's frustration, that we have to call those in every time. And I know there was an ordinance passed. I thought the intent was once we find them that we're just going to go keep these, these lots at least manageable. And some of them are out of control.

And we pursued, I believe the particular lot that you're talking about, there was a fire and we had to demolish the house. Uh, so it's a, it's a privately owned lot, but, uh, it was a house that had a squatter in it and it burned down. And, uh, the owner is not very responsive. Uh, we have cut it. It's on the schedule. I think we're going to get to it tomorrow or Thursday. I do appreciate you letting me know in these particular tough spots. I'm not going to say that we do this with military precision. The fact that we've had the hot weather and all this rain, everything's growing really, really fast. So I would say to you, sir, and your colleagues on the council, if you've got a particular problem or something that you think that we've missed, please communicate. You do on a regular basis as well as your colleagues. And we respond as best we can.

Absolutely. I'm just more so looking at a process from our standpoint and how we can help our departments. We looked at it from a legal standpoint, and once we find them so we can just go cut these things, and I get it. I do this for a living, so I get the heat, and I get all of those things. But there's just got to be a better process because what it does for the resident who doesn't have the yard, who cares about the yard, If they're sitting next to a jungle or a house and all of these things, then I just feel like we have to have a better process for these lots that we know we're going to cut every year. Our own city lot is still not cut. I'm probably going to leave and go get a rider, and I'm going to do it because I want to help out. Our people are helping out. I had a constituent say, hey, I'm getting out. I'm following your lead. I'm going to clean this alley up. So I'm pushing that on our constituent's. And I'm just saying I want to take another look at our process to see how we can get it more streamlined. Do we got 34 contractors again?

About that, yeah.

They should probably all have about, what, 15 lots or so somewhere in there. 34 contractors got 15 lots or more. And I just think there's got to be a better rotation on them to get them under control. So I want to look at that. Because certainly for my particular ward, I don't know others, It's not working. I'm not saying that it's our workers' fault or our contractors' fault at all, but more so our ability of what we're giving you guys to work with. So I appreciate you, sir.

Alderman, I'd be happy to have a conversation with you.

Will do. Mr. Ramona, did you want to chime in from the first question Alderman Gregory asked? Minority, I think it was. I think you have the... Okay, thank you. Alderman Williams.

You're on it twice. I think it's called Boulevard. I don't know. The city side or the city is real skinny. 11th and Cook between 11th And at 11th and Cook, under the Viaduct, the new Viaduct, boom. Now you're at 11th and Cook. Beautifully cut grass. I mean, I think a bank, I don't know who owns it. Huge green space. But the edging, the edges, which I've been told is our side because it's on the other side of the sidewalk closest to the city curb, you know. And it's kind of small, but they're tall. So, and it just looks ridiculous. It happens again on 14th. This is your award. 14th and Cook. I know because I'm driving here to city council. No, you ain't got to go cut it. I'm talking about. But what I'm trying to get is an understanding of whose responsibility that is. If they're going to take the time to cut off, that's about six lots together between Cook and Edwards on 11th Street. And like I said, beautiful green space. It's huge. Goes all the way to the alley, all the way up to 11th. Almost a whole city block. I don't understand why they won't cut. And is it our contractors? If you'll check that, are they cutting it, or is it the bank cutting it?

We don't cut that lot. It's privately owned lot. Whoever cuts their lot is supposed to take care of that, too, just like our contractor on the area that he is. He cut the lot, but he didn't cut the thoroughfare. He did it half. Careful.

Well, my thing is, so we need to find out, do they know they're supposed to cut it, the bank or the private people? They do a good job on that lot. I'm not going to take that away. It's a huge one, and it looks nice, like a park almost. But they leave the edging, and now because of all this rain, it's up here at my waist. I mean, it's pretty tacky looking. At 14th and Cook. At 11th and Cook, you need to look at. And then at 14th and Cook, we have what's supposed to be a utility pole, but I think it – I don't know what it is today. But, again, not being maintained and we whacked around of it and low, it's just grown up so much, you know, like when they overtake light poles the same way. If you would just take a drive down there and look at the edgings, I don't know if we don't tell people you have to do your edging to – Because a lot of people push back and say, oh, no, that's city property. And because that's very different than what I think Alderman Donilon describes as a city boulevard, which is the streets that got the big one in the middle. Now, I think them, you know, so we mix up what we're talking about. And then other parts of towns, they're a little wider. They're not as skinny, a little wider. But they're still on the closest side that's closest to the street. city curb, you know? So we have to take care of them too. And we're not. And that's why we're seeing these spots. Now I give it to you. Like you said, the heat, all this rain is out of control right now. But even when it's not doing this, they're the last ones to, you know, I don't know who's responsible and we need to do an education thing so that the people know they're responsible. If they are, we'll make sure that they know that they are. I appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman Carlson.

Thank you, Chair. Dave, I think grass cutting is something we all can agree with, and I agree. I think Sean left, but trying to streamline the process, and that's what we did last year with that ordinance that I sponsored. But the question is, it seems bureaucratic to our constituents. So if I drive home tonight and see a yard that's 10 inches or taller, or a neighbor calls me, Can the zone managers now go out there and write them up, or do we still have to send an inspector out? It seems like it's bureaucratic.

If the zone managers see something that's in violation, what they do is they let housing know about it.

The zone managers can't write it off. So the Altman's not good enough to get a picture into the inspectors. The zone managers are not. Can't do it.

The inspector has to has to write it up.

But if we've written them up, I thought we had talked. I thought that had changed. And I don't know if that was an internal thing or we write them up once and then once it's. Well, no, I get that. But.

Well, I'm just trying to get it answered. I understand.

So regardless, we still have to send an inspector out, whether I see it as no manner sees it. Yes. OK. even after. So what if we send them a note? So that process doesn't change even after we send them a notice. It's just seems a little quicker that we don't have to send them a second, a second notice. So that we save time there. So it's okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Um, any new business? Great. Um, now citizens, Oh, I'm sorry.

Darn. Almost got there. Thanks.

My bad.

No, all good. Good evening. Just wanted to bring to everybody's attention, we're about a month out from the city's inaugural Safety City event, which the Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, CWLP, and along with the IDNR are hosting this year. It's going to be July 20th through the 24th, and it's targeting an interactive, fun way to teach safety lessons to some of our community's smallest people. So any children that are going into first grade as the age group Um, we have some spots still available. We hope people will, will get registered. Um, it's completely free. It runs from 8am till noon on those dates. And, um, if you go to the city's website, go into the fire department within their, their safety city. If you look at any of the social media, we've been sharing, uh, information about it. Um, we'll be pushing some more on, on police fire, everybody's different social media platforms. We encourage you all to please share it as well with your constituents and, uh, Hope to get as many people as possible. We're capping it at 50 people. We're not there yet, so spread the word and let's fill it up and get a fun, interactive way to engage our youngest youth. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief. Now it's time for citizens. Clark Redpath.

Robert Williams. I have six people today, so we can turn.

Good evening, everybody. Good evening. My name is Robert Williams. I'm here today because this officer, he ain't an officer, he's a security guard at the library. He told me, he called me a nigga, told me suckers, dickhead, beat my ass.

Watch your mouth, watch your mouth, watch your mouth.

Be professional all the time. It's about the sidewalk. They tell me I can't walk on the sidewalk because I'm barred from the library. Saying that's their property, which it's not. It's the city, that sidewalk, and going around the corner. But this man, he done been harassing me since I've been in town. And his name, Tim. And I asked to speak to his boss, Nick, who I assume is his boss. And this, him, not him, but this other officer and this other officer. told me I had to talk to them. I'm like, you ain't the ones that's going to make this decision. Oh, yes, we can. This is what they told me. They can make the decision for him. And I said, that's not true. And it's hot. You know, I just got a place, thank God, finally after three years, knock on wood. But it's other people out there who don't have an income and homeless and And they're under a lot of stress, mental anxiety. I asked the mayor to go around and let me talk to these people, which they talk to me, tell me their problems. They don't want to go to a mental place or family behavior, any of them, because they don't want to, you know, they don't feel comfortable. But they feel comfortable talking to me. And I don't even be expecting this. It's just come. And they want me to solve their problem. I'm not getting paid for this. But I don't like this condition that they live in, because I know how I feel. We all got problems. Ain't nobody perfect but God. And these brothers and sisters are out here right now. Some of them on drugs. Some of them on this. What I don't understand is this. We can solve this problem. You give people houses for free. Renaissance, they put people in hotels. Different agencies. They can put these people in a hotel. And then what I don't understand and appreciate is when they do give a person a place, you have to follow these rules. But these same people that y'all give a place to, can help them people that need a place to stay. You see what I'm saying? It ain't hard. And like I say, Nick, he's been telling me he's going to talk to me for the longest. It's been almost a year, and I still haven't talked to him. The mayor, I asked to speak to her. I asked to speak to Roy. I asked to speak to Sean about a job. I used to work for Roy when he was with us. Faith for the Common Good, Coalition of the Common Good. I was volunteering my service. I just got out of prison going around getting votes, helping people get their trees cut. And I still do things like that. I go in my pocket. I spent over $100 on pops that be on Fifth Street of my money, not link card, cash, because he didn't have nothing to eat. He didn't have nothing to drink. You know, not alcohol, pop, water, whatever. You know, and I have friends, associates, friends that has been blessing me, you know, to allow me to bless others. And I just found out last year my brother died. And if I'd have been in the house situated, I'd have knew about it. He died on my mother's birthday, on our mother's birthday last year. And I just found out four days ago. So people ask, you know, I'm not perfect. I apologize if I offend anybody in the past, present, or the future. But I just want to be me. You know, I'm not young. I'm not dumb. I'm going to leave the last one alone. But I do feel that if I was given a job or opportunity, I would prevail. All I ask for a chance.

Thank you.

Melania Freeman.

She's here.

Brianna Roberts.

Okay, hi. I think everybody in this room can agree that people deserve to live in safe housing. We all support making sure that homes have access to running water, electricity, basic things that people need to live. And that's why building codes and zoning regulations exist. And I support those regulations because every human being deserves safe housing. What I don't understand is why our first instinct is always to punish instead of asking why somebody ended up in that situation in the first place. There has been multiple conversations recently about the structure on Carpenter Street. Of course, it obviously doesn't meet code. I understand that. But what I don't understand is why our first reaction is this person is violating the rules. How do we stop them instead of how do we help this person become compliant? From everything that I've read, I don't see somebody trying to threaten the community. I see somebody trying to not sleep on the streets. And that raises a bigger question of what does it say about Springfield when somebody believes that their best option is to build a tiny structure on land that they own instead of renting a house, buying a home, or waiting for housing assistance? One of our first response would have been, let's see if we can help this person get the structure up to code. Could we connect them with grants, nonprofits, apprenticeship programs, or organizations that help repair homes? If those opportunities were offered and rejected, then that's a different conversation, but punishment shouldn't be the first conversation. Especially when I walk downtown and I see people sleeping on the sidewalk. I know families that are living in homes with mold, collapsing roofs, unsafe wiring, broken plumbing, and aging lead services. governments that demonstrate its priorities by what it chooses to enforce. If we're going to tell the public that this is health and safety, then let's be consistent. Last year, this council voted against allowing the public to vote on whether they wanted to have a landlord registry. And recently, I spoke to somebody who was on Section 8, and they refused to sign the petition out of fear of retaliation from their landlords. Somebody was afraid to sign a petition because they were afraid of losing the roofs over their head. Then we have this new business that opened and a property owned through an LLC associated with a man who is currently under federal indictment on charges related to allegedly operating multiple houses of prostitution. And there's now an open investigation. But of course, this city is really big on due process. Remember, right, like this conversation we had last year? But I also believe in consistency. If due diligence is important here, then due diligence should also be important when we're talking about unsafe rental housing, negligent landlords, and repeat code violations that people have lived with for years. Our government seems very good at reacting to individual cases once they become public controversies. But what I want is a proactive government. One that asks why did this happen instead of how do we punish it? Why shouldn't someone be able to look up a rental property and see its inspection history, outstanding code violations, and whether that landlord has repeatedly failed to maintain safe housing before they sign leases? If New York City can prioritize inspections based on repeated violations, why can't Springfield? We are one one-hundredth of their size It doesn't require a huge budget either. And we're constantly talking about economic development and creating jobs. So why not train and hire more housing inspectors or partner with trade unions and apprenticeship programs to rehabilitate homes while training the next generation of skilled workers? Until we stop confusing enforcement with solutions, we're going to keep treating symptoms instead of addressing the real issue because nobody wakes up dreaming of living in a shack. or in mold, or on the side of the street. Springfield is capable of helping people build something better instead of simply telling them what they can't do. If our greatest housing enforcement focus is preventing one man from living in a tiny structure while families continue living with mold, failing plumbing, collapsing ceilings, heating and cooling issues, or lead pipes, then I think we need to re-examine whether our enforcement priorities are aligned with the problems that most affect Springfield residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Lori McCurran.

Good evening. I'm going to speak briefly about data center moratorium tonight. Under Illinois law, a municipality is authorized to classify, regulate and restrict the location of trades and industries, the location of buildings designed for specified industrial, business, residential and other uses. This comes from the Illinois Municipal Code. With my organizing and strategizing around data centers with people across the state, we've been getting guidance from a retired municipal attorney. Now he's very clear that this isn't legal advice, but suggestions for us to use in our work with working with municipalities and counties. Um, so he's given us three points that I'm going to mention tonight to help, um, help a moratorium that would withstand a court challenge. So the first one is simple. It's a timeframe. So a moratorium has to have a defined timeframe. Six to 12 months is considered reasonable for a moratorium. The second is process. So the process for declaring a moratorium should adhere to existing zoning and land use procedures. The moratorium, in effect, is banning what is otherwise a lawful use. And banning a use requires a change to the zoning code. In order to do this, it must be considered as an amendment to the zoning code. So changes to zoning requires public notice, public hearing, an ordinance amending the zoning code. So I'll admit I haven't figured out what the zoning process is for the city yet. But that process needs to be followed if you do a data center moratorium. So then the final thing is defining a purpose. A moratorium can't be implemented just for the sake of delaying a data center project. The ordinance needs to state what the city would do during that time period that's been approved for the moratorium. The ordinance needs to define, for instance, that for the 12 or six month period, the time will be used to research the impact of a data center on the community. or that the time will be used to research and implement data center regulations, or that the time might be used for CWLP to figure out how they would bill a data center for the delivery of electricity without actually generating it. So it's as simple as that. So I want to list the data center moratoriums that I'm aware of. Aurora had a 180-day moratorium that actually expired in March. And at the end of that time period, they implemented the most strict data center regulations that I've seen for a city. Bloomington, Aurora is home rule. Bloomington is also home rule. They implemented a six-month moratorium in May. Bourbonnais, which is not home rule because their population is under 25,000, they approved a data center moratorium a couple of weeks ago that expires in January of 2027. Carbondale is home rule. They have a 12-month moratorium that was approved just last week. Normal is a home rule. They have a six-month moratorium that was approved in May. Godfrey, which is also under the 25,000 population, is not home rule, but they have a 180-day moratorium that was approved in January. Plainfield, home rule, 180-day moratorium approved in April. And Troy, another smaller town, it is a six-month moratorium in March. Champaign County did a 12-month moratorium that they approved in April. Interestingly, they also in parallel approved a task force of subject matter experts, county board members, and members of the residents to develop amendments to the zoning regulations. Christian County approved a moratorium with no end date in August. Fulton County approved a six month moratorium in March. Lake County, their board initiated an eight-month moratorium process just recently, but in the meantime, they've imposed a deferral on application approvals until they decide on the moratorium. Logan County approved 12-month moratorium in May. Macon County approved a one-year moratorium with their zoning board of appeals. The full county board was supposed to vote last week, and I have not been able to verify that. They have also created an ad hoc volunteer citizen advisory committee. to address data centers, and Morgan County has done a six-month moratorium approved in April. Thank you.

Thank you. We have no more speakers. Corporation Council, is there a need for executive session?

There's no need. Motion to adjourn.

Second. Thank you. All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? The ayes have it.