Prison Committee - Regular Meeting

Hi. Hi. At this time, I'll call to order the city of Joliet Public Service Committee for Monday, 05/18/2026. First order item first item order is the roll call. Councilman Councilman Reardon? Here. Councilman Mudrin?

Here.

Councilman Huggins here. The next item is the approval of minutes from the public service meeting of 05/04/2026. Was were we all here? Or you not here?

Sherry wasn't here. Oh, I wasn't here. No. Just because Permanent.

So moved.

Motion to have that approved.

Alright. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the public service minutes from 05/04/2026 as presented, with one abstention. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Showing none. Are there any citizens to be heard on agenda items? Seeing none, we'll write in the contracts. We have four contracts. The first one is a water contract for the 2026 Streetlight Assembly painting project contract a to Cosgrove Construction Incorporated in the amount of 84,300.

So for the last several years, we've been doing an annual contract to repaint some of the decorative streetlights located in the city. The older ones are starting to show their age and and rust and whatnot. So this is the 2026 contract. There was money in the capital budget to come and complete this project. It's gonna be about 85 decorative streetlights. Cottage Grove Construction was the only bidder. They have completed this project in the past. We've been happy with their work. They're about just under 8% below the engineer's estimate, and we would recommend going forward.

Questions or comments? No. Pretty straightforward. $2.60, award contract for the 2026 pavement marking program to American Parking Remarking LLC in the amount of $307,416.

So just as Graham was explaining the pole painting contract, this is the annual pavement marking contract that we go out for bid every year for restricting roads that are needed are in need. This year, we had three bidders, American Parking Remarking, Precision Pavement, and Marking Specialist. As mentioned, the American Parking Remarking was below. It was about 10%. Just shy of 11% below the interest estimate. We have funds in the contract for this year, funds in the budget this year for it, so we guess that this gets moved for approval.

Questions? Comments? I got a quick question. How do we determine which intersections to mark?

They usually go out and see what what things have been faded and done over the year based on snow plowing, things like that. Snow plows usually will tend to bring up those markings as time goes on through the winter. They usually drive all the streets in the city to find out where the worst are and then work in the budget from

So that's the ones that already are marked and are fading. How do we determine to mark them?

Say that again? How do

we determine to mark them to begin with?

You mean, like, when the project is originally done when streets

are Right. You know, like, for some streets out there that have no markets. Never did. Why would why would they not get a market?

Oh, like, residential streets simply don't get markets, but, like, all the major roads within the city get typical markets based on standard practices.

February, approval of purchase of traffic barriers Meridian Rapid Defense Group Sales LLC in the amount of $126,344.

This is a purchase of some traffic barriers that will be utilized for public gatherings such as parades that are held in the city, the city square. We rented this particular product and utilized it for the Mexican Independence Independence Day Day Parade Parade last fall, both the police department and the Department of Public Works were pleased with the performance and how easy it was to deploy. We had funding in this year's budget to purchase the system. It is eligible for the safety act. And the safety act, basically, it's an anti terrorism act, and it certifies users of Meridian to be indemnified by the federal government if if they use this system.

So this is kind of a we'll call it a start up kit if it performs well. Maybe we'll get more in in two or two years. But it includes nine barriers. They come in kind of sections of three, so it will allow us to block off three particular intersections. If you're really interested, there's a lot of YouTube videos out there on this product. And and what it looks like, it's kind of like an upside down t. So it's got a base and then a a vertical part, and they show vehicles hitting at various speeds. And they once they hit it, they don't go very far. What happens is the vehicle hits it and then kinda rides up on top of it, and it stops the vehicle from going further. So you don't get situations like there have been in recent years, like in Bourbon Street where a truck ran through there.

If if it had hit one of these, it would've it would've been stopped in in other locations where vehicles are used as a weapon. So we are recommending moving forward with this purchase.

How tall are they?

Maybe four foot tall.

Probably not even that tall. I don't have the specs in front of me, but they're they're not super tall.

So how does the federal government indemnify us on something?

That's a great question.

Most people would think indemnify means if something did happen terrorism related, we have these that they we can't be sued. And if we if we lose in court, they would pay for our is that what they mean?

I don't know. And I'm gonna That's a problem. If you have any idea, you probably don't

I'm gonna I was not

I did not research this question. I'm gonna have to research it. But you're generally right. That's what indemnification is. They Right. Pull us harmless. They pay for our defenses. The federal government and the terrorism, though, I I would assume they would do the same thing if that's the language. That is the that is what it means.

Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm reading strictly out of the safety act

and it says well, this is

a Meridian explanation. But with this certification of all users of Meridian are indemnified by the federal government from claims or damages arising out of an act of terrorism. So, you know, what the limits of that are, I don't know.

But

yeah. And there's some insurance policies for terrorism. This could be similar to something like that where they they indemnify us for any of those actions. So, you know, I I haven't made too much of a definite answer on this without researching it. So that that's kind of my answer at this point. I can look into it

for you, though.

Yeah. And the other question too, Todd, is so if we have a 10 block grade route, which we've done for many years Mhmm. At more than 10 blocks, are we indemnified even at the spots where we don't have enough of these put up or just where they're up?

It would be that would be all contractual. I have to go through the contract or read the language they put in there.

You know, on a $300,000,000 budget, it isn't huge, but it is a 100 and some thousand, whatever it was, let me look again. A 100 and something. Thousand. And we've been having outdoor parades and things for forever. Right? Have we ever really needed this?

I I don't think so, but I think there's a concern just with how in recent years, there have been any increase in the number of these type of incidents that that we should do something.

Well, you know, sometimes doing something just means spending money. Here's my point. I certainly wouldn't be against bulletproof vest for our police. They need it. Right? But if we decided we're only gonna try a little bit of it and it was only this big, I probably wouldn't vote for it. Isn't that what we're doing? We're not really we're not really indemnifying. We're not protecting the entire route of any particular public event, be it a parade or an outdoor festival, aren't we?

Well, I I think with this starting point, with all the events that are proposed for the city square, we can block off the three intersections come coming into the square. And then, you know, if we need to rent more of these, we can't, which we did last year for a larger event. You know, something like the Mexican who intends to daybreak, which is significantly longer, might be more challenging. But if it's a smaller event, I think we can accomplish that stuff.

Can we bring this back for review when he does more research? Right now, we have some ifs and maybes.

I will leave that too. Todd, you said you

can research this. Right? I can't. There'd be no reason for me to research it, and we're just gonna it through.

Is there a reason why it has

to go at this time?

No. I think the intent was to to get it in place for some of the city square events. I I think we could have this sometime in June or maybe about anything. I take that back. It was for the July 4 event. It be for this company for

would be to postpone it.

Yeah. Because, you know, my my point would be this. I I don't know if you're familiar with the the federal warrants, you know, for public service, you know, for roads and streets. Right? Remember some years back when they advised against putting up signs like deaf child and so forth?

Yes. Yeah.

And they said because it gave a false sense of security. Yes. And more kids were actually getting hit, take feeling they were safe. If we're only putting a smattering out, aren't we doing the same thing? You know, giving a false sense of security out of Hooray Round. So

What's the cost to rent?

I don't have that in front of me. Can get that for you, though. I can see what we've how many we

rent it and what

the cost was last year. Question. So we don't own any of these now. We rent them for the Mexican place?

That's correct. Yeah. We rent

a good number of them. Not for the entire route, but for a number of critical So many intersections. Yeah.

And how do we choose the intersections?

That was a a police and roadways decision. Generally, police, I think, identified the the critical areas that they thought could be, you know, weak points.

And, Todd, what would be the liability shift on us since we can't do the entire route with this number. Right? When something happens on an unprotected part of that route and they say, look, you're negligent. You did it on those areas, but you didn't do it here.

It's a complicated question that you have to look at the whole route. I have to do a whole analysis on it and consider the Tort Immunity Act in in this as well. That that's not a simple answer. You know, obviously, you hope if you buy these, it works if there is a problem. But as to liability, we're used to doing our due diligence in what we can do, and the police are obviously giving their opinion on the where these need to go. So it it's a complicated question, but I think we're better off having these as opposed to not having these for a liability standpoint.

And for years, we were better off having the blind child here than we found out we weren't.

Not us specifically, but someone.

Yeah. I mean, there's there's some things that people do out of emotion and spend money on, and then you find out later because you haven't answered the, what you call, complicated questions. Mhmm. Find out that really we we didn't really need that. It didn't what what prevents somebody from, you know, some terrorists from going around the barrier? If you don't have the entire area very with barrier, the entire area. What what people who are going around the barrier? Not so high. Right.

Would this would this be a solution for the city square?

Yes. Yeah.

And is that the intention?

That's the intention to start the initial, you

know, purchase. Because we're we're talking before you got here about the fact that people are not recognizing that cut through behind, and they're going they're going through that alleyway, and we don't have a barrier there. And we need to get some barriers up there, and then the one, is it coming off Chicago Street?

Yeah. And and just to be clear, these wouldn't be in place at all times. They would only be in place for events. Right. That is a concern.

Right. Currently, what we do, I believe, and what we would do without these is use traditional horses which do not protect against running through the horse. Got it? What protects if somebody wants to go in at some well attended event at the city square and we have them just with roads dead end, right? Or coming to em, right? There's plenty of access all all the way down to Charlotte Street in the square. They're not gonna stop there and go, oh, I can't get in off the road. I won't go around it. So I'm not trying to get at this as an expenditure. What what are we really what what safety are we really providing by this?

Well, I can tell you that in seeing some of the events where people have driven through and and and killed numerous people, I feel better having barriers for situations like the parades. In the parade routes, every other street has got those barriers of fencing. You know, you can't cut across. As we all know, when you go to the parade, you can't cut across until you get to, you know, the end. And this would prevent the end from being open and allowing somebody to come in in that direction. If you if you went through a side street, you'd have to run through the fencing first.

Or run up off over the sidewalk.

And the fencing is throughout the whole sidewalk for the parade.

No. There's open there's open areas along the parade where, you know, where we handle.

Not not the Christmas parade. Is that? No.

No. I didn't make the chairs.

Those steels are connected All the way to way. The

Well, they're all the way through.

The entire parade route this year had chain link fence.

That chain link?

Chain link. It was the Whatever. The bicycle fencing, we call it. So yeah. Yeah. And they they connect together. Right.

And

You have to go to ovarian to get out.

So how does this would be can't stop power or can't?

No. Well, I'm sure it can't, but it can't And we're

not gonna we're not gonna replace the current system of this entire bike chain fence because we're not buying enough of these. No. Go So if somebody can go around that still and drive through. And a terrace is not there to obey what the obey the law. The terrace, they're hurt. You know? We spent so much money on it. City Square too. You know, I really I don't think I'm gonna get the vote, but I really like to to pause this until you do the research. You did say whether you regret saying it now on that time. Complicated good question. I don't have the answers. Well, we probably should have the answer.

Councilman, I don't regret saying it. That I truly believe that. I'm not gonna give you an answer and make something up. Alright. Alright.

So I would prefer that we wait till you for a quick question that you you do the the due diligence.

Right. It's a motion to postpone, I guess, is what you're saying. It's debatable, and you need a second. Right now, the main motion is to advance this to the full council.

So we haven't made a motion at all yet. Okay. There's been no motion. We go through this.

So But in the interim, we would use how long does it take to get these?

I think the intent sorry. I think the intent was that it have them in place for the July 4 festivities. So I don't know the exact lead time, but I think if we approve this now, we could get them by the July 4 event.

But not yet. I

I don't know that. At

the city side?

Yes. Yeah.

And we can rent them as well. Right?

The yes. That possibility is. But we don't know how much it costs around.

I'm not off the top of my head. Can find more information that we will probably need.

Yeah. I mean, I could have it for you tomorrow night

for for sure. You know?

Well, then I would say if if you want that information, let's just do no recommendation and let it go.

We can do that and take it out. Let it go to the

We wouldn't let we wouldn't take it out. It'd still be on

the agenda. Well, I mean, no. Take take it out from our motion to approve.

Be okay?

Here. So, I'm voting. Keep

it in and go for it.

So, motion to advance the full council with no recommendation

or with the recommendation? Well, let's try it this way, bro. I'll I'll motion the table until we get good answers. I don't think I'll get a second but I put the motion out there. Okay. Second. It dies without a second. Right. And the second one, I don't have second motion at So, that point.

So the motion main motion right now is to advance the city council.

That's what Pat wants to do. Right. I don't know if Sherry wanted to it.

Oh, I mean, I'll let it go because I think they are important. I do think they're important. And then I and I've had the discussion right before you came in here about these things.

So Well, just so you guys know when we're at a public meeting here, but it's a meeting tonight. We're the same questions, and you're have to say you don't know, and then people are gonna wonder why we're going forward without quite, you know, answers. So just everybody knows. Alright. But we will take this out for a second vote if if you guys all object. K. Alright. Let's go to the final one. Approval of professional services agreements, Grant Associates Incorporated International Coal Council, ICC, and HR Green for on call development review for the Rock Run Collection development.

Yes. So as you're aware, Rock Run Collection development is moving forward with various items that are coming in. There's been some presentations and items made at city council. With the sheer volume that's coming in and some of the turnaround times, the request has been made to take this to outside consultants to hopefully get it done in a faster way. At this point in time, the three that were mentioned, Strand Associates is basically doing, we'll call it the site civil reviews for a lot of the the sites.

The ICC and HR Green will be doing more of what we call building reviews. The International Code Council, for the lack of a better way to say it, is basically the one that wrote the book. A lot of the municipalities and states actually follow the ICC handbook. That's what the building codes are actually written by some of these. And then HR Green does have a lot of the same knowledge and past members with that and their staff as well.

At this point in time, again, the developer will be paying for the fees associated with this. And like I mentioned, it'll be everything from plats to site civil review to vertical preview, like building department items, and then on to construction from there. No construction items at this point in time, but all review and development related items. With that, like I mentioned, all the cost should be associated with calling in, and we'd like to see this move to council for approval.

Questions or comments? Nope. Couple of questions. Sure. Number one, is this paid directly by Cullinan, or is this supposed to be a reimbursement down the road to us?

This would be a reimbursement down the road.

So we have to cover it? Excuse me? We have to cover it. Yes. Okay. Number two, ICC. I'm slightly familiar with them. I believe all building inspectors, including our own, are certified through that group.

It's Tested and certified. As far as I'm aware, yes. Okay.

So currently, not including the culinary project that before us, our staff is qualified to do these reviews. Correct. Why are we not doing it?

That is a better question answered for different go ahead. Yeah.

I'll I'll I'll address this. So there's a concern on the developer that they need very quick turnaround times for these reviews in order to meet the contractual agreements they have with the users. And as a result, they have said they've agreed that they will pay for them if we if the city sends them out with a potentially quicker turnaround time or a more guaranteed turnaround turnaround time. And I'm not gonna speak for our building inspections department, but I can speak from our experience.

We have a lot of

projects that come through for review, and typically, it's first in first reviewed. So if if there's a stack of reviews ahead of another development, you know, they get precedence. And and I think by requesting this, the developer is saying, we'd like to go to the top of the pile, and we're willing to go to the to pay to go to the top of the pile. No. It's it's not that we we can't do that. We can't.

We we can't do it.

We can't. We can't

do it. But there's. Okay. So, here's my concern. Sure. Strand and Associates, no problem because they're not there. They're gonna be doing the review and inspection if you will. Inspection that our inspector would do. They they're they're in charge of engineering and overall. Correct? ICC, they're gonna be an objective third party. I would hope. Right? Correct. Who chose Green?

The developer was at put that forth to us as one of the candidates to move forward with on that side.

Who worked with the developer in PRN in that capacity?

I don't actually know that answer.

Green. I'm not comfortable with the developer picking somebody that's going to approve or just or or not approve based on our ordinances. You know, you guys, I don't if you guys are aware of this, Jerry and and Pat. Green was picked by the developer. Developer. And they're they're going to be the ones instead of our staff that will say yes or no going forward with approval of plans, you know. And now what happens what happens if they if if it green green lights it, no pun intended. They send it forward. We're still gonna send our inspector out and the for the final inspection. Right? Correct. And what if they say no?

They'll have to make modifications to whatever needs to be done.

So aren't we taking a risk on actually slowing the process then? Because

Yeah. Possibly.

I mean, why do we even need green? ICC should be enough if we're gonna go outside.

Fair.

You know, I mean, has anybody talked to who's in charge of inspect the inspection department?

Here at the city? Yeah. Yeah. Dustin and Don. Both have been

in Don.

Don. Sorry.

Okay. Alright. Dustin was never an inspector, but I think Don was. Right?

Yes. Don's been a

He's professional. Yes.

For a long

Can we have him come here and tell us whether we need this?

I I have to check into that, but I I'll talk I can talk with Dustin and Don and see if he can be available for that. I don't know what he what the availability

Maybe if not tonight, I

can't mail the last minute.

I mean, Dustin will be here. But Yeah. Dustin have that information. He might. He's not an inspector.

Yeah. He might. I'm sure that question can be asked to him before

Who assigns the inspection? Who oversees the we have nine inspections. Right? If I remember correctly. I believe so. Who's the who's the immediate supervisor? So he knows what they can and can't do firsthand. Correct. So we maybe we can have him here tomorrow.

Alright. We can definitely ask that. And Dustin, I think, will be here tonight, so we can definitely ask him that. Yeah. So we can ask him here about 05:30.

You know, since they're even though we're paying for it upfront, you know, we gotta make sure we you know, why don't they just pay it upfront? I'm a little confused on that.

Some of that was at staff request to make sure the bills were getting paid so that if there is an issue, there's no we're not the middleman between some of those discussions, whether it be, like, Strand and then during the bills going directly to Cullenan. We wanna make sure they get paid and they can potentially stop reviews and everything in order to make sure

So we were concerned that if they went direct to each other, Cullen might refuse to pay based on a, b, and c, and there'd be but instead, if they they refuse to pay, we're gonna pay. Correct. We're guaranteed the payment whether they guarantee it or not. Correct. Doesn't really protect the city. You know, it's still a project, and they wanna hurry it up. So you think they would pay it. And if if if they they pay direct and they choose to pay, they're they're slowing down their own project. Yeah. This is a little and like I said, having a developer, I mean, do we ever let developers choose who's gonna approve their plans?

I mean, we typically do it all in house here. So this this is a bit new.

So the answer is no. We don't let developers say, hey. We have standing for it.

Yeah. And then and in regards to the the payment, that was a staff discussion with finance as well as community development and us in that sense. It was determined that it would probably be best to

Yeah. So maybe I'm wrong. Sure. Let me see if I got this correct. There is a no matter how small. There I was a concern that could be this agreement called and said won't pay these people that are doing the the work. Right? And we don't want to slow their project. So if they won't pay, we'll pay, and then we'll try to get the money from them, and we'll keep the project. We're protecting them if they if they refuse to pay. To me, that doesn't even make sense.

Yeah. And that's probably a a question better served to either the the manager or finance than me. Mean, quite honestly. I'm happy to try and answer it, but

Not much.

Kevin can probably articulate the reasons substantially better than I can. Okay.

Was was there more than one choice than HR Green, or was HR Green the only one brought forward?

I did go out and actually talked to at least three other consultants. One of the item We did. We did. Sorry. We did. Went out and looked at three consultants. One of the items that we wanted to know is do they have availability to do it because with the given times, there's a lot of items on you know, out there right now, and we wanna make sure things can be turned around. Yeah.

So did we make the choice of HR Green then of the of the three or however many you chose? Are you you interviewed or talked to or however you wanna call that? Did did we decide that was the right choice, or what happened?

So the HR Green side's on the building side. We handle the site side particularly because those two don't really overlap with each other in most cases. As far as how HR Green got selected, what the I'll have to talk to Dustin a little bit more and move forward there with the city manager and

move forward. I just thought in the beginning you said that there were several Yeah. We did. That HR Green was chosen. So that's why I'm saying who was it us that into the interview and chose or who what happened?

Yeah. So the city's initial choice was the ICC, and I think at the request of the developer, we added HR Green as a secondary

for the building, not

not the site side. The site side is strictly Strand. That's the nonvertical development. You know, the roads, the the underground work, that weren't storm water. Yeah.

ICC is doing what?

They're doing the building. So they do the vertical. Look at it from

the vertical section. So Scann is doing the site.

Correct. Scann will be doing the site.

And so what's Green doing?

They'll end up doing the build the vertical as well. That's the section. There'll be two that'll be doing the vertical, ICC and HRD.

I'm not sure I follow. And you guys probably I'm try to get you the answer. That doesn't make sense. And it's not supposedly our money. It is that they refuse to pay, but it's not our money paying for them. But and I don't know what the odds would be, and I think we got the answer, Sherry, to your question. I think we get it confirmed, that it's just coincidence that of the three or whatever number were

were

considered, luckily, it was the one that worked with this company before that coming out of Peoria that would be in charge of that. That doesn't have a good look. That doesn't have a good look. That's like a football team bringing its own ref. Yeah. I'm a ref. I don't wanna see that happen because then I won't be refing. But that that's really what it is. A football team having its own ref. A baseball team bringing its own off. You don't allow that because you gotta make sure air on that side of caution that it's completely third party objective and fair. So, again, this one Go ahead.

Can you explain to me the difference that they're both doing it, ICC and HR Green? What is cause or purpose or difference? Or

From my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, so bear with me, a little bit could be timing. A little bit could be cost. From what we what I've been told, HR grade might be a little cheaper, and they might be able to turn around a little faster than the ICC in general. But

go ahead. Yeah. And and that's probably a question best for Dustin because he's looking into that. But he thought the the cost would be similar. Similar. Yeah. So Yeah.

And and there's expedite reviews that can get done with the ICC and things in certain ways. So

So there's they're working in tandem. Is that correct?

Depending on the building, yes. They're not reviewing the same building. They might just be reviewing different buildings that are submitted to different different times, rooms, but depending on the workflow.

So one building could be expedited by green. The other one could take longer with a more thorough investigation by ICC.

Or it could be ex expedited through a thorough investigation through the ICC.

Now do these are we giving city authority to these third parties that their approval is No. Let me finish. It's equivalent to the recommendation that would come from our staff. Or does it go to staff after they do their whole thing and staff rereviews it?

No is the answer. We wouldn't be rereviewing it completely.

We So they we're we're giving them our staff authority. Right. Right. Staff

authority. Yes. We would make the final approvals from the end, but there'd be no they'd our staff reviewers like you're saying.

Yeah. We're giving them our code and our ordinances for them to utilize as a a tool to review. They once say they've gone back and forth several times. The outside consultant says they have complied with the ordinance. At that time, the city would issue the permit, so it would be the consulting. We would Based on their word, Greg? Yes. We would not be rereviewing.

We would not be rereviewing them. No. So if something if something comes up three years later that we shouldn't, you know, we're we're trusting that.

We're Yes.

Not our own staff of them.

That's correct. I mean, they they are professional consultants, so they have insurance concern and, you know, reputational concern. So I guess the potential always exists that they miss something or don't do something properly, but we're giving them the guidelines to do the procedure.

So I wanna confirm. I think I I know the answer already, but just make me refer if you can. Does does Green have a history of working specifically, well, I think most recently in Peoria with to do this kind of thing with the developer? If you could find that out, I'd appreciate

it. Yeah. That that

I know you don't know right now. Yeah. I don't know. I know. But I wanna on the record. That's what makes me nervous. Mhmm. You know, it'd different be if they pick the oh, if you guys just pick somebody completely, they pay for it, you pick it completely. They pick their own referee. That's what that's what we have here. And then we're gonna send in our guys at the end to either approve or not approve it, and they won't have any history with it. Correct?

Basically, yeah. Until they get to the field at that point in time, they wouldn't have any

Which is not how we normally do it normally. Correct.

Usually, they review it and then

go to the field and

the full council with our

approval. Second.

I have a motion and second to send the items on the contracts February and February to the full council committee recommendation to approve. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Showing none. Let's move to 261. Any motion on that?

Make a motion to move 261 to the full council. Second.

I have a motion and a second to move the 261 to the full council of committee recommendation to approve. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? No. 2 to one. 262, approval of professional service agreement with Strand Associates Incorporated intermodal code council and HR Green for on call development review from the Rock Run collection development.

Like the 1262

to the full

council. Second.

I have a motion and second to send 262 to the full council with committee recommendation to approve. All in

favor? Aye.

Opposed? No. Two to one. Alright. Change orders pay estimates and final payments. Approval of change order number 3 for the lead lead service line replacement phase four contract. The stick brother's excavating. We incorporated the amount of $89 and $410.

Yeah. This is a pretty straightforward one here where there's more funds available from other budgets to move to this lead service replacement contract

that we have. So we

already have this contract bid awarded to this one is Stipp Brothers. And, again, there's more funding available, so we are doing an amendment to add funds for it and this is basically used to replace lead service lines when they're found in the field either from like doing a water service repair or something we find that it's lead or just from doing we're systematically going throughout the town and in home inspections. And when we find lead, then we can use this fund for that too. I won't say it's free money, but it's forgivable loans to the city. So this is EPA funds that's a 100% principal forgiveness.

So we pay the bill. We get reimbursed by this by the EPA, and then we don't have to pay it back. So this how this loan works. No no charges at all on this bill? Correct. Yes.

Question or comments? No. Okay. That's the only item we have.

Alright. Under change orders, pay estimates, and final payments, I'd like to move item two sixty three to the full council with this recommend this committee's recommendation to approve. Second that motion.

I have a motion and a second for item two sixty three under change order of pay as some final payment that he moved he moved to the full council committee recommendation to approve. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Showing none. We'll go to ordinance and resolutions. Two eighty six, resolution accepting an easement agreement in common at the Glenwood And West Bakers water main improvement project. That would be from Glenwood Avenue just east of Haines Avenue. Yes.

So there's two of these. This one and then the next one are pretty much identical. So we're putting in new water main, and this location of this is kinda right by Juliet West High School. And there's a piece of property we need to cross that is a comment right away, and the process is we have to get an easement from them. So this is the paperwork so that we can get a easement in order to install our new water mains across their property. Alright.

287, the next item was just explained. Do you want them to reexplain it, folks? Oh, okay. So 286 and two 87 are gonna have the same explanation. Correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Now we'll go to two eighty eight, resolution authorizing the execution of intergovernmental agreement with PACE regarding transit shelters.

That one is so the city previously had an agreement with PACE for advertising on the outdoor bus shelters that expired. I think they're ten years agreement and this one's been expired for several years. So they're requesting that we enter into a new agreement. Under the agreement, PACE maintains all the bus shelters which includes the structures, lighting, trash receptacles, and related amenities. They have to seek and get city approval for before installing any new shelter within the city.

So they will retain control over the advertising and there's a fifty fifty split between PACE and various municipalities. So they they don't track it on a per municipality basis, but they have advertising at shelters all throughout their service area. They take 50% of it. They put the other 50% in a pot and then they kind of prorate it out based on the number of shelters each community has. So we'd be receiving this is the language in here is a little unclear, but we would be receiving 50% of the funding for the region. It would be a percentage of that 50%, if that makes sense, or a prorated percentage of that 50%.

Questions or comments? Ask the final item on our ordinance of resolution.

So I'd like to note to make a motion to be resisted full council with that recommendation

item two eighty six, two eighty seven, and two eighty eight. Second.

I have a motion and a second for the items on our ordinance and resolutions two eighty six, two eighty seven, two eighty eight that they be moved to the full council with committee recommendation to approve. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Showing none. We'll move on to license and permits. We only have one item. Application two seventy. Application for a drive thru permit for a Zacks Beach restaurant at 110 South Larkin Avenue.

This is a drive through permit request for a new Zaxby's restaurant located on the site of former Wendy's restaurant on South Larkin Avenue. Submitted a site plan showing the proposed drive through. Department of Public Works worked with them to make some some I would wouldn't call them significant, but some extensive changes to the drive through to maximize amount of drive through queuing on the site. The previous site is kind of an old legacy site as we call them developed under different rules under a different time. So we maximized the amount by kind of diverting the drive through traffic to the south end of the site and then then looping around.

So it should add adds quite a bit more capacity to the drive through. There is also an entrance to this site located off the street directly to the east, and I'm drawing a blank on the name of the street. One right behind. Yeah. The other one right behind.

And then, again, it's not something we would allow today an entrance onto a residential street like that, but we work with Zaxby's. They're gonna gate it off with keep the old building in place and and remodel it and retrofit it. Yeah. The site is kind of it's an unusual site. Again, it wouldn't meet necessarily today's standards.

It would probably be a larger site, but we're the the options kind of are language or get something in there. We work with the site as best we can. We think this is this will be functional from the site we have. Margaret? Is yeah. It's Margaret or yeah. I'm, again, drawing a blank.

Alright. I'm not familiar with I know that name. What's that? Because you guys were talking about that when I

came out. I think it was just chicken. I thought it was,

like, salads and all that. I I

yeah. I don't know. It's a southern based restaurant that I know is known for chicken, but I don't know

what else. Arby's, is there actually guys there?

Yes. Yes, sir.

Oh, where do you go?

There you go.

Yeah. It's

a chicken based restaurant that they started out in Atlanta. We actually we are three and a half years. It's been three and a half years. We bought our first stores in Kansas City. We operate four out there. We just opened one in Plainfield in January, and it's it's going well. So we've been progressively looking for sites in the Chicago market. And or or late last year, the brand corporate minded said, yes. You can build in Illinois now. They just they have approved, I think, a franchisee in Northwest Indiana as well, who I believe they're starting construction soon on a few sites there. But they're aggressively bringing franchisees to this market now.

How many restaurants do they have currently?

They have over a thousand.

Yeah. What what's the what are their their what are they famous for?

Chicken. So they they compete directly with Chick fil A and Raisin Keats. So chicken tenders, wings, chicken salads.

Alright. Do they get spicy?

Yes. They do. Yeah. We have a ton of sauces. That's why I think we're better than kids. Alright.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Any other questions or comments? No?

No. I'd like to make a motion on our license and permits to move item two seventy to the full council with our recommendation to approve.

Second and motion.

Alright. Have a motion and second for the item single item on a license and permits two seventy. You move forward to the full council with committee recommendation to approve. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Showing none. New or old action not not the final action or recommendation. Anything post?

Staff? No.

Nothing, staff? I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Showing none. We're done. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. Thank you.